Indians repeatedly claim they were very liberal and secular before Islamic invasion

Apr 2018
128
Karachi
#1
is they any truth to that?

i mean they claim that kamasurta statues of Khajuraho shows how indians were so liberal, but i find it interesting that they sculptures still are part of their temple.

china in the east had ceramics art, paintings, muslims in the west had their palaces, paintings, and countless arts thriving among muslims which they inherited form byzantium, and many other secular arts thriving in 1000 AD but during islamic invasion i dont think that indians had one single art dedicated to anything other than religion. paintings are religious, statues are religious, temples are religious, but there is no existence of secular art from india before muslims which can show that indians were very ''open minded'' and not religious conservative. Even the buildings such as step wells which were developed around this period in Rajasthan and gujrat had hindu symbolism to the core.

So my question is, how authentic is the claim about indians being liberal and secular in 1000 AD and not religious fanatic/narrow minded, it is sometimes very difficult to argue that islamic invasion instead opened india from this religious narrowmindedness because most of the hindu claim that islamic destruction of hindu temples made muslim invasion a jihadi invasion against liberal indian society and closed it off.

although hindus are not obliged to visit and pray at their temples, many fortified hindu temples can be seen around the period of muslim invasion, even muslims and christians didn't fortify their respective places of worship during the crusades which leads me to conclude that hindus were more religious and fanatic then any other nation on the planet.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2014
476
India
#2
is they any truth to that?

i mean they claim that kamasurta statues of Khajuraho shows how indians were so liberal, but i find it interesting that they sculptures still are part of their temple.

china in the east had ceramics art, paintings, muslims in the west had their palaces, paintings, and countless arts thriving among muslims which they inherited form byzantium, and many other secular arts thriving in 1000 AD but during islamic invasion i dont think that indians had one single art dedicated to anything other than religion. paintings are religious, statues are religious, temples are religious, but there is no existence of secular art from india before muslims which can show that indians were very ''open minded'' and not religious conservative. Even the buildings such as step wells which were developed around this period in Rajasthan and gujrat had hindu symbolism to the core.

So my question is, how authentic is the claim about indians being liberal and secular in 1000 AD and not religious fanatic/narrow minded, it is sometimes very difficult to argue that islamic invasion instead opened india from this religious narrowmindedness because most of the hindu claim that islamic destruction of hindu temples made muslim invasion a jihadi invasion against liberal indian society and closed it off.

although hindus are not obliged to visit and pray at their temples, many fortified hindu temples can be seen around the period of muslim invasion, even muslims and christians didn't fortify their respective places of worship during the crusades which leads me to conclude that hindus were more religious and fanatic then any other nation on the planet.

You come from a religion and say, Hindu Temples are centre of their religion. Within Hindu, there were multiple belief systems, such as Agnostic, Athiest, monism, monotheism and polyethism. Temple was a centre of social activity along with an array of contrasting religious belief.
 
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
#5
Indians were open minded,hinduism is open minded so is buddism no wonder we see such strong proof of co-existence between them throughout history.
so well indians were not "secular"(no kingdom or state till 19th century IIRC)
indians were not secular(no state was in medieval era) they were liberal and open minded

now the last line,indians fortified temples because muslims specifically targeted them as per their religion they are obliged to destroy idols.
 
Apr 2018
128
Karachi
#6
Indians were open minded,hinduism is open minded so is buddism no wonder we see such strong proof of co-existence between them throughout history.
so well indians were not "secular"(no kingdom or state till 19th century IIRC)
indians were not secular(no state was in medieval era) they were liberal and open minded

now the last line,indians fortified temples because muslims specifically targeted them as per their religion they are obliged to destroy idols.
i dont think that ''hindus'' were open minded, i have read several accounts of al beruni who is considered an authentic source for indian infomation in the 11th century, the absence of any secular art just reinforces the idea that indians were very closed as a society in the pre muslim invasion era.

im pointing towards temple fortification because its interesting to know that they were considered more important than the lives of people, fortification of temples mean that it was more important to save the temples then save the indian cities.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
#7
i dont think that ''hindus'' were open minded, i have read several accounts of al beruni who is considered an authentic source for indian infomation in the 11th century, the absence of any secular art just reinforces the idea that indians were very closed as a society in the pre muslim invasion era.

im pointing towards temple fortification because its interesting to know that they were considered more important than the lives of people, fortification of temples mean that it was more important to save the temples then save the indian cities.
Open minded does not mean secularism,these two are very different words.
i would suggest you to read the difference between the two then we discuss in this any further
and pray tell how islamic invasions opened mind of people

temples are smaller than cities,its easy to fortify and use that,although cities were fortified as well like vijaynagara,other states also had fortification.
 
Apr 2018
128
Karachi
#8
Open minded does not mean secularism,these two are very different words.
i would suggest you to read the difference between the two then we discuss in this any further
and pray tell how islamic invasions opened mind of people

temples are smaller than cities,its easy to fortify and use that,although cities were fortified as well like vijaynagara,other states also had fortification.
please read al beruni's account
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,717
USA
#10
is they any truth to that?

i mean they claim that kamasurta statues of Khajuraho shows how indians were so liberal, but i find it interesting that they sculptures still are part of their temple.

china in the east had ceramics art, paintings, muslims in the west had their palaces, paintings, and countless arts thriving among muslims which they inherited form byzantium, and many other secular arts thriving in 1000 AD but during islamic invasion i dont think that indians had one single art dedicated to anything other than religion. paintings are religious, statues are religious, temples are religious, but there is no existence of secular art from india before muslims which can show that indians were very ''open minded'' and not religious conservative. Even the buildings such as step wells which were developed around this period in Rajasthan and gujrat had hindu symbolism to the core.

So my question is, how authentic is the claim about indians being liberal and secular in 1000 AD and not religious fanatic/narrow minded, it is sometimes very difficult to argue that islamic invasion instead opened india from this religious narrowmindedness because most of the hindu claim that islamic destruction of hindu temples made muslim invasion a jihadi invasion against liberal indian society and closed it off.

although hindus are not obliged to visit and pray at their temples, many fortified hindu temples can be seen around the period of muslim invasion, even muslims and christians didn't fortify their respective places of worship during the crusades which leads me to conclude that hindus were more religious and fanatic then any other nation on the planet.
Not sure about your claims. Hinduism was not a liberal or secular religion. It was more similar to Islam in that aspect. Both the religions controlled too much of the temporal aspects of the believers. Hinduism had its rigid caste system based manusmrithi laws, and Islam had its strict sharia laws to make sure of it.