often repeated, the nice islamic invaders of past

#68 Posted by krbhatti on
Bhatti Mian,

The question of values and culture is not so simple. You still don't understand that in the beginning and till those guys started learning things in 1000AD or later from India (again those, like Omar Khayyam, Ibn Sina, Al Kindi, Al Beiruni who were considered kafir by pure muslims), arab/muslim inavders were much less civilized (compared to those cultures, like Persia or India, which they were invading).

In the beginning the Ghazis/invaders of Islam were almost same as Taliban of today compared to rest of us. All of them were fanatic, carried a team of imams and were committed to convert people to Islam and Islamic culture (and loot slaves and wealth). Neither Indians nor Chinese, not even mongols ever inavaded people with religious committment. Mongols when turned into Mughals got this disease (earlier they were looters, killers but not in the name of religion, that was not norm for them). You are wrong if you say initially Islamists didn't do this- there and there. That is not because Islamists didn't try, but because it was not possible. Ghauri didn't win his first battles, not because he wanted to lose, but he couldn't. Akbar couldn't convert Birbal and todermal to Islam, not because he didn't want or didn't try, but because he couldn't. Birbal and Todermnal were smart and important enough to keep him away (but not everybody was so fortunate), initially and later his zeal somewhat faded.

Again, i don't mind if you convince your mind that all this is randi rona, because till people will do this randi-rona in front of your eyes you will keep on painting taliban of yesteryears in your arbitrary ways. If taliban of today win over pakistan and India, there will be people who will say exactly what you are saying now. The problem is that even omar khayyam and other intellectuals if born now as muslim will not be able to say what they said then, because now it is a huge group ego, at that time it was still a young group ego.


[[

BTW, akbar wanted to convert birbal and others not to Islam but his deen e Ilahi, which was the his attempt to unify the principals of all religions, and which people rejected exactly for the same reasons

]]

It is documented that initially Akbar wanted them to be converted to Islam, but in later days he became less interested in Islam and created his own Din-i-ilahi, and it was again a middle path. Tansen converted to Islam and not to din-i-ilahi.


Lastly about copts: You shuold read your sources again, the whole reason of conquest of Egypt was to spread Islam? Do you know that? And if you are going to convert people into Islam, what is the local culture you are trying to preserve. You think Islam is one of the most refined and advanced religion of 50,500 AD, where culture is completely detached from religion. And you can think that about Islam???

The reason why people do not get converted is the treaties, the way those people helped invaders initially and such tactics used by invading rulers and the second reason is that things were volatile and people were fighting all the time so winning on war fronts or maintaining empire was becoming more important than converting everyone under rule to Islam at one go. Christian and muslims were fighting in egypt, middle east and europe, In india almost every body was interested, that included mongols, theire descendants mughals, persians, greeks, turks and whatever you can think of.





Lastly, if you can not think of past properly when you have chance, don't assume you can think about future properly.