Jinnah, And Pakistan, Were Culmination Of Ten Centuries Of Muslim Empire

[K-Xeroid]

whoever taught you history, I tip my hat towards him!

I'm pretty glad that your teacher told you about Mugghal empire in Maha bharat chapter..

 

[PakShah]

Then some pakistanis will claim that they are inheritors of ancient Pakistan! Well said Ahmed qureishi!


only if. Jinnah could live to see this day!

We don't care what Mr. Jinnah wanted or believed in.

Most of the Muslims in the All India Muslim League who supported the creation of Pakistan were practicing Muslims like Chaudry Niaz Ali Khan, Chaudry Rehmat Ali, Muhammad Asad. These people were great Muslims. Insh'Allah they will be granted Jannah for their good work.

Chaudry Niaz Ali Khan

Chaudry Rehmat Ali

Muhammad Asad

I believe Pakistan is more connected to Afghanistan.

Insh'Allah the differences between Pakistan and India will grow as time passes by.

 

[LaBong]

Only the urdu speakers of Pakistan can claim mughals heritage.

---------- Post added at 02:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 PM ----------

@above: I too believe Pakistan is more related to Afghanistan, lol

 

[nalandapride]

LOL. Muslims league was the party of Zagirdar, Waderas, Sardars and Pakistan was created so that these Zagirdars and Waderas don't lose their land and they were 100% successful in their mission.

 

[K-Xeroid]

Just trying to make things more objective for you to see, even Jinnah who was a second generation Muslim is the Father of Pakistan today. So how much do you really want to hoard on the ancestors? And how will you qualify them? Of course not trying to be apologetic to the Ghauris and the Gaznavis who actually as you say were your forefathers and your direct antecedents.

Looks like You are changing your excuse on the history of Pakistan....... Don't being frustrated .......
Like I told You member of (Abdali , mugghals ,Ghauri ,Ghaznavi etc) families....... are still in Pakistan....
and living as a gentle civilian... Apart from Establishment at present.... But the thread topic is not related with present conditions...Its all about past...

 

[LaBong]

LOL. Muslims league was the party of Zagirdar, Waderas, Sardars and Pakistan was created so that these Zagirdars and Waderas don't lose their land and they were 100% successful in their mission.

actually ml was a party of angloized north Indian Muslims who saw their political clout diminishing in Hindu majority independent India, they made ally of convenience with west pakistani landlords andveast pakistani peasantry.

 

[STEELMAN]

Looks like You are changing your excuse on the history of Pakistan....... Don't being frustrated .......
Like I told You member of (Abdali , mugghals ,Ghauri ,Ghaznavi etc) families....... are still in Pakistan....
and living as a gentle civilian... Apart from Establishment at present.... But the thread topic is not related with present conditions...Its all about past...

what is the % of Pakistani population of abdali ,ghanzavi etc that u have mentioned in your post ??????

 

[Black Widow]

To much limited prespective.... Even Your government's and international View doesn't support it..... just try to explore yourself... rather than posting your own emotional based judgements here.....

Which Part you are not agree with????



That was not possible because of many reasons...
1. Islam in India was influenced by Sufeism, so Indian Muslims were liberal, still in world Indian Muslims are most liberal (We have place for shia,sunni and ahmedia).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism_in_India

2. Indian terrain was not easy to control, it was mandatory to keep local hindu ruler in trust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_India

3. In just 3 decades entire Persian civilization was converted/killed. In your so called 1000 years 80% hindus were alive. This was due to resilience,flexibility and humble nature of Hinduism. I am hindu living in India is live example that, Islam never ruled India, It was few Muslim family who took control of delhi throne.

I am Hindu and I am alive instead of your (So called) 1000 year rule of Islam in India. While No parsi is alive in persia just after 3 decade of rule of Islam.

4. Babur (Who brought the hardlined Islam in India) came and cut throat of Ibrahim Lodi.

Read history books or UK archives.

5. By the time British came, Mughal dynasty was on its death bed. 75% of land mass was under Maratha control. Mysore,Deccan,Oudh and Bengal was under Muslim ruler.

Read Panipath III war. Mughal dynasty was weak, They called Durrani for help. Though Marathas lost the war Mughal couldn't took control of central India.

6. It was bad luck for Maratha empire that the west got industrialization, due to which they didn't get enough time to capture rest of India from the clutch of Muslim rulers.

The Marathas never fully recovered from the loss at Panipat, but they remained the predominant military power in India and managed to retake Delhi 10 years later. However, their claim over all of India ended with the three Anglo-Maratha Wars, almost 50 years after Panipat.

Which means, even after defeat of panipat, Muslim ruler were weak and they lost delhi just after 10 years.

 

[K-Xeroid]

what is the % of Pakistani population of abdali ,ghanzavi etc that u have mentioned in your post ??????

Another tongue twister.... there is no survey done on there population in Pakistan.... So don't have population estimate

 

[K-Xeroid]

Which Part you are not agree with????



That was not possible because of many reasons...
1. Islam in India was influenced by Sufeism, so Indian Muslims were liberal, still in world Indian Muslims are most liberal (We have place for shia,sunni and ahmedia).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism_in_India

2. Indian terrain was not easy to control, it was mandatory to keep local hindu ruler in trust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_India

3. In just 3 decades entire Persian civilization was converted/killed. In your so called 1000 years 80% hindus were alive. This was due to resilience,flexibility and humble nature of Hinduism. I am hindu living in India is live example that, Islam never ruled India, It was few Muslim family who took control of delhi throne.

I am Hindu and I am alive instead of your 1000 year rule of Islam in India. While No parsi is alive in persia just after 3 decade of rule of Islam.

4. Babur (Who brought the hardlined Islam in India) came and cut throat of Ibrahim Lodi.

Read history books or UK archives.

5. By the time British came, Mughal dynasty was on its death bed. 75% of land mass was under Maratha control. Mysore,Deccan,Oudh and Bengal was under Muslim ruler.

Read Panipath III war. Mughal dynasty was weak, They called Durrani for help. Though Marathas lost the war Mughal couldn't took control of central India.

6. It was bad luck for Maratha empire that the west got industrialization, due to which they didn't get enough time to capture rest of India from the clutch of Muslim rulers.

The Marathas never fully recovered from the loss at Panipat, but they remained the predominant military power in India and managed to retake Delhi 10 years later. However, their claim over all of India ended with the three Anglo-Maratha Wars, almost 50 years after Panipat.

Kids need to read correct history, not radical history...

The all you've pasted here ... Just give your own prespective about each and every post......
I know you've provided the link but these information is not taken frm holy book ...The mistake in provided information can be possible.....Just like tell me why baber cutted the throat of lodi... give baber's prespective too... or the information is consider as incomplete and baised...

 

[Black Widow]

The all you've pasted here ... Just give your own prespective about each and every post......
I know you've provided the link but these information is not taken frm holy book ...The mistake in provided information can be possible.....Just like tell me why baber cutted the throat of lodi... give baber's prespective too... or the information is consider as incomplete and baised...

"Cutting throat of lodhi" is a phrase. Please don't take it literally. What I meant to say is, Babur came and fought against Lodhi and he dethrone lodhi. My point here is It was a Muslim against Muslim.

Prior and After babur, delhi sultanat was ruled by many rulers, some were Hindu some were Muslim.

 

[K-Xeroid]

"Cutting throat of lodhi" is a phrase. Please don't take it literally. What I meant to say is, Babur came and fought against Lodhi and he dethrone lodhi. My point here is It was a Muslim against Muslim.

Prior and After babur, delhi sultanat was ruled by many rulers, some were Hindu some were Muslim.

Can u please post the name of hindu rulers ruled dehli after babur...

 

[Black Widow]

Can u please post the name of hindu rulers ruled dehli after babur...

Yo are welcome my brother, I will tell you true history. Without any prejudice. I don't hate Muslims but I hate the ppl who spread lie and hate...


Hem Chandra Vikramaditya was son of a priest under ser-sah-soori regime. (Note: In ancient India for being a ruler it was not mandatory to be Rajput). Hemu rose to become Chief of Army and Prime Minister of Adil Shah Suri of the Suri Dynasty. He fought Afghan rebels across North India from the Punjab to Bengal and the Mughal forces of Akbar and Humayun in Agra and Delhi,[7] winning 22 battles continuously, without a single setback.

Hem Chandra acceded to the throne of Delhi on 7 October 1556, assuming the title of "Vikramaditya" that had been earlier adopted by many Hindu kings since the Vedic times. His Rajyabhishek (coronation) as Samrat was held at Purana Quila in Delhi.[12] Hemu re-established the Hindu rule in North India

The irony of our education system is , that we are taught selectively. Our history teaching is not proper, Its prejudiced. The truth is Afghan (Iranian and Afghani) and Mughals were arch rivals, They were blood thirsty of each other. Rajputana was our western front, which stopped barbarians from west.

Mughal and pre-Mughal dynasty were defending our central part. Rajputana and Delhi sultanat was dependent on each other. They were saving each other back.

Hindu Muslim hatred was not that time like which is now (Most of pakistani believe that Hindu are cunning and most of indian don't keep good feeling about Pakistanis.).

 

[rubyjackass]

Can u please post the name of hindu rulers ruled dehli after babur...

Well technically Hemu...

 

[K-Xeroid]

Yo are welcome my brother, I will tell you true history. Without any prejudice. I don't hate Muslims but I hate the ppl who spread lie and hate...


Hem Chandra Vikramaditya was son of a priest under ser-sah-soori regime. (Note: In ancient India for being a ruler it was not mandatory to be Rajput). Hemu rose to become Chief of Army and Prime Minister of Adil Shah Suri of the Suri Dynasty. He fought Afghan rebels across North India from the Punjab to Bengal and the Mughal forces of Akbar and Humayun in Agra and Delhi,[7] winning 22 battles continuously, without a single setback.

Hem Chandra acceded to the throne of Delhi on 7 October 1556, assuming the title of "Vikramaditya" that had been earlier adopted by many Hindu kings since the Vedic times. His Rajyabhishek (coronation) as Samrat was held at Purana Quila in Delhi.[12] Hemu re-established the Hindu rule in North India

The irony of our education system is , that we are taught selectively. Our history teaching is not proper, Its prejudiced. The truth is Afghan (Iranian and Afghani) and Mughals were arch rivals, They were blood thirsty of each other. Rajputana was our western front, which stopped barbarians from west.

Mughal and pre-Mughal dynasty were defending our central part. Rajputana and Delhi sultanat was dependent on each other. They were saving each other back.

Hindu Muslim hatred was not that time like which is now (Most of pakistani believe that Hindu are cunning and most of indian don't keep good feeling about Pakistanis.).

Well ! I think you need to make another thread on that part...
2nd battle of Panipat


On 5 November 1556, the Mughal army met Hem Chandra's army at the historic battle field of Panipat. Bairam Khan exhorted his army in a speech with religious overtones and ordered them into battle. Akbar and Bairam Khan stayed in the rear, eight miles from the battle ground, while Hemu led his army himself into battle, atop an elephant. He was on the cusp of victory, when he was wounded in the eye by an arrow, and collapsed unconscious. This led to confusion amongst the soldiers, with no supreme commander to coordinate decisions.

Unconscious and at death's door, Hemu was captured by Shah Qulin Khan and carried to the Mughal camp for execution. He was first struck by Akbar himself, so that Akbar could earn the title of "Ghazi" (holy warrior). He was then beheaded by Bairam Khan.[35] His head was sent to Kabul, where it was hanged outside the Delhi Darwaza, while his body was placed in a gibbet outside Purana Quila in Delhi.


Mate its clearfies that India and Pakistan were exist at that time of Akbar and Hemu as a rival... wouldn't you Agreed?