Islam will dominate!

[Badran]

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.

By belong to us I mean that it is not appropriate to say some of our beliefs to others, at least in a certain context, and if said, it should be said in a different manner. I meant for example if you want to warn someone, you should do it nicely, like our prophet did. Especially when it is uncalled for, i mean we should be careful as to how to present certain parts of our beliefs, because if not presented correctly, it will be extremely offensive and insulting to others. Like if you were discussing something with someone and then told him you are going to hell, then this is not a good way to put it. Also, just so you know i'm not talking about you specifically, because i sense a certain attitude in your responses.

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.

I would rather you go back and look for it than i quote it. You won't have a hard time finding them.

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.

Yes but how can you be so sure? How can you know this for a fact?

 

[Madhuri]

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

Why would you take this stance? Nameless is not attacking Islam and is not justifying violence. Your response it completely emotional and your grammer is terrible. Please re-read Nameless' post objectively and recognise that he is not attacking. This business of India began with 301Ouncer making a statement that some of us disagreed with. It has been a debate about history ever since. Nobody is saying that anybody should pay or be reconverted or anything else. I cannot believe you have chosen to take offense. I am astonished at your response. It is entirely uncalled for and invalid.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Ok so what??!!That nonsense if it ever happened,happened centuries before.

A crime does not diminish across time. The Holocaust is still as horrific now as it was then. The use of force and cruelty under some of the Mughal Emperors, Jahangir and Aurangzeb specifically, is still as horrific now as it was then. To deem it 'nonsense' is insensetive and disgusting. I doubt that you would refer to Christian plunder of Islamic cities during the Crusades as 'nonsense'.

So what are we supposed to do now??Kill all those who converted???Come on give us a break!!

No. Neither are you to apologize. All that I am looking for here, all that Odion, xkatz, and GURSIKH are looking for here, is acknowledgement that these horrors did happen. Fatihah's repeated denial is equatable to Holocaust denial and is a slap in the face to my and their cultural and spiritual ancestors.

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

It's not hate. It's a search for the truth. Fatihah denying the Mughal cruelties is like a German today denying the Holocaust. We don't want an apology. We don't want to slander Islam. We don't want to punish Muslims. We just want you to stop denying it happened, and show some respect to the memories of all those killed.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Deity Slayer it's sickening isn't it, the way some will deny the attrocities their religions have done and totally try to whitewash history

 

[Breathe]

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

Please provide any proof for your view, Fatihah. Please give a reference to an academic book or a website.

"Refer to post 455" does not constitute as proof, neither does claiming others have no proof whilst having none yourself constitute you being correct. Logical fallacies are logical fallacies. Burden of proof, negative evidence, circular reasoning etc are not logical.

Proof has been given to you, Fatihah, in the form of books, but you have refused to even acknowledge them. You have even denied the emperor's diary as evidence.

You can lead a horse to water, but not make him drink it.

Deity Slayer it's sickening isn't it, the way some will deny the attrocities their religions have done and totally try to whitewash history

I agree with you here, too.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I wonder how Muslims justify what Muslims in the past did to the peaceful Zoroastrians in Iran, or to the peaceful Hindus when they invaded India without warning?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Islam literally went into Iran and massacred the good part of a religion of peaceful people. Zoroastrianism was once the largest religion in the Middle East. How did it get so small? History tells us why, but I guess we're supposed to just ignore it and gloss it over.

 

[Badran]

Islam literally went into Iran and massacred the good part of a religion of peaceful people. Zoroastrianism was once the largest religion in the Middle East. How did it get so small? History tells us why, but I guess we're supposed to just ignore it and gloss it over.

Islam doesn't do anything, Muslims do.

 

[Fatihah]

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.

Response: Post 592 proves to the contrary.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: Post 592 proves to the contrary.

This is what Post 592 says.

"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?"

This in no way challenges the factual nature of the source, which is my evidence. Hence the source is factual evidence, hence by your definition it is proof.

 

[Madhuri]

Islam doesn't do anything, Muslims do.

Yes, I think it is important that this point is emphasised. People do not necessarily represent their religion correctly and the difference should be noted.

 

[Fatihah]

By belong to us I mean that it is not appropriate to say some of our beliefs to others, at least in a certain context, and if said, it should be said in a different manner. I meant for example if you want to warn someone, you should do it nicely, like our prophet did. Especially when it is uncalled for, i mean we should be careful as to how to present certain parts of our beliefs, because if not presented correctly, it will be extremely offensive and insulting to others. Like if you were discussing something with someone and then told him you are going to hell, then this is not a good way to put it. Also, just so you know i'm not talking about you specifically, because i sense a certain attitude in your responses.



I would rather you go back and look for it than i quote it. You won't have a hard time finding them.



Yes but how can you be so sure? How can you know this for a fact?

Response: I agree. One should deliver the message in a nice manner. As for slander, you once again failed to provide a post in which is insulting someone, yet you are accusing muslims of slander. That means that you are the one guilty of slandering. Why the hypocrisy? How can you claim to be a pious muslim yet slander muslims unjustly at the same time. You even suggested that I look for the posts, rather than you yourself backing up your own allegations. This is shameful behavior.

As for whether I know it to be fact that muslims are softening thecmessage and befriending non-muslims over spreading the message directly, it's because their posts shows so. And I sincerely hope you won't make an attempt to ask me to produce such posts, while dodging the task of producing posts of muslims insulting others as you suggested. Surely, one can not be that hypocritical.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Islam doesn't do anything, Muslims do.

True, but Fatihah can't even accept this, even when there are mountains of literature and texts from the era, on both Mughal and Sikh sides, which extensively document the violence and executions.

 

[Fatihah]

This is what Post 592 says.

"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?"

This in no way challenges the factual nature of the source, which is my evidence. Hence the source is factual evidence, hence by your definition it is proof.

Response: Says the person who doesn't know the definition of the english word proof. (Post 592). Your credibility is extremely weak.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: I agree. One should deliver the message in a nice manner. As for slander, you once again failed to provide a post in which is insulting someone, yet you are accusing muslims of slander

You repeatedly deny that the Sikh texts that document violence and executions of the Sikhs under Jahangir and Aurangzeb are accurate. Therefore, you are basically calling all the Sikhs at the time vicious and immoral liars who made stuff up to further their cause. You also slander the memories of those killed by the Mughals. Again, realize this is not an attack on Islam, nor a demand for an apology; merely a call for the truth to be recognized.

 

[Fatihah]

True, but Fatihah can't even accept this, even when there are mountains of literature and texts from the era, on both Mughal and Sikh sides, which extensively document the violence and executions.

Response: All the while, there are mountains of literature of all sides which says God exists, yet you don't accept it. Another example of hypocrisy. How do you expect someone to listen to you with such hypocritical logic?

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: Says the person who doesn't know the definition of the english word proof. (Post 592). Your credibility is extremely weak.

Definition of proof: "Any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something"

My evidence: Jahangir's diary, which documents plans to execute Arjan Dev or try and force him to convert to Islam.

No-one has ever challenged it academically, Muslim or non-Muslim. The Bible has been challenged. The Qur'an has been challenged. This has not been challenged. Ever. By anyone of learning. It is watertight, flawless. There is absolutely zero evidence of forgery. Therefore it is factual.

Therefore I have factual evidence, and by definition, proof.

The point I repeatedly make is that if it is not factual, you should be able to find an academic challenge against it. You cannot.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: All the while, there are mountains of literature of all sides which says God exists, yet you don't accept it. Another example of hypocrisy. How do you expect someone to listen to you with such hypocritical logic?

There are also mountains of literature that say dragons exist. So what? That literature has been challenged, as has the literature which claims God's existence. No academic has ever challenged the accuracy of Jahangir's diary.

 

[Fatihah]

You repeatedly deny that the Sikh texts that document violence and executions of the Sikhs under Jahangir and Aurangzeb are accurate. Therefore, you are basically calling all the Sikhs at the time vicious and immoral liars who made stuff up to further their cause. You also slander the memories of those killed by the Mughals. Again, realize this is not an attack on Islam, nor a demand for an apology; merely a call for the truth to be recognized.

Response: All the while advocating acts of violence as true with no proof. Clearly not deminstrating a call for truth, but a call of support to your degrading propaganda.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Response: All the while advocating acts of violence as true with no proof. Clearly not deminstrating a call for truth, but a call of support to your degrading propaganda.

Apart from the fact that no scholar, Muslim or otherwise, has ever contested them.