Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 243

Thread: Foreign Invasions on India in Medieval Times - Causes, Events and their Impact

  1. #1

    Foreign Invasions on India in Medieval Times - Causes, Events and their Impact

    In the post Harshavardhana Era the regional forces asserted their authority in Northern and Southern India and their remained even no semblance of central authority to hold all parts of India together. In northern India there arose several independent big and small kingdoms during the next centuries who carried on relentless wars against one another to establish their hold on larger territories than they had captured. Their mutual fight led to further rise of petty kingdoms. Thus a sense of uncertainty on political scene of Indian political landscape resulted in emergence of chaotic political situation in most parts of the country.

    In the neighbouring region of Arabia and Iran the Islamic hold was on the increase and their religious and political leadership was established in the hands of Caliph/Khalifa. The Islamic armies carried out unbelievable successful attacks in various parts of Asia, Africa and even in Europe.

    In view of weak political power of Indian rulers, invasions of these Islamist forces started with invasion of Sindh by Mohd Qasim in 712 AD but their magnitude and frequency increased with the foundation of Ghaznavid kingdom in Afghanistan. Their initial success in these invasions swelled their number of army men as people from several parts of the central Asia and Arab countries joined them ostensibly to have share in war booty. After Ghaznavis appeared Mohd Ghori who not only took booty from India but also founded a kingdom here which after his death was known as Sultanate. The Sultanate founded by Qutubuddin Aibek lasted till the advent of Mughals under Babur in 1526.

    To know the causes, events and their impact of these invasions and to assess the reasons of the failure of Indians of those times, the thread invites well reasoned write ups supported by contemporary sources. Only relevant comments may be shared by the participants.

    Kindly remember we are going to discuss a long time historic process which is a very wide field of study having deep impact on the growth of India as a nation with unity of diversity and diversity in unity. It must not be forgotten that the fight was between mostly the ruling elite heads which incidentally professed Hinduism and Islam. The fight was for retaining the hold by the former and the latter were engaged in snatching it and this they did !

    How, why and with what results are the broad issues of those times [it must not be coloured with modern or contemporary issues or events or comparisons between the two religions, please] to be taken up for in-depth study through discussion.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    lrburdak (September 18th, 2014), RKhatkar (September 21st, 2014), sukhbirhooda (September 22nd, 2014)

  3. #2
    The initial interaction between Hindu India started in peaceful manner in the southern India and with armed conflict between the two sides in the Northern India.

    India came into contact with the Arab world in remote ancient times through sea traders, the interaction between the two continued to grow at the same time between the cultures of the two. The people of the region on the seashore area of Arabian Sea having rich production of spices attracted the first interaction between the people of Arab who had adopted Islam and the local people of India. This relationship between them was pacific acceptance of the good points of one another.

    On the other end, the people of northern India came into contact in a big way when Mohd bin Qasim led people came to India with the Islamic forces having sword and spears in their hands in 712 AD. A section of the divided local people of Sindh joined the invaders to get rid of the tyranny of and prosecution by the ruler.
    This event led to a fierce fight between the inflated in numbers of joining Indians with the forces of Khalifa led by his nephew Qasim and Raja Dahir in which the latter was worsted in the battle. The victor retired to his native country along with a considerable number of Indians with him. This led to continued relationship between the people of Sindh and the state founded by the Khalifa. A few people started professing Islam in Sindh and thus started growth of pockets of alien land borne followers.

    Important point here to note is that victory of the foreign raiders was ensured by a group of Indians joining hands with them. Why did they do so, is a big question. It was neither attraction to new faith/religion nor hate to the prevalent religion. Then why did they do so !
    The answer is wrongs done to them by the ruling elite on the basis of faulty social system current in that area complled them to do so. There was no fight between Hindus or Muslims alone on either side. Hindus had joined hands with the invading armies to get deliverance from their tyrant king Raja Dahir and this they did with the help of Qasim.


    After this incident there continued lull on the political front but trade and commerce and social interaction continued to flourish for next about one and a half century till Ghaznavis appeared as rulers at Ghazni.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  4. #3
    Comments and contribution of the participants are invited to take forward the theme of study in accordance with the timeline/chronological order.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  5. #4
    Subuktgin, the ruler of Ghazni carried out raids on some parts of India in tenth century AD and a number of people professing Islam who had joined in his army started to live in the areas raided by him. Then came on the scene M. Ghaznavi, who carried out sword and fire to get as much booty as possible from wherever he could lay his hands including Hindu Temples. These hindu religious shrines were ill protected and fell easy prey to the invaders and starting from loot of Jawalamukhi temple near Kangra increased the frequency and fury of the invading armies culminating in their loot of Somnath temple near the banks of Arabian sea in 1025 AD.

    During the return journey, the Ghaznavis faced the attack of Jats who carried away much of the wealth which the invaders were taking away to Ghanavi. This encouraged M.Ghaznavi to aim his last invasion against the Jats. The Jats gave a befitting reply to him and in the fight he was wounded. The wound proved fatal for him as he could never recover from its effects and he passed away leaving behind enormous wealth collected during his several raids of northern India.

    The study of pattern of attacks brings forth the fact that most of his invasions were targeted against on religious places like Jawalamukhi/Kangra, Thanesar, Haridwar, Mathura, Kanuaj, Somnath etc. year after year. No concrete steps seem to have been taken by the ruling elite to stop the advancing armies and to protect the wealth and people of the country being carried away by the invading hordes from Ghazni and beyond. The booty hungry people swelled the number of Ghanavi invaders each time while the resistance on the part of people of India thinned out with each successive invasion.

    Why it was so remains a big question before the inquisitive readers ! What led apathy to Indian mind : Socio-religious and cultural milieu or political culture of the time! What ????

    Here more questions arise, what the then ruling kings and elite were doing at the time of invasions; and what prevented the rulers from forging a united front to stop the invaders beyond the borders of India as well as to know What was the impact of these raids on India !
    Last edited by DrRajpalSingh; September 26th, 2014 at 08:18 AM.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  6. #5
    Aapne upar ek jagah to likha "There was no fight between Hindus or Muslims alone on either side."

    Aur doosri jagah likah hai:
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post

    The study of pattern of attacks brings forth the fact that most of his invasions were targeted against on religious places like Jawalamukhi/Kangra, Thanesar, Haridwar, Mathura, Kanuaj, Somnath etc. year after year.
    Kya in dono baaton mein virodhabhas nahi hai? Agari chand hinduon ne aakrantaon ki madad kar bhi di to kya yeh maan lena uchit hoga ki hinduon ke khilaf zeehad nahi cheda gaya?

    Jo Khalifa thhe kya unke granth nahi kehte ki un logon ne zeehad cheda thha?

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Romar For This Useful Post:

    prashantacmet (September 29th, 2014), Prikshit (December 3rd, 2014)

  8. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Romar View Post
    Aapne upar ek jagah to likha "There was no fight between Hindus or Muslims alone on either side."

    Aur doosri jagah likah hai:


    Kya in dono baaton mein virodhabhas nahi hai? Agari chand hinduon ne aakrantaon ki madad kar bhi di to kya yeh maan lena uchit hoga ki hinduon ke khilaf zeehad nahi cheda gaya?

    Jo Khalifa thhe kya unke granth nahi kehte ki un logon ne zeehad cheda thha?
    Read again, your doubt will automatically be cleared as there is no contradiction between the two statements under refrence.

    The first comment relates to M. Qasim's invasion of Sindh when a considerable number of Indians joined hands with the invaders to punish Raja Dahir.

    The second quote relates to M. Ghaznavi's attacks on India.

    The time line between the two events separates their purpose or causes of attacks as well as pattern of fight carried out by the Indians against their attackers.

    There was no 'JEHAD' involved in either case. First was to take revenge against the loot of some ships and the second was to satisfy the lust for getting Indian wealth of a ruler of barren lands in and around Ghazni [who had no connection directly or indirectly with the Caliphs].

    The attacks on the Hindu temples were carried out not to spread Islam but to get the accumulated wealth in them.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  9. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    Read again, your doubt will automatically be cleared as there is no contradiction between the two statements under refrence.

    The first comment relates to M. Qasim's invasion of Sindh when a considerable number of Indians joined hands with the invaders to punish Raja Dahir.

    The second quote relates to M. Ghaznavi's attacks on India.

    The time line between the two events separates their purpose or causes of attacks as well as pattern of fight carried out by the Indians against their attackers.

    There was no 'JEHAD' involved in either case. First was to take revenge against the loot of some ships and the second was to satisfy the lust for getting Indian wealth of a ruler of barren lands in and around Ghazni [who had no connection directly or indirectly with the Caliphs].

    The attacks on the Hindu temples were carried out not to spread Islam but to get the accumulated wealth in them.

    What is your source for the highlighted information? It seems you are inventing the history and completely forgot your signature. Please provide reference before you write in history section. You are twisting lot of history in other history threads and there is least participation since you increased your activity in this section. Please don't twist history for the sake of getting a secular tag. Is your opinion influenced of any NCERT book?


    Please read carefully, references are also there :

    Mahmud, according to several contemporary accounts, considered himself a Ghazi who waged jihad on the Hindus. His plunder of Hindu temples and centers of learning is noted later in the article. Al-Biruni writes:
    In the interest of his successors he constructed, in order to weaken the Indian frontier, those roads on which afterwards his son Mahmud marched into India during a period of thirty years and more. God be merciful to both father and son! Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims. This is the reason, too, why Hindu sciences have retired far away from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benares, and other places. And there the antagonism between them and all foreigners receives more and more nourishment both from political and religious sources.[19]
    Various historical sources such as Martin Ewans, E.J. Brill and Farishta have recorded the introduction of Islam to Kabul and other parts of Afghanistan to the conquests of and Mahmud:
    The Arabs advanced through Sistan and conquered Sindh early in the eighth century. Elsewhere however their incursions were no more than temporary, and it was not until the rise of the Saffarid dynasty in the ninth century that the frontiers of Islam effectively reached Ghazni and Kabul. Even then a Hindu dynasty the Hindushahis, held Gandhara and eastern borders. From the tenth century onwards as Persian language and culture continued to spread into Afghanistan, the focus of power shifted to Ghazni, where a Turkish dynasty, who started by ruling the town for the Samanid dynasty of Bokhara, proceeded to create an empire in their own right. The greatest of the Ghaznavids was Muhmad who ruled between 998 and 1030. He expelled the Hindus from Gandhara, made no fewer than 17 raids into northwestern India,[20]
    He encouraged mass conversions to Islam, in India as well as in Afghanistan[20]
    Attack on 'Kafiristan':
    Another crusade against idolatry was at length resolved on; and Mahmud led the seventh one against Nardain, the then boundary of India, or the eastern part of the Hindu Kush; separating as Firishta says, the countries of Hindustan and Turkistan and remarkable for its excellent fruit. The country into which the army of Ghazni marched appears to have been the same as that now called Kafirstan, where the inhabitants were and still are, idolaters and are named the Siah-Posh, or black-vested by the Muslims of later times. In Nardain there was a temple, which the army of Ghazni destroyed; and brought from thence a stone covered with certain inscriptions, which were according to the Hindus, of great antiquity.[21]
    Massacres of Ismailis: In 965 CE, Multan was conquered by Halam b. Shayban, an Ismaili da’i. Soon after, Multan was attacked by the Ghaznavids, destabilizing the Ismaili state. Mahmud invaded Multan in 1005 CE, conducting a series of campaigns during which the Ismailis of Multan were massacred.[22]
    Destruction of Somnath Temple[edit]

    Mahmud conquered and destroyed thousands of Hindu temples during his raids including the famous Somnath Temple, which he destroyed in 1025 AD,[19] killing over 50,000 people who tried to defend it. The defenders included the 90-year-old clan leader Ghogha Rana. Mahmud had the gilded lingam broken into pieces and had them made into steps for his mosque and palace.[24][25]
    The following extract is from “Wonders of Things Created, and marvels of Things Existing” by Zakariya al-Qazwini, a 13th-century Arab geographer. It contains the description of Somnath temple and its destruction:[19]
    Somnath: celebrated city of India, situated on the shore of the sea, and washed by its waves. Among the wonders of that place was the temple in which was placed the idol called Somnath. This idol was in the middle of the temple without anything to support it from below, or to suspend it from above. It was held in the highest honor among the Hindus, and whoever beheld it floating in the air was struck with amazement, whether he was a Musulman or an infidel. The Hindus used to go on pilgrimage to it whenever there was an eclipse of the moon, and would then assemble there to the number of more than a hundred thousand.
    When the Sultan Yaminu-d Daula Mahmud Bin Subuktigin (Mahmud of Ghazni) went to wage religious war against India, he made great efforts to capture and destroy Somnath, in the hope that the Hindus would then become Muhammadans. As a result thousands of Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam. He arrived there in the middle of Zi-l k’ada, 416 A.H. (December, 1025 A.D.). “The king looked upon the idol with wonder, and gave orders for the seizing of the spoil, and dinars."[19]
    Last edited by prashantacmet; September 29th, 2014 at 04:20 PM.
    Become more and more innocent, less knowledgeable and more childlike. Take life as fun - because that's precisely what it is!

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to prashantacmet For This Useful Post:

    login4vinay (September 29th, 2014), Romar (September 30th, 2014)

  11. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by prashantacmet View Post
    Please don't twist history for the sake of getting a secular tag.
    Aapka prashan bahut sahi hai kyunki aisa lag raha hai ki Dr Singh pratyaksh ko maanana nahi chaha rahe hain. Ek aur udharan:
    `In Muhammad bin Qasim’s first successful foray into India, as recorded by al-Biladuri and Muhammad al-Kufi (in Chachnama): at Debal, ‘the temples were demolished, a general massacre endured for three days; prisoners were taken captive;’ at Nairun, ‘the idols were broken, and mosques founded despite its voluntary surrender;’ at Rawar and Askalanda, ‘all the men in arms were put to the sword, and the women and children carried away captive;’ at Multan, ‘all men capable of bearing arms were massacred; six thousand ministers of the temple were made captive, besides all the women and children.’

    Eliot HM and Dawson J, The History of India As Told by the Historians, Low Price Publications, New Delhi, Vol. I, p. 469`

    Dr Singh se prashan hai ki yeh agar zeehad ka naomoona nahi hai to kya hai?

  12. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by prashantacmet View Post
    Please don't twist history for the sake of getting a secular tag.
    Aapka prashan bahut sahi hai kyunki aisa lag raha hai ki Dr Singh pratyaksh ko maanana nahi chaha rahe hain. Ek aur udharan:
    `In Muhammad bin Qasim�s first successful foray into India, as recorded by al-Biladuri and Muhammad al-Kufi (in Chachnama): at Debal, �the temples were demolished, a general massacre endured for three days; prisoners were taken captive;� at Nairun, �the idols were broken, and mosques founded despite its voluntary surrender;� at Rawar and Askalanda, �all the men in arms were put to the sword, and the women and children carried away captive;� at Multan, �all men capable of bearing arms were massacred; six thousand ministers of the temple were made captive, besides all the women and children.�

    Eliot HM and Dawson J, The History of India As Told by the Historians, Low Price Publications, New Delhi, Vol. I, p. 469`

    Dr Singh se prashan hai ki yeh agar zeehad ka naomoona nahi hai to kya hai?

  13. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Romar View Post
    Aapka prashan bahut sahi hai kyunki aisa lag raha hai ki Dr Singh pratyaksh ko maanana nahi chaha rahe hain. Ek aur udharan:
    `In Muhammad bin Qasim�s first successful foray into India, as recorded by al-Biladuri and Muhammad al-Kufi (in Chachnama): at Debal, �the temples were demolished, a general massacre endured for three days; prisoners were taken captive;� at Nairun, �the idols were broken, and mosques founded despite its voluntary surrender;� at Rawar and Askalanda, �all the men in arms were put to the sword, and the women and children carried away captive;� at Multan, �all men capable of bearing arms were massacred; six thousand ministers of the temple were made captive, besides all the women and children.�

    Eliot HM and Dawson J, The History of India As Told by the Historians, Low Price Publications, New Delhi, Vol. I, p. 469`

    Dr Singh se prashan hai ki yeh agar zeehad ka naomoona nahi hai to kya hai?
    Good points raised by you and Mr. Prashant Vedwan for which I thank both of you.

    Let us first decide what definition of Jihad we are talking about in relation to what M Ghaznavi did during his invasions on India. Did his actions fit in the real meaning given to the word in Quran, the holy book of Muslims. Kindly visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad where sufficient information is available.

    We have to study the historical events in the context of the times when those events happened; and must not give them new meanings to suit what modern mind wants. In fact modern interpretations to several historical events of past have been twisted out of their contextual reference and quoted out of context to justify their own actions or to criticize the actions of their adversaries throughout the course of History of the world.

    The non-Islamist acts and anti-Quranic offences conducted by the Invaders from Sindh or Ghazni as recorded by the later chroniclers also not portray the true picture or spirit and nature of the acts of omissions and commissions committed by the foreign invaders in India.

    The real motive of the invaders was looting the rich Indian wealth and the Temples provided enough accumulation of the same with minimum power to resist the plunderers force, M. Ghaznavi's greed for wealth led him to advance deeper in India to get more and more riches contained in Hindu temples. The usual blood-shedding, slaving and breaking of idols did not conform to the teachings of Islam nor fit in the meaning of word Jihad as applied to Islamist actions in those days. He did not serve the cause of Islam in any way as he neither built any Mosque at the conquered places nor he extended the boundaries of his empire over all the areas of India which fell to his wealth greedy sword to perpetuate the said 'Jihad' objectives.

    A contemporary historian has rightly said about M Ghaznavi that he had unmanageable lust for wealth and would not had hesitated to invade Mecca if he would have chance of getting accumulated wealth there.

    Therefore, I am of the view that his invasions aimed at getting Indian wealth and resultant blood shedding at sacred Hindu places during the course of these early invasions created a wide wedge between the adherents of the two beliefs which was difficult to fill.
    Last edited by DrRajpalSingh; October 1st, 2014 at 10:59 AM.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    swaich (November 8th, 2014)

  15. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by prashantacmet View Post
    You are twisting lot of history in other history threads and there is least participation since you increased your activity in this section. Please don't twist history for the sake of getting a secular tag. Is your opinion influenced of any NCERT book?.....................................
    Thanks for your comments reminding me about my signature.

    True nature of past events has to be presented to fulfill the motto I have chosen as regards writing of History and I am doing that.

    Your baseless charge has no legs to stand in the face of the facts that are contrary to allegation levelled by you that I stand in the path of participants.

    Contrary to it, the section had been lying dormant for the last considerable months and my starting the thread under reference has once again attracted the attention of learned participants to come forward and join discussions.

    Personal leanings towards faiths or religions of the participants must not be reflected in the discussion of historical facts. So, Kindly better keep personal tags of 'religion' 'communal' or 'secular' out of this discussion please !

    If you find any 'twist' in my writings on any of the threads in history section as supposed by you, that may be brought to notice in the relevant threads. If found contrary to facts, suitable amendments would be made with thankful acknowledgement to you . kindly think would it not be better if we avoid personal comments and use of sweeping comments against one another.

    M. Ghaznavi was a muslim in name only. In actions he was neither a true Muslim nor a Jihadi. He was a ruler of barren lands of Ghazni and had insatiable lust for wealth for attainment of which he carried sword and fire wherever he went during his Indian invasions. Read comments of Alberuni contained in Para first of your post again or link JIHAD again and you will have a real comprehension of the motives of invasions of the invader.

    Elliot and Dowson, History of India as known to its own Historians is a translated collection of extracts from older writings. For proper study of historical truth of individual events one cannot depend on such selective and motivated second hand material. Originals are the only panacea in case of controversy.
    Last edited by DrRajpalSingh; October 1st, 2014 at 10:57 AM.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  16. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    Good points raised by you and Mr. Prashan Vedwan for which I thank both of you.

    Let us first decide what definition of Jihad we are talking about in relation to what M Ghaznavi did during his invasions on India. Did his actions fit in the real meaning given to the word in Quran, the holy book of Muslims. Kindly visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad where sufficient information is available.

    We have to study the historical events in the context of the times when those events happened; and must not give them new meanings to suit what modern mind wants. In fact modern interpretations to several historical events of past have been twisted out of their contextual reference and quoted out of context to justify their own actions or to criticize the actions of their adversaries throughout the course of History of the world.

    The non-Islamist acts and anti-Quranic offences conducted by the Invaders from Sindh or Ghazni as recorded by the later chroniclers also not portray the true picture or spirit and nature of the acts of omissions and commissions committed by the foreign invaders in India.

    The real motive of the invaders was looting the rich Indian wealth and the Temples provided enough accumulation of the same with minimum power to resist the plunderers force, M. Ghaznavi's greed for wealth led him to advance deeper in India to get more and more riches contained in Hindu temples. The usual blood-shedding, slaving and breaking of idols did not conform to the teachings of Islam nor fit in the meaning of word Jihad as applied to Islamist actions in those days. He did not serve the cause of Islam in any way as he neither built any Mosque at the conquered places nor he extended the boundaries of his empire over all the areas of India which fell to his wealth greedy sword to perpetuate the said 'Jihad' objectives.

    A contemporary historian has rightly said about M Ghaznavi that he had unmanageable lust for wealth and would not had hesitated to invade Mecca if he would have chance of getting accumulated wealth there.

    Therefore, I am of the view that his invasions aimed at getting Indian wealth and resultant blood shedding at sacred Hindu places during the course of these early invasions created a wide wedge between the adherents of the two beliefs which was difficult to fill.

    It does not matter what your opinion is because it does not change the course of history. Apart from looting the wealth of the country, spread of Islam (by hook or crook) was the main objective of these invaders.

    As far as teachings of Islam and definition of Jihad is concerned, that is another topic and in layman term I understand that. If you are not comfortable with the word "Jihad" you can take it as "spread of Islam" but still fact remain the same "these invaders killed people at the name of religion". If you have any objection, please bring out some primary source to prove your point

    and by the way, friend, please don't take the same escape route as you did in "tipu sultan" thread.
    Become more and more innocent, less knowledgeable and more childlike. Take life as fun - because that's precisely what it is!

  17. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    Thanks for your comments reminding me about my signature.

    True nature of past events has to be presented to fulfill the motto I have chosen as regards writing of History and I am doing that.

    Your baseless charge has no legs to stand in the face of the facts that are contrary to allegation levelled by you that I stand in the path of participants.

    Contrary to it, the section had been lying dormant for the last considerable months and my starting the thread under reference has once again attracted the attention of learned participants to come forward and join discussions.

    Personal leanings towards faiths or religions of the participants must not be reflected in the discussion of historical facts. So, Kindly better keep personal tags of 'religion' 'communal' or 'secular' out of this discussion please !

    If you find any 'twist' in my writings on any of the threads in history section as supposed by you, that may be brought to notice in the relevant threads. If found contrary to facts, suitable amendments would be made with thankful acknowledgement to you . kindly think would it not be better if we avoid personal comments and use of sweeping comments against one another.

    M. Ghaznavi was a muslim in name only. In actions he was neither a true Muslim nor a Jihadi. He was a ruler of barren lands of Ghazni and had insatiable lust for wealth for attainment of which he carried sword and fire wherever he went during his Indian invasions. Read comments of Alberuni contained in Para first of your post again or link JIHAD again and you will have a real comprehension of the motives of invasions of the invader.

    Elliot and Dowson, History of India as known to its own Historians is a translated collection of extracts from older writings. For proper study of historical truth of individual events one cannot depend on such selective and motivated second hand material. Originals are the only panacea in case of controversy.

    Please teach me about Jihad in your language and give some example of the emperor/invaders who were true Jihaadi.

    and Please show me your original from where you took this opinion.
    Last edited by prashantacmet; October 1st, 2014 at 11:06 AM.
    Become more and more innocent, less knowledgeable and more childlike. Take life as fun - because that's precisely what it is!

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to prashantacmet For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (October 1st, 2014)

  19. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by prashantacmet View Post
    Please teach me about Jihad in your language and give some example of the emperor/invaders who were true Jihaadi.

    and Please show me your original from where you took this opinion.
    Alberuni was the writer who accompanied M. Ghaznavi in his Indian expedition and as such had first hand knowledge about his motives, actions and their impact. He [and several other contemporary chroniclers ] clearly tells that Mahmud Ghaznavi considered himself to be 'Ghazi' meaning thereby that the author did not believe so. As such the question of his being 'Jihadi' or servant of the Islam or anything more ends.

    For understanding the original meaning of Jihad log jihad link given below in the extract of post by you and produced hereinunder.
    Kindly read the first para quoted by you in your earlier post and you would feel satisfied about my contention.:

    Mahmud, according to several contemporary accounts, considered himself a Ghazi who waged jihad on the Hindus. His plunder of Hindu temples and centers of learning is noted later in the article.

    Al-Biruni writes:In the interest of his successors he constructed, in order to weaken the Indian frontier, those roads on which afterwards his son Mahmud marched into India during a period of thirty years and more. God be merciful to both father and son! Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims. This is the reason, too, why Hindu sciences have retired far away from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benares, and other places. And there the antagonism between them and all foreigners receives more and more nourishment both from political and religious sources.[19]
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  20. #15
    Dear Friends,

    As regards History of India there are a number of names of kings and emperors who professed Islam and pretending carrying out Jihad but to the best of my knowledge and belief they had done so only to solicit support of the Islamist forces to achieve their avowed mission of getting victory over their rival political forces. Hence no pure jihad example is available in the annals of Indian History.

    As asked by one of my Friends, I do not know much about the names of kings/emperors who carried out pure Jihad in India but can produce many examples of misuse of the word Jihad made at the behest of the kings from time to time to grind their own axes.

    Babur had defeated the forces led by Maharana Sanga in the famous battle of Khanwa in 1527. How he befooled the people and succeeded to get their In this battle Hasan Khan Mewati, who fought in alliance with Rana's forces, died along with 1o, 000 of his coreligionist muslims fighting against the foreign invading armies led by Babur.

    Babur was no true Muslim as he was a drunkard but to stop the running away of his Tuzuk generals and soldiers, prior to starting the fight, delivered a lecture about the merits of jihad and of sacrifice as Ghazi. He also declared that he has decided to shun drinking and in a dramatic manner broke away the silver and gold made utensils in the public view.

    This created desired impact on the morale of his soldiers and he won the victory.

    After Rana Sanga's forces had withdrawn from the battle field, he got collected the heads of the people killed in the battle and put them in the form of a pyramid to show that he has become ghazi by cutting such large number of heads of the infidels.

    The question is, why forces of Babur had cut heads of their coreligionist Hasan Khan Mewati and his followers in the battle ground.

    Earlier in 1526 he had fought against Ibrahim Lodhi in Panipat, who was by no stretch of imagination infidel.

    The answer is he was an expansionist and empire founder and to attain his goal he pretended to be true Muslim bent upon to become Ghazi when fighting against Rajput ruler and if need be carried out onslaught against his Muslim adversaries too if they crossed his way.

    Such type of examples abound the pages of history where use of religion has been made to twist the scales of support in their favour by many a powers of the times that be.

    Therefore, it is desirable to read the objectives of the invasion, events and their impact in dispassionate manner to arrive at logical conclusion and this applies to assess the life and work of M. Ghaznavi too.

    Thanks and regards
    Last edited by DrRajpalSingh; October 1st, 2014 at 12:38 PM.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  21. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post

    The question is, why forces of Babur had cut heads of their coreligionist Hasan Khan Mewati and his followers in the battle ground.

    Earlier in 1526 he had fought against Ibrahim Lodhi in Panipat, who was by no stretch of imagination infidel.

    The answer is he was an expansionist and empire founder and to attain his goal he pretended to be true Muslim bent upon to become Ghazi when fighting against Rajput ruler and if need be carried out onslaught against his Muslim adversaries too if they crossed his way.
    Mussalman log hinduon ke khilaaf aur anye dharmon ke logo ke khilaaf aam tor pe zeehad chedte hain. Lekin ek sachai yeh bhi hai ki woh aapas mein ek doosre ke khilaaf bhi zeehad chedte hain. Pathanon ne mughlo ke khilaaf zeehad chedi thi san 1672 mein. Udharanarth:
    "A rising of the Yusufzais in 1667 had been crushed with heavy slaughter and destruction of crops, but in 1672 the Afridis rose and proclaimed Jihad or Holy War against the Moghuls. They attacked and destroyed a Moghul army at Ali Masjid, situated at the Kabul side of the Khaibar Pass, capturing some 20,000 men and women, besides plunder valued at 20 million rupees." Prashth 319 :
    A HISTORY OF AFGHANISTAN
    THE ROAD TO TAKHT-I-SULAIMAN
    By BRIG.-GEN. SIR PERCY SYKES

    Is jankaari ke madhya najar babur ne mewati ko maara ya lodi ko isse yeh nahi
    kaha ja sakta ki usne zeehad nahi chhedi.

    Satish chandra ki kitaab MEDIEVAL INDIA FROM SULTANAT TO THE MUGHALS ke prasht 35 pe likha hai:
    "However, it was Babur who tried to give a religious colour to the conflict in order to raise the flagging spirit of his soldiers. Addressing the officers and men on the eve of the battle, he tried to fire their military ardour, and also tried to use their religious susceptibilities by declaring the war against the Rana to be a jihad or holy war. The begs and the men were made to swear on the Quran that they would not turn away from the battle but fight to the last."

    Phir prasth 37 pe likha hai:"Interestingly, Babur declared the siege of Chanderi also to be a jihad."

    Aap ek taraf to elliot aur dowson ki ninda kar rahe hain ki unpe vishwas nahi kiya ja sakta parantu jab Babur syavam apni kitaab mein zeehad ka varnan kar raha aap usse bhi nahi maan rahe hain. Kya yeh tarksangat hai?

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Romar For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (October 2nd, 2014), prashantacmet (October 3rd, 2014)

  23. #17
    Name*Of*The Book:*Tarikhu'l-Hind*************Name Of The Historian: Abu*Rihan*Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Biruni*al-Khwarizmi.*************About The Author: This author spent 40 years in India during the reign of Sultan*Mahmud*of*Ghazni*(AD 997 - 1030). His history treats of the literature and learning of the Hindus at the commencement of the 11th century.*************The Muslim Rulers He*Wrote*About:************** a.*Jalam*ibn*Shaiban*(9th century AD)***************Multan*(Punjab)************** "A famous idol of theirs was that of*Multan, dedicated to the sun, and therefore called*Aditya. It was of wood and covered with red Cordovan leather; in its two eyes were two red rubies. It is said to have been made in the last*Kritayuga*.....When Muhammad*Ibn*Alkasim*IbnAlmunaibh*conquered*Multan , he inquired how the town had become so very flourishing and so many treasures had there been accumulated, and then he found out that this idol was the cause, for there came pilgrims from all sides to visit it. Therefore he thought it best to have the idol where it was, but he hung a piece of cow's flesh on its neck by way of mockery. On the same place a mosque was built. When the*Karmatiansoccupied*Multan,*Jalam*Ibn*Shaiban,* the*usurper, broke the idol into pieces and killed its priests..."************** b. Sultan*Mahmud*of*Gazni*(AD 997-1030)***************Thanesar*(Haryana)************ ** "The city of*Taneshar*is highly venerated by Hindus. The idol of that place is called*Cakrasvamin, i.e. the owner of the chakra, a weapon which we have already described. It is of bronze, and is nearly the size of a man. It is now lying in the hippodrome in*Ghazna, together with the Lord of*Somnath, which is a representation of the penis of the*Mahadeva, called*Linga."***************Somnath*(Gujrat)************** "The*linga*he raised was the stone of*Somnath, for soma means the moon and*natan*means master, so that the whole word means master of the moon. The image was destroyed by the Prince*Mahmud, may God be merciful to him! --AH 416. He ordered the upper part to be broken and the remainder to be transported to his residence,*Ghaznin, with all its coverings and trappings of gold, jewels, and embroidered garments. Part of it has been thrown into the hippodrome of the town, together with*Cakrasvamin, an idol of*bronze, that*had been brought fromTaneshar. Another part of the idol from*Somnath*lies before the door of the mosque of*Ghaznin, on which people rub their feet to clean them from dirt and wet."***
    Dr.sahab how you can prove he was not a true muslim?

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to agodara For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (October 2nd, 2014)

  25. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Romar View Post
    Mussalman log hinduon ke khilaaf aur anye dharmon ke logo ke khilaaf aam tor pe zeehad chedte hain. Lekin ek sachai yeh bhi hai ki woh aapas mein ek doosre ke khilaaf bhi zeehad chedte hain. Pathanon ne mughlo ke khilaaf zeehad chedi thi san 1672 mein. Udharanarth:
    "A rising of the Yusufzais in 1667 had been crushed with heavy slaughter and destruction of crops, but in 1672 the Afridis rose and proclaimed Jihad or Holy War against the Moghuls. They attacked and destroyed a Moghul army at Ali Masjid, situated at the Kabul side of the Khaibar Pass, capturing some 20,000 men and women, besides plunder valued at 20 million rupees." Prashth 319 :
    A HISTORY OF AFGHANISTAN
    THE ROAD TO TAKHT-I-SULAIMAN
    By BRIG.-GEN. SIR PERCY SYKES

    Is jankaari ke madhya najar babur ne mewati ko maara ya lodi ko isse yeh nahi
    kaha ja sakta ki usne zeehad nahi chhedi.

    Satish chandra ki kitaab MEDIEVAL INDIA FROM SULTANAT TO THE MUGHALS ke prasht 35 pe likha hai:
    "However, it was Babur who tried to give a religious colour to the conflict in order to raise the flagging spirit of his soldiers. Addressing the officers and men on the eve of the battle, he tried to fire their military ardour, and also tried to use their religious susceptibilities by declaring the war against the Rana to be a jihad or holy war. The begs and the men were made to swear on the Quran that they would not turn away from the battle but fight to the last."

    Phir prasth 37 pe likha hai:"Interestingly, Babur declared the siege of Chanderi also to be a jihad."

    Aap ek taraf to elliot aur dowson ki ninda kar rahe hain ki unpe vishwas nahi kiya ja sakta parantu jab Babur syavam apni kitaab mein zeehad ka varnan kar raha aap usse bhi nahi maan rahe hain. Kya yeh tarksangat hai?
    I have said that Babur never failed to style himself as 'Jihadi' during his adventure in India where he carried out several fights and slaughters to gain his imperialist designs. It was not Jihad as defined in the old books of the religion. Moreover, as your openining lines admit Jihad had different meanings for different people.

    The example quoted by you does not reach nearer Jihad; rather it exemplifies a pure fight for political supremacy between the two parties.
    Last edited by DrRajpalSingh; October 2nd, 2014 at 11:47 AM.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  26. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    I have said that Babur never failed to style himself as 'Jihadi' during his adventure in India where he carried out several fights and slaughters to gain his imperialist designs. It was not Jihad as defined in the old books of the religion. Moreover, as your openining lines admit Jihad had different meanings for different people.
    Yeh baat thodi atpati hai. Agar Babur syavam ke aakarman ko zeehad keh raha hai to aap uski kaise avmanana kar sakte hain? Kahin aisa to nahi aap zeehad na samajhate hon aur Babur samajhta ho?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    The example quoted by you does not reach nearer Jihad; rather it exemplifies a pure fight for political supremacy between the two parties.
    Kya yeh aap pathanon aur mughlon ke sandarbh mein kah rahein hain?

  27. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    I have said that Babur never failed to style himself as 'Jihadi' during his adventure in India where he carried out several fights and slaughters to gain his imperialist designs. It was not Jihad as defined in the old books of the religion. Moreover, as your openining lines admit Jihad had different meanings for different people.

    The example quoted by you does not reach nearer Jihad; rather it exemplifies a pure fight for political supremacy between the two parties.
    Dr.sahab how would he had declared jihaad againt a muslim ibhrihm lodhi.
    he took another way.he proclaimed delhi was won by his great father temur langda.
    And he is original waris to throne rest is history.
    babur left drinking before first battle of panipat not before battle of khanwa
    thanks
    Last edited by agodara; October 2nd, 2014 at 11:19 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •