Islamic Invasions of India

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Problem is that the invasion is branded as muslim invasion and then linked to faulty representation of Islam itself as evident from the first post and then linked to the times of the Prophet itself and then use precedence. That is why one of my earlier posts sites Quran to say the deeds of people of muslim faith should not be linked to the Prophet itself.

Most of the times these discussion veer away from academic discussion on the invasion to absolutely bashing the entire faith itself.
 

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
What I don't undestand is why some feel the need to use the term "Islamic invaders" or to imply some sort of Islamic sanction to military exploits or atrocities even and try to connect that back to Islam as a faith. As Jaswant Singh says. Why are they not called Mongol invaders or Turkic invaders. There is no Islamic sanction for this and as can be seen in numerous historians that most empire expansions were politcal and economical in nature. And this is for muslim or non-muslim rulers. Infact some of the most brutal invasions when you read proper historical accounts was done by non-muslim Mongols and in Ashokas invasion of Kalinga. Infact, the persian and arab muslim community where infact much more brutally affected by the Mongol invaders than their Indian counterparts at that time. Timur had sacked the cities and killed hundreds of thousands of muslims in Herat, Persia, Baghdad all the way to present day Syria in Aleppo before he turned his attention to India to attack another kingdom that was ruled by a muslim as well. Sufi mystics and muslim traders played a much much much greater role in spread of Islam as a religion than any king or sultan did and hence 80-90% of the muslims in the sub-continent are ethnic locals. So if Islam has to be connected, it has to be connected with the Sufis primarily who explicitly said that this was their purpose in life. To spread the teachings of Islam.

The Indian culture as such infact extends to central asia as well historically. The Indus valley civilisation-the mother civilisation- as it moved towards the west gave rise to the persian civilisation, while towards the east we got the indo-gangetic civlisations. Hence you had the Buddha statues of Bamiyan that existed without being destroyed(until by the unIslamic acts of the Taliban) by "invaders" who were native to this place and even now the name of the central asian countries end with sthan, a sanskrit term meaning land showing linguistic if not cultural continuity. Before most of the warrior tribes in central asia converted to Islam, most of them were Buddhist and in their muesems still show a lot of these artifacts. The name Timur even is said to be Buddhist-Sanskrit hybrid meaning Iron. Showing the close interactions of the Indus and Persian civilisations from times immemorial. Infact, Linguistics put Sanskrit under the Indo-Aryan family and that includes Vedic Sanskrit as well. So are these really "foreign" in that sense? Avesta and other Iranic languaged go back to the Indo-Aryan origin as well. Isn't this going back to a common history to the beginning of civilisation? The further we go back the more we end up belonging to a common origin.

And so I think I would go one step further and say its about time we revisit with this idea of regarding Central Asians or Afghans as foreign invaders when it comes to India just because it is not part of the present politcal boundaries of India. But just consider is the Indus Valley civilisation a foreign civilisation now? What about the Kushan empire which was basically based in presentday Afghanistan and founded the Buddhist council in Kashmir a foreign civilisation? When Ashoka who was a native of present day Bihar an foreing invader of Punjab, Maharahstra and present day central asia? Would he be called a Hindu/Foreign invader of Kalinga(present day Orissa) were he was responsible for brutally killing almost the entire population including their women. Are we to consider the Marathas as foregn invaders of Bengal or Punjab similarly? What about considering the Cholas who were basically Tamil but extended their empire along the east coast of India by invading Orissa and Bengal all the way to Indonesia? Arethey to be now cosnidered foreign invaders of Bengal? So I don't see why we should consider Afghans or central asians as foreign invaders when they have been part of the Indian civilisations if not politcally atleast culturally and religiously more thousands of years just because they don't form part of the present day Republic of India.

Ofcourse, the article in itself is from an extremist website and if you do want a balanced account of history there are numerous historians that have done acommendable job on this. But the main problem is for those who base their aggrived sense of history on accounts of Britishers post 1857. Infact, most of the claims are from the book History as told by its Historians written right after 1857 revolt to break up the sense of unity that was forged between Hindus and Muslims that shook the foundations of the British and let to the end of Company rule. Now there is a complete cottage industry where modern Hindus who should have no reason to feel victimised or marginalised are being told by websites like these that they should nurse a sense of grave historical hurt and victimhood. I actually thought it was interesting that the website in question actually says "The modern history of Bharat (India) begons with the onset of Islamic invasions on the frontiers of Gaandhaar (Afghanistan) in 700 A.D". How can such a website be objective after introducing its view of history as such! Particularly when Islam actually reach India first during the time of the Prophet himself in presentday Kerala where the local King coverted to Islam. And the first milary conflict in that region was from Persia under an Arab general. What next, will the invasion by the greek Alexander be somehow re-written to be an Islamic invasion as well? Now one understands that Kings had been ruling for the sake of power and wealth and victor kings many a times destroyed the defeated king's holy place to humiliate the defeated king as an ego trip or similar. The British initially introduced communal historiography aiming to pursue the policy of 'divide and rule' propagated that Muslim Kings destroyed Hindu temples to insult Hindu religion and how now some Hindus believe that this is in some way santioned by Islam. This type of Historiography spread hatred amongst communities and became the foundation on which the communal violence started taking place in due course. This has to stop somewhere and a balanced version of history has to be adhered too as most prominent historians of India have already done this for us.

The sad part is that this --as evidenced by comments like vishal's about Islam---it is countinuing to aggravte young Indians as well. While many would continue to try to approach with a balanced viewpoint to the historical nuances, I don't see how such a view of history will help communal harmony particularly when Hinduism and Islam as Najeeb Jung are part of the DNA of India.

Sorry if this is off-topic but I feel it necessary to let it be known that Forum users must use their own judgment on reading history from well known authors rather than controversial websites if they really want to enhance their historical knowledge. And to develop a health overview of history and strategic outlook, the ideological and communal burdens have to left aside if you want to arrive at an unbiased and correct conclusion on any issue.
 
Last edited:

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
Most of the times these discussion veer away from academic discussion on the invasion to absolutely bashing the entire faith itself.
I agree. They are as much a problem to the discussion as the 'seculars' are who are overtly uncomfortable with this discussion taking place at all. But extremes must be avoided.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Very often JIZYA is bought out as a way the non muslims were subjugated by muslims. While that is true about the barbarians and twisted minded who used that to coerce non muslims to convert the imposition of Jizya when it was first started has to be understood.

For one, Jizya predates Islam itself where powerful tribes in Arabia used to collect it from weaker tribes as protection money (Hafta in modern Bambaiya language) and in fact refunded it in case they failed to protect.

When Islam came to Arabia under Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and during his time, Jizya was imposed on non muslims in return to allow them to continue to practice their faith. This fact for one proves that the Prophet did not go about force converting everyone who didnt want to.
Jizya was applied to every free adult male member. Slaves, women, children, the old, the sick, monks, hermits and the poor, were all exempt from the tax, unless any of them was independent and wealthy. They were not allowed to serve in the military or bear arms, but their community was considered to be under the protection of the Muslim state, subject to their meeting certain conditions. Non-Muslims were also exempt from zakat, or mandatory tax paid by Muslims. Muslims were taxed in the form of zakat, and were obligated to military service. So anyone of the population who converted actually burdened themselves further as a Muslim, since non-Muslims were not obligated to military service.

So during the time of the Prophet and for some time after his death when the faith was led by his companions, it would be good to say that non muslims were better off than muslims who were taxed zakat as per Shariah and also had to conscript and fight in wars. In fact Jizya was also used for the welfare of the non muslims esp for the old and needy. All this negates the point that Jizya was a tool used by the Prophet to force conversions.

But as with other of His laid down rules and regulations, people misused Jizya to force their lordship more than anything else. It was used as a political tool/weapon to enhance their own power giving a bad name to Islam.
 

ashdoc

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
2,980
Likes
3,682
Country flag
1. Delhi Sultanates had been relatively benign.

.
not true.....it was the mughals who were relatively benign......

the delhi sultans were not civilized at all.......just a bunch of rapists , destoryers and plunderers.

their rule has been described as ' autocracy tempered by assasination '

compared to the the mughals were better.

even babar ,who has been accused of having destroyed the temple at ayodhya ,was certainly a civilized man ,and no mass murderer.

his son humayun was in fact, a softie.......

akbar , jahangir and shah jahan followed a policy of tolerance towards hindus

for the first time in centuries ,the hindus were able to build magnificent temples ,and live in peace ....earn money.....

aurangzeb of course was a fanatic , but he cannot be called uncivilized.
 

ashdoc

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
2,980
Likes
3,682
Country flag
Persian have been shite mostly.
no...... persians were sunnis in the early days, and even when the islamic invasions of india started.

they were later converted to shiaism by shah ismail of the safavid dynasty in the 16th century.......which is why his brand of shiaism is called ismaili sect.
 

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
--------------------

I think, and I am not sure and would be glad to know from you, that all these invaders of India followed the persian version of Islam as opposed to the arabic version. Like Khuda Hafiz as opposed to Allah hafiz...
1. Google.

2. Religion hardly mattered, what mattered was their intention. Nader Shah, Ghori, Timur, Genghis Khan, East India company came to plunder, British, Tughlaqs, Mughals came to rule for eg. The plunderers damaged Muslim kingdoms the most btw.

3. Invaders and their armies comprised of soldiers from all strains of Islam present at the time from Naqshbandis to Sunnis to Shias and from various regions and countries. Also remember the popular Islamic sects like Wahabism, Deobandi, Barelvi were not present at the time aka they are recent movements

Relevant example Mir Baki the general who built Babri Masjid for Babur, was a Shia whilst Babur was a Sunni. Babur and Pathans were both Sunnis but both fought against each other, Rajputs fought with Babur against the Sunni Tughlaqs and later with Sunni Pathans against Babur.

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

Yusuf, I think it can be termed as a muslim invasion in terms of community and not religiosity.
If we talk in terms of community then it has to be Turkish community that has invaded/ruled India the most during the middle ages with Afghans coming second. Turkish had good relations with Afghans and appointed them as nobles when they came which allowed Afghans to get very powerful.

The actions of those barbaric invaders is not being attributed to Islam as a religion when someone refers to those invaders as muslims.
By calling them Turkic or Afghans, a better understanding occurs of their actions. Afghans and Turkic are a martial fierce race. On the other hand many Indian Muslims bore the brunt of the Turkic, Afghan invasions and raids.

It is same as British occupation of India. There were several aspects to their occupation. The earliest colonialists were East India Company, then the Queen, then the elected Govt and so on. But the common theme to all of them was they were British. So, that occupation is collectively reffered to as British occupation.
Its called British rule because we were ruled by the crown before that it was called the Company rule. After 1857 we became part of the British empire before that we were under control of a for profit company.

I think the same is the case with use of words 'Islamic' or 'Muslim' to refer to these invasions. It is not meant to tarnish any religion just as the use of the word 'British' is not meant to tarnish any country. The present day brits need not defend the colonialists and the present day muslims need not defend the invaders.
Don't you think when Indian Muslims bore the brunt of invasions many a times, then terming it Islamic is a bit unfair to them ?
When Genghis Khan's mongol hordes invaded it was a Muslim king who saved India.
When Nader Shah invaded it was the Muslims who lost the most same with when Timur invaded.

It is taken for granted that the religion Islam does not validate or preach the actions carried out by these brutal invaders.
Whether Islam permits or not is a theological debate, and if whether the Invaders themselves were goaded by Islam or not is the moot point.
Why we call Talibani terrorism as Islamic terorism ? because they justify it in the name of Islam.

Had Nader Shah, Timur, Genghis Khan, Mughals, Tughlaqs, Lodis, Suris, Sayyids, Mamluks ever claimed an invasion of India by invoking Islamic tenets ? I think not.

-------------------
 

Sabir

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
2,116
Likes
793
Ruthlessness in invasion has nothing to do with religion. It was more a political and economic strategy than anything.

Nadir Shah or Abdali or Mahmud - all were very prominent persons in history of their respective countries. They are considered among best of the bests not only for their expeditions but for other attribute of kingships too. But they all considered India as a source of finance that could help in prosperity of their homelands. Now to carry out expedition in India, so far from their capital they needed to raise a large army. And it was not possible to pay all of them in hard cash for their service. So only option was to allure them to huge wealth they could collect for themselves in India. Naturally these rulers turned a blind eyes to their soldiers even when their deeds were un-Islamic.

But it is wrong to say that other rulers of early medieval era did not employ the same policy. It was impossible to keep a large army and take them to alien land without having a carrot on the stick. There is not much historical account of ancient or earlier medieval dynasties to get a fair account of what policy they took to maintain large army. But before British era Marathas too took similar ploy. Their irregular army "Bargee" plundered as far as Bengal under the leadership of Bhaskar Pundit before beaten back by Aliwardi Khan. The Maratha chiefs supported the Pindaris too to get a share of their loots which led to third Anglo-Maratha war.

Before the arrival of the British, the Europeans like Portugease (so called civilized) too involved in plundering villages of Bengal and capturing men-women and children and transporting them as slaves. From Ancient times there is no exception of this. The defeated had always been plundered by the victors. Code of conduct, care for civilians etc are just fairy tales even in days of modern warfare.
 
Last edited:

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
ion than any king or sultan did and hence 80-90% of the muslims in the sub-continent are ethnic locals. So if Islam has to be connected, it has to be connected with the Sufis primarily who explicitly said that this was their purpose in life. To spread the teachings of Islam.
I would differ here. Islam's spread cannot be solely connected to the Sufi movement (Also remember that at the time the Bhakti movement was going strong too). In my opinion, in some cases locals were bullied to convert, in some cases they thought it to be advantageous to convert, in some cases they were swayed by Sufi teachings and another crucial factor was exogenous marriages with foreigners.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
no...... persians were sunnis in the early days, and even when the islamic invasions of india started.

they were later converted to shiaism by shah ismail of the safavid dynasty in the 16th century.......which is why his brand of shiaism is called ismaili sect.
Ismaili sect was more prominent in Sindh and ismaili sect is not a result of shah ismail, but after Shia Imam Ismail who succeeded his father Imam Jaffer.
 

sesha_maruthi27

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
3,963
Likes
1,803
Country flag
The Mughal emporers, when they attacked INDIA, tried to force the people to get converted into ISLAM. Among them AKBAR was the only emporer who tried to make ISLAM and SANATHANA DHARMA(HINDUISM) to co-exist. He was criticised by the leaders of ISLAM for doing this.
 

devgupt

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
581
Likes
296
Country flag
What I don't undestand is why some feel the need to use the term "Islamic invaders" or to imply some sort of Islamic sanction to military exploits or atrocities even and try to connect that back to Islam as a faith. As Jaswant Singh says. Why are they not called Mongol invaders or Turkic invaders. There is no Islamic sanction for this and as can be seen in numerous historians that most empire expansions were politcal and economical in nature. And this is for muslim or non-muslim rulers. Infact some of the most brutal invasions when you read proper historical accounts was done by non-muslim Mongols and in Ashokas invasion of Kalinga. Infact, the persian and arab muslim community where infact much more brutally affected by the Mongol invaders than their Indian counterparts at that time. Timur had sacked the cities and killed hundreds of thousands of muslims in Herat, Persia, Baghdad all the way to present day Syria in Aleppo before he turned his attention to India to attack another kingdom that was ruled by a muslim as well. Sufi mystics and muslim traders played a much much much greater role in spread of Islam as a religion than any king or sultan did and hence 80-90% of the muslims in the sub-continent are ethnic locals. So if Islam has to be connected, it has to be connected with the Sufis primarily who explicitly said that this was their purpose in life. To spread the teachings of Islam.

The Indian culture as such infact extends to central asia as well historically. The Indus valley civilisation-the mother civilisation- as it moved towards the west gave rise to the persian civilisation, while towards the east we got the indo-gangetic civlisations. Hence you had the Buddha statues of Bamiyan that existed without being destroyed(until by the unIslamic acts of the Taliban) by "invaders" who were native to this place and even now the name of the central asian countries end with sthan, a sanskrit term meaning land showing linguistic if not cultural continuity. Before most of the warrior tribes in central asia converted to Islam, most of them were Buddhist and in their muesems still show a lot of these artifacts. The name Timur even is said to be Buddhist-Sanskrit hybrid meaning Iron. Showing the close interactions of the Indus and Persian civilisations from times immemorial. Infact, Linguistics put Sanskrit under the Indo-Aryan family and that includes Vedic Sanskrit as well. So are these really "foreign" in that sense? Avesta and other Iranic languaged go back to the Indo-Aryan origin as well. Isn't this going back to a common history to the beginning of civilisation? The further we go back the more we end up belonging to a common origin.

And so I think I would go one step further and say its about time we revisit with this idea of regarding Central Asians or Afghans as foreign invaders when it comes to India just because it is not part of the present politcal boundaries of India. But just consider is the Indus Valley civilisation a foreign civilisation now? What about the Kushan empire which was basically based in presentday Afghanistan and founded the Buddhist council in Kashmir a foreign civilisation? When Ashoka who was a native of present day Bihar an foreing invader of Punjab, Maharahstra and present day central asia? Would he be called a Hindu/Foreign invader of Kalinga(present day Orissa) were he was responsible for brutally killing almost the entire population including their women. Are we to consider the Marathas as foregn invaders of Bengal or Punjab similarly? What about considering the Cholas who were basically Tamil but extended their empire along the east coast of India by invading Orissa and Bengal all the way to Indonesia? Arethey to be now cosnidered foreign invaders of Bengal? So I don't see why we should consider Afghans or central asians as foreign invaders when they have been part of the Indian civilisations if not politcally atleast culturally and religiously more thousands of years just because they don't form part of the present day Republic of India.

Ofcourse, the article in itself is from an extremist website and if you do want a balanced account of history there are numerous historians that have done acommendable job on this. But the main problem is for those who base their aggrived sense of history on accounts of Britishers post 1857. Infact, most of the claims are from the book History as told by its Historians written right after 1857 revolt to break up the sense of unity that was forged between Hindus and Muslims that shook the foundations of the British and let to the end of Company rule. Now there is a complete cottage industry where modern Hindus who should have no reason to feel victimised or marginalised are being told by websites like these that they should nurse a sense of grave historical hurt and victimhood. I actually thought it was interesting that the website in question actually says "The modern history of Bharat (India) begons with the onset of Islamic invasions on the frontiers of Gaandhaar (Afghanistan) in 700 A.D". How can such a website be objective after introducing its view of history as such! Particularly when Islam actually reach India first during the time of the Prophet himself in presentday Kerala where the local King coverted to Islam. And the first milary conflict in that region was from Persia under an Arab general. What next, will the invasion by the greek Alexander be somehow re-written to be an Islamic invasion as well? Now one understands that Kings had been ruling for the sake of power and wealth and victor kings many a times destroyed the defeated king's holy place to humiliate the defeated king as an ego trip or similar. The British initially introduced communal historiography aiming to pursue the policy of 'divide and rule' propagated that Muslim Kings destroyed Hindu temples to insult Hindu religion and how now some Hindus believe that this is in some way santioned by Islam. This type of Historiography spread hatred amongst communities and became the foundation on which the communal violence started taking place in due course. This has to stop somewhere and a balanced version of history has to be adhered too as most prominent historians of India have already done this for us.

The sad part is that this --as evidenced by comments like vishal's about Islam---it is countinuing to aggravte young Indians as well. While many would continue to try to approach with a balanced viewpoint to the historical nuances, I don't see how such a view of history will help communal harmony particularly when Hinduism and Islam as Najeeb Jung are part of the DNA of India.

Sorry if this is off-topic but I feel it necessary to let it be known that Forum users must use their own judgment on reading history from well known authors rather than controversial websites if they really want to enhance their historical knowledge. And to develop a health overview of history and strategic outlook, the ideological and communal burdens have to left aside if you want to arrive at an unbiased and correct conclusion on any issue.
Superb post and some very good questions asked regarding the extent of Indian civilization and whom to consider a foreigner based on that.
It really forces one to have a fresh look at his beliefs.

I dont have a convincing answer but let me try to write whats coming to my mind now.
I would start with correcting one info you mentioned regarding Kushanas. While their main base was certainly Afghanistan, they ruled as far as Mathura.

Now coming back to your questions - Well from the middle of the first millenium to little before its end most of the Afghanistan was ruled by HinduSahi kings.
And we dont have historical evidence of Hindu Sahi kingdoms turning towards Gangetic Valley or furthur down Indus valley and looting them or doing large scale devastation as done by later kings who came from that region.
So as the historical legends are passed from generation to generation in the minds of people, so this belief might have become part of popular consciousness that Hindu Sahi kingdoms identifed themselves with the Indian civilisation and those who came later considered themselves different from India and saw it as place to loot & destroy only.And as their faith was different coupled with the act of destruction of temples certainly strengthens this belief that they were alien.Some of them like Ghaznavi did put an Islamic spin to his actions, and there was forced conversions.Hence this term 'Islamic invaders' stuck.

However at the end I would agree with what taunraju said - we dont call British rule as Christian rule and by this corollary, it would be proper to call 'Islamic Invasions' by the name of their ethnic groups.

PS-Under Portugese rule they did persecute some hindus and newly converted christians too in Inquistion in Goa.Even then the locals call their rule Portugese and not Christian
 
Last edited:

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
Hidu sahi Kingdom and Hindu Kush mountains, Something relation in it
The origin of the term "Hindu Kush" is a matter of some controversy. It could mean "Hindu Killer", from the Persian verb kushtar which means to "to kill, to slaughter". This might be a reference to the times when Persian and Central Asian armies took over the areas and eliminated the local Hindu population. Many Hindu slaves died while trying to pass over the mountains, thus giving it its name.

However, it might also be a simple corruption of Hindu Kuh, since "Kuh" means "mountain" in Persian. For example, the 10th century Persian poet called the mountains "Kuh-e-Hind", or "Indian mountains".
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
115
I think there is no doubt that these invasions were exceedingly brutal and religious intolerance did play a large part in that brutality. Denying that is denying facts.

The Muslim historians themselves have recorded these with much glee and as a symbol of the superiority of Islam. Of course when Mongols came calling to repay some of that it was not taken as a symbol of the superiority of Shamanism!

No sane person should try to justify them by conjuring up non existent accounts of similar brutality in pre Islamic India. There are simply no accounts of such brutality, no accounts of jauhars, genocide of comon people because of their religion etc.

How can one compare Samudragupta with Khilaji. Khilaji killed thousands because he wanted to rape a Rajput queen. Thousands of brave women committed suicide because of the lust of that filthy wretch. Have we heard of a similar account for Samudragupta?

Again, about the supposed exemplary treatment of slaves by Muslims. You know that more African slaves went to Islamic countries than to USA and West? What happened to them? Why are there no Negroes in Arab and other Islamic countries as there are millions of them in USA?

Because they were universally castrated! No trace left of them and fresh ones were procured for the next batch!

Who supplied the slaves for European traders? It was again the Arabs and Muslims who kept on indulging in it long after Europeans stopped it. In fact slavery continues in some Islamic countries to date as it is divinely sanctioned for them. No chance of a Martin Luther King succeeding in an Islamic country unless a miracle happens now that has not happened in 1400 years.
 
Last edited:

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
115
1. Delhi Sultanates had been relatively benign.
Not sure what definition of "benign" you have Singhji.

Does the following constitute benign? These are all facts recorded by the Muslim historians themselves.

Seeing the canonization that success had brought to this magnificent thief, other Moslem rulers profited by his example, though none succeeded in bettering his instruction. In 1186 the Ghuri, a Turkish
tribe of Afghanistan, invaded India, captured the city of Delhi, destroyed its temples, confiscated its wealth, and settled down in its palaces to establish the Sultanate of Delhi- an alien despotism fastened upon northern India for three centuries, and checked only by assassination and revolt.

The first of these bloody sultans, Kutb-dDin Aibak, was a normal specimen of his kind- fanatical, ferocious and merciless. His gifts, as the Mohammedan historian tells us, "were bestowed by hundreds of thousands, and his slaughters likewise were by hundreds of thousands." In one victory of this warrior (who had been purchased as a slave), "fifty thousand men came under the collar of slavery, and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus."

Another sultan, Balban, punished rebels and brigands by casting them under the feet of elephants, or removing their skins, stuffing these with straw, and hanging them from the gates of Delhi. When some Mongol inhabitants who had settled in Delhi, and had been converted to Islam, attempted a rising,
Sultan Alau-d-din (the conquerer of Chitor) had all the males- from fifteen to thirty thousand of them- slaughtered in one day.

Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlak acquired the throne by murdering his father, became a great scholar and an elegant writer, dabbled in mathematics, physics and Greek philosophy, surpassed his predecessors in bloodshed and brutality, fed the flesh of a rebel nephew to the rebel's wife and children, ruined the country with reckless inflation, and laid it waste with pillage and murder till the inhabitants fled to the jungle.

He killed so many Hindus that, in the words of a Moslem historian, "there was constantly in front of his royal pavilion and his Civil Court a mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers and executioners were wearied out by their work of dragging" the victims "and putting them to death in crowds."


In order to found a new capital at Daulatabad he drove every inhabitant from Delhi and left it a desert; and hearing that a blind man had stayed behind in Delhi, he ordered him to be dragged from the old to the new capital, so that only a leg remained of the wretch when his last journey was finished.

The Sultan complained that the people did not love him, or recognize his undeviating justice. He ruled India for a quarter of a century, and died in bed. His successor, Firoz Shah, invaded Bengal, offered a reward for every Hindu head, paid for 180,000 of them, raided Hindu villages for slaves, and died at the ripe age of eighty. Sultan Ahmad Shah feasted for three days whenever the number of defenseless Hindus slain in his territories in one day reached twenty thousand.
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
115
Again for those who think Alauddin Khilaji was even worth being called a human being.

The usual policy of the Sultans was clearly sketched by Alau-d-din, who required his advisers to draw up "rules and regulations for grinding down the Hindus, and for depriving them of that wealth and property which fosters disaffection and rebellion."

Half of the gross produce of the soil was collected by the government; native rulers had taken one-sixth. "No Hindu," says a Moslem historian, "could hold up his head, and in their houses no sign of gold or silver... or of any superfluity was to be seen.... Blows, confinement in the stocks, imprisonment and chains, were all employed to enforce payment."

When one of his own advisers protested against this policy, Alau-d-din answered: "Oh, Doctor, thou art a learned man, but thou hast no experience; I am an unlettered man, but I have a great deal. Be assured, then, that the Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till the are reduced to poverty. I have therefore given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year of corn, milk and curds, but that they shall not be allowed to accumulate hoards and property."

This is the secret of the political history of modern India. Weakened by division, it succumbed to invaders; impoverished by invaders, it lost all power of resistance, and took refuge in supernatural consolations; it argued that both mastery and slavery were superficial delusions, and concluded that freedom of the body or the nation was hardly worth defending in so brief a life.

The bitter lesson that may be drawn from this tragedy is that eternal vigilance is the price of civilization. A nation must love peace, but keep its powder dry.
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
I love how muslims from all over the middle east and central asia are clubbed together.

Fact of the matter is todays ethics cant be compared with those of those times. Nearly every ruler was brutal to expand his power.

If invaders from north's only motive was to convert population of India to islam then frankly they did a pretty shit job.
 

ahmedsid

Top Gun
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
2,960
Likes
252
Not sure what definition of "benign" you have Singhji.

Does the following constitute benign? These are all facts recorded by the Muslim historians themselves.

Seeing the canonization that success had brought to this magnificent thief, other Moslem rulers profited by his example, though none succeeded in bettering his instruction. In 1186 the Ghuri, a Turkish
tribe of Afghanistan, invaded India, captured the city of Delhi, destroyed its temples, confiscated its wealth, and settled down in its palaces to establish the Sultanate of Delhi- an alien despotism fastened upon northern India for three centuries, and checked only by assassination and revolt.

The first of these bloody sultans, Kutb-dDin Aibak, was a normal specimen of his kind- fanatical, ferocious and merciless. His gifts, as the Mohammedan historian tells us, "were bestowed by hundreds of thousands, and his slaughters likewise were by hundreds of thousands." In one victory of this warrior (who had been purchased as a slave), "fifty thousand men came under the collar of slavery, and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus."

Another sultan, Balban, punished rebels and brigands by casting them under the feet of elephants, or removing their skins, stuffing these with straw, and hanging them from the gates of Delhi. When some Mongol inhabitants who had settled in Delhi, and had been converted to Islam, attempted a rising,
Sultan Alau-d-din (the conquerer of Chitor) had all the males- from fifteen to thirty thousand of them- slaughtered in one day.

Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlak acquired the throne by murdering his father, became a great scholar and an elegant writer, dabbled in mathematics, physics and Greek philosophy, surpassed his predecessors in bloodshed and brutality, fed the flesh of a rebel nephew to the rebel's wife and children, ruined the country with reckless inflation, and laid it waste with pillage and murder till the inhabitants fled to the jungle.

He killed so many Hindus that, in the words of a Moslem historian, "there was constantly in front of his royal pavilion and his Civil Court a mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers and executioners were wearied out by their work of dragging" the victims "and putting them to death in crowds."


In order to found a new capital at Daulatabad he drove every inhabitant from Delhi and left it a desert; and hearing that a blind man had stayed behind in Delhi, he ordered him to be dragged from the old to the new capital, so that only a leg remained of the wretch when his last journey was finished.

The Sultan complained that the people did not love him, or recognize his undeviating justice. He ruled India for a quarter of a century, and died in bed. His successor, Firoz Shah, invaded Bengal, offered a reward for every Hindu head, paid for 180,000 of them, raided Hindu villages for slaves, and died at the ripe age of eighty. Sultan Ahmad Shah feasted for three days whenever the number of defenseless Hindus slain in his territories in one day reached twenty thousand.
This is News! Is this all True Facts? I cant believe that even after such massacres, like killing twenty thousand hindus a day, that India is still a Hindu Majority Country! Could you provide the sources please? Intriguing to say the least!
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
115
This is News! Is this all True Facts? I cant believe that even after such massacres, like killing twenty thousand hindus a day, that India is still a Hindu Majority Country! Could you provide the sources please? Intriguing to say the least!
Well, this is from the "stroy of civilization" by Will Durant. I don't have an online link but have a soft copy. I can send you by mail if you want.

All these are absolutely true facts, most of them recorded by Muslim historians of court with much glee. The book is a superbly researched one, a lifetime spent writing it.

Second, India now has 500 million plus Muslims from almost zero before the invasions began. 50% of Muslims worldwide have Hindu roots.

Not bad at all in terms of success rate!
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top