What's new

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!

Technics 1210 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I mean aren't you guys piggybacking on the Chinese to go against the US empire? The form of Buddhism that's prevalent in China does plenty of idol worshipping. Chinese Taoism has nature worshippiing. Also, your post itself is factually incorrect. Tje great Greek or Roman empires were idol worsippers. In fact once they became Christian, they never got close to their past glories. The Greeks are without doibt the greatest civilization of ajcient world. Their kingdoms was filled with temples to Athena and Zeus.
 
LordJames said:
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).


No issues.

Educate me, what you like to discuss Hinduism and its scriptures? Open another thread
Click to expand...
Why can't one point be taken and other disregared when proven wrong? That's how science develops. Classical mechanics was proven inadeqaute by theory of relativity, and the findings incorporated. In general human civilization got the ultimate truth in religion 2000 years ago seems contradictory to what we see in real life where constant improvement is getring made in field of science, with new findings replacing old ones.
 
anikrc1 said:
Why can't one point be taken and other disregared when proven wrong? That's how science develops. Classical mechanics was proven inadeqaute by theory of relativity, and the findings incorporated. In general human civilization got the ultimate truth in religion 2000 years ago seems contradictory to what we see in real life where constant improvement is getring made in field of science, with new findings replacing old ones.
Click to expand...
So the criterion to judge Hindu scriptures and expunge something unacceptable is modern-day science, this argument is so flawed that it deserves its own thread so open it and lets discuss

For the sake of avoiding further derailment, I will leave this Masterpiece from you for all to judge.
 
LordJames said:
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).
Click to expand...
I don't understand.

Suppose I follow Gandhi. Does it mean I'll follow every action of his life the exact way?

I'll accept some and choose to not to follow others.
 
anikrc1 said:
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 Bal
Click to expand...

Hindu rulers often tried but failed. Chinese did have very large empires in comparison.

I don't think it helped having various deities, hard to unify a large amount of land . A minority of muslims ruled over a huge majority of Hindus it would never happen vice versa even if they desired. All kings and rulers want expansion , this happy go lucky signing hari Krishna is a feeble excuse my friend
 
LordJames said:
So the criterion to judge Hindu scriptures and expunge something unacceptable is modern-day science, this argument is so flawed that it deserves its own thread so open it and lets discuss

For the sake of avoiding further derailment, I will leave this Masterpiece from you for all to judge.
Click to expand...
This is the issue. You are using same standard of abrahamic religion to measure the parameters of Hindu religion. Of course it won't make sense lol.

It's as if I am using English grammar to explain sentence construct of Russian. I am using same standard but I am bound to fail.
 
Itachi said:
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.
Click to expand...
What?????
====

Pushyamitra Shunga: Known for his persecution of Buddhists, he offered rewards for the heads of Buddhist monks and attempted to destroy Buddhist sites.

Raghoji I Bhonsle: A Maratha general who led attacks on Bengal, causing significant economic and social distress through looting and pillaging

The Gupta Empire, which flourished from the 4th to the 6th century AD, is often regarded for its achievements rather than evils. However, some aspects can be considered negative:

  1. Social Hierarchy: The Gupta period maintained a strict caste system, which could be seen as oppressive to lower castes.
  2. Limited Social Mobility: The rigid social structure limited opportunities for social advancement.


  • Maratha forces invaded Goa, looting and burning churches, and committing atrocities against Christian women.
  • Sringeri Temple Attack (1791): Maratha soldiers desecrated the Sringeri temple in Karnataka, massacring Brahmin priests and looting valuable relics. Similar attacks occurred in other Hindu temple towns like Melukote and Devarayanadurga.
  • Karnataka Invasions: Maratha invasions in Karnataka led to widespread destruction of Hindu temples and villages, often targeting non-Maratha Hindus.
 
The Bald Eagle said:
What?????
====

Pushyamitra Shunga: Known for his persecution of Buddhists, he offered rewards for the heads of Buddhist monks and attempted to destroy Buddhist sites.

Raghoji I Bhonsle: A Maratha general who led attacks on Bengal, causing significant economic and social distress through looting and pillaging

The Gupta Empire, which flourished from the 4th to the 6th century AD, is often regarded for its achievements rather than evils. However, some aspects can be considered negative:

  1. Social Hierarchy: The Gupta period maintained a strict caste system, which could be seen as oppressive to lower castes.
  2. Limited Social Mobility: The rigid social structure limited opportunities for social advancement.


  • Maratha forces invaded Goa, looting and burning churches, and committing atrocities against Christian women.
  • Sringeri Temple Attack (1791): Maratha soldiers desecrated the Sringeri temple in Karnataka, massacring Brahmin priests and looting valuable relics. Similar attacks occurred in other Hindu temple towns like Melukote and Devarayanadurga.
  • Karnataka Invasions: Maratha invasions in Karnataka led to widespread destruction of Hindu temples and villages, often targeting non-Maratha Hindus.
Click to expand...
Do you understand a concept called frame of reference?

It is when you compare an A entity in comparison to another entity B.

I am measuring barbarianism of Hindu kings against the islamic rulers. In this case, they (hindu kings) are not even worthy to mention.

If I change the frame of reference and compare Hindu kings against other localised tribes, there will be many who can be termed as barbaric.

Your post itself falls in the same argument.
 
JaDed said:
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.
Click to expand...
Unlike other posters, you have did some research. He was part of the Kushan empire about which much is not known. But I appreciate your effort
===
The Kushan Empire was primarily Buddhist, but it was also Zoroastrian, and Greek.This empire was founded by the nobleman Kujula Kadphises who forged a tribal confederacy in Afghanistan, then led that confederacy in a conquest of northern India. The Kushan Empire is best known for its syncretic culture, which combined Greek, Chinese, Indian, and Persian culture. Due to the dearth of historical records from this time period, scholars today do not know much about the Kushan Empire.
 
LordJames said:
So the criterion to judge Hindu scriptures and expunge something unacceptable is modern-day science, this argument is so flawed that it deserves its own thread so open it and lets discuss

For the sake of avoiding further derailment, I will leave this Masterpiece from you for all to judge.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute, you think expunging something proven false is unacceptable? Let me guess, you also think evolution is unacceptable? 🤣🤣
 
KingKhanWC said:
Hindu rulers often tried but failed. Chinese did have very large empires in comparison.

I don't think it helped having various deities, hard to unify a large amount of land . A minority of muslims ruled over a huge majority of Hindus it would never happen vice versa even if they desired. All kings and rulers want expansion , this happy go lucky signing hari Krishna is a feeble excuse my friend
Click to expand...
Never really said anything about hindu kings being peaceful, which is not true, all I said that they didn't need to expand there empire because India was the richest land along with China. The Chinese empires also didn't spread much beyond China, and they were also ruled by the Mongols who were much fewer. Even in a local level the Rajputs were much more war hungry than the Bengalis, because Bengal was richer beyond comparison.
 
The Bald Eagle said:
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?
Click to expand...

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!​

Click to expand...


First of all what is YOUR definition of Barbaric and Saint-like Empires ?
 
anikrc1 said:
Never really said anything about hindu kings being peaceful, which is not true, all I said that they didn't need to expand there empire because India was the richest land along with China. The Chinese empires also didn't spread much beyond China, and they were also ruled by the Mongols who were much fewer. Even in a local level the Rajputs were much more war hungry than the Bengalis, because Bengal was richer beyond comparison.
Click to expand...

Romans, persians were far wealthier , Alexander the great and many more but continued expanding, its not a strong reason at all , hindu kings just as greedy as others.

imo it was a combat issue , they were not fighters unless needed to be and nothing has changed to this day
 
KingKhanWC said:
Romans, persians were far wealthier , Alexander the great and many more but continued expanding, its not a strong reason at all , hindu kings just as greedy as others.

imo it was a combat issue , they were not fighters unless needed to be and nothing has changed to this
Click to expand...
🙂. Hindu kings were as greedy as any other, true, but just conquering half of India would possibly made them one of the richest empire in world. 🙂
 
KingKhanWC said:
Romans, persians were far wealthier , Alexander the great and many more but continued expanding, its not a strong reason at all , hindu kings just as greedy as others.

imo it was a combat issue , they were not fighters unless needed to be and nothing has changed to this day
Click to expand...

see post #88 ... something tells me that you will never respond to it but won't stop you from lecturing about bravery lol
 
It's amusing that Pakistanis don't know the great heritage of their own. Panini, one of the foremost Hindu logicians was an inhabitant of modern day Pakistan. George Boole, De Morgan all founding fathers of modern logic were influemced by Hindu logic. As Max Mueller wrote The Greek and the Indian logic are the oldest schools of logic, different from each other but standing on equal footing. Kerala scool of mathematics were describing formulaes of calculating circle radius using power series 200 years ago than Europeans were. So, if you want to feel proud of Mughals, nothing wrong in that, but Indian civilization was one of the most intellectually advanced even before them. It only ended with the British rule. Basically European civilization has been more advanced than European civilization for 300 years in last 2500 years. In terms of greatness through the ages, only Chinese Civilization is it's comparison. Other civilizations like Greek or Roman either didn't have it's longevity in case of Greek, or was not as advanced imtellectually like the Romans. Though in terms of concentrated greatness the Greeks rule above all.
,
 
Here is what De Morgan wrote "The two races which have founded the mathematics, those of the Sanskrit and Greek languages, have been the two which have independently formed systems of logic."
 
So yeah, continue arguing India have no civilization before Muslim rule, the only thing you will do is exposing your ignorance. It's better to focus on positive influence of Islamic rule like the development of Indian classical music, Indo-Islamic arcitecture, giving a way to the lower castes to break the barbaric caste system etc. Islamic rulers had their positive points and negative points like any other, and they were far better than the British rule that followed. But they didn't make Indian civilization great. It was great for a long time, and it's demise only happened during the British rule.
 
anikrc1 said:
🙂. Hindu kings were as greedy as any other, true, but just conquering half of India would possibly made them one of the richest empire in world. 🙂
Click to expand...

You were one of the better hindutva posters , hence my reply but this is lame buddy. Their wealth was minuscule compared to most other empires. You also fail to realise expansion is also security. The didnt expand and were conquered by a much smaller minority.

let me guess they didnt mind as they had enough silver , livestock and colourful paint
 
KingKhanWC said:
You were one of the better hindutva posters , hence my reply but this is lame buddy. Their wealth was minuscule compared to most other empires. You also fail to realise expansion is also security. The didnt expand and were conquered by a much smaller minority.

let me guess they didnt mind as they had enough silver , livestock and colourful paint
Click to expand...
Whether expansion is related with security or not is debatable by historians. The great Greek empire as well as the Mughal empire fell down immediately after they reached their highest ever expansion. Their wealth was not miniscule, probably not as much as other empires, but in a cost benifit ratio it was great. And India was divided in smaller empires, their individual share was not as great, but in addition they were greater. P. S what is this Hindutva poster? Givinh an accurate view of history now is Hindutva? If you want to criticise Hindu empires, do it on a historically supported basis, not this they were not great in combats. I mean Alexander himself only beat a small kingdom in India was impressed by their bravery, and he never went ahead and challenged the Nandas. The Mughal emperors mostly had Rajput Hindus as their generals. How did they suddenly became brave then? Islamic rulers were able to beat Hindu rulers because they haf better battle tactics. Hindu battle tactics were out of date and not upto per with them. It has nothing to do with bravery or courage.
 
Scrodinger, Bohr and Heisenberg said that they found inspiration in Indian philosophy. Guess they were idiots 😂😂
 
anikrc1 said:
It's amusing that Pakistanis don't know the great heritage of their own. Panini, one of the foremost Hindu logicians was an inhabitant of modern day Pakistan. George Boole, De Morgan all founding fathers of modern logic were influemced by Hindu logic. As Max Mueller wrote The Greek and the Indian logic are the oldest schools of logic, different from each other but standing on equal footing. Kerala scool of mathematics were describing formulaes of calculating circle radius using power series 200 years ago than Europeans were. So, if you want to feel proud of Mughals, nothing wrong in that, but Indian civilization was one of the most intellectually advanced even before them. It only ended with the British rule. Basically European civilization has been more advanced than European civilization for 300 years in last 2500 years. In terms of greatness through the ages, only Chinese Civilization is it's comparison. Other civilizations like Greek or Roman either didn't have it's longevity in case of Greek, or was not as advanced imtellectually like the Romans. Though in terms of concentrated greatness the Greeks rule above all.
,
Click to expand...


I think you have got it the wrong way round, Pakistanis only defend Mughal empire because hindutvas have made it their life mission to focus on the evils of the Mughal empire. They don't focus so much on the evils of the British Empire, presumably because the British are still a focal point of current western supremacy, so Mughals being history are an easier target.

Just look at the constant public statements from your BJP ministers and you can see the truth of this. Show me the last statement from a govt minister criticising the British Raj. Even the targetting of minorities is tactical. Don't go after the Christians or their churches, lest it invites the wrath of the western nations.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
I think you have got it the wrong way round, Pakistanis only defend Mughal empire because hindutvas have made it their life mission to focus on the evils of the Mughal empire. They don't focus so much on the evils of the British Empire, presumably because the British are still a focal point of current western supremacy, so Mughals being history are an easier target.

Just look at the constant public statements from your BJP ministers and you can see the truth of this. Show me the last statement from a govt minister criticising the British Raj. Even the targetting of minorities is tactical. Don't go after the Christians or their churches, lest it invites the wrath of the western nations.
Click to expand...
Islamic rulers have both positive and negative perceptions in India, compared to the British rule which only have negative perception. Bollywood made movies like Jodha Akbar romanticizing the Mughal rule. Specially in academic circle contributions of Islamic rulers are well accpeted. British rulers in comparison are portrayed negatively aprt from a few points like stopping widow burning or remarriage act for Hindu widows. For examole Hindu linguists like Dineshchandra Sen praised the Ilias Shahi and Hussain Shahi Sultenates for their role in development of Bengali language. Bjp has 36 percent vote share in India. The others think the Britis rule were much more harmful. Your statement about Christians not being targeted as much as Muslims by Hindutva actually has many reasons. First, it's not right, because the worst incident of minority abuse in India right now is happening against the Christians in Manipur. Secondly in many places the Christians actually align with Hindutva against the Muslims, like in Kerala. Though it's possible that they do it for self preservation. Hindutva hates Muslims and Christians equally. It's hatred against the Muslims is higlighted more because the Muslims actually have the population share to stake their claim in power, the Christians don't. The most visible minority gets more hatred from right wings. If the population of Muslims and Christians interchanged, it would have been the opposite. For example in Bangladesh, after the last change of power, the most violence didn't happen on Hindus, it happened on Muslims who follows Sufi saints.
.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
I think you have got it the wrong way round, Pakistanis only defend Mughal empire because hindutvas have made it their life mission to focus on the evils of the Mughal empire. They don't focus so much on the evils of the British Empire, presumably because the British are still a focal point of current western supremacy, so Mughals being history are an easier target.

Just look at the constant public statements from your BJP ministers and you can see the truth of this. Show me the last statement from a govt minister criticising the British Raj. Even the targetting of minorities is tactical. Don't go after the Christians or their churches, lest it invites the wrath of the western nations.
Click to expand...
South Indian Hindus don’t ridicule Mughals, do Pakistanis ever try to learn about their Hindu kingdoms.
Only one Pakistani poster actually knew the scientific history of Dravidian kingdoms.
 
LordJames said:
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.​
Click to expand...
This is the only source we have of about what happened during the Arab invasion of Sindh. It is written by Muslims.
If you do not want to believe the accounts of that romanticized version of Sindh conquest, then we have no evidence of any bin qasim ever touring Sindh to plant the Islamic flag there.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
I think you have got it the wrong way round, Pakistanis only defend Mughal empire because hindutvas have made it their life mission to focus on the evils of the Mughal empire. They don't focus so much on the evils of the British Empire, presumably because the British are still a focal point of current western supremacy, so Mughals being history are an easier target.

Just look at the constant public statements from your BJP ministers and you can see the truth of this. Show me the last statement from a govt minister criticising the British Raj. Even the targetting of minorities is tactical. Don't go after the Christians or their churches, lest it invites the wrath of the western nations.
Click to expand...
Well.... The region I came from was never under mughals except for a brief period where a few districts came under Mir jumla which was recovered.

Aurangzab tried to occupy yet failed miserably and had to flee after the battle of saraighat.

So mughals will always be an invader for us.
 
Itachi said:
Well.... The region I came from was never under mughals except for a brief period where a few districts came under Mir jumla which was recovered.

Aurangzab tried to occupy yet failed miserably and had to flee after the battle of saraighat.

So mughals will always be an invader for us.
Click to expand...
Jai, Lachit Borphukan! The greatest Assamese hero.
 
JaDed said:
South Indian Hindus don’t ridicule Mughals, do Pakistanis ever try to learn about their Hindu kingdoms.
Only one Pakistani poster actually knew the scientific history of Dravidian kingdoms.
Click to expand...
Curious now who that one Pakistani poster is.

I do agree with this point. Many Pakistani posters here (myself too at some point) equate Punjab+Hindi belt as India. Most of these areas were ruled by the Mughals. Thankfully I got to learn about South Indian kingdoms and history and it is a fascinating read.

To be blunt, I consider many Pakistani posters here to be utterly stupid to constantly say "India this" or "India that" by only equating Punjab or areas of India near Pakistan. I keep reminding in messages that is not the case but sadly many Pakistani posters here seem (deliberately?) oblivious.

An interesting fact I came to know was that Angkor Wat (the big Hindu temple in Cambodia) was built because some South Indian kingdom spread their influence all the way there.

You say that South India was never ruled by Mughals. But didn't Islamic commanders rule parts of India all the way down south to Madurai? -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madurai_Sultanate
 
rickroll said:
Curious now who that one Pakistani poster is.

I do agree with this point. Many Pakistani posters here (myself too at some point) equate Punjab+Hindi belt as India. Most of these areas were ruled by the Mughals. Thankfully I got to learn about South Indian kingdoms and history and it is a fascinating read.

To be blunt, I consider many Pakistani posters here to be utterly stupid to constantly say "India this" or "India that" by only equating Punjab or areas of India near Pakistan. I keep reminding in messages that is not the case but sadly many Pakistani posters here seem (deliberately?) oblivious.

An interesting fact I came to know was that Angkor Wat (the big Hindu temple in Cambodia) was built because some South Indian kingdom spread their influence all the way there.

You say that South India was never ruled by Mughals. But didn't Islamic commanders rule parts of India all the way down south to Madurai? -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madurai_Sultanate
Click to expand...
I cant recall his id but he posts at times, South was Ruled by Islamic rulers too in their own ways but because it was not huge except Hyderabad it gets lost in history.

Even the Madurai one dismantled quickly.

Yes the South Indians had no issues promoting religion to SE Asia.. the hinduism in South is also less influenced by Islam or Bhakti movements.- biggest example of this is Karva Chauth in north is not even a thing in South which seems inspired by Islam , although I’m sure posters will not accept that.

The Hindu temples in South India are architecturally much ahead of North too, this could also be due to less invasions.
 
JaDed said:
South Indian Hindus don’t ridicule Mughals, do Pakistanis ever try to learn about their Hindu kingdoms.
Only one Pakistani poster actually knew the scientific history of Dravidian kingdoms.
Click to expand...
May be from south indian pov, we know they are barbaric but not suffered as much as North Indians. We hate different kings albeit from same religion though.u can take example of adil shahi , nizams etc
 
An open challenge to Hindus then. I hope most Hindus here have a life outside religion to accept such challenges meant to invite nothing but negativity.
 
Bjp It cells claim muslims as forced converted, check the statistics from the British Times as they were the only ones bothered to record demographics, Muslims increased the most in percent during British rule, were the British forcefully converting local indians to Islam?
 
speed said:
Bjp It cells claim muslims as forced converted, check the statistics from the British Times as they were the only ones bothered to record demographics, Muslims increased the most in percent during British rule, were the British forcefully converting local indians to Islam.
Click to expand...

Geometric progression after conversion. Obviously it'll be on higher side.
 
JaDed said:
South Indian Hindus don’t ridicule Mughals, do Pakistanis ever try to learn about their Hindu kingdoms.
Only one Pakistani poster actually knew the scientific history of Dravidian kingdoms.
Click to expand...

Yes I have met some South Indians and they tend to be very relaxed about all this stuff. But this is not reflected on these forums, or to be frank, your elections, where Mughal bashing is a big vote winner.
 
uppercut said:
First of all what is YOUR definition of Barbaric and Saint-like Empires ?
Click to expand...
Barbaric...You guys used it too often so go ahead and define.

About Saint-like Muslim empires...The Muslim empire under pious caliphs, Hazrat Umer bin Abdul Aziz and Sultan Salah uddin Ayubi some prominent examples. Under their rules, minorities had full protection, civil rights until they won't break pact with the state and go against it's interest. Also the head of states during above esteemed personalities rule used to live under same standard of life as their subjects..and multiple under achievements too like socio, economic justice etc.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Yes I have met some South Indians and they tend to be very relaxed about all this stuff. But this is not reflected on these forums, or to be frank, your elections, where Mughal bashing is a big vote winner.
Click to expand...
And which state in South India has BJP? Point is Pakistanis associate Northern Belt for entire India.
 
JaDed said:
And which state in South India has BJP? Point is Pakistanis associate Northern Belt for entire India.
Click to expand...

Don't know the geography of India, when I say South India, the Indians I have met have been from Kerala. I know there was also a bunch of what looked like south Indians shipped in for the world cup finals in 1999, who were vociferously supporting Australia against Pakistan, and not in a light hearted way, but more fanatical and crazed looking. They had probably bought tickets in advance hoping India would make the final.
 
There is mughal bashing and muslim bashing.

Mughal bashing doesn't necessarily mean Muslim bashing.

Similarly, voicing for kicking out illegal bangladeshi immigration doesn't mean voicing for kicking out Muslims.

People need to learn to separate different entities.
 
The Bald Eagle said:
Barbaric...You guys used it too often so go ahead and define.

About Saint-like Muslim empires...The Muslim empire under pious caliphs, Hazrat Umer bin Abdul Aziz and Sultan Salah uddin Ayubi some prominent examples. Under their rules, minorities had full protection, civil rights until they won't break pact with the state and go against it's interest. Also the head of states during above esteemed personalities rule used to live under same standard of life as their subjects..and multiple under achievements too like socio, economic justice etc.
Click to expand...
Did the minorities hace equal rights?
 
Itachi said:
There is mughal bashing and muslim bashing.

Mughal bashing doesn't necessarily mean Muslim bashing.

Similarly, voicing for kicking out illegal bangladeshi immigration doesn't mean voicing for kicking out Muslims.

People need to learn to separate different entities.
Click to expand...

Usually in India one is just a means for the other.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Usually in India one is just a means for the other.
Click to expand...
I don't know how sitting in Britain, sitting on a chair, has the insights to know to conclude "Usually in India...."

If I read the news, then Pakistan is graveyard of souls where due to poverty, people are killing each other. If I watch TV shows, then pakistani expats in UK are mostly drug addict gangsters. Does it reflect the reality though? May be, may be not.

Our generalisation is skewed by our own perception, our own agenda. You'll see something the way you want to see. But reality could be very different.
 
The Bald Eagle said:
Agree to this point, Mughals were never representative of Islam but just rulers who claimed to be Muslims
Click to expand...
Just to add on my previous post, we had muslim soldiers who fought against mughals. "Ismail Siddique" a.k.a Bagh Hazarika was one of our general against Mughals who was one of the pivotal leader leading to the victory and Mughals fleeing.

You want to paint every one with the same color but the lack of actual historical knowledge makes someone one dimensional.
 
Itachi said:
There is mughal bashing and muslim bashing.

Mughal bashing doesn't necessarily mean Muslim bashing.

Similarly, voicing for kicking out illegal bangladeshi immigration doesn't mean voicing for kicking out Muslims.

People need to learn to separate different entities.
Click to expand...
Mughal bashing is percevied as anti-islamic by many Muslims(both India and Pak/BD). Exposing their evils is taken as a punch to the gut by them.
Some even believe that they all came with invading armies. So they take it even more personally. A jibe at Aurangzeb hurts them to no end. The real descendants of Mughals are awfully quiet though.
1740757249608.png
1740757278303.png
 
Itachi said:
Just to add on my previous post, we had muslim soldiers who fought against mughals. "Ismail Siddique" a.k.a Bagh Hazarika was one of our general against Mughals who was one of the pivotal leader leading to the victory and Mughals fleeing.

You want to paint every one with the same color but the lack of actual historical knowledge makes someone one dimensional.
Click to expand...
I won't brag but I can give history classes to many here....who think only rulers Muslim by religion were "barbaric"....showing them mirror may also embarrass some.
 
The Bald Eagle said:
I won't brag but I can give history classes to many here....who think only rulers Muslim by religion were "barbaric"....showing them mirror may also embarrass some.
Click to expand...

"...who think only rulers Muslim by religion were "barbaric" - I think your interpretation is inaccurate here.

They said, "Muslim rulers were barbaric"

Above two are very different as second assumption doesn't imply that others (non-muslims) were not barbaric. So you have nothing to prove here actually because it isn't as if they rejected your claims also.
 
Champ_Pal said:
Mughal bashing is percevied as anti-islamic by many Muslims(both India and Pak/BD). Exposing their evils is taken as a punch to the gut by them.
Some even believe that they all came with invading armies. So they take it even more personally. A jibe at Aurangzeb hurts them to no end. The real descendants of Mughals are awfully quiet though.
View attachment 151467
View attachment 151468
Click to expand...
A jibe at "Aurangzeb" or any other Mughal doesn't hurt or triggers anyone.

What triggers people about "Indians" is bold face lies, made up facts, falsified history backed by nothing but hot air, bluster and eventually bad language about "Mother, Sister" etc.

You can prove me wrong by standing up to your belief that "Humans evolved from Apes" , prove that you are an honest upright person whose beliefs and convictions are backed by science. You don't even have to discuss Aurangzeb or Mughals because it is way outside of your comfort zone, analytics skills and knowledge, lets start with your own statement.

Lets Go.
 
LordJames said:
A jibe at "Aurangzeb" or any other Mughal doesn't hurt or triggers anyone.

What triggers people about "Indians" is bold face lies, made up facts, falsified history backed by nothing but hot air, bluster and eventually bad language about "Mother, Sister" etc.
Click to expand...
You haven't proved anything though except making big claims.

On the other hand, Bald Eagle actually gave some nice replies.
 
LordJames said:
A jibe at "Aurangzeb" or any other Mughal doesn't hurt or triggers anyone.

What triggers people about "Indians" is bold face lies, made up facts, falsified history backed by nothing but hot air, bluster and eventually bad language about "Mother, Sister" etc.

You can prove me wrong by standing up to your belief that "Humans evolved from Apes" , prove that you are an honest upright person whose beliefs and convictions are backed by science. You don't even have to discuss Aurangzeb or Mughals because it is way outside of your comfort zone, analytics skills and knowledge, lets start with your own statement.

Lets Go.
Click to expand...
Hahahha. Cool story bro.

Come on!! Open a new discussion. Will gladly discuss the human evolution with you. Be ready to backup your claims about the creation myth :vk2

Mughals are out of my comfort zone? I have posted truths about them with links to backup. All I heard back was getting personal and hurt over the exposing of Mughals and Delhi Sultanate.

Post what you want to discuss and I will comeback with proper links to prove my points. I will always expose the religiously bigoted regimes who think they are a cut above others.(y)
 
Itachi said:
I don't know how sitting in Britain, sitting on a chair, has the insights to know to conclude "Usually in India...."

If I read the news, then Pakistan is graveyard of souls where due to poverty, people are killing each other. If I watch TV shows, then pakistani expats in UK are mostly drug addict gangsters. Does it reflect the reality though? May be, may be not.

Our generalisation is skewed by our own perception, our own agenda. You'll see something the way you want to see. But reality could be very different.
Click to expand...

We get our perceptions of Indians from posters on here, and statements from the govt whom you vote for. It might not be giving a true story, but it's all we have considering there is not much interaction between the two countries, and each considers the other implacable foes.
 
The opinion of Spanish and Greeks who were once ruled by Muslims and later overthrew them isn't very charitable about the Muslim rule.
 
Majority of Indians consider the Muslim invaders as barbaric and tyrannical.

Pakistanis can consider them heroes.

What's the debate here?

Why do pakistanis feel the need to press their point here?

Any of the Muslim dynasties in Delhi had origins in Pakistan? No.

So why so much pain?
 
Muslim invaders will forever remain invaders for us Indians. Just like they are for the Spanish and the Greeks.
 
KingKhanWC said:
Romans, persians were far wealthier , Alexander the great and many more but continued expanding, its not a strong reason at all , hindu kings just as greedy as others.

imo it was a combat issue , they were not fighters unless needed to be and nothing has changed to this day
Click to expand...

Yes. The area of present day pakistan got conquered easily. They became Hindu under Hindus, Buddhists under Buddhists, Muslims under Muslims.

That hasn't changed even now. They still surrender in Dhaka. Run away leaving the bodies of their soldiers in Kargil. They become Arabs or Chinese or whatever, depending upon who is throwing the $$$$$.

Nothing has changed to this day.
 
LordJames said:
A jibe at "Aurangzeb" or any other Mughal doesn't hurt or triggers anyone.

What triggers people about "Indians" is bold face lies, made up facts, falsified history backed by nothing but hot air, bluster and eventually bad language about "Mother, Sister" etc.

You can prove me wrong by standing up to your belief that "Humans evolved from Apes" , prove that you are an honest upright person whose beliefs and convictions are backed by science. You don't even have to discuss Aurangzeb or Mughals because it is way outside of your comfort zone, analytics skills and knowledge, lets start with your own statement.

Lets Go.
Click to expand...

What lies?

Muslims invaded India is a lie?

They were looters. A lie?

What hurts you is that unlike most places, the indigenous people here fought and hence the indigenous religions and culture lives on.

And they expose the tyranny of these invaders who you glorify.

No muslim dynasty that ruled Delhi was indigenous. All were invaders. There is no connection between those invaders and majority of the Muslim population here.

You are only trying to piggyback on the conquest of these invaders. The indigenous population of the subcontinent that converted to Islam under the conquerors now want to steal the achievements of these conquerors.
 
rickroll said:
Curious now who that one Pakistani poster is.

I do agree with this point. Many Pakistani posters here (myself too at some point) equate Punjab+Hindi belt as India. Most of these areas were ruled by the Mughals. Thankfully I got to learn about South Indian kingdoms and history and it is a fascinating read.

To be blunt, I consider many Pakistani posters here to be utterly stupid to constantly say "India this" or "India that" by only equating Punjab or areas of India near Pakistan. I keep reminding in messages that is not the case but sadly many Pakistani posters here seem (deliberately?) oblivious.
Click to expand...

Dangerously stupid is the correct accurate description IMO. One dude here thinks eating meat is the basic requirement for building empires and there are too many people who endorse that sort of peurile juvenile village idiot mentality.


rickroll said:
An interesting fact I came to know was that Angkor Wat (the big Hindu temple in Cambodia) was built because some South Indian kingdom spread their influence all the way there.

You say that South India was never ruled by Mughals. But didn't Islamic commanders rule parts of India all the way down south to Madurai? -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madurai_Sultanate
Click to expand...

Before there was Angkor Wat there was Ashoka and his descendants that took Buddhism to faaar away Lands on the east as without EVER using a sword. This is why Buddhism is still the predominant religion in Japan some 2000+ years later. Now thats the sort of legacy to be proud off!

​
 
Rajdeep said:
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.

:rp
Click to expand...
Hehe the funny bit is those defending Islamic rulers are the ones whose great great great grandparents decided to convert from Hinduism to Islam out of fear of the same Islamic rulers that today they want to defend and project being part of. And those today talk about distorted history books.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
happydavy said:
Hehe the funny bit is those defending Islamic rulers are the ones whose great great great grandparents decided to convert from Hinduism to Islam out of fear of the same Islamic rulers that today they want to defend and project being part of. And those today talk about distorted history books.
Click to expand...
So it's an abject failure of Indian text books that the biggest minority in their country "converts" are now defending the person's from whose persecutions they converted in first place. :facepalm: lol what a great logic 👏👏

No doubt Indians have dodged the main question of the thread through their epic digressing.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Majority of Indians consider the Muslim invaders as barbaric and tyrannical.

Pakistanis can consider them heroes.

What's the debate here?

Why do pakistanis feel the need to press their point here?
Click to expand...

Because you are here on a Pakistani site insulting the legacy of the Mughals. If you want to insult the Mughals on an Indian site then I think you will find yourself mostly free to do so without much reply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top