07-10-2007, 04:21 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Jul 8 2007, 04:18 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Jul 8 2007, 04:18 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Lastly there has been enough Brahmin bashing, but the truth of matter is that despite this Brahmin bashing (Some of which is well deserved), India remained largely Hindu while other religions like Zoroastrianism in Persia vanished against Muslim onslaught primarily because Hindusim was far stronger during these times due to a revival of the Bhakti cult, whether it be Saivism in Karnataka by Basaveshwara, or the Marathi saints like Dnaneshwar, or Ramanuja, Madhvacharya.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. This is just the marxist partyline where they talk about "inherent strength" of hinduism so they do not have to show Islam's misdeeds in India.
This is ofcourse utter bull. India remained largely hindu because in India people fought tooth and nail and did not let the muslims convert them to Islam.
When someone has a sword on there neck or the obligation to pay jiziya (not paying this tax meant your land was confiscated and you had only one choice out of the debt trap i.e to become muslim) strength of religion is bogus and irrelevant.
Persian/Arabia/iberia/spain/north africa lost wars with muslims and were converted rather quickly on the edge of the sword.
In India they met another edge of sword which kept muslims in check. This sword of India was represented by rajputs/marathas/sikhs and other kshatriyas through out the length and breadth of the country.
-Digvijay
Lastly there has been enough Brahmin bashing, but the truth of matter is that despite this Brahmin bashing (Some of which is well deserved), India remained largely Hindu while other religions like Zoroastrianism in Persia vanished against Muslim onslaught primarily because Hindusim was far stronger during these times due to a revival of the Bhakti cult, whether it be Saivism in Karnataka by Basaveshwara, or the Marathi saints like Dnaneshwar, or Ramanuja, Madhvacharya.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. This is just the marxist partyline where they talk about "inherent strength" of hinduism so they do not have to show Islam's misdeeds in India.
This is ofcourse utter bull. India remained largely hindu because in India people fought tooth and nail and did not let the muslims convert them to Islam.
When someone has a sword on there neck or the obligation to pay jiziya (not paying this tax meant your land was confiscated and you had only one choice out of the debt trap i.e to become muslim) strength of religion is bogus and irrelevant.
Persian/Arabia/iberia/spain/north africa lost wars with muslims and were converted rather quickly on the edge of the sword.
In India they met another edge of sword which kept muslims in check. This sword of India was represented by rajputs/marathas/sikhs and other kshatriyas through out the length and breadth of the country.
-Digvijay