What's new

Questions about Hindus under Mughal empire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mongols only became Turkic once the Mongol empire broke up into smaller empires. Some of those empires mingled with Turks and became Turkic culturally and their children became a mix genetically.

Correct. Turks could be Azeri, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz Tatars, Oghuz, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Khiljis etc. while Mughals were cross between Mongols and Turks due to interracial marriages.
 
.
No, the empire, started to rot in 1719 with Muhammad Shah.

to be fair, the poor guy had to face the full weight of nader shah's army. (just look at what nader did to the mighty ottomans as an example).

one of our last wars of aggression. we defeated an indian army 6 times larger and took/sack delhi. You Pakistanis should learn from this :P

pardon my interruption~ as you were...
 
.
Turks are line of mongols

Cousins but somewhat different. Fore example Huns who conqured North India were Turks were Mongols genetically but called themeselves Turks.

Correct. Turks could be Azeri, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz Tatars, Oghuz, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Khiljis etc. while Mughals were cross between Mongols and Turks due to interracial marriages.
And Persian too.

Mother of Akbar was a Persian fore example.
 
.
to be fair, the poor guy had to face the full weight of nader shah's army. (just look at what nader did to the mighty ottomans as an example).

one of our last wars of aggression. we defeated an indian army 6 times larger and took/sack delhi. You Pakistanis should learn from this :P

pardon my interruption~ as you were...

True.

In 1738, Nader Shah conquered Kandahar, the last outpost of the Hotaki dynasty. His thoughts now turned to the Mughal Empire based in Delhi. This once powerful Muslim state to the east was falling apart as the nobles became increasingly disobedient and local opponents such as the Sikhs and Hindu Marathas of the Maratha Empire were expanding upon its territory. Its ruler Muhammad Shah was powerless to reverse this disintegration. Nader asked for the Afghan rebels to be handed over, but the Mughal emperor refused. Nader used the pretext of his Afghan enemies taking refuge in India to cross the border and invade the militarily weak but still extremely wealthy far eastern empire,[38] and in a brilliant campaign against the governor of Peshawar he took a small contingent of his forces on a daunting flank march through nearly impassable mountain passes and took the enemy forces positioned at the mouth of the Khyber Passcompletely by surprise, utterly beating them despite being outnumbered two-to-one. This led to the capture Ghazni, Kabul, Peshawar, Sindh and Lahore. As he moved into the Mughal territories, he was loyally accompanied by his Georgian subject and future king of Georgia, Erekle II, who led a Georgian contingent as a military commander as part of Nader's force.[39]Following the defeat of Mughal forces priorly, he then advanced deeper into India crossing the river Indus before the end of year. The news of the Persian army's swift and decisive successes against the northern vassal states of the Mughal empire caused much consternation in Delhi, prompting the Mughal ruler, Muhammad Shah, to summon an overwhelming force of some 300,000 men and march this gigantic host north towards the Persian army.


At the Battle of Karnal, Nader crushed an enormous Mughal army six times greater than his own
Despite being outnumbered by six to one, Nader Shah crushed the Mughal army in less than three hours at the huge Battle of Karnal on 13 February 1739. After this spectacular victory, Nader captured Mohammad Shah and entered with him into Delhi.[40] When a rumour broke out that Nader had been assassinated, some of the Indians attacked and killed Persian troops. Nader, furious, reacted by ordering his soldiers to plunder and sack the city. During the course of one day (March 22) 20,000 to 30,000 Indians were killed by the Persian troops, forcing Mohammad Shah to beg Nader for mercy.[41]

In response, Nader Shah agreed to withdraw, but Mohammad Shah paid the consequence in handing over the keys of his royal treasury, and losing even the Peacock Throne to the Persian emperor. The Peacock Throne thereafter served as a symbol of Persian imperial might. It is estimated that Nadir took away with him treasures worth as much as seven hundred million rupees. Among a trove of other fabulous jewels, Nader also gained the Koh-i-Noor and Darya-ye Noor diamonds (Koh-i-Noor means "Mountain of Light" in Persian, Darya-ye Noor means "Sea of Light"). The Persian troops left Delhi at the beginning of May 1739, but before they left, he ceded back all territories to the east of the Indus which he had overrun to Muhammad Shah.[42] Nader's soldiers also took with them thousands of elephants, horses and camels, loaded with the booty they had collected. The plunder seized from India was so rich that Nader stopped taxation in Iran for a period of three years following his return.[43] Nader attacked the empire to, perhaps, give his country some breathing space after previous turmoils. His successful campaign and replenishment of funds meant that he could continue his wars against Iran's archrival and neighbour, the Ottoman Empire,[44] as well as the campaigns in the North Caucasus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nader_Shah#Invasion_of_the_Mughal_Empire

Cousins but somewhat different. Fore example Huns who conqured North India were Turks were Mongols genetically but called themeselves Turks.


And Persian too.

Mother of Akbar was a Persian fore example.

Ofcourse. Turks are a huge race. It includes people from Subcontinent to Central Asia to Persia to Anaolia to Bulgars to Volga.
 
.
I thought Muslims, Christians and Jews (People of the Book) were only accepted under Muslim rule and worshiping anything other than God were not tolerated.

This is not true, there are many examples of non-abrahamic people being Generals, administrators, and rulers under the Mughals.

One of the Mughals core principles was maintaining a sense of communal peace amongst the various religions, however new religions that threatened the political status quo like Sikhism were very harshly discriminated against.
 
. .
to be fair, the poor guy had to face the full weight of nader shah's army. (just look at what nader did to the mighty ottomans as an example).

one of our last wars of aggression. we defeated an indian army 6 times larger and took/sack delhi. You Pakistanis should learn from this :P

pardon my interruption~ as you were...

Nader Shah was a detestable and despicable creature, calling him an organism is an insult to living creatures.

We don't exactly like him either, since he stomped through modern day Pakistan too. Glad he got stabbed and died, he deserved it.

Older Persian rulers such as Cyrus were much better, they treated the people of Indus much more appropriately after conquering the region and incorporated the people of Indus into the army.

Correct. Turks could be Azeri, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz Tatars, Oghuz, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Khiljis etc. while Mughals were cross between Mongols and Turks due to interracial marriages.

They were also Persianised culturally.

Mongols are like 80% East Asian and we are like 40 to 50% East Asian.

My small huna caste (25000) must have small but still significant amount of Turanid blood as I still have Turanid eyes even we lost 1000s of years ago. :)

Lot's of people are descended from the Huna people, such as the Gujjars and Rajputs.
 
.
This is not true, there are many examples of non-abrahamic people being Generals, administrators, and rulers under the Mughals.

One of the Mughals core principles was maintaining a sense of communal peace amongst the various religions, however new religions that threatened the political status quo like Sikhism were very harshly discriminated against.

Frankly, Mughals were not very Islamic but they did use Islam as a tool for their rule from period to period some times due to influence, support and help they got from Islamic empires outside subcontinent to continue their rule in India. Remember their forefather Genghis Khan created havoc and was responsible for the down fall of Islamic empire in the middle east. Timur even tried to resurrect Buddhist! empire in China. No kidding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Mongol_Empire

Though in Chagatai Khanate, Buddhism and Shamanism flourished until the 1350s. When the western part of the khanate embraced Islam quickly, the eastern part or Moghulistan slowed Islamization until Tughlugh Timur (1329/30-1363) who accepted Islam with his thousands of subjects.

The Yuan dynasty, unlike the western khanates, never converted to Islam. The other three Khanates accepted the suzerainty of Yuan dynasty but gradually that withered away. There had been many Muslim residing in Yuan dynasty territory since Kublai Khan and his successors were tolerant of other religions. Nevertheless, Buddhism was the most influential religion within its territory. Contact between Yuan emperors in China and states in North Africa, India, and the Middle East lasted until the mid-14th century. Foreigners like Uyghur Buddhists from Cochon, Nestorian Christian Keraits, Naimans, On guns, Jews, and Central Asian Muslims were classified as Semuren, "various sorts", below the Mongols but above the Chinese.[2]

At the same time the Mongols imported Central Asian Muslims to serve as administrators in China, the Mongols also sent Han Chinese and Khitans from China to serve as administrators over the Muslim population in Bukhara in Central Asia, using foreigners to curtail the power of the local peoples of both lands.[10]

Genghis Khan and the following Yuan Emperors forbade Islamic practices like Halal butchering, forcing Mongol methods of butchering animals on Muslims, and other restrictive degrees continued. Muslims had to slaughter sheep in secret.[11] Genghis Khan directly called Muslims and Jews "slaves", and demanded that they follow the Mongol method of eating rather than the halal method. Circumcision was also forbidden. Jews were also affected, and forbidden by the Mongols to eat Kosher.[12]

Among all the [subject] alien peoples only the Hui-hui say “we do not eat Mongol food”. [Cinggis Qa’an replied:] “By the aid of heaven we have pacified you; you are our slaves. Yet you do not eat our food or drink. How can this be right?” He thereupon made them eat. “If you slaughter sheep, you will be considered guilty of a crime.” He issued a regulation to that effect ... [In 1279/1280 under Qubilai] all the Muslims say: “if someone else slaughters [the animal] we do not eat”. Because the poor people are upset by this, from now on, Muscleman [Muslim] Huihui and Zhuhai [Jewish] Huihui, no matter who kills [the animal] will eat [it] and must cease slaughtering sheep themselves, and cease the rite of circumcision.

[13]

The Muslims in the same class also revolted against the Yuan dynasty in the Ispah Rebellion but the rebellion was crushed and the Muslims were massacred by the Yuan loyalist commander Chen Youding. Some Muslim communities had the name in Chinese which meant "barracks" and also mean "thanks", many Hui Muslims claim it is because that they played an important role in overthrowing the Mongols and it was named in thanks by the Han Chinese for assisting them.[14]

During the Ming conquest of Yunnan, Muslim Generals Mu Ying and Lan Yu, led Muslim troops loyal to the Ming dynasty against Mongol and Muslim troops loyal to the Yuan dynasty.[15][16]
 
Last edited:
.
They fraud fake muslims, nothing bunch of looters. i rather have the situation today than those days under them anyday.
 
.
They fraud fake muslims, nothing bunch of looters. i rather have the situation today than those days under them anyday.

Mughals were like chameleons. They adopted many religions and even created new religion as needed to continue their rule. They were great survivors and strategists.
 
.
Many Hindus did convert due to persecution by the Islamic invaders. There are 60 Millions Muslims in Subcontinent compared to 80 Million Hindus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

1) Persecution of non-Muslims using money as a weapon - Imposing jizya and higher duties on non-Muslims. This would have compelled non-Muslims to covert to Islam to avoid losing their hard earned money

2) Destruction of temples, looting the treasures from the temples and building Mosques in their places - This meant the priests and administrators of these temples would have lost their money & jobs unless they converted to Islam and start preaching Islam instead at the same location. The Hindu devotees who were emotionally attached to those priests and administration would have also covered to Islam to support their families and community at large. This may have given birth of Sufism in the subcontinent.

3) Every time a non-Islamic ruler lost, the royal women were married by the new Islamic rulers and their children became slaves, had the women and Children not already committed suicide (Jauhar). The non-Islamic generals and administration also would have got replaced by the Islamic ones. This again meant losing their jobs. So many would have converted to Islam to avoid losing their jobs.

Obviously not everyone gave up the fight against all these types of persecution. In fact many did not give up to these types of threats, pressures and persecutions and that is the reason why Hinduism still survives in India while the native religions just disappeared into thin air in regions like Iran, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Indonesia etc.

Now the subcontinent Muslims have hard time accepting this fact as accepting this would mean that their forefathers were weaker and they did not stand & fight along side with the forefathers of current day Hindus. Hence, the easier route would be to

1) Malign Hinduism to show that the conversion of their forefathers was not due to their weakness but due to their persecution under Hinduism. Now this reasoning falls flat for few reasons
a) The people who got converted to Islam in the regions of Pakistan & Afghanistan were not Hindus but rather Buddhists. Buddhism completely did away with caste system.
b) Most of the Hindus who got converted were Kshatriya, Brahman and Viasyas which meant they did not convert due to any persecution in Hinduism. Only Sudras who converted to Islam could claim this. Are Pakistanis willing to accept that most of their forefathers were Sudras? Certainly not! if reading the posts on PDF where people keep claiming about their manly physique & fairness of their skin and how they are superior to the dark, black and short Indian Hindus.

2) The alternate route is to claim that they are decedents of Arabs or Turks.This would mean they can steer clear of anyone questioning why their forefathers had to convert to Islam and avoid giving any justification. Genetics and DNA results be damned..



There is nothing to be proud of being a Turk in Subcontinent.

Towards the end of the fourteenth century, the Delhi Sultanate, once a powerful state,
entered a period of decline. Following the death of Sultan F¯ır¯uz Sh¯ah Tughluq (1351–88),
the heirs of the house of Tughluq battled successively for the throne. In 1394 N¯asir al-D¯ın
Mahm¯ud was put on the throne by one of the noble factions, but his real power extended
no further than the district round the capital and some adjacent regions (see above, Chapter
14, Part Two). Timur’s Indian campaign was heralded by the appearance under the walls of
Multan of the forces commanded by his grandson, P¯ır Muhammad, who overran and looted
this wealthy city. In September 1398 Timur himself crossed the Indus. Reducing towns and
fortresses to ‘heaps of ashes and debris’ as they went, his forces headed for the capital,
Delhi. Before the decisive battle on the banks of the Jumna (17 December 1398), Timur
ordered the execution of all prisoners held by his armies – the sources speak of 100,000
captives – fearing that they would side with the Sultan of Delhi during the fighting.
The battle for Delhi was bloody: ‘The battlefield was piled high with mountains of
dead and wounded . . . blood flowed in streams.’32 Sultan N¯asir al-D¯ın Mahm¯ud fled to
Gujarat. On 18 December the khutba was read out in the mosques of Delhi, mentioning P¯ır
Muhammad by name. The inhabitants of the city resisted the intruders, who were looting
and pillaging, seizing prisoners and killing: ‘Hindu heads were piled as high as they could
go and their bodies became food for wild animals and birds.’ It took several days to escort
the captives out of the city; among them were several thousand master craftsmen, including
stonemasons whom Timur intended to use for the construction of mosques in Samarkand.
33
On 1 January 1399 the warriors began to leave the city. They overwhelmed and pillaged
several further provinces and towns in north-western India, including Mirath (Meerut) and
Kangra. Timur recrossed the Indus in March 1399 and had soon left India behind. As
his vicegerent over Multan, Lahore and Dipalpur he appointed Khidr Khan Sayyid, who
mounted the throne in ruined Delhi in 1414 and founded the short-lived Sayyid dynasty.

http://en.unesco.org/silkroad/sites...ol_IVa silk road_central asia under timur.pdf


Timur invasion of India (1398-1399 AD)[edit]
Main article: Timur
The Turko-Mongol ruler Timur's attack of India was marked by systematic slaughter and other atrocities on a truly massive scale inflicted mainly on the subcontinent's Hindu population.[55] Leaving the Muslim populated areas aside, his army looted rest of the habits. The Hindu population was massacred or enslaved.[56] One hundred thousand Hindus prisoners were killed before he attacked Delhi and many more were killed afterwards.[57][58]

During the Timurid conquests of India, Haryana was the site of countless of appalling massacres, Timur's force of 90,000 soldiers each killed 50 to 100 Hindu men, women and children in Haryana, such atrocities include the be-headings of most of the enslaved Indian women after they were used for grinding, cooking and raping by Timur's soldiers before marching onward, causing a massive depopulation of the region.[59]

According to Habib and Raychaudhuri, when "Timur invaded India in 1398-99, collection of slaves formed an important object for his army; 100,000 Hindu slaves had been seized by his soldiers and camp followers".
[60]

(Timur's) soldiers grew more eager for plunder and destruction. On that Friday night there were about 15,000 men in the city who were engaged from early eve till morning in plundering and burning the houses. In many places the impure infidel gabrs (of Delhi) made resistance. (...) Every soldier obtained more than twenty persons as slaves, and some brought as many as fifty or a hundred men, women and children as slaves of the city. The other plunder and spoils were immense, gems and jewels of all sorts, rubies, diamonds, stuffs and fabrics, vases and vessels of gold and silver. (...) On the 19th of the month Old Delhi was thought of, for many Hindus had fled thither. Amir Shah Malik and Ali Sultan Tawachi, with 500 trusty men, proceeded against them, and falling upon them with the sword despatched them to hell.
– Sharafuddin Yazdi, Zafarnama (ظفرنامه)[61]


http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/death-tamerlane


Tamerlane, or Timur, one of history's most brutal butchers, died on February 18th, 1405.



timur.jpg

Tamerlane's tomb
In January the Scourge of God caught a cold. One of history’s most brutal butchers, now perhaps in his seventies, had set out with an army 200,000 strong from Samarqand, his capital, to try conclusions with the Chinese Empire, 3,000 miles away. It was a freezing cold winter, with the country deep in snow and the rivers frozen solid, and the army halted at Otrar in what is now Kazakhstan. The doctors’ efforts to cure their master, which included packing him in ice as the cold turned to fever, failed and it became clear that he was dying. Eventually, surrounded by his women and senior commanders, in a weak, almost inaudible voice he made an eloquent speech, telling them not to weep or run about madly tearing their clothes but to pray to God to have mercy on him.

He died at about eight o’clock in the evening, while icy winds howled round the palace and the tents of his army outside. The Chinese expedition was abandoned and the body was taken back to Samarqand to be interred beneath the dome of the Gur Amir mausoleum in a steel coffin under a slab of black jade six feet long, which was then the largest piece of the stone in the world. An inscription records: ‘This is the resting place of the illustrious and merciful monarch, the most great Sultan, the most mighty warrior, Lord Timur, Conqueror of the World.’

In Europe the name Timur iLeng, Timur the Lame, became Tamerlane or Tamburlaine. Lame he was, mighty he was, merciful he was not. As his latest biographer Justin Marozzi says, the millions he slaughtered – ‘buried alive, cemented into walls, massacred on the battlefield, sliced in two at the waist, trampled to death by horses, beheaded, hanged’ – would have had a different opinion. Of Mongol ancestry from what is now Uzbekistan, he began as a sheep-rustler and bandit, and was injured in a skirmish which left him lame in his right leg and unable to raise his right arm. In 1941 his tomb was opened by a Soviet archaeologist, Mikhail Gerasimov, who confirmed the injuries.

Building up a force of several hundred horsemen, Timur took service under an invading Mongol chieftain, seized Samarqand, took a wife descended from Genghis Khan and went on to an astonishing career of conquest until he ruled from Damascus to Delhi. Efficiently organised armies under his horse-tail standard covered immense distances. He destroyed the Golden Horde, conquered Persia and Mesopotamia, invaded Russia, Georgia, India, Syria and Turkey. Thousands of women were carried off as slaves. At Baghdad he had 90,000 of the inhabitants beheaded so that he could build towers with their skulls. At Sivas in Turkey, where he promised no bloodshed in return for surrender, he had 3,000 prisoners buried alive and pointed out that he had kept to the letter of his oath. His atrocities were intended to strike terror into the hearts of opponents, and cities which surrendered promptly were sometimes spared a sack. He was a Muslim and he justified his campaigns against Christians and Hindus as spreading the true faith, while when he attacked and slaughtered fellow-Muslims, as he very frequently did, they were always described as ‘bad Muslims’. Timur was a patron of art and learning and he turned Samarqand into an exquisitely beautiful city. His empire, which was never more than the expression of his personal dominance, did not survive his death.
 
.
@Muhammad bin Hamid


What are you trying to say by quoting the post?

The earliest Muslim Arab invaders under Muhammad bin Qasim, who conquered Sind and Multan in 711 AD, are the best representatives of Islam among all Muslim rulers of India as only 80 years had passed since death of prophet Muhammad. The Arabs established themselves in large towns of Sind, which were also military cantonments, but civil administration was left largely in the hands of the local chiefs, only a few of whom had accepted Islam. The administrative arrangements which Muhammad ibn Qasim made with the non-Muslims after his victory over Dahar are often referred to as "the Brahmanabad settlement." The basic principle was to treat the Hindus as "the people of the book," and to confer on them the status of the zimmis (the protected). In those years the fiqas had decreed that zimmis could not repair their places of worship , although existing ones were allowed to stand. The question of repairing a damaged temple in Sind came up before Muhammad bin Qasim, who referred the matter to Hajjaj. The latter, having consulted the 'ulama of Damascus, not only granted the permission asked for, but declared that so long as non-Muslims paid their dues to the state they were free to live in whatever manner they liked. "It appears," Hajjaj wrote, "that the chief inhabitants of Brahmanabad had petitioned to be allowed to repair the temple of Budh and pursue their religion. As they have made submission, and have agreed to pay taxes to the Khalifa, nothing more can properly be required from them. They have been taken under our protection, and we cannot in any way stretch out our hands upon their lives or property. Permission is given them to worship their gods. Nobody must be forbidden and prevented from following his own religion. They may live in their houses in whatever manner they like. According to one early Muslim historian, the Arab conqueror countenanced even the privileged position of the Brahmans, not only in religious matters, but also in the administrative sphere. "Muhammad ibn Qasim maintained their dignity and passed orders confirming their pre-eminence. They were protected against opposition and violence." Even the 3 percent share of government revenue which they had received during the ascendancy of the Brahman rulers of Sind, was conceded to them. (see http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/part1_01.html#administration)



Mohammed bin Qasim (AD 712-715)
Debal (Sindh)
"...The town was thus taken by assault, and the carnage endured for three days. The governor of the town, appointed by Dahir, fled and the priests of the temple were massacred. Muhammad marked a place for the Musalmans to dwell in, built a mosque, and left 4,000 Musalmans to garrison the place..."
"...Ambissa son of Ishak Az Zabbi, the governor of Sindh, in the Khilafat of Mu'tasim billah knocked down the upper part of the minaret of the temple and converted it into a prison..."

Multan (Punjab)
"...He then crossed the Biyas, and went towards Multan...Muhammad destroyed the water-course; upon which the inhabitants, oppressed with thirst, surrendered at discretion. He massacred the men capable of bearing arms, but the children were taken captive, as well as ministers of the temple, to the number of 6,000. The Musalmans found there much gold in a chamber ten cubits long by eight broad..."


Source:
Name Of The Book: Futuhu'l-Buldan
Name Of The Historian: Ahmed bin Yahya bin Jabir
About The Author: This author is also known as al-Biladhuri. He lived at the court of Khalifa Al-Mutawakkal (AD 847-861) and died in AD 893. His history is one of the major Arab chronicles.
 
.
Many Hindus did convert due to persecution by the Islamic invaders. There are 60 Millions Muslims in Subcontinent compared to 80 Million Hindus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

1) Persecution of non-Muslims using money as a weapon - Imposing jizya and higher duties on non-Muslims. This would have compelled non-Muslims to covert to Islam to avoid losing their hard earned money

2) Destruction of temples, looting the treasures from the temples and building Mosques in their places - This meant the priests and administrators of these temples would have lost their money & jobs unless they converted to Islam and start preaching Islam instead at the same location. The Hindu devotees who were emotionally attached to those priests and administration would have also covered to Islam to support their families and community at large. This may have given birth of Sufism in the subcontinent.

3) Every time a non-Islamic ruler lost, the royal women were married by the new Islamic rulers and their children became slaves, had the women and Children not already committed suicide (Jauhar). The non-Islamic generals and administration also would have got replaced by the Islamic ones. This again meant losing their jobs. So many would have converted to Islam to avoid losing their jobs.

Obviously not everyone gave up the fight against all these types of persecution. In fact many did not give up to these types of threats, pressures and persecutions and that is the reason why Hinduism still survives in India while the native religions just disappeared into thin air in regions like Iran, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Indonesia etc.

Now the subcontinent Muslims have hard time accepting this fact as accepting this would mean that their forefathers were weaker and they did not stand & fight along side with the forefathers of current day Hindus. Hence, the easier route would be to

1) Malign Hinduism to show that the conversion of their forefathers was not due to their weakness but due to their persecution under Hinduism. Now this reasoning falls flat for few reasons
a) The people who got converted to Islam in the regions of Pakistan & Afghanistan were not Hindus but rather Buddhists. Buddhism completely did away with caste system.
b) Most of the Hindus who got converted were Kshatriya, Brahman and Viasyas which meant they did not convert due to any persecution in Hinduism. Only Sudras who converted to Islam could claim this. Are Pakistanis willing to accept that most of their forefathers were Sudras? Certainly not! if reading the posts on PDF where people keep claiming about their manly physique & fairness of their skin and how they are superior to the dark, black and short Indian Hindus.

2) The alternate route is to claim that they are decedents of Arabs or Turks.This would mean they can steer clear of anyone questioning why their forefathers had to convert to Islam and avoid giving any justification. Genetics and DNA results be damned..



There is nothing to be proud of being a Turk in Subcontinent.

Towards the end of the fourteenth century, the Delhi Sultanate, once a powerful state,
entered a period of decline. Following the death of Sultan F¯ır¯uz Sh¯ah Tughluq (1351–88),
the heirs of the house of Tughluq battled successively for the throne. In 1394 N¯asir al-D¯ın
Mahm¯ud was put on the throne by one of the noble factions, but his real power extended
no further than the district round the capital and some adjacent regions (see above, Chapter
14, Part Two). Timur’s Indian campaign was heralded by the appearance under the walls of
Multan of the forces commanded by his grandson, P¯ır Muhammad, who overran and looted
this wealthy city. In September 1398 Timur himself crossed the Indus. Reducing towns and
fortresses to ‘heaps of ashes and debris’ as they went, his forces headed for the capital,
Delhi. Before the decisive battle on the banks of the Jumna (17 December 1398), Timur
ordered the execution of all prisoners held by his armies – the sources speak of 100,000
captives – fearing that they would side with the Sultan of Delhi during the fighting.
The battle for Delhi was bloody: ‘The battlefield was piled high with mountains of
dead and wounded . . . blood flowed in streams.’32 Sultan N¯asir al-D¯ın Mahm¯ud fled to
Gujarat. On 18 December the khutba was read out in the mosques of Delhi, mentioning P¯ır
Muhammad by name. The inhabitants of the city resisted the intruders, who were looting
and pillaging, seizing prisoners and killing: ‘Hindu heads were piled as high as they could
go and their bodies became food for wild animals and birds.’ It took several days to escort
the captives out of the city; among them were several thousand master craftsmen, including
stonemasons whom Timur intended to use for the construction of mosques in Samarkand.
33
On 1 January 1399 the warriors began to leave the city. They overwhelmed and pillaged
several further provinces and towns in north-western India, including Mirath (Meerut) and
Kangra. Timur recrossed the Indus in March 1399 and had soon left India behind. As
his vicegerent over Multan, Lahore and Dipalpur he appointed Khidr Khan Sayyid, who
mounted the throne in ruined Delhi in 1414 and founded the short-lived Sayyid dynasty.

http://en.unesco.org/silkroad/sites...ol_IVa silk road_central asia under timur.pdf


Timur invasion of India (1398-1399 AD)[edit]
Main article: Timur
The Turko-Mongol ruler Timur's attack of India was marked by systematic slaughter and other atrocities on a truly massive scale inflicted mainly on the subcontinent's Hindu population.[55] Leaving the Muslim populated areas aside, his army looted rest of the habits. The Hindu population was massacred or enslaved.[56] One hundred thousand Hindus prisoners were killed before he attacked Delhi and many more were killed afterwards.[57][58]

During the Timurid conquests of India, Haryana was the site of countless of appalling massacres, Timur's force of 90,000 soldiers each killed 50 to 100 Hindu men, women and children in Haryana, such atrocities include the be-headings of most of the enslaved Indian women after they were used for grinding, cooking and raping by Timur's soldiers before marching onward, causing a massive depopulation of the region.[59]

According to Habib and Raychaudhuri, when "Timur invaded India in 1398-99, collection of slaves formed an important object for his army; 100,000 Hindu slaves had been seized by his soldiers and camp followers".
[60]

(Timur's) soldiers grew more eager for plunder and destruction. On that Friday night there were about 15,000 men in the city who were engaged from early eve till morning in plundering and burning the houses. In many places the impure infidel gabrs (of Delhi) made resistance. (...) Every soldier obtained more than twenty persons as slaves, and some brought as many as fifty or a hundred men, women and children as slaves of the city. The other plunder and spoils were immense, gems and jewels of all sorts, rubies, diamonds, stuffs and fabrics, vases and vessels of gold and silver. (...) On the 19th of the month Old Delhi was thought of, for many Hindus had fled thither. Amir Shah Malik and Ali Sultan Tawachi, with 500 trusty men, proceeded against them, and falling upon them with the sword despatched them to hell.
– Sharafuddin Yazdi, Zafarnama (ظفرنامه)[61]


http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/death-tamerlane


Tamerlane, or Timur, one of history's most brutal butchers, died on February 18th, 1405.



timur.jpg

Tamerlane's tomb
In January the Scourge of God caught a cold. One of history’s most brutal butchers, now perhaps in his seventies, had set out with an army 200,000 strong from Samarqand, his capital, to try conclusions with the Chinese Empire, 3,000 miles away. It was a freezing cold winter, with the country deep in snow and the rivers frozen solid, and the army halted at Otrar in what is now Kazakhstan. The doctors’ efforts to cure their master, which included packing him in ice as the cold turned to fever, failed and it became clear that he was dying. Eventually, surrounded by his women and senior commanders, in a weak, almost inaudible voice he made an eloquent speech, telling them not to weep or run about madly tearing their clothes but to pray to God to have mercy on him.

He died at about eight o’clock in the evening, while icy winds howled round the palace and the tents of his army outside. The Chinese expedition was abandoned and the body was taken back to Samarqand to be interred beneath the dome of the Gur Amir mausoleum in a steel coffin under a slab of black jade six feet long, which was then the largest piece of the stone in the world. An inscription records: ‘This is the resting place of the illustrious and merciful monarch, the most great Sultan, the most mighty warrior, Lord Timur, Conqueror of the World.’

In Europe the name Timur iLeng, Timur the Lame, became Tamerlane or Tamburlaine. Lame he was, mighty he was, merciful he was not. As his latest biographer Justin Marozzi says, the millions he slaughtered – ‘buried alive, cemented into walls, massacred on the battlefield, sliced in two at the waist, trampled to death by horses, beheaded, hanged’ – would have had a different opinion. Of Mongol ancestry from what is now Uzbekistan, he began as a sheep-rustler and bandit, and was injured in a skirmish which left him lame in his right leg and unable to raise his right arm. In 1941 his tomb was opened by a Soviet archaeologist, Mikhail Gerasimov, who confirmed the injuries.

Building up a force of several hundred horsemen, Timur took service under an invading Mongol chieftain, seized Samarqand, took a wife descended from Genghis Khan and went on to an astonishing career of conquest until he ruled from Damascus to Delhi. Efficiently organised armies under his horse-tail standard covered immense distances. He destroyed the Golden Horde, conquered Persia and Mesopotamia, invaded Russia, Georgia, India, Syria and Turkey. Thousands of women were carried off as slaves. At Baghdad he had 90,000 of the inhabitants beheaded so that he could build towers with their skulls. At Sivas in Turkey, where he promised no bloodshed in return for surrender, he had 3,000 prisoners buried alive and pointed out that he had kept to the letter of his oath. His atrocities were intended to strike terror into the hearts of opponents, and cities which surrendered promptly were sometimes spared a sack. He was a Muslim and he justified his campaigns against Christians and Hindus as spreading the true faith, while when he attacked and slaughtered fellow-Muslims, as he very frequently did, they were always described as ‘bad Muslims’. Timur was a patron of art and learning and he turned Samarqand into an exquisitely beautiful city. His empire, which was never more than the expression of his personal dominance, did not survive his death.
hindu religion is illogical when one use his common sense he finds that it is based on only perceptions with no logic.such as how deaf mute blind immovable man made idols can help a person in need so I think logic given by Islam is very strong and also there is strong
spirit in Islamic rituals and teachings and also there is beauty spirit and shine in face of a Muslim which is absent in non Muslims and satisfaction and a sense of strength which can be felt by implementation of Islamic principles in one life so I think these matters also played a role in
spread of Islam
 
.
hindu religion is illogical when one use his common sense he finds that it is based on only perceptions with no logic.such as how deaf mute blind immovable man made idols can help a person in need so I think logic given by Islam is very strong and also there is strong
spirit in Islamic rituals and teachings and also there is beauty spirit and shine in face of a Muslim which is absent in non Muslims and satisfaction and a sense of strength which can be felt by implementation of Islamic principles in one life so I think these matters also played a role in
spread of Islam

Of course you practice it so you should know better about Islam than me. My point was not about Islam itself but how rulers have persecuted Hindus/Buddhists in the name of Islam. And this is not limited to Hindus & Buddists alone. Even Umayyads and Persians have also used it for their own political purposes. Even Turko-Mughals have used it when it suited them.

BTW Hindus do not worship Idols themselves. Idols are used to help people focus when they pray. Hindus worship the supreme soul that is manifested in various forms of energy/life.
 
. .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom