Umayyad invasion of Sindh and the arrival of Islam

[neutral_person]

Here is a list of most likeable to least likeable Moguls:
Akbar(best)
Shah Jahan(Taj Mahal)
Humayun(decent)
Babur(bad/invader)
Aurangzeb(kill/rape/destroy temples, try to force Islam into non-Muslims, very bad)

 

[ice_man]

Well the not-so-nice things like rapes/forced conversions/pillaging is left out of most Indian textbooks because that might create ill-will towards Muslims living in India, which is a move I completely support. There are sadly some very few Hindu fundamentalist retards in our nation, who might read these history books, and decide that the way to take revenge would be harming Indian Muslims. But the fact is, these retards are too dumb to realize that the actual pillagers and rapists came from Arab/Turkey/Central Asia, and Indian Muslims had nothing to do with any of this.

Also, in terms of Moghuls, people like Akbar are seen in positive light and people like Aurangzeb are seen in negative light. Their actions define what kind of legacy they leave behind in India.

so you left out the "evil" from the history books how can you prove it even happened then? when clearly like i said the advances that happened during moghul era made india what it is today in terms of archticture,cuisine & dress code.

do you seriously want your next generation to grow up loving their invaders who raped their ancestors? isn't that contradicting yourself?

 

[neutral_person]

Mughals made india golden sparrow and british made them penny less, no way you can compare each other.

If I had to choose today to be slaves of between Moghuls and Britishers, I would probably choose Britishers.

Britishers just took our money, and in return they did build some schools/airports, roads etc. They left behind their railway system which we still use. Yes we got screwed over economically by them. Moghuls on the other hand are a mixed bag, as I mentioned earlier. There were nice ones like Akbar and Shah Jahan, but also absolutely despicable ones like Aurangzeb. But I prefer British imperialists over lets say Aurangzeb who was pretty much trying to force Islam on India.

 

[miss]

so you left out the "evil" from the history books how can you prove it even happened then? when clearly like i said the advances that happened during moghul era made india what it is today in terms of archticture,cuisine & dress code.

do you seriously want your next generation to grow up loving their invaders who raped their ancestors? isn't that contradicting yourself?

'
now you are getting ridiculous and trolling for the sake of it. childrens cartoon show cute tigers (tigger) and lions (lion king) not the reality, when they grow older they understand for themselves what is real. hope you get the analogy.
anyway.. jahangir was half hindu. so shah jahan also had hindu blood. this happened very often. and all rajputs/jats of pakistan are all hindu converts probably around this time.

even i have learnt that akbar was also not the saint he is made out to be. he always used to marry rajput princesses and have a treaty and used to destroy those who refused to part with their daughters.
again when history which is distant is viewed, one sees the net effect and not on individual event basis. on that akbar has net positive and aurangzeb net negative (quite a big one) and babur a smaller negative etc

 

[neutral_person]

so you left out the "evil" from the history books how can you prove it even happened then? when clearly like i said the advances that happened during moghul era made india what it is today in terms of archticture,cuisine & dress code.

do you seriously want your next generation to grow up loving their invaders who raped their ancestors? isn't that contradicting yourself?

Sorry I should have been more clear.

It is well-documented, and it used to be in our History books in the past. The Congress Govt in the early 2000s revised all history books to take out any bad things Muslim invaders had done to India to promote more religious harmony.


For your reading pleasure that supports what I am trying to say:

Aurangzeb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Immediately after becoming the Mughal Emperor, Aurangzeb enforced morals, and strictly banned the consumption, usage and practices of: alcoholism, gambling, castration, servitude, eunuchs, music, nautch and narcotics in the Mughal Empire.[citation needed] He learnt that at Sindh, Multan, Thatta and particularly at Varanasi, the Hindu Brahmins attracted large numbers of indigenous local Muslims to their discourses. He ordered the Subahdars of these provinces to demolish the schools and the temples of non-Muslims.[26] Aurangzeb also ordered Subahdars to punish Muslims who dressed like non-Muslims, regardless of their ethnic backgrounds.
Another instance of Aurangzeb's notoriety, was his policy of temple destruction. Figures vary wildly from 80 to 60,000,[27] However, Aurangzeb's Firmans on behalf of the Balaji or Vishnu Temple,[28] Varanasi indicate that this wanton destruction was not universal. Historian Richard Eaton believes the overall understanding of temples to be flawed. As early as the sixth century, temples became vital political landmarks as well as religious ones. He writes that not only was temple desecration widely practiced and accepted, it was a necessary part of political struggle.[29] Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur was beheaded because he objected to Aurangzeb's forced conversions.[30]
Francois Bernier, traveled and chronicled Mughal India during the war of succession, notes both Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb's distaste for Christians. This led to the demolition of Christian settlements near the British/European Factories and enslavement of Christian converts by Shah Jahan. Furthermore, Aurangzeb stopped all aid to Christian Missionaries (Frankish Padres) initiated by Akbar and Jahangir.[31]
Aurangzeb destroyed several non-Islamic shrines: some Hindu nationalists state the number to be as high as 60,000. Among the Hindu temples he demolished, three were the most sacred for Hindus- Kashi Vishwanath temple, Krishna Janmabhoomi temple and Somnath temple. He built large mosques at their place.[26] In 1679, he ordered destruction of several prominent temples that had become associated with his enemies: these included the temples of Khandela, Udaipur, Chittor and Jodhpur.

 

[Moorkh]

so you left out the "evil" from the history books how can you prove it even happened then? when clearly like i said the advances that happened during moghul era made india what it is today in terms of archticture,cuisine & dress code.

there were advances and there were regressions. whichever way it went, its part of history and the future generations need to learn about the same without the tinted glasses of 'evil invaders'.

do you seriously want your next generation to grow up loving their invaders who raped their ancestors? isn't that contradicting yourself?

you are making the mistake of painting all the mughals with the same brush. the mughal rule lasted over 300 years. Not all of the mughals could be invaders then. infact none of them after babur were really invaders. they were from within india fighting other indians.

 

[miss]

Sorry I should have been more clear.

It is well-documented, and it used to be in our History books in the past. The Congress Govt in the early 2000s revised all history books to take out any bad things Muslim invaders had done to India to promote more religious harmony.


For your reading pleasure that supports what I am trying to say:

Aurangzeb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Immediately after becoming the Mughal Emperor, Aurangzeb enforced morals, and strictly banned the consumption, usage and practices of: alcoholism, gambling, castration, servitude, eunuchs, music, nautch and narcotics in the Mughal Empire.[citation needed] He learnt that at Sindh, Multan, Thatta and particularly at Varanasi, the Hindu Brahmins attracted large numbers of indigenous local Muslims to their discourses. He ordered the Subahdars of these provinces to demolish the schools and the temples of non-Muslims.[26] Aurangzeb also ordered Subahdars to punish Muslims who dressed like non-Muslims, regardless of their ethnic backgrounds.
Another instance of Aurangzeb's notoriety, was his policy of temple destruction. Figures vary wildly from 80 to 60,000,[27] However, Aurangzeb's Firmans on behalf of the Balaji or Vishnu Temple,[28] Varanasi indicate that this wanton destruction was not universal. Historian Richard Eaton believes the overall understanding of temples to be flawed. As early as the sixth century, temples became vital political landmarks as well as religious ones. He writes that not only was temple desecration widely practiced and accepted, it was a necessary part of political struggle.[29] Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur was beheaded because he objected to Aurangzeb's forced conversions.[30]
Francois Bernier, traveled and chronicled Mughal India during the war of succession, notes both Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb's distaste for Christians. This led to the demolition of Christian settlements near the British/European Factories and enslavement of Christian converts by Shah Jahan. Furthermore, Aurangzeb stopped all aid to Christian Missionaries (Frankish Padres) initiated by Akbar and Jahangir.[31]
Aurangzeb destroyed several non-Islamic shrines: some Hindu nationalists state the number to be as high as 60,000. Among the Hindu temples he demolished, three were the most sacred for Hindus- Kashi Vishwanath temple, Krishna Janmabhoomi temple and Somnath temple. He built large mosques at their place.[26] In 1679, he ordered destruction of several prominent temples that had become associated with his enemies: these included the temples of Khandela, Udaipur, Chittor and Jodhpur.

i was 13 years then.. lol...

 

[ice_man]

If I had to choose today to be slaves of between Moghuls and Britishers, I would probably choose Britishers.

Britishers just took our money, and in return they did build some schools/airports, roads etc. They left behind their railway system which we still use. Yes we got screwed over economically by them. Moghuls on the other hand are a mixed bag, as I mentioned earlier. There were nice ones like Akbar and Shah Jahan, but also absolutely despicable ones like Aurangzeb. But I prefer British imperialists over lets say Aurangzeb who was pretty much trying to force Islam on India.

yes surely hence the british were welcomed and ended up colonizing our forefathers for 200 years!! a BLOODY COMPANY colonized the whole of south asia! shows how shameful & greedy some had become that they betrayed their countrymen and joined the british! & let us not forget that british occupation gave us nothing but the moghuls built alot and did alot!

 

[miss]

there were advances and there were regressions. whichever way it went, its part of history and the future generations need to learn about the same without the tinted glasses of 'evil invaders'.



you are making the mistake of painting all the mughals with the same brush. the mughal rule lasted over 300 years. Not all of the mughals could be invaders then. infact none of them after babur were really invaders. they were from within india fighting other indians.

thats right.. jahangir was the son of harkha bai (hindu ) and akbar...
shah jahan also had a hindu mom.

yes surely hence the british were welcomed and ended up colonizing our forefathers for 200 years!! a BLOODY COMPANY colonized the whole of south asia! shows how shameful & greedy some had become that they betrayed their countrymen and joined the british! & let us not forget that british occupation gave us nothing but the moghuls built alot and did alot!

remember the best foot hold that they got was in 1757 .. we all know who helped them
I agree that british was not bad..but india as we know today was united, helped us into the modern world. mughals were just enjoying labour of hindus and only fought and raised armies. anyways if british had not been there, marathas would have conquered most of india barring most of the NW.

 

[ice_man]

there were advances and there were regressions. whichever way it went, its part of history and the future generations need to learn about the same without the tinted glasses of 'evil invaders'.



you are making the mistake of painting all the mughals with the same brush. the mughal rule lasted over 300 years. Not all of the mughals could be invaders then. infact none of them after babur were really invaders. they were from within india fighting other indians.

now you are talking ! this is what we started the thread about! that Mohammed Bin Qasim was a hero because he came for 4 years to sindh went back but to this day there are muslims in this area! definetly he couldn't have forced so many people to convert within 4 years & then stay muslim for centuries! and everyone after moahmmed bin qasim was a south asian fighting other south asians!

 

[Irfan Baloch]

History...

His Story

who ever tells it..

did Qasim come for plunder?
did he come to kill the followers of Hussain?
did he come just for usual conquest and expansion of Umayyat Empire?
did he come on the call of an unknown woman who was captured by the pirates?
did he come to spread Islam?
did he come to plant palm trees?
did he come to introduce shisha?
did he come to kill the ruler of Sindh?
did he come to convert natives by force?


take your pick according to whatever your own beliefs are and whoever you read
to me he was just a tool of the Umayyat Empire, used and then brutally discarded by the same empire

you guys might argue over his nobility and glory or otherwise on his Sindh invasion but his demise is less that glorious and actually very pitiful. just tells you how the Muslim Empires were no different from the other Empires throughout the human history in the way they ran themselves.

 

[Subramanian]

How mughals are portrayed in indian history books?

Please tell me if any indian can answer?

They are portrayed as some superstars instead of the uncouth,ill educated,un sophisticated,barbarian mongol pygmies that they are.

 

[Bang Galore]

yes surely hence the british were welcomed and ended up colonizing our forefathers for 200 years!! a BLOODY COMPANY colonized the whole of south asia! shows how shameful & greedy some had become that they betrayed their countrymen and joined the british! & let us not forget that british occupation gave us nothing but the moghuls built alot and did alot!

Built & did a lot of what?

 

[Subramanian]

if muslims were so extreme then all of india would have become hindu in 700 years of occupation. infact india progressed under muslims because muslims give them freedom, similarly everyone knows SALAHUDIN and his courage & just rule. same appleis to ottoman rule where if forced conversion happened today half of europe would have become muslim.


muslim rulers always let their subjects live a free life

They tried like crazy enough but they did not succeed.

They also fought a lot amongst themselves.

Mughals made india golden sparrow and british made them penny less, no way you can compare each other.

Then and now,we survive only from our own brains and wit,not from any resource and what gave us is what lets ur survive amongst all odds,not the mughals or the british.

Only one brainwashed is you lot you thinks that Pakistan is behind every bad thing in your country. Your population is brainwashed into believing that India won all 4 war hulu lala ....India can defeat Pakistan over night but don't do it because it is a 'peaceful' country blah blah...Heck , your media potray India as if it is some developed nation while Pakistan is like Afghanistan...talking about brainwashing , eh?

Kindly , provide some concrete evidence against Hafiz Saeed and Pakistani state will take action. Uptill now , you haven't provided ANY evidence.

Miss , I replied to you in post # 165 .... Have you read it?

Hafiz Syed/Hamid Gul defend Mumbai by accusing India does this,does that openly in Pakistani television.

It has been proven clearly that Kasab comes from Pakistan,everything.

You are still opening your mouth and accusing us,

Btw,I am not one of those who believes my media,i know the realities of my country.

The funny thing,if all that is a lie,why dont u do a Hamla and take kashmir?

If you cant even touch us when we are weak,then what does that talk about your aukaat?

Why do you so hell bent on proving the stereotypes rest of the world have on Paksitanis?



I'd say because we closed our door and became a stagnated society in that time. We were too content and had no idea of what's going on in the rest of world. So while civilization in middle-east and central asia reaped the benefit of various inventions in Europe and others, we were happy to live as frogs in wall and used the same age old tactics of using elephants in war fare.

The elephants might had been able to deter Alexander, but before guns and fast horse cavalry they were sitting ducks.

Thats true but then he let Ghori go alive and unpunished.

if he had slaughtered him then and there,the story would have been different.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

I think enough discussed already about Mughals. just because there is not much to be said about the original topic of Umayyat invasion it doesnt mean that we must start oneliner bouts

lets not make it a match of praise and insults