However, sociologist U.T Thakur suggest a more complex dynamic, suggesting that Hinduism (being the religion of the dominant castes) and Buddhism (being the religion of the recessive castes) and the high Buddhists were descendants of migrants from Bactria. The king was a Brahmin, and the majority of his advisers were from his family. The ruler of Alor, a Jatt, also had professed Buddhism as his spiritual guide. Nonetheless, there was a strong sense of "ideological dualism" between them, which he wrote was the inherent weakness that the Arabs exploited in their favor when they invaded the region.
Mr Faridy. every monument and many old scriptures all bear the scar of invasion by your great faith... as late as bamiyan Buddha statues the whole world knows how tolerant and pious your people are. Stop parroting your lines. You can defend your faith from your own people who are turning it into an intolerant and suicidal cult. if you go to even remotest indian villages and temples you will see disfigured idols. for that matter qutub minar was also built on an ancient temple ...so marvellous was the architecture that even your faith's people left parts of old structure and carried off dismantled columns....
You don't teach indians what civilization is ...we are any day far advanced than your desert culture from arabia. anywhere in world if you take opinion of common people they will reckon india with spirituality, faiths, tolerance and great heritage. although old your middle eastern civilisations don't qualify anywhere near to india. you cannot be an india ...with a name that sounds oh so much more arabic than indian..you don't even know the soul of india but you keep yapping incohorently
GUYS READ ABOUT 1971 "BATTLE OF LONGEWALA".. 120 INDIAN SOLDIERS DEFEATED 2800 HEAVY ARMED ENEMY... INDIAN LOSSES 2 SOLDIERS AND THE SINGLE JEEP GUN ENEMY LOSS 36 TANKS 100 ARMOURED VEHICLE 200 SOLDIERS..
Mr Faridy is showing us mirrors it seems ... he doesn't look himself at a mirror for the fear of scaring his own shytt.... now we know the defender of his faith not only lacks proper arguments he also lacks proper networking of his brain cells
Re: oh oh
by Wahaj Faridy on Jan 13, 2011 08:18 PM
I do not Glorify History of Kings because they were all criminal
I do not Glorify Indian social History as it is ridden with caste and untouchability crimes.
Ye, I am an Indian and love Indian. All I want is that instead of learning wrong lessons from History, Indians learn right ones and move on instead of attacking My faith
Re: Re: oh oh
by C M on Jan 14, 2011 05:55 AM
Wahaj...Whether u glorify or not...World history has major shares of Kings and Kingdoms...Democracy was not a distant concept then...Take any civilisation Kings and kingdoms were center of history...Now social history U only see darker side there is brighter sides in it too..Again whole world social history has good mix of darker and brighter sides...All social systems, religions went thru revolution but one or two...So caste and untouchabilitity are deemed crimes now then it was part of social system...If one wants to study histry,he/she got to study just from histroy point of view ...Not to judge history based on todays frame of mind or social system...It will take u no where...
Re: Re: Re: Re: oh oh
by this that on Jan 13, 2011 08:36 PM
MR WAHAJ WHY DO YOU IGNORE THE FACT THAT MSULIMS APEX BODY IS IN SUPREME COURTS CASTING DOUBTS OVER HINDU FAITH FOR AN OLD MASJID BUILT OVER TEMPLE RUINS
Re: Re: Re: Re: oh oh
by Wanderlust on Jan 13, 2011 08:33 PM
nobody attacked ur faith u eediot... u r the one who is attacking ... we were discussing history and its you who took things personally...oh well as a matter of fact every old monument in india bears the scar of invasion by your faith... so don't raise an argument here and use commonsense
The slave appears to have retained degrees of control over money, property, right to compensation or wage for labor, and had the right of redemption, and deceiving or depriving a slave of these rights is also a punishable offence. Slavery also appears to have been of limited duration or of temporary status, as only specific conditions are given for slavery for life.[10] Employing a slave to carry the dead, or to sweep human waste, remnant of meal, stripping or keeping in nudity, hurting or abusing, violating the chastity (of a female slave), causes the forfeiture of the value paid for the slave (although it is not clear whether this earns the slave his or her freedom). In the same paragraph, however, it is stated that the violations of the chastity of nurses, female cooks, or female servants of the class of joint cultivators or of any other category shall at once earn them their liberty. A master’s connections with a nurse or pledged female slave against her will is a punishable offence, (for a stranger the degree of offence is higher), and rape is specifically mentioned as particularly offensive with high penalties as well as forfeiture of sale price.[10] In fact if a child is born to the female slave as a result of sexual union with the master, then the mother and child have to be freed immediately.
As for prisoners of war, .. an Arya who is captured in war can only be ransomed for an amount proportionate to the damage or dangerous work done by the captive
Mr faridy considers Osama and kasab as pious hens ...one is giving eggs in tora bora and another in arthur road jail...
we don't know the credentials of Mr Faridy though. He opens his beak on every issue concerning india. we even doubt if he is an indian. maybe he is from one of those muslim lands where internet is forbidden and free thinking is blasphemy punishable by death
Re: Re: LOL
by Kanu Singh on Jan 13, 2011 08:15 PM
Have you ever seen the mirror yourself or you just believe in blowing up any mirrors or comparisons to your faith.
Re: LOL
by Akansha on Jan 13, 2011 08:03 PM
he is from the country which is going to disintegrate soon. That country's name is called pakistan, in other words, terroristhan
