Ahmad Shah Baba -Battle of panipat

[asad71]

What has that got to do with the topic?

And why should I listen to somebody who has obviously never been to India and hasnt met more than 10 Hindus in his entire lifetime?

Khalsa-ji, your being Narendra Modi is as relevant as the suggestion of my being Zaid Hamid. My dear Najumee, how did you manage to count how many Hindus I have met? There are plenty where I live. And I have many Sardar friends inside and outside India.
Sat Sri Akakal

[IamDZJ]

Listen,smart-ass

Kuffar means disbelieve,when someone commits shirk he has disbelieved but there are different kinds of shirk,from minor to major.
But when you disbelieve you are not at the same time making shirk.And many disbelievers are not mushrikeen.

what is it when you ask a non believer to explain something to you which has been explained in quaran so obviously if not either disbelief or mockery? are you asking these people because quraan is not good enough to convince you or to make fun of them?? why did you take one sentence from that post and ignore the rest of it? why can't you address it all at once? coward much? don't answer. i already know the answer. i wouldn't mind dumping acid down your throat.

[Afghanistan2010]

what is it when you ask a non believer to explain something to you which has been explained in quaran so obviously if not either disbelief or mockery? are you asking these people because quraan is not good enough to convince you or to make fun of them?? why did you take one sentence from that post and ignore the rest of it? why can't you address it all at once? coward much? don't answer. i already know the answer. i wouldn't mind dumping acid down your throat.

What did i say regarding his question ( by brother Adam),i agree it was not good to make fun of them ( non muslims hindus),but Allah knows maybe it was payback for some other mockery.

why you talk to yourself,makawa zan ma barbadawa ....de kuffaro malgari ow dostan ow kuffar be wi barbad.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

So ahmad shah baba and all the invaders were not true muslims, because they invaded india for the pillage and looting

It's debatable; while they oppressed Hindus/Indians they were gracious to Muslims

so we can't say they're bad or good; because one would outweigh the other

[RevolutionThroughReason]

:

Very well said, He can't be a true muslim, because islam is a religion of peace, a true muslim respect everybody,
You are a true muslim because you are peacful, you don't care about other religion because you know that it's The kuffar, but you don't care, you don't mock them, you just only pray allah, the only one
But that's not his case, unfortunately, according to your religion, he is influenced by shaitan when he says such things

well Islam is not a religion of peace but it is a religion of justice; That wthstanding, mocking others, Hindus, Christians or otherwise without a valid or justified provocation is not in line with Justice.

There is in fact a verse in the Qur'an which says "Don't mock that which they believe besides Allah(swt) for this may inspire them to blaspheme Allah(swt)"

[randolph85]

hindus and sikhs conquered muslim lands when they had the power to do so. this is not a matter of sikhs and hindus being innocent little school boys before then, but being powerless to do what their enemies did to them at the time. in this day and age of international law and supposed decorum, such actions would be illegal but back then it was a free for all. empires, kingdoms, territories were fair game.

[IamDZJ]

What did i say regarding his question ( by brother Adam),i agree it was not good to make fun of them ( non muslims hindus),but Allah knows maybe it was payback for some other mockery.

why you talk to yourself,makawa zan ma barbadawa ....de kuffaro malgari ow dostan ow kuffar be wi barbad.

tar so chi sta d plar geda mor aow kor ye wadaan wee p kufaaro bandey hess afaat na raazi. Ma warkhata kega. Taso ghundey Taliban aw mujahidaan Mong der kha pejano.

[کیش]

Durrani had curry fever; and I ain't talking about the spicy food

[randolph85]

Durrani had curry fever; and I ain't talking about the spicy food

abdali, abdali, abdali!!!!!

[Afghanistan2010]

tar so chi sta d plar geda mor aow kor ye wadaan wee p kufaaro bandey hess afaat na raazi. Ma warkhata kega. Taso ghundey Taliban aw mujahidaan Mong der kha pejano.

Werkhata khe ta yeh,che daada wraz,pe PF ke khalko ta khulaa war wachawe-

[JattApache]

This is a gross misrepresentation; while it is true the Pashtuns did invade North India and took their liberties , there was no motive to really "convert"; the motive was just to pillage. Religion of course was used as a "rallying" cry and motivator but not "motive". Despite this many Hindus converted ANYWAYS, not because of a Muslim onslaught, but because those Hindus were largely disempowered in the traditional Hindu social hierarchy.. This was however an unintended consequence

Speaking more out of historical analysis; it CAN be argued that Sikhism was a Hindu reform movement. Of course this is not described in Sikh canon. However the time in which Sikhism arose; Sufi Preachers were dominating the scene and winning converts left and right. In fact Sikh writings detail the relationship of Guru Nanak with Fariduddin Ganjshakar. Who is considered

a "Bhaghat" in Sikhism. The Impact of Islamic Sufism was so great that the advent of a Native Indian religion which would curtail conversions was a seemly response. However Sikhism itself whether overtly or indirectly tried to embody Islam's universalized character and customs while at the same time not subscribing to Islam. It wasn't really an attempt at retaining their culture. But rather winning back Hindus who were ore attracted to Islam.

The Violence of Muslims in India, while not always justified and often criminal; was primarily focused on the Upper Caste Hindus; who horded most of the Society's wealth and exploited the lower castes. So there was very little of this "Brave resistance"; rather it was a corrupt power structure and aristocracy, afraid of losing its status quo against an equally heinous invader. Not withstanding, many of the Muslim invaders did tremendous good and benefit, Sher Shah Suri, who was a Pashtun, built the grand trunk road in five years. This increased the wealth of the Indian subcontinent almost ten fold and
elevated the poor of India tremendously.

Muslims in India were certainly no Angels, they did many wrong things; but the Hindus, were not some brave resistance as you may be trying to portray. Neither were the Sikhs.

Revolutionthroughreason, maybe you are right,
But how can you explain that ? :

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_holocaust_of_1746

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadda_Ghallooghaaraa

Read about aurangzeb, and his crimes against the gurus

How can you explain that ?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Revolutionthroughreason, maybe you are right,
But how can you explain that ? :

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_holocaust_of_1746

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadda_Ghallooghaaraa

Read about aurangzeb, and his crimes against the gurus

How can you explain that ?

What's to explain? I think my response pretty much covers these examples.

This period pitted the might of the intolerant Islamic state against the plucky and fiercely independent Sikhs. Aligned with the Mughal, then Afghan, rulers were the members of the Hindu ruling caste who maintained their privileges by cooperating with the government. The Sikhs, for their part, often enjoyed a good deal of support from the rural Hindu population.

this is from the link; I am usually skeptical about wikipedia descriptions; but it seems that there was a great deal of internal riffs with the Non-Muslim Indians anyways Which may explain a great deal of these scenarios.