An open challenge to Indians, if all Muslim empires in sub-continent were barbaric then name even a single saint-like Hindu empire in entire history!

[The Bald Eagle]

It is too easy to get brainwashed when your chief source of history are the propoganda based national text books. And it seems to be true for some so called scholars here who are too quick to brand any Muslim empires in Indian subcontinent as barbaric and uncivilized while at the same time doesn't even know the name of their Hindu ruled empires and their emperors who have scaled the same crimes against their own brethrens long ago and even during contemporary Muslim rule.

So this overreaction just expose the hypocrisy of Indians or they are too naive to believe in their concocted history text books?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

@Rajdeep my friend I want you to be the first to enlighten me on this topic... @uppercut @Hitman and other Indian posters are welcomed too.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Indians will start mentioning Bollywood names

 

[Rajdeep]

Needless desperate thread after I exposed OPs hypocrisy yesterday.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Needless desperate thread after I exposed OPs hypicrisy yesterday.

Defeated and running as usual......not your fault man...can understand your history is too weak and the main source is propoganda textbooks....

Anyways any other Indian poster to venture their luck??

 

[Rajdeep]

Defeated and running as usual......not your fault man...can understand your history is too weak and the main source is propoganda textbooks....

Anyways any other Indian poster to venture their luck??

I already asked the question to you in Trump Gaza thread. So pls answer it, either here or in that thread. Stop being desperate and open multiple threads on same topic. Also wake me up when an Indian poster creates a thread glorifying Hindu kings of the past and then subsequently opens another thread asking why Hinduphobia exists. LOL.

1. Islamic invaders can be glorified. Even though they killed thousands of hindus but Hindus must forget all those and praise them for building few monuments and infrastructure.

2. Same Hindus cant hate muslims even though in year 2025 the muslims are still glorifying those barbaric invaders who killed thousands of hindus. Or else a silly thread will appear why Islamophobia exists among Hindutvas?

3. Try to differentiate between evil and good work is fine for Islamic Invaders but cant apply to Israel or Western world when they try to rebuild the Gaza Strip going against Islamic traditions.

4. Another excuse will come, well in those days barbarism was accepted norm and even hindu kings have done it. But the question is, why are you opening a thread about it glorifying it today in 2025.

Kya Hypocrisy hai.

 

[sweep_shot]

Defeated and running as usual......not your fault man...can understand your history is too weak and the main source is propoganda textbooks....

Anyways any other Indian poster to venture their luck??

All these Muslim empires made India a relevant place and gave India an identity. Without these empires, India might not exist as it is now.

Before these empires, India was an irrelevant and boring place. It was divided into many small kingdoms.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I already asked the question to you in Trump Gaza thread. So pls answer it, either here or in that thread. Stop being desperate and open multiple threads on same topic. Also wake me up when an Indian poster creates a thread glorifying Hindu kings of the past and then subsequently opens another thread asking why Hinduphobia exists. LOL.

1. Islamic invaders can be glorified. Even though they killed thousands of hindus but Hindus must forget all those and praise them for building few monuments and infrastructure.

2. Same Hindus cant hate muslims even though in year 2025 the muslims are still glorifying those barbaric invaders who killed thousands of hindus. Or else a silly thread will appear why Islamophobia exists among Hindutvas?

3. Try to differentiate between evil and good work is fine for Islamic Invaders but cant apply to Israel or Western world when they try to rebuild the Gaza Strip going against Islamic traditions.

4. Another excuse will come, well in those days barbarism was accepted norm and even hindu kings have done it. But the question is, why are you opening a thread about it glorifying it today in 2025.

Kya Hypocrisy hai.

Ok to save India from Mongols was a service or disservice?

To not kick out Indians unlike India's best friend Israel was a disservice?

To not siphon off money like British empire was a mistake?

To keep an open door policy for Hindus in government jobs was a mistake?

And stop acting like a gruntled chap man, I already said tomorrow following who are you making fool?

Post in thread 'Delhi Sultanate Appreciation Thread - Positive Contributions of Delhi Sultanate in Indian Subcontinent'

Feb 26, 2025

@The Bald Eagle On one hand, you glorify barbaric rulers like the Delhi Sultanate and Mughals, who killed and forcibly converted thousands of Hindus, and then, on the other hand, you wonder why a bias against Muslims exists among Hindutvas—and even create a thread about it

Don't you yourself see the irony? Remove the green tinted bias and answer honestly.

Every coin has two sides...so is the case with these rulers...They weren't saint by any means and had some vices under their belt too. But the question is why you guys only see it wrong to desecrate temples (which indeed is...

• The Bald Eagle

• 

 

[The Bald Eagle]

@Rajdeep name one .....and yes just ONE Hindu empire which you believe to be a torch bearer for Muslims...or the Muslim rulers of past should have followed it..

Plz answer this without changing goal posts....and see none of your friends could brought an example either.

 

[Champ_Pal]

No empire won without shedding blood. Indian rulers had rules of war fare and adhered to it. Only soldiers fought. Common men were not involved. Wars were fought in battle grounds where armies met and fought.

Now with Turkic invaders, there were no rules. Common people on the streets were cannon fodder. Murdered, looting, slavery and females taken as sex slaves ending up in the harem of some rich dude. Women preferred death over that kind of life. A total abomination and this kind of warfare was unheard of in Indian subcontinent prior to Islamic invasions.

Open challenge?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

No empire won without shedding blood. Indian rulers had rules of war fare and adhered to it. Only soldiers fought. Common men were not involved. Wars were fought in battle grounds where armies met and fought.

Now with Turkic invaders, there were no rules. Common people on the streets were cannon fodder. Murdered, looting, slavery and females taken as sex slaves ending up in the harem of some rich dude. Women preferred death over that kind of life. A total abomination and this kind of warfare was unheard of in Indian subcontinent prior to Islamic invasions.

Open challenge?

Yep atleast you spelt some truth...Turkic invaders who fought against local MUSLIM RULERs did all this and that too indiscriminately but not the local Muslim rulers.

Local Muslim rulers just showed aggression at battle grounds and NEVER patronaged a systemic conversion campaign.

 

[LordJames]

Indians from this thread

 

[Champ_Pal]

Yep atleast you spelt some truth...Turkic invaders who fought against local MUSLIM RULERs did all this and that too indiscriminately but not the local Muslim rulers.

Local Muslim rulers just showed aggression at battle grounds and NEVER patronaged a systemic conversion campaign.

Modern day India did not have any Islamic rule until 11th century. In the early 8th century, present day Pakistan had faced Islamic invasion under Umayyads.
When Bin Qasim defeated Raja Dahir, Mr.Dahir's daughters were taken to the Caliph in Damascus as sex slaves. So this type of warfare is not just Turkic invaders forte.

Surya Devi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Modern day India did not have any Islamic rule until 11th century. In the early 8th century, present day Pakistan had faced Islamic invasion under Umayyads.
When Bin Qasim defeated Raja Dahir, Mr.Dahir's daughters were taken to the Caliph in Damascus as sex slaves. So this type of warfare is not just Turkic invaders forte.

Surya Devi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So any Muslim rulers who ruled India and siphoned off money to their home country too?
===
And on above incidents, there are different accounts. Some says Raja Dahir was the aggressor and caused this conflict in the first
place. And as you yourself said no proper Muslim empire got established in India until 11th century. But can you help us find a neglected torchbearer Hindu empire in history for the "barbaric" Muslim rulers of past

Arab conquest of Sindh - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Champ_Pal]

So any Muslim rulers who ruled India and siphoned off money to their home country too?
===
And on above incidents, there are different accounts. Some says Raja Dahir was the aggressor and caused this conflict in the first
place. And as you yourself said no proper Muslim empire got established in India until 11th century. But can you help us find a neglected torchbearer Hindu empire in history for the "barbaric" Muslim rulers of past

Arab conquest of Sindh - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Arabs needed an excuse to attack Sindh. Which they got by that pirates looting the booty of Arab merchant ships etc. There are ways to deal with it. Not attacking a foreign land and then enslaving the daughters of the ruler. Clearly shows what the motive was. Kidnapping of Muslim woman was just an excuse.

If the motive of attack was just to get the Muslim females from Pirates, they would have done it without much warfare and taken their women and gone back. But we know that was not the case. They occupied Sindh, enslaved females and killed the king.

Imagine there were pirates in Somalian coast. They were constantly harassing Indian merchant ships and kidnapping sailors for ransom. India sent the army, destroyed Pirate boats and got their kidnapped navy men back. India did not go into Somalia, occupied the country and enslaved their citizens. I hope you see the difference.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

So you really want to compare a 8th century event with today's scenario. Nice, ok that was a pretext for invasion and some acts that Ummayad shouldn't have done

But why you guys don't answer queries when we bring in crimes of Ashoka, Marathas and every other Hindu rulers against Shuddhur and Hindu womens through sati....does modern day comparison principle is unlawful there??

And most importantly I am ready to accept all these Muslim rulers were nothing but "savages" as some of indians here call...but PLZ do drop the example of an Ideal HIndu empire in History to make such comparison (The main question/premise of this thread)

Arabs needed an excuse to attack Sindh. Which they got by that pirates looting the booty of Arab merchant ships etc. There are ways to deal with it. Not attacking a foreign land and then enslaving the daughters of the ruler. Clearly shows what the motive was. Kidnapping of Muslim woman was just an excuse.

If the motive of attack was just to get the Muslim females from Pirates, they would have done it without much warfare and taken their women and gone back. But we know that was not the case. They occupied Sindh, enslaved females and killed the king.

Imagine there were pirates in Somalian coast. They were constantly harassing Indian merchant ships and kidnapping sailors for ransom. India sent the army, destroyed Pirate boats and got their kidnapped navy men back. India did not go into Somalia, occupied the country and enslaved their citizens. I hope you see the difference.

 

[LordJames]

Modern day India did not have any Islamic rule until 11th century. In the early 8th century, present day Pakistan had faced Islamic invasion under Umayyads.
When Bin Qasim defeated Raja Dahir, Mr.Dahir's daughters were taken to the Caliph in Damascus as sex slaves. So this type of warfare is not just Turkic invaders forte.

Surya Devi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Made up History from WhatsApp University

The story of kidnap of Surya Devi and her supposed collaboration to have Muhammad bin Qasim comes from Chach-Nama which is a writing of Ḥāmid b. Abī Bakr Kūfī, here are the problems with it:

1. The invasion of Sindh by Muhammad Bin Qasim happened somewhere between 708-711
2. Ḥāmid b. Abī Bakr Kūfī (the author of Chachnama) was an official in the court of Nasir ad-Din Qabacha (1203-1228)
3. There is NO original work of history (Arabic or otherwise) quoting these incidents
4. Chachnama was translated into English by Mirza Qaleech Baig in 1900*

So as I have asked, please quote as historical evidence to support your claims and not something written 500 years later and lastly your own "Wikipedia" page reads:

Chach Nama - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to Manan Ahmed Asif, Chach Nama is not a work of translation nor is a book of conquest. ʿAlī states that he wrote it to gain favor in the court of Nasiruddin Qabacha (Nasir ad-Din Qabacha). Asif adds that Qasim's campaign in Chach Nama is a deliberate shadowing of campaigns Chach undertook in "four corners of Sindh".[18] He states that the Chach Nama is centred on the historical figure of Muhammad bin Qasim found in extant Arabic manuscripts, but the 13th-century text is different, creatively extrapolating the alternative versions.[19] For example, the version of Qasim story found in the Kitab Futuh al-Buldan of Al-Baladhuri (9th-century) and the version found in memoirs of Al-Biruni (11th-century), are much simpler and "markedly different" in structure, circumstances and martial campaign than that elaborated in the Chach Nama.[20] In the Baladhuri version, for example, Qasim does not enter or destroy budd (temples) or compare them to "the churches of the Christians and the Jews and the fire houses of the Magians".[21] Further the Baladhuri version of the Qasim story repeatedly credits the monks and priestly mediators of Hind with negotiating peace with him, while Chach Nama presents a different, martial version. The Chach Nama drew upon Baladhuri's work, and others, as a template for the political history, but created a different and imaginative version of events. According to Asif, "there is little reason for us to consider the facticity" of verses in the Baladhuri's version either, an account written to glorify the martial conquest of courtly Abbasid times and composed over 200 years after Qasim's death. The Chach Nama is a romantic work influenced by the 13th-century history, not a historical text of the 8th-century, states Asif.[22

Read A Book of Conquest

Now, go get trolls to amend Wikipedia

 

[sweep_shot]

So you really want to compare a 8th century event with today's scenario. Nice, ok that was a pretext for invasion and some acts that Ummayad shouldn't have done

But why you guys don't answer queries when we bring in crimes of Ashoka, Marathas and every other Hindu rulers against Shuddhur and Hindu womens through sati....does modern day comparison principle is unlawful there??

I don't know why these Indians compare medieval period to current period. Very absurd.

There were different norms back then. It is like comparing a 80's cricketer with a modern cricketer. Different eras have different ways of doing things.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I don't know why these Indians compare medieval period to current period. Very absurd.

There were different norms back then. It is like comparing a 80's cricketer with a modern cricketer. Different eras have different ways of doing things.

Nope comparing ppl playing gulli danda in some 10th century to current batters

 

[Technics 1210]

First things first - 5000 year head start and no empire to show for it.

Secondly - every empire has expanded through some sort of resistance - no empire has expanded through pacifism.

Last but not least - every empire was underpinned by an ideology, predominantly religion, the fact India failed in 5000 years says everything you need to know about Hinduism, and Hindutva - which is clearly a force for division, and violence (domestic included).

At the end of the day, when your own countrymen are fleeing the bag of lies that is India, there is no empire to begin with - cos empires expand through unity!

 

[Rajdeep]

Ok to save India from Mongols was a service or disservice?

To not kick out Indians unlike India's best friend Israel was a disservice?

To not siphon off money like British empire was a mistake?

To keep an open door policy for Hindus in government jobs was a mistake?

And stop acting like a gruntled chap man, I already said tomorrow following who are you making fool?

Post in thread 'Delhi Sultanate Appreciation Thread - Positive Contributions of Delhi Sultanate in Indian Subcontinent'

Feb 26, 2025

@The Bald Eagle On one hand, you glorify barbaric rulers like the Delhi Sultanate and Mughals, who killed and forcibly converted thousands of Hindus, and then, on the other hand, you wonder why a bias against Muslims exists among Hindutvas—and even create a thread about it

Don't you yourself see the irony? Remove the green tinted bias and answer honestly.

Every coin has two sides...so is the case with these rulers...They weren't saint by any means and had some vices under their belt too. But the question is why you guys only see it wrong to desecrate temples (which indeed is...

• The Bald Eagle

• 

Nice excuses but will not work unfortunately. Similarly Netanyahu and Trump can also multiple excuses that you have listed to invade Gaza like to make that region prosperous, build universities, education, science etc.

However, people will not accept because they will be invading someone else's land without persmission.

Similarly, Islamic invaders entered India against the will of then Indians, killed and converted them and took their land and ruled over them.

You praise the one and shed crocodile tear for another one shows your hypocrisy.

 

[Rajdeep]

Imagine if what Trump is saying go onto actually do it. That is take control of Gaza, make development and make it one of the advanced cities in the world.

300 years later, someone in internet forums opens a thread applauding the Contributions of Israel in historical land of Palestine. Then if someone try to highlight the genocide that happened, he will be asked to alienate between good and bad.

That is exactly what is happening now and people are hiding under words now that I have check mated them in their own game of whataboutery.

 

[Champ_Pal]

So you really want to compare a 8th century event with today's scenario. Nice, ok that was a pretext for invasion and some acts that Ummayad shouldn't have done

But why you guys don't answer queries when we bring in crimes of Ashoka, Marathas and every other Hindu rulers against Shuddhur and Hindu womens through sati....does modern day comparison principle is unlawful there??

And most importantly I am ready to accept all these Muslim rulers were nothing but "savages" as some of indians here call...but PLZ do drop the example of an Ideal HIndu empire in History to make such comparison (The main question/premise of this thread)

First of all, thanks for acknowledging that Umayyads were wrong in attacking Sindh.

Ashoka was called a Tyrant. No one glorifies him.
Marathas themselves were Shudra. Chatrapathi Shivaji was from low caste Hindu. He never fought wars Dharmic style. He did guerilla warfare to take down the Islamic rulers initially. He is glorified because he was one of the few Hindus who at least had the spine to take on mighty Mughal empire and reduce them to a small kingdom after Aurangzen's rule.

Lets talk about Sati. It is recorded twice in Hindu mythology.
1) when Lord Shiva's wife Parvati(Sati) in her previous life was insulted by her Father. She could not handle the insult and self immolated. No one pushed her into the funeral pyre or anything.
2) In Mahabharata, King Pandu's wife Madri felt that it was because of her King Pandu died. She jumps into the funeral pyre in spite of all the Sages and wise men in the court pleading her not to take the extreme step.

We have to remember, Mahabharata had tons of widows in the entire story. No one committed Sati. King Pandu's wife Kunti did not do Sati even after Pandu dies. It was never mandatory.
Sati was a voluntary giving up of life of women. The practice is despicable and should have been banned. The ban was never implemented and its a huge black mark on Hindu history. Sati was clearly misused by wicked people to get rid of women who they felt could pose a threat to the property rights. No one practices it anymore. It became popular among Rajput women as Jauhar. When groups of Rajput women self immolate for the fear of being captured by Islamic invaders and sold into slavery. It was never widely practiced. Mostly among elite women who were hell bent on preserving their honor. They would burn their bodies so that when the invader captures their bodies, they cannot rape them. Its a sad story.


Regarding Caste discrimination, it was never based on birth. It is based on the attributes. It got corrupted over time and became rigid. This is why we can see the most Aryan looking Brahmin and also the most aboriginal looking Brahmin. Same goes for the most Aryan looking low caste person and also the most aboriginal looking looking low caste person. By the time the caste system based on birth was implemented, the mixing has happened for hundreds and thousands of years.

I support caste system based on attributes. By birth is pathetic and one of the main reasons India suffered. It was harsh on every caste including upper caste people.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I don't know why these Indians compare medieval period to current period. Very absurd.

There were different norms back then. It is like comparing a 80's cricketer with a modern cricketer. Different eras have different ways of doing things.

Human suffering is the same irrespective of time periods. This is why we should criticize the evils of the past and not glorify them just because they are your coreligionists.

 

[LordJames]

Human suffering is the same irrespective of time periods. This is why we should criticize the evils of the past and not glorify them just because they are your coreligionists.

Provide evidence of who suffered and how and we can then discuss the "suffering", so far its all from

If you don't know, ask and discuss from a clear, candid and rational point of view.

 

[KingKhanWC]

First things first - 5000 year head start and no empire to show for it.

Secondly - every empire has expanded through some sort of resistance - no empire has expanded through pacifism.

Last but not least - every empire was underpinned by an ideology, predominantly religion, the fact India failed in 5000 years says everything you need to know about Hinduism, and Hindutva - which is clearly a force for division, and violence (domestic included).

At the end of the day, when your own countrymen are fleeing the bag of lies that is India, there is no empire to begin with - cos empires expand through unity!

100%

There has never been a hindu empire . True empires span continents, this rule hardly went past the indus.

I dont mean to offend, sure they excel at many things but combat has never been their forte.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Nice excuses but will not work unfortunately. Similarly Netanyahu and Trump can also multiple excuses that you have listed to invade Gaza like to make that region prosperous, build universities, education, science etc.

However, people will not accept because they will be invading someone else's land without persmission.

Similarly, Islamic invaders entered India against the will of then Indians, killed and converted them and took their land and ruled over them.

You praise the one and shed crocodile tear for another one shows your hypocrisy.

Wow....nice I didn't know that Invaders in medieval era used to take permission before invasion

And yep those who support Israel today in 2025 are lecturing us on hypocrisy

And why can't you understand simple stuff....That was the era of empires but even then let's suppose what you are saying is absolutely true...then when Hindus didn't extinguish as a population or weren't extradited to Central Asia.

As way after Mughals anglo Saxons invaded US and almost extinguished aboriginal Red Indians and same goes for British invaders in Australia and Portuguese in their colony but but....Muslims made mass forced conversions and British empire wasn't that bad as they just brought preachers to convert local Indians with their consent

 

[sweep_shot]

100%

There has never been a hindu empire . True empires span continents, this rule hardly went past the indus.

I dont mean to offend, sure they excel at many things but combat has never been their forte.

Correct.

Like I mentioned before, before these Muslim empires, entire Indian region was quite irrelevant. It was filled with small kingdoms. There was nothing called India.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

First of all, thanks for acknowledging that Umayyads were wrong in attacking Sindh.

Ashoka was called a Tyrant. No one glorifies him.
Marathas themselves were Shudra. Chatrapathi Shivaji was from low caste Hindu. He never fought wars Dharmic style. He did guerilla warfare to take down the Islamic rulers initially. He is glorified because he was one of the few Hindus who at least had the spine to take on mighty Mughal empire and reduce them to a small kingdom after Aurangzen's rule.

Lets talk about Sati. It is recorded twice in Hindu mythology.
1) when Lord Shiva's wife Parvati(Sati) in her previous life was insulted by her Father. She could not handle the insult and self immolated. No one pushed her into the funeral pyre or anything.
2) In Mahabharata, King Pandu's wife Madri felt that it was because of her King Pandu died. She jumps into the funeral pyre in spite of all the Sages and wise men in the court pleading her not to take the extreme step.

We have to remember, Mahabharata had tons of widows in the entire story. No one committed Sati. King Pandu's wife Kunti did not do Sati even after Pandu dies. It was never mandatory.
Sati was a voluntary giving up of life of women. The practice is despicable and should have been banned. The ban was never implemented and its a huge black mark on Hindu history. Sati was clearly misused by wicked people to get rid of women who they felt could pose a threat to the property rights. No one practices it anymore. It became popular among Rajput women as Jauhar. When groups of Rajput women self immolate for the fear of being captured by Islamic invaders and sold into slavery. It was never widely practiced. Mostly among elite women who were hell bent on preserving their honor. They would burn their bodies so that when the invader captures their bodies, they cannot rape them. Its a sad story.


Regarding Caste discrimination, it was never based on birth. It is based on the attributes. It got corrupted over time and became rigid. This is why we can see the most Aryan looking Brahmin and also the most aboriginal looking Brahmin. Same goes for the most Aryan looking low caste person and also the most aboriginal looking looking low caste person. By the time the caste system based on birth was implemented, the mixing has happened for hundreds and thousands of years.

I support caste system based on attributes. By birth is pathetic and one of the main reasons India suffered. It was harsh on every caste including upper caste people.

I appreciate your condemnation of wrong practices but who are these Marathas??

Post in thread 'Why Indians applaud Shiv Maharaj more than Prithvi Raj Chohan? Although the latter was more valiant'

Feb 25, 2025

@sweep_shot but Delhi Sultanate was Haram and this was Halal and progressive regime . And burning temples here were justified
===

The Maratha Empire, while known for its military prowess and administrative achievements, was also involved in several conflicts and atrocities:

1. Maratha Invasions of Bengal (1742-1751): The Marathas invaded Bengal multiple times, leading to significant civilian casualties. Atrocities included mass killings, mutilations, and sexual violence against the local population.
2. Attacks on Temples and Towns in Karnataka: In the 1750s...

• The Bald Eagle

• 

 

[Rajdeep]

Wow....nice I didn't know that Invaders in medieval era used to take permission before invasion

And yep those who support Israel today in 2025 are lecturing us on hypocrisy

And why can't you understand simple stuff....That was the era of empires but even then let's suppose what you are saying is absolutely true...then when Hindus didn't extinguish as a population or weren't extradited to Central Asia.

As way after Mughals anglo Saxons invaded US and almost extinguished aboriginal Red Indians and same goes for British invaders in Australia and Portuguese in their colony but but....Muslims made mass forced conversions and British empire wasn't that bad as they just brought preachers to convert local Indians with their consent

Hiding behind era will also not work with me unfortunately as I look at it as another excuse. Though I agree invasions in 500 years ago were a norm and no one is denying it. The point being, why, in the year 2025, we are opening threads to glorify those invaders. No one can erase the past but the expectation from youths like yourself who cry for Palestanian and their rights to have no love for any invaders, let alone glorifying them. There in lies the hypocrisy and if you still want to act ignorant be my guest.

 

[Local.Dada]

@The Bald Eagle are you descendant from some royal lineage of old sultanates? I think you seem to take these topics very personally or seem too invested in them. Serious question.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

First of all, you are twisting things....No one here is glorifying their wrong actions but just highlighting their positive contributions for Indian subcontinent.

Glorifying one's crime (as some indians do for Israel) and highlighting some rulers positive contributions is different things. By no means you can make them as one. Simple

Hiding behind era will also not work with me unfortunately as I look at it as another excuse. Though I agree invasions in 500 years ago were a norm and no one is denying it. The point being, why, in the year 2025, we are opening threads to glorify those invaders. No one can erase the past but the expectation from youths like yourself who cry for Palestanian and their rights to have no love for any invaders, let alone glorifying them. There in lies the hypocrisy and if you still want to act ignorant be my guest.

 

[LordJames]

Muslim Invasion of India & Historical Records

Most Hindus have googled and read quotations from Chachnama when they are making points about forced conversions and mass rapes etc.​

1. Muhammad Bin Qasim invaded sindh between 708-711
2. Chachnama is a romanticized work of fiction by a Muslim writer Ḥāmid b. Abī Bakr Kūfī who was an official in the court of Nasir ad-Din Qabacha (1203-1228), 500 years later
3. Chachnama makes no claims of mass Hindu enslavement or mass Hindu rapes or mass Hindu conversions whatsoever.
4. Chachnama makes a claim that Makran was captured by Muslims during the reign of Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab (RA) much earlier which debunks the claim that Islam entered India by the invasion of Muhammad Ibn Qasim
5. Chachnama also claims that "Sindh" was so barren & desolate that Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab (RA) pulled back his army

So from the same source we have these issues:

Claim 2 is a serious issue because a guy is writing history 500 years later without first hand knowledge.
Claim 3 debunks Hindu claims because if they are quoting Chachnama (as accurate) then the same source does not mention any mass rapes, murders or forced conversions.
Claim 4 makes a point that Islam entered India much earlier
Claim 5 debunks the idea that Raja Dahir ruled some vast thriving kingdom and Muslims were greedy and wanted to usuprp the wealth of Sindh (a few decades later) and proves the point of Muslims that Raja Dahir was a bloodthristy pirate who messed with the wrong people and lost his head as a result.

From a Muslim point of view, no historian of any repute has taken Chachnama seriously! But if Hindus quote it, we will quote the same source which is conflicting, confusing and inaccuarte.​

 

[The Bald Eagle]

@The Bald Eagle are you descendant from some royal lineage of old sultanates? I think you seem to take these topics very personally or seem too invested in them. Serious question.

@Local.Dada, infact the opposite looks true for you guys...infact you guys appear to be first cousin of Modi as till this date yet to see some Indian poster (specifically BJP posters) to openly condemn Gujrat massacre with Modi's main role.

Do you have that audacity???? And why you guys get touchy when we show you guys that how come you could call Hindu rulers of past saint when after 30 plus posts...none of you have tendered the example of an ideal Hindu empire (the premise of the thread) and are really happy to digress

 

[Local.Dada]

First of all, you are twisting things....No one here is glorifying their wrong actions but just highlighting their positive contributions for Indian subcontinent.

Glorifying one's crime (as some indians do for Israel) and highlighting some rulers positive contributions is different things. By no means you can make them as one. Simple

British or Europeans colonized Africa and India, it is still viewed as colonialism and they are viewed as foreigners. Nothing will change that fact. If they built train stations or post office, good for them. Plenty of countries were not colonized. They eventually figured out how to build themselves. Indians have sustained even now to be a player in world politics.

They were foreign invaders/foreigners and they will never be accepted by the locals Hindus or Muslims. 1-2 good attributes won’t change the fact they tried to mess with the locals, did a lot of damage to local customs and people and eventually faded away without a trace and their descendants live in slums now.

Nothing to celebrate about a bunch of warlords who violated women, killed their own parents/ siblings etc etc.

 

[Rajdeep]

First of all, you are twisting things....No one here is glorifying their wrong actions but just highlighting their positive contributions for Indian subcontinent.

Glorifying one's crime (as some indians do for Israel) and highlighting some rulers positive contributions is different things. By no means you can make them as one. Simple

Show me one Indian that have glorified the crimes commited by Israel. I have myself criticized them for indiscriminately killing innocent civilians. However it is a fact that Israel is one of the most developed nations on earth. They have also made significant contributions in the land of Palestine.

Let me know if you would like someone to open a thread glorifying the positive contributions of Israel forgetting all the genocide.

 

[Local.Dada]

@Local.Dada, infact the opposite looks true for you guys...infact you guys appear to be first cousin of Modi as till this date yet to see some Indian poster (specifically BJP posters) to openly condemn Gujrat massacre with Modi's main role.

Do you have that audacity???? And why you guys get touchy when we show you guys that how come you could call Hindu rulers of past saint when after 30 plus posts...none of you have tendered the example of an ideal Hindu empire (the premise of the thread) and are really happy to digress

Modi is democratically elected PM of India. Also he is not above criticism but it is limited to what he does or doesn’t do for nation.

Aurangazeb and you have 0 connection apart from Islam. Not even from the same country or region.

Hindu rulers are not saints but they are not foreign invaders. That ends the debate.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

British or Europeans colonized Africa and India, it is still viewed as colonialism and they are viewed as foreigners. Nothing will change that fact. If they built train stations or post office, good for them. Plenty of countries were not colonized. They eventually figured out how to build themselves. Indians have sustained even now to be a player in world politics.

They were foreign invaders/foreigners and they will never be accepted by the locals Hindus or Muslims. 1-2 good attributes won’t change the fact they tried to mess with the locals, did a lot of damage to local customs and people and eventually faded away without a trace and their descendants live in slums now.

Nothing to celebrate about a bunch of warlords who violated women, killed their own parents/ siblings etc etc.

Any Hindu empire who didn't killed their own people and were their real well-wisher...plz go ahead and name one

 

[anikrc1]

All these Muslim empires made India a relevant place and gave India an identity. Without these empires, India might not exist as it is now.

Before these empires, India was an irrelevant and boring place. It was divided into many small kingdoms.

Learn some history. Birthplace of Buddhism, Sankhya, zero and modern arithmetic which later translates to algbra, medical geniuses like sushrut and Charak, binary logic, world's richest country under both the Maurya and Gupta rules. P. S. The Islamic civiliztion you were so proud in got the fundamentals of its mathematics from Indian mathematics.

 

[LordJames]

Modi is democratically elected PM of India. Also he is not above criticism but it is limited to what he does or doesn’t do for nation.

Aurangazeb and you have 0 connection apart from Islam. Not even from the same country or region.

Hindu rulers are not saints but they are not foreign invaders. That ends the debate.

The "0 connection" is the only connection which matters and something you can't fathom or understand.

A Muslim is connected to another Muslim regardless of race, color, culture, language and transcends the superficial nature ,while the connections of Non-Muslims are superficial and skin deep.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

@Rajdeep you have played into my hand...I literally remember some and will post references to those in anti Muslim bias thread later.

Show me one Indian that have glorified the crimes commited by Israel. I have myself criticized them for indiscriminately killing innocent civilians. However it is a fact that Israel is one of the most developed nations on earth. They have also made significant contributions in the land of Palestine.

Let me know if you would like someone to open a thread glorifying the positive contributions of Israel forgetting all the genocide.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Modi is democratically elected PM of India. Also he is not above criticism but it is limited to what he does or doesn’t do for nation.

Aurangazeb and you have 0 connection apart from Islam. Not even from the same country or region.

Hindu rulers are not saints but they are not foreign invaders. That ends the debate.

Wow so being a local ruler gives you the license to go on a killing spree or pogrom on your own masses.

This way Hitler was a DEMOCRATICALLY elected ruler who did pogrom of Jews? But yeah end of debate can't blame him now ? Right

 

[Local.Dada]

Any Hindu empire who didn't killed their own people and were their real well-wisher...plz go ahead and name one

We have stories of kings cutting of their own hand to honor their teacher. There might be bad apples but we don’t celebrate them. We only regard Kings with high moral character.

Aurangazeb- killed all his brothers, imprisoned his father and even tortured him, had a harem full of women as conquests: I am not saying 3-4 wives but the concubines etc.

Every Mughal king has the same story.

Babar as per Babar Nama consumed opium, alcohol- so much for being Islamic and there are other rumors I won’t go into.

What is there to celebrate. Zilch.

Ashoka’s story ends with redemption when he became a non-violent saint after the war.

Different sensibilities I guess.

 

[anikrc1]

100%

There has never been a hindu empire . True empires span continents, this rule hardly went past the indus.

I dont mean to offend, sure they excel at many things but combat has never been their forte.

The Indian empires never reached outside for the same reason as the Chinese empire never reaching outside. This were the two richest places in earth. No need for going outside. Even then Indian empires actually were in places like Indonesia and Bali.

 

[Rajdeep]

@Local.Dada, infact the opposite looks true for you guys...infact you guys appear to be first cousin of Modi as till this date yet to see some Indian poster (specifically BJP posters) to openly condemn Gujrat massacre with Modi's main role.

Do you have that audacity???? And why you guys get touchy when we show you guys that how come you could call Hindu rulers of past saint when after 30 plus posts...none of you have tendered the example of an ideal Hindu empire (the premise of the thread) and are really happy to digress

Who said Modi was responsible for Gujarat riots? Pakistanis like yourself?

Supreme court under Congress govt gave him clean chit after years of investigation. So exactly on what you want us to condemn him for?

Also, he is a democratically elected leader of a country where people have voted him to power thrice as PM. He is not an invader like those you glorify.

Btw, bump the thread of Gujarat riots and I will educate you there too. Ever heard of Godhra train burnings full of Kar sevaks? Try that again in India and there will again another riot - Modi or no Modi. Aurangzeb ke bacche log India rule nehi karte anymore...think you are forgetting.

 

[Local.Dada]

The "0 connection" is the only connection which matters and something you can't fathom or understand.

A Muslim is connected to another Muslim regardless of race, color, culture, language and transcends the superficial nature ,while the connections of Non-Muslims are superficial and skin deep.

Why do you need a visa to go to Saudi Arabia then?

 

[LordJames]

Learn some history. Birthplace of Buddhism, Sankhya, zero and modern arithmetic which later translates to algbra, medical geniuses like sushrut and Charak, binary logic, world's richest country under both the Maurya and Gupta rules. P. S. The Islamic civiliztion you were so proud in got the fundamentals of its mathematics from Indian mathematics.

And Muslims have no inferiority complex to admire and admit that many of the Muslim scientific discoveries were built on previous discoveries, no issues with that.

Many of the Hindus are nice, peace loving people and Muslims have no issues with Hindus otherwise Hindus or Mandirs won't exist in India today after hundreds of years of Islamic rule.

Muslims (like any other humans) have a problem with racist, egotistical bigots.

 

[LordJames]

Why do you need a visa to go to Saudi Arabia then?

Connection with a Muslim and a sovereignty of Nation-states are two different concepts, entirely.

All Muslims are connected but it doesn't mean I have the write to enter another Muslim's house without their permission!
Are you able to enter the house of your biological brother without seeking permission?
Do you have commonsense?

 

[Local.Dada]

Who said Modi was responsible for Gujarat riots? Pakistanis like yourself?

Supreme court under Congress govt gave him clean chit after years of investigation. So exactly on what you want us to condemn him for?

Also, he is a democratically elected leader of a country where people have voted him to power thrice as PM. He is not an invader like those you glorify.

Btw, bump the thread of Gujarat riots and I will educate you there too. Ever heard of Godhra train burnings full of Kar sevaks? Try that again in India and there will again another riot - Modi or no Modi. Aurangzeb ke bacche log India rule nehi karte anymore...think you are forgetting.

Unbeleivable that between Aurangzeb and Modi there is no middle ground lol.

Every chooran is sold Gujarat etc:

If a country like Pakistan basically with converts from Punjab, UP-Bihar have mercilessly wiped out minorities and still a dangerous place for minorities of same ethnic group; we are supposed to beleive foreign warlords like Aurangazeb and his ilk were secular . I rest my case.

 

[JaDed]

I
Also I’m surprised you know all Hindu Kings , which I doubt.
I think all kings were power hungry and monarchy overall should be abolished esp in this day and age.

Now on Hindu kingdoms I don’t know about how peaceful they are but if Pakistanis are interested I would say to start from Vasudeva-1’s reign, unless you think Dharmic religion Kings didn’t matter.

 

[anikrc1]

And Muslims have no inferiority complex to admire and admit that many of the Muslim scientific discoveries were built on previous discoveries, no issues with that.

Many of the Hindus are nice, peace loving people and Muslims have no issues with Hindus otherwise Hindus or Mandirs won't exist in India today after hundreds of years of Islamic rule.

Muslims (like any other humans) have a problem with racist, egotistical bigots.

The post I was replying to said that India was irrelevant, which is clearly not the case. I made no remarks about Muslims.

 

[Itachi]

100%

There has never been a hindu empire . True empires span continents, this rule hardly went past the indus.

I dont mean to offend, sure they excel at many things but combat has never been their forte.

This is true actually. Engage in wars, Invading Neighboring countries were not forte of the Hindu kings. This is indeed quite a contrast from islamic rulers who spread their boundaries and propagated religion on tip of the sword. Rarely a Hindu king could stand up to these rulers because ruthlessness should come from within but Hindu kings were too kind to even consider it as option.

OP is actually right in some sort of way. There was never been a saint like hindu empire because in order to build a empire; you'll have to be barbaric which, the islamic rulers were very capable of but opposite was true for the Hindu kings.

 

[Local.Dada]

Connection with a Muslim and a sovereignty of Nation-states are two different concepts, entirely.

All Muslims are connected but it doesn't mean I have the write to enter another Muslim's house without their permission!
Are you able to enter the house of your biological brother without seeking permission?
Do you have commonsense?

What a foolish logic. Correct there is something called soverignity of nation, that is why except Arabs , other Muslim has 0% stake on their oil. Same goes for Iranians and Iraqis etc.

I think Persians, Afghanis, Turks, Arabs all have ethnic pride. In fact a lot of Indian Muslims too but I think it benefits the subcontinent ones Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and some Indian Muslims to attach themselves to a foreign identity from some inferiority complex. A Hindu Indian with a good resume is more likely to get a visa for Arab countries than a Pak Muslim: let that sink in.

Based on that soverinity only we consider Islamic invaders barbarians. You answered your own question.

 

[JaDed]

Guess a Chinese Empire didn’t exist either because it didn’t span continents, lol some of the logic people use.

 

[LordJames]

What a foolish logic. Correct there is something called soverignity of nation, that is why except Arabs , other Muslim has 0% stake on their oil. Same goes for Iranians and Iraqis etc.

I think Persians, Afghanis, Turks, Arabs all have ethnic pride. In fact a lot of Indian Muslims too but I think it benefits the subcontinent ones Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and some Indian Muslims to attach themselves to a foreign identity from some inferiority complex. A Hindu Indian with a good resume is more likely to get a visa for Arab countries than a Pak Muslim: let that sink in.

Based on that soverinity only we consider Islamic invaders barbarians. You answered your own question.

Let me try again...

Answer 1:

Connection with another human being and pride in their nation are two separate issues. A person has love for their soil, its culture, its people but they are choosing to connect to another human based on something which is more than skin-deep so they have intellectually processed the issue and risen above base instinctive emotion.

While you are choosing to continue to live within the confines of base instinct and rudimentary emotions and values.

So your point proves that Muslims are intellectually superior while Hindus are intellectually inferior and I have no choice but to agree with you.

Answer 2:

India didn't exist in a Nation at the time when you are discussing history, if it did prove it!

Answer 3:

All (Arabs, Non-Arabs, Muslims or Non-Muslims) require a VISA to visit Saudi Arabia, who told you that they "accept" Arabs? Is the following your source:

 

[anikrc1]

Guess a Chinese Empire didn’t exist either because it didn’t span continents, lol some of the logic people use.

Yeah, because just like the india, they didn't need one, India and China were at the forefront of human civilization for 2500 years. The Greek civilization peaked the highest, but they didn't have the longevity, to use cricketing terms.

 

[LordJames]

This is true actually. Engage in wars, Invading Neighboring countries were not forte of the Hindu kings. This is indeed quite a contrast from islamic rulers who spread their boundaries and propagated religion on tip of the sword. Rarely a Hindu king could stand up to these rulers because ruthlessness should come from within but Hindu kings were too kind to even consider it as option.

OP is actually right in some sort of way. There was never been a saint like hindu empire because in order to build a empire; you'll have to be barbaric which, the islamic rulers were very capable of but opposite was true for the Hindu kings.

As I said before cut the BS because I have actually studied Hinduism.

Leave Islam aside and "educate" us on Arjuna?

 

[Local.Dada]

Let me try again...

Answer 1:

Connection with another human being and pride in their nation are two separate issues. A person has love for their soil, its culture, its people but they are choosing to connect to another human based on something which is more than skin-deep so they have intellectually processed the issue and risen above base instinctive emotion.

While you are choosing to continue to live within the confines of base instinct and rudimentary emotions and values.

So your point proves that Muslims are intellectually superior while Hindus are intellectually inferior and I have no choice but to agree with you.

Answer 2:

India didn't exist in a Nation at the time when you are discussing history, if it did prove it!

Answer 3:

All (Arabs, Non-Arabs, Muslims or Non-Muslims) require a VISA to visit Saudi Arabia, who told you that they "accept" Arabs? Is the following your source:

If there was nothing called Hindustan than where did the mention of conquering “Ghazwa-e-Hind” or “British East India company” pop up from. Our prayers start with “ Bharata Varshe, Bharata Khande” in Sanskrit written over 2000+ yrs ago. Obviously years of brainwash has made you lose it: go to Pakistan to any temple and check that with the local priest if you have the chance.


Too much gibberish and whatever helps you sleep at night but here is how it works

Every Arab nation honors PM Modi the so called “Butcher of Gujarat” because they work with Hindus/Hindustan on equal terms.

Same reason why Afghanis respect Indians more than Pakistanis or Bangladeshis

Same reason why Islamic Bangladesh couldn’t get along with Islamic Pakistan.

Same reason not a single Indian Muslim will go to Pak or Bangla

maybe WhatsApp is better source of info from the religious educational institute in the small gully you are attending.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Indians will start mentioning Bollywood names

Exactly, case Closed !! Karlo Bhangra... without even trying to learn .. literal paindu mentality at full display here

 

[Itachi]

As I said before cut the BS because I have actually studied Hinduism.

Leave Islam aside and "educate" us on Arjuna?

What should I do with the fact that you studied Hinduism?

You studied, very good. Be proud of yourself.

I just agreed with OP. I don't even understand what was your objection about.

 

[Local.Dada]

What should I do with the fact that you studied Hinduism?

What was his source should be the first question hopefully not from that maulvi who speaks in a Punjabi accent.

 

[anikrc1]

And Muslims have no inferiority complex to admire and admit that many of the Muslim scientific discoveries were built on previous discoveries, no issues with that.

Many of the Hindus are nice, peace loving people and Muslims have no issues with Hindus otherwise Hindus or Mandirs won't exist in India today after hundreds of years of Islamic rule.

Muslims (like any other humans) have a problem with racist, egotistical bigots.

This is not a statement about Muslims but Abrahamic religionn in general. Abrahamic religion wherever they spread had usually erased the local religions. The great Greek religion of Zeus and Athena is no more, no on worships Thor, nor the sun in Egypt. There are only a few Zoorathirstians now, mostly in India. So Hindu religion surviving, does it speak more about the strength of Hindu religion or about the generosity of the Abrahamic rulers?

 

[LordJames]

If there was nothing called Hindustan than where did the mention of conquering “Ghazwa-e-Hind” or “British East India company” pop up from. Our prayers start with “ Bharata Varshe, Bharata Khande” in Sanskrit written over 2000+ yrs ago. Obviously years of brainwash has made you lose it: go to Pakistan to any temple and check that with the local priest if you have the chance.


Too much gibberish and whatever helps you sleep at night but here is how it works

Every Arab nation honors PM Modi the so called “Butcher of Gujarat” because they work with Hindus/Hindustan on equal terms.

Same reason why Afghanis respect Indians more than Pakistanis or Bangladeshis

Same reason why Islamic Bangladesh couldn’t get along with Islamic Pakistan.

Same reason not a single Indian Muslim will go to Pak or Bangla

maybe WhatsApp is better source of info from the religious educational institute in the small gully you are attending.

Hindustan?

This name comes from "Hind" which comes from Arabic so Muslims gave you this name as evident in your badly quoting of "Ghazwa-e-Hind"

IF you want to be educated about "Ghazwatul-Hind", we can educate you so you don't continue to make a fool of yourself.

Even the name to this region (as a cohesive entity) was given by Muslims and that is the entire point of this thread that this cohesive entity (which you call India) did not exist before Muslims and then it was formalized by the British

 

[LordJames]

This is not a statement about Muslims but Abrahamic religionn in general. Abrahamic religion wherever they spread had usually erased the local religions. The great Greek religion of Zeus and Athena is no more, no on worships Thor, nor the sun in Egypt. There are only a few Zoorathirstians now, mostly in India. So Hindu religion surviving, does it speak more about the strength of Hindu religion or about the generosity of the Abrahamic rulers?

Prophet Abraham (Peace be upon Him) was a Muslim.

[3:67] Ibrāhīm was neither a Jew nor a Christian. But he was upright, a Muslim, and was not one of those who associate partners with Allah.

What was his source should be the first question

hopefully not from that maulvi who speaks in a Punjabi accent.

In the context of violence, educate about Arjuna from Hindu sources.

Go Ahead.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Hindustan?

This name comes from "Hind" which comes from Arabic so Muslims gave you this name as evident in your badly quoting of "Ghazwa-e-Hind"

IF you want to be educated about "Ghazwatul-Hind", we can educate you so you don't continue to make a fool of yourself.

Even the name to this region (as a cohesive entity) was given by Muslims and that is the entire point of this thread that this cohesive entity (which you call India) did not exist before Muslims and then it was formalized by the British

Muslims didn't exist when the word Hindustan came into existence.

Its funny how Muslims sneakily take credit for stuff that has existed long before Prophet Muhammad existed.


Come back with facts, little kid, Git Gud!

 

[Local.Dada]

Hindustan?

This name comes from "Hind" which comes from Arabic so Muslims gave you this name as evident in your badly quoting of "Ghazwa-e-Hind"

IF you want to be educated about "Ghazwatul-Hind", we can educate you so you don't continue to make a fool of yourself.

Even the name to this region (as a cohesive entity) was given by Muslims and that is the entire point of this thread that this cohesive entity (which you call India) did not exist before Muslims and then it was formalized by the British

If you can read properly I said “Bharata Varshe Bharata Khande”. I didn’t say “Hindustan” which was a name given by Islamic barbaric invaders. Just like Europeans called it India.

Varshe- means lineage and Khande means continent.

It is “Akhand Bharat” not “Akhand Hindustan”.

What is it that I didn’t explain properly?

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Prophet Abraham (Peace be upon Him) was a Muslim.



In the context of violence, educate about Arjuna from Hindu sources.

Go Ahead.

. Did Abraham know that he was a Muslim?
Man the brainwashing is extreme

 

[Itachi]

Prophet Abraham (Peace be upon Him) was a Muslim.

I don't see how you won the POTW to be honest because it seems like you lack basic understanding of what a post trying to say.

Lets say abraham was indeed muslim. How does that negate anything regarding the post that you quoted.

Your form seems to be failing lot quicker than PCT.

 

[Local.Dada]

Prophet Abraham (Peace be upon Him) was a Muslim.



In the context of violence, educate about Arjuna from Hindu sources.

Go Ahead.

Since you are curious about Arjuna- he was worried about killing his family members and showed empathy even though they were the bad guys. That’s when there was justification about Dharma and Adharma- good and bad.

It’s not like Islamic invaders who wanted to loot, rape for fun and kill their own family
Members for throne, women, money.

Different sensibilities. Also where did you learn your Hinduism from Inzimam- Ul- Haq

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

I don't see how you won the POTW to be honest because it seems like you lack basic understanding of what a post trying to say.

Lets say abraham was indeed muslim. How does that negate anything regarding the post that you quoted.

Your form seems to be failing lot quicker than PCT.

I think some troll has taken over his account or he is high. This thread is a total troll fest.
Better to move out, before mods get their sensitivities hurt and start issuing their Gauri missiles on us

 

[anikrc1]

Prophet Abraham (Peace be upon Him) was a Muslim.



In the context of violence, educate about Arjuna from Hindu sources.

Go Ahead.

Prophet Abraham being a Muslim is a religious belief for Muslims, not one to Christians and jews. Though this is a tangent to my post in general.

 

[LordJames]

If you can read properly I said “Bharata Varshe Bharata Khande”. I didn’t say “Hindustan” which was a name given by Islamic barbaric invaders. Just like Europeans called it India.

Varshe- means lineage and Khande means continent.

It is “Akhand Bharat” not “Akhand Hindustan”.

What is it that I didn’t explain properly?

Puranas contradictions & Hindus

1. Hindus ascribe the name to "Bharat" to Puranas and believe that it originated in their religious scripture
2. The same Puranas also state the Earth to be Flat

Once again, just like Chachnama Hindus claim something to be accurate and other to be inaccurate but this time from their own Hindu sources.

 

[Itachi]

I think some troll has taken over his account or he is high. This thread is a total troll fest.
Better to move out, before mods get their sensitivities hurt and start issuing their Gauri missiles on us

Exactly. It feels like THE REAL LORD JAMES is sleeping somewhere and his incompetent, idiotic, stubborn yet illogical roommate has taken over and posting as imposter.

 

[LordJames]

The Challenge in the thread remains unanswered...

 

[Technics 1210]

Abrahamic religions made more sense and still do, this is why Roman, British, Islamic empires managed to spread worldwide with ease.

No one today takes idol worshipping serious anymore, but if India wants to be the beacon of a failed ideology then so be it.

 

[Itachi]

Puranas contradictions & Hindus

1. Hindus ascribe the name to "Bharat" to Puranas and believe that it originated in their religious scripture
2. The same Puranas also state the Earth to be Flat

Once again, just like Chachnama Hindus claim something to be accurate and other to be inaccurate but this time from their own Hindu sources.

Lets say Purana did say earth to be flat

But What's the relation between earth being flat and the continent lol.

 

[Itachi]

The Challenge in the thread remains unanswered...

It will be unanswered because no hindu kings were remotely barbaric in front of Islamic rulers to destroy nations and build empires.

This is one aspect where i am glad that Hindu kings took the peaceful path and didn't spread their kingdom at the tip of sword.

 

[Local.Dada]

Puranas contradictions & Hindus

1. Hindus ascribe the name to "Bharat" to Puranas and believe that it originated in their religious scripture
2. The same Puranas also state the Earth to be Flat

Once again, just like Chachnama Hindus claim something to be accurate and other to be inaccurate but this time from their own Hindu sources.

Hinduism is a compilation of many beliefs and thought processes. You will be clearly out of depth except for some arguments probably given to you in a pamphlet by some local “institutions”. I don’t even know what the source of what you are quoting but chalo maybe some scripture mentioned that. I give you benefit of doubt.

however what I never understood is Islam has only 1 book right?

So is my fav local tea stall owner in India Gaffar Bhai (very nice guy) reading the same book as Taliban, ISIS, al-qaeda? That is concerning.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

What a foolish logic. Correct there is something called soverignity of nation, that is why except Arabs , other Muslim has 0% stake on their oil. Same goes for Iranians and Iraqis etc.

I think Persians, Afghanis, Turks, Arabs all have ethnic pride. In fact a lot of Indian Muslims too but I think it benefits the subcontinent ones Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and some Indian Muslims to attach themselves to a foreign identity from some inferiority complex. A Hindu Indian with a good resume is more likely to get a visa for Arab countries than a Pak Muslim: let that sink in.

Based on that soverinity only we consider Islamic invaders barbarians. You answered your own question.

I don't know why you guys go down this route, believe me if you live in the west you do not see Indians displaying much ethnic pride. Where is it? Maybe you can show some examples we can take inspiration from.

 

[LordJames]

Lets say Purana did say earth to be flat

But What's the relation between earth being flat and the continent lol.

Puarans and Hindus

There are several points to be mentioned but in summary:

1. Disregard to any standard or principles. Take some points (the origin of Bharat) but disregard others (Earth being flat etc)
2. No systematic tool or methodology to authenticity to reach the point (above).

Hinduism is a compilation of many beliefs and thought processes. You will be clearly out of depth except for some arguments probably given to you in a pamphlet by some local “institutions”. I don’t even know what the source of what you are quoting but chalo maybe some scripture mentioned that. I give you benefit of doubt.

however what I never understood is Islam has only 1 book right?

So is my fav local tea stall owner in India Gaffar Bhai (very nice guy) reading the same book as Taliban, ISIS, al-qaeda? That is concerning.

No issues.

Educate me, what you like to discuss Hinduism and its scriptures? Open another thread