Saudi arabia and attitudes towards non-arab muslims.

[FireFighter]

Ever heard of Mauryas.... Ever heard of Chandragupta Maurya and chanakya. Ever heard of Ashok. India was united then...... and Kashmir was the part of India....

And your theory of "you" ruling India well sir you were also ruling India when APJ Abdul Kalam Azad was the president.....................

And India was ruled by Hindus for 5000 years before that and you were part of India. But we do not consider them valid enough to bring this into legitimate discussions.

Ashoka became a buddist, not a hindu. And your claim of hindu ruling for 5000 years is nothing but bogus.

So pray tell me, do the BJP and Congress leaders see Ashoka in their dreams telling them to make Kashmir part of India? Your claim is full of contradictions, my friend. If not religious, then on what grounds is your justification on the inclusion of Kashmir be a part of India?

Weather you realize or not both your Congress and BJP leadership have this Bharat-Akhand agenda instilled in their minds with a religious fervor.

 

[R.A.W.]

as this would be off topic so stating a new thread about the prosecution here is the link for that we can discuss over there

http://www.defence.pk/forums/members-club/34768-prosecution-hindus.html#post491182

 

[R.A.W.]

self delete

 

[SeaGull]

CORRECTION - fhassan > The 'People of the Book' as referred to are:

Jews
Christians
Muslims

 

[R.A.W.]

Ashoka became a buddist, not a hindu. And your claim of hindu ruling for 5000 years is nothing but bogus.

So pray tell me, do the BJP and Congress leaders see Ashoka in their dreams telling them to make Kashmir part of India? Your claim is full of contradictions, my friend. If not religious, then on what grounds is your justification on the inclusion of Kashmir be a part of India?

Weather you realize or not both your Congress and BJP leadership have this Bharat-Akhand agenda instilled in their minds with a religious fervor.

As growing within India I came to know the concept of Akhand Bharat only from Pakistan no one else and I belive all the Indian members would agree to that.

By the way India does not mean Hindus. And it does not matter that he converted to Buddhism. And he converted only after uniting whole of India.

Secondly on what grounds is the claim bogus for 5000 years? Was the people here were under Christian rule or what.....

 

[fhassan]

Aurangzeb
On 11 November1675, Aurangzeb publicly executed the ninth Sikh Master, Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji for not converting to Islam. The Sikh Guru chose to be publicly beheaded with the sword of the executioner rather than be forced to change his religion. This marked a turning point for Sikhism, which now was even further militarised by their last Prophet, Guru Gobind Singh. Aurangzeb was responsible for the forced conversion of millions of non-Muslims to Islam. Aurangzeb was also responsible in the death of the four sons of the tenth Guru. Sikhs believe that the Zafarnama (Notification of Victory) sent by the tenth Guru resulted in Aurangzeb realizing his mistakes and in him losing the will to live and finally to his demise.

Aurangzeb's harsh treatment of Hindus led to uprisings in the western Deccan plateau, especially by the Marathi rebel Shivaji. So fierce were these conflicts around the Deccan that Aurangzeb eventually left the Mogul capital Delhi to take up residence in nearby Kirki, now known as Aurangabad, and he remained there until the end of his reign.

Unlike his predecessors, Aurangzeb left few buildings. He created a modest mausoleum for his first wife, sometimes called the mini-Taj, in Aurangabad. It pales in comparison to his father's masterpiece, made with cheaper material and simple decoration. He also built in Lahore what was, for a long time, the largest mosque outside Mecca: the Badshahi Masjid (Imperial Mosque) or Alamgiri Masjid, as it is also known after its builder. He also added a small marble mosque known as the Moti Masjid (or Pearl Mosque) to the Red Fort complex in Delhi.


It is a well know fact that among many Hindus the name of Aurangzeb evokes the same passionate hatred as do the names of Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad of Ghori. It was Aurangzeb who ordered all temples destroyed, among them the Kashi Vishwanath temple, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism, and had mosques built on a number of cleared temple sites. Other Hindu sacred places within his reach equally suffered destruction, with mosques built on them. A few examples: Krishna’s birth temple in Mathura; the rebuilt Somnath temple on the coast of Gujarat; the Vishnu temple replaced with the Alamgir mosque now overlooking Benares; and the Treta-ka-Thakur temple in Ayodhya. The number of temples destroyed by Aurangzeb is counted in four, if not five figures. Aurangzeb did not stop at destroying temples, their users were also wiped out; even his own brother Dara Shikoh was executed for taking an interest in Hindu religion; Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur was beheaded because he objected to Aurangzeb’s forced conversions.

Please avoid posting articles from extreemist Hindu organisations. Dr. Habib Siddiqui has written an article about your myth and he has cited a respect Hindu Historian called Babu Nagendranath Banerjee, amongst others.

Babu Nagendranath Banerjee, a Hindu Historian actually rejects that Aurangzeb forcefully converted Non-Muslims to Islam.

Babu Nagendranath Banerjee says:

"No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions."

During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?

Another Historian:

Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had fourteen Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court. (Ref: Mughal Government) But this fact is somewhat less known.

It was Aurangzeb who ordered all temples destroyed, among them the Kashi Vishwanath temple, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism, and had mosques built on a number of cleared temple sites. Other Hindu sacred places within his reach equally suffered destruction, with mosques built on them.

The article reads:

Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History) used in Bengal for the 5th and 6th graders states: "If Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates for use as Temple sites and support thereof in Benares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant."

A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north of Chitrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the Emperor himself. The proof of Aurangzeb's land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same textbook reads: "During the fifty year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities." (p. 138) Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb's fifty year reign and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way.

You can access the full article here:

Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler or Bad History?

It pretty much debunks your formulation of lies.

Aurangzeb


This is just a singular example if you need I can provide you with further examples.

No thanks, I am allergic to BS.

 

[R.A.W.]

Please avoid posting articles from extreemist Hindu organisations. Dr. Habib Siddiqui has written an article about your myth and he has cited a respect Hindu Historian called Babu Nagendranath Banerjee, amongst others.

Babu Nagendranath Banerjee, a Hindu Historian actually rejects that Aurangzeb forcefully converted Non-Muslims to Islam.

Babu Nagendranath Banerjee says:

"No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions."

During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?

Another Historian:

Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had fourteen Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court. (Ref: Mughal Government) But this fact is somewhat less known.



The article reads:

Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History) used in Bengal for the 5th and 6th graders states: "If Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates for use as Temple sites and support thereof in Benares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant."

A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north of Chitrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the Emperor himself. The proof of Aurangzeb's land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same textbook reads: "During the fifty year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities." (p. 138) Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb's fifty year reign and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way.

You can access the full article here:

Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler or Bad History?

It pretty much debunks your formulation of lies.



No thanks, I am allergic to BS.

And so how according to you Guru Teg Bahadur died?

 

[r3alist]

THIS THREAD IS BEING RUINED BY INDIANS, I WANT THE VIEWS OF MUSLIMS AND PAKISTANI'S, THE FEELINGS AND THOUGHTS OF OTHERS ARE NOT RELEVANT.


btw, dont take it persaonlly, i started this thread because i am specifically and exclusively interested in the views of certain people, as predicted tangential issues are being brought up by indians.

 

[r3alist]

anyway, back to topic.

i notice the muslims and pakistani's here seem to distinguisfgh between the average suadi person and the govt. - that seems like an attempt to deflect from the reality - that is to say that the saudi govt. are not true to islam and that there are a significant number of saudi's who are racist.


also, another point to note, arabs and not just saudi's in particular seem to hold a person from the west in higher esteem than any other person, muslim or non-muslim, what odd thinking, anyone else agree?

so tell me, why do we tolerate them?

 

[greatsequence]

Alright – I have a Big Question for all of you:

Why is it that any one of regardless of his color, creed faith or affiliation can upon fulfillment of certain criteria like, duration of stay, marriage, investment etc, qualify for citizenship in the West, protected by its laws with equal status at par with any of its other citizens.
But no Muslims from our part of the world can ever qualify for a Saudi and a couple of other Arab countries citizenship, even if we have lived our entire lives in those countries.
And forget about marriage to any Saudi women – you know what the sword can do to your neck.
The West being much more advanced than these Arab countries.
Israel grants automatic citizenship to any Jew, living in any part of the world.

What kind of Muslims are we? And what kind of brotherhood do we speak of?
I am totally confused here. Any help in understanding this will be much appreciated.

They would have turned into a minority already if they had given nationalities to us.

 

[paritosh]

well...by generalizing Arabs we are also being prejudiced...but
I had a friend (a muslim) working in Dubai...he told me about the discrimination the muslims and non-muslims from the sub-continent used to face from the Arabs...
the sub-cont is more powerful than the arabian peninsula...the arabs have a waning economy...the times of their seeking employment in India-Pakistan-bangladesh are just nearing.

 

[Storm Force]

Should not get worked up OR get overly bothered about who is your bigger or richer brother country.

Who supports who does not.

You will never see a chinease or a American ask who is our brother country.

Pakistan needs tobe inheritently strong from within,,, with successful gov,t and industry/ technology / education.

If you start worrying about Arabs and other so called musluim brothers you are showing weakness almost subserviant attitude.

You don,t need them if you are already strong and confident.

 

[New Vision]

Muslims are still treated better in Saudi and gulf countries than they're in their "home" country, India. Its a fact and its really hard for you to comprehend, but i think many of you indians need a doze of reminder about that. The Saudis aren't occupying a foreign territory and have over 500,000 soldiers systematically oppressing muslims, do they? Saudis dont sponsor or indulge in communal violence and discriminate muslims at the state level? The Saudis have a rule that they don't give citizenship to anyone regardless of race, religion or nationality, etc. and thats that. Pakistan has extremely good military and political relations with the Saudis and millions of Pakistanis live in Saudi peacefully says something about their relationship. Infact Saudi Army trains with Pakistan Army more than they train with any other Army in the world should tell you how close our relationship is.


Secondly, the good thing is that the whole concept of "Ummah" or collective Islamic brotherhood still exists in the hearts and minds of most muslims across the world. Its embeded in our culture, our scriptures, roots that it cannot be simply taken out that easily so long as people remain Muslims. It's just that the corrupt politicians, beaurocrats and ruling class statesmen have sold out their countrymen for petty $$$ and sold the concept of "ummah" as well. They're not true representatives of their constituents; they're rather there for their own interests more than anything else.

You see there you go again. Just because I am of Indian origin and commenting on Saudi / Pakistani (muslim) issues doesnt mean you throw it back at India. The issue is not about India. BTW we didnt invade Kashmir , and just because Pakistan claims Kashmir on grounds of Islam is not valid, just because you ask for it , why should we give it to you. We have more muslims in India than in Pakistan. As I had said earlier in my post, use your head not your heart, dont get emotional. Be radical and respond radically. In all my post I do not smear Paksitanis nor look down on them, the forum is for knowledge, information and practical discussion. Dont let your emotions get the better of you

 

[New Vision]

Sounds like a quote in the novel "Animal Farm":

"We are all equal. It just happens that some of us are more equal than others."

and why should Pakistanis look for Saudis partonizing. You are a soverign muslim nation, you should hold your head high in the muslim world. The very fact you look towards Saudi as a patron, you make yourself small. Every creature looks towards their creator and wants to please Him, the muslims are just the same. All the people of all the faiths are the same

 

[New Vision]

Historically, Kashmir was never a part of Hindustan or India so to speak. Although hindus have existed for thousands of years, they were all disunited and separated by caste, language, region in the sub-continent. all the smaller states like Maharashtra, Bengal, kashmir, Gujrat, etc. were small kingdoms. It was the Moghuls Muslims that established "India" by uniting all the smaller territories and turned it into a proper Civilization that prospered so much that it controlled 30% of the world's trade compared to what like 4% it is today.

So, on what grounds do you believe Kashmir or Bengal or whatnot is part of India? Do you believe it because your scriptures says so, if so, then provide proof? Or you believe in it because BJP or Congress says so?

Historically there were no muslims in India, until the Mughals invaded, so why dont you go back to where you came from in the first place