What's new

BJP leader compares Mughal emperor Akbar with Hitler, becomes social media joke

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hindus Say We Did It Jains Say It Never Happened But True Or False, Madurai Is Just Tip of The Iceberg My Friend I Have A Ton of Luggage For You Dating From The Aryan Invasions All The Way Down To RSS a Nice Big Heavy One
Lol. Your claim sank like a Titanic on its maiden voyage.

Fire away. Claims - back it up with reference. :tup:

Akbar Did Not Kill Them Because They Were Hindu But Because They Were But Because They Resisted.
Wait. The Mughal court mentions that specifically Brahmins were slaughtered. Their heads were piled up. But they did not fight the Mughals anyway.
So what was the reason? :azn:

It was simple. Akbar was smarter than you are today. The strength of the resistance of the Rajputs depended to a great extent on their military traditions enshrined in their faith, that is Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma. And the Brahmins were the spiritual guides of this order. By killing the Brahmins, he made sure that the land of Chittor will be spiritually headless and incapable of any further serious resistance.

He was right. They did not resist, till more than two centuries later.

Akbar Rewarded Large Jagirs to Those Rajputs Who Surrendered.
... and accepted Akbar as their suzerain. For two centuries most of the Rajput ruling classes became a subject state of the Mughals.

All sources have their own bias. But sometimes a consensus can be reached on a particular ''range" based on several independent sources.

I'd be interested in knowing the number of people Ashoka's war machine slaughtered. Can you get the number for me? You sound like you're good at it. Add up all the numbers from each battle and use that as a benchmark against Muslim invaders. ; )
You missed the point. I am talking about non military deaths. I am talking about massacres of unarmed people.

Samlee mentioned one before (albeit a fake one, but he got the point)

Ashokas inflicting of death on unarmed civilians on the other hand would be despicable. There are records of it in the Kalinga war. You can record it and mention it here.
 
.
Why Is It That Akbar Is To Become A Villain But Ashoka Who Massacred 100000 People In Kalinga Is Still A Hero????

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/bjp-lead...social-media-joke.431979/page-2#ixzz49f9a8d5o

By going through your post i realized that your not reader of history

You given example of battle to compare are planned massacre i know what your source is (Facebook)

There is major difference btw both

The Battle of Kalinga fought btw magadha & kalinga

Where battle took place on the ground
As for the casualties the ashoka army was suffered similar fate more that 1 lakh troops slaughtered by kalinga guerrillas army
 
.
While usa and japan progressing after a bad history we indians are more interested in fighting each other with in india in the name of religions a country of stupids
 
.
Lol. Your claim sank like a Titanic on its maiden voyage.

Fire away. Claims - back it up with reference. :tup:

Great Where Do You Want To Start Massacre of Buddhists Priests By Hindu Kings,The Great Jammu Massacre,Invasion of India By Your Aryan Forefathers????????


Wait. The Mughal court mentions that specifically Brahmins were slaughtered. Their heads were piled up. But they did not fight the Mughals anyway.
So what was the reason? :azn:

It was simple. Akbar was smarter than you are today. The strength of the resistance of the Rajputs depended to a great extent on their military traditions enshrined in their faith, that is Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma. And the Brahmins were the spiritual guides of this order. By killing the Brahmins, he made sure that the land of Chittor will be spiritually headless and incapable of any further serious resistance.


Abul Fazl's Akbarnama and Nizam ud Din Bakhshi's Tabaqat e Akbari Does Not Say Anywhere That Specifically Brahmins Were Slaughtered.It Mentions A General Massacre.Oh And BTW Do You Know Who Akbar's Closest Advisors Were In The Seige?Raja Bhagwan Das And Raja Todar Mal Both Hindus and Do You Know One Of Maharan Udai Singh's Generals Who Headed The Musketeers Also Dies In The Carnage He Was Ismail Khan(A Muslim Not A Brahmin)


... and accepted Akbar as their suzerain. For two centuries most of the Rajput ruling classes became a subject state of the Mughals.

And They Were Aptly Rewarded Not Only With Jagirs But With High Posts In Mughal Government and Army.Straightforward
 
Last edited:
.
you cant compare someone from 300 years ago with present personalities, a better comparision with Hitler would be Modi who is responsible for the gruesome murder of 3000 Muslims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EAK
.
Akbar killed Lakhs of Hindus ; He is by NO Means A great king
He was an evil king
 
.
By going through your post i realized that your not reader of history

You given example of battle to compare are planned massacre i know what your source is (Facebook)

There is major difference btw both

The Battle of Kalinga fought btw magadha & kalinga

Where battle took place on the ground
As for the casualties the ashoka army was suffered similar fate more that 1 lakh troops slaughtered by kalinga guerrillas army



No I Am A Reader of History Just Not A Reader Of The BS That Is Printed In RSS Books.

Akbar Ordered The Massacre For The Very Reason That Everyone Took Part In The Resistance.The 2 Books I Mentioned Above Actually Mention A Difference That During The First Siege Of The Fort Allaud Din Khilji Was Successful,He Did Not Order Any Such Massacre Because The General Population Did Not Take Part In The
War However In The Third Siege Everyone Took Part In The War Effort Thus Paying The Price.

The Battle Took Place On The Ground Here As Well The Difference Is The Mughals Breached And Took The Battle Into The Fort
 
. .
Great Where Do You Want To Start Massacre of Buddhists Priests By Hindu Kings,The Great Jammu Massacre,Invasion of India By Your Aryan Forefathers????????
1. Massacre of Buddhist Priests. Okay. By whom? How many killed?
2. Great Jammu Massacre - Casualties?
3. Invasion by Aryan forefathers? - Please update yourselves. India has retained its DNA pool since time immemorial. Can't say (not interested) about your land.

Raja Bhagwan Das And Raja Todar Mal Both Hindus and Do You Know One Of Maharan Udai Singh's Generals Who Headed The Musketeers Also Dies In The Carnage He Was Ismail Khan(A Muslim Not A Brahmin)
Yes. It was a simple arrangement. Give one Hindu princely lady to the Mughal harem and accept servitude. Most of the Mughal kings themselves had Rajput ex Hindu (converted) mothers. We know this. People go to great extents to save their lives. You wouldn't know.

And They Were Aptly Rewarded Not Only With Jagirs But With High Posts In Mughal Government and Army.Straightforward
Why don't you then join the Indian Armed Forces in exchange for land in India and prestige? You wouldn't. Because you are a free man. If I had a gun on your head (or your family's), and the power to exterminate you - then you would have considered such a proposal.

Understand how the dynamics work.

You Pakistani Muslims are far too apologetic. We are not crazed lunatics because Muslims butchered our men, ransacked our temples and raped our women till two hundred years ago. We are not after revenge, nor to right 'wrongs'. In fact our Hyderabadis and Moplah Muslims take pride in the number of Hindus they slayed post war. Why take away their 'pride'?

Let's give you some perspective.

"The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period."
-Will Durant, "The Story of Civilisation: Our Oriental Heritage" (page 459)

Writer Fernand Braudel wrote in A History of Civilisations (1995), that Islamic rule in India as a

"colonial experiment" was "extremely violent", and "the Muslims could not rule the country except by systematic terror. Cruelty was the norm – burnings, summary executions, crucifixions or impalements, inventive tortures. Hindu temples were destroyed to make way for mosques. On occasion there were forced conversions. If ever there were an uprising, it was instantly and savagely repressed: houses were burned, the countryside was laid waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as slaves."

Alain Danielou in his book, Histoire de l' Inde writes:

"From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of 'a holy war' of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilizations, wiped out entire races."

Irfan Husain in his article “Demons from the Past” observes:

While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan…The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed..Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster.

"Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage...

"The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at the Indian city of Thanesar] that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it…the infidels deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river...but many of them were slain, taken or drowned... Nearly fifty thousand men were killed."
-Tarikh i Yamini - Secretary of Mahmud al-Ghazni between 1001 - 1026 AD.

'captured the city of Kambayat at the head of the gulf of Cambay, he killed the adult male Hindu inhabitants for the glory of Islam, set flowing rivers of blood, sent the women of the country with all their gold, silver, and jewels, to his own home, and made about twentv thousand Hindu maidens his private slaves.' - Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat ul Asar by Persian historian Wassaf

they said that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and foes of Islam at liberty.

"In fact, no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword
"throughout the camp that every man who has infidel prisoners was to put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. 100,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasir-ud-din Umar, a counselor and a man of learning, who, in all his life had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives".

"In a short space of time all the people in the [Delhi] fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers.

"They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground....All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death."
-Tuzk-i-Timuri

"For the sake of Islam I became a wanderer,
I battled infidels and Hindus,
I determined to become a martyr
Thank God I became a Killer of Non-Muslims!" - Baburnama

"When Shuja(Shah Jahan) was appointed as governor of Kabul he carried on a ruthless war in the Hindu territory beyond Indus...The sword of Islam yielded a rich crop of converts....Most of the women (to save their honour) burnt themselves to death. Those captured were distributed among Muslim Mansabdars (Noblemen)" - 'Badshah Nama, Qazinivi & Badshah Nama , Lahori'

"Abdali's soldiers would be paid 5 Rupees (a sizeable amount at the time) for every enemy head brought in. Every horseman had loaded up all his horses with the plundered property, and atop of it rode the girl-captives and the slaves. The severed heads were tied up in rugs like bundles of grain and placed on the heads of the captives...Then the heads were stuck upon lances and taken to the gate of the chief minister for payment.

"It was an extraordinary display! Daily did this manner of slaughter and plundering proceed. And at night the shrieks of the women captives who were being raped, deafened the ears of the people...All those heads that had been cut off were built into pillars, and the captive men upon whose heads those bloody bundles had been brought in, were made to grind corn, and then their heads too were cut off. These things went on all the way to the city of Agra, nor was any part of the country spared."
-Tarikh-I-Alamgiri (Alamgir you must be knowing)
 
. .
Akbar killed Lakhs of Hindus ; He is by NO Means A great king
He was an evil king
Actually Akbar was better than the rest of the early Mughals. He had the power to do worse, but held back and finally even became an apostate. There was some conscience in him and responding to that even when he was at the peak of power must be commended, especially since he was a Timurid.
 
.
Actually Akbar was better than the rest of the early Mughals. He had the power to do worse, but held back and finally even became an apostate. There was some conscience in him and responding to that even when he was at the peak of power must be commended, especially since he was a Timurid.

Sure. And I commend you for not going on a Raping and Killing spree too.

Its quite easy to commend someone if you lower the bar low enough. Don't you think so ?
 
.
Sure. And I commend you for not going on a Raping and Killing spree too.

Its quite easy to commend someone if you lower the bar low enough. Don't you think so ?
Thanks, I will try to comply. Tough though.
 
. .
1. Massacre of Buddhist Priests. Okay. By whom? How many killed?



1
.According to P.K.Misra,

"Although archaeological evidence is meager, it seems likely, that the Deorkothar stupa geographically located between Sanchi and Bharhut, was destroyed as a result of Pushyamitra Shunga's fanaticism. The exposed remains at Deorkothar bear evidence of deliberate destruction datable to his reign. The three-tiered railing is damaged; railing pillars lie broken to smithereens on stone-flooring. Twenty pieces of pillar have been recovered, each fragment itself fractured. The site offers no indication of natural destruction.(2001)."

2.Pusyamitra Sunga (Sunga Dynasty) -
He is reported to have set fire to the Sutras, destroyed Stupas, razed Samgharamas and massacred Bhikkus and even killed the deity of the Bodhi tree.


3.According to other accounts, Pushyamitra Shunga proceeded to Shakala and offered 100 Dinaras for the head of every Buddhist monk.
(Pruthi, R.K., (2004). Buddhism and Indian Civilization, p.83. Discovery Publishing House)
Similarly

According to Gargi Chakravartty.


“Another myth has been meticulously promoted with regard to the tolerance of the Hindu rulers. Let us go back to the end of second century BC. Divyavadana (sic), in a text of about the second-third century AD, depicts Pushyamitra Shunga as a great persecutor of Buddhists. In a crusading march with a huge army he destroyed stupas, burnt monasteries and killed monks. This stretched up to Shakala, i.e. modern Sialkot, where he announced a reward of 100 gold coins to the person who would bring the head of a Buddhist monk. Even if this is an exaggeration, the acute hostility and tensions between Pushyamitra and the monks cannot be denied.”

4.Hiuen-Tsa
ng, who visited India from 629 to 645 AD, describes the influence of a south Indian Brahmin queen on her husband who ordered the execution of many thousand Buddhists including 8,000 in Madurai alone. Kalhana’s Rajatarangani (written by a Shaivite scholar about 1149 AD and the first Brahmin account of India’s historic past from the time of Yudishthira) relates that Mihirikula, the Hun ruler was converted by Brahmins (in 515 AD) and unleashed a wave of violent destruction on Buddhist monasteries in Punjab and Kashmir. He reports (verse 290 in book 1) that “crows and birds of prey would fly ahead eager to feed on those within his armies reach”. He proudly proclaimed himself as the killer of three crores. … … – Buddhism that had been strong in India in the 7th Century was completely obliterated a century later.


5.According to the Rajataringini (1160 AD), a book written by Kashmiri Hindu Brahmin historian Kalhaha, Mihirakula, the Shaivite Hindu King was killer of three crore (30 million) people. He also compared him with Yama, the God of death, for his atrocities. So wanton was his brutality that a dark cloud of vultures and crows followed his army in order to feed on the corpses left behind. Hsuan Tsang, the Chinese traveler states that he ordered utter extermination of Buddhism from all his dominions.

6.He [Mihirakula] destroyed Buddhist temples and stupas and killed more than half of the people on account of their Buddhist faith.

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_146428012281710&key=0da3f17dd3d3d8e710fb25246bc6e80c&libId=iooiiu86010004ox000DAhvm2ax1f&loc=http://historum.com/asian-history/79367-reason-decline-buddhism-india-11.html&v=1&out=http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Mihirakula&ref=http://historum.com/asian-history/79367-reason-decline-buddhism-india-10.html&title=Reason for the decline of Buddhism in India? - Page 11 - Historum - History Forums&txt=Mihirakula - Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia



7.Shashanka was the Shaivite Brahmin king of Bengal. He was manipulated by the Brahmins to become a ferocious oppressor of the Buddhists. He had destroyed the Bodhi tree of Bodh Gaya and ordered the mass destruction of all Buddhist images and monasteries in his kingdom.

8.Hundreds of Buddhist statues, stupas and viharas have been destroyed in Indiabetween 830 and 966 AD in the name of Hindu revivalism. Both literary and archaeological sources within and outside India speak volumes about the havoc done to Buddhism by Hindu fanatics. Spiritual leaders like Sankaracharya and many Hindukings and rulers took pride in demolishing Buddhist images aiming at the total eradication of Buddhist culture.

After all, in places such as Bengal and Sind, which were ruled by Brahminical dynasties but had Buddhist majorities, Buddhists are said to have welcomed the Muslims as saviours who had freed them from the tyranny of ‘upper’ caste rule. This explains why most of the ‘lower-caste’ people in Eastern Bengal and Sind embraced Islam. Few, if any, among the ‘upper’ castes of these regions did the same.

(Dr. Ambadekar. B.R. Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, vol.3, p.267 Dr MS Jayaprakash)

9.“I have again sent a messenger with a written request: If he (Hiuen Tsang) does not come, your disciple will then let the evil portion of himself prevail. In recent times Shanshanka-Raja was equal still to the destruction of the law and uprooted the Bodhi tree. Do you, my Master, suppose that your disciple has no such power as this? If necessary then I will equip my army and elephants, and like the clouds sweep down on and trample to the very dust that monastery of Nalanda. These words (are true) as the sun!” [The Life of Hiuen Tsiang by the Shaman Hwui Li ; Translated by Samuel Beal; 1911; Pg. 171]

10.The Budaun Stone Inscription of Lakhanapaala refers to one Varamasiva, a Saiva ascetic, who destroyed an idol of Buddha in the South (Dakshinapatha) before his arrival in Vodamayuta (Epigraphia Indica vol.1, Page 63)

11.The record of the Nalanda Inscription of Vipulasrimitra,states that a Vangala army killed a Buddhist monk namedKarunasrimitra of Somapura and burnt down his house, which was actually a monastery. [Epigraphia Indica vol.21 Page 97]


2. Great Jammu Massacre - Casualties?

There Are Different Figures That Range From 200000 to 500000 Muslims Getting Killed At The Hands of Dogra Troops In Collusion With Hindu Extremists.In 1941 Muslims Were 61% Majority In Kashmir But By 1961 They Were Reduced To Minority As Low As 10 % In Most Areas


Horace Alexander wrote in the ‘Spectator’ (16 January 1948) that the killings had “the tacit consent of State authority” and put the figure at 2,00,000.

‘The London Times’ quoting its special correspondent in India, stated that the Maharaja, under his own supervision, assassinated 2,37,000 Muslims using military forces in the Jammu area.


The editor of ‘Statesman’, Ian Stephen, in his book ‘Horned Moon’ writes that till the end of Autumn 1947, more than 200,000 Muslims were murdered in one go


Documents unravel that the events of time in Jammu that changed fate of millions received least reportage. Was the authoritarian Maharaja working under a plan and did he impose a blanket ban on noting down the gory events? Perhaps one would never know the details, but has been chronicled is: Around 500,000 Muslims were killed with military precision in Jammu in the months of October and November. (“Prejudice in Paradise”, communalism combat, Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal, 2005.)


The daily Times of London reported the events in Jammu with such a front page headings: ‘Elimination of Muslims from Jammu’ and pointed out that the Maharaja Hari Singh was ‘in person commanding all the forces’ which were ethnically cleansing the Muslims.


“The Hindus and Sikhs of Jammu and those who had gone there from outside (referring to RSS goons from Gurdaspur and surrounding areas) killed Muslims there. Their women have been dishonored. This has not been fully reported in the newspapers. The Maharaja of Kashmir is responsible for what has happened there” (Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, volume 90, page 115 and 298).


3. Invasion by Aryan forefathers? - Please update yourselves. India has retained its DNA pool since time immemorial. Can't say (not interested) about your land.


Yes Aryan Invaders You Have A Different View Please Do Share It



"The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period."
-Will Durant, "The Story of Civilisation: Our Oriental Heritage" (page 459).

Will Durant Is Known Islamophobe and Is Not A Professional Historian At All.His Work Has Been Bitterly Criticised By Professional Historians

"Durant’s brazenness and blind ambition offended some scholars. Critics accused Durant of carelessly dabbling in historical scholarship without professional credentials or qualifications. Professor J. H. Plumb, in New York Review of Books, asserted that “historical truth… can rarely be achieved outside the professional world [of historians].”[55] In the New York Herald Tribune Book Week, Professor Peter Gay of Columbia reflected Plumb’s assumption that only professional historians could write history, in that Durant’s “ultimate failure lies in [his] status: the book documents the loneliness of the amateur historian.”[56]

Durant realized the inevitability of professional criticism, accepting that “any man who sells his soul to synthesis will be a tragic target for a myriad merry darts of specialist critique.”[57] As was so in the Story of Philosophy, Durant’s purpose in The Story of Civilization was not to compose a professional writing, but to popularize history by making a large amount of information accessible and comprehensible to the educated public. The chance for errors, however, greatly increased with the scope of the undertaking. Details were lost and mistakes were made; but to Durant, the errors were small setbacks for his greater vision of “composite history.”


http://jimsafley.com/writings_archive/durant.html


Alain Danielou in his book, Histoire de l' Inde writes:

"From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of 'a holy war' of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilizations, wiped out entire races."

Irfan Husain in his article “Demons from the Past” observes:

While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan…The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed..Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster.

"Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage...

Irfan Hussain Is A Known Atheist And Person Who Is Known to Revile Muslim Society and Practices.He Is The Equivalent Of What You People Call 'Sickular'

Alain Denielou's Higher Education Was From The Hindu University In Benares.No Surprise As To Where His Ideas Are Coming From.He Also Written Entire Book Trying To Prove That Homosexuality Had Vedic Origins Now Do You Want To
Give Credibility To Such A Man?????

"They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground....All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death."
-Tuzk-i-Timuri

Taimur Was No Doubt A Brutal Ruler Who Wanted To Revive The Legacy Of His Ancestor Genghiz Khan.All Historians Know His Devotion to Islam Was Nominal At Best.He Used Islam As An Excuse To Carry Out His Atrocities.

Also Remember That Historian Irfan Habib writes in "Timur in the Political Tradition and Historiography of Mughal India" that in the 14th century, the word "Hindu" (people of "Al-Hind", "Hind" being "India") included "both Hindus and Muslims" in religious connotations

So When It Is Written That "Hindus" Were Killed In Medieval Texts.It Does Not Mean Your Fellow Co Religionist Alone It Means Everyone(Whether Of Vedic or Islamic Faith)
Who Had The Misfortune Of Settling At That Land At That Time.

Also Remember That When Taimur Attacked India He Was Facing The Muslim Tughlaq Empire

When Taimur Sacked Isfahan He Killed Between 100000 and 200000 People And Constructed 28 Towers of 1500 Heads Each.Now Tell Me Is Isfahan A City Of Hindus????What About Allepo and Damascus Taimur Sacked Those Cities Murdering Everyone Except Artisans Who Were Deported to Samarkand.So All In All Muslims Suuffered Exponentially More Than Hindus


If You Really Want To Know How A True Muslim Conducts Warfare Read The
1.Battle of Badr
2.Conquest of Makkah Mukarama

You Will Know How The Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) Conducted Warfare
 
Last edited:
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom