Referencing my prior posting Point number 1)...history of mainstream muslim aggression...(apologies to those with the attention span of a five year old. This is a somewhat lengthy account. Please note the writing is NOT MINE...)
The very first Muslim attack on India had taken place nearly 500 years earlier in Sindh in the year 715 C.E. These Muslim invaders were Arabs led by Mohammad Bin Qasim. They had displaced Raja Dabir who ruled Sindh from his capital Deval (near modern Karachi). The actual reason for this invasion was that Raja Dabir was aiding the Iranian (Zoroastrian) princes in trying to overthrow the Arab Rule in Persia. This seems to be a fact as many Sassanian nobles from Iran had taken refuge in Sindh and were plotting for the liberation of their country from the Arab yoke.
But the pretext given by Arab historians for the Arab invasion of Sindh is that Raja Dabir's navy had detained an Arab merchant ship. To avenge this detention of a merchant ship, the Arabs overran the entire kingdom of Raja Dabir as also the neighbouring kingdom of Mulasthana (Multan).
They even unsuccessfully tried to attack Malwa (Malibah in Arab records)!
The second surge of the Muslim aggression began in 980 C.E. and lasted till 1020 C.E. This was the time when the Shahi Kings of Punjab grappled with the invaders. By the year 1020 C.E. Muslim rule had been established in Afghanistan, Paktoonistan (NWFP) and West Punjab. These Muslim invasions were led by Mahmud of Ghazni. The Rajputs ruling North India resisted further Muslim aggression.
The third wave of a successful Muslim invasion led by Mahmud Shabuddin Ghori (or Ghauri) took place between 1191 C.E. and 1255 C.E. This was the time the Muslims extended their occupation to Delhi. The lead role in resisting this invasion was played by Prithviraj Chouhan. This Muslim surge brought East Punjab, the Ganges Valley (Uttar Pradesh and Bihar) and Bengal under Muslim Occupation. This invasion reached up to Bengal where the last Hindu kingdom ruled by Laxman Sena was overrunn by the Muslims.
But the Muslims were checked and repelled when they tried to invade Orissa, where the Hindu King Narasimha Deva defeated Tugan Khan who invaded Orissa from Bengal. To commemorate this victory, Narasimha Deva erected the Sun Temple at Konark.
The next surge of the Muslim Invasion was launched from Delhi by Allah-ud-din Khilji in the year 1310 and was led by his general Malik Kafur. This invasion trampled the Hindu Kingdoms of the Yadavas of Devgiri in Maharashtra, the Kakatiyas of Warangal in Andhra Pradesh, the Hoysala of Belur-Halebid in Karnataka and the Pandyas of Madurai in Tamil Nadu. This invasion lasted till the year 1328 and with this invasion, except Orissa and Assam, the whole of India passed under Muslim Occupation.
Thus the struggle of the Hindus to resist the Muslim aggression into India was spread over a period of 600 years from 715 C.E. up to 1328 C.E.The Muslims could not subjgate India with ease. And even after subjugating different parts of the country, they were never able to rule it enitrely. The next 400 years from 1328 up to 1720 was marked by a valiant and ceaseless struggle for independence by Hindus to deliver India from Muslim tyranny.
The very first act of the Muslim invaders was to pillage the well endowed Hindu temples at Somnath, Thanesar, Mathura, Kannauj; and other places. By this, with one stroke, the riches concentrated in the hands of these temples through many centuries of grants from Hindu rulers, fell into the hands of the Muslim invaders from Ghazni and Ghori.
The Muslims aimed to totally destroy the Superstructure associated with the Hindu period. The term Superstructure** which the Muslims aimed at destroying included a wide spectrum of aspects of social life including Indian religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism), language (Sanskrit and its various vernaculars), universities (like Nalanda), traditions of learning (ashramas, gurukulas), architectural symbols (temples, Chaityas, Viharas, Stupas), etc. The policy during the 700 years of Muslim occupation of India was to totally replace the superstructure of the Hindu period with a typical Muslim one.
Towards this end the Muslim invaders undertook the desecration of places of worship, destruction of universities like Nalanda, the wholesale slaughter of the monks and priests to wipe out the intellectual bedrock of the people they overran. Such were the tyrannical polices which the Muslim rulers followed since their rule was established in 1194 C.E.
Contrasts between non-Muslim Invasions and the Muslim Aggression of India
Though the new rulers built upon the same feudal economic foundations of the Hindu period, they aimed at total destruction of the super-structure as it then existed. In the early days of their reign the Muslim rulers unleashed a reign of terror the kind of which India had never experienced before in its history.
Before, the Muslims, India had been invaded by the Greeks (Yavanas), Huns (Hunas), Shakas and Kushanas, but what contrasted their invasions from that of the Muslims was that, after their initial collision with Indian society, the previous invaders were completely absorbed into the existing Indian society.
But the barrack-like lifestyle of the Muslims along with an attitude of contempt for everything associated with this country was to leave a split in India's national character when a significant part of the Indian population went over to the invaders by giving up their ancestral faith and embracing Islam.
But the fierce conflict that featured the early days of the Muslim occupation of India, was in its hidden essence a conflict for domination, of which religion was only one aspect. This struggle was primarily between the Muslim nobility (Amirs) led by the Muslim Monarch (Sultan) on one side with the Hindu nobility and general Hindu population on the other.
To quote D.D. Kosambi , a contemporary historian, "The monarch's regulations were so strictly carried out that the Khuts, Mukaddims or Chaudhuris (Hindu noblemen and village headmen) were not able to ride on horse-back, they were not allowed to carry weapons or even to indulge in betel. These classes were brought to such a state of obedience that one revenue officer would string twenty Khuts, Mukaddims or Chaudhuris together by the neck and enforce payment by blows.
(D.D. Kosambi Introduction to the Study of Indian History)
The Lower Castes (Classes) Bore the Worst Burden - Religious Persecution in Addition to the Existing Economic Exploitation
The tactics of the Muslim monarchy were aimed at breaking the hold of the erstwhile Hindu feudal nobility on the society and the economy. At its core, the Hindu-Muslim struggle was a brutal effort of a new ruling class of the Muslim conquerors in expropriating an older and established ruling class of its accumulated surplus along with the right to appropriate in the future.
The exploited classes of the former Hindu social structure did not experience any change in their economic position, but they now bore the additional burden of repression on religious grounds, the payment of Jazia (penalty tax which the Hindus had to pay for refusing to convert to Islam), the waves of forced conversions, where they, like their more fortunate noblemen and upper caste fellow countrymen, were made to submit to 'Islam' at the point of the Sword, the destruction of their places of worship, and the arbitrary humiliation of the honour of their womenfolk, in addition to the discrimination in legal matters and a general status of being second class citizens. It was for these tyrannical policies that the Muslims were looked upon by all Indians as Mlechha (commonly pronounced as Mlench) - which in Sanskrit means "barbarian".
But in all frankness, it should be said that despite Muslim tyranny, the lower castes of the Vaishyas and Shudras continued to be a tillers of the land with an obligation to part with a share of the crop to the state - whether Hindu or Muslim. Under Muslim rule their economic position did not change, but their social position became worse.
In addition to being economically exploited, as they were earlier during the Hindu period, they were now also socially tyrannized along with the rest of their countrymen, by their new intolerant rulers - the Muslims.
Even the brief revival of slavery that took place under the Delhi Sultanate was in no way comparable to the institution which existed in the ancient Greco-Roman world. The Mohammedan rulers enslaved the subjugated native population in the form of domestic servants at their palaces. This institution of domestic slavery did not represent a productive organisation as it was in the world of antiquity. During the Sultanate, whenever the slaves under the Mohammedan feudal chieftain became too numerous the heads of these favoured servants were cut off without mercy and were made into heaps in front of the darbar" (court).
This showed the low importance given to both human life and to the practice of slavery in the productive process. Had slavery occupied an important place in day-to-day production, such a massacre without impunity could never have taken place. Apart from the low importance attached to slavery, the massacres also reflect the ruthless mentality of the Islamic Sultans of Delhi.
After Mahumd Ghori's victory over Prithiviraj in 1192 and over Jaichandra in 1194, he left his Governor Kutub-ud-din Aibak to rule the conquered territories. After Ghori's death Kutub-ud-din set up an independent kingdom in 1206 and his dynasty is called the Slave Dynasty - after the background of Kutub-ud-din as a slave of Mahmud Ghori. The Slave Dynasty was succeeded by the following Muslim Dynasties viz. the Sayyeds, the Khiljis the Tughlaks and the Lodis. Between them they ruled Delhi and UP from 1206 C.E. up to 1527 C.E.
Ibrahim Lodi, the last ruler of the Lodi line was defeated and killed by Babar who invaded India in 1527.
(excerpted from www.hindubooks.org/budheer_birodkar/hindu_history/...)
(my writing follows...)
So that is a well-catalogued 700 year plus history of primarily Arab muslims bringing uniquely ruthless conquest, religious intolerance, economic and cultural destruction to India. (unless you wish to dispute the veracity of the historical accounts)
A.A.C.
But surely all that could only have happened to poor old India because she didn't have a powerful constitution? LOL!
A thread appeared yesterday, called "New vigilante group targets Muslims (Courtesy of LGF)", and it detailed reports of a new terrorist organization in the Phillipines called Bag-ong Ilaga, which allegedly targets people identified with Muslim terrorist organizations. Several FReepers applauded this group, and I replied in horror that so many would support a group modeled after Ilaga, which murdered adults and children alike, and reportedly used rape as a weapon, too. They killed not only Muslims, but also Christians whom they suspected of being Communist sympathizers--including an Italian Catholic priest.
So far, so good. I am not regretting expressing my horror at the posts that had been made prior to mine.
What I regret is a comment I made at the end of the post--a comment I can't check now because the thread was later pulled without explanation. What I do know is that it implied that AmericanArchConservative might have difficulty knowing whether to support this group or not, being that they kill both Muslims and Italian Catholics.
That comment was way out of line. I had meant to imply that AAC might have difficulty deciding whether or not to support a group that was against both Muslims and Italian Catholics, but the fact is, this group murders--and nothing at all suggests that AAC would support any group that murders anyone. In fact, I want to make it clear that I don't believe AAC would in any way approve - or even not disapprove - rape, murder, and general vigilanteism. Although it was unintentional, I believe that I had made that implication, and it was my fault for not being more careful before posting.
With that thread gone, I cannot post an apology there, so I am doing so here, not knowing how many or how few people saw my post before the thread was pulled. I apologize to both AAC and my fellow FReepers for my lack of judgement.
We may discuss; we may debate; we may agree; we may disagree...but nothing is helped by misrepresentation. I will continue to fight passionately for what I believe is right and best for this country, but I do not intend to start using techniques that obscure the truth in doing so.