different countries?
how does anything spread to different countries????
ppl hear about it/see it/experience it, they like it and it stays....
Re: how did islam spread to....
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by blushing_vision: *
different countries?
[/QUOTE]
Initially by Persecution and Immigration, and then by what armughal bhai said.
Initally conquests (offensive jihad), nowadays immigration.
^
examples wud serve us better....
name a place where muslims went by force and then forced the citizens to accept Islam....
In central India from Goury to Bahadur Shah Zfar Islam was religion of the rulers. After Auranbzeb the Islamic rule was very weak.
From Goury to Aurangzeb, all rulers, except in Akabar period, destroyed Hindu, Sikh and Jain temples.
Is it not a use of force? Let us decide it first.
After we can discuss if Hindus joined Islam voluntarily or for safety and achievements?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by anjjan: *
In central India from Goury to Bahadur Shah Zfar Islam was religion of the rulers. After Auranbzeb the Islamic rule was very weak.
From Goury to Aurangzeb, all rulers, except in Akabar period, destroyed Hindu, Sikh and Jain temples.
Is it not a use of force? Let us decide it first.
After we can discuss if Hindus joined Islam voluntarily or for safety and achievements?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah sure. If the powerful moghuls, supported by the Arab caliphate, were indeed killing and converting Hindis at the point of the sword. All Hindi should have become muslim (or died) not mere 20% of them.
As for destruction of temples; yes, it happened. Mostly in pre-mughal era by raiders from Afghanistan etc. And at the same time the same armies also sometimes destroyed masjids built by their opponent or rebel kings, because they did not want to leave any trace of the enemy's glory. So now would you call them Islam haters also. No, these were warrior kings who primarily wanted to establish a stable empire - NOT Islam. Many were womanising alchoholics.
All these accusations of poor Hindi sufferings are mere instruments to insite innocent, and illterate Hindi masses against Muslims and Pakistan, to keep attention diverted from real issues and to avoid questions on excessive military spending. The same thing is happening here in US also right now. keep them scared, angry and spend all the money you want on your cronies' corporations in defence industry.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by armughal: *
^
examples wud serve us better....
name a place where muslims went by force and then forced the citizens to accept Islam....
[/QUOTE]
I never said there was forced conversions, (and even if it did happen its not allowed in islam).
I meant in the early period of islam (first 150 years), they conquered vast areas, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, the persian empire was destroyed, Egypt, most of North africa, Spain etc.
Mr Ajju, why don’t you find some convincing arguments. Islamic rulers were involved in destructing all kind of worship places is not my concern. They destructed worship places of non Muslim faith for the sake of Islam.
Is it not a use of force?
Mass conversations were very popular in 19th century and earlier. Are you sure that in mass conversions all new comers actually read Quran or the kazi ofr Imam had time to meet each and every one to convince of Islam. Are you sure that mass conversions were really voluntary, no fatwa or threat took place?
And why mass conversions stopped taking place since second half of 20th century? Did Islam loss glory or people were become more aware?
Islam could find an easy expansion from arabs to central asia and Africa, to undeveloped societies, and in India the game was not so easy.
Re Jazia, are you sure that no one accepted Islam to get exemption from Jazia. In Islamic regimes Muslims are a privileged class. Is it not a use of force or allurement?
If Islam is so kind for voluntary incoming, why voluntary outgoing is not allowed?
There is nothing inciting against Muslims or Pakistan, after all kind of ridiculer chapters of history people respect each other, because they know that they have to live together.
Mr M says
I never said there was forced conversions, (and even if it did happen its not allowed in islam).
We are not discussing if it is allowed in Islam, we are discussing if force was used for conversion.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by anjjan: *
In central India from Goury to Bahadur Shah Zfar Islam was religion of the rulers. After Auranbzeb the Islamic rule was very weak.
From Goury to Aurangzeb, all rulers, except in Akabar period, destroyed Hindu, Sikh and Jain temples.
Is it not a use of force? Let us decide it first.
After we can discuss if Hindus joined Islam voluntarily or for safety and achievements?
[/QUOTE]
To add to your argument.... Muslim rulers taxed non muslims heavier that the muslim in north Africa, Syria and Jordan. In India, Aurangzeb had the teen aged kids of Guru Gobind buried "alive" in a brick wall cos they refused to accept Islam.
All of you who are saying islam spread by killing etc,
get your facts right.. go do a bit of research, then come here and argue.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MyStiCaL_MisS: *
All of you who are saying islam spread by killing etc,
get your facts right.. go do a bit of research, then come here and argue.
[/QUOTE]
And what is your argument, Honey???
Right now, mood nahi hai argue karne ki :Pretty:
kal debate karangai, sahee hai?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MyStiCaL_MisS: *
Right now, mood nahi hai argue karne ki :Pretty:
kal debate karangai, sahee hai?
[/QUOTE]
Dear I did not understand what you said there. can you plz translate that into English
I said im not in the mood to argue right now,
we’ll debate about it tomoro…
Just to add, the Companions of the Prophet(saw), were the ones who started inviting people to islam by going to the kings of different states,
also muslims from that era started ‘comparitive religion’, by translating religious texts, and translating the quran as well..
these are just some of the things..
will be back with more…
[QUOTE]
Companions of the Prophet(saw), were the ones who started inviting people to islam
[/QUOTE]
bit disagree with the above; it was not only invitation - there was something else also.. fear of getting into sectarian discussion, leaving this issue.
Anjjan,
That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. I made my statement- you made yours. But you don't see me attacking anyone else's religion like you do. So, I think I must be better.
If you really are interested in answers to these questions (false accusations) that you raise, learn to goole. Search the topic, I am sure these beat up mquestions have been asked by malicious people like you a thousand times and answered by patient muslims as many times.
me I don't give a rats a__ about time passers like you who just accuse and enjoy wasting muslim time and effort in replying to you.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by anjjan: *
Mass conversations were very popular in 19th century and earlier. Are you sure that in mass conversions all new comers actually read Quran or the kazi or Imam had time to meet each and every one to convince of Islam. Are you sure that mass conversions were really voluntary, no fatwa or threat took place?
[/QUOTE]
There you go you did drag me into it anyway.
First of all, you are quoting History but accusing Islam. What some muslims did does not automatically mean it is sanctioned by Islam.
Most Hindustani's (Indo and PAk) do not know thier own history. What they hear is just prejudiced propaganda fed by their respective sides.
You say show me where mass conversion took place without coercion. The example is right in front of your eyes. The people who ruled you for six hundred years. The Mughals. or more properly the Mongols.
The Mongols conquered China a Buddhist/Shinto country first.
Then, They- Mongols - conquered other central Asian countries - Christian and other rel.
Then, They - Mongols - conquered Mesopotamia (Iraq, Syria) Muslims.
They massacred half the population in these countries. People who did not even resist them, they killed to a man, woman and child.
Next they Conquered Persia - Muslim. This brought them at the gates of India. Persians were already ruling parts of India.
Close to fifty years afterward this, they - the cruelest rulers of half the known world - converted to Islam. They liked the equality and brotherhood taught by Islam. There can't be any coercion of any kind here. They were the conquering, massacring rulers who killed raped as and when their heart desired.
Conversion brought a huge change in them they now wanted to establish justice in land. And soon after - like another 50yrs - they invaded Indian kingdoms. And this time they did not massacre every man, woman and child like they did in Asia, Iraq and Iran. Why? Islam made the difference.
And Jazia - do you know what it means? It means exactly what it sounds like - Jaza : Substitute. This tax was for non-Muslims in leu of Zakat tax paid by Muslims.
So Muslims paid Zakat
Non-muslims paid the substitute - Jazia.
Why not make them pay ZAKAT too. They were not muslim and it was not right to force a muslim religious obligation on them so an alternative - Jazia - Tax was used.
About
[QUOTE]
If Islam is so kind for voluntary incoming, why voluntary outgoing is not allowed?
[/QUOTE]
This decree that said 'death for those who abandon Islam' has to be take in its context. When this was revealed there were only about 80 Muslims in the world. And they were being persecuted by the Idolaters. They were attacked, sometimes killed. Their property destroyed or confiscated. They were coerced to renounce their religion and revert to the idol worship. (Sounds like Gujarat). Some left their home and city to seek refuge elsewhere.
Then in such dark dark time, a delegation from a city called Yazrib came and offered prophet Mohd SA leadership of there strife riddled town - in exchange they said they will believe in his prophet hood, about 2-3 thousand of them. It sounded like a business deal not religious. Then the holy Prophet said something you would never do. He said no, this is not a marriage of convenience. Belief must come without any strings. He said, " There is no going back in Islam" ie what you mentioned above 'punishment of murtid is death'.
But what the hell is he doing? He has 80 followers who are being whupped day and night by idolaters. His tail is in the crack and here there are a couple of thousand people offering to accept him as their leader and he is saying this, taking risk of loosing them. Why because Islam does not want people to convert for reason other than faith.
And this decree 'no going out' was to make people think deeply before they make their commitment to enter Islam. Not to keep them in.
I know nothing I say will matter to you. But in above post I had mentioned " patient muslims", then I thought maybe I wasn't being one of them, so I did reply.
Next time use google.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by anjjan: *
my concern. They destructed worship places of non Muslim faith for the sake of Islam.
[/QUOTE]
That is your false claim they did it for Islam. No they did it for their empire. Again like I said you are quoting historic events and blaming Islam for it. If Ted Bundy said " For Jesus" when he dismembered his victims whose fault is it Ted's or Jesus'?
My Last post in Religious section.
It should be renamed to Islam-bashing section.
Nice bit of debate. I'm with Ajju_Q