The major reason Islam was so successful was due to chivalry and mercy towards civilians - Most merciful conquerors in history

[Apprentice]

I would like to see the source for your statement of Muslims relishing sex slaves, you even said it was in a fiqh book.

Share it here.

@masterchief_mirza @21st Century Vampire @Itachi @CatSultan @Iltutmish

Make sure he gives the sources for what he is saying.

Okay bhai. Here is a passage from an Andalusian Muslim scholar Ibn Hazm. He is basically boasting that Byzantines could not capture many Muslim women but Muslim troops got to capture more Byzantine women.

The following passage is by Saladin's secretary Imad al Din. He is boasting about the enslavement and sexual humiliation of Christian girls captured by Muslims after the Siege of Jerusalem

I can also give you sources about this happening in the subcontinent as well, on both sides. The sources which describe Muslims doing this to Hindus or Sikhs also document the Hindus and Sikhs doing the exact same to Muslim women.

 

[Itachi]

Which thinker is he quoting?

This guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziauddin_Barani

Never heard of him....he's a obscure source.

I can also give you sources about this happening in the subcontinent as well, on both sides.

There's your answer. What you're doing is cherry picking the news of the past to fit your narrative.

This happened all over the world, in Muslim and non-Muslim places. Doesn't mean Islam condones it. Islam doesn't control the action of any Muslim.

The major point of the OP still stands that Islam was successful because of chivalry and mercy. Your posts prove the chivalry part. You need to do more research to find the mercy part.

 

[Apprentice]

You have yet to provide sources to your main claims, the sex slaves etc etc.

All you do is point towards the works of a political thinker, of which there exist millions in the history of Islam. His works have no meanings to actual Muslims who can quote multiple hadiths and the Quran itself.

Your biased opinion of Islamic history, probably formed after reading Indian, non-Muslim and highly revised sources isn't helping your case either.

If you mean the author of Tarikh Firoz Shahi, then he wasn't just a political thinker. He was a judge in a Muslim state and he is describing the orders which Muslim authorities such as himself made in relation to dhimmis.

 

[Itachi]

If you mean the author of Tarikh Firoz Shahi, then he wasn't just a political thinker. He was a judge in a Muslim state and he is describing the orders which Muslim authorities such as himself made in relation to dhimmis.

Looks like his orders weren't as effective as you believe it might be. I took a glance over his literary works. That's all they were, literary works, they had little to no actual consequence in the real work.

Probably why no one other than you remembers him.

He was a judge in a Muslim state and he is describing the orders which Muslim authorities such as himself made in relation to dhimmis.

A single Qazi amongst a multitude of them employed by various Islamic empires.

Your cherry picking efforts won't convince anyone here.

 

[Apprentice]

Looks like his orders weren't as effective as you believe it might be. I took a glance over his literary works. That's all they were, literary works, they had little to no actual consequence in the real work.

Probably why no one other than you remembers him.


A single Qazi amongst a multitude of them employed by various Islamic empires.

Your cherry picking efforts won't convince anyone here.

Convince of what? What do you think I am trying to argue here?

 

[Itachi]

Convince of what? What do you think I am trying to argue here?

Only you know that. We judge you based on the arguments you present.

 

[Apprentice]

The spread of Islam in the subcontinent is not as simple as people think. There was no sole reason for conversions. For a good academic work on the subject consult Richard Eaton's work. He basically argues that initial conversions in Punjab and Bengal were not real conversions. Rather people absorbed Muslim cultural influences which grew stronger over time and over generations.

Even after becoming Muslim nominally people continued worshipping idols. For example, in Bengal there were still reports in the early 20th century that Bengali Muslims were worshipping idols and participating in Durga Puja, consulting astrologers etc. Its because the conversions were never real conversions, but gradual acclimatisation to the culture of the ruling elite. Look at the castes of Indian Muslims. They are all castes associated with court life such as weavers, bards, musicians and masons.

People merely absorbed the cultural influence of their new rulers, rather than immediate conviction in the faith itself. Muslim pirs had a big role in spreading this culture to the countryside as they were agents of the state there and built mosques. Tombs were built around their graves and a whole culture sprang up around these religious buildings in each village.

The conversion of our ancestors to Islam is a really complicated subject and there was no one factor. There were multiple reasons and for some of them, coercion or pressure was definitely a reason.

For example, its mentioned in multiple medieval Muslim court chronicles that Kashmiri Brahmins (my ancestors) were given a choice between conversion to Islam or expulsion by Sultan Sikandar. But it doesn't bother me if my ancestors were forced to convert. It saved their descendants from a bad afterlife.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

I am a proud Muslim but for the first time I find most responses by my fellow Muslim brothers to be nauseating. All it takes is one look at the medieval Muslim court chronicles and all this apologist narrative of "benevolent Muslim conquerors" falls flat on its face. Medieval Muslim historians took pride in narrating instances of forced conversions and temple destruction.

As for the sex slavery bit, this is true. Islamic jurisprudence books boastfully talk of it as a means of "dishonouring" the enemy women (in this case "infidel" women). But sex slavery was a weapon used by all sides (Muslim and non-Muslim) against their enemies. The Mughal Empire and Ahmad Shah Abdali's army captured thousands of Hindu and Sikh women and turned them into concubines. Likewise, many Rajput kings and the Sikh Empire also enslaved Muslim women.

The Sikh Empire in particular enslaved many Muslim girls and women in Punjab and Kashmir. Sikh soldiers literally used our Muslim girls as sex slaves/concubines. This happened again to our women during Partition, in Jammu and East Punjab and its princely states. Tens of thousands of our girls were taken as concubines by Sikhs, and many of them refused to return from their captors. I have heard stories of this from my grandmother, who migrated from Amritsar during Partition as a girl.

I find it unbelievable that we are saying ridiculous things such as "Muslim soldiers used to take in dead non-Muslim soldier's widow to provide for them and their children." The exact same justification can be given by those non-Muslims who took our women and children. Please have some respect for your own women.

Islam never outlawed it. But Islam does instruct us to abide by our treaties as long as other sides don't break them. Literally the only reason Muslims have for not enslaving today is because Muslim countries have treaties today which say that prisoners of war won't be enslaved.

I think Muslims should quit being apologist and just be proud of whatever we believe.

Right then. What a fascinating take on history and interpretive religion this is.

First of all, nobody has any reason to be ashamed of medieval history. So you can jump straight back off your high horse of sanctimony.

Secondly, it seems that you're the one apologising for Indian filth enacting their disgusting fantasies during a period of upheaval and violence. One only needs to pay attention to what happens presently where Indian "secularists" and "progressives" have voted into power the most violent misogynist-sympathiser and terrorist-pardoner the subcontinent has ever seen. The brutality against females enabled in a documented mass pogrom by this very individual as little as a few decades ago (never mind what goes undocumented) bears comparison to the medieval mindset that we have evolved away from. It's self evident that one of the subcontinent's two major faiths permits such an evolution of society, while the other seems to have caused regression of the population under its control to their most primitive ape-like manifestation.

Indians either speak of rape as a valid weapon against Muslims, or they ignore it when it happens. Both are abhorrent to Pakistanis. I am not going to sit here and post the numerous instances where Indian media/political/media personalities have literally mandated rape in the modern era as some means of rightful temporal retribution for medieval crimes. The simple and harsh truth that you will struggle to accept is that we don't entertain such nonsense, while Indians do. Pakistanis won't suggest rape of Indians is acceptable because they raped us in the past. The very fact that you're trying to draw some equivalency between a civilised nation and a nation that says the following is sickening:

Indian Army veterans slam ex-major general who called for revenge killings and rape in Valley during TV debate

Several Indian Army veterans on Sunday hit out at a former major general for his objectionable remarks on the issue of Kashmiri Pandit exodus during a TV debate.

www.google.com

‘Tear Them Apart’: How Hindutva WhatsApp Group Demanded Murder, Rape of Muslims in Delhi Riots

Messages boasting of fearsome violence leavened with warnings about a Muslim conspiracy and praise for BJP leaders.

www.google.com

Seriously, have you lost the plot? Whatever ill we wish to befall Hindustan, you think we will call for its females to be raped?

Don't you understand whom you're dealing with here?

I hope our exchange remains unedited so that others may learn from it.

Here's the thing you don't get. Modern Hindustan seeks f retribution for medieval crimes and medieval perceived crimes against what it perceives as the native Hindus of the subcontinent. Notwithstanding the anthropological and historical inaccuracies that abound here in their cultist interpretations, Delhi seems to find reason in this delayed justice against descendants of its perceived tormentors from yesteryear. The same mentality that justifies smashing a mosque from hundreds of years ago will immediately call for some poor innocent girl's rape to avenge what Aurangzeb may or may not have done centuries ago.

I truly wonder, based on your posts on this thread, what your background is. You sound like a raving hindutva to me. And before you squeal "ad hominem", do take a moment to respond to the substance of my post.

 

[Apprentice]

Right then. What a fascinating take on history and interpretive religion this is.

First of all, nobody has any reason to be ashamed of medieval history. So you can jump straight back off your high horse of sanctimony.

Secondly, it seems that you're the one apologising for Indian filth enacting their disgusting fantasies during a period of upheaval and violence. One only needs to pay attention to what happens presently where Indian "secularists" and "progressives" have voted into power the most violent misogynist-sympathiser and terrorist-pardoner the subcontinent has ever seen. The brutality against females enabled in a documented mass pogrom by this very individual as little as a few decades ago (never mind what goes undocumented) bears comparison to the medieval mindset that we have evolved away from. It's self evident that one of the subcontinent's two major faiths permits such an evolution of society, while the other seems to have caused regression of the population under its control to their most primitive ape-like manifestation.

Indians either speak of rape as a valid weapon against Muslims, or they ignore it when it happens. Both are abhorrent to Pakistanis. I am not going to sit here and post the numerous instances where Indian media/political/media personalities have literally mandated rape in the modern era as some means of rightful temporal retribution for medieval crimes. The simple and harsh truth that you will struggle to accept is that we don't entertain such nonsense, while Indians do. Pakistanis won't suggest rape of Indians is acceptable because they raped us in the past. The very fact that you're trying to draw some equivalency between a civilised nation and a nation that says the following is sickening:

Indian Army veterans slam ex-major general who called for revenge killings and rape in Valley during TV debate

Several Indian Army veterans on Sunday hit out at a former major general for his objectionable remarks on the issue of Kashmiri Pandit exodus during a TV debate.

www.google.com

‘Tear Them Apart’: How Hindutva WhatsApp Group Demanded Murder, Rape of Muslims in Delhi Riots

Messages boasting of fearsome violence leavened with warnings about a Muslim conspiracy and praise for BJP leaders.

www.google.com

Seriously, have you lost the plot? Whatever ill we wish to befall Hindustan, you think we will call for its females to be raped?

Don't you understand whom you're dealing with here?

I hope our exchange remains unedited so that others may learn from it.

Here's the thing you don't get. Modern Hindustan seeks f retribution for medieval crimes and medieval perceived crimes against what it perceives as the native Hindus of the subcontinent. Notwithstanding the anthropological and historical inaccuracies that abound here in their cultist interpretations, Delhi seems to find reason in this delayed justice against descendants of its perceived tormentors from yesteryear. The same mentality that justifies smashing a mosque from hundreds of years ago will immediately call for some poor innocent girl's rape to avenge what Aurangzeb may or may not have done centuries ago.

I truly wonder, based on your posts on this thread, what your background is. You sound like a raving hindutva to me. And before you squeal "ad hominem", do take a moment to respond to the substance of my post.

Well why not learn about the medieval suffering of Muslims? Why can't we talk about the enslavement and sexual humiliation of Muslim women by Hindus, Sikhs or Christians in medieval times? Isn't that what we do today to counter Indian propaganda? When they bring up atrocities committed by our side in 1947 we bring up theirs? In conflicts, all sides commit atrocities. The correct thing to do is to document the suffering of your own side. But sadly, we don't do that.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

It doesn't bother me if my ancestors were forced to convert. It saved their descendants from a bad afterlife.

Yeah you're full of crap mate. Don't think people here can't see that. If you were a sensible man looking around at the hell that hindutva India has become, your main argument would be "thank goodness my ancestors converted to save their descendants from a bad present life".

Real Pakistanis thank Jinnah for giving them a fighting chance in this life, away from the rape and slavery culture of Hindustan. Indians posing as Pakistanis and indeed some desperately ill informed Pakistanis try to recast the comparison as a purely religious article of faith "saving us from a bad afterlife", which you will notice would have zero relevance for a hindu who doesn't believe in Islamic teachings.

To put it another way, our ancestors' conversion allowed them to escape the living hell of hindutva India - I suspect you will disagree with this though. Rather, you will default to conversion allowing us to escape from an abstract religious notion of hellfire - an argument designed to portray Pakistanis and our ancestors as guided purely by religious dogma.

Sorry to disappoint you but your game is up. It's not a new one btw. It's old hat around here.

 

[Itachi]

The spread of Islam in the subcontinent is not as simple as people think. There was no sole reason for conversions. For a good academic work on the subject consult Richard Eaton's work. He basically argues that initial conversions in Punjab and Bengal were not real conversions. Rather people absorbed Muslim cultural influences which grew stronger over time and over generations.

Even after becoming Muslim nominally people continued worshipping idols. For example, in Bengal there were still reports in the early 20th century that Bengali Muslims were worshipping idols and participating in Durga Puja, consulting astrologers etc. Its because the conversions were never real conversions, but gradual acclimatisation to the culture of the ruling elite. Look at the castes of Indian Muslims. They are all castes associated with court life such as weavers, bards, musicians and masons.

People merely absorbed the cultural influence of their new rulers, rather than immediate conviction in the faith itself. Muslim pirs had a big role in spreading this culture to the countryside as they were agents of the state there and built mosques. Tombs were built around their graves and a whole culture sprang up around these religious buildings in each village.

The conversion of our ancestors to Islam is a really complicated subject and there was no one factor. There were multiple reasons and for some of them, coercion or pressure was definitely a reason.

For example, its mentioned in multiple medieval Muslim court chronicles that Kashmiri Brahmins (my ancestors) were given a choice between conversion to Islam or expulsion by Sultan Sikandar. But it doesn't bother me if my ancestors were forced to convert. It saved their descendants from a bad afterlife.

Why should we believe gora sources when they arrived so late to the party??

They also view everything from a eurocentric point of view.

While I know that many converted to Islam just to be in a more favorable position in the new power structures, many more converted also because of the light Islam brought against the barbaric practices going on in the subcontinent.

Just an example:

But it doesn't bother me if my ancestors were forced to convert. It saved their descendants from a bad afterlife.

No....that's not how it happened.

You seem like a guy in a identity crises. Hope you get some help.

 

[Indos]

Okay bhai. Here is a passage from an Andalusian Muslim scholar Ibn Hazm. He is basically boasting that Byzantines could not capture many Muslim women but Muslim troops got to capture more Byzantine women.

View attachment 689224

The following passage is by Saladin's secretary Imad al Din. He is boasting about the enslavement and sexual humiliation of Christian girls captured by Muslims after the Siege of Jerusalem

View attachment 689225

I can also give you sources about this happening in the subcontinent as well, on both sides. The sources which describe Muslims doing this to Hindus or Sikhs also document the Hindus and Sikhs doing the exact same to Muslim women.

You need to provide link so that we can see whether the book is written by a good historian or just an orientalist so we can measure the authenticity of that "opinion."

 

[masterchief_mirza]

When they bring up atrocities committed by our side in 1947 we bring up theirs?

What on earth are you banging on about? Hindustan tried to cleanse us from their lands and lands they laid false claim to. The massacres in Jammu are but one example. You must think you're very smart by subtly inferring some burden of guilt lies upon muslims fleeing for their lives from hindu and sikh mobs. You're the one apparently inferring an exclusive crime on the part of Pakistanis in your posts.

 

[Indos]

Why should we believe gora sources when they arrived so late to the party??

They also view everything from a eurocentric point of view.

While I know that many converted to Islam just to be in a more favorable position in the new power structures, many more converted also because of the light Islam brought against the barbaric practices going on in the subcontinent.

Just an example:

View attachment 689232

WTF they dont respect Shudra at all despite Shudra is also a Hindu follower

 

[Itachi]

Why can't we talk about the enslavement and sexual humiliation of Muslim women by Hindus, Sikhs or Christians in medieval times?

You can but you have no proof to bring forth........you still have not brought any sources...

When they bring up atrocities committed by our side in 1947 we bring up theirs?

We didn't commit any atrocities in 47.....71 yes but 47???

You got a victim's mentality.

WTF they dont respect Shudra at all despite Shudra is also a Hindu follower

View attachment 689234

Hinduism is really weird.......like the rest of pagan religions around the world.

There's a verse which says that if any Shudras listened to the recitation of the Vedas or other holy books, the ears of such person should be filled with molten metal and the tongue cut off so that he/she can't transmit the knowledge to another...

Hinduism isn't what Bolly or Hollywood portrays it to be....or the media for that sake. Which is why there exist a lot Muslims in the sub continent and also why there are many "seculars" in India.