Why people always complain about Christian conversion ........?

Abida

2010-04-26 22:12:50 UTC

Look at the history of India. How Muslim kings had converted people forcefully. Most of the Indian/Pak/Bangladesh Muslims were before Hindus. The ancestors of all these Muslims were forced to become Muslims.

Do you think Christian conversion is not good compare to Muslims conversion?

Please genuine answer. …….

(Check the below links for details)

http://www.british-sikh-federation.org/Punjabi-Sikh%20History.htm

Banda Singh and 700 others are captured by Moghul forces. All are put to death in batches of 100 per day for refusing to accept forceful conversion to Islam. Some are still in their teens, but accept martyrdom. Banda Singh has to endure seeing his six-year-old son have his heart ripped out and forced into his mouth.

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/tipu/ch02.htm

The cruelties which Tipu Sultan committed in Coorg, has no parallel in history. On one occasion, he forcibly converted over ten thousand Hindus to Muhammadanism. On another occasion, he captured and converted to Islam more than one thousand Hindu Coorgis before imprisoning them in the Sreerangapatanam fortress. In the period of confusion and anarchy prevailing in Sreerangapatanam during the last war of Tipu Sultan against the British, all the Coorgi prisoners escaped from the prison and became Hindus again after reaching their native kingdom. Against the solemn oath given to the Raja of Coorg, Tipu Sultan forcibly abducted a young princess from the Coorg royal family and made her his wife against her will.

http://members.tripod.com/india_resource/Forced-Conversions-Islam.html

In his "Discovery of India" Jawaharlal Nehru appears to attribute the conversion of Hindus to Islam to Islam's purported egalitarian character and hence its 'mass appeal': " The idea of brotherhood of Islam and of the theoretical equality of its adherents made a powerful appeal, especially those of the Hindu fold who were denied any semblance of equal treatment."

But strangely, India's demographic data stands in complete contradiction to such a conclusion. From Punjab and Haryana in the North to the Gangetic Plains, and to Bengal, Hindu communities include members of all castes - including those that should have been most amenable to conversions to Islam. If Islam had truly been perceived as the vehicle for liberation from a petrified caste society as Nehru had claimed, surely there could be no Hindus left at the lower ends of the caste spectrum - especially after five centuries of Islamic rule.

Furthermore, such a speculation appears to be contradicted by another of Nehru's assertion (concerning Muslim Rajputs) which seems more historically accurate: "It is worth noting as a rule, conversions to Islam were group conversions...Among the upper castes individuals may change their religion...almost an entire village would convert...group life as well as well as their functions continued as before with only minor variations with regards worship etc."

If entire villages converted and maintained their former practices, how could the conversion have had any tangible effect on any prevalent social hierarchies? Moreover, as Nehru himself implied, the conversion of the lower castes followed the conversion of the upper-castes such as the Rajputs. This is quite in line with the observations of Arab historian Ibn Khaldun who noted that conversions to Islam amongst the masses followed the conversion of the elites. In other words, the subjects followed the religion of the rulers - and not the other way around, as was gratuitously implied by Nehru.