Hello Friends,
I have written an essay to answer the question in
the subject line. You might find it interesting.

Rajputs and Invasions (http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajputs_and_Invasions_of_India)

Regards,
-Digvijay

Hello Friends,
I have written an essay to answer the question in
the subject line. You might find it interesting.

Rajputs and Invasions (http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajputs_and_Invasions_of_India)

Regards,
-Digvijaycan you summarize it it's a bit long:p

can you summarize it it's a bit long:p

Hi There,
Bottom Line is, in India, unlike other countries Islam conquered, there were bloody wars pretty much every month of the thousand or so year trying by the Muslim armies.

In other countries like Persia Islamic armies conquered the country and converted everyone to Islam at the edge of the sword (few of them ran to India and saved there religion of zoroastrianism and are succesful businessmen in India like J.R.D Tata etc). Please read this:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Protection_of_Hinduism

In India such large scale conversion could not take place because Hindu kings fought tooth and nail and it is a fact that India is largely Hindu because of the effort of these kings.

You can read about these kings here:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Partial_list_of_Rajputs_who_fought_the_invaders

-Digvijay

ah thank you i'll read it later:)

Yes, but the Mughals conquered the heartland of India but weren't able to convert everybody.

Or maybe after invading India, the Mughals decided it was better off not necessary to convert the locals.
Maybe their thinking was, "If the locals were allowed to keep their religion, then maybe they would be willing to accept being ruled by foreigners"?
A win-win situation for everyone?

Hi There,
Bottom Line is, in India, unlike other countries Islam conquered, there were bloody wars pretty much every month of the thousand or so year trying by the Muslim armies.

In other countries like Persia Islamic armies conquered the country and converted everyone to Islam at the edge of the sword (few of them ran to India and saved there religion of zoroastrianism and are succesful businessmen in India like J.R.D Tata etc).

Not entirely true. Muslims invaded and conquered huge portions of Europe but Christianity still flourished there.

Yes, but the Mughals conquered the heartland of India but weren't able to convert everybody.

Yes and the reason was that Hindus put a very spirited resistance to avoid conversion. Please read this part for a more thorough analysis:

http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Organization_of_Indian_kingdoms_during_invasions

-Digvijay

Or maybe after invading India, the Mughals decided it was better off not necessary to convert the locals.
Maybe their thinking was, "If the locals were allowed to keep their religion, then maybe they would be willing to accept being ruled by foreigners"?
A win-win situation for everyone?

By that argument Persia i.e modern Iran should still be a mojority Zoroastrian country but they are not. Please read this (later part of the paragraphs talks about zoroastrians)
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Protection_of_Hinduism

-Digvijay

Not entirely true. Muslims invaded and conquered huge portions of Europe but Christianity still flourished there.

In Koran two religions are mentioned and are acorded favorable status: Christianity and Judaism. Rest of the religions are considered fair game to be destroyed. Please read what happened in Persia to Zoroastrians in the link mentioned in the post above.
-Digvijay

To be fair, one reason the Zoroastrians were more likely to convert is that their religion is more compatible with Islam than Hinduism. It was a clearly monotheistic religion with concepts of heaven and hell that somewhat similar to Islam. It isn't hard to see the majority of people seemlessly switching.

Hinduism is a much bigger jump.

Yes and the reason was that Hindus put a very spirited resistance to avoid conversion. Please read this part for a more thorough analysis:

http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Organization_of_Indian_kingdoms_during_invasions

-Digvijay

this would make more sense if Pakistan and Bangladesh didn't exist. India is not unique in any way, they are geographically further away so that conversion is harder and cultures are less compatible; just like only the Bosniaks were converted in Europe.

To be fair, one reason the Zoroastrians were more likely to convert is that their religion is more compatible with Islam than Hinduism. It was a clearly monotheistic religion with concepts of heaven and hell that somewhat similar to Islam. It isn't hard to see the majority of people seemlessly switching.

Hinduism is a much bigger jump.
Sobieski,
This is just a wrong assumption. Nobody jumps to the religion of the conquering hook line and sinker unless there is coercion and there was plenty of coercion in anccient Persia.
From:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Protection_of_Hinduism

This section is from Page 3 of: The Parsees, Their History, Manners, Customs & Religion. Dosabhoy Framjee. Pub: London: Smith, Elder and Co., 65, Cornhill: 1858.

Suffice it to say, that with Yezdezird, the forty-fifth king in the descent of the race of Kaimurs, ended the ancient Persian monarchy. The neighbouring and wealthy empire of Persia presented too tempting a prize to the fanatic and ambitious spirit, evoked by Mahomed, to remain long unmolested, and in the middle of the seventh century of the Christian era, the Arab sword invaded Persia, under Caliph Omar. In a fierce and well-contested battle with the Persians at the village of Nahavand, about fifty miles from the ancient city of Ecbatana, the fate of the empire was decided.....Yezdezird, abandoning his kingdom as lost, fled the country; and after wandering in solitude and disguise for a period of ten years, was at last treacherously slain by a miller to whom the secret of his identity had been confided (651 AD). ....

Thus on the conquest of Persia, the Mahomedan soldiers of the Caliphat of Baghdad traversed the length and breadth of the country, presenting the alternative of death or the Koran, and compelling the conquered nation to accept the one or the other. By these oppressive and cruel means, a hundred thousand persons are said to have daily abjured the faith of there forefathers; and the fire-temples and other sacred places were destroyed or converted into mosques.

To escape the sword of Islam some Zoroastrians landed on the coast of Gujarat in 716 A.D. Rajput king of Gujarat gave them land to settle and put no religious restriction on the Zoroastrians. The magnanimity of the Hindu King allowed the Zoroastrian religion to flourish. In modern era some of the top industrialists of India e.g. J.R.D. Tata, Ardeshir Godrej, symphony conductor Zubin Mehta, etc. belong to the the Parsi (Zoroastrian) community.


-Digvijay

this would make more sense if Pakistan and Bangladesh didn't exist. India is not unique in any way, they are geographically further away so that conversion is harder and cultures are less compatible; just like only the Bosniaks were converted in Europe.

Kraznaya,

India is unique because unlike any other part of the world, Islam after trying hard for 1000 years could convert only a small part of the population to Islam.

-Digvijay

Hello Friends,
I have written an essay to answer the question in
the subject line. You might find it interesting.

Rajputs and Invasions (http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajputs_and_Invasions_of_India)

Regards,
-Digvijay

More update to the section:

Definition (http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Definition)

Ancient texts and inscriptions relating to rajputs updated.

-Digvijay

Islam also never really penetrated China, despite having arrived on its doorstep in Xinjiang and also along the sea routes.

But then again, except for Buddhism (which was heavily localized anyways), no foreign religion ever penetrated Chinese social norms.

Someone once said it well - the Chinese are the most superstitious lot on earth and also the least religious. :ack:

Too bad Ram isn't on that much anymore, I'm sure he'd have a lot to add to this discussion.

They have a right to be I would imagine, however unpopular.

In other countries like Persia Islamic armies conquered the country and converted everyone to Islam at the edge of the sword

Yawn. There is still no evidence of mass forced conversion. I have read several anti-Muslim sources on this, none of them have been convincing. I believe forced conversion in the scale that it supposedly happened in Persia, would be impossible.

Islam was not spread by the sword, it spread due to several reasons, and forced conversion was not one of them.

Yawn. There is still no evidence of mass forced conversion. I have read several anti-Muslim sources on this, none of them have been convincing. I believe forced conversion in the scale that it supposedly happened in Persia, would be impossible.

Islam was not spread by the sword, it spread due to several reasons, and forced conversion was not one of them.

And why would you not believe Parsi historians themselves who have maintained an oral tradition of what happened to there fire temples which forced them to leave Persia and go on a perilous journey to land on the coast of India in 716 A.D?

Read Here(Towards the last half of the paragraph):

http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Protection_of_Hinduism

-Digvijay

Sobieski,
This is just a wrong assumption. Nobody jumps to the religion of the conquering hook line and sinker unless there is coercion and there was plenty of coercion in anccient Persia.
....

Without even debating the persian case, your assumption is false, a lot of religions spread peacefully like Buddism in China and Islam in Indonesia.

Without even debating the persian case, your assumption is false, a lot of religions spread peacefully like Buddism in China and Islam in Indonesia.

Hello Hannibal,
Have you had a chance to read Dosabhoy Framjee's quote in the link I pointed above? He was a Parsee (i.e belonged to the ethnic group of Persians who still follow Zoroastrianism).

Would you like to raise some objections?

BTW same is true for Egypt/Arabia/Middle East etc. Even parts of India where the Muslim kings' orders were followed they did there best to convert people :

Please read this:
Organization (http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Organization_of_Indian_kingdoms_during_invasions)


-Digvijay

And why would you not believe Parsi historians themselves who have maintained an oral tradition of what happened to there fire temples which forced them to leave Persia and go on a perilous journey to land on the coast of India in 716 A.D?

Oral tradition from 700something?

:lol:

Please, let me laugh if you think an "oral tradition" of that old is relaible. Oral information can change radically within mere decades.

Oral tradition from 700something?

:lol:

Please, let me laugh if you think an "oral tradition" of that old is relaible. Oral information can change radically within mere decades.

Not really. I will give you another parallel. In Scotland Clan Macdonald is one of the largest clan and they all beleive that they are descendants of Somerled who lived at the turn of last millenium.

People just like you thought there oral history is garbage.

Modern genetics has proven that Most macdonald males are descendants of one man and the same gene is found in McAlliasters, etc.

So discouting oral histories is a bad idea.

But do you have any evidence to the contrary?

No matter which books you read about zoroastrianism and Islam you will find it was at the edge of the sword that carried Islam in Persia.

-Digvijay

Sobieski,
This is just a wrong assumption. Nobody jumps to the religion of the conquering hook line and sinker unless there is coercion and there was plenty of coercion in anccient Persia.
From:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Protection_of_Hinduism

This section is from Page 3 of: The Parsees, Their History, Manners, Customs & Religion. Dosabhoy Framjee. Pub: London: Smith, Elder and Co., 65, Cornhill: 1858.

To escape the sword of Islam some Zoroastrians landed on the coast of Gujarat in 716 A.D. Rajput king of Gujarat gave them land to settle and put no religious restriction on the Zoroastrians. The magnanimity of the Hindu King allowed the Zoroastrian religion to flourish. In modern era some of the top industrialists of India e.g. J.R.D. Tata, Ardeshir Godrej, symphony conductor Zubin Mehta, etc. belong to the the Parsi (Zoroastrian) community.


-Digvijay

All I was saying was that it is easier to force people to convert to a religion that is similar to their own than to force them to a religion that is different.

Take the case of the indigenous population of Latin America. The church helped smooth over the transition to Christianity by emphasizing saints and idols in a way that made them appear similar to gods/deities that the natives already worshipped. For instance, placing a shrine to the virgin mary on a site that was already used for worshipping a local God. This is why saints are often worshipped like deities in parts of Latin America.

In some ways, the church adapted to mirror the local religions, so as to make forced conversion a smoother process. The Latin American conversion was mostly a forced conversion. It is just easier to forcefully alter peoples' religious beliefs if the religious practices are similar.

People just like you thought there oral history is garbage.

Oral history is unrelaible. Especially in this case where the oral history is made by induviduals who are probably political exiles.

So discouting oral histories is a bad idea.

No. But relaying on them, over reason, is a bad idea. Oral histories have all the flaws that a historical recording can have, it is often idealistic, overblown, exaggerated, and in changes greatly.


But do you have any evidence to the contrary?

It was not usual for Islamic Empires to forcibly convert populations - simply becuase it was not reasonable, it would cause strife and especially over such wide spread conquests. Also, there are no evidence of such, not in Spain, not in Algeria, not in the ME. There are some cases of religious strife, where Muslims and other native religions have collided - for example in the religiously diverse Alexandria, but I have yet to hear convincing prove of systematic forcible conversion - which is an idea I find utterly absurd in such a scale. Muslim rulers were more pragmatic than that.

I have not heard credible evidence of mass forcible conversion, but I have about Muslim rulers discouraging conversion to Islamic faith. I have heard about many Christians and Jews living inside the Islamic empires. Conversion to Islam was probably caused by many factors, but I still laugh at the idea of forced conversion in such a scale, in such a short time period.

Oral history is unrelaible. Especially in this case where the oral history is made by induviduals who are probably political exiles.



No. But relaying on them, over reason, is a bad idea. Oral histories have all the flaws that a historical recording can have, it is often idealistic, overblown, exaggerated, and in changes greatly.



It was not usual for Islamic Empires to forcibly convert populations - simply becuase it was not reasonable, it would cause strife and especially over such wide spread conquests. Also, there are no evidence of such, not in Spain, not in Algeria, not in the ME. There are some cases of religious strife, where Muslims and other native religions have collided - for example in the religiously diverse Alexandria, but I have yet to hear convincing prove of systematic forcible conversion - which is an idea I find utterly absurd in such a scale. Muslim rulers were more pragmatic than that.

I have not heard credible evidence of mass forcible conversion, but I have about Muslim rulers discouraging conversion to Islamic faith. I have heard about many Christians and Jews living inside the Islamic empires. Conversion to Islam was probably caused by many factors, but I still laugh at the idea of forced conversion in such a scale, in such a short time period.

Please research what is Jiziya. Then figure out which people in Quran are allowed to practice there religion. Then read Ansar Hussains (a Pakistani Muslim historian) analysis here:

http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Protection_of_Hinduism

Once you have read this we will discuss more evidence.

-Digvijay

Please research what is Jiziya. Then figure out which people in Quran are allowed to practice there religion. Then read Ansar Hussains (a Pakistani Muslim historian) analysis here:

http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Protection_of_Hinduism

Once you have read this we will discuss more evidence.

-Digvijay

It is the exactly the same, typical anti-islamic rhetoric I have read so many times. Nothing new here.

It is the exactly the same, typical anti-islamic rhetoric I have read so many times. Nothing new here.

Why would a muslim (Ansar Hussain ) from pakistan, be writing anti islamic rhetoric?

Do you know what Jiziya is? How it was used as a weapon?

-Digvijay

A question a bit OT but: Since in Hinduism the gods are only incarnations of Brahma, isn't it de facto a monotheism? Or otherwise should the Catholic belief, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost be considered as polytheism?

Adler

A question a bit OT but: Since in Hinduism the gods are only incarnations of Brahma, isn't it de facto a monotheism? Or otherwise should the Catholic belief, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost be considered as polytheism?

Adler
Hinduism is not a monotheistic religion. It has plurality of Gods. Though there are three main Gods: Vishnu (The creator) , Brahma (The nurturer), and Shiva (The destroyer).

Shiv is also called Anant i.e one who has no beginning or end.

-Digvijay

All I was saying was that it is easier to force people to convert to a religion that is similar to their own than to force them to a religion that is different.

You have to understand the tactics employed. There were three major ones:
a) Sword i.e fear of death. If you convert you live.
b) Break down and destroy temples of the non believers i.e Hindus/Zoroastrians etc thereby demoarlizing the people that perhaps there's is a weak God.
c) Jiziya. It was specifically targeted to convert the lowest most in society.

Take the case of the indigenous population of Latin America. The church helped smooth over the transition to Christianity by emphasizing saints and idols in a way that made them appear similar to gods/deities that the natives already worshipped. For instance, placing a shrine to the virgin mary on a site that was already used for worshipping a local God. This is why saints are often worshipped like deities in parts of Latin America.

In some ways, the church adapted to mirror the local religions, so as to make forced conversion a smoother process. The Latin American conversion was mostly a forced conversion. It is just easier to forcefully alter peoples' religious beliefs if the religious practices are similar.
But this is not true universally. Case in point Spanish inquisition and Islamic conversions.

-Digvijay

There is still a large population of practising Zoroastrians in Iran, so it cannot be that all of them fled to India nor the conditions so bad or they would cease to exist. It is quite curious that Iran would follow the teachings of Shia instead of the more mainstream Sunni, it must have been much conflcit with the Sunnis for that. Much easier to believe that the Persians found Islam attractive.

There is still a large population of practising Zoroastrians in Iran, so it cannot be that all of them fled to India nor the conditions so bad or they would cease to exist. It is quite curious that Iran would follow the teachings of Shia instead of the more mainstream Sunni, it must have been much conflcit with the Sunnis for that. Much easier to believe that the Persians found Islam attractive.

This is misleading. Please point out what percentage of total Iranians are Zoroastrians today in Iran.

-Digvijay

is it required that a certain percentage of Iranians be practising Zoroastrians? Let it be said that there are a large number among the worlds Zoroastrians. It is certainly seems to be a dying religion. Dubai also has a community as well.

is it required that a certain percentage of Iranians be practising Zoroastrians?
Yes. If the claim in your first post is true.

-Digvijay

Then let me reiterate again, there are many Zoroastrian living in Iran (http://www.caucaz.com/home_eng/breve_contenu.php?id=161). I remember an Iranian poster having the same argument with our resident Hindu evangelist about this very thing.

Then let me reiterate again, there are many Zoroastrian living in Iran (http://www.caucaz.com/home_eng/breve_contenu.php?id=161). I remember an Iranian poster having the same argument with our resident Hindu evangelist about this very thing.

Then tell us the percentage of them.

-Digvijay

20- 40.000 people in Iran according to that article. However since the regime is not very tolerant the figure might be wrong.

Adler

20- 40.000 people in Iran according to that article. However since the regime is not very tolerant the figure might be wrong.

Adler
Alright. It is estimated there are 70 million people in Iran. So 40,000 out of 70 milliion is:
40000 * 100/(70*1000*1000) = .05% of the population.

Let me restate :In today's Iran there .05% zoroastrians.

And you want us to believe that all zoroastrians were converted to Islam out of free will!

Think again.

-Digvijay

20- 40.000 people in Iran according to that article. However since the regime is not very tolerant the figure might be wrong.

Adler

That article is ridiculously wrong on Norouz. It's not a Muslim holiday, it's a pre-Zoroastrian Iranian one, and I and just about every other Iranian on the face of the Earth celebrate it, regardless of religion.

It is a dead and dying Religion, it didn't do particularly well anywhere. Perhaps you might enlighten us on the number of Zoroastrian world wide, it is not a lot. Islam superseded the old religion, that is all, we find the same thing all over the world such as Malaysia and Indonesia for instance.

There are fewer than 200.000 Zoroastrians (according to Wikipedia).

Adler

It is a dead and dying Religion, it didn't do particularly well anywhere. Perhaps you might enlighten us on the number of Zoroastrian world wide, it is not a lot. Islam superseded the old religion, that is all, we find the same thing all over the world such as Malaysia and Indonesia for instance.

It was made a dead religion by Islam.

We have a clear before and after in the case of zorastrianism. Before the arrival of Islam Zorostrianism was a thriving religion, followed by millions of Persians and after prince yezdezird lost a couple of wars to Muslims zoroastrians were hard to be found in Iran. There temples were detroyed and there holy fires were made extinct. On the edge of the sword millions abjured there faith.

Some zoroastrians landed in India and are some of the top business houses of India.
You can read more about this here:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Protection_of_Hinduism

What you have to remember is if the appeal of Islam is what made these zoroastrians give up there faith why are the zoroastrians not converting today to Islam?

Secondly as late as 1980's some western authors who lived in Iran have recollected how the "Zarathusht" were repeatedly attacked in Iran and forced to convert. They still have no political rights in Iran.

-Digvijay

De facto only the mullahs have power in Iran. Nobody else. All others must live to their ideas. And looking at the Iran on a much denser view there is so much hatred towards these idiots that, unless Bush does not attack the Iran, sooner or longer the regime will collaps.

Adler

De facto only the mullahs have power in Iran. Nobody else. All others must live to their ideas. And looking at the Iran on a much denser view there is so much hatred towards these idiots that, unless Bush does not attack the Iran, sooner or longer the regime will collaps.

Adler

It won't collapse. The mullahs will get old and die, and the millions and millions of young people (that Ayatollah Khomeini brought about by telling everyone in Iran to have more kids) will become the majority in the country and clean the place up.

But this is not true universally. Case in point Spanish inquisition and Islamic conversions.

-Digvijay

I am not saying it is universal. I am just saying that religious similarities probably aid in conversion, whether forced or not, and that I wouldn't be surprised if similarities between Zoroastrianism and Islam aided in conversion.

This isn't mutually exclusive with force. I think you are looking to hard for an argument.

It won't collapse. The mullahs will get old and die, and the millions and millions of young people (that Ayatollah Khomeini brought about by telling everyone in Iran to have more kids) will become the majority in the country and clean the place up.

Unfortunately no. If the kids (teenagers and 18-30 age group) are brainwashed as they are being today in Iran they will not be able to change the system.

-Digvijay

I am not saying it is universal. I am just saying that religious similarities probably aid in conversion, whether forced or not, and that I wouldn't be surprised if similarities between Zoroastrianism and Islam aided in conversion.

This isn't mutually exclusive with force. I think you are looking to hard for an argument.

You will be surprised that lot of Islamic scholars these days in India are saying that Hinduism is also very similar to Islam! Infact they give shlokas from various Hindu books to prove there thesis.

The point is it is rather easy today to say this religion is close to that religion and hence people converted.

But what is missed is that if this is the case of voluntary choosing then the same rate of conversion should be seen today say from Hinduism to Islam or Zoroastrainism to Islam. (You know modern scholars say that lower caste Hindus converted to Islam because of India caste system oppression).

Not even the lowest of lowest caste Hindu converts to Islam today in India. Same true for Zoroastrians.

-Digvijay

Unfortunately no. If the kids (teenagers and 18-30 age group) are brainwashed as they are being today in Iran they will not be able to change the system.

-Digvijay

They're not. There's so much stuff available through them through satellite dishes and the Internet that it's insane. The government doesn't have nearly the level of control over people that it wishes it had.

You will be surprised that lot of Islamic scholars these days in India are saying that Hinduism is also very similar to Islam! Infact they give shlokas from various Hindu books to prove there thesis.

Yes I am [a Hindu]. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew.

I'm going to go with Gandhi here. All religions have some basic things in common, and outside of the various incarnations of God or other deities, every one of the Abrahamic religions and Hinduism have a lot of the same messages.

What I'm starting to sense in your posts is a hostility towards Islam and a belief that it has only been spread by force. As an Iranian Muslim, I accept the teachings of Islam, but I also have a deep appreciation and respect for Zoroastrianism as part of my culture. It's not really fair to say that Muslims always forced others to assimilate into their culture because it's just not the case.

Here is something many should read, not only in comparasition between Islam and Christianity.


Originally posted by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing in his Nathan the Wise

NATHAN.

In days of yore, there dwelt in east a man
Who from a valued hand received a ring
Of endless worth: the stone of it an opal,
That shot an ever-changing tint: moreover,
It had the hidden virtue him to render
Of God and man beloved, who in this view,
And this persuasion, wore it. Was it strange
The eastern man ne'er drew it off his finger,
And studiously provided to secure it
For ever to his house. Thus--He bequeathed it;
First, to the MOST BELOVED of his sons,
Ordained that he again should leave the ring
To the MOST DEAR among his children--and
That without heeding birth, the FAVOURITE son,
In virtue of the ring alone, should always
Remain the lord o' th' house--You hear me, Sultan?

SALADIN.

I understand thee--on.

NATHAN.

From son to son,
At length this ring descended to a father,
Who had three sons, alike obedient to him;
Whom therefore he could not but love alike.
At times seemed this, now that, at times the third,
(Accordingly as each apart received
The overflowings of his heart) most worthy
To heir the ring, which with good-natured weakness
He privately to each in turn had promised.
This went on for a while. But death approached,
And the good father grew embarrassed. So
To disappoint two sons, who trust his promise,
He could not bear. What's to be done. He sends
In secret to a jeweller, of whom,
Upon the model of the real ring,
He might bespeak two others, and commanded
To spare nor cost nor pains to make them like,
Quite like the true one. This the artist managed.
The rings were brought, and e'en the father's eye
Could not distinguish which had been the model.
Quite overjoyed he summons all his sons,
Takes leave of each apart, on each bestows
His blessing and his ring, and dies--Thou hearest me?

SALADIN.

I hear, I hear, come finish with thy tale;
Is it soon ended?

NATHAN.

It is ended, Sultan,
For all that follows may be guessed of course.
Scarce is the father dead, each with his ring
Appears, and claims to be the lord o' th' house.
Comes question, strife, complaint--all to no end;
For the true ring could no more be distinguished
Than now can--the true faith.

SALADIN.

How, how, is that
To be the answer to my query?

NATHAN.

No,
But it may serve as my apology;
If I can't venture to decide between
Rings, which the father got expressly made,
That they might not be known from one another.

SALADIN.

The rings--don't trifle with me; I must think
That the religions which I named can be
Distinguished, e'en to raiment, drink and food,

NATHAN.

And only not as to their grounds of proof.
Are not all built alike on history,
Traditional, or written. History
Must be received on trust--is it not so?
In whom now are we likeliest to put trust?
In our own people surely, in those men
Whose blood we are, in them, who from our childhood
Have given us proofs of love, who ne'er deceived us,
Unless 'twere wholesomer to be deceived.
How can I less believe in my forefathers
Than thou in thine. How can I ask of thee
To own that thy forefathers falsified
In order to yield mine the praise of truth.
The like of Christians.

SALADIN.

By the living God,
The man is in the right, I must be silent.

NATHAN.

Now let us to our rings return once more.
As said, the sons complained. Each to the judge
Swore from his father's hand immediately
To have received the ring, as was the case;
After he had long obtained the father's promise,
One day to have the ring, as also was.
The father, each asserted, could to him
Not have been false, rather than so suspect
Of such a father, willing as he might be
With charity to judge his brethren, he
Of treacherous forgery was bold t' accuse them.

SALADIN.

Well, and the judge, I'm eager now to hear
What thou wilt make him say. Go on, go on.

NATHAN.

The judge said, If ye summon not the father
Before my seat, I cannot give a sentence.
Am I to guess enigmas? Or expect ye
That the true ring should here unseal its lips?
But hold--you tell me that the real ring
Enjoys the hidden power to make the wearer
Of God and man beloved; let that decide.
Which of you do two brothers love the best?
You're silent. Do these love-exciting rings
Act inward only, not without? Does each
Love but himself? Ye're all deceived deceivers,
None of your rings is true. The real ring
Perhaps is gone. To hide or to supply
Its loss, your father ordered three for one.

SALADIN.

O charming, charming!

NATHAN.

And (the judge continued)
If you will take advice in lieu of sentence,
This is my counsel to you, to take up
The matter where it stands. If each of you
Has had a ring presented by his father,
Let each believe his own the real ring.
'Tis possible the father chose no longer
To tolerate the one ring's tyranny;
And certainly, as he much loved you all,
And loved you all alike, it could not please him
By favouring one to be of two the oppressor.
Let each feel honoured by this free affection.
Unwarped of prejudice; let each endeavour
To vie with both his brothers in displaying
The virtue of his ring; assist its might
With gentleness, benevolence, forbearance,
With inward resignation to the godhead,
And if the virtues of the ring continue
To show themselves among your children's children,
After a thousand thousand years, appear
Before this judgment-seat--a greater one
Than I shall sit upon it, and decide.
So spake the modest judge.



This ringparabel is indeed even older tracing back to Giovanni Boccaccio's Decamarone, who got it from Jews who lived in Spain about 1100.

Adler

They're not. There's so much stuff available through them through satellite dishes and the Internet that it's insane. The government doesn't have nearly the level of control over people that it wishes it had.

It does not matter. Do remember that when Shah of Iran was overthrown he had tried to glorify the ancient Persian Kings instead of Mohammed. This was the last straw for Islami hardliners to overthrow him.

I'm going to go with Gandhi here. All religions have some basic things in common, and outside of the various incarnations of God or other deities, every one of the Abrahamic religions and Hinduism have a lot of the same messages.

At a 20,000 foot view yes. Do remember that unlike other Abrahmic religions one *CANNOT* convert to Hinduism. Either you are born a hindu or not. (Though as a response to Christian Missionary conversions of tribals in India some Hindu organizations have concocted a recipe to make you a Hindu!).


What I'm starting to sense in your posts is a hostility towards Islam and a belief that it has only been spread by force.

If you call presenting facts hostility.... You can ask few thousand Parsis in India how/why they were made to flee the land of there forefathers by Islam.


As an Iranian Muslim, I accept the teachings of Islam, but I also have a deep appreciation and respect for Zoroastrianism as part of my culture. It's not really fair to say that Muslims always forced others to assimilate into their culture because it's just not the case.
That is what is taught as part of Islamic theology. And it is patently false. If you get a chance do travel to India and you can see a living proof of destruction of Hindu temples, disfiguring of Gods and Godesses in these temples. This was all done by Muslims to insitll a fear in the heart of Hindus that there's is a weak God. But ofcourse Hindus rose to the challenge and could not be converted.

-Digvijay

Are you a DL of aneeshm by any chance? You sound incredibly like him and remember him using precesiley the following words:

Though as a response to Christian Missionary conversions of tribals in India some Hindu organizations have concocted a recipe to make you a Hindu!).

Are you a DL of aneeshm by any chance? You sound incredibly like him and remember him using precesiley the following words:
Sorry I could not understand what you are trying to say. If you want to read my blog it is here and that is where I mention the modern recipe invented by hindus for reconversion:

http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Protection_of_Hinduism

-Digvijay

My knowledge of the spread of religions is limited, so what I have to say may not be exactly on point, but I have to take issue with the contention that Islam was not spread by the sword.

My primary historical interest is in warfare, and I have conducted much research on a variety of wars, campaigns and commanders. From this research, I would have to say that Islam was most certainly spread by the sword.

Now Muhammad, himself, was not a remarkably adept military commander. However, a myriad of exceptional Muslim commanders followed in his wake. For example, I would direct research on Khalid ibn al-Walid, the Sword of Allah, and Islam's greatest commander. He, along with a long train of others that extends to Nader Shah (or arguably Ataturk), conquered vast swaths of land that were incorporated into Islamic states.

Many of these Islamic states oppressed competing religions, and people of those faiths either converted, were killed or left. Since it was the sword that gave muslim leaders dominion over these people and these lands, it must be said that Islam most certainly was spread by the sword.

As for mass conversions, again I refer you to research on al-Walid. He was not so chivalrous a victor. IIRC, there are plenty of examples from his campaigns in which he would offer subservience and conversion or slaughter.

Hello Friends,
I have written an essay to answer the question in
the subject line. You might find it interesting.

Rajputs and Invasions (http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajputs_and_Invasions_of_India)

Regards,
-Digvijay
Major update to the site. Sections updated:

Definition (http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Definition)
Organization_of_Indian_kingdoms_during_invasions (http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Organization_of_Indian_kingdoms_during_invasions)
Paramvir Chakra Winners (http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Param_Vir_Chakra_winners_.28Highest_gallantry_awa rd_in_India.29)
Mahavir Chakra Winners (http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Maha_Vir_Chakra_winners_.28Second_highest_gallant ry_award_in_India.29)
Meera (http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Saints)

Also on request of many I have split the page into a high bandwidth version and a low bandwidth version (for people who are still using dial up connections):

High Bandwidth (If you are on ISDN or Broadband):
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/

Low Bandwidth (If you are on a dialup connection)
http://rajaputra-lb.blogspot.com/

-Digvijay