Author Topic: Washington Post: Persecution of Hindus Shows Islam is a "Religion of Love"  (Read 503 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest
Washington Post: Persecution of Hindus Shows Islam is a "Religion of Love"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261919/washington-post-persecution-hindus-shows-islam-daniel-greenfield

March 5, 2016
Daniel Greenfield
 

At a time when Muslim countries are banning Valentine's Day, Haroon Moghul, whom Robert Spencer has discussed here, took to the Washington Post to claim that Islam is a "religion of love".

    In the early 1630’s, right around the time the Puritans were beginning to build Boston, Mumtaz Mahal died in childbirth. In those days, tragically, many women died in similar circumstances. But Mahal was a queen. Her husband was ruler of what may have been the wealthiest empire in the world. His power and riches were immense.

    But he could not save the love of his life.

    In one night, the legends went, all the emperor’s hair turned grey. Grief-stricken and inconsolable, the man whose very name meant “King of the World” ordered her to be entombed. Shah Jahan, the fifth of the sixth great Mughal rulers, commissioned an immense white marble mausoleum, to be set upon a pedestal and surrounded by gardens that echoed the Muslim conception of paradise.

    If Shah Jahan wanted the world to remember her as he did, then certainly he accomplished his aim. Rabindranath Tagore called it “a teardrop on the face of time.” UNESCO calls it a World Heritage Site. Most men know it to mean their every romantic gesture will never be enough. You can buy her roses after all, but can you build her a Taj Mahal?

    But I propose we see it as a vision of what Islam used to be, and what Islam could be, a building dedicated to love, and to love across boundaries that seem more like vast chasms today.

Neat story.

But there's a couple of problems with the whole "Islam is a Religion of Love because a Muslim tyrant was really sad his queen died" story.

1. The Taj Mahal was not built by Shah Jahan. It's an appropriated Hindu temple that predated the mad Muslim tyrant's rule by many centuries.

2. After the death of Mahal, who was her own kind of monster being responsible for numerous massacres of non-Muslims, Shah Jahan decided that the best way to mourn his wife was by redoubling the persecution of Hindus.

3. This glorious love story ended with his sons turning on each other and one of his sons locking up the old monster for years until he died

Nothing says true love like colonialism, oppression, stealing other people's sacred sites and culture and then having the whole thing come crashing down on you because... karma.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2016, 01:39:44 pm by rangerrebew »

HonestJohn

  • Guest
The Taj Mahal is not a Hindu temple and never was. There is overwhelming evidence that the Taj Mahal was always just that- a monument to love. All the statements otherwise can be traced back to one person:

Purushottam Nagesh Oak.

His other statements include:

Christianity is a derivative of Hinduism, because "Christian" and "Krishna" sound alike
Vatican and the Papacy are Hindu derivatives (Vatican came from Vatika)
Stone henge is a Hindu structure
Islam is a derivative of Hinduism
Kabba is a Hindu structure/temple
Arabia was visited by Vikramaditya (Indian King)
All civilizations were born in India
Red fort is a Hindu structure

When he filed a public interest litigation in court to declare the Taj a Hindu structure, it was thrown out of court.