What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Very pleased with Islamic mercy and pragmatism towards all except human sacrificers.
We don’t have to appease the idol-worshippers. Islam is a complete system not a one-word-definition (like saying „Islam is Peace“ all the Time in societies who used to colonize the whole world by force!).

The only reason why these hobos are mad at us is due to the fact that they are butthurt losers who will never overcome their past.

We all know how Christianity spread, we all know how English became the world language, but evil Muslims used swords and stuff to conquer!!!

Maybe our Hindu friends can advise how to become more submissive and feel sorry all the Time?
 
.
First explain me why Persia became Muslim majority within 25 years?

It was not that they were merciful. It was our resilience which kept us Survived. We have survived against Hun, kushans, Greeks , Europeans etc.

Resilience?when you let a small minority rule over you for a 1000 years and then Europeans ..being constantly ruled by a minority/outsiders shows that the character of the people is anything but resilient..if Indians were resilient they would have fought these comparatively small number of invaders out rather than being ruled by them..
Just also wanted to make one thing clear I know some idiots will come here say “jiZYa”

jizya is not collected from women,children, monks.. only from non muslims who are of military age and by paying jizya they are exempt from military service and in return muslims provide protection to these people from outside invaders etc

muslims themselves pay their form of tax which is called zakat which is similar to jizya.. nonmuslims don’t pay zakat but jizya I don’t see the problem here..
 
Last edited:
.
Example when the Ottoman conquered Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Moldova, Bulgaria, Austria, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Romania, Macedonia etc etc. They didn't sack the civilians in the areas or the tribes. They came in setup a government and released missionaries and build a court system. Ethblished Jizya agreement with the leader or tribesmen and fortied their new defenses
 
Last edited:
.
Not really no.

War booty, slaves, sex with captives, iconoclasm, jizya ... the list goes on.

Do u even understand those terms or just talking dumb? War booty was the war equipment left behind by the defeated army and not taken from civilians. Slaves were the ones taken captives untill slavery was legal, though in Islam a slave also have rights. Ur masters treated slaves like animals untill very recently. Sex with slaves is BS and the only thing allowed was to have them as legal wife. We have seen children of slave women raised to become generals and sultans. Jizya is a tax and unless ur total brainless, u should know tax is not a crime or anything. In return protection and development was provided to them.
 
.
Resilience?when you let a small minority rule over you for a 1000 years and then Europeans ..being constantly ruled by a minority/outsiders shows that the character of the people is anything but resilient..if Indians were resilient they would have fought these comparatively small number of invaders out rather than being ruled by them..
Just also wanted to make one thing clear I know some idiots will come here say “jiZYa”

jizya is not collected from women,children, monks.. only from non muslims who are of military age and by paying jizya they are exempt from military service and in return muslims provide protection to these people from outside invaders etc

muslims themselves pay their form of tax which is called zakat which is similar to jizya.. nonmuslims don’t pay zakat but jizya I don’t see the problem here..


Yes, your ancestors Arabs tilled Indian Hindus For 1000 years (pulled out figure from Pakistan history book).
 
.
Another example is that if the Muslims had taken the Americas or Australia the local populations would have kept it is population numbers high and would have been numerous today and they wouldn't have been extinct threatened as they are currently. Having such moral code of conduct can do huge difference
 
.
Even TODAY, 1000s of White Western Europeans PARTICULARLY White Western European women convert to Islam each year............... :azn::


 
.
Another example is that if the Muslims had taken the Americas or Australia the local populations would have kept it is population numbers high and would have been numerous today and they wouldn't have been extinct threatened as they are currently.

And they would call it their own "resilience" and hate Muslims like Indians do.
 
.
Another example is that if the Muslims had taken the Americas or Australia the local populations would have kept it is population numbers high and would have been numerous today and they wouldn't have been extinct threatened as they are currently. Having such moral code of conduct can do huge difference
Agree. However, the policy requires an urgent review. It's one thing showing pragmatism and mercy towards viable educated peoples, or genuine animinist or non-religious societies, or genuine secular opponents....However, sustaining brahminist slavery cults is an error, both strategically and morally. There is no shame in showing intolerance towards intolerant peoples. Brahminism split away from primordial Hindu faiths and the religious beliefs on the Indus Valley. It transformed into a cult led by pale skinned Eurasian migrants at its head. These Aryans created a slave order with dark skinned people at the bottom. Such a cult is anathema to human societal progress and should have been eradicated on day 1.
 
.
And they would call it their own "resilience" and hate Muslims like Indians do.

I personally support the islamophobia because if you truly look closely they are bringing Islam back. The Islamophobia's are actully bringing back Islam as strange as it may seem but it is real. They are bringing back a dying nation who have become secular since a century ago by giving them a resuscitation by performing cardiac cardioversion.

Muslims just naturally became secular 100 years ago and moved away from Islam and involved in mass worldly pleasures today. This is happening everywhere but Islamophobia will slowly revive it.

I hate to say this but Islamophobia is our biggest asset currently
 
Last edited:
.
Yes, your ancestors Arabs tilled Indian Hindus For 1000 years (pulled out figure from Pakistan history book).

even if you consider that number an exaggeration and half it.. still looks bad on you lol
 
.
If islam was spread by the sword how are malaysia, indonesia and west africa muslim regions?
muslims ruked india for a 1000 years according to that logic all of india should have been muslim by now
If you look at muslim countries in the caucus they became muslims after the mongols who were actually invaders converted to islam

islam being spread by the sword is a myth

LOL Islam clearly spread by the sword.

The reason why Hindus are still left in the subcontinent is because Hindus too carried the swords to defend instead of giving up and converting to Islam.

Have you heard about Sindh, Rajput, Maratha, Sikh, Vijayanagara empires that fought the imposition of Islam?
even if you consider that number an exaggeration and half it.. still looks bad on you lol

LOL

Islamic rulers were never able to subjugate the Hindus even in their victories.

Akbhar killed 50000 citizens in Chittorgarh but he could not instill fear in Hindu people to convert to Islam.

Finally he came up with a new religious concept called Din-i-Ilahi to fool the people which also flopped.
 
Last edited:
.
LOL Islam clearly spread by the sword.

The reason why Hindus are still left in the subcontinent is because Hindus too carried the swords to defend instead of giving up and converting to Islam.

Have you heard about Sindh, Rajput, Maratha, Sikh, Vijayanagara empires that fought the imposition of Islam?

id agree yes in some places it was under some rulers..
However a lot of people portray it as being only spread by the sword like how you explained just now(In comparison Christianity trumps any religion when it comes to being spread by the sword)
There were no muslim armies sent to west africa or malaysia/indonesia.. muslims weren’t committing genocides when they were in andalusia either.. the caucuses etc

defending against a minority yet still being ruled by them is not really an accomplishment..even if they fought them muslims(outsiders) ruled vast amounts of lands.. what you’re doing here I’ll make it simple imagine 10 people fighting against two people.. and the 10 people boasting about how they survived!
 
.
First explain me why Persia became Muslim majority within 25 years?

It was not that they were merciful. It was our resilience which kept us Survived. We have survived against Hun, kushans, Greeks , Europeans etc.

Add to that why did Zoroastrian Parsis ran away from Persia to settle in India.
 
.
A conqueror is a conqueror. Saying all conquerors were brutal except the muslim ones is pretty naive and stupi

Muslim follows rule from God. That is the different. Muslim troops when they won the war, they are not exploiting the situation. The mercy of Muslim troops is well known after Muslim clashed with European powers during the Crusade. I bet you heard Saladin right ?

Musim troops usually will stay outside the town they have captured, it is why there are new cities being made during Islamic conquest like in Kuffah, Iraq. Freedom of religion is maintained and enforced, this is also why Jews are still survive until Today despite being ruled by Muslim for more than 1000 years.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom