No Palistian is ever Pakistan's friend

[nikhil25]

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Confusedominator: *
Don't give me your 'Islam was spread trough sword' bull ***. No one can convert any one through force.

[/QUOTE]

Again, this fluffy, sanitized/muslimized version of South Asian history is baffling.

tell this to a Sikh and see what he says. actual Sikh gurus (yes, the gurus) were murdered/martyred while defending the population from forceful conversion drives. entire towns are documented to have been slaughtered for resisting. how can anyone who has done even an iota of research on this issue refute the "convert or die (one way or another)" concept with a straight face? it's not only idiotic, it's disrespectful to the masses that were killed in the process.

Islam may not have been spread by the sword in every part of the world, but it most definitely did in South Asia. In the very diaries and court transcripts of certain Mughal kings you can see not only the utter disdain for Hindus and Sikhs, but the actual quotas and areas marked for conversions. Of course, most of you will ignore this and continue on in with your fairytale.

also, "by the sword" is under the umbrella of "forced". also under this umbrella lies, arguably, an even bigger factor: jizya. the crippling nature of this tax gave farmers and others basically two choices: convert to Islam and be relieved, or you and your family starve to death. hmm...tough choice. all it takes is 2 generations before converted families actually believe in Islam and are no different from any born muslim.

many people seem uncomfortable with the fact that their ancestors may not have sat down with an Imam and had a peaceful, enlightening experience and bowed before the great message of Islam, etc. etc. let's be realistic. sometimes the truth is bitter.

you don't have to believe me, but at least read for yourself before instinctively rejecting such basic history. and no, i'm not referring to BJP/RSS propaganda. read any notable books from Western historians on this subject (if you wish to ignore the Indian historians). out of all information available, from both east and west, there emerge two accounts of Muslim rule: the Pakistani version and a fairly unified version held by everyone else. i think its pretty obvious which one is more accurate.

this was all totally off-topic, btw. my apologies.

FREE PALESTINE!

[Surya]

Actually the sikh history is well documented at www.sikh-history.com

[Raindance]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by kyle: *
Antiobl:

Nice name. Does it save you from being profiled? Do you think if you shriek it loud enough it'll save you from Gitmo? Good luck.

Just a couple of points:

1. I am not one of you muslims.

2. Google is your friend. For example:

*Then you give us the baloney that Pakistanis soldiers with no tanks massacred the same Palis? *

No. Pakistanis are not famous for fighting other armies. Slaughtering women and children while their men folk and most of the fighters were facing another enemy is their style.

*Save us from this Mullahtic idiotic mish-mash ranting. *

errm, isn't that what the west is currently trying to do after the Pakistani Army, lacking the courage to take to the field against the Indians and fight for Kashmir honourably, took to supporting terrorists instead?

So that now, thanks to the lovely persuasive powers of the serried ranks of US bombers, you brave army is now trying to shoot their own illegitmately born children - the Jihadis?

*Pakistan being pro-West *

Is that what they call it these days when all the Pak Generals chorus in tune: "Yes massah, at once massah, three bags full of dead Jihadis here massah". LOL!

Go tell this crap to the commies and the Mullahtic idiotics and they will lap it up.

err . . . Isn't your Zia the great hero of all your mullahs? Why would they lap it up? They, like you, refuse to believe it.

Look forward to you frothing at the mouth some more. Quite amusing.
[/QUOTE]

-------------x----------

wrong,

wrong,

yet wrong again,,

some what true but with your mix of 'women type' exageration and 'spice it up a bit' had reduced the lack-lustre of what us Pakistanies usualy use for ZiaUlHaq / madarsahs aur jihadi's - talibans have reduced your knowledge to rubbles. You are influenced by too much media-e-hind or PTV. errr or shall I say 1 billion head count with no head,,

[ravage]

you don’t have to believe me, but at least read for yourself before instinctively rejecting such basic history. and no, i’m not referring to BJP/RSS propaganda. read any notable books from Western historians on this subject (if you wish to ignore the Indian historians). out of all information available, from both east and west, there emerge two accounts of Muslim rule: the Pakistani version and a fairly unified version held by everyone else. i think its pretty obvious which one is more accurate.

Alright.

MANAS | UCLA Social Sciences Computing

also, “by the sword” is under the umbrella of “forced”. also under this umbrella lies, arguably, an even bigger factor: jizya. the crippling nature of this tax gave farmers and others basically two choices: convert to Islam and be relieved, or you and your family starve to death. hmm…tough choice. all it takes is 2 generations before converted families actually believe in Islam and are no different from any born muslim.

many people seem uncomfortable with the fact that their ancestors may not have sat down with an Imam and had a peaceful, enlightening experience and bowed before the great message of Islam, etc. etc. let’s be realistic. sometimes the truth is bitter.

basic history eh. backbreaking jizya that would starve people to death? powerful words.

Much has been made of Aurangzeb’s reimposition of the poll tax (jizya, or jizyah) on Hindus. However, as the text of the fatwa, which is seldom read, indicates, an exemption was provided for various classes of people, such as those who were indigent, without employment, unable to work on account of poor health, and so on. Moreover, the fatwa clearly shows that the amount was, far from being uniform, fixed according to a person’s ability to pay. The statement that the jizyah was imposed as well on “the people of the Book” – here doubtless a reference to Christians and Jews – is particularly significant, since it suggests that there was no animus directed particularly against the Hindus. The translation below is by Anver Emon of the Department of History, UCLA.

MANAS | UCLA Social Sciences Computing

and:

It can scarcely be doubted, once the historical evidence is weighed, that the religious policies of Aurangzeb were discriminatory towards Hindus, Sikhs, and other non-Muslims. Nonetheless, numerous inferences have been drawn from the literature which are not warranted by the historical record. Though many historians have written of conversions of Hindus, surprisingly little, if any, evidence has been offered to suggest how far the conversion of Hindus took place, and whether there was any official policy beyond one of mere encouragement that led to the conversion of Hindus. Then, as now, conversion would have been more attractive to the vast number of Hindus living under the tyranny of caste oppression, and it isn’t clear at all how the kind of inducements that Aurangzeb offered – if indeed he did so for the purposes of conversion, as Richards maintains – are substantially different from the inducements that modern, purportedly secular, politicians offer to people in their electoral constituencies. And what of the popular representation of Aurangzeb as a ferocious destroyer of Hindu temples and idols? Hindu temples in the Deccan were seldom destroyed, notwithstanding Aurangzeb’s extensive military campaigns in that area. True, in north India, some Hindu temples were undoubtedly torn down, but much work needs to be done to establish the precise circumstances under which these acts of destruction took place. The famed Keshava Rai temple in Mathura was one such temple, but here Aurangzeb seems to have been motivated by a policy of reprisal, since the Jats in the region had risen in revolt. Like his predecessors, Aurangzeb continued to confer land grants (jagirs) upon Hindu temples, such as the Someshwar Nath Mahadev temple in Allahabad, Jangum Badi Shiva temple in Banaras, and Umanand temple in Gauhati, and if one put this down merely to expediency, then why cannot one view the destruction of temples as a matter of expediency as well, rather than as a matter of deliberate state policy? Moreover, recent historical work has shown that the number of Hindus employed as mansabdars, or as senior court officials and provincial administrators, under Aurangzeb’s reign rose from 24.5% in the time of his father Shah Jahan to 33% in the fourth decade of his own rule. One has the inescapable feeling that then, as now, the word ‘fanaticism’ comes rather too easily to one’s lips to characterize the actions of people acting, or claiming to act, under the name of Islam.

MANAS | UCLA Social Sciences Computing

chew on that for a bit cheetay. our ancestors werent starved into conversion, they merely chose the right religion.