Post by iris89 on Oct 8, 2006 9:58:06 GMT -5
The Ultimate Absurdity by a Member of Islam:
I wrote in a short article referencing two very long historical research products the following,
<<”At a quick first pass it might seem that the Muslims might be right on Kashmir, but in digging in a little further one quickly sees that they are the transgressors and the ones who have committed unthinkable crimes against the Hindus and Buddhist. They stole Afghanistan, Pakistan, most of Kashmir, etc. from the Hindus and Buddhist as a quick look at history will easily show. They destroyed Hindu temples and then built Mosques and schools on their sites, forced conversion at proverbial sword point, raped Hindu women, murdered, massacred, and committed genocide against Hindus and Buddhist. Let's look at the details and proofs by going to the following links/articles.
[1] Data Complied by Hindu scholar Nkgrock on rape, forced conversions, land stealing, temple destruction, murders, massacres, etc. by members of Islam in India, Pakistan, & Afghanistan.
And gave as links to this First long historical research product dealing with the 7 th. To 15 th. Century the following:
examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=380 or
p078.ezboard.com/fyahwehstruthinchristfrm2.showMessage?topicID=222.topic or
love.proboards9.com/index.cgi?board=news&action=display&n=1&thread=112&page=1
[2] Islam, Violent From The Beginning Using India as An Example:
And gave as links to this Second long historical research product dealing with the 7 th. To 15 th. Century the following:
examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=379 or
p078.ezboard.com/fyahwehstruthinchristfrm2.showMessage?topicID=221.topic or
love.proboards9.com/index.cgi?board=news&action=display&n=1&thread=110
Islam, Violent From The Beginning Using India as An Example:
But received this reply from a member of Islam that was completely irrelevamt and absurd where he was saying in effect I was wrong and he was going to prove it with a pole of 21 st. Century individuals from the area in question which is of course completely invalid with respect research on what transpired in the 7 th. To the 15 th. Century.
<<” anyone who votes also write your answer here as well so that we can see who voted and make sure they are from the above mentioned regions. Jazaakumullahukhair.
No, they were NOT forced.
Yes, they were forced.”>>
He had the nerve to insinuate this nonsense was research; whereas, any research on many centuries past can only be done by means of historical accounts, records, and of archaeological artifacts. Obviously he does NT even know what valid research is, but let’s look at the research methodology.
WHAT IS RELIGIOUS OR HISTORICAL RESEARCH AND ITS PURPOSE?
First, the purpose of research can be any of the following four and/or a combination of them:
[1] To Explain or Instruct, i.e., requires providing further information to make a matter clear.
[2] To Convince, i.e., calls for giving reasons showing why a thing is so along with evidence presentation.
[3] To Refute or Show Error, i.e., involves a knowledge of both sides of the issue along with a careful analysis of evidence.
[4] To Motivate. i.e., involves moving others to action and/or an attempt to do so.
Usually the purpose of research is a combination of these.
Usually religious or historical research involves first examining the context such as what do the items put forth or statement put forth conjure up, and the development of a hypothesis to be either proven correct and/or incorrect.
EXAMPLE, A STATEMENT IS MADE BY ANOTHER AND WILL BE TESTED:
In this case one member of Islam quotes Sura 19:33 which is per three different versions/translations of the Quran is as follows;
017.033 AL-ISRA (ISRA', THE NIGHT JOURNEY, CHILDREN OF ISRAEL)
Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law). [YUSUFALI]
PICKTHAL: And slay not the life which Allah hath forbidden save with right. Whoso is slain wrongfully, We have given power unto his heir, but let him not commit excess in slaying. Lo! he will be helped. [PICKTHAL]
And do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, and whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided. [SHAKIR]
He also said, from a Hadith [he failed to mention which Hadith, but was from Muslim b. al-Hajjaj] as follows:
Book 019, Number 4294: [ Muslim b. al-Hajjaj]
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.
Now let's examine both of these with respect their intent or purpose:
First, the Quran is saying in effect that wrongful slaying is wrong, and the heir has the right to go kill the one committing the slaying.
Second, The Muslim b. al-Hajjaj [Hadith] is saying when boiled down to its essence, that a military commander [Muslim] should be good to those with him, and fight against those who do not believe in Allah. Also, to make 'holy war' and to pillage, but not to mutilate or break pledges or to kill children. But to take spoil.
NOW WHAT IS TO BE TESTED? THE HYPOTHESIS:
First, Was India conquered by Muslims in the 7 th. To 15 th. Century who had no legitimate right to be there and were Hindus and Buddhist forced to convert by the proverbial sword to be Muslims?
Second, DID Muslims destroy Hindi and Buddhist temples in the 7 th. To 15 th. Century and use the foundations of same for Mosques and Muslim Schools?
Third, Did Islam commit the greatest genocide of all history against Hindus and Buddhist?
Let’s look briefly at the salient facts.
THE SALIENT FACTS – FIRST HYPOTHESIS, IN BRIEF:
First, Was India conquered by Muslims in the 7 th. To 15 th. Century who had no legitimate right to be there and were Hindus and Buddhist forced to convert by the proverbial sword to be Muslims
K. S. Lai, the greatest of all historians in India said, <<"Islam received a definite check in India. In other words, while countries like Arabia, Persia, Mesopotamia and Syria succumbed to the onslaught of Islam and converted en masse, the sword of Islam was blunted in India. This check provided provocation and enthusiasm to some Muslim conquerors and rulers to take to the task of proselytization with great zeal and earnestness. Their exertions and achievements find repeated mention in official and non-official chronicles and similar other works. Sometimes, besides broad facts, actual data and figures in this regard are also available. All this information is very helpful in estimating Muslim numbers as they grew from almost a cipher. ">>.
He went on to quote, <<"By the year 1000 of the Christian Era the extreme north-western parts of India, in the trans-Indus region, had become introduced to Islam. As early as C.E. 664, consequent upon an invasion of Kabul and its environs (which then formed part of India), by Abdur Rahman, a few thousand inhabitants are reported to have been converted to Islam" [source - Ferishtah, Tarikh-i-Ferishtah, Persian text, Nawal Kishore Press, Lucknow 1865, Vol.1, p.16.]>>, and <<"Subuktagin also fought against the Hindus and converted some of them. But all these events took place in the trans-Indus region, and we may, therefore, agree with Lanepoole in saying that in C.E. 1000 there were no Muslims in northern India east of the Indus."[source - Stanley Lane-Poole, Medieval India under Muhammadan Rule (London, 1926), p.1.}>>.
But conversion by the proverbial sword and the stealing of other's land was only to grow worse. <<" However, there were some small settlements of Muslims in Sind, Gujarat and the Malabar Coast. Parts of Sind were conquered by Muhammad bin Qasim Sakifi in C.E. 712. Whichever towns he took, like Alor, Nirun, Debul and Multan, in them he established mosques, appointed Muslim governors, and propagated the Muhammadan religion." [source - Chachnama, trs. in H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians, 8 Vols., London, 1867-77, (here after as E and D), Vol. I, p. 207.]>>. And to continue, <<"In Debul, for instance, he enslaved and converted some women and children, and left a contingent of 4,000 Muhammadans to garrison the place." [source - Al Biladuri, Futuh-ul-Buldan, trs. E and D, I, p.120]>>.
Forced conversions were to become a way of life and standard operating principle of (SOP) of Islam as shown by, <<" In Multan about 6,000 persons were made to accept Islam. Al Biladuri's narrative indicates that the people of Sawandari, Basmad, Kiraj, and Alor were converted in large numbers." [source - Al Biladuri, Futuh-ul-Buldan, trs. E and D, I, p.122 to 124]>>; another large forced conversion was, <<"by Muhammad bin Qasim Sakifi to Hajjaj also point to large number of conversions." [source - Chachnama, op. cit., pp. 163-64. Also pp. 205-07, 208]>>.
History shows that around the year 1,000 violence, pillaging, and conversions at the proverbial point of the sword, etc. my Muslims in India gets worse. <<" In the year C.E. 1000 the first attack of Mahmud of Ghazni was delivered. The region of Mahmud's activity extended from Peshawar to Kanauj in the east and from Peshawar to Anhilwara in the South. In this, wherever he went, he converted people to Islam. In his attack on Waihind (near Peshawar) in 1001-3, Mahmud is reported to have captured Jayapal and fifteen of his principal chiefs and relations some of whom, like Sukhpal, were made Musalmans. At Bhera all the inhabitants, except those who embraced Islam, were put to the sword. Since the whole town is reported to have been converted the number of converts may have been quite large. At Multan too conversions took place in large numbers for, writing about the campaign against Nawasa Shah (converted Sukhpal), Utbi says that this and the previous victory (at Multan) were 'witnesses to his exalted state of proselytism'" [sources - Kitab-i-Yamini, Eng. trs. of Utbi's work by James Reynolds, (London) 1858, pp. 451-52, 455, 460, 462-63 and Utbi, Tarikh-i-Yamini, E and D, II, pp.27, 30, 33, 40, 42, 43, 45, 49. Also Appendix in E and D, II, pp.434-78]>>. <<"In his campaign in the Kashmir Valley (1015) Mahmud 'converted many infidels to Muhammadanism, and having spread Islam in that country, returned to Ghazni'. In the latter campaigns, in Mathura, Baran and Kanauj, again, many conversions took place. While describing 'the conquest of Kanauj', Utbi sums up the situation thus: 'The Sultan levelled to the ground every fort..., and the inhabitants of them either accepted Islam, or took up arms against him." In short, those who submitted were also converted to Islam. In Baran (Bulandshahr) alone 10,000 persons were converted including the Raja. During his fourteenth invasion in C.E. 1023, Kirat, Nur, Lohkot and Lahore were attacked. The chief of Kirat accepted Islam, and many people followed his example. According to Nizamuddin Ahmad, 'Islam spread in this part of the country by the consent of the people and the influence of force'. Conversion of Hindus to Islam was one of the objects of Mahmud. Al Qazwini writes that when Mahmud went "to wage religious war against India, he made great efforts to capture and destroy Somnat, in the hope that the Hindus would then become Muhammadans" [source - Zakaria al Qazwini, Asar-ul-Bilad, E and D, I, p.98]>>; and <<"Sultan Mahmud was well-versed in the Quran and was considered its eminent interpreter."[source - C.E. Bosworth, The Ghaznavids (Edinburgh, 1963), p. 129. Utbi, Reynolds trs. op. cit., pp.438-39 and n.]>>; <<"He ardently desired to play the role of a true Muslim monarch and convert non-Muslims to his faith. Tarikh-i-Yamini, Rausat-us-Safa and Tarikh-i-Ferishtah, besides many other works, speak of construction of mosques and schools and appointment of preachers and teachers by Mahmud and his successor Masud." [source - Utbi, trs. Reynolds, op.cit., pp. 322-25, 462. Utbi, E and D, II, p.37 Ferishtah, op. cit., I, p.44.]>>; <<"Wherever Mahmud went, he insisted on the people to convert to Islam. Such was the insistence on the conversion of the vanquished Hindu princes that many rulers just fled before Mahmud even without giving a battle. "The object of Bhimpal in recommending the flight of Chand Rai was, that the Rai should not fall into the net of the Sultan, and thus be made a Musalman, as had happened to Bhimpal's uncles and relations, when they demanded quarter in their distress." [source - Utbi, E and D, II, p.49.]>>; <<" There is no doubt that the invasions of Mahmud of Ghazni brought good crop of converts, and a few more Muslims were added through the influence of Muslim Mashaikh and traders in Gujarat and Malabar. But if the example of Sind provides any precedent, it is possible that many Hindus forcibly converted to Islam during Mahmud's raids returned to their former faith. Very few Muslims were left in Sind after the decline of Arab rule. A local Karmatian Muhammadan dynasty was, however, ruling at Mansura and Multan. Mahmud of Ghazni destroyed it root and branch (1010) and Multan was deserted" [source - Ferishtah, op. cit., I, p.27, M. Habib, Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin, Delhi reprint, 1951, p.34,]>>.
<<”Even so, the Hindus, as Zimmis, became second class citizens in their own homeland and were suffered to live under certain disabilities. One of them was that each adult must pay a poll-tax called jiziyah. "Moreover, the main object in levying the tax is the subjection of infidels to humiliation ...and ...during the process of payment, the Zimmi is seized by the collar and vigorously shaken and pulled about in order to show him his degradation." The Zimmis also had to suffer in respect of their mode of worship, payment of taxes, and on account of certain sumptuary laws. Death awaited them at every corner, because, being idolaters they could be given a choice only between Islam and death.>
[The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India-Chaper-4- Muslim Rule in India-by K.S. Lal - www.voiceofdharma.org/books/tlmr/ch4.htm]>>.
<<”While describing "the conquest of Kanauj," Utbi sums up the situation thus: "The Sultan levelled to the ground every fort... and the inhabitants of them either accepted Islam, or took up arms against him." In short, those who submitted were also converted to Islam. In Baran (Bulandshahr) alone 10,000 persons were converted including the Raja.>
[The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India-Chaper 3- Muslims Invade India-by K.S. Lal ]>>.The Ultimate Absurdity by a Member of Islam:
see part Two