How Islam came to India and why now it needs to go from India -2

Posted on August 20, 2008. Filed under: Hindu, India, Muslims, Politics, religion |

The peaceful Islamic traders who came to India on annual holidays with holiday security and with whom the vast millions of caste-repressed Indians immediately fell in love-The Thaparite position on advent of Islam in India, in spite of the fact that there has been no records of trauma by the victims of caste repression in the period-a logic used to negate Islamic terror in India since not many records of trauma at the hands of Muslims survive.

Appearing in Arabia, Islam spread by conquering with amazing rapidity. The Byzantine provinces of Palestine and Syria were conquered by the newly converted Arabs after a campaign of six months in C.E. 636-37. The Sassanid empire of Persia (including Iraq, Iran and Khurasan) was defeated in 637 and by 643 the Caliphate stretched to the frontiers of India. In the west the Byzantine province of Egypt fell in 640-641, and Inner Mongolia, Bukhara, Tashkand and Samarqand were annexed by 650. The Arab armies marched over North Africa and crossed into Spain in C.E. 709. All this took place within seventy years (637-709) and the conquered people were quickly converted to Islam and their language and culture Arabicised.

India, known to early Arabs as “Hind va Sind”, [showing that the Arabs were well aware of the distinction between Sind as a part and not whole of India] was their next target both by land and sea. These invasions proceeded along the then known (trade) routes – 1. from Kufa and Baghadad, via Basra and Hormuz to Chaul on India’s west coast; 2. from West Persian towns, via Hormuz to Debal in Sind; and 3. through the land route of northern Khurasan to Kabul via Bamian. But progress of Muslim arms and religion in India was extremely slow. Caliph Umar (634-44 C.E.) had sent an expedition in 636-37 to pillage Thana on the coast of Maharashtra during the reign of the great Hindu monarch Pulakesin II. This was followed by expeditions to Bharuch (Broach) in Gujarat and the gulf of Debal in Sind. These were repulsed and Mughairah, the leader of the latter expedition, was defeated and killed. Umar thought of sending another army by land against Makran which at that time was part of the kingdom of Sind but was dissuaded by the governor of Iraq from doing so. The next Caliph Usman (644-656) followed the same advice and refrained from embarking on any venture on Sind. The fourth Caliph, Ali, sent an expedition by land in 660 but the leader of the expedition and most of his troops were slain in the hilly terrain of Kikanan (42 H./662 C.E.). This was the fate of the attempts by the four famous “pious” Caliphs of Islam.

According to Chachnama and Tuhfatul Kiram, the kingdom of Sind extended on the east to the boundary of Kashmir and Kanauj, on the west to Makran, on the south to the sea and Debal, and on the north to Kandahar, Seistan and the mountains of Kuzdan and Kikanan. This includes modern undivided Punjab and Baluchistan, parts of North-West Frontier Province and parts of Rajasthan. Muawiyah, the Caliph (661-80), sent six expeditions by land to Sind. All of them were repulsed with great slaughter except the last one which succeeded in occupying Makran in 680. Thereafter, for twenty-eight years, the Arabs dared not another expedition against Sind. Makran probably remained partially independent so that as late as 1290 Marco Polo speaks of the eastern part of Makran as part of Hind, and as “the last Kingdom of India as you go towards the west and northwest”

Arabs attacked India from the north-west, and after the fall of Khurasan in 643 C.E., the first Arab army penetrated into Zabul by way of Seistan (at that time considered a territorial and cultual part of India). After a protracted struggle the Arabs were defeated and driven out. A decade later the Arab general Abdul Rahman finally conquered Zabul and levied tribute from Kabul which apparently was not paid willingly and regularly. To ensure regular payment another Arab general Yazid bin Ziyad attempted retribution in 683, but was killed and his army put to flight with great slaughter. [contrary to romantic Islamic representations, it has been a consistent part of Islamic war strategy to deceive, and escape when faced with sure death, or beg and grovel before or appeal to non-Muslim generosity but usually never give quarter and systematically execute able bodied male prisoners of war - an awareness of their own tactic to save themselves so that they can gather strength to come back and finish off non-Muslims] The war against Kabul was renewed in 695, but it became protracted and developed into a stalemate. Caliph Al-Mansur (745-775 C.E.) attempted to force the Hindu king of Kabul to submit but met only with partial success and the Ghaznavid Turks found the Hindus ruling over Kabul in 986 C.E.

In the south, in 712 a full-fledged invasion was launched after prolonged negotiations. The king of Ceylon had sent to Hajjaj bin Yusuf Sakifi, the governor of the eastern provinces of the Caliphate, eight vessels filled with presents, Abyssinian slaves, pilgrims, and the orphan daughters of some Muslim merchants who had died in his dominions. These ships were attacked and plundered by pirates off the coast of Sind. Hajjaj’s demands of compensation was refused by Dahir, the ruler of Sind, and Hajjaj sent two expeditions against Debal (708 C.E.), the first under Ubaidulla and the second under Budail. Both armies were defeated and their commanders killed. Hajjaj fitted out a third and more elaborate expedition under the command of his seventeen year old nephew and son-in-law Imaduddin Muhammad bin Qasim. Hajjaj was a de facto ruler over territories of the former Persian empire, and sent one army under Kutaiba which penetrated to Kashgar, where the Chinese quickly came to an understanding. A second army attacked Hindu Kabul, and the third (under Muhammad bin Qasim) advanced towards the lower Indus through Makran. The reigning Ummayad Caliph Walid I (86-96 H./705-715 C.E.) was a powerful ruler who spread the Khilafat to the greatest extent, but was skeptical because of earlier failures of Ubaidulla and Budail and is known to have raised concerns about the distance, the cost, and the loss of Muslim lives. Hajjaj promised to compensate the Caliph for this war effort and only then was Qasim allowed to invade Sind. The declared injunctions on Qasim for this invasion were (1) Spread Islam in Sind, (2) Conquer Sind and expand the territory under Islam, (3) Acquire all available wealth for by Hajjaj and repayment to the Caliph.

Hajjaj and Muhammad bin Qasim’s military knowledge of Sind and Hind was based substantially on the Muslim traders who had been allowed to trade and settle freely along the trade routes in non-Muslim kingdoms. These traders had obviously little interest or intellectual background to know anything beyond India’s wealth, military background, and that India was a land of Qufr. Every Muslim, whether educated or illiterate is taught the essential bits from the Quran and the Hadiths that promise the land, wealth and women of “un-believers” and that it was the highest duty of a Muslim to carry out violent Jihad [look at my discussion in Islam and non-Muslims] aimed at destruction of idols, shrines, books, and adult male population of non-Muslims and capture their pre-puberty males and women to reproduce and multiply Muslims.

On the way to Sind, the governor of Makran, Muhammad Harun, supplied reinforcements and five catapults. His artillery which included a great ballista known as “the Bride”, and was worked by five hundred men, had been sent by sea to meet him at Debal (a coastal city so named because of its Devalaya – House of God or temple and contained a citadel-temple with stone walls as high as forty yards and a dome of equal height). Qasim arrived at Debal in late 711 or early 712 C.E. with an army of at least twenty thousand horse, infantry with additional Jat and Med mercenaries. The majority of the Sindhi population was Buddhist (Samanis of chronicles), and totally averse to fighting, with marginal tribal groups apparently “dancing in joy seeing their Islamic liberators” and only Raja Dahir of Sind, his Kshatriya soldiers and Brahman priests of the temples were left to defend their land. This is the Islamic version and although sourced from the same texts whose claims of repression on Hindus are discounted by the Thaparite School of Indian history, is still presented as the correct “version” of reality of welcoming Islam by the Indian “underclass” and not propaganda – if “caste” repression was endemic then this welcome should have been extended to the not-much-earlier invasions.

At the start of Muhammad’s invasion Raja Dahir was in his capital Alor about 500 kms. away. Debal was in the charge of a governor with a garrison of four to six thousand Rajput soldiers and a few thousand Brahmans. The Islamic communication network was fast – letters were written every three days and replies were received in a week. When the siege of Debal had continued for some time a defector helped Muhammad in breaching the walls [ the deception used many times in Islam in its greatest military successes rather than actual military might]. The inhabitants were invited to accept Islam, and on their refusal all adult males were put to the sword and their wives and children were enslaved. This carnage lasted for three days, the temple was razed and a mosque built. Muhammad laid out a Muslim quarter, and placed a garrison of 4,000 in the town. The legal fifth of the spoil including seventy-five girls were sent to Hajjaj, and the rest of the plunder was divided among the soldiers. [The Thaparite School of Indian history and Islam's Marxist apologists keep silent on the question as to why an economically unproductive activity of demolishing religious structures is so important in the so-called pure economic motive for Islamic aggression on cultural icons of non-Muslims. Why are adult males who do not accept Islam to be executed - they could have been more useful economically as slave labour - doesn't this smack of ideological motivations?]

Muhammad bin Qasim next attacked Nirun, (near modern Hyderabad) and Nirun voluntarily surrendered after agreeing to give riches, but after accepting these terms Muhammad destroyed the “temple of Budh” (Buddhist or Hindu shrine – Muslims were so ignorant of Indic cultural fine-points that they always confused Buddhists with Jainas and “Hindu” sects) at Nirun. He built a mosque at its site and appointed an Imam. After placing a garrison under a newly appointed Muslim governor, he marched to Sehwan (Siwistan), about 130 kilometres to the north-west, populated mainly by Buddhists and traders. Sehwan surrendered on condition of loyalty and paying jiziyah.

At this, Dahir decided to meet the invader at Aror or Rawar. Qasim was bound for Brahmanabad but stopped short to engage Dahir first where the Arabs encountered an imposing array of war elephants and a large army under the command of Dahir and his Rajput chiefs. Al Biladuri writes that after the battle lines were drawn, “a dreadful conflict ensued such as had never been seen before”, and Chachnama gives details of the valiant fight which Raja Dahir gave “mounted on his white elephant”. A naptha arrow struck Dahir’s howdah and set it ablaze. Dahir dismounted and fought desperately, but was killed towards the evening, “when the idolaters fled, and the Musulmans glutted themselves with massacre”. Raja Dahir’s queen Rani Bai and her son locked themselves into the fortress of Rawar, which had a garrison of 15 thousand. The soldiers fought valiantly, but the Arabs proved stronger. When the Rani saw the inevitable, she assembled all the women in the fort and told them: “God forbid that we should owe our liberty to those outcaste cow-eaters. Our honour would be lost. Our respite is at an end, and there is nowhere any hope of escape; let us collect wood, cotton and oil, for I think we should burn ourselves and go to meet our husbands. If any wish to save herself, she may.” They entered into a house where they burnt themselves in the fire of jauhar. Muhammad occupied the fort, massacred the 6,000 men he found there [most likely the sick, infirm, old and the wounded] and seized all the wealth and treasures that belonged to Dahir.

Muhammad now marched to Brahmanabad but a number of garrisons in forts challenged his army, delaying his arrival. The civil population, longed for peace and let the Muslims enter the city on peaceful terms. Qasim however on entry “sat on the seat of cruelty and put all those who had fought to the sword. It is said that about six thousand fighting men were slain, but according to others sixteen thousand were killed”. He proceeded to Multan, the chief city of the upper Indus with its famous Sun-Temple which was destroyed and its treasures looted. Besides the treasure collected from the various forts of the Sindhi King, worship rights of Hindus were allowed only in exchange of pilgrim tax, jiziyah and other similar cesses. The campaign expenses came to 60 thousand silver dirhams and Hajjaj paid to the Caliph 120 thousand dirhams.

In Muhammad bin Qasim’s administration of the conquered territories the principal sources of revenue were the jiziyah and the land-tax. The Chachnama speaks of other taxes levied upon the cultivators such as the baj and ushari. The collection of jiziyah was considered a political as well as a religious duty, and was always exacted “with vigour and punctuality, and frequently with insult”. The native population had to feed every Muslim traveller for three days and nights and had to submit to many other humiliations which are mentioned by Muslim historians.

The total number of prisoners was calculated to be thirty thousand (Kalichbeg – sixty thousand), including thirty “daughters of the chiefs”. They were exported to Hajjaj. The head of Dahir and the fifth part of prisoners were forwarded in charge of the African Slave Kaab, son of Mubarak Rasti. In Sind itself females captured after every campaign of the marching army, were enslaved and married to Arab soldiers who settled down in colonies established in places like Mansura, Kuzdar, Mahfuza and Multan. The standing instructions of Hajjaj to Muhammad bin Qasim were to “give no quarter to infidels, but to cut their throats, and take the women and children as captives”. At the end of the conquest of Sind, “when the plunder and the prisoners of war were brought before Qasim” one-fifth of all the female prisoners were chosen and set aside and counted to be twenty thousand. Since they belonged to high families, “veils were put on their faces, and the rest were given to the soldiers”. This implies at 100,000 non-Muslim Indian women were enslaved and distributed among the elite and the soldiers.

Muhammad bin Qasim remained in Sind for a little over three years after which Islamic chroniclers say he was suddenly recalled and summarily executed, probably by being sewn in an animal hide and then pierced with iron nails, on the charge of deflowering two Sindhi princesses meant for the bed of the Caliph. [The overzealous among Muslim ranks can remember the other famous instances such as the early Islamic commanders in Spain. It is also interesting to note that the story comes from Islamic pens, which explicitly describes how the Caliph, the supposed spiritual leader of all Islam is murderously concerned about the virginity of maidens he wants to bed himself - an indication of the generic insecurity of Islam's roots whose core religious texts show an overwhelming concern with womens' sexual purity and the predilection towards consummating marriages with child-brides]

After Qasim’s departure the Arab power in Sind declined rapidly with a majority of the newly converted returned back to their former religions. According to Denison Ross after the recall of Muhammad bin Qasim, the Muslims retained some foothold on the west bank of the river Indus, but they were in such small number that they gradually merged into Hindu population. In Mansura (the Muslim capital of Sind) they actually adopted Hinduism. Muslims who continued in the new religion wre mostly concentrated to cities, and particularly Multan which according to Al Masudi (C.E. 942) remained one of the strongholds of the Muslims. Ibn Hauqal, (C.E. 976), also calls Multan a city with a strong fort, “but Mansura is more fertile and prosperous[...]Debal is a large mart and a port not only of this but neighbouring regions”. Thus the Muslim population more or less became stable and integrated with the indigenous society of Sind. Ibn Hauqal writes: “The Muslims and infidels of this tract wear the same dresses, and let their beards grow in the same fashion. They use fine muslin garments on account of the extreme heat. The men of Multan dress in the same way. The language of Mansura, Multan and those parts is Arabic and Sindian” [We will see later how Islamic concerns deriving from their desert roots as well as propriety aimed mainly at "protecting" their "reproductive resources" - women, imposed dress-codes and socio-cultural practices that were completely alien to the pre-Islamic Indic cultures as well as as its general climate]. An interesting angle yet to be explored in historical analysis is the possible vulnerability in “monotheistic” or mono-iconic religions, such as Zoroastriansim or Sun-worship or Buddhism (which in its later phases foucsed on the “Buddha” entirely) to Islam. Early European Christianity dominated by recent pagans of the Germanic stock which overran the post-Romanic scenario, retained sufficient viciousness and and imbibed less of the later-Christian imperialist “peaceful submission” to monotheism to ruthlessly repulse the Moorish or eastern Islamic advances. Jews and Nestorians in the Levant fared poorly against Islam, as did the extensive Buddhist, Zoroastrian and monotheistic strands within Hinduism in central and South Asia. A modern phenomenon could be the trend of conversion from Christianity to Islam among white Europeans in the countries of Germanic stock.

Andre Wink points out, that In contrast to Persia there is no indication that Buddhists converted more eagerly than brahmans. The Thaparite School maintains that Muslim Arabs were “invited” to Sind by Buddhist “traitors” who aimed to undercut the brahmins is problematic and typically stated without proof and in the style of Indian historians which places hypothesis with or without qualification by isolated and dubious examples, as undisputed reality. If Buddhists collaborated with the invaders, there are apprently equal examples of collaboration by brahmins which simply could have been a matter of expediency rather than any genuine love for Islam.

The newly converted Turks, who were enrolled as military slaves of the Caliphate, ultimately grew strong enough to form their own principalities under the formal tutelage of the Caliphs with a much reduced authority for legitimacy. Amir Subuktigin (977-997 C.E.) was one such Turkish adventurer who frequently raided the Hindu Shahiya Brahman kingdom of Punjab which extended up to Kabul “in the prosecution of holy wars, and there he conquered forts upon lofty hills, in order to seize the treasures they contained.” When Jayapal, the ruling prince of the Shahiyas, heard of Subuktigin’s depredations, he moved with a large army and huge elephants to wreak vengeance upon Subuktigin, “by treading the field of Islam under his feet”. After crossing Lamghan, Sabuktigin advanced from Ghazni with his son Mahmud and the two armies fought repeatedly against one another. Jayapal, with soldiers “as impetuous as a torrent,” was difficult to defeat, and so Subuktigin threw animal flesh (probably beef) into the fountain which supplied water to the Hindu army. Apparently Jayapal sued for peace, but Sabuktigin protracted negotiations, and Jayapal’s envoys were sent back on which Jayapal again proposed cessation of hostilities saying: “You have seen the impetuosity of the Hindus and their indifference to death, whenever any calamity befalls them, as at this moment. If, therefore, you refuse to grant peace in the hope of obtaining plunder, tribute, elephants and prisoners, then there is no alternative for us but to mount the horse of stern determination, destroy our property, take out the eyes of our elephants, cast our children into the fire, and rush on each other with sword and spear, so that all that will be left to you, is stones and dirt, dead bodies, and scattered bones.”

Jayapal’s declared intention forced Subuktigin to conclude “that religion and the views of the faithful would be best consulted by peace”. He demanded a tribute of cash and elephants and nominated officers to collect them which apparently was not believed by Jayapal and having learnt his lessons in Islam’s complete lack of any ethics in warfare, refused to pay anything, and imprisoned the Amir’s officers. At this Subuktigin supposedly marched out towards Lamghan, conquered it and set “fire to the places in its vicinity, demolished idol temples, marched and captured other cities and established Islam in them”. Jayapal collected troops to the number of more than one hundred thousand, “which resembled scattered ants and locusts”. Sabuktigin on his part “made bodies of five hundred attack the enemy with their maces in hand, and relieve each other when one party became tired, so that fresh men and horses were constantly engaged. The dust which arose prevented the eyes from seeing. It was only when the dust was allayed that it was found that Jayapal had been defeated and his troops had fled leaving behind them their property, utensils, arms, provisions, elephants, and horses.” Subuktigin levied tribute and obtained immense booty, besides two hundred elephants of war. He also increased his army by enrolling those Afghans and Khaljis (previously Hindu followers of Jayapal) who submitted to him.

Subuktigin’s son Mahmud succeeded his father in C.E. 998 and in 1000 he first attacked India. The Thaparite school tries to represent Mahmud as common looter intent on capturing the “horse trade through Multan and Sind” whose iconoclastic exploits have been inflated by later Islamic scholars to make him seem an Islamic theologically approved hero. However they quietly suppress tha fact that Mahmud himself was well-versed in the Quran and the Hadiths and was considered its eminent interpreter. He collected either by promise of wealth or by force (consider the case of the brilliant Ibn Sina who spent a lifetime escaping from his clutches and is known to have celebrated Mahmud’s death) a galaxy of eminent theologians scholars, and on his investiture, he vowed to the Caliph of Baghdad “to undertake every year a campaign against the idolaters of India”, convinced that “jihad was central to Islam and that one campaign at least must be undertaken against the unbelievers every year.” Mahmud made seventeen (or 10) expeditions in the next thirty years and is the object of the highest praise in Islamic historians almost at par with Slahuddin. Mahmud always included the Caliph’s name on his coins, represented himself in his Fateh-namas as a “warrior for the faith”, sent to Baghdad plundered wealth and slaves (the highest spiritual leaders of Islam, the Caliphs appear to have a never ending appetite for enslaved Hindu women for their personal bed) from his Indian campaign. The Caliph Al-Qadir Billah in turn praised the talents and exploits of Mahmud, conferred upon him the titles of Amin-ul-millah and Yamin-ud-daula (the Right hand) after which his house is known as Yamini Dynasty.

In his first attack of frontier towns in C.E. 1000 Mahmud appointed his own governors and converted some inhabitants. In his attack on Waihind (Peshawar) in 1001-3, Mahmud is reported to have captured the Hindu Shahiya King Jayapal and fifteen of his principal chiefs and relations some of whom like Sukhpal, were made Muslims. At Bhera all the inhabitants, except those who embraced Islam, were put to the sword. At Multan conversions of remaining Hindus took place in large numbers, for writing about the campaign against Nawasa Shah (converted Sukhpal), Utbi says that this and the previous victory (at Multan) were “witnesses to his exalted state of proselytism.” In his campaign in the Kashmir Valley (1015) Mahmud “converted many infidels to Muhammadanism, and having spread Islam in that country, returned to Ghazni.” In the later campaign in Mathura, Baran and Kanauj, many conversions took place. Describing the conquest of Kanauj, Utbi saya: “The Sultan levelled to the ground every fort and the inhabitants of them either accepted Islam, or took up arms against him”, or those who submitted were also converted to Islam or conversion was a condition for submission and life [this is by the Sunnah of the Prophet, whose protestaions of liberalism more common in the Quran which represents his earlier struggling days are almost always contradicted in the Hadiths which represent a post-Muhammad collection of actual events]. In Baran (Bulandshahr) alone 10,000 persons were converted including the Raja. During his fourteenth invasion in 1023 C.E. Kirat, Nur, Lohkot and Lahore were attacked. The chief of Kirat accepted Islam, and many people followed his example. According to Nizamuddin Ahmad, “Islam spread in this part of the country by the consent of the people and the influence of force.” According to all contemporary and later chroniclers like Qaznivi, Utbi, Farishtah etc., “conversion of Hindus to Islam was one of the objectives of Mahmud” and whenever he was militarily successful he demanded the people to convert to Islam leading to Hindu rulers simply running away without giving a battle. “The object of Bhimpal in recommending the flight of Chand Rai was that the Rai should not fall into the net of the Sultan, and thus be made a Musalman, as had happened to Bhimpal’s uncles and relations, when they demanded quarter in their distress.”

Mahmud destroyed an almost uncountable number of temples and idols as is reconstructable from the detailed descriptions of his campaigns. [ It is difficult to understand why Mahmud would use precious labour in the uneconomic structure destroying activity]. His interest in destroying renowned temples is only interpreted by the Thaparite School as aimed at extracting wealth but larger temples would be structurally more difficult to destroy and economically unproductive as gold or valuables were highly unlikely to have been imbedded in huge blocks of stone and the more natural possibility of “bringing glory to Islam” is quietly suppressed.

At Thaneshwar, the temple of Chakraswamin was sacked and its bronze image of Vishnu was taken to Ghazni to be thrown into the hippodrome of the city. Mathura did not fight back and the residents had fled, and Mahmud had been greatly “impressed with the beauty and grandeur of the shrines” but the temples in the city were thoroughly destroyed. Kanauj had a large number of temples with some of great antiquity and just as in Mathura even when there was no armed resistance all the temples were destroyed.

According to Andre Wink, from the seventh century onwards, peaking during Muhammad al-Qasim?s campaigns in 712-13, a significant number of Jats among others were captured as prisoners of war and exported to Iraq and elsewhere as slaves. Examples of prominent Jat freedmen include Abu Hanifa (699-767), the founder of the Hanafi school of Islamic law.

Abu Nasr Muhammad Utbi, the secretary and chronicler of Mahmud reports that when Mahmud Ghaznavi attacked Waihind (near Peshawar) in 1001-02, he took 500,000 persons of both sexes as captive. This figure appeared so preposterous that Elliot and Dawson (the translators) reduce it to 5000. Many modern historians including the Thaparite School consistently declare that this figure is notional and therefore not true and an exaggeration. None of these discounters give any concrete reasons for reducing this claimed number – which could have easily been done among others on the basis of estimated ancient demographics of the region concerned – except their own stature as infallible and final adjudicators of truth. The common characteristic of all these narratives by Islamic chroniclers is that taking of slaves was a routine practice in every expedition and only unusually large numbers drew attention of the chroniclers. For example after Mahmud’s Ninduna (Salt Range -1014) campaign, Utbi reports that “slaves were so plentiful that they became very cheap; and men of respectability in their native land[India] were degraded by becoming slaves of common shopkeepers (of Ghazni)”. He is supported by Nizamuddin Ahmad in Tabqat-i-Akbari stating that Mahmud “obtained great spoils and a large number of slaves”. Ferishtah reports that in the next campaign on Thanesar, “the Muhammadan army brought to Ghaznin 200,000 captives so that the capital appeared like an Indian city, for every soldier of the army had several slaves and slave girls”. Slaves were taken in subsequent campaigns in Baran, Mahaban, Mathura, Kanauj, Asni etc. so that when Mahmud returned to Ghazni in 1019, the booty was found to include 53,000 captives according to Nizamuddin. Utbi reports that “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 Ghazna, and the merchants came from different cities to purchase them, so that the countries of Mawaraun-Nahr, Iraq and Khurasan were filled with them”. The Tarikh-i-Alfi adds that the fifth share due to the Saiyyads was 150,000 slaves, therefore the total number of captives comes to 750,000.

It was a matter of Islamic policy to capture and convert, destroy or sell the male population, and carry into slavery women and children. Ibn-ul-Asir says that Qutbuddin Aibak made “war against the provinces of Hind. He killed many, and returned home with prisoners and booty.” Further In Benaras, Muhammad Ghori’s massacred the Hindus – “None was spared except women and children.” Fakhr-i-Mudabbir reports that as a result of the Muslim achievements under Muhammad Ghori and Qutbuddin Aibak, “even a poor householder (or soldier) who did not possess a single slave before became the owner of numerous slaves of all description (jauq jauq ghulam har jins)”.

This brings us to the iconic case of Somnath which I will take up in the next part of this series. This will also be a great opportunity to explore the particular style of Thaparite reconstruction of Indian history for its special pro-Muslim anti-Hindu agenda.

part 3:the final defeat of the major North Indian powers

Part 1 :enslavement of non-Muslims of India

part 4: the actual role of Sufis in conversion

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

82 Responses to “How Islam came to India and why now it needs to go from India -2”

RSS Feed for Dikgaj’s Weblog Comments RSS Feed

Nothing else to say here…but this is a bunch of lies.

Look in the vadha your gonna find tons of scriptures about converting to Islam ;).

Cheers, and may Allah give you some sense. ALL Historians know that Islam spread by the pen and not by conquering.

Your first paragraph is so fabricated I could not stop laughing…India does need some history lessons down which village you come from :).

I approved the above comment by Md. Shoaib aka Sabature to illustrate the intellectual level, response to any criticism, and the blind delusion in which Islam typically brings up even its modern followers – one of the reasons why Islam and not its ex-followers must go from India. Modern Islam will deny even its own chroniclers, its core texts, even its own historians, if it makes Islam look its real self and “bad” by current standards. I can provide the references to the original texts in Persian or Arabic, from which the material in the post has been gleaned, and these are not from “Hindu” sources. Islam’s first followers were mostly illiterate, so much so that, at least one Quresh could save his life by offering to teach the alphabet to the Prophets’s followers – where did the pen come in here! It is interesting to see that Shoaib assumes the posts are coming from villages in India, which probably contains more sense and intelligence than he will ever manage in his entire life. “Vadha”!!! – if it is the Indian fried food and Shoiab finds scripture there I really would worry about his mental and physical health – if it is “Veda” and he finds conversion to Islam in it, then I would request his well-wishers to quickly find a good psyhiatric centre for him! Unfortunately for Shoiab, I can read old Persian and Arabic and I would only ask him to start with Chachnama perhaps, of course once he gets over his “indigestion” with his “vadha”(!)

lol your reply just shows how much of an idiot you really are.

May Allah bless you with some wisdom.

Translation of the headline to english.

“How peace came to India and why now it needs to go from India”

The word Islam means Peace ;).

“1. Veda mentions that ‘kalki autar’ will be the last Messenger/Prophet of Bhagwan (Allah) to guide the whole world. Afer quoting this reference the Pundit Parkash says that this comes true only in the case of Muhammed (saw).

2. According to a prophecy of Hinduism, ‘kalki autar’ will be born in an island and that is the Arab territory which is known as ‘jazeeratul Arab’.

3. In the ‘sacred’ book of Hindus the father’s name of ‘kalki autar’ is mentioned as ‘Vishnu Bhagat’ and his mother’s name as ‘somanib’. In sanskrit, ‘vishnu’ stands for Allah (swt) and the literal meaning of ‘bhagat’ is slave.

‘Vishnu Bhagat’ therefore, in the Arabic language will mean Allah’s slave (Abdullah). ‘Somanib’ in Sanskrit means peace and tranquilty which in arabic is denoted by the word ‘Amina’. Whereas the last Messenger Muhammed’s (saw) father and mother’s names were Abdullah and Amina respectively.

4. In the big books of Hindus, it is mentioned that ‘kalki autar’ will live on olive and dates and he will be true to his words and honest. In this regard Pundit Parkash writes, “This is true and established only in the case of Muhammed (saw)”.

5. Veda mentions that ‘kalki autar’ will be born in the respected and noble dynasty of his land. And this is also true as regards Muhammed (saw) as he was born in the respected tribe of Quraish who enjoyed great respect and high place in Makkah.

6. ‘Kalki Autar’ will be taught in the cave by Bhagwan through his own messenger. And it is very true in this matter. Muhammed (saw) was the only one person in Makkah who has taught by Allah’s Messenger Gabriel in the cave of Hira.

7. It is written in the books which Hindus believe that Bhagwan will provide ‘Kalki autar’ with the fastest of a horse and with the help of which he will ride around the world and the seven skies/heavens. The riding on ‘Buraq’ and ‘Meraj’ by the Prophet Muhammed (saw) proves what?

8. It is also written in the Hindus’ books that ‘kalki autar’ will be strengthened and heavily helped by Bhagwan. And we know this fact that Muhammed (saw) was aided and reinforced by Allah (swt) through His angels in the battle of Badr.

9. Hindus’ books also mention that ‘kalki autar’ will be an expert in horse riding, arrow shooting, and swordsmanship. What Pundit Vaid Parkash comments in this regard is very important and worth attention and consideration. He writes that the age of horses, swords, and spears is long ago gone and now is the age of modern weapons like tanks, missiles, and guns, and therefore it will be unwise to wait for ‘kalki autar’ bearing sword and arrows or spears. In reality, the mention in our books of ‘kalki autar’ is clearly indicative of Muhammed (saw) who was given the heavenly book known as Al-Qur’an.”
By Prof. Pundit Vaid Parkash (A Hindu Scholar)

The wonderful intellectual Sabature strikes again! With infinite “wisdom” he says “Islam” literally means “Peace” – Islam actually means “submission” in Arabic and not “peace”, and a Muslim is one who “submits”. The case of “Kalki” is very very interesting : as usual Sabature shows a complete lack of knowledge of not only the most important languages for Islam – Arabic and Persian, he also shows complete lack of knowledge of the core texts of the Hindus. The earliest references to Kalki occur in Vishnu Purana, and later on in Agni Purana, Padma Purana, the later portions of Srimadbhagavat etc. Kalki does not occur in any of the Vedas! Kalki’s dad is Vishnuyasas [Kalki Purana] meaning one who extols/represents Vishnu’s virtue or the “qualities of Vishnu” and he is nowhere mentioned as Vishnubhakta – a devotee of Vishnu – bhakta in general cannot be translated as slave – there is a specific word for that “dasa”. The mother is Sumati. Most importantly for Shoaib, in the Hindu concept of “Avatars” there is no “last one”, Hindu yuga-age concepts are cyclical, and there is no final Kali yuga, and therefore no final Kalki – the greatest point of difference between Islam’s claim of Muhammad being the very last one. As for Sabature’s other rants, less mentioned the better. I welcome Sabature’s comments, as the more he speaks the more he will attack me personally using unqualified adjectives like a common street bully, and the more he reveals the state of immense ignorance, arrogance, and delusional state of the common follower of Islam. His subconscious reveals in his declaration in his posts as “peace loving” his awareness that by default neither Pakistanis nor Muslims are “peaceful”. My wish for Sabature is that he learns to think rationally and do proper academic research before he opens his completely ignorant mouth – just one book meant for popular consumption in the only dialect you understand is not good enough.

I am sorry some correction, there is no word called slave in Veda (Sanskrit). Dasa means servant . well it was said in kalki purana kalki will come at end of kali yuga (destroy all the evil) bring the golden age (Satya yuga). I don’t see any golden age around me so…………..
any way I like your comments but keep it more civil .

There is a lot of linguistic controversy about “dasa” as used in the Vedas. As in most words of Vedic and later Sanskrit, words could have stood for concepts/qualities/attributes that were extended from one application or context to another based on “qualities”. Some suspect that the sound “s” could have originally stood for speed/”gati”/movement/acceleration. Dasa is used in many different contexts, and not necessarily in the usage of “servant” – and could mean anything from helper, follower, accompanying, enhancer, one-who-speeds-up-is-fast, etc. The “slavery” context was used much later – only in texts possibly ranging from late pre-Islamic to early medieval.

I responded to personal attacks, but have not used uncivil words even if they sound harsh. Then again, there is no binding law to be restrained in language to the infinitely stretched extent. Why should only critics of totalitarian ideologies be restrained in what they say when the same is not demanded of the totalitarians themselves?

If you would read my reference…its in quotes and I have also provided the source of the quotes. ;).

People are blinded by hate and create false statements…Islam means Peace not submission..(I learned Quranic Arabic)…Persian has no relevance to the language in the Quran..Shows how learned you are and how you are so struck on making false statements and spreading lies.

yep it seems that the whole world is finally getting awake to the religion of peace and just visit youtube or any other chat sesions on religion and everyone love religion of peace and the love of religion of peace is spreading so much that every country is thinking of the ways to stop muslims coming to their country and kick all muslims out.

Just google Jihad and Quran and you shall find million of pages or islamic sex and Quran and you will be japped at the love people show to religion of peace. If this continues long the day will come when muslim will be the most loved (HATED) animal species of the world.. Yes the animal which you see in the Zoo when you go to see extinct species..

Sabature is so bigoted and blind that he demands that his quotes from an interpretation by one modern author should replace the source texts on Kalki! [Ask someone who knows Sanskrit or non-Urdu Hindi what "Bhagat" means and how it differs from "dasa", and please desist from outright lying yourself, and do not try to talk about something which you obviously know nothing about]. Please give us a break, read the original texts in Sankrit that refer to Kalki – and until you have, do not comment on this anymore.

The representation of “peace” for “Islam” is by enforced association with the convoluted logic – that “Islam” as a “religion” is peaceful, therefore “Islam” is “peace”. This is not true by etymology – the original root word for Islam does mean “submission” and is understood by honest Islamic scholars as referring to “submission to Allah”, and a Muslim as “one who submits to Islam”. I referred to Persian, because just as Arabaic is important to understand the theosophy of Islam, Persian is important to understand and read in the original the Islamic chroniclers who describe the Islamic invasions into the subcontinent – this was in the context of this post for which Sabature is apparently making comments.

Cure for Jehadi mentality to bring peace,

Just read articles of a scholar muslim Ali Sina in

FAITHFREEDOM.ORG and find peace.

#Sabature

so let me clarify some historical fact from 1940′s my dear… as well as a bit chapter on Hinduism with regard to clarify hinduistic approach.

1) Hindu prophecies/avtar are judged on basis on feature-and-karma. and the must feature of a avtar is that he is well aware of the self from his infant stage. against odd Mohammed karma including Rape, Looting, Murdering does not qualify him at any stage to pass Hinduistic prophecies… nor did Mohammed was aware of the self from infant stage, as koran says he start getting those all koranic fits too later in his life.

2) Muslims are so chamelionized in changing their stand, that I sometimes think that we should change the phrase from “Changing color like Chamelion” to “Changing color like Muslims”… in 1940′s wasn’t it your Muslim brothers with communist in India, who campaigned Hitler as “Kalki”, and were rejected. its also worth to mention that till this day Muslim world features banner like “God bless Hitler” ….

3) ‘Vishnu Bhagat’ does not means Vishnu slave, it means Vishnu praiser .. and Hinduism never says that a praiser is slave of God, rather it says that the god becomes slave of praiser by fall in love with his praiser….. so keep you slaves ideology with yourself.. it seems now, Indians now need to clean vedic culture, that got dirty as we tried to make space for islam in India ( not to mention that india make space for every religion and culture… but indians failed to verify that ISlam is not a culture.. its pure cult )….

4)Mohammed was true to his words ? ha… liar liar

Ibn Sa’d writes [p119]: “Abu Bakr has narrated that the messenger of Allâh (PBUH) had sexual intercourse with Mariyah in the house of Hafsa. When the messenger came out of the house, Hafsa was sitting at the gate (behind the locked door). She told the prophet, O Messenger of Allâh, do you do this in my house and during my turn? The Prophet said, control yourself and let me go for I make her haram to me. Hafsa said, I do not accept, unless you swear for me. That Hazrat (his holiness) said, by Allâh I will not touch her again.”

so in one para, Mohammed not only broke his words with Hafsa… but also had expressed his holiness…purr!!!!!

5) regarding kalki birth, it says that he will born to a unmarried mother, and due to social pressure the mother will discard him in a garbage…. from here onwards kalki will start growing on his own. Against krishna(owner of 8 arts) kalki will be joined by shakti on earth, making him owner of all the 9 arts human state can feature… mohammed featured null of any art.

one more thing, existance of shakti require respect of women.. here Mohammed fails heavily to qualify.

6) As I said, that an avtar has knowledge of self ( that means the inner self – aka – Humanity) from childhood. Mohammed even after growing up had shown no sign of Humanity.

7) it proves that you need some horse food for your brain…

8) Avtar is not helped by bhagwan, he himself is Bhangwan(the almighty) on earth as per vedic tradition…

9) sanskrit text regarding kalki does not mention Ashwa(Horse)… they say vahan(travelling equipment which can be horse) will be of white color !! so where the early people considered vahan as horse, the new generation consider tanks and stuffs…. and till where i know, Many Muslims even are waiting for Mehndi on horse, is it really worth then ?

10) before closing, wanna hit the nail… Hinduism does not divide world in 7 heven-7 hells ( including jahnum)- and earth….. rather it speak of Hindu universe, with a celestial space…. and it further say that entire universe is god(param-brahm) Himself. it says that heven and hell both exist here, and men is inside a cycle of rebirth… the only exit is Nirvana/moksha in which you merge back in param-brahm.. or in celestial world, escaping this earth.

now its must for a idiot like you to understand the concept of Param-brahm … from param-brahm came shakti ( energy)… from shakti came Shiva ( sanskrit particle, base, atom, one who represent the state of constructor and destructor )… from shiva evolve Vishnu ( one who nourish life, care taker of life forms).. and from Vishnu came Brahma ( one who feed life in structures ).

now comes the nail in your logic… if Mohammed was avtar of vishnu.. then he didn’t had degraded the definition of Human dignity.. rather had enhanced it.

if you want to play phonetic game, like zakir naik had played around Brahma and Abhrahim… then its worth to mention that if koran is reversed phonetically.. then the output is narok, which means Hell….

we consider Heven and Hell both on earth.. and certainly it says …. koran is gateway of hell, or the book that can convert earth into hell….. :) like that …


PM ( not a Mohammedian Hindu)

It seems that you are Sita Ram Goyaljis , fan , voice of india publication’s are based on facts, tabligh jamat would want forced convert’s and there descendent’s to believe that what has happened was some how right and other scriptures are also of the same opnion , to hide the facts of rape loot and plunder and make it look divinely ordained , they require propaganda to appear legitimate , poor sab rupture is a victim of that

Dikgaj: saboteur means who commits sabotage; this sabature is so ignorant that he cannot properly spell his name. All muslims are ignorant of their history
and of islam itself otherwise they would
not be muslims as is the case with me.
I invite you and this saboteur to read my
article at:http://aziztayyab.info and my
blog:http://islamisfalse-om.blogspot.com

Sabature,

Actually “Islam” does mean “submission” and not
“peace”.

“Islam” is derived from the triliteral root s-l-m.
The root means to “submit”…
Salaam means peace… Islam means submission. Some
confusion exists because people don’t understand how
the term “peace” is arrived at, from s-l-m.

There will only be peace when one side “submits”.
That is why Islam dedicates so much time to subjugation.
Once an enemy is defeated, they will be subjugated,
at which time peace will ensue. Islam, as in the religion
means submission to God, not peace.

The central belief and action of Islam is submission to Allah, not “Peace”. Renedering Islam as “Peace” makes the term senseless in the way of naming a religion.

If you studied Qur’anic Arabic, as I did, you should know this. It is a pretty simple concept of Arabic. And my guess is you spent your time memorizing Arabic, and not studying it semantics or syntax.

How can Islam (or do you really mean Muslims) leave India?

I have repeatedly emphasized that I am not against the Muslim as a human being, I simply implore them to formally leave Islam as a practised religion – in India this is possible either by formally converting into other religions or by choosing to live by the civil law wherever possible – such as in the case of marriages. I agree that Indian legislature needs to facilitate this process by formally instituting a complete civil-law that looks after all aspects of a citizens social interactions – note that I am suggesting this law as offered alongside the existing religion based civil-laws, and that it should be voluntarily chosen by anyone who declares himself to be guided by this civil law. I have also repeatedly asked that non-Muslim Indians should welcome ex-Muslims with an open mind and help them gain confidence in their treatment at non-Muslim hands. The common Indian Muslim is descended from pre-Islmaic Indian ancestors and whose first Muslim ancestor most likely converted under threat of life or crippling economic penalities, or even worse – enslaved and manumitted only after conversion, or simply descended from children born to non-Muslim women enslaved or taken as concubines. It is only the Ashrafis who typcally claim direct descent from non-Indian Arabic or Persian or Turkic invaders and their formal dominance over the Islamic theological establishment in India is well documented in historical records. The Ashrafis have also practised an indirect racist and “casteist” system right from the Delhi Sultanate period [read Maulana Ziauddin Barani, or Amir Khusrau] and tried to suppress the neo-converts of Indic origin. I have simply asked Indians to be Indians, and as I see Islam as an inflexible, orthodox, anti-modernization – it must go from India as a practising philosophy – but the Muslim Indian is almost always descended from an Indian mother – and therefore brothers and sisters of non-Muslim Indians.

Just as there’s nothing to be said for Islam, there’s nothing that can be said for the mumbojumbo that is Hinduism. Your opinions, on 2nd or even 3rd reading, shows its self to be inconsistent.

I have never explicitly stated that Muslims should convert to “Hinduism” to come out of Islam. If you read my “About” page you will see what my assessments of “supreme suprahuman conscious all controlling entity” are. In that page I also explicitly state that I do not support everything that passes for Hinduism and that many of such stuff actually grew up within “Hinduism” as reaction to alien cults like Islam for example. I do not see any obvious contradiction or inconsistency in what I have stated. The modern “Hindu” is quite well defined as a group, so I refer to them in the modern and recent historical context as a social group. Hinduism could be mumbo-jumbo for you, but I am not sure you have read in the original its core texts – the original texts do not contain the word Hindu at all. The most sophisticated part of “Hindu philosophy” is contained in the Vedanta part [and not even the Veda] or the Upanishads. Some English translations are also available at SacredTexts.com. Many of these Upanishads do not deal with the “puja” and the “mumbo-jumbo” of rituals, and many modern scientists and mathematicians have been fascinated by their sometimes almost atheistic tone and logical consistency. The Vedantic philosophy could be called a meta-religion – a theory of religions or framework for philosophies, rather than a philosophy or religion in itself. I have studied Islams core texts, in the original [as available in modern times], and its political, military history. Similarly I have studied “Hinduism”, “Judaism” and “Christianity” – I understand this means that you may have to learn Sanskrit,Hebrew, Greek,Arabic[Qureshi],old Persian etc., to do all this.
Apart from this, there is the practical side of modern Hinduism, or Christianity which in spite of “your mumbo-jumbo” etc., has proved flexible enough to allow its followers to modernize and adapt. So I do not see anything inconsistent in suggesting Muslims to leave Islam and if they need some “religion” adopt these or some other flexible one, or simply decide to be an agnostic or an atheist.

But would the Bharatiya Janata Party allow agnostics and atheists in the Ramarajya?

Buddhists are very much part of India, and for all practical purposes they are agnostics – by Buddha’s declaration that, “gods etc are not interesting for the Buddha, and what is not interesting for the Buddha is not worth trying to know about” [I can give you the existing Pali quotes for this]. Atheism is also part of the “Hindu” philosophical tradition, and called the Barhaspatya Darshan [Philosophy of Brihaspati] or more popularly as Charbaak Darshan. There are significant Upanishads that do not deal with a “God” or “gods”. But my experience and observation is that the world and life experience is too complex for most people, and they look for answers in religions – so it is most likely that anyone coming out of all-controlling and micro-managing religions like Islam would go for some religious framework that is more flexible but is still somewhat prescriptive and rule based. You can never go back in history, and can you go back to a condition like Ramarajya that apparently never existed in reality but simply a modern fanstasy as per the Thaparite School of Indian history? To go strictly back to RamaRajya in the literal sense you have to go back to using bows and arrows, no microphone and loudspeaker to go on electoral campaigns, replacement of the Parliament by a monarchy – etc., do you really believe that BJP will do this?

The BJP might sell someone’s mother for all I know. They are vile. What are the Indians doing to prevent such types taking over India?

Muhammad Lodhi, if you look at my series on how Islam came to India and why now it needs to go, you will see that the Muslims have been selling off many Indian mothers right from the time Islam’s highest spiritual leadership began targeting and raiding Indian communities. Muslims have been in the enslavement and auctioning off of mothers game for a long long time – look at Qasim’s records to Shah Jahan’s record as testified by non-Hindu observers – peasant’s wives together with their children were sold off specifically to Muslim buyers by the officials of Shah Jahan – can you be entirely sure that Muslims you now know around you hailing from the subcontinent are not descendants of such “sold off Hindu mothers”? Compared to that record, BJP has not shown any such tendencies as yet – and if they do, non-Muslims of India have a 1000 years experience in dealing with slavers – only this time around they would be even less “tolerant”. As far as I know, in modern India, it was Pakistan’s armed forces or organized Muslim para-military organizations like the Rajakars in Hyderabad and East Pakistan, that carried out systematic abduction and sale of non-Muslim women during (1) the Kashmir raids by Chitrali tribesmen backed by Pak army in the first invasion after Independence (2) the Partition riots (3) the 1971 Bangladesh war of Indpendence. Given that Pakistan’s forces, elite, and Muslim organizations or communities who quickly show their Jihadi tendencies when opportunities arise, have consistently carried out “selling off of mothers” throughout the last 60 years of Republican India, it is the ideology of Islam which drives such “sale” that Indians have to be more wary about, and see to it that this ideological menace is forever eradicated – it has not at least such a thing to fear from the BJP.

Islam will leave India when the Muslims in
India stop paying obeisance to the Arabic city
of Makkah and stop naming themselves with
Arabic names – especially as too many of them
are quite ignorant of Arabic language and so
their names are quite offensive if not
risible!

i salute you dikgaj

Dikgaj: Thank you for you arguments against this blind, unreasonable, lying, ignorant [at best] Sabature. All one needs to do is look at how present day Islam conducts it’s self to have an idea that sabature’s post are nothing but lies. Why would one want to do so, or is it an inherent quality of Islam to do so?

if ypu dont like india,

go and fuck yourselves in pakistan

but keep innocents away from islam’s blood lust!

“All religions take care to silence or to execute those who question them…It has, however, been some time since Judaism and Christianity resorted openly to torture and censorship. Not only did Islam begin by condemning all doubters to eternal fire, but it still claims the right to do so in almost all of its dominions, and still preaches that these same dominions can and must be extended by war.” – Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog…No stronger retrograde force exists in the world (than Islam).” Winston Churchill

islam is a religion of peace!! My foot. Only bad thing I see is that those who profess to be muslims today in Indonesia, pakistan,india, iran, iraq and many others in asia, middle east and africa–a re the product of rape of their great great grandmothers after killing their great great grandfathers by invading butchers of arabia and their newly converted (by force or byproduct of rape of their great greatgrandmothers again in surrounding countries to Saudi Arabia). Muslims of the world, listen and read Q’uran and Hadith and if you find truth of what is being narrated to you by learned people, it is high time you discard Muslim way of 7th century saudi arabia which was followed by mohammed and imposed on other more civilized societies of the world. If you donot believe me, go to saudi arabia and see how even today clans and tribes are more important and women are treated as an object of pleasure, how saudis visit Dubai or Bahrain every thursday to go and drink and womenize. Still donot believe? Ask the kings of Saudi arabia and Bahrain what is their favorite pastime? womenizing, drinking and their sons’ womenizing, drinking and gambling. At least people of great Indus Civilizations you are in majority in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, Oman and Qatar- don’t you see how you are treated like a piece of shit by these arab muslims, your brethren in religion of mohammed. How they live and how they look at your wives and daughters (a few fotunate ones who hold good positions or in business)- lustful eyes, an object of pleasure. if you still don’t believe, okay, let all your daughters be left virgins for jihadists. that is what mohammed spoke in q’uran. You shameless fathers and grandfathers and brothers of muslims daughters, grandaugters and sisters- your fathers, grandfathers and brothers are afraid of deviating from Q’uran and Maulvis’ fatwas and you have to look around for non-muslims to come to your rescue. Go out and marry non-muslims and leave these shameless men to live in dark age of 7th century arabia, drink camel urine, kill each other (shias and sunnis and ahmedias and ismailies and many more sects within islam). Religion of Peace. Time has come to rest in peace!!

EVERY MAN HAS A RELIGION OF HIS OWN.

Hinduism says as i have come to a conclusion after a long study that God is infinite and can be felt & realised in multiple ways,forms or dimensions.It is a Love,Kindness,Bliss and pure Conciousness.Every man has his own God or own religion as per his choice,temperament and ability. Every man has a freedom of faith and freedom of expression.Xtianity and Islam are very hatefull and hurtfull cults which do not tolerate other faiths.Hence I have decided to live like a hindu.

Why should you think God is only one? Why can’t He also be many? If He has
made man in His own image, what image is He? An African, a Mongolian, a
Caucasian, a Japanese, a Filipino? Why are there so many types of man, and so
many varieties of things?
There is not just one type of tree, not just one type of snake, cloud,
mosquito or vegetable – there is not just one type of anything, so why should
God be only one? How could this consciousness that manifested this whole
creation and loves variety, be monotonous? God seems to love different
varieties. He must be of infinite variety Himself. God can manifest in many
names, forms and varieties.
Some schools of thought may not give God the freedom to appear in His many
forms. They want Him in one uniform!
You change your appearance to suit the occasion. When such is the case, how
could you think there is no variety in the Spirit. The ancient people knew this
and that’s why they cognized the Divinity as infinite qualities and forms. The
Spirit is not dull and boring. The Spirit which is the basis of creation is
dynamic and ever changing. God is not only one, but is many!!!
When you accept the variety of Divinity you cease to be a fanatic or a
fundamentalist.
Tommy says God is many, God is One, he made so many just for fun.

Nusrat Ali

so now the forcefully converted hindus are fightingh with their own blood in India. please find out a way to convince them.

Greetings.
Could we, perhaps, make the asumption, that, perhaps, the “Indian” behaviour towards young girls ( infanticide ), may have, perhaps, originate or/and perhaps be a direct consequence of the Islamic Jihad against Hindus of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (638 to 1857) ?

even now these muslims do the same… they migrate into different countries and claim independence. russia in chechenya, Jammu and kashmir in india… each and every part of the world its these muslims which are creating problems.

I appreciate the efforts of author to document all the events in a precise manner. Those falsifying this precise historical data on no grounds or just stating ‘ May Allah give you some sense’ sound the most ignorant naive people. Anyways we all know for once and all that 16 % of population in india is a byprodcut of families with sword on neck or rape of unfortunate undefended ladies. Whoever they may be but they all were Indians, their genres had been living in India for years and had been very much a part of Indian culture for millenias before that.So anyone saying ‘Muslimo Bharat Chhodho’ is an irrational fool who fails to give a thought before speech. We also shall not ask our Muslim siblings to renounce their faith which their forefathers had been practising for long (even though if it started with rape of their great grannies). But they shall see a bigger picture. Its all about how Arabs enforced their forefathers to bow to Arabian lands for their blind faith for centuries rather than freely seeking rationale answers about God. They shall profess whatever faith they might like to, but they shall forbid the lifestyles of Arabians. The ‘Islamic Pahnava’ ( beards, muslin clothing and all) and other material culture be dictated by Islam shall be abolished, they shall be practised only as a function of their personal preferrences independent of what faith asks for. And also all women of our secular nation deserve equal human rights. That means muslim laws of divorce and marriage shall be replaced with common civil code.

I have a question for Mr. Sabature, (btw, I am neither Hindu nor Muslim). Where do you see in Vedas that Kalki would marry a much older Catholic woman named Aisha?

I agree with Anwar… I have many family & friends in Bahrain, Dubai etc, and there will be numerous Muslims from Saudi Arabia will be traveling to there every week for, you guessed it: women & alcohol.. and some of those women are from my State of Kerala, India, and are cheated/tricked by some dirty agents promising them work in such places (I am disgusted!) and they’re sex salves now. I mean, why the double standards?

Don’t get me started on Arabic Muslims’ treatment of lesser class Muslims from India, Pakistah, and especially from Bangladesh!

I know my Muslim brothers will be angry at me for saying this, but here comes the next double standard: I mean, almost all muslims in south east Asia and many in the middle east like North Indian actors(Bollywood), and approve their career. (Examples are Shah Ruk Khan, Salman Khan, Aamir Khan, Saif Ali Khan, Imran Khan and more, all are Muslims). It’s okay for them to hug/kiss/roll around/make love to other non-Muslim actresses(they’re all non-Muslim! and you wonder why!); It’s approved by the Muslim Majority! But oh no, Sania Mirsa gets death threats because she plays tennis wearing short skirts, or Shakeela in South Indian movie gets death threats/acid shower threats from Muslims for acting in sexy movies? Why the double standard?

Okay my next question should open a can of worms… Muslims believe their god (allah) is the most powerful god. Let’s just say for argument’s sake they’re right. If that’s true, can he not take care of himself? I mean if anyone mocks/blasphemes against him, why does a Muslim have to go after that person and kill/destroy him? If he is god himself, doh’t you think anyone who mocks him will surely get his punishment according to his(god’s) timing? This is what separates me from you, my friend! You can say all you want against my God, but I will not say/do anything against you because I know my God will have His revenge in His time. This should be true about anyone who believes in any religion, right? If his/her god is THE god, then they would have comfort & peace in knowing that their God would avenge all them that mocked him & persecuted his followers? If someone doesn’t have that assurance, I’d say his/her faith is in vain. Don’t you agree?

Everyone likes to believe what his/her beliefs are right. Any time anyone questions someone’s such beliefs would make them uncomfortable, insecure, and most of all, angry because everyone likes to stay in that little comfort zone of blind belief. And the only solution to such anger/discomfort/insecurity is to silence the question… correct me if I am wrong.

Most of the times, I feel Muslims are like some Communists in the state of Kerala, India. Any time someone convinces them they’re wrong, those communists will get violent against him/her.. In addition, their blatant hypocrisy has destroyed & delayed progress in that little state of kerala (I am sad) in the last 50 years.

My Muslim brothers, let’s be civil. Both you, me and whomever reading this, we’re all educated, and knowledgible… Otherwise we won’t be on this site… Please don’t tell me things such as “may allah grand you wisdom” or “I hope you burn in hell” and such. Let’s have some educated discussion. I hope at least one person sees my points, then I’ll be glad.

hai friend am also frm kerala & i found ur article very usefull for further conversations. u r right, but even well educated people did not think logically & they all behind these foolishness of religion../or otherwise i think playing drama ……. anyway thanks a lot for ur great logic

Ashwani Aheer, interesting argument…

Let me take some time to answer your argument in a proper manner…

Islam is NOT a religion. We should call it what it is and not misuse the word religion.

If BJP is gujarat kill innocent people, and BJP in
orrisa rape innocent nun. what indian govt is doing at
that time, where they all hindutva people who will told we are this we are that.

First of all, you know HIndu is not name of the religion is name given by arabic, persia to the people who are livving in hind region means it is goegraphical. The people from india dont no anything about this but they blindly follow this as religion.

Why people of India not reading Geeta, In india christian people 95% reading Bible, In Islam 97% people reading Quran, Why Hindu r not reading Geeta.

Its probably a good thing that the “Hindu” is not reading the Geeta – for it urges the “warrior” not to hesitate to kill even closely related persons to establish “dharma” if these persons have done evil – and the context of that evil was “dispossesion from rightful inheritance” and molestation and attempted enslavement of a wife before the eyes of her husband – typical acts carroed out by the Islamic invaders in India from the time of the first Islamic raids on Sind. The Indian government did nothing either when Islamic leadership gave the call for direct action which translated into wholesale genocide, abduction, enslavement and rape of Hindu and Sikh women during the Partition of India. The Indian Government has done nothing either for the atrocities carried out on Hindus in Bangladesh most of whose survivors managed to flee to India. Read the history of Gujarat and Orissa even from the Islamic chroniclers themselves about what Muslim regimes have done there for nearly 700 years – such a long list of genocide, torture, murder, rape and abduction is not easily forgotten, in fact never forgotten. Moreover the record of Christianity is not completely untainted either – you can start with the records of the Portuguese and the Dutch who rampaged the eastern Indian coast as well as the west in the name of spreading “light”.

[...] (the West also)  as it’s world goal. Any non-Muslim who denies this proven fact (over and over and over and over)  will get us ALL in deep hot boiling water, but we MUST stand up for our [...]

I am a Hindu from Nepal. My ancestors migrated to Nepal 800 years ago from Rajasthan following the Islamic invasions of India during the 1200s. It saddens me to see that the cradle of the great Vedic and Hindu civilization being slowly eroded over time due to the pacifist, secular and liberal nature of the majority Hindus.

Pre partition, Muslims were a mere 7% of India and now even after granting the Muslims their own states in Pakistan and Bangladesh, the Muslims have grown to 18% of the total population of India. I fear that in due course of time, India will cease to be a majority Hindu nation. I would have no problem with Muslims being a majority if Islam gave other religions the kind of “affirmative action” protection that Muslims in India enjoy in a majority Hindu nation. However that will not be the case. Once India will be a majority Muslim nation, I fear that we will again witness a wholesale mass conversion of the remaining Hindus in India. It is all the more alarming that Indians don’t seem to care that in due course of time, whether through out-breeding or pacifism, their civilization that promoted so much philosophical discourse and natural sciences (prerequisites of success) will be replaced by a barbarian Wahabbi brand of medieval desert ideology that stifles all progressive, peaceful and liberal ideas.

The founder of my nation King Prithivi Narayan Shah had remarked in the process of unification of Nepal that he was building the “sakkal Hindustan” i.e. the truly pure land of the Hindus, unlike “Muglaan—ie the land of the Mughals.” Now the Maoists along with the backing of the UPA government have declared Nepal a secular state. I would have no problems with that because as a tolerant Hindu I feel that all religions have the right to exist IF they respect other religions and civilizations right to exist. But I fear it a part of the gradual and systematic decline of Hinduism in the Indian subcontinent proper including the last bastions of Hinduism like Nepal. It has been said that along the Nepalese border, there are countless Madrassas all funded with Middle Eastern oil money that preach an ideology of hate against Kaffir Hindus. This is the second phase in the total conversion of South Asia to Islam…and it looks increasingly inevitable.

The way these so called righteous Islamic Supporters type, the diction, the grammar and the manner in which they frame their sentences…is really sad. Just shows what a madrassa education does to you. Anyway I am much too cynical to care about religion but I would like to answer “why hindu r not reading Geeta”, unlike Islam and Christianity, our religion is not about reading dogmatic 7th century rules out of books, it is the adaptability and flexibility of our religion which allows us to practice it as we chose, as it pleases our hearts. We shall not be eternally condemned to hell for every single little thing we do in life nor are we going to receive 72 virgins, [or 92 idk] for killing people in the name of religion directed by the instructions of a book. The karma we do in a lifetime decides our fate, not how many times we pray or recite some phrases.

You make a great point…I have been thinking about this a lot too.

Nonetheless, remember Indians have been extremely resistant to change. Although there has been influence thrown upon us through past conquerors but at the end of the day they stick with their original morals and values…

dikgaj, your replies to the Sabature fellow were simply stupendous. Not to mention being full of wit and humor. This Sabature guy is a very good example of descendants of forcefully converted non-Muslims, who are in complete denial of how they came to be Muslims and instead try and sweep that under a veneer of idiotic nonsense, which only serves to blow the trumpet of their own stupidity, and fanatical ideological leanings. Maybe in a way, its their human conscience which deep down knows that the way Islam spread, and the way they came to be Muslims goes against any order of ethics, morals, or compassion. And so, their subconscious guilt and shame propels them to use subterfuge and legerdemain to try and subvert that truth. Nevertheless, my heartfelt thanks and warm wishes to you on this great blog. Satyameva Jayate!

Just looking at present day Muslims, it is almost impossible to believe that Islam spread peacefully in India.

Every day, I see Muslims threatening and engaging in violence and terror (against civilians) to send their message. In Pakistan, 80 percent believe that anyone leaving Islam should be put to death…

This is not voluntary, but forced religion.

I am horrified by your statement “in spite of the fact that there has been no records of trauma by the victims of caste repression in the period”. Basing of caste system on birth is the worst thing that happened to Indian society.

And for your other parts,I suggest you read the actual Chachnama from the source, instead of Elliot or Andrew Wink’s version. Conquests by Arabs were not pretty but you do know that Dahir married his own sister right? Even the Brahmin priests didn’t want him to be king anymore. That’s all in the Chanchnama.

Also check out this link by Dalai lama’s aide and about Islam
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/x/nav/n.html_1867868580.html

I don’t know if you will publish my comment but atleast you will read this and understand

You may be horrified. But the problem is a cold historical argument. The standard argument to deny Islamic atrocities is that those whom they are supposed to have murdered or enslaved have left little or no contemporary records of their “trauma”. Because we have not been able to view such records, the demand is that we must take all claims of such repression from Islamic authors as propaganda and false claims of self-glorification.

My argument was simply that, exactly the same logic could be applied to the claims of “caste based repression” in historical times. There are simply no contemporary records from the “victim” side.

There are quite a few studies, carefully kept out of public gaze, which find that a lot of these caste stuff was constructed or redefined by the British when they tried to reform and codify “colonial” law. Former mutual dependency relations were transformed into debt-bondage and slavery relations.

I do not need to read translations. I have read the whole of Chachnama as available in the original. The Eliott and Dowson translation is quite literal and authentic within limitations of English translation.

Have you thought carefully about what you are saying? That because Dahir apparently married his sister it was justified on the part of Qasim to enslave all the young women he could capture? Because of Dahir’s “crime” large scale massacres and conversion of Hindus or Buddhists (Samanis) were justified? The capture and enslavement of their women were justified?

What the Dalai Lamas aide says is irrelevant for the topic of discussion. The Tibetans were engaged in a tri-partite struggle between the then independent Hindu kingdom of Kashmir, Tibet and China against Islamic expansion in the latter part of the 1st millenium. This was a violent military one, and by no means a oh-so-peaceful-philosophical struggle.

Excellent Blog…I am going to refer this in the Facebook group Hinduism 2, where in A liar’s Zakir Naik’s lie is quoted for a debate on Hinduism…Very Very Nice blog.

refutal to foolish Sabature

Kalki avatar will be of KRISHNA
not a terrorist MUHAMMAD.
He will wear a TILAKA on his forehead
His father’s name will be VISHNUYASH
pedophile muhammad’s father’s name was not
He will be born in INDIA not in ugly MUHAMMAD’s country ARABIA
He will be Son of BRAHMAN
terrorist MUHAMMAD was not a brahman nor his father was in fact he might not be having an idea about his real father

When do we expect coming of Bhagavan Kalki… an Avatar of present era… a messiah competent to uplift Dharma (righteousness)! In times of strife… when mutual trust amongst each other reaches its lowest ebb… coming of a messiah (Avatar) gets necessitated! Even man gods like Mahavira, Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ or Prophet Mohammed fail in such circumstances!

Who shall be Bhagavan Kalki is the biggest question! Coming of a man god coupled with powers of Chanakya (most able administrator in history of mankind) is only solution! Humanity looks forward to such a one… an ordinary mortal that against all odds upholds Dharma (righteousness) and succeeds in re-establishing peace tranquility abound!

I have read up on your previous articles with interest. They are intriguing but the timelines appear to be continuously postponed. Do you plan to to justify some updating? There are so many Kalki claimants now. But none of them show the political and military charactersitics common to almost all the avatars. Looking forward to your insights. Regards.

Dikgaj… the reasons are apparent which most human beings on mother earth failed to realize! The awaited Kalki Avatar is one-man army… a lone crusader in journey of life… a Chanakya of modern era! Everyone keeps waiting for Bhagavan Kalki to come but none desires doing anything in this regard! Whatever the destiny of mankind… precipitates from mass karma of mankind!

Bhagwan Kalki must be having a family… some liabilities of physical manifest world that needs to be taken care of as daily routines of life! In the circumstances it is quite possible that things keep delaying for one reason or another! This one-man army… the lone crusader would manifest power the moment a swarm of dedicated people never fearing death followed him religiously!

“Historians know that Islam spread by the pen and not by conquering.”

What a bunch of crap – you are committing a terrible injustice to all those victims of Islam.

Absolutely disgusting – but not unexpected from the cult of enslavement, death and LIES.

wao…. I am zapped. Every day we see Bombs and sucide bombers and all in the name of islam.. why cant the bombers and islamic terrorist use the method of Gandhi or Pen now.. or it was the case 1400 years ago also..??

we do not islam in india ,this will take india in others hands.it is a pure political movement to save arab dominations.

That we will see .. when you will take india tell me… before that you will have to cross million dead bodies and that too of islamic brothers…
So when the time comes i will also be standing against you with a GUN in hand.. So when the Gazawa i hind start tell me.. i will be on your opposite side..LOL

1400 Years you tried and now the whole world is aginst you .You dont get the message.Check internet evey body is himulating Muhamamd and Quran.How many Fatwas you are going to issue to kill..How many ..Now every tom dick and harry say’s muhamamd was a killer and a rapist and a thug and he had sex with a 9 year old girl who he married when he was 52 years old..

India, like most countries, is suffering under the scourge of Islam. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan & Iran should be forced to pay India and other countries for the death & destruction their exported terror has causes.

I agreed with Dikgaj…
Islam is the only religion that teach violence, hatred to all people who are different from them.
A fascist religion, a false prophet with an epileptic seizure attack.
Just see the follower: Osama bin Ladin, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Mindanao in Philipine, Malay in Malaysia and Indonesia, Moslem in Pattani, Yala and Naratiwat… Any moslem able to show otherwise?

Some one misguiding people about Kalki avatar with a person like Mohamad is ridiculous. For that person I wish to tell is as per Hinduism Kalki will be born in Orissa which is in Indian East coast and nowhere near Arabia! And as per Hinduism there is still lot of time for Kalki to come. So please stop this nonsense comparing someone like Mohamad with Kalki.

Very good site and carry on your good work.

Well, the Muslim and peace are contradictory things. Islam does talks about peace but among the followers of Islam only. against the kafirs, there is continues hatred. Well, Islam tried its best to destroy India and the victories they won was through fraud, just in the same manner, Muhammad won the battle of Mecca.Islam should be hated but the Hindu seculars should be hated more. The hindus got a golden penalty in 1947 to simply destroy Islam from sub continent. They failed. This prooved the disunity among hindus and the anti India feelings of Seculars. If the traditionalis and moral police is a group of sick people who want to push india 500 years back, The seculars are inferiority complex ridden self hating Indians who hate everything Indian and love the idea of India losing everything. This is the sickest morality a person can have.

i dare dikjag to admit islam commited more atrocities than hinduism in india.

No problem : you do your bit first. List out the atrocities you think “Hinduism” did with concrete references.

Your id says “Yadav”. If it is genuine, (since many Islamists, Jihadis, or certain extreme Evangelists take up “Hindu” ids to make it appear as if the “Hindus” themselves are critical of “Hinduism”), then it would be interesting to start out with the known atrocities that “Yadavs” have committed.

Then will come actual estimates and relative comparisons.

Spare me any “Dalit” or “Muslim-Dalit alliance” propaganda from the likes of Yoginder Sikand. Dalit is not the name of any caste, and cannot be found in any so-called “Brahminical texts” of the supposedly “repressive Hindus”. As you must well be knowing that “Dalit” is a term coined in the modern period deliberately in an abstract sense to get political mobilization for power.

If actual “backward castes” names were used then it would have exposed the internal conflicts and mutual claims of hierarchy even within that pool of “repressed classes”. Moreover, individual caste names could have exposed that they were not necessarily “repressed” in the near or distant past.

Dikgaj ji,could you give a list of references wherein the first encounters of the Hindu kings of Kabul/Zabul with the Islamic hordes are described?

TIA

seems that muslims are the root problem since the ol times……first they used to go around killing n converting people….now days they go around bombing everyone….u guys can say that islam stands for peace n kindness….its all bullshit….islam has rules which keep women suppressed….as clearly stated by the author they put gre8 importance for viginity of women n all….sad part is muslims who actually thing everyother religion is messed up apart from theirs….this author is obviously a hindu and i totally agree with his stand….
other so called muslim scholars should understand this that it wasnt hindus who went around tryin to fuck muslims…but the other way around…those loosers(middleeastern arabs) from desert came to the subcontinent in search of greener pastures(pun intended)…….

P.S. BOTTOMLINE: muslims tried to fuck around
with evry1 for the last 1000
yrs…now they will get
fucked bigtime….its called
KARMA get used to it….
P.P.S. was recently in delhi….saw
the qutub minar n other typical tourist stuff….however at one of the mosques i saw some carvings generally seen at a indian temple…was shocked…seems moughuls had actually converted many of the temples to mosques….hows that for peace “muslim brothers”….

I agree. The facts are so obvious that Islam is an intolerant and violent cult, for all to see. An apple tree fruit is apples. Islam’s fruit is death and suffering. In truth a satanic cult.

[...] Any non-Muslim who denies this proven fact (over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over) is part of our problem.   We MUST stand up for our freedoms before we lose them [...]

the other name of terrorism is islam nobody going to beleive them.from where did they want freedom every non muslim persons want some space from these terrorists.jab thak suraj chand rahega islam means terrorists hoga. so stop asking freedom. because we want freedom from these terrorists.bye terrorists,terrorists,terrorists and soon

Good article. I have bookmarked it.
Can’t finish it in one sitting.
Will come latter.
Thanks for the hard work you are putting in.

HOW HINDUS SURVIVED ISLAM IN INDIA: Muslims often claim that the existence of so many Hindus in India is a proof that Islam was not imposed by force in India. How come so many Hindus exist in India ? Let me explain this. Although Muslims theoretically ruled India for over eleven centuries, they hardly ever managed to secure a complete hold over the entire country. During the first three centuries after Qasim’s invasion in 712, Muslim rule remained confined to a tiny Northwest area of vast India. The fact that a huge majority of the population in those parts are now Muslims proves that Muslim rulers could impose Islam more effectively in areas, where they had strong political power over a longer period of time. Only under Akbar, most parts of India came under the sway of Muslim rule. But then, Akbar was an apostate of Islam and did not help the cause of spreading Islam. Following Akbar, his son Jahangir and grandson Shahjahan did not pursue the policy of Islamization of India. Even during the period of most firmly established Mughal rule of Akbar and Jahangir, their influence across the country remained rather fragile. Jahangir wrote in his memoir, Tarikh-i-Salim Shahi, that “the number of turbulent and disaffected never seems to diminish; for what with the examples made during the reign of my father, and subsequently of my own, …there is scarcely a province in the empire in which, in one quarter or the other, some accursed miscreant will not spring up to unfurl the standard of rebellion;so that in Hindustan never has there existed a period of complete repose”. When Akbar’s grandson Aurangzeb captured power, Islamization and forced conversion became the focus of the state. But during his reign, revolts were taking place in all corners of the kingdom. According to Bernier, during Aurangzeb’s brutal reign, the powerful and defiant Rajput and Maratha princes used to enter the courtyard of his palace always mounted on their horses, well-armed and well-attended by their men. When Aurangzeb banned non-Muslims from carrying weapons in conformity with the Pact of Omar and Sharia laws, the defiant and dangerous Rajputs had to be exempted. Hindu rebels like Shivaji and Rana Raj Singh protested Aurungzeb’s re-imposition of jizyah. When his officers (amin) went to collect jizyah, one of them was killed and another was humiliated by Hindus pulling by his beard and hair before sending back empty-handed. Summarizing the Hindu defiance, notes Dirk H. Kolf, “millions of armed men, cultivators or otherwise, were its (government’s) rivals rather than subjects”. According to Badaoni of Akbar’s court, Hindus often warded off attacks of Muslim army from their jungle hideouts. These examples would give one sufficient idea about how some 80 percent of the population of the subcontinental India remained non-Muslims after so many centuries of Islamic rule.

KHARAJ: ISLAMIC TAX FOR FORCED CONVERSION: Most muslims foolishly believe that Islam has spread by peaceful means even though the historical evidence and teachings of Islam suggest otherwise. One of the methods of forced conversions used by Islam is imposing Kharaj tax on non-muslims. When Sultan Alauddin Khilji sought advice from learned scholar Qazi Mughisuddin regarding the collection of kharaj (land-tax), the Qazi prescribed a demeaning and oppresive protocol, “Should the collector choose to spit into Kafir’s mouth, he opens it. The purpose of this extreme humility on his part and the collector’s spitting into his mouth, is to show the extreme subservience incumbent on this class, the glory of Islam and the orthodox faith, and the degradation of the false religion (Hinduism) [Lal KS 1999, Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India, p. 116]. During the reign of Sultan Alauddin Khilji (1296–1316), the peasants had literally become bonded slaves of the government, since up to 50–75
percent of the produce was taken away in taxes, mainly as kharaj. Even during the reign of Akbar, kharaj was fixed at “one-third, but in reality it came to two-thirds” of the agricultural produce in Kashmir. In Gujarat, the peasants had to hand over three quarters of the produce in around 1629 in the reign of Emperor Shahjahan………..The Hindus could relieve themselves from all these economic burdens, sufferings and humiliation just by reciting the Islamic profession of faith — the Shahada. This coercive incentive for conversion seemed to have worked brilliantly as testified by Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq (r. 1351–88) in his memoir Fatuhat-i-Firoz Shahi: “I encouraged my infidel subjects to embrace the religion of the prophet, and I proclaimed that every one who repeated the creed and became a Musalman should be exempted from the jizyah,or poll-tax. Information of this came to the ears of the people at large, and great numbers of Hindus presented themselves and were admitted to the honor of Islam. Thus they came forward day by day from every quarter, and, adopting the faith, were exonerated from the jizyah, and were favored with presents and honor” [Elliot & Dawson, The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians, Vol. III, p. 386]. It is clear from history that Islam spread by oppressive and coercive means and NOT due to its teachings.

ISLAM DESTROYED BUDDHISM IN INDIA: Who destroyed Buddhism in India ? Muslims and Christians have created a propaganda that Hinduism destroyed Buddhism in India. The truth however, is that it is ISLAM which destroyed Buddhism in India. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a convert to Buddhism, Dalit icon and the chief architect of the Indian Constitution reveals this evil truth about Islam. He writes “Islam came out as the enemy of the ‘But’. The word ‘But’ as everybody knows, is the Arabic word and means an idol. Thus the origin of the word indicates that in the Moslem mind idol worship had come to be identified with the Religion of the Buddha. To the Muslims, they were one and the same thing. The mission to break the idols thus became the mission to destroy Buddhism. Islam destroyed Buddhism not only in India but wherever it went. Before Islam came into being Buddhism was the religion of Bactria, Parthia, Afghanistan, Gandhar, and Chinese Turkestan, as it was of the whole of Asia…….. The Mussalman invaders sacked the Buddhist universities of Nalanda,Vikramshila, Jagaddala, Odantapuri to name only a few. How the Buddhist priesthood perished by the sword of the Muslim invaders has been recorded by the Muslim historians themselves….Such was the slaughter of the Buddhist priesthood perpetrated by the Islamic invaders. The axe was struck at the very root. For by killing the Buddhist priesthood, Islam killed Buddhism. This was the greatest disaster that befell the religion of the Buddha in India”. [Ambedkar BR (1990) Writings and Speeches: Pakistan or The Partition of India, Government of Maharashtra, Vol. III, p. 229–38]……….. The reason why Islamic armies overran the Buddhists so easily is that Buddha did not allow Buddhists to keep any army. This is also the reason why Buddhism was wiped out from Afghanistan and north west India (currently Pakistan) by Islamic invaders. Hindus consider Buddha as one of the avatars of Hinduism. The Chakra (wheel) in the Indian national flag is actually a Buddhist symbol. Buddhism is part of the rich cultural heritage of India.

FORCED CONVERSION BY SUFIS IN GUJARAT: Muslims have created a beautiful propaganda about Sufi saints, who are often portrayed as loving, kind hearted and spiritual. However, historical evidence suggests that almost all Sufis had a Jihadi mindset. They were hateful to Hindus and played an important role their forced conversion to Islam. Let us see how they forcefully converted Hindus to Islam in Gujarat. Ferishtah records, “Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq (r. 1351–88) had appointed Furhut-ul-Mulk as the governor of Gujarat. Undertaking tolerant policies toward Hindus, Furhut-ul-Mulk “encouraged the Hindu religion, and thus rather promoted than suppressed the worship of idols. As usual, this caused revulsion among ‘the learned (Sufis) and orthodox (Ulema) Mahomedans of Guzerat,fearing lest this conduct should be the means of eventually superseding the true faith (Islam) in those parts. They addressed the Delhi Sultan explaining the liberal Muslim governor’s political views and the danger (it posed) to the true faith, if he were permitted to retain his government. After receiving the complaint, Sultan Firoz Shah convened a meeting of the holy men (Sufi saints) at Dehly and in conjunction with them appointed Moozuffur Khan as the viceroy of Gujarat” [Ferishtah, Vol. IV, p.1]. Moozuffur Khan unleashed brutal terror against Hindus, including their forced conversion and general destruction of their temples. “In 1395, He proceeded to Somnath, where having destroyed all the Hindoo temples which he found standing; he built mosques in their stead and left the learned men (Sufis) for the propagation of the faith and his officers to govern the country” [Ferishtah, Vol. IV, p.1]. This example proves that the Sufis were generally intolerant of any tolerance certain kind-hearted and liberal Muslim rulers accorded to non-Muslims. It is anybody’s guess how did the Sufis, left behind by Moozuffur Khan in Somnath, propagate Islam among the terror-stricken Hindus after all their temples had been destroyed ?. By persecution naturally!!. Sufi saints have been the biggest persecutor of Hindus from Gujarat to Kashmir to Bangladesh. The Muslim claim of peaceful propagation of Islam by Sufi saints is nothing but a BIG PROPAGANDA.

HINDU CONVERSION TO ISLAM IN KASHMIR: There is more than enough historical evidence that Hindus in Kashmir were converted to Islam through brutal and violent means by Islamic rulers. Ferishtah records, In the reign of Sikandar Butshikun (1389–1413), he issued an order “proscribing the residence of any other than Mahomedans in Kashmeer; and he required that no man should wear the mark on his forehead (as worn by Hindus)… Lastly, he insisted on all golden and silver images (idols) being broken and melted down, and the metal coined into money. Many of the bramins (Brahmins), rather than abandon their religion or their country, poisoned themselves; some emigrated from their native homes, while a few escaped the evil of banishment by becoming Mahomedans. After the emigration of the brahmins, Sikundur (Sikandar) ordered all the temples in Kashmeer to be thrown down… Having broken all the images in Kashmeer, he acquired the title of the Iconoclast, Destroyer of Idols. Succeeding the Iconoclast, his son Ameer Khan continued the butchery of remaining Hindus. They persecuted the few brahmins who still remained firm in their religion;and by putting all to death, who refused to embrace Mahomedism. He drove those who still lingered in Kashmeer entirely out of that kingdom”. Baharistan-i-Shahi records “In Kashmir, Hinduism had been stamped out in the reign of Sultan Sikandar the Iconoclast, through their mass-conversion by the sword and wholesale destruction of Hindu temples. Sultan Sikandar (r. 1389–1413) was constantly busy in annihilating the infidels and destroyed most of the temples. Aurangzeb converted the pundits of Kashmir en masse by force. The aggrieved pundits came to Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur Singh of Punjab for help. When the Guru went to the court of Aurangzeb to enquire about the unlawful conversion of Kashmiris, he was imprisoned and tortured at length for weeks demanding his own conversion. He (also two of his disciples) was ultimately beheaded. It appears that until the time of Aurangzeb, Hindus were still a substantial, if not dominant, part of the population in Kashmir. The spadework of Aurangzeb has transformed the beautiful Himalayan Queen state of India into an overwhelmingly Muslim-dominated one, and the most fanatic one, too. After knowing this when I hear from muslims that Islam has spread by peace in India, I FEEL LIKE GIVING THEM A TIGHT SLAP………

MUHAMMAD COMMITED THE FIRST HOLOCAUST OF JEWS: Many people think that ONLY Hitler committed the holocaust of Jews. However, few people know that the first holocaust of Jews was committed by Muhammad. Let us explore this evil act of Muhammad. After surviving the battle of Ditch, Muhammed accused the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe of assisting the Meccans, accused them of spying and breaking treaty (which never existed) and attacked them. The Jews surrendered and offered to go to exile. However, Muhammad rejected the proposal; instead, he decided to slaughter all their adult males, some 800 to 900 of them. A trench was dug at the market-place; and in Muhammad’s presence, those 800–900 captives were brought to the brink of the trench with their hands tied behind and were beheaded with swords before pushing the dismembered bodies into it. Muhammad himself chopped off the heads of two Jewish leaders. The spectacle went on from morning through the day and continued by torchlight into the night. This cruel massacre can obviously be called the First Holocaust of the Jews. The Jewish women and children were captured as slaves and their homes and properties were as usual confiscated and distributed amongst Muslims. Muhammed got 20% of the booty and took a beautiful Jewish women named Rayhana, as his own concubine. He took her to bed on the same night after slaughtering the men. Some of the women were sold overseas for acquiring weapons and horses for using in future battles of which records Ibn Ishaq: “Then the apostle sent Sa’d b.Zayd al-Ansari… with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons” [Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, (translation A Guillaume), Oxford University Press, Karachi, 2004 imprint, p. 465]. After knowing this, can any person even in his dreams believe that such a barbaric and inhumane man like Muhammed can be a prophet of God ? But ask a muslims he will justify even this evil act of Muhammed. Muhammed was actually a Jihadi terrorist who murdered everybody who refused to convert to Islam. Muhammed is the role model for all the Islamic terrorists that have existed since the 7th century.

LIST OF WARS FOUGHT BY MOHAMMED AND HIS CALIPHS: Mohammed fought 70-100 wars in the last 10 years of his life to impose Islam over non-muslims by force. I am listing the major expeditions and battles (year in bracket), which the Prophet had directed or commanded in person: battle of Waddan (623); battle of Safwan (623); battle of Dul-Ashir (623); battle of Nakhla (624); battle of Badr (624); battle of Banu Salim (624); battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr (624); battle of Banu Qaynuqa (624); battle of Sawiq (624);battle of Ghatfan(624); battle of Bahran (624); battle of Ohud (625); battle of Humra-ul-Asad (625); battle of Banu Nadir (625); battle of Dhatur-Riqa (625); battle of Badru-Ukhra (626); battle of Dumatul-Jandal (626); battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah (626); battle of the Trench (627); battle of Ahzab (627); battle of Banu Qurayza (627); battle of Banu Lahyan (627); battle of Ghaiba (627); battle of Khaybar (627); Campaign to Hudaybiya (628); Conquest of Mecca (630); battle of Hunsin (630); battle of Tabuk (630). ….AFTER MUHAMMED’S DEATH IN 632, ABU BAKR THE FIRST CALIPH FOUGHT THE FOLLOWING WARS: battles at Oman, Hadramaut, Kazima, Walaja, Ulleis, and Anbar (633); battles of Basra, Damascus and Ajnadin (634)….AFTER ABU BAKR’S DEATH in 634, THE NEXT CALIPH OMAR FOUGHT THE FOLLOWING battles: battles of Namaraq and Saqatia (634); battles of Bridge, Buwaib, Damascus and Fahl (635); battles of Yermuk (636), Qadisiyia and Madain (636); battle of Jalula (637); battle of Yarmuk, conquest of Jerusalem and Jazirah (638); Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt (639); battle of Nihawand (641); battle of Ray in Persia (642); Conquest of Azerbaijan (643); Conquest of Fars and Kharan (644)…..MUAWIYAH, THE RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPH FOUGHT THE FOLLOWING WARS: Egypt falls to Islamic rule (662); Sicily attacked by Muslims (666); Siege of Constantinople (677); battle of Kufa (687); battle of Deir ul Jaliq (691); Military campaigns in North Africa (700); battle of Deir ul Jamira (702); Invasion of Gibraltar and conquest of Spain (711); Conquest of Sindh (712); Conquest of Multan (713); Invasion of Constantinople (716); battle of Tours in France (732); battle of the Nobles (740). battle of Bagdoura in North Africa (741); battle of Ain al Jurr (744); battle of Rupar Thutha (746); battle of Rayy (748); battle of lsfahan and Nihawand (749); battle of Zab (750); battle of Janbi in North Africa (772); battle of Saragossa in Spain (777). DESPITE THE LONG LIST OF BL00DY WARS FOUGHT BY MUHAMMED AND HIS CALIPHS TO SPREAD ISLAM MUSLIMS ARE ABLE TO ARGUE THAT ISLAM SPREAD BY PEACE IN THE WORLD. TOTAL NONESENSE AND TAQIYYA LIE.

ISLAM HAS SURVIVED BECAUSE IT KILLS APOSTATES: Anybody who reads the Quran and Hadiths will be bewildered how Islam, a religion of murder, violence and terrorism with no substance in it, has managed to grow and survive for the last 1400 years. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned cleric of Islamic brotherhood in Egypt provides an honest answer. He says that Islam has survived after the death of Mohammed because it kills the apostates of Islam. Please watch this youtube video for proof. ..youtube(dot)com/watch?v=huMu8ihDlVA………Muslims who are still not convinced should watch this video by Zakir Naik, the most famous and authoritative Islamic scholar in India…youtube(dot)com/watch?v=JRl5c-xPVA0……..Zakir Naik clearly says that apostates of Islam should be killed. After the death of Mohammed, there was large scale apostasy from Islam and forced converts were happy to hear that the tyrant Mohammed is dead. However, their happiness was short lived as Abu Bakr, the caliph fought bloody wars against the apostates and restored Islam again at the point of the sword. Those battles are known in the history of Islam as the Ridda wars (Ridda, in Arabic, means apostasy). Despite the irrefutable historical proof, the interpretations of most famous Islamic scholars and references in Hadiths, muslims are able to argue that Islam is a religion of peace and it spread by the beauty of its message. THIS IS HEIGHT OF LYING AND DECEPTION…………Replace (dot) with “.” in the youtube video link given in my post to watch the videos.

started with false supposition” no evidences of caste suppression ” . Read Manu Smriti – which established the societal order in which ‘ chaturvarna’ includes four castes, and outside this chaturvarna ‘ untouchables’? who were they? untouchablility was /is a prominent feature of Hindu society, and is this not an strong evidence of caste suppression? Kindly, donot spread myths of golden past. It was golden for who benefited, and brutal who exploited. this is reality and some make propaganda to hide it by telling only lies.

Manu Smriti is just one among at least 6 major law texts, like Apastambha/Baudhayana/Gautama etc. How many of these other texts talk of “untouchability” or “required caste repression”? Does Arthasastra, being a major competing Hindu law-text, also support your claim of “untouchability”? Apastambha was extensively followed in large parts of central and southern India. Have you read it in the original? Have you read even Manu in the original? Or the blatant copies of lies of copies of lies of English translations commissioned in the early days of British imperial so-called legal reform of Indian laws when in spite of protests by many Indian “pundits” and yes “Brahminical” scholars, Manu was given preeminence since a certain William Jones found it ideal for projection of British Anglican Christian supposed civilizational superiority?

I typically find, ironically, that the Indian “forward” caste, mostly Brahmin intellectuals under early Brit administration – who specially lobbied for and touted Manu as the sole and supreme Hindu law text – also spawned the current crop of jargon-vomiting pseudo-secular pretenders from the same “forward castes” ranting against texts without even reading them in the original. Or as so-called eminent historians ususally do – mistranslate, and slyly invent phrases/words/translations that do not exist in the original -as the historian DNJha was often caught out doing.

Okay since you know so much on Manu Smriti, can you please quote the exact Sanskrit verses which you think defines and outlines “untouchability” and how Many dictates specifically on “caste based repression”.

While you are at it, I would like you to confirm if you think – similar injunctions were not found in Christian canon laws/dictums/letters/orders/bulls of medieval period, as well as contemporary Islamic practice as seen in their law texts.

Since you are so knowledgeable about this area – surely you will neither have any problems to quote the Sanskrit references as well as comparative references or statements that similar or worse do not occur in a historical context in Christianity and Islam.

sharat, why are you bringing in “caste based” repression which is a separate discussion and not the focus of this thread? Do you have anything to dispute the reality of Islamic incursions in India, or you are simply angry at exposure of the real face of Islam, and hence want to divert the discussion?

Anyway, quite sick of the lying and mistranslations and quoting of quotes of people who heard something from unverifiable sources – usually indulged in by Islamophile leftist or pseudo-seculars.

For example, tracing the so-called myth of Aurangzeb destroying the Kashi shiva temple on the pretext of doing justice to a “rani” or queen of a Hindu feudatory, who was allegedly molested within the temple premises. Now there is no specific Aurnagzeb firman or letter or Islamic chorniclers or court historians who refer to this. So how was the story born? Pattavi Sitharamaya, the darling of the Nehru-Gandhis for a while, and the frontal face of Gandhian opposition to Subhas Chandra Bose – first started this myth. He claimed to have heard it from a friend who knew a “maulana” who had told this friend of the anecdote, and apparently promised to show proof – but “died” before he could produce the proof.

Without any verifiable proof/textual or otherwise – which for any other claim that harmed Islamic interests – would have been ridiculed to trash by “eminent historians”, however this particular myth was weaved into the supposed reality of Mughal “tolerance”. I have myself heard it from so-called “eminent historians” passing it on as apparent real history – or shouted about from public rally leftist speakers.

You belong to this brigade of liars and fabricators of myths to protect Islamic images?


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 85 other followers

%d bloggers like this: