Nineteenth and twentieth century : During the 19th and 20th centuries, numerous personalities criticized Muslims and Islam.- 6 & 7.

Rajput King Prithviraj Chauhan

25/10/2016.
        810.
                All Members,
         Respected family members of this great holy Nation.

Sub : Nineteenth and twentieth century : 6 & 7
During the 19th and 20th centuries, numerous personalities criticized Muslims and Islam.

Ref - Media report

6.

Mahatma Gandhi, the moral leader of the 20th-century Indian independence movement, found the history of Muslims to be aggressive, while he pointed out that Hindus have passed that stage of societal evolution:

Though, in my opinion, non violence has a predominant place in the Quran, the thirteen hundred years of imperialistic expansion has made the Muslims fighters as a body.

They are therefore aggressive.

Bullying is the natural excrescence of an aggressive spirit.

The Hindu has an ages old civilization.

He is essentially non violent.

His civilization has passed through the experiences that the two recent ones are still passing through.

If Hinduism was ever imperialistic in the modern sense of the term, it has outlived its imperialism and has either deliberately or as a matter of course given it up.

Predominance of the non violent spirit has restricted the use of arms to a small minority which must always be subordinate to a civil power highly spiritual, learned and selfless.

The Hindus as a body are therefore not equipped for fighting.

But not having retained their spiritual training, they have forgotten the use of an effective substitute for arms and not knowing their use nor having an aptitude for them, they have become docile to the point of timidity and cowardice.

This vice is therefore a natural excrescence of gentleness.

7.

Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, in his book Discovery of India, describes Islam to have been a faith for military conquests.

 He wrote "Islam had become a more rigid faith suited more to military conquests rather than the conquests of the mind", and that Muslims brought nothing new to his country.

The Muslims who came to India from outside brought no new technique or political or economic structure.

In spite of religious belief in the brotherhood of Islam, they were class bound and feudal in outlook.

King Porus, the Greek version of the Indian names Puru, Pururava, or Parvata, was the ruler of a Kingdom in Punjab located between the Jhelum ...)

Thank you for reading
           JAIHIND.
            To be continued...

My view

1. People of Bharatham are not cowards as others think;

2. Alexander the Great of Roman Empire, after several battles with King Porus of Bharatham, could not win, finally he won by foul means;

3. Gori mohammad invaded Bharatham several times, but could not step in, due to Rajput King Prithviraj Chauhan, but was defeated and killed by treacherous means associating with his Father In Law ;

4. Mughal kings could not win over our great Maratha warriors, lead by Chatrapati Sivaji;

5. British rule was thrown out by non violence in Bharatham, is the only exception;

6. Due to Nehru  we lost a portion of Kashmir to Pakistan, though our Army succeeded driving Pakistan tribes led by Regular Pakistan Army;

7. Later we won several wars against Pakistan;

8. We suffered a defeat during Chinese invasion, due to Wrong policies of Nehru-Menon combinations;

9. Treacherous Pakistan Army commanded by treacherous Gen Musharraf, occupied our Dras Kargil heights, Indian Army took the challenge and forced them vacat our area, a clear defeat to Pak Army in our hands;

10. From ancient times Bharatham is the only country which never invaded other countries, never occupied others lands.