Why Aurangzeb and Mahmud Ghazni are heroes in Pakistan but villains in India

[Chhatrapati]

No one is whitewashing Aurangzeb, I am telling you that you cannot judge people based on today's standard. The Mughals were like any other ruler of India. They did what they did to defend their own kingdoms and you cannot blame religion for that. Aurangzeb was responsible for giving you your Indian heritage today. If he was not alive he would have not united India under one banner and made it the richest country on the planet at that time. I did read but it seems like you are trying to give me a lesson in your hindu history.

I didn't judge him by todays standard. I judged him based on pre 19th century standard. Or should I say, 11th century standard? Even then, there was not much prosecution based on one's faith. Mughals were not like any ruler and India survived a lot of invasions, from the Greeks to Shaka Kushans fended off West Asians for another 500 years but 12th century ended India's golden age for sure. Wonder why?

The analogy stands for itself. The fact is that Gandhi Drove her tanks into the golden temple and that radicalized the Sikhs at that time.

No. You're comparing Sikh militants who died fighting a state to a preacher who was executed after he refused to convert to Islam, he didn't start any rebellion. How's that a similar analogy?

That's my point to go read about Zakat. A Muslim ruler cannot abolish the zakat and that is a fact. Just for your information. An eligible person must pay Zakat and it is a religious obligation. You should read and then discuss these matters. Jizya was 2.5 percent at that time during Aurgenzeb's rule. Same as zakat. How much tax do you pay in india now? you don't know what you are talking about..

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27868/1/WP120.pdf

Read page 21... Looks like you have no clue at all what Zakat is.

Again these people did things just like any other rulers at that time. They looted temples because that was the norm. If temples had wealth they looted it just like other Hindus or Muslims Ruler. Don't spew your bjp bullshit here.

It's not BJP bs, these were first written by western writers who studied it extensively before us. Looting temple was not a norm for Indian kings, they rarely looted temples fearing gods wrath. Even if they did, they never destroyed the inner sanctum. Never in history we had someone burn our books. It's considered barbaric, no Indian kings have ever executed temple priests.

So it is countless now..? The barbarism was normal for the times. He executed people that were threating his kingdom just like any government does. Just like you guys are doing in Kashmir and Assam. We don't need your Hindu morality here. He knew very well how peaceful Hindus can be. A lot of Hindus were in his nobility but you won't talk about that. He had many hindu administrators. if he was such a bigot then why would he hire them? Don't sensationalize history and romanticize people just because they believe the same things you do. You are the religious bigot.

Haha yeah, I know there is quite a difference in morality from barbarians and us.
The British had Indian officers, it's rather a necessity than some moral obligation.

Good Bollywood line. Now you can change your clothes and dance in the fields..

It's different when the line is true.

lol you said ashoka used to crush "rebillion" .
my simple question do you consider maratha's rebillion a rebillion ?

Keep deflecting ignoramus. Explain now, how Ashoka converted entire India into Buddhist?

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

No one is whitewashing Aurangzeb, I am telling you that you cannot judge people based on today's standard. The Mughals were like any other ruler of India. They did what they did to defend their own kingdoms and you cannot blame religion for that. Aurangzeb was responsible for giving you your Indian heritage today. If he was not alive he would have not united India under one banner and made it the richest country on the planet at that time. I did read but it seems like you are trying to give me a lesson in your hindu history.



The analogy stands for itself. The fact is that Gandhi Drove her tanks into the golden temple and that radicalized the Sikhs at that time.



That's my point to go read about Zakat. A Muslim ruler cannot abolish the zakat and that is a fact. Just for your information. An eligible person must pay Zakat and it is a religious obligation. You should read and then discuss these matters. Jizya was 2.5 percent at that time during Aurgenzeb's rule. Same as zakat. How much tax do you pay in india now? you don't know what you are talking about..




Again these people did things just like any other rulers at that time. They looted temples because that was the norm. If temples had wealth they looted it just like other Hindus or Muslims Ruler. Don't spew your bjp bullshit here.



So it is countless now..? The barbarism was normal for the times. He executed people that were threating his kingdom just like any government does. Just like you guys are doing in Kashmir and Assam. We don't need your Hindu morality here. He knew very well how peaceful Hindus can be. A lot of Hindus were in his nobility but you won't talk about that. He had many hindu administrators. if he was such a bigot then why would he hire them? Don't sensationalize history and romanticize people just because they believe the same things you do. You are the religious bigot.



Good Bollywood line. Now you can change your clothes and dance in the fields..



No, he doesn't because they were Hindu rebels.

Just wanted to correct you. Hindu kings never destroyed temples. Don't know from where you are getting that notion. Muslim kings made it a point to destroy Hindu temples. Heck, Muslims even destroy their own mosques. Even now, Sunnis blow up Shia mosques while Shias blow up Sunni mosques. Ahmedis mosques are blown up by everyone. So much for respecting one's place of worship. And this is the 21st century.

 

[Crystal-Clear]

No, he doesn't because they were Hindu rebels.

thats what the point . they consider hindus as their heros .dosent matter if they were dacoit , thief or rapist .

 

[k s ahmed]

Why complicated writing? In India because they looted and plundered our sacred places of worship.
In Pakistan, well you know why.

llooted and plundered? thats the fundamental difference in understanding of islam .. if muslims were to loot and plunder ONLY, they didnt need to fight roma and iran in their own territory, when they were 238218 times as bigger and stronger than them. They only came to take you guys out of oppression of too many GODS and people who act like GOD , if only you understand. (but you dont because you wrote that comment)..
many or all western historians write the saame about muslims because THEY themselves attack the other parts due to GREED and only GREED. They label muslims the same because they see through the filter of greed .
any way...

 

[Chhatrapati]

llooted and plundered? thats the fundamental difference in understanding of islam .. if muslims were to loot and plunder ONLY, they didnt need to fight roma and iran in their own territory, when they were 238218 times as bigger and stronger than them. They only came to take you guys out of oppression of too many GODS and people who act like GOD , if only you understand. (but you dont because you wrote that comment)..
many or all western historians write the saame about muslims because THEY themselves attack the other parts due to GREED and only GREED. They label muslims the same because they see through the filter of greed .
any way...

Right most free societies must be yours. lol! Take out of oppression.

 

[k s ahmed]

Right most free societies must be yours. lol! Take out of oppression.

Not ours. That's the wrong impression.
Hindus begged Mohammed bin Qasim not to leave as they would be again oppressed by those Hindu twats again.
Islam puts such a person incharge who has fear of GOD and who treats people b( it means alllll of the people) Unlike Modi ( or all present day facist rulers ) And is liable to be prosecuted and whose job is to rule and create prosperity and deliver the message of GOD BUT NOT FORCE it. Those who don't accept can happily do so. History is full of great Muslim rule , only for you to read about.
Islam is different way of thinking and doing than traditional democracy and Hinduism ( Hindu is not even one religion but so many doctorines combined under one umbrella word by British ) . It gives freedom to think and create. Although modern islamic practices don't sometimes align with this idea.
I hope you got my point.

 

[Chhatrapati]

Not ours. That's the wrong impression.
Hindus begged Mohammed bin Qasim not to leave as they would be again oppressed by those Hindu twats again.
Islam puts such a person incharge who has fear of GOD and who treats people b( it means alllll of the people) Unlike Modi ( or all present day facist rulers ) And is liable to be prosecuted and whose job is to rule and create prosperity and deliver the message of GOD BUT NOT FORCE it. Those who don't accept can happily do so. History is full of great Muslim rule , only for you to read about.
Islam is different way of thinking and doing than traditional democracy and Hinduism ( Hindu is not even one religion but so many doctorines combined under one umbrella word by British ) . It gives freedom to think and create. Although modern islamic practices don't sometimes align with this idea.
I hope you got my point.

Did every other invaders send sms for help? Nice fantasy stories. Not interested, try it somewhere else.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Did every other invaders send sms for help? Nice fantasy stories. Not interested, try it somewhere else.

You can't blame their thinking. They are Muslims brought up in Pakistan. Pakistan needed a reason to justify their conversion. They needed heroes that would separate themselves from Hindus in India. Thus, you have Muhammad bin Qasim as the first Pakistani who apparently 'got people out of oppression.' Thus, you have other heroes of Pakistanis like Alauddin Khilji, Ghori, Muhammad Ghazni, etc who got people out of oppression and conveniently destroyed temples, looted people, killed people refusing to convert to Islam, raped prisoners of war. Yep these are the people who got people out of oppression. Of course, since they don't have local heroes other than Ranjit Singh, Hindu Shahi and Buddhist Shahi dynasty, who being non-Muslim can't be seen as heroes, they started looking at foreigners like Mughals, Lodhis, etc as the heroes.

That's how the narrative of Pakistan is.

 

[M.Bison]

Just wanted to correct you. Hindu kings never destroyed temples. Don't know from where you are getting that notion. Muslim kings made it a point to destroy Hindu temples. Heck, Muslims even destroy their own mosques. Even now, Sunnis blow up Shia mosques while Shias blow up Sunni mosques. Ahmedis mosques are blown up by everyone. So much for respecting one's place of worship. And this is the 21st century.

Go read about the Pindari Sacking in 1791. It is a great tale about how the Great Hindus Maratha warriors joined hand in hand with the British to loot a once allied Hindu monastery.

Muslims kill other Muslims for political reasons and the majority of Muslims condemn these killings. No one is happy about mosques being blown up.

But at least in India, you guys are happy that Babri masjid was blown up and then you went ahead and elected the guy who was part of the mob that attacked a Muslim place of worship. You also ran your tanks and soldiers into the Golden Temple. Killing 100s of innocent people, but at least they were Sikhs. Maybe India is the only one not living in the 21st century.

 

[M.Bison]

No. You're comparing Sikh militants who died fighting a state to a preacher who was executed after he refused to convert to Islam, he didn't start any rebellion. How's that a similar analogy?

He was not just any preacher, he opposed the government at the times and was executed because of that. He tried to become a political force and the rulers at the time saw that as a treat. It is a similar analogy.

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27868/1/WP120.pdf

Read page 21... Looks like you have no clue at all what Zakat is.

Why would you quote this person? He is not using unbiased sources. You cannot verify what he is saying. He calls the income tax zakat. Zakat is not a blanket income tax for Muslims. There are nuances to it. But for simple Hindus like you he labeled the zakat an income tax.

I can give you a source from the Mughal courts at the time that says that more than 60 taxes were abolished. Leading to more than 50 million rupees loss of revenue to the Mughal government.

Zakat cannot be abolished by a ruler. It is abolished by Allah. It is a religious obligation like haj or prayer. It is a mandatory donation to the poor.

Aurangzeb imposed jizya on non-muslims in 1679, 21 years after his reign started. After his death, the Jizya was not continued. What is your problem with this? Governments tax individuals that are under their rule. What is your problem with a poll-tax to non-muslims? Are you seriously claiming that Muslims paid no taxes under his rule?

Do you know that not all non-muslims pay jizya and that there are requirements to jizya?

Do not talk about religious matters. You have not learned about Islam or Islamic jurisprudence. Just stick to Hinduism.

It's not BJP bs, these were first written by western writers who studied it extensively before us. Looting temple was not a norm for Indian kings, they rarely looted temples fearing gods wrath. Even if they did, they never destroyed the inner sanctum. Never in history we had someone burn our books. It's considered barbaric, no Indian kings have ever executed temple priests.

You are lying or too stupid to realize it. Many Hindu rulers at the times would fight each other and sack temples. Taking the idols as war trophies. This is a historical fact. Hindus destroyed Jain and Buddhist temples too and also mosques. Hindus also tried to destroy the Golden temple. So, Hindus are not saints they are human beings. They have barbaric potential like any other human being especially brahmin.

It's different when the line is true.

I can give you the truth. Our people came and ruled you Hindus for more than a 1000s year. We could have done whatever we wanted to you but we gave you language, identity, and culture. We then had a leader who understood the British and without any gun or blackmail of hunger managed to carved a nation out of your Akhand Bharat. That is the truth.

You are a Hindu Indian on a Pakistani website arguing 71 years of greatness while your countrymen and women shit on the footpath every day.

 

[xeuss]

Just wanted to correct you. Hindu kings never destroyed temples. Don't know from where you are getting that notion. Muslim kings made it a point to destroy Hindu temples. Heck, Muslims even destroy their own mosques. Even now, Sunnis blow up Shia mosques while Shias blow up Sunni mosques. Ahmedis mosques are blown up by everyone. So much for respecting one's place of worship. And this is the 21st century.

Being the Great Maratha, you should have known, that the Great Marathas of previous centuries destroyed many a temple in Bengal and Mysore, the most famous of them being the Sringeri Mutt.

The greatest Maratha of them all, Shivaji, was no exception. His campaign in Raigad against the Mores let to the destruction of the town, the fort, and gasp, the temples!!!

Here is some more reading material for you....

https://scroll.in/article/767065/war-trophies-when-hindu-kings-raided-temples-and-abducted-idols

 

[The_Showstopper]

You are lying or too stupid to realize it. Many Hindu rulers at the times would fight each other and sack temples. Taking the idols as war trophies. This is a historical fact. Hindus destroyed Jain and Buddhist temples too and also mosques. Hindus also tried to destroy the Golden temple. So, Hindus are not saints they are human beings. They have barbaric potential like any other human being especially brahmin.

In fact, Hindus annihilated Buddhism from its land of birth. Refer the below thread...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/buddhism-declined-or-brutalized-in-the-land-of-its-birth.509885/

 

[Chhatrapati]

He was not just any preacher, he opposed the government at the times and was executed because of that. He tried to become a political force and the rulers at the time saw that as a treat. It is a similar analogy.

Records don't agree with your revelations. '

Why would you quote this person? He is not using unbiased sources. You cannot verify what he is saying. He calls the income tax zakat. Zakat is not a blanket income tax for Muslims. There are nuances to it. But for simple Hindus like you he labeled the zakat an income tax.

Discredit the source. Do understand this is not just one source. There is countless sources.
And this is not rocket science.

Zakat cannot be abolished by a ruler. It is abolished by Allah. It is a religious obligation like haj or prayer. It is a mandatory donation to the poor.

You're the one who claimed, Zakat was a form of tax collected by the government, now conveniently it's a mandatory donation to the poor? The point is, the Zakat which was collected by the government was abolished. The Zakat you give to the poor is not matter of concern of the state which is irrelevant to the discussion.

Aurangzeb imposed jizya on non-muslims in 1679, 21 years after his reign started. After his death, the Jizya was not continued. What is your problem with this? Governments tax individuals that are under their rule. What is your problem with a poll-tax to non-muslims? Are you seriously claiming that Muslims paid no taxes under his rule?

I have no problem with what Muslim rulers did, they did nothing to my people. We are just pointing out what they did. Why are you uncomfortable with history?
Jizya was discontinued after large scale revolt, Marathas grew stronger and started gaining grounds which led to their defeat at the hands of Maratha. As a revenge marathas reinstated Zakat. By that, I mean special tax on Muslims collected by the state not the one you give to poor. Capiche?

Do not talk about religious matters. You have not learned about Islam or Islamic jurisprudence. Just stick to Hinduism.

Ohh don't create smoke screen to discredit others. I'm not talking about your religion or whatever, I don't care. I'm simply talking about hard facts on history. I'll stick to whatever belief I want, none of your business.

 

[dani92]

I think is more like Stockholm syndrome. The Pakistanis glorify these invaders and celebrate their victories against the infidels while they forget that these Buddhist and hind infidels were their ancestors. So basically they are like the black African who is happy that his/her ancestors were enslaved because they were brought to Jesus. Or the native Americans who celebrate the European colonization of their lands because it brought them civilization. So basically Pakistanis celebrate the people who slaughtered their ancestors.

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

When were they a hero ?
No one i have met hails them as heroes

what G B cave are you living in..

i can name you many things home that are named after Ghaznavid.However Aurngzeb isnt that popular but he is still respected..