Quote:
Originally Posted by SADIA SHAFIQ
History is always biased .You can not find truth because it was mere representation of an individual ; which was written in admiration and prejudice
Do you think you will be awarded with highest marks having such approach ; he was mere looter or plunderer .And you are going to argue in renaissance period of Islam . One can argue that he was ambitious but he was motivated to set an empire in central Asia .. Why he moved towards south Asia...
1. Jaipal before subgtageen annexed Afghanistan in his dominion whereas he was mere prime minister earlier . It was treachery of Jaipal which seeded conflict in the soil . Subgtagein regained it and rivalry started and after his death , Jaipal attacked on Afghanistan
2. People said he destroyed temples but for what ...? All Indo-confederation met in temples and made designed to attack again .. kalinjar , somnath Mewar and Qaunj had temples ... so he had to destroyed them .. And after war who will not want to get gold or kind to maintain war expenditure .
3. Qramata had taken Holy Black stone /HAJRE-E-ASWAD...theri leader was Abu Daud ..3 expeditions were takedn to crush them ..
4. Khokar and juts were source of menace and inflicted his army badly ..He came to Hindustan just to avenge them ..
|
Dear read different views of historians. Every school of thought has its own view! I have mentioned it from an authentic source though history is biased, indeed.
Well,, Indopak is not my optional subject anymore...As far as my approach is concerned, I have got
71 marks in Indopak part I. "checker ne kuch to soch kar marks die honge]!
Any ways, you are right at your side and I am right at my side!
Thanks.