Islamic Invasions of India

[KS]

Sorry for the late entry but have it something to do with Hindukush mountain range?

Hindukush means Slayer of Hindus..

 

[Galaxy]

So what if Islamic kings gave opportunities to their slaves? The same phenomenon existed in pre-Islamic India.
Chandragupta Maurya, founder of the Maurya Empire, came from a family of peacock-tamers.
The Nanda dynasty that he overthrew also consisted of lower-caste Hindus who became kings..

Chandra Gupta become King with his ability and not due to slavery. You need to read more about Ancient India. Nanda overthrew and nothing to do with Slavery. BTW, All were Hindus but belonged to different varna. You are replying by taking context of varna with religion.

Did you just quote from the Ramayana and Mahabharata?
For all we know, those scriptures are mythological stories that do not describe historical events.

Your knowledge is incorrect. We know it wasn't mythological but facts of life. Indian languages came from Sanskrit and other Ancient scriputres. Don't know from where you read your history.

 

[Payeng]

Hindukush means Slayer of Hindus..

During that time Hindu do not necessarily meant a religion.

 

[Galaxy]

During that time Hindu do not necessarily meant a religion.

No it meant Hindu only. Although In ancient India, Hindus were called as Sanatan Dharma.

The name Hindu Kush means literally 'Kills the Hindu" / "Slaughter the Hindu"

Although, Origin of Hindu Kush name is debatable. But in any case, Name occurred in medieval period only.

 

[TTCUSM]

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 ?

What a load of BS.
In his writings, Timur admitted that he specifically targeted the Hindu community of Delhi and spared the Islamic sections of the city.
From Wikipedia:

According to Malfuzat-i-Timuri, Timur targeted Hindus. In his own words, "Excepting the quarter of the saiyids, the 'ulama and the other Musalmans [sic], the whole city was sacked". In his descriptions of the Loni massacre he wrote, "..Next day I gave orders that the Musalman prisoners should be separated and saved."

When Genghis Khan's mongol hordes invaded it was a Muslim king who saved India.

Did you seriously refer to the Islamic king who fought Genghis Khan as India's "savior"???
He was simply a foreign invader who was defending his territory from another foreign invader.

It's kind of like how the 1857 Sepia Mutiny is referred to as the "Indian War for Independence".
In reality, it was simply a struggle by the Mughal rulers to keep the British out of their territory.

 

[mikhail]

I see.



The muslims that invaded India weren't Arab they were central asian Turks and Mongols. Learn basic history then come back here and try to prove something.

i think my knowledge about history is far better than yours!the arab scums conquered the sindh region in 711A.D. under the leadership of Mohammed bin Qasim.after conquering sindh they pillaged the entire region,killed nearly all able bodied men who refused to convert.not only that those ara scums raped hundreds of thousands of women and converted the entire region to islam on the tip of their swords!and the reality is that those barbaric invaders were arabs and not central asians!

 

[LurkerBaba]

i think my knowledge about history is far better than yours!the arab scums conquered the sindh region in 711A.D. under the leadership of Mohammed bin Qasim.after conquering sindh they pillaged the entire region,killed nearly all able bodied men who refused to convert.not only that those ara scums raped hundreds of thousands of women and converted the entire region to islam on the tip of their swords!and the reality is that those barbaric invaders were arabs and not central asians!

Arabs were defeated and kicked out of India

Battle of Rajasthan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[civfanatic]

The Islamic Sultanates of India were almost exclusively Turko-Mongol in origin, not Arab.

Arabs only got as far as Sindh and were then defeated.

 

[mikhail]

Arabs were defeated and kicked out of India

Battle of Rajasthan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but the fact is that these barbarians did conquered the sindh region and brutally persecuted its citizens!

 

[ejazr]

i think my knowledge about history is far better than yours!the arab scums conquered the sindh region in 711A.D. under the leadership of Mohammed bin Qasim.after conquering sindh they pillaged the entire region,killed nearly all able bodied men who refused to convert.not only that those ara scums raped hundreds of thousands of women and converted the entire region to islam on the tip of their swords!and the reality is that those barbaric invaders were arabs and not central asians!

Look you may have your issues with Arabs, but there is no point in changing History.

MBQ was in Sindh only for 3 years and was called soon after his victory to Hajja's court in Baghdad. After that, it was the Soomro dynsaty that converted to Islam that ruled most of Sindh sometimes by paying tribute to the Abbasid or Ummayad caliphates, sometimes independantly. Arabs had nominal control and Sindh was mainly ruled in part by local chieftains who were Hindus, Muslims or Buddhists.
Sindh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soomra_dynasty

No war is painless ofcourse, but an objective view by a Biuddhist scholar and close associate of the Dalai Lama should be a good resource to see the Arab invasion into Sindh
The Historical Interaction between the Buddhist and Islamic Cultures before the Mongol Empire – 4 The First Muslim Incursion into the Indian Subcontinent

India has a history of invasions and raids by Central Asians and that has been even before Islam and continued even after. Infact, Chengiz Khan who was one of the most if not the most brutal invader in India and ofcourse of Baghdad and persia as well was a follower of Buddhism and Shamanism. The Kushans who invaded and established a long rule all the way to Punjab followed Buddhism and Zorastrian


The reality is that apart from a few years of conflict in the in the 7th century, Indo-Arab relations have been mainly realted to trade and commerce across the Arabian sea particularly with the Gulf Arab and African east coast. The first contact with Islam also happened in South India during the time of the prophet and one of the rulers of Kerela accepeted Islam (The Kerala king who embraced Islam - Arab News)


Let me also add that that a large number of persian and baghdadi jews that came to India came as experts in Persian and were hired by the Muslim Mughals as court advisers and scribes in their administrations. Even today, you will find many old Yehudi quarters in Mumbai in mainly Muslim areas because of this historical affinity.
Jews in the Mughal Empire
"The Last Jews in India and Burma" by Nathan Katz and Ellen S. Goldberg


Anyways, the point of the topic is about Germans and Israelis. Its nothing to do with Arabs or Indians for that matter so I suggest we stick to the topic

 

[LurkerBaba]

India has a history of invasions and raids by Central Asians and that has been even before Islam and continued even after. Infact, Chengiz Khan who was one of the most if not the most brutal invader in India and ofcourse of Baghdad and persia as well was a follower of Buddhism and Shamanism. The Kushans who invaded and established a long rule all the way to Punjab followed Buddhism and Zorastrian


Anyways, the point of the topic is about Germans and Israelis. Its nothing to do with Arabs or Indians for that matter so I suggest we stick to the topic

OT

Unlike the Islamic hordes, none of previous invaders used Buddhism/Zoroastranism to morally justify their invasion. Kushans/Huns/Scythians were digested and absorbed into Indian culture

 

[KS]

India has a history of invasions and raids by Central Asians and that has been even before Islam and continued even after. Infact, Chengiz Khan who was one of the most if not the most brutal invader in India and ofcourse of Baghdad and persia as well was a follower of Buddhism and Shamanism. The Kushans who invaded and established a long rule all the way to Punjab followed Buddhism and Zorastrian

Well none of the above mentioned "invasions". if they could be called as one involved mass desecration of temples and viharas, looting , pillaging, destruction of world renowed places of learning like Nalanda just because it did not contain a particular holy book etc.

Those "invasions" involved kings from nomadic tribes getting completely assimilated into the Indic culture and their promotion of the civilization they now adopted.

So there were "invasions" and then there were invasions.

BTW Genghis Khan was one of the most brutal invaders of India ? What you smoking bro ? Or you meant to say that his descendant Babur was the most brutal invader ?

 

[ejazr]

OT

Unlike the Islamic hordes, none of previous invaders used Buddhism/Zoroastranism to morally justify their invasion. Kushans/Huns/Scythians were digested and absorbed into Indian culture

Yes OT but the fact is that there were only three invaders who happened to be Muslims against a Non-Muslim ruler in India. Ghaznavi, Ghouri and Muhammed bin Qasim. All other invasions that happened were against an existing Muslim ruler in India by a Muslim or a existing Non-Muslim ruler in India by a non-Muslim. Babur for example came and defeated Ibrahim Lodi as he expanded their empires. Of course, once they settled and established their alliances and base in India, the extended their empires again. And yes, there were cases of pillaging looting killings and even conversions under pressure or coercion. But as I mentioned in my initial post, these were not Arabs. We have not had historical problem with Arabs as such. Not that we should take the history of Central Asia and use it as an excuse to downgrade our relationship with them of course.

Chengis Khan also invoked his faith when he killed thousands of people and sacked cities from Multan to Baghdad. His grandson Halagu Khan (still a non-muslim) stated that he was basically the Lord's wrath against the people of Baghdad. The Dar ul Hikma which contained 3 centuries worth of books where Jewish Rabbis, Buddhist monks and Muslim and Christian clergy and scientist sat togehter and translated and wrote books on different fields. All these were destroyed and thrown into the Tigris. So you basically had rivers filled with blue and red from the ink and blood of people killed there.
Siege of Baghdad (1258) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hulagu Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any international history book will list Chengis Khan and his associated as one of the most brutal and powerful empire builders in history. At its peak his empire stretched from Korea to Eastern Europe and down south all the way to the Indus. Ofcourse, later, his descendants converted to Islam. A case of where the ruling and conquering people accepted the religion of those whom they had conquered and subjugated instead of the other way around.

And I think even those small number of Afghan or Turko-Mogol people who came from outside have pretty much assimilated and Indianised in their own way. Its another point that some people don't accept that but its their opinion. I mean even if you did find say an Uzbek or Tajik origin person, I doubt they would be able to speak that language or know anything about their customs and traditions. They would speak Indian languages and eat Indianised versions of their food and wear Indiansed versions of their clothes even if they were trying to follow their traditions.
Yes you have some idiots like in Pakistan who praise invaders like Ghori or Ghaznavi but even though they are part of historical India, they have had a separate system and education system. Even Al-Beruni a Persian scholar blasted Ghori as uncouth and barbarian and lamented how his actions and created hatred among the natives in India against him and Muslims in general. But until Pakistanis revamp their education system that will remain.

 

[LurkerBaba]

Not that we should take the history of Central Asia and use it as an excuse to downgrade our relationship with them of course.

Ofcourse.

Chengis Khan also invoked his faith when he killed thousands of people and sacked cities from Multan to Baghdad. His grandson Halagu Khan (still a non-muslim) stated that he was basically the Lord's wrath against the people of Baghdad.

"Lord's wrath against the people" is an example of his faith ? The concept of God/Lord does not exist in Buddhism. I doubt Chengis Khan was religious.

Ofcourse, later, his descendants converted to Islam. A case of where the ruling and conquering people accepted the religion of those whom they had conquered and subjugated instead of the other way around.

Happens a lot when the conquerors are simply barbarians without any ideology or culture. Examples would be Huns/Scythians in India, Mongols in China, loads of Turkish tribes in Iran etc

However, this isn't true when an expansionist ideology is coupled with physical invasion. In that case a mental invasion happens (apart from the physical one)

 

[LurkerBaba]

Some posts merged from http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...israel-whispers-grow-louder-7.html#post489432

 

[Virendra]

Looking at the pages & title, I'm confused what this thread really belongs to and what the agenda of discussion should now be?

 

[Assassin 2.0]

About Mughals and other Muslims rulers in India, I certainly have a lot to learn. It seems that how cruel they were, they were not consciously pursuing genocide goals on religious basis. Forced conversion is a vicious crime but at least it gives people a chance to save their own lives. Did the Mughals edict special laws against Hindus ? The method is very important here.

Mughal India ~ The Biggest Holocaust in World History

The modern World today is facing a global threat from organizations and groups of terrorists such as the ISIS, Taliban and Al-Qaeeda – whose ideology is chillingly similar to that of the perpetrators of the World’s biggest holocaust in India.

www.sikhnet.com

Just a short summary bro.
Conversion gives chance some people did accepted islam after decades massacre. Aka Pakistani Punjabi most of them are converted.
But millions of people died protecting their culture and heritage. Indian nibbas are proud of the heritage and ethics that's why we didn't converted.

 

[Tactical Frog]

Mughal India ~ The Biggest Holocaust in World History

The modern World today is facing a global threat from organizations and groups of terrorists such as the ISIS, Taliban and Al-Qaeeda – whose ideology is chillingly similar to that of the perpetrators of the World’s biggest holocaust in India.

www.sikhnet.com

Just a short summary bro.
Conversion gives chance some people did accepted islam after decades massacre. Aka Pakistani Punjabi most of them are converted.
But millions of people died protecting their culture and heritage. Indian nibbas are proud of the heritage and ethics that's why we didn't converted.

Far from the idea of taking lightly the scale of the devastation induced by the repeated muslim invasions of India. Level of violence must have been unthinkable. The fact the hindu civilisation resisted tells a lot about its resilience and inner strength.

 

[Chimaji Appa]

Long live the Brahmins of Munj. Literally fought till the very end. Sadly, the Pratihara king at this time was a coward as he literally abandoned his own capital

 

[Fire and groove]

You are ignoramus of highest order from what kraantikari dirtbags are you visiting lately? Name one mooslame that acknowledges the sovereignty of our secular constitution over al kitab? None lmao. Just wait as Hindi anuvad of fatawa alamgiri has begun almost 70% complete. Thats our purvapaksha of the racist subhuman doctrine of shitlame in the subcontinent is about 300 years too late, better late than never.
View attachment 94547

The problem here is the assumption that communities, people and humans work like a hive mind, and that an entire community of 200 million people will follow their "religious leaders" to their beck and call, or that a large of majority of them are involved in a conspiracy. Muslims are a people, Islam is a religion. Using religion as a medium for ambition and fanaticism has been prevalent prevalent everywhere since time immemorial, as can be traced to various religious quarters including that of the RSS. Lest we forget Savarkar and his stance on deporting all Indians that didn't have the inherent "hinduness" i.e Christians and Muslims ;Also lauding Nazi Germany's history, comparing the German Jews to Indian Muslims and Christians.

If we want to discuss the "volatility" of one's religion, then I'll point to the fact that pretty much all religions have skeletons in their closets:
The Old and New testaments are just as violent, if not more than the Quran and the Crusades are an exemplary exhibition of what happens when you let power-hungry fanatics who use religion as a medium gain....power. Islamic extremists have been far more active in the past 100 years. More so than ever before, and most of them haven't even read the book (they can't even define what Jihad is) and those that have actively manipulate those who haven't for their own ambitions (afghanistan - warlords, Turkey - erdogan, Terrorists - every single one of em). It's not that their ranks only include the naive, they also have fanatic sociopaths looking to justify their actions. It doesn't help that the west is actively responsible for what the middle east is today starting with the creation of fundamentalist Saudi Arabia by the British, Muslims of different sects (because they aren't united under one single banner, just like the Christians have their own Denominations) have faced persecution from their own extremists more so than others.
Hinduism hasn't always been a shining beacon of enlightenment either. The fact that Hinduism previously included the practice of Sati (you know, burning women alive out of superstitious beliefs) and is still actively struggling with the caste system - one of the most brutal and inhuman hierarchical systems to ever exist for thousands of years - should attest to that. This is driven from the fact that it was shaped by us, humans.
Judaism is Abrahamic, and as you'd expect not very people friendly itself.
Buddhist extremism is an excellent example of my point here. Even though Buddhism strictly preaches non-violence of any kind whatsoever, it didn't stop monks from calling to arms in Thailand during the 70s; Nor did it stop the Myanmar military from trying to force assimilation of it's minorities from the 80s onwards under a Buddhist nationalistic identity.
The Sikh empire had a superiority complex of it's own under Maharaja Ranjeet Singh, wherein it actively advocated the Guru Granth Sahib's teachings while still running a slave trade participating in conquest and war for the sole purpose of expansion. Then there's the Khalistani insurgency, which came about from the congress's usual communal politics.....
I hope you're sensing the theme here. Human flaws and propensity to dispense misery are prevalent in all quarters of life. It isn't confined to a certain community, it comes from the culture, teaachings and environment you're raised in. Religion is a system of beliefs WE create to tell ourselves there's a meaning to all this, that we aren't just animals even though we are. Once you've raised an entire generation of people and driven away the "them", how long before that bloodlust turns on the "us"? It's not like you can just flip anger off like a switch, an angry people will move heaven and earth to justify their anger on anything they can find. We are well on our way to regressing into a toxic society, rather than addressing the root cause of our situation. We are not really dealing with a Hindu-Muslim crisis here, we're dealing with geo-political ambitions of those in power. Whether it be the oblivious morons in the PMA with delusions of grandeur, or the leadership here that's exploiting the still very alive insecurity born out of our colonial past and inferiority complex.
Trust me, India and it's institutions will still stand. Islamic extremists aren't going to take over the country, especially with an inept Pakistan and a tactically bankrupt militancy in Kashmir driving this "take over". If this proxy war has taken such a toll on us, it's because we outright refuse to adapt and try to solve the issue. You'd think after 30 years of insurgency we would have realized the importance of setting up a full-fledged and empowered special operations command, strengthened our intelligence apparatus and waged war on the insurgency within Pakistan itself to dismantle the system from within, but our politicians aren't interested in that when they can prolong the suffering to play vote-bank politics.

Also, you should probably take some time off the internet. Delete your twitter (you'll thank me for it), take your dog for a walk, talk to some people, meet a girl/take your girl out for a date and just mellow down for once. You seem way too angry for it to be healthy for you. Listen to some Motley Crue or something . Don't let the tomfoolery on the news get to you. If you want to learn something: read a history book with sources that's been peer reviewed from a reputable historian.