Does Islam Need the Sword to Spread?

[chazz]

The Hindu side of the story is quite incomplete in this regard. Let it be understood that Islam was spread in India via initial trade routes. Hindu rulers began persecuting Muslims which forced Muslim rulers to attack India therewith. Still none were forced to convert as evidenced by the fact that a Hindu majority remained in pre-partition India during the Muslim rule over them.

In fact Hindus were active advisors in the councils of these kings. In any case I would not vouchsafe for the rulers who invaded India as I do not believe they were Divinely Guided in their conquests.

Only in the first 30 years after the death of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) were Muslims ruled by Divine Caliphate.

I believe that the people of India were trading by land and sea long before Islam, and visited Mecca where the kabba was a place for them to stop and worship some of there gods.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

you should provide real sources to prove there were serious killings of muslims by hindu rulers.

Valid point. I guess I should. Let's see ... Hindus believed in and ruled by a caste system. Do I need to provide sources for that too? Muslims, according to that system, were the lowers of the low. Less than Shoodar. Quite logical actually.

you are so brilliant !! mughals only conquered half of india, other half is to be excluded. During partition atleast 1/3 of the india's land area was given to the muslims, means 1/3 of indias population were muslims. So in those places where mughals ruled it should be the muslims the majority.

Assuming there were no Hindus in the Mughal part of India.

Persecution of Hindus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When there is enough records to prove forced conversions by muslims, attempting to disprove it using population statistics is a juvenile thing to do.

That's a fair point. So yeah I don't vouchsafe for Muslim rulers. Some of them did pretty badly. Don't know about the forced conversions though.

anyway, the syllabus taught in pakistan is just incredible !! They have explanation for murdering, raping, looting and etc.

I don't respect much the syllabus of Pakistan either so ...

It is well known to everyone that king aurangazeb in his final days felt very bad about himself for he persecuted a lot of hindus. The manner mulsims treat minorities in pakistan in present days is enough to prove those mughal periods were bloody.

Muslims don't follow Islam the way they treat minorities. Hindus followed their caste system in their treatment of Muslims. Fortunately Hindus in India don't follow that system today and for that I give them credit.

silly reasoning, Britishers ruled india having indians as soldiers and officers, would this mean that they were peaceful to indians?

Yes ... quite peaceful. I support the British rule in India in that they were quite just rulers who let people practice their religion.

And it all started with this 'holy prophet'.

Indeed it did. Well no disagreement there though your tone is sarcastic while mine is more matter-of-fact.

So basically you are saying Mughal emperors persecuted. You might be right but I don't specialize in that area of research. I do believe, however, that the persecution of Muslims by Hindu rulers due to their belief in castes was a reason for Muslim conquests in India.

You go into Pakistan vs India in which I really have no interest in this post. We can discuss that some other time. But Muslims today don't follow Islam while Hindus don't follow Hinduism. Thus Muslims have adopted a sort of a caste system in Islam that breeds terrorism while Hindus in India practice democracy.