|
Post by mongol194 on Oct 7, 2008 10:51:04 GMT 3
True i suppose.....but the koran was bought together after the prophets passing. I have read that many of the wahabi ullema are dilebratley altering its message to make justifications for barbarism. In India muslims lived side by side with hindu's and sikhs for centuries. India is rather uniuqe in this becuase not only did the religions get along fine for about five hundred years but they also tried to rid themselves of foriegners like the british as a united force. Islam was not spread by the sword....mahmud of gazni tried 17 times to conquer hindustan but ultimately he failed to do it. Sufi saints converted entire hindu states simply by thier way of life. Thats not to say that troubles did not take place but on the whole it was more peacefull and prosperous than most other parts of the world.
|
|
|
Post by keaganjoelbrewer on Oct 7, 2008 13:40:19 GMT 3
But Ihsan, that is all theoretical. And I don't think the Quran states it so bluntly does it? The practical side: Look at the reality of the original expansion of Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries. There was none of this 'convert or perish' stuff there. So long as you acknowledged your submission to the Arabs militarily and politically, you were allowed to practice whatever religion you wanted. It is true that people who maintained their original religion had to pay an extra tax, but that is far from what you're describing. Despite what the Quran may have instructed, it certainly did not happen in such a black and white way. As a general trend, I understand medieval Islam to have been far more tolerant of other faiths than medieval Christianity was. This is quite a generalisation, but it seems to me to be accurate for the most part. (I don't really know much about what happened in Central Asia under Islam though... but would love to learn )
|
|
|
Post by keaganjoelbrewer on Oct 7, 2008 13:41:06 GMT 3
Oh and yes.. I definitely agree. Missionaries in Central Asia = bad news!
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Oct 7, 2008 23:15:38 GMT 3
In India muslims lived side by side with hindu's and sikhs for centuries. India is rather uniuqe in this becuase not only did the religions get along fine for about five hundred years but they also tried to rid themselves of foriegners like the british as a united force. Islam was not spread by the sword....mahmud of gazni tried 17 times to conquer hindustan but ultimately he failed to do it. Sufi saints converted entire hindu states simply by thier way of life. Thats not to say that troubles did not take place but on the whole it was more peacefull and prosperous than most other parts of the world. na that's nowhere near the truth, i have spent a lot of my recent times to study Indian history, particularly Delhi Sultanate, Deccan Sultanate(s) and the Mughal dynasty and really the split between Hindus and Msulims couldn't be bigger. i mean after the British Raj India was divided along religious lines (Pakistan, India and later Bangladesh). hatred between religous is still big nowadays, for example this here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violenceof course Mughals also allied themselves with Hindus, for example Akbar with the Rajputs but this was due to political considderations, Akbar still gave no quarter to Hindus in some instances. the wars between Vijayanagar and the Deccan Sultanate(s) were of particular savagery and barbarism. also the Brahmin Baji Rao who was a major figure in the defeat of the Mughal Empire had a Muslim mistress which was completely outlawed by his family and fellow Brahmins. overall Hindus who allied with Muslims and vice versa only did so for personal gain or political considderations and it was the exception not the rule. and i think Mahmud of Ghaznis expeditions into North India were more of Raids to collect loot instead of attempts of conquest. i've forgotten to adress teh Sikhs. Sikhs are religious fanatcis, they tolerate only Muslims and Hindus within their own rule but are completely hsotile towards other Hindus, just look at the Kohistan independence movement.
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Oct 8, 2008 0:42:36 GMT 3
Well, most Sikhis are very tolerant, they are just weirdos with their turbans. ;D
I am religious fanatic in that way, that I will not ever talk with familymembers who are christians or muslims or belongs to any thatkind of community. I dont need relatives who belongs to community what serves hebrew demon.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Oct 8, 2008 0:53:12 GMT 3
That is true also. Following this logic, then we should stop believing the entire Qurân I mean, this way of thought goes towards that direction. Well I must confess my knowledge on Indian history is very scarce, and even my knowledge of Turkic dynasties in Afghanistan and Northern India is quite limited. Correct me if I wrong, but from what I remember, the Ghaznavids indeed spread Islam in North India mostly by sword, while they destroyed Hindu temples and sometimes massacred entire townsfolk (but I might be wrong, that's what I remember). Yes, especially in the Sūra al-Baqara سورة البقرة. But right now I'm too lazy to make exact quotations (maybe I would do that later) The Qurân even says that Muslims should not be friends with non-Muslims. Well of course the Muslims did not immediately destroy entire religions, but there are many records in Islamic sources that the Muslim Arabs (especially Umawwids) and Muslim Turks (especially Qarakhanids) deliberately massacred Buddhist-Zoroasthrian-Manikhaean communities and destroyed their temples in a great extent. However, there were also occasions when they were treated like the "People of the Book", but there are man examples of violence indeed. There were also occasions when entire cities were destroyed (like Khotan just after 1000). No wonder why we have many letters, especially from Tokharistan, written by local rulers of Turkistan to the Táng (T'ang) 唐 Dynasty emperors of China, bitterly complaining about the harsh treatments of Muslim Arabs towards non-Muslims in the region. That is also right, at least it allows some non-Muslim communities to survive under rule The amount of atrocities committed by the Christians is way much bigger than what the Muslims did. Aren't these a bit harsh words that breach our Yasa (Forum Rules)?
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Oct 8, 2008 1:53:48 GMT 3
Nope, those are not. Because I talked just about my own family and how I react my familymembers religions in my personal life. So Yasa has not be broken by me. My mother is just a filthy sleeper who should be raped as soon as possible. I just hoping so.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Oct 8, 2008 2:57:22 GMT 3
Interesting, could you provide me with the article or the name of the book in which you read this?
|
|
|
Post by keaganjoelbrewer on Oct 8, 2008 8:45:48 GMT 3
" I will not ever talk with familymembers who are christians or muslims or belongs to any thatkind of community. I dont need relatives who belongs to community what serves hebrew demon. " Verinen Paroni.. you need to open your mind a little. Your family deserve better from you And yeah, are there any good general works on Islam in Central Asian history?
|
|
|
Post by mongol194 on Oct 8, 2008 11:16:30 GMT 3
Just forgot another important point, Islam in it's early days was super tolerant very much like Ghenghish Khans mongols would do early Arabs gave very easy choices 1) An beaten enemy will either surrender and accept Islam....this done they would be treated as perfect equals(sometimes converts got more respect!) 2)You will accept us as your overlords and in return you will be free to do what you like among yourselves......as long as you pay the Jizya a tax which secures your protection and we will defend you. 3)you sign a non-aggression pact with us for a set cost or period of time.....very much a diplomatic treaty like Hudaibiya. Remember the prophet secured a treaty for ten years opf non-violence.....in todays 47 internationally recognized warzones/disputed territories name one place which has held a treaty for even half that time! 4) only after the stubborn enemy didn't accept those rather generous 6th century offers was there a genreal assualt! For a privmitive society these were very sophisticated terms no wonder they did so well eh ;D
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Oct 8, 2008 15:02:52 GMT 3
I mean, the term "hebrew demon" Omg ;D Chavannes, Edouard, Documents Sur Les Tou-Kiue (Turcs) Occidentaux, Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient Adrien Maisonneuve, Paris, 1903, p.206, Notes Additionelles p.47. This example dates from the year 727. You can read Sir Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen Gibb's works, plus Wilhelm Barthold's (Vasilij Vladimirovič Bartol'd Василий Владимирович Бартольд) Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion.
|
|
|
Post by keaganjoelbrewer on Oct 8, 2008 15:44:05 GMT 3
I tried reading some Gibb before (the one about the Islamic expansion into C.A) and I didn't really like it. I found it confusing and difficult to read. and I haven't got around to reading all of Barthold yet . lol ah well
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Oct 8, 2008 16:21:52 GMT 3
" I will not ever talk with familymembers who are christians or muslims or belongs to any thatkind of community. I dont need relatives who belongs to community what serves hebrew demon. " Verinen Paroni.. you need to open your mind a little. Your family deserve better from you And yeah, are there any good general works on Islam in Central Asian history? Well, I dont respect those who not respect me. ;D Anyway, back to topic.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Oct 9, 2008 0:43:38 GMT 3
I am religious fanatic in that way, that I will not ever talk with familymembers who are christians or muslims or belongs to any thatkind of community. I dont need relatives who belongs to community what serves hebrew demon. Such attitude can only convince the religious fanatics in their belief that they're "the only right ones."
|
|
|
Post by Bor Chono on Oct 9, 2008 11:42:02 GMT 3
Proof of power is needed to believe.
|
|