Do Pakistanis Regret That India did not convert?

[Raghav_101]

I think Hinduism is very flexible in adapting itself to the changing times. Why? Because it's composed of diverse philosophies with no compulsion in believing in any one. Those philosophies contradict each others and Hindus are fine with that.

Sanatana Dharma has always been here to stay. No one can do anything about it.

Yes. Hinduism incorporates indigenous deities in its fold. It is only recently that Hinduism has got it's very own organic radicals as a counter reaction to Islam.

 

[Turan09]

What evidence?

Oldest sculptures we could find, oldest paintings we could find, oldest stuff we could find they are all supporting this theory. For more information, you can read ''Homo Sapiens'' from Yuval Noah Havari.

 

[SHAH BAAZ]

Bulgaria, Balkans, and so many other territories didn't convert to Islam even after staying under Muslim rule for centuries. You think Turks give two shits about it? Lol.

Unlike Christians, Muslims did not impose Islam and forcefully converted people. So we don't care whether India converted or not.

Its Hindus' self mental-masturbation where they think that Hindus "resisted" Muslims and didn't "convert" (Even though there wasn't any effort to convert 100% Hindus to Islam). Seeing the history of complete and total domination/Humiliation of Hindus at the hands of superior Muslims---Hindus invent such narratives to feel less embarrassed about their history of defeats and losses.

The post below is one such effort, IMO. No Turk thinks "Oh we should have converted entire Greece/Bulgaria to Islam"....Similarly, no Pakistani ever thinks that all of India should have converted to islam.

We don't care either ways

, Hindus truly are a pathetic weak race.

 

[Raghav_101]

Bulgaria, Balkans, and so many other territories didn't convert to Islam even after staying under Muslim rule for centuries. You think Turks give two shits about it? Lol.

Unlike Christians, Muslims did not impose Islam and forcefully converted people. So we don't care whether India converted or not.

Its Hindus' self mental-masturbation where they think that Hindus "resisted" Muslims and didn't "convert" (Even though there wasn't any effort to convert 100% Hindus to Islam). Seeing the history of complete and total domination/Humiliation of Hindus at the hands of superior Muslims---Hindus invent such narratives to feel less embarrassed about their history of defeats and losses.

The post below is one such effort, IMO. No Turk thinks "Oh we should have converted entire Greece/Bulgaria to Islam"....Similarly, no Pakistani ever thinks that all of India should have converted to islam.

We don't care either ways

It's cute to see you believe that Muslims were so great a force that they would make every single person change their religion to Islam. Come on. They tried. The weaker of the lot did convert. Isn't it a shame that they failed to convert everyone and now you have to shout free will about your ancestors ? Sad.

 

[AUz]

I would say beheading people, stoning people to death and cutting of their hands is pretty backward.

Only an under-educated idiot would write this as a generalized depiction of medieval Islam advancing across the known world due to its superior technological, social reforms, advance military organization, and so on.

Hindus and African tribes have been THE most conquered people of history. They were also THE most backwards while the rest of the world around them passed by them, and got better organized (partially because of organized religion).

Hinduism was weak and got evaporated in vast regions of the world---restricted to only one land (India).

 

[Moonlight]

I think Hinduism is very flexible in adapting itself to the changing times. Why? Because it's composed of diverse philosophies with no compulsion in believing in any one. Those philosophies contradict each others and Hindus are fine with that.

Sanatana Dharma has always been here to stay. No one can do anything about it.

Must be a peaceful religion in its holy books but not in its practices. RSS is a fine example of it.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Bulgaria, Balkans, and so many other territories didn't convert to Islam even after staying under Muslim rule for centuries. You think Turks give two shits about it? Lol.

Unlike Christians, Muslims did not impose Islam and forcefully converted people. So we don't care whether India converted or not.

Its Hindus' self mental-masturbation where they think that Hindus "resisted" Muslims and didn't "convert" (Even though there wasn't any effort to convert 100% Hindus to Islam). Seeing the history of complete and total domination/Humiliation of Hindus at the hands of superior Muslims---Hindus invent such narratives to feel less embarrassed about their history of defeats and losses.

The post below is one such effort, IMO. No Turk thinks "Oh we should have converted entire Greece/Bulgaria to Islam"....Similarly, no Pakistani ever thinks that all of India should have converted to islam.

We don't care either ways

If you read history properly, it's the region comprising of present day Pakistan that has the most come under foreign domination. Can you tell me about Pakistan based Musllim empires? Pakistan also came under Maurya and Gupta rule.

So it's you who might be having inferiority complex.

 

[AUz]

Oh. Selective much? Care to educate me on why Hindu Temples were destroyed and converted into Islamic structures ? Isn't it a historical fact ? Qutub minar ? That mosque in Mathura ? And so many others.

So Muslims came to India and destroyed Hindu temples so that Hindus convert of their free will ?
A single mosque ( Babri ) was destroyed by Hindus and we see the bitterness .. the feud.. and numerous hindu structures were destroyed yet your ancestors converted of free will? Yeah. Why not man.

Lol, dude Hindu temples were destroyed as a sign of conquest....not to force Hindus to convert en mass. What are you even talking about? Your inferiority-complex jumped out in that post lol.

I gave you the source. The *primary* reason why Islam spread across the world (and in India) is NOT 'forced conversion'....Serious scholars laugh at this notion. It were mainly social reasons that facilitated Islamic spread. Again, see it for yourself. Bernard Lewis is probably the most famous Middle-Eastern historian of late 20th century. He writes

 

[Raghav_101]

Must be a peaceful religion in its holy books but not in its practices. RSS is a fine example of it.

RSS is a very recent phenomenon in a very old history of Hinduism. They would become irrelevant the day Islam decides to keep to itself and give up aspirations of making everyone a Muslim. RSS feeds on your missionary zeal.
They sell the nightmare of a Muslim dominated India and that's how they flourish.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Only an under-educated idiot would write this as a generalized depiction of medieval Islam advancing across the known world due to its superior technological, social reforms, advance military organization, and so on.

Hindus and African tribes have been THE most conquered people of history. They were also THE most backwards while the rest of the world around them passed by them, and got better organized (partially because of organized religion).

Hinduism was weak and got evaporated in vast regions of the world---restricted to only one land (India).

Your posts reek of hatred and jeolousy.

India is the only country where 4 religions have been founded. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. Indian Buddhist influence is still present different parts of Asia.

About domination, read my earlier posts properly instead of saying the same thing again and again. I've given Pakistan's and Middle Eastern countries example.

 

[SHAH BAAZ]

Oldest sculptures we could find, oldest paintings we could find, oldest stuff we could find they are all supporting this theory. For more information, you can read ''Homo Sapiens'' from Yuval Noah Havari.

Nah, Im good. Islam has plenty of material on this subject.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Oldest sculptures we could find, oldest paintings we could find, oldest stuff we could find they are all supporting this theory. For more information, you can read ''Homo Sapiens'' from Yuval Noah Havari.

I have read it and it's a great book.

 

[Raghav_101]

A

Lol, dude Hindu temples were destroyed as a sign of conquest....not to force Hindus to convert en mass. What are you even talking about? Your inferiority-complex jumped out in that post lol.

I gave you the source. The *primary* reason why Islam spread across the world (and in India) is NOT 'forced conversion'....Serious scholars laugh at this notion. It were mainly social reasons that facilitated Islamic spread. Again, see it for yourself. Bernard Lewis is probably the most famous Middle-Eastern historian of late 20th century. He writes

Are bhai to destroy palace of the king as a sign of conquest. Who destroys temples as a sign of conquest ? Who does ? Other than religiously motivated convert freaks ? You won delhi. Good. Go destroy every single symbol of King's authority. But why to destroy temples man ? And not just that. You use the very same material to build a mosque. Come on. Stop fooling yourself.

 

[Turan09]

Nah, Im good. Islam has plenty of material on this subject.

If you say so

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

A

Are bhai to destroy palace of the king as a sign of conquest. Who destroys temples as a sign of conquest ? Who does ? Other than religiously motivated convert freaks ? You won delhi. Good. Go destroy every single symbol of King's authority. But why to destroy temples man ? And not just that. You use the very same material to build a mosque. Come on. Stop fooling yourself.

It doesn't suit their narrative so we can't expect them to accept these things.