Man from mostly peaceful religion decapitates teacher over Muhammad cartoons

Originally posted by abhilegend
Buddy, I'm an Indian. The Islamic conquest of India makes your bloodiest wars (save world wars) look like a joke.

However, consider Mughal Empire - you seem to forget that Muslim rulers had Hindu wives. Even though this is not allowed in Islam, but these marriages were byproducts of inter-faith harmony and to establish meaningful alliances with Hindu powers of the region.

Once again, if Muslim invaders could reshape belief system of continent-sized regions by the sword, why hindu continued to exist in huge numbers throughout? Over a billion today.

Something is amiss - in your calculus.

The current Islamophobic Fascist government you have, they wish to fabricate Indian history books.

Battles can be brutal, but converting huge populations by the sword? This does not work.

Originally posted by abhilegend
What did India do to attract a five hundred year assault on it since 712 AD to near 1200 AD where Islamic invaders repeatedly attacked India?

Did you know that in a Hindu majority India, there wasn't a single hindu temple in its capital for nine centuries starting from 11th century AD to 1936. That's how peaceful Islam is.

I'm not sure what you are replying to in my post. I agree that many Muslim nations and groups have been extremely bellicose and expansionist.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
The Crusaders didn't wake up one day and go "Hey, let's go start attacking and killing muslims and others for no reason whatsoever!" LOL.

They were a response to Muslim conquests. They were defensive campaigns, at first. It was only during the later crusades that they turned into aggressive campaigns.

Originally posted by Artol
I'm not sure what you are replying to in my post. I agree that many Muslim nations and groups have been extremely bellicose and expansionist.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Nobody comes close to Europeans in this matter - historically speaking.

Yes, I agree with that as well.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Faith is a personal thing, it's not about fantasies. I guess you're an atheist or agnostic, you'll probably not get it.

As long as someone's faith doesn't harms anyone, I don't care what they believe in.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Abhi is right. Everyone who knows actual history knows that Muhammed was not a peaceful, kind-hearted man.

It was because of muslim aggression and invasions that the bloody Crusades were started. They were not a peaceful people lol. Sure, as long as you submitted to them and their nonexistant God, Allah, then they might have let you live in peace... just maybe.

If you held firm to Christian or Jewish beliefs though then nope, you were an infidel that deserved to be beheaded.

Read and learn: https://www.al-islam.org/articles/h...-muhammad-rizvi

You cannot reshape belief system of a continent-sized region by the sword. Even Mongols could not.

Even in the case of Conquest of Makkah when Holy Prophet (PBUH) had sufficient military might and capacity at his disposal to take revenge on a large number of his enemies concentrated in one place, he chose not to. Makkah was the stronghold of barbaric pagan arabs at the time.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Okay, I'll agree with that, but if they're trying to impose it onto others, then they are "douche". And every religion is a fantasy. No more real or believable than the loch ness monster.

I can't speak for every Christian out there but I personally have never tried to force my beliefs on anyone and yet you routinely call me childish names for my beliefs anyway.

So who is truly the douche? Hint: it's not me. 😉

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
He is WRONG much like YOU in this thread all along.

Read and learn: https://www.al-islam.org/articles/h...-muhammad-rizvi

You cannot reshape belief system of a continent-sized region by the sword. Even Mongols could not.

Even in the case of Conquest of Makkah when Holy Prophet (PBUH) had sufficient military might and capacity at his disposal to take revenge on a large number of his enemies concentrated in one place, he chose not to. Makkah was the stronghold of barbaric pagan arabs at the time.

Just to check, do you believe that the reason why most of Africa, South America and some parts of Southeast Asia are Christian is mainly because of Christianity's teaching of kindness and tolerance or because of the brutal imperialism that instituted it?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
He is WRONG much like YOU in this thread all along.

Read and learn: https://www.al-islam.org/articles/h...-muhammad-rizvi

You cannot reshape belief system of a continent-sized region by the sword. Even Mongols could not.

Even in the case of Conquest of Makkah when Holy Prophet (PBUH) had sufficient military might and capacity at his disposal to take revenge on a large number of his enemies concentrated in one place, he chose not to. Makkah was the stronghold of barbaric pagan arabs at the time.

Nah, I'm right. You've been wrong about quite a lot of things in this thread though.

Go ahead and keep making up your own version of history though as you see fit for in order justify calling Muhammed a "holy prophet".

You must be a snowflake leftist as they are notorious for their frequent attempts at trying to rewrite history.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Yes, this was the case under Holy Prophet (PBUH) in large part.

Read and learn: https://www.al-islam.org/articles/how-did-islam-spread-sword-or-conversion-sayyid-muhammad-rizvi

You cannot reshape belief system of a continent-sized region through sword. Even Mongols could not.

Buddy there's dozens of books by Islamic scholars themselves how Islam was spread by both sword and economic means, Jizya being the main reason. Heck there was outright reward by Aurangzeb to convert hindus.

Even in the case of Conquest of Makkah when Holy Prophet (PBUH) had sufficient military might and capacity at his disposal to take revenge on a large number of his enemies concentrated in one place, he chose not to. Makkah was the stronghold of barbaric pagan arabs at the time.

I don't care? I'm talking about Indian history of Islamization.

Originally posted by abhilegend

I don't care? I'm talking about Indian history of Islamization.

What do you think of the current treatment of muslims in India, if I may ask?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Indian conquests have nothing to do with Holy Prophet (PBUH) and Islam in large part. Motivations were usually political and magnified under Turko-Mongols.

Ha, the usual good Islam and bad Islam dichotomy. "It had nothing to do with Islam!"

However, consider Mughal Empire - you seem to forget that Muslim rulers had Hindu wives. Even though this is not allowed in Islam, but these marriages were byproducts of inter-faith harmony and to establish meaningful alliances with Hindu powers of the region.

Seriously? They had harems with hundreds of concubines. It got nothing to do with inter faith harmony. Akbar, the great peaceful muslim he was had been awarded the title of Ghazi because he broke so many hindu temples.

Once again, if Muslim invaders could reshape belief system of continent-sized regions by the sword, why hindu continued to exist in huge numbers throughout? Over a billion today.

Because hindus resisted. Mughals didn't has enough manpower to convert the entire populace and boy, did they try.

Something is amiss - in your calculus.

The current Islamophobic Fascist government you have, they wish to fabricate Indian history books.

Its the actual history my boy. Left in India had distorted the history books long enough.

Battles can be brutal, but converting huge populations by the sword? This does not work.

Doesn't means they didn't try.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
They were started for exactly that reason, genius.

The crusades were (at first) a response to Muslim aggression, that is a historical fact.

The Middle East had long been divided between the Byzantine Empire (Romans) and The Sassanian Empire (Persians). When the Islamic Rashidun Caliphate emerged in the region (world's first), the two Empires of the region led by Emperor Heraclius and King Yazdegerd (III) respectively at the time, perceived the Islamic Rashidun Caliphate as an existential threat and established an alliance through a high profile marriage to neutralize it [1][2] - ironic in view of the fact that Byzantines and Sassanians were busy killing each other not long ago [3][4][5].

[1] https://sites.rootsweb.com/~dearbornboutwell/fam1136.html

[2] https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/37476/why-couldnt-heraclius-and-yazdegerd-coordinate

[3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/24049012?seq=1

[4] https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=resources&s=war-dir&f=wars_romanpersian

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Sasanian_War_of_602%E2%80%93628

Unfortunately for the two hypocritical Empires, they lost the war and the Byzantine Empire lost its lands in the Middle East by extension including Jerusalem. This war was fought in the 7th century.

The Christian European crusades materialized centuries later under Pope Urban II to reclaim Jerusalem among others.

https://www.ancient.eu/article/1249/the-crusades-causes--goals/

It is convenient for you to judge Muslims and Islam negatively through the lens of a FALSE sense of MORAL HIGH GROUND that you have come to harbor in person...

Neither Jesus Christ and nor Holy Prophet (PBUH) are to blame for the above.

People tend to resist CHANGE even if it is for the better - global phenomenon and issue. Made this very simple for you.

The Crusades and the Islamic expansion into India were long after the death of Mohummad. This thread is hilarious.

I have no interest in clicking on any of your links as they are no doubt biased pro-Islam propaganda.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I have no interest in clicking on any of your links as they are no doubt biased pro-Islam propaganda.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I have no interest in clicking on any of your links as they are no doubt biased pro-Islam propaganda.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
The Crusades and the Islamic expansion into India were long after the death of Mohummad. This thread is hilarious.

Doesn't matter whether he was still alive or not. Muslims were still his followers so your point is moot.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Okay, I'll agree with that, but if they're trying to impose it onto others, then they are "douche". And every religion is a fantasy. No more real or believable than the loch ness monster.

Originally posted by Artol
What do you think of the current treatment of muslims in India, if I may ask?

Now the current government is trying to put these special treatments to past but Muslims like everywhere can't be treated equally to everyone. They must be treated as better (They can criticize other religions but nobody can criticize theirs). That's the whole hoopla. Left media in west as usual has treated it as they do with everyone who dares to criticize the religion of peace. Made Indian government devil incarnate.