S
sahij
Guest
<wbr>You are juxtaposing heterogeneous incidents/events that spread over thousands of years to show as if hands of every Muslim and Hindu were always at one another's throat and they had nothing to do but butcher people. They were not at all times doing so. Yes isolated cases of imposition of Jezia on Hindus and destruction of several temples by over zealot rulers/aggressors are the historical facts which cannot be denied.
Sir, this is exactly rhetorical. You rightly point out that these are facts which cannot be denied - because there is overwhelming evidence to support them, otherwise you would happily deny it, I feel. The wording used by you, viz. "heterogeneous incidents/events that spread over thousands of years" is in itself a conclusive proof that these were not isolated incidents, but were concerted efforts of Muslims (often) not linked by bonds of kinship and/or even continuity in time but by their religion - which makes it even more serious threat and increases its severity manyfold - to subdue and subjugate Hindus, and everybody else on this planet.
What this means is that forces of Islam can wait for considerable amount of time, before their adversary gets soft, relaxed and reluctant to drive them out, and then another bunch of people (totally unrelated, probably related only by religion may be), carry on the agenda left unfinished by their predecessors in the past. Of course all this resonates with what is written in their religious texts, and tallies with times and actions of no less but Muhammad himself.
<wbr>During aggression and warfare millions of people were butchered on either side ever since the 'State' emerged on the scene as is amply testified by the battle of Mahabharata and Battle of Kalinga also.
Clearly, neither during Mahabharata, nor in Kalinga war there was any religious connotation to any of the events. So the comparison stops there! And Sir, which two sides are you refering to by the word both? Clearly there were no two sides, Muslims invaded and destroyed Hindu lives, property and temples. Please give me instances where Hindus went to Muslim countries to cause destruction. If fighting for one's own life is called "butchering others" - than I very much lose faith in such an intellect being capable of doing impartial and just review of history.
<wbr>The Turk invaders came on scene at a late stage and had more lethal armament with them so ferocity of participants increased and so did causalities. Later in Sixteenth century use of gun powder further added to the killing power of armies engaged in warfare.
Sir, you are taking apologetics to a new level. Next thing you will say is that it is the gun that murdered and should be hanged instead of the accused.
In peace times, by and large common people whether HIndu or Muslim all lived amicably and stood by one another in the hour of need. But elite ruling class definitely had their separate world where they lived life of unimaginable comforts and luxury ! So love hate relations could easily be imagined in those days between have nots and haves irrespective of their religious beliefs.
The wrongs of history done by a few cannot be righted by us today. So we must not give undue importance to those who committed excesses and were doomed to fail in making any lasting impression on the social and political fabric of the people of Hindustan/Bharatvarsa.
Sir, all this is rhetorical in nature. You have your own world view (read communist world view) and you imagine the world to be according to that, I can see you using the words "could easily be imagined". But what is easily imaginable in your mind, is not so easily imaginable in the minds of other sceptical and not so fertile readers of history. I for one cannot imagine, that Hindus, whose land, property, and valuables have been looted + whose daughters, sisters, and mothers have been defiled, and often enslaved and sent to Arabia + whose religious places have been desecrated, idols and icons destroyed and placed on stepping stones of mosques so that they can be trod upon, etc. would line up to live "amicably" and stand by with Muslims "in the hour of need." To my imaginative mind all the above that you have said seems like a fantasy world with an absolute disconnect with the real world. Indeed I can quote what al-Baruni said regarding feelings of Hindus about their Muslim "brothers".
Please get out of your utopian socialist world, and try to live in reality, and stop being an armchair historian. There is a class of people, who sing praises of the same person who holds them by the scruff of their necks, and has a knife on their throats. I frankly think such people can never be reformed, and can never be brought out of their 10-by-10 studio apartments where everything is great and hunky-dory. Wasting time over such people, if I may say so, trying to convince them is hardly productive use of one's time. Instead society at large should be told the truth, and must be alarmed against dangers of Islam.
Muslims are a bane to society not only in India, but world over. No continent (except for may be Antarctica) has been left where they haven't left their terror trail and indelible mark on local civilization. They are hated everywhere - in every country where they are not a majority. Jihad and uncontrolled child birth to increase their population are two hallmarks of Muslims - and both are a threat to every other peaceloving community on this planet.
So nobody is trying to right a wrong done in history, they are clearly a very real and existential threat to the very existence of Hindustan/Bharatvarsa as a diverse, liberal Hindu nation of multiple faiths, and indeed to the whole wide world.