Islam will dominate!

[Fatihah]

Fatiah , its from Autobiography of Islamic ruler known as

'" Tajik e Jahangiri " infact i today read this book in my University . i am sure its available online .


Aslaam

Response: I don't question its existance, just its credibility.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: I don't question its existance, just its credibility.

It was written by Jahangir himself. It's not by a Sikh or Hindu trying to trash his name; this was by his own hand. I think he knows his own thoughts.

 

[Fatihah]

If you are not contesting the fact that Sikhs were martyred by the Mughals, then I have proven acts of force took place, and you are denying this.

Response: If we accept your warped definition of proof. But in this world and this reality, proof does not mean what is not contested. Check a simple english dictionary.

 

[Fatihah]

It was written by Jahangir himself. It's not by a Sikh or Hindu trying to trash his name; this was by his own hand. I think he knows his own thoughts.

Response: Another statement with no proof. I think you know you have none.

 

[Breathe]

Response: There's the statement. Where's the proof?

Um.
Unfortunately that's not how it works. It's up to the one with the things being argued to prove they are authentic (in this case, the Qur'an is from Allah, etc). It is not up to the skeptic to prove it's not authentic. This is an informal fallacy, called 'burden of proof' (as well as both part of argumentum ad ignorantiam, or 'negative evidence'). The burden of proof lies with the claimer.

If I say "Fairies exist" it's up to me to prove it. If I say "Nobody has been able to prove unicorns don't exist, therefore they do", that's illogical.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: If we accept your warped definition of proof. But in this world and this reality, proof does not mean what is not contested. Check a simple english dictionary.

Look at this:

1) I say Sikhs were martyred by the Mughals
2) You contest this or you don't contest this
3) If you don't contest this, then I have shown the Mughals committed acts of force

Got it?

By the way, going by the support for your position, I would hold that your definition is the warped one.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: Another statement with no proof. I think you know you have none.

What would you constitute as proof that the memoirs were written by Jahangir?

 

[Fatihah]

The proof is that you have no proof. Unless you are willing to show me wrong?

Response: In other words, you have, once again, another statement. A consistant display of an argument with no proof is the result of flawed logic, or perhaps, no logic.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: In other words, you have, once again, another statement. A consistant display of an argument with no proof is the result of flawed logic, or perhaps, no logic.

Look, Fatihah. If I demonstrate that Sikhs were martyred by the Mughals, it shows they ruled by force. If you do not show proof to the contrary, then the statement stands as true. I have come up with a list of Sikh martyrs. If you cannot contest this, then it constitutes proof.

 

[Fatihah]

Um.
Unfortunately that's not how it works. It's up to the one with the things being argued to prove they are authentic (in this case, the Qur'an is from Allah, etc). It is not up to the skeptic to prove it's not authentic. This is an informal fallacy, called 'burden of proof' (as well as both part of argumentum ad ignorantiam, or 'negative evidence'). The burden of proof lies with the claimer.

If I say "Fairies exist" it's up to me to prove it. If I say "Nobody has been able to prove unicorns don't exist, therefore they do", that's illogical.

Response: It's up to any person who makes a claim of truth, to back it up with proof. Even a skeptic.

 

[301ouncer]

Response: Another statement with no proof. I think you know you have none.

Well done my beurifull sister. We marvel at people and their blind minds to the things of this world.

Back to the original topic after it was changed so Now we are at clearing the the names of every single tender bodied muslim baby that has been barbarically burned alive:

Who cares about india and moguls? hinduisism has not moved an inch in terms of land space since 3000 BC. Still no Jpegs, Gifs, Bitmaps of their proofs. Just pure noise and Spin.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Fatihah, can you find a single scholar, whatever religion, Muslim or not, I don't care; but a scholar or learned person who disputes the validity of the Tuzk-e-Jahangiri?

 

[DeitySlayer]

Oh, now we have two history-denying people.

 

[Fatihah]

Look at this:

1) I say Sikhs were martyred by the Mughals
2) You contest this or you don't contest this
3) If you don't contest this, then I have shown the Mughals committed acts of force

Got it?

By the way, going by the support for your position, I would hold that your definition is the warped one.

Response: Now let's check the english dictionary and see if you definition of proof is there............Nope. It's not.But if you insist on speaking in distorted english, that's your choice. An illogical one, but your choice nonetheless.

 

[LuisDantas]

Does it work both ways? Are people now allowed to deny that Muslims were ever killed in the Crusades or in the Middle East?

 

[YmirGF]

Oh, now we have two history-denying people.

And they tell two friends, who tell two friends... and the spin continues... soon day really IS night. Ah, the narrative of innuendo.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: Now let's check the english dictionary and see if you definition of proof is there............Nope. It's not.But if you insist on speaking in distorted english, that's your choice.

Proof–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

I claim Mughals ruled by force. My proof is the Sikh martyrs, who were killed. They obviously didn't line up to die, so they were killed by force. Are you going to refute this?

 

[Fatihah]

Fatihah, can you find a single scholar, whatever religion, Muslim or not, I don't care; but a scholar or learned person who disputes the validity of the Tuzk-e-Jahangiri?

Response: Perhaps. But I'm not interested. For you can't prove its validity to begin with.

 

[Fatihah]

Proof–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

I claim Mughals ruled by force. My proof is the Sikh martyrs, who were killed. They obviously didn't line up to die, so they were killed by force. Are you going to refute this?

Response: It was refuted, disputed, and debunked already.

 

[Badran]

Response: Perhaps. But I'm not interested. For you can't prove its validity to begin with.

With all due respect, but he gave enough interesting leads, so may be it is time for you to refute them. It is not enough to say that he is wrong, you have to actually prove why he is wrong you know.