Why does the question of Mohammed's teaching of Islam only come?

 Mohammed was great in many traits, even though he was officially uneducated. But some of his actions like marrying a 9 year old are unacceptable, and have come to question. What the real nature of the relation was, I don't know. Nevertheless, apart from that, even a person totally unread in the Quran, but only with knowledge of the history of "Islamic raids" can tell that something was, from the beginning fundamentally wrong with Mohammed's teachings or the way it was put or propagated. Why? Because, just 2 years (yes, just two years!) after Mohammed's death in 632 CE (CE = Common Era, or AD), after he had completed teaching his "God sent" message - the Arab Muslims started their world conquest, threatening people throughout the (known) Globe !! As far as they could, they sent the message of, "Embrace Islam or Pay the Jaziya or Face a Muslim invasion". The Jaziya is an extra tax on Non-Muslims under a Muslim dominion, that itself forced many poor people to convert as they could then forfeit the Jaziya, after becoming Muslims. In the year 634 CE (two years after Mohammed's death), the Muslim Arabs, "rapped" the doors of Persia with these messages. Of course, faith in a religion can't be forced, obviously the early Iranians objected. The majority Iranians at that time followed the faith of Zoroastrianism, better known as Mazdayasna among the "Zoroastrians" back then and even among those who live today. There is a great Zoroastrian population in India, these people who are called the Parsis entered India taking refuge under the Rajput king Jadi Rana. They were fleeing from forced conversion during the Muslim Invasion of Persia (mainly Iran). Today, Islam is Iran's state religion !! Now, these messages of "Embrace Islam or Pay the Jaziya (special tax for non-Muslims) or face a Muslim invasion" were sent to all surrounding nations, like Western China and N. Western Indian states. The Muslim armies, it seems learnt only one thing from Mohammed viz to grow their Muslim numbers by any means. This invasion of Persia ended in 638 CE (in just 4 years). Their next "target" was the Indian Sub-continent. Furthurmore, though poor today, India had a lot of riches back then, which actually "invited" invaders. Even the British who came later, came eyeing these riches and spices. However, as far as the Muslim Invasion is concerned it was the most demonic of any, in which people were forced to convert. In Indian history there is also a chapter of the Goan Inquistition, which was forced conversion of the native Indians into Roman Catholicism, however this was done by the Portuguese only in one part of history, not in a continuous manner ever since their existence. The Muslim invasion of India, though it started immedeately after the invasion of Persia in 638 CE, was frictioned for many years. And they could only actually enter deep into India, to rule it completely, after over 700 years. Their invasion of China was cut short and ended abruptly by very fierce warring on the part of the Chinese. Nevertheless, Muslims exist in China today. In this time of trying to invade India completely, the Muslim armies used any means to achieve victory. Which included, taking children as hostages, violating women etc. The Rajputs, who were Hindus, were a formidable force in the beginnings of these Muslim conquests. They were, in the initial stages, the main reason for restricting the Muslims a conquest into India. Sadly, years later, like in the time of Akbar, a Mughal (Muslim) ruler, the Rajputs became Mughal allies after having been subdued. Though Akbar is known to be tolerant among the Mughal rulers, few know of his atrocities. He is also known to have massacred 30,000 hindus isolating them at a Temple entrances at one occasion. But all this is diminished by the far more, worse atrocities of Mughal rulers like Aurangzeb, who boiled Hindu Brahmins (preists) in water as they didn't accept Islam. This is why Akbar is seen as tolerant, because though he was tolerant in many occasions, he did show this "other" side of his at other occasions. Initially, much before the time of Akbar, about 500 years before his time, the Muslims were only setting conquest through many battles with the Rajputs. The fortification techniques of the Rajputs was impressive, and the Muslims couldn't get through easily or never at all. However, the Muslims stooped to such low levels of kidnapping children, threatening to kill them if the guards didn't personally reveal the secret entrances to these forts. Of course, many of them fearing for their family, gave in and eventually through such cheap tactics they won wars. In the later eras, the resources of the land was in the hands of the Muslims and hence any rebellion was subdued. At another instance, the Muslims signed a peace treaty with a Rajputs. This was only to be broken later. While this "false peace" lasted, the Muslims went over to the Hindu places and found armoured elephants. The armoured elephants were difficult to kill, one due to their size and edurance and second due to their metal armour. However, the Muslim armies solved this problem by coming to the regions of the Hindus as "friends" after signing the "only-to-be-breeched" peace treaty. They freely mingled with them for a number of days, but one day, they were allowed by the Rajputs to feed the Elephants. The Muslims prepared for such a liberty, fed the elephants poppy seeds (opium). The drug didn't have immedeate effect, it would take time. Appropriately, they went back to their side and started an attack. The Hindus who were shocked at breech of the peace treaty warred back. However, in the course of the battle the elephants started running amok. Such a huge beast is impossible to control, once drugged. The Hindu forces collided into each other, running disorganized and lost the battle. This is one of the many stories of Muslim deceit. There are many more, but these aren't taught in schools to children in the fear that a communal divide would rise, because Muslims are a part of Indian society today. Hindu-Muslim violence in India is very less today, almost nil. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the truth of history. However, the extremism and "mad warring" from Muslim groups exists till today. Today it is against the Western nations. And I don't speak of induvidual Muslims, nor am I saying that all Muslims become terrorist. I am only pointing to a truth of history, and I am questioning the "God sent" message they learnt when just 2 years after it being completely taught, they go and destroy a nation and forcing a foreign people, by war and threats, to convert !! Of what meaning was it? 

Now the question of Mohammed comes here, because at no sizeable span of history did the Muslim armies, not try to invade a people or destroy them. And for what? Just to convert them to Islam!! If this is the message the Arabs understood from Mohammed and this is the method of conversion, then surely it is no benevolent message. How do other parties stand aside from this? Its because the Islamic onslaught is seen throughout history. From the time Islam was founded, from the time of Mohammed's death till today, in a continuous manner - viz, From the invasion of Persia (in 634 CE), till the recent 9/11 (in 2001), 7/7 blasts in UK (2005), Jaipur serial blasts, in India, this year (2008), Islamic ruling parties have existed, like a terror, showing litte or absolutely no tolerance. From that time, till today, with the tactic of using children as suicide bombers by drugging them, they resort to any vile tactics, they can think of regardless of any morals. Today, Muslims defend their faith saying "This, what terrorists are doing, is not true Islam". But unfortunately, the question of "What did Mohammed teach?" remains as this violence has been the trend with Islamic ruling parties, ever since their existence from Arabia. So seriously, what did Mohammed teach, that led his people to go destroy others through series of wars, just a few years after his death and then continue such behaviour across the Globe? There were great Islamic rulers too, like Tipu Sultan, who were tolerant. Also the Ottoman were tolerant (to some extent), but many Islamic rulers have been seen as terrors, nothing else, as that is what they were to many people. Islam, many Muslims will defend saying is different from what terrorists are doing. Its obvious that Islam is interpretted differently by many. But why don't they raise that voice loud enough, to make it have an actual effect? I quote Muhammed:

All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. You know that every Muslim is the brother of another Muslim. Remember, one day you will appear before Allah and answer for your deeds. So beware, do not astray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.

The above message though not agreeable on details like Adam and Eve by many, is a message of tolerance. It seems to have been completely forgotten by the "Muslims" almost instantly since it was received, which led them to war against Persia. Even today, Mullahs like Zakir Naik easily say, "Every Muslim should be a terrorist". (http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI). And Zakir Naik is no "small" Mullah, he is quiet famous in India in the Muslim community. My question is: Where is that party among the Muslims who will teach quotes of Muhammed, like the above? Where is that party which will oppose Mullahs like Zakir Naik? Saying Islam is from the root word "peace" is all invalid when actions of "Islamic" groups show otherwise, because it is in history's record itself, that Islamic groups have been intolerant.

The Indian Partition and Muslim Parties in India

When the British had left "British India", it became the territory of the "Indians" of course, I put the term in double quotes as the "Indians" we are speaking of just after the British Raj are the Indians of today along with the Pakistanis. The whole idea of a partition came when Jinnah the president of a political party called the Muslim League was concerned with the majority Hindus in India. Well, Hindus were the first people in India, what would Jinnah expect? So for that he claimed that the Muslims needed another land. Many leaders of India and even the last Viceroy of the British Empire, Lord Mountabatten found this ridiculous. The matter is India consists of not tens but hundreds of groups, and each group with their own divisions. What was the point of uniting it as one nation if ultimately we were to get back to the divisions? Infact, its these innumerous divisions that made it easier for the British to incite furthur hatred between the Indian rulers and finally take over. Now, after all that, we are again speaking of dividing the land? There were Christians too, many many Hindu sects. So, where were we going to give "separate" land to all these groups? The point is only the Muslims sought the special treatment post Independence for a sovereign land. And what is it today? Yes, a place were terrorists are "manufactured" in terrorist training camps! Many secularists of India try to save the Muslims, but it stands loudly that Muslims seek special treatment. Infact, the Muslims of India are much broad-minded and more successful in life. Its obvious, if you grow to understand more cultures and religions, you don't become narrow minded. However, in India there is another unfortunate part of Muslims who don't want all the special treatment but are tagged as "Muslims", that becomes unfair on them. MJ Akbar, a Muslim newspaper coloumn writer wrote an article in Times of India (TOI) only a few days ago titled "Not Jihad, Fasadi". Akhbar's aim is to notify the Muslims themselves that the few who are proud of these acts are not doing things according to their religion. But, rarely in history too have I ever found Muslim warring bands act righteously or treat defeated civilians like humans. If Muhammed indeed, taught a message of love, its been destroyed instantaneously! I will explain, as early as 634 CE (or AD) the Muslims groups from Arabia had started their raiding quest of entering lands and taking people captives. And thats just 2 years after Mohammed died. In other words, we really can't blame Jesus Christ for the actions of the Church 1400 years later. But, if its just 2 years later, the question of "What did these people learn?" draws immedeate question. They made conquest of Iran in a mere four years and by 638 CE, they started warring against the Hindus of the Indian Sub-continent. The resistance existed, and it was after many centuries in 1400s that the Muslims could actually set conquest deep into India. During a mere six generations of Muslim rule, the Hindus in India were treated like dirt. I can't mention these stories today, for Muslims of India and Hindus of India are "Indians", despite this violence exist. Recently, the Babri Masjid stood, which was a mosque that was built by destroying a Hindu temple in the age of the Mughals, some hundreds of years ago. It is strange I should say that a mosque built by such means was accepted by the Muslims as a place where worship is fit to be done !!! To none did it occur that it was built by unrighteous warring. However, right now nothing stands at the spot, and much riots and civil fighting has taken place there ultimately destroying everything. In India, Muslims blend relatively better than in places like Europe, but still the Muslim community as a whole hasn't been able to adapt reasonably to the world and what I say is that a social change is required in the Muslim communities. In India again, the Indian law tries to fit in the Sharia law into the "secular Indian law", a Muslim man may marry as much as four wives, as his religion permits it, a non-Muslim can't !! The truth is there is no equality in that. This is just a small part of the "equality" in India. The laws were made by majority Hindus, and though many Indians who wish to look secular, won't attribute tolerance as come more from Hindus, its a fact! The Hindus have, been on an whole tolerant, this is seen in history, though "marxist" thinkers would like to think otherwise. It is due to this reason, that Muslims can fit easily in India but on the other hand they have problem in Europe. Its history of Indian tolerance, there have been kings in India who slaughtered Buddhists and people of other faiths, but their breath soon died as they found only a small group to support their "self-righteous holy war". But, on the other hand, let me not speak about the Crusades and Jihad, which gained massive acceptence. The early Mughals made "victory towers" which were the stacked heads of the dead populations, numerous mosques are built on Hindu temples, by destroying them. On pointing these, the people who do so become "Hindutvas" and directly tagged as "violent extremists". But surely, all people would feel for their loss of legacy by violent invaders, how would the emotion not stand? Furthur, and in more relevance to this article, the question of tolerance in the Muslim world remains, where is it? Never found. Importantly, Europe changed thanks to the Renaissance, but the Islamic world didn't and doesn't seem to be on a way to change either !! MJ Akbar can say a hundred things of his interpretation the religion and indeed great Islamic thinkers have come, but on a whole the community hasn't been able to turnaway from keeping violent laws and ways. Today, most Muslims are against terrorism, but who is in a position to do anything? Not many, perhaps none. Terrorism in India, is for no reason, infact these terrorists bomb Pakistan too! Their crazy ideology isn't going to land them anywhere, but one thing is that Muslim nations are the ones who have funded them, Pakistan to be specific - The CIA even has video footage of such support. Islam might be founded from the root word "salaam" which means "peace", but what Muslim parties have done when in posession of weapons is far far from that. A polar opposite.

There are a great number of Muslims who are not comfortable with the way the world views their community, but they are unfortunate, especially in the West. The spirit of India is unique, one should admit. After the series of blasts recently on my motherland, India, there was not one Hindu-Muslim riot. We are atleast on a whole, moved on beyond religious differences, most part atleast. Though extremist Hindu groups like MNS,  Shiv Sena and BJP wings do exist, they don't gain any power. These groups are despised for their actions, by Muslims and Hindus alike. Why? Because most Hindus don't succumb to their "holy" speeches of saying what is a "holy duty". Importanly, no verse in Hindu scriptures can be interpretted that way for them to use as a "weapon". Much less has there ever been a "holy war" in Ancient India.

Special Treatment and Inadaptability

The special treatment of Muslims is nothing but, imposed special rules for the Muslims in Non-Islamic nations, to appease them. In India, that comes easy with the whole "minority" quotas and "equality" a.k.a Muslim appeasement laws. Muslims in India constitute some population above 12% other populations like the Christians are just about 2 %, yet Muslims are called "a minority". Rightly speaking, they aren't. Apart from that, as mentioned earlier the Muslims are given special laws, this is no way a nation functions. The fact that India's secularity has given the Muslims a good space, leaves them less disturbed or rioting in India. However, they can't expect this everywhere, and this is the reason there is problem in places like USA and Europe. The Muslim customs, make it a rule for a Muslim girl henceforth the age of puberty to wear an abaaya and a veil to cover her body and face. Reason? Because the lustful glances of men will fall on them. Well, I can understand that with bautiful Arab women and animalistic Arab men, such laws were made, but what about societies that don't have such rules? They have been working fine. In India, its fine if you do or don't wear a veil and abaaya as a Muslim, a number of Muslim girls and women don't wear it. However, some do and they are effortlessly part of the crowd in India - this is a true beauty of India's diversity. In the Western world, needless to say, this would arouse questions, suspescion and repulsion from crowds. Not to mention the butt end of jokes. Now the question here is not of India or the West, rather the adaptability of the Muslim societies. They can't and many won't give away customs that are meaningless and need change, they need to understand they live in the 21st century today, a fast changing world. In UK too, they sought to bring the Sharia into main law, but they can't. Though the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams' attempts to appease the Muslims, it angers the other populations in UK. There is a special way of living, by keeping your cultural life private and at the same time mix into the world to discover it. The Muslims should find that path. Because, not all places would give a group special treatment. Lets get real here, there are thousands of groups in the world, each with their traditions and customs, where would the Earth governments end trying to appease all of them. Why then should Muslims seek this special treatment? Personally, I think all Muslim women should cast off the veil - its no way of living. I think all societies should be adaptable to change and understand the good essence of their customs to keep them. The Muslims easily keep their rules, in their nations. But with a globalized world, all of us need to reason and adapt. After all Muslim nations gain a great deal from the world, and can't really miss that benefit. It it doesn't the Muslim world, with its customs will continue to be looked as "backward" and as a society will degrade and become an object of despise of the world. And though Muslim communities have benefitted from the "Other world", the remain quiet isolated. Most muslim groups easily claim such special treatments in countries where they are not a majority, yet the matter of how Non-Muslims are treated in most Muslim countries is an unpleasant matter that needs no elaboration.