Re: The Concept of Eternal Damnation in Islam

On 16 May 2006 18:19:38 -0700, "1MAN4ALL" <forahmad@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


http://www.dawn.com/2005/07/11/letted.htm#6

1BOY refers to a a Paki letter writer in a Paki newspaper.
So in terms of reliability it goes: PLONK! PLONK!

http://www.pppusa.org/humudurrehman.htm

1BOY refers to a Report set up by the Paki government.
And the report doest NO AT ALL try to show why the
figure of 3 million murdered is not justified.
SO the Report goes PLONK!! PLONK!!

http://www.maxpages.com/umarkhan/islam_is_great_part_3

1BOY refers to a Muslim site which makes ABSOLUTELY NO EFFORT
to justify the assertions. So the reference goes PLONL!! PLONK!!

CONCLUSIONS:
1BOY does not have the faintest idea of what he is talking about.




MYSELF wrote:
Was There an Islamic "Genocide" of Hindus?
Dr. Koenraad Elst

I have disproved these assertions several times already, and I have
debated enough Hindus in this newsgroup to be a virtual expert. Note
that all these articles quoted by Hindus in newsgroups are written by
(extremely biased) Westerners and none by Hindu historians themselves.
What's been happening is that Hindu fundamentalists, since the
independence of India, have been rewriting their history (to justify
their brutality against innocent Muslims) and fooling Westerners, who
don't know any better. And when Western writers repeat Hindu lies,
Hindus are quick to note that 'even' Western historians say the same
thing! However, when these Western writers are proved wrong, after some
effort, Hindus conveniently distance themselves from them only to play
the same old trick once again.

Nandan Vyas ("Hindu Genocide in East Pakistan", Young India, January
1995) has argued convincingly that the number of Hindu victims in the
1971 genocide was approximately 2.4 million, or about 80%. In
comparing the population figures for 1961 and 1971, and taking the
observed natural growth rhythm into account, Vyas finds that the Hindu
population has remained stable at 9.5 million when it should have
increased to nearly 13 million (13.23 million if the same growth
rhythm were assumed for Hindus as for Muslims). Of the missing 3.5
million people (if not more), 1.1 million can be explained: it is the
number of Hindu refugees settled in India prior to the genocide

"It would surprise many to learn that at a conference convened by the
state department's historical division on June 28 and 29, following the
publication of hitherto unpublished US documents on the events of 1971,
participating scholars from Bangladesh disclosed that the casualty
figures of 300,000 "had been wrongly translated as three million from
Bengali to English". The three million figure had been given at the
official level by India and Bangladesh. The Bangladesh ambassador to
Washington has been quoted as stating that Bangladesh alone could not
correct the mistake. According to press reports, the participating
scholars from South Asia agreed that the real figure was around 26,000
as given in the Hamoodur Rehman Commission report and the revised
figures given by the Bangladesh scholars, after admitting the
translation mistake."

http://www.dawn.com/2005/07/11/letted.htm#6

WHETHER SUCH A CONFERENCE TOOK PLACE OR NOT OR WHETHER THE CONCLUSIONS
WERE AS REPORTED ABOVE CAN BE EASILY VERIFIED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

Pakistan did established a commission, under the chairmanship of a
highly respected Supreme Court judge, Hamoodur Rehman (who I think was
originally from Bangladesh) which interviewed numerous army officers,
eyewitnesses, and published a report which was later known as Hamoodur
Rehman Commission Report. The report was so critical of Pakistan Army
(and very fair) that it was not made public for many years. Now, you
can read it on the Internet and draw your own conclusions:
http://www.pppusa.org/humudurrehman.htm

Part of the Report:

31. In the circumstances that prevailed in East Pakistan from the 1st
of March to the 16th of December 1971, it was hardly possible to obtain
an accurate estimate of the toll of death and destruction caused by the
Awami League militants and later by the Pakistan Army. It must also be
remembered that even after the military action of the25th of march
1971, Indian infiltrators and members of the Mukti Bahini sponsored by
the Awami League continued to indulge in killings, rape and arson
during their raids on peaceful villages in East Pakistan, not only in
order to cause panic and disruption and carry out their plans of
subversion, but also to punish those East Pakistanis who were not
willing to go along with them. In any estimate of the extent of
atrocities alleged to have been committed on the East Pakistani people,
the death and destruction caused by the Awami League militants
throughout this period and the atrocities committed by them on their
own brothers and sisters must, therefore, be always be kept in view.


32. According to the Bangladesh authorities, the Pakistan Army was
responsible for killing three million Bengalis and raping 200,000 East
Pakistani women. It does not need any elaborate argument to see that
these figures are obviously highly exaggerated. So much damage could
not have been caused by the entire strength of the Pakistan Army then
stationed in East Pakistan even if it had nothing else to do. In fact,
however, the army was constantly engaged in fighting the Mukti Bahini,
the Indian infiltrators, and later the Indian army. It has also the
task of running the civil administration, maintaining communications
and feeding 70 million people of East Pakistan. It is, therefore,
clear that the figures mentioned by the Dacca authorities are
altogether fantastic and fanciful.


33. Different figures were mentioned by different persons in authority
but the latest statement supplied to us by the GHQ shows approximately
26,000 persons killed during the action by the Pakistan Army. This
figure is based on situation reports submitted from time to time by the
Eastern Command to the General Headquarters. It is possible that even
these figures may contain an element of exaggeration as the lower
formations may have magnified their own achievements in quelling the
rebellion. However, in the absence of any other reliable date, the
Commission is of the view that the latest figure supplied by the GHQ
should be accepted. An important consideration which has influenced us
in accepting this figure as reasonably correct is the fact that the
reports were sent from East Pakistan to GHQ at a time when the Army
Officers in East Pakistan could have had no notion whatsoever of any
accountability in this behalf.


34. The falsity of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's repeated allegation that
Pakistani troops had raped 200,000 Bengali girls in 1971 was borne out
when the abortion team he had commissioned from Britain in early 1972
found that its workload involved the termination of only a hundred or
more pregnancies.

During the Islamic conquests in India, it was a typical policy to
single out the Brahmins for slaughter, after the Hindu warrior class
had been bled on the battlefield. Even the Portuguese in Malabar and
Goa followed this policy in the 16th century, as can be deduced from
Hindu-Portuguese treaty clauses prohibiting the Portuguese from
killing Brahmins.

That's a foolish allegation not supported by any evidence. It is true
that when Arabs conquered Sindh, which is now part of Pakistan, the
majority of the population was Buddhist which was very suppressed by
Brahmin Hindus. Buddhists welcomed the Muslim invasion, as they felt
liberated, but minority Hindus lost power. But to say that Muslims
looked out for Brahmins in order to kill them is just ridiculous. There
is no evidence that the population of Brahmins reduced during the
Muslim rule of India.

That is why the mass killing of Hindus by Muslims rarely took place in
peacetime, but typically in the fervour immediately following military
victories, e.g. the fall of the metropolis of Vijayanagar in 1565 was
"celebrated" with a general massacre and arson. Once Muslim power was
established, Muslim rulers sought to exploit and humiliate rather than
kill the Hindus, and discourage rebellion by making some sort of
compromise.

Now, here is a doublespeak by an anti-Muslim Western writer. Unable to
explain that Hindus served in "Muslim" armies and in the courts of
Muslim kings, not to mention the fact that many Muslim kings had Hindu
wives, Koenraad Elst added that Muslims were also 'nice' enough to
"compromise." He ignores the fact that Hindu rajas and Muslim kings
also fought among themselves and slaughtered enemies who were of the
same faith. It may come as a shock to some but that's what you do in
wars!

Not that peacetime was all that peaceful, for as Fernand
Braudel wrote in A History of Civilizations (Penguin 1988/1963,
p.232-236), Islamic rule in India as a "colonial experiment" was
"extremely violent", and "the Muslims could not rule the country
except by systematic terror. Cruelty was the norm -- burnings, summary
executions, crucifixions or impalements, inventive tortures. Hindu
temples were destroyed to make way for mosques. On occasion there were
forced conversions. If ever there were an uprising, it was instantly
and savagely repressed: houses were burned, the countryside was laid
waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as slaves."

It's ridiculous that Western writers are quoting each other and there
is no mention of a Hindu text that says that Muslims slaughtered Hindus
by the millions. Are Hindus so dumb that they couldn't write their own
history when it comes to these alleged atrocities?

There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the
hands of Islam.

Yeaah right! It's about time you admit that, silly!

A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim
chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast
as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus
than the 6 million of the Holocaust.

The "Chronicles" that he is referring to are poetic works in which
kings were presented as great heroes who killed millions and millions
on the battlefield. No serious student of history would take these
highly exaggerated panegyric praises as facts. The fact is that there
no Hindu chronicle which says that Muslims killed hundreds of thousands
of innocent Hindus.

Ferishtha lists several occasions
when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred
thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt
like "punishing" the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank
provincial dynasty.

This was a period in Indian history when rival rajas or sultans were
fighting each whether the enemies belonged to the same religion or not.
To put things in perspective:

"The Bahmani Sultanate (Also called the Bahmanid Empire) was a Muslim
state of the Deccan in southern India. The sultanate was founded in
1347 by the Turkish governor Ala-ud-Din Bahman Shah, who revolted
against the Sultan of Delhi, Muhammad bin Tughluq. His revolt was
successful, and he established an independent state on Deccan out of
the Delhi Sultanate's southern provinces."

"Delhi Sultan Firuz Shah Tughluq [1351-1388]; built 100 hospitals, 150
bridges, 50 dams, 30 reservoirs, 30 colleges, and 200 towns. Vassal
states: Bengal and Jajnagar (present Orissa) [1359] and Thatta [1362].
Introduced many reforms, abolished most taxes, reclaimed waste land,
set up employment and marriage bureaus, built a new capital city
'Firozabad' at Delhi.
http://www.maxpages.com/umarkhan/islam_is_great_part_3

At the same time, Hindu rulers were also fighting and destroying rival
Hindu kingdoms.
"Bukka , one of the most well-known of the Panchasangamas) as well as
his brother Hakka founded the Hindu Vijayanagara Empire which reigned
from the year 1336 and onwards. Under Bukka Raya's thirty seven year
reign (according to Nuniz) the kingdom prospered and continued to
expand as Bukka Raya conquered most of the kingdoms of southern India,
continually expanding the territory of the empire. In the beginning of
Bukka Raya's reign, Bukka desperately tried to destroy all hostile
kingdoms so that he could strengthen the new empire, though initially
he could not do anything as most of his forces were concentrated on
fighting the Bahmanis. Later on, Bukka conquered Madurai and extended
his territory into the south all the way to Rameswaram. He would also
defeat the Shambuvaraya Kingdom of Arcot and the Reddis of Kondavidu.
In 1371, his son, Kumara Kamapna defeated the Sultanate of Madhura and
conquered the territory in the penninusla south of Tungabhadra. Goa and
the kingdom of Orissa (Orya) were also captured and Bukka forced the
Jaffna kingdom of Ceylon and Malabar to have to pay tributes to him.
During his reign Bukka would also have clashes with the Bahmani
Sultans."

This hardly paints the picture of just Muslims doing all the killing
and helpless Hindus dying by the millions. As I stated above, all these
accounts are highly exaggerated. Hindu and biased Western writers hide
the contributions made by Muslim rulers such as Tughlaq and pretend
that Hindus were all Gandhis or Mother Theresas.

The biggest slaughters took place during the raids
of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North
India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the
Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526). The Moghuls (1526-1857), even Babar and
Aurangzeb, were fairly restrained tyrants by comparison.

Ghaznivid empire stretched all the way to Iran, so why only present
Hindus as victims? Ghaznavi launched 17 attacks on the northern part of
India, 16 of which failed. It's true that he wiped out the Hindu army
and enslaved thousands of Hindus whom he took with him to Afghanistan
but he was driven more by greed and power than anything else. He also
had a Hindus in his armies and his general was Tilak, a Hindu. To
present him as a symbol of Muslim atrocities is just nonsensical.

Prof. K.S.
Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million
under the Sultanate, but that would be hard to substantiate; research
into the magnitude of the damage Islam did to India is yet to start in
right earnest.

Already answered in my previous post.

See below:

The lie about 70 or 80 million Hindus killed originated with Indian
Professor K.S. Lal's book "Growth of Muslim population in India", who
wrote that "according to his calculations, the Hindu population
decreased by 80 MILLION between the year 1000 and 1525." I don't have
his book, so I am not sure if Professor Lal's was implying that Muslims
killed these 80 million or if that population became reduced because of
some other reasons. In any case, the number seems highly unrealistic
given the fact that the entire population of India, Pakistan and
Bangladesh was not more than 350 million in 1947. So, if you calculate
backwards and allow for normal population growth rates, you would
realize how ridiculous Professor Lal's assertion is. Judging from the
title of the book, my guess is that Professor Lal was simply trying to
explain the high percentage of Muslims in India by making a point that
this percentage would have been much lower if so many Hindus had not
died during the Muslim rule.

.

Relevant Pages