Akbar

[Flintlock]

This is getting back to the argument we had in the Secularism thread - Is it Islam or an interpretation of Islam? And I am not arguing against Invasions, only against the "atrocities" committed while invading. While it is probable that the Mullah;s condoned invasions, how do you prove that the Mullahs advocated those atrocities? Was it out of fear, since the man capable of committing such atrocities may have been similarly inclined to commit them on his own population?

Getting back to the topic:

That is interesting. I'd say that the definition of Islam depends on its interpretation.
The question "Is it Islam or is it an interpretation of islam" can be answererd as "every sect of islam is a different interpretation".

How do I prove that mullahs condoned atrocities? Well, I don't think there is any conclusive way to prove it.(Maybe I could dig up writings done by the religious preachers of that time, I'll try to do that).

But one must understand that Islamic societies were always very close knit. There was this overarching unity which made it a formidable force.

In such a society, there is little place for different streams of thought. If the emperor thought in a certain way, it can be extrapolated, imo, over the rest of the population.

 

[roadrunner]

For the want of a better word, you are coming out as a fathead, with total blinkers on.

If you cannot fathom what you write drips with derogatory reference to Dravidians and implied ones too, then you are vision and mind challenged. You deserve pity!

What exactly is derogatory about being a Dravidian, aside from you being one?

The inferiority and persecution complex that burns in you is easily fathomed and it surfaces as the scum surfaces on boiling fat!

Alright I have an inferiority and persecution complex, even though I don't know why or how you have come to this conclusion.

An example of the above is that you compare this forum with Indian forums.

Why?

Do you want to suggest that this Forum cannot be better than an Indian forum and must follow Indians? Why should they follow anyone like a poodle?

What gibberish

You may be a camp follower and your mentality possible cannot break the barrier of the slave mentality or poodle like mentality, but do not bring the Moderators of this forum to your level.

There are many amongst them, the Moderators, who are quite intellectual in insight and very thought provoking posts come from them. They achieve the aim without stooping to the level of a guttersnipe!

Spare them that ignominy that cloaks you!

No more from me since I do not wish to have the sewer all over me in interacting with you!

Well, that was just a load of bluster and nothing of any substance.

 

[roadrunner]

Oh, thats fine.
There is no need to debate. Since you describe yourself as "whiter than Europeans", I think its perfectly clear that you are a proud descendant of the original aryan migrants.

Thanks

Not all white European people are Aryan descendants in the slightest. I more or less know which are, and which of the Asian communities are.

Not sure where the pride part comes into it. I don't believe I've revealed too much in many of the posts directly as to what my ancestry is. Though I could reveal a lot more if I was "proud" of it, since I have a lot more information. Stop being so presumptuous. And Indo-Aryan is not an ethnical group, it's just a language classification.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Stealth has been banned and so this thread is as good as closed!

 

[roadrunner]

Not at all. I am collecting my data which I shall present soon.

A very enlightening topic.

 

[TexasJohn]

History tells us that Pakistanis are real Aryan.

The German's history books think THEY are the real Aryans...they would hardly think of Pakistanis as being Aryan. Where does that leave us then??

 

[roadrunner]

The German's history books think THEY are the real Aryans...they would hardly think of Pakistanis as being Aryan. Where does that leave us then??

This isn't altogether impossible to imagine, given the histories of those regions of the world. There can be little doubt I think, that the Aryans were a group of lighter skinned caucasian people, but not necessarily all pale white. Undoubtedly some were blonde, some had red hair, some brown, and some black hair. This is where Hitler of course had redefined the characteristics of Aryan as blonde haired and blue eyed which it was not. Perhaps he took the extreme Aryan Gods as examples, it's a possibility, but on the subject of some Germans being part Aryan descendants, it's quite possible. It is also quite possible for some Afghanis and Pakistanis to be mixed Aryan descendants also (to this day brown hair, red hair, less so blonde is not uncommon in some areas of Pakistan). The possibilities exist because of both eastward (then southward) expansions of the srubnya culture and other proto-Aryan cultures as well as a westward expansion as far as the middle of germany, but not further it would seem. So some degree of relatedness does possibily exist in the less mixed forms of Eastern Germans and Afghanis/Pakistanis.

 

[Flintlock]

At worst, the Mughals were religious fanatics.

At best, they were exploitative imperialists.

There is nothing good to be said about them.

Nothing whatsoever.

Well, in retrospect, there is one good thing to be said: They brought the arch and the formal garden to India. But thats not saying much. Both innovations were of no consequence to the common Indian.

Well, actually it turns out that the mughals did not bring the arch to India.

The arch had been used since Mauryan times in Buddhist structures in western India.

Also, the Bengalis developed their own version of the arch independently.

As far as gardens are concerned, another myth has been busted. Huen Tsiang, the Chinese travelers, wrote accounts of gardens in India during his travels in the 7th century.

Here's the arch and vaulted roof being used in the Ajanta Caves, dating from 2nd cent. BC:

And here's the Bengali Arch:

 

[QuickSilver]

This isn't altogether impossible to imagine, given the histories of those regions of the world. There can be little doubt I think, that the Aryans were a group of lighter skinned caucasian people, but not necessarily all pale white. Undoubtedly some were blonde, some had red hair, some brown, and some black hair. This is where Hitler of course had redefined the characteristics of Aryan as blonde haired and blue eyed which it was not. Perhaps he took the extreme Aryan Gods as examples, it's a possibility, but on the subject of some Germans being part Aryan descendants, it's quite possible. It is also quite possible for some Afghanis and Pakistanis to be mixed Aryan descendants also (to this day brown hair, red hair, less so blonde is not uncommon in some areas of Pakistan). The possibilities exist because of both eastward (then southward) expansions of the srubnya culture and other proto-Aryan cultures as well as a westward expansion as far as the middle of germany, but not further it would seem. So some degree of relatedness does possibily exist in the less mixed forms of Eastern Germans and Afghanis/Pakistanis.

any basis or links u can provide for this???

the biggest sites in IVC were first found near Indus it does not mean that they were the first sites to come on the face of earth. moreover, many such sites are found in India too, some big many small and more are being discovered. so please refrain from calling it 'sindhi culture'. The IVC did not recognise the present pak-india border in the least sense.

 

[roadrunner]

any basis or links u can provide for this???

the biggest sites in IVC were first found near Indus it does not mean that they were the first sites to come on the face of earth. moreover, many such sites are found in India too, some big many small and more are being discovered. so please refrain from calling it 'sindhi culture'. The IVC did not recognise the present pak-india border in the least sense.

This is something I find amusing actually.

Question A) Who discovered the first Indus Valley sites? The British did while they ruled India.

Question B) Why were all these sites discovered in Pakistan by the British, as they had access to Indian land equally? Why were only small sites discovered in India by the British?

The answers to these questions do not prove that Pakistan had the majority of the IVC sites, but they do support the viewpoint that Pakistan was the centre of the IVC.

One calls it an Indus Valley culture (or a Pakistani culture) for a particular reason. That reason is that most of the sites are situated along the river system. As any map will show you, the Indus River system flows mainly in Pakistan. Using your logic, why would the IVC have started building in India, when the Indus river system does not flow there?

 

[QuickSilver]

This is something I find amusing actually.

Question A) Who discovered the first Indus Valley sites? The British did while they ruled India.

Question B) Why were all these sites discovered in Pakistan by the British, as they had access to Indian land equally? Why were only small sites discovered in India by the British?

The answers to these questions do not prove that Pakistan had the majority of the IVC sites

I see that you agreed on this point.

but they do support the viewpoint that Pakistan was the centre of the IVC.

When the answers to the questions "do not prove that Pakistan had the majority of the IVC sites", how does it support the view point that pakistan was the center of IVC?

One calls it an Indus Valley culture (or a Pakistani culture) for a particular reason. That reason is that most of the sites are situated along the river system. As any map will show you, the Indus River system flows mainly in Pakistan. Using your logic, why would the IVC have started building in India, when the Indus river system does not flow there?

The Indus valley civilasation was so called because most of the initial sites that were found were around indus but many are being found away from there as well which itself contends the usage of the name 'indus Valley civilisation' (and eventually 'pakistani culture')

The IVC is a shared back ground IMO.

Brahmins as a rule still practice the 'gayatri mantra' as prescribed in the rigvedic texts, (gayatri is another name for goddess saraswati which is also linked to IVC) and this mantra is supposed to be the mother of all mantras which might show the significance of saraswati as a river. when I talk about brahmins following rigvedic texts , am not saying IVC is exclusive to India but its not exclusive to pakistan. Its more plausible explanation to say it was 'shared' background.


cheers

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Brahmins as a rule still practice the 'gayatri mantra' as prescribed in the rigvedic texts, (gayatri is another name for goddess saraswati which is also linked to IVC) and this mantra is supposed to be the mother of all mantras which might show the significance of saraswati as a river. when I talk about brahmins following rigvedic texts , am not saying IVC is exclusive to India but its not exclusive to pakistan. Its more plausible explanation to say it was 'shared' background

A quick comment on this, since Stealth raised the same point on the ancient history thread - following an ideology or a set of beliefs that may be similar to those of a civilization is not justification for claiming that that civilization was "shared". Malaysians may follow Islam, but that does not mean they "share" Arab Islamic history.

They have links to that history through their religion, as Malay Muslims, but it is not the history of Malaysians.

Now I am not saying that this validates the "IVC was in Pakistan primarily and not in India" argument - I am arguing that using this logic of "still follow ancient practices" is flawed.

 

[QuickSilver]

Dear AgNoStIc MuSliM:

A quick comment on this, since Stealth raised the same point on the ancient history thread - following an ideology or a set of beliefs that may be similar to those of a civilization is not justification for claiming that that civilization was "shared". Malaysians may follow Islam, but that does not mean they "share" Arab Islamic history.

They have links to that history through their religion, as Malay Muslims, but it is not the history of Malaysians.

Now I am not saying that this validates the "IVC was in Pakistan primarily and not in India" argument - I am arguing that using this logic of "still follow ancient practices" is flawed.

as in islamic cultures, i dont recollect reading anywhere any Hindus or brahmins are 'converted'. (Malaysian Muslims are mostly converted muslims - converted from whatever their original faith was)

A brahmin is brahmin only by virtue of birth in a brahminical family. And hence for them to have rigvedic roots does mean that the lineage can be traced. The argument that malaysian muslims cannot claim arabic culture is true but comparing that to Brahminical histpry is false in this respect. I do not see any 'mass conersions' into brahminism in This side of the world due to any factors.

Your argument made me go through a lot of literature on the net. I appreciate your critical thinking.

Cheers

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Dear AgNoStIc MuSliM:



as in islamic cultures, i dont recollect reading anywhere any Hindus or brahmins are 'converted'. (Malaysian Muslims are mostly converted muslims - converted from whatever their original faith was)

A brahmin is brahmin only by virtue of birth in a brahminical family. And hence for them to have rigvedic roots does mean that the lineage can be traced. The argument that malaysian muslims cannot claim arabic culture is true but comparing that to Brahminical histpry is false in this respect. I do not see any 'mass conersions' into brahminism in This side of the world due to any factors.

Your argument made me go through a lot of literature on the net. I appreciate your critical thinking.

Cheers

Are you suggesting that one can only be a Hindu if he is born into a Hindu family?

 

[QuickSilver]

Are you suggesting that one can only be a Hindu if he is born into a Hindu family?

About a Brahmin yes, that is what I mean. I have not come accross any major religious conversion into brahmin culture as had happened with islam.

malays are converted muslims. but there is not such 'mass conversion' to be a brahmin. and in medieval ages, any brahmin marrying into another caste is no longer a brahmin. to be a brahmin, it is necessary that your father is a brahmin.