India, With or Without British Empire??

Status
Not open for further replies.

Param

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
2,810
Likes
653
What's your point ? They lost all Kingdom with very small influence in front of big empires of Marathas & Sikhs. They didn't had any important role to play. Do you even know the Maratha Kingdom size ? before arrivel of British.
If not for the British Tipu Sultan's descendant's would still be ruling the south and Siraj ud daula's descendant's would have been ruling Bihar and Bengal and Bangladesh.
Large parts of UP were under Muslim Nawabs.







Don't know about South nor i am posting much about that. if there is no discrimination in south then Why 5% Hindus converted into Christianity in last 65 years but merely 1% in whole North-West-East India combined ?
Except for Kerala( in the past few centuries) the caste system in South was not as stringent as in the gangetic plains in ancient and medieval times.
The missionaries arrived by sea. South Indian states are coastal states. Most of the Christian population is along the coastline.



Buddhism didn't defended India because they didn't got opportunity. They lost in starting in NW region. Thankfully, Buddhism didn't replaced Brahmanism otherwise not 20% but 98% population would be converted into Islam.

Before Buddhism in Tibet, people were aggressive warrior once they become Buddhist, Lost everything by Han. You are talking of fight against Babur and Auregnzeb ? Ignorance and nothing else.
When Islamic rulers invaded NW India that region was ruled by people who followed Brahminical Hinduism not Buddhism.
 
Last edited:

natarajan

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
2,592
Likes
762
with british

Less corruption
good road
railways
clean enviroment

without

corruption
same dynasty rule from nehru to useless rahul
worst hygiene

only one thing which is democracy and freedom which is comes with conditions apply

not against politicians
 

Param

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
2,810
Likes
653
Political party has nothing to do with Nationalist and Secularist people.

Don't worry it's never going to happen. It didn't happened in 800 years and now happening when nationalism is rising ?? :rofl:
Which nationalism are you referring to_ Hindu nationalism, Hindi Nationalism or Indian nationalism?

Buddhist flourish.....I don't have problem. Good.

Rest, No...... Cry me river still no chance...... :nono:
:rofl:Is it me who is crying over conversions and increasing minority population?:taunt:
 

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,233
Likes
6,854
Country flag
with british

Less corruption
good road
railways
clean enviroment

without

corruption
same dynasty rule from nehru to useless rahul
worst hygiene

only one thing which is democracy and freedom which is comes with conditions apply

not against politicians
You do realize that all the "good roads" of today, like NHAI GQ, new Expressways, elevated highways in cities, etc. etc. were not present during British rule?

Less corruption? Yes of course, with a 12% literacy rate, villagers would take birth, grow and die in their villages without knowing anything beyond.

Let us stop romanticizing the Brit rule please. A little thinking will show how flawed such thinking is.
 

Galaxy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,086
Likes
3,934
Country flag
Nope you proved that the Brahmanical order is utter crap and ultimately at the end of day the current population is more relevant.
.
No, I proved Brahmanism ideology was not crap but it was good for the nation in many ways. bad also in some way. They are not responsible for Invasion and protection for every individual. Brahman is just a cast like 1,000 others. Still, SC,ST, Brahmins didn't converted so Hinduism survived.

The poor from the lower castes have higher growth rates and most of the converts are from lower castes again shows the failure of the Brahminical order
90% SC, ST didn't converted into Islam. So, your assumption is wrong as usual. South India - SC/ST Conversion is higher. But that i am not defending also. It's due to discrimination there or some other reason which i don't know.

The Marathas were Bitch slapped by the Afghans in the third battle of Panipat .Awadh was under the control of Shuja-ud-daulah.Nizam-ul-mulk was still active in Deccan.Murshid Quli Khan had Bengal under his grip.You are smoking pot if you say they lost kingdoms .The mughal state got weakened but they still retained control over large swathes of North India
Yes, Marathas lost also few wars but what matter is at end, they won and closed the long chapter of Islamic Invasion.

You are quite ignorant and show that the degree of interaction with other castes is zero
When you have no answer, Make absurd statement to justify your POV.

They converted in large numbers that's why we have Bangladesh,Pakistan,Kashmir and Kerala are testimonials to that
Keep shouting with false data. Jats, Kshatriya, Gujjar,OBC converted into Islam and not Brahmin. 90% brahmins didn't converted. When whole region was converting like Malabar hills, Sindh, Bangladesh - Then all converted forcefully or time-wise. Nothing to do with Brahmin. Don't post crap if you don't have anything else to say.

Again shows your ignorance ever heard of Neo-Buddhists of Ambedkar.You certainly are a frog in the well
What i said is correct. SC exist in Jainism and Buddhism too and they too have reservation. But Hindus didn't converted into these 2 religion even Sikhism. There must be some reason for not converting even when they getting reservation post 47. Don't be ignorant if you have nothing else to say. Ambedkar Buddhism population is 0.3% in India that also mainly concentrated in Maharashtra because of political reason. Failed even with reservation. :wave:

In Naarth India they converted to Islam courtesy sufis,jiziya and economic goodies.What has brahmanical order got to offer cow pee?
Missionaries will enter the fray and do soul harvesting once the literacy levels rise in North India
You are Anti-Brahman, So you making such moronic and idiotic post. Brahmins are not flag-bearer of Hindus nor they have all responsibility. Still, they took many steps to protect and were successful in many ways.

thanks to Adi Shankaracharya and his crappu redundant philosophy
Reason whatever. Result was good.

You know jackshit about History.Aurangzheb is the only bigot rest of the time conversion occured due to sufis
Are you high today ?? :laugh:

I called you what you are a pile of poo.Many will concur this as a fact
I can call only your name i.e. You are an Idiot.

I post facts and state the obivious because Iam a true patriot I do not live in lala Land and forget about my country's warts.I rather try to find,analyze and resolve them

I do not like to do mental masturbation
You didn't not post any facts. Only as per own fixed logic which is mostly false.

You may be True patriotic and you don't need to say that.

Mental masturbation. Yes, you do. Sorry, But that is fact.

If you have anything better to say, Do say. or better we should agree to disagree as we both can't change each other perception and knowledge.
 
Last edited:

Galaxy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,086
Likes
3,934
Country flag
Which nationalism are you referring to_ Hindu nationalism, Hindi Nationalism or Indian nationalism?
Hindi nationalism ? Don't know about that. I heard this on DFI mainly.

Hindu nationalism - May be at times (it's my personal choice and i am proud of it :)). Indian nationalism - certainly any time.

:rofl:Is it me who is crying over conversions and increasing minority population?:taunt:
I have right to criticize anything which i don't feel right and against my religion in democratic country.

You can go and help/defend in increasing in Muslim & Christian population & conversion. You also have the right. Fair enough ?? :wave:
 
Last edited:

Iamanidiot

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
5,325
Likes
1,504
No, I proved Brahmanism ideology was not crap but it was good for the nation in many ways. bad also in some way. They are not responsible for Invasion and protection for every individual. Brahman is just a cast like 1,000 others. Still, SC,ST, Brahmins didn't converted so Hinduism survived.
this is :bs: .Sikhism is what we call a great ideology the protetcted everyone irrespective of the individuals ideology,birth or Varna that is the mark of a winning ideology now comparing to Sikhism to Brahminical ideology we can figure that Brahminical ideology is :puke:

90% SC, ST didn't converted into Islam. So, your assumption is wrong as usual. South India - SC/ST Conversion is higher. But that i am not defending also. It's due to discrimination there or some other reason which i don't know.
If they did not convert how did we get Bangladesh and why are the majority of artisans in naarth India are muslims again you are pouting bullshit

Yes, Marathas lost also few wars but what matter is at end, they won and closed the long chapter of Islamic Invasion.
They lost the biggest war the third battle of Panipat .They did not close the long chapter of Islamic invasion actually it is the British who closed the chapter again Mental masturbation on your part without having an inkling of actual history and you accuse me of not knowing facts

When you have no answer, Make absurd statement to justify your POV.
Dalit Christian avail reservations by stating themselves as Dalit christains this is a fact

Keep shouting with false data. Jats, Kshatriya, Gujjar,OBC converted into Islam and not Brahmin. 90% brahmins didn't converted. When whole region was converting like Malabar hills, Sindh, Bangladesh - Then all converted forcefully or time-wise. Nothing to do with Brahmin. Don't post crap if you don't have anything else to say.
Malik Khafur is a Brahmin.Khan-i-jahan Maqbul telingani is a brahmin.Murshid Quli Khan is a brahmin.Jinnah's grandfather Poonja Gokuldas Meghji was Brahmin from Kashmir.Iqbal's ancestors were Kashmiri Brahmins all these are facts prove me wrong:taunt:All converted in the lust for power

What i said i correct. SC exit in Jainism and Buddhism too and they too have reservation. But Hindus didn't converted into these 2 religion even Sikhism. There must be some reason for not converting even when they getting reservation post 47. Don't be ignorant if you have nothing else to say. Ambedkar Buddhism population is 0.3% in India that also mainly concentrated in Maharashtra because of political reason. Failed even with reservation. :wave:
As long as Ambedhkar was alive Neo-Buddhism thrived now thanks to Mayawathi Buddhism is coming back into the fore again


You are Anti-Brahman, So you making such moronic and idiotic post. Brahmins are not flag-bearer of Hindus nor they have all responsibly. Still, they took many steps to protect and were successful in many ways.
actually Iam Pro-Indian I won't tolerate any ideology or entity which threatens India's progress and identity

Reason whatever. Result was good.
Result was a disaster except for Brahmins who are parasites on everyone
Are you on high today ?? :laugh:
Iam speaking the reality
I can call only your name i.e. You are an Idiot.
I call you what you actually are a pile of poo

You didn't not post any facts. Only as per own fixed logic which is mostly false.
I posted all facts above and I don't need links to verify the facts

You may be True patriotic and you don't need to say that.

Mental masturbation. Yes, you do. Sorry, But that is fact.

If you have anything better to say, Do say. or better we should agree to disagree as we both can't change each other perception and knowledge.
Iam stating the obvious about Brahmins and Brahminism
 
Last edited:

Galaxy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,086
Likes
3,934
Country flag
this is :bs: .Sikhism is what we call a great ideology the protetcted everyone irrespective of the individuals ideology that is the mark of a winning ideology now comparing to Sikhism Brahminical ideology is :puke:
Every ideology is great ideology if it helps the community and nation.

Comparing Sikhims with Brahminical ? :facepalm:

You keep changing the points in every post. I have already said, Brahmanism ideology was more successful than failure and i am not going to say again and again. I don't understand what's point in posting same thing again ? if you think, Fair enough. I believe what i think is correct.

If they did not convert how did we get Bangladesh and why are the majority of artisans in naarth India are muslims again you are pouting bullshit
Because majority of Hindus converted into Islam. It was not only about one cast. Indeed, As i said earlier - There are more number of Brahmin Hindus and Hindu SC/ST than Muslims (SC,ST,Brahmin who converted) even when Muslims are more than Hindus in whole undivided region of Bengal. In W.B. itself (42% are SC/ST/Brahmin Hindus but SC/ST/Brahmin Muslims are mere 7% even when Muslim population is around 26%.) Conversion happened from all cast and SC/ST/Brahmin conversion was not more than any other cast. In North-West India, It was very less.....10% or so.

They lost the biggest war the third battle of Panipat .They did not close the long chapter of Islamic invasion actually it is the British who closed the chapter again Mental masturbation on your part without having an inkling of actual history and you accuse me of not knowing facts
Yes, They lost in 1761. The defeat at Panipat stopped them to expand towards North and Northwest region. But Marathas was about Central + West India. They were not successful to expand. So what ? No, Most of Muslim rulers lost the battle and empire. They only had influence in Today's Pakistan and not today's India.

Dalit Christian avail reservations by stating themselves as Dalit christains this is a fact.
That is false as usual. I already said, They could convert into Jainism, Buddhism to avail reservation but they didn't.

Malik Khafur is a Brahmin.Khan-i-jahan Maqbul telingani is a brahmin.Murshid Quli Khan is a brahmin.Jinnah's grandfather Poonja Gokuldas Meghji was Brahmin from Kashmir.Iqbal's ancestors were Kashmiri Brahmins all these are facts prove me wrong:taunt:All converted in the lust for power.
I can give list of 1,000 names from different cast. I said 10% had converted but not more than that. Pakistan population has high % of Rajputs, Gujjars, Jats, Jat, Khatri. but very less population of Brahmin who converted. 30% population is Jat and jatt.


As long as Ambedhkar was alive Neo-Buddhism thrived now thanks to Mayawathi Buddhism is coming back into the fore again.
Yes, Coming back. That's why 97% SC are Hindus and 0.4% are Buddhist. :rofl:

Don't give me prediction. Tell me when it will reach 3%. Fine ?


actually Iam Pro-Indian I won't tolerate any ideology or entity which threatens India's progress and identity
Well, I suppose everyone is Pro-Indian. I will also not tolerate if any Jholawals, Athesit, Anti-Brahmin, Non-Hindus will do false propaganda against Brahmins for wrong reason.


Result was a disaster except for Brahmins who are parasites on everyone

Result were good and i am happy with that. Disagree with me but don't repeat same thing.


Iam speaking the reality
Me too.


I call you what you actually are a pile of poo
Who i am, you will never know. What you are is clearly visible with your ID.

I posted all facts above and I don't need links to verify the facts

You may be True patriotic and you don't need to say that.

Mental masturbation. Yes, you do. Sorry, But that is fact.
I also posted all facts and ready to give some links if necessary. Agree or Disagree, It's you choice.

Iam stating the obvious about Brahmins and Brahminism
Yes, but wrong info according to me.

Kindly don't repeat same thing again and again. You posted same thing many time. I also don't have any other option to answer in same way. We are in Loop. It's better to exit or make some better post.
 
Last edited:

parijataka

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
4,916
Likes
3,751
Country flag
Well, well, well...nice discussion going on here away from the topic of the main thread!

Islam and Christianity presecuted persons not following their God while Hinduism had not so nice things to say about the lower castes! Old Testament that both Muslims and xtians read, has some gross things in it such as stoning to death and chopping of various body parts etc...:) and Manusmriti has some nice recommendations for women and lower castes! OTOH historically many great Indians have been lower caste persons. Lord Krishna (yadava or dudhwala i.e. OBC!), Sushruta ancient physician (kumbhara or potter), Veda vyasa (shudra), Chandragupta Maurya are some names I can rattle off. Harihara Raya , founder of the Vijayanagara empire is purported to be of kuruba or sheep herder caste in Kannada folklore. Coming to modern India, Narendra Modi, Nitish Kumar and Shivraj Chouhan, Uma Bharati OBCs and Mayawati a Dalit, are known more their political mettle than caste. Many of our ancient icons were dark skinned too such as Lord Krishna(the word means black) , Lord Rama and Draupadi who is described as a `dark skinned beauty` - this idea that fair skin==>beauty seems to be a later addition to our culture. The famous lady in the Ajanta fresco is a chocolate coloured beauty holding a lotus flower! IMHO caste system might not have been such a hide bound system as made out by many.
.
Back to topic, I wonder if India would have been many states or one if British had not conquered India. Ancient India which was united by great Kings like Ashoka and Chandragupta had fewer divisions than we see today - only Indic faiths then were Hinduism , Buddhism and Jainism and Prakrit was a widespread language. Languages like Telugu and Marathi did not exist. Now we have so many languages and sub cultures in modern India plus more number of faiths such as Islam and xtianity.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
The Quran and hadiths are irrelevant to what I said.

Your timeline only shows the military conquests by Arabs, Turks, and various other peoples. It does not show the social and political dynamics of Islam in the various countries that were conquered. To understand that one must actually study history rather than copy-pasting a timeline. I stated in the earlier post that the conquests of the Arabs under the early caliphs were indeed swift. But this does not imply an equally rapid expansion of Islam, because the people who the Arabs conquered did not immediately convert to Islam as people apparently believe. I used the example of Egypt to illustrate what I am talking about.

Before replying to this post please try to understand what I am saying, otherwise you are just wasting my time as well as yours.
First of all, don't prevaricate.

The genesis is:

Quote Originally Posted by civfanatic View Post
Whatever harm that the Mughals did in the subcontinent pales in comparison to the harm that brahmins have done over 3,000 years.
I replied with:

They converted too many too count through the sword and repressive means as the jezia.

Greater harm than the Brahmins did!

Islam does not allow even conversion by consent. Renouncing Islam means DEATH!

The atrocities that Islam is still perpetuating through sectarianism on fellow Muslim, through terrorism on fellow Muslim indicates that unless at war, it cannot rest!

Now, you figure!

It is requested that do not open the Pandora's box.

I think you are being wildly irresponsible or you want things to go down in flames and add to our problems!
You replied with:

What is 'conversion by sword'? Such a thing does not exist. If a person changes religion simply because he is forced to then it is not a real conversion.

Although the RSS and other organisations will never admit it many of the converts to Islam were in fact brahmins who were eager to exploit new opportunities for power. Idiot has done a good job of detailing that.
Just to refresh your memory as to how conversion was done I quoted from the Quaran and Hadith thus:

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (8:39) - "And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do." Translation from the Noble Quran

Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Suras 9 and 5 are the last "revelations" that Muhammad handed down - hence abrogating what came before, which includes the oft-quoted verse 2:256 -"Let there be no compulsion in religion...".

Qur'an (9:5) "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them..." Prayer and charity are among the Five Pillars of Islam, as salat and zakat. See below.

Qur'an (9:11) - (Continued from above) "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion" This confirms that Muhammad is speaking of conversion to Islam.

Qur'an (2:193) - "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion be only for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers." The key phrase is to fight until "religion be only for Allah."


From the Hadith:



Sahih Muslim (1:33) The Messenger of Allah said: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay zakat." The first part of this condition is the Shahada, or profession of faith in Islam. Violence is sanctioned until the victims embrace Muhammad's religion.



Sahih Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists (which includes Christians), invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them" Osama bin Laden echoes this order from his prophet: "Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam "¦ . Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die." (source: The al-Qaeda Reader p. 19-20)



Bukhari (8:387) - "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.'"



Bukhari (53:392) - "While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."



Bukhari (2:24) - "Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."



Bukhari (60:80) - "The Verse:--'You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.' means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam."



Bukhari (60:40) - "...:And fight them till there is no more affliction (i.e. no more worshiping of others along with Allah)." 'Affliction' of Muslims is explicitly defined here being a condition in which others worship a different god other than Allah. Muslims are commanded to use violence to 'rectify' the situation.



Bukhari (59:643) - "Testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck!" Words of a military leader that Muhammad sent on an expedition with the mission of destroying a local religion in Yemen.



Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 959 - Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid"¦ to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, "If you accept Islam you will be safe." So the men accepted Islam as they were invited. The text goes on to say that Khalid taught the al-Harith about Islam after their "conversion," proving that it was based on fear of slaughter rather than a free and intelligent decision.



Ibn Kathir (Commenting on Quran 2:256, which says "let there be no compulsion in religion") - "Therefore all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the jizya, they should be fought till they are killed."




Additional Notes:

Following his flirtation with preaching relative peace and tolerance at Mecca - a 13-year disaster that netted less than 100 followers (mostly friends and family) - Muhammad changed tactics during his last ten years. Once he obtained the power to do so, he began forcing others into accepting his claims about himself at the point of a sword. In many places in the Hadith, he tells his followers that he has been commanded by Allah to fight unbelievers until they profess their faith in Islam (the Shahada).



During these later years, Muhammad did not seem at all bothered by conversions that were made under obvious duress. These included that of his sworn enemy of Abu Sufyan and his wife Hind. According to Muslim historians, when Abu Sufyan went to seek peace with Muhammad, he was ordered instead to embrace Islam. The exact words spoken to him in Muhammad's presence were, "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of Allah before you lose your head" - (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 814). He did.



The entire city of Mecca followed suit, even though the residents and leaders detested Muhammad and had resisted his preaching from the beginning. Most of them "converted" to Islam the day that he marched through their city with an army so dominant that little resistance was offered. Only the most credulous of believers would think that the city's religious epiphany just happened to coincide with the sword at their necks.



Meccans who would not change their religion were forcibly expelled from the city following that last Haj (Quran 9:5). The Christians and Jews living in Arabia at the time suffered the same fate on Muhammad's deathbed order. They were given the choice of either accepting Islam or being forced off their land (Sahih Muslim 19:4366).



The Jews at Khaybar were not at war with Muhammad when he ordered his warriors to attack them. Even his faithful son-in-law, Ali, whom he chose to head the mission, was somewhat perplexed as to the pretext on which they were to assault this peaceful farming community so far away from Medina:

Muhammad said: 'Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory', and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: 'Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?' Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: 'Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger'
(Sahih Muslim 31:5917)

The Jews were caught entirely be surprise, of course. Their wealth was stolen and their women and children taken and distributed as slaves by the prophet of Islam to his men. Muhammad even took a woman for himself - after ordering the death of her husband.



Before he died, Muhammad sent his warriors against pagan Arab tribes, such as the al-Harith, demanding that they either convert to Islam or be wiped out (naturally, they opted for the Religion of Peace). He cursed Christians and Jews to the very end (Bukhari 8:427).



According to al-Shafi in "The Ordinances of the Quran", Muhammad "defeated the people until they entered Islam by hook or by crook." Muslims are taught to follow in the way of their prophet. A devotee under the reign of Umar put it this way "Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute)" (Bukhari 53:386).



Likewise, Abu Bakr, Muhammad's closest companion and immediate successor, pressed Jihad aggressively in foreign territory against people who did not want war and were of no threat. In a letter sent to the Persians, the caliph bluntly stated, "You should convert to Islam, and then you will be safe, for if you don't, you should know that I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life."



Down through the centuries Muslims have forced Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, pagans and others to accept Islam, either by bluntly offering them death as an alternative, or by making their lives so miserable (ie. taxes, denial of rights...) that the conquered convert to Islam under the strain.



Forced conversions persist among extremists. Recently in Egypt, a Christian girl was kidnapped and told that she would be raped if she did not convert. In 2010, an 11-year-old Christian boy in Pakistan was kept enslaved in chains (1, 2) by his Muslim landlord, who proudly told the world that he would liberate the lad if he embraced Islam.



Neither of these examples of attempted forced conversion was condemned by Islamic organizations, even in the West. From the Muslim perspective, the victim in each case still technically retains the choice to convert. In fact, some even lauded the Pakistani slave-owner for being magnanimous in offering freedom and debt relief to his subject for embracing Islam.



Since Muslims believe so sincerely that their religion is truth, they often can't help but feel, on some level, that forced conversion is more of a favor done to the subject - a case of the end justifying the means. As Muhammad said, "Allah marvels at those who are brought to paradise in chains" (Bukhari 52:254).



It is also important to note the critical role that jizya plays in Islamic conversion. Paying a "tax" to Muslims is the only avenue of escape for those who don't want to leave their religion, according to the Qur'an. This answers the question of why Muhammad, his companions, and subsequent Muslim armies didn't force everyone to convert to Islam.



As Muhammad realized with the Jews of Khaybar, who were allowed to keep their farming community provided they directed the profits of their labor to him, it was often more lucrative to leave local economies in place rather than killing every male who wouldn't convert. This became the loose rule for the Muslim armies that swept across Christian, Jewish, Persian, Hindu and Buddhist lands in the decades that followed. The money that was collected was then used to further Islamic expansion.



As Muhammad put it: "My sustenance is under the shade of my spear, and he who disobeys my orders will be humiliated by paying Jizya" (another translation: "My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.") The hadith has been quoted by al-Qaeda and is found in the original version of Bukhari and Ahmad (5114 or 4869, depending on the translation).



In fairness, Muslims have generally tended to follow verse 2:256 of the Quran, which states, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." and have not felt it right to force others into embracing Islam. However, this does not change the fact that verse 2:256 was clearly abrogated by later verses, particularly in Sura 9 - otherwise the practice of killing apostates if they do not recant their chose faith would not have become an acceptable part of Islamic law.



Another point to keep in mind is that in Islam, practice is more important than belief. Muslims are commanded to fight unbelievers until they say they believe in Allah (or pay the Jizya), but there seems to be a tacit understanding that belief itself can't be forced (ie. "there is no compulsion in religion"). Nevertheless, once a subjugated individual outwardly converts to Islam under the strain of taxes and discrimination, they are not allowed to recant upon penalty of death. Their children must also be raised Muslim. And, if they aren't, then it is a sign of apostasy - subject to death.



This is how Islam managed to spread so successfully within conquered populations to ratios in the high 90th percentiles over native religion.



One last point of interest is that Muhammad's later practice of ordering people to profess their belief in him proved disastrous both for his own family and the legacy of his religion. By the time of his death, his empire included a great many people and tribes who had accepted his rule merely to avoid war and slavery. Many of them wanted out after he died, and several wars were immediately fought, resulting in thousands of deaths and cementing Islam's legacy of violent intolerance.



Incredibly, even Muhammad's sworn enemy of Abu Sufyan may have gotten the last laugh. So ambitious was the prophet of Islam that he accepted his former foe's outward profession of allegiance (at the point of a sword) in order to expand his empire. Yet, it was Abu Sufyan's own children who ultimately benefited - at the expense of Muhammad's.



Abu Sufyan's son, Muawiyah, inherited the empire after defeating Muhammad's adopted son, Ali. He also poisoned Hasan, one of the prophet's two favorite grandsons. Abu Sufyan's grandson, Yazid, became the next caliph and promptly had the head of Muhammad's other favorite grandson, Hussein, brought to him on a platter.



Such are the perils of forcing others to say that you are a prophet when they prefer to believe otherwise.

Ihttp://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/013-forced-conversion.htm
Therefore, I presume the Sword, might, coercion etc were not used and all were done ever so peacefully, slowly and steadily.

It very much answered your feigned incredulity that the Sword had no part to play. Do read your post above that I have appended.

Socio economic environment does play a role. That is why I was continuous harping that one should view the event based on the era or time it was executed and the contemporary environment then.

But that does not change the fact that Islam did spread because of the Sword and coercion like Jezia or being made slaves.

Indeed, you have taken up much of my time!







The issue was Islam was spread by the Sword. You disagreed.

The quotes from the Quaran and Hadith indicated that force was very much authorised.
 

Galaxy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,086
Likes
3,934
Country flag
Although I am not a Brahmin nor i had any intention to defend Brahmanism. But somehow i started defending because of false accusation.

I don't know why people always blame Brahmanism for Islamic Invasion, discrimination and problem within Hinduism. I have seen accusation at many sites.

They didn't even ruled since 7th century. Most of rulers were Rajputs, Jats, Marathas and other cast and even Buddhist and Sikhs. Brahmins were/are not flag bearer of Hindus. Yes, They were involved in religious activity and may be cast system. But the discrimination was not the reason for conversion otherwise how come Jats, Khatris,Gujjars and Rajputs converted in maximum number ? Yes, some Brahman & SC also converted but % was less than 10%. Most of the Brahmin & SC/ST dominated region are still Brahmin/SC/ST dominated mainly in North India.

May be cast system was wrong which is actually correct. But one can't blame them for invasion, conversion and discrimination. I don't understand why Dalits of North India near Delhi Sultantant region didn't converted into Islam during 400 years if there was discrimination but Jat, Rajput did ?.

Also, 80% HIndus didn't converted into Islam even after 800 years of rule which is very big achievement. There must be some reason and some credit goes to Brahmanism ideology too.

Pakistan=A'than was captured completely because we were not united. One can't expect Rajputs to defend whole region. They did for long time, but lost later. After that, There was not much resilient. Then it spread in Eastern region.
 
Last edited:

parijataka

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
4,916
Likes
3,751
Country flag
For civfanatic and iamanidiot -

...Basava, though born a brahmin, rebelled against the rigid practices of the caste system then prevalent in Hinduism, and eventually began expounding philosophy of veerashaiva with a casteless society at its core. Soon, this philosophy began attracting large numbers of people. Saints like Allama Prabhu, Akka Mahadevi and Channabasavanna also played pivotal roles in the spreading of the message and the true meaning of Lingayatism(veerashaiva).

Basavanna lived and taught in the northern part of what is now Karnataka. This movement found its roots during the brief rule of the southern Kalachuri dynasty in those parts of the state. Like Martin Luther who came about three hundred years after him, Basavanna preached that the devotion of people to God was a direct relationship and did not need the intervention of the priestly class...
 

Param

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
2,810
Likes
653
Hindi nationalism ? Don't know about that. I heard this on DFI mainly.

Hindu nationalism - May be at times (it's my personal choice and i am proud of it :)). Indian nationalism - certainly any time.
Hindi Nationalism

I have right to criticize anything which i don't feel right and against my religion in democratic country.

You can go and help/defend in increasing in Muslim & Christian population & conversion. You also have the right. Fair enough ?? :wave:
I want more people to convert to atheism.
 

Param

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
2,810
Likes
653
Go by the flavour of the times.

It is better to be a Constitution Brahmin these days so that all the quotas, perks and reservation come your way.

People find it a badge to carry to be an SC/ST/OBC/Muslim because it makes life easier to circumvent meritocracy.

I am sure you have read the SC judgement that a child born of a mixed marriage with the mother as a SC, is entitled to have his mother;s caste.

It shows how the times change!

Judge events by the socio economic environment of the times!
Tell me Sir, how many OBCs or dalits are ther in the higher echelons of Power at the Central level?

How many obc or Dalit Services Chiefs has this country had since Independence?

How many Cabinet, principal and Home secretaries have been OBC or Dalit?

How many NSAs, IB chiefs, RAW chiefs have been obc or Dalit?

The higher bureacracy is dominated by a particular group.

The times only appear to have changed. Private sector is replacing govt jobs. And guess who most businessmen and corporates are? Are they obc & dalit?

And when I say OBC I am talking about real OBCs who are categorised as such in the Central List not state list.
In the various state lists many upper castes are availing benefits of reservations and are demanding changes in the central list.

I am not advocating further affirmative action. Just justifying the present system by quoting conditions where certain castes still rule the roost at the higher levels.
So you see the situation is not so bad for the non reserved category.
 
Last edited:

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
@Ray

You are committing a fallacy by associating the military conquests of the Arabs (which were obviously done by 'the sword') with the sociopolitical growth of Islam. If populations were converted 'by the sword' why did it take so many centuries for the countries of the Middle East and North Africa (which were conquered early on by the Arabs) to have a majority Muslim population? You have not answered this.

No one is denying the militaristic aspect of the growth of Islamic states. But to assume that Islam as a religion grew mostly 'by the sword' is to ignore the historical facts.

The Quran and Hadith are irrelevant in this regard. I am concerned with what actually happened in history and not what the Quran/Hadith allegedly justifies. I have heard very different interpretations of the Quran from different Muslims and in the end I have concluded that the book itself is a waste of time to try to interpret.
 

west

New Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
2
Likes
1
Calling names at the frustration of your ignoerance!

Agreed, but is it is not a topic of discussion here.


Aurangzeb did'nt just fight the Qutubshahi ruler, he had conqoured them.

Golconda was already under the Mughals, hence they could focus on the Marathas.
Just goes to show that your selective study and megre knowledge of actual history.


Aurangzeb ruled the Deccan...even before shivaji died. Shivaji was born in 1642 and died in 1680,
- Aurangzeb was the Mughal vicroy of Deccan and defeated the Nizam Shahi of Ahmednagar in 1636.
- Defeated Bijapur in 1650.
- Captured Golconda in 1687

Please see a map covering the Mughal empire during that period.


The Maratha insurgency started in 1662 by Shivaji and ended in 1707 after Aurangzeb's death.


That is correct

LOL ! you statements are lunatic its shows your bias view ,Only high priority Aim of Auranzeb was to conquer Marathas in last 27 years of his life with one of the worlds largest Army at that time 5 lakh men,30000 elephants.

Empire is collection of many destinies and kingdoms. Mughal E. was combile form of many Rajput kingdoms and other even they were kings they were under Mughal same way destinies like scindhiya,holkar,Gaykawad was under power of peshwa they were sardars of Maratha empire and king of their kingdoms it was peshwas who given territory to them.



Reason for Apogee of Mughla Empire was ONE AND ONLY MARATHAS


Stanley Wolpert writes in his 'New History of India',

"...Yet the conquest of the Deccan, to which Alamgir devoted the last 26 years of his life, was in many ways a Pyrrhic victory, costing an estimated hundred thousand lives a year during its last decade of futile chess game warfare, in which Maratha fortresses would be taken one week and lost the next, only to be recaptured and lost a month later. The expense in gold and rupees can hardly be accurately estimated. Alamgir's moving capital alone- a city of tents 30 miles in circumference, some 250 bazaars, with 1/2 million camp followers, 50000 camels and 30000 elephants, all of whom had to be fed, stripped peninsular India of any and all of its surplus gain and wealth throughout the quarter century of its intrusion. Not only famine but bubonic plague arose to take countless more lives during this era of tragic conflict and waste. The macabre dimension of this drama seems somehow too great for 17th century warfare, sounding more modern in its unyielding butchery, its senseless massacre of human and animal life. Even Alamgir had ceased to understand the purpose of it all by the time he decided to stop firing guns and turn his army world back to the north in 1705. The emperor was nearing 90 then. He spent most of days reading and copying the Koran, preparing himself for the final reckoning, while at the retreating fringes of his camp, Maratha horsemen rode roughshod over the rear guard, looting, plundering, and picking off Mughal stragglers, gaining strength from the bloated imperial presence that had come to plague the Deccan.

'I came alone and I go as a stranger. I do not know who I am, nor what I have been doing,' the dying old man confessed to his son in Feb 1707.'I have sinned terribly, and I do not know what punishment awaits me.' He expired on a Friday and was buried in a village near Aurangabad."
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
The Marathas were considered plain thugs in the South.The Nayaks and the local population hated them for the Pillage and loot they used to do using their auxillaries the Pindaris.They loot the sringeri math and the Govindarajullu swamy Temple at Tirupathi .It took the upmost efforts of the Nayaks of Tirumala to keep the temple from Pindaris.This is the reason why the RSS and anything remotely associated with Chitpavan Brahmins are considered Taboo in Tirupathi and the whole of South Indian temples.This image about Marathas and Marathis hasn't changed till date
Bull shit. I wonder how you can make such claims and get away with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top