Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khilji A hero or Villain to Bangladeshis??

[kobiraaz]

By the way I did not agree with your Buddhist mythology logic. Two or three fictional books do not nullify entire Buddhist writers.

 

[Baby-5]

You skipped Shashangka. He destroyed Nalanda and cut down bodhi tree from which nalanda never recovered as reported by Tsang.

How many times I need to tell Bakhtiyar destroyed Bihar Sharif not Nalanda. There is no proof historical account or archaeological that his troops was in Nalanda.

it is again a fairy story by xuanxiang that shashanka cutted the bodhi tree, Buddhist scriptures blamed almost every king as anti-buddhist and who did not patronised Buddhism...
Also he only said about bodhi tree... dont add story in story by taking this story one step further...

nalanda was not only for buddhist monks but Brahmins too( mostly for Brahmins) as Shashanka adored shaivism and Brahmins, this is too stupid to say that he destroyed Nalanda Uni

 

[kobiraaz]

it is again a fairy story by xuanxiang that shashanka cutted the bodhi tree, Buddhist scriptures blamed almost every king as anti-buddhist and who did not patronised Buddhism...
Also he only said about bodhi tree... dont add story in story by taking this story one step further...

nalanda was not only for buddhist monks but Brahmins too( mostly for Brahmins) as Shashanka adored shaivism and Brahmins, this is too stupid to say that he destroyed Nalanda Uni

Well I will return to this thread later after reading more about shashanka and Tsang. Till then Alvida.

 

[rubyjackass]

Joe retired from this forum quite some time ago, when Hindu communalists took over. There is no point in returning, certainly not to either condemn or defend another communal piece written to further a social battle being fought out in real time in real space. This piece is a magnificent example and source of encouragement for all the Hindutvavadi revisionists who want to re-write history to give themselves the legitimation that they seem to need for their social re-work.

Diamond cuts diamond.

Perfect articulation of the madness

 

[kobiraaz]

Perfect articulation of the madness

Don't you think it was quite opposite for me? Khilji is not a prophet nor a saint for me. Why on earth do I need to defend him ? Do I defend timarlane? He was a sunni muslim too.

I was tired with khilji bashing associating him with nalanda which he didn't do. People like Joe Shearer LaBong or other people are immune to such propaganda. But majority of people are gullible with little knowledge of history. They are being fed lies . As a Bengali king shashanka is my king. I do not hate him or didnt want to go out of my line to discredit him but I was forced to do so.

 

[rubyjackass]

Don't you think it was quite opposite for me? Khilji is not a prophet nor a saint for me. Why on earth do I need to defend him ? Do I defend timarlane? He was a sunni muslim too.

I was tired with khilji bashing associating him with nalanda which he didn't do. People like Joe Shearer LaBong or other people are immune to such propaganda. But majority of people are gullible with little knowledge of history. They are being fed lies . As a Bengali king shashanka is my king. I do not hate him or didnt want to go out of my line to discredit him but I was forced to do so.

I was talking about @Joe Shearer's stance on the matter. We see 'new' accounts of history everyday these days. Indifference seems to be the logical reaction one should have until academics vet the evidence for or against a theory. Despite what you are saying, mainstream historians tell us that Khilji destroyed Nalanda. It was sacked a few times earlier and there is no doubt that Brahminism engaged in atrocities against Buddhists. If you ask me, religions like Saivism which later formed Hinduism are what wiped out Buddhism and Jainism from India. This much is clear as of now.

'Recent' discoveries of Bhaktiyar Khilji's 'kindness' and his 'mistaken' attack on Viharas and 'Nalanda hoax' are apologia published by soft-core Islamists, just like saffronists spout a new theory every week. Until there is overwhelming agreement on these subjects, I will stick to believing what I have learnt so far, even as I keep reexamining my knowledge.

 

[kobiraaz]

I was talking about @Joe Shearer's stance on the matter. We see 'new' accounts of history everyday these days. Indifference seems to be the logical reaction one should have until academics vet the evidence for or against a theory. Despite what you are saying, mainstream historians tell us that Khilji destroyed Nalanda. It was sacked a few times earlier and there is no doubt that Brahminism engaged in atrocities against Buddhists. If you ask me, religions like Saivism which later formed Hinduism are what wiped out Buddhism and Jainism from India. This much is clear as of now.

'Recent' discoveries of Bhaktiyar Khilji's 'kindness' and his 'mistaken' attack on Viharas and 'Nalanda hoax' are apologia published by soft-core Islamists, just like saffronists spout a new theory every week. Until there is overwhelming agreement on these subjects, I will stick to believing what I have learnt so far, even as I keep reexamining my knowledge.

Like you I also used to think Khilji destroyed Nalanda. It changed later when I decided to listen to historians of your country. They are divided in opinion. But it's not true that mainstream historians consider him the destroyer of Nalanda. No one has any proof. A few say yes and a few with similar credentials consider no.

No because khilji destroyed Bihar Sharif. It has archeological evisdence that his army was there. Nalanda failed to produce such evidence..Its a fact. Tabakat-E-Nasiri is the only source of his attack on a Bihar. It does not mention Nalanda. So it could be Bihar sharif or Nalanda. As Bihar sharif produces archeological evidence it is safe to assume Tabakat-E-Nasiri is talking about Bihar sharif. I posted my findings here for discussion. I will change my opinion if I am proven false and defend the truth fiercely

 

[Baby-5]

Well I will return to this thread later after reading more about shashanka and Tsang. Till then Alvida.

sure sir, i will be waiting...

 

[TopCat]

majority Buddhist were upper caste Indians

(u can Google it)

Up until hindu take over.

 

[Samandri]

Also Bakhtiar wasn't an Afghan, he was a Turkic.

No he was not a Turk, Juzjani and Barani of those times, tell us that Khiljis were not Turks , and from 10th century geography book "Hudud-i-Alam", its clear that Khiljis of Helmand, Zabul , Ghazni etc were none other than Ghilzais of today.

 

[TopCat]

'

No he was not a Turk, Juzjani and Barani of those times, tell us that Khiljis were not Turks , and from 10th century geography book "Hudud-i-Alam", its clear that Khiljis of Helmand, Zabul , Ghazni etc were none other than Ghilzais of today.

He was a nomadic Turk fro Afhganistan

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

No he was not a Turk, Juzjani and Barani of those times, tell us that Khiljis were not Turks , and from 10th century geography book "Hudud-i-Alam", its clear that Khiljis of Helmand, Zabul , Ghazni etc were none other than Ghilzais of today.

Turks assimilated in Pashtun culture..?! @ghilzai

 

[LaBong]

Like you I also used to think Khilji destroyed Nalanda. It changed later when I decided to listen to historians of your country. They are divided in opinion. But it's not true that mainstream historians consider him the destroyer of Nalanda. No one has any proof. A few say yes and a few with similar credentials consider no.

It doesn't matter if it was Odantapura or Nalanda, both of these mahabiharas were only few kilometres apart and probably met the same fate, as did other mahabiharas of that time in hand of turkic invaders.

Iconoclasm had been an integral part of early and mediaeval Abrahamic religious expansion, no point spinning around it like headless chicken.

 

[kobiraaz]

It doesn't matter if it was Odantapura or Nalanda, both of these mahabiharas were only few kilometres apart and probably met the same fate, as did other mahabiharas of that time in hand of turkic invaders.

Iconoclasm had been an integral part of early and mediaeval Abrahamic religious expansion, no point spinning around it like headless chicken.

On the contrary, Ilias Shah dynasty of Turkic origin patronised medieval hindu literature in bengali like Sri krishna Vijay, Maha bharat, padma Puran, Bidyasundar.

It will be a mistake if everything is taken for granted.

 

[TopCat]

On the contrary, Ilias Shah dynasty of Turkic origin patronised medieval hindu literature in bengali like Sri krishna Vijay, Maha bharat, padma Puran, Bidyasundar.

It will be a mistake if everything is taken for granted.

What he is reading or writing as Bengali literature today including Rabindranath should be credited to Ilias Shah. He was the one who patronized Bengali literature in place of Sanskrit. Otherwise he will be still uttering slokes in school and colleges. LMAOF