Were Buddhists and Jains Persecuted in Ancient India?

Re: # 396

I can show you photographs of the tomb of Mariam Uz Zamani built by Jehangir for his mother opposite Akbar's tomb at Sikandra near Agra. The plaque says that she was a Kacchawaha (Jaipur) princess called Hira Kanwar but renamed after her marriage to Akbar. There is no record of her conversion to Islam.

According to the guards Akbar had 300 wives but his principal ones were Turki Sultana,Mariam and her niece Jodha also from Amber.

an interesting ad on Chowk

http://compatibility.mary.com/questions~testing-the-god-gene~t-144.html ?gclid=CNv_38Dn25MCFQOaFQodw0uqZg

Try it out.

DM do we need Rushdie to tell us what most historians would have told us anyway.

It may take a commission to resolve differences about the undocumented/poorly documented distant past; in the meantime can we unvarnish some myths about documented past?

"It's a useful myth: Rushdie

Booker Prize-winning author Salman Rushdie believes Jodhabai, widely accepted by many to be Mughal Emperor Akbar's wife, is a myth, fuelled by the popular imagination.

Speaking at the Rubin Museum in New York on Tuesday to mark the release of his newest novel The Enchantress of Florence, Rushdie said Akbar's queen was indeed a Rajput princess called Mariam-uz-Zamani.

"You can tell from her name that she is a Muslim convert and is the mother of Jehangir. Jodha is not the mother of Jehangir. His mother is Mariam. Jahangir had a minor wife called Jodha," Rushdie said.

"The only Jodha in history is the second wife of Jehangir and not his mother. So it is just a thing that has come up, exactly because everybody believes that she exists," Rushdie said.

The celebrated novelist -- who said he had conducted extensive research before writing his new novel that is partly set in Mughal times -- told the audience that primary sources for the history of Akbar, including two works by Abul Fazal, provide long, almost day-by-day, historical accounts of the emperor.

"But in none of them Jodhabai appears. There is no mention of such a person. There are mentions of Rajput princesses from Jodhpur, but there is no Jodha. It is not anyone's nickname. It is simply one of the great myths that has grown up," he said at the event organised by the Indo American Arts Council.

But, he added, it is a happy myth. "It is a happy myth about a Muslim ruler who had a Hindu wife, who does not make her convert to Islam and joins her in her religious pursuits and you can see why -- it is a happy myth and even a useful myth," he said.

The Mumbai-born author, who shot to fame with Midnight's Children, a fabulous tale of post-Independence India, said if one were to go out on the street and ask people as to who Akbar's queen was, nine out of ten would say Jodhabai. "And yet, she did not exist. So, I thought maybe she did not exist then, but everybody thought she did and that gave me the idea (of mentioning Jodhabai) in the book," he said.

Rushdie, who read excerpts from his novel for about 20 minutes in front of a standing room only audience at the museum, had a brief question-answer exchange with former United Nations under secretary general and novelist Shashi Tharoor who praised The Enchantress of Florence, saying he was "enthralled and not enchanted."

Not to talk about the most visible supremacist shouts of "Allahu....".

How the heck does "Bilal habshi" disprove that Islam is NOT supremacist with respect to hindu idolators????

In fact, it proves the contention by demonstrating that 'Bilal Habshi' was an "inferior" SLAVE until he accepted the supremacy of the momeen moon god!!

Re: # 378
First we can NEVER see eye to eye on this issue for two reasons

1/Your knolege is too much sitting in library reading Vivekananda or Gokhle
Second
2/You think you liberated India by that incident of Shivaji & whats was his name some Muslim named warrior .
Muslim in India w went on to face British in far more numbers( sepoy mutiny of 1857 ) to die with Hindu Mangal Pandey than u Ghati could do bedsides MURDERING gandhi and feel proud of it


Mystic...


"India is never a homogenous culture (language, food habit, social customs...). That does not imply, arab slavery should be treated as part of inherent Indian culture.
Vivekananda, Rabindranath, Bankimchandra, Satyen Bose, J C Bose are definitely great person and they have revived Vanga from semi barbarism. It had glorious ancient( Tamralipta, Gaud, Karnasuvarna, Vishnupur), quite poor mediaval, and good modern period (1870-1970).."

AS part of History in Indian /HINDU ASTHAN school never heard of it ...Its your own interest and i dont have to folow your passion in this as your interst in Cricket or Bolywood May be it means life for u ..

"Regarding naxalism..., I do agree with you. It has destroyed the achievments made in last 100 years (1870-1970). But in day to day life the chaos is very less compared to old places like Hooghly, part of Burdwan etc...
Regarding agriculture, it has nothing to do with moslems.
Anybody can do this job, provided, they get good guidence from agriculture department. Ganga valley is very fertile and suitable for 2/3 crops per year without any extra investment. High population growth (mostly contributed by moslems) causing trouble for the state."

May i know what SERVICE you provide that Indian muslim is not providing or cannot provide ????

Stastitically not only there is any percentage wise diff between Hindu and Muslim population growth..and why attak muslim centric in every matter .Muslim of India are in seperable part of india whether with there own money and time use any other (u call extraterritorial ONLY incase of muslim )

PPL.like you do business with America Japan Korea or China.
The above are just as 'Non Indian' As Dubai Kwait UAe.etc . They ARE Arab where Indians(non muslims) now prefer to buy expensive realstete with Million $ worth earned in INDIA wealth to live

"Paschim Vanga is facing is high population density. GOI should have pushed moslems to BD, when bangals were migrating to India. We (Ghati in local term) have to bear the burden of both. Bangals are smart in education and cultural side (at least my experience).
Regarding image of Bengal, I will not quote Gokhale. Look for research sholars and senior professors in any all india institutes. You will find couple of Tamil and Bengali guys everywhere. Visit India's premere research institute,IISc campus"

There are pl like you everywhere who think they OWN everyone else rather than individual opinon .You have not an IOTA of more right to opinion than Any Muslim or Other Indian

Lankan wants to oust Tamil, Hindus from malasysia ,Blacks from America, Asian from Britain ...

Indian Muslims above that have history of 1000 years presence .How many times against your individual opinion India never become HINDU pakistan even after Nehru Gandhi .If it was your wish only bangalis could live in Kokata ,Pumjabi in Dehi ,Tamil in Chennai, Bihari In
Patna ..........
Jai Hind



" Look for research sholars and senior professors in any all india institutes. You will find couple of Tamil and Bengali guys everywhere. Visit India's premere research institute,IISc campus"
AND SO i dont want to be like them so sue me

#390 Posted by Eklavya,

Oh Ok. Yes I know. This entire discussion is irrelevant. But you may carry on - it would be some fun I guess :)

But this Muslims 'supremacists' notion is wrong. Remember Bilal Habshi!

But again. that's irrelevant in the context of hindus/mirzaees etc.

Re: # 390

The fact remains that these muslims claim that they understand the hindus better even than the hindus is exactly my point regarding 'supremacist' attitude.

It is actually an attitude that aims at mis-constructions of those who do not accept the supremacy of their moon god.

This supremacist attitude aims at developing caricatures ("idolators"), a negative cultural representation ("the immoral pagan") and a propagandist historiography ( e.g. the redacted texts of bhavishya purana) so that the evil actions of these momeens in the form of destruction of the hindu symbols, temples, idols and other representations can be 'justified'.

It aims at constructing a belligerent image of those who do not accept that supremacist moon god so that even the most horrible violence against the hindu idolators can then be 'justified'.( the 'cunning' hindu)

If Murad thinks that he would succeed in this negative representation in order to justify the momeen violence and bombings against hindus then I am sure he is in for a BIG surprise this time!!!

Zee, this discussion is NOT for you! :) :) :)

Somehow people like Murad (and their equivalents on the Hindu side, all those good people shall remain unnamed) make test my patience, and as you know, when that happens the quality of arguments suffers as well. :)

(This debate was all about how Muslims and Hindus view history differently. I have been screaming that this sort of hope is futile. In the broad span of historical time, to any Hindu, Muslims will naturally appeaer 'supremacists.' To any Muslim, Hindus would appear naturally irrelevant.)

Mr. Baig,

This grand discussion of religion is beyond me. But let me warn you about this Eklavya dude. He will keep on squeezing you till your "inherent prejudices" (thanks rahul capri) flow out without your noticing. Let me put forth certain examples from your post #384.

1. "...FACTS are that the Upanishads first became known after 1656 ....". This sounds like "...Columbus discovered America for humankind ...".

Think sir, the Upanishads were known by whom before 1656? Were they humans? Or were they just "some" Hindus?

2. "India had never been a Hindu country. It had been a mainly Buddhist country for a thousand years, then a mainly Muslim country for six hundred years and British for two hundred."

This of course is beyond comment .... but it is refreshing to finally see a progressive / secularist define India's polity in terms of religion. By default, are you saying that now India is a Hindu country? Note, Ekalavya will be the first to agree with you.

3. "Poor Brahmin priests plied their religious trade using a few vedic hymns but the main corpus of the huge Vedic literature and philosophy that we know today was only known to a very few."

He, he .... And how do you know that it was known to only "a very few". I mean this really takes the cake.

Sir, it is because of people like you that the fight against the likes of Murli Manohar Joshi / Ekalavya becomes very difficult.

#387 Posted by Eklavya,

Yaar what is this debate about? I'm bored anyway so maybe I can contribute.

What momeen supremacist...

No, laddu. That comes naturally to Murad, as to all Muslims. It must.

BYW, scratch a little deeper about their actual beliefs and Mirzais would be worse. But this is, understandably, not about mirzais.

"For your information the FACTS are that the Upanishads first became known after 1656 when scholars of Prince Muhammad Dara Shikoh discovered old documents from a few Brahmins and had 60 (not 119) translated into Persian. "

The FACT is that it became "known" to momeens only after Dara Shikhon got them translated into persian........it was already a part of the spiritual heritage of millions of hindus......

You mean to say the even hindus did not know their Upanishads??

What momeen supremacist claim!!!

We will take this up in hindu forums !!

#384...
Hilarius...
What about centuries of culture of Upanishads prevailed in South India? Sankara was exponent of Upanishads...
For Upanishads, there was no end and people kept on adding for long period of time...
Yes Mr. Murad Baig, the original Upanishad is Allahopanishad, what the UP brahmins written under the sword of mughals...

A K Cheema...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somnath

Quite a large number of such instances in India...

Re: # 321

Dear Eklavya

My opinions... or yours for that matter do not matter especially if you do not read the responses carefully. When have I said anything about Dara Shikoh and the Vedas?

For your information the FACTS are that the Upanishads first became known after 1656 when scholars of Prince Muhammad Dara Shikoh discovered old documents from a few Brahmins and had 60 (not 119) translated into Persian. Later a Frenchman Antuetil (1723-1805) brought this work to Paris along with the Zend Avesta and 180 other old manuscripts and published in in two volumes. This greatly uinfluenced Arthur Schopenhauer, Berneuf and other indologists.

Please try to remember that things were very different 300 years ago. India had never been a Hindu country. It had been a mainly Buddhist country for a thousand years, then a mainly Muslim country for six hundred years and British for two hundred.

Poor Brahmin priests plied their religious trade using a few vedic hymns but the main corpus of the huge Vedic literature and philosophy that we know today was only known to a very few.