Do Pakistanis Regret That India did not convert?

[TheGreatMaratha]

Most of the Indian posters here are stupid, and on drugs, man. Do you want to be like them?

I respect Shivaji maharaj. Now let's discuss how we can upgrade you from gaavthi to civilized person.

What do you exactly doubt? No you can't say you don't care as you started it. Am I an Indian, according to you? A Pakistani? Which one was it? You said North Indian in Maharashtra. Come on figure me out.

(This is more fun that I thought)



You're not the moderator, gaavthi. Again, why do you think the mods should entertain your opinion? Why

Lol you really think I am getting affected by you calling me gavthi. I won't stoop down to your level though.

But your posts have just confirmed that you are a false flagger. Unlike you, I'm open about who I am. I don't hide behind fake identities. Insecure people do that.

 

[Rusty]

I really think this thread should be closed now. I had my reservations of whether people would take the question in the right spirit. But apparently not.

I did not read all 18 pages but just your first few comments and I wanted to say a few things to you.

1. Your sense of "indianness" was an alien concept to every single one of your ancestor until the mutiny of 1857.
You will deny is since you seem to be pretty brainwashed, but any objective and neutral historian will claim the same.

2. You believe that Muslims were "forced to convert" in India but you can't seem to reconcile this belief with the fact that after 1000 years of Muslim rule, India is still 80% Hindu.
Now, every single Indian who is confronted by this fact runs away from it.
You will do everything in your power to undermine this but you will never admit that a society of "forced" converts cannot exist when 80% of the population never converted.

3. Your claim that "Muslims converted everyone" and then listed places like North Africa, Asia, etc.
each and every one of those places still has their indigenous religions.
Heck, the largest Arab Muslim country, Egypt, has 20% Christians. Iran still has Zoroastrians, Pakistan still has Hindus, Indonesia still has Hindus and Buddhist.

How about the Indus valley in 600 AD?
We know from artifacts that the Indus valley was Buddhist up to about 400-500 AD
We know for a fact that the area was invaded by Hindu kings around that time
We know for a fact that when Bin Qassim arrived, his chronicles say EVERYONE was Hindu.

How does a majority Buddhist nation go to 0% Buddhist and 100% Hindu in less then 200 years?
.....
Right, the only time there was actual forced conversions on mass in the Subcontinent.

I don't expect an intelligent reply from you.
The hope is that people reading can recognize the nonsense Hintuva spews.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Can I have access to your sister or mother, gaavthi (provided she's still hot at her age)? I know the Pune sluts are really good, probably the best. I'll pay you well for pimpin your mother or sister to me, gaavthi.

Sorry, couldn't resist that one.

As I said, I won't stoop down to your level.

1. Your sense of "indianness" was an alien concept to every single one of your ancestor until the mutiny of 1857.
You will deny is since you seem to be pretty brainwashed, but any objective and neutral historian will claim the same.

I agree. There was no sense of Indianness. There was no sense of nationalism thousands of years back.

2. You believe that Muslims were "forced to convert" in India but you can't seem to reconcile this belief with the fact that after 1000 years of Muslim rule, India is still 80% Hindu.

So you are taking just present India under consideration but fail to take Afghanistan and Pakistan under consideration. Cool. And I never said all conversions were forced. But they were definitely in some cases unless you want to contradict your own fellow Muslim authors.

3. Your claim that "Muslims converted everyone" and then listed places like North Africa, Asia, etc.
each and every one of those places still has their indigenous religions.
Heck, the largest Arab Muslim country, Egypt, has 20% Christians.

I agree. They certainly have minorities.

Iran still has Zoroastrians, Pakistan still has Hindus, Indonesia still has Hindus and Buddhist.

Yes Zoroastrians are 15% of Iran aren't they? Hindus are 20% of Pakistan. Good to see so many minorities.

How about the Indus valley in 600 AD?
We know from artifacts that the Indus valley was Buddhist up to about 400-500 AD
We know for a fact that the area was invaded by Hindu kings around that time
We know for a fact that when Bin Qassim arrived, his chronicles say EVERYONE was Hindu.

There was no religious persecution of Buddhists. At least not on the scale of the persecution Hindus/Buddhists faced at the hands of Muslims initially. Or the Zoroastrians.

Again, I'm not saying all converted by force. But kings were encouraged to convert if they wanted to continue ruling. Exceptions are always there.

How does a majority Buddhist nation go to 0% Buddhist and 100% Hindu in less then 200 years?

If Hindus hate Buddhists, why do we see people of Nepal and Sri Lanka following both Hindu and Buddhist customs? Same with Thailand. I consider Lord Buddha to be one of the greatest people. Surely, I as a Hindu should hate Buddhists. Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains are Dharmic. There are no issues with them in India. You are mistaken.
Can Muslims get away by calling Lord Buddha as their hero? Or some Hindu? I know some Pakistanis won't have any problem with that but for majority any non-Muslim hero is anathema.
For example, I respect Akbar and Dara Shikoh even though they were Muslims.


And I won't be replying further to you.

 

[Iltutmish]

@Rusty good to see you back brother. Hope you are fine!

As I mentioned earlier: Hindus are the most revanchist people on earth. They don't understand that humans develop over time. There is no single nation on earth that hasn't changed in the last X thousand years.

And no offense to our Indian PDF members, I don't regret that Muslims are a minority in India but I wish that one day it will be the other way round (and this will be the case inshallah soon).

Hinduism and Islam are the complete opposite of each other. Nobody can deny that. But there are still more Hindus in Barr-E-Sagheer than Muslims even though Muslims ruled and civilised you for over a Millenia.

You revanchist people must stop living in the past. The Maratha Empire is dead, Chandragupta is dead, yeah even the great Muslim caliphates degenerated one day and are not existent anymore. So? That's history, that's the will of Allah and as Muslims we learn to accept his commands.

There is one great principle in this world: Vae Victis!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vae_victis

The Abbasids know about this principle, the Sassanids, the Ming dynasty, the Mughals... so stop crying! History is not for the weak.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

And no offense to our Indian PDF members, I don't regret that Muslims are a minority in India but I wish that one day it will be the other way round (and this will be the case inshallah soon).

No offense but that will remain a wish for you.

I know you will come with some reply like 'Allah knows best' or something like 'Ghazwa-e-Hind' will occur.

So save your words.

Muslims ruled and civilised you for over a Millenia.

Yes we can see many civilized Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya.

 

[Rusty]

As I said, I won't stoop down to your level.


I agree. There was no sense of Indianness. There was no sense of nationalism thousands of years back.

Then are you looking at history through your nationalist lense?
this entire thread, that you oppened, is a look at history through your warped sense of nationalism

So you are taking just present India under consideration but fail to take Afghanistan and Pakistan under consideration. Cool. And I never said all conversions were forced. But they were definitely in some cases unless you want to contradict your own fellow Muslim authors.

Who said I was not taking those places into consideration?
See point 3.
You are making the claims (or at the very least, strongly implying) that mass forced conversions is the reason Muslims are the majority in many countries.
No one on Earth is denying that there have been cases of forced conversions. (Including to Hinduism)
But to say that there was mass forced conversion to Islam in India is ludicrous and the realm of Hindutva Incels.

You have no historical evidence of this and like I said, 80% Hindu population is proof for every sane human on Earth to concede this point.

I agree. They certainly have minorities.

Well, at least we know that you are capable of pointing out the obvious.

Yes Zoroastrians are 15% of Iran aren't they? Hindus are 20% of Pakistan. Good to see so many minorities.

And how many percent Buddhist does India have again?
This is where your nonsense comes out. You think that you just made some amazing point and that you proved Islam is some kind of evil religion.

Tell me, in the 4 billion years of Earth's existence, how old is Hinduism?
I heart 6000,7000, 10,000 years old from various Hindutva members.
So, that means that there was a time in Indian history that India was NOT Hindu.
We have fossils of Humans living in India as far back as 50,000 years.
I don't see even 1% of those people's religion in India.
Where are their religion?
How come Hindus forced almost all of them to convert to Hindusim?
80% Hindu population after Islamic rule, not even 1% original religion after Hindu rule.
Why do you run form this fact?

There was no religious persecution of Buddhists. At least not on the scale of the persecution Hindus/Buddhists faced at the hands of Muslims initially. Or the Zoroastrians.

Again, I'm not saying all converted by force. But kings were encouraged to convert if they wanted to continue ruling. Exceptions are always there.

Hindutva logic incoming:
80% population is indigenous after 1000 years of Muslim rule
Hindtuvas: ISLAM IS EVIL THEY FORCED EVERYONE TO CONVERT, THEY ARE NOT EVEN HUMAN. INVADERS, INVADERS, INVADERS, INVADERS. (starts lynching Muslims)

0% Original religion after less then 200 years of Hindu rule.
Hindutvas: well you see, the kings were very nice to them and gave them lots of flowers and one time a king even gave a guy ghee to convert to Hinduism.
Evidence?
I am Hindutva, we don't belie in evidence.

If Hindus hate Buddhists, why do we see people of Nepal and Sri Lanka following both Hindu and Buddhist customs? Same with Thailand. I consider Lord Buddha to be one of the greatest people. Surely, I as a Hindu should hate Buddhists. Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains are Dharmic. There are no issues with them in India. You are mistaken.
Can Muslims get away by calling Lord Buddha as their hero? Or some Hindu? I know some Pakistanis won't have any problem with that but for majority any non-Muslim hero is anathema.
For example, I respect Akbar and Dara Shikoh even though they were Muslims.


And I won't be replying further to you.

And one time Harry potter broke his wand and fought everyone with his bare hands.
"If Hindus hate Buddhist...."

Find a single time I made that claim.
your comment is as irrelevant as mine about Harry potter.

You cannot deny the history that Hindus reduced Buddhist to almost 0% in India so you have no make up stories.


I will say this again, you Hindutvas are living in 100% fairy tale lands. I am not saying this because I am Pakistani, I am saying this because I have actually studied history.
There were times in Muslim/Pakistani history where we were wrong, we did bad things, we were evil. And I can admit that.
But I also know that there were times in Hindu/Indian history were you were wrong, you did bad things, you were Evil.
That is the human condition.
You people are unable to comprehend this and instead see the world like a 10 year old child sees it. Good guys and Bad guys only.

@Rusty good to see you back brother. Hope you are fine!

As I mentioned earlier: Hindus are the most revanchist people on earth. They don't understand that humans develop over time. There is no single nation on earth that hasn't changed in the last X thousand years.

And no offense to our Indian PDF members, I don't regret that Muslims are a minority in India but I wish that one day it will be the other way round (and this will be the case inshallah soon).

Hinduism and Islam are the complete opposite of each other. Nobody can deny that. But there are still more Hindus in Barr-E-Sagheer than Muslims even though Muslims ruled and civilised you for over a Millenia.

You revanchist people must stop living in the past. The Maratha Empire is dead, Chandragupta is dead, yeah even the great Muslim caliphates degenerated one day and are not existent anymore. So? That's history, that's the will of Allah and as Muslims we learn to accept his commands.

There is one great principle in this world: Vae Victis!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vae_victis

The Abbasids know about this principle, the Sassanids, the Ming dynasty, the Mughals... so stop crying! History is not for the weak.

Thanks.
I don't plan on being back for long as I still hate PDF
But these Hindutvas were getting out of hand.

 

[Shantanu_Left]

That makes India 4 times bigger than Pakistan, this is not the case, India landmass is about 3.6 times bigger than Pakistan, with a population which is 6.5 times more than Pakistan.

The reason for this falsehood is because India shows in their landmass the AJK(Pakistan), Gilgit Baltistan(Pakistan), and Aksai Chin(held by China)...so India actual landmass is almost 120,000 sq. kms (1.20 lac sq.kms) smaller than what is shown all over the media and internet, and in Indian school books.

India Landmass shown: 3,287,263 sq.kms (includes GB, AJK and Aksai Chin) all in Pak or China control.

India actual Landmass: 3,167,286 sq.kms.


Pakistan Landmass including GB and AJK is : 881,913 km²

If you divide India actual Landmass with Pakistan actual Landmass the figure makes it: 3.59

So India is 3.59 times bigger than Pakistan and not 4 times...
And population of India at 1.35 billion and for Pakistan at 220 million is about 6.5 times more than Pakistan.

Don't worry, we are taking over your country by the end of 2020. After that it will be 100%. Modi-chee will send hundreds of millions of superpower citizens to take over entire Pakistan.

(just in a light mood today)

 

[313ghazi]

Ok, so this might be a bit of a controversial topic. The mods can close this one down if it gets out of hand. I'm just opening this one for intellectual purposes and so that Pakistanis can think about the possibilities.

The main reason for me to talk about this is that I have observed many Pakistanis talking about Muslim rule. Post Independence, there was the Kashmir dispute that is still going on to this day. Do Pakistanis think that if the whole of India would have been converted to Islam like them by the Turks, Afghans, Uzbeks, etc, that there wouldn't have been any Kashmir headache for them? Do you guys feel that the invaders should have been more serious about Islam and the conversion of kaffirs of the Indian subcontinent to that religion?

Would India and Pakistan still would have been separate? How would the Muslims looked at Hinduism which would have been an extinct religion by now? Would Muslims have an affinity for Hinduism like the Greeks have for the Greek philosophers and the Persians have for the pre-Islamic Persian empires?

Would Indian origin Muslims would have even risen up against foreign Muslim rule? Or would there have been just a continuation of Mughal rule? Would the Turks might have migrated in more numbers to India to consolidate their rule or spread the extent of the Ottoman empire?
Would the Indian Muslims had allowed that?

Accept Islam or not is your choice. As Muslims our focus is on our individual piety - not evangelicalism. Our primary duty is to be a human reflection of the values of Islam. Teaching them to others is secondary.

It is a duty above beyond politics.

Ultimately as I see it, the only regret will be from those who rejected Islam when the day of judgement comes and we are all held to account for our deeds.

Each one of us should live our life so that we can pass that challenge that day. Whatever happens in this time on earth is temporary.

 

[Shantanu_Left]

Accept Islam or not is your choice. As Muslims our focus is on our individual piety - not evangelicalism.

That is actually true. I have personally never met any Indian or Pakistani Muslim doing evangelicalism in my presence. They just keep their religion very private. I have lived in Muslim countries (Gulf region) before. Even in India, I was raised around a LOT OF MUSLIMS.

Some Arabs are evangelists for sure. But they go about in a really nice way. They don't persist. I see no problem with that.

I am sure there are fanatics like in every religion.

 

[Malik Alpha]

Yes we can see many civilized Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya.

No offense but you should get out of India and meet any one of citizens of these countries and you will find them more civilized than your average Sanghi.

 

[Behram Khilji]

Apparently they haven’t you are just ignorant. Time to google, google for dummies.



They are Pashtunised Turks who speak Pashto. And my brother @Behram Khilji aka Ghilzai can tell you more.

We speak Pushto yes but no we are not Pukhtoon, nor do we wish to be that we are khalji people, we are Turkic people not Iranic and a nation ourselves.

I speak English but that doesn't make me English, so Pushto doesn't makes me Pukhtoon, we have our own culture and history that is unmatched by any pukhtoons or other Afghan ethnic groups.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Because I see Muslims more obsessed with the caste system than Hindus

Yet Hindu posters here seem obsessed with ancient history as justification for what they do now.

To answer your earlier point about Afghanistan, we no longer live in the middle ages. The whole point of universal human rights, leagues of nations, United Nations, international law and global treaties/conventions is that the days of unilateral judge/jury/executioner type interventions are dropped in favour of a reasoned and evidence based approach that takes multiple issues into account and looks beyond razing entire nations as some emotional reaction.

Do you understand the era we live in since WW2 or do you insist on utilising statecraft methods that were appropriate once upon a time but for present day problems?

 

[Behram Khilji]

They were not Turks, they are Turkic, i,e Turkic language speaking Afghans n central Asians.

The Word Turk refers to modern day turkey, Turkic are central Asian Turks, kirghiz, uzbecks, Turkmens , Kazakhs and many more.

Get some history lessons mate.

It's so funny if it wasn't so ironical and pathetic.

People of Indus valley who were conquered by Arab marauders in 714 AD as making fun of Hindus of today's India whose capital Delhi was conquered after 500 years in 1192AD, because they converted to Islam leaving behind the religion of their glorious ancestors for thousands of years who were Hindus or Buddhists.

Could there be another worst feign to be conquered, slaughter and converted by Muhammad Bin Qasim's Arab marauders? Look what he did to the people of 5000 years old civilization of Indus Valley.

Not really, we invented Hinduism we used to our needs and advantage, when it served its purpose and something better came along we sold it off like a second car.

How old do you think Hinduism is, 2000, 4000, 6000 years old?

Our Ancestors have been here longer then that, so that means their was a religion before hinduism, so they probably dumped that in bin and moved on.

So now tell me what was you ancestors before Hinduism?.

 

[mikkix]

No offense but that will remain a wish for you.

I know you will come with some reply like 'Allah knows best' or something like 'Ghazwa-e-Hind' will occur.

So save your words.


Yes we can see many civilized Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya.

India will never be a Hindu Country, it might be muslim or Christian or under Chinese rule. I am betting with you.
I may not be there but these words will stay here.

 

[W.11]

Isn't this a weird argument. So the whole Pakistan, Persia converted. You don't have a problem with that. But you say that the whole India didn't convert so Islam was not forced. So you are just looking at one side of the picture.

Were malaysia, indonesia also forcefully converted? the myth of forceful conversion is propagated mostly by the hindutva and christian right wing. There was no documented forceful conversion in india or persia etc, if there had been no syriac christians would have survived to tell the tale, also libanese christians. There might have been individual cases but not mass orchestrated ones.

Persians converted probably mostly to become the elite of the arab empires, they served as elites of mughal empire etc, so persians actually got a lot more by converting to the islamic faith.

regards