Islam will dominate!

[Fatihah]

We will have to wait until such a debunking occurs, I guess. Do you happen to know of some thread were that might be happening, perhaps?

BTW - are you even a Muslim? You sound much like a troll wanting to tarnish Muslim reputation would be.

Response: It's amazing how the defeated react. We wonder what you will say next.

 

[LuisDantas]

"Defeated"? If you want to think so, go on. Now what about answering some questions?

 

[Fatihah]

What would they think of you as a Muslim then?

Response: Surely not what they think of you as a non-muslim.

 

[Fatihah]

"Defeated"? If you want to think so, go on. Now what about answering some questions?

Response: What about it?

 

[Octavia156]

[youtube]mjq5Vi9Gc68[/youtube]
YouTube - Islam - What the West Needs to Know 1

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: Again, your alleged link showing three different kingdoms in India does not come up. Perhaps you can name the alleged three.

Guriara Pratiharas (North of Inda, parts of Pakistan)
Rashtrakutas (West Coast and parts of Central)
Palas (centralized around the Ganges watershed)

The East and far South are tribal.

Again, the Mughals conquering the entirety of the subcontinent is grossly disproportionate to the alleged 'crime' of capturing sailors (for which you are unable to provide a reference) and includes the subjugation of those who were not implicit in the 'crime'.

 

[YmirGF]

Again, the Mughals conquering the entirety of the subcontinent is grossly disproportionate to the alleged 'crime' of capturing sailors (for which you are unable to provide a reference) and includes the subjugation of those who were not implicit in the 'crime'.

Aside from which, Muhammad bin Qasim's invasion was the third such invasion. Evidently he learned from the failure of his predecessors. Even his conquest was one that was marked by much bloodshed -- all on the pretext of freeing sailors, wives and children from pirates. Um, what is the definition of a pirate, again? Pirates don't normally act in concert with any form of government, so launching an invasion against their helpless (or incompetent) governments is a pretty thin pretext, at best. In my view it was merely a license to kill for a people who needed little provocation.

 

[Fatihah]

Guriara Pratiharas (North of Inda, parts of Pakistan)
Rashtrakutas (West Coast and parts of Central)
Palas (centralized around the Ganges watershed)

The East and far South are tribal.

Again, the Mughals conquering the entirety of the subcontinent is grossly disproportionate to the alleged 'crime' of capturing sailors (for which you are unable to provide a reference) and includes the subjugation of those who were not implicit in the 'crime'.

Response: I never stated that it was the Mughals who conquered the subcontinent due to the capture of sailors, thus once again, your point has no validity.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: I never stated that it was the "Mughals" who conquered the subcontinent due to the capturecof sailors, thus once again, your point has no relevance.

Whichever Muslim group you ascribe this conquest to, then. The point remains the same, because it was undeniably an Islamic dynasty that enacted the conquest. Just stop, OK, you're embarassing Islam to a ridiculous degree with your inflammatory and ill-informed remarks. Your denial of forceful Islamic conquest of the subcontinent is on par with Holocaust denial. It was real, it was horrific and it happened. It doesn't make all Muslims evil, just as the Holocaust does not make all Germans evil, but it was part of history, and to deny it is disgusting and inhuman. By your idiocy, you slander and shame and disrespect the memories of all those who died under the conquests and all those who died trying to free India from the tyranny of the Mughal Empire.

 

[Badran]

Stubborness and denial are quite simple enough for me to recognize, if that is your worry. I don't respect them much, but that is another matter entirely.

Now, where are .lava and Badran again? It will be good to talk with sane Muslims for a while.

Well, this thread has not failed my expectations. It simply began as an insult to any person by it's provoking suggestions, and the unbelievable denial that some Muslims through history have done terrible things. So you can't really reach any positive outcome by such a discussion. It only forced others to bring up bad things done by Muslims.

Although i have not studied the history of Islamic wars all that well, I would say like some Muslims here have said earlier, that any one of these wars including the Indian war, isn't at all okay unless there was a justification. So, if there isn't any, or if nobody has provided the justification for such wars yet, then obviously there is not much to be said, the outcome is obvious.

 

[Fatihah]

Whichever Muslim group you ascribe this conquest to, then. The point remains the same, because it was undeniably an Islamic dynasty that enacted the conquest. Just stop, OK, you're embarassing Islam to a ridiculous degree with your inflammatory and ill-informed remarks. Your denial of forceful Islamic conquest of the subcontinent is on par with Holocaust denial. It was real, it was horrific and it happened. It doesn't make all Muslims evil, just as the Holocaust does not make all Germans evil, but it was part of history, and to deny it is disgusting and inhuman. By your idiocy, you slander and shame and disrespect the memories of all those who died under the conquests and all those who died trying to free India from the tyranny of the Mughal Empire.

Response: You mean stop debunking your ill-advised absurdities? Sorry. No can do. You've tried to show that islam ruled by force and have utterly failed. You can't even get your alleged facts right. Your absurdity alone demonstrates that the embarrassment is coming from your side, not the other way around. But do keep it up. For your words alone will have others running to embrace islam after reading your posts.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Thank you, Badran. Fatihah, take note. This is what a sane Muslim sounds like.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: You mean stop debunking your ill-advised absurdities? Sorry. No can do. You've tried to show that islam ruled by force and have utterly failed. You can't even get your alleged facts right. Your absurdity alone demonstrates that the embarrassment is coming from your side, not the other way around. But do keep it up. For your words alone will have others running to embrace islam after reading your posts.

1) What 'alleged facts'? I know I made a mistake in saying it was the Mughals who invaded the original three kingdoms, but it was an Islamic conquest nontheless, so the point still stands.

2) I showed Islam ruled by force; violent supression of the Sikhs being a prime example. Tens of battles in the Punjab, recorded by both Islamic and Sikh scholars.

3) We all know that Islam is not evil, but you seem to be unable to grasp the fact that you're not exactly all innocent little angels as well. Islam has done terrible things in the past, but until you accept this, you cannot hope to move on.

4) Let's count up the support for and against your viewpoint on this thread. I think it comes to roughly 1-50, the one being you, and the fifty including everyone else, including Badran, who is also a Muslim. So, no, I don't exactly think anyone is running to embrace your radical and utterly disgusting denialist point of view.

 

[YmirGF]

Well, this thread has not failed my expectations. It simply began as an insult to any person by it's provoking suggestions, and the unbelievable denial that some Muslims through history have done terrible things. So you can't really reach any positive outcome by such a discussion. It only forced others to bring up bad things done by Muslims.

Although i have not studied the history of Islamic wars all that well, I would say like some Muslims here have said earlier, that any one of these wars including the Indian war, isn't at all okay unless there was a justification. So, if there isn't any, or if nobody has provided the justification for such wars yet, then obviously there is not much to be said, the outcome is obvious.

It is indeed refreshing to hear from a thinking Muslim. Why is that such a rarity?

The point is however that these justifications were often little more than a reaction to the perceived insult of refusing to accept a given Muslim general's call to Islam. Refusal to accept the invitation was all that was needed to send in the troops. Hardly peaceful conduct, by any measure. It's more psychological blackmail than anything.

 

[Fatihah]

Thank you, Badran. Fatihah, take note. This is what a sane Muslim sounds like.

Response: The natural response of every non-muslim who is utterly debunked. Take note.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: The natural response of every non-muslim who is utterly debunked. Take note.

What, to point out that you have zero support, including from your 'fellow Muslims'? You're alone in this, Fatihah, get over it. No-one wants to hear you spouting hatred and denying atrocities.

 

[Fatihah]

1) What 'alleged facts'? I know I made a mistake in saying it was the Mughals who invaded the original three kingdoms, but it was an Islamic conquest nontheless, so the point still stands.

2) I showed Islam ruled by force; violent supression of the Sikhs being a prime example. Tens of battles in the Punjab, recorded by both Islamic and Sikh scholars.

3) We all know that Islam is not evil, but you seem to be unable to grasp the fact that you're not exactly all innocent little angels as well. Islam has done terrible things in the past, but until you accept this, you cannot hope to move on.

4) Let's count up the support for and against your viewpoint on this thread. I think it comes to roughly 1-50, the one being you, and the fifty including everyone else, including Badran, who is also a Muslim. So, no, I don't exactly think anyone is running to embrace your radical and utterly disgusting denialist point of view.

Response: Yes, you've "said" islam ruled by force, but you've "proven" nothing. And if your logic is based on a popularity contest, then that is further proof of your illogical stance.

 

[Badran]

It is indeed refreshing to hear from a thinking Muslim. Why is that such a rarity?

The point is however that these justifications were often little more than a reaction to the perceived insult of refusing to accept a given Muslim general's call to Islam. Refusal to accept the invitation was all that was needed to send in the troops. Hardly peaceful conduct, by any measure. It's more psychological blackmail than anything.

Like i said i haven't studied the wars by Muslims who led the Muslim community after the prophet, so if that was the case, as in if the only justification was because they refused to be Muslims, then certainly it would be very very wrong.

 

[Fatihah]

What, to point out that you have zero support, including from your 'fellow Muslims'? You're alone in this, Fatihah, get over it. No-one wants to hear you spouting hatred and denying atrocities.

Response: Once again basing truth on popularity, not actual facts. Surely, any rational person sees the absurdity in your logic.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: Yes, you've "said" islam ruled by force, but you've "proven" nothing. And if your logic is based on a popularity contest, then that is further proof of your illogical stance.

Do you deny that the wars between the Mughals and the Sikhs took place? That there was never a battle at Anandpur? That the Guru's four sons were never killed? That Guru Tegh Badhur was never executed? That Guru Arjan Dev was never executed? And no, I am not basing this on popularity; I am merely pointing out the erroneous nature of your statement that my posts will cause people to 'embrace Islam'