Churches burnt in India

[roadrunner]

It cannot. the phrase "Indian grammarian" and "born in India" are completely different.
"Indian grammarian" could refer to Ancient Indian as well, but "born in India" would indicate an exact place, and would be wrong. It would always be "born in Pakistan".

Unbelievable! Now you start to distinguish born in a country from belonging to a country Of all the times to start doing so, why pick now when it isn't the point. The point here is that the words "Indian grammarian" have been mentioned in an Oregon College website without any qualification that the person was from today's Pakistan. This proves you wrong that there would always be a note mentioning Pakistan if the article refers to an Ancient Pakistani as an "Indian".

Please get some references. I have shown you plenty of them, both modern and historical, referring to his birthplace as either Bhillamala or Ujjain or working in Bhillamala or Ujjain etc.

I couldn't find more than 2-3 references casually mentioning him as "Brahmagupta of Multan", probably choosing Multan because it was an important city close to his place of birth.

You have shown me I believe only 1 reference that says Bhramagupta was actually BORN in India..that too from a website using a source from another site saying that it is only probably that he was born in Rajasthan. The Strasbourg University Website clearly states Multan, as do many google book searches. Remember, I am disputing where Brahmagupta was born with you, which virtually none of your references refer to.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

It matters not where Brahamagupta was born.

What matters is what he contributed.

I am not too sure about the script he wrote in, but was it akin to Arabic?

Are there words like Brahama or Gupta or Brahamagupta in Arabic or Persian?

If there are, then there is sure some link with Arabia or Persia or to those who claim succession to such cultures and lineage.

 

[Flintlock]

It matters not where Brahamagupta was born.

What matters is what he contributed.

I am not too sure about the script he wrote in, but was it akin to Arabic?

Are there words like Brahama or Gupta or Brahamagupta in Arabic or Persian?

If there are, then there is sure some link with Arabia or Persia or to those who claim succession to such cultures and lineage.

It might not matter to him, but it matters to us. It matters because Brahmagupta was part of the Hindu/Buddhist culture and Hindu/Buddhist civilization.

If someone claims that his culture is superior to the culture of Brahmagupta, he cannot claim his achievements.

 

[Flintlock]

Unbelievable! Now you start to distinguish born in a country from belonging to a country Of all the times to start doing so, why pick now when it isn't the point. The point here is that the words "Indian grammarian" have been mentioned in an Oregon College website without any qualification that the person was from today's Pakistan. This proves you wrong that there would always be a note mentioning Pakistan if the article refers to an Ancient Pakistani as an "Indian".

My words are perfectly clear. Try to understand how the accuracy of statements change when different words are used.

You have shown me I believe only 1 reference that says Bhramagupta was actually BORN in India..that too from a website using a source from another site saying that it is only probably that he was born in Rajasthan. The Strasbourg University Website clearly states Multan, as do many google book searches. Remember, I am disputing where Brahmagupta was born with you, which virtually none of your references refer to.

Oh please, try going through my references once more. I can produce ten more if I waste some more time on google, but I'm sure the ones I provided earlier are good enough.

If you are not satisfied with my references, too bad. Keep believing that Brahmagupta was born in Multan, and remain happy.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

It might not matter to him, but it matters to us. It matters because Brahmagupta was part of the Hindu/Buddhist culture and Hindu/Buddhist civilization.

If someone claims that his culture is superior to the culture of Brahmagupta, he cannot claim his achievements.

From that point of view, it is fine.

The cultural superiority is misplaced.

But then when one is always searching for an indentity and it becomes necessary to link it with important aspects of history that is flattering.

I feel one should not grudge one such indulgences.

 

[Vinod2070]

Now that we are back to discussing history, I guess, I would first like to congratulate RoadRunner that at least he feels that the ancient pre-Islamic pre-Invasion history was something worthwhile and the invading Arabian and Afghan hordes did not bring civilization to this country as they claim. Indeed quite the opposite, they destroyed a great flourishing civilization.

A good start indeed and a welcome change....

I hope many more such myths will be broken in due course.

I am really getting a bit confused here. What is the basis of the claim that the lands comprising Pakistan were a different civilization? Is the Hindu/Buddhist/Sanskrit/Vedic civilization being claimed for Pakistan here!!!! Then why is it not in evidence in Pakistan? If most Pakistanis are of foreign invading race descent as they claim, then the people in the modern India are the only ones who can claim that history and civilization. Pl. resolve this internal contradiction first. The Syeds and Sheikhs in Pakistan don't own any of my glorious history. For me the invaders were barbarians and plunderers of the worst order.

What do these claimants of this history feel about these invaders who destroyed this civilization in Pakistan? If you welcome them, you are no part of the history. If you condemn them, pl. do so openly first here and let's take it from there.

Why do you see so many peolple here refer to "Indian Hindu" as a term of abuse. I have rarely seen any Indian even using the term "Pakistani Muslim" here. You can't have it both ways, claiming that history and rejecting it at the same time. Isn't it?

Any person born after 1947 in Pakistan was a Pakistani. Before that, well hmmmmm.

 

[Vinod2070]

From that point of view, it is fine.

The cultural superiority is misplaced.

But then when one is always searching for an indentity and it becomes necessary to link it with important aspects of history that is flattering.

I feel one should not grudge one such indulgences.

I guess, I agree that this is a part of the attempt to find an identity for some people.

On the one hand we had Bhutto claiming that Pakistan will turn its back on India and find an Islamic identity towards it's west. And now some people are trying to exclusively claim a Hindu/Buddhist/Vedic/Sanskrit civilization which was destroyed by those very invaders in these very parts!

At this rate, I won't be surprised if the Taliban also started claiming Buddhist legacy for itself after destroying the unprotected Bamiyan Buddhas! As per the logic being advanced here, they have every right to do that, since Afghanistan was an important center of Buddism. The question is: Do the present Afghans deserve that history? Have they proven themselves worthy of it? Do the people destroying the Buddhas in SWAT deserve to claim any of the ancient glorious history of that land? My answer: An emphatic NO.

But I find it healthy that at least some people are looking beyond just an Islamic identity for Pakistan.

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

Our Identity is a Islam ....... MUSLIMS
Being moderate is something else but......... WE ARE AN ISLAMIC STATE

Their is no other identity.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Our Identity is a Islam ....... MUSLIMS
Being moderate is something else but......... WE ARE AN ISLAMIC STATE

Their is no other identity.

Is that is true?

How do you engineer that wherein it can be clubbed that people who are different as chalk from cheese, claim a common history? A Chinese Moslem has the same history, as let us say, an Arab? It is rather difficult to believe if logic is the bottomline.

One cannot wipe out peoples and their background or can they?

Let us take Christianity.

Christianity has also spread around the continents.

But I think Christians would be stupid to feel that Christians have a common historical background. But then they are stupid. They do not conjure the idea that all Christians have a common historical or even social background. It is just that only the religion is their common denominator. Otherwise, they are well aware that there is nothing common between a Christian from Tierra del Fuego and a Christian from Rome, excepting the word of the good Lord Jesus.

 

[Spring Onion]

Is that is true?

How do you engineer that wherein it can be clubbed that people who are different as chalk from cheese, claim a common history? A Chinese Moslem has the same history, as let us say, an Arab? It is rather difficult to believe if logic is the bottomline.

One cannot wipe out peoples and their background or can they?

Well becoming a Muslim does not mean that we should deny our history. history is one thing while identity is another.

And i dont think so a true Muslim would have any complex as in Islam we all are Muslims equal without any wordly Superiority. The only thing that make any difference that is the character and the deeds.

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

Well becoming a Muslim does not mean that we should deny our history. history is one thing while identity is another.

And i dont think so a true Muslim would have any complex as in Islam we all are Muslims equal without any wordly Superiority. The only thing that make any difference that is the character and the deeds.

True .........

Islam is the foremost thing that unites all the muslims and gives them strenght ............. If we all unite and hold the belief on ALLAH, firmly , together the Muslims will rise again from the disgrace and disgust we brought ourselves not only by our acts and deeds but with our diffences in color and languages .......... All the Muslims are one... A time will come when we will be one again under Islam. These covers over our eyes will one day open and it will be clear to all of us that ......

MUSLIM.... WAS AND IS...

OUR ONLY TRUE IDENTITY ..

 

[Flintlock]

Well becoming a Muslim does not mean that we should deny our history. history is one thing while identity is another.

And i dont think so a true Muslim would have any complex as in Islam we all are Muslims equal without any wordly Superiority. The only thing that make any difference that is the character and the deeds.

Look Jana, Islam has the rather ignoble record of wiping out the preexisting culture of any territory it conquers.

Obviously the assumption is that Islam is the deliverance from Ignorance, which is totally untrue because Roman/Greek/Hindu/Buddhist civilizations were some of the most advanced and creative ones on the planet.

So, now you understand why Mullahs are against the digging up of pre-islamic past and its glorification. It could "weaken" islam, as they would put it.

Since the interpretation of Islam is in the hands of those very Mullahs, I doubt if anything is going to change. If it does, then good.

I don't think that its fair, that on one hand, you vilify the civilization existing before islamic one, and on the other hands, you claim their achievements. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Well becoming a Muslim does not mean that we should deny our history. history is one thing while identity is another.

And i dont think so a true Muslim would have any complex as in Islam we all are Muslims equal without any wordly Superiority. The only thing that make any difference that is the character and the deeds.

Does that mean that there is no identity as a nation or of being proud of being citizens of a particular nation?

It is of course admirable to claim that the difference is in the character and deed of Moslems. However, does that mean that all Moslems are people of character and only do excellently good deeds?

I reckon in all religions there are men of character and many do good deeds and the vast majority of the world population, irrespective of the Faith are men who have faults of character and don't always do good.

Therefore, to claim that there is a difference is a bit off beat to reality.

No man or woman born in this world can claim to be perfect.

Perfection would means that these same men are Gods, because Humans are not perfect being and they have foibles and religions claim that it is the God who they believe in is the one who has perfection.

In my opinion, to believe that one is perfect smacks of ego and a sense of false superiority.

Let us look at some aspect of religion academically.

The contention aired by some that all nationalities of a religion will unite one day is mere utopia. Men are charged with the desire to excel and be the best and even be a leader of all. So long as this is there, there will always be a leadership struggle.

The example is so evident in all religions and even in Islam. Why should there be sects if the path of a religion is the same? Why this division if the religious book is the same and the God revered is the same?

To be frank, how and why was the Church divided? Why is Islam having ablut 70 sects ( as one post stated)? Why should there be Shias and Sunnis if Allah and the words of the Koran is the same?

That will indicate that oneness of any religion is a pipedream!

It is all because the religions are practised by Men, who want to be the best and be the Leaders. It is this competitive spirit and the desire to be supreme is what causes rifts and these rifts lead to sects.

Indeed, why should there be different nations if Islam is one as is claimed?

Was there one Islamic state even when there was the Caliphate?

It is commendable to have the desire to have one nation under Islam, but then one should not forget ground reality.

Even the AQ and Taliban who claim so vociferously about Islam and want all to believe that they alone are the flag bearers of Islam and are in their own way, trying to bring all nations under the flag are being opposed by Islamic nations. The ground reality indicates that men of whatever religion one may be, are basically men and women who want peace and tranquillity first and then move to their goals in a peaceful and civilised way.

But then, I maybe wrong.

I sincerely believe that men of all religions and those who do not believe in any religion are basically good people who actually want to live in Peace and get about their business without strife.

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

Look Jana, Islam has the rather ignoble record of wiping out the preexisting culture of any territory it conquers.

Obviously the assumption is that Islam is the deliverance from Ignorance, which is totally untrue because Roman/Greek/Hindu/Buddhist civilizations were some of the most advanced and creative ones on the planet.

So, now you understand why Mullahs are against the digging up of pre-islamic past and its glorification. It could "weaken" islam, as they would put it.

Since the interpretation of Islam is in the hands of those very Mullahs, I doubt if anything is going to change. If it does, then good.

I don't think that its fair, that on one hand, you vilify the civilization existing before islamic one, and on the other hands, you claim their achievements. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Stealth Assasin ......

I seems that you suffer a misguidance syndrome fed up in your brain by misleading people of your own ISM...

The history of Islam .......... As per not the muslim history writers but from European Historians is without the blood shed of Women and Children ...

Very opposite from the other ISMs at that time .... If Islam wanted to eradicate all who existed at that time then the world would not have any ISMs but only Islamism ... Its the will of GOD ... its his requirement not to do Massacre after Conquering some land. If muslims would have done just opposite to that then we would not have seen Hindu Culture or other cultures existing today... Never muslims after Conquering any place pushed the people to become muslim or else they would be killed like other nations of that time. They let them live their lifes with their own believes... Go in the history books and read ........

All the people who embrase Islam, do it with their will and that is the will of GOD.

Speak with Facts..

And Yes there existed only one State and that was a Islamic State.....

An Islamic Empire

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Stealth Assasin ......

I seems that you suffer a misguidance syndrome fed up in your brain by misleading people of your own ISM...

The history of Islam .......... As per not the muslim history writers but from European Historians is without the blood shed of Women and Children ...

Very opposite from the other ISMs at that time .... If Islam wanted to eradicate all who existed at that time then the world would not have any ISMs but only Islamism ... Its the will of GOD ... its his requirement not to do Massacre after Conquering some land. If muslims would have done just opposite to that then we would not have seen Hindu Culture or other cultures existing today...

Speak with Facts..

Yes there existed only one State and that was a Islamic State.....

An Islamic Empire

Could it be that you may like to give facts instead of a single statement that is the be all and end all of everything?

You simplify existence and history to suit your convenience.