York Mosque praised for offering EDL protesters tea

Post Reply New Topic

They are different languages not dialects. The northern Hindi-speaking states have different dialects.
See this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hindi_belt.png (Rajasthani and Bihari are dialects of Hindi)

Urdu and Mirpuri are Pakistani languages. Urdu is the national language of Pakistan. Its grammar is similar to Hindi, but the words are similar to Persian and Arabic. Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible. In UK Indians and Pakistanis may be speaking to each other in their natives languages.

I think that would be the case. Isn't hindi an artificial language created by the Mughal conquerers? a kind of bazaar mishmash of Persian and Arabic..

That's Urdu.

Scholar opinions differ on the origin of urdu. Some say it was constructed, some say it was born because of mixing of Persian and Hindi among Indian masses. And the mughals were rulers, not conquerors. Mishmash is what happens when facts and conspiracy theories enter a mind together.

Mughals were conquerors according to history books. Are you suggesting the hindus happily sat back and allowed them (Mughals) to take over their land?

I would like to know what history books you're reading. It's curious how you see everything coloured in religion, even political empires. That makes Ashoka's rule a buddhist conquest and british rule a christian conquest, right? You're quite a sample. If I've got you right, you will now post a literal reading of the quran.

I like your style of debate

Thank you

Try answering my question without resorting to giving me labels, I think you tried that once before
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire

Instances of the word 'conqueror' in the wikipedia article - 0
Instances of the word 'ruler' - 11

I don't see which questions I have not answered. I see many that you have not -
Which history book mentions Mughals as conquerors?
Was Ashoka's rule a buddhist conquest and british rule a christian conquest?
If I go through of the thread pages, I can find many more of these.

The problem is you don't deserve any better.

You are searching for keywords that are unnecessary. You seem to have missed this obvious entry The Mughal dynasty was founded when Babur, hailing from Ferghana (Modern Uzbekistan), invaded parts of northern India and defeated Ibrahim Shah Lodhi,
The Mughals entered the region of south Asia from central Asia as invaders and they were not a) invited or b) given permission to acquire land, they simply took it by force. I'm certain any Indian school boy could tell you that.
Feel free to read about the glorious history of islam in India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadir_Shah ... n_of_India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_co ... bcontinent

As to whether I "deserve" getting labelled by you is sheer arrogance on your part.

Seems like wikipedia doesn't agree with your opinions.

You're the one who's not answering my questions, still I'm the one who's arrogant?

the issue is that when a mosque does this they get praised and admired by the world wide news organisations, meanwhile when a church does it (like my church giving coffee and donuts to over 3,500 LGBT marchers) there is not reaction except for violent outbursts and harsh slurs painted on our walls by the "victimized" protesters. There is an intense double standard and it is beyond aggrivating

I am sorry that this happened with your church. Can you give some information about your church, I'd like to know more about the incident. Thanks for bringing it to everyone's notice.

ask me whatever you like

I posted links, I can't see how they are my opinions if I provide evidence?

To be entirely fair to the mosque, it's a very, very brave thing indeed for a mosque to be pro-LGBT rights because of the pervasive and often violent homophobia in Islamic culture (and the fact that Muslim countries tend to be the most homophobic on the planet, and frequently call for gays to be executed). Any mosque that shows that it values openly gay people in its ranks (in Northwestern Europe at least) is likely to suffer severe reprisals.