Islam will dominate!

[DeitySlayer]

Response: If in fact Iran captured some U.S. citizens unjustly, and the Iranian government refuses to let them go, then the U.S. does have a right to go to war with Iran to free it's citizens, even if that means that the U.S. takes control of the Iranian government themselves.

You make a nice habit of ignoring tricky points. As I said, India was not unified, so conquering the entirety of the subcontinent for the actions of one kingdom would be like the US conquering the whole Middle East for the actions of Iran.

 

[Fatihah]

You make a nice habit of ignoring tricky points. As I said, India was not unified, so conquering the entirety of the subcontinent for the actions of one kingdom would be like the US conquering the whole Middle East for the actions of Iran.

Response: Again, you have no proof that India was not "unified". And India of today is smaller that it was back then. Pakistan was once apart of India.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: Again, you have no proof that India was not "unified". And India of today is smaller that it was back then. Pakistan was once apart of India.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...svg/2000px-Indian_Kanauj_triangle_map.svg.png

At least three distinct kingdoms, and all the unclaimed areas were filled by thousands of non-unified tribes. None of the kingdoms describes themselves as part of a larger entity; in fact, they frequently went to war with each other over land in the overlapping areas. There are texts, carvings, statues, that attest to all of this. Now where is your proof that is was unified?

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: If in fact Iran captured some U.S. citizens unjustly, and the Iranian government refuses to let them go, then the U.S. does have a right to go to war with Iran to free it's citizens, even if that means that the U.S. takes control of the Iranian government themselves.

How about invade Iran and occupy it for the next few centuries?

 

[Breathe]

Response: Again, you have no proof that India was not "unified". And India of today is smaller that it was back then. Pakistan was once apart of India.

You uh, do realize India has a long history, don't you? Indus Valley Civilization beginning in circa 3300 BCE?

You know, the Chola Empire (1), Pala Empire (2), Badami Chalukya Empire (3), the Rashtrakutas of Deccan, the Gurjara Pratiharas of Malwa, and the Palas of Bengal?

Since you've asked for proof, I've given a few books you could read for proof.

(1) Das, Sisir Kumar (1995) [1995]. History of Indian Literature (1911–1956) : Struggle for Freedom - Triumph and Tragedy. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi. ISBN 81-7201-798-7.
Harle, J.C (1994). The art and architecture of the Indian Subcontinent. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06217-6.
Hermann, Kulke; Rothermund D (2001) [2000]. A History of India. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-32920-5.
Keay, John. India: A History. New Delhi: Harper Collins Publishers. ISBN 0-002-55717-7.

(2) Chattopadhyaya, Alaka (1967). Atisa and Tibet. Calcutta: Motilal Banarsidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd.. ISBN 81-208-0928-9.

(3) Chopra, P.N.; Ravindran, T.K.; Subrahmanian, N (2003) [2003]. History of South India (Ancient, Medieval and Modern) Part 1. New Delhi: Chand Publications. ISBN 81-219-0153-7.
Cousens, Henry (1996) [1926]. The Chalukyan Architecture of Kanarese Districts. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. OCLC 37526233.
Foekema, Gerard (2003) [2003]. Architecture decorated with architecture: Later medieval temples of Karnataka, 1000–1300 AD. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. ISBN 81-215-1089-9.

Hope this helps.

 

[Fatihah]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...svg/2000px-Indian_Kanauj_triangle_map.svg.png

At least three distinct kingdoms, and all the unclaimed areas were filled by thousands of non-unified tribes. None of the kingdoms describes themselves as part of a larger entity; in fact, they frequently went to war with each other over land in the overlapping areas. There are texts, carvings, statues, that attest to all of this. Now where is your proof that is was unified?

Response: Your link does not show up when I go to it. However, your own words is proof that it was unified. Whether different tribes occupy and fight each other within a region does not mean that the region was not unified. The region was still under one authority. Three different kingdoms in one region does not mean that the region is not unified. If the definition of not unified means that tribes of the same region clash each other, then that means the the muslim empire and any empire for that matter was never unified, for every empire had internal clashing. I live in Philadelphia. Just because north philly clashes with south philly doesn't mean that there is no Philadelphia.

 

[xkatz]

Response: Your link does not show up when I go to it. However, your own words is proof that it was unified. Whether different tribes occupy and fight each other within a region does not mean that the region was not unified. The region was still under one authority. Three different kingdoms in one region does not mean that the region is not unified. If the definition of not unified means that tribes of the same region clash each other, then that means the the muslim empire and any empire for that matter was never unified, for every empire had internal clashing.

If groups in a region are focusing on fighting one another, they are certainly not working towards unification. Maybe I am misreading this though so could you please explain your reasoning behind this post perhaps?

To add on, internal conflict also means a group is not truly unified. No single place and/or group is entirely unified in all aspects.

 

[Fatihah]

How about invade Iran and occupy it for the next few centuries?

Response: What about it? If we're still using your example, America has the right to rule for the next millions of centuries.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Ss,

Just shut up if you have no actual evidence against what Nameless has presented.
__________________

Did your pointer get any attention??? :no::no:
probably it is said *listen to what your religion wants you to, rest go to hell! as Domination is the ultimate GOAL!
Well guess, some things are beyond redemption for the moment!:

Love & rgds

 

[Fatihah]

You uh, do realize India has a long history, don't you? Indus Valley Civilization beginning in circa 3300 BCE?

You know, the Chola Empire (1), Pala Empire (2), Badami Chalukya Empire (3), the Rashtrakutas of Deccan, the Gurjara Pratiharas of Malwa, and the Palas of Bengal?

Since you've asked for proof, I've given a few books you could read for proof.

(1) Das, Sisir Kumar (1995) [1995]. History of Indian Literature (1911–1956) : Struggle for Freedom - Triumph and Tragedy. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi. ISBN 81-7201-798-7.
Harle, J.C (1994). The art and architecture of the Indian Subcontinent. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06217-6.
Hermann, Kulke; Rothermund D (2001) [2000]. A History of India. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-32920-5.
Keay, John. India: A History. New Delhi: Harper Collins Publishers. ISBN 0-002-55717-7.

(2) Chattopadhyaya, Alaka (1967). Atisa and Tibet. Calcutta: Motilal Banarsidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd.. ISBN 81-208-0928-9.

(3) Chopra, P.N.; Ravindran, T.K.; Subrahmanian, N (2003) [2003]. History of South India (Ancient, Medieval and Modern) Part 1. New Delhi: Chand Publications. ISBN 81-219-0153-7.
Cousens, Henry (1996) [1926]. The Chalukyan Architecture of Kanarese Districts. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. OCLC 37526233.
Foekema, Gerard (2003) [2003]. Architecture decorated with architecture: Later medieval temples of Karnataka, 1000–1300 AD. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. ISBN 81-215-1089-9.

Hope this helps.

Response: That's besides the point, but thanks anyway.

 

[DeitySlayer]

I live in Philadelphia. Just because north philly clashes with south philly doesn't mean that there is no Philadelphia.

You don't go shooting at each other or actually killing each other do you? There's a difference between good-natured rivalry and actual, full-out warfare. That would be the rough equivalent of claiming that Europe was unified during WWI. The tribes were not unified. There was no central power. There was no 'federal government' for the three separate kingdoms. There is no mention, anywhere, in any text, on any statue, anywhere, that the kingdoms were unified under a single banner. They coexisted. They were not unified.

And merely the state of non-warfare does not prove that two countries or kingdoms are unified. Pakistan isn't at war with Iran, but I don't hear anyone claiming they're the same country under the same authority.

 

[Madhuri]

Response: I don't know if any links. Perhaps you can type in your search engine Muhammad bin Qasim, who was the general of a muslim army and was the one who originally conquered India in 712 A.D. Let me know how that works.

I have only looked at Wiki and found no information about captive sailors. It is a very interesting read though. I want to read beyond Wiki for obvious reasons but will have to do so another time. I am far too tired right now.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: That's besides the point, but thanks anyway.

It's directly relevant to your question, demonstrating the range and breadth of cultures, civilizations and kingdoms that existed on the advent of the Mughal invasions. Demonstrating that India was not a unified nation.

 

[Fatihah]

If groups in a region are focusing on fighting one another, they are certainly not working towards unification. Maybe I am misreading this though so could you please explain your reasoning behind this post perhaps?

To add on, internal conflict also means a group is not truly unified. No single place and/or group is entirely unified in all aspects.

Response: I mean that a region is still a region, despite whose clashing within. Like California is still California if Los Angeles fights Sacramento.

 

[LuisDantas]

Response: What about it? If we're still using your example, America has the right to rule for the next millions of centuries.

I would ask if you are serious. But what is the point?

 

[Breathe]

Response: That's besides the point, but thanks anyway.

It is?
But you just said prove it was not unified, so I went out of my way to post that, then you say it's besides the point?

 

[Fatihah]

You don't go shooting at each other or actually killing each other do you? There's a difference between good-natured rivalry and actual, full-out warfare. That would be the rough equivalent of claiming that Europe was unified during WWI. The tribes were not unified. There was no central power. There was no 'federal government' for the three separate kingdoms. There is no mention, anywhere, in any text, on any statue, anywhere, that the kingdoms were unified under a single banner. They coexisted. They were not unified.

And merely the state of non-warfare does not prove that two countries or kingdoms are unified. Pakistan isn't at war with Iran, but I don't hear anyone claiming they're the same country under the same authority.

Response: Again, your alleged link showing three different kingdoms in India does not come up. Perhaps you can name the alleged three.

 

[Fatihah]

I have only looked at Wiki and found no information about captive sailors. It is a very interesting read though. I want to read beyond Wiki for obvious reasons but will have to do so another time. I am far too tired right now.

Response: Quite alright. I'll do my homework and try to help in providing you such a link if possible.

 

[Fatihah]

I would ask if you are serious. But what is the point?

Response: Likewise.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you are just fooling around with no regard whatsoever to the damage to your credibility and reputation? Really?

You're doing no favors to Islam's reputation, you know.