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...
Anytime, you can come up with this argument. Muslims conquered areas like Syria, Makran (Today's Balochistan), Iran during 30 years after the death of the Prophet (under four caliphs) and I haven't come across any book which report demolition of religious buildings and forceable conversion. You can refer to Karen Armstrong's books on this issue. :)
Anytime, you can come up with this argument. Muslims conquered areas like Syria, Makran (Today's Balochistan), Iran during 30 years after the death of the Prophet (under four caliphs) and I haven't come across any book which report demolition of religious buildings and forceable conversion. You can refer to Karen Armstrong's books on this issue. :)
I stand corrected. The period after his death was also good. I read a bit about it now. But it looks like India did not have the best crop of religious Invaders of the world at that time like Ghaznavi , khiljis etc
I stand corrected. The period after his death was also good. I read a bit about it now. But it looks like India did not have the best crop of religious Invaders of the world at that time like Ghaznavi , khiljis etc
The Indian invaders were not religious at all. As I already pointed they fought with people of their own faith to get rule.
Maybe so. But what they did in the name of religion is having an impact even today. For non muslims who suffered even more at their hands, that colours the perception of the religion even today unfortunately. Islamic conquest of Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The region was ruled by Hindu and Buddhist dynasty called the Kabul Shahis since the 5th century. The Arabs were unable to succeed in converting the population of that area because of constant revolts from the mountain tribes. In 870, Ya’qub-i Laith Saffari, a local Persian[SUP][11]](Muslim conquests of Afghanistan - Wikipedia)[/SUP] ruler from the Saffarid dynasty of Zaranj, Afghanistan, conquered most of the cities of present-day Afghanistan in the name of Islam.
* Arab armies carrying the banner of Islam came out of the west to defeat the Sasanians in 642 and then they marched with confidence to the east. On the western periphery of the Afghan area the princes of Herat and Seistan gave way to rule by Arab governors but in the east, in the mountains, cities submitted only to rise in revolt and the hastily converted returned to their old beliefs once the armies passed. The harshness and avariciousness of Arab rule produced such unrest, however, that once the waning power of the Caliphate became apparent, native rulers once again established themselves independent. Among these the Saffarids of Seistan shone briefly in the Afghan area. The fanatic founder of this dynasty, the coppersmith’s apprentice Yaqub ibn Layth Saffari, came forth from his capital at Zaranj in 870 and marched through Bost, Kandahar, Ghazni, Kabul, Bamyan, Balkh and Herat, conquering in the name of Islam.[SUP][12]](Muslim conquests of Afghanistan - Wikipedia)
[/SUP]
Even Afghanistan which is completely Islamic today fought against Islamisation for almost 3-4 centuries. It was Ghazni who succeeded firstly by expelling the Hindus from Gandhara unless they converted. Even today after all these centuries we have many castes in India who trace their ancestry to Gandhara and remember why and how they had to leave their homeland . So unfortunately many of the non-muslims of India view Islam as an aggressor and blame the religion since the wars were carried out in the name of said religion. I don’t want to promote one POV over the other at the expense factual history and the psyche of the people due to its long term effects. I may be wrong. But these are my frank observations of the people (non-muslims) around me. If other non-muslims here have a diff contradictory POV , I am open to their views as well.
i do agree to your point of view and general conception that Non-Muslims got not through Islam, but through so called Muslim rulers. I even had said that for me water of river Indus is as sacred as Aab e Zam Zam, because river Indus is the reason of survival of my land's people.
Having said that, one should not forget that during the Prophet's era and 30 years after his death, when his nearest companions ruled Islamic state, when many conquests were made (even in some parts of the sub-continent), there were no demolitions or forcible conversions. This proves that actual teachings of Islam are contrary to the general perception that was spread by certain rulers.
I thought this thread was about what non-Muslims think about the Prophet Muhammad SAW. What does the subcontinent, a place that he never visited have to do with this?
I think the comments about sub-continent followed after I posted Mahatma Gandhi’s views about the prophet. Its a healthy and positive thing that people come with their views which enabled us to clear some misconception that a common Non-Muslims have about Islam and the Prophet, due to deeds of some Muslim rulers.
*Sir George Bernard Shaw in ‘The Genuine Islam,’ Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.
*
“If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam.”
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him – the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.”
“I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”
The Prophet was very meek person, who never looked for fame, even when people wanted to do so. He always followed the approach, which was helpful in exterminating the absurd myths from society.
*James Michener in ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,’ Reader’s Digest, May 1955, pp. 68-70.
*
“No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience.”
“Like almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad fought shy of serving as the transmitter of God’s word sensing his own inadequacy. But the Angel commanded ‘Read’. So far as we know, Muhammad was unable to read or write, but he began to dictate those inspired words which would soon revolutionize a large segment of the earth: “There is one God”.”
*“In all things Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son Ibrahim died, an eclipse occurred and rumors of God ‘s personal condolence quickly arose. Whereupon Muhammad is said to have announced, ‘An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human being’.”
*
“At Muhammad’s own death an attempt was made to deify him, but the man who was to become his administrative successor (Abu Bakr - RA) killed the hysteria with one of the noblest speeches in religious history: ‘If there are any among you who worshiped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you Worshiped, He lives for ever’.”
Nehru talks about the confidence of the Prophet Muhammad [peace be upon him] in himself and his Prophetic mission, meaning: “this confidence and faith he managed to give to his people and with this to inspire and console them. This desert people of no great consequence managed to conquer half the known world.** Confidence and faith in themselves was a great thing and Islam also gave them a message of brotherhood — equality of all who were Muslims. A measure of democracy was thus placed before the people.”
“Like the founders of some other religions, Muhammad was a rebel against many of the existing social customs. **The religion he preached, by its simplicity and directness and its flavor of democracy and equality, appealed to the masses in neighboring countries who had been grounded down long enough by autocratic kings and equally autocratic and domineering priests. **They were tired of the old order and were ripe for change. Islam offered them this change and it was a welcomed change for it bettered them in many ways and put an end to many old abuses.”
Prophet never preached for barbarianism. He advised his followers to get knowledge, even they had to travel to China (which was not Muslim country)
Lets see what Chacha Nehru told common Indian for Islamic Caliphate and their conquests :D
**
So the Arabs marched from conquest to conquest. **Often enough they won without fighting. Within twenty-five years of the death of their Prophet, the Arabs conquered the whole of Persia, Syria, Armenia and a bit of Central Asia on one side and Egypt and a bit of northern Africa from the west. Egypt had fallen to them with the greatest.
Egypt had suffered most from the exploitation of the Roman Empire and the rivalry of Christian sects. There is a story that the Arabs burnt the famous library of Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandarina) but this is now believed to be false. The Arabs were too fond of books to behave in this barbarous manner. It is probable, however, that the Emperor, Theodosius of Constantinople, about whom I have told you something already, was guilty of this destruction or part of it. A part of the library had been destroyed long before, during a siege at the time of Julius Caesar. Theodosius did not approve of old Greek pagan books dealing with old Greek mythologies and philosophies. He was much too devout a Christian. It is said that he used these books as fuel with which to heat his baths.
Prophet never preached for barbarianism. He advised his followers to get knowledge, even they had to travel to China (which was not Muslim country)
Lets see what Chacha Nehru told common Indian for Islamic Caliphate and their conquests :D
**
So the Arabs marched from conquest to conquest. **Often enough they won without fighting. Within twenty-five years of the death of their Prophet, the Arabs conquered the whole of Persia, Syria, Armenia and a bit of Central Asia on one side and Egypt and a bit of northern Africa from the west. Egypt had fallen to them with the greatest.
Egypt had suffered most from the exploitation of the Roman Empire and the rivalry of Christian sects. There is a story that the Arabs burnt the famous library of Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandarina) but this is now believed to be false. The Arabs were too fond of books to behave in this barbarous manner. It is probable, however, that the Emperor, Theodosius of Constantinople, about whom I have told you something already, was guilty of this destruction or part of it. A part of the library had been destroyed long before, during a siege at the time of Julius Caesar. Theodosius did not approve of old Greek pagan books dealing with old Greek mythologies and philosophies. He was much too devout a Christian. It is said that he used these books as fuel with which to heat his baths.
The library at Alexandria was destroyed 4 times, the first 2 times by romans (Julius Ceaser by accident and Aurelian ), the 3rd time by the orders of the coptic pope theophilius and for the last time during the muslim conquest of Egypt. That was the end of centuries of accumulated wealth of knowledge in the largest and most significant library of the ancient world.
Are there any neutral sources that prove that Library was destructed during Muslim conquest of Alexandria during Hazrat Umer’s time? Why Nehru said that its now believed to be false?
If that source of Greek philosophy was completely destroyed by Muslims, how could Muslim philosophers afterwards seen to be influenced by Greek mythology that was afterwards translated into Arabic.
Islamic philosophy as the name implies refers to philosophical activity within the Islamic milieu. The main sources of classical or early Islamic philosophy are the religion of Islam itself (especially ideas derived and interpreted from the Quran), Greek philosophy which the early Muslims inherited as a result of conquests when Alexandria, Syria and Jundishapur came under Muslim rule, along with pre-Islamic Indian philosophy and Iranian philosophy. Many of the early philosophical debates centered around reconciling religion and reason, the latter exemplified by Greek philosophy. One aspect which stands out in Islamic philosophy is that, the philosophy in Islam travels wide but comes back to conform it with the Quran and Sunna.
So maybe all 4 parties were a little guilty in the matter. The fact is that it was destroyed. As for sources to and against muslim destruction of the library, there are both naysayers and people who promote this theory.
library.
The story is also found in Al-Qifti (1172–1248), History of Learned Men, from whom Bar Hebraeus copied the story.[SUP][29]](Library of Alexandria - Wikipedia)[/SUP]
The longest version of the story is in the Syriac Christian author Bar-Hebraeus (1226–1286), also known as Abu’l Faraj. He translated extracts from his history, the Chronicum Syriacum into Arabic, and added extra material from Arab sources. In this Historia Compendiosa Dynastiarum[SUP][30]](Library of Alexandria - Wikipedia)[/SUP] he describes a certain “John Grammaticus” (490–570) asking Amr for the “books in the royal library.” Amr writes to Omar for instructions, and Omar replies: “If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them.”[SUP][31]](Library of Alexandria - Wikipedia)[/SUP]
The matter is quite complicated. I’ll look into Biography of Hazrat Umer and History written by Tibri… But for the time-being I found this:
Encyclopedia Britanica - The Alexandrian Library had, in fact, been destroyed much earlier, in the fourth century A.D, long before the advent of Islam: "The library survived the disintegration of Alexander’s empire (first century BC) and continued to exist under Roman rule until the third century AD."3 The truth is that one half of this library was burnt by Julius Caesar in 47 BC. In the third century, Alexandria came under the domination of Christians. At another place the same work states that, “The main museum and library were destroyed during the civil war of the third century AD and a subsidiary library was burned by Christians in AD 391.”
Excellent thread. Very informative. Learned a lot.
I don't know anything about the Prophet. From what I have read here he was for peace and tolerance. Read Gandhiji Nehry Shaw opinions. Very informative.
For me Gandhiji Rev Martin Luther King and Bishop Tutu were the most influential. Gandhiji was prepared to give up his life for the sake of peace. His words to the Hindu whose son was killed by a Muslim "raise a Muslim who has lost his parents. And raise him as a Muslim".
That contrasts with followers of religion today - who rejoice when conversions to their faith increase.
So Gandhiji for me is by far the most influential.
Excellent thread. Very informative. Learned a lot.
I don't know anything about the Prophet. From what I have read here he was for peace and tolerance. Read Gandhiji Nehry Shaw opinions. Very informative.
For me Gandhiji Rev Martin Luther King and Bishop Tutu were the most influential. Gandhiji was prepared to give up his life for the sake of peace. His words to the Hindu whose son was killed by a Muslim "raise a Muslim who has lost his parents. And raise him as a Muslim".
That contrasts with followers of religion today - who rejoice when conversions to their faith increase.
So Gandhiji for me is by far the most influential.
This Gandhi ji incident again reminds me an incident about Zaid Bin Haris (RA), who was a slave and the Prophet brought up him like his son. Zaid was lost child of his parents and when Zaid remained in the Prophet's home for years, his parents found him. Prophet allowed him to go with his parents, but Zaid preferred to live with the Prophet rather than going with his parents.
..