Muhammad [peace be upon him] is the last of Allah's Messengers and Prophets. His name is Muhammad, son of Abdullah. He was born in Makkah in 570 A.D. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was, in his youth, a combination of the best social qualities. He was an exemplary man of weighty mind and faultless insight. He was favored with intelligence, originality of thought and accurate choice of the means to accurate goals. His long silence helped favorably in his habit of meditation and deep investigation into the truth.
His vivid mind and pure nature were instrumental in assimilating and comprehending ways of life as well as individuals, groups and communities. He shunned superstitious practices but took an active part in useful and constructive activities. In the case of the useless and destructive dealings, he would have recourse to his self-adopted solitude. He refrained from drinking wine, eating meat slaughtered on stone altars or attending idolatrous festivals.
He proved himself to be the ideal of manhood, in possession of a spotless character. He was the most obliging to his compatriots, the most honest in his talk and the mildest in temper. He was the most gentle-hearted, chaste, and hospitable, and always impressed people by his piety-inspiring countenance. He was the most truthful and the best in keeping agreements. Due to the fine reputation he enjoyed among his people, they nicknamed him 'The Trustworthy.'
This impression on people can be deduced by the bliss that overwhelmed their hearts and filled them with dignity. Men's respect, awe and appreciation of Allah's Messenger (PBUH) were unique and matchless. No other man in the whole world has been so honored and beloved. Those who knew him well were fascinated and enchanted by him. They were ready to sacrifice their lives for the sake of saving a nail of his from hurt or injury. He had been favored with many aspects of perfection no one else had been granted, so his Companions found him peerless and loved him.
When he was commissioned as a Prophet at the age of forty, Allah revealed the first Qur'anic Verses to him through the Angel Gabriel. He asked the Prophet (PBUH) to preach the Oneness of Allah and warn people against polytheism.
The Makkan polytheists opposed him and persecuted his followers severely, but that did not shake his faith nor cause his steadfastness to waiver. Nor did it stop more people from responding to his preaching. Finally, when the majority of the people of Al-Madinah embraced Islam, the Makkan Muslims took flight to Al-Madinah. Later on, Allah's Messenger (PBUH) himself migrated to Al-Madinah to establish the Islamic state there.
A few years later, the polytheists of Makkah and their allies succumbed to the growing power of the Muslims, and Makkah was conquered without violence. Some thirty years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), Islam spread throughout the world, displacing the greatest two empires at the time, the Persian and the Roman.
Allah has summarized the message of His Prophet Muhammad as follows: "We have sent you (O Muhammad) only as a mercy for all the worlds." (21:107)
Many Western scholars and famous personalities have admitted that no faults or flaws are to be found in the character and behavior of the Prophet (PBUH). Some of their observations are remarkable.
Lamartine, the celebrated historian says: "If greatness of purpose, smallness of means and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes.
"This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls... his forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph over death; all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma.
"This dogma was twofold, the unity of God and the immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with the words.
"Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images, the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all the standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may ask, is there any man greater than he?" (Lamartine, Histoire de la Turquie, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277)
The Hindu leader Mahatma Gandhi wrote about the Prophet (PBUH): "I become more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers and his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle."
George Bernard Shaw wrote: "He must be called the Savior of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving the problems in a way that would bring the much needed peace and happiness. Europe is beginning to be enamoured of the creed of Muhammad. In the next century it may go further in recognizing the utility of that creed in solving its problems." (The Genuine Islam, Singapore, Vol. I, No 8, 1936)
Michael H. Hart says: "My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels." (M.H. Hart, 'The 100: A Ranking of the most influential persons in history', new York, 1978, p. 33)
RE:Dont judge on any rulers, see basic islamic teachings of tolerance
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 02:24 PM Permalink
MuhamMAD was a pedophile and a lunatic who heard voices in his head, he conned the world into believing that it was God speaking through his angel Jibreel. Those who didn't believe him he killed, the others fearful of their lives nodded along and are today called Muslims.
RE:RE:Dont judge on any rulers, see basic islamic teachings of tolerance
by Ekalavyan on Mar 20, 2007 04:27 PM Permalink
Islam is an egalitarian religion. Brahmanism is just opposite to that.It is the negation of all human values like liberty, equality and fraternity. Under Islam everybody is equal before God. What about Brahmanism? Hinduism minus caste system is a BIG ZERO!!! SO WE DALITS AND OBC'S REJECTED BRAHMANISM
RE:RE:RE:Dont judge on any rulers, see basic islamic teachings of tolerance
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 04:42 PM Permalink
Well Islam has a special place for you then, its called slavery!
RE:RE:RE:Dont judge on any rulers, see basic islamic teachings of tolerance
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 04:44 PM Permalink
Hinduism - Caste is still Hinduism when I last checked.
RE:Dont judge on any rulers, see basic islamic teachings of tolerance
by Biswa Samanta on Mar 20, 2007 04:07 PM Permalink
Your so called Maha - MAD was a bloody burger who believed upon a b*****d religion and spread it. It will heart the peace and prosperity of the world till it exist.
Dear Subbu, Secular Indian Some Govt. in the world put prohibition on alcoholic drinks, Night Clubs, Late Night markets bcoz they are bad for physical health and society. For this we cant blame Govt. that they are not allowing Full freedom. Same way, Islam believes that polytheism, trinity, idol worships are the worst things for mankind, so Islam strictly prohibits it and does not allow to propagate and follow it, that%u2019s why in Islamic countries any form of idol worship and polytheism is not allowed
RE:Construction of Temple, Church
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 02:28 PM Permalink
There is a big difference in banning night clubs and stoning people to death because of adultery. If Islam believes idol worship is bad that doesn't give them a license to destroy them or to kill those that worship them.
Islam is simply Arab imperialism, it's a hodge podge of primitive tribal customs and plagiarised non-sense from the Jewish and Christian tradition. It has totalitarian tendencies and cannot tolerate introspection or questioning. It's an insidious cult!
RE:Construction of Temple, Church
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 02:30 PM Permalink
I say the way muslims sniff each others butts is disgusting, but it's their right, if thats what gives them pleasure. In the same way Muslims should let Idol worshipers, worship their idols, it's their right and it gives them pleasure.
RE:Status of Parents in Islam:
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 06:46 AM Permalink
Some Islamic peaceful pronouncements, since Muslims are so proud of their peace credentials:
Quran tells us to: "not to make friends with Jews and Christians" (5:51), fight them "until they pay the Jizya (a penalty tax for the non-Muslims living under Islamic rules) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" ( 9:29). "kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (2:191), "murder them and treat them harshly" (9:123), "fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" ( 9:5).
Quran says that all those who disbelieve in Islam go to hell (5:10), they are najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (9:28), and orders us to fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (2:193). It prohibits a Muslim to befriend a non-believer even if that non-believer is the father or the brother of that Muslim (9:23), (3:28).
It says that the "non-believers will go to hell and will drink boiling water" (14:17). It asks the Muslims to "slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with disgrace and that they shall have great punishment in the world hereafter" (5:34). And tells us that "for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods" (22:19-22) and that they not only will have "disgrace in this life, on the Day of Judgment He shall make them taste the Penalty of burning (Fire)" (22:9).
Quran says that "those who invoke a god other than Allah not only should meet punishment in this world but the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to them, and they will dwell therein in ignominy" (25:68). For those who "believe not in Allah and His Messenger, He has prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!" (48:13).
As for him who does not believe in Islam the Prophet says that after he dies it will be announced with a "stern command": "Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High. And would not encourage the feeding of the indigent! So no friend hath he here this Day. Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds, Which none do eat but those in sin." (69:30-37)
RE:Islamic Toleration: Thousand Years of Muslim Rule in India: 87% Hindus, 12% Muslims
by Sanjay Bhakat on Mar 20, 2007 10:55 AM Permalink
Dear Abdul Azeez Bhai, Tell me, one thing, in 1947 87% Hindus 12% Muslims in India ... the percentage remains almost around the same. What is the status of the statistics in Pakistan and Bangladesh? Any answer the so-called the most tolerant religion's mouthpiece? Jot down your reply and read it aloud yourself!!
RE:RE:RE:Islamic Toleration: Thousand Years of Muslim Rule in India: 87% Hindus, 12% Muslims
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 02:33 PM Permalink
Your shouting is only making you look like a looser! and your convenient amnesia regarding Porkistan and Beggardesh is another symptom of your selective and faulty list of facts!
RE:RE:RE:Islamic Toleration: Thousand Years of Muslim Rule in India: 87% Hindus, 12% Muslims
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 02:46 PM Permalink
"THERE IS SOMETHING IN THIS RELIGION THAT SEAZES A PERSON BY HIS HEART!!! "
An Islamic terrorists cold steel bullet, or shrapnel from a suicide bomb!
RE:RE:RE:Islamic Toleration: Thousand Years of Muslim Rule in India: 87% Hindus, 12% Muslims
by wada pav on Mar 20, 2007 01:21 PM Permalink
It went down because after partition, pakistan and bangladesh were no longer in india,thats why.
RE:Islamic Toleration: Thousand Years of Muslim Rule in India: 87% Hindus, 12% Muslims
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 06:45 AM Permalink
Please don't bore us with more Islam vs Christianity ramblings. We know they are both intolerant, thanks you have done an outstanding job at telling us the truth but now, how about some propaganda that talks about Islamic reform, that may yet convince some of us.
RE:Islamic Toleration: Thousand Years of Muslim Rule in India: 87% Hindus, 12% Muslims
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 06:43 AM Permalink
Some Islamic peaceful pronouncements, since Muslims are so proud of their peace credentials:
Quran tells us to: "not to make friends with Jews and Christians" (5:51), fight them "until they pay the Jizya (a penalty tax for the non-Muslims living under Islamic rules) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" ( 9:29). "kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (2:191), "murder them and treat them harshly" (9:123), "fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" ( 9:5).
Quran says that all those who disbelieve in Islam go to hell (5:10), they are najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (9:28), and orders us to fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (2:193). It prohibits a Muslim to befriend a non-believer even if that non-believer is the father or the brother of that Muslim (9:23), (3:28).
It says that the "non-believers will go to hell and will drink boiling water" (14:17). It asks the Muslims to "slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with disgrace and that they shall have great punishment in the world hereafter" (5:34). And tells us that "for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods" (22:19-22) and that they not only will have "disgrace in this life, on the Day of Judgment He shall make them taste the Penalty of burning (Fire)" (22:9).
Quran says that "those who invoke a god other than Allah not only should meet punishment in this world but the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to them, and they will dwell therein in ignominy" (25:68). For those who "believe not in Allah and His Messenger, He has prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!" (48:13).
As for him who does not believe in Islam the Prophet says that after he dies it will be announced with a "stern command": "Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High. And would not encourage the feeding of the indigent! So no friend hath he here this Day. Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds, Which none do eat but those in sin." (69:30-37)
RE:Islamic Toleration: Thousand Years of Muslim Rule in India: 87% Hindus, 12% Muslims
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 06:57 AM Permalink
From Dr Younus Shaikh.
"Indian sub-continent suffered the humiliation and destruction under Islam, as did Africa. The Islamic General Mohammad Bin Qasim decimated great Buddhist and Hindu civilizations. Acting on the orders of a representative of the Islamic Caliph, Governor Hijaj Bin Yousaf (who was a deadly enemy of the Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Hussein's family-some of whom have taken refuge under the Buddhist monarch Raja Dahir in Sindh), Mohammad Bin Qasim conquered the kingdom in 712 CE. His Islamic plunderers and looters demolished temples, shattered sculptures, plundered palaces and killed thousands. It took his Islamic army three days to slaughter the inhabitants of Debal, their women and children were taken into slavery. Later on he pardoned many prisoners and tried to establish a just rule of law which enraged the very Islamic and murderous Governor Hijaj Bin Yousaf; therefore Qasim again reverted to the Islamic barbarity and massacred between 6-16 thousands in Brahiminabad, their women and children were sent to Arab Islamic slave markets.
This was the beginning of the destruction of the classical ancient Indian civilization, and start of the medieval age of Islamic darkness in India. The 11th century witnessed another Islamic murderer and plunderer, Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi an agent of Islamic Caliph, who utterly ruined the great Indian civilization and looted and plundered most of its wealth. Fifty thousand Hindus were massacred in just one of his attacks at Somnath; he invaded India more than 17 times. Thousands of Hindu men and women were sent to the Islamic Afghani slave markets. The highly cultured and civilized daughters of the noble Hindu families were sold to the illiterate, un-cultured and barbaric Afghanis for equivalent of just one Frank (Pound/Dollar) each. After every Afghani Muslim had four wives each, there were lots of surplus women left; to that the evil Islamic mullahs responded with an ingenious translation of Koranic verses proving that Allah allowed each Muslim to marry 18 women at a time along with an unlimited number of women as concubines. Soon the new military instruments of the Islamic Caliph, the Turks and the Moguls followed, decimated captured Delhi and turned whole of India into a grand open-air slave camp. Sultan Firoze Shah Tughlaq- an Islamic Turk ruler had 100,000 men-slaves and thousands of female sex-slaves in his harem; the pious Islamic Mongol (Mogul) Emperor Shahjehan had 15,000 female sex-slaves and concubines for his personal harem. Indeed, the Islamic Turk invaders and rulers did the same in India as they did in Armenia-the whole races of peoples were exterminated. (However, credit must be given here to the agnostic and secular-minded, humanist Mogul Emperor Akbar the Great who refused the title of "the King of Muslims" and preferred to be called "the shadow of God"- for his God, he declared (in accordance with the mind and language of his age), is the beneficial deity and protector of all-Hindus, Muslims and other races of humans and creatures alike. He gave up his faith in Islam and tried his genius in creating a pluralistic religion comprising traditions of all the prevalent religions and ideologies of India. He even invited the Christian Jesuits priests from Goa to his ideology-discussion-palace but could not swallow their childish Jesus-son-of-God myth)."
RE:You Know
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 06:09 AM Permalink
Dr. Zakir Naik is a moron, here is his logic regarding why temples and churches can't be built in Saudia Arabia and some other Muslim countries.
Since Muslims believe 2 plus 2 equals 4 and the other religions believe 2 plus 2 equals 3 therefore you can't build a church or temple in Saudia Arabia.
For those who think I'm making this up please do yourself a favour and check it out for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIcS-eZ71yg&mode=related&search=
ROFL .... hilarious .... can't get better comedy than that. HAHAHAHAHAHA
RE:RE:You Know
by Truth on Mar 20, 2007 11:24 AM Permalink
Some Govt. in the world put prohibition on alcoholic drinks, Night Clubs, Late Night markets bcoz they are bad for physical health and society. For this we can%u2019t blame Govt. that they are not allowing Full freedom. Same way, Islam believes that polytheism, trinity, idol worships are the worst things for mankind, so Islam strictly prohibits it and does not allow to propagate and follow it, that%u2019s why in Islamic countries any form of idol worship and polytheism is not allowed.
RE:RE:RE:You Know
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 02:43 PM Permalink
There is a big difference in banning night clubs and stoning people to death because of adultery. If Islam believes idol worship is bad that doesn't give them a license to destroy them or to kill those that worship them.
Islam is simply Arab imperialism, it's a hodge podge of primitive tribal customs and plagiarised non-sense from the Jewish and Christian tradition. It has totalitarian tendencies and cannot tolerate introspection or questioning. It's an insidious cult!
Francois Gautier student of RSS and BJP Historians
by rafiuddin farooqui on Mar 20, 2007 12:22 AM | Hide replies
The person who does not know What is FARMAN (Original edicts of Aurangzeb Government Orders) and FARHAN ( A WORD MEANS HAPPY). and he claims he is the close student of Aurangzeb he is just bogus, fabricating the truth, spreading hatred and a liar. He is just like Arun Shourie.
RE:Francois Gautier along with his research in RSS Catalogue one more article.
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 05:40 AM Permalink
How do you know that the word was not a typo ? How does it in any way detract from the articles central message ? Why do you have to constantly defend a criminal and bigot like Aurangzeb ? What does Arun Shourie have to do with the above article ?
RE:Francois Gautier along with his research in RSS Catalogue one more article.
by Sanjay Bhakat on Mar 20, 2007 11:00 AM Permalink
hello Farooqui,
Your reference to Mr. Arun Shourie, is a classic example of distracting attention from the core issue. Farhan or Farman does not ends a history. Do you agree or disagree with the facts that your beloved Aurangzeb destroyed temples and constructed mosques in its place or not. Write the answer and read it alound yourself, your ears will hear it. Read the poem by a Saudi Scholar, not a religious maniac, it will give you some idea.
Aurangzeb was driven by an intense Muslim piety. He insisted that the Shari'a(Mistaken or wrongly got He just make Just rule and given 148 highest position to Hindus in Judiciary to deal the cases) become the law of the land, and forbade all drinking and gambling. The Hindu majority, accustomed to living according to Hindu law, the Dharmashastra , now found themselves facing Islamic law courts. Aurangzeb outlawed the Hindu practice of suttee in which widows voluntarily killed themselves by throwing themselves on the funeral pyre of their husbands. More seriously, however, was Aurangzeb's repeal of all taxes that were not specifically authorized in Islamic law or tradition
Unquote
Aurangzeb is become wicked to the Brahmans and Higher Castes Hindus, because he had started reformation and applied correcting measures to Hindu society and Culture. In his rule recorded that many Temple and Ashram which runs as Brothels closed. The Gambling, Drinking and other practices Devdasi, Slavery was banned. He initiated reformation that made villain to Brahmans and Higher Castes. Because Aurangzeb wanted to liberate BC/ST/SC and Dalit from the clutches and wrong practices of Brahmans and Higher Castes and bring equality. The all filth written in the History by Western Writers, come from where. By these RSS and GANGS and Goons work. They Gave Vish Kanniya and Rewards to write against Aurangzeb and they also wrote books, brochure against him to spread hatred. They want to use now. This was the strategy. The forced conversion, razing temples, killing Hindus all were fabricated and heinous work of these hatred mongers. They want to rule India by encouraging hatred against Muslims. Encouraging Hatred against could not unite Hindus. The only thing is Revolution which is a step ahead.
Note: The Francois Gautier is bogus writer.
1. Any student he wants to study about Aurangzeb he must read the FARMANS (Edict of Aurangzeb GOVERNMETN ORDERS) the basic documents.
2. Mr. Francois Gautier claims he studied 30 years Indian history with specialization Aurangzeb. He wrote in the article he got FARHANS. ( You can find and Guess from where he get these farhans )
From his Article:
Firstly, I have been a close student of Indian history, and one of its most controversial figures has been Aurangzeb (1658-1707).
History (like journalism) is about documentation and first-hand experience. We decided to show Aurangzeb according to his own documents. There are an incredible number of farhans, original edicts of Aurangzeb hand-written in Persian, in India's museums, particularly in Rajasthan, such as the Bikaner archives.
The director of Bikaner archives told us that in 50 years we were the first ones asking for the farhans dealing with Aurangzeb's destructive deeds.
We encountered resistance, sometimes downright hostility and we had to go once to
RE:The Truth - Eye Opener -
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 05:45 AM Permalink
Face up to the truth! Some of your claims are bizarre, a sample:
"The all filth written in the History by Western Writers, come from where. By these RSS and GANGS and Goons work. They Gave Vish Kanniya and Rewards to write against Aurangzeb"
How do you explain this ?
Aurangzeb was a religious bigot and actively promoted forced conversions of Hindus to Islam. By passing discriminatory laws based on the Shariat he created the conditions for his administrators to actively pursue his forced conversion agenda. He didn't go from house to house to convert people he didn't need to his job was to create the conditions within which he plan would be implemented, thats what rulers do.
e.g.,
From "The Mughal Empire", John F. Richards. Pg. 176
Zealous imperial officers had considerable power to enforce the new edicts, especially among the urban non-warrior groups. At Suray in 1669 the qazi terrorized the entire Bania or Hindu merchant community of that city. He pressured several members of the community to convert to Islam and threatened others with forcible conversions unless they paid ransom money. He extorted other sums to prevent defacement of the Hindu temples and shrines in the city. The qazi forcibly circumsized and converted a Bania serving as a Persian writer or clerk, who then killed himself. At this point there was a mass protest: "all heads of the Banian families of what condition whatsoever departed the Town to the number of 8000 leaving their wives and children in Surat under charge of their brothger or next of Kinn".
Regarding Jizya ...
.. the Hindus crowded from the gate to the fort to the Jama Masjid in large numbers to for imploring redress ... [Aurangzeb], who was riding on an elephant, could not reach the mosque...Then he ordered the majestic elephants should proceed against them. Some of them [Hindus] were killed ... at last then submitted to pay the Jiziyah.
Aurangzeb's ultimate aim was conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. Whenever possible the emperor gave out robes of honor, cash gifts, and promotions to converts. It quickly became known that conversions was a sure way to the empeor's favor.. In many disputed successions for hereditary local office Aurangzeb chose candidates who had converted to Islam over the rivals. Pragana headmen and qanungos or recordkeepers were targeted especially for pressure to convert.
Regarding Hindus serving for Mughal emperors especially Aurangzeb.
These were alliances of convenience (in fact Indians should take note what happens when they fight amongst themselves). Aurangzeb had made the titles hereditary and the Hindu Zamindars wanted to legitimise their rule. Tactically this was a smart move by Aurangzeb to get the Hindus rulers into his orbit by getting them onside and then sorting them out one by one, divide and
RE:ISLAMIC TOLERATION
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 05:03 AM Permalink
You have taken great pain to simply show that provided Dhimmis paid protection money they were permitted to live as second class citizens under Islamic rule. Nothing more. This muslim habit of trotting out testimonials from Western authors is rather sad.
Why is it that it's only muslims that have to constantly be shouting from their rooftops that Islam is a religion of peace? If it was shouldn't it be obvious. When was the last time you heard a buddhist or Jain claim that their's was a religion of peace. Never! Because non-Buddhists and non-Jains can see for themselves. This Muslim propaganda is straight out of Goebbels manual, if you keep repeating it often enough it will become the truth. Sorry to disappoint you but the world has learned and moved on.
RE:RE:ISLAMIC TOLERATION
by Abdul Azeez on Mar 20, 2007 05:43 AM Permalink
Gobbels Manual is Followed by the Hindu-Nazi Fascists and not Muslims!!! You should be asking those who spread this propaganda to malign Islam why they do it? We are only trying to counter their arguments by showing them the TRUTH!!!
After all Only Truth Triumphs (Satyamavajayete): No ampunt of Propaganda can Suppress the TRUTH.
RE:RE:RE:ISLAMIC TOLERATION
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 05:55 AM Permalink
Unfortunately for non-Muslims the lies and constant repeating of your dubious claims "Islam is a religion of peace" are ample testimony regarding who are the true inheritors of the Goebel style of propaganda.
Well the truth is coming out and I agree, Satyamavajayete.
RE:RE:RE:ISLAMIC TOLERATION
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 06:03 AM Permalink
Going by a modern example, in countries where "pure" Islam was and is practiced Afghanistan and Saudia Arabia, the evidence of their barbarism and intolerance is there for all to see. In Afghanistan the non-Muslims were made to wear yellow arm bands, just like the Nazi's forced the Jews to wear a yellow star in Germany. The Nazi ideology of a master race is no different from Islam, which aims for a master religion and is willing to go to any length to enforce it and where killing and lying are justifiable means.
The intolerance shown towards other religious beliefs in Saudia Arabia is another example of double talk Islamic style, that Islam is a tolerant religion. If Islam was 1/10th as tolerance as Muslims claim, it would still not be tolerant enough, I'm afraid.
"Many have sought to answer the questions - why was the triumph of Islam so speedy and complete?
Why have so many millions embraced the religion of Islam and scarcely a hundred ever recanted?
Why do a thousand Christians become Muslims to one Muslim who adopts Christianity?
Some have attempted to explain the first overwhelming success of Islam by the argument of the Sword.
They forget Carlyle's laconic reply, first get your sword. You must win men's hearts before you can induce them to imperil their lives for you; and the first conquerors of Islam must have been made Muslims before they were made fighters on the Path of God.
Others allege the low morality of the religion and the sensual paradise it promises as a sufficient case for the zeal of its followers; but even were these admitted to the full, to say that such reasons could win the hearts of millions of men, who have the same hopes and longings after the right and the noble as we, is to libel mankind.
No religion has ever gained a lasting hold upon the souls of men by the force of its sensual permissions and fleshly promises.
It is urged again that Islam met no fair foe, that the worn-out forms of Christianity and Judaism it encountered were no test of its power as a quickening faith, and that it prevailed simply because there was nothing to prevent it; and this was undoubtedly a help to the progress of the new Creed, but could not have been the cause of its victory.
"In all these reasons the religion itself is left out of the question.
Decidedly, Islam itself was the main cause of its triumph...Islam not only was at once accepted (by many peoples and races) by Arabia, Syria, Persia, Egypt, Northern Africa and Spain, at its first outburst; but, with the exception of Spain, it has never lost its vantage group; it has been spreading ever since it came into being, hi quite recent times, it has been spreading in wide and swiftly-flowering waves over Africa.
Admitting the mixed causes that contributed to the rapidity of the first swift spread of Islam, they do not account for the duration of Islam.
There must be something in the religion itself to explain its persistence and increase, and to account for its present hold over so large a proportion of the dwellers on the earth.
Men trained in European ideas have always found it difficult to understand the moving qualities of Islam and say there is nothing in it to move the heart.
Yet Islam has stirred an enthusiasm that has never been surpassed.
Islam has had its martyrs, its self-tormentors, its recluses, who have renounced all that life offered and have accepted death with a smile for the sake of the faith that was in them.
It is idle to say that the eternity of happiness will explain this.
The truest martyrs of Islam as of Christianity did not die to gain paradise. And if they did, the belief in the promises of the Creed must follow the hearty acceptance of the religion.
Islam must have possessed a power of seizing men's belief before it could have inspired them with such a love of its paradise".[199]
A. J. Arberry also has pointed out that the cause of the spread of Islam is Islam itself and its religious values.[200]
He states: "The rapidity of the spread of Islam, noticeably through extensive provinces which had long been Christian, is a crucial fact of history...
The sublime rhetoric of the Koran, 'that inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy'".[201]
Arberry continues, "This, and the urgency of the simple message carried, holds the key to the mystery of one of the greatest cataclysms in the history of religion.
When all military, political and economic factors have been exhausted, the religious impulse must still be recognized as the most vital and enduring".
Brockleman, who is usually very unsympathetic and partial, also recognizes the religious values of Islam as the main factor for the spread of Islam and suggests that Islamic monotheism to a considerable extent is the basis of the proselytizing power of Islam.[202]
Rosenthal put this point as follows: "To suggest that the spread of Islam by conquest was part of the general movement of migration of peoples only partly accounts for this astounding historical phenomenon, as does the prevailing political situation. The more important factor is religious law of Islam (Sharia which is an inclusive, all-embracing, all comprehensive way of thinking and living) for which a divine origin is claimed and which was designed to cover all manifestations of human life".[203]
We can thus conclude that it was Islam that helped it spread. Islam is a combination of diverse but coherent values, beliefs, qualities and ideals and realities. It is mainly some of these which are being examined in the following chapters as the factors and causes helping its spread.
RE:what some other Western scholars have said concerning the causes of the spread of Islam.
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 05:08 AM Permalink
The answer to your question is that if Islam was not spread by the sword it would have been still born. Islam is nothing more than Arab imperialism disguised as a religion. Regarding Sharia, it may have served well for the primitive Arabs but is of no relevance to the modern world. The very concept Kafir and Kuffar are abhorrent to any civilized person. It is the very basis of the discriminatory nature of Islamic thought, no amount of chicanery or sophistry is going to change this simple fact.
RE:RE:RE:what some other Western scholars have said concerning the causes of the spread of Islam.
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 06:22 AM Permalink
Dear Mr. Azeez,
Peace be upon you too.
Unfortunately this type of rambling probably makes you feel better that you follow a religion that actually advocates slavery and sexual exploitation, secondly it was started by a pedophile.
It's difficult and dangerous for the brainwashed followers of violent cults to see any fault in their own dogma and ideology. After all the punishment for apostasy in Islam is death and a rather unpleasant at that. It is this fear that obstructs the path to the truth for most Muslims. The day you have the courage to face up to the reality that will probably be the start of a more tolerant Islam.
Regarding converting of untouchables to Islam, you are again gently reminded to read Dr. Ambedkar's book, "The partition of India" especially the chapter "Muslim Society is even more full of social evils than Hindu Society is". Mr. Azeez your claims are hollow, since Islam acknowledges and promotes slavery.
RE:RE:what some other Western scholars have said concerning the causes of the spread of Islam.
by Ekalavyan on Mar 20, 2007 04:41 PM Permalink
YOU ARE SUFFERING FROM ISLAMOPHOBIA!!! ELECTRO CONVULSIVE THERAPY IS MOST URGENT!!!
RE:RE:RE:what some other Western scholars have said concerning the causes of the spread of Islam.
by Secular Indian on Mar 21, 2007 03:49 AM Permalink
Yes I'm scared of terrorists.
