Previous Next Index Thread

Re: ISLAM is only FUNDAMENTALIST - Reply to Saif.

 On 27 Jun 1996, Fatima Ibrahim Al-Shirawi wrote:
 > Debashis Bhattacharya (bhattach) wrote:
 > : (Fatima Ibrahim Al-Shirawi) wrote:
 > Perhaps I can add to the general amusement.  Are you aware of
 > the precise manner in which Islam first gained a foothold in
 > the region?  Hindu pirates, based at what later became Karachi
 > (not sure about the exact location, though) made repeated raids
 > on Muslim Arab trading vessels.  After a punitive strike by
 > Muhammad bin Qasim, the pirates agreed to refrain from attacking
 > Muslim ships.  When the pirates broke the agreement by resuming
 > their attacks, Qasim returned and decimated them, establishing
 > a Muslim base from where Islam began to spread.
 Let me assure Saif that whatever he has written above is purely garbage. 
 The Arabs following their expansion to the East and West to 'spread the 
 message of Islam' came to Makran in Baluchistan, frontier of Hindostan. Many 
 famous battles were fought in this historical city famous for being a 
 centre of trade and also religion. It had the largest Sun temple in NW 
 Hindostan which was decimated by the Arabs and subsequently they captured 
 Sindh. Although Arab conquest to the East stopped at Sindh it laid the 
 basis for future inroads into India by Muslim conquerers. In the West the 
 Arabs reached Spain, conquered it, ruled it for 600 years, converted most 
 of the population to Islam until they were defeated by Catherine and the 
 entire Spanish nation was reconverted back to Roman Catholicism. I 
 beleive Saif heard the above story from a Mullah when he had buried his 
 head in sand like an ostrich.
 > As for the bloodshed which you mention . . . it's called
 > building an empire . . . a scenario which the early Aryans
 > (and we all know what their religion was) engaged in when
 > they pushed the Dravidians into the south.  Bloodshed is
 > not the prerogative of any one religion, despite what
 > you imply in your post.  I think I've mentioned this
 > repeatedly on this newsgroup.  
 I agree that bloodshed is not the prerogative of any particular religion 
 but Islam is being mentioned in this context because it has and is still 
 doing the greatest harm to Hindus. Besides in order to improve your 
 knowledge of History I may add that Aryan invasion theory has lost its 
 basis and their are evidences to say that even the Dravidians may have 
 come from outside. Only the adivasis were probably native inhabitants.
 BTW if you didn't know both are Hindus.
 > Finally . . . exactly how do you think Islam reached
 > Malaysia, for instance?  It's a bit naive to assume that
 > the religion was only spread through the sword.
 Spread of Islam in SE Asia though peaceful compared to the rest of the 
 world was not entirely free of violence. Due to its more peaceful nature 
 most Muslims in Indonesia do not have Arab names (e.g. you are not an 
 Arab but have an Arab name) and mixed names in Malaysia. Although Islamic 
 fundamentalists are working overnight to Arabise and Islamise (whatever 
 that means) the population.
 > Saif Al-Shirawi.