Demystification of the Islamic Rule in India

Status
Not open for further replies.

AJSINGH

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
1,237
Likes
77
Rulers are not sole ambassadors of any religion.

Talking about deed of rulers in the past,

Biased & wrong view: Ruler of Religion-A killed Non-A religion people. Non-A religion is better than Religion-A.

Correct view: Ruler named Mr.ABC killed people. Mr.ABC was bad.
okay lets take the religion out from the first post , so those people are still wrong arent they ? or some people here have justified that what they did was natural and was supposed to happen. Plus ordinary people are not smart enough to remove religion if any genocide of a particluar religion happens , they will not go out of their way to see why is it being done .
 
Last edited:

AJSINGH

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
1,237
Likes
77
no thats intellectual dishonesty which is being propagated in the disguise of discussing history....
so what is written in the first post with authetic source and the autor who has written it is false , i disagree .

plese read again , everything has the name of the author and the book it is taken from
 

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
okay lets take the religion out from the first post , so those people are still wrong arent they ? or some people here have justified that what they did was natural and was supposed to happen
Thats my prime assertion to you, People were bad irrespective of their religion. Statistics doesn't make any religion bad or other sane.
 

AJSINGH

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
1,237
Likes
77
Thats my prime assertion to you, People were bad irrespective of their religion. Statistics doesn't make any religion bad or other sane.
i agree , however ordinary people will not understand your conclusion
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
724
so what is written in the first post with authetic source and the autor who has written it is false , i disagree .

plese read again , everything has the name of the author and the book it is taken from
No. but way you have been propagating is wrong...the way you have been propagating the killing after the battle as religious killing is wrong coz they were not they were the aftermath of victors killing of vanquished.The way you are focusing on only one period and side-stepping other as saying,"that Asoka changed after wards" is wrong...Do you wish to forget his killing only that he got realisation later on....its like someone murdering a person and saying i'm sorry to his family, i got realization now......shall we not set free kasab if he realizes tomorrow wat he did was wrong in mumbai ???will you?
 

AJSINGH

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
1,237
Likes
77
No. but way you have been propagating is wrong...the way you have been propagating the killing after the battle as religious killing is wrong coz they were not they were the aftermath of victors killing of vanquished.The way you are focusing on only one period and side-stepping other as saying,"that Asoka changed after wards" is wrong...Do you wish to forget his killing only that he got realisation later on....its like someone murdering a person and saying i'm sorry to his family, i got realization now......shall we not set free kasab if he realizes tomorrow wat he did was wrong in mumbai ???will you?
when did i say Ashok did was not wrong , ofocurse he was wrong however he realised ( other rulers did not ) thats why Ashok is better than the rest
and if you have read my article , most of the destruction happened after victory when there was no war like situation and was general peace ( only for few people)
 

AJSINGH

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
1,237
Likes
77
No. but way you have been propagating is wrong...the way you have been propagating the killing after the battle as religious killing is wrong coz they were not they were the aftermath of victors killing of vanquished.The way you are focusing on only one period and side-stepping other as saying,"that Asoka changed after wards" is wrong...Do you wish to forget his killing only that he got realisation later on....its like someone murdering a person and saying i'm sorry to his family, i got realization now......shall we not set free kasab if he realizes tomorrow wat he did was wrong in mumbai ???will you?
yes my article is one sided but so is the history in the histroy books is also one sided ( mostly propagating that it was only due to congress that India achieved freedom )
 

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
ordinary people will are not smart enough to see your point
Who cares about mental cases? Grown up people with un-adulterated brain will understand the logic. Others can rot in asylum.
 

Phenom

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
878
Likes
406
Why not start a thread about how the Hindu kings committed atrocities against their people if you want to? Why do you want to close the thread?

Because No Good will come out of it , if I started openly talking about Pindari atrocities on South India, all it would achieve is breed hatred among South Indian on Pindaris and the Marathas who sponsored them. What exactly would that achieve?

India is a very old civilization, but it was never a single political entity, so its obvious that during the 1000s of years, some group would have committed some atrocities against another.

AJSINGH said:
but the difference about muslim rule was that they did it under religious intolerance , what hindu kingdoms did was under conquest ,i mean nobody complains about capturing wealth of any nation after it was defeated however what Muslim Kings did was destroy the faith of the native people
That's not entirely true, there were religous atrocities against Buddhist by some North Indian rulers, down south there was religous intolerance towards Vaishnavites from some Shivaite rulers. Hinduism being a polytheistic religion gives more scope for tolerance of other faiths, but still atrocities do happen.


The larger question is, Is this about 'Distorted History' or just plain old bias against another religion?
If this was about 'Distorted History' then people should be as worried about the Pindari raids being left out from our textbooks, as they are about Muslims misrule being left out. But I don't see that happening, its always about Muslim rule never about anything else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nrj

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
724
ordinary people will are not smart enough to see your point
See you said it youself...ordinary people are not smart enough to see the point or read actual history when history is projected to them with some passion without analyzing it and nor the people have time to dugit up so they sure get veered of by passionate tnge of history.It get proved from your own case when you said that Brigadier-General Reginald E. H. Dyer was killed by udham singh and majority of people think so in india but it was not Brigadier-General Reginald E. H. Dyer whom udham singh killed but Sir Michael O'Dwyer.Now like ordinary people you had allowed your passion to take over and didnt even dig up the actual history and posted here based on some hearsay about udham singh....
 

AJSINGH

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
1,237
Likes
77
Who cares about mental cases? Grown up people with un-adulterated brain will understand the logic. Others can rot in asylum.
the " others " which you are talking about is the majority of the people
 

AJSINGH

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
1,237
Likes
77
See you said it youself...ordinary people are not smart enough to see the point or read actual history when history is projected to them with some passion without analyzing it and nor the people have time to dugit up so they sure get veered of by passionate tnge of history.It get proved from your own case when you said that Brigadier-General Reginald E. H. Dyer was killed by udham singh and majority of people think so in india but it was not Brigadier-General Reginald E. H. Dyer whom udham singh killed but Sir Michael O'Dwyer.Now like ordinary people you had allowed your passion to take over and didnt even dig up the actual history and posted here based on some hearsay about udham singh....
once again nothing is wrong in my first post not even histroy wise , what i am objecting is about "distorted history" and well the other side is here
 

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
the " others " which you are talking about is the majority of the people
Did you conduct any survey to justify your statement? Who says so?
Majority people knows whats right & whats wrong. Otherwise we would have been living in law-less zingaland....
 

ahmedsid

Top Gun
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
2,960
Likes
253
once again nothing is wrong in my first post not even histroy wise , what i am objecting is about "distorted history" and well the other side is here
Look mate, your post was okay, but you equated Islam to it, You made it sound like its because of Islam that the temples were demolished, its because of Islam that India was conquered! Why see everything from a Religious pov? Dont you have a life out of Religion or do you think on Religious lines 24/7/365
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
724
when did i say Ashok did was not wrong , ofocurse he was wrong however he realised ( other rulers did not ) thats why Ashok is better than the rest
and if you have read my article , most of the destruction happened after victory when there was no war like situation and was general peace ( only for few people)
ashoka's realization is like ....sau chuhe kha ke billi haj ko chali.....
 

AJSINGH

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
1,237
Likes
77
so lets agree with some common points here
1- History taught in school is highly distorted, it shows only one side of it
2. Destruction did take place on never before scale during the rulers mentioned in the first post
3-No use of digging out the past ,however due to understand of history,future is made better , so it is imperitive to know the past
4-Mass slaughter of hinds did take place under rulers ( except Akhbar)
5-whatever Muslim Rulers did does not mean that Islam is bad religion , although it is hard to shrug off this conclusion
 

AJSINGH

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
1,237
Likes
77
Did you conduct any survey to justify your statement? Who says so?
Majority people knows whats right & whats wrong. Otherwise we would have been living in law-less zingaland....
well yeh , that is why 60% of people ( who vote ) think that Sonia Gandhi is daughter-in-law of M.K Gandhi
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top