Why Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Somnath?

[third eye]

Whats you'r love for BBC? CNN?

And for all crying souls, map might be faulty, but the history is not. Stop crying about a stupid map.

-Regards

It is posible that there may have been an error as far as the map is concerned, but what was the aim of starting a thread like this ?

To educate us on history ( thank you we already know it & are suffering its consequences) , to show pseudo superiority ( this too does not exist), to stoke a fire whose embers don't seem to die ( we don't need it) , to live or glorify the past ( a reality check is needed & we need to move on) , ' time pass" or to update viewers on skills / results of internet surfing ?

Is it necessary to re open old wounds ? If so , to what avail ? Would you like to view pictures of Niazi surrendering in Dhaka or Pak troops collecting their dead from Kargil believe me there will be no errors in the maps ?

Move on .. there is more to life.

 

[Ali.009]

It is posible that there may have been an error as far as the map is concerned, but what was the aim of starting a thread like this ?

To educate us on history ( thank you we already know it & are suffering its consequences) , to show pseudo superiority ( this too does not exist), to stoke a fire whose embers don't seem to die ( we don't need it) , to live or glorify the past ( a reality check is needed & we need to move on) , ' time pass" or to update viewers on skills / results of internet surfing ?

Is it necessary to re open old wounds ? If so , to what avail ? Would you like to view pictures of Niazi surrendering in Dhaka or Pak troops collecting their dead from Kargil believe me there will be no errors in the maps ?

Move on .. there is more to life.

India - a country investing heavily arming rebels inside pakistan, some of them just confessed lately. A country who has war with all of its neighbours, a country, whose foreign policy is to achieve 'akhand bharat'.

History is for learning, and india should learn what happened in the past, n if shes not going to change the hostile attitude, history can repeat itself. Muslims, a minority, rule'd over hinuds for 1000 years, this was only because they are superior to them.

 

[Flintlock]

India - a country investing heavily arming rebels inside pakistan, some of them just confessed lately. A country who has war with all of its neighbours, a country, whose foreign policy is to achieve 'akhand bharat'.

History is for learning, and india should learn what happened in the past, n if shes not going to change the hostile attitude, history can repeat itself. Muslims, a minority, rule'd over hinuds for 1000 years, this was only because they are superior to them.

Come and Get it !

I hear that the Somnath Temple has been rebuilt. Wanna have go at it?

Here's a pic so you can recognize it when you get there:

 

[third eye]

India - a country investing heavily arming rebels inside pakistan, some of them just confessed lately. A country who has war with all of its neighbours, a country, whose foreign policy is to achieve 'akhand bharat'.

History is for learning, and india should learn what happened in the past, n if shes not going to change the hostile attitude, history can repeat itself. Muslims, a minority, rule'd over hinuds for 1000 years, this was only because they are superior to them.

You are educating Indians on Indian history !

It would be a lot better to learn from your own mistakes ( EP, Kargil, Coups, instability, bankruptcy,poor foreign policy.. to name a few, the world is even worryin about a " failed state" !).

Which country in our region does not have probs with its land neighbours ? Pak - with India & afghans, BD - with India & Burma. Afghans even opposed Pak entry in the UN back in the late 40's. No one wants a " akhand Bharat", its only Pol rehetoric..thank God for the partition ( only it was done ham handedly), can you imagine the taliban knocking on the gates of Delhi ? You are welcome to them & the results of all what was sown. Dispel this thought..

The portion highlighted above is the stupidest line I have read on this forum, speaks of the maturity level ...less said the beter.

After surrendering 93,000 POWs & lost half your country it is amazing how anyone can think this way !! Relax.."that" part of hisory will & can never repeat itself.

 

[Vinod2070]

Muslims, a minority, rule'd over hinuds for 1000 years, this was only because they are superior to them.

If it is so, why did the Europeans rule over all the Muslim world? Why are the Israelis running roughshod over Arabs who enjoy 50-100 times numerical superiority over them?

Various civilizations have risen and fallen over the history. Muslims had nothing superior about themselves, it was just a cycle of history and that has passed.

Anyway people like you were victims of Arab terror and brutality. If you are not an Arab, you were a victim. If you are, then you are a Zaalim.

Just by converting you don't become an Arab. Go to Arab countries to find out why they treat Non-Arab Muslims as second class.

Because they know more than you that it was imperialism and nothing else. Every imperialist needs a cloak to hide the real reasons, for Europeans it was the 'White Man's burden' and the spread of their "superior culture" or "rule of law" for the people "without law", for Arabs it was done in the name of Islam.

There was no difference between the two and the perpetrators know it, even if the victims don't!

 

[EagleEyes]

Anyway people like you were victims of Arab terror and brutality. If you are not an Arab, you were a victim. If you are, then you are a Zaalim.

Is there something that Arabs have done to you or your past generations. I just can't stop laughing with all the posts you made in this thread.

 

[Vinod2070]

Is there something that Arabs have done to you or your past generations. I just can't stop laughing with all the posts you made in this thread.

Well, the topic of the thread gives a hint!

You may laugh and I feel good if my posts at least served the purpose of entertaining someone.

On a serious note, you may like to see the contents of that entire post and give a more thorough response than that. Would be good to know what you find wrong in my assertion that the spread of Islam was a ruse for Arab imperialism like the spread of rule of law or their culture was for Europeans.

 

[Flintlock]

Well, the topic of the thread gives a hint!

You may laugh and I feel good if my posts at least served the purpose of entertaining someone.

On a serious note, you may like to see the contents of that entire post and give a more thorough response than that. Would be good to know what you find wrong in my assertion that the spread of Islam was a ruse for Arab imperialism like the spread of rule of law or their culture was for Europeans.

That's actually an interesting interpretation, but it would naturally not find many takers among muslims.

The rise of Islam may be considered as Arab imperialism while it still expanding outside Arabia.
Once it had established itself in neighbouring regions and overpowered the native cultures, like Iran, North Africa, through Afghanistan into Central Asia and east into Hindustan, Arabs were no longer the standard bearers of the new religion.
Increasingly the Turks, Mongols, Afghans and other Central-Asian tribes who adopted Islam were responsible for its rapid expansion.

Considering that it has changed very little in the 1400 years of its existence, Islam remains true to its Arabic origins. All muslims pay homage to Mecca, they must learn Arabic, wear the typically Arab garb (the all-covering garments originally meant to protect against the heat and sandstorms of the desert).

However, a large portion of the development of Islamic culture occured in Iran. The Iranians were master builders and craftsmen, and unless I'm badly mistaken, the typical design of the mosque was developed in Iran. The Iranians built domes like no other people on earth, and its safe to assume that the Islamic dome was first conceived in Iran.

Also, the fact that Islam has supplanted the indigenous cultures in non-Arab lands, means that the muslims in these parts consider the arrival of Islam as the beginning of their way of life (i.e. a positive thing). They have forgotten obviously, the destruction which had to necessarily take place in order to create the new order. History, as we know now, is usually written by the victors.

In places like India, Spain etc., where the Islamic conquerors did not manage to convert the majority to their faith, these conquerors are portrayed negatively as destructive fundamentalists who tried to wipe out their way of life.

Both viewpoints are correct, obviously. Whether Mehmud of Ghazni was a villain or a hero depends on what your identity is.

The reality is that he was a conquerer, motivated partly by his greed for wealth and power, and partly by his zeal to establish his worldview(i.e. religion) as far and wide as he possibly could.

 

[Vinod2070]

That's actually an interesting interpretation, but it would naturally not find many takers among muslims.

The rise of Islam may be considered as Arab imperialism while it still expanding outside Arabia.
Once it had established itself in neighbouring regions and overpowered the native cultures, like Iran, North Africa, through Afghanistan into Central Asia and east into Hindustan, Arabs were no longer the standard bearers of the new religion.
Increasingly the Turks, Mongols, Afghans and other Central-Asian tribes who adopted Islam were responsible for its rapid expansion.

Considering that it has changed very little in the 1400 years of its existence, Islam remains true to its Arabic origins. All muslims pay homage to Mecca, they must learn Arabic, wear the typically Arab garb (the all-covering garments originally meant to protect against the heat and sandstorms of the desert).

However, a large portion of the development of Islamic culture occured in Iran. The Iranians were master builders and craftsmen, and unless I'm badly mistaken, the typical design of the mosque was developed in Iran. The Iranians built domes like no other people on earth, and its safe to assume that the Islamic dome was first conceived in Iran.

Also, the fact that Islam has supplanted the indigenous cultures in non-Arab lands, means that the muslims in these parts consider the arrival of Islam as the beginning of their way of life (i.e. a positive thing). They have forgotten obviously, the destruction which had to necessarily take place in order to create the new order. History, as we know now, is usually written by the victors.

In places like India, Spain etc., where the Islamic conquerors did not manage to convert the majority to their faith, these conquerors are portrayed negatively as destructive fundamentalists who tried to wipe out their way of life.

Both viewpoints are correct, obviously. Whether Mehmud of Ghazni was a villain or a hero depends on what your identity is.

The reality is that he was a conquerer, motivated partly by his greed for wealth and power, and partly by his zeal to establish his worldview(i.e. religion) as far and wide as he possibly could.

Agreed mostly. The "Islamic" architecture is mostly the Persian one and the Iranians do pride themselves immensely on being culturally superior than the Arabs and the resentment against the Arabs remains strong.

In fact the birth of the Shia sect is considered by many Sunni Muslims to be an expression of the same resentment. Some go so far as to claim that it was a conspiracy to weaken Islam from within and my understanding is that such views still have many takers.

Well, even Hitler was a hero to many in his time. Once people saw the reality, even Germans accepted him for what he was, a bloodthirsty dictator who caused much grief all over Europe and the world. Now there are few Germans who consider him hero and the Germans have been successful to a large degree in getting rid of the stigma.

Sadly it has not happened in the case of Ghazani and so many others like him. As long as people like him represent the faith and remain heroes of the religion, I don't see much chances of reconciliation and peace. It is not that a religion had such people, it is the fact that such people are considered the standard bearers of the faith that promotes the hatreds and suspicions that we see all around.

 

[Flintlock]

Agreed mostly. The "Islamic" architecture is mostly the Persian one and the Iranians do pride themselves immensely on being culturally superior than the Arabs and the resentment against the Arabs remains strong.

Perhaps the Shia-Sunni rivalry could be considered, to some extent, an expression of the hostility between the Arabs and the Persians, but the fundamental theological differences remain nonetheless.

A large section of the Iranian "elite" or "westernized" population do resent the imposition of Islam, and they consider the earlier Zoroastrian culture as the "true" Iranian culture.
However, the fact is that the vast majority of Iranians do remain very orthodox in their views.

In fact the birth of the Shia sect is considered by many Sunni Muslims to be an expression of the same resentment. Some go so far as to claim that it was a conspiracy to weaken Islam from within and my understanding is that such views still have many takers.

Well, I feel that the main reason for the resentment is theology, since Muslims consider the precise details of their religion to be exact and unchangeable, and any contradiction in these matters is seen as a blow to the very foundation of this infallibility.

Well, even Hitler was a hero to many in his time. Once people saw the reality, even Germans accepted him for what he was, a bloodthirsty dictator who caused much grief all over Europe and the world. Now there are few Germans who consider him hero and the Germans have been successful to a large degree in getting rid of the stigma.

The difference here is that Hitler lost, and the Allied forces were able to push through their worldview in the end.

If Hitler had won, however, like Mehmud of Ghazni won, then it is quite probable that we would all regard him as a great hero today.

Sadly it has not happened in the case of Ghazani and so many others like him. As long as people like him represent the faith and remain heroes of the religion, I don't see much chances of reconciliation and peace. It is not that a religion had such people, it is the fact that such people are considered the standard bearers of the faith that promotes the hatreds and suspicions that we see all around.

As I said, the victors write history, but it is indeed sad (and at the same time, inevitable) that ruthless conquerers like Ghazni have been declared as role models in the Islamic world.
It is not only true for Islam. In most countries, and most cultures, the great conquerors are celebrated as heroes. Alexander the Great, Napoleon the Great, William the Conquerer, etc. etc are all celebrated heroes in their native lands. It is another matter however, that they may well be reviled in the lands that they conquered.

The notable exception being India, of course, where people who embraced peace and tolerance like Mahavira, Buddha, Ashoka and Gandhi are usually given the highest pedestal.

 

[must7]

Gandhi are usually given the highest pedestal

Flintlock .. Ghanhiji was involved in so many scams that one cannot even fathom writing but still he is praised & talked about in India .. his own land ! I will not even go into the subject of Ashoka as he is dear to you religiously (I suppose so).

Hence, I would request people living in glass houses not to throw stones at others !

 

[GunMan]

India - a country investing heavily arming rebels inside pakistan, some of them just confessed lately. A country who has war with all of its neighbours, a country, whose foreign policy is to achieve 'akhand bharat'.

History is for learning, and india should learn what happened in the past, n if shes not going to change the hostile attitude, history can repeat itself. Muslims, a minority, rule'd over hinuds for 1000 years, this was only because they are superior to them.

yes,muslims ruled in India for 1000yrs.
But why should any pakistani feel so proud about it??
None of them were of pakistani origin.
Let me ask you, how many of those muslim rulers were of punjabi origin or sindhi origin?? The answer is none.

Starting from Mahmud of Ghazni and Mohammed Ghauri to Sher shah suri were all of Afgan origin .

Then came the Moghuls with Babur who was a direct descendant of Timur through his father, and a descendant also of Genghis Khan through his mother.Alas,this time also the the fellow wasnt a pakistani,but of central asian origin, whose dynasty ruled major part of india till rise of maratha and followed by the Britishers..

If remove ur religious blinkers and start reading history again u would know,its todays pakistani punjababi and sindhi populous who become first victims of the Afgan/Arab invaders who not only enslaved them for centuries to come but also destroyed their religion and culture for ever.They turned them to different kind of ppl.

Takshashila Taxila)who was once an important Vedic Hindu and Buddhis centre of learning for centuries is now Rawalpindi , HQ pakistan Army,defender of pakistan aganist a hindu India.

So what about this crap ...feeling real proud that "we muslim ruled u for 1000yr"...rubbish.

Did the Bengali muslim of East pakistan,now now known as Banladesh let u rule,let alone feel proud in name of muslim ummah??NO,not even in a democractic set up.

Will the Arab or Afgans consider muslims of pakistan as their own kind,when in ur opinion, together with them you ruled us for 1000yrs???
No the real fact is that pakistani didnt rule ,but were ruled just like rest of india by the OTHERS.

My intention isnt to offend any one ,but to express my opinion and understandings.

 

[must7]

Let me ask you, how many of those muslim rulers were of punjabi origin or sindhi origin?? The answer is none.
Starting from Mahmud of Ghazni and Mohammed Ghauri to Sher shah suri were all of Afgan origin .

Gunman & the Indian clan (for thanking his post), being such a huge history specialist, I would like to ask you why is Pakistani only made up of Punjabi & Sindhi Origins ?

Why you seem to very happily forget the Pushtoon, Balochi & the Muslim immigrants who left everything in India to join Pakistan.

When you talk about Mahmud Ghaznavi / Ghauri & Babur .. well they were all Pushtoon .. Pushtoon's are divided due to the Durand line otherwise Afghan or Pakistani it is the same tribe / race.

So what's the case ? Pakistan consists of Pushtoon .. than why should we not be proud of ourselves to be called the last light of Islamic rule over the sub-continent. When Bhadur Shah Zafar was buried in Burma (now Myanmar) he still stayed Bhadur Shah Zafar .. he did not become a Burmese !

If remove ur religious blinkers and start reading history again u would know,its todays pakistani punjababi and sindhi populous who become first victims of the Afgan/Arab invaders who not only enslaved them for centuries to come but also destroyed their religion and culture for ever.They turned them to different kind of ppl.

Victims ! hahaha ..what a word ... I am sure you must have read this terminolgy on a Hinduvta website which again would not even allow open view of it's posters ! If they were victims than surely all these people would have changed their names & religion long before in the time of the British who use to give preference to people converting to Christianity .. No all these people stood against Congress & the British Raj to fight for a seperate Muslim country aka Pakistan.

Did the Bengali muslim of East pakistan,now now known as Banladesh let u rule,let alone feel proud in name of muslim ummah??NO,not even in a democractic set up.

Why have you forgotten .. we did rule up to 1971 ! why is it no enough ? i.e; nearly 24 years .. After that we had the Indian proxy war against the reputation of PA and it ended up in a major fiasco due to political games manship of Bhutto & Mujib ... but here it had nothing to do with Islam. Here the english have a very good saying which applies to you ... "you are comparing bananas with bringles" !

Will the Arab or Afgans consider muslims of pakistan as their own kind,when in ur opinion, together with them you ruled us for 1000yrs???
No the real fact is that pakistani didnt rule ,but were ruled just like rest of india by the OTHERS.

My intention isnt to offend any one ,but to express my opinion and understandings.

Wrong my dear .. in govt. employment in the GCC states (let alone Saudi Arabia) preference is given on the following basis for professional jobs :-

1. Locals
1. Western.
2. Arabs or Muslims.
3. Christians (followers of the book).
4. Hindus.

I was quite bemused at your last sentence, and would refrain from commenting on the hollow substance on which it is based on !

 

[GunMan]

Let me ask you, how many of those muslim rulers were of punjabi origin or sindhi origin?? The answer is none.
Starting from Mahmud of Ghazni and Mohammed Ghauri to Sher shah suri were all of Afgan origin .

Gunman & the Indian clan (for thanking his post), being such a huge history specialist, I would like to ask you why is Pakistani only made up of Punjabi & Sindhi Origins ?

Why you seem to very happily forget the Pushtoon, Balochi & the Muslim immigrants who left everything in India to join Pakistan.

When you talk about Mahmud Ghaznavi / Ghauri & Babur .. well they were all Pushtoon .. Pushtoon's are divided due to the Durand line otherwise Afghan or Pakistani it is the same tribe / race.

So what's the case ? Pakistan consists of Pushtoon .. than why should we not be proud of ourselves to be called the last light of Islamic rule over the sub-continent. When Bhadur Shah Zafar was buried in Burma (now Myanmar) he still stayed Bhadur Shah Zafar .. he did not become a Burmese !

If remove ur religious blinkers and start reading history again u would know,its todays pakistani punjababi and sindhi populous who become first victims of the Afgan/Arab invaders who not only enslaved them for centuries to come but also destroyed their religion and culture for ever.They turned them to different kind of ppl.

Victims ! hahaha ..what a word ... I am sure you must have read this terminolgy on a Hinduvta website which again would not even allow open view of it's posters ! If they were victims than surely all these people would have changed their names & religion long before in the time of the British who use to give preference to people converting to Christianity .. No all these people stood against Congress & the British Raj to fight for a seperate Muslim country aka Pakistan.

Did the Bengali muslim of East pakistan,now now known as Banladesh let u rule,let alone feel proud in name of muslim ummah??NO,not even in a democractic set up.

Why have you forgotten .. we did rule up to 1971 ! why is it no enough ? i.e; nearly 24 years .. After that we had the Indian proxy war against the reputation of PA and it ended up in a major fiasco due to political games manship of Bhutto & Mujib ... but here it had nothing to do with Islam. Here the english have a very good saying which applies to you ... "you are comparing bananas with bringles" !

Will the Arab or Afgans consider muslims of pakistan as their own kind,when in ur opinion, together with them you ruled us for 1000yrs???
No the real fact is that pakistani didnt rule ,but were ruled just like rest of india by the OTHERS.

My intention isnt to offend any one ,but to express my opinion and understandings.

Wrong my dear .. in govt. employment in the GCC states (let alone Saudi Arabia) preference is given on the following basis for professional jobs :-

1. Locals
1. Western.
2. Arabs or Muslims.
3. Christians (followers of the book).
4. Hindus.

I was quite bemused at your last sentence, and would refrain from commenting on the hollow substance on which it is based on !

I'm no specialist in history.Infact its never among the subjects i studied in college.

But u seem to like rewriting history where Babur becomes a pashtun.yes,ofcourse rest of moughall emperors everyone up to Bhadur Shah Zafar too become pashtuns now.


I am wonder why!!
Is it because u have some pastun populatin,but no significant Uzbek or Tajik population who Moghuls actully were, to denominate them as pakistani too??


Coming Afgan/pashtuns,the whole world knows what Afgan people think of Durand line and Balochistan.

In pakistan, there are Pushtoon, Balochi who live along with Punjabi & Sindhi population.

Like pakistan,some pashtuns live in Indid(the khans) too because there are the desendants of the Afgan invaders who ruled parts indian subcontinet.

Now tell me how many ppl of punjabi & sindhi origin live in todays Afganistan???

Answer to ur article lies in above question about who ruled who.

Also u should read about some real ppl of ancient punjabi & sindhi origin(The ROMA ppl) who are now found in many parts of Europe.

 

[anand]

....................When you talk about Mahmud Ghaznavi / Ghauri & Babur .. well they were all Pushtoon .. Pushtoon's are divided due to the Durand line otherwise Afghan or Pakistani it is the same tribe / race.......................

When did Babur change his nationality, I believe he was a direct descendant of Timur through his father, and a descendant also of Genghis Khan through his mother.