Mahmud Ghaznavi And Somnath Temple - An Indian Explains

[Exiled-Pakistani]

You have missed the finer point I raised. My point was that there hasn't been a religious based war "yudh" against Muslims rulers from any Hindu quarter, to fight against the 'holocaust' of Hindus. The Sikhs, even though they are not Hindus, fought for a territorial autonomy. They lived peacefully under Mughal rule until they decided to capture territory to establish their own rule - what do you expect then? Guru Granth Sahib (Sikh holy book) contains substantial contribution from Baba Farid's ( A muslim mystic) work. Had there been any animosity between two people this would not have happened. Interestingly enough, Ranjit Singh had Muslim soldiers and Generals in his army.

Marathas also fought for the reasons for which all the kings used to fight in those days. The Muslim rule in Delhi had weakened and Maratha tried to fill the vacuum. Interestingly enough do you know, who were their allies in this war against Mughals? The Syed brethren. Had it been a "yudh" against Muslims, would they have Muslims as their allies??

The Marathas and the Sikhs whom you have forgotten. You are also unaware of the constant tough fight put up by the hindu kings. It took different muslim rulers more than 500 years to gain control over substantial territory and even then it was never a cake-walk. There are various accounts of the wars that were fought by different kings. Sometimes they won and repulsed the mughals sometimes they lost. It was more due to the passage of time and the mughals becoming indians themselves over the due course of time that their integration was complete. There were some anti-hindu movements too. E.g the moplah rebellion. Here is an extract on the same.

Moplah Rebellion an Anti Hindu rebellion conducted by the Muslim Mappila community (Moplah is a British spelling) of Kerala in 1921. Moplahs murdered, pillaged, and forcibly converted thousands of Hindus. According to one view, the reasons for the Moplah rebellion was religious revivalism among the Muslim Mappilas, and hostility towards the landlord Hindu Nair, Nambudiri Jenmi community and the British administration that supported the latter. Adhering to view, British records call it a British-Muslim revolt. The initial focus was on the government, but when the limited presence of the government was eliminated, Moplahs turned their full attention on attacking Hindus. Mohommed Haji was proclaimed the Caliph of the Moplah Khilafat and flags of Islamic Caliphate were flown. Ernad and Walluvanad were declared Khilafat kingdoms. Annie Besant wrote about the riots: "They Moplahs murdered and plundered abundantly, and killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatise. Somewhere about a lakh (100,000) of people were driven from their homes with nothing but their clothes they had on, stripped of everything. Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the Khilafat Raj in India." The second and the most important was of the Direct Action Day of 16th August 1946 when the then Bengal premier Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy had announced a leave (for the administration!) and freedom for the rioters . . . Its a big topic.

 

[airbender]

@Qalandri1 What you have said about Hazrat Mehmud Ghaznavi is like spitting on Moon....Okay what you have written lets do it this way you come with your family and i come with my family and we said LANA and then whole world cannot dare say such thing in future,,,, if you have gutts

 

[Rashna]

It is no mystery that there were hindus and muslims alike in both the camps. But Shivaji was the first to coin the slogan "Hindavi Swaraj", which was later adopted by Bal gangadhar tilak in his famous quote "Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it". Sikhism came in its own because of purported misdeeds of mughals. So while the inter-mixing of muslims with the hindus and sikhs continued in the cultural sphere the rulers per se gave birth to these two warrior clans namely the marathas and the sikhs. One doesn't deny pluralism among all of these players, namely the mughals, the sikhs, and the marathas. However all three rose to be powerful and the creation of the latter two was a reaction against the muslim rulers.

Generally Sikhism has had amicable relations with other religions. However, during the Mughal rule of India (15561707), the emerging religion had strained relation with the rulingMughals. Prominent Sikh Gurus were martyred by Mughals for opposing some Mughal emperors' persecution of Sikhs and Hindus. Subsequently, Sikhism militarized to oppose Mughal hegemony.

The Maratha Empire or the Maratha Confederacy was an Indian imperial power that existed from 1674 to 1818. At its peak, the empire covered much of the subcontinent, encompassing a territory of over 2.8 million km. The Marathas are credited with ending the Mughal rule in India.
The Marathas were a yeoman Hindu warrior group from the western Deccan (present day Maharashtra) that rose to prominence by establishing 'Hindavi Swarajya'.
The Marathas became prominent in the 17th century under the leadership of Shivaji who revolted against the Bijapur Sultanate and the Mughal Empire, and carved out a rebel territory with Raigad as his stronghold.

You have missed the finer point I raised. My point was that there hasn't been a religious based war "yudh" against Muslims rulers from any Hindu quarter, to fight against the 'holocaust' of Hindus. The Sikhs, even though they are not Hindus, fought for a territorial autonomy. They lived peacefully under Mughal rule until they decided to capture territory to establish their own rule - what do you expect then? Guru Granth Sahib (Sikh holy book) contains substantial contribution from Baba Farid's ( A muslim mystic) work. Had there been any animosity between two people this would not have happened. Interestingly enough, Ranjit Singh had Muslim soldiers and Generals in his army.

Marathas also fought for the reasons for which all the kings used to fight in those days. The Muslim rule in Delhi had weakened and Maratha tried to fill the vacuum. Interestingly enough do you know, who were their allies in this war against Mughals? The Syed brethren. Had it been a "yudh" against Muslims, would they have Muslims as their allies??

 

[modern.fakir]

Some stories ...

 

[Exiled-Pakistani]

I do not have any disagreement with this post of yours.

It is no mystery that there were hindus and muslims alike in both the camps. But Shivaji was the first to coin the slogan "Hindavi Swaraj", which was later adopted by Bal gangadhar tilak in his famous quote "Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it". Sikhism came in its own because of purported misdeeds of mughals. So while the inter-mixing of muslims with the hindus and sikhs continued in the cultural sphere the rulers per se gave birth to these two warrior clans namely the marathas and the sikhs. One doesn't deny pluralism among all of these players, namely the mughals, the sikhs, and the marathas. However all three rose to be powerful and the creation of the latter two was a reaction against the muslim rulers.

Generally Sikhism has had amicable relations with other religions. However, during the Mughal rule of India (1556–1707), the emerging religion had strained relation with the rulingMughals. Prominent Sikh Gurus were martyred by Mughals for opposing some Mughal emperors' persecution of Sikhs and Hindus. Subsequently, Sikhism militarized to oppose Mughal hegemony.

The Maratha Empire or the Maratha Confederacy was an Indian imperial power that existed from 1674 to 1818. At its peak, the empire covered much of the subcontinent, encompassing a territory of over 2.8 million km. The Marathas are credited with ending the Mughal rule in India.
The Marathas were a yeoman Hindu warrior group from the western Deccan (present day Maharashtra) that rose to prominence by establishing 'Hindavi Swarajya'.
The Marathas became prominent in the 17th century under the leadership of Shivaji who revolted against the Bijapur Sultanate and the Mughal Empire, and carved out a rebel territory with Raigad as his stronghold.

 

[Exiled-Pakistani]

Wait for your turn, I am not ignoring you; bigot bhai

Some stories ...

 

[modern.fakir]

appreciate your response although that comment wasn't for you :biggthumpup:

Wait for your turn, I am not ignoring you; bigot bhai

 

[luckykshah]

Very interesting Analysis

 

[Exiled-Pakistani]

I think only the first Article of world's first ever written constitution, The Constitution of Medina is enough to answer your whole post. Here it is:

"1. This is a document from Muhammad the Prophet (peace be upon him), governing relations between the Believers i.e. Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib and those who followed them and worked hard with them. They form one nation -- Ummah."

I take this article to be the definition section of the constitution that defines the people who would sign off and obey that social contract. There are three categories of people defined in this article:

1. The Muslims of Medina (Ansaar)
2. The Muslims of Mecca ( Mohajireen/Quraish)
3. All others who accepted (followed) the constitution.

These three categories of people formed one nation i.e. Ummah. In other words, its not just the Muslims but everyone who gets into a social contract becomes one nation, one ummah. If this is not secularism then what is?

Other than that, rest of the 56 articles in the Constitution address only the social contract between these three groups and not define that only panj-Namazis will be running the polity or collecting taxes etc.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/macharter.htm

Based on this type of secularism, Ottoman Turkey recognized and established the millat system (millat meaning, groups with in a community). Under this system Jews and Christians were allowed to be governed by their own laws, their own courts, and having limited autonomy. If you keep that in mind, the Indian Constitution is best of all Secular constitutions, because it allows Muslim Family Law, Hindu Family Law, and Civil Law, all at the same time. In other words, the Indian Constitution is the most Islamic of all constitutions of the world and yet it is secular. This type of Secularism is truly Islamic and called All-inclusive Secularism. Human beings have tendency to form groups and this type of secularism brings all under one umbrella through a social contract.

But secularism comes in shades. Take for example, the constitution of Bangladesh that specifically prohibits any religious based law and even outlaws political parties that do the religious based politics. This is called Liberal Secularism, which is exclusionary in nature. It is unnatural due to the said reasons.

hayee ...kiya baat hai :biggthumpup: ...One muist learn selective syllogism from seculars for trying to "justify" their "ism" through Islam !

You very cunningly bring up "the constitution of madina" ...But then why do you forget the entity (my AKKA pbuh) while talking about the constitution of Madina ??:biggthumpup:

Did my AKKA pbuh ever preach "secularism" - NO - He preached Islam and if to YOU or any of the other BLIND men out there the "Constitution of Madina" is "secular" then even THEN learn to give credit to ISLAM and the Great Prophet Muhammad Pbuh for giving this document to us !

What kind of flawed logic is this that you talk about the Greatest entity in the history of the Universe and a document he brings forth based on the IDEOLOGY he preached which was Islam but YET you managed to "extract" Secularism OUT OF IT [hilar][hilar], and NOT give credit to ISLAM - the way of that was taught by the messenger of GOD !

That is the most GROSS injustice anybody can ever do.

Thats like giving credit to einsteins theory of relativity to physics and not the man who discovered.

Ideologies bring us together which is why you see people of ALL different faiths come to worship the same GOD, the same Prophet pbuh and the same Ideology which HE has taught us. THIS is the most logical of all achievements, if it wasnt for ideology then what was it ??

Islam is a logical religion which is why you see LOGIC in every aspect and ofcourse this is what the Mughals did too - for the most part and even the 4 righly guided caliphs and even the Prophet pbuh himself.

They ALL practised Islam in LAW, Science, research etc and gave the world a practicial running model which we all strive to achieve. But we dont try to justify or rename glories of the Islamic past and attribute it to some "ism" :)

 

[modern.fakir]

[hilar][hilar] ...Dude you need to go back and read the meaning of the word "SECULAR" and then STOP making a laughing stock out of yourself by relating Islam a clearly RELIGIOUS based ideology and its Political setup to a Secularist setup.

Here let me help you. Here is the meaning of the word SECULARISM coming from Dictionary.com (bigsmile)

secular





adjective

1.of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred;temporal:secular interests.


2.not pertaining to or connected with religion(opposed to sacred ):secular music.


3.(of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.

4.(of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows(opposed to regular ).


Now, all the examples you have given above are from a RELIGIOUS figure, e.g. Prophet Muhammad Pbuh, The Ottomon Sultans were also known as the CALIPHS :biggthumpup: ....and the Champions of Secular Democracy DONT LIKE TO HEAR Islamic terms .

The fact of the matter what you are proving over and over again is that THEIR IS NO SECULARISM on its own and the best form of what it maybe ONLY exists under Islam as enshrined in the Constitution of Medina by the Prophet of Islam ....my Akka pbuh !
:biggthumpup:

This ABSOLUTELY SHREDS TO pieces any argument that you have for secularism when you yourself quoted the constitution of Medina !

Medina was ALSO the First Islamic State, thats why Pakistan is known as Madina-e-Sani :biggthumpup:

See, that is a matter of great pride for us, he gave us EVERYTHING 1400 years ago whereas your likes are still fighting over word games to explain his benevolence BUT wont give his Ideology credit for it !....This is Truly HYPOCRITICAL [hilar]

What you have mentioned above with the constitution of Medina is an ISLAMIC POLITICAL setup model and thats ALL it is. You want to call this SECULARISM to hide behind your pride but yet recognise the beauty of Islam- then so be it, BUT it is not ...It is an Islamic Political governance model given BY a RELIGIOUS FIGURE :biggthumpup:

I think only the first Article of world's first ever written constitution, The Constitution of Medina is enough to answer your whole post. Here it is:

"1. This is a document from Muhammad the Prophet (peace be upon him), governing relations between the Believers i.e. Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib and those who followed them and worked hard with them. They form one nation -- Ummah."

I take this article to be the definition section of the constitution that defines the people who would sign off and obey that social contract. There are three categories of people defined in this article:

1. The Muslims of Medina (Ansaar)
2. The Muslims of Mecca ( Mohajireen/Quraish)
3. All others who accepted (followed) the constitution.

These three categories of people formed one nation i.e. Ummah. In other words, its not just the Muslims but everyone who gets into a social contract becomes one nation, one ummah. If this is not secularism then what is?

Other than that, rest of the 56 articles in the Constitution address only the social contract between these three groups and not define that only panj-Namazis will be running the polity or collecting taxes etc.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/macharter.htm

Based on this type of secularism, Ottoman Turkey recognized and established the millat system (millat meaning, groups with in a community). Under this system Jews and Christians were allowed to be governed by their own laws, their own courts, and having limited autonomy. If you keep that in mind, the Indian Constitution is best of all Secular constitutions, because it allows Muslim Family Law, Hindu Family Law, and Civil Law, all at the same time. In other words, the Indian Constitution is the most Islamic of all constitutions of the world and yet it is secular. This type of Secularism is truly Islamic and called All-inclusive Secularism. Human beings have tendency to form groups and this type of secularism brings all under one umbrella through a social contract.

But secularism comes in shades. Take for example, the constitution of Bangladesh that specifically prohibits any religious based law and even outlaws political parties that do the religious based politics. This is called Liberal Secularism, which is exclusionary in nature. It is unnatural due to the said reasons.

 

[Exiled-Pakistani]

I guess, my vision of secularism satisfies your religious fixations - its a win win situation, isn't it?

Compared to this we have Iranian model, which is truly a theocracy. The mentioning of this model would give orgasmic pleasure to the religio-politicos like Fazlur Rehman or Moulvi Siraj, but something tells me that you would not like it.

I despise, Liberal Secularism, because it is not the natural order of things. Given the right amount of time, it will meet the same fate as communism.

[hilar][hilar] ...Dude you need to go back and read the meaning of the word "SECULAR" and then STOP making a laughing stock out of yourself by relating Islam a clearly RELIGIOUS based ideology and its Political setup to a Secularist setup.

Here let me help you. Here is the meaning of the word SECULARISM coming from Dictionary.com (bigsmile)

secular





adjective

1.of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred;temporal:secular interests.


2.not pertaining to or connected with religion(opposed to sacred ):secular music.


3.(of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.

4.(of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows(opposed to regular ).


Now, all the examples you have given above are from a RELIGIOUS figure, e.g. Prophet Muhammad Pbuh, The Ottomon Sultans were also known as the CALIPHS :biggthumpup: ....and the Champions of Secular Democracy DONT LIKE TO HEAR Islamic terms .

The fact of the matter what you are proving over and over again is that THEIR IS NO SECULARISM on its own and the best form of what it maybe ONLY exists under Islam as enshrined in the Constitution of Medina by the Prophet of Islam ....my Akka pbuh !
:biggthumpup:

This ABSOLUTELY SHREDS TO pieces any argument that you have for secularism when you yourself quoted the constitution of Medina !

Medina was ALSO the First Islamic State, thats why Pakistan is known as Madina-e-Sani :biggthumpup:

See, that is a matter of great pride for us, he gave us EVERYTHING 1400 years ago whereas your likes are still fighting over word games to explain his benevolence BUT wont give his Ideology credit for it !....This is Truly HYPOCRITICAL [hilar]

What you have mentioned above with the constitution of Medina is an ISLAMIC POLITICAL setup model and thats ALL it is. You want to call this SECULARISM to hide behind your pride but yet recognise the beauty of Islam- then so be it, BUT it is not ...It is an Islamic Political governance model given BY a RELIGIOUS FIGURE :biggthumpup:

 

[modern.fakir]

Like I said I mean ....if you want to accept the constitution of Madina and its articles as an instrument to run the state then for all intents and purposes I have NO issues with you calling it whatever !... you can call it "communism" or any other "ism" as far as I'm concerned. :) ..The real benefit is in seeing the implementation of it.

Now as far as Iran goes...I dont think Fazul ur Rahman or even siraj has any liking for them. You see Iran is run as a Spiritual "selection" model of governance and Both Fazal and Siraj belong to the clan of idiots who dont believe in spirituality :biggthumpup:, so let alone a political model that is built around it.

But having said that their is a lot to learn from the Iranian model because that model has truly given iran a lot of internal stability regardless of all the sanctions and other restrictions placed on them by the west. They always have the best technocrats running the ministries under a President and the whole system runs under a SPIRITUAL LEADER and this part of its governance closely resembles the Constitution of Madina with my AKKA pbuh being the spiritual leader.

Now, what I think for Pakistan is that we need to come up with a system that works for us and in that effort look at both Iran and Turkey and the main guiding document the constitution of Medina in order to sketch out what would work best for us.

But dont expect these current political parties to ever do something like that. :biggthumpup: ...Remember my Akka pbuh was special and it takes a special kind of soul to do these things...

I guess, my vision of secularism satisfies your religious fixations - its a win win situation, isn't it?

Compared to this we have Iranian model, which is truly a theocracy. The mentioning of this model would give orgasmic pleasure to the religio-politicos like Fazlur Rehman or Moulvi Siraj, but something tells me that you would not like it.

I despise, Liberal Secularism, because it is not the natural order of things. Given the right amount of time, it will meet the same fate as communism.

 

[gZionist]

Propaganda or not, the factual events contradict the Hindu right wing extremist diatribe. The undeniable fact remains that, prior to the Partition, all of the Muslim religious leadership believed in and supported the idea of a united Hindustan. This support was undeniable despite the extremist anti Muslim Hindu movements like Shudhi and Sanghtan and not to mention the bad blood created by the British.

For Muslim League until the Cabinet Mission Plan in June 1947, Pakistan was the Plan B; Muslim League only wanted constitutional parity of Muslims with Hindus. Only if Congress accepted that demand, Hindustan would have been one country today.

Despite these facts, their is a reason that Hindu right wing still uses an extremely vitriolic anti Muslim diatribe; only because it gets them votes. Ideologically they can and they never will be able to compete Congress and hence the politics of hate. I am not going to defend Mughal or other Muslim dynasties or their actions. But an undeniable fact remains that during their 1000 years of 'holocaust' upon Hindus, there hadn't been ONE single Hindu (religious or race based) uprising against Muslims throughout 1000 years. I will be shocked to death, if you could mention one single one. Have you ever wondered why?? On the other hand even in the stifling confines of Warsaw Ghetto, there was an uprising against Germans by Jews.

Pakistani side is no different. But contrary to India, despite the fact that Muslim right wing extremists are armed to the teeth and receive unlimited funds from Arabs, in electoral politics they show abysmal results, always. It means that general public in Pakistan is generally slightly left or right of the center. Pakistani military is the biggest supporter of the so called right wing militants because it has been using them as proxies since the first Afghan war.

You didn't try to understand my post. History is written by the winner. congress party used their left wing intellectual to cover up all the war crimes. But people can see it from naked eyes once they see many mosques built atop temples. They visit acheological sites & see truth from naked eyes.

The most ancient university(budhist university) was burnt by Islamic invaders.

The history is somewhat right of what Congress party & its cronies portrays with the help of its academic intellectuals. It doesn't mean that right wing history is truth. The truth lies in center-right because there are many tales of historical proof. You probably forgot to read the account of Al-biruni which I quoted in in previous post.


Contrary to your logic, Pakistan itself is an Islamic country & Pakistan constitutions ensures that left wing politicians of Pakistan would fall in right wing categories if we rate them on the western democratic scale of political ideology.

A Pakistani left-wing politician can't speak on blasphemy, right of minority in pakistan; afraid to talk about forced conversions whereas the Indian constitution ensures right wing Indian politicians to have leftist ideology.

You wont have right wing leader in India invoking discussion in the name of religion, you wont have them discuss religion and mix those naive ideology with political and social problems.

 

[greenstar]

Now tell us how corrupt were the mughals after you have heard it from the hindu's mouths yourself. It was ilk such as yourself you are never happy with the muslim rulers and rule. Slaves can never know how it feels to be free and will always patronize the oppressors :biggthumpup:

You need to free your mind of the slavery ingrained in you from being a liberal extremist beyghairat brigade member, funded by some ****** money from some foreign outfit [hilar]

Please deliver this speech to the GHQ, and all of the military dictators' respective tombs.

 

[Exiled-Pakistani]

It is nothing but a well beat up cliche that 'history is always written by the winner', no the fact is that history is also written by losers, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

There is no doubt that history is an extremely subjective subject. It is always clouded by our prejudices even if we do not admit it.

My personnel opinion is that no matter how we draw our lessons from history, we must always see how not to repeat the bad part of it and how best to learn from its best.

The actions of of people in the past are out of my control. But I can still control their outcomes. So focus on what I can rather than what I can't.

You didn't try to understand my post. History is written by the winner. congress party used their left wing intellectual to cover up all the war crimes. But people can see it from naked eyes once they see many mosques built atop temples. They visit acheological sites & see truth from naked eyes.

The most ancient university(budhist university) was burnt by Islamic invaders.

The history is somewhat right of what Congress party & its cronies portrays with the help of its academic intellectuals. It doesn't mean that right wing history is truth. The truth lies in center-right because there are many tales of historical proof. You probably forgot to read the account of Al-biruni which I quoted in in previous post.


Contrary to your logic, Pakistan itself is an Islamic country & Pakistan constitutions ensures that left wing politicians of Pakistan would fall in right wing categories if we rate them on the western democratic scale of political ideology.

A Pakistani left-wing politician can't speak on blasphemy, right of minority in pakistan; afraid to talk about forced conversions whereas the Indian constitution ensures right wing Indian politicians to have leftist ideology.

You wont have right wing leader in India invoking discussion in the name of religion, you wont have them discuss religion and mix those naive ideology with political and social problems.

 

[greenstar]

One finds no difference between Ghaznavi and NATO. The doctrine of preemptive strike was used by ghaznavi and his clan just like any modern conqueror.

However, linking this to islam is unfortunate to the say the least because the role played by Sufis is erased as it was not manly enough for some.