What's new

Myths of Pakistani History-Dawn

Jana, I have no intention to keep dragging this as happened in the Church thread. No point in repeating the same arguements.

I don't support casteism and so have no intention to defend it.

I know I don't have to say that a particular caste is not Hindu when I fill out a passport form! No graves of the only nobel prize winning scientist is dug-up for belonging to a particular caste in India!

Anyway I am not going to argue this issue any more in this thread. May be some other time in some other thread.

So long. ;)
 
.
That is the most biased and dishonest thing on part of the so-called analysts and intellectuals who link the same action with religion in case of Muslims while link it to nations in case of others be it Hitler's actions, the Crusads or even Mongols' babarism. No one link these to the specific faith. Which itself negate the fairness of views on history.

Complain as much as Muslims might but the truth of the matter remains that everybody's actions are linked to their respective ideologies. The crusades are not denied their Christian origins nor are the Third Reich's atrocities denied their Nazi/Aryan foundations. What goes for the goose shall also go to the gander. So long as the Muslim rulers continue to claim to be upholding their faiths through war with infidels the faith that is getting saved or upheld shall have to bear the ugly truths thrown at it.

Coming to the nature of what Islam preaches and whether the rulers were indeed following the values upheld by the religion I doubt Islam left them better values. The founder of the religion, it appears, has led the way with destruction of another mans God(s) in their holiest place of worship(Kaaba) by his own hands. I refuse to accord any moral superiority to Islamic values because the story of Islams beginning in the Arabian peninsula inevitably begins with the destruction and systematic elimination of another mans faith. Sometimes this elimination includes slaughter and enslavement by the Prophet himself. For this reason, I will not buy the argument that Muslim rulers did not adhere to Islamic values because Islamic values have not been any better than those displayed by these rulers.

Au Contraire let me put it on record that many Muslim rulers have merely followed Mohammad in his footsteps.

I do not respect or lend credence to any religion or doctrine that preaches or proclaims a supernatural creator called God(s). I refuse to do so until this supernatural creator manifests itself to eliminate all sufferings of all lifeforms on this beautiful earth it allegedly created.

Had any Hindu condemned Krishna and stopped worshiping him ?????

Having proclaimed a general distaste for all Godheads let me also honestly confess that Krishna ranks amongst the topmost in my list of historical characters. However the affection has little to do with his preachings. It grows out of the tales of his childhood and adolescence. A dark - yes, Jana, a dark skinned Krishna sitting on a little rock with two little cow-calves licking him affectionately whilst the peacocks look on is the perfect scenery that occupies my screen saver.

I will not defend Krishna - being the God that he allegedly was, the rascal was supposed to have eliminated the evil forces of Duryodhana and saved the Pandavas. He also had to wait for Draupadi to call him in order to save her modesty from being violated. A pretty lazy incompetent God in my eyes.

However you made a wrong and unsuitable analogy. Krishna is seen as the force that sought to destroy bad. How does this compare to Babur destroying the Ram temple or Aurangazeb razing down the Somnath temple escapes me. Do you imply that Muslims construe places of idol worship as evil ? If yes, it would strengthen the voices of those neo-fundamentalists in Hindu/Christian societies that Muslims are a threat to their very survival.
 
.
another stupid attempt, usually done by the answeringislam team to discredit hadith. Most of these attempts to discredit islam sometimes baffle me with stupidity and just plain don't make sense.
Just because there are 150 groups that claim they are sects doesn't mean that the hadith is incorrect. some of these sects are way off of islam, whether they claim to be muslim or not. some of these sects are, themselves, divisions within a sect. some of these sects are just groups or movements that consist of followers from different schools of thoughts.
It is only when some ignorant or bigoted person attacks others that he or she needs to be shown the mirror.
Vinod, you act as if you have seen the mirror yourself, by criticising your religious concepts, yet you here you argue about ours. It will be better if we don't discuss religion at all because apparently you have different beliefs of what is right and wrong. i apologize to the moderators about this post not being in the theology thread.
 
.
I never claimed that my country or religion is perfect or the only good thing in the world.

I accept that casteism in Hinduism is bad and should be abolished. So should many of the anomalies that may have crept in during the thousands of years. I am no big fan of ritualism.

I try to never claim any kind of superiority over the other. But I do need to give a fitting rejoinder when my country or religion is attacked especially by someone who is not willing to look at the many issues nearer home.

Religion is a matter of faith. So people will find ways to keep their faith even when the facts speak otherwise. I see an attempt to do the same in your post. As per the Hadith itself just one sect is right, so all others have to be wrong somewhere and away from Islam.

Anyway no more responses from me on this particluar issue in this thread.
 
.
Au Contraire let me put it on record that many Muslim rulers have merely followed Mohammad in his footsteps.
care to prove that? Most of the muslim conquerors have used religion for their own gains to expand their empire, the Prophet(Salallahu Alaihi wa salam) himself shyed away from wealth, sometimes to the extent of not accepting worldly material at all. At the dawn of the mughal empire, babur used jihadi ideology to fuel his war machine. He used islam to expand his empire. Remember how Babur made muslims swear on the Qur'an that they wouldn't run from battle against hindu rajputs? However, the battle was a loss and Babur deserted the ghazwa.
No muslim need defend islam against accusations, history testifies to its glory. Over here in the US, yes the US, the large bulk of world history taught in colleges and high school is on islam and the numerous empires the religion has given birth to. Islam's beauty, believe it or not(and yes, in the US!), is discussed in great detail by respectable historians. if there is any criticism, whatsoever, it should be noted that every religion has its own peoples guilty of heinous acts. let's worry more about the future representation of our religion, rather that float in the past.
Samudra, I understand you are trying to reply to certain posts with patience. You believe that your posts reflect a peaceful and enlightening debate or discussion on theology, but the truth is you are insulting islam. Please be more careful when engaging in these debates, the post above is basically an insult.
 
.
believe me vinod, you don't need to defend yourself, i understand that you are not criticising islam or anything at all. I just wanted to point out that these critics of hadiths and qur'an, usually come from a solid christian background. the same roots of the people who used to burn men for saying the sun was the center of universe :lol:
 
.
care to prove that?

Prove what, my friend? That Mohammad did indeed replace the temple of early Arab pagans with what it is today - the Kaaba ? The first act of disrespect and violation of another mans faith by Muslims was indeed, most unfortunately for Muslims, performed by the man who preached the religion first.

The destruction of a place of worship is painful to anybody - be it the demolishing of the Arabian Gods in Kaaba by Muslims, the razing down of Somnath by Aurangazeb or the pulling down of Babri Masjid by Kar Sevaks.

Why are the three acts of destruction not equal?

Besides, I'm afraid some Americans reading Islamic history does not help alter actual history. I fail to see why that is in any way a valid excuse to cease speaking my opinion.

You claim that I insult religion. I'm merely drawing parallels and pointing out how things can be seen. I simply offer another perspective - just as dozens and dozens of users like you are offering their perspectives to enrich each others knowledge. I don't want you to construe that as a insult to your faith. That is the way I see things, pray tell, how I can help if you suddenly take offense at a nobody recording his views in a civilized manner on a forum. I hope there is tolerance enough to at least let the other man speak. Hiding behind the immunity and infallibility of religion I'm sure won't take away one bit of our problems.
 
.
Prove what, my friend? That Mohammad did indeed replace the temple of early Arab pagans with what it is today - the Kaaba ? The first act of disrespect and violation of another mans faith by Muslims was indeed, most unfortunately for Muslims, performed by the man who preached the religion first.
Do yourself a favor and read up on islamic history. The kaaba already existed long before his time and was not originally a temple. The Deity, Allah, already existed long before his time and Islam did not begin with during his era. Allah was regarded as the main God of the quraish. that is why there is credibility in what muslim historians claim. the quraishi slowly started to attribute partners to him.
the kaaba was built to be a qibla, it slowly, overtime collected idols from various religions and cultures. The Prophet(Salallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) reformed the practices at the kaaba without bloodshed. Believe me, no one felt pain for idols being destroyed. the quraish routinely replaced their idols with other idols every generation.
Besides, I'm afraid some Americans reading Islamic history does not help alter actual history. I fail to see why that is in any way a valid excuse to cease speaking my opinion.
But you see my friend, it is ultimately scholars from the west, orientalists, who decide what is history and what is not. History is only what we think it to be. "We" meaning the bits of evidence we find from sites and trying to piece the puzzle together. Unfortunately, the best we can come up with is broad, in general, claim to what actually happened.

You claim that I insult religion. I'm merely drawing parallels and pointing out how things can be seen. I simply offer another perspective - just as dozens and dozens of users like you are offering their perspectives to enrich each others knowledge. I don't want you to construe that as a insult to your faith. That is the way I see things, pray tell, how I can help if you suddenly take offense at a nobody recording his views in a civilized manner on a forum. I hope there is tolerance enough to at least let the other man speak. Hiding behind the immunity and infallibility of religion I'm sure won't take away one bit of our problems.
i don't claim buddy, I know that you insulted the religion. perhaps it would be better for you to present your critcism with a better approach next time.
 
.
I believe it is the systematic religion based post-conquest persecution of Hindu's and their continued suffering which was absent in the case of other invaders who readily assimilated and went on to enrich the native culture. Contrast that to the new invaders who won't let Hindu's enter one of their greatest works of architecture apparently built in tribute to love. Thats a simple analogy but seeing that they refuse to be inclusive of all faith,the society itself and instead seek partition I believe there is a strong case for a distinction to be made.

I disagree - the distinction you make is a semantic one. The Mongols for example did not commit what amounts to genocide and the complete destruction of civilizations because they were "tolerant and respectful" of the faith and culture of those peoples. There was quite obviously a distinction of "us vs them" - within the context of the Muslim rulers of the subcontinent, it is essentially the same argument of "us vs them" - with the "us factor" for the Muslim rulers (Islam) only being different in name to the "us factor" of the Mongols.

I'm digressing here but I don't see any point of applying Islamic moral standards to the rulers for the reason that I see a parallel between the pulling down of the holiest shrines of Hindu Gods and the acts of Mohammed when he violated the temples of idol worshiping pagans in the Mecca building. I fail to see the moral standing of the religion itself.

While I believe their is a distinction to be made between the events of Makkah and what say Ghaznavi did, your point is taken, since the narrative could easily, though incorrectly, be interpreted as religious justification for his actions. I am researching the background to the "destruction of the Makkah Idols" story (my own curiosity peaked about its origin, authenticity and details), however, the historical accuracy of the narrative does not have much bearing on this particular discussion, since my own experience suggests that most Muslims accept it without any qualms. More learned members - in Islam - may correct me on this

Besides, I refuse to buy this argument because to this day Muslims are most willing to sit idle and watch the spectacle of non-Muslim symbols destroyed and non-Muslims persecuted, *legally* nonetheless in some of the reasonably educated and developed countries. I have no option but to conclude morals are only talked about when it is not possible to continue the persecution. Only Lip service is found abound.

I do not believe that is a correct assertion. There was tremendous condemnation within the press and intelligentsia of Pakistan when the Taliban chose to destroy the Bamiyan Buddha's - it was considered an atrocious act. As far as lip service is concerned, my dear fellow, perhaps in a utopia such arguments would fly, but come back to the real world - in this one, millions of people subject to abject poverty and humiliation cannot stand up to gain basic axiomatic rights for themselves, let alone stand up to modern day equivalents of the "hordes". While this forum may be but an infinitesimal snapshot of the Pakistani community, my experience has shown the overwhelming majority of Pakistani members as being in agreement with me in condemning the actions of the Taliban in Afghanistan and FATA related to the destruction of non-Muslim religious artifacts. The sense I get from the media is overwhelmingly the same as well, and bar assembling a posse to go and "get" the Taliban, there is not much more the community can be realistically expected to do.

So long as the Pashtun and Tajik communities continue to uphold and glorify the ugly and uncivilised acts of Taliban and Masood why would any self-respecting Hazara and a Herati respect the Pashtun and Tajik?

However, if on the other hand the Pashtuns and Tajiks were to happily acknowledge the horrors of Taliban and Masood, and the part their communities played in the slaughters, in totality minus any platitude and excuse making, all should be well.

So long as the state of Pakistan, the government, a representative of its people and their will, continues to choose a terminology that would imply their identification with those Muslim invaders who willingly persecuted natives and their faiths, I fail to see the reason as to why the link cannot be made. Besides, I'm bewildered that you don't want such a link to be made when its your government that continues with the cheap terminology complete with their dummies decorating traffic islands.

Even If such a terminology and a sentiment is persistent due to the hostility post-independence it conveys that the other side is more than willing to align itself on the side of the aliens against the natives in Hindustan on the slightest excuse whilst the natives are far more willing to accommodate and assimilate aliens by making a Muslim President, the same guy who made all the important missiles.

I'm also wondering about the relevance of Islamic morals or preachings in the naming of missiles. Apparently it appears to my eyes that a whole nation full of moderates, is perfectly willing to be a silent audience, even support the institutions, that act against what the religion, supposedly, preaches.

I'm afraid it would take a lot more than lip service.

Now that wasn't quite an apt analogy on my part (the Herati Hazara one)- since the ancestors of modern day Pakistanis comprised some of the very peoples that were conquered. Our ancestors willingly chose Islam, and willingly chose to raise their future generations in this faith - for that we have no apology, and neither do we have one for what the "invaders" did, since we were not "they" - in ethnicity nor religion when those acts took place (though some may have been during later Muslim periods). I do not consider the Taliban's acts "Islamic" - I do not consider the destruction and ransacking of temples Islamic either - but while I will condemn both, I will not apologize for the actions of another.

On the issue of the relevance of these Muslim rulers to Pakistanis - as I expressed to Vinod, while some of the Muslim rulers did indeed desecrate non-Muslim places of worship (and those actions should be condemned) they also brought Islam into the subcontinent, and allowed for it to spread, and while Hindutva apologists may refuse to acknowledge it, they also had tremendous positive influence on the arts, culture, economics and administration. I realize that you are trying to spin a narrative of abject victimization, but even Ghaznavi left Hindu States in the control of Hindu Vassals and had Hindu generals, as did other Muslim rulers - not a perfect society by any means, but not quite the "Nazi's -Stalin - Mao - New World Europeans rolled into one" picture you present either.

History, like most other things, is "shades of Grey rather than black and white" - Some Pakistani Muslims may only view the actions of the Muslim rulers of the subcontinent as positive, ignoring the harm they did, while some Hindus may only see them as monsters. The truth lies in between, and a conversation between these two communities is only going to be fruitful if middle ground is sought by both.
 
.
History, like most other things, is "shades of Grey rather than black and white" - Some Pakistani Muslims may only view the actions of the Muslim rulers of the subcontinent as positive, ignoring the harm they did, while some Hindus may only see them as monsters. The truth lies in between, and a conversation between these two communities is only going to be fruitful if middle ground is sought by both.

AM bhai,

I'm running in hurry now, will come back later in the evening to reply. However I agree with the part quoted above. With that I might as well add that it is imperative that even the most uncomfortable truth is communicated amongst communities with explicit blankness minus the pious platitude. I'd like to explain, later.
 
. . .
WHile I thought there would be some bias, I never knew the facts were so much distorted in there.
Thats what I mean...
like about 1857 war...
Here it is celebrated as a united effort of all religions in India against foreign rulers.
 
.
Hindus named their fist missile after Prithvi who won the first battle against muslims while lost second and with it the war. Now when Pakistan response with naming of missile after who won against hindus, they start their usual BS that prithvi mean eart.

i have to disagree with what the missile "prithvi" is named after. Considering that the other missiles are named Akash, Agni, Nag, etc it makes more sense that the missile was named after Prithvi = Earth rather than Prithviraj Chauhan
 
.
Most of the Indian missiles are named after the various elements of nature and not after any Historical character,it's Pakistan's indoctrination over the ages that made them understand otherwise.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom