Jump to content

Secularism was never indigenous to India - a case for why India's 'secularists' are delusional


Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

did hindus and muslims hold equal status under akbar's rule?

So you dont know about deen e elahi  actually akbar combined priniciples of islam and hinduism to make a new religion and to enforce it he slaughtered  many scholars who disagreed to his idea  

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

 

:hmmmm2: I thought he had eternal love for Jodha bai and they both remained virgins to keep their love pure as assutosh saab had told me

Edited by maniac
Posted
8 minutes ago, rock777 said:

So you dont know about deen e elahi  actually akbar combined priniciples of islam and hinduism to make a new religion and to enforce it he slaughtered  many scholars who disagreed to his idea  

He was a bigot but not as bad as Aurangzeb. That’s basically his benchmark

Posted
12 minutes ago, rock777 said:

So you dont know about deen e elahi  actually akbar combined priniciples of islam and hinduism to make a new religion and to enforce it he slaughtered  many scholars who disagreed to his idea  

bewakoof, It was followed by 19 people handpicked by him, it was a delisional cult that was haram as per Sharia. He had called himself the Khalifa, he would have been beheaded in today wahabi following.  

Posted
20 minutes ago, rock777 said:

So you dont know about deen e elahi  actually akbar combined priniciples of islam and hinduism to make a new religion and to enforce it he slaughtered  many scholars who disagreed to his idea  

but you're not answering my question.

did hindus and muslims hold equal status under akbar's rule?

 

 

29 minutes ago, rock777 said:

Son  do me a favor please  collect  data of all kings and then compare it

why dont you? you're the one arguing the case for muslim-led secularism. you have to convince us. because hindus think muslims believe they are kufaar.

Posted
6 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

bewakoof, It was followed by 19 people handpicked by him, it was a delisional cult that was haram as per Sharia. He had called himself the Khalifa, he would have been beheaded in today wahabi following.  

Son its your ignorance go and  re read it or check mujadid alif sani atleast you should  confirm before posting

Posted
Just now, Manny_Pacquiao said:

but you're not answering my question.

did hindus and muslims hold equal status under akbar's rule?

 

 

why dont you? you're the one arguing the case for muslim-led secularism. you have to convince us. because hindus think muslims believe they are kufaar.

Son  whats wrong with kuffar  it refers to non muslims  and you are not getting my point akbar changed his religion for hindus

Posted
Just now, rock777 said:

Son  whats wrong with kuffar  it refers to non muslims  and you are not getting my point akbar changed his religion for hindus

 but you're still not answering my question:

was the average hindu and the average muslim holding equal status under akbar's rule?

 

 

i wasn't asking anything about akbar himself. even modi calls himself a secular leader...we shouldn't believe politicians.

 

13narendra8.jpg

Posted
7 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

 but you're still not answering my question:

was the average hindu and the average muslim holding equal status under akbar's rule?

 

 

i wasn't asking anything about akbar himself. even modi calls himself a secular leader...we shouldn't believe politicians.

 

13narendra8.jpg

son  i have answered it but you will be able to understand it when you will have  thorough knowledge of history other wise dont blame me

Posted
2 minutes ago, rock777 said:

son  i have answered it but you will be able to understand it when you will have  thorough knowledge of history other wise dont blame me

you haven't answered me.

 

you avoided the question completely by focusing on akbar....rather than the status of the hindu in relation to the muslim under his rule.

 

 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

you haven't answered me.

 

you avoided the question completely by focusing on akbar....rather than the status of the hindu in relation to the muslim under his rule.

 

 

son  i have answered your question  but you are in state of denial

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, rock777 said:

Son its your ignorance go and  re read it or check mujadid alif sani atleast you should  confirm before posting

bhadwe, don't spout nonsense about what you got from the brainwashing in your madrassa. I have read authentic western sources who have praised Akbar, but still call this Din-i illahi as a confused attempt of a senile.

Edited by coffee_rules
Posted
2 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

bhadwe, don't spout nonsense about what you got from the brainwashing in your madrassa. I have read authentic western sources who have praised Akbar, but still call this Din-i illahi as a confused attempt of a senile.

son thats idiotic from you how could you quote western sources at the time of akbar totally idiotic from an idiot

Posted
2 minutes ago, rock777 said:

son thats idiotic from you how could you quote western sources at the time of akbar totally idiotic from an idiot

chewtiye, they are unbiased sources, unlike your madrassa material that you are peddling.

Posted
1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

chewtiye, they are unbiased sources, unlike your madrassa material that you are peddling.

you seem somewhat knowledgeable on this.

 

what do you think about akbar's rule? did hindus and muslims hold equal status under his reign?

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

 

so hindus were treated as equals to muslims under akbar's rule?

Caveat: Not any kind of an expert on history, but of Akbar's Navratans, 4 were Hindus.

One was a Hindu who converted to Islam for bettering his career prospects.

 

Was the common Hindu treated as an equal to the common Muslim? I don't know. Probably not. But the Muslims then (and even today) are mainly an urban phenomenon. The bulk of the Hindu population was rural/agrarian. That coupled with religion would be account for the difference in treatment.

 

Also, one should look at Akbar from medieval standards of morality and social norms. He has to be compared to his peers and not to Justin Trudeau and then declared as a liberal/tyrant etc. 

Edited by Mariyam
×
×
  • Create New...