Radicalism in the US and Europe

[kumble_rocks]

Apparently you have little idea how the emperor and king worked. Doesn't make rajputs heroes, but that's the way it worked. And again, as I already gave you more than enough reasons for the losses, now if you think indians were wimps, it's your right to do so, doesn't mean you're right. And if anyone's trying to be cute, it's you, might is right. I'll remember that.

Apparently you have little idea of warfare. You haven't answered anything yet. Don't put words into my mouth .I just wanted different opinions before I come to my own conclusion on how few invaders during medieval times walked in and ruled India for 600 years. Unlike you , I am willing to change my position if proved otherwise.Remember that.

[Anakin]

Nope, I've already given you lots of reasons/factors behind the defeats. But of course you're basing your wimp-or-not solely on the results.

[Lurker]

I provided a link in one of my previous posts which proves it was otherwise complete with sources events dates .... some of these sources are from Muslim writers and istorians themselves. herres the link again .... http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tlmr/

BB. I am pretty sure you are smart enough to realize the difference between SHARIA and Islamic laws. The mentioned link DOES NOT show implementation of SHARIA of India EVER. Prove me wrong. Lets not try to mix the two issues. xxxx

[Lurker]

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

Hmmm GKD lets put this to test shall we. If Muslims are bothered over the Muslims the world over, how many Bihari Muslims have been seen fighting for their Kashmiri bothers? You have brought the issue of Kashmiri Pundits a few time so I can only assume you are well versed with the ground realities in Kashmir. So here is my direct question - How many Indian Muslims have been caught fighting alongside their "Muslim" brothers in Kashmir?

Whether Sharia was implemented officially or not is irrelevant as the destruction done in India by muslim rulers was clear and full.

And may I ask respectfully who are you to decide if my point about implementation of SHARIA in India is irrelevant? Can you read my opening response within this thread in its entirety and tell me why it is relevant or irrelevant? Lets not pick the discussion in between, lets go to where I am coming from.

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.

Arre bhai you started off talking about Indian Muslims and ended up talking about Muslims the world over. Bhai keep on Indian Muslim track baba, as I have mentioned above I am not intersted in defending a Bosnia Herzegovina Muslim on our board.

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

Chalo fair enough. I personally dont care much about religion and so I would give good marks to atheism as well but 10 out of 10?? Nah. Maybe 5/10, afterall atheism doesnt create any problems yes but it doesnt answer any questions either. xxxx

[Lurker]

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 ?

BB, Can you help me understand a couple of things here: 1) How widespread was the support for Saddam Hussein in India? 2) How strong was the support to Saddam Hussein and what impact, if any, did it have on the Indian State ? It would be nice to see what was the economic loss or if few cities came to a standstill or if any State(or Central Government) was booted out of power because of it. Lets quantify this "support" for Saddam in India, shall we? 3) How do you expect an Indian, Hindu or Muslim, to behave towards Saddam Hussein? Let me know so I dont base my answer on any assumption here. xxxx

[kumble_rocks]

Dont worry about CC .... lets talk about us and Lurker .... who thinks there was no Sharia EVER. How does that happen.

That's not true. Their was Sharia during Babur and Aurgazeb's time. I don't want into too much detail , it is a known fact that the rest of the Mughals were hardly religious.

Ok . But you did talk about Lodi and some others as though they were all normal ...or close to being normal. Correct me if I am wrong

Yes, I used Razia Sultan ,Sher shah , Lodi etc. To be honest , I know a lot about Sher Shah and Razia , but my knowledge is very limited about Lodhi. So probably not wise for me to talk about Lodhi.

Not all Rajput kings did that and the ones who did that had a deal with the retards that they would not run their folks down. Is it better to get killed maimed raped and p****ered or live with relative freedom ?

Yaar, let's stop beating around the bush. So , you mean to say that they didn't have the guts to fight the mughals. I thought we all agreed that Hindus far outnumbered muslim invaders. So , what does that tell you about these Hindus .But how does that absolve these Hindu rulers of their crimes I fail to understand? After all they collected Jizya for Muslims.

If a Shivaji with a rag tag army gave Aurangzeb soo much heart ache its not hard too imagin what these guys could do. But the infighting lead to their downfall. But how does that absolve Islamic rulers of their crimes I fail to understand?

And guess who did Aurangazeb use to fight Shivaji ? Does his Jaipuri hindu general Jai Singh ring any bell. Shivaji used guerrilla warfare to fight the mighty mughals. Agreed he showed exceptional courage but he was definitely aided by western ghats for his guerrilla warfare. Kudos to him for that. Nobody is absolving the sub human islamic invaders of their crimes. I am just wondering loud here, if we ever had the intestinal fortitude to fight these mongrels during the medieval time barring few like PrithiviRaj.

Even Akbar who was considered to be the most evolved of the Islamic rules personally oversaw the killing of 30,000 Non-Comabatants ... And you must know what happened to the Hindu king Hemu? I wont even bother going into the destructions caused by the other Mughals. If you are interested its all there in those links.

Agreed he screwed Hemu. But it was his gaurdian Bairam Khan who beheaded Hemu. Even Hemu screwed the Suris to become ruler of bengal.But , Jeez , even Hindu rulers did lot sh.it. Let's not belittle every person just because they are of different faith. Please don't make me read those lengthy links. I spent days reading the Ali Sina links last time around.:teeth_smile::teeth_smile: In summary , Islamic Invaders were barbarians, agreed. But they succeeded because followers of Hinduism were equally facked up and sided with them on numerous occasion. That's why few invaders ruled us for centuries.

[Lurker]

Islamic Laws or islamic jusrisprudence is otherwise known as Sharia ... and the abidence of it is called Shariat and its the Kings primary duty to abide by these and the ullema - (Priests or Mullahs if you will) are responsible to keep the king advised on such matters. Its obvious that you did not read any of the links but try reading these if you can ... these directly answer your questions. http://voi.org/books/tpmsi/ch04.htm http://voi.org/books/jtsi/index.htm And regarding Support for Saddam lets keep it in the back burner in the interest of not digressing. We can come back to it later. For now lets beat this "There was no Sharia EVER" thing to a conclusion. Fair ?

Actually I did. And no it does NOT answer my question. The link that you have posted has 4 references for SHARIA(feel free to search on the link). First reference is in defining what is Sharia. Second reference is the origin of the word and how the loot was distributed Third is the reference to Sharia implementation in Afganistan under Talibaan. The fourth and ONLY reference in Indian context is as under: Besides the four regular taxes, there were various kinds of local imposts levied. Alauddin Khalji imposed house tax and grazing tax (ghari and charai). He also levied a tax on all milk producing animals. These and many others like tax on selling flowers, on betel leaves, octroi duty on sale of grain and pottery, stall tax (tah bazari), tax on gambling, amusements and dancing girls mentioned by Afif continued till the time of Firoz Tughlaq. They were collected in the capital city and some other important cities. Firoz Tughlaq ordered their abolition in 777 H/1375 CE as they were considered to be not in accordance with the Shariat. This resulted in a loss of 30 lakh tankahs annually,156 which shows that income from such imposts was not inconsiderable. http://voi.org/books/tpmsi/ch04.htm What that paragraph tells me is that the laws implemented by a Muslim ruler was denounced by another Muslim ruler! I was hoping you would throw me some lavish pointers towards Jehangir, Akbar, Babur and certainly most right wingers favorite Aurangzeb. Something concrete about Sharia BB. I mean come on 500 years of rule and not even 250 years of that under SHARIA? From what I read from the link you have given me nothing. xxx PS: That Voice of Dharma site is hardly one I would give much credence to. It is like going to www.Islam.com for a pro-Islamic argument. PPS: Feel free to answer my query about Saddam, I would really like to know.

[Lurker]

I knew that was comming but I Didnt know that VHP/RSS had authors from Ummah writing for them ... Check the Bibliography it is more than a page long.

I will. From the looks of it, it did not come across as an impartial site to me.

But in the meanwhile do you dispute the widely acknowledged fact that Akbar abolished Jizyah which was imposed by all his predecessors ?

No I wont dispute that fact. What I would dispute though is does jizyah means Shariya law? Here is a question to you BB, actually make it 2. Q1 ) Why is jizyah imposed under a non-Muslim under a Muslim rule. Q2) Do you agree that under SHARIA, non-Muslims have a non-equal status as compared to a Muslim? If so, how many Muslim kings(you can include even Aurangzeb) in that behave that way? One good way to measure that would be if these rulers had any Hindu minister/general in their Administration. xxxx

[Lurker]

first of all do you agree that Collecting "Islamic" taxes from Hindus is part of Sharia or do you need proof of that ?

What Islamic tax? You mean jizyah? That would be partial Shariah law, not the entire Shariyat. SHARIA in my opinion is making a Muslim different from a non-Muslim subject. A non-muslim subject does not have the same status as that of a Muslim. Question - Why do non-Muslim have to pay jizyah in an Islamic rule? xxx

[Lurker]

Yes it is a part of the Sharia code. All Non-muslims are reqd to pay this tax. Proof will be provided in a few minutes.

So lets get the Sharia code in its entirety. Not a portion or a clause. Lets see the entire code and then put to test when/where was it implemented in India. xxx

[kumble_rocks]

Jizya was collected by Hindu generals for their muslims masters. Goes to show how facked up these Hindu generals are. And yes, it is part of Sharia and it was used more as a revenue tool rather than religious one by the Mughals .

[CC1981]

Jizya was collected by Hindu generals for their muslims masters. Goes to show how facked up these Hindu generals are.

Nothing facked up about it. If hindus can collect tax for buddhists, buddhists can collect tax for hindus, etc, hindus can collect tax for Muslims too. Unless the king is a total nutter like Khilji/Aurangzeb, he was usually accepted pretty well by the subjects. Fact is, there were a few Muslim kings who didn't mess around with the hindu customs/traditions of their kingdoms but most/many did go around subverting the culture.

[Lurker]

Jizya was collected by Hindu generals for their muslims masters. Goes to show how facked up these Hindu generals are. And yes' date= it is part of Sharia and it was used more as a revenue tool rather than religious one by the Mughals .

Bingo! To use jizyah as an excuse for religious policy is wrong. It was an Adminstrative and Revenue tool. SHARIA would have been implemented if Hindus were treated as non-equals. In other words no Hindus would be so much as allowed to be part of top hierarchy. But guess who collected the jizyah, guess who were top players in court etc etc. Yep all non-Muslims. xxxx

[kumble_rocks]

Nothing facked up about it. If hindus can collect tax for buddhists, buddhists can collect tax for hindus, etc, hindus can collect tax for Muslims too. Unless the king is a total nutter like Khilji/Aurangzeb, he was usually accepted pretty well by the subjects. Fact is, there were a few Muslim kings who didn't mess around with the hindu customs/traditions of their kingdoms but most/many did go around subverting the culture.

Then why blame only muslims for Jizya. It was a combined effort as far as I am concerned.

[Lurker]

Then why blame only muslims for Jizya. It was a combined effort as far as I am concerned.

KR, One can not just go about throwing the word jizya without understanding the context. Jizya is a tax that non-Muslims have to pay. The reason they do that is NOT because they are non-Muslims but because Muslims are bound by their religion to give a portion of their income as charity/state-tax called zakaat. Now a non-Muslim obviously should not have to pay zakaat as he doesnt beleive in Islam and so he pays jizya. That is the context of it. I have more problem with Islam when it says all non-Muslims living under an Islamic rule should submit to Islam and if they have a difference of opinion they should face the sword. That I would not agree to but if a section of society pays a certain tax and I am asked to pay a different kind of tax I can atleast see where it is coming from, even though I would find it discriminatory still. xxxx

[Lurker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya thats the 1st link on google search for the word "Jizya" .... it even gives a Quranic verse which mandates this Tax (verse 9:29)

BB, Read my response to KR. I have mentioned the difference between jizya and zakaat and where I have issues with it(jizya). xxx PS: I will continue this tomorrow, its a tad late for me and didnt want to just vanish like that. Good discussion guys...BB & KR..kal tak ke liye good night.

[kumble_rocks]

BB, Read my response to KR. I have mentioned the difference between jizya and zakaat and where I have issues with it(jizya). xxx PS: I will continue this tomorrow, its a tad late for me and didnt want to just vanish like that. Good discussion guys...BB & KR..kal tak ke liye good night.

Good night to you as well and others here.

[CC1981]

Then why blame only muslims for Jizya. It was a combined effort as far as I am concerned.

Well yes, it is a collective effort. And Hindus are to blame too. But i think Islam is to blame principally for comming up with suck a facked up thing in the first place ! See, i've lived in Arabia for four years and i've seen the 'true' Arabian culture ( the bedouin culture). Arabia has forever been a really facked up place ( i mean the real arabia- area south of the israel/mesopotamia region, ie, arabian peninsula). It might be hard to believe but what the Arabs followed before Islam came around was the height of barbarity. As a result, when Islam came around, it was seen as a very very civilized, compassionate and 'loving' religion. Think of it this way- you grew up in a household of murderers, to you the story of a thug with 'some' principles ( say Robin Hood) would be the height of civilization. There are lots of really accurate Koranic and non-Koranic depiction of how Islam raised the standard of civilization and 'humanity' in Arabia immesurably since its start. As a result, Arabs have this view of Islam being the 'paragon of civility,virtue, etc etc'. But prob is, since India and mesopotamia were significantly more evolved than Arabia, spiritually and culturally, the Islamic ideas come across as cruder,baser and far more inhumane than our philosophies.

[CC1981]

KR, One can not just go about throwing the word jizya without understanding the context. Jizya is a tax that non-Muslims have to pay. The reason they do that is NOT because they are non-Muslims but because Muslims are bound by their religion to give a portion of their income as charity/state-tax called zakaat. Now a non-Muslim obviously should not have to pay zakaat as he doesnt beleive in Islam and so he pays jizya. That is the context of it. I have more problem with Islam when it says all non-Muslims living under an Islamic rule should submit to Islam and if they have a difference of opinion they should face the sword. That I would not agree to but if a section of society pays a certain tax and I am asked to pay a different kind of tax I can atleast see where it is coming from, even though I would find it discriminatory still. xxxx

Actually no. The equalization for Zakat is not Jizya. The equalization of the Zakat was 'Khoms' ( 1-5ths). Sunni rulers typically levied Zakat on muslims and Khoms on the non-muslim population. Bear in mind that Zakat is usually defined as 2.5% of their income, so Khoms is EIGHT times that. Some Shia rulers typically levied Zakat and Khoms on everybody, arguing that Muslim responsibility towards the crown is greater and thus Shi-ite islam impeded its own growth and lost out to Sunni Islam in the long run in terms of popularity. Bear in mind that when the Shia-Sunni split occured due to the death of Mo's grandson(more like his brutal murder), the popular support was with Mo's grandson and the 'Sunnis' were very much the 'evil doods in their castles of baghdad'. Jizya is officially ( according to Koran) defined as a tax that you pay to the state and in exchange, you get your right to practice your faith and be entitled to muslim protection (ie, protection of the state) from outside threats/pillaging. One who pays the Jizya is officially called a 'Dhimmi' ( in islamic law, dhimmi are not just 'people of the book' but rather, believers in monotheism. Thus Hinduism too sometimes got 'dhimmi' status from some benevolent muslim rulers because hinduism has the concept of 'brahmann' as the ultimate in some streams of hinduism.) It is sort of the tax you pay on mafias to 'grantee' your safe-keeping or else they 'stop protecting you' from the 'bad people who are itching to loot you'. If you get my drift...Jizya however, was 'measured' by able-bodied men only, ie, women,children, old, sick and the infirm were exempt from the tax. People ignore one basic fundamental reason why Islam spread within a century from its core of dinky lil arab towns to indus river at one end and 5000 Km away in Spain at the other. Strength of arms alone doesn't do it. What also did it for Islam is that Islam has a very methodical (though not fair) and accountable way of tax collection and state-subject relationship. Ie, Islam was sort of 'communism of its day' where it addressed the poor folks well, particularly by levying zakat/Khoms on the rich or cultures it invades/annihilates.

[Anakin]

Then why blame only muslims for Jizya. It was a combined effort as far as I am concerned.

Bingo! To use jizyah as an excuse for religious policy is wrong. It was an Adminstrative and Revenue tool. SHARIA would have been implemented if Hindus were treated as non-equals. In other words no Hindus would be so much as allowed to be part of top hierarchy. But guess who collected the jizyah, guess who were top players in court etc etc. Yep all non-Muslims.

KR, why are you so adamant when you make up your mind on one point. That was the facking way the things worked. Rajputs or indians didn't implement jiziya, rather had to work under the mughals or get killed by them. Indian jaminders used to collect taxes for the english as well. And Lurker, no there is no bingo. You're confusing general tax for everyone with one tax targetted against only kafirs. And yes, it's a damn part of sharia laws. And another big NO, jiziya and zaakat are two completely different things. Why don't you say the English never actually exploited Indian subcontinent since they rarely extorted the taxes themselves, rather again it was the indians who did the dirty work. If you extend your imagination just a little, you can very easily say the mughals were never to be blamed for the destruction of temples either since common sense would suggest the majority of workers who actually destroyed it were kafirs again. Now that greatness of the muslims have increased in your mind, and the hindus just achieved something more sinister after being so ignorant and the cause of intolerance. You don't need to thank me, you're welcome.