Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

[jaibi]

@bronxbull , @RangerPK is correct, you don't have a good knowledge of Abrahamic faiths. I just read your post.

 

[t_for_talli]

There are many factors behind it

1) Hindus are cowards and they cannot stand up and fights for their rights and gave up easily especially in ares where they are in minority

2) In 1947 pakistan consist of bangldesh which had plenty of hindus and they still have them. Your idiot historian compare total hindu population of east and west pakistan in 1947 with present hindu population of only west pakistan to make point that hindu ran away or we ate them

There are stronger and weaker people in every society.
People with stronger will power would fight outsiders/suppressors and the rest bo down to foreign invaders like your forefathers.

 

[bronxbull]

The one where we're the villains of South Asia; murdering, raping and converting as we go. The myth that the rightests expound upon in your country.

I dont who u refer to as we?

But did raping/forced conversions happen?

yes,

were temples destroyed and masjids built on top?

yes.

When there is solid archaeological proof for all this,apart from clear local accounts of history.

How can you merely claim this is all fake?

I do not know your origins,whether you are a sayyid/qureshi/arain or jatt/gujjar/rajput.

Nonetheless,these stories are about the central asian/turk/other rulers and what their armies did.

Pakistanis were never Arabs and are not Arabs. Large majority of Pakistanis are the descendants of original inhabitants of this land. It at times surprises me as to why most Indians identify Pakistanis as Arabs sarcastically.

Sir,

If i remember correctly i remember Hassan Nisar saying that Syeds and Arain claim Arab ancestry and i remember you mentioning you are Arain with family from jalandhar.

Then why are you offended by being called an Arab?

@bronxbull , @RangerPK is correct, you don't have a good knowledge of Abrahamic faiths. I just read your post.

I am inferring from colonial history and i would be keen to learn from you and ranger.

 

[jaibi]

Muslim rulers, especially the Arabs did not want conversions of the local populace because they paid jizya to the ruler and were exempt from many state sponsored welfare programmes and services. It was the people who converted willingly and still do to this day.

The terrorists are not a part of this because their targets are other Muslims mostly (read the stats) and it's become the top layer in every region of trouble having a marginalised populace. Africa has many Christian groups that are just as barbaric.

 

[Nassr]

People warned me here that taking a post would have me attacked by jocks like you. Very well. I've read the history in detail and as someone who does this sort of thing for a living let me tell you something: History is not lateral. If you do not know what that means, you should really reflect about the veracity of claims that you are making. If it does then we can move forward.

In any case, I told you that the region, note that word: region, between the Rivers Indus and Ganges is the birthplace for Hinduism and Buddhism: that does not merely mean they were conceived over here but also thrived, perhaps you've missed the meaning of it.

Second, comes the claim of the Indus Valley Civilisation being monotheist; that proposition has not been able to be confirmed and remains conjecture to this point: there's a reason for this, we do not understand their language and secondly, these people have created inscriptions, tools and structures, that might as well be used for religious symbols. However, due to their probable egalitarian structure there seems to be greater probability that their faith was of a similar fashion. You would know this if you knew how to actually read history. It's not a problem just know the difference between an opinion and an agreed upon truth.

The last issue I would address is the hilarious direction you took my original post: the word 'Hindu' has an obscure heritage, the most probable source of it would be the word ''ndas' which comes from what makes our river Indus.

All I said was that from the earliest known times Hinduism was never a majority religion for a longer period of time as compared to Buddhism and Islam within the landmass that is now Pakistan. Buddhism was a majority religion as was Islam at a later stage and these were followed for a much longer period than Hinduism. During this time period, people also followed different monotheistic formats which Indian Hindus tend to engulf as part of Hinduism and that is why I highlighted the monotheistic nature of certain religions.

Now you get angry with such explanations and name expressions which were akin to extremist form of Islam whereas I was merely highlighting the historical aspects. Please do continue making your living through history without jumping to conclusions about what the others are stating and without presenting your own self as an unworthy jock. As I told you earlier as well, you were not even present in liquid form when I was well on my way on doing things that I wanted to do.

 

[bronxbull]

@bronxbull : Dai Bullu, you are Iyeraa??

I am a girl and yes i am an Iyer.

 

[Indischer]

When we die, we would eventually be resurrected to life on the day of judgement. On that day, we would be questioned about our life. Then we would be sorted out either into Hell or Heaven, were we would eventually live for eternity.

ALL Polytheists would go to hell. Thus polytheism is a sure way to hell. Only monotheist, would have a CHANCE, to go to heaven.

This is the hard fact.

Christians approach to this "problem" was to kill all polytheists from this world, killing polytheist men women and their children, and destroying their culture.

This is what the Christians did, when they found Polytheists in the new world.

Muslims differ in this approach. We believe it is a futile exercise that does not work at all. Thus we see Muslims living side by side, with Hindus. and not eradicating them, like the Christians.

Also we believe, Christians have been misguided themselves, and their approach to tackling this polytheistic "problem". Is not something God commands.

It is God who Guides and Miss-guides. It is the WILL of God. All we can do is pray for ourselves. Pray to God to forgive us.Save us from hell fire and make us among those who enter Heaven.

ROFLMAO
And you believe that a man shall go to hell for having worshipped many Gods while a sinner might still go to heaven for believing in just one God? Ultimate logic, or the lack of it. @Nassr You have anything to say on this, dude?

 

[INDIC]

So, in your view, Polytheism is a disease that ought to be eradicated?? As long as we worship anything monotheistically, we're on the right track spiritually, is it? Laughable!

Its a amazing question how can monotheism can make anyone superior.

 

[bronxbull]

Muslim rulers, especially the Arabs did not want conversions of the local populace because they paid jizya to the ruler and were exempt from many state sponsored welfare programmes and services. It was the people who converted willingly and still do to this day.

The terrorists are not a part of this because their targets are other Muslims mostly (read the stats) and it's become the top layer in every region of trouble having a marginalised populace. Africa has many Christian groups that are just as barbaric.

I dont believe that one bit man.

If u tax me more and if am poor,then what ll i do?

This is better than having a sword on my neck but what difference does it make?

This sounds like a fantasy but i dont see that religious agenda was never an issue.

Honestly,i can see Pashtun or some Persian invader who thinks like this but not an arab.

Sher Shah suri is supposed to be the best ruler of India and better than the hyped up Akbar.

 

[Nassr]

Sir,

If i remember correctly i remember Hassan Nisar saying that Syeds and Arain claim Arab ancestry and i remember you mentioning you are Arain with family from jalandhar.

Then why are you offended by being called an Arab?

Oh boy, me an Arian, no no - God. Not even close. You misunderstood. Danishmandan was established by Pathans from Kaniguran Waziristan.

 

[Indischer]

I am a girl and yes i am an Iyer.

oops, good to know. I'm a smartha Brahmin too, but from Karnataka.

 

[RangerPK]

Its a amazing question how can monotheism can make anyone superior.

You would find this out on the day of judgement.

 

[bronxbull]

All I said was that from the earliest known times Hinduism was never a majority religion for a longer period of time as compared to Buddhism and Islam within the landmass that is now Pakistan. Buddhism was a majority religion as was Islam at a later stage and these were followed for a much longer period than Hinduism. During this time period, people also followed different monotheistic formats which Indian Hindus tend to engulf as part of Hinduism and that is why I highlighted the monotheistic nature of certain religions.

Now you get angry with such explanations and name expressions which were akin to extremist form of Islam whereas I was merely highlighting the historical aspects. Please do continue making your living through history without jumping to conclusions about what the others are stating and without presenting your own self as an unworthy jock. As I told you earlier as well, you were not even present in liquid form when I was well on my way on doing things that I wanted to do.

well but neither of u were there when we talk of the period we are speculating about.

oops, good to know. I'm a smartha Brahmin too, but from Karnataka.

oh cool,but am married to a vaishno bengali.

 

[Indischer]

Its a amazing question how can monotheism can make anyone superior.

It gets better. read his reply to this question. It's much more illuminating!

 

[bronxbull]

Oh boy, me an Arian, no no - God. Not even close. You misunderstood. Danishmandan was established by Pathans from Kaniguran Waziristan.

Oh k.