Radicalism in the US and Europe

[Lurker]

That's not at all true ' date=' Bheem. I don't know if I want to get into long discussion during this long weekend , but what CC's is saying is true. [b']People like Sher Shah , Razia Sultan,lodhi etc were liberal and able administrators. They were hardly religious and Jizya was not a practise during Sher Shah's time. Heck, Razia Sultan had a slave lover of African descent and she was a fair skinned Turk. In fact other than Babur and Auragazeb , none of the mughals were fanatics. Heck , they were hardly religious either. I have done reasonable study on their life styles, it is a fact that Jahangir, Shah Jahan ,Humayun etc were drunkards and it was not uncommon for them to take drugs also. They did treat their hindu subjects with decent amount of respect.

KR. What BB is saying is completely wrong. I have asked him to explain himself. Coming to the names mentioned rulers like Sher Shah are much more than mere Islamic ruler. No they DID NOT implement Sharia law on their subjects, but what they did was to use Islamic background, specially Mathematics, to come up with laws, specially laws regarding the land. The land-reforms in India can be traced to Sher Shah Suri. Even today a lot of Indian law, if not most, have Islamic resonance. If you walk into an Indian court there is a good chance you will catch the entire debate in Urdu. Which Indian movie fan can forget,"Taajiraat-e-Hind dafa 302 ke tahat ye adalat mujrim ko gunahgaar maanti hai" So if Urdu has a strong backdrop in Indian court does that mean Indian court practise Sharia??? Fact is Sharia was NEVER implemented in India even though India was ruled by Muslims. xxxx

[Lurker]

I do see your point as well as that of Dhondy and CC. I just don't know man. Agreed that these invaders took advantage of infighting among Hindu rulers. I will reply in detail later. I am in "read mode " today.

Yes it is good sometimes to be a fly on the wall KR. Sometimes I feel that the more I know, the more I realize that I know less. One bad outcome of that book I am reading is the role played by Hindu sipoys in that mutiny. I wont say too much(or else my review of the book will end right here) but lets just say it did not leave me very happy. xxx

[kumble_rocks]

The fact that more than 50% of the Subcontinent is now converted is also as a result of the same Glorious Islamic regimes ?

Then why didn't so called upper caste hindus convert in the same numbers ? I am assuming that they would have been forced too based on your logic .

[Lurker]

The temples that were destroyed hundreds of them .... were all a result of very tolerant Islamic regimes ? The fact that more than 50% of the Subcontinent is now converted is also as a result of the same Glorious Islamic regimes ?

We are NOT discussing the tolerance level of Islam here are we BB. Here is my assertion(right from the first post that I wrote. FACT 1) India has had Muslim rule for over half a millemium. FACT 2) Atleast 30% of the subjects were Muslims at some time. FACT 3) Sharia was NEVER implemented in India. Thus far you havent come close to showing where I am wrong. To summarise, when a country that has 1/3 the population of Muslims, and is ruled by Muslim ruler and still Sharia was NOT implemented, what are the odds of it happening in a Christian land where the population size is 1/30th?? Hence my statement that I always take such Sharia backing statements with a pinch of salt. Our own Indian history shows us that. xxxx

[Anakin]

The jiziya taxation

[Anakin]

Why are they then trying to install sharia law in canada? Although on the civil court I think, but again that exposes another form of hypocrisy. If they are so big fans of sharia, then they should either go back/to where there are those laws, or try to adapt it in it's purest form, ie convicted of stealing == chopping off hands in public.

[kumble_rocks]

Sharia has no place in social secular democracy , period. Anybody , who thinks otherwise is enemy of democracy and should be tried under hate crimes act law which I propose:sad_smile:. BTW, I agree with the Bruce Bawer in the video. His concerns are genuine and should be addressed by these wimpy european countries. Surely, gays and lesbians are unsafe in Sharia countries .

[kumble_rocks]

Do you know that India offers Sharia for those who want to go by it ... as we speak ? It may be a much more milder version than that practiced by the Aurangzebs and Babars but its nonetheless "some" form of Sharia and in Kashmir which is still part of India it has a much more orthodox version implemented.

Jesus, Bheem , I think you got it all wrong mate. Agreed Sharia is draconian , but to suggest that majority muslims in India want to live under Sharia is incorrect in myopinon. In fact , why do you think average muslim would care about living in a kill joy environment. They may follow somewhat intolerant faith , but surely they would love to live in a environment wherein they can enjoy entertainment like bollywood movies, music , dance ,sports etc. Heck , what did the pak players like YK, Hameed , Butt etc players do when they were in India during the last tour. They went and watched Bollywood movies like "Don". This goes for Kashmir also.

[CC1981]

Read more about medievial Islamic rule in India

You speak as if you know medieval Indian history..or hell any Indian history. Yet you've clearly proven to be ignorant on the topic- so dear physician, try thy own medicine!

[Anakin]

Jesus' date=' Bheem , I think you got it all wrong mate. Agreed Sharia is draconian , but to suggest that majority muslims in India want to live under Sharia is incorrect in myopinon. In fact , why do you think average muslim would care about living in a kill joy environment. They may follow somewhat intolerant faith , but surely they would love to live in a environment wherein they can enjoy entertainment like bollywood movies, music , dance ,sports etc. Heck , what did the pak players like YK, Hameed , Butt etc players do when they were in India during the last tour. They went and watched Bollywood movies like "Don". This goes for Kashmir also.[/quote']It doesn't matter whether they really want it or not, but as usual most of them will remain quiet when their mullahs want it. And again seems like you're not familiar with the level of hypocrisy by many of them. ME has been the land of debauchery and yet they act so pious.

[CC1981]

but as usual most of them will remain quiet when their mullahs want it.

The fear of death tends to do that to people, i suppose. But that is the crux of the matter. Islam needs to wake up and reform itself, including the Koran. Just like how the Christians did.

[kumble_rocks]

And again seems like you're not familiar with the level of hypocrisy by many of them.

Care to extrapolate ?

[Lurker]

Do you know that India offers Sharia for those who want to go by it ... as we speak ? It may be a much more milder version than that practiced by the Aurangzebs and Babars but its nonetheless "some" form of Sharia and in Kashmir which is still part of India it has a much more orthodox version implemented.

BB either consciously or unconsciously you are just moving the goalpost here. In my very first post this is what I had written, "My gripe is with those who would take such a documentary to try to prove their own point. Of course that is a rather ignorant method since Europe(or US for that matter) has have Muslim migrants in their countries for a matter of few decades, at most 40-50 years. Now would I learn from experience of Muslims in Europe for a period of 50 years or Muslims in India who have lived for 1000 years and counting???" You were quick to pick on "My gripe is with those who would take such a documentary to try to prove their own point" but completely failed to read/understand/admit/criticize "Now would I learn from experience of Muslims in Europe for a period of 50 years or Muslims in India who have lived for 1000 years and counting???"" Let me reiterate it one last time since I have a feeling we are both getting repeatative here: 1) Unlike Europe where Muslims have been present for 25-30 years, 50 year tops, India Muslim history can be traced to atleast 1000 years. 2) Unlike a puny 3-5% Muslim population in European country(population of Muslims in UK is 2.5% while Netherlands has most at 5%), Indian subcontinent has seen population percentage to be 10 times that number(30% plus) 3) Unlike Europe, Muslim rulers have ruled over a vast land stretch for atleast 500 years. By any account Indian history gives a more detailed dataset to base one's assumption on about Muslims, specially Indian Muslims(I honestly couldnt be bothered about Muslims in Sudan or Belgium). So with all these numbers when was SHARIA implemented in India? Answer is NEVER. Which was my point all along, judge Indian Muslims by Indian history, stop saying all these "look what I have been saying all along?" Fair? xxx

[kumble_rocks]

Its quite apparant that there is hardly any voice raised against the numerous Islamic nonsense that keeps happening in India. The latest one being the support for Saddam Hussein. Point is nobody from the so called progressive moderate world cares to do anything about it. I thought we had agreed to that .... but its kinda irritating that in every thread that discusses about this issue people tend to start of with the naive lines like " I dont see any wrong" or "ohh there are nutcases in every religion who are a tiy minority" etc etc etc . So how many times do I need to keep disproving these theories ?

Saddam Hussain has caused more grief to muslims than people of any other religion. So , if morons like Jaffer Sharif support Saddam Hussain , why do you care. And if some muslims in india support Saddam , then they indirectly condone Shia and kurd massacre.

[Gaurav]

I honestly couldnt be bothered about Muslims in Sudan or Belgium.

Yep but muslims are bothered about muslims all over.That includes Indian muslims!

So with all these numbers when was SHARIA implemented in India? Answer is NEVER.

Whether Sharia was implemented officially or not is irrelevant as the destruction done in India by muslim rulers was clear and full. Explain to me how Kashmir which was fully Hindu Brahimin became almost completely muslim? Your low cast high cast theory fails there mate. In KP folklore it is said that only 11 KP families were left in the valley and Hindu religious threads had piled up very high as a result of the forced conversions. When fear spreads people convert. No one likes their head chopped off or worse.

Which was my point all along, judge Indian Muslims by Indian history, stop saying all these "look what I have been saying all along?"

I judge Indian muslims just like Hindus by their action and their religions history. Everywhere muslims go they cause trouble. Even if it is a minority that causes trouble the majority either give moral support or indirect support by silence. The lack of free thinkers in muslim community is glaringly obvious. Plus it's not we who decided to lump all muslims of the world together it's ROP that tells them to think that way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

The Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent led to widespread carnage as Muslims regarding the Hindus as infidels slaughtered and converted millions of Hindus. Will Durant argued in his 1935 book "The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage" (page 459): “ The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride of the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period. ” Religious persecution There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Muslims. Estimates have stated that over 13 centuries and over the entire subcontinent, the number of Hindus that died at the hands of the Muslims goes up into the millions. There have been several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed around 80,000-100,000 Hindus over a short period of time, which they set as a minimum goal, to their anti-Hindu campaigns[1] In a 1999 interview, the French journalist and writer François Gautier says [2], “ The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese. ” Prof. K.S. Lal, suggests a calculation in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India which estimates that between the years 1000 AD and 1500 AD the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million. Even those Hindus who converted to Islam were not immune to persecution, as per the Muslim Caste System in India as established by Ziauddin al-Barani in the Fatawa-i Jahandari. [3], where they were regarded as "Ajlaf" caste and subjected to severe discrimination by the "Ashraf" castes[4].

Btw this is how I rate all the religions (out of 10)- Islam: -10 Judaism: -7 Christianity: -6 Sikhism: 1 Hinduism: 2 Buddhism: 3 Jainism: 3.5 Not a religion but for comparison sake...Atheism---10/10 :giggle:

[Anakin]

Care to extrapolate ?

I gave you an example in the next line.

[Anakin]

Why is there so much beating around the bush? The jiziya tax was from sharia, so it was implemented in india for a long time. Then there were destructions of temples and forced conversion. And still some one says NEVER. His never and facts are quite the opposite of the real meaning.

[Dhondy]

Why do we need to look at history? Let's look at the Muslim majority countries in the world today. It should be a simple matter to find out how many of them have Islamic law and how many don't. I know Turkey is secular. Are there any others?

[Gaurav]

Why do we need to look at history? Let's look at the Muslim majority countries in the world today. It should be a simple matter to find out how many of them have Islamic law and how many don't. I know Turkey is secular. Are there any others?

Even Turkey is secular in name only. The pro-secular demos that took place in Turkey recently are nice but even they are highly nationalistic in nature. Plus those demos don't demonstrate the views of majority of the Turks. If they did then the current ruling party would not have been in power in the first place. Let's see who wins the next election and with what numbers. P.S- The excuse made by the Islamic apologist are sad. The same apologists stop making similar excuses when it comes to religious extremists from Hinduism (who I must say I don't like either but are not on the same level and % as the muslim ones).

[kumble_rocks]

Why do we need to look at history? Let's look at the Muslim majority countries in the world today. It should be a simple matter to find out how many of them have Islamic law and how many don't. I know Turkey is secular. Are there any others?

Nigeria has become secular. Although significant mass of ummah population there wanted Sharia. Malaysia is also secular although their is pressure from certain section of their muslim population to introduce Sharia. But Middle East by and large is not secular and I find it strange that muslims keep quiet about this particular aspect. But , after reading PP and other muslim websites , I gather that most muslims feel that Islamic republic takes care of minority . No need to be secular according to Western standards for them. They cite the example of Prophet and how well he treated non believers(Dhimmi status) when he was ruling Mecca. I think it is BS. The same muslims will cry foul and will not support India becoming Hindu republic guided by Hindu personal laws only.