Re: The Concept of Eternal Damnation in Islam
- From: MYSELF <myself@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 08:24:23 GMT
Was There an Islamic "Genocide" of Hindus?
Dr. Koenraad Elst
Nandan Vyas ("Hindu Genocide in East Pakistan", Young India, January
1995) has argued convincingly that the number of Hindu victims in the
1971 genocide was approximately 2.4 million, or about 80%. In
comparing the population figures for 1961 and 1971, and taking the
observed natural growth rhythm into account, Vyas finds that the Hindu
population has remained stable at 9.5 million when it should have
increased to nearly 13 million (13.23 million if the same growth
rhythm were assumed for Hindus as for Muslims). Of the missing 3.5
million people (if not more), 1.1 million can be explained: it is the
number of Hindu refugees settled in India prior to the genocide
During the Islamic conquests in India, it was a typical policy to
single out the Brahmins for slaughter, after the Hindu warrior class
had been bled on the battlefield. Even the Portuguese in Malabar and
Goa followed this policy in the 16th century, as can be deduced from
Hindu-Portuguese treaty clauses prohibiting the Portuguese from
killing Brahmins.
That is why the mass killing of Hindus by Muslims rarely took place in
peacetime, but typically in the fervour immediately following military
victories, e.g. the fall of the metropolis of Vijayanagar in 1565 was
"celebrated" with a general massacre and arson. Once Muslim power was
established, Muslim rulers sought to exploit and humiliate rather than
kill the Hindus, and discourage rebellion by making some sort of
compromise. Not that peacetime was all that peaceful, for as Fernand
Braudel wrote in A History of Civilizations (Penguin 1988/1963,
p.232-236), 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."
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). The Moghuls (1526-1857), even Babar and
Aurangzeb, were fairly restrained tyrants by comparison. Prof. K.S.
Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million
under the Sultanate, but that would be hard to substantiate; research
into the magnitude of the damage Islam did to India is yet to start in
right earnest.
On 15 May 2006 19:45:25 -0700, "1MAN4ALL" <forahmad@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
drahcir wrote:
Hey 1boy, you know, it seems you forgot to make a retraction of and
apology for one of the myriad lies you make here at ari. This
particular one was proven wrong by yours truly. Here, let me refresh
your memory:
From the thread A Psychiatrist Destroys Islam
I don't think Islam is any more violent than Christianity or Judaism
is.
You say that primarily because you are a despicable liar. There is no
way judaism is responsible for anywhere near the number of murders done
by muslims in india alone, let alone the rest of the world
P.S. When you are demonstrating the millions upon millions of people
killed by jews, aim for about 80 million for starters:
Historian Will Durant wrote in The Story of Civilization (1972) that
the Muslim conquest of India was "probably the bloodiest story in
history." The number of people killed is estimated based on the Muslim
chronicles and demographic calculations. K.S. Lal estimated in his book
The Growth of Muslim Population in India that between 1000 CE and 1500
CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_South_Asia
Drahcir, as you already know, I don't like to have any discussion with
you. I will answer your post this time but don't make it a habit of
answering my posts. It is best that you go away and find some other
newsgroup in which there are Muslims.
I have answered this foolish lie, spread by Hindu fundamentalists, too
many times already.
Durant was no expert on Indian history and used Smith's biased Oxford
History of India as his single source, and therefore he is not very
credible on this issue. Some of this fiction was started by Muslim
historians who exaggerated military exploits of their own kings in
poetry and by modern Hindu writers who took these writings as facts
without any critical analysis. It is an established historiacl fact
that thousands of Hindus served in the "Muslim" army. Sultan Mahmud
Ghaznavi, accused of launching 17 raids in northern India, is perhaps
the most despised Muslim ruler in Indian history but his own general,
Tilak, was a Hindu. It was also common in those days for rival Hindu
rajas to destroy temples of rival gods after massacring enemy soldiers.
What's usually forgotten is that if Muslim Indian kings were cruel,
they were also cruel towards Muslims and occasionally did not even
spare their own brothers, fathers and other relatives.
It must also be said that because of evil social practices, Hindus
brutalized each other. Inhuman treatment of untouchables, such as
pouring hot oil into their throats if they insulted Brahmins, and
burning widows were common practices in India before the arrival of
Muslims.
The lie about 70 or 80 million Hindus killed originated with Indian
Professor K.S. Lal's book "Growth of Muslim population in India", who
wrote that "according to his calculations, the Hindu population
decreased by 80 MILLION between the year 1000 and 1525." I don't have
his book, so I am not sure if Professor Lal's was implying that Muslims
killed these 80 million or if that population became reduced because of
some other reasons. In any case, the number seems highly unrealistic
given the fact that the entire population of India, Pakistan and
Bangladesh was not more than 350 million in 1947. So, if you calculate
backwards and allow for normal population growth rates, you would
realize how ridiculous Professor Lal's assertion is. Judging from the
title of the book, my guess is that Professor Lal was simply trying to
explain the high percentage of Muslims in India by making a point that
this percentage would have been much lower if so many Hindus had not
died during the Muslim rule.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- The Concept of Eternal Damnation in Islam
- From: 1MAN4ALL
- The Concept of Eternal Damnation in Islam
- References:
- The Concept of Eternal Damnation in Islam
- From: 1MAN4ALL
- Re: The Concept of Eternal Damnation in Islam
- From: drahcir
- The Concept of Eternal Damnation in Islam
- From: 1MAN4ALL
- The Concept of Eternal Damnation in Islam
- Prev by Date: THE PALESTINIAN WORKER OF MIRACLES............Dr. Dahesh
- Next by Date: Re: The Concept of Eternal Damnation in Islam
- Previous by thread: The Concept of Eternal Damnation in Islam
- Next by thread: The Concept of Eternal Damnation in Islam
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
