War trophies: When Hindu kings desecrated temples and abducted idols

[sankar]

Sinhalese are mix of local and indian migrant populations and yes SL Demon dances and demon masks are very unique however science has already proven humans lived across SL before Indians came so there is no need to prove it anymore

Hello brother, pls ready credible History all around the world. Living in denial of historic facts doesn't change anything.
All the Hindu gods, temples are demolished by Sinhalese for many years. Even now after north and east there are plenty of temples demolised and replaced by buhhist temples.. You keep talking without knowledge of History - no use in talking.

 

[Saradiel]

Because there might have been only Tamil tribes living there before Prakrit people came

How can there be tamil tribes in SL when there was no tamil tribes in TN itself? A tamil consiousness started much later. If any native people lived in SL they became modern day sinhalese. There are ample evidence for that in South of SL and actually all over SL.

or the newly arrived prakrits might have erased Tamil culture and monuments over a period of time.

Erase tamil culture? was there anything tamil in TN then? You people didnt have a tamil identity.
Noone can erase a culture....

Lets say native people lived in SL who are close to the native people in south india (that is what you say)....

1. What evidence do you have to say these people are the same people now living in North in SL?
2. There were natives in SL yes ..and they mingled with the immigrants and they are the sinhalese today

All the Hindu gods, temples are demolished by Sinhalese for many years. Even now after north and east there are plenty of temples demolised and replaced by buhhist temples..

Give evidence..atleast give a single name of such a place... i can give you hundreds of buddhist places of worship in North and East..

if there is any civilisation in any country there is a product by that civilisation. Show me a single product by a tamil civilisation in SL? tell me a single thing...show me a single thing..

Products of a civilisation are language, literature, architecture, folk lore, beliefs, kings and their stories, ancient monuments, behavioral patterns, festivities, .....Only sinhala civilisation has produced such things in SL...why did the Tamils fail to have anything in SL if they had any civilisation?
All the things that Tamils in SL have as their own is foreign, nothing that is native to SL....

Why has all historical records do NOT mention about any tamil civilisation in SL? Why do even TN histroical documents fail to mention that? Why has chinese, greeks, romans, Burmese, Siamese fail to mention about such a tamil civilisation while they have referred to Sinhala civilisation many times?
why?

Why does that tamil civilisation has no evidence to show its existence?

@SarkaR

Even Prabhakaran's father is an immigrant from Kerala...lol fighting for a traditional Tamil homeland in SL..what a joke!

 

[HeinzG]

Hindu sources like Ramayana mentioned srinlanka but no one knows whether it is present day Lanka or some other area.
Even if we assume it is present day Lanka it should be clear that lankan people back then were tamilians..Rama was an aryan king who invaded Dravidian lands..if he had attacked Lanka it means that it was a Dravidian land..The raakshasas (demons) mentioned in Ramayana were dark skinned darvidian speaking people of south India.

Agree with you on the first point.

However on the second point. If Sri Lankan are Dravidians; why the hell Tamilnadu jokers don't understand that even Sinhalese are their brethren?

If you don't know how a language is categorized into a language family, it would be useful for you to do a little research.
The grammar is criterion not the vocabulary...I haven't come across a single linguist who didn't categorized sinhala as Indo European..it is unanimously agreed that a form of Prakrit was mother of sinhala..the languages dhivehi (maldives language) and Bengali are closest to sinhala.

Sinhalese language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sinhalese people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The above links are of wikepedia about Sinhalese language and it's people..you read them and you will know your origins..you were once dark skinned people from Bengal and orissa who went to Sri Lanka and settled there .

Divehi is closest because it evolved from Sinhala language. Modern Maldivians are actually Sinhalese (some may be Tamillians). Anyway, Sinhalese is no closer to Bengali. It's pure BS. Frankly I can understand Hindi because it has many words similar to Sinhala which has obviously comes from Sanskrit.

 

[Godman]

Hello brother, pls ready credible History all around the world. Living in denial of historic facts doesn't change anything.
All the Hindu gods, temples are demolished by Sinhalese for many years. Even now after north and east there are plenty of temples demolised and replaced by buhhist temples.. You keep talking without knowledge of History - no use in talking.

Pls read about balangoda humans who colonized SL centuries before vijaya and later developed agricultural settlements even before Vijaya came. history says Vijaya conquered a demon worshiping tribe before becoming king
a few generations later young prince pandhukabhaya was protected by locals from his uncles and helped him become king.

He planned the Anuradhapura city and built temples for local gods in there and after generations the local and Indian settlers mixed to create the modern Sinhala race alongside some Tamil influences.

And Vijaya landed in North west not south where most Sinhalese live today. Sinhalese moved down due to Indian invasions that came later.

 

[MastanKhan]

The articles full of lies Muslims destroyed the temples and idols why would any Hindu destroy its own worshipped idols and their places of worship temple's . . . . . . . .

One must be really of lower intellect to not understand this article-----. It was the normal practice of the winners to take away the booty and other religious artifacts----.

Because a man or a nation without their gods is not a nation anymore----.

Agree with you on the first point.

However on the second point. If Sri Lankan are Dravidians; why the hell Tamilnadu jokers don't understand that even Sinhalese are their brethren?



Divehi is closest because it evolved from Sinhala language. Modern Maldivians are actually Sinhalese (some may be Tamillians). Anyway, Sinhalese is no closer to Bengali. It's pure BS. Frankly I can understand Hindi because it has many words similar to Sinhala which has obviously comes from Sanskrit.

Sir,

I don't know if you have missed it---the dravidians were mentally more capable and advanced than the Aryans---. The Aryans were a superior warrior race----but in intellect----design---architect---the dravidians were way ahead of them---.

 

[samv]

If there was such a hatered for Buddha howcome he is the 9th incarnation of Vishnu carved in all ancient Hindu temples, and after looting the idol did the chola kings threw the idol in drain? Or melted it and made it into ornaments? It was placed in the temple of madurai and worshipped there, had they been Muslims first they had done is melt it if it was of stone they would break it and thrown in the drain, and if there are no Hindus left there will be no dharmic religions left as the Muslims and Christians will whips you out without a trace.

Hindus co-opted the Buddha into the Hindu pantheon to claim him as a Hindu. Tamil Hindus have a long and illustrious history of attacks on Buddhism and Buddhist temples in Sri Lanka. They stole the Buddha's alms bowl and the Buddha's tooth relic had to be moved numerous times to keep it from the rapacious invaders from Tamil Nadu. You might believe that Hinduism is a benign religion, well Tamil Hinduism most certainly isn't.

No need of any source..it is common sense..how can Prakrit speaking people who are thousands of kilometers away from srilanka arrive there before Tamils who are just a few miles away.You want to go against history if you say an Indo European language was existing there before any Dravidian language entered there? Proto dravidian languages have been a part of india for thousands of years before indo european languages arrived in india..No matter what you say evidence is completely against you.historians and Buddhist books like mahavamsa clearly say you were from Bengal.Tamilians have first right over srilanka.

Tamils have been and have always been invaders to Sri Lanka. Their homeland is Tamil Nadu. There is absolutely zero evidence for any established ancient Tamil civilisation in Sri Lanka. The fact that there are Tamil speakers in Sri Lanka just goes to show that they are relative new comers to the island.

Because there might have been only Tamil tribes living there before Prakrit people came..or the newly arrived prakrits might have erased Tamil culture and monuments over a period of time.

Zero evidence for your outlandish claim. There is zero evidence for any so-called "Tamil tribes" living in the island prior to the establishment of the Prakrit speaking people. The oldest inscriptions in Sri Lanka are in Prakrit.

Hindu sources like Ramayana mentioned srinlanka but no one knows whether it is present day Lanka or some other area.
Even if we assume it is present day Lanka it should be clear that lankan people back then were tamilians..Rama was an aryan king who invaded Dravidian lands..if he had attacked Lanka it means that it was a Dravidian land..The raakshasas (demons) mentioned in Ramayana were dark skinned darvidian speaking people of south India.

The Ramayana is a myth.

 

[vayuputhra]

Hindus co-opted the Buddha into the Hindu pantheon to claim him as a Hindu. Tamil Hindus have a long and illustrious history of attacks on religion? and Buddhist temples in Sri Lanka. They stole the Buddha's alms bowl and the Buddha's tooth relic had to be moved numerous times to keep it from the rapacious invaders from Tamil Nadu. You might believe that Hinduism is a benign religion, well Tamil Hinduism most certainly isn't.




Tamils have been and have always been invaders to Sri Lanka. Their homeland is Tamil Nadu. There is absolutely zero evidence for any established ancient Tamil civilisation in Sri Lanka. The fact that there are Tamil speakers in Sri Lanka just goes to show that they are relative new comers to the island.





Zero evidence for your outlandish claim. There is zero evidence for any so-called "Tamil tribes" living in the island prior to the establishment of the Prakrit speaking people. The oldest inscriptions in Sri Lanka are in Prakrit.





The Ramayana is a myth.

What ever you think we think moses was a myth, Adam and eve are a myth, and Jesus was never born, and for Buddha what was his religion or his parents religion, or his wife's and sons religion? And did ever really a person called Buddha was born?, or did any so called prophets really exist, all are stories, none of them exixted, its all stories, do not question the unquestionable, you have trouble with tamilians, and we kannadigas also have trouble with tamilians, that does not make way for insulting, I can insult any one in a thousand ways, I think there are few people in srilanka who think like u, and the same way there are more well wishers for srilanka, more than the tamilians, don't be myopic, other than Tamils have others namely kannadigas, Telugu's, malayalees, and many more. Think logically if India would have been an Islamic country could srilanka had survived as a Buddhist country?

 

[Pakistani E]

Religious Policy
[[198]] While Aurangzeb was extending the empire in the east and south, and consolidating his position on the northwest marches, he was also concerned with the strengthening of Islam throughout the kingdom. His attempt to conduct the affairs of state according to traditional Islamic policy brought to the fore the problem that had confronted every ruler who had attempted to make Islam the guiding force: the position of the Hindu majority in relation to the government. In 1688, when he forbade music at the royal court and took other puritanical steps in conformity with strict injunctions of Muslim law, he affected both Hindus and Muslims. When jizya, abolished for nearly a century, was reimposed in 1679, it was the Hindus alone who suffered.
By now Aurangzeb had accepted the policy of regulating his government in accordance with strict Islamic law, and many orders implementing this policy were issued. A large number of taxes were abolished which had been levied in India for centuries but which were not authorized by Islamic law. Possibly it was the unfavorable effect of these remissions on the state exchequer which led to the exploration of other lawful sources of revenue. The fact that, according to the most responsible account, the reimposition of jizya was suggested by an officer of the finance department would seem to show that it was primarily a fiscal measure./4/ The theologians, who were becoming dominant at the court, naturally endorsed the proposal, and Aurangzeb carried it out with his customary thoroughness.
Another measure which has caused adverse comment is the issue of orders at various stages regarding the destruction of Hindu temples. Originally these orders applied to a few specific cases—such as the temple at Mathura built by Abul Fazl's murderer, to which a railing had been added by Aurangzeb's rival, Dara Shukoh. More far-reaching is the claim that when it was reported to him that Hindus were teaching Muslims their "wicked science," Aurangzeb issued orders to all governors "ordering the destruction of temples and schools and totally [[199]] prohibiting the teaching and infidel practices of the unbelievers."/5/ That such an order was actually given is doubtful; certainly it was never carried out with any thoroughness. However, it is incontestable that at a certain stage Aurangzeb tried to enforce strict Islamic law by ordering the destruction of newly built Hindu temples. Later, the procedure was adopted of closing down rather than destroying the newly built temples in Hindu localities. It is also true that very often the orders of destruction remained a dead letter, but Aurangzeb was too deeply committed to the ordering of his government according to Islamic law to omit its implementation in so significant a matter. The fact that a total ban on the construction of new temples was adopted only by later jurists, and was a departure from the earlier Muslim practice as laid down by Muhammad ibn Qasim in Sind, was no concern of the correct, conscientious, and legal-minded Aurangzeb.
As a part of general policy of ordering the affairs of the state in accordance with the views of the ulama, certain discriminatory orders against the Hindus were issued: for example, imposition of higher customs duties, 5 percent on the goods of the Hindus as against 2 percent on those of Muslims. These were generally in accordance with the practice of the times, but they marked a departure not only from the political philosophy governing Mughal government, but also from the policy followed hitherto by most Muslim rulers in India.
Aurangzeb has often been accused of closing the doors of official employment on the Hindus, but a study of the list of his officers shows this is not so. Actually there were more Hindu officers under him than under any other Mughal emperor. Though this was primarily due to a general increase in the number of officers, it shows that there was no ban on the employment of the Hindus.
That Aurangzeb's religious policy was unpopular at the time is true, but that it was an important factor, as usually charged, in the downfall of the empire, is doubtful. The Hindu uprisings of his reign seem to have had no wide religious appeal, and they were supressed with the help of Hindu leaders. Their significance comes in the following reigns, when the rulers were no longer able to meet opposition as effectively—and as ruthlessly—as had Aurangzeb. His religious policy [[200]] aimed at strengthening an empire already overextended in Shah Jahan's time; that it failed in its objective is probably true, but the mistake should not be made of assuming that the attempt was a major element in the later political decay. It should be seen, rather, as part of an unsuccessful attempt to stave off disaster. Seen in this light, his religious policy is one element, but not a causal one, save in its failure to achieve its intended goal, among the many that have to be considered in seeking an understanding of Aurangzeb's difficulties.

part2_15

Muslim Civilization in India, by S. M. Ikram, edited by Ainslie Embree (Columbia, 1964)

The view of a single emperor is not religion. I am looking at the original source, i.e. Quran, Sunnah, Hadith and fiqh. Which does not say what you are trying to imply. Also If Aurangzeb was actively imposing "Jizya" exlusively on hindu sthen the Hindu rulers themselves would not have helped him crush those revolts.

Seriously did you even read the bit you posted here? Of course Jizya will apply to Hindus, not to Muslims. As for his policies on Hindu merchants, they are certainly discriminatory but why are you attributing them to Islamic law? Where does it say in Islamic law to double levies on Non Muslims? Rulers of all religions and beliefs have discriminated against their subjects. I don't attribute the actions of the Dogra regime in Kashmir to Hindusim, why do you conflate Mughals rule to Islam?

 

[samv]

What ever you think we think moses was a myth, Adam and eve are a myth, and Jesus was never born, and for Buddha what was his religion or his parents religion, or his wife's and sons religion? And did ever really a person called Buddha was born?, or did any so called prophets really exist, all are stories, none of them exixted, its all stories, do not question the unquestionable, you have trouble with tamilians, and we kannadigas also have trouble with tamilians, that does not make way for insulting, I can insult any one in a thousand ways, I think there are few people in srilanka who think like u, and the same way there are more well wishers for srilanka, more than the tamilians, don't be myopic, other than Tamils have others namely kannadigas, Telugu's, malayalees, and many more. Think logically if India would have been an Islamic country could srilanka had survived as a Buddhist country?

The Ramayana is a myth. Muhammad and the Buddha were historical figures in recorded history. Despite people's claims most scholars also believe Jesus was a historical figure. Just like Sai Baba or Guru Nanak. This has nothing to do with the veracity of their respective teachings or claims of divinity. I don't believe in gods or godesses, but human beings and their capacity to do good. There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that Rama, Sita, Ravana and Hanuman etc were historical figures. If you believe they exist as deities, please feel free to do so.

I would suggest you learn about how Tamil Hindus have behaved historically towards Buddhists and Jains. In Sri Lanka Tamil Hindus have done nothing but destroy, loot and massacre without being satisfied with their kingdoms in what is now Southern India. The biggest massacre of Christians in Sri Lanka also took place at the hands of a Tamil Hindu king. Buddhism as a living faith has survived in Sri Lanka inspite of Tamil Hindus, not because of their supposed benevolence. I don't have any problem with Hinduism, but Tamil Hinduism and its nationalistic baggage is another kettle of fish.

As a side note, Islam has a completely different history in Sri Lanka than it does in India. In Sri Lanka Islam did not arrive as a result of invasions, but through merchants who integrated well into the local communities. Infact, Muslims and Buddhists actually worked together against the Christian colonials who persecuted them for their beliefs.

 

[vayuputhra]

The Ramayana is a myth. Muhammad and the Buddha were historical figures in recorded history. Despite people's claims most scholars also believe Jesus was a historical figure. Just like Sai Baba or Guru Nanak. This has nothing to do with the veracity of their respective teachings or claims of divinity. I don't believe in gods or godesses, but human beings and their capacity to do good. There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that Rama, Sita, Ravana and Hanuman etc were historical figures. If you believe they exist as deities, please feel free to do so.

I would suggest you learn about how Tamil Hindus have behaved historically towards Buddhists and Jains. In Sri Lanka Tamil Hindus have done nothing but destroy, loot and massacre without being satisfied with their kingdoms in what is now Southern India. The biggest massacre of Christians in Sri Lanka also took place at the hands of a Tamil Hindu king. Buddhism as a living faith has survived in Sri Lanka inspite of Tamil Hindus, not because of their supposed benevolence. I don't have any problem with Hinduism, but Tamil Hinduism and its nationalistic baggage is another kettle of fish.

As a side note, Islam has a completely different history in Sri Lanka than it does in India. In Sri Lanka Islam did not arrive as a result of invasions, but through merchants who integrated well into the local communities. Infact, Muslims and Buddhists actually worked together against the Christian colonials who persecuted them for their beliefs.

May be for you Ramayana is a myth, but for billions of indians and Indonesians, Malaysians, Thais, even China and Japanese, and also combodia, Philippines, laos , Singapore, believe rama did exist, I think you have not seen the places where rama, lived, may be you have not heard about ayodhya, and sarayu river, or hundreds of places he visited, and even there is the place called kishkinda the place of hanuman, vanara means (people of the forest) and there the bridge between India and Lanka, even NASA accepts that its man made, and there are many historical places in srilanka, where ravanas golden palace was built, there is even archeological excavations going on in Lanka, and lot of ancient temples and structures are unearthed in ayodhya, if Ramayana is false, bible is cock and bull story, and I know old testament is filled with cock n bull stories, and tell me exactly where was Buddha born, or how did he look, how did he speak, exactly where did he lived, if at all he really existed? no one has seen with their own eyes, so as rama is myth for you Buddha and Jesus is myth for me.

The Ramayana is a myth. Muhammad and the Buddha were historical figures in recorded history. Despite people's claims most scholars also believe Jesus was a historical figure. Just like Sai Baba or Guru Nanak. This has nothing to do with the veracity of their respective teachings or claims of divinity. I don't believe in gods or godesses, but human beings and their capacity to do good. There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that Rama, Sita, Ravana and Hanuman etc were historical figures. If you believe they exist as deities, please feel free to do so.

I would suggest you learn about how Tamil Hindus have behaved historically towards Buddhists and Jains. In Sri Lanka Tamil Hindus have done nothing but destroy, loot and massacre without being satisfied with their kingdoms in what is now Southern India. The biggest massacre of Christians in Sri Lanka also took place at the hands of a Tamil Hindu king. Buddhism as a living faith has survived in Sri Lanka inspite of Tamil Hindus, not because of their supposed benevolence. I don't have any problem with Hinduism, but Tamil Hinduism and its nationalistic baggage is another kettle of fish.

As a side note, Islam has a completely different history in Sri Lanka than it does in India. In Sri Lanka Islam did not arrive as a result of invasions, but through merchants who integrated well into the local communities. Infact, Muslims and Buddhists actually worked together against the Christian colonials who persecuted them for their beliefs.

May be for you Ramayana is a myth, but for billions of indians and Indonesians, Malaysians, Thais, even China and Japanese, and also combodia, Philippines, laos , Singapore, believe rama did exist, I think you have not seen the places where rama, lived, may be you have not heard about ayodhya, and sarayu river, or hundreds of places he visited, and even there is the place called kishkinda the place of hanuman, vanara means (people of the forest) and there the bridge between India and Lanka, even NASA accepts that its man made, and there are many historical places in srilanka, where ravanas golden palace was built, there is even archeological excavations going on in Lanka, and lot of ancient temples and structures are unearthed in ayodhya, if Ramayana is false, bible is cock and bull story, and I know old testament is filled with cock n bull stories, and tell me exactly where was Buddha born, or how did he look, how did he speak, exactly where did he lived, if at all he really existed? no one has seen with their own eyes, so as rama is myth for you Buddha and Jesus is myth for me.

The Ramayana is a myth. Muhammad and the Buddha were historical figures in recorded history. Despite people's claims most scholars also believe Jesus was a historical figure. Just like Sai Baba or Guru Nanak. This has nothing to do with the veracity of their respective teachings or claims of divinity. I don't believe in gods or godesses, but human beings and their capacity to do good. There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that Rama, Sita, Ravana and Hanuman etc were historical figures. If you believe they exist as deities, please feel free to do so.

I would suggest you learn about how Tamil Hindus have behaved historically towards Buddhists and Jains. In Sri Lanka Tamil Hindus have done nothing but destroy, loot and massacre without being satisfied with their kingdoms in what is now Southern India. The biggest massacre of Christians in Sri Lanka also took place at the hands of a Tamil Hindu king. Buddhism as a living faith has survived in Sri Lanka inspite of Tamil Hindus, not because of their supposed benevolence. I don't have any problem with Hinduism, but Tamil Hinduism and its nationalistic baggage is another kettle of fish.

As a side note, Islam has a completely different history in Sri Lanka than it does in India. In Sri Lanka Islam did not arrive as a result of invasions, but through merchants who integrated well into the local communities. Infact, Muslims and Buddhists actually worked together against the Christian colonials who persecuted them for their beliefs.

May be for you Ramayana is a myth, but for billions of indians and Indonesians, Malaysians, Thais, even China and Japanese, and also combodia, Philippines, laos , Singapore, believe rama did exist, I think you have not seen the places where rama, lived, may be you have not heard about ayodhya, and sarayu river, or hundreds of places he visited, and even there is the place called kishkinda the place of hanuman, vanara means (people of the forest) and there the bridge between India and Lanka, even NASA accepts that its man made, and there are many historical places in srilanka, where ravanas golden palace was built, there is even archeological excavations going on in Lanka, and lot of ancient temples and structures are unearthed in ayodhya, if Ramayana is false, bible is cock and bull story, and I know old testament is filled with cock n bull stories, and tell me exactly where was Buddha born, or how did he look, how did he speak, exactly where did he lived, if at all he really existed? no one has seen with their own eyes, so as rama is myth for you Buddha and Jesus is myth for me.

The Ramayana is a myth. Muhammad and the Buddha were historical figures in recorded history. Despite people's claims most scholars also believe Jesus was a historical figure. Just like Sai Baba or Guru Nanak. This has nothing to do with the veracity of their respective teachings or claims of divinity. I don't believe in gods or godesses, but human beings and their capacity to do good. There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that Rama, Sita, Ravana and Hanuman etc were historical figures. If you believe they exist as deities, please feel free to do so.

I would suggest you learn about how Tamil Hindus have behaved historically towards Buddhists and Jains. In Sri Lanka Tamil Hindus have done nothing but destroy, loot and massacre without being satisfied with their kingdoms in what is now Southern India. The biggest massacre of Christians in Sri Lanka also took place at the hands of a Tamil Hindu king. Buddhism as a living faith has survived in Sri Lanka inspite of Tamil Hindus, not because of their supposed benevolence. I don't have any problem with Hinduism, but Tamil Hinduism and its nationalistic baggage is another kettle of fish.

As a side note, Islam has a completely different history in Sri Lanka than it does in India. In Sri Lanka Islam did not arrive as a result of invasions, but through merchants who integrated well into the local communities. Infact, Muslims and Buddhists actually worked together against the Christian colonials who persecuted them for their beliefs.

May be for you Ramayana is a myth, but for billions of indians and Indonesians, Malaysians, Thais, even China and Japanese, and also combodia, Philippines, laos , Singapore, believe rama did exist, I think you have not seen the places where rama, lived, may be you have not heard about ayodhya, and sarayu river, or hundreds of places he visited, and even there is the place called kishkinda the place of hanuman, vanara means (people of the forest) and there the bridge between India and Lanka, even NASA accepts that its man made, and there are many historical places in srilanka, where ravanas golden palace was built, there is even archeological excavations going on in Lanka, and lot of ancient temples and structures are unearthed in ayodhya, if Ramayana is false, bible is cock and bull story, and I know old testament is filled with cock n bull stories, and tell me exactly where was Buddha born, or how did he look, how did he speak, exactly where did he lived, if at all he really existed? no one has seen with their own eyes, so as rama is myth for you Buddha and Jesus is myth for me.

 

[dravidianhero]

Hindus co-opted the Buddha into the Hindu pantheon to claim him as a Hindu. Tamil Hindus have a long and illustrious history of attacks on Buddhism and Buddhist temples in Sri Lanka. They stole the Buddha's alms bowl and the Buddha's tooth relic had to be moved numerous times to keep it from the rapacious invaders from Tamil Nadu. You might believe that Hinduism is a benign religion, well Tamil Hinduism most certainly isn't.




Tamils have been and have always been invaders to Sri Lanka. Their homeland is Tamil Nadu. There is absolutely zero evidence for any established ancient Tamil civilisation in Sri Lanka. The fact that there are Tamil speakers in Sri Lanka just goes to show that they are relative new comers to the island.





Zero evidence for your outlandish claim. There is zero evidence for any so-called "Tamil tribes" living in the island prior to the establishment of the Prakrit speaking people. The oldest inscriptions in Sri Lanka are in Prakrit.





The Ramayana is a myth.

I can give you a lot of evidence from research done by many people but you will dismiss them as Tamil nationalists work...no amount of your people 's shouting would convince me that there were no Tamils in Sri Lanka before prakrits arrived..what an utter stupid, illogical and irrational theory to believe..I reiterate.. it is highly unlikely that Prakrit people who were thousands of miles away could have reached Sri Lanka before tamilians who are just 20 kms from there..go and tell your non sense to some gullible sinhala bigot..I am not a tamilian but now I understand why tamilians hate you..you people are trying to distort history just to prevent Tamils from claiming that Tamils are original inhabitants of Sri Lanka(genetically both sinhalese and tamilians are same though).

 

[dadeechi]

The view of a single emperor is not religion. I am looking at the original source, i.e. Quran, Sunnah, Hadith and fiqh. Which does not say what you are trying to imply. Also If Aurangzeb was actively imposing "Jizya" exlusively on hindu sthen the Hindu rulers themselves would not have helped him crush those revolts.

Seriously did you even read the bit you posted here? Of course Jizya will apply to Hindus, not to Muslims. As for his policies on Hindu merchants, they are certainly discriminatory but why are you attributing them to Islamic law? Where does it say in Islamic law to double levies on Non Muslims? Rulers of all religions and beliefs have discriminated against their subjects. I don't attribute the actions of the Dogra regime in Kashmir to Hindusim, why do you conflate Mughals rule to Islam?

First of all I did not blame Islam but the Islamic rulers who have implemented such policies in the name of their religion.

I gave very neutral ( or potentially biased towards Islam) sources and still you would qualify your statements with an "If".

I myself have posted multiple points of view on this subject (refer below links) and I am yet to find single Muslim member here from the subcontinent who condemned it and yet you blame me for what I am not.

History of Muslim Rule in India – Mahmud Ghaznavi to Aurangzeb

History of Muslim Rule in India – Mahmud Ghaznavi to Aurangzeb

History of Muslim Rule in India – Mahmud Ghaznavi to Aurangzeb

 

[The_Showstopper]

main aa sakta hoon lekin sadhvi saraswati meri dulhan honin chahiye.

kya cheez hai...

Waakhaiye me kya cheez hai

 

[dadeechi]

Waakhaiye me kya cheez hai

How about reverse love jihad @jamahir

 

[AUz]

Have a look at Sri Lanka. Tamil Hindus have a long history of attacking Buddhist shrines and temples. Even in the recent past the Tamil Tigers murdered Buddhist monks, bombed temples and slaughtered Muslims at prayer in their mosques. The Muslims were ethnically cleansed from Northern Sri Lanka, given 24 hours to leave their homes and belongings or be murdered.

That can also be one of the reason why Pakistan Intelligence Agencies and Military eventually went "all-out" against Tamil insurgents (hindus) and provided Sri Lankan army with tanks, ammunition, training, and even air cover (I personally know how Sri Lankan pilots were trained by our instructors)...

All of this led to decimation of Hindu tamils in Srilanka.