Asian.Century
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,754
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Basically the Ashok Singhal has accepted 800 Islamic and Pakistani Muslim's ancestral rule over Subcontinent but actually it is 1000 years of Muslim as the most dominant power.
Muslims ruled Indian Subcontinent region for 1,000 years (Turks, Central Asians, Mughals, Afghans, Iranians, existing Pakistani settlers et all with one faith, religion, culture, social fabrics.) and still Muslims are in minority in India. What does this eludes to the fact? Simple, the Hindus, Buddhist, Sikhs were NEVER converted forcefully, not by the sword, they worked for the Muslim rulers, so while ruling Delhi Sultanate and Lahore by Muslims for 1000 years as most dominant power in the region, people did not converted 100% in India, Muslim rulers should have killed all of them with sword and force, why left them most of them now, in it ?
The "foreign" Muslim aristocracy didn't rule India as a distant colony - they settled in India, and ultimately incorporated themselves into the hybrid Muslim culture of the Subcontinent as you in Pakistan.
So its Islamic/Muslim brotherhood between all which binds as one, after all, together they ruled over Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhist in the Indian region for 1000 years as the most dominant power.
And now in current times, the other religions, Do you think whatever is going on in Iraq, Palestinian, Chechnya, Kashmir and Afghanistan including innocent killings is man wish? while Muslims targeted everywhere, that is the sole point, they attack as Muslim brotherhood, Islamic Brotherhood as a threat to them.
Just like British Christians ruled India for 150 years complete, during these years a chunk of Indians or subcontinental region got converted to Christianity.....have u noticed that how British and Europeans takes utmost pride in claims their Roman ancestry and how everything in movies, science becomes automatically Roman ancestry.
Muslims ruled Indian Subcontinent region for 1,000 years (Turks, Central Asians, Mughals, Afghans, Iranians, existing Pakistani settlers et all with one faith, religion, culture, social fabrics.) and still Muslims are in minority in India. What does this eludes to the fact? Simple, the Hindus, Buddhist, Sikhs were NEVER converted forcefully, not by the sword, they worked for the Muslim rulers, so while ruling Delhi Sultanate and Lahore by Muslims for 1000 years as most dominant power in the region, people did not converted 100% in India, Muslim rulers should have killed all of them with sword and force, why left them most of them now, in it ?
The "foreign" Muslim aristocracy didn't rule India as a distant colony - they settled in India, and ultimately incorporated themselves into the hybrid Muslim culture of the Subcontinent as you in Pakistan.
So its Islamic/Muslim brotherhood between all which binds as one, after all, together they ruled over Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhist in the Indian region for 1000 years as the most dominant power.
And now in current times, the other religions, Do you think whatever is going on in Iraq, Palestinian, Chechnya, Kashmir and Afghanistan including innocent killings is man wish? while Muslims targeted everywhere, that is the sole point, they attack as Muslim brotherhood, Islamic Brotherhood as a threat to them.
Just like British Christians ruled India for 150 years complete, during these years a chunk of Indians or subcontinental region got converted to Christianity.....have u noticed that how British and Europeans takes utmost pride in claims their Roman ancestry and how everything in movies, science becomes automatically Roman ancestry.
