I don't think I'm biased, I'm trying to state the truth as I see it. No point doing false equivalency or forcing and slanting facts to fit an egalitarian agenda.
So the one example you were able to dig up went back millennia ago - to a society without modern evidence based historical records. Whatever records there were of that time, were written by Muslims, obviously from their point of view. we do not have any idea of what the idol worshippers , or star worshippers or Jews or whoever thought of Muslim magnanimity at that time. I wonder if they shared that same impression of genuine kindness or whether the reason for the truce was a result of the political realities of that time. And even if this was historically correct, all they did was to " allow pagans to live among them". - which many other societies of that time and all modern governments do as a matter of course without expectation of applause.
First of all no one is asking for applause. As for it being millennia ago...u didn't specify it had to be from a certain time period. U asked for an example and I provided one.
Then u raised doubts to its authenticity...for which here is my counter. I brought it up as an example in general, which covers a large swath of time...rather than point to a specific time period. As for no records existing or written entirely by Muslims, that's simply not true.
Here is a paragraph from the book "Jews and Arabs: A Concise History of their Social and Cultural Relations" written by S.D. Goitein(a Non Muslim)
"With the great Arab conquests following the rise of Islam, which converted all the countries between Spain and Persia into a single territory dominated by the new religion, and soon after by the Arabic language as well, the majority of the Jewish people of that time came under Arab rule. Thus began the long and great period of Jewish-Arab symbiosis. The Jewish historians of the nineteenth century, as in the case of Graetz (the author of a classic ten-volume history of the Jews), who were deeply embittered by the contrast between the enlightened ideas of that century and the denial of civic rights to Jews in many European countries, pointed out most emphatically that the legal and actual position of the Jews during the Middle Ages was much better in Muslim-Arab countries than in Christian Europe; and the "Golden Age" of Judaism in Muslim Spain has become a phrase which has found its way even into the most popular accounts of Jewish history.
As we shall see, there is some exaggeration in these assertions. However, there can be no doubt that the legal status of the Jewish religion under Islam, particularly during its early period when the Arabs were still predominant, was very much better than their situation in the Byzantine Empire, which ruled over many countries occupied later on by the Arabs. In addition to a more favorable legal status, the Jewish people in early Islamic times enjoyed a complete economic and social revival"
Many non muslim historians/scholars generally agreed that Jews enjoyed more freedom in the Middle East under a Muslim rule in contrast to European Jews(Ashkenazi) up until WWII.
Many other examples exist...
- The Jewish community of Medina were allowed to have their Halakhic courts to solve their disputes
- The Ottoman millet
system allowed its various non muslim communities to rule themselves under separate legal courts.
- Non Muslims were permitted to carry out certain practices forbidden for Muslims such as drinking alcohol or pork consumption
I cannot think of one example in modern times of a Muslim gesture to non Muslims like the subsidy of the Haj by the Indian government - spending the tax money of idolaters and pagans to subsidize the religious requirement of Muslims.
Has any Muslim government subsidized the building of churches or printing of bibles or a pilgrimage to vishnu Devi or golden temple? Such an act is unthinkable.
So now u r going to resort to this that I must provide an example of modern times...and moreover u brought up the Indian government subsidizing Hajj by taxing Hindus...
...well here are a couple of examples from modern times...of Pakistan that is 97% Muslim spending Muslims' tax payer money on Hindu temples.
At the cost of 51.06 million Rs, the Pakistani government imported idols of Hindu gods from various monuments in India to Pakistan for the restoration of Katas Raj temple. A three-member archaeological team visited India, Sri Lanka and Nepal to collect murtis of various Hindu gods.
And this example below is from this year(2017)
Pakistan government begins installation of shikhar kalash on Hindu temples
http://m.timesofindia.com/city/amri...ash-on-hindu-temples/articleshow/56357121.cms
As for Hajj subsidy I can see that it really bothers Hindus...it has been brought up here on PDF many times. If the Indian government provided a subsidy to its citizens why is it thrown in their faces as a "favor" by Hindus? What is the goal? To be applauded and cheered as the most angelic beings just bcuz the government gave a subsidy to its citizens?
U won't see any Pakistani Muslims telling Pakistani Hindus "look we Muslims renovated ur temples". Bcuz it is simply the duty of the Pakistani government to maintain such temples for the Pakistani citizens(Hindus)
Aside from a Hindu/Muslim point of view...if Hindus r unhappy with that Hajj subsidy to Muslims only...then demand a subsidy from ur government for ur journey to ur holy sites. In my opinion the Hajj subsidy should not exist. Hajj isn't required by those who cannot afford it. Those who can afford it must perform Hajj from their own hard earned money(halal money...not stolen or accumulated by any wrong means). I'm no religious scholar but I don't think Hajj should be subsidized in the first place.
Dude, Look at the end of the day, you seem to be a nice guy and I don't want to hurt your feelings....there are many individual Muslims and small local Muslim communities who have done very kind and genourous things - but as a global community or government in power, I don't know of even a single example in modern times - and there is no point pretending otherwise.
Anyway, I wish you well. I am just trying to convey my perspective.
Don't worry u r not hurting my feelings at all. In fact u can hold any position/point of view and I won't be affected in the slightest. What I don't understand is the premise of ur argument...u somehow want to measure the "goodness" of the followers of a certain religion?
How does one measure that? Do u ever see others asking how good Hindus are? Or Christians/Jews/etc?
Do u know how many variables are involved here?
Muslims are not just confined in India or Pakistan. It's the second largest religion on earth. Muslims of UAE are very different than Muslims of Indonesia, which are very different than the Muslims of China.
Each individual's goodness(even if the religion is kept constant) varies based on:
- upbringing
- devoutness to his/her religion
- social/cultural values
- personality
- way of thinking
- economic status
- education
- environment
Many more such variables exist that can cause individuals of the same religion to range from good to bad and everything in between.
So then why r u generalizing? Would u think it's fair if I generalized over a billion Hindus bcuz some mob recently killed Indian Muslims over beef consumption? Or should I start considering all Muslims to be angelic bcuz of Edhi's actions? Should all Germans be considered monsters bcuz of the actions of the Nazis?
Such attempts at generalizing large groups only propagate stereotypes and by having such preconceived notions a person's views only become more myopic in nature.
U can continue to think whatever u wish. I'm no longer interested in spending anymore of my time on such futile discussion.
