Rishi wrote:Rashmun,

Who were the Hindu kings who kept Muslim women as concubines?

Rashmun wrote:Mughal kings allowed their Hindu wives to practice their religion. Further a son born to a Mughal king from a Hindu wife could be the next king.

In contrast Hindu kings could not or did not let any son born from a Muslim wife be the next king. Hindu kings were ok with keeping Muslim women as concubines but not as wives.

Who were more civilized -- Mughal kings or Hindu kings ?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Mughal kings allowed their Hindu wives to practice their religion. Further a son born to a Mughal king from a Hindu wife could be the next king.

In contrast Hindu kings could not or did not let any son born from a Muslim wife be the next king. Hindu kings were ok with keeping Muslim women as concubines but not as wives.

Who were more civilized -- Mughal kings or Hindu kings ?

Then why dont you openly come out of the closet and declare your iSlamic allegiance?

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Mughal kings allowed their Hindu wives to practice their religion. Further a son born to a Mughal king from a Hindu wife could be the next king.

In contrast Hindu kings could not or did not let any son born from a Muslim wife be the next king. Hindu kings were ok with keeping Muslim women as concubines but not as wives.

Who were more civilized -- Mughal kings or Hindu kings ?

Then why dont you openly come out of the closet and declare your iSlamic allegiance?

I am a secular Hindu. I am opposed to all communal people whether Hindu or Muslim or of some other religion.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Mughal kings allowed their Hindu wives to practice their religion. Further a son born to a Mughal king from a Hindu wife could be the next king.

In contrast Hindu kings could not or did not let any son born from a Muslim wife be the next king. Hindu kings were ok with keeping Muslim women as concubines but not as wives.

Who were more civilized -- Mughal kings or Hindu kings ?

Then why dont you openly come out of the closet and declare your iSlamic allegiance?

I am a secular Hindu. I am opposed to all communal people whether Hindu or Muslim or of some other religion.

But, you praise iSlamists 90% and criticize Hindus 90%.  And, that is secularism for you.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i understand you like history, but why are you so obsessed with kings and their religious allegiances? there are more interesting people who lived in ancient india -- mathematicians, men of medicine, astronomers, and metallurgists. do you have no interest in finding about any of them?

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i understand you like history, but why are you so obsessed with kings and their religious allegiances? there are more interesting people who lived in ancient india -- mathematicians, men of medicine, astronomers, and metallurgists. do you have no interest in finding about any of them?

Unfortunately we know very little  (almost nothing) about the personal lives of scientists and philosophers in India. And where there is material available it is unfortunately interwoven with nonsensical claims of supernatural powers. It has been well said that Hindus did not have an idea of history and did not produce any great historians. (The exception to this was Kalhana of Kashmir and a few other Kashmiri scholars who produced some praiseworthy history books. ) For instance there are three medieval biographies of Adi Sankaracharya. Amongst the claims in these books is the claim that he was an incarnation of Lord Shiva and that he wrote the Vedanta Bhasya--his commentary to the Brahma Sutra, widely considered his greatest work--when he was only twelve years old. Biographical material on Sankara by the rival school of Dvaita Vedanta reveals to us the information that Sankara was actually the demon Manimat reborn. Manimat is a demon who finds mention in the Mahabharata. The claim is that Manimat was trying to destroy Hinduism by teaching disguised budhism for which he is hailed by the demons as their savior. Many other derogatory claims are made about Sankara. The point is that in the pre Muslim historical books in India, fantasy and myth is freely interwoven with facts to the point that it becomes impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff

FluteHolder wrote:

A simple question to Rash. Based on your knowledge of history answer the following questions in 1(lowest ) to 10 (highest).
For example: Places of worship of opposite faith were demolished/looted   /   2     / 10


Qstn-------------------------------------------------- Hindu Kings ----------Islamic/Mogul Kings
1. More no of men/women/children killed (opp Faith)

2. Places of worship demolished/looted 

3. Tax on non-believers          

4. Forced Conversions to their faith (rulers)

5. (feel free to add anymore)

Rashmun wrote:Mughal kings allowed their Hindu wives to practice their religion. Further a son born to a Mughal king from a Hindu wife could be the next king.

In contrast Hindu kings could not or did not let any son born from a Muslim wife be the next king. Hindu kings were ok with keeping Muslim women as concubines but not as wives.

Who were more civilized -- Mughal kings or Hindu kings ?