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

[Local.Dada]

Curious: I know Mughals and some other Islamic dynasties ruled parts of India but did any subcontinent origin Muslim outside of Afghan origin ever rule India? I mean I don’t know if any Bengali, Punjabi, Gunga-Jumna Mohajir bhayya Muslim ever ruling India? Genuine question.

 

[Romali_rotti]

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?

Everyone has their limits cap the charity the natives offered to the invaders were then put to a permanent halt.

For converts to the Arab faith like you and your family this would be hard to disgest but it is what it is.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Everyone has their limits cap the charity the natives offered to the invaders were then put to a permanent halt.

For converts to the Arab faith like you and your family this would be hard to disgest but it is what it is.

Look if you want to call being ruled by foreigners as hospitality, I am not going to argue. Coping mechanisms serve their purpose at the end of the day.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Look if you want to call being ruled by foreigners as hospitality, I am not going to argue. Coping mechanisms serve their purpose at the end of the day.

That's it Cap coping mechanisms like denying atrocities done by Muslims against minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh etc serve the purpose at the end of the day.

 

[gani999]

Look if you want to call being ruled by foreigners as hospitality, I am not going to argue. Coping mechanisms serve their purpose at the end of the day.

Invaders, not foreigners.
And you are right about coping mechanisms. They serve their purpose. When the Mughals invaded and occupied India, some coped by keeping their religious identity and fighting for it, while others coped by converting to the religion of the invader.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Invaders, not foreigners.
And you are right about coping mechanisms. They serve their purpose. When the Mughals invaded and occupied India, some coped by keeping their religious identity and fighting for it, while others coped by converting to the religion of the invader.

You are right. To leave sati and caste oppression behind many became Christians, some accepted a new way of life called Islam, and later some became Buddhists and Sikhs. Even today we see many leaving their old ideas behind so they can integrate in the west and many times choose non-hindu partners to cement their new life.

 

[Stewie]

Invaders, not foreigners.
And you are right about coping mechanisms. They serve their purpose. When the Mughals invaded and occupied India, some coped by keeping their religious identity and fighting for it, while others coped by converting to the religion of the invader.

This is a common narrative recently coming out of India or right wing Hindu circles.

The truth is Islam started spreading in India through trade and preaching efforts of Arab long long before these conquerors (8th perhaps even in the 7th century) or invaders came into the picture (10th century).

What is now known as Pakistan, in particular Islam was spread through the Sufi movement. There were a number of factors as to why it spread so easily. The caste system was obviously one of the big ones as locals, particular lower caste ones were disenfranchised thanks to a cruel archaic discriminatory cultural/religious system.

History will provide decent evidence that forced conversions will only lead to temporary changes and people will tend to move back to their original beliefs, that's just natural human rebellion. You cannot suppress the human spirit and beliefs so easily.

 

[Stewie]

There are various thread and discussions here where the Hindu posters themselves admit that the foreign invaders and conquerors really left a vast majority of the locals with their faith and employed them and brought them into their administration class and worked with them, rather than lose their support by completely annihilating their own religious and cultural identity.

Forced conversions is a myth when it comes to these rulers. Not denying it completely, because I am sure at some small scale it did happen but it was certainly not the only or the main reason for the spread of Islam.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

There are various thread and discussions here where the Hindu posters themselves admit that the foreign invaders and conquerors really left a vast majority of the locals with their faith and employed them and brought them into their administration class and worked with them, rather than lose their support by completely annihilating their own religious and cultural identity.

Forced conversions is a myth when it comes to these rulers. Not denying it completely, because I am sure at some small scale it did happen but it was certainly not the only or the main reason for the spread of Islam.

This is obviously how it was recorded in earlier times, it is pretty well documented. Obviously since the rise of a more militant form of Hindu identity, the narrative has to be changed somewhat, perhaps because the reality is considered an embarrasment. Now we have the ridiculous notion that the locals accepted invader rule due to "hospitality" being put forward by some as a coping mechanism. I don't know why, maybe it was just pragmatism, that's not so shameful.

 

[Stewie]

This is obviously how it was recorded in earlier times, it is pretty well documented. Obviously since the rise of a more militant form of Hindu identity, the narrative has to be changed somewhat, perhaps because the reality is considered an embarrasment. Now we have the ridiculous notion that the locals accepted invader rule due to "hospitality" being put forward by some as a coping mechanism. I don't know why, maybe it was just pragmatism, that's not so shameful.

its not a somewhat change. its an alternate history they are trying to spread.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Invaders, not foreigners.
And you are right about coping mechanisms. They serve their purpose. When the Mughals invaded and occupied India, some coped by keeping their religious identity and fighting for it, while others coped by converting to the religion of the invader.

Very few people fought lol. In the grand scheme of things very few people converted to the religion of the "invader" either.

The vast majority of Hindus plodded along because it made no difference to their day to dya lives if the king was a Muslim or a Hindu. Many of them joined the new regimes while keeping their religious identity intact as advisors or administrators in the kingdoms because for the most there was nothing to "fight" against.

Audrey Truschke has carried out some well documented research regarding the Hindu-Muslim relations of the time.

 

[Stewie]

There is actually quite a few discussions on Asoka on Quora about his genocidal past, and quite a few Hindus have actually tried to bring it up and how the history is being altered by presenting him as a heroic figure. I personally don't know much but I do remember seeing something like that on Quora or Reddit a while back.

 

[Stewie]

Oh wow. you are so right, @DeadlyVenom

I found this: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/ashoka

This is not a Muslim, I am glad. its a well reputed source and some non Muslim sounding author. lol

Eight years after seizing power around 270 B.C., Ashoka led a military campaign to conquer Kalinga, a coastal kingdom in east-central India. The victory left him with a larger domain than that of any of his predecessors. Accounts claim between 100,000 and 300,000 lives were lost during the conquest.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Oh wow. you are so right, @DeadlyVenom

I found this: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/ashoka

This is not a Muslim, I am glad. its a well reputed source and some non Muslim sounding author. lol

There is many such examples throughout their history of Hindu kingdoms attacking each other carrying out pillaging and even burning down temples!

But they frame history in a way that suits them.

Mughals - genocidal foreign Islamists. ( Even though the majority of them were born in the land and married women of the land. And the administration was mainly Hindu.)

All Hindu Kings - Peace loving hippies( Even though their crimes would give you chills)

 

[Suleiman]

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...

You are the only who divides Muslims in his head into converts and non converts, as if Islam is a birthright.

One of the first ideal you are taught in Islam is that all Muslims are equal regardless of race and regardless of being born into it or reverting later in life.

You say I’m saying Hindutva this Hindutva that, yet you come on a Pakistani forum to cry about Islam on the daily.

 

[Suleiman]

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...

Also you do realize the companions of the Prophet PBUH, and the Muslims in the next few centuries and millennia before Islam spread to their lands were all reverts? (you say convert, we use the word revert) Some of the greatest generals, scientists and scholars were from lands distant from Mecca and Medina where the Prophet PBUH lived, even in different continents. Places like Cordoba in Spain, Morocco, Iraq, all of which were not Muslim from the get go, but you seem to have it out for the “converts” especially as if that’s supposed to be a bad thing lol.

Salman Al Farisi RA was one of Prophet Muhammad PBUH’s closest companions, yet he was a so called “convert”. So what?

 

[RexRex]

Eight years after seizing power around 270 B.C., Ashoka led a military campaign to conquer Kalinga, a coastal kingdom in east-central India. The victory left him with a larger domain than that of any of his predecessors. Accounts claim between 100,000 and 300,000 lives were lost during the conquest.

Those sound like 200,000 military lives aka soldiers as opposed to civilians.

 

[Hitman]

Oh wow. you are so right, @DeadlyVenom

I found this: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/ashoka

This is not a Muslim, I am glad. its a well reputed source and some non Muslim sounding author. lol

Were they soldiers killed in the battlefield or were they common civilians? Let me put out example of civilians -

The siege of Chittorgarh (23 October 1567 – 23 February 1568) was the military expedition of the Mughal Empire under Akbar against the Mewar kingdom that commenced in 1567 during which the Mughals successfully captured the fort of Chittorgarh after a hard-pressed siege which lasted for several months.

Akbar under his expansionist policy, besieged the strategic Sisodia capital of Chittor in October 1567 and further gave a religious colour to the struggle by declaring it as a Jihād against the infidels. On Akbar's advance, Sisodia ruler Rana Udai Singh moved to the mountainous principality of his kingdom (on the advice of his war councils) and placed the fort under the command of Jaimal Rathore.

After over four months of seesaw action during which the Mughal forces suffered heavy casualties, the battle eventually broke the deadlock when Jaimal succumbed to a musket shot of Akbar on 22 February 1568. The fort was captured the next morning on the day of Holi after a gallant resistance by the Rajputs. The conquest of Chittor was proclaimed by Akbar as the victory of Islam over infidels.

After the subjugation of the fort, Akbar ordered a general massacre of Chittor's population in the course of which 30,000 Hindu civilians were slaughtered and a large number of women and children were enslaved. Akbar placed the fort under his general Asaf Khan and returned to Agra.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Chittorgarh_(1567–1568)


And before you try to paint it off as Hindutva propaganda, Akbar's own courtyard Abul Fazl wrote the whole thing in Akbar's biography called 'Akbarnama'.

 

[JaDed]

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

Because Dharmic faiths are inter mixed that it confuses many, there are many of the teachings of Jainism in Hinduism too but because the sources are so many each can follow a certain sect(this is my understanding after all these years).

Jainism also unfortunately needs protection, Hindus and Sikhs will have to protect them in some capacity.

@Champ_Pal there are Jains involved in agriculture, it’s just the merchant class which spreads that they can’t be involved with agriculture.

Jains don’t eat root veggies but they eat others esp pulses legumes.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Because Dharmic faiths are inter mixed that it confuses many, there are many of the teachings of Jainism in Hinduism too but because the sources are so many each can follow a certain sect(this is my understanding after all these years).

Jainism also unfortunately needs protection, Hindus and Sikhs will have to protect them in some capacity.

@Champ_Pal there are Jains involved in agriculture, it’s just the merchant class which spreads that they can’t be involved with agriculture.

Jains don’t eat root veggies but they eat others esp pulses legumes.

What do you think they will need protection from?

Modernity or religious based violence?

This is just from my very casual reading but ai have read they don't even get involved in agricultural because bugs and pests can die during agriculture operations.

 

[JaDed]

What do you think they will need protection from?

Modernity or religious based violence?

This is just from my very casual reading but ai have read they don't even get involved in agricultural because bugs and pests can die during agriculture operations.

Religious based violence.. they have faced violence throughout even from one sect of Hinduism, on the thread except Akbar (who liked them) every Muslim King also prosecuted them.

They always inter mingle with Hindus though, as they feel the ease due to Hindus being accepting of Jain food as its available in many restaurants.

Yes they don’t want to kill bugs even filtering water is frowned upon, but they have certain sects that do farming.

 

[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?

I will give you two prominent examples of why the roots of this conflict are soo ancient and go back many centuries...

1. Babri Masjid
2. Gyanvapi Masjid


In both cases it was crystal clear for anyone with basic eyesight and common knowledge that these are structures built by demolishing temples that were extremely sacred to Hindus. yet in the 21st century Muslims doggedly and brazenly refused to peacefully turn over these structures to Hindus.

In both cases it is the Hindus that took the civilized approach to try and settle the dispute by approaching the courts and thru mediation. But the muslims did not budge an inch and therefore the Babri Masjid was brought down. So who do you blame for the riots that followed In 1992?


this is why its extremely naive to think that this dispute was settled in 1947 and we moved on after that. The truth of the matter is that there is no shortage of Muslims who take pride in past muslim rulers who were bonafide barbarians. This forum is a live example of that.

Therefore its not me who is trying to reframe or redefine the timeline and geography on this dispute. Its the other way around and the reasons are obvious.

But I can pretend that time started in 1947 for the sake of argument. Are you saying that the casulties from 1971 genocide and Kashmiri Hindu genocide, countless terror attacks are less compared to the Muslim Casualties ?

 

[RexRex]

In both cases it was crystal clear for anyone with basic eyesight and common knowledge that these are structures built by demolishing temples that were extremely sacred to Hindus. yet in the 21st century Muslims doggedly and brazenly refused to peacefully turn over these structures to Hindus.

In both cases it is the Hindus that took the civilized approach to try and settle the dispute by approaching the courts and thru mediation. But the muslims did not budge an inch and therefore the Babri Masjid was brought down. So who do you blame for the riots that followed In 1992?

Muslims had every legal right to refuse to hand over their mosque.

It was a smart decision by muslims to refuse .. because if they did agree to hand over one mosque, that would potentially lead to a tsunami of subsequent requests from hindus from all over India to turn other mosques into temples.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I will give you two prominent examples of why the roots of this conflict are soo ancient and go back many centuries...

1. Babri Masjid
2. Gyanvapi Masjid


In both cases it was crystal clear for anyone with basic eyesight and common knowledge that these are structures built by demolishing temples that were extremely sacred to Hindus. yet in the 21st century Muslims doggedly and brazenly refused to peacefully turn over these structures to Hindus.

In both cases it is the Hindus that took the civilized approach to try and settle the dispute by approaching the courts and thru mediation. But the muslims did not budge an inch and therefore the Babri Masjid was brought down. So who do you blame for the riots that followed In 1992?


this is why its extremely naive to think that this dispute was settled in 1947 and we moved on after that. The truth of the matter is that there is no shortage of Muslims who take pride in past muslim rulers who were bonafide barbarians. This forum is a live example of that.

Therefore its not me who is trying to reframe or redefine the timeline and geography on this dispute. Its the other way around and the reasons are obvious.

But I can pretend that time started in 1947 for the sake of argument. Are you saying that the casulties from 1971 genocide and Kashmiri Hindu genocide, countless terror attacks are less compared to the Muslim Casualties ?

1. We take pride in the Mughals accomplishments. Your opinion of them make zero difference to the realities of their rule. Where they commited errors we will condemn them.

2. I blame the rioters for the riots and the killings. Nobody else. There is nothing that justify mob violence. I'm surprised that you can blame a temple for some poor man who may have been going about his business being killed by a mob.

3. I was making a comparison between Muslim Rule and Hindu rule. The only time in India where Muslims have lived under Hindu rule is the modern era. You have made about 6 posts where you claim I mentioned the issue was settled. Where have I said this? It's clear by the violence in India that it isn't settled.

 

[Stewie]

Muslims had every legal right to refuse to hand over their mosque.

It was a smart decision by muslims to refuse .. because if they did agree to hand over one mosque, that would potentially lead to a tsunami of subsequent requests from hindus from all over India to turn other mosques into temples.

Well, I for one, certainly applaud your honesty and your candid take on this matter.

 

[HalBass9]

No Hindu in the 1850s is capable to confirm that the Babri Masjid, built in the 1500s, stood on the ruins of a Ram temple.

And, not a single Hindu is capable of confirming it in 2024 either.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

No Hindu in the 1850s is capable to confirm that the Babri Masjid, built in the 1500s, stood on the ruins of a Ram temple.

And, not a single Hindu is capable of confirming it in 2024 either.

tbf it almost certainly was.

Muslims of India should have voluntarily returned the mosque after the courts decisions.

 

[uppercut]

1. We take pride in the Mughals accomplishments. Your opinion of them make zero difference to the realities of their rule. Where they commited errors we will condemn them.

Errors? More like rape pillage massacre religious intolerance on a scale that would make Hitler look like a saint. So considering the theme of your post is non-violence why have you not distanced yourself from these animals?

2. I blame the rioters for the riots and the killings. Nobody else. There is nothing that justify mob violence. I'm surprised that you can blame a temple for some poor man who may have been going about his business being killed by a mob.

Which in the case of post Babri riots would be predominantly Muslims.

3. I was making a comparison between Muslim Rule and Hindu rule. The only time in India where Muslims have lived under Hindu rule is the modern era.

This is not true at all ... Marathas and Sikh empires are prime examples. There are other examples too but the point is that none of them did anything abominable like the Muslim rulers.

You have made about 6 posts where you claim I mentioned the issue was settled. Where have I said this? It's clear by the violence in India that it isn't settled.

Because thats the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from your dogged refusal to touch the bloody history pre-1947. But now that you agree that it isnt settled what are the major attrocities that come remotely close to the millions of hindus killed or driven out from kashmir, bd ? How many terror attacks by Hindus on Muslims?

 

[uppercut]

And, not a single Hindu is capable of confirming it in 2024 either.

So the extensive archaeological survey conducted by the ASI under strict court supervision and meticulously documented in the presence of witnesses from all parties was all fake news? That survey took months to complete and was a complete waste of tax payer money because prior to the Mosque demolition it stood on pillars from hindu temple remains Which were so incongruous that one would have to be really naive to Believe That they were part of Islamic architecture.


But anyhow it's quite shocking how you so doggedly defend the indefensible when legit information is freely available at your fingertips.

 

[Local.Dada]

No Hindu in the 1850s is capable to confirm that the Babri Masjid, built in the 1500s, stood on the ruins of a Ram temple.

And, not a single Hindu is capable of confirming it in 2024 either.

What is your source for this? So you don’t trust Indian court, You don’t trust the chief archeologist who by the way is “KK Muhammad”, you don’t trust the various evidences presented in court proceeding but probably some Maulana in some sermon said Hindus did this and that, that gets you off looks like. May I ask how much did you research about this case and checked arguments of both sides to come to this conclusion. You are the same guy who can’t hold conversation on most topics related on Pakistan and give the same old rhetoric but you want to join a circle jerk that this was unfair and what not?

Kuch bhi mat pelo bhaijaan, yaha pe chal jayega.

You guys need to separate 2 things here- yes the demolition was a criminal activity technically as people took law in their own hands.

That has nothing to do with the judgement or the case itself.

They are 2 different things.

Also there is apparently a historical document called “Babarnama” where everyone’s favorite Babur’s pastimes are documented. Won’t be appealing to the ones who have doubts if hand sanitizer is halal.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Errors? More like rape pillage massacre religious intolerance on a scale that would make Hitler look like a saint. So considering the theme of your post is non-violence why have you not distanced yourself from these animals?





Which in the case of post Babri riots would be predominantly Muslims.




This is not true at all ... Marathas and Sikh empires are prime examples. There are other examples too but the point is that none of them did anything abominable like the Muslim rulers.



Because thats the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from your dogged refusal to touch the bloody history pre-1947. But now that you agree that it isnt settled what are the major attrocities that come remotely close to the millions of hindus killed or driven out from kashmir, bd ? How many terror attacks by Hindus on Muslims?

I'll "distance" myself from them when you acknowledge and distance yourself from the Hindu Kingdoms who did the same.

You are intent on blaming Muslims for their own deaths at the hands of bloodthirsty Hindus.

PS Sikh empire can't be used as an example of Hindu rule I think you have lost the plot with this comment and the Hitler one.

Where is the genocide in Kashmir against Hindus? Your army has killed 100,000 people and used rape as a weapon of war this has been widely acknowledged by numerous international bodies. In comparison, I think around 80 pandits may have been killed. What the hell kind of comparison are you expecting here?

 

[HalBass9]

Again, not a single person is capable of confirming that Ram temple was demolished to build Babri Mosque.

Re-read it slowly this time.

 

[HalBass9]

What is your source for this? So you don’t trust Indian court, You don’t trust the chief archeologist who by the way is “KK Muhammad”, you don’t trust the various evidences presented in court proceeding but probably some Maulana in some sermon said Hindus did this and that, that gets you off looks like. May I ask how much did you research about this case and checked arguments of both sides to come to this conclusion. You are the same guy who can’t hold conversation on most topics related on Pakistan and give the same old rhetoric but you want to join a circle jerk that this was unfair and what not?

Kuch bhi mat pelo bhaijaan, yaha pe chal jayega.

You guys need to separate 2 things here- yes the demolition was a criminal activity technically as people took law in their own hands.

That has nothing to do with the judgement or the case itself.

They are 2 different things.

Also there is apparently a historical document called “Babarnama” where everyone’s favorite Babur’s pastimes are documented. Won’t be appealing to the ones who have doubts if hand sanitizer is halal.

Pakistan’s economy is bad.

Pakistani government is bad.

Pakistani military rule is bad.

Pakistani are scared of extremists.

Now which other Pakistani topic would you like to discuss.

Let me know I’ll make myself available.

 

[Stewie]

What is your source for this? So you don’t trust Indian court, You don’t trust the chief archeologist who by the way is “KK Muhammad”, you don’t trust the various evidences presented in court proceeding but probably some Maulana in some sermon said Hindus did this and that, that gets you off looks like. May I ask how much did you research about this case and checked arguments of both sides to come to this conclusion. You are the same guy who can’t hold conversation on most topics related on Pakistan and give the same old rhetoric but you want to join a circle jerk that this was unfair and what not?

Kuch bhi mat pelo bhaijaan, yaha pe chal jayega.

You guys need to separate 2 things here- yes the demolition was a criminal activity technically as people took law in their own hands.

That has nothing to do with the judgement or the case itself.

They are 2 different things.

Also there is apparently a historical document called “Babarnama” where everyone’s favorite Babur’s pastimes are documented. Won’t be appealing to the ones who have doubts if hand sanitizer is halal.

wow he really threw us a curve ball here with this question...

 

[RexRex]

Well, I for one, certainly applaud your honesty and your candid take on this matter.

does that mean i've been dishonest on other posts of mine ?

 

[Stewie]

wait .. does that mean i've been dishonest on other posts of mine ?

Only you can answer that question, my friend. I am not judging anybody here. But I will praise you for your candor and consistency in your views. At least you don't jump all around the place like brother @Champ_Pal, joshila woshila, serdar hoshiarbash, and other such cartoonish characters here.

So I salute you.. ab kia chummis loon aap ki? Chalo bhaago Yahan se

 

[Local.Dada]

wow he really threw us a curve ball here with this question...

That’s because everything else said went over your head. Isse kehte hai dehleez pe thook dena- the English translation will be crude unless not used in medical capacity.


KK Muhammad was also probably something that came out of syllabus for you but you probably don’t “read” too much which is a continuing problem lol

 

[uppercut]

I'll "distance" myself from them when you acknowledge and distance yourself from the Hindu Kingdoms who did the same.

Which are these Hindu Kingdoms? And What are their attrocities on Muslims that are even remotely comparable to the attrocities carried out by muslims ( and continue to this day) ?

You are intent on blaming Muslims for their own deaths at the hands of bloodthirsty Hindus.

Depends how your root cause analysis process works ... for example you have yet to answer as to Who do you blame for the post 1992 babri Masjid demolition riots?

I suppose the expectation is that Hindus should not retaliate violently no matter how horrific the attacks on them? For instance what was your expectations when Muslims brazenly refused to hand over the Babri Masjid despite many decades spent trying to resolve that dispute through civilized mean?

PS Sikh empire can't be used as an example of Hindu rule I think you have lost the plot with this comment and the Hitler one.

Except that I never claimed that ... i clearly said Sikh empire meaning Sikh rule. And I stand by my comment on Comparing attrocities of Muslim rulers with Hitlers attrocities.

Where is the genocide in Kashmir against Hindus?

What? How do you think the land of Hindu Sages with some of the holiest hindu shrines is now 99% Muslim ?

Your army has killed 100,000 people and used rape as a weapon of war this has been widely acknowledged by numerous international bodies. In comparison, I think around 80 pandits may have been killed. What the hell kind of comparison are you expecting here?

You forget that about 300k of them were permanently driven out and some still live as refugees in Delhi. Ofcourse since you have conveniently reset the time frame to post 1947 the previous and more horrific attrocities are now all brushed under the carpet. This is why we cannot look at events in isolation as these are long running disputes going back centuries.


But go ahead tell Me why there were 80 pandits killed And 300 driven out who is responsible for that?

 

[Stewie]

That’s because everything else said went over your head. Isse kehte hai dehleez pe thook dena- the English translation will be crude unless not used in medical capacity.


KK Muhammad was also probably something that came out of syllabus for you but you probably don’t “read” too much which is a continuing problem lol

I am absolutely depressed and sad at such rough and tough treatment from the Local.Dada. Maybe I should vehemently agree with everything he says and not argue anything KK Muhammad says because of his name, of course, why should I even for second doubt him? He has Muhammad in his name. Obviously with a name like him, he is immune to any manner of dishonesty or fear of retaliation from the Indian RW government.

 

[Local.Dada]

I am absolutely depressed and sad at such rough and tough treatment from the Local.Dada. Maybe I should vehemently agree with everything he says and not argue anything KK Muhammad says because of his name, of course, why should I even for second doubt him? He has Muhammad in his name. Obviously with a name like him, he is immune to any manner of dishonesty or fear of retaliation from the Indian RW government.

bunch of gas but still no attempt to actually hear or read on the case.

Also KK Muhammad is an Indian Muslim was only for your reference , he is not a typical genrail turned archeologist. He actually treats it a science and there are videos of his interviews where he broke down the scientific process for the analysis. Funnily reading and research is too much to ask, I get that but at least watch a YouTube video lol. Maybe you want understand due to lack of comprehension skills but why not; give it a shot: how many days will you get off on- “man I really owned that guy on PP today” etc. it has 0 real world value

 

[HalBass9]

What was the evidence that it confirm it was actually a Ram temple?

If start digging India than India will find hundreds of more temple.

 

[Local.Dada]

What was the evidence that it confirm it was actually a Ram temple?

If start digging India than India will find hundreds of more temple.

The archeology department said, courts accepted- case closed.

After verdict Indian Muslims accepted, the Waqf or whoever the custodians were compensated- no riots, matter ended peacefully.

You can have all the opinion in the world you want, that’s free and at no cost. So continue.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Which are these Hindu Kingdoms? And What are their attrocities on Muslims that are even remotely comparable to the attrocities carried out by muslims ( and continue to this day) ?




Depends how your root cause analysis process works ... for example you have yet to answer as to Who do you blame for the post 1992 babri Masjid demolition riots?

I suppose the expectation is that Hindus should not retaliate violently no matter how horrific the attacks on them? For instance what was your expectations when Muslims brazenly refused to hand over the Babri Masjid despite many decades spent trying to resolve that dispute through civilized mean?




Except that I never claimed that ... i clearly said Sikh empire meaning Sikh rule. And I stand by my comment on Comparing attrocities of Muslim rulers with Hitlers attrocities.



What? How do you think the land of Hindu Sages with some of the holiest hindu shrines is now 99% Muslim ?



You forget that about 300k of them were permanently driven out and some still live as refugees in Delhi. Ofcourse since you have conveniently reset the time frame to post 1947 the previous and more horrific attrocities are now all brushed under the carpet. This is why we cannot look at events in isolation as these are long running disputes going back centuries.


But go ahead tell Me why there were 80 pandits killed And 300 driven out who is responsible for that?

I'm not talking about atrocities on Muslims when I refer to Hindu Kingdoms. What I mean is that the types of things that Mughals did were normal for ALL of the kingdoms of the subcontinent. If Hindu leaders burnt down leaders you should be agrieved just as much as if the Mughals did. For some reason you aren't.

Secondly I'm not sure how many times I can say this to you but there is no justification for moving violence. Judging by your response to the Hindu killing of Muslims (left with no choice) I'm sure you are Muslims killing when they feel they have no choice then.....but I bet you will forget this argument when that time comes. My expectations of the Hindus would be to not kill random people. That's a very low bar to set as expectation but again you seem quite keen to give them right to kill and act as a mob?

What do you want me to tell you about the Pandits? You have asked me for examples of killings and the one you provided yourself is 80 Pandits to 100,000 Kashmiri Muslims that you refuse to acknowledge. What more is there to say to you.....

 

[Stewie]

The archeology department said, courts accepted- case closed.

After verdict Indian Muslims accepted, the Waqf or whoever the custodians were compensated- no riots, matter ended peacefully.

You can have all the opinion in the world you want, that’s free and at no cost. So continue.

TRANSLATION: Dont question us, we have made our decision in light of reports presented to us by our experts who also have been told not to question us when we told them what to put in those reports.


Yes, very nice!

 

[Stewie]

 

[uppercut]

I'm not talking about atrocities on Muslims when I refer to Hindu Kingdoms. What I mean is that the types of things that Mughals did were normal for ALL of the kingdoms of the subcontinent. If Hindu leaders burnt down leaders you should be agrieved just as much as if the Mughals did. For some reason you aren't.

And what I am saying start with ACTUAL evidence of that happening. What was the most horrific attoricty that was carried out on Muslims by any hindu/sikh/jain/buddhist kingdoms ? So yeah I do not agree that it was normal at all.

Secondly I'm not sure how many times I can say this to you but there is no justification for moving violence. Judging by your response to the Hindu killing of Muslims (left with no choice) I'm sure you are Muslims killing when they feel they have no choice then.....but I bet you will forget this argument when that time comes. My expectations of the Hindus would be to not kill random people. That's a very low bar to set as expectation but again you seem quite keen to give them right to kill and act as a mob?

You are completely evading my question. And it is very very simple: who do hold accountable for the lost of life and livelihood due to the Post Babri Masjid riots ? Simple pointed answer please.

What do you want me to tell you about the Pandits? You have asked me for examples of killings and the one you provided yourself is 80 Pandits to 100,000 Kashmiri Muslims that you refuse to acknowledge. What more is there to say to you.....

Where did I refuse to acknowledge that. Its a well know fact and unlike some of your fellow co-religionsts who will doggedly refuse to even acknowledge basic facts I dont operate that way. So I am very well aware of what happened in Kashmir. But trying to ignore centuries worth of horrific history and then trying to lay the blame for the last episode solely on Hindus is where it gets tedious.

So I ask again who do you hold responsible for the Post Babri demolition riots ? Please name names of parties.

 

[uppercut]

What was the evidence that it confirm it was actually a Ram temple?

If start digging India than India will find hundreds of more temple.

The bigger question is what evidence would you accept?. Considering your past posting history ... it will come as a rude shock to me if you were to say that you are even amenable to any evidence in that matter( let alone accepting it). So shock me !

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I'll "distance" myself from them when you acknowledge and distance yourself from the Hindu Kingdoms who did the same.

You are intent on blaming Muslims for their own deaths at the hands of bloodthirsty Hindus.

PS Sikh empire can't be used as an example of Hindu rule I think you have lost the plot with this comment and the Hitler one.

Where is the genocide in Kashmir against Hindus? Your army has killed 100,000 people and used rape as a weapon of war this has been widely acknowledged by numerous international bodies. In comparison, I think around 80 pandits may have been killed. What the hell kind of comparison are you expecting here?

I don't know why you bother engaging with some of these posters, they can turn 80 Hindu pandits into millions killed in Kashmir alone. Their courts are filled with the same judges, all with a score to settle after hundreds of years of Mughal then British rule. The hindutva movement was born to specifically reverse some of their more fanciful beliefs, and as a result they need to exaggerate some aspects of history to justify it.

 

[Stewie]

The bigger question is what evidence would you accept?. Considering your past posting history ... it will come as a rude shock to me if you were to say that you are even amenable to any evidence in that matter( let alone accepting it). So shock me !

Unfortunately for you this is an argument you cannot win.

There are Hindus here who have absolutely dissected Quran and Sunnah asking us for proof of this and that. Problem with such things is the proof or evidence can either sound absolutely rock solid to you or may seem flimsy as a paper house, depends on how you look at it.

Don’t think anybody questions the legitimacy of a temple there in the past. But whether that was truly ram janam bhoomi or not is still uncertain from various independent reports I have read.

As a matter of fact, I also read that present day Ayodhaya may not even be the ancient Ayodhaya from Hindu mythology or scripture, etc.

Once again, you can poke holes in these arguments all day and im Sure you will. But the truth is there is absolutely no way to prove Ram was born on that exact piece of land centuries ago. There are questions these days on whether Jesus existed.

Such things can be brutal from a truly pragmatic legal standpoint. Just my two cents.

 

[uppercut]

Muslims had every legal right to refuse to hand over their mosque.

It was a smart decision by muslims to refuse .. because if they did agree to hand over one mosque, that would potentially lead to a tsunami of subsequent requests from hindus from all over India to turn other mosques into temples.

such a "smart" decision that it resulted in deaths of thousands across numerous riots throughout the country and countless lives upended and not to mention a complete irreversible divide between the two communities.

And if you wonder why I don't respond to you ... this is a shining example. And ofcourse further confirmed by the endorsement from the one and only Mr. Inverse man himself

 

[HalBass9]

The archeology department said, courts accepted- case closed.

After verdict Indian Muslims accepted, the Waqf or whoever the custodians were compensated- no riots, matter ended peacefully.

You can have all the opinion in the world you want, that’s free and at no cost. So continue.

Sir, it appears that your perspective is shaped by another’s opinion. However, how can we be certain that it was specifically a Ram temple that was demolished to construct the mosque, rather than any other temple?

 

[HalBass9]

The bigger question is what evidence would you accept?. Considering your past posting history ... it will come as a rude shock to me if you were to say that you are even amenable to any evidence in that matter( let alone accepting it). So shock me !

Weren't you the one disparaging every Muslim and spreading your hatred over an accusation against a vendor for allegedly contaminating food or drink?

Step down from your high horse; your disdain for everything Muslim is well-known, and no one is surprised.

As for evidence, I am nearly certain that no one in modern India can provide such proof, as there is no clear understanding or conclusive knowledge on the matter.

There was a temple, just as there would be in many places across India.

 

[HalBass9]

such a "smart" decision that it resulted in deaths of thousands across numerous riots throughout the country and countless lives upended and not to mention a complete irreversible divide between the two communities.

And if you wonder why I don't respond to you ... this is a shining example. And ofcourse further confirmed by the endorsement from the one and only Mr. Inverse man himself

Kindly do me the same favor, as your excessive tolerance and intelligence are simply too much for my taste.

 

[Local.Dada]

TRANSLATION: Dont question us, we have made our decision in light of reports presented to us by our experts who also have been told not to question us when we told them what to put in those reports.


Yes, very nice!

That’s probably the first thing you understood without comprehension issues.
Congratulations. You deserve a cookie.

 

[Local.Dada]

Sir, it appears that your perspective is shaped by another’s opinion. However, how can we be certain that it was specifically a Ram temple that was demolished to construct the mosque, rather than any other temple?

Why do I or for the matter of fact any Indian need to give justification to you? Case is closed. Temple is built. Maybe wait for the next Babar or some other foreigner to come and try that stunt again, we will revisit the topic.

 

[Stewie]

That’s probably the first thing you understood without comprehension issues.
Congratulations. You deserve a cookie.

That's a slow clap back moment indeed. You can keep the cookie, eat it on your next trip to the ram Janam bhoomi.

 

[uppercut]

Unfortunately for you this is an argument you cannot win.

There are Hindus here who have absolutely dissected Quran and Sunnah asking us for proof of this and that. Problem with such things is the proof or evidence can either sound absolutely rock solid to you or may seem flimsy as a paper house, depends on how you look at it.

Big difference between questioning a belief system versus existence of actual physical structure.

Don’t think anybody questions the legitimacy of a temple there in the past. But whether that was truly ram janam bhoomi or not is still uncertain from various independent reports I have read.

As a matter of fact, I also read that present day Ayodhaya may not even be the ancient Ayodhaya from Hindu mythology or scripture, etc.

Once again, you can poke holes in these arguments all day and im Sure you will. But the truth is there is absolutely no way to prove Ram was born on that exact piece of land centuries ago. There are questions these days on whether Jesus existed.

Such things can be brutal from a truly pragmatic legal standpoint. Just my two cents.

You may not know this but the stance of the WAQF board that was defending the Babri Masjid was that no temple was demolished by Babar when the mosque was originally built by Babar. This is when the mosque had numerous pillars with hindu architectural style visible in plain sight. This is the type of brazen and blatantly in-your-face idiots that Hindus have to live with on a daily basis. There is no concept of civilized dispute resolution for them.

 

[HalBass9]

Why do I or for the matter of fact any Indian need to give justification to you? Case is closed. Temple is built. Maybe wait for the next Babar or some other foreigner to come and try that stunt again, we will revisit the topic.

There is no obligation on your part to respond. However, as you initially chose to quote my post in an attempt to counter my opinion, if you now decide not to provide substantive evidence supporting the existence of a Ram temple, that decision rests entirely with you.

 

[Stewie]

Big difference between questioning a belief system versus existence of actual physical structure.




You may not know this but the stance of the WAQF board that was defending the Babri Masjid was that no temple was demolished by Babar when the mosque was originally built by Babar. This is when the mosque had numerous pillars with hindu architectural style visible in plain sight. This is the type of brazen and blatantly in-your-face idiots that Hindus have to live with on a daily basis. There is no concept of civilized dispute resolution for them.

I honestly don't know have any skin in the game, I don't know who or what Waqf board is and claimed. I am just saying that its pretty funny you guys are claiming it was proven somehow to be Ram Janam bhoomi. On your first point, we have some people from your community even questioning if Kaaba was built by Abraham. Maybe that helps you understand my point a bit more.

These things are very hard to prove and its admirable that the Indian government actually tried to do it, at least they wanted to portray some semblance of democracy and proper due course and justice there. But let us not kid ourselves. It was built on an old mandir and Babar demolished that mandir and built a masjid there. That is the best you can really do in terms of retracing historicity there. There is no way to prove Ram was born there and the temple built there was in the honor of his birth there.

 

[uppercut]

I honestly don't know have any skin in the game, I don't know who or what Waqf board is and claimed. I am just saying that its pretty funny you guys are claiming it was proven somehow to be Ram Janam bhoomi. On your first point, we have some people from your community even questioning if Kaaba was built by Abraham. Maybe that helps you understand my point a bit more.

There be all sorts of idiots everywhere who will question everything. But the only parallel that is remotely close to the Babri Masjid is the Al-Aqsa mosque. As far as I know nobody tries to dispute the muslim version of why that Mosque is holy to them

These things are very hard to prove and its admirable that the Indian government actually tried to do it, at least they wanted to portray some semblance of democracy and proper due course and justice there. But let us not kid ourselves. It was built on an old mandir and Babar demolished that mandir and built a masjid there. That is the best you can really do in terms of retracing historicity there. There is no way to prove Ram was born there and the temple built there was in the honor of his birth there.

A lot of really ancient artifacts were found in the archeological excavation of that site including idols. The court however did not just go by that. There was other corroboratory evidence in the form of ancient multiple hindu texts that describe where Lord Ram was born, experts in hindu theology that was used to rule in favor. It is all documented meticulously.

But it need not have gone to that bizzarre extent. This was a golden opportunity for Muslims to permanently resolve the Hindu-muslim nonsense by realizing that the Mosque stood squarely on top of a temple ( Never mind that while it was around it stood on Hindu temple pillars that anyone with basic common sense could tell had nothing to do with Islamic architecture ).


But instead of taking the dignified and honorable route they sadly chose the option of permanent confrontation. this is one of the many many reasons why Hindus have stopped being civilized when it comes to dealing with Muslim intolerance.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

And what I am saying start with ACTUAL evidence of that happening. What was the most horrific attoricty that was carried out on Muslims by any hindu/sikh/jain/buddhist kingdoms ? So yeah I do not agree that it was normal at all.




You are completely evading my question. And it is very very simple: who do hold accountable for the lost of life and livelihood due to the Post Babri Masjid riots ? Simple pointed answer please.




Where did I refuse to acknowledge that. Its a well know fact and unlike some of your fellow co-religionsts who will doggedly refuse to even acknowledge basic facts I dont operate that way. So I am very well aware of what happened in Kashmir. But trying to ignore centuries worth of horrific history and then trying to lay the blame for the last episode solely on Hindus is where it gets tedious.

So I ask again who do you hold responsible for the Post Babri demolition riots ? Please name names of parties.

1. Again you are fixated on Hindu Kingdoms persecuting Muslims. I haven't made that point, you are trying to get me to answer for something I haven't said. I am saying that many Hindu kings operated in the same way as Mughals did towards Hindus. It was normal at the time for the conqueror to behave this way. Mughals also fought wars amongst themselves and their families. They destroyed temples when conquering, and built them when the conquering had finished.

They entered India after defeating the Delhi Sultanate ( Muslims).

Now you tell me - why is what Mughals did to some Hindu tribes so different in practice to lets say Rajindra I did to Hindus or Vijayanagara conquering the Gajpati empire.

Noted historian Richard Eaton summarises this by saying - "In short, it is clear that temples had been the natural sites for the contestation of kingly authority well before the coming of Muslim Turks to India. Not surprisingly, Turkish invaders, when attempting to plant their own rule in early medieval India, followed and continued established patterns"

2. I'm not sure how many times I can answer this question. Where Muslims killed innocent Hindus then the Muslims are responsible. Where Hindus killed Muslims they are responsible. Unlike you I don't put forward a theory of provocation or "what else could they do".

 

[DeadlyVenom]

such a "smart" decision that it resulted in deaths of thousands across numerous riots throughout the country and countless lives upended and not to mention a complete irreversible divide between the two communities.

And if you wonder why I don't respond to you ... this is a shining example. And ofcourse further confirmed by the endorsement from the one and only Mr. Inverse man himself

If we want to apply this sort of logic lets go back a step further and say that the Hindus are responsible for the hundreds of deaths by asking for their temple back

Or lets go back further and blame the Mughals for building the mosque in the first place

Or lets go even back further and blame the Hindus for building the temple where Ram was born

The only thing that resulted in the deaths of thousands is the actions of the people that did the killing and the people who whipped the emotions of normal people up until they felt that killing was their only option.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I don't know why you bother engaging with some of these posters, they can turn 80 Hindu pandits into millions killed in Kashmir alone. Their courts are filled with the same judges, all with a score to settle after hundreds of years of Mughal then British rule. The hindutva movement was born to specifically reverse some of their more fanciful beliefs, and as a result they need to exaggerate some aspects of history to justify it.

I hope that maybe something may penetrate their hate filled bubble but its funny seeing their warped version of history too.

Their version of history is like a kids cartoon.

 

[Stewie]

There be all sorts of idiots everywhere who will question everything. But the only parallel that is remotely close to the Babri Masjid is the Al-Aqsa mosque. As far as I know nobody tries to dispute the muslim version of why that Mosque is holy to them



A lot of really ancient artifacts were found in the archeological excavation of that site including idols. The court however did not just go by that. There was other corroboratory evidence in the form of ancient multiple hindu texts that describe where Lord Ram was born, experts in hindu theology that was used to rule in favor. It is all documented meticulously.

But it need not have gone to that bizzarre extent. This was a golden opportunity for Muslims to permanently resolve the Hindu-muslim nonsense by realizing that the Mosque stood squarely on top of a temple ( Never mind that while it was around it stood on Hindu temple pillars that anyone with basic common sense could tell had nothing to do with Islamic architecture ).


But instead of taking the dignified and honorable route they sadly chose the option of permanent confrontation. this is one of the many many reasons why Hindus have stopped being civilized when it comes to dealing with Muslim intolerance. masjid aqsa existence is well traced and Has been there for centuries annd centuries. Ran mandir “used” to be an mandir and there is nothing on whether it was an ma already was there and it was also under Muslim territory for centuries, etc.

There be all sorts of idiots everywhere who will question everything. But the only parallel that is remotely close to the Babri Masjid is the Al-Aqsa mosque. As far as I know nobody tries to dispute the muslim version of why that Mosque is holy to them



A lot of really ancient artifacts were found in the archeological excavation of that site including idols. The court however did not just go by that. There was other corroboratory evidence in the form of ancient multiple hindu texts that describe where Lord Ram was born, experts in hindu theology that was used to rule in favor. It is all documented meticulously.

But it need not have gone to that bizzarre extent. This was a golden opportunity for Muslims to permanently resolve the Hindu-muslim nonsense by realizing that the Mosque stood squarely on top of a temple ( Never mind that while it was around it stood on Hindu temple pillars that anyone with basic common sense could tell had nothing to do with Islamic architecture ).


But instead of taking the dignified and honorable route they sadly chose the option of permanent confrontation. this is one of the many many reasons why Hindus have stopped being civilized when it comes to dealing with Muslim intolerance.

The masjid Aqsa since its existence has been holy for Muslims.. it never went away or had to be rebuilt so it’s tradition and history is fairly rock solid.
Here we have a mandir .. or used to be a mandir which is being claimed to be the birth place of ram, with no particular evidence of its significance in history.


Anyhow, I don’t want to drag this pointlessly. I don’t agree with your analogy and also the approach used to “meticulously” prove Ram was born on that piece of land. It was probably a historic mandir of its own significance at some point… or perhaps just another mandir. The way it was brought down, I don’t think there is any surprise there was some antiquated precious items discovered there.

 

[Romali_rotti]

You are the only who divides Muslims in his head into converts and non converts, as if Islam is a birthright.

One of the first ideal you are taught in Islam is that all Muslims are equal regardless of race and regardless of being born into it or reverting later in life.

You say I’m saying Hindutva this Hindutva that, yet you come on a Pakistani forum to cry about Islam on the daily.

You do realise you just validated what I said. IF Islam teaches you to be equal to everyone then proves my point:

Muslim converts in Pakistan/Bangladesh do not treat treat ppl of other religion as equal, this is evident as the minority numbers keep shrinking.


You keep crying about how muslims from other countries did noble deeds for ppl of other religion, whilst I am bringing you back to reality that you converts from Pakistan & Bangladesh sure don't treat your minorities justly and you have no right to compare with what other muslim countries have done because you have not done what they have done.

 

[Stewie]

You do realise you just validated what I said. IF Islam teaches you to be equal to everyone then proves my point:

Muslim converts in Pakistan/Bangladesh do not treat treat ppl of other religion as equal, this is evident as the minority numbers keep shrinking.


You keep crying about how muslims from other countries did noble deeds for ppl of other religion, whilst I am bringing you back to reality that you converts from Pakistan & Bangladesh sure don't treat your minorities justly and you have no right to compare with what other muslim countries have done because you have not done what they have done.

You didn’t read his post and provided a response to something totally different to what he is saying. I suggest read his post again.

 

[Stewie]

You do realise you just validated what I said. IF Islam teaches you to be equal to everyone then proves my point:

Muslim converts in Pakistan/Bangladesh do not treat treat ppl of other religion as equal, this is evident as the minority numbers keep shrinking.


You keep crying about how muslims from other countries did noble deeds for ppl of other religion, whilst I am bringing you back to reality that you converts from Pakistan & Bangladesh sure don't treat your minorities justly and you have no right to compare with what other muslim countries have done because you have not done what they have done.

But to the subject of what you said, I agree. We do have a pretty poor record of treating our minorities. But then again our people have a pretty poor record of treating each other even fellow Muslims. I hate to say it but we are people of low moral and ethical values. I think I have seen this as a common trait with all sub-continental folks though. The difference between India and Pakistan is the South Indians though who tend to be more honest than the rest. Religious extremism in Pakistan has of course also not helped matters.

 

[Suleiman]

You do realise you just validated what I said. IF Islam teaches you to be equal to everyone then proves my point:

Muslim converts in Pakistan/Bangladesh do not treat treat ppl of other religion as equal, this is evident as the minority numbers keep shrinking.


You keep crying about how muslims from other countries did noble deeds for ppl of other religion, whilst I am bringing you back to reality that you converts from Pakistan & Bangladesh sure don't treat your minorities justly and you have no right to compare with what other muslim countries have done because you have not done what they have done.

Islam teaches to treat everyone equal. If a human capable of good or evil fails to do so, then it is on them.

I’m not the thekedar of every Muslim from South Asia that you despise with every fiber of your being because their ancestors reverted and yours didn’t. The responsibility of their action or inaction does not lie unto me.

You are trying to impose your own filter on how Muslims should think, but no learned Muslim who goes by the religion will take this imaginary position of yours of “Arab vs non Arab Muslim” seriously.

How about that Caste system though?

 

[Romali_rotti]

You are trying to impose your own filter on how Muslims should think, but no learned Muslim who goes by the religion will take this imaginary position of yours of “Arab vs non Arab Muslim” seriously.

How about that Caste system though?

The pretty much sums up your post, you just don't get it. I wouldn't impose my way of thoughts on anyone. I am pointing out gaps in your arguments that don't add up to what you are claiming.

To the second point, last I checked the ppl of lower caste are not dwindling in the numbers in India, like what we see for minorities in Pakistan, heck the Indian president is from the tribal caste.

What about Pakistan can a non Muslim be a president or of similar stature in Pakistan ?????

 

[Stewie]

The pretty much sums up your post, you just don't get it. I wouldn't impose my way of thoughts on anyone. I am pointing out gaps in your arguments that don't add up to what you are claiming.

To the second point, last I checked the ppl of lower caste are not dwindling in the numbers in India, like what we see for minorities in Pakistan, heck the Indian president is from the tribal caste.

What about Pakistan can a non Muslim be a president or of similar stature in Pakistan ?????

Can you provide any stats that indicate that the minority numbers have alarmingly decreased in Pakistan? Bear in mind you have to account for data that accounts for the mass immigration of Hindus and Sikhs to India after partition, and also the higher percentage of Hindus lost to east Pakistan.

I don’t know if there is any such study available out there but it will be interesting.

I am not denying the overall numbers would have decreased. But to claim this trend has some extremely nefarious and tragic reasons such as genocide and forced conversions, etc is just foolish.

The numbers have decreased because minorities have moved out of Pakistan significantly since the 70s for a number of different reasons which are tragic in their own right.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Can you provide any stats that indicate that the minority numbers have alarmingly decreased in Pakistan? Bear in mind you have to account for data that accounts for the mass immigration of hindus and Sikhs to India after partition, and also the higher percentage of Hindus lost to east pakistan.

I don’t know if there is any such study available out there but it will be interesting.

I am not denying the overall numbers would have decreased. But to claim this trend has some extremely nefarious and tragic reasons such as genocide and forced conversions, etc is just foolish.

The numbers have decreased because minorities have moved out of Pakistan significantly since the 70s for a number of different reasons which are tragic in their own right.

Any numbers coming out of Pakistan cannot be relied upon. Looking at the state of Pakistan very few things if any about Pakistan are reliable in general. If Pakistanis are showing 2 percent hindu population for example, I am more inclined to guess it would be about .5% in reality based on the horrible treatment they face....

 

[Stewie]

Any numbers coming out of Pakistan cannot be relied upon. Looking at the state of Pakistan very few things if any about Pakistan are reliable in general. If Pakistanis are showing 2 percent hindu population for example, I am more inclined to guess it would be about .5% in reality based on the horrible treatment they face....

Well my thought is that why rely on Pakistani numbers? Surely for something this drastic and well established as you claim (drastic decrease in minority numbers) would have caught the attention of international organizations? Maybe any such independent or non Pakistani research into this that we can use? Surely it wouldn’t have been too difficult considering the minorities are mainly focused in the metro areas of Karachi, Lahore and maybe Peshawar?

I only ask because the way this claim is made so confidently and matter of factly by Indians here, I thought you guys might have access to certain stats or data that we dont know of?

 

[Romali_rotti]

Well my thought is that why rely on Pakistani numbers? Surely for something this drastic and well established as you claim (drastic decrease in minority numbers) would have caught the attention of international organizations? Maybe any such independent or non Pakistani research into this that we can use? Surely it wouldn’t have been too difficult considering the minorities are mainly focused in the metro areas of Karachi, Lahore and maybe Peshawar?

International organizations have raised concerns, however a non Pakistani organisation wouldn't be allowed to come into Pakistan by Pakistani authorities to do any research regarding minority mistreatment, no way in hell I see this happening. This is a country that is practically failed in almost every category, known for religious extremism, intolerance, terrorism, nuclear profileration, bankrupt, have not had Prime Minister complete a full term since its creation.

Pakistani muslims themselves have to solve this crisis, they are accountable for this dire situation. If the Quran teaches you to treat everyone equally well then it sure is time to put it into practice before minorities of Pakistan disappear for good in the future.

 

[Suleiman]

The pretty much sums up your post, you just don't get it. I wouldn't impose my way of thoughts on anyone. I am pointing out gaps in your arguments that don't add up to what you are claiming.

To the second point, last I checked the ppl of lower caste are not dwindling in the numbers in India, like what we see for minorities in Pakistan, heck the Indian president is from the tribal caste.

What about Pakistan can a non Muslim be a president or of similar stature in Pakistan ?????

You misread my prior reply and now you’re backtracking

Not only that, you are now defending the caste system by trying to weasel your way around it. Fact of the matter is the dominant religion of India does in fact have a system that discriminates amongst its followers. So while you’re yapping away about non Arabs (or as you say cOnVeRts) Vs Arabs, maybe look in your own country of how followers of Hinduism are classified and discriminated first.

I conduct myself as a Muslim. I’ve said on this section of the forum before as well, nationality is far down the list for me in terms of identity, if even that. Pakistan is operating as a failed state currently and leaves a lot to be desired in terms of fulfilling human rights for non Muslims and Muslims alike. I will admit that, nothing to hold me back from saying that.

But that has to do with the failure of Pakistan and its failure to stand firm on the faith that it claims to be a republic of. Got nothing to do with Islam.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

But to the subject of what you said, I agree. We do have a pretty poor record of treating our minorities. But then again our people have a pretty poor record of treating each other even fellow Muslims. I hate to say it but we are people of low moral and ethical values. We are the jugar people, the phuddoo Khata gang, the do number harami chaloo types. I think I have seen this as a common trait with all sub-continental folks though. The difference between India and Pakistan is the South Indians though who tend to be more honest than the rest. Religious extremism in Pakistan has of course also not helped matters.

This is because despite all their public show of faith, for most subcontinentals it doesn't reach beyond the words formed in their throats. If they had real fear of Allah, would they dare cheat or swindle if they thought there were to be consequences in the hereafter? They still carry the mentality of their forefathers where they worship material gains, which is understandable, there was even a goddess named after wealth. This is why the nation doesn't prosper, there is a cognitive dissonance at work here. At least across the border they can attribute everything good or bad to karma or many different gods.

 

[uppercut]

The only thing that resulted in the deaths of thousands is the actions of the people that did the killing and the people who whipped the emotions of normal people up until they felt that killing was their only option.

Which would be the Muslims on both counts therefore making that decision to obtusely refusing to accept reality which pretty much stared them in their faces in broad daylight even when the mosque stood. So thanks for confirming my point.

InB4 you come back with the usual crap that no matter what the provocation the Mosque should not have been demolished by Hindus.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Which would be the Muslims on both counts therefore making that decision to obtusely refusing to accept reality which pretty much stared them in their faces in broad daylight even when the mosque stood. So thanks for confirming my point.

InB4 you come back with the usual crap that no matter what the provocation the Mosque should not have been demolished by Hindus.

So Muslims killed themselves?

 

[uppercut]

So Muslims killed themselves?

Pretty much ... unless you expected Hindus to lie down and ask how they preferred to be killed like what a certain MK Gandhi would advocate. Those days are done. Tried that and no thanks. The one and only one thing that works to contain Islamic nonsense is a highly disproportionate response. This is the single biggest reason why the riot count has drastically reduced in India.

but not surprising to see that you are refusing to answer my questions at all ?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Pretty much ... unless you expected Hindus to lie down and ask how they preferred to be killed like what a certain MK Gandhi would advocate. Those days are done. Tried that and no thanks. The one and only one thing that works to contain Islamic nonsense is a highly disproportionate response. This is the single biggest reason why the riot count has drastically reduced in India.

but not surprising to see that you are refusing to answer my questions at all ?

Ah ok. So when random Muslims die at the hands of Hindus or are lynched and burned alive it's their own fault.

But when Hindus are killed it's also the Muslims fault.

When you start to dig deeper it's quite clear the sickness you guys are infected by.

By the way are these core Hindu beliefs?

 

[uppercut]

Ah ok. So when random Muslims die at the hands of Hindus or are lynched and burned alive it's their own fault.

But when Hindus are killed it's also the Muslims fault.

When you start to dig deeper it's quite clear the sickness you guys are infected by.

By the way are these core Hindu beliefs?

Yeah the Hindus resurrecting one of their holiest shrines is their fault ... not surprising.

Here is the correct sequence of events:

1. Muslims destroy one of the holiest Hindu Temples
2. Build a Mosque on top of it using Pillars from the very same temple and using the same foundation
3. 400+ years later Hindus politely ask to get back the temples.
4. Muslims blatantly refuse. Multiple attempts are made to resolve the dispute amicably but the Muslims never budge.
5. The case goes to the courts and it drags on for decades
6. Seeing that there is no point in taking the civilized approach the Hindus bring down the Mosque in 1992
7. Muslims respond by rioting across the country.
8. Get owned
9. And now you are blaming Hindus for something that they never started ( Unless ofcourse you blame Hindus for not stopping Babar from demolishing the temple in the first )

Did you say sickness ?