Nazirano: Someone posted that boko haram was responsible for the killing in kogi state, dat is a fat lie, the killing in deeper life church in kogi state was internal issue, pls stop speard informing you didnt knw anytin abt.

HOW ABOUT THE BUK ISSUE OR THE KADUNA CHURCHES

@OP



Why would those early Muslims trigger an unprovoked war, invading their neighbours causing death and destruction and turn around to be "tolerant" to the the inhabitants? Was the war to show tolerance?

Those wars to forcefully convert their neighbours was in itself intolerance.

vedaxcool:

And the same vatican have a seat in the united Nations is suddenly an enclave, hiss we really don't take you lip service to tolerance seriously!

An enclave is a territory entirely surrounded by another territory, which the Vatican is. True, the Vatican has political independence from Italy, even though it's actually really just Catholic HQ headed by the worldwide leader of Catholic Church - the Pope.

Please do feel free to stick to bringing up the Catholic HQ to justify muslims lands denying real religious freedom to non-muslims. Next you'll be comparing to Redemption Camp.

tiarabubu: @OP



Why would those early Muslims trigger an unprovoked war, invading their neighbours causing death and destruction and turn around to be "tolerant" to the the inhabitants? Was the war to show tolerance?

Those wars to forcefully convert their neighbours was in itself intolerance.

Read your history well, those neighbours would have overrun Muslims if left unchecked. The rule was conquer or be conquered.

Don't let me call you silly. I expect nay demand greater intelligence from you. #Smiling.

aytuns:

and in support to that.. The ridicule, and blasphemy christians get from muslims themselves is so much.. Just to mention a few
1. That Jesus isn't the son of God
2. That Christ didn't resurrect
and in and on, and yet has a muslim lost his life for this??,or has the society separated itself from the muslims saying, 'this part is for christians only , any muslim found here might be murdered', has that happened?? Can a muslim answer this question honestly??

These are theological differences not blasphemy.. It is fine to disagree on details as long as it is done in a civil manner not name calling. We do not insult Jesus (peace be upon him) by calling him derogatory names... Many christians do not agree that the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon him) was a prophet, it is fine.. It should not degenerate to insults on his character.

By their fruits(Boko haram, jihad, born to rule, forceful conversion of other religion faithfuls etc) they are judged

maclatunji:

Read your history well, those neighbours would have overrun Muslims if left unchecked. The rule was conquer or be conquered.

Don't let me call you silly. I expect nay demand greater intelligence from you. #Smiling.

You see this?

Was this necessary?

And if someone else said this to you, you would ban them for eternity...

Mscheww..

TroGunn:

An enclave is a territory entirely surrounded by another territory, which the Vatican is. True, the Vatican has political independence from Italy, even though it's actually really just Catholic HQ headed by the worldwide leader of Catholic Church - the Pope.

Please do feel free to stick to bringing up the Catholic HQ to justify muslims lands denying real religious freedom to non-muslims. Next you'll be comparing to Redemption Camp.

Good u came out clean with it being politically independent and stuff, Vatican is clearly more than just the Catholic HQ, the Vatican city is the only religious "enclave" with a seat in the UN even the palestienians don't. So stop trying hard to distract the the facts.

Does it justify Muslims treating non muslims badly, CAPITAL No, we muslims are to follow the examples of the prophet pbuh not to engage in tit for tat. And Islam does not require it adherents to oppress anyone for the Qur'an states emphatically oppression is worse than killing, the history of how muslims saved christians who were fleeing oppression of their fellow christians is there for any objective person. The fact remains that muslims till date tolerate and treat their christians neighbours well is there for all to see, do some muslims treat their christians nieghbours badly, yes, and these things are not Islamic in nature. Even in the free west Muslims face all sort of humiliation and oppression!

maclatunji:

Read your history well, those neighbours would have overrun Muslims if left unchecked. The rule was conquer or be conquered.

Don't let me call you silly. I expect nay demand greater intelligence from you. #Smiling.

Talk is cheap Mac. You are making excuses.

Never during the life of the Prophet was Arabia threatened by ANY external force. Soon after the death of the Prophet, Islam was spread through conquests by the caliphs and dynasties that followed. Most of Islam was spread throughout the middle east primarily through these wars. In other words these wars facilitated the spread of the faith.

tiarabubu:

Talk is cheap Mac. You are making excuses.

Never during the life of the Prophet was Arabia threatened by ANY external force. Soon after the death of the Prophet, Islam was spread through conquests by the caliphs and dynasties that followed. Most of Islam was spread throughout the middle east primarily through these wars. In other words these wars facilitated the spread of the faith.

Girl! You're falling my hand here big time. Even before the birth of the Prophet (SAW), Arabia was under threat, read Suratul Fil, the Chapter of The Elephant in the Qur'an and it's extensive commentary. It's such a shame when someone as intelligent as you shuts their mind to knowledge.

Google it now!

jackbauersballs:

You see this?

Was this necessary?

And if someone else said this to you, you would ban them for eternity...

Mscheww..

Hush, I and tiarabubu get along well. I can joke with her. She understands I am joking. Now, don't intrude.

tiarabubu:

Talk is cheap Mac. You are making excuses.

Never during the life of the Prophet was Arabia threatened by ANY external force. Soon after the death of the Prophet, Islam was spread through conquests by the caliphs and dynasties that followed. Most of Islam was spread throughout the middle east primarily through these wars. In other words these wars facilitated the spread of the faith.

Either you are being mischievious or engaging in bare faced lies, Syria was under occupation of the Romans (christian empire) etc infact they and the Persiand encircled Arabia, then again u have never heard of the battle of Tabouk, where Muslims had to mobilized accross the desert because of an impeding attack by the Romans. This happened during the life time of the prophet pbuh. The Romans were known to spread christianity by waging wars on various tribes around Europe till most of Europe became Christian then they turned their sight on the Middle east just like their Persian enemies did and started conquering there until Islam came and repulsed them, and again the Christians of Syria etc were Jubilant that Muslim freed them from their own Christian brothers Tyranny, this is a fact. So when next you try mis-appropriating history do so presenting evidence not just telling tales that have no basis.

tiarabubu: Talk is cheap Mac. You are making excuses.

Never during the life of the Prophet was Arabia threatened by ANY external force. Soon after the death of the Prophet, Islam was spread through conquests by the caliphs and dynasties that followed. Most of Islam was spread throughout the middle east primarily through these wars. In other words these wars facilitated the spread of the faith.

Actually there were, you had the huge roman and persian empires always fighting for more territory.... Which empire was not trying to gain more territory?

Don't be so naive, You cannot just wait around to be conquered particularly if you are a new growing power, you had to have at the very least a strong army... The established powers do not want to see a new power coming up...... The romans sent hundreds of thousands of troops to fight with the relatively small muslim army and lost...

It was the way of the world at the time, conquer or be conquered.... Islam was never spread by these conquests, because the muslims never conquered a territory and forced the residents to become muslim... There were many fire-worshippers (Zoroastrians) in muslim lands,christians and jews etc... The people voluntarily became muslim or refused to.... There are still relatively high christian populations in places like lebanon and syria for instance. Their cultures and history are still intact.

The roman empire facilitated the spread of christianity as well, It was a conquering empire too and they were not as liberal as the muslims to people practising other faiths in the regions they conquered. In europe, you did not have the kind of religious diversity as in the muslim lands, Jews were heavily persecuted in europe.

So remove the log in your eye before looking at the speck in another's eye....

^Go easy on her. You know it's difficult to change your mindset when you have been fed with anti-Islamic propaganda all-your-life.

tbaba1234:

These are theological differences not blasphemy.. It is fine to disagree on details as long as it is done in a civil manner not name calling. We do not insult Jesus (peace be upon him) by calling him derogatory names... Many christians do not agree that the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon him) was a prophet, it is fine.. It should not degenerate to insults on his character.

At the same time blasphemy which would have not been tolerated in 14th Europe.

forever islam! sooner or later ALLAH wil show us what islam is al about. i think its high time the non-muslims stopped propagating islam in d negative way. religion is by choice and the muslims have chosen islam.let there b peace 4all

You are just looking for excuses. The Roman and Persian Empires were not fighting each other to establish a religion! Persians were not Muslims then, neither was Syria.

Don't muddle the issues like you are so oft to do.

Islam WAS NOT under threat when it started its conquests. Contrary to Maclatunji's statements, Islam was under no direct threat because it benefited from the weaken state of its neighbors (due to internal strife) and vanquished them (Persia and the Roman Empire are prime examples). The fledgling Islamic warriors went on unprovoked offensive against weak opponents and didnt stop until they were stopped.

Immediately after the death of the Prophet Caliphs began their conquest. If they were tolerant, they would have waited for a formal declaration of war. BUT none came before the conquests of persia, syria, iraq, spain, turkey etc.


The Arab conquests started as sporadic tribal raids. A proper army was probably not organized before 634 , but once formed, it made expeditions eastwards towards the Sasanian empire and northwards to Palestine and Syria against the Byzantine empire.
Under the leadership of commanders such as ‘Amr ibn al ‘As and Khalid ibn al Walid, the army defeated the Byzantines at Yarmuk ( 636 ), and the newly organized Muslim navy destroyed the Christian fleet at the Battle of the Masts ( 655 ). Constantinople was sporadically besieged during this period, though never captured. On the oriental front, the Sasanian army suffered a crushing defeat at the battle of al Qadisiyah ( 637 ), and Ctesiphon was taken soon afterwards; this caused the disintegration of the Sasanian empire. ‘Amr ibn al ‘As then moved westwards towards Egypt in 639 , and by 646 Heliopolis and Alexandria had fallen. From Alexandria, naval expeditions were launched against Cyprus and Sicily and under the Umayyad dynasty the Muslims emerged as a major seapower. The eighth century saw further expansions eastwards as far as the river Indus and the Sind region and westwards through northern Africa to Spain and France where the over-stretched army was stopped at the battle of Poitiers by Charles Martel .

The surprising speed at which the conquests took place can be attributed to the weakness of countries debilitated by long external conflicts (the Sasanian empire) or by the fragility of internal structure (Spain).

http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t253/e17



I am not going to be dragged into a debate with you cos my point is clear from these questions; Why would those early Muslims trigger an unprovoked religious war, invading their neighbors causing death and destruction and turn around to be "tolerant" to the the inhabitants? Was the war to show tolerance?

The answer/point is that you cannot claim tolerance through wars. Simple. No war is tolerant or merciful. You cant slaughter people and turn around to claim tolerance on the very same people. Especially if you are the aggressor.


If you can't answer the question/my position without any long story or "Christians did it too" (as if that will make the question go away), its ok really. Its allowed to be lost for words.

vedaxcool:
Either you are being mischievious or engaging in bare faced lies, Syria was under occupation of the Romans (christian empire) etc infact they and the Persiand encircled Arabia, then again u have never heard of the battle of Tabouk, where Muslims had to mobilized accross the desert because of an impeding attack by the Romans. This happened during the life time of the prophet pbuh. The Romans were known to spread christianity by waging wars on various tribes around Europe till most of Europe became Christian then they turned their sight on the Middle east just like their Persian enemies did and started conquering there until Islam came and repulsed them, and again the Christians of Syria etc were Jubilant that Muslim freed them from their own Christian brothers Tyranny, this is a fact. So when next you try mis-appropriating history do so presenting evidence not just telling tales that have no basis.

When you debate, don't talk in the air.

First there is nothing "Christian Empire". Its in your imagination.

Syria was NOT Muslim at that time in question. It was Christian. And an important center one at that. Even after the war in Syria (where the citizens disliked their leaders), the citizens were given a peace term by the Muslims in form of an annual tribute and Jizya .

For the battle of Tabouk, Scholars have found no evidence of such a battle even from the byzantine side of the purported conflict.

as Nadia Maria in Byzantium Viewed by the Arabs (2004, Harvard University Press) p. 5, notes "One major challenge to examining initial contacts between Byzantium and the early Muslim umma arises from the controversy surrounding the traditional Islamic account... ...sources are not contemporaneous with the events they purport to relate and sometimes were written many centuries later. These sources contain internal complexities, anachronisms, discrepancies, and contradictions. Moreover, many of them provide evidence of embellishment and invention that were introduced to serve the purposes of political or religious apologetic."

Examine those stories you are used to hearing. its not everything that you hear is true.

So vexdacool, cool down. Don't let your imaginations get a hold of you. You are not dealing with a bunch of 12 year olds here. If you continue insinuating without basis, i may classify you unworthy of my time.

maclatunji: ^Go easy on her. You know it's difficult to change your mindset when you have been fed with anti-Islamic propaganda all-your-life.

Go easy on her him. You know it's difficult to change your mindset when you have been fed with anti-Islamic propaganda all-your-life.

How does the above sound to you? Apt heh?

Besides what is there to change when present day realities are constant reminders? Am not blind, deaf and dumb you know. You guys have your work cut out. It will take more than just historical stories to show us what Islam should be.

Ma salaam.

^ I love the hypocrisy of the post above....

This is what you are saying: We did it but it is only the muslims that should be looked at, muslims must explain themselves, how dare they do what we have been doing for hundreds of years before Islam?... And don't bring us up because we are talking about muslims here. How dare they bring religious freedoms to oppressed people? These muslims!!

The romans and persian were fighting for territory, with it came their faith.... It is impossible to divorce the two.... Whereever the romans conquered, the christian faith was established... so what are you talking about? ... They fought for christianity and used christianity as a weapon to fire-up the troops.... That is what led to the bloody crusades..

Again you highlight what suits you in your quotes... You actually think there was no communication between the warring factions and that conquests were just attacks with no warning or reason... .

It is not as if you could travel to the roman empire and say you are preaching another religion in their territory, your head will come off quicker than usain bolt ... It was the nature of the world at the time. If the romans were not conquerers, christianity will be nowhere today. So stop being so hypocritical... Conquer or be conquered...

you guys are incredible..

Many times, the muslims were begged and pleaded with to come free jews and other groups from christian persecution in these lands... They were often seen as liberators..

Face the issues at hand. Saying "Christians too did it" is a lame defense. How does that change the question? In fact how will that satisfy an atheist?


When a thread for Christian wrongs are up and running, we will work on that and point out the things that were right and wrong. Its not hypocrisy. Its called facing facts. My point is:

Islam was spread majorly through wars and conquests (Even in Nigeria). For that reason there can't be OUTSTANDING tolerance by an aggressor. Period.

The answer is not "Christians did it too". when we get to that point we shall talk about the wars in Christendom and enlighten ourselves.



PS

That is what led to the bloody crusades

The crusades were caused by unprovoked attacks, persecution, invasion of Jerusalem and desecration of worship centers by Muslims - just so we are clear. What caused it is a common misconception among Muslims you know.


So back to the tolerance issue.

tiarabubu: Face the issues at hand. Saying "Christians too did it" is a lame defense. How will that satisfy an atheist?


When a thread for Christian wrongs are up and running, we will work on that and point out the things that were right and wrong.

Islam was spread majorly through wars and conquests (Even in Nigeria). For that reason there can't be OUTSTANDING tolerance by an aggressor. Period.

The Issue has been addressed, the nature of the world at the time meant that no faith would have suffered without gaining territory, that was the only way any faith could have spread. You can not divorce events from the realities of the environment.

If i told a story about 2012, i should give a background about the environment in 2012.

It is simple...

There was not 1 single muslim soldier in places like indonesia and malaysia and many other areas... Islam came to Africa mainly through trade.... The are many muslim countries and cities that did not have battles....

Kay 17: At the same time blasphemy which would have not been tolerated in 14th Europe.

True, that was a different world, anything other than the church's view would get you hanged...

tiarabubu: The crusades were caused by unprovoked attacks, persecution, invasion of Jerusalem and desecration of worship centers by Muslims - just so we are clear. What caused it is a common misconception among Muslims you know.


So back to the tolerance issue.

Do not tell me you want to defend the crusades, you will just commit suicide here.... If you believe the nonsense you wrote, all i can say is that it is quite sad.

Murderous western christians killing women and children and fellow eastern christians in the name of God...

When Muslims fight wars, the blood of non-combatants are forbidden... not even animals or trees can be hurt...

This is a great documentary about the crusades:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqK-RuntywY

vedaxcool:

Good u came out clean with it being politically independent and stuff, Vatican is clearly more than just the Catholic HQ, the Vatican city is the only religious "enclave" with a seat in the UN even the palestienians don't. So stop trying hard to distract the the facts.

Does it justify Muslims treating non muslims badly, CAPITAL No, we muslims are to follow the examples of the prophet pbuh not to engage in tit for tat. And Islam does not require it adherents to oppress anyone for the Qur'an states emphatically oppression is worse than killing, the history of how muslims saved christians who were fleeing oppression of their fellow christians is there for any objective person. The fact remains that muslims till date tolerate and treat their christians neighbours well is there for all to see, do some muslims treat their christians nieghbours badly, yes, and these things are not Islamic in nature. Even in the free west Muslims face all sort of humiliation and oppression!

It's a known fact that the Vatican is politically independent and is recognized as such. Bringing the Vatican into this is clutching at straws at best, as the Vatican is a privately owned and run enclave. It's also a known fact that non-muslims in muslim lands enjoy much less religious freedom TODAY, compared to muslims in secular or "christian" lands.

- http://cnsnews.com/news/article/countries-worst-religious-freedom-grades-are-mostly-islamic

Why are we Christians such blasphemers? We talk as if our religion is all that we say it is. Let me start from the Pastors and this a facts they are nothing but entrepreneurs, Congregations I just cant say what we are here. A divisional pastor of a popular church were the head pastor "fries" his hair and has a phd messed up the life of a friend of mine that the guy became just a shit. We are not what we say we are so lets stop fooling around. I read a book by G.J.O Moshay and God have mercy all what he wrote. Another is "Islam is of the devil". And I was like WHAT! Seriously the Pastors like I said will not react because if they do, it will become an avenue to loose their mugus "congregation" to the next entrepreneur "Pastor". Some1 was asking why he cant practice Christianity in Saudi Arabia or UAE? My question to him and his kind is; Why cant a Moslem rule the US, Uk or most European countries? Abeg, Abeg, Abeg just stop this blasphemy and get real. Da Vinci or what ever its called is not in the league of some "Christian" assault to Islam. It is a known fact that BH and other terrorist group associated to Islam are nothing but "false flag" some would understand what this term means. And I must add as a student of life and history, the reason why Islam became the fastest spreading religion in the time of Muhammad was not the war but his tolerance and thats a FACT! After they conquered the enemies they moved into the city of Mecca though the Meccans expected a revenge based on the way they treated him and his followers but instead he peacefully entered the city and destroyed only the idols in Kaaba. After that they moved to Syria were they met Jews and Christians and the prophet told his followers not to impose Islam on them but to respect their religion,costitution and way of live. He never saw them as idol worshipers or unbelivers. His extraordinary lifestyle made the religion of Islam the fastest spreading religion even till date and thats a fact even against all the hates.

^ It is always great to see a christian not blinded by anti-islam sentiments..

Thanks..

tbaba1234:

The Issue has been addressed, the nature of the world at the time meant that no faith would have suffered without gaining territory, that was the only way any faith could have spread. You can not divorce events from the realities of the environment.

If i told a story about 2012, i should give a background about the environment in 2012.

It is simple...

I disagree.

Christianity flourished for 250 years after Christ without wars and conquests. Despite severe persecution by especially the Romans (till about 313 AD under the reign of Constantine the Great), Christianity spread throughout the middle east from Jerusalem throughout the Near East, into places such as Syria, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Asia Minor, Jordan and Egypt, Armenia in 301, Georgia in 319,Aksumite Empire in 325, and then the Roman Empire in 380. Even thought the Romans were initially very harsh to the new converts, in less than a 100 years Christianity became established in what was once a very hostile place to be a Christian facing horrible persecutions (http://www.yale.edu/yup/pdf/cim5.pdf). All by original church communities founded by apostles and numerous other ordinary folks, preachers and merchants.

As Bokenkotter, in A Concise History of the Catholic Church (2004), p. 18, wrote: "The story of how this tiny community of believers spread to many cities of the Roman Empire within less than a century is indeed a remarkable chapter in the history of humanity."

It was in the Roman Empire, which embraced Christianity and combined it with the exigencies of keeping a political state and its attendant wars, that the pacifist nature of Christianity was severely tainted not to be regained until much latter in the 16th century . Some scholars believe that "the accession of Constantine terminated the pacifist period in church history". ( Robin Gill, A Textbook of Christian Ethics, 3rd ed; Roland Bainton (1960). Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_pacifism#cite_note-16


So you see, a religion surviving and spreading without conquest was possible.

We need not go to far searching for examples of intolerance, and include the prophet's treatment of prisoners of war, of pagans and forced conversion.

Mecca fought bitterly against the Prophet for over 10 yrs and in just one day embraced Islam. The prophet declared idols as false Gods and destroyed them. The Prophet threatened Abu Sufyan with beheading. He murdered black idolaters.

That's intolernace to me at least

Also in Nigeria, Usman dan fodio gave out mandates to conquer territories and forciful convert the subjects. Al Mukhtar is one example

^
So it survived for 250 years, that is great... Many tribes embraced Islam without a hint of violence. indonesia and malaysia are examples as well.

You can't seperate its peaceful period from its not so peaceful ones.. The conquests in parts of europe in the middle ages as part of the christinisation of europe is also part of your history....

If it was not adopted by an empire like the romans, it could easily have been destroyed.

tbaba1234:

Do not tell me you want to defend the crusades, you will just commit suicide here.... If you believe the nonsense you wrote, all i can say is that it is quite sad.

Murderous western christians killing women and children and fellow eastern christians in the name of God...

When Muslims fight wars, the blood of non-combatants are forbidden... not even animals or trees can be hurt...

This is a great documentary about the crusades:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqK-RuntywY

If I so choose I will get dozens of clips to support my facts on the crusades. But that's not my style. Besides many in Nigeria will hardly be able to afford the 400 MB data allowance to watch your clip through.

This is a scholars take on the crusades:



by the end of the eleventh century the forces of Islam had captured two-thirds of the Christian world. Palestine, the home of Jesus Christ; Egypt, the birthplace of Christian monasticism; Asia Minor, where St. Paul planted the seeds of the first Christian communities: These were not the periphery of Christianity but its very core. And the Muslim empires were not finished yet. They continued to press westward toward Constantinople, ultimately passing it and entering Europe itself. As far as unprovoked aggression goes, it was all on the Muslim side. At some point what was left of the Christian world would have to defend itself or simply succumb to Islamic conquest. The First Crusade was called by Pope Urban II in 1095 in response to an urgent plea for help from the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople. Urban called the knights of Christendom to come to the aid of their eastern brethren. It was to be an errand of mercy, liberating the Christians of the East from their Muslim conquerors. In other words, the Crusades were from the beginning a defensive war. The entire history of the eastern Crusades is one of response to Muslim aggression.
Thomas F. Madden Associate Professor of History A Concise History of the Crusades

When Muslims fight wars, the blood of non-combatants are forbidden... not even animals or trees can be hurt...

That is not true.

Again let me get scholars who have studied history of Muslims conquests in the world for their take on your statement above



(i)

Khilafah Massacres from 1840-1860

Badr Khan Bey, A Hakkari Kurdish Amir, combined with other Kurdish forces led by Nurallah, attacked the Assyrians. The fierce Kurds destroyed and burned whatever came within their reach. An indiscriminate massacre took place. The women were brought before the Amir and murdered in cold blood. ... The aged mother of Mar Shimun, the Patriarch of the Church of the East, was seized by them, and after having practiced on her the most abominable atrocities, they cut her body into two parts and threw it into the river Zab.... N[b]early ten thousand Assyrians were massacred, and as large a number of woman and children were taken captive,[/b] most of whom were sent to Jezirah to be sold as slaves, to be bestowed as presents upon the influential Muslims. (Death of a Nation, pp. 111-112).




(2)

The Sultan, Abdul Hamid II (known appropriately in history as the "red Sultan" gave no quarter to the insurgents.' The Khalifah's policy was genocidal: 'whole villages were razed to the ground, and the inhabitants murdered. Between April and August 1876 thousands of Bulgarian Christians were horrifically massacred by Khilafah forces - 12,000 men, women and children were butchered in May alone.
Peacock, The Making of Modern Europe, p. 232; Stokes, Europe 1850-1959, p. 205.





(3)


The Islamic Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. Will Durant The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage (page 459), 1935

The levies (jizya)it had to pay were so crushing that one catastrophic harvest was enough to unleash famines and epidemics capable of killing a million people at a time. Appalling poverty was the constant counterpart of the conquerors' (Muslims)opulence."





(5)
When Muhammad Kasim invaded Sind in 711 AD, Buddhism had no resistance to offer to their fire and steel. The rosary could not be a match for the sword and the terms Love and Peace had no meaning to them. They carried fire and sword wherever they went and obliterated all that came their way. Muhammad triumphantly marched into the country, conquering Debal, Sehwan, Nerun, Brahmanadabad, Alor and Multan one after the other in quick succession, and in less than a year and a half, the far-flung Hindu kingdom was crushed, the great civilization fell back and Sind entered the darkest period of its history. There was a fearful outbreak of religious bigotry in several places and temples were wantonly desecrated. At Debal, the Nairun and Aror temples were demolished and converted into mosques.[Resistors] were put to death and women made captives. The Jizya was exacted with special care.[Hindus] were required to feed Muslim travellers for three days and three nights
Sindhi Culture by U.T. Thakkur, Univ. of Bombay Publications, 1959







(6)

In a short space of time all the people in the [Delhi] fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground....All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death.

One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolators, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives....on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and enemies of Islam at liberty...no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword. - From The Sultans personal memoirs Volume III: To the Year A.D. 1398, Chapter: XVIII. Malfúzát-i Tímúrí, or Túzak-i Tímúrí: The Autobiography of Tímúr. Page: 389




(7)

the Muslims could not rule the country except by systematic terror. Cruelty was the norm – burnings, summary executions, crucifixions or impalements, inventive tortures. Hindu temples were destroyed to make way for mosques. On occasion there were forced conversions. If ever there were an uprising, it was instantly and savagely repressed: houses were burned, the countryside was laid waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as slaves." Fernand Braudel A History of Civilizations (Penguin 1988/1963, p. 232-236)




( 8 )

n 712, Governor of Iraq, Hajjaj, ordered the conquest of Sind under the commandership of his nephew, Muhammad bin Kasim. He was instructed to “bring destruction on the unbelievers… [and] to invite and induce the infidels to accept the true creed, and belief in the unity of God… and whoever does not submit to Islam, treat him harshly, and cause injury to him till he submits.” According to Al-Biladuri, after the capturing the port of Debal, the Muslim army slaughtered the inhabitants over three days and the priests of the temples were massacred.

After the initial surge of cruelty, Kasim became more tolerant and allowed the infidels to continue their profession and religious practice. Learning about this sympathetic treatment, a furious Hajjaj sent letter condemning Kasim’s method of pardoning the infidels. It read, “… The great god says in the Koran [47:7]: “O True believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads.” The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected…. Henceforth, grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them..” Kasim quickly obliged to the divinely ordained command and on his capture of Brahmanabad, he invited the infidel idol-worshipers to accept Islam. On latter’s refusal, he ordered all adult males be beheaded with swords and their women and the children were captured as slaves. Eight thousands, some say 26,000, men were put to the sword. One-fifth of the captured slaves (women and children), which amounted to 20,000, amongst whom, were the daughters of Sind Chiefs along with King Dahir’s severed head, were sent to Hajjaj as the share of the states and the remainder were distributed amongst the soldiers. [Chachanama, Muhammad al-Kufi, trs Kalichbeg, I, 155; Shashi R Sharma, Caliphs and Sultans, p. 95].