Hameed Gul opinion on war with India

[JanjaWeed]

@Horus @nair @SpArK @GURU DUTT @OrionHunter @ajpirzada @AUz @HRK @PWFI

Pakistani Mungerilal....sounds like there's no dearth in that part of the world for these kinda day dreamers!

 

[rockstar08]

Agar Aise bolunga to wo Pol'ISI' ko complain ka'RAW' denge.

buhat bura ho ga , ager Police ne tum ko PakRAW

 

[itachiii]

hum ye ghalti karain ya na karain .... agar aap ne ye ghalti ki tou pakistan k musalman rahain ya na rahain hindu zaroor khatam ho jayen gey dunia se

5000 varsh se har religion hum ko khatam karne ka sapna dekha..... 5000 varsh ke badh we are not just surviving, rather we are thriving...

It's a temporary phase inshaAllah. Muslims ruled over india for 800 years. Hindus have ruled for hardly 80 and they think they are kings. Indians are a non-martial race, they won't withstand a Pakistani onslaught inshaAllah.

small correction we were ruled by mongols, while you were enslaved by practically everyone from afghans, mongols, turks, persians arabs, guptas, mauryas, sikhs e.t.c.... stop trying to take credit of mongols ruling India... you people were insignificant back then and even today... ganta martial race hai pakistan ka... in the end it was indian sikhs and marathas that defeated those evil barbarians while most parts of pakistan silently became a part of sikh empire...

 

[TankMan]

Obviously. Otherwise not majority of Hindus would have lived. But they did discriminate as we were considered as Dhimmis and Jizya was applied on us. Moreoever, some like Aurangazeb was so much anti-Hindu that he took pride in killing and converting Infidels.

There's nothing wrong with the Dhimmi and Jizya concepts, they were one way of making co-existence and some level of justice possible, and were generally effective compared to other contemporary systems. They did discriminate and are outdated, but not wrong and made sense during those times. Jizya was made up for by not having to give Zakat, and the Dhimmi status allowed Non-Muslims to have their own religion without causing too much of an issue with the Muslims (wasn't perfect, obviously, but wasn't too bad either.) Consider it an early take on multiculturalism.

If some like Aurangzeb were anti-Hindu, others like Akbar were quite pro-Hindu.

 

[wiseone2]

@Horus @nair @SpArK @GURU DUTT @OrionHunter @ajpirzada @AUz @HRK @PWFI

seriously how does this guy make it up through the ranks

 

[TankMan]

seriously how does this guy make it up through the ranks

The same way Modi does.
He's retired, he has the liberty of exaggerating things for the media. No need to get your panties in a twist.

 

[OrionHunter]

@Horus @nair @SpArK @GURU DUTT @OrionHunter @ajpirzada @AUz @HRK @PWFI

I wonder how he was elevated to the exalted rank of a General in the Pak Army? Their selection procedure needs a revamp!

Gems from feather brain Gul...

> Oh yes, yes! India will break up before a war with Pakistan!!!

> Modi is a gift to Pakistan (Since he'll destroy India!!)

Now if that's the standard of analyses coming from a Pakistani General who's a so called 'defence analyst' and 'military expert'....then things seem to be looking pretty bad in Pakistan!

 

[Sheikh Rauf]

Where this Hate lovers from india taking this .. he never said he support but what india is doing in Pak it does need a strong reply.. their present government most responsible person says we eliminate terrorism from terrorism.. which sensible person in Gov position would say that.. only those who are fanatic moran..
he is right about its so easy to destablize india they have more to lose.. but Pakistan is so reluctant.. and even if some retired from Pak says or reply anything to them their tail gets hard to expose them widly.

 

[I.R.A]

Coming from someone who got banned/ blacklisted by his own country's military..

Awwwww people these days, or kids I think would say anything (By the way I mean you)

 

[Joeblow]

There's nothing wrong with the Dhimmi and Jizya concepts, they were one way of making co-existence and some level of justice possible, and were generally effective compared to other contemporary systems. They did discriminate and are outdated, but not wrong and made sense during those times. Jizya was made up for by not having to give Zakat, and the Dhimmi status allowed Non-Muslims to have their own religion without causing too much of an issue with the Muslims (wasn't perfect, obviously, but wasn't too bad either.) Consider it an early take on multiculturalism.

If some like Aurangzeb were anti-Hindu, others like Akbar were quite pro-Hindu.

I can see your point on the Jizya part of it. Muslims had to pay zakat. However, it does raise the question of whether they were the same percentage and the whether similar rules were applied to the two. Tax collection has existed since eternity. There was nothing new or revolutionary about it either than defining it as a part of religious duties. The Mughals weren't religious fanatics for the most part till Aurangzeb came along. We all know about Akbar's attempts at a hybrid religion and we all know Aurangzeb's policies lead to revolts and the end of Mughal dominance in the subcontinent. Without taking anything away from fair minded rulers like Akbar, I just want to point out that in a vast, diverse area like the subcontinent, the ruler would need the goodwill of the locals to stay in power. That was one of big reasons why a lot of rulers didn't press the issue of religion. They had to plan for the defense of their kingdoms against next invader and creating bad blood with the people was a sure way to lose their kingdoms and their heads. Regional autocrats, on the other hand, didn't have to worry about controlling vast territories and were free to pursue personal fanatical agendas. That's why if you look at the map of how religious populations are concentrated, you'll see that it's not an even spread but rather that the nawab of this or the nizam of that had a lot influence on it than large empires.

 

[I.R.A]

We Indian muslims are more than you anytime and any day. Don't talk about Iman and martial race.

Sheep’s number does not matter.

 

[TankMan]

I can see your point on the Jizya part of it. Muslims had to pay zakat. However, it does raise the question of whether they were the same percentage and the whether similar rules were applied to the two.

That depends on how good the people managing the whole thing are, and whether they can effectively balance the taxes so that Jizya doesn't have to be paid more than Muslims pay Zakat. There is no specified amount in Islam so the rulers can decide how they want it to be - in certain times it used to be based on how much someone earned, very similar to Zakat, but I realize that Aurangzeb had non-Muslims pay twice the rate that Muslims paid as Zakat.

The Mughals weren't religious fanatics for the most part till Aurangzeb came along. We all know about Akbar's attempts at a hybrid religion and we all know Aurangzeb's policies lead to revolts and the end of Mughal dominance in the subcontinent. Without taking anything away from fair minded rulers like Akbar, I just want to point out that in a vast, diverse area like the subcontinent, the ruler would need the goodwill of the locals to stay in power. That was one of big reasons why a lot of rulers didn't press the issue of religion. They had to plan for the defense of their kingdoms against next invader and creating bad blood with the people was a sure way to lose their kingdoms and their heads. Regional autocrats, on the other hand, didn't have to worry about controlling vast territories and were free to pursue personal fanatical agendas. That's why if you look at the map of how religious populations are concentrated, you'll see that it's not an even spread but rather that the nawab of this or the nizam of that had a lot influence on it than large empires.

Yes, and as far as fanaticism or religious intolerance goes, we're talking about the 17th century - the time when people were burning witches. For that era, the Mughal Empire was quite tolerant.

 

[ZooZoo]

It's a temporary phase inshaAllah. Muslims ruled over india for 800 years. Hindus have ruled for hardly 80 and they think they are kings. Indians are a non-martial race, they won't withstand a Pakistani onslaught inshaAllah.

Those were Turk, Kazak, Arab Family... Muslim always were second class citizen.. Muslims were slave for 1000 years..

 

[Sheikh Rauf]

Those were Turk, Kazak, Arab Family... Muslim always were second class citizen.. Muslims were slave for 1000 years..

Muslim were slave? i think buddy you sud concentrate this energy on your hindu clan who have slaves, islam doesnt hvae slave system.. your lower cast needs to have rights to survive in minority of upper class hindu who are controlling india... even you are slave by your cast system... learn from some videos wont give you any reality but some point of views..
you have to open your brain to look out of your hindu mentality which is particularly have hate for Pak...
i suggest you to stay on Topic or go to indian forum where you can spread hate freely...

 

[Tridibans]

There's nothing wrong with the Dhimmi and Jizya concepts, they were one way of making co-existence and some level of justice possible, and were generally effective compared to other contemporary systems. They did discriminate and are outdated, but not wrong and made sense during those times. Jizya was made up for by not having to give Zakat, and the Dhimmi status allowed Non-Muslims to have their own religion without causing too much of an issue with the Muslims (wasn't perfect, obviously, but wasn't too bad either.) Consider it an early take on multiculturalism.

If some like Aurangzeb were anti-Hindu, others like Akbar were quite pro-Hindu.

Agreed. That is why I said that not all Muslim rulers were savages or anti Non Muslims. In fact, some like Nawab of Awadh and a few of the local Muslim rulers of South India were tolerant. My only point was that the pride that Pakistanis take over Ghauri, Mahmud of Gazni etc. are seriously laughable..... even my Muslim historian friends agree that these central Asian lunatics and savages killed more Muslims and plundered more Islamic cities than Hindus. Still the heroic response they get in Pakistan is something I never really understood.

They were the present day ISIS/ Boko Haram of yester years.