I will try to later give sources. But if you read Cook's book on Sikh wars you will find Muslim villagers helped British to escape from Sikh rule and welcomed them.Source? Sikhs do not believe in conversions, let alone forceful conversions.
I will try to later give sources. But if you read Cook's book on Sikh wars you will find Muslim villagers helped British to escape from Sikh rule and welcomed them.Source? Sikhs do not believe in conversions, let alone forceful conversions.
Sikhism is indeed an indic or a Dharmic religion. However, (to be fair) about the verses that you quoted:Sikhs were fully part of Hinduism. Sikh Gurugrantha Sahib has verses to Durga, Khalsa Flags had Durga and Hindu Gods. Also I am seeing this from perspective of Indic Civilization. Sikhism is Indic religion.
http://www.india-seminar.com/2006/567/567_hew_mcleod.htm
http://www.sarbloh.info/htmls/sikh_menu.html
http://searchgurbani.com/dasam_granth/page/493
http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=0&k=0&fb=0&Param=7
Khalsa Sikh flag with Goddess Durga.
I will check them out but most books by British authors of the Colonial era are full of fabricated facts to show Hindu/Sikh/Indian culture and religion as inferior to Abrahamic Muslim religion. I've yet to read a well written neutral source on the subject.I will try to later give sources. But if you read Cook's book on Sikh wars you will find Muslim villagers helped British to escape from Sikh rule and welcomed them.
Pala Empire had several times more territory than the Sena Empire. At its zenith, it stretched from Kamakshya (Assam) to Kanauj (western UP). Most of it was acquired. Pala Empire did not start off that large.Ok I will reply point by point
Pala Empire had more territories. When Pala Empire's first ruler Gopala was elected then India had some political vacuum after death of Harshavardhana. Pala had large part of Bihar under their rule. Senads faced different situation. Sena Empire was basically limited with Bengal and at some time Pala Empire and Sena Empire coexisted. Further we dont know much details about wars of Sena Dynasty. Lakshman Sen himself was a great warrior. Even Muslim travelers too wrote high of Lakshmana Sen. Further Sena Dynasty did not completely end with Khilji's Raid. Lakshmana Sen's ancestors continued to rule East Bengal and repel Muslim assaults.
Afghans are many tribes. One of them are the Pashtuns, They themselves have many further tribal divisions.The term Afghan actually point out a single tribe, Pashtuns. Pashtuns followed animism and therefore they converted earlier. Arab Imperialism did not only advance by sword but also through conversion. Once converted Pashtuns themselves became warriors. Nevertheless Hindu Shahi Dynasty of Kabul did repel multiple Arab attacks.
http://www.ariseindiaforum.org/tribute-unsung-heroes-shahi-rulers-kabul/
I did not use the term "Mongol." I used the term "Turko-Mongol." I used that term because I was trying to refer to those regions of mixed Turkic and Mongol populations that had converted to Islam.That is wrong, Mongols invaded Tibet. Qing dynasty originally went to Tibet to protect them from Mongols.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Tibet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_under_Yuan_rule
Hmmm, I fail to understand what you are implying. Screenshot:Yes that's why they converted earlier than Indo-Aryans.
Sure, there will be lot in common due to common cultural roots. For example, so many Sikhs have the name Indra (Inder to be precise) in their names.Sikhs were fully part of Hinduism. Sikh Gurugrantha Sahib has verses to Durga, Khalsa Flags had Durga and Hindu Gods. Also I am seeing this from perspective of Indic Civilization. Sikhism is Indic religion.
http://www.india-seminar.com/2006/567/567_hew_mcleod.htm
http://www.sarbloh.info/htmls/sikh_menu.html
http://searchgurbani.com/dasam_granth/page/493
http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=0&k=0&fb=0&Param=7
Khalsa Sikh flag with Goddess Durga.
Swami Vivekananada also said the same thing. He must be a Marxist historian then?It is the Marxist Historians who claim conversion happened because of Caste system. I am not supporting caste system and never said it should be kept alive today. But judging history with present perspective is wrong. Other countries too had caste system including medieval Europe.
Well, you are saying you are not supporting the Caste System, but at the same time saying it protected Hinduism. I am not sure what your position is, but don't let political correctness stifle your voice. If you support Caste system, you can present justification as to why it is good.I am not supporting caste system and never said it should be kept alive today. But judging history with present perspective is wrong. Other countries too had caste system including medieval Europe.
That's all I can find now.Kashmiris were crying and moaning to express the pain in their wounds inflicted by Afghan terror when the Sikhs took over Kashmir. ... with which the Kashmiri Muslim was sentimentally attached were desecrated, including the Jama Masjid, Shahi Masjid and other mosques. ... Phola Singh sent a cannon to blow up the Khanquah-i-Moula; Pandit Birbal apprehended serious riots, so did not advise the ...
Of course it is, it is obvious just from reading Mool Mantar.That's all I want that Sikhism should be accepted as a Indian religion, evolved from Hinduism like Buddhism.
Sikhs brutalized Muslims, particularly in revenge for the martyrdom of Sikh Gurus and Guru Gobind Singh's family. However, they were not converted by force, just put to the sword.That's all I can find now.
Yes, what does it suggest? Maurya Empire was builtup on framework of Nanda Empire. Maurya Empire is stage in Magadha polity.Pala Empire had several times more territory than the Sena Empire. At its zenith, it stretched from Kamakshya (Assam) to Kanauj (western UP).
There is something even bigger than the Pala Empire and that is the Mauryan Empire.
No, Only Pushtuns were originally called Afghans. Tajiks, Turkomens were not. Hindu Shahis did protect from Arabs. They failed against Ghazni because Ghazni had better cavalry. Nevertheless they continued to fight.Afghans are many tribes. One of them are the Pashtuns, They themselves have many further tribal divisions.
In any event, the point then is, that the Hindu Shahi of Afghanistan was not very successful in defending Afghanistan from Arab invaders. Do you agree?
Turks were always present in Mongol army. Uighurs themselves are Turks.I did not use the term "Mongol." I used the term "Turko-Mongol." I used that term because I was trying to refer to those regions of mixed Turkic and Mongol populations that had converted to Islam.
I was implying that Pushtun people being Indo-Iranians converted earlier and they then drove out Dardic speakers of NWFP. Which is why in NWFP Pashtun an Indo-Iranian language is prevalent now.Hmmm, I fail to understand what you are implying. Screenshot:
Sikhism was basically branch of Hinduism. It only emerged as distinct religion much later. I was talking about earlier stages of Sikhism.Sure, there will be lot in common due to common cultural roots. For example, so many Sikhs have the name Indra (Inder to be precise) in their names.
Because he is Swami Vivekananda you should not accept him always, do you know what he said about Islam and Christianity? He was not Marxist nevertheless you did not understand my argument. I said where caste system was most entrenched their conversion occurred little. Caste system is never two fold where higher caste oppress lower caste but many fold. In UP type area if I am a low caste ranking 5, then there are 4 other castes ranking ahead of my caste. In East Bengal, if I am a low caste then ahead of my caste I have only 1 high caste.Swami Vivekananada also said the same thing. He must be a Marxist historian then?
I did not support caste system in present time, you can quote where I said this. But considering how more egalitarian areas fell quickly to, all I can say caste system created more problem for a convert. Since India has extensive caste system so often a convert would find caste system among his new society too.Well, you are saying you are not supporting the Caste System, but at the same time saying it protected Hinduism. I am not sure what your position is, but don't let political correctness stifle your voice. If you support Caste system, you can present justification as to why it is good.
Thanks, again this proves that Muslims were subjugated and prevented from practicing their religion and extorted by Sikhs but not converted. Sikhism by its nature is not well suited for conversions and partly depends on loyalty to the Guru based on shared cultural and racial heritage.
Nanda Empire was again a fraction of the territorial expanse of the Mauryan Empire. I am not contending that Mauryan Empire was based on the foundation of the Nanda Empire. My point is different. What I am saying is Buddhist (and Jain too) Empires were not necessarily weak.Here is another
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CWjLtfi-ssIC&pg=PA65&dq=Sikh+rule+in+Kashmir+mosques&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr2ITpm9fQAhULMY8KHc0VDnoQ6AEIGTAA#v=onepage&q=Sikh rule in Kashmir mosques&f=false
Yes, what does it suggest? Maurya Empire was builtup on framework of Nanda Empire. Maurya Empire is stage in Magadha polity.
Fine. In any event, how come the Pashtuns today are almost completely Muslim yet they put up stiff resistance to the Soviets and later the Americans? You are avoiding answering my question and creating a deluge of facts, which albeit correct, do not answer my question.No, Only Pushtuns were originally called Afghans. Tajiks, Turkomens were not. Hindu Shahis did protect from Arabs. They failed against Ghazni because Ghazni had better cavalry. Nevertheless they continued to fight.
Ok, so answer my question. How come the Turko-Mongols never managed in Tibet what they managed in India?Turks were always present in Mongol army. Uighurs themselves are Turks.
So, answer my question then.I was implying that Pushtun people being Indo-Iranians converted earlier and they then drove out Dardic speakers of NWFP. Which is why in NWFP Pashtun an Indo-Iranian language is prevalent now.
Ok.Sikhism was basically branch of Hinduism. It only emerged as distinct religion much later. I was talking about earlier stages of Sikhism.
East Bengal has/had four castes. Did the book you referenced claim that East Bengal had two castes?Because he is Swami Vivekananda you should not accept him always, do you know what he said about Islam and Christianity? He was not Marxist nevertheless you did not understand my argument. I said where caste system was most entrenched their conversion occurred little. Caste system is never two fold where higher caste oppress lower caste but many fold. In UP type area if I am a low caste ranking 5, then there are 4 other castes ranking ahead of my caste. In East Bengal, if I am a low caste then ahead of my caste I have only 1 high caste.
Ok.I did not support caste system in present time, you can quote where I said this.
There is no evidence that egalitarian regions fell quickly. Tibet never converted to Islam the way a large part of India did. The Turko-Mongol invaders (those from the region of the Central Asian -stans) had more success in India than they did in Tibet.But considering how more egalitarian areas fell quickly to, all I can say caste system created more problem for a convert.
Ok.Since India has extensive caste system so often a convert would find caste system among his new society too.
For example look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_among_South_Asian_Muslims
People escape religion to escape from caste system, but if they find similar caste system is existing in new religion also will not it discourage people from converting? I never supported caste system anyway.
Europe did not have any caste system. There was a class system. In Latin America there was sort of a caste/stratification based on colour/descent(the caste word comes from the Portugese word Casta) but it was not very rigid.Ok I will reply point by point
It is the Marxist Historians who claim conversion happened because of Caste system. I am not supporting caste system and never said it should be kept alive today. But judging history with present perspective is wrong. Other countries too had caste system including medieval Europe.
It was rigid. Aristocrats did not have marital relation with common people, there were Serfs, middle class family.Europe did not have any caste system. There was a class system. In Latin America there was sort of a caste/stratification based on colour/descent(the caste word comes from the Portugese word Casta) but it was not very rigid.
The entire Bengal region had been ruled by the Buddhist Pala Empire before the Sena Dynasty took over. The Palas ruled a large part of India,let alone West or East Bengal and most of the populace in Bengal had both Hindu and Buddhist beliefs. As for East and West Bengal, both had considerable Muslim population. However the British divided the two Bengals up based partly on Muslim majority and partly on geography. Murshidabad and Malda in our West Bengal had Muslim majorities but were given to India while other Hindu areas were given to East Pakistan. You do not seem to know about the division of Bengal and so you are making false assumptions.Wrong. It was not caste system. It was purely forced and related to entrenched Hinduism. Where where Hinduism was most weak, where tribal animism and Buddhism had dominated those areas fell most quickly. East Bengal was not so entrenched in Hindu caste system but West Bengal was. East Bengal fell rapidly. If caste system was main reason for conversion then UP which was most caste system based would see more conversion not tribal areas of NWFP.
No it was not rigid. The present kings of England are all descended from the Franco-Norman Viking duke William the Conqueror.It was rigid. Aristocrats did not have marital relation with common people, there were Serfs, middle class family.
https://priyadarshi101.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/caste-system-in-europe/
Murshidabad and Malda was to be part of East Pakistan and they are in West Bengal. East Bengal had Hindu dominated areas that were lost due to the machinations of Jogendranath Mandal.What do you mean Peter? Murshidabad was traded for Khulna.
I would ask you to read a decent history book. Palas ruled large part of India.Palas never ruled large part of India. Dharmapala had Chakrayudha as his ruler in Kannauj, other than a nominal suzerainty accepted by many kings of North India including Arab kingdom of Sindh after First Kannauj Triangle clash, Palas never ruled large part of India directly. Enough with this thread.
That's correct.What do you mean Peter? Murshidabad was traded for Khulna.
Palas never ruled large part of India. Dharmapala had Chakrayudha as his ruler in Kannauj, other than a nominal suzerainty accepted by many kings of North India including Arab kingdom of Sindh after First Kannauj Triangle clash, Palas never ruled large part of India directly. Enough with this thread.
Even Guptas did not control such amount of territory. Where did you get this map?Murshidabad and Malda was to be part of East Pakistan and they are in West Bengal. East Bengal had Hindu dominated areas that were lost due to the machinations of Jogendranath Mandal,
I would ask you to read a decent history book. Palas ruled large part of India.
http://empires.findthedata.com/l/183/Pala-EmpireEven Guptas did not control such amount of territory. Where did you get this map?
I would not disagree that European caste system was less rigid. However that is different story. The Printing Press revolutionized Europe but in India seldom any effort was made to save labour and complete work by machine. Even China was ahead of India.
I agree. This map is misleading and exaggerated.Even Guptas did not control such amount of territory. Where did you get this map?
I would not disagree that European caste system was less rigid. However that is different story. The Printing Press revolutionized Europe but in India seldom any effort was made to save labour and complete work by machine. Even China was ahead of India.