Post by iris89 on Jun 29, 2011 6:40:19 GMT -5
Muslim Bigotry and Violence Against The Peaceful
INTRODUCTION:
Islam wants religious freedom for itself, but is NOT willing to extend it to others. Instead they direct their lust for violence against people knows for their peaceful ways and try to justify it by stating they are proselytizing; whereas, since Islam’s inception that is exactly what they have been doing.
For example, they murdered between 80 and 100 million in India in the Ninth through the Eleventh Century because they would NOT summit to their violent proselytizing by the sword. Here are some details on this proselytizing by the sword – convert or die.
FORCED CONVERSIONS IN INDIA:
K. S. Lai, probably 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]>>.
<<"Muhammad bin Qasim remained in Sind for a little more than three years." [source - Elliot's Appendix in E and D, I, p.439]>>. <<"After his recall not only the Arab power in Sind declined rapidly, but also most of the neo-converts returned to their former faith. Al Biladuri informs that 'in the days of Tamim, the Musalmans (had) retired from several parts of India... nor have they up to the present time (he wrote in the middle of the ninth century) advanced so far as in days gone by". When Hakim succeeded Tamim, "the people of India had returned to idolatry excepting those of Kassa, and the Musalmans had no place of security in which they could take refuge"." [source - Biladuri, op. cit., p.126, Also cf. Idrisi, E and D, I, Nuzhat-ul-Mushtaq]>>, <<"Sir Dension Ross also says that "after the recall of Muhammad bin Qasim, the Muslim retained some foothold on the west bank of the river Indus, but they were in such small numbers that they gradually merged into Hindu population. In Mansura (the Muslim capital of Sind) they actually adopted Hinduism." [ source - Dension Ross, Islam, p.18.]>>.
Conversions made at the point of the proverbial sword did not always hold as shown by, <<" In brief, because of the efforts of Muhammad bin Qasim and Caliph Umar II (C.E. 717-24) some Hindus in Sind had been converted to Islam, but by the time of Caliph Hashim (724-43), when Tamim was the governor of Sind, many of these Sindhi converts had returned to Hinduism. Those who continued to retain the new faith remained confined mostly to cities, particularly Multan. After Mahmud of Ghazni's attack on Multan their number seems to have gone up for, writing in the twelfth century, Al Idrisi says: "The greater part of the population (of Multan) is Musalman, so also the Judicial authority and civil administration." [ However, up to C.E. 1000 there were very few Muslims in Sind." [sources - Al Idrisi, p.83. and Elliot's Appendix, E and D, I, p.459]>>.
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,]>>.
CONTINUED FORCED CONVERSIONS AND STEALING OF HINDU LANDS:
<<"About the end of the twelfth century, Muhammad Ghori established Muslim rule in India on a durable basis. When he captured Bhatinda in 1190-91, he placed in its command Qazi Ziyauddin with a contingent of 1200 horse." [source - Camb. Hist. India, III, p.40.]>>; <<"In 1192 he invaded Hindustan with an army of 120,000. A good number of his soldiers would have been killed in the sanguinary battle with Prithviraj. A major portion of the remainder would have stayed on in India under Qutbuddin Aibak, who must not have been left empty handed in an alien and hostile country." [source - Hasan Nizami says that 'the Sultan then returned to Ghazna... but the whole army remained... at the mauza of Indarpat'. (Taj-ul-Maasir, E and D, II, p.216). Surely Muhammad Ghori would not have gone back all alone.]>>.
It get's even worse, <<" Aibak entered upon a series of conquests. He despatched Ikhtiyaruddin Bakhtiyar Khalji to the East and himself captured Kol (modern Aligarh) in 1194. There "those of the garrison who were wise and acute were converted to Islam, but those who stood by their ancient faith were slain with the sword" [source - Taj-ul-Maasir, E and D, II, p.216]>>; <<"In 1195 when Raja Bhim of Gujarat was attacked, 20,000 prisoners were captured," [source - Ferishtah, I, p.62.]>>; <<"and in 1202 at Kalinjar 50,000," [source - Hasan Nizami, p.231. Also Ferishtah, I, p.53. Habibullah, The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India, (Allahabad, 1961), pp.69 and 334 (n.26), has missed to cite Hasan Nizami's assertion that 50,000 were enslaved.]>>; <<"and we may be sure that (as in the case of Arab conquest of Sind) all those who were made slaves were compelled to embrace the religion of the masters to whom they were allotted." [source - Titus. Islam in India and Pakistan (Calcutta, 1959), p.31.]>>; <<"Ferishtah specifically mentions that on the capture of Kalinjar "fifty thousand Kaniz va ghulam, having suffered slavery, were rewarded with the honour of Islam" [source - Ferishtah, I, p.63.]>>; <<"According to Ferishtah three to four hundred thousand Khokhars and Tirahias were also converted to Islam by Muhammad Ghori." [source - Ferishtah, I, pp.59-60.]>>.
MASSACREE OF BUDDHIST BY VIOLENCE LUSTFUL MEMBERS OF ISLAM:
Genocide and massacres and stealing of others lands and forced conversions continued as Islam's SOP <<"Ikhtiyaruddin Bakhtiyar Khalji's military exploits in the east also resulted in conversions to Islam. About the end of the twelfth or the beginning of the thirteenth century," [source & comments by S.K. Lal - The exact date of the raid is difficult to determine. Ishwari Prasad, Medieval India (Allahabad, Fourth Impression, 1940), p.138 places it" probably in 1197", Wolseley Haig (C.H.I., III,pp.45-46) a little earlier than this, and Habibullah, op. cit., pp.70 and 84, n. 78 in 1202-03.]>>; <<"he marched into Bihar and attacked the University centres of Nalanda, Vikramshila and Uddandapur, erecting a fortress at the site of Uddandapur or Odantapuri." [source - Indian Antiquary, IV, pp.366-67.]>>; <<"The Buddhist monks in these places were massacred and the common people, deprived of their priests and teachers, turned some to Brahmanism and some to Islam. Buddhism did not die out immediately or completely in Bihar." [source - Fuhrer, The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur, pp.70-73.]>>; <<"But Bakhtiyar's raid on Bihar did deliver a shattering blow to Buddhism and its lost followers were gained mainly by Islam. Muslim sway extended from Varanasi through the strip of Shahabad, Patna, Monghyr and Bhagalpur district," [source - Habibullah, op. cit., p.147]>>.
<<" During the time of Qutbuddin Aibak a large number of places were attacked and prisoners captured for which actual figures or written evidence are available. Figures of any conversions during campaigns to Kanauj, Varanasi (where the Muslims occupied "a thousand" temples)." [source - Ferishtah, I, p. 58]>>; <<"Ajmer (attacked thrice), Gujarat, Bayana and Gwalior, and the campaigns carried out right up to Bengal are not available. However, since the notices of medieval chroniclers are usually full of exaggeration where figures of the defeated or captured non-Muslims are concerned, it would be reasonable to take into consideration only those which are specifically mentioned, any exaggeration being rounded off by those which are not." [source - Indian Muslims, Who Are They by K.S. Lal]>>.
LOOTING, MURDER, AND FORCED CONVERSIONS CONTINUED:
Islam continued with its same SOP, <<" With this conceptual framework let us examine the structure and organization of Muslim community in Hindustan in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Punjab saw the emergence of Muslims as a local community consequent to the invasions of Mahmud of Ghazni. But for a few immigrants in the shape of Ghaznavid officers and soldiers, the bulk of Muslims were converts from the indigenous Hindu population. Similar was the case in "pockets" of Sind, Gujarat, Bihar and Malabar. The process of their conversion was hurried. All of a sudden the invader appeared in a city or a region, and in the midst of loot and murder, a dazed, shocked and enslaved people were given the choice between Islam and death. Those who were converted were deprived of their scalp-lock or choti and, if they happened to be caste people, also their sacred thread." [source - Indian Muslims, Who Are They by K.S. Lal and his footnote comments were, "The exact date of the raid is difficult to determine. Ishwari Prasad, Medieval India (Allahabad, Fourth Impression, 1940), p.138 places it" probably in 1197", Wolseley Haig (C.H.I., III,pp.45-46) a little earlier than this, and Habibullah, op. cit., pp.70 and 84, n. 78 in 1202-03."]>>.
To this date Islam has NOT made amends, i.e., return of all looted goods and the descendents of ALL individuals whose ancestors were forcibly converted at the point of the proverbial sword. This would include most of the inhabitants of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and most Muslims in India and Kashmir.
RECENT ATTACK ON A PEACEFUL PEOPLE FOR PROSELYTIZING:
Islam has specialized since its inception with proselytizing by the sword and by lies and misrepresentation, but they use the charge of proselytizing by others as a reason to attack them. How absurd, since they have been proselytizing since the inception of Islam and often in a very violent manner which has been detailed using India as an example.
Here are several accounts including one that shows Muslim officials telling a lie.
FIRST, Just read a story elsewhere about a mob of Muslim youths in Senegal that attacked a Jehovah’s Witnesses hall and a bar. A spokesman justified the attack by saying, in part, that someone from the JW hall was handing out crosses.
It’s nice when they blunder into such a provable lie. JW’s don’t believe Christ was crucified on a cross, and consider it to be a pagan symbol. [source - retrieved from www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2740362/posts on 6/29/2011]
Note, JW’s do NOT use crosses so the Muslim spokesman told a blatant lie to justify wrong.
SECOND, Protesters burn church, destroy bar in Senegal
HUNDREDS of Muslim protesters descended on a Jehovah's Witness temple and a bar in a conservative Muslim neighbourhood of the Senegalese capital, setting the buildings on fire.
It was a rare instance of religious extremism in this normally moderate Islamic republic.
Thierno Mbeugne, spokesman for the local imam association, said the head imam in the conservative Yoff district of Dakar had asked the youth to march on Sunday against what they considered as "acts of aggression against their faith".
They were targeting the temple because they claim its members were proselytising, and the bar because it was selling alcohol.
…
One of the rioters Mame Faye, 24, explained that the mob set upon the temple while churchgoers were praying inside before setting upon the bar.
Other witnesses, however, said that the hundreds of protesters burst into the establishment and began drinking the cans of beer. They then stripped the building, making off with the refrigerator, the air conditioners and the furniture. Then they set it on fire.
A doctor who spoke on the condition of anonymity said his clinic had treated 37 people, including several wounded police officers. One had a stab wound. The police used tear gas to disperse the crowd.
Mbeugne claimed that the head of the temple had been actively trying to convert locals. He said that under the cover of teaching English, she had started handing out crosses and Jehovah's Witness literature. [source - retrieved from www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/protesters-burn-church-destroy-bar-in-senegal/story-e6frf7k6-1226082674510 on 6/29/2011]
THIRD, Senegal: Spokesman for imams' association caught in a lie while making excuses for rampage against Jehovah's Witnesses' Kingdom Hall
Thierno Mbeugne claimed the Jehovah's Witnesses were handing out not only literature, but crosses. One small problem: one prominent teaching of the religion is that Jesus died hanging from a vertical, pole-like structure, and not a cross in its common understanding as a lowercase "t" shape.
So, what were the Jehovah's Witnesses handing out to Senegalese Muslims, then? Dowels? No, rather, this appears to be a lie expressly made up to incite the rampage, whether the imam got it on hearsay, or made it up himself. An update on this story. "Protesters burn church, destroy bar in Senegal," from the Associated Press, June 26 (thanks to Opinionated for the story, and flagging the cross claim):
Hundreds of Muslim protesters descended on a Jehovah's Witness temple and a bar in a conservative Muslim neighbourhood of the Senegalese capital, setting the buildings on fire.
It was a rare instance of religious extremism in this normally moderate Islamic republic.
Thierno Mbeugne, spokesman for the local imam association, said the head imam in the conservative Yoff district of Dakar had asked the youth to march on Sunday against what they considered as "acts of aggression against their faith".
Copy of The Watchtower = "act of aggression."
They were targeting the temple because they claim its members were proselytising, and the bar because it was selling alcohol.
He said the Islamic religious leaders did not endorse the violence, "but they do think that the youth were right" to destroy the church and the bar.
One of the rioters Mame Faye, 24, explained that the mob set upon the temple while churchgoers were praying inside before setting upon the bar.
Other witnesses, however, said that the hundreds of protesters burst into the establishment and began drinking the cans of beer. They then stripped the building, making off with the refrigerator, the air conditioners and the furniture. Then they set it on fire.
A doctor who spoke on the condition of anonymity said his clinic had treated 37 people, including several wounded police officers. One had a stab wound. The police used tear gas to disperse the crowd.
Mbeugne claimed that the head of the temple had been actively trying to convert locals. He said that under the cover of teaching English, she had started handing out crosses and Jehovah's Witness literature.
[source - retrieved from www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/senegal-imam-making-excuses-for-rampage-against-jehovahs-witnesses-kingdom-hall-caught-in-a-lie.html on 6/29/2011]
CONCLUSION
Islam only wants freedom of religion for itself and severely attempts to eliminate freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, for others.
They will resort to lies and violence to eliminate freedom of religion for others.
Lying as shown above is their major way of attempting to justify the unjustifiable.
Your Friend in Christ Iris9
INTRODUCTION:
Islam wants religious freedom for itself, but is NOT willing to extend it to others. Instead they direct their lust for violence against people knows for their peaceful ways and try to justify it by stating they are proselytizing; whereas, since Islam’s inception that is exactly what they have been doing.
For example, they murdered between 80 and 100 million in India in the Ninth through the Eleventh Century because they would NOT summit to their violent proselytizing by the sword. Here are some details on this proselytizing by the sword – convert or die.
FORCED CONVERSIONS IN INDIA:
K. S. Lai, probably 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]>>.
<<"Muhammad bin Qasim remained in Sind for a little more than three years." [source - Elliot's Appendix in E and D, I, p.439]>>. <<"After his recall not only the Arab power in Sind declined rapidly, but also most of the neo-converts returned to their former faith. Al Biladuri informs that 'in the days of Tamim, the Musalmans (had) retired from several parts of India... nor have they up to the present time (he wrote in the middle of the ninth century) advanced so far as in days gone by". When Hakim succeeded Tamim, "the people of India had returned to idolatry excepting those of Kassa, and the Musalmans had no place of security in which they could take refuge"." [source - Biladuri, op. cit., p.126, Also cf. Idrisi, E and D, I, Nuzhat-ul-Mushtaq]>>, <<"Sir Dension Ross also says that "after the recall of Muhammad bin Qasim, the Muslim retained some foothold on the west bank of the river Indus, but they were in such small numbers that they gradually merged into Hindu population. In Mansura (the Muslim capital of Sind) they actually adopted Hinduism." [ source - Dension Ross, Islam, p.18.]>>.
Conversions made at the point of the proverbial sword did not always hold as shown by, <<" In brief, because of the efforts of Muhammad bin Qasim and Caliph Umar II (C.E. 717-24) some Hindus in Sind had been converted to Islam, but by the time of Caliph Hashim (724-43), when Tamim was the governor of Sind, many of these Sindhi converts had returned to Hinduism. Those who continued to retain the new faith remained confined mostly to cities, particularly Multan. After Mahmud of Ghazni's attack on Multan their number seems to have gone up for, writing in the twelfth century, Al Idrisi says: "The greater part of the population (of Multan) is Musalman, so also the Judicial authority and civil administration." [ However, up to C.E. 1000 there were very few Muslims in Sind." [sources - Al Idrisi, p.83. and Elliot's Appendix, E and D, I, p.459]>>.
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,]>>.
CONTINUED FORCED CONVERSIONS AND STEALING OF HINDU LANDS:
<<"About the end of the twelfth century, Muhammad Ghori established Muslim rule in India on a durable basis. When he captured Bhatinda in 1190-91, he placed in its command Qazi Ziyauddin with a contingent of 1200 horse." [source - Camb. Hist. India, III, p.40.]>>; <<"In 1192 he invaded Hindustan with an army of 120,000. A good number of his soldiers would have been killed in the sanguinary battle with Prithviraj. A major portion of the remainder would have stayed on in India under Qutbuddin Aibak, who must not have been left empty handed in an alien and hostile country." [source - Hasan Nizami says that 'the Sultan then returned to Ghazna... but the whole army remained... at the mauza of Indarpat'. (Taj-ul-Maasir, E and D, II, p.216). Surely Muhammad Ghori would not have gone back all alone.]>>.
It get's even worse, <<" Aibak entered upon a series of conquests. He despatched Ikhtiyaruddin Bakhtiyar Khalji to the East and himself captured Kol (modern Aligarh) in 1194. There "those of the garrison who were wise and acute were converted to Islam, but those who stood by their ancient faith were slain with the sword" [source - Taj-ul-Maasir, E and D, II, p.216]>>; <<"In 1195 when Raja Bhim of Gujarat was attacked, 20,000 prisoners were captured," [source - Ferishtah, I, p.62.]>>; <<"and in 1202 at Kalinjar 50,000," [source - Hasan Nizami, p.231. Also Ferishtah, I, p.53. Habibullah, The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India, (Allahabad, 1961), pp.69 and 334 (n.26), has missed to cite Hasan Nizami's assertion that 50,000 were enslaved.]>>; <<"and we may be sure that (as in the case of Arab conquest of Sind) all those who were made slaves were compelled to embrace the religion of the masters to whom they were allotted." [source - Titus. Islam in India and Pakistan (Calcutta, 1959), p.31.]>>; <<"Ferishtah specifically mentions that on the capture of Kalinjar "fifty thousand Kaniz va ghulam, having suffered slavery, were rewarded with the honour of Islam" [source - Ferishtah, I, p.63.]>>; <<"According to Ferishtah three to four hundred thousand Khokhars and Tirahias were also converted to Islam by Muhammad Ghori." [source - Ferishtah, I, pp.59-60.]>>.
MASSACREE OF BUDDHIST BY VIOLENCE LUSTFUL MEMBERS OF ISLAM:
Genocide and massacres and stealing of others lands and forced conversions continued as Islam's SOP <<"Ikhtiyaruddin Bakhtiyar Khalji's military exploits in the east also resulted in conversions to Islam. About the end of the twelfth or the beginning of the thirteenth century," [source & comments by S.K. Lal - The exact date of the raid is difficult to determine. Ishwari Prasad, Medieval India (Allahabad, Fourth Impression, 1940), p.138 places it" probably in 1197", Wolseley Haig (C.H.I., III,pp.45-46) a little earlier than this, and Habibullah, op. cit., pp.70 and 84, n. 78 in 1202-03.]>>; <<"he marched into Bihar and attacked the University centres of Nalanda, Vikramshila and Uddandapur, erecting a fortress at the site of Uddandapur or Odantapuri." [source - Indian Antiquary, IV, pp.366-67.]>>; <<"The Buddhist monks in these places were massacred and the common people, deprived of their priests and teachers, turned some to Brahmanism and some to Islam. Buddhism did not die out immediately or completely in Bihar." [source - Fuhrer, The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur, pp.70-73.]>>; <<"But Bakhtiyar's raid on Bihar did deliver a shattering blow to Buddhism and its lost followers were gained mainly by Islam. Muslim sway extended from Varanasi through the strip of Shahabad, Patna, Monghyr and Bhagalpur district," [source - Habibullah, op. cit., p.147]>>.
<<" During the time of Qutbuddin Aibak a large number of places were attacked and prisoners captured for which actual figures or written evidence are available. Figures of any conversions during campaigns to Kanauj, Varanasi (where the Muslims occupied "a thousand" temples)." [source - Ferishtah, I, p. 58]>>; <<"Ajmer (attacked thrice), Gujarat, Bayana and Gwalior, and the campaigns carried out right up to Bengal are not available. However, since the notices of medieval chroniclers are usually full of exaggeration where figures of the defeated or captured non-Muslims are concerned, it would be reasonable to take into consideration only those which are specifically mentioned, any exaggeration being rounded off by those which are not." [source - Indian Muslims, Who Are They by K.S. Lal]>>.
LOOTING, MURDER, AND FORCED CONVERSIONS CONTINUED:
Islam continued with its same SOP, <<" With this conceptual framework let us examine the structure and organization of Muslim community in Hindustan in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Punjab saw the emergence of Muslims as a local community consequent to the invasions of Mahmud of Ghazni. But for a few immigrants in the shape of Ghaznavid officers and soldiers, the bulk of Muslims were converts from the indigenous Hindu population. Similar was the case in "pockets" of Sind, Gujarat, Bihar and Malabar. The process of their conversion was hurried. All of a sudden the invader appeared in a city or a region, and in the midst of loot and murder, a dazed, shocked and enslaved people were given the choice between Islam and death. Those who were converted were deprived of their scalp-lock or choti and, if they happened to be caste people, also their sacred thread." [source - Indian Muslims, Who Are They by K.S. Lal and his footnote comments were, "The exact date of the raid is difficult to determine. Ishwari Prasad, Medieval India (Allahabad, Fourth Impression, 1940), p.138 places it" probably in 1197", Wolseley Haig (C.H.I., III,pp.45-46) a little earlier than this, and Habibullah, op. cit., pp.70 and 84, n. 78 in 1202-03."]>>.
To this date Islam has NOT made amends, i.e., return of all looted goods and the descendents of ALL individuals whose ancestors were forcibly converted at the point of the proverbial sword. This would include most of the inhabitants of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and most Muslims in India and Kashmir.
RECENT ATTACK ON A PEACEFUL PEOPLE FOR PROSELYTIZING:
Islam has specialized since its inception with proselytizing by the sword and by lies and misrepresentation, but they use the charge of proselytizing by others as a reason to attack them. How absurd, since they have been proselytizing since the inception of Islam and often in a very violent manner which has been detailed using India as an example.
Here are several accounts including one that shows Muslim officials telling a lie.
FIRST, Just read a story elsewhere about a mob of Muslim youths in Senegal that attacked a Jehovah’s Witnesses hall and a bar. A spokesman justified the attack by saying, in part, that someone from the JW hall was handing out crosses.
It’s nice when they blunder into such a provable lie. JW’s don’t believe Christ was crucified on a cross, and consider it to be a pagan symbol. [source - retrieved from www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2740362/posts on 6/29/2011]
Note, JW’s do NOT use crosses so the Muslim spokesman told a blatant lie to justify wrong.
SECOND, Protesters burn church, destroy bar in Senegal
HUNDREDS of Muslim protesters descended on a Jehovah's Witness temple and a bar in a conservative Muslim neighbourhood of the Senegalese capital, setting the buildings on fire.
It was a rare instance of religious extremism in this normally moderate Islamic republic.
Thierno Mbeugne, spokesman for the local imam association, said the head imam in the conservative Yoff district of Dakar had asked the youth to march on Sunday against what they considered as "acts of aggression against their faith".
They were targeting the temple because they claim its members were proselytising, and the bar because it was selling alcohol.
…
One of the rioters Mame Faye, 24, explained that the mob set upon the temple while churchgoers were praying inside before setting upon the bar.
Other witnesses, however, said that the hundreds of protesters burst into the establishment and began drinking the cans of beer. They then stripped the building, making off with the refrigerator, the air conditioners and the furniture. Then they set it on fire.
A doctor who spoke on the condition of anonymity said his clinic had treated 37 people, including several wounded police officers. One had a stab wound. The police used tear gas to disperse the crowd.
Mbeugne claimed that the head of the temple had been actively trying to convert locals. He said that under the cover of teaching English, she had started handing out crosses and Jehovah's Witness literature. [source - retrieved from www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/protesters-burn-church-destroy-bar-in-senegal/story-e6frf7k6-1226082674510 on 6/29/2011]
THIRD, Senegal: Spokesman for imams' association caught in a lie while making excuses for rampage against Jehovah's Witnesses' Kingdom Hall
Thierno Mbeugne claimed the Jehovah's Witnesses were handing out not only literature, but crosses. One small problem: one prominent teaching of the religion is that Jesus died hanging from a vertical, pole-like structure, and not a cross in its common understanding as a lowercase "t" shape.
So, what were the Jehovah's Witnesses handing out to Senegalese Muslims, then? Dowels? No, rather, this appears to be a lie expressly made up to incite the rampage, whether the imam got it on hearsay, or made it up himself. An update on this story. "Protesters burn church, destroy bar in Senegal," from the Associated Press, June 26 (thanks to Opinionated for the story, and flagging the cross claim):
Hundreds of Muslim protesters descended on a Jehovah's Witness temple and a bar in a conservative Muslim neighbourhood of the Senegalese capital, setting the buildings on fire.
It was a rare instance of religious extremism in this normally moderate Islamic republic.
Thierno Mbeugne, spokesman for the local imam association, said the head imam in the conservative Yoff district of Dakar had asked the youth to march on Sunday against what they considered as "acts of aggression against their faith".
Copy of The Watchtower = "act of aggression."
They were targeting the temple because they claim its members were proselytising, and the bar because it was selling alcohol.
He said the Islamic religious leaders did not endorse the violence, "but they do think that the youth were right" to destroy the church and the bar.
One of the rioters Mame Faye, 24, explained that the mob set upon the temple while churchgoers were praying inside before setting upon the bar.
Other witnesses, however, said that the hundreds of protesters burst into the establishment and began drinking the cans of beer. They then stripped the building, making off with the refrigerator, the air conditioners and the furniture. Then they set it on fire.
A doctor who spoke on the condition of anonymity said his clinic had treated 37 people, including several wounded police officers. One had a stab wound. The police used tear gas to disperse the crowd.
Mbeugne claimed that the head of the temple had been actively trying to convert locals. He said that under the cover of teaching English, she had started handing out crosses and Jehovah's Witness literature.
[source - retrieved from www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/senegal-imam-making-excuses-for-rampage-against-jehovahs-witnesses-kingdom-hall-caught-in-a-lie.html on 6/29/2011]
CONCLUSION
Islam only wants freedom of religion for itself and severely attempts to eliminate freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, for others.
They will resort to lies and violence to eliminate freedom of religion for others.
Lying as shown above is their major way of attempting to justify the unjustifiable.
Your Friend in Christ Iris9