What If Series: What will be state of non muslims in Mughal Renaissance era of India

[hoshiarpurexpress]

Lot of Pakistan posters call for a new Mughal Era in India, where the rule of Muslims comes back.

What will be the state of non Muslims in such a hypothetical scenario.

"Mughal Renaissance Era is not far away. Indian Muslims can only take so much before they flex their muscle as 2nd biggest Muslim population and the pagans and idol worshipping Hindus are exposed again on the battle field."

@Suleiman can you elaborate further what you mean by this? And what does it entail for rest of us non-muslims living in India currently.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Lot of Pakistan posters call for a new Mughal Era in India, where the rule of Muslims comes back.
What will be the state of non Muslims in such a hypothetical scenario.

"Mughal Renaissance Era is not far away. Indian Muslims can only take so much before they flex their muscle as 2nd biggest Muslim population and the pagans and idol worshipping Hindus are exposed again on the battle field."
@Suleiman can you elaborate further what you mean by this? And what does it entail for rest of us non-muslims living in India currently.

I remember certain Javed Miandad once saying that Hindu will runaway scared even if slightly frightened and called them cowards. It’s the mentality of his ilk that think India and Indians are weak.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Very interesting question.

Mughals are long gone but another partition is imminent.

It is up to the Indian Muslims how they behave with their former oppressors but I hope they treat them with kindness, respect and allow them to live according to their beliefs.

 

[Romali_rotti]

It is up to the Indian Muslims how they behave with their former oppressors but I hope they treat them with kindness, respect and allow them to live according to their bebeliefs.

Once muslims become majority the Indian Muslims will be no different to a Pakistani or a bangladeshi Muslim. If another partition of India happens and muslims become the majority on the partitioned land, then I can bet my bottom dollar they will make the minorities suffer. This is not a human issue rather an Islamic issue, sub continental muslims cannot let any minorities live in peace with them...

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Once muslims become majority the Indian Muslims will be no different to a Pakistani or a bangladeshi Muslim. If another partition of India happens and muslims become the majority on the partitioned land, then I can bet my bottom dollar they will make the minorities suffer. This is not a human issue rather an Islamic issue, sub continental muslims cannot let any minorities live in peace with them...

Yes the subcontinent Hindus are doing a great job.

Raping women. Fighting with Christians, Muslims, assassinating leaders, burning trains, burning houses, lynching people. The list goes on. Since the partition of India Hindus have been marauding and killing at will. To the extent that the Pope himself had to write them a letter to please chill out.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Yes the subcontinent Hindus are doing a great job.

Raping women. Fighting with Christians, Muslims, assassinating leaders, burning trains, burning houses, lynching people. The list goes on. Since the partition of India Hindus have been marauding and killing at will. To the extent that the Pope himself had to write them a letter to please chill out.

Nice reply lol

Ok

200 million Muslims in India,

30 plus million Christians in India

Both living under a Hindu majority.

Stop being emotional, use your brain instead. PPL of your religion in the subcontinent wont let minorities survive, when you look at the dwindling numbers and pathetic state of the minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh you cannot refute my statement..

Lastly: I never said India was perfect however minorities under a Hindu majority rule survives and are not going to be extinct...

 

[Stewie]

Nice reply lol

Ok

200 million Muslims in India,

30 plus million Christians in India

Both living under a Hindu majority.

Stop being emotional, use your brain instead. PPL of your religion in the subcontinent wont let minorities survive, when you look at the dwindling numbers and pathetic state of the minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh you cannot refute my statement..

Lastly: I never said India was perfect however minorities under a Hindu majority rule survives and are not going to be extinct...

the "dwindling" numbers mystery has been addressed several times. its another myth and disinformation propagated by Indians.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Nice reply lol

Ok

200 million Muslims in India,

30 plus million Christians in India

Both living under a Hindu majority.

Stop being emotional, use your brain instead. PPL of your religion in the subcontinent wont let minorities survive, when you look at the dwindling numbers and pathetic state of the minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh you cannot refute my statement..

Lastly: I never said India was perfect however minorities under a Hindu majority rule survives and are not going to be extinct...

The minorities are not extinct in BD or Pakistan either. In fact even under Mughal rule they never became extinct so maybe you need to stop taking information from hindutva hate sites and make more informed posts.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Nice reply lol

Ok

200 million Muslims in India,

30 plus million Christians in India

Both living under a Hindu majority.

Stop being emotional, use your brain instead. PPL of your religion in the subcontinent wont let minorities survive, when you look at the dwindling numbers and pathetic state of the minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh you cannot refute my statement..

Lastly: I never said India was perfect however minorities under a Hindu majority rule survives and are not going to be extinct...

You can chose to point fingers at Pakistan and Bangladesh but the Hindus of India have waged massacres on every religious community in their country. Not random rag tag incidents but full scale pogroms. There has been no precedent for minorities growing under Hindu rule. Ever. It is miserable, brutal and violent for all involved. This is factual and this stream of violence runs through India today.

There is however a precedent where Muslims and Hindus worked together for the benefit of their nation and under the stewardship of the Mughals amassed a quarter of Global GDP.

I see no reason why this can't be replicated.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Sanatan is inevitable and hence we conclude it is the one true religion and the assured way to reach God.

 

[Stewie]

The minorities are not extinct in BD or Pakistan either. In fact even under Mughal rule they never became extinct so maybe you need to stop taking information from hindutva hate sites and make more informed posts.

over 300 years rule, and if Mughals or Muslims were so draconian, into forced conversions and love jihad whatsoever, that is ample time to completely cull the Hindus, but that did not happen, did it?

I think the general estimates put the population of India at about 100-150 million during Mughal rule. I am not sure how that increased during that time.

Now if you compare that to the population of Native Americans in NA, the Europeans wipes them out of existence pretty much - about 56 million in just 100 years. The worst case of genocide in the history of mankind. Mughals don't compare on any spectrum in that regard. Yes they were tyrants and conquerors but at least they did not wipe off the Hindus from the face of the map.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Sanatan is inevitable and hence we conclude it is the one true religion and the assured way to reach God.

True Santan is beautiful. It can join hand in hand with Muslims and build a better future.

This corrupt and violent version leads only to misery, both for it's adherents and those in it's proximity.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

over 300 years rule, and if Mughals or Muslims were so draconian, into forced conversions and love jihad whatsoever, that is ample time to completely cull the Hindus, but that did not happen, did it?

I think the general estimates put the population of India at about 100-150 million during Mughal rule. I am not sure how that increased during that time.

Now if you compare that to the population of Native Americans in NA, the Europeans wipes them out of existence pretty much - about 56 million in just 100 years. The worst case of genocide in the history of mankind. Mughals don't compare on any spectrum in that regard. Yes they were tyrants and conquerors but at least they did not wipe off the Hindus from the face of the map.

No they weren't tyrants but may have committed some acts for tyranny and yes they did conquer but remember the initial conquest was against fellow Muslims - the Delhi Sultanate.

There is no comparison with Hindu tyrants like Ashoka who terrorised and murdered so much on behalf of Hindus that he cried afterwards and converted away from the religion that made him act that way.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

over 300 years rule, and if Mughals or Muslims were so draconian, into forced conversions and love jihad whatsoever, that is ample time to completely cull the Hindus, but that did not happen, did it?

I think the general estimates put the population of India at about 100-150 million during Mughal rule. I am not sure how that increased during that time.

Now if you compare that to the population of Native Americans in NA, the Europeans wipes them out of existence pretty much - about 56 million in just 100 years. The worst case of genocide in the history of mankind. Mughals don't compare on any spectrum in that regard. Yes they were tyrants and conquerors but at least they did not wipe off the Hindus from the face of the map.

Mughals were actually softies compared to the ruthless Europeans who landed in the Americas and Australia. I still don't understand how the British ruled over India for centuries without any sort of army. It's not like they had fighter jets back then, the only troops they could send must have spent months travelling by sea. How many would that be in all likelihood?

 

[Nikhil_cric]

You have the Muslim state of Pakistan . If there's no renaissance there, then there's no chance of renaissance in India.

 

[RexRex]

I still don't understand how the British ruled over India for centuries without any sort of army.

A meek population submitted themselves to the Brits. It should be a matter of shame for Indians.

 

[HalBass9]

If a Mughal ruler is just and fair, it is likely that more Hindus may consider reverting to Islam.

 

[Romali_rotti]

The minorities are not extinct in BD or Pakistan either. In fact even under Mughal rule they never became extinct so maybe you need to stop taking information from hindutva hate sites and make more informed posts.

Cap,


Mughals were a Monarchy they were the minority ofcourse they wouldn't be able to wipe out a majority population.

Mughals had no choice but to make some compromises in order to rule.

Mughals and converts are totally different, Mughals were much smarter, a minority unlike the current majority of converts in Pakistan and Bangladesh of today.

Problems we see happening for non Muslims such as their reduction in numbers etc are when the converts are in the majority: Pakistan and Bangladesh

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Cap,


Mughals were a Monarchy they were the minority ofcourse they wouldn't be able to wipe out a majority population.

Mughals had no choice but to make some compromises in order to rule.

Mughals and converts are totally different, Mughals were much smarter, a minority unlike the current majority of converts in Pakistan and Bangladesh of today.

Problems we see happening for non Muslims such as their reduction in numbers etc are when the converts are in the majority: Pakistan and Bangladesh

You say the Mughals had to compromise as a tiny minority, but why did the Hindu population of India need to compromise with a foreign monarchy bringing a totally different belief system?

 

[Bhaijaan]

True Santan is beautiful. It can join hand in hand with Muslims and build a better future.

This corrupt and violent version leads only to misery, both for it's adherents and those in it's proximity.

Just wait for it brother.
We are in the chaotic era right now.
Once things are set in order, the genuinely warmer and loving side of Hinduism will reemerge.

Along with our Muslim brothers in Arab peninsula, our besties in the Mediterranean the Israelis and our besties Russians we will help build a better world.

 

[Champ_Pal]

over 300 years rule, and if Mughals or Muslims were so draconian, into forced conversions and love jihad whatsoever, that is ample time to completely cull the Hindus, but that did not happen, did it?

I think the general estimates put the population of India at about 100-150 million during Mughal rule. I am not sure how that increased during that time.

Now if you compare that to the population of Native Americans in NA, the Europeans wipes them out of existence pretty much - about 56 million in just 100 years. The worst case of genocide in the history of mankind. Mughals don't compare on any spectrum in that regard. Yes they were tyrants and conquerors but at least they did not wipe off the Hindus from the face of the map.

Mughals could not kill off Hindus or convert all of them like they had no outstanding culture. They needed Hindus to survive. They were a small minority in the country and could not rule over subcontinent without the help of Hindu Kings and populace.

Mughals could not go all out in converting the masses. India was too diverse for that to happen. They made alliances with Rajputs the then rulers of North. While their main generals were Central Asian and Rajputs, the foot soldiers were locals. Mughals simply lacked numbers to rule over entire India with their Timurid army alone.

Another thing is that the Mughal empire is overblown. Their reign only lasted from 1530 to 1707. That is about 170 years. After Aurangzeb's reign, Mughal empire became weak. East India company easily took over from Mughals after Aurangzeb's death in 1707. Babar and Akbar spent all their life in expanding the empire and fighting wars with local kings. Under Aurangzeb, it reached its peak.

Lets look at Mughal empire under popular rulers of Mughal dynasty.
Babar (Not that big and most of his empire was still in Afghanistan and modern day Pakistan).


Akbar (The greatest ruler of Mughals could only conquer 50%).

Aurangzeb

It was under Aurangzeb, the conversions were rampant. Aurangzeb could only keep his empire for 30 years. After him, the empire splintered into many smaller kingdoms and Brits easily took over from Mughals.


I did not mention Jehangir as he was weak and a druggie. Humayun was another weak emperor. Under his rule, Mughal empire suffered many losses. Basically 170 years was not enough for Mughal empire to inflict 100% damage to Hindu population. But they did manage to convert most of the North West part of the Bharat to Islam. But the mainland India remained elusive for them. They could only convert pockets of it.

 

[Hitman]

My biggest regret is some of those uncivilised and barbarian animals are buried in my land.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Like it or hate it, Mughals peaked here.

Murhabaa ho’o’o Murhabaa

 

[Stewie]

My biggest regret is some of those uncivilised and barbarian animals are buried in my land.

I would not be surprised if their mausoleums are next on the agenda after the radical Hindus are done demolishing all the majids they want gone.

 

[Bhaijaan]

I would not be surprised if their mausoleums are next on the agenda after the radical Hindus are done demolishing all the majids they want gone.

There are a 100 times more temples and masjids in our country than necessary. On that point alone, i call for a major demolishment drive on all such places regardless of religion. Religion must be a personal matter and people must do whatever they like at home.

 

[Stewie]

There are a 100 times more temples and masjids in our country than necessary. On that point alone, i call for a major demolishment drive on all such places regardless of religion. Religion must be a personal matter and people must do whatever they like at home.

who decides what's necessary and how is that determination made?

Is this your opinion or are you quoting some legit survey on the the number of places of worship in India? Its the most populous nation in the world, and also the most religious nation in the world I would think. It would make sense if you have temples and masjids at every other corner in cities and villages.

but if you take away existing masjids, and Muslims start gathering in public places for their Friday prayer, then you will complain again about that stuff. I hope you are mindful of that as well.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Like it or hate it, Mughals peaked here.

Murhabaa ho’o’o Murhabaa

Hrithik playing Akbar’s role is hilarious. Akbar was half Mongolian and half Persian. He definitely had Asian eyes.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I would not be surprised if their mausoleums are next on the agenda after the radical Hindus are done demolishing all the majids they want gone.

Funny thing is they lived on the land ,developed it and grew it for generations but it's not their land.

 

[Suleiman]

Non Muslims will have pina colada Thursdays. Non alcoholic ofc.

For real though. Non Muslims out of all minorities in history have been treated the best under Muslim rule. Be it Jews, Christians, pagans, atheists etc. True, real history backs this up. Not the dipped in saffron textbook pages of Hindutva India. Otherwise Hinduism would be extinct by now.

Malaysia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc are a far cry from the Islamic Golden Age, but still embody the principle of tolerance to the point of honoring non Muslims but still standing firmly alongside the truth of Islam when they transgress.

 

[uppercut]

but the Hindus of India have waged massacres on every religious community in their country. Not random rag tag incidents but full scale pogroms.

what are these events that you are referring to where Hindus have indulged in un-provoked attacks on Muslims like the recent events in BD where Hindus were targeted, or in 1971 where millions of Hindus were massacared. Or 1990 Kashmir pandit , or the Godhra train burning ( I can go on and on ).


So I would REALLY like what are these events that you are referring to where these unprovoked massacares happened.


Remember the key opearative words: Un-Provoked acts of violence against Muslims.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

what are these events that you are referring to where Hindus have indulged in un-provoked attacks on Muslims like the recent events in BD where Hindus were targeted, or in 1971 where millions of Hindus were massacared. Or 1990 Kashmir pandit , or the Godhra train burning ( I can go on and on ).


So I would REALLY like what are these events that you are referring to where these unprovoked massacares happened.


Remember the key opearative words: Un-Provoked acts of violence against Muslims.

When you get into the realm of discussing and defining provocation you are entering dangerous territory that I don't wish to enter. People will selectively term something as provoked to give their side carte blanche to carry out horrific acts and wash their hands of the blood. I wont play that game or dance to your sick tune I'm sorry.

 

[uppercut]

When you get into the realm of discussing and defining provocation you are entering dangerous territory that I don't wish to enter. People will selectively term something as provoked to give their side carte blanche to carry out horrific acts and wash their hands of the blood. I wont play that game or dance to your sick tune I'm sorry.

So essentially what you are saying is that EVERY single act of violence that resulted in muslim casualties is to be considered as an act of religious intolerance on the part of Hindus regardless of what the facts and chronology of events that lead to the said events say? For instance Godhra riots?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

So essentially what you are saying is that EVERY single act of violence that resulted in muslim casualties is to be considered as an act of religious intolerance on the part of Hindus regardless of what the facts and chronology of events that lead to the said events say? For instance Godhra riots?

What I am saying is there is never any provocation for mass slaughter and pogroms. You cannot ever legitimise violence against innocents or whole communities.

I'm sure you can find some random Bangladeshi that will find an excuse to kick the hell out of random Hindus. Just as people like you will find excuses for your side.

Violence on a mass scale can never be rationalised, legitimised or explained away

 

[uppercut]

What I am saying is there is never any provocation for mass slaughter and pogroms. You cannot ever legitimise violence against innocents or whole communities.

And using JUST that yardstick quoted above you are saying Hindus are responsible for more attrocities on Muslims than other way around? Is that what you believe?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

And using JUST that yardstick quoted above you are saying Hindus are responsible for more attrocities on Muslims than other way around? Is that what you believe?

How do you define "more"?

 

[HalBass9]

And using JUST that yardstick quoted above you are saying Hindus are responsible for more attrocities on Muslims than other way around? Is that what you believe?

Ah, now he wishes to debate violence, when the quoted individual clearly emphasized that mass slaughter and pogroms have no place in 2024.

Of course, it’s only a matter of time before the narrative shifts to portray even educated Muslims as extremists.

This seems to be a recurring theme with every Hindutva proponent one happens to meet.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Ah, now he wishes to debate violence, when the quoted individual clearly emphasized that mass slaughter and pogroms have no place in 2024.

Of course, it’s only a matter of time before the narrative shifts to portray even educated Muslims as extremists.

This seems to be a recurring theme with every Hindutva proponent one happens to meet.

Do you know what Hindutva means without googling? Or you use it to any Indian that opposes Pakistan or Islamic rules in general?

 

[HalBass9]

Do you know what Hindutva means without googling? Or you use it to any Indian that opposes Pakistan or Islamic rules in general?

Modi’s gujrat masacre.
Cow vigilant lyncher.
Yogi.
Modi himself.
……

The list is endless in today's India.

 

[JaDed]

Damn understood it wrong, well Mughal renaissance has occured in Bangladesh last month.

 

[JaDed]

There is only one truth about religion and that is violence with the only exception of Jainism, every other religion has wars and battles enshrined in it.
Holy wars and what not.

Jainism is the only non- violent religion of the world.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Modi’s gujrat masacre.
Cow vigilant lyncher.
Yogi.
Modi himself.
……

The list is endless in today's India.

People blame the mughals for atrocities back in 15th, 16th century but to be honest if there is ever a renaissance of that empire today then it would be way better the Modi regime of current era for minorities.

 

[uppercut]

How do you define "more"?

Sheer numbers. How else would YOU define it?

 

[Champ_Pal]

People blame the mughals for atrocities back in 15th, 16th century but to be honest if there is ever a renaissance of that empire today then it would be way better the Modi regime of current era for minorities.

If there are atrocities against minorities like you are claiming, why are there no mass Muslim migrations out of India ala Rohingya style?

Sure there are cow vigilantes and the occasional lynching of an innocent. It is no where close to what you guys have in mind.

If anything, Hindus in Pakistan want to come and live in India given a chance. What does that say?

 

[Champ_Pal]

There is only one truth about religion and that is violence with the only exception of Jainism, every other religion has wars and battles enshrined in it.
Holy wars and what not.

Jainism is the only non- violent religion of the world.

Jainism is too soft for its own good. I have utmost respect for the teachings of Vardhamana, but his teaching are too ideal for this savage world.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Sheer numbers. How else would YOU define it?

Numbers of what? Deaths or incidents?

 

[JaDed]

Jainism is too soft for its own good. I have utmost respect for the teachings of Vardhamana, but his teaching are too ideal for this savage world.

It has survived for more than 2k years..

 

[The Bald Eagle]

They are migrating to countries in the West

If there are atrocities against minorities like you are claiming, why are there no mass Muslim migrations out of India ala Rohingya style?

Sure there are cow vigilantes and the occasional lynching of an innocent. It is no where close to what you guys have in mind.

If anything, Hindus in Pakistan want to come and live in India given a chance. What does that say?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

There is only one truth about religion and that is violence with the only exception of Jainism, every other religion has wars and battles enshrined in it.
Holy wars and what not.

Jainism is the only non- violent religion of the world.

From my own limited understanding of Jainism it appears to be the faith that Hindus pretend their faith is.

All the things that Hindus preach but don't really practice is found in Jainism

 

[uppercut]

Numbers of what? Deaths or incidents?

Deaths obviously.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Deaths obviously.

Since the formation of India Hindus have committed more massacres and killed adherents of other religions.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Modi’s gujrat masacre.
Cow vigilant lyncher.
Yogi.
Modi himself.
……

The list is endless in today's India.

The things you mentioned has nothing to do with Hindutva.

Gujarat riots were started with a Muslim mob torching a train carrying Hndu plgrims.
Will never support any kind of vigilantism, much less it is for a cow.
Yogi and Modi are politcians.

Here is what Hindutva stands for.
Hindutva is an inclusive term of everything Indic. The three essentials of Hindutva in Savarkar's definition were the common nation (rashtra), common race (jati), and common culture or civilisation (sanskriti).

Hindutva according to Savarkar is a nations with no division, caste and the one that believes that India is both its Mathru Bhoomi (Motherland) and Pithru Bhoomi(Father land). Savarkar never believed in cow worship or cow veneration. He considered cow as a symbol of weakness.

You can criticize Modi and Yogi politics all you want. But Hindutva has nothing to do with the state of minorities or the troubles they go through in India.

Hindutva is most hated by Communists and Globalists. Hindutva is everything that the afore mentioned groups hate to the core.

 

[Champ_Pal]

They are migrating to countries in the West

By applying for work permits?

Other than Khalisthanis, which other minority is running away from India to the West?

Most people that emigrate from India to the West are Hindus and that too Forward Caste ones.

 

[uppercut]

Since the formation of India Hindus have committed more massacres and killed adherents of other religions.

What is the source for this?

And why the arbitrary demarcation of 1947? Its not like the problem of Muslim intolerance majically evaporated on that day and there was a reset on 15th Aug 1947. The roots of hindu muslim religious conflict goes waaay back.

 

[Champ_Pal]

It has survived for more than 2k years..

Indeed it survived. But lost its popularity among masses. It only survived among merchant class.

India was and is predominantly an agrarian society. One cannot do farming if he is worried about harming living things during cultivation. It takes Ahimsa to extreme levels and makes it impractical for common people.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

What is the source for this?

And why the arbitrary demarcation of 1947? Its not like the problem of Muslim intolerance majically evaporated on that day and there was a reset on 15th Aug 1947. The roots of hindu muslim religious conflict goes waaay back.

You started this conversation by quoting a post where I said the "Hindus of India". It's clear what I was talking about.

 

[Romali_rotti]

You say the Mughals had to compromise as a tiny minority, but why did the Hindu population of India need to compromise with a foreign monarchy bringing a totally different belief system?

Because Cap ppl of the land were accommodating/hospitable however the minute they had enuff they put their foot down and showed the invaders who the boss was. No abhrahamic faiths or British could keep their hold on the land forever which is now called Bharat as they lived on the mercy given by the natives...

 

[Champ_Pal]

What is the source for this?

And why the arbitrary demarcation of 1947? Its not like the problem of Muslim intolerance majically evaporated on that day and there was a reset on 15th Aug 1947. The roots of hindu muslim religious conflict goes waaay back.

The conflict started the day the first Muslim showed up in the subcontinent. Hinduism and Islam are polar opposites of each other. Not just Hinduism but also Buddhism and Jainism are polar opposite of Islam. Sikhism has some commonality with being Monotheistic. But that is where the similarity ends.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Because Cap ppl of the land were accommodating/hospitable however the minute they had enuff they put their foot down and showed the invaders who the boss was. No abhrahamic faiths or British could keep their hold on the land forever which is now called Bharat as they lived on the mercy given by the natives...

Islam was not the only foreign religion to arrive in India. Many have been coming to India for centuries before Islam came. After the initial fight, both managed to learn from each other and the Gods were added to the pantheon. Many invading forces adopted Buddhism and Sanatana concepts like the Kushans Selucid Empire etc.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

The conflict started the day the first Muslim showed up in the subcontinent. Hinduism and Islam are polar opposites of each other. Not just Hinduism but also Buddhism and Jainism are polar opposite of Islam. Sikhism has some commonality with being Monotheistic. But that is where the similarity ends.

The first Muslim showed up in the subcontinent during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (saw). A Tamil king went to Madina to meet the Prophet and converted. He died on the way back but sent his people to preach and eventually build a masjid.

 

[Champ_Pal]

The first Muslim showed up in the subcontinent during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (saw). A Tamil king went to Madina to meet the Prophet and converted. He died on the way back but sent his people to preach and eventually build a masjid.

I am not talking about locals who went and got converted. I am talking about Islamic invaders.

You are talking about king Cheraman Perumal. I know his story.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I am not talking about locals who went and got converted. I am talking about Islamic invaders.

You are talking about king Cheraman Perumal. I know his story.

I am quoting your post. You said when the first Muslim showed up. This clearly isn't the case.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I am quoting your post. You said when the first Muslim showed up. This clearly isn't the case.

My apologies. I should’ve been more clearer.

 

[uppercut]

You started this conversation by quoting a post where I said the "Hindus of India". It's clear what I was talking about.

Except that India a.k.a Bharat existed looooong before 1947.

Leaving technicalities aside the problem of Hindu Muslim conflict was not resolved on 15th Aug 1947. That is a fact. So you cant just arbitrarily draw a line on that date just because you referred to India in your post.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Islamists thinks they are most pious and entire world is conspiring against the world most peaceful religion. They are delude themselves saying Muslim rulers didn't commit any genocide. Most dishonest bunch. Please read below article with valid references.

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

Islamic-invasion of India the greatest genocide in history​

Muslim historian Firishta [full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620], the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, was the first to give an idea to the medieval bloodbath that was India during Muslim rule, when he declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.

Islamic-invasion of india the greatest genocide in history

Source Muslim historian Firishta [full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620], the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, was the first to give an idea t…

www.sami-aldeeb.com

References:

1) Bostom, A. G. ‘The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic holy war and the fate of the non-Muslims.’ Prometheus Books. New York. 2005.
2) Khan, M. A. ‘Islamic Jihad: A legacy of forced conversion, imperialism and slavery.’ iUniverse, Bloomington, IN. 2009. (An Indian ex-Muslim)
3) Lal [a], K.S. Muslims invade India p 433-455 in Bostom (1) above.
4) Lal , K.S. Jihad under the Turks and jihad under the Mughals p 456-461 in Bostom (1) above.
5) Lal [c], K.S. Slave-taking during Muslim rule p535-548 in Bostom (1) above.
6) Lal [d], K.S. Enslavement of Hindus by Arab and Turkish invaders p 549-554 in bostom (1) above.
7) Lal [e], K.S. The Origins of Muslim slave system p 529-534 in bostom (1) above.
8) Reliance of the Traveller: A classic manual of Islamic sacred law. In Arabic with facing English Text, commentary and appendices edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller Al-Misri, Ahmad ibn Naqib; Amana publications Maryland USA 1994.
9) Sookhdeo, P. ‘Global Jihad: The future in the face of Militant Islam.’ Isaac Publishing. 2007.
10) Trifkovic, S. ‘The sword of the prophet.’ Regina Orthodox Press, Inc. 2002.
11) Ye’or, Bat. ‘Islam and Dhimmitude: Where civilisations collide’ translated from the French by Miriam Kochan and David Littman. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press 2002, reprint 2005.

​

 

[ExpressPacer]

I feel like this thread should not be allowed on a civilised forum like PP. A lot of Islamophobic and Hinduphobic opinions being expressed here. After being a member for a decade, I know that the majority of us are better than this.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Malaysia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc are a far cry from the Islamic Golden Age, but still embody the principle of tolerance to the point of honoring non Muslims but still standing firmly alongside the truth of Islam when they transgress.

First of all stop talking about other muslim countries.

We are talking about the sub continent and it is clear Pakistan and Bangladesh are the biggest problem..


Pakistanis and Bangladeshis converts cannot take any credit for what other muslims countries have supposedly done for the Jews, Pagans or whoever else just because you are now a muslim. Your actions show the opposite of what the other muslim countries have done. What the converts have done are there for the whole world to see, no hiding...

Hindutva this Hindutva that, keep running and drifting from the issue that plagues the 2 countries in the sub continent, Especially Pakistan...

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Except that India a.k.a Bharat existed looooong before 1947.

Leaving technicalities aside the problem of Hindu Muslim conflict was not resolved on 15th Aug 1947. That is a fact. So you cant just arbitrarily draw a line on that date just because you referred to India in your post.

It didn't exist apart from the imagination of people.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Islamists thinks they are most pious and entire world is conspiring against the world most peaceful religion. They are delude themselves saying Muslim rulers didn't commit any genocide. Most dishonest bunch. Please read below article with valid references.

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

Islamic-invasion of India the greatest genocide in history​

Muslim historian Firishta [full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620], the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, was the first to give an idea to the medieval bloodbath that was India during Muslim rule, when he declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.

Islamic-invasion of india the greatest genocide in history

Source Muslim historian Firishta [full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620], the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, was the first to give an idea t…

www.sami-aldeeb.com

References:

1) Bostom, A. G. ‘The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic holy war and the fate of the non-Muslims.’ Prometheus Books. New York. 2005.
2) Khan, M. A. ‘Islamic Jihad: A legacy of forced conversion, imperialism and slavery.’ iUniverse, Bloomington, IN. 2009. (An Indian ex-Muslim)
3) Lal [a], K.S. Muslims invade India p 433-455 in Bostom (1) above.
4) Lal , K.S. Jihad under the Turks and jihad under the Mughals p 456-461 in Bostom (1) above.
5) Lal [c], K.S. Slave-taking during Muslim rule p535-548 in Bostom (1) above.
6) Lal [d], K.S. Enslavement of Hindus by Arab and Turkish invaders p 549-554 in bostom (1) above.
7) Lal [e], K.S. The Origins of Muslim slave system p 529-534 in bostom (1) above.
8) Reliance of the Traveller: A classic manual of Islamic sacred law. In Arabic with facing English Text, commentary and appendices edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller Al-Misri, Ahmad ibn Naqib; Amana publications Maryland USA 1994.
9) Sookhdeo, P. ‘Global Jihad: The future in the face of Militant Islam.’ Isaac Publishing. 2007.
10) Trifkovic, S. ‘The sword of the prophet.’ Regina Orthodox Press, Inc. 2002.
11) Ye’or, Bat. ‘Islam and Dhimmitude: Where civilisations collide’ translated from the French by Miriam Kochan and David Littman. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press 2002, reprint 2005.

​

We have already established the greatest genocide in history was carried out by Ashoka ( adjusted for population inflation).

Anyway didn't you in another thread show your belief that ancient Hindus carried out a nuclear attack on another group of people? If we are to believe that then it's the that is surely the greatest in history.

 

[uppercut]

It didn't exist apart from the imagination of people.

The definition of Bharat exists from waaay before even there was Islam. A simple google search will show you the facts.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

The definition of Bharat exists from waaay before even there was Islam. A simple google search will show you the facts.

It exists like "Europe" exists I guess.

But what would we use as a baseline? Which kingdom, which region?

For the purposes of this discussion and any historical discussion it's useless as a concept.

 

[uppercut]

It exists like "Europe" exists I guess.

But what would we use as a baseline? Which kingdom, which region?

For the purposes of this discussion and any historical discussion it's useless as a concept.

Considering the topic of interest is religious conflict between Non-Muslims ( mainly Hindus ) and Muslims I can assure you that 100% of what is today called as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh were ALL 100% NON-Muslim upto approx 700AD.

you can do all the technical gymnastics all you want but that is the cold hard fact.

So lets get back to the crux of the discussion. what is the death toll of Muslims you blame that Hindus for ? I need Dates and body count of the supposedly many massacres that you blame the Hindus for having inflicted on the supposedly innocent Muslims who did no wrong and obviously never ever fired the first shot in any conflicts and were the original pioneers of settling disputes through non-violence ( this is the perception I get based on reading your posts in this thread ) ?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Considering the topic of interest is religious conflict between Non-Muslims ( mainly Hindus ) and Muslims I can assure you that 100% of what is today called as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh were ALL 100% NON-Muslim upto approx 700AD.

you can do all the technical gymnastics all you want but that is the cold hard fact.

So lets get back to the crux of the discussion. what is the death toll of Muslims you blame that Hindus for ? I need Dates and body count of the supposedly many massacres that you blame the Hindus for having inflicted on the supposedly innocent Muslims who did no wrong and obviously never ever fired the first shot in any conflicts and were the original pioneers of settling disputes through non-violence ( this is the perception I get based on reading your posts in this thread ) ?

The people in that region at that had a variety of beliefs and living systems. They lived under different kings and were in conflict with each other. For the purposes of this discussion I can't group them all as Hindus because Hindus at that time chased Buddhists out of the region for example.

The topic of discussion is modern India that's what the OP and subsequent posts are discussing.

Now you have tried multiple times to reframe it and redefine it and to try to frame the discussion in your own way.

Once again you bring up the point about provocation and make sarcastic comments on the innocence of Muslim victims of these terrible crimes.

As I said when you try to frame a discussion in this way I won't be dancing to your tune.

It's clear that you believe Muslims are at fault so I'm not sure what purpose such a discussion would serve anyway.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Because Cap ppl of the land were accommodating/hospitable however the minute they had enuff they put their foot down and showed the invaders who the boss was. No abhrahamic faiths or British could keep their hold on the land forever which is now called Bharat as they lived on the mercy given by the natives...

If they showed the invaders who the boss was, how come there was Mughal rule for nearly 200 years, then the British Raj were saluted for a further 200 years? Unless you mean they showed the Mughals and the British that THEY were the bosses.

 

[uppercut]

The people in that region at that had a variety of beliefs and living systems. They lived under different kings and were in conflict with each other. For the purposes of this discussion I can't group them all as Hindus because Hindus at that time chased Buddhists out of the region for example.

The topic of discussion is modern India that's what the OP and subsequent posts are discussing.

Now you have tried multiple times to reframe it and redefine it and to try to frame the discussion in your own way.

Once again you bring up the point about provocation and make sarcastic comments on the innocence of Muslim victims of these terrible crimes.

As I said when you try to frame a discussion in this way I won't be dancing to your tune.

It's clear that you believe Muslims are at fault so I'm not sure what purpose such a discussion would serve anyway.

And you expect people to dance to your tune by pretending that the Hindu-Muslim conflict was settled on 15-Aug-1947?

 

[IndoorCricket]

We have already established the greatest genocide in history was carried out by Ashoka ( adjusted for population inflation).

Anyway didn't you in another thread show your belief that ancient Hindus carried out a nuclear attack on another group of people? If we are to believe that then it's the that is surely the greatest in history.

How did you establish this? Give me authentic sources and numbers. Islamists declaring Askhoka as a greatest genocider means zilch. And where it was mentioned it was religious?

Ashoka - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Mahavamsa also briefly alludes to Ashoka's cruelty, stating that Ashoka was earlier called Chandashoka because of his evil deeds but came to be called Dharmashoka because of his pious acts after his conversion to Buddhism. However, unlike the north Indian tradition, the Sri Lankan texts do not mention any specific evil deeds performed by Ashoka, except his killing of 99 of his brothers.

Such descriptions of Ashoka as an evil person before his conversion to Buddhism appear to be a fabrication of the Buddhist authors, who attempted to present the change that Buddhism brought to him as a miracle. In an attempt to dramatise this change, such legends exaggerate Ashoka's past wickedness and his piousness after the conversion.

Please bring logic and data to your arguments. It my fault expecting logic and data from Islamists.

 

[IndoorCricket]

We have already established the greatest genocide in history was carried out by Ashoka ( adjusted for population inflation).

Anyway didn't you in another thread show your belief that ancient Hindus carried out a nuclear attack on another group of people? If we are to believe that then it's the that is surely the greatest in history.

Sticking to the thread. I gave valid references on how Islamic invaders carried out the greatest genocide in History. Hindu population dwindled. History will repeat it self as Islamists are the most rigid and dogmatic in their beliefs.

 

[gani999]

I feel like this thread should not be allowed on a civilised forum like PP. A lot of Islamophobic and Hinduphobic opinions being expressed here. After being a member for a decade, I know that the majority of us are better than this.

Threads like this, alongside Modi and India bashing ones, are this forum's bread and butter. And I mean literally.

If everyone stuck to discussing cricket and Imran Khan, this forum would be out of business within a week.

Even the cricket forum is more about Indo-Pak rivalry than about the game itself.

 

[Romali_rotti]

If they showed the invaders who the boss was, how come there was Mughal rule for nearly 200 years, then the British Raj were saluted for a further 200 years? Unless you mean they showed the Mughals and the British that THEY were the bosses.

The native hospitality, that is the only reason why the Mughals and British were allowed to do what they did.

The real power is when the natives wake up and tell the invaders bye bye, your power and control which we allowed you to use, ends now, result is: you see the British go with their head down, tails between their legs, Mughals no longer in command & control....

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The native hospitality, that is the only reason why the Mughals and British were allowed to do what they did.

The real power is when the natives wake up and tell the invaders bye bye, your power and control which we allowed you to use, ends now, result is: you see the British go with their head down, tails between their legs, Mughals no longer in command & control....

I see. So you were so hospitable you allowed the Mughals and Brits to take leadership of Bharat despite being foreigners. But then you woke up? But I thought you allowed them leadership through your own will? What was there to wake up from?

 

[Local.Dada]

I think this will have 0 impact on Some Cobbler in Karachi, fisherman in Bangladesh or some guy living on benefits in London. Things will be business as usual just like they were in Mughal era or under Yogi Adityanath. Yeah might make for fun forum discussions though.