Prominent Muslim Rulers/Dynasties throughout South Asian history

[Chhatrapati]

All of the Buddhist history kinddom lies here and there are countless sources..
His empire likes in these lands. The religion of Buddhism started here.

Nope, there is no evidence of Buddha being from the west. By the time Buddhism originated, todays Pakistan had fallen into Non-Vedic tribes. Kamboja, Kekaya, later Puru (Poros). Infact the language that was spoken in those kingdoms were different. Given Buddha's teaching were in oral tradition and mostly in Magadhi Prakrit. Which is only found in ancient Kingdom of Magadha.

I don't know many Buddhist kings hailing from today's Pakistan. Buddhist Kings were not great rulers as they were not interested in expanding their territories. The only prominent one I know are Shakas, Kushanas, who are Indo-Scynthians. And few Greek Kings mostly in Afghanistan.

 

[Pakistansdefender]

Nope, there is no evidence of Buddha being from the west. By the time Buddhism originated, todays Pakistan had fallen into Non-Vedic tribes. Kamboja, Kekaya, later Puru (Poros). Infact the language that was spoken in those kingdoms were different. Given Buddha's teaching were in oral tradition and mostly in Magadhi Prakrit. Which is only found in ancient Kingdom of Magadha.

I don't know many Buddhist kings hailing from today's Pakistan. Buddhist Kings were not great rulers as they were not interested in expanding their territories. The only prominent one I know are Shakas, Kushanas, who are Indo-Scynthians. And few Greek Kings mostly in Afghanistan.

Askoka empire is in Pakistan..
He was from Pakistan.
Chanakiya was a pakistani etc
And other Kings of maurian empire

 

[Chhatrapati]

Akbar wasnt a Muslim.

Yeah, many don't consider him Muslim because he had this fascination for Eastern Philosophy and created a mixed religion. Din-i llahi Which I presume is a big no no among the Mullahs at the time. And they didn't show any discontent at the time because of love for their heads. But after his death, the idea was dropped by the following rulers and later kings went the theocracy way.

Apart from Sher Shah Suri and Tipu Sultan all in your list were incompetent idiots.

Sher Shah was indeed a great ruler and a General. But Akbar is the one consolidated the Mughal rule, by defeating the Targhans all the way to Safavids who now ruled Kandahar. Of course all these were when he was still a "muslim". Maybe he drifted during his retirement.(pun)

Tipu Sultan is no different in that aspect compared to Akbar, during his expansion times he was all rough and tough, very theocratic but towards end he started consulting Hindu Astrologers given he was losing battles, he naturally thought it was due to his previous actions (karma as we say), then started heavily donating to temples, rebuilding temples which he destroyed.

Askoka empire is in Pakistan..
He was from Pakistan.
Chanakiya was a pakistani etc
And other Kings of maurian empire

Oh dear you can't even Spell Ashoka properly. Chanakya wasn't a king, he was a minister and adviser to the King.

Chanakya was indeed from Takshashila, who was just a poor Brahmin who went for alms in Nanda empire. He picked up a street boy playing king and fostered him later he toppled the then ruler Dhana Nanda.

Ashoka being the 3rd in line from Mauryan empire was nothing but a Bihari or a Bengali. His parents were Bihari-Bengali, his granparents were Bihari - Greek origin (highly debatable). So, nope.

I'll ignore any further stupendous claims. Not even gonna explain how Buddha was not a Pakistani lol. You seem to lack a good shot at history.

 

[Pakistansdefender]

Yeah, many don't consider him Muslim because he had this fascination for Eastern Philosophy and created a mixed religion. Din-i llahi Which I presume is a big no no among the Mullahs at the time. And they didn't show any discontent at the time because of love for their heads. But after his death, the idea was dropped by the following rulers and later kings went the theocracy way.

Sher Shah was indeed a great ruler and a General. But Akbar is the one consolidated the Mughal rule, by defeating the Targhans all the way to Safavids who now ruled Kandahar. Of course all these were when he was still a "muslim". Maybe he drifted during his retirement.(pun)

Tipu Sultan is no different in that aspect compared to Akbar, during his expansion times he was all rough and tough, very theocratic but towards end he started consulting Hindu Astrologers given he was losing battles, he naturally thought it was due to his previous actions (karma as we say), then started heavily donating to temples, rebuilding temples which he destroyed.


Oh dear you can't even Spell Ashoka properly. Chanakya wasn't a king, he was a minister and adviser to the King.

Chanakya was indeed from Takshashila, who was just a poor Brahmin who went for alms in Nanda empire. He picked up a street boy playing king and fostered him later he toppled the then ruler Dhana Nanda.

Ashoka being the 3rd in line from Mauryan empire was nothing but a Bihari or a Bengali. His parents were Bihari-Bengali, his granparents were Bihari - Greek origin (highly debatable). So, nope.

I'll ignore any further stupendous claims. Not even gonna explain how Buddha was not a Pakistani lol. You seem to lack a good shot at history.

You can ignore my this comment too.

 

[Hamza913]

I don't know many Buddhist kings hailing from today's Pakistan.

The two most notable ones are Kanishka (from Peshawar) and Menander (from Sagala).

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Askoka empire is in Pakistan..
He was from Pakistan.
Chanakiya was a pakistani etc
And other Kings of maurian empire

No... you have to be trolling.

Chanakya was from Taxila but Ashoka and others of the Mauryan Empire were foreigners. Chanakya may have been a foreigner as well who had come to study in Taxila since he helped the Mauryans subdue his own people as there were two major rebellions in Gandhara against Mauryan occupation, but we are not sure.

Nope, there is no evidence of Buddha being from the west.

You are correct, that was a silly claim for him to make.

By the time Buddhism originated, todays Pakistan had fallen into Non-Vedic tribes.

Coterminous Pakistan followed early Vedic tradition which had become taboo among the post-Vedic religions and cultures of the Ganges region. Introduction of Buddhism to the Indus Region morphed into Vedic synchronism with Buddhism which is best highlighted in Gandharan art.

Kamboja, Kekaya, later Puru (Poros)

The Kamboja were not as major as the other peoples of Sapta Sindhu (Indus Region), Kekaya and the Purus were undoubtedly Vedic, though the Puru tribe has nothing to do with Porus and such connection is not academically recognized.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

I don't know many Buddhist kings hailing from today's Pakistan. Buddhist Kings were not great rulers as they were not interested in expanding their territories.

You are quite wrong, but I do not blame you, even 99.9% of us Pakistanis are ignorant to our forgotten own history and heritage.

Majority of the rulers of the Indus Region have been Buddhist and they are among our greatest historic leaders. In comparison, Hindu influence was quite insignificant with there only being three short-lived Hindu dynasties, all three of which arose after a Brahmin minister murdered or deposed (through court intrigue) the rightful Buddhist king.

One famous Buddhist power was the indigenous Sindhu Rai Empire, which was nearly double the size of modern-day Pakistan, uniting the Indus Region as well as expanding into modern-day Afghanistan and Gujarat.

 

[Hamza913]

 

[Chhatrapati]

Coterminous Pakistan followed early Vedic tradition which had become taboo among the post-Vedic religions and cultures of the Ganges region. Introduction of Buddhism to the Indus Region morphed into Vedic synchronism with Buddhism which is best highlighted in Gandharan art.

It has nothing to do with the religion, they were sidelined following a brief war. Which weakened their Kingdom, and the eastern region amassed wealth through agriculture given those regions had abundance of rivers, all this happened in the later vedic period.

The Kamboja were not as major as the other peoples of Sapta Sindhu (Indus Region), Kekaya and the Purus were undoubtedly Vedic, though the Puru tribe has nothing to do with Porus and such connection is not academically recognized.

I'm not talking about early Vedic period, I'm talking about the history since the advent of Buddhism. That's why I said, Kekaya, Kamboja I missed Gandhara, had fallen into non-Vedic tribes by the time of Buddha.
Coming to Puru, again I'm not talking about Vedic puru but the Puru that ruled during the invasion of Alexander. The name Porus is inaccurate and a greek given name. I didn't say they are the same.

even 99.9% of us Pakistanis are ignorant to our forgotten own history and heritage.

It may have to do with the invasions, you are right in the middle connecting todays India and West Asia, the chances of invasion from two sides made the region a hotspot for different civilizations a lot of history got destroyed by these invasions. And Vedic people have the habit of writing these tales as poems, hymns etc... that too in Sanskrit which made it difficult to completely decipher the locations.

One famous Buddhist power was the indigenous Sindhu Rai Empire, which was nearly double the size of modern-day Pakistan, uniting the Indus Region as well as expanding into modern-day Afghanistan and Gujarat.

Gujarat at the time were under Sakas or Maitraka.

Majority of the rulers of the Indus Region have been Buddhist and they are among our greatest historic leaders. In comparison, Hindu influence was quite insignificant with there only being three short-lived Hindu dynasties, all three of which arose after a Brahmin minister murdered or deposed (through court intrigue) the rightful Buddhist king.

I'm not sure about that. Many empires followed Buddhist traditions but there was significant Hindu chiefants throughout which can be corroborated from your own claim of having Brahmin ministers, and I'm intrigued by the name Brahmin Kingdom because no Kingdoms name themselves as Brahmin because they essentially loss their status and become Kshatriya. Anyway, not divulging into that any further.

The two most notable ones are Kanishka (from Peshawar) and Menander (from Sagala).

Yes I mentioned them.

prominent one I know are Shakas, Kushanas, who are Indo-Scynthians. And few Greek Kings mostly in Afghanistan.

 

[Hamza913]

 

[dexter]

Sorry for not posting new stuff here, ill soon continue the series from where I left it.

 

[Hamza913]

Rare photo of Ghazi Ilm Uddin

 

[SingHee]

Taimur Khurram,

Appreciate the work here, but just wanted to point out that we should be careful not to pass judgement on muslim brothers, especially those that are a very prominent part of our history. Specifically, there's no evidence to suggest the Khokhars were recently converted hindus, or even that they assassinated Ghori.

In fact, there's an extremely detailed and specific account of the traditions and history of the tribe in what is probably the most well known book of recent times, which connects many important dots and largely makes a convincing case of their own tradition of being connected to Afghanistan.

A glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province By H.A. Rose
https://archive.org/details/glossaryoftribes03rose/page/n1113

 

[Hamza913]

Taimur Khurram,

Appreciate the work here, but just wanted to point out that we should be careful not to pass judgement on muslim brothers, especially those that are a very prominent part of our history. Specifically, there's no evidence to suggest the Khokhars were recently converted hindus, or even that they assassinated Ghori.

In fact, there's an extremely detailed and specific account of the traditions and history of the tribe in what is probably the most well known book of recent times, which connects many important dots and largely makes a convincing case of their own tradition of being connected to Afghanistan.

A glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province By H.A. Rose
https://archive.org/details/glossaryoftribes03rose/page/n1113

The story of Qutb Shah is complete nonsense, they are not descended from him. Historical evidence shows that they were initially Hindu, before becoming spiritually Pak (clean) and converting to Islam. Genetic evidence also refutes the idea that they would have Arab origins.

Not only that, but the very name Khokhar is Hindu in origin and mentioned in old Hindu texts.

 

[SingHee]

The story of Qutb Shah is complete nonsense, they are not descended from him. Historical evidence shows that they were initially Hindu, before becoming spiritually Pak (clean) and converting to Islam. Genetic evidence also refutes the idea that they would have Arab origins.

Not only that, but the very name Khokhar is Hindu in origin and mentioned in old Hindu texts.

Correlation does not equal causation, a simple rule in logic and reason.

I also made no mention of Qutb Shah, I provided a complete historical source which refutes what you are stating as fact.

Additionally, I should mention that all the so called 'nonsense' can be traced back to a certain K.S. Lal, who is widely quoted by many historians in the same context as your assertions. Of course, K.S. Lal's historical books, where he also associates much of his work to Firishta [who did not say Khokhars], follows your narrative of showing a dominant hindu warrior people in the extreme north west that opposed the so-called invading muslim armies.

Further context of the works of K.S Lal show much obvious bias to the recent re-writing of history in India, and he has been associated with the RSS by other well known Indian writers such as Irfan Habib. Furthermore, K.S Lal was appointed head of the Indian NCERT Committee to draft the model school syllabus on Indian History. Continuing on from where he left off, the exact same assertions as you, concerning the Khokhars, are being made in the Indian school history books.

Beyond a specific agenda, I see no value in these assertions. However, we are all of course free to claim what we wish, but doing so at the expense of others is not considered good etiquette.