Umayyad invasion of Sindh and the arrival of Islam

[miss]

once again, can't argue the points so changing the topic.
Really that says it all about you people.

You still did not answer my very very valid point of if everyone is Hindu then why do Hindu extremists force people to convert and kill others?
what? are you kidding me?
You are the ones making accusations, so the onus is on you to prove it. Everyone man is innocent until proven guilty. And all you people have done is make a big stink about him, without providing any hard evidence.

But this is civil society I am talking about, something Indians don't seem to understand.
To them, as long as someone says you are guilty then you are guilty, end of story.

hindus have never forced anyone to convert. show me one instance of forced conv. a fwe hindus aer extreme as opposed to a sea of mslims. and hindus have done only committed a few crims and mostly in retaliation to what your country has sent here.
again, hindus dont hate mslims. its mslims who are hardline and dont accept hindus. eg, i doint mind tying the knto with a mslim provided i am not asked to convert, but the other way is not possible as some weird thing of najayaz etc will come into play.

 

[ice_man]

hindus have never forced anyone to convert. show me one instance of forced conv. a fwe hindus aer extreme as opposed to a sea of mslims. and hindus have done only committed a few crims and mostly in retaliation to what your country has sent here.
again, hindus dont hate mslims. its mslims who are hardline and dont accept hindus. eg, i doint mind tying the knto with a mslim provided i am not asked to convert, but the other way is not possible as some weird thing of najayaz etc will come into play.

if muslims were so extreme then all of india would have become hindu in 700 years of occupation. infact india progressed under muslims because muslims give them freedom, similarly everyone knows SALAHUDIN and his courage & just rule. same appleis to ottoman rule where if forced conversion happened today half of europe would have become muslim.


muslim rulers always let their subjects live a free life

 

[miss]

if muslims were so extreme then all of india would have become hindu in 700 years of occupation. infact india progressed under muslims because muslims give them freedom, similarly everyone knows SALAHUDIN and his courage & just rule. same appleis to ottoman rule where if forced conversion happened today half of europe would have become muslim.


muslim rulers always let their subjects live a free life

thye did try to convert by force, but realised they couldnt as they were overwhelmed by huge population and thats why they realised they had to ubild alliances and rule to dominate and couldnt bull doze the way they did from arabia to afghanistan.
if anything it is a tribute to the pluckiness os natives in india who resisted quite courageously.

mslims have mostly never left hindus to lead a free life , they were always dhimmis as per islams diktats . oh well.. but thats water under the bridge . in todays india except a fwe in the fringe mslims and hindus coexist well, but the same cant be said of your country.

 

[Don Jaguar]

How mughals are portrayed in indian history books?

Please tell me if any indian can answer?

 

[miss]

How mughals are portrayed in indian history books?

Please tell me if any indian can answer?

mostly good, with exception of aurangzeb. but usually its all apolitical. whats mentioned is this one built this and that one built that , and dates of wars and in case of akbar there is a mention of din e ilahi. but apart from that there is no mention of religion or politics.

 

[Don Jaguar]

mostly good, with exception of aurangzeb. but usually its all apolitical. whats mentioned is this one built this and that one built that , and dates of wars and in case of akbar there is a mention of din e ilahi. but apart from that there is no mention of religion or politics.

Let me tell you indians that all mughals were not good in fact our history books also don't say them good.

Akbar and ahmad shah rangeela are criticized very much.

 

[miss]

Let me tell you indians that all mughals were not good in fact our history books also don't say them good.

Akbar and ahmad shah rangeela are criticized very much.

akbar is greatly regarded as he was genuine in trying to build relations of hindu majority with rulers. he realised that unles hindus are treated as equals in their land mughal rule will always be shaky and he was right.
i have never read about rangeela. we only know from babur to aurangzeb after which it kind of meanders out to nadir shah, marathas and british

 

[neutral_person]

How mughals are portrayed in indian history books?

Please tell me if any indian can answer?

Depends on what Moghul Emperor you are talking about. Akbar is probably the best Moghul for most Indians, because he tried to actually build a civilization. He actively encouraged peaceful living among different religions and didn't try to forcefully convert people into Islam. Rulers like Aurangzeb were the exact opposite, actively destroying many temples and trying to essentially force Islam into the lives of then Hindus.

That being said, the Moghul empire were foreign invaders (Central Asian Turks), so we view them no differently than lets say how you would view British imperialism of India/Pakistan. However, Akbar is one person that most Indians like because he was a good ruler, and extra hate is dished out to Aurangzeb for his (not-so-nice) treatment of non-Muslims.

 

[ice_man]

mostly good, with exception of aurangzeb. but usually its all apolitical. whats mentioned is this one built this and that one built that , and dates of wars and in case of akbar there is a mention of din e ilahi. but apart from that there is no mention of religion or politics.

sio your text books apparently mention good stuff about "invaders" and plundreres and rapists? because that is what you claim the moghuls were! and if they didn't coexist peacefully how did the moghuls build so many things? because a nation only prospers in peace not in war.

 

[Don Jaguar]

i have never read about rangeela.

Read about him his activities were quite 18+.

 

[neutral_person]

sio your text books apparently mention good stuff about "invaders" and plundreres and rapists? because that is what you claim the moghuls were! and if they didn't coexist peacefully how did the moghuls build so many things? because a nation only prospers in peace not in war.

Well the not-so-nice things like rapes/forced conversions/pillaging is left out of most Indian textbooks because that might create ill-will towards Muslims living in India, which is a move I completely support. There are sadly some very few Hindu fundamentalist retards in our nation, who might read these history books, and decide that the way to take revenge would be harming Indian Muslims. But the fact is, these retards are too dumb to realize that the actual pillagers and rapists came from Arab/Turkey/Central Asia, and Indian Muslims had nothing to do with any of this.

Also, in terms of Moghuls, people like Akbar are seen in positive light and people like Aurangzeb are seen in negative light. Their actions define what kind of legacy they leave behind in India.

 

[miss]

sio your text books apparently mention good stuff about "invaders" and plundreres and rapists? because that is what you claim the moghuls were! and if they didn't coexist peacefully how did the moghuls build so many things? because a nation only prospers in peace not in war.

thats because CBSE text books tend to be apolitical. usually they dont say someone killed many hindus etc. as we grew older we came to know thru othr sources. again text books in india 10 years ago at least were not very political or revisionist in nature.
you can have peace by suppressing the people as happens in arab countries. its a known fact that many many temples were torn down in aurangzebs reign. he tried to thrust islma on the indians, reimposed kaziya, killed his moderate brothers etc. but fortunately for india thre were other stronger forces resulting from teh rise of the marathas. again the mughals were a mixed bag. i think indians feel that akbar, jahangeer and SJ were okay but the first 2 and aurang were evil.

 

[Moorkh]

sio your text books apparently mention good stuff about "invaders" and plundreres and rapists? because that is what you claim the moghuls were! and if they didn't coexist peacefully how did the moghuls build so many things? because a nation only prospers in peace not in war.

as we were taught, the mughals were indeed invaders. babur and humayun are considered invaders who wrested the rule of delhi sultanates from the lodhis. however the mughals are considered indian from akbar onwards. this was because they were brought up in india with indian traditions. most of the mughal achievements and monuments also exist in india.

so we dont have any problem considering akbar and shah jahan and jahangir as indian as thats what they were. they ruled from delhi/agra. they build their cities in india. the majority of their empire was in india. i dont remember instances of either of those three leading armies to invade india like babur did. so babur:invader::akbar:indian

 

[miss]

Read about him his activities were quite 18+.

lol.. probably hence the name rangeela.

 

[Don Jaguar]

That being said, the Moghul empire were foreign invaders (Central Asian Turks), so we view them no differently than lets say how you would view British imperialism of India/Pakistan. However, Akbar is one person that most Indians like because he was a good ruler, and extra hate is dished out to Aurangzeb for his (not-so-nice) treatment of non-Muslims.

Mughals made india golden sparrow and british made them penny less, no way you can compare each other.