To Indians and followers of Hindu religion

[justanobserver]

^^ Yes, and seeing the entry of Islam into India merely in a military or imperial context is also unnecessary. Islam came to India and brought with it refinements and innovations in language, arts, architecture, poetry, music, spiritualism and so much more.

You're talking about Persian influence. Islam is a religion not a culture

So, Islam cannot be thought of as the "other" in this context, Islam and muslims made India their own. They didn't treat it like the British East India Company.

You got me confused here Are you talking about the converts (who were already Indian, why would they treat it like any other duh?) or the Invaders (who were Turkic/Uzbek etc)?

Haha But if a two bit outsider comes and bests the locals, does it make the locals half bit or one bit?

Of course it's the locals fault, case in point the British

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Islam and muslims made India their own.

Like the vast majority are converts, it was already their own to begin with..

 

[TechLahore]

^^ Yes, in fact many muslims hold the belief that the holy scriptures of the hindu religion foretold the coming of Muhammad (pbuh&hf). Muslims believe that God sent guidance to every corner of the earth and over time, there were more than a hundred thousand major and minor Prophets who brought His message to mankind. There is nothing to say that the old Hindu scriptures do not derive at least partially from this message (even as per the tradition of Islam).

Personally, I do think that the origin of Hinduism is the same as the origin of Islam, i.e. Allah.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Personally, I do think that the origin of Hinduism is the same as the origin of Islam, i.e. Allah.

Thats nice, I dont believe in anything lol..

 

[Yeti]

^^ Yes, in fact many muslims hold the belief that the holy scriptures of the hindu religion foretold the coming of Muhammad (pbuh&hf). Muslims believe that God sent guidance to every corner of the earth and over time, there were more than a hundred thousand major and minor Prophets who brought His message to mankind. There is nothing to say that the old Hindu scriptures do not derive at least partially from this message (even as per the tradition of Islam).

Personally, I do think that the origin of Hinduism is the same as the origin of Islam, i.e. Allah.

Might be off topic but do you know the Story of Manu who saved mankind from the great flood like Noah


Lord Matsya informed the King of a deluge which would be coming very soon The King built a huge boat which housed his family, 9 types of seeds, and animals to repopulate the earth, after the deluge would end and the oceans and seas would recede. At the time of deluge, Vishnu appeared as a horned fish and Shesha appeared as a rope, with which Vaivasvata Manu fastened the boat to horn of the fish.

According to the Matsya Purana, his boat was perched after the deluge on the top of the Malaya Mountains This narrative is to an extent similar to other deluge stories, like those of Gilgamesh from ancient Sumerian Mythology, and the story of Noah's ark from Judeo-Christianity.

Sounds very similar to me with some slight contrast.

 

[justanobserver]

^^ Yes, in fact many muslims hold the belief that the holy scriptures of the hindu religion foretold the coming of Muhammad (pbuh&hf). Muslims believe that God sent guidance to every corner of the earth and over time, there were more than a hundred thousand major and minor Prophets who brought His message to mankind. There is nothing to say that the old Hindu scriptures do not derive at least partially from this message (even as per the tradition of Islam).

Personally, I do think that the origin of Hinduism is the same as the origin of Islam, i.e. Allah.

Whoa there !

Many sects of Hinduism are atheistic and completely reject the concept of god. Buddhism itself rejects the concept of a creator.

All abrahamic religions of course derive from the same root, but Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism don't really have the concept of the "Abrahamic god"

 

[Yeti]

Whoa there !

Many sects of Hinduism are atheistic and completely reject the concept of god. Buddhism itself rejects the concept of a creator.

All abrahamic religions of course derive from the same root, but Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism don't really have the concept of the "Abrahamic god"

Buddhism never said there is no 'God' but it said whether God exist or not is not important the teachings of Buddah is a quest to reach Nirvana and not dwell on God exisiting or not because it is not in mankinds control

 

[TechLahore]

You're talking about Persian influence. Islam is a religion not a culture

Sufi'ism isn't "persian". It is an Islamic practice. Sufis spread their unique message, in their unique language and have become a major part of the culture of the subcontinent.

Mosques and their architecture, aren't exclusively Persian. The mosque and its iconic dome/minaret evolved from Islam and with Islam. That dome and minaret is now what adorns some of the most beautiful buildings in the sub continent.

I don't want to argue with you about this any further. You seem to want to nitpick in an attempt to diminish what Islam brought to the subcontinent. You may have your own reasons for that, but I don't want to reduce myself to this sort of petty bickering.

You got me confused here Are you talking about the converts (who were already Indian, why would they treat it like any other duh?) or the Invaders (who were Turkic/Uzbek etc)?

Amongst the muslims of the sub continent can you cleanly separate those with local blood only, and those with mongol, turkic, persian and arab blood? As I said, when the muslims came to India, they made it their own. Amir Khusro was born in Persia but came to India and settled here. You can call him an "invader", but then your admissions of xenophobia are not my issue...

Of course it's the locals fault, case in point the British

Yeah, not just the british, but the afghans, persians, arabs, turks and mongols before them. I would add the aryans too, but I believe the history regarding the aryan invasion of india has been recently re-written

 

[mikkix]

Might be off topic but do you know the Story of Manu who saved mankind from the great flood like Noah


Lord Matsya informed the King of a deluge which would be coming very soon The King built a huge boat which housed his family, 9 types of seeds, and animals to repopulate the earth, after the deluge would end and the oceans and seas would recede. At the time of deluge, Vishnu appeared as a horned fish and Shesha appeared as a rope, with which Vaivasvata Manu fastened the boat to horn of the fish.

According to the Matsya Purana, his boat was perched after the deluge on the top of the Malaya Mountains This narrative is to an extent similar to other deluge stories, like those of Gilgamesh from ancient Sumerian Mythology, and the story of Noah's ark from Judeo-Christianity.

Sounds very similar to me with some slight contrast.

I have the book of indian muslim scholars and Hindu ones too who claimed that the story of Vishnu and Mhabharat are related to Noah, Ibrahim and Adam (P.B.U.T).

 

[justanobserver]

[quote="Yeti']Buddhism never said there is no 'God' but it said whether God exist or not is not important the teachings of Buddah is a quest to reach Nirvana and not dwell on God exisiting or not because it is not in mankinds control [/quote]

Depends on what you call "god". Buddhism explicitly rejects the concept of a "creator" entity.

The Hindu god (from what I gather, one of the interpretation) is actually the 'Absolute Truth'. The Truth which is hidden by the veil of Maya. You can achive the absolute truth by breaking free from the endless chain of re-incarnation.

Similar to Buddhism

So basically in Dharmic religions, "god" is "within" you and you can try to be "him".

The Abrahamic "god" is different which requires people to be slaves to his eternal will. He/She is an external entity. Load of difference

 

[jha]

Saddest thing about History is that Mostly single side of incidence is written ( which may or, may not be correct )....Just for example Mahmood Ghaznavi is considered a hero (knowingly or, unknowingly that He had burned down lahore )..
Taimur Lang's biggest victory was against Bayezid , still he is considered a hero..
History is not what it seems..

 

[TechLahore]

Saddest thing about History is that Mostly single side of incidence is written ( which may or, may not be correct )....Just for example Mahmood Ghaznavi is considered a hero (knowingly or, unknowingly that He had burned down lahore )..

History is nuanced. Ghaznavi may or may not have burned Lahore, but he certainly brought with him Syed Salaar Masood Ghazi who established himself in Behraich and is pretty much worshipped by the locals - of all religions - even today.

These stories are complex and can easily be used by people to inflame sentiments. For example, the British played a big role in rewriting the history of muslim rule in the subcontinent to create communal tensions.

 

[Yeti]

I have the book of indian muslim scholars and Hindu ones too who claimed that the story of Vishnu and Mhabharat are related to Noah, Ibrahim and Adam (P.B.U.T).

Not sure i agree with Vishnu being related to the Abrahamic religions but i can see how Manu and Noah flood story has very similar apsects.

 

[Hyde]

Dara Shukoh, Shah Jahan's favorite and eldest son who was a Sufi:


Dara devoted much effort towards finding a common mystical language between Islam and Hinduism. Towards this goal he completed the translation of 50 Upanishads from its original Sanskrit into Persian in 1657 so it could be read by Muslim scholars[11]. His translation is often called Sirr-e-Akbar (The Greatest Mystery), where he states boldly, in the Introduction, his speculative hypothesis that the work referred to in the Qur'an as the "Kitab al-maknun" or the hidden book is none other than the Upanishads.

I think you are half right half wrong

thats not Kitab al-maknun as the definition of that verse seems to be disagreeing to this part

"It is surely a noble Qur’an in a Kitabun Maknun (Hidden Book), None but the purified shall touch.” (56:78)

better discuss the topic and let leave this matter aside for now

But yes I do agree with TechLahore's post number 48

 

[Kambojaric]

History is nuanced. Ghaznavi may or may not have burned Lahore, but he certainly brought with him Syed Salaar Masood Ghazi who established himself in Behraich and is pretty much worshipped by the locals - of all religions - even today.

These stories are complex and can easily be used by people to inflame sentiments. For example, the British played a big role in rewriting the history of muslim rule in the subcontinent to create communal tensions.

Also Lahore served as the capital of the Ghaznavids for a long time after Ghazni fell!