Akbar

[roadrunner]

The same cannot be said of the others.

The same can be said of the others. Akbar, Jehangir etc. Face it, the Mughals were very fair to both Hindus and Muslims, and all the other religions. They were "good imperialists".

 

[Flintlock]

The same can be said of the others. Akbar, Jehangir etc. Face it, the Mughals were very fair to both Hindus and Muslims, and all the other religions. They were "good imperialists".

At worst, the Mughals were religious fanatics.

At best, they were exploitative imperialists.

There is nothing good to be said about them.

Nothing whatsoever.

Well, in retrospect, there is one good thing to be said: They brought the arch and the formal garden to India. But thats not saying much. Both innovations were of no consequence to the common Indian.

 

[Flintlock]

What's wrong with the BBC history link?

Don't expect the overly politically-correct, sappy history lessons of the BBC to tell the truth.

The BBC and British government is more concerned about some pipe dream called "multiculturalism" than protecting the British culture.

They are already paying for their short-sightedness.

There was no temple on the Ayodyha spot. This is questioned by many reports.

Oh don't give me that.

The temple in Ayodhya has been written about for centuries by travelers, it has been mentioned in several holy texts, it has been part of the Hindu pilgrimage route since god knows how long.

No conquerer builds a mosque in one of the holiest hindu spots, a place with little or no muslim population, unless he wants to prove a point.

 

[Nafees]

Don't expect the overly politically-correct, sappy history lessons of the BBC to tell the truth.

The BBC and British government is more concerned about some pipe dream called "multiculturalism" than protecting the British culture.

They are already paying for their short-sightedness.

Why dont rely on BBC? When things goes in favor of u then u admit BBC reports and vice-versa. Things doesn't like that?

 

[Flintlock]

Why dont rely on BBC? When things goes in favor of u then u admit BBC reports and vice-versa. Things doesn't like that?

Nafees, if you want a history of the muslim conquests, why don't you hear it from the horse's mouth?

Just thumb through the conquest of Sindh and read the descriptions from the invaders themselves.
I think that would be the best proof:

The Chachnama-An Ancient History of Sind

There's no need to even read the whole document....just enter words like "infidel", "idol", "destroy" into the search box.

 

[roadrunner]

The BBC and British government is more concerned about some pipe dream called "multiculturalism" than protecting the British culture.

They are already paying for their short-sightedness.

oh this is an interesting comment! A so-called Indian (who would claim he is from a multi-cultural country), claiming multi-culturism is short-sighted! Or is it just Islam you have a problem with, and are suggesting the BBC would be pandering to somehow make the Muslims out to be good, and therefore misrepresent history. WHAT A JOKE! You're nothing but a hell bent Hindu fascist who twists stories to try and suit your own fantasies. The BBC has published hundreds, no probably THOUSANDS of anti Muslim articles, and soon as they publish one article which suggests Muslims had been historically tolerant, you go into denial and say that they are pandering to multi-culturalism. Weak, supine, dumbasses like you remind me of the few gourmless extremist Hindus who were thick enough to sign up for right wing parties that would enforce their own expulsion from Western countries. No wonder noone has much respect for butt lickers like yourself!

 

[Nafees]

Nafees, if you want a history of the muslim conquests, why don't you hear it from the horse's mouth?

Just thumb through the conquest of Sindh and read the descriptions from the invaders themselves.
I think that would be the best proof:

The Chachnama-An Ancient History of Sind

There's no need to even read the whole document....just enter words like "infidel", "idol", "destroy" into the search box.

What sort of statement u r made regarding muslims. What make u so rude about the muslims. Islam always talks and implement peaceful coexistence. U have to understand that Islam and Terrorism are not alike. Islam doesn't permit terrorism .

 

[Flintlock]

What sort of statement u r made regarding muslims. What make u so rude about the muslims. Islam always talks and implement peaceful coexistence. U have to understand that Islam and Terrorism are not alike. Islam doesn't permit terrorism .

Dude, I didn't make any rude statements. Just make up your own mind right?

Read what the conquerers wrote and decide for yourself!!

 

[Flintlock]

oh this is an interesting comment! A so-called Indian (who would claim he is from a multi-cultural country), claiming multi-culturism is short-sighted! Or is it just Islam you have a problem with, and are suggesting the BBC would be pandering to somehow make the Muslims out to be good, and therefore misrepresent history. WHAT A JOKE! You're nothing but a hell bent Hindu fascist who twists stories to try and suit your own fantasies. The BBC has published hundreds, no probably THOUSANDS of anti Muslim articles, and soon as they publish one article which suggests Muslims had been historically tolerant, you go into denial and say that they are pandering to multi-culturalism. Weak, supine, dumbasses like you remind me of the few gourmless extremist Hindus who were thick enough to sign up for right wing parties that would enforce their own expulsion from Western countries. No wonder noone has much respect for butt lickers like yourself!

Thanks!!

By the way, if you want to know why Britain is wrong, check the immigration policies of Switzerland and Sweden.

They don't allow you to become citizens unless you understand the Swedish/Swiss culture, learn their language, and stay there for a long period of time.

That is the right way to maintain your culture and prevent conflict.
Thanks

P.S. Try reading up about Indonesia, Malaysia, and Kerala, to understand why you don't get any Muslim terrorists from these parts of the world.

Oh and did I say that multiculturalism is short-sighted? What I am saying, is that the British version of multiculturalism is going to cost them dearly.

Cultures have to develop a degree of commonality and understanding of each other, before they can coexist.


And one more thing: Kindly don't misuse the rep function.

 

[Nafees]

Thanks!!
P.S. Try reading up about Indonesia, Malaysia, and Kerala, to understand why you don't get any Muslim terrorists from these parts of the worl

You should not call terrorist as muslim terrorist. In case of that Hindu terrorist also exist in different dimensions, in different forms. Islam never permit terrorism.

 

[Flintlock]

You should not call terrorist as muslim terrorist. In case of that Hindu terrorist also exist in different dimensions, in different forms. Islam never permit terrorism.

Dude if a Hindu is a terrorist, he is called a hindu terrorist. A christian who is a terrorist is called a christian terrorist.

Why should we have double standards for Muslims?

 

[mujahideen]

You should not call terrorist as muslim terrorist. In case of that Hindu terrorist also exist in different dimensions, in different forms. Islam never permit terrorism.

No your wrong. The word terrorist is reserved only for Muslims. The IRA, Tamil Tigers, FARC, and other groups not linked to Islam are called Rebels, Moists, Seperatists, Gurellas or any other name but not terrorists. The word terrorist is only reserved for Muslims.

 

[Flintlock]

No your wrong. The word terrorist is reserved only for Muslims. The IRA, Tamil Tigers, FARC, and other groups not linked to Islam are called Rebels, Moists, Seperatists, Gurellas or any other name but not terrorists. The word terrorist is only reserved for Muslims.

Er...I believe the IRA was called a terrorist organization

Separatists are called separatists for a reason.....they want to separate.

Maoists are called either Maoists or terrorists, depending on whether the incident is a bomb blast or an ambush.

People who explode bombs in crowded places, for no apparent purpose or reason, are called terrorists. I think its clear enough why.

 

[mujahideen]

Er...I believe the IRA was called a terrorist organization

Separatists are called separatists for a reason.....they want to separate.

Maoists are called either Maoists or terrorists, depending on whether the incident is a bomb blast or an ambush.

People who explode bombs in crowded places, for no apparent purpose or reason, are called terrorists. I think its clear enough why.

Well today they are not called this. Indeed what you have said is true but things have changed these groups fall under the old definition of terrorist. The point I am trying to make is that when we turn on the T.V today they say "Islamic Terrorists." Why do they have to say "Islamic." No religion allows terrorism and especially not Islam. Terrorists are just terrorist they belong to no religion. if they really want to win the war they must isolate these people. The best example is of South Africa. Where the government isolated these people and convinced the people that these people indeed were not like them and had nothing to do with them.

 

[Nafees]

Dude if a Hindu is a terrorist, he is called a hindu terrorist. A christian who is a terrorist is called a christian terrorist.

Why should we have double standards for Muslims?

I think u never get my pont. U cant refer terrorism with religion. In our religion Islam Terrorism has not been permitted. So how can u refer the word muslim terrorist. Did u get the ponit?