Islam will dominate!

[.lava]

Response: To the contrary, the shame is watching one call themself a muslim sister, and make claims that other muslims use the qur'an to insult people and cause hatred, but provide no proof of such. The act alone is not only slander, but slander to another muslim, which in the eyes of Allah is more offensive. Yet the same sister befriends non-muslims who slander islam, rather then refuting them with the message of islam. All the while, claiming that her Imam is love, but showing such a lack thereof to Allah(swt). If that is the path you take, so be it. But in the end, Allah will judge you accordingly.

this discussion is not about Islam or Allah. we keep replying because you, not as a Muslim, just as a human being refusing to answer questions and refusing to offer friendly manners in a better way. i would make friends with anyone who respond love with love. that does not mean i agree with everything they say and do. i would defend Islam when it is needed. i would defend a non-Muslim when his right was violated. sure, Allah judges therefor i would not dare to speak on its behalf. i apologize to you for making you upset, Fatihah. that was not my intention. i did try to pay attention to every word i said. but i can't get through your negative emotions towards me. i see no reason to help you be yourself

.

 

[Fatihah]

You told me this already once. I have asked you multiple times to post evidence and give sources (ie a book, web page, etc) to back up your claims but you have not provided any but rather you go in circles and you are not giving your views any actual credibility whatsoever.

Response: Clear proofs are not in need to be backed up by evidence. If you insist that it's not proof, then you should provide proof as to why, which you have not. Thus your insbility to do so is proof enough.

 

[DeitySlayer]

THEY HAD A WAR WITH THE SIKHS. IN THE PUNJAB. WHERE THE SIKHS LIVED. THEY WENT TO THE SIKHS, NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND.

Seriously, are you thick or something? There are tens of battlefields, tens of battles, all recorded in Sikh AND Muslim texts. No sane person, Muslim or otherwise, denies these battles took place. Clear example of Mughals using force to subjugate a people who wanted freedom.

Odion, GURSIKH and xkatz: Keep up the great work defending your cultural ancestors Chaak de phatte!

 

[xkatz]

Response: Clear proofs are not in need to be backed up by evidence.

Likewise, I see. Then you have no evidence and your claims can be regarded as propaganda and/or even deceit. It is always good to see people who go out of their way to avoid backing up their claims with actual evidence and/or sources.

 

[Fatihah]

this discussion is not about Islam or Allah. we keep replying because you, not as a Muslim, just as a human being refusing to answer questions and refusing to offer friendly manners in a better way. i would make friends with anyone who respond love with love. that does not mean i agree with everything they say and do. i would defend Islam when it is needed. i would defend a non-Muslim when his right was violated. sure, Allah judges therefor i would not dare to speak on its behalf. i apologize to you for making you upset, Fatihah. that was not my intention. i did try to pay attention to every word i said. but i can't get through your negative emotions towards me. i see no reason to help you be yourself

.

Response: I'm no where near upset. My humility is strong enough not to get upset with what a person says to me on a website. I'm merely stating my view. Likewise you are stating yours. And when I see you, who professes to be a muslim slander other muslims, including myself, and befriend those who slander Allah, I'm going to address it. Especially when you claim a message of love, yet slander at the same time. Such hypocrisy is defaming to islam and as a muslim, I 'm obligated to speak on it.

 

[Fatihah]

THEY HAD A WAR WITH THE SIKHS. IN THE PUNJAB. WHERE THE SIKHS LIVED. THEY WENT TO THE SIKHS, NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND.

Seriously, are you thick or something? There are tens of battlefields, tens of battles, all recorded in Sikh AND Muslim texts. No sane person, Muslim or otherwise, denies these battles took place. Clear example of Mughals using force to subjugate a people who wanted freedom.

Odion, GURSIKH and xkatz: Keep up the great work defending your cultural ancestors Chaak de phatte!

Response: Apparently, you believe that the more you speak of your absurdity, the more intelligent it gets. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

 

[Breathe]

Odion, GURSIKH and xkatz: Keep up the great work defending your cultural ancestors Chaak de phatte!

Dhannvaad bhai ji.

 

[Fatihah]

Likewise, I see. Then you have no evidence and your claims can be regarded as propaganda and/or even deceit. It is always good to see people who go out of their way to avoid backing up their claims with actual evidence and/or sources.

Response: Your inability to refute the evidence proves to the contrary.

 

[xkatz]

Response: Your inability to refute the evidence proves to the contrary.

What evidence? :biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: Apparently, you believe that the more you speak of your absurdity, the more intelligent it gets. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Are you denying that there were Mughal-Sikh wars in the Punjab? Simple yes or no answer will suffice. No dodging or saying 'it's only a statement'.

Just answer this question:

Did the Mughals battle the Sikhs in the Punjab

 

[Fatihah]

Are you denying that there were Mughal-Sikh wars in the Punjab? Simple yes or no answer will suffice. No dodging or saying 'it's only a statement'.

Just answer this question:

Did the Mughals battle the Sikhs in the Punjab

Response: Of course. That was never in question, so you can finish with the strawman. The conversation has always been whether muslims conquered land by force, the question in which you utterly failed to prove that the muslims did.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: Of course. That was never in question, so you can finish with the strawman. The conversation has always been whether muslims conquered land by force, the question in which you utterly failed to prove that the muslims did.

OK good, let's make this step by step progress.

The Mughals battled the Sikhs in the Punjab. Would you therefore agree it was the Mughals who made war on the Sikhs, and not the other way around?

 

[LuisDantas]

Response: Do you see those words within my post?

I see the meaning, if not the words. Am I wrong? Do you in fact recognize it is quite legit to respect and dialog with non-Muslims?

Surely it can't be too much to ask you for a straight answer to this question.

 

[Fatihah]

OK good, let's make this step by step progress.

The Mughals battled the Sikhs in the Punjab. Would you therefore agree it was the Mughals who made war on the Sikhs, and not the other way around?

Response: I don't know the full extent and detail of how the war was started and what it was about. But based on the history of muslim rule in India before Mughals, it was not by force. For the rulers before the Mughals did not expand their territory much for two centuries, thus this would support that the Mughals did not use force when they arrived.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: I don't know the full extent and detail of how the war was started and what it was about. But based on the history of muslim rule in India before Mughals, it was not by force. For the rulers before the Mughals did not expand their territory much for two centuries, thus this would support that the Mughals did not use force when they arrived.

I'm not going to argue the early conquests, because that is politically complicated. I'm going for the easiest path here. The Mughal Empire already comprised parts of the Punjab. The Sikh religious movement was a threat to Mughal authority. The Sikhs armed themselves after the ninth Guru Tegh Badhur was martyred at Delhi; this is simple self-defence, not looking for a fight.

The Sikhs wanted independence. They wanted their spiritual homeland. Aurangzeb said no and sent a Mughal army north to crush them. The Mughals went to the Punjab. All the Sikhs wanted was a homeland. And they had a better claim to the homeland than the original Muslims had on India, because they were born there.

Carry on this discussion tomorrow, it's getting late here (UK time)

 

[Fatihah]

I see the meaning, if not the words. Am I wrong? Do you in fact recognize it is quite legit to respect and dialog with non-Muslims?

Surely it can't be too much to ask you for a straight answer to this question.

Response: In islam, muslims have an obligation to respect non-muslims.

"Allah forbids you not respecting those who have not fought against you on account of your religion, and who have not driven you out of your homes, that you be kind to them and deal equitably with them; surely, Allah loves those who are equitable". Surah 60:8.

 

[Fatihah]

I'm not going to argue the early conquests, because that is politically complicated. I'm going for the easiest path here. The Mughal Empire already comprised parts of the Punjab. The Sikh religious movement was a threat to Mughal authority. The Sikhs armed themselves after the ninth Guru Tegh Badhur was martyred at Delhi; this is simple self-defence, not looking for a fight.

The Sikhs wanted independence. They wanted their spiritual homeland. Aurangzeb said no and sent a Mughal army north to crush them. The Mughals went to the Punjab. All the Sikhs wanted was a homeland. And they had a better claim to the homeland than the original Muslims had on India, because they were born there.

Carry on this discussion tomorrow, it's getting late here (UK time)

Response: There's the statement. Where's the proof? But there really is no need to ask because apparently, you have none.

 

[dust1n]

Response: There's the statement. Where's the proof? But there really is no need to ask because apparently, you have none.

"Early in Aurangzeb's reign, various insurgent groups of Sikhs engaged Mughal troops in increasingly bloody battles. In 1670, the ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur encamped in Delhi, receiving large numbers of followers, was said to have attracted the wrath of Emperor Aurangzeb.[9]

The execution of Guru Tegh Bahadur infuriated the Sikhs. In response, his son and successor, the tenth Guru of Sikhism Guru Gobind Singh further militarized his followers.


In a temporary alliance, both groups Hindu Kings and Muslim Governors attacked Gobind Singh and his followers. The united Mughal-Rajput Imperial alliance laid siege to the fort at Anandpur Sahib. In an attempt to dislodge the Sikhs, Aurangzeb vowed that the Guru and his Sikhs would be allowed to leave Anandpur safely. Aurangzeb is said to have validated this promise in writing. However Aurangzeb deliberately failed to keep his promise and when the remaining few Sikhs were leaving the fort under the cover of darkness, the Mughals were alerted and enagaged them in battle once again; where two of the younger sons of Guru Gobind Singh [Zoravar Singh and Fateh Singh] of 9 and 7 yrs respectively were bricked up alive within a wall by Wazir Khan in Sirhand (Punjab). The other two elder sons [ Ajit Singh and Jujhar Singh] as well as many other Singhs fought with giant Mughal force achieving martyrdom and proved words of tenth guru "Sava Lakh se Ek Laraun Tabhe Gobind Singh Naam Kahaun" [That each brave Khalsa must fight with more than a million oppressor]. The events of which Guru Gobind Singh wrote a letter to Aurangzeb, called a [Zafarnamah :- epistle of Victory]. The Emperor died shortly after on March 3, 1707. Eventually the Guru was attacked and wounded by two of Aurangzeb's soldiers, Jamshed Khan and Wazir Khan who was the Mughal Governor of the Punjab at Sirhind before. The Guru would later die because the inflicted wounds.[10]"


Islam and Sikhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Badran]

Both of you guys are so defeatest in your Dawah and explanation of Islam that makes my hair on my back stand up.

When you post in every thread you sound so defeatest that your post hardly makes a difference and make me go to sleep.

Sound very sufie like infulences of your lands.

Had to be said. Out.

And what difference have your posts made?

 

[Badran]

Response: I'm no where near upset. My humility is strong enough not to get upset with what a person says to me on a website. I'm merely stating my view. Likewise you are stating yours. And when I see you, who professes to be a muslim slander other muslims, including myself, and befriend those who slander Allah, I'm going to address it. Especially when you claim a message of love, yet slander at the same time. Such hypocrisy is defaming to islam and as a muslim, I 'm obligated to speak on it.

For the slander part, i'm not sure if you were including me in that, but i didn't intend to slander you or anybody else, and if i did, i apologize.

I want to tell you something though, This thread is called "Islam will dominate!". What more do you want to see that it is a bad intentioned thread, that will only cause this kind of reaction.

I know you were defending Islam, but this can't work, when the aim of this thread is to attack other beliefs. Because others have to defend themselves and some of them will attack Islam as a response. So what i'm saying is that the reason i haven't defended Islam is because i understand that the attacks are only a response to the original attack made on them. So instead of joining in the arguments, i decided to criticize the OP, because it is the main reason for this.