Is There A Clash Of Civilizations?

[FaujHistorian]

Okay so Muslims grew on this land like plants? When we say a religion spreads it doesnt imply that all the adherents of the new religion are foreigners.Its a gradual process...offcourse the people who convert are native to the land but their new religions aren't.....Incase of subcontinent Islam spread entirely because of Arabs and Central Asians.

I understand.

Hinduism too spread due to Central asians. Just look a the studies done using gene sequencing.

The first people to come populate coastlines from Karachi to Kolkatta were Africans. Not too different from modern day aboriginies in Australia. From then on there were constant migrations from central Asia, that in turn was being populated by migrations from Africa.

So let's leave this Arab this and Arab than stuff on the side. Everyone is migrating everywhere in search of better food and more opportunities.


All those Indians who profess Indis is heaven on Earth are all running from the ship as if it is on fire. BTW that is not too diferent from BDeshis, and S Lankans etc.

No one is indigenous and everyone is. That's the quandary. Isn't it?

 

[Peregrine]

I understand.

Hinduism too spread due to Central asians. Just look a the studies done using gene sequencing.

The first people to come populate coastlines from Karachi to Kolkatta were Africans. Not too different from modern day aboriginies in Australia. From then on there were constant migrations from central Asia, that in turn was being populated by migrations from Africa.

So let's leave this Arab this and Arab than stuff on the side. Everyone is migrating everywhere in search of better food and more opportunities.


All those Indians who profess Indis is heaven on Earth are all running from the ship as if it is on fire. BTW that is not too diferent from BDeshis, and S Lankans etc.

No one is indigenous and everyone is. That's the quandary. Isn't it?

And how does this relates to Pakistani missiles?......Incase of Babur, Abdali and Ghauri......they all played a significant role on the lives of Muslims in the subcontinent....they are as much part of our history as any one else..... People like Muhammad Bin Qasim set the base for Islam on a larger scale.....a few immigrants from Africa and elsewhere are insignificant vis a vis Muslim invaders who made things happen on extensively wider scale.

 

[EXPERIMENT]

Is there a clash of civilizations between muslim Pakistan and hindu india?

This is old news from BBC but still relevent today

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Pakistan's missile symbolism

Pakistan's missile symbolism
By Zaffar Abbas
BBC correspondent in Islamabad

Pakistani officials say the successful test-firing of three of its surface-to-surface missiles in the last few days has confirmed the country's capability to strike deep inside enemy territory in the event of a war.

Interestingly, these tests have not only demonstrated the effectiveness of Pakistan's missile technology; the names given to these missiles are full of symbolism.

They suggest that Pakistan relates the present conflict in South Asia to the conflicts of the mediaeval period when Muslim warriors from Afghanistan frequently invaded India.

Ghauri, Ghaznavi, Abdali - these are the three ballistic missiles Pakistan test-fired in the last week.

But these are also names of three prominent Muslim warlords, or conquerors, who invaded India from Afghanistan between the 11th and 18th centuries in an attempt to expand their empires.

Historical histrionics

The medium-range Ghauri missile is Pakistan's answer to India's Prithvi missile, and here the symbolism is perhaps most interesting.

Muhammad Ghauri was a powerful Afghan warlord who in the 12th century had two fierce battles with the Hindu ruler of northern India, Prithviraj Chouhan.

Ghauri was defeated in the first battle and later on, he returned with a bigger army to achieve a convincing victory.

Although India insists that the name Prithvi given to its missile means "earth" and has nothing to do with any Hindu ruler of the past, Pakistan wants the world to believe otherwise.

Battle fetish

The other two missiles Pakistan tested during the week are also named after 11th and 18th-century Afghan conquerors, Mehmood Ghaznavi and Ahmed Shah Abdali.

Ghaznavi is described in history books as a temple-destroyer who attacked India 17 times.

Pakistan has never given any specific reason for naming these missiles after such historical figures.

But the symbolism is a clear reflection of the official mindset in the country.

It shows that for Islamabad, the present conflict with India is a continuation of the battles of the past between people described in Pakistani history books as just Muslim invaders and several of India's cruel Hindu emperors.

Hmmm... according to a lot of Pakistani members here India did not exist before 1947, I guess Columbus was also not looking for "India" as well. Any-ways near impossible to try to explain that nothing has changed, India never changed its still just a consolidation of Tribes/Ethnic Groups or what ever you want to call it. Religion was never a unifying factor. I know this is beyond most peoples comprehension even though the same exists in their own FOREIGN Politically demarcated Country. What makes us Indian is the fact all these various diverse people have been unified by the Himalayas and the Ocean and some powerful rivers.

If you can understand this and choose not to live in denial (I know that is impossible) Then you will realise that this will answer the question this topic pertains to ask.

 

[FaujHistorian]

And how does this relates to Pakistani missiles?..........

It does not!

Missiles are the product of modern day Pakistan. The technology comes from modern day West. And they are meant to create some kind of protective stance for us. That's all.

As I said, we can name them bob or mike, and they still will be the same missiles with same destructive capacity.

........a few immigrants from Africa and elsewhere are insignificant vis a vis Muslim invaders who made things happen on extensively wider scale.

India Pakistan BDesh population is roughly 1.5+ billion people. And Mulsim form roughly 25%.

The rest are non-Muslims numbering roughly 1 billion people.

And you say based on your PhD research that 1 billion non-Muslim do not count?

I just say you are truly educated Sir? Truly educated!

 

[Peregrine]

It does not!

India Pakistan BDesh population is roughly 1.5+ billion people. And Mulsim form roughly 25%.

The rest are non-Muslims numbering roughly 1 billion people.

And you say based on your PhD research that 1 billion non-Muslim do not count?

I just say you are truly educated Sir? Truly educated!

My last statement was in purview of the historical settlement of the Muslims in the subcontinent......my point was, irrespective of who the other muslims immigrants were, they were not as influential in the spread of Islam in the region as Arabs, Persians and Central Asians were.
Okay so by quoting these irrelevant facts about current population statistics of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh......you want me to know that you have a Phd? Good for you....... Kindly brush up on your comprehsion skills as well.

 

[FaujHistorian]

My last statement was in purview of the historical settlement of the Muslims in the subcontinent......
l.

You my dear continue to make foolish statements like "historical settlement of Muslims".
Please quit spreading misinformation.

Muslims did not "settle" in large numbers.

Modern day Muslims in Pakistan or India or Bdesh are the locals. And majority of them were locals "historically".

Few Arabs or central Asians showing up hungry and injured may have settled in India. But their numbers were very small back then.

Please do not spread 3rd grade sarkari shcool Mutala-e-Pakistan history book stuff. This is a forum for grown ups.

Thank you.

 

[INDIC]

Is there a clash of civilizations between muslim Pakistan and hindu india?

This is old news from BBC but still relevent today

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Pakistan's missile symbolism

Pakistan's missile symbolism
By Zaffar Abbas
BBC correspondent in Islamabad

Pakistani officials say the successful test-firing of three of its surface-to-surface missiles in the last few days has confirmed the country's capability to strike deep inside enemy territory in the event of a war.

Interestingly, these tests have not only demonstrated the effectiveness of Pakistan's missile technology; the names given to these missiles are full of symbolism.

They suggest that Pakistan relates the present conflict in South Asia to the conflicts of the mediaeval period when Muslim warriors from Afghanistan frequently invaded India.

Ghauri, Ghaznavi, Abdali - these are the three ballistic missiles Pakistan test-fired in the last week.

But these are also names of three prominent Muslim warlords, or conquerors, who invaded India from Afghanistan between the 11th and 18th centuries in an attempt to expand their empires.

Historical histrionics

The medium-range Ghauri missile is Pakistan's answer to India's Prithvi missile, and here the symbolism is perhaps most interesting.

Muhammad Ghauri was a powerful Afghan warlord who in the 12th century had two fierce battles with the Hindu ruler of northern India, Prithviraj Chouhan.

Ghauri was defeated in the first battle and later on, he returned with a bigger army to achieve a convincing victory.

Although India insists that the name Prithvi given to its missile means "earth" and has nothing to do with any Hindu ruler of the past, Pakistan wants the world to believe otherwise.

Battle fetish

The other two missiles Pakistan tested during the week are also named after 11th and 18th-century Afghan conquerors, Mehmood Ghaznavi and Ahmed Shah Abdali.

Ghaznavi is described in history books as a temple-destroyer who attacked India 17 times.

Pakistan has never given any specific reason for naming these missiles after such historical figures.

But the symbolism is a clear reflection of the official mindset in the country.

It shows that for Islamabad, the present conflict with India is a continuation of the battles of the past between people described in Pakistani history books as just Muslim invaders and several of India's cruel Hindu emperors.

Just wondering how Pashtuns of Pakistan view the missile named on Babur.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Hmmm... according to a lot of Pakistani members here India did not exist before 1949, .

Indian subcontinent has obviously existed when the tectonic plates moved up north to form himalayas.

But

the modern day Indian republic came into being in 1947 on day after the then Pakistani republic came into being (and not in 1949 as you say. Please get your facts straight).

Thank you

Just wondering how Pashtuns of Pakistan view the missile named on Babur.

The same way Keralites or Bengalis view Indian missile named Prithvi.

 

[Icewolf]

Its simple history......Muslims were not indigenous to the sub continent........Islam spread here and survived all because of them....if it wasnt for them there will be no Muslims here, what to speak of Pakistan......so the connection here is quite valid they may be central asians but we share common history.

Indians aren't indigenous in sub continet. You guys invaded from Australia/Africa.

Pakistanis are the real sons of the land, from the IVC. You are foreign people really. Even your countries name is from a river in PAKISTAN!

 

[Android]

Indians aren't indigenous in sub continet. You guys invaded from Australia/Africa.

Pakistanis are the real sons of the land, from the IVC. You are foreign people really. Even your countries name is from a river in PAKISTAN!

lol your people came from yemen

 

[FaujHistorian]

Indians aren't indigenous in sub continet. You guys invaded from Australia/Africa.

Pakistanis are the real sons of the land, from the IVC. You are foreign people really. Even your countries name is from a river in PAKISTAN!

Come on dear.

The migration followed Africa-Karachi-Mumbai-Kolkatta-IndoChina-Australia route.
--- No proof exists of Astralian aboriginies coming back over to India.

This migration formed the first inhabitants of coastal areas/states of modern day India.

Some of these did move up along Ganges when the earth warmed up enough.


However large scale settlement of Ganga valley, and Indus valley was due to the migration from Central Asia.

Genetic studies show that upper caste Hindus around Ganga valley share the same source as central Asians.

This is true for Indus valley inhabitants.

However these migrations happened long long long long time ago like perhaps 40,000 years ago. The same time when China got settled, and a bit later Europe too.

From modern day perspective, Pakistanis are the sons of soil in the Indus valley.

And

Indians are sons of soil mostly from Ganga valley.


hope it helps.

 

[EXPERIMENT]

Indian subcontinent has obviously existed when the tectonic plates moved up north to form himalayas.
But the modern day Indian republic came into being in 1947 on day after the then Pakistani republic came into being (and not in 1949 as you say. Please get your facts straight).
Thank you

Sorry was a "Typo" I will edit it. On the first point you did not get it. There is an ingrained shared base cultural commonality. Though I am from the ultra north of the subcontinent I have more in common and can relate to say..South Indians/ Bangladeshi's or Nepalese then Anglo Saxons. Just my opinion I guess...

 

[Peregrine]

You my dear continue to make foolish statements like "historical settlement of Muslims".
Please quit spreading misinformation.

Muslims did not "settle" in large numbers.

Modern day Muslims in Pakistan or India or Bdesh are the locals. And majority of them were locals "historically".

Few Arabs or central Asians showing up hungry and injured may have settled in India. But their numbers were very small back then.

Please do not spread 3rd grade sarkari shcool Mutala-e-Pakistan history book stuff. This is a forum for grown ups.

Thank you.

Your rambling bombast keeps on going in circles, you have concoted irrelevant points and yet you have failed to deny the impact and significance of Muslim invaders on the subcontinent and its people..In your sheer dogmatist way....you want people to believe that "one night the people of subcontinent went to sleep and the next when the woke up they were Muslims.....just like that"
Your paltry personal attacks only point to your agitation for losing the arguement.....so say whatever pops in your head.....you might learn a thing or two this way.

 

[INDIC]

The same way Keralites or Bengalis view Indian missile named Prithvi.

You didn't get it.

 

[FaujHistorian]

..... impact and significance of Muslim invaders on the subcontinent and its people......

Most Muslim "invaders" ruled the areas now called UP, and Bihar.

Ans still Muslims remain a hapless minority there.

Babar sets up a Babri mosque.

But still Hindus were the undeniable force in that same area, who remained as powerful majoirty.

And very few Muslim "invaders" could rule UP and Bihar without active support from the Hindu rajas and prices.

Shahjahan tried to invade his so-called fatherlands in central Asia and was beaten black and blue.


So my dear, the invaders were there in history. But their long term impact was not as much as you want to show.

Sure they looted temples, but so did the local kings.

How did you think Bhuddism disappeared from central India?

Answer: Ethnic cleansing by the Hindu rulers and rajas of majority of Bhudidists from the birthplace of Bhuda.

peace

p.s. you need to read up dear. Just readup.

You didn't get it.

amuse me.