What's new

Whatever

@Samlee - you wrote two posts. Let's see the first one.
https://defence.pk/threads/bjp-lead...-social-media-joke.431979/page-3#post-8335728

You say why the Rajputs fought on the side of the Mughals even in the late seventeenth century. Akbar is called Great in India BECAUSE he had the power to exterminate all Rajputs and destroy all their temples but still CHOSE not to. BECAUSE he showed some signs of repentance for his civilian massacres. Having Hindu (okay ex Hindu) wives in his harem may have influenced him - we don't know. But he did become an apostate even in his later life.
The Rajput even fought (and lost) against the Marathas. Two centuries of slavery perhaps does that to people. Even today many of us suffer an inferiority complex wrt 'whites'. (Not me :D )

The massacres of Ashoka are not disputed. His actions after, his becoming a Dharmashok and becoming a Buddhist is what is celebrated by Indians. The Buddhist Dharmachakra is part of the Indian National Flag for the reason.

Now let's see your second post.

https://defence.pk/threads/bjp-lead...-social-media-joke.431979/page-2#post-8335640

Let's note down your objections:
i. Will Durrant (historian) is an Islamophobe
ii. Irfan Hussein (historian) is an Islamophobe and atheist
iii. Alain Deleniou (historian) is a neo Hindu and alumnus of BHU.

In turn you have quoted references written by author -
i. PK Mishra (reporter not historian)*
ii. Irfan Habib (also an atheist, historian)
iii. BR Ambedkar (a politician, not a historian)
iv. Gargi Chakravarti (non fiction writer, feminist, also not historian)

You have pointed out repeated references (repeating the same 'massacre' from multiple sources to fill the spaces :D )
i. One is of Pushyamitra Shunga
ii. Mihirakula
iii. Jammu massacre

Let's sink the boats one by one.

Pushyamitra Sunga - Your source (*) is bogus in this case. There exists a debate on this. For example, some of the anti Hindu historians like Romila Thapar (historian) states that :

Additionally, H.C.Raychaudhury and Romila Thapar, do not believe in the persecution theory; with Raychaudhury pointing out the ban by Ashoka on animal sacrifices applied not only to yagnas but also to others. Pushyamitra Shunga's death strongly points to a coup d'état and Thapar points out there was no Brahmanic revolution.[20]A common feature is lack of archaeological evidence.

Romila Thapar writes that archaeological evidence casts doubt on the claims of Buddhist persecution by Pushyamitra. - Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas by Romila Thapar, Oxford University Press, 1960 P200

I have not even included the opposition of pro Hindu authors like the Belgian historian Dr. Koenraad Elst.

Bottomline: The debate on this is still on, and since no Indian reveres Pushyamitra Shunga, I don't consider him relevant. We have no missiles or roads named on him. In fact he came to power by a coup d'etat, ousting the Maurya king and hence often hated.

Mihirakula - Perhaps you were confused by the Hindu sounding name. Can't blame you on that. He was a Hepthalite king and had nothing to do with being patently Hindu. The only time he came close to being 'Hindu' was when he was given refuge by some Brahmins in the Hindu Kingdom of Kashmir after being solidly defeated by Hindu rulers in the Indo Gangetic plains. - Ojha, N.K. (2001).The Aulikaras of Central India: History and Inscriptions, Chandigarh: Arun Publishing House,

Eventually he killed the stupidly peaceful and harmless Brahmins who gave him refuge (it was considered duty to help anyone in need), killed the Hindu king of Kashmir and took power himself. Then he invaded Gandhara etc before dying himself. :omghaha: The Shaivaite account of Rajtarangini records it correctly.

So the first one - benefit of doubt. The second one was not even a Bharatvasi.

Jammu massacre - This is the only case where the kicked out Hindus and Sikhs of Lahore and Sialkot (not RSS goons as you mentioned) butchered Muslims of Jammu. In the atmosphere of the partition Hindus killed Muslims and Muslims killed Hindus. One look at the map and present Hindu and Muslim populations in both countries tell us clearly who killed whom better. So let's not go there. Or do you still want to? :azn:

Gandhi's quote is not surprising either because he said this in 1946 while lecturing Hindus not to fight back. The Muslim villagers boycotted him in all of East Bengal (riot affected areas).
“I would tell the Hindus to face death cheerfully if the Muslims are out to kill them.I would be a real sinner if after being stabbed I wished in my last moment that my son should seek revenge. I must die without rancour. …You may turn round and ask whether all Hindus and all Sikhs should die. Yes, I would say.Such martyrdom will not be in vain.”

This is what he said about Punjab. After this he was hounded out of Punjab by the furious Sikh and Hindu escapees from West Punjab.
“I am grieved to learn that people are running away from the West Punjab and I am told that Lahore is being evacuated by the non-Muslims. I must say that this is what it should not be. If you think Lahore is dead or is dying, do not run away from it, but die with what you think is the dying Lahore.

Hari Singh was a nincompoop and even if he tried to do anything he could not have. He never had any real power.
 
SarthakGanguly said:
@Samlee - you wrote two posts. Let's see the first one.
https://defence.pk/threads/bjp-lead...-social-media-joke.431979/page-3#post-8335728

You say why the Rajputs fought on the side of the Mughals even in the late seventeenth century. Akbar is called Great in India BECAUSE he had the power to exterminate all Rajputs and destroy all their temples but still CHOSE not to. BECAUSE he showed some signs of repentance for his civilian massacres. Having Hindu (okay ex Hindu) wives in his harem may have influenced him - we don't know. But he did become an apostate even in his later life.
The Rajput even fought (and lost) against the Marathas. Two centuries of slavery perhaps does that to people. Even today many of us suffer an inferiority complex wrt 'whites'. (Not me :D )

The massacres of Ashoka are not disputed. His actions after, his becoming a Dharmashok and becoming a Buddhist is what is celebrated by Indians. The Buddhist Dharmachakra is part of the Indian National Flag for the reason.

Now let's see your second post.

https://defence.pk/threads/bjp-lead...-social-media-joke.431979/page-2#post-8335640

Let's note down your objections:
i. Will Durrant (historian) is an Islamophobe
ii. Irfan Hussein (historian) is an Islamophobe and atheist
iii. Alain Deleniou (historian) is a neo Hindu and alumnus of BHU.

In turn you have quoted references written by author -
i. PK Mishra (reporter not historian)*
ii. Irfan Habib (also an atheist, historian)
iii. BR Ambedkar (a politician, not a historian)
iv. Gargi Chakravarti (non fiction writer, feminist, also not historian)

You have pointed out repeated references (repeating the same 'massacre' from multiple sources to fill the spaces :D )
i. One is of Pushyamitra Shunga
ii. Mihirakula
iii. Jammu massacre

Let's sink the boats one by one.

Pushyamitra Sunga - Your source (*) is bogus in this case. There exists a debate on this. For example, some of the anti Hindu historians like Romila Thapar (historian) states that :

Additionally, H.C.Raychaudhury and Romila Thapar, do not believe in the persecution theory; with Raychaudhury pointing out the ban by Ashoka on animal sacrifices applied not only to yagnas but also to others. Pushyamitra Shunga's death strongly points to a coup d'état and Thapar points out there was no Brahmanic revolution.[20]A common feature is lack of archaeological evidence.

Romila Thapar writes that archaeological evidence casts doubt on the claims of Buddhist persecution by Pushyamitra. - Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas by Romila Thapar, Oxford University Press, 1960 P200

I have not even included the opposition of pro Hindu authors like the Belgian historian Dr. Koenraad Elst.

Bottomline: The debate on this is still on, and since no Indian reveres Pushyamitra Shunga, I don't consider him relevant. We have no missiles or roads named on him. In fact he came to power by a coup d'etat, ousting the Maurya king and hence often hated.

Mihirakula - Perhaps you were confused by the Hindu sounding name. Can't blame you on that. He was a Hepthalite king and had nothing to do with being patently Hindu. The only time he came close to being 'Hindu' was when he was given refuge by some Brahmins in the Hindu Kingdom of Kashmir after being solidly defeated by Hindu rulers in the Indo Gangetic plains. - Ojha, N.K. (2001).The Aulikaras of Central India: History and Inscriptions, Chandigarh: Arun Publishing House,

Eventually he killed the stupidly peaceful and harmless Brahmins who gave him refuge (it was considered duty to help anyone in need), killed the Hindu king of Kashmir and took power himself. Then he invaded Gandhara etc before dying himself. :omghaha: The Shaivaite account of Rajtarangini records it correctly.

So the first one - benefit of doubt. The second one was not even a Bharatvasi.

Jammu massacre - This is the only case where the kicked out Hindus and Sikhs of Lahore and Sialkot (not RSS goons as you mentioned) butchered Muslims of Jammu. In the atmosphere of the partition Hindus killed Muslims and Muslims killed Hindus. One look at the map and present Hindu and Muslim populations in both countries tell us clearly who killed whom better. So let's not go there. Or do you still want to? :azn:

Gandhi's quote is not surprising either because he said this in 1946 while lecturing Hindus not to fight back. The Muslim villagers boycotted him in all of East Bengal (riot affected areas).
“I would tell the Hindus to face death cheerfully if the Muslims are out to kill them.I would be a real sinner if after being stabbed I wished in my last moment that my son should seek revenge. I must die without rancour. …You may turn round and ask whether all Hindus and all Sikhs should die. Yes, I would say.Such martyrdom will not be in vain.”

This is what he said about Punjab. After this he was hounded out of Punjab by the furious Sikh and Hindu escapees from West Punjab.
“I am grieved to learn that people are running away from the West Punjab and I am told that Lahore is being evacuated by the non-Muslims. I must say that this is what it should not be. If you think Lahore is dead or is dying, do not run away from it, but die with what you think is the dying Lahore.

Hari Singh was a nincompoop and even if he tried to do anything he could not have. He never had any real power.
Click to expand...
A nincompoop who treated worse than slaves hmm the real loss of his power was rebellion of him Muslim subjects because of his anti Muslim policies many of the rebels you call terrorist served in his army at one point his brutal taxation triggered the rebellion and his crackdown worsened it

Typical sarthak mentions Lahore,s hindus forgets to mention Amritsar,s muslims it wasnt a one way street as some like to portray
 
SarthakGanguly said:
@Samlee - you wrote two posts. Let's see the first one.
https://defence.pk/threads/bjp-lead...-social-media-joke.431979/page-3#post-8335728

You say why the Rajputs fought on the side of the Mughals even in the late seventeenth century. Akbar is called Great in India BECAUSE he had the power to exterminate all Rajputs and destroy all their temples but still CHOSE not to. BECAUSE he showed some signs of repentance for his civilian massacres. Having Hindu (okay ex Hindu) wives in his harem may have influenced him - we don't know. But he did become an apostate even in his later life.
The Rajput even fought (and lost) against the Marathas. Two centuries of slavery perhaps does that to people. Even today many of us suffer an inferiority complex wrt 'whites'. (Not me :D )

The massacres of Ashoka are not disputed. His actions after, his becoming a Dharmashok and becoming a Buddhist is what is celebrated by Indians. The Buddhist Dharmachakra is part of the Indian National Flag for the reason.
Click to expand...


So You Admit That Akbar Was Not Some Fanatical Hindu Killer.Good, We Are Getting Somewhere.And You Also Admit That Rajput Wives Influencing Akbar Means That These Marraiges Were Not Some Humiliating Tribute Rajputs Had To Pay But The Forging Of Genuine Political Alliance Between Rajputs And Mughals.And You Are Right Rajput Princesses Did Have Massive Influence on Akbar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariam-uz-Zamani

And Get Your Facts Correct Raja Jaey Singh Defeated Shivaji And Forced Him To Sign The Treaty of Purander

When You Say That Asoka Committed Atrocities As Long As He Was Hindu And Became Pacifist When He Became Buddhist You Do Realize That You Are Implicating Your Own Faith With The Atrocities You Committed.

But I Also Doubt Your Claim Since Some Historians Have Claimed That Asoka Was Already A Buddhist A Good Two Years Before The Carnage At Kalinga

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-pape...ist-before-the-kalinga-war/article5924795.ece

Also Buddhism Did Not Completely Pacify Asoka As From The Following Event

Ashokavadana ("Illustrious Acts of Ashoka") tells a story


"At that time, an incident occurred which greatly enraged the king. A follower of the Nirgrantha (Mahavira) painted a picture, showing Buddha prostrating himself at the feet of the Nirgrantha. Ashoka ordered all the Ajivikas of Pundravardhana (North Bengal) to be killed. In one day, eighteen thousand Ajivikas lost their lives. A similar kind of incident took place in the town of Pataliputra. A man who painted such a picture was burnt alive with his family. It was announced that whoever would bring the king the head of a Nirgrantha would be rewarded with a dinara (a gold coin). As a result of this, thousands of Nirgranthas lost their lives." (S. Mukhopadhyaya: The Ashokavadana, Sahitya Akademi, Delhi 1963, p.xxxvii; in footnote, Mukhopadhyaya correctly notes that the author "seems to have confused the Nirgranthas with the Ajivikas", a similar ascetic sect; Nirgrantha, "freed from fetters", meaning Jain) Only when Vitashoka, Ashoka's favourite Arhat (an enlightened monk, a Theravada-Buddhist saint), was mistaken for a Nirgran- tha and killed by a man desirous of the reward, did Ashoka revoke the order.

SarthakGanguly said:
Let's note down your objections:
i. Will Durrant (historian) is an Islamophobe
ii. Irfan Hussein (historian) is an Islamophobe and atheist
iii. Alain Deleniou (historian) is a neo Hindu and alumnus of BHU..
Click to expand...


I Don't Think You Read My Post Carefully Will Durant Is Not A Professional Historian At All.Professional Historians Have Rejected His Work Because His Work Is Full Of Flaws.Irfan Hussain Is Also Not A Professional Historian He Is Chemical Engineer By Qualification.Alain Deleniou Is An Oriental Scholar Not Historian.All Of Their Writings Represent Opinions
And Are Hardly Objective.



SarthakGanguly said:
You have pointed out repeated references (repeating the same 'massacre' from multiple sources to fill the spaces :D .
Click to expand...


I Have Quoted A Handfull of What I Actually Have And Quoted Multiple References To Strengthen My Point I Assure You I Have No Need To Fill Space.Typing Is Tiresome Work
112.gif
112.gif


SarthakGanguly said:
Let's sink the boats one by one.

Pushyamitra Sunga - Your source (*) is bogus in this case. There exists a debate on this. For example, some of the anti Hindu historians like Romila Thapar (historian) states that :

Additionally, H.C.Raychaudhury and Romila Thapar, do not believe in the persecution theory; with Raychaudhury pointing out the ban by Ashoka on animal sacrifices applied not only to yagnas but also to others. Pushyamitra Shunga's death strongly points to a coup d'état and Thapar points out there was no Brahmanic revolution.[20]A common feature is lack of archaeological evidence.

Romila Thapar writes that archaeological evidence casts doubt on the claims of Buddhist persecution by Pushyamitra. - Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas by Romila Thapar, Oxford University Press, 1960 P200

I have not even included the opposition of pro Hindu authors like the Belgian historian Dr. Koenraad Elst.

Bottomline: The debate on this is still on, and since no Indian reveres Pushyamitra Shunga, I don't consider him relevant. We have no missiles or roads named on him. In fact he came to power by a coup d'etat, ousting the Maurya king and hence often hated.
Click to expand...

As Far As Pushyamitra Sunga Is Concerned I Have Much More References Than I Quoted in My Post Now If You Want To Live In Denial and Call All Of Them Bogus.Your Choice

Romila Thapur Also Says That The Sack Of Somnath Never Happened Because It Is Not Mentioned Anywhere In Hindu Texts.It Is Only Mentioned In Multiple Turkic Texts Of The Time and Contain Numerous Contradictions.This Also Goes With The Logic You Used To Refute The Madurai Massacre Of Jain Priests That It Is Not Mentioned In Any Jain Texts Only Shaivite Texts Mention It.So If You Go By Your Logic Than You Should Concede That The Sack Of Somnath Also Never Occured.

You Cannot Quote Romila Thapur When It Suits You And Refute Her When It Does Not.

As Far As Dr. Koenraad Elst. Is Concerned He Is Just
76.gif
76.gif
76.gif


You May Not Name Your Roads Or Missiles After Sunga But You Do Name Your Airports and Railway Stations After Shivaji Inspite Of What He Did to Towns Like Surat Ahmednagar and Aurangabad To Name A Few.But Then Again Since His Name Doesn't End With Ghauri and Ghaznavi He Gets Away With It:lol::lol:

“The Marathas plundered the town at their leisure. Shivaji looted the town for four days, and the booty was stupendous. The wealth obtained in this raid is said to have amounted to a sum of one crore of rupees,” author HS Sardesai, says in the book, Shivaji, the Great Maratha, Volume 2. “On October 3, 1670, Shivaji repeated his exploits at Surat. Property worth about Rs132 lakhs was looted and Surat remained in continual dread of the Marathas,” Sardesai says further. The real loss of Surat, says Sardesai, was not in the booty carried away by the Marathas, but “the trade of this, the richest port of India, was practically destroyed”.

In his book, ‘Surat in the Seventeenth Century’, BG Gokhale states about the January 1664 attack: “The Marathas pillaged homes and the sarais, burnt down nearly half of the town and retreated carrying with them enormous booty.”

SarthakGanguly said:
Mihirakula - Perhaps you were confused by the Hindu sounding name. Can't blame you on that. He was a Hepthalite king and had nothing to do with being patently Hindu. The only time he came close to being 'Hindu' was when he was given refuge by some Brahmins in the Hindu Kingdom of Kashmir after being solidly defeated by Hindu rulers in the Indo Gangetic plains. - Ojha, N.K. (2001).The Aulikaras of Central India: History and Inscriptions, Chandigarh: Arun Publishing House,

Eventually he killed the stupidly peaceful and harmless Brahmins who gave him refuge (it was considered duty to help anyone in need), killed the Hindu king of Kashmir and took power himself. Then he invaded Gandhara etc before dying himself. :omghaha: The Shaivaite account of Rajtarangini records it correctly.

So the first one - benefit of doubt. The second one was not even a Bharatvasi..
Click to expand...

Please Get Your Facts Correct He Was Very Much A Shaivite Hindu and Patron of Hinduism

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Mihirakula

Also In The Rajatarangini

“The impression which this tradition retained of Mihirakula’s religious propensities, is in full accord with the evidence of his coins which, in the emblems of bull and trident and in the legends of jayatu vrsa, jayatu vrsadhvaja, display a distinct leaning towards Shaivism.” [Rajatarangini; M. A. Stein; Footnote to I, 289]


Brahmins eagerly accepted grants of land from Mihirakula

“Brahmins from Gandhara, resembling himself in their habits and verily themselves the lowest of the twice-born, accepted Agraharas from him.” [Rajatarangini I, 307; M. A. Stein]



SarthakGanguly said:
Jammu massacre - This is the only case where the kicked out Hindus and Sikhs of Lahore and Sialkot (not RSS goons as you mentioned) butchered Muslims of Jammu. In the atmosphere of the partition Hindus killed Muslims and Muslims killed Hindus. One look at the map and present Hindu and Muslim populations in both countries tell us clearly who killed whom better. So let's not go there. Or do you still want to? :azn:

Gandhi's quote is not surprising either because he said this in 1946 while lecturing Hindus not to fight back. The Muslim villagers boycotted him in all of East Bengal (riot affected areas).
“I would tell the Hindus to face death cheerfully if the Muslims are out to kill them.I would be a real sinner if after being stabbed I wished in my last moment that my son should seek revenge. I must die without rancour. …You may turn round and ask whether all Hindus and all Sikhs should die. Yes, I would say.Such martyrdom will not be in vain.”

This is what he said about Punjab. After this he was hounded out of Punjab by the furious Sikh and Hindu escapees from West Punjab.
“I am grieved to learn that people are running away from the West Punjab and I am told that Lahore is being evacuated by the non-Muslims. I must say that this is what it should not be. If you think Lahore is dead or is dying, do not run away from it, but die with what you think is the dying Lahore.

Hari Singh was a nincompoop and even if he tried to do anything he could not have. He never had any real power.
Click to expand...

Again Please Get Your Facts Correct RSS Was Very Much Involved In The Unspoken Holocaust.A Few Years Back The RSS Leader Said He Has The Letter That Nehru Sent to Gowalkar Thanking Him For Sending Volunteers To Kashmir.RSS Kar Sevaks Were Hand In Glove With Dogra State Troops In Carrying Out A Mass Genocide

I Don't Have Much Time to Post Details But Here Is One Among Many References I Have


http://kashmirdispatch.com/2013/11/06/was-jammu-massacre-planned/118549/

This Is Not The Only Massacre Of Muslims In That Time

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24159594


The Purpose Of My Posts Is Not To Villify Or Degrade Hindu Kings But To Drive Down A Point That Ancient to Medieval Premodern Era Was A Brutal Era Overall.What You People Accuse Muslims Of Doing Was Pretty Regular During That Time In Fact What You Allege Muslim Rulers To Have Done Pales In Comparison To What Happened Elsewhere In The World During That Time.Singling Out Muslims Is Not Only Unfair But Also Encourages Dangerous Polarisation.

I Would Also Be Happy To Issue Rebuttals To Your Texts of Aurangzeb and Ghaznavi But The Answer Is Long And My References Are Heavy Timur Rebuttal Was A Relatively Easy One And I Quoted It

Listen Gentleman As I Said Yesterday In My Post I Will Be Busy For A Few Days.My ACCA Papers Are Around The Corner And Ramzan Is Just Under A Weeks Time So I Will Be Busy For A Few Days and Not Be On PDF. In The Interim Let Us Just Agree To Disagree

Peace.

Zibago said:
A nincompoop who treated worse than slaves hmm the real loss of his power was rebellion of him Muslim subjects because of his anti Muslim policies many of the rebels you call terrorist served in his army at one point his brutal taxation triggered the rebellion and his crackdown worsened it

Typical sarthak mentions Lahore,s hindus forgets to mention Amritsar,s muslims it wasnt a one way street as some like to portray
Click to expand...


Those Muslims Under Mujahid e Awal Sardar Abdul Qayum Khan Raised Arms Because Of The Massacre Hari Singh Carried Out
of Muslims In Jammu Turning Them Into A Minority.If The He Had Not Rebelled,Hari Singh Would Have Done The Same Thing In The Valley.
 
Zibago said:
Typical sarthak mentions Lahore,s hindus forgets to mention Amritsar,s muslims it wasnt a one way street as some like to portray
Click to expand...
You are very forgetful.

I have mentioned before that only the Punjabi Hindus and Sikhs cleared the Muslims of East Punjab with as much zeal as their Muslim counterparts in the West. In the rest of India (includingBengal), the Partition riots did not reduce the Muslim population to a near zero. West Pakistan did that with much greater zeal. And I don't blame them for it. So while Pakistan cleared out Hindus and Sikhs almost in entirety, Indian Hindus and Sikhs had such similar near total success only in Punjab. The comparison is ridiculous.

Zibago said:
A nincompoop who treated worse than slaves hmm the real loss of his power was rebellion of him Muslim subjects
Click to expand...
He ruled like any typical despot would. He should have learned from the famous Muslim rulers of Kashmir on how to treat subject populations. For a first, if he truly hated Muslims, he should have imposed a special tax on Muslims alone. He should have razed Mosques and built temples in their place. He should have eliminated the Muslim clergy and forced them to convert to Hinduism.

Yet, all he did was to squeeze the poverty stricken people of their hard earned money and filled his coffers. A definition of a nincompoop.

Samlee said:
So You Admit That Akbar Was Not Some Fanatical Hindu Killer.Good, We Are Getting Somewhere.And You Also Admit That Rajput Wives Influencing Akbar Means That These Marraiges Were Not Some Humiliating Tribute Rajputs Had To Pay But The Forging Of Genuine Political Alliance Between Rajputs And Mughals.And You Are Right Rajput Princesses Did Have Massive Influence on Akbar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariam-uz-Zamani

And Get Your Facts Correct Raja Jaey Singh Defeated Shivaji And Forced Him To Sign The Treaty of Purander

When You Say That Asoka Committed Atrocities As Long As He Was Hindu And Became Pacifist When He Became Buddhist You Do Realize That You Are Implicating Your Own Faith With The Atrocities You Committed.

But I Also Doubt Your Claim Since Some Historians Have Claimed That Asoka Was Already A Buddhist A Good Two Years Before The Carnage At Kalinga
Click to expand...
See. You assume that I am defending Hinduism. I am not. While you are defending Islam and Muslims. Which is fine by me. Only that there is a difference in the way we read history. You see it through a prism of religion, while I see, in this case by the objective facts.

So no. I am not implicating Hinduism. Ashokas actions does not define Hinduism. But Ghauris and Ghaznavis, in your history represents the bringing of the 'light of Islam' to cast away 'jahalat'.

Rajput princesses given out of free will? :omghaha: How many Mughal princesses converted to Hinduism to marry Rajput princes? That should tell you whether the Rajputs and Mughals were equals or not. One was the Master, the other the slave. There is no doubt about it.

Samlee said:
Also Buddhism Did Not Completely Pacify Asoka As From The Following Event

Ashokavadana ("Illustrious Acts of Ashoka") tells a story


"At that time, an incident occurred which greatly enraged the king. A follower of the Nirgrantha (Mahavira) painted a picture, showing Buddha prostrating himself at the feet of the Nirgrantha. Ashoka ordered all the Ajivikas of Pundravardhana (North Bengal) to be killed. In one day, eighteen thousand Ajivikas lost their lives. A similar kind of incident took place in the town of Pataliputra. A man who painted such a picture was burnt alive with his family. It was announced that whoever would bring the king the head of a Nirgrantha would be rewarded with a dinara (a gold coin). As a result of this, thousands of Nirgranthas lost their lives." (S. Mukhopadhyaya: The Ashokavadana, Sahitya Akademi, Delhi 1963, p.xxxvii; in footnote, Mukhopadhyaya correctly notes that the author "seems to have confused the Nirgranthas with the Ajivikas", a similar ascetic sect; Nirgrantha, "freed from fetters", meaning Jain) Only when Vitashoka, Ashoka's favourite Arhat (an enlightened monk, a Theravada-Buddhist saint), was mistaken for a Nirgran- tha and killed by a man desirous of the reward, did Ashoka revoke the order.
Click to expand...
The contradiction is clear in your last sentence. The mistranslation is an old one and has since been corrected. You are referring to the 1963 translation of the Sahitya Akademi work.

Samlee said:
As Far As Pushyamitra Sunga Is Concerned I Have Much More References Than I Quoted in My Post Now If You Want To Live In Denial and Call All Of Them Bogus.Your Choice

Romila Thapur Also Says That The Sack Of Somnath Never Happened Because It Is Not Mentioned Anywhere In Hindu Texts.It Is Only Mentioned In Multiple Turkic Texts Of The Time and Contain Numerous Contradictions.This Also Goes With The Logic You Used To Refute The Madurai Massacre Of Jain Priests That It Is Not Mentioned In Any Jain Texts Only Shaivite Texts Mention It.So If You Go By Your Logic Than You Should Concede That The Sack Of Somnath Also Never Occured.
Click to expand...
Yes. You missed the point. But only about Pushyamitra Shunga. That was my point. Even then, historians debate it to this day because the unavailability of any evidence of destruction. Like when Somnath was destroyed, the remains of the temple remained as a mute testimony to the fact that it did exist.

Samlee said:
You May Not Name Your Roads Or Missiles After Sunga But You Do Name Your Airports and Railway Stations After Shivaji Inspite Of What He Did to Towns Like Surat Ahmednagar and Aurangabad To Name A Few.But Then Again Since His Name Doesn't End With Ghauri and Ghaznavi He Gets Away With It:lol::lol:

“The Marathas plundered the town at their leisure. Shivaji looted the town for four days, and the booty was stupendous. The wealth obtained in this raid is said to have amounted to a sum of one crore of rupees,” author HS Sardesai, says in the book, Shivaji, the Great Maratha, Volume 2. “On October 3, 1670, Shivaji repeated his exploits at Surat. Property worth about Rs132 lakhs was looted and Surat remained in continual dread of the Marathas,” Sardesai says further. The real loss of Surat, says Sardesai, was not in the booty carried away by the Marathas, but “the trade of this, the richest port of India, was practically destroyed”.

In his book, ‘Surat in the Seventeenth Century’, BG Gokhale states about the January 1664 attack: “The Marathas pillaged homes and the sarais, burnt down nearly half of the town and retreated carrying with them enormous booty.”
Click to expand...
Surat, Ahmednagar were looted. No dispute in that.
Muslims were not captured, enslaved, women not raped by all faithfuls and 20% not kept for Shivaji's harem. Muslims were not forcefully converted to Hinduism, mosques were not razed and temples were not built on them instead. We do celebrate him for that.

Samlee said:
Please Get Your Facts Correct He Was Very Much A Shaivite Hindu and Patron of Hinduism

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Mihirakula

Also In The Rajatarangini

“The impression which this tradition retained of Mihirakula’s religious propensities, is in full accord with the evidence of his coins which, in the emblems of bull and trident and in the legends of jayatu vrsa, jayatu vrsadhvaja, display a distinct leaning towards Shaivism.” [Rajatarangini; M. A. Stein; Footnote to I, 289]


Brahmins eagerly accepted grants of land from Mihirakula

“Brahmins from Gandhara, resembling himself in their habits and verily themselves the lowest of the twice-born, accepted Agraharas from him.” [Rajatarangini I, 307; M. A. Stein]
Click to expand...
So!!!!

He was the ruler of Kashmir! He had the power to grant land to influential people. In fact even the Shaivite book Rajtarangini mentions those who accepted the lands were 'lowest' even in your quoted text. Shows clearly how bad a character he was. The fact remains that Mihirakula was a Hepthalite who killed the king of Kashmir to become the ruler himself. The most he did was 'lean towards Shaivism'. That's all you got? :hitwall:

Look. Perhaps you are seeing Hindus and Hinduism through the prism of Islam. We are not the same type. Islam is a deen. It claims to be the ONLY way to God. Hinduism does not. Hinduism is a way of life only. There are no divine laws, only spiritual laws that change with time as such is nature. Hindus can be good, bad and ugly - does not mean that we defend the indefensible.

The wars have always been fought and people have always died. But what differentiates the Abrahamic faiths from Oriental ones is the manner in which they happened. The former included forced conversions, systematic destruction of religious places, enslavement of women for the harems etc. That is the difference I am trying to point out.

And here is Somnath temple before rebuilt in its newest form. It's numerous destruction has been a proud chapter in Islamic history of South Asia. Thapar never doubted its destruction. I read it. Source - 'This legendary temple has been destroyed and rebuilt several times by Islamic kings and Hindu kings respectively.' - Thapar, Romila (2004).Somanatha: The Many Voices of a History. Penguin Books India. She disputes the motive of destruction, not the event. (in this case events)
Somnath_temple_ruins_(1869).jpg

This is after ASI took it up for some restoration. Still no roof, no idols, no proper walls, little foundations etc.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Imran Khan
The Story Behind Pakistan's Feminism Of The 70s And 80s
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
Maula Jatt
Maula Jatt
cocomo
The intercept publicizes contents of the leaked Cypher
Replies
0
Views
2K
cocomo
cocomo
H
Muslim Vendors Scarred By Delhi’s So-Called Meat Ban, Terrified & Confused About The Future
Replies
0
Views
833
Hphobe
H
The_Showstopper
‘Tear Them Apart’: How Hindutva WhatsApp Group Demanded Murder, Rape of Muslims in Delhi Riots
Replies
2
Views
1K
Clutch
Clutch
The_Showstopper
UP: Muslim Families Put up ‘For Sale’ Signs Outside Homes in Shamli, Some Flee, Citing Police Brutal
29 30 31 32 33 34
Replies
504
Views
14K
xeuss
xeuss

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom