Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are there no death tolls listed for all the wars when Islam was spread throughout Arabia,the ME, North Africa or India?
I can assure you they didn't spread the religion via hugs, and fluffy clouds, and rainbow unicorns.
Some historians estimate the India conquest at 80,000,000 casualties. I don't really care what the actual number is, but the fact none of Islam's early conquests are even mentioned in your article is clearly a major mistake.
i.e. your article is not very credible, accurate, clearly has an agenda, etc.
Here's another perspective. Not sure if it's completely accurate, but it's definitely a different take on the topic.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,943,087 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperionGap
Why are there no death tolls listed for all the wars when Islam was spread throughout Arabia,the ME, North Africa or India?
I can assure you they didn't spread the religion via hugs, and fluffy clouds, and rainbow unicorns.
Some historians estimate the India conquest at 80,000,000 casualties. I don't really care what the actual number is, but the fact none of Islam's early conquests are even mentioned in your article is clearly a major mistake.
i.e. your article is not very credible, accurate, clearly has an agenda, etc.
Here's another perspective. Not sure if it's completely accurate, but it's definitely a different take on the topic.
I tried finding a reference to your assertion of the 80 million. Couldn't find it.
So please provide a credible reference.
That's all your response is? You realize the actual number isn't important right?
Let me try and explain this one more time because you clearly didn't get it the first time.
1) Your article completely ignores all casualties related to the spread of Islam across the ME, North Africa, India, Spain, Byzantium, Hungary, etc. I.e. it lists the number of deaths at 0.
2) Anyone with even half a brain knows the actual death count for several centuries of war is not 0. I'm not going to go look up the death count of every single one of these battles because it's a complete waste of my time. Therefore, arguing about the specific number is irrelevant. The bottom line is; it's not 0 like your article claims by completely ignoring hundreds of years of muslim conquest. Just like I'm sure I could find sources that have a different number for the amount of people Stalin or Pol Pot killed, the minute details really don't matter for this argument.
3. I take it you didn't read the article I linked since the answer to your question was in the first few paragraphs. According to some calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate). -- Koenrad Elst as quoted on Daniel Pipes site
If you still don't understand what my point is, please ask again about the actual number of deaths and I'll try to dumb it down even further to a level you can comprehend.
Last edited by HyperionGap; 04-05-2015 at 11:37 AM..
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,943,087 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperionGap
That's all your response is? You realize the actual number isn't important right?
Let me try and explain this one more time because you clearly didn't get it the first time.
1) Your article completely ignores all casualties related to the spread of Islam across the ME, North Africa, India, Spain, Byzantium, Hungary, etc. I.e. it lists the number of deaths at 0.
2) Anyone with even half a brain knows the actual death count for several centuries of war is not 0. I'm not going to go look up the death count of every single one of these battles because it's a complete waste of my time. Therefore, arguing about the specific number is irrelevant. The bottom line is; it's not 0 like your article claims by completely ignoring hundreds of years of muslim conquest. Just like I'm sure I could find sources that have a different number for the amount of people Stalin or Pol Pot killed, the minute details really don't matter for this argument.
3. I take it you didn't read the article I linked since the answer to your question was in the first few paragraphs. According to some calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate). -- Koenrad Elst as quoted on Daniel Pipes site
If you still don't understand what my point is, please ask again about the actual number of deaths and I'll try to dumb it down even further to a level you can comprehend.
I read your article AND the links inside it.
Your assertion is based on the article's assertion based on an unreferenced assertion.
Now, give the credible reference, or admit you can't find it, just like I could not.
Moderator cut: deleted
Last edited by june 7th; 04-05-2015 at 07:27 PM..
Reason: Rude comments deleted
The quote is from the book Negationism in India written by Koenraad Elst (born 7 August 1959) is a Belgian orientalist and Indologist known primarily for his writings in support for the Out of India theory, a controversial proposition that the Indo-European language family originated in India.Koenraad Elst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you don't like what his book says take it up with him. I don't care about educating stupid.
There is no battle of wits, you're not even smart enough to understand what I'm talking about much less debate it.
Your premise is that the battles of Poitiers, Guadelete, Constantinople, Thessaloniki, Kosovo, Belgrade, Mohacs, etc. etc. etc. had ZERO casualties.
Do you even understand how utterly dumb this concept is?
Nice list showing what dogma, religions (state religions in this case) and dictatorships can do to our civilisation. And what is Christianity but a dictatorship with an (thankfully unsubstantiated and likely imaginary) all powerful and unelected leader at the godhead.
Show me a society......... that adopted the teaching of lucricious, einstein. Spinoza, Jefferson and so forth, implementing a democracy of the people, with free speech and a free press........ that descended into war and starvation and lunacy and death. There isnt one, so save yourself the effort.
As Sam Harris once said.... there is not a society in history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
Um ... everybody on that list is a militant atheist with the possible exception of Adolf Hitler. So your point kinda fails.
Human suffering has two primary sources.
Natural disasters and natural phenomena.
A bunch of people being a-holes.
Religion or the lack thereof has very little to do with it.
Justifying religious wars by denouncing non-Christian bloodshed is a bit like saying, "Why bother curing cancer when there are so many other diseases to cure."
Yet another "no true Scotsman" post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI
It will come down how one defines, violence.
However I believe it can be shown that historically many more atrocities have been caused people that wear the name of Christian than by people wearing the name of Muslim. by
I hope you are not trying to excuse what is being done by Muslim extremists today.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,943,087 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperionGap
The quote is from the book Negationism in India written by Koenraad Elst (born 7 August 1959) is a Belgian orientalist and Indologist known primarily for his writings in support for the Out of India theory, a controversial proposition that the Indo-European language family originated in India.Koenraad Elst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you don't like what his book says take it up with him. I don't care about educating stupid.
There is no battle of wits, you're not even smart enough to understand what I'm talking about much less debate it.
Your premise is that the battles of Poitiers, Guadelete, Constantinople, Thessaloniki, Kosovo, Belgrade, Mohacs, etc. etc. etc. had ZERO casualties.
Do you even understand how utterly dumb this concept is?
Thanks for the links.
Let's go and see what Koenraad Elst says in his own blog, why don't we?
There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Seems you are stretching things a bit. Why would you exaggerate?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
