• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Islam will dominate!

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I must agree. One of the most scary things about Islam is how casually Muslim people end up disregarding the very existence of non-Muslims without even realizing it.

The doctrinal pressure is such that it seems that one can't very well be a Muslim without believing that everyone else ought to eventually be converted or at the very least strongly rejected.

That is wrong, wrong, wrong.
 

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
The Mughals ruled India by force and war for centuries. I'm not holding this up as a microcosm of the entirety of Islam; but it is an undeniable fact that Islam has spread its message partially through force in the past. And well, Islam did pretty much go through the Iranian plateu and into Africa trying to convert people. Not always through force, far from it, but they did try and convert people a lot of the time.

Response: Islam was not spread by force, nor can you provide proof demonstrating otherwise.
 

DeitySlayer

President of Chindia
Then your arguments stands nullified because the shariah has always been applied in Egypt since the conquest..and she was only secularized recently after the english colonialism

The shariah doesn't prevent any other religion to practice....non muslims pay jizya because unlike muslims ,they don't pay zakat and are not obliged to join the army at the time of war ,whil muslims are obliged to defend them and their property as citizens in the islamic state

Presently it is a secular state, so the argument is not nullified.

I don't understand

"In Saudi Arabia, when a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the prescribed blood money rates are as follows[8]:
  • 100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
  • 50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
  • 50,000 riyals if a Christian man
  • 25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
  • 6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
  • 3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman."
The apostasy argument is controversial and many scholars think it's only punishable when it's associated with treason..which is what i tend to agree with

Then why is it not applied as such? Again I state, the moderate, rational interpretation of Islam is sadly in the minority.
 

nameless

The Creator
well ,i don't know about india....but yes ,muslims used the sword...they used the sword when they came to my country...the fought against the roman empire which was dominant over Egypt then
but they didn't convert people by the sword

they used the sword to be allowed to preach freely....and then they let the people free wether to accept the religion or not

Do you want to say Islam reach its goals by the sword because muslims used the sword to pave the road infront of their dawah ?...so be it....i see no problem with this.....as long as the sword was not used to force anyone to convert or to force a ruling system over people....the truth is that it was used to remove a tyranny that existed already ...a tyranny that prevented people from making their choice regarding islam

so the same sword should be taken against few muslim majority nations today, isnt it? in malaysia people are not allowed to change their faith, and almost same in pakistan non-muslims are made muslims after torturing severly. After the independence, 15 % of population of pakistan where hindus, now it is only 2%.... what is your opinion? would you mind if some non-islamic country invades these countries to make people free to chose new faith?
 
Last edited:

DeitySlayer

President of Chindia
Response: Islam was not spread by force, nor can you provide proof demonstrating otherwise.

Wars against the Sikhs in the Punjabs, clear example. Hard to get more obvious than that. The Sikh order, the Khalsa, had arisen through peace, without war, without fighting; there were people who wanted to live under the laws of the Guru. The Mughals repeatedly sent forces against them to destroy this rival ideology; armies, not preachers. The Sikhs did not attack the Mughals first. All four sons of the last Guru were killed by the Mughals, including one under ten, Guru Tegh Badhur was killed by Wazir Khan under the orders of the Emperor Aurangzeb, and Aurangzeb himself broke an oath he swore on the Qu'ran that he would not attempt to kill the Guru at Anandpur.
 

maro

muslimah
True people want to dominate - but they want to dominate using Islam. Islam in itself is not an entity so it can't have feelings or desires or anything. :)

Islam is an ideology..it can't have feelings..but it can have goals and objectives....and as far as i can tell ,domination ,in the political sense of the word , is not one of them
Islam wants domination over the hearts..that's its kingdom...it real power

the fact that some paranoind fanatics want political domianace in the name of islam is not to be blamed on it

Those who do believe it, though, usually use Islamic eschatology to say why they think this: the whole "Isa will return to kill the Dajjal, he will break the cross and kill the swine" etc
I see your point
but this will happen at the end of days ,just before the judgment day... which unfortuantely doesn't satisfy the dominantion fanatsies of some people....the other thing is that it's a prophecy...not a goal for muslims to acheive

to them says that one day Islam will dominate theologically, and by extension, the world will be governed by shari'a. I know not all Muslims accept Isa's return and all that, though - and those who enact upon it use verses from the Qur'an to justify warfare, ignoring other verses to let those believe as they want.
yes ,i know those argumants exist...but it's not attributed to "those who belive in it "

I am among those who believe in it ,wallahy...and i believe in the return of jesus(pbuh) as well...but i see no need for the shariah to dominate by warfare...and i find this thinking scarey and paranoid

This is a problem with "This is the only way to God, if you don't believe you burn", in my view - exclusivity can bring hostility because of love; you care for someone, so you don't want them to burn in hell, etc.
this is the only way to God...yes....if you don't belive you burn...i can't say that...i let the judgment for Allah

I care for non muslims ,odion...and that's why i wish all people to be blessed by this religion...but i have no authority over others...i have nothing but the dawah and trying to be a good muslim ,myself
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I care for non muslims ,odion...and that's why i wish all people to be blessed by this religion...but i have no authority over others...i have nothing but the dawah and trying to be a good muslim ,myself

I see that you mean well. You are, nevertheless, dangerously wrong in assuming that the best for all people is to adopt Islam. Or, for that matter, to believe in God.

That is just not so. And putting Islam over everything else can lead to terrible injustices. And it did and it does, to this day.

I realize that this must sound completely illogical to most Muslims. But it is the truth nonetheless. Just because you've learned from birth that people must accept God and Islam for their own good does not make it so.
 

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
Wars against the Sikhs in the Punjabs, clear example. Hard to get more obvious than that. The Sikh order, the Khalsa, had arisen through peace, without war, without fighting; there were people who wanted to live under the laws of the Guru. The Mughals repeatedly sent forces against them to destroy this rival ideology; armies, not preachers. The Sikhs did not attack the Mughals first. All four sons of the last Guru were killed by the Mughals, including one under ten, Guru Tegh Badhur was killed by Wazir Khan under the orders of the Emperor Aurangzeb, and Aurangzeb himself broke an oath he swore on the Qu'ran that he would not attempt to kill the Guru at Anandpur.

Response: Another statement, with no proof. The muslims ruled India for a thousand years. Clearly, such a rule demonstrates that they have the authority to wipeout all non-muslims in and around India. The fact that this never took place is proof that muslims did not rule by force.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Response: Another statement, with no proof. The muslims ruled India for a thousand years. Clearly, such a rule demonstrates that they have the authority to wipeout all non-muslims in and around India. The fact that this never took place is proof that muslims did not rule by force.

Incorrect. It is not only possible to rule by force without killing the discontents, but it has happened many times in History, in many different cultures, both in the past and in the present. There is no need to kill all dissidents, fear alone will keep most of them quiet.
 

DeitySlayer

President of Chindia
Response: Another statement, with no proof. The muslims ruled India for a thousand years. Clearly, such a rule demonstrates that they have the authority to wipeout all non-muslims in and around India. The fact that this never took place is proof that muslims did not rule by force.

The Mughal Empire was only fully established in 1600. Prior to this, Islam only had small pockets of control in the Northern areas and several coastal regions such as Kerala. Closer to 150 years. And so, why did Muslims wage war upon the Sikh nation in the Punjab if they were not ruling by force? The Sikhs never attacked the Mughals first.

In 1699, on Aurangzeb's orders, the Mughal governor of Sarhind sorrounded the fort of Anandpur in Punjab, which was occupied by the last human teacher (Guru) of the Sikhs, Guru Gobind Singh. On the assurance of Aurganzeb that only the fort was required, Guru Gobind Singh evacuated the fort but Mughal forces chased him. They captured and executed his two young sons (7 and 9 years old) named Zorawar Singh and Fateh Singh while his elder sons (15 and 17 years old) named Jujhar Singh and Ajit singh fell fighting Mughals at Chamkaur (close to Anandpur). Sikhs were hunted around this area and price was levied on the heads of the Sikhs.

This is recorded in Muslim as well as Sikh texts.

Aurangzeb's relentless imposition of Sharia led to the alienation of the Sikhs, Marathas, Shi'ite Muslims, Pashtuns, and the Rajputs. After his death, the stable Empire crumbled as all these groups declared secession from the Mughal Empire.

No force? Bollocks.
 

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
Incorrect. It is not only possible to rule by force without killing the discontents, but it has happened many times in History, in many different cultures, both in the past and in the present. There is no need to kill all dissidents, fear alone will keep most of them quiet.

Response: I never stated that one couldn't. Thus your point has no relevance. The point is that if muslims were determined to rule by force, they would have surely expanded their rule over India in the thousand years that they were in power.
 
Last edited:

DeitySlayer

President of Chindia
Response: I never stated that one couldn't. Thus your point has ni relevance. The point is that if muslims were determined to rule by force, they would have surely expanded their rulecover India in the thousand years that they were in power.

Are you serious? They owned nearly the whole subcontinent by the time of Aurangzeb. How much more expansion do you want? Invade China as well?
 

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
The Mughal Empire was only fully established in 1600. Prior to this, Islam only had small pockets of control in the Northern areas and several coastal regions such as Kerala. Closer to 150 years. And so, why did Muslims wage war upon the Sikh nation in the Punjab if they were not ruling by force? The Sikhs never attacked the Mughals first.

In 1699, on Aurangzeb's orders, the Mughal governor of Sarhind sorrounded the fort of Anandpur in Punjab, which was occupied by the last human teacher (Guru) of the Sikhs, Guru Gobind Singh. On the assurance of Aurganzeb that only the fort was required, Guru Gobind Singh evacuated the fort but Mughal forces chased him. They captured and executed his two young sons (7 and 9 years old) named Zorawar Singh and Fateh Singh while his elder sons (15 and 17 years old) named Jujhar Singh and Ajit singh fell fighting Mughals at Chamkaur (close to Anandpur). Sikhs were hunted around this area and price was levied on the heads of the Sikhs.

This is recorded in Muslim as well as Sikh texts.

Aurangzeb's relentless imposition of Sharia led to the alienation of the Sikhs, Marathas, Shi'ite Muslims, Pashtuns, and the Rajputs. After his death, the stable Empire crumbled as all these groups declared secession from the Mughal Empire.

No force? Bollocks.

Response: The muslim empire was fully established in the 1600's? Another statement. Where's the proof? Saying so is not proof that it is so. Based on your own words, no force.
 

nameless

The Creator
Response: I've been watching the thread since the begin. Not a shred of proof showing that islam ruled by force.

Mughals ruled india for about 700 years, tipu was one among them,Tipu sultan is known to be most decent compared to other mughals.
Plus i dont know if uve learned this part of indian history but id like to ask if u know about the great emperor Akbar and Tipu Sultan.As far as i know ,they were liked by both Muslims and Hindus.So not all Muslim Kings were butchers,rapists and terrorists were they?
Peace!



Tipu Sultan

Tipu's aggression in south India

Tipu ordered the destruction of 27 Catholic churches, all beautifully carved with statues depicting various saints. Among them included the Church of Nossa Senhora de Rosario Milagres at Mangalore, Fr Miranda's Seminary at Monte Mariano, Church of Jesu Marie Jose at Omzoor, Chapel at Bolar, Church of Merces at Ullal, Imaculata Conceiciao at Mulki, San Jose at Perar, Nossa Senhora dos Remedios at Kirem, Sao Lawrence at Karkal, Rosario at Barkur, Immaculata Conceciao at Baidnur.[34] All were razed to the ground, with the exception of the The Church of Holy Cross at Hospet,owing to the friendly offices of the Chauta Raja of Moodbidri.[38]
According to Thomas Munro, a Scottish soldier and the first collector of Canara, around 60,000 of them,[39] nearly 92 percent of the entire Mangalorean Catholic community, were captured, only 7,000 escaped. Francis Buchanan gives the numbers as 70,000 captured, from a population of 80,000, with 10,000 escaping. They were forced to climb nearly 4,000 feet (1,200 m) through the jungles of the Western Ghat mountain ranges. It was 210 miles (340 km) from Mangalore to Seringapatam, and the journey took six weeks. According to British Government records, 20,000 of them died on the march to Seringapatam. According to James Scurry, a British officer, who was held captive along with Mangalorean Catholics, 30,000 of them were forcibly converted to Islam. The young women and girls were forcibly made wives of the Muslims living there.[40] The young men who offered resistance were disfigured by cutting their noses, upper lips, and ears.[41] According to Mr. Silva of Gangolim, a survivor of the captivity, if a person who had escaped from Seringapatam was found, the punishment under the orders of Tipu was the cutting off of the ears, nose, the feet and one hand.[42]
The Archbishop of Goa wrote in 1800, "It is notoriously known in all Asia and all other parts of the globe of the oppression and sufferings experienced by the Christians in the Dominion of the King of Kanara, during the usurpation of that country by Tipu Sultan from an implacable hatred he had against them who professed Christianity."[34]

Tipu Sultan's invasion of the Malabar had an adverse impact on the Syrian Malabar Nasrani community of the Malabar coast. Many churches in the Malabar and Cochin were damaged. The old Syrian Nasrani seminary at Angamaly which had been the center of Catholic religious education for several centuries was razed to the ground by Tipu's soldiers. A lot of centuries old religious manuscripts were lost forever.[43] The church was later relocated to Kottayam where it still exists. The Mor Sabor church at Akaparambu and the Martha Mariam Church attached to the seminary were destroyed as well. Tipu's army set fire to the church at Palayoor and attacked the Ollur Church in 1790. Furthernmore, the Arthat church and the Ambazhakkad seminary was also destroyed. Over the course of this invasion, many Syrian Malabar Nasrani were killed or forcibly converted to Islam. Most of the coconut, arecanut, pepper and cashew plantations held by the Syrian Malabar farmers were also indiscriminately destroyed by the invading army. As a result, when Tipu's army invaded Guruvayur and adjacent areas, the Syrian Christian community fled Calicut and small towns like Arthat to new centres like Kunnamkulam, Chalakudi, Ennakadu, Cheppadu, Kannankode, Mavelikkara, etc. where there were already Christians. They were given refuge by Sakthan Tamburan (Hindu prince), the ruler of Cochin and Karthika Thirunal, the ruler of Travancore, who gave them lands, plantations and encouraged their businesses. Colonel Macqulay, the British resident of Travancore also helped them.[43]
Tipu's persecution of Christians even extended to captured British soldiers. For instance, there were a significant amount of forced conversions of British captives between 1780 and 1784. Following their disastrous defeat at the battle of Pollilur, 7,000 British men along with an unknown number of women were held captive by Tipu in the fortress of Seringapatnam. Of these, over 300 were circumcised and given Muslim names and clothes and several British regimental drummer boys were made to wear ghagra cholis and entertain the court as nautch girls or dancing girls. After the 10 year long captivity ended, James Scurry, one of those prisoners, recounted that he had forgotten how to sit in a chair and use a knife and fork. His English was broken and stilted, having lost all his vernacular idiom. His skin had darkened to the swarthy complexion of negroes, and moreover, he had developed an aversion to wearing European clothes.[44]
During the surrender of the Mangalore fort which was delivered in an armistice by the British and their subsequent withdrawal, all the Mestizos and remaining non-British foreigners were killed, together with 5,600 Mangalorean Catholics.

link
you should consult an eye doctor.
 
Last edited:

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
Are you serious? They owned nearly the whole subcontinent by the time of Aurangzeb. How much more expansion do you want? Invade China as well?

Response: That is for you to answer. For it is your faulty claim that muslims ruled by force. After stating that they control the whole subcontinent, they had the ability ti conquer more. But they didn't. Thus your own words demonstrate that the muslims never ruled by force.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Response: I never stated that one couldn't. Thus your point has ni relevance. The point is that if muslims were determined to rule by force, they would have surely expanded their rulecover India in the thousand years that they were in power.

Nonsense. You're not only challenging historical fact without even attempting to present evidence; you're also implying that Muslims don't ever face such things as shortages on military manpower.

I can't help but wonder if you're not taking for granted that Islam, once settled, is destined to grow in power and influence with no decline whatsoever. Except, I suppose, when the tools of the Enemy of God manifest themselves or some such.

It is insulting of mine towards you to believe that you have such a mentality. So please help me in doubting that if you can.
 

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
Mughals ruled india for about 700 years, tipu was one among them,Tipu sultan is known to be most decent compared to other mughals.




Tipu Sultan

Tipu's aggression in south India

Tipu ordered the destruction of 27 Catholic churches, all beautifully carved with statues depicting various saints. Among them included the Church of Nossa Senhora de Rosario Milagres at Mangalore, Fr Miranda's Seminary at Monte Mariano, Church of Jesu Marie Jose at Omzoor, Chapel at Bolar, Church of Merces at Ullal, Imaculata Conceiciao at Mulki, San Jose at Perar, Nossa Senhora dos Remedios at Kirem, Sao Lawrence at Karkal, Rosario at Barkur, Immaculata Conceciao at Baidnur.[34] All were razed to the ground, with the exception of the The Church of Holy Cross at Hospet,owing to the friendly offices of the Chauta Raja of Moodbidri.[38]
According to Thomas Munro, a Scottish soldier and the first collector of Canara, around 60,000 of them,[39] nearly 92 percent of the entire Mangalorean Catholic community, were captured, only 7,000 escaped. Francis Buchanan gives the numbers as 70,000 captured, from a population of 80,000, with 10,000 escaping. They were forced to climb nearly 4,000 feet (1,200 m) through the jungles of the Western Ghat mountain ranges. It was 210 miles (340 km) from Mangalore to Seringapatam, and the journey took six weeks. According to British Government records, 20,000 of them died on the march to Seringapatam. According to James Scurry, a British officer, who was held captive along with Mangalorean Catholics, 30,000 of them were forcibly converted to Islam. The young women and girls were forcibly made wives of the Muslims living there.[40] The young men who offered resistance were disfigured by cutting their noses, upper lips, and ears.[41] According to Mr. Silva of Gangolim, a survivor of the captivity, if a person who had escaped from Seringapatam was found, the punishment under the orders of Tipu was the cutting off of the ears, nose, the feet and one hand.[42]
The Archbishop of Goa wrote in 1800, "It is notoriously known in all Asia and all other parts of the globe of the oppression and sufferings experienced by the Christians in the Dominion of the King of Kanara, during the usurpation of that country by Tipu Sultan from an implacable hatred he had against them who professed Christianity."[34]

Tipu Sultan's invasion of the Malabar had an adverse impact on the Syrian Malabar Nasrani community of the Malabar coast. Many churches in the Malabar and Cochin were damaged. The old Syrian Nasrani seminary at Angamaly which had been the center of Catholic religious education for several centuries was razed to the ground by Tipu's soldiers. A lot of centuries old religious manuscripts were lost forever.[43] The church was later relocated to Kottayam where it still exists. The Mor Sabor church at Akaparambu and the Martha Mariam Church attached to the seminary were destroyed as well. Tipu's army set fire to the church at Palayoor and attacked the Ollur Church in 1790. Furthernmore, the Arthat church and the Ambazhakkad seminary was also destroyed. Over the course of this invasion, many Syrian Malabar Nasrani were killed or forcibly converted to Islam. Most of the coconut, arecanut, pepper and cashew plantations held by the Syrian Malabar farmers were also indiscriminately destroyed by the invading army. As a result, when Tipu's army invaded Guruvayur and adjacent areas, the Syrian Christian community fled Calicut and small towns like Arthat to new centres like Kunnamkulam, Chalakudi, Ennakadu, Cheppadu, Kannankode, Mavelikkara, etc. where there were already Christians. They were given refuge by Sakthan Tamburan (Hindu prince), the ruler of Cochin and Karthika Thirunal, the ruler of Travancore, who gave them lands, plantations and encouraged their businesses. Colonel Macqulay, the British resident of Travancore also helped them.[43]
Tipu's persecution of Christians even extended to captured British soldiers. For instance, there were a significant amount of forced conversions of British captives between 1780 and 1784. Following their disastrous defeat at the battle of Pollilur, 7,000 British men along with an unknown number of women were held captive by Tipu in the fortress of Seringapatnam. Of these, over 300 were circumcised and given Muslim names and clothes and several British regimental drummer boys were made to wear ghagra cholis and entertain the court as nautch girls or dancing girls. After the 10 year long captivity ended, James Scurry, one of those prisoners, recounted that he had forgotten how to sit in a chair and use a knife and fork. His English was broken and stilted, having lost all his vernacular idiom. His skin had darkened to the swarthy complexion of negroes, and moreover, he had developed an aversion to wearing European clothes.[44]
During the surrender of the Mangalore fort which was delivered in an armistice by the British and their subsequent withdrawal, all the Mestizos and remaining non-British foreigners were killed, together with 5,600 Mangalorean Catholics.

link
you should consult an eye doctor.

Response: So basically, a story is true, because it says it's true. O.K. Then according to your logic, Islam is the perfect religion. Why? "This day have I perfected your religion..." surah 5:3, because the qur'an says so.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Response: So basically, a story is true, because it says it's true. O.K. Then according to your logic, Islam is the perfect religion. Why? "This day have I perfected your religion..." surah 5:3, because the qur'an says so.

Just shut up if you have no actual evidence against what Nameless has presented.
 
Top