Temple destruction in the Indian subcontinent

[Sharma Ji]

I am just replying to him in the language he learnt from some extremist madrassah.

Put your energy to better use.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

It is a hard question for north indian (and pakistani)bhayyas to answer,,who unashamedly claim martial heritage.
But Fact of the matter is they were too incompetent and phattu to do anythng,,other then meekly converting.(or somehow surviving by bootpolishing the invaders)

Most of northindia plus current day pakistan were under constant and relentless foreign occupation.
They had little choice in these matters.They were forcefully assimilated into newer religions just like they were forced into older ones in the past.
This was the Typical fate of cowards in old days.

Thank your stars that because of your geographical location, you were not at the receiving end of constant invasions from foreign lands. I doubt how your lot would have fared had you been a part of the North. We saw what happened to the Marathas when facing the Afghans directly in battle in 1761. The Turks conquered major parts of South India too later anyway.

The reason North India is still not Islamic is because of the constant resistance that these invaders had to face in places like Haryana and Rajasthan. Later in Punjab from the Sikhs too.

I would suggest that you take your anti- north Indian jealousy to some other forum. You are not doing any favours to your motherland and your own people with your abusive regionalism on a Pakistani forum.

 

[jamahir]

Pacifists, believers in peace and harmony.. part of the ethos of the culture of this land.

Really ??

Is India a gentle and Progressed society where it is common to see cats happily playing among the flowers and trees ??

 

[Rusty]

Pacifists, believers in peace and harmony.. part of the ethos of the culture of this land.

Note also that they didn't go around conquering distant lands.

Why so much hatred for us, man ?

Then how do you explain the 3000 years + of documented wars in India against each other?
(not even including wars against invaders)

Pacifistic societies do not create war elephants.
So either recorded history is wrong, or you are.
Knowing Indians, you will claim history is wrong.

 

[jamahir]

the most pious well studied muslims will tell you that the mosque is not where Allah lives, it is just a place to congregate and offer ritualistic devotion but the rituals and the place itself mean nothing.

That is my understanding too, even though I don't pray. The common phrase "Allah ka ghar" ( House of God ) is anti-Islamic.

 

[Sharma Ji]

Really ??

Is India a gentle and Progressed society where it is common to see cats happily playing among the flowers and trees ??

Maybe they were, a thousand years ago when the invaders came rampaging down the north west.

Then how do you explain the 3000 years + of documented wars in India against each other?
(not even including wars against invaders)

Pacifistic societies do not create war elephants.
So either recorded history is wrong, or you are.
Knowing Indians, you will claim history is wrong.

Who knows, maybe they were cowards who couldn't defend against the aggressor muslim hordes.

Not much point being stuck in the past though, is there ?

 

[Rusty]

Maybe they were, a thousand years ago when the invaders came rampaging down the north west.


Who knows, maybe they were cowards who couldn't defend against the aggressor muslim hordes.

Not much point being stuck in the past though, is there ?

Or cowards who could not defend against other Indian hordes like the Guptas or the Mauryas.

The funny thing is that the real cowards are the ones who hide from history, like claiming that your society is "pacifist" but then get butturt when asked why war elephants existed in a "pacifist" society.

 

[Sharma Ji]

That is my understanding too, even though I don't pray. The common phrase "Allah ka ghar" ( House of God ) is anti-Islamic.

Not sure about it being anti-Islam, but the Mosque, as a structure, not being a house of Allah/God etc

is pretty common belief among many, there might also be some scriptures etc to do with it in Islam.

Who even cares about this technical religious shit these days ?

Or cowards who could not defend against other Indian hordes like the Guptas or the Mauryas.

The funny thing is that the real cowards are the ones who hide from history, like claiming that your society is "pacifist" but then get butturt when asked why war elephants existed in a "pacifist" society.

Sure, they fought among themselves plenty

then got defeated by a superior military force in the form of the muslim invaders.. entirely possible

I'm no expert or even a student or fan boy of history..

so what ? muslims came, conquered, then the Angrezi Raj, then Nehru Raj.. now Modi Raj.

the pacifist bit is true though, despite all the ancients fighting among themselves... violence is actively discouraged and not ingrained in whatever holy books we have..

Honestly, I'm not equipped to handle these intense detail oriented discussions, my knowledge is cursory at best.

Islam came to India, it ruled vast parts of it, and remains active, if a bit diminished since the glory days of the Mughals... and they did destroy a lot of temples.

ancient history though, why not move on ?

 

[N.Siddiqui]

Really ??

Is India a gentle and Progressed society where it is common to see cats happily playing among the flowers and trees ??

I see it differently, we need to see it with a historical and a demographic perspective about conversions of Hindu Temples to mosques....it is so simple calculation.

Looking at the current population of Muslims in India/Pak and BD it is about 600 million less/more.

Hindu population in India: about 1000 million, so it is like for 100 Hindus there are 60 Muslims in these three countries, hypothetically assume that the sub continent was not divided.

So for that 60 Muslims who have been converted to Islam from Hinduism...they need Masjids instead of Temples.
What do they do...they converted(in their areas) these temples to Masjids as do they converted to Islam from Hindu religion.

It was not probable that Muslims who were Hindus earlier don't need Mosques instead of Temples.

The fallacy of 'Temples converted to Masjids'....narrative.

 

[Rusty]

Not sure about it being anti-Islam, but the Mosque, as a structure, not being a house of Allah/God etc

is pretty common belief among many, there might also be some scriptures etc to do with it in Islam.

Who even cares about this technical religious shit these days ?


Sure, they fought among themselves plenty

then got defeated by a superior military force in the form of the muslim invaders.. entirely possible

I'm no expert or even a student or fan boy of history..

so what ? muslims came, conquered, then the Angrezi Raj, then Nehru Raj.. now Modi Raj.

the pacifist bit is true though, despite all the ancients fighting among themselves... violence is actively discouraged and not ingrained in whatever holy books we have..

Honestly, I'm not equipped to handle these intense detail oriented discussions, my knowledge is cursory at best.

Islam came to India, it ruled vast parts of it, and remains active, if a bit diminished since the glory days of the Mughals... and they did destroy a lot of temples.

ancient history though, why not move on ?

You yourself have admit that you have no real knowledge yet you want to sit here and spew nonsense and expect us to take you seriously?

You are wrong.
not only are you wrong, but you are ignorant.
You are also Indian.
I have found a large correlation between those 3 facts in my old age.

If you have a real interest in History and not just Hindutva brainwashing, I suggest you watch some YouTube videos (not Hindutva ones) on ancient Indian empires.
They were as brutal and "barbaric" as any nation on earth.

Here let me get you started

(note at around 2:20 they talk about Indian war elephants)

 

[Sharma Ji]

You yourself have admit that you have no real knowledge yet you want to sit here and spew nonsense and expect us to take you seriously?

what nonsense have I spewed ?

the muslims who came from the north west were invaders and did destroy a lot of temples, this is established fact.

 

[jamahir]

Maybe they were, a thousand years ago when the invaders came rampaging down the north west.

Tell me honestly, just like the ancient Egyptians, are there scriptures or architecture that depict the smaller cats to be holy or respectable ??

At present in India the small cats are almost extinct because of the presence ( since the late 90s ) of 35+ million stray dog population.

Do so-called animal lovers like Maneka Gandhi, CUPA etc care about these non-present cats ?? If history of India before the Muslims contained a respectful place for cats in human settlements why don't the Indian promoters of pre-Muslim Indian history talk of these cats ??

Who even cares about this technical religious shit these days ?

Well, the common Muslim male in South Asia in the recent 15 to 20 years has become fixated on praying in the mosque, without understanding that the mosque served as a place of unifying Muslims in a single place and in case of conquests as an identifier of victory. This common Muslim of recent does not understand that in Islam, God is a formless entity and so cannot be represented by a "living" stone or mud idol in a building.

I see it differently, we need to see it with a historical and demographic perspective about conversions of Hindu Temples to mosques....it is so simple calculation.

Looking at the current population of Muslims in India/Pak and BD it is about 600 million less/more.

Hindu population in India: about 1000 million, so it is like for 100 Hindus there are 60 Muslims in these three countries, hypothetically assume that the sub continent was not divided.

So for that 60 Muslims who have been converted to Islam from Hinduism...they need Masjids instead of Temples.
What do they do...they converted(in their areas) these temples to Masjids as do they converted to Islam from Hindu religion.

It was not probable that Muslims who were Hindus earlier don't need Mosques instead of Temples.

The fallacy of 'Temples converted to Masjids'....narrative.

Possible.

 

[Rusty]

what nonsense have I spewed ?

the muslims who came from the north west were invaders and did destroy a lot of temples, this is established fact.

[QUOTE="dharmi]
the pacifist bit is true though
[/QUOTE]

You are not very smart are you?

I proved to you that this was wrong and you came back with other nonsense.
Did you really think that would work?
Like I would forget that I destroyed this ridiculous claim you made and then be like
"oh yeah, what nonsense did he spew?"

To to make this a bit more fun
It is also undeniable that Hindu invaders also destroyed Hindu temples.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

what nonsense have I spewed ?

the muslims who came from the north west were invaders and did destroy a lot of temples, this is established fact.

But so were indian hindu kings who fought and conquered other hindu territories?

 

[Sharma Ji]

Tell me honestly, just like the ancient Egyptians, are there scriptures or architecture that depict the smaller cats to be holy or respectable ??

no idea lol

probably ?

At present in India the small cats are almost extinct because of the presence ( since the late 90s ) of 35+ million stray dog population.

What you say is very likely not true.

Do so-called animal lovers like Maneka Gandhi, CUPA etc care about these non-present cats ?? If history of India before the Muslims contained a respectful place for cats in human settlements why don't the Indian promoters of pre-Muslim Indian history talk of these cats ??

What, Muslims, history and a "respectful place for cats" ?

Do elucidate further, I hadn't the slightest idea

Well, the common Muslim male in South Asia in the recent 15 to 20 years has become fixated on praying in the mosque, without understanding that the mosque served as a place of unifying Muslims in a single place and in case of conquests as an identifier of victory. This common Muslim of recent does not understand that in Islam, God is a formless entity and so cannot be represented by a "living" stone or mud idol in a building.

What data do you have to back such sweeping generalizations ?

Probably true anyway though

but the rise of the "sanghi" (and we should use that term loosely) has as much to do with the Muslim community otherizing themselves over the decades as it does with any discrimination and bigotry toward them. A lot of their wounds are self inflicted, do they feel compelled by ideology ? Who knows.... an uncomfortable investigation.

They're not even a minority, they're a block. To group them in with the rest would be unfair.

Integration into the mainstream via education is the solution, also population control across the board.

But so were indian hindu kings who fought and conquered other hindu territories?

They destroyed temples too ?

anyway, as I stated earlier.. not an expert, not my favorite subject..

It's very likely true that invading Islamic armies destroyed a lot of temples and forced convert the natives to their ways... don't really care lol

and just in case they were benevolent noble explorers etc who people just happened to agree with as far as becoming Muslim.. don't care either.