SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sun Tzu who wrote (223090)3/8/2007 8:37:47 AM
From: Elroy  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
in order for you to bring Islam into this, you need to show that somehow being Muslim made them use more force than if the founding kings had been Christians or Hindus (or heck even more appropriately, nomadic Moguls).

No, I thought the question was prove how in a given time period Muslims have used their power to dominate and force conversion of others. The mere existence of your Muslim Mogul Caliphate proves that they dominated others (their current subjects, formerly under some other ruling group) and they forced them to convert to Islam or suffer the consequences.

So the question becomes did the Moguls expand their empire because they were Moguls, because they were Muslims, because of some combination of the two, or some other as of year unmentioned reason. Afraid I don't have the answer - we'd have to ask them.

But how can you get past the combination of two ideas and not have an aggressive, expanding force. The two ideas being

1- Many Muslim nations have not separated church and state.
2- To convert others to Islam is good.

Those two points would lead you to believe that it is good for the Muslim nation to convert the non-Muslim nation to Islam = when you can fight a war and probably win against a non-Muslim nation, a Muslim nation should do so because the resultant conversion of the non-Muslim population is good.



To: Sun Tzu who wrote (223090)3/8/2007 1:38:03 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
The Mogul dynasty came from conquest. The Moguls were of Mongol/Turkik descent. The Mongols were definitely crueler than other peoples, cf. Tamerlane:

It was the Timur the Lame (known in the Europe as Tamerlane), whose "descent from Chinggis Khan," as Jack Weatherford says, was based "flimsy evidence,"[1] who gave the Mongols the bad reputation that has come down to us. Virtually nothing good can be said of Timur's conquests, and this fact has obscured the contributions of the Mongol Empire. While Timur tortured unmercifully and sacked cities indiscriminately, Chinggis Khan abolished torture and formed alliances with people who did not resist him. As an orthodox Muslim, Timur thought that the Delhi Sultans had been very lax in enforcing Islamic law against Hindus and other non-Muslims. Just before his devastating attack on Delhi in 1398, he ordered that Muslim and Hindu prisoners be separated and then declared that "every man who had infidel prisoners was to put them to death." [2] An estimated 100,000 Hindu prisoners were liquidated in one day.



but others of the dynasty were more enlightened rulers

In addition to proposing the first concept of secular international law, the Mongols generally allowed complete religious freedom in the first hundred years. Followers of Ong Khan, the adopted father of Chinggis Khan, were Nestorian Christians, and these Kereyid Mongols easily assimilated Jesus as healer and shaman into their traditional beliefs. Chinggis' four sons married Kereyid Christian women and there were many Christians among their descendents. Even with this preference for Christianity, Ogodei Khan, Chinggis' son, allowed Daoist and Buddhist temples, mosques, as well as churches to be built at his capital at Karakorum. Weatherford contends that Karakorum, only one stone turtle is left after Ming troops destroyed the city in 1380, "was probably the most religiously open and tolerant city in the world at that time."[3] No court in Asia would exceed this religious tolerance except for possibly that of Akbar the Great, the truly exceptional Mughal emperor who welcomed all religions to his court and engaged their sages and theologians in friendly debate

class.uidaho.edu