It is never about becoming dominant. It is about surviving the impacts. For e.g. take your religion, it did not survive cultural and religious impacts over the years. If you read history you will notice that your religion exised in a big part of the world but it was not able to survive and its breathing its last in a small part of the world called India. Nepal was another place which has already succumbed. So wishful thinking is one thing and reading history and understanding the present is another. :-). Wars take place and its not the body count that decides the outcome, its the will to prevail and stop the enemy from attaining its objective that wins wars.
RE:RE:@sunil shera
by Arif on Apr 21, 2008 05:10 AM
What is a civil society. Even in the 21st century you cannot claim India to be a civil society. And it all depends where you learn your civilization from. Currently you are learning it from the west. You do it because you have lost your identity unlike us.
RE:@sunil shera
by balaord on Apr 21, 2008 05:18 AM
You seem to have a wrong viw of history at least if reading books are too tireful for you you can watch these dcoumentaries from non -islamic main stream sources The american government funded Public Broadcasting Service channel
PBS-Empire of Faith pbs.org/empires/islam/innomedicine.html
RE:RE:@sunil shera
by balaord on Apr 21, 2008 05:26 AM
what is your view on this?
The supreme quote Judge VR Krishna Iyer quoted Vivekanda in The Hindu Magazine below
Vivekanada told the detractors of the Muslim rule- The Muhammadan conquest of India came as a salvation to the downtrodden to the poor. That is why one-fifth of our people have become Muhammadans. He denied that -it was all the work of sword and fire - and said that to call it so was -the height of madness.
RE:@sunil shera
by balaord on Apr 21, 2008 05:24 AM
Here is a review of the Historian Huge Kendys book how the spread of islam changed the world. he is a oxford historian and the review is here in world leading econmist weekly
He says ...AN AGGRESSIVE Bedouin horde, drunk on religion, sweeps out of the Arabian peninsula%u2014on the way burning the great library of Alexandria%u2014and, through wholesale massacre and forced conversion, imposes Islam on a vast area stretching from Spain to the fringes of China. If this is your mental picture of the rise of Islam, dimly remembered from some long-ago history lesson, take note- it is in almost every respect wrong....
RE:@sunil shera
by Arif on Apr 21, 2008 05:08 AM
Really. And Will Durant is God ? There was another englishman who located the "birth place" of God :-)
First and foremost Quran-Which we belive as infalliable and keep that as a benchmark to verify any event in Prophet Muhammed history
Then there is Hadith - which are narrations of people who saw things as happened.There are several hundred thousands of them and there are many fabrications as they are just narrations by human beings.Muslims have a very sophicated technique and apply many consistent characteristics to filter these things out.
1.If it violated with Quran -It is a fabriation 2.If there are many contradictaing events -this is a fabrication 3.If the narrator is found be unreliable and lying-This is deemed to be fabrication 4.Analaysis of text and pattern (which gave birth to crptoanalysis )and if it deviates then it is a fabrication
The last and the least source is biographies - They are not hadiths-There are hundreds of them.The so called biographers like Tabari have writen their version of history 400 years after the death of Prophet Muhammed.We are talking about a age when there is no concept of printing.
There are many biographies and Muslims take the incidents as true only when all the major narrations corroborate with each other.
Some how islamic critics take anything that has a arabic name as a legitimate source and ask muslims to belive in it
This is not Quran -it is neither hadith - but books written about Muhammed 400 years after his death?so why you keep refering as if Muslims treat them as divine?
RE:@sunil - what Muslims take as the source of their religion?
by balaord on Apr 21, 2008 04:54 AM
The people hostile to religion always tried to slander prophets - This is not happened to Prophet Muhammed alone.Look at one of the mightiest prophet of Old testament - DAVID
But the jews have writeen using their own hands that David was seduced by a bathing women and committed adultery
Check this in BIBLE Samuel 11:1
A legitimate Question How come DAVID which the bible says as a prophet be a adulterer? This perverted version of the event got into bible because there is no systematic way of filtering historical events and those who want to justify their acts (esp priests) managed to attribute such heinious things to him.
It is the same kind of evil people who attriuted the samething to Muhammed that he watched zainab when she was bathing. But neither quran nor hadith says this, only some junk biograpgy written after many centuries has this story. But the fascination of islam crtics that anything which has a arabic name must be infalliable islmic source is a ridiculous proposition.
RE:@sunil - what Muslims take as the source of their religion?
by balaord on Apr 21, 2008 05:17 AM
It is no surprise that Salam rushdie too took this book called al-tabari as if it is the guidance of Muslim theology.All oientalists take this biographies wriiten many many centuries after the death of prophet Muhammed.To quote as if it is Quran or Prophet's saying is a absolutley wrong way to argue a case
RE:@sunil - what Muslims take as evidence of their religion
by balaord on Apr 21, 2008 04:52 AM
The people hostile to religion always tried to slander prophets - This is not happened to Prophet Muhammed alone.Look at one of the mightiest prophet of Old testament - DAVID
But the jews have writeen using their own hands that David was seduced by a bathing women and committed adultery
Check this in BIBLE Samuel 11:1
A legitimate Question How come DAVID which the bible says as a prophet be a adulterer? This perverted version of the event got into bible because there is no systematic way of filtering historical events and those who want to justify their acts (esp priests) managed to attribute such heinious things to him.
It is the same kind of evil people who attriuted the samething to Muhammed that he watched zainab when she was bathing. But neither quran nor hadith says this, only some junk biograpgy written after many centuries has this story. But the fascination of islam crtics that anything which has a arabic name must be infalliable islmic source is a ridiculous proposition.
