Skip to comments.The Moslem Conquest (of India)
Posted on 02/14/2004 6:33:32 PM PST by ml/nj
The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within. The Hindus ... had failed to organize their forces for the protection of their frontiers and their capitals, their wealth and their freedom, from the hordes of Scythians, Huns, Afghans, and Turks hovering about India's boundaries and waiting for national weakness to let them in. For four hundred years (600-1000 A.D.) India invited conquest; and at last it came.
In the year 997 a Turkish chieftain by the name of Mahmud became the sultan of the little state of Ghazni, in eastern Afghanistan. ... Each winter Mahmud descended into India, filled his treasure chest with spoils, and amused his men with full freedom to pillage and kill ... At Mathrua he took from the temple its statues of gold encrusted with precious stones, and emptied its coffers of a vast quantity of gold, silver, and jewelry; he expressed his admiration for the architecture of the great shrine, judged that its duplication would cost one hundred million dinars and the labor of two hundred years, and then ordered it to be soaked with naphtha and burnt to the ground. Six year later he sacked another opulent city of northern India, Somnath, killed all its fifty thousand inhabitants, and dragged its wealth to Ghazni. ... Sometimes he spared the population of the ravaged cities, and took them home to be sold as slaves. ... Moslem historians ranked him as the greatest monarch of his time, and one of the greatest sovereigns of any age.
Seeing the canonization that success had brought to this magnificent thief, other Moslem rulers profited by his example, though none succeeded in bettering his instruction. ... The first of these bloody sultans, Kuth-d Din Aibak, was a normal specimen of his kind-fanatical, ferocious, and merciless. His gifts, as the Mohammedan historian tells us, "were bestowed by hundreds of thousands, and his slaughters likewise were by hundreds of thousands." ... Another sultan, Balban, punished rebals and brigands by casting them under the feet of elephants, or removing their skins, stuffing these with straw, and hanging them from the gates of Delhi. ... Sultan Muhammed bin Tughlak acquired the throne by murdering his father, became a great scholar and an elegant writer. dabbled in mathematics, physics and Greek philosophy, surpassed his predecessors in bloodshed and brutality, fed the flesh of a rebel nephew to the rebel's wife and children, ruined the country with reckless inflation, and laid it waste with pillage and murder till the inhabitants fled to the jungle. He killed so many Hindus that, in the words of a Moslem historian, "there was constantly in front of his royal pavilion and his Civil Court a mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers and executioners were wearied out by their work of dragging" the victims "and putting them to death in crowds." ... Sultan Ahmed Shah feasted for three days whenever the number of defenseless Hindus slain in his territories in one day reached twenty thousand.
Some certainly do.
But the broad-brush should be kept in check.
Would you have said the same thing about righteous Nazis?
Certainly there were some. Saudi Arabia is a country that tolerates keeping women inside burning buildings so that they might not be seen without their heads covered. Saudi Arabia is a country that finances almost all the mosques here in the US. These are the same mosques that find it difficult to criticize the 9/11 massacre. I sure these folks revere the "great sovereign" Mahmud.
Open your eyes.
Here is some food for thought
Muslims in the United States have a reproductive rate of 7+ children per couple. Mexicans in the US (counting the illegals) have close to 6 children per couple. 42% of all children under 18 according to the US census are hispanic. And what is the fastest growing religion among hispanics? You guessed it, Islam. The Muslims will not have to fight for control of North America with hispanics because by then they will have converted most of them.
Sociologists will give you the crap that as populations move up the income ladder their reproductive rates go down. Pure BS. Reproduction is a matter of culture. Take the Hasidim, they've been here 5+ generations. Their women are NOT liberated and they have 6+ children per couple. The same can be said about the Amish, another group that never really assimilated and became "American".
We can look at Europe as an example of what the future portends. Not one group of Muslims there have assimilated nor adopted the culture of the country where they have settled. By the end of this century Muslims will be the majority population in most of Western Europe.
The coy pseudo socialist elites that run much of the west believe that their remake of the world in this multiculturalist plan will keep them in place and running things. They are sorely mistaken. They will be the first to. As all elites do, they live in a world isolated and devoid of reality in their fantasies. They refuse to learn from history or they are arrogant enough to believe the rules do not apply to them. In their arrogance they will drag the rst of us into their grave.
So this is the reason they stop my mother? Please!
If the government dummies cannot tell the difference between a Sikh and a Sheik, that's too bad for the Sikhs. This is a war; not some first grade meet and greet.
The only flaw in your story is that the French did not stop the spread of Islam in Europe. Charles "the Hammer" Martel was born in 688-690 in Heristal, Liege, a German city located in modern day Belgium. It took another two generations to drive all the Arab garrisons out of what is now France and across the Pyrenees, Charles Martel's halt of the invasion of French soil turned the tide of Islamic advance, and the unification of the Frankish kingdom under Charles Martel, his son Pepin the Short, and his grandson Charlemagne prevented the Umayyad kingdom from expanding over the Pyrenees.
What you have told us in your essay is the history of India in the post Islamic era, however Islam had spread to India and the land of today Pakistan only by written messages during the Reign of the Umayyad Caliph Omar Ibn Abd ElAziz who was commonly known as the Fifth wise caliph. After the spread of Islam in the Indian sub content, India experienced a long period of stability which stayed from the Umayyad dynasty to the middle of the Abbasid dynasty. After that India was drawn into a period of civil unrest and multiple revolutions which was so bloody like what you have mentioned, however you can not blame Islam for this you can only blame those crazy Sultans who done those cruel unbelievable acts, we can not blame the Christianity for bombing Hiroshima by the atomic bomb, but of course we can blame Truman for this, I hope I am clear about this. You can blame persons but you can not blame the Islamic faith itself.
You need to learn to read. This isn't my essay. Will Durant wrote it. It's in the first volume of his heavily footnoted Story of Civilization. (Amazon reviews here) You say it's the post-Islamic era he is talking about, but I can only attribute this to your difficulty with the English language. (Confusion of pre and post and/or you have trouble with the opening sentence - which I bolded.)
we can not blame the Christianity for bombing Hiroshima by the atomic bomb, but of course we can blame Truman for this
The reason we cannot blame Christianity for Hiroshima is that Christianity had nothing to do with it. No one I know of suggested that the bombing was done in Jesus' name. No one said "Praise Jesus," as he pulled the trigger, unlike the "Allah Akbar's" we here whenever one of you go killing.
No, the bombing of Hiroshima was done because we were wantonly attacked by the Japanese, and involved in a great war with them. I do not "blame" Truman, I praise him. When foreigners have no regard for American lives and/or property, we should have no regard for theirs. Your women may think it cruel to have been locked inside a burning dormitory, but you will burn with them if you misunderestimate what our response will be to your continued killing. We did the right thing in Japan and we will do the right thing in the lands of other attackers. Mark my words.
The Crusades were not a case of Christian aggression. The proximate cause was the presence of the Seljuk Turks in the Middle East ~ an area which was NOT their home country.
Chuck, and others, attacked the Moslems and drove them out of Gaul into Spain.
Chuck returned to his 2 wives and lebenteenzillion concubines and lived a life of privilege and ease.
Today I just added to my own family "historical genealogy" by discovering the Earls of Orkney (who can be traced back through Donald the Bruce for any who care to do that). They go all the way back to the First Century in Finland.
Charles Martel's own genealogy was not as ancient as that. Relative newcomer by still extant Western European civilization out on the Isles.
Several different events drove the Celts out of Central and Eastern Europe into the Mediterranean, and thence to Iberia and the West. These events were described by the Greeks as "German revolts".
It is an error to confound the Germans with the Celts.
Germanics, Slavic, Italics, Greeks, Albanians, Celtics, Iranis, Indians, etc. are all part of the Indo-European group of peoples in any case
They are not properly listed as being "all same thing" with the Germans.
Tje master/slave relationship of the Celts to the Germans should never be overlooked either.
All the Huns did was start in China and move West taking local brides along the way ~ an old Hun passtime!
Here's an example of what's meant by "slavery". Let's take the Iroquois Indians circa 1300. They were tributary to the Huron. They revolted and fled South from the St. Lawrence into the highlands of Central New York ~ and along the Mohawk.
The Great Lawgiver showed up; directed them in "how to do it right" and they became free people. Shortly thereafter they began a multi-hundred year war with the Mohicans ~
The Germans seem to have been tributary to the Celts all along the Volga. No doubt they occasionally ran off into the woods, but about 300 BC (a good thousand years earlier than the Iroquois) they mounted a general revolt against the Celts who then fled to bases of operation around the Black Sea and the Mediterranean.
The same thing happened several times earlier.
The Germans have grammatical elements in their languages that derive from Fenno-Scandia ~ which clearly denotes their earlier experiences with Uralic-Altaic speakers as well as the Sa'ami. No doubt when the Germans ran off to the woods they ran to the North Woods.
ok, where did you get that?
You can read all about the Galician invasion of the place we now call Ireland at a number of places on the net. The best site has all the most ancient works translated into modern Spanish!
You can dig through the morass of stuff to find it ~ so much more now than nearly a decade ago when I first found it. Best way to start your search is to look for "Ir Scota Dead Coast". Should get you a few websites to look at.
Note the reference to "pseudo history". These are documents maintained by the decendants of formerly Gaelic speaking people in Galicia in NW Spain (their language died out in the 16th century and was replaced with 3 versions of Spanish).
Back in distant times when the English ran the world for the Irish it was believed the documents were just so much BS because they're written in Greek ~ later research has determined that the Mediterranean/Black Sea Celts were predominantly a sea-going people and the regularly used Greek scribes ~ as did their contemporaries. Even though their own language wasn't put to writing until Roman times, their second language was, in fact, Greek, so these are the records, and myths, and so forth.
They derive from the time BEFORE the people who gave Scota its name moved there. (Scota is, of course, modern Ireland. It received it's name when the nation/culture that founded Scota relocated to Alba, now known as Scotland in the 7th - 9th centuries).
The name "mil", as in "Milesian" means "Man".
Have fun. (Whoops, important news ~ depending on which side you take ~ the Republican or Royalist, in the Spanish Civil War you will find discussions of these documents that step off the planet one way or the other.)
52% of US voters have just proved themselves wholly incapable of understanding such vital facts. A large majority of the "civilized" world continues to hate President Bush with a feverish passion reserved only for the defenders of civilized humanity -- while the "enlightened" liberals regard the bloodthirsty jihadists as mild annoyances, right up until the moment when "they" happen to be coming down the hallway of your hotel or restaurant slaughtering everyone in their path.......
War is the art without which other all other arts can’t exist. Unfortunately, war appears to be a condition of mankind.
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|