What's new

Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

Status
Not open for further replies.
The one where we're the villains of South Asia; murdering, raping and converting as we go. The myth that the rightests expound upon in your country.
There are very many accounts of Muslim kings forcing conversions as well as capturing slaves and what not @jaibi .
Are you trying to imply that none of this happened?

When we die, we would eventually be resurrected to life on the day of judgement. On that day, we would be questioned about our life. Then we would be sorted out either into Hell or Heaven, were we would eventually live for eternity.

ALL Polytheists would go to hell. Thus polytheism is a sure way to hell. Only monotheist, would have a CHANCE, to go to heaven.

This is the hard fact.
No.
This is what your book tells you.
Let me put it bluntly.
The rest of us dont believe your book tells the truth.The fact that you 'believe' it is okay with the rest of us.

However it cannot be a 'fact'. Or maybe you need to understand what the term 'fact' means.
 
Last edited:
i dont want to waste time talking to you,you deserve your faith and your substandard brain.

Roger out.
 
Yeah... World did not started from saudi Arabia :P


In case you don't know. Polytheism started from the people of Noah. Since Adam, Humans were one nation/civilization. This nation eventually became polytheist, and started to worship 4 idols:Wadd, nor Suwa, nor Yaghuth, nor Ya uq nor Nasr. ( As described in my earlier post)

Prophet Noah was sent to them, to guide them to the right path, and bring them towards monotheism, but his people did not listen to him, and kept on committing the sin of idol worship.

Noah was then commanded by God, to construct a ship, and bring the followers of God, and every pair of animal, into that ship.

A great flood then came and it destroyed the Nation of Noah, only the people in that ship survived.
Humanity started again from Noah, after it was destroyed by the wraith of God due to polytheism.

Then the surviving humans were divided into nations. It was at this time, different civilizations came into being. They were at first divided by language.

Each of these nations then recieved Prophets of God, who were from among them, and spoke their language, to guide them to the right path. Some of these nations, which became polytheists, were destroyed by God, like he destroyed the people of Noah.

The world kept on going like this, till the last Prophet came. He is Rasool Allah. Prophty Muhammad (SAW)
 
Yeah nice joke now write that in yr history books.


Een you once claimed Taxila had no Hindu history while other Pakistani guy me Gandhara was never Hindu. :cheesy: Few centuries later you will claim Sindh has no Hindu history. :wacko:
 
There are very many accounts of Muslim kings forcing conversions as well as capturing slaves and what not @jaibi .
Are you trying to imply that none of this happened?


No.
This is what your book tells you.
Let me put it bluntly.
The rest of us dont believe your book tells the truth.The fact that you 'believe' it is okay with the rest of us.

However it cannot be a 'fact'. Or maybe you need to understand what the term 'fact' means.

No body "forced" anyone into Islam. The fact polytheists still exist in South Asia, even today. Shows they did not force their religion on to them.

Islam is the true religion. Prophet Muhammad is the Prophet of God (SAW), Quran is the revelation of God, sent to Prophet Muhammad. He is from the family of Ismail, the first son of Abrahim.


People convert to Islam from polytheism because they know it is the right path, and their path of idol worship is wrong.

Who would you prefer to worship , The God? or some cow? The choice is obvious.

If you still continue to make the wrong choice, then you would be responsible for yourselves, for worshiping cows instead of The God. those cows wont help you much, on the day of judgement. They never asked you to worship them at the first place.
 
No such thing as "India" before 1947. Your perspective of reality is absurd.

Even mughals did not know they were ruling "India"...

Your own religious book mentions about the existence of 'Hind'. so, i don't think you will deny the existence of Hind or India or Bharat.
 
Prophet Noah was sent to them, to guide them to the right path, and bring them towards monotheism, but his people did not listen to him, and kept on committing the sin of idol worship.

Noah was then commanded by God, to construct a ship, and bring the followers of God, and every pair of animal, into that ship.

A great flood then came and it destroyed the Nation of Noah, only the people in that ship survived.
Humanity started again from Noah, after it was destroyed by the wraith of God due to polytheism.

Then the surviving humans were divided into nations. It was at this time, different civilizations came into being. They were at first divided by language.

Great Story, Bro.

But two things,
First, You say that polytheism started with Noah, right? But according to Vedas, the "Santana Dharma" is older than the story of Noah. Actually, Vedas are much much older than the Dead Sea scrolls on which the Old and New testaments and the Quran are based.

Secondly, if God(s) instructed Noah to gather only believers and animals in pairs, and destroyed life in the great flood, how come there are so many other polytheist religions being practiced still around (China, Iran, Sril Lanka, Japan, Indigenous people in the Americas and Australia etc)? Did some polytheists sneak into the Noah's Ark and Noah didnt know about it? Or some strong believers, off spring generations of Noah branch out into polytheism?
 
Last edited:
Een you once claimed Taxila had no Hindu history while other Pakistani guy me Gandhara was never Hindu. :cheesy: Few centuries later you will claim Sindh has no Hindu history. :wacko:
Ok i was wrong thanks to educate me happy now kiddo?
 
Who would you prefer to worship , The God? or some cow? The choice is obvious.
Not really.

Why should I believe in something I have not seen or personally experienced or felt (which I believe is true for the majority of the population, for the rest, there's a perfectly physiological explanation for their 'out of world, Godly experience), or which I have been told to believe in out of fear?
If you still continue to make the wrong choice, then you would be responsible for yourselves, for worshiping cows instead of The God. those cows wont help you much, on the day of judgement. They never asked you to worship them at the first place.
You speak of the Judgement day as if you have already experienced it. Let me be blunt here, if your Book says that judgement day exists, and mine says that Judgement day doesnt exist, what is the truth? Who or what decides which Book is telling the 'truth'?

How, and Why? Please to be explaining.
 
Great Story, truly.

But two things,
First, You say that polytheism started with Noah, right? But according to Vedas, the "Santana Dharma" is older than the story of Noah. Actually, Vedas are much much older than the Dead Sea scrolls on which the Old and New testaments and the Quran are based.

Secondly, if God(s) instructed Noah to gather only believers and animals in pairs, and destroyed life in the great flood, how come there are so many other polytheist religions being practiced still around (China, Iran, Sril Lanka, Japan, Indigenous people in the Americas and Australia etc)? Did some polytheists sneak into the Noah's Ark and Noah didnt know about it? Or some strong believers, off spring generations of Noah branch out into polytheism?

I am not talking about made up books of polytheists only found in subcontinent..

There are Four Holy Books, revealed to Prophets by The God. Zaboor revealed to Prophet Daud/David, Toreit/Torah revealed to Prophet Mosa/Moses, Injeel/Bible revealed to Prophet Isa/Jesus, and the last book, Quran, revealed to the last Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

The first three books became corrupted by time, by the "lying pen", by people who tried to alter them.

Quran how ever, would not be changed, because it is the last of Books, and God said, he would protect it.

Quran has remained the same, since the time of Prophet, for the last 1400 years. There is only one Quran.


As for your second query. read my earlier post again. You would find the answer with in it.

Not really.

Why should I believe in something I have not seen or personally experienced or felt (which I believe is true for the majority of the population, for the rest, there's a perfectly physiological explanation for their 'out of world, Godly experience), or which I have been told to believe in out of fear?

You speak of the Judgement day as if you have already experienced it. Let me be blunt here, if your Book says that judgement day exists, and mine says that Judgement day doesnt exist, what is the truth? Who or what decides which Book is telling the 'truth'?

How, and Why? Please to be explaining.


Its your choice. Only you are responsible for yourself. I warned, I am not your protector.

God has sent his Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and has revealed Quran to him, to guide humanity. It is up to you, what you are gonna do about it. The Prophet has came to you, the Quran is available to you. What are you gonna do about it now? It is your choice. This life is a test, it is a sorting ground for the hereafter. Our true destiny is either in Heaven or Hell. It up to you what you do in this world now.
 
Last edited:
No body "forced" anyone into Islam. The fact polytheists still exist in South Asia, even today. Shows they did not force their religion on to them.
I know that some people were forced into Islam. There are written accounts of what happened during the Muslim rule.
Not all were, neither were all Muslim kings like that. However some were.
Because it does not fit your narrative does not mean that did not happen.

Islam is the true religion. Prophet Muhammad is the Prophet of God (SAW), Quran is the revelation of God, sent to Prophet Muhammad. He is from the family of Ismail, the first son of Abrahim.


People convert to Islam from polytheism because they know it is the right path, and their path of idol worship is wrong.

Who would you prefer to worship , The God? or some cow? The choice is obvious.

If you still continue to make the wrong choice, then you would be responsible for yourselves, for worshiping cows instead of The God. those cows wont help you much, on the day of judgement. They never asked you to worship them at the first place.
You believe Islam to be the true religion.
I dont.
I believe Hinduism to be the true religion. I also know of many Muslims who have converted to Hinduism and Budhism in India.

As I said in the last post. Understand the meaning of the word 'fact' or you reflect very badly on the Pakistani school system.

I am not talking about made up books of polytheists only found in subcontinent..
There is the beauty. We think that the books from the deserts are the made up books. Written and used to gain power.
 
I am not talking about made up books of polytheists only found in subcontinent..

There are Four Holy Books, revealed to Prophets by The God. Zaboor revealed to Prophet Daud/David, Toreit/Torah revealed to Prophet Mosa/Moses, Injeel/Bible revealed to Prophet Isa/Jesus, and the last book, Quran, revealed to the last Prophet Muhammad (SAW).
Dude, the Holy Books you speak of are or were made up or written only in the middle east. At that time, there were thriving civilizations in the Americas, Africa, Australia and not to mention the Indian subcontinent. The people living there had absolutely NO IDEA that a God had appeared to any of the Prophets, let alone the Books whcih came into existence many many years later AFTER the supposed revelations. So pray, why should anyone believe in the Books that you speak of?
Quran has remained the same, since the time of Prophet, for the last 1400 years. There is only one Quran.
That is kind of true. The 'lying pen' you mention has changed the Bible from its earliest version to the most popular version being in use today - The King James Bible. Since Quran is much newer, when communication was much better than in older days, the chance to change narration did not arise.
As for your second query. read my earlier post again. You would find the answer with in it.
Its your choice. Only you are responsible for yourself. I warned, I am not your protector.
No I dont find any answers to my questions in your earlier posts.
And why are YOU WARNING me if I dont believe in your Book? Is that what you interpret your Book teaches you? To instill fear of judgement day into the hearts of non-believers/pagans?
That is the most cowardly excuse that I have seen people resorting to when asked to explain something about faith. If you are such a strong believer, then 'be a man', show some guts and provide adequate explanation for the questions I have asked.
 
I know that some people were forced into Islam. There are written accounts of what happened during the Muslim rule.
Not all were, neither were all Muslim kings like that. However some were.
Because it does not fit your narrative does not mean that did not happen.


You believe Islam to be the true religion.
I dont.
I believe Hinduism to be the true religion. I also know of many Muslims who have converted to Hinduism and Budhism in India.

As I said in the last post. Understand the meaning of the word 'fact' or you reflect very badly on the Pakistani school system.


I worship The God, and I do not worship Cows.

If you worship cows instead of The God? Don't you find something wrong in this picture?

It is clear, who is on the right path and who isn't, it is up to you, if you want to see or become blind.
In the end, you are only responsible for yourself.
 
Look, Contarian, I'm a student of history and my background is in the social sciences. The people of India have confused the coming of various civilisations that were 'Muslim' into the region as one phenomena. That is an utter logical fallacy. I shall offer a breif account. The first incursion of the Arabs, the official policy was NOT to encourage conversion for two reasons, firstly, the Persians, were giving headaches to the Arab Rulers by vehemently asserting that Islam is not synonymous with the Arab cultuer and thus the assertion of an Arab being superior or a better Muslim and thus having more say in the government and power is false. The first expansion under Hazrat Umer (RA), the Second Caliph, checked this by not allowing the Muslim forces to buy land in the territories that were captured. Also, it should be noted, that the Persians and the Byzantium empires of the time had fought each other for nearly 500 years and both had interests in checking any rise in the region. The Persians first went on the offensive against the Muslims, thinking of an easy victory, the Muslims turned them back and went on. Seeing this the Byzantium power made overtures to seize the weakened territories and thus another chapter opened up. Now, here, for the first time, the armies went on the declared notion of not harming any civilians, not disrespecting any religious santuaries and no one was to submit to any 'king' but an representative of the people, the Muslims, called the Calihp. Sounds familiar?

Now after the internal fractures of the Muslims, the dynastic rule started and this is mostly centred around the Crusades, the next game changers were the Mongols: they were lightning fast and devestated the entire region. I would like to point out here that it has been seen according to research that many people in India do not differentiate the Mongol and Mughal regins and accordingly, on both sides, associate the Mughals as the symbol of power of the Muslims in the region. The Mughals also get blamed for the tactics of the Mongol raids, in the immediate aftermath of Genghis Khan, to the Mughals and thus the Muslims. Here are two examples:
http://www.psr.jku.at/psr2005/14_02Sen.pdf
Culture, Social Representations, and Peacemaking: A Symbolic Theory of History and Identity - Springer

Historically these eras and civilisations are very different, the Mughals were a Turkic-Perisan influenced peoples, that had inherited Mongol blood but not much of her culture. Moving forward, the Muslim reign on South Asia comes under first the raids from the land of what is now Afghanistan, that again has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the history and culture of the region, this practice was carried well into the 18th centuary. Here is what comes up, once the Muslims were populated here, it was often seen that the raiders were 'softer' on the Muslims, however, this has nothing to do with any planning or any sinisterisation of the whole plot. It was an occurance of History that was never carried with certanity and the myth of the Muslim being the 'outsider' to the region was created over at these instances this is especially true as the Marhata's and later the Ranjit Singh's kingdoms begin to decline. This happens because of something 'Anchorage' according to Social Representations theory An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie I believe this article explains this. Not sure if you can access it, sorry. Let me see another one if you want.

Now then, come again to the later times, the partition, cements this feeling in both societies and history is read without context to paint the light of giving weightage to either this side or that one. Conservative rightists over here tell us tales of the Sikh conquest and Sikhs desecrating our Mosques. People on your side tell you about Muslims raping and converting as they go. These are out of context, and misplaced because most people do not appreciate the feel and life of the era. (Cominng to the Sikhs, the Mughal-Sikh dynamics were again political, not religious, Ranjit Singh had Muslim generals, the Muhgals employed a Hindu Army.)

I hope this can shed some light.

There are very many accounts of Muslim kings forcing conversions as well as capturing slaves and what not @jaibi .
Are you trying to imply that none of this happened?


No.
This is what your book tells you.
Let me put it bluntly.
The rest of us dont believe your book tells the truth.The fact that you 'believe' it is okay with the rest of us.

However it cannot be a 'fact'. Or maybe you need to understand what the term 'fact' means.
 
I worship The God, and I do not worship Cows.

If you worship cows instead of The God? Don't you find something wrong in this picture?

It is clear, who is on the right path and who isn't, it is up to you, if you want to see or become blind.
In the end, you are only responsible for yourself.
I worship God.
You need to understand what Hindus worship in the first place. Or if you want to take the example of cows - then what is it in the Cows that Hindus worship.
Else if you come across as ignorant as you do now - I can just as easily claim you worship a stone kept in the desert. Or you throw stones at a make believe 'dajjal'.

Or you follow a religion whose Prophet marries a 9 year old girls. Im not sure I can follow such a religion.

Lastly, while your constant 'warnings' about hell awaiting those who dont believe in Islam, might make the less educated shake in their boots, I assure you, and I speak for many others - you only end up reducing Islam's value in our eyes.

So dont tell us about 'facts'. Keep your 'facts' to yourself or your local mullah.
You are also free to come to India and meet with those Hindus and Budhists who were earlier Muslims and take their views as well.

Look, Contarian, I'm a student of history and my background is in the social sciences. The people of India have confused the coming of various civilisations that were 'Muslim' into the region as one phenomena. That is an utter logical fallacy. I shall offer a breif account. The first incursion of the Arabs, the official policy was NOT to encourage conversion for two reasons, firstly, the Persians, were giving headaches to the Arab Rulers by vehemently asserting that Islam is not synonymous with the Arab cultuer and thus the assertion of an Arab being superior or a better Muslim and thus having more say in the government and power is false. The first expansion under Hazrat Umer (RA), the Second Caliph, checked this by not allowing the Muslim forces to buy land in the territories that were captured. Also, it should be noted, that the Persians and the Byzantium empires of the time had fought each other for nearly 500 years and both had interests in checking any rise in the region. The Persians first went on the offensive against the Muslims, thinking of an easy victory, the Muslims turned them back and went on. Seeing this the Byzantium power made overtures to seize the weakened territories and thus another chapter opened up. Now, here, for the first time, the armies went on the declared notion of not harming any civilians, not disrespecting any religious santuaries and no one was to submit to any 'king' but an representative of the people, the Muslims, called the Calihp. Sounds familiar?

Now after the internal fractures of the Muslims, the dynastic rule started and this is mostly centred around the Crusades, the next game changers were the Mongols: they were lightning fast and devestated the entire region. I would like to point out here that it has been seen according to research that many people in India do not differentiate the Mongol and Mughal regins and accordingly, on both sides, associate the Mughals as the symbol of power of the Muslims in the region. The Mughals also get blamed for the tactics of the Mongol raids, in the immediate aftermath of Genghis Khan, to the Mughals and thus the Muslims. Here are two examples:
http://www.psr.jku.at/psr2005/14_02Sen.pdf
Culture, Social Representations, and Peacemaking: A Symbolic Theory of History and Identity - Springer

Historically these eras and civilisations are very different, the Mughals were a Turkic-Perisan influenced peoples, that had inherited Mongol blood but not much of her culture. Moving forward, the Muslim reign on South Asia comes under first the raids from the land of what is now Afghanistan, that again has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the history and culture of the region, this practice was carried well into the 18th centuary. Here is what comes up, once the Muslims were populated here, it was often seen that the raiders were 'softer' on the Muslims, however, this has nothing to do with any planning or any sinisterisation of the whole plot. It was an occurance of History that was never carried with certanity and the myth of the Muslim being the 'outsider' to the region was created over at these instances this is especially true as the Marhata's and later the Ranjit Singh's kingdoms begin to decline. This happens because of something 'Anchorage' according to Social Representations theory An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie I believe this article explains this. Not sure if you can access it, sorry. Let me see another one if you want.

Now then, come again to the later times, the partition, cements this feeling in both societies and history is read without context to paint the light of giving weightage to either this side or that one. Conservative rightists over here tell us tales of the Sikh conquest and Sikhs desecrating our Mosques. People on your side tell you about Muslims raping and converting as they go. These are out of context, and misplaced because most people do not appreciate the feel and life of the era. (Cominng to the Sikhs, the Mughal-Sikh dynamics were again political, not religious, Ranjit Singh had Muslim generals, the Muhgals employed a Hindu Army.)

I hope this can shed some light.

@jaibi forgive me. I shall read and reply tomorrow. At this time of the night, I only have the mental capacity to argue non nonsensical issues with those who have not been given the gift of brains by God like rangerpk.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom