Pakistan and Iran are Arab?

There was a really bad article in the New York Times by Leslie Wayne about Arab Americans backing Bush in this election cycle. Leslie Wayne considers Iranians and Pakistanis as Arab too. Who knew?

Fortunately, I don’t have to debunk it since Jack Shafer of Slate already has.

Juan Cole provides a good summary of languages in the region. He also writes about politics of the different immigrant groups from the Muslim world.

One thing I would add is that Pakistanis have generally been Republicans because of the perception that Republicans have sided more with Pakistan in its conflict against India.

UPDATE: The New York Times has appended a correction to the article today:

A headline yesterday on a front-page article about fund-raising for President Bush’s re-election referred imprecisely to donors described in the article. Not all are Arab-Americans; they include Pakistani and Iranian-born donors.

By Zack

Dad, gadget guy, bookworm, political animal, global nomad, cyclist, hiker, tennis player, photographer


  1. dude, this isn’t the first time that the times has published this crap. it says something about the geography education of this country when the journalists and editors at the nation’s elite mass circulation periodical can’t get it straight….

    of course, colin powell once spoke about “iraq’s sunni arab majority.”

  2. There was a really bad article in the New York Times by Leslie Wayne about Arab Americans backing Bush in this election cycle. Leslie Wayne considers Iranians and Pakistanis as Arab too. Who knew?

    Heheh, you shouldn’t be all that surprised, after all I am sure from some angles the reaction would be “What’s the fuss, they all pray the same anyway” 😉

    One thing I would add is that Pakistanis have generally been Republicans because of the perception that Republicans have sided more with Pakistan in its conflict against India.

    Interesting, I wonder whether this means the NRI community would be more Democrat-inclined. My personal experience would tend to suggest so, but this is biased from pre-selection. Traditionally though, I would have assumed though, that Democrats are better regarded by Indians, due to the perceived favourable attitude towards India. Given the socio-economic profile of many Indians, I would expect them to lean towards the Democrats as well; though this may be changing with the rise of a more aggressive saffron-tinged nationalism that meshes better with the Right on foreign policy issues. I wonder whether you have any thoughts on this – and one thing we are frequently told is that traditionally many Muslim communities favoured the Republicans due to the closer identification over areas like Family values, role of religion, concept of personal entreprenuership and community-based social norms. Would you say this has any relevance to the PAkistani community in the US?

  3. On the basis of anecdotal evidence alone (I could try to look up some surveys later if you contest the points), I have observed:

    1) India’s economic and military rise has been accompanied by hatred from the Zmag crowd. India is now the only non-white country that is constantly subjected to the 2-minute hate from Roy, Chomsky, and the rest of the academic left. That’s a good sign – it means that India is becoming successful enough that it no longer needs the patronizing, dehumanizing, condescending leftism of the “post-colonial” theorists.

    2) Pakistan is Muslim, and I have definitely seen a shift to the left among Muslims. Arabs are electorally insignificant in the US (less than .1% of the vote, IIRC), but they did vote for Bush in 2000 partly because of some pandering on his part (i.e. promising an end(!) to racial profiling for Arabs at airports…what a different world it was pre-9/11) and partly because the other party was running a Jew for VP.

    However, 2004 is a whole ‘nother ball game. The Democrats are the ones pushing this Islam = peace head-in-the-sandism, and they’re the ones who reflexively take the side of nonwhites and nonChristians in any case. The Republicans have proven themselves hostile to militant Islam, and (though Bush puts a gloss on it) none too friendly to even the relatively moderate varieties.

    (PS – Zack, Razib – you know I love ya – just saying the truth here).

    Thus I think it will be a cold day in hell before Muslims and/or Arabs vote for Republicans in large numbers again. They’re firmly in the lefty camp for the foreseeable future, unless Lieberman runs again 🙂

    As for Hindus and Indians (another overlapping but nonidentical pair), from what I’ve seen at my temple there is a real alignment with the Jews and the Christians against Islam. I am not at all religious (obviously from my name), but I recently saw a “Defend Israel and India” campaign poster while visiting New York at the Flushing Kovel on Long Island.

    The race factor keeps some Hindus in the left-wing camp, but I do think that high incomes + religious alignment (as above) + geopolitical sympathies are pushing them to the Republicans.

  4. razib: I agree it’s pathetic. That is why I like the BBC so much better than American media.

    Conrad: I wonder whether this means the NRI community would be more Democrat-inclined.

    My experience suggests so. For example, my congressional representative Frank Pallone (D) is a founder of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans. Our 6th congrssional district of NJ is about 4-5% Indian. Of the 176 members of the India Caucus, 111 are Democrats.

    this may be changing with the rise of a more aggressive saffron-tinged nationalism that meshes better with the Right on foreign policy issues.

    That is true as well. Indians seem to be divided though. Some Indians in the US have come out as the uber-patriots extremely offended by Islam and Muslims (see godless’s comment) while others are still on the left.

    Would you say this has any relevance to the PAkistani community in the US?

    It has some relevance, but in my anecdotal experience Republican support of Pakistan was considered more important.

    Godless: You have a knack for generalized comments about some pet peeves. You have become too predictable, unfortunately.

    Regarding Muslim vote for Republicans in 2000, my anecdotal evidence suggests that Joe Lieberman’s religion did not play much role.

  5. Auto-trackback from

    New York Times article found in memigo. It was referred to by 1 source(s). (1 other link(s) from this post also found.)
    Follow trackback to find related articles…

  6. GC, I can still see that we are flogging some dead horses here. Well, it looks like the old stallion has some life left in him so I will add a few lashes of my own:

    India’s economic and military rise has been accompanied by hatred from the Zmag crowd.

    I can’t see that this is the case really; from a cursory perusal of the sites in question, there seems to be a pretty broad coverage of HR abuses and other socio-political problems across the board in the South Asian section of Zmag. Of course I would expect India to come in for a fair share of the attention given the fact that we represent the great bulk and population of the region; proportionately here I am actually surprised that there is so much coverage of other states. More importantly, we have been the only consistent democracy (with one exception) and the only state to attempt implement a pluralistic and flexible national-project since decolonisation; therefore we cannot be held to the same standards as states which either have been plagued by military dictatorships quite indifferent to the situation and livelihoods of the their own citizenry or those who have gone in for some sort of ethnically based democracy. In this light, the appropriate response when presented with such criticisms is to see how accurate they are and whether they can be constructively dealt with; rather than seeking to deflect attention by coming across all righteously indignant. If we start abandoning even an effort towards tackling these generic problems – which after all affect all the states in the region and those who live in them, who is going to push this agenda forward? Pakistan?! Bangladesh??!! Nepal???!!! Bhutan????!!!! Please, be serious.

    India is now the only non-white country that is constantly subjected to the 2-minute hate from Roy, Chomsky, and the rest of the academic left

    I don’t know why you club Roy in here; her criticisms of various aspects of Indian society and politics didn’t suddenly start with Zmag, they go back a long way, as you will discover if you read her novel. Ironically, one of the main targets in the God of Small Things was the Communist party for failing to live up to its developmental agenda and the record of its governance in Kerala. Furthermore, as she is an Indian citizen who has been born, grown up and lives in India, it is odd that you accuse her of ‘hating’ the country she has chosen to reside in, and I would be especially careful of making these sorts of claims if I didn’t share some of these same attributes. In anycase, I do not think “hate” is the proper description here, as it is patently obvious from her writings that what she hates are certain political ideologies and policies, not the country, its people or its culture. Unless somehow India has become synonymous with whatever vacuous pap the saffronists are recycling; this is an inaccurate description of her arguments and position. I am afraid that India does not = the BJP; just as during the Emergency, the Congress found out to its consternation India does not = Indira.

    As for the so-called hate rhetoric, it may also be pertinent to see what is actually being said rather than immediately jumping to stupid conclusions about it. If valid criticisms are being made using the standards set by Indian constitutional yardsticks, by established Indian nationalism and in the goals set by the state over its social contract with its citizens; then these need to be addressed instead of shovelled under the carpet by wild accusations of some sort of politically-correct bias. To do otherwise indicates an inability to come to grips with the actual problems on the ground and to be completely uninterested in solving them. Just as we possess and exercise a greater degree of power and influence within the region because of our size and position; so too do we need to realise that we bear a greater responsibility as a price.

    That’s a good sign – it means that India is becoming successful enough that it no longer needs the patronizing, dehumanizing, condescending leftism of the “post-colonial” theorists.

    WTF is this?! Dude, you need to seriously come out of spending so much time in Ravaan’s pleasure gardens and return to reality. We have always been the hegemonic power in South Asia, I don’t know where you got the idea that we somehow were a weakling power in the past; this seems like just another incarnations of the dubious myth of Hindu passivity to me. Given our strategic position, relative size and command over resources, it cannot be otherwise; anybody looking at a map of the region can see this straightaway. Any attempt to portray the reverse is just a flight in the face of reality; apart from a short period from the 1950s to the early 1960s we have been more than willing to use this relative strength to further our objectives and have militarised. It may have escaped your notice but we have fought and won wars with Pakistan long before our saffronist bombniks appeared on the scene. Quite important progress was made on the socio-economic developmental front as well; much before the recent period, so why we were supposed to be ‘failures’ before is also unclear to me. As for “the patronizing, dehumanizing, condescending leftism of the “post-colonial” theorists”, I don’t know who you are trying to fool here. I can’t see much of this present, and what condescending attitudes exist, have come from the same places they always have in the past; I am puzzled as to why ‘post-colonial’ theorists or ‘the Left’ are meant to be part of this. Generally speaking it is NRIs who have long left and settled abroad who are seen as figures of fun when they return to India only to complain about living conditions and how much better things are in their adopted homelands. This is a common caricature easily recognisable across India that non-NRIs are familiar with; the NRI abroad is easily embarrassed by being associated with an LDC that is burdened with serious poverty, political conflicts, internal divisions and can’t project a strong external image. A more aggressive turn towards a state that is more militarised, that has acquired ‘prestige’ though nuclearisation and that seeks to play a role on the global stage that it supposedly deserves by natural right; is a much more comforting state to be associated. Unsurprisingly here, the question is not what the NRI can do for his country, but what can his country do for him; after all the costs for this change in policy will not be borne by him, whereas the benefits, especially the psycho-social ones will. Colonialism is indeed, long since dead and gone, but the post-colonial mimic complex of the brown sahib is alive and well I see!

    We need to stop whining like a bunch of spoilt children everytime these criticisms are made or pretend that they are all motivated by some form of hatred. A sign of political maturity is to recognise genuine criticism for what it is and differences notions of what the good life entails; always insisting that the Other is out to malign us or simply has some form of existential hatred for our very existence is a mentality that properly belongs inside a fairytale, it is an adolescent attitude that descends into pique whenever our faults are pointed out. It is high time we grew up and stopped behaving like such a sorry lot of snivelling teenagers. To behave otherwise in our position, is just to demonstrate an insecurity out of all proportion with our actual strength; to underestimate any autonomous capacity to take on board what is said and do something about it; to fold like a cheap pack of cards everytime we are challenged. In other words to adopt the very same colonial-babu mindset that you claim to reject.

    As for Hindus and Indians (another overlapping but nonidentical pair), from what I’ve seen at my temple there is a real alignment with the Jews and the Christians against Islam.

    I would suggest that this may not be a typical example. Indian immigration to the US has been influenced by the removal of the immigration quotas in the 1960s but much of this immigration has tended to be biased towards skilled professionals, mostly from an urban or peri-urban background and from the middle classes/upper castes. This is hardly representative of Indian society and the way religion is viewed here will be quite different from how it is in the homeland. Abroad, what is commonly represented as Hinduism has gone through what can only be described as a ‘Semitisation’ transformation and become closer to what can only be described as a sort of neo-revivalist Protestant type of mentality. Needless to say, this is very far from how it exists within India itself. Which is why, there can be talk of an alignment with some Semitic religions against others. This is indicative of the insecurities and problems faced by Diasporic communities themselves rather than any objective political considerations to do with international relations.

    I am not at all religious (obviously from my name),

    Given that within India, the primary identification for many Hindus is cultural, this is hardly relevant. It is only outside India, that this becomes a key signifier of religion, rather than anything else.

    I recently saw a “Defend Israel and India” campaign poster while visiting New York at the Flushing Kovel on Long Island

    This is just ridiculous; as nation-states we face very different threats than Israel. We are next to two of the biggest and best trained land armies in Asia with a good historical record (China + Pakistan). Both of these states are nuclear states with viable missile reach and have an excellent counter-intelligence system and apparatuses, probably the best in the Third World. The main short-term threat in Pakistan, has a resilient regime that has lasted internal destabilisation and managed to effect institutional consistency despite various crisis of governance. It also enjoys US backing and has managed to play its foreign policy strategy very effectively. Israel’s situation is quite different and of a rather different order. Having two borders with nuclear states, that are both significant military powers and hostile towards us there is simply no comparison to the Israeli position.

    the race factor keeps some Hindus in the left-wing camp, but I do think that high incomes + religious alignment (as above)

    Perhaps, though the saffronist-bombnik stance appeals to certain sections of the NRI community in the USA for several reasons. There is the natural compensation of an ideology that offers them a countervailing sense of strength at the symbolic level, in a society where they are the minority. Despite being well-settled and integrated as well as wealthy and established, there is a deficit in social, cultural and political resources among the predominantly White and non-White elites they are surrounded by. The lure of a repackaged, militant and powerful Hindu identity and culture propagated by the likes of the VHP with the notion that they belong to a civilisation that supersedes others in quality, longevity and which is inherently superior is understandable. The kind of differentialist politics of identity, that forms a popular axis of identification in the American political scene has also to some extent replaced the older languages of class. There seems to be a process of ethnic stratification going on here, with unequal distributions of economic resources and human + social capital across these ethnic divides being perpetuated. Within this kind of socio-political environment it is not surprising that some have chosen to elevate their position within such a socio-economic hierarchy rather than overturn or flatten it out. This is a broader reflection of earlier and current struggles within India where certain dominant groups have always sought to move up the social hierarchy at the expense or exclusion of others, instead of restructuring and replacing it altogether. It is ironic that this strategy has been transposed to sections of the diasporic community at the very time one is seeing its dying throes within India itself. There has also, always been a visceral affinity amongst some sections of the SIB crowd to compare themselves to what was supposedly the position of European Jews at various points in history; hence why during the ascendancy of the Dravidian movement was displacing older elites one could hear a lot of self-serving crap about how they were the “Jews of India”. Given similar social conservatism, identity based on an ‘Othering’ process of a threatening group within the social body and certain nativist notions of superiority, it is to be expected I supposed that an affinity with aggressive Zionism would appeal to these Hindutva acolytes.

    geopolitical sympathies are pushing them to the Republicans.

    This is a misreading of the geo-political realities of the region on a fairly major level. Firstly to deal with the US role, as usual, there is more wishful thinking rather than hardheaded analysis of what the US-Pakistani relationship is and what it means for India. The US tolerance of the remnants of the Taliban in Pakistan, and of allied terrorist groups operating in Kashmir, one of necessity. September 11 or no September 11, it needs tactical friends and ideological allies on the Islamist Right to negate challenges not just from Iran, but Iraq, Palestine, and the welter of anti-American Islamists scattered across West Asia. We now know, through the medium of the Indian NSA Brajesh Mishra, that India sent diplomatic notes to the United States and the United Kingdom warning of the airlifting of some 5000 Pakistan and Afghan members of the Taliban after the fall of Kunduz. Mishra appeared surprised that neither responded.

    Only the truly gullible should actually have been surprised. The US has not, as some Indians seem to think and wish, suddenly awoken from some kind of Rip Van Winkle haze to discover that Indian charges against Pakistan must be taken seriously “because they had been backed by proof.” The United States has always known of the Pakistani state’s role in terrorist acts directed against India, but chose to maintain a discreet silence so as not to jeopardise relations with its closest ally in South Asia.

    Nor has the United States ever called on Pakistan to extradite or even prosecute the authors of the Kandahar hijacking, or of the Mumbai serial bombings of 1992-1993, despite strong evidence of their presence in that country. It has not even agreed to either extradite or prosecute on its own soil twenty-one Khalistani terrorists who India says are in the United States. More recently, after the January 22, 2002 terrorist attack on the USIS in Kolkata, one was treated to the spectacle of the FBI chief, Robert Mueller, saying he would “like to wait and see what the investigation discloses about the purpose of the attack.” Mueller’s suggestion was that the attack could have been targeted at the police, rather than the United States facility. No investigation was needed to know this was absurd, just common sense. Had the Kolkata Police been the intended target of the attack, large numbers of its personnel could have been found undefended at several locations – including the parade ground down the road from the building – other than the USIS offices. For its own reasons, then, the United States will tolerate the continued existence of at least some elements of the armies of Jehad, and their covert use, within limits, by Pakistan. This is based very much on its own readings of where the US strategic objectives reside and not on who will make the better friends on the playground or some sort of apocalyptic civilisational war where the Christian West is aligned with its various allies against the Islamic one. We should alter and base our own corresponding strategy accordingly in line with these expectations and not make unrealistic or fanciful assumptions.

    Lastly, there is a mis-interpretation of regional dynamics and the impact they will have on the internal regimes of the states concerned. The most serious threat to us, has always been obstacles to our own nation-building project; centripetal tendencies have done much more damage and prevented the complete construction of the nation-state at a political level. This is due to the inability to fully implement the pluralism encapsulated within our specific nationalism and allow the forging of strong civic bonds between the state and the citizen and the complete democratisation of civil society. Given our diversity, the potential for ethnic, religious and regional conflict as well as pressures for recognition by competing groups; if these are not channelled through institutionalised non-violent politics; this national-project is bound to fail. The emergence of Saffronist Nationalism will not ‘unify the nation’ but will accentuate and deepen these divisions, so as to raise the spectre of balkanisation as the end destination. For some hardcore saffronists, presiding over rump states in Maharashtra and the Gangetic plains, assured of a pure Hindu rashtra, despite the raging social and religious conflicts around them, might be an attractive proposition. It will not be for the great bulk of other Indians.

    There is also a need to abandon any illusions about what inter-state relations within the region constitute in terms of their political implications. We cannot remain isolated from our neighbours and the ramifications of events next door will sooner or later have their fallout on us. For any real chance for our own pluralistic nationalism and democratisation of society-state to succeed; it will need to be bound up with its replication in the neighbouring countries. A failure or implosion of these processes here, will have grim consequences for the same processes within our own nation-state. This means that a failure of Pakistani democracy, will place pressure on our own democracy; an increase in ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka will increase ethnic tensions/spillovers for our ethnically-linked groups, a rise in communal violence in Bangladesh will lead to a deterioration within our own civil society. The connections between the successes of such trends within our own nation-state project and that of other states in the region, is an organic and intrinsic one and our future is bound up with theirs in an inextricable fashion. It is no use pretending that such linkages do not exist or that they can be cut; they cannot without subverting the success of our own national-project. In this sense, Geography is Destiny. Time we faced up to this and its consequences, instead of sticking our heads in the sand, as we have always done.

  7. as salam ‘alaikum

    Pakistan has millions of people of Arab Descent. millions

    Though this descent is through Persian and Turkish ancestors in majority

  8. Iran has more than 5 million arabs living in Khuzestan, 2 million arab sunnis along the southern coast, 1 million arab immigrants in Qum, Veramin, Esfahan, Shiraz, Behbahan, Mash-had, Tehran seminaries.

    There are 1 million arab speaking Faili shi’a Kurds in Iran

    There is an indigenous arabic community in Khurasan.

    Besides this there are millions of iranians of Arab descent

    And Allah knows Best

  9. wadood: Though Pakistan has people who claim Arab descent, none of those people can really be called Arab. At most some of their ancestors were Arab.

    Iran does have 3% Arab population which comes to about 2 million people.

    My point was not that there are no Arabs or people of Arab descent in these countries, but that considering Pakistan and Iran as Arab is ignorant.

  10. as salam ‘alaikum

    Just thought I would add some facts to the argument just for the sake of information.

    As for the 3% figure and 2 million conclusion, all I can say, I found with my own eyes more an a million arabs in 2 cities alone in Khuzestan. Apart from that, there are 6 more cities in Khuzestan ( a single province in Iran)

    Indeed Iran and Pakistan are not Arab

    and Allah knows Best

  11. wadood: I am not sure how you could count more than a million people. For all I know the 3% figure might be wrong but I’ll rely on those statistics much more than your eyes. No offense intended.

  12. there are many arabs living in pakistan… like syed… they are arabs… truely arabs… they have stayed in arabia for more than 2000 years… its has been less than a 100 years since they migrated to PAKISTAN so what made them pakistanis… they are supposed to be called ARAB-PAKISTANIS… & they are 🙂

  13. Ibrahim: While Syeds, and some others, are of Arab descent, no one would claim that they are Arabs themselves.

    they have stayed in arabia for more than 2000 years… its has been less than a 100 years since they migrated to PAKISTAN

    Where did you come up with that?


  15. im iranian.and i assure u iran s not an arab country.we are persian and we proud of it.we are aryan.iran=aryan and when we had the greatest empire ever and conquer asia and greece,arabs ate lizards in deserts.there are some few arab in south of ira,khuzestan but they are even less than 2 million and they are not 100%arab.they are persian-arab and speak persian and arabic both and even theyr arabic is diff with saudi arabian language.iran is persian country and the only think we hav the same with arabs is islam.before islam iranians were zoroastrian and still we hav 1 million zoroastrian iran u can see blond persians.north of iran,tehran,isfahanand..u can see many white and blond iranians.our ancestry is diff with arabs,and arab hate persians and we hate them either…

  16. The majority of pakistanis are actually of indian descent, regardless of whether or not they want to admit it.

    Pakistan was originally just a part of India, and the reason that many current Pakistanis have some Arab features in them is because the Arabs and Persians had invaded India through what is now modern day Pakistan, and raped many women in the process. Although some Pakistanis are of large Arab descent, they are still living on the land of ancient India and are considered Desis by their fellow South Asians.

    In my opinion, Pakistanis should be proud of their Indian heritage, and they should be proud of being Muslim at the same time.

  17. i feel although most people would not consider pakistan and iran arab countries i must say they all do look the same i have many differnt friends from different backgrounds some are indian ,pakisatn ,iranin and arabs and i must say that the pakistani ,iranins and arabs do look alot alike most indains do tend to be darker with much more differnt features but i thyink kashmiri people are very beautifull and by lookin at them u can defintally tell they have arab and alot more in them

  18. as regards ur saying arab gyal that keshmiris have arab features……they r hardly other than pure aryans and as their language is directly descended from the avestan & pahlavi persian…..and they have the same features as do other persian people….they r damn intelligent and rich too,,,and control large businesses and industries in india ,…morever they don’t marry with indians at all,,,they marry among themselves… as 4 their being arabs ….blond and blue eyed people can never be arabs…..

  19. sepenta u seriously need to get rid of these complications relating so called aryan (blonde blue eye fearures) im a pakistani myself . my grandparents from both sides are immigrants from arab iran afghan. my friend pakistan is indeed unique blend of many arab persian and afghan ethnicities. as regards to your comment blonde blue eye= not arab is stupid. across syria lebanon even saudi arab millions of arabs have these features , u can find thousands of kashmiries fairly bright skin long black or light brown eyebrows and eyelashes resembling lebanese. only in small portions of punjab people resemble indians a lil bit. u should visit kashmir to straighten yr facts

  20. Well Iran is parcially Arab but only aorund the western regions Arabs constitute a significant percentage of the Iranian population but yeah Iran is an ethnicly diverse nation.

  21. To Pakistaniboy:
    Youre an indian with an inferiority complex towards Pakistanis. Just because indians are ugly dravidians while Pakistanis are non-dravidian doesnt mean we’ll be used to make your people look good.
    We are proud of our ancient Indus Valley and Vedic civilization which had nothing to do with you and you know it. Anyone who think Pakistanis are dravidian like indians has obviously never seen a real Pakistani. They see a mohajir or a Brahui in Pakistan and think thats what Pakistanis look like.
    LOL ‘indians’ dont even have a common ethnicity as their ‘country’ created by the British consisting of 3000 princely states all indepdent till British put them together.

  22. I am a Pakistani Kashmiri, and I think its a good thing that people know Kashmiris are NOT Indians, I dont think we have any genetic links to Arabs, bcoz Kashmiris have a recorded history of about 5000 years and Arabs well since the advent of Islam which is about 1400 years.

    I dont like the idea that bcoz some arabs think we look like Lebanese that they should say things like they think were beautiful, like the lady above said. I personally am not a fan of theirs, as while they want Pakistan to help them when their in conflicts, they never ever came to Pakistans aid during the wars with India. None give a toss about what happens in Indian Kashmir, but they expect pakistanis and other muslims to sympathise with them over Palestine, a mess which they actually helped create, i.e by selling Palestinian land to Jews, who then started taking more than they paid for.

    Arabs have oil and have done nothing to help the muslim world, except when they get something out of it. Their language is Arabic the same as the Qurans yet if u read what it says and see what they do, its as though they think its 4 everyone else. They need to get their act 2gether if Islam is 2 survive, as their the cusodians of all the holy places of the muslim world. the way things are going it’l probably be extinct in another hundred years or so.

    Pakistanis shouldnt be ready to say things like were realted to Arabs bcoz their dumb and got lucky god stuck most of the oil in the desert. Without it what exactly have they done.

  23. To Kashmiri.
    Very well put! I applauds you!
    The Arabs are selfish and like to use Islam as a tool to use other non-Arab Muslims to be their servants.
    They have done almost nothing to support non-Arab Muslims in times of need. Heck they even befriend ‘kaffir’ countries that are hostile towards non-Arab Muslim countries.
    I’m a Pakistani nationalist and I support your statement regarding Kashmiris and Arabs. Genetic reports show that Kashmiris are closely related to Balochis & Pakhtuns and more distantly related to Sindhis and Punjabis.
    Indians on the other hand are Dravidian and are related to the aboriginies of Australia.
    I support Kahsmiris because of their common genetic linage with Pakistanis (mostly towards the west and northwest). If it was because of Islam that Kashmir should join Pakistan, then why not the rest of the Islamic world LOL.
    Please visit my website and our forum linked by my screen name. We need more Pakistanis like you & me to wake our people up and save them form the threat of indianz & Arab scum. Good bless Pakistanis (including Kashmiris)
    Pakistan Zindabad! Azaad Kashmir (aka Northern Pakistan) Zindabad!

  24. proud pakistani yes i support you from the bottom of my heart pakistan is such a beautiful country it has everything, trust me this country can go very far in power, and all it needs is better leaders and more love from our people :)they should realize our country is special in so many ways, it deserves to be blessed.
    pakistan zindabad!!! <3

Comments are closed.