i dont see much benefit in it.
Noone turned up in the grandstands to watch the games when it was in India. They needed to force lots of peasants into the seats. Didn't it make a loss by staging it?
islamophobia would generate more "islamism".
banning the turban won't be a solution for anything either.
though i don't care what policy countries want to follow in this area.
What in the deccan are you talking about here?
If you can convert people by the sword it should be easy to give some solid examples. Everyone will have tried it.
So here are the examples wiki gives
"According to historian Bernard Lewis, forced conversions played a role especially in...
The problem with this theory of yours is
a) the Mughals had many non muslim soldiers and generals in their army at all points in their history. Why were they not "forcibly converted" if this was the policy?
b) forcible conversion even over many generations isn't going to occur unless you...
The Mughals didn't forcefully convert anyone. Most Mughal Emperors had most of their armies full of non muslims.
The forceful conversion is just part of poorly thought out Hindu Extremist propaganda.
You cannot forecibly convert anyone. When you take away the sword, they will visibly go...
don't be stupid.
how do you forcefully convert someone? stick a sword to their throat and get them to repeat a sworn statement? there's the slight problem they will still be their old religion inside, until the sword is removed :cheesy:
Islam probably spread mainly through trading in different countries.
There's some websites that come up with the most ludicrous theories that everyone was forcibly converted by the sword, like this would be possible, or necessary.
Bollywood Weed.
In any case we're talking about territorial conquests. You're going off on tangents here because you're saturated with drugs.
You haven't given any instances of defeat. You mentioned Genghis Khan, and I proved that Genghis Khan defeated and suppressed the Khwazarim...
So you're jealous because Indians have been defeated and made manservants of every single invader for hundreds of years upon end? Let's not emotions get in the way of facts Vinod.
It is a fact that Pashtun areas have endured 10 year occupations, sometimes 30 year occupations. Defeat occurs...
Just to put rest to your confused mind on the last point.
This is Sultan Jalal's biography
Jalal ad-Din (or Jelal ad-Din) (Uzbek: Jaloliddin Manguberdi) Mingburnu, also known as Mengübirti[citation needed] or Manguberdi (Turkish: Mengü verdi[citation needed]; Godgiven) or...
Is that the Bollywood version?
He did conquer some areas of modern day khyber pakhtunkhwa through good timing, infighting amongst Pashtuns, better weapons (though also lost them again very quickly), but the rest is the drugged up version.
I have no idea what you're on about. You said...
What was great about him? He was a regular invader that played on the Pashtun infighting that was occuring at the time.
For example Ranjit Singh's General, another Hari Singh, used soldiers from Pashtun tribes with loyalty to Shuja. The British financially supported the Sikhs in the Auckland...
He's being fairly logical. He's happy with Syria as it is. He wants no intervention.
The illogical people are the ones who claim they would like to see democracy in Syria because they're concerned for the people of Syria, but they are happy to not have democracy in other Arab countries when...
Iraq was Sunni, it became Shia following intervention (not that i care whether it's Sunni or Shia).
---------- Post added at 06:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 AM ----------
your posts started off well in this thread, now are getting worse and worse. Are you on something?