What's new

India: Muslim warrior king's rocket cache found in abandoned well

Not at all, the claims made in my post are true. I said:

1. Tipu forced some Brahmins to eat Beef (correct).
2. Tipu destroyed Hindu temples (correct).
3. Tipu fought against Hindus (correct).

Not at all, the claims made in my post are true. I said:

1. Tipu forced some Brahmins to eat Beef (correct).
2. Tipu destroyed Hindu temples (correct).
3. Tipu fought against Hindus (correct).
Only 3 is true he fought against Hindu marhata who threaten his kingdom and FYI marhata were also known to destroy and loot Hindu temples in there raids against enemy kingdoms
and also other rajas who were allies of British and attacked him his army itself had large number of Hindu so ridiculing Hindu would be an obvious political mistake as for your hindutva propaganda rhetoric its killed by your own source as the para I quoted from your own given link which refuted your propaganda with historical facts :)
 
He allied against his fellow Muslims, that makes him a Munafiq.

Religion played a VERY big role in those times. It's only recently that the world has stopped considering religion a major aspect of politics, and even then not everyone is on board with this idea.

Tipu also persecuted Mappala Muslims and Christians. Refer to your own link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#Tipu_Sultan

Stop cherry-picking the aspects of history that fits your narrative and ignoring the parts that don't. Like claiming IVC exclusively, disowning the Vedic period and then claiming Muhammid Bin Qasim's exploits as your own. All great nations are made up of mixed peoples. The sooner you accept this, the better it will be for your country.

As for the underlined part of your post. The world hasn't stopped considering religion as a major aspect in politics. It's mostly the progressive and advanced nations that have, including mountain friend China. It's only the backward and destitute states which still use religion as a tool in foreign policy and internal politics.

Well, Tipu was an internationalist ( in modern terms ) so we should avoid limiting him to today's Karnataka state or present India.

It's not like an Indian can claim Napoleonic history just because he was an internationalist though. The point I was trying to make is that a Pakistani claiming South Indian history is as asinine as a Frenchman claiming Russian history.
 
Tipu also persecuted Mappala Muslims and Christians. Refer to your own link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#Tipu_Sultan

Stop cherry-picking the aspects of history that fits your narrative and ignoring the parts that don't. Like claiming IVC exclusively, disowning the Vedic period and then claiming Muhammid Bin Qasim's exploits as your own. All great nations are made up of mixed peoples. The sooner you accept this, the better it will be for your country.

As for the underlined part of your post. The world hasn't stopped considering religion as a major aspect in politics. It's mostly the progressive and advanced nations that have, including mountain friend China. It's only the backward and destitute states which still use religion as a tool in foreign policy and internal politics.

Right, but that was because Mappla Muslims were siding against their fellow Muslims by helping the British colonials. So obviously they will be attacked, that action made them Munafiqeen.

I don't claim IVC exclusively, people who come from the parts of Hindustan that are also part of the Indus Valley can claim it too, as well as and Indo-Aryans in eastern Afghanistan, but that's it. Beyond that the link becomes pretty weak or non-existent. However, the civilisation is primarily Pakistani because it started in and was centred around modern day Pakistan, with most of its people also being from modern day Pakistan.

I don't disown the parts of the Vedic era that relate to modern day Pakistan, e.g Porus, Panini, Gandhara, etc. They are part of our pre-Islamic past and yes I do value them. I just value my Islamic history more because I am a Muslim first and foremost in terms of identity, as are many other Pakistanis and Muslims in general.

Muhammad Bin Qasim's exploits are the exploits of Muslims first and foremost, and Arabs secondarily. You could however still argue that they do belong to Pakistanis as well from an ethnic standpoint since many people from modern day Pakistan fought in his army, and many Pakistanis do have ancestry from people who migrated to the area during the Islamic conquests.

I agree, we are all mixed. Tell that to the Hindustanis who deny the Aryan migrations.

I also agree with your last paragraph.

It's not like an Indian can claim Napoleonic history just because he was an internationalist though. The point I was trying to make is that a Pakistani claiming South Indian history is as asinine as a Frenchman claiming Russian history.

Right, but Tipu's grandfather was Punjabi. Punjabis are the largest ethnic group in Pakistan. He was also Muslim, again, like most Pakistanis.
 
Right, but that was because Mappla Muslims were siding against their fellow Muslims by helping the British colonials. So obviously they will be attacked, that action made them Munafiqeen.

I don't claim IVC exclusively, people who come from the parts of Hindustan that are also part of the Indus Valley can claim it too, as well as and Indo-Aryans in eastern Afghanistan, but that's it. Beyond that the link becomes pretty weak or non-existent. However, the civilisation is primarily Pakistani because it started in and was centred around modern day Pakistan, with most of its people also being from modern day Pakistan.

I don't disown the parts of the Vedic era that relate to modern day Pakistan, e.g Porus, Panini, Gandhara, etc. They are part of our pre-Islamic past and yes I do value them. I just value my Islamic history more because I am a Muslim first and foremost in terms of identity, as are many other Pakistanis and Muslims in general.

Muhammad Bin Qasim's exploits are the exploits of Muslims first and foremost, and Arabs secondarily. You could however still argue that they do belong to Pakistanis as well from an ethnic standpoint since many people from modern day Pakistan fought in his army, and many Pakistanis do have ancestry from people who migrated to the area during the Islamic conquests.

I agree, we are all mixed. Tell that to the Hindustanis who deny the Aryan migrations.

I also agree with your last paragraph.



Right, but Tipu's grandfather was Punjabi. Punjabis are the largest ethnic group in Pakistan. He was also Muslim, again, like most Pakistanis.

His grandfather was Fateh Mohammed Kolari - also from Kolar which is in Karnataka.

Bhagat Singh is from Pakistani Punjab, so is Manmohan Singh. Are they Pakistani?

Nawaz Sharif is originally from Amritsar. Jinnah was Gujarat. Are they Indians?
 

I can't see your post for some reason, please repost it.
 
His grandfather was Fateh Mohammed Kolari - also from Kolar which is in Karnataka.

Bhagat Singh is from Pakistani Punjab, so is Manmohan Singh. Are they Pakistani?

Nawaz Sharif is originally from Amritsar. Jinnah was Gujarat. Are they Indians?

Fateh Muhammad was a Punjabi, but I'm not sure if he was born in the Punjab. It may have been an earlier ancestor. All I know for certain is that Tipu had Punjabi ancestry.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...nd-tumakuru-district/articleshow/61574823.cms

No, because they actively fought against Islam. They are Punjabi though.

You can keep Nawaz Sharif, but as for Jinnah he was the founder of Pakistan so obviously he is a Pakistani. Muhajirs form a pretty significant community in Pakistan.
 
Right, but that was because Mappla Muslims were siding against their fellow Muslims by helping the British colonials. So obviously they will be attacked, that action made them Munafiqeen.

I don't claim IVC exclusively, people who come from the parts of Hindustan that are also part of the Indus Valley can claim it too, as well as and Indo-Aryans in eastern Afghanistan, but that's it. Beyond that the link becomes pretty weak or non-existent. However, the civilisation is primarily Pakistani because it started in and was centred around modern day Pakistan, with most of its people also being from modern day Pakistan.

I don't disown the parts of the Vedic era that relate to modern day Pakistan, e.g Porus, Panini, Gandhara, etc. They are part of our pre-Islamic past and yes I do value them. I just value my Islamic history more because I am a Muslim first and foremost in terms of identity, as are many other Pakistanis and Muslims in general.

Muhammad Bin Qasim's exploits are the exploits of Muslims first and foremost, and Arabs secondarily. You could however still argue that they do belong to Pakistanis as well from an ethnic standpoint since many people from modern day Pakistan fought in his army, and many Pakistanis do have ancestry from people who migrated to the area during the Islamic conquests.

I agree, we are all mixed. Tell that to the Hindustanis who deny the Aryan migrations.

I also agree with your last paragraph.



Right, but Tipu's grandfather was Punjabi. Punjabis are the largest ethnic group in Pakistan. He was also Muslim, again, like most Pakistanis.

Tipu's grandfather was Fateh Muhammad. His body is buried in Kolar, Karnataka.

Again, you are hiding behind the fuzzy nature of history. There is no evidence coroborating Hyder Ali's ancestry as "Punjabi". There are varying accounts of his ancestry with Ali himself claiming to come from a tribe of Arabs.
 
Tipu's grandfather was Fateh Muhammad. His body is buried in Kolar, Karnataka.

Again, you are hiding behind the fuzzy nature of history. There is no evidence coroborating Hyder Ali's ancestry as "Punjabi". There are varying accounts of his ancestry with Ali himself claiming to come from a tribe of Arabs.

His ancestry was Punjabi, as is mentioned in numerous historical books. I posted a link in an earlier post that also confirms this.
 
Fateh Muhammad was a Punjabi, but I'm not sure if he was born in the Punjab. It may have been an earlier ancestor. All I know for certain is that Tipu had Punjabi ancestry.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...nd-tumakuru-district/articleshow/61574823.cms

No, because they actively fought against Islam. They are Punjabi though.

You can keep Nawaz Sharif, but as for Jinnah he was the founder of Pakistan so obviously he is a Pakistani. Muhajirs form a pretty significant community in Pakistan.
So for Jinnah, ancestry is secondary. But not for others. Why the double standards?
 
So for Jinnah, ancestry is secondary. But not for others. Why the double standards?

I never said that it's secondary for others, I said I don't care about Nawaz Sharif because he's an idiot. Also, Muhajirs are a major community in Pakistan, so he is still a Pakistani in terms of ethnicity as well.
 
So is Jinnha , Liaqat Ali Khan and Muhajirs are ethically Indians :D :D
I never said that it's secondary for others, I said I don't care about Nawaz Sharif because he's an idiot. Also, Muhajirs are a major community in Pakistan, so he is still a Pakistani in terms of ethnicity as well.
 
Does it matter where he was from

This is the history of the Muslims of South Asia
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom