| Author | Message | ||
     Telugu_times Moderator Username: Telugu_times Post Number: 22071 Registered: 02-2008 Rating: N/A |
ivannee wrong anukuntaa dhoordarshan lo sooyinchina tippu sultan was nice and good | ||
| Ashton Hero Username: Ashton Post Number: 11289 Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 69.175.79.169 Rating: N/A |
So,Killing the innocent people in the name of Religion is "Islam". Anybody who supports Islam or muzzies is an idiot. | ||
| Ashton Hero Username: Ashton Post Number: 11288 Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 69.175.79.169 Rating: N/A |
In regard to forced conversion to Islam, Sir Thomas Arnold writes : For India has often been picked out as a typical instance of a county in which Islam owes its existence and continuance in existence to the settlement in it of foreign, conquering Muhammadan races, who have transmitted their faith to their descendants, and only succeeded in spreading it beyond their own circle by means of persecution and forced conversions. Thus the missionary spirit of Islam is supposed to show itself in is true light in the brutal massacres of Brahmans by Mahmud of Ghazni, in the persecutions of Aurangzeb, the forcible circumcisions effected by Haydar Ali, Tipu Sultan and the like. Professor Arnold goes on to say : Tipu Sultan is probably the Muhammadan monarch who most systematically engaged in the work of forcible conversion. In 1788 he issued the following proclamation to the Hindus of Malabar : I have made repeated vows to honour the whole of you with Islam and to march all the chief persons to the seat of Government; that every being in the district without distinction should be honoured with Islam, that the houses of such as fled to avoid that honour should be burned, that they should be traced to their lurking places, and that all means of truth and falsehood, force or fraud should be employed to effect their universal conversion." Thousands of Hindus were accordingly circumcised and made to eat beef. | ||
| Gandhiguevara Hero Username: Gandhiguevara Post Number: 15879 Registered: 10-2009 Posted From: 75.55.199.5 Rating: N/A |
calling Kamal and VJAVasi | ||
| Ashton Hero Username: Ashton Post Number: 11287 Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 69.175.79.169 Rating: N/A |
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/TQBFHTDDGV8CBQ6F9 Will Durant, the famous historian summed it up like this: "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within." Koenraad Elst , the german historian writes in "Negation in India" The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on. As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention that the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate).. But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. What some call the Muslim period in Indian history, was in reality a continuous war of occupiers against resisters, in which the Muslim rulers were finally defeated in the 18th century. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible. Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them. Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not. On these conditions some of the higher Hindu castes could be found willing to collaborate, so that a more or less stable polity could be set up. Even then, the collaboration of the Rajputs with the Moghul rulers, or of the Kayasthas with the Nawab dynasty, one became a smooth arrangement when enlightened rulers like Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these humiliating conditions and the jizya tax. It is because of Hanifite law that many Muslim rulers in India considered themselves exempted from the duty to continue the genocide on the Hindus (self-exemption for which they were persistently reprimanded by their mullahs). Moreover, the Turkish and Afghan invaders also fought each other, so they often had to ally themselves with accursed unbelievers against fellow Muslims. After the conquests, Islamic occupation gradually lost its character of a total campaign to destroy the Pagans. Many Muslim rulers preferred to enjoy the revenue from stable and prosperous kingdoms, and were content to extract the jizya tax, and to limit their conversion effort to material incentives and support to the missionary campaigns of sufis and mullahs (in fact, for less zealous rulers, the jizya was an incentive to discourage conversions, as these would mean a loss of revenue). |
