February 17, 2020, 12:41:00 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Our new place: www.tajikam.com/forums

To enter with your registered details click here and follow the steps: http://tajikam.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=global§ion=lostpass
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: 2009 announced Year of Imam Azam Abu Hanifa in Tajikistan  (Read 13146 times)
Ahhangar
Ahhangar
Research Team
Hero Member
*

Karma: +24/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 655



View Profile Email
« on: June 11, 2009, 09:46:18 PM »

Focusing on Islamic Heritage

DUSHANBE, June 8

The Times of Central Asia

Addressing a meeting dedicated to the 17th anniversary of Tajikistan’s Independence, President Emomali Rahmon announced that the year of 2009 will be Year of Imama Azam in Tajikistan.

The president noted that separation of Islam from Tajik national culture and separation of Tajik national culture from Islam is erroneous.

The Tajik head of state noted that 1,310 birthday anniversary of Al-Imam al-A’zam, “The Greatest Imam” Nu’man bin Thabit bin Zuta bin Mahan, better known by his kunya as Abu H?an?fah, who was the founder of the Sunni Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence.

Al-Imam al-A’zam, “The Greatest Imam” Nu’man bin Thabit bin Zuta bin Mahan, better known by his kunya as Abu H?an?fah, (699 — 767 CE / 80 — 148 AH) was the founder of the Sunni Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence.

Abu Hanifa was also one of the Tabi’een, the generation after the Sahaba, because he saw the Sahabi Anas ibn Malik, and transmitted hadiths from him and other Sahaba.

Abu Hanifa (699 — 767 CE / 80 — 148 AH) was born in Kufa, Iraq during the reign of the powerful Umayyad capilph Abdul Malik bin Marwan.  Acclaimed as Al-Imam al-A’zam, or Al-A’dham (the Great Imam), Nu’man bin Thabit bin Zuta bin Mah was better known by his kunya Abu Hanifa. It was not a true kunya, as he did not have a son called Hanifa, but an epithetical one meaning pure in monotheistic belief. His father, Thabit bin Zuta, a trader from Kabul, part of Khorasan in Persia, (the capital of modern day Afghanistan),was 40 years old at the time of Abu Hanifa’s birth.

His ancestry is generally accepted as being of non-Arab origin as suggested by the etymology of then names of his grandfather (Zuta) and great-grandfather (Mah). The historian, Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, records a statement from Abu Hanifa’s grandson, Ismail bin Hammad, who gave Abu Hanifa’s lineage as Thabit bin Numan bin Marzban and claiming to be of Persian origin. The discrepancy in the names, as given by Ismail of Abu Hanifa’s grandfather and great-grandfather are thought to be due to Zuta’s adoption of a muslim name (Numan) upon his acceptance of Islam and that Mah and Marzban were titles or official designations in Persia. Further differences of opinion exist on his ancestry. Abu Muti, for example, describes Abu Hanifa as an Arab citing his ancestry as Numan bin Thabit bin Zuta bin Yahya bin Zaid bin Asad. The widely accepted opinion, however, is that he was of Persian ancestry.

Ahhangar.

-------------------------------
Hanafi school recognized as official religion of Tajikistan


05.03.2009 15:48

Author: Avaz Yuldoshev

DUSHANBE, March 5, 2009, Asia-Plus -- The Majlisi Namoyandagon (Tajikistan’s lower chamber of parliament) has endorsed a bill recognizing the Hanafi school as an official religion of Tajikistan.

A regular sitting of the fifth session of the Majlisi Namoyandagon of the third convocation, presided over by its head, Saydullo Khairulloyev, was held on March 5.

The draft law of Tajikistan “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations” was a major topic of the meeting.

Presenting the bill, Culture Minister Mirzoshorukh Asrori noted that the draft law should replace the country the country's law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations” that was adopted in 1990 already.

“Religious radicalism, nihilism and some other religious movements alien to our people that emerged in society lately are among reasons for adoption of the new law,” the minister said.

According to him, preparation of the bill lasted for two years and Tajik specialists and religious scholars as well as representatives of public associations and international experts from the OSCE took part in discussion of the bill.  Asrori noted that they had taken into consideration an alternative bill worked out by senior representatives of the Islamic Revival Party (IRPT) Muhiddin Kabiri and Mahmadsharif Himmatzoda, while preparing the bill.

Some 3,000 mosques, including 259 cathedral mosques, as well as 18 religious educational facilities currently function in the country, the minister said.  “Parishioners of all these mosques and students at these educational facilities are followers of the Hanafi school.  Therefore we propose to recognize the Hanafi school as an official religion of Tajikistan.”

Parliamentarians endorsed the ill without any serious discussions.

Among the four established Sunni schools of legal thought in Islam, the Hanafi school is the oldest, Abu Hanifa was the first to systematically arrange and compile Islamic law.  A unique feature of the school is the method in which the law was codified:  Abu Hanifa would convene and preside over a board of jurists (consisting of about 40-50 of his own students) and each would give his own opinion on a particular legal issue, Abu Hanifa would then decide which is the opinion that is to be selected by corroborating it or sometimes would offer his own unique opinion.  The Hanafi school also has the most followers among the four major Sunni schools.

Today, the Hanafi school is predominant among the Sunnis of Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, China as well as in Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia in the Balkans and the Caucasus.

----------------------------------------
It is great that president of Tajikistan has done this -  Abu Hanifa being reclaimed from the many 'Islamic' militant running dogs of US imperialism (e.g.Hizb ut Tahrir and others ) which do all sorts in the name of Sunni-Hanafi Islam.  It will aide the efforts to keep the people of Tajikistan from suffering the way people Afghanistan suffered through the exploitation of religion by blood thirsty CIA and Oil companies.

Check out the unbelievable editorial by the US government in the VOA recently about their 'concern' at the treatment of Muslims in Tajikistan - the bastards are busy trying to destabilize Tajikistan using its running dogs in order to get a justification to go in full force - just like it did in Afghanistan with its Taliban running dogs.


Quote


Editorial VOA :  Tajikistan's New Law On Religion

17 April 2009    
http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/2009-04-17-voa4.cfm

Tajikistan's new law on religion will make life tougher on all of the country's believers, not least of all those professing the country's predominant religion, Islam.

In passing the new law, which entered into force on April 1st, the government of Tajikistan reserves for itself the right to dictate to the people how many places of worship will be allowed to operate and where they may be located, and how often prayers may be observed. The law allows for censorship of religious literature, and outlaws several minority faiths.

According to the independent United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, which monitors the status of freedom of religion, the new law "will legalize harsh policies already adopted by the Tajik government against its majority Muslim population, including the closure of hundreds of mosques and limiting religious education of children."

In passing this highly restrictive law, Tajikistan is reneging on its international obligations. The new law contravenes Article 18 of the United Nations International Covenant for Civil and Political rights, which provides for religious freedom, which had been signed by Tajikistan. Moreover, as a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Tajikistan is obliged to conform to that organization's tenets defining freedom of religion.

Article 26 of the Constitution of Tajikistan states that "Every person has the right freely to determine their position toward religion, to profess any religion individually or together with others or not to profess any, and to take part in religious customs and ceremonies. By defining which religious organizations may or may not operate within Tajikistan, and by dictating how, when, where and how often citizens may practice or teach their religion, the new law directly contradicts the country's own Constitution.

In a recent speech, U.S. President Barack Obama said: "Freedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the state."

The government of Tajikistan should re-think its newly legislated restrictions on the freedom of religion. They benefit neither the people, nor the state of Tajikistan.
-------------------------------
« Last Edit: June 13, 2009, 11:43:14 AM by Ahhangar » Logged
Lindt
.
Full Member
***

Karma: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 218



View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2009, 04:51:59 AM »

Wow, I wasn't aware that Hanifah had background from afghanistan - this is something to be proud of! 
----------------------------------------
Quote
It will aide the efforts to keep the people of Tajikistan from suffering the way people Afghanistan suffered through the exploitation of religion by blood thirsty CIA and Oil companies

What do you mean by this Ahhangar bro?

And a question to those from Tajikistan: how important is religion in influencing how society operates? Has Tajikistan become more familiar with Islam after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Logged
Ahhangar
Ahhangar
Research Team
Hero Member
*

Karma: +24/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 655



View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2009, 05:31:05 AM »

Wow, I wasn't aware that Hanifah had background from afghanistan - this is something to be proud of! 
----------------------------------------
Quote
It will aide the efforts to keep the people of Tajikistan from suffering the way people Afghanistan suffered through the exploitation of religion by blood thirsty CIA and Oil companies

What do you mean by this Ahhangar bro?

And a question to those from Tajikistan: how important is religion in influencing how society operates? Has Tajikistan become more familiar with Islam after the collapse of the Soviet Union?


Abu Hanifa had nothing to do with Afghanistan. Never call him an Afghan.  Get it right. We have to stop confusing ourselves - and making dumb remarks against the real history of the land.  (Afghanistan proper,  is in western Pakistan - northern parts of Baluchistan - the parts north and east of Quetta - and including Waziristan - centered around a place called 'Takhti Suliman' in he heart of the Sulimani Mountains. It was not even  part of the Islamic world in the time of Abu Hanifa, note the Afghans were recorded to be fighting along side Hindus against Mahmud Ghaznawi, whom came about much later.)

Abu Hanfia had everything to do with Khurasan. His father was from Kabul - and he spoke the Persian language along side Arabic. He called for the justification of the using other languages in Islam - especially Persian. He and ABU Muslim Khurasani were key players - along with Barmakians of Balkh - all from Khurasan - in the revolution of Khurasan and the creation of the Abbasid Caliphate - though they were all late executed/assassinated by the treacherous Arab house of Abbas.


What I meant by helping the people of Tajikistan from suffering - it is because - the people of Tajikistan identify with the religion of Islam - and like the people of Afghanistan are prone to being mislead by some 'ISLAMIC' groups whom are actually tools of US policy in the region.  The US - created havoc in our country by creating and promoting its proxies - whom all hide behind the name of Islam - like HEKMATYAR AND TALIBAN.   The US wants to do the same to Tajikistan. (It attempted previously with the Islamic movements of Tajikistan -  part of whom allied with the Taliban in 1995 -1996  - before they were put right by Massoud and forced to come to terms with the Rahmon regime.  Massoud was not an agent of the CIA and thus eventually assassinated). By the government of Tajikistan going all out to claim Islam as part of itself and the country - actively promoting it - they are in effect  reducing the impact and credibility of those militants whom want to use arguments of Islam for creating havoc in the country...
Logged
Ahhangar
Ahhangar
Research Team
Hero Member
*

Karma: +24/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 655



View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2009, 05:45:39 AM »

Read the following two article about US and Taliban - the denouncers of Taliban - and the actions of the US running  dogs against their denouncers.  The following article by the Times attempts to shield itself from outward criticism by throwing in the words 'conspiracy theory' but it is in effect saying that these ideas are not just conspiracy theories and have some legitimacy to them.

World Agenda: the Taleban? They're puppets of the US

June 9, 2009

US and British officials are no doubt delighted to see tribesmen in northwestern Pakistan fighting the Taleban after years of sheltering, tolerating or supporting them. Elsewhere in the country, there has also been an unprecedented wave of public, political and even religious support for the army’s campaign in Swat, despite the massive exodus of refugees.

This appears to show that Pakistanis have at last heeded Western warnings that the militancy they face is indigenous and threatens the existence of the Pakistani state.

What is less encouraging — and less well advertised — is that a key reason for the backlash is that many Pakistanis believe the Taleban is being funded and armed by America as part of an elaborate geopolitical conspiracy.

Absurd as it may sound to Westerners this conspiracy theory, like so many others in Pakistan, seems to have taken root among even well-educated people in the political, military and religious establishments.

It was outlined recently in an interview with Sarfraz Ahmed Naeemi, a respected Sunni cleric who set up an alliance of 22 Islamic groups and political parties last month with the explicit goal of opposing the Taleban.

He explained that the Taleban preached an extreme version of the Deobandi school of Sunni Islam, while most Pakistanis followed the more moderate Barelvi school.

He said that many Pakistanis were outraged when the Taleban attacked Barelvi shrines, and denounced Pakistan’s constitution and democratic system as unIslamic.

Halfway through the interview, however, he suddenly added that the Taleban was also being funded and trained by the CIA, Mossad, and India’s RAW intelligence agency. Why? As part of a strategy to carve out an independent statelet in northwestern Pakistan to help to contain China’s growing military and economic power. And to capture Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

So America is now funding the Pakistani army and using CIA drones to attack militants who are in fact funded and armed by America?

Yes.

And what about the militants blamed for last year’s attack on Mumbai? They were Indian intelligence agents who staged the attack to give India an excuse to exact revenge by staging another attack — this time on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore.

And why would India want to do that? So that Pakistan would not be able to co-host the 2011 cricket World Cup, of course.

He went on to say that most of his fellow clerics felt the same way, and many included such theories in their sermons at Friday prayers. No wonder such ideas spread fast across the country — 45 per cent of which is illiterate — and are reinforced through repetition in the domestic media, especially the Urdu-language press.

Nor are these theories confined to the civilian population.

A few days after the interview with Dr Naeemi , a senior Pakistani security official admitted that similar views were common in the army and the intelligence service, although they were not official policy.

His justification made slightly more sense, although it was equally hard to prove or disprove: he claimed that the CIA had on at least one occasion had Baitullah Mehsud, the Pakistani Taleban chief, in the sights of one of its drones but had decided not to kill him.

He was also convinced that Washington had never wanted Pakistan to have nuclear weapons, and cited US media reports about contingency plans for American special forces to secure, or destroy, Pakistan’s atomic facilities.

Yes, he conceded, there was an unprecedented level of public support for the Pakistani army. Just don’t confuse that with support for the United States.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/world_agenda/article6462959.ece
----------------------------

That article appeared June 9th and on June 12th the religious scholar is assassinated - but is hardly covered in any western press.
-------------------

Suicide Attack In Lahore Religious Scholar Sarfraz Naeemi Killed
June 12th, 2009

LAHORE: Renowned religious scholar and principal of Jamia Naeemia Lahore Dr Sarfraz Ahmed Naeemi among three people were killed in a suicide attack at his seminary here Friday.

The blast that apparently was a suicide attack occurred following the Jumma prayer in the seminary situated at Garhi Shahu area of the metropolis.

According to preliminary reports, the blast was occurred in the office of Dr Sarfraz Ahmed Naeemi, the principle of one of the largest religious seminary of the city. Naeemi was present in his office at the time of the blast, says an eyewitness.

The blast was as powerful as it completely destroyed the offices building and also damaged the nearby installations of the seminary.

Rescuers and law enforcement personnel have arrived at the scene and the injured were being rushed to Mayo Hospital, Ganga Ram Hospital and other nearby hospitals.

http://www.apakistannews.com/suicide-attack-in-lahore-religious-scholar-sarfraz-naeemi-killed-125537

-----------------------------------

Benazir Bhutto was also of the view that the Taliban and others around and behind it are proxies of the US - and she specifically mentioned BAITULLAH Mehsud as being an 'Afghan Warlord'  ------  anyhow - she was removed twice from premiership when she dared to criticize the US and the Islamists and eventually assassinated.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg</a>
« Last Edit: June 12, 2009, 05:51:58 AM by Ahhangar » Logged
Lindt
.
Full Member
***

Karma: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 218



View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2009, 06:48:27 AM »

Abu Hanifa had nothing to do with Afghanistan. Never call him an Afghan.  Get it right. We have to stop confusing ourselves - and making dumb remarks against the real history of the land.  (Afghanistan proper,  is in western Pakistan - northern parts of Baluchistan - the parts north and east of Quetta - and including Waziristan - centered around a place called 'Takhti Suliman' in he heart of the Sulimani Mountains. It was not even  part of the Islamic world in the time of Abu Hanifa, note the Afghans were recorded to be fighting along side Hindus against Mahmud Ghaznawi, whom came about much later.)

Abu Hanfia had everything to do with Khurasan. His father was from Kabul - and he spoke the Persian language along side Arabic. He called for the justification of the using other languages in Islam - especially Persian. He and ABU Muslim Khurasani were key players - along with Barmakians of Balkh - all from Khurasan - in the revolution of Khurasan and the creation of the Abbasid Caliphate - though they were all late executed/assassinated by the treacherous Arab house of Abbas.





I do not care for your flimsy definition of afghanistan as being identical to pashtunistan. a pashtun or baloch from pakistan is not afghan in my view, and yes my definition of an afghan refers to anyone who comes from present day afghanistan, a definition that MOST PEOPLE agree upon. whether you wish to call yourself afghan or not is not a big deal, if you prefer Afghanistani than go for it... but you knew exactly what i meant and i bet you saw this as an opportunity to attack me. that said, i did not say he was afghan anyway.  ::) His background can be traced to the modern day state called Afghanistan. you sound bitter, as though you are in denial but i'm sure even you know that you can't bring back history.

I will respond to the second part of your post later.
Logged
Ahhangar
Ahhangar
Research Team
Hero Member
*

Karma: +24/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 655



View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2009, 07:36:14 AM »

Quote
I do not care for your flimsy definition of afghanistan as being identical to pashtunistan. a pashtun or baloch from pakistan is not afghan in my view, and yes my definition of an afghan refers to anyone who comes from present day afghanistan, a definition that MOST PEOPLE agree upon. whether you wish to call yourself afghan or not is not a big deal, if you prefer Afghanistani than go for it... but you knew exactly what i meant and i bet you saw this as an opportunity to attack me. that said, i did not say he was afghan anyway.  ::) His background can be traced to the modern day state called Afghanistan. you sound bitter, as though you are in denial but i'm sure even you know that you can't bring back history.

I will respond to the second part of your post later.

LOL. You are a child - and the bitter one.  "I do not care for you flimsy definition" lol.  There is no big deal if you care or not -  and  the historically accurate and true definition I give is certainly not flimsy - what is flimsy is you and your pathetic defense of the tribal concept of Afghansitan and its ill application to the land of Khurasan..


Quote
Wow, I wasn't aware that Hanifah had background from afghanistan - this is something to be proud of! 

If you want to qualify it with

Quote
  ::) His background can be traced to the modern day state called Afghanistan


That is fine. 

You just need to emphasize a bit more that todays Afghanistan is actually Khurasan and  not the real historical Afghanistan, that Afghanistan which real AFGHANS - in their own definition - obsess about..

Ahhangar

« Last Edit: June 12, 2009, 07:38:35 AM by Ahhangar » Logged
Ahhangar
Ahhangar
Research Team
Hero Member
*

Karma: +24/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 655



View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2009, 05:56:28 PM »

Check this out -  another publication against the government of Tajikistan.  I wonder why the US has chosen to use this Danish-Norwegian based organisation to promote its propaganda. The organisation has next to nothing on the religious oppression of US puppet regime of Karzai - like the imprisonment of Parwiz Kambakhsh and several other prominent cases in Afghanistan - but it has much on Tajikistan - it is obsessed with Tajikistan.  They are a clear and obvious publication of the US-British interests.

 Jammat e Tabligh are a tool of US imperialism - like Taliban running dogs. 


This article was published by F18News on: 12 June 2009

TAJIKISTAN: Muslims and Protestants are the latest official targets

By Mushfig Bayram, Forum 18 News Service <http://www.forum18.org>

After Tajikistan's adoption of a restrictive new Religion Law the Muslim community appears to be the main target of official hostility, Forum 18 News Service has found. Officials have told Forum 18 the NSM secret police is preparing the so-far unspecified charges against 93 members of the Jamaat Tabligh Islamic movement, who were detained by the authorities in April and May. Tajikistan State University has expelled "up to four" Muslim students for wearing the hijab. The Vice-Rector claimed to Forum 18 that they were expelled "not because of religion but because the university had a dress code." Meanwhile attacks on the property of religious communities continue, with the Protestant Grace Sunmin Church in the capital Dushanbe having lost its legal battle to stop the authorities evicting it from its own church building. The Church has been given a deadline of 1 July to leave its building.

Female students who want to wear headscarves in university or school, followers of the Jamaat Tabligh Islamic movement and the Protestant Grace Sunmin church in the capital Dushanbe are among the latest victims of the government crackdown on freedom of religion or belief, Forum 18 News Service notes. Up to four female students of Tajikistan State University in Dushanbe were expelled for wearing the hijab – an Islamic headscarf for women - to lectures. Prosecution of some 93 followers of the Jamaat Tabligh movement arrested in April and May continues. The press officer of the National Security Ministry (NSM) secret police, who did not give his name, refused to tell Forum 18 on 9 June how long the investigation of the detained followers would last and when any trials might take place. And Grace Sunmin church has lost its battle in the courts to retain its building and has been given a final deadline of 1 July to vacate it.

In the wake of the expulsion of the female students from Tajikistan State University for wearing the hijab, officials from the University and Education Ministry and the Presidential Administration have given conflicting remarks whether or not wearing hijab to universities is banned. Meanwhile some parents do not send their daughters to school because girls are not allowed to attend classes in hijab.

Hijab-wearing students barred from educational institutions

Latofat Nazirova, the State University's Vice-Rector responsible for educational and disciplinary matters, said the University expelled "up to four students this year" for wearing hijabs. "I do not remember the names of the students or what grade they were in," she told Forum 18 on 8 June from Dushanbe.

About the reasons of the expulsions, Nazirova said, it was "not because of religion but because the university had a dress code," according to which female students are not allowed to wear "totally black or dark apparels, and those that would tightly cover them." Asked whether the expelled students could be restored to the University, Nazirova responded: "They could if they gave up wearing hijabs."

Among those who said they had been expelled from the State University this year was Gulnora Bobonazarova, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's Tajik Service reported on 26 May. She was quoted as saying that "the university administration did not admit her to the exams because she wore a hijab."

However, Nazirova claimed to Forum 18 that Bobonazarova, who she said is in her last year of university, was admitted to the final exams recently. "I had the order for her expulsion also but did not sign it when I found out she was about to graduate and was a diligent student," Nazirova claimed to Forum 18. She also claimed that Bobonazarova should be able to receive her diploma in September.

Forum 18 was unable to independently verify Vice-Rector Nazirova's claims about Bobonazarova between 8 and 11 June.

In 2007, another student of the State University Davlatmoh Ismoilova had challenged in the court the ban on wearing hijabs. However, she lost the case, and did not return to the University, reports RFE/RL.

Schoolgirls are also not allowed to wear hijabs to classes, as Hikmatullo Saifullozoda of the officially registered Islamic Revival Party complains. "I know of many friends and acquaintances that do not send their daughters to schools because of this," he told Forum 18 on 11 June.

Dushanbe resident Makhmadjon Muhammadnuri told Forum 18 his eight-year-old daughter does attend any school because "it is against his convictions" for his daughter to attend classes without a hijab. He told Forum 18 on 11 June that he knew "the state secondary schools would not accept" his daughter in hijab and therefore he tried to place her in a private school, Sarparast, in 2008. "But they turned us down because of the hijab," he said. Muhammadnuri told Forum 18 that he knew of other parents who also would not send their daughters to school, because they were banned from wearing the hijab.

Forum 18 was unable to reach the Sarparast school.

Schoolgirls wearing hijabs in northern Tajikistan have in the past been barred from receiving school leaving certificates (see F18News 7 March 2006 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=739).

Why is the hijab banned in university and school?

Claiming to Forum 18 on 8 June that there is a ban on wearing hijab in the education institutions, signed by Tajikistan's President Emomali Rahmon and the Education Minister, was an employee of the State University's Admissions Department, who did not give her name.

Forum 18 was unable to reach Abdulfatoh Sharipov, the Head of the President's Press Service, on 9 and 10 June. However, two different officials of the Press Service, neither of whom gave their names, insisted to Forum 18 that President Rahmon had not signed any ban on wearing the hijab. Both of them refused to comment on the claims of the official ban on the hijab and the expulsions of the students. "The ban comes from the Education Ministry," one Press Service official told Forum 18 on 10 June.

Jaloliddin Amirov, an official of the Education Ministry, denied to Forum 18 there was a "ban". He said there were merely two decisions of the Board of the Education Ministry from 3 July 2007, No.14/2 and No.14/3, which instruct students of higher education institutions and schoolchildren respectively to wear uniforms to universities and schools. "With the decision we have also provided universities and schools with photographs of up to six different models of uniform," Amirov told Forum 18 on 10 June. "So obviously when women wear a hijab to the university, they violate the dress code."

Hikmatullo Saifullozoda of the Islamic Revival Party argued that the Education Ministry instructions were "specifically against" Islamic religious apparel. "The dress models given by the Ministry include traditional Tajik head-scarves for female students provided the neck must not be covered, but the hijab covers the neck," Saifullozoda explained to Forum 18. "I am sure the women were against showing their necks according to their religious convictions, and therefore insisted on wearing hijab to classes."

Asked if all students followed the Education Ministry's dress code instructions, Amirov of the Education Ministry responded: "I would say 90 percent of the students do." He said there are those who "sometimes break the rules and come to classes in casual dress like jeans but they get warned immediately." Asked whether students who insisted on wearing casual dress to classes could also be expelled, Amirov asked, "Why should we expel students for that?" Amirov evaded the question why the State University expelled students for wearing hijabs. "I am not aware of that," he responded.

Tajikistan's Council of Ulems (Islamic scholars), which replaced the former Muftiate or Spiritual Board of Muslims, refused to comment to Forum 18 on 9 June on the expulsion of students or the ban on hijab. Haji Nigmatullo Olimov, Deputy Chairman of the Council, referred Forum 18 to the Islamic University of Tajikistan. The phones at the University went unanswered between 9 and 11 June.

The Council of Ulems has in the past supported the authorities actions in penalising Muslim schoolgirls for wearing the hijabs (see F18News 8 June 2006 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=796). It has also supported government actions more recently (see F18News 17 December 2008 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1230).

Prosecution of Jamaat Tabligh members continues

Although Tajikistan's General Prosecutor's Office had earlier told Forum 18 that it was about to bring charges against the arrested Jamaat Tabligh members, officials there and at the NSM secret police made it clear that it is the NSM secret police which is now leading the prosecution.

Dushanbe City Division of the NSM secret police is leading the case of the arrested Jamaat Tabligh members, according to Sobirjon Isoboyev, Senior Official of the General Prosecutor's Office. "The Ministry of National Security is preparing charges against them," he told Forum 18 on 9 June. Isoboyev said he did not know how many Jamaat Tabligh members are being prosecuted.

One Jamaat Tabligh member had given Forum 18 the number of those arrested at 93, but officials had claimed that the number was much smaller. However, the officials refused to state who is being held or why. Officials claimed the movement was banned in Tajikistan in 2006, but a Supreme Court official and civil society sources told Forum 18 that they were unaware of the ban (see F18News 15 May 2009 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1297).

The NSM secret police's Press Officer told Forum that he could not say anything on the case. "I have not received any information on the case yet," he stated. Asked when NSM would announce the results of the investigation, he said he did not know and hung up the phone.

The Supreme Court banned the Salafi school of Islamic thought in January 2009 (see F18News 23 January 2009 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1243). The ban came into effect on 9 February.

Isoboyev could not say what exactly the members of Jamaat Tabligh or the banned Muslim Salafi movement had violated. Isoboyev also said he does not know of any prosecution of Salafi members since they were banned.

Tightening controls over religious activity and loss of places of worship

The last few years have seen increasing official controls on religious activity. Jehovah's Witnesses still cannot officially meet for worship in Tajikistan, following an October 2007 ban on their activity. Two Protestant communities in Dushanbe also faced "temporary" bans. Abundant Life Christian Centre closed down in the wake of the ban, while the other - Ehyo Church - was officially able to resume its activity in late 2008 (see F18News 20 January 2009 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1242).

Religious communities have little security that they can retain their own places of worship. As well as Dushanbe's Grace Sunmin church, many mosques or Muslim prayer halls, the country's only synagogue and Protestant churches have been closed, bulldozed or threatened with confiscation. The Jewish community received no compensation for its synagogue bulldozed in Dushanbe in June 2008. Although the state did not compensate the Jewish community for demolishing the synagogue, a private businessman (and a brother-in-law of President Rahmon) provided the Jewish community with an alternative building in March 2009 (see F18News 26 March 2009 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1274).

Grace Sunmin church members told Forum 18 on 12 June that the church's final appeal to the High Economic Court of Tajikistan to restore their property rights yielded no results. On 11 June the High Court upheld the previous court decisions to strip the church's property rights. The church has been given the final deadline of 1 July to vacate the building (see forthcoming F18 News article).

Meanwhile the recently adopted new Religion Law has made its impact on the Muslim community. Although a number of religious communities – among them Baha'is and Protestant Christians - told Forum 18 that there have been no new raids or checkups since the new law, the Islamic Revival Party's Saifullozoda claimed that the authorities already watch the funeral ceremonies and weddings so there is no unauthorised preaching. "According to the New Law, preaching from Koran may only take place in Cathedral mosques," he stated (see forthcoming F18 News article).

Tajikistan's government has made contradictory statements about whether or not the new Law will be changed. President Rahmon has stated that it "will not be changed" as it is "well-defined and clear". However, Mavlon Mukhtarov, the Deputy Ministry of Culture, has told Forum 18 that the Law is "not a dogma" and may change. Muslim, Christian and Baha'i religious communities have complained to Forum 18 that, since 2006, almost no religious organisations have been given state registration, the head of the Culture Ministry's Religious Affairs Department confirming that "only" new non-Muslim religious organisations were denied registration since 2006 (see F18News 8 May 2009 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1292). (END)

More coverage of freedom of thought, conscience and belief in Tajikistan is at http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?query=&religion=all&country=31.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2009, 06:18:24 PM by Ahhangar » Logged
Ahhangar
Ahhangar
Research Team
Hero Member
*

Karma: +24/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 655



View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2009, 05:58:53 PM »

This is published on the same day as the previous article.  It would not be surprising to see in a few days time more propaganda against Tajikistan and an increase of Taliban presence in the areas near the Tajikistan border.

June 12,

Threat Of Taliban Incursion Raised In Central Asia -- Again

by Farangis Najibullah

As Pakistan continues large-scale military operations against Taliban militants in the country's northwest and the United States ratchets up its troop presence in Afghanistan, a recent comment by Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiev captured in a nutshell the speculation these efforts are causing in Central Asia.

Speaking on June 8, Bakiev warned of the encroachment of Taliban militants.

After noting the "seriousness" of the situation in both Pakistan and Afghanistan Bakiev asked, "If the conflict against the Taliban further deepens in Afghanistan, then toward which direction would they escape? God save us, but they would move toward Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan."

Kyrgyzstan has recently increased security measures along its frontiers with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan -- through which militants from Afghanistan would presumably have to travel -- by stationing additional troops in border areas.

Regional Concerns

But the Kyrgyz president is not alone among Central Asian leaders in pointing to growing security threats allegedly coming from the south.

Uzbekistan has started digging trenches alongside its borders with Kyrgyzstan, with the stated aim of preventing religious extremists from penetrating its territory.

Uzbekistan has repeatedly claimed that any militant infiltrating into Uzbek territory would cross its border through Tajikistan.

But while Tajikistan has vehemently rejected the possibility of the Taliban ever seeking safe haven on its territory, a legacy of Tajiks' support for Afghanistan's ethnic-Tajik mujahedin, a recent antidrug operation in eastern Tajikistan fueled public fears of a crackdown on Islamic strongmen.

Meanwhile, the Russian-dominated Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) has discussed creating a rapid-reaction force to counter the threat of militants entering the region from Afghanistan.

Many analysts, however, see fear mongering behind the increased talk of security, and say the prospects of the Taliban moving into Central Asia is minimal, if not unrealistic.

Much of the security-risk argument depends on lumping the Taliban with other militants, including those originating in Central Asia, who are believed to have found sanctuary in Pakistan with the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and others.

Their exact number is unknown, with different sources giving vastly different estimates ranging from the hundreds to the thousands.

IMU Threat, Real Or Imagined?

Among them are followers of a key adversary of governments in Central Asia -- the banned extremist group Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU). IMU fighters reportedly fled to Afghanistan in the 1990s and fought alongside Al-Qaeda when U.S.-led coalition forces entered the country in 2001.

Some IMU fighters were reportedly killed in the fighting, and after the Taliban regime was ousted, others were believed to have fled to Pakistan's tribal areas, where the Taliban also regrouped.

Since then, the IMU has remained largely inactive, although officials in Central Asia have from time to time linked various terrorist acts to IMU followers or its alleged splinter groups.

Considering that the backing of the local population was a key factor in the Taliban's survival in Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal areas, it is unlikely that the predominantly ethnic-Pashtun Taliban would find sympathy among locals in Central Asia.

In Tajikistan, specifically, both the government and public opinion were widely supportive of Afghanistan's ethnic-Tajik mujahedin in the war against the Taliban. Al-Qaeda's assassination of ethnic-Tajik military commander Ahmad Shah Mas'ud the day before on September 9, 2001, also remains fresh on the minds of Tajiks.

Aleksei Malashenko, an expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Moscow, says Kyrgyzstan's Bakiev and other regional leaders exaggerate security risks to pursue their own agendas.

"It's a complex double game played by Central Asian leaders," Malashenko says. "Bakiev reckons that Taliban dangers could serve as a pretext to tighten the screws inside Kyrgyzstan. When there is a threat coming from outside, people usually consolidate around the government."

Manas Connection

Malashenko says Bakiev could be playing both sides of the fence between Russia and the United States. He also suggests that the Kyrgyz leader may be seeking to use the alleged Taliban threat as an excuse to renew the U.S. lease of an air base used as an air bridge for operations in Afghanistan.

Earlier this year, the Kyrgyz government gave the United States six months to leave the Manas base outside Bishkek. Bakiev made the announcement during a trip to Moscow in February, citing financial reasons as a key factor.

During the same trip, Bakiev secured a package of Russian loans and investment worth some $2 billion, prompting speculation that Moscow was behind Bishkek's decision to close down the U.S. base.

Afterward, there were reports of Bishkek allegedly having second thoughts about closing down Manas, and of the United States trying to renegotiate financial terms of the lease.

Adding to speculation that discussion on the matter is not dead was the announcement by Bakiev's office on June 11 that U.S. President Barack Obama had sent a personal message to Bakiev thanking Kyrgyzstan for its support of the U.S.-led military operation in Afghanistan.

The United States is also reportedly planning to send a high-level delegation to Bishkek to discuss further cooperation.

Kyrgyz officials, however, have denied the reports, saying their decision on Manas is not reversible.

However, the latest developments also follow on Bakiev's announcement earlier this week that Afghan President Hamid Karzai had asked him to keep Manas open. Bakiev suggested the issue should be discussed during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit that opens next week.

In highlighting the Taliban threat on June 8, Bakiev also said member states of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Commonwealth of Independent States should discuss such issues as well.

Homegrown Taliban?

But Miroslav Niyazov, the former secretary of Kyrgyzstan's Security Council, says that if there is any threat that involves extremism, it would come from inside Kyrgyzstan itself.

Niyazov says Kyrgyzstan ranks last in "all social and economic measurements" among the former Soviet states, and that people in the country also lack confidence in government institutions because they don't appear to work in the public interest. He says this generates public frustration and sympathy for "any radical movement."

At the same time, Niyazov insists that threats coming from Afghanistan cannot be underestimated. Although it is a "bit premature" to say there is a direct danger posed to Central Asia by the Taliban, Afghanistan "still remains a source of extremism and drug trafficking for our countries," he says.

Echoing the general public's feelings in the region, Niyazov believes that as long as peace and stability is not restored in Afghanistan, it will always -- one way or the other -- pose a threat to Central Asian stability.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2009, 06:07:59 PM by Ahhangar » Logged
Unity
Research Team
Hero Member
*

Karma: +518/-0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1870


View Profile Email
« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2009, 03:31:49 AM »

Dear Lindt,

If you call yourself an Afghan then it is a legal term(although its root goes to only one ethnic group) and it is according to today's terms, but it is completely wrong to call Abu Hanifa and Jalaluding Balkhi as Afghans, because they were not Afghan, they had Khorasani Nationality.
Logged
Lindt
.
Full Member
***

Karma: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 218



View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: June 13, 2009, 09:35:40 AM »


LOL. You are a child - and the bitter one.  "I do not care for you flimsy definition" lol.  There is no big deal if you care or not -  and  the historically accurate and true definition I give is certainly not flimsy - what is flimsy is you and your pathetic defense of the tribal concept of Afghansitan and its ill application to the land of Khurasan.. 

there is nothing bitter about my tone but I'm guessing you could not think of a witty comeback so you repeated what I said.  You're wrong with your so called 'historical definition.' just cos this is where history describes Pashtuns living doesn't mean their locality can be labeled as Afghanistan - that's stupid.

you are obviously 'bitter' because of the failed concept of Afghanistan but why limit this attitude to one place? all countries are failures in one form or another, and because afghanistan was founded by a pashtun it is quite obvious that they would oppress other ethnic groups and impose their values, lifestyle and so forth on others... any state formation theorist will state that this is what the elitist groups do in all newly formed states.  Khorasan does not exist anymore and this is something you seriously need to accept. you should be more concerned about promoting a language and culture, literature and values rather than spending your whole life bashing others and attempting to revive this romantic idea of a khorasan zameen.


Once again I DID NOT say Abu Hanifah was Afghan, there was no afghanistan back then, and yes he had everything to do with Khorasan. If you read over my post you will clearly see that I said he had background from afghanistan... and unless an overnight miracle or tragedy (since everyone's views differ!) occurred, Kabul is the capital of afghanistan... hence, he has background from afghanistan


Logged
Ahhangar
Ahhangar
Research Team
Hero Member
*

Karma: +24/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 655



View Profile Email
« Reply #10 on: June 13, 2009, 10:46:47 AM »

Up to this point - it was news for you that Abu Hanifa had a background coming from and related to Khurasan - and yet you feel confident enough to brush aside the historically accurate definition of Afghanistan as 'stupid' or 'flimsy'......  reacting like a bitter fool, and suggests a false childish confidence based on ignorance.  Read a few books - academic books - then try to hold a debate - but until then be humble, or you will be burned. I strongly doubt your sincerity.

And then you go on to say that this current 'Afghanistan' was founded by a Pashtun....again you fall back on ignorance. Ahmad Shah Abdali never established any such thing called Afghanistan, nor did he impose Pashtun identity....infact he changed his Pashtun tribal name from Abdali to Persian Durrani.... and was fully Persianate. And, most striking of all - he was a fan of attacking the real Afghanistan that I describe....read his book 'Tarikh e Ahmad Shahi'.  He was by no means a Pashtun nationalist...he was not a tribalist.....he was given the title of Shah by Sabour Kabuli.  There is much distortion written about him - designed to justify the ethnocentrism of later years.

The appellation, 'Afghanistan', applied to Khurasan falsely, is thanks to the British, done so to wipe out the history of the region and any memoirs of previous orders, and to replace it with a baseless tribal based ignorance that will keep the land divided and weak - easy to attack and influence from the outside.   Amanulah was the jerk whom started secular ethno-centrism. Amanulah was illegitimate - brought into power through killing of his own father -in unclear circumstances - but when looks at who benefited in the larger picture  -  it is not difficult to suppose that some of the intrigue involved the British. The so called war of independence - when one studies it closely - sees that it was not more than a very limited action - a staged action - which was designed to give the vain fool Amanulah credibility - and even being given the undeserved title of 'Ghazi', when he did no fighting or killing of the enemy at all.  It is a striking parallel to another event which involved the British and their empire deeply, though not anywhere near as significant, namely Ataturk's supposed saving of Turkey. An event which ushered in the secular republic and abolishing of the caliphate, which had huge implications for Muslims and the middle east. Most of the rubbish you believe regarding Afghanistan, stems from this period.

Alleging that Khurasan does not exist anymore - is also false - it does exist - it exists there in the land - in the people - in the language - in the culture - in the inheritance - in the heritage - but it lacks representation and is illegitimately subsumed by the foreign backed artificial and tribal concept of Afghanistan - a concept that feeds of the ignorance of idiots like you - whom have very little knowledge - but lots of attitude.   

I define my own purpose as to increase my own knowledge and to spread knowledge..... and within that many fields are covered... amongst which are the promotion of language, literature, and values....and teaching you about Abu Hanifa.

It is wrong to say that Abu Hanifa's background was in Afghanistan - it is a statement which propagates the confusion - the mess in the minds of the people of that land - a kind of vicious stupidity that has accepted a situation which has meant that people like Abu Hanifa have never had any real recognition in the current tribal based Afghanistan - just like Rumi - and many other greats of that land ----- but two bit tribals like Abdul Ghaffar Khan get $70 million of government money spent on his grave in Jallalabad - and historic places like Sabzwar and Fusanj are renamed to wipe away traces of them - one being renamed to Shindand and the other to Zindajan.....even Balkh was renamed temporarily to Wazirabad. 

So - never ever associate Abu Hanifa or those other greats with the name of Afghanistan - instead do the right thing - and disassociate the illegitimate name of Afghanistan from the land of Khurasan.  Do not fret about what the international community chooses to call the place. 

The more one studies the nonsense that is propagated to give life to the tribal concept of Afghanistan - the more one feels embarrassed.

For instance - the town of Chagha Sarai was named to Asadabad in the later half of the 20th century - and yet it does not occur to people how absurd it is to claim Jamuladin Asadabadi Afghani as being from Afghanistan on the justification that he was born in the Asadabad of Kunar of Afghanistan.   This is how shameless the propagators of the false concept of Afghanistan are - and you too want to be associated with that ?

The light of knowledge will wipe away these false and vicious creations - and the worshipers of that ignorance.


Ahhangar


Anyhow - what of the views regarding political Islam and US ambitions in the region.....
« Last Edit: June 13, 2009, 04:55:20 PM by Ahhangar » Logged
Gul agha
Ahura Mazda
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****

Karma: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 479



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #11 on: June 13, 2009, 12:09:58 PM »

Dear Lindt,

If you call yourself an Afghan then it is a legal term(although its root goes to only one ethnic group) and it is according to today's terms, but it is completely wrong to call Abu Hanifa and Jalaluding Balkhi as Afghans, because they were not Afghan, they had Khorasani Nationality.

The constitution is an illegal document which makes Afghan an illegal term.
Logged

Ba Naam e Khudahvand e Jan o Kherad, Kazeen Bartar Andisha Bar Nagzarad
به نام خداوند جان و خرد, کزین برتر اندیشه برنگذرد
Unity
Research Team
Hero Member
*

Karma: +518/-0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1870


View Profile Email
« Reply #12 on: June 13, 2009, 12:37:08 PM »

Dear Lindt,

If you call yourself an Afghan then it is a legal term(although its root goes to only one ethnic group) and it is according to today's terms, but it is completely wrong to call Abu Hanifa and Jalaluding Balkhi as Afghans, because they were not Afghan, they had Khorasani Nationality.

The constitution is an illegal document which makes Afghan an illegal term.

Whatever it is, my point was that A. Hanifa was not Afghan.
Logged
Lindt
.
Full Member
***

Karma: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 218



View Profile Email
« Reply #13 on: June 13, 2009, 09:15:52 PM »

The constitution is an illegal document which makes Afghan an illegal term.

no one is forcing this title on you.

Whatever it is, my point was that A. Hanifa was not Afghan.

And I never said he was.


I'm not going to flood this thread all because some people get touchy over a sentence and feel the need to go off topic and call me an idiot all because they had a traumatic childhood  ::)

this is my final response that is off topic. I want to discuss the real issue but i need to get things off of my chest


------------------------------------------


Ahhangar:

Up to this point - it was news for you that Abu Hanifa had a background coming from and related to Khurasan - and yet you feel confident enough to brush aside the historically accurate definition of Afghanistan as 'stupid' or 'flimsy'......  reacting like a bitter fool, and suggests a false childish confidence based on ignorance.  Read a few books - academic books - then try to hold a debate - but until then be humble, or you will be burned. I strongly doubt your sincerity.


my sincerity to what? I'd know better than to enter a debate without having knowledge on historical events and as far as i know, history is debateable itself. if you are not open to opinions then don't open threads because it seems that you only accept what you want to hear. I do not come here to seek approval of my thoughts so I will disregard your comment about me being humble. While i do understand the foundation for your description of the *historical* afghanistan, i find it highly extraneous.

When you look at the lives of historical figures a historian will almost always refer to them as coming from what their land was called during the time and this is something i do not dispute but wholeheartedly agree on.


And then you go on to say that this current 'Afghanistan' was founded by a Pashtun....again you fall back on ignorance. Ahmad Shah Abdali never established any such thing called Afghanistan, nor did he impose Pashtun identity....infact he changed his Pashtun tribal name from Abdali to Persian Durrani.... and was fully Persianate. And, most striking of all - he was a fan of attacking the real Afghanistan that I describe....read his book 'Tarikh e Ahmad Shahi'.  He was by no means a Pashtun nationalist...he was not a tribalist.....he was given the title of Shah by Sabour Kabuli.  There is much distortion written about him - designed to justify the ethnocentrism of later years.

his values or culture do not change the fact that he was Pashtun, need i say more?


The appellation, 'Afghanistan', applied to Khurasan falsely, is thanks to the British, done so to wipe out the history of the region and any memoirs of previous orders, and to replace it with a baseless tribal based ignorance that will keep the land divided and weak - easy to attack and influence from the outside.

I agree.

Amanulah was the jerk whom started secular ethno-centrism. Amanulah was illegitimate - brought into power through killing of his own father -in unclear circumstances - but when looks at who benefited in the larger picture  -  it is not difficult to suppose that some of the intrigue involved the British. The so called war of independence - when one studies it closely - sees that it was not more than a very limited action - a staged action - which was designed to give the vain fool Amanulah credibility - and even being given the undeserved title of 'Ghazi', when he did no fighting or killing of the enemy at all.  It is a striking parallel to another event which involved the British and their empire deeply, though not anywhere near as significant, namely Ataturk's supposed saving of Turkey. An event which ushered in the secular republic and abolishing of the caliphate, which had huge implications for Muslims and the middle east. Most of the rubbish you believe regarding Afghanistan, stems from this period.

You do not know of the “rubbish” i believe in, i’ve only posted enough to make an impression on others but not enough for others to comprehend my stance or understanding on anything.

Alleging that Khurasan does not exist anymore - is also false - it does exist - it exists there in the land - in the people - in the language - in the culture - in the inheritance - in the heritage - but it lacks representation and is illegitimately subsumed by the foreign backed artificial and tribal concept of Afghanistan - a concept that feeds of the ignorance of idiots like you - whom have very little knowledge - but lots of attitude.

Way to resort to retorts,  really goes to show how mature you are.  Like i said you only accept what you want to hear, how dare you suggest i give attitude and have “little knowledge.” Pardon me for being realistic and recognising that Khorasan as an entity does not exist anymore. You completely defy your own purpose of promoting tajik culture by spending every minute of your life clobbering anything that goes against your own worldviews. If you and your khorasan zameen brethren keep this up and everything that was once associated with khorasan will cease to exist


I define my own purpose as to increase my own knowledge and to spread knowledge..... and within that many fields are covered... amongst which are the promotion of language, literature, and values....and teaching you about Abu Hanifa.

good for you buddy.

It is wrong to say that Abu Hanifa's background was in Afghanistan - it is a statement which propagates the confusion - the mess in the minds of the people of that land - a kind of vicious stupidity that has accepted a situation which has meant that people like Abu Hanifa have never had any real recognition in the current tribal based Afghanistan - just like Rumi - and many other greats of that land ----- but two bit tribals like Abdul Ghaffar Khan get $70 million of government money spent on his grave in Jallalabad - and historic places like Sabzwar and Fusanj are renamed to wipe away traces of them - one being renamed to Shindand and the other to Zindajan.....even Balkh was renamed temporarily to Wazirabad.

So - never ever associate Abu Hanifa or those other greats with the name of Afghanistan - instead do the right thing - and disassociate the illegitimate name of Afghanistan from the land of Khurasan.  Do not fret about what the international community chooses to call the place.


I do not understand why this is such a big deal for you, I really, really do not. I do not agree with your stance although I do respect it. He has background from modern day Afghanistan and that is all i said. I did not call him an Afghan because that would be wrong.

The more one studies the nonsense that is propagated to give life to the tribal concept of Afghanistan - the more one feels embarrassed.

Okay.


« Last Edit: June 13, 2009, 09:25:39 PM by Lindt » Logged
Ahhangar
Ahhangar
Research Team
Hero Member
*

Karma: +24/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 655



View Profile Email
« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2009, 05:12:37 PM »

Lindt,

Showing that Ahmad Shah Durrani was not a Pashtun nationalist - he was Persianate in almost every measure - does matter, it matters much more than his ethnicity. One can talk of Mahmud e Ghaznawi - whom was also an ethnic Turk - but fully Persianate. The idea that he was a ethnic turk being overtly important - and being the one thing that overrode everything else is clearly baseless - and this is also true to a similar extent regarding Ahmad Shah Durrani.   Pashtun nationalist of the modern era have created myths about him - and is it not strange that the one book that is most authoritative about Durrani is never promoted y the Pashtunist government of Kabul ?  Why would that be - unless - the contents of that book - which were the truth - did not correlate with the image they themselves wanted to create - in order to justify their policies and existence.  They even created that story of legitimizing a ruler through Loya Jirga is a tradition which tarted with Durrani - when in fact it was tarted with Amanulah.

Durrani, was a Persianate Shah, to the point of changing his Pashtu name of Abdali to Persian Durrani,  of Khurasan.  He - like many other before him - could only hold position in that land by accepting the Persianate Hanafi order.

The historical Afghanistan is by no means extraneous - it is shown as such in every historical work dealing with the subject. This is facts - read correctly - not a future worldview.

Khurasan is subsumed by the illegitimate tribal concept of Afghanistan - in this Kuffar made world order - but it is still there in the people and culture and everything else - which is misrepresented as Afghan.  In reality the entity of Afghanistan is just that - in name - one can say that it really does not exist - it is just a pretend - for the benefit of the kuffar.

Your sincerity is in question because you are determined to twist everything back to Pashtunist world view - and to keep the idea that this land is Afghanistan - without any real justification - without really acknowledging the damage the concept of Afghanistan has done to Khurasan and its people.

Lindt - you should know that the concept of Afghanistan is an idol for ignorants/tribal bandits - and it is hard for them to be weened off it - eventually revolutionaries will arise whom will resort to the giving out the punishments deemed correct in the Quran for idol worshipers - that of death.

Ahhangar
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

 
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP bluBlur Skin 2006, hbSkins
Powered by SMF 2.0 RC1 | SMF © 2006–2009, Simple Machines LLC
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!