What's new

Muhammad Bin Qasim

And that's what you're already trying to do to Pakistan by butchering indirectly ,
Why do indiots still didn't accepted partition and trying to claim Pakistan as their own ?
India recognizes Pakistan.
I personally accept and even support its existence. :)

Option 3 is the most likely option and is scheduled to happen by 2050.
:D
Oh really?
 
We keep harping it cause this is what your countrymen tell us .
I've personally met many such Indians on Internet media that keeps claiming right in Pakistan .

I'll dearly show you screen shots of Indians propagating on Internet that Pakistan belongs to India .
I know many want to destroy it but I don't understand their claim of rights over Pakistani land .
Not met a single Indian to date who said Pakistan belongs to India. Stop posting Pakistani insecurities or fantasies to legitimize Pakistani state behaviour.

I know many would like to destroy Pakistan, but that is entirely separate from saying Pakistan belongs to India.
 
Qashem and Khilji are the greatest thing ever happened to ordinary Indians.
Hats off..... :)

Here are the options for Hindus in 2050

1) If you are a girl, convert to Islam through Love Jihad
if yu are a girl then come to the safety and protection of Islam. Love or no love its safer than being a hindu girl in the womb.

The point is

Rajputs support Maharana Pratap

Marathas support Chhatrapati Shivaji

Tamils support Rajaraja Chola

Kannadigas and Telugus support Krishnadevaraya

Afghans support Ahmad Shah Durrani

But Pakistani Sindhis do not support Raja Dahir instead support the invading General.

Bengalis do not support Lakhman Sen (the racist) but Khilji. ;)
 
Bengalis do not support Lakhman Sen (the racist) but Khilji
Muslims or Hindus and Buddhists?

if yu are a girl then come to the safety and protection of Islam
Are you kidding me?

Here are the options for Hindus in 2050

1) If you are a girl, convert to Islam through Love Jihad

2) Take refuge in a non-Islamic country

3) Die in a Friday afternoon riot
I don't think so. Hindus are giving as good as they get now.
 
Not really. I was condemning slavery in general. And particularly in Islam for which you show no apology to this day.

Nope. You were saying that ..."Sickening for us non Muslims". Your intentions were clear.

Condemned. Been doing so for more than 3 centuries now. 5 actually. Check the Bhakti movement.

Your turn. :D
Bhakti movement, was not able to make a significant dent, socially.
Polytheism, Caste System, Condemnation of rituals, etc. continued. Bhakti was reduced to a religious practice.
Current stats of Slavery in India are as;
India is leading the world; I think you should open a Agency to condemn.

Global-Slavery-2016.jpg




You know wrong. The righteous war of Mahabharata was triggered for a few reasons. Draupadi's attempted disrobing was one of them. It actually shows the opposite. It was deeply frowned upon and it was made clear that it could actually even lead to self destruction. :omghaha:
We are not discussing the Mahabharata, attempted disrobing is not the point, but her enslavement is, practice of slavery in Vedic Culture is; Don't try to go on un-necessary tangents.
What I wrote that in Vedic Culture Slavery (through war, debt, bet) was common;
Reference from Mahabharata; Eldest Pandu Brother, Yudishtir, Son of Dharma, The Wise & Just, lost all in a gambling match, all including 100,000 Slave Girls, his 4 brothers, himself, his (joint) wife; Deeds of Son of Dharma were inline with Dharma; Dharma allowed and no objected to enslavement.
I know right.
 
You were saying that ..."Sickening for us non Muslims". Your intentions were clear
They are clear now too. Condemn slavery. Period. But you won't. :D

Polytheism, Caste System, Condemnation of rituals
We don't consider polytheism and rituals to be negative. Bhakti movement had nothin against these. Lol.

I think you should open a Agency to condemn
Lol. The distinction between an Islamic slave and paid maids is huge. You cannot for example ask sexual favors from them without running a risk of police action.

Deeds of Son of Dharma were inline with Dharma; Dharma allowed and no objected to enslavement.
I know right.
yeah. That's why they paid it with their lives. You know Ghanta.
:omghaha:

What I wrote that in Vedic Culture Slavery
On the contrary. You found one case. An exception. That proves the rule actually.
 
They are clear now too. Condemn slavery. Period. But you won't. :D
What to condemn? a practice that was prevalent all over world?


We don't consider polytheism and rituals to be negative. Bhakti movement had nothin against these. Lol.

If Bhakti movement was not against polytheism, caste system, rituals, equality etc. then what?

Lol. The distinction between an Islamic slave and paid maids is huge. You cannot for example ask sexual favors from them without running a risk of police action.

You are clearly desperate now;
You are comparing the centuries old slavery practice with indentured labour (modern slavery) of India: As you are playing 'being thick' here, do know that in modern slavery India is leading the world.


yeah. That's why they paid it with their lives. You know Ghanta.
:omghaha:
Again the practice of enslavement was pointed out; Slavery was common in Vedic Culture.
You are a Ghanta, and I know your type well.


On the contrary. You found one case. An exception. That proves the rule actually.
Numerous reference are found in Mahabharata, Manu Smriti, Gautima etc., If you are being amnesiac, want me to post references?
 
Last edited:
Firstly you cannot take people on the Internet at face value, for one they may not be Indians.

I have traveled and lived in India for over 60 years now and I know how Indians feel.

Option 1:

If all Pakistanis give up Islam and convert to one of the dharmic religions. This may entice some people to change their mind on merging India with Pakistan.

Option 2:

If all Pakistanis move out of Pakistan and give the land to India. This would surely entice majority to consider a merger of India and Pakistan.

Option 3:

Islam is going to be a majority in India in the next 20-30 years and would merge with Pakistan after declaring itself a Islamic republic.


Option 1 & 2 are not even remotely possible. Option 3 is the most likely option and is scheduled to happen by 2050.

The point is

Rajputs support Maharana Pratap

Marathas support Chhatrapati Shivaji

Tamils support Rajaraja Chola

Kannadigas and Telugus support Krishnadevaraya

Afghans support Ahmad Shah Durrani

But Pakistani Sindhis do not support Raja Dahir instead support the invading General.
It's cause we're not Indians we've a different identity why do you expect us to be like you and follow your traditions ?

You celebrate bloody murderers like baji rao, Shiva and ashok but yet you're here questioning us that why do we celebrate a harmless Muhammed bin Qaasim .
There's something wrong with the Indian brain , over thinking and being nosy and judgemental about the matters you don't understand .
It were due to mercy of Allah nd efforts of bin Qaasim that sindh got its way to Islam . Unlike India , Muslims in Pakistan do not believe in supporting people of same caste , we look at efforts . We've no such caste system in Pakistan .

While we hold bin Qaasim in a positive light but there's no any hate or dislike Ness for daahir either , for us he's only mentioned as the ruler defeated by bin Qaasim in Sindh after which bin Qaasim preached Islam and that's it . You could say much emphasise is being on bin Qaasim , few wouldn't even know who was raja daahir .

For us , Islam means everything
 
There has been a lot of myth about Mohammed bin Qassim in Pakistan history books. There is no denying his military achievements, but we have to understand that the real personality behind the conquest of Sind was Hajjaj Bin Yusuf Al Saqafi.

Mohammed bin Qassim was appointed primarily because he was related to Hajjaj (Nephew /son in law?) and therefore could be trusted implicitly. Fortunes of Mohammed bin Qassim were closely linked to the rise of Hajjaj bin Yusuf.

Hajjaj was a school teacher from Taif who became an ardent supporter of the Umayyad. He proved himself to be a ruthless and ferocious army commander. Many people are not aware and Muslim historians deliberately ignore that fact that for 9 years there were 2 Caliphs in the early Islamic State.

Quote

“Ibne Zubair was Khalifah from the year 63 AH to 73 AH and that Addul Mailk was also Khalifa in Syria.”

Unquote

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/downloads/pdf/SRH020001.pdf


After the transfer of power from Abu Sufian family to the Marwan branch of the Umayyad, Abdulla ibne Zubair (RA) held the title and power of Kahlifah over the Hijaz and much of the area in the south. Hajjaj crushed the rebellion in 73 AD, Kaaba itself, was attacked and destroyed in the process and head of Ibne Zubair (RA) hung from the gate of Kaaba until it rotted.

Hajjaj was later appointed Governor of Iraq and all lands to the East. It said that Hajjaj completely subjugated the Arabian peninsula, Iraq and Khurasan to the Umayyad rule but also killed more than 100,000 mostly Arab Muslims in the process. Apparently even Anas ibne Malik (RA) , last of the known living Sahabi (died 103 AH) because of his suspected support of the rebels, was forced to wear a collar round his neck.

Power of Hajjaj grew to such an extent that he even issued coins in his name. This however resulted in jealousy among the Umayyad royals. Hajjaj died in 714 AD. As soon as Suleiman bin Abdul Malik became Caliph in 715 AD, he recalled the two generals Mohammed Bin Qassim & Quitaba bin Muslim ; considered favourites of Hajjaj and had them killed.
 
India recognizes Pakistan.
I personally accept and even support its existence. :)


:D
Oh really?

Muhammad bin qasim really banged India so hard , you're still feeling pain after centuries .. mogamboe khush huaaa :lol::lol: ..

We need more bin qaasims for rajasthan and aaasam .. .

There has been a lot of myth about Mohammed bin Qassim in Pakistan history books. There is no denying his military achievements, but we have to understand that the real personality behind the conquest of Sind was Hajjaj Bin Yusuf Al Saqafi.

Mohammed bin Qassim was appointed primarily because he was related to Hajjaj (Nephew /son in law?) and therefore could be trusted implicitly. Fortunes of Mohammed bin Qassim were closely linked to the rise of Hajjaj bin Yusuf.

Hajjaj was a school teacher from Taif who became an ardent supporter of the Umayyad. He proved himself to be a ruthless and ferocious army commander. Many people are not aware and Muslim historians deliberately ignore that fact that for 9 years there were 2 Caliphs in the early Islamic State.

Quote

“Ibne Zubair was Khalifah from the year 63 AH to 73 AH and that Addul Mailk was also Khalifa in Syria.”

Unquote

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/downloads/pdf/SRH020001.pdf


After the transfer of power from Abu Sufian family to the Marwan branch of the Umayyad, Abdulla ibne Zubair (RA) held the title and power of Kahlifah over the Hijaz and much of the area in the south. Hajjaj crushed the rebellion in 73 AD, Kaaba itself, was attacked and destroyed in the process and head of Ibne Zubair (RA) hung from the gate of Kaaba until it rotted.

Hajjaj was later appointed Governor of Iraq and all lands to the East. It said that Hajjaj completely subjugated the Arabian peninsula, Iraq and Khurasan to the Umayyad rule but also killed more than 100,000 mostly Arab Muslims in the process. Apparently even Anas ibne Malik (RA) , last of the known living Sahabi (died 103 AH) because of his suspected support of the rebels, was forced to wear a collar round his neck.

Power of Hajjaj grew to such an extent that he even issued coins in his name. This however resulted in jealousy among the Umayyad royals. Hajjaj died in 714 AD. As soon as Suleiman bin Abdul Malik became Caliph in 715 AD, he recalled the two generals Mohammed Bin Qassim & Quitaba bin Muslim ; considered favourites of Hajjaj and had them killed.

Whatever is the history at least I'm a Muslim now .
 
Muslims or Hindus and Buddhists?
You asked to me separate them in religious line. It is not certainly Hindus who lost their coward king submitted to 18 horsemen. Hindus are great warrior against poor dalit but before Khilji and Muslims they are as good as their cow god.

Are you kidding me?
I dare not to kid you.
 
You asked to me separate them in religious line. It is not certainly Hindus who lost their coward king submitted to 18 horsemen. Hindus are great warrior against poor dalit but before Khilji and Muslims they are as good as their cow god.


I dare not to kid you.
Says a Bangladeshi Muslim. :D The irony is not lost.

Whatever is the history at least I'm a Muslim now .
Are you sure?
It's not easy to be a Muslim. :D

blah blah
You are so smart that you put your entire Post in my quote. :D

Sure. I would love to read the Gautima. Whatever that is. You post one from our texts (Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain).
I quote from Qur'an and...may be Bukhari. :) Sounds fair? :P
 
Says a Bangladeshi Muslim. :D The irony is not lost.


Are you sure?
It's not easy to be a Muslim. :D


You are so smart that you put your entire Post in my quote. :D

Sure. I would love to read the Gautima. Whatever that is. You post one from our texts (Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain).
I quote from Qur'an and...may be Bukhari. :) Sounds fair? :P

Its very easy .. say la ila ilallah Muhammadur rasoolullah . U said it by your tongue nd heart you are a muslim .
 
Its very easy .. say la ila ilallah Muhammadur rasoolullah . U said it by your tongue nd heart you are a muslim .
Wrong.
That is the first step to express belief.
Reciting the Shahadah is no guarantee that you well be considered a Muslim.
There are many conditions that come later. Violate one and you become an apostate. :P
 
Back
Top Bottom