Why do Pakistanis consider Mahmud Ghazni, Mohammad Ghauri & Aurangzeb Great Muslims?

[nikhil25]

Re: Why do Pakistanis consider Mahmud Ghazni, Mohammad Ghauri & Aurangzeb Great Musli

@Das Reich

nikhil25,
You are asking me to be historically correct while you stick to your version of “rajput and sikhs oppressed nations” and “sivaji freedom fighter” stories

the rajputs, sikhs, and marathas were the three most prominent martial communities to defend against invaders and continue to fight hated rulers. what is the problem?

Here is what I think of the Afghan kings,as I have mentioned before I do not consider themselves pious muslims nor were they model rulers in any way
but I also disapprove strongly the recent trend amongst “moderate muslims” to project them as barbarians.

on what grounds would they not be considered barbarians? they fit the definition perfectly.

They were fighting an infidel power and conquering new lands for islam this is absolutely permitted in Islam unless you any break treaties or oaths.Though their conduct in warfare leaves much to be desired and deviated at times markedly from what we were taught by the pious sahaba and taba’een.But they were not guilty of starting these innovations as it has occured many years before them

firstly, half the individuals we are talking about were looters and plunderers. is invading foreign lands to steal gold and women an islamically permissible activity?

Their actions allowed muslim saints and scholars to settle in these lands and contributed to spreading the faith.
Capturing slaves and slavegirls in wars was not such an evil practice either.This is permitted in Islam provided it is a just war.

so it’s cool to invade foreign lands, loot and torch their cities and take their women as slaves to be raped by soldiers and put into harems? that is sick and disgusting.

And slavery was rampant in Hindu India as well
For us they are much better heroes than men like akbar who tried to undermine the faith itself to establish their imperial rule.How can such an infidel be a national hero pakistan? simply because the hindus like him better

because he was a tolerant ruler who was liked by his subjects and presided over the most successful period in mughal history…the pinnacle of muslim rule in india.

i don’t care if he is not a national hero in pakistan, i am just telling you why he is considered the greatest. your national hero Aurangzeb presided over the downfall of muslim rule and unleashed revolt throughout the nation…he was a failure.

though they were far from perfect they do appear to be great defenders of the faith compared to akbar

DEFENDERS? do you know what “defense” means?

Lastly from a purely nationalistic point of view why should we care about what they did to the hindus when selecting own national heroes?

because that makes them bas.tards. if Muhammad murdered a hundred hindu babies, would you view him in the same light?

and a “purely nationalistic point of view” would be the views of Afghans, Turks, Persians, etc…not pakistanis. None of your heroic invaders were born or died in pakistan, and their descendants are racist towards pakistanis. The only reason why they are heroes in pakistan is because of antagonism towards Hindus, nothing more, nothing less. that’s a pretty pathetic quality of a hero.

How would you feel if we protest that Sivaji should not be honored as he was a terrorist?

Shivaji is widely-known to have had an excellent human rights record. to anybody in the world, terrorizing the oppressive government of a hated tyrant is the work of a hero. You would look foolish to make that claim, whereas we don’t look foolish at all in calling Aurangzeb a tyrant or villain. any outsider will agree with us…it is common sense.

the problem in your thinking is that you assume the righteousness of a person is only a matter of which side you are on. That is stupid…from an objective point of view, sane people will call Hulagu Khan a barbarian, and sane people will call Ghauri/Ghazni/Timur/etc. barbarians.