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

[rock777]

3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

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

idiot when akbar devised deen e elahi  please name western scholar who was at delhi witnessing this situation

[coffee_rules]

1 minute ago, rock777 said:

idiot when akbar devised deen e elahi  please name western scholar who was at delhi witnessing this situation

chal bhaag bsdk. You don't need the translation of the work , you need to know the impact of his action. So, this work had zilch impact. A sect like that would be declared non-muslim (like Ahmediyas) in today's Sharia.

[rock777]

1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

chal bhaag bsdk. You don't need the translation of the work , you need to know the impact of his action. So, this work had zilch impact. A sect like that would be declared non-muslim (like Ahmediyas) in today's Sharia.

if you cant answer my question its alright but dont act like if  you are  experiencing dyspareunia

[Manny_Pacquiao]

6 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

Was the common Hindu treated as an equal to the common Muslim? I don't know. Probably not.

great!! finally....some progress. fyi @rock777, this is how you answer a question.

 

 

now for the next point:

ram janmabhoomi trust allowed the construction of a mosque in ayodhya.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/up-govt-allots-5-acres-for-mosque-in-ayodhya-25km-from-temple-site-near-lucknow-highway/articleshow/73971357.cms

 

now that you have the alternatives in front of you...which is better? hindutva-inspired secularism, or the 'deen ul elahi'-inspired akbar-ian secularism?

[coffee_rules]

7 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

you seem somewhat knowledgeable on this.

 

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

All the history that points to the greatness of Akbar are from his biography (Akbarnama by his court historian Abul Fazl) which glosses over his term as expected. Compartively, western Historians are very kind to Akbar and praise his secular credentials. But, unlike western Historians who brush aside local regional history as folklore, we need to understand how the image of Akbar is quite contrary to how he is portrayed in Rajput and other relgional history. . He was a ruthless ruler like all other Moghul invaders before him and has his excesses, he has used his power to usurp land, women and wealth. But, credit to him for abolishing Jiziya and other measures show him to be kind to kaffirs. As far as equal status to Hindus in his reign, it is a hogwash, as it was never there under any of the Islamic rulers anyway. There is a resentment from Hindus not having any power in Islamic rule, I don't read much into his Navratans, but just like some of the local history credibility, he was associated with kings like Birbal and Tansen (who were Hindus), so it sets him apart from other Moghuls/Islamic invaders. 

 

IMO, Dara Shikoh had better secular cred than Akbar. He would have been a better Akbar than Jalal ud-din Muhammad, had he survived from his brother, Aurangzeb. 

[rock777]

3 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

great!! finally....some progress. fyi @rock777, this is how you answer a question.

 

 

now for the next point:

ram janmabhoomi trust allowed the construction of a mosque in ayodhya.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/up-govt-allots-5-acres-for-mosque-in-ayodhya-25km-from-temple-site-near-lucknow-highway/articleshow/73971357.cms

 

now that you have the alternatives in front of you...which is better? hindutva-inspired secularism, or the 'deen ul elahi'-inspired akbar-ian secularism?

well none i will pick gandhi's secularism instead of these two

[rock777]

3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

All the history that points to the greatness of Akbar are from his biography (Akbarnama by his court historian Abul Fazl) which glosses over his term as expected. Compartively, western Historians are very kind to Akbar and praise his secular credentials. But, unlike western Historians who brush aside local regional history as folklore, we need to understand how the image of Akbar is quite contrary to how he is portrayed in Rajput and other relgional history. . He was a ruthless ruler like all other Moghul invaders before him and has his excesses, he has used his power to usurp land, women and wealth. But, credit to him for abolishing Jiziya and other measures show him to be kind to kaffirs. As far as equal status to Hindus in his reign, it is a hogwash, as it was never there under any of the Islamic rulers anyway. There is a resentment from Hindus not having any power in Islamic rule, I don't read much into his Navratans, but just like some of the local history credibility, he was associated with kings like Birbal and Tansen (who were Hindus), so it sets him apart from other Moghuls/Islamic invaders. 

 

IMO, Dara Shikoh had better secular cred than Akbar. He would have been a better Akbar than Jalal ud-din Muhammad, had he survived from his brother, Aurangzeb. 

son your  knowledge is rudimentary you need to dig deep to reach any conclusion

[Manny_Pacquiao]

4 minutes ago, rock777 said:

well none i will pick gandhi's secularism instead of these two

 

then why didnt you in 1947?

 

 

you know...when gandhi was actually alive. LOL.

Edited March 13, 2020 by Manny_Pacquiao

[Manny_Pacquiao]

2 minutes ago, rock777 said:

son your  knowledge is rudimentary you need to dig deep to reach any conclusion

then you should give us more detailed information. educate us! after all, you're the one that is disagreeing.

 

i wouldn't even go as far as he did: i would simply point to the existence of half a billion muslims in the subcontinent as proof that hindus and muslims weren't holding equal status during the mughal era.

[Real McCoy]

There is a troll calling others son when the fact is that he and his entire country claims they are sons of a mughal, turk, arab, persian, etc. I don't know what would you call someone with that many fathers. Also they used to be in bed with USA before and outsourced to China now. Such a pathetic life these guys must be living for them to come here and post sh1t all over this forum. 340 posts and 320 dislikes. seems fair to me.

[Real McCoy]

3 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

then you should give us more detailed information. educate us! after all, you're the one that is disagreeing.

 

i wouldn't even go as far as he did: i would simply point to the existence of half a billion muslims in the subcontinent as proof that hindus and muslims weren't holding equal status during the mughal era.

Manny stop responding to this troll. Maybe you find it amusing to pass time but it only feeds this troll

[rock777]

2 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

There is a troll calling others son when the fact is that he and his entire country claims they are sons of a mughal, turk, arab, persian, etc. I don't know what would you call someone with that many fathers. Also they used to be in bed with USA before and outsourced to China now. Such a pathetic life these guys must be living for them to come here and post sh1t all over this forum. 340 posts and 320 dislikes. seems fair to me.

son calm down take it easy 

[rock777]

6 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

then you should give us more detailed information. educate us! after all, you're the one that is disagreeing.

 

i wouldn't even go as far as he did: i would simply point to the existence of half a billion muslims in the subcontinent as proof that hindus and muslims weren't holding equal status during the mughal era.

son using your logic there should be no muslim population in the  world  as 1500 years ago there was not a single muslim and  if you want to get some knoledge dm me iam there for your help

[Manny_Pacquiao]

6 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

Manny stop responding to this troll. Maybe you find it amusing to pass time but it only feeds this troll

the world would be a boring place if we all thought the same way.

 

these days, there's too much name-calling and not enough debate.

 

on twitter, i get called a 'troll', a 'sanghi', a 'hindu terrorist' just for disagreeing with certain points. this is not the way it should be.

[someone]

2 hours ago, rock777 said:

akbar  

Stockholm syndrome. Akbar didn't kill as many people as the other barbarians, so you put him in the "good books". That's horrendous...

[Manny_Pacquiao]

3 minutes ago, rock777 said:

son using your logic there should be no muslim population in the  world  as 1500 years ago there was not a single muslim and  if you want to get some knoledge dm me iam there for your help

of course, because other faiths existed before islam.

 

islam is just one of many. :)

 

why don't you want to live in a hindu nation?

[rock777]

1 minute ago, someone said:

Stockholm syndrome. Akbar didn't kill as many people as the other barbarians, so you put him in the "good books". That's horrendous...

son check meaning of secular in dictionary  many dictators were secular but that does not mean they were democrats

[rock777]

1 minute ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

of course, because other faiths existed before islam.

 

islam is just one of many. :)

 

why don't you want to live in a hindu nation?

son then how usa  russia  china became super power  other super powers existed before them similar is the case with sikhism

[someone]

5 minutes ago, rock777 said:

son check meaning of secular in dictionary  many dictators were secular but that does not mean they were democrats

Huh? Where isthis secular? Dictionary? Dictators?  This is what I wrote>>>

 

Stockholm syndrome. Akbar didn't kill as many people as the other barbarians, so you put him in the "good books". That's horrendous...

[rock777]

4 minutes ago, someone said:

Huh? Where isthis secular? Dictionary? Dictators?  This is what I wrote>>>

 

Stockholm syndrome. Akbar didn't kill as many people as the other barbarians, so you put him in the "good books". That's horrendous...

son are you that ignorant dictionary will tell you meaning of secular