"On Faith" panelist and rock musician Salman Ahmad founded the popular South Asian band Junoon. The group has sold over 25 million albums and in 2001 became the first rock band invited to perform at the U.N. General Assembly. Ahmad also was appointed U.N. Goodwill Ambassador for HIV/AIDS. He personalized the "I Care, Do You?" U.N. poster campaign in Pakistan by taking the well-known verse of the Koran about reverence for human life and paraphrasing it to say: "Saving one life (from AIDS) is like saving the whole of humanity." Born in Pakistan , Ahmad grew up in New York . He obtained his medical degree from Pakistan 's King Edward Medical college in Lahore . He helped form Pakistan 's first pop band, Vital Signs , whose debut album sold a million copies. Ahmad decided to give up his stethoscope and pick up his guitar, and after leaving Vital Signs in 1990 he founded Junoon. Recently Ahmad appeared in two documentary films: It's My Country Too , about Muslim-Americans, and Rockstar and the Mullahs . Both were broadcast worldwide on PBS and the BBC. A passionate activist in promoting peace between India and Pakistan , Ahmad made a song/video Ghoom Tana . It is on his latest solo album INFINITI.
Close.
Salman Ahmad
Founder, Junoon
"On Faith" panelist and rock musician Salman Ahmad founded the popular South Asian band Junoon. The group has sold over 25 million albums and in 2001 became the first rock band invited to perform at the U.N. General Assembly.
more »
One more post. Interesting information Frank. If I have time I will read about the crusades, since I know almost nothing about them.
If it means anything, it would not shock me or change my perspective entirely if I began to believe that Islam was worse than Christianity. I tend to keep my criticism of Christianity within, but to me saying Christianity is better than anything seems patently ridiculous. That is my bias, and another issue entirely. It comes from spending all of university learning hard science and philosophy of science. A course in animal behavior convinced me that religion is hierarchically imposed morality first and foremost. To me, the way for the US to move forward is to emphasize science in society, because, it seems to me, Christianity is no longer resulting in discipline or morality in our society. For a long time, science was linked with Christianity, and for many it can be a new source of truth and objectivity. That will not happen in my generation, I know.
I guess to a Christian, saying "Christianity is the same as Islam", which is in effect what I have been saying, is tantamount to saying to a scientist, "Science is a religion", which in the West is not true.
One reason I disagreed with you is that I think one of the functional purposes of religion in general is to cause distrust of the enemy. Supposedly, Christians should distrust Islamics, and Islamics should distrust Christians. Actually, maybe Christians should sometimes really distrust Islamics, because Islamics don't trust Christians, and.... it's game theory.
Anyway, everyone has been fairly nice here. It was a good debate and I actually learned some things. Perhaps I'll read more about the crusades. But I'll end my participation in this thread now.
Since it is not trivial, let me reiterate. If the US lifted sanctions on Iraq and the oil market were to be liberalized, the US dollar might not be the currency of oil trade for much longer. If China had exclusive rights to portions of Iraqi oil fields, who knows what would happen.
Foreign oil companies are going to do whatever it takes to make a profit in Iraq, and they will attempt to obtain rights to and/or control over as much oil as they possibly can in Iraq.
We all know that oil prices are essentially controlled by the suppliers.
They sell it in US dollars, and foreign companies facilitate the deals.
"China had been waiting for the end of sanctions to begin work on the Al-Ahdab field in central Iraq, under a $1.3 billion contract signed in 1997 by its largest state-owned firm, China National Petroleum Corp. The field's production potential has been estimated at 90,000 barrels a day. China was also pursuing rights to a far bigger prize -- the Halfayah field, which could produce 300,000 barrels a day. Together, those two fields might have delivered quantities equivalent to 13 percent of China's current domestic production."
The Saudi's sell oil to whomever can pay $60.00/barrel. Ditto for all oil producing countries like Mexico, Russia, Venezuela, Canada, Iran, Indonesia etc.
And the Axis of Evil countries are? Two down, one to go.
Data from the annual British Petroleum Energy Report: peak oil production in Iraq will occur in 2015, and the oil depletion midpoint will be in 2021. There are 115 gigabarrels of oil in Iraq. Iraq is one of the most promising oil producers in the world. Here we are talking about recoverable oil, not theoretical limits or undeveloped technologies (which don't seem to be coming to fruition any time soon).
Saudi Arabia is the juiciest oil country in the world. They are our closest allies in the middle east, after Israel. We have military bases there.
The oil plan might have been a failure. I am still not convinced that it is a failure. I agree that now the objective is to stop the violence in Iraq. Otherwise, it will be a lot of trouble for the US.
The oil angle is not obvious to most of us, because the media feeds us questions about whether or not there will be democracy in Iraq. There is not a lot of talk about oil in Iraq on CNN. Initially, we were supposed to believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Maybe that wasn't totally unreasonable, but it still doesn't fully explain why we invaded Iraq, or why we cared about the region in the first place (why is Saudi Arabia one of our closest allies?).
One theory is that the US Dollar is at of being weakened. That may not sound so bad, with an artificially weak RMB, but it would be bad if the US Dollar was not used as the primary currency of oil trade.
Oil is scarce. Lots of American and western European companies profit by refining and shipping oil from the Middle East. Driving the price down is not on the top of the oil companies' list. The oil companies have a strong lobby.
"Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.
Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatisation of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
That quote is from the BBC, which tends to have a slightly-to-the-left view. But the point is pretty clear. Unusually low oil prices are not on the agenda. Judging by recent events, oil production is hindered by the violence in Iraq.
But that is not the point. If the US succeeds in Iraq, the US will have access to a stable supply of oil for the next 30 years, from one of the largest oil reserves in the world. That is no joke, considering that the oil demand of the developing world is going to dwarf that of America and Western Europe in our lifetimes. Even if prices remain high, the US will have greater influence on Iraqi oil.
Why doesn't the US go to other countries? Well, where the US can, it will. However,
"There's an illusion that ownership ensures either volume or price," said William H. Overholt, director of the Rand Center for Asia-Pacific Policy in Santa Monica, Calif. "Oil is an internationally traded commodity. The key is having secure lines of supply from the Middle East." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071201546.html
You also have to consider that the advantage of the developing world is cheap labor. High raw materials and energy costs will dilute their advantages in the world economy. Maximizing your future benefit is often a zero-sum game.
I don't think there is any single plan, but the above factors must have been considered.
We are in Iraq to keep China from getting Iraqi oil? That is a new slant. China gets oil from all over the world so why are we not in these other countries?
IMHO, we are in Iraq to keep the Sunnis and Shiites from an all out civil war. Such a war would shut down oil supplies from the region crippling not only the US economy but the global economy as well. Iran, Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and maybe even Israel would "duke" it out in a bloodbath we cannot afford to let happen.
And all over whose religious leaders have some direct "descendency" from one crazy hallucinating Arab named Mohammed. Talk about the idiocy of religion!!!!
I agree with you completely. Actually, the worst people in the Middle East are the rulers - for instance the King of Saudi Arabia, a close ally of the United States. Additionally, muslim culture has not gone through the same changes as in the west - we eliminated public torture and execution, they still practice it. But it wasn't too long ago that the West eliminated this practice, and the muslims are no worse in this regard if you look at their entire history and compare it with that of the West. That is just one example, and I am not trying to say that public execution is particularly revealing. China still practiced it very recently. The best course of action is to understand, not to condemn.
Our intervention is not going to change Iraqi society. And really, Bush, Cheney, Rice, and friends did not decide to spent 1/2 trillion dollars to bring democracy to Iraq. They are of the school of thought that believes in working toward national interests, as they should be. The US is in Iraq in order to compete for oil - or at least to prevent other countries (China) from taking it and gaining a competitive advantage.
Really, if muslim countries were setting up military bases in Canada, I don't think most Americans would be too happy about it.
I'm not taking sides. I'm just trying to point out that if you push, you will get pushed back. I suppose it's not easy trying to run the world's sole superpower, and I don't think anyone is trying to argue to the contrary.
Screaming and shouting about how ugly or immoral you believe the enemy to be proves one thing: propaganda works. That is the objective view.
Unfortunately, many contemporary Islamics live in countries that do not have freedom of religion, press and speech and therefore will never have the opportunity of real freedom. Such a shame!!! and so very, very dangerous.
Did the victors eat the flesh of women an children in Germany? Was Christianity used as the defining motive of WW2 for the allies? No. We stopped fighting when the objective was reached, and it was one war where most people agree that it was not religiously based.
On the other hand, the crusades are a good example of "an eye for an eye", and then some. It was bloodthirsty.
I'm sorry I didn't criticize your last post even more in my last post. What an irrelevant example, and a dubious post.
By the way, slavery was not condemned in the bible. It is in fact regulated. The bible was used in the south to justify slavery. I guess you don't mind.
Do you feel sorry for the Jews who were slaughtered in Europe during the crusades?
I am saying that both Christianity and Islam are used to justify acts of aggression and oppression - nothing more and nothing less. It sounds like you are saying, "Yeah, so what? They started it!" So, are you admitting that it is true?
And Frank, so we get to pick and choose what's in the Bible? How about "Thou shalt...kill", or "Thou shalt...commit adultery". I think my neighbor's wife is BANGIN'!
Good for you, Frank, because I doubt that anyone in the universe gives a damn what you feel sorrow or pity for, but we certainly feel sorrow and pity for you.
Good for you, Frank, because I doubt that anyone in the universe gives a damn what you feel sorrow or pity for, but we certainly feel sorry and pity for you.
Here is some copy and paste information about the Crusades. Normally I don't copy and paste, but you seem to like it... Enjoy!
June 28, 1098 Battle of Orontes: Following the Holy Lance "discovery" in Antioch, the Crusaders drive back a Turkish army under the command of Emir Kerboga, Attabeg of Mosul, sent to recapture the city. This battle is generally regarded as having been decided by morale because the Muslim army, split by internal dissent, numbers 75,000 strong but is defeated by a mere 15,000 tired and poorly equipped Crusaders.
August 01, 1098 Adhemar, Bishop of Le Puy and nominal leader of the First Crusade, dies during an epidemic. With this, Rome's direct control over the Crusade effectively ends.
December 11, 1098 Crusaders capture the city of M'arrat-an-Numan, a small city east of Antioch. According to reports, Crusaders are observed eating the flesh of both adults and children; as a consequence, the Franks would be labeled "cannibals" by Turkish historians.
January 13, 1099 Raymond of Toulouse leads the first contingents of Crusaders away from Antioch and towards Jerusalem. Bohemund disagrees with Raymond's plans and remains in Antioch with his own forces.
February, 1099 Raymond of Toulouse captures the Krak des Chevaliers, but he is forced to abandon it in order to continue his march to Jerusalem.
February 14, 1099 Raymond of Toulouse begins a siege of Arqah, but he would be forced to give up in April.
Some researchers have recently suggested that we have evolved a religious sense because of the advantages of a hierarchically imposed morality. I don't believe there is a "God gene", but I do think religion is hierarchically imposed morality.
Consider that many Evangelical Christians believe that the United States has a mission to protect Israel (from the infidel muslims, I presume). Those Evangelical Christians were courted by the Republican party starting from the time of Bush senior. It was a deliberate and brilliant campaign by the Republican party. It worked.
Bush justified the invasion of Iraq as a gift to all of God's people. He even used the word 'crusade'. There are obvious political reasons for the current conflict in the Middle East. I won't ignore the militant Islamic groups, but you should certainly not ignore the fact that Iraq and Saudi Arabia have oil and that world oil demand is growing. I do not condemn Bush for his decisions. If I were president, I would have invaded Iran and Iraq even sooner than when Bush got around to it.
From the passages in the Qur'an that I have read, and from speaking with the several muslim friends (and ex-girlfriend) that I have, a muslim is to kill a non-muslim oppressor who is acting as the aggressor, especially in order to drive non-muslims from lands that were taken from muslims by non-muslims.
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevails justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression" (Qur'an 2:190-193)
I think the reason you find my rhetorical charm ineffective is that you are immune.
If you are going to be critical of Islam, why don't you strictly apply the same criticism to Christianity?
Obviously most Christians no longer deem the following passage ethically correct:
"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the Lord your God has given you. But these instructions apply only to distant towns, not to the towns of nations nearby. As for the towns of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as a special possession, destroy every living thing in them. You must completely destroy the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, just as the Lord your God has commanded you. This will keep the people of the land from teaching you their detestable customs in the worship of their gods, which would cause you to sin deeply against the Lord your God." Deuteronomy 20:10-18 NLT
However, to be consistent, you should condemn Christians for internalizing the above passage, and distrust every claim to the contrary.
Fortunately, philosophers of the middle ages discovered Greek philosophy as a result of interaction with the Persians, and used it to re-define ideas such as the soul and the creator. A lot of the bible is quite un-"Christian", it seems to me.
Thus if I could not accept Christianity either as a perfect, or the greatest religion, neither was I then convinced of Hinduism being such. Hindu defects were pressingly visible to me. If untouchability could be a part of Hinduism, it could but be a rotten part or an excrescence. I could not understand the raison d'etre of a multitude of sects and castes. What was the meaning of saying that the Vedas were the inspired Word of God? If they were inspired, why not also the Bible and the Koran? As Christian friends were endeavouring to convert me, so were Muslim friends. Abdullah Sheth had kept on inducing me to study Islam, and of course he had always something to say regarding its beauty." (source: his autobiography)
"As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side."
"The sayings of Muhammad are a treasure of wisdom, not only for Muslims but for all of mankind."
Later in his life when he was asked whether he was a Hindu, he replied:
"Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew."
Gandhis(Mahatama,Indira and Rajiv),The Kennedy brothers,Martin Luther King,Malcom X were all victims of violence -was God / Religion responsible or human beings?
I forgot the point of the topic of truth. I meant to say one thing:
I think you take Christianity seriously. So seriously, that you consider it to be a true reflection of an objective reality. That is why you do not even criticize Christianity as much as you condemn Islam.
So I think you already answered my original question - whether you regard Christianity as truth. That is why you hate. You are similar to those you condemn. Perhaps that is why you condemn them.
"do you accept those portions of the koran that i sited?"
I accept that they are the real teachings of Islam. I don't enjoy them or even like them. I also don't particularly enjoy or like the Christian bible. So what? I can find quotes from the bible that are ugly. I can also find very wise quotes from the Tao Te Ching. Quotes don't prove much, because what is most historically important is the manifestation of the religious institution.
I know that the Islamic world spread violently and forcefully converted many people in the Middle East, the sub-continent, and western Europe. But it would be dishonest to not recognize the fact that the western world invaded and colonized other countries - for instance, America. I don't know which society is "worse". Actually I don't think it makes sense to condemn anyone for the violence of the very distant past, since violence seems to be a part of the nature of societies throughout history. Even China, who's citizens like to think of themselves as the pacifists of the world, had a period of immense violence before the beginning of the empire. Torture, plundering, mass killings.
Are you saying that the Islamic world is just particularly extreme? In some ways I agree. I just don't see any reason to condemn Islam. If the US was not in the Middle East, then probably we would not be having this discussion. I think the US is in the Middle East because of the natural resources in the Middle East, namely crude oil reserves. If you haven't noticed, there is a gigantic elephant in the room named oil, and another one named emerging economies. The leaders of the US are not stupid, and would not waste 1/2 trillion dollars to convert the Middle East to Christianity, or even to prevent the death of a few thousand Americans.
Regarding the origins of zero - that is interesting, thank you for enlightening me. I have always been told by Indians and Chinese that India was the source of much of early mathematical wisdom. I also think some Chinese philosophers are unrecognized in the west. Sun-tzu made contributions that are now directly applied to modern cryptography. I love math. It sure beats theology.
Now for the interesting question - Truth. To me, truth is that there is a wine glass sitting on the table in front of me. It is very clear, and it can be verified by other people. Science is an extension of this idea. Scientists are allowed to create unverified models as long as they only claim that the consequences of their models are (tentative) truths. Science is not generally hierarchical, it is flat, and accessible to those without a great deal of wealth or power. (Theistic religion, historically, has been hierarchical, by the way.)
Both science and religion can be misused - that is not the issue at hand. But science is definitely the more reliable arbiter of truth.
Regarding the big bang. There are some (not well tested) theories that say that the (supposed) big bang was preceded by a big crunch. The overall entropy of the universe is increasing, but the maximum entropy of the universe is increasing even more quickly. If you take these ideas to their logical conclusion, the result is that during the big bang, the universe reached maximum entropy - total disorder and thus no predetermination. Possibly, that moment of disorder was preceded by moments of slightly less disorder, and those by moments of much lower disorder.
There are many possibilities. From our current understanding of the universe, I think the best general thing I can say is that there is a lot that we don't yet know. God doesn't come to mind. In fact, if I were to think about it scientifically, I would say that anthropology and history provide models that explain the existence of religion. Scientifically speaking, that means that a less clearly defined model is less likely to account for reality. That is common sense that existed before Christianity or Islam, and today.
Anyway, I got off on a tangent.
I would not want to live in the Middle East. I would also not want to live in Europe in 1200, or Germany in 1930. But I don't see a point in condemning the people who were duped. In many ways, many Americans are currently duped by both political parties. But we have to live with them, so why raise your blood-pressure by hating them?
"The Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that the Israelites were approaching on the road to Atharim. So he attacked the Israelites and took some of them as prisoners. Then the people of Israel made this vow to the LORD: "If you will help us conquer these people, we will completely destroy all their towns." The Lord heard their request and gave them victory over the Canaanites. The Israelites completely destroyed them and their towns, and the place has been called Hormah ever since." (Numbers 21:1-3 NLT)
"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the Lord your God has given you. But these instructions apply only to distant towns, not to the towns of nations nearby. "As for the towns of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as a special possession, destroy every living thing in them. You must completely destroy the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, just as the LORD your God has commanded you. This will keep the people of the land from teaching you their detestable customs in the worship of their gods, which would cause you to sin deeply against the Lord your God." Deuteronomy 20:10-18 NLT
and the New Testament:
"During this period, Joshua destroyed all the descendants of Anak, who lived in the hill country of Hebron, Debir, Anab, and the entire hill country of Judah and Israel. He killed them all and completely destroyed their towns. Not one was left in all the land of Israel, though some still remained in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod. So Joshua took control of the entire land, just as the Lord had instructed Moses. He gave it to the people of Israel as their special possession, dividing the land among the tribes. So the land finally had rest from war." (Joshua 11:21-23 NLT)
I have had a rather fun time reading all these diffrent view points, however, I do think that if Frank was soooo wrong, why has no one exposed him for the fraud he suposedly is??
I think that the worst way for a man to learn is by having his EGO broken, but I also beleive that THE ONLY way FOR MAN to LEARN is BY BEING HUMBLED..our EGO kind of gets in the way of God's Will..(we get too defensive when someone Challenges Our EGO)
And for all of those who keep lumping Islam with Christianity...STOP...Look at the teachings of Christ and then look at the teachings of Muhammad (don't really spell the name much, but You get the idea) Seriously is there even a comparison?
The Quaran flipped its Peaceful Teachings to that of Hate, whhy Muhammad's teachings changed was because the JEWS, and CHRISTIANS in Jerusalem rejected his "DIVINE" Message...(showing the reason why the Holy City went from Jerusalem to Mecca)I have several friends that have tried to convince me of this being wrong, but study folks...I mean not "studing" by the words of a man spoken to you in a Mosque or Church, but search for the truth on YOUR OWN!!
I have found that everyone has an agenda, whether they know it or not, seriously our first concieved ideals are those that our parents first instilled in us..So from childhood to adulthood somewhere in those years you're telling me that no one is accountable for theirselves?? Of Course not it's NOT MY FAULT...so typical it's not Humanity (meaning ALL CULTURES!!) that needs to be held accountable but each individual on an individual basis...what applies to you doesn't apply to my life...
Ever wonder why Judgement Day happens, is God so impatient that he can't wait a few Billion Years for the Sun to Burn Out?? No, of course he can, but we shall all be judged on an individual basis by Jesus (only He knows men's hearts) Man as the Human Race is not only me, so why should I be lumped in with all people??
Please folks I could care less if you agree, disagree or just plain don't even read this, because in The End we shall all be humbled and every knee shall bow and every tounge will confess that Christ the Lord is King!!
Ps, all of what Christ was predicted hundreds and hundreds of years before his arrival!!! Where is the Scripture Predating the Coming of the Great Muhammad?? Just a thought??
The Good Word was articulated via reason and common sense by the ancients. These Words of Wisdom were simply repeated with each new race and religion. Unfortunately the Words were eventually attributed to embellished men in most cases as a means of profiteering as noted by the contemporary billions of dollars and assets owned and controlled by the Mormon, Christian, Jewish and Moslem religions.
I think you have good debate etiquette. Your arguments are not generally fallacious in my view, although I disagree with a lot of what you are saying. What I meant to say before is that you probably don't need to respond to everyone here. Nietzsche once wrote something to the effect that we often argue a point to the point of absurdity because of our opponents' poor or obnoxious arguments. But perhaps I am projecting.
I wish I could answer your questions now but it looks like it will have to wait until evening.
but gandalf - its not me - it is your islamic brothers and sisters telling you what islam is to them and to you. why do you have a problem with them? its all islamic - speaking to other islamics.
that is it - just islam with islam.
you cant object to that?
Frank,your just hot air.word of advice: dont pop an artery.
Friend:I'll take your advice:)
Spock:I see your point about Salman and Muslim extremism... he sings about Allah,Peace,women's empowerment and Hiv/aids and hangs out with Bill Clinton and Warren Buffet...damned
terrorist!
you will have to answer my questions before i have to respond to yours. until i hear otherwise i proceed on the basis that you accept everything that islams koran says and that you would never reject it.
of all the religions you mentioned only islam institutionalized hate, rape, murder, torture and forced conversions.
i dont put people in boxes.
saladin was a terrorist and if he had kept it up they would have marched on and destroyed mecca. remember that verse from the koran about only accepting peace if you are weaker than your enemy?
as for firend - i have asked before and you have just repeated the islamic line - out of context. so put them in context for us.
as for ghandi - he was entitled to be as he was but his beliefs do not apply to me. he could not have been islamic and a jew, christian or hindu, it would have required him to kill himself - islamics hate everyone not islamic. but that does not prevent them from making hindu's pay a ransom, but when the money runs out they can terrorize them again.
come on islam boys - you can do better than that.
Thus if I could not accept Christianity either as a perfect, or the greatest religion, neither was I then convinced of Hinduism being such. Hindu defects were pressingly visible to me. If untouchability could be a part of Hinduism, it could but be a rotten part or an excrescence. I could not understand the raison d'etre of a multitude of sects and castes. What was the meaning of saying that the Vedas were the inspired Word of God? If they were inspired, why not also the Bible and the Koran? As Christian friends were endeavouring to convert me, so were Muslim friends. Abdullah Sheth had kept on inducing me to study Islam, and of course he had always something to say regarding its beauty." (source: his autobiography)
"As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side."
"The sayings of Muhammad are a treasure of wisdom, not only for Muslims but for all of mankind."
Later in his life when he was asked whether he was a Hindu, he replied:
"Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew."
Gandalf, Frank is just going to put a huge update that takes the Koran out of context, misrepresents history, and shows one side of a story that is very complex. I say we leave him to his misery like I see many others are doing.
His view is simple...we're the Christian good guys and they're the Muslim bad guys...
Thankfully I have a life,otherwise I can quote a zillion examples of extremists within Christianity(cromwell,bush),Islam(osama,yazid),Hinduism (RSS the same people who killed Gandhi because they thought he was too weak a Hindu) ad infitum and argue that there is something inherently violent about Hinduism,Christianity,Islam which drives these people to violence.(Even the Kid in the Virginia tech killings compares his "sacrifice" to Jesus..)the kid was alienated,marginalised right?or did Jesus provoke him?
by the way Which box would you put Rumi in?He was a Muslim scholar/mystic/poet whose inspiration was Allah,the Koran and Mohammad and is expressed through beautiful inclusive,Love poetry which has made him one of the most popular poets in the West(800 years after his death)Which copy of the Koran was he reading back in the 13th century?
What about Saladin? Why did he let all the Christians go free after conquering Jerusalem?As a religious leader he too should've been compelled to slaughter in the name of Allah?Did you watch the Kingdom of Heaven with Orlando Bloom?
i have taken a lot of time to answer your question - so how about answering mine - do you accept those portions of the koran that i sited?
now to your questions and statements:
yes i repeat the same arguments when others repeat their same arguments.
to date no one has ever answered a question i have posed but i have answered a lot of them.
is religion truth? i dont know. i think religion is faith. but you have to be specific about what event you are talking about. lets look at the big bang - is this proof the bible is wrong? the old testament says "let there be light" and there was light. could be a simplistic understanding of big bang. or the bible story that god fashioned man out of the clay of the earth and now science tells us that we came from a soup where we started out as a chemical and the cell then we multipled and became life. so do we have another simplistic understanding of that from a story that says god made man from the clay of the earth? then we have the world covered by water - and at one time it was. why are the stories such that they may have a scientific basis - or is it just luck that some of them match. heck - i just dont know.
they say science knows it all - but i dont believe that either. science says we all came from apes - or from the line. those who follow the bible say if evolution is true then there must be at least one creature that was the start of all of us - a common thing that was the first - sounds right to me, but so does our evolving. i dont know. but i dont bow at the alter of science either.
slavery was one of the traditional machines that kept societies running for 10,000 years, or more. we are one of the few societies where it has been outlawed - except in some islamic countries. today its good that it is over. to my knowledge america is the only country that has ever fought a civil war to outlaw it. we have 640,000 dead americans to end it.
you comment about islamic culture making great contributions. during one debate i had someone pointed out that these great contributions appeared to be part of islamic war and taking over other cultures. like the 0. islam says that they found that concept, and i believed it. but india was using zero in 650 ad [but there is even evidence going back to 200 ad]. here is a quote -
"The brilliant work of the Indian mathematicians was transmitted to the Islamic and Arabic mathematicians further west. It came at an early stage for al-Khwarizmi wrote Al'Khwarizmi on the Hindu Art of Reckoning which describes the Indian place-value system of numerals based on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 0. This work was the first in what is now Iraq to use zero as a place holder in positional base notation. Ibn Ezra, in the 12th century, wrote three treatises on numbers which helped to bring the Indian symbols and ideas of decimal fractions to the attention of some of the learned people in Europe. The Book of the Number describes the decimal system for integers with place values from left to right. In this work ibn Ezra uses zero which he calls galgal (meaning wheel or circle). Slightly later in the 12th century al-Samawal was writing:-
If we subtract a positive number from zero the same negative number remains. ... if we subtract a negative number from zero the same positive number remains.
The Indian ideas spread east to China as well as west to the Islamic countries. In 1247 the Chinese mathematician Ch'in Chiu-Shao wrote Mathematical treatise in nine sections which uses the symbol O for zero. A little later, in 1303, Zhu Shijie wrote Jade mirror of the four elements which again uses the symbol O for zero."
so did islam really come up with zero? they say they did - but the indians say the were using it in 200 ad - 400 years before islam ever existed.
the point i was making is that great ideas that came from islam may actually have come from the people they beat in battle. the same can be said of america too. einstein came to america as did other great men and women but we got the credit for some of their actions.
and islamic culture is not all that old. 1400 year is not old. i dont consider 2,000 years as old. the egyptians - they are old. but it could be argued that anything over 1000 years is old.
actually turkey killed almost 2 million christians in 1914 to 18, even without the nazi killing machine. when it started there were 2,000,000 christian armenians. when ww1 ended there were only 200,000 left. for that i blame anyone who was alive then and allowed it to happen and anyone who denies it. just like i blame nazis for the holocaust and those that pretend to be naszis now. they are just as guilty as far as i am concerned. if you adopt the evil knowing the evil, you are evil. those people who are members of the kkk are evil even if they only march and repeat the lies of the kkk. now we are not talking about LEGAL guilt we are talking about moral guilt.
actually yugoslavia had its own ss under hitler - they were bosnians - and would you believe it - they were islamic! will wonders ever cease?
no society is ENTITLED to flaws. none. they get punished for the flaws, either by their own people who change the government, or by foreign governments who are attacked by that government and respond in kind.
and when you ask "is christianity truth" you have to be more specific as to what part of being a christian. after all many people say what they think being a christian is and i would not adopt those beliefs.
hitler hated jews - but jesus was a jew. did he hate jesus? he was an alter boy but does that mean he was carrying out some belief of his religion of youth? so you need to pose a specific question so i can give you a specific answer.
but here is something i believe - i believe jesus lived, that his mother was mary, that he is the son of god and is therefore god. i believe he was killed and came back from the dead. i believe he performed many good acts.
i belive he will return and that he is now in heaven.
I don't think there is much point in arguing any longer. I read a lot of Nietzsche's writings and base some of my ideas on his. It seems that you are arguing your point mostly because your opponents keep making the same fallacious arguments.
I am also curious about whether you believe religion is truth. I don't. But I do believe that science is the closest thing to truth we have.
I believe cultures are entitled to flaws. Huge ones. I would condemn a culture based only on slavery, or some such mythical culture. But muslim culture is an ancient culture that has contributed to science and philosophy a great deal. In the future, muslim culture may be prosperous again.
Western culture is wonderful. I do not wish to condemn my own culture for the flaws that exist either. I do not condemn you or myself for the Holocaust. If Turkey had a revolution (non-Islamic, say), and killed several million Jews, I would not condemn all of the Middle East forever.
So I guess our difference is mainly about philosophy, how we deal with the truth.
I am still curious whether you think Christianity is truth.
you know i see that as a typicle islamic response. when i quote the koran they say i am full of hate. wasn't it moho who said these words that islamics call me hateful for using?
well they at least know they are hateful, but unfortunately, under islam, hate is allowed and encouraged.
you forgot to quote all those words of peace that you say are in the koran - but then when you look at the world today, or the history of islam, there is no such peace.
here is the peace of islam for india. i bet you think that it is just great - that islamic peace.
Mahmud of Gaznavi
(From the accounts of arikh-i-Yamini of Utbi the secretary of Mahmud of Gaznavi)
At Thaneshwar.
"The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously at Thanesar that the stream was discolored, not withstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it. The Sultan returned with plunder which is impossible to count. Praise be to Allah for the honor he bestows on Islam and Muslims."
At Somnath
"The Muslims paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and worshipers of sun and fire.... The number of infidels killed exceeded 50,000"
At Mathura
"The infidels...deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river...but many of them were slain, taken or drowned... Nearly fifty thousand men were killed."
Mahmud of Ghori
(from Hasan Nizami's Taj-ul-Maasir)
Kol (Modern Aligarh)
"Those of the horizon who were wise and acute were converted to Islam, but those who stood by their ancestoral faith were slain with the sword"
Kol (Modern Aligarh)
20,000 prisoners were taken and made slaves
'Three bastions were raised as high as heaven with their heads and their carcases became food for the beasts of prey
Kalinjar
50,000 prisoners were taken as slaves
Varnasi or Kasi (Benaras) :
Kamil-ut-Tawarikh of Ibn Asir records,
"The slaughter of Hindus (at Varanasi) was immense; none were spared except women and children,(who were taken into slavery) and the carnage of men went on until the earth was weary."
Zahiru'd-Din Muhammed Babur (1526 C.E. - 1520 C.E.)
Babur's Own Words on Killing Hindus:
For the sake of Islam I became a wanderer,
I battled infidels and Hindus,
I determined to become a maryr
Thank God I became a Killer of Non-Muslims!
From Baburnama, the Memoires of Babur Himself:
In AH 934 (2538 C.E.) I attacked Chanderi and by the grace of Allah captured it in a few hours. We got the infidels slaughtered and the place which had be Daru'l-Harb (nation of non-muslim) for years was made into a Daru'l-Islam (muslim nation).
Guru Nanak on Babur's atrocities:
Source:Rag Asa Guru Nanak Dev witnessed first hand the atrocities Babur committed on Hindus and recorded them in his poems. He says: Having attacked Khuraasaan, Babar terrified Hindustan. The Creator Himself does not take the blame, but has sent the Mugal as the messenger of death. There was so much slaughter that the people screamed. Didn't You feel compassion, Lord? pg (360)
On the condition of Hindu women in Babur's monster rule:
Those heads adorned with braided hair, with their parts painted with vermillion - those heads were shaved with scissors, and their throats were choked with dust.They lived in palatial mansions, but now, they cannot even sit near the palaces.... ropes were put around their necks, and their strings of pearls were broken. Their wealth and youthful beauty, which gave them so much pleasure, have now become their enemies. The order was given to the soldiers, who dishonored them, and carried them away. If it is pleasing to God's Will, He bestows greatness; if is pleases His Will, He bestows punishment pg(417-18)
On the nature of Mughal rule under Babur:
First, the tree puts down its roots, and then it spreads out its shade above. The kings are tigers, and their officials are dogs; they go out and awaken the sleeping people to harass them. The public servants inflict wounds with their nails. The dogs lick up the blood that is spilled. Source:Rag Malar, (pg.1288)
From an article by Dr. Harsh Narain on Muslim Testimony (Indian Express 2/26/90):
Since the establishment of Zahiru'd-Din Ghazi's rule, officers and religious leaders spread Islam vigorously desteroying the Hindu faith. We cleared the filth of Hinduism from Faizabad and Avadh.
Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq
(from Insha-i-Mahry by Amud Din Abdullah bin Mahru)
Delhi: -a punishment in detail (from Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi)
"A report was brought to the Sultan than there was in Delhi an old Brahman who persisted in publicly performing the worship of idols in his house and that people of the city, both Muslims and Hindus used to resort to his house to worship the idol. The Brahman had constructed a wooden tablet which was covered within and without with paintings of demons and other objects. An order was accordingly given to the Brahman and was brought before Sultan.The true faith was declared to the Brahman and the right course pointed out. but he refused to accept it. A pile was risen on which the Kaffir with his hands and legs tied was thrown into and the wooden tablet on the top. The pile was lit at two places his head and his feet. The fire first reached him in the feet and drew from him a cry and then fire completley enveloped him. Behold Sultan for his strict adherence to law and rectitude."
Delhi : (after Hindus paid the toleration tax (zar-i zimmiya) and poll-tax(jizya) they were foolish enough to build their temples.so...) "Under divine guidance I (Sultan) destroyed these temples and I killed the leaders of these infedility and others I subjected to stripes and chastisement "
Gohana (Haryana):
"Some Hindus had erected a new idol-temple in the village of Kohana and the idolaters used to assemble there and perform their idolatrous rites. These people were seized and brought before me. I ordered that the perverse conduct of these leaders of this wickedness be punished by publicly abd that they should be put to deathe before the gate of the palace."
Jajnagar:(Expedition objectives as stated by Sultan: Source:Ainn-ul-Mulk)
massacring the unbelievers
demolishing their temples
hunting the elephants
getting a glimpse of their enchanting country
Orissa:'Sirat-i-Firoz Shahi' records his expedition with the following words:
"Nearly 100,000 men of Jajnagar had taken refuge with their women, children, kinsmen and relations The swordsmen of Islam turned the island into a basin of blood by the massacre of the unbelievers. Women with babies and pregnant ladies were haltered, manacled, fettered and enchained, and pressed as slaves into service in the house of every soldier."
The Jihads of Shihabuddin,
the Sultankalka of Ghur
Around 1140, the Islamized Turko-Mongol chiefs of the Shansabanid tribe occupied Ghor in Afghanistan. Initially it was a vassal of the Ghaznavid Sultans, but around 1130 it came into conflict with them, after one of the leading Shansabanid nobles was murdered by the Ghaznavid Sultan, Bahram. A ferocious war ensued between the Sultans of Ghor and Ghazni, till Alla-ud-din Ghori invaded Ghazni with his entire cavalry and wrested it from Bahram. Alla-ud-din sacked the Indian spoils that Mahmud had placed there, massacred the city’s population in a 7-day killing spree and subsequently burnt it down. The next Ghaznavid Sultan, Khushro Maliq was driven out of Afghanistan by a coalition of Oghuz Turks and the Ghorids in 1157, and the Oghuz took Ghazni. The sons of Alla-ud-din, Ghiyas-ud-din Mu’azz-ud-din Ghori and Shihab-ud-din Muhammad Ghori defeated the Oghuz and annexed Ghazni in 1174. Ghiyas-ud-din, crowned himself Sultan, and appointed his brother Sultankalka. Shihab-ud-din was assigned the task of extending the kingdom to the East and he naturally gravitated towards India. 13 bloody campaigns that ravaged Northern India followed:
• Early in 1175 he invaded Punjab and sacked and burned Uch...(1)
• In 1178 he advanced south and marched towards Gujarat, but here the Indians acted quickly and rallying under the western chAlukya king MUlarAja II routed the Islamic forces completely forcing him to retreat...(2)
• In 1179 Ghori sent a message to PrithivirAja chAhamAna to make common cause with him against the Chalukyas. Prithivaraj however, wise disregarding his foolish minister, kadambavAsa’s advise to make a common cause with Ghori, preemptively attacked NaDDula and reconquered it from the Moslems.
• Shihab recovered in 1180 and invaded Sindh and ravaged the population carrying away much loot...(3)
• Then Shihabuddin Muhammad, quickly followed it up in 1181 and 1184 with two invasions of Lavapura (Lahore) accompanied with much slaughter...(4+5)
• In 1186 he invaded the Ghaznavid occupied Punjab and defeated the Sultan Khushro Maliq and wrested Punjab...(6)
• 1188 The Ghur Sultankalka invaded the ChAhamAna kingdom and sacked the fort of Tabarhindah killing the Hindu male populace and raping the women. Hindu refugees flocked around Delhi alarming the ChAhamAnas...(7)
• 1191 PrithivirAj advanced to meet Shihabuddin’s raid and routed him in the great battle of Tarai. While the Muslims suffered a crushing defeat, the Indians failed to butcher them to man and allowed Shihab to get away unharmed. He fled back to Central Asia leaving Punjab completely undefended...(8)
• 1191 PrithivirAj attacked Tabarhindah and took it back from the Muslims. Here the biggest mistake of the Hindus was not to reconquer and arm Punjab suitably.
• 1192 Shihab returned and sacked Tabarhindah again. This was followed by the second battle of Tarai, the ChAhamAna army was crushed and Prithiviraj was captured and brutally tortured to death...(9)
• 1192 the Ghur Sultankalka made a second trust towards Ajayamerupura (Ajmer) and sacked it smashing Hindu temples and a Hindu university in course of this invasion. The Hindus captured in this expedition caused slave prices to fall to a few Dirhams in the Muslim markets...(10)
• 1193 The sultankalka invaded Kannauj and slew the GAhadwala king Jayachandra. He followed this up with an invasion of vArANsipura slaughtering Hindus with great savagery and desecrating the holy city...(11+12)
After this, his viceroy Kutub-ud-din (also his lover?) and the Turkish adventurer Ikhtiyaruddin Khalji furthered the violence of Islam in the land of Hind. Meanwhile Shihab’s brother died in Ghazna and he crowned himself Sultan and immediately launched himself into another Jihad on the infidels of Hindustan in 1206. The exact course of this campaign is not clear. While on the North-western reaches of the Sindhu, he was ambushed by the Khokar chiefs and shot down by an arrow...(13). Thus ended the carrier of the Moslem brigand who brought misery to the whole of northern India through his 13 invasions
The Jihads of
Alla-ud-din Khalji
The one time when it appeared that the sanAtana dharma might vanish off the face of bhArata was during the ferocious jihads of Alla-ud-din of the Khalji tribe. The Khaljis entered India from Ghazna during the reign of the Mamluq Sultan Qutub-ud-din Aibak. The first of them to make his mark Bakhtiyar Khalji, whose savage jihad in Bihar and destruction of the Indian centers of learning like Nalanda is only well known. Jalal-ud-din Khalji, another member of this tribe, was accepted as the Sultan of Delhi by a confederation of Turkic tribes, after the collapse of the Mamluq Balban’s regime. Jalal opened his innings by consolidating the Turkic regime in India by suppressing other competing Maliqs and appointed his nephew, Alla-ud-din to expand his domains. We shall briefly consider his campaigns:
• In 1291 he was sent to destroy the remaining Kaffirs of Bhilsa in Central India. Il-tut-mish, the Mamluq had earlier desecrated this Hindu-Buddhist temple-university complex but it had fallen away from Islamic control. Alla invaded and conquered Bhilsa and total exterminated the Kaffirs and left behind a ghost city whose long lost temple remnants can be seen even today.
• 1292 He attacked the Vidisha in Central India, a great center of learning and destroyed it completely and slew the inhabitants.
• 1292 His spies got him the news of the great wealth of the yAdava dynasty of mahArashTra and Alla promptly invaded it and carried away a large amount of loot.
• 1295 In a remarkable campaign Alla carried the war right to Devagiri the heart of the yAdava kingdom. He demolished and looted all the temples in Devagiri.
• In 1296 with this loot Alla bought most of the Khalji army and murdered his uncle Jalal and drove away his aunt and cousin and declared himself Sultan of Hind. Jaziya was imposed on the Kaffirs.
• 1296. Latter in the year he joined the Southern Alliance of the Chagadai Ulus (predominantly Turkic tribes) against the Northern Alliance (predominantly Mongolic) and routed the latter in a battle at Jallandar securing the Panjab for himself.
• In 1297 he invaded Gujarat and destroyed the ancient Surya temples at Mehsana and subjugated the Hindus of the land with much slaughter. The rAja of Gujarat fled to Devagiri and the Hindu kings tried to fight back under shankara yAdava. Alla sent Ulugh Khan and Nusrat Khan against them, who defeated the yAdavas and the Gujarat king. They captured and castrated a Hindu youth who was name Maliq Kaffr and presented him to Alla, who took him as his lover.
• 1298 He sent his fiercest il-ghazi, Zafar Khan, to wage a jihad against the pagan Northern Alliance chief Suldus who was sent by Chagadai Kha’Khan Duwa. The battle concluded in a draw after fierce fighting.
• 1298 Later in the year he battled against Qutulugh Khawaja, a son of Duwa, of the Northern Alliance, the results were inconclusive
• 1299 Qutulugh Khawaja reached the doors of Delhi with a large horde. Alla’s il-ghazi’s Zafar Khan, Ulugh Khan and Nusrat Khan defeated Qutulugh Khawaja, but Zafar Khan was shot dead by an arrow in this battle.
• 1299 Ulugh Khan was sent to quell the Hindu resistance in Gujarat. He conquered the fort of Junagad and demolished all the temples in the surrounding regions and then went on to attack Somnath and destroy the great temple that the Hindus had rebuilt.
• 1299. Hammira Deva of the Ranthambhor defeated Alla as he attempted to sack the Rajput stronghold.
• 1301. Alla returned with his entire force to sack Ranthambhor. He succeeded and slew Hammira Deva. He conducted a massive temple demolition operation destroying all the temples of Jhain and Sawai Madhopur and slew the inhabitants.
• 1303. Chittor alone that had held out against the Muslims, attracted Khalji’s attention due to its beautiful queen Padmini. Khalji sacked and burned Chittor after slaying Rana Rattan Singh.
• 1303. Turghai and Ali Beg of the Northern Alliance wrested the Punjab from Alla and invaded Sindh. They blockaded Delhi itself for two months but retreated due to the summer heat.
• 1304. Jihad was launched on Ujjaini. This ancient center of Indian learning was destroyed completely. Chanderi was attacked next by Alla and the ancient temples were demolished.
• 1305. Malwa and Mandu were savaged and the inhabitants slaughtered.
• 1306. Then Turghai and Ali Beg defeated Khalji’s army and captured Lahore and Amroha near Delhi. Tughlaq Khan, a general of Alla, counter-attacked defeated and captured 9000 Pagan Turko-Mongols of the Northern Alliance. He had them all trampled to death by elephants for refusing to accept Islam.
• 1308. Qebek (another son of Chagadai ruler, Duwa) and Ibaqmand of the Northern Alliance struck back captured Multan. But Alla defeated them on their way back and again slaughtered all the pagan prisoners he took.
• 1308. Later in the year, the Rajputs regrouped in Sivana and declared independence but Alla smashed them in a lightning campaign and destroyed the temples in the region.
• 1309. He sent Maliq Kaffr against Devagiri that was attempting to reassert itself. Maliq Kaffr defeated the yAdavas and penetrated the Hoysala kingdom.
• 1310 Maliq Kaffr destroyed Dwarasamudra after a fierce battle and ended the Hindu Hoysala rule over those regions.
• 1311 Maliq Kaffr devastated Telengana and destroyed the temples of Warangal. He then invaded Madhurai and destroyed the Pandyan kingdom. The temples of Madhurai and Chidambaram were destroyed. Kaffr returned with enormous amounts of gold looted from the destroyed temples.
• 1311 Alla invaded Jalor to destroy the Rajput fight back and massacred the Hindu population while destroying the city.
• 1313 Devagiri made another attempt to defy the Muslim terror, Alla personally invaded mahArashTra to ravage the Devagiri kingdom.
• 1314 Alla more or less became a puppet in the hand of his lover Kaffr and subsequently died in 1316.
• 1316 Death.
Thereafter, Maliq Kaffr killed all the members of the Khalji tribe except for Qutbuddin Mubarak, Alla’s last son, and ruled in his name. Kaffr was murdered by the Turkish chiefs of the Southern Alliance and Mubarak ascended the throne. In 1318 Qutbuddin Mubarak invaded Devagiri again as its ruler Haripala Deva had cast off the Muslim yoke. Haripala faced a massive defeat and was captured. He was skinned alive and his head and skin were placed on display at the entrance to the Devagiri fort. Thus ended the yAdava dynasty and Hindu sovereignty in mahArashTra. Mubarak’s lover Khusru murdered him and made himself Sultan. Amir Qazaghan of the Qara’Unas tribe, from Konduz, became the lord of the Southern Alliance and sent his commander al Ghazi al Maliq Tughlaq to seize the throne of Delhi after murdering Khusru.
Sources: Histoire des Mongols D’Ohsson.; Hafiz-i-Abru, trns Byani (Paris 1936). Tazjiyat-al-amsar va tajriyat of Wassaf; A Forgotten Empire : Vijayanagar : A Contribution to the history of India", Robert Sewell
Aurangazeb (1658 C.E. - 1707 C.E.)
Aurangzeb considered himself "The Scourge Of The Kafirs" (non-believers) and closed Hindu schools and libraries. In his lifetime he destroyed more than 10,000 Hindu, Buddhist and Jam temples and often erected mosques in their stead.3 In 1669 in Agra he had hacked off the limbs of the recalcitrant Hindu King Gokla and in 1672 several thousand revolting Hindus were slaughtered in Mewat.
From: Maasi-i-Alamgiri
Issued general order to destroy all centers of Hindu learnings including Varnasi and destroyed the temple at Mathura and renamed it as Islamabad
In Khandela (rajastan) he killed 300 Hindus in one day for they resisted the destruction of their temple.
In Udaipur all Hindus of the town were killed as they vowed to defend the temple of Udaipur from destruction.
172 temples were destroyed in Udaipur.
66 temples were pulled down in Amber. All Hindu clerks were dismissed from the office of the Imperial empire.
In Pandhpur , Maharashtra, the Emperor ordered and executed the destruction of temple and butchering of cows within the temple.
Aurangazeb also tortured to death the disciples of Guru Tegh bahadur before his death and also killed Guru. Guru Tegh Bahadur - the pride of Hindustan was martyred for he spoke for the persecuted Hindus of Hindustan. Aurangazeb also killed Guru Gobind singh's two children aged less than ten by walling them alive for not accepting the choice of Islam. In Punjab Muslim governors killed hundreds of Sikh children and made Sikh women eat the flesh of their own killed children. Banda Bahadur another great Sikh martyr before being torturd to death was also made to eat the flesh of his own children killed before his eyes. Any Muslim bringing the head of a dead Sikh was also awarded money
Jahangir (1605 C.E. - 1628 C.E.)
Source: Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri
Though in the beginning of his rule Jahangir followed the humanistic rule of his father Akbar the great -the policy of sulehkul even issued a proclamation against the forcible conversion of Hindus to Islam, he revoked Akbar's orders that those who have been forcibly converted from Islam could return to Hinduism. He severely punished Kaukab, Sharif and Abdul Latif for showing inclination to Hinduism. He also prohibited the free inter-marriage customs between Hindus and Muslims in Kashmir. Hindus marrying Muslim girls and those who had already married were given a hoice between Islam and death. Many were killed.
Jahangir's torture of Guru Arjun Dev ji: Guru was imprisoned at Lahore fort. He was chained to a post in an open place exposed to the sun from morning to evening in the summer months of May to June. Below his feet a heap of sand was put which burnt like a furnace. Boiling water was poured on his naked body at intervals. His body was covered with blisters all over. In this agony Guru used to utter.
Tera Kiya Metha lage, naam padarath Nanak mange(whatever you ordain appears sweet. I supplicate for the gift of name)
The Guru was ordercd to be executed. In addition a fine of Rupees two lakhs was imposed on him. Some historians say that, as a measure of clemency at the intervention of Mian Mir, this fine was imposed in lieu of the sentence of death. The Sikhs offered to pay the fine themselves but the Guru forbade them to do so. He replied to the Emperor, "Whatever money I have is for the poor, the friendless and the stranger. If thou ask for money thou mayest take what I have; but if thou ask for it by way of fine, I shall not give thee even a Kaurz (penny)." The Guru accepted death by torture
Shah Jahan (1658 C.E. - 1707 C.E.)
In 1632 Shah jahan ordered that all Hindu temples recently erected or in the course of construction should be razed to the ground. In Benares alone seventy six temples were destroyed. Christian churches at Agra and Lahore were demolished. In a manner befitting the Prophet he had ten thousand inhabitants executed by being "blown up with powder, drowned in water or burnt by fire". Four thousand were taken captive to Agra where they were tortured to try to convert them to Islam. Only a few apostacised, the remainder were trampled to death by elephants, except for the younger women who went to harems.
Shahjahan put enormous eonomic pressure on Hindus particularly peasents to become Muslims. The criminals too were forced to become Muslims.
Source: Badshah Nama, Qazinivi & Badshah Nama , Lahori
When Shuja was appointed as governor of Kabul he carried on a ruthless war in the Hindu territory beyond Indus...The sword of Islam yielded a rich crop of converts....Most of the women (to save their honour) burnt themselves to death. Those captured were distributed among Muslim Mansabdars.
Source: Manucci, Storia do Mogor vol-II p.451 & Travels of Frey Sebastian Manrique
All Comments (102)
One more post. Interesting information Frank. If I have time I will read about the crusades, since I know almost nothing about them.
If it means anything, it would not shock me or change my perspective entirely if I began to believe that Islam was worse than Christianity. I tend to keep my criticism of Christianity within, but to me saying Christianity is better than anything seems patently ridiculous. That is my bias, and another issue entirely. It comes from spending all of university learning hard science and philosophy of science. A course in animal behavior convinced me that religion is hierarchically imposed morality first and foremost. To me, the way for the US to move forward is to emphasize science in society, because, it seems to me, Christianity is no longer resulting in discipline or morality in our society. For a long time, science was linked with Christianity, and for many it can be a new source of truth and objectivity. That will not happen in my generation, I know.
I guess to a Christian, saying "Christianity is the same as Islam", which is in effect what I have been saying, is tantamount to saying to a scientist, "Science is a religion", which in the West is not true.
One reason I disagreed with you is that I think one of the functional purposes of religion in general is to cause distrust of the enemy. Supposedly, Christians should distrust Islamics, and Islamics should distrust Christians. Actually, maybe Christians should sometimes really distrust Islamics, because Islamics don't trust Christians, and.... it's game theory.
May 30, 2007 11:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 30, 2007 11:50
Anyway, everyone has been fairly nice here. It was a good debate and I actually learned some things. Perhaps I'll read more about the crusades. But I'll end my participation in this thread now.
zai jian
May 30, 2007 12:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 30, 2007 00:50
Since it is not trivial, let me reiterate. If the US lifted sanctions on Iraq and the oil market were to be liberalized, the US dollar might not be the currency of oil trade for much longer. If China had exclusive rights to portions of Iraqi oil fields, who knows what would happen.
Foreign oil companies are going to do whatever it takes to make a profit in Iraq, and they will attempt to obtain rights to and/or control over as much oil as they possibly can in Iraq.
We all know that oil prices are essentially controlled by the suppliers.
May 30, 2007 12:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 30, 2007 00:42
They sell it in US dollars, and foreign companies facilitate the deals.
"China had been waiting for the end of sanctions to begin work on the Al-Ahdab field in central Iraq, under a $1.3 billion contract signed in 1997 by its largest state-owned firm, China National Petroleum Corp. The field's production potential has been estimated at 90,000 barrels a day. China was also pursuing rights to a far bigger prize -- the Halfayah field, which could produce 300,000 barrels a day. Together, those two fields might have delivered quantities equivalent to 13 percent of China's current domestic production."
It is not a simple market.
May 30, 2007 12:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 30, 2007 00:33
The Saudi's sell oil to whomever can pay $60.00/barrel. Ditto for all oil producing countries like Mexico, Russia, Venezuela, Canada, Iran, Indonesia etc.
And the Axis of Evil countries are? Two down, one to go.
May 30, 2007 12:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 30, 2007 00:15
Data from the annual British Petroleum Energy Report: peak oil production in Iraq will occur in 2015, and the oil depletion midpoint will be in 2021. There are 115 gigabarrels of oil in Iraq. Iraq is one of the most promising oil producers in the world. Here we are talking about recoverable oil, not theoretical limits or undeveloped technologies (which don't seem to be coming to fruition any time soon).
Saudi Arabia is the juiciest oil country in the world. They are our closest allies in the middle east, after Israel. We have military bases there.
We are not sending troops to Darfur.
There are no plans to bring democracy to Iraq.
Isn't it clear?
May 29, 2007 11:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 29, 2007 23:31
CONCERNED,
The oil plan might have been a failure. I am still not convinced that it is a failure. I agree that now the objective is to stop the violence in Iraq. Otherwise, it will be a lot of trouble for the US.
The oil angle is not obvious to most of us, because the media feeds us questions about whether or not there will be democracy in Iraq. There is not a lot of talk about oil in Iraq on CNN. Initially, we were supposed to believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Maybe that wasn't totally unreasonable, but it still doesn't fully explain why we invaded Iraq, or why we cared about the region in the first place (why is Saudi Arabia one of our closest allies?).
One theory is that the US Dollar is at of being weakened. That may not sound so bad, with an artificially weak RMB, but it would be bad if the US Dollar was not used as the primary currency of oil trade.
Oil is scarce. Lots of American and western European companies profit by refining and shipping oil from the Middle East. Driving the price down is not on the top of the oil companies' list. The oil companies have a strong lobby.
"Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.
Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatisation of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved.""
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
That quote is from the BBC, which tends to have a slightly-to-the-left view. But the point is pretty clear. Unusually low oil prices are not on the agenda. Judging by recent events, oil production is hindered by the violence in Iraq.
But that is not the point. If the US succeeds in Iraq, the US will have access to a stable supply of oil for the next 30 years, from one of the largest oil reserves in the world. That is no joke, considering that the oil demand of the developing world is going to dwarf that of America and Western Europe in our lifetimes. Even if prices remain high, the US will have greater influence on Iraqi oil.
Why doesn't the US go to other countries? Well, where the US can, it will. However,
"There's an illusion that ownership ensures either volume or price," said William H. Overholt, director of the Rand Center for Asia-Pacific Policy in Santa Monica, Calif. "Oil is an internationally traded commodity. The key is having secure lines of supply from the Middle East."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071201546.html
You also have to consider that the advantage of the developing world is cheap labor. High raw materials and energy costs will dilute their advantages in the world economy. Maximizing your future benefit is often a zero-sum game.
I don't think there is any single plan, but the above factors must have been considered.
May 29, 2007 11:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 29, 2007 23:15
Ben,
We are in Iraq to keep China from getting Iraqi oil? That is a new slant. China gets oil from all over the world so why are we not in these other countries?
IMHO, we are in Iraq to keep the Sunnis and Shiites from an all out civil war. Such a war would shut down oil supplies from the region crippling not only the US economy but the global economy as well. Iran, Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and maybe even Israel would "duke" it out in a bloodbath we cannot afford to let happen.
And all over whose religious leaders have some direct "descendency" from one crazy hallucinating Arab named Mohammed. Talk about the idiocy of religion!!!!
May 29, 2007 9:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 29, 2007 21:24
CONCERNED
I agree with you completely. Actually, the worst people in the Middle East are the rulers - for instance the King of Saudi Arabia, a close ally of the United States. Additionally, muslim culture has not gone through the same changes as in the west - we eliminated public torture and execution, they still practice it. But it wasn't too long ago that the West eliminated this practice, and the muslims are no worse in this regard if you look at their entire history and compare it with that of the West. That is just one example, and I am not trying to say that public execution is particularly revealing. China still practiced it very recently. The best course of action is to understand, not to condemn.
Our intervention is not going to change Iraqi society. And really, Bush, Cheney, Rice, and friends did not decide to spent 1/2 trillion dollars to bring democracy to Iraq. They are of the school of thought that believes in working toward national interests, as they should be. The US is in Iraq in order to compete for oil - or at least to prevent other countries (China) from taking it and gaining a competitive advantage.
Really, if muslim countries were setting up military bases in Canada, I don't think most Americans would be too happy about it.
I'm not taking sides. I'm just trying to point out that if you push, you will get pushed back. I suppose it's not easy trying to run the world's sole superpower, and I don't think anyone is trying to argue to the contrary.
Screaming and shouting about how ugly or immoral you believe the enemy to be proves one thing: propaganda works. That is the objective view.
May 29, 2007 7:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 29, 2007 19:19
To reiterate:
Unfortunately, many contemporary Islamics live in countries that do not have freedom of religion, press and speech and therefore will never have the opportunity of real freedom. Such a shame!!! and so very, very dangerous.
May 29, 2007 6:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 29, 2007 18:27
FRANK
Did the victors eat the flesh of women an children in Germany? Was Christianity used as the defining motive of WW2 for the allies? No. We stopped fighting when the objective was reached, and it was one war where most people agree that it was not religiously based.
On the other hand, the crusades are a good example of "an eye for an eye", and then some. It was bloodthirsty.
I'm sorry I didn't criticize your last post even more in my last post. What an irrelevant example, and a dubious post.
By the way, slavery was not condemned in the bible. It is in fact regulated. The bible was used in the south to justify slavery. I guess you don't mind.
May 29, 2007 4:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 29, 2007 16:52
FRANK
What makes you think the muslims "lost"?
Do you feel sorry for the Jews who were slaughtered in Europe during the crusades?
I am saying that both Christianity and Islam are used to justify acts of aggression and oppression - nothing more and nothing less. It sounds like you are saying, "Yeah, so what? They started it!" So, are you admitting that it is true?
May 29, 2007 12:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 29, 2007 12:29
And Frank, so we get to pick and choose what's in the Bible? How about "Thou shalt...kill", or "Thou shalt...commit adultery". I think my neighbor's wife is BANGIN'!
May 29, 2007 9:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 29, 2007 09:07
Good for you, Frank, because I doubt that anyone in the universe gives a damn what you feel sorrow or pity for, but we certainly feel sorrow and pity for you.
May 29, 2007 9:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 29, 2007 09:04
Good for you, Frank, because I doubt that anyone in the universe gives a damn what you feel sorrow or pity for, but we certainly feel sorry and pity for you.
May 29, 2007 9:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 29, 2007 09:04
FRANK
Here is some copy and paste information about the Crusades. Normally I don't copy and paste, but you seem to like it... Enjoy!
June 28, 1098 Battle of Orontes: Following the Holy Lance "discovery" in Antioch, the Crusaders drive back a Turkish army under the command of Emir Kerboga, Attabeg of Mosul, sent to recapture the city. This battle is generally regarded as having been decided by morale because the Muslim army, split by internal dissent, numbers 75,000 strong but is defeated by a mere 15,000 tired and poorly equipped Crusaders.
August 01, 1098 Adhemar, Bishop of Le Puy and nominal leader of the First Crusade, dies during an epidemic. With this, Rome's direct control over the Crusade effectively ends.
December 11, 1098 Crusaders capture the city of M'arrat-an-Numan, a small city east of Antioch. According to reports, Crusaders are observed eating the flesh of both adults and children; as a consequence, the Franks would be labeled "cannibals" by Turkish historians.
January 13, 1099 Raymond of Toulouse leads the first contingents of Crusaders away from Antioch and towards Jerusalem. Bohemund disagrees with Raymond's plans and remains in Antioch with his own forces.
February, 1099 Raymond of Toulouse captures the Krak des Chevaliers, but he is forced to abandon it in order to continue his march to Jerusalem.
February 14, 1099 Raymond of Toulouse begins a siege of Arqah, but he would be forced to give up in April.
May 29, 2007 2:49 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 29, 2007 02:49
FRANK
Some researchers have recently suggested that we have evolved a religious sense because of the advantages of a hierarchically imposed morality. I don't believe there is a "God gene", but I do think religion is hierarchically imposed morality.
Consider that many Evangelical Christians believe that the United States has a mission to protect Israel (from the infidel muslims, I presume). Those Evangelical Christians were courted by the Republican party starting from the time of Bush senior. It was a deliberate and brilliant campaign by the Republican party. It worked.
Bush justified the invasion of Iraq as a gift to all of God's people. He even used the word 'crusade'. There are obvious political reasons for the current conflict in the Middle East. I won't ignore the militant Islamic groups, but you should certainly not ignore the fact that Iraq and Saudi Arabia have oil and that world oil demand is growing. I do not condemn Bush for his decisions. If I were president, I would have invaded Iran and Iraq even sooner than when Bush got around to it.
From the passages in the Qur'an that I have read, and from speaking with the several muslim friends (and ex-girlfriend) that I have, a muslim is to kill a non-muslim oppressor who is acting as the aggressor, especially in order to drive non-muslims from lands that were taken from muslims by non-muslims.
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevails justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression" (Qur'an 2:190-193)
I think the reason you find my rhetorical charm ineffective is that you are immune.
May 29, 2007 2:03 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 29, 2007 02:03
FRANK
If you are going to be critical of Islam, why don't you strictly apply the same criticism to Christianity?
Obviously most Christians no longer deem the following passage ethically correct:
"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the Lord your God has given you. But these instructions apply only to distant towns, not to the towns of nations nearby. As for the towns of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as a special possession, destroy every living thing in them. You must completely destroy the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, just as the Lord your God has commanded you. This will keep the people of the land from teaching you their detestable customs in the worship of their gods, which would cause you to sin deeply against the Lord your God." Deuteronomy 20:10-18 NLT
However, to be consistent, you should condemn Christians for internalizing the above passage, and distrust every claim to the contrary.
Fortunately, philosophers of the middle ages discovered Greek philosophy as a result of interaction with the Persians, and used it to re-define ideas such as the soul and the creator. A lot of the bible is quite un-"Christian", it seems to me.
May 28, 2007 6:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 28, 2007 06:14
GANDHI ON RELIGION
Thus if I could not accept Christianity either as a perfect, or the greatest religion, neither was I then convinced of Hinduism being such. Hindu defects were pressingly visible to me. If untouchability could be a part of Hinduism, it could but be a rotten part or an excrescence. I could not understand the raison d'etre of a multitude of sects and castes. What was the meaning of saying that the Vedas were the inspired Word of God? If they were inspired, why not also the Bible and the Koran? As Christian friends were endeavouring to convert me, so were Muslim friends. Abdullah Sheth had kept on inducing me to study Islam, and of course he had always something to say regarding its beauty." (source: his autobiography)
"As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side."
"The sayings of Muhammad are a treasure of wisdom, not only for Muslims but for all of mankind."
Later in his life when he was asked whether he was a Hindu, he replied:
"Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew."
May 28, 2007 1:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 28, 2007 01:07
The "Describe Mohammed" Poll is complete. And the top choice is:
1. Mohammed the Great Hallucinator Of Mythical Wingie Thingies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In second place was:
2. Mohammed the Great Profiteer.
May 27, 2007 10:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 27, 2007 10:31
*one of those little doubletakes*
"Ps, all of what Christ was predicted hundreds and hundreds of years before his arrival!!!*
Saying, "This is the predicted dude" is a somewhat different assertion than saying, "This dude was predicted."
May 25, 2007 6:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 18:57
U2,
Thanks for that post about Ghandi on religion. Very enlightening!
May 25, 2007 2:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 25, 2007 14:50
Gandhis(Mahatama,Indira and Rajiv),The Kennedy brothers,Martin Luther King,Malcom X were all victims of violence -was God / Religion responsible or human beings?
May 24, 2007 11:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 23:24
I forgot the point of the topic of truth. I meant to say one thing:
I think you take Christianity seriously. So seriously, that you consider it to be a true reflection of an objective reality. That is why you do not even criticize Christianity as much as you condemn Islam.
So I think you already answered my original question - whether you regard Christianity as truth. That is why you hate. You are similar to those you condemn. Perhaps that is why you condemn them.
May 24, 2007 11:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 23:11
"do you accept those portions of the koran that i sited?"
I accept that they are the real teachings of Islam. I don't enjoy them or even like them. I also don't particularly enjoy or like the Christian bible. So what? I can find quotes from the bible that are ugly. I can also find very wise quotes from the Tao Te Ching. Quotes don't prove much, because what is most historically important is the manifestation of the religious institution.
I know that the Islamic world spread violently and forcefully converted many people in the Middle East, the sub-continent, and western Europe. But it would be dishonest to not recognize the fact that the western world invaded and colonized other countries - for instance, America. I don't know which society is "worse". Actually I don't think it makes sense to condemn anyone for the violence of the very distant past, since violence seems to be a part of the nature of societies throughout history. Even China, who's citizens like to think of themselves as the pacifists of the world, had a period of immense violence before the beginning of the empire. Torture, plundering, mass killings.
Are you saying that the Islamic world is just particularly extreme? In some ways I agree. I just don't see any reason to condemn Islam. If the US was not in the Middle East, then probably we would not be having this discussion. I think the US is in the Middle East because of the natural resources in the Middle East, namely crude oil reserves. If you haven't noticed, there is a gigantic elephant in the room named oil, and another one named emerging economies. The leaders of the US are not stupid, and would not waste 1/2 trillion dollars to convert the Middle East to Christianity, or even to prevent the death of a few thousand Americans.
Regarding the origins of zero - that is interesting, thank you for enlightening me. I have always been told by Indians and Chinese that India was the source of much of early mathematical wisdom. I also think some Chinese philosophers are unrecognized in the west. Sun-tzu made contributions that are now directly applied to modern cryptography. I love math. It sure beats theology.
Now for the interesting question - Truth. To me, truth is that there is a wine glass sitting on the table in front of me. It is very clear, and it can be verified by other people. Science is an extension of this idea. Scientists are allowed to create unverified models as long as they only claim that the consequences of their models are (tentative) truths. Science is not generally hierarchical, it is flat, and accessible to those without a great deal of wealth or power. (Theistic religion, historically, has been hierarchical, by the way.)
Both science and religion can be misused - that is not the issue at hand. But science is definitely the more reliable arbiter of truth.
Regarding the big bang. There are some (not well tested) theories that say that the (supposed) big bang was preceded by a big crunch. The overall entropy of the universe is increasing, but the maximum entropy of the universe is increasing even more quickly. If you take these ideas to their logical conclusion, the result is that during the big bang, the universe reached maximum entropy - total disorder and thus no predetermination. Possibly, that moment of disorder was preceded by moments of slightly less disorder, and those by moments of much lower disorder.
There are many possibilities. From our current understanding of the universe, I think the best general thing I can say is that there is a lot that we don't yet know. God doesn't come to mind. In fact, if I were to think about it scientifically, I would say that anthropology and history provide models that explain the existence of religion. Scientifically speaking, that means that a less clearly defined model is less likely to account for reality. That is common sense that existed before Christianity or Islam, and today.
Anyway, I got off on a tangent.
I would not want to live in the Middle East. I would also not want to live in Europe in 1200, or Germany in 1930. But I don't see a point in condemning the people who were duped. In many ways, many Americans are currently duped by both political parties. But we have to live with them, so why raise your blood-pressure by hating them?
May 24, 2007 10:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 22:22
FRANK
Here are some quotes from the Hebrew bible:
"The Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that the Israelites were approaching on the road to Atharim. So he attacked the Israelites and took some of them as prisoners. Then the people of Israel made this vow to the LORD: "If you will help us conquer these people, we will completely destroy all their towns." The Lord heard their request and gave them victory over the Canaanites. The Israelites completely destroyed them and their towns, and the place has been called Hormah ever since." (Numbers 21:1-3 NLT)
"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the Lord your God has given you. But these instructions apply only to distant towns, not to the towns of nations nearby. "As for the towns of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as a special possession, destroy every living thing in them. You must completely destroy the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, just as the LORD your God has commanded you. This will keep the people of the land from teaching you their detestable customs in the worship of their gods, which would cause you to sin deeply against the Lord your God." Deuteronomy 20:10-18 NLT
and the New Testament:
"During this period, Joshua destroyed all the descendants of Anak, who lived in the hill country of Hebron, Debir, Anab, and the entire hill country of Judah and Israel. He killed them all and completely destroyed their towns. Not one was left in all the land of Israel, though some still remained in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod. So Joshua took control of the entire land, just as the Lord had instructed Moses. He gave it to the people of Israel as their special possession, dividing the land among the tribes. So the land finally had rest from war." (Joshua 11:21-23 NLT)
May 24, 2007 9:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 21:36
I have had a rather fun time reading all these diffrent view points, however, I do think that if Frank was soooo wrong, why has no one exposed him for the fraud he suposedly is??
I think that the worst way for a man to learn is by having his EGO broken, but I also beleive that THE ONLY way FOR MAN to LEARN is BY BEING HUMBLED..our EGO kind of gets in the way of God's Will..(we get too defensive when someone Challenges Our EGO)
And for all of those who keep lumping Islam with Christianity...STOP...Look at the teachings of Christ and then look at the teachings of Muhammad (don't really spell the name much, but You get the idea) Seriously is there even a comparison?
The Quaran flipped its Peaceful Teachings to that of Hate, whhy Muhammad's teachings changed was because the JEWS, and CHRISTIANS in Jerusalem rejected his "DIVINE" Message...(showing the reason why the Holy City went from Jerusalem to Mecca)I have several friends that have tried to convince me of this being wrong, but study folks...I mean not "studing" by the words of a man spoken to you in a Mosque or Church, but search for the truth on YOUR OWN!!
I have found that everyone has an agenda, whether they know it or not, seriously our first concieved ideals are those that our parents first instilled in us..So from childhood to adulthood somewhere in those years you're telling me that no one is accountable for theirselves?? Of Course not it's NOT MY FAULT...so typical it's not Humanity (meaning ALL CULTURES!!) that needs to be held accountable but each individual on an individual basis...what applies to you doesn't apply to my life...
Ever wonder why Judgement Day happens, is God so impatient that he can't wait a few Billion Years for the Sun to Burn Out?? No, of course he can, but we shall all be judged on an individual basis by Jesus (only He knows men's hearts) Man as the Human Race is not only me, so why should I be lumped in with all people??
Please folks I could care less if you agree, disagree or just plain don't even read this, because in The End we shall all be humbled and every knee shall bow and every tounge will confess that Christ the Lord is King!!
Ps, all of what Christ was predicted hundreds and hundreds of years before his arrival!!! Where is the Scripture Predating the Coming of the Great Muhammad?? Just a thought??
May 24, 2007 7:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 19:13
Men invented religion to spread the Good Word.
The Good Word was articulated via reason and common sense by the ancients. These Words of Wisdom were simply repeated with each new race and religion. Unfortunately the Words were eventually attributed to embellished men in most cases as a means of profiteering as noted by the contemporary billions of dollars and assets owned and controlled by the Mormon, Christian, Jewish and Moslem religions.
May 24, 2007 6:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 18:22
no one ever answers my questions - why should you be any different.
May 24, 2007 5:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 17:44
FRANK
I think you have good debate etiquette. Your arguments are not generally fallacious in my view, although I disagree with a lot of what you are saying. What I meant to say before is that you probably don't need to respond to everyone here. Nietzsche once wrote something to the effect that we often argue a point to the point of absurdity because of our opponents' poor or obnoxious arguments. But perhaps I am projecting.
I wish I could answer your questions now but it looks like it will have to wait until evening.
May 24, 2007 5:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 17:21
but gandalf - its not me - it is your islamic brothers and sisters telling you what islam is to them and to you. why do you have a problem with them? its all islamic - speaking to other islamics.
that is it - just islam with islam.
you cant object to that?
oh you want islam on the u tube. kool - here is islam on the youtube.
here is mickey mouse on it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZEGsnWZKh8
or you can see 6 islami sermons about islamic love in the modern and western world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo&mode=related&search=
May 24, 2007 5:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 17:17
Frank,your just hot air.word of advice: dont pop an artery.
Friend:I'll take your advice:)
Spock:I see your point about Salman and Muslim extremism... he sings about Allah,Peace,women's empowerment and Hiv/aids and hangs out with Bill Clinton and Warren Buffet...damned
terrorist!
May 24, 2007 5:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 17:06
oh you want islam on the u tube. kool - here is islam on the youtube.
here is mickey mouse on it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZEGsnWZKh8
or you can see 6 islami sermons about islamic love in the modern and western world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo&mode=related&search=
May 24, 2007 5:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 17:04
Just checked out Mr.Ahmad on youtube with Al-jazeera's Riz Khan (one on one) He's a total muslim extremist...NOT!!!:)
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER!
May 24, 2007 4:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 16:57
gandalf
you will have to answer my questions before i have to respond to yours. until i hear otherwise i proceed on the basis that you accept everything that islams koran says and that you would never reject it.
of all the religions you mentioned only islam institutionalized hate, rape, murder, torture and forced conversions.
i dont put people in boxes.
saladin was a terrorist and if he had kept it up they would have marched on and destroyed mecca. remember that verse from the koran about only accepting peace if you are weaker than your enemy?
as for firend - i have asked before and you have just repeated the islamic line - out of context. so put them in context for us.
as for ghandi - he was entitled to be as he was but his beliefs do not apply to me. he could not have been islamic and a jew, christian or hindu, it would have required him to kill himself - islamics hate everyone not islamic. but that does not prevent them from making hindu's pay a ransom, but when the money runs out they can terrorize them again.
come on islam boys - you can do better than that.
May 24, 2007 4:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 16:55
GANDHI ON RELIGION
Thus if I could not accept Christianity either as a perfect, or the greatest religion, neither was I then convinced of Hinduism being such. Hindu defects were pressingly visible to me. If untouchability could be a part of Hinduism, it could but be a rotten part or an excrescence. I could not understand the raison d'etre of a multitude of sects and castes. What was the meaning of saying that the Vedas were the inspired Word of God? If they were inspired, why not also the Bible and the Koran? As Christian friends were endeavouring to convert me, so were Muslim friends. Abdullah Sheth had kept on inducing me to study Islam, and of course he had always something to say regarding its beauty." (source: his autobiography)
"As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side."
"The sayings of Muhammad are a treasure of wisdom, not only for Muslims but for all of mankind."
Later in his life when he was asked whether he was a Hindu, he replied:
"Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew."
May 24, 2007 4:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 16:45
Gandalf, Frank is just going to put a huge update that takes the Koran out of context, misrepresents history, and shows one side of a story that is very complex. I say we leave him to his misery like I see many others are doing.
His view is simple...we're the Christian good guys and they're the Muslim bad guys...
May 24, 2007 4:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 16:42
Thankfully I have a life,otherwise I can quote a zillion examples of extremists within Christianity(cromwell,bush),Islam(osama,yazid),Hinduism (RSS the same people who killed Gandhi because they thought he was too weak a Hindu) ad infitum and argue that there is something inherently violent about Hinduism,Christianity,Islam which drives these people to violence.(Even the Kid in the Virginia tech killings compares his "sacrifice" to Jesus..)the kid was alienated,marginalised right?or did Jesus provoke him?
by the way Which box would you put Rumi in?He was a Muslim scholar/mystic/poet whose inspiration was Allah,the Koran and Mohammad and is expressed through beautiful inclusive,Love poetry which has made him one of the most popular poets in the West(800 years after his death)Which copy of the Koran was he reading back in the 13th century?
What about Saladin? Why did he let all the Christians go free after conquering Jerusalem?As a religious leader he too should've been compelled to slaughter in the name of Allah?Did you watch the Kingdom of Heaven with Orlando Bloom?
May 24, 2007 4:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 16:05
ben:
i have taken a lot of time to answer your question - so how about answering mine - do you accept those portions of the koran that i sited?
now to your questions and statements:
yes i repeat the same arguments when others repeat their same arguments.
to date no one has ever answered a question i have posed but i have answered a lot of them.
is religion truth? i dont know. i think religion is faith. but you have to be specific about what event you are talking about. lets look at the big bang - is this proof the bible is wrong? the old testament says "let there be light" and there was light. could be a simplistic understanding of big bang. or the bible story that god fashioned man out of the clay of the earth and now science tells us that we came from a soup where we started out as a chemical and the cell then we multipled and became life. so do we have another simplistic understanding of that from a story that says god made man from the clay of the earth? then we have the world covered by water - and at one time it was. why are the stories such that they may have a scientific basis - or is it just luck that some of them match. heck - i just dont know.
they say science knows it all - but i dont believe that either. science says we all came from apes - or from the line. those who follow the bible say if evolution is true then there must be at least one creature that was the start of all of us - a common thing that was the first - sounds right to me, but so does our evolving. i dont know. but i dont bow at the alter of science either.
slavery was one of the traditional machines that kept societies running for 10,000 years, or more. we are one of the few societies where it has been outlawed - except in some islamic countries. today its good that it is over. to my knowledge america is the only country that has ever fought a civil war to outlaw it. we have 640,000 dead americans to end it.
you comment about islamic culture making great contributions. during one debate i had someone pointed out that these great contributions appeared to be part of islamic war and taking over other cultures. like the 0. islam says that they found that concept, and i believed it. but india was using zero in 650 ad [but there is even evidence going back to 200 ad]. here is a quote -
"The brilliant work of the Indian mathematicians was transmitted to the Islamic and Arabic mathematicians further west. It came at an early stage for al-Khwarizmi wrote Al'Khwarizmi on the Hindu Art of Reckoning which describes the Indian place-value system of numerals based on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 0. This work was the first in what is now Iraq to use zero as a place holder in positional base notation. Ibn Ezra, in the 12th century, wrote three treatises on numbers which helped to bring the Indian symbols and ideas of decimal fractions to the attention of some of the learned people in Europe. The Book of the Number describes the decimal system for integers with place values from left to right. In this work ibn Ezra uses zero which he calls galgal (meaning wheel or circle). Slightly later in the 12th century al-Samawal was writing:-
If we subtract a positive number from zero the same negative number remains. ... if we subtract a negative number from zero the same positive number remains.
The Indian ideas spread east to China as well as west to the Islamic countries. In 1247 the Chinese mathematician Ch'in Chiu-Shao wrote Mathematical treatise in nine sections which uses the symbol O for zero. A little later, in 1303, Zhu Shijie wrote Jade mirror of the four elements which again uses the symbol O for zero."
so did islam really come up with zero? they say they did - but the indians say the were using it in 200 ad - 400 years before islam ever existed.
the point i was making is that great ideas that came from islam may actually have come from the people they beat in battle. the same can be said of america too. einstein came to america as did other great men and women but we got the credit for some of their actions.
and islamic culture is not all that old. 1400 year is not old. i dont consider 2,000 years as old. the egyptians - they are old. but it could be argued that anything over 1000 years is old.
actually turkey killed almost 2 million christians in 1914 to 18, even without the nazi killing machine. when it started there were 2,000,000 christian armenians. when ww1 ended there were only 200,000 left. for that i blame anyone who was alive then and allowed it to happen and anyone who denies it. just like i blame nazis for the holocaust and those that pretend to be naszis now. they are just as guilty as far as i am concerned. if you adopt the evil knowing the evil, you are evil. those people who are members of the kkk are evil even if they only march and repeat the lies of the kkk. now we are not talking about LEGAL guilt we are talking about moral guilt.
actually yugoslavia had its own ss under hitler - they were bosnians - and would you believe it - they were islamic! will wonders ever cease?
no society is ENTITLED to flaws. none. they get punished for the flaws, either by their own people who change the government, or by foreign governments who are attacked by that government and respond in kind.
and when you ask "is christianity truth" you have to be more specific as to what part of being a christian. after all many people say what they think being a christian is and i would not adopt those beliefs.
hitler hated jews - but jesus was a jew. did he hate jesus? he was an alter boy but does that mean he was carrying out some belief of his religion of youth? so you need to pose a specific question so i can give you a specific answer.
but here is something i believe - i believe jesus lived, that his mother was mary, that he is the son of god and is therefore god. i believe he was killed and came back from the dead. i believe he performed many good acts.
i belive he will return and that he is now in heaven.
beyond that you have to be more specific.
May 24, 2007 3:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 15:12
FRANK
I don't think there is much point in arguing any longer. I read a lot of Nietzsche's writings and base some of my ideas on his. It seems that you are arguing your point mostly because your opponents keep making the same fallacious arguments.
I am also curious about whether you believe religion is truth. I don't. But I do believe that science is the closest thing to truth we have.
I believe cultures are entitled to flaws. Huge ones. I would condemn a culture based only on slavery, or some such mythical culture. But muslim culture is an ancient culture that has contributed to science and philosophy a great deal. In the future, muslim culture may be prosperous again.
Western culture is wonderful. I do not wish to condemn my own culture for the flaws that exist either. I do not condemn you or myself for the Holocaust. If Turkey had a revolution (non-Islamic, say), and killed several million Jews, I would not condemn all of the Middle East forever.
So I guess our difference is mainly about philosophy, how we deal with the truth.
I am still curious whether you think Christianity is truth.
May 24, 2007 2:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 24, 2007 14:08
gandalf:
you know i see that as a typicle islamic response. when i quote the koran they say i am full of hate. wasn't it moho who said these words that islamics call me hateful for using?
well they at least know they are hateful, but unfortunately, under islam, hate is allowed and encouraged.
you forgot to quote all those words of peace that you say are in the koran - but then when you look at the world today, or the history of islam, there is no such peace.
here is the peace of islam for india. i bet you think that it is just great - that islamic peace.
Mahmud of Gaznavi
(From the accounts of arikh-i-Yamini of Utbi the secretary of Mahmud of Gaznavi)
At Thaneshwar.
"The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously at Thanesar that the stream was discolored, not withstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it. The Sultan returned with plunder which is impossible to count. Praise be to Allah for the honor he bestows on Islam and Muslims."
At Somnath
"The Muslims paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and worshipers of sun and fire.... The number of infidels killed exceeded 50,000"
At Mathura
"The infidels...deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river...but many of them were slain, taken or drowned... Nearly fifty thousand men were killed."
Mahmud of Ghori
(from Hasan Nizami's Taj-ul-Maasir)
Kol (Modern Aligarh)
"Those of the horizon who were wise and acute were converted to Islam, but those who stood by their ancestoral faith were slain with the sword"
Kol (Modern Aligarh)
20,000 prisoners were taken and made slaves
'Three bastions were raised as high as heaven with their heads and their carcases became food for the beasts of prey
Kalinjar
50,000 prisoners were taken as slaves
Varnasi or Kasi (Benaras) :
Kamil-ut-Tawarikh of Ibn Asir records,
"The slaughter of Hindus (at Varanasi) was immense; none were spared except women and children,(who were taken into slavery) and the carnage of men went on until the earth was weary."
Zahiru'd-Din Muhammed Babur (1526 C.E. - 1520 C.E.)
Babur's Own Words on Killing Hindus:
For the sake of Islam I became a wanderer,
I battled infidels and Hindus,
I determined to become a maryr
Thank God I became a Killer of Non-Muslims!
From Baburnama, the Memoires of Babur Himself:
In AH 934 (2538 C.E.) I attacked Chanderi and by the grace of Allah captured it in a few hours. We got the infidels slaughtered and the place which had be Daru'l-Harb (nation of non-muslim) for years was made into a Daru'l-Islam (muslim nation).
Guru Nanak on Babur's atrocities:
Source:Rag Asa Guru Nanak Dev witnessed first hand the atrocities Babur committed on Hindus and recorded them in his poems. He says: Having attacked Khuraasaan, Babar terrified Hindustan. The Creator Himself does not take the blame, but has sent the Mugal as the messenger of death. There was so much slaughter that the people screamed. Didn't You feel compassion, Lord? pg (360)
On the condition of Hindu women in Babur's monster rule:
Those heads adorned with braided hair, with their parts painted with vermillion - those heads were shaved with scissors, and their throats were choked with dust.They lived in palatial mansions, but now, they cannot even sit near the palaces.... ropes were put around their necks, and their strings of pearls were broken. Their wealth and youthful beauty, which gave them so much pleasure, have now become their enemies. The order was given to the soldiers, who dishonored them, and carried them away. If it is pleasing to God's Will, He bestows greatness; if is pleases His Will, He bestows punishment pg(417-18)
On the nature of Mughal rule under Babur:
First, the tree puts down its roots, and then it spreads out its shade above. The kings are tigers, and their officials are dogs; they go out and awaken the sleeping people to harass them. The public servants inflict wounds with their nails. The dogs lick up the blood that is spilled. Source:Rag Malar, (pg.1288)
From an article by Dr. Harsh Narain on Muslim Testimony (Indian Express 2/26/90):
Since the establishment of Zahiru'd-Din Ghazi's rule, officers and religious leaders spread Islam vigorously desteroying the Hindu faith. We cleared the filth of Hinduism from Faizabad and Avadh.
Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq
(from Insha-i-Mahry by Amud Din Abdullah bin Mahru)
Delhi: -a punishment in detail (from Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi)
"A report was brought to the Sultan than there was in Delhi an old Brahman who persisted in publicly performing the worship of idols in his house and that people of the city, both Muslims and Hindus used to resort to his house to worship the idol. The Brahman had constructed a wooden tablet which was covered within and without with paintings of demons and other objects. An order was accordingly given to the Brahman and was brought before Sultan.The true faith was declared to the Brahman and the right course pointed out. but he refused to accept it. A pile was risen on which the Kaffir with his hands and legs tied was thrown into and the wooden tablet on the top. The pile was lit at two places his head and his feet. The fire first reached him in the feet and drew from him a cry and then fire completley enveloped him. Behold Sultan for his strict adherence to law and rectitude."
Delhi : (after Hindus paid the toleration tax (zar-i zimmiya) and poll-tax(jizya) they were foolish enough to build their temples.so...) "Under divine guidance I (Sultan) destroyed these temples and I killed the leaders of these infedility and others I subjected to stripes and chastisement "
Gohana (Haryana):
"Some Hindus had erected a new idol-temple in the village of Kohana and the idolaters used to assemble there and perform their idolatrous rites. These people were seized and brought before me. I ordered that the perverse conduct of these leaders of this wickedness be punished by publicly abd that they should be put to deathe before the gate of the palace."
Jajnagar:(Expedition objectives as stated by Sultan: Source:Ainn-ul-Mulk)
massacring the unbelievers
demolishing their temples
hunting the elephants
getting a glimpse of their enchanting country
Orissa:'Sirat-i-Firoz Shahi' records his expedition with the following words:
"Nearly 100,000 men of Jajnagar had taken refuge with their women, children, kinsmen and relations The swordsmen of Islam turned the island into a basin of blood by the massacre of the unbelievers. Women with babies and pregnant ladies were haltered, manacled, fettered and enchained, and pressed as slaves into service in the house of every soldier."
The Jihads of Shihabuddin,
the Sultankalka of Ghur
Around 1140, the Islamized Turko-Mongol chiefs of the Shansabanid tribe occupied Ghor in Afghanistan. Initially it was a vassal of the Ghaznavid Sultans, but around 1130 it came into conflict with them, after one of the leading Shansabanid nobles was murdered by the Ghaznavid Sultan, Bahram. A ferocious war ensued between the Sultans of Ghor and Ghazni, till Alla-ud-din Ghori invaded Ghazni with his entire cavalry and wrested it from Bahram. Alla-ud-din sacked the Indian spoils that Mahmud had placed there, massacred the city’s population in a 7-day killing spree and subsequently burnt it down. The next Ghaznavid Sultan, Khushro Maliq was driven out of Afghanistan by a coalition of Oghuz Turks and the Ghorids in 1157, and the Oghuz took Ghazni. The sons of Alla-ud-din, Ghiyas-ud-din Mu’azz-ud-din Ghori and Shihab-ud-din Muhammad Ghori defeated the Oghuz and annexed Ghazni in 1174. Ghiyas-ud-din, crowned himself Sultan, and appointed his brother Sultankalka. Shihab-ud-din was assigned the task of extending the kingdom to the East and he naturally gravitated towards India. 13 bloody campaigns that ravaged Northern India followed:
• Early in 1175 he invaded Punjab and sacked and burned Uch...(1)
• In 1178 he advanced south and marched towards Gujarat, but here the Indians acted quickly and rallying under the western chAlukya king MUlarAja II routed the Islamic forces completely forcing him to retreat...(2)
• In 1179 Ghori sent a message to PrithivirAja chAhamAna to make common cause with him against the Chalukyas. Prithivaraj however, wise disregarding his foolish minister, kadambavAsa’s advise to make a common cause with Ghori, preemptively attacked NaDDula and reconquered it from the Moslems.
• Shihab recovered in 1180 and invaded Sindh and ravaged the population carrying away much loot...(3)
• Then Shihabuddin Muhammad, quickly followed it up in 1181 and 1184 with two invasions of Lavapura (Lahore) accompanied with much slaughter...(4+5)
• In 1186 he invaded the Ghaznavid occupied Punjab and defeated the Sultan Khushro Maliq and wrested Punjab...(6)
• 1188 The Ghur Sultankalka invaded the ChAhamAna kingdom and sacked the fort of Tabarhindah killing the Hindu male populace and raping the women. Hindu refugees flocked around Delhi alarming the ChAhamAnas...(7)
• 1191 PrithivirAj advanced to meet Shihabuddin’s raid and routed him in the great battle of Tarai. While the Muslims suffered a crushing defeat, the Indians failed to butcher them to man and allowed Shihab to get away unharmed. He fled back to Central Asia leaving Punjab completely undefended...(8)
• 1191 PrithivirAj attacked Tabarhindah and took it back from the Muslims. Here the biggest mistake of the Hindus was not to reconquer and arm Punjab suitably.
• 1192 Shihab returned and sacked Tabarhindah again. This was followed by the second battle of Tarai, the ChAhamAna army was crushed and Prithiviraj was captured and brutally tortured to death...(9)
• 1192 the Ghur Sultankalka made a second trust towards Ajayamerupura (Ajmer) and sacked it smashing Hindu temples and a Hindu university in course of this invasion. The Hindus captured in this expedition caused slave prices to fall to a few Dirhams in the Muslim markets...(10)
• 1193 The sultankalka invaded Kannauj and slew the GAhadwala king Jayachandra. He followed this up with an invasion of vArANsipura slaughtering Hindus with great savagery and desecrating the holy city...(11+12)
After this, his viceroy Kutub-ud-din (also his lover?) and the Turkish adventurer Ikhtiyaruddin Khalji furthered the violence of Islam in the land of Hind. Meanwhile Shihab’s brother died in Ghazna and he crowned himself Sultan and immediately launched himself into another Jihad on the infidels of Hindustan in 1206. The exact course of this campaign is not clear. While on the North-western reaches of the Sindhu, he was ambushed by the Khokar chiefs and shot down by an arrow...(13). Thus ended the carrier of the Moslem brigand who brought misery to the whole of northern India through his 13 invasions
The Jihads of
Alla-ud-din Khalji
The one time when it appeared that the sanAtana dharma might vanish off the face of bhArata was during the ferocious jihads of Alla-ud-din of the Khalji tribe. The Khaljis entered India from Ghazna during the reign of the Mamluq Sultan Qutub-ud-din Aibak. The first of them to make his mark Bakhtiyar Khalji, whose savage jihad in Bihar and destruction of the Indian centers of learning like Nalanda is only well known. Jalal-ud-din Khalji, another member of this tribe, was accepted as the Sultan of Delhi by a confederation of Turkic tribes, after the collapse of the Mamluq Balban’s regime. Jalal opened his innings by consolidating the Turkic regime in India by suppressing other competing Maliqs and appointed his nephew, Alla-ud-din to expand his domains. We shall briefly consider his campaigns:
• In 1291 he was sent to destroy the remaining Kaffirs of Bhilsa in Central India. Il-tut-mish, the Mamluq had earlier desecrated this Hindu-Buddhist temple-university complex but it had fallen away from Islamic control. Alla invaded and conquered Bhilsa and total exterminated the Kaffirs and left behind a ghost city whose long lost temple remnants can be seen even today.
• 1292 He attacked the Vidisha in Central India, a great center of learning and destroyed it completely and slew the inhabitants.
• 1292 His spies got him the news of the great wealth of the yAdava dynasty of mahArashTra and Alla promptly invaded it and carried away a large amount of loot.
• 1295 In a remarkable campaign Alla carried the war right to Devagiri the heart of the yAdava kingdom. He demolished and looted all the temples in Devagiri.
• In 1296 with this loot Alla bought most of the Khalji army and murdered his uncle Jalal and drove away his aunt and cousin and declared himself Sultan of Hind. Jaziya was imposed on the Kaffirs.
• 1296. Latter in the year he joined the Southern Alliance of the Chagadai Ulus (predominantly Turkic tribes) against the Northern Alliance (predominantly Mongolic) and routed the latter in a battle at Jallandar securing the Panjab for himself.
• In 1297 he invaded Gujarat and destroyed the ancient Surya temples at Mehsana and subjugated the Hindus of the land with much slaughter. The rAja of Gujarat fled to Devagiri and the Hindu kings tried to fight back under shankara yAdava. Alla sent Ulugh Khan and Nusrat Khan against them, who defeated the yAdavas and the Gujarat king. They captured and castrated a Hindu youth who was name Maliq Kaffr and presented him to Alla, who took him as his lover.
• 1298 He sent his fiercest il-ghazi, Zafar Khan, to wage a jihad against the pagan Northern Alliance chief Suldus who was sent by Chagadai Kha’Khan Duwa. The battle concluded in a draw after fierce fighting.
• 1298 Later in the year he battled against Qutulugh Khawaja, a son of Duwa, of the Northern Alliance, the results were inconclusive
• 1299 Qutulugh Khawaja reached the doors of Delhi with a large horde. Alla’s il-ghazi’s Zafar Khan, Ulugh Khan and Nusrat Khan defeated Qutulugh Khawaja, but Zafar Khan was shot dead by an arrow in this battle.
• 1299 Ulugh Khan was sent to quell the Hindu resistance in Gujarat. He conquered the fort of Junagad and demolished all the temples in the surrounding regions and then went on to attack Somnath and destroy the great temple that the Hindus had rebuilt.
• 1299. Hammira Deva of the Ranthambhor defeated Alla as he attempted to sack the Rajput stronghold.
• 1301. Alla returned with his entire force to sack Ranthambhor. He succeeded and slew Hammira Deva. He conducted a massive temple demolition operation destroying all the temples of Jhain and Sawai Madhopur and slew the inhabitants.
• 1303. Chittor alone that had held out against the Muslims, attracted Khalji’s attention due to its beautiful queen Padmini. Khalji sacked and burned Chittor after slaying Rana Rattan Singh.
• 1303. Turghai and Ali Beg of the Northern Alliance wrested the Punjab from Alla and invaded Sindh. They blockaded Delhi itself for two months but retreated due to the summer heat.
• 1304. Jihad was launched on Ujjaini. This ancient center of Indian learning was destroyed completely. Chanderi was attacked next by Alla and the ancient temples were demolished.
• 1305. Malwa and Mandu were savaged and the inhabitants slaughtered.
• 1306. Then Turghai and Ali Beg defeated Khalji’s army and captured Lahore and Amroha near Delhi. Tughlaq Khan, a general of Alla, counter-attacked defeated and captured 9000 Pagan Turko-Mongols of the Northern Alliance. He had them all trampled to death by elephants for refusing to accept Islam.
• 1308. Qebek (another son of Chagadai ruler, Duwa) and Ibaqmand of the Northern Alliance struck back captured Multan. But Alla defeated them on their way back and again slaughtered all the pagan prisoners he took.
• 1308. Later in the year, the Rajputs regrouped in Sivana and declared independence but Alla smashed them in a lightning campaign and destroyed the temples in the region.
• 1309. He sent Maliq Kaffr against Devagiri that was attempting to reassert itself. Maliq Kaffr defeated the yAdavas and penetrated the Hoysala kingdom.
• 1310 Maliq Kaffr destroyed Dwarasamudra after a fierce battle and ended the Hindu Hoysala rule over those regions.
• 1311 Maliq Kaffr devastated Telengana and destroyed the temples of Warangal. He then invaded Madhurai and destroyed the Pandyan kingdom. The temples of Madhurai and Chidambaram were destroyed. Kaffr returned with enormous amounts of gold looted from the destroyed temples.
• 1311 Alla invaded Jalor to destroy the Rajput fight back and massacred the Hindu population while destroying the city.
• 1313 Devagiri made another attempt to defy the Muslim terror, Alla personally invaded mahArashTra to ravage the Devagiri kingdom.
• 1314 Alla more or less became a puppet in the hand of his lover Kaffr and subsequently died in 1316.
• 1316 Death.
Thereafter, Maliq Kaffr killed all the members of the Khalji tribe except for Qutbuddin Mubarak, Alla’s last son, and ruled in his name. Kaffr was murdered by the Turkish chiefs of the Southern Alliance and Mubarak ascended the throne. In 1318 Qutbuddin Mubarak invaded Devagiri again as its ruler Haripala Deva had cast off the Muslim yoke. Haripala faced a massive defeat and was captured. He was skinned alive and his head and skin were placed on display at the entrance to the Devagiri fort. Thus ended the yAdava dynasty and Hindu sovereignty in mahArashTra. Mubarak’s lover Khusru murdered him and made himself Sultan. Amir Qazaghan of the Qara’Unas tribe, from Konduz, became the lord of the Southern Alliance and sent his commander al Ghazi al Maliq Tughlaq to seize the throne of Delhi after murdering Khusru.
Sources: Histoire des Mongols D’Ohsson.; Hafiz-i-Abru, trns Byani (Paris 1936). Tazjiyat-al-amsar va tajriyat of Wassaf; A Forgotten Empire : Vijayanagar : A Contribution to the history of India", Robert Sewell
Aurangazeb (1658 C.E. - 1707 C.E.)
Aurangzeb considered himself "The Scourge Of The Kafirs" (non-believers) and closed Hindu schools and libraries. In his lifetime he destroyed more than 10,000 Hindu, Buddhist and Jam temples and often erected mosques in their stead.3 In 1669 in Agra he had hacked off the limbs of the recalcitrant Hindu King Gokla and in 1672 several thousand revolting Hindus were slaughtered in Mewat.
From: Maasi-i-Alamgiri
Issued general order to destroy all centers of Hindu learnings including Varnasi and destroyed the temple at Mathura and renamed it as Islamabad
In Khandela (rajastan) he killed 300 Hindus in one day for they resisted the destruction of their temple.
In Udaipur all Hindus of the town were killed as they vowed to defend the temple of Udaipur from destruction.
172 temples were destroyed in Udaipur.
66 temples were pulled down in Amber. All Hindu clerks were dismissed from the office of the Imperial empire.
In Pandhpur , Maharashtra, the Emperor ordered and executed the destruction of temple and butchering of cows within the temple.
Aurangazeb also tortured to death the disciples of Guru Tegh bahadur before his death and also killed Guru. Guru Tegh Bahadur - the pride of Hindustan was martyred for he spoke for the persecuted Hindus of Hindustan. Aurangazeb also killed Guru Gobind singh's two children aged less than ten by walling them alive for not accepting the choice of Islam. In Punjab Muslim governors killed hundreds of Sikh children and made Sikh women eat the flesh of their own killed children. Banda Bahadur another great Sikh martyr before being torturd to death was also made to eat the flesh of his own children killed before his eyes. Any Muslim bringing the head of a dead Sikh was also awarded money
Jahangir (1605 C.E. - 1628 C.E.)
Source: Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri
Though in the beginning of his rule Jahangir followed the humanistic rule of his father Akbar the great -the policy of sulehkul even issued a proclamation against the forcible conversion of Hindus to Islam, he revoked Akbar's orders that those who have been forcibly converted from Islam could return to Hinduism. He severely punished Kaukab, Sharif and Abdul Latif for showing inclination to Hinduism. He also prohibited the free inter-marriage customs between Hindus and Muslims in Kashmir. Hindus marrying Muslim girls and those who had already married were given a hoice between Islam and death. Many were killed.
Jahangir's torture of Guru Arjun Dev ji: Guru was imprisoned at Lahore fort. He was chained to a post in an open place exposed to the sun from morning to evening in the summer months of May to June. Below his feet a heap of sand was put which burnt like a furnace. Boiling water was poured on his naked body at intervals. His body was covered with blisters all over. In this agony Guru used to utter.
Tera Kiya Metha lage, naam padarath Nanak mange(whatever you ordain appears sweet. I supplicate for the gift of name)
The Guru was ordercd to be executed. In addition a fine of Rupees two lakhs was imposed on him. Some historians say that, as a measure of clemency at the intervention of Mian Mir, this fine was imposed in lieu of the sentence of death. The Sikhs offered to pay the fine themselves but the Guru forbade them to do so. He replied to the Emperor, "Whatever money I have is for the poor, the friendless and the stranger. If thou ask for money thou mayest take what I have; but if thou ask for it by way of fine, I shall not give thee even a Kaurz (penny)." The Guru accepted death by torture
Shah Jahan (1658 C.E. - 1707 C.E.)
In 1632 Shah jahan ordered that all Hindu temples recently erected or in the course of construction should be razed to the ground. In Benares alone seventy six temples were destroyed. Christian churches at Agra and Lahore were demolished. In a manner befitting the Prophet he had ten thousand inhabitants executed by being "blown up with powder, drowned in water or burnt by fire". Four thousand were taken captive to Agra where they were tortured to try to convert them to Islam. Only a few apostacised, the remainder were trampled to death by elephants, except for the younger women who went to harems.
Shahjahan put enormous eonomic pressure on Hindus particularly peasents to become Muslims. The criminals too were forced to become Muslims.
Source: Badshah Nama, Qazinivi & Badshah Nama , Lahori
When Shuja was appointed as governor of Kabul he carried on a ruthless war in the Hindu territory beyond Indus...The sword of Islam yielded a rich crop of converts....Most of the women (to save their honour) burnt themselves to death. Those captured were distributed among Muslim Mansabdars.
Source: Manucci, Storia do Mogor vol-II p.451 & Travels of Frey Sebastian Manrique
Under Shahjahan peasents were co