Mahmud Ghaznavi, the Afghan-Pak Sultan

[newb3e]

so had Ghanavi also created ties with Israel?

there was no isreal back then! so post market irrelevant!

 

[El Sidd]

You're never going to let that go are you?

the day you give up your antics i will retire as well....

there was no isreal back then! so post market irrelevant!

oh noooooooooooo

 

[Hamza913]

the day you give up your antics i will retire as well....



oh noooooooooooo

Please, just retire now. And not just from PDF, from life.

 

[El Sidd]

Please, just retire now. And not just from PDF, from life.

ooooooooohhhh shariah punishment

 

[Jackdaws]

If it involves racism towards people of a lower caste, forcing a wife to burn herself if her husband dies, executing people for eating beef, and wasting excess resources on building temples made of gold whilst most of the surrounding people literally starve, should we really let people believe that?

I'm not suggesting Hinduism be banned, but I cannot blame people such as Ghaznavi or Shah Mir for putting a lid on it and banning certain practises from the religion. Also, they were at war and targeting places of worship was considered normal back then.

What does social evil have to do with breaking a temple?

Call it removing ignorance, spreading knowledge.



Do you support the right of cannibals to believe in what they do?

Cannibals kill other human beings. I oppose killing in the first place, let alone eating humans. Are you trying to do a parallel between Hinduism and cannibalism?

 

[SALMAN F]

He was a big genocidal maniac and war criminal also homosexual

 

[Hamza913]

He was a big genocidal maniac and war criminal also homosexual

Asalamu Alaikum

No, he wasn't genocidal. He did not attempt to wipe out any specific ethnic group.

His enemies were just as genocidal and just as suitable for label of war criminal as he was.

That homosexual allegation has literally no basis other than the fact that he was good friends with his Georgian slave. That doesn't make him gay.

 

[SALMAN F]

Asalamu Alaikum

No, he wasn't genocidal. He did not attempt to wipe out any specific ethnic group.

His enemies were just as genocidal and just as suitable for label of war criminal as he was.

That homosexual allegation has literally no basis other than the fact that he was good friends with his Georgian slave. That doesn't make him gay.

Wa alaikum al Salam

Still he used the religion to kill and invade the hindu lands to steal and destroy their rich temples his wars were not to defend Islam or at least invite the hindus to the religion of Islam like what the peaceful sufi missionaries did in parts of india and Kashmir instead of using jihad as excuse to invade and loot their lands only if I am wrong about him

 

[Hamza913]

Wa alaikum al Salam

Still he used the religion to kill and invade the hindu lands to steal and destroy their rich temples his wars were not to defend Islam or at least invite the hindus to the religion of Islam like what the peaceful sufi missionaries did in parts of india and Kashmir instead of using jihad as excuse to invade and loot their lands only if I am wrong about him

He had to secure his empire from nearby threats, otherwise he would be consumed by them. He also had to make his empire flourish, he needed revenue for this which he would extract from Hindustan via plunder. It's how things worked back then, without it Lahore and Ghazni would have never flourished the way they did.

 

[SALMAN F]

He had to secure his empire from nearby threats, otherwise he would be consumed by them. He also had to make his empire flourish, he needed revenue for this which he would extract from Hindustan via plunder. It's how things worked back then, without it Lahore and Ghazni would have never flourished the way they did.

Well on this point I agree back then until the 19th century empires and countries lived on the invasion and wealth of other countries and you have to be aggressive either you kill or be killed this how the things were in that era

 

[AfrazulMandal]

His enemies were just as genocidal and just as suitable for label of war criminal as he was.

No. They were just weak. They lost. Their progeny whines to this day.

He had to secure his empire from nearby threats, otherwise he would be consumed by them. He also had to make his empire flourish, he needed revenue for this which he would extract from Hindustan via plunder

He destroyed temples that had no wealth too. His mission was primarily to spread Islam. Not money. That was an added benefit.

That homosexual allegation has literally no basis other than the fact that he was good friends with his Georgian slave. That doesn't make him gay

He was not perfect. Only one Man was perfect. Rest, Allah knows best.

What does social evil have to do with breaking a temple?

It prevents or at least reduces the moral corruption of people.

label of war criminal as he was

That is a loaded term used for political purposes. Wars are fought to win. Not for displaying superior morals.

 

[Jackdaws]

It prevents or at least reduces the moral corruption of people.

So if a Hindu ruler thinks that breaking a mosque reduces the moral corruption of people, he can break a mosque?

 

[AfrazulMandal]

So if a Hindu ruler thinks that breaking a mosque reduces the moral corruption of people, he can break a mosque?

He would not dare to. Historically they never dared to. Even Shivaji did not.
You can say that was because they respected them too... But the point remains. They could not afford to. You cannot even today. Take Babri Masjid for instance. For one masjid we have fought so hard. Because we hold it dearer to us than an ordinary Hindu holds his places of worship. Perhaps deep down they knew that they were wrong as well. Just saying.

 

[Jackdaws]

He would not dare to. Historically they never dared to. Even Shivaji did not.
You can say that was because they respected them too... But the point remains. They could not afford to. You cannot even today. Take Babri Masjid for instance. For one masjid we have fought so hard. Because we hold it dearer to us than an ordinary Hindu holds his places of worship. Perhaps deep down they knew that they were wrong as well. Just saying.

Or deep down they just believed in letting all religions practice their faith - Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Parsis etc. Just saying.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Anyway, they were at war and so this is perfectly acceptable.

Attacking a place of worship, that poses no military threat (is not being used as a covert or overt military site), is never acceptable.