Saad Amjad again repeats the frivolous argument

Submitted by Prashant (United States), Feb 21, 2014 at 22:10

Dear Dr Pipes,

How many times people will repeat false arguments while fully knowing that they arguments do not hold logical grounds? Take the example of your reader Saad Amjad. He was arguing that Islamic attacks on India were not the bloodiest in the history. So first he gave the example that Europeans killed a lot more "pagans" in the new world. So Mr Amjad was trying to show that the Islamic conquest was the second bloodiest in history. Not something to be proud of but at least the argument was logically sound.

But, then, Saad Amjad reverted to completely illogical arguments. He argued that since Hindus took control the Khyber Pass (which is in today's Afghanistan), the muslim attacker "had to" secure his own land. Let me get this right, to secure his land, Mohammad Gazni and his descendents had to advance 2000 miles deep into India all the way to Kerala which is on the coast.

Who is Saad trying to fool? But he does not stop there. He said that once pagan rulers are secluded from the rest of the world "too much animosities are committed by the rulers such as human sacrifice and animal worship". So our dear Mohammad Gazni had to advance deep into India to save animals from being worshipped by Pagans and humans from being sacrificed by them. Very nice! Have we not read more or less the same arguments to defend Mohammad's conquests in Arabia in the early days of Islam. Is that not how Jews were eliminated from the Arabian penisnula?

The question for Saad Amjad and his ilk is why is the religion of peace so often found so heavily armed (just double check Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Northern Nigeria...). There are no pagans left in these areas, the arms can be put down now.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".