Demystification of the Islamic Rule in India

[AJSINGH]

This means you read history selectively......read the frontline article i ve posted ....it had happened under chalukayas..under cholas etc....but then you only know about asoka and most muslim kings....did you study about dara sikoh???

look , local rivalry among rulers is natural , once again there was no intention to destory the faith of the people to subjugate them , that was the difference . It is common knowledge that, if you want to break a people, all you have to do is to attack their belief system. This was precisely the objective of Muslim rulers who came to India. The best way to undermine the Hindus and Buddhists in their own country was to destroy their Temples and Viharas and this is exactly what the Muslim rulers did.

 

[tarunraju]

If we Discuss 1971, its of Strategic importance, If we Discuss the Partition and the Genocide therein, its also something which happened recently, stuff which our elders still remember. Riots and all too happened recently and the memory of it is fresh and to TOP IT, it happened in MODERN TIMES! Not the DARK AGES when no Human Rights or other inalienable rights were recognised by anyone let alone Kings! God Speed

There's hardly any difference between "modern times" and "dark ages", in the contexts I mentioned. In 1984, the people out to kill innocent Sikhs behaved exactly as if we were in dark ages, atrocities against us under British Raj were characteristic of dark ages, and so on. My point still stands, that discussing the underbelly of the Muslim rule is of the same academic interest as studying barbarian acts in "modern times".

 

[ajtr]

there was holaust in 1971 ( do not kid yourself , please read the article once again ) and i did not copy , me and some of my friends with the help of historian have complied the article
i suggest read once again

Name Of The Book: Futuhu'l-Buldan

Name Of The Historian: Ahmed bin Yahya bin Jabir

About The Author: This author is also known as al- Biladhuri. He lived at the court of Khalifa Al- Mutawakkal (AD 847-861) and died in AD 893. His history is one of the major Arab chronicles.

"...The town was thus taken by assault, and the carnage endured for three days. The governor of the town, appointed by Dahir, fled and the priests of the temple were massacred. Muhammad marked a place for the Musalmans to dwell in, built a mosque, and left 4,000 Musalmans to garrison the place..."

Was 1971 genocide of only hindus??????how about bengali muslim...weren't there any bengali muslims who were not killed? or is that pakistani army asked bengalis that u r hindu or muslim before killing them???.why you brush aside muslim bengalis figures.

 

[tarunraju]

do we harp if hindu kings commiting genocides?????

Did someone stop you from doing so?

 

[nrj]

no i did not imply anything ,i say again my intention is again to let people know the other evil side of muslim rule in India

Then why even recognize other evil side of other religions too along with biased mindset & selective readings?

 

[AJSINGH]

Then why even recognize other evil side of other religions too along with biased mindset & selective readings?

ofcourse , please enlighten me , yes i have studied what ashok did

 

[ahmedsid]

There's hardly any difference between "modern times" and "dark ages", in the contexts I mentioned. In 1984, the people out to kill innocent Sikhs behaved exactly as if we were in dark ages, atrocities against us under British Raj were characteristic of dark ages, and so on. My point still stands, that discussing the underbelly of the Muslim rule is of the same academic interest as studying barbarian acts in "modern times".

It is not acceptable in our TIMES! Thats the FACT bro. Back then there was no such thing as Human Rights! Understand that! We HAVE LAW AND ORDER! We have a CONSITUTION!!! Back then wat was there???

 

[AJSINGH]

Was 1971 genocide of only hindus??????how about bengali muslim...weren't there any bengali muslims who were not killed? or is that pakistani army asked bengalis that u r hindu or muslim before killing them???.why you brush aside muslim bengalis figures.

the attack was carefully planned to eleminate the minority , dont you see how many hindus were killed compared to how many muslims ,and the point is that the media and because of media people forget that hindus were killed in 1971 ,it is called genocide not mass murder of civilians in any other country
In the course of Bangladesh's 1971 war of independence, a large number of Hindus were targeted for extermination, like the Jews in Hitler's Germany, by the Islamist Pakistani government and their Bengali collaborators. Many of those twenty million Hindus were put to permanent rest in mass-graves in unknown places or mass cremated anonymously and unceremoniously or their dead-bodies thrown into the rivers. Many of them were forcefully converted to Islam. Many of their women were brutally raped and reduced to prostitution. And yet, many of them were victims of forced exodus to neighboring India, after Muslim hooligans evicted them penniless from their homes and properties.
Government of Bangladesh has published many Census documents. In 1941, 28.3% of the population was minorities. Out of this, of Hindu was 11.88 million, while 588 thousand was other religious and ethnic minorities, like Buddhist, Christian and animist. As per the 1991 Census, the Muslim majority increased by 219.5%, while the Hindu community increased by 4.5%. If usual increase rate prevailed, the number of the Hindu community would have been 32.5 million in 1991, but the actual figure is 12.5 million. It means twenty million Hindu souls were missing. (Samad, 1998)
Sadly, most of these atrocities had approval of the Government of Bangladesh. The so-called Muslim intellectuals and 'secular' politicians deliberately promoted the view and made the common Bangladeshi Muslims believe that the ethnic minorities are migrants and not 'Bhumiputra' (son of the soil). The Home Ministry had instructed the commercial banks to control withdrawal of substantial cash money against account holders of Hindu community and to stop disbursement of business loans to Hindu community in the districts adjoining the India-Bangladesh border (Samad, 1998). It's an unwritten law in Bangladesh, that the religious minorities cannot be given sensitive positions, like head of state, chief of armed forces, governor of Bangladesh Bank, Ambassador in a Bangladesh Mission, or secretary in the ministry of Defence, Home, Foreign Affairs and Finance. Minorities are deliberately discriminated in recruitment in civil and military jobs, business and trade, bank loans and credit (Shaha, 1998, p. 5). The mainstream political parties also cannot accept that their leader could be from among the minority community. It is rare to find a religious minority at the helms of affairs in Bangladesh. To begin with, let's see how much freedom Bangladeshi government has given to minorities. The Constitution of 1972 pronounced secularism as a fundamental principal of state policy. Article 41 guarantees freedom of religion in Bangladesh and Article 12 has provided an interpretation of the principle of secularism that made Bangladesh a multi-religious society and maintained separation between state and religion. But this Article was discarded in 1977 and subsequent constitutional changes under military rulers compromised the principle of secularism and gave rise to religion-based politics. Under General Ziaur Rahman (1976–1981), the 5th amendment of the constitution was effected. Under this amendment, the principle of "secularism" was replaced by "faith in Almighty Allah" [Article 8 (1)]; and the amended Article 8 .1(a) states: "absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah should be the basis of all actions". Gen. H. M. Ershed through the 8th Amendment declared Islam as the state religion. The constitution, in fact, makes its beginning with the words Bismillah-ar-rahman-ar-rahim. During the infamous genocide of 1971, which continued for nine months, by the then Muslim East Pakistan Army, up to three million Bangladeshis were slaughtered, ten million Hindus fled as refugees to India (Kennedy, 1971, p. 6-7) and two hundred thousand women were raped (Roy, 2007, p. 298). The neighboring Muslims of the Hindu families use to mark a yellow "H" on the Hindu houses to guide the marauding army to their targets like the Jewish holocaust (Schanberg, 1994). The bulk of the victims of the 1971 East Pakistan holocaust were Hindus, about 80%, followed by Muslims (15%) and Christians (5%) (Roy, 2007, p. 312).

 

[ajtr]

look , local rivalry among rulers is natural , once again there was no intention to destory the faith of the people to subjugate them , that was the difference . It is common knowledge that, if you want to break a people, all you have to do is to attack their belief system. This was precisely the objective of Muslim rulers who came to India. The best way to undermine the Hindus and Buddhists in their own country was to destroy their Temples and Viharas and this is exactly what the Muslim rulers did.

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....

 

[tarunraju]

It is not acceptable in our TIMES! Thats the FACT bro. Back then there was no such thing as Human Rights! Understand that! We HAVE LAW AND ORDER! We have a CONSITUTION!!! Back then wat was there???

Are there threads talking about 1984 riots? Yes.

Why can't there be a non-judgmental discussion which is purely based on academic interests on atrocities meted out during the Muslim rule?

What is not acceptable? Having such discussions? Well then we've already made exceptions in this regard.

 

[AJSINGH]

more about the genocide in bangladesh
http://www.islam-watch.org/index.ph...n-islamic-bangladesh&catid=78:sujit&Itemid=58

 

[ajtr]

Did someone stop you from doing so?

no..but i dont do it through some coloured lens....as it mostly done....

 

[ahmedsid]

no..but i dont do it through some coloured lens....as it mostly done....

If ajtr starts a Hindu atrocities thread, it wont end there Tarun. No ones stopping anyone here, but we must respect the clarity of mind shown by most of our members here, who detest the views from a Colored lens, those who dont see everything with a certain tint. It shows maturity, not weakness.

 

[ahmedsid]

Are there threads talking about 1984 riots? Yes.

Why can't there be a non-judgmental discussion which is purely based on academic interests on atrocities meted out during the Muslim rule?

What is not acceptable? Having such discussions? Well then we've already made exceptions in this regard.

I can prove to you how many were Killed during 84 and the Gujrat Riots. Can you prove to me 20 Million Died under Auranghazebs rule or otherwise?? You cant, thats because they were our DARK AGES!!! If you argue about it, it goes on, it never reaches a conclusion.

The Only thing we can do is, that we can believe this Historian, disbelieve that Historian call other Historians Pseudo Secularists and so on! Can the Historians themselves come to a conclusion among themselves?

 

[tarunraju]

no..but i dont do it through some coloured lens....as it mostly done....

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.

 

[ahmedsid]

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.

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!

 

[AkhandBharat]

Not only that, it is also of interest geostrategically, considering we would've never lost Pakistan or Bangladesh had the Mughal invasion been successfully repelled.

 

[tarunraju]

I can prove to you how many were Killed during 84 and the Gujrat Riots. Can you prove to me 20 Million Died under Auranghazebs rule or otherwise?? You cant, thats because they were our DARK AGES!!! If you argue about it, it goes on, it never reaches a conclusion.

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.

The Only thing we can do is, that we can believe this Historian, disbelieve that Historian call other Historians Pseudo Secularists and so on! Can the Historians themselves come to a conclusion among themselves?

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

 

[ahmedsid]

Not only that, it is also of interest geostrategically, considering we would've never lost Pakistan or Bangladesh had the Mughal invasion been successfully repelled.

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!!

 

[Oracle]

Now, can we come to a conslusion please?