India, Iran cradles of great civilizations: Iranian envoy

[oFFbEAT]

I am embarassed for you that you believe this tripe.

I can't possibly debunk all if that, but let me start with a clear falsehood, you have not provided me with one iota of historical proofs, provide me your sources, I will look at them and determine the basis of your points based on them, not colourful responses. so please do this.

You should be embarrased of yourself since you do not know basic history.
You yourself are saying that you cannot debunk any of my claims...but still calling them myths.
If you cannot prove something to be false....how can you consider them as myths automatically.
Who told you, they are false.....GOD??

Look buddy, In a forum, we cannot teach you History.....for that you need to study entire books.
At best we can give you some general ideas....supported by some facts and logics.
So,for starters, read some of these:-
1. The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage by Will Durant.(American Historian)
2. One World and India by Dr. Arnold Joseph Toynbee(British historian)
3. Anabasis Alexandri, Book VII : Indica(translated by Edgar Iliff Robson-1929) by Lucius Flavius Arrianus known in English as Arrian (a Greek historian and philosopher)

All the facts stated by me can be easily proven on the net...if you search a bit.
BUT, I have chosen some neutral sources(research works of foreign authers and news articles) to prove my points....see below.

My first claim, that Buddhism and Hinduism flourished in modern day Afghanistan before Islamic onslaught came from further west....below are the proofs:-

Footage shows Buddhas blast
The Buddha Statues of Bamiyan, Afghanistan - Bamiyan's Buddha Sculptures Destroyed by the Taliban
CNN.com - Last-ditch bid to save Buddhas dismissed - March 12, 2001

The HinduKush mountain range derives its name from the millions of Hindus murdered there.
Now, we cannot produce any media report regarding this fact(since there was no media back then).
BUT the name HinduKush in Persian means killing of Hindus.
(The Persian-English dictionary indicates that the word 'Kush' is derived from the verb Kushtar - to slaughter or carnage. Kush is probably also related to the verb Koshtan, meaning to kill. In Urdu, the word Khud-kushi means act of killing oneself (khud - self, Kushi- act of killing).

These facts are also reiterated by famous Historians like, Will Durant, Arnold Joseph Toynbee etc.

Will Durant said in his book(mentioned above), "The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period"

My second claim, that there was only one religion in Ancient India....which was the vedic religion...later termed as Hinduism and gave birth to all the other three Dharmic religions, can be understood by studying each of the child religion's history individually OR by studying the History of Ancient India itself.
Proofs:-

1. Dr. Arnold Joseph Toynbee (1889-1975) the great British historian. wrote in his book-One World and India that, "India is not only the heir of her own religious traditions; she is also the residuary legatee of the Ancient Mediterranean World's religious traditions." "Religion cuts far deeper, and, at the religious level, India has not been a recipient; she has been a giver. About half the total number of the living higher religions are of Indian origin."

2. Lucius Flavius Arrianus(a Greek historian and philosopher) wrote in his book-Anabasis Alexandri, Book VII : Indica, as translated by Edgar Iliff Robson (1929) that "No Indian ever went outside his own country on a warlike expedition............."

These prove that Indians had no chance of adopting any outside religion.....so before Islamic onslaught, Ancient India had only one religion...which later gave birth to three others.

Note: I have used foreign sources(authors,media reports) deliberately.... so the question of biasedness should not arise.
(If you want Indian sources...I can give you tons of them)

 

[Loyus]

incomplete post.. edited

 

[Loyus]

I stand my point !!!

Your nation was created on the basis of two nation theory!!
If you can't accept your history as shared history before 1947 then you can have that history which subscribes to your idealogy of two nation theory



and my history before 1947 does not show any anamoly of idealogy..

And as far as looks are concerned.. We are khichdi of races, colours !!!

 

[Loyus]

I stand my point !!!

Your nation was created on the basis of two nation theory!!
If you can't accept your history as shared history before 1947 then you can have that history which subscribes to your idealogy of two nation theory



and my history before 1947 does not show any anamoly of idealogy..

And as far as looks are concerned.. We are khichdi of races, colours !!!

 

[r3alist]

You should be embarrased of yourself since you do not know basic history.
You yourself are saying that you cannot debunk any of my claims...but still calling them myths.
If you cannot prove something to be false....how can you consider them as myths automatically.
Who told you, they are false.....GOD??

Look buddy, In a forum, we cannot teach you History.....for that you need to study entire books.
At best we can give you some general ideas....supported by some facts and logics.
So,for starters, read some of these:-
1. The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage by Will Durant.(American Historian)
2. One World and India by Dr. Arnold Joseph Toynbee(British historian)
3. Anabasis Alexandri, Book VII : Indica(translated by Edgar Iliff Robson-1929) by Lucius Flavius Arrianus known in English as Arrian (a Greek historian and philosopher)

All the facts stated by me can be easily proven on the net...if you search a bit.
BUT, I have chosen some neutral sourses(research works of foreign authers and news articles) to prove my points....see below.

My first claim, that Buddhism and Hinduism flourished in modern day Afghanistan before Islamic onslaught came from further west....below are the proofs:-

Footage shows Buddhas blast
The Buddha Statues of Bamiyan, Afghanistan - Bamiyan's Buddha Sculptures Destroyed by the Taliban
CNN.com - Last-ditch bid to save Buddhas dismissed - March 12, 2001

Regarding Hinduism....we cannot give any media report(since there was no media back then) BUT the existance of HinduKush**** mountain range in Afghanistan and research works of famous historians like Will Durant, Arnold Joseph Toynbee etc. proves the theory.

Will Durant said in his book(mentioned above), "The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period"

(****The Persian-English dictionary indicates that the word 'Kush' is derived from the verb Kushtar - to slaughter or carnage. Kush is probably also related to the verb Koshtan, meaning to kill. In Urdu, the word Khud-kushi means act of killing oneself (khud - self, Kushi- act of killing).

My second claim, that there was only one religion in Ancient India....which was the vedic religion...later termed as Hinduism and gave birth to all the other three Dharmic religions, can be understood by studying each of the child religion's history individually OR by studying the History of Ancient India itself.
Proofs:-

1. Dr. Arnold Joseph Toynbee (1889-1975) the great British historian. wrote in his book-One World and India that, "India is not only the heir of her own religious traditions; she is also the residuary legatee of the Ancient Mediterranean World's religious traditions." "Religion cuts far deeper, and, at the religious level, India has not been a recipient; she has been a giver. About half the total number of the living higher religions are of Indian origin."

2. Lucius Flavius Arrianus(a Greek historian and philosopher) wrote in his book-Anabasis Alexandri, Book VII : Indica, as translated by Edgar Iliff Robson (1929) that "No Indian ever went outside his own country on a warlike expedition............."

These proves that Indians had no chance of adopting any outside religion.....so before Islamic onslaught, Ancient India had only one religion...which later gave birth to three others.

Note: I have used foreign sources(authors,media reports) deliberately.... so the question of biasedness should not arise.
(If you want Indian sources...I can give you tons of them)

This is so predictable.

When I said I can't debunk I meant there is too much to debunk.


There is no use in giving me 3 book titles without telling me their relevance and what they say, I doubt you have read them yourself, ESPECIALLY SINCE I ASKED YOU MANY TIMES TO GIVE ME SOME PROOF.


History is learnt from books, studies and scholarly work, so ofcourse you can point someone in the right direction.


Anyway, back to your actual points.

Tonyber only makes reference to the GEOGRAPHICAL LAND of India, in that sense he is right.


India, Afghanistan and Pakistan are all on the silk route, this meant people will always pass through, and cultures will always add new themes, what's the big deal?


All you have said reinforces one central point, that south Asia was placed to absorb all religions throughout history.

Before Islam there was Hindu/Buddhist/Jain, all very similar.

then indian region absorbed Islam, with the British some Christians came, then you have avowed marxists too, basically it shows India absorbs a lot of what comes it's way, different races/tribes changed all the time.


The afghan Buddha is not an example of Indian roots, it's an example of how SOME PEOPLE IN THAT REGION FOLLOWED BUDDHISM.

South Asia is simply the fertile ground for all of this.


The idea if "mystic dharmic roots" can be applied to plenty of pagan people's throughout time, don't confuse mythhology, themes and relics with history, this is the u deriding problem, joining mythology with history.

 

[roadrunner]

How do you know they're not Indians on Pakistani trains?

Assuming they're Pakistanis on Pakistani trains, how do they represent anything?

Here's the French football team

Here's some people from the Congo

See the similarity as your logic? You would say that Frenchmen are the same as Congo men.

Stop being such a leech. Hoping people won't realize the truth about Indian history in the internet age is a bit delusional.

 

[Loyus]

My dear brother !!

Please try to understand Pakistan was created on an idealogy !!!

We have shared cultural heritage and I am not even talking of migration of people and history of migrants !!!

You can define your history based on geography

But that won't lead to consistency

Because more than geography , histrory includes culture, food, traditons and even language !!!

Urdu, for example, has a histrory that transcends the boundary of Paksitan

So, will you disown that part of Urdu history that includes India ?

Same with food, culture, traditions etc etc

 

[oFFbEAT]

.........There is no use in giving me 3 book titles without telling me their relevance and what they say, I doubt you have read them yourself, ESPECIALLY SINCE I ASKED YOU MANY TIMES TO GIVE ME SOME PROOF.

Ha ha, did you even read my full post........

I quoted certain relevant remarks from all the three books I mentioned.
Read again...couple of times.

.........All you have said reinforces one central point, that south Asia was placed to absorb all religions throughout history

Before Islam there was Hindu/Buddhist/Jain, all very similar.

This is what I was saying buddy....."Before Islam there was Hindu/Buddhist/Jain, all very similar."
AND the mother of them is the Vedic Religion(Hinduism).

So finally you admitted that before Islam, the Indian subcontinent had only one religion which is the Vedic Religion(Hinduism).
Therefore in pre-Islamic Ancient India....all had same religion.....Hindus=Indians and viceversa.

 

[roadrunner]

Urdu and Hindi are derived from Sanskrit (which developed in Pakistan) but it has many loanwords from elsewhere.

Personally i wouldnt use Urdu in Pakistan but it's not significant.

 

[Protectionist Gareth]

Those are Northwest Indians not North Indians then. Let's assume true, you're saying about 5% of India looks like Pakistan. That is not India that is an extreme fringe of India that may look somewhat Pakistani.

You could argue that 5% of France looks like the Congo. By your logic then do the French look like the people from Congo?

think tank at its best.

Pakistan's supreme leader

And another 'supreme leader'

 

[r3alist]

Before Islam there was Hindu/Buddhist/Jain, all very similar.


This is what I am saying buddy....."Before Islam there was Hindu/Buddhist/Jain, all very similar."
AND the mother of them is the Vedic Religion(Hinduism).

So finally you admitted that before Islam, the Indian subcontinent had only one religion which is the Vedic Religion(Hinduism).
Therefore in pre-Islamic Ancient India....all had same religion.....Hindis=Indians and viceversa.

No, not quite, I see them as nothing more than a loose theme that was in the background of most people (who were quite primitive anyway) and not something one actively engaged in.
The comparable situation is Rome, where one had a developed sense of citizenry based on rules, religion and even race, YOU KNEW YOU WERE A ROMAN, you can't say the same for certain, that people knew they were Hindus back then, just a theme adopted and modified to suit supersticions.

 

[Protectionist Gareth]

Urdu and Hindi are derived from Sanskrit (which developed in Pakistan) but it has many loanwords from elsewhere.

Personally i wouldnt use Urdu in Pakistan but it's not significant.

LOl when Sanskrit came there was firstly no word called muslim and Pakistan..it was all India..akhand India 1500BC..that's long long way back.
And it was originated from where?..how do you know? I can't find any info on this.

 

[roadrunner]

It's difficult to understand why this is a hard concept to grasp.

 

[oFFbEAT]

No, not quite, I see them as nothing more than a loose theme that was in the background of most people (who were quite primitive anyway) and not something one actively engaged in.
The comparable situation is Rome, where one had a developed sense of citizenry based on rules, religion and even race, YOU KNEW YOU WERE A ROMAN, you can't say the same for certain, that people knew they were Hindus back then, just a theme adopted and modified to suit supersticions.

Ha ha ha, YOU see them as nothing but loose theme......may I ask, on what basis??.

The theme may be loose,tight, half-loose, half-tight whatever.....BUT there was and is a theme for sure....no one can deny that.
AND we are talking about this Underlying theme (nomather how loose it is) which kept India bonded for so many years and is still the main bonding force even today.

Now, did you understand the underlying contradictions in your claims...........wait, did you have any claim??...........you were just denying our claims so far Actualy you guys have nothing to claim So the only job is to deny.....

read post #443 again....I have made some Editing for your convenience.

You asked for proof....I provided....now when I am asking....can you provide some PLEASE(like, any scholar talking about ANCIENT PAKISTAN )

Oh! I forgot about the "scholars" in PDF

 

[r3alist]

Ha ha ha, YOU see them as nothing but loose theme......may I ask, on what basis??.

The theme may be loose,tight, half-loose, half-tight whatever.....BUT there was and is a theme for sure....no one can deny that.
AND we are talking about this Underlying theme (nomather how loose it is) which kept India bonded for so many years and is still the main bonding force even today.

Now, did you understand the underlying contradictions in your claims...........wait, did you have any claim??...........you were just denying our claims so far Actualy you guys have nothing to claim So the only job is to deny.....

read post #443 again....I have made some Editing for your convenience.

You asked for proof....I provided....now when I am asking....can you provide some PLEASE(like, any scholar talking about ANCIENT PAKISTAN )

Oh! I forgot about the "scholars" in PDF

Sure, it's a loose theme, which is the highlighted word, not a developed religion, just some things in the distant background, primitive musings from primitive people, my ancestors were too busy trying to kill cattle and animals, that's the biggest UNDERLYING fact of all my friend, meat eating carnivores worried about food.


Wait, maybe they seasond the meat with spice???


If that's the basis for your mythology then maybe you think the Italians believe in Juno and mars?