Life-size sculpture of Ranjit Singh to be unveiled at Lahore Fort

[Maxpane]

Not true bro. A lot of them really did care about Islam, e.g Muhammad Ghauri died whilst making dua, Sher Shah Suri killed someone for oppressing Muslims in Madhya Pradesh (at their request), Qutub Uddin Aibek sought spiritual advice from Fariduddin Ganjshkar, Aurangzeb Alamgir created Fatawa e Alamgiri which is STILL taught today, etc.



At least you're consistent with your logic.



Hazaras are Turco-Mongol-Persians. So was Babur, Humayun and Timur. This is why I say they're related.

brother i dnt know about many rulers but aurangzaib was the real culprit in my eyes . he killed many gorus of sikh religion infront of them and because of his act sikh hated muslims

 

[Hamza913]

brother i dnt know about many rulers but aurangzaib was the real culprit in my eyes . he killed many gorus of sikh religion infront of them and because of his act sikh hated muslims

No, the Sikhs were causing issues long before Aurangzeb. Jahangir and Shah Jahan both had to deal with them too.

 

[Maxpane]

No, the Sikhs were causing issues long before Aurangzeb. Jahangir and Shah Jahan both had to deal with them too.

killing their religious leaders in front of them was not a good idea

 

[SIPRA]

No, the Sikhs were causing issues long before Aurangzeb. Jahangir and Shah Jahan both had to deal with them too.

Now, the discussion would inadvertantly enter into religious sphere of Sikhism. I request you and @Maxpane to refrain from it. History of Sikh Gurus and Mughal rulers is very complex and cannot be settled here.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

babur fight agianst muslim ruler so where was the concept of muslim ummah and brotherhood

It is the way of the world. Ibn Khaldun calls it the cycle of death and rebirth of empires.

Even Quran mentions it. One people will be replaced by another again and again if they become complacent and corrupt.

brother i dnt know about many rulers but aurangzaib was the real culprit in my eyes . he killed many gorus of sikh religion infront of them and because of his act sikh hated muslims

They declared they are immortal and God on Earth. It was a direct challenge to his rule and the Islamic faith.

Aurangzeb Alamgir almost ended Sikhism then but Hindus and British brought them back.

No, the Sikhs were causing issues long before Aurangzeb. Jahangir and Shah Jahan both had to deal with them too.

That same vein within Sikhism caused the massacre, loss of life, and total ethnic cleansing of Muslims from East Punjab and Jammu.

Most notably Ferozepur, Gurdaspur, Amritsar which were all Muslim majority regions whose borders were changed by blood causing exodus of 14 million Muslims, the deaths of 1 million more.

You can imagine the horror stories at the time of Ranjit Sikh whose reign of terror extended from Punjab to Kabul at one point.

 

[Hamza913]

killing their religious leaders in front of them was not a good idea

They were causing political unrest, and were warned to stop. But they didn't listen.

 

[SIPRA]

@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan
@Maxpane
@Taimur Khurram

The conflict between Mughal rulers and Sikhs was fundamentally political in nature and a case of insurgency and its counter. Kindly don't give it a religious color.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan
@Maxpane
@Taimur Khurram

The conflict between Mughal rulers and Sikhs was fundamentally political in nature and a case of insurgency and its counter. Kindly don't give it a religious color.

For Sikhs, it is wholly religious, hence the hate for Muslim rulers and Muslim empires.

We will have differences in our historical outlook based on our background and faith, hence why Pakistan separated from British India and did not want to merge with the newly created Republic of India.

It doesn’t mean we cannot get along or strive for common causes with Sikhs or Hindus, but that we need to understand the basis of these problems and other side’s uncompromising views.

I hope more Pakistanis and Muslim Punjabis will find pride in our Islamic rulers which gave us our culture, civilization, and philosophy.

Quaid e Azam understood this in his ‘Two Nation Theory,’ but somewhere along the way many Pakistanis have forgotten it.

 

[SIPRA]

For Sikhs, it is wholly religious, hence the hate for Muslim rulers and Muslim empires.

We will have differences in our historical outlook based on our background and faith, hence why Pakistan separated from British India and did not want to merge with the newly created Republic of India.

It doesn’t mean we cannot get along or strive for common causes with Sikhs or Hindus, but that we need to understand the basis of these problems and other side’s uncompromising views.

I hope more Pakistanis and Muslim Punjabis will find pride in our Islamic rulers which gave us our culture, civilization, and philosophy.

Quaid e Azam understood this in his ‘Two Nation Theory,’ but somewhere along the way many Pakistanis have forgotten it.

You are right. But, since the conflict between Mughal rulers and Sikh Gurus, takes a religious turn, instead of a pure historical deliberation; I refrain from discussing it on a public forum, like PDF. In any case, it is extremely complex as well as long drawn, starting from Jahangir, and hence cannot be settled in a limited discourse.

 

[B.K.N]

but somewhere along the way many Pakistanis have forgotten it.

Because now Pakistan is reality and any such theory isn't needed niegther Indus Pakistan theory nor two nation theory now problem is how to make Pakistan prosperous and strong

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Because now Pakistan is reality and any such theory isn't needed niegther Indus Pakistan theory nor two nation theory now problem is how to make Pakistan prosperous and strong

Two Nation Theory is also from the Quran and from the beginning of Islamic history.

It is always needed.

Otherwise we end up with Aman ki Asha nonsense, people idolizing Ranjit Singh, and others trying to normalize Modi.

We need to always have our guard up, otherwise we will turn into a shameless treacherous traitor state like Bangladesh or the Kabul city state .

 

[El Sidd]

Maybe who knows but us waqt police nhi hoti thi

jab duniya me pehli chori hui tab pehli Police bani

 

[ShaikhKamal]

The statues are not allowed in Islam. After independence of Pakistan in 1947 all the British era statues were removed and are stored in the Museums. We have not built any statues of Quaid-e-Azam or any other Pakistani leader. Why is Ranjit Singh statue being built ?

 

[B.K.N]

Two Nation Theory is also from the Quran and from the beginning of Islamic history.

It is always needed.

Otherwise we end up with Aman ki Asha nonsense, people idolizing Ranjit Singh, and others trying to normalize Modi.

We need to always have our guard up, otherwise we will turn into a shameless treacherous traitor state like Bangladesh or the Kabul city state .

Such type of people are a small minority and Aman ki aasha walay are foriegn funded right now Pakistan is a reality
two nation theory is there two nation theory was Hindu and Muslim are two different nation and now no one in Pakistan except few Desi liberals considers Hindus as his own people

jab duniya me pehli chori hui tab pehli Police bani

Pehli chori kab Hui hogi

 

[Sugarcane]

Muslim rulers did atrocities, yes, but they were Muslims (barring the few who didn't really give a toss about religion, but nobody really heroises them), and as a result their victories greatly benefited the other Muslims with them. Did you forget that it was Shah Waliullah, a native of Delhi who invited Ahmad Shah Durrani to invade the region? Or the fact that Puran Mal was killed by Sher Shah Suri at the request of Muslim women in Madhya Pradesh? Or that Fariduddin Ganjshakar, a Sufi Punjabi, was a spiritual guide for Qutb Uddin Aibek, and married one of his daughters?

Muslims of the region loved these rulers and sided with them over the Kuffar of the region, even if those Kuffar were closer to them in blood.

The Muslims were also part of group from Lahore who invited Ranjeet Singh to get ride of Bhange Sikhs. Who invited whom, or either the ruler were biased based on religion isn't my point because every King promoted and favored the religion he belonged, they also employed people of other religions, had alliance with them where it suited them, fought with rulers of religious fallows to expand their kingdoms. But if we exclude the religious aspect (as it will be altogether different debate to discuss which act of Muslim rulers comply with Islamic principle which were clear violations) than what's the legacy of these Kings, what positives/negatives their reign brought for people in general. For example if you talk about Sher Shah Suri despite that his reign was for few years (he was fighting during this time as well) but still he achieved a lot, reformed Administration made it hierarchal (Divisions, sub-Divisions), introduced policing system, separation of civil and criminal courts, reformed monetary system, built GT-Roads introduce the concept of road marking, Sarai (rest areas), wells and planting trees on roadsides, reformed taxation (reverted back to cruel jagir system after his death), land management. These things had long term positive impact on people in general. The thing which I appreciate about Ranjeet Singh is that despite that he himself was illiterate, he emphasized a lot on education - Qaida (the basic book to learn reading/writing/basic math) was mandatory for females (Hence literacy rate among women was higher than men), he made wealthy people responsible for providing teachers in their village. Punjab state had highest literacy rate in history when British took charge and crippled education culture.