Islam will dominate!

[DeitySlayer]

i thought you expect an apology from Muslim for what happened in India. maybe i misunderstood you?

.

"To deny they ever existed is to deny honour and respect to the memories of those killed by them. It is equal to Holocaust denial, or perhaps fifty years from now, '9/11 denial'. It happened. Accept it. Move on. I'm not looking for an apology for the crimes, for you have nothing to apologize for; but continued denial is both immoral and disrespectful."

 

[.lava]

"To deny they ever existed is to deny honour and respect to the memories of those killed by them. It is equal to Holocaust denial, or perhaps fifty years from now, '9/11 denial'. It happened. Accept it. Move on. I'm not looking for an apology for the crimes, for you have nothing to apologize for; but continued denial is both immoral and disrespectful."

oops, my bad. sorry i had English failure. just ignore what i said. i apologize for my mistake

.

 

[DeitySlayer]

oops, my bad. sorry i had English failure. just ignore what i said. i apologize for my mistake

.

Haha No problem

 

[Fatihah]

i am not slandering you. i am not hypcritical either. speak as you like, Fatihah. i would not follow you. i would follow those who love human as a creature of God. it does not matter what you think i am. i won't become your thoughts and i am also obligated to share what i know. it is my pleasure to invite people to love each other

.

Response: Perhaps one day you'll actually practice what you preach.

 

[.lava]

Response: Perhaps one day you'll actually practice what you preach.

i am trying but thank you for your friendly wish, i appreciate it

.

 

[Fatihah]

Friend fatiha,



You do not consider yourself *human* as if you were not a muslim you would not respect others??

Response: Your question is not even called for, for there is nothing stated which remotely requires such a question. Thus it is without merit and not necessary to answer.

 

[Fatihah]

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.

Response: But to say so is defaming to Allah and the teachings of islam, for it is the qur'an itself which clearly states that islam will prevail over all religions and any way of life. So how can it be such a bad intentioned thread when the qur'an teaches that islam will dominate? It is not bad intended, if a muslim states what the qur'an actually says. It may not be liked by others to make such a claim, but that does not mean that the thread or the author of the thread has bad intent. A person has the right to state what they believe and as a person who professes to be a muslim, you should have no problem with another muslim stating what the qur'an says. The fact that you do is very questionable. It appears that you are in the same boat as another muslim participant of the thread, who accuses other muslims with bad intent and slander because they choose not to befriend the non-muslim and soften the message of islam over teaching islam directly as it should, despite its negative feedback.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Back to original discussion:

1) Guru Arjan Dev was martyred by Jahangir
2) Guru Tegh Badhur was martyred by Aurangzeb
3) The Mughals went to the Punjab to supress the Sikhs
4) The Mughals killed the two younger sons of the Guru Gobind Singh

These are acts of force. Do you dispute any of them occurred? Note that I can provide sources for all of these, and if you cannot provide contemporary counter-sources, then you are not entitled to say they do not count as proof. For example, in the case of the train-burning incident, you provided a counter-source (301) to demonstrate that the original claim was contested. If you wish to contest these claims, you must also provide counter-sources.

"In Goindwal, which is on the river Biyãh (Beas), there was a Hindu named Arjan, in the garments of sainthood and sanctity, so much so that he had captured many of the simple-hearted of the Hindus, and even of the ignorant and foolish followers of Islam, by his ways and manners, and they had loudly sounded the drum of his holiness. They called him Guru, and from all sides stupid people crowded to worship and manifest complete faith in him. For three or four generations (of spiritual successors) they had kept this shop warm. Many times it occurred to me to put a stop to this vain affair or to bring him into the assembly of the people of Islam. At last when Khusrau passed along this road this insignificant fellow proposed to wait upon him. Khusrau happened to halt at the place where he was, and he came out and did homage to him. He behaved to Khusrau in certain special ways, and made on his forehead a finger-mark in saffron, which the Indians (Hinduwän) call qashqa, (Tilak) and is considered propitious. When this came to my ears and I clearly understood his folly, I ordered them to produce him and handed over his houses, dwelling-places, and children to Murtaza Khan, and having confiscated his property commanded that he should be put to death" - Tuzk-e-Janghiri

This is from Jahangir's memoirs. This was written in his time. He did not contest it, nor are there any records of him attempting to supress it or punish anyone for possession or distribution for it. There are no counter-sources, to the best of my knowledge (unless you go and find one). Unless you can find a scholarly article that disputes the validity, or a source from the period that makes a claim to the contrary, this constitutes proof.

301 ouncer and Fatihah, please realize that in doing this I am not attempting to shame the entirety of Islam, or trying to paint all Muslims as evil, or even paint the entire Mughal Empire as evil. I realize there were a number of great technological and architectural and cultural progressions under the Empire; but your denial of any atrocity is a slap in the face to the memory of my ancestors, and I will not let that pass. There are Muslims, or those who claim to be Muslims, capable of great evil, such as 9/11. They exist. Your religion is not evil through-and-through, but there are elements within in and there were elements within it that were. To deny they ever existed is to deny honour and respect to the memories of those killed by them. It is equal to Holocaust denial, or perhaps fifty years from now, '9/11 denial'. It happened. Accept it. Move on. I'm not looking for an apology for the crimes, for you have nothing to apologize for; but continued denial is both immoral and disrespectful.

 

[Fatihah]

Back to original discussion:

1) Guru Arjan Dev was martyred by Jahangir
2) Guru Tegh Badhur was martyred by Aurangzeb
3) The Mughals went to the Punjab to supress the Sikhs
4) The Mughals killed the two younger sons of the Guru Gobind Singh

These are acts of force. Do you dispute any of them occurred? Note that I can provide sources for all of these, and if you cannot provide contemporary counter-sources, then you are not entitled to say they do not count as proof. For example, in the case of the train-burning incident, you provided a counter-source (301) to demonstrate that the original claim was contested. If you wish to contest these claims, you must also provide counter-sources.

"In Goindwal, which is on the river Biyãh (Beas), there was a Hindu named Arjan, in the garments of sainthood and sanctity, so much so that he had captured many of the simple-hearted of the Hindus, and even of the ignorant and foolish followers of Islam, by his ways and manners, and they had loudly sounded the drum of his holiness. They called him Guru, and from all sides stupid people crowded to worship and manifest complete faith in him. For three or four generations (of spiritual successors) they had kept this shop warm. Many times it occurred to me to put a stop to this vain affair or to bring him into the assembly of the people of Islam. At last when Khusrau passed along this road this insignificant fellow proposed to wait upon him. Khusrau happened to halt at the place where he was, and he came out and did homage to him. He behaved to Khusrau in certain special ways, and made on his forehead a finger-mark in saffron, which the Indians (Hinduwän) call qashqa, (Tilak) and is considered propitious. When this came to my ears and I clearly understood his folly, I ordered them to produce him and handed over his houses, dwelling-places, and children to Murtaza Khan, and having confiscated his property commanded that he should be put to death" - Tuzk-e-Janghiri

This is from Jahangir's memoirs. This was written in his time. He did not contest it, nor are there any records of him attempting to supress it or punish anyone for possession or distribution for it. There are no counter-sources, to the best of my knowledge (unless you go and find one). Unless you can find a scholarly article that disputes the validity, or a source from the period that makes a claim to the contrary, this constitutes proof.

301 ouncer and Fatihah, please realize that in doing this I am not attempting to shame the entirety of Islam, or trying to paint all Muslims as evil, or even paint the entire Mughal Empire as evil. I realize there were a number of great technological and architectural and cultural progressions under the Empire; but your denial of any atrocity is a slap in the face to the memory of my ancestors, and I will not let that pass. There are Muslims, or those who claim to be Muslims, capable of great evil, such as 9/11. They exist. Your religion is not evil through-and-through, but there are elements within in and there were elements within it that were. To deny they ever existed is to deny honour and respect to the memories of those killed by them. It is equal to Holocaust denial, or perhaps fifty years from now, '9/11 denial'. It happened. Accept it. Move on. I'm not looking for an apology for the crimes, for you have nothing to apologize for; but continued denial is both immoral and disrespectful.

Response: Yes. Continued denial is both immoral and disrespectful. So why do you insist on doing it? Then you continue with a warped and distorted definition of proof. That something is a fact unless someone states that it's not. That's clearly absurd, and it's an absurdity you insist to keep pushing. Perhaps it will help you better to return to the discussion when you actually know what proof means, or at least stop denying it.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: Yes. Continued denial is both immoral and disrespectful. So why do you insist on doing it? Then you continue with a warped and distorted definition of proof. That something is a fact unless someone states that it's not. That's clearly absurd, and it's an absurdity you insist to keep pushing. Perhaps it will help you better to return to the discussion when you actually know what proof means, or at least stop denying it.

Fatihah. Read the excerpt from Janaghir's memoirs. That constitutes proof that the Mughals used unwarranted force. You can't argue with the content.

What you can argue with is the provenance. So where is your counter-source or academic study that shows this as false? If you are unable to do so, then the source stands as true and by association we realize that the Mughals did use force.

No dodging. Can you find a counter-source or study of the Tuzk-e-Jahangiri which questions the accuracy? If not, by all reasonable standards, there is proof of unwarranted force in this source, as you yourself admitted in an earlier posting. If you are unable to disprove the accuracy of the source, then there is proof.

 

[Fatihah]

Fatihah. Read the excerpt from Janaghir's memoirs. That constitutes proof that the Mughals used unwarranted force. You can't argue with the content.

What you can argue with is the provenance. So where is your counter-source or academic study that shows this as false? If you are unable to do so, then the source stands as true and by association we realize that the Mughals did use force.

No dodging. Can you find a counter-source or study of the Tuzk-e-Jahangiri which questions the accuracy? If not, by all reasonable standards, there is proof of unwarranted force in this source, as you yourself admitted in an earlier posting. If you are unable to disprove the accuracy of the source, then there is proof.

Response: Your definition of proof:

"If you are unable to disprove the accuracy of the source, then there is proof".

The actual definition of proof from the english dictionary:

"Any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something".

Thus we have a problem. Your definition of proof is clearly, completely different from the actual definition of proof. Concluding that your post is either a lie, an act of denial, or an example of an inability to comprehend simple english. Tell us, which is it?

 

[Breathe]

Fatihah. Read the excerpt from Janaghir's memoirs. That constitutes proof that the Mughals used unwarranted force. You can't argue with the content.

One would think that would be the case..

:thud:


You have raised some excellent points, DS, it's a shame these points have been ignored and responded to with logical fallacies to the point of nausea, and just generally shameful behaviour.

There are members whom we could have a good discourse on that with, let's only use our time with such members.

 

[zenzero]

Friend fatiha,

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

Your response makes it clear that those who are not muslims do not have obligation to respect others and as those who understand that every being is as much part of the same entity and as equals there is no obligation but respect comes by nature itself.

Yes, to understand the statement requires a create leap which every mind is incapable off and would direct the individual to avoid such statements.

Minds have choices and the individual free to follow.

Love & rgds

 

[Badran]

Response: But to say so is defaming to Allah and the teachings of islam, for it is the qur'an itself which clearly states that islam will prevail over all religions and any way of life. So how can it be such a bad intentioned thread when the qur'an teaches that islam will dominate? It is not bad intended, if a muslim states what the qur'an actually says. It may not be liked by others to make such a claim, but that does not mean that the thread or the author of the thread has bad intent. A person has the right to state what they believe and as a person who professes to be a muslim, you should have no problem with another muslim stating what the qur'an says. The fact that you do is very questionable. It appears that you are in the same boat as another muslim participant of the thread, who accuses other muslims with bad intent and slander because they choose not to befriend the non-muslim and soften the message of islam over teaching islam directly as it should, despite its negative feedback.

I'm not sure which verse(s) are you referring to, but some of our beliefs should only belong to us. For example, we can't go around telling every non-Muslim that they are going to hell just because it is part of our belief, it is not appropriate, i know there is nothing wrong with stating one's belief, but somethings just aren't appropriate, especially when put in a certain context.

I mean this thread after starting of talking about the idea of Islam dominating the world, then moved on to insulting other religions, and demeaning other people's beliefs. Why? I don't see any part of Islam that teaches us to be cruel to others, or to demean their beliefs. Also, i defend Islam and say it's teachings all the time, but without demeaning others, and when someone attacks Islam i ask them not to, so when a Muslim attacks other religions, it is my duty to tell him that he is doing so and try to stop him. But once again, if it appeared as though i'm siding against you or 301, or slandering, i hope you would accept my apologies, because it was not my intent to make it that way.

One last thing, you don't have to soften the message if you befriend non-muslims, the prophet (pbuh) was kind to everyone, so just because some members here appear to you as if they are softening their message and befriend non-muslims, doesn't mean that this is necessarily the case, because that soft message that you see, might be their true view on Islam.

 

[Fatihah]

Friend fatiha,



Your response makes it clear that those who are not muslims do not have obligation to respect others and as those who understand that every being is as much part of the same entity and as equals there is no obligation but respect comes by nature itself.

Yes, to understand the statement requires a create leap which every mind is incapable off and would direct the individual to avoid such statements.

Minds have choices and the individual free to follow.

Love & rgds

Response: You just stated:

"Your response makes it clear that those who are not muslims do not have obligation to respect others".

Then my request is simple. Quote the words from my post which says "Those who are not muslims...", if you are truthful.

 

[Fatihah]

I'm not sure which verse(s) are you referring to, but some of our beliefs should only belong to us. For example, we can't go around telling every non-Muslim that they are going to hell just because it is part of our belief, it is not appropriate, i know there is nothing wrong with stating one's belief, but somethings just aren't appropriate, especially when put in a certain context.

I mean this thread after starting of talking about the idea of Islam dominating the world, then moved on to insulting other religions, and demeaning other people's beliefs. Why? I don't see any part of Islam that teaches us to be cruel to others, or to demean their beliefs. Also, i defend Islam and say it's teachings all the time, but without demeaning others, and when someone attacks Islam i ask them not to, so when a Muslim attacks other religions, it is my duty to tell him that he is doing so and try to stop him. But once again, if it appeared as though i'm siding against you or 301, or slandering, i hope you would accept my apologies, because it was not my intent to make it that way.

One last thing, you don't have to soften the message if you befriend non-muslims, the prophet (pbuh) was kind to everyone, so just because some members here appear to you as if they are softening their message and befriend non-muslims, doesn't mean that this is necessarily the case, because that soft message that you see, might be their true view on Islam.

Response: There's not a single verse in the qur'an or any part of the sunnah which says that some of our beliefs is just for us, nor can you show otherwise. This alone is another example of unislamic teachings.

Also, if there is a muslim slandering and insulting other people's religion and beliefs, that is wrong. I agree. But if you can't quote a single post in which such is the case, then it is you who is guilty of the slander, because accusing one of slander without proof is slander.

Lastly, if it appears to me that one is softening the message, it doesn't mean it's true. But when someone is in fact softening the message and befriending non-muslims over teaching the message directly, as shown on this thread, then it is true.

 

[Wotan]

One would think that would be the case..

:thud:


You have raised some excellent points, DS, it's a shame these points have been ignored and responded to with logical fallacies to the point of nausea, and just generally shameful behaviour.

There are members whom we could have a good discourse on that with, let's only use our time with such members.

Indeed, some are so deluded by their "Faith" that ordinary conversation is pointless.

Hint: The "Ignore" feature works.

 

[Haris19]

non-sense.....Unlike islamic nations, India is a country where minorities gain more respect and oppurtunities everywhere. Just have a look at Indias current affairs. Only a few extreme hindus turns violent once they are attacked by minoriities.



scared of cristianity? it was christian missionaries who got first troubled and attacked hindus. Hindu extremists were calm even when christian missionaries violated orissa religious law, but those patience did not last when christian missionaries attacked hindus.





i never did justified hindu extremists, but it is wrong to blame them completely since they are not the ones who started violence. It is true that Hindu extremists responds in very extreme once they are attacked. Do you have any justification for christian missionaries from other countries to attack hindus without any reason? Should be also noted that they violated state religious law, still at that time hindu extremists maintained their patience.

BTW, this thread is not about Hinduism dominates the world, infact it is islam dominates the world. Dont try to dodge crime by muslim by presenting here unrelated subjects.

O WOW!! so when a law is violated by some in a country,the majority in that country has the right to burn them alive and rape their women ????Is this the new Hindutva democracy?? Looking at all your posts what i see is that you simply keep repeating urself again and again and again that Mughals killed people in India and converted them...Ok so what??!!That nonsense if it ever happened,happened centuries before.So what are we supposed to do now??Kill all those who converted???Come on give us a break!!

And now that some of your fanatic friends are in power in India ,y dont u go on conducting rituals to reconvert ppl back to Hinduism then?Lets see how many of the converted ones want to go back to HInduism.

Quit spreading hate against not just muslims but anyone for that matter.The path that u have taken is not gonna get you anywhere but bring u humiliation and defeat at the end.:areyoucra

 

[Fatihah]

One would think that would be the case..

:thud:


You have raised some excellent points, DS, it's a shame these points have been ignored and responded to with logical fallacies to the point of nausea, and just generally shameful behaviour.

There are members whom we could have a good discourse on that with, let's only use our time with such members.

Response: Or rather shameful to suggest excellence to points which are clearly accepted without proof.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: Your definition of proof:

"If you are unable to disprove the accuracy of the source, then there is proof".

The actual definition of proof from the english dictionary:

"Any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something".

Thus we have a problem. Your definition of proof is clearly, completely different from the actual definition of proof. Concluding that your post is either a lie, an act of denial, or an example of an inability to comprehend simple english. Tell us, which is it?

None of the above.

This is the definition of proof you give: "Any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something" and I fully agree with it.

The source is my factual evidence. It's status as 'factual' depends on its validity. The validity was not challenged by the author of the source, anyone within the Mughal Empire, nor are there any sources which make claims to the contrary or modern analyses which question the accuracy.

Thus the source is factual. Thus there were Muslims who used unwarranted force; unless you can demonstrate something that shows that the source is not factual.