Islam: How was it spread?

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Why did Mohammad bin Qasim attack Sindh. The popular story to justify his actions is that he wanted to save the life of a women who was taken captive by some pirates in Sindh.

The important point is that waging a war needs pretext. US is waging war in Afghanistan because of the posited threat of more 9/11 like attacks. My whole post was about Jihad and how the concept of Jihad could even have posed serious threats to neighboring countries esp. Byzantine empire. The result: Crusades and bloody wars for territory. Palestine is the same "Falasteen" for which wars were fought since the dawn of Islam.

As for stating all this now (bottom up approach ), it was you who had to jump in when I was replying to golimaar. See my post where I replied to James about "double taxation" under Jizyah agreement

Again you are linking two entirely different scenarios at two different times of history. Unless you believe in the silly prophecies of the Khilafah bros on this site, what is the relevance of one period to the other? How can you equate a failed shoe bomber or some idiot wearing explosive underpants to a conquering army which swept across the world?

Do you really think it's an accurate perspective?

 

[Lalafied]

You have come up with many conclusion yourself.

From which statement of mine you came up with this conclusion that If Islamic state is to expand by war it is not following its religion.
What I said that "The rule of Allah has to be established in the land". And to establish that law war is the last resort.

Again from which statement of mine you came up with the conclusion that Jizya is not as per religion. Every law in a Muslim state is in accordance with the religion Islam. If it is conflicting then that law cannot be implemented. Expanding this law for Muslims doesn't make it conflicting with the law of Islam.
What I said that Jizya is an act of showing the loyalty to the state or the ruler. By paying jizya and knowing that it will go to fund the military as war is the extreme case a ruler or government need the service. The war can be to expand (as above is according to Islam) or to defend.
You didn't answer my question that give me any option other than that how a non-Muslim would show his loyalty to the ruler or government in most extreme case which is the war.


Yes I stand firm by my statement Islam is a religion of peace for the humanity.

Did I claim that Islam a peaceful religion or did I claim that Islam is a religion of peace for the humanity, and by establishing law of Allah in the land, peace can be brought to humanity.

It think there is a big difference in both the sentences.

So now lets see how Islam can bring peace to an individual. Would you like to live in a country or under a government which provides you the below

Gives you basic facilities and the availability of basic facilities doesn't depend on how much tax is collected.

Every citizen will get a land by the government to build a house. You don't have to go the bank for loan on interest if required and pay it for 20 years and 25 years, the government will provide you with interest free loan. And if you are unable to pay due to any reason the government can even write off the loan.

You get free education. You don't have to take student loan like in west or any kind of other loan to fund or pay university fees.

A country where you don't have to worry or opt for insurances or life insurances to secure the life of your family in case something happens to you or to secure your retirement.

Everyone will get justice instantly no Tareekh pe Tareekh and the justice will be equal for the rich and poor.

There will be no monopoly of business. Where a large multinational comes and take the business of all the small traders and make them go out of business.

If you want to start a business government will provide you interest free loan.

There will no landlords controlling over the farmers. In Islam any land which is open you can go and cultivate it, It will be yours. Nobody can hold a land more than 3 years without cultivating it. If it is the case the land is taken by the government.

There will be no slums in the your state. You don't have to worry about poverty level.

And the most important you will be free to practice your religion.

No burning of Masjids or Churches or Temples. The security of each and every citizen is the responsibility of the government.

There will be no inflation.

There will no interest based banking system.

And many more.

So what you think of a person living under such a government will be in peace or being oppressed.

This type of government was established earlier and can be established.

Does any other form of government give this kind of peace to an individual a common.

So I stand by my claim that establishing the law of Allah will bring peace to the humanity.

Also what you think of a non-Muslim financial contribution to the army in this cause which will bring peace to humanity?

Top post brother, may Allah (SWT) reward you Inshallah.

One can easily see why the Western Elite and their puppets would be opposed to such a political authority, it would expose their tyranny outright and people will flock to Islam almost overnight it would seem! In essence, this is what the Shai'taan & his army on earth fears & hates the most!

 

[shakil]

Again you are linking two entirely different scenarios at two different times of history. Unless you believe in the silly prophecies of the Khilafah bros on this site, what is the relevance of one period to the other? How can you equate a failed shoe bomber or some idiot wearing explosive underpants to a conquering army which swept across the world?

Do you really think it's an accurate perspective?

Anders Brevik

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Anders Brevik

Which means what? Sorry but that's a little too cryptic even for me.

 

[shakil]

Which means what? Sorry but that's a little too cryptic even for me.

Why he did what he did and what does he says? Therein lies your answer.

 

[Saqs]

I think people are confusing or forgetting that, basically after Ali, Muslims haven't really had the most 'pious' rulers.

They were all prone to error, with only a few in there that actually were upright.

This 'romanticism' with past Muslim leaders is the major issue here I would think.

 

[Garuda]

You have come up with many conclusion yourself.

From which statement of mine you came up with this conclusion that If Islamic state is to expand by war it is not following its religion.
What I said that "The rule of Allah has to be established in the land". And to establish that law war is the last resort.

Again from which statement of mine you came up with the conclusion that Jizya is not as per religion. Every law in a Muslim state is in accordance with the religion Islam. If it is conflicting then that law cannot be implemented. Expanding this law for Muslims doesn't make it conflicting with the law of Islam.
What I said that Jizya is an act of showing the loyalty to the state or the ruler. By paying jizya and knowing that it will go to fund the military as war is the extreme case a ruler or government need the service. The war can be to expand (as above is according to Islam) or to defend.
You didn't answer my question that give me any option other than that how a non-Muslim would show his loyalty to the ruler or government in most extreme case which is the war.


Yes I stand firm by my statement Islam is a religion of peace for the humanity.

Did I claim that Islam a peaceful religion or did I claim that Islam is a religion of peace for the humanity, and by establishing law of Allah in the land, peace can be brought to humanity.

It think there is a big difference in both the sentences.

So now lets see how Islam can bring peace to an individual. Would you like to live in a country or under a government which provides you the below

Gives you basic facilities and the availability of basic facilities doesn't depend on how much tax is collected.

Every citizen will get a land by the government to build a house. You don't have to go the bank for loan on interest if required and pay it for 20 years and 25 years, the government will provide you with interest free loan. And if you are unable to pay due to any reason the government can even write off the loan.

You get free education. You don't have to take student loan like in west or any kind of other loan to fund or pay university fees.

A country where you don't have to worry or opt for insurances or life insurances to secure the life of your family in case something happens to you or to secure your retirement.

Everyone will get justice instantly no Tareekh pe Tareekh and the justice will be equal for the rich and poor.

There will be no monopoly of business. Where a large multinational comes and take the business of all the small traders and make them go out of business.

If you want to start a business government will provide you interest free loan.

There will no landlords controlling over the farmers. In Islam any land which is open you can go and cultivate it, It will be yours. Nobody can hold a land more than 3 years without cultivating it. If it is the case the land is taken by the government.

There will be no slums in the your state. You don't have to worry about poverty level.

And the most important you will be free to practice your religion.

No burning of Masjids or Churches or Temples. The security of each and every citizen is the responsibility of the government.

There will be no inflation.

There will no interest based banking system.

And many more.

So what you think of a person living under such a government will be in peace or being oppressed.

This type of government was established earlier and can be established.

Does any other form of government give this kind of peace to an individual a common.

So I stand by my claim that establishing the law of Allah will bring peace to the humanity.

Also what you think of a non-Muslim financial contribution to the army in this cause which will bring peace to humanity?

To make best use of my and your time I will reduce my question to one line.

Do you think spreading or invading to other country (by war) is peaceful ? Yes or No ?

 

[youboy]

To make best use of my and your time I will reduce my question to one line.

Do you think spreading or invading to other country (by war) is peaceful ? Yes or No ?

Your question is valid on my statement. If I say that Islam is a peaceful religion.

But my statement is that "Islam is a religion of peace for the humanity".

To make it understand I make it more simple for you.

Do you think that bringing the humanity in peace and removing a oppressor as a government or ruler, invasion (which is by the way the 3rd and last resort after peaceful invitation after understanding and as per your freewill to accept Islam or come under the rule and pay jizya) is justifiable? The result of which that the oppressed a common person will be in peace for the rest of his or her life? Yes or No.

 

[Garuda]

Your question is valid on my statement. If I say that Islam is a peaceful religion.

So , according to you Islam is NOT a peaceful religion ?

But my statement is that "Islam is a religion of peace for the humanity".

So the peaceful religion advocates invading a country and killing its people even if the people of that country didn't invite you ?

To make it understand I make it more simple for you.

Do you think that bringing the humanity in peace and removing a oppressor as a government or ruler, invasion (which is by the way the 3rd and last resort after peaceful invitation after understanding and as per your freewill to accept Islam or come under the rule and pay jizya) is justifiable? The result of which that the oppressed a common person will be in peace for the rest of his or her life? Yes or No.

First shouldn't it be left to the people to decide if they want any war or not ? Do the Islamic state leave after freeing the oppressed or rule on them?

So, you agree with what USA did in Iraq, libya and Afghanistan as the people were oppressed by some dictators?

Dude, you are just trying to sip from both sides.

Either you take that Islam was spreaded by war and force OR you take the line Islam was not peaceful (the followers atleast). You can not have both sides.

 

[youboy]

So , according to you Islam is NOT a peaceful religion ?

So the peaceful religion advocates invading a country and killing its people even if the people of that country didn't invite you ?

Islam is religion which brings peace to humanity.

Does the invasion involve killing of oppressed people (if that is your understanding than it is wrong) or does the war is between two armies.

First shouldn't it be left to the people to decide if they want any war or not ? Do the Islamic state leave after freeing the oppressed or rule on them?

Yes it was the case that people want war or not. As I said earlier war is the last resort. No Islamic state don't leave after freeing the oppressed they establish a form of government which bring peace to the oppressed people.

So, you agree with what USA did in Iraq, libya and Afghanistan as the people were oppressed by some dictators?

Wow what an example

Did the USA brought peace to the people of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan?

USA is not able to give peace to its own citizens, what we will talk about other countries.

Dude, you are just trying to sip from both sides.

Either you take that Islam was spreaded by war and force OR you take the line Islam was not peaceful (the followers atleast). You can not have both sides.

From which statement of mine you are getting that I am trying to sip from both sides.
Again you are coming back to square won where the discussion started and mixing it with the spreading of Islam as a religion and expansion of Islamic state.
Did the government force the people to convert to Islam. The people who brought examples of sub-continent of force conversion, I have my reservation on the history material they are consulting because subcontinent is the area even after all force conversions as they claim is where the Muslims were minority and combine population are still minority.

 

[amateurdentist]

Why is it so difficult for people to accept the fact that many people accept islam out of their free will?
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the whole world by a huge margin. While people are leaving christianity,hinduism,judaism, people are joining islam despite 9/11. Over the past half a century Islam has grown in followers by 235%. Islam has had more converts now in the past century than the previous 13 centuries combined
Do you think these people accept islam through force? If in the modern world, more people accept islam through their free will, why is it so difficult to believe they didnot do it in the past?

read this. it is interesting
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/14/egypt.islam/

 

[James]

I believe that people at the moment are accepting Islam through free will.

 

[Garuda]

Islam is religion which brings peace to humanity.

Your answering with caveat gave me my answer.

I will not ask again "If Islam is a peaceful religion or not?". You couldn't answer straignt and you know why.

Does the invasion involve killing of oppressed people (if that is your understanding than it is wrong) or does the war is between two armies.

So in a war only army persons get killed? Do you guarrantee that ? No civilian gets killed or affected? You must be joking.

Yes it was the case that people want war or not. As I said earlier war is the last resort. No Islamic state don't leave after freeing the oppressed they establish a form of government which bring peace to the oppressed people.

So Islam believes in imperialim ?

And how is it decided whether ppl want or not ? Does the Indian subcontinent asked the Islamic rulers to come and free them from oppresors ? Can you prove it?

Wow what an example

Did the USA brought peace to the people of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan?

The example was give as its similar to your statement that Islamic states invade other countries to bring peace. USA also says the same thing. So if they bring peace will you validate their attack on muslim countries?

From which statement of mine you are getting that I am trying to sip from both sides.
Again you are coming back to square won where the discussion started and mixing it with the spreading of Islam as a religion and expansion of Islamic state.

No, I am asking the same question. You are trying to avoid answering.

If a state follows a religion which is peaceful but ready to spread its state by war, then either the state is not following religion or the religion is not peaceful.

See, You can not even answer direct question like

IS ISLAM PEACEFUL RELIGION ? YES/NO ?

 

[amateurdentist]

I believe that people at the moment are accepting Islam through free will.

personally I dont believe in spreading muslim political power throughout the world. we dont need it as people will continue to accept islam through their free will. The attraction of Islam will vanish if we invade other countries as people are more nationalistic now then they ever were.

The Prophet was Allah's direct connection to this world. After he died, for 40 years we were ruled by the best four men (in the world) who defined what Islam is through the way they lived and ruled.
After the Assasination of Ali, we were ruled by kings, some were good and some were bad but even the bad ones were always kind to minorities(compared to their counterparts in the west and the east). An example would be Yazid ibn Muawaiya who is considered perhaps the worst muslim ruler of all time BUT the christian people of Syria Loved him just like they loved his father.
It is very important to judge the way Muslims behaved with the ahle-dhimmi by the norms of Their time and not ours because they didnot live in our modern world with our rules. They had different situations to deal with than us.

 

[youboy]

Your answering with caveat gave me my answer.

I will not ask again "If Islam is a peaceful religion or not?". You couldn't answer straignt and you know why.

It is how you understand the sentence. Religion of peace is to bring the humanity under peace and free the oppressed from the oppressor.

So in a war only army persons get killed? Do you guarrantee that ? No civilian gets killed or affected? You must be joking.

Yes Islam doesn't allow any soldier to raise his sword on anyone who doesn't resist by raising a sword himself, There is no concept of carpet bombing.

So Islam believes in imperialim ?

You call it imperialism I call it bringing peace to humanity.

And how is it decided whether ppl want or not ? Does the Indian subcontinent asked the Islamic rulers to come and free them from oppresors ? Can you prove it?

So when you see that someone is being oppressed and is in distress, you will wait for him to call for help or you will go yourself to help him?
No Islam doesn't teach this to a Muslim that only go for help when somebody calls. Islam teaches to take initiative to help the oppressed.

By the way Islamic government under Khilafah didnot expand till subcontinent. It was different armies of Lodhis and then Mughals and others and not under the expansion of Islamic state.

The example was give as its similar to your statement that Islamic states invade other countries to bring peace. USA also says the same thing. So if they bring peace will you validate their attack on muslim countries?

The question arises have they? validating the act is far from it.

Islam did brought peace to the humanity under various Islam rulers and Caliphs

No, I am asking the same question. You are trying to avoid answering.

If a state follows a religion which is peaceful but ready to spread its state by war, then either the state is not following religion or the religion is not peaceful.

See, You can not even answer direct question like

IS ISLAM PEACEFUL RELIGION ? YES/NO ?

Why you want me to answer in a Yes or No to a question which I don't even claim to have said.

My claim is that Islam is a religion of peace for humanity.
And one of its main objective is to bring peace to the humanity.

 

[Garuda]

Why you want me to answer in a Yes or No to a question which I don't even claim to have said.

My claim is that Islam is a religion of peace for humanity.
And one of its main objective is to bring peace to the humanity.

So you can not say Islam is a peaceful religion.
The bolded part gave me my answer. Thank you.

We had a saying in my college.

"Tum karo tho pyaar, hum pare tho balatkaar?"

I would advise you to read more on your religion before doing debate on public forums. You are not doing any justice to Islam.

 

[youboy]

So you can not say Islam is a peaceful religion.
The bolded part gave me my answer. Thank you.

We had a saying in my college.

"Tum karo tho pyaar, hum pare tho balatkaar?"

I would advise you to read more on your religion before doing debate on public forums. You are not doing any justice to Islam.

Lets end the debate in peace.

If you don't accept my version of understanding Islam as a religion of peace, you can be happy with your understanding.

Hamara pyaar sabke saamne hai aur tumhara kya hua balaatkar bhi sabke saamne hai.

So as an opposite debater you have more knowledge of Islam than me as you are able to come to a conclusion that I should read more about my religion.
I will suggest you to read more about Hinduism then you will come to know the mentioning of coming of the last Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) by name and place where he will come in your own
scriptures.

Anyway be in peace.

 

[Garuda]

Lets end the debate in peace.

If you don't accept my version of understanding Islam as a religion of peace, you can be happy with your understanding.

Hamara pyaar sabke saamne hai aur tumhara kya hua balaatkar bhi sabke saamne hai.

So as an opposite debater you have more knowledge of Islam than me as you are able to come to a conclusion that I should read more about my religion.
I will suggest you to read more about Hinduism then you will come to know the mentioning of coming of the last Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) by name and place where he will come in your own
scriptures.

Anyway be in peace.

Sure. Good point to stop it and I guess I have got all my answers

So I will let readers to read the answers and see if it makes sense to them.

 

[the Great Khan]

just a reminder: Islam isnt a religion.

my one pennies worth.

 

[shakil]

just a reminder: Islam isnt a religion.

my one pennies worth.

Yes, Islam is the Religion (You forget R should be capital )

 

[USaqaf]

An amalgamation of several methods.
Initially by the sword through Iran , Maghreb, Spain , India, then through trading in the Malabar through politics in the Malay peninsula and Philippines, through conquest again in Europe and the Caucasus.

 

[James]

Looks like I kicked off a little trend here

Good to see some quality religious discussion on PP again.

 

[Wassixpakistani]

Islam spread by force is of no use , it is conversion by fear rather then by love .

A true momin/muslim is one when his love for The Prophet ( PBUH ) is more then that of his Parents , Siblings , Children , friends etc . Only then will he be able to abide by the laws of Qur'an and live accordingly to Sunnat and find himself closer to Allah .

In my eyes , those who spread Islam through swords or other methods such as trickery are not Muslims .

 

[Black Zero]

okay, then we need to agree on facts first before we can proceed.

I will scan some pages tomorrow for your review.

 

[amateurdentist]

Any tax apart from jizya and kharaj are not islamic. Islam only asks for jizya and kharaj. The fact is as you pointed out in an earlier post jizya was still 5 times less than zakat. Sure there was an outcry at reimposition of jizya, just as there is an outcry at any imposition of a tax; People arent happy at any new tax. But there was no rebellion because of jizya because it was still a very very small amount. (48 dirhams for a person earning 10,000). So I dont know how that can force conversions.
The primary motive was taxation for the expensive wars he was waging. If the primary motive was conversion, surely jizya would be much higher than zakat

 

[Black Zero]

Any tax apart from jizya and kharaj are not islamic. Islam only asks for jizya and kharaj. The fact is as you pointed out in an earlier post jizya was still 5 times less than zakat. Sure there was an outcry at reimposition of jizya, just as there is an outcry at any imposition of a tax; People arent happy at any new tax. But there was no rebellion because of jizya because it was still a very very small amount. (48 dirhams for a person earning 10,000). So I dont know how that can force conversions.
The primary motive was taxation for the expensive wars he was waging. If the primary motive was conversion, surely jizya would be much higher than zakat

This is a historical fact ... you just cannot refute it.
that Jazya forced hindus to convert to muslims..

 

[amateurdentist]

This is a historical fact ... you just cannot refute it.
that Jazya forced hindus to convert to muslims..

Your statement defies logic. Jizya was a minimal tax, much less than any of the taxes muslims had to pay (zakat, Ushr, Khums) therefore how exactly can jizya force people to convert? It is possible that Aurengzeb levied other taxes on his non-muslim subjects which were heavy but they have no basis in Islamic law.
If an able-bodied non-muslim didnot serve in the army he paid jizya. If he served in the army, he didnot pay jizya. If an able bodied muslim didnot serve in the army he paid a war-tax. If he served in the army, he didnot.

History gives us completely different accounts depending on the sources.

For example

There is a british Historian, Alexander Hamilton, who travelled India during the time of Aurengzeb and wrote and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way.

In his book “Mughal Administration,” Sir Jadunath Sarkar foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign in power, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million Rupees from the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not heavy at all, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb)
Sir Jadunath Sarkar served as the Vice Chancellor of the University of Calcutta (1926-28).

 

[insaan]

In his book “Mughal Administration,” Sir Jadunath Sarkar foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign in power, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million Rupees from the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not heavy at all, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb)
Sir Jadunath Sarkar served as the Vice Chancellor of the University of Calcutta (1926-28).

I don't think you should be quoting Jadunath Sarkar to prove your point. In his book, "History of Aurangzib', he mentions how temples were converted into mosques, how women of his opponents were placed in the Mughal harem, and kids were converted, and those who did not were executed.

 

[amateurdentist]

I don't think you should be quoting Jadunath Sarkar to prove your point. In his book, "History of Aurangzib', he mentions how temples were converted into mosques, how women of his opponents were placed in the Mughal harem, and kids were converted, and those who did not were executed.

Yes I am aware he wrote that. But these were standard practices of kings of all faiths at that time. that is how they dealt with the defeated ruling party. You cant tell me that the Hindu rajas and princes were any better

 

[amateurdentist]

one the one hand aurengzeb destoryed temples, on the other hand he built them. Temples at that time were as political as they were religious houses. He destroyed the temples of his enemies and built temples for his allies

 

[shakil]

Any tax apart from jizya and kharaj are not islamic. Islam only asks for jizya and kharaj. The fact is as you pointed out in an earlier post jizya was still 5 times less than zakat. Sure there was an outcry at reimposition of jizya, just as there is an outcry at any imposition of a tax; People arent happy at any new tax. But there was no rebellion because of jizya because it was still a very very small amount. (48 dirhams for a person earning 10,000). So I dont know how that can force conversions.
The primary motive was taxation for the expensive wars he was waging. If the primary motive was conversion, surely jizya would be much higher than zakat

The think comparing Jizya and Zakat tax is a little unfair. Zakat is only obligated on people who are rich but Jizya is required from every able bodied person. Big difference!

 

[amateurdentist]

The think comparing Jizya and Zakat tax is a little unfair. Zakat is only obligated on people who are rich but Jizya is required from every able bodied person. Big difference!

Jizya was not obligated on the poor. Those who had any means of income and were able-bodied males paid, and those who had no means of income didnot pay jizya
Ok. how about this.
If an able-bodied non-muslim didnot serve in the army he paid jizya. If he served in the army, he didnot pay jizya. If an able bodied muslim didnot serve in the army he paid a war-tax. If he served in the army, he didnot.


Historical accounts may differ due to the various bias of the person writing the account. But the facts of jizya are there. Based on 1-the amount charged per person 2-Similar taxation on non-combatant Muslims, it defies logic that Jizya was a tool to forcefully convert people to Islam

In fact, The Ummayyad Dynasty (The first ruling dynasty of the Islamic Empire) used jizya to reduce the conversions of people into Islam!

 

[amateurdentist]

^
Yeah
I disagree with him on his last statement. Every thing else he said is right. You do know he is a Salafi. Approximately less than 1% of muslims are salafi

The scholars of Al-Azhar University, which is the foremost university of Sunni Islam do not agree with his last statement

 

[Garuda]

Jizya was not obligated on the poor. Those who had any means of income and were able-bodied males paid, and those who had no means of income didnot pay jizya
Ok. how about this.
If an able-bodied non-muslim didnot serve in the army he paid jizya. If he served in the army, he didnot pay jizya. If an able bodied muslim didnot serve in the army he paid a war-tax. If he served in the army, he didnot.


Historical accounts may differ due to the various bias of the person writing the account. But the facts of jizya are there. Based on 1-the amount charged per person 2-Similar taxation on non-combatant Muslims, it defies logic that Jizya was a tool to forcefully convert people to Islam

In fact, The Ummayyad Dynasty (The first ruling dynasty of the Islamic Empire) used jizya to reduce the conversions of people into Islam!

Can you give any reference to this ? I have been searching for sometime but everywhere it says that Jizya were taxed on non-muslims.

I am yet to see anywhere it says that it was also levied on muslims too.

 

[shakil]

Jizya was not obligated on the poor.

Not for extremely poor but obligated on people who earn some money. There is no nisaab like 2.5Kg gold for Muslims. Also Zakat only benefits the Muslims

Those who had any means of income and were able-bodied males paid, and those who had no means of income didnot pay jizya

Correct. Able bodied males.

Ok. how about this.
If an able-bodied non-muslim didnot serve in the army he paid jizya. If he served in the army, he didnot pay jizya. If an able bodied muslim didnot serve in the army he paid a war-tax. If he served in the army, he didnot.

As far as I know Muslims pay only Zakat and Kharaj (if they have irrigable land). Also Muslims are obligated to fight only defensive jihad.

 

[insaan]

Yes I am aware he wrote that. But these were standard practices of kings of all faiths at that time. that is how they dealt with the defeated ruling party. You cant tell me that the Hindu rajas and princes were any better

It is not the Hindu Muslim angle. It is about Aurangzeb. There were other Muslim rulers who were loved by the their non Muslim subjects.

I havent followed this thread closely, but it seems you are defending Aurangzeb. What Islam says and what Muslim rulers practiced are two separate things. It is very difficult for me to imagine that they followed the letter and spirit of Islam. I cannot believe that force was not used for conversion. How much of it was used can be a point of debate, not whether it was used. I am aware that the majority of Muslims from Bengal ,Bihar, UP to Delhi was the result of Sufi saints. But to say that force was not used, when anti-Hindu policies of Aurangzeb in particular are mentioned by historians, is stretching it a bit.

 

[amateurdentist]

It is not the Hindu Muslim angle. It is about Aurangzeb. There were other Muslim rulers who were loved by the their non Muslim subjects.

I havent followed this thread closely, but it seems you are defending Aurangzeb. What Islam says and what Muslim rulers practiced are two separate things. It is very difficult for me to imagine that they followed the letter and spirit of Islam. I cannot believe that force was not used for conversion. How much of it was used can be a point of debate, not whether it was used. I am aware that the majority of Muslims from Bengal ,Bihar, UP to Delhi was the result of Sufi saints. But to say that force was not used, when anti-Hindu policies of Aurangzeb in particular are mentioned by historians, is stretching it a bit.

I am not defending aurengzeb. He was a worldly king and not an ideal muslim ruler. As you correctly point out, there were many other muslim rulers of india who were loved by all of their subjects and I did mention it earlier in the thread. However certain individuals in this thread are assuming that Aurengzeb was a typical muslim king, and majority of hindus were forced to convert to islam during his reign and that is the only way Islam spread in the subcontinent.

My views on Aurengzeb are that he was both good and bad in equal measures. He certainly taxed his subjects (especially non-muslims) heavily to fund his wars. But jizya was not the main tax and neither was it a tool for conversion. Certainly other heavy taxes may have been imposed to convert the people, but jizya was not one of them

History is conflicted on Aurengzeb. There are opposing accounts about his deeds. I said earlier in the thread, that if he forced people to convert to Islam, that was unislamic and a sin on his part. BUT people here are only focusing on the anti-Aurengzeb accounts and ignoring those praising his actions

 

[amateurdentist]

Can you give any reference to this ? I have been searching for sometime but everywhere it says that Jizya were taxed on non-muslims.

I am yet to see anywhere it says that it was also levied on muslims too.

This war tax was not jizya. This was a common tax placed on muslims. If you donot fight in the army and you are an able-bodied wealthy muslim, you are supposed to pay a tax to the army in lieu of military service. It was not called Jizya because, Jizya is only placed on a conquered people acknowledging their subjugation to the state.

 

[amateurdentist]

Question
Does the koran teach to kill, tax or convert infidels as a general principle? Also does the Koran teach that in the last day trees will cry out there is a Jew behind me come and kill him?
Answered by Ustadha Zaynab Ansari, SunniPath Academy Teacher

Answer:
In the Name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.

Dear Brother,

The short answer is no.

The Qur'an does not teach that "infidels" should be killed, taxed, or converted as a matter of principle.

The answer to your next question is also no. Actually, this is a saying, or hadith, attributed to the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace. Scholars differ over the interpretation of this saying. However, the best method of understanding this hadith is to look at the biography of the Prophet, peace be upon him. When he established the first Islamic state in Medina, he regarded the Jews as allies, and concluded a treaty with them. Only when they violated the treaty and sided with the Muslims' enemies did the Prophet change his policy toward them. It is possible that this hadith is a reflection of the tensions between Muslims and Jews in Medina. However, bear in mind that Islam accords special status to both Christians and Jews, as we will see later.

First, let's look at where these statements come from. These are common stereotypes about Islam. People who don't understand the religion like to toss around the accusation that the Qur'an teaches violence and anti-semitism. Unfortunately, a lot of people who buy into these misconceptions have distinctly Islamophobic agendas that preclude them from having any positive views of Islam.

Islam is a fourteen-hundred years old way of life. One simply can't take the scripture of Islam, which is the Qur'an (also spelled Koran), and make sweeping generalizations about the religion, particularly when one lacks the qualifications to interpret the Qur'an.

The Qur'an makes reference to different groups of non-Muslims. First, the Qur'an recognizes the natural diversity of humanity, "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)." (Qu'ran, 49:13)

There is also the recognition that human beings are religiously and ethnically diverse, "For, had God so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community; however, He lets go astray him that wills [to go astray], and guides aright him that wills [to be guided]; and you will surely be called to account for all that you ever did!" (Qur'an, 16:93)

What then does the Qur'an say about "infidels?" First, what does the term infidel mean? It is not a Qur'anic term. It is a term that Christians have historically applied to non-Christians, particularly Muslims. Christian doctrine simply did not recognize the legitimacy of Islam. Hence, Muslims were "infidels," and usually placed in the same category as "pagans" and "savages."

The Qur'an speaks of "kuffar," or those who disbelieve, or cover up the truth, or deny the truth of God and His messengers. However, it is incorrect to translate "kafir" as infidel. The Qur'an also does not label all non-Muslims as kuffar, or unbelievers.

The Qur'an talks about a group of non-Muslims called "Ahl al-Kitab," or People of Scripture. These are people who have received divine revelation, particularly Christians and Jews. Therefore, the Qur'an automatically recognizes previous Abrahamic faiths and accords special status to the adherents of Christianity and Judaism. What is ironic is that Christian and Jewish doctrine makes no provision for the recognition of Islam; however, Islam recognizes both Christianity and Judaism as divinely-revealed religions. But it is Islam that is always accused of intolerance!

The Qur'an is the culmination of the Abrahamic tradition. Thus, Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the completion of God's message to humanity. Muslims also believe that the Qur'an has been preserved in its original form since its revelation over 1400 years ago. Unlike the Bible, the Qur'an has not been altered by human hands. For Muslims, this is a miracle and proof of God's concern for humanity.

Let's look at one of the most misunderstood passages of the Qur'an:

"And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out..."

Most people usually only quote the first part.

Here's the entire passage:

"And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the reward of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors." (Qur'an, 2:190-192)

Let's look at the interpretation of the above verses. First, examine the historical context. These verses were revealed at a time when Islam was under siege, when the small Muslim community was fighting for its very existence against powerful polytheists. The biography of the Prophet Muhammad, Allah bless him and give him peace, makes it very clear that the Prophet preached peacefully for the first 13 years of his mission. He left Mecca for Medina to make a new start. Even when the polytheists in Mecca were persecuting Muslims and looting their houses, the Prophet hesitated to fight. He only took up arms when God gave him permission:

"Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them." (Qur'an, 22:39)

The first battles the Muslims waged were in self-defense. They were disciplined and adhered to strict codes of conduct. Noncombatants, including women and children were not targeted. Furthermore, the Muslims avoided destroying property, livestock, and trees.

Even as Islam spread beyond the borders of Arabia into the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires (Syria and Persia), non-Muslims were accorded certain rights. If they accepted the authority of the new Islamic government, then treaties were concluded and the non-Muslims paid a special tax, called a jizya. The options were not convert, die, or pay the tax. Instead, non-Muslims were allowed to practice their own religions and maintain their own institutions. In lieu of converting to Islam, they paid the jizya, or poll tax. This tax exempted them from military service and gave them special status under the Islamic system. Many non-Muslims actually welcomed Muslim rule, knowing that they had certain rights under the new system. In fact, some Muslim rulers actually discouraged conversion, because they preferred collecting the poll tax. This tribute system was very compatible with the political economy of the premodern world.

Islam could not have had the huge appeal it did if Muslims' first response was to kill "infidels." Within one hundred years of the Prophet's death, Islam had spread from Spain in the West to China in the East. Islam's initial spread was through political-military means. However, Muslim rulers usually insured that local populations could practice their own religions and have their own institutions, provided they accepted Muslim rule and paid their taxes. Muslims ruled places like the Indian subcontinent for centuries and did not forcibly convert the population. In fact, India remained majority Hindu under Muslim rule.

The Ottomans created a multi-confessional, multi-ethnic millet system where Muslims, Christian, and Jews lived together in peace. In fact, the Ottomans' elite military corp, the Janissaries, were predominantly Christian.

Islam's tolerance, and indeed welcoming, of other religions flourished in places like Spain, where Muslims cultivated an atmosphere of learning, scholarship, and art. Christians flocked to study in the universities of Muslim Spain.

Consider this:

In the Catholic Reconquista of Muslim Spain, Muslim and Spanish Jews were generally ordered to convert to Christianity, be expelled, or die.

When the Spanish Jews fled the Catholics, where did they go? They sought refuge with the Ottoman Muslims in Istanbul. This was in the 15th century. To this day, there is a Jewish quarter in Istanbul where the people still speak Spanish, descendants of the Spanish Jews who found a home with the Muslims!

Let's go back to the Qur'an:

The Qur'an says, "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah (God) and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." (Qur'an, 2:62)

And, the Qur'an also states, "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." (Qur'an, 2:256)

Today, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Today, as yesterday, and in centuries past, Islam speaks to people's hearts with the beautiful message that There is no god but God and Muhammad is His Messenger.

This is a message that has inspired countless believers from all walks of life, a religion followed by over 1.5 billion human beings the world over, including my own family, who were raised as Christians, but discovered the beauty of Islam over three decades ago.

May Allah guide us all.

And Allah knows best.


http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?CATE=1426&HD=7&ID=9801

 

[Garuda]

This war tax was not jizya. This was a common tax placed on muslims. If you donot fight in the army and you are an able-bodied wealthy muslim, you are supposed to pay a tax to the army in lieu of military service. It was not called Jizya because, Jizya is only placed on a conquered people acknowledging their subjugation to the state.

So Jizya was only on Non-Muslims ?

Cuz, in this forum a lot of posters (muslims) are giving conflicting information. Youboy (?) kept saying that Jizya is actually a Tax if you are not serving for Army and that is applied to both muslims and non-muslims.

As per your post, it seems Jijya and War tax are same thing but called differently if its on a muslim or non-muslim. You also saying the same thing that if you serve army then you do not pay else you pay (Jizya or WAR Tax). Why is it called two different names then depending on religion if its doing the same thing?

 

[amateurdentist]

Question
Does the koran teach to kill, tax or convert infidels as a general principle? Also does the Koran teach that in the last day trees will cry out there is a Jew behind me come and kill him?
Answered by Ustadha Zaynab Ansari, SunniPath Academy Teacher

Answer:
In the Name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.

Dear Brother,

The short answer is no.

The Qur'an does not teach that "infidels" should be killed, taxed, or converted as a matter of principle.

The answer to your next question is also no. Actually, this is a saying, or hadith, attributed to the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace. Scholars differ over the interpretation of this saying. However, the best method of understanding this hadith is to look at the biography of the Prophet, peace be upon him. When he established the first Islamic state in Medina, he regarded the Jews as allies, and concluded a treaty with them. Only when they violated the treaty and sided with the Muslims' enemies did the Prophet change his policy toward them. It is possible that this hadith is a reflection of the tensions between Muslims and Jews in Medina. However, bear in mind that Islam accords special status to both Christians and Jews, as we will see later.

First, let's look at where these statements come from. These are common stereotypes about Islam. People who don't understand the religion like to toss around the accusation that the Qur'an teaches violence and anti-semitism. Unfortunately, a lot of people who buy into these misconceptions have distinctly Islamophobic agendas that preclude them from having any positive views of Islam.

Islam is a fourteen-hundred years old way of life. One simply can't take the scripture of Islam, which is the Qur'an (also spelled Koran), and make sweeping generalizations about the religion, particularly when one lacks the qualifications to interpret the Qur'an.

The Qur'an makes reference to different groups of non-Muslims. First, the Qur'an recognizes the natural diversity of humanity, "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)." (Qu'ran, 49:13)

There is also the recognition that human beings are religiously and ethnically diverse, "For, had God so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community; however, He lets go astray him that wills [to go astray], and guides aright him that wills [to be guided]; and you will surely be called to account for all that you ever did!" (Qur'an, 16:93)

What then does the Qur'an say about "infidels?" First, what does the term infidel mean? It is not a Qur'anic term. It is a term that Christians have historically applied to non-Christians, particularly Muslims. Christian doctrine simply did not recognize the legitimacy of Islam. Hence, Muslims were "infidels," and usually placed in the same category as "pagans" and "savages."

The Qur'an speaks of "kuffar," or those who disbelieve, or cover up the truth, or deny the truth of God and His messengers. However, it is incorrect to translate "kafir" as infidel. The Qur'an also does not label all non-Muslims as kuffar, or unbelievers.

The Qur'an talks about a group of non-Muslims called "Ahl al-Kitab," or People of Scripture. These are people who have received divine revelation, particularly Christians and Jews. Therefore, the Qur'an automatically recognizes previous Abrahamic faiths and accords special status to the adherents of Christianity and Judaism. What is ironic is that Christian and Jewish doctrine makes no provision for the recognition of Islam; however, Islam recognizes both Christianity and Judaism as divinely-revealed religions. But it is Islam that is always accused of intolerance!

The Qur'an is the culmination of the Abrahamic tradition. Thus, Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the completion of God's message to humanity. Muslims also believe that the Qur'an has been preserved in its original form since its revelation over 1400 years ago. Unlike the Bible, the Qur'an has not been altered by human hands. For Muslims, this is a miracle and proof of God's concern for humanity.

Let's look at one of the most misunderstood passages of the Qur'an:

"And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out..."

Most people usually only quote the first part.

Here's the entire passage:

"And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the reward of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors." (Qur'an, 2:190-192)

Let's look at the interpretation of the above verses. First, examine the historical context. These verses were revealed at a time when Islam was under siege, when the small Muslim community was fighting for its very existence against powerful polytheists. The biography of the Prophet Muhammad, Allah bless him and give him peace, makes it very clear that the Prophet preached peacefully for the first 13 years of his mission. He left Mecca for Medina to make a new start. Even when the polytheists in Mecca were persecuting Muslims and looting their houses, the Prophet hesitated to fight. He only took up arms when God gave him permission:

"Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them." (Qur'an, 22:39)

The first battles the Muslims waged were in self-defense. They were disciplined and adhered to strict codes of conduct. Noncombatants, including women and children were not targeted. Furthermore, the Muslims avoided destroying property, livestock, and trees.

Even as Islam spread beyond the borders of Arabia into the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires (Syria and Persia), non-Muslims were accorded certain rights. If they accepted the authority of the new Islamic government, then treaties were concluded and the non-Muslims paid a special tax, called a jizya. The options were not convert, die, or pay the tax. Instead, non-Muslims were allowed to practice their own religions and maintain their own institutions. In lieu of converting to Islam, they paid the jizya, or poll tax. This tax exempted them from military service and gave them special status under the Islamic system. Many non-Muslims actually welcomed Muslim rule, knowing that they had certain rights under the new system. In fact, some Muslim rulers actually discouraged conversion, because they preferred collecting the poll tax. This tribute system was very compatible with the political economy of the premodern world.

Islam could not have had the huge appeal it did if Muslims' first response was to kill "infidels." Within one hundred years of the Prophet's death, Islam had spread from Spain in the West to China in the East. Islam's initial spread was through political-military means. However, Muslim rulers usually insured that local populations could practice their own religions and have their own institutions, provided they accepted Muslim rule and paid their taxes. Muslims ruled places like the Indian subcontinent for centuries and did not forcibly convert the population. In fact, India remained majority Hindu under Muslim rule.

The Ottomans created a multi-confessional, multi-ethnic millet system where Muslims, Christian, and Jews lived together in peace. In fact, the Ottomans' elite military corp, the Janissaries, were predominantly Christian.

Islam's tolerance, and indeed welcoming, of other religions flourished in places like Spain, where Muslims cultivated an atmosphere of learning, scholarship, and art. Christians flocked to study in the universities of Muslim Spain.

Consider this:

In the Catholic Reconquista of Muslim Spain, Muslim and Spanish Jews were generally ordered to convert to Christianity, be expelled, or die.

When the Spanish Jews fled the Catholics, where did they go? They sought refuge with the Ottoman Muslims in Istanbul. This was in the 15th century. To this day, there is a Jewish quarter in Istanbul where the people still speak Spanish, descendants of the Spanish Jews who found a home with the Muslims!

Let's go back to the Qur'an:

The Qur'an says, "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah (God) and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." (Qur'an, 2: 62)

And, the Qur'an also states, "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." (Qur'an, 2:256)

Today, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Today, as yesterday, and in centuries past, Islam speaks to people's hearts with the beautiful message that There is no god but God and Muhammad is His Messenger.

This is a message that has inspired countless believers from all walks of life, a religion followed by over 1.5 billion human beings the world over, including my own family, who were raised as Christians, but discovered the beauty of Islam over three decades ago.

May Allah guide us all.

And Allah knows best.


http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?CATE=1426&HD=7&ID=9801

 

[Garuda]

This war tax was not jizya. This was a common tax placed on muslims. If you donot fight in the army and you are an able-bodied wealthy muslim, you are supposed to pay a tax to the army in lieu of military service. It was not called Jizya because, Jizya is only placed on a conquered people acknowledging their subjugation to the state.

So Jizya was only on Non-Muslims ?

Cuz, in this forum a lot of posters (muslims) are giving conflicting information. Youboy (?) kept saying that Jizya is actually a Tax if you are not serving for Army and that is applied to both muslims and non-muslims.

As per your post, it seems Jijya and War tax are same thing but called differently if its on a muslim or non-muslim. You also saying the same thing that if you serve army then you do not pay else you pay (Jizya or WAR Tax). Why is it called two different names then depending on religion if its doing the same thing?

 

[amateurdentist]

So Jizya was only on Non-Muslims ?

Cuz, in this forum a lot of posters (muslims) are giving conflicting information. Youboy (?) kept saying that Jizya is actually a Tax if you are not serving for Army and that is applied to both muslims and non-muslims.

As per your post, it seems Jijya and War tax are same thing but called differently if its on a muslim or non-muslim. You also saying the same thing that if you serve army then you do not pay else you pay (Jizya or WAR Tax). Why is it called two different names then depending on religion if its doing the same thing?

The scholars of Islam differ on this.
Some believe it was only levied on non-muslims.
Others believe it was levied on both non-muslims and muslims who chose not to join the army.

What they agree on is that Jizya was a tax on conquered people acknowledging subjugation to the state.

In practice, Jizya was paid by non-muslims,
while muslims paid a war-tax. In some muslim states it was collectively known as jizya while in other states these taxes were separate

 

[Garuda]

The scholars of Islam differ on this.
Some believe it was only levied on non-muslims.
Others believe it was levied on both non-muslims and muslims who chose not to join the army.

What they agree on is that Jizya was a tax on conquered people acknowledging subjugation to the state.

In practice, Jizya was paid by non-muslims,
while muslims paid a war-tax. In some muslim states it was collectively known as jizya while in other states these taxes were separate

And exactly why it is confusing.

Even your post is full of yes this and yes that. Everyone is trying to bend it to their own argument and no one has clear view on what exactly it was.

The bolded part mentioned by you validates why I do not see any difference between the two.

But anyway, thanks for your info.

 

[amateurdentist]

And exactly why it is confusing.

Even your post is full of yes this and yes that. Everyone is trying to bend it to their own argument and no one has clear view on what exactly it was.

The bolded part mentioned by you validates why I do not see any difference between the two.

But anyway, thanks for your info.

It is confusing because our scholars hold different opinions on the matter. Some muslims agree with one group, while others follow another.

The reason why you find different replies by different posters here is that we, as muslims are supposed to use reason when dealing with various issues.

The Quran tells us:
Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not use reason.

Therefore due to practicality and different times and situations, almost every muslim empire had certain differences in their implementation of Jizya

 

[Lalafied]

It must be made crystal clear that we first utilize diplomatic means to do Dawah, war is the last resort to establish Islamic Rule.

And unlike our enemies, we don't play games, we come straight at you with our agenda. We don't launch covert wars, we don't plant spy agencies etc.

Anyhow as I've mentioned before, I can't realistically envision a war to establish Islamic Rule because Khilafah in Muslim lands will serve as the biggest Dawah to Non-Muslim states & their citizens. When people see with their own eyes a model of true socio-economic & political justice, it'll be an overwhelming proof of Islam's ability to lead mankind. This scenario of course doesn't take into account the prophecies regarding wars in of End of Time era of the Mahdi, Isa (AS) and Dajjal.

 

[insaan]

I am not defending aurengzeb. He was a worldly king and not an ideal muslim ruler. As you correctly point out, there were many other muslim rulers of india who were loved by all of their subjects and I did mention it earlier in the thread. However certain individuals in this thread are assuming that Aurengzeb was a typical muslim king, and majority of hindus were forced to convert to islam during his reign and that is the only way Islam spread in the subcontinent.

I agree that he was not an ideal Muslim ruler. History is often given religious colour by revisionists. But it was not so black and white then. Maharana Pratap and Shivaji, who are shown as Hindu kings who fought against Muslim oppression, had Muslim soldiers fighting for them. Likewise there were Hindu kings who were allies of Muslim rulers. Aurangzeb attacked other Muslim kingdoms himself, so it was not like he was not shedding the blood of Muslims. I see that period as less of a Hindu Muslim conflict, and more of struggle for dominance between Turks, Afghans, Mughals, Rajputs, Marathas etc. with religion being used wherever it was convenient.

I agree (and I also agree that whether I agree or disagree doesn't make it true or false, for I have limited knowledge), that there were many factors for conversion. Lower castes finding it attractive that they would be equals in the new religion, teaching of peace and tolerance by Sufis, or the pride of identifying with the religion of the rulers, escaping death after losing the battle, political and economic reasons and due to fear. How much each factor was responsible for will be a futile debate, for it is difficult to get accurate data and history often has the subjective interpretation of the historian.

My views on Aurengzeb are that he was both good and bad in equal measures. He certainly taxed his subjects (especially non-muslims) heavily to fund his wars. But jizya was not the main tax and neither was it a tool for conversion. Certainly other heavy taxes may have been imposed to convert the people, but jizya was not one of them

I find him more evil than good. It is true that we must not judge historical events from present day values, but killing your own brothers and imprisoning your father is a timeless evil. I have read more accounts of him demolishing Hindu temples, than any other ruler. He himself admitted his guilt in his last few years when he became pious. No respect for him at all. And not because of his religion.

History is conflicted on Aurengzeb. There are opposing accounts about his deeds. I said earlier in the thread, that if he forced people to convert to Islam, that was unislamic and a sin on his part. BUT people here are only focusing on the anti-Aurengzeb accounts and ignoring those praising his actions

As I said, that people try to interpret history according to their own vantage points. It is wrong, and leads to more conflicts. The Babri Masjid demolition is an example of what this mentality can lead to. So while I disagree with those Hindus who see the medieval era as a Hindu Muslim conflict, and a dark period in Hindu history, I have the same contempt for those Muslims take pride in the "Muslim" rule, as see it as their golden period. This mentality only leads to conflicts. BTW, I don't care if Pakistanis see it as an era of Muslim rule over Hindus, I am only concerned about how Indian Hindus and Muslims see that past, in two contrasting colours. But just to make a point, I remember that in one of your posts you said that you are happy as a Pakistani because now you dont have to live under "Hindu tyranny". So if certain acts by Hindus can make you hold such an opinion, can you fault those who see history in the same light and hold "Muslims" responsible for their historical oppression?

 

[Garuda]

It is confusing because our scholars hold different opinions on the matter. Some muslims agree with one group, while others follow another.

The reason why you find different replies by different posters here is that we, as muslims are supposed to use reason when dealing with various issues.

The Quran tells us:
Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not use reason.

Therefore due to practicality and different times and situations, almost every muslim empire had certain differences in their implementation of Jizya

Yah, I think it could be pretty much this.

And I agree, the rulers might have used this differently according to their own need in different times.

 

[Garuda]

because todays muslims are a pathetic people.
We are asleep to extremists just as we are asleep to the issues of corrupt non-independant governments, plight of minorities in our lands and plight of muslims in other lands.
Golimar do you honestly believe that Muslims actually support these extremist groups? I personally during my interactions with pakistanis here have found that they view mullahs and extremists very negatively.
Hizbu Tahrir is a fringe minority group lacking major support in the British Muslim Community.
These groups are funded by the Saudi Monarchy and the funny thing is that this monarchy is a major ally of the "free world" and is oppressing its own people who are sunni muslims!

Alqaeda has killed more muslims that non-muslims. Do you deny this fact? Taliban oppresses muslims. Unless we muslims realize this and squash these parasites, just as our ancestors squashed the Kharijites(extremist muslims) we will not progress. But do not blame Islam because Islam is not responsible. Blame the Muslims who are ignorant of the harms of extremism

I have the same view from my experience. I have never seen any muslim (Even Pakistanis) who ever supported extremism (apart from some on Internet forums).

However, one thing I have a problem with muslims in general on this topic is,

1. They hardly oppose their religion being misused by extremist.
2. There will be huge reaction on a amature film, a cartoon or a book. But hardly any reaction from muslim world on a minority minister being shot.
3. If muslims take their religion as part of their life, it is also their duty to stand with rest of the world to oppose extremists misusing it.


But most of the times, I see a codemn with a "BUT" attached to it.

 

[amateurdentist]

I agree that he was not an ideal Muslim ruler. History is often given religious colour by revisionists. But it was not so black and white then. Maharana Pratap and Shivaji, who are shown as Hindu kings who fought against Muslim oppression, had Muslim soldiers fighting for them. Likewise there were Hindu kings who were allies of Muslim rulers. Aurangzeb attacked other Muslim kingdoms himself, so it was not like he was not shedding the blood of Muslims. I see that period as less of a Hindu Muslim conflict, and more of struggle for dominance between Turks, Afghans, Mughals, Rajputs, Marathas etc. with religion being used wherever it was convenient.

I agree (and I also agree that whether I agree or disagree doesn't make it true or false, for I have limited knowledge), that there were many factors for conversion. Lower castes finding it attractive that they would be equals in the new religion, teaching of peace and tolerance by Sufis, or the pride of identifying with the religion of the rulers, escaping death after losing the battle, political and economic reasons and due to fear. How much each factor was responsible for will be a futile debate, for it is difficult to get accurate data and history often has the subjective interpretation of the historian.



I find him more evil than good. It is true that we must not judge historical events from present day values, but killing your own brothers and imprisoning your father is a timeless evil. I have read more accounts of him demolishing Hindu temples, than any other ruler. He himself admitted his guilt in his last few years when he became pious. No respect for him at all. And not because of his religion.



As I said, that people try to interpret history according to their own vantage points. It is wrong, and leads to more conflicts. The Babri Masjid demolition is an example of what this mentality can lead to. So while I disagree with those Hindus who see the medieval era as a Hindu Muslim conflict, and a dark period in Hindu history, I have the same contempt for those Muslims take pride in the "Muslim" rule, as see it as their golden period. This mentality only leads to conflicts. BTW, I don't care if Pakistanis see it as an era of Muslim rule over Hindus, I am only concerned about how Indian Hindus and Muslims see that past, in two contrasting colours. But just to make a point, I remember that in one of your posts you said that you are happy as a Pakistani because now you dont have to live under "Hindu tyranny". So if certain acts by Hindus can make you hold such an opinion, can you fault those who see history in the same light and hold "Muslims" responsible for their historical oppression?

Living under the hindu tyranny was a major concern for muslims of that era(partition). I was schooled almost every time we discussed history, by my father of the very real fear that muslims felt at that time of being simply marginalized by the hindus.
I feel that it was an adequate response to some posters questioning the existence of pakistan. Hindsight is always easy but at that TIME this fear was real.

Agree with the rest of your post. Brilliantly said

 

[Lalafied]

because todays muslims are a pathetic people.
We are asleep to extremists just as we are asleep to the issues of corrupt non-independant governments, plight of minorities in our lands and plight of muslims in other lands.
Golimar do you honestly believe that Muslims actually support these extremist groups? I personally during my interactions with pakistanis here have found that they view mullahs and extremists very negatively.
Hizbu Tahrir is a fringe minority group lacking major support in the British Muslim Community.
These groups are funded by the Saudi Monarchy and the funny thing is that this monarchy is a major ally of the "free world" and is oppressing its own people who are sunni muslims!

Alqaeda has killed more muslims that non-muslims. Do you deny this fact? Taliban oppresses muslims. Unless we muslims realize this and squash these parasites, just as our ancestors squashed the Kharijites(extremist muslims) we will not progress. But do not blame Islam because Islam is not responsible. Blame the Muslims who are ignorant of the harms of extremism

Wanting Rule of Allah (SWT) to be established doesn't make you an extremist. You are trying to appease a troll with an agenda to slander Islam. I don't know how this tool is still not banned from PP. And for your info, Hizb ut Tahrir is not funded by House of Saud.

 

[amateurdentist]

I have the same view from my experience. I have never seen any muslim (Even Pakistanis) who ever supported extremism (apart from some on Internet forums).

However, one thing I have a problem with muslims in general on this topic is,

1. They hardly oppose their religion being misused by extremist.
2. There will be huge reaction on a amature film, a cartoon or a book. But hardly any reaction from muslim world on a minority minister being shot.
3. If muslims take their religion as part of their life, it is also their duty to stand with rest of the world to oppose extremists misusing it.


But most of the times, I see a codemn with a "BUT" attached to it.

Garuda it is important we dont lump all of these groups together. I largely support Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad in Gaza as these are legitimate resistance groups.

I agree with your points 1 and 2. Really dissapointed with the reaction of the muslims to the film.
about point 3, you have to realize that we muslims are already apathic to our leaders, corruption, oppression in our countries therefore it is not surprizing that we dont really speak out against extremists. sometimes these extremists are fighting forces which are equally despicable to us eg nato in iraq and afghanistan

but i agree there is a degree of hypocrisy in muslims on certain issues( no condemnation of killing of shabaz Bhatti )

 

[amateurdentist]

Wanting Rule of Allah (SWT) to be established doesn't make you an extremist. You are trying to appease a troll with an agenda to slander Islam. I don't know how this tool is still not banned from PP. And for your info, Hizb ut Tahrir is not funded by House of Saud.

First look after the hundreds of millions of oppressed muslims in the muslim ummah before seeking to convert others. that is my opinion.

If taliban and alqaeda are a part of your jihad for a caliphate, then i am never going to be a part of it.

EDIT: Caliphate was a political office. It wasnt a religious one. We havent had a true Khalifa since Umar II. So exactly what tupe of caliphate are we muslims supposed to establish now? and we have bigger problems to deal with including the greater jihad which is more important than the lesser jihad

 

[Garuda]

Garuda it is important we dont lump all of these groups together. I largely support Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad in Gaza as these are legitimate resistance groups.

I agree with your points 1 and 2. Really dissapointed with the reaction of the muslims to the film.
about point 3, you have to realize that we muslims are already apathic to our leaders, corruption, oppression in our countries therefore it is not surprizing that we dont really speak out against extremists. sometimes these extremists are fighting forces which are equally despicable to us eg nato in iraq and afghanistan

but i agree there is a degree of hypocrisy in muslims on certain issues( no condemnation of killing of shabaz Bhatti )

Honestly, I do not consider them as extremism. Even the local Kashmir protests are not extremism.

They are fighting for their freedom and its more of political reason.

Extremism for me is using (or better say bending) religion to achive political agenda and play a us vs them to gain power. I do not consider extremist leaders are really worrying about their religion. They are just twisting the religion to fool stupid followers and gain more power for themselves.

So you get what I mean by extremism.

Afghanistan fighting Russians is not. Hamas fighting freedom is not. Kashmiris fighting for their freedom is not.

I don't need to give examples of extremism, you are smart enough to know as we have enough examples in last decade.

 

[amateurdentist]

those extremists have killed more muslims than non-muslims. they are our enemies for 2 main reasons
1) killing any muslim who doesnt agree with their views
2) Abusing the noble religion of Islam

 

[Garuda]

those extremists have killed more muslims than non-muslims. they are our enemies for 2 main reasons
1) killing any muslim who doesnt agree with their views
2) Abusing the noble religion of Islam

I have never seen anyone condemning them so clearly like your post here.

Everytime someone condemn them they cover it with a reason for their action.

I think this is what is needed by muslims more to stop any non-muslims associate muslims with extremism.

 

[the Great Khan]

I have never seen anyone condemning them so clearly like your post here.

Everytime someone condemn them they cover it with a reason for their action.

I think this is what is needed by muslims more to stop any non-muslims associate muslims with extremism.

all of our major scholars have done so..sometimes non-muslims fail to listen..

its is condemned by the prophet PBUH himself..waht more do you want?? if you still continue to associate extremism like this with mainstream Islam then that shows a weakness and bias in you.

 

[Lalafied]

First look after the hundreds of millions of oppressed muslims in the muslim ummah before seeking to convert others. that is my opinion.

If taliban and alqaeda are a part of your jihad for a caliphate, then i am never going to be a part of it.

Yes, priority for the Caliph will be to first sort out the matters of Muslim Ummah and it'll start with uprooting the stranglehold of America & its allies in our lands which is the cause of oppression. I only support Afghan Taliban in their jihad against American military. TTP & Al Qaeda are fake, creations of CIA.

Also Nabi (SAW) said: No child is born except according to his true and upright nature (Islam). It is his parents who make him a Jew or Christian or a Magian (Pagan). [Muslim]

So people who accept Islam, revert to the Deen, they don't convert.

 

[amateurdentist]

Yes, priority for the Caliph will be to first sort out the matters of Muslim Ummah and it'll start with uprooting the stranglehold of America & its allies in our lands which is the cause of oppression. I only support Afghan Taliban in their jihad against American military. TTP & Al Qaeda are fake, creations of CIA.

Also Nabi (SAW) said: No child is born except according to his true and upright nature (Islam). It is his parents who make him a Jew or Christian or a Magian (Pagan). [Muslim]

So people who accept Islam, revert to the Deen, they don't convert.

We dont need a caliphate for people to revert to islam. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world with the highest number of conversions already
Is there any blueprint for how this caliphate is to be implemented?
What are we going to do about the shia?
How are we going to select a caliph?

 

[insaan]

Living under the hindu tyranny was a major concern for muslims of that era(partition). I was schooled almost every time we discussed history, by my father of the very real fear that muslims felt at that time of being simply marginalized by the hindus.
I feel that it was an adequate response to some posters questioning the existence of pakistan. Hindsight is always easy but at that TIME this fear was real.

Partition was the old solution possible at that time, and I don't question the why, but how it was done. It is bit off topic but here are my thoughts on it.

Hindus and Muslims had lived with relative peace during the Mughal era, because religion was not the main dividing identity then. Sufis had both Muslim and Hindu followers. Holi was celebrated by Mughal princes and Shahjahan would start the proceedings of Dussehra by shooting the arrow on the effigy of Ravan. Khusrau, grandson of Akbar, was loved by common people, and Sikh Guru Angad Dev ji, blessed him during his rebellion. Not saying there was complete harmony, but Hindus and Muslims were not polarized at least, and there were unity in some spheres, not least during 1857.

Polarization was largely because of policies of British. They started separate electorate, meaning only a Muslim can think about the welfare of a Muslim, and same with a Hindu. The cricket teams were divided based on religion, you can see old cricinfo scorecards.

If Hindus and Muslims were so polarized then it wouldn't have taken MA Jinnah so long to realize that they are separate nations. He was earlier known as the ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, and was against Gandhi supporting the Khilafat movement. Muslim leage had very few members, till the late 30s. Surely, wouldnt have been the case if both communities were so irreconcilable.

It was the actions by Nehru and his congress, that ultimately forced Jinnah to ask for a separate country where Muslims and minorities will be protected. This was the natural outcome of the events preceding it, and I believe it was the only option then, for there were too many riots and Hindus and Muslims were polarized like never before.

So far so good, but my main objections are for things that happened after Partition. People are fed the story that Hindus and Muslims could never live together, giving more weight to a period of some 50 years and ignoring centuries preceding it. And this mentality makes a Pakistani thank his forefathers for making the decision when a Gujrat happens, and makes an Indian think it was good riddance when Pakistanis are implicated in terrorism. This mentality spills over whenever these two nations are competing, and instead of India vs Pakistan it becomes Hindu vs Muslim. This mentality helps BJP get votes, and rationalizes their crimes. I can go on, but this is the major fallout of the partition that I abhor.

Anyway, bit offtopic as I said. End of rant.

 

[Lalafied]

EDIT: Caliphate was a political office. It wasnt a religious one. We havent had a true Khalifa since Umar II. So exactly what tupe of caliphate are we muslims supposed to establish now? and we have bigger problems to deal with including the greater jihad which is more important than the lesser jihad

We dont need a caliphate for people to revert to islam. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world with the highest number of conversions already
Is there any blueprint for how this caliphate is to be implemented?
What are we going to do about the shia?
How are we going to select a caliph?

Our model is Khilafat e Rashida and we need the Khilafah to fulfill our obligation to Allah (SWT). It also governs affairs of people according to Islam and defends the honor of Ummah. People want a system that will give them security & peace of mind, and Khilafah can provide just that Inshallah! It will also serve as a powerful Dawah to Non-Muslims because people are fed up with tyrannical governments. Since we are social creatures, we are attracted to systems and if you present the world with prospering Islamic system that'll suffice as proof.

As for a blueprint, I personally support the vision of HT for Khilafah. You can look into various organizations working for Khilafah and decide for yourself.

 

[shakil]

Partition was the old solution possible at that time, and I don't question the why, but how it was done. It is bit off topic but here are my thoughts on it.

Hindus and Muslims had lived with relative peace during the Mughal era, because religion was not the main dividing identity then. Sufis had both Muslim and Hindu followers. Holi was celebrated by Mughal princes and Shahjahan would start the proceedings of Dussehra by shooting the arrow on the effigy of Ravan. Khusrau, grandson of Akbar, was loved by common people, and Sikh Guru Angad Dev ji, blessed him during his rebellion. Not saying there was complete harmony, but Hindus and Muslims were not polarized at least, and there were unity in some spheres, not least during 1857.

Polarization was largely because of policies of British. They started separate electorate, meaning only a Muslim can think about the welfare of a Muslim, and same with a Hindu. The cricket teams were divided based on religion, you can see old cricinfo scorecards.

If Hindus and Muslims were so polarized then it wouldn't have taken MA Jinnah so long to realize that they are separate nations. He was earlier known as the ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, and was against Gandhi supporting the Khilafat movement. Muslim leage had very few members, till the late 30s. Surely, wouldnt have been the case if both communities were so irreconcilable.

It was the actions by Nehru and his congress, that ultimately forced Jinnah to ask for a separate country where Muslims and minorities will be protected. This was the natural outcome of the events preceding it, and I believe it was the only option then, for there were too many riots and Hindus and Muslims were polarized like never before.

So far so good, but my main objections are for things that happened after Partition. People are fed the story that Hindus and Muslims could never live together, giving more weight to a period of some 50 years and ignoring centuries preceding it. And this mentality makes a Pakistani thank his forefathers for making the decision when a Gujrat happens, and makes an Indian think it was good riddance when Pakistanis are implicated in terrorism. This mentality spills over whenever these two nations are competing, and instead of India vs Pakistan it becomes Hindu vs Muslim. This mentality helps BJP get votes, and rationalizes their crimes. I can go on, but this is the major fallout of the partition that I abhor.

Anyway, bit offtopic as I said. End of rant.

And our media the less said the better. The real reason to exaggerate Hindu-Muslim enmity, I think, is to take control of Kashmir as it controls water supplies to both India and Pakistan :zaidhamid

 

[Black Zero]

Your statement defies logic. Jizya was a minimal tax, much less than any of the taxes muslims had to pay (zakat, Ushr, Khums) therefore how exactly can jizya force people to convert? It is possible that Aurengzeb levied other taxes on his non-muslim subjects which were heavy but they have no basis in Islamic law.
If an able-bodied non-muslim didnot serve in the army he paid jizya. If he served in the army, he didnot pay jizya. If an able bodied muslim didnot serve in the army he paid a war-tax. If he served in the army, he didnot.

History gives us completely different accounts depending on the sources.

For example

There is a british Historian, Alexander Hamilton, who travelled India during the time of Aurengzeb and wrote and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way.

In his book “Mughal Administration,” Sir Jadunath Sarkar foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign in power, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million Rupees from the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not heavy at all, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb)
Sir Jadunath Sarkar served as the Vice Chancellor of the University of Calcutta (1926-28).

As this is not a "deeniyat" question...so refrain to make it one.

it's a historical question and
Independent historians have noted this fact...Hindus converted to Islam as they could not pay jazya...

I am sick of shameless people, who deny the facts when truth is shown to them.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

As this is not a "deeniyat" question...so refrain to make it one.

it's a historical question and
Independent historians have noted this fact...Hindus converted to Islam as they could not pay jazya...

I am sick of shameless people, who deny the facts when truth is shown to them.

People speculate this is why alot of people in africa are converting to christianity, to recieve food and aid

 

[Black Zero]

People speculate this is why alot of people in africa are converting to christianity, to recieve food and aid

stick and/or carrot ... will help you get the desired results...

 

[amateurdentist]

As this is not a "deeniyat" question...so refrain to make it one.

it's a historical question and
Independent historians have noted this fact...Hindus converted to Islam as they could not pay jazya...

I am sick of shameless people, who deny the facts when truth is shown to them.

YOU made it a deeniyat question BZ when You wrote this

yes kind of

2.5% vs 70+ %

This was proven to be false fact, when you posted this

In 1679, Aurangzeb reintroduced Jizyah at the usual rates of 48 dirhams on the rich, 24 on the middle class, and 12 on the poor, the rich being those earning ten thousand dirhams or more a year, the middle those earning over two hundred, and the poor those earning less

TBH I think you should practice what you preach and not distort the historical facts.
As you proved that even under the most tyrannical of muslim monarchs, Aurengzeb, Jizya was a minimal tax.
When there are conflicting historical accounts about one event, It is better to use reason. And reason tells me that Aurengzeb couldnot have used jizya to convert hindus to Islam. He may have used other taxes and other methods to force hindus to Islam but Not Jizya. That is a fact.

The topic of the thread was "Islam: How was it spread" and Not "Islam: how it was spread by Aurengzeb". Aurengzeb ruled india for 50 years. Muslim rule in India lasted 600 years approximately. So when you and others go on and on for about 4 pages on Aurengzeb and therefore conclude from the actions of one muslim king, that This was the normal muslim policy towards minorities, it is misleading on your part and hypocritical
You are determined to prove the fact that jizya was a tool for conversion. This is false. I was just pointing it out.

 

[amateurdentist]

Our model is Khilafat e Rashida and we need the Khilafah to fulfill our obligation to Allah (SWT). It also governs affairs of people according to Islam and defends the honor of Ummah. People want a system that will give them security & peace of mind, and Khilafah can provide just that Inshallah! It will also serve as a powerful Dawah to Non-Muslims because people are fed up with tyrannical governments. Since we are social creatures, we are attracted to systems and if you present the world with prospering Islamic system that'll suffice as proof.

As for a blueprint, I personally support the vision of HT for Khilafah. You can look into various organizations working for Khilafah and decide for yourself.

Once this woman during the time of Harun al Rashid came up to him and complained about an injustice done to her by a soldier.
She said " Oh, I wish I had an Umar who would provide me justice"
Caliph Harun replied " If my subjects were like the subjects of Umar, I would be a better khalifa than Umar for them"

Point is, If the Muslim Ummah is as degraded as it is now, working for Khilafah is pointless. Rulers are only as good as the people they govern.
We should work towards the Greater/inner jihad and concentrate on that before thinking about the lesser jihad. A lifetime can be spent on the inner jihad and we cannot prevail. So why do we bother with the lesser jihad? unless in self-defence(which i believe is the only reason for the lesser jihad

 

[Garuda]

all of our major scholars have done so..sometimes non-muslims fail to listen..

its is condemned by the prophet PBUH himself..waht more do you want?? if you still continue to associate extremism like this with mainstream Islam then that shows a weakness and bias in you.

I do not want anything myfriend.

if you still continue to associate extremism like this with mainstream Islam then that shows a weakness and bias in you

When did I even mentioned extremism in Islam ?

But it seems you are failing to see extremism in muslims.

 

[amateurdentist]

Partition was the old solution possible at that time, and I don't question the why, but how it was done. It is bit off topic but here are my thoughts on it.

Hindus and Muslims had lived with relative peace during the Mughal era, because religion was not the main dividing identity then. Sufis had both Muslim and Hindu followers. Holi was celebrated by Mughal princes and Shahjahan would start the proceedings of Dussehra by shooting the arrow on the effigy of Ravan. Khusrau, grandson of Akbar, was loved by common people, and Sikh Guru Angad Dev ji, blessed him during his rebellion. Not saying there was complete harmony, but Hindus and Muslims were not polarized at least, and there were unity in some spheres, not least during 1857.

Polarization was largely because of policies of British. They started separate electorate, meaning only a Muslim can think about the welfare of a Muslim, and same with a Hindu. The cricket teams were divided based on religion, you can see old cricinfo scorecards.

If Hindus and Muslims were so polarized then it wouldn't have taken MA Jinnah so long to realize that they are separate nations. He was earlier known as the ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, and was against Gandhi supporting the Khilafat movement. Muslim leage had very few members, till the late 30s. Surely, wouldnt have been the case if both communities were so irreconcilable.

It was the actions by Nehru and his congress, that ultimately forced Jinnah to ask for a separate country where Muslims and minorities will be protected. This was the natural outcome of the events preceding it, and I believe it was the only option then, for there were too many riots and Hindus and Muslims were polarized like never before.

So far so good, but my main objections are for things that happened after Partition. People are fed the story that Hindus and Muslims could never live together, giving more weight to a period of some 50 years and ignoring centuries preceding it. And this mentality makes a Pakistani thank his forefathers for making the decision when a Gujrat happens, and makes an Indian think it was good riddance when Pakistanis are implicated in terrorism. This mentality spills over whenever these two nations are competing, and instead of India vs Pakistan it becomes Hindu vs Muslim. This mentality helps BJP get votes, and rationalizes their crimes. I can go on, but this is the major fallout of the partition that I abhor.

Anyway, bit offtopic as I said. End of rant.

The thing is Insaan we never elect these religious parties. they have never had any popularity. However it is true, the army has used the constant threat of India/Hindus to justify their large budgets
I believe you are right though and we should work towards greater cooperation,peace and, if not friendship between pakistan and india, atleast a business relationship. That is the only option available to us especially since we both are nuclear powers. Of course there are lots of issues on both sides, but both nations have to compromise for the sake of peace

forgive and forget about the past. no point in carrying out vandettas from 70 years ago

 

[Black Zero]

YOU made it a deeniyat question BZ when You wrote this



This was proven to be false fact, when you posted this



TBH I think you should practice what you preach and not distort the historical facts.
As you proved that even under the most tyrannical of muslim monarchs, Aurengzeb, Jizya was a minimal tax.
When there are conflicting historical accounts about one event, It is better to use reason. And reason tells me that Aurengzeb couldnot have used jizya to convert hindus to Islam. He may have used other taxes and other methods to force hindus to Islam but Not Jizya. That is a fact.

The topic of the thread was "Islam: How was it spread" and Not "Islam: how it was spread by Aurengzeb". Aurengzeb ruled india for 50 years. Muslim rule in India lasted 600 years approximately. So when you and others go on and on for about 4 pages on Aurengzeb and therefore conclude from the actions of one muslim king, that This was the normal muslim policy towards minorities, it is misleading on your part and hypocritical
You are determined to prove the fact that jizya was a tool for conversion. This is false. I was just pointing it out.

If you accept that Hindus accepted Islam due to Jazya in Aurengzeb's era, then we can proceed and explore other era's.

I am ready to provide other details (about 70+%), but once you accept that Hindus converted to islam due to Jazya,...

Otherwise I am not interested to debate with some shameless denier.

 

[amateurdentist]

If you accept that Hindus accepted Islam due to Jazya in Aurengzeb's era, then we can proceed and explore other era's.

I am ready to provide other details (about 70+%), but once you accept that Hindus converted to islam due to Jazya,...

Otherwise I am not interested to debate with some shameless denier.

You have provided no proof of this statement and i am supposed to accept this?
You gave me proof that jizya during Aurengzebs time was 5 times less than the smallest tax muslims paid to the state.

Talking about shameless deniers, arent you the one who thinks Zardari is the best thing to happen to Pakistan since sliced bread?

 

[shakil]

Hindus accepted Islam due to Jazya in Aurengzeb's era

However many proofs you provide, it will only be unfortunately

 

[Black Zero]

You have provided no proof of this statement and i am supposed to accept this?
You gave me proof that jizya during Aurengzebs time was 5 times less than the smallest tax muslims paid to the state.

Talking about shameless deniers, arent you the one who thinks Zardari is the best thing to happen to Pakistan since sliced bread?

Helloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...

 

[amateurdentist]

However many proofs you provide, it will only be unfortunately

read below

Originally Posted by Black Zero
In 1679, Aurangzeb reintroduced Jizyah at the usual rates of 48 dirhams on the rich, 24 on the middle class, and 12 on the poor, the rich being those earning ten thousand dirhams or more a year, the middle those earning over two hundred, and the poor those earning less

How is this crippling taxation which converted hindus to islam? isnt that the reason why the hindus were "forced" into Islam i.e. crippling taxation

 

[Black Zero]

However many proofs you provide, it will only be unfortunately

I know this type (and it's cure), I would not let him "dance".

 

[amateurdentist]

Helloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...
View attachment 27851

and there are other sources which say that this was not the case
Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb's fifty year reign and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way.
http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

 

[shakil]

read below

Originally Posted by Black Zero
In 1679, Aurangzeb reintroduced Jizyah at the usual rates of 48 dirhams on the rich, 24 on the middle class, and 12 on the poor, the rich being those earning ten thousand dirhams or more a year, the middle those earning over two hundred, and the poor those earning less

How is this crippling taxation which converted hindus to islam? isnt that the reason why the hindus were "forced" into Islam i.e. crippling taxation

It is not about questioning Islam, it is about questioning history.

BZ has replied with the exact text by the way.

 

[amateurdentist]

It is not about questioning Islam, it is about questioning history and not some biased orientalist mambo jambo - History written by Muslim historians.

BZ has replied with the exact text by the way.

His arguement is that jizya was a tool for converting people to islam. and he has gone about proving this. read all his posts. so far he has not proved it.
It is entirely possible and probable that other forms of taxation may have been used to pressurize hindus into conversion but NOT Jizya. The rates of Jizya themselves prove the fallacy of his thinking

 

[Black Zero]

and there are other sources which say that this was not the case
Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb's fifty year reign and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way.
http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

you check the historians i mentioned...and also check their standing

and here is what Aurengzeb says about Jazya himself:

 

[shakil]

His arguement is that jizya was a tool for converting people to islam. and he has gone about proving this. read all his posts. so far he has not proved it.
It is entirely possible and probable that other forms of taxation may have been used to pressurize hindus into conversion but NOT Jizya. The rates of Jizya themselves prove the fallacy of his thinking

By why did you mention war-tax on Muslims because it has only historical context and not part of Shariah? Jizya, on the other hand, is an essential part of Shariah/Fiqh.

If you are talking about history, how many rulers imposed war-tax on Muslims for not participating in Farz-ul-Kifayah jihad?