Re: Did Muslims and Islam bring civilisation to India?
An islamic state.
I have not taken false pride in my ancestors, far from it actually. I was merely responding to the title of the the thread in the affirmative, that is, muslims did indeed bring civilization to ‘india’. Of course these muslims being ethnically non-aboriginal of pakistan is a historical fact. Therefore, it becomes salent to any reader that it was the arabs, persians and turks that civilized the ‘indians’.
Its quite easy infact, and can be represented easily.
Before Islam’s arrival:
India was a place where hindus burned their wives, practiced caste system, prayed to animal gods, had ugly architecture, had no system of efficient governance, no schools, no philosophies, no sense of national identity, would walk around naked as animals and no sense of morality.
After Islam’s arrival(which was spearheaded by arabs, persians and turks):
Women enjoyed their rights as prescribed by the creator, disgusting idols(look up lingam and yoni) were destroyed and in their place beautiful islamic structures were constructed, governments were established which followed the laws of the creator which establised a clear sense of right and wrong and hindus were told to put on cloth.
I never mentioned anything of the sort, it was your own imagination that created these ideas.
From what little I have read on the topic, harappa and what not, was a dravidian civilization, while majority of paksitanis are of the aryan/arab/persian/turkish races. Therefore, it would be as sensible for pakistanis to relate to this civilization as a turk to constantinople.
It has been proven that a large chunk of pakistanis, espescially in cities such as lahore, are not aboriginals and are infact of foreign descent. Please refer to this site:
'Only about 25 to 35% Muslims of northern India and Deccan are descendants of Hindu converts. ’
Why don’t you.
Identity is assumed through the father of the family. So even if the mughals had children from a hindu slave they raped, not married, or a hindu that converted to islam, the ethnicity of their progeny would still share the identity of their father. Also, it is recorded in many of the foreigners chronicles, even after many generations of intermarriage, that they clearly identified with their original ethnicity, not the aboriginal ones. Moreover, it is of interest to this topic for me to point out that it is customary within ashraf families to only marry within other ashraf families to preserve their own culture.
If you believe this to be ‘racist’, evil or many other emotional labels I’m confident you can create, let me just say that this practice is prevalent amongst the aboriginals of pakistan aswell. They too only marry inbetween their own cultures.
Only a knave fool would believe this. Pakistan had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the pagans of india.
Pakistanis are central asian, not south asian.
Well, that was a practical result of the civilizing mission.
One labels me jaahil but fails to realize that we are not discussing how to follow a religion, but the topic of muslims civilizing ‘indians’.
Pedigree, in this context, refers to someone who was able to administer the muslim empires of india, a characteristic woefully missing in the barbarian aboriginals of south asia.
When have I argued that ashraf or ajlaf are islamic terms? Would you please be kind of enough to point out such references by me? Myself, being a jaahil as you have pointed out, cannot recognize when I have hinted towards that!
This was not a hindu concept adopted by ignorant muslims. These are historical terms created to identify a distinct cultural group. Just as we have immigrants who today call themselves, british pakistani, british indonesian etc. in the past there existed ashraf who conquered/travelled to ‘india’ to civilize it.
The ones speaking of racism are projecting their own inferiority complex on to me, as I have never once mentioned anything in regards to superiority!