US urges India to avoid Pakistan-centric policies

[Marathaman]

Alrite, I've been earning some flak for the poor quality of my posts, so here's a nice detailed one.

Hi,

Most of the conversions in india were not forced, but rather islam provided equality to all regardless of your skin color and caste system and that was the major factor in people converting to islam in the sub-continent and they came in droves ( now don't get me wrong).

On the contrary, all Islam did was simplify the caste system to just 2 castes. Muslims and dhimmis. the dhimmis were the lower caste, who did not have any previliges and were treated like sub-humans by the muslims rulers. They were not allowed government posts, had to pay crippling taxes, and their temples were frequently looted for their gold. In short, they had no choice but to convert if they wanted a higher place in society.
Moreover, several islamic rulers,iconoclasts , in their religious zeal, frequently raided hindu temples and massacred them.

Once the mughal empre was formed, a few islamic rulers were more mature, and Akbar even studied the indegenous religions. His minister famously was Birbal, a hindu. There were a few more muslim rulers who re conciliated the two faiths.

Just by changing your religion, you became and were accepted as an equal human being with equal rights just like any other citizen, why would anyone wanted to be left behind. Suddenly the high caste hindu was not the only beloved of god but Allah loved them all equally without prejudice.

Yes that is true, some lower-caste hindus would undoubtedly have converted to escape the caste-system. It is a matter of debate how many of them actually did, since muslims remained a minority.

If islam was indeed spread by force in india, hinduism would have been a part of the history books----case in point---spain---after the victory by the catholics in spain in the 1400's, there was no muslim or jew left alive in spain. Either they were killed, forced to change religion or they emigrated. Canyou believe it---nobody left after 700 years of rule.

Islam was spread by different means in different eras and areas. Regions like Balochistan and Sindh were frequently raided by nomadic armies. But in general, the islamic conquest of India is considered to be one of the bloodiest in history.

Here's what william durant has to say:

he Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period.

The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese.

As Braudel put it: "The levies it had to pay were so crushing that one catastrophic harvest was enough to unleash famines and epidemics capable of killing a million people at a time

So lets not kid ourselves here. The muslim invaders and rulers were largely very brutal. Most of Pakistan's buddhists couldn't resist the islamic invaders simply because their religion did not allow them to be violent. They were massacred with ease and conquered.

In medieval times, there was no short-term "propaganda" to win hearts and minds. The conquered either submitted to the foreign rule or died. It was quite simple.

Why do you think that hindu heirarchy is so much against pakistan----it is because our predessesors took all the power away from the hindu temples and the brahmin became a nobody---a brahmin in front of whom the kings would bow down to---suddenly this untouchable shooder converts to islam and now he can stand in front of the brahmin and tells him that he is an equal----. Centuries ago, this brahmin took a vow to totally annihilate us one day.

Lol...no brahmin as taken any vows buddy. I find it pretty difficult to believe that brahmin parents make their children repeat some centuries old oath to annhilate pakistan or something of the sort. Sheesh...we're living in the 21st century. People are worried about their jobs, not the historical hatred or whatever.
Its you who seem to have some sense of historical revenge here.

Indians in general have so much against Pakistan as an idea, because it goes completely agains the idea of India. Pakistan was formed because its founders had no faith in the idea of what modern India should be like. I said something similar earlier but received an infraction, so I won't repeat its details now, but I hope you get my point.

We may have forgotten what may have happened, but they have not.

RRRite....from what I can see, its you who hasn't forgotten "what has happened". Whatever that is supposed to mean.

 

[dabong1]

Alrite, I've been earning some flak for the poor quality of my posts, so here's a nice detailed one..

If you got your facts right,it would be even better

On the contrary, all Islam did was simplify the caste system to just 2 castes. Muslims and dhimmis. the dhimmis were the lower caste, who did not have any previliges and were treated like sub-humans by the muslims rulers. They were not allowed government posts, had to pay crippling taxes, and their temples were frequently looted for their gold. In short, they had no choice but to convert if they wanted a higher place in society. ...

Sorry but your wrong....muslims paid zakat tax which was obligatory on muslims ,while non muslims paid jizya tax,which was only nominally more then zakat.

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb's imposition ofthe jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated this. Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb's jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to point out that jizya is nothing more than a war tax which was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the defense of the country. That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country. This tax was not collected from women, and neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens. For payment of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim government to protect the life, property and wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the government failed to protect its citizens, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned.

It should be pointed out here that zakat (2.5% of savings) and ‘ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab). They also paid sadaqah, fitrah, and khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims. Further to Auranzeb's credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usually mentioned. In his book Mughal Administration, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb's reign in power, nearly sixty-five types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of fifty million rupees from the state treasury.


.......if they did,it must have been a very weak religion that people changed there faith to save a few pennies.

Moreover, several islamic rulers,iconoclasts , in their religious zeal, frequently raided hindu temples and massacred them...

I could say the same thing about babri masjid.

Once the mughal empre was formed, a few islamic rulers were more mature, and Akbar even studied the indegenous religions. His minister famously was Birbal, a hindu. There were a few more muslim rulers who re conciliated the two faiths.

Yes that is true, some lower-caste hindus would undoubtedly have converted to escape the caste-system. It is a matter of debate how many of them actually did, since muslims remained a minority....

Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857 CE, probably no one has received as much condemnation from Western and Hindu writers as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated against them in awarding high administrative positions, and who interfered in their religious matters. This view has been heavily promoted in the government approved textbooks in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947). These are fabrications against one of the best rulers of India who was pious, scholarly, saintly, un-biased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent, and far-sighted.

Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years. Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti-Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions." During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?

Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus were favored. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had fourteen Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court. But this fact is somewhat less known.

Some of the Hindu historians have accused Aurangzeb of demolishing Hindu Temples. How factual is this accusation against a man, who has been known to be a saintly man, a strict adherent of Islam? The Qur'an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (surah al-Baqarah 2:256). The surah al-Kafirun clearly states: "To you is your religion and to me is mine." It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of Islam of his caliber, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things that are contrary to the dictates of the Qur'an.

Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History) used in Bengal for the 5th and 6th graders states: "If Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates for use as Temple sites and support thereof in Benares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant."

A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north of Chitrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the Emperor himself. The proof of Aurangzeb's land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same textbook reads: "During the fifty year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities." (p. 138) Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb's fifty year reign and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way.

While some Hindu historians are retracting the lies, the textbooks and historic accounts in Western countries have yet to admit their error and set the record straight.

Islam was spread by different means in different eras and areas. Regions like Balochistan and Sindh were frequently raided by nomadic armies. But in general, the islamic conquest of India is considered to be one of the bloodiest in history.

Here's what william durant has to say:

he Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period..

So between 800 AD to 1700 AD it was only muslims killing only hindus was it?
Just one example of many is that did not Timur defeat Nasir-u Din Mehmud and then sack dehli...both where muslims.

The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese.

As Braudel put it: "The levies it had to pay were so crushing that one catastrophic harvest was enough to unleash famines and epidemics capable of killing a million people at a time...

Am sure they had a reliable system in counting the amount of deaths that took place.

[So lets not kid ourselves here. The muslim invaders and rulers were largely very brutal. Most of Pakistan's buddhists couldn't resist the islamic invaders simply because their religion did not allow them to be violent. They were massacred with ease and conquered.

In medieval times, there was no short-term "propaganda" to win hearts and minds. The conquered either submitted to the foreign rule or died. It was quite simple.....

I think if you check your history the remnants of buddhist left over after being nearly wiped out by hindu warlords converted to islam.

Indians in general have so much against Pakistan as an idea, because it goes completely agains the idea of India. Pakistan was formed because its founders had no faith in the idea of what modern India should be like. I said something similar earlier but received an infraction, so I won't repeat its details now, but I hope you get my point...

Again if you check your facts the muslims in india in the space of 60 years have been forced to the bottom of the pile.

 

[dabong1]

Dabong, that is a very silly article indeed. The "newspaper" dalit voice is so full of caste-hatred that it ends up having completely opposite effect from what is intended.
.

I was just pointing out that its just not muslims that accuse indian of caste discrimnation but your very own hindu "brothers".

 

[Marathaman]

I was just pointing out that its just not muslims that accuse indian of caste discrimnation but your very own hindu "brothers".

Please read up on Dalit Voice before quoting it. The paper is anti-hindu, anti-semetic. Its official view of the holocaust is that it never happened. It is both racist and casteist, and basically not worthy of taking seriously.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Sorry but your wrong....muslims paid zakat tax which was obligatory on muslims ,while non muslims paid jizya tax,which was only nominally more then zakat.

Why should that be?

All men are equal before God and Islam is said to believe in equality and justice! Can anyone state that it is otherwise?

 

[Awesome]

The old days!

Paying tax was a hell better than getting your heads beheaded or get hanged like in the inquisitions.

 

[bhangra12345]

The old days!

Paying tax was a hell better than getting your heads beheaded or get hanged like in the inquisitions.

Simply another form of saying that there was discrimination and fear of the treepost.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

The old days!

Paying tax was a hell better than getting your heads beheaded or get hanged like in the inquisitions.

Very true!

Survival!

Just like joining the WoT, which is slowing turning out to be a hoax!

Yet, survival is the key component.

 

[Awesome]

But it's nothing really so outlandish if you think about it. Muslims paid Zakat, non Muslims paid Jizya.

Different names for a tax.

 

[Always Neutral]

Taxes are bad. I like Dubai.

 

[dabong1]

Why should that be?

All men are equal before God and Islam is said to believe in equality and justice! Can anyone state that it is otherwise?

" jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to point out that jizya is nothing more than a war tax which was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the defense of the country. That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country. This tax was not collected from women, and neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens. For payment of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim government to protect the life, property and wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the government failed to protect its citizens, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned.

It should be pointed out here that zakat (2.5% of savings) and ‘ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab). They also paid sadaqah, fitrah, and khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims."

With a name like salim i am assuming your muslim,you either believe what the koran tells you or you dont.
When people in the past paid "tribune" was that also discrimination?

PS...how many non muslims living in muslims countries pay the jizya in todays age?

 

[Always Neutral]

How come Dubai does not have these taxes ? Just curious as its an Islamic country ?

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

But it's nothing really so outlandish if you think about it. Muslims paid Zakat, non Muslims paid Jizya.

Different names for a tax.

Different rates in the context of the claim in a post of equality and justice is what I am alluding to!

Dabong,

I do not subscribe to religion but I also do not go ballistics in a perverted manner, if someone does practice a Faith. After all, it is a matter of choice and personal belief.
Read this:
"My uncle the Muslim atheist" by Hanif Kureish
My uncle the Muslim atheist | The Guardian | Guardian Unlimited

Tribute is an jeziya are not quite the same thing.

 

[Spring Onion]

Different rates in the context of the claim in a post of equality and justice is what I am alluding to!

The rates depended on the economical position of the people.
Same as the more rich a Muslim the more he has to pay Zakat as compare to the one who is less richer than him.

 

[Spring Onion]

Please read up on Dalit Voice before quoting it. The paper is anti-hindu, anti-semetic. Its official view of the holocaust is that it never happened. It is both racist and casteist, and basically not worthy of taking seriously.

You mean there is no abuse or bad treatment of oppression against the Dalits in reality and only found in this newspaper???
Why this newspaper is anti-Hindu ???? when the people who are running it are also Hindu.
If you think Brahmins consider Dalits as equal part of Hinduism than why would poor Dalits take pain to speak against own Hindus ???

But ok even if we accept your arugments about the newspaper, than let me quote some other news resources that is not Anti-Hindu
-------
By Tom O'NeillPhotographs by William Albert Allard



Discrimination against India's lowest Hindu castes is technically illegal. But try telling that to the 160 million Untouchables, who face violent reprisals if they forget their place.



Get a taste of what awaits you in print from this compelling excerpt.

The sins of Girdharilal Maurya are many, his attackers insisted. He has bad karma. Why else would he, like his ancestors, be born an Untouchable, if not to pay for his past lives? Look, he is a leatherworker, and Hindu law says that working with animal skins makes him unclean, someone to avoid and revile. And his unseemly prosperity is a sin. Who does this Untouchable think he is, buying a small plot of land outside the village? Then he dared speak up, to the police and other authorities, demanding to use the new village well. He got what Untouchables deserve.

One night, while Maurya was away in a nearby city, eight men from the higher Rajput caste came to his farm. They broke his fences, stole his tractor, beat his wife and daughter, and burned down his house. The message was clear: Stay at the bottom where you belong.

* * * * * *

To be born a Hindu in India is to enter the caste system, one of the world's longest surviving forms of social stratification. Embedded in Indian culture for the past 1,500 years, the caste system follows a basic precept: All men are created unequal. The ranks in Hindu society come from a legend in which the main groupings, or varnas, emerge from a primordial being. From the mouth come the Brahmans—the priests and teachers. From the arms come the Kshatriyas—the rulers and soldiers. From the thighs come the Vaisyas—merchants and traders. From the feet come the Sudras—laborers. Each varna in turn contains hundreds of hereditary castes and subcastes with their own pecking orders.

A fifth group describes the people who are achuta, or untouchable. The primordial being does not claim them. Untouchables are outcasts—people considered too impure, too polluted, to rank as worthy beings. Prejudice defines their lives, particularly in the rural areas, where nearly three-quarters of India's people live. Untouchables are shunned, insulted, banned from temples and higher caste homes, made to eat and drink from separate utensils in public places, and, in extreme but not uncommon cases, are raped, burned, lynched, and gunned down.

Get the whole story in the pages of National Geographic magazine.

Untouchable @ National Geographic Magazine