Somewhere in VS Naipaul’s writings, I read that Mohammad Iqbal was a actually a Hindu pundit -brahman- from Kashmir by his lineage. And being a grandson of a converted Muslim - converted by choice or by force - he had more fervor for Islam compared to Muslim invaders from Turkey or Persia who ruled Hindus in India for many years and converted many of them to Islam by force, most of which now make the population of Pakistan. Are these facts true?
Note: VS Naipaul was the Nobel Laureate in literature for 2001.
Somewhere in VS Naipaul's writings, I read that Mohammad Iqbal was a actually a Hindu pundit -brahman- from Kashmir by his lineage. And being a grandson of a converted Muslim - converted by choice or by force - he had more fervor for Islam compared to Muslim invaders from Turkey or Persia who ruled Hindus in India for many years and converted many of them to Islam by force, most of which now make the population of Pakistan. Are these facts true?
Note: VS Naipaul was the Nobel Laureate in literature for 2001.
Allama Iqbal's background is accurate. I disagree with the notion that Muslims of Pakistan were converted by force. VS Naipaul may be a recognized author but he is very biased against Pakistan and Muslims in general. I read his letters from his university days and I liked that work. His other book, chronicling his journey through Muslim lands was very biased.
I am not sure if you're Indian/Hindu, but I would not put to much belief in his work. It is the equivalent of a British colonials assesment of the 'hindoo' religion.
By the way, his current wife Nadira Alvi from Pakistan is an apostate.
You know, I actually enjoy history and yet I haven't come across any proof of the whole notion that people in the sub continent were converted by force. While history is written by bias people often if you read enough sides the truth does come out.
Anyway, if we go back long enough, we all came from hunter gatherers, but I hope we are not judged by the deeds of our forefathers.
You know, I actually enjoy history and yet I haven't come across any proof of the whole notion that people in the sub continent were converted by force. While history is written by bias people often if you read enough sides the truth does come out.
Anyway, if we go back long enough, we all came from hunter gatherers, but I hope we are not judged by the deeds of our forefathers.
Right. I mean there might be instances where groups of people converted because musl;ims were seen in a more favorable light by the invading Muslim rulers. But even that is highly suspect.
If the Muslims of Pakistan were converted by force, they could have reverted to their original religion after the Brits colonized India. This is a statement forwarded by many writers and theorists of hindu origin.
You know as much as I like to belive that Islam is against forced conversions, that could have happen more often then we like to believe.
Its OK because we should defend Islam but not muslims (at least not all the time, although I am guilty of doing that too).
Some muslims general or commander or ruler might have forced his non-muslim people to convert and that got recorded in history. So what.
And with due respect, these actions, as they appeared bad, can only be brought forward from the writers/authors of different faith. Sometime it might have been a propganda but there might be an element of truth, sometimes
Some muslims general or commander or ruler might have forced his non-muslim people to convert and that got recorded in history. So what.
And with due respect, these actions, as they appeared bad, can only be brought forward from the writers/authors of different faith. Sometime it might have been a propganda but there might be an element of truth, sometimes
This is really offensive. Please give a proof of a commander/general who forced his non-Muslim subjects to convert? And when I say sources I don't mean some random hindu scholar with an ax to grind. I mean sources like Mahmud Ghazni attacking Somnath, something that Hindus, Muslims etc all agree on.
If any Indian of that period was converted to Islam by force he/she wouldve returned to the old faith or atleast passed it down to the next generation in secret. Although a bit off topic, Sikhs were heavily persecuted by some Mughals however they did not convert to Islam out of fear. Same can be said about many other groups.
By the way, I am not disparaging hinduism when I say that many Indians left it for Islam. Religion is something we can choose if there desire is there. That is why there are Hindus in Bali, Guyana and white american converts. No hate, just reality.
This is really offensive. Please give a proof of a commander/general who forced his non-Muslim subjects to convert? And when I say sources I don't mean some random hindu scholar with an ax to grind. I mean sources like Mahmud Ghazni attacking Somnath, something that Hindus, Muslims etc all agree on.
.
Ok man. I am sorry. I was just speculating. No proof:)
But Yaar I never saw you getting offended when others are bashing Islam and Muslims (practicing Muslims) left and right in other sections. And you got offended by my mare speculations. But anyway, I apologize. I was just thinking loud. I shouldn't have done that
Ok man. I am sorry. I was just speculating. No proof:)
But Yaar I never saw you getting offended when others are bashing Islam and Muslims (practicing Muslims) left and right in other sections. And you got offended by my mare speculations. But anyway, I apologize. I was just thinking loud. I shouldn't have done that
I get offended when reasonable people make such statements. Those people bashing Islam are lost cases, even if they claim to be Muslims. You don't reason or care about rabid dogs, you just ignore them.
In any case, no worries about the apologies. Between brothers there is no ill feeling. I am not saying that Muslim rulers were all great or kind to their non-Muslim subjects, but this forced conversion business has no merit or proof.
I get offended when reasonable people make such statements.
I appreciate the compliment about me bieng a reasonable person. This really means a good deal to me. Got your point regarding not debating with every Tom, Dick and Harry. Makes sense. :)
Somewhere in VS Naipaul's writings, I read that Mohammad Iqbal was a actually a Hindu pundit -brahman- from Kashmir by his lineage. And being a grandson of a converted Muslim - converted by choice or by force - he had more fervor for Islam compared to Muslim invaders from Turkey or Persia who ruled Hindus in India for many years and converted many of them to Islam by force, most of which now make the population of Pakistan. Are these facts true?
Note: VS Naipaul was the Nobel Laureate in literature for 2001.
unless iqbal's says from his mouth, nobody know what is real, hindus will say it is force and muslims will say it is choice :)