Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
From cultural point of view, There would not have been any language with the name of Urdu. We would not have Qawwali. We would be living on veg dishes. No biryani, qorma, kabab...
Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
No not vegetable dishes, Non veg is part of every hindu household in the region which didn't encounter jainism and buddhism. Like Bengali pandits eat fish, Kashmiri Pandits also do eat fish and lamb. I think arrival of Islam would have not taught hindus, the effective use of artillery.
But I think, arrival of British (except for the fact that unlike muslims they didn't make this sub-continent home) was far better than muslims :)
Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
No not vegetable dishes, Non veg is part of every hindu household in the region which didn't encounter jainism and buddhism. Like Bengali pandits eat fish, Kashmiri Pandits also do eat fish and lamb. I think arrival of Islam would have not taught hindus, the effective use of artillery.
But I think, arrival of British (except for the fact that unlike muslims they didn't make this sub-continent home) was far better than muslims :)
May be, if there were no Muslim rulers in India, British had reached much earlier and ruled for longer.
Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
May if there were no Muslim rulers in India, British had reached much earlier and ruled for longer.
I don't think both of these point had any effect on the british raj. british raj would have taken the same pace, as Hindu rulers were not so different from muslims. and for Hitler wouldn't have brought us in WWII, brits would have ruled us for longer. would they been worst than present leaders that we have got? that is debatable
Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
agar vo na aate to hamko muGhlaaii khaane na milte! :)
Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
agar vo na aate to hamko muGhlaaii khaane na milte! :)
what about Mujra?
Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
what about Mujra?
vo to Raje Maharaje bhii sunaa karte the bas unkii no'aiyat zaraa muKhtalif huaa kartii thii. :)
Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
vo to Raje Maharaje bhii sunaa karte the bas unkii no'aiyat zaraa muKhtalif huaa kartii thii. :)
what they call it. Mujra seems Arabic / Persian word.
Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
what they call it. Mujra seems Arabic / Persian word.
Mujra is a word which is more common by it's applied meaning "naach gaanaa by tawaai'f" but the real meaning is strangely common in my dehaatii [poorbii] zabaan...it's an arabic word and it means "deduction from the sum". i used to hear this word in my village by kunjRaas who used to buy fruits of our mango/guava orchards. they used to say:
"saHbaoo, bagiyaa ke amvaa maa se mujraa kar leheN"
[please deduct the amount from the mango crop."
it's strange...those illiterate village folks are use language in a more correct way...for instance, ham awadhi log kabhii "maiN" nahiiN iste'maal karte...hamesha "ham" kaa lafz iste'maal karte haiN. magar dehaatii log HAM kaa lafz kabhi iste'maal nahiiN karte...apne liye hamesha "maiN" kahte haiN.
strange na?
Hindi meN:
mujraa = vaishyagaan [vaishya = tawaa'if + gaan = gaanaa]
Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
Muslims did not cause any religious hatred. A false concept and simply a propaganda by Hindu Nationalists
It was there in many forms already in Indian subcontinent.
Persecution of Buddhas by Hindus was from as early as 2nd century BC.
A lot of new inventions and knowledge was brought to the area by Muslims from different regions.
Urdu was made a popular language after invasion of India by Muslims...from Arab, Persian and Turks.
Monotheism got its place strongly in a society where polytheism was common practice.
New concept of everyone having same respect despite having different background was brought. (Yes, some Muslims even after conversion continued this wrongful mindset)
Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
Muslim did cause hatred, at least, that resulted in militant version of Sikhism, called Khalsa, was solely due to atrocity of Muslim emperor, Aurangzeb. Destruction of Somnath did cause hatred, just like destruction of Babri in recent time. In fact, humans societies have always disliked and hated anything which was foreign to them across culture and across the globe. It was fear and hatred for hindu that created and sustained Pakistan at first place :)
The idea of Hindu nationalism was not due to Muslims, though Sikh nationalism that culminated in Ranjit Singh empire was Sikh nationalism at its height.
The idea of political nationhood is British introduction in India, first taken up by the bengalis, which resulted in Indian national awakening and Hindu nationhood.
As far as persecution of Buddhists are concerned, they were completely annihilated from bamyan after invasion of Islam, Afghans were Buddhist. Lord Buddha is called 16th avatar of Hindu god Vishnu, though persecution of Buddhist cannot by Hindus cannot be ruled out. Though independent India's national symbols, like our emblem, national flag are all buddhist even now, in fact there is no difference in Buddhist and Hindu lifestyle, Islam is absolutely different.
Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
Muslim did cause hatred, at least, that resulted in militant version of Sikhism, called Khalsa, was solely due to atrocity of Muslim emperor, Aurangzeb. Destruction of Somnath did cause hatred, just like destruction of Babri in recent time. In fact, humans societies have always disliked and hated anything which was foreign to them across culture and across the globe. It was fear and hatred for hindu that created and sustained Pakistan at first place :)
The idea of Hindu nationalism was not due to Muslims, though Sikh nationalism that culminated in Ranjit Singh empire was Sikh nationalism at its height.
The idea of political nationhood is British introduction in India, first taken up by the bengalis, which resulted in Indian national awakening and Hindu nationhood.
As far as persecution of Buddhists are concerned, they were completely annihilated from bamyan after invasion of Islam, Afghans were Buddhist. Lord Buddha is called 16th avatar of Hindu god Vishnu, though persecution of Buddhist cannot by Hindus cannot be ruled out. Though independent India's national symbols, like our emblem, national flag are all buddhist even now, in fact there is no difference in Buddhist and Hindu lifestyle, Islam is absolutely different.
Muslim rulers brought Hindu women in to their lives by marrying them also. Even made efforts to combine Hinduism with Islam. "Deen-e-Akbari" or Deen-e-Ilahi":D
Aurangzeb was one of rulers of end stage of Muslim rulers and had very short life span of his rule over India.
The hatred for Buddhists by Hindus was present long before Muslims set their feet in Hindustan. And history is all for to read and consult on this issue.
Muslims brought Hindustan under one big Umbrella, and Hindus were and have been the worst enemies of their own kind from very beginning, dividing themselves in to different categories/casts.
Overall, it was a blessing for Hindustan for Muslims to rule over it. Before that they had very limited exposure to the world or not willing to be exposed by the world outside with so much advancement and knowledge. :)
Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
Muslim rulers brought Hindu women in to their lives by marrying them also. Even made efforts to combine Hinduism with Islam. "Deen-e-Akbari" or Deen-e-Ilahi":D
Aurangzeb was one of rulers of end stage of Muslim rulers and had very short life span of his rule over India.
The hatred for Buddhists by Hindus was present long before Muslims set their feet in Hindustan. And history is all for to read and consult on this issue.
Muslims brought Hindustan under one big Umbrella, and Hindus were and have been the worst enemies of their own kind from very beginning, dividing themselves in to different categories/casts. ** Overall, it was a blessing for Hindustan for Muslims to rule over it. Before that they had very limited exposure to the world or not willing to be exposed by the world outside with so much advancement and knowledge.** :)
Muslims were not first invaders to give Indians exposure of world outside. They have been subject to raids from Persian and Greece. If Aryan's coming from outside theory is considered true, then the population of India had had enough of exposure to the foreign cultures and roots.
I don't think that Indian civilization was a dead civilisation which would not have welcomed any advancement, if Muslims were not in picture. Muslim did add to Indian society, but its not a fact that society would have been barren as to education and advancement, had Muslims not invaded India.
Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
Muslim rulers brought Hindu women in to their lives by marrying them also. Even made efforts to combine Hinduism with Islam. "Deen-e-Akbari" or Deen-e-Ilahi":D
Muslim men actually brought more hindu rulers into administration, marriage was always one way, because hindu women's child will be considered as muslim, but a muslim women's child with Hindu father will never be considered Hindu. So it was administrative part that was far more prominent than the matrimonial one. And the bulk of administrators were of Brahmin decent from Raja todarmal to Beerbal. and rajputs, being relatives were on military duty as usual. In absence of Mughal, these Rajputs would have served as kings anyway. So it would have been as normal mostly. Casteism remain as it was, even after arrival of Islam, even Jinnah have promised to keep dalits, because someone was required to clean gutters of Pakistan.
Aurangzeb was one of rulers of end stage of Muslim rulers and had very short life span of his rule over India.
The hatred for Buddhists by Hindus was present long before Muslims set their feet in Hindustan. And history is all for to read and consult on this issue.
So consulting a little more, the biggest empire of India in our history was mauryan, not mughal and it was buddhist empire, there was no all out elimination of Buddhist like it happened in Afghanistan. Infact Buddhist university of Nalanda was burned by Bhaktiyar Khilji, not by some brahmin because it taught kafir literature. So Islam expedited what Hindus wanted to achieve even militarily :)
Muslims brought Hindustan under one big Umbrella, and Hindus were and have been the worst enemies of their own kind from very beginning, dividing themselves in to different categories/casts.
castes are still a divide, but India now has biggest landscape. Infact, mughal empire upto time of Shahjahan was almost as big as Gupta empire, even chola empire, that was centered in madurai and extended upto kannauj was as big as Mughal empire and lasted for 1000 years, so caste discrimination was of no political consequences ever.
Overall, it was a blessing for Hindustan for Muslims to rule over it. Before that they had very limited exposure to the world or not willing to be exposed by the world outside with so much advancement and knowledge. :)
Muslim empire never brought any revolutionary thing in india, even match box is British introduction. Infact, India suffered because Muslim rulers have no inclination towards science, rather arrival of Islam eliminated hindu university of Taxila and Buddhist university of Nalanda.
India would have been same if not better without arrival of Islam, though Islam brought new things, new design of architecture, painting, but things as simple as sewing machine is British introduction :)
Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
I never said Msulims were the only factors which exposed India to outside world but certainly a significant contribution to indian sub-continent was made Muslim rulers in its progress and new ideas.
Many previous rulers and even British who came after Muslims, did not feel India as their home but Muslim rulers did.
I like the way you make it sound no unusual event happened in India when this land was ruled by Muslims. Business as usual. 
First you are comparing two different era when comparing Muslim rulers with British inventions. Muslims ruled in medieval times and British came after that.
British learned a lot from Muslim rulers all around the world. They made progress but Muslims were subdued in different areas by better weapons, will to destroy Muslim rules and lack of Muslims desire to keep the power in hand by consistently using power.
A lot of history was then became under British Imperials and was distorted as if many many basic inventions were actually the work of themselves…and not the Muslims.
**I say, each area had something to contribute to progress with and without sharing the knowledge from each other and learning from previous civilization.
**
it is the bigotry and dishonesty on British Imperials to minimize the importance of Muslim civilization all across the world including in India which we in these days are exposed to.
I had a chance to read a book (forgot the name since I decided not to buy after reading few pages) about great mathematicians of the world? and there was no mention of any Arab scientist in it.
As to abolition of Buddhism in India, please refer to this article.
As I mentioned, it was the Hinduism which played a MAJOR part in abolition of Buddhism in India. Mainly the Brahmanism.
With the superiority complex of Brahmins, they could not see Buddhist (Anti-Vedics) flourishing as they were in initial stage.
Muslims actually came very late in the game when Buddhism was already close to being extinct in India. Some argue tha it never wa abolished but emulated in to Hinduism in different forms, making a hybrid of two religions.
Moreover, Muslims mainly ruled over North India but Buddhism resided mostly in South India…where perhaps it was originated.
I am not sure what you meant by referring to Jinnah and gutter cleaning dalits. Jinnah never on record approved caste system. If he did, then please post.
Saying that somehow caste system did not make any difference to political system is very confusing statement.
it was not just a social system it was mainly a political system where upper class was given freedom to rule over lower class under religious pretext.
If Rajput could really rule over India then why they could not really defeat Muslims and ruled over it? They could have sent Muslims out of country for so long? Yes they were great fighters but lacked the ruling ability and had many of their own enemies within the country.
Muslims versus British Rule:
1- Muslims made India their homeland.
2- British ruled India like their slaves and never shown respect to the land or made locals feel them as their own. (Until the last few decades when Hindus were given extra benefits to defeat Muslim sentiments againt British rulers).
3- Eventually Both Muslims and Hindus had to make demand that British leave the country.
4- Hindus on one single front never asked Muslims to leave the country since they knew Muslims despite coming from outside still were sincere to the land.
5- Muslim rulers enhanced local progress, British slowly took the resources out for their benefits and even took the wealth and the Kohi-Noor diamond with them…along with the books written in India.
6- Musims rulers were not really selfish. They did cause unity among people. Off course they had to use force where needed to keep them in power.
If one looks at the world today, most of the problems were actually created by British Imperialism and David Cameron had to acknowledge it to show his distance from British Imperialism.]
(Did not read all of these articles and sites below, but the essence was taken out)
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS FOR THE DISAPPEARANCE OF BUDDHISM FROM INDIA | ANKUR BARUA - Academia.edu
Muslim Rule in India - IslamCan.com
Decline of Buddhism in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
David Cameron: Britain caused many of the world’s problems - Telegraph
Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
I like the way you make it sound no unusual event happened in India when this land was ruled by Muslims. Business as usual. :)
The point here was, that without Islam, India would have remain as it was and british rule would have brought much similar change without Islam in India or in Hindu civilization, muslim contribution except things related to architecture and art is nothing, it didn't add anything to India, as I pointed out earlier, not even matchbox :)
First you are comparing two different era when comparing Muslim rulers with British inventions. Muslims ruled in medieval times and British came after that.
British learned a lot from Muslim rulers all around the world. They made progress but Muslims were subdued in different areas by better weapons, will to destroy Muslim rules and lack of Muslims desire to keep the power in hand by consistently using power.
British might have learnt from anyone, but in gist it was there rule which did bring things as simple as postal system, to develop a postal system one does not necessarily have better weapon, again the point is with arrival of Islam, nothing very significant emerged. So if in that medival period India would have remained in Hindu rule, there would have been no different outcome.
A lot of history was then became under British Imperials and was distorted as if many many basic inventions were actually the work of themselves...and not the Muslims.
I heard this type of arguments in Indian discourses as well, India gave decimal system and counting system, which arab traders learnt and presented to Europe. Europe took the lead from muslim developed algebra etc etc, but fact still remain that railway which transformed the way humans travel is still British ingenuity
**I say, each area had something to contribute to progress with and without sharing the knowledge from each other and learning from previous civilization.
**
But history says otherwise, when new civilization comes, it actually eliminates the past, how many remanants can be found of pre-Islamic Arabia or Pre-Christian Europe. the language, literature and science of the previous becomes heretic and generally was eliminated
it is the bigotry and dishonesty on British Imperials to minimize the importance of Muslim civilization all across the world including in India which we in these days are exposed to.
I had a chance to read a book (forgot the name since I decided not to buy after reading few pages) about great mathematicians of the world? and there was no mention of any Arab scientist in it.
But library of Baghdad was burnt by Halagu Khan, and his senior Ghengiz Khan, all of then did equal damage to Islam like the West. It was greek who started it, muslims flirted with science for a while and it was Sicilian, Italian and later Brits, who carved the world.
As to abolition of Buddhism in India, please refer to this article.
As I mentioned, it was the Hinduism which played a MAJOR part in abolition of Buddhism in India. Mainly the Brahmanism.
With the superiority complex of Brahmins, they could not see Buddhist (Anti-Vedics) flourishing as they were in initial stage.
The vegetarianism itself is a Buddhist concept, Hinduism was not vegetarian religion till Buddha fell from sky, to maintain the political and religious status, Brahmins adopted vegetarianism, and declared Buddha as avatar of Hindu god vishnu, brahmins were still in the ideological battle when Muslims arrived with arms, Brahmins similarily resorted to Bhakti movement against Sufi Islamic movement in medieval time and maintained the status quo.
Muslims actually came very late in the game when Buddhism was already close to being extinct in India. Some argue tha it never wa abolished but emulated in to Hinduism in different forms, making a hybrid of two religions.
Moreover, Muslims mainly ruled over North India but Buddhism resided mostly in South India...where perhaps it was originated.
Buddhism was state religion of Magadha empire, capital of which was patliputra, modern day Patna, all religious Buddhist sites are in northern India and mostly in Bihar. Hinduism was without state patronage and was proliferating while Buddhism was not accustomed to such thing, so when Muslims destroyed Nalanda, which was under Buddhist empire of Palas of bengal and stupas, Buddhism, already weakened by Hinduism vanished from India, Muslim contribution is eliminating Buddhism is no less than Brahminism
I am not sure what you meant by referring to Jinnah and gutter cleaning dalits. Jinnah never on record approved caste system. If he did, then please post.
This is what I read in book called Freedom at midnight, by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins. If you want page number of the indian edition, I will give you that
Saying that somehow caste system did not make any difference to political system is very confusing statement.
it was not just a social system it was mainly a political system where upper class was given freedom to rule over lower class under religious pretext.
Compare the Hindu caste system with British class system, where people of certain decent were given high posts and they ruled the world. caste system was meant to be the social system of Hierarchy and was in vedic time, a very flexible system, where people upgraded their caste as they got education, then came the hereditary function of it and defiled the entire system
If Rajput could really rule over India then why they could not really defeat Muslims and ruled over it? They could have sent Muslims out of country for so long? Yes they were great fighters but lacked the ruling ability and had many of their own enemies within the country.
But how is being better administrator is related to being a better warrior. Executive class of administration is entirely different with the class of general. Rajputs among their relatives just like Muslims fought with in their own brothers. Before Muslims arrival, Mauryas ruled larger tract of India.
And still administration and war are two different functions of the state.
Muslims versus British Rule:
1- Muslims made India their homeland.
They didn't had option, intially Ghaznavi took his booty to Ghazna, Abdali and Nadirshah returned back. Qutubuddin Aibak had no option and similarly Babar was thrown out of Farghana, so they didn't have option.
2- British ruled India like their slaves and never shown respect to the land or made locals feel them as their own. (Until the last few decades when Hindus were given extra benefits to defeat Muslim sentiments againt British rulers).
Muslim also took jiziya whenever they wanted, and turned liberal whenever ruler changed, broadly in terms of rule they were better than brits
3- Eventually Both Muslims and Hindus had to make demand that British leave the country.
Most of the leaders were themselves British educated, had British lifestyle and had British values, with little or no understanding of native culture, native Indian never had voice, nor it has now.
4- Hindus on one single front never asked Muslims to leave the country since they knew Muslims despite coming from outside still were sincere to the land.
Gandhi launched Civil Disobedience movement, because British were democratic, it was not possible in Mughal rule or in Nazi rule, and if local populace would have demanded such thing, it would have ended like Somnath temple.
5- Muslim rulers enhanced local progress, British slowly took the resources out for their benefits and even took the wealth and the Kohi-Noor diamond with them...along with the books written in India.
I don't know what progress they did enhance, India had wealth before muslims, it was wealth that brought muslims like British.
6- Musims rulers were not really selfish. They did cause unity among people. Off course they had to use force where needed to keep them in power.
Dictatorship by its design is selfish, all kings were selfish, muslims or not. They merged people in their kingdom, unity is when the german fight battle of britain, and british, stand behind thir PM. Such unity was never in India
Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
You can keep bringing British in to discussion but it will not make any sense since you have been comparing two different eras and time lines.
Only reason I talked about British is when you falsely compared them with Muslims in India in terms of any changes British imperialism made to the land.
Again, You seem have read very little about Muslims in India and Muslim rulers and cannot blame you for it since this may have been due to Indians (Majority Non-Muslims country) and its people having intrinsic hatred towards Muslims rulers which was not present on a wider scale before British entry to this land.
Muslims did not rule India without the help of Hindu or other non-Muslim rajas maharajas. Locals did not have this animosity towards Muslims since they had seen the chaos and generations of hatred among themselves based on either the ruthless attitude of Brahmins towards others or their degrading attitudes towards women ans people of lower class.
People had witnessed how Buddhists were treated by those Brahmins. And the article I posted above clearly mentioned Muslims had very little to do against Buddhism extinction or near extinction in India.
In terms of advancement and progress, I would suggest you read up more about Mughal Dynasty and the contribution to the land with very advanced knowledge and its use for agriculture and trade of many goods, making roads, unified currency, etc. etc.
Equality was stressed and people of any class or caste could gain the title of nobility from the emperor.
Apart from the very end and controversial time, religious tolerance was maintained. Babur actually permitted building Hindu Temples.
Slavery was all time low.
Sati practice was abolished by Aurengzeb in 1664. And he is considered ONLY as an intolerant man if you read Hindu writers.
Before Aurengzeb, Both Humayun and Akbar tried to minimize Sati prsctice by using different laws.
Music, art, painting, parks system, water system, medical knowledge, astronomy, etc. were flourished and admittedly Muslims did learn from previous civilizations but also added new knowledge to many scientific fields which lasted for centuries to come.
Humayun himself had an observatory and had an astronomer named Chand.
Some aspects of Astronomy in India were also originated under Al-Beroni (973-1048), Altutmash, Mehmud Bin Vmar, and as much as Firoz Shah Tughlaq of Delhi (1351-1381).
The book on Astrology by Al-Tusi was translated in to Sanskirit (1732).
Mughal Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BBC - Religions - Islam: Mughal Empire (1500s, 1600s)
Gyarah Sidi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sati (practice) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Medicine in the medieval Islamic world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Postal system by British? Really?
I suggest you read the book Postal Systems in the Pre-Modern Islamic World (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization): Adam J. Silverstein: 9780521858687: Amazon.com: Books
Also, allow me to inform you that a well organized postal system was present in India by 14th century and Ibne Battuta mentioned that in his account. I think Akbar also made advancement in to that system to a great deal.
You can keep claiming without Muslims India would have progressed, but that is just a futile argument.
Please remember the basic logic:
**Something which did not occur, cannot be considered valid against something which DID occur. **(diwana logic)
My poin is who knows if India would have indeed progressed without Muslim rulers! You say yes, I say, that is just argument for the argument sake without any concrete proof.
And I have said, each civilization gives something to next civilization.
Muslims might have learned from previous civilizations, but West/British came AFTER Muslim civilization and to consistently say that Muslims did nothing towards advancement of India PRIOR to British, is plain and simple dishonesty and bigotry.
Please read about Muslims and Arabs contribution which even west acknowledges periodically.
Living in India and saying Muslims just came to rule is not going to make you look educated in History of the world.
No it does not. It tries to but does not succeed altogether. What may happens is the knowledge gets transformed and technology is advanced and polished based on the knowledge acquired from the past.
It does not eliminate, it EMULATES. (Another diwana logic)
(And they were Christians in that time. They took help from surrounding Christian countries and decided to destroy Bughdad. Even though Halagu himself was a Buddhist…so much for the peaceful teaching of Buddhism, 
his mother and wife were a Christians and Christians were spared during that massacre, and Masjids were converted in to Churches)
Muslims did not just flirt with the science, they made the science their Shareek-e-Hayaat!!! 
Your term flirting is very biased here.
Yes that is what is said, but you keep missing the point here.
Hinduism(Brahminism) abolished Buddhism long before Muslims came. When hybrid of Hinduism and Buddhism became popular, who knows who adopted whose religion.
The topic is not about Bhakti or Sufism. But if you insist, I will respond later.
**
No matter how much you deny, it was Hinduism (Brahminism-Upper class Hindus) which is blamed for abolition of Buddhism in India, the place of its birth.**
Please search the topic, I can flood your arguments to the contrary by many articles and sites.
Again you are talking about 1193. I am talking about the time much before than that. Here and there in timeline they were defeated by Muslims but they were essentially become cornered to Bengal by that time.
Yes to second bold sentence, and the blame still is largely upon Hindus who started this phenomenon.
Again, refer to my earlier post and paper published by those Buddhists, who researched Buddhism in India and its decline.
You want me to believe these British Expats from India and this controversial book? The writes loved Mountbatten and Mountbatten was no friend of Jinnah.
Quite frankly, your shot at Jinnah was below the belt.
He was not in any way a believer of caste system unlike his counterparts in politics.
He appointed a dalit at high level position in Pakistan as the minister of law, Justice and Parliamentary affair. Also dalits scheduled castes people were given 6% quota in federal jobs.
Interestingly it was more that 2% jobs quota later given to Muslim Muhajirs and Karachiites by Bhutto!!
Not true in the past.
Muslims brought the idea of equality among people. Islam completely is against division among people based on lineage and race etc.
Unfortunately Muslims themselves became influenced by caste system and divided themselves in to syed, non-syeds, Shurafa and lower class.
Muslims also learned other bad things like not marrying divorced women from Hindus.
if this was true that caste system was so good, then current day India would have kept the system in full force. Now it claims to have been reversed as a reaction to the criticism.
Rajputs were warriors but would not be able to rule since they lacked the administrative abilities. They were in the armies of Muslims though.
Please read this: Why Rajputs could not defeat Muslims?
Causes of Muslim Success and Rajput Failure in India
You are talking about few, I was talking about Mughals who stayed the longest. Yes, Babur had seen others from his family ruling much better areas, and he was sad to even came to very dark place like India but he made it home and set up a great dynasty…for the world to see.
When you talked about Babur, you missed the point that he defeated Ibrahim Lodhi a Muslim himself.
This is in some Muslims ruler’s nature, to stay. Tariq Bin Ziyad burned his fleet when he came to Spain and stayed. He set up another long Muslim rule.
Allama Iqbal said : “Tariq Cho Bar Kinara Undlas Safeena Sokht”
How is Jazia different than Income Tax?
Answer is that not much. Muslims paid zakaat and non-Muslims paid Jaziya for Govt. to run. That’s all.
OK.
Somnath temple is a very different scenario. Why bring that up here when talking about British versus Muslims?
You are talking about the time when British themselves were seeing their future in India for them was not possible. They were weakened by WWI alreay and their economy was going caput. Their army was exhausted. They could no longer keep India under control and were looking for reasons to escape. This was different than 1857 when they were slaughtering people who opposed them. Last Mughal Emperor was killed after his sons were killed brutally for charges of treason and supporting 1857 movement.
Read above about progress.
Even rulers/people within India were fighting with each other before Muslims arrived.
Wrong example.
Unity is when states are governed by one central govt. and same currency or central army is used to defend different states. Mughals and other Muslm rulers had consistent threats from various regions but overall had control on a very large area since a lot of common people still agreed with them ruling the land.
P.S.
You have a lot to read and study about Muslim rule over India. Sounds like you have been reading selective books or sources. Make up your mind after reading different views.
I still say overall Muslims were blessings over Indian subcontinent. Not the only source of blessings but one of many.
Hatred towards Muslims may blind some people though.
Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
What was the main new original discoveries , inventions and ideas under muslim rule in India? What were the innovations in the area of science and technology? Which muslim kings patronized native languages , poetry and arts other than Urdu? I think we benefited more from the British than the muslims in one way though the economic rape of the land started with the muslims and continued with the British. What did we gain from the arrival of muslim and benefit in a way that we did not have before? religion does not count since there were too many and enough ideologies' before itself.
Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
What was the main new original discoveries , inventions and ideas under muslim rule in India? What were the innovations in the area of science and technology? Which muslim kings patronized native languages , poetry and arts other than Urdu? I think we benefited more from the British than the muslims in one way though the economic rape of the land started with the muslims and continued with the British. What did we gain from the arrival of muslim and benefit in a way that we did not have before? religion does not count since there were too many and enough ideologies' before itself.
One of many new ideas:
Liberation of women when Sati like horrible, inhumane practice against women who had their husbands died were forced, taught, or compelled to die with their husbands. Just one of many examples. Long before India came up with the idea of banning Sati, Muslim rulers said enough is enough.
Please get educated before making obviously ignorant comments.
Re: Had Muslims not invaded India?
One of many new ideas:
Liberation of women when Sati like horrible, inhumane practice against women who had their husbands died were forced, taught, or compelled to die with their husbands. Just one of many examples. Long before India came up with the idea of banning Sati, Muslim rulers said enough is enough.
Please get educated before making obviously ignorant comments.
Banning of Sati is not a new idea created by the muslim rulers. The vedas had a ban against it a longer time ago. Actually according to the wiki,"the practice of Sati was revived most notably during the muslim invasions ofIndia". The same is true of Jauhar in the Rajputs. Because the muslims did not treat with honour the women of the defeated and took them as slaves and war booty unlike the hindu kings the practice of Jauhar was started. There was no Jauhar when 2 hindu kings fought each other.The practice of Sati was banned ultimately because of reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy ith the help of viceroys. Maybe some of the muslim rulers tried to ban it but that was not a new or innovative idea and the practice of Sati was in one way linked to their rule. In this way this was one of the non-benefits of Muslim invasions = The status of women took a nose dive. I would really love to hear some innovative benefits , achievement and ideas during the Muslim rule that was newly inspired and did not exist before. Your reply to my post does not answer the question Diwana.