What is wrong with smashing the idols?

[FearGod]

Apparently, linking is not enough. So i will copy paste including reference. Is that sufficient? Should I continue?

Persecution of Hindus - Wikipedia

Persecution by Muslim Rulers[edit]
Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent began during the early 8th century AD. According to a 1900 translation of Persian text Chachnamah by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg, the Umayyad governor of Damascus, Hajjaj responded to a plea by men and women attacked and imprisoned by a tribe off the coast of Debal (Karachi), who had gone there to purchase some Indian female slaves and rich goods.[3] Hajjaj mobilised an expedition of 6,000 cavalry under Muhammad bin-Qasim in 712 CE. Records from the campaign recorded in the Chach Nama record temple demolitions, and mass executions of resisting Sindhi forces and the enslavement of their dependants. The raids attacked the kingdoms ruled by Hindu and Buddhist kings, wealth plundered, tribute (kharaj) settled and hostages taken.[4] Numerous Hindu Jats were captured as prisoners of war by the Muslim army and moved to Iraq and elsewhere as slaves.[5]




Mahmud of Ghazni
Mahmud of Ghazni, Sultan of the Ghaznavid empire, invaded the Indian subcontinent during the early 11th century. His campaigns across the Gangetic plains are often cited for their iconoclast plundering and destruction of temples. Mahmud's court historian Al-Utbi viewed Mahmud's expeditions as a jihad to propagate Islam and extirpate idolatry.[6][7][8] Mahmud may not have personally hated Hindus, but he was after the loot and welcomed the honours and accolades in the Islamic world obtained by desecrating Hindu temples and idols.[9] Of his campaign on Mathura, it is written:

Orders were given that all the temples should be burnt with naphthala and fire and levelled with the ground. The city was given up to plunder for twenty days. Among the spoil are said to have been five great idols of pure gold with eyes of rubies and adornments of other precious stones, together with a vast number of smaller silver images, which, when broken up, formed a load for more than a hundred camels.[10]

The loot from Mathura is estimated at 3 million rupees and over 5,000 slaves.[10]

According to military historian Victoria Schofield, Sabuktagin, the Turkish ruler of Ghazni and father of Mahmud, "set as his goal the expulsion of the Hindus from the Kabul valley and Gandhara (Khandar), as the vale of Peshawar was still called. His son and successor, the Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni, continued his work, carrying the holy war against the Hindus into India."[11] Till the year 980 CE, this area of Gandhara was under Hindus until Sabuktagin from Ghazni invaded it and displaced its last Hindu Shahi king Jaya Pala.[12] Shahi was an important kingdom in Northwest India at that time. According to some sources (like Ibn Batuta[13]) the name of the Hindu Kush mountains of the region means "Hindu killer"[14][15] because raiders would capture Hindus slaves – all Indians were termed Hindu in Islamic literature – from the plains and take them away to West Asia, with large numbers of boys and girls dying from icy cold weather in these mountains.[16][17][18]

Mahmud of Ghazni sacked the second Somnath Temple in 1026, looted it, and the famous Shiva lingam of the temple was destroyed .[19] Following the defeat of the Rajput Confederacy, after deciding to retaliate for their combined resistance, Mahmud had then set out on regular expeditions against them, leaving the conquered kingdoms in the hands of Hindu vassals annexing only the Punjab region.[20] By 1665, the temple, one of many, was once again ordered destroyed by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb.[21]

Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people.[22]

Alberuni, a historian who accompanied Mahmud of Ghazni, described the conquests in North Western India by stating that Mahmud impoverished the region and that the civilisation of the scattered Hindus declined and retreated from the North West.[23]

This is the reason, too, why Hindu sciences have retired far away from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benares, and other places.[22]

References in the next post

And why such things didn't happen in Egypt, Spain and other parts that conquered by the Muslims.

 

[Kirran]

And why such things didn't happen in Egypt, Spain and other parts that conquered by the Muslims.

They kinda did, dude. Not necessarily to the same degree, but there was active marginalisation of non-Muslim minorities going on, leading to substantial social pressure to convert.

Obviously there are forms of Islam which are pluralist in nature too, but the other kinds have had a big influence on history.

 

[FearGod]

Apparently you are:

I didn't say Taliban aren't Muslims, I said they don't represent Islam, no one represent Islam.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

no one represent Islam.

Then Islam doesn't exist.

 

[SomeRandom]

The existence of many worshiping places for Christians in the Arab world and the Idols in
many parts of the world which were in the hand of the Muslims proves you wrong.

No it doesn't. They invaded, they destroyed and they conquered. The flavor of Islam that did so in India was apparently more smash happy than some other parts of the world. That's all that proves.
Also how dare you try to rewrite history. Muslim invaders (who do not represent all Muslims past or present) destroyed temples and desecrated Holy sites. Stop being a coward and own the history. Everyone's group did terrible things.

 

[FearGod]

They kinda did, dude. Not necessarily to the same degree, but there was active marginalisation of non-Muslim minorities going on, leading to substantial social pressure to convert.

Obviously there are forms of Islam which are pluralist in nature too, but the other kinds have had a big influence on history.

It's a fact that Europe benefited from the Muslims and not the contrary as the Indians claim
of being suffered and persecuted due to Islam.

 

[SomeRandom]

It's a fact that Europe benefited from the Muslims and not the contrary as the Indians claim
of being suffered and persecuted due to Islam.

No one discounts the advancements made by Muslims of yesteryear. Apparently, some would prefer we discount the bad things as well. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Remember history as it was, warts and all. Not as some apologist's wet dream of a revision.

 

[FearGod]

Then Islam doesn't exist.

Not all Muslims are the same, got it.
No one represent what Islam is.

 

[sayak83]

And why such things didn't happen in Egypt, Spain and other parts that conquered by the Muslims.

Because Christainity and Judaism enjoyed limited protection and considered somewhat fallen monotheists rather than idol worshiping polytheists. Obviously Christianity had already wiped out the polytheists long before in those regions. But Christians were forbidden from converting anyone under penalty of death. Zoroastrians fared even less well,

Persecution of Zoroastrians - Wikipedia

The Abbasids (752 – 804 CE)[edit]

The Umayyads were followed by the Abbasid dynasty which came to power with the help of Iranian Muslims. The persecution of Zoroastrians increased significantly under the Abbasids, temples and sacred-fire shrines were destroyed.[39] Also during Abbasid rule, the status of Zoroastrians in Persian lands was reduced from zimmi (or dhimmi, people who were protected by the state and generally considered 'People of the Book') to 'kafirs' (non-believers).[39][40] As a result, Zoroastrians were not granted the same rights and status as Jews and Christians.[40] Iranian Muslims were welcomed to the court, but not Zoroastrians.[33] Zoroastrians were denied access to bathhouses on the grounds that their bodies were polluted.[40]

Hardly any Zoroastrian family was able to avoid conversion to Islam when employed by the Abbasids.[41] Because of their harshness towards unbelievers, and due to their lavish patronage of Persian Muslims, the Abbasids proved to be deadly foes of Zoroastrianism.[42] According to Dawlatshah, Abdollah-ibn-Tahir, an Arabicized Persian,[43] and governor of Khorasan for the Abbasid caliphs,[44] banned publication in Persian and by his order all the Zoroastrians were forced to bring their religious books to be thrown in the fire.[24][41] As a result, many literary works written in Pahlavi script disappeared.[41] During the Abbasid reign the Zoroastrians, for the first time became a minority in Iran. Nevertheless, there were instances of toleration during the Abbasid era, particularly under the reign of Al-Mu'tasim who flogged an imam and muezzin for destroying a fire-temple and replacing it with a mosque.[18]

Zoroastrians had difficult time during the Safavid period and faced repeated persecution and forced conversion.[55] Safavid kings sought to compel them to accept Shia Islam, Sunnis too were forced to convert to Shia or were killed.[56] Zoroastrians were also branded as impure, in addition to being infidels.[57] As earlier in the century, so this period also witnessed sporadic campaigns for the conversion of Armenians and Zoroastrians, focusing blame for economic and other ills on these and other minorities whose involvement in the spice export, for example, was well known.[58]
The accounts in Mino Khirad, written during the Savafid period, demonstrate that the Zoroastrians were subjected to harassment by the Shi'ite majority, their places of worship were under a constant threat of being destroyed.[61] By 1707, when Le Bruyn visited Isfahan, the Zoroastrians were no longer able practice their religion freely. He notes that the most deprived Zoroastrians had been brought to Isfahan, and had been forced to become Muslim three years earlier.[62] In 1821, Ker Porter visiting Isfahan notes that there were hardly any Zoroastrians left in Isfahan and Gabrabad was in ruins.

Various methods were used to proselytize the minorities. According to a law, if any member of family converted to Islam, he/she was entitled to all inheritance.[65][68][69]They were forbidden from taking up lucrative occupations.[65] The community was regarded as outcast, impure and untouchable.[65] The Zoroastrians and their food was considered impure[64][65] and many public places refused to serve them. When they shopped in the bazaar, they were not allowed to touch any food or fruits.[56]They were threatened with forced conversions, beaten up and fleeced,[citation needed] and their religious sanctuaries were regularly desecrated.[65] Harassments and persecution were the norms of daily life.[70] Zoroastrians were often attacked and beaten by Muslims in the streets.[56] The murders of Zoroastrians were not punished.[65] At times, Zoroastrian girls were kidnapped and forcefully converted and married to Muslims and brought to town in fanfare.[69]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very peaceful and voluntary conversion indeed!!

 

[Kirran]

It's a fact that Europe benefited from the Muslims and not the contrary as the Indians claim
of being suffered and persecuted due to Islam.

In actual reality, there is nuance. It wasn't all good or all bad. In Europe there was conquest and there was cruelty towards non-Muslims of Al-Andalus, and there was a genocide in Malta. But also, there were great advances in science, in philosophy etc, stemming from the interaction.

In India there was conquest, there was forced conversion, there was the destruction of temples. But also there were the great contributions of Sufi traditions, and there was the ruler Akbar, who recognised the unity of all religions and encouraged equality.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Not all Muslims are the same, got it.
No one represent what Islam is.

Every single Muslim represents what Islam is. The louder voices become it.

 

[Kirran]

Every single Muslim represents what Islam is. The louder voices become it.

I agree with the former, but not so much the latter. How are louder voices 'more Islam' than quiet ones.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I ain't a quranist, I am a Muslim till the last breath in my earthly life.

Uh, say what? That doesn't jive with the following:

Compared to the quran the hadith has no value.

Does the Quran tell you how to perform hajj or how to pray? No? Then where does the justification for these things come from?

Many Hindus converted to Islam during that era, if they chose to build a mosque in the site
of the temple then why you see it as a problem, in Saudi Arabia the polytheists converted to
Islam and of course all ancient temples has no reason to exist, I can't see a problem with
converting the stones from one building to another one.

The sheer amount of revisionism & selective thinking displayed here is disgusting. While it's quite likely that some would have voluntarily converted to Islam, it's even more likely that plenty would not; and would have required coercion to convert. Indeed, the case of Ta'if on its own defeats your argument - Muhammad wouldn't let them surrender to him if they refused to accept Islam.

Occam's Razor also dismantles this claim pretty quickly. It's far more likely that instead of undergoing mass-conversion and voluntarily dismantling their own temples; Hindus in areas under Muslim control were subject to persecution (as they weren't People of the Book), had restrictions placed on their religious practises and had their temples demolished to make room for mosques.

I didn't say Taliban aren't Muslims, I said they don't represent Islam, no one represent Islam.

So Muhammad doesn't represent Islam - which makes the Sunnah worthless? Understood.

The problem for you here is that we're not saying "one group or person represents Islam". We've given you multiple examples (carried out by different people) of this sort of religious intolerance that you're trying desperately to block out. That makes it a pattern - a recorded pattern.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

How are louder voices 'more Islam' than quiet ones.

They're not. But if all people can hear are the louder voices, and the majority of "peaceful" Muslims keep quiet with meek "it's not us" excuses... How will the world know anything but the loud few?

 

[Kirran]

They're not. But if all people can hear are the louder voices, and the majority of "peaceful" Muslims keep quiet with meek "it's not us" excuses... How will the world know anything but the loud few?

Fair enough, but that's somewhat a different matter.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Fair enough, but that's somewhat a different matter.

It also really doesn't help that the ones with the quiet voices so often espouse views & attitudes similar & sympathetic to the 'loud intolerant few' voices.

 

[Kirran]

It also really doesn't help that the ones with the quiet voices so often espouse views & attitudes similar & sympathetic to the 'loud intolerant few' voices.

Depends on the voices. There are also plenty who condemn them in no uncertain terms.

 

[FearGod]

Does the Quran tell you how to perform hajj or how to pray? No? Then where does the justification for these things come from?

My relation with God doesn't need a fixed method to perform.

The sheer amount of revisionism & selective thinking displayed here is disgusting. While it's quite likely that some would have voluntarily converted to Islam, it's even more likely that plenty would not; and would have required coercion to convert. Indeed, the case of Ta'if on its own defeats your argument - Muhammad wouldn't let them surrender to him if they refused to accept Islam.

And the quran says no one should be forced into Islam, I believe the quran.

Occam's Razor also dismantles this claim pretty quickly. It's far more likely that instead of undergoing mass-conversion and voluntarily dismantling their own temples; Hindus in areas under Muslim control were subject to persecution (as they weren't People of the Book), had restrictions placed on their religious practises and had their temples demolished to make room for mosques.

That what you want to believe.

So Muhammad doesn't represent Islam - which makes the Sunnah worthless? Understood.

Yes Sunnah is worthless, Islam has no branches.

The problem for you here is that we're not saying "one group or person represents Islam". We've given you multiple examples (carried out by different people) of this sort of religious intolerance that you're trying desperately to block out. That makes it a pattern - a recorded pattern.

What's your point, I didn't get what you mean?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Fair enough, but that's somewhat a different matter.

Not really. We've got no less than three Muslims here that are among that silent majority, who are - by their inherent denial - damaging the reputation of their religion, marginalizing others through indifference, or trying to completely rewrite history to their benefit. It's the greatest and worst employment of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

 

[YmirGF]

No it doesn't. They invaded, they destroyed and they conquered. The flavor of Islam that did so in India was apparently more smash happy than some other parts of the world. That's all that proves.
Also how dare you try to rewrite history. Muslim invaders (who do not represent all Muslims past or present) destroyed temples and desecrated Holy sites. Stop being a coward and own the history. Everyone's group did terrible things.

That is an important point. Christian I have encountered readily acknowledge the sordid past of the Christian expansion. For Muslims to deny their bloody expansion is instructive but it also points out the inherent inferiority complex within Islam itself. For such a supposedly peaceful ideology it certainly attracts a lot of violent fanatics.