Akbar

[Keysersoze]

Muslim, Indian, and Western historians all see Akbar as the greatest ruler of Indian history. When his father, Humayun, died in 1556, Akbar became padshah ("ruler of the empire") at the age of thirteen. Under the guidance of Bairam Khan, who had been instrumental in Humayun's reconquests of Panipat, Dehli, and Agra, Akbar instantly began seizing more territory throughout Hindustan. Bairam Khan fell from power in 1560, but Akbar continued his conquest of India and Afghanistan. By the time he died in 1605 (his reign, 1556 to 1605, corresponds almost exactly to that of Elizabeth I of England), his Empire was greater than that of Babur and included almost all of northern India.

In order to govern this territory, Akbar developed a bureaucracy and a system of autonomy for the imperial provinces. Akbar's bureaucracy was among the most efficient in the world. He put military governors, or mansabars , in charge of each region. Each governor was responsible for the provincial military and, as in the Ottoman state, was directly responsible for all abuses. Abuses of power and mistreatment of the poor or weak resulted in severe punishments and death, just as in the Ottoman Empire. Each military governor was put in charge by the padshah himself, so he could be dismissed at will.

The most important part of the bureaucracy was tax collection. Akbar made several innovations. His tax, like all other states, was a land tax that amounted to one-third of the value of the crops produced on it each year. However, the tax was assessed equally on every member of the empire—a radical innovation considering that every other state in the sixteenth century rarely taxed the nobility. He also eliminated the tax assessed on non-Muslims. From the beginning of the Islamic expansion, a special tax was levied on non-believers. This special tax, called the jizya , was bitterly resented all during the history of Muslim rule in India. In addition, Muslim rulers in India charged a "pilgrimage" tax on unbelievers travelling to various Hindu pilgrimage sites. Akbar eliminated this tax in 1564.

A large part of Akbar's administrative efforts were winning over Hindu populations. The Rajput kingdoms had never fully accepted Islamic rule, but the revocation of the jizyat and the pilgrimage taxes helped to calm their restiveness. Akbar also included vast number of Hindus in the official bureaucracy; by his death, almost one-third of the imperial bureaucracy were Hindu. He cemented relations with the various kingdoms by marrying the daughters of the kings. By the end of this process he had over five thousand wives, almost all of whom he married for political reasons. His favorite wife, however, was a Hindu, and she gave birth to his successor, Jahangir.

His most successful administrative coup, however, was allowing Hindu territories to retain a large degree of autonomy. In all other Muslim kingdoms, non-Muslims came under the same law, the Shari'a , as all Muslims. Akbar, however, allowed the Hindus to remain under their own law, called the Dharmashastra , and to retain their own courts. This loose style of government, in which territories were under the control of the Emperor but still largely independent, became the model that the British would emulate as they slowly built the colonial model of government in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
The Political Theory of Akbar's State
There was considerable disagreement all during the reigns of Babur, Humayun, and Akbar over the nature of monarchy and its place in Islamic society. Many Islamic scholars under Babur and Akbar believed that the Indian monarchies were fundamentally un-Islamic. At the heart of the problem was the fact that none of the invading monarchs were approved by the Caliph, but rather were acting solely on their own. The majority of Islamic scholars, however, concluded that the monarch was divinely appointed by God to serve humanity and that the Indian sultanate or the Mughal padshah was acting in the place of the Caliph.

The political theorists and Islamic scholars surrounding Akbar were deeply influenced by Shi'a Islam. In particular, they subscribed to the Shi'a notion that God had created a Divine Light that is passed down in an individual from generation to generation; this individual is known as the Imam. The central theorist of Akbar's reign was Abu'l Faz'l, who joined Akbar's court in 1574 and is considered one of the greatest political theorists in Islamic history. He believed that the Imamate existed in the world in the form of just rulers. The Imam, in the form of a just ruler, had secret knowledge of God, was free from sin, and was primarily responsible for the spiritual guidance of humanity. This, to a certain extent, made the padshah superior to the Shari'a , or Islamic law, and the Islamic scholars that interpreted it. Needless to say, orthodox Islamic scholars bitterly opposed this political theory, but instead advocated a close partnership between the ulama , or Islamic religious and legal scholars, and the Sultan or padshah .

Abu'l Fazl was also deeply influenced by Platonic philosophy as it had been handed down by Muslim philosophers. In particular, he argued for Plato's concept of the "philosopher-king," who, by virtue of his talent, wisdom, and learning, deserved to be obeyed by all others. He saw Akbar as the embodiment of the perfect philosopher-king.

From a religious standpoint, Akbar's state was built on the principle sulahkul , or "universal tolerance." All religons were to be equally tolerated in the administration of the state; hence the repeal of the jizya and the pilgrimage taxes. In Akbar's theory of government, the ruler's duty is to ensure justice ('adale ) for all the people in his care no matter what their religion.
Din-i Ilahi
Akbar took very seriously Abu'l Fazl's idea that he was a spiritual leader of his people and he devoted considerable amounts of time and resources to sorting out the common truth in the multiple religions he ruled over. From this concern he developed a new religion he called Din-i Ilahi , or "The Religion of God." Believing, as Muslims do, that every faith contained the essential truth that God is unified and one thing, he sought to find the unifying aspects of all religions. He originally began this project, long before he came up with Din-i Ilahi , by sponsoring a series of debates at his court between representatives of the various religions, which included Christianity (Catholic Jesuits), Hindus, Zoroastrians, and Jains. Eventually he included members of the ulama , but the debates did not go well because of the intolerant attitude and behaviors of the Jesuit participants who wanted to convert Akbar, not discuss the formation of a universal religion.

Akbar was a devout and, so he said, an orthodox Muslim; still, aspects of his belief were in part derived from Shi'a Islam. The Din-i Ilahi , the religion that would synthesize the world's religions into a single religion, that he established was predominantly based on Islam. Like Islam, it was rationalistic and was based on one overriding doctrine, the doctrine of tawhid : God is one thing and is singular and unified. Akbar also elevated the notion of wahdat-al wujud , or "unity of the real," to a central religious idea in his new religion. The world, as a creation of God, is a single and unified place that reflects the singularity and unity of its creator. Finally, Akbar fully subscribed to the Islamic idea of the Perfect Man represented by the life of the Prophet or by the Shi'ite Imamate. There is little question that Akbar accepted Abu'l Fazl's notion that he was the Divine Light and was a Perfect Man. He assumed the title, "Revealer of the Internal and Depictor of the Real," which defined his role as a disseminator of secret knowledge of God and his function of fashioning the world in the light of this knowledge.

In addition to Islam, however, the Din-i Ilahi also contained aspects of Jainism, Zoroastrianism, and Hinduism. The Din-i Ilahi borrowed from Jainism a respect and care for all living things, and it derived from Zoroastrianism sun-worship and, especially, the idea of divine kingship. This latter innovation deeply disturbed the ulama ; they regarded it as outright heresy. The notion of divine kingship, however, would last throughout the history of the Mughal Empire.
Fatehpur Sikri
Akbar's closest and most beloved religious advisor was an Islamic Sufi mystic, Shayk Salim Chishti. After years of having no son and heir, the birth of Jahangir seemed to fulfill one of Salim Chishti's prophecies. In gratitude to his former religious advisor and to Allah, Akbar set about building what he theorized as the "perfect city," one that would represent the power of his empire, the meaning of God's message to humanity, and would ensure perfect harmony. Above all, the city would represent Islam. He completed his new city, Fatehpur Sikri, in 1578. The city contains a mosque, a palace, a lavish and huge garden, a worship hall for Din-i Ilahi , and, finally, a tomb for Shaykh Salim Chishti in the great mosque itself. The city served for a while as Akbar's capital and lavish court. It was, however, placed far from source of water and the "perfect city" and "perfect symbol of Islam" was abandoned forever shortly after Akbar's death.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MUGHAL/AKBAR.HTM

 

[Keysersoze]

History of Islam in India
A True Monarch
Akbar The Great (1543-1605)

Akbar was only thirteen when his father died of an unfortunate accident in the palace at Delhi. In his haste to rush down the stairs to answer the call for prayer, Humayun slipped and fell to his death. This sudden turn of events left the newly reclaimed Mughal Empire in peril once again. Akbar, who was born during Humayun’s flight from Delhi after his loss to Sher Shah, was in Panjab at the time of his father’s demise. With no other claimants to the throne, Akbar was thrust into the forefront of an empire in jeopardy. Unlike his father and grandfather, Akbar was an Indian by birth. While his father was hiding in the Thar Desert, in a Rajput fort in Umarkot (now in Pakistan), under the protection of Hindus, Akbar was born to Hamida in October 1542. His education had not gone well both because of the stress of a family on the run as well as his inability to learn to read or write, surely because of dyslexia.

Akbar was lucky to have Bayram Khan as regent in those early teenage years. Under his tutelage the empire was protected form 1556 to 1560. After Humayun’s sudden death, while Akbar was still in Panjab, Hemu, a wretchedly puny but crafty man, quickly attacked Delhi and the Mughal force took flight. An unlikely adversary, Hemu, who was a chief minister of one of the Sur claimants, had to be driven from Delhi after a major victory in what was called the second battle of Panipat. Hemu riding on an elephant, the ‘Hawai’ (wind), took an arrow in his eye that pierced right through his head. Seeing their leader slump on his great beast the rest of the army scattered in confusion. Hemu was captured and beheaded in front of the young victor, Akbar. After this Delhi would not slip out of Mughal hands for another three centuries.

The loyal Bayram Khan was a Shia Muslim amongst the Sunnis. He fell victim to intrigue and betrayal and was provoked into revolting and then killed. Adham Khan, who is the son of Akbar’s erstwhile nurse stepped in and carried on the business of extending the empire and putting down the insurgency in the neighboring states. The legendary Baz Bahadur, who was the sultan at Malwa was defeated and his lover, the Rajput princess, whom the lovelorn Bahadur had serenaded, committed suicide by drinking poison, in the true Rajput tradition. Adham Khan, by now was corrupted by power and felt the wrath of the nineteen-year-old emperor and was flung headlong from the terrace to meet his maker.

Barely out of his teens, Akbar quickly consolidated power and centralized the administration. Ministers were dispensed with lest they grow ambitious and dissident commanders were dealt with swiftly. Unlike any other Muslim ruler in India, Akbar took keen interest in his subjects and Hindu ascetics, like jogis and sanyasis. He was most tolerant of all Mughal rulers and let his subjects practice their faiths without any fear of persecution. He also encouraged marriages between Hindu Rajputs and Muslims. His first and the most beloved wife (first of thirty-three wives) was the daughter of Kacchwaha Rajput raja of Amber (Kacchawahas built Jaipur later). Raja’s son and grandson became loyal lieutenants of Akbar and were treated as nobles. Rajasthan never again became a thorn on Akbar’s side as it had for all the previous Sultans and Emperors.

Akbar never discriminated between Muslims and Hindus and conferred nobility to many, with equal justice in mind. His only failure was one Udai singh of Mewar, whose son, a prisoner in Akbar’s court escaped and fled south. In 1567 Akbar himself marched south and participated in the siege of Chittor. Udai Singh and his son escaped but Akbar continued his siege and eventually occupied the fort. Udai Singh is the founder of the city of Udaipur with the lovely lake, where later, a Jagat Singh built the renowned palace on the lake. For Akbar defeating Chittor was a matter of honor (izzat) and this win effectively sealed his glory in the history of the Mughals. Historian Abu’l – Fazl in his Akbar-nama, recorded the events of Akbar’s rule.

Akbar also undertook the building of a new capital in Sikri (later called Fatehpur Sikri) and planned to move his capital from Agra to Sikri. Despite being married to many wives he was heirless and propitiated his respects to a member of the Chisti family called Shaikh Salim Chisti of Sikri. The Sufi holy man correctly predicted that the emperor would have three sons. The first male child was born to his Rajput wife and was named Salim (later Jahangir) in honor of Chisti. The fulfilled prophesy of Chisti of Sikri also had an important role in his folly of building a new capital in Fatehpur Sikri. After completing his father Humayun’s tomb, he undertook an ambitious plan to build an extravagant palace and other buildings in the middle of nowhere.

Akbar was a keen student of the various religions of India. Sufism flourished and the Bhakti cult as well as the Jain and Sikh followers of Guru Nanak fascinated Akbar. In his mind he formed an amalgam of various religions like Islam, Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism. He even had Portuguese padres from Goa visit his court to give him a sermon on Christianity. He then sought a religion that encompassed the best elements of the various religions and proposed a new one called Din Ilahi or the Divine Faith. However, he did not vigorously promulgate his new religion and it never gained in popularity, as the tenets were not clearly spelled out. As expected he soon ran afoul with the ulema, who considered his actions blasphemous and a threat to Islam. His half brother Hakim, the governor of Kabul sent a fatwa enjoining all Muslims to revolt. With the help of his Hindu lieutenants Akbar was able to defeat Hakim in Lahore and then made a triumphant entrance into Kabul in 1581. Akbar went on to secure his borders and annex more and more territory. Not only Gujarat, Orissa and Rajasthan were subdued but Kashmir was also conquered. Sindh and Kabul were also under Akbar’s control by 1595. Fatehpur Sikri was having trouble with water supply and Salim, his eldest son was showing signs of restlessness about potential succession. Akbar then chose the security of the fort in Agra, abandoning Fatehpur Sikri. It was during this time that Akbar was busy with extending his empire into Deccan. The assault on Ahmadnagar became confused with the internal threat to Akbar from his son and resulted in a halfhearted attempt and least rewarding of Akbar’s conquests.

Akbar was also an exact contemporary of Elizabeth I of England but was the ruler of far greater number of people in India than the sparse population of England. The population of the subcontinent of India at the end of the sixteenth century is estimated at 140 million people with most of them living in the territory controlled by Akbar, between the Himalayas and the Deccan plateau. Compare this with the population of five million in England and 40 million in Western Europe. Akbar was indeed a true monarch and India with its enormous manpower quickly became rich again.

The benevolent monarch suspended all unjust taxation of non-Muslims. These taxes, called jizya had been collected ever since the Muslim rulers took control of India. Initially the Brahmins and some Buddhists were exempt but later Feroz Shah Tughlaq had made the taxes mandatory for all non-Muslims. Though handicapped with learning disabilities, Akbar appreciated art and music and honored artists, whoever they were. Miniature paintings from his era are considered to be masterpieces and the legendary musician Tansen was his royal singer in his court. Akbar’s reign also began an unprecedented period of political stability in India. A crafty and intelligent minister Birbal is the subject of much folklore.

The emperor’s waning years were mired in sadness. His own son, Prince Salim turned against him. In the year 1600, when Akbar was away, Salim attempted to seize Agra. The father and son reconciled but Salim again declared himself emperor in 1602. Salim murdered the trusted memorialist of Akbar, Abu’l-fazl, when he was sent to Salim to broker a truce between father and son. Akbar finally agreed to have Salim as his successor. However when Akbar died in 1605, perhaps form grief, the question of succession was far from settled. Salim’s son Khusrau was also vying for the throne, supported by the Delhi nobles. The erstwhile history of Muslim rulers with their tendency towards fratricide and patricide was again upon the Mughals.

The filial piety seen for two generations of Mughals would be forgotten and replaced by routine violence prior to each succession. The internal strife, as a result, would be a larger threat to Mughal rule than any external pressure.

– Neria Harish Hebbar, MD
June 12, 2002

http://www.boloji.com/history/011.htm

 

[Flintlock]

Akbar was fine after he had conquered most of India.

But while he was doing it, he completely devastated whatever lands he attacked.

We must remember that one of the principles derived from the caste system, was that only warriors would fight amongst themselves.
In a war between hindu kings, strict codes were followed. Crops, houses and non-combatants were never harmed and there was no looting.

On the other hand, the Islamic kings completely reversed this by including the entire population in the war.
For them, war meant total destruction of the old. Temples were looted and demolished, villages and towns were depopulated.
Whoever survived was taken as a slaves and converted.
Later, after the local king had been crushed, the temples were razed and mosques were built in their place.

If you don't believe me, just try reading the official accounts of the Mughals themselves.
Trust me, if you are an Indian, it will make your blood boil.


Quite brutal in comparison. It took several centuries, (starting with the Rajputs), for Hindus to adjust to this new brutal way of waging war. Till then, most kingdoms had fallen to the Mughals.

 

[roadrunner]

Temples were looted and demolished, villages and towns were depopulated.
Whoever survived was taken as a slaves and converted.
Later, after the local king had been crushed, the temples were razed and mosques were built in their place.

Good God, you don't half talk shyt you Hindutva fanatic. The Mughals ruled India well for that time as shown by the huge size of the Mughal economy (one of the largest in the world), and generally were very fair to Hindus, allowing them to hold all the highest positions in their courts and armies. There were no "forced conversions" (an irrational thought in itself).

 

[Flintlock]

Good God, you don't half talk shyt you Hindutva fanatic. The Mughals ruled India well for that time as shown by the huge size of the Mughal economy (one of the largest in the world), and generally were very fair to Hindus, allowing them to hold all the highest positions in their courts and armies. There were no "forced conversions" (an irrational thought in itself).

Obviously, after the empire was firmly established, there was a relative peace, because all opposition had been obliterated.(Mostly in Akbar's time....Aurangzeb and others were always very inclined to wage holy war)

But trust me, war was brutal. Nothing was spared.

Just try reading accounts of the Islamic exploits, written by the conquerers themselves.
This is exactly what happens, in this order:
1. Attack the city.
2. Kill all who resist.
3. Loot the shrines.
4. Raze the shrines.

All this is history. There is nothing to be disputed about hem.

 

[roadrunner]

Obviously, after the empire was firmly established, there was a relative peace, because all opposition had been obliterated.(Mostly in Akbar's time....Aurangzeb and others were always very inclined to wage holy war)

But trust me, war was brutal. Nothing was spared.

Just try reading accounts of the Islamic exploits, written by the conquerers themselves.
This is exactly what happens, in this order:
1. Attack the city.
2. Kill all who resist.
3. Loot the shrines.
4. Raze the shrines.

All this is history. There is nothing to be disputed about hem.

BS. There was no looting or razing of shrines. You're thinking of Babri Masjid. Akbar had allied himself with the Rajputs in his conquests of North India, in particular it was a HINDU, Raja Man Singh (Amber), that carried out much of Akbar's conquests..he headed the Mughal Army as it expanded over North India.

 

[Flintlock]

BS. There was no looting or razing of shrines. You're thinking of Babri Masjid. Akbar had allied himself with the Rajputs in his conquests of North India, in particular it was a HINDU, Raja Man Singh (Amber), that carried out much of Akbar's conquests..he headed the Mughal Army as it expanded over North India.

Dude, I'm not talking about Akbar.

I think I wasn't clear enough. Akbar might have been moderate, but he was brutal enough in war.

There were plenty of raids, conquests before Akbar. In each case, the invaders gleefully recorded their exploits, all with dates and names.

Babar, of course, famously demolished the one at Ayodhya, but there were plenty more.

 

[roadrunner]

Dude, I'm not talking about Akbar.

I think I wasn't clear enough. Akbar might have been moderate, but he was brutal enough in war.

There were plenty of raids, conquests before Akbar. In each case, the invaders gleefully recorded their exploits, all with dates and names.

Babar, of course, famously demolished the one at Ayodhya, but there were plenty more.

Well, you don't know what you're talking about then. Babur was the first Mughal Emperor, and very tolerant of Hinduism.

"The Empire he founded was a sophisticated civilisation based on religious toleration. It was a mixture of Persian, Mongol and Indian culture.

Under Babur Hinduism was tolerated and new Hindu temples were built with his permission.

Trade with the rest of the Islamic world, especially Persia and through Persia to Europe, was encouraged.

The importance of slavery in the Empire diminished and peace was made with the Hindu kingdoms of Southern India.

Babur brought a broadminded, confident Islam from central Asia. His first act after conquering Delhi was to forbid the killing of cows because that was offensive to Hindus."

BBC - Religion & Ethics - Mughal Empire (1500s, 1600s): Babur

Ayodhya was built by Babar, but there was no Ayodhya temple before it was built. That is just a HIndu fundamentalist's wet dream.

 

[Flintlock]

Well, you don't know what you're talking about then. Babur was the first Mughal Emperor, and very tolerant of Hinduism.

The word "tolerant" itself gives away the fact that it was this "tolerance" was the exception rather than the norm.

"The Empire he founded was a sophisticated civilisation based on religious toleration. It was a mixture of Persian, Mongol and Indian culture.
Under Babur Hinduism was tolerated and new Hindu temples were built with his permission.
Trade with the rest of the Islamic world, especially Persia and through Persia to Europe, was encouraged.
The importance of slavery in the Empire diminished and peace was made with the Hindu kingdoms of Southern India.
Babur brought a broadminded, confident Islam from central Asia. His first act after conquering Delhi was to forbid the killing of cows because that was offensive to Hindus."
BBC - Religion & Ethics - Mughal Empire (1500s, 1600s): Babur

Please, please don't quote BBC.

BTW, can you tell me, if Islamic rulers were so decent and fair, why has it been specifically mentioned that under Babur, "Hinduism was tolerated"?

Also, I"ll quote some names. Kindly check their history yourself:
Muhammad ibn Qasim
Mahmud of Ghazni
Muhammad of Ghur
Qutb-ud-din Aibak
Sikander Lodi
Shah Jahan
Aurangzeb

Ayodhya was built by Babar, but there was no Ayodhya temple before it was built. That is just a HIndu fundamentalist's wet dream.

Ayodhya has a history far, far older than Babur.

Please, please tell me, why would any person build a mosque at the very exact spot, that is a pilgrimage center for Hindus?

That spot is one of the six holiest in all of India.

Incidentally, all the other 5 sites have ancient temples on them.

Now don't tell me that no Hindu ever bothered to build a temple on one of his most holy sites.

 

[Flintlock]

Here is a website that, I think presents a fair view of the Islamic conquest of India:
Islam, The Coming Of Islam To South Asia

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

The fact that Akhbar attempted to find common ground amongst his subjects and was more benevolent is a fact.

Even the Hindu Rajputs did not find it odd to give one of their own princesses as the wife of Akhbar.

Therefore, Akhbar's policies did bring the people closer.

The same cannot be said of the others.

 

[Flintlock]

The fact that Akhbar attempted to find common ground amongst his subjects and was more benevolent is a fact.

Even the Hindu Rajputs did not find it odd to give one of their own princesses as the wife of Akhbar.

Therefore, Akhbar's policies did bring the people closer.

The same cannot be said of the others.

Akbar, being illiterate, was not bound by the limits of his faith.

He therefore tried to understand both sides, and tried to integrate Islam within Hinduism.

Unfortunately, this did not take off, and his religion died with him.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Stealth:

On the other hand, the Islamic kings completely reversed this by including the entire population in the war.

I am not sure why this has to be projected as an "Islamic conquest of India", other than when you speak of the faith itself taking hold and spreading. I would have dismissed this usage as a mere "identifier" but your other posts about a 1000 year war between Hinduism and Islam and some in the Hindutva thread make it clear that it isn't simply an identifier, you truly (and It seems others) believe that the invasion was that of Islam.

How is blaming Islam, or tying it in even implicitly, for the atrocities (assuming they occurred) committed by emperor Kings (a concept itself not condoned in Islam) any different than blaming Islam for the terrorism carried out today? That is where the issue is being obfuscated and tensions between communities being raised.

 

[Flintlock]

Stealth:


I am not sure why this has to be projected as an "Islamic conquest of India", other than when you speak of the faith itself taking hold and spreading. I would have dismissed this usage as a mere "identifier" but your other posts about a 1000 year war between Hinduism and Islam and some in the Hindutva thread make it clear that it isn't simply an identifier, you truly (and It seems others) believe that the invasion was that of Islam.

The invasion was indeed that of Islam. I think we are all agreed on that, isn't it?

Look, Islam was an alien ideology, and the local kings didn't have the tools to fight it.

The way the Islamic kings fought war, was radically different from the way the Hindu kings did.

Also, most hindus expected the Muslims to integrate within Hinduism, like all the other conquerers who came earlier, but that didn't happen because it was a "revealed" religion and couldn't be amended over time.

If you can think of a better identifier than that, please tell me!!

How is blaming Islam, or tying it in even implicitly, for the atrocities (assuming they occurred) committed by emperor Kings (a concept itself not condoned in Islam) any different than blaming Islam for the terrorism carried out today? That is where the issue is being obfuscated and tensions between communities being raised.

Well, then what else do you blame?

If a king commits atrocities, you will definitely blame his belief system, won't you?

If a Hindu upper caste commits some atrocity against a lower caste person, won't you blame Hinduism?

Obviously, it will be the old Hinduism, which sanctioned the caste system, rather than the new one. But you tell me, can I start naming Hinduism A and Hinduism B and so on?

The fact is, that the people who conquered India, did possess ideas of superiority of faith, which prevented them from integrating with the locals even after conquering tiem.

It is the nature of Islam to supplant the preexisting faiths, and it is the nature of Hinduism to absorb contradictory ideas.

BUt you are right.....such statements do have the potential to create tension between communities.....if the people don't understand the difference between history and present.

As I said, we cannot take revenge on history.

However, we can agree that followers of Islam are capable of turning absolutist, more readily, because of its monotheistic nature, and perhaps counter these tendencies by greater integration.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The invasion was indeed that of Islam. I think we are all agreed on that, isn't it?

Look, Islam was an alien ideology, and the local kings didn't have the tools to fight it.

The way the Islamic kings fought war, was radically different from the way the Hindu kings did.

Also, most hindus expected the Muslims to integrate within Hinduism, like all the other conquerers who came earlier, but that didn't happen because it was a "revealed" religion and couldn't be amended over time.

If you can think of a better identifier than that, please tell me!!

Well, then what else do you blame?

If a king commits atrocities, you will definitely blame his belief system, won't you?

If a Hindu upper caste commits some atrocity against a lower caste person, won't you blame Hinduism?

Obviously, it will be the old Hinduism, which sanctioned the caste system, rather than the new one. But you tell me, can I start naming Hinduism A and Hinduism B and so on?

The fact is, that the people who conquered India, did possess ideas of superiority of faith, which prevented them from integrating with the locals even after conquering tiem.

It is the nature of Islam to supplant the preexisting faiths, and it is the nature of Hinduism to absorb contradictory ideas.

BUt you are right.....such statements do have the potential to create tension between communities.....if the people don't understand the difference between history and present.

As I said, we cannot take revenge on history.

The identifier can be the dynastic name, the specific name of the conqueror etc. Even now we see the same "implication" and insensitivity when the term "Islamic terrorism" is used. While the terrorists may say that they are committing their atrocities in the name of Islam, Islam condones nothing of the sort - and simply calling them "Terrorists" should suffice.

The spread of Islam, even if brought in by conquerors, is a different "invasion" than the physical one by the emperors, what Hinduism was or was not capable of facing ideologically is different (and its own inherent weakness or strength), that is what evolution is all about.

What any emperor king did is not necessarily reflective of his religion - that is an extremely fallacious argumment, and pretty much exactly the same as saying that a terrorist kills a bus load of children because of his "belief system". Yes an individuals beliefs do govern his actions, but are the beliefs of those invaders consonant with Islamic teachings? If in Hinduism atrocities of one caste against another are expressly allowed, then I would blame Hinduism. But if Hinduism does not command any such thing, then it must be a corruption of the individuals commiting the atrocities.
I have no problems blaming a particular "school of thought" (Taliban Islam) for being intolerant, because its scholars and adherents specifically accept and practice their obscurantist views, but I do not then say that Islam is an intolerant religion.

However, we can agree that followers of Islam are capable of turning absolutist, more readily, because of its monotheistic nature, and perhaps counter these tendencies by greater integration.

No we do not agree on that. Monotheism has less to do with it than the absolutist interpretations of Islam.