Islamic India: The biggest holocaust in World History… whitewashed from history books

[gattaca]

Islamic India: The biggest holocaust in World History… whitewashed from history books The genocide suffered by the Hindus of India at the hands of Arab, Turkish, Mughal and Afghan occupying forces for a period of 800 years is as yet formally unrecognised by the World. The only similar genocide in the recent past was that of the Jewish people at the hands of the Nazis. The holocaust of the Hindus in India was of even greater proportions, the only difference was that it continued for 800 years, till the brutal regimes were effectively overpowered in a life and death struggle by the Sikhs in the Panjab and the Hindu Maratha armies in other parts of India in the late 1700’s. We have elaborate literary evidence of the World’s biggest holocaust from existing historical contemporary eyewitness accounts. The historians and biographers of the invading armies and subsequent rulers of India have left quite detailed records of the atrocities they committed in their day-to-day encounters with India’s Hindus. These contemporary records boasted about and glorified the crimes that were committed – and the genocide of tens of millions of Hindus, mass rapes of Hindu women and the destruction of thousands of ancient Hindu / Buddhist temples and libraries have been well documented and provide solid proof of the World’s biggest holocaust. Quotes from modern historians Dr. Koenraad Elst in his article “Was There an Islamic Genocide of Hindus?” states: “There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like punishing the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty. The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526).“ He also writes in his book “Negation in India”: “The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter.” Will Durant argued in his 1935 book “The Story of Civilisation: Our Oriental Heritage” (page 459): “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.” Francois Gautier in his book ‘Rewriting Indian History’ (1996) wrote: “The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese.” 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…” A sample of contemporary eyewitness accounts of the invaders and rulers, during the Indian conquests The Afghan ruler Mahmud al-Ghazni invaded India no less than seventeen times between 1001 – 1026 AD. The book ‘Tarikh-i-Yamini’ – written by his secretary documents several episodes of his bloody military campaigns : “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.” In the contemporary record – ‘ Taj-ul-Ma’asir’ by Hassn Nizam-i-Naishapuri, it is stated that when Qutb-ul- Din Aibak (of Turko – Afghan origin and the First Sultan of Delhi 1194-1210 AD) conquered Meerat, he demolished all the Hindu temples of the city and erected mosques on their sites. In the city of Aligarh, he converted Hindu inhabitants to Islam by the sword and beheaded all those who adhered to their own religion. The Persian historian Wassaf writes in his book ‘Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat ul Asar’ that when the Alaul-Din Khilji (An Afghan of Turkish origin and second ruler of the Khilji Dynasty in India 1295-1316 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.

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/12/31/islamic-india-the-biggest-holocaust-in-world-history-whitewashed-from-history-books/

[gattaca]

From fb share interesting read. Probably most of this supression of this history is because of indias Muslim population which I am pretty much ok with to maintain communal peace. But didn't know Hindu kush was named after slaughter of lot of people.

[sticky wicket]

From fb share interesting read. Probably most of this supression of this history is because of indias Muslim population which I am pretty much ok with to maintain communal peace. But didn't know Hindu kush was named after slaughter of lot of people.

I think Kush means blood in Persian or Pashtun, so hindu blood mountain range

[Desi Cartman]

I obviously do not know to what extent there was violence but if anybody thought that there wasnt bloodshed and brutality under the Muslim rulers or even during the conquest, then they must be kidding themselves. Even the Hindu kings or most kings anywhere on the planet abused the people and killed them to maintain control. One positive about not discussing things like this or slaughter under British rule helps people not hate anybody. It's amazing how Indians like Goras or even Englishmen, even after so much happening. It helps people move on, what's done is done and nor can current generation be held responsible for the acts of their forefathers. This just shows that peace and religion usually don't get along well.

[Desi Cartman]

I think Kush means blood in Persian or Pashtun' date=' so hindu blood mountain range[/quote'] There are many theories about this name from being named after Lord Rams son to being named after a certain peak. Check wiki

[gslv]

The mohammadans are always like this. They want pan Islamism which is not less that nazism , it is just in the garb of religion.

[Black Zero]

But i never understood one thing guys, i know that islamic rulers were not kind toward native Hindus but if they were that bad as they are made to be in this thread than tell me one thing how come there is still almost double the Hindus population than Muslim population in sub continent still, if Muslim ruler wanted such a holocast they could kill all Hindus in their regime of 800 years, or they could force all Hindus out of sub-continent or could have forced all of them to embrace Islam, as the christian did to Muslims of old Spain, so i am not saying Muslim rulers didn't killed thousands of Hindus as ruler, and rulers always do this to native people no matter which religion rulers belong to, but there wasn't anything like what hittler did to jews, so being a hindu don't mean you become bias toward historical facts. And i am all for having good relations with all our neighbours including pak, after all who don't love peace?

[Desi Cartman]

I guess an extreme conversion effort would have been very dangerous due to the size of population and the area. If you see even now there are some areas where there is more concentrated Muslim population and that's either due to conversion or some sort of migration and then marrying locals. I'm sure there was destruction and killings but that could be due to religion or strategy or just the norm. Remember how many people were killed by Ashoka before the realization?

[Black Zero]

^^ ok i somewhat agree with you but even if total conversion wasn't possible for Muslim rulers than atleast they would have made sure that there are More Muslims in sub-continet than Hindus, and they could have easily done that in 8 centuries of islamic rule, so i don't buy this theory that Muslims tried to on a very large scale to Finish and convert the Hindus to turn them into a Minority, and actually the reality is opposite, till this date there are almost double the Hindus than Muslims in subcontinet, so OP should re-think what he stated, otherwise what will be the difference in islamic extremist and us?

[Shivaji bhonsle]

But i never understood one thing guys' date=' i know that islamic rulers were not kind toward native Hindus but if they were that bad as they are made to be in this thread than tell me one thing how come there is still almost double the Hindus population than Muslim population in sub continent still, if Muslim ruler wanted such a holocast they could kill all Hindus in their regime of 800 years, or they could force all Hindus out of sub-continent or could have forced all of them to embrace Islam, as the christian did to Muslims of old Spain, so i am not saying Muslim rulers didn't killed thousands of Hindus as ruler, and rulers always do this to native people no matter which religion rulers belong to, but there wasn't anything like what hittler did to jews, so being a hindu don't mean you become bias toward historical facts. And i am all for having good relations with all our neighbours including pak, after all who don't love peace?[/quote'] Shivaji bhonsle...:winky:

[AmreekanDesi]

if you wanna talk abt the biggest holocausts type events in history then look no further than Ashoka and his exploits in Kalinga. No matter what change of heart he had later, it should not mean that he goes scot free considering my dads side has roots from orissa thery must have some history in that

[Raghav_12]

From what I have heard and read, nothing can meet the atrocities and massacre that Genghis Khan carried on the territories he captured. He should be the person with most blood on his hands. History is full with gory incidents.

[Yoda-esque]

Read up on Timurs conquest of India that lasted but a few days...

[Yoda-esque]

But i never understood one thing guys' date=' i know that islamic rulers were not kind toward native Hindus but if they were that bad as they are made to be in this thread than tell me one thing how come there is still almost double the Hindus population than Muslim population in sub continent still, if Muslim ruler wanted such a holocast they could kill all Hindus in their regime of 800 years, or they could force all Hindus out of sub-continent or could have forced all of them to embrace Islam, as the christian did to Muslims of old Spain, so i am not saying Muslim rulers didn't killed thousands of Hindus as ruler, and rulers always do this to native people no matter which religion rulers belong to, but there wasn't anything like what hittler did to jews, so being a hindu don't mean you become bias toward historical facts. And i am all for having good relations with all our neighbours including pak, after all who don't love peace?[/quote'] Unlike South American countries, India had a population of 120 million when Babur attacked.Not easy to effect mass conversions at that level. Also, they were relatively successful ..Look at Pak

[jalebi_bhai]

But i never understood one thing guys' date=' i know that islamic rulers were not kind toward native Hindus but if they were that bad as they are made to be in this thread than tell me one thing how come there is still almost double the Hindus population than Muslim population in sub continent still, if Muslim ruler wanted such a holocast they could kill all Hindus in their regime of 800 years, or they could force all Hindus out of sub-continent or could have forced all of them to embrace Islam, as the christian did to Muslims of old Spain, so i am not saying Muslim rulers didn't killed thousands of Hindus as ruler, and rulers always do this to native people no matter which religion rulers belong to, but there wasn't anything like what hittler did to jews, so being a hindu don't mean you become bias toward historical facts. And i am all for having good relations with all our neighbours including pak, after all who don't love peace?[/quote'] Well, the fact is that foreign Muslim invaders (FMIs) never conquered the whole of India. The Vijayanagar Empire, for about 3 centuries, warded off the Muslims in the South. It was under very limited foreign Muslim rule. The FMIs also never managed to defeat the Ahom (Assam) dynasty in the east. FMIs waged physical wars. They never tried to beat the Hindus at a psychological level, unlike the British. Hence, Hindus were still very much united by their Dharma during the Muslim invasions.

[Kalia_Test]

If we go by what the OP reports, does it mean that most of SC muslim population became muslims because their forefathers were intimidated by swords of invaders and converted or victims of rape? Why do we then hear from muslims ( mostly from Pak ) that they received some divine message and converted? Is the divine message delivered through the swords of invaders or their pr1cks?

[rageaddict]

Well, the fact is that foreign Muslim invaders (FMIs) never conquered the whole of India. The Vijayanagar Empire, for about 3 centuries, warded off the Muslims in the South. It was under very limited foreign Muslim rule. The FMIs also never managed to defeat the Ahom (Assam) dynasty in the east. FMIs waged physical wars. They never tried to beat the Hindus at a psychological level, unlike the British. Hence, Hindus were still very much united by their Dharma during the Muslim invasions.

Yes , very very few people that Ahom Kings managed to defend their sovereignty against Mughal forces. The Kingdom even used their navy to good effect. I just wonder whats the history between Mughals and Nepal/Bhutan/Burma. Did the Mughal armies never tried to capture these lands ?

[randomGuy]

If we go by what the OP reports, does it mean that most of SC muslim population became muslims because their forefathers were intimidated by swords of invaders and converted or victims of rape? Why do we then hear from muslims ( mostly from Pak ) that they received some divine message and converted? Is the divine message delivered through the swords of invaders or their pr1cks?

Many of them believe they ruled over India meaning that they believe their forefathers were not converted, others believe that they embraced Islam meaning there were no pressures to convert. So there are mixed views among pakis:cantstop:

[jalebi_bhai]

If we go by what the OP reports, does it mean that most of SC muslim population became muslims because their forefathers were intimidated by swords of invaders and converted or victims of rape? Why do we then hear from muslims ( mostly from Pak ) that they received some divine message and converted? Is the divine message delivered through the swords of invaders or their pr1cks?

Stockholm syndrome.

[Old guy]

Stockholm syndrome.

Over centuries and over generations ? :cantstop: