Re: Our History?
This thread do tell that we are capable of discussing things without abusing/harassing and using false/negative attitude...
And this way information / knowledge can bw shared
Re: Our History?
Needless to say couldn't read the original post written in a foreign script.
We were taught 1857 war of independence. The Sikhs fought alongside the British, while to best of my knowledge, muslims qnd Hindus fought against the British.
You might have read like Sikh rulers, Rajput rulers, Nijam of Hyderabad etc but remembered only Sikh. Actually most of the rulers, Cheifs, big zamindars were selfish and fearful to the British. Some of them like Sindhia of Gwalior, Holkar of Indore, Nawab of Bhopal, Maharaja of kashmir, Nizam of Hyderabad, Rulers of Patiala, Nabha, Jind, Raja of Jodhpur actively helped Britishers.
Re: Our History?
You might have read like Sikh rulers, Rajput rulers, Nijam of Hyderabad etc but remembered only Sikh. Actually most of the rulers, Cheifs, big zamindars were selfish and fearful to the British. Some of them like Sindhia of Gwalior, Holkar of Indore, Nawab of Bhopal, Maharaja of kashmir, Nizam of Hyderabad, Rulers of Patiala, Nabha, Jind, Raja of Jodhpur actively helped Britishers.
Ok. But I read (can not remember if in school history or later) the Sikhs (not just rukers) fought alongside the British.
Re: Our History?
This thread do tell that we are capable of discussing things without abusing/harassing and using false/negative attitude...
And this way information / knowledge can bw shared
Watch your language.
Re: Our History?
Ghori, MBQ, Gaznavi, etc … all were Kings or representative of Kings. They never represented Islam, though they represented Islamic rulers. It is just like Christian’s colonization never represented Christianity though represented Christian rulers.
Purpose of Kings and generals like Ghori, MBQ, Gaznavi, etc was to extend domination over others and expand their kingdom over greater area, nothing more. That is norm of any powerful Kings and generals. Alexander did that, Ashoka did that, Cyrus did that, Caesar did that, Changez Khan did that, Nepoleon did that, Queen Victoria did that, Czars did that,… and so on. Whoever got the opportunity did that.
Actually, once Subcontinent got Muslim rule, invasion never ended. Nadir Shah and Taimur sacked Delhi Sultanat, looted subcontinent, killed many, and made Muslim kingdom of subcontinent weak.
Ottoman King Bayezid-I raised one of the biggest army ever of the time to invade Europe deep-in, but another Muslim Turkish ruler General Taimur invaded Turkey and destroyed Ottoman army at battle of Ankara, such that after that battle, Ottoman could never recover. Both Bayezid-I and Taimur considered themselves devout Muslim and fighting for Islam. Actually, throughout history, Muslims kept fighting each other for power, land and money … but always claimed that they represent Islam and misguided Mullahs make them Heroes.
It seems, Islam benefited indirectly due to Muslim invasions of non-Muslim lands, as their military successes brought Islam to areas they succeeded, but then we do not know if Islam really benefited or not … as Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Burma, Thailand, Nigeria, Ethopia, Somalia, Tanzania and many places where Islam spread were never got conquered by any Muslim invaders. Who knows, if Muslim invaders had not invaded Subcontinent, Subcontinent would have had more Muslims than today.
Fact is that, when many so-called Mullahs say that Prophet (SAW) teaching of Islam is to spread Islam by force all over the world, they lie and do blasphemy.
Prophet (SAW) never taught aggression to spread Islam or offensive war. Only war allowed in Islam is defensive war, and wars with Persian and Romans were all defensive wars. These world powers did not liked a new power emerging around them and they became aggressive, attacking Muslims and losing battles one after other, and eventually their empires.
As for spreading of Islam, Prophet (SAW) teaching (as well as teaching of Quran) is that, there is no compulsion in religion, and if religion (Islam) has to spread, it would spread itself by non-Muslims adopting Islam willingly without any pressure or force. Preaching is allowed, but elegantly.
Quran 16:125 (Yusuf Ali): Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.
Those who say that it is duty of Muslims to spread Islam by force and job of Muslim is incomplete until Islam spread all over the world, than they accuse Prophet (SAW), because by saying such, they deny Prophet (SAW) last speech, where Prophet (SAW) said that he has completed his duty and made Allah and Ummah his witness. Obviously, if duty of Prophet (SAW) in Islam was to spread Islam by force all over the world, than Prophet (SAW) could not have said that he fulfilled his duty. Actually, Prophet (SAW) did not even tried to spread Islam by force, as he never fought a war that can be called war of offence. Prophet (SAW) only fought those who fought, abused and tormented Muslims.
Re: Our History?
Any post without standard deviatiojs and root mean square error is not a Sa1eem post.
Re: Our History?
What is stated above is mix of different event, i mean when Abbasids took over from Ummayads, Sindh was already a province governed by the Caliph…
The internal rifts, such has civil wars and sympathetic attitude of governors to the rebellions due to the cause and/or lineage is different matter all together, for instance, during Ummayads rule, the prophecy of Mehdi was spread like jungle fire, mainly the things like “they shall be ridding from east or Khurasaan”, “they’ll carry black flags”, “only true devoted muslims will be with them”, “only infidels will stand against them” etc. During the act many Persians and Central Asians, Balochs were in the army of Abbasids, including Shias who use yo reside in Sindh and Multam region…the whole story of civil uprising and war is different board game all together…
However, conquest of Sindh and its purpose is what is relevant as it is seen a nation attacking other, and if iam right, Mohammed Bin Qasim was 3rd attempt to conqure Sindh, first two is vaguely mentioned in history books where Muslim Army was defeated and destroyed in and around Makran area.
However, there is a great lesson history teaches us, that is, fortune favour the one who takeout the war on enemy land and defending forces are eventually defeated..
.
Re: Our History?
Watch your language.
I hung my tongue in the mirror and watched it for a while, it looks ok to me... :)
Re: Our History?
Needless to say couldn't read the original post written in a foreign script.
We were taught 1857 war of independence. The Sikhs fought alongside the British, while to best of my knowledge, muslims qnd Hindus fought against the British.
If I may, in my opinion,
The 1857 war was between the two local groups, one group groomed, supported and brought up by English, we call them traitors and other group was what we call our heroes and freedom fighters, both groups contained good number from all the segments of Soceity... So it is hard to blame certain ethnic group for treason. Yet we can point out families/personalities who did so.
Re: Our History?
Ghori, MBQ, Gaznavi, etc ... all were Kings or representative of Kings. They never represented Islam, though they represented Islamic rulers. It is just like Christian's colonization never represented Christianity though represented Christian rulers.
Purpose of Kings and generals like Ghori, MBQ, Gaznavi, etc was to extend domination over others and expand their kingdom over greater area, nothing more. That is norm of any powerful Kings and generals. Alexander did that, Ashoka did that, Cyrus did that, Caesar did that, Changez Khan did that, Nepoleon did that, Queen Victoria did that, Czars did that,... and so on. Whoever got the opportunity did that.
Actually, once Subcontinent got Muslim rule, invasion never ended. Nadir Shah and Taimur sacked Delhi Sultanat, looted subcontinent, killed many, and made Muslim kingdom of subcontinent weak.
Ottoman King Bayezid-I raised one of the biggest army ever of the time to invade Europe deep-in, but another Muslim Turkish ruler General Taimur invaded Turkey and destroyed Ottoman army at battle of Ankara, such that after that battle, Ottoman could never recover. Both Bayezid-I and Taimur considered themselves devout Muslim and fighting for Islam. Actually, throughout history, Muslims kept fighting each other for power, land and money ... but always claimed that they represent Islam and misguided Mullahs make them Heroes.
It seems, Islam benefited indirectly due to Muslim invasions of non-Muslim lands, as their military successes brought Islam to areas they succeeded, but then we do not know if Islam really benefited or not ... as Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Burma, Thailand, Nigeria, Ethopia, Somalia, Tanzania and many places where Islam spread were never got conquered by any Muslim invaders. Who knows, if Muslim invaders had not invaded Subcontinent, Subcontinent would have had more Muslims than today.
Fact is that, when many so-called Mullahs say that Prophet (SAW) teaching of Islam is to spread Islam by force all over the world, they lie and do blasphemy.
Prophet (SAW) never taught aggression to spread Islam or offensive war. Only war allowed in Islam is defensive war, and wars with Persian and Romans were all defensive wars. These world powers did not liked a new power emerging around them and they became aggressive, attacking Muslims and losing battles one after other, and eventually their empires.
As for spreading of Islam, Prophet (SAW) teaching (as well as teaching of Quran) is that, there is no compulsion in religion, and if religion (Islam) has to spread, it would spread itself by non-Muslims adopting Islam willingly without any pressure or force. Preaching is allowed, but elegantly.
Quran 16:125 (Yusuf Ali): Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.
Those who say that it is duty of Muslims to spread Islam by force and job of Muslim is incomplete until Islam spread all over the world, than they accuse Prophet (SAW), because by saying such, they deny Prophet (SAW) last speech, where Prophet (SAW) said that he has completed his duty and made Allah and Ummah his witness. Obviously, if duty of Prophet (SAW) in Islam was to spread Islam by force all over the world, than Prophet (SAW) could not have said that he fulfilled his duty. Actually, Prophet (SAW) did not even tried to spread Islam by force, as he never fought a war that can be called war of offence. Prophet (SAW) only fought those who fought, abused and tormented Muslims.
I guess we all agree here that Invasion of Sindh and later adventures of Mehmood Ghaznavi was more of expansion of empires and less with spreading Islam.
Although as stated above these conquests certainly helped in preaching of Islam and hence, Shah Abdul Latif, Data Sahib, Mian Meer, Sakhi Sarwar, Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, Nizam Chisti, and many other are the main reason islam became major religion of the region.
Re: Our History?
If I may, in my opinion, The 1857 war was between the two local groups, one group groomed, supported and brought up by English, we call them traitors and other group was what we call our heroes and freedom fighters, both groups contained good number from all the segments of Soceity... So it is hard to blame certain ethnic group for treason. Yet we can point out families/personalities who did so.
Your post aligns with Anjul post earlier. I will do some homework. Both of you probably can't be incorrect. Especially since my history lesson in school was sevedal.decades ago.
Re: Our History?
Ghori, MBQ, Gaznavi, etc ... all were Kings or representative of Kings. They never represented Islam, though they represented Islamic rulers. It is just like Christian's colonization never represented Christianity though represented Christian rulers.
Purpose of Kings and generals like Ghori, MBQ, Gaznavi, etc was to extend domination over others and expand their kingdom over greater area, nothing more. That is norm of any powerful Kings and generals. Alexander did that, Ashoka did that, Cyrus did that, Caesar did that, Changez Khan did that, Nepoleon did that, Queen Victoria did that, Czars did that,... and so on. Whoever got the opportunity did that.
Actually, once Subcontinent got Muslim rule, invasion never ended. Nadir Shah and Taimur sacked Delhi Sultanat, looted subcontinent, killed many, and made Muslim kingdom of subcontinent weak.
Ottoman King Bayezid-I raised one of the biggest army ever of the time to invade Europe deep-in, but another Muslim Turkish ruler General Taimur invaded Turkey and destroyed Ottoman army at battle of Ankara, such that after that battle, Ottoman could never recover. Both Bayezid-I and Taimur considered themselves devout Muslim and fighting for Islam. Actually, throughout history, Muslims kept fighting each other for power, land and money ... but always claimed that they represent Islam and misguided Mullahs make them Heroes.
It seems, Islam benefited indirectly due to Muslim invasions of non-Muslim lands, as their military successes brought Islam to areas they succeeded, but then we do not know if Islam really benefited or not ... as Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Burma, Thailand, Nigeria, Ethopia, Somalia, Tanzania and many places where Islam spread were never got conquered by any Muslim invaders. Who knows, if Muslim invaders had not invaded Subcontinent, Subcontinent would have had more Muslims than today.
Fact is that, when many so-called Mullahs say that Prophet (SAW) teaching of Islam is to spread Islam by force all over the world, they lie and do blasphemy.
Prophet (SAW) never taught aggression to spread Islam or offensive war. Only war allowed in Islam is defensive war, and wars with Persian and Romans were all defensive wars. These world powers did not liked a new power emerging around them and they became aggressive, attacking Muslims and losing battles one after other, and eventually their empires.
As for spreading of Islam, Prophet (SAW) teaching (as well as teaching of Quran) is that, there is no compulsion in religion, and if religion (Islam) has to spread, it would spread itself by non-Muslims adopting Islam willingly without any pressure or force. Preaching is allowed, but elegantly.
Quran 16:125 (Yusuf Ali): Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.
Those who say that it is duty of Muslims to spread Islam by force and job of Muslim is incomplete until Islam spread all over the world, than they accuse Prophet (SAW), because by saying such, they deny Prophet (SAW) last speech, where Prophet (SAW) said that he has completed his duty and made Allah and Ummah his witness. Obviously, if duty of Prophet (SAW) in Islam was to spread Islam by force all over the world, than Prophet (SAW) could not have said that he fulfilled his duty. Actually, Prophet (SAW) did not even tried to spread Islam by force, as he never fought a war that can be called war of offence. Prophet (SAW) only fought those who fought, abused and tormented Muslims.
good points saleem bhai..but i think 4 caliph rashadeens did not engage in wars for economic reasons rather their purpose was to spread islam. caliphs used to send ambassadors for few times with the message and if ambassadors were rejected, they used to fight
Re: Our History?
1857 war continues to mesmerize me…too bad that it never got attention in Pakistan and we did not study it well. new resaech shows over 10 million indians were killed in this war by brits.
Re: Our History?
^^^
I agree with figure if it is only about 1857, invasion of India was like 100 year long, starting from Siraj ud Dulah, where half if the Bengal was massacred and then slowly ans steadily all Princely States, provinces got swallowed and people were brutally mudered...
So the number is much much bigger than 10 million Indians..
Another somewhat interesting aspect of this is, all the invaders/conqurers have less of their own army and lots of local supply...take this for instance, i dont know if the combine population of England / GB was 10 million at that time yet they managed to kill that many...
So the point is how come they get all this big army?
Re: Our History?
good points saleem bhai..but i think 4 caliph rashadeens did not engage in wars for economic reasons rather their purpose was to spread islam. caliphs used to send ambassadors for few times with the message and if ambassadors were rejected, they used to fight
Brother Phoenixdesi: What I believe is that, none of the khulfa-e-Rashadeen engaged in wars to spread Islam.
What happened is that, Persians and Romans, both did not liked a new power emerging in their vicinity, and they regularly threatened or attacked Muslims. Consequently, Muslims fought them and in process both Romans and Persians got defeated and Islamic rule spread in these areas.
It is obvious, as no Muslim would engage into offensive (or aggressive) wars for any reason. If any Muslim ruler has done that, attacked others who wanted to stay peaceful, then even if it was done in the name of Islam, it was against Islam.
Reason is simple. Engaging in war to spread Islam is also forcing Islam on others, be that Islam as religion or Islam as government. At various places in Quran Allah has told Muslims that there is no force in religion neither it is duty of any Muslim to force religion or even to watch what other practice as religion.
Leave ordinary Muslims, according to Quran, even Prophet (SAW) was told that his duty is just to pass the message of Allah to others and then leave them to decide if they would like to accept that or not. Allah also told Prophet (SAW) that he (SAW) should tell people that he (SAW) has not sent to watch over doings of other. Here is one of many ayah in Quran on the topic:
Quran 6: 104 (Yousuf Ali): "Now have come to you, from your Lord, proofs (to open your eyes): if any will see, it will be for (the good of) his own soul; if any will be blind, it will be to his own (harm): I am not (here) to watch over your doings."
Re: Our History?
So whatever their reasons, it was eventually helpful to us.
How?
Re: Our History?
How?
It is obvious that they attacked India primarily for expansion of their empires. But that is what everyone else used to do at that time. So no need to criticize them on this account.
However, in the end it was beneficial for Muslims and Islam. Because it was in their areas of influence that sufis got the opportunity to come here and spread the message of Islam among the masses.
And it is because of these Muslim rulers that many Muslims migrated and settled in India.
Re: Our History?
^^^ I agree with figure if it is only about 1857, invasion of India was like 100 year long, starting from Siraj ud Dulah, where half if the Bengal was massacred and then slowly ans steadily all Princely States, provinces got swallowed and people were brutally mudered...
So the number is much much bigger than 10 million Indians..
Another somewhat interesting aspect of this is, all the invaders/conqurers have less of their own army and lots of local supply...take this for instance, i dont know if the combine population of England / GB was 10 million at that time yet they managed to kill that many... So the point is how come they get all this big army?
So indian claim of 500 million hindu dead is true?
Re: Our History?
Thread of the year....
Re: Our History?
It is obvious that they attacked India primarily for expansion of their empires. But that is what everyone else used to do at that time. So no need to criticize them on this account. However, in the end it was beneficial for Muslims and Islam. Because it was in their areas of influence that sufis got the opportunity to come here and spread the message of Islam among the masses. And it is because of these Muslim rulers that many Muslims migrated and settled in India.
They all attacked for the spread of empire, but hid their greed behind religion, and portrayed that it's all about Islam. Unfortunately, our history books never corrected themselves and we still consider Ghaznavi and Mohammed bin Qasim as Muslim heroes.