sorry if I have offended you. .
I don't know the history of the great india, but I doubt that this vast land was unificated peacefully. india didn't do war in the ancient world ? I really doubt it but I will look into it. ok but what of rome ? the byzantines ? the mongols ? persia ? and all the other empires ? werent invasions the only way the empires were competing in ? before the economic developpement that gave new ways to compete ?
I didn't say there were no wars here. But wars only for religion or in name of God? Rarely. If there are such tales they are so old that they are part of myths and legends today. By the fourth century India was geared more and more towards monism and thus found a way to make it accepting multiple concepts of Gods easily with minimum conflict. Destroying cultures, schools, books and forcing own belief on others or actively persecuting people of other faiths etc has been mostly unheard of in the recorded history. Much less than any western country including West Asia.
Golden age of India is said to be Gupta empire in 4th Century to 6th and it's not known for great wars but marked by extensive inventions and discoveries in science, technology, engineering, art, dialectic, literature, logic, mathematics, astronomy, religion, and philosophy. The last Gupta emperor is never got time to get married and spent major part of his life defending the borders. And that has been most of the history of India in past 2000 years. Defending it's ever shrinking borders from the invaders.
remember we are not talking about the same era here, there is a difference between the 6-16 century and the 18-21
Have Islamists dropped the ambition of ambition of bringing in everyone under the flag and talking about restoration of Caliphate and the dream that one day the whole world will accept the system? Are they not trying their best to get more recruits and spread their influence and neo converts anymore? Middle East not getting sweeter deals from West doesn't translate as lack of imperialistic ambition.
half the reason ? that's a pure statement.
Statement of a fact. Do you disagree Or do you think that all your ancestors were just blind fanatics who made war for the great cause of God only?
money and slaves ? of course that why war was made in this time, that's what empires do, there was nothing wrong about enslaving people in this time. but the muslims weren't the worst. as you can't abolish such a phenomenon in one strike at that time, islam had a set of rules to treat slaves, islam gave them rights and status. and encouraged highly on freeing slaves. that's far better than other empires of that time.
So? But taking slaves in masses without any regard for their life and making them eunuch and what not was practiced on unprecedented scale by these invaders. I wonder if you realize the sheer scale of it.
Being worst and better is very subjective and depends on specific rulers/invaders and some of the were worse, some were better. How that makes you that much different?
India while not complete stranger has very little history of slavery. Megasthenes wrote there are no slaves in India.
Nearest to slaves were dasas and even in ancient times there were rules to regulate their treatment.
The Arthasastra seeks to protect the chastity of a female slave. The master was expected to protect her and her children. If a master violated a slave girl, he was bound to set her free and give her compensation. If she had any child due to such violation, the mother and the child were to be set free with compensation. The master had no right to take the life of his slave either. If a slave died without a son, the master had to perform the funeral rites for the departed slave. He could not abandon his slave in old age either. etc. Most of the " dasas" were domestic servants and were treated as part of the family. Yada yada.
So yea we had rules too, written and they were older than yours and still people here weren't involved in any significant trading business like Turks. It wasn't that big part of economy. So what of your rules?
I really don't know, and I never said muslims were angels.
Nor I'm not calling them devils. I just pointed at the irony in your statement.
ok, that's means given to integrate invaded countries into the invading empire. I don't know what's wrong with that in that point of history.
Treating non Middle Easter/Non Arab Muslims as inferior Muslims is not integrating them. It's racism.
I deny nothing. althoug I know nothing of india's story.
You evade the issue of non Arab Muslims not being equivalent to Muslims from the back home. The Africans or South Asian converts remained secondary. No neo convert from the region could hold a high ranking positions. Even during the slave dynasty promoting an Ethiopian slave cost Razia Sultan her throne.
I don't know, you are blaming ancient muslim empires with todays criteras ? I don't know how to reply to that.
You claimed they " developed" the countries they invaded. I say they rolled the development back by a few centuries and was marked by similar tendencies and isues as European Imperialism.
What you did there is only making the same excuse as the Europeans make- " we developed them when we invaded" and yet you say you were different at the same time.
Both of you may have contributed to countries which were behind you, but not all of them were in need of dvelopement and destroying a culture isn't called " developing".
I think they were also indian muslim emperors in india.
Unfortunately nope.
Indian Muslims couldn't hope to get high ranking posts in the courts let alone be a ruler till a few century later- that's when Akabar, third Mughal ruler of last Muslim dynasty of India came in power. Then he started marriage with Indian princesses and let her son be the crown prince and included natives for important court positions. Otherwise almost all high ranking/important posts were reserved for Arabs/Iranians/Turks or other Middle Eastern people. And still moderate Muslim prince like Darashikoh was killed for being more scholarly and moderate than his brother.
In fact even Muslim rulers of India kept getting invaded by more people from back home all the time and purely for riches( Both Mughals and the ones before them). So the "development projects" were always challenged. There were many short lived Muslims dynasties because of that.
I know of no arabe making such a statement, but arab fools do in fact exist.
so you summarize the muslims in india by just destruction and translation of books ? wow
They made such comments here at NB too but yeah OK. NP.
If you wish I can attribute kebabs to them. And newer weapons and big guns. And the paradah system. Seclusion of women from public life. And birth of Sikhism-the religion that came in to existence to fight back Islamic suppression.
Of course India learned a few things from the invaders too and few new arts developed in due to contact but not much that will be classed as " modernization". The exchange was still highly in favour of Middle East than the other way round. Just like the European imperialism.
There are almost no visible direct evidence of positive impact of Islam itself here.
Indianization of Muslim invaders resulted in a mixed " Hindustani culture ( what is referred to as a Hinduastani culture is just that- mixed-) it's not something that stands out enough to overshadow the previous one - It's simply Islamisized version of Indian culture ).
In fact this Indianized version of Islam benefited Islam more as it gave it a moderate face in modern era. ( not without resistance from radicals and their attempts to radicalize it back)
did you meet all of them ? I deny nothing of history. but don't judge people in the 10 or so century by the unated recreation criterias.
I am talking about the invaders contribution here. I will stop being salty if ISIS or other such outfits wouldn't be still active and getting enough support.
sure there was an expansion, don't know if I can call it imperialism as it is a concept well situated in history. but it isn't of the same kind as the western imperialism. operating TODAY, with our technological and economical developpement. enslavement of all by debt and scarcity maintenance, by all means.
I think there is a word specifically for Religious imperialism but I cannot recall it ATM in that case. Either way, Caliphate and all the talk of bringing the world under one Islam is still talked of today and as long as that concept is there it's the same thing. It matter little whether you do it in name of Christianity or Islam or "democracy".
I am aware of modern tactics of Western countries well enough. But if you think it's relevant here you need to be more specific and clear on how it relates with feeling of apprehension due to mass movements of new culture. You didn't address the issue I raised there.
voilàààà, they are the same as you and me in a world of scarcity. what if I tell you it is possible to get rid of scarcity with todays ressouces ?
That's a vague statement and little to do with my original post.
People running away from Syria due to war/persecution is something that started 4 AD at least and centuries later still it's the same story.
I deny nothing. althoug I know nothing of india's story.
Then simply don't try to lecture me. When you are saying " I don't know" that much then you had no business coming at me with "i'm going to correct that missy" attitude.
I will be much nicer once people stop blowing up things here in name of religion. When I can go to temple in Mathura without having to go through a metal detector. When random foreigner do not start shooting people in Mumbai in name of religion or students get their throats slit while visiting a neighbouring country. When we don't have refugees from our own country being displaced to other states because of terrorism back home. That would be refreshing.
And most of all I think refugee crisis won't be solved by accusing each other.
