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

[Apprentice]

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

For what? The enslavement of Muslim women by Hindu kings? Well here you go.

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

So where did all the Hindus and Sikhs in West Punjab go in 1947? You are saying Muslims killed no one during Partition? If you said more Muslims died in 1947 I would agree with you. But many Hindus and Sikhs were also killed in West Punjab. No one can deny this.

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.

The massacres in Jammu were carried out by the Dogra state. Dogra state is not the same as the Indian state. The ethnic cleansing of Muslims took place in East Punjab, East Jammu and princely states of East Punjab as well as Alwar and Bharatpur. Muslims were also ethnically cleansed from Delhi. Side by side Hindus and Sikhs were also ethnically cleansed in West Punjab, NWFP and western Jammu (Mirpur). These are historical facts.

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.

Quaid e Azam got us a separate state because Hindus were not willing to share power with Muslims. It was our right to get a separate state wherever we were majority. It was on the basis of self-determination we got Pakistan. We didn't make this country because of fear of genocide. Even today Muslims face structural discrimination in India, not genocide. And one more thing @masterchief_mirza , Pakistan was not made because of fear of Hindutva, but from fear of the pseudo-secular Congress.

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."

The historians are quoting the primary sources in the passages I provided.

But if you insist here are the links:

1) https://books.google.com/books?id=FU1rAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT234&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
2) https://books.google.com/books?id=O8ubDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA755&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

You need to tackle the primary sources which are quoted here, as just tackling the historian who is merely quoting the primary sources is not going to do anything

 

[zain41]

Sikh kings also had influential sons from their Muslim concubines.


This is an excerpt from Tarikh Firoz Shahi. A Muslim qazi is describing his orders pertaining to temple destruction

View attachment 689220

More of the same from the same book. He narrates that a Brahmin convicted of openly practising idolatry in public was given a choice between conversion to Islam or death. He refused to convert. So he was burnt to death by the authorities. Some interesting comments on the following page too about jizya on Brahmins.

View attachment 689221

and?

 

[Itachi]

For what? The enslavement of Muslim women by Hindu kings? Well here you go.View attachment 689236






So where did all the Hindus and Sikhs in West Punjab go in 1947? You are saying Muslims killed no one during Partition? If you said more Muslims died in 1947 I would agree with you. But many Hindus and Sikhs were also killed in West Punjab. No one can deny this.

The massacres in Jammu were carried out by the Dogra state. Dogra state is not the same as the Indian state. The ethnic cleansing of Muslims took place in East Punjab, East Jammu and princely states of East Punjab as well as Alwar and Bharatpur. Muslims were also ethnically cleansed from Delhi. Side by side Hindus and Sikhs were also ethnically cleansed in West Punjab, NWFP and western Jammu (Mirpur). These are historical facts.


Quaid e Azam got us a separate state because Hindus were not willing to share power with Muslims. It was our right to get a separate state wherever we were majority. It was on the basis of self-determination we got Pakistan. We didn't make this country because of fear of genocide. Even today Muslims face structural discrimination in India, not genocide. And one more thing @masterchief_mirza , Pakistan was not made because of fear of Hindutva, but from fear of the pseudo-secular Congress.

The historians are quoting the primary sources in the passages I provided.

But if you insist here are the links:

1) https://books.google.com/books?id=FU1rAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT234&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
2) https://books.google.com/books?id=O8ubDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA755&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

You need to tackle the primary sources which are quoted here, as just tackling the historian who is merely quoting the primary sources is not going to do anything

Wow.....the amount of bs you have read and been fed is quite amazing. I'm not gonna quote you again until you sort out your identity crises and until you present actual facts, not hearsay.

 

[Apprentice]

Wow.....the amount of bs you have read and been fed is quite amazing. I'm not gonna quote you again until you sort out your identity crises and until you present actual facts, not hearsay.

Okay whatever floats your boat. Its you who has been making unsubstantiated claims so far. I have shown my sources,

 

[21st Century Vampire]

But Islam does instruct us to abide by our treaties as long as other sides don't break them

Yes but retaliation should be within the diameter of permissibility

Islamic jurisprudence books boastfully talk of it as a means of "dishonouring" the enemy women (in this case "infidel" women).

Islam never outlawed it.

Non consensual sexual relationships with war captives/slave girls isn't allowed, Umar sentenced someone to death for raping a war captive who was given to him (the someone) to take care of

 

[CatSultan]

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.

Can you send me the link. I can't find these books anywhere. Thank you

 

[Apprentice]

Yes but retaliation should be within the diameter of permissibility





Non consensual sexual relationships with war captives/slave girls isn't allowed, Umar sentenced someone to death for raping a war captive who was given to him (the someone) to take care of

Can you provide a source for your claim on Umar stoning someone to death for rape of a war captive? The only incident I have read is of him ordering the stoning of a soldier who raped a captive bride who had not been distributed by the state yet. So the sex was deemed illicit because the state itself had not given the captive girl to the soldier. Not because it was non-consensual.

There is another source which says that Uthman (ra) had intercourse with a war captive (who had been properly distributed) and she "detested him" - which indicates the intercourse was not consensual. Its in Kitab al Maghazi, an early Seerah book.

Can you send me the link. I can't find these books anywhere. Thank you

Links have been given already in one of my above replies.

 

[Itachi]

Can you provide a source for your claim on Umar stoning someone to death for rape of a war captive? The only incident I have read is of him ordering the stoning of a soldier who raped a captive bride who had not been distributed by the state yet. So the sex was deemed illicit because the state itself had not given the captive girl to the soldier. Not because it was non-consensual.

There is another source which says that Uthamn (ra) had intercourse with a war captive (who had been properly distributed) and she "detested him" - which indicates the intercourse was not consensual. Its in Kitab al Maghazi, an early Seerah book.

View attachment 689495

Links have been given already in one of my above replies.

Wow.......simply amazing.....another work by another worthless Qazi!

You have out done yourself in presenting your identity crises and your inferiority complex. You also sound and write like an Indian fyi.

The amount of people who were critics of the above quoted Qazi is also amazing...

1) Ahmad Ibn Hanbal "He is a liar, makes alternations in the traditions" (Mizan al-I`tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal, vol. 3 page 110).

2) Al-Bukhari "al-Waqidi has been abandoned in hadith. He fabricates hadith" (same as above).

3) Al-Dhahabi "Consensus has taken place on the weakness of al-Waqidi" (same as above).

4) Abu Dawood "I do not write his hadith and I do not report (hadith) on his authority. I have no doubt that he used to make up hadith" ( Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, volume 9 page 366 No.604).

5) Al-Razi "He fabricates hadith. We have abandoned his hadith" (same as above).

6) Al-Shafi "All the books of al-Waqidi are lies. In Medina there were seven men who used to fabricate authorities, one of which was al-Waqidi" (Ibn Abi Hatim, vol.4 pt.1 p.21).


Btw....most of al-Waqidi's works on the internet comes from India...

Like I said before, you're reading Indian sources on Islam and thus having an identity crisis.

 

[Apprentice]

Wow.......simply amazing.....another work by another worthless Qazi!

You have out done yourself in presenting your identity crises and your inferiority complex. You also sound and write like an Indian fyi.

The amount of people who were critics of the above quoted Qazi is also amazing...

1) Ahmad Ibn Hanbal "He is a liar, makes alternations in the traditions" (Mizan al-I`tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal, vol. 3 page 110).

2) Al-Bukhari "al-Waqidi has been abandoned in hadith. He fabricates hadith" (same as above).

3) Al-Dhahabi "Consensus has taken place on the weakness of al-Waqidi" (same as above).

4) Abu Dawood "I do not write his hadith and I do not report (hadith) on his authority. I have no doubt that he used to make up hadith" ( Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, volume 9 page 366 No.604).

5) Al-Razi "He fabricates hadith. We have abandoned his hadith" (same as above).

6) Al-Shafi "All the books of al-Waqidi are lies. In Medina there were seven men who used to fabricate authorities, one of which was al-Waqidi" (Ibn Abi Hatim, vol.4 pt.1 p.21).


Btw....most of al-Waqidi's works on the internet comes from India...

Like I said before, you're reading Indian sources on Islam and thus having an identity crisis.

You have done a good job compiling a list of scholars who rejected Waqidi's works on hadith. However, this book I have cited, Kitab al Maghazi, isn't a book of hadith. Its a book on the battles during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (saw). And this is what a reputable Islamic scholar (Ibn Hajar Asqalani) said about Al-Waqidi's works on the ghazawat (battles): "He is acceptable in the narrations of the battles according to our companions and Allah knows the best."

Note: The same Ibn Hajar Asqalani agrees with the list of scholars your provided above that Al-Waqidi is unacceptable in hadith.

Your reference to India is unwarranted and unsubstantiated. I think you are imagining the Indian sources here.

 

[CatSultan]

Can you provide a source for your claim on Umar stoning someone to death for rape of a war captive? The only incident I have read is of him ordering the stoning of a soldier who raped a captive bride who had not been distributed by the state yet. So the sex was deemed illicit because the state itself had not given the captive girl to the soldier. Not because it was non-consensual.

There is another source which says that Uthman (ra) had intercourse with a war captive (who had been properly distributed) and she "detested him" - which indicates the intercourse was not consensual. Its in Kitab al Maghazi, an early Seerah book.

View attachment 689495

Links have been given already in one of my above replies.

Please stop posting screenshots and give us actual links please. It seems like you don't want us to verify your sources.

 

[Apprentice]

Please stop posting screenshots and give us actual links please. It seems like you don't want us to verify your sources.

Well, I told you to scroll up. Had you done so you would have found them. But it seems like you are intent on bad faith.

Here are some "links" which I am posting for your convenience, since you don't seem to be interested in the hard work of scrolling up:

1) https://books.google.com/books?id=FU1rAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT234&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
2) https://books.google.com/books?id=O8ubDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA755&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
3) https://books.google.com/books?id=gZknAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA462&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Itachi]

It seems like you don't want us to verify your sources.

Exactly.

You have done a good job compiling a list of scholars who rejected Waqidi's works on hadith. However, this book I have cited, Kitab al Maghazi isn't a book of hadith. Its a book on the battles during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (saw). And this is what a reputable Islamic scholar (Ibn Hajar Asqalani) said about Al-Waqidi's works on the ghazawat (battles): "He is acceptable in the narrations of the battles according to our companions and Allah knows the best."

Note: The same Ibn Hajar Asqalani agrees with the list of scholars your provided above that Al-Waqidi is unacceptable in ahdith.

Your reference to India is unwarranted and unsubstantiated. I think you are imagining the Indian sources here.

Like I said before, there are tons of Qazi's and I can bring 10 for your one which will say that everything was "normal" and no boundaries, limits and rules of Islam were broken, especially by someone like Usman/Uthman R.A.

Looks like you have been fed a watered down version of Islam for the most part of your life and when you discovered actual Islam....you fell in a identity crises.

And this is what a reputable Islamic scholar (Ibn Hajar Asqalani) said about Al-Waqidi's works on the ghazawat (battles): "He is acceptable in the narrations of the battles according to our companions and Allah knows the best."

Need a source on that...if he has rubbish hadiths, he probably has rubbish accounts of battles.

Well, I told you to scroll up. Had you done so you would have found them. But it seems like you are intent on bad faith.

Here are some "links" which I am posting for your convenience, since you don't seem to be interested in the hard work of scrolling up:

1) https://books.google.com/books?id=FU1rAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT234&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
2) https://books.google.com/books?id=O8ubDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA755&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
3) https://books.google.com/books?id=gZknAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA462&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Except for the al-Waqidi source, which is also published and edited by goras, your other 2 sources are also from goras...

You have yet to bring forth a well known authentic Islamic source to support your point of views....for the past 3 pages of this thread...I say you quit while you can...

 

[Apprentice]

Like I said before, there are tons of Qazi's and I can bring 10 for your one which will say that everything was "normal" and no boundaries, limits and rules of Islam were broken, especially by someone like Usman/Uthman R.A.

Then bring them. So far I see you are very high on talk but very little action

You have yet to bring forth a well known authentic Islamic source to support your point of views....for the past 3 pages of this thread...I say you quit while you can...

Talkhis al-Habir, Volume 7 page 57

 

[CatSultan]

Well, I told you to scroll up. Had you done so you would have found them. But it seems like you are intent on bad faith.

Here are some "links" which I am posting for your convenience, since you don't seem to be interested in the hard work of scrolling up:

1) https://books.google.com/books?id=FU1rAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT234&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
2) https://books.google.com/books?id=O8ubDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA755&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
3) https://books.google.com/books?id=gZknAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA462&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

As for the first two, they are poems intended to insult the enemy's honor and it probably wasn't as bad as they described it. The last one as @Itachi says is dubious and most likely inaccurate.

 

[Itachi]

Then bring them. So far I see you are very high on talk but very little action


Talkhis al-Habir, Volume 7 page 57

I too know how to use Wiki sources

Your only support for your point of views are 2 unknown Qazis and a couple of screenshots. I on the other hand have brought forth actual well known Islamic scholars.

The topic of this thread is "The major reason Islam was so successful was due to chivalry and mercy towards civilians..."

And that point of view is very much supported by Goras also.....I know the Indian sources tend to disagree because of the millennia of rule and humiliation that they faced at the hands of Islamic/Muslim conquerors.

If your ancestors converted under the sword (your unverified claim), doesn't mean all did.