Ask a Muslim, Part II

[Mirc]

Wait, do you believe this???????



The Crimean was an INDEPENDENT state!
Wallachia and Moldova were never ever part of the Ottoman empire, they were tributary for about 150 years. Never ever inside the borders.
Transylvania was an autonomous principality in the kingdom of Hungary which was only PARTIALLY in the Ottoman Empire.
The Armenian territory is clearly inflated.

I've never seen such a flawed map in my whole life.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Also, Spanish capital was Madrid.

 

[Princeps]

I've never seen such a flawed map in my whole life.

Hmm. I think it was meant to show the extent of the empire's influence. Just a guess though.

 

[Stacmon]

It's human sacrifice because the executor is peforming the action out of piety, and because he feels it was requested by a god.

This isn't something we're likely to agree on, and any more back and forth would just be more repetition on both our parts.

If we're going to count 'walkable surface' as 'land', then the ratio is (again) bunk because of the arctic ice. Considering it's been travelled across, I think that's a fair statement. So the whole ratio becomes bunk again, meanwhile the people are touting both the ratio and the 'lowest land' as significant. You cannot hold both statements to be true at the same time.

Recall that Fachy was the one that brought up that land to water ratio. I actually hadn't heard of that prior to him mentioning it.

I disagree with you that believing that ice is solid and considered "as land" makes the ratio meaningless and that the "lowest land" argument as well as this one are mutually exclusive.

Now, it's unclear whether floating Arctic ice bergs are considered "walkable" remember that if they're in the water, they raise the sea level, however, if they are on land, accumulations of ice have no impact on sea level and this is an important concept to consider. Over simplifying something like this can lead to important though sometimes subtle details being overlooked.

Remember, I was not the first to suggest that we count the Antarctic as 'land' for purposes of this discussion. If the trench is not filled with seawater, but ice (and ice does not count as 'sea') then the trench is 100% below sea water. Even with ignoring the fact that Antarctica is lower than the Dea Sea.

As I was saying above, ice that is on land and does not displace water is different than floating ice, or ice that does partly displace water. If the trench is covered in ice and there is no entry into the trench (except burrowing through the ice) it is quite legitimate to consider the thickness of the ice as an element contributing to the height of the Earth's surface. If you do think burrowing through the ice to get to solid land invalidates the "lowest land" sign, then consider that you could simply burrow through land and create a piece of land that is farther below sea level than the Dead Sea.

I'm sure this will make you consider whether or not this will ever happen. If it does, will it invalidate the Qur'an? I'm not sure if you've heard of Muhammad's (pbuh) uncle. It was revealed that this uncle of Muhammad's (pbuh) would never in his life embrace Islam. If he did, that would completely destroy Islam and expose Muhammad as a charlatan. However, despite that, his uncle never converted and died a disbeliever.

"If it melts, it would be filled with sea water"? I don't think that viable, I'm pretty sure that if the poles were melted so would the land that Mohammed mentions.

That comment regarding the melting of the ice above the trench was not something that I imagined. It is something I read and can reference to. However, can you prove that if the ice in that area melted and filled that trench that the land Muhammad (pbuh) mentioned would also be flooded? Conjecture isn't conclusive .

Okay, where's an area that the Greeks got wrong that the Qur'an consistently gets right? I'd prefer (being upfront) in cases that the Qur'an cannot have drawn on Christian beliefs, instead.

At the moment, I'm not aware of a specific example, as I'm not sure what the Greeks new or believed at the time. If someone has an example, I welcome them to address El_Machinae's question. Otherwise, when I have the time to go digging, I'll do it myself (you may need to remind me though Mach).

Hmm. I think it was meant to show the extent of the empire's influence. Just a guess though.

I was going to put together a long and extensive response, but Princeps has pretty much summarized my view and saved me a lot of time .

Basically, whether that map is authoritative or not, and even if it does not distinguish between territory that was officially claimed by the Ottomans and their vassals and tributaries, the purpose of the map was to show that the scope, size and influence of a Muslim empire after what El_Machinae described was a "breakdown" following 1200 AD.

Also, I completely forgot to mention the Malinese Empire! They were also Muslim, and the source of over half the world's gold for a time (Officially lasted between 1235-1645 AD). Mansa Musa is well renowned for his great generosity, particularly among Muslims during his pilgrimage.

There has been no mention of Malay-Indonesia which was another Muslim area.

 

[Mott1]

Basically, whether that map is authoritative or not, and even if it does not distinguish between territory that was officially claimed by the Ottomans and their vassals and tributaries, the purpose of the map was to show that the scope, size and influence of a Muslim empire after what El_Machinae described was a "breakdown" following 1200 AD.

I believe El Mac was refering to "cultural progress" (i.e. arts, technology or science), not preditory imperialism.
You slap up a few maps to demonstrate the lands that Islam violently conquered and call that cultural progress? interesting how Muslims see the period of the Islamic great expansian as a remarkable achievement, but condemn the West for doing the same thing centuries later.

 

[Mirc]

Hmm. I think it was meant to show the extent of the empire's influence. Just a guess though.

Maybe. But it says "extent in 1683". This is normally understood as the borders of the empire. Of course, it can mean something else, but in that case it has to be specified. You can't say "living creature", and refer only to "rabbit". You have to specify.

 

[Princeps]

I believe El Mac was refering to "cultural progress" (i.e. arts, technology or science), not preditory imperialism.
You slap up a few maps to demonstrate the lands that Islam violently conquered and call that cultural progress? interesting how Muslims see the period of the Islamic great expansian as a remarkable achievement, but condemn the West for doing the same thing centuries later.

Well in general, both Muslims and "westerners" pride themselves about the extent of their past empires, so again, your bias is blantant. You accuse Muslims of a thing that western peoples do all the time, glorify the past empires and their extent.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well in general, both Muslims and "westerners" pride themselves about the extent of their past empires, so again, your bias is blantant. You accuse Muslims of a thing that western peoples do all the time, glorify the past empires and their extent.

Sure, and we can certainly point to what caused the degradation. I believe that a heavy cause of the Islamic cultural degradation is due to the influence of a few notable scholars who interpreted the scripture in a specific way.

Oo, I forgot my question! Can one be Sunni (or Shia) and not consider the other group to be blasphemeres?

 

[Mott1]

Well in general, both Muslims and "westerners" pride themselves about the extent of their past empires, so again, your bias is blantant. You accuse Muslims of a thing that western peoples do all the time, glorify the past empires and their extent.

Western colonialism is not trumpeted as an age of moral excellence, it is not seen as a by gone era that the West should once again embrace. We do not look to the period of colonialism as a shining example of Western "cultural progress." The West certainly does not glorify all aspects of the age of colonialism, the ramifications of colonialism echo to this day. We are continually reminded of past atrocities such as slavery and the subjugation of American indians, we confront these issues openly so we do not make the mistake of repeating them.
In the Muslim World, the period of Islamic imperialism is recognized as the greatest example of Muslim consolidation, all the atrocities committed during this period are whitewashed or even posited as morally just. Stacmon considers it to be a "culturally progressive" era of what Muslims could once again achieve if only they set aside their differences and unify under the banner of Islam.

 

[Stacmon]

I believe El Mac was refering to "cultural progress" (i.e. arts, technology or science), not preditory imperialism.
You slap up a few maps to demonstrate the lands that Islam violently conquered and call that cultural progress? interesting how Muslims see the period of the Islamic great expansian as a remarkable achievement, but condemn the West for doing the same thing centuries later.

I strongly disagree with your assertion that these Empires simply show predatory imperialism and El_Machinae's suggestion that there was a "cultural breakdown" in 1200 AD (I'm still not clear on why he picked that date). The following are some Wikipedia examples, though there are countless more.

Mali Empire and the University of Sankore (1235 AD - 1645 AD)

The Mali Empire gained direct control over the city of Timbuktu in 1324 during the reign of Mansa Kankan Musa. A royal lady financed plans to turn Sankoré into a world class learning institution with professors on par with any outside of Africa. By the time Mansa Musa returned to Mali from his famous Hajj in 1325, the Sankoré Masjid had been converted into a fully staffed Madrassa (Islamic school or in this case university) and with the largest collections of books in Africa since the Library of Alexandria. Mansa Musa brought the architect Abu Es Haq es Saheli from Egypt to build the Jingeray Ber Masjid in 1327. The Sidi Yahya Masjid would be constructed in 1441.

The University of Sankore after all is a world wonder in Civilization IV!

Mughal Empire in the Indian Subcontinent (1504 AD - 1707 AD)

The main mughal contribution to the south Asia was their unique architecture. Many monuments were built during the mughal era including the Taj Mahal. The first Mughal emperor Babur wrote in the Bāburnāma:

“ Hindustan is a place of little charm. There is no beauty in its people, no graceful social intercourse, no poetic talent or understanding, no etiquette, nobility or manliness. The arts and crafts have no harmony or symmetry. There are no good horses, meat, grapes, melons or other fruit. There is no ice, cold water, good food or bread in the markets. There are no baths and no madrasas. There are no candles, torches or candlesticks"[4]. ”

Fortunately his successors, with fewer memories of the Central Asian homeland he pined for, took a less jaundiced view of Indian culture, and became more or less naturalised, absorbing many Indian traits and customs along the way. The Mughal period would see a more fruitful blending of Indian, Iranian and Central Asian artistic, intellectual and literary traditions than any other in Indian history. The Mughals had taste for the fine things in life - for beautifully designed artifacts and the enjoyment and appreciation of cultural activities. The Mughals borrowed as much as they gave - both the Hindu and Muslim traditions of India were huge influences on their interpretation of culture and court style. Nevertheless, they introduced many notable changes to Indian society and culture, including:

* Centralised government which brought together many smaller kingdoms
* Persian art and culture amalgamated with native Indian art and culture
* Started new trade routes to Arab and Turk lands
* Mughali cuisine
* Urdu and spoken Hindi languages were formed for common Muslims and Hindus respectively
* A new style of architecture
* Landscape gardening

The remarkable flowering of art and architecture under the Mughals is due to several factors. The empire itself provided a secure framework within which artistic genius could flourish, and it commanded wealth and resources unparalleled in Indian history. The Mughal rulers themselves were extraordinary patrons of art, whose intellectual calibre and cultural outlook was expressed in the most refined taste.

Ottoman Empire and Multiculturalism (1299 AD– 1922 AD)

Many different cultures lived under the umbrella of the Ottoman Empire, and as a result, a specifically "Ottoman" culture can be difficult to define. To some extent, there existed a Turkish Ottoman culture, a Greek Ottoman culture, an Armenian Ottoman culture, and so on. However, there was also, to a great extent, a specific melding of cultures that can be said to have reached its highest levels among the Ottoman elite, who were composed of myriad ethnic and religious groups.

One of the roots of Ottoman culture comes from the Oghuz Turks with their Central Asian Turkic nomadic culture. As the Oghuz passed into Anatolia through Persia over a period of a few hundred years they borrowed many elements of Persian culture. Following Sultan Mehmed II's capture of Constantinople (later named Istanbul) in 1453, many aspects of Byzantine— and, more broadly, European— culture began to be integrated into Ottoman culture. As the empire expanded in subsequent years, even more cultures were brought into this mix, enriching it still further.

This Ottoman multicultural perspective is reflected in their policies. One of the reasons that the Ottoman Empire lasted as long as it did was its tolerant attitude, originating from the Ottomans nomadic inheritance, in comparison to the attitude prevailing elsewhere in medieval times (east and west). This meant that the Ottoman State pursued multi-cultural and multi-religious policies. (Two examples of this can be seen in the Ottoman justice system and the independent regional governors.) As the Ottomans moved further west, the Ottoman leaders absorbed some of the culture of conquered regions. Intercultural marriages also played their part in creating the characteristic Ottoman elite culture. When compared to Turkish folk culture, the influence of these new cultures in creating the culture of the Ottoman elite is very apparent.

Architecture

Ottoman architecture was influenced by Seljuk, Persian, Byzantine Greek, and Islamic architecture, but came to develop a style all of its own. The years 1300-1453 (Rise Period) constitute the early or first Ottoman period, when Ottoman art was in search of new ideas. The years 1453-1600, known as the classical period, coinciding with the Empire's expansion, is the period when Ottoman art was at its most confident.

Concepts of Ottoman architecture mainly circle around the mosque. The mosque was integral to society, city planning and communal life. Besides the mosque, it is also possible to find good examples of Ottoman architecture in soup kitchens, theological schools, hospitals, Turkish baths and tombs.

Language

Ethnic groups with their own languages (e.g. Jews, Greeks, Armenians, etc.) continued to speak them within their families and neighborhoods (mahalles). In villages where two or more populations lived together, the inhabitants would often speak each other's language. In cosmopolitan cities, people often spoke their family languages, some Ottoman or Persian if they were educated, and some Arabic if they were Muslim. In the last two centuries, French and English emerged as popular languages, especially among the Christian Levantine communities. The elite learned French at school, and used European products as a fashion statement. The use of Turkish grew steadily under the Ottomans but they were still interested in their two other official languages so they kept them with a new limited usage: Persian for literature and Arabic solely for religious rites. Many famous Persian poets emerged at this time.

Music

As music was an important part of the education of the Ottoman elite, a number of the Ottoman sultans were accomplished musicians and composers themselves, such as Selim III, whose compositions are still frequently performed today. Due to a geographic and cultural divide between the capital and other areas, two broadly distinct styles of music arose in the Ottoman Empire: Ottoman classical music, and folk music.

Ottoman classical music arose largely from a confluence of Byzantine music, Arabic music, and Persian music. Compositionally, it is organised around rhythmic units called usul, which are somewhat similar to meter in Western music, and melodic units called makam, which bear some resemblance to Western musical modes. The instruments used are a mixture of Anatolian and Central Asian instruments (the saz, the bağlama, the kemence), other Middle Eastern instruments (the ud, the tanbur, the kanun, the ney), and— later in the tradition— Western instruments (the violin and the piano).

In the provinces, several different kinds of Folk music were created. The most dominant regions with their distinguished musical styles are: Balkan-Thracian Turkus, North-Eastern Turkus(Laz), Aegean Turkus, Central Anatolian Turkus, Eastern Anatolian Turkus, and Caucasian Turkus. There is no separate style for Istanbul, because Turkish Classical Music was preferred here.

Cuisine

When one talks of Ottoman cuisine, one refers to the cuisine of the Capital - Istanbul, and the regional capital cities, where the melting pot of cultures created a common cuisine that all the populations enjoyed. This diverse cuisine was honed in the Imperial Palace's kitchens by chefs brought from certain parts of the empire to create and experiment with different ingredients. The creations of the Ottoman Palace's kitchens filtered to the population, for instance through Ramadan events, and through the cooking at Yalis of Pashas, and from here on spread to the rest of the population. The importance of culinary art for the Ottoman Sultans is evident to every visitor of Topkapý Palace. The huge kitchens were housed in several buildings under ten domes. By the l7th century some thirteen hundred kitchen staff were housed in the Palace. Hundreds of cooks, specializing in different categories of dishes such as soups, pilafs, kebabs, vegetables, fish, breads, pastries, candy and helva, syrup and jams and beverages, fed as many as ten thousand people a day and, in addition, sent trays of food to others in the city as a royal favor.

The importance of food has been also evident in the structure of the Ottoman military elite, the Janissaries. The commanders of the main divisions were known as the Soupmen, other high ranking officers were the Chief Cook, Scullion, Baker, and Pancake Maker, though their function had little to do with these titles. The huge cauldron used to make pilaf had a special symbolic significance for the Janissaries, as the central focus of each division. The kitchen was also the center of politics, for whenever the Janissaries demanded a change in the Sultan's Cabinet, or the head of a grand vizier, they would overturn their pilaf cauldron. "Overturning the cauldron," is an expression still used today to indicate a rebellion in the ranks.

Malacca Sultanate (1402 AD– 1511 AD)

The Sultanate of Malacca was a Malay sultanate founded by Parameswara in 1400. Centered in the modern town of Malacca, the sultanate stretched from southern Thailand in the north to Sumatra in the southwest.

The Sultanate thrived on entrepôt trade and became the most important port in Southeast Asia during the 15th and the early 16th century. Furthermore, Malacca was as a major player in the spice trade, serving as a gateway between the Spice Islands and high-paying Eurasian markets. This is reflected by the Portuguese writer Duarte Barbosa who wrote "He who is lord of Malacca has his hand on the throat of Venice".

One of the factors that contributed to the rise of Malacca was the monsoon winds that enabled Arab and Indian traders from the west to travel to China in the east and vice versa. At the height of its power, the Sultanate encompassed most of modern day Peninsula Malaysia, the site of modern day Singapore and a great portion of eastern Sumatra. It was also the center of Islam in the eastern sphere, where imams and ustazes came to discuss religion and the like. Muslim missionaries were also sent by the Sultan to spread Islam to other communities in the Malay Archipelago, such as in Java, Borneo, and the Philippines. Most of South East Asia at that time was Hindu.

I could say more, and talk about further examples, but I think I've made my point regarding the cultural achievements made by Islamic civilizations, after El_Machinae's arbitrary 1200 AD . Hopefully I've convinced Mott1 that Islam was more than the religion of simple "predatory imperialists."

 

[Stacmon]

Stacmon considers it to be a "culturally progressive" era of what Muslims could once again achieve if only they set aside their differences and unify under the banner of Islam.

What are you talking about? You're putting foul words in my mouth and making assumptions that are both tasteless and insulting. I would never condone mass murder or injustice of any type.

The fact that these empires achieved a lot in the area of culture despite the imperfections associated with any state or government and the mistakes they've made is something that I'm trying to point out to you and El_Machinae.

You both have belittled the cultural development within Islamic nations and the Islamic faithful, so I felt it necessary to correct rather than propagate such misconceptions.

Oo, I forgot my question! Can one be Sunni (or Shia) and not consider the other group to be blasphemeres?

Easily. That doesn't mean that there aren't Sunnis or Shi'ites that believe otherwise. Most Muslims however realize that this is more of a political difference that has been overblown over time rather than a fundamental, theological difference. There are many more similarities than there are differences and although a member of one sect might consider the other sect somewhat "misguided," only the extremely misled, or the ideologically/politically driven would suggest that those "others" are non-Muslims, disbelievers, or blasphemers.

 

[El_Machinae]

It was revealed that this uncle of Muhammad's (pbuh) would never in his life embrace Islam. If he did, that would completely destroy Islam and expose Muhammad as a charlatan. However, despite that, his uncle never converted and died a disbeliever.

I'm missing an important fact. Did the uncle know that Muhammed made this claim?

The reason why I mentioned 1200 AD is because I was being a bit lazy. I was thinking of this man. The spread of his thoughts basically ruined the progressive nature of Islam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Ghazali

Al-Ghazali (1058-1111)remains one of the most celebrated scholars in the history of Islamic thought. He lectured at the Al-Nizamiyya of Baghdad (the highest ranked academy of the golden era of Islamic civilization) between 1091 and 1096. He was the scholar par excellence in the Islamic world. He had literally hundreds of scholars attending his lectures at the Nizamiyyah. His audience included scholars from other schools of jurisprudence. This position won him prestige, wealth and respect that even princes and viziers could not match.
...
The Incoherence also marked a turning point in Islamic philosophy in its vehement rejections of Aristotle and Plato. The book took aim at the falasifa, a loosely defined group of Islamic philosophers from the 8th through the 11th centuries (most notable among them Avicenna and Al-Farabi) who drew intellectually upon the Ancient Greeks. Ghazali bitterly denounced Aristotle, Socrates and other Greek writers as non-believers and labelled those who employed their methods and ideas as corrupters of the Islamic faith.

Just a reminder, I've asked for:
Verifiable mistakes made in the Bible (or Jewish texts) that the Qur'an corrects (but wasn't knows by the Greeks, either).

Or

Verifiable areas where the Qur'an gets something right, but the Greeks didn't get right (but not where he's drawing upon Biblical tradition, i.e., a temporary earth). I've tried pointing out areas where the Qur'an is wrong (where its borrowing from Greek tradition), already.

 

[Stacmon]

I'm missing an important fact. Did the uncle know that Muhammed made this claim?

Yes, he was well aware. He shouldn't be painted as a bad person, he actually protected Muhammad and the early Muslims from being completely ostracized and isolated by the pagan Arabs. Without his help, they might have been unable to survive. Nevertheless, he never believed in Muhammad's revelation and never became a Muslim.

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:

After ignoring Muhammad's preaching, the elites in Mecca, feeling threatened by his message, harassed Muhammad, and persecuted his followers. This continued, and intensified, over more than a decade. The hardships reached a new level for Muhammad after the deaths of his wife Khadija and his uncle Abu Talib, who although not becoming a Muslim had protected Muhammad throughout.

The reason why I mentioned 1200 AD is because I was being a bit lazy. I was thinking of this man. The spread of his thoughts basically ruined the progressive nature of Islam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Ghazali

Fair enough, at least that explains your choice of 1200 AD .

Just a reminder, I've asked for:
Verifiable mistakes made in the Bible (or Jewish texts) that the Qur'an corrects (but wasn't knows by the Greeks, either).

Or

Verifiable areas where the Qur'an gets something right, but the Greeks didn't get right (but not where he's drawing upon Biblical tradition, i.e., a temporary earth). I've tried pointing out areas where the Qur'an is wrong (where its borrowing from Greek tradition), already.

Although I'd like to provide you with answers, I'm also busy replying to some private messages that I've been receiving, in addition to what I've posted here.

Addressing those questions will require more in-depth research, reading and time. The first one involves a more advanced knowledge of the Old and New Testament (remember, I did not grow up religious). Both require more knowledge about Greek achievements up to that point.

I'm not sure where you live, but if you want an immediate answer, have you considered visiting the local Mosque and asking an Imam or scholar? There may also be sources on the internet that could be able to answer the above.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

So, Abu Talib was the [wiki]Alexander Doniphan[/wiki] of Islam then?

 

[Stacmon]

Bah, way to sneak an LDS reference into a thread about Islam, Eran .

There's a big difference though, as Abu Talib treated and raised Muhammad as though he was his own son. He had an overwhelming love for him, just like many parents would, regardless of the religious decisions their children make.

Here's more information regarding Abu Talib (again, from Wikipedia).

Sunnis hold the view that Abu Talib never recited the Shahadah, or testament of faith, and therefore was a non-Muslim. However, they also hold the view that he would receive the most lenient punishment on the day of judgement from amongst those who would be banished to Hell. Sunni quote the following ahadith:

A narration reports:
“ [...] Narrated Al-Musaiyab:

When Abu Talib was in his death bed, the Prophet went to him while Abu Jahl was sitting beside him. The Prophet said, "O my uncle! Say: None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, an expression I will defend your case with, before Allah." Abu Jahl and 'Abdullah bin Umaya said, "O Abu Talib! Will you leave the religion of 'Abdul Muttalib?" So they kept on saying this to him so that the last statement he said to them (before he died) was: "I am on the religion of 'Abdul Muttalib." Then the Prophet said, " I will keep on asking for Allah's Forgiveness for you unless I am forbidden to do so." Then the following Verse was revealed:--

"It is not fitting for the Prophet and the believers to ask Allah's Forgiveness for the pagans, even if they were their near relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are the dwellers of the (Hell) Fire." (9.113)

The other Verse was also revealed:-- "(O Prophet!) Verily, you guide not whom you like, but Allah guides whom He will ......." (28.56) Sahih Al Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 223


."[...]
”

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The idea is the same. A lot of religious movements only survived infancy because of the protection of outside protectors (who in many cases would have lost their ability to protect them had they joined the religion, and thus lost influence and prestige).

 

[Mott1]

What are you talking about? You're putting foul words in my mouth and making assumptions that are both tasteless and insulting. I would never condone mass murder or injustice of any type.

The fact that these empires achieved a lot in the area of culture despite the imperfections associated with any state or government and the mistakes they've made is something that I'm trying to point out to you and El_Machinae.

You both have belittled the cultural development within Islamic nations and the Islamic faithful, so I felt it necessary to correct rather than propagate such misconceptions.

I have niether mentioned the term mass murder nor have I implied that you condone it. 'Justice' is subjective, what may be an injust action to me may not be injust to you. Saying that you do not condone injustice of any type is as ambiguous as it is misleading, so please do not take offense to phantom provocations.

The point of my post is that the Islamic cultural developments you are alluding to could not have been achieved without the imperfections and mistakes associated with imperialism. I too can demonstrate the cultural developments that were achieved through the phenomenon of Western colonialism, however we must ask ourselves: should the cultural achievements that were developed through the conditions of colonialism or imperialism be predicated as the greatest examples of ones nation, state, civilization or religion?

I have not belittled the cultural development within the Islamic nations, I am censuring the exemplification of imperialism under the pretext of cultural progress.

 

[Stacmon]

The idea is the same. A lot of religious movements only survived infancy because of the protection of outside protectors (who in many cases would have lost their ability to protect them had they joined the religion, and thus lost influence and prestige).

Well given that, I better understand the parallel you've drawn.

 

[Stacmon]

I have niether mentioned the term mass murder nor have I implied that you condone it. 'Justice' is subjective, what may be an injust action to me may not be injust to you. Saying that you do not condone injustice of any type is as ambiguous as it is misleading, so please do not take offense to phantom provocations.

You didn't mention either of those things but you alluded to the fact that I was willing to forgive "unpleasantness" if it meant a bright and glorious Islamic future.

I may have read too much into your statement, but I still feel it was in bad taste and a personal attack. Something like that doesn't belong in a thread that's supposed to be about people asking sincere questions and me (or others) doing our best to answer them.

 

[aneeshm]

The Muslim empires of India attempted to systematically destroy Indic culture. Not a single Great Temple exists in the North (which can equal the the grandeur of the Great Temples of the South). The Mughals were imperialistic tyrants, nothing else. They hated India.