Dr. Ambedkars book "Why Conversion"

Society Religion & Philosophy
41

abdali are you saying if a country defeats
islam in battlefield they are superior?
any country defeated by islam is inferior
nation?

Muhammad's teachings met with severe and hostile opposition, and in the year 622 he left Mecca and sought refuge in the city of Yathrib, as a number of his followers had already done. so first battle started
in saudi arabia islam won in saudi arabia
why you did say islam started ruling saudi arabia.

[This message has been edited by rvikz (edited December 07, 2001).]

42

[quote]
Originally posted by rvikz:
abdali are you saying if a country defeats
islam in battlefield they are superior?
any country defeated by islam is inferior
nation?
[/quote]

rvikz Islam is a superior religion thats the bottom line. Thats why millions of hindus converted. WE have million converts in US, why no one forced them... Today we don't have the spirit of Islam we once did.

The brotherhood of Islam that once harnessed the full capabilities of a very diverse population, the research, arts, mathematics, astrnomy, commerce were part of Islam and were passed on to the Europeans.

Seems like you hindus find it hard to swallow that conversions in India was not at point of sword.

43

[quote]
Originally posted by rvikz:
**
Muhammad's teachings met with severe and hostile opposition, and in the year 622 he left Mecca and sought refuge in the city of Yathrib, as a number of his followers had already done. so first battle started
in saudi arabia islam won in saudi arabia
why you did say islam started ruling saudi arabia.

[This message has been edited by rvikz (edited December 07, 2001).]**
[/quote]

You are leaving behind the most important part. The muslims who were chased out of mecca returned and captured the holy city but did not kill a single soul. Ten thousand strong they were given the choice to stay or leave.

Now had this incident happened in India you hindus would have chapters on genocide...

And you expect us to believe that too.

44

This is such a sorry ass discussion. First offs every one is a convert to islam, starting with the arabs themselves. Arabs and muslims very proudly proclaim that the first converts transformed an illetrate, savage, permissive culture into a blessing for humanity.
As regards the converts of Pakistan or afghanistan or central asia, they have nothing to do with India . The centre of the islmaic empire was in northern India, but the dense population of muslim converts has been where the sufis have been preaching, in the country of Punjab, sindh, kashmir, baluchistan and afghania. I say country because each of these regions have several, independant ethnicities common to them, have their various dialects and heritage. The population of Pakistan in the various provinces in very very diverse. Infact it is one of the most diverse country, due to the fact of repeated invasions and migrations of aryans, scythians, white huns, parthians, janjuas, greeks, kushans, afghans etc.the best people converted to Islam. Infact Pakistan is one of the MOST diverse and definitely THE most diverse muslim country in the World.The people still adhere to their last names. Now the fact is that there were many many arabs who settled in these parts. Infact both mujaddadi and gilani in afghnistan are descended from arab clans. It is so stupid for some people to think south asians, middle easterners as a monolith.
It is not the ethnicity or nationality but faith which makes muslims a monolith. Infact it was the turks who when converted fought against their own non muslim counter parts the tartars.
It was a kurd named salahuddin ayyubi from Iraq, whose army was made of arabs and kurds and egyptians who defeated richard the lion heart. Egyptians call saladin as egyptian. Iraqis him as iraq, and kurds him as kurds..But he is a hero shared by all. Ahmed shah abdali, Ibrahimj lodhi etc were afghans but they are heroes shared by all.
The largest school of though the "hanafi" school of though was made by Imam abu hanifa, an afghan. Waris shah, bulley shah etc punjabi sufis are celebrated by all muslims of Pakistan. Iqbal a kashmiri poet is the national poet of Pakistan.
Most of the muslism in north africa and middle east are arabized, but they call themselves "arab" thats their choice. Ghaznavi was a turk, but he is revered by pashtuns, punjbais, kashmiris and all.
Even iranians, who are 55-60% persian consider themselves part of the same group. The rest of the minorities of Iran such as turkman, baloch, arab, azeris, armenians share the "persianIslamic" cuture (since persians after they emerged as a people did maintain a centre of power from time to time).
Nationalism is a plague and unnatural to muslims. We are a monolith, and our destiny is one which is shared by all.

[This message has been edited by Sultan Toora (edited December 08, 2001).]

45

Islamic law divides the world into dar al-Islam (abode of Islam) and dar al-harb (abode of war—that is, of non-Muslim rule). Most modern branches of Islam stress the inner, spiritual jihad. But Islamic law also states that all nations must surrender to Islamic rule, if not its faith. Until that time, all adult, male, and able-bodied Muslims are expected to take part in hostile jihads against non-Muslim neighbors and neighboring lands. The Qur'an (Koran) states that those who die in this type of jihad automatically become martyrs of the faith and are awarded a special place in heaven.

For Muslims, there exist two kinds of non-Muslim enemies: kafir (nonbelievers in Islam) and ahl al-kitab (people of the book). Kafir, such as Buddhists and Hindus (see Buddhism; Hinduism), must either convert to Islam or face execution. Once converted to Islam it is a capital offense to renounce the faith. People of the book include Jews, Christians, and followers of Zoroastrianism. These people need only submit to Muslim political authority to avoid or end a jihad. They may keep their original faith, but their status becomes dhimmi (a "protected" non-Muslim) and they must pay a prescribed poll tax.

In contrast to mainstream Sunnites, Muslim groups such as the Imami and BohoraIsmaili- Shiites are forbidden from participating in a hostile jihad. These sects believe the only person legitimately capable of conducting such a jihad is their imam, or spiritual leader.

46

Well, I don’t know how amny Muslims regard it as their duty to wage war on Kaffirs.
But what seems obvious is Muslims are too busy fighting among themselves. And whatever thier past achievements seem to have become singularly impotent.
Look at Israel !!!

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

47

[quote]
Originally posted by Abdali:

Not arabs
Not Turks
Not Mongals
Not French
Not Martians

BUT ISLAM do you get it boy what I am saying...
And who brings in arabs, turks, persians? of course hindus... See your BS... or is ur skull too thick to get it.

First try to comprehend what is being said here and then try to make aa point.

[/quote]

abdali, babar ruled a$$ of ibrahim lodi in ur langugae (and george bush rules a$$ of parvez mushy and mullah omar at same time)

abdali, why first three caliphs were assasinated? who killed them? whom did babar defeat on way to india or even to take over delhi?

arabs, turks, and so on is a fact of life. there was no uniform islam except for jamaati historians. people coming from deserts invades indian subcontinent. newer invadetrs killed older invaders most of older ones being central asian themselves.

u r telling me there was/is no racism in history of muslims. why bangladesh separated?

and abdali, likes of u, were the first to be defeated, and convert because life was hard enough with invasions, being of another religion was worse.

conversion was a part of military conquest.

now bush has kicked ur mullah omar in dustbin and made mushy kneel before him with one phonecall. does that make christianity superior to wahbism (which in my opinion is truism)

on the other hand, buddhism spread in entire southeast asia with just monks.

but comparing mediaveal religion of arab tribals with sophisticated regions of civilized india makes no sense and i will not even go in comparison.

in any case, u must read what ambedkar thought of islam, in fact parts of book had to be deleted since muslims shouted too hard.

48

these are the same people who
name missiles after Afghan who invaded modern day pakistan first.abdali it would be
great honor if you settle afghan refugees
in punjab instead of naming missiles after them.

49

[quote]
Originally posted by ZZ:
**
abdali, babar ruled a$$ of ibrahim lodi in ur langugae (and george bush rules a$$ of parvez mushy and mullah omar at same time)

abdali, why first three caliphs were assasinated? who killed them? whom did babar defeat on way to india or even to take over delhi?

arabs, turks, and so on is a fact of life. there was no uniform islam except for jamaati historians. people coming from deserts invades indian subcontinent. newer invadetrs killed older invaders most of older ones being central asian themselves.

u r telling me there was/is no racism in history of muslims. why bangladesh separated?

and abdali, likes of u, were the first to be defeated, and convert because life was hard enough with invasions, being of another religion was worse.

conversion was a part of military conquest.

now bush has kicked ur mullah omar in dustbin and made mushy kneel before him with one phonecall. does that make christianity superior to wahbism (which in my opinion is truism)

on the other hand, buddhism spread in entire southeast asia with just monks.

but comparing mediaveal religion of arab tribals with sophisticated regions of civilized india makes no sense and i will not even go in comparison.

in any case, u must read what ambedkar thought of islam, in fact parts of book had to be deleted since muslims shouted too hard.**
[/quote]

IF there is a shameless nation then one cannot think of any other then BahRAT. Speaking of kicking Mullah Omar in dust bin. After offering its body to uncle sam, uncle did not take a second to shun you like a used whore. Its better you not talk who kicked whom coz I haven’t even covered chinkos yet.

It really shows the degree of your failures when birdbrains speak of conversion by sword to mask out your own evil caste system. There are 1.2B billion Muslims do you claim conversion was forced on them. There are millions of converts in the west how about them. Instead of BSing you better try to understand why there was mass conversion to Buddhism recently or did Dalai used an AK47…..

And finally when you speak of Islam as mediaeval and religion of civilized India (haha) you need to have your head examined. And yeah sure the brotherhood concept is part of Hinduism and caste was brought to India by Islam and yes please don’t even think of comparison coz most ppl here may be offended.

50

[quote]
Originally posted by Abdali:
** IF there is a shameless nation then one cannot think of any other then BahRAT. Speaking of kicking Mullah Omar in dust bin. After offering its body to uncle sam, uncle did not take a second to shun you like a used whore. Its better you not talk who kicked whom coz I haven?t even covered chinkos yet.

It really shows the degree of your failures when birdbrains speak of conversion by sword to mask out your own evil caste system. There are 1.2B billion Muslims do you claim conversion was forced on them. There are millions of converts in the west how about them. Instead of BSing you better try to understand why there was mass conversion to Buddhism recently or did Dalai used an AK47?..

And finally when you speak of Islam as mediaeval and religion of civilized India (haha) you need to have your head examined. And yeah sure the brotherhood concept is part of Hinduism and caste was brought to India by Islam and yes please don?t even think of comparison coz most ppl here may be offended.

**
[/quote]

get back to topic in stead of shouting as if rat has go in ur lungi.

fact is that islam spread by force. few black converts in prison dont change anything. if u r able to make america a muslim majority nation in 65 years as it did in arabia, it carries a point (or at least a significant number of conversion) but nothing like that will happen in next 1000 yrs at current rate.

u urself are proud of atrocities of muslim invaders and believe that muslims ruled india with chapals. no wonder some cowards like ur forefathers converted. some like guru tegbahdur prefered to die than convert and some like shivaji successfully resisted.

on the other hand, buddhist monks from india converted 'great china' and rest of southeast asia without killing an ant.

51

Instead of screaming when nailed I’d suggest you take your advice and stick to the subject at hand. Instead of beating the old drum and beat around the bush could you provide us bad Muslims some figures. Tell us how many blacks out of million converted in prisons and please tell us out of 1.2B Muslims how many were converted at gun point.

My my don’t you find it amazing Muslims with a higher birth rate (yeah right) and despite genocide of Hindus there are 800M+ of them,

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/confused.gif

now it don’t add up does it.

How very smart to switch to Buddhism rather then explaining why Hindus were/are converting to other faiths. Or do you expect other faiths to convert to Hinduism as a high caste Brahmin..

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/hehe.gif

So according to your theory following are the reasons for conversion to Islam.

  1. Sword/gun
  2. Prison
  3. Deception
  4. Bribery
  5. Please add more..

Trust me no one ever blames a hindu for his behavior coz we know your text books.

52

Although as a religious faith, Islam put great stress on the equality of all believers, in most cases, society did not become more egalitarian under Islamic rule. The general bias towards trade, and the trend towards higher taxes on the peasantry led to far greater concentrations of wealth amongst the social elite. Not only did the distance between rich and poor widen with the arrival of the Islamic invaders, Islamic rulers did not contribute in any meaningful way to breaking down the caste system.

Hence, it would be wrong to exaggerate the "egalitarian" character of Islam versus the "discriminatory and sedentary " character of caste-driven Hinduism. As some historians have pointed out - those who earned their living by "unclean tasks" (such as corpse-handling, tanning/leather work, or janitorial work) were often treated with disdain by both the Islamic and Hindu elite. The majority of the Islamic conquerors and ruling dynasties refrained from close social interaction and marriage with the local artisans and working castes just as much as did Brahmins or Kshatriyas. It would also be wrong to argue that caste rigidity was uniformly enforced in 'Hindu' India. Many of India's greatest ruling dynasties sprang from lower castes or socially "inferior" mixed castes. The Nandas were shudras, the Mauryas hailed from a mixed caste, and Harsha was a Vaishya. The Rajputs were of Central Asian stock and became accepted as Kshatriya after they had established their power. And just like the Muslims, the Kalingas of Orissa allowed anyone to join their armies and rise to the top by demonstrating their skills in battle. Moreover the Vaishnava and Bhakti movements had already been popularizing the notion that spiritual devotion superceded caste in terms of gaining salvation. Hence, Islam did not offer anything that was substantially new or more radical to the majority of India's Hindus and this is why the majority did not convert to Islam.

53

rvikz,

I can provide several links too but that is beside the point. A quote from your EX PM Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (India's Prime Minsiter 1947-64) in ‘The Discovery of India,’ 1946, p. 218, 225. writes.

** In Hindu society the petrification of caste, untouchability, exclusiveness carried to fantastic lengths. The idea of the brotherhood of Islam and the theoretical equality of its adherents made a powerful appeal especially to those in the Hindu fold who were denied any semblance of equal treatment.” **

[This message has been edited by Abdali (edited December 09, 2001).]

54

Most Western constitutions today guarantee complete religious liberty, in opinion, practice and propagation. A person is perfectly free to hold or change his opinions, or even hold no religious opinions whatsoever. Under Islamic law, however, this is not the case. Whilst a person may be free to be a Muslim, Jew, Christian or Zoroastrian, he may not hold other religious opinions, as the ban on paganism illustrates.
Moreover, whilst a non-Muslim may change his religion to Islam or one other 'Scriptuary' faith, a Muslim who converts from Islam faces execution. It follows from this that Christians are forbidden to proselytise Muslims, though no such reciprocal ban exists on Muslims. This also affects marriages, since if a Muslim apostatises, the marriage is dissolved, and there is at least one recent example of this in Egypt, where a liberal Muslim was declared apostate by a court, and his marriage dissolved, necessitating the couple's removal to the West, illustrating that the ruling is not merely theoretical. Most blatantly, whilst the post-war era, especially since the 1970s, have seen an energetic upsurge of mosque construction in the West, there has been no corresponding development in Christian religious buildings in the Muslim world, since Islamic law permits only the repair of existing buildings, forbidding the construction of new ones. [16] The same ruling forbids any Christian presence whatsoever in the Arabian peninsula, so we can see the anomaly that whereas the Saudis recently constructed a giant mosque in Rome, there is no possibility of reciprocity for the Roman Catholics (or anyone else) to build even the smallest chapel in Saudi Arabia. The issue is not simply one of reciprocity; national Christians in the Muslim world are denied this right as well, whereas Muslims may freely construct mosques.

55

[quote]
Originally posted by rvikz:
**Most Western constitutions today guarantee complete religious liberty, in opinion, practice and propagation. A person is perfectly free to hold or change his opinions, or even hold no religious opinions whatsoever. Under Islamic law, however, this is not the case. Whilst a person may be free to be a Muslim, Jew, Christian or Zoroastrian, he may not hold other religious opinions, as the ban on paganism illustrates.
Moreover, whilst a non-Muslim may change his religion to Islam or one other 'Scriptuary' faith, a Muslim who converts from Islam faces execution. It follows from this that Christians are forbidden to proselytise Muslims, though no such reciprocal ban exists on Muslims. This also affects marriages, since if a Muslim apostatises, the marriage is dissolved, and there is at least one recent example of this in Egypt, where a liberal Muslim was declared apostate by a court, and his marriage dissolved, necessitating the couple's removal to the West, illustrating that the ruling is not merely theoretical. Most blatantly, whilst the post-war era, especially since the 1970s, have seen an energetic upsurge of mosque construction in the West, there has been no corresponding development in Christian religious buildings in the Muslim world, since Islamic law permits only the repair of existing buildings, forbidding the construction of new ones. [16] The same ruling forbids any Christian presence whatsoever in the Arabian peninsula, so we can see the anomaly that whereas the Saudis recently constructed a giant mosque in Rome, there is no possibility of reciprocity for the Roman Catholics (or anyone else) to build even the smallest chapel in Saudi Arabia. The issue is not simply one of reciprocity; national Christians in the Muslim world are denied this right as well, whereas Muslims may freely construct mosques.

**
[/quote]

rivkz you are side tracking the issue at hand of why Hindus convert to other faiths. I can provide you equal and opposite views to counter yours even with examples. During the height of Islamic empire all faiths lived side by side with equal rights... At one time in history Jews chose to live under Islam....

56

islam spread where there was military conquest. where there was no military conquest islam did not spread.
no point talking about buddhism and how buddhism spread. buddhism is an indian religion, intellectually sophisticated and had a natural appeal.
on the other hand medievial tribal islam which had no sophistication whastsoever (read repetitive, boring quran and compare it with intellectula sophistication of tripitakas) could spread only by force.
so dont bother compaing islam with any faith born in indian soil, buddhism, sikhism or whatever.

[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited December 09, 2001).]

57

I think you need to start from scratch on Islam from none Indian history books. I will give you a clue.. “sufis”

BTW you dodged the question again

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/hehe.gif

[This message has been edited by Abdali (edited December 09, 2001).]

58

[quote]
Originally posted by Abdali:
** I think you need to start from scratch on Islam from none Indian history books. I will give you a clue.. "sufis"

**
[/quote]

sufis are hardly considered muslims. they were product of ancient iranian mysticism prior to islam rather than islam. read jalaluddin rumi. he sounds a thoroughly enlightened person, more enlightened than ur prophets. suphism is a philosophy of love not of 'ruling ass of india', 'ruling indians with chappals' and so on which is original phislosophy of islam and i consider abdali's utterenaces or aurangzeb's acts were entirely in accordance with islam. even poets like iqbal have similar opinions, except in more flowery language.

ur questions are simply idiotic since there is no comparison between appeal and spread of buddhism and that of islam. on one hand u have a thinker who tells followeres to accept only those parts which stabnd test of logic, on other hand u have a man who even tells followers how to urinate.

[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited December 09, 2001).]

59

[quote]
Originally posted by ZZ:
**
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Abdali:
** I think you need to start from scratch on Islam from none Indian history books. I will give you a clue.. "sufis"

** sufis are hardly considered muslims. they were product of ancient iranian mysticism prior to islam rather than islam. read jalaluddin rumi. he sounds a thoroughly enlightened person, more enlightened than ur prophets. suphism is a philosophy of love not of 'ruling ass of india', 'ruling indians with chappals' and so on which is original phislosophy of islam and i consider abdali's utterenaces or aurangzeb's acts were entirely in accordance with islam. even poets like iqbal have similar opinions, except in more flowery language.**
[/quote]

Since it don’t severe your purpose and blew your cover one more time you chose to paint it with your usual brush. Muslim scholars have spoken favorably about Sufism. See the article Scholars on Tasawwuf, written by the as-Sunnah Foundation.

Now instead of foaming at mouth you could tell us when Islam invaded America. The Nation of Islam movement started in 30s with only 8000 followers. According to the latest survey (2000) there are 7M Muslim in US out of which 24 to 42 percent are black American converts.

Instead of wiggling your way out answer the original question.

[This message has been edited by Abdali (edited December 09, 2001).]

60

[quote]
Originally posted by Abdali:
** Since it dont severe your purpose and blew your cover one more time you chose to paint it with your usual brush. Muslim scholars have spoken favorably about Sufism. See the article Scholars on Tasawwuf, written by the as-Sunnah Foundation.

Now instead of foaming at mouth you could tell us when Islam invaded America. The Nation of Islam movement started in 30s with only 8000 followers. According to the latest survey (2000) there are 7M Muslim in US out of which 24 to 42 percent are black American converts.

Instead of wiggling your way out answer the original question.

[This message has been edited by Abdali (edited December 09, 2001).]**
[/quote]

out of this 7M, many r recent immigrants like u who were born handicapped, some are in 'Nation of Islam', which I think, has own prophet. there is nothing like conversion of entire arabia, part of africa in early years of islam which came along with military conquest.

given ur current rate, even having a muslim governor in one US state will need a millenium.