Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

[dabomb]

Hinduism was never as huge in Sindh and Punjab as you state that it was. Sindh has more historical Buddhist Stupas and other Buddhist structures than Hindu structures. Almost same is the case in Punjab and KPK. The Arabs in Sindh in 712 AD were supported by Jats, Meds and Buddhists who were in majority against a Brahmin Raja who was a ruthless tyrant.

Lahore had different names in different times and because Indian Hindus beliefs that it was named after Lord Ram, let it be. It does not in any way undermine the fact that Indian Hinduism was never popular since the earliest times and this is a historical fact.

There are many many Hindus who believe that Rig Veda is monotheistic in nature. If at all there any delusions, these are Indian Hindu delusions of Hindu grandeur that never was.

And you know where Buddhism came from? INDIA

You do know the blue wheel in the Indian flag is the only religious symbol we have in our flag, and it happens to be a Buddhist symbol...

As for Lahore, you are just making up BS. And why was the biggest city of Pakistan named after the son of Bhagwan Ram if as you claimed in the begining, did not have any connections to Hinduism? Tell me what other meaning does Lahore have?

 

[Nassr]

Balochis are unique, Punjabis are unique, sindhis are unique and pathans are unique. But desperately claiming fake superiority is a sign of inferiority complex.

Pakistanis are unique and there is no doubt about it. The inferiority complex displayed here by the Indians at large, is well displayed for all to see.

 

[Vinod2070]

Don't obsess with India and non Islamic Dharmic religion and history of this great land.

They have nothing to so with you. We have nothing to do with you.

Try and be a good Arab. If not fully, at least partly...

 

[Nassr]

Legal interpretation is more complicated than merely stating this is a religion and this is a sect. This topic has been discussed many times in this forum, you yourself opened a thread some time ago.

If you want to dissect, lets start with the definition of minority, in legal sense:

Eastern Book Company - Practical Lawyer


If you read the article further, it explains the inclusion of Sikh/Jain/Buddhist religions under Hindu acts:


Than coming back to the decision of Supreme court, its decision has to remain within the bounds of constitution, which considers Sikh/Jain/Buddhism to be separate religion. That is, SC on itself cannot place these three within Hinduism. To understand the decision, you would have to understand how law treats the minorities, and what are the consequences/requirements for a certain community to be called religious minority in India.

Keep in mind that the Indian constitution doesn't consider defining a religion to be its job. And that the 'father' of Indian constitution was a Buddhist, with a dislike towards Hinduism that forced his conversion.

You raised this topic again and I responded. The main thing here is that the Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists do not agree with Indian categorization as them being part of Hindu religion and that they are part of of Hindu sub-sect.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Pakistanis are unique and there is no doubt about it. The inferiority complex displayed here by the Indians at large, is well displayed for all to see.

Yes we are the ones engaged in desperate mental gymnastics, dubious claims, fake history, logical fallacies, self loathing and talking thought the backside just to apply some balm on the world renowned identity crisis of the converted weak willed wannabees!

 

[Nassr]

Oh man, a convert apostate (who call the religion of his own ancestors as jahiliya) wants to tell us about our own religion!

May be we can explain to him the contents of the Quran....

This is not a religious discussion. It is a discussion about historical facts.

Yes we are the ones engaged in desperate mental gymnastics, dubious claims, fake history, logical fallacies, self loathing and talking thought the backside just to apply some balm on the world renowned identity crisis of the converted.

Please present counter references to what I have presented instead of indulging in rhetorical outbursts.

 

[Vinod2070]

As an example, a lot of Greek history happened on the lands now occupied by Muslim Turks.

Doesn't mean they have anything to do with the Greek civilization or Eastern Roman empire.

Same thing applies to Pakistan. It is absurd for a country created on the basis of Islam and religious exclusivism and hatred to talk of pre-Islamic history and civilization.

Pakistan doesn't even do it, it is only some individuals who are dissatisfies with the islamic identity and want more but can't get rid of their identity crisis and self loathing.

 

[Nassr]

And you know where Buddhism came from? INDIA

You do know the blue wheel in the Indian flag is the only religious symbol we have in our flag, and it happens to be a Buddhist symbol...

As for Lahore, you are just making up BS. And why was the biggest city of Pakistan named after the son of Bhagwan Ram if as you claimed in the begining, did not have any connections to Hinduism? Tell me what other meaning does Lahore have?

There are many who also state that Buddhism emanated from Nepal and not India and there are many who state that it emanated from India. And Lahore is just one city, which Indian Hindus state was named after Lord ram's son. Does it prove anything to counter the facts present in the the areas falling within Pakistan's borders.

And all what you state does not counter the fact that Indian Hinduism was not a majority religion since earliest times.

 

[Vinod2070]

This is not a religious discussion. It is a discussion about historical facts.

There is no getting away from the fact that your country was created on the basis of Islam and that converting made you a "separate nation".

No amount of skullduggery will change that.

 

[Nassr]

As an example, a lot of Greek history happened on the lands now occupied by Muslim Turks.

Doesn't mean they have anything to do with the Greek civilization or Eastern Roman empire.

Same thing applies to Pakistan. It is absurd for a country created on the basis of Islam and religious exclusivism and hatred to talk of pre-Islamic history and civilization.

Pakistan doesn't even do it, it is only some individuals who are dissatisfies with the islamic identity and want more but can't get rid of their identity crisis and self loathing.

This is a rhetorical argument. Please support your content with historical facts within the ambiance of the topic under discussion.

There is no getting away from the fact that your country was created on the basis of Islam and that converting made you a "separate nation".

No amount of skullduggery will change that.

As I stated earlier that, religion was not the only basis of creation of Pakistan. There were many other factors which were as important and highlighting only religion as the basis of Two Nation Theory is a narrow view which some Pakistanis and majority of Indian Hindus believe:

Religious differences
Governing differences
Civilizational differences
Cultural differences
Societal/Social differences
Economic differences
Political differences

 

[dabomb]

There are many who also state that Buddhism emanated from Nepal and not India and there are many who state that it emanated from India. And Lahore is just one city, which Indian Hindus state was named after Lord ram's son. Does it prove anything to counter the facts present in the the areas falling within Pakistan's borders.

And all what you state does not counter the fact that Indian Hinduism was not a majority religion since earliest times.

You just keep showing your lack of knowledge with every post you write.

1. Prince Siddharth was born into a Hindu family in Nepal, but he moved to India. It was in modern day Bihar that he developed the religion of Buddhism (enlightenment) and started preaching it.

2. Indian Hindus dont need to claim anything about Lahore, the city has the religion of your ancestors graved on it by virtue of being named "Lahore". If it was called "Mecca", maybe you would have a case, but alas you Pakistanis did not re-name that. BTW you should really re-name Lahore, there is nothing Hindu left about you today, so I dont know why you must hold on to a Hindu name for your city. You should re-name it to mohammedpur or something

3. Claiming "Lahore" (as a name) has no Hindu connection, is akin to claming "Mohammed" as a name to have no Muslim connection.

As I stated earlier that, religion was not the only basis of creation of Pakistan. There were many other factors which were as important and highlighting only religion as the basis of Two Nation Theory is a narrow view which some Pakistanis and majority of Indian Hindus believe:

Religious differences
Governing differences
Civilizational differences
Cultural differences
Societal/Social differences
Economic differences
Political differences

And apparently you didnt have these differences somehow with East Bengal (East Pak), which was over 2000km away? Weak try yo, very weak...

 

[Vinod2070]

This is a rhetorical argument. Please support your content with historical facts within the ambiance of the topic under discussion.



As I stated earlier that, religion was not the only basis of creation of Pakistan. There were many other factors which were as important and highlighting only religion as the basis of Two Nation Theory is a narrow view which some Pakistanis and majority of Indian Hindus believe:

Religious differences
Governing differences
Civilizational differences
Cultural differences
Societal/Social differences
Economic differences
Political differences

Despite this being replied to and debunked in post 499, you are again saying the same thing!

Shows the same mentality of denial.

Anyway enjoy your delusions. You are not going to change anything for Pakistanis and certainly not for us.

You are a Muslim in the Islamic republic of Pakistan, a country that hero worships its invaders and whose who perpetrated rapine, genocide, forced conversion and slavery on its own people.

Nothing is ever going to change any of that.

 

[Nassr]

Inferiority of few Pakistanis has become deleterious to all the historic rationales available. All they are good at bullying their way to impose this distorted history on likewise vulnerable minds but they fail miserably when countered by real facts.

The historical facts have been stated but majority of Indian posters resort to rhetorical outbursts instead of sane responses supported by historical facts. Beliefs have been incessantly cited which differ amongst those having a different belief.

 

[Fireurimagination]

Times immemorial is a rather broad categorization of time. Could you please reconsider so that we can continue the discussion within the realms of known history.

The Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists however do not agree with your description of the environment.

I used the word time immemorial as that is what it is, you have to understand that Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) is nothing like 1500-3000 year old man made Abrahamic religions with one set of believes. The Sanatan Dharma absorbs both monotheistic nature of Vedas/Shaivism/Vaishnavism/IVC etc and Polytheistic nature with concept of Hindu Trinity and Devtas. Buddhism (Hindu considers Buddha as the ninth incarnation of Lord Vishnu), Jainism, Sikhism sprout from Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) at a later stage. So as far as religion of present day Pakistan goes it was what is present day Hinduism but later Muslim invaders defeated and converted you guys.

 

[Nassr]

Despite this being replied to and debunked in post 499, you are again saying the same thing!

Shows the same mentality of denial.

Anyway enjoy your delusions. You are not going to change anything for Pakistanis and certainly not for us.

You are a Muslim in the Islamic republic of Pakistan, a country that hero worships its invaders and whose who perpetrated rapine, genocide, forced conversion and slavery on its own people.

Nothing is ever going to change any of that.

It is you who deny accepting the facts and only resort to responses based on your belief of certain environment.

What we do in our country is none of your business. We believe in heroes we believe were heroes. You do not agree, please don't. But these do not in any way change the historical facts *** highlighted here.

And yes, nothing is going to force us to accept what your beliefs are. We are not going to accept heroes who we do not consider as heroes.

I used the word time immemorial as that is what it is, you have to understand that Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) is nothing like 1500-3000 year old man made Abrahamic religions with one set of believes. The Sanatan Dharma absorbs both monotheistic nature of Vedas/Shaivism/Vaishnavism/IVC etc and Polytheistic nature with concept of Hindu Trinity and Devtas. Buddhism (Hindu considers Buddha as the ninth incarnation of Lord Vishnu), Jainism, Sikhism sprout from Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) at a later stage. So as far as religion of present day Pakistan goes it was what is present day Hinduism but later Muslim invaders defeated and converted you guys.

That is your belief and others do not believe this. Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists living in India do not believe this. We are having a historical discussion here within the ambiance of environment that existed since the earliest known times.

You just keep showing your lack of knowledge with every post you write.

1. Prince Siddharth was born into a Hindu family in Nepal, but he moved to India. It was in modern day Bihar that he developed the religion of Buddhism (enlightenment) and started preaching it.

2. Indian Hindus dont need to claim anything about Lahore, the city has the religion of your ancestors graved on it by virtue of being named "Lahore". If it was called "Mecca", maybe you would have a case, but alas you Pakistanis did not re-name that. BTW you should really re-name Lahore, there is nothing Hindu left about you today, so I dont know why you must hold on to a Hindu name for your city. You should re-name it to mohammedpur or something

3. Claiming "Lahore" (as a name) has no Hindu connection, is akin to claming "Mohammed" as a name to have no Muslim connection.



And apparently you didnt have these differences somehow with East Bengal (East Pak), which was over 2000km away? Weak try yo, very weak...

I am not claiming that Hindus never lived in Lahore or for that matter in the areas within Pakistan's border. I stated that Hindus were never in majority since the earliest times in areas within Pakistani borders. I have also supported these with historical facts. This is not a religious discussion and keep religion out of it.

We are not discussing about history of Bangladesh. In any case, they have not converted to Hinduism after 1971 and still remain Muslims overwhelmingly which is a historical fact.