ShauryaT wrote: Do you actually believe that Hindus stored their wealth in temples? and that muslims invaded and destroyed these temples for the wealth stored in them?
ShauryaT,
I'm sure you know the history of the Somnath Temple much better than I do. And I quoted a specific temple not all temples.
The temple was razed to the ground in 725 AD, 1024AD and 1297 AD by Muslim rulers. Each time the temple riches were looted.
But my point was not that - and I'm sorry you could not get to what I was trying to say. My point was that the kind of body blow that the destruction of place of worship can give to the two big revealed religions is not applicable to the Indic religions because they are not monolithic in nature.
Buddism was never a separate religion, while in India. An accurate study of Buddhist texts will reveal that they do not differ from what is embodied in the Upanishads. So, where is the question of Buddism being a new religion as alll?
The very fact that you don't consider, just like I don't, Buddhism to be a separate religion proves the point I was trying to make with that remark. That is the inclusive nature of the Hindu religion which is its greatest strength.
And by the way try telling the Sri Lankans, Thais, Japanese and the Chinese that the Buddhist religion is not a different religion from Hinduism and check their reactions.
Show me where dhimmitued protected the masses of India thorugh the 1000 years of subjugation. Kharaj, Khams and Jiziyah combined to destroy the hindus, roasting them slowly but surely to death in this state of dhimmitude. Any true defence was always through the sheer bravery, grit and determiniation of 1000's of battles in India fought by the Hindus again and again and not some weak kneed dhimmitude.
If you look at world history you will find a very interesting fact. That is once the Muslim hordes started to move out of the sands of Arabia one of two things happened.
They either completely overran the native religions and turned the population 100 per cent Muslim, like in the case of Persia. Or, as in case of the European Mediterrian countries, the Muslim religion after gaining a foothold was complete decimated by the opposing religion, in this case Chirstianity.
It is only in India that despite massive inroads, the Muslim religion was never able to completely subjugate the native Indic religions. They had ample time to do that mind you, just look at Souteast Asia, in a space of 300 years or so countries like Indonesia and Malaysia went from zero Muslims to massive Muslim majority nations were the indigenous (as opposed to those who brought the religion to the shores) being the true champions of Muslimisation.
In India, sure, there was bravery and sacrifice to keep the Hindu way of life just as there was horrific butchery. But do you think it was only bravery that kept the Musalmans at bay, especially in the Western India and places like UP?
It hurts my cultural pride to consider it but that's the reason I am begining to think that Dhimmitude as we define it in BRF has had its uses. I would also hasten to add that the time for Dhimminess is over. And I'm optimistic that is happening despite the kandle kissing brigade - they are a dying species.
In one of my previous posts I had noted that most dhimmis today would fall in the profile of english medium educated, well to do above 35 elites. I don't think there's much of dhimminess in the rural countryside. And there is far less dhimmitude in the younger generation who are happy with their culture, religious rites and Bollywood songs/films - a true potupuri of pan Indian culture.
The regret is Hindus, never understood Islamism, as they do now and nor did the hindus organize themselves well to defeat the alien forces in an organized and sustained manner.
I totally agree with you on this point. But again I'm optimistic on the future. With the massive dessimation of news and images, every Muslim terroist act is breeding thousands of people who abhor Islamism and there is a quiet anger which can and will burst out soon or later.
Well put.