Sikander Butshikan, Sultan of Kashmir

[Hamza913]

Great man, to be respected by all kashmiris and Muslims of the subcontinent

Asalamu Alaikum

Yes, in my opinion, more focus needs to be given to rulers who were from modern day Pakistan, everybody glosses over them which is a shame, they were just as powerful and are just as interesting as the others.

For example, did you know that Ghazi Malik (founder of the Tughlaq dynasty) came from Dipalpur in the Punjab, or that his mother was also an ethnic Punjabi? Or that Shah Jahan was born in Lahore, and had a Rajput mother? Or that Ahmed Shah Abdali came from Multan?



It seems all the Hindustanis I tagged have magically disappeared. It's funny, some of them were online just a couple of minutes ago and replied to posts of mine in other threads.

@lastofthepatriots

 

[Ahmad Sajjad Paracha]

Asalamu Alaikum

Yes, in my opinion, more focus needs to be given to rulers who were from modern day Pakistan, everybody glosses over them which is a shame, they were just as powerful and are just as interesting as the others.

For example, did you know that Ghazi Malik (founder of the Tughlaq dynasty) came from Dipalpur in the Punjab, or that his mother was also an ethnic Punjabi? Or that Shah Jahan was born in Lahore, and had a Rajput mother? Or that Ahmed Shah Abdali came from Multan?

[emoji38]

It seems all the Hindustanis I tagged have magically disappeared. It's funny, some of them were online just a couple of minutes ago and replied to posts of mine in other threads.

@lastofthepatriots

The Swatis/Jahangiris that i've mentioned were also from modern Pakistan e.g Swat and Pakhli Sarkar(former name of mansehra) region. They ruled Kashmir for quite a long time and are kniwn for spreadi g islam too.

 

[Hamza913]

The Swatis/Jahangiris that i've mentioned were also from modern Pakistan e.g Swat and Pakhli Sarkar region. They ruled Kashmir for quite a long time and are kniwn for spreadi g islam too.

Yes, the Shah Mir dynasty may have also had it's origins in Swat, but this is a disputed claim and they did end up intermarrying with local Kashmiris anyway.

 

[Luffy 500]

Seems like a noble ruler with commendable pride and zeal for Islam and did much good. May Allah(swt) forgive his sins and grant him jannah.

don't seem nice person, i admire way of Sufis like Khwaja Moinuddin Ajmeri (r.a) Ali Hujwiri etc, who converted many Hindus with love and compassion, Islam dont admire those who destroyed places of worship of other religions and forcibly banned their practices so their generations continue to hate this beautiful true religion..

We can not back project today's global circumstances on the people of the past. We do NOT know on what circumstances those battle and decisions took place. There was no UN or western formulated Geneva convention etc back then. Non-muslim rulers generally were doing much worse, since their religion UNLIKE Islam, did NOT have religiously sanctioned humane code of conduct for battle and war. But one thing is for certain Muslim rulers by and large were tolerant of other faiths and abided by Islamic injunctions of upholding the rights, safety and security of their non-muslim subjects. Presence of Hindus, christians, buddist etc in all parts of the muslim world is testament to that.

 

[Max]

We can not back project today's global circumstances on the people of the past. We do NOT know on what circumstances those battle and decisions took place. There was no UN or western formulated Geneva convention etc back then. Non-muslim rulers generally were doing much worse, since their religion UNLIKE Islam, did NOT have religiously sanctioned humane code of conduct for battle and war. But one thing is for certain Muslim rulers by and large were tolerant of other faiths and abided by Islamic injunctions of upholding the rights, safety and security of their non-muslim subjects. Presence of Hindus, christians, buddist etc in all parts of the muslim world is testament to that.

I said it was perfectly fine and acceptable in Medieval era..

 

[Corona]

Asalamu Alaikum

He was at a state of war with them, these people often refused to pay taxes and rebelled against his rule. Therefore, he responded with an iron fist. Perfectly justified.

Then doesn't this also justify India's actions in Kashmir right now?

 

[Luffy 500]

I said it was perfectly fine and acceptable in Medieval era..

With all due respect brother, any law within the vast framework of Shariah is perfectly fine for all eras till the end of of this world. The method of implementation may vary based on culture, society, time and place.....as permitted by shariah but the end goal is the same - establishing and promoting Tawheed and guiding mankind to peace & prosperity and preventing, reducing and destroying evil of shirk and preventing mankind from falling into the pits of hell. For example, as per Islam, there can be NO recognition or normalization of deviant and satanic lifestyle such as homosexuality and transgendarism no matter what the western dominated International human rights orgs. say. Their vitriol against the muslim world and them calling us medieval in this regard should NOT be payed heed to.

Also bro, the medieval era as generally understood carries a very negative connotation of barbarity and destruction which was indeed the case for what we now called Europe and the west. But that definitely was NOT the case for the muslim world. Justice and civilization reined supreme in the muslim world back then. SO we should be careful in using that term while describing the muslim world.

Also realize what the west, india, russia etc is doing now. They leave a heinous track of rape, pillage and violation of human rights where ever they go - eg. Syria, Kashmir, Mayanmar, Palestine etc etc. They never left the dark ages they were always in for the last 500 years. There have been recent revealation of how western NGOs were forcing desperate iraqi women into sex slavery in-return for food and medicine.

And Allah (swt) knows best.

 

[Hamza913]

Then doesn't this also justify India's actions in Kashmir right now?

Sikander didn't go around raping women or killing children (at least, not intentionally anyway). So no, it doesn't justify Hindustan's barbaric actions.

 

[Corona]

Sikander didn't go around raping women or killing children (at least, not intentionally anyway). So no, it doesn't justify Hindustan's barbaric actions.

How do you 'not intentionally' rape a women or kill a child? The best one I've heard was 'I tripped over my feet and fell d*ck first into the woman' (it didn't hold up in court, big surprise)

And no, I'm not trying to equate violence with violence, but the argument that he did it cause it was wartime, and people weren't paying taxes/were rebelling is a weak one. You can't condone one guy of doing something and punish another of doing the same thing.

 

[Hamza913]

How do you 'not intentionally' rape a women or kill a child? The best one I've heard was 'I tripped over my feet and fell d*ck first into the woman' (it didn't hold up in court, big surprise)

And no, I'm not trying to equate violence with violence, but the argument that he did it cause it was wartime, and people weren't paying taxes/were rebelling is a weak one. You can't condone one guy of doing something and punish another of doing the same thing.

Collateral damage is a thing, and he can't control his troops if they rape someone behind his back.

It's not a weak one, it's perfectly valid, especially for that time. Besides, if the roles were reversed, those animals would have done things 10 times worse.

 

[Corona]

Collateral damage is a thing, and he can't control his troops if they rape someone behind his back.

It's not a weak one, it's perfectly valid, especially for that time. Besides, if the roles were reversed, those animals would have done things 10 times worse.

He can't control his troops? That's a kinda necessary trait when you're the leader of an army.
And sure that happened a long time in the past but does that mean in 1000 years, you'll be OK with the actions of Indian troops in Kashmir? It'll all be in the past in a 1000 years.
And you don't know for certain what would've happened if the roles were reversed. You weren't there.

 

[Hamza913]

He can't control his troops? That's a kinda necessary trait when you're the leader of an army.
And sure that happened a long time in the past but does that mean in 1000 years, you'll be OK with the actions of Indian troops in Kashmir? It'll all be in the past in a 1000 years.
And you don't know for certain what would've happened if the roles were reversed. You weren't there.

He can't monitor every single one of his troops 24/7. Slip ups can and probably did occur.

No, because my people are on the receiving end. Also, what Hindustan is doing is not acceptable as per modern day morals, where as Butshikan did what was fairly normal for his time.

I do. When the roles were reversed, Muslims were taken captive by pirates. This led to start of the 1000 year Islamic conquest of the region.

 

[Corona]

He can't monitor every single one of his troops 24/7. Slip ups can and probably did occur.

No, because my people are on the receiving end. Also, what Hindustan is doing is not acceptable as per modern day morals, where as Butshikan did what was fairly normal for his time.

I do. When the roles were reversed, Muslims were taken captive by pirates. This led to start of the 1000 year Islamic conquest of the region.

We can't apply righteousness on a time based gradient. What is wrong today is just as wrong 1000 years ago. To claim that crimes in the past were a product of the past is to absolve all criminals of all crimes from here to eternity.
As for the rest, you may see certain sects of the population as 'your' people, so your arguments are justified only from your point of view. This is another thing with parallels in the current Kashmir situation.

 

[Hamza913]

We can't apply righteousness on a time based gradient. What is wrong today is just as wrong 1000 years ago.

Uh no. Morality doesn't work that way unless you follow a religious book like the Quran or Bible. Since you are likely to follow neither, I highly doubt you would have any objective morals.

Your morals are a by product of your society. Outside of religion, morals don't exist.

 

[Corona]

Uh no. Morality doesn't work that way unless you follow a religious book like the Quran or Bible. Since you are likely to follow neither, I highly doubt you would have any objective morals.

Your morals are a by product of your society. Outside of religion, morals don't exist.

I can agree with morals being a byproduct of society but I don't think it's limited to religion. Even without religion, people can be kind, honest, compassionate, etc. Otherwise, how do you explain similar moral values within different religions or in people who don't have religion? Even in the past, you didn't have to belong to any particular religion to have morals. And claiming that any one religion is more moral, or to claim that someone is immoral just cause he is from another religion is simply personal bias.