How can our pre-Islamic ancestors be claimed to be following Brahmanic or Zorastrian traditions if they ate beef and buried their dead?

[hatehs]

I hate to repeat myself, but if you don't understand what I have said read it again until you figure it out. Sanskrit was developed in India, and it has significant cultural and historical significance in Indian culture. While there are some cultural and historical connections between Sanskrit and other parts of Asia and Europe, Sanskrit is primarily associated with Indian culture and history. The majority of scholars agree that Sanskrit developed in India, and this is not a point of debate. Ask any scholar, where did Sanskrit originate. They will laugh at the claim that it originated in Central Asia.

Why would they laugh at that claim? Even you aren't trying to pretend Sanskrit came from India, which is why you keep saying it developed there instead. I think both of us are well aware where Sanskrit came from, but unfortunately, you feel the need to obfuscate because of a latent inferiority complex.

 

[Vikramaditya-I]

can a Muslim call himself Hindu? or follower of Sanatam Dharm - what is it that would make him a Hindu, or him claiming to be one is enough
shouldn't he at least believe in some core concepts like Bhrama or Vedas etc even if he does not believe in gods

There are no specific rules concerning what one should call themselves to be considered to be in Sanatan Dharm. To give you a perspective, there is a school of thought called Lokayata that rejects the existence of gods, an afterlife, and the concept of karma. They believed that only the physical world is real and that sensory experience is the only means of gaining knowledge, in short, it's the ancient version of F*** god, have fun, you get only one life. They are also part of Sanatan Dharm, so if you identify yourself as part of it, sure go ahead. There is no supreme authority who defines it.

 

[Vikramaditya-I]

Why would they laugh at that claim? Even you aren't trying to pretend Sanskrit came from India, which is why you keep saying it developed there instead. I think both of us are well aware where Sanskrit came from, but unfortunately, you feel the need to obfuscate because of a latent inferiority complex.

For a language to be said it came from someplace a few criteria should be filled in. For historical evidence to support a language's development in a region, there should be unique texts or oral traditions that can be traced back to that region.
Here is a question for you, if the Sanskrit language came from Central Asia, find me texts written in the region referring to any regions in Central Asia, Europe, a culture in Central Asia that used Sanskrit as a primary or secondary means of communication, texts that define the geography of the region anything. I'm waiting.

 

[Samurai_assassin]

A hindu associate has often said to me many times, Pakistans ancestors were hindus. If they were it makes absolutely no difference today.
I'm a muslim and so are my parents, so were my grandparents, my great grandparents and their parents. Before them I have no knowledge who my ancestors were or any intrest in what faith they followed. What matters today is I am a muslim and should make every effort to fully practice my faith in accordance to the laws and holy scriptures of islam.

 

[ThunderCat]

This is actually correct. Pakistanis and the Indus Valley civilisation have close links to Mesopotamia and Persia

Mesopotamia yes, Persia no which appeared just around the end of the Bronze Age. Indus Valley appeared around the start of the Bronze Age and possible ended sometime in the second century BCE.

Indus and persian civilization were centuries apart.

 

[hatehs]

For a language to be said it came from someplace a few criteria should be filled in. For historical evidence to support a language's development in a region, there should be unique texts or oral traditions that can be traced back to that region

Says who? Where did this criteria come from? Sanskrit sharing cognate with pretty much IE language is apparently not enough anymore to imply a common origin. Question for you: show me where you came up with this criteria.

There are no specific rules concerning what one should call themselves to be considered to be in Sanatan Dharm. To give you a perspective, there is a school of thought called Lokayata that rejects the existence of gods, an afterlife, and the concept of karma. They believed that only the physical world is real and that sensory experience is the only means of gaining knowledge, in short, it's the ancient version of F*** god, have fun, you get only one life. They are also part of Sanatan Dharm, so if you identify yourself as part of it, sure go ahead. There is no supreme authority who defines it.

So what rules were the Bamans who authored the Mahabarata following when they declared the people of Punjab and Bengal as mlecchas?

 

[Vikramaditya-I]

Says who? Where did this criteria come from? Sanskrit sharing cognate with pretty much IE language is apparently not enough anymore to imply a common origin. Question for you: show me where you came up with this criteria.

Says those scholars. Sharing cognate doesn't mean the language developed elsewhere. You still haven't provided any evidence for your Central Asian theory. What's next, will you argue that Panini who codified Sanskrit was a greek named Panicus? The burden of proof is not on me, it's for you to prove it. If sharing cognate is what your ultimate theory is then I'm sorry, you don't know about the topic you are discussing.

By your logic, Hebrew and Arabic come from Israel because they share cognates from being Semitic languages. But in reality, Hebrew developed in the Levant region while Arabic in the Arabian Peninsula.

I could argue Greek comes from Italy simply because Greek share cognate with Latin.

See the problem in your argument?

So what rules were the Bamans who authored the Mahabarata following when they declared the people of Punjab and Bengal as mlecchas?

Who are Bamans? The person who authored Mahabharata is a sage, whose mother was a hunter-gatherer/fisherwoman and father, another sage. I don't think that qualifies to be a "baman".

 

[hatehs]

Says those scholars

Which? Who? Would these also happen to be the guys who think the Vatican is a Hindu temple?

Sharing cognate doesn't mean the language developed elsewhere.

Good thing I didn't say the language didn't develop elsewhere LMAO. I just said it's origins weren't in India.

By your logic, Hebrew and Arabic come from Israel because they share cognates from being Semitic languages. B

No, this is not "by my logic" because we both know Semitic languages didn't originate in Israel. Try again.

I could argue Greek comes from Italy simply because Greek share cognate with Latin.

No, try again. Greek and Latin both do share a common ancestor so they do share an origin, but I would never say Greek comes from Latin. You need to mangle my arguments to make a point LMAO.

Who are Bamans? The person who authored Mahabharata is a sage,

And? He was a Baman. He studied Hindu texts. That was his occupation. It's cute how you try to use the word sage as if that would hide the fact that he's a Baman. Anyway, instead of sidestepping my question, maybe you can explain why this vile Baman decided Punjabis and Bengalis are barbarians in the text he authored?

 

[Menace2Society]

If Indus people had guarded themselves better they would not have been invaded by ganges people and we wouldn't be having this debate. Persians and pashtuns did well to guard their gene pool from their subhumanity.

 

[ThunderCat]

If Indus people had guarded themselves better they would not have been invaded by ganges people and we wouldn't be having this debate. Persians and pashtuns did well to guard their gene pool from their subhumanity.

You mean Indo-Aryans? Because IVC people went extinct before the first Aryan invasions of the Bronze Age which took place in the 17th century BCE. Iranic peoples or the ancestors of Wakhis, Persians, Pakhtuns etc. arrived much later anyways and stayed westward.

The first Iranic peoples arrived in the 12th century BCE which is the late Bronze Age period.

 

[Vikramaditya-I]

Which? Who? Would these also happen to be the guys who think the Vatican is a Hindu temple?

The ones with common sense.

Good thing I didn't say the language didn't develop elsewhere LMAO. I just said it's origins weren't in India

Then show me evidence of Sanskrit origins outside India. It is a simple question. Anything other than cognates?

No, this is not "by my logic" because we both know Semitic languages didn't originate in Israel. Try again

Try what again? I don't think I can explain anything simpler than that. The levant region is where Hebrew originated, Arabian Peninsula is where Arabic originated. Both share the same Cognates, and both were developed in different regions.

No, try again. Greek and Latin both do share a common ancestor so they do share an origin, but I would never say Greek comes from Latin. You need to mangle my arguments to make a point LMAO.

I never said that either, you make up an argument and prove it wrong. I said the Greek language didn't come from Italy. So Greek originated in Greece and Latin originated in Italy. It is that simple, now try this without short-circuiting your brain, Sanskrit originated in India. 😆 Kapiché?

And? He was a Baman. He studied Hindu texts. That was his occupation. It's cute how you try to use the word sage as if that would hide the fact that he's a Baman. Anyway, instead of sidestepping my question, maybe you can explain why this vile Baman decided Punjabis and Bengalis are barbarians in the text he authored?

You lack elementary knowledge on the subject. Baman? It is Brahman. Now, how interesting you proved caste is not by birth but by profession your entire argument fell flat there, so you are saying his supposed lower caste birth doesn't matter, the profession is what defines your caste? Apply the same logic there, people born in Panchanada are not mlecchas by birth it's their actions that define it, and not all people are called mlecchas Prince Arjuna lived there under the protection of a panchanada King while in exile. Mahabharata never makes such sweeping statements to define people.

An important fact to consider is, there is no mention of Punjab in Mahabharata, the Punjab that is today is not the Panchanada in Mahabharata and Panchanada extended to what is today's Afghanistan from UP, Haryana, towards the west of India to what is today's Pakistan. You apply a skewed logic with modern geographical locations to something that happened 2000 years ago. You try to find a historic semblance to your identity from the texts we use without even understanding what it is fully.
I will make it simple for you, ancient Pakistan does not exist. You are wasting your time over historic revisionism, there is not much support for your argument or consensus.