North-West Muslims will prove the best defenders of India

[PoKeMon]

To cure your multi-generational prejudice, do visit Lahore. I shall take you to Data Darbar to see a site that has flourised for 1000 years as a beacon for Muslims of Punjab. Maybe then you would understand. Or perhaps, since prejudice is so essential for defining oneself in opposition to 'the other', you would still not believe your eyes.

He was talking about invaders since from 11th century. That's when muslim invasion starts and thats the time when islam gets its root in india mostly by forceful conversion. Since then we never see any opposition from north west muslim to any invasion.

Errr.

He was being sarcastic. implying that Afghan invaders did make it Central India and Muslims of NW did not "protect".

Unfortunately his view point totally ignores the time and space and thus are devoid of any meaningful analysis or opinion.


peace

Err..you failed to understand the sarcasm.

 

[Chak Bamu]

He was being sarcastic. implying that Afghan invaders did make it Central India and Muslims of NW did not "protect".

I took a different approach. The one that assumes that many Hindus cling to the idea (debunked effectively by Richard Eaton) that Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam by Mughals. My own background, and that of a very close friend both negate this theory, but then dear prejudices die hard.

But then you could be correct too.

Only @IND_PAK can tell for sure.

 

[FaujHistorian]

..... Russian threat was not global. Soviet threat was global. ..

Incorrect. You should have checked the history of Europe before tmaking this incorrect statement.


peace


p.s. no need to get personal. if you support Islamism, well be my guest. The difference is that unlike Islamists, I'll never issue fatwa challenging your relationship with God.

Worldly matters are off course different.

 

[ghilzai]

you are trying to confuse 2013 with 1930.

Different times, different politics.

Using YOUR argument, even Bacha Khan perhaps didn't know anything about northwest, when he sat in the lap of Gandhi and other Hindu leaders all the way until 1947.


So please as I requested, do not confuse 1930s with 2013s.


peace

What happened to bacha khan then?, last I heard he was buried in jalalabad , obviously he got it all wrong and people told him that.

Muslims of northwest are not Indian and never we're going to protect India or Indian Muslims.

Iqbal got that very wrong.

 

[FaujHistorian]

..... thats the time when islam gets its root in india mostly by forceful conversion..

Tell me which of your forefather was forcefully converted?

p.s.nothing personal. Just wanted to make sure you are a believer of heresy or something based on your family's experience.

What happened to bacha khan then?, last I heard he was buried in jalalabad , obviously he got it all wrong and people told him that.

Muslims of northwest are not Indian and never we're going to protect India or Indian Muslims.

Iqbal got that very wrong.

no need to lump everyone.

Iqbal was focused on the military soldiers and officers from the areas now KPK

 

[Chak Bamu]

He was talking about invaders since from 11th century. That's when muslim invasion starts and thats the time when islam gets its root in india mostly by forceful conversion. Since then we never see any opposition from north west muslim to any invasion.

1. Muslims were a part of present day Pakistan since 7th. Century. Multan was ruled alternately by Muslims, Hindus, and even for a while, by Qarmatians. 11th Century Turkish invasions came much later. You really need to read history before you let your itchy fingers do your talking. I have a good idea of your prejudices and frankly it only the urge to propagate these same prejudices that brings you to PDF. Too bad your prejudices are out of tune with reality. But with a good deal of help from willful ignorance, you persist.

2. You need to make a case for forceful conversions. My own family converted from Sikhs during height of Sikh power in 18th Century, and that too in Jallandhur Doab in Punjab. I know a number of poeple who converted during British era; again without any duress. So, you really need to prove your point. I already have counter-arguments ready for you. I just need to see your arguments.

Good Luck.

 

[PoKeMon]

Tell me which of your forefather was forcefully converted?

p.s.nothing personal. Just wanted to make sure you are a believer of heresy or something based on your family's experience.

I belong to Aligarh, a muslim majority area if you know. There are hundreds of villages which earlier converted to islam but then revert back once they feel so. Still, unfortunately, they are not treated equivalent by rest of hindu society (mostly rural) and termed as converts.

And let me add one more term to forceful conversion - lot more convert for "ease". Its easy to live as a muslim in muslim rule than to be a kafir. Current democratic pakistan is testimonial to that, leave alone islamic autocracy in that era.

1. Muslims were a part of present day Pakistan since 7th. Century. Multan was ruled alternately by Muslims, Hindus, and even for a while, by Qarmatians. 11th Century Turkish invasions came much later. You really need to read history before you let your itchy fingers do your talking. I have a good idea of your prejudices and frankly it only the urge to propagate these same prejudices that brings you to PDF. Too bad your prejudices are out of tune with reality. But with a good deal of help from willful ignorance, you persist.

2. You need to make a case for forceful conversions. My own family converted from Sikhs during height of Sikh power in 18th Century, and that too in Jallandhur Doab in Punjab. I know a number of poeple who converted during British era; again without any duress. So, you really need to prove your point. I already have counter-arguments ready for you. I just need to see your arguments.

Good Luck.

Check my reply to FaujHistorian.

Yes I do agree that along with fearful conversion, many converted for "ease". The spread of islam was never peaceful in sub continent rather it was carried by murderous invader who were in general looters.

I dont negate the fact that many converted to islam for its virtue, many do that even now but when we talk in general and in era of invasion, that was not consensual.

 

[ghilzai]

Tell me which of your forefather was forcefully converted?

p.s.nothing personal. Just wanted to make sure you are a believer of heresy or something based on your family's experience.




no need to lump everyone.

Iqbal was focused on the military soldiers and officers from the areas now KPK

Well we are no bodies soldiers but soldiers of our own people you should have even realised that now with wot going on.

 

[ghilzai]

I belong to Aligarh, a muslim majority area if you know. There are hundreds of villages which earlier converted to islam but then revert back once they feel so. Still, unfortunately, they are not treated equivalent by rest of hindu society (mostly rural) and termed as converts.

And let me add one more term to forceful conversion - lot more convert for "ease". Its easy to live as a muslim in muslim rule than to be a kafir. Current democratic pakistan is testimonial to that, leave alone islamic autocracy in that era.



Check my reply to FaujHistorian.

Yes I do agree that along with fearful conversion, many converted for "ease". The spread of islam was never peaceful in sub continent rather it was carried by murderous invader who were in general looters.

I dont negate the fact that many converted to islam for its virtue, many do that even now but when we talk in general and in era of invasion, that was not consensual.

You expected these murderous invaders to help you protect India?.

Were those not invaders who came and gave you civilisation and created cities that you claim as yours and gave you Hinduism before the next set of invaders came.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Yes I do agree that along with fearful conversion, many converted for "ease". The spread of islam was never peaceful in sub continent rather it was carried by murderous invader who were in general looters.

I dont negate the fact that many converted to islam for its virtue, many do that even now but when we talk in general and in era of invasion, that was not consensual.

Turkish invasions were like other invasions before them: Greek, Hun, etc... They were disruptive but not continuous as you seem to suggest. In fact they came to conquer and rule, not conquer, plunder, and leave. That would have been much more destructive. Had Mongols under Chingiz Khan (or any of his sons or grandsons) been able to make their way to South Asia like Taimur, they would have laid large areas to waste. Muslim Turkish sultans effectively checked Mongol invasion. Balban lost his most promising son in war against Mongols. So, conquest of North India by Turks had some positive effects as well.

This is an expansive topic, let me just say that it is no accident that Sultanate of Delhi was able to take root and exist for centuries and eventually be incorporated into Mughal empire. There had to be some sort of benefit in it for people that they at least tolerated being ruled by Sultanate of Delhi. If Sultans had merely been 'looters', they would not have been able to continue their rule. Episodes of dynastic change and periods of inter-regnum are prime opportunities for overthrow. Did not happen. There were reasons that you are discounting / ignoring.

Episodes of forced conversions were likely few, politically motivated, and certainly not the norm. I am sure you have debated about it earlier and that you know arguments from both sides. I will not waste time on it. Suffice to say that your views have likely been handed from one generation to the next, and though you have modified them, there is still a lot of room for improvement.

In Punjab at least (right next to Panipat & Aligarh) Mughal control weakened during the first half of 18th century. From latter half of 18th century to 1947, there was no effective Muslim rule in Punjab, and yet conversions continued. I would like to ask you whether these were forced conversions or conversions of 'ease'? Mind you, my family and many of my friends' families in Lahore have this background. You are ignoring many factors in your quest for establishing a narrative of victim-hood.

So, I have questioned your narrative on both counts: 1. That Turkish Sultans of North India were not 'looters'. 2. That most conversions, at least in Punjab and likely other places as well, were not forced / motivated by ease.

 

[FaujHistorian]

I belong to Aligarh, a muslim majority area if you know. There are hundreds of villages which earlier converted to islam but then revert back once they feel so. Still, unfortunately, they are not treated equivalent by rest of hindu society (mostly rural) and termed as converts.

And let me add one more term to forceful conversion - lot more convert for "ease". Its easy to live as a muslim in muslim rule than to be a kafir. Current democratic pakistan is testimonial to that, leave alone islamic autocracy in that era.



Check my reply to FaujHistorian.

Yes I do agree that along with fearful conversion, many converted for "ease". The spread of islam was never peaceful in sub continent rather it was carried by murderous invader who were in general looters.

I dont negate the fact that many converted to islam for its virtue, many do that even now but when we talk in general and in era of invasion, that was not consensual.

UP (Aligarh area) history about Muslim Hindu stuff is totally different from say Punjab or Sindh.


This is perhaps an honest mistake on part of many UP /Bihar Hindus when they superimpose their immediate vicinity to the whole of subcontinent.

Scaling up social and historical issues that way leads to ignorance.


Forced converssions is largely a bogeman used by extremists.

And you my dear are becoming an unwitting tool in their hands.


I hope you realize the following:

-- Muslim Majority Provinces (MMP) have largely remained Muslims for centuries upon centuries.
-- Hindu Majority Provinces (HMP) have largely remained Hindu for centuries upon centuries.



Even though MMPs were far away from power centers like Delhi
Even though HMPs in the north have remained the very center of Muslim rule.

This is the point that our dear dear @Chak Bamu is making but you didn't understand.


So please update your views instead of living with false and utterly incorrect history info.

thank you.

 

[scorpionx]

Relevant part


Very accurate and I also argued this on this forum many times. Good to see Iqbal's endorsement

There are 500 million+ Muslims in Indian subcontinent...

And Pakistan is the centralized territory, armed to teeth, and with nuclear capability protecting the remarkable cultural force of Islam in the region. If it wasn't for Pakistan, Islam would have been much, much weaker not only in India, but in Afghanistan, and entire Central Asia too.

Iqbal did not necessarily envisaged a Pakistan "armed to teeth" to protect Islam as we often confuse ourselves because the Idea of a separate country exclusive for Muslim was way far from Muslim League's agenda. Even Lahore resolution was not even close to the demand of partition and simply projects itself too vague in defining Sovereignty and autonomy.

As far as his "Reconstruction of Religious thought on Islam" is concerned, it simply does not conform with the regressive,intolerant version of Islam which today we are all suffering from. Iqbal's idea of Pakistan was a fusion of republican spirit and religiosity based on liberalism and tolerance. We can imagine how fanatic mullahs would react after reading his assessment on Kant,Whitehead,Bergson and an effort to adapt itself with the Islamic philosophy.


So let's not force our own ideas and prejudices on this great man and appreciate his views as a most extraordinary effort in the passage of reformation and modernization of Islam in the 20th Century.

 

[RescueRanger]

All muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims

These guys would like to say hi:

 

[FaujHistorian]

Iqbal did not necessarily envisaged a Pakistan "armed to teeth" to protect Islam as we often confuse ourselves because the Idea of a separate country exclusive for Muslim was way far from Muslim League's agenda. Even Lahore resolution was not even close to the demand of partition and simply projects itself too vague in defining Sovereignty and autonomy..

Iqbal was a poet, not a manager.

His poems and his behavior were good some times, bad other times, and then downright $tupid sometimes.

Yes he is not god or deity so we should be able to say what is correct about him.

But no! Iqbal was absolutely against the idea of partition.

Not that no one knew about the partion of India.

Everyone knew it because big name Hindu leaders and Congressis had been talking about kicking out Muslim Majority Provinces (MMPs) since 1920s. That MMPs would chopped off from HMPs (Hindu Majority Provinces).



And this loose talk by Hindu leaders, was then drummed upto frenzy by the Hindu dominated media.

All these anti MMP slogans scared the bejesus out of centrist and moderate Muslim leaders back then.

Why?


Because Hindu and Muslim leaders all believed in their heart of hearts that MMPs would not survive for more than 2 years if and when when chopped off from HMPs.


All the trade, all the factories, all the universities were in HMPs, while MMPs were far off borderlands with not much economy.


This is why Iqbal and Jinnah would talk about MMPs being beneficial for HMPs and being sword and shield for HMPs.


But in no way these two would ever propose the chopping up ideas spread by Hindu press.


The problem with posters on this forum in particular and Pak-INd in general is that people do not study their history, and thus continue spreading ignorance.

peace

 

[scorpionx]

The problem with posters on this forum in particular and Pak-INd in general is that people do not study their history, and thus continue spreading ignorance.

peace

I completely agree with your views on Mr.Iqbal @FaujHistorian sirjee. And if somehow I have said anything wrong,sincere apologies from a humble student.