Myths of Pakistani History-Dawn

[Samudra]

Hindus named their fist missile after Prithvi who won the first battle against muslims while lost second and with it the war. Now when Pakistan response with naming of missile after who won against hindus, they start their usual BS that prithvi mean eart.

Why would anyone name a missile after a King who ultimately was killed in battle! Besides, the IGMDP was drafted by Bharat Ratna Shri Kalam. He gave the names of the three elements namely Prithvi, Agni and Akash to three of the missiles included in the programme. Nag, the anti-tank missile was named after Nag Chaudry and Trishul was given the name because it means trident, and it was supposed to be used by all the three(tri) services. All the names were chosen on the same day somewhere in the early eighties. And of course, all of these are well documented and the well read people are informed enough about this. If the intention was to name a missile after some medieval Hindu ruler who defeated the Muslims we would have a missile named after the Maratha King Shivaji.

Here - help yourselves with some knowledge from the wiki :

As per the philosophy, there are 5 basic elements that the human body comprises. They are - Water(Jal), Earth(Prithivi), Fire(Agni), Wind(Vaayu) and finally Space(Akash)

Maybe even the Hindu's thought about this philosophy to bring it up as an excuse to naming a missile after a King who failed! Why not, once we begin to write thoughtlessly it is perfectly OK to carry it through to insane extents.

 

[Vinod2070]

Hindus named their fist missile after Prithvi who won the first battle against muslims while lost second and with it the war. Now when Pakistan response with naming of missile after who won against hindus, they start their usual BS that prithvi mean eart.

It was not "Hindus" who named the missile, It was Indians (and a Muslim patriotic Indian at that).

We don't look at ourselves in such narrow religious terms. India is not a theocratic state. I don't think bing a Hindu is my whole identity, its just a part of my identity. We are born into our religions and just because you are born in a religion and you have heard that it is the only right religion does not actually make it so.

God can not be so narrow minded as to differentiate among his children just on the basis of how or whether they prey to him. It will be a very narrow minded God who does that, and all religions at least agree that God is not narrow minded!

This is a figment of imagination that Prithvi was named after a king and of course some in Pakistan assumed that and named their missiles after cruel invaders of their own people. If that suits you, we don't give a damn.

What I find amusing is that instead of accepting that some Pakistanis made a mistake in their assumption, many of them find it necessary to repeat the same. It sounds most silly when the names of the other missiles are also along the same line of elements of the nature

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

It was not "Hindus" who named the missile, It was Indians (and a Muslim patriotic Indian at that).

We don't look at ourselves in such narrow religious terms. India is not a theocratic state. I don't think bing a Hindu is my whole identity, its just a part of my identity. We are born into our religions and just because you are born in a religion and you have heard that it is the only right religion does not actually make it so.

God can not be so narrow minded as to differentiate among his children just on the basis of how or whether they prey to him. It will be a very narrow minded God who does that, and all religions at least agree that God is not narrow minded!

This is a figment of imagination that Prithvi was named after a king and of course some in Pakistan assumed that and named their missiles after cruel invaders of their own people. If that suits you, we don't give a damn.

What I find amusing is that instead of accepting that some Pakistanis made a mistake in their assumption, many of them find it necessary to repeat the same. It sounds most silly when the names of the other missiles are also along the same line of elements of the nature

"God can not be so narrow minded as to differentiate among his children just on the basis of how or whether they prey to him."

Then why there is cast system in hinduisim?
India later on named missiles diffrently but remember Hindus started first by naming their missile after the Hindu king.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Why would anyone name a missile after a King who ultimately was killed in battle! Besides, the IGMDP was drafted by Bharat Ratna Shri Kalam. He gave the names of the three elements namely Prithvi, Agni and Akash to three of the missiles included in the programme. Nag, the anti-tank missile was named after Nag Chaudry and Trishul was given the name because it means trident, and it was supposed to be used by all the three(tri) services. All the names were chosen on the same day somewhere in the early eighties. And of course, all of these are well documented and the well read people are informed enough about this. If the intention was to name a missile after some medieval Hindu ruler who defeated the Muslims we would have a missile named after the Maratha King Shivaji.

Here - help yourselves with some knowledge from the wiki :



Maybe even the Hindu's thought about this philosophy to bring it up as an excuse to naming a missile after a King who failed! Why not, once we begin to write thoughtlessly it is perfectly OK to carry it through to insane extents.

Now where is the proof that they named all of their missiles name on the same day? Why didn't they clarify before? Documents can be invented at any given time.

Now i have read the biography of Shivaji on wiki. Turned out that one third of his army was muslim and fighting against mughals. So only hindutva hindus will try to paint the wars as hindu vs muslim. Its funny Shiv Sena draw inspiration from a secular leader (acording to wiki).

 

[Samudra]

Shan,

This is my last reply to you. I do not want this thread derailed at this juncture.

You should read Kalam's Wings of Fire to understand how the IGMDP came about. I've asked you for the logic behind naming a missile after a King killed by his enemies but you seem to have ignored it.

As for Shivaji - I'm afraid nobody denied the presence of Muslim soldiers in his army. So what? Shivaji is still percieved by a large number of Hindu's as a saviour from Aurangazeb's Islamist atrocities.

 

[Vinod2070]

"God can not be so narrow minded as to differentiate among his children just on the basis of how or whether they prey to him."

Then why there is cast system in hinduisim?

India later on named missiles diffrently but remember Hindus started first by naming their missile after the Hindu king.

For the same reason that there are more than 100 sects in Islam and they feel that their's is the only true one!

I don't support casteism and don't consider it to be given by God but by Men on earth. Same as most religious practices are invented by men.

And if you go on repeating a lie about the missile name, I have no interest. No one can argue with a person who is not open to reason as you seem to be.

 

[Samudra]

Vinod.

I think we should stop lending dignity to these posts by answering them.

 

[Vinod2070]

And I agree 100%. No more responses to him from me now.

 

[Spring Onion]

AM, I have thought about why actions of Muslims are associated so much with Islam while it doesn't happen for other religions as much. e.g. Hitler's actions are not linked to Christianity nor are Stalin's purges nor Mao's actions leading to 30 million deaths etc..

That is the most biased and dishonest thing on part of the so-called analysts and intellectuals who link the same action with religion in case of Muslims while link it to nations in case of others be it Hitler's actions, the Crusads or even Mongols' babarism. No one link these to the specific faith. Which itself negate the fairness of views on history.

Is it to be blamed on non-Muslims only that they single out Islam and Muslims or do Muslims link their bad actions to Islam themselves?

That is the problem Vinod, The Non-Muslims link the deeds of the Muslim warrior kings to Islam forgtting that action of a Muslim king or a Muslim dosnt mean a complete religion behind that.

They fail to mention that when The Last Prophet of Allah Muhammad (PBUH) conqured Makkah and entred the city, there was no Bloodshed no one was killed by the army of the Prophet (PBUH). Rather a general amenisty was announced for all non-Muslims of Makkah.

What I feel is that many Muslims rulers misused the name of their religion to cover their dirty deeds and personal greed (may be more than other religions) and as you said it may not be in accordance with the spirit of the religion but it was never opposed by any sections of the Muslims (as far as I know). And for some reason Muslims make heroes out of some very cruel people in their history.

Vinod i would not say that they used it more than other religions. It was that they were single out simply for being Muslims and let us accept that this practice of singling out Muslims continues to this day.

As far lack of criticizm and making some as heroes in the history i think somhow 99% of those who says so only read too much stuff that advocates this perception.

Otherwise i had read stuff written by Muslims criticizing the Mughal Kings for whatever should be flayed. They did it.
Coming to making some as heros. Vinod if you read Gita and the actions
advocated by Krishna. Had any Hindu condemned Krishna and stopped worshiping him ?????
The Answer is simply NO. Because the common man dosnt have the time to understand history or go into details of religiouse history.

Good and bad people are there in every society and religion. But a society is identified by how it deals with it's problem children. My perception definitely is impacted when someone says that they feel Aurangzeb was the best Mughal ruler as opposed to Akbar. Or that they agree with all that Gazhani did. On the other hand if most Muslims were to say that people like them were aberrations and did not represent the spirit of Islam, my perception would be different.

Vinod being a san person i would only go for appreciating who was a better king on the basis his defence strategy, his social policies above all the administrative reforms and introduction of economic and policing system and Not because he was a Muslim.


And honestly speaking all the invasions on sub-continent made by the Muslim Kings were 99% Expansion expediations simply based on desire to expand their area of rule.
Their conquest of India was not at all based even 10% on religious grounds.

Thats what i had understood by reading different books on history written mostly by Hindu writers from India. i had studies these books recently and it would be surprising for you that here for degree level and certificate level examinations throughout Pakistan the books on sub-continent history Written by Indian Hindu writers are taught and followed.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Vinod.

I think we should stop lending dignity to these posts by answering them.

lol it was expected.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Shan,

This is my last reply to you. I do not want this thread derailed at this juncture.

You should read Kalam's Wings of Fire to understand how the IGMDP came about. I've asked you for the logic behind naming a missile after a King killed by his enemies but you seem to have ignored it.

As for Shivaji - I'm afraid nobody denied the presence of Muslim soldiers in his army. So what? Shivaji is still percieved by a large number of Hindu's as a saviour from Aurangazeb's Islamist atrocities.

This is my last reply to....

Logic behind naming was that Pritvi won the first war. And on wiki there is funny story about the second war which he lost. The reason hindus provide on why Hindu king lost the war is nothing short of amazing. Still hindus like you say we are brainwashed.

And one third of muslim army is not "Some Muslims". Today in so called secular India there are less then 2% of muslims in IA while 15% in population. You don't have problem regarding Shivaji as hindu savior and neither do we have any problem with past muslims rulers of India. Now with it stop being hypocrite.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

For the same reason that there are more than 100 sects in Islam and they feel that their's is the only true one!

I don't support casteism and don't consider it to be given by God but by Men on earth. Same as most religious practices are invented by men.

And if you go on repeating a lie about the missile name, I have no interest. No one can argue with a person who is not open to reason as you seem to be.

Sect are in every relegion i doubt there are more then 100. You can't compare them with cast system. Now if you can't accept the fact then good for you.

 

[Spring Onion]

For the same reason that there are more than 100 sects in Islam and they feel that their's is the only true one!

Its a petty you are as much Ignorant as about what are Sects in Islam and the wide difference between Hindu Cast system and Sects in Islam.

1. First of all there will be 72 sects in Islam as per saying of the Prophet (PBUH) and Not 100 as claimed by you.

Now you and all Non-Muslims Need to know what is a sect and what is the difference between Hindu Cast System and sects in Islam.

what does a sects in Islam means

Sects in Islam do not give previlage to any Muslim from one sect over the other sect. Rather the basics of Islam are the same in all the sects.
There is no mention or practice of superimacy of one Muslim over the other. No Muslim is barred from praying at any Mosque. All the Muslims be he poor or rich pray at the same Mosque.
They offer Huj at the same place wearing same dress even if one is a King of the wealthy Saudi Arabia or a poor labourer from a poor country.
In Islam all the human are equal.
Same Quran is read and followed by Muslims from all sects.

There is NOT even One verse in Quran which says if any human was perfered over the other on basis of wealth, family or physical strength.

So vinod i hope a person like you will try not to advocate propoganda of terming sects as equal to hindu casts as it is not the same.

Hindu Cast System

Hindu Cast system clearly advocates discrimination against a large section of Hindus.
The Hindu religiouse Books clearly divided Hindus in casts and creeds giving Brahmins superimacy over the poor Dalits.
1. There different places of worship for Dalits or untouchable and those for the high cast Hindus.
Even today Dalits can not go for worship to temples meant for High Cast Hindus.
2. Dalits are not considered for marrying into high cast hindu families.

the list goes on and we all know that.

I don't support casteism and don't consider it to be given by God but by Men on earth. Same as most religious practices are invented by men.

Vinod if you do not support Hindu Cast system then why you are jusifying it by terming it equal to sects wich is not even near Cast System and there is not even one percent similarity between Cast System in Hinduim and sects in Islam.

 

[Vinod2070]

Its a petty you are as much Ignorant as about what are Sects in Islam and the wide difference between Hindu Cast system and Sects in Islam.

1. First of all there will be 72 sects in Islam as per saying of the Prophet (PBUH) and Not 100 as claimed by you.

Now you and all Non-Muslims Need to know what is a sect and what is the difference between Hindu Cast System and sects in Islam.

I didn't say that sect = caste.

Does the Quran mention any sects? Still they exist because Man created them.

Same for castes. They are a scar on the face of Hinduism. We need to discard it yesterday if possible.

I know of the Hadith about 72 sects but I have read that there are more than 100 Islamic sects already in place.

According to the Traditions, Muhammad predicted that his followers would become divided into seventy-three sects, every one of whom would go to hell, except one sect the religion professed by himself and his companions. However the number of Islamic sects, now over 150, has far exceeded Muhammad's prediction.

Link: Divisions in Islam

Can you tell me which one is the true sect?

And of course every one know that there are large number of sectarian murders taking place in Iraq almost daily and they were quite prevalent in Pakistan too. Taliban killed Shias in Afghanistan. In Iran it seems that Sunnis can't have a mosque in Teheran.

Such actions may not represent what was intended by the founders of the religion but they do take place everyday.

Now I never raise such issues on my own because I know that every society and religion has issues and problems. I don't get any glee from denigrating others.

It is only when some ignorant or bigoted person attacks others that he or she needs to be shown the mirror.

Vinod if you do not support Hindu Cast system then why you are jusifying it by terming it equal to sects wich is not even near Cast System and there is not even one percent similarity between Cast System in Hinduim and sects in Islam.

I guess I explained it above. I never equated the two.

Both are against the spirit of the respective religions.

 

[Spring Onion]

I didn't say that sect = caste..

well Vinod you reply did try to say that but now as you had denied saying so i wont blam ya.

Does the Quran mention any sects? Still they exist because Man created them.
Same for castes. They are a scar on the face of Hinduism. We need to discard it yesterday if possible.

The sects are mentioned in the Hadith of Prophet (PBUH) and we do not deny that sects are not there But The difference is that sects have nothing do with discrimination of any Muslim over the other socially.
In Islamic sects only ways of praying different duties are different and it has nothing to do with any kind of discrimination.

Whereas In Hinduism the Human are clearly divided in different catogaries with different tasks with untouchables having the most low position and dirties task to carry.
That is the big difference. (and it was only for the sake of clear the difference rest its Hindus own belife i have nothing to do with that)

I know of the Hadith about 72 sects but I have read that there are more than 100 Islamic sects already in place.

Being Muslims we believe in what Quran says and what Hadith says not what some nobody says.

Link: Divisions in Islam
Can you tell me which one is the true sect?

NO, no one can tell which sect is true. And Vinod when the Prophet (PBUH) can tell us about sects that too be exist after centuries was it difficult for him to tell us which one will be True.

But the Prophet (PBUH did not say so. He says of these 72 sects only one will be on rightous path and that will be decided by the Almighty not the human.

And of course every one know that there are large number of sectarian murders taking place in Iraq almost daily and they were quite prevalent in Pakistan too. Taliban killed Shias in Afghanistan. .
Such actions may not represent what was intended by the founders of the religion but they do take place everyday.

Once again you are trying to justify sects with hindu cast system.

There is no mention of divide on basis of sects in Quran and Islam wehereas in Hindu Religious Books the division between Hindus on basis of their Creed is clearly mentioned that is the differnence.

The sectarain violence if you had noted exist mainly in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan if you noticed this problem dosnt exist in other Muslim countries even if there was no news or violence.

Why it exists in above mentioned countries ???? One needs to analyse and after that one comes to know that beacuse somhow the issue was fuled to mint own intrests by the respective countries.
It has more to do with strategic intrests than religion of Islam.

In Iran it seems that Sunnis can't have a mosque in Teheran.

there is no difference between a Mosques. Shias and sunnis can pray at each others mosques. The difference is between the way of offering a nimaz (prayer)