Still it does not answer my question, anyways from 300 BC to 1300 AD Cholas ruled South India which separates them from empires existing in other parts of the subcontinent in any case. From 7th century AD Sindh, and Multan had also taken a separate path after the invasion of Arabs.
I will not covering the empires till 1300 AD (because of Cholas). Between 1300’s to 1500’s, Delhi Sultanates ruled Northern India which did not include Southern parts of India. This takes us to Moghuls and British which we can discuss!
It does not make it OK in any part of the world for any religion today. But centuries ago, could we ask for the same level of cultural sensitivity . We can only appreciate if there was no willful coercion or loss of life. How much leeway can u provide while measuring ancient happenings by today’s standards ?
Indian invasion was not made at the time of Prophet? Can you quote any incident from Prophet’s time, when a religious building was destroyed?
When Muslims conquered Palestine during second Caliph Hazrat Umer’s period, he didn’t demolish any religious buliding. He refused to offer prayers in church area (even after requests of Christian clergy) due to reason that Muslim might build a Masjid, where he prayed.
Even we don’t find any references for demolition of Mandirs by Muhammad Bin Qasim who invaded Sindh (You know I’m not big fan of him). This is due to the fact that these all people had message of Islam afresh in their mind which don’t support demolition of buildings of other religions. Do we hear anything about demolition of churches by Muslims in Spain during 800 years?
Demolition of Mandirs by Afghan invaders were due to their greed and they didn’t have anything to do with religion? If Ghaznavi attacked Somnath for religion purposes, then he should not have left Budhas of Bamiyan, which were afterwards destroyed by Taliban.
This is quite debatable whether islam in India was result of forceable conversions or due to Sufi teachings. Sufis who are still revered equally by both Muslims and non-Muslims of sub-continent.
Islam never teaches forceable conversions. \if that have been the case, Spain would still be Muslim Andlus.
Rightly said. In Quran, we find many verses calling for reconciliation between Ahl e Kitab (Jews, Christians and Muslims) by stating that Prophet Muhammad didn’t bring a new religion, it is in continuity and in confirmation with the two other Abrahamic religions.
This shows that Islam has emphasided inter-religion harmony from the first day.
Nobody replaced Buddhists in Afghanistan, they were the majority when Islam arrived there and so was sindh. Islamic conquest of North India was one of the bloodiest in History.
To the extent of Sindh, I can say that there was no bloody forcible conversion. Had there been forcible conversion, then we don’t have Hindu majority cities in Sindh even in today’s time.
From where has he got the figures? Are there any census reports available between 1000 AD and 1500 AD? Besides how many of these ex hindus were converts and how many were killed?
How? When in the immediate Caliphate (4 caliphs who ruled till 30 years after the death of the Prophet) no religious buildings were demolished?
We have to look into Ghaznavi and other invaders background (other than their religious affiliation) to know the reasons for their acts of demolition of buildings.
As far as the question of true followers of Muhammad is concerned, yes we don’t look true followers in rulers, we see them in saints like Rumi, Qalandar Shahbaz, Shams Tabrez, Nizam u din Auliya, Saleem Chishti, etc
Not saying sufis did not promote Islam like in Kashmir and other places but before the sufis came, the muslim invaders did and that was the bloodiest in human History. What the invaders and tyrants did was put to death the learned men (religious) . Just read about the destruction of Nalanda university. The warriors usually died in battle. Slaves were carted off in huge numbers for the first time. The origin of “Hindu Kush” ring any bells ? Even Raja Dahir’s daughters were carted off as war booty. The imposition of special taxes, special reservation in administration and destruction of educational institutions did the rest. I remember reading that even Bin Quasim forced the local hindus to feed and host the muslims free for 3 days and nights.
Spain would have been Muslim if the Christians had not reconquered it in an even bloodier manner.
War is a terrible thing. But when it comes associated with religious discrimination and destruction of the victims, it tends to hold on in the collective historical psyche of the conquered more than any other peaceful way. People will revere the peace loving sufis and respect them but it will be colored with what occurred before.
The other wars that came to the sub continent were no less bloody but they were not coupled with religious intolerance the effects of which can be still seen today. That is the main negative aspect of the arrival of Islam to many parts of India IMO.
Yes but the figures are disputed, there would be many from those figures who would have converted. Most people converted due to the sufis whose graves can be seen in all the areas of Pakistan and Northern India.
The muslim invaders from Afghanistan were mostly Turko Mongol, and their invasions were no different than their ancestors before them (who were non muslims).
I think Sufis came to sub-continent before invaders. Who was the first invader of India and when he invaded Indian parts? Ghaznavis and Ghauris in 11th Century?
Islam always spreaded harmony? It never promoted intolerance. If we believe on this, its rejection of major facts and acceptance of generlisation of some incidents.
As I said above, these dynasties which are generalised as Muslim rulers had nothing to do with Islam. They were just rulers, who fought against the other rulers (who were Muslim too) just for the sake of rule.
