Page 1 of 1

things about hindus

PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 12:35 pm
by Nosuperstition
This is hindu propaganda . Just explain to me why Hindus have the biggest population in India Muslkim are minorities in India and Hindus got the lion share of India territories if Muslims killed millions of them was true . It just does not make sense . Compare that with your slave master the white man in N America. Native indians used to make 100% now they make less than 1% of N Amnerica so they were negenocide . as for veres 8:39



(Moreover) all discussions, on the spread of Islam in India must be preceded by the contention that while the establishment of a theocratic state contin­ued to remain the ideal of the Islamic state, in reality its interpretation varied from state to state according to the existing political exigencies. Hence, in a predominant Hindu India, no ruler but an imbecile could hope to debar Hindus from the state service, civil and military, leave alone attempt their total annihilation.

In fact, in India, since Mahmud Ghaznavi's time, the Muslim rulers had realized the essential difference between the ideal Din Panahi and the functional Din Dari and had perforce preferred to enforce the latter in the country. The diligent utilization of the Hindu potential to the maximum advantage of the Muslim ruler may have differed from ruler to ruler, but the impossibility of bringing about a total extermination of Hinduism was uni­versally recognized by all
.


http://www.preservearticles.com/2011122218954/short-essay-on-religious-policies-under-aurangzeb-in-the-mughal-empire.html

One such exigency might that which was listed below.

By an order in 1671 all Hindu head-clerks and accountants were removed from their posts so as to fill those vacancies with Muslims. As, however, not many experienced and qualified Muslims were available to fill in, the order was modified allowing 50 per cent of such posts to be retained by the Hindus


On 18 April 1669, the emperor was informed that in the provinces of Thatta, Multan and Benaras, but more noticeably, in the last, brahmans were bold enough to give public lectures on their holy books and scriptures to which even Muslim students from distant places were attracted. The emperor regarded such open propaganda of Hindu idolatory as nothing but scandalous.

Then and there commands were issued "to all the governors of provinces to destroy with a willing hand the schools and the temples of the infidels; and they were strictly enjoined to put an entire stop to the teaching and practice of idolatrous forms of worship."



However proselytization by kafirs can have serious ramfications.

Re: Definition of terrorist according to the ignorant Ali Si

PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 5:17 am
by Nosuperstition
Just explain to me why Hindus have the biggest population in India Muslkim are minorities in India and Hindus got the lion share of India territories if Muslims killed millions of them was true . It just does not make sense .


Muslim Bahmani rulers at times killed 4,00,000 to 5,00,000 Hindus to teach them a lesson.These were all chronicled by Muslim historians of those periods such as Ferishta. So over a span of 700 years millions could have easily got killed.As Will Durrant puts it Muslim warriors were young and energetic with a lot of religious zeal while the older Hindu civilisation had more or less become senile due to emphasis on vegetarianism.And whenever Hindus had the advantage of hand-to-hand combat in battlefield and were in a winning position,the muslim cavalry neutralised those gains.Fresh Arabian and Persian breed horses were used by muslim warriors while Hindus lacked that advantage as native horses were small and did not have that much stamina.That explains the high number of Hindus killed though they were not totally exterminated.

Re: Definition of terrorist according to the ignorant Ali Si

PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:10 pm
by Nosuperstition
According to some in this forum,Muhammad forbade alcohol as he wanted to create a fearsome war machinery for his religion.Now there are many among Hindus who developed a taste for drink.No wonder so many of them got butchered.

Re: Definition of terrorist according to the ignorant Ali Si

PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:23 pm
by Nosuperstition

Re: Definition of terrorist according to the ignorant Ali Si

PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:41 pm
by Nosuperstition
There is an interesting story about the finding of city of Vijayanagar.A Hindu king went to hunt in forests and at a particular place,he saw a hare biting back his hunting dogs.So thinking there is something special about the place ,he decided to build his capital there and it came to be known as Vijay Nagar.

If one tries for interpreting the story,it means Hindus who are easily scared like hares have decided to stand ground against muslims who are like hunting hounds.This sort of interpretation does not seem far-fetched when one considers sayings such as 'nooru godlanu tinna raabandu okka gaalivaana to potundi'( meaning a vulture that has fed on a hundred livestock animals will fall with the advent of a single cyclone) being applied for human beings.

mores things about hindus

PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:59 pm
by Nosuperstition
enceladus wrote: Timurlane, for example - his genocide of the Hindus makes the Nazis look like pansies in comparison.


Well according to what I know from my childhood Sunday history narratives in the Deccan Chronicle,Timurlane or Amir Timur which is his original name badly wanted to invade Northern India and China which were the richest areas on earth in those days.He chose India first for two reasons.

1.It had greater wealth
2.It was more in vicinity to his Central Asia.

But Northern India was already under Islamic occupation of the Delhi Sultanate.Timur sought the excuse that they were too lax or too lenient towards the Hindu kafirs.

Now how do you seperate yourself from those deviant/lenient muslims?By distinguishing yourself as an outstanding Ghazi who shows no pity on kafirs something which even sparrows are enjoined to in the Quran.

Anyway what is your source of Amir Timur's genocide of Hindus?

Also worth remembering is that he did not even spare his fellow muslims of fertile crescent.Do not know what excuse he conjured up then.The Chinese were lucky,enroute on his mission to plunder China,Timur fell off his horse,was injured and died later.

Re: UK: "Islamist extremism" as a distinct ideology

PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:21 pm
by Nosuperstition
The next day the Tatar army entered Delhi, and the city was pillaged of immense wealth. Then the Tatar army marched north, slaughtering, raping, and plundering Hindus. In Siwalik, Timur bragged that he won twenty consecutive victories in a month in spite of often being greatly outnumbered.


http://www.san.beck.org/2-8-DelhiSultans1300-1526.html

By denouncing Hindus outright as Najis or the impure ones fit for Hell,their suffering could be religiously trivialised.But what was his stance regards to slaughtering fellow muslims of fertile crescent.Might be that they are deviant ones fit for hell? :turban:

And winning over outnumbered Hindus is of no value as they would have been either drunk or veggie-eating non-professional soldiers/civilians.

Re: Definition of terrorist according to the ignorant Ali Si

PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:46 pm
by Nosuperstition
1.Hindus are a patient people.

2. Hindus are also generally a passive people less inclined to stressful situations such as religious conversions no matter how bad one is treated. (American black slaves stayed loyal to the Christian religion of their masters throughout the age of descrimination.)


http://forum.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic ... ght=#61845

Now how could such passive people who are far less inclined to stressful situations such as conversions endure much more stressful slaughters in hundreds of thousands?The answer lies in brainwashing.It is the same technique which the Catholics of South and Central Americas used in chastising the not-so-real Christian slaves.They used to pick out the faithful blacks and use them as coverts and for putting down/chastising the non-believing slaves.

Re: UK: "Islamist extremism" as a distinct ideology

PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2014 5:31 am
by Nosuperstition
Tuzk-i-Timuri continues:

"I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolators, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives.
"


Prophet is supposed to have said that if you unnecessarily kill even a sparrow ,it will cry out to Allah on the Day of Judgement that so and so man had killed me unjustly.Hence this learned religious person or Maulana never even kille d a sparrow in his life.

Loni which was captured before he arrived at Delhi was predominantly a Hindu town. But some Muslim inhabitants were also taken prisoners. Timur ordered that "the Musulman prisoners should be separated and saved, but the infidels should all be dispatched to hell with the proselytizing sword".


http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/moghal_atro.html

Now in his campaigns of Baghdad,did Amir Timur spare any civilian muslims or did he also butcher them?