Proud my ancestors converted

[Alam_dar]

That,s something i do not know .i have not heard that muslims are allowed to forcefully convert someone?

Indeed this Order of compelling Kuffar to convert to Islam came in Quran (in 9th Hijiri year at the end when Islam became powerful).

And Sahaba were killing all the idolaters in Arab.

Later came Abu Hanifa, who was the first one who called for taking Jizya even from the idolaters. His argument was this that killing of Idolaters was only limited to the life of Prophet.

But others Imams (like Imam Shafi'i, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imam Ibn Hazm) all contradicted Abu Hanifa and by citing the IJMA of Sahaba who killed the Kuffar even after the death of the Prophet. They said that practice of killing Kuffar could only be stopped if Muslims are weak. But as soon as they get powerful, then it's become obligatory upon them to wage Jihad upon the Non Muslims, and compel Kuffar to accept Islam.

Today, the Salafi Muslims are the followers of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal. Therefore, the Mufties of Saudi Arabia, and all other Salafi movements still deem it compulsory to force Kuffar to convert or to kill them. But this compulsion and killing is conditioned that Muslim State should be strong enough to defeat the Kuffar, otherwise they should not act upon this orders of Quran, but wait till the time they become stronger.


ISIS is a Salafi movement.

Thus ISIS didn't kill the Chrisitians in Iraq, but took Jizya from them.

But ISIS didn't take Jizya from the Yazidis of Iraq, but they killed the Yazidi men and took their women as the slave women.

While Taliban were the followers of Imam Abu Hanifa, thus they took Jizya from the Sikhs in Afghanistan and in the Pakistani Tribal areas.

 

[Musakhel]

Good question, but for sure Ummayads had little to do with the religion.

As compared to Ummayads, we have Quran which is asking for killing all the idolators,

As compared to Ummayads, we have Sahaba (Hadhrat Umar) who wanted to kill all the Majoos as he considered them kuffar, but then he allowed the Majoos to pay the Jizya while some Sahaba testified that Prophet counted Majoos among the People of the Book.

For example see this SAHIH Hadith from Sunnan Abu Dawud:

لم يكن عمر يأخذ الجزية من المجوس حتى شهد عبد الرحمن بن عوف أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أخذها من مجوس هجر .
Translation:
Umar didn't want to take Jizya from Majoos (but wanted to kill them), till the companion Abdul Rehman bin 'Auf told him that Prophet Muhammad indeed took Jizya from the Majoos of the area of Hajar.

This tradition has been authenticated by grand Mufti Imam Albani of Saudi Arabia:

http://dorar.net/h/0916f8e2ca3e8b9006f8ca7e4cf93e8c


Therefore, Quran and Ijma of Sahaba was to kill all the idolaters, and don't accept any Jizya from them, and they had only one way to save their life i.e. to accept Islam under compulsion.

Can't remember which king it was but he mentioned in his biography that because he was hanafi he had to take jizya from the idol worshippers of Subcontinant, basically implying if he wasn't he would have slaughtered them all.

 

[English August]

Hammer to the head, to the nail, Captain.

Great point.

I wouldn't expect a response.

There were responses, but he didn't like them, so called it a cop out. This is how things work on internet forums!

Reality is that he (Cpt Rishwat) just made stuff up about Hindutva in India and laid out a strawman argument. Classic trolling technique.

Perhaps he'll LOL next!

 

[Musakhel]

Indeed this Order of compelling Kuffar to convert to Islam came in Quran (in 9th Hijiri year at the end when Islam became powerful).

And Sahaba were killing all the idolaters in Arab.

Later came Abu Hanifa, who was the first one who called for taking Jizya even from the idolaters. His argument was this that killing of Idolaters was only limited to the life of Prophet.

But others Imams (like Imam Shafi'i, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imam Ibn Hazm) all contradicted Abu Hanifa and by citing the IJMA of Sahaba who killed the Kuffar even after the death of the Prophet. They said that practice of killing Kuffar could only be stopped if Muslims are weak. But as soon as they get powerful, then it's become obligatory upon them to wage Jihad upon the Non Muslims, and compel Kuffar to accept Islam.

Today, the Salafi Muslims are the followers of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal. Therefore, the Mufties of Saudi Arabia, and all other Salafi movements still deem it compulsory to force Kuffar to convert or to kill them. But this compulsion and killing is conditioned that Muslim State should be strong enough to defeat the Kuffar, otherwise they should not act upon this orders of Quran, but wait till the time they become stronger.


ISIS is a Salafi movement.

Thus ISIS didn't kill the Chrisitians in Iraq, but took Jizya from them.

But ISIS didn't take Jizya from the Yazidis of Iraq, but they killed the Yazidi men and took their women as the slave women.

While Taliban were the followers of Imam Abu Hanifa, thus they took Jizya from the Sikhs in Afghanistan and in the Pakistani Tribal areas.

Yazidies have been in Iraq before Islam I believe but why were they not all killed considering Iraq has been ruled by various muslim dynasties since forever?

 

[KingKhanWC]

KK, interesting and honest thread.

One question, do you really respect other religions? I don't mean this in a 'you are a bad person for not respecting them' way but it's quite the opposite actually. Why bother giving something respect which you believe goes against the word of God? If the Koran, which Muslims believe is the word of god, explicitly forbids practice X, Y and Z then why would you respect a religion which incorporates X, Y and Z? Why respect something that promotes sinfulness?

As Muslims you are told not to insult others religions.

Quran 6:108

"

And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge. Thus We have made pleasing to every community their deeds. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them about what they used to do."

I believe the majority of people who follow the main religions of the world such as Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism are good people who take away the message of living a life of peace and not hurting others. Of course extreme elements in each religion should be criticised.

 

[Alam_dar]

In post 57, I quoted Saudi Mufties about compelling the Idolaters to convert to Islam or to be killed.

Here again from Tafsir Ibn Kathir, where he is making Quranic Verses clear which are telling that the verse of "No compulsion in the religion" has been "abrogated" by the verse of Sword, and now final Quranic orders are to kill the Idolaters if they don't accept Islam.

//
Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

وقد ذهب طائفة كثيرة من العلماء، أن هذه محمولة على أهل الكتاب، ومن دخل في دينهم قبل النسخ والتبديل إذا بذلوا الجزية، وقال آخرون بل هي منسوخة بآية القتال، وإنه يجب أن يدعى جميع الأمم إلى الدخول في الدين الحنيف، دين الإسلام، فإن أبى أحد منهم الدخول فيه، ولم ينقد له، أو يبذل الجزية، قوتل حتى يقتل، وهذامعنى الإكراه، قال الله تعالى { سَتُدْعَوْنَ إِلَىٰ قَوْمٍ أُوْلِى بَأْسٍ شَدِيدٍ تُقَـٰتِلُونَهُمْ أَوْ يُسْلِمُونَ } [الفتح: 16] وقال تعالى: { يَٰأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّبِىُّ جَـٰهِدِ ٱلْكُفَّـٰرَ وَٱلْمُنَـٰفِقِينَ وَٱغْلُظْ عَلَيْهِمْ } [التوبة: 73] وقال تعالى: { يَٰأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ قَاتِلُواْ ٱلَّذِينَ يَلُونَكُمْ مِّنَ ٱلْكُفَّارِ وَلِيَجِدُواْ فِيكُمْ غِلْظَةً وَٱعْلَمُوۤاْ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ مَعَ ٱلْمُتَّقِينَ }[التوبة: 123] وفي الصحيح: " عجب ربك من قوم يقادون إلى الجنة في السلاسل " يعني: الأسارى الذين يقدم بهم بلاد الإسلام في الوثائق والأغلال والقيود والأكبال، ثم بعد ذلك يسلمون، وتصلح أعمالهم وسرائرهم، فيكونون من أهل الجنة.

Majority of Scholars are of opinion that this verse (2:256) "There is no compulsion in religion" was meant only for the People of Book (i.e. only Jews and Christians will not be compelled to accept Islam), but they have to pay Jizyya.
While some say that this verse of "No Compulsion" has been abrogated (even for the People of Book) through the verse of sword (verse 9:5)"...Therefore, all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed. This is the meaning of compulsion.
Allah says in verse 48:16;"O Prophet, fight with them till the time they accept Islam."...
In the Sahih, the Prophet said: "Allah wonders at those people who will enter Paradise in chains", meaning prisoners brought in chains to the Islamic state, then they embrace Islam sincerely and become righteous, and are entered among the people of Paradise.

//

 

[DRsohail]

As Muslims you are told not to insult others religions.

Quran 6:108

"

And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge. Thus We have made pleasing to every community their deeds. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them about what they used to do."

I believe the majority of people who follow the main religions of the world such as Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism are good people who take away the message of living a life of peace and not hurting others. Of course extreme elements in each religion should be criticised.

What about post nimber 81?I do not know this.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Bro you are missing the context.







This is the context. KKWC thinks Indians ate subservient, Bangladeshis pathetic and irrelevant. People are going to show him the mirror. When he got burnt he now tries to make it a Muslim vs others issue. Dont fall for it.

lol. You give me jokes joshila bhai, never have I felt burnt by anything you have written.

History is clear, people living in the Indian region have been easy to conquer, first the Muslims and then British. You yourself always look to America to tap you on the back. You're a big nation, once a superpower under Muslim rule, strive for a bigger mindset.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Nothing wrong with questioning . My point was regarding ridiculing just for the sake of it .

Religions are not ridiculed in the West for the sake of it.

 

[Traveller55]

lol. You give me jokes joshila bhai, never have I felt burnt by anything you have written.

History is clear, people living in the Indian region have been easy to conquer, first the Muslims and then British. You yourself always look to America to tap you on the back. You're a big nation, once a superpower under Muslim rule, strive for a bigger mindset.

But facts show us that the most easily conquered people of all Indians are from the Punjab region- the ONLY region in India that did not have self-rule from 300s BC (Alexander's time) till Sikh misls in 1700s AD- a gap of 2000 years !!!

So what you are saying for 'India region' applies far more for the bulk majority of Pakistan's population......

 

[R3verse Swing]

There were responses, but he didn't like them, so called it a cop out. This is how things work on internet forums!

Reality is that he (Cpt Rishwat) just made stuff up about Hindutva in India and laid out a strawman argument. Classic trolling technique.

Perhaps he'll LOL next!

Wrong.

The responses were cop outs. Citing the Indian constitution which appeared long after Hindutva, or an election long after Hindutva was conceived not only fails to answer the question, but is not even relevant.

The question was not why people voted for Hindutva, but was why Hindutva was created in the first place.

Go on, give the question a stab. All in English my man.

 

[KingKhanWC]

What about post nimber 81?I do not know this.

This poster pretends he has personal knowledge of Islam but is only copying hate sites such this one.. All you have to do is copy and paste some of his posts and different hate sites will pop up on a search.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/apostasy.aspx


If it is so clear in Islam Muslims have to kill idolaters at any given moment then he should be able to use the Quran, post a couple of verses, explain the context and he could on his own change history by proving Islam is a religion of violence which no scholar or expert has ever done before him.

The verses which call on fighting the idolotors or disbelievers were for that time when tribes who worshipped idols were at war with Muslims and it wasn't Muslims who started the violence.. Read this , it covers and refutes the nonsense people with no intellect who copy from hate sites.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/no_murder.htm

 

[troodon]

lol. You give me jokes joshila bhai, never have I felt burnt by anything you have written.

History is clear, people living in the Indian region have been easy to conquer, first the Muslims and then British. You yourself always look to America to tap you on the back. You're a big nation, once a superpower under Muslim rule, strive for a bigger mindset.

Includes your ancestors too.

Indian subcontinent was divided into too many small kingdoms and were well fed. Did not have to face any adversity for the most part except for droughts and famines. Arts and culture were given priority. No king had the desire to expand their kingdom to the west.

Conquerors coming from West were in constant state of war and were battle hardened. Easy for them to defeat the smaller kingdoms. Also, when you include religion as motivation, it becomes an unstoppable force. Some Indian kings like Shivaji also used these religious slogans to egg the soldiers and motivate them. Even Indian army also uses this and same with Pak army (As shown in Border movie).

 

[KingKhanWC]

But facts show us that the most easily conquered people of all Indians are from the Punjab region- the ONLY region in India that did not have self-rule from 300s BC (Alexander's time) till Sikh misls in 1700s AD- a gap of 2000 years !!!

So what you are saying for 'India region' applies far more for the bulk majority of Pakistan's population......

I dont think North Indians, Bengals or South Indians are any more fearless than Punjabis. Today I see Punjabis (sikhs and Muslims) being stronger in stature and arguably braver than the rest. Everyone was pretty much the same and just because those who invaded didn't want to wonder to jungles of Assam or the heat of South India doesn't those people were somehow great warriors lol.

As a Bengali, your whole nation is mostly Muslims. Perhaps you should go there and preach atheism and tell them their ancestors were forced. Let us know how you get on.

 

[DRsohail]

This poster pretends he has personal knowledge of Islam but is only copying hate sites such this one.. All you have to do is copy and paste some of his posts and different hate sites will pop up on a search.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/apostasy.aspx


If it is so clear in Islam Muslims have to kill idolaters at any given moment then he should be able to use the Quran, post a couple of verses, explain the context and he could on his own change history by proving Islam is a religion of violence which no scholar or expert has ever done before him.

The verses which call on fighting the idolotors or disbelievers were for that time when tribes who worshipped idols were at war with Muslims and it wasn't Muslims who started the violence.. Read this , it covers and refutes the nonsense people with no intellect who copy from hate sites.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/no_murder.htm

it was shocking for me as i have been for more than 28 years in islamic society and have never heard things like that from any Aalim edin or any elder,Neither i have seen it in any book so far i have read,though the list is very short which i am regreting but will definitely study after my exam is over IA.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Includes your ancestors too.

Indian subcontinent was divided into too many small kingdoms and were well fed. Did not have to face any adversity for the most part except for droughts and famines. Arts and culture were given priority. No king had the desire to expand their kingdom to the west.

Conquerors coming from West were in constant state of war and were battle hardened. Easy for them to defeat the smaller kingdoms. Also, when you include religion as motivation, it becomes an unstoppable force. Some Indian kings like Shivaji also used these religious slogans to egg the soldiers and motivate them. Even Indian army also uses this and same with Pak army (As shown in Border movie).

I have no problem accepting if they were my ancestors as now we are Muslims. We might look similar, eat the same types of food but we have a belief which changes the heart. Less than 50,000 British troops were only required to control India. Over a hundred thousand Nato troops, the most advanced army in history cannot control a poor nation of Afghanistan, its' because they believe and fear only God. Belief in the truth is a game changer not just for the individual but for groups, nations.

 

[Traveller55]

I dont think North Indians, Bengals or South Indians are any more fearless than Punjabis.

But they all resisted foreign invasions far better than Punjabis did. That much is historical fact.

Today I see Punjabis (sikhs and Muslims) being stronger in stature and arguably braver than the rest.

Nonsense. The 'bigger in stature' people are the Jatts. Doesn't matter whether they are Punjabis, Haryanvis, UP-ites or Biharis. And they are the ones who dominate Indian military system more so than Punjabis do.

Everyone was pretty much the same and just because those who invaded didn't want to wonder to jungles of Assam or the heat of South India doesn't those people were somehow great warriors lol.

Its not about outsiders only. Punjab has not had self-rule for 2000 years. Ie, it was either under the kingdoms of Ganga-Jamuna region or foreigners. While all over India, there are plenty of instances of local kingdoms.
So that means historically, Punjabis are the worst warriors of all, if they cannot even form their own kingdom.

As a Bengali, your whole nation is mostly Muslims. Perhaps you should go there and preach atheism and tell them their ancestors were forced. Let us know how you get on.

Bengalis were not forced. Punjabis were. As i said, it varies from region to region. We mostly converted to get out of paying extra tax (jaziya). On the other hand, plenty of invaders left behind plenty of accounts showing that Punjabis were massacred and forced to accept Islam.

 

[R3verse Swing]

By the way, I agree with the OP.

It's one thing to live in ignorance, it's quite another to be shown the light.

 

[KingKhanWC]

it was shocking for me as i have been for more than 28 years in islamic society and have never heard things like that from any Aalim edin or any elder,Neither i have seen it in any book so far i have read,though the list is very short which i am regreting but will definitely study after my exam is over IA.

Even the likes of Tommy Robinson or Pamela Gellar have shied away from such idiotic arguments as they have been schooled by the responses. Not even 50 Einstiens could argue Islam is a religion of violence, yet someone on this forum who can only copy from hate sites is only making a fool out of himself. But yes study yourself.

 

[Traveller55]

I have no problem accepting if they were my ancestors as now we are Muslims. We might look similar, eat the same types of food but we have a belief which changes the heart. Less than 50,000 British troops were only required to control India. Over a hundred thousand Nato troops, the most advanced army in history cannot control a poor nation of Afghanistan, its' because they believe and fear only God. Belief in the truth is a game changer not just for the individual but for groups, nations.

Those 'less than 50,000 british troops' also controlled Pakistan and Bangladesh.
And the actual troop number was many times that figure. I already corrected you once and again you ran away : 50,000 british troops were 50,000 troops FROM BRITAIN. There were many times more local sepoys in the employ of BIEC/Raj.

 

[DRsohail]

Even the likes of Tommy Robinson or Pamela Gellar have shied away from such idiotic arguments as they have been schooled by the responses. Not even 50 Einstiens could argue Islam is a religion of violence, yet someone on this forum who can only copy from hate sites is only making a fool out of himself. But yes study yourself.

Thats why i never argue on social site beacause u never know the source and i am short of knowledge in this context.

 

[Traveller55]

Even the likes of Tommy Robinson or Pamela Gellar have shied away from such idiotic arguments as they have been schooled by the responses. Not even 50 Einstiens could argue Islam is a religion of violence, yet someone on this forum who can only copy from hate sites is only making a fool out of himself. But yes study yourself.

No argument is necessary, historical facts prove that the bolded statement is false.

Action speaks louder than words and the action of followers of Islam has been far more conquest-oriented than any other faith.

 

[English August]

Wrong.

The responses were cop outs. Citing the Indian constitution which appeared long after Hindutva, or an election long after Hindutva was conceived not only fails to answer the question, but is not even relevant.

The question was not why people voted for Hindutva, but was why Hindutva was created in the first place.

Go on, give the question a stab. All in English my man.

Why waste my time with a couple of trolls when I don't agree with your original premise? He said there is a Hindutva-inspired government in India. Looks like you agree with him. Both of you are wrong. You two (and many more here on PP) simply do not understand the vibrancy and depth of India's political process. But then what would Pakistanis know about democracy?!

 

[Rayyman]

Sir, you are right but your 2nd Statement is wrong according to the rules of Islamic Sharia.

According to Islamic Sharia, if Muslims have the power, then they must attack the neighbouring Non Muslim countries, and then forcefully convert all the Idolaters into Muslims, and if they refuse, then they should be killed.

This rule of Sharia was practised during the times of Prophet and the Sahaba.

Only the People of the Book (i.e. Jews/Christians/Zoroastrians) were allowed to pay the Jizya and keep on practising their religion, but in a submissive way, in which they were not allowed to convert the Muslims towards Christianity etc.

Stop trolling

 

[Alam_dar]

This poster pretends he has personal knowledge of Islam but is only copying hate sites such this one.. All you have to do is copy and paste some of his posts and different hate sites will pop up on a search.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/apostasy.aspx

I openly admit that I have little knowledge and initially I also got knowledge by reading different websites. But then I went further and researched all this material for "many years" and cross checked the references from Quran and other Muslim books.

Therefore, it is not necessary who is saying, but it is important what is said. Please cross check the arguments as I did for years, and only then come to any conclusion.

If it is so clear in Islam Muslims have to kill idolaters at any given moment then he should be able to use the Quran, post a couple of verses, explain the context and he could on his own change history by proving Islam is a religion of violence which no scholar or expert has ever done before him.

Indeed I provided above the Verses of Quran, along with their Tafsir by the Grand Salafi Mufties of Saudi Arabia, who giving further references to the Imams and lot of Ahadith.

I also provided directly the Tafsir by Ibn Kathir too who is quoting the Quranic Verses himself.

Therefore, I request you to please not to blame me for not providing the direct references from Quran and Ahadith.

The verses which call on fighting the idolotors or disbelievers were for that time when tribes who worshipped idols were at war with Muslims and it wasn't Muslims who started the violence..

Sir, please do your research complete before making such statement.

The verse of sword (Surah 9, verse 5) was revealed only at the end of the Meccan period (i.e. end of the 9th Hijri). This Surah was the last which was revealed upon the Prophet.

At this time (9th Hijri), there were no idolaters/tribes left who were strong enough to fight against the Muslims.

Please read the Surah and Verse, which are clear that even if there are pacts with the Kuffar, even then they were given the time of 4 months after which those pacts would have become annulled, and Kuffar would have been killed wherever they would have been found. (Note: Pacts already mean that Kuffar were no more fighting against the Muslims, but even then their pacts were annulled).

It is not me, but there is IJMA of all Muslims who are saying the same thing. Only difference is this that Imam Abu Hanifa later changed the rule and started accepting Jizya from the idolaters too, while other Imams criticized him for using Qiyyas against the Ijma of the Sahaba.


I would again ask you to please read what Salafi Mufties are writing from Quran and Ahadith, and then tell me what wrong have I said, and where is your own proof from Quran and Hadith?

Read this , it covers and refutes the nonsense people with no intellect who copy from hate sites.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/no_murder.htm

I have read it.
It does not cover the discussion which we have here, but it is only talking of not killing of the "women and the children", but to make them the slaves for whole of their life, even if they have no part in any war against the Muslims.

 

[Rayyman]

I openly admit that I have little knowledge and initially I also got knowledge by reading different websites. But then I went further and researched all this material for "many years" and cross checked the references from Quran and other Muslim books.

Therefore, it is not necessary who is saying, but it is important what is said. Please cross check the arguments as I did for years, and only then come to any conclusion.




Indeed I provided above the Verses of Quran, along with their Tafsir by the Grand Salafi Mufties of Saudi Arabia, who giving further references to the Imams and lot of Ahadith.

I also provided directly the Tafsir by Ibn Kathir too who is quoting the Quranic Verses himself.

Therefore, I request you to please not to blame me for not providing the direct references from Quran and Ahadith.




Sir, please do your research complete before making such statement.

The verse of sword (Surah 9, verse 5) was revealed only at the end of the Meccan period (i.e. end of the 9th Hijri). This Surah was the last which was revealed upon the Prophet.

At this time (9th Hijri), there were no idolaters/tribes left who were strong enough to fight against the Muslims.

Please read the Surah and Verse, which are clear that even if there are pacts with the Kuffar, even then they were given the time of 4 months after which those pacts would have become annulled, and Kuffar would have been killed wherever they would have been found. (Note: Pacts already mean that Kuffar were no more fighting against the Muslims, but even then their pacts were annulled).

It is not me, but there is IJMA of all Muslims who are saying the same thing. Only difference is this that Imam Abu Hanifa later changed the rule and started accepting Jizya from the idolaters too, while other Imams criticized him for using Qiyyas against the Ijma of the Sahaba.


I would again ask you to please read what Salafi Mufties are writing from Quran and Ahadith, and then tell me what wrong have I said, and where is your own proof from Quran and Hadith?





I have read it.
It does not cover the discussion which we have here, but it is only talking of not killing of the "women and the children", but to make them the slaves for whole of their life, even if they have no part in any war against the Muslims.

Stop trolling

 

[R3verse Swing]

Why waste my time with a couple of trolls when I don't agree with your original premise? He said there is a Hindutva-inspired government in India. Looks like you agree with him. Both of you are wrong. You two (and many more here on PP) simply do not understand the vibrancy and depth of India's political process. But then what would Pakistanis know about democracy?!

Why waste your time on a couple of trolls? You joker. You wasted time in responding to a couple of trolls with your nonsense above. Once again, a Hindutva apologist undermining himself.

It's a simple question - why was Hindutva created? Answers on a postcard.

Also, got to laugh at your English comprehension. *Looks* like I agree with him? Wake up Sonny Jim, I do agree with him!

Bless.

 

[JaDed]

And am glad mine didn't, I might not be religious but Dharmic way of life is something I admire.

 

[Suleiman]

My ancestors were always Muslim in their hearts so don't have to worry about all this.

 

[JaDed]

Stop trolling

He is not the only one trolling though.

 

[cricketjoshila]

lol. You give me jokes joshila bhai, never have I felt burnt by anything you have written.

History is clear, people living in the Indian region have been easy to conquer, first the Muslims and then British. You yourself always look to America to tap you on the back. You're a big nation, once a superpower under Muslim rule, strive for a bigger mindset.

Your region and your ancestors were conquered before mine. Didnt the British conquer muslims? Or did the muslims vanish when the British came?So yoyr ancestors were subservient according to your logic.

We do not need to look towards anyone, we are not a small country that has a struggling economy and has to depend on handouts.

We were a super power long before islam came into being. Some reading of history will help you.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Like CC said a healthy criticism is fine but ridiculing and insulting to score cheap points is something which no progressive society would endorse.

Ridiculing religion is a great part of progressive society, or at least it is in Britain, where The Life of Brian is an absolute parody of the life of Jesus Christ. The very Britain you described as a Developed Nation remember. I can give you more examples if you like, we native Brits stood shoulder to shoulder with the French over their right to insult religion via Charlie Hebdo remember?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

There were responses, but he didn't like them, so called it a cop out. This is how things work on internet forums!

Reality is that he (Cpt Rishwat) just made stuff up about Hindutva in India and laid out a strawman argument. Classic trolling technique.

Perhaps he'll LOL next!

I see the last time I LOL'd at your LOL still pains you. Just like joshila and the Traveller can't help themselves staring at my phrases like burned and adopting them themselves like well trained parrots. LOL.

 

[Musakhel]

I openly admit that I have little knowledge and initially I also got knowledge by reading different websites. But then I went further and researched all this material for "many years" and cross checked the references from Quran and other Muslim books.

Therefore, it is not necessary who is saying, but it is important what is said. Please cross check the arguments as I did for years, and only then come to any conclusion.




Indeed I provided above the Verses of Quran, along with their Tafsir by the Grand Salafi Mufties of Saudi Arabia, who giving further references to the Imams and lot of Ahadith.

I also provided directly the Tafsir by Ibn Kathir too who is quoting the Quranic Verses himself.

Therefore, I request you to please not to blame me for not providing the direct references from Quran and Ahadith.




Sir, please do your research complete before making such statement.

The verse of sword (Surah 9, verse 5) was revealed only at the end of the Meccan period (i.e. end of the 9th Hijri). This Surah was the last which was revealed upon the Prophet.

At this time (9th Hijri), there were no idolaters/tribes left who were strong enough to fight against the Muslims.

Please read the Surah and Verse, which are clear that even if there are pacts with the Kuffar, even then they were given the time of 4 months after which those pacts would have become annulled, and Kuffar would have been killed wherever they would have been found. (Note: Pacts already mean that Kuffar were no more fighting against the Muslims, but even then their pacts were annulled).

It is not me, but there is IJMA of all Muslims who are saying the same thing. Only difference is this that Imam Abu Hanifa later changed the rule and started accepting Jizya from the idolaters too, while other Imams criticized him for using Qiyyas against the Ijma of the Sahaba.


I would again ask you to please read what Salafi Mufties are writing from Quran and Ahadith, and then tell me what wrong have I said, and where is your own proof from Quran and Hadith?





I have read it.
It does not cover the discussion which we have here, but it is only talking of not killing of the "women and the children", but to make them the slaves for whole of their life, even if they have no part in any war against the Muslims.

Wasn't Iraq/syria conquered during Umars rule why didn't he kill all the yazidies? After all they are not people of the book or Majoos.

 

[Alam_dar]

it was shocking for me as i have been for more than 28 years in islamic society and have never heard things like that from any Aalim edin or any elder,Neither i have seen it in any book so far i have read

Brother, it is neither your fault, nor my fault that we don't find these actual Rulings of Islamic Sharia in present books, and Islamic Scholars hiding the truth from us. It is due to the reason while Islamic States are weak in present era. We start hearing these actual Rulings once Islamic States become stronger.


Till that time you have to work hard and research it yourself to find out the truth.

Let me present one more Fatwa from Sheikh Ibn Baz (another Grand Official Mufti of Saudi Government):

//

In his book "Fatwas of Ibn Baz", volume 18, he writes (Online link):

Jihad is divided into two kinds; Jihad for making conquests and Jihad for self defense, and both of them aim at conveying Allah's Religion, inviting people to it, taking people from darkness to the light, making Allah's Religion prevail in His Land and making (all and every kind of) worship for Allah (Alone)...

Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) says in Surat Al-Anfal: And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world].

And, Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) says in Surat Al-Tawbah: Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islâmic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikûn (See V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush...

Also, it was reported in the Two Sahih (authentic) Books of Hadith (i.e. Al-Bukhari and Muslim) on the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is Allah's Messenger, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws, and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah...

There are many Hadiths in this regard. These noble Ayahs (Qur'anic verses) and authentic Hadiths indicate clearly that it is obligatory to perform Jihad against disbelievers and atheists, fight them, invite to Islam and fight them because they insist on disbelief and do so till they worship none but Allah and believe in His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) and follow his commands knowing that unless they do so their blood and money will not be inviolable.

This includes Jihad for conquest and self defense; with no exception but for those who abide by the Jizyah (poll tax required from non-Muslims living in an Islamic state) and its conditions as Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) says: Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued ...

For others (i.e. others than people of scripture, means Kuffar), they should be fought till they embrace Islam as according to the sound of the two opinions held by scholars in this regard.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) fought the Arab till they embraced Islam in crowds (groups after groups) and he did not ask them (i.e. Kuffar) to pay Jizyah.

//



You will see that people only make blames upon me that I am making false claims and I am a liar.

But I am not a Liar.

I am 100% truthful and I am providing all the references and proofs.

But these are Islamic Scholars who hide the truth today.

 

[Alam_dar]

Wasn't Iraq/syria conquered during Umars rule why didn't he kill all the yazidies? After all they are not people of the book or Majoos.

Yazidis didn't exist during the time of Umar, but they later came into being and their teachings are a mixture of Islam/Christianity/Zoroastrian

Here you could read about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidis

In the very earlier stages, Yazdi religion was considered a part of Zoroastrian religion (i.e. Majoos). Later they added the practices of Islam and Christianity too in their religion.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

But they all resisted foreign invasions far better than Punjabis did. That much is historical fact.



Nonsense. The 'bigger in stature' people are the Jatts. Doesn't matter whether they are Punjabis, Haryanvis, UP-ites or Biharis. And they are the ones who dominate Indian military system more so than Punjabis do.



Its not about outsiders only. Punjab has not had self-rule for 2000 years. Ie, it was either under the kingdoms of Ganga-Jamuna region or foreigners. While all over India, there are plenty of instances of local kingdoms.
So that means historically, Punjabis are the worst warriors of all, if they cannot even form their own kingdom.



Bengalis were not forced. Punjabis were. As i said, it varies from region to region. We mostly converted to get out of paying extra tax (jaziya). On the other hand, plenty of invaders left behind plenty of accounts showing that Punjabis were massacred and forced to accept Islam.

I thought Alexandar the Great's relentless march was stopped in Punjab but I could be wrong. Was Porus a Bengali king who crossed the seas to show the feeble Punjabis how to fight perhaps?

 

[Musakhel]

Yazidis didn't exist during the time of Umar, but they later came into being and their teachings are a mixture of Islam/Christianity/Zoroastrian

Here you could read about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidis

In the very earlier stages, Yazdi religion was considered a part of Zoroastrian religion (i.e. Majoos). Later they added the practices of Islam and Christianity too in their religion.

There has never been A muslim empire that was specifically Hanbali, most were hanafi, and regions where shafi and Maliki are majority did not see much warfare e.g. west Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, east Africa.

Most of the warfare was done by the central Asian hanafi Turks and later ottoman hanafi Turks.

 

[Alam_dar]

There has never been A muslim empire that was specifically Hanbali, most were hanafi, and regions where shafi and Maliki are majority did not see much warfare e.g. west Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, east Africa.

Most of the warfare was done by the central Asian hanafi Turks and later ottoman hanafi Turks.

Correct.
The fatwa of Imam Abu Hanifa saved the life of millions/billions of people over the course of last 14 centuries.

Problem is this that today Salafi (followers of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal) Islam is on rise. All the Jihadi organisations are of Salafi Origin (Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Ikhwans and the European Muslims)

Therefore, whenever a Salafi State is established with enough powers, then high dangers are that we could see "offensive Jihad" and killing of the Idolaters and the Atheists.

 

[Alam_dar]

Stop trolling

Please sir, tell me how is it trolling?
OP claimed that Islam was not spread through sword, and I had to prove that he was wrongfully claiming that.

In fact this blame of trolling is only to usurp the right to criticize the religion.

Sometimes this right to criticize the religion is taken away in name of "Respect of Religion", sometime in name of "Ridiculing the Religion", sometimes in name of "Blasphemy and sometimes in name of trolling.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Correct.
The fatwa of Imam Abu Hanifa saved the life of millions/billions of people over the course of last 14 centuries.

Problem is this that today Salafi (followers of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal) Islam is on rise. All the Jihadi organisations are of Salafi Origin (Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Ikhwans and the European Muslims)

Therefore, whenever a Salafi State is established with enough powers, then high dangers are that we could see "offensive Jihad" and killing of the Idolaters and the Atheists.

But you said in an earlier post " But this compulsion and killing is conditioned that Muslim State should be strong enough to defeat the Kuffar, otherwise they should not act upon this orders of Quran, but wait till the time they become stronger."

So by that logic we should be thanking those terrorist Salafi groups for striking while they are weak and thus allowing the kuffar to kill them in their own lands. So I say hurrah for Isis and Al Qaeda!

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Alam Dar's logic about Salafis waiting until they are strong to attack kafirs is almost as impressive as joshila's assertion that Hindus held onto their religion and culture for 3000 years but just decided to impose a beef ban recently as a reminder.

 

[Musakhel]

Correct.
The fatwa of Imam Abu Hanifa saved the life of millions/billions of people over the course of last 14 centuries.

Problem is this that today Salafi (followers of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal) Islam is on rise. All the Jihadi organisations are of Salafi Origin (Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Ikhwans and the European Muslims)

Therefore, whenever a Salafi State is established with enough powers, then high dangers are that we could see "offensive Jihad" and killing of the Idolaters and the Atheists.

I don't think salafi and hanbali are the same hanbali school is old and classical school of jurisprudence, salafi is relatively modern school 18th century or so.

 

[Traveller55]

I thought Alexandar the Great's relentless march was stopped in Punjab but I could be wrong. Was Porus a Bengali king who crossed the seas to show the feeble Punjabis how to fight perhaps?

Porus got utterly defeated by Alexander.
Alexander stopped marching further,because the Magadh empire scared his troops. This is recorded in the Greek sources themselves - the cause of the mutiny was the power of Magadh.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I openly admit that I have little knowledge and initially I also got knowledge by reading different websites. But then I went further and researched all this material for "many years" and cross checked the references from Quran and other Muslim books.

Therefore, it is not necessary who is saying, but it is important what is said. Please cross check the arguments as I did for years, and only then come to any conclusion.

Indeed I provided above the Verses of Quran, along with their Tafsir by the Grand Salafi Mufties of Saudi Arabia, who giving further references to the Imams and lot of Ahadith.

I also provided directly the Tafsir by Ibn Kathir too who is quoting the Quranic Verses himself.

Therefore, I request you to please not to blame me for not providing the direct references from Quran and Ahadith.

Sir, please do your research complete before making such statement.

The verse of sword (Surah 9, verse 5) was revealed only at the end of the Meccan period (i.e. end of the 9th Hijri). This Surah was the last which was revealed upon the Prophet.

At this time (9th Hijri), there were no idolaters/tribes left who were strong enough to fight against the Muslims.

Please read the Surah and Verse, which are clear that even if there are pacts with the Kuffar, even then they were given the time of 4 months after which those pacts would have become annulled, and Kuffar would have been killed wherever they would have been found. (Note: Pacts already mean that Kuffar were no more fighting against the Muslims, but even then their pacts were annulled).

It is not me, but there is IJMA of all Muslims who are saying the same thing. Only difference is this that Imam Abu Hanifa later changed the rule and started accepting Jizya from the idolaters too, while other Imams criticized him for using Qiyyas against the Ijma of the Sahaba.


I would again ask you to please read what Salafi Mufties are writing from Quran and Ahadith, and then tell me what wrong have I said, and where is your own proof from Quran and Hadith?


I have read it.
It does not cover the discussion which we have here, but it is only talking of not killing of the "women and the children", but to make them the slaves for whole of their life, even if they have no part in any war against the Muslims.

You have on this thread copied and pasted from a well known hate site and passed it off as your own work. Your post actually should be removed for this reason alone.

You claim you have studied for years, reading hate sites and taking what is suitable for you isn't study. Learn Arabic and call for an open debate with scholars but I assume you have done this since you have studied for years? Lets the see the video or hear the audio?

The verse of the sword as it's known needs to continue at 9:6. It's not a surprise why you have not continued. Here:

9:5-6 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

You claim there was no fighting but common sense should tell you conflict was frozen thus there was conflict.

You also claim Muslims must kill idolaters yet Quran verse quoted in context proves you wrong again(bolded).

If you want to read more here..
http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_95_commentary/

My sincere advice is you dont have the capability to argue such a thing against Islam. Please go and debate a scholar instead of trolling on here. May God forgive you for your ignorance. I will not be replying to you again, as i have proven you didn't post the verse in context and you copy from hate sites. I have no issue debating genuine people and im sorry to say you're a not.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Your region and your ancestors were conquered before mine. Didnt the British conquer muslims? Or did the muslims vanish when the British came?So yoyr ancestors were subservient according to your logic.

We do not need to look towards anyone, we are not a small country that has a struggling economy and has to depend on handouts.

We were a super power long before islam came into being. Some reading of history will help you.

I have read and lets be honest, those empires didn't get much past the Indus. Under Muslim rule it was part of a global empire spanning continents. You're not an Empire if you stay within your own areas.

Anyways Im fascinated how you know so much about your ansectors. I have a few questions(genuine).

1. How can you be sure YOUR ancestors were not forced to convert to the religion you are now? When the Aryans came they could have forced Hinduism on your ancestors?

2. If you was a Muslim today, would you then reject a your religion believing it was forced upon your ancestors?

India has some rich but accounts for 1 IN 3 of the worlds poor. Nobody thinks of India as rich land due to this.

https://www.businesstoday.in/curren...low-poverty-line-world-bank/story/238085.html

 

[Tusker]

I have read and lets be honest, those empires didn't get much past the Indus. Under Muslim rule it was part of a global empire spanning continents. You're not an Empire if you stay within your own areas.

Entire Pakistan and Parts of Afghanistan were ruled by Hindu/Buddhist kings. How else did you think the Bamian Budhha Statues existed in Afghanistan. Beyond that there was no point conquering Desert lol. However I urge you to find out how Buddhism found its way all the way across to Japan.

Anyways Im fascinated how you know so much about your ansectors. I have a few questions(genuine).

1. How can you be sure YOUR ancestors were not forced to convert to the religion you are now? When the Aryans came they could have forced Hinduism on your ancestors?

2. If you was a Muslim today, would you then reject a your religion believing it was forced upon your ancestors?

India has some rich but accounts for 1 IN 3 of the worlds poor. Nobody thinks of India as rich land due to this.

https://www.businesstoday.in/curren...low-poverty-line-world-bank/story/238085.html

The point is YOU were the one trying to take cheap shots at Indians based on history which has nothing to do with current day Indian populace. You got a proper fitting reply from [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] ( who admirably never crossed the boundary despite the obvious provocation)

Now here is the point I want to convey to you - there are many Indians who wouldn't even respond to that pathetic post you made which would then be construed as weakness and would attract more bullying. No shortage of such silly stereotypes about Indians on PP. Some still perhaps believe that 1Pakistani = 100 Hindus (Lookup Zaid Hamid Videos on YT) .

What you and most Pakistanis will never understand is that there is no bravery associated in such stupid childish episodes even in real life. But there is no shortage of Pakistanis that swear by the "Buzdil" Hindu. No surprises why Pakistan tried to take on India many times in military conflict. That went well ehh?

Lastly - Ever wonder why Mahatma Gandhi is held in such high regard the world over ? Afterall this is the man who came up with the idea of "show your other cheek if slapped" to counter violent bullies.

There is lots more that I can write on this but cant be bothered.

 

[Traveller55]

I have read and lets be honest, those empires didn't get much past the Indus. Under Muslim rule it was part of a global empire spanning continents. You're not an Empire if you stay within your own areas.

So then the Chinese never had an empire ?!

Imperium is not about locale. Its about structure of government. I suggest you read up on history some more.
The subcontinental empires, especially the north Indian ones were especially powerful. Powerful enough to stop the arabs on their track (arabs themselves recorded their losses and being thrown out of Sindh), they were strong enough to scare away Alexander.

But then again, you have no pride in your ancestor's accomplishments given that they were not muslim.
Sad, since in pre-muslim days, Gandhara was educated and sophisticated enough to draw Chinese students but after Islam, nobody came there to study anymore.

Anyways Im fascinated how you know so much about your ansectors. I have a few questions(genuine).

1. How can you be sure YOUR ancestors were not forced to convert to the religion you are now? When the Aryans came they could have forced Hinduism on your ancestors?

There is no evidence that Aryans came with hinduism. We have Pashupathi seals from IVC, indicating that the religion is indegenous.
Further, hinduism has no official conversion policy, so there is nothing to force.
This can be evidenced by the spread of hinduism in SE Asia in 1st and 2nd millenia AD. Nobody got force-converted, people gradually adopted the practices based on their professions prior to contact.

2. If you was a Muslim today, would you then reject a your religion believing it was forced upon your ancestors?

Yep. Truth does not need to be forced and anything forced is evidence of itself being false. Truth simply is.


PS: Why are you running away from the fact that Punjabis are the most conquered people in Indian subcontinent, with less duration of self-rule than any other group. Rajputs, Doabas , Biharis, Bengalis - every single northern Indian group (and almost all the southern groups) have been ruled by others less than Punjab has been.

 

[Tusker]

Do you in your eyes see it as a victory that your forefathers kept same religion for 3000 years, whereas those who converted to Islam were losers?

Thats a question you need to ask the OP who started this stupidity.


But there is one unfortunate aspect of these historical events is that the Hindus that survived the Islamic Plunder and rape is that they completely disowned those that converted even though most wanted to revert back once the immediate threat had past and the armies had moved on. Such was the disgust and distrust for surrendering. This is the genesis of the Hindu-Muslim divisions that ultimately led to the creation of Pakistan.

 

[Alam_dar]

I don't think salafi and hanbali are the same hanbali school is old and classical school of jurisprudence, salafi is relatively modern school 18th century or so.

Indeed the modern Salafi Movement is the "reformed" form of earlier Hanbali Madhab.

Ibn Taymiyyah was himself a Hanbali.

Please read it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbali

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Wrong.

The responses were cop outs. Citing the Indian constitution which appeared long after Hindutva, or an election long after Hindutva was conceived not only fails to answer the question, but is not even relevant.

The question was not why people voted for Hindutva, but was why Hindutva was created in the first place.

Go on, give the question a stab. All in English my man.

Hindutva was pretty much defined by savarkar while in prison where he experienced the violent tendencies of khilafatist Pathans (Jaffrelot, 1991 for reference).

 

[Rayyman]

Please sir, tell me how is it trolling?
OP claimed that Islam was not spread through sword, and I had to prove that he was wrongfully claiming that.

In fact this blame of trolling is only to usurp the right to criticize the religion.

Sometimes this right to criticize the religion is taken away in name of "Respect of Religion", sometime in name of "Ridiculing the Religion", sometimes in name of "Blasphemy and sometimes in name of trolling.

And why would you assume that I am a Muslim?

 

[Pakistanian]

I'm also really proud my ancestors converted and all of Kashmir as well, we gave up our high caste privelege for the right path. Praise the Lord!

 

[Traveller55]

I'm also really proud my ancestors converted and all of Kashmir as well, we gave up our high caste privelege for the right path. Praise the Lord!

Thats nothing special to be honest, since every religion and religious person believe that their path is the right path and nobody has anything irrefutable to show they are the only true religion.

 

[English August]

I see the last time I LOL'd at your LOL still pains you. Just like joshila and the Traveller can't help themselves staring at my phrases like burned and adopting them themselves like well trained parrots. LOL.

None of this lol-ing changes the fact that you made stuff up about Hindutva.

 

[English August]

Why waste your time on a couple of trolls? You joker. You wasted time in responding to a couple of trolls with your nonsense above. Once again, a Hindutva apologist undermining himself.

It's a simple question - why was Hindutva created? Answers on a postcard.

Also, got to laugh at your English comprehension. *Looks* like I agree with him? Wake up Sonny Jim, I do agree with him!

Bless.

I'd suggest you rethink about your English comprehension or any sort of comprehension in fact before going Joker, Sonny Jim etc. Do you even know what's Hindutva? Why don't you start with sharing your definition of Hindutva and how it's relevant to India's current political landscape, and we'll take it from there.

Bless?

 

[Alam_dar]

You have on this thread copied and pasted from a well known hate site and passed it off as your own work. Your post actually should be removed for this reason alone.

I am not a prophet, and I don't receive revelation. I have to read the books and websites to get knowledge.

An "argument" is not rejected while it is made by any anti-Islamic person, but an argument is only rejected in the presence of Proofs.

During my research, I didn't trust the non Islamic literature, but I cross checked them and made sure I get the first hand knowledge.

Therefore, when I wrote here, then I didn't use any anti Islamic material, but I directly used the material from the Largest Islamic Fatwa Site of Salafi Saudi grand Mufti "Islam Questions and Answers".

And this Salafi grand Mufti further gave reference to:
(1) Quran Verse of Sword
(2) Ahadith from the Prophet which are recorded in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim.
(3) Then Ijma of Sahaba is also present about killing the idolaters (See other Fatwa by Sheikh Ibn Baz which I also presented above. Also see the Hadith of Sunnan Abu Dawud about killing of Majoos by Umar)
(4) And these Salafi Mufties are not alone, but they are quoting Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, Imam Shafi'i, Imam Ibn Hazm etc who all were unanimous about killing of the idolaters.

You claim you have studied for years, reading hate sites and taking what is suitable for you isn't study. Learn Arabic and call for an open debate with scholars but I assume you have done this since you have studied for years? Lets the see the video or hear the audio?

Sir, proofs have already been presented by me. And these proofs have come from your own Imams, who knew Arabic language, who knew the Quran, who knew the Ahadith, who knew the Islamic History about Sahaba.

The verse of the sword as it's known needs to continue at 9:6. It's not a surprise why you have not continued.

The verse 9:06 was not about the Kuffar who were living in the Islamic State, but it was for the Kuffar who were living in the Non Muslim lands and they come to Islamic State as Messengers of as Traders etc.

Please read Tafsir Ibn Kathir under this verse 9:06 (link):

دارالحرب سے جو قاصد آئے یا تاجر آئے یا صلح کا طالب آئے یا آپس میں اصلاح کے ارادے سے آئے یا جزیہ لے کر حاضر ہو امام یا نائب امام نے اسے امن وامان دے دیا ہو تو جب تک وہ دارالاسلام میں رہے یا اپنے وطن نہ پہنچ جائے اسے قتل کرنا حرام ہے۔ علماء کہتے ہیں ایسے شخص کو دارالاسلام میں سال بھر تک نہ رہنے دیا جائے۔ زیادہ سے زیادہ چار ماہ تک وہ یہاں ٹھہر سکتا ہے پھر چار ماہ سے زیادہ اور سال بھر کے اندر دو قول ہیں امام شافعی وغیرہ علماء کے ہیں رحمہم اللہ تعالیٰ۔

If you want to read more here..
http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_95_commentary/

You are giving me a link of Commentary of an Islam Apologist of "Today", who don't quote a single Hadith, who don't quote the Ijma of Sahaba, who don't quote the Rulings of the earlier Imams, but he plays with the Quranic verses (like Quranists) and turn them according to his own wishes.

While I provide you the link of the Commentaries by the earlier Mufassirin, who quote the Ahadith, who quote the Sahaba, who quote the earlier Sahaba.

My sincere advice is you dont have the capability to argue such a thing against Islam. Please go and debate a scholar instead of trolling on here. May God forgive you for your ignorance. I will not be replying to you again, as i have proven you didn't post the verse in context and you copy from hate sites. I have no issue debating genuine people and im sorry to say you're a not.

It is unfair of you of blaming me all this.

My references are True and they are from the Muslim Scholars, who themselves quoting Quranic Verses, Ahadith of Prophet, Ijma of Sahaba, the Rulings of earlier Imams.

While the Islam Apologists of today (whom you quote) are dishonest. They hide the real Islamic Rulings.

 

[www787]

I am not a prophet, and I don't receive revelation. I have to read the books and websites to get knowledge.

An "argument" is not rejected while it is made by any anti-Islamic person, but an argument is only rejected in the presence of Proofs.

During my research, I didn't trust the non Islamic literature, but I cross checked them and made sure I get the first hand knowledge.

Therefore, when I wrote here, then I didn't use any anti Islamic material, but I directly used the material from the Largest Islamic Fatwa Site of Salafi Saudi grand Mufti "Islam Questions and Answers".

And this Salafi grand Mufti further gave reference to:
(1) Quran Verse of Sword
(2) Ahadith from the Prophet which are recorded in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim.
(3) Then Ijma of Sahaba is also present about killing the idolaters (See other Fatwa by Sheikh Ibn Baz which I also presented above. Also see the Hadith of Sunnan Abu Dawud about killing of Majoos by Umar)
(4) And these Salafi Mufties are not alone, but they are quoting Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, Imam Shafi'i, Imam Ibn Hazm etc who all were unanimous about killing of the idolaters.





Sir, proofs have already been presented by me. And these proofs have come from your own Imams, who knew Arabic language, who knew the Quran, who knew the Ahadith, who knew the Islamic History about Sahaba.





The verse 9:06 was not about the Kuffar who were living in the Islamic State, but it was for the Kuffar who were living in the Non Muslim lands and they come to Islamic State as Messengers of as Traders etc.

Please read Tafsir Ibn Kathir under this verse 9:06 (link):

دارالحرب سے جو قاصد آئے یا تاجر آئے یا صلح کا طالب آئے یا آپس میں اصلاح کے ارادے سے آئے یا جزیہ لے کر حاضر ہو امام یا نائب امام نے اسے امن وامان دے دیا ہو تو جب تک وہ دارالاسلام میں رہے یا اپنے وطن نہ پہنچ جائے اسے قتل کرنا حرام ہے۔ علماء کہتے ہیں ایسے شخص کو دارالاسلام میں سال بھر تک نہ رہنے دیا جائے۔ زیادہ سے زیادہ چار ماہ تک وہ یہاں ٹھہر سکتا ہے پھر چار ماہ سے زیادہ اور سال بھر کے اندر دو قول ہیں امام شافعی وغیرہ علماء کے ہیں رحمہم اللہ تعالیٰ۔





You are giving me a link of Commentary of an Islam Apologist of "Today", who don't quote a single Hadith, who don't quote the Ijma of Sahaba, who don't quote the Rulings of the earlier Imams, but he plays with the Quranic verses (like Quranists) and turn them according to his own wishes.

While I provide you the link of the Commentaries by the earlier Mufassirin, who quote the Ahadith, who quote the Sahaba, who quote the earlier Sahaba.




It is unfair of you of blaming me all this.

My references are True and they are from the Muslim Scholars, who themselves quoting Quranic Verses, Ahadith of Prophet, Ijma of Sahaba, the Rulings of earlier Imams.

While the Islam Apologists of today (whom you quote) are dishonest. They hide the real Islamic Rulings.

What are you trying to proof with copy and paste?

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=7607]Alam_dar[/MENTION] .... Good Posts with solid evidence and logic to back up. However there is one very simple event that settles all this - the destruction of Idols in what is now the Kaaba. That blows a big hole in the apologists story that Islam respects and accepts other religions.

 

[Third_Umpire]

How can anyone be proud/ashamed of choices their ancestors made centuries ago? You have no connection to these ancestors, no factual knowledge to know why/how they made the choice, whether they even converted or not, and they certainly weren't thinking of you when they made whatever choice they made?

On the flip side, why are others so offended if someone is claiming to be proud of whatever conversion their ancestors may or may not have gone through? How can people have such strong feelings and connection to events that they quite literally have nothing to do with?

This entire thread is one big pile of ----.

 

[Alam_dar]

Why Mohammad bin Qasim didn't kill the Idolaters in India?

This was the question asked to me earlier in this thread.

I now have got the answer.

Hajaj bin Yousuf (who sent Muhammad bin Qasim) was not a religious figure, but he was a Zalim King and he cared for his personal glory.

This same Hajaj bin Yousuf stopped the Dhimmies (Christians/Jews/Zoroastrians) to even accept Islam, while by doing so they stopped paying the Jizya money. Therefore, in order to not to loose the Jizya money, Hajaj even prohibited the Non Muslims to convert to Islam. (Reference: Muslim Historian Ibn Atheer, volume 4).


حجاج بن یوسف کو اسکے عاملوں نے لکھا که ذمی کثرت سے مسلمان هو هو کر بصره و کوفه میں آباد هو رهے هیں اور اس وجه سے جزیه و خراج کی آمدنی گھٹ رهی هے, اس پر حجاج بن یوسف نے فرمان جاری کیا که ان لوگوں کو شهروں سے نکالا جاۓ اور ان سب په حسب سابق جزیه لگایا جاۓ۔
اس حکم کی تعمیل میں جب یه نو مسلم بصره و کوفه سے نکالے جا رهے تھے تو یا محمداه, یا محمداه پکار پکار کر روتے پیٹتے جاتے تھے اور ان کی سمجھ میں نه آتا تھا که اب کهاں جا کر اس ظلم پر فریاد کریں
حوالہ:
ابن الاثیر جلد چهارم

 

[R3verse Swing]

I'd suggest you rethink about your English comprehension or any sort of comprehension in fact before going Joker, Sonny Jim etc. Do you even know what's Hindutva? Why don't you start with sharing your definition of Hindutva and how it's relevant to India's current political landscape, and we'll take it from there.

Bless?

I suggest you back to the drawing board.

The definition of Hindutva, it's relevance in Indian politics today has squat to do with the original question on why Hindutva was created.

Why are you wasting your time?

 

[Slog]

Forced conversion is an oxymoron

 

[Traveller55]

Why Mohammad bin Qasim didn't kill the Idolaters in India?

This was the question asked to me earlier in this thread.

I now have got the answer.

Hajaj bin Yousuf (who sent Muhammad bin Qasim) was not a religious figure, but he was a Zalim King and he cared for his personal glory.

This same Hajaj bin Yousuf stopped the Dhimmies (Christians/Jews/Zoroastrians) to even accept Islam, while by doing so they stopped paying the Jizya money. Therefore, in order to not to loose the Jizya money, Hajaj even prohibited the Non Muslims to convert to Islam. (Reference: Muslim Historian Ibn Atheer, volume 4).


حجاج بن یوسف کو اسکے عاملوں نے لکھا که ذمی کثرت سے مسلمان هو هو کر بصره و کوفه میں آباد هو رهے هیں اور اس وجه سے جزیه و خراج کی آمدنی گھٹ رهی هے, اس پر حجاج بن یوسف نے فرمان جاری کیا که ان لوگوں کو شهروں سے نکالا جاۓ اور ان سب په حسب سابق جزیه لگایا جاۓ۔
اس حکم کی تعمیل میں جب یه نو مسلم بصره و کوفه سے نکالے جا رهے تھے تو یا محمداه, یا محمداه پکار پکار کر روتے پیٹتے جاتے تھے اور ان کی سمجھ میں نه آتا تھا که اب کهاں جا کر اس ظلم پر فریاد کریں
حوالہ:
ابن الاثیر جلد چهارم

The answer to why Bin-Qasim didn't kill all the idolators if he was such a zalim, is pretty simple: he was not powerful enough to do so and get away with it.

His mission was conquest, not conversion. Beats the whole point of conquest, when you ****** people off close enough to your new conquests, that they fight a 'win for prestige' factor.

India at the time of the Arabs was not weak. It was the time when Indian indegenous military was formidable (the decline came after 875-900 AD period).

This is evidenced by the fact that Arabs were stopped by a rag-tag coalition of Gurjara chiefs and then utterly annihilated by Nagabhata and Mihir Bhoj of the rising Pratihara empire.

This was the period of 'Kanauj Triangle' of subcontinental history, where the main western, eastern and south-central (as in northern half of the Deccan) empires fought repeatedly for control of Kanauj.

The southern power especially - first the Chalukyas, then the Rashtrakutas were especially successful against the Arab invasions, utterly annihilating them- enough for the Arab sources themselves to state that the Chalukya emperor had the most disciplined and deadly infantry they've faced.

So, in this backdrop, it doesn't make sense for Bin-Qasim to make too much of a ripple. Yes, India is divided, at war with itself and they are not going to go out of their way to settle disputes and fight Bin-Qasim for conquering the fringes of India and a little slaughter here and there, forced conversion here and there.

However, Bin-Qasim slaughtering all at sight would've been manna to the ears of one of the three enterprising Emperors at the time, which would've been something akin to a hindu crusade.

And given that the Gurjaras were able to crush the Arabs despite facing pressure from the east (Pal empire) and south ( Chalukya, then Rashtrakuta), an even more united India to fight this barbarian genocider would've been utterly fruitless for the Arabs.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Alam Dar's logic about Salafis waiting until they are strong to attack kafirs is almost as impressive as joshila's assertion that Hindus held onto their religion and culture for 3000 years but just decided to impose a beef ban recently as a reminder.

Cow slaughter ban is in India since 1956. Yes Hindus held onto their culture and religion which is why they are still the majority religion in the subcontinent.

 

[TM Riddle]

Aryans came and hinduized India ) )
KKWC wins this round

 

[TM Riddle]

Cow slaughter ban is in India since 1956. Yes Hindus held onto their culture and religion which is why they are still the majority religion in the subcontinent.

You are so naive CJ Dada. If Delhi Sultans wanted , they could have converted the entire population in one swoop but the fact that they didn't is the proof of their magnanimity and generosity.
Oh and also don't you know when Qasim invaded Sindh , the locals welcomed him with great enthusiasm and rejoiced when He killed the Hindu oppressor Dahir .
Thereafter after witnessing the light of Islam they decided to convert en masse .

 

[cricketjoshila]

I have read and lets be honest, those empires didn't get much past the Indus. Under Muslim rule it was part of a global empire spanning continents. You're not an Empire if you stay within your own areas.

Anyways Im fascinated how you know so much about your ansectors. I have a few questions(genuine).

1. How can you be sure YOUR ancestors were not forced to convert to the religion you are now? When the Aryans came they could have forced Hinduism on your ancestors?

2. If you was a Muslim today, would you then reject a your religion believing it was forced upon your ancestors?

India has some rich but accounts for 1 IN 3 of the worlds poor. Nobody thinks of India as rich land due to this.

https://www.businesstoday.in/curren...low-poverty-line-world-bank/story/238085.html

Do you have any idea regarding the extent of the Maurya,the gupta and the chola empires? All extended beyond indus or the indian main land. Is this what you have read?

1. Can you tell me what was the pre aryan religion and who follows it? Who are aryans and who are non aryans in todays India?

2.I am not a muslim so i have no idea what i would have done. I follow my religion because of my belief in it. I can trace my ancestry at least from the time of Isa Khan, thats atleast 500 years and my ancestors held onto their religion.

3. Next time you think of someones ancestor as subservient, look upon tge history of your own. Its far worse.

4. Per capita income of india is more than pakistan.

 

[cricketjoshila]

How can anyone be proud/ashamed of choices their ancestors made centuries ago? You have no connection to these ancestors, no factual knowledge to know why/how they made the choice, whether they even converted or not, and they certainly weren't thinking of you when they made whatever choice they made?

On the flip side, why are others so offended if someone is claiming to be proud of whatever conversion their ancestors may or may not have gone through? How can people have such strong feelings and connection to events that they quite literally have nothing to do with?

This entire thread is one big pile of ----.

Bhai tell the OP. He started this

 

[BlackShadow]

Proud that my ancestors didn't convert. Since both sides are proud, we should leave it at that.

 

[Musakhel]

Indians claiming ancestors of pakistanis were forcefully converted yet why did it take muslims until the time of British rule to become majority in what was greater punjab at the time I.e. both east and west punjab + haryana and himachal pradesh considering this area is all North India and was the most impacted region by Invasions since the time of Ghaznavi.

 

[Traveller55]

Indians claiming ancestors of pakistanis were forcefully converted yet why did it take muslims until the time of British rule to become majority in what was greater punjab at the time I.e. both east and west punjab + haryana and himachal pradesh considering this area is all North India and was the most impacted region by Invasions since the time of Ghaznavi.

Because forceful conversion does not mean 100% enforcement or effectiveness, particularly when rulers are busy fighting and not consolidating.

Your 'how comes' are meaningless. Because the idea that most of Pakistan was forcefully converted is not an allegation, its a fact borne out by muslim chronicles themselves!!

 

[Greenstorm]

I cannot understand how someone can be converted forcefully. A person may proclaim out of fear that he/she is Muslim, Christian or Hindu but he/she can never be forced to believe in something.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I cannot understand how someone can be converted forcefully. A person may proclaim out of fear that he/she is Muslim, Christian or Hindu but he/she can never be forced to believe in something.

When you keep doing it for decades and centuries it becomes part of your life.

Though not everyone was forcefully converted.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I cannot understand how someone can be converted forcefully. A person may proclaim out of fear that he/she is Muslim, Christian or Hindu but he/she can never be forced to believe in something.

It's a coping mechanism. There are some strange posts in this thread about how Afghanistan and Punjab were repeatedly conquered, forcefully converted and raped willingly, then this idea that Islam took root by force except for the magnificent Hindus of certain regions which resisted nobly and heroically like in a Bollywood film. Except in Bollywood films the heroes are too often Afghans and Punjabis which is another lie forced on the masses no doubt.

I think we should just agree, don't want to hurt any more feelings than necessary.

 

[Alam_dar]

Ahadith on forced Conversion:

Sahih Bukhari, Book of Belief (link):

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me



Sahih Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Tafsir (link):

Narrated Abu Huraira:

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



Sahih Bukahri, Book of Manumission of Slaves (link):

Narrated Ibn `Aun:

I wrote a letter to Nafi` and Nafi` wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet (ﷺ) had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives

 

[Alam_dar]

The answer to why Bin-Qasim didn't kill all the idolators if he was such a zalim, is pretty simple: he was not powerful enough to do so and get away with it.

His mission was conquest, not conversion. Beats the whole point of conquest, when you ****** people off close enough to your new conquests, that they fight a 'win for prestige' factor.

India at the time of the Arabs was not weak. It was the time when Indian indegenous military was formidable (the decline came after 875-900 AD period).

This is evidenced by the fact that Arabs were stopped by a rag-tag coalition of Gurjara chiefs and then utterly annihilated by Nagabhata and Mihir Bhoj of the rising Pratihara empire.

This was the period of 'Kanauj Triangle' of subcontinental history, where the main western, eastern and south-central (as in northern half of the Deccan) empires fought repeatedly for control of Kanauj.

The southern power especially - first the Chalukyas, then the Rashtrakutas were especially successful against the Arab invasions, utterly annihilating them- enough for the Arab sources themselves to state that the Chalukya emperor had the most disciplined and deadly infantry they've faced.

So, in this backdrop, it doesn't make sense for Bin-Qasim to make too much of a ripple. Yes, India is divided, at war with itself and they are not going to go out of their way to settle disputes and fight Bin-Qasim for conquering the fringes of India and a little slaughter here and there, forced conversion here and there.

However, Bin-Qasim slaughtering all at sight would've been manna to the ears of one of the three enterprising Emperors at the time, which would've been something akin to a hindu crusade.

And given that the Gurjaras were able to crush the Arabs despite facing pressure from the east (Pal empire) and south ( Chalukya, then Rashtrakuta), an even more united India to fight this barbarian genocider would've been utterly fruitless for the Arabs.

Good point.

Off course if Muslims would have killed all the people in India, then surely all Hindu States of that time would have been united against the Muslims.

Actually in this case whole of India and whole of Kaffir china would have united with the Christians of Europe (and perhaps Africa too) and they would have fought against the Muslims together.

Due to this fear, not only Muhammad bin Qasim didn't kill the local Hindu population, but also Imam Abu Hanifa was compelled to change the Original Ruling of Islamic Sharia and his new fatwa was to take the Jizya from Kuffar and not to kill them.

 

[Alam_dar]

I cannot understand how someone can be converted forcefully. A person may proclaim out of fear that he/she is Muslim, Christian or Hindu but he/she can never be forced to believe in something.

Please understand, it is not only the forced conversion, but also add to this Money Bribe and the Power.

For example, Molifatul Qaloob.

These Molifatul Qaloob were the people, who were given large amount of money by the Prophet, so that they could stay Muslims. Even some of them got 100 Camels as bribe.

Ghamidi Website writes (link):


٣۔ مؤلفة القلوب
زکوٰۃ کا تیسرا مصرف مؤلفۃ القلوب ہیں۔ ابن کثیر نے مؤلفۃ القلوب کی مندرجہ ذیل قسمیں گنائی ہیں:

١۔ ایسے غیر مسلم لیڈر اور سردار جن کو اسلام کی طرف مائل کرنا مقصود ہو۔
٢۔ ایسے با اثر نو مسلم جن کے اسلام سے پھر جانے کا اندیشہ ہو اور جن کا ارتداد اسلام اور مسلمانوں کے لیے مضر ہو سکتا ہو۔
٣۔ ایسے با اثر لیڈر جن کی تالیف قلب ان کے ہم چشموں کو اسلام کی طرف مائل کرنے میں مددگار ہو سکتی ہو۔
٤۔ ایسے سردار جو اپنے علاقہ میں اسلامی حکومت کو مالیہ کی وصولی میں مدد دیں اور سرحدی علاقوں کو دشمن کے خطرات سے محفوظ رکھنے میں حکومت کا ہاتھ بٹائیں۔٥

ایسے نو مسلم یا غیر مسلم سردار جن کو اسلام کے حق میں ہموار کرنے یا جن کو اسلام پر ثابت قدم رکھنے کے لیے صدر اول میں اسلامی بیت المال سے بھاری بھاری رقمیں دی گئی ہیں، ابن جوزی کے بیان کے مطابق تقریباً پچاس ہیں، جن میں سے چند ایک کے نام امام شوکانی نے ''نیل الاوطار'' میں بھی گنائے ہیں جن کو خودنبی صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے سو سو اونٹ دلوائے۔ ہم یہ نام یہاں نقل کرتے ہیں تاکہ اندازہ ہو سکے کہ کس کس طرح کے سرداران قبائل اور با اثر اشخاص مؤلفۃ القلوب کے زمرہ میں شامل رہے ہیں اور زکوٰۃ کی مد سے عطیے پانے کے مستحق قرار دیے گئے ہیں۔

صاحب ''نیل الاوطار'' نے جن ناموں کا حوالہ دیا ہے ،وہ یہ ہیں:

ابوسفيان بن حرب، صفوان بن اميه، عيينه بن حصن، اقرع بن حابس، عباس بن مرداس، علقمه بن علاثه۔

ابن کثیر نے زید الخیر کا نام بھی اس فہرست میں شامل کیا ہے۔ جو لوگ اس دور کی تاریخ سے واقف ہیں، وہ جانتے ہیں کہ ان میں سے بیشتر وہ لوگ ہیں جو اسلام کی تاثیر سے نہیں، بلکہ اسلام کی قوت سے مرعوب ہو کر اس کے مطیع ہوئے تھے، بلکہ ان میں سے صفوان بن امیہ کو تو کفر پر باقی رہتے ہوئے حضور صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے بڑے بڑے عطیے دیے،یہاں تک کہ خود ان کا اپنا بیان یہ ہے کہ حنین کے موقع پر حضور صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے مجھے دیا اور اس وقت میرے نزدیک آپ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم سے زیادہ کوئی دوسرا مبغوض نہ تھا، لیکن آپ برابر دیتے رہے یہاں تک کہ پھر آپ سے زیادہ میرے نزدیک کوئی دوسرا محبوب نہ رہا۔

مذکورہ ناموں اور مذکورہ مقاصد پر ایک نظر ڈال کر ہر شخص خود اندازہ کر سکتا ہے کہ یہ خرچ ایک بالکل پولیٹیکل خرچ ہے۔ اس کا مقصد یہ ہے کہ ایسے لوگوں کو جو سیاسی اہمیت اور پولیٹیکل اثر و اقتدار رکھتے ہیں، اسلام اور اسلامی حکومت کے حق میں ہموار کیا جائے اور اگر وہ اسلام کے اندر(کسی نوعیت سے سہی) داخل ہو چکے ہیں تو ان کو اسلام پرمضبوط کیا جائے۔

 

[Alam_dar]

Please also note that people under force accepted Islam. But as soon as Prophet died, there were several Thousands of Muslim who at once became Murtad (i.e. they left Islam).

But they were again fought and killed by the first Caliph Abu Bakr.

And Sahaba kept on killing all Kuffar after that, so that no one else got the courage to leave Islam.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Please also note that people under force accepted Islam. But as soon as Prophet died, there were several Thousands of Muslim who at once became Murtad (i.e. they left Islam).

But they were again fought and killed by the first Caliph Abu Bakr.

And Sahaba kept on killing all Kuffar after that, so that no one else got the courage to leave Islam.

Luckily there is no force in western countries, so Muslims are free to leave Islam and are doing so in droves, soon there will be none left. But the proud Sikhs and Hindus fight to hold their religion and culture and REFUSE to integrate praise Baghwan!