How did the Hindu rulers become so powerful in the 15th century in India?

[halka_kutta]

Ugly bhangis claiming civilization of indus valley is laughable indeed. You guys should instead claim Adamanese island civilization.

 

[अखण्ड भारत!!!]

Religion changes history does not, Persian are Muslims today does not mean they no longer have Persian history before Islam, same for Egyptians, Greeks who are Christian today, Romans (Christians), or any other modern inheritors of ancient civilizations. Likewise Pakistan is the inheritor of the Indus valley civilization and that cannot be taken away from it. Only you Indians claim otherwise nobody on the planet would agree with your logic.



It destroys his theory and the theory of forced conversions, true forced conversions would have ended dharmic religions. An example of forced conversion as state policy would be safavid conversion of Iran to shiasm look at how fast it was achieved and today Iran is 90% + Shia.

Population of iran is nothing compared to India whether you look at it now or in older times.Hindus were just too much in numbers to convert and they kept fighting.

Ugly bhangis claiming civilization of indus valley is laughable indeed. You guys should instead claim Adamanese island civilization.

Your ancestors were the true chura-bhangis who were cowards and bowed down to the incoming invaders instead of fighting them

 

[halka_kutta]

Your ancestors were the true chura-bhangis who were cowards and bowed down to the incoming invaders instead of fighting them

Apni shakal dekh aine mein, then you will know who is chura bhanghi.

 

[HAIDER]

Those were not ruler, basically they were controlling the patches of economic zone in greater India.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Religion changes history does not, Persian are Muslims today does not mean they no longer have Persian history before Islam, same for Egyptians, Greeks who are Christian today, Romans (Christians), or any other modern inheritors of ancient civilizations. Likewise Pakistan is the inheritor of the Indus valley civilization and that cannot be taken away from it. Only you Indians claim otherwise nobody on the planet would agree with your logic.



It destroys his theory and the theory of forced conversions, true forced conversions would have ended dharmic religions. An example of forced conversion as state policy would be safavid conversion of Iran to shiasm look at how fast it was achieved and today Iran is 90% + Shia.

1. Pakistan is not the sole inheritor of Indus Valley civlisation. Most international and sub-continental historians have reached that consensus, no matter how some Pakistanis may like to spin it.

2. I never claimed that most or all sub-continental Muslims were converted by force. However, if you are saying that nobody converted due to threats of living under an Islamic state (as you see worldwide even in the 21st century) and the burden of Jizya tax then you are being deliberately naive. I am sure a substantial number converted due to pressure and force and a substantial number due to being genuinely attracted to Islam. It's hard to put a figure though.

 

[sovcomflot]

Your biggest bs was the first sentence which is laughable and I know what sources you have for that shit, as for Mr. Mustafa I never said Muhammad PBUH was a socialist that is again you coming to your own conclusions. Lastly I said if you compare Islamic system to either capitalistic or socialistic system you will see it is more socialistic than capitalistic, all my posts are here on this thread for all to see.

Heres a side by side for comparisons sake
Islamic Economic System, Capitalism and Socialism

Submitted by Sir Naveen Khan(muslim) enough said to me . The marxists do not consider islam anywhere near socialism .
----
there is no particular Islamic preference for Marxist emphasis on economic planning over market forces.”

Indeed, when Prophet Muhammad (a merchant himself) was asked to fix the prices in the market because some were selling goods too dearly, he refused and said, “Only Allah governs the market.” It wouldn’t be too far-fetched to see a parallel here with Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” The Prophet also has many sayings cherishing trade, profit-making, and the beauties of life. “Muhammad,” as Rodinson put it simply, “was not a socialist.”
----

What you keep claiming as 'socialism' is nothing but capitalism with some regulatory laws .Quran is purely capitalist and pro-market .

So when the prophet was asked to help for the sake of the economically downtrodden to control the prices,he refused it ,claiming 'allah' controls the market lol.

Your biggest bs was the first sentence which is laughable

Only to you islamist dimwits . To others ,its an established fact .And they have very different and more harsh opinion of islam. Ask the christians,jews,sikhs,atheists ,they will say islam is the biggest death cult on earth.

 

[अखण्ड भारत!!!]

Apni shakal dekh aine mein, then you will know who is chura bhanghi.

Jiska naam aur shakal kutte ki ho woh mujhe bateyga kya karna hai?

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Europe helped spain no one helped us

Here I agree with you. Marathas, Sikhs, Jats, Rajputs etc were the major factors in decline of Muslims rule in India. However, you cannot deny the contributing factors of Nader Shah's invasion in Delhi in 1739 and the British as well. Both these factors were foreign.

 

[sovcomflot]

Population of iran is nothing compared to India whether you look at it now or in older times.Hindus were just too much in numbers to convert and they kept fighting.


Your ancestors were the true chura-bhangis who were cowards and bowed down to the incoming invaders instead of fighting them

How about you halt your insults to lower castes? or do you want me to insult you.

 

[अखण्ड भारत!!!]

Here I agree with you. Marathas, Sikhs, Jats, Rajputs etc were the major factors in decline of Muslims rule in India. However, you cannot deny the contributing factors of Nader Shah's invasion in Delhi in 1739 and the British as well. Both these factors were foreign.

Their so called invasions were just too late by then Hindus had already kicked Muslim rule out of mainland India

 

[अखण्ड भारत!!!]

How about you halt your insults to lower castes? or do you want me to insult you.

Why would I insult our lower castes.I do not consider them lower.However here I am specifically refering to those who easily gave caved in to invasions.Be they lower or higher.And I would like you to read the comment on which I commented.

 

[halka_kutta]

Jiska naam aur shakal kutte ki ho woh mujhe bateyga kya karna hai?

Apni akhen kholo, delusional hindu. Nothing is more pathetic then claiming to be someone who you are not. Be proud of yourself. Funny thing must of the times hindus keep reminding us our great heritage.

 

[sovcomflot]

Apni akhen kholo, delusional hindu. Nothing is more pathetic then claiming to be someone who you are not. Be proud of yourself. Funny thing must of the times hindus keep reminding us our great heritage.

shan ,is that you?

 

[halka_kutta]

Why would I insult our lower castes.I do not consider them lower.However here I am specifically refering to those who easily gave caved in to invasions.Be they lower or higher.And I would like you to read the comment on which I commented.

You specifically insulted churas, lol. Typical castiest hindu, i keep exposing your kind.

 

[GreenFalcon]

What theory ? It was your theory that since some Hindus converted Hinduism is weak. Majority of Indian sub-continent is still Hindu and always has been despite much higher birth rates among sub-continental Muslims and despite being under Muslim rule for centuries. That destroys YOUR theory. Don't try to deliberately confuse things.

You have got it wrong buddy, In India there are about 82 crore Hindus out of a 100 + crore population and the rest belong to other religions right? If you add the population between the 3 countries Pakistan,India and Bangladesh then sorry Hinduism isn't the Majority in the Indian Sub-continent