Akbar and other Mughals

[TopCat]

Hats off to u logic... Buddism which has been flourishing for many centuries from King Ashoka to Pala dynasty till 1000AD ,started to disappear starting from the AFPAK region coinciding the muslim invasion in to india frm the west and....u say its due to the forced death by the Brahmins...and u think its the Brahmins of the AFPAK(khamboja) region who destroyed the Buddha Stupas and monasteries and then converted to islam along with the Buddists.


"Muslims surely did not patronage Budhism, but they are not responsible for its demise. It is the Hindu Brahmins who very fondly took care of that long before the arrival of Muslims. "

Hello,check out the history of pala dynasty who were chief patrons of Buddism ruled till the 900AD in AFPAK((khamboja) ) region and till 1120AD in the areas of Bengal ,Assam including current day Bangladesh .

Fileevapala.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talked about pala dynasty here.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/35113-akbar-other-mughals-12.html#post510163

Second you have to get some insight why out of nowhere Bengal became a Muslim majority region. All the answers lies here.

 

[Khajur]

Talked about pala dynasty here.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/35113-akbar-other-mughals-12.html#post510163

Second you have to get some insight why out of nowhere Bengal became a Muslim majority region. All the answers lies here.

Bengal was the last frontier of Buddhism and the last ruler of Buddism ruled Bengal name Mahipal. By the end of Mahipal the whole India except Bengal were cleaned up and the remaining Buddhist all flocked in Bengal. Most of the Buddhist monasteries outside Bengal were taken over or destroyed by Hindus (ofcourse few still remained). Ohh by the way Bengal means current day Bangaldesh, WB and Bihar, Orissa which included Nalinda as well.
Buddhist were always in pressure in the western part of the kingdom and eventually they have more density in the the eastern side of the kingdom.
The end result was when Islam came to India, most ot the Buddhist converted to Muslim and eventually current day Bangladesh turned into Muslim majority and the only place within thousand miles where you can see that many Muslims.

Lets go by ur own logic:

But the the question is why did those Buddist who were thriving for many centuries converted to Islam??

What forced them to convert to islam instead following their age old practice of Buddism as usual ??

Its like they were waiting for the arrival of islam...

As u urself pointed out ,they were are Buddists ,not some lower cast hindus who got converted after long suffering the Caste biases prevelent in hindu religion...

The fact remains Both hindu and Buddist were either lured or forced to join islam after muslims started to dominate india for long time ...some long resisted and remain hindu till today ,but others had a different destiny to carve.

 

[TopCat]

Well, If it were lower cast hindus then the whole India would have been a muslim majority by now or at least where lower cast were in large number like Bihar.
There was a big reason for Buddhist to get converted to Islam. If you look at the conversion process in Bengal then you will know. It was not done in individual level but in a community level like converting the whole village at a time. Which suggest those were of the same kind of people who took shelter under the Islam.
Right after Pala dynasty the Senas (Bhramin) took over and they ruled for 200 or more years when it was belived that there were large scale subjugation on Buddhist. Also there was another big factor, when Buddhist lost control of power, the ordinary buddhist found themselves off guard. They were started treating like Sudras or lower caste in every social and administrative level.
Senas (the ruler of bengal that time) became so disconnected from its own people that only 18 soldiers of Khilji could defeat the last Sena king. He ran away, even historians never looked for him means where he gone afterwards.

After Senas defeat, there were smaller kings all over the places who used to rule smaller kingdom within Bengal and they were the most notorious of all. I should mention Shah Jalal the saint who basically spread Islam in Bengal were invited by a convert muslim in Sylhet who were tortured by then King Gour Govinda. Later Shah Jalal came and defeated that king and started preaching people.

 

[nitesh28]

so the Mughals who were the outsiders who were infact central asians were Indians ?????????????? how did i miss that nitesh


OMG

iguess i phrased my sentense wrong. bbut after being here for so many ears i guess they were indians

 

[Khajur]

Well, If it were lower cast hindus then the whole India would have been a muslim majority by now or at least where lower cast were in large number like Bihar.
There was a big reason for Buddhist to get converted to Islam. If you look at the conversion process in Bengal then you will know. It was not done in individual level but in a community level like converting the whole village at a time. Which suggest those were of the same kind of people who took shelter under the Islam.
Right after Pala dynasty the Senas (Bhramin) took over and they ruled for 200 or more years when it was belived that there were large scale subjugation on Buddhist. Also there was another big factor, when Buddhist lost control of power, the ordinary buddhist found themselves off guard. They were started treating like Sudras or lower caste in every social and administrative level.
Senas (the ruler of bengal that time) became so disconnected from its own people that only 18 soldiers of Khilji could defeat the last Sena king. He ran away, even historians never looked for him means where he gone afterwards.

After Senas defeat, there were smaller kings all over the places who used to rule smaller kingdom within Bengal and they were the most notorious of all. I should mention Shah Jalal the saint who basically spread Islam in Bengal were invited by a convert muslim in Sylhet who were tortured by then King Gour Govinda. Later Shah Jalal came and defeated that king and started preaching people.

I still believe no person in the world would change his own religion if tourtured by people of other religions ...it would've logical to understand if some lower cast dalit changes his religion due to upper cast opression...but why Buddists would think up leaving Buddism even if they were tortured...by hindus?? its very non plausible explanation.

 

[nitesh28]

lol asoka is the worst example you can give after the battle of kalinga he killed a 100,000 innocent people for no reason!!! he did so much of a blood bath that he himself got tired of it eventually and took up Buddhism!!

the moghuls gave you your cusinie they made all the small quarreling tribes unite under there banner!

under the moguls bloodshed was not a common practice.....

on a lighter note

if you think only mughlai is what all indian food is about then u dont know anything about indian food if i were to start naming indian dishes this form would become tooooooo long

 

[TopCat]

I still believe no person in the world would change his own religion if tourtured by people of other religions ...it would've logical to understand if some lower cast dalit changes his religion due to upper cast opression...but why Buddists would think up leaving Buddism even if they were tortured...by hindus?? its very non plausible explanation.

Well Islam had its own apeal that time. Large scale conversion took place. Starting with buddhist, lower cast, sujugated people then as the Islam taken the dominance position the upper cast and well off people accepted Islam later on. So the end result is its Hindu and Buddist both regardless of cast accepted Islam in Bengal.

 

[eastwatch]

This is post #183 sent by iajdani:

Senas (the ruler of bengal that time) became so disconnected from its own people that only 18 soldiers of Khilji could defeat the last Sena king. He ran away, even historians never looked for him means where he gone afterwards.
[/QUOTE]
I must straighten some historical facts. The story of 17 Muslim soldiers taking over Hindu Bengal that has remaind popular among the Muslims of Bengal is half-true. In those days in Hindustan, a country was usually known in the name of its Capital City. In case of Bengal, it was called Gaud (GOUR).

Raja Laxman Sen, because of old age, used to live much of his time in the temple town of Nadia and his eldest son Prince Biswarup Sen used to administer the country from Gaud on behalf of his King father. Instead of attacking a fortified Capital Gaud, Ikhtier Uddin Muhammed bin Bakhtier Khilji opted for attacking Nadia and capture the King.

In those days, Bengal/Bihar had hardly a population of more than 3 or 4 million. Most of the country was filled with jungles and marshes. Bakhtier hid his 10,000 to 12,000 horsemen somewhere in the jungles a little away from the City-palace with an instruction that they would move after receiving signals from the advance party.

Bakhtier took 17 of his horsemen with him, who camouflaged themselves as merchants. They entered the main gate without creating any doubts because the soldiers guarding the gates were accustomed to the sight of foreign traders.

But, grasping the absence of a large number of troops in the City, Bakhtier sent signals to the Turkic force who were hiding in the jungles and started fighting the guards. The palace was taken, and the old, but very respectable King Laxman, left the City hurriedly in a fast moving rowboat. Within seconds, the rowboat was out of reach of the Turkish archers.

I believe, there were many Turkic people who came and settled in Bengal after they built their kingdom here. But, this truth remains hidden underneath the story of 17 horsemen. Bakhtiar invaded Bengal from the nearby Bihar where many thousands of his Afghan Turkic countrymen had already migrated to work under him.

Moreover, the entire north India was under the control of Afghan Turkic Kutubuddin Aibek, who was ruling this land from Delhi. Caravans were always moving from Delhi to Ghor in Afghanistan, bringing in the spouses and children of those Khilji Turks who had decided to settle in their dreamland HINDUSTAN.

Only two years after he took over Bengal, Bakhtier took 10,000 horsemen to invade Tibet and simultaneously sent another 4000 to 5,000 troops under two brothers named Shihab and Shahab to invade Jajnagar of Orissa. Moreover, he kept more or less an equal number of troops to administer and protect his Kingdom in Bengal and Bihar during his absence. It means, he had at least 30,000 to 40,000 able-bodied troops with him in Bengal.

Considering that all the Muslims in those days were soldiers, it can be safely assumed that the number of Afghan Turkic population that came to Bengal was no less than 250,000 in number. It was a mass migration of people living in poor Afghanistan to a land of plenty. Many hundred thousands others chose to live in the northern India.

People wonder why suddenly, there are more Muslims in Bengal than it is in Delhi. I believe, conversion plus the reasons like that I have cited above are responsible for the increase of Muslim population in Bengal. Similar migration to Bengal happened during the entire Muslim period.

Please refer to 1) Taj-ul-Nasiri written by Minhaj Uddin Siraj and 2) History of Bengal by Charles Stewart, and many other history books.

 

[IBRIS]

Ignorant people are taken in by the supposed dynasties judgement of thing that Astrologicaly distroys ones mind to the point where the athiest seems more of a saviour than the original saviour of the faith. This encourages the enemies and rivals to dominate the confused, the ordinary indavidual to the point where his judgements are viewed as a genious, perhaps someone should really realize the dragon is observing from above without the respect of ones faith or his views. All it takes for oppertunists to strike when the metal is hot. "Then he could bend it to what ever way he wantss it to be".

 

[ice_man]

Constant battle between tribes? What mumbo-jumbo are you spouting buddy?
Are you telling me that the Mughals didn't fight any wars? :lol"

Sure, Mughals were great architects and had high taste in music and culture. They were a cultured lot, I'll give you that. But the damage they did to Indian sciences and progress is too deep to forgive.

Infact, under the Mughals, North India was so backward and supersititious that even today the results are showing. South India which managed to hold of Mughal rule for a long period of time, is today the most prosperous, sees less of caste-conflict, and is much better in terms of science and development than the parts that were under Mughal rule.
Infact, there is a direct correlation between the backwardness of a place, and its length under Mughal rule. They are proportional to each other.

ok what nonsense is this how can you be cultured and architecturally advanced and yet be lacking in science? and if the moghuls lacked in SCIENCE as you claim how come they kept winning in battles must be superior weaponry...means superior sciences that develop such weapons!!!! so before you tell me SOUTH is better than north please do your research correct!!! and like i said RENAISSANCE the great period in history of the west was when they got cultured so if you agree with me that moghuls were already cultured means they were modern in terms of everything...science music arts you name it!!!

 

[ice_man]

British title was 'Khan Bahadur' and for Hindus it was 'Roy Bahadur.' British had shown many ways to disrespect the natives of India. But, the family title Khan is not one of their gifts.

During the Muslim rule in India, only the very braves and big Mansabders were given this title either by the Delhi Badshah or by the Subedars. However, it could be that many of the receivers of this title belonged to the Pathan stock, because they were indeed braves. So, this title ultimately became a family title of the descendents of those who were bestowed with the title 'Khan.'

However, during and after the British period, all the Pathans started to use this title after their names. This is why people in the subcontinent think that a person with the title of 'Khan' is a Pathan, when, in fact, he may or may not be a pure blooded Pathan.

Pathan Muslim immigrants who have been living in India and Bangladesh are certainly mixed blooded people, and some may not be Pathan at all. But, people in India think of them as Pathan. In BD nobody is aware that some people living among them with the family title of 'khan' are Pathan. Collectively, we regard ourselves as only Muslims of Bengal or Bangali Muslims.

exactly so my point is correct that when you talk about pathan's being true indian blood...then your sampling is incorrect!!! you are assuming mixed breed as true blood....or people who were just given the title KHAN....as being true blood!!

true pathan blood could be traced back to the armies of khorasan and not indian by origin....

 

[toxic_pus]

exactly so my point is correct that when you talk about pathan's being true indian blood...then your sampling is incorrect!!! you are assuming mixed breed as true blood....or people who were just given the title KHAN....as being true blood!!

true pathan blood could be traced back to the armies of khorasan and not indian by origin....

Did you actually take your time to read this. The research was done in Pakistan on the basis of regional distribution of ethnic population and not on the basis of what some people use their surname as.

Really pathetic. Oh btw, there is not such thing as 'true blood'. And also, the research doesn't claim PATHANs to have originated in India. Read, understand and then post your rejoinder

 

[ice_man]

on a lighter note

if you think only mughlai is what all indian food is about then u dont know anything about indian food if i were to start naming indian dishes this form would become tooooooo long

lol buddy i know alot of indian food from dosas idli to sambaar!!! but hey mughali is the one the world knows about in terms of all the i guess chicken dishes or tandooris....

 

[ice_man]

Did you actually take your time to read this. The research was done in Pakistan on the basis of regional distribution of ethnic population and not on the basis of what some people use their surname as.

Really pathetic. Oh btw, there is not such thing as 'true blood'. And also, the research doesn't claim PATHANs to have originated in India. Read, understand and then post your rejoinder

no i lost myself half way through the jargon!!! but hey if its regional then again it comes down to settlers from different areas

and what do you mean there is nothing as true blood isn't that concept gained from HINDUISM where hindu BRAHMAN are born Brahmans???



and besides why are we arguing atheists,Muslims and all kind of nonsense what about the main topic moghuls and stuff.....

 

[toxic_pus]

no i lost myself half way through the jargon!!! but hey if its regional then again it comes down to settlers from different areas

That results in, what is called 'intermingling'. Diversification of Genes happens that way and that is why, there is no such thing as 'true blood'.

and what do you mean there is nothing as true blood isn't that concept gained from HINDUISM where hindu BRAHMAN are born Brahmans???

If this is your idea of flaming, then its not working on me. Try harder. Anybody can claim anything. That doesn't change reality.

and besides why are we arguing atheists,Muslims and all kind of nonsense what about the main topic moghuls and stuff.....

Well, scroll back. You will find out.