The realist must take note of the fact that the Musalmans look upon the Hindus as Kaffirs, who deserve more to be exterminated than protected. The realist must take note of the factthat while the Musalman accepts the European as his superior, he looks upon the Hindu as his inferior. It is doubtfulhow far a regiment of Musalmans will accept the authority of their Hindu officers if they be placed under them. Therealist must take note that of all the Musalmans, the Musalman of the North-West is the most disaffected Musalmanin his relation with the Hindus. The realist must take note that the Punjabi Musalman is fully susceptible to thepropaganda in favour of Pan-lslamism. Taking note of all these considerations, there can be very little doubt that hewould be a bold Hindu who would say that in any invasion by Muslim countries, the Muslims in the Indian Armywould be loyal and that there is no danger of their going over to the invader.
In case you don't wan to believe Hindus , this is what Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar says about Muslims.
LEGAL STATUS OF HINDUS UNDER MUSLIM RULE :
Book: Pakistan or the Partition of India:
--by DR BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR:
"These ideas were well expressed bythe Kazi in reply to a question put by Sultan Ala-ud-Din wanting to know the legal position of the Hindus underMuslim law.
The Kazi said :%u2014
" They are called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer demands silver from them they should withoutquestion, and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt in their mouths, they must withoutreluctance open their mouths wide to receive it..... The due subordination of the Dhimmi is exhibited in this humblepayment, and by this throwing of dirt into their mouths. The glorification of Islam is a duty, and contempt forreligion is vain. God holds them in contempt, for he says, ' Keep them in subjection '. To keep the Hindus inabasement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and becausethe Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, and make them captive, saying, ' Convert them to Islamor kill them, and make them slaves, and spoil their wealth and properly '. No doctor but the great doctor (Hani-fah),to whose school we belong, has assented to the imposition of jizya on Hindus ; doctors of other schools allow noother alternative but ' Death or Islam '
"Not only was slaughter of the infidels and the destruction of their temples resorted to in earlier period of Islam'scontact with India, but as we have seen, many of the vanquished were led into slavery. The dividing up of bootywas one of the special attractions, to the leaders as well as to the common soldiers in these expeditions. Muhammadseems to have made the slaughter of infidels, the destruction of their temples, the capturing of slaves, and theplundering of the wealth of the people, particularly of the temples and the priests, the main object of his raids. Onthe occasion of his first raid he is said to have taken much booty ; and half a million Hindus, ' beautiful men andwomen ', were reduced to slavery and taken back to Ghazni" page 8
Minhaj-as-Siraj further tells how Mahommad became widely known for having destroyed as many as a thousandtemples, and of his great feat in destroying the temple of Somnath and carrying off its idol, which he asserts wasbroken into four parts. One part he deposited in the Jami Masjid of Ghazni, one he placed at the entrance of theroyal palace, the third he sent to Mecca, and the fourth to Medina . page 10
"Mahommad bin Qasim's first act of religious zeal was forcibly to circumcise the Brahmins of the captured city ofDebul ; but on discovering that they objected to this sort of conversion, he proceeded to put all
RE:DR BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR' s views on Muslims
by wada pav on Mar 17, 2007 08:53 PM Permalink
Not only was slaughter of the infidels and the destruction of their temples resorted to in earlier period of Islam'scontact with India, but as we have seen, many of the vanquished were led into slavery. The dividing up of bootywas one of the special attractions, to the leaders as well as to the common soldiers in these expeditions. Muhammadseems to have made the slaughter of infidels, the destruction of their temples, the capturing of slaves, and theplundering of the wealth of the people, particularly of the temples and the priests, the main object of his raids. Onthe occasion of his first raid he is said to have taken much booty ; and half a million Hindus, ' beautiful men andwomen ', were reduced to slavery and taken back to Ghazni. page 16
When Muhammad later took Kanauj, in A. D. 1017, he took so much booty and so many prisoners that * the fingersof those who counted them would have tired '. Describing how common Indian slaves had become in Ghazni andCentral Asia after the campaign of A. D. 1019
The number of prisoners may be conceived from the fact that each was sold for from two to ten dirhams. Thesewere afterwards taken to Ghazni, and merchants came from far distant cities to purchase them ;. . ....and the fair andthe dark, the rich and the poor were commingled in one common slavery.
In the year A.D. 1202, when Qulb-ud-Din captured Kalinjar, after the temples had been convened into mosques,and the very name of idolatry was annihilated, fifty thousand men came under the collar of slavery and the plainbecame black as pitch with Hindus.
Slavery was the fate of those Hindus who were captured in the holy war. But, when there was no war the systematicabasement of the Hindus played no unimportant part in the methods adopted by the Muslim invaders. In the days ofAla-ud-Din, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Hindus had in certain parts given the Sultan muchtrouble. So, he determined to impose such taxes on them that they would be prevented from rising in rebellion.
the Hindu was taxed to the extent of half the produce of his land, and had to pay duties on all his buffaloes, goats,and other milk-cattle. The taxes were to be levied equally on rich and poor, at so much per acre, so much peranimal. Any collectors or officers taking bribes were summarily dismissed and heavily punished with sticks,pincers, the rack, imprisonment and chains. The new rules were strictly carried out, so that one revenue officerwould string together 20 Hindu notables and enforce payment by blows. No gold or silver, not even the betelnut, socheering and stimulative to pleasure, was to be seen in a Hindu house, and the wives of the impoverished nativeofficials were reduced to taking service in Muslim families. Revenue officers came to be regarded as more deadlythan the plague; and to be a government clerk was disgrace worse than death, in so much that no Hindu wouldmarry his daughter to such a man. page 20.
Koran has at least 14 versions. In different parts of world different Korans are used. Over centuries, it had undergone changes. The first Koran came 80 years after muhammed's death. the standardised version, redacted was released only 300 years later. it may or may not contain at all what mohammed preached.
RE:book has undergone changes
by Mike Gandhi on Mar 17, 2007 11:25 PM Permalink
I think you are telling about the Bible. By mistake you wrote Noble Koran. Koran is only and only one not any version and will be only one until the end of the world. Before quoting anythin you must gain knowledge. Otherwise you will be assumed LOST INTELLEGENCE CASE.
I proudly say that Islam is pure. The divine teaching still intact and protected by Allah Himself.
In Islam there is on add, delete, cut, paste, omit, copy or fabrication. Some of the Hindu friends says that when I presented the the references from their Holy books that we have already removed and that was all for the past. Thats means the holy scripture on the whole is not relevant to present requirement and living conditions.
But in our case the Holy Book Quran the last revelation of ALLAH(God) is for all Mankind and relevant for all times.
No! I never deny that Muslims are not bad. As there are few black sheeps in the Muslims also.
A Mulsim Can be drunkard
A Mulsim can be Rapist
A Muslim can be theief
and so on so on.
But Islam Prohibits and the practices against the teaching of Islam. Islam prohibited. Killing, Murdering, Liquor, Gambling, cheating, Deceiving, lieing and all bad habits.
If any Muslims practicing against the holy guidance it is his mistake not Islam.
Islam is the only religion which prohibits Liquoar, Gambling and oter bad habits.
I congratualte Karnataka Government they banned Liquors in the state. Take the courage and say what is good and what is bad.
RE:Reply to Some of my Friends
by Perv Sharma on Mar 18, 2007 04:09 AM Permalink
We have sufficient stories in Hinduism warning about the bad effects of the points u raised.
Regarding being drunk - is a example of how Indra getting drunk and forgetting his duties and thereby being thrown of the throne of Heaven.
Again Indra trying to seduce someone's wife and being punished. etc.
These are stories to let the common man know that however great a person be - if he follows bad habits he pays for it.
Your Islam came much after this. U agree or not UR ISlam started only in 600 A.D. onwards
RE:RE:Reply to Some of my Friends
by rafiuddin farooqui on Mar 19, 2007 08:16 PM Permalink
Hinduism not only allow to drink it is also promote Liquors. Just giving wrong statement would not support. Indra, Inder who always lives in Young Girls enjoying that mean praying. He is the most drunkard God. Who gave him the punishment. God is punished I listen first time. He was superior God. Because He was the God of Heavon. You people jokes with your self.
There is no use refuting the fact that the Muslim invaders (later rulers) converted a large number of indigenous population to their religion by burte force. The same applies to the Christian rulers also. The large Muslim population along the present NH-17 from Kasaragod to Malapuram in Kerala and Christian population in Goa stands testimony to this. The Hindus of British Malabar captured by the invading army of Tippu Sultan was taken to a well and asked whether they prefered converting to Islam or death. A small portion of a particular organ of those who agreed to get converted was cut off and they became Muslims. The heads of those who refused were cut off and dumped into the well. There is also enough evidence of atrosities committed by Christian missioneries in Goa.
If I remember my history lessons correctly, Aurangazed had killed 2 of his brothers and jailed his father to become the Emperror. Appointment of a few Hindus (shall we say boot-lickers and stooges of that time) as Officers in his Court cannot be construed as his magnaminity towards all Religions. He had imposed a religious tax called Jazia on the followers of other religions and had also tried his best to convert as many people to his religion as possible. However we cannot reverse the clock. My Muslim or Christian friends need not justify such acts nor they needs to be apologetic about the same, but there is no doubt that the ancestors of the Indian Muslims and Christians of today were converted to those religions over a period of time either by force or allurement of one kind or the other. We can safely conclude that the saga still continues, judging from the fact that the most vehement critics of a law enacted by the Govt. of India for controlling the contributions from other Countries are Christians.
I pity muslims they do not see the writing on the wall. they are still believing in superstitions in modern scientific age. neither will there be a 1000 year war, nor will muslims win it. even is pakistan is awaking. they removed two mosque for radical teaching. but in india some muslims are so backward that they will keep on continuing to live in superstitions
Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years. Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti-Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions." During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?
Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler or Bad History?
By Dr. Habib Siddiqui
Posted: 9 Jamad-ul-awwal 1427, 5 June 2006
Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857 CE, probably no one has received as much condemnation from Western and Hindu writers as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated against them in awarding high administrative positions, and who interfered in their religious matters. This view has been heavily promoted in the government approved textbooks in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947). These are fabrications against one of the best rulers of India who was pious, scholarly, saintly, un-biased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent, and far-sighted
