08-16-2006, 10:43 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The problem is that the incident is shown to be an act of agression rather than retaliation, and is shown as an instance to justify the retatliation of muslims. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sunder the very fact that Bukka urged the Brahmins to preach about the butchering of cows and other insults offered to Hindu dharma is evidence that he nursed a dislike for Muslims and did those things in retaliation, plus as I said before before he commanded the massacre in Mudkal Muhammad Shah had already perpetrated a massacre in Vellunputtun (which came under Vijayanagar territory) so it was in retaliation that he did it and as far as I am concerned he was fully justified in what he did although he should have taken the women and children and reconverted them all, that would have been a better course of action.
Sunder the very fact that Bukka urged the Brahmins to preach about the butchering of cows and other insults offered to Hindu dharma is evidence that he nursed a dislike for Muslims and did those things in retaliation, plus as I said before before he commanded the massacre in Mudkal Muhammad Shah had already perpetrated a massacre in Vellunputtun (which came under Vijayanagar territory) so it was in retaliation that he did it and as far as I am concerned he was fully justified in what he did although he should have taken the women and children and reconverted them all, that would have been a better course of action.