by thisislife2 | 2026-02-21 12:49:09+00:00
I am indeed an "Islamic / Sikh / Hindu / Christian etc. Apologist" because I don't judge people or a whole community based on their "worst examples" (i.e. the religious fundamentalists), just as Gandhiji taught us.

Akbar as "Babur's favourite grandson" is a lapse of my thoughts getting mixed up in the history - It however doesn't negate anything else I said about either Babur or Akbar, as all that is easily verifiable (which you have done and that is why you cleverly avoid it).

As for Emperor Ashoka, I have never disputed his conversion. (After all, I was talking about him in the context of 'Buddhist empires'). Nor did I claim that he didn't espouse Buddhist values. What I was pointing out was that he expanded his empire through ruthless warfare, and later used his political acumen to reform his image as a "monk-king", as he focused on strengthening Buddhism as the "official" religion of his empire. (Buddhist missionaries of course played a huge role in this as it was in their interest to exaggerate and showcase how their religion had transformed a "blood-thirsty" king to a saint!). And, by the way, if you don't consider the rock edicts as a form of propaganda (without the negative connotation), you clearly don't understand politics. The point was that however much a practising Buddhist he became in his later parts of years, he (or his descendants) never confused the Buddhist spiritual philosophy of "Ahimsa" with the politics of why an empire needs a military. The Buddhist empire faded away for the same reason as every empire does - weak leaders who lack vision to adopt to evolving or changed circumstances or just bad luck when facing a stronger adversary.

(By the way, have you actually read the Wikipedia link yourself? It says many of the same things that I said: that Buddhism declined because it lost state patronage and as competition from other sects and religions increased. And, for all the weight you put on Wikipedia, I can honestly say that I didn't add those parts in it :).

> It is well recorded how Hindu Temples/Buddhist Universities etc. were destroyed by Islamic invaders (even before the Mughals) ...

Yes, they were, and nobody disputes. What is disputed is that this lead to the "fall" of Hinduism and Buddhism because of which Hindu kingdoms "didn't survive". That's all just bullshit. Kingdoms fall due to weak leaders or changed circumstances and sometimes just ill-luck (as happened with Tipu Sultan, when the French were weakened). Religion has nothing to do with it. The fact that the Sanghis can't make a differentiation between raiders / invasion from Islamic kingdoms and indian muslim kings / emperors who chose to make India their home, rule it, and use its wealth for their kingdoms economic growth just highlights how much distorted their interpretation of history is due to their unhealthy obsession with religion.

> Islam is different from other religions because it is a Religious+Political+Economic+Social system rolled into one with sanctioned violence in the furtherance of its goals.

"Islam" is what its rulers determined it to be, and no Islamic empire, around the world, has been the same. This is also true for any Buddhist, Hindu or Christian etc. empire.