RamaY wrote: Are the various Islamic Invaders into Indian sub-continent are true representatives of Islam? If the answer is Yes, then we must accept that genociders like Khilzi, Ghazni, Ghouri, Babar, Akbar, Tuglaq represent Islam thus making Islam inherently genocidal & colonial.
If the answer is no, then 99% of Muslims are forced into Islam in a wrong way and hence wrong Muslims. This wrong Islam should leave Indian sub-continent first so real Islam can interact and enter Indian sub-continent thru peace and love.
Don't remember how that debate ended.
The spread of Islam in India is not all due to violence. Many converted voluntarily inspired by genuine Islamic mystics and Sufi saints. Many areas that never had Islamic rule in India, for example, parts of western and southern TN has sizable muslim population that converted out of their own free will due to true islamic gnanis. To totally deny their existence is to believe in pretend history. These saints did practice a very mystical form of Islam that was non fanatical and were often prosecuted by fanatic muslim rules. You might have heard the story of Mansoor Al Hallaj shouting Anal-haq (I am That / Truth) in meditative ecstacy and killed because of that "blashphemy". Anal-Haq is almost the same as Aham Brahmashmi or Tat-Tvam-Asi. The mystical, experience based religion of these fakirs resonated with Indians long used to following Enlightented Siddhas and Sanyasi's with their own unique paths.
It is a tragedy that Sufi path also had its own share of fanatics and in the end lost its true mysticism. I do no think that some suggestions made in the forum quoting one or two Sufi fanatics to paint whole of sufism as fanatical is correct.
An unbiased, fact based research is needed to understand how many Indians became muslims through violence, vs through peaceful means. How nearly all of them became fanatics and slowly abandoned the culture and tradition of their ancestors is another wonder. Understanding these two critical areas without superficial condemnation or conclusions would be necessary to find peaceful and long term solution to resolving fanaticism of sub continental muslims.
A passionate argument indeed. We mustn't seek facts, logic & philosophical soundness from such passionate & Islamic arguments. But please allow this kafir to deliberate...
1/ Looks like your madrassa text books aren't updated. Allah rules whole earth and Muslim invaders reached all corners of Bharat, even if they didn't maintain a wide enough corridor of destruction connecting to their core. Please read about Madurai (none other than your South TN
) (south-east corner of Bharat), Mysore (South-West region), Kampili (mid-west region) Islamic kingdoms and be at peace that Islamic destruction reached entire Bharat. Also please search for the glorified court accounts of Tipu Sultan to understand that even in down south Islam was spread thru pillage, rape, terror only as done elsewhere. Also please don't forget about the mayhem created when Islamic hordes defeated Kakatiya and Vijayanagara empire. To sooth your worries, please read about Nizam kingdom and its extent. So please be assured that majority of Muslims in south India are converted by coercion and rape and not by pussyfooting Sufis.
2/ I don't know which S.TN you are talking about but I hope you are referring to the same S.TN that is currently getting enlightened by Christian gnanis and saints. These saints are also following the same pedophilic forms of spirituality as Sufis followed. When the priests Phillus is deep in side the seeker, I am sure the felling can't be anything better than Anal-Haq.
3/ I am afraid, you are committing blasphemy by equating Anal-Haq with the Pranav-Haq that Hindus usually practice. Anyways, the real question is when Mansoor-Al-Hallaj proclaimed Anal-Haq in ecstasy, what was "that" he was referring to? Allah or Muhammed? I am afraid he might have experienced a Jesus moment.
4/ Even if we accept that Mansoor-Al-Hallaj did experience "SoHam" for argument sake, it can't be Islamic. No wonder the true Muslims promptly beheaded him for committing blasphemy. So a Sufi who experienced Anal-Haq can't be a Muslim per Islam itself.
5/ Now if a Hindu follows/worships a Sufi who experienced Anal-Haq, which makes the Sufi an apostate, how can you claim that the Hindu converted to Islam? If the Sufi himself isn't a Muslim then how can his followers be? By experiencing Anal-Haq the Sufi became a Hindu instead of his followers becoming Muslim.
6/ I am glad that you confirmed that not all Sufis experienced Anal-Haq (they would have been beheaded like Masoor-Al-Hallij if they did) and were genocidal like normal Muslims. So not all Hindus who followed Sufis are peaceful converts as you claim.
7/ I will agree with your logic that there were some villages which converted to Islam before the massacres began, like Mecca did. As happened in Mecca, these villages too converted to Islam to avert the massacres that Islam is famous for. I don't think we can call these conversions peaceful even by our secular standards.
72/ However I do agree with you that there must be few Hindus who converted to Islam on their own will and wish. I am more than happy that they will remain Muslim forever. The proposal of that Secular Indian seem to be that only those Hindus who were forcibly converted to Islam must return to Hinduism. I am sure you would agree that it would be about 80% of current Muslims (I am following 80-20 rule here).
Don't you think it's only fair for those 80% Hindus-under-Islamic-Slavery are given freedom finally?
The outcome of such a freedom movement would be that Pakistan (the homeland for sub-continental Muslims) would be limited to NWFP area, proportional to their number.