69 million page views

Singha and the art of falsehood.... have another go

Reader comment on item: Will Europe Resist Islamization?
in response to reader comment: False Information on India from Self Styled Historian Amin Riaz

Submitted by Amin Riaz (United Kingdom), Apr 12, 2008 at 17:09

To be honest with you I never did expect much from you Gingha. The same old rant...... the style commonly adopted here on this board by people like you. There is hardly a word of either truth or a post of scholarmanship. History, as we know is hardly resolute.

"To escape rape by muslims, numerous Hindu women committed suicide. This happened as late as last century."

Actually far more Muslims were killed than Hindus during the partition era. It was a great tragedy. As a historian I neither blame India or Pakistan nor Muslim nor Hindus. This was more the work of the British Empire. Like a last stamp. Although even blaming British is hardly worthwhile. And if you really think that period was black & white. There is not much hope for you then is there? Oh, as far as rape goes ... are you saying the Hindus never did the same thing?

Caste system was one of the most degrading form of slavery in History of mankind. Its was in-bred in Hinduism and India. Of course it is outlawed in India today. We were discussing HISTORY, the days gone by. Caste system might be outlawed by law it hasn't completely dis-appeared from .

This was a well made and quite a strong argument put forward by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (whatever you think of the man, he was an excellent Lawyer, something Nehru and Ghandi and the rest were not - and you know what the say about a lawyer?), which was never countered by anyone. That Hindus treat other like that through the caste system and if India became Independent, the .

Lets not pussy-foot around onething that its secularism that protects Muslims and not the generosity of Hinduism. With the rise of Militant Hinduism especially in Gujarat, we can see a side of Hinduism. Where is so called love peace and freedom ... then?

"Amin has pretended that islam's entry in India was a peaceful event."

OK .... from my posts find me where I have said Islams entry into India was a completely peaceful event? But here lets have a look at this ....

"India gained nothing from islam except poverty and darkness; muslim personalities in India are able to contribute because of the Hindu environment that encourages fine arts and culture. They are able to make contribution in spite of islam, not because of it."

So from ... Art Literature Language Science Religion Cuisine Politics Philosophy Medicine Histroy - And others ... I can give you so many examples. Is that all you have to say. Now compare what I said and you are saying. The most popular symbol of India winds up being a Muslim one and all that is you are going to come up with?

And rather that coming with something concrete you gave me this ....

Professor Durant writes in History of Civilisation Volume 1 "...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within".

Quoting others is not going impress anyone. There have been hundreds of polemics against Islam. DO you think I am not aware of that? This site itself is a fairly impressive work. I can do that as well. You can pull quotes from the internet faster than anywhere. What is you reaction? And why do you think India never gained anything from Islam? And if I bring the recent history of Cinema and Music or Architecture like Taj Mahal or the contribution to Literature and political thought? Why do you think Muslims never made any impact? Thats more towards the line of thought I am looking for?

Guess what your best ....... "LIE" was?

"Moinuddin Chisti, Nizamuddin Aulia, Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi, Aurangzeb remain pious muslims that were tyrants towards non muslims and used islamic rule to convert Hindus through inducements, lies, deceit, threat of violence and terror."

Now Aurangzeb Alamgir was a king, a monarch. A person who imprisoned his father. Abused his brother and murdered him. To become a king. Is hardly a worthy personality for religion. He couldnt convert a being. Even by force. I am much more the supporter of Dara Shikoh. Him done.

Now what lying, terror, and violence did the likes of Moinuddin Chisti, Nizamuddin Aulia, Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi ever do. Tell me because I am very interested. And why do you put Auragzeb there and whitewashed them all?

Come on Singha - have another go?


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)