Sri lankan players barred from playing in chennai

[Gandhi G in da house]

And even within the Mughal Empire, you can shave 50 years off during the rule of Akbar since he was not a Muslim - he founded his own religion Din-e-Elahi. The Delhi Sultanates as far as I know only exercised control Northern India - but correct me if I am wrong.

You are right , Delhi Sultanate ruled mostly North India except for the period of Muhammad Bin Tughlaq, but i believe they were the biggest power in India during that period. Correct me if I am wrong.

About Akbar, yes. Pakistanis call him a non-muslim when discussing his treatment of minorities and Din-e-elahi but when calculating period of muslim dominance in India , they like to include him as a muslim emperor. This is the kind of hypocrisy coming from across the border that we are all too familiar with now .

Delhi Sultanate

 

[W.11]

And even within the Mughal Empire, you can shave 50 years off during the rule of Akbar since he was not a Muslim - he founded his own religion Din-e-Elahi. The Delhi Sultanates as far as I know only exercised control Northern India - but correct me if I am wrong.

dehli was the capital of india and still it is today

You are right , Delhi Sultanate ruled mostly North India except for the period of Muhammad Bin Tughlaq, but i believe they were the biggest power in India during that period. Correct me if I am wrong.

About Akbar, yes. Pakistanis call him a non-muslim when discussing his treatment of minorities and Din-e-elahi but when calculating period of muslim dominance in India , they like to include him as a muslim emperor. This is the kind of hypocrisy coming from across the border that we are all too familiar with now .

akber was inherent mughal ruler, end of story, he built fatehpur sikri as indian capital for a muslim saint

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

dehli was the capital of india and still it is today



akber was inherent mughal ruler, end of story, he built fatehpur sikri as indian capital for a muslim saint

1.Delhi was the capital of the Delhi Sultunate , not of India. Wtf are they teaching in Pakistan ?

2.The question is not of Mughal. You were talking about muslim rule. He wasn't muslim. He invented his own religion. Many Pakistanis also use this argument to ridicule him for his relatively good treatment of Hindus and other non-muslims.

 

[W.11]

1.Delhi was the capital of the Delhi Sultunate , not of India. Wtf are they teaching in Pakistan ?

2.The question is not of Mughal. You were talking about muslim rule. He wasn't muslim. He invented his own religion. Many Pakistanis also use this argument to ridicule him for his relatively good treatment of Hindus and other non-muslims.

1. what is the capital of india now? is it not dehli, dehli and sorrounding area has always remained capital of india

2. akber was a mughal ruler, mughals were muslim rulers, and akber was not indian/hindu(still a foreign emperor not indian ).. again i built, he made a capital for a muslim saint

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

1. what is the capital of india now? is it not dehli, dehli and sorrounding area has always remained capital of india

2. akber was a mughal ruler, mughals were muslim rulers, and akber was not indian/hindu(still a foreign emperor not indian ).. again i built, he made a capital for a muslim saint

Yes , the capital of India is New Delhi today, but back then it was the capital of Delhi Sultunate, not of India. Delhi Sultunate was ruling only North India for the most part. Check the map i posted again.

2.Yes, Akbar was Mughal,but he wasn't muslim. It is not necessary that a Mughal has to be muslim. I don't know where this is coming from. Yes , he wasn't Hindu. But he wasn't muslim either.

What does this have to do with your 1000 year rule point anyway ?

My point still stands. Muslim rule/dominance in India can at best be stretched to a period of 501 years i.e. 1206-1707 ( Even if we include the whole Delhi Sultunate period and Akbar's period of rule as well).

I am very surprised you are more worried about my comment on your 1000 year theory rather than my main comment which was about your fuc*ed up views of raped women.

 

[W.11]

Yes , the capital of India is New Delhi today, but back then it was the capital of Delhi Sultunate, not of India. Delhi Sultunate was ruling only North India for the most part. Check the map i posted again.

2.Yes, Akbar was Mughal,but he wasn't muslim. It is not necessary that a Mughal has to be muslim. I don't know where this is coming from. Yes , he wasn't Hindu. But he wasn't muslim either.

What does this have to do with your 1000 year rule point anyway ?

My point still stands. Muslim rule/dominance in India can at best be stretched to a period of 501 years i.e. 1206-1707 ( Even if we include the whole Delhi Sultunate period and Akbar's period of rule as well).

I am very surprised you are more worried about my comment on your 1000 year theory rather than my main comment which was about your fuc*ed up views of raped women.

if we use your criteria of rule, americans dont even rule afghanistan..

india whats 'constitutes' today was ruled by muslims from 963 till 1856, if all of the sudden kerala breaks away or tamil nadu then we can say tamil nadu or kerala was ruled by muslims from this time to that which im not sure, but as you talk about india even if it includes one part of india, it will still be ruling india its like americans ruling afghanistan even though its very clear america doesnt even hold 70% of afghanistan

so all in all muslims ruled india from 963 till 1856 that means 893 years which makes it almost a Millennium, now you can go to the corner and cry all you want

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

if we use your criteria of rule, americans dont even rule afghanistan..

india whats 'constitutes' today was ruled by muslims from 963 till 1856, if all of the sudden kerala breaks away or tamil nadu then we can say tamil nadu or kerala was ruled by muslims from this time to that which im not sure, but as you talk about india even if it includes one part of india, it will still be ruling india its like americans ruling afghanistan even though its very clear america doesnt even hold 70% of afghanistan

so all in all muslims ruled india from 963 till 1856 that means 893 years which makes it almost a Millennium, now you can go to the corner and cry all you want

America is not ruling Afghanistan. They have their own government , first lets be very clear about that. Amrullah Saleh also made that very clear to your country and your audience on a TV show very recently.

Secondly when you say "rule" if you are including even a tiny part of an entire sub-continent then god help you .

When you say "ruling India" , it clearly gives the impression that it must at least be the dominant power in India if not ruling whole of Indian territory. Muslims were dominant in India only for 501 years, as already established in the foregoing posts. Before 1206 and after 1707 there were other powers i.e. Hindus ,British etc. who were "ruling India" as dominant powers.

If this is how you guys present your case in front of the ICJ, I can understand why you lose your case against India every time.

I won't ask you to cry. To do that one has to be a little sensible. For you , i will just say continue living in your cuckooland if it makes you feel better.

Even those Muslims who ruled India for 501 years weren't Pakistanis anyway. Most of them were Indians of Afghan/Uzbek ancestry. I don't know what you are so passionately (and uselessly) fighting for anyway

 

[KS]

What has who ruled India got to do with this thread...?

The Tamil thing..jayalalita is taking it too far.It's ultimately a LANKAN matter,IDK why Indian side of Tamils are so overly moved by a small thing.

It is NOT a lankan matter when Indian govt was hands in glove with the Lankans in the whole ethnic cleansing thing and it was to Indian govt that Lanka made many promises regarding what they will do to reconcile with Tamils, which they have not done till now.

So its very much our matter and actually a matter of prestige that a tiny nation has gone back on its word it have to us and we are powerless to hold them accountable for that.

 

[Jackdaws]

1. what is the capital of india now? is it not dehli, dehli and sorrounding area has always remained capital of india

2. akber was a mughal ruler, mughals were muslim rulers, and akber was not indian/hindu(still a foreign emperor not indian ).. again i built, he made a capital for a muslim saint

Under British rule for most part the capital of British India was Calcutta, not Delhi - New Delhi only became the capital in 1911.

 

[dravidianhero]

why srilanka goes to india to be humiliated?

for the same reason why pak sportsman and artists come to india to be humiliated and sent back for some reason or the other(like how recently all pak artists and hockey players were asked to get out of ind).atleast for sl this is the first time but pak has faced such insults lots of times.Inspite of all this their artists and cricketers want to come to india to earn.no self respect

 

[Sashan]

Still not a GoI decision. The government of TN does not have the right to decide for all of India. In any case, the fishermen issue is not the one being used as the reason, the Tamil issue is. Can't agree with "my way or the highway" approach.

Tamil war crimes issue is not an issue while 1974 Davis cup forfeiture is for a national cause

 

[A1Kaid]

Tamil Nadu has to be the worst province in India...

 

[W.11]

for the same reason why pak sportsman and artists come to india to be humiliated and sent back for some reason or the other(like how recently all pak artists and hockey players were asked to get out of ind).atleast for sl this is the first time but pak has faced such insults lots of times.Inspite of all this their artists and cricketers want to come to india to earn.no self respect

lol, as a matter of fact it was india who invited pakistanis into its premier league and humiliated them afterwards, it only shows how low standard people you are and pakistan never sent any of its team again in india

we actually humiliated you back when we defeated you into champions trophy bronze match, we never go our humiliation unanswered

 

[Sashan]

Tamil Nadu has to be the worst province in India...

Maybe Mr. Thinktank is assuming that everyone in TN are running around with AK-47s - Unfortunately no - It leads in many of the social indexes and contributes more than their own share for the Indian Economy.

Revenue-surplus budget again - The Hindu

 

[Bang Galore]

Tamil war crimes issue is not an issue while 1974 Davis cup forfeiture is for a national cause

Shouldn't have blown up an ex-PM of India and now pass resolutions in the assembly asking for clemency for those convicted of helping that assassination then. Sympathy is a little slow to arrive in such a case.