He was the third of Tughlaq dynasty, ruled for 38 years ( 1351 – 88 AD ) and his reign was the longest of the Delhi Sultanate.
All Muslim chronicles of that period refer to him as the most kindest, generous, religious and justice oriented Sultan among all the Sultans of Delhi. Elliot, the British historian who supervised over translations of many Persian chronicles giving accounts of India during Muslim rule, has high praise for Firoz Shah and calls him as Akbar of his times ( Delhi Sultanate ).
He was neither a barbarian nor uncivilized and was a very illustrious King. Sure, he was a very devout Muslim, even though he took wine, and that outlook based on Islam towards his Hindu subjects, which is no diff. from rulings of Sharia, was the force behind his actions.
The story behind his birth gives insight in to the affairs of those days. His father, Sipah salar Rajjab was a brother of Ghiyasuddeen Tughlaq, the founder of Tughlaq dynasty. At the time of his birth, Ghiyasuddeen was a noble in the court of Alauddin Khilji and assigned to Dipalpur ( in present day Pakistan’s Punjab ) as fief-holder ( iqtadar ). Wanting to amass wealth, he wanted his brother obtain a daughter of one of Hindu kings there in marriage.Having found a daughter of a small Hindu king, Ranamall Bhatti, he sends a proposal which was rejected by Ranamall. On this rejection, Ghiyasuddeen brings his army to villages belonging to Ranamall and starts harassing villagers by demanding full payment of one year’s revenue and helpless Ranamall agrees to the marriage proposal. After the marriage, her name ‘ Bibi Naila ‘ was changed to ‘ Sultan Bibi Kadbanu ‘. She gave birth to Firoz Shah in the year 1309 AD. ( Shams-I Siraj Afif’s Tarikhi Firoz Shahi ; Elliot Vol. 3, pp 271-273) Continue reading →
Koran teaches that mere presence of disbelief in Islam constitutes an act of aggression on Muslims.
And what should anyone think it says about Islam and Muslims that non-Muslims cannot enjoy the same freedoms in Muslim majority nations as Muslims enjoy in Non-Muslim nations like India, European countries, US and in many other infidel nations around the world ?
How should any one feel when Muslims still try to lecture Non-Muslims about human rights, tolerance and peace ?
But in a world, when insanity in the form of political correctness and left-influenced concepts like secularism and multiculturalism dominate, nothing happens and fascist force like Islam marches on.
Muslims in Europe construct mosques, openly proselytize and enjoy equal rights. Muslim nations not only deny equal rights to religious minorities, i.e. Non-Muslims, and play a passive role when Muslims engage in violence, on regular basis, against Non-Muslims. OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) openly rejected United Nations Charter on Human Rights and embraced human rights as defined in Islamic Sacred Law (Sharia Law) in its Cairo Declaration.
Turkeys President, Abdullah Gül, ( HERE ) says:
European countries will face new humanitarian tragedies leading to mass killings of people if they continue in their failure to embrace tolerance toward different cultures and religions.
What about Turkey, so called modern and secular Muslim state and Non-Muslims living in it ? Do they enjoy equal rights ? Read the below report:
Pure hypocrisy ! Yes.
But it makes sense when we see how Islam defines tolerance and aggression. Presence of Non-Muslims in Europe or anywhere, outside the Dar al-Islam, is aggression on Muslims. The fact that Europe is not living by Dhimmah is intolerance for Muslims.
Technically, in Islamic terms, Dhimmi is a Non-Muslim living in any Muslim nation or living under Islamic Law (Sharia Law). This notion of Dhimmi comes only after Muslims have conquered a nation and subjugated its Non-Muslim inhabitants – which most Muslims never mention about.
The below video circulating on internet about this ‘Dhimmi’ and what it is, through lies and deception, is trying to create an image that Islamic concept of Dhimmi is no more different from the present day concept of citizens in a nation state.
Hindus denying Islamic Supremacism by saying ‘all religions are same’ should look at Muslims in moderate Malaysia negating it
Malaysia is often cited as an example of moderate Islam and its compatibility with secular democracy and liberalism. Those who this are simply ignorant s, even if they range from journalists to politicians.
What they do not know or deliberately try to play it down is that Malaysia practices discrimination by having two sets of laws, one for Muslims and another for Non-Muslims wherein the first set supersedes the latter.
For the last two years, Malaysia has been forcing Christians to drop the use of Allah in their Bibles, even when it is clear historically that Christians using Allah is pre-Islamic practice. Such is the Islamic Supremacism.
In the latest advice to Muslims, religious authorities affirm, ‘ Not all religions are same.’