PKPolitics Discuss » Future of Pakistan

Tariq Bin Ziad a Great Warrior of Islam to his soldier

(91 posts)
  1. Devil Hunter

    “ Oh my warriors, whither would you flee? Behind you is the sea, before you, the enemy. You have left now only the hope of your courage and your constancy. Remember that in this country you are more unfortunate than the orphan seated at the table of the avaricious master. Your enemy is before you, protected by an innumerable army; he has men in abundance, but you, as your only aid, have your own swords, and, as your only chance for life, such chance as you can snatch from the hands of your enemy. If the absolute want to which you are reduced is prolonged ever so little, if you delay to seize immediate success, your good fortune will vanish, and your enemies, whom your very presence has filled with fear, will take courage. Put far from you the disgrace from which you flee in dreams, and attack this monarch who has left his strongly fortified city to meet you. Here is a splendid opportunity to defeat him, if you will consent to expose yourselves freely to death. Do not believe that I desire to incite you to face dangers which I shall refuse to share with you. In the attack I myself will be in the fore, where the chance of life is always least.
    Remember that if you suffer a few moments in patience, you will afterward enjoy supreme delight. Do not imagine that your fate can be separated from mine, and rest assured that if you fall, I shall perish with you, or avenge you. You have heard that in this country there are a large number of ravishingly beautiful Greek maidens, their graceful forms are draped in sumptuous gowns on which gleam pearls, coral, and purest gold, and they live in the palaces of royal kings. The Commander of True Believers, Alwalid, son of Abdalmelik, has chosen you for this attack from among all his Arab warriors; and he promises that you shall become his comrades and shall hold the rank of kings in this country. Such is his confidence in your intrepidity. The one fruit which he desires to obtain from your bravery is that the word of God shall be exalted in this country, and that the true religion shall be established here. The spoils will belong to yourselves.

    Remember that I place myself in the front of this glorious charge which I exhort you to make. At the moment when the two armies meet hand to hand, you will see me, never doubt it, seeking out this Roderick, tyrant of his people, challenging him to combat, if God is willing. If I perish after this, I will have had at least the satisfaction of delivering you, and you will easily find among you an experienced hero, to whom you can confidently give the task of directing you. But should I fall before I reach to Roderick, redouble your ardor, force yourselves to the attack and achieve the conquest of this country, in depriving him of life. With him dead, his soldiers will no longer defy you"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_ibn_Ziyad

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 6:01 #
  2. Anonymous

    Interesting to note he did not make any religious references in his whole speech. Did not use any quarni aya or ahadees or the word "jihad" or "allah" or "mohammad". Inshallah does not count. Unless this is not a full version of his speech.

    This is very very interesting. Tells me a lot about the army of Tariq and governance of that time.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 15:21 #
  3. chechen

    http://www.geocities.com/mutmainaa7/people/tariq_bin_ziyad.html

    http://www.renaissance.com.pk/marletf95.html

    Tariq was a berber slave who was a commander under the Governor of Africa, Musa bin Nusair and he sent Tariq to Spain at request of King of Spain, Roderic. Tariq crossed the Mediterranean sea from the narrow straits of what is known today as Gibraltar-from Arabic Jabal Tariq. It was yeat 711 AD.

    By 732 AD the Muslim armies have taken complete control of Spain and faced Charles Martel of France in the famous battle of Tours in Pyrenees mountains of France. The Muslims lost the battle. Famous historian Gibbon has said that IF Muslims had won that battle the whole Europe would have been Muslim.

    This was less than 100 Years from the death of Prophet SAS. Muslim armies had reached France in West and frontiers of China in East. Kashgar in present day occupied Xinjiang province of China was already under Muslims.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 15:45 #
  4. yahya

    Did Tariq bin Ziad have a valid reason to attack Spain? or was he looking for weapons of mass destruction?

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:04 #
  5. JJ Khan

    Yahya,

    That depends on your definition of "valid"

    According to macaulayism, No.

    But according to Islam, Yes.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:07 #
  6. Anonymous

    but important point here is he did not make any religious references in his whole speech. Not even once.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:09 #
  7. yahya

    "But according to Islam, Yes."

    ...and how is west wrong in curtailing this Islam that is a self declared threat to west? Self defence from west no?

    Point is you can’t be threatening to someone and then complain when they take action. Also every Muslim living in west can now be considered a valid threat.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:13 #
  8. JJ Khan

    bsobaid,

    May be if you visualize state of mind of those Muslims during very early times. They had crystal clarity on message of Islam and didn't need reminders on Allah/Mohammad.

    They were knights during the day and 'monks' during the nights.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:16 #
  9. chechen

    Allama Iqbal's poem is dedicated to Tariq's Jihad.

    "Ye gazi ye tere pursuraar bande, do neem inki thokar se sahra ye darya simit kar pahad inki haibat se rayi"

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:16 #
  10. JJ Khan

    Yahya,

    What is your point? I am not sure what you trying to say.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:17 #
  11. Anonymous

    ITs not a threat, it is their democratic right as long as they use lawful means. They can propogate Islam and their ideology and let awam decide if they like it or not. If awam likes it then change France into an Islamic Republic. There is nothing unlawful about that.

    Now you will say we oppose such liberties in Pakistan then my answer will be, Pakistan is an "islamic" republic and it is supposed to run according to islamic ideology as understood by Pakistan's awam. France is a secular and democratic country and secularism do not impede propogation of new ideas through lawful means.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:18 #
  12. Anonymous

    NAhi JJ Khan, Tariq's speech is suggesting otherwise. IT was more of an "oo-lul-amr" than anything else.

    You should take lead from his speech. I think lack and actually absence of any religious references in this speech is extremely significant. Unless there were non-muslim soldies in his army.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:21 #
  13. Anonymous

    Someone needs to explain me his speech. Why is there no jihad or allah or mohammad or ghazwa-e-badr in his speech? JJ Khan your response is a good one but not convincing enough.

    How can a great sipah-e-salaar of Islam not mention Allah or jihaad in his war speech. I dont get it.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:24 #
  14. yahya

    “ITs not a threat, it is their democratic right as long as they use lawful means.”

    Attacking Spain was democratic?

    "Now you will say we oppose such liberties in Pakistan then my answer will be, Pakistan is an "islamic" republic"

    Islam gives less rights than a democratic system?

    Then;

    a) Which system is fairer and more humane; which treats every human with dignity?

    b) How is a Muslim entitled to "democratic rights" if he believes in Islam and not democracy?

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:24 #
  15. talal khan

    Yeh Imperialism Nahin To phir Aur kia hay?

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:27 #
  16. chechen

    Sure it was "democratic". The masses were suffering under the tyrant Gothic ruler of Spain Roderic and the mases as majority invited Tariq to attack Spain. This is called offensive Jihad.

    Before commenting on that situation, please read history of Spain and find out how the Church and King were oppressing the masses with a reign of terror.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:29 #
  17. @yahya

    Did Tariq bin Ziad have a valid reason to attack Spain? or was he looking for weapons of mass destruction?
    ===========================================================
    Attacking Spain was democratic?
    ===========================================================
    May I ask where are you leading the discussion that is going on smoothly?

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:29 #
  18. yahya

    "Sure it was "democratic". The masses were suffering under the tyrant Gothic ruler of Spain Roderic"

    Same with Afghanistan, Iraq and many if not most Islamic countries. I am not sure we want to go there.

    "..and the mases as majority invited Tariq to attack Spain."

    Is there any evidence of any referendum held in Spain that masses invited him? Sounds more like a "weapons of mass destruction" type of excuse; One wants to attack a country one makes up any reason. No evidence required.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:34 #
  19. Anonymous

    No no, different times. You have to take into account different times. At that time there was no idea of territorial integrity of nations. This is how nations used to act, it was an international norm unlike today when we have these ideas of democracy and respect of territorial integrity.

    I was responding to "Also every Muslim living in west can now be considered a valid threat"

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:35 #
  20. yahya

    "May I ask where are you leading the discussion that is going on smoothly? "

    "Did Tariq bin Ziad have a valid reason to attack Spain?" Just that.

    Pretty valid question I think. Attacking a country which has not attacked before is a serious issue. Normally we condemn this sort of thing. So if Tariq bin Ziad did right then he must have a valid reason to attack. Just wondering what is it?

    Justifying attacking a country “to spread one’s religion” can open up a Pandora box. Issuing such licenses is fraught with dangers. We have enough problems in this world to give yet another excuse to every strong nation to attack every weak nation to spread its particular religion/ideology.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:36 #
  21. Anonymous

    No, its not about islam its about ideology. A nation based on a given ideology is supposed and expected to protect and act according to its ideology.
    Israel i s supposed to do what is necessary to protect Jewish religion in its country.
    Suaids is supposed and expected to do the same in their country.
    Similarly, France is supposed to do the same. France is supposed to act based on its ideology and France is based on secularism and democracy. France is supposed to and expected to to act according to the idea of secularism which is areligious.

    Its not about right or wrong, its about ideologies as long as they respect international human rights charter enshrined by United NAtions.

    semirza, this discussion is going fine. MOderator intervention is not needed.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:39 #
  22. chechen

    Muslims were honest to say that they wanted the Truth of Islam to prevail in order to save mankind from definite hell fire in the hereafter unlike the colonialists and the present day neo-colonialists that invade to plunder, loot and kill.

    The clowns harping on this thread don't have a clue that the 800 years of Muslim rule of Spain is considered as the golden age of Spain by Spaniards themselves. Spain reached its glory ONLY during Muslim rule. That is the reason it is called "the paradise lost".

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:41 #
  23. Anonymous

    @Yahya
    "a) Which system is fairer and more humane; which treats every human with dignity?"

    This is relative question. Fairer and dignity are relative concepts.
    An Islamic person would think human dignity lies in emancipation from hell fire and in obedience of god.
    A secular person would think human dignity lies in personal liberty. 2 different concepts. You cant compare apples and oranges.

    A country based on Islamic principles is free to follow its idea of human dignity and liberty and secular country is also free to follow its ideas.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:42 #
  24. Gentle men, the rule in Spain was the golden rule. Many things positive were done not just for Muslims but non Muslims benifited also. Tariq's address is also pointing towards for example Bsobaid has noticed that no mention of certain references is a possible indicator of non Muslim contribution/participation in his army

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:45 #
  25. talal khan

    And no non muslim came to help those thousands of opressed muslims killed by Hajjaj Bin Yusuf?

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:50 #
  26. yahya

    "Gentle men, the rule in Spain was the golden rule."

    Countries that US occupied; Germany, Japan, and South Korea are wealthiest in the world and many Pakistanis ended up there too. Who knows, given enough time Afghanistan will become one too.

    But either way, this is hardly a valid reason to attack a country that in next 50 years or so we intend to turn the country into a better place. If so, US will have a valid right to occupy every third world country, which it is doing nevertheless but let’s not justify it.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:51 #
  27. NNL

    Obaid bhai i think you need to go thru this speech again cos i see significant amount of hints regarding Jihad and Making the Word of Supreme as the rule of the land.

    Thats pretty pretty Hardcore Fundamental.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:51 #
  28. Anonymous

    Talal Khan, stick to the topic. You made some points and I have responded to them, lets continue along the same lines.

    The point is, you have to take into account the times and resources. In 735AD you could spread your ideology in 2 ways. Tableegh or war. Given the church's iron rule at that time, tableegh was not an option.

    In today's times, however, tableegh option is open so we should use that and by the way this option is not illegal or unlawful in secular countries.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:58 #
  29. Anonymous

    "Making the Word of Supreme" I am not sure what he meant by supreme. Is it Allah or Moosa bin Nusair??

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 16:59 #
  30. Anonymous

    ok, yes there is a reference and a significant one

    "The one fruit which he desires to obtain from your bravery is that the word of God shall be exalted in this country, and that the true religion shall be established here."

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 17:02 #
  31. yahya

    "In 735 you could spread your ideology in 2 ways. Tableegh or war."

    Do we have a UN resolution from 735 to verify this? Point is we can't make up our own rules to attack other countries. Not least because this works in reverse too.

    "Given the church's iron rule at that time, tableegh was not an option."

    Does this give west right to attack Muslim countries to enable preaching and conversion to say xtianity? Such arguments in favour of Tariq's attack of Spain also go in favour of attacking Muslim countries now that west is in a stronger position and it also believes it has a better ideology than Islam.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 17:05 #
  32. NNL

    The Commander of True Believers, Alwalid, son of Abdalmelik, has chosen you for this attack from among all his Arab warriors; and he promises that you shall become his comrades and shall hold the rank of kings in this country. Such is his confidence in your intrepidity. The one fruit which he desires to obtain from your bravery is that the word of God shall be exalted in this country, and that the true religion shall be established here. The spoils will belong to yourselves.
    ===============================================

    This entire Passage is trying to impress the age old argument that Polytheists love to bring out every time that Islam was spread by the sword.

    Before believing that its the actual words of Tariq bin Zaid and the reporter is authentic till then i m skeptical of the evidence presented. the source is wiki for heaven's sake.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 17:05 #
  33. Anonymous

    @ yahya, "Do we have a UN resolution from 735 to verify this?"
    that is the whole point. There was no UN at that time. A preliminary study of those times will tell you these were the only 2 options. In indonesia and Pakistan Tableegh worked and in Spain it had to be war.

    "Does this give west right to attack Muslim countries to enable preaching and conversion to say xtianity? "

    Did America ever say they are attacking Iraq to spread christiantiy? they attacked to find weapon of mass destruction. Tariq on the other hand is making his intentions cealr and so did his king who wrote letter to Spain rulers before the attack and invited them to come into Islam.

    Yes, Islam wants its preachers to spread the ideology and so does christiantiy and this certainly caused wars in the past. However, in this time and age a war can not be justified because there are other peaceful means, such as tableegh, available to spread your message.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 17:16 #
  34. This address of Tariq as per wiki posted here and the same address on page 13 of this book is recommened to the readers for comparison:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/11337848/The-Incomplete-History-Andalus-After-1492

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 17:20 #
  35. JJ Khan

    I see, Yahya is trying to compare Muslim's liberation of Spain with American invasion of Afghanistan.

    There are some commonalities, Americans think their ideology is Truth, Freedom, Right, Liberty, Humane, etc and anyone not having this ideology are oppressed. So the country must be invaded to provide people with these values.

    Islam also has the vision that people are oppressed under tyrant rulers and must be liberated from slavery of man to Allah swt.

    History tells us what Muslims delivered to the people where they went. They never forced anyone to accept Islam, they only removed the hurdles stopping the message from reaching to public. People accepted Islam when they saw the real values.

    And History also tell us what West delivered under the pretext of those values. I don't think I need to tell western designs here, do i?

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 17:27 #
  36. JJ Khan

    Further to add, Korea/Germany/Japan progressed because they rejected their ideology and adopted invaders ideology and truly believed in it. So they progressed.

    Muslims were invaded, but Muslims never adopted western ideology, their agents copied like monkeys, but masses still believe in Islam and very much reject secular/liberal values. Got it?

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 17:30 #
  37. JJ Khan

    Sad to see Macaulay's fruits still in abundance in 21st century! They are blind to see the oppression inflicted by their masters on the humanity. They took one of the most advanced countries of Arabs and put it in stone ages.

    Million plus died due to cruel embargoes, and million more murdered in the name of 'freedom', 'democracy'...

    Do you care to compare before & after? Where is your commonsense??

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 17:36 #
  38. chechen

    Korea/Germany/Japan progressed

    You need to retrack that statement. What is progress? How do you measure it? shiny cars, bullet trains, skyscrapers, industrial junk yards?

    Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world and economy is fast shrinking. Germany is facing demographic catastrophe and Korea is US colony and on way to economic and disaster.

    JJ, The example of world biggest Muslim country is a solid proof for those who blame that Islam spread by sword. Not a single Muslim soldier went there. Only handful of sea faring traders brought Islam to that country.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 19:52 #
  39. crocodile

    kingsalah if you had the title of the post as :

    The great warrior King Arthur
    or
    The Great warrior Alexander,A great soldier And a great Man.
    or
    A Great soldier with pen:winston churchill

    Then you would see a complete different response from Bhangis and they would be so excited as if 'its' their 'chachay da putter'

    or they wont even bother to drop a line.Just try that!

    :)

    ps.Anyways The Muslim spain had been acknowledged as the first step towards europe's so called 'free thinking' and was also the first step for educating masses in scientific fields.But Bhanigs wont acknowledge.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 19:53 #
  40. NNL

    read the page posted by Mirza Sahib and do a comparison. please its an interesting read.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 20:17 #
  41. NNL

    The article pasted on the Wiki page is the gross misrepresentation of the original source cited by Mirza Sahib read it before you all make comments.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 20:58 #
  42. NNL

    The Original Speech as recorded for your assessment.

    “Oh my warriors, whither would you flee? Behind you is the sea, before you, the enemy. By Allah! there is no salvation for you but in your courage and perseverance. Consider your situation;—here you are on this island like so many orphans cast upon the world; you will soon be met by a powerful enemy, surrounding you on all sides like the infuriated billows of a tempestuous seas, and sending against you countless warriors, drowned in steel, and provided with every store and description of arms. What can you oppose them [with]? You have no other weapons than your swords, no provisions but those that you may snatch from the hands of your enemies...Banish all fear from your hearts, trust that victory shall be ours, and that the barbarian king will not be able to withstand the shock of our arms. Here he comes to make us the masters of his cities and castles, and to deliver into our hands his countless treasures; and if you only seize the opportunity now presented, it may perhaps be the means of your becoming the owners of them5, besides saving yourself from certain death. Do not think that I impose upon you a task from which I shrink myself, or that I try to conceal from you the dangers attending this expedition.

    No: you have certainly a great deal to encounter, but know that if you only suffer for awhile, you will reap in the end an abundant harvest of pleasures and enjoyments. And do not imagine that while I speak to you I mean not to act as I speak, for as my interest in this is greater, so will my behavior on this occasion surpass yours6. You know well that the khalifa Abdu-l-Malik Ibnu-l-Waleed has chosen you, like so many heroes from among the brave; you know that the great lords of this island are willing to make you their sons and brethren in marriage, if you only rush on like so many brave men to the fight, and behave like true champions and valiant knights; you know that the recompenses of Allah await you if you are prepared to uphold His word, and proclaim his deen in this peninsula…Bear in mind that Allah ( تعلى ) will select, according to this promise, those that distinguish themselves most among you, and grant them due reward both in this world and the hereafter and know likewise that I shall be the first to set you the example, and to put in practice what I recommend you to do7; for it is my intention, on the meeting of the two hosts, to attack the Christian tyrant Roderic and kill him with my own hand, Insha’Allah. When you see me bearing against him, charge along with me; if I kill him, the victory is ours; if I am
    killed before I reach him, do not trouble yourselves about me, but fight as if I were still alive and among you, and follow up my purpose...If, however, I should be killed, after inflicting death upon their king, appoint a man from among you who unites both courage and experience, and may command you in this emergency, and follow up the success. If you follow my instructions, we are sure of victory, (Makkari, The History of the Mohammedan
    Dynasties in Spain, Vol. 1, 310-311)8”

    Tariq’s troops replied resoundingly thus:
    قد قطعنا الآمال مما يخالف ما عزمت عليه، فاحضر إليه فإننا معك وبين يديك

    “We are ready to follow you, O Tariq! We shall all, to the last man, stand by you, and fight for you; nor could we avoid it were we otherwise disposed... (ibid, 311).9”

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 21:09 #
  43. NNL

    My final thoughts on this the source cited on Wiki page "From: Charles F. Horne, ed., The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East, (New York: Parke, Austin, & Lipscomb, 1917), Vol. VI: Medieval Arabia, pp. 241-242."

    However from same book the author on Page 238 says that Al Maggari himself cant be trusted to reproduce the actual words of the Commander Tarik as Al Maggari followed some tradition of writing and he wrote it in Africa long after the Moors were driven out of Spain
    http://www.archive.org/stream/sacredbooksearly06hornuoft#page/237/mode/1up

    So therefore the passage in the Speech where Tarik is supposedly telling about the Greek Maidens is a possible addition and not the actual words of the Commander.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 21:41 #
  44. NNL

    If anyone needs these books i think i have them with me on pdf files.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 21:47 #
  45. JJ Khan

    bsobaid,

    Do you observe Allah's name now in the original speech? Your earlier speculation was correct.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 21:50 #
  46. Anonymous

    JJ, yes and it is clear now. Thanks.

    This teaches us all one thing to not to jump to conclusions on preliminary information.

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 22:03 #
  47. Anonymous

    NNL, I dont have citation link to the original speech. Can you please post the original speech on wiki?

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 22:06 #
  48. NNL

    I will try that Obaid.

    Havent made additions or corrections to anything on Wiki.

    I m trying to find the original citation but you can post the citation of Charles F Hornes where he says that these might not be the actual words.
    http://www.archive.org/stream/sacredbooksearly06hornuoft#page/237/mode/1up

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 22:11 #
  49. hariskhan

    Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

    I have a lot of reading to catch up on to.

    However, generally, I have complete trust and confidence in Muslims.

    Muslim UMMAT, its loyal soldiers, their actions in the distant past have only made Muslims of today proud of them.

    It is nearly impossible to make me believe the idea that Muslim UMMAT or its loyal soldiers were ever envolved in "injustice". Because Muslim UMMAT or its loyal soldiers were the ones that stood firm! on "justice", golden principles of Islam

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 23:24 #
  50. hariskhan

    Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

    I wonder if Pakistan or Muslims in Pakistan or Muslims in the whole world can re-establish librarie(s) which have ALL the collected knowledge of the world, till this day

    Posted 4 years ago on 21 Aug 2009 23:43 #
  51. chechen

    WS Haris,

    The reference to libraries reminds me of 2 incidents that virtually destroyed the treasure of books, manuscripts and other artifacts from that glorious period.

    When the Muslims and other minorities were expelled from Spain in 1492 during infampous inquisition there was wholesale burning of libraries of famous universities of Granada, Cordova, Toledo and other centers of learning by the barbaric Christians of that time. One point to be noted here is that the Muslims were massacred along with Jews by the catholics. Those who escaped the slaughter went to North Africa. The Jews had nowhere to go and some were welcomes in Morocco and others were given asylum by Ottoman Khalifa and settled in present day Bosnia. The thriving Jewish quarter in Sarajevo is testimony to that fact and tolerance of Muslims.

    The second incident was the sacking of Baghdad at the end of Abbasid Khilafa in 12th century when the river Dajla and Firaat were floating with debris of libraries that were burnt down by the marauding Tatars under Halaku. The entire city was burnt to the ground. The Tatars came to conquer Islam but they themselves were conquered by Islam and the new Tatar/Turkish Muslims went as far as Vienna, Austria in heart of Europe twice during the peak of Ottoman period.

    Posted 4 years ago on 22 Aug 2009 0:25 #
  52. talal khan

    Read actual history ----Why Mohammad Bin Qasim was killed and Why Khalid Bin Walid and Saad Bin Abi Waqas were reprimanded.

    Posted 4 years ago on 22 Aug 2009 11:20 #
  53. NNL

    open a new thread and make your case over there so we all can see.

    Posted 4 years ago on 22 Aug 2009 11:23 #
  54. talal khan

    Semirza
    The question of golden era of muslim rule arises later.Question posed by yahya was if attack on Spain was justified in the first instance.
    If the era of muslim rule was golden,then the rule of Britishers on India was also golden era as they built roads,railways,buildings and bridges and did not interfere in the religious affairs of local population.

    Posted 4 years ago on 22 Aug 2009 17:05 #
  55. chechen

    "If the era of muslim rule was golden,then the rule of Britishers on India was also golden era as they built roads,railways,buildings and bridges and did not interfere in the religious affairs of local population. "

    South Africa also enjoyed so called prosperity under Europeans but they were under barbaric apartheid and slavery. As Tipu said: It is better to live one day as Lion rather than 100 year as slve wolf with all the trappings".

    The British poked their nose in every oppurtunity to incite religious hatred. They encouraged and patronised the creation of sects like Qadianis and also encouraged sufi crackpots over religious Muslims to dampen the spirit of Jihad that was necessary to resist occupation.

    That so called progress was not meant for locals. It was pure exploitation meant for oiling the war machine of the colonizers who had colonised half of the world and killed millions in that process. The same is now being repeated by the neo-colonialists led by America. This was in sharp contrast Muslim invasions of most part of the world where there was NO exploitation as they adhered to the rule of law dicatated by Quran and Sunnah. Once again repeating the words of new Muslim convert former German Ambassador who wrote after 9/11 about terrorism. Please note how he described the West's track record.

    Let us now take a good look at the record of that marvelous, self-appointed center of rationality, the enlightened Western world. Since the 18th century, in contrast to the high ideals pronounced and exported, what one discovers in terms of actual behavior is highly disturbing: Slave-trading, extermination of native populations, apartheid and colonialism -countless millions killed; two savage world wars-56 million killed ; Stalinist massacres-29 million killed and the Nazi holocaust-6 million ; ethnic (in reality, religious) cleansing in Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosova and atomic warfare against civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    These disasters were the bloodiest the world has ever seen. But even if Western people were not at war with each other, they have behaved violently against nature: against animals, plants and even minerals-to the point that the destruction of resources and environmental disasters like air pollution threaten the survival of mankind.
    None of the bloody excesses I mentioned took place in the Muslim world; and yet the West, in spite of such a record, has the nerve to ask the rest of the world to follow its example and to deny not only the existence, but also the possibility, of an alternative

    Posted 4 years ago on 22 Aug 2009 17:17 #
  56. JJ Khan

    Talal Khan,

    Why so obedient to colonialist masters? Do you think they came to serve people or loot the wealth? It was wealth of India alone that gave enough material for british industrial revolution.

    Posted 4 years ago on 22 Aug 2009 17:17 #
  57. Sahnaz

    well in simple word u can say tht'Might is Right". it was true in past, in present and will be true in future. who has power want to hv more power by conquering other nation, smtime it is on the name of religion, n othertime on the name of democarcy or to save humanity. anyhow in the wars always a common man suffer, who never want a war but hard earned bread for two times a day.

    thnx

    Posted 4 years ago on 22 Aug 2009 17:22 #
  58. chechen

    Sahnaz, It was not "might is right" in case of Muslims as beautifully described by Allama Iqbal about the earlier Muslims who reached borders of France and frontier of China in 732 AD.

    Teghzani karte the na hum hukumat ke liye
    ladte the hum teri naam ki azmat ke liye

    We never use to brandish swords for the sake of hukumat
    but used to fight to make the word of God supreme.

    Posted 4 years ago on 22 Aug 2009 17:27 #
  59. JJ Khan

    More simple is to have before/after comparison of Muslim liberated areas and Western invaded areas and see for yourself.

    Posted 4 years ago on 22 Aug 2009 17:27 #
  60. @Talal Khan
    No offense but please refrain from questions that are unrelating to the topic of the thread. It could be taken as an obvious attempt to detrack the ongoing discussion relative to Tariq bin Ziad and his address. Like you have already been advised
    by a member:

    'open a new thread and make your case over there so we all can see.'

    Than you do as advised, and leave the members to discuss the topic.

    Posted 4 years ago on 22 Aug 2009 17:28 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.