When coterminous Pakistan fought Alexander the Great and almost brought him down to his knees.

[Hamza913]

I being a sikh also can relate to it. (Different era though.)

Still crying about Jahangir and Durrani I see.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Much of what we know today about the Vikings, Slavs, Pagan Turks, Pakistan ancestors, and Indian ancestors is because of Arab travelers like Al Biruni or Muslim conquerors like Babur.

Hinduism itself evolved over time as a result of contact with Islam. Kabir was raised by Muslim foster parents and wanted to bring monotheism, set of laws to Hinduism to better be able to come to equality with Islam.

How much of Hinduism today is a result of borrowing from Islamic philosophy, ethics, afterlife, and culture of the Muslims?

As for Sikhs, Guru Nanak was a devout Muslim who made Hajj. Sikhism also changed a lot over time due to new Gurus and relations with the Mughals, Afghans, and British. Only in your recent history have you become similar to Hindus.

 

[Hamza913]

1st Para - HAL does stand for Hindustan..now how does that mean it came into being before the term India or how is Pakistan older than Hindustan? Lol.. it simply means Pakistan is a modern term and not even comparable to your own invented term call Hindustan, forget about the actual word India. Again thanks to Indus and Indika... the word India is older than there was any term Islam in Indus valley...should not even talk about the term Pakistan, which is carved on the principles of Islam Itself.

2nd para - Indus valley was never used as a region for Muslims. If there was any term invented at all after the concentration of Muslims in the Hindu region of Indus Valley it was Pakistan. Also ask your older generation if the region was ever called as Indus Valley before partition ? They simply didn't have any teem to use other than Hindustan Or India (for the england returned educated population.like Nehru and Jinnah ). That will give you enough clue.

3rd para - Of course they are Hindus (thanks for accepting, it will be easier henceforth ). As I said, calling them Pakistanis is like Calling Bhagat Singh Pakistani just because he was born there. They fought for a land that was 'Never Islamic' but being a Hindu, it was their motherland. And Dharti mata or Soil Goddess( and you are aliens to that concepts). The fact that you had to abolish everything Non Islamic and choose purely Islamic heroes, tell us a great deal, how your Hindu ancestry is accepted. The fact that Porus a Hindu king and ALL other Hindu kings (yes they existed ) in indus valley civilisation resisted invasions should be enough to tell you, you guys can either claim to be is descendent's (which you refuse) or tell us that you came from the Islamists (non Hindus). Now if you claim the first , it makes sense, but if you claim to have come either from India (1947) or to have to have genes of those islamic invaders .. then even a kid can understand the equation , thart you didn't stop Alexander (as you were simply not present ). Tell me if you still didn't get it. I can repeat.

4th Para - I so agree with you. This is the only accepted historical fact that you are talking about. Yes Multi religion did exist . Those 200 odd years of Maurya empire played the most Imoortant role to spread them. I can even name them fir your education.. and guess what the list does not contain Islam. Infact all those religion suffered the most due to Islamic invasion your proud of but now to save your theory of cultural Pakistan
, You are willing to accept those religions as your. Very Hypocritical.

5th Para - Now this is the best thing you have written so far. Yes you don't oppose Islamic Invasion and your entire existence exists becahse of those invaders who were 'Not the part of land'. You used the word 'also' which means you are ready to agree that Porus was part of your ancestry. Now see this - From your own arguments :- Porus who fought Alexander were hindus and a large chunk of them later converted to Islam. The remaining chunk who are part of the invaders did not even fight Alexander. there is another chunk from india of course. Hence you do have a mixed race and none of them fought Alexander.

6th Para - Again.. we are so synced and are in agreement now . Yes ..thanks for accepting you are not taught about them, and that should be the clue how history in Pakistan is subject to edition according to the principles of Islam. You might have a rich past, but your Islamic principles don't allow your kids to read about them. so I don't expect you people to even know properly about pre Islamic Insdus history and your arguments are jus reflective of that. I am still laughing on Maurya na were from Pakistan.

6th Para - I might have missed it. Running fever and am using a mobile to type. Very uncomfortable.. kindly post it again..I will surely answer.

We could be called decepticons for all I care, names mean nothing. IVC, Porus and Panini among others still belong to us. We are a mixed people descended from various places, but our main identities are our Islamic and Indus identities because they have influenced us the most.

The Pakistani history curriculum teaches pre-Islamic as well as Islamic history, it only focuses more on the Islamic part since we identify with it more.

 

[Mirza Jatt]

We could be called decepticons for all I care, names mean nothing. IVC, Porus and Panini among others still belong to us. We are a mixed people descended from various places, but our main identities are our Islamic and Indus identities because they have influenced us the most.

The Pakistani history curriculum teaches pre-Islamic as well as Islamic history, it only focuses more on the Islamic part since we identify with it more.

So I guess you don't have any single optuon to choose from the options I gave you, to choose to help it easier to come to a conclusion. So am I supposed togo back without an answer ? Ok. I rest it here then. Do quote me whenever you come up with it.



Again.I have to agree with you in last part . But sadly the pre Islamic history is vast and ignoring it has jus resulted in twisted beliefs in young minds in your schools. Cant blame you though. If I was a Pakistani historian, I would advocate for more openness to history, irrespective of my religious principles.

Can't be awake since down with fever...do quote me..might answer it tomorrow noon. It was a nice discussion. See ya.

 

[Mirza Jatt]

Still crying about Jahangir and Durrani I see.

Ah missed this one..

Is that what your take away point is from that long post? That I am crying about Jahangir ? Trust me I have no words to thank my Gurus for Sikhism. But alas, I will never be able to convey my feelings about my religion and the goodness through any number if post. This I guess is true to all religion whether Islam or hinduism or Sikhism. Let's not get religious here.. I somehow end up offending people when it comes to religion.. so please don't quote me on this topic. Good night.

 

[Mirza Jatt]

Much of what we know today about the Vikings, Slavs, Pagan Turks, Pakistan ancestors, and Indian ancestors is because of Arab travelers like Al Biruni or Muslim conquerors like Babur.

Hinduism itself evolved over time as a result of contact with Islam. Kabir was raised by Muslim foster parents and wanted to bring monotheism, set of laws to Hinduism to better be able to come to equality with Islam.

How much of Hinduism today is a result of borrowing from Islamic philosophy, ethics, afterlife, and culture of the Muslims?

As for Sikhs, Guru Nanak was a devout Muslim who made Hajj. Sikhism also changed a lot over time due to new Gurus and relations with the Mughals, Afghans, and British. Only in your recent history have you become similar to Hindus.

No sir. am afraid.. all your point are so so invalid. I can refute them point by point like a cake walk.Also Guru Nanak was a Muslim? I have no qualms in accepting that. But I too might have conditions...anyway..am.not keeping well so will carry on this discussion with you tomorrow if am well. Good night.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

These fantasies can only be found on PDF. But glad to see Pakistanis finally accepting that they are sons of Pauravas, Nandas and Guptas.

Pados ke Gupta uncle khush toh bahut honge aaj

Guptas never maintained full control over the Indus Valley, they only managed to gain tributary states there and it wasn't long before these states stopped paying tribute to them and gain full independence.

Nandas hardly controlled the far frontiers of Eastern Punjab, we don't even know if they stepped into Punjab and even if they did; their control there would've been extremely brief.

Pauravas, on the other hand, were smack-dab in the middle of Punjab and modern-day Pakistan; hence we consider them a part of our native history and people.

 

[Mirza Jatt]

Guptas never maintained full control over the Indus Valley, they only managed to gain tributary states there and it wasn't long before these states stopped paying tribute to them and gain full independence.

Nandas hardly controlled the far frontiers of Eastern Punjab, we don't even know if they stepped into Punjab and even if they did; their control there would've been extremely brief.

Pauravas, on the other hand, were smack-dab in the middle of Punjab and modern-day Pakistan; hence we consider them a part of our native history and people.

Ok so Hindu Pauravas are your real ancestors...cool.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Sorry, you are referring to (Bahlikas) Bactrians. When you read a source, read it fully.

Here is what you're own Hindu sources have to say about the location of Bahlikas.

“that (region) where these five rivers, emerging from the mountains flow, this Aratta (country) is called Balhika where the Arya should not stay even for two days”.

“Aratta is the name of the country. Balhika is the name of the people and are generally abused as Vasatis, Sindhus, and Sauviras”

Notice how they were also called Sindhus, meaning inhabitants of Sindh (Indus), similiarly Greeks and Persians called them Hindhus or Indoos as well.

Instead of using emojis to dodge refutations, please continue your debate with factual evidence.

cause accepting that Porus was a Hindu king was acceptable to your forefathers

Pakistan never existed then, the land was ruled by Hindu Kings.

Porus was a Hindu king so saying he was a Pakistani, makes your forefather Hindus who gave a huge fight to Alexander.

Indus has been a Hindu land until Islamic invasion, please follow your fellow Pakistani members atleast.

You keep claiming Porus was a Hindu without providing any evidence at all because there is none. He would've most likely followed a form of religion that is known today as Punjabi Folk Religion or also previously known as Nastadharam (destroyed religion) by the Hindus as described in Hindu texts regarding the religion of the Indus people.

Indus was not a Hindu land even though you guys are taught that everyone was Hindu until "evel moozlims" came and forcefully converted everyone. The Indus region was always religiously diverse but shared core beliefs (such as ancestor worship), Hinduism was hardly ever dominant due to cultural incompatibility.

Prior to the birth of Islam; Sindh, parts of Punjab and Gandhara (KPK) mainly practised a form of Buddhism, Zoroastrianism was also a major religion. Multan (South Punjab) mainly practised a fusion of Zoroastrianism and local religions while North Punjab mainly practised folk religions but also had some Hindu and Buddhist Rajas rulers. Gilgit Baltistan mainly followed Buddhism, Bon and local religions.

Our ancestors ate meat and buried their dead as loathingly recorded in Hindu texts.

"I remember from the days of my youth that a slaughter-ground for kine and a space for storing intoxicating spirits always distinguish the entrances of the abodes of the (Vahika) kings. On some very secret mission I had to live among the Vahikas. In consequence of such residence the conduct of these people is well known to me. There is a town of the name of Sakala (modern day Sialkote), a river of the name of Apaga, and a clan of the Vahikas known by the name of the Jarttikas. The practices of these people are very censurable. They drink the liquor called Gauda, and eat fried barley with it. They also eat beef with garlic. They also eat cakes of flour mixed with meat, and boiled rice that is bought from others. Of righteous practices they have none." (8,44)

Here are excerpts of a Book written by a very renowned and famed Indian historian and Indologist Malati J. Shendge, one of the few Indian historians left that do not let nationalism blur actual history. @Kaptaan, you may find this interesting.

There was never an identity called Pakistan in that era. It was India.

Don't try to compare the term Pakistan (created few decades back) with the term Hindustan to save your argument...compare it with India (created thousand of years ago).

Lol.. let me educate you...the term India was coined from Indika, not Indus.. its your Islamic history that uses Indus to name it Hindustan (again your history, not the rest of the world, who knew to refer India after the word Indika)

And lol..no..you never changed your name..you did not even had a word to call the current Pakistani region separately.. as much it might hurt your ego, it was called India (even the britishers called it India although they never vistied India earlier..you think that's because of Indus river? No. Megasthenes was popular and so was the term India even before you had any concentration of Islamic followers in the Indus valley region. Does that ring any bell? Thanks to the him, we still can claim what's ours, or else the way you people are trying to call every Hindu heritage as yours, you may have even called everything under the sky as Pakistani.

I will answer all of this with a previous post of mine.

Both the name Hindustan and (latin) India comes from the Persian word Hindhu which comes from the word Sindhu, the name of the Indus River. People living on the Indus River were thus called Hindus by the Persians while they were called Sindhus by the Indians in their vedic texts (Sindhus are referred to as a foreign people).

Neither the Persians nor the Greeks had substantial knowledge of what was East to the Indus River.

For example; if you look at the most accurate map of that time; map of Herodotus - Modern-day India is not even a part of the map.

Due to a lack of information, the land East of the Indus was also referred to as Indika (by the Greeks) and Hindhu (by the Persians), they thought that if they kept going East of the Indus, they would shortly reach the Caspian Sea, Central Asia or even the end of the world.

As knowledge of the area grew, the name had already stuck.

(Notice the tribes labelled on the Indus River are all Iranic/Central Asian)

Invaders were fought before they lost bro..and then the conversion happened. People who were brave , resisted and got killed and their idols broken. It was a bloody forceful spread bro..don't tell me you don't know that. Ir might be peacefulater on, but the penetration was bloody. I being a sikh also can relate to it. (Different era though.)

Invaders came here to loot, settle and plunder just as their predecessors from Central Asia did, the only difference being that this time they converted to Islam. They did not come here to convert anyone. The first "Muslim Invaders" of South Asia; the Umayyads, actually discouraged conversion to Islam.

Islam was mostly spread by Sufi missionaries, almost every clan/tribe can trace their conversion back to a specific Sufi saint whom they overly venerate (a pre-Islamic practise of Punjab). Islam's spread was also caused by many Hindu/Buddhist Kings converting to Islam. Rinchana was a Buddhist King of Kashmir and voluntarily converted to Islam, shifting most of his people towards Islam in the process.

 

[UnitedPak]

Ok so Hindu Pauravas are your real ancestors...cool.

All Muslims have non-Muslim ancestors. Religion doesn't define ancestry. I will bet you think you are making a point, but it seems you have no understanding of how heritage works. And you seem obsessed with religion in what is a geo-ethnic discussion.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[padamchen]

Porus was a Persian satrap leading Indian troops.

Fact.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Hamza913]

Porus was a Persian satrap leading Indian troops.

Wrong, the overwhelming majority of his troops would have been from the Potohar Plateau like he was. Maybe a few of them would have been mercenaries from the same region as the modern day Republic of Hindustan, but not most of them.

Also, do you have any proof he was a Persian satrap?

 

[Jaanbaz]

Don't know why Indians and Pakistanis fighting, Alexander took down the world power(Perisa) down but almost got himself killed by a small Tribal King from Punjab. I think had he crossed Indus he would have perished along with all of his Macedonian invaders.

This is Jehlum......

 

[BHarwana]

....

 

[padamchen]

Wrong, the overwhelming majority of his troops would have been from the Potohar Plateau like he was. Maybe a few of them would have been mercenaries from the same region as the modern day Republic of Hindustan, but not most of them.

Also, do you have any proof he was a Persian satrap?

Please read.

The entire Puru thing only comes from subcontinental sources.

Cheers, Doc