[anon291]

Half of my ancestors were kept in the dungeons at Seringapatam for decades for the crime of being Christian by a Muslim ruler, which resulted in 2/3 of them dying. What gracious overlords we had to let the other 1/3 not die even though they could have killed them. I remain eternally grateful to their magnanimity.

Just because the world doesn't recognize how awful that Islamic rule of India was to the actual people living there doesn't mean we don't get to criticize those who continue to glorify it.

When you can't criticize someone you should ask why.

[defrost]

That was a very big deal in a specific locale 220 years ago to be sure, although it was just a decade and a half in total.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captivity_of_Mangalorean_Catho...

* https://www.jstor.org/stable/44147210

Should this behaviour be generalised to all Islam rule all the time, or was it more specific to Tippu Sultan in he Kingdom of Mysore ?

Should we generalise the Albigensian Crusade as an example of typical Catholic rule over christians (but heretics!!) - that saw 200,000 killed (not imprisoned).

[anon291]

I'm not generalizing. All I said is that people should not be called Islamophobes for pointing out very real events in the Indian subcontinent. The simple truth is that even mentioning that a Muslim ruler did something wrong in the Indian context often ends up with death threats, claims of 'Islamophobia', and other attempts to silence people. The history of India is large and varied; there is a persistent effort to pretend the history of Islam in India is glorious and wonderful. No such bias exists for the Hindus or for the British / Portuguese, who are often criticized without much fuss.

Many Islamic rulers of India killed people or forced them -- via violence -- to convert to Islam. Not sure why this is controversial or Islamphobic. Someone pointing out that Islamic rulers had enough power to be even worse but didn't is not some great claim of charity on behalf of the Muslims -- far from it.

Also, let me guess -- you never knew about the captivity of the Mangalorean Christians (who would, lol) -- you read a wikipedia article, and now you pretend to be such an expert at it that you can say things like:

> That was a very big deal in a specific locale 220 years ago to be sure,

That specific locale, 220 years ago had actual people inside. Like real people. It's a big deal because it affected real people, if that wasn't clear.

> Should we generalise the Albigensian Crusade as an example of typical Catholic rule over christians (but heretics!!) - that saw 200,000 killed (not imprisoned).

I currently attend a Dominican parish, and I openly criticize the Albigensian Crusade. No one issues death threats; there is no claim of 'Christophobia'; etc. Similarly to all the various interventions by Christian polities. That's the point -- we are relatively free to criticize Christian colonialism, genocides, etc. The same is true of most religions. There's only one religion of which criticism is constantly met with speech trying to cajole others into silence.

This general disposition towards criticism of Islamic regimes and Islamic genocides means that it's relatively normal to be skeptical of Islamic rule, both ancient and modern. Islam seems unable to criticize itself. I'm hardly the first to notice this.

[defrost]

I agree that people should not be called {slur} for pointing out very real events in the world.

> mentioning that a Muslim ruler did something wrong in the Indian context often ends up with death threats,

Location dependant really, in some contexts that goes down well. eg: {fill in an example yourself, I'm certain you can name various communities that love to trade in bad stories about {X} for various valuies of {X}}

> Also, let me guess -- you never knew about the captivity of the Mangalorean Christians

Well, your ability to "guess" could use some work, I'm long in the tooth and can reel off a slew of atrocities .. what are your thoughts on the Coniston Massacre, for one such event?

> and now you pretend to be such an expert

Really? Can you highlight how I "pretended to be an expert"?

> you read a wikipedia article

That was to confirm / check I had guessed the correct event via your description, you seemingly overlooked the JSTOR lit review which, TBH, is the kind of thing I first read given myself and my reading habits predate the creation of wikipedia.

> that you can say things like

Just to be clear, is it your position that this 15 year long imprisonment was not a big deal at the time? Are you insistent that the imprisonment lasted longer than 15 years ( 'decades' as you stated)?

If not, then we seem to agree with the statement I made.

I'll also state that in the years that have since passed that event has become an even bigger deal for some, the story having grown and morphed .. in ways discussed in the JSTOR review.

If it helps, my general disposition tends towards _not_ generalising particular historical events and atrocities as a trait shared by all {X} for some {X} unless supported and also properly examined as to whether such traits are confined to {X} or have a more common general human pattern.

By way of example, I avoid generalising the well documented and extensive sexually predatory behaviour of the various Christian Brother groups about the globe to be the behaviour of all Catholics.