• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Is there a need for Islam??

Farid

Active Member
Dec 12, 2004
66
5
Australia
✟201.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
What is it that islam offers that Christianity does not offers?
  • Love? How, when it was spread by force, killing those people that lived peacefully in their countries, e.g. Egypt. Islam is still agressive; consider suicide bombers to know how unmerciful it is.
  • Peace? All islamic countries are full of contentions and hatred, even for the harmless minorities.
  • Purity? What a joke! Consider the 70 virgins and boys in islamic paradise.
  • Justice? When you discover your husband is married to another 3 women at the same time? Or when the woman inherits half what the man does. Or when the testemony of one man equals that of two women before courts.
  • Joy? Look at most Muslims, and you will see the misery in their thoughts and actions. See their frustruations when you question their islam?
  • Truth? Complete denial when you prove a point. They cannot admit they are wrong, because they know once they do admit, it is the end of islam.
The list can go on. But I'll leave it to others to continue.
 

feral

Dostoyevsky was right
Jan 8, 2003
3,368
344
✟20,216.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Love? How, when it was spread by force, killing those people that lived peacefully in their countries, e.g. Egypt. Islam is still agressive; consider suicide bombers to know how unmerciful it is.
Actually, Islam is very much about love - love of God, love of others. Lest you forget, Christianity was also spread violently through the Crusades and Inquisitions. It wasn't always about knocking on someone's door and passing out tracts. There are some violent individuals today who also twist the Qur'an to justify whatever sick ideas they have, but that does not mean all Muslims or even many support this. The vast majority are in support of peace, and I don't think you should use a handful of exceptions to purport that they are not. Suicide bombers are not spreading Islam, nor is that their intent.

Peace? All islamic countries are full of contentions and hatred, even for the harmless minorities.

Are you sure of this? Which Muslim majority countries have you visited? There are many countries, like Jordan, which are not hateful towards minorities and in fact cater to non-Muslims by selling non-Halal foods such as pork in their stores, something Muslims cannot eat. Egypt and Kuwait are also Western friendly. Of course, every nation will have their rebels and their haters, as we have our Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell, but that does not indicate what the majority is like.

Purity? What a joke! Consider the 70 virgins and boys in islamic paradise.

Islam values purity a great deal, actually. Sexual and mental purity is so highly prized that in some Islamic nations, sexes are segregated in public to avoid sexual temptation and lust. While I don't consider that necessary, I do think many of my Muslim friends seek to be pure in body, mind and spirit. Christians believe that in the afterlife many will burn and suffer in unimaginable ways...does that mean Christians are pro-violence and live for revenge?

Justice? When you discover your husband is married to another 3 women at the same time? Or when the woman inherits half what the man does. Or when the testemony of one man equals that of two women before courts.

Some nations have refused to emerge from the Dark Ages and update their legal system, but that does not mean Muslims cannot and will not be in favour of justice. Many nations do not have the Shari'a law in place, or do not enforce it. Also, Islam grants women many rights not given to them by other faiths, which is a point for justice in my book.

Joy? Look at most Muslims, and you will see the misery in their thoughts and actions. See their frustruations when you question their islam?

Really? How many Muslims do you know? About twenty of my friends are practising Muslims, and three are former Muslims who are currently undecided, and 90% of them are quite cheerful, pleasant and joyous people. My friend Khadeela was there for me when I was going through a suicidal phase and suffering from depression; she was the one who told me this would pass and listed 500 reasons for living. Our family friend Marie is one of the kindest and most happy people I know. She almost bounces with enthusiasm and gladness. Yes, I don't doubt that repeated negative comments about their faith would make a Muslim stop smiling for the remainder of the conversation, but many practising Muslims are quite joyous indeed. Perhaps you could find something comparing suicide rates for Christians v. Muslims?

Truth? Complete denial when you prove a point. They cannot admit they are wrong, because they know once they do admit, it is the end of islam.

Complete denial? Or disagreement? Perhaps what you see as a point proved to them is still something that doesn't make sense. I disagree with every argument you've posted in this thread, and don't consider myself in denial. There are good and bad aspects to all faiths, and if you look hard enough, you're bound to face them. Muslims believe their way is the truth. You think your way is. If you refuse to convert to Islam, are you in denial of the truth?

Other things Islam has done...

Social Services - I think it's called Zakat, the 10% tithe Muslims pay to support the needy, the impoverished and widows. For many who would otherwise be struggling, this is a life saver. Islam guides followers to notice and care for the unfortunate in their communities, and it follows up by making charitable donations a pillar of faith.

Support of modesty and personal dignity - Islam encourages mental and physical modesty, which is a plus in my book, especially in the age of AIDS and rampant casual sex. Islam asks people to look at women for their brains and personalities, not to gawk at their body. It teaches men to look at girls the same they would a mother or sister, not as an object or lust.

Rights for Women - The Qur'an grants women various rights, without which they would be totally dependant and at the mercy of male relatives to care for them. Women can own property, inherit and divorce. They can decide whether or not to wear the headcoverings everyone seems to (wrongly) associate with oppression. Other faiths have not granted these rights by including them in their religious texts.

Want more?



 
  • Like
Reactions: Illuminatus
Upvote 0

The_true_path

Active Member
Nov 22, 2004
114
3
✟259.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Farid said:
What is it that islam offers that Christianity does not offers?
  • Love? How, when it was spread by force, killing those people that lived peacefully in their countries, e.g. Egypt. Islam is still agressive; consider suicide bombers to know how unmerciful it is.
  • Peace? All islamic countries are full of contentions and hatred, even for the harmless minorities.
  • Purity? What a joke! Consider the 70 virgins and boys in islamic paradise.
  • Justice? When you discover your husband is married to another 3 women at the same time? Or when the woman inherits half what the man does. Or when the testemony of one man equals that of two women before courts.
  • Joy? Look at most Muslims, and you will see the misery in their thoughts and actions. See their frustruations when you question their islam?
  • Truth? Complete denial when you prove a point. They cannot admit they are wrong, because they know once they do admit, it is the end of islam.
The list can go on. But I'll leave it to others to continue.




Well, This is some clarifications about some misconceptions:


1) WAS ISLAM SPREAD BY THE SWORD?



It is a common complaint among some non-Muslims that Islam would not have

millions of adherents all over the world, if it had not been spread by the use of

force. The following points will make it clear, that far from being spread by the

sword, it was the inherent force of truth, reason and logic that was responsible

for the rapid spread of Islam.

1. Islam means peace.

Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which means peace. It also means

submitting one’s will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is

acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).

2. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace.

Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace

and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested

interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for

this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and antisocial

elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the

same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The

fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force

can only be used to promote peace and justice.

3. Opinion of historian De Lacy O’Leary.

The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by

the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book “Islam at the cross road” (Page 8):

“History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping

through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races

is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.”

4. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.

Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the

sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to

Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who

could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

5. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians.

Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British

ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia

for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians

i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would

not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India.

The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had

the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today

more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-

Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the

sword.

7. Indonesia and Malaysia.

Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world.

The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, “Which Muslim

army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?”

8. East Coast of Africa.

Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again

ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, “Which Muslim army went to the East

Coast of Africa?”

9. Thomas Carlyle.

The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book “Heroes and Hero worship”,

refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: “The sword indeed, but

where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in

a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man

alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he

takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get

your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can.”

10. No compulsion in religion.

With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use

it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse:

“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from

error”

[Al-Qur’an 2:256]

11. Sword of the Intellect.

It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of

people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125:

“Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching;

and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious.”

[Al-Qur’an 16:125]

12. Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984.

An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year book 1986, gave the statistics of

the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century

from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At

the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased

only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted

millions of people to Islam?

13. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe.

Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing

religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept

Islam in such large numbers?

14. Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson.

Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says, “People who worry that nuclear

weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realize that the

Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMED (pbuh) was

born”.



To be continued...

 
Upvote 0

Muslim

Well-Known Member
Oct 14, 2004
1,271
26
✟1,547.00
Faith
Muslim
feral said:
Actually, Islam is very much about love - love of God, love of others. Lest you forget, Christianity was also spread violently through the Crusades and Inquisitions. It wasn't always about knocking on someone's door and passing out tracts. There are some violent individuals today who also twist the Qur'an to justify whatever sick ideas they have, but that does not mean all Muslims or even many support this. The vast majority are in support of peace, and I don't think you should use a handful of exceptions to purport that they are not. Suicide bombers are not spreading Islam, nor is that their intent.


Are you sure of this? Which Muslim majority countries have you visited? There are many countries, like Jordan, which are not hateful towards minorities and in fact cater to non-Muslims by selling non-Halal foods such as pork in their stores, something Muslims cannot eat. Egypt and Kuwait are also Western friendly. Of course, every nation will have their rebels and their haters, as we have our Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell, but that does not indicate what the majority is like.


Islam values purity a great deal, actually. Sexual and mental purity is so highly prized that in some Islamic nations, sexes are segregated in public to avoid sexual temptation and lust. While I don't consider that necessary, I do think many of my Muslim friends seek to be pure in body, mind and spirit. Christians believe that in the afterlife many will burn and suffer in unimaginable ways...does that mean Christians are pro-violence and live for revenge?


Some nations have refused to emerge from the Dark Ages and update their legal system, but that does not mean Muslims cannot and will not be in favour of justice. Many nations do not have the Shari'a law in place, or do not enforce it. Also, Islam grants women many rights not given to them by other faiths, which is a point for justice in my book.


Really? How many Muslims do you know? About twenty of my friends are practising Muslims, and three are former Muslims who are currently undecided, and 90% of them are quite cheerful, pleasant and joyous people. My friend Khadeela was there for me when I was going through a suicidal phase and suffering from depression; she was the one who told me this would pass and listed 500 reasons for living. Our family friend Marie is one of the kindest and most happy people I know. She almost bounces with enthusiasm and gladness. Yes, I don't doubt that repeated negative comments about their faith would make a Muslim stop smiling for the remainder of the conversation, but many practising Muslims are quite joyous indeed. Perhaps you could find something comparing suicide rates for Christians v. Muslims?


Complete denial? Or disagreement? Perhaps what you see as a point proved to them is still something that doesn't make sense. I disagree with every argument you've posted in this thread, and don't consider myself in denial. There are good and bad aspects to all faiths, and if you look hard enough, you're bound to face them. Muslims believe their way is the truth. You think your way is. If you refuse to convert to Islam, are you in denial of the truth?

Other things Islam has done...

Social Services - I think it's called Zakat, the 10% tithe Muslims pay to support the needy, the impoverished and widows. For many who would otherwise be struggling, this is a life saver. Islam guides followers to notice and care for the unfortunate in their communities, and it follows up by making charitable donations a pillar of faith.

Support of modesty and personal dignity - Islam encourages mental and physical modesty, which is a plus in my book, especially in the age of AIDS and rampant casual sex. Islam asks people to look at women for their brains and personalities, not to gawk at their body. It teaches men to look at girls the same they would a mother or sister, not as an object or lust.

Rights for Women - The Qur'an grants women various rights, without which they would be totally dependant and at the mercy of male relatives to care for them. Women can own property, inherit and divorce. They can decide whether or not to wear the headcoverings everyone seems to (wrongly) associate with oppression. Other faiths have not granted these rights by including them in their religious texts.

Want more?





What a lovely post. You are very knowledgeable about Islam and I thank you for showing the truth to Farid. But dont be discouraged if he comes back with another post slandering Islam. It is the way of the ignorant, and others have made such claims during the time of the prophet Muhammad. But ignorance never prevails over truth.
 
Upvote 0

The_true_path

Active Member
Nov 22, 2004
114
3
✟259.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Continued.....


2) . POLYGAMY


1. Definition of Polygamy

Polygamy means a system of marriage whereby one person has more than one

spouse. Polygamy can be of two types. One is polygyny where a man marries

more than one woman, and the other is polyandry, where a woman marries

more than one man. In Islam, limited polygyny is permitted; whereas polyandry

is completely prohibited.

Now coming to the original question, why is a man allowed to have more than

one wife?

2. The Qur’an is the only religious scripture in the world that says,

“marry only one”.

The Qur’an is the only religious book, on the face of this earth, that contains the

phrase ‘marry only one’. There is no other religious book that instructs men to

have only one wife. In none of the other religious scriptures, whether it be the

Vedas, the Ramayan, the Mahabharat, the Geeta, the Talmud or the Bible does

one find a restriction on the number of wives. According to these scriptures one

can marry as many as one wishes. It was only later, that the Hindu priests and

the Christian Church restricted the number of wives to one.

Many Hindu religious personalities, according to their scriptures, had multiple

wives. King Dashrat, the father of Rama, had more than one wife. Krishna had

several wives.

In earlier times, Christian men were permitted as many wives as they wished,

since the Bible puts no restriction on the number of wives. It was only a few

centuries ago that the Church restricted the number of wives to one.

Polygyny is permitted in Judaism. According to Talmudic law, Abraham had

three wives, and Solomon had hundreds of wives. The practice of polygyny

continued till Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah (960 C.E to 1030 C.E) issued an

edict against it. The Jewish Sephardic communities living in Muslim countries

continued the practice till as late as 1950, until an Act of the Chief Rabbinate of

Israel extended the ban on marrying more than one wife.

(*Interesting Note:- As per the 1975 census of India Hindus are more

polygynous than Muslims. The report of the ‘Committee of The Status of

Woman in Islam’, published in 1975 mentions on page numbers 66 and 67 that

the percentage of polygamous marriages between the years 1951 and 1961

was 5.06% among the Hindus and only 4.31% among the Muslims. According

to Indian law only Muslim men are permitted to have more than one wife. It is

illegal for any non-Muslim in India to have more than one wife. Despite it being

illegal, Hindus have more multiple wives as compared to Muslims. Earlier, there

was no restriction even on Hindu men with respect to the number of wives

allowed. It was only in 1954, when the Hindu Marriage Act was passed that it

became illegal for a Hindu to have more than one wife. At present it is the Indian

Law that restricts a Hindu man from having more than one wife and not the

Hindu scriptures.)

Let us now analyse why Islam allows a man to have more than one wife.

3. Qur’an permits limited polygyny

As I mentioned earlier, Qur’an is the only religious book on the face of the earth

that says ‘marry only one’. The context of this phrase is the following verse from

Surah Nisa of the Glorious Qur’an:

“Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that

ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one.”

[Al-Qur’an 4:3]

Before the Qur’an was revealed, there was no upper limit for polygyny and

many men had scores of wives, some even hundreds. Islam put an upper limit

of four wives. Islam gives a man permission to marry two, three or four women,

only on the condition that he deals justly with them.

In the same chapter i.e. Surah Nisa verse 129 says:

“Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women....”

[Al-Qur’an 4:129]

Therefore polygyny is not a rule but an exception. Many people are under the

misconception that it is compulsory for a Muslim man to have more than one wife.

Broadly, Islam has five categories of Do’s and Don’ts:

(i) ‘Fard’ i.e. compulsory or obligatory

(ii) ‘Mustahab’ i.e. recommended or encouraged

(iii) ‘Mubah’ i.e. permissible or allowed

(iv) ‘Makruh’ i.e. not recommended or discouraged

(v) ‘Haraam’ i.e. prohibited or forbidden

Polygyny falls in the middle category of things that are permissible. It cannot be

said that a Muslim who has two, three or four wives is a better Muslim as

compared to a Muslim who has only one wife.



4. Average life span of females is more than that of males

By nature males and females are born in approximately the same ratio. A

female child has more immunity than a male child. A female child can fight the

germs and diseases better than the male child. For this reason, during the

pediatric age itself there are more deaths among males as compared to the

females.

During wars, there are more men killed as compared to women. More men die

due to accidents and diseases than women. The average life span of females

is more than that of males, and at any given time one finds more widows in the

world than widowers.

5. India has more male population than female due to female

foeticide and infanticide

India is one of the few countries, along with the other neighbouring countries, in

which the female population is less than the male population. The reason lies in

the high rate of female infanticide in India, and the fact that more than one

million female foetuses are aborted every year in this country, after they are

identified as females. If this evil practice is stopped, then India too will have

more females as compared to males.

6. World female population is more than male population

In the USA, women outnumber men by 7.8 million. New York alone has one

million more females as compared to the number of males, and of the male

population of New York one-third are gays i.e sodomites. The U.S.A as a whole

has more than twenty-five million gays. This means that these people do not

wish to marry women. Great Britain has four million more females as compared

to males. Germany has five million more females as compared to males. Russia

has nine million more females than males. God alone knows how many million

more females there are in the whole world as compared to males.

7. Restricting each and every man to have only one wife is not

practical

Even if every man got married to one woman, there would still be more than

thirty million females in U.S.A who would not be able to get husbands

(considering that America has twenty five million gays). There would be more

than four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine

million females in Russia alone who would not be able to find a husband.

Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in USA, or

suppose your sister happens to be one of the unmarried women in USA. The

only two options remaining for her are that she either marries a man who

already has a wife or becomes 'public property'. There is no other option. All

those who are modest will opt for the first.



Most women would nto like to share their husband with other women. But in

Islam when the situation deems it really neccessary Muslim women in due faith

could bear a small personal loss to prevent a greater loss of letting other Muslim

sisters becoming 'public properties'.

8. Marring a married man preferable to becoming 'public property'

In Western society, it is common for a man to have mistresses and/or multiple

extra-marital affairs, in which case, the woman leads a disgraceful, unprotected

life. The same society, however, cannot accept a man having more than one

wife, in which women retain their honourable, dignified position in society and

lead a protected life.

Thus the only two options before a woman who cannot find a husband is to

marry a married man or to become 'public property'. Islam prefers giving

women the honourable position by permitting the first option and disallowing the

second.

There are several other reasons, why Islam has permitted limited polygyny, but

it is mainly to protect the modesty of women.



To be continued ....







 
Upvote 0

The_true_path

Active Member
Nov 22, 2004
114
3
✟259.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Continiued...


3) EQUALITY OF WITNESSES



1. Two female witnesses not always considered equal to one male

witness

There are no less than three verses in the Qur’an which speak about witnesses

without specifying man or woman.

a) While making a will of inheritance, two just persons are required as

witnesses. In Surah Maidah chapter 5 verse 106, the Glorious Qur’an says:

“Oh you who believe! When death approaches any of you, (take)

witnesses among yourself when making bequests,– two just persons

of your own (brotherhood) or others from outside if you are journeying

through the earth and the chance of death befalls you.” [Al-Qur’an 5:106]

b) Two persons endued with justice in case of talaq.

“And take for witness two persons from among you, endued with

justice, and establish the evidence (as) before Allah”. [Al-Qur’an 65:2]

c) Four witnesses are required in case of charge against chaste women

“And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce

not four witnesses (to support their allegatios) flog them with eighty

stripes; and reject their evidence even after: for such men are wicked

transgressors”

[Al-Qur’an 24:4]

2. Two female witnesses is equal to male witness only in financial

transaction

It is not true that two female witnesses are always considered as equal to only

one male witness. It is true only in certain cases. There are about five verses

in the Qur’an that mention witnesses, without specifying male or female. There

is only one verse in the Qur’an, that says two female witnesses are equal to one

male witness. This verse is Surah Baqarah, chapter 2 verse 282. This is the

longest verse in the Qur’an and deals with financial transactions. It says:

“Oh! ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions

involving future obligation in a fixed period of time reduce them to

writing and get two witnesses out of your own men and if there are not

two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses

so that if one of them errs the other can remind her.” [Al-Qur’an 2:282]



This verse of the Qur’an deals only with financial transactions. In such cases,

it is advised to make an agreement in writing between the parties and take two

witnesses, preferably both of which should be men only. In case you cannot find

two men, then one man and two women would suffice.

For instance, suppose a person wants to undergo an operation for a particular

ailment. To confirm the treatment, he would prefer taking references from two

qualified surgeons. In case he is unable to find two surgeons, his second option

would be one surgeon and two general practitioners who are plain MBBS

doctors.

Similarly in financial transactions, two men are preferred. Islam expects men to

be the breadwin ners of their families. Since financial responsibility is

shouldered by men, they are expected to be well versed in financial transactions

as compared to women. As a second option, the witness can be one man and

two women, so that if one of the women errs the other can remind her. The

Arabic word used in the Qur’an is ‘Tazil’ which means ‘confused’ or ‘to err’.

Many have wrongly translated this word as ‘to forget’. Thus financial

transactions constitute the only case in which two female witnesses are equal

to one male witness.

3. Two female witnesses equal to one male witness even in the case

of murder

However, some scholars are of the opinion that the feminine attitude can also

have an effect on the witness in a murder case. In such circumstances a woman

is more terrified as compared to a man. Due to her emotional condition she can

get confused. Therefore, according to some jurists, even in cases of murder,

two female witnesses are equivalent to one male witness. In all other cases,

one female witness is equivalent to one male witness. In all other cases, one

female witness is equivalent to one male witness.

4. Qur’an clearly specifies that one female witness equal to one male

witness

There are some scholars who are of the opinion that the rule of two female

witnesses equal to one male witness should be applied to all the cases. This

cannot be agreed upon because one particular verse of the Qur’an from Surah

Noor chapter 24, verse 6 clearly equates one female witness and one male

witness:

“And those who launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in

support) no evidence but their own - their solitary evidence can be

received.” [Al-Qur’an 24:6]

5. Solitary witness of Ayesha (May Allah be pleased with her) is

sufficient for Hadith to be accepted

Ayesha (May Allah be pleased with her) the wife of the beloved Prophet has

narrated no less than 2220 Ahadith which are considered authentic only on her

solitary evidence. This is sufficient proof that one witness of a women can also

be accepted.

Many jurists agree that even one witness of a woman is sufficient for the

sighting of the crescent of the moon. Imagine one woman witness is sufficient

for one of the pillars of Islam, i.e. fasting and the whole Muslim community of

men and women agree and accept her witness! Some jurists say that one

witness is required at the beginning of Ramadaan and two witnesses at the end

of Ramadaan. It makes no difference whether the witnesses are men or women.

6. Female witnesses are preferred in some cases

Some incidents require only female witness and that of a male cannot be

accepted. For instance, in dealing with the problems of women, while giving the

burial bath i.e. ‘ghusl’ to a woman, the witness has to be a woman.

The seeming inequality of male and female witnesses in financial transactions

is not due to any inequality of the sexes in Islam. It is only due to the different

natures and roles of men and women in society as envisaged by Islam.




To be continued..
 
Upvote 0

The_true_path

Active Member
Nov 22, 2004
114
3
✟259.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Contined...

4). INHERITANCE



1. Inheritance in the Qur'an

The Glorious Qur’an contains specific and detailed guidance regarding the

division of the inherited wealth, among the rightful beneficiaries.

The Qur’anic verses that contain guidance regarding inheritance are:

* Surah Baqarah, chapter 2 verse 180

* Surah Baqarah, chapter 2 verse 240

* Surah Nisa, chapter 4 verse 7-9

* Surah Nisa, chapter 4 verse 19

* Surah Nisa, chapter 4 verse 33 and

* Surah Maidah, chapter 5 verse 106-108



2. Specific share of inheritance for the relatives

There are three verses in the Qur’an that broadly describe the share of close

relatives i.e. Surah Nisah chapter 4 verses 11, 12 and 176. The translation of

these verses are as follows:

“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the

male, a portion equal to that of two females, if only daughters, two or

more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; If only one, her share

is a half.

For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left

children; If no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother

has a third; if the deceased left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a

sixth. (The distribution in all cases is) after the payment of legacies

and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are

nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah;

and Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

In what your wives leave, your share is half. If they leave no child; but

if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and

debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but

if ye leave a child, they get an eight; after payment of legacies and

debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left

neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister,

each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a

third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to

anyone). Thus it is ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-Knowing Most

Forbearing”

[Al-Qur’an 4:11-12]

“They ask thee for a legal decision. Say: Allah directs (them) about

those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man

that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the

inheritance. If (such a deceased was) a woman who left no child, Her

brother takes her inheritance. If there are two sisters, they shall have

two thirds of the inheritance (between them). If there are brothers and

sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female.

Thus doth Allah (swt) makes clear to you (His knowledge of all things).

[Al-Qur’an 4:176]

3. Female some times inherits same or more than male counter part

In most of the cases, a woman inherits half of what her male counterpart inherits.

However, this is not always the case. In case the deceased has left no ascendant

or descendent but has left the uterine brother and sister, each of the two inherit

one sixth.

If the deceased has left children, both the parents that is mother and father get

an equal share and inherit one sixth each. In certain cases, a woman can also

inherit a share that is double that of the male. If the deceased is a woman who

has left no children, brothers or sisters and is survived only by her husband,

mother and father, the husband inherits half the property while the mother

inherits one third and the father the remaining one sixth. In this particular case,

the mother inherits a share that is double that of the father.

4. Female usually inherits half the share of that of the male counter part

It is true that as a general rule, in most cases, the female inherits a share that

is half that of the male. For instance in the following cases:

1. daughter inherits half of what the son inherits,

2. wife inherits 1/8th and husband 1/4th if the deceased has no children.

3. Wife inherits 1/4th and husband 1/2 if the deceased has children

4. If the deceased has no ascendant or descendent, the sister inherits a share

that is half that of the brother.

5. Male inherits double than the female because he financially

supports the family

In Islam a woman has no financial obligation and the economical responsibility

lies on the shoulders of the man. Before a woman is married it is the duty of the

father or brother to look after the lodging, boarding, clothing and other financial

requirements of the woman. After she is married it is the duty of the husband or

the son. Islam holds the man financially responsible for fulfilling the needs of his

family. In order to do be able to fulfill the responsibility the men get double the

share of the inheritance. For example, if a man dies leaving about Rs. One

Hundred and Fifty Thousand, for the children (i.e one son and one daughter) the

son inherits One Hundred Thousand rupees and the daughter only Fifty

Thousand rupees. Out of the one hundred thousand which the son inherits, as

his duty towards his family, he may have to spend on them almost the entire

amount or say about eighty thousand and thus he has a small percentage of

inheritance, say about twenty thousand, left for himself. On the other hand, the

daughter, who inherits fifty thousand is not bound to spend a single penny on

anybody. She can keep the entire amount for herself. Would you prefer

inheriting one hundred thousand rupees and spending eighty thousand from it,

or inheriting fifty thousand rupees and having the entire amount to yourself?
 
Upvote 0

Farid

Active Member
Dec 12, 2004
66
5
Australia
✟201.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
feral said:
Actually, Islam is very much about love - love of God, love of others. Lest you forget, Christianity was also spread violently through the Crusades and Inquisitions.


That was in the 15th century after Christianity has spread all over the world. Yet, the Crusade did not evangelise, they wanted to take jerusalem by force, not to convert non Christians to Christianity.
Now, look at how islam spread, don't you agree it used the sward to spread, offering 3 options, islam, high gezia (tax), or death for those whom they conquored.
The quran itself encourages violance, when it asks to correct what is not right, if not by word, then by force. Coersion and force is a principal element in islam. we cannot deny history.

feral said:
The vast majority are in support of peace, and I don't think you should use a handful of exceptions to purport that they are not. Suicide bombers are not spreading Islam, nor is that their intent.

I am not taking about muslims, but about islam and what it teaches. When people started going back to the fundamentals of islam, they turned violent and started wars and terrorism, e.g. bin laden..etc. Hence they wer called fundamentalists. So it is the religion itself that promotes violance and force. Nowadays, after the entire world is awakened to the truths of islam, muslims try to look for the peace and love in quran, they try to re-interpret the quran as to avoid the striking teachings it contains.

I SHALL CONTINUE ANSWERING YOUR POINTS FERAL, BUT I HAVE TO GO NOW.:)
 
Upvote 0

Bargainfluger

Playin' in Joes Garage
Sep 14, 2004
1,353
99
MD
✟1,946.00
Faith
Atheist
Farid said:
What is it that islam offers that Christianity does not offers?
Its not about picking the most palatable religion, as far as I know. Muslims believe that Muhammad was the prophet of Allah, you obviously believe something different. That is why the religions are different.
Farid said:
  • Love? How, when it was spread by force, killing those people that lived peacefully in their countries, e.g. Egypt. Islam is still agressive; consider suicide bombers to know how unmerciful it is.
You obviously are very ignorant of the religion. Suicide bombers represent an extremely crazy, radical sect of Islam, and are shunned by the vast majority. That would be like taking a news story about a beserk evangalist bombing a building "for God", and calling Christians suicide bombers.
Farid said:
  • Peace? All islamic countries are full of contentions and hatred, even for the harmless minorities.
Another blatantly ignorant and sweeping generalization. You're painting a false picture of an entire religion, and basing it on a news report you heard about violence in a warring nation.
Farid said:
  • Joy? Look at most Muslims, and you will see the misery in their thoughts and actions. See their frustruations when you question their islam?
Another thoughtless and arrogant statement. I have a Muslim friend, and he's one of the most fun guys to be around.
Farid said:
  • Truth? Complete denial when you prove a point. They cannot admit they are wrong, because they know once they do admit, it is the end of islam.
Careful, these kinds of attacks could get you in trouble. I hope you can open your mind to learning new things about people, and return with a more enlightened view of others.
 
Upvote 0
B

Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win

Guest
The_true_path said:
6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India.

The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had

the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today

more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-

Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the

sword.

Here is one non-Muslim Indian who strongly believes that Islam was indeed spread by the sword in India and also through the imposition of taxes on non-muslims.

The religion of Islam stormed into India in a similar manner as it did in the Arabian countries. Powerful regimes succumbed to the religion at a remarkably fast pace as evidenced by the fact that within a century after its inception, it had spread to the entire Middle East and Northern Africa. But in India, Islam had a more difficult time to insinuate into the Hindu and Buddhist societies. Even then, ‘Islamization’ of India took several centuries and was never complete. The barbaric nature of the sultanates rule and the invasion of Mongols may have had a negative effect on the Hindu practitioners. The earlier Mughals had breeched the division somewhat, but Aurangzeb in his zeal to turn India into an Islamic nation alienated all other religions. From then onward ‘moderate Muslim rule’ was an oxymoron. It is also apparent that the Hindus revered their idols much more than the Muslim conquerors estimated. A sweep of India never occurred and India remained predominantly Hindu, with only about twenty percent of its population as Muslims, at any given time in its history.

If destruction of Hindu temples is any measure the Sultans of Delhi did far worse damage than the Mughals (except Aurangzeb). The marauders like the Mahmud of Ghazni, Muhammad of Ghor, Timurlane, Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdali did loot and destroy idols in the temples all over the North, but the rulers like Aibak, Iltumish, Khilji and Feroz Shah Tughlaq, continued to do the desecration of temples in the name of cleansing the religion of Hindus and Buddhists over a long period of time in a sustained way. A large library of Buddhist literature was set ablaze by Khilji in Odantapuri, even before knowing what they contained.
 
Upvote 0

Muslim

Well-Known Member
Oct 14, 2004
1,271
26
✟1,547.00
Faith
Muslim
Bargainfluger said:
Its not about picking the most palatable religion, as far as I know. Muslims believe that Muhammad was the prophet of Allah, you obviously believe something different. That is why the religions are different.
You obviously are very ignorant of the religion. Suicide bombers represent an extremely crazy, radical sect of Islam, and are shunned by the vast majority. That would be like taking a news story about a beserk evangalist bombing a building "for God", and calling Christians suicide bombers.
Another blatantly ignorant and sweeping generalization. You're painting a false picture of an entire religion, and basing it on a news report you heard about violence in a warring nation.
Another thoughtless and arrogant statement. I have a Muslim friend, and he's one of the most fun guys to be around.

Careful, these kinds of attacks could get you in trouble. I hope you can open your mind to learning new things about people, and return with a more enlightened view of others.


Finally some of the other members of this forum are seeing the blatant ignorance of posts like this. Whenever I see posts like the one Farid just made I think to myself "Is it even worth replying?" Because no matter what I say he will still make more posts with more generalizations and fabrications about Islam. It never ends.
 
Upvote 0
B

Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win

Guest
The Terror That Came from Afghanistan

Centuries prior to the current assault on the civilization by the Afghans and Osama bin Laden’s fundamentalist Muslims, two other sultans from Afghanistan had unleashed their wrath and hatred of kafirs (infidels) in the Indian subcontinent. After one thousand years the Indians still seem to have memory of the assaults as though they occurred but recently. These two infamous Muslim invaders were from Ghazni in the 11th century and Ghor in the 12th century. This is the story of Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad of Ghor.

Mahmud of Ghazni

By late 10th century the Muslim presence in Sindh had deteriorated to two insignificant families in control of Multan and Mansurah. Kabul and surrounding neighborhood was under the control of Hindu kings from the middle of 9th century. A dynasty called the Shahis flourished here and extended their kingdom upto Panjab in the east. Then in the year 870 Kabul was lost to invading Muslims. A Turkic slave, Aptigin by name, had amassed power and occupied Ghazni, an important town on the Kabul-Kandahar road, in the year 963. Aptigin’s son Sabuktigin succeeded him in the year 977. He was anxious for religious war with the Hindus and ravaged the provinces of Kabul and Punjab. Shahi dynasty under King Jayapala still controlled the area west of Jalalabad and thus part of what is known as Kabul valley. He resisted the onslaught gallantly but had to sue for peace when the weather turned hostile during the treacherous winter of Afghanistan. Sabuktigin with his later to be infamous son, Mahmud, gorged on the Hindu population with butchery and sorcery, the likes of which had not been seen before in the subcontinent. Jayapala gathered a large army with the help of neighboring kingdoms and mounted a counter attack. The Ghazni forces were more mobile and superior riders compared to the slower elephant-mounted Indians. They were routed and the Khyber Pass and countless number of elephants and other booty fell into the hands of Sabuktigin. The invaders had a foothold on the Indian soil and controlled the gateway, the Khyber Pass, to the vast Indian subcontinent.

After the death of Sabuktigin his son, Mahmud succeeded him. He was to be to India what a Satan was to Islam. Grotesquely ugly in appearance Mahmud controlled a vast empire and had ambitions of expanding further east into the heartland of India. With the god given right of every Muslim to root out idolatry as an excuse, he started his assault into India. He resolved on a pattern of yearly incursion into India with the charade of spreading Islam to the infidels. However, he had heard of the fabled wealth of India and was in dire need of capital to maintain his large armed forces and entourage. The religious mission quickly changed to indiscriminate looting and murdering of Hindus with large caravans of bounty marching back to Ghazni after each monsoon. The first assault was on November 27, 1001. A concurrent, though biased, account of the assault was kept by his faithful secretary al-Utbi and later a more reliable account was given by historian Ferishta. It was during his second invasion near Peshawar the much-weakened King Jayapala suffered a crushing defeat of enormous proportions. Following this the proud king abdicated his throne to his son Anandapala and committed suicide by climbing onto his own funeral pyre.

Mahmud continued his raid into India on a regular basis (a total of seventeen times over twenty-seven years, from 1001-1027) and the Shahis were the only kings to oppose him, but with little success. Large assortments of loot including precious jewels and pearls, tons of gold and silver were hoarded on thousands of elephants and transported to Ghazni. The Indians headed for the hills with the sound of advancing troops of the Muslim army and there was no significant opposition to the ugly marauder. City after city, year after year felt the wrath of Ghaznivads. Pillaging of the cities was invariably followed by rape and murder.

Then in the year 1008 it was the turn of Mathura with its well-endowed temple of Lord Krishna. Before razing it to the ground and plundering it, Mahmud is said to have marveled at the sheer beauty of the architecture and imagined it would take him two hundred years to build a similar magnificent mosque. However, he had no difficulty in desecrating and looting the temple of tons of gold, silver and precious stones before burning it. The taste of blood and booty had practically blinded him so much so that even the Muslim sympathetic, sycophant historians felt uncomfortable writing about his ruthless murderous rampage.

The Shiva temple of Somnath was one of his last targets. Somnath in Gujarat (Saurashtra) had a fortified temple with its most sacred and celebrated lingam. The people, however, were pacifists and defenseless. In 1025, Mahmud with only cavalry and camels crossed the Thar Desert and surprised the residents of Somnath. When the soldiers scaled the walls with ladders all they found inside were defenseless worshippers. Fifty thousand devotees praying to the lingam and weeping passionately with hands clasped around their necks were massacred in cold blood. The marauders looted twenty million dirhams-worth of gold and silver. Mahmud himself took great pleasure in destroying the stone lingam, after stripping it off its gold ornaments. Bits of the lingam were sent back to Ghazni and incorporated into the steps of its new mosque to be trampled and perpetually defiled by the faithful.


(In the words of Al-Biruni...
"Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion toward all Moslems"
"In the middle of the city(Mathura) there was a temple larger and finer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted." The Sultan [Mahmud] was of the opinion that 200 years would have been required to build it. The idols included "five of red gold, each five yards high," with eyes formed of priceless jewels. "The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire, and leveled with the ground")
Eventually Anandapala’s empire shrank to a small part of northeast Punjab. His son Trilochanapala even lost that last bit of land and became a refugee in Kashmir. In his zeal to accumulate wealth, Mahmud neglected to administer to the lands he had conquered. He finally died in the year 1030 but not before he transformed Ghazni into a worthy capital from the looted wealth. India breathed a collective sigh of relief. Mahmud had two sons born on the same day to two different wives and a dispute ensued after his death. This manner of horrific bloodbath and murderous plots before each succession was to become common practice among the Muslim rulers of India for the rest of their history. The reign of Masud was insignificant and eventually the Ghaznivads lost their famed capital of Ghazni to invading Turks. Lahore served as their capital for next several decades. One hundred fifty years later Lahore was the first city to fall to the next Turkish terrorist from Afghanistan, namely, Muhammad of Ghor

Aptigin –> Sabuktigin –> Mahmud of Ghazni –> Masud

Muhammad of Ghor

The Ghaznivads had little influence in India by the late 12th century when an ambitious sultan from Ghor, another man of Turkish descent in Afghanistan, showed expansionist intentions. Muhammad in his earlier attempts had a great setback when he tried to imitate the crossing of Thar Desert and assault on Gujarat by Muhammad of Ghazni. However, this time his debauch was stopped by the defenders of Somnath and Muhammad met with a decisive defeat. After easily overpowering the Sindh region, he turned his attention now to eastern Panjab and Rajastan. Muhammad had already taken Lahore in 1186 and now was impinging on Chauhan’s territory. He met with an able and worthy opponent in the Rajput dynasty of Chauhan. Their hero, Prithviraj was the legendary king who had eloped with the daughter of king of Kanauj while coming off age. This story is even today alive in the folklore of Panjab and Rajastan. The confrontation of 1191 almost resulted in Muhammad losing his life, if not for a Khalji warrior who bravely fought off the Hindus and rescued his leader. Prithviraj’s vassal, Govinda-raja by name, inflicted a deep gash on the arm of Muhammad though he lost his front teeth while taking a blow from the sword of the Muslim. When Muhammad retreated Prithviraj did not give chase and basked in his victory. This was a tactical error that would come back to haunt him later.

Muhammad, however, was not to be discouraged by a single defeat. Middle of next year in 1192, Muhammad was back with a large force of 120,000 horses attacking the Rajputs again. Muhammad arranged a fake truce and while the Rajputs were celebrating, thinking that they had won again, the Ghorid sultan double crossed the Hindus and massacred them in a surprise attack. This second battle at Tarain lasted all day, wearing out the Rajput soldiers, when waves after waves of well-trained horsemen attacked the weary Rajputs. Eventually the mighty army of Prithviraj succumbed to the superior tactics of the Arabian horsemen. Govinda-raja was slain and his body could be recognized only because of its missing teeth. Prithviraj was taken prisoner and then executed. Most of the Rajput women jumped into their own funeral pyres and the brave soldiers fought on till they were killed in the battlefield. Such was the honor of Rajputs.

Within a matter of three years most of the Ganga belt had capitulated to Muslim forces. There hardly was any resistance to their advance. By the thirteenth century the conquest of the North India was almost complete with the Muslims in control as far east as Bengal and Assam. The Muslim faithful unleashed a rule of terror with relentless massacre of Hindus, unimpeded. Blood ran in the holy River Ganga and many Indians were forcibly converted to Muslim faith with the threat of death or unfair taxes. The Battle of Tarain was a turning point in Indian history. A land that had been protected by Hindu Kush Mountains on its northwest frontier now was a thoroughfare for invaders and marauders. The whole of North India was under Muslim rule for the next six hundred and fifty years until the British usurped them. The permeation of Hindu society by Islam had begun at full throttle.

Like his predecessor Mahmud of Ghazni, Muhammad of Ghor was not interested in occupying and ruling the land of India. Ostensibly Muhammad’s goal was to expand territory and submission of Hindus to Islam but he too strayed from his ideology when he tasted the opulence that was India. The main focus was to plunder and pillage and transfer as much wealth as possible to his motherland Ghor in Afghanistan. The seemingly insatiable Muhammad bequeathed the control of the land he had gained to be ruled by his subordinates, the first of whom was his slave who had fought beside him. His name was Qutb-ud-din Aibak, the founder of the so-called Slave Dynasty that ruled North India for the next eighty-four years.
 
Upvote 0
B

Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win

Guest
The Sultanates of Delhi

The Slaves Who Would Be Kings

Muhammad of Ghor was slain by a vengeful group of enemies called the Ghakkars of Panjab while he was sleeping at night in one of his many campaigns to secure his borders. His Turkish commanders, chief and most successful amongst them being a slave called Qutb-ud-din Aibak, had mostly achieved Muhammad’s predatory work in India. He was the most trusted one in the cabal of Muhammad of Ghor and was named as the sultan of Delhi. Qutb-ud-din came to power after a bloody struggle, which is the norm after any succession battle of Muslim India. He became the founder of the Slave Dynasty (because they were slaves at one time) and came to power in 1206. He only ruled for four short years and died in 1210, when he fell from his pony while playing polo and the pony landed on him. The pommel of the saddle entered his chest and killed him instantaneously. He was buried in Lahore. In those four years as the Sultan of Delhi he commissioned and built the famous Qutb minar and the Qutb mosque of Delhi. Qutb minar was the pride of the dynasty. Built from the pillars and bricks taken from twenty-seven Hindu and Jain temples (and said to be built at the site of a citadel the Chauhans built for Prithviraj), it boasted of five tiered balconies that stood atop Delhi as a sign of the Muslim conquest of India. (Its topmost cupola fell during an earthquake in 1803).

Aibak also gained notoriety as a temple destroyer. Varanasi saw the wrath of both Muhammad of Ghor and Qutb-ud-din Aibak, who reputedly destroyed thousand temples. Fourteen hundred camels loaded with treasure were hauled away. Between Muhammad and Aibak, a total of thousand idols in temples were destroyed and rededicated to Allah. Aibak also found the easy solution for building mosques quickly. By utilizing the cut stones and carved pillars of the glorious temples, he built many mosques in rapid succession. In Ajmer, temple pillars were stacked one on top of the other to build his mosque of requisite height as the prayer chamber. Only remoteness of some temples saved them from sure destruction as seen in, Bhuvaneshwar and Mount Abu. Khajuraho had been abandoned by the Chandelas earlier and escaped notice. Konarak was built later. Surely many smaller kingdoms and tribes resisted Aibak’s progress but such opposition is not well documented. India had begun to taste the wrath of religious offensive by Islam under the commander of Muhammad of Ghor, Qutb-ud-din Aibak.

Shams-ud-din Iltumish, another slave of Turkish extraction, who also was the son in law of Aibak, succeeded Aibak after the customary confusion and bloodbath. It was during his rule of twenty-six years that the tumultuous period was witnessed in the Muslim world in Central Asia. Genghis Khan was wreaking havoc with his ruthless invasion. Refugees from Persia, Iraq and Afghanistan came to India in large numbers. Iltumish also had to contend with the notorious Khan when he crossed the Indus in the year 1222. In the east, Bihar and Bengal were under the Khiljis, a dissatisfied group of Afghans, who came along with Muhammad of Ghor. Now they fortified their position in the east under their founder Bhaktiar Khilji. Their claim to infamy was the total destruction of the famous Buddhist monastery in Odantapuri, along with its large library of Buddhist literature even before they understood who the monks were. Shaven headed monks were branded as infidels not worthy of God’s mercy and slaughtered in thousands, in cold blood, and then their precious library set ablaze. Iltumish spent many years trying to subdue the Khiljis with varying degrees of success.

After Iltumish’s death (who amazingly died of natural causes, a feat so rare that a special mention of it is made by contemporary historians), the rule fell to an ineffective son. The son along with his vindictive mother tried to rule but was toppled by the daughter of Iltumish, one named Raziya Sultana. Raziya was wise, generous and just. However, she was handicapped by her gender in the Muslim world. Her able rule and power lasted only four years from 1236 to 1240. Raziya’s rule was considered to be scandal ridden because of her close relationship with a personal attendant, an African (Abyssinian) slave Jamal-ud-din Yakut. Male chauvinist Turkish junta cornered her while in Panjab and imprisoned her after killing her Abyssinian friend and confidante. While in custody, she fell in love with and married one of her conspirators and launched an attack on Delhi, only to be defeated and killed by Hindu hands while fleeing from the battlefield. If the war strategy had been left to Raziya, she certainly would have won but as a married woman she had to defer to her husband, who was inept in the battlefield.

Mongols sacked Lahore again in 1241. After Raziya’s death another period of quick and ineffectual succession battle ensued and Raziya’s brother Nasir-ud-din occupied the throne. A slave, Ghiyas-ud-din Balban (? Brother-in-law), however, was effectively conducting the policy during Nasir-ud-din’s rule. Balban eventually poisoned the sultan and assumed the throne in 1265. He was an able administrator and rebuffed several Mongol incursions by Genghis Khan’s grandsons (who by now, also had embraced Islam). But this was a lifelong battle for Balban and he lost one his most capable sons to a skirmish with the Mongols. Balban never recovered from this loss and now well into his eighties, eerie echoes of his howling with grief could be heard in the palace hallways, at nights. During the day he would conduct the business of court with a grim face. Only death in 1287 brought relief to the tortured soul of Balban.

A grandson followed, who had a merry time during his reign of three carefree years. Overindulging in fun and frolic, in the company of silver-bodied damsels with musky tresses, he spent much of his time in lubricious activity. Ladies of pleasure were everywhere and streets were filled with music and mirth. Three years of rule of abandon and benign neglect, was followed by the murder of the young and handsome sultan, who was a cripple by now with paralysis below his waist. A mere toddler son was made the sultan until overrun by the Khilji dynasty, which had risen again in Bengal. Thus ended the eighty-four year rule of the Slave Dynasty. They left behind the Qutb minar and mosque as well as Iltumish’s tomb with its marble interior as a reminder of their existence, as monuments. The credit of resisting the Mongol onslaught effectively also goes to the slaves who became kings in Delhi, especially Balban. The earlier sultans of the Slave Dynasty also have the dubious distinction of having been responsible for the destruction of countless temples in North India, though the attacking Mongols kept the later sultans busy, leaving them with little time for temple destruction. They are partly responsible for the strange absence of glorious temple structures in the North, while many magnificent temples are preserved in the South.
 
Upvote 0

saiful-Islam-Khattab

Active Member
Dec 10, 2004
140
1
✟277.00
Faith
Other Religion
It is sad to see how people of so to say the west are so mis informed about other nations and the sadder thing is they are happy to remain ignorant about others but fell happy to stand ourtside and throw as many stones as they can into that religion or people.
Farid said:
Love? How, when it was spread by force, killing those people that lived peacefully in their countries, e.g. Egypt. Islam is still agressive; consider suicide bombers to know how unmerciful it is.
They way you talk is like you live in the Arabaian peninsula and stand there every day and watch people being killed.The funny thing is that people like you never mention a word about Muslims getting killed around the world. I have very close friends who live in Egypt, one recently travelled from Argentina and went and got Married there and ytravelled back to Argentina, In muslim land there are non muslims who lived and have lived for decades in peace and harmony.I can get loads to come on here and testify too. If you hate Islam so much why don't you just come out with it rather than hide behind lies.

Farid said:
Peace? All islamic countries are full of contentions and hatred, even for the harmless minorities..
Listen I have live and work in Arab countries and in places where there are loads of Non muslims, for your information in many Arab countries like Dubai more non muslims are living and working there than muslim foreigners.They live the, own businesses, travel and live freely in muslim land. Again if you want to slander the name of Islam be honest about It come out with it that you hate Islam don't hide behind lies. Some of my good friends I have worked with are non muslims. we respect as they do us. They share our food when we eat. Ieven gave on a lift in my car recently and he was so happy how the muslims he was around helped him so much since he came here.

Farid said:
Justice? When you discover your husband is married to another 3 women at the same time? Or when the woman inherits half what the man does. Or when the testemony of one man equals that of two women before courts
This aswell is baseless, we can see here how far you have travelled, but we can see how big the hatred in your heart is.You are trying to point the finger at Islam but 4 of your own fingers are pointing back at you.
In most arab countries and muslim countries very few muslims have more than one wife. Islam allows it but it is not the rule. Because the coinditions are so strict not everyone feels they can be fair so not evry one can allow themselves to do this.Some feel they cannot support more than one wife.So please stop using baseless arguments to slander Islam. Rather ask if you do not know something instead of making you are the know all but know nothing.
even if man has more than one wife and the wives share his inheritance it is better than having one wife and lovers outside who don't inherit anything when you die,they were just used as bed partners when the wife was unavailable.In Islam the wives no matter which have equal rights neither is more superior than the other.


Farid said:
Joy? Look at most Muslims, and you will see the misery in their thoughts and actions. See their frustruations when you question their islam?
Get real man, misery? we look at each other with a smile every time we see others we greet people we don't know with" Peace be upon you". Islam preaches a smile is charity. I chat to non muslims face to face every day about Islam and there is harmony between us.Look at the hostility we face on here .Is that what christianity preaches.What do you expect us to do when we face hostility turn the other cheek you and other christians are noot doing that so why expect it from others. It is funny how those who disrespect others are always the ones who blame others of not respecting them.
Farid said:
Truth? Complete denial when you prove a point. They cannot admit they are wrong, because they know once they do admit, it is the end of islam.
Your point here again baseless you have never seen some bible thumpers who come knocking on muslims doors in Britain and other parts of Europe.The hatred in their words.They areven taught in their training to hate muslim and told so much garbage about them, that they worship the devil and donot beleiv in GOD.
My only suggestion out of pity for you and others like you is to get out of cloud cukkoo land and come and take a look around then may be you can talk.It is sad how many who are no wiser could even beleive the cgarbage posted in this thread.Yet nothing will be deletd because it is not praisng or as they say promoting Islam.
I pray that the only one true GOD, the same GOD jesus fell on his face and Prayed to that he takes you out of this darkness and misery you are in and brings you into light.The light of the one GOD my GOD and your GOD.
 
Upvote 0
B

Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win

Guest
Ala-ud-din and His Eunuch General

After the so-called Slave Dynasty disintegrated in Delhi following the removal of the last sultan, the paralytic father and his wretched toddler, the Khilji’s were headed to Delhi led by their patriarch, Jalal-ud-din Feroz (also called Feroz Shah I). He was known for his kindness and brought some civility to the citizens of Delhi. For nearly one hundred years the Hindus were relatively spared as the sultans of the slave dynasty were busy resisting the numerous Mongol attacks on Delhi. However, soon after came another Khilji, who had designs of glorifying his stronghold by plunder and conquests of idolater’s territories. His name was Ala-ud-din. He was a nephew and son in law of the old man, Feroz Shah I.

Ala-ud-din’s incursion into Deccan was kept secret from his uncle in 1296. Devagiri was the capital of Yadavas (also called the Seunas), ruled by one Ramachandra. He was surprised by a rapidly moving unit headed by Ala-ud-din and quickly submitted for an enormous ransom. Well-fortified Devagiri was easily sacked and plundered because Ramachandra lacked the courage to fight and defend it. Appeasement for clemency included riches beyond Ala-ud-din’s wildest dreams including a Yadava bride. The kingdom was left intact and Ramachandra’s life spared, with the promise of future co-operation.

News of his nephew’s unauthorized achievement finally reached the sultan. He accepted, against the advice, an invitation by Ala-ud-din to meet him en route on the banks of Ganga. A small party of guards accompanied Feroz Shah I as he sailed downriver to meet his nephew and son in law. The old sultan was slain as soon as he set his foot on the shore. While the severed head was still bleeding, Ala-ud-din was pronounced as the next ruler of Delhi. Before he reached Delhi he dispensed off his co-conspirators, as they were not to be trusted. Though an illiterate Ala-ud-din with a not so remarkable a physique, he proved to be a shrewd administrator. Sindh and Panjab were regained from the Mongol intruders in early 1300 and this effectively slowed the Mongols march and plunder of India. Gujarat and parts of Rajastan and Malwa were also conquered. Rajputs put up a brave fight and the legendary Padmini of Chittor escaped from the grasp of the sultan and committed the honorable jauhar (sati). The sultan had been fascinated and captivated by the Indian beauty and let his guard down thinking he had won her over. Padmini tricked Ala-ud-din and rescued her imprisoned husband and escaped to the safety of the fort at Chittor. When the enraged sultan laid a siege on the fort and defeat was imminent the Rajput women along with Padmini jumped into their own funeral pyre, thus denying the Khilji sultan his desire to make Padmini his prize possession.

Somnath had been rebuilt after Mahmud of Ghazni had plundered it almost 275 years earlier. Ala-ud-din set his sights on Somnath and demolished it again. The replacement lingam was again hammered and pieces of the stone were used on the steps of a mosque in Delhi for the faithful to trample on. Cambay was seized and plundered and here a captured Hindu slave captivated the sultan. His value was one thousand dinars and he quickly espoused Islam. He was also a eunuch of such beauty that the sultan fell for his epicene handsomeness and appointed him his senior commander. His name was Malik Kafur but he was known by his nickname ‘thousand-dinar Kafur’.

Malik Kafur did his king’s bidding in more than one way. An opportunist and a sycophant who knew his effeminate characteristics captivated the sultan, he quickly rose in ranks. Now a fanatical Muslim he took command of the incursions into the South and was instrumental in destruction of many temples. The eunuch lived upto the old adage that ‘one is more passionate about what one hates more than what one loves’. He started with a revisit to Devagiri and routed the Yadavas. He then used the son of Ramachandra to help him launch an assault on the Deccan further south. He attacked the Kakatiyas of Warangal, where the royal treasures included many precious diamonds (as reported by Marco Polo, eighteen years earlier, in 1293), elephants and horses.

Thousand-dinar Kafur’s southern expedition continued in the following years. With the help of Yadavas of Devagiri who provided him with supplies and logistics to attack their southern neighbors, the Hoysalas of Dorasamudra. The Hoysala king did not resist the marching Muslims and even aided them by giving them passage to attack their southern hated neighbors, the Pandyans. Of course, this did not happen before their marvelous temple in Halebid was desecrated and the famous stone idols smashed. Kafur managed to enter Pandyan country in the south without having to fight a single war. He masterfully capitalized on the inevitable hatred of neighboring Hindu kingdoms. In the bargain, he also extracted a handsome ransom of gold, jewels, elephants and horses. Though he was not able to catch the elusive Pandyan king, Sundara Pandya, he did confiscate the gold idols of Madurai, Srirangam and Chidambaram temples.

Historian Barani, who was an eyewitness, recorded Malik Kafur’s triumphant return to Delhi in detail. The campaign had yielded twenty thousand horses, 612 elephants, 241 tons of gold and countless boxes of jewels and pearls. So much wealth had not been seen in Delhi before and there was no historical record of any loot of this magnitude being brought to Delhi in the past.

Ala-ud-din was not known for any building of mosques though he extended some existing ones in Delhi. He built the Siri fort in Delhi. He was not much interested in converting Hindus into the true faith. His one attempt to surpass Aibak’s Qutb minar with a minar of his own, three times as tall was aborted very early and the ruins are seen today next to the Qutb. He tried to control the prices of grain and rice with some initial success but the long-term consequences of price control were disastrous. Ala-ud-din succumbed to illness and died in 1316.

The last of the Khilji sultan was the son of Ala-ud-din, Mubarak by name. This indecent man was called a monster and his deeds were not fit to mention in a decent historical journal. Suffice it to say he had perverse tastes like frolicking with stark naked, abominable prostitutes in the royal terraces and making them pass water on the dignitaries as they entered the courtyard of the palace. In the year 1320, after only 30 years with only Ala-ud-din’s plunder-ridden rule, the Khiljis became history. The inevitable chaos resulted, and after a bloody period of four years, the Khilji empire was overthrown by Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlaq, the son of a slave of Balban of the Slave Dynasty.
 
Upvote 0
B

Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win

Guest
Muhammad bin Tughlaq – Maniacal Genius

Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlaq was the first of the Tughlaqs to rule Delhi. His folly was the construction of the city of Tughlaqabad in a desolate area south of the capital where even the modern sprawl of Delhi has been unable to settle. Spreading over six square kilometers, the city of his dreams remains a wasteland with howling jackals at night on a wind swept arid land. As soon as he assumed the throne in Delhi he kept himself busy with consolidating his power. He sent his son Muhammad bin Tughlaq to Deccan to subdue the Kakatiyas of Warangal while he went to Bengal and Bihar to quell resurgence of Hindu rebellion. He ran into a religious stalemate with a Sufi saint and mystic by name Shaikh Nizam-ud-din Auliya. The Sufi objected to the religious laxity of the sultan and ran afoul with him. The Sufi was said to have cursed Tughlaqabad to eternal desolation that holds true even today.

After his triumph in Bengal he ordered his son Muhammad to construct a wooden pavilion for the celebration of reunion with father and son in Tughlaqabad. The Sufi, however, predicted that the sultan would find Delhi a distant town (Abhi Dilli Door Hai). The history is murky after this event. It is recorded that following the dinner, with son and father participating, a bolt of lightening struck the wooden pavilion to electrocute the father. Another version is that the son, Muhammad, ordered stamping of several elephants in the vicinity of the pavilion (called Afghanpur pavilion) that made the whole structure fall on the sultan, crushing him to death. Given the history of the Muslim succession in India, the latter theory of intrigue and murderous plot of son disposing off his father to gain ascendancy of the throne is more believable. After all, even if a sultan died in his own bed of ‘natural causes’, poisoning would be suspected because patricide was the most common and convenient means of ascending the throne.

Muhammad bin Tughlaq was the most controversial of all the sultans ever to rule India. Muhammad Kunhi by birth, he was also called ‘Muhammad the Bloody’. He was the most cruel, cold-blooded and crazy sultan yet. At the same time, he was also brilliant, philanthropic and an endearing person. This dichotomy in his character, perhaps would be diagnosed as a psychiatric disorder today of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Whether he was a genius or a maniacal lunatic, an idealist or a visionary, a tyrant or a benevolent king are unanswered questions. However, all these characters were apparent at one time or another in his actions. Was he a devout Muslim or a heretic? A complex man, he remains an enigma. He went against the ulema, the Muslim scholars who are experts in Muslim law and religion.

There are enough documentations of his psychotic behavior. One minute he would be effusive in his praise and shower of presents but the next he would enthusiastically shed blood and condemn one to death. One moment he would be humble but the very next moment he would be seething with anger, prone to the most cruel and violent deeds. There is an account of a poor soul who suffered the wrath of the sultan when he was flayed alive in front of the court audience and his innards were cooked with rice and force-fed to his family. Members of the family who refused to eat it were summarily executed. Muhammad was also exceptionally well educated and he was the patron of arts that would rival the Mughals later. He was an authority on medicine and mathematics. He possessed formidable intelligence and superb penmanship.

For all his brilliance, he also undertook bizarre unachievable campaigns like trying to reverse Alexander’s march into India and capturing Afghanistan, Iran and Uzbekistan (what used to be called Khorasan). After spending vast sums of money the project was abandoned before it even got started. Another folly, an expedition into China got bogged down in Kulu with resistance from Hindus. Only ten out of a staggering force of sixty thousand horsemen returned to Delhi following this fiasco. He however had some success in Deccan and Devagiri was under his firm control. He renamed it Daulatabad and ordered his capital moved there, fourteen hundred kilometers from Delhi! When the pampered citizens of Delhi showed reluctance to move so far away, the sultan resorted to brutal force. People were evicted from their homes in Delhi and if they refused to go they were immediately put to death. Cripples were tied to the catapult and slung towards Daulatabad. A blind man was tied to a horse and dragged all the way and only one of his legs reached the final destination in Daulatabad. However, all these accounts of brutality may be exaggeration by the ulema, who were waging an acerbic war of words with the sultan in Delhi. It is said that his non-accommodation by the ulema was the reason for Muhammad of Tughlaq to move to Daulatabad. The monumental folly of the sultan soon ended when he decided to move back to Delhi. Some of his supporters had barely reached Daulatabad when they had to turn around.

The military expenses incurred with foolish adventures and the move to Daulatabad cost him dearly. To raise funds, additional taxes were levied on the poor farmers, who ran to the jungles to escape from the reprisals of a cruel sultan. The land went un-cultivated and this added further to the problem of the treasury. The resulting famine on top of an existing drought killed thousands. At this juncture the sultan turned very compassionate and distributed large amount of grains form the stocks and showed enormous concern.

He also attempted to fine tune the money supply with mintage of new gold coinage and adulterated silver coins. Brass and copper coins were also introduced. The scheme again failed utterly and people lost all the confidence in sultan. Counterfeits appeared all over the country and Muhammad was eventually forced to buy back all the tokens, real and the counterfeit, at considerable expense to the treasury.

Despite the mind-boggling idiocy of the experiments that failed miserably, Muhammad bin Tughlaq managed to stay in power for twenty-six years. Unlike some of his predecessors he ought to be admired for the absence of religious bigotry and his successful administration with minor reforms of merit. He did not busy himself with temple destruction neither did he indulge in nurturing his libido. He was a genius when it came to military strategy. He died in 1351, while pursuing rebels in Sindh, of natural causes though other theories of deliberate poisoning abound. His cousin, Feroz Shah, succeeded him in a remarkable bloodless manner.

Feroz Shah made peace with the ulema and promptly received favorable press. Most of his campaigns for expansion resulted in utter failure and he resumed the business of temple desecration when he sacked the sacred shrine of lord Jagannath at Puri in 1361. He returned to Delhi with the customary loot and seventy-three elephants. He also built the Feroz Shah kotla (citadel), north of Tughlaqabad. He ordered two Ashoka pillars to be transported from Ambala, down river at an enormous cost, installing them in Delhi, though no one knew the script of the writings. Curiously one of the pillars thus carried to Delhi had inscriptions added two centuries earlier by one Vigraha-raja, an ancestor of Prithviraj Chauhan, describing his victory over the Ghaznivads in Panjab. Feroz Shah was also responsible for the first madrassah (religious schools) and was the first to levy taxes (jizya) on Brahmins. After a rule of thirty-seven years Feroz Shah died in 1388 and his tomb is in Hauz Khas in southern Delhi, next to the reservoir built by Ala-ud-din Khilji. After his death, another bloody succession crisis ensued and the Tughlaq dynasty lasted only until 1413. They also had to endure the horrendously bloody attack by the Mongol, Timur the Lame (Tamerlane) in 1398. Fresh from his conquests of Baghdad and Persia, the Mongol overturned the already weakened Delhi sultanate. After defeating the incumbent sultan a three-day orgy of rape and murder went unchallenged. Timur himself admired at the amount of gold, silver, jewels and precious stones that he was able to acquire. All Hindu population was decimated and only exclusively Muslim quarters were spared. Timur’s Mongols had embraced Islam and had turned to be its firm adherents targeting the idolaters. Timur felt that it was the will of God that misfortune should befall the city and he was helpless in saving the city of Delhi or its Hindu population. After Timur departed the Tughlaqs returned to Delhi and managed to hold power for another fifteen years.
 
Upvote 0

saiful-Islam-Khattab

Active Member
Dec 10, 2004
140
1
✟277.00
Faith
Other Religion
Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win said:
Ala-ud-din and His Eunuch General

After the so-called Slave Dynasty disintegrated in Delhi following the removal of the last sultan, the paralytic father and his wretched toddler, the Khilji’s were headed to Delhi led by their patriarch, Jalal-ud-din Feroz (also called Feroz Shah I). He was known for his kindness and brought some civility to the citizens of Delhi. For nearly one hundred years the Hindus were relatively spared as the sultans of the slave dynasty were busy resisting the numerous Mongol attacks on Delhi. However, soon after came another Khilji, who had designs of glorifying his stronghold by plunder and conquests of idolater’s territories. His name was Ala-ud-din. He was a nephew and son in law of the old man, Feroz Shah I.

Ala-ud-din’s incursion into Deccan was kept secret from his uncle in 1296. Devagiri was the capital of Yadavas (also called the Seunas), ruled by one Ramachandra. He was surprised by a rapidly moving unit headed by Ala-ud-din and quickly submitted for an enormous ransom. Well-fortified Devagiri was easily sacked and plundered because Ramachandra lacked the courage to fight and defend it. Appeasement for clemency included riches beyond Ala-ud-din’s wildest dreams including a Yadava bride. The kingdom was left intact and Ramachandra’s life spared, with the promise of future co-operation.

News of his nephew’s unauthorized achievement finally reached the sultan. He accepted, against the advice, an invitation by Ala-ud-din to meet him en route on the banks of Ganga. A small party of guards accompanied Feroz Shah I as he sailed downriver to meet his nephew and son in law. The old sultan was slain as soon as he set his foot on the shore. While the severed head was still bleeding, Ala-ud-din was pronounced as the next ruler of Delhi. Before he reached Delhi he dispensed off his co-conspirators, as they were not to be trusted. Though an illiterate Ala-ud-din with a not so remarkable a physique, he proved to be a shrewd administrator. Sindh and Panjab were regained from the Mongol intruders in early 1300 and this effectively slowed the Mongols march and plunder of India. Gujarat and parts of Rajastan and Malwa were also conquered. Rajputs put up a brave fight and the legendary Padmini of Chittor escaped from the grasp of the sultan and committed the honorable jauhar (sati). The sultan had been fascinated and captivated by the Indian beauty and let his guard down thinking he had won her over. Padmini tricked Ala-ud-din and rescued her imprisoned husband and escaped to the safety of the fort at Chittor. When the enraged sultan laid a siege on the fort and defeat was imminent the Rajput women along with Padmini jumped into their own funeral pyre, thus denying the Khilji sultan his desire to make Padmini his prize possession.

Somnath had been rebuilt after Mahmud of Ghazni had plundered it almost 275 years earlier. Ala-ud-din set his sights on Somnath and demolished it again. The replacement lingam was again hammered and pieces of the stone were used on the steps of a mosque in Delhi for the faithful to trample on. Cambay was seized and plundered and here a captured Hindu slave captivated the sultan. His value was one thousand dinars and he quickly espoused Islam. He was also a eunuch of such beauty that the sultan fell for his epicene handsomeness and appointed him his senior commander. His name was Malik Kafur but he was known by his nickname ‘thousand-dinar Kafur’.

Malik Kafur did his king’s bidding in more than one way. An opportunist and a sycophant who knew his effeminate characteristics captivated the sultan, he quickly rose in ranks. Now a fanatical Muslim he took command of the incursions into the South and was instrumental in destruction of many temples. The eunuch lived upto the old adage that ‘one is more passionate about what one hates more than what one loves’. He started with a revisit to Devagiri and routed the Yadavas. He then used the son of Ramachandra to help him launch an assault on the Deccan further south. He attacked the Kakatiyas of Warangal, where the royal treasures included many precious diamonds (as reported by Marco Polo, eighteen years earlier, in 1293), elephants and horses.

Thousand-dinar Kafur’s southern expedition continued in the following years. With the help of Yadavas of Devagiri who provided him with supplies and logistics to attack their southern neighbors, the Hoysalas of Dorasamudra. The Hoysala king did not resist the marching Muslims and even aided them by giving them passage to attack their southern hated neighbors, the Pandyans. Of course, this did not happen before their marvelous temple in Halebid was desecrated and the famous stone idols smashed. Kafur managed to enter Pandyan country in the south without having to fight a single war. He masterfully capitalized on the inevitable hatred of neighboring Hindu kingdoms. In the bargain, he also extracted a handsome ransom of gold, jewels, elephants and horses. Though he was not able to catch the elusive Pandyan king, Sundara Pandya, he did confiscate the gold idols of Madurai, Srirangam and Chidambaram temples.

Historian Barani, who was an eyewitness, recorded Malik Kafur’s triumphant return to Delhi in detail. The campaign had yielded twenty thousand horses, 612 elephants, 241 tons of gold and countless boxes of jewels and pearls. So much wealth had not been seen in Delhi before and there was no historical record of any loot of this magnitude being brought to Delhi in the past.

Ala-ud-din was not known for any building of mosques though he extended some existing ones in Delhi. He built the Siri fort in Delhi. He was not much interested in converting Hindus into the true faith. His one attempt to surpass Aibak’s Qutb minar with a minar of his own, three times as tall was aborted very early and the ruins are seen today next to the Qutb. He tried to control the prices of grain and rice with some initial success but the long-term consequences of price control were disastrous. Ala-ud-din succumbed to illness and died in 1316.

The last of the Khilji sultan was the son of Ala-ud-din, Mubarak by name. This indecent man was called a monster and his deeds were not fit to mention in a decent historical journal. Suffice it to say he had perverse tastes like frolicking with stark naked, abominable prostitutes in the royal terraces and making them pass water on the dignitaries as they entered the courtyard of the palace. In the year 1320, after only 30 years with only Ala-ud-din’s plunder-ridden rule, the Khiljis became history. The inevitable chaos resulted, and after a bloody period of four years, the Khilji empire was overthrown by Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlaq, the son of a slave of Balban of the Slave Dynasty.
Man they go wild when muslims cut and paste but say nothing when their own do it.Well there is a difference, they hate cut and paste of truth but love cut and paste of lies and slander
 
Upvote 0

the-fact-is

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2004
688
6
✟926.00
Faith
Muslim
I think the world does not deserve to exsit without Islam for many reasons :-

1- Islam is the Only religion which deprives its instructions directly from God Himself through His Book the Holy Quran, therefore , it is the Only True religion unless you do not believe in God.

2- Islam is the only religion which suits all kinds of mentalities for its carity and simplicity

3- Islam has a complete set of laws dealing with every aspect of human life.

4- Islam is the Only Religion which God ordained on His creations , otherwise it is not logical for Him to ordain different religions, it means monotheism or submitting to Him only.
 
Upvote 0