/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Why did Islam invade Spain?



Joe98
05-04-2006, 11:15 PM
The prophet Mohammad (PBUH) died in about the year 632

In the summer of 710, it was only 78 years since the death of the prophet (PBUH). And therefore his teachings were still fresh in the minds of the people.

In the summer of 710, a small force of 7000-strong men under the command of Tariq ibn Ziyad landed to the west of Gibraltar.

Tariq was given orders from his superior Musa ibn Nusair in Damascus to conquer as much land as he could northwards of the peninsula from the hands of a declining Visgothic kingdom, and, upon Tariq's fateful arrival on the shores of the peninsula, he set ablaze to all his ships while commandingly quoting to his troops : "behind you lies the crashing waters and ahead lies your enemy."

Tariq and his conquerors began their campaigns while experiencing little organised resistance and achieved their success by occupying Cordova and Toledo shortly after, where they decided to give the name al-Andalus to the region.

Tariq's military exploits are unquestionably of great importance historically and it is with his honour that Gibraltar takes its name from (Jabal Tariq, Tarik's Mountain).

When news arrived to Damascus of Tariq's success, Musa ibn Nusair was quick to come to the aid of Tariq when he crossed the straits with an army of 18,000 men. His ambition to share some prominence as well as fighting for the Islamic cause, quickly saw the conquering of other neighbouring towns and cities, but his advance was soon halted to the extreme North where he was defeated at the battle of Poitiers by the French. Nevertheless, the conquest of most of Spain was complete with the joint efforts of these two figures.



http://www.idir.net/~suede/successor1.html


Why did Islam invade Spain?

-
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
north_malaysian
05-05-2006, 02:12 AM
I thought that Tareq invaded Spain because a Christian ruler ask him to invade Spain. Have to check.
Reply

imaad_udeen
05-05-2006, 02:41 AM
One of the Visigoth kings asked the Moors to support them in Iberia and the Moors just ended up conquering the entire place.

They conquered Spain for similar reasons that other empires had when conquering lands, wealth, power, and spreading their beliefs (among other things).

edit: The even went on to invade France until repelled at the battle of Tours.
Reply

north_malaysian
05-05-2006, 03:58 AM
why visigoth invite them?

abd how about Sicily?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
imaad_udeen
05-05-2006, 04:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
why visigoth invite them?
Reaquainting myself with the history, the Moors were invited in by a rival of King Roderic (Visigoth Spain) named Count Julian. The Counts daughter had, supposedly been impregnated by the King himself when she was at his court getting an education. Many of the Kings vassels had begun to tire of him and they turned to the Arabs to tilt the scales in their favor. The Moors ended up coming in and conquering pretty much the entire area for themselves.

abd how about Sicily?
A rather similar thing happened. Sicily was in control of the Byzantine empire. There was a coup and the man who launched the coup declared himself "emperor" and asked the Muslims for help. Help came and conquered the entire island.

:) And Sicily was under Muslim rule for almost 200 years.
Reply

Joe98
05-05-2006, 04:37 AM
So, do you consider Spain to be Muslim land?

-
Reply

north_malaysian
05-05-2006, 08:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
So, do you consider Spain to be Muslim land?

-
Osama Bin Laden considers Spain as Islamic land.

From what I've heard Spain was never Muslim majority country even under the Muslim rules.

The educated spaniards assimilated to Muslim cultures and practicing Christianity in the same time. They are well tolerated by Muslims. I think those Spaniards are called as Mozarabes.
Reply

HeiGou
05-05-2006, 09:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Osama Bin Laden considers Spain as Islamic land.

From what I've heard Spain was never Muslim majority country even under the Muslim rules.
Well it might have been, but if it wasn't, so what? Does a land have to be majority Muslim before it is Muslim land? OBL was also upset about East Timor which does not have a significant Muslim community. Is that Muslim land? He would be, I guess, upset about Balinese independence if Bali ever broke away. Is Bali Muslim land too?

The educated spaniards assimilated to Muslim cultures and practicing Christianity in the same time. They are well tolerated by Muslims. I think those Spaniards are called as Mozarabes.
Well I don't know about well tolerated.

The question to ask would be if the shoe was on the other foot - the British and French were invited by Muslims to colonise some parts of the world. They had consistent levels of local support - more Algerians fought for France than for the FLN. They were a lot more tolerant of Islam in Algeria than the Arabs were on Christianity in Spain. They too offered higher education to the locals and so that Algeria, for instance, had to import Arabic teachers from Syria after independence. So was French rule in Algeria justified?
Reply

north_malaysian
05-05-2006, 09:52 AM
I've said Osama says Spain was Islamic state - NOT ME.
Reply

HeiGou
05-05-2006, 09:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
I've said Osama says Spain was Islamic state - NOT ME.
Which is why I asked you your opinion.
Reply

imaad_udeen
05-05-2006, 02:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
So, do you consider Spain to be Muslim land?

-
All land is Muslim land.
Reply

knuckles
05-05-2006, 03:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
All land is Muslim land.
Oh Yeah? Says who?
Reply

imaad_udeen
05-05-2006, 03:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by knuckles
Oh Yeah? Says who?
Common sense. Allah (swt) created everything.
Reply

knuckles
05-05-2006, 03:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
Common sense. Allah (swt) created everything.
So when they say Muslims want to rule Muslim land they mean the whole world?
Reply

R_Mujahed
05-05-2006, 04:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
All land is Muslim land.
Couldn't have said it any better than that... Plain and Simple!

Knucles there are two ways of finding out if it is true:

1- Take our word for it
2- Ask on the Day of Judgement
Reply

czgibson
05-05-2006, 04:10 PM
Greetings,

The idea that all land is Muslim land seems nonsensical to me, just like the idea that all humans are Muslims when they're born.

format_quote Originally Posted by R_Mujahed
Knucles there are two ways of finding out if it is true:

1- Take our word for it
How could anyone find out if something was true by taking your word for it? That's not a very exploratory or intellectual way of assessing truth, is it?

2- Ask on the Day of Judgement
Which atheists such as me believe is fictional. Oh well...

Peace
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
05-05-2006, 04:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
The idea that all land is Muslim land seems nonsensical to me, just like the idea that all humans are Muslims when they're born.
But that's only because you don't believe in God. For someone who does, it is only logical that human beings are born in a state of submission to Him, and the land for submission to Him.

Peace!
Reply

R_Mujahed
05-05-2006, 04:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,

The idea that all land is Muslim land seems nonsensical to me, just like the idea that all humans are Muslims when they're born.



How could anyone find out if something was true by taking your word for it? That's not a very exploratory or intellectual way of assessing truth, is it?



Which atheists such as me believe is fictional. Oh well...

Peace
There is enough proof in the Quran and Miracles in different fields, some discovered just years ago... so when you know the Quran is the word of GOD... then you believe rest of what is said because it cannot be fake!

I have proof!!! The Quran and the Sunnah... You do not approve of it then I cannot really do anything but say: Take my word for it! :)

Hey you do not have to believe in Judgment Day... I guess one way of finding out and that is that we wait and see! Or you can prove there is no judgement day, if you can! We Muslims have enough info on that day that we have to believe it... can you give me just a couple of reasons of why it cannot exist!
Reply

imaad_udeen
05-05-2006, 04:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,

The idea that all land is Muslim land seems nonsensical to me, just like the idea that all humans are Muslims when they're born.
If you believe in Allah (swt) and that he created all things, then wouldn't it make sense that he would want His true religion to spread through all peoples and all lands? If you believe in Allah and that he creates everyone, then it makes sense that all babies are born to his Will. All babies are Muslims until corrupted by their parents, families or societies.

If you don't believe these things, then obviously it may not make sense.

How could anyone find out if something was true by taking your word for it? That's not a very exploratory or intellectual way of assessing truth, is it?
Of course you are familiar with the concept of "faith?" It is employed by all religions.

Which atheists such as me believe is fictional. Oh well...

Peace
But this is an Islamic forum, not an athiests forum, so what is your point? You come here just to dispute our beliefs?
Reply

imaad_udeen
05-05-2006, 04:29 PM
You may not be interested in Allah, cz, but Allah is interested in you...

:) Allahu akbar!
Reply

czgibson
05-05-2006, 04:33 PM
Greetings Ansar,
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
But that's only because you don't believe in God.
You're certainly right, in that that is one reason why these ideas seem to me to make no sense.

For someone who does, it is only logical that human beings are born in a state of submission to Him, and the land for submission to Him.
Christians believe in god. Do they also believe that all babies are born as Christians, and that all land is therefore Christian?

Greetings R Mujahed,
There is enough proof in the Quran and Miracles in different fields, some discovered just years ago...
The Qur'an is a religious text. I have never seen any quote from it that I believe would constitute a proof of anything.

so when you know the Quran is the word of GOD... then you believe rest of what is said because it cannot be fake!
You do not know the Qur'an is the word of god; you believe it.
I have proof!!! The Quran and the Sunnah... You do not approve of it then I cannot really do anything but say: Take my word for it!
I don't take anybody's word for anything, unless I think I have a good reason for doing so.

Hey you do not have to believe in Judgment Day... I guess one way of finding out and that is that we wait and see!
Quite so.

Or you can prove there is no judgement day, if you can! We Muslims have enough info on that day that we have to believe it... can you give me just a couple of reasons of why it cannot exist!
To do that I would have to prove that there is no god, which is impossible. However, as in the case of god, I believe it is far more likely that humans invented the idea of Judgment Day rather than believing that it will actually happen.

Peace
Reply

R_Mujahed
05-05-2006, 04:34 PM
Maybe if we post enough smilie faces, CZ, would know we are up to GOOD!:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) ... can do any more! my pointer is tired :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) and I am not stating that we are watching you!:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) all those eyes!!!
Reply

imaad_udeen
05-05-2006, 04:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson


Christians believe in god. Do they also believe that all babies are born as Christians, and that all land is therefore Christian?
Why don't you go ask that at a Christian forum? I don't know, there are so many different sects of Christianity that I lose track of what they do and do not believe.
Reply

HeiGou
05-05-2006, 04:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
All land is Muslim land.
So any attack on non-Muslims lands is a liberation and justifiable?
Reply

czgibson
05-05-2006, 04:41 PM
Greetings Imaad,
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
Of course you are familiar with the concept of "faith?" It is employed by all religions.
I am familiar with faith, yes. But faith is not a way of discovering something to be true, is it? It's rather a way of accepting something to be true. This is very different from knowledge.

But this is an Islamic forum, not an athiests forum, so what is your point? You come here just to dispute our beliefs?
Partly, yes. Wouldn't you say it's beneficial to have someone question your beliefs, so that you can examine them yourself and then defend them? Look at Ansar's debates with me and other atheists. You can tell he's debated with atheists before, and I'm sure he would tell you that those discussions have greatly increased his argumentative abilities.

Sorry if I sounded flippant - I don't mean to offend people. All I'm doing is showing how certain beliefs appear to outsiders.

Another reason I come here is to learn more about Islamic beliefs. For example, I didn't know that Muslims believe that all land is Muslim land, so, for that, I thank you. :)

Why don't you go ask that at a Christian forum? I don't know, there are so many different sects of Christianity that I lose track of what they do and do not believe.
It was a rhetorical question. The answer is no.

I agree with you about the various sects, though - it's certainly confusing! Then you have divisions like the Church of England, where it seems as if you can believe anything you like and still be classed as an adherent.

Peace
Reply

knuckles
05-05-2006, 04:41 PM
Christians believe in god. Do they also believe that all babies are born as Christians, and that all land is therefore Christian?
We believe God created the earth and Heavens for all mankind whether you are a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or Atheist. We believe you are not a Christian unless you accept Jesus Christ as your savior but we are all still brothers no matter who you are. Christians have no enemies, we are to love all people even those that hate us. This is a big task and virtually impossible but we believe that God set this as a goal no compulory. We believe it's not the sin that send you the hell but the content of your heart.
Reply

imaad_udeen
05-05-2006, 04:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
So any attack on non-Muslims lands is a liberation and justifiable?
Who said anything about attacking? Please don't draw conclusions which I did not allude to.

Islam forbids offensive war anyways.
Reply

HeiGou
05-05-2006, 05:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
Who said anything about attacking? Please don't draw conclusions which I did not allude to.

Islam forbids offensive war anyways.
You certainly alluded to it. You have said all land is Muslim land. I live on a piece of land which has a minority population, but is not a Muslim country and never has been. But you seem to be telling me that this country rightfully belongs to Muslims. Is that right?

I am happy to avoid using the word "attacking" because suddenly I see why Islam forbids offensive warfare - there is no such thing according to you. You seem to be claiming that I am living on Muslim land. I am usurping land that rightfully belongs to you and every other Muslim. Is that right? In which case no war can be offensive, because it all belongs to Muslims anyway. Is this in fact your position? What do you mean by all land is Muslim land?
Reply

Caliphate
05-05-2006, 06:16 PM
Salamu alikom wr wb dear sisters and brothers,

We cant say that Islam invaded Spain, because Islam doesnt invade a counrty and plounder its resources like we see in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. And in fact Islam cant excist without a state, which means a caliphate or a khilafah. Because only a caliphate unite the divided and weak states that serve the interest of the west, implement islam in all affairs of life in society and rule with Al Quran and Sunnah. So at the time when Islam came to Spain, it was not few people who preach about islam, indeed it was one islamic caliphate which has only one purpose and that is to spread the dominance of Islam. Because it is the caliphates purpose to call humanity to Islam through Da3wah and Jihad, since Islam is universal and for all nations and for all time. So what we must understand is that when Islam came to Spain it was not few persons who preached, indeed it was one state whose system was Islam and whose purpose was to spread the dominance of the islamic state to all corners of the world. Like Rasool sallallahu alayhi wa salam did when he created the islamic state in Medina, and spread the dominance of the state to all corners of the world, from Persian regions, to Romans in order to make the Light of Allah swt reach all humanity regardless their culture, religion and race, because Islam is a system for all humanity to save humans from the misery of man-made laws such as democracy and secularism whish we witness today in all corners of the world.

Inshallah you can read more about this at the following websites in english or arabic.

www.adduonline.com
www.alokab.com

Barakallahu Feekum
Reply

HeiGou
05-05-2006, 06:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Caliphate
We cant say that Islam invaded Spain, because Islam doesnt invade a counrty and plounder its resources like we see in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.
Really? The Muslims who invaded Spain took no booty, made no slaves, seized no land for themselves, did not take over ownership of the mineral resources of Spain? Is this what you are saying?
Reply

imaad_udeen
05-05-2006, 06:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
You certainly alluded to it. You have said all land is Muslim land. I live on a piece of land which has a minority population, but is not a Muslim country and never has been. But you seem to be telling me that this country rightfully belongs to Muslims. Is that right?
Your land was created by and belongs to Allah and only Allah.

I am not talking about governments.

I am happy to avoid using the word "attacking" because suddenly I see why Islam forbids offensive warfare - there is no such thing according to you. You seem to be claiming that I am living on Muslim land. I am usurping land that rightfully belongs to you and every other Muslim. Is that right? In which case no war can be offensive, because it all belongs to Muslims anyway. Is this in fact your position? What do you mean by all land is Muslim land?
You are totally missing the point. Stop jumping to conclusions.
Reply

czgibson
05-05-2006, 06:23 PM
Greetings Caliphate,

What a confusing post you've just given.

format_quote Originally Posted by Caliphate
And in fact Islam cant excist without a state, which means a caliphate or a khilafah.
Are you saying that Islam doesn't exist?

So at the time when Islam came to Spain, it was not few people who preach about islam, indeed it was one islamic caliphate which has only one purpose and that is to spread the dominance of Islam.
Invasion, colonisation, call it what you will.
Like Rasool sallallahu alayhi wa salam did when he created the islamic state in Medina, and spread the dominance of the state to all corners of the world,
Do you think that Islam ruled the world at the time of the Prophet (pbuh)?
because Islam is a system for all humanity to save humans from the misery of man-made laws such as democracy and secularism whish we witness today in all corners of the world.
Firstly, democracy and secularism are not laws. Secondly, who told you they cause miseries?

Peace
Reply

knuckles
05-05-2006, 06:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Caliphate
Salamu alikom wr wb dear sisters and brothers,

We cant say that Islam invaded Spain, because Islam doesnt invade a counrty and plounder its resources like we see in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. And in fact Islam cant excist without a state, which means a caliphate or a khilafah. Because only a caliphate unite the divided and weak states that serve the interest of the west, implement islam in all affairs of life in society and rule with Al Quran and Sunnah. So at the time when Islam came to Spain, it was not few people who preach about islam, indeed it was one islamic caliphate which has only one purpose and that is to spread the dominance of Islam. Because it is the caliphates purpose to call humanity to Islam through Da3wah and Jihad, since Islam is universal and for all nations and for all time. So what we must understand is that when Islam came to Spain it was not few persons who preached, indeed it was one state whose system was Islam and whose purpose was to spread the dominance of the islamic state to all corners of the world. Like Rasool sallallahu alayhi wa salam did when he created the islamic state in Medina, and spread the dominance of the state to all corners of the world, from Persian regions, to Romans in order to make the Light of Allah swt reach all humanity regardless their culture, religion and race, because Islam is a system for all humanity to save humans from the misery of man-made laws such as democracy and secularism whish we witness today in all corners of the world.

Inshallah you can read more about this at the following websites in english or arabic.

www.adduonline.com
www.alokab.com

Barakallahu Feekum
But what if they didn't want to unite under Islam wouldn't it be considered an invasion or an attack then?
Reply

knuckles
05-05-2006, 06:28 PM
Despite internal discord in Spain, the Muslim emirate proved strong in its first three centuries - was able to stop Charlemagne's massive forces at Saragossa and, after suffering from a massive Viking surprise attack, was able to quickly establish effective defences at a time when they were the terror of Europe. Indeed it became a terror in its own right to Christian neighbours with its own "al-jihad fil-bahr" (holy war at sea), raiding shipping and coastal settlements for the purposes of looting and enslavement
Reply

R_Mujahed
05-05-2006, 08:11 PM
And it is coming back... Islam that is!
Reply

Noora_z3
05-05-2006, 11:34 PM
Origanally posted by Hegou

the British and French were a lot more tolerant of Islam in Algeria than the Arabs were on Christianity in Spain.
Oh really?! never heard this before. U know wat Algeria is called? "the country of the million martyrs", thats the minimum number of Algerians killed by those so-tolerant French.

And Brithish?!! come on, give me a biiiiig break, u know one thing they did, they started the religiouse tension in India, before their invasion muslims n hindus co-existed peacefully. The British implanted the seeds of hatred, so many blood was wasted coz of them, the hindus n Muslims r still payin the price high.

You have said all land is Muslim land
That doesnt mean it belongs to me, or to Ahmad or to Abdul Allah coz we didnt do anything to earn it. It means it belongs to Allah SWT.

Really? The Muslims who invaded Spain took no booty, made no slaves, seized no land for themselves, did not take over ownership of the mineral resources of Spain? Is this what you are saying?
Dont make judgmetns based on selective incidents, bad peaple exsit every where n in every religion. Muslims n Arabs didnt migrate to Spain in millions n ran the country, the spanish ppl themselves converted to Islam n then participated in runnin the country.

By the way, isnt it ungratefull to argue the validity of the existence of Muslims in Spain wen we all know that Muslims dragged Europeans from Mideval times to Enlightenment?!!
Reply

czgibson
05-05-2006, 11:58 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Noora_z3
By the way, isnt it ungratefull to argue the validity of the existence of Muslims in Spain wen we all know that Muslims dragged Europeans from Mideval times to Enlightenment?!!
That's an interesting comment. What did Muslims have to do with the Enlightenment?

Peace
Reply

Noora_z3
05-06-2006, 12:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


That's an interesting comment. What did Muslims have to do with the Enlightenment?

Peace
A LOT. But thats a diffrent disscussion, another thread, maybe some other time.
Reply

czgibson
05-06-2006, 12:10 AM
Greetings,

I'd love to hear more about this. Shall I start a new thread, or maybe you can give me a link to some more information about the Islamic contribution to the Enlightenment? I can't find anything on it.

Peace
Reply

Noora_z3
05-06-2006, 12:18 AM
I will refer u to some books, give me some time to get the list. Thanks.
Reply

akulion
05-06-2006, 12:37 AM
salam alaikum

Best to my knowledge the invasion of spain took place because the Muslim Missionaries who had landed in Europe had been slaughtered by the church in the name of Christ and termed blasphemers.

According to medival Christian Law all people who believed in other Gods apart from Jesus were blasphemers.

I read a long eloborate article about this in a magazine in London that the Muslim missionaries were killed and the women were kept captive and being harrassed upon which the caliph sent a letter to their king which said "as you read this the last of our armies will be leaving our gates and the first of our armies will be entering your lands"

They were invited to stop this persecution but they had refused.

and in Islam we are told to fight against persecution
Reply

R_Mujahed
05-06-2006, 06:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,

I'd love to hear more about this. Shall I start a new thread, or maybe you can give me a link to some more information about the Islamic contribution to the Enlightenment? I can't find anything on it.

Peace
Check this out... just to list a couple! http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle350594.ece

Here it is translated into Arabic...

الإخوة الكرام في قروب عرب تايمز : السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته .

هذا مقال رائع ومنصف للكاتب باول فاليللي عن المخترعين المسلمين وكيف أثروا العالم باختراعات غالبية البشر لا يستغنون عنها حتى الآن .

ذكر كاتب الموضوع أكثر 20 اختراعاً تأثيراً على العالم, من القهوة مروراً بتقنية التقطير لتنقية المياه إلى وضع قواعد الشطرنج وغيرها .

المقالة تحمل العديد من المفاجآت .

من المقالات النادرة المنصفة في زمن طغى فيه التضليل .


المقال من الصحيفة نفسها على الرابط : [ اضغط هنا ]


------------------------------------------------------------


ترجمة: (( كيف غير المخترعون المسلمون وجه العالم؟ ))


من القهوة مروراً بنظام الثلاث وجبات اليومي وحتى الشيكات, أعطانا العالم الإسلامي العديد من الإبتكارات التي لا غني عن إستعمالها في حياتنا اليومية الآن, يذكر كاتب الموضوع باول فاليللي أكثر 20 ابتكارا تأثيراً على العالم ويعرفنا بالعباقرة الذين كانوا وراء هذه الابتكارات.

1: تقول القصة أن هناك عربي يدعى خالد كان يعني ببعض الماعز في منطقة “كافا” بجنوب أثيوبيا, عندما لاحظ أن حيواناته أصبحت أكثر نشاطاً حينما تأكل التوت, فقام بغلي التوت ليصنع أول فنجان من القهوة! , ومن المؤكد أن أول مرة خرج فيها مشروب القهوة إلى خارج أثيوبيا كان الى اليمن حيثشربها “صفي” كي يظل يقظاً طوال الليل ليصلي في مناسبة خاصة. في أواخر القرن الخامس عشر وصلت القهوة الى مكة وتركيا.. التي منها وصلت الى فينسيا في عام 1645م. ثم الى انجلترا بعد خمس سنوات في 1650 بواسطة تركي يدعى “باسكوا روسي” الذي فتح أول “محل قهوة” في شارع لومبارد بمدينة لندن… القهوة العربية صارت بعد ذلك تركية.. ثم إيطالية وإنجليزية!


2: قدماء اليونانيون ظنوا أن أعيننا تُخرِج أشعة مثل الليزر والتي تجعلنا قادرين على الرؤية, أول شخص لاحظ أن الضوء يدخل إلى العين ولا يخرج منها كان في عالم رياضي وفيزيائي وفلكي مسلم, وهو الحسن بن الهيثم. حيث إكتشف أن الإبصار يحدث بسبب سقوط الإشعة من الضوء على الجسم المرئي مما يمكن للعين أن تراه.. ولكن العين لا تخرج أشعة من نفسها.. وإلا كيف لا ترى العين في الظلام ؟ و اكتشف ابن الهيثم ظاهرة انعكاس الضوء، وظاهرة انعطاف الضوء أي انحراف الصورة عن مكانها في حال مرور الأشعة الضوئية في وسط معين إلى وسط غير متجانس معه. كما اكتشف أن الانعطاف يكون معدوماً إذا مرت الأشعة الضوئية وفقاً لزاوية قائمة من وسط إلى وسط آخر غير متجانس معه, ووضع ابن الهيثم بحوثاً في ما يتعلق بتكبير العدسات، وبذلك مهّد لاستعمال العدسات المتنوعة في معالجة عيوب العين, ويعتبر الحسن بن الهيثم أول من انتقل بالفيزياء من المرحلة الفلسفية للمرحلة العملية [ from a philosophical activity to an experimental one ] .


3: كان هناك أحد أشكال لعبة الشطرنج في الهند القديمة, لكن اللعبة طورت إلى الطريقة التي نعرفها الآن في بلاد فارس [ إيران ] , من هناك إنتشرت اللعبة غرباً إلى أوروبا حيث قدمها المغاربة في أسبانيا في القرن العاشر الميلادي, وانتشرت شرقاً إلى اليابان.. تستعمل في الغرب كلمة rook لطابية الشطرنج كما نعرفها.. ويعود اصل هذه الكلمة إلى كلمة “رُخ” العربية.



4: قبل آلاف السنوات من تجربة الأخوان رايت في بريطانيا للطيران.. كان هناك شاعر وفلكي وموسيقي ومهندس مسلم يدعى “عباس بن فرناس” قام بمحاولات عديدة لإنشاء آلة طيران, في عام 825 قفر من أعلى مئذنة الجامع الكبير في قرطبة مستخدما عباءة صلبة غير محكمة مدعمة بقوائم خشبية, كان يأمل أن أن يحلق كالطيور.. لم يفلح في هذا ولكن العباءة قللت من سرعة هبوطه.. مكونة ما يمكن أن نمسيه أول “باراشوت” وخرج من هذه التجربة فقط بجروح بسيطة, في 875 حين كام عمره 70 عاماً.. قام بتطوير ماكينة من الحرير وريش النسور ثم حاول مرة أخرى بالقفز من أعلى جبل هذه المرة, وصل هذه المرة إلى ارتفاع عال.. وظل طائرا لمدة عشر دقائق.. لكنه تحطم في الهبوط!.. كان ذلك بسبب عدم وضع “ذيل” للجهاز الذي ابتكره كي يتمكن من الهبوط بطريقة صحيحة, مطار بغداد الدولي وفوهة أحد البراكين في المغرب تم تسميتهما على اسمه.


5: الإغتسال والنظافة متطلبات دينية لدي المسلمين, ربما كان هذا السبب في أنهم طوروا شكل الصابون إلى الشكل الذي مازلنا نستخدمه الآن!.. قدماء المصريين كان عندهم أحد أنواع الصابون.. تماما مثل الرومان الذين استخدموها غالبا كـمرهم!, لكنهم كانوا العرب هم من جمعوا بين زيوت النباتات وهيدروكسيد الصوديوم والمواد الأروماتية مثل الـ “thyme oil” .كان أحد أكثر خصائص الصليبيون غرابة بالنسبة للمسلمين كانت أنهم لا يغتسلون!.. الشامبو قدم في انجلترا لأول مرة حينما قام أحد المسلمين بفتح احد محلات الاستحمام بالبخار في “بريتون سيفرونت” في عام 1759 .



6: التقطير ووسائل فصل السوائل من خلال الاختلافات في درجة غليانها, أخترعت في حوالي العام 800 م. بواسطة العالم المسلم الكبير “جابر بن حيان” , الذي قام بتحويل “الخيمياء” أو “الكيمياء القديمة” إلى “الكيمياء الحديثة” كما نعرفها الآن.. مخترعا العديد من العديد من العمليات الأساسية والادوات التي لانزال نستخدمها حتى الآن؛ السيولة, والتبلور, والتقطير, والتنقية, والأكسدة, والتبخير والترشيح.. جنباً الى جنب مع اكتشاف الكبريت وحمض النيتريك, اخترع جابر بن حيان أمبيق التقطير – تستخدم الانجليزية لفظ alembic وهو مشتق من لفظ “إمبيق” العربي – وهو آلة تستخدم في عملية التقطير.. مقدماً للعالم العطور وبعض المشروبات الكحولية ويذكر الكاتب أن ذلك حرام في الإسلام , إستخدم إبن حيان التجربة المنظمة ويعتبر مكتشف الكيمياء الحديثة.



7: المضخة جهاز عبارة عن آلة من المعدن تدار بقوة الريح أو بواسطة حيوان يدور بحركة دائرية، وكان الهدف منها أن ترفع المياه من الآبار العميقة إلى اسطح الأرض، وكذلك كانت تستعمل في رفع المياه من منسوب النهر إذا كان منخفضاً إلى الأماكن العليا.. صنعت بواسطة مهندس مسلم بارع يسمى “الجزري” .. هذه المضخة هي الفكرة الرئيسية التي بنيت عليها جميع المضخات المتطورة في عصرنا الحاضر والمحركات الآلية كلها ابتداء من المحرك البخاري الذي في القطار أو البواخر إلى محرك الاحتراق الداخلي الذي يعمل بالبنزين كما في السيارة والطائرة.. ويعتبر “الجزري” هو الأب الروحي لعلم الـ robotics والخاص بتصنيع الـrobots كما نعرفها اليوم.. من ضمن إختراعاته الخمسين الأخرى كان الـ” combination lock ” وهي التي نراها اليوم في طريقة قفل بعض الحقائب والخزانات باستخدام بعض الأرقام بجوار بعضها مكونة شفرة .



8: وضع طبقة من مادة أخرى بين طبقتين من القماش.. تعتبر أحدى طرق الخياطة وغير معروف إذا كانت ابتكرت في العالم الإسلامي أم انها قد نشأت أولاً في الهند أو الصين, ولكن من المؤكد أنها وصلت للغرب من خلال الصليبيون.. عندما رأوا بعض المحاربين المسلمين يرتدون قمصانا مصنوعة بهذه الطريقة بدلاً من الدروع والتي كانت مفيدة جداً كوسيلة للحماية من أسلحة الصليبيين المعدنية.. حيث كونت نوع من أنواع الحماية لهم.. وهي تعتبر أول “قميص واقي من الرصاص” في العالم : ) .. استخدمها الغرب هذه الطريقة فيما بعد للوقاية من برودة الجو في دول مثل بريطانيا وهولندا..



9: تعد الأقواس مستدقة الطرف من أهم الخصائص المعمارية التي تميز كاتدرائيات أوروبا القوطية, فكرة هذه الأقواس ابتكرها المعماريون المسلمون. وهي أقوى بكثير من الأقواس مستديرة الطرف والتي كان يستخدمها الرومان والنورمانيون, لأنها تساعدك على أن يكون البناء أكبر وأعلى وأكثر تعقيداً.. إقتبس الغرب من المسلمين أيضاً طريقة بناء القناطر والقباب. قلعات أوروبا منسوخة الفكرة أيضاً من العالم الإسلامي, بدءا الشقوق الطولية في الأسوار, وشرفات القلعة.. وطريقة الحصن الأمامي وحواجز الأسقف.. والأبراج المربعة.. والتي كانت تسهل جدا حماية القلعة.. ويكفي أن تعرف أن المهندس المعماري الذي قام ببناء قلعة هنري الخامس كان مسلم.



10: العديد من الآلات الجراحية الحديثة المستخدمة الآن لازالت بنفس التصميم الذي ابتكرها به الجراح المسلم “الزهراوي” في القرن العاشر الميلادي.. هذه الآلات وغيرها أكثرمن مائتي آلة ابتكرها لازالت معروفة للجراحين اليوم, وكان “الزهراوي” يجري عملية إستئصال الغدة الدرقية Thyroid . وذكر “الزهراوي” علاج السرطان في كتابه (التصريف) قائلا: متى كان السرطان في موضع يمكن استئصاله كله كالسرطان الذي يكون في الثدي أو في الفخد ونحوهما من الأعضاء المتمكنة لإخراجه بجملته ,إذا كان مبتدءاً صغيراً فافعل. أما متى تقدم فلا ينبغى أن تقربه فاني ما استطعت أن أبرىء منه أحدا. ولا رأيت قبلى غيري وصل إلى ذلك ” وهي عملية لم يجرؤ أي جراح في أوربا على إجرائها إلا في القرن التاسع عشر بعده أي بتسعة قرون, في القرن الثالث عشر الميلادي.. طبيب مسلم آخر اسمه “ابن النفيس” شرح الدورة الدموية الصغرى.. قبل أن يشرحها ويليام هارفي بـثلاثمائة عام, إخترع علماء المسلمين أيضاً المسكنات من مزيج مادتي الأفيون والكحول وطوروا أسلوباً للحقن بواسطة الإبر لا يزال مستخدم حتى الآن.

11: اخترع المسلمون طواحين الهواء في عام 634 م.. وكانت تستخدم لطحن الذرة وري المياه في الصحراء العربية الواسعة, عندما تصبح جداول المياه جافة, كانت الرياح هي القوة الوحيدة التي يهب من اتجاه ثابت لمدة شهور, الطواحين كانت تحتوي على 6 او 12 أشرعة مغطاة بأوراق النخل, كان هذا قبل أن تظهر طواحين الهواء في أوروبا بخمسمائة عام!



12: فكرة التطعيم لم تبتكر بواسطة جبنر وباستير ..ولكن ابتكرها العالم الاسلامي ووصلت الى اوروبا من خلال زوجة سفير بريطانيا في تركيا وتحديدا في اسطنبول عام 1724 , الأطفال في تركيا طعِّموا ضد الجدرى قبل خمسون عاما من اكتشاف الغرب لذلك!



13: القلم الجاف اخترع في مصر أول مرة لأجل السلطان في عام 953, حينما طلب قلما لا يلوث يداه أو ملابسه.. و كان القلم يحتوي على الحبر في خزانة مثل الأقلام الحديثة .



14: نظام الترقيم المستخدم في العالم الآن ربما كان هندي الأصل.. ولكن طابع الأرقام عربي وأقدم ظهور له في بعض أعمال عالمي الرياضة المسلمين الخوارزمي والكندي حوالي العام 825, سميت “Algebra ” على اسم كتاب الخوارزمي “الجبر والمقابلة” والذي لا يزال الكثير من محتوياته تستخدم حالياً.. الأفكار والنظريات التي توصل لها علماء الرياضيات المسلمين نقلت إلى اوروبا بعد ذلك بـ300 عام على يد العالم الإيطالي فيبوناشي.. الـ” Algorithms” وعلم المثلثات نشأوا في العالم الإسلامي.



15: علي بن نفيس والمعروف باسم “زيراب”.. قدم من العراق الى قرطبة في القرن التاسع الميلادي, وعرّف الغرب لأول مرة بمبدأ الثلاث وجبات اليومية.. وقدّم أيضاً البلور أو الزجاج الشفاف لأول مرة والذي تم اختراعه بعد عدة تجارب بواسطة عباس بن فرناس.



16: بواسطة تقدمهم العالي في فنون الحياكة, ووجود أصباغ جديدة بفضل تقدم المسلمون في الكيمياء بالإضافة لوجود الحس العالي في استخدام النقوش والتي كانت اساسا للفن الإسلامي غير التصويري, برع المسلمون في صناعة السجاجيد وغيرها, على العكس في الجهة الأخرى كانت الأرضيات في اوروبا بوضوح بلا أغطية حتى وصلتها السجاجيد العربية والفارسية والتي قدمت في انجلترا كما سجل إيسراموس ” الأرضيات كانت مفروشة بالحشائش.. ونادراً ما تجدد.. وأحياناً كثيرة كانت تترك مخلفات البشر والحيوانات وفتات الأطعمة في الشوارع ” .



17: كلمة “Cheque” الغربية أتت في الأصل من الكلمة العربية “صك” , وهي عبارة عن وصل مكتوب يستخدم لشراء السلع, وذلك لتفادي مشاكل نقل الأموال وتعرضها للمناطق الخطرة.. في القرن التاسع عشر كان يستطيع رجل الأعمال المسلم أن يدفع في الصين بواسطة شيك لبنك في بغداد!!



18: في القرن التاسع عشر قال الكثير من علماء المسلمين أن الأرض كروية, وكان الدليل كما قال الفلكي “ابن حزم” أن الشمس دائما ما تكون عمودية على نقطة محددة على الأرض , كان ذلك قبل أن يكتشف جاليليون ذات النقطة ب500 عام.. [ نلاحظ أن ابن حزم لم يعدم لقوله هذا عكس ما حدث مع جاليليو من الكنيسة! ] .



19: كانت حسابات الفلكيون المسلمون دقيقة جدا حيث أنه في القرن التاسع.. حيث حسبوا محيط الأرض ليجدوه 40,253.4 كيلومتر وهو أقل من المحيط الفعلي بـ200 كيلومتر فقط! , رسم العالم الإدريسي رسما للكرة الأرضية لأحد الملوك في عام 1139 ميلادية.



20: إذا كان الصينيون هم من اكتشفوا البارود واستخدموه في إشعال النيران, فإن العرب هم أول من نقّى البارود باستخدام نترات البوتاسيوم ليكون صالحاً للإستعمال الحربي, مما أصاب أصاب الصليبيين بالرعب, في القرن الخامس عشر نجح المسلمون في اختراع أول صاروخ وأول طوربيد بحري .



في العصور الوسطى كان لدي الأوروبيون مطابخ وحدائق عشبية, ولكنهم كانوا العرب هم من طوروا فكرة الحديثة كمكان للجمال والتأمل.


أتمنى يكون المقال أعجبكم .

وفقكم الله .
Reply

HeiGou
05-06-2006, 09:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
Your land was created by and belongs to Allah and only Allah.
You did not say it belonged to God but to the Muslims. Why did you make that comment? Do you think that God has, in fact, given all the world to the Muslims and they are the rightful owners?

I am not talking about governments.
Nor am I.

You are totally missing the point. Stop jumping to conclusions.
What other conclusion is there for me to jump to? Do the British have a legal and moral right in Islam to the possession of Great Britain? In your opinion.
Reply

HeiGou
05-06-2006, 09:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by akulion
Best to my knowledge the invasion of spain took place because the Muslim Missionaries who had landed in Europe had been slaughtered by the church in the name of Christ and termed blasphemers.

>deletions<

They were invited to stop this persecution but they had refused.

and in Islam we are told to fight against persecution
So if any Muslim country, Saudi Arabia for instance, stops US nationals from going there without permission and preaching Christianity and Judaism, that is oppression which would justify an American invasion?
Reply

HeiGou
05-06-2006, 09:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Noora_z3
Oh really?! never heard this before. U know wat Algeria is called? "the country of the million martyrs", thats the minimum number of Algerians killed by those so-tolerant French.
Actually that number is likely to be an exaggeration, although more, as a percentage, were killed during the initial French invasion. But that is beside the point. I did not say they did not kill people who rose in rebellion. I said they were far more tolerant of Islam than the Arabs were of Christianity. And they were - the French did not execute anyone for stating their religious beliefs.

And Brithish?!! come on, give me a biiiiig break, u know one thing they did, they started the religiouse tension in India, before their invasion muslims n hindus co-existed peacefully. The British implanted the seeds of hatred, so many blood was wasted coz of them, the hindus n Muslims r still payin the price high.
You need to read fewer dishonest apologies for the Muslims in India and more real history. Look up Aurangzeb for instance. The history of the Muslims in India is a long history of oppression and rebellion broken only by a few people like Akhbar - denounced in his time as a bad Muslim.

That doesnt mean it belongs to me, or to Ahmad or to Abdul Allah coz we didnt do anything to earn it. It means it belongs to Allah SWT.
What would you have to do to earn it? And even if it does not belong to you as individuals, does it belong to you as a group - it is Fay for the Muslims? Are we kafirs, by refusing to pay jizyah and kharaj on "your" land commiting a crime in Islam that would justify an invasion?

format_quote Originally Posted by Caliphate
We cant say that Islam invaded Spain, because Islam doesnt invade a counrty and plounder its resources like we see in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.
>deletions<
Dont make judgmetns based on selective incidents, bad peaple exsit every where n in every religion. Muslims n Arabs didnt migrate to Spain in millions n ran the country, the spanish ppl themselves converted to Islam n then participated in runnin the country.
Actually they did migrate to Spain in tens of thousands and ran the country. The Arabs of the Umayyad period were highly racially sensitive and so they kept track if people were real Arabs, Berbers or converts.

By the fact that you have changed the subject can we all agree that the Arabs did invade Spain and plunder its resources?

By the way, isnt it ungratefull to argue the validity of the existence of Muslims in Spain wen we all know that Muslims dragged Europeans from Mideval times to Enlightenment?!!
Well no it is not known and it is not ungrateful. Unless of course we all agree that it is ungrateful to argue about the validity of European colonialism which, as we all know, dragged the Muslims from the Dark Ages into the Modern World.
Reply

Noora_z3
05-06-2006, 11:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Actually that number is likely to be an exaggeration, although more, as a percentage, were killed during the initial French invasion.
really? as for me I dont look at it as exaggeration, One millions is not a small number. Also, I refuse to gree with u, muslims were very very tolarent at that time.

You need to read fewer dishonest apologies for the Muslims in India and more real history. Look up Aurangzeb for instance. The history of the Muslims in India is a long history of oppression and rebellion broken only by a few people like Akhbar - denounced in his time as a bad Muslim.
U need to read more, British destroeyd the land, enslaved its ppl, stole their resources...n a lot more.
Why do u talks as if its only u who refer to reliable sources?

And even if it does not belong to you as individuals, does it belong to you as a group - it is Fay for the Muslims? Are we kafirs, by refusing to pay jizyah and kharaj on "your" land commiting a crime in Islam that would justify an invasion?
nope it doesnt belong to the Muslims as well. Nope, invasion for such reasons in todays world is not justified.

By the fact that you have changed the subject can we all agree that the Arabs did invade Spain and plunder its resources?
Yes they did with Justice, they gave the citizens of spain a better life.

Well no it is not known and it is not ungrateful. Unless of course we all agree that it is ungrateful to argue about the validity of European colonialism which, as we all know, dragged the Muslims from the Dark Ages into the Modern World
Oh no, Muslims were good untill Europe's invasion.
Reply

Noora_z3
05-06-2006, 11:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
So if any Muslim country, Saudi Arabia for instance, stops US nationals from going there without permission and preaching Christianity and Judaism, that is oppression which would justify an American invasion?
No no Hegou, dont compare todays times with things that happned centuris n centuris back.

Is it fair to go about n say that America n Europe r using the same means as been used, like hundreds of years back, to spread Christianity?!
Reply

czgibson
05-06-2006, 02:02 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by R_Mujahed
Check this out... just to list a couple! http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle350594.ece
Interesting stuff, but what does it have to do with the Enlightenment?

Peace
Reply

sonz
05-06-2006, 02:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


Interesting stuff, but what does it have to do with the Enlightenment?

Peace
hey czgibson

ru looking for this

Islam's Contribution To Europe's Renaissance

HRH, The Prince of Wales, Islam And The West
. . . we have underestimated the importance of 800 years of Islamic society and culture in Spain between the 8th and 15th centuries. The contribution of Muslim Spain to the preservation of classical learning during the Dark Ages, and to the first flowering of the Renaissance, has long been recognized. But Islamic Spain was much more than a mere larder where Hellenistic knowledge was kept for later consumption by the emerging modern world. Not only did Muslim Spain gather and preserve the intellectual content of ancient Greek and Roman civilization, it also interpreted and expanded upon that civilization, and made a vital contribution of its own in so many fields of human endeavour -- in science, astronomy, mathematics, algebra (itself an Arabic word), law, history, medicine, pharmacology, optics, agriculture, architecture, theology, music. Averroes and Avenzoor, like their counterparts Avicenna and Rhazes in the East, contributed to the study and practice of medicine in ways from which Europe benefited for centuries afterwards. Islam nurtured and preserved the quest for learning. In the words of (the Prophet's) tradition "the ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr." Cordoba in the 10th century was by far the most civilized city of Europe. We know of lending libraries in Spain at the time King Alfred was making terrible blunders with the culinary arts in this country. It is said that the 400,000 volumes of its ruler's library amounted to more books than all the of the rest of Europe put together. That was made possible because the Muslim world acquired from China the skill of making paper more than four hundred years before the rest of non-Muslim Europe. Many of the traits on which Europe prides itself came to it from Muslim Spain. Diplomacy, free trade, open borders, the techniques of academic research, of anthropology, etiquette, fashion, alternative medicine, hospitals, all came from this great city of cities. Mediaeval Islam was a religion of remarkable tolerance for its time, allowing Jews and Christians to practice their inherited beliefs, and setting an example which was not, unfortunately, copied for many centuries in the West. The surprise, ladies and gentlemen, is the extent to which Islam has been a part of Europe for so long, first in Spain, then in the Balkans, and the extent to which it has contributed so much towards the civilization which we all too often think of, wrongly, as entirely Western. Islam is part of our past and present, in all fields of human endeavour. It has helped to create modern Europe. It is part of our own inheritance, not a thing apart.
1001 Inventions: Discover the Muslim Heritage of Our World

The project supported by the Home Office and the Department for Trade and Industry, uncovers the Islamic civilisation's overlooked contribution to science, technology and art during the dark ages in European history.
Maria Rosa Menocal, The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain

[It] is no exaggeration to say that what we presumptuously call 'Western' culture is owed in large measure to the Andalusian enlightenment....This book partly restores to us a world we have lost, a world for which our current monotheistic leaderships do not even feel nostalgia.--Christopher Hitchens, The Nation
Akbar S. Ahmed, Living Islam
It is well to recall that Islam not only caused Islamic civilization to develop but also enabled the European Renaissance to take root and grow. The time when Islam was most strongly established was also the time when art, culture and literature flourished, whether in Spain or, later, under the Ottomans, the Safavids and the Mughals. Christian Europe was enveloped in darkness until Islam came to the Iberian peninsula. For centuries Islam fed Greek, Sanskrit and Chinese ideas into Europe. Slowly and steadily Europe began to absorb those ideas. In England, France, Germany and Italy society began to explore literature and art with a new perspective; thus the seeds of the Renaissance were sown. -- p. 15
James Johnston, Medieval Script Shows Islam's Role in Learning
The manuscript stands as a uniquely important monument to the central role of Jews and Muslims in the spread of knowledge and learning throughout medieval Europe, as well as being possibly the earliest known example of Latin script of any kind written on paper. Sotheby's says that only four other copies of this work are known.
Washington W. Irving, Tales Of The Alhambra
As conquerors [Muslims], their heroism was equaled only by their moderation, and in both, for a time, they excelled the nations with whom they contended. Severed from their native homes, they loved the land given them as they supposed by Allah and strove to embellish it with everything that could administer to the happiness of man. Laying the foundations of their power in a system of wise and equitable laws, diligently cultivating the arts and sciences, and promoting agriculture, manufactures and commerce, they gradually formed an empire unrivaled for its prosperity by any of the empires of Christendom . . . The cities of Arabian Spain became the resort of Christian artisans, to instruct themselves in the useful art. The Universities of Toledo, Cordova, Seville, Granada, were sought by the pale student from lands to acquaint himself with the sciences of the Arabs and the treasure lore of antiquity. -- p. 52
Martin Wainwright, Our Debt to Islam
While the barbarians smashed and burned in western Europe, the Arabs and Persians used the libraries of Alexandria and Asia Minor, translated the scrolls and took them to Baghdad and far beyond. In distant Bukhara on the Silk Road to China, a teenager called Abu Ali Ibn Sina was engrossed in Aristotle's Metaphysics at the age of 17. The year was AD997 and the text - central to the subsequent development of philosophy - had long been lost and unknown in western Europe.
David Self, Christians and Muslims Share a Journey
We are indebted to the Arabic world not only for arithmetic but also for algebra and trigonometry. Logarithms were invented by a mathematician called Al-Khwarizmi in the 7th century. Test tubes, the compass and the first surgical tools were all pioneered by Muslim inventors. A thousand years ago, it is said, Baghdad had 60 hospitals. This scientific flowering was accompanied by the establishment of the first universities - or madrassahs. In a madrassah, the sheik or professor taught, literally, from a chair. He was assisted by readers. When the west eventually replicated such places of learning, we borrowed such terms.
Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel
In the Middle Ages the flow of technology was overwhelmingly from Islam to Europe, rather than from Europe to Islam as it is today. Only around A.D. 1500 did the net direction of flow begin to reverse. -- p. 253
Fernand Braudel, A History of Civilizations
The major landmarks in this process of expolitation were: in the sixteenth century, the arrival of 'treasures' (gold and silver ingots) from America; the brutal opening-up of India after the battle of Plassey (23 June 1757), at which the British defeated the nawab of Bengal; the forced expolitation of the Chinese market after the First Opium War in 1839-42; and the partition of Africa at Berlin in 1885. -- p. 388
Susan Spano, Revealed: Muslim Traveler Who Rivaled Marco Polo
I had studied medieval Europe ethnocentrically but now can only conclude that during Battuta's time, it was a cultural, political and technological sideshow. In the 14th century, the main event was Dar al-Islam.
John Edwards, History Today
On the second day of January [1492] I saw Your Highnesses' royal banners placed by force of arms on the towers of the Alhambra . . . and in the same month . . . Your Highness, as Catholic Christians and princes devoted to the holy Christian faith and the furtherance of its cause, and enemies of the sect of Mohammed and of all idolatry and heresy, resolved to send me, Christopher Columbus, to the . . . regions of India. -- vol. 42
Reply

czgibson
05-06-2006, 02:25 PM
Greetings,

Thank you sonz, you've obviously put some effort in there to provide all that information.

It's about the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and I'm fully aware of Islam's contributions during those periods. What I'm asking about is the Enlightenment - the tide of rationality that spread through Europe during the 18th century, culminating with the modern scientific world view and increasing secularism. I was unaware that Islam had made any contribution to that, but I'd like to find out if this is indeed the case.

Peace
Reply

HeiGou
05-06-2006, 04:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Noora_z3
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Actually that number is likely to be an exaggeration, although more, as a percentage, were killed during the initial French invasion.
really? as for me I dont look at it as exaggeration, One millions is not a small number. Also, I refuse to gree with u, muslims were very very tolarent at that time.
I realise you do not look at it as an exaggeration, but it is still likely that it is. It is not a small number - and it is a number both the French and the FLN contributed to. I don't dispute the fact that Muslims were, by montheistic standards, tolerant for the time. It is just obvious the French were even more tolerant still. Name me one Arab who died because of his religion in the entire French period.

You need to read fewer dishonest apologies for the Muslims in India and more real history. Look up Aurangzeb for instance. The history of the Muslims in India is a long history of oppression and rebellion broken only by a few people like Akhbar - denounced in his time as a bad Muslim.
U need to read more, British destroeyd the land, enslaved its ppl, stole their resources...n a lot more.
Why do u talks as if its only u who refer to reliable sources?
It does not matter what the British did. And of course it is not true that the British destroyed the land - look at India's enormous population growth under the British. And of course the British abolished slavery. And did not steal their resources. But even supposing they did all that, it still would not be true that the Mughals and previous Muslim regimes were tolerant. Why do you think it is a valid argument to criticise the British when faced with the evidence of Mughal oppression? I talk as if I am the only one who can refer to reliable sources because of experience.

nope it doesnt belong to the Muslims as well. Nope, invasion for such reasons in todays world is not justified.
Well you need to talk to some of your brothers. What has changed?

By the fact that you have changed the subject can we all agree that the Arabs did invade Spain and plunder its resources?
Yes they did with Justice, they gave the citizens of spain a better life.
There is no evidence for this at all. And again even if they did, the French gave the Algerians an even better life as well.

Well no it is not known and it is not ungrateful. Unless of course we all agree that it is ungrateful to argue about the validity of European colonialism which, as we all know, dragged the Muslims from the Dark Ages into the Modern World
Oh no, Muslims were good untill Europe's invasion.
And your evidence for this is what exactly?
Reply

HeiGou
05-06-2006, 04:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Noora_z3
Originally Posted by HeiGou
So if any Muslim country, Saudi Arabia for instance, stops US nationals from going there without permission and preaching Christianity and Judaism, that is oppression which would justify an American invasion?
No no Hegou, dont compare todays times with things that happned centuris n centuris back.
Why not? Does Islamic law change? Isn't it still the case that refusing to allow Muslims to preach is oppression? If so, why not Christians too?

Is it fair to go about n say that America n Europe r using the same means as been used, like hundreds of years back, to spread Christianity?!
Well No it probably is not fair. But, so? I do not understand your point.
Reply

sonz
05-06-2006, 04:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,

Thank you sonz, you've obviously put some effort in there to provide all that information.

It's about the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and I'm fully aware of Islam's contributions during those periods. What I'm asking about is the Enlightenment - the tide of rationality that spread through Europe during the 18th century, culminating with the modern scientific world view and increasing secularism. I was unaware that Islam had made any contribution to that, but I'd like to find out if this is indeed the case.

Peace
salama

european enlightenment did not come out of nowhere czgibson. it was because of the islamic contribution and most scientists from the age of reason used the works of muslims.

because of the islamic thougt it triggered enlightenment in europe.

if u study the renaissance and how muslim scientists always searched for knowledge and reason, you will know that europe borrowed these principles.

masalama
Reply

czgibson
05-06-2006, 05:37 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by sonz
european enlightenment did not come out of nowhere czgibson.
Of course.

it was because of the islamic contribution and most scientists from the age of reason used the works of muslims.
Can you give examples? It was my understanding that the transmission of knowledge from the Muslim world to the West had finished long before the Enlightenment, but I'm always happy to be corrected.

if u study the renaissance and how muslim scientists always searched for knowledge and reason, you will know that europe borrowed these principles.
Yes, and for some reason the Islamic world appears to have abandoned them, at least as far as science is concerned.

Peace
Reply

akulion
05-06-2006, 06:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
So if any Muslim country, Saudi Arabia for instance, stops US nationals from going there without permission and preaching Christianity and Judaism, that is oppression which would justify an American invasion?
If saudia Arabia does such things it goes against the teachings of Islam by not allowing freedom of practice of Faith. Furthermore to "stop" someone is one thing but to "kill them" because they are preaching is another fact altogether!

I am sure you are well aware of the fact of the type of atrcities which took place under the church under the labels of "witches" "blasphemers" and "heritics" in the middle ages in Europe. I state again: The Muslim missionaries who went there were killed in the name of Jesus by the order of the Church (which was the controlling hand of the Govt in those times, or rather of the kings/ queens) and the women were kept captive. This is an act of war by any countries standards especially if they refuse to stop these activities.
Reply

Noora_z3
05-06-2006, 07:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
It is just obvious the French were even more tolerant still. Name me one Arab who died because of his religion in the entire French period..
Million Muslim were dead, ugly methods of torture were used in jails, learning Arabic n teaching Islam was prohibited in Algeria. How worse can it get?

It does not matter what the British did.
Why do you think it is a valid argument to criticise the British when faced with the evidence of Mughal oppression? I talk as if I am the only one who can refer to reliable sources because of experience.
See our discussion was never bout Maghals n wat they did, the argument was did British harm India or didnt? the Ansewr is a BIG YES.

I talk as if I am the only one who can refer to reliable sources because of experience.

hmmmmm..

Well you need to talk to some of your brothers. What has changed?
All that happned at times where Militery wars were considered a universal language. Now things changed.

Yes they did with Justice, they gave the citizens of spain a better life.
There is no evidence for this at all. .
Look where spain is right now..look where Europe is? why u still deny the good which came out of Muslim invasion? why r u having such a hard time to accept it?

And again even if they did, the French gave the Algerians an even better life as well
Better life in wat sense? Buildings? schools? roads? French langauge? is thats wat u call a better life...how bout Valus? Principles? Justice? Pride? Dignity? FREEDOM?!
Reply

R_Mujahed
05-06-2006, 07:14 PM
To add to what Noor forget to mention is what happened in 1993 when Algeria elected a Islamic government democratically, just like Hamas... and the country cancelled elections and declared marshall law all with the help of france!
Reply

HeiGou
05-07-2006, 09:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by R_Mujahed
To add to what Noor forget to mention is what happened in 1993 when Algeria elected a Islamic government democratically, just like Hamas... and the country cancelled elections and declared marshall law all with the help of france!
What relevance is that to anything?

And Algeria did not elect an Islamic government. The FIS did very well in the first round and would have probably won the second round if the Army had not stepped in.
Reply

HeiGou
05-07-2006, 10:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Noora_z3
Million Muslim were dead, ugly methods of torture were used in jails, learning Arabic n teaching Islam was prohibited in Algeria. How worse can it get?
Well again you need to read some history books. Algerians died during the War for Independence. France did not kill some of them for their religion but because they rose in rebellion. The FLN killed a lot because they remained loyal to France. There was never a time learning Arabic was illegal or that the teaching of Islam was prohibited.

See our discussion was never bout Maghals n wat they did, the argument was did British harm India or didnt? the Ansewr is a BIG YES.
Our argument was and is exactly about the Mughals. You claimed that the Hindus of India were happy under Muslim rule. This is self-evident nonsense as any text book would tell you. And the answer is not a big yes for the period of British rule - unlike Muslim rule. It is more complicated in the case of British India. The British did many good things and they did some bad things. The Mughals built the Taj Mahal.

All that happned at times where Militery wars were considered a universal language. Now things changed.
But what has changed - Islamic law or kafirs?

Look where spain is right now..look where Europe is? why u still deny the good which came out of Muslim invasion? why r u having such a hard time to accept it?
Because there is no evidence for it worth mentioning and because the Spanish fought longer and harder with many more deaths than the Algerians to be rid of Muslim rule. They did not think it was good, why should I? But I am happy to apply universal standards - if the Muslim invasion of Spain was good, French rule in Algeria was better. Do you disagree?

Better life in wat sense? Buildings? schools? roads? French langauge? is thats wat u call a better life...how bout Valus? Principles? Justice? Pride? Dignity? FREEDOM?!
Better buildings, better roads, better health, better economy. An introduction to the modern world and science. What about values? France left the Algerians under Islamic law. Principles? The French taught some of those too. French justice was pretty good actually. If Muslims had no pride, why doesn't that apply to the Spanish? Same with dignity? And the Algerians still lack freedom so what is the relevance?
Reply

HeiGou
05-07-2006, 10:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by akulion
If saudia Arabia does such things it goes against the teachings of Islam by not allowing freedom of practice of Faith. Furthermore to "stop" someone is one thing but to "kill them" because they are preaching is another fact altogether!
So you're answer is "yes the Americans are justified in invading Saudi Arabia"? How else do you stop someone? And how about Iraq and Afghanistan which also prohibited Christians and Jews preaching Christianity and Judaism?

I am sure you are well aware of the fact of the type of atrcities which took place under the church under the labels of "witches" "blasphemers" and "heritics" in the middle ages in Europe.
Why do you think it is relevant?

I state again: The Muslim missionaries who went there were killed in the name of Jesus by the order of the Church (which was the controlling hand of the Govt in those times, or rather of the kings/ queens) and the women were kept captive. This is an act of war by any countries standards especially if they refuse to stop these activities.
I do not see that as an act of war. Why do you think it is?
Reply

Muhammad
05-07-2006, 10:39 AM
Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
You did not say it belonged to God but to the Muslims. Why did you make that comment? Do you think that God has, in fact, given all the world to the Muslims and they are the rightful owners?
[7.128] ... surely the land is Allah's; He causes such of His servants to inherit it as He pleases, and the end is for those who guard (against evil).

Regarding the topic of Enlightenment... I would just like to clarify whether or not we are talking about the same thing here. Perhaps it was initially used in a general sense of the word and taken to mean a specific turn in history known by that name? Can someone please clarify?

Peace.
Reply

czgibson
05-07-2006, 11:52 AM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
Regarding the topic of Enlightenment... I would just like to clarify whether or not we are talking about the same thing here. Perhaps it was initially used in a general sense of the word and taken to mean a specific turn in history known by that name? Can someone please clarify?
You could be right. Here's something I wrote earlier in an attempt to clarify how I understand the term:
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
What I'm asking about is the Enlightenment - the tide of rationality that spread through Europe during the 18th century, culminating with the modern scientific world view and increasing secularism. I was unaware that Islam had made any contribution to that, but I'd like to find out if this is indeed the case.
Peace
Reply

akulion
05-07-2006, 02:38 PM
So you're answer is "yes the Americans are justified in invading Saudi Arabia"? How else do you stop someone? And how about Iraq and Afghanistan which also prohibited Christians and Jews preaching Christianity and Judaism?
They were goping against Islamic teachings but they were not killing people - to stop people you can just have them removed from your land or arrest them and hand them over to the other land they came from. So an American invasion was not justified and even if you look at what the Americans are doing now is worse than what saddam Hussein did - anyone who speaks agains the US becomes an insurgent? Open your eyes and see the truth - the US is supressing the Iraqi and Afghani people and the govt we talk about is their govt (US imposed)

Why do you think it is relevant?
This is relevant because we are talking about why Muslims invaded Spain - but the topic keeps drifting to us invasion of iraq for some reason

I do not see that as an act of war. Why do you think it is?
If people are unjustly killed, justice must be provided to their families. And if the culprits are govts who refuse to give justice and stop these acts, then yes it becomes an act of war in Islam.
Reply

HeiGou
05-07-2006, 02:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by akulion
They were goping against Islamic teachings but they were not killing people - to stop people you can just have them removed from your land or arrest them and hand them over to the other land they came from. So an American invasion was not justified and even if you look at what the Americans are doing now is worse than what saddam Hussein did - anyone who speaks agains the US becomes an insurgent? Open your eyes and see the truth - the US is supressing the Iraqi and Afghani people and the govt we talk about is their govt (US imposed)
Well I do not think it is true that what the US is doing is worse, but then I think that what the Muslims did in Spain was worse than what the Spanish were doing before the Muslims arrived. Saudi Arabia has the death penalty for people who preach Christianity. So if they did execute someone for it, that would be a valid reason for the US to invade?

This is relevant because we are talking about why Muslims invaded Spain - but the topic keeps drifting to us invasion of iraq for some reason
But that has nothing to do with why the Muslim invaded Spain.

If people are unjustly killed, justice must be provided to their families. And if the culprits are govts who refuse to give justice and stop these acts, then yes it becomes an act of war in Islam.
So then the US has the right to invade Egypt because of the Sinai bombings?
Reply

Rou
05-07-2006, 04:11 PM
so many post...you come here everyday almost to do what? make people disbeleive? to question there faith? tell me what are you offering?

you question our belifs and take a stand against us? on what basis?
hate? anger? your just bored?

you offer nothing expect hate and disbelif...

you expect those of faith to listen to yourselves? ive heard islam be called intolrent , barbaric, a lie , a religon that wishes to take freedom , a religon that accepts no other religon?

do those who speak know of what they speak!? simple answer no...
otherwise why would they bother to say these things..and im sure many muslims as they read this know exactly what i mean...

by the time you find out what islam truly is you will know that peace in the only way it can be spread and justice and peace is our aim...

we accept ever prophet so how can we insult your religons...

we accept the bible and the torah so ho can we be said to be intolreant to its followers!?

as ive said...no muslim army has come to make you change your ways or claim your land....

its quite the opposite...

no muslim talked of changing your understandings and belif yet muslims MUST be democratic? (i find nothing wrong with TRUE democracy but we all know that aint whats spreading in iraq)why?

why must muslims be more open wear western clothes , watch western programs? act western...

who is attacking who??

and who is defending who?

your right a peoples freedom is at stake...just try and think a little harder on who those people are...

and think before you post your questions filled with disbelif and your quotes full of hatred...

i see no muslims telling you NOT to beleive, i see no muslims taking your freedom...

it is said no matter how hard the people of god will try and explain the disbeleivers will never listen...

seems to be a fact...hey?
Reply

Noora_z3
05-07-2006, 09:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
There was never a time learning Arabic was illegal or that the teaching of Islam was prohibited.
Strongly DISAGREE with you, I have read many books in Arabic were Algerians themselves described their suffuring, they didnt have nay kind of religous freedom. Now u tell me which books r more reliable? the ones which were written by Arab Muslims who lived the horror ..or some western men who never stepped their foot on Algerian land?

Our argument was and is exactly about the Mughals. You claimed that the Hindus of India were happy under Muslim rule. This is self-evident nonsense as any text book would tell you.
My Mom told me that in school, in history classes, they learned bout the Mughls n stuff, n I asked her did u guys study bout Auranghzib n his liks n how they opressed the Hindus? She said never in school they learned such thing, Indian goverment Text books DOSNT have anything where it says that Aurangzhib oppressed n killd. Now for sake of objectivity, we know that no one is perfect, n maybe there were some incidents...but not in a large number. Trust me if Aurangzib commited many crimes agains Hindus, Indian History text book would never miss that.

Also, I found out that Hindu-Muslim conflict did exist prior British invasion but it dramaticly increased under their rule.

And the answer is not a big yes for the period of British rule - unlike Muslim rule. It is more complicated in the case of British India. The British did many good things and they did some bad things. The Mughals built the Taj Mahal.
Watever good thigns the British did, given the chance, indian would have achived the same just in a little more time. But the bad things they commited r so profound that Indian muslims n Hindus r still suffuring its consequences.

All that happned at times where Militery wars were considered a universal language. Now things changed
.
But what has changed - Islamic law or kafirs?
The situation changed, therefore, Islamic approach to the problame changes. N dont ask me to wat it changed? coz I dont have the answer for that q.

Because there is no evidence for it worth mentioning and because the Spanish fought longer and harder with many more deaths than the Algerians to be rid of Muslim rule. They did not think it was good, why should I? But I am happy to apply universal standards - if the Muslim invasion of Spain was good, French rule in Algeria was better. Do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree.

Better buildings, better roads, better health, better economy. An introduction to the modern world and science. What about values? France left the Algerians under Islamic law. Principles? The French taught some of those too. French justice was pretty good actually
Where is Algeria now?
Reply

Noora_z3
05-07-2006, 09:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
Greetings,

Regarding the topic of Enlightenment... I would just like to clarify whether or not we are talking about the same thing here. Perhaps it was initially used in a general sense of the word and taken to mean a specific turn in history known by that name? Can someone please clarify?

Peace.
yes it was used in the general sense of the word.
Reply

akulion
05-07-2006, 09:40 PM
Well I do not think it is true that what the US is doing is worse, but then I think that what the Muslims did in Spain was worse than what the Spanish were doing before the Muslims arrived. Saudi Arabia has the death penalty for people who preach Christianity. So if they did execute someone for it, that would be a valid reason for the US to invade?
What the Muslims did for spain was far better than what was being done before - under Islamic law Spain thrived to be the greatest place in all of Europe! While in Europe people lived in pretty bad conditions, in Islamic spain they got to see the latest technologies and beautiful buildings and roads. I strongly suggest you try and watch "Islam Empire of Faith" by PBS -its a documentary made by non muslims on islam and how it changed the world!
Aditionally I have never heard of a death penalty in Saudia Arabia on people preaching Christianity.

But that has nothing to do with why the Muslim invaded Spain.
it has everything to do with why Muslims invaded Spain - Church would have us believe that Muslims were a barbaric nation who came to civilized Europe, but the TRUTH is its the opposite way around!

So then the US has the right to invade Egypt because of the Sinai bombings?
Egypt and Us are allies best to my knowledge - but yes if the usa wanted it could have made it a valid excuse to invade them...after all it invaded Iraq with no reasons lol
Reply

Noora_z3
05-07-2006, 09:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by akulion
Aditionally I have never heard of a death penalty in Saudia Arabia on people preaching Christianity.
same here.
Reply

Wahid
05-07-2006, 10:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou


Egypt and Us are allies best to my knowledge - but yes if the usa wanted it could have made it a valid excuse to invade them...after all it invaded Iraq with no reasons lol
little slow today HeiGou? did the Egyptian gov sanction the bombing and then refuse to investigate it or even promoted it? because that is the topic of discussion here, those muslim missonaries were killed by the gov and the gov sanctioned it
Reply

HeiGou
05-08-2006, 08:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Noora_z3
Strongly DISAGREE with you, I have read many books in Arabic were Algerians themselves described their suffuring, they didnt have nay kind of religous freedom. Now u tell me which books r more reliable? the ones which were written by Arab Muslims who lived the horror ..or some western men who never stepped their foot on Algerian land?
Name me one such book. Not only did they have all the religious freedom they wanted, but some Muslim leaders, especially the Sufi orders, were active supporters of French rule. Not that this stopped the Algerian Salafi reformers coming along and attacking the Sufis either. The question is not a choice between Algerian Arabs and Westerners who have never set foot in Algeria - after all millions of Frenchmen were born in Algeria. It is between the historical record and truth on the one hand and propaganda and lies on the other. Find me some books on the Algerian period that make this claim.

My Mom told me that in school, in history classes, they learned bout the Mughls n stuff, n I asked her did u guys study bout Auranghzib n his liks n how they opressed the Hindus? She said never in school they learned such thing, Indian goverment Text books DOSNT have anything where it says that Aurangzhib oppressed n killd. Now for sake of objectivity, we know that no one is perfect, n maybe there were some incidents...but not in a large number. Trust me if Aurangzib commited many crimes agains Hindus, Indian History text book would never miss that.
First of all India has had a policy of reconciliation with the Muslims, but I assume you that Indian history texts do not miss that. You are holding up the opinion of your Mother based on what she can remember from primary school as proof?

Aurangzeb (from Persian, اورنگ-زیب Aurang means throne and Zaib meant beauty or ornament),(November 3, 1618 – March 3, 1707, also known as Alamgir I, was the ruler of the Mughal Empire from 1658 until 1707. He was a very controversial figure in South Asian history, and is considered a tyrant by most Hindus, Sikhs, and other non-Muslim Indians.

Unlike his predecessors, Aurangzeb was remarkably pious and zealous. Strict adherence to Islam and Sharia (Islamic law)—as he interpreted them—were the foundations of his reign. He instituted these beliefs in the empire, abandoning the religious tolerance of his predecessors. During his reign, many Hindu temples were defaced and destroyed, and many non-Muslims (mostly Hindus) converted (widely believed forcibly) to Islam; the jizya, a head tax on non-Muslims, was reinstated during his rule.

This picture of Aurangzeb, and his unflinching use of vast military might in his goals, leaves him as one of the most controversial figures in Indian history. He ruled India for a period of 48 years (comparable to that of Akbar, regarded the greatest Mughal emperor); he also expanded the Mughal Empire to its greatest extent, leaving only the south tip of the Indian subcontinent independent from Mughal rule. However, his constant policies of war left the empire dangerously overextended, isolated from its strong allies of Rajputs, and with a population that (except for the Muslim minority) expressed resent, if not outright rebellion, to his reign. Aurangzeb's successors lacked his strong hand in suppressing high levels of Mughal opposition, and the Hindu Maratha Confederacy mostly replaced Mughal rule during the rest of the 18th century. Nevertheless, Aurangzeb is generally regarded as the last "great" Mughal ruler, and his religious policies have added to Muslim-Hindu conflict in India, wielding influence even in modern times.

Also, I found out that Hindu-Muslim conflict did exist prior British invasion but it dramaticly increased under their rule.
Well that is some progress. Increased in what sense? How many Hindus were murdered by Muslims after the British arrived?

Watever good thigns the British did, given the chance, indian would have achived the same just in a little more time. But the bad things they commited r so profound that Indian muslims n Hindus r still suffuring its consequences.
There is no evidence for the first claim - India's economy had not done well before the British arrived. In fact it had stayed roughly where it was when the Muslim invaded. It did not do well after they left either until recently. What bad things did the British do - build railways?

Yes, I disagree.
On what possible grounds? By any measure the French were more tolerant in Algeria than the Muslims were in Spain and the economic and social progress under the French grossly out-weighed that of the Muslims in Spain. How do you claim what you claim?

Where is Algeria now?
Much worse off, oil apart, than when the French were there.
Reply

HeiGou
05-08-2006, 08:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Vahid
little slow today HeiGou? did the Egyptian gov sanction the bombing and then refuse to investigate it or even promoted it? because that is the topic of discussion here, those muslim missonaries were killed by the gov and the gov sanctioned it
Well a little slow yesterday. Long day. But that quote above was not mine. Nor do I believe the story as anything other than fiction. Nor did Akulion make the claim that the government was responsible. I am trying to find out the limits of what he thinks justifies invasion. And yes, the Egyptian government is clearly to blame for the climate of opinion that makes the bombing possible, and the incompetence with which it is investigated.
Reply

KAding
05-08-2006, 10:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by akulion
So an American invasion was not justified and even if you look at what the Americans are doing now is worse than what saddam Hussein did - anyone who speaks agains the US becomes an insurgent? Open your eyes and see the truth - the US is supressing the Iraqi and Afghani people and the govt we talk about is their govt (US imposed)
I disagree. There are plenty of new political parties in Iraq that are fiercely anti-American and want America to leave as soon as possible. Similarly, since the invasion the number of newspapers and TV stations has skyrocketed and they frequently 'speak against the US'. Clearly your statement that they consider any opposition as 'insurgents' is just ludicrous.

Iraqis may not like the US better than Saddam, but they most obviously now have the means to express that opposition where they previously did not.
Reply

HeiGou
05-08-2006, 10:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by akulion
What the Muslims did for spain was far better than what was being done before - under Islamic law Spain thrived to be the greatest place in all of Europe!
And Algeria thrived to be one of the leading Muslim states. Not hard really if you think about it.

While in Europe people lived in pretty bad conditions, in Islamic spain they got to see the latest technologies and beautiful buildings and roads.
Absolutely. As the Algerians did in Algeria under the French too.

Aditionally I have never heard of a death penalty in Saudia Arabia on people preaching Christianity.
So the law is working then.

it has everything to do with why Muslims invaded Spain - Church would have us believe that Muslims were a barbaric nation who came to civilized Europe, but the TRUTH is its the opposite way around!
Well I could argue over that - the Persians also believed that the Arabs were a barbaric nation that ate snakes and lizards. But then the Arabs expanded into Roman territory and came across the products of European civilisation.

Egypt and Us are allies best to my knowledge - but yes if the usa wanted it could have made it a valid excuse to invade them...after all it invaded Iraq with no reasons lol
Excellent news for the neo-Cons.
Reply

IceQueen~
05-08-2006, 10:10 AM
under islamic rule, christians and jews were allowed to practise their religions in peace in spain-check out www.muslimheritage.com -lots of really good info
Reply

HeiGou
05-08-2006, 10:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by marge1
under islamic rule, christians and jews were allowed to practise their religions in peace in spain-check out www.muslimheritage.com -lots of really good info
As, of course, were Muslims in Algeria under the French.

So French rule in Algeria was a good thing?
Reply

Noora_z3
05-08-2006, 12:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Name me one such book. Not only did they have all the religious freedom they wanted, Find me some books on the Algerian period that make this claim.
Unfortunatnly, these books which r in Arabic r no more in my parents house, dad send them to India. But I do trust my memory.

well how bout couple of links?
http://www.alarabiya.net/Articles/2006/05/02/23382.htm
This artical stats that French men burned almost (8000) eight thousand villages including men n women who lived in these villages during their stay in ALgeria.

http://www.m-moudjahidine.dz/Histoire/Dossiers/D57.htm
here u will read bout the kind of oppression the Algerians lived, n how mosques where distructed n how learning Arabic n learing Islam was forbidden.

First of all India has had a policy of reconciliation with the Muslims, but I assume you that Indian history texts do not miss that. You are holding up the opinion of your Mother based on what she can remember from primary school as proof?
Yes, Any pro with that?

[indent]Aurangzeb (from Persian, اورنگ-زیب Aurang means throne and Zaib meant beauty or ornament),(November 3, 1618 – March 3, 1707, also known as Alamgir I, was the ruler of the Mughal Empire from 1658 until 1707. He was a very controversial figure in South Asian history, and is considered a tyrant by most Hindus, Sikhs, and other non-Muslim Indians.

Oh u refferd to Wikipedia..:)...well, still that doesnt mean that British invasion didnt create the worst kind of damage within Indian community. U see for this I dont need to reffer u to books n that sort, its a common knowledge in India, not just Muslims belive so, but also Hindus.

Now since I am the indian here,,,,n u r the one who is questioning my understanding of my own history, I demand that u mention ur sources for such claim, n i am telling u, If i consider these sources as unrelaibale, then I have every right to refuse accepting these openions of urs.
Reply

Noora_z3
05-08-2006, 12:47 PM
First u asid
The British did many good things and they did some bad things
I assumed that U knew some of the bad thing the British did in India, but then u changed ur mind n decided not to share that with us, u said

What bad things did the British do - build railways?
With the imposition of direct rule, the economy of India became even more closely linked than before with that of Britain. The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 reduced the sailing time between Britain and India from about three months to only three weeks, enabling London to exercise tight control over all aspects of Indian trade. Railroads, roads, and communications were developed to bring raw materials, especially cotton, to ports for shipment to England, and manufactured goods from England for sale in an expanding Indian market. Development schemes, such as massive irrigation projects in the Punjab, were also intended to serve the purpose of enriching England. Indian entrepreneurs were not encouraged to develop their own industries.

Although some industrialization took place during this period, its benefits did not reach the majority of the Indian population.


In a layman's langauge that is called Enslavment, oppression n Stealing resources.
Reply

HeiGou
05-08-2006, 01:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Noora_z3
I assumed that U knew some of the bad thing the British did in India, but then u changed ur mind n decided not to share that with us,
I do not deny that the British did some bad things in India. But what do you know that they did that was bad?

With the imposition of direct rule, the economy of India became even more closely linked than before with that of Britain. The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 reduced the sailing time between Britain and India from about three months to only three weeks, enabling London to exercise tight control over all aspects of Indian trade.
So they encouraged the Indian economy by developping markets in Britain? This is oppression? They helped India by bringing their exports within three weeks of Europe. This is oppression?

Railroads, roads, and communications were developed to bring raw materials, especially cotton, to ports for shipment to England, and manufactured goods from England for sale in an expanding Indian market.
So they built railways, roads and ports to help Indian exports? How dare they! An expanding Indian market? You mean the Indian economy was growing?

Development schemes, such as massive irrigation projects in the Punjab, were also intended to serve the purpose of enriching England. Indian entrepreneurs were not encouraged to develop their own industries.
Development projects? The swine! Massive irrigation projects? The dogs! Not encouraged is (a) not true - ask the Tatas and (b) is not the same as forbidding. Look at the Tatas.

Although some industrialization took place during this period, its benefits did not reach the majority of the Indian population.
Although some industrialisation took place. Wow. You mean they actually built factories in India? One thing is for sure, no industrialisation means that no benefits reach any Indians.

In a layman's langauge that is called Enslavment, oppression n Stealing resources.
No it is not. It is called slow but sure minor economic improvement.
Reply

akulion
05-08-2006, 05:04 PM
Ok I think there are more than 1 or 2 debates going on here lol I dont know where Algeria and then US army and all the stuff came in from - this was about Spain in the middle ages :p

So either ways I have expressed my opinions best to my knowledge - so insha'allah I take my leave now.
Thank you all for the fruitful discussion (even if it wasnt fruitful still thanks lol)
Reply

clarinda
05-08-2006, 05:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
Why don't you go ask that at a Christian forum? I don't know, there are so many different sects of Christianity that I lose track of what they do and do not believe.
Yep, and like it or not, there are many different sects of Islam.;D
Reply

clarinda
05-08-2006, 05:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
All land is Muslim land.
No my dear, that is a delusion of yours.
Reply

Rou
05-08-2006, 05:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
So you're answer is "yes the Americans are justified in invading Saudi Arabia"? How else do you stop someone? And how about Iraq and Afghanistan which also prohibited Christians and Jews preaching Christianity and Judaism?
uhmmm...do you have a link toi where it sys this as as far as i know you are allowed to preach judisem and christianity in saudi you jut need a permit as they dont want the wrong kind of faith being taught as in evanglists who have not read the full bible etc...

it would be against islam to stop them preaching there own religon you cant force islam...

you can teach it in saudi but you need a permit...
Reply

HeiGou
05-08-2006, 06:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Rou
uhmmm...do you have a link toi where it sys this as as far as i know you are allowed to preach judisem and christianity in saudi you jut need a permit as they dont want the wrong kind of faith being taught as in evanglists who have not read the full bible etc...

it would be against islam to stop them preaching there own religon you cant force islam...

you can teach it in saudi but you need a permit...
Why do you think it would be against Islam to stop preaching considering that pretty much every Muslim I have come across, especially around here, and pretty much every Muslim country thinks otherwise?

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/14012.htm

The Government prohibits public non-Muslim religious activities. Non-Muslim worshippers risk arrest, imprisonment, lashing, deportation, and sometimes torture for engaging in overt religious activity that attracts official attention. The Government has stated publicly, including before the U.N. Committee on Human Rights in Geneva, that its policy is to protect the right of non-Muslims to worship privately; however, it does not provide explicit guidelines--such as the number of persons permitted to attend and acceptable locations--for determining what constitutes private worship, which makes distinctions between public and private worship unclear. Such lack of clarity, as well as instances of arbitrary enforcement by the authorities, force most non-Muslims to worship in such a manner as to avoid discovery by the Government or others. Those detained for non-Muslim worship almost always are deported by authorities after sometimes lengthy periods of arrest during investigation. In some cases, they also are sentenced to receive lashes prior to deportation.

The Government does not permit non-Muslim clergy to enter the country for the purpose of conducting religious services, although some come under other auspices and perform religious functions in secret. Such restrictions make it very difficult for most non-Muslims to maintain contact with clergymen and attend services. Catholics and Orthodox Christians, who require a priest on a regular basis to receive the sacraments required by their faith, particularly are affected.

Proselytizing by non-Muslims, including the distribution of non-Muslim religious materials such as Bibles, is illegal. Muslims or non-Muslims wearing religious symbols of any kind in public risk confrontation with the Mutawwa'in. Under the auspices of the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, approximately 50 so-called "Call and Guidance" centers employing approximately 500 persons work to convert foreigners to Islam. Some non-Muslim foreigners convert to Islam during their stay in the country. According to official reports, 942 foreign workers converted to Islam in the past year. The press often carries articles about such conversions, including testimonials. The press as well as government officials publicized the conversion of the Italian Ambassador to Saudi Arabia in late 2001.
Reply

Rou
05-08-2006, 06:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
I do not deny that the British did some bad things in India. But what do you know that they did that was bad?



So they encouraged the Indian economy by developping markets in Britain? This is oppression? They helped India by bringing their exports within three weeks of Europe. This is oppression?



So they built railways, roads and ports to help Indian exports? How dare they! An expanding Indian market? You mean the Indian economy was growing?



Development projects? The swine! Massive irrigation projects? The dogs! Not encouraged is (a) not true - ask the Tatas and (b) is not the same as forbidding. Look at the Tatas.



Although some industrialisation took place. Wow. You mean they actually built factories in India? One thing is for sure, no industrialisation means that no benefits reach any Indians.



No it is not. It is called slow but sure minor economic improvement.

Im sorry are you actully trying to prove that british rule was good for india?

of course it was india loved being a slave to britan look at all that we learnt from it! you trying to tell me india would not have had railway or roads if britan never came?? i dont think so mate...

the amount of taxes that were imposed on the rural people starved them out and majority of indias hertige was looted still to be recovered today!

you say britan done india a favour by taking it over? i say india paid its worth in gold gems and slavery to pay for those advancements!

leaving indian in two pieces was also a nice gift from the british!

you say there was no oppression!? no one was raped? no one killed?

what basis are you talking from? lets see you be treated as a slave for a week and see how you like it then come and say there was no oppression!

lets see your lands used and abused and then say there was no oppression!

return all britan stole from india and say they did good there...

built a railway say thanks for that...can i have the cown jewels back aswell while your at it!?

how dare you just sit there and pretend you know anything about being in a country that is ruled by others!
Reply

Rou
05-08-2006, 06:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Why do you think it would be against Islam to stop preaching considering that pretty much every Muslim I have come across, especially around here, and pretty much every Muslim country thinks otherwise?

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/14012.htm

The Government prohibits public non-Muslim religious activities. Non-Muslim worshippers risk arrest, imprisonment, lashing, deportation, and sometimes torture for engaging in overt religious activity that attracts official attention. The Government has stated publicly, including before the U.N. Committee on Human Rights in Geneva, that its policy is to protect the right of non-Muslims to worship privately; however, it does not provide explicit guidelines--such as the number of persons permitted to attend and acceptable locations--for determining what constitutes private worship, which makes distinctions between public and private worship unclear. Such lack of clarity, as well as instances of arbitrary enforcement by the authorities, force most non-Muslims to worship in such a manner as to avoid discovery by the Government or others. Those detained for non-Muslim worship almost always are deported by authorities after sometimes lengthy periods of arrest during investigation. In some cases, they also are sentenced to receive lashes prior to deportation.

The Government does not permit non-Muslim clergy to enter the country for the purpose of conducting religious services, although some come under other auspices and perform religious functions in secret. Such restrictions make it very difficult for most non-Muslims to maintain contact with clergymen and attend services. Catholics and Orthodox Christians, who require a priest on a regular basis to receive the sacraments required by their faith, particularly are affected.

Proselytizing by non-Muslims, including the distribution of non-Muslim religious materials such as Bibles, is illegal. Muslims or non-Muslims wearing religious symbols of any kind in public risk confrontation with the Mutawwa'in. Under the auspices of the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, approximately 50 so-called "Call and Guidance" centers employing approximately 500 persons work to convert foreigners to Islam. Some non-Muslim foreigners convert to Islam during their stay in the country. According to official reports, 942 foreign workers converted to Islam in the past year. The press often carries articles about such conversions, including testimonials. The press as well as government officials publicized the conversion of the Italian Ambassador to Saudi Arabia in late 2001.

Which muslim said that it is part of islam to stop others preaching!?

i dontthink so for centuries others have lived under islamic rule while preaching and following there oen religon and in saudi as i said you can preach WITH a permit...
Reply

HeiGou
05-08-2006, 06:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Rou
Im sorry are you actully trying to prove that british rule was good for india?
It looks that way. Can hardly believe it myself.

of course it was india loved being a slave to britan look at all that we learnt from it! you trying to tell me india would not have had railway or roads if britan never came?? i dont think so mate...
Look at the rest of the Muslim world. Tell me how many railways they built without foreign colonial rule. As it happens the British had an obession with railways and so built a lot. Yes, I think India would not have had as many, if any, if the British had not come.

the amount of taxes that were imposed on the rural people starved them out and majority of indias hertige was looted still to be recovered today!
Well it is silly for Muslims to be complaining about the destruction of India's heritage as the main threat to it was Muslims. But the British government was a low taxing government - lower than the Mughals. And it did a lot to preserve India's heritage. More than most. India has a lot more than Iran does for instance.

you say britan done india a favour by taking it over? i say india paid its worth in gold gems and slavery to pay for those advancements!
Really? One day there will be a proper balanced accounting for British rule in India. Today is not that day obviously.

leaving Indian in two pieces was also a nice gift from the british!
Are you complaining about the creation of Pakistan? No, tell me you are pulling my leg.

you say there was no oppression!? no one was raped? no one killed?
Nope. I do not say that.

what basis are you talking from? lets see you be treated as a slave for a week and see how you like it then come and say there was no oppression!
Before you get all worked up into your usual lather, perhaps you might like to find where I said there was no oppression?

built a railway say thanks for that...can i have the cown jewels back aswell while your at it!?
And whose Crown Jewels would they be exactly? Care to trace the recent history of the Koh-i-Noor?

how dare you just sit there and pretend you know anything about being in a country that is ruled by others!
Oh such outrage.

How about we compare British rule in India with Muslim rule in India?
Reply

HeiGou
05-08-2006, 06:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Rou
Which muslim said that it is part of islam to stop others preaching!?
Ask the Mods.

i dontthink so for centuries others have lived under islamic rule while preaching and following there oen religon and in saudi as i said you can preach WITH a permit...
Actually I do not think you will find many cases of non-Muslim preaching under Muslim rule considering it was illegal. And in Saudi it is illegal according to the State Department, not only legal if you have a permit. Illegal. As is any public display of non-Islamic religion.
Reply

ISDhillon
05-08-2006, 06:25 PM
Crown jewels belong to the sikhs, recently Prince Charles went to Anandpur Sahib and there he asked the sikh clergy for a list of all things owed to them from the raj, one of the things was the kohinoor, watch this space:)
Reply

imaad_udeen
05-08-2006, 06:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by clarinda
Yep, and like it or not, there are many different sects of Islam.;D
There is one Islam.
Reply

Rou
05-08-2006, 08:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
It looks that way. Can hardly believe it myself.



Look at the rest of the Muslim world. Tell me how many railways they built without foreign colonial rule. As it happens the British had an obession with railways and so built a lot. Yes, I think India would not have had as many, if any, if the British had not come.



Well it is silly for Muslims to be complaining about the destruction of India's heritage as the main threat to it was Muslims. But the British government was a low taxing government - lower than the Mughals. And it did a lot to preserve India's heritage. More than most. India has a lot more than Iran does for instance.



Really? One day there will be a proper balanced accounting for British rule in India. Today is not that day obviously.



Are you complaining about the creation of Pakistan? No, tell me you are pulling my leg.



Nope. I do not say that.



Before you get all worked up into your usual lather, perhaps you might like to find where I said there was no oppression?



And whose Crown Jewels would they be exactly? Care to trace the recent history of the Koh-i-Noor?



Oh such outrage.

How about we compare British rule in India with Muslim rule in India?
oh i see heo gou your hindu and india is yours is it!? you ignorant person...

when i ask for the kohinoor back and the jewels i ask for india!!!

not for the muslims or the hindus!! that divide is imbedded in your head not mine!!

when i talk of the suffering i dont see it as wether the muslims were worse that is you you judge everything with religon and race!! suffering and oppresion is suffered by all equally!! not matter there religon or race!!

britan came to india to rule not to live or to spread! you say oh muslim rule would not have brought railways!? is it!? how do you know allowed to grow economically who knows what would have been!?

and before you start crying out with you acusations let me tell you one thing hei-gou if it was the crusaders who had come across india and not the muslims today what hindus would have been left to ride in your trains!?????

none!

india is as much mine as it is your hei-gou so do not tell me i wanted the creation of pak when you do not even know me!! do not tell me with your ignorance that i like yourself hold a hatred between hindus and muslims that i like the divide and like the creation of pak...


you know nothing about me and you sure as hell dont know what was good for india and bad for india!
Reply

Rou
05-08-2006, 08:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by clarinda
Yep, and like it or not, there are many different sects of Islam.;D
as he said only one islam pls get you facts straight...people are not islam...

there are not seprate belifs as in christianity just diffrent followings there is only one islam and one unchanged quran...
Reply

bint_muhammed
05-08-2006, 09:01 PM
no what i think my bruvs are saying is that as muslims we believe the whole world was created by Allah, therfore its all holly land, and as muslims we claim it is all muslim land, however all this conquering countries etc. i believe is to do with the selfishness of man for power, wealth, and other reasons and many people, i am ashamed to say has used Islam to justify their weakness along side many other things. i think you should over-look the nasty stigma that has been attached to Islam and muslims, as even muslims are human beings and can do WRONG, however we pray to our lord to guide us on the right path!
Reply

Rou
05-08-2006, 09:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by knuckles
You do realize this make no sense right?
you do realise you dont understand right?

quran - only one

islam - only one

people who follow - many
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
05-08-2006, 09:26 PM
:sl:
No sectarian issues allowed. Warnings have been provided.

:w:
Reply

Noora_z3
05-08-2006, 10:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
How about we compare British rule in India with Muslim rule in India?
The Colonial Legacy - Myths and Popular Beliefs

Urban Development

It is undoubtedly true that the British built modern cities with modern conveniences for their administrative officers. But it should be noted that these were exclusive zones not intended for the "natives" to enjoy.

In 1854, Sir Arthur Cotton writing in "Public Works in India" noted: "Public works have been almost entirely neglected throughout India... The motto hitherto has been: 'Do nothing, have nothing done, let nobody do anything....." Adding that the Company was unconcerned if people died of famine, or if they lacked roads and water.

Irrigation and Agricultural Development

There is another popular belief about British rule: 'The British modernized Indian agriculture by building canals'. But the actual record reveals a somewhat different story. " The roads and tanks and canals," noted an observer in 1838 (G. Thompson, "India and the Colonies," 1838), ''which Hindu or Mussulman Governments constructed for the service of the nations and the good of the country have been suffered to fall into dilapidation; and now the want of the means of irrigation causes famines." Montgomery Martin, in his standard work "The Indian Empire", in 1858, noted that the old East India Company "omitted not only to initiate improvements, but even to keep in repair the old works upon which the revenue depended."

Sir William Willcock, a distinguished hydraulic engineer, wrote" Not only was nothing done to utilize and improve the original canal system, but railway embankments were subsequently thrown up, entirely destroying it. Some areas, cut off from the supply of loam-bearing Ganges water, have gradually become sterile and unproductive, others improperly drained, show an advanced degree of water-logging, with the inevitable accompaniment of malaria. Nor has any attempt been made to construct proper embankments for the Gauges in its low course, to prevent the enormous erosion by which villages and groves and cultivated fields are swallowed up each year."

Poverty and Population Growth

unprecedented number of famines were recorded during the period of British rule.

In the first half of the 19th century, there were seven famines leading to a million and a half deaths. In the second half, there were 24 famines (18 between 1876 and 1900) causing over 20 million deaths (as per official records). W. Digby, noted in "Prosperous British India" in 1901 that "stated roughly, famines and scarcities have been four times as numerous, during the last thirty years of the 19th century as they were one hundred years ago, and four times as widespread." In Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis points out that here were 31(thirty one) serious famines in 120 years of British rule compared to 17(seventeen) in the 2000 years before British rule.

Particularly galling is how the British colonial rulers continued to export foodgrains from India to Britain even during famine years.

Annual British Government reports repeatedly published data that showed 70-80% of Indians were living on the margin of subsistence. That two-thirds were undernourished, and in Bengal, nearly four-fifths were undernourished.

Contrast this data with the following accounts of Indian life prior to colonization:-

" ....even in the smallest villages rice, flour, butter, milk, beans and other vegetables, sugar and sweetmeats can be procured in abundance .... Tavernier writing in the 17th century in his "Travels in India".


The French traveller, Bernier also described 17th century Bengal in a similiar vein: "The knowledge I have acquired of Bengal in two visits inclines me to believe that it is richer than Egypt. It exports in abundance cottons and silks, rice, sugar and butter. It produces amply for it's own consumption of wheat, vegetables, grains, fowls, ducks and geese. ."

Ancient Monuments

Perhaps the least known aspect of the colonial legacy is the early British attitude towards India's historic monuments and the extend of vandalism that took place. Instead, there is this pervasive myth of the Britisher as an unbiased "protector of the nation's historic legacy".

R.Nath in his 'History of Decorative Art in Mughal Architecture' records that scores of gardens, tombs and palaces that once adorned the suburbs of Sikandra at Agra were sold out or auctioned. "Relics of the glorious age of the Mughals were either destroyed or converted beyond recognition..". "Out of 270 beautiful monuments which existed at Agra alone, before its capture by Lake in 1803, hardly 40 have survived".


Lord William Bentinck, (governor general of Bengal 1828-33, and later first governor general of all India), went so far as to announce plans to demolish the best Mogul monuments in Agra and Delhi and remove their marble facades. These were to be shipped to London, where they would be broken up and sold to members of the British aristocracy.

India and the Industrial Revolution

Perhaps the most important aspect of colonial rule was the transfer of wealth from India to Britain.

Moreover, several of these patents, particularly those concerned with the textile industry relied on pre-industrial techniques perfected in the sub-continent. (In fact, many of the earliest textile machines in Britain were unable to match the complexity and finesse of the spinning and weaving machines of Dacca.)



You can read more...follow this link
http://india_resource.tripod.com/colonial.html
Reply

HeiGou
05-09-2006, 09:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Noora_z3
The Colonial Legacy - Myths and Popular Beliefs

Urban Development

It is undoubtedly true that the British built modern cities with modern conveniences for their administrative officers. But it should be noted that these were exclusive zones not intended for the "natives" to enjoy.
As opposed to what? Mughal cities which were not modern either? Notice that whatever the British intended, their modern cities were enjoyed by the natives to varying degrees. You only have to look at Calcutta and Bombay to see that.

In 1854, Sir Arthur Cotton writing in "Public Works in India" noted: "Public works have been almost entirely neglected throughout India... The motto hitherto has been: 'Do nothing, have nothing done, let nobody do anything....." Adding that the Company was unconcerned if people died of famine, or if they lacked roads and water.
Care to fill me in on the massive public works program launched by the Mughals? To whom are you comparing the British? Sher Shah once set out with his army and within three days of the capital discovered that there was a full scale famine - none of his officials told him, no one in the capital even cared. Nor did he to be honest. So to what are you comparing the British? Can we agree that the British did massive amounts of public works in the end even if in 1854 they were a little slow - they built massive canal prjects, roads, railways, hospitals, schools and so on?

Irrigation and Agricultural Development

There is another popular belief about British rule: 'The British modernized Indian agriculture by building canals'. But the actual record reveals a somewhat different story. " The roads and tanks and canals," noted an observer in 1838 (G. Thompson, "India and the Colonies," 1838),


1838 - picking a date very early on I notice.

''which Hindu or Mussulman Governments constructed for the service of the nations and the good of the country have been suffered to fall into dilapidation; and now the want of the means of irrigation causes famines."
Montgomery Martin, in his standard work "The Indian Empire", in 1858, noted that the old East India Company "omitted not only to initiate improvements, but even to keep in repair the old works upon which the revenue depended."
The Company. In 1858 - the year of the change over to the British government. Are you denying existence of the irrigation works the British built in Punjab for instance?

Sir William Willcock, a distinguished hydraulic engineer, wrote" Not only was nothing done to utilize and improve the original canal system, but railway embankments were subsequently thrown up, entirely destroying it. Some areas, cut off from the supply of loam-bearing Ganges water, have gradually become sterile and unproductive, others improperly drained, show an advanced degree of water-logging, with the inevitable accompaniment of malaria. Nor has any attempt been made to construct proper embankments for the Gauges in its low course, to prevent the enormous erosion by which villages and groves and cultivated fields are swallowed up each year."
Again, need a date. Isn't it interesting that the British were critical of their own record - can you find a Muslim Indian who was in any way critical of the Mughal government?

Poverty and Population Growth

unprecedented number of famines were recorded during the period of British rule.
Were recorded. The British kept good records. This means nothing unless it is a claim that more famines took place.

In the first half of the 19th century, there were seven famines leading to a million and a half deaths. In the second half, there were 24 famines (18 between 1876 and 1900) causing over 20 million deaths (as per official records).
There are so many things wrong with these claims - and I assume you, or the website, gets them out of a single book on Victorian genocides - I hardly know where to start. Can we agree that record keeping improved over this period? Can we agree that population grew over all? Can we agree that the limits of British government expanded? Do you think that perhaps you are not comparing like with like?

Particularly galling is how the British colonial rulers continued to export foodgrains from India to Britain even during famine years.
Why is that galling?

Annual British Government reports repeatedly published data that showed 70-80% of Indians were living on the margin of subsistence. That two-thirds were undernourished, and in Bengal, nearly four-fifths were undernourished.
And during the Mughal period?

Contrast this data with the following accounts of Indian life prior to colonization:-

" ....even in the smallest villages rice, flour, butter, milk, beans and other vegetables, sugar and sweetmeats can be procured in abundance .... Tavernier writing in the 17th century in his "Travels in India".
Notice that is not a contradiction with the above - India is a rich country full of poor people. Even in periods of famine there has been plenty to buy. That can be seen by the fact that grain was exported. The problem was that the poor peasants had no money to buy it. I see no evidence of a change here.

The French traveller, Bernier also described 17th century Bengal in a similiar vein: "The knowledge I have acquired of Bengal in two visits inclines me to believe that it is richer than Egypt. It exports in abundance cottons and silks, rice, sugar and butter. It produces amply for it's own consumption of wheat, vegetables, grains, fowls, ducks and geese. ."
Which is fair enough but irrelevant.

Ancient Monuments

Perhaps the least known aspect of the colonial legacy is the early British attitude towards India's historic monuments and the extend of vandalism that took place. Instead, there is this pervasive myth of the Britisher as an unbiased "protector of the nation's historic legacy".

R.Nath in his 'History of Decorative Art in Mughal Architecture' records that scores of gardens, tombs and palaces that once adorned the suburbs of Sikandra at Agra were sold out or auctioned. "Relics of the glorious age of the Mughals were either destroyed or converted beyond recognition..". "Out of 270 beautiful monuments which existed at Agra alone, before its capture by Lake in 1803, hardly 40 have survived".
And so? Care to name one Hindu monument that the Mughal government spent a cent on preserving prior to the British? No one is saying they managed to preserve every single monument. Just many of them. More than their predecessors did.

Lord William Bentinck, (governor general of Bengal 1828-33, and later first governor general of all India), went so far as to announce plans to demolish the best Mogul monuments in Agra and Delhi and remove their marble facades. These were to be shipped to London, where they would be broken up and sold to members of the British aristocracy.
Announced. But did he do it? Why not?

India and the Industrial Revolution

Perhaps the most important aspect of colonial rule was the transfer of wealth from India to Britain.

Moreover, several of these patents, particularly those concerned with the textile industry relied on pre-industrial techniques perfected in the sub-continent. (In fact, many of the earliest textile machines in Britain were unable to match the complexity and finesse of the spinning and weaving machines of Dacca.)
Which is interesting but what is your complaint?
Reply

bint_muhammed
05-09-2006, 07:10 PM
can i just make a statement that i know everyone believes in God! people who claim they dont are either embarresed to as they believe that science will prove it however that has many faults. when people ask you questions about islam sometimes there is no ansa, but we know there is a God, and by following the quran etc. we will reach paradise. its just like when your in a plane traveling, you kno that its going to take you to your destination, however you dont know all its ins and outs. deep deep down you know that there is a creater however i feel you r confused as there are sooo many religions etc. i actually and honestly advice you to study Islam and i am no scholar but i kno you will find most of your ansas. :happy:
Reply

bint_muhammed
05-09-2006, 07:24 PM
[QUOTE=HeiGou;297117]Actually that number is likely to be an exaggeration, although more, as a percentage, were killed during the initial French invasion. But that is beside the point. I did not say they did not kill people who rose in rebellion. I said they were far more tolerant of Islam than the Arabs were of Christianity. And they were - the French did not execute anyone for stating their religious beliefs.

how hipocritical is that! the french in this modern day and age, were ther is so called democracy, the french still are dicriminating against muslim, not allowing them to practice their religion, by wearing the hijab. the west such as AMERICA and BRITAIN hav invaded many countries, brutally killing and opressing people however many of the history tought in schools seem to avoid that, and make up a lot of nonsense! America and Britain however are still invading, BUT its for the war on TERROR not for the OIL! GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:heated: :heated: :heated: :heated: :heated: :heated:
Reply

Noora_z3
05-09-2006, 10:19 PM
There are so many things wrong with these claims - and I assume you, or the website, gets them out of a single book on Victorian genocides - I hardly know where to start
U dont need to start, coz u r not convincing any one. U know something I discoverd bout u, U like to label the sources or the writers u dont seem to like or agree with, by doing so u try to take away their credibility.

Anyways, I just dont know how could u deny the suffuring of a whole nation, Hindus n Muslims alike. Just bcoz u read few lengthy artical bout the British Invasion of India doesnt give u any right to do so.

Care to fill me in on the massive public works program launched by the Mughals? To whom are you comparing the British?
U keep saying again n again that Mughuls did this n that just coz they r Muslims. Well today I taledk to a very knowledgable person who read a lot bout The History of India from its ORIGINAL SOURCES. I asked him bout the Mughuls. I said is it true they were very oppressive rulers, n that they detroyed templs n all that? He said, thats a LIE. N he said, tell any one who says so to read books written by Hindu Historians to get the truth.

He added that the Mughuls kept record of almost every singel thing they did, or any thing that happend in India during their period, everything is recorded down in huge books in Persion langauage. These books were recently transelated into Urdo langaue. Real historians referrs to these books constantly to get information regarding the Mughuls n their ruling style. (the person who told me this read these books).

In short if u want to get to know how the Mughuls run India n how was the country doing at that time, try to learn Persion lanaguge for that.

That person didnt deny that there were indivudla incidents of injustice in the country, but that doesnt in any way describe the way the Mughuls ruled India. Hindu Historians themselves, write that they were much better during Mughul ruling than during the Brithis invasion.


So to what are you comparing the British? Can we agree that the British did massive amounts of public works in the end even if in 1854 they were a little slow - they built massive canal prjects, roads, railways, hospitals, schools and so on?
Like i said before, watever the British did in India, the indian could have done that by themselves without the British.

This means nothing unless it is a claim that more famines took place.
Mike Davis points out that here were 31(thirty one) serious famines in 120 years of British rule compared to 17(seventeen) in the 2000 years before British rule


Care to name one Hindu monument that the Mughal government spent a cent on preserving prior to the British? No one is saying they managed to preserve every single monument. Just many of them. More than their predecessors did.
Where did u come up with this? No seriosuly?!!!
First u need to understand that there is a huuuge diffrence between DESTROYING and PRESERVING. During British stay in india, at minimum, out of 270 monument only 40 SURVIVED in Agra alone!!!! So can u imagin the scale of damage through out India?!!!!

The Mughlas didnt destroy Hindu Monuments (of course other than individual incidents of injustice), unless it was built on desputed land. They also built Temples n renovated some wen needed. If they didnt preserve them how do u think they would still be there today?!

I visited a very old temple in India, which was built way before the Maghul time, n inside of it, there were small statues protraying positions of the Kama Sutra....now if wat u say bout how Maghuls were tyrants n oppressive, they would definitly wouldnt have spared this temple, n there r lots more like it.

There is alos just near my mom's home town a big naked male statue, the size of 6 story building house, we havent seen it closely coz every detail is sculpted so delicatly. Again how come the so intolerant Maghuls didnt destory it?!!!! there r maaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyy such temples. Look back into the original souces n u will see how they were preserved.

At the end, be careful wen u buy some books, check out the authors, there r many bised prejudice writers out there. If u want to know the truth, grab some books written by famouse Hindu Historians who refer to original sources.

Peace.
Reply

HeiGou
05-10-2006, 06:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ya_Giney
how hipocritical is that! the french in this modern day and age, were ther is so called democracy, the french still are dicriminating against muslim, not allowing them to practice their religion, by wearing the hijab. the west such as AMERICA and BRITAIN hav invaded many countries, brutally killing and opressing people however many of the history tought in schools seem to avoid that, and make up a lot of nonsense! America and Britain however are still invading, BUT its for the war on TERROR not for the OIL! GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:heated: :heated: :heated: :heated: :heated: :heated:
Not very. Perhaps it would be better if you read that thread before you go off on your own so that your post will actually refer to something I have said? The French did not ban the hijab in 1950.
Reply

Rou
05-10-2006, 06:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Not very. Perhaps it would be better if you read that thread before you go off on your own so that your post will actually refer to something I have said? The French did not ban the hijab in 1950.
she never said they banned it back then she said they dicriminate back then and now...

why do you ignore the whole post and try to disprove one line?

hei gou your hatred is embedded with the divide that you belive exists between brothers that is your choice why not keep your hate to yourself!?

you have no real valid reasons for speaking on these subjects apart from the fact that they relate to muslims...

spreading hate is that your goal in life!? it will get you no where you strive to disprove things for the wrong reasons you even accept with open arms the british rule and ignore the suffering all of us went through just to prove the muslims wrong?

its a joke how far gone in hate can one be...

we all fought to free india and it belongs to us all... you have a prob with it well let it stir and breed hate in yourself stop trying to spread it...
Reply

HeiGou
05-10-2006, 06:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Rou
she never said they banned it back then she said they dicriminate back then and now...
Of course she didn't. As I said, her post has nothing to do with mine. She ought to read the thread before replying.

why do you ignore the whole post and try to disprove one line?
See above.

spreading hate is that your goal in life!? it will get you no where you strive to disprove things for the wrong reasons you even accept with open arms the british rule and ignore the suffering all of us went through just to prove the muslims wrong?
I am neither spreading hate nor attempting you prove you wrong. What I want is for you to think. I live in hope.
Reply

Rou
05-10-2006, 06:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Of course she didn't. As I said, her post has nothing to do with mine. She ought to read the thread before replying.



See above.



I am neither spreading hate nor attempting you prove you wrong. What I want is for you to think. I live in hope.
of course she didnt what? she did say that the french discriminate there and now that is what she stated..

anyhow you say you dont spread hate? by trying to disprove ones faith you help no one... you say you live in hope!?

for what? what is your hope that will happen?

a man is not weakend by faith he is strengthend...

a man is not more evil by true faith he is good...

a man does not lose his way by finding faith...he loses his way without it...

to make someone lose faith will not make them a good person 85% chance it will make them lose there way...

every human is my brother and sister do you hear me forcing islam on you!? do you hear me saying what you follow causes this or that? when a man rapes a woman in USA do i say all christianity is mad!?

when bush kills my people do you hear me cry christians are evil!?

faith is not the issue... its evil that is the issue...

its here and wether a man of faith or not stop it seek justice...

those who silence themselves and raise there voices only to protect the sins of the powerful are not only weak but stain there hands in the blood of innocent...

you want me to think!?

brother i think every living moment of my life...i think of the suffering of innocents that is caused for greed...and what could be achived if we all just opened our eyes...

do not waste time in proving disbelif in religon...use that time to prove there is evil and it must be stopped...no not one religon not one faith but those who do injustice...

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Reply

HeiGou
05-10-2006, 07:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Noora_z3
U dont need to start, coz u r not convincing any one. U know something I discoverd bout u, U like to label the sources or the writers u dont seem to like or agree with, by doing so u try to take away their credibility.
Well you do not need to listen to me. There is a vast historical dispute over that Victorian Holocaust book. I do not much like historical works by hard core Communists. And it is a poor book.

Anyways, I just dont know how could u deny the suffuring of a whole nation, Hindus n Muslims alike. Just bcoz u read few lengthy artical bout the British Invasion of India doesnt give u any right to do so.
I am not denying it. I am putting it in context. You all praise Muslim Spain, but what did it have that British India did not?

U keep saying again n again that Mughuls did this n that just coz they r Muslims. Well today I taledk to a very knowledgable person who read a lot bout The History of India from its ORIGINAL SOURCES. I asked him bout the Mughuls. I said is it true they were very oppressive rulers, n that they detroyed templs n all that? He said, thats a LIE. N he said, tell any one who says so to read books written by Hindu Historians to get the truth.
I don't think I do say it is because they were Muslims. Actually. Which very knowledgeable person? Aurangzeb built the aptly named "Great Mosque of Aurangzeb" on the site of the former Hindu Vishvanatha temple in Varanasi. And he destroyed the Keshava Deo temple at Marthura to build another mosque. Tegh Bahadur, the Ninth Sikh Guru, was tried and executed for apostasy under Aurangzeb as well. So tell me this is all a myth? He also, by the way, imposed the jizyah on Hindus as well. Which they did not much care for.

He added that the Mughuls kept record of almost every singel thing they did,
Well that is not true.

Real historians referrs to these books constantly to get information regarding the Mughuls n their ruling style. (the person who told me this read these books).
Obviously.

Hindu Historians themselves, write that they were much better during Mughul ruling than during the Brithis invasion.
Who, for instance?

Like i said before, watever the British did in India, the indian could have done that by themselves without the British.
And whatever the Muslims did for the Spanish, the Spanish could have done for themselves. Although the Indians did not, as it happens, do it for themselves. The British had to.

Where did u come up with this? No seriosuly?!!!
First u need to understand that there is a huuuge diffrence between DESTROYING and PRESERVING. During British stay in india, at minimum, out of 270 monument only 40 SURVIVED in Agra alone!!!! So can u imagin the scale of damage through out India?!!!!
Not monuments. Read it again. What damage? There is no sign that anything was knocked down, just that the British did not stop Indians building over them. The British preserved Indian monuments. They spent a lot of time and effort doing it in fact. Spending money. The Mughals did not. They only destroyed temples.

The Mughlas didnt destroy Hindu Monuments (of course other than individual incidents of injustice), unless it was built on desputed land.
Actually it was state policy under Aurangzeb and he issued orders for them all to be destroyed but of course it was not carried out. Individual incidents of injustice? We are making progress.

They also built Temples n renovated some wen needed. If they didnt preserve them how do u think they would still be there today?!
The Hindus kept them maintained. By themselves. Which temples did any Mughal apart from Akhbar fund and renovate?

I visited a very old temple in India, which was built way before the Maghul time, n inside of it, there were small statues protraying positions of the Kama Sutra....now if wat u say bout how Maghuls were tyrants n oppressive, they would definitly wouldnt have spared this temple, n there r lots more like it.
I did not say they were thorough of competent. But of course if the British were tyrants, by your logic, it wouldn't have survived them either, right?

There is alos just near my mom's home town a big naked male statue, the size of 6 story building house, we havent seen it closely coz every detail is sculpted so delicatly. Again how come the so intolerant Maghuls didnt destory it?!!!!
Same as the Bamiyan statues - statues that big need explosives.
Reply

HeiGou
05-10-2006, 07:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Rou
of course she didnt what? she did say that the french discriminate there and now that is what she stated..
And I did not make a comment about what the French do now, but what they did then. So her comments, as I said, were utterly irrelevant to mine.

anyhow you say you dont spread hate? by trying to disprove ones faith you help no one... you say you live in hope!?
I am not even beginning to try to disprove your religion and where do you think I have tried to spread hate?

a man is not weakend by faith he is strengthend...
Nice to hear. So you don't mind my posts which strengthen your Faith?

I am sorry but I fail to see anything else in your post relevant to mine.
Reply

bint_muhammed
05-11-2006, 05:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by clarinda
No my dear, that is a delusion of yours.
no my love, thats a fact, if ya like it or not! ;D ;D
Reply

Hajar
05-11-2006, 05:17 PM
Maybe this a interesting documentairy to watch..covering this subject...

Muslim History in Europe

http://turntoislam.com/content/view/107/60/
Reply

Rou
05-11-2006, 05:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
And I did not make a comment about what the French do now, but what they did then. So her comments, as I said, were utterly irrelevant to mine.



I am not even beginning to try to disprove your religion and where do you think I have tried to spread hate?



Nice to hear. So you don't mind my posts which strengthen your Faith?

I am sorry but I fail to see anything else in your post relevant to mine.

hei gou it seems you are not willing to listen to anything that is slightly a diffrent prespective to your own view..

allim saying to you is why bother wasting time trying to look at things in the view that if a muslim did it it must have a fault why not find the faults based on right and wrong instead of indian or pak or white or black?!

you will deny that you view things in this way however look at your posts and threads you obviously hold something against mulsims and islam and that is blind hate...

you say your posts strengthen my faith indeed they do they show how lost one can be and i pray i am never that lost..

i question not your faith or your belifs just your aim..

what is your aim?

take away there faith!?

disprove there faith!?

to prove there faith is a bad faith1?

no faith is bad its the evil of men that is bad...

and that is what you should use your energies against instead you waste it on looking in every knook and craney for an excuse to get at a muslim...

and anyone who questions you on this you either ignore or tell them they are being irrelevent???

all because you cannot answer the fact that you are spreading hate in those who hold no hate..

every muslim is not your enemy..islam is not your enemy...

do you relly crave enemies that much that you will take every muslim as an enemy!?

let me guess... "where have is said muslims are my enemy blah blah"

yeah ok mate heard that all before its called read your posts and threads...

i hate no race or religon ... this is about justice stop innocents from being hurt..

wether in kashmir, sudan,afgan or iraq its all the same innocents suffer while the powerful horde...

"all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to stand by and do nothing"
Reply

bint_muhammed
05-11-2006, 08:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Rou
of course she didnt what? she did say that the french discriminate there and now that is what she stated..

anyhow you say you dont spread hate? by trying to disprove ones faith you help no one... you say you live in hope!?

for what? what is your hope that will happen?

a man is not weakend by faith he is strengthend...

a man is not more evil by true faith he is good...

a man does not lose his way by finding faith...he loses his way without it...

to make someone lose faith will not make them a good person 85% chance it will make them lose there way...

every human is my brother and sister do you hear me forcing islam on you!? do you hear me saying what you follow causes this or that? when a man rapes a woman in USA do i say all christianity is mad!?

when bush kills my people do you hear me cry christians are evil!?

faith is not the issue... its evil that is the issue...

its here and wether a man of faith or not stop it seek justice...

those who silence themselves and raise there voices only to protect the sins of the powerful are not only weak but stain there hands in the blood of innocent...

you want me to think!?

brother i think every living moment of my life...i think of the suffering of innocents that is caused for greed...and what could be achived if we all just opened our eyes...

do not waste time in proving disbelif in religon...use that time to prove there is evil and it must be stopped...no not one religon not one faith but those who do injustice...

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
u tell him bro!!!:statisfie :statisfie
Reply

imaad_udeen
05-15-2006, 03:28 PM
For the record, Islam did not invade Spain or Iberia, an empire made up of Muslims invaded Spain.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 67
    Last Post: 02-09-2013, 11:53 PM
  2. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 10-19-2009, 01:55 PM
  3. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-25-2008, 03:15 AM
  4. Replies: 119
    Last Post: 03-13-2006, 01:26 PM
  5. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-14-2006, 06:53 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!