SLB must put better researchers on the job next time! - Page 15

Baki sab choro.. 400KG Gold?😲😲😲 Yoyzaa!!

Originally posted by: sunflower52

So the Hindhu Kings were very good and Muslim Kings were bad, per some. Get very difficult to have any sane discussions which such who have one dimensional thinking and even if certain facts were stated they would not believe because their minds are set.

Most HW or BW films are propaganda based and especially Sub Continent history is not straight but pretty complex.

Tax during Mughals or any other Sultanate period was not only levied on Hindus but Shia Muslims as well.

No wonder the British succeeded into dividing this country because they found our weakness and exploited it. The division is so strong that it lasted centuries.

According to some?? that's what's written in our history 😆

Saw the discussions related to AG/Ekta's Jodha Akbar and couldn't stop myself from commenting.😆

Originally posted by: Heisenberg17.

Hindu kings didn't invade Muslim lands and tried to impose their culture, religion and values on them, it were the Muslims that invaded India, not the other way round. The difference between pre-Islamic invaders and Islamic invaders is that the former became subsumed into the Indian cultural fabric, they became Indians, they adopted the religions, culture, traditions, names, and heritage of the land, whilst the latter tried to uproot the religions and cultures of India and supplanting it with their one.

Do Muslims love America or Russia being in their lands? no? well you got your answer. Shia Muslims are minorities in Sunni majority lands and often face persecution and discrimination.

Originally posted by: ..PikACHU...

According to some?? that's what's written in our history 😆

Originally posted by: sunflower52

That happened centuries ago and most of those conversions that took place was due to Hindu Caste system or are you going to deny that no caste system exists. Especially the Delits that are treated until this day who are called 'Untouchables'. Now if they found a religion that gives them respect like Christianity or Islam who would not want to convert. That's my believe and opinion.

Even these Sunni;s impose their way of thought on Shia's, my point was people still hold grudges no wonder "History Repeats Itself", as people do not want to learn from the past.

People tend to forget the times when Muslim came were different, so what Roman, Greeks invaded and left their culture behind that was how the world work back then.

There are pro's & con's to everything and if some want to look at the con's it's their wish. I see both sides as nothing in this world is black or white.

Y is it a propoganda?? Even foreign scholars have written the same about them and even worse than what we study here. Why everything has to be a propoganda?? Imo many people don't speak fondly of these muslim rulers, coz they were Invaders, just like the Britishers. And obviously the ones who fought against those invaders, for their motherland will have a greater respect. And y does Akbar, who was also a muslim ruler has been termed as great, only along with asoka?? Those who will do good, will be remembered for good..

Originally posted by: Heisenberg17.

Dalits weren't the only ones that converted to Islam, many of them still aren't Muslims, and the ones that did convert, they didn't overcome discrimination, they were still seen as dalits, and still face discrimination in Muslim communities today. Many people converted for economical reasons, to escape the high discriminatory tax rates levied against them, or to escape persecution and enslavement, some people of Hindu nobility converted to benefit from forging alliances with these new invaders.

Technically, the vast majority of subcontinental Muslims today had Hindu ancestors, so it's a bit amusing when some of these people regard foreigners, who would've inflicted suffering and atrocities on their ancestors, as their heroes, leaders, and idols. 😆 The Indian Muslims, and by extension, also the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, are the same people as Hindus, so technically we should be on the same side, but many of them harbour delusions of hailing from these invaders, when reality they don't. 😆

But I think what irks people to most, is when they downplay the damage and destruction that these invaders committed, and attempt to portray the era as a fairy tale. So when you argue that, as some people do, that Khujli was not barbaric, simply because he may have worn nice suits, that misses the point completely, he was barbaric in nature, in his acts.

I don't have a problem with people having problems about khilji's appearance, but when people write such idiotic stuff, like the one who wrote this article, it's really damn stupid. I mean khilji wasn't barbaric? Really? A barbaric person is not one who looks like that, it's the actions of that person which makes him such and it was khilji's actions which made him barbaric.

Originally posted by: Heisenberg17.

Dalits weren't the only ones that converted to Islam, many of them still aren't Muslims, and the ones that did convert, they didn't overcome discrimination, they were still seen as dalits, and still face discrimination in Muslim communities today. Many people converted for economical reasons, to escape the high discriminatory tax rates levied against them, or to escape persecution and enslavement, some people of Hindu nobility converted to benefit from forging alliances with these new invaders.

Technically, the vast majority of subcontinental Muslims today had Hindu ancestors, so it's a bit amusing when some of these people regard foreigners, who would've inflicted suffering and atrocities on their ancestors, as their heroes, leaders, and idols. 😆 The Indian Muslims, and by extension, also the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, are the same people as Hindus, so technically we should be on the same side, but many of them harbour delusions of hailing from these invaders, when reality they don't. 😆

But I think what irks people to most, is when they downplay the damage and destruction that these invaders committed, and attempt to portray the era as a fairy tale. So when you argue that, as some people do, that Khujli was not barbaric, simply because he may have worn nice suits, that misses the point completely, he was barbaric in nature, in his acts.

Originally posted by: sunflower52

I will talk about myself to me none of these Kings whether they hail from Hindu or Muslims are worthy to idolize as they were all humans some were more darker then the others.

😆 I was only talking about looks is because under the garb of civilized looks humans can commit barbaric acts, to me its has more impact then OTT picturization.

According to some historians Khilji was civilized but cruel & barbaric by nature so is there any harm to show the actual man not make him behave like an uncouth or a barbarian. None of them is saying not to show his real nature just do not make him something he was not.

P.S. In red that was my actual point I can not explain in any more simple terms and I have nothing more to say in this matter as according to me history will have many versions & accounts believe what you want to.