DiamondHearts, I thought the first website was fair. The second does have a beef with Islam. However, these were quoted from the Islamic Generals secretary. According to Tarikh-i-Yamini of Utbi, Mahmud's secretary, "The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at Thanesar] that the stream was discolored, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it. The Sultan returned with plunder which is impossible to count. Praise he to Allah for the honor he bestows on Islam and Muslims." How can that be biased? It was written by a Muslim Historian. Also, if you would like to supply a historical website that covers the time and wars fought between the Islamists and Hindus I’d be happy to read it. Or are suggesting there were no wars fought? That Indian Hindu’s were happy to be ruled by Mughals ? That’s asinine isn’t? Has there ever been a people HAPPY to lose their culture and be ruled by another? IS Islam so enlightening that Indians were HAPPY to see their culture converted to Islam? They were happy to see their Temples destroyed? Their treasures taken? Come on, that is plain asinine. Isn`t is?? If Islam is so enlightening why did the Spanish, who lived under Islam for hundreds of years, fight to abolish it from Spain? Why did the Greeks do the same in Greece? Why are the Coptic Egyptians still around? Why weren’t the Chinese converted (there used to be Mosques in Nanjing for centuries – but the Chinese didn’t find the message compelling at all), why isn`t Russia Islamic? And lastly, why are there mainly Hindus still in India? If Islam is so “perfect” why was it the Europeans that ended slavery in Muslim countries and not Muslims? Muslims were happily selling Muslims as slaves after 1400 of Islam. So the message in the Qur`an wasn’t even compelling enough to abolish this abhorrent practice ..... was it? Actually that’s a rhetorical question because we can both look at history and agree – no it wasn’t. A 1000 years of Islam and Slavery was as prevalent as it had always been. Some enlightenment? Again its asinine to imagine people were happy to be ruled by foreigners. That people are happy to have a religion forced on them – especially one that says their religion should be banned. Do you really believe that? DiamondHearts, like it or not your forefathers were conquered. The battles were recorded by Islamic historians. You are Muslim because you were raised a Muslim and you were raised a Muslim because your forefathers lost in the wars against the Muslims. To me this seems quite logical. I don`t understand what it is you don`t understand. You forefathers were Hindu. They raised their children to be Hindu. Thousand of years passed. Eventually they fought and lost wars against the invading Muslims. They were converted to Islam. They raised their children to be Muslim. You were raised Muslim. You are Muslim. Is there something I missed? Back to Pakistan and India. When religion has been used to rule people, regardless of religion, be it Xiantiy, Islam, Buddhism, or Communism (yes also a religion) it sucks and the people ruled remain poor. That’s why the ME is still poor. As a matter of fact, throughout all of history most people in the World have been poor. Its only the West and now East where the average person now has some wealth. Pakistan will remain poor as long as it remains strongly religious. History shows, that when religion is removed from power, then people prosper. Simple as that. Pakistan is resource poor and ruled by religion, an antiquated system of government. It will remain poor for most people. You just don`t get it because you are religious. Maybe you think that USA has made Pakistan poor? Or England? As if Pakistan was ever in 6000 years rich. Not for most people that`s for damn sure! Agreed? That is true the world over. An example: for most of human history China has been the wealthiest, and guess what, most people were poor. I’m positive Pakistan/Afghanistan/India has a fantastic history. And I love history. I’d love to learn more about the ancient history of the Indian/Pakistani. Like I said, these people were one of only 5 places were civilization started. Any suggested readings? But the fact remains Pakistan is in no way competitive to India. And as Pakistan is too religious ... that is not going to change much. Its India and China that are the rising stars. In that case India is given special consideration by America as to its nuclear weapons and speacial favores and relationships. I’m sure Pakistan will get a bit of the halo effect and prosper as India prospers. BUT unless Pakistan gets rid of religion in its government and dumps money into educating people - REAL education, not this Hadth Qur`an stuff but real history and real science then it will remain poor. Think about this. 20 years ago S. Koreans were as poor as Afganistanies. Now they are richer. It didn`t happen because they became monotheistic Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! its because they invested in education and became democratic - two keys to success. Michael
It is not hate or racist to post the truth, every point i raised above is the truth please deny it, i have never posted from any hate site, all my links are from legitamate western news sites. The problem is you have a problem with facing reality, pakistan is a enemy of india, pakistan has done nothing but harm in afghanistan, pakistan did support the taliban, and thus osama bin lid. Pakistan did blackmail billions out of america in loans for support in the war on terror, the war that they help create by supporting the taliban. I deal in facts not fantasy, you are posting post after post of how great pakistan is, pardon me if i dont correct you on that falsehood. As for cotton top, this is a guy who is forever threatening posters here if they dont agree with him, he tells them where he lives & says come round for a fight, he probably is some computer nerd with a gun under his pillow. I threatened him once for a change i called his bluff, he went running to james to get me banned, cotton is dealing in prime bullshit, i have given him my mobile number more than once, he refuses to take the matter further, other than to bullshit his macho crap here, the guy is one big cop out.
Give me a Muslim website which has this account. You will not be able to find one. At this point I don't care, because you will not change your view even if I argue with you for a few more threads. Think about it. I'm Pakistani. You are not. I know about my culture. Hindu Indians who know Pakistanis will testify that our cultures are mirror cultures. What would I get out of lying to you? Our culture is based on Indian culture, and we share the same language and heritage as all of the Indian continent. We are no less Indian in culture and heritage than Shri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, or Afghanistan, and modern India. Like it or not, we embraced Islam because we believed in Islam. This is just like Buddhisms, Sikh, Jain, and Christians who embraced their current religions while their ancestors were Hindus. Does this make the following less Indian, no it does not. You do not have to be Hindu to be Indian. If you are not Hindu, it does not mean you are no longer Indian. Most Muslim have been Muslim for generations and embraced Islam in areas with significant Hindu majorities where they were oppressed. Pakistan was formed to protect these Muslims from Hindu extremists who killed many of us. Modern examples of Hindu extremist violence against minorities include Muslims in Gujarat, Muslims in Kashmir, Dalits and Christians in South, Bangalis in Bengali east of India, etc. Pakistan's ruling system is based on the British system with minor Shariah influences. English is the official and lingua franca of Pakistani elite and most government ministries. Legal system: based on English common law with provisions to accommodate Pakistan's status as an Islamic state; accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, with reservations Suffrage: 18 years of age; universal; joint electorates and reserved parliamentary seats for women and non-Muslims http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pk.html One more question. Do you expect Pakistan, a nation with a population, consumer base, and labor force of only 160 million to compete with its neighbor India which has a population, consumer base, and labor force of nearly 1 billion?
DiamondHearts, Are we agreeing or disagreeing? 1) Yes, Muslim armies conquered India/Pakistan or 2) No, Muslim armies never entered India/Pakistan and fought against the people there? Michael
Muslims invaded India in the Sindh in the earlier stages of Islam with Sultan Muhammad bin Qasim who fought the raja of Sindh for supporting sea pirates and thieves and taking compensation from criminals. The honor and prestige which the Muslims showed was the reason why Islam spread so quickly in that area. After the pagan Mongols conquered India, they converted to Islam after a few years and this led to the Muslim rule of the Sultans of the Mughals. Islam was never made compulsory, rather it was encouraged above other religions. Hindus, Jain, Buddhists found the Muslim leaders were very accommadating to the minorities unlike the previous Hindu rulers that persecuted minorities, and also the pagan conquerors in the past. Hence the golden age of Islamic learning of India during that time, and also of culture arts, and science. It was the kind sultans of the Mughals which allowed the British to establish trading colonies, which was foolish kindness and welcomeness which resulted in the end of the Muslim rule of India and the killing of the last great ruler the heroic Tipu Sultan who once said to the British, 'I would rather live like a lion for one day than live like a jackal for a thousand years.' He fought to the death to stop the British conquest of India, and to save the face of the our people, but the British due to their technology and deciet eventually overcame him. Allah bless him for his honrable sacrifices. Also I want you to answer me, how you expect Pakistan pop. 160 million to compete on the same level with India pop. 1 billion?
http://pakavenue.com/webdigest/history/pre_independence_002.htm Sir Syed Ahmad Khan: Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1818-1898) emerged as the main advocate of reforming Muslim society towards progress, representing a feeling that a rejection of the British would only result in the Muslims of India disappearing into oblivion. He wanted advantages for Muslims and was keen for the reform of Muslim education. He stressed that science was not anti-Islamic. In 1875, the British gave him a grant to found the Mohammadan Anglo-Oriental college which later became Aligarh University. From here, a stream of educated Muslims went into government services. Indian National Congress: In 1885, the Indian National Congress was formed. The party began to fight for a devolution of power into Indian hands. Although some leading Muslims were members, it was viewed with suspicion by most, including Sir Syed, as being a Hindu body which would only ever represent Hindu interests. All India Muslim League: In 1906, All India Muslim League was formed to promote feelings of loyalty to the British and advance Muslim political interests. They petitioned the Viceroy that in any political move, Muslim interests be taken into account. The 1909 India Councils Act rewarded Muslim loyalty. The act gave Muslims separate electorates, where they could elect their own representatives to the Legislative Council. Some people claim that this move foreshadowed the birth of Pakistan. Independence: Viceroy Lord Louis Mountbatten announced that Pakistan would receive its independence on 14th August 1947. Indians had to vote: were they to stay in India or Pakistan? Baluchistan, NWFP and Sindh voted to join Pakistan directly. Various kingdoms in the north, including Gilgit and Hunza, also acceeded to Pakistan, though they were originally designated as part of Hindu ruled Kashmir. When the deadline passed, Kashmir still hadn't decided. New boundaries were drawn up dividing Bengal and the Punjab. The announcement of the new border resulted in the greatest migration in the human history, as some seven to eight million Muslims left India and the same number of Hindus made the journey in opposite direction. In Karachi on 14th August 1947, the flag of Pakistan flew for the first time. Governor General of the new Islamic state was Mohammad Ali Jinnah. India prospered during the British rule. Agricultural output was increased manifold. The railway network was setup, which provided a major contribution to the boom. Trade was expanded and industrial development was on the rise. *************** http://pakavenue.com/webdigest/history/pre_independence_001.htm "which resulted in the end of the Muslim rule of India" http://pakavenue.com/webdigest/history/pre_independence_001.htm Pre-Independence >> Muslim Rule in India (711 - 1775 AD) Islam was first brought in by Arabs in early eight century. At that time, the religion itself was only about a century old. In 711 AD Mohammad Bin Qasam, a brilliant 19 year-old Arab general from Basra (Iraq) marched into Pakistan by way of Persia and Balochistan with the army of 60,000 men. He employed a method of warfare never before seen in the subcontinent - large carriage-drawn catapults capable of hurling heavy stones and missiles across the distances of about 200 yards. He marched all the way to Nerun (Hyderabad) where he engaged Raja Dahir, the local Hindu ruler and his massive army of 20,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. Mohammad Bin Qasim defeated Raja Dahir with contemptuous ease. Islam took roots there through geniune intellectual and spiritual conversations rather than through forceful persuasion. In the centuries that followed, the subcontinent was invaded repeatedly by Muslim armies - Turks, Afghans and Mongols. Slowly, Islam spread outwards from Sindh to encompass all the lands that now make up Pakistan. Some 800 years after the death of Mohammad Bin Qasim, the turbulent history of the subcontinent and the many competing dynasties that struggles for ascendancy there, gave way to a period of political calm and cultural achievement that was to last for more than three centuries. This was the start of Mughal empire. ***************** "India prospered during the British rule. Agricultural output was increased manifold. The railway network was setup, which provided a major contribution to the boom. Trade was expanded and industrial development was on the rise." Seems india got a hell of a deal, railway networks, boom time, they all learned english, which is why they and the pakistan people all want to come to the uk, they seem to hate there own country but they all want to live in the uk. I am very puzzled how pakistan people can cliam kasmir as theres, i am very puzzled how pakistan people can claim pakistan as theres it is india's country!!!! Like the british you guys also invaded india so what right do colonists have to say they own the country, the british empire give up all its colonies bar gibralta, we have no real rule in any other country. The pakistan people are invaders of india, like the jews of palestine, as you muslims are so fond to point out. You guys have no right to any land in india incuding pakistan let alone kasmir. You ruled india for a 1000 years, you closed all the universities down, and india went into the dark ages, then the brits came along & kicked your asses out, & put the majority indians back in control. Please dont ever mention israel or palestine again, when you pakistanis are invaders in india, you have no rights there, just like the jews in palestine.
Please don't confuse British India (the colony) with the modern state of India. The fact that it's called 'India' does not give it a claim to the entire territory of British India. British India simply split into two countries on gaining independence because many (Ghandi, certainly) felt that the large Muslim minority should not have to live under Hindu rule, or the Hindu majority under Muslim rule. I think the provinces voted on which new state they wished to belong to, and Kashmir, due to its demographics, was a bit iffy on where it belonged and this has led to an awful lot of trouble.
The fact is britain invaded india & left, 60,000 arabs invaded india & never left, there was no british seed left in india, no mass white population today, after a 1000 years of muslim rule, you now have the sum total of that invading rule 160 million pakis. Like palestine was invaded by the jews, india was invaded by muslims, the only difference is india accepted it, muslims have never accepted the 5 million jews in the middle east, yet india tolerates 160 million muslims in india, as pakistan is india, & should never have been born if it was not for the dumb ass brits, we should have just left indian rule, and deported the invaders who could not handle it, back to there sand dunes in the middle east.
Some food for though. Oh, and remember DiamondHearts, Pakistan’s blasphemy laws do severly prevent Pakistani historians from presenting Islamic history as anything other than as good. I will say again, no people accept conquest at the hands of another. No One. Never. You’re deluding yourself if you think otherwise. Islamization and the Arab Conquest of Sindh Maybe you will find the questions the author raises interesting, maybe not? Of course I think you would do well to just read the whole website. Not only do Al-Beruni's descriptions of Punjab stand somewhat apart from the official characterizations of Hindu society, they raise a troubling paradox for Pakistan's official historians. Had Islam truly been a vehicle for the liberation of Hindu society from the evils of Brahminism (as is repeatedly proclaimed), how was it that three centuries after the unqualified triumph of "Islam" in Sindh, Hindu society continued to survive just next door in Punjab, and the Islamic faith was able to win few converts amongst the majority of the Hindus, and not even amongst the discriminated caste communities? And had Sindh become this great center of learning and culture after its conquest by Bin Qasim, how was it that Al-Beruni (an avowed Muslim) was studying Hindu scientific texts in Punjab, but not "Islamic" scientific texts in Sindh? In fact, it is decidedly odd that there is virtually no archaeological evidence or surviving monuments from that era that might attest to claims of a great Arab civilization in Sindh. A British historian is supposed to have remarked: "Notwithstanding that their possession was partial and unstable, our native [British] soil teems with their [Roman] buildings, camps, roads, coins, utensils, in a manner to show completely they were master-spirits of that remote province [Britain]. But with regard to the Arab dominion in Sind, it is impossible for the traveler to wander through that land, without being struck with the absence of all record of their occupation." This is all the more puzzling when one considers the very rich and impressive record of temples, step-wells, urban gateways, colleges and monasteries (built between the 8th and the 13th centuries) that have survived in the neighboring states of Rajasthan and Gujarat - states that successfully fended off the Arab invasions. {In the 11th C, the Soomras, (who according to Sindhi historian, G.M. Syed were Rajputs and only nominally Muslim) took over the reins of power in Sindh, and ruled for three centuries. By then, Sindh had been freed from paying tribute to the Arab Khalifate, and monuments commissioned by the Soomras and the later Sammas have survived, though the greatest evidence of monumental building activity in Sindh emerges from after the 16th C.} Although there are references to trade and agricultural productivity in post-conquest Sindh in the Arab records of the 9th and 10th centuries, these are not especially noteworthy, since the Arab lands were always poorer in agricultural terms, and positive references to Sindh are also to be found in the writings of Greek historians (who describe it as the most flourishing of all that the Greeks had seen), and a few centuries later, Sindh was mentioned as a rich country by Roman historians (with specific references to Patala in lower Sindh as an emporium of trade). What is more surprising is that there seems to have been an equally (or more) vigorous trade between the ports of Gujarat and the Arab ports as with Sindh after its Arab conquest. A resolution to this apparent mystery may be found in the description of the conquest of Sindh in a Persian translation of the Chach-na'ma or Tari'kh-I Hind wa Sind, by Muhammad 'Ali bin Hamid bin Abu Bakr (Kufi, early 13th C) which reveals quite a different story. Contradicting any theory representing the arrival of Islam in the Indian subcontinent as a great social revolution, the Chach-na'ma reveals a pirate-like conquest that wreaked havoc on the local populations, transferring a considerable volume of plundered wealth such as gold, silver and jewelry, and also slaves, as tribute to the Umayyad governers. Bin Qasim and his military cohorts also profited greatly from the conquest, enriching themselves at the expense of the local population. Another history of the period, the Futuhu-l Bulda'n by Ahmad bin Yahya, bin Jabir, (892-3 AD) describes how some of the victories were achieved by the destruction (or salinization) of vital aqueducts that starved the populations of drinking water, leading to their surrender. Both documents describe the slaying of able-bodied soldiers and other townsmen, and the taking of women and children as slaves in large numbers. Did you get that? Good. Now the quotes are referenced and you should have no problem looking them up. Also they were written by Muslims so you shouldn’t worry that they were taken out of context. I don’t. Pakistan doesn’t need to be equal to India, but it would be nice not to be dirt poor and destitute huh? Of course you think Islam is a wonderful thing and the loss of Hindu/Buddhist culture in Pakistan you see as a gain. Well that’s where we’re different. I think to survive and to thrive a people need to retain a sense of their culture and to progress from there. Not to have it replaced. Islamic enlightment didn`t even end slavery in the ME - it was the Europeans that did that. Look at the following people and think how they were conquored and what happened to their culture and then their society: Tibetans by the Communist Chinese Aboriginal Australians by the English Moiré by the English Native Americans by the English Aztec by the Spanish Pakistan by the Arabs. OK with that in mind lets look at these last points the author makes: After Islamization, the progress of science in Sindh slowed, and the attention of Arab, Persian and Central Asian scholars turned to Punjab, Gujarat and other centres of learning in India. Hence, the claim that the introduction of Islam under the aegis of Arab invaders such as Bin Qasim was an event that heralded a radical and progressive new era of cultural growth and material prosperity for the people of Sindh, is a largely unproven claim, and in fact, almost untenable when the mass of contrary evidence (both concrete, and circumstantial) is taken into account. That it liberated the people of Sindh from unspeakable horrors is another speculation, driven more by political needs and Islamic chauvinism than by any clear and irrefutable historical evidence. For the most part, the official histories of Sindh are sustainable only as illusions and myths. A deeply troubling and unstated implication behind such one-sided rhetoric is that the people of Sindh were impotent in fighting off local tyrants themselves, and needed the assistance of external agents to "liberate" them. In addition, there is the underlying assumption that the indigenous people of Sindh were incapable of producing anything of civilizational value on their own, and that the cultural and philosophical systems produced internally were inadequate, and needed to be replaced by those of outsiders. Not only can such assertions be damaging to a nation's self-esteem, these are precisely the sort of ideas that sustained colonial rule. But since genuine decolonization was hardly on the minds of Pakistan's creators, such notions have gone largely unchallenged. Instead, the logic of the two-nation theory and partition has demanded the propagation of accentuated polemics - howsoever improbable, and howsoever damaging to the psyche of the Pakistani people themselves. Although it is unlikely that the history of Sindh will ever be presented in a truthful and accurate manner by the present ruling elites of Pakistan, ordinary Sindhis may well ask that if the introduction of Islam in Sindh were truly beneficial for the ordinary masses, (supposedly ushering in an era of expanded access to education and learning), how is it that the rural masses of Sindh rank as amongst the most illiterate and most oppressed in the world today?[/B] Isn't it ironic how the average literacy in neighboring Rajasthan (one of India's less developed states, with a primarily Hindu population) exceeds 61%, far ahead of Pakistan's currently projected literacy of 45% {Of course, the comparison with India's more industrialized state of Gujarat or agriculturally prosperous Punjab (both with 70% literacy) would make things look still worse.}
enlightenment for you infidels? the koran: God's curse be upon the infidels! Evil is that for which they have bartered away their souls. To deny God's own revelation, grudging that He should reveal His bounty to whom He chooses from among His servants! They have incurred God's most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits the unbelievers. Q 2:92-6 the gustav: jihaaaaad, motherfucker! prepare to die! /rabid screeching
when brothers attack! gustav: me and my sister are very close. i still must hack her head off. /hacking frenzy
hmm putting those infants to work eh? and providing equal opportunity for the bitches as well? commendable!
i wish i were one of these fuckers for a day just to see what it is like must be like being an animal frothing and foaming and whatnot yeah! thats it!
It's really suprising how many people will jump at the opportunity to spread lies and disinformation about Pakistan, Arabs, Islam which they have NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT. I will present a more detailed historical post on Pakistan in the near future. Istead of wastying my time arguing the same points, I will present the real history of Pakistan and Islam in India. Muslims invade Sindh and defeat a criminal king who supports thieves and arrogantly supresses his people. Sultan Hazrat Muhammad bin Qasam becauses famous due to his honesty and the justice of his rule and Islam spreads into India and forms a strong base in Sindh. The Muslims of the subcontinent converted to Islam and are ethnically Indian with various cultures, the only difference is they don't worship idols and worship ONE GOD. Majority of the conversion to Islam was the result of many factors, but mainly the rule of the honest, just Muslim sultans who respected their minorities and did not seek to kill all other religionists like the Hindu fanatical empires earlier. India is not only Buddhist or Hindu, it includes many diverse religious beliefs including Sikh, Jain, Muslim, and Christian. Minorities face alot of discrimination from Hindu fanatics, especially Muslims, and Christians, and lower caste Dalits and Tamil people. Almost all of India's neighbors have problems with Indian involvement in their policies. Many of the people who are arguing with me about Pakistan in this thread have a hatred for Muslims, Arabs, and anyone that sympathesizes with them. This hatred and blatant bigotry makes them say wild and irrational things about Muslims and their history. This is especially dangerous since most Westerners know nothing of Islam or Muslims, and are suseptible to believing such medievel ways of thinking. The world is not all black and white. All Muslims are not evil, we are not fanatical, nor is our history violent. Islam won by the hearts and minds of its brilliant adherents. See the difference from what Gustav wrote? This only proves my above points. Peace.
in good time, our glorious aryan heritage will be rid of the scourge that is islam we will return to the old ways. the ways of the noble and righteous. this i vow! i hope you will be there, brother diamond, when i bring our people, freedom!
