http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/moghal_atro.html


Quote:

The world famous historian, Will Durant has written in his Story of Civilisation that "the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history". India before the advent of Islamic imperialism was not exactly a zone of peace. There were plenty of wars fought by Hindu princes. But in all their wars, the Hindus had observed some time-honoured conventions sanctioned by the Sastras. The Brahmins and the Bhikshus were never molested. The cows were never killed. The temples were never touched. The chastity of women was never violated. The non-combatants were never killed or captured. A human habitation was never attacked unless it was a fort. The civil population was never plundered. War booty was an unknown item in the calculations of conquerors. The martial classes who clashed, mostly in open spaces, had a code of honor. Sacrifice of honor for victory or material gain was deemed as worse than death. Islamic imperialism came with a different code--the Sunnah of the Prophet. It required its warriors to fall upon the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. It required them to sack and burn down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins, and the Bhikshus invited their special attention in mass murders of non-combatants. The temples and monasteries were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and arson. Those whom they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. The magnitude of the booty looted even from the bodies of the dead, was a measure of the success of a military mission. And they did all this as mujahids (holy warriors) and ghazls (kafir-killers) in the service of Allah and his Last Prophet.

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/32812


Quote:

The ruthlessness of muslim invaders continued for a thousand years. Will Durant, the famous historian summed it up like this: "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."

ABC Radion national, Religion report:
Father Joseph Fessio and Pope Benedict's incendiary comments about Islam

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2007/1810687.htm


Quote:

This week I received an email from an Indian listener with an interesting perspective on the Pope's comments about Islam. 'If Muslims around the world are claiming hurt or insult at the Pope's comments about the sword being used to spread religion in mediaeval times, then how should Hindu Indians react to what happened to their culture in the name of true religion? 'This is what the American historian Will Durant wrote in his first volume of The Story of Civilisation: Our Oriental Heritage, published in 1935:' (And of course this was before the Second World War and Maoist China) "The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilisation is a precarious thing. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride, the slaughter of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam between 800 AD and 1700 AD." 'Just imagine putting up with a 9/11-style event every decade for a few hundred years, and you get a sense of why many Hindus are not surprised at all by the latest jihad activities. They have seen it all before. 'When the Hindus made their last big stand at Vijayanagar in the 16th century, local Muslim historians themselves recorded how it took five months to destroy all the kingdom's sculpture and art. They described how, loaded up with loot and slaves, the Muslim armies marched home proclaiming that there was not a breathing creature either man or beast, left in a 50 miles radius of Vijayanagar.' (And he concludes) 'Perhaps the Hindus also deserve an apology.'

Read the transcript of the whole program.

Yes...  lets not mention Muslim attrocities Soren, that just won't do...  Only the big bad West and Christianity is capable of such things.

;D ;D ;D

Grendel,

Thank you for this interesting thread.

And thank you soren, for your input here too.




The ISLAMISTS are such wonderful 'deflectors' and deniers of any criticism of ISLAM.

They are truly 'off the planet', aren't they, in their denials?



In the way they can, without conscience, totally reject any accountability, responsibility, on the part of ISLAM, and its doctrines.

And no matter what atrocity they themselves commit, or the atrocities their forebears have committed, the fault always lays, at the feet of others [according to the ISLAMISTS].



These ppl are totally insane.

Yet our government tolerates these evil, evil ppl.


+++++++++++


"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."
Thomas Mann
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Mann

Yes I have to admit that their denial and hypocrisy is pretty mind-boggling.

Hate to think they were actually ignorant, brainwashed or just plain liars.

Abu - any comments here ??

Or just frustrated that you cant delete this thread ?

sprint, not much to comment on, same old same old. The exact same topic has been opened in the Islamic forum, and just to keep you updated, in case you're not still taking a keen interest in the Islamic forum (although I bet you still are  ;D), so far we've concluded Islam was quite tolerant to other religions, that's why there's so many different religions still extant in the Muslim lands. Whilst Christianity just abolished and eradicated everything in it's path, that's why there's no pre-Christian religions still existing in the Christian lands. Lestat made a nice post there, but I'm sure you read it anyway :)

I'm sorry could you list the muslim countries where Christianity is allowed to be practiced and those where it is not.

Abu - no, being banned from a forum sort of slows my interest there.
Not much point lurking if I can't post there.

Funny, thought 100% muslims lived in saudi and the Bible is banned there.
Thought the Bible says "Do not judge others."

I KNOW there are mosques in aussie.




would you care to comment on the initial topic and NOT deflect ???

mod: calm it down sprint

Grendel wrote on Nov 11^th, 2008 at 5:18pm:

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/moghal_atro.html Quote: The world famous historian, Will Durant has written in his Story of Civilisation that "the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history". India before the advent of Islamic imperialism was not exactly a zone of peace. There were plenty of wars fought by Hindu princes. But in all their wars, the Hindus had observed some time-honoured conventions sanctioned by the Sastras. The Brahmins and the Bhikshus were never molested. The cows were never killed. The temples were never touched. The chastity of women was never violated. The non-combatants were never killed or captured. A human habitation was never attacked unless it was a fort. The civil population was never plundered. War booty was an unknown item in the calculations of conquerors. The martial classes who clashed, mostly in open spaces, had a code of honor. Sacrifice of honor for victory or material gain was deemed as worse than death. Islamic imperialism came with a different code--the Sunnah of the Prophet. It required its warriors to fall upon the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. It required them to sack and burn down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins, and the Bhikshus invited their special attention in mass murders of non-combatants. The temples and monasteries were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and arson. Those whom they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. The magnitude of the booty looted even from the bodies of the dead, was a measure of the success of a military mission. And they did all this as mujahids (holy warriors) and ghazls (kafir-killers) in the service of Allah and his Last Prophet.

you know that the moguls were actually a splinter faction of the Mongols, right? So perhaps you'd like to compare the Mongol(at the time buddhist) rape and destruction of a very large section of the world(Baghdad burned for 40 days non stop) compared to what the Moguls did in India. (Taj Mahal comes to mind)

PS. the Actual sunnah of war actually doesn't allow damage to civilians or their property.

rotflmao

seems to be a typical Muslim response...  blame or distract by blaming someone else for something.  Anything.

Grendel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2008 at 11:44pm:

rotflmao seems to be a typical Muslim response...  blame or distract by blaming someone else for something.  Anything.

perhaps because the claims are rubbish?

No...  the refutation is rubbish and the denial is enormous.

phillip -
Quote:

Actual sunnah of war actually doesn't allow damage to civilians or their property

even though moh took as many sex slaves as he wished and told his fellow thugs to help themselves to sex slaves too ???

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/stoning.htm#video

i have not seen it, nor wish to.
prob some muslamabus here would get off on it.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 1:06pm:

phillip - Quote: Actual sunnah of war actually doesn't allow damage to civilians or their property even though moh took as many sex slaves as he wished and told his fellow thugs to help themselves to sex slaves too ???

There was a very good reason why people took slaves back in those days and why people don't do it today.

But i guess destroying the power structure that supported people and then leaving the people with no way to sustain themselves would be a better solution. (sarcasm)

Phillip wrote on Nov 15^th, 2008 at 5:28pm:

[quote author=sprintcyclist link=1226387904/0#14 date=1226631960] phillip - [quote] There was a very good reason why people took slaves back in those days and why people don't do it today.

The Royal Navy.

Damn you Soren!

You keep stealing my one-liners.   ;D

Grendel wrote on Nov 15^th, 2008 at 7:40pm:

Damn you Soren! You keep stealing my one-liners.   ;D

EMD, islamophobe!


8-)