Print Page | Close Window

The Muslim Devastation of India

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the South Asian subcontinent
Forum Discription: The Indian sub-continent and South Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28525
Printed Date: 10-Jun-2024 at 04:26
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The Muslim Devastation of India
Posted By: eaglecap
Subject: The Muslim Devastation of India
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2010 at 13:41

This article is based on my research and yes the invasion of India by Islam, both Arabs and Turks, was brutal. They were far worse than the invasions into the Persian Empire, North Africa and Spain, since they were people of the books. The Indians were mostly Hindu and assorted other pagan religions. In my opinion it was fueled as much by human greed and the need for power as by religion. The Communist really have a worse track record for abuse but I say this because this is only about the Islamic invasions of India so please no veering off topic to point the finger elsewhere, like I see so many times when the topic is about Islam. Do you believe the Islamic invasions of India were that brutal or do you believe this is an exaggeration by the Kufar? Any veering to blame other groups will be deleted if it is unrelated to this topic or an attempt to divert the attention of the main thesis. I will try and be fair and just but don’t test me. Cyrus I request your attention on this as well.


http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/06/muslim-devastation-of-india.html - http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/06/muslim-devastation-of-india.html

-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε



Replies:
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2010 at 17:46
The first wave of arab invasion was not brutal at all, infact the earliests muslims came to south india as missionaries, there is no record of any war or any thing violence there, the oldest mosque in india is in south india. The main violence in India begins after central asians and afghans began to invade, and yes many of them were brutal. You can't blame islam for this because a lot these central invaders were greedy warlords, they were always violent, even way before islam. I doubt they knew about islam that much to begin with.
 
 


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2010 at 18:48
I agree with balochii. Eaglecap is paranoid, just look at his blog. Anyways, it was more the people who invaded India than the religion they abided by. Furthermore, India went through a golden age under Islam.

-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2010 at 11:21

balochii - I don't agree and I have seen enough primary and secondary sources that have brought to this conclusion. I find that Muslims are often in denial or they try the blame game and divert it to another group like Christians. Missionaries, Indonesia is a good example of this but not India. The origins of the gypsies began with the Islamic invasions of India.

Originally posted by TheGreatSimba

I agree with balochii. Eaglecap is paranoid, just look at his blog. Anyways, it was more the people who invaded India than the religion they abided by. Furthermore, India went through a golden age under Islam.


TGS the great researcher- Is this all you can do is name call? Anyone who does not agree with TGS should be called names or it sure seems that way.

I believe Islam fueled the invasions but greed and the need to control others or power fueled it even more, so I would agree that, yes, it was influenced by human nature. There are peaceful Muslims but if you look at the core beliefs of Islam, it is ... well you figure it out!

My next article is going to be about the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade and influences the Roman Catholic Church had on this atrocity.


-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε


Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2010 at 12:29
^ all of your sources are probably from hindu radical websites, the first waves of muslims who came to india were non violent, infact the proof of this is that the islamic presence was hardly felt in India up until the 11th or 12th century when central asians started to invade. Muslims came to India in the 7th century, they were missionaries in south india, even hindu south indians agree with this. Then came Muhamad bin Qasim to Sindh, there was no mass conversion of anyone and the proof of this is that almost 95% or more of sindh remained hindu after the arabs left.
 
Then after the 11th century, central asian started to invade and yes that was violent, no one is denying this. But again Islam may have only played a little role in this, central asians have always invaded india or other areas violently, They have always been warlike, till this day.


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2010 at 12:54
Originally posted by balochii

^ all of your sources are probably from hindu radical websites, the first waves of muslims who came to india were non violent, infact the proof of this is that the islamic presence was hardly felt in India up until the 11th or 12th century when central asians started to invade. Muslims came to India in the 7th century, they were missionaries in south india, even hindu south indians agree with this. Then came Muhamad bin Qasim to Sindh, there was no mass conversion of anyone and the proof of this is that almost 95% or more of sindh remained hindu after the arabs left.
 

Then after the 11th century, central asian started to invade and yes that was violent, no one is denying this. But again Islam may have only played a little role in this, central asians have always invaded india or other areas violently, They have always been warlike, till this day.


We can agree to disagree!
Both the Arab and Turkish invasions were brutal but I put most of the blame on human greed and power vs. Islam. Islam fueld the brutality but humanity if full of examples of brutality, with or witout religion. I do agree that the Seljuk Turk invasion was worse. Conversion spared many the wrath of the invaders.

The Same can be found in Byzantine and Persian sources. These are not Hindu sources so don't assume things but you are entitled to your opinion.




-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2010 at 13:29
Some months ago, I visited India, one of the first things that our tour guide said to us was "Keep away from Muslims in this country", I think the Muslim quarter of Delhi is the most dangerous place in India, I just know that there is the largest market of stolen goods!
Islamic culture can be certainly considered as a brutal culture for people who even don't kill animals, Hindus are really the most peaceful people in the world, millions of Hindus and followers of other religions in India could be killed by the violence which exists in the Islamic culture, not just by Arabs or Turks, but mostly by Indian Muslims.


-------------


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2010 at 13:46
Originally posted by eaglecap



TGS the great researcher- Is this all you can do is name call? Anyone who does not agree with TGS should be called names or it sure seems that way.


Calling you paranoid isnt calling you names. I'm merely inferring on the fact that you believe there is an imminent threat from the Islamic religion.

Maybe if you do some actual objective research yourself, your history blog wouldnt be so biased. It certainly doesnt help that you have this on the logo: "At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war."

Originally posted by eaglecap


I believe Islam fueled the invasions but greed and the need to control others or power fueled it even more, so I would agree that, yes, it was influenced by human nature. There are peaceful Muslims but if you look at the core beliefs of Islam, it is ... well you figure it out!



Ok, so dont imply that it was Islam that led to the devastation, it was merely human nature and the time period that this happened, where it was a common thing to massacre people and cause destruction, especially common amongst nomadic invaders.

If you re-read my comment, I was making that very exact point:

Originally posted by TheGreatSimba


Anyways, it was more the people who invaded India than the religion they abided by.


Contrary to what you say, Islam and Muslims actually led India to a golden age. Now, the title of your thread says the Muslim devastation of India, but did Islam have anything to do with the destruction? Absolutely not, it was simply the nature of war at the time.

Did the Mongol's religion have anything to do with the destruction they caused throughout Asia? No. Did the Huns religion have anything to do with the destruction they caused? No. I could go on and on and on...

I'm no fan of religion, I'm also no fan of distinguishing one religion from another.




-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2010 at 13:47
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Some months ago, I visited India, one of the first things that our tour guide said to us was "Keep away from Muslims in this country", I think the Muslim quarter of Delhi is the most dangerous place in India, I just know that there is the largest market of stolen goods!
Islamic culture can be certainly considered as a brutal culture for people who even don't kill animals, Hindus are really the most peaceful people in the world, millions of Hindus and followers of other religions in India could be killed by the violence which exists in the Islamic culture, not just by Arabs or Turks, but mostly by Indian Muslims.


Thanks Cyrus
I can understand their fear and why India and Pakistan seperated. Hindu are generally peaceful but their caste system is wrong and if a Hindu converts to say Christianity or even Islam then you will see the radical side of the Hindu faith but this is about the Islamic invasion of India, so I will not dwell on this. I would rather see peaceful relations between India and Islam but that is not reality and their history speaks volumes. Many converted to Islam to get out of the caste system and also to save their lives. Later on they were allowed to pay the Jizya tax like people of the Book did but they were still second class citizens. At least they could keep their faith at that point!

These are the sources used:

1.     Spencer, Robert. “Jihad group claims credit for India blast” Reuters (2008)        http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/07/jihad-group-claims-credit-for-india-blast.html
2.     Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage, (Simon and Schuster: New York, 1954), 459
2.     (Durant 1954, 460)
     2.     (Durant 1954, 460)

3.       Lal, K.S. 2000. “Muslims Invade India. Ed Dr. Andrew Bostom ( Prometheus books), 433
3.      (Lal, 2000, 434)
3.      (Lal, 2000, 435)
3.      (Lal, 2000, 436)
3.      (Lal, 2000, 436)
3.      (Lal, 2000, 436)


-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2010 at 13:52
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba


Originally posted by eaglecap


TGS the great researcher- Is this all you can do is name call? Anyone who does not agree with TGS should be called names or it sure seems that way.
Calling you paranoid isnt calling you names. I'm merely inferring on the fact that you believe there is an imminent threat from the Islamic religion.
Originally posted by eaglecap


I believe Islam fueled the invasions but greed and the need to control others or power fueled it even more, so I would agree that, yes, it was influenced by human nature. There are peaceful Muslims but if you look at the core beliefs of Islam, it is ... well you figure it out!

Ok, so dont imply that it was Islam that led to the devastation, it was merely human nature and the time period that this happened, where it was a common thing to massacre people and cause destruction, especially common amongst nomadic invaders.Contrary to what you say, Islam and Muslims actually led India to a golden age.



I said Islam fueld these invasion so you cannot seperate it from human nature. Man will always find an excuse for violence against his fellow man and afterall they were only following the examples of Muhammad. I am sure Alexander the Great had his reason. A Golden Age- baloney! India was already at the height of culture and civilization. Will Durant covers this in his great volume- Indian history.

show me your sources to back this up- I am always open

Mongol- From what I have read there was a period of tolerance during the Mongol period but still the non-Muslims of India were dhimmi.

-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2010 at 13:56
Originally posted by eaglecap



I said Islam fueld these invasion so you cannot seperate it from human nature.


Yes you can, as religion is a by product of human nature, but the invaders may have invaded on the pretext of religion (as all the holy books say, you must kill the infidels and take their land) but it was more greed and the nature of war at the time that led to the devastation, not Islam itself.

Originally posted by eaglecap


 Man will always find an excuse for violence against his fellow man and afterall they were only following the examples of Muhammad.


Or the Israelites? You know how the Old Testament feels about infidels.

Originally posted by eaglecap


 I am sure Alexander the Great had his reason.


Power and glory

Originally posted by eaglecap


 A Golden Age- baloney! India was already at the height of culture and civilization. Will Durant covers this in his great volume- Indian history.

show me your sources to back this up- I am always open


The Indian economy peaked during the Mughal era. Some of the greatest architectural achievements were made during the Mughal era. The Mughal prosperity did not last long due to infighting and colonialism, but it was certainly India at its height.

Originally posted by eaglecap

Mongol- From what I have read there was a period of tolerance during the Mongol period but still the non-Muslims of India were dhimmi.


Yea, a period of tolerance after the Mongols had already devastated the entire continent and killed millions of people, and like you said, the conquerors of India also became more tolerant after their victories.

---------------

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the devastation you are talking about is more of a result of the nature of nomadic tribes and their warfare at the time. Nomadic central asian tribes were especially brutal in warfare. It has little do with Islam, it was the way they lived before Islam. And it was the Turks and Mongols who did most of the destruction, Arabs were barely a factor later on in Islamic history. Islamic armies were mostly made up of Turks and other nomadic tribes.


-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2010 at 15:41
Islam is not just a religion, it has also an important political role in the Islamic societies, you can hardly find anything like Jihad in other religions, so you can't compare Muslims who make Jihad against the Infidel nations to Mongols and other peoples who invade for other purposes.

-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2010 at 16:33
Ditto!

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2010 at 22:07
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Islam is not just a religion, it has also an important political role in the Islamic societies,


Thats because most Islamic societies today are not completely secular. Islam has no political role in Turkey, where completely secularism exists.

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri


 you can hardly find anything like Jihad in other religions, so you can't compare Muslims who make Jihad against the Infidel nations to Mongols and other peoples who invade for other purposes.


There is something like Jihad in Christianity, its called a Crusade. Its the exact same concept as a Jihad.

Furthermore, Muslim armies were driven more by greed and personal gain than spreading Islam. The average soldier only cared about the rewards, and the leaders the glory.

The argument you guys are trying to put forth that Islam is somehow special is ludicrous, its no more special than any other religion.


-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2010 at 02:36
The crusades were just focused on the Holy Land but jihad should be done everywhere, as you read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad Islam says: "Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war".

-------------


Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2010 at 13:06

This a good article explaning islam and politics. Look at how different early muslims were compared to the ones of today or even middle ages.




<HR style="COLOR: #fff; : #fff" SIZE=1>
<!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->
<DIV id=post_message_400378><!-- google_ad_section_start --><SPAN =IL_AD id=IL_AD3>islamic</SPAN>' '<SPAN =IL_AD id=IL_AD4>muslim</SPAN>' 'islamist' as far as political entities are concerned are all ambiguous terms and we could discuss them forever...Lets do a brief runthrough because everyone likes to use the terms Islamic state and Muslim country etc. from both sides of the line, attributing Islamic values wrongly to a political system or nonIslamic values as such...First, a population argument. The word 'Muslim' is <SPAN =IL_AD id=IL_AD5>personal</SPAN>, and donates a personal faith by someone. Someone can be a Muslim or nonMuslim. If a state has the majority of its population that call themselves Muslim, it is a Muslim-majority state. (and note that the state cannot decide who is Muslim or not. Its personal.) I dont prefer to call a Muslim-majority state a Muslim state. Look at Egypt today for example. A country rampant with corruption in its government and a dictatorship in the simplest of terms. Can you call this a 'Muslim' country inferring an 'Muslim' value to its system? I dont think so. But is it a Muslim-majority country? Yes.What is an 'Islamic' state then? Let us <SPAN =IL_AD id=IL_AD2>get back</SPAN> to the first (and only real) definition of this term.The first real political Islamic definitions were actually placed by Ibn Taimia and Imam Hanifa when he defined 'Dar al Islam' or 'Dar al Salam' v/s 'Dar al Kufr' and others like 'Dar al Hudna' and 'Dar Al Harb'. Abu Hanifa himself chose the definition out of his interpretations of the Prophet's <SPAN =IL_AD id=IL_AD6>politics</SPAN> and the Prophets own use of the term 'Dar al Salam' (more a 'Nation of Peace' than an 'Islamic Nation' although both are synonyms) . Note this closely: A country that is part of Dar al Islam or Dar al Salam (or 'Islamic'), is 1) a country where Muslims are totally free to <SPAN =IL_AD id=IL_AD1>practice</SPAN> their faith with no coercion whatsoever from any authority. 2) a country that is surrounded by other countries who constitute Dar Al Islam and present no threat at the border (otherwise a military presence is needed at the border with or without the permission of the ruling entity in this country to defend its Muslims).This is the original theme of what constitutes an Islamic country in the politics of Islam as instigated by the Prophet as a political leader. Note that this definition does NOT include anything about sharia government, about the government at all, or about Muslims being a majority. Keep in mind Abu Hanifa knew what he was talking about in interpreting the Prophet's politics. That was his lifetime engagement. In other words everything else that came up later about sharia rule in a country or coercive religion or anything as such to define an 'Islamic' has come later in politics, and according to the prophet, is not really an element of an 'Islamic state' at all! A key principle of Islam, and the verse mentioned right after the most important verse in the Quran is this: 'There is no coercion in religion, and the truth stands out from flaw' (La Ikaraha fil Din Qad Tabayyana AlRushdu min AlGhayy 2:256) and this is the basis of the Islamic state. You cannot impose a religion on anyone (or prayer - like the mutawwa3een do) or any system of faith or religious practice or even pass a sentence on someone who chooses to leave Islam. Full freedom of personal worship. That is the original and prophetic definition of the Islamic state, a personal definition. During the first caliphates what happened as the Islamic state expanded was this two step process: 1) The Caliph approached countries with Muslim minorities through a messenger heading to its ruler, and asked the ruler to grant Muslims full freedom of worship with no persecution, and some agreed. Then these would be called 'Dar al Da3wa or Dar Al 3ahd' depending on the political situation. Ethiopia was one such country. The country had a Christian government and yet was a total ally of the Islamic empire. 2) Then the Caliph would ask this ruler if they wish to pledge allegiance to the Caliph (who assumed the role similar to the Pope in the Holy Roman Empire...) and if they agreed, they would be offered a full defense contract and assistance in the form of protection from any invader from its border that would threaten its people and the borders of the Islamic empire. If the ruler agreed to this, then his country would be included in Dar-AlIslam, as an Islamic country. Ethiopia refused to plead allegiance to the Caliph while allowing Muslims freedom of worship (which is perfectly fine - it remains an ally). But Egypt was one such case that said yes. They agreed to allow Muslims freedom of worship, then agreed to pledge allegiance to the Caliph while keeping their autonomous government (and it was a Christian Pope - so it was actually a Christian government), and the Muslims came in and rid the country of its occupiers who were the Byzantinians and stations guards at the monasteries. So Egypt had a Christian government, and yet it was an Islamic country, by the Prophet's definition. These Islamic states were all autonomous, all with their own governments, be they Christian, or democracies, or secular, or Jewish, or tribal, whatever suits them, all in alliance at time of war (to mobilise armies at the order of the caliph) and all were independent. This is the Islamic empire made of Islamic countries, and apparently this system was efficient and it worked (a crest in knowledge, huge expansion, elimination of poverty, etc.)Now 'Islamist' or the third word is actually a new word coined by nonMuslims to attempt to define Muslims within their system, its orientalist actually. It literally means 'political Islam' when in reality the line between mosque and state is of an entirely different nature between church and state. So basically in its broadest, it is used to describe political movements within Islam. Its quite a meaningless term to Muslims (if you choose to follow the original interpretations of the Islamic state), or atleast it should be... But in any case and in its best definition, supposing we have a modern state today, the Islamist party would be the one that follows an sharia political model ( i wont say 'Islamic' cause most dont, the Islamic model is described above), similar to a Christian political party.Of course if you think about it, in a state like medieval Egypt ruled by the Christian pope whilst still being an Islamic country, an Islamist party makes no sense. What would its goal be? Egypt is already an Islamic state answering to the Caliph while ruled by the Pope...Modern European Islamic scholars like Tarek Ramadan choose to revert to the original definitions of Islamic state as used by the Prophet and interpreted by Abu Hanifa. In this respect, most European countries today would actually be Islamic states, cause they offer more freedom of worship to Muslims than many other Muslim-majority countries in the world today...So where is sharia in this picture? Sharia, is actually a law of deterrence. Like nuclear weapons. They are not meant to be used, but they are meant to be there, cause when they are there, people will behave themselves. You will not steal if you know that your hand will be cut off if yu do. But how is the law actually implemented? The first time you steal, you are forgiven. The second, you are forgiven. The third, you have your hand cut off (ie, you have to be a really persistent prick). And in all times, you CANNOT have stolen for need (like, to feed your family if yure poor). And if you repent at any point, even after the third time, you are forgiven. This is how all schools of islamic jurisprudence understand it. Can this law find any practical application? No. The exception is saudi arabia where they interpret it differently.For fornication or adultery, Islamic law requires someone to actually witness the act of intercourse (the only instance i can think of is actually a gangrape...) for a death sentence to be passed. This is nearly impossible to implement, again... except of course in saudi arabia where they interpret things extremely...Furthermore, 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. Sharia law as a deterrent really tells you what you deserve, more than what someone should do to you. It places a hierarchy on sins not an authority for someone to pass a punishment. No one has the right to carry out an Islamic sentence unless he has studied it very, very, very, very well (more than a civil case) because he has to answer God for that if he gets it wrong... And as such a civil penalty is actually preferred!In addition to all this, sharia law is actually a choice whether or not to follow by a ruler if he is Muslim. He can choose to overrule it at will, and it is a license God has given him as long as he finds reason for it. One of the caliphs lifted all penalties on theft because of a poverty phase...And now to Saudi Arabia. Does Saudis allow absolute freedom of worship to all Muslims with no coercion? The answer is actually quite clearly no to me, maybe debatable to others. Saudi oppresses shias for instance, and sufis, and others who call themselves Muslims of other sects. The prophet allowed Christians to pray INSIDE HIS OWN MOSQUE when they visited him... Saudi does not allow even a church on its territory. Saudi imposes on people prayer through shortat alnahy 3an el monkar wal 2amr belma3roof or the motawwa3 or religious police, and that is in direct contrast to the word of God where there is no compulsion in religion. imho i dont see saudi as an Islamic country neither by Abu Hanifa's first definition down from the Prophet nor by the fact that it answers to any caliph cause the caliphate has been over for a century or so now... and the mutawwa3s by virtue of their role are infringing on peoples Godgiven right to freedom of choice (the truth is there, if you wish to choose it, no coercion) and that by itself is unIslamic, so i see nothing educated about their role"<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

balochii thanks for the post but please next time summarize it and then put on this link but please do not post whole articles- it is spamming. I am always opened minded so I will try and read it later today.

-------------


Posted By: PakistaniShield
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2010 at 16:08
Not to mention "hinduism" is simply a British term for the pagan cults/religions of the subcontinent.  The term was used by Muslim rulers and them twisted by the British to make all the various asian pagan beliefs as "one religion."

200 years ago no one called their religion "hindu"

Yet today there are some fanatic elements trying to project is as some sort of ancient religion and some even laughably claiming it to be the "oldest 'religion"

I wanted to start a thread on that, but didn't want to push more controversy   

-------------
http://pakhub.info">


Posted By: PakistaniShield
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2010 at 16:13
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba



Thats because most Islamic societies today are not completely secular. Islam has no political role in Turkey, where completely secularism exists.



That statement is quite incorrect. The situation for non-Muslims in Turkey is actually very difficult and converting outside Islam is punishable under the law. Turkey is often portrayed by the western media as secular because of it's pro-western policies and western lifestyle encouraged by Attaturk.

But that's a different topic.


-------------
http://pakhub.info">


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2010 at 12:21
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

The crusades were just focused on the Holy Land but jihad should be done everywhere, as you read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad Islam says: "Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war".


This is so true and we often see denial (da- Nile) which is more than a river-

Spencer: Muslims lying about Islamic atrocities

[URL=http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37910]http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37910[/URL

-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2010 at 12:39
Yes you can, as religion is a by product of human nature, but the invaders may have invaded on the pretext of religion (as all the holy books say, you must kill the infidels and take their land) but it was more greed and the nature of war at the time that led to the devastation, not Islam itself.

I can agree here but I don’t doubt that some had that holy zeal! You can find them in all groups, including the Communist, I have met them. The same can be said about many faiths and political groups. It seems before a city was taken, in India, they were offered a chance to convert and many of the lowest castes like the Dalits did. It was their chance to escape the oppressive caste system.

Or the Israelites? You know how the Old Testament feels about infidels

That is something I could never understand but still that was for a specific group at a sad but specific time in history and a specific region of geography. The Hebrews, unlike Islam, were not out the conquer the world. They were interested only in a specific region in the Middle East they called the Promised land. It is still very sad that they killed men, women, children and sometimes even their animals. The thing is do you still see Hebrews killing Amorites today etc. I grew up learning about the old Testament and it is hard to swallow but it happened.


Alexander - we agree here
Yes power and glory just like the Internationalist today and those who want a return of the Caliphate.


The Indian economy peaked during the Mughal era. Some of the greatest architectural achievements were made during the Mughal era. The Mughal prosperity did not last long due to infighting and colonialism, but it was certainly India at its height.

Thanks TGS and I will look further into this when I have time.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the devastation you are talking about is more of a result of the nature of nomadic tribes and their warfare at the time. Nomadic central asian tribes were especially brutal in warfare. It has little do with Islam, it was the way they lived before Islam. And it was the Turks and Mongols who did most of the destruction, Arabs were barely a factor later on in Islamic history. Islamic armies were mostly made up of Turks and other nomadic tribes.

Here I disagree and in fact Islam helped fuel it and gave the Arabs and later Seljuk Turks the excuse to wage war on the Idolaters but we can meet halfway. I do agree with your point about Nomadic Asian tribes but only to a point. The historian Alfred friendly, in reference to the Turkic tribes, called their form of Islam primitive Islam. I believe he meant that they did not fully understand their faith and still were influenced by their Turkic nomadic war-like culture as well as their new faith. Seljuk Turks who had migrated into the Persian Empire and gained some level of culture and education called their nomadic brethren barbarians- I mean after a generation or more. (Alfred Friendly )


By the Way TGS – you are free to call names or opinions about others but it does get a bit redundant but I honor free speech. As long as it does not ever turn to threats or cursing and so far you have done good. I don't think you would ever go that far.


-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2010 at 12:44
A lot of very good posts found above! As well as a lot of realism, and understanding!

As the Brits might say; GOOD SHOW!

Regards,

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2010 at 14:34


I got some meds so now I maybe I will be cured of the Islamic paranoia i have so bad!

Islamophobia" pills



-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2010 at 15:25
Originally posted by eaglecap

Yes you can, as religion is a by product of human nature, but the invaders may have invaded on the pretext of religion (as all the holy books say, you must kill the infidels and take their land) but it was more greed and the nature of war at the time that led to the devastation, not Islam itself.

I can agree here but I don’t doubt that some had that holy zeal! You can find them in all groups, including the Communist, I have met them. The same can be said about many faiths and political groups. It seems before a city was taken, in India, they were offered a chance to convert and many of the lowest castes like the Dalits did. It was their chance to escape the oppressive caste system.


Sure, some of them may have had the zeal, what does that have to do with Islam as a whole though? Already your original argument that somehow Islam caused the devastation is crumbling.

Originally posted by eaglecap


Or the Israelites? You know how the Old Testament feels about infidels

That is something I could never understand but still that was for a specific group at a sad but specific time in history and a specific region of geography. The Hebrews, unlike Islam, were not out the conquer the world. They were interested only in a specific region in the Middle East they called the Promised land. It is still very sad that they killed men, women, children and sometimes even their animals.


Judaism preaches racial superiority and that everyone but Jews are inferior beings doomed to hell, and if need be, should be killed without any regard whatsoever.

How is that any different?

Originally posted by eaglecap


 The thing is do you still see Hebrews killing Amorites today etc. I grew up learning about the old Testament and it is hard to swallow but it happened.


Yes, Hebrews are killing people on a daily basis in Occupied Palestine, based on the premise of their religion.


Originally posted by eaglecap


Basically what I'm trying to say is that the devastation you are talking about is more of a result of the nature of nomadic tribes and their warfare at the time. Nomadic central asian tribes were especially brutal in warfare. It has little do with Islam, it was the way they lived before Islam. And it was the Turks and Mongols who did most of the destruction, Arabs were barely a factor later on in Islamic history. Islamic armies were mostly made up of Turks and other nomadic tribes.

Here I disagree and in fact Islam helped fuel it and gave the Arabs and later Seljuk Turks the excuse to wage war on the Idolaters but we can meet halfway. I do agree with your point about Nomadic Asian tribes but only to a point. The historian Alfred friendly, in reference to the Turkic tribes, called their form of Islam primitive Islam. I believe he meant that they did not fully understand their faith and still were influenced by their Turkic nomadic war-like culture as well as their new faith. Seljuk Turks who had migrated into the Persian Empire and gained some level of culture and education called their nomadic brethren barbarians- I mean after a generation or more. (Alfred Friendly )


Wait, I'm confused, you started out by saying you disagree, yet your comments point out that it was the nature of their upbringing and their life that fueled their actions.

Arabs and Turkic tribes fought wars prior to Islam, and even fought wars with the Romans/Byzantines and the Persian Empire, prior to Islam. They expanded their territories prior to Islam...

So how can you say that it was Islam that all of a sudden pushed them to go to war when they had been going to war for centuries prior, especially the Turkic tribes which had successfully expanded their territory.

Originally posted by eaglecap


By the Way TGS – you are free to call names or opinions about others but it does get a bit redundant but I honor free speech. As long as it does not ever turn to threats or cursing and so far you have done good. I don't think you would ever go that far.


I'm not calling anyone names, show me one post.

Originally posted by eaglecap



I got some meds so now I maybe I will be cured of the Islamic paranoia i have so bad!

Islamophobia" pills



Are you sure those pills arent actually causing Islamophobia?


-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2010 at 15:33
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba



Originally posted by eaglecap

Yes you can, as religion is a by product of human nature, but the invaders may have invaded on the pretext of religion (as all the holy books say, you must kill the infidels and take their land) but it was more greed and the nature of war at the time that led to the devastation, not Islam itself.

I can agree here but I don’t doubt that some had that holy zeal! You can find them in all groups, including the Communist, I have met them. The same can be said about many faiths and political groups. It seems before a city was taken, in India, they were offered a chance to convert and many of the lowest castes like the Dalits did. It was their chance to escape the oppressive caste system.
Sure, some of them may have had the zeal, what does that have to do with Islam as a whole though? Already your original argument that somehow Islam caused the devastation is crumbling.
Originally posted by eaglecap

Or the Israelites? You know how the Old Testament feels about infidels

That is something I could never understand but still that was for a specific group at a sad but specific time in history and a specific region of geography. The Hebrews, unlike Islam, were not out the conquer the world. They were interested only in a specific region in the Middle East they called the Promised land. It is still very sad that they killed men, women, children and sometimes even their animals.
Judaism preaches racial superiority and that everyone but Jews are inferior beings doomed to hell, and if need be, should be killed without any regard whatsoever.How is that any different?
Originally posted by eaglecap

 The thing is do you still see Hebrews killing Amorites today etc. I grew up learning about the old Testament and it is hard to swallow but it happened.
Yes, Hebrews are killing people on a daily basis in Occupied Palestine, based on the premise of their religion.

Originally posted by eaglecap

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the devastation you are talking about is more of a result of the nature of nomadic tribes and their warfare at the time. Nomadic central asian tribes were especially brutal in warfare. It has little do with Islam, it was the way they lived before Islam. And it was the Turks and Mongols who did most of the destruction, Arabs were barely a factor later on in Islamic history. Islamic armies were mostly made up of Turks and other nomadic tribes.

Here I disagree and in fact Islam helped fuel it and gave the Arabs and later Seljuk Turks the excuse to wage war on the Idolaters but we can meet halfway. I do agree with your point about Nomadic Asian tribes but only to a point. The historian Alfred friendly, in reference to the Turkic tribes, called their form of Islam primitive Islam. I believe he meant that they did not fully understand their faith and still were influenced by their Turkic nomadic war-like culture as well as their new faith. Seljuk Turks who had migrated into the Persian Empire and gained some level of culture and education called their nomadic brethren barbarians- I mean after a generation or more. (Alfred Friendly )
Wait, I'm confused, you started out by saying you disagree, yet your comments point out that it was the nature of their upbringing and their life that fueled their actions.Arabs and Turkic tribes fought wars prior to Islam, and even fought wars with the Romans/Byzantines and the Persian Empire, prior to Islam. They expanded their territories prior to Islam...So how can you say that it was Islam that all of a sudden pushed them to go to war when they had been going to war for centuries prior, especially the Turkic tribes which had successfully expanded their territory.

Originally posted by eaglecap

By the Way TGS – you are free to call names or opinions about others but it does get a bit redundant but I honor free speech. As long as it does not ever turn to threats or cursing and so far you have done good. I don't think you would ever go that far.
I'm not calling anyone names, show me one post.
Originally posted by eaglecap



I got some meds so now I maybe I will be cured of the Islamic
paranoia i have so bad!

Islamophobia" pills

Are you sure those pills arent actually causing Islamophobia?


TGS - I have to run but I will come back to answer you and clarify that one point in a day or 2!

-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε


Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2010 at 21:16
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba

I agree with balochii. Eaglecap is paranoid, just look at his blog. Anyways, it was more the people who invaded India than the religion they abided by. Furthermore, India went through a golden age under Islam.

If you put the Mathematicians of Ancient India as per chronological order , it will be as given below :-

 

Apasthambaof 1100BC ,

Baudhayana 800BC  ,

Manava 750BC ,

Panini of 500BC,

Badra Bahu 300BC,

Pingala who wrote Chandas Sutra in 200BC,

Umaswati 150BC a Jaina Scholar who wrote Tattwarthadhigama-Sutra Bhashya, Jaina Works ie sankhyana & other works including permutation & combinations which resulted in the formation Meru Prasthara or todays Pascal triangle  dated from 300BC –400AD ,

Bakhisli Manuscripts placed not later than 450BC

Classical period starting with

Aryabhata I (476- 550AD) who was influenced by ‘Surya Siddhanta’ of unknown author written 400AD.Aryabhata’s famous wok is Aryabhatiya.

Varaha Mihira(505-587AD)

Brahmagupta(598-668AD) ,

Bhaskara I (600-680AD) ,

Lalla (720-790 AD) ,

Govinda Swami(800-860AD) ,

Sankara Narayana(840-900AD) ,

Mahavira(approx.850AD) ,

Prthudakasvami(830-890AD) ,

Sridhara (870-930AD) ,

AryabhataII (920-1000AD) ,

Vijayanandi (940-1010AD) ,

Sripathi (1010-1066AD) ,

Bhaskara II (1114AD-1185AD)

 

After Bhaskara II no remarkable studies or research had taken place in North of India till late 19th century or early 20th century.There was a “sudden end of Growth”

What can be the reason for the same..?

Political Instability..? or Turmoil..? or what..?

 

Slave Dynasty came to Power in North India from the starting of 13th century .Then came Khilji Dynasty, then Tugluq Dynasty ,Then Sayyid Dynasty then Lodi dyanasty and then Mughal Dynasty. - All Muslim rulers

 

And under them there was absolutely no development in these areas

 

Do you call this period Golden age…?

 

It is taught to us that  North India had a reasnonably stable period from 1500AD till 1700AD but still no research in such fields are recorded.

 

But in the mean while from 13th century till 17th century, there was research and studies going on in South India especially in Kerala.Because it was far away from all these turmoils.and till 1565(Vijaya nagara defeated and Hampi destroyed) no major invasions occurred in South India and after 1565 also the Mysore kingdom grew as a Power under Wodayars.

Kerala faced Political turmoil only during Hyderali’s & Tipu’s Conquests in 1780s & 90s.

 

That too came to an end soon and total India went under British Rule.

 

Under the Muslim rulers the art and culture of India went into ruins.

There are now 8 artforms in India which is officially attested as classic.

1)Bharatha natyam

2)Mohiniyattam

3) Kathakali

4) Kutchipudi

5) Odissi

6) Sattriya

7) Manipuri

8) Kathak

All are Traditional Hindu artforms.bharatha natyam belongs to Tamilnadu.Mohiniyattam & Kathakali toKerala(Kerala never came under Islamic rule)Kutchipudibelongs to Andhra.Odissi to Orissa Sattriya to Assam.Manipuri to manipur & Kathak to North India.

The first seven is almost preserved in its oldest form because they were in areas which were not under Islamic rule or in areas which came under Islamic rule in a later period that too for a short period.Orissa & Vijayanagara was defeated only during 1560s.And Assam & manipur was beyond the stretch of Islamic rule.So the first seven artforms which follows natyashastra was preserved.

Kathak had lost its earlier glory and it became just a durbar dance performed by ladies to please Islamic kings.It has three gharanas out of which rajputtana gharana is believed to be the least corrupt..

Hindus were deprived of their properties and had second grade citizenship in their own land .they had to pay religious taxes(jizya) under muslim rule.

 

This cannot be considered as a golden age



Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2010 at 22:15
^ lol welcome back mr shivalingam ranatunga, the tamil warrior


Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2010 at 04:37
islam was like a locust. They tried to consume all lands and end all other religions. They would not be sated until they won, or they were defeated.


Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2010 at 05:39

Islamic murderers and rulers of olden days
By Dr. Ambedkar

Muhammad of Ghazni also looked upon his numerous invasions of India as the waging of a holy war. Al' Utbi, the historian of Muhammad, describing his raids writes :

" He demolished idol temples and established Islam. He captured ...... cities, killed the polluted wretches, destroying the idolaters, and gratifying Muslims. ' He then returned home and promulgated accounts of the victories obtained for Islam. ....... and vowed that every year he would undertake a holy war against Hind " Mahommed Ghori was actuated by the same holy zeal in his invasions of India. Hasan Nizami, the historian, describes his work in the following terms :

" He purged by his sword the land of Hind from the filth of infidelity and vice, and freed the whole of that country from the thorn of God-plurality and the impurity of idol-worship, and by his royal vigour and intrepidity left not one temple standing

Taimur has in his Memoir explained what led him to invade India. He says:

" My object in the invasions of Hindustan is to lead a campaign against the infidels, to convert them to the true faith according to the command of Muhammad (on whom and his family be the blessing and peace of God), to purify the land from the defilement of misbelief and polytheism, and overthrow the temples and idols, whereby we shall be Ghazis and Mujahids, companions and soldiers of the faith before God. "

Mahommad bin Qasim's first act of religious zeal was forcibly to circumcise the Brahmins of the captured city of Debul ; but on discovering that they objected to this sort of conversion, he proceeded to put all above the age of 17 to death, and to order all others, with women and children, to be led into slavery. The temple of the Hindus was looted, and the rich booty was divided equally among the soldiers, after one-fifth, the legal portion for the government, had been set aside.

Muhammad of Ghazni from the outset adopted those plans that would strike terror into the hearts of the Hindus. After the defeat of Raja JaipalinA.D. 1001, Muhammad ordered that Jaipal " be paraded about in the streets so that his sons and chieftains might see him in that condition of shame, bonds and disgrace; and that fear of Islam might fly abroad through the country of the infidels. "

"The slaughtering of ' infidels' seemed to be one thing that gave Muhammad particular pleasure. In one attack on Chand Rai, in A. D. 1019, many infidels were slain or taken prisoners, and the Muslims paid no regard to booty until they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and worshippers of the sun and fire. The historian naively adds that the elephants of the Hindu armies came to Muhammad of their own accord, leaving idols, preferring the service of the religion of Islam. "

Not infrequently, the slaughter of the Hindus gave a great setback to the indigenous culture of the Hindus, as in the conquest of Bihar by Muhammad Bakhtyar Khilji. When he took Nuddea (Bihar) the Tabaquat-i-Nasiri informs us that:

" Great plunder fell into the hands of the victors. Most of the inhabitants were Brahmins with shaven heads. They were put to death. Large number of books were found......... but none could explain their contents as all the men had been killed, the whole fort and city being a place of study. "

Summing up the evidence on the point. Dr. Titus concludes :

Temples Destroyed by Islamic Murderers

" Of the destruction of temples and the desecration of idols we have an abundance of evidence. Mahommad bin Qasim carried out his plan of destruction systematically in Sind, we have seen, but he made an exception of the famous temple at Multan for purposes of revenue, as this temple was a place of resort for pilgrims, who made large gifts to the idol. Nevertheless, while he thus satisfied his avarice by letting the temple stand, he gave vent to his malignity by having a piece of cow's flesh tied around the neck of the idol.

" Minhaj-as-Siraj further tells how Mahommad became widely known for having destroyed as many as a thousand temples, and of his great feat in destroying the temple of Somnath and carrying off its idol, which he asserts was broken into four parts. One part he deposited in the Jami Masjid of Ghazni, one he placed at the entrance of the royal palace, the third he sent to Mecca, and the fourth to Medina.

It is said by Lane Poole that Muhammad of Ghazni " who had vowed that every year should see him wage a holy war against the infidels of Hindustan " could not rest from his idol-breaking campaign so long as the temple of Somnath remained inviolate. It was for this specific purpose that he, at the very close of his career, undertook his arduous march across the desert from Multan to Anhalwara on the coast, fighting as he went, until he saw at last the famous temple:

" There a hundred thousand pilgrims were wont to assemble, a thousand Brahmins served the temple and guarded its treasures, and hundreds of dancers and singers played before its gates. Within stood the famous linga, a rude pillar stone adorned with gems and lighted by jewelled candelebra which were reflected in rich hangings, embroidered with precious stones like stars, that decked the shrine..... Its ramparts were swarmed with incredulous Brahmins, mocking the vain arrogance of foreign infidels whom the God of Somnath would assuredly consume. The foreigners, nothing daunted, scaled the walls; the God remained dumb to the urgent appeals of his servants; fifty thousand Hindus suffered for their faith and the sacred shrine was sacked to the joy of the true believers. The great stone was cast down and its fragments were carried off to grace the conqueror's palace. The temple gates were setup at Ghazni and a million pounds worth of treasure rewarded the iconoclast "

The work done by Muhammad of Ghazni became a pious tradition and was faithfully followed by those who came after him. In the words of Dr. Titus

"Mahommad Ghori, one of the enthusiastic successors of Muhammad of Ghazni, in his conquest of Ajmir destroyed pillars and foundations of the idol-temples, and built in their stead mosques and colleges, and the precepts of Islam and the customs of the law were divulged and established. At Delhi, the city and its vicinity were freed from idols and idol worship, and in the sanctuaries of the images of the Gods mosques were raised by the worshippers of the one God.

" Qutb-ud-Din Aybak also is said to have destroyed nearly a thousand temples, and then raised mosques on their foundations. The same author states that he built the Jami Masjid, Delhi, and adorned it with the stones and gold obtained from the temples which had been demolished by elephants, and covered it with inscriptions (from the Quran) containing the divine commands".

We have further evidence of this harrowing process having been systematically employed from the inscription extant over the eastern gateway of this same mosque at Delhi, which relates that the materials of 27 idol temples were used in its construction.

" Ala-ud-Din, in his zeal to build a second Minar to the Jami Masjid, to rival the one built by Qulb-ud-Din, is said by Amir Khusru not only to have dug stones out of the hills, but to have demolished temples of the infidels to furnish a supply. In his conquests of South India the destruction of temples was carried out by Ala-ud-Din as it had been in the north by his predecessors.

" The Sultan Firoz Shah, in his Futuhat, graphically relates how he treated Hindus who had dared to build new temples. ' When they did this in the city (Delhi) and the environs, in opposition to the law of the Prophet, which declares that such are not to be tolerated, under Divine guidance I destroyed these edifices. I killed these leaders of infidelity and punished others with stripes, until this abuse was entirely abolished and where infidels and idolaters worshipped idols, Musalmans now by God's mercy perform their devotions to the true God’."

Even in the reign of Shah Jahan, we read of the destruction of the temples that the Hindus had started to rebuild, and the account of this direct attack on the piety of the Hindus is thus solemnly recorded in the Badshah-namah:

" It had been brought to the notice of His Majesty, says the historian, that during the late reign (of Akbar) many idol-temples had been begun but remained unfinished at Benares, the great stronghold of infidelity. The infidels were now desirous of completing them. His Majesty, the defender of the faith, gave orders that at Benares and throughout all his dominions in every place all temples that had been begun should be cast down. It was reported from the Province of Allahabad that 76 temples had been destroyed in the district of Benares. "

It was left to Aurangzeb to make a final attempt to overthrow idolatry. The author of ' Ma ' athir-i-Alamgiri dilates upon his efforts to put down Hindu teaching, and his destruction of temples in the following terms:

" In April, A. D. 1669, Aurangzib learned that in the provinces of Thatta, Multan and Benares, but especially in the latter, foolish Brahmins were in the habit of expounding frivolous books in their schools, and that learners, Muslims as well as Hindus, went there from long distances.... The ' Director of the Faith ' consequently issued orders to all the governors of provinces to destroy with a willing hand the schools and temples of the infidels; and they were enjoined to put an entire stop to the teaching and practising of idolatrous worship.. ...Later it was reported to his religious Majesty that the Government officers had destroyed the temple of Bishnath at Benares. "

As Dr.Titus observes

" Such invaders as Muhammad and Timur seem to have been more concerned with iconoclasm, the collection of booty, the enslaving of captives, and the sending of infidels to hell with the' proselytizing sword ' than they were with the conversion of them even by force. But when rulers were permanently established the winning of converts became a matter of supreme urgency. It was a part of the stale policy to establish Islam as the religion of the whole land.

"Qutb-ud-Din, whose reputation for destroying temples was almost as great as that of Muhammad, in the latter part of the twelfth century and early years of the thirteenth, must have frequently resorted to force as an incentive to conversion. One instance may be noted: when he approached Koil (Aligarh) in A. D. 1194, ' those of the garrison who were wise and acute were converted to Islam, but the others were slain with the sword '.

" Further examples of extreme measures employed to effect a change of faith are all too numerous. One pathetic case is mentioned in the lime of the reign of Firoz Shah (A. D. 1351—1388). An old Brahmin of Delhi had been accused of worshipping idols in his house, and of even leading Muslim women to become infidels. He was sent for and his case placed before the judges, doctors, elders and lawyers. Their reply was that the provisions of the law were clear. The Brahmin must either become a Muslim or be burned. The true faith was declared to him and the right course pointed out, but he refused to accept it. Consequently he was burned by the order of the Sultan, and the commentator adds, ' Behold the Sultan's strict adherence to law and rectitude, how he would not deviate in the least from its decrees '. "

Muhammad not only destroyed temples but made it a policy to make slaves of the Hindus he conquered. In the words of Dr. Titus:

" Not only was slaughter of the infidels and the destruction of their temples resorted to in earlier period of Islam's contact with India, but as we have seen, many of the vanquished were led into slavery. The dividing up of booty was one of the special attractions, to the leaders as well as to the common soldiers in these expeditions. Muhammad seems to have made the slaughter of infidels, the destruction of their temples, the capturing of slaves, and the plundering of the wealth of the people, particularly of the temples and the priests, the main object of his raids. On the occasion of his first raid he is said to have taken much booty ; and half a million Hindus, ' beautiful men and women ', were reduced to slavery and taken back to Ghazni. "

When Muhammad later took Kanauj, in A. D. 1017, he took so much booty and so many prisoners that * the fingers of those who counted them would have tired '. Describing how common Indian slaves had become in Ghazni and Central Asia after the campaign of A. D. 1019, the historian of the times says

"The number of prisoners may be conceived from the fact that each was sold for from two to ten dirhams. These were afterwards taken to Ghazni, and merchants came from far distant cities to purchase them ;. . ....and the fair and the dark, the rich and the poor were commingled in one common slavery.

" In the year A.D. 1202, when Qulb-ud-Din captured Kalinjar, after the temples had been converted into mosques, and the very name of idolatry was annihilated, fifty thousand men came under the collar of slavery and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus. "

Slavery was the fate of those Hindus who were captured in the holy war. But, when there was no war the systematic abasement of the Hindus played no unimportant part in the methods adopted by the Muslim invaders. In the days of Ala-ud-Din, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Hindus had in certain parts given the Sultan much trouble. So, he determined to impose such taxes on them that they would be prevented from rising in rebellion.

" The Hindu was to be left unable to keep a horse to ride on, to carry arms, to wear fine clothes, or to enjoy any of the luxuries of life. "

Speaking of the levy of Jizyah Dr. Titus says

" The payment of the Jizyah by the Hindus continued throughout the dominions of the sultans, emperors, and kings in various parts of India with more or less regularity, though often, the law was in force in theory only ; since it depended entirely on the ability of the sovereign to enforce his demands. But, finally, it was abolished throughout the Moghul Empire in the ninth year of the enlightened Akbar's reign (A.D.1665), after it had been accepted as a fundamental part of Muslim government policy in India for a period of more than eight centuries. "

Lane Poole says that

"The Hindu was taxed to the extent of half the produce of his land, and had to pay duties on all his buffaloes, goats, and other milk-cattle. The taxes were to be levied equally on rich and poor, at so much per acre, so much per animal. Any collectors or officers taking bribes were summarily dismissed and heavily punished with sticks, pincers, the rack, imprisonment and chains. The new rules were strictly carried out, so that one revenue officer would string together 20 Hindu notables and enforce payment by blows. No gold or silver, not even the betelnut, so cheering and stimulative to pleasure, was to be seen in a Hindu house, and the wives of the impoverished native officials were reduced to taking service in Muslim families. Revenue officers came to be regarded as more deadly than the plague; and to be a government clerk was disgrace worse than death, in so much that no Hindu would marry his daughter to such a man. "

 These edicts, says the historian of the period,

" were so strictly carried out that the chaukidars and khuts and muqad-dimswere not able to ride on horseback, to find weapon, to wear fine clothes, or to indulge in betel. . .... No Hindu could hold up his head. ..... Blows, confinement in the stocks, imprisonment and chains were all employed to enforce payment. "

All this was not the result of mere caprice or moral perversion. On the other hand, what was done was in accordance with the ruling ideas of the leaders of Islam in the broadest aspects. These ideas were well expressed by the Kazi in reply to a question put by Sultan Ala-ud-Din wanting to know the legal position of the Hindus under Muslim law. The Kazi said :—

" They are called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer demands silver from them they should without question, and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt in their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it..... The due subordination of the Dhimmi is exhibited in this humble payment, and by this throwing of dirt into their mouths. The glorification of Islam is a duty, and contempt for religion is vain. God holds them in contempt, for he says, ' Keep them in subjection '. To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, and make them captive, saying, ' Convert them to Islam or kill them, and make them slaves, and spoil their wealth and property '. No doctor but the great doctor (Hani-fah), to whose school we belong, has assented to the imposition of jizya on Hindus ; doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but ' Death or Islam '. "

Such is the story of this period of 762 years which elapsed between the advent of Muhammad of Ghazni and the return of Ahmadshah Abdalli.

How far is it open to the Hindus to say that Northern India is part of Aryavarta ? How far is it open to the Hindus to say because once it belonged to them, therefore, it must remain for ever an integral part of India ? Those who oppose separation and hold to the ' historic sentiment ' arising out of an ancient fact that Northern India including Afghanistan was once part of India and that the people of that area were either Buddhist or Hindus, must be asked whether the events of these 762 years of incessant Muslim invasions, the object with which they were launched and the methods adopted by these invaders to give effect to their object are to be treated as though they were matters of no account?

Apart from other consequences which have flowed from them these invasions have, in my opinion, so profoundly altered the ' culture and character of the northern areas, which it is now proposed to be included in a Pakistan, that there is not only no unity between that area and the rest of India but that there is as a matter of fact a real antipathy between the two.

The first consequence of these invasions was the breaking up of the unity of Northern India with the rest of India. After his conquest of Northern India, Muhammad of Ghazni detached it from India and ruled it from Ghazni. When Mahommed Ghori came in the field as a conqueror, he again attached it to India and ruled it from Lahore and then from Delhi. Hakim, the brother of Akbar, detached Kabul and Kandahar from Northern India. Akbar again attached it to Northern India. They were again detached by Nadirshah in 1738 and the whole of Northern India would have been severed from India had it not been for the check provided by the rise of the Sikhs. Northern India, therefore, has been like a wagon in a train, which can be coupled or uncoupled according to the circumstances of the moment. If analogy is wanted, the case of Alsace-Lorraine could be cited. Alsace-Lorraine was originally part of Germany, like the rest of Switzerland and the Low Countries. It continued to be so till 1680, when it was taken by France and incorporated into French territory. It belonged to France till 1871, when it was detached by Germany and made part of her territory. In 1918, it was again detached from Germany and made part of France. In 1940, it was detached from France and made part of Germany.

What is, however, important to bear in mind is that with all their internecine conflicts they were all united by one common objective and that was to destroy the Hindu faith.

These Muslim invasions were not undertaken merely out of lust for loot or conquest. There was another object behind them. The expedition against Sind by Mahommad bin Qasim was of a punitive character and was undertaken to punish Raja Dahir of Sind who had refused to make restitution for the seizure of an Arab ship at Debul, one of the sea-port towns of Sind. But, there is no doubt that striking a blow at the idolatry and polytheism of Hindus and establishing Islam in India was also one of the aims of this expedition. In one of his dispatches to Hajjaj, Mahommad bin Qasim is quoted to have said:

" The nephew of Raja Dahir, his warriors and principal officers have been dispatched, and the infidels converted to Islam or destroyed. Instead of idol-temples, mosques and other places of worship have been created, the Kulbah it read, the call to prayers is raised, so that devotions are performed at stated hours. The Takbir and praise to the Almighty God are offered every morning and evening. "

After receiving the above dispatch, which had been forwarded with the head of the Raja, Hajjaj sent the following reply to his general:

" Except that you give protection to all, great and small alike, make no difference between enemy and friend. God, says, ' Give no quarter to infidels but cut their throats '. Then know that this is the command of the great God. You shall not be too ready to grant protection, because it will prolong your work. After this give no quarter to any enemy except those who are of rank."

Muhammad of Ghazni also looked upon his numerous invasions of India as the waging of a holy war. Al' Utbi, the historian of Muhammad, describing his raids writes:

" He demolished idol temples and established Islam. He captured ...... cities, killed the polluted wretches, destroying the idolaters, and gratifying Muslims. ' He then returned home and promulgated accounts of the victories obtained for Islam. ....... and vowed that every year he would undertake a holy war against Hind " Mahommed Ghori was actuated by the same holy zeal in his invasions of India. Hasan Nizami, the historian, describes his work in the following terms:

" He purged by his sword the land of Hind from the filth of infidelity and vice, and freed the whole of that country from the thorn of God-plurality and the impurity of idol-worship, and by his royal vigour and intrepidity left not one temple standing

Taimur has in his Memoir explained what led him to invade India. He says:

" My object in the invasions of Hindustan is to lead a campaign against the infidels, to convert them to the true faith according to the command of Muhammad (on whom and his family be the blessing and peace of God), to purify the land from the defilement of misbelief and polytheism, and overthrow the temples and idols, whereby we shall be Ghazis and Mujahids,companions and soldiers of the faith before God. "
_______________

 



Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2010 at 10:46
To know more about the History of Jihad in India please visit the site
 
http://www.historyofjihad.org/india.html?syf=contact - http://www.historyofjihad.org/india.html?syf=contact


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2010 at 13:37
Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

<span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:default;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial; color:maroon">Islamic murderers and rulers of olden days</span><span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">
By Dr. Ambedkar<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">Muhammad of Ghazni also
looked upon his numerous invasions of India as the waging of a holy war. Al'
Utbi, the historian of Muhammad, describing his raids writes :<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" He demolished idol
temples and established Islam. He captured ...... cities, killed the polluted
wretches, destroying the idolaters, and gratifying Muslims. ' He then returned
home and promulgated accounts of the victories obtained for Islam. ....... and
vowed that every year he would undertake a holy war against Hind "
Mahommed Ghori was actuated by the same holy zeal in his invasions of India.
Hasan Nizami, the historian, describes his work in the following terms :<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" He purged by his sword
the land of Hind from the filth of infidelity and vice, and freed the whole of
that country from the thorn of God-plurality and the impurity of idol-worship,
and by his royal vigour and intrepidity left not one temple standing<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">Taimur has in his Memoir
explained what led him to invade India. He says:<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" My object in the
invasions of Hindustan is to lead a campaign against the infidels, to convert
them to the true faith according to the command of Muhammad (on whom and his
family be the blessing and peace of God), to purify the land from the
defilement of misbelief and polytheism, and overthrow the temples and idols,
whereby we shall be<span ="apple-converted-space"> </span>Ghazis<span ="apple-converted-space"> </span>and<span ="apple-converted-space"> </span>Mujahids,<span ="apple-converted-space"> </span>companions and soldiers of the faith
before God. "<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">Mahommad bin Qasim's first
act of religious zeal was forcibly to circumcise the Brahmins of the captured
city of Debul ; but on discovering that they objected to this sort of
conversion, he proceeded to put all above the age of 17 to death, and to order
all others, with women and children, to be led into slavery. The temple of the
Hindus was looted, and the rich booty was divided equally among the soldiers,
after one-fifth, the legal portion for the government, had been set aside.<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">Muhammad of Ghazni from the
outset adopted those plans that would strike terror into the hearts of the
Hindus. After the defeat of Raja JaipalinA.D. 1001, Muhammad ordered that
Jaipal " be paraded about in the streets so that his sons and chieftains
might see him in that condition of shame, bonds and disgrace; and that fear of
Islam might fly abroad through the country of the infidels. "<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">"The slaughtering of '
infidels' seemed to be one thing that gave Muhammad particular pleasure. In one
attack on Chand Rai, in A. D. 1019, many infidels were slain or taken
prisoners, and the Muslims paid no regard to booty until they had satiated
themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and worshippers of the sun and
fire. The historian naively adds that the elephants of the Hindu armies came to
Muhammad of their own accord, leaving idols, preferring the service of the
religion of Islam. "<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">Not infrequently, the
slaughter of the Hindus gave a great setback to the indigenous culture of the
Hindus, as in the conquest of Bihar by Muhammad Bakhtyar Khilji. When he took
Nuddea (Bihar) the Tabaquat-i-Nasiri informs us that:<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" Great plunder fell
into the hands of the victors. Most of the inhabitants were Brahmins with
shaven heads. They were put to death. Large number of books were found.........
but none could explain their contents as all the men had been killed, the whole
fort and city being a place of study. "<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">Summing up the evidence on
the point. Dr. Titus concludes :<o:p></o:p></span>



<p ="Msonormal"><span ="mm"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family: default;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:maroon">Temples Destroyed by Islamic
Murderers</span></span><span ="apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" Of the destruction of
temples and the desecration of idols we have an abundance of evidence. Mahommad
bin Qasim carried out his plan of destruction systematically in Sind, we have
seen, but he made an exception of the famous temple at Multan for purposes of
revenue, as this temple was a place of resort for pilgrims, who made large
gifts to the idol. Nevertheless, while he thus satisfied his avarice by letting
the temple stand, he gave vent to his malignity by having a piece of cow's
flesh tied around the neck of the idol.<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" Minhaj-as-Siraj
further tells how Mahommad became widely known for having destroyed as many as
a thousand temples, and of his great feat in destroying the temple of Somnath
and carrying off its idol, which he asserts was broken into four parts. One
part he deposited in the Jami Masjid of Ghazni, one he placed at the entrance
of the royal palace, the third he sent to Mecca, and the fourth to Medina.<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">It is said by Lane Poole that
Muhammad of Ghazni " who had vowed that every year should see him wage a
holy war against the infidels of Hindustan " could not rest from his
idol-breaking campaign so long as the temple of Somnath remained inviolate. It
was for this specific purpose that he, at the very close of his career,
undertook his arduous march across the desert from Multan to Anhalwara on the
coast, fighting as he went, until he saw at last the famous temple:<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" There a hundred thousand
pilgrims were wont to assemble, a thousand Brahmins served the temple and
guarded its treasures, and hundreds of dancers and singers played before its
gates. Within stood the famous linga, a rude pillar stone adorned with gems and
lighted by jewelled candelebra which were reflected in rich hangings,
embroidered with precious stones like stars, that decked the shrine..... Its
ramparts were swarmed with incredulous Brahmins, mocking the vain arrogance of
foreign infidels whom the God of Somnath would assuredly consume. The
foreigners, nothing daunted, scaled the walls; the God remained dumb to the
urgent appeals of his servants; fifty thousand Hindus suffered for their faith
and the sacred shrine was sacked to the joy of the true believers. The great stone
was cast down and its fragments were carried off to grace the conqueror's
palace. The temple gates were setup at Ghazni and a million pounds worth of
treasure rewarded the iconoclast "<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">The work done by Muhammad of
Ghazni became a pious tradition and was faithfully followed by those who came
after him. In the words of Dr. Titus<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">"Mahommad Ghori, one of
the enthusiastic successors of Muhammad of Ghazni, in his conquest of Ajmir
destroyed pillars and foundations of the idol-temples, and built in their stead
mosques and colleges, and the precepts of Islam and the customs of the law were
divulged and established. At Delhi, the city and its vicinity were freed from
idols and idol worship, and in the sanctuaries of the images of the Gods
mosques were raised by the worshippers of the one God.<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" Qutb-ud-Din Aybak also
is said to have destroyed nearly a thousand temples, and then raised mosques on
their foundations. The same author states that he built the Jami Masjid, Delhi,
and adorned it with the stones and gold obtained from the temples which had
been demolished by elephants, and covered it with inscriptions (from the Quran)
containing the divine commands".<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">We have further evidence of
this harrowing process having been systematically employed from the inscription
extant over the eastern gateway of this same mosque at Delhi, which relates
that the materials of 27 idol temples were used in its construction.<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" Ala-ud-Din, in his
zeal to build a second Minar to the Jami Masjid, to rival the one built by
Qulb-ud-Din, is said by Amir Khusru not only to have dug stones out of the
hills, but to have demolished temples of the infidels to furnish a supply. In
his conquests of South India the destruction of temples was carried out by
Ala-ud-Din as it had been in the north by his predecessors.<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" The Sultan Firoz Shah,
in his Futuhat, graphically relates how he treated Hindus who had dared to
build new temples. ' When they did this in the city (Delhi) and the environs,
in opposition to the law of the Prophet, which declares that such are not to be
tolerated, under Divine guidance I destroyed these edifices. I killed these
leaders of infidelity and punished others with stripes, until this abuse was
entirely abolished and where infidels and idolaters worshipped idols, Musalmans
now by God's mercy perform their devotions to the true God’."<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">Even in the reign of Shah
Jahan, we read of the destruction of the temples that the Hindus had started to
rebuild, and the account of this direct attack on the piety of the Hindus is
thus solemnly recorded in the Badshah-namah:<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" It had been brought to
the notice of His Majesty, says the historian, that during the late reign (of
Akbar) many idol-temples had been begun but remained unfinished at Benares, the
great stronghold of infidelity. The infidels were now desirous of completing
them. His Majesty, the defender of the faith, gave orders that at Benares and
throughout all his dominions in every place all temples that had been begun
should be cast down. It was reported from the Province of Allahabad that 76
temples had been destroyed in the district of Benares. "<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">It was left to Aurangzeb to
make a final attempt to overthrow idolatry. The author of '<span ="apple-converted-space"> </span>Ma ' athir-i-Alamgiri<span ="apple-converted-space"> </span>dilates upon his efforts to put down
Hindu teaching, and his destruction of temples in the following terms:<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" In April, A. D. 1669,
Aurangzib learned that in the provinces of Thatta, Multan and Benares, but
especially in the latter, foolish Brahmins were in the habit of expounding
frivolous books in their schools, and that learners, Muslims as well as Hindus,
went there from long distances.... The ' Director of the Faith ' consequently
issued orders to all the governors of provinces to destroy with a willing hand
the schools and temples of the infidels; and they were enjoined to put an entire
stop to the teaching and practising of idolatrous worship.. ...Later it was
reported to his religious Majesty that the Government officers had destroyed
the temple of Bishnath at Benares. "<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">As Dr.Titus observes<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" Such invaders as
Muhammad and Timur seem to have been more concerned with iconoclasm, the
collection of booty, the enslaving of captives, and the sending of infidels to
hell with the' proselytizing sword ' than they were with the conversion of them
even by force. But when rulers were permanently established the winning of
converts became a matter of supreme urgency. It was a part of the stale policy
to establish Islam as the religion of the whole land.<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">"Qutb-ud-Din, whose
reputation for destroying temples was almost as great as that of Muhammad, in
the latter part of the twelfth century and early years of the thirteenth, must
have frequently resorted to force as an incentive to conversion. One instance
may be noted: when he approached Koil (Aligarh) in A. D. 1194, ' those of the
garrison who were wise and acute were converted to Islam, but the others were
slain with the sword '.<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" Further examples of
extreme measures employed to effect a change of faith are all too numerous. One
pathetic case is mentioned in the lime of the reign of Firoz Shah (A. D.
1351—1388). An old Brahmin of Delhi had been accused of worshipping idols in
his house, and of even leading Muslim women to become infidels. He was sent for
and his case placed before the judges, doctors, elders and lawyers. Their reply
was that the provisions of the law were clear. The Brahmin must either become a
Muslim or be burned. The true faith was declared to him and the right course
pointed out, but he refused to accept it. Consequently he was burned by the
order of the Sultan, and the commentator adds, ' Behold the Sultan's strict
adherence to law and rectitude, how he would not deviate in the least from its
decrees '. "<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">Muhammad not only destroyed
temples but made it a policy to make slaves of the Hindus he conquered. In the
words of Dr. Titus:<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" Not only was slaughter
of the infidels and the destruction of their temples resorted to in earlier
period of Islam's contact with India, but as we have seen, many of the
vanquished were led into slavery. The dividing up of booty was one of the special
attractions, to the leaders as well as to the common soldiers in these
expeditions. Muhammad seems to have made the slaughter of infidels, the
destruction of their temples, the capturing of slaves, and the plundering of
the wealth of the people, particularly of the temples and the priests, the main
object of his raids. On the occasion of his first raid he is said to have taken
much booty ; and half a million Hindus, ' beautiful men and women ', were
reduced to slavery and taken back to Ghazni. "<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">When Muhammad later took
Kanauj, in A. D. 1017, he took so much booty and so many prisoners that * the
fingers of those who counted them would have tired '. Describing how common
Indian slaves had become in Ghazni and Central Asia after the campaign of A. D.
1019, the historian of the times says<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">"The number of prisoners
may be conceived from the fact that each was sold for from two to ten dirhams.
These were afterwards taken to Ghazni, and merchants came from far distant
cities to purchase them ;. . ....and the fair and the dark, the rich and the
poor were commingled in one common slavery.<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" In the year A.D. 1202,
when Qulb-ud-Din captured Kalinjar, after the temples had been converted into
mosques, and the very name of idolatry was annihilated, fifty thousand men came
under the collar of slavery and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus.
"<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">Slavery was the fate of those
Hindus who were captured in the holy war. But, when there was no war the
systematic abasement of the Hindus played no unimportant part in the methods
adopted by the Muslim invaders. In the days of Ala-ud-Din, at the beginning of
the fourteenth century, the Hindus had in certain parts given the Sultan much
trouble. So, he determined to impose such taxes on them that they would be
prevented from rising in rebellion.<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" The Hindu was to be
left unable to keep a horse to ride on, to carry arms, to wear fine clothes, or
to enjoy any of the luxuries of life. "<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">Speaking of the levy of
Jizyah Dr. Titus says<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" The payment of the
Jizyah by the Hindus continued throughout the dominions of the sultans,
emperors, and kings in various parts of India with more or less regularity,
though often, the law was in force in theory only ; since it depended entirely
on the ability of the sovereign to enforce his demands. But, finally, it was
abolished throughout the Moghul Empire in the ninth year of the enlightened
Akbar's reign (A.D.1665), after it had been accepted as a fundamental part of
Muslim government policy in India for a period of more than eight centuries. "<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">Lane Poole says that<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">"The Hindu was taxed to
the extent of half the produce of his land, and had to pay duties on all his
buffaloes, goats, and other milk-cattle. The taxes were to be levied equally on
rich and poor, at so much per acre, so much per animal. Any collectors or
officers taking bribes were summarily dismissed and heavily punished with
sticks, pincers, the rack, imprisonment and chains. The new rules were strictly
carried out, so that one revenue officer would string together 20 Hindu
notables and enforce payment by blows. No gold or silver, not even the
betelnut, so cheering and stimulative to pleasure, was to be seen in a Hindu
house, and the wives of the impoverished native officials were reduced to
taking service in Muslim families. Revenue officers came to be regarded as more
deadly than the plague; and to be a government clerk was disgrace worse than
death, in so much that no Hindu would marry his daughter to such a man. "<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue"> These edicts, says the
historian of the period,<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" were so strictly carried
out that the<span ="apple-converted-space"> </span>chaukidars<span ="apple-converted-space"> </span>and<span ="apple-converted-space"> </span>khuts<span ="apple-converted-space"> </span>and<span ="apple-converted-space"> </span>muqad-dimswere
not able to ride on horseback, to find weapon, to wear fine clothes, or to
indulge in betel. . .... No Hindu could hold up his head. ..... Blows,
confinement in the stocks, imprisonment and chains were all employed to enforce
payment. "<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">All this was not the result
of mere caprice or moral perversion. On the other hand, what was done was in
accordance with the ruling ideas of the leaders of Islam in the broadest
aspects. These ideas were well expressed by the Kazi in reply to a question put
by Sultan Ala-ud-Din wanting to know the legal position of the Hindus under
Muslim law. The Kazi said :—<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" They are called payers
of tribute, and when the revenue officer demands silver from them they should
without question, and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the
officer throws dirt in their mouths, they must without reluctance open their
mouths wide to receive it..... The due subordination of the Dhimmi is exhibited
in this humble payment, and by this throwing of dirt into their mouths. The
glorification of Islam is a duty, and contempt for religion is vain. God holds
them in contempt, for he says, ' Keep them in subjection '. To keep the Hindus
in abasement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most
inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to
slay them, plunder them, and make them captive, saying, ' Convert them to Islam
or kill them, and make them slaves, and spoil their wealth and property '. No
doctor but the great doctor (Hani-fah), to whose school we belong, has assented
to the imposition of jizya on Hindus ; doctors of other schools allow no other
alternative but ' Death or Islam '. "<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">Such is the story of this
period of 762 years which elapsed between the advent of Muhammad of Ghazni and
the return of Ahmadshah Abdalli.<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">How far is it open to the
Hindus to say that Northern India is part of Aryavarta ? How far is it open to
the Hindus to say because once it belonged to them, therefore, it must remain
for ever an integral part of India ? Those who oppose separation and hold to
the ' historic sentiment ' arising out of an ancient fact that Northern India
including Afghanistan was once part of India and that the people of that area
were either Buddhist or Hindus, must be asked whether the events of these 762
years of incessant Muslim invasions, the object with which they were launched
and the methods adopted by these invaders to give effect to their object are to
be treated as though they were matters of no account?<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">Apart from other consequences
which have flowed from them these invasions have, in my opinion, so profoundly
altered the ' culture and character of the northern areas, which it is now
proposed to be included in a Pakistan, that there is not only no unity between
that area and the rest of India but that there is as a matter of fact a real
antipathy between the two.<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">The first consequence of
these invasions was the breaking up of the unity of Northern India with the
rest of India. After his conquest of Northern India, Muhammad of Ghazni
detached it from India and ruled it from Ghazni. When Mahommed Ghori came in
the field as a conqueror, he again attached it to India and ruled it from
Lahore and then from Delhi. Hakim, the brother of Akbar, detached Kabul and
Kandahar from Northern India. Akbar again attached it to Northern India. They
were again detached by Nadirshah in 1738 and the whole of Northern India would
have been severed from India had it not been for the check provided by the rise
of the Sikhs. Northern India, therefore, has been like a wagon in a train,
which can be coupled or uncoupled according to the circumstances of the moment.
If analogy is wanted, the case of Alsace-Lorraine could be cited.
Alsace-Lorraine was originally part of Germany, like the rest of Switzerland
and the Low Countries. It continued to be so till 1680, when it was taken by
France and incorporated into French territory. It belonged to France till 1871,
when it was detached by Germany and made part of her territory. In 1918, it was
again detached from Germany and made part of France. In 1940, it was detached
from France and made part of Germany.<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">What is, however, important
to bear in mind is that with all their internecine conflicts they were all
united by one common objective and that was to destroy the Hindu faith.<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">These Muslim invasions were
not undertaken merely out of lust for loot or conquest. There was another
object behind them. The expedition against Sind by Mahommad bin Qasim was of a
punitive character and was undertaken to punish Raja Dahir of Sind who had
refused to make restitution for the seizure of an Arab ship at Debul, one of
the sea-port towns of Sind. But, there is no doubt that striking a blow at the
idolatry and polytheism of Hindus and establishing Islam in India was also one
of the aims of this expedition. In one of his dispatches to Hajjaj, Mahommad
bin Qasim is quoted to have said:<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" The nephew of Raja
Dahir, his warriors and principal officers have been dispatched, and the
infidels converted to Islam or destroyed. Instead of idol-temples, mosques and
other places of worship have been created, the Kulbah it read, the call to
prayers is raised, so that devotions are performed at stated hours. The Takbir
and praise to the Almighty God are offered every morning and evening. "<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">After receiving the above
dispatch, which had been forwarded with the head of the Raja, Hajjaj sent the
following reply to his general:<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" Except that you give
protection to all, great and small alike, make no difference between enemy and
friend. God, says, ' Give no quarter to infidels but cut their throats '. Then
know that this is the command of the great God. You shall not be too ready to
grant protection, because it will prolong your work. After this give no quarter
to any enemy except those who are of rank."<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">Muhammad of Ghazni also
looked upon his numerous invasions of India as the waging of a holy war. Al'
Utbi, the historian of Muhammad, describing his raids writes:<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" He demolished idol
temples and established Islam. He captured ...... cities, killed the polluted
wretches, destroying the idolaters, and gratifying Muslims. ' He then returned
home and promulgated accounts of the victories obtained for Islam. ....... and
vowed that every year he would undertake a holy war against Hind "
Mahommed Ghori was actuated by the same holy zeal in his invasions of India.
Hasan Nizami, the historian, describes his work in the following terms:<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" He purged by his sword
the land of Hind from the filth of infidelity and vice, and freed the whole of
that country from the thorn of God-plurality and the impurity of idol-worship,
and by his royal vigour and intrepidity left not one temple standing<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">Taimur has in his Memoir
explained what led him to invade India. He says:<o:p></o:p></span>



<span style="font-family:Arial;color:darkblue">" My object in the
invasions of Hindustan is to lead a campaign against the infidels, to convert
them to the true faith according to the command of Muhammad (on whom and his
family be the blessing and peace of God), to purify the land from the
defilement of misbelief and polytheism, and overthrow the temples and idols,
whereby we shall be<span ="apple-converted-space"> </span>Ghazis<span ="apple-converted-space"> </span>and<span ="apple-converted-space"> </span>Mujahids,companions
and soldiers of the faith before God. "
_______________<o:p></o:p></span>



<p ="Msonormal"> <o:p></o:p>






ranjithvnambiar] good post but please don't post a whole page like this but summarize it and then give us the link or only post the first paragraph and then the link. I once got in trouble for this with Seko on the old forum but it is a great post.

-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2010 at 18:27
But for God's sake, eaglecap, you just "reposted" the very thing you warned against!

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2010 at 02:02
History of Invasion of India

http://voi.org/books/tcqp/chi6.htm - http://voi.org/books/tcqp/chi6.htm


Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2010 at 03:40
Jihad against Hindus

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/the_other_jihad_islams_war_on.html - http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/the_other_jihad_islams_war_on.html


Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2010 at 03:43

Jihad in India

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/History_of_Jihad_Against_the_Hindus - http://wikiislam.net/wiki/History_of_Jihad_Against_the_Hindus


Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2010 at 18:13
^ lol totatally written by some hindu, the fact is hindu didn;t resist any thing, it was the mughal empire who was very leniant against hindus, they could have totally wiped out all of hindus if they wanted too but they didn't.


Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2010 at 01:08
Originally posted by balochii

^ lol totatally written by some hindu, the fact is hindu didn;t resist any thing, it was the mughal empire who was very leniant against hindus, they could have totally wiped out all of hindus if they wanted too but they didn't.

If you need accounts of temple destruction and hindu slaughter written by Mughal rulers themselves then that also can be provided.Mughals were never liient towards hindus.They maintained good relations with Rajputs and that was for their own territorial interests.It is esrtimated that during Mughal regime nearly 80 million Hindus were slaughtered.
Mughals needed Rajputs help for their territorial interests and for that they devised marriage alliances with Rajputs which resulted in coercive conversion of rajputs to islam.
There are a total of 11 million rajputs all over the world of which 8 million are hindu rajputs,3 million are muslim rajputs.Pakistan's Qaid -e - Azam Muhammed Ali Jinnah & Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto were muslim rajputs ie the remnants of Mughal regime.
Prayag the Holyplace of Hindus was conquered and renamed as allahabad by the most lineant mughal ruler Akbar.Krishna Janmasthan Mandir,Kashi Viswanath Temple,Ram janmasthan mandir of Ayodhya & many other temples were destroyed by Mughal rulers only.
Maharana Pratap Singh,Amarsingh Rathore,Vijayanagara,Gajapathis ,Sikh Confederation & Finally marathas were the rulers of different times who resisted Islamisation of India.
And our land Kerala never came under Muslim rule.Even the Gigantic Army of Tipu Sultan couldnt defeat the Nair Army of Travancore.
Eventhough Moghuls & other Muslim rulers tried very hard they couldnt wipe out Hindus from India due to their resistance.


Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2010 at 03:22

Islamic Destruction of Hindu Temples

 

            For those who don’t believe or do not know of the amount of destruction that took place in India at the hands of the Muslim invaders and Islamic rulers who established themselves in parts of India, we can review the Islamic chronicles of the deeds of these rulers of the day, as written by the Muslim contemporary writers or historians. So what follows is a review of some of the books and their authors who recorded the histories of the Islamic rulers, and quotes from some of the descriptions within them about the cities they attacked and the temples they destroyed. It really shows how demoniac and cruel these rulers were.

          The evidence of destruction of thousands of Hindu temples can be primarily found from two different sources: 
            1. Literary Evidence from the work of renowned Islamic historians 
            2. Epigraphic Evidence from the inscriptions on numerous Mosques all over 
India. 
            This article deals with only the literary evidence.

            Hundreds of Muslim historians have glorified the deeds of their Muslim heroes all over India.  This by no means is an exhaustive list! To learn more about this, please read both volumes of, Hindu Temples: What Happened To Them? by Sita Ram Goel
            There is elaborate literary evidence from the Islamic sources which glorify the crimes committed by the Muslims in India. Crimes such as the desecration of the Hindu idols, looting of the temples, killing devotees and raping have been well documented by the Muslim historians themselves. They have done so because according to them these Muslim rulers by doing such deeds were following the tenets of Islam andSunnah of the prophet Mohammed. The literary evidence stated below is in chronological order with reference to the time at which a particular work was written.

          1. Name Of The BookHindustan Islami Ahad Mein (India under Islamic Rule) 
          Name Of The HistorianMaulana Abdul Hai
          About The Author: He is a highly respected scholar and taken as an authority on Islamic history. Because of his scholarship and his services to Islam, Maulana Abdul Hai was appointed as the Rector of the Darul Nadwa Ullum Nadwatal-Ulama. He continued in that post till his death in February 1923. 

          The following section is taken from the chapter Hindustan ki Masjidein (The mosques of India) of the above mentioned book. Here we can see a brief description of few important mosques in India and how each one of them was built upon plundered Hindu temples. 
              a. Qawwat al-Islam Mosque at Delhi: "According to my findings the first mosque of Delhi is Qubbat al-Islam or Quwwat al-Islam which,Qutubud-Din Aibak constructed in H. 587 after demolishing the Hindu temple built by Prithvi Raj and leaving certain parts of the temple outside the mosque proper; and when he returned from Ghazni in H. 592 he started building, under orders from Shihabud-Din Ghori, a huge mosque of inimitable red stones, and certain parts of the temple were included in the mosque..." 
              b. The Mosque at Jaunpur: "This was built by Sultan Ibrahim Sharqi with chiseled stones. Originally it was a Hindu temple after demolishing which he constructed the mosque. It is known as the Atala Masjid." 
              c.
 The Mosque at Qanauj: "It is well known that this mosque was built on the foundations of some Hindu temple that stood here. The mosque was built by Ibrahim Sharqi in H. 809 as is recorded in Gharbat Nigar." 
              d. Jami Masjid at Etwah: "This mosque stands on the bank of the Jamuna at Etawah. There was a Hindu temple at this place, on the site of which this mosque was constructed. ." 
              e. Babri Masjid at Ayodhya: "This mosque was constructed by Babar at Ayodhya which Hindus call the birth place of Ramchandraji...Sita had a temple here in which she lived and cooked for her husband. On that very site Babar constructed this mosque in H.963 " 
              f. Mosque at Benaras: "Mosque of Benares was built by Alamgir Aurangzeb on the site of 
Bisheshwar Temple. That temple was very tall and held as holy among Hindus. On this very site and with those very stones he constructed a lofty mosque, and its ancient stones were rearranged after being embedded in the walls of the mosque. It is one of the renowned mosques of Hindustan." 
              g. Mosque at 
Mathura: "Alamgir Aurangzeb built a mosque at Mathura. This mosque was built on site of the Govind Dev Temple which was very strong and beautiful as well as exquisite." 

            2. Name Of The BookFutuhu'l-Buldan 
            Name Of The Historian: Ahmed bin Yahya bin Jabir 
            About The Author: This author is also known as al-Biladhuri. He lived at the court of Khalifa Al-Mutawakkal (AD 847-861) and died in AD 893. His history is one of the major Arab chronicles. 
            The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About
              a. Ibn Samurah (AD 653) 
              Siestan (Iran) 
              "On reaching Dawar, he surrounded the enemy in the mountain of 
Zur, where there was a famous Hindu temple." "...Their idol of Zurwas of gold, and its eyes were two rubies. The zealous Musalmans cut off its hands and plucked out its eyes, and then remarked to theMarzaban how powerless was his idol..." 

              b. Qutaibah bin Muslim al-Bahili (AD 705-715) 
              
Samarkand (Farghana
              "Other authorities say that Kutaibah granted peace for 700,000 dirhams and entertainment for the Moslems for three days. The terms of surrender included also the houses of the idols and the fire temples. The idols were thrown out, plundered of their ornaments and burned..." 

              c. Mohammed bin Qasim (AD 712-715) 
              Debal (Sindh
              "...The town was thus taken by assault, and the carnage endured for three days. The governor of the town, appointed by Dahir, fled and the priests of the temple were massacred. Muhammad marked a place for the Musalmans to dwell in, built a mosque, and left 4,000Musalmans to garrison the place..." 
              "...Ambissa son of Ishak Az Zabbi, the governor of Sindh, in the Khilafat of Mu'tasim billah knocked down the upper part of the minaret of the temple and converted it into a prison..." 

              Multan (Punjab) 
              "...He then crossed the Biyas, and went towards Multan...Muhammad destroyed the water-course; upon which the inhabitants, oppressed with thirst, surrendered at discretion. He massacred the men capable of bearing arms, but the children were taken captive, as well as ministers of the temple, to the number of 6,000. The Musalmans found there much gold in a chamber ten cubits long by eight broad..." 

              d. Hasham bin 'Amru al-Taghlabi 
              Khandahar (
Maharashtra
              "He then went to Khandahar in boats and conquered it. He destroyed the Budd (idol) there, and built in its place a mosque." 

            3. Name Of The BookTarikh-i-Tabari 
            Name Of The Historian: Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Jarir at-Tabari 
            About The Author: This author is considered to be the foremost historian of Islam. The above mentioned book written by him is regarded as the mother of histories. 
            The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About

              a. Qutaibah bin Muslim al-Bahili (AD 705-715) 
              Beykund (Khurasan
              "The ultimate capture of Beykund (in AD 706) rewarded him with an incalculable booty; even more than had hitherto fallen into the hands of the Mohammedans by the conquest of the entire province of Khorassaun; and the unfortunate merchants of the town, having been absent on a trading excursion while their country was assailed by the enemy, and finding their habitations desolate on their return contributed further to enrich the invaders, by the ransom which they paid for the recovery of their wives and children. The ornaments alone, of which these women had been plundered, being melted down, produce, in gold, 150,000 meskals; of a dram and a half each. Among the articles of the booty, is also described an image of gold, of 50,000 meskals, of which the eyes were two pearls, the exquisite beauty and magnitude of which excited the surprise and admiration of Kateibah. They were transmitted by him, with a fifth of the spoil to Hejauje, together with a request that he might be permitted to distribute, to the troops, the arms which had been found in the palace in great profusion." 

              Samarkand (Farghana
              "A breach was, however, at last effected in the walls of the city in AD 712 by the warlike machines of Kateibah; and some of the most daring of its defenders having fallen by the skill of his archers, the besieged demanded a cessation of arms to the following day, when they promised to capitulate. The request was acceded to the Kateibah; and a treaty was the next day accordingly concluded between him and the prince of Samarkand, by which the latter engaged for the annual payment of ten million of dhirems, and a supply of three thousand slaves; of whom it was particularly stipulated, that none should either be in a state of infancy, or ineffective from old age and debility. He further contracted that the ministers of his religion should be expelled from their temples and their idols destroyed and burnt; that Kateibah should be allowed to establish a mosque in the place of the principal temple...." 
              "...Kateibah accordingly set set fire to the whole collection with his own hands; it was soon consumed to ashes, and 50,000 meskals of gold and silver, collected from the nails which had been used in the workmanship of the images." 

              b.. Yaqub bin Laith (AD 870-871) 
              
Balkh and Kabul (Afghanistan) 
              "He took Bamian, which he probably reached by way of Herat, and then marched on 
Balkh where he ruined (the temple) Naushad. On his way back from Balkh he attacked Kabul..." 
              "Starting from Panjhir, the place he is known to have visited, he must have passed through the capital city of the Hindu Sahis to rob the sacred temple -- the reputed place of coronation of the Sahi rulers -- of its sculptural wealth..." 
              "The exact details of the spoil collected from Kabul valley are lacking. The Tarikh [-i-Sistan] records 50 idols of gold and silver andMas'udi mentions elephants. The wonder excited in Baghdad by 
baghdad by elephants and pagan idols forwarded to the Caliph by Ya'qubalso speaks for their high value." 

            4. Name Of The BookTarikhu'l-Hind 
            Name Of The Historian: Abu Rihan Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Biruni al-Khwarizmi
            About The Author: This author spent 40 years in India during the reign of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (AD 997 - 1030). His history treats of the literature and learning of the Hindus at the commencement of the 11th century. 
            The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About

              a. Jalam ibn Shaiban (9th century AD) 
              
Multan (Punjab) 
              "A famous idol of theirs was that of 
Multan, dedicated to the sun, and therefore called Aditya. It was of wood and covered with red Cordovan leather; in its two eyes were two red rubies. It is said to have been made in the last Kritayuga .....When Muhammad Ibn Alkasim IbnAlmunaibh conquered Multan, he inquired how the town had become so very flourishing and so many treasures had there been accumulated, and then he found out that this idol was the cause, for there came pilgrims from all sides to visit it. Therefore he thought it best to have the idol where it was, but he hung a piece of cow's flesh on its neck by way of mockery. On the same place a mosque was built. When the Karmatiansoccupied MultanJalam Ibn Shaibanthe usurper, broke the idol into pieces and killed its priests..." 

              b. Sultan Mahmud of Gazni (AD 997-1030) 
              Thanesar (Haryana
              "The city of 
Taneshar is highly venerated by Hindus. The idol of that place is called Cakrasvamin, i.e. the owner of the chakra, a weapon which we have already described. It is of bronze, and is nearly the size of a man. It is now lying in the hippodrome in Ghazna, together with the Lord of Somnath, which is a representation of the penis of the Mahadeva, called Linga." 

              Somnath (Gujrat
              "The linga he raised was the stone of Somnath, for soma means the moon and natan means master, so that the whole word means master of the moon. The image was destroyed by the Prince Mahmud, may God be merciful to him! --AH 416. He ordered the upper part to be broken and the remainder to be transported to his residence, Ghaznin, with all its coverings and trappings of gold, jewels, and embroidered garments. Part of it has been thrown into the hippodrome of the town, together with Cakrasvamin, an idol of bronze, that had been brought fromTaneshar. Another part of the idol from Somnath lies before the door of the mosque of Ghaznin, on which people rub their feet to clean them from dirt and wet." 

            5. Name Of The BookKitabu'l-Yamini 
            Name Of The Historian: Abu Nasr Muhammad ibn Muhammad al Jabbaru'l-Utbi
            About The Author: This author's work comprises the whole of the reign of Subuktigin and that of Sultan Mahmud down to the year AD 1020. 
            The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About

              a. Amir Sbuktigin Of Ghazni 
             
 Lamghan (Afghanistan) 
              "The Amir marched out towards Lamghan, which is a city celebrated for its great strength and abounding wealth. He conquered it and set fire to the places in its vicinity which were inhabited by infidels, and demolishing idol temples, he established Islam in them. He marched and captured other cities and killed the polluted wretches, destroying the idolaters and gratifying the Musulmans." 

              b. Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (AD 997-1030) 
              Narain (Rajasthan) 
             "The Sultan again resolved on an expedition to Hind, and marched towards Narain, urging his horses and moving over ground, hard and soft, until he came to the middle of Hind, where he reduced chiefs, who, up to that time obeyed no master, overturned their idols, put to the sword the vagabonds of that country, and with delay and circumspection proceeded to accomplish his design..." 

              Nardin (Punjab) 
              "After the Sultan had purified Hind from idolatry, and raised mosques therein, he determined to invade the capital of Hind to punish those who kept idols and would not acknowledge the unity of God...He marched with a large army in the year AH 404 (AD 1013) during a dark night..." 
              "A stone was found there in the temple of the great Budda on which an inscription was written purporting that the temple had been founded 50,000 years ago. The Sultan was surprised at the ignorance of these people, because those who believe in the true faith represent that only seven hundred years have elapsed since the creation of the world, and the signs of resurrection are even now approaching. The Sultan asked his wise men the meaning of this inscription and they all concurred in saying that it was false, and no faith was to be put in the evidence of a stone." 

              Thanesar (Haryana
              "The chief of Tanesar was...obstinate in his infidelity and denial of God. So the Sultan marched against him with his valiant warriors, for the purpose of planting the standards of Islam and extirpating idolatry.." 
              "The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously, that the stream was discoloured, not withstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it...The victory gained by God's grace, who has established Islam for ever as the best religions, notwithstanding that idolaters revolt against it...Praise be to God, the protector of the world, for the honour he bestows upon Islam and Musulmans." 

              
Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) 
              "The Sultan then departed from the environs of the city, in which was a temple of the Hindus. The name of this place was MahartulHind... On both sides of the city there were a thousand houses, to which idol temples were attached, all strengthened from top to bottom by rivets of iron, and all made of masonry work..." 
              "In the middle of the city there was a temple larger and firmer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted. The Sultan thus wrote respecting it: --'If any should wish to construct a building equal to this, he would not be able to do it without expending an 100,000,000 reddinars, and it would occupy 200 years even though the most experience and able workmen were employed'... The Sultan gave orders that all temples should be burnt with naptha and fire, and levelled with the ground." 

              Kanauj (Uttar Pradesh) 
              "In Kanauj there were nearly 10,000 temples, which the idolaters falsely and absurdly represented to have been founded by their ancestors two or three hundred thousand years ago...Many of the inhabitants of the place fled and were scattered abroad like so many wretched widows and orphans, from the fear which oppressed them, in consequence of witnessing the fate of their deaf and dumb idols. Many of them thus effected their escape, and those who did not fly were put to death."

          6. Name Of The BookDiwan-i-Salman 
          Name Of The HistorianKhawajah Masud bin Sa'd bin Salman 
          About The AuthorKhawajah Masud bin Sa'd bin Salman was a poet. He wrote poems in praise of the Ghaznavid Sultans-Masu'd,Ibrahim and Bahram Shah. He died sometime between AD 1126 and 1131. 
          The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About

                a. Sultan Abu'l Muzaffar Ibrahim (AD 1059-1099) 
                "As power and the strength of a lion was bestowed upon Ibrahim by the Almighty, he made over to him the well-populated country of Hindustan and gave him 40,000 valiant horsemen to take the country, in which there were more than 1000 rais...The army of the king destroyed at one time a thousand temples of idols, which had each been built for more than a thousand years. How can I describe the victories of the King..." 

                Jalandhar (Punjab) 
                "The narrative of any battles eclipses the stories of Rustam and Isfandiyar... By morning meal, not one soldier, not one Brahmin remained unkilled or uncaptured. Their heads were levelled with the ground with flaming fire… Thou has secured the victory to the country and to religion, for amongst the Hindus this achievement will be remembered till the day of resurrection. " 

                Malwa (Madhya Pradesh) 
                "…On this journey, the army destroyed a thousand idol-temples and thy elephants trampled over more than a hundred strongholds. Thou didst march thy army to 
Ujjain… The lip of infidelity became dry through fear of thee, the eye of plural-worship became blind..." 

              7. Name Of The BookChach-Namah 
              Name Of The Historian: Mohammed Al bin Hamid bin Abu Bakr Kufi 
              About The Author: The Persian history was translated from Arabic by the above mentioned author in the time of NasiruddinQabacha, a slave of Mohammed Ghori
              The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About

                a. Mohammed bin Qasim (AD 712-715) 
                Siwistan and Sisam (Sindh)
                Mohammed bin Qasem wrote to al-Hajjaj, the governor of Iraq: 
                "The forts of Siwistan and Sism have been already taken. The nephew of Dahir, his warriors and principal officers have been dispatched, and infidels converted to Islam or destroyed. Instead of idol temples, mosques and other places of worship have been built, pulpits have been erected, the Khutba is read, the call to prayers is raised so that devotions are performed at sacred hours." 

                
Multan (Punjab)
                "Mohammed Qasem arose and with his counselors, guards and attendants, went to the temple. He saw there an idol made of gold, and its two eye were bright red rubies... Muhammed Qasem ordered the idol to be taken up. Two hundred and thirty ‘mans’ of gold were brought to the treasury together with the gems and pearls and treasures which were obtained from the plunder of 
Multan." 

              8. Name Of The BookJamiu'l-Hikayat 
              Name Of The HistorianMaulana Nuruddin Muhammed `Ufi 
              About The Author: The author was born in or near the city of 
Bukhara in Transoxiana. He came to India and lived in Delhi for some time in the reign of Shamsu'd-Din Iltutmish (AD 1210-1236)
              The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About

                a. Amru bin Laith (AD 879-900) 
                Sakawand (Afghanistan) 
                "It is related that Amru Lais conferred the governorship of Zabulistan on Fardaghan and sent him there at the head of four thousand horses. There was a large Hindu place of worship in that country, which was called Sakawand and people used to come on pilgrimage from the most remote parts of Hindustan to the idols of that place. When Fardaghan arrived in Zabulistan he led his army against it, took the temple, broke the idols in pieces and overthrew the idolaters... " 

              9. Name Of The BookTaju'l-Ma'sir 
              Name Of The HistorianSadru'd-Din Muhammed Hasan Nizamii 
              About The Author: The author was born at Nishapur in Khurusan. He had to leave his ancestral place because of the Mongol invasion. He came to India and started writing his history in AD 1205. 
              The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About

                a. Sultan Muhammed Ghuri (AD 1175-1206) 
                
Ajmer (Rajasthan) 
                "He destroyed the pillars and foundations of the idol temples and built in their stead mosques and colleges, and the precepts of Islam, and the customs of the law were divulged and established. ..

                Kuhram and Samana (Punjab) 
                "The Government of the fort of Kohram and Samana were made over by the Sultan to Kutuu-din. He purged by his sword the land of Hind from the filth of infidelity and vice, and freed it from the thorn of God-plurality, and the impurity of idol-worship and by his royal vigor and intrepidity, left not one temple standing..." 

                Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) 
                "Kutub-d din marched from Kohran and when he arrived at Meerut which is one of the celebrated forts of the country of Hind, for the strength of its foundations and superstructure, and its ditch, which was as broad as the ocean and fathomless- an army joined him, sent by the dependent chiefs of the country. The fort was captured, and a Kotwal was appointed to take up his station in the fort, and all the idol temples were converted into mosques." 

                Delhi 
                "He then marched and encamped under the fort of Delhi...The city and its vicinity were freed from idols and idol-worship, and in the sanctuaries of the images of the Gods, nosques were raised by the worshippers of one God. Kutub-d din built the Jami Masjid at Delhi and adorned it with stones and gold obtained from the temples which had been demolished by the elephants, and covered it with inscriptions inToghra, containing the divine commands." 

                Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh) 
                "From that place (Asni) the royal armi proceeded towards Benares which is the center of the country of Hind and here they destroyed nearly 1000 temples, and raised mosques on their foundations and the knowledge of the law became promulgated, and the foundations of religion were established. ." 

                
Aligarh (Uttar Pradesh) 
                "There was a certain tribe in the neighbourhood of Kol which had occasioned much trouble. Three bastions were raised as high as heaven with their heads, and their carcasses became the food of beasts of prey. That tract was freed from idols and idol-worship and the foundation of infidelity were destroyed." 

                Bayana (Rajasthan) 
                "When Kutub-d din heard of Sultan's march from Ghazna, he was much rejoiced and advanced as far as Hansi to meet him. In the year AH 592 (AD 1196), they marched towards Thangar, and the center of idolatry and perdition became the abode of glory and splendour.." 

                Kalinjar (Uttar Pradesh) 
                "In the year AH 599 (Ad 1202), Kutub-d din proceeded to the investment Kalinjar, on which expedition he was accompanied by the Sahib-KiranShamsu-d din Altmash... The temples were converted into mosques and abodes of goodness, and the ejaculations of bead counters and voices of summoners to prayer ascended to high heaven, and the very name of idolatry was annihilated. ." 

                b. Sultan Shamsu'd-Din Iltutmish (AD 1210-1236) 
                Delhi 
                "The Sultan then returned from Jalor to 
Delhi..and after his arrival 'not a vestige or name remained of idol temples which had raised their heads on high; and the light of faith shone out from the darkness of infidelity.. and the moon of religion and the state became resplendent from the heaven of prosperity and glory." 

              10. Name Of The BookKamilu't-Tawarikh 
              Name Of The HistorianIbn Asir 
              About The Author: The author was born in AD 1160 in the Jazirat ibn Umar, an island on the Tigris above 
Mosul
              The Muslim Rulers he Wrote About

                a. Khalifa Al-Mahdi (AD 775-785) 
                Barada (Gujrat
                "In the year 159 (AD 776) Al Mahdi sent an army by sea under Abdul Malik bin Shahabu'l Musamma'i to India. They proceeded on their way and at length disembarked at Barada. When they reached the place they laid siege on it. The town was reduced to extremities and God prevailed over it in the same year. The people were forbidden to worship the Budd, which the Muhammadans burned." 

              11. Name Of The BookTarikh-i-Jahan-Kusha 
              Name Of The HistorianAlaud-Din Malik ibn Bahaud-Din Muhammed Juwaini 
              About The Author: The author was born a native of Juwain in Khurasan near Nishapur. He was the Halaku during the Mongol campaign against the Ismai'lians and was later appointed the governor of Baghdad. He fell from grace and was imprisoned at 
Hamadan
              The Muslim Rulers he Wrote About

                a. Sultan Jalalud-Din Mankbarni (AD 1222-1231) 
                Debal (Sindh
                "The Sultan then went towards Dewal and Darbela and Jaisi... The Sultan raised Masjid at Dewal, on the spot where an idol temple stood." 

              12. Name Of The BookMifathu'l-Futuh 
              Name Of The HistorianAmir Khusru 
              About The Author: The author, Amir Khusru was born at Delhi in 1253. His father occupied high positions in the reigns of SultanShamsu'd Din Iltutmish (AD 1210-1236) and his successors. Reputed to be the dearest disciple of Shykh Nizamuddin Auliya, he became the lick-spittle of whoever came out victorious in the contest for the throne at Delhi. He became the court poet of Balban's successor, SultanKaiqbad
              The Muslim Rulers he wrote About

                a. Sultan Jajalu'd-Din Khalji (AD 1290-1296) 
                Jhain (Rajasthan) 
                "The Sultan reached Jhain in the afternoon of the third day and stayed in the palace of the Raya he greatly enjoyed his stay for some time. Coming out, he took a round of gardens and temples. The idols he saw amazed him. Next day he got those idols of gold smashed with stones. The pillars of wood were burnt down by his order. A cry rose from the temples as if a second Mahmud has taken birth. Two idols were made of brass, one of which weighed nearly thousand ‘mans’. He got both of them broken, and the pieces were distributed among his people so that they may throw them at the door of Masjid on their return to Delhi." 

                b. Sultan Alaud-Din Khilji (AD 1296-1316) 
                Vidisha (Madhya Pradesh) 
                "When he advanced from the capital of Karra, the Hindus, in alarm, descended into the earth like ants. He departed towards the garden of 
Behar to dye that soil with blood as red as tulip. He cleared the road to Ujjain of vile wretches, and created consternation in Bhilsan. When he affected his conquests in that country, he drew out of the river the idols which had been concealed in it. 

                Devagiri (Maharshtra
                "But see the mercy with which he regarded the broken-hearted, for, after seizing the rai, he set him free again. He destroyed the temples of the idolaters, and erected pulpits and arches for mosques

          13. Name Of The BookNuh Siphir
          Name of the HistorianAmir Khusru 
          About the Author: The above mentioned book is the fourth historical mathnavi which Amir Khusru wrote when he was 67 years old. It celebrates the reign of Sultan Mubarak Shah Khalji.
          The Muslim Rulers he wrote About:

            a.. Sultan Mubarak Shah Khalji (AD 1315-1320)
            Warrangal (Andhra Pradesh) 
            "They pursued the enemy to the gates and set everything on fire. They burnt down all those gardens and groves. That paradise of idol-worshippers became like hell. The fire-worshippers of ‘Bud’ were in alarm and flocked round their idols…"

          14. Name of the BookSiyaru'l-Auliya
          Name of the HistorianSayyed Muhammed bin Mubarak bin Muhammed
          About the Author: He was the grandson of an Iranian merchant who traded between Kirman in Iran and Lahore. The family traveled to Delhi after Shykh Farid's death and became devoted to Shykh Nizamu'd-din Auliya.
          The Muslim Rulers he wrote About

            a.. Shykh Mu'in al-Din Chisti 
Ajmer (AD 1236)
            
Ajmer (Rajasthan)
            "..Because of his Sword, instead of idols and temples in the land of unbelief now there are mosques, mihrab and mimbar. In the land where there were the sayings of the idol-worshippers, there is the sound of 'Allahu Akbar'...The descendants of those who were converted to Islam in this land will live until Day of Judgement; so too will those who bring others into the fold of Islam by the sword of Islam. Until the Day of Judgment these converts will be in debt of Shaykh al-Islam Mu'in al-din Hasam Sijzi..."

          15. Name of the BookMasalik'ul Absar fi Mamalik'ul Amsar
          Name of the HistorianShihabu'd-Din 'Abu'l Abbas Ahmed bin Yahya.
          About the Author: He was born in AD 1301. He was educated in Damascus and Cairo. He is considered to be a great man and scholar of his time and author of many books. He occupied high positions in Syria and Egypt.
          The Muslim Rulers he wrote About

            a. Sultan Muhammed bin Tughlaq (AD 1325-1351)
            "The Sultan is not slack in Jihad. He never lets go of his spear or bridle in pursuing jihad by land and sea routes. This is his main occupation which engages his eyes and ears. Five temples have been destroyed and the images and idols of ‘Budd’ have been broken, and the lands have been freed from those who were not included in the daru'l Islam that is, those who had refused to become zimmis. Thereafter he got mosques and places of worship erected, and music replaced by call to prayers to Allah... The Sultan who is ruling at present has achieved that which had not been achieved so far by any king. He has achieved victory, supremacy, conquest of countries, destruction of the infidels, and exposure of magicians. He has destroyed idols by which the people of Hindustan were deceived in vain..."

          16. Name of the BookRehala of Ibn Battuta
          Name of the HistorianShykh Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Lawatt at-Tanji al-Maruf be Ibn Battuta.
          About the Author: He belonged to an Arab family which was settled in Spain since AD 1312. His grandfather and father enjoyed the reputation of scholars and theologians. He himself was a great scholar who traveled extensively and over many lands. He came to India in 1325 and visited many places. He was very fond of sampling Hindu girls from different parts of India. They were presented to him by the Sultan Mohammed bin-Tughlaq with whom Ibn Battuta came in close contact. He also married Muslim women wherever he stayed and divorced them before his departure.

            a. His Travel description:
            (Delhi)
            "Near the eastern gate of the mosque, lie two very big idols of copper connected together by stones. Every one who comes in and goes out of the mosque treads over them. On the site of this mosque was a bud Khana that is an idol-house. After the conquest of Delhi, it was turned into a mosque..."

          17. Name of the BookTarikh-i-Firuz
          Name of the Historian: Shams Siraj Alif
          About the Author: The author became a courtier of Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq and undertook to complete the aforementioned history ofBarani who had stopped at the sixth year of Firuz Shah's reign.
          The Muslim Rulers he wrote About:

            a. Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq (AD 1351-1388)
            Puri (Orissa)
            "The Sultan left Banarasi with the intention of pursuing the Rani of Jajnagar, who had fled to an island in the river...News was then brought that in the jangal were seven elephants, and one old shoe-elephant, which was very fierce. The Sultan resolved upon endeavoring to capture these elephants before continuing the pursuit of the Rai... After the hunt was over, the Sultan directed his attention to the Rai ofJajnagar, and entering the palace where he dwelt he found many fine buildings. It is reported that inside the Rai's fort, there was a stone idol which the infidels called Jagannath, and to which they paid their devotions. Sultan Firoz, in emulation of Mahmud Subuktign, having rooted up the idol, carried it away to Delhi where he placed it in an ignominious position." 

            b. Nagarkot Kangra(Himachal Pradesh)
            "..Sultan Muhammed Shah bin Tughlaq and Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq were sovereigns especially chosen by Almighty from among the faithful, and in their whole course of their reigns, wherever they took an idol temple they broke and destroyed it."

            Delhi
            "A report was brought to the Sultan that there was in Delhi an old Brahmin who persisted in publicly performing the worship of idols in his house; and that people of the city, both Musalmans and Hindus, used to resort to his house to worship the idol. The Brahmin had constructed a wooden tablet which was covered within and without with paintings of demons and other objects. An order was accordingly given that the Brahmin, with his tablet, should be brought into the presence of the Sultan at 
Firozabad. The judges and doctors and elders and lawyers were summoned, and the case of the Brahmin was submitted for their opinion. Their reply was that the provisions of the Law were clear: the Brahmin must either become a Musalman or be burned. The true faith was declared to the Brahmin, and the right course pointed out, but he refused to accept it. Orders were given for raising a pile of faggots before the door of the darbar (court). The Brahmin was tied hand and foot and cast into it; the tablet was thrown on top and the pile was lighted. The writer of this book was present at the darbar and witnessed the execution. The tablet of the Brahmin was lighted in two places, at his head and at his feet; the wood was dry and the fire first reached his feet, and drew him a cry, but the flames quickly enveloped his head and consumed him. Behold the Sultan's strict adherence to law and rectitude, how he would not deviate in the least from its decrees!" 
          Here Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq glorifies his own criminal acts in Bharat as sanctioned by the "holy" Koran.

          18. Name of the BookFutuhat-i-Firuz Shahi
          Name of the Historian: Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq
          About the Author: Sultan had got the eight chapters of his work inscribed on eight slabs of stone which were fixed on eight sides of the octagonal dome of a building near the Jami Masjid at Firuzabad.

            a. Prayers of Temple-destroyers in this Book
            "The next matter which by God's help I accomplished, was the repetition of names and titles of former sovereigns which had been omitted from the prayers of Sabbaths and Feasts. The names of those sovereigns of Islam, under whose happy fortune and favour infidel countries had been conquered, whose banners had waved over many a land, under whom idol-temples had been demolished, and mosques and pulpits built and exalted..." 

            Delhi and Evirons
            "The Hindus and idol-worshippers had agreed to pay the money for toleration (zar-i zimmiya) and had consented to the poll-tax(jiziya) in return for which they and their families enjoyed security. These people now erected new idol-temples in the city and the enviorns in opposition to the law of the Prophet which declares that such temples are not to be tolerated. Under divine guidance I destroyed these edifices and I killed those leaders of infidelity who seduced others into error, and the lower orders I subjected to stripes and chastisement, until this abuse was entirely abolished. The following is an instance: In the vilalge of Maluh, there is a tank which they call kund (tank). Here they had built idol-temples and on certain days the Hindus were accustomed to proceed thither on horseback, and wearing arms. Their women and children also went out in palankins and carts. Then they assembled in thousands and performed idol-worship. ...when intelligence of this came to my ears my religious feelings prompted me at once to put a stop to this scandal and offence to the religion of Islam. On the day of the assembly I went there in person and I ordered that the leaders of these people and the promoters of this abominations should be put to death. I destroyed their idol-temples and instead thereof raised mosques." 

            Gohana (Haryana)
            "Some Hindus had erected a new idol-temple in the village of 
Kohana and the idolators used to assemble there and perform their idolatrous rites. These people were seized and brought before me. I ordered that the perverse conduct of the leaders of this wickedness should be publicly proclaimed, and that they should be put to death before the gate of the palace. I also ordered that the infidel books, the idols and the vessels used in their worship, which had been taken with idols, should all be publicly burnt. The others were restrained by threats and punishments, as a warning to all men, that no zimmi could follow such wicked practices in a Muslaman country."

          19. Name of the BookTarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi
          Name of the HistorianYahya Ammad bin Abdullah Sirhindi
          About the Author: The author lived in the reign of Sultan Muizu'd-Din Abu'l Fath Mubarak Shah (AD 1421-1434) of the Sayyid dynasty which ruled at Delhi from AD 1414-1451.
          The Muslim Rulers he wrote About:

            a. Sultan Shamsu'd-Din Iltutmish (AD 1210-1236)
            Vidisha and 
Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh)
            "In AH 631 he invaded Malwah, and after suppressing the rebels of that place, he destroyed that idol-temple which had existed there for the past three hundred years. Next he turned towards 
Ujjain and conquered it, and after demolishing the idol-temple of Mahakal, he uprooted the statue of Bikramajit together with all other statues and images which were placed on pedestals, and brought them to the capital where they were laid before the Jami Masjid for being trodden under foot by the people

          20. Name of the BookTarikh-i-Muhammadi
          Name of the HistorianMuhammed Bihamad Khani
          About the Author: The author was the son of the governor of Irich in Bundelkhand. He was a soldier who participated in several wars. His history covers a long period - from Prophet Mohammed to AD 1438-39
          The Muslim Rulers he wrote About:

            a. Sultan Ghiyasu'd-Din Tughlaq Shah II (AD 1388-89)
            Kalpi (Uttar Pradesh)
            "In the meanwhile Delhi received news of the defeat of the armies of Islam which were with Malikzada Mahmud bin Firuz Khan...ThisMalikzada reached the bank of the Yamuna via Shahpur and renamed Kalpi which was the abode and center of the infidels and the wicked, as Muhammadabad, after the name of Prophet Muhammed. He got mosques erected for the worship of Allah in places occupied by temples, and made that city his capital. " 

            b. Sultan Nasiru'd-Din Mahmud Shah Tughlaq (AD 1389-1412)
            Prayag and Kara (Uttar Pradesh)
            "The Sultan moved with the armies of Islam towards Prayag and Arail with the aim of destroying the infidels, and he laid waste both those places. The vast crowd which had collected at Prayag for worshipping false gods was made captive. The inhabitants of Kara were freed from the mischief of rebels on account of this aid from King and the name of this king of Islam became famous by this reason." 
          Another Moghul ruler by the name of Babur who was in love with a young boy named Baburi glorifies his lecherously Islamic deeds in theBabur-Nama

          21. Name of the BookBabur-Nama

 Name of the AuthorZahiru'd-Din Muhammed Babur

About the Author: The author of this book was the founder of Mughal dynasty in India who proclaimed himself a Padshah (Ruler) after his victory in the First Battle of Panipat (AD 1526), and a Ghazi (killer of kafirs) after the defeat of Rana Sanga in the Battle of Khanwa (AD 1528) While presenting himself as an indefatigable warrior and drug-addict he does not hide the cruelties he committed on the defeated people, particularly his fondness for building towers of the heads of those he captured as prisoners of war or killed in battle. He is very liberal in citing appropriate verses from the Quran on the eve of the battle with Rana Sanga. In order to ensure his victory, he makes a covenant with Allah by breaking the vessels containing wine as also the cups for drinking it, swearing at the same time that "he would break the idols of the idol-worshippers in a similar manner". In the Fath-Nama (prayer for victory) composed for him by Shykh Zain, Allah is described as "destroyers of idols from their foundations" The language he uses for his Hindu adversaries is typically Islamic.

   a. Zahirud-Din Muhammed Babur Padshah Ghazi (AD 1526-1530)
            Chanderi (Madhya Pradesh)
            "In AH 934 (AD 1528), I attacked Chanderi and, by the grace of Allah, captured it in a few hours. We got the infidels slaughtered and the place which had been a daru'l-harb for years, was made into daru'l-Islam. " 

            
Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh)
            "Next day, at the time of the noon prayer, we went out for seeing those places in 
Gwalior which we had not seen yet. Going out of theHathipole Gate of the fort, we arrived at a place called UrwaUrwa is not a bad place It is an enclosed space. Its biggest blemish is its statues. I ordered that they should be destroyed... " 

            a. Name of the structure: Quwwat al-Islam Masjid
            Location: Delhi in Uttar Pradesh 
            Inscription: 
              "This fort was conquered and the Jami Masjid built in the year 587 by the Amir(*), the great, the glorious commander of the Army,Qutub-ud-daula wad-din, the Amir-ul-umara Aibeg, the slave of the Sultan, may Allah strengthen his helpers. The materials of 27 idol temples, on each of which 2,000,000 Delhiwals(** ) had been spent were used in the construction of the mosque." 
            *The Amir mentioned above was Qutubud-Din Aibak, slave of Muhammed Ghori
            **"Delhiwal" was a high denomination coin current at that time in Delhi. 

            b. Name of the structure: Mansuri Masjid
            Location: Vijapur in Gujrat
            Inscription: 
              "The Blessed and Exalted Allah says, 'And verily, mosques are for Allah only; hence invoke not anyone else with Allah.' This edifice was originally built by the infidels. After the advent of Islam, it was converted into a mosque. Sermon was delivered here for sixty-seven years. Due to the sedition of the infidels, it was again destroyed. When during the reign of the Sultan of the time, Ahmad, the affairs of each Iqtaattained magnificence, Bahadur, the Sarkhail, once again carried out repairs. Through the generosity of Divine munificence, it became like new." 

            c. Name of the structure: Masjid at Manvi
            Location: Manvi in Karnataka
            Inscription: 
              "Praise be to Allah that by the decree of the Parvardigar, a mosque has been converted out of a temple as a sign of religion in the reign of the world-conquering emperor, the Sultan who is the asylum of the Faith and the possessor of the crown, who's kingdom is young, viz.Firuz Shah Bahmani, who is the cause of Exuberant spring in the garden of religion, Adu'l-Fath the king who conquered. After the victory of the emperor, the chief of chiefs, Safdar (the valiant commander) of the age, received the fort. The builder of this noble place of prayer is Muhammad Zahir Aqchi, the pivot of the Faith. He constructed in the year 809 from the Migration of the Chosen (prophet Muhammdad) thisKa'ba like momento." 

            d. Name of the structure: Mausoleum of Shykh 'Abdullah Shah Changal
            Location: Dhar in Madhya Pradesh
            Inscription: 
              "The centre became Muhammadan first by him(*) (and) all the banners of religion were spread... This lion-man came from the centre of religion to this old temple with a large force. He broke the images of the false deities, and turned the idol temple into a mosque. When Rai Bhojsaw this, through wisdom he embraced Islam with the family of his brave warriors(**). This quarter became illuminated by the light of theMuhammadan law, and the customs of the infidels became obsolete and abolished." 
            *Shykh 'Abdullah Shah Changal 
            **In this case the Hindu King was Bhoj II and during his reign Jalalu'd-Din Khalji (AD 1290-1296) of Delhi invaded MalwaChangal was the Muslim missionary who accompanied Khalji's army. This army after plundering and looting the kingdom of 
Bhoj II converted a Hindu temple into a mosque and forced the ruler and his subjects to accept Islam. 

            e. Name of the structure: JamiMasjid
            Location: Malan in Gujrat
            Inscription: 
              "...(The Prophet), on him be peace, says 'He who builds a mosque in the world, the Exalted Allah builds for him a palace in Paradise.' In the auspicious time of the government and peaceful time of Mahmud Shah, son of Muhammad Shah, the sultan, the Jami', mosque was constructed on the hill of the fort of Malun (or Malwan) by Khan-i-Azam Ulugh Khan...at the request of the thandar Kabir, (son of Diya), the building was constructed by the son of Ulugh Khan who is magnanimous, just, generous, brave and who suppressed the wretched infidels. He eradicated the idol-houses and mine of infidelity, along with the idols... with the edge of his sword, and made ready this edifice... He made its walls and doors out of the idols; the back of every stone became the place for prostration of the believer..." 

            f. Name of the structure: JamiMasjid
            Location: Amod in Gujrat
            Inscription: 
              "Allah and His grace. When divine favour was bestowed on Khalil Shah, he constructed the JamiMasjid for the decoration of Islam; he ruined the idol-house and temple of the polytheists, (and) completed the Masjid and pulpit in its place. Without doubt, his building was accepted by Allah." 

            g.. Name of the structure: Shrine of Shah Madar
            Location: Narwar in Mdhya pradesh
            Inscription: 
              "Dilawar Khan, the chief among the king's viceroys, caused this mosque to built which is like a place of shelter for the favourites. Infidelity has been subdued, and Islam has triumphed because of him. The idols have bowed to him and the temples have been razed to the ground along with their foundations, and mosques and worship houses are flowing with riches." 

            h. Name of structure: Hamman Darwaza Masjid
            Location: Jaunpur in Uttar Pradesh
            Inscription: 
              "Thanks by the guidance of Everlasting and the Living Allah, this house of infidelity became the niche of prayer. As a reward for that, the Generous Lord constructed an abode for the builder in paradise..." 

            i. Name of structure: Jami Masjid
            Location: Ghoda in Maharashtra
            Inscription: 
              "O Allah O Muhammed ! O Ali ! When Mir Muhammed Zaman made up his mind, he opened the door of prosperity on himself by his own hand. He demolished thirty-three idol temples and by divine grace laid the foundation of a building in the abode of perdition." 

            j. Name of structure: Gachinala Masjid
            Location: Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh
            Inscription: 
              "He is Allah, may be glorified. During the august rule of...Muhammed Shah, there was a well established idol-house inKuhmum...Muhammed Salih...razed to the ground, the edifice of the idol-house and broke the idols in a manly fashion. He constructed on its site a suitable mosque, towering above the building of all."

   Note: Works of Arun Shourie, Harsh Narain, Jay Dubashi and Sita Ram Goel have been used in this article.

link to this article: 

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/islamic_destruction_of_hindu_temples.htm - http://www.stephen-knapp.com/islamic_destruction_of_hindu_temples.htm




Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2010 at 12:01

^ i dont disagree that a lot of temples were destroyed also idols, however hindus were not killed off, mughals could have easily killed them off but they didn't



Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2010 at 12:03
Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

^ lol totatally written by some hindu, the fact is hindu didn;t resist any thing, it was the mughal empire who was very leniant against hindus, they could have totally wiped out all of hindus if they wanted too but they didn't.

If you need accounts of temple destruction and hindu slaughter written by Mughal rulers themselves then that also can be provided.Mughals were never liient towards hindus.They maintained good relations with Rajputs and that was for their own territorial interests.It is esrtimated that during Mughal regime nearly 80 million Hindus were slaughtered.
Mughals needed Rajputs help for their territorial interests and for that they devised marriage alliances with Rajputs which resulted in coercive conversion of rajputs to islam.
There are a total of 11 million rajputs all over the world of which 8 million are hindu rajputs,3 million are muslim rajputs.Pakistan's Qaid -e - Azam Muhammed Ali Jinnah & Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto were muslim rajputs ie the remnants of Mughal regime.
Prayag the Holyplace of Hindus was conquered and renamed as allahabad by the most lineant mughal ruler Akbar.Krishna Janmasthan Mandir,Kashi Viswanath Temple,Ram janmasthan mandir of Ayodhya & many other temples were destroyed by Mughal rulers only.
Maharana Pratap Singh,Amarsingh Rathore,Vijayanagara,Gajapathis ,Sikh Confederation & Finally marathas were the rulers of different times who resisted Islamisation of India.
And our land Kerala never came under Muslim rule.Even the Gigantic Army of Tipu Sultan couldnt defeat the Nair Army of Travancore.
Eventhough Moghuls & other Muslim rulers tried very hard they couldnt wipe out Hindus from India due to their resistance.
 
lol 80 million, who wrote that? india's population was probably not even that much during those times


Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2010 at 12:06

If so many hindus were killed, why is 80% of india still hindu? your numbers dont make sense at all. its pure lie. The tradition among mughals was that they never killed innocent hindus, whenever they met hindus on a battle field, they made sure that every hindu soldier was killed, but not innocent hindus who were not part of the army



Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2010 at 15:01
Originally posted by balochii

If so many hindus were killed, why is 80% of india still hindu? your numbers dont make sense at all. its pure lie. The tradition among mughals was that they never killed innocent hindus, whenever they met hindus on a battle field, they made sure that every hindu soldier was killed, but not innocent hindus who were not part of the army



No, it is not and there are even Turkish sources that reveal this destruction. Offhand I cannot recall the book's name and it mostly talks about the destruction of Roman-Byzantine culture by the Islamic Invasion. The difference being the Romans were people of the book so they were given three choices: convert, pay the so-called protection tax or die. The Hindus were given only two choices: convert of die. Later on, they were charge this tax because they could not convert them all and this brought in not only revenue but it created so to speak a servant class. Many fled India which was the origins of the gypsies.


Not all the sources I am come across are Hindu at all but I find is a constant denial of the truth by some Muslims, not all. Walid Shoebat a former PLO terrorist has spoken about the Islamic invasions of India but he is now a Christian. Would he be considered a radical Christian source? I find that either there is denial, they divert the topic, or the sources are attacked. Say for instance, Christianity has, on the most part, acknowledged its wrongs but Islam has not. I am not sure if I can say the same about the Hindus. I know little about their faith except the caste system is pure evil but this thread is not about that.

I will have to search so I can find that book written by the Turks in the 13th c. AD.

If you are a peaceful Muslim who believes in the plurality of faith and we are all equal in the sight of God then I respect you. The American Islamic forum for Democracy is one such group of Muslims. I don't think they would deny what happened in India but they are reformers.

http://www.aifdemocracy.org/ - http://www.aifdemocracy.org/

-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε


Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2010 at 15:35
^ i Think you guys are confusing mughals with various afghan/pashtun or other turkic rulers, they were not mughals and yes they were violent not just against hindus but against there fellow muslims (mughals). Mughal muslims for the most part are respected by even hindus, other then Aurangzeb i think, no mughal leader killed innocent hindus, i mean they even intermarried among hindus. They were really tolerant considering the times they lived in. infact it was probably because of mughals that india became bit safe from the violent afghan/turkic rulers who were always attacking india before mughals and killing of hindus.


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2010 at 15:46
Originally posted by balochii

^ i Think you guys are confusing mughals with various afghan/pashtun or other turkic rulers, they were not mughals and yes they were violent not just against hindus but against there fellow muslims (mughals). Mughal muslims for the most part are respected by even hindus, other then Aurangzeb i think, no mughal leader killed innocent hindus, i mean they even intermarried among hindus. They were really tolerant considering the times they lived in. infact it was probably because of mughals that india became bit safe from the violent afghan/turkic rulers who were always attacking india before mughals and killing of hindus.


Good points balochii and it should be pondered. I have heard that the mughals were generally tolerant to the Hindus.
I want to created another thread about Devshirme but this would mostly deal with the Greeks and the Balkans. Your imput would be welcome once I create this thread. I am waiting for an article about this topic, which will soon be published.

-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε


Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2010 at 00:20
Akbar was known to be the most tolerant among Mughal emperors.here is the details of Akbar's secularism

The Real Akbar, The (not) So Great


ABSTRACT

Akbar is considered as the great Mughal emperor who put the Mughal empire on a firm and stable footing, with a reliable revenue system and with expansion of its borders deeper into Indian heartland. There is a belief prevalent in the present day India that Akbar's rule was secular and tolerant of the native Hindu faith. This belief is fostered by the Indian history texts, Hindi movies like Mughal-e-Azam, a TV serial on Doordarshan and the fictional tales of Akbar and his Hindu court jester Birbal. Although Akbar did abolish two obnoxious taxes on Hindus namely the pilgrimage tax in 1563 CE and Jizya (A tax stipulated in the Koran to be paid by Zimmis or unbelievers) in 1564 CE, his rule was better compared ONLY to the other Mughal and Turko-Afgani rules. This article illustrates this with two specific historical events. First, Akbar like all Mughal rulers had the holy Muslim title of GHAZI (SLAYER OF KAFFIR - infidel). Like Timur Lane and Nader Shah, AKBAR HAD A VICTORY TOWER ERECTED WITH THE HEADS OF THE CAPTURED/ SURRENDERED ARMY OF HEMU after the second battle of Panipat. Later, AKBAR AGAIN SLAUGHTERED MORE THAN 30,000 UNARMED CAPTIVE HINDU PEASANTS AFTER THE FALL OF CHITOD ON FEBRUARY 24, 1568.

This article also relates another historical event which shows the true dubious nature of Akbar's religious beliefs which he used merely to suit his convenience.

10 REFERENCES, The Cambridge History of India, Encyclopedia Britannica and other works based on Akbar-nama by Abul Fazl.


THE MUGHAL ANCESTRY

Akbar's grandfather Babar founded the Mughal dynasty. Babar was a direct descendent of Timur Lane from his father's Barlas Turk side and of Chengiz Khan the Mongol from his mother's side. The name Mongol had become synonymous with barbarian by the 16 th century CE, hence Babar was proud of his ancestry from Timur, whose descendents were regarded as 'cultured Turks'. In a twist of poetic justice, the dynasty founded by Babar became known through out the world as Mughal - an adaptation of Mughul, the Persian word for 'Mongol'(1). In Marathi also Mughals are referred to as 'Mongal' which is close to Mongol.

Babar's son Humayun was defeated by Sher Shah Sur, an Afgan at the battle of Chausa on 26 June 1539. But Humayun later defeated Sikandar Shah Sur in 1555 to regain Delhi.


SECOND BATTLE OF PANIPAT AND HOW AKBAR BECAME GHAZI

On 24 th January 1556 CE Mughal ruler Humayun slipped while climbing down the steps of his library and fell to his death. The heir to the Mughal throne, 13 year old Akbar was then campaigning in Punjab with his chief minister Bairam Khan. On February 14, 1556, in a garden at Kalanaur, Akbar was enthroned as emperor. The other rivals for the throne of Delhi were the three Afgan princes of Sher Shah. However the main threat to Akbar's future came not from the Afgan princes but from a Hindu. Hemu, the Hindu chief minister of Afgan prince Adil Shah led a surprise attack on Delhi in October 1556 . The Mughal forces under its governor Tardi Beg Khan panicked and went into a sudden ignominious flight. This was Hemu's twenty second consecutive victory in successive battles. After the capture of Delhi, Hemu set up himself as an independent ruler under the Hindu title of 'Raja Vikramaditya'. At this juncture against the advice of most nobles, Akbar and Bairam Khan took a courageous decision, to press forward against Hemu's undoubtedly superior forces. On November 5, 1556 the Mughul forces met the army of Hemu at Panipat.

In this second battle of Panipat, the Mughals were saved by a lucky accident after a hard fight which looked more than likely to go against them. An arrow hit Hemu in the eye and although it did not kill him it had pierced the cerebral cavity enough to make him unconscious. In any battle of this period the death of the leader meant an end of the fight, and the sight of Hemu slumped in the howdah of his famous elephant Hawai was enough to make his army turn tail. Shah Quli Khan captured the Hawai elephant with its prize occupant, and took it directly to Akbar. Hemu was brought unconscious before Akbar and Bairam. Bairam pleaded Akbar to perform the holy duty of slaying the infidel and earn the Islamic holy title of 'Ghazi'. Among much self-congratulation AKBAR THEN SEVERED THE HEAD OF UNCONSCIOUS HEMU WITH HIS SABER (2,3,4). Some historians claim that Akbar did not kill Hemu himself, but just touched the infidel's head with his sword and his associates finished the gory 'holy' work. However the latter version seems inconsistent with the events that followed. After the battle Hemu's head was sent to kabul as a sign of victory to the ladies of Humayun's harem, and Hemu's torso was sent to Delhi for exposure on a gibbet. Iskandar Khan chased the Hemu's fleeing army and captured 1500 elephants and a large contingent. THERE WAS A GREAT SLAUGHTER OF THOSE WHO WERE CAPTURED and IN KEEPING WITH THE CUSTOM OF HIS ANCESTORS TIMUR LANE AND CHENGIZ KHAN, AKBAR HAD A VICTORY PILLAR BUILT WITH THEIR HEADS. Peter Mundy, an Englishman travelling Mughal empire some 75 years later (during Jahangir and Shah Jahan's rein), found such towers were still being built. (Reference 2 gives pictures of a sketch by Peter Mundy, and Mughal painting of the tower of heads during Akbar's reign). Hemu's wife escaped from Delhi with the treasure and Pir Mohammad Khan's troops chased her caravan without success. HEMU'S AGED FATHER WAS CAPTURED AND ON REFUSING TO ACCEPT ISLAM, WAS EXECUTED (3). This is the 'glorious' history of Akbar's victory at the battle of Panipat.


FALL OF CHITOD AND SLAUGHTER OF 30,000 CAPTIVE HINDU PEASANTS

Despite nearly five centuries of Muslim occupation of India, Rajasthan in 1567 CE was still almost entirely Hindu. Akbar infiltrated the area by marrying into Rajasthan's ruling houses and by steadily capturing various forts on the eastern fringe of Rajputana. But the senior house of Rajasthan, Rana of Mewar proudly refused any alliance with Mughals. Akbar's army started a campaign for Chitod in 1567. Rana of Mewar, Uday Singh left his capital, the great fort of Chitod to be defended by 8,000 Rajputs under an excellent commander, Jai Mal, and took himself and his family to the safety of the hills. Akbar arrived on October 24, 1567 and laid a siege of Chitod. Akbar's huge army's camp stretched for almost ten miles . Akbar planned two methods of assault -mining and building a 'sabat', a structure which provides the invading army a cover of a high wall as it progresses 'infinitely slowly' towards the fort wall and tightens the noose around the fort. The mining proved disastrous since an explosion of a mistimed second mine claimed Akbar's nearly 200 men including some leading nobles. As the noose of 'sabat' tightened, Akbar forces lost nearly 200 men a day to musket fire from the fort. Almost four months after the siege, on February 23, 1567, a musket shot fired from the Mughal army killed Jai Mal. Some chroniclers claim that this shot was fired by Akbar himself. With the death of their leader Jai Mal, the Rajputs for a while lost heart. That night flames leapt to the sky as THOUSANDS OF RAJPUT WOMEN PERFORMED JAUHAR (act of self-immolation, the term is a corruption of Jay Har - meaning Hail Shiva). They preferred jumping into a roaring fire, to being captured by Mughal Akbar. Later events do lend credit to their astute judgement. This was the THIRD JAUHAR IN THE HISTORY OF CHITOD.

Next day the Rajputs under a new young leader Patta Singh donned on the saffron robes - Kesariya, in preparation for a fight to death, flung open the gates of the fort and charged on to the Mughal army. Patta Singh, his mother and his wife duly died in the ensuing battle as did many Rajput warriors. Later, the victorious Mughal army entered the fort of Chitod. At the time there were 40,000 Hindu peasants and artisans residing on the fort besides the Rajput army. AKBAR THEN ORDERED A MASSACRE OF ALL THE CAPTURED UNARMED 40,000 HINDUS, some artisans indeed were spared and taken away but THE SLAIN AMOUNTED TO AT LEAST 30,000 (5,6,7,8,9) Akbar was particularly keen to avenge himself on the thousand musketeers who had done much damage to his troops, but they escaped by the boldest of the tricks. Binding their own women and children, and shoving them roughly along like new captives, the Rajput musketeers successfully passed themselves off as a detachment of the victorious Mughals and so made their way out of the fort (5,6,7,8,9).

The MASSACRE OF 30,000 CAPTIVE HINDUS AT CHITOD BY AKBAR has left an indelible blot on his name. No such horrors were perpetrated by even the brutal Ala-ud-din Khilji who had captured the fort in 1303 CE. Abul Fazl, Akbar's court chronicler is at pains in trying to justify this slaughter. In the later period of his rule, Akbar later had statues of Patta and Jai Mal, riding on elephants, installed at the gate of his imperial palace at Agra. Although probably intended as a compliment for their heroism, it was open to misconstruction since in the earlier history Jai Chand had placed a similar statue of Prithvi Raj Chauhan at the gate of his palace (as a Dwarpal) at the Swayamvar of his daughter Sanyogita.

Sir Thomas Roe, an Englishman who visited Chitod some fifty years later, found the fort deserted. In fact, it remained a firm tenet of Mughal policy throughout the next century that fortifications of Chitod, which till then was the capital of the then strongest Hindu Rana, should remain unrepaired, perhaps as a lesson to Hindus who dared to take on the Mughals (5).

Rana Pratap Singh of Mewar, son of Rana Uday Singh, kept the Rajput resistance to Akbar alive and tried to reclaim the glory of Chitod.


AKBAR AND RELIGION

In the later part of his rule Akbar founded a new religion Din-e-Ilahi in which he vaguely tried to combine practices of Islam and Hinduism. He observed Muslim, Hindu and Parsee festivals. He had Jesuit priests in his courts. However, this founder of Din-e-Ilahi was practically illiterate. Till the end of his rule only seventeen nobles yielded to Akbar's wishes (and pressure) and converted to his new religion, among whom Raja Birbal was one. None of Akbar's children adopted his religion. To top it all, Jahangir, Akbar's son from his Hindu wife Jodhabai, later killed a Kaffir (Hindu infidel) and gained the holy Islamic title of Ghazi. It is indeed true that Akbar drifted from orthodox Islamic practices and became more tolerant of other religions. However, more often Akbar used and twisted religious principles to his own advantage. Let us look at one such example.

Akbar used marriage alliances with various royal houses as a way of expanding his empire. The political advantages of this steady stream of presentation of princesses were incalculable. In the end Akbar had more than 300 wives. The actual number of women in the harem was nearer to 5,000. Many of these were older women, but there were also young servant girls, or Amazons of Russia or Abyssinia as armed guards, all with the status only of slaves. It was these who, if so required, were the emperor's concubines. The three hundred were technically wives, even though the Koran limits the number to four. Akbar wanted religious sanction of all these 300 wives. Now as per the Persian Shia interpretation of Muslim scriptures (and also by the present day 'Mohammedan Act of India'! ) a Muslim can have a 'Mutta' marriage with a free women of OTHER religion. A 'Mutta' marraige involves no ceremony , but is a private pact between a man and a woman for, officially, 'a limited period time (as short as one night)' agreed between them. As per Shia interpretation, 'Mutta' constituted a legal Muslim marriage. Akbar used 'Mutta' principle to justify his300 wives. But the Sunni Ulemma (Islamic scholars) from his courtdisagreed. The The arguments between Akbar and Ulemma raged back andforth, until -completing the parallel with Henry VIII- Akbar dismissed the Kazi, the highest religious officer from his court, aSunni, and replaced him with a Shia who did agree with him! (10)

Later, Akbar had effrontery to decree that 'it was best for ordinary men to to have only one wife'! (10)


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Akbar killed an unconscious Hemu (a Hindu) to become a 'Ghazi' at the second battle of Panipat, he later ordered slaughter of all the captives from Hemu's army and had a victory tower built with their heads. Similarly, Akbar later on ordered a massacre of 30,000 plus unarmed captive Hindu peasants after the fall of Chitod on February 24, 1568. Are these the characteristics of a truly 'secular' and 'tolerant' emperor ? These events reveal Akbar's true nature during early part of his reign. Should Akbar be called 'Great' and 'Secular' only because he was a lesser despot than the rest of the Mughal emperors ? In the entire Indian history of thousands of years NOT A SINGLE HINDU KING EVER SLAUGHTERED THOUSANDS OF PRISONERS OF WAR. In fact the Hindu virtue of generosity to the surrendered (SharaNaagat Vatsal Bhav), came to haunt them later. Prithvi Raj Chauhan defeated Mohammed Ghori several times and generously let the loser free each time. This generosity of Pritviraj was paid back by Mohammed Ghori who after having finally defeated Prithvi Raj in 1193 CE, blinded him and carried him to Afganistan in chains where Prithvi Raj died an ignominious death. The Mughals were the descendents of brutal Mongol Chengiz Khan and the Turk Timur Lane. The above incidences clearly show that MUGHAL EMPERORS WERE FOREIGN AND NOT INDIAN, AND AKBAR BY HIS ACTIONS WAS NO EXCEPTION. Thus to call Akbar as 'The Great' is nothing but an insult to all civilized societies. This article also has shown Akbar's dubious use of religious principles.

If we are to take example from the 20 th century, then even the Nazis did not kill 30,000 prisoners of war in cold blood during the second World War. However scores of Nazis were sentenced to death during the Nuremburg trials for their War Crimes against POWs.

Readers are encouraged to read more about the true brutality of Mughal empire.

The readers should ponder upon following questions:

  • If Akbar 'the epitome of secularism' was so cruel and brutal, what must have been the extent of brutality of Timur Lane, Babar, Aurangzeb and Nader Shah?
  • Why don't the Indian School texts give these details of Akbar and What else are they hiding?


REFERENCES

1.     The Great Moghuls, By B.Gascoigne, Harper Row Publishers, New York, 1972, p.15

2.     Same as ref. 1, pp. 68-75

3.     The Cambridge History of India, Vol. IV, Mughal India, ed. Lt. Col. Sir W.Haig, Sir R.Burn, S,Chand & Co., Delhi, 1963, pp. 71-73

4.     The Builders of The Mogul Empire, By M.Prawdin, Barnes & Noble Inc, New York, 1965, pp. 127-28

5.     Same as ref. 1, pp. 88-93

6.     Same as ref. 3. pp. 97-99

7.     Same as ref. 4, pp. 137-38

8.     An Advanced History of India, by R.C.Majumdar, H.C.Raychoudhury, K.Datta, MacMillen & Co., London, 2nd Ed, 1965, pp. 448-450

9.     Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 th Ed, Vol.21, 1967, p.65

10. Same as ref. 1, p. 85

 



Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2010 at 00:34
Originally posted by balochii

^ i dont disagree that a lot of temples were destroyed also idols, however hindus were not killed off, mughals could have easily killed them off but they didn't


Temple destruction is not a practice of secularism or tolerance.
The most tolerant among the Mughals the Akbar himself is known to have murdered thousands of Hindu peasants.
Mughals easily did what they could do and Aurangazeb did the best of it but even he couldnt wipe out hindus from India.They destroyed the culture,traditions,artforms,universities like Nalanda and other Hindu learning centres all studies that were going on in Astronomy,mathematics,medicine(ayurveda).
North India is totally wiped out of temples and almost all the Hindus practices and traditions were wipped out from there due to 700 years of Islamic rule.All the ancient tempples were destroyed and converted to mosques & those werent practices of tolerance.


Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2010 at 00:39
Originally posted by balochii

^ i Think you guys are confusing mughals with various afghan/pashtun or other turkic rulers, they were not mughals and yes they were violent not just against hindus but against there fellow muslims (mughals). Mughal muslims for the most part are respected by even hindus, other then Aurangzeb i think, no mughal leader killed innocent hindus, i mean they even intermarried among hindus. They were really tolerant considering the times they lived in. infact it was probably because of mughals that india became bit safe from the violent afghan/turkic rulers who were always attacking india before mughals and killing of hindus.

Mughals themselves were Turko mongols.Babur was known to be the descendent of Genghis Khan & Timurlane from his Father's & Mother's line.And it is for Babur's misdeeds that Hindus & Muslim's of India are having problems today (ie Ramjanmabhumi: Babri Masjid).
Babur Destroyed the Ram temple of Ayodhya and built a mosque there.
And temples were not destroyed without bloodshed.Thousands of innocent Hindus mainly Brahmins were killed during every temple destruction.


Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2010 at 00:47
About Other Mughal Rulers

Zahiru’d-Din Muahmmed Babur(CE 1526-1530)
Source: Babur NamaPlace:Chanderi (Madhya Pradesh)
In AH 934 (CE 1528) I attacked Chanderi and by the grace of Allah captured it in a few hours…We got the infidels slaughtered and the place which had been daru’l – harb for years was made into a daru’l-islam.
Babur’s poem on killing Hindus
For the sake of Islam I became a wanderer;I battled infidels and Hindus.I determined to become a martyr.Thank God I became a Ghazi(killer of non-Muslims)
Quoted in Dr. Harsh Narain’s article:Rama-Janma Bhumi Muslim testimony Indian Express Feb,26,1990 Place:Uttar Pradesh
Since the establishment of Zahiru’d-Din Ghazi’s rule …officers and religious leaders spread Islam vigorously destroying Hindu faith. We cleared of the filth of Hinduism from Faizabad and Avadh.
Guru Nanak on Babur’s atrocities: Source:Rag Asa Guru Nanak Dev witnessed first hand the atrocities Babur committed on Hindus and recorded them in his poems. He says:
Having attacked Khuraasaan, Babar terrified Hindustan. The Creator Himself does not take the blame, but has sent the Mugal as the messenger of death. There was so much slaughter that the people screamed. Didn’t You feel compassion, Lord? pg (360)
On the condition of Hindu women in Babur’s monster rule:
Those heads adorned with braided hair, with their parts painted with vermillion – those heads were shaved with scissors, and their throats were choked with dust.They lived in palatial mansions, but now, they cannot even sit near the palaces…. ropes were put around their necks, and their strings of pearls were broken. Their wealth and youthful beauty, which gave them so much pleasure, have now become their enemies. The order was given to the soldiers, who dishonored them, and carried them away. If it is pleasing to God’s Will, He bestows greatness; if is pleases His Will, He bestows punishment pg(417-18)
On the nature of Mughal rule under Babur:
First, the tree puts down its roots, and then it spreads out its shade above. The kings are tigers, and their officials are dogs; they go out and awaken the sleeping people to harass them. The public servants inflict wounds with their nails. The dogs lick up the blood that is spilled. Source:Rag Malar, (pg.1288)

Jahangir(1605-1628)
Source: Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri
Though in the beginning of his rule Jahangir followed the humanistic rule of his father Akbar the great -the policy of sulehkul even issued a proclamation against the forcible conversion of Hindus to Islam, he revoked Akbar’s orders that those who have been forcibly converted from Islam could return to Hinduism. He severely punished Kaukab, Sharif and Abdul Latif for showing inclination to Hinduism. He also prohibited the free inter-marriage customs between Hindus and Muslims in Kashmir. Hindus marrying Muslim girls and those who had already married were given a choice between Islam and death. Many were killed.
Jahangir’s torture of Guru Arjun Dev ji: Guru was imprisoned at Lahore fort. He was chained to a post in an open place exposed to the sun from morning to evening in the summer months of May to June. Below his feet a heap of sand was put which burnt like a furnace. Boiling water was poured on his naked body at intervals. His body was covered with blisters all over. In this agony Guru used to utter.
Tera Kiya Metha lage, naam padarath Nanak mange(whatever you ordain appears sweet. I supplicate for the gift of name)
The Guru was ordercd to be executed. In addition a fine of Rupees two lakhs was imposed on him. Some historians say that, as a measure of clemency at the intervention of Mian Mir, this fine was imposed in lieu of the sentence of death. The Sikhs offered to pay the fine themselves but the Guru forbade them to do so. He replied to the Emperor,
“Whatever money I have is for the poor, the friendless and the stranger. If thou ask for money thou mayest take what I have; but if thou ask for it by way of fine, I shall not give thee even a Kaurz (penny).” The Guru accepted death by torture

Shah Jahan(1658-1707)
In 1632 Shah jahan ordered that all Hindu temples recently erected or in the course of construction should be razed to the ground. In Benares alone seventy six temples were destroyed. Christian churches at Agra and Lahore were demolished. In a manner befitting the Prophet he had ten thousand inhabitants executed by being “blown up with powder, drowned in water or burnt by fire”. Four thousand were taken captive to Agra where they were tortured to try to convert them to Islam. Only a few apostacised, the remainder were trampled to death by elephants, except for the younger women who went to harems.
Shahjahan put enormous eonomic pressure on Hindus particularly peasents to become Muslims. The criminals too were forced to become Muslims.
Source: Badshah Nama, Qazinivi & Badshah Nama , Lahori
When Shuja was appointed as governor of Kabul he carried on a ruthless war in the Hindu territory beyond Indus…The sword of Islam yielded a rich crop of converts….Most of the women (to save their honour) burnt themselves to death. Those captured were distributed among Muslim Mansabdars.
Source: Manucci, Storia do Mogor vol-II p.451 & Travels of Frey Sebastian Manrique
Under Shahjahan peasents were compelled to sell their women and children to meet their revenue requirements….The peasents were carried off to various Markets and fairs to be sold with their poor unhappy wives carrying their small children crying and lamenting. According to Qaznivi Shahjagan had decreed they should be sold to Muslim lords.
Aurangazeb(1658-1707)
Aurangzeb considered himself “The Scourge Of The Kafirs” (non-believers) and closed Hindu schools and libraries. In his lifetime he destroyed more than 10,000 Hindu, Buddhist and Jam temples and often erected mosques in their stead.3 In 1669 in Agra he had hacked off the limbs of the recalcitrant Hindu King Gokla and in 1672 several thousand revolting Hindus were slaughtered in Mewat.
Source: Maasi-i-Alamgiri
· Issued general order to destroy all centers of Hindu learnings including Varnasi and destroyed the temple at Mathura and renamed it as Islamabad
· In Khandela (rajastan) he killed 300 Hindus in one day for they resisted the destruction of their temple.
· In Udaipur all Hindus of the town were killed as they vowed to defend the temple of Udaipur from destruction.
· 172 temples were destroyed in Udaipur.
· 66 temples were pulled down in Amber. All Hindu clerks were dismissed from the office of the Imperial empire.
· In Pandhpur , Maharashtra, the Emperor ordered and executed the destruction of temple and butchering of cows within the temple.
Aurangazeb also tortured to death the disciples of Guru Tegh bahadur before his death and also killed Guru. Guru Tegh Bahadur – the pride of Hindustan was martyred for he spoke for the persecuted Hindus of Hindustan. Aurangazeb also killed Guru Gobind singh’s two children aged less than ten by walling them alive for not accepting the choice of Islam. In Punjab Muslim governors killed hundreds of Sikh children and made Sikh women eat the flesh of their own killed children. Banda Bahadur another great Sikh martyr before being tortured to death was also made to eat the flesh of his own children killed before his eyes. Any Muslim bringing the head of a dead Sikh was also awarded money.
Guru Tegh Bahadur’s Supreme sacrifice for Kashmiri Hindus
In 1674 CE Aurangzeb ordered that the Hindus of J&K be converted to Islam by force from the Kashmir side. Harassed beyond any human measure by Sher Afgan Khan, the Governor of Kashmir, the prominent Brahmins of Kashmir led by Pandit Kirpa Ram (who later became Sanskrit tutor of Guru Govind Singh, appeared before the Guru at Anandpur on the 25th May, 1675 CE, and appealed for protection. In His infinite compassion Guru tegh Bahadur assured them total protection. Guru proclaimed His resolve to protect the Dharma of Bharath,
“Go and tell the Governor that Guru Tegh Bahadur is our leader. If you convert him to Islam, we shall become Muslims of our own accord.”
On getting this message, Aurangzeb ordered the arrest of the Guru. For courting arrest, the Guru started towards Agra from Anandpur on the 11th July, 1675 CE At Agra, when the soldiers came to arrest the Guru.
Aurangazeb tortured Guru’s disciples before his own eyes to break Guru’s resolve.The qazis asked Bhai Mati Dass a disciple of Guru ,
“Embrace Islam and enjoy the pleasures provided by the goveInment. Moreover when you die as a Muslim, you will go to heaven where there will be streams of milk, many kinds of wine to drink and beautiful women to enjoy. If you do not embrace Islam, your body will be sawn into two.”
Bhai Mati Dass replied,
“I can sacrifice hundreds of such heavens for Dharma. I don’t need women nor wine. I see all the happiness in the path of Dharma.”
After his refusal, the qazis asked him his last wish, to which he replied,
‘When I am being cut with the saw, let my face be towards my mentor so that I may behold my Guru till my last breath and he may keep on seeing me so that he may be convinced how happily I reach my last destination.’
By the order of the qazis, the executioners sawed Bhai Mati Dass into two by axe on the 8th November, 1675 CE, in Chandani Chowk, Delhi.
On the 9th November, 1675 C.E, the Qazis ordered that Bhai Dayal Dass be seated in a cauldron of boiling water… Before putting Bhai Dayal Dass in the cauldron of boiling water, the qazis said,
“There is still time. Embrace Islam and save yourself from pains otherwise you will face greater agony than your companion. You have seen how cruelly he was sawn.”
Bhai Dayal Dass replied,
“You could not harass my companion. Did you notice, how calmly he was meditating on the word of his Guru when he was being sawn. Having made mockery of bodily pains, he had diffused into the Supreme Being. Hurry up and let my soul attain unity with the Lord.”
On his reply in the negative, the executioners sat him in the cauldron of boiling water. He stayed on sitting in the water with an unwavering mind. His flesh separated from his bones and his soul merged into the Supreme Being. (Source: From the work of Sri.Santok Singh Jagdev.Published by SGPC) Established in His Divine resolve of Dharma Guru Tegh Bahadur tolerated all the tortures of Aurangazeb with smile. Guru Tegh Bahadur was threatened and given a choice to embrace Islam or death.
Guru chose Death rather than deviating from the path of Dharma. Guru sat in meditation and was beheaded by Aurangazeb. Aurangazeb killed Guru physically but Guru’s words eternally power the hearts of every child of Hindustan. He had said in the face of death:
Bah Jinahn di pakariyeSar dije bah na chhoriyeTegh Bahadur bolyaDhar payae dharma na chhoriye
Give up your head,but forsake not those whom you have undertaken to protect.Says Tegh Bahadur, sacrifice your life,but relinquish not your Dharma

 



Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2010 at 03:31
Originally posted by balochii

^ i Think you guys are confusing mughals with various afghan/pashtun or other turkic rulers, they were not mughals and yes they were violent not just against hindus but against there fellow muslims (mughals). Mughal muslims for the most part are respected by even hindus, other then Aurangzeb i think, no mughal leader killed innocent hindus, i mean they even intermarried among hindus. They were really tolerant considering the times they lived in. infact it was probably because of mughals that india became bit safe from the violent afghan/turkic rulers who were always attacking india before mughals and killing of hindus.

Mughals never married Hindu girls or princesses.
Mughals married Rajput princesses after getting them converted to Islam , that is not intermarriage or inter-religious marriage.
In most of such cases they used force and pressure tactics and even blackmail to persuade the Rajput king to offer his sister's/daughter's hand to a powerful Muslim king( Mughals)
 




Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2010 at 14:39
ranjithvnambiar
I appreciate your posts and agree with you on many points but maybe put in the first paragraph and then summarize the rest. But, please don't cut and paste the entire article.

-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε


Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2010 at 16:22
Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

About Other Mughal Rulers

Zahiru’d-Din Muahmmed Babur(CE 1526-1530)
Source: Babur NamaPlace:Chanderi (Madhya Pradesh)
In AH 934 (CE 1528) I attacked Chanderi and by the grace of Allah captured it in a few hours…We got the infidels slaughtered and the place which had been daru’l – harb for years was made into a daru’l-islam.
Babur’s poem on killing Hindus
For the sake of Islam I became a wanderer;I battled infidels and Hindus.I determined to become a martyr.Thank God I became a Ghazi(killer of non-Muslims)
Quoted in Dr. Harsh Narain’s article:Rama-Janma Bhumi Muslim testimony Indian Express Feb,26,1990 Place:Uttar Pradesh
Since the establishment of Zahiru’d-Din Ghazi’s rule …officers and religious leaders spread Islam vigorously destroying Hindu faith. We cleared of the filth of Hinduism from Faizabad and Avadh.
Guru Nanak on Babur’s atrocities: Source:Rag Asa Guru Nanak Dev witnessed first hand the atrocities Babur committed on Hindus and recorded them in his poems. He says:
Having attacked Khuraasaan, Babar terrified Hindustan. The Creator Himself does not take the blame, but has sent the Mugal as the messenger of death. There was so much slaughter that the people screamed. Didn’t You feel compassion, Lord? pg (360)
On the condition of Hindu women in Babur’s monster rule:
Those heads adorned with braided hair, with their parts painted with vermillion – those heads were shaved with scissors, and their throats were choked with dust.They lived in palatial mansions, but now, they cannot even sit near the palaces…. ropes were put around their necks, and their strings of pearls were broken. Their wealth and youthful beauty, which gave them so much pleasure, have now become their enemies. The order was given to the soldiers, who dishonored them, and carried them away. If it is pleasing to God’s Will, He bestows greatness; if is pleases His Will, He bestows punishment pg(417-18)
On the nature of Mughal rule under Babur:
First, the tree puts down its roots, and then it spreads out its shade above. The kings are tigers, and their officials are dogs; they go out and awaken the sleeping people to harass them. The public servants inflict wounds with their nails. The dogs lick up the blood that is spilled. Source:Rag Malar, (pg.1288)

Jahangir(1605-1628)
Source: Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri
Though in the beginning of his rule Jahangir followed the humanistic rule of his father Akbar the great -the policy of sulehkul even issued a proclamation against the forcible conversion of Hindus to Islam, he revoked Akbar’s orders that those who have been forcibly converted from Islam could return to Hinduism. He severely punished Kaukab, Sharif and Abdul Latif for showing inclination to Hinduism. He also prohibited the free inter-marriage customs between Hindus and Muslims in Kashmir. Hindus marrying Muslim girls and those who had already married were given a choice between Islam and death. Many were killed.
Jahangir’s torture of Guru Arjun Dev ji: Guru was imprisoned at Lahore fort. He was chained to a post in an open place exposed to the sun from morning to evening in the summer months of May to June. Below his feet a heap of sand was put which burnt like a furnace. Boiling water was poured on his naked body at intervals. His body was covered with blisters all over. In this agony Guru used to utter.
Tera Kiya Metha lage, naam padarath Nanak mange(whatever you ordain appears sweet. I supplicate for the gift of name)
The Guru was ordercd to be executed. In addition a fine of Rupees two lakhs was imposed on him. Some historians say that, as a measure of clemency at the intervention of Mian Mir, this fine was imposed in lieu of the sentence of death. The Sikhs offered to pay the fine themselves but the Guru forbade them to do so. He replied to the Emperor,
“Whatever money I have is for the poor, the friendless and the stranger. If thou ask for money thou mayest take what I have; but if thou ask for it by way of fine, I shall not give thee even a Kaurz (penny).” The Guru accepted death by torture

Shah Jahan(1658-1707)
In 1632 Shah jahan ordered that all Hindu temples recently erected or in the course of construction should be razed to the ground. In Benares alone seventy six temples were destroyed. Christian churches at Agra and Lahore were demolished. In a manner befitting the Prophet he had ten thousand inhabitants executed by being “blown up with powder, drowned in water or burnt by fire”. Four thousand were taken captive to Agra where they were tortured to try to convert them to Islam. Only a few apostacised, the remainder were trampled to death by elephants, except for the younger women who went to harems.
Shahjahan put enormous eonomic pressure on Hindus particularly peasents to become Muslims. The criminals too were forced to become Muslims.
Source: Badshah Nama, Qazinivi & Badshah Nama , Lahori
When Shuja was appointed as governor of Kabul he carried on a ruthless war in the Hindu territory beyond Indus…The sword of Islam yielded a rich crop of converts….Most of the women (to save their honour) burnt themselves to death. Those captured were distributed among Muslim Mansabdars.
Source: Manucci, Storia do Mogor vol-II p.451 & Travels of Frey Sebastian Manrique
Under Shahjahan peasents were compelled to sell their women and children to meet their revenue requirements….The peasents were carried off to various Markets and fairs to be sold with their poor unhappy wives carrying their small children crying and lamenting. According to Qaznivi Shahjagan had decreed they should be sold to Muslim lords.
Aurangazeb(1658-1707)
Aurangzeb considered himself “The Scourge Of The Kafirs” (non-believers) and closed Hindu schools and libraries. In his lifetime he destroyed more than 10,000 Hindu, Buddhist and Jam temples and often erected mosques in their stead.3 In 1669 in Agra he had hacked off the limbs of the recalcitrant Hindu King Gokla and in 1672 several thousand revolting Hindus were slaughtered in Mewat.
Source: Maasi-i-Alamgiri
· Issued general order to destroy all centers of Hindu learnings including Varnasi and destroyed the temple at Mathura and renamed it as Islamabad
· In Khandela (rajastan) he killed 300 Hindus in one day for they resisted the destruction of their temple.
· In Udaipur all Hindus of the town were killed as they vowed to defend the temple of Udaipur from destruction.
· 172 temples were destroyed in Udaipur.
· 66 temples were pulled down in Amber. All Hindu clerks were dismissed from the office of the Imperial empire.
· In Pandhpur , Maharashtra, the Emperor ordered and executed the destruction of temple and butchering of cows within the temple.
Aurangazeb also tortured to death the disciples of Guru Tegh bahadur before his death and also killed Guru. Guru Tegh Bahadur – the pride of Hindustan was martyred for he spoke for the persecuted Hindus of Hindustan. Aurangazeb also killed Guru Gobind singh’s two children aged less than ten by walling them alive for not accepting the choice of Islam. In Punjab Muslim governors killed hundreds of Sikh children and made Sikh women eat the flesh of their own killed children. Banda Bahadur another great Sikh martyr before being tortured to death was also made to eat the flesh of his own children killed before his eyes. Any Muslim bringing the head of a dead Sikh was also awarded money.
Guru Tegh Bahadur’s Supreme sacrifice for Kashmiri Hindus
In 1674 CE Aurangzeb ordered that the Hindus of J&K be converted to Islam by force from the Kashmir side. Harassed beyond any human measure by Sher Afgan Khan, the Governor of Kashmir, the prominent Brahmins of Kashmir led by Pandit Kirpa Ram (who later became Sanskrit tutor of Guru Govind Singh, appeared before the Guru at Anandpur on the 25th May, 1675 CE, and appealed for protection. In His infinite compassion Guru tegh Bahadur assured them total protection. Guru proclaimed His resolve to protect the Dharma of Bharath,
“Go and tell the Governor that Guru Tegh Bahadur is our leader. If you convert him to Islam, we shall become Muslims of our own accord.”
On getting this message, Aurangzeb ordered the arrest of the Guru. For courting arrest, the Guru started towards Agra from Anandpur on the 11th July, 1675 CE At Agra, when the soldiers came to arrest the Guru.
Aurangazeb tortured Guru’s disciples before his own eyes to break Guru’s resolve.The qazis asked Bhai Mati Dass a disciple of Guru ,
“Embrace Islam and enjoy the pleasures provided by the goveInment. Moreover when you die as a Muslim, you will go to heaven where there will be streams of milk, many kinds of wine to drink and beautiful women to enjoy. If you do not embrace Islam, your body will be sawn into two.”
Bhai Mati Dass replied,
“I can sacrifice hundreds of such heavens for Dharma. I don’t need women nor wine. I see all the happiness in the path of Dharma.”
After his refusal, the qazis asked him his last wish, to which he replied,
‘When I am being cut with the saw, let my face be towards my mentor so that I may behold my Guru till my last breath and he may keep on seeing me so that he may be convinced how happily I reach my last destination.’
By the order of the qazis, the executioners sawed Bhai Mati Dass into two by axe on the 8th November, 1675 CE, in Chandani Chowk, Delhi.
On the 9th November, 1675 C.E, the Qazis ordered that Bhai Dayal Dass be seated in a cauldron of boiling water… Before putting Bhai Dayal Dass in the cauldron of boiling water, the qazis said,
“There is still time. Embrace Islam and save yourself from pains otherwise you will face greater agony than your companion. You have seen how cruelly he was sawn.”
Bhai Dayal Dass replied,
“You could not harass my companion. Did you notice, how calmly he was meditating on the word of his Guru when he was being sawn. Having made mockery of bodily pains, he had diffused into the Supreme Being. Hurry up and let my soul attain unity with the Lord.”
On his reply in the negative, the executioners sat him in the cauldron of boiling water. He stayed on sitting in the water with an unwavering mind. His flesh separated from his bones and his soul merged into the Supreme Being. (Source: From the work of Sri.Santok Singh Jagdev.Published by SGPC) Established in His Divine resolve of Dharma Guru Tegh Bahadur tolerated all the tortures of Aurangazeb with smile. Guru Tegh Bahadur was threatened and given a choice to embrace Islam or death.
Guru chose Death rather than deviating from the path of Dharma. Guru sat in meditation and was beheaded by Aurangazeb. Aurangazeb killed Guru physically but Guru’s words eternally power the hearts of every child of Hindustan. He had said in the face of death:
Bah Jinahn di pakariyeSar dije bah na chhoriyeTegh Bahadur bolyaDhar payae dharma na chhoriye
Give up your head,but forsake not those whom you have undertaken to protect.Says Tegh Bahadur, sacrifice your life,but relinquish not your Dharma

 

 
I need the source for this article, i need to make sure its not coming from some racist hindu site


Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2010 at 16:23
Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

^ i Think you guys are confusing mughals with various afghan/pashtun or other turkic rulers, they were not mughals and yes they were violent not just against hindus but against there fellow muslims (mughals). Mughal muslims for the most part are respected by even hindus, other then Aurangzeb i think, no mughal leader killed innocent hindus, i mean they even intermarried among hindus. They were really tolerant considering the times they lived in. infact it was probably because of mughals that india became bit safe from the violent afghan/turkic rulers who were always attacking india before mughals and killing of hindus.

Mughals never married Hindu girls or princesses.
Mughals married Rajput princesses after getting them converted to Islam , that is not intermarriage or inter-religious marriage.
In most of such cases they used force and pressure tactics and even blackmail to persuade the Rajput king to offer his sister's/daughter's hand to a powerful Muslim king( Mughals)
 


 
so are you telling me that Rajputs were that weak and impotent? i thought they were suppose to be warriors like pashtuns?
 
I dont think what you are saying is true, because there are even some cases of hindu men marrying mughal women


Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2010 at 00:34
I never told Rajputs were weak and impotent.Thats your interpretation.

If there are cases of Mughals marrying hindus girls who remained hindu after marriage also then provide proof instead of simply claiming so.
Regarding Hindu men marrying mughal girls without conversion also please provide some proof.


Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2010 at 06:23
History of Jihad in India

http://www.historyofjihad.org/india.html - http://www.historyofjihad.org/india.html


Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2010 at 06:37
How Hindus survived the Mughal & Other Islamic rulers

http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/History_of_Jihad_Against_the_Hindus - http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/History_of_Jihad_Against_the_Hindus



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com