Demystification of the Islamic Rule in India

[AkhandBharat]

Geo strategically? Can you go back in time and stop the Mughal Invasion? Before the Mughals came there was the Lodis and the other Muslim Dynasties in the Sultanate!!!!! The Mughals were not the only Muslim Rulers of India! Dont harp on that!!

Shall I revise it to Islamic invaders then?

 

[ahmedsid]

Exactly, and let that come out during the discussion. Nobody has exact numbers of people affected during recent atrocities either, only numbers successive Congress or BJP governments came up to suit their conveniences. The scope of the discussion won't be to play with numbers, but to share articles by historians related to how life was in those days.



By blanket-banning such discussions altogether, we're being exactly that - pseudo secularists.

No one is blanket banning anything! The Thread starter used the Word Psuedo right from the beginning. I used it too to drive home a point that If a Historian says Auranghazeb has done done 1 good thing, then he/she will be called a psuedo secular historian! Its now a fashion to use the Pseudo word, even by those who dont know how to spell it!

 

[AJSINGH]

See now you coming to the point...it were all about rivalaries......what fait hindu kings will impose on other conqurered hindus....so it was all about rivalries...is hindu faith so weak that it can be destroyed by the ruling king...No its not....by your logic most of the india would have been muslim coz the great time major portion of india were ruled by muslims.but i dont see that evidence that north india is majority muslim....Even you want to talk about pakistan at around 1947 26% were other faiths who were forced to migrate...so many were from india too forced to migrate to pakistan...read about the east punjab massacre or the bengal massacre during partition...the thing is this was always a two way traffic not the one way as you are trying to portray it....

dude about partition ,all the hindus ( literally all of them left the alien land and came to india but that did not happen with muslim )
and i am not portraying it in one way ,all what i have written is truth and with the authetic source give .
Partition was bloody thing no particlular religion can be singled out , otherwise you would have one article posted about the atrocities commited by muslims during partitiob by me already
and i am not even talking about partition

 

[ahmedsid]

Shall I revise it to Islamic invaders then?

Yes, You can, you should have, but then werent you being a "pseudo" seclarist by being apprehensive about writing it as such?

BTW You talked of repelling the Mughal Invasion. If the Mughals were Repelled, then again it would still be muslim rulers in delhi!! You should have said, what you second mentioned!

 

[ajtr]

The section asking for discussion on "atrocities during Muslim rule" isn't doing that, either. If you want to talk about atrocities during "hindu rule", make it a separate discussion, and not use one to validate the other. Two wrongs won't make a right. What is being sought is a discussion of academic interests. There's no scope to give it a personal overtone.

But looking at some wrong through tinted glass sure makes it wrong...As this thread suggests...The thing was genocide be it under Muslim or before that Hindu kings or even under British or Portuguese or even under French did happen at one point or the other to subjugate people or to send message to larger masses....but then picking out and pointing only to one of the many will be gross intellectual dishonesty towards the subject and towards the other people who were killed in other genocide.

 

[AkhandBharat]

Yes, You can, you should have, but then werent you being a "pseudo" seclarist by being apprehensive about writing it as such?

BTW You talked of repelling the Mughal Invasion. If the Mughals were Repelled, then again it would still be muslim rulers in delhi!! You should have said, what you second mentioned!

Then you would've again started bickering about how the word Islam should've never been used in the context of atrocities committed by the Islamic rulers! See how you're going in circles and trying desperately to bury this topic?

Also, my point was, had the Islamic invasion stopped dead in its tracks if the Hindu kings had united, the subcontinent would've never been divided and India would've never lost land on both of its borders. Not only that, the double standards by the politicians by applying one set of laws to the rest of India and one set of laws to the minorities is laughable.

 

[nrj]

Now, can we come to a conslusion please?

Conclusion on this topic can't obtained unless people want to promote their so called sanity & gain sympathy for that.
There is no conclusion. One can live in past & enjoy their bread.

These death statistics lead nowhere. Nothing can be sorted from these selective readings & biased mindset except hatred.

 

[tarunraju]

I dont think ajtr is trying to dilute this discussion. When the threadstarter said Muslims demolished temples, ajtr proved it was done by the Hindu Rulers themselves. Can that be called Diluting? If so then everyone has to start a new topic for every word they write!

Ajtr didn't 'prove' anything. The discussion isn't intended to 'prove' things either. It is to examine what happened in those days by piecing together such articles, including the ones Ajtr posted, and discussing them. I would be in a position to digress if we were talking about events predating Christ. But 1000 years ago (Medieval era) isn't really that long ago, its history has been documented fairly well.

 

[AJSINGH]

I dont think ajtr is trying to dilute this discussion. When the threadstarter said Muslims demolished temples, ajtr proved it was done by the Hindu Rulers themselves. Can that be called Diluting? If so then everyone has to start a new topic for every word they write!

but what hindu rulers did is not taken as destruction of the faith of the people , what muslim rulers did constitue the destruction of faith ,that too intentionally , Akhbar proved that he can rule without any subjugation of hindus ,but sadly neither did any other muslim rulers nor his grand son aurangzeb ( and because of him the destruction of his empire ) come on think of it , Aurangzeb turned sikh community into military sect

 

[ahmedsid]

Now, can we come to a conslusion please?

Conclusion wont be reached until and Unless Mr AJSINGH tells us as to how he came to the 20 Million Hindus Massacred by Muslim Rulers thingy!!

And his notion that Hinduism is too old to be wiped off, and Hindu Temples too numerous to be destroyed.

AJSINGH, Judiasm can be termed a really old religion, that didnt stop hitler from nearly killing of all the jews!! Did it?? If the Muslim Rulers really wanted it, in their rule they could have marginalised Hinduism, made it like Buddhism! Trust me, when the Sword is taken out, its easy to kill than not to kill!

 

[Oracle]

Incase you guys have not read my earlier post, read this:

Well religious conversion or ethnic cleansing after a military conquest is a political will, not a religious one. The Mughals realized that winning the land is not the solution to their eternal rule, people of other religions may soon protest and this may led to another war. If a King cannot keep its subjects under control, the Kingdom is bound to fall. So comes the Islamic angle. They realized that converting people to Islam(forcefully or not) will have a direct bearing on their rule of the land, as people who are Muslims or people who have embraced Islam would not go against the rule of an Muslim King. So this is a political will of the Kings who ruled in those days. I did not find nor did I read, that ordinary Muslims tortured Hindus or Buddhists. Ordinary people are the same in every religion, they think of where their next meal is going to come from.

In modern day, this example can be seen in Tibet. Tibet is being flooded by Han Chinese for decades after the PLA took over Tibet by force. Now, Tibet has a majority of population following Buddhism, and there is a large number of Han Chinese too following Buddhism - and so you can see that it is Political will more than a religious angle.

Now can we cut the crap and stop fighting amongst ourselves? Please!!!

 

[nrj]

Rulers come & go. Atrocities happened in everyone's rule. Its pure power game.
Statistics doesn't make sense unless we are counting deaths like goals in the match.

 

[ajtr]

dude about partition ,all the hindus ( literally all of them left the alien land and came to india but that did not happen with muslim )
and i am not portraying it in one way ,all what i have written is truth and with the authetic source give .
Partition was bloody thing no particlular religion can be singled out , otherwise you would have one article posted about the atrocities commited by muslims during partitiob by me already
and i am not even talking about partition

oh sure then from where the present day mohajirs in pakistan came into being?????read about ferozpur and gurdaspur district massacre during parition whose muslim population was around 50% in those times and now compare present day populations of these districts.the truth is that these two districts were cleared of muslim population in partition riots but then looking into only hindu massacre and just washing away others is like you are doing intellectual dishonesty.....

 

[AJSINGH]

Conclusion wont be reached until and Unless Mr AJSINGH tells us as to how he came to the 20 Million Hindus Massacred by Muslim Rulers thingy!!

And his notion that Hinduism is too old to be wiped off, and Hindu Temples too numerous to be destroyed.

AJSINGH, Judiasm can be termed a really old religion, that didnt stop hitler from nearly killing of all the jews!! Did it?? If the Muslim Rulers really wanted it, in their rule they could have marginalised Hinduism, made it like Buddhism! Trust me, when the Sword is taken out, its easy to kill than not to kill!

like i said that we are too many in the first place , hard to wipe out such an old religion

 

[AJSINGH]

Incase you guys have not read my earlier post, read this:

Well religious conversion or ethnic cleansing after a military conquest is a political will, not a religious one. The Mughals realized that winning the land is not the solution to their eternal rule, people of other religions may soon protest and this may led to another war. If a King cannot keep its subjects under control, the Kingdom is bound to fall. So comes the Islamic angle. They realized that converting people to Islam(forcefully or not) will have a direct bearing on their rule of the land, as people who are Muslims or people who have embraced Islam would not go against the rule of an Muslim King. So this is a political will of the Kings who ruled in those days. I did not find nor did I read, that ordinary Muslims tortured Hindus or Buddhists. Ordinary people are the same in every religion, they think of where their next meal is going to come from.

In modern day, this example can be seen in Tibet. Tibet is being flooded by Han Chinese for decades after the PLA took over Tibet by force. Now, Tibet has a majority of population following Buddhism, and there is a large number of Han Chinese too following Buddhism - and so you can see that it is Political will more than a religious angle.

Now can we cut the crap and stop fighting amongst ourselves? Please!!!

Oracle , what you said still does not justify the mass destruction of himdu faith , tell me how was Akhbar able to rule with out any religious tax or any forcefully conversion ?

 

[AJSINGH]

oh sure then from where the present day mohajirs in pakistan came into being?????read about ferozpur and gurdaspur district massacre during parition whose muslim population was around 50% in those times and now compare present day populations of these districts.the truth is that these two districts were cleared of muslim population in partition riots but then looking into only hindu massacre and just washing away others is like you are doing intellectual dishonesty.....

same thinh hanppened with Hindus and again in 1971 war , so do not take side of any religion during partition , i do not ,

 

[Oracle]

Oracle , what you said still does not justify the mass destruction of himdu faith , tell me how was Akhbar able to rule with out any religious tax or any forcefully conversion ?

I analyzed the issue with a cool and clear conscience. Now what was your age again?

 

[ahmedsid]

AJSINGH, How does looting the Gold of a Temple and going away prove they were out to Destroy Hinduism!! Why wasnt Delhi the Capital of the Mughals devoid of any Hindus!! Wouldnt all the rulers except Akbar loved to have cleansed their Capital of Hindus and Temples???

 

[nrj]

Oracle , what you said still does not justify the mass destruction of himdu faith , tell me how was Akhbar able to rule with out any religious tax or any forcefully conversion ?

So now you're understanding that several Muslim leaders can not be held responsible to dirt entire religion! Good & bad exist in all humans. Akabar proved selective religious view should be dropped.
One should not recognize mass killer ruler by his religion.

 

[ahmedsid]

same thinh hanppened with Hindus and again in 1971 war , so do not take side of any religion during partition , i do not ,

You said a good thing here, dont take the side of any religion. But I see you doing it always Keep aside the religion tinted goggles for a second and see the world, Its a lot more Beautiful God Speed