Shia - Sunni conflict

Srinivas_K

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
5,938
Likes
6,880
Country flag
Arab Muslims are the most filthy beings to have ever lived.

They conquered Persia, enslaved its people and levied jizya (A tax levied by muslim nations on non-muslim citizens) on them. Arabs used this Jizyas to force convert Persians. True persians can't tolerate these atrocities, fled their country and embarked on the shores of Gujarat after which they are now being called as Parsis and they are one of the fastest disappearing race.

I envy the Jews who stood and gave a mass kick on conquering Muslim groins.
Arabs even levied tax on Sindhis even after they converted to Islam, reason why most of the Pakistanis claim Arab ancestry and put surnames like syed, quresh etc...etc...,. In those days of Arabic rule those who have Arab ancestry need not have to pay tax to their Arab rulers.
 

warrior monk

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
650
Likes
1,016
Najdi Idiots can't fight worth shit , no wonder they are ganging up against Iran .
 

asingh10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,785
Likes
3,449
Just another reminder Shia-Sunni fight is nothing for the idolators to be jumping in joy about : fight is not over core aims, nor the intentions towards non-muslims but control. Hindus have had several bitter experiences with Shias - Tipu Sultan, Nawab Shuja ud dawlah who supported Abdali, Shia support to Pakistan movement etc. Lately a few Shia Mullahs have been asking for Kamlesh Tiwari's head.

Both the Shia and Sunni still will hold onto Islam and jihad against non Muslims as a successful imperialist strategy when they feel the time right. In Iraq, it was the pagan Yazidis and Mandaeans who suffered the most during Shia-Sunni civil war. Shias in a non-Muslim land will feel Islamic pangs of guilt and often end up doing more for Islamic cause even in favor of Sunnis. Perfect e.g. in contemporary times is people like Reza Aslan and Owaisi. Both of Shia background but Islamists to the boot. There's a couple others in Indian media too. Everyone already familiar with Jinnah.

In the interim period however, I do agree with some people here that Sunnis have the larger number, greater resources. Hence, support the Shia to bleed Sunni strength as much as feasible but no need to get overly friendly. This should purely be an alliance of convenience vs a common enemy and nothing more.
I'm not particularly excited seeing Shias holding protests with posters of Khomeni & Nasrullah *in India* over something that happened in Saudi & Nigeria or Shia organizations exhorting Indian Shias to signup for fighting against ISIS. Gandhi made a similar colossal mistake by supporting a foreign cause like Khilafat which further invigorated the clamoring for "Ummah" among Indian Muslims & ended with partition. Islam as a religion promotes extra territorial tendencies to dangerous levels. Keep this fact well in your minds before getting too cozy with Shias.

http://indiafacts.org/abrahamic-ideology-inspires-extraterritorial-loyalty/

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/08/09/pkg-udas-india-shiite-muslims-volunteer-iraq.cnn
http://indianexpress.com/article/in...ught-isis-gets-grand-welcome-home-in-lucknow/
 
Last edited:

Screambowl

Ghanta Senior Member?
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
7,959
Likes
7,860
Country flag
is it true that owaisi is shia? I recently saw few of his patriotic speeches and the way he bashed pakistan when he was in pakistan
Owaisi is Shia .. and he just spoke about unity. And sunnis will blame him for vote bank policy. wait and watch
 

Navneet Kundu

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
274
Likes
410
Just another reminder Shia-Sunni fight is nothing for the idolators to be jumping in joy about
Very well said. To clarify, I didn't mean that their mutual differences are ever going to be big enough to allow a Shia-Hindu alliance. We still can harp on their differences and continue to encourage them to address themselves as different people, nonetheless.

At the same time we must also ponder about the sheer amount of consistent Hindu disunity over the millennium. I mean we can debate the role of invaders till the cows come home but one fine evening we must sit down in solitude and wonder how we could have been so complacent and never learned the lessons of history. India has always been a Hindu majority country, even when it was governed by muslim rulers. Apart from the Hindu kings who stood up to challenge them, the population was still exceedingly Hindu, even in the territories being ruled by muslims. This Hindu population never put up a popular resistance movement that could topple the throne of the invaders.

Our tolerance level is so high that we don't mind serving quietly under foreign invaders, as long as it means keeping our head intact. That complacent, defeatist, attitude carries on even to this day. Until and unless each Hindu realizes that if India is lost to the muslims, there is no other place to migrate to, there is no plan B. A large % of Hindus still refuse to acknowledge this reality.

The other irony in all of this is that muslims, who consider election-system as a Kaffir system, are the ones who still come out to vote in overwhelming numbers as a bloc and Hindus, who take pride in being 'modern', don't do the same. Something is seriously wrong with us.
 
Last edited:

Ancient Indian

p = np :)
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
3,405
Likes
4,182
Very well said. To clarify, I didn't mean that their mutual differences are ever going to be big enough to allow a Shia-Hindu alliance. We still can harp on their differences and continue to encourage them to address themselves as different people, nonetheless.

At the same time we must also ponder about the sheer amount of consistent Hindu disunity over the millennium. I mean we can debate the role of invaders till the cows come home but one fine evening we must sit down in solitude and wonder how we could have been so complacent and never learned the lessons of history. India has always been a Hindu majority country, even when it was governed by muslim rulers. Apart from the Hindu kings who stood up to challenge them, the population was still exceedingly Hindu, even in the territories being ruled by muslims. This Hindu population never put up a popular resistance movement that could topple the throne of the invaders.

Our tolerance level is so high that we don't mind serving quietly under foreign invaders, as long as it means keeping our head intact. That complacent, defeatist, attitude carries on even to this day. Until and unless each Hindu realizes that if India is lost to the muslims, there is no other place to migrate to, there is no plan B. A large % of Hindus still refuse to acknowledge this reality.

The other irony in all of this is that muslims, who consider election-system as a Kaffir system, are the ones who still come out to vote in overwhelming numbers as a bloc and Hindus, who take pride in being 'modern', don't do the same. Something is seriously wrong with us.
You need to do more research regarding this issue.
Open new thread, we can do some dirt flinging.

We have to address our core issues before doing any fighting. No bias please.
 

asingh10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,785
Likes
3,449
Very well said. To clarify, I didn't mean that their mutual differences are ever going to be big enough to allow a Shia-Hindu alliance. We still can harp on their differences and continue to encourage them to address themselves as different people, nonetheless.

At the same time we must also ponder about the sheer amount of consistent Hindu disunity over the millennium. I mean we can debate the role of invaders till the cows come home but one fine evening we must sit down in solitude and wonder how we could have been so complacent and never learned the lessons of history. India has always been a Hindu majority country, even when it was governed by muslim rulers. Apart from the Hindu kings who stood up to challenge them, the population was still exceedingly Hindu, even in the territories being ruled by muslims. This Hindu population never put up a popular resistance movement that could topple the throne of the invaders.

Dude that '1000 year rule' BS is the biggest myth ever. Hear British in their own words, claim that they wrested control of India from Marathas, Sikhs & Rajputs. Not to mention other smaller rajas across India.



Or take Shah Waliullah's letter to Abdali begging him to invade as Mohammedeans were at mercy of Marathas, Jats & Sikhs.



Also there were peasent rebellions all the time. Look at the Jats, they organized themselves into Khaps & resisted every Islamic invasion right from the start. Resistance of commoners like Satnamis. Jahangir in his own memoirs mentions how he put down many such rebellions and numbers slaughtered to put them down :-


These are unnamed heroes of Indian resistance.

There's a lot to proud of. Muslims thrashed by Hindus couldn't spread: everywhere Muslims expanded from Hejaz, they eliminated 99% non-Muslims (superpowers of that era like Iran and Byzantine fell in matter of few years) and it was in India where their jihad stopped. Their own mullah's like Iqbal and Hali admit this.

"That audacious armada of the religion of Hijaz –
Whose insignia reached every corner of the world
Which learnt no obstruction from any fear
Which felt no hesitation in Persian Gulf or faltered in the Red Sea
Which valiantly crossed all the seven oceans
Oh, drwoned was that armada (of Islam), when it reached the mouth of Ganga!" - Hali

and here's Allama Iqbal in Tarana-e-Hind :-


"Ae Aab-e-Rood-e-Ganga! Woh Din Hain Yaad Tujh Ko?
Utra Tere Kinare Jab Karwan Humara

Oh, waters of the river Ganges! Do you remember those days?
Those days when our caravan halted on your bank?"

The only tactical mistake we ever made was letting these people go. Marathas, Rajputs, Jats, Sikhs would often become "soft" on Mohammedans after defeating them (A disease that still afflicts us, look at 71). Never pursued complete extirpation of Islam from their areas as a consistent state policy. Sikhs ruled Punjab, Jammu-Kashmir, NWFP until 1848, had they known they would loose these areas due to demographics 100 years later, they would not have pursued a "secular" approach of Ranjit Singh. Jihadis who are pardoned often think of non Muslims as having done so from weakness and they would never reciprocate it themselves.

There are only 2 exceptions to this suicidal forgiving attitude of Hindus - Rana Kubmha and Banda Singh Bahadur.
 

airtel

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
3,141
Likes
6,835
Country flag
let us learn something from Britishers , "divide & rule "<<<<<<<<<< let them fight , we should help Iran , & Israel should help Saudi Arabia ...............both will fight with each other & reduce Muslim population :cruisin2:
 

garg_bharat

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
3,897
Likes
5,729
Country flag
We shall see intensification of Shia-Sunni conflict most likely. Saudi are arming for a big fight. USA is transferring huge amount of arms to Saudi.

The fight may not be limited to Syria and Yemen, and may spread to other countries.

Pakistan is very likely to be a battleground between Shia and Sunni.
 

Bornubus

Chodi Bhakt & BJPig Hunter
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2015
Messages
7,495
Likes
16,969
Just another reminder Shia-Sunni fight is nothing for the idolators to be jumping in joy about : fight is not over core aims, nor the intentions towards non-muslims but control. Hindus have had several bitter experiences with Shias - Tipu Sultan, Nawab Shuja ud dawlah who supported Abdali, Shia support to Pakistan movement etc. Lately a few Shia Mullahs have been asking for Kamlesh Tiwari's head.

Both the Shia and Sunni still will hold onto Islam and jihad against non Muslims as a successful imperialist strategy when they feel the time right. In Iraq, it was the pagan Yazidis and Mandaeans who suffered the most during Shia-Sunni civil war. Shias in a non-Muslim land will feel Islamic pangs of guilt and often end up doing more for Islamic cause even in favor of Sunnis. Perfect e.g. in contemporary times is people like Reza Aslan and Owaisi. Both of Shia background but Islamists to the boot. There's a couple others in Indian media too. Everyone already familiar with Jinnah.

In the interim period however, I do agree with some people here that Sunnis have the larger number, greater resources. Hence, support the Shia to bleed Sunni strength as much as feasible but no need to get overly friendly. This should purely be an alliance of convenience vs a common enemy and nothing more.
I'm not particularly excited seeing Shias holding protests with posters of Khomeni & Nasrullah *in India* over something that happened in Saudi & Nigeria or Shia organizations exhorting Indian Shias to signup for fighting against ISIS. Gandhi made a similar colossal mistake by supporting a foreign cause like Khilafat which further invigorated the clamoring for "Ummah" among Indian Muslims & ended with partition. Islam as a religion promotes extra territorial tendencies to dangerous levels. Keep this fact well in your minds before getting too cozy with Shias.

http://indiafacts.org/abrahamic-ideology-inspires-extraterritorial-loyalty/

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/08/09/pkg-udas-india-shiite-muslims-volunteer-iraq.cnn
http://indianexpress.com/article/in...ught-isis-gets-grand-welcome-home-in-lucknow/
If Gandhi's support to khilafat movement eventually ended up in partition,then it's the best thing that could happen to India.

Can you tolerate a Punjabi Musalman,Baluch or a Pashtun in our Malls and Metro trains,as Indian citizen ?
 

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,278
Likes
1,341
Country flag
This is internal matter of middle east. It is more of a cultural/ethnic thing than religious. India should not get involved directly. But Indians like to delude themselves and think we are so smart.
 

Screambowl

Ghanta Senior Member?
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
7,959
Likes
7,860
Country flag
This is internal matter of middle east. It is more of a cultural/ethnic thing than religious. India should not get involved directly. But Indians like to delude themselves and think we are so smart.
owaisi in a debate with s. swamy said, we have nothing to do with saudi arab or iran :p . Let's see how true he is.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,742
If Gandhi's support to khilafat movement eventually ended up in partition,then it's the best thing that could happen to India.

Can you tolerate a Punjabi Musalman,Baluch or a Pashtun in our Malls and Metro trains,as Indian citizen ?
Gandhi support for khilafat movement was not a calculated move to result in partition. It was done for appeasing muzzies and partition was its unintended consequence.

So by your logic, if we indulge this Sunnis shia crap, we would have another partition just like the khilafat crap, which will result in another partition of India, with moronic Hindus of 2100 claiming that playing with shia Sunnis crap was a good thing as they would not want mallu muzzie (like @Agnostic_Indian) and Bengali muzzies are not roaming in India post partition 2.0 just like you are doing now.


Partition was a loss for Hindus since they lost their homeland to some barbaric filth instead of catching these barbaric filth by their balls and converting. Sad to see that even he rw think partition was a win.in a way, they are right that it was good for Hindus, But its not a win. If we had converted the barbaric filth and the taqqiyya filth and islamists like @Agnostic_Indian, then we could have claimed it as a victory. Right now, its not. Only complete losers can think loss of 1/3 of our motherland is a win. It was just the best out of the bad situation. Don't be losers like @FRYCRY who think another partition is good, if we can get rid of the Bengali bongs and Islamist scum there.
 
Last edited:

Screambowl

Ghanta Senior Member?
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
7,959
Likes
7,860
Country flag
Gandhi support for khilafat movement was not a calculated move to result in partition. It was done for appeasing muzzies and partition was its unintended consequence.

So by your logic, if we indulge this Sunnis shia crap, we would have another partition just like the khilafat crap, which will result in another partition of India, with moronic Hindus of 2100 claiming that playing with shia Sunnis crap was a good thing as they would not want mallu muzzie (like @Agnostic_Indian) and Bengali muzzies are not roaming in India post partition 2.0 just like you are doing now.


Partition was a loss for Hindus since they lost their homeland to some barbaric filth instead of catching these barbaric filth by their balls and converting. Sad to see that even he rw think partition was a win.in a way, they are right that it was good for Hindus, But its not a win. If we had converted the barbaric filth and the taqqiyya filth and islamists like @Agnostic_Indian, then we could have claimed it as a victory. Right now, its not. Only complete losers can think loss of 1/3 of our motherland is a win. It was just the best out of the bad situation. Don't be losers like @FRYCRY who think another partition is good, if we can get rid of the Bengali bongs and Islamist scum there.
when you cannot built one single Ram Mandir being a Hindu majority state you are telling people to convert the Muzzies? I mean how?

Please tell us the ways to do it, so that no one gives a damn when India converts them.
 

Bornubus

Chodi Bhakt & BJPig Hunter
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2015
Messages
7,495
Likes
16,969
Gandhi support for khilafat movement was not a calculated move to result in partition. It was done for appeasing muzzies and partition was its unintended consequence.

So by your logic, if we indulge this Sunnis shia crap, we would have another partition just like the khilafat crap, which will result in another partition of India, with moronic Hindus of 2100 claiming that playing with shia Sunnis crap was a good thing as they would not want mallu muzzie (like @Agnostic_Indian) and Bengali muzzies are not roaming in India post partition 2.0 just like you are doing now.


Partition was a loss for Hindus since they lost their homeland to some barbaric filth instead of catching these barbaric filth by their balls and converting. Sad to see that even he rw think partition was a win.in a way, they are right that it was good for Hindus, But its not a win. If we had converted the barbaric filth and the taqqiyya filth and islamists like @Agnostic_Indian, then we could have claimed it as a victory. Right now, its not. Only complete losers can think loss of 1/3 of our motherland is a win. It was just the best out of the bad situation. Don't be losers like @FRYCRY who think another partition is good, if we can get rid of the Bengali bongs and Islamist scum there.
Yeah partition wasn't good and a loss of Hindus :lol:

This is the things which has been prorogated by RSS punks nowadays,who are high on Akhand Bharat dream.

Let's see what Bharat Mata lost in terms of partition - two tumor in the form of present day pak and BD,with 400 musalman,zero resource and combined GDP of $500 ~ billion.On top of it baccha bazi and terrorism on the scale of Syria and Fallujah,they were so islamized and arabized to be reconverted into Hinduism.


It was not even a motherland of Hindus as well both in term of Hindu population and and religious places.

So plz let Hindus/Sikhs make this country in top 3 and if Muslim,even if in small number consider this country as their own,we should welcome it.A Muslim Gosawek was killed by beef mafia yesterday,there are many like him.We won't allow Shia Sunni sectarian Horseshit in India.
 

Navneet Kundu

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
274
Likes
410
Let's see what Bharat Mata lost in terms of partition - two tumor in the form of present day pak and BD,with 400 musalman, zero resource
The presumption that had India not been partitioned, the population of muslims in an undivided subcontinent would have been the same as the sum of muslim populations of the three divided nations, is wrong. A majority of Pakistan wasn't Muslim when it was created. Punjab was more Punjabi than Muslim. Sindh was more Sindhi than Muslim. These states became systematically Islamized after the conservative policies of successive administrations. By allowing them to create a separate Muslim nation we allowed them to populate that erstwhile non-Muslim region with Islamists. These same people are trying to hurt India from the outside now.

Their head snake, Jinnah himself was an Ismaili (later converted to Shia), would be an illegal in Pakistan today. Why? that's because Pakistan later declared Ismailis to be non-muslims. Anyway, had India not been partitioned, the population of muslims in the subcontinent wouldn't have been what it is today. So calling it 'good riddance' is like kicking off our own premium real estate for the sake of a few muslim elites. When the partition was done, even the soft spoken Sindhis in Sindh started complaining that an influx of foreign muslims (snakes from Uttar Pradesh aka Mohajirs) was being imposed on them. Sindh today has lost its Sindhi character as a direct consequence of partition. Basically we let a few people who were hostile to Hindus, migrate to a separate country whose geography was relatively larger than the size of the migrating population, and allowed them colonize it through large scale Sunni breading over the decades.

Also note that these elites were all Shias. I thought I'd add that since we are on a Shia-Sunni thread. Many of Pakistan’s leaders were Shias, including one the country’s first governor-generals, three of its first prime ministers, two of its military leaders like general Iskandar Mirza and Yahya Khan, and many other prominent people. It was *made* a Sunni state by conscious foresight.

Also, we lose more than just land. We lose the birthplace of our Hindu roots, that is the Sindhu river and the Sindh valley. That is where we derive the word Hindu from (and the English name 'India' is derived from Indus). Whoever conceptualized the partition clearly did so keeping in mind that all symbols of Hindu cultural pride stayed outside of the new India so that the people lose their sense of identity and pride and source of heritage.

About Bangladesh, well, they took a chunk of land but they are still hopping over fences and migrating to India. 1/3 of Bangladeshi population lives in India now, does that mean that we get to annex 1/3 land of Bangladesh as compensation? No. That land is gone forever. That's the problem. the loss of land is permanent, but the loss of snakes is temporary. Once the new nation is created they still continue to invade and migrate to the parent nation and then they will ask for more. Therefore one should be so elated at the prospect of giving away land. Take notes about how Myanmar has handled it's Rohingya separatism with an iron fist. That's how a nation upholds its self interest. Lets not pat ouerselves on the back for proudly throwing away large swathes of land full of resources. (There's massive oil reserves in Bangladesh and Baluchistan.)

Also, Mansarovar has gone to China, and Amarnath has gone to a hostile state of Kashmir. We have lost control over our 3 most holy sites Ayodhya, Mathura, Kashi. We have lost ALL control over all temples , their revenue and administration in India to the government, unlike the snakes who have their autonomous Wakf board. So please don't sound so happy when you say 'good riddance'. Of course, I don't want the partition to be undone now; Adding more toxic people into our nation is the last thing anyone wants, but please be nuanced with your approach. I take as much pleasure as you do, in heaving a sigh of relief that a lot of snakes were booted out during 1947, but such a statement must always be followed by a disclaimer about the corresponding loss of land and heritage sites, which is not a good thing. Unfortunately we Hindus have no appreciation for history. The partition was as bad to us as the holocaust was to the Jews. The Jews make movies about it, write books about it, and pass on the heritage to their generations. And we Hindus say 'good riddance'. It's good that we rid ourselves of poisonous people but the fact that it came at the cost of our land and heritage is a painful lesson we must not brush off. Look at Israel which has expanded its territory after every war with the Arabs and look at us, giving away concessions despite winning every war.

Undoing partition now might be a bad thing but that doesn't imply by corollary that partitioning the nation back then was a good thing. Let's not throw the baby away with the water.

Tagging @maomao @Srinivas_K @asingh10 for their thoughts on this.
 
Last edited:

asingh10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,785
Likes
3,449
If Gandhi's support to khilafat movement eventually ended up in partition,then it's the best thing that could happen to India.

Can you tolerate a Punjabi Musalman,Baluch or a Pashtun in our Malls and Metro trains,as Indian citizen ?
As a short term solution it may have been ok, but I do believe that we have to roll back partition and Islam from subcontinent, otherwise we wlll cease to exist. Islam is a civilizational threat to India :-

ttp://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/british-support-for-pakistan-partition-of-india.74768/page-2#post-1121018

You'll never succeed by ceding land. By ceding in 47, you gave them 2 jihadi bases from where they can launch more attacks on you. All while the Pakistan's within you will continue to grow, like in Malda.

Tommorow they are gonna ask all of Jammu Kashmir too. Riots and terrorist activities have now also spread to M areas of Jammu like Kishtwar, I'm sure you know how the Kashmiris are rapidly moving rapidly in Jammu. Will you "solve it" by giving it away ? There is no end to this. They want all of India, its a part of their end time prophecies.

Gandhi support for khilafat movement was not a calculated move to result in partition. It was done for appeasing muzzies and partition was its unintended consequence.

So by your logic, if we indulge this Sunnis shia crap, we would have another partition just like the khilafat crap, which will result in another partition of India, with moronic Hindus of 2100 claiming that playing with shia Sunnis crap was a good thing as they would not want mallu muzzie (like @Agnostic_Indian) and Bengali muzzies are not roaming in India post partition 2.0 just like you are doing now.


Partition was a loss for Hindus since they lost their homeland to some barbaric filth instead of catching these barbaric filth by their balls and converting. Sad to see that even he rw tandhi'hink partition was a win.in a way, they are right that it was good for Hindus, But its not a win. If we had converted the barbaric filth and the taqqiyya filth and islamists like @Agnostic_Indian, then we could have claimed it as a victory. Right now, its not. Only complete losers can think loss of 1/3 of our motherland is a win. It was just the best out of the bad situation. Don't be losers like @FRYCRY who think another partition is good, if we can get rid of the Bengali bongs and Islamist scum there.
Not only did Khilafat polarize Muslims for Pakistan movement, many Muslim officers in INA also deserted Bose and even worked against their former comrades to help Britiish at key junctures when Turkey joined the war in favor of Allies during WW2. All because they had to started think along pan-Islamist lines after the Khilafat movement.

The people who are recommending that we meddle in their affairs should learn from story of Ram Raya of Vijaynagara who had foolishly even 'adopted' one of the Sultans (Ibrahim Adil Shah, a Shia btw who joined the confederacy of sultans @ Talikota) as his 'son', not only did his actions polarize & unite Bahamanids, even the Muslim soldiers in Vijaynagara's army switched sides at Talikota :-

During his rule, the Deccan Sultanates were constantly involved in internal fights and requested Rama Raya on more than one occasion to act as a mediator, enabling Rama Raya to push north of the Krishna river and expand his domains utilizing the disunity of the Deccan Sultans. He also suppressed revolts of the chieftains of Travancore and Chandragiri. Some scholars have criticised Rama Raya for interfering in the affairs of the Sultans too much, but scholars like Dr. P.B. Desai have ably defended his political affairs, indicating that Rama Raya did whatever he could to increase the prestige and importance of the Vijayanagar empire, ensuring no single Sultanate would rise above the others in power, hence preventing a difficult situation for Vijayanagar empire.

The Vijayanagar ruler's constantly changing sides to improve his own position eventually prompted the Sultanates to form an alliance. Intermarriage between Sultanate families helped resolve internal differences between Muslim rulers. The Battle of Talikota resulted from this consolidation of Muslim power in the northern Deccan.

Again, I'm not against giving tacit support to Shias for purely selfish interests but you cannot be overt about it lest India becomes a playground for their medieval bullshit & any Shia/Sunni expression of Ummah loyalties should be treated as sedition. Anyone talking of going to Iraq to fight ISIS or raising Nasrullah or Khomeni banners in India should be treated the same way as those going to join ISIS or raising Pak/ISIS flags. If these people want to live in India, they need to curb their affinity for Ummah.
 
Last edited:

dhananjay1

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
3,299
Likes
5,533
An ancient civilization like Persia reduced to choosing which Arab to follow from a group of people who destroyed their way of life is tragic-comic from a Hindu point of view.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top