Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
Other Invaders who came before muslims, made India home, adopted native practices, introduced their own to existing traditions and integrated with the populace to and extent that they were indistinguishable in a few generations. They did not impose their beliefs either politically or by force on the native population. Ex: When Paanini the Great Sanskrit Grammarian came up with his rules, his home was a part of the persian Empire. The Persians did not impose either Zoroastrianism or persian language on the people nor did they have special taxes like Jazia. They only administered, collected rightful taxes and mostly let the people be. When Muslims came, they set themselves apart, did not want the local culture, enticed conversion, taxed unfairly due to religion and usually imposed a different language for administrative purposes other than the native languages and in many cases destroyed places of worship and slaughtered religious men. In short they did not integrate. At the end of the day, India did not become a unified political entity and divided into 2 because the muslims did not want to live with a non-muslim majority. So the Kaur has a point.
Still it does not answer my question, anyways from 300 BC to 1300 AD Cholas ruled South India which separates them from empires existing in other parts of the subcontinent in any case. From 7th century AD Sindh, and Multan had also taken a separate path after the invasion of Arabs.
I will not covering the empires till 1300 AD (because of Cholas). Between 1300's to 1500's, Delhi Sultanates ruled Northern India which did not include Southern parts of India. This takes us to Moghuls and British which we can discuss!
Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
buddhism was way more ubiquitous than in "the border areas of ancient india" as you put it. but putting that aside for a second,
bamiyan buddhas. hindu temples in the suleyman ranges. all these are/were unused from a decline of the original faith. the locals don't believe in idols. does that make it ok to convert them into mosques, remove them etc?
It does not make it OK in any part of the world for any religion today. But centuries ago, could we ask for the same level of cultural sensitivity . We can only appreciate if there was no willful coercion or loss of life. How much leeway can u provide while measuring ancient happenings by today's standards ?
Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
Still it does not answer my question, anyways from 300 BC to 1300 AD Cholas ruled South India which separates them from empires existing in other parts of the subcontinent in any case. From 7th century AD Sindh, and Multan had also taken a separate path after the invasion of Arabs.
I will not covering the empires till 1300 AD (because of Cholas). Between 1300's to 1500's, Delhi Sultanates ruled Northern India which did not include Southern parts of India. This takes us to Moghuls and British which we can discuss!
If u traveled back in time and asked the cholas which entity, their kingdom was part of, I am sure they would have replied Bharatavarsha.
Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
For general non muslim,
A founder of faith whose follower as soon as appeared stated demoliting our religious places, the professional looters, the follower who divided this holy land into two and later three, and whereever they are majority they simply eliminate us.
Not to hurt anybody but this is general feeling of non muslim Indians of subcontinent:)
Indian invasion was not made at the time of Prophet? Can you quote any incident from Prophet's time, when a religious building was destroyed?
When Muslims conquered Palestine during second Caliph Hazrat Umer's period, he didn't demolish any religious buliding. He refused to offer prayers in church area (even after requests of Christian clergy) due to reason that Muslim might build a Masjid, where he prayed.
Even we don't find any references for demolition of Mandirs by Muhammad Bin Qasim who invaded Sindh (You know I'm not big fan of him). This is due to the fact that these all people had message of Islam afresh in their mind which don't support demolition of buildings of other religions. Do we hear anything about demolition of churches by Muslims in Spain during 800 years?
Demolition of Mandirs by Afghan invaders were due to their greed and they didn't have anything to do with religion? If Ghaznavi attacked Somnath for religion purposes, then he should not have left Budhas of Bamiyan, which were afterwards destroyed by Taliban.
Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
If u traveled back in time and asked the cholas which entity, their kingdom was part of, I am sure they would have replied Bharatavarsha.
I am talking of the recorded history of the past 2500 years, before that I have got no proof.
Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
Other Invaders who came before muslims, made India home, adopted native practices, introduced their own to existing traditions and integrated with the populace to and extent that they were indistinguishable in a few generations. They did not impose their beliefs either politically or by force on the native population. Ex: When Paanini the Great Sanskrit Grammarian came up with his rules, his home was a part of the persian Empire. The Persians did not impose either Zoroastrianism or persian language on the people nor did they have special taxes like Jazia. They only administered, collected rightful taxes and mostly let the people be. When Muslims came, they set themselves apart, did not want the local culture, enticed conversion, taxed unfairly due to religion and usually imposed a different language for administrative purposes other than the native languages and in many cases destroyed places of worship and slaughtered religious men. In short they did not integrate. At the end of the day, India did not become a unified political entity and divided into 2 because the muslims did not want to live with a non-muslim majority. So the Kaur has a point.
This is quite debatable whether islam in India was result of forceable conversions or due to Sufi teachings. Sufis who are still revered equally by both Muslims and non-Muslims of sub-continent.
Islam never teaches forceable conversions. \if that have been the case, Spain would still be Muslim Andlus.
Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
I've seen Prophet Mohammad saw being referred to as the founder of Islam in some newspapers too which is incorrect. He wasn't the founder, he was just one of the many Prophets who before him also preached the same religion.
Rightly said. In Quran, we find many verses calling for reconciliation between Ahl e Kitab (Jews, Christians and Muslims) by stating that Prophet Muhammad didn't bring a new religion, it is in continuity and in confirmation with the two other Abrahamic religions.
This shows that Islam has emphasided inter-religion harmony from the first day.
Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
That is what the muslims believe. The jews and Christians do not consider Islam as a continuance of their religion and neither do they recognize ur prophet as one of theirs,. So in the rest of the world's POV, Prophet Mohammed was the founder of Islam.
There books contain prophecy of new religion and new prophet, which is not the scope of this forum. You can discuss that in our Religion forum :)
Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
Nobody replaced Buddhists in Afghanistan, they were the majority when Islam arrived there and so was sindh. Islamic conquest of North India was one of the bloodiest in History.
An estimate of the number of people killed, based on the Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations, was done by K.S. Lal in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, who claimed that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million. His work has come under criticism by historians such as Simon Digby (School of Oriental and African Studies) and Irfan Habib for its agenda and lack of accurate data in pre-census times. Western Historians such as Will Durant contend that Islam spread through violence.[SUP][4]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_South_Asia#cite_note-Durant-3)[/SUP][SUP][7]](Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent - Wikipedia)[/SUP] Sir Jadunath Sarkar contends that that several Muslim invaders were waging a systematic jihad against Hindus in India to the effect that “Every device short of massacre in cold blood was resorted to in order to convert heathen subjects.”[SUP][8]](Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent - Wikipedia)[/SUP] In particular the records kept by al-Utbi, Mahmud al-Ghazni’s secretary, in the Tarikh-i-Yamini document several episodes of bloody military campaigns.[SUP]citation needed][/SUP] Hindus who converted to Islam however were not completely immune to persecution due to the Caste system among South Asian Muslims in India established by Ziauddin al-Barani in the Fatawa-i Jahandari.,[SUP][9]](Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent - Wikipedia)[/SUP] where they were regarded as an “Ajlaf” caste and subjected to discrimination by the “Ashraf” castes[SUP][10]](Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent - Wikipedia)[/SUP]Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent - Wikipedia
Contrast that to South India where Islam spread through trade in most cases. The 2NT did not gain popularity in S India like it was in the north.[SUP]
[/SUP]
Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
Indian invasion was not made at the time of Prophet? Can you quote any incident from Prophet's time, when a religious building was destroyed?
When Muslims conquered Palestine during second Caliph Hazrat Umer's period, he didn't demolish any religious buliding. He refused to offer prayers in church area (even after requests of Christian clergy) due to reason that Muslim might build a Masjid, where he prayed.
Even we don't find any references for demolition of Mandirs by Muhammad Bin Qasim who invaded Sindh (You know I'm not big fan of him). This is due to the fact that these all people had message of Islam afresh in their mind which don't support demolition of buildings of other religions. Do we hear anything about demolition of churches by Muslims in Spain during 800 years?
Demolition of Mandirs by Afghan invaders were due to their greed and they didn't have anything to do with religion? If Ghaznavi attacked Somnath for religion purposes, then he should not have left Budhas of Bamiyan, which were afterwards destroyed by Taliban.
By that definition the Prophet Mohammed was the only muslim ever in History with none of his followers able to emulate his teachings.
Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
^ before islam, there was a hindu government ruling Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan called Hindu Shahis...
Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
To the extent of Sindh, I can say that there was no bloody forcible conversion. Had there been forcible conversion, then we don’t have Hindu majority cities in Sindh even in today’s time.
Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
From where has he got the figures? Are there any census reports available between 1000 AD and 1500 AD? Besides how many of these ex hindus were converts and how many were killed?
Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
By that definition the Prophet Mohammed was the only muslim ever in History with none of his followers able to emulate his teachings.
How? When in the immediate Caliphate (4 caliphs who ruled till 30 years after the death of the Prophet) no religious buildings were demolished?
We have to look into Ghaznavi and other invaders background (other than their religious affiliation) to know the reasons for their acts of demolition of buildings.
As far as the question of true followers of Muhammad is concerned, yes we don't look true followers in rulers, we see them in saints like Rumi, Qalandar Shahbaz, Shams Tabrez, Nizam u din Auliya, Saleem Chishti, etc
Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
...
Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
This is quite debatable whether islam in India was result of forceable conversions or due to Sufi teachings. Sufis who are still revered equally by both Muslims and non-Muslims of sub-continent.
Islam never teaches forceable conversions. \if that have been the case, Spain would still be Muslim Andlus.
Not saying sufis did not promote Islam like in Kashmir and other places but before the sufis came, the muslim invaders did and that was the bloodiest in human History. What the invaders and tyrants did was put to death the learned men (religious) . Just read about the destruction of Nalanda university. The warriors usually died in battle. Slaves were carted off in huge numbers for the first time. The origin of "Hindu Kush" ring any bells ? Even Raja Dahir's daughters were carted off as war booty. The imposition of special taxes, special reservation in administration and destruction of educational institutions did the rest. I remember reading that even Bin Quasim forced the local hindus to feed and host the muslims free for 3 days and nights.
Spain would have been Muslim if the Christians had not reconquered it in an even bloodier manner.
War is a terrible thing. But when it comes associated with religious discrimination and destruction of the victims, it tends to hold on in the collective historical psyche of the conquered more than any other peaceful way. People will revere the peace loving sufis and respect them but it will be colored with what occurred before.
The other wars that came to the sub continent were no less bloody but they were not coupled with religious intolerance the effects of which can be still seen today. That is the main negative aspect of the arrival of Islam to many parts of India IMO.
Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
From where has he got the figures? Are there any census reports available between 1000 AD and 1500 AD? Besides how many of these ex hindus were converts and how many were killed?
He got the figures from muslim chroniclers who wrote about the conquest.
Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
He got the figures from muslim chroniclers who wrote about the conquest.
Yes but the figures are disputed, there would be many from those figures who would have converted. Most people converted due to the sufis whose graves can be seen in all the areas of Pakistan and Northern India.
The muslim invaders from Afghanistan were mostly Turko Mongol, and their invasions were no different than their ancestors before them (who were non muslims).
Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
How? When in the immediate Caliphate (4 caliphs who ruled till 30 years after the death of the Prophet) no religious buildings were demolished?
We have to look into Ghaznavi and other invaders background (other than their religious affiliation) to know the reasons for their acts of demolition of buildings.
As far as the question of true followers of Muhammad is concerned, yes we don't look true followers in rulers, we see them in saints like Rumi, Qalandar Shahbaz, Shams Tabrez, Nizam u din Auliya, Saleem Chishti, etc
I believe it if you say so. I do not have much knowledge of the Caliphite to contradict this . :)
I like sufis. More later got to go...
Re: Muhammad in eyes of Non-Muslims
Not saying sufis did not promote Islam like in Kashmir and other places but before the sufis came, the muslim invaders did and that was the bloodiest in human History. What the invaders and tyrants did was put to death the learned men (religious) . Just read about the destruction of Nalanda university. The warriors usually died in battle. Slaves were carted off in huge numbers for the first time. The origin of "Hindu Kush" ring any bells ? Even Raja Dahir's daughters were carted off as war booty. The imposition of special taxes, special reservation in administration and destruction of educational institutions did the rest. I remember reading that even Bin Quasim forced the local hindus to feed and host the muslims free for 3 days and nights.
Spain would have been Muslim if the Christians had not reconquered it in an even bloodier manner.
War is a terrible thing. But when it comes associated with religious discrimination and destruction of the victims, it tends to hold on in the collective historical psyche of the conquered more than any other peaceful way. People will revere the peace loving sufis and respect them but it will be colored with what occurred before.
The other wars that came to the sub continent were no less bloody but they were not coupled with religious intolerance the effects of which can be still seen today. That is the main negative aspect of the arrival of Islam to many parts of India IMO.
I think Sufis came to sub-continent before invaders. Who was the first invader of India and when he invaded Indian parts? Ghaznavis and Ghauris in 11th Century?
Islam always spreaded harmony? It never promoted intolerance. If we believe on this, its rejection of major facts and acceptance of generlisation of some incidents.
As I said above, these dynasties which are generalised as Muslim rulers had nothing to do with Islam. They were just rulers, who fought against the other rulers (who were Muslim too) just for the sake of rule.