South Asian Muslim Myth Projection by Hindu Supremacists

[Adonis]

You sure about that...

Actually Ashoka persucuted a lot of religions, Jains, local religions etc (the good guy was likely fake- made up by him for propoganda purposes as his reputation was terrible)

And thier are lots of other examples too

Care to provide evidence?.... If he does, so are thousands of examples of Hindu kings who allowed Islam to flourish....Mosques were allowed to be built in Kerala (629 AD), Gujrat (623 AD) and Tamil Nadu (630 AD) much before Arabs invaded Sindh.....

 

[Varunastra]

No bhai, I believe either polytheist Hinduism origined in Iranic lands about 3000 years or so ago as an offshoot of some Iranic religion or the Iranic Aryans settling in Indian lands suddenly switched to polytheism because of reasons I don't know.

Our Parsi / Zarthusti member, @padamchen, calls Hindus as his cousins.

Well hinduism having commonality with iranic religions could very well be true. But my point is that we have an intersection with iranic or central asian religions but it is not that we are a subset of them i.e. so called aryans are the only source of Hinduism. Because the data to back that up is just not present, it is more believable to think the aryans just added a part and for the majority adopted the existing religion. I read that zoroastrians call their good deities Ahura and bad deities Deva. While we call our good deities Devas and bad ones Ashuras. So it can be seen here itself even if there is commonality how much local beliefs play a part in moulding a religion that it can basically make one inverse of the other related one in what should have been points of commonality. Basically even if it is proved that all of Hinduism can be traced back to the aryans, it would be without doubt that they reached most of it's current form after they settled in the subcontinent.

 

[jamahir]

Well hinduism having commonality with iranic religions could very well be true. But my point is that we have an intersection with iranic or central asian religions but it is not that we are a subset of them i.e. so called aryans are the only source of Hinduism. Because the data to back that up is just not present, it is more believable to think the aryans just added a part and for the majority adopted the existing religion. I read that zoroastrians call their good deities Ahura and bad deities Deva. While we call our good deities Devas and bad ones Ashuras. So it can be seen here itself even if there is commonality how much local beliefs play a part in moulding a religion that it can basically make one inverse of the other related one in what should have been points of commonality. Basically even if it is proved that all of Hinduism can be traced back to the aryans, it would be without doubt that they reached most of it's current form after they settled in the subcontinent.

You make some interesting points and local environment does play a part in affecting culture. About the underlined which elements do you mean ?

 

[Varunastra]

You make some interesting points and local environment does play a play in affecting culture. About the underlined which elements do you mean ?

Most of the recognizable ones I would believe. Reincarnation, concept of karma, dharma, moksha, God taking on avatars to purge evil,concept of brahman and how it ties all Gods and individuals into a single eternal truth/soul. Unless I'm mistaken due to lack of research these can only be seen in Hinduism and other dharmic religions like Buddhism or Jainism and not in western, central asian or iranic religions that are associated with aryan culture.

@-blitzkrieg- what's so funny mate?

 

[darksider]

this is the better version.i was about to post this almost similar title but you beat me so i am sharing here
and i do wonder why dont have info graphs and memes like this for hindus?

 

[jamahir]

Most of the recognizable ones I would believe. Reincarnation, concept of karma, dharma, moksha, God taking on avatars to purge evil,concept of brahman and how it ties all Gods and individuals into a single eternal truth/soul. Unless I'm mistaken due to lack of research these can only be seen in Hinduism and other dharmic religions like Buddhism or Jainism and not in western, central asian or iranic religions that are associated with aryan culture.

Perhaps, though as you said the data is not much there is to back up any conclusion.

I glanced through two interesting Wikipedia pages and I think that the historians who write this may not be correct at all in the dating :

Zoroastrianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Historical Vedic religion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Areesh]

Islamic loot: How the Mughals drained wealth out of India

Haha good

 

[Varunastra]

Perhaps, though as you said the data is not much there is to back up any conclusion.

I glanced through two interesting Wikipedia pages and I think that the historians who write this may not be correct at all in the dating :

Zoroastrianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Historical Vedic religion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yup I see pretty much the same points.
In the commonalities of zoroastrianism with indian religions I see the links of deva and ashura, to that if I may add there is also the reverence of fire/fire worship which is common.
In the historical vedic religion article it is written how many concepts like reincarnation only developed at later stages i.e. Later vedic culture. Yes it can be argued what was early vedic culture was much more closer to iranic and central asian religions but what we call Hinduism today is a superset which includes the vedic traditions along with what ideas were developed locally like the ones I mentioned in my previous post not to mention the fact that all our Holy sites are in the Indian subcontinent.
See I am in no way denying whether a group of people had their influence in Hinduism or not, my point is that calling it a foreign religion just because one group that had a major influence in Hinduism happened to trace their lineage to central asia would not do proper justice.

 

[jamahir]

Yup I see pretty much the same points.
In the commonalities of zoroastrianism with indian religions I see the links of deva and ashura, to that if I may add there is also the reverence of fire/fire worship which is common.

Right.

In the historical vedic religion article it is written how many concepts like reincarnation only developed at later stages i.e. Later vedic culture.

I see.

Yes it can be argued what was early vedic culture was much more closer to iranic and central asian religions but what we call Hinduism today is a superset which includes the vedic traditions along with what ideas were developed locally like the ones I mentioned in my previous post

Possible.

not to mention the fact that all our Holy sites are in the Indian subcontinent.

Yes.

See I am in no way denying whether a group of people had their influence in Hinduism or not, my point is that calling it a foreign religion just because one group that had a major influence in Hinduism happened to trace their lineage to central asia would not do proper justice.

I agree with the later localization but I think we have to at least call their starting point as foreign.

 

[Varunastra]

Right.



I see.



Possible.



Yes.



I agree with the later localization but I think we have to at least call their starting point as foreign.

Yes it can be argued one of the starting/early points has foreign elements in common with iranic/central asian cultures. But that's just one piece of the Hinduism pie.

 

[Maula Jatt]

Propaganda by ashoka for preaching peace and love ?

 

[Maula Jatt]

Care to provide evidence?.... If he does, so are thousands of examples of Hindu kings who allowed Islam to flourish....Mosques were allowed to be built in Kerala (629 AD), Gujrat (623 AD) and Tamil Nadu (630 AD) much before Arabs invaded Sindh.....

There are a lot of examples of muslim kings allowing the building of other religion's temples/ place of worship

So what exactly would that prove?

 

[SkyWolf]

I don't want to get into Hindu/Non-Hindu debate...just few questions

1. If Aryan came 3000 Years back and so called converted local people to Hinduism...does that mean Hinduism existed before Aryans came to India, in their lands?
2. If Aryans started converting people to Hinduism through force 3000 years back (around 1000 BC), Why Jainism and Buddhism were allowed to flourish (600 BC)...even some of their biggest emperors (Ashoka of Maurya Empire) were Buddhist....
3. India has been a melting pot of cultures from across the world....every outsides including Aryan got refuge here...but it is also a fact that worst prosecution of Hindus and Sikhs happened during Muslim rule in India...

Hinduism - Islam, 11th-19th Century | Britannica

Hinduism - Islam, 11th-19th Century: The advent of Islam in the Ganges basin at the end of the 12th century resulted in the withdrawal of royal patronage from Hinduism in much of the area. The attitude of the Muslim rulers toward Hinduism varied. Some, like Fīrūz Tughluq (ruled 1351–88) and...

www.britannica.com

the original premise was the analogy to hindu complaints about muslim ancestors being converts to an invasive religion/culture to aryan religio-cultural invasion.

No aryans - no vedic gods; no caste system based on white aryas vs dark local dasyus. Dasuputra vs Indigenous locals. Often violently - they were a warlike people. (The aryans)

sure hinduism evolved in south asia but so did south asian brand of islam. Islam culturally is not a monolith even though we try to be.

bottom line: your ancestors were also changed racially, culturally and religiously. Through violence, war and subjugation.

we muslims opted for buddhism and then we opted for islam. We are at peace with this history and hindu supremacists should try to do the same.

 

[Adonis]

There are a lot of examples of muslim kings allowing the building of other religion's temples/ place of worship

So what exactly would that prove?

It proves that you do not have such examples....

 

[SkyWolf]

It proves that you do not have such examples....

Abul Fath Jalal-ud-din Muhammad Akbar, also known as Akbar the Great, the third emperor of the Mughal Empire, earned a reputation for being a just ruler of 16th-century India. Emperor Akbar enlarged and consolidated grants to temples and temple-servants in the Mathura region by his farmaans (orders), dated 27 August 1598 and 11th September 1598, in Vrindavan, Mathura and their environs.
His son Jahangir continued the tradition of supporting a multi-faith India by making significant additions to the grants approved by his father. He added at least two temples to the list of the thirty five supported by Akbar’s grant of 1598.
Similarly, another Mughal King, Jahangir, provided 121 bighas, or 30 hectares of land, to five families of temple sevaks (caretakers). In 1620, he also visited the Vrindavan temple. According to historic accounts, it is also known that whenever temple priests had any problems, they approached Mughal rulers or their senior officials. In most cases, the Mughal authorities took timely action to address any issues.
The Nawabs of Oudh, who governed the state of Awadh, anglicised as Oudh in north India during the 18th and 19th centuries, gave several grants to the temples of Ayodhya and provided them protection in other ways.
Nawab Safdarjung built several temples in Ayodhya and contributed to repair works of other temples.
His successor, Shuja-ud-Daula, gifted over 20 hectares of land for the construction of Hanumangarhi, one of the most important Hindu temples. According to Mahant Gyan Das, the head priest of Hanumangarhi, the temple was built in 1774 after a Hindu priest visited an ailing Shuja-ud-Daula and helped him recover from a spell of illness.
As per the documents available at the famous temples in Chitrakut, Varanasi, Ujjain, Allahabad and other locations, the grants were made by Muslim rulers to provide support.