Why did Islam invade Spain?

[clarinda]

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

 

[clarinda]

All land is Muslim land.

No my dear, that is a delusion of yours.

 

[Rou]

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...

 

[HeiGou]

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.​

 

[Rou]

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!

 

[Rou]

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...

 

[HeiGou]

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?

 

[HeiGou]

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.

 

[ISDhillon]

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

 

[imaad_udeen]

Yep, and like it or not, there are many different sects of Islam.;D

There is one Islam.

 

[Rou]

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!

 

[Rou]

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...

 

[bint_muhammed]

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!

 

[Rou]

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

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

No sectarian issues allowed. Warnings have been provided.

 

[Noora_z3]

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

 

[HeiGou]

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?

 

[bint_muhammed]

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:

 

[bint_muhammed]

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:

 

[Noora_z3]

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.