Should Europeans offer their apologies for their colonization?

Should the European apologize for their colonization?

  • Yes

    Votes: 29 11.5%
  • No

    Votes: 147 58.3%
  • No, but educate the European children more about this subject

    Votes: 76 30.2%

  • Total voters
    252
  • This poll will close: .

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,184
Lisbon, Portugal
Any example?. Point out an episode of Indo-Muslim history in which peaceful and cooperating Hindu subjects were wiped out by their Muslim rulers just for being Hindus. Exclude the episodes of rebellions, and episodes of conquering campaigns against neighboring Hindu kingdoms in which civilians were bound to die.
You missed my point, and I don' know why you missed it since I believe I was very clear in my post. I said, in a giving instance which Muslims perpetrate violence against Hindus, it happened with extraordinary ferocity. I didn't say that violence was the main aspect of Hindu - Muslim relations throughout history, neither I denied that most of the relationship between the two communities was relatively peaceful, therefore your question is not legitimate.

The dhimmi status was also extended to Hindus and Buddhists. They had same status as Jews and Christians. Thats why Muslim rulers of India imposed Jiziya on Hindus.
Yeah, and that's not a counter-argument to my post. I'm not talking about the nature of the relationship between Hindu and Muslims in peaceful times, I'm talking specifically about particular instances in which Muslim polities engage in violence against their Hindu enemies in the subcontinent.

This is not true. The settled docile agrarian population of India was easy to conquer (with exception of Rajputs). The toughest foes early Muslims faced, were Turks of Central Asia. Because Rajputs among Hindus fought hard and inflicted great losses on Muslims, they suffered violent repercussions for that at the hands of Turkish Muslims.
I'm not talking about conquering per se, I'm talking about Muslim rulers asserting their authority after the initial conquest, which was difficult considering the entrenched Hindu ruling authorities.

But this has been universal attitude of humans, and has nothing to do with Islamic view of Hinduism.
Of course, which I don't deny.
 
Aug 2018
337
America
I understand myself perfectly fine, but I am starting to think you do not understand either of us. Reduced natality is one of possible causes of depopulation - I have changed nothing, just expanded it. And demographic loss of 80 million people is significant depopulation, no matter how you cut it.
Yes, you have been changing claims. Now you're even reducing it to "80 million". You keep changing goal posts because I keep refuting what you say. Again, there was no depopulation nor demographic loss by Muslims so stop saying there was. There was no demographic loss of either 400 million, 200 million or 80 million, and I've already shown you why, comparing the Muslim conquests of India with the Mongol conquests and Muslim rule in the MENA to Muslim rule in India. No matter how you try to change words thinking I won't notice, you're not going to change that Muslims never slaughtered, neither by direct killing nor by famine and disease, such a high quantity of Hindus.


There is difference between merely seeing one's own group as superior, and attempting to physically impose that superiority. Fact that Europeans saw themselves as superior to e.g. Africans need not have led to anything bad, if they hadn't gone around imposing it. Yet Islam makes it a duty of Muslims to impose their superiority, and is thus not really different to Fascism or any other similar ideology.
You've changed goal post again. You initially only claimed that Islam sees Muslims as superior. Now you've changed your claim to something different once I showed other religions are the same, which is that Islam is worse than other religions and ideologies because it tries to impose itself. And that isn't true nevertheless, and I even showed you why in my response by pointing out to India's massive size because Hindu warfare had expanded the borders of Hinduism. Hindus converted by the sword just as many people as Muslims. And of course, I pointed out how Hindutva fascists in essence want to exterminate Muslims in India and the Indian subcontinent at large. So much for not imposing their superiority. The Hindutva case is even worse because, being literally a neo-Nazi ideology spouting the same principles as Savitri Devi, theirs is a desire of racial genocide based on Aryanism and anti-Semitism, which means they want an even more complete genocide than whatever religious genocide that is conceived by the likes of ISIS. And to be fair, it's not like liberal Hindus are that different either, since Indira Gandhi built nuclear weapons so that India could commit nuclear genocide in Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2014
1,273
pakistan
Maybe, maybe not. A millenia is a long time to make up for demographic losses, although there is certainly a possibility that 400 millon number is overblown. But even individual Muslim rulers killed quite a lot: going by Wiki, Ghiyas ud din Balban killed 100 000 Hindus, Firuz Shah Tughlaq 180 000 Hindus, Bahmani Sultanate 500 000 in just two years, Delhi Sultanate 100 000 in 1398... these are just named massacres, but comparing it, scales of mass murders during Muslim rule were much greater than during British occupation. Keep in mind that 400 million was not necessarily number of murders, just demographic loss, which can include reduced natality, deaths due to hunger, disease etc.
Nope wikipedia is not going to cut it. You are on historum. Back up your claim with primary sources (along with provision of names of translators, volume numbers, page numbers etc) that Balban killed 100,000 Hindus and so on. While you are at it, also dig up the information how many Muslims these rulers killed.
 
Aug 2014
1,273
pakistan
The 400 million estimate is apparently by Muslim historian Firishta, but he lived in 16th/17th century, so... .
I have read Tarikh-i-Firishta, he does not provide any estimate of 400 million, or any thing like that. He does not even talk about it. If you are confident that it does say so, then provide the citation.
 
Aug 2014
1,273
pakistan
You cant present every content that you find on google, as facts. That article is non-sense and garbage. Since you are quoting it, prove to me this statement in the very first paragraph : "The Bahamani Sultans had an annual agenda of killing a minimum of 100,000 Hindus every year" from primary sources. In the second paragraph of your article, "Dr. Koenraad Elst" appears. He is a right wing Hindutva activist.
 
Oct 2011
487
Croatia
Yes, you have been changing claims. Now you're even reducing it to "80 million". You keep changing goal posts because I keep refuting what you say. Again, there was no depopulation nor demographic loss by Muslims so stop saying there was. There was no demographic loss of either 400 million, 200 million or 80 million, and I've already shown you why, comparing the Muslim conquests of India with the Mongol conquests and Muslim rule in the MENA to Muslim rule in India. No matter how you try to change words thinking I won't notice, you're not going to change that Muslims never slaughtered, neither by direct killing nor by famine and disease, such a high quantity of Hindus.
I was not thinking you won't notice, I just don't feel I have to emphasize "OK, I agree that number is incorrect". Besides, while I do remember figures, I usually do not remember sources.

There was demographic loss connected with Islam, and India is hardly unique in that regard. Egypt had population of 7 million in Antiquity, 12-14 million when Arabs conquered it, yet by the time French conquered it its population was less than four million. Ottomans genocided 3,5 - 4,3 million Christians (bibliography at the end).

When it comes to persecution of Christians specifically, atheists murdered 32,7 million, Muslims at least 9 million, pagans 7 million and Christians cca 5,5 million. Keep in mind that this apparently does not account for wars, otherwise numbers would be much greater.

In Negationism in India, casualties are given as 1,5 million Christian Armenians, and it also points out that population of Indian subcontinent decreased by 80 million between 1000 and 1525.

You've changed goal post again. You initially only claimed that Islam sees Muslims as superior. Now you've changed your claim to something different once I showed other religions are the same, which is that Islam is worse than other religions and ideologies because it tries to impose itself. And that isn't true nevertheless, and I even showed you why in my response by pointing out to India's massive size because Hindu warfare had expanded the borders of Hinduism. Hindus converted by the sword just as many people as Muslims. And of course, I pointed out how Hindutva fascists in essence want to exterminate Muslims in India and the Indian subcontinent at large. So much for not imposing their superiority. The Hindutva case is even worse because, being literally a neo-Nazi ideology spouting the same principles as Savitri Devi, theirs is a desire of racial genocide based on Aryanism and anti-Semitism, which means they want an even more complete genocide than whatever religious genocide that is conceived by the likes of ISIS. And to be fair, it's not like liberal Hindus are that different either, since Indira Gandhi built nuclear weapons so that India could commit nuclear genocide in Pakistan.
My claim that Islam sees Muslims as superior was always connected with how such view of superiority leads to feeling of being entitled to rule over other people. Whether I didn't explain it properly, or you failed to understand it, I do not know. And fact that Islam is not unique in that regard - and I never did claim it is unique - does not change the fact that it is its nature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Sep 2015
1,807
England
Azad67 said: Any example?. Point out an episode of Indo-Muslim history in which peaceful and cooperating Hindu subjects were wiped out by their Muslim rulers just for being Hindus. Exclude the episodes of rebellions, and episodes of conquering campaigns against neighboring Hindu kingdoms in which civilians were bound to die.
You missed my point, and I don' know why you missed it since I believe I was very clear in my post. I said, in a giving instance which Muslims perpetrate violence against Hindus, it happened with extraordinary ferocity. I didn't say that violence was the main aspect of Hindu - Muslim relations throughout history, neither I denied that most of the relationship between the two communities was relatively peaceful, therefore your question is not legitimate.
That doesn't necessarily add up. Please provide an example or better still examples of your "giving instances" of violence that was "ferocity and mass murder...unparalleled in other ways Muslims interacted with other faiths".

And can you set out any evidence of the instances of violence perpetrated again non-Hindus?
 
Last edited:

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,184
Lisbon, Portugal
That doesn't necessarily add up. Please provide an example or better still examples of your "giving instances" of violence that was "ferocity and mass murder...unparalleled in other ways Muslims interacted with other faiths".

And can you set out any evidence of the instances of violence perpetrated again non-Hindus?
Timur's massacre of Delhi (1398) is such an example, and I already mentioned Timur's name in my other posts...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulius and Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,461
SoCal
You cant present every content that you find on google, as facts. That article is non-sense and garbage. Since you are quoting it, prove to me this statement in the very first paragraph : "The Bahamani Sultans had an annual agenda of killing a minimum of 100,000 Hindus every year" from primary sources. In the second paragraph of your article, "Dr. Koenraad Elst" appears. He is a right wing Hindutva activist.
The 100,000 Hindus being killed each year part sounds like Hindu propaganda.
 
Sep 2015
1,807
England
dreuxeng said: That doesn't necessarily add up. Please provide an example or better still examples of your "giving instances" of violence that was "ferocity and mass murder...unparalleled in other ways Muslims interacted with other faiths".

And can you set out any evidence of the instances of violence perpetrated again non-Hindus?
Timur's massacre of Delhi (1398) is such an example, and I already mentioned Timur's name in my other posts...
That doesn't make a case: since there are two elements of the issue as above! Why you are reluctant to do so may speak volumes to posters and readers alike!