Hinduism saved inIndia by fighting muslim

Muslims, Western and some Hindu historians think that Islam/Muslims did not do conversion of Hindus by sword. The argument they give is that there are so many Hindus still today in India. This is completely wrong because most Muslim rulers in India tried to convert as many as they could but it was the strength of Rajput sword and later Maratha,Sikh swords that kept Hinduism alive in India. If there were no Rajputs, Marathas , Sikhs in India, then India would be just like Iraq, Iran, Turkey, or Pakistan in terms of religion of the population.

The preservance of Hinduism in India by the Rajput sword against the entire might of Islamic rulers is the most glorious achievement by a race in the annals of world history and every one should know this fact, more so Indians and most definitely each and every Rajput. Presence of Rajput generals in Mughal army was a blessing in disguise for the Hindu population as the mughal army when headed by a rajput general could not engage in wanton destruction of Hindu temples as well as mass coversion of Hindus to Islam.

In his Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan James Tod wrote:

"What nation on earth could have maintained the semblance of civilization, the spirit or the customs of their forefathers, during so many centuries of overwhelming depression, but one of such singular character as the Rajpoot? . . . Rajasthan exhibits the sole example in the history of mankind, of a people withstanding every outrage barbarity could inflict, or human nature sustain, from a foe whose religion commands annihilation; and bent to the earth, yet rising buoyant from the pressure, and making calamity a whetstone to courage. . . . Not an iota of their religion or customs have they lost. . . ".

Contrast this to how Muslims converted entire Iranian kingdom, where a very ancient religion of Zoroaster flourished, on the edge of the sword in a very short amount of time:

This section is from (THE PARSEES, THEIR HISTORY,MANNERS, CUSTOMS AND RELIGION. DOSABHOY FRAMJEE. First Published LONDON: SMITH, ELDER and CO., 65, CORNHILL: 1858.) [Page 3]

"Suffice it to say, that with Yezdezird, the forty-fifth king in the descent of the race of Kaimurs, ended the ancient Persian monarchy. The neighbouring and wealthy empire of Persia presented too tempting a prize to the fanatic and ambitious spirit, evoked by Mahomed, to remain long unmolested , and in the middle of the seventh century of the Christian era, the Arab sword invaded Persia, under Caliph Omar. In a fierce and well-contested battle with the Persians at the village of Nahavand, about fifty miles from the ancient city of Ecbatana, the fate of the empire was decided.....Yezdezird, abandoning his kingdom as lost, fled the country; and after wandering in solitude and disguise for a period of ten years, was at last treacherously slain by a miller to whom the secret of his identity had been confided (651 AD). ....

Thus on the conquest of Persia, the Mahomedan soldiers of the Caliphat of Baghdad traversed the length and breadth of the country, presenting the alternative of death or the Koran, and compelling the conquered nation to accept the one or the other. By these oppressive and cruel means, a hundred thousand persons are said to have daily abjured the faith of there forefathers; and the fire-temples and other sacred places were destroyed or converted into mosques."

W.W. Hunter describes in Chapter X of his book, The Indian Empire, Its People, History And Products, the organization of Indian kings and how they fought these invaders to save Hinduism from Islam and not allow Hindus to be converted to Islam as these invaders succeeded in Iran/Iraq etc.

Within a hundred years after his (Muhammad's) death, his followers had invaded the countries of Asia as far as the Hindu Kush. Here there progress was stayed and Islam had to consolidate itself during three more centuries before it grew strong enough to grasp the rich prize of India. But almost from first the Arabs had fixed eager eyes upon that wealthy country. Fifteen years after the death of prophet, Usman sent a sea expedition to Thana and Broach on the Bombay coast (647 ? AD). Other raids towards Sindh took place in 662 and 664 with no results.

The armies of Islam had carried the crescent from the Hindu Kush westwards, through Asia, Africa and Southern Europe, to distant Spain and Gaul, before they obtained a foothold in Punjab. This long delay was due, not only to the daring of individual tribes, such as Sindh Rajputs, just mentioned but to the military organization of the Hindu Kingdoms.

Each of these groups of kingdoms, alike in the north and in the south, had a certain power of coherence to oppose to a foreign invader; while the large number of groups and units rendered conquest a very tedious process. For even when the overlord or central authority was vanquished, the separate units had to be defeated in detail, and each state supplied a nucleus for subsequent revolt. We have seen how the brilliant attempt in 711, to found a lasting Muhammedan dynasty in Sindh, failed. Three centuries later, the utmost efforts of two great Musalman invaders (Mahmud of Ghazni and Mohammed Ghori) from the north-west only succeeded in annexing a small portion of the frontier Punjab Province between 977 and 1176 A.D. The Hindu power in Southern India was not completely broken till the battle of Talikot in 1565; and within a hundred years, in 1650, the great Hindu revival had commenced which under the form of Maratha confederacy, was destined to break up the Mughal Empire in India. That Empire, even in the north of India, had only been consolidated by Akbar's policy of incorporating Hindu chiefs into his government(1556-1605). Up to Akbar's time, and even during the earlier years of his reign a series of Rajput wars had challenged the Muhammadan supremacy. In less than two centuries after his death, the succesor of Akbar was a puppet in the hand of the Hindu marathas at Delhi.

The popular notion that India fell an easy prey to the Musalmans is opposed to the historical facts. Muhammadan rule in India consists of a series of invasions and partial conquests, during eleven centuries, from Usman's raid, circ.647, to Ahmad Shah's tempest of invasion in 1761 A.D.

At no time was Islam triumphant throughout the whole of India. Hindu dynasties always ruled over large areas. At the height of the Muhammadan power, the hindu princes paid tribute, and sent agents to the Imperial court. But even this modified supremacy of Delhi lasted for little over a century (1578-1707). Before the end of that brief period the Hindus had begun the work of reconquest. The native chivalry of Rajputana was closing in upon Delhi from the south; the religious confederation of the Sikhs was growing into a military power on the north-west. The Marathas had combined the fighting powers of the low-castes with the statesmen ship of the Brahmans, and were subjecting the Muhammadan kingdoms throughout all India to tribute. So far as can now be estimated, the advance of the English power at the beginning of the present century alone saved the Mughal Empire from passing to the Hindus."

     I have posted some of the battles that Hindu Kings fought against Islamic invaders please go through them. Infact there were many many more battles in each month that Muslims were present in India.

    
Source: http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajputs_and_Invasions_of_India


Edited by Digvijay - 19-Aug-2006 at 14:36

Sikhs preserving Hinduism. Interesting logic. Couldn't they better preserve Hinduism by staying Hindus rather than becoming Sikhs. BTW, how is the restoration of the Hindu temple under the Taj Mahala coming along.

Quite frankly Hinduism would look after itself as it has done for so long and much better without ur help. What u r doing is a disservice to it and besmirching the very nobility that u so endeavor to promote through ur baseless arguments.

Originally posted by �ok ge� Your posting talks about how Hinduism is saved by external forces (warring kingdoms nearby the Mughal). However, the post does not answer the question why there were Hindus inside the Indian Muslim Sultenates and states?

OkGe,
    If you read Hunter you will realize that up until 16th century the muslims occupied a very small part of India, near Delhi. From the later half of 16th century to  the beginning of the first decade of the 18th century they occupied relatively larger portion of India. But even between 1570-1700 Hindu kings, who payed tribute to the mughals largely ruled there own states and many of them kept fighting the mughals on a weekly/monthly basis. So in other words though it seemed that mughals were ruling a large part of India, but in reality the borders were in a constant state of flux. For example during the time of aurangzeb, the same forts in maharashtra switched back and forth between Marathas and mughals multiple times.
 
  So the war was not from "outside" but from within.

  Also if you see the density of muslim population in India it is highest in areas which ruled by muslim rulers. Example: Rampur in UP, Agra, Hyderbad, parts of Bengal etc. So parts that muslim rulers ruled with least resistance i.e area near there capitals has the highest concentration of muslims.

 Then you have to understand that imposition of Jizya and collection of it worked best in the areas that were controlled by muslims which was always close to there capitals. Jizya was one of the main weapons used by muslim kings to convert lower caste Hindus to the fold of Islam:
This excerpt from page 58-59 of  "A Rediscovery of India: A new subcontinent" authored by Ansar Hussain Khan ,who is a pakistani, who describes how the Tughlaq sultanate and its followers converted hindus to Islam.

--begin quote

He used the exmption of paying the jeziya by non-believers as a  deliberate method to obtain large scale conversions to Islam. Thousands upon
upon thousands of muslim converts were made in this fashion. He was the first in India to use Jizya methodically for the conversion, and in this
 he was emulated by many successors on the throne of Delhi. He also cancelled the exemption of Brahmans from paying this tax and re-imposed it upon them.

--end quote

Originally posted by �ok ge� Unless they are all forced to convert and vanished, then we can think of nearby Hindu states as protector of Hinduism. However, that is not the case simply.

You are wrong as I have described above.

Originally posted by �ok ge� Beside over-rating and exaggerating the role of Hindu states in preserving Hinduism, I think an important factor and part in preserving Hinduism is due to  variations in Delhi's sultans attitude toward Hinduism. Some protected it, some opposed it. Without that variation, Hinduism would have disappeared under their domain, and only then, we can accept fully the proposed "tremendous" role of Hindu states in preserving Hinduism solely without any other factors.

This is how most of Muslims feel and it is an incorrect view. The same muslims converted an an entire Achaemenian Kingdom of Persia on the edge of the sword. The largest Parsi population (modern day practicers of Zoroastrianism) is in India. They fled from the Islamic sword in Iran (read Framjee's quote in the first post above) to save there religion and landed in India and were sucessfull in saving there religion because the rajput ruler gave them land and allowed them freedom of religion. Now we even have some modern historians and of course most muslims who say "Oh Parsis are wrong. Islam never persecuted them. They went on there own will!". This is ofcourse plain garbage.

Bottom line in India, because of the mullahs the muslim kings tried there best to convert as many Hindus as they could with whatever means they found, sword, Jizya, breaking of temples but it was the fighting ability of the rajputs, marathas and Sikhs which saved the day for the Hindu population.

This is the reason why India is not like Iraq/Iran etc in terms  of the religion of the population.

More questions welcome.

-Digs


Edited by Digvijay - 20-Aug-2006 at 08:19

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Digs, as a military force the Rajputs have been confined to the deserts of Rajasthan since Muhammed Ghuri defeated Prithviraj. They couldn't and didn't stop the turks conqurering India, they couldn't and didn't stop the Mughals, they couldn't and didn't stop their neighbours freely adopting Islam.

This is the madarsa logic speaking that you have been trained in. Go read some books on history.

-Digs

Digvijay, writing things like:

and

 

as you did in your response to Malizai will get you in hotter water.

Originally posted by �ok ge� Originally posted by Digvijay This is how most of Muslims feel and it is an incorrect view. The same muslims converted an an entire Achaemenian Kingdom of Persia on the edge of the sword. The largest Parsi population (modern day practicers of Zoroastrianism) is in India.   I will be honest with you my friend. I did not read everything in details you typed because of the lack of objectivity and propogandist nature of your posts. But I couldn't help avoid your lack of knowledge especially when you want to lay down occusation.

Really! What is propaganda in my posts may I ask. yes Achaemenian was just a typo.  I posted the excerpt from a book written by a Pakistani and you call it propaganda! Awesome.

Originally posted by malizai_ Originally posted by Digvijay Originally posted by malizai_ Sikhs preserving Hinduism. Interesting logic. Couldn't they better preserve Hinduism by staying Hindus rather than becoming Sikhs. BTW, how is the restoration of the Hindu temple under the Taj Mahala coming along.  You have quite a nerve to be a preacher. Sikh Gurus were beheaded because they went and complained to the Mughal ruler of Delhi that he should not persecute Hindus and he should not kill cows.  Most Hindu families of the plains of northwest India had a tradition of sending there eldest son to join the sikh religion. Sikhs fought and defended Hinduism and there own religion. So if you are clueless about History of India you should keep your pie hole shut. Originally posted by malizai_ Quite frankly Hinduism would look after itself as it has done for so long and much better without ur help. What u r doing is a disservice to it and besmirching the very nobility that u so endeavor to promote through ur baseless arguments. Keep your opinion to yourself. -Digs   Rajput   While u r still around may i take this opportunity to ask you to shed some light on "Most Hindu families of the plains of northwest India had a tradition of sending there eldest son to join the sikh religion".   Any sources to verify this? preferably not ur own.   BTW y post ur stuff here if u want others to keep their opinions to themselves.

Why do you keep referring to me as rajput? From now on I will call you a Mullah. 

If you live in India ask any Sikh. If you live outside ask any first generation Sikh.

-Digs

Originally posted by Cok Gec Second, all evidance show that Zoroastrainism was a majority for hundred of years in Persia till Shah Abbas II forced the conversion of the whole region to Shiism Islam.

Iran was already majority muslim by then. (my gut says it was 90% muslim - shia & sunni combined. But I don't know where its getting its figures from)

EDIT: Actually why are you saying Abbas II? Do you mean Isma'il?

Originally posted by Digvijay Originally posted by Seko Digvijay, writing things like: � So if you are clueless about History of India you should keep your pie hole shut. and Keep your opinion to yourself. � as you did in your response to Malizai will get you in hotter water. Get used to varied responses to your posts. If you can't handle it then spare us your immaturity. You have shown a poor tendency to violate the codes of conduct. Seko, �it is easy for you to say this. For last few weeks I have been posting quote after quote from various books which this group� : Sparten/Malizai/Omar Hashim/Telde (i.e all Muslims) keeps debasing by calling them idiots, liars and so on so forth. Now how do you counter bigotry is my question. Let us take a very recent example. I posted a quote in my rsponse to OK GE, from a Pakistani Muslim� author on how Muslims used Jizyah to convert Hindus to islam. Now I am being accused of writing a "low quality" post and doing propaganda!.� Similarly I posted an excerpt from William Wilson Hunter's book and these guys started called him an idiot. Why? Because this group has a stereotype that Islam is a very benevolent religion and whatever conversions took place in India were not done through coercive means. Any history writer who opposes this view point is either an "idiot" or doing "propaganda". -Digs

   

You can provide links and sources as much as you want. That is not the problem (though others find some of your sources debateable). The problem is with your tone and provoking nature.

Originally posted by Sparten Correction you have not posted from History Books, you have posted from propaganda books. Hunter? Please, you might as well post from Advani! The seminal book on the history of India, by V Smith is not even mentioned, or I missed it.   You have shown an inclination not to debate calmly and rationally, but rather to debase yourself and by extension your arguments, through personal attacks, un acedemic and immature language and behaviour.   Piece of advice, Grow up!

A rational debate can only take place when people talk without prejuduices. Hashim has called me a Hindu extremist and scholars "idiot". Bottom line unless you have the capacity to challenge your beliefs that you grow up with you will be confined to  narrow bigotry.

A pointed question to you (and let us see how you respond if at all):

The assertion from your side has been "No coercive conversion of Hindus to Islam".

Here is what a Pakistani muslim says:


This excerpt from page 58-59 of  "A Rediscovery of India: A new subcontinent" authored by Ansar Hussain Khan ,who is a pakistani, who describes how the Tughlaq sultanate and its followers converted hindus to Islam.

--begin quote

He used the exmption of paying the jeziya by non-believers as a  deliberate method to obtain large scale conversions to Islam. Thousands upon
upon thousands of muslim converts were made in this fashion. He was the first in India to use Jizya methodically for the conversion, and in this
 he was emulated by many successors on the throne of Delhi. He also cancelled the exemption of Brahmans from paying this tax and re-imposed it upon them.

--end quote

So is he doing propaganda for Hindus or is he an idiot too?

-Digs

PS:  Smith was mentioned too. But Hashmi ofcourse considers Smith an idiot too.

Soon after Maharaja Jaswant Singh's death, Aurangzeb imposed Jizyah. While Jaswant was alive Aurangzeb did not have the courage to  impose Jizyah on non-muslims. V.A. Smith writes on page 438 of his book, Oxford History of India, "the death of Jaswant Singh emboldened the imperial bigot to re-impose the hated Jizyah, or poll-tax on non Muslims".

Edited by Digvijay - 21-Aug-2006 at 12:57