Policy of Islam to capture, convert, destroy> anti-Hindu Islam
(too old to reply)
2008-10-06 23:10:09 UTC

Reality, Propaganda Islam and non-Muslims
How Islam came to India and why now it needs to go from India -2

Appearing in Arabia, Islam spread by conquering with amazing rapidity.
The Byzantine provinces of Palestine and Syria were conquered by the
newly converted Arabs after a campaign of six months in C.E. 636-37.
The Sassanid empire of Persia (including Iraq, Iran and Khurasan) was
defeated in 637 and by 643 the Caliphate stretched to the frontiers of
India. In the west the Byzantine province of Egypt fell in 640-641,
and Inner Mongolia, Bukhara, Tashkand and Samarqand were annexed by
650. The Arab armies marched over North Africa and crossed into Spain
in C.E. 709. All this took place within seventy years (637-709) and
the conquered people were quickly converted to Islam and their
language and culture Arabicised.

India, known to early Arabs as “Hind va Sind”, [showing that the Arabs
were well aware of the distinction between Sind as a part and not
whole of India] was their next target both by land and sea.

These invasions proceeded along the then known (trade) routes - 1.
from Kufa and Baghadad, via Basra and Hormuz to Chaul on India’s west
coast; 2. from West Persian towns, via Hormuz to Debal in Sind; and 3.
through the land route of northern Khurasan to Kabul via Bamian.

But progress of Muslim arms and religion in India was extremely slow.
Caliph Umar (634-44 C.E.) had sent an expedition in 636-37 to pillage
Thana on the coast of Maharashtra during the reign of the great Hindu
monarch Pulakesin II.

This was followed by expeditions to Bharuch (Broach) in Gujarat and
the gulf of Debal in Sind. These were repulsed and Mughairah, the
leader of the latter expedition, was defeated and killed. Umar thought
of sending another army by land against Makran which at that time was
part of the kingdom of Sind but was dissuaded by the governor of Iraq
from doing so.

The next Caliph Usman (644-656) followed the same advice and refrained
from embarking on any venture on Sind. The fourth Caliph, Ali, sent an
expedition by land in 660 but the leader of the expedition and most of
his troops were slain in the hilly terrain of Kikanan (42 H./662
C.E.). This was the fate of the attempts by the four famous “pious”
Caliphs of Islam.

According to Chachnama and Tuhfatul Kiram, the kingdom of Sind
extended on the east to the boundary of Kashmir and Kanauj, on the
west to Makran, on the south to the sea and Debal, and on the north to
Kandahar, Seistan and the mountains of Kuzdan and Kikanan. This
includes modern undivided Punjab and Baluchistan, parts of North-West
Frontier Province and parts of Rajasthan. Muawiyah, the Caliph
(661-80), sent six expeditions by land to Sind. All of them were
repulsed with great slaughter except the last one which succeeded in
occupying Makran in 680.

Thereafter, for twenty-eight years, the Arabs dared not another
expedition against Sind. Makran probably remained partially
independent so that as late as 1290 Marco Polo speaks of the eastern
part of Makran as part of Hind, and as “the last Kingdom of India as
you go towards the west and northwest”

Arabs attacked India from the north-west, and after the fall of
Khurasan in 643 C.E., the first Arab army penetrated into Zabul by way
of Seistan (at that time considered a territorial and cultual part of
India). After a protracted struggle the Arabs were defeated and driven

A decade later the Arab general Abdul Rahman finally conquered Zabul
and levied tribute from Kabul which apparently was not paid willingly
and regularly. To ensure regular payment another Arab general Yazid
bin Ziyad attempted retribution in 683, but was killed and his army
put to flight with great slaughter. [contrary to romantic Islamic
representations, it has been a consistent part of Islamic war strategy
to deceive, and escape when faced with sure death, or beg and grovel
before or appeal to non-Muslim generosity but usually never give
quarter and systematically execute able bodied male prisoners of war -
an awareness of their own tactic to save themselves so that they can
gather strength to come back and finish off non-Muslims] The war
against Kabul was renewed in 695, but it became protracted and
developed into a stalemate. Caliph Al-Mansur (745-775 C.E.) attempted
to force the Hindu king of Kabul to submit but met only with partial
success and the Ghaznavid Turks found the Hindus ruling over Kabul in
986 C.E.

In the south, in 712 a full-fledged invasion was launched after
prolonged negotiations. The king of Ceylon had sent to Hajjaj bin
Yusuf Sakifi, the governor of the eastern provinces of the Caliphate,
eight vessels filled with presents, Abyssinian slaves, pilgrims, and
the orphan daughters of some Muslim merchants who had died in his

These ships were attacked and plundered by pirates off the coast of
Sind. Hajjaj’s demands of compensation was refused by Dahir, the ruler
of Sind, and Hajjaj sent two expeditions against Debal (708 C.E.), the
first under Ubaidulla and the second under Budail. Both armies were
defeated and their commanders killed. Hajjaj fitted out a third and
more elaborate expedition under the command of his seventeen year old
nephew and son-in-law Imaduddin Muhammad bin Qasim.

Hajjaj was a de facto ruler over territories of the former Persian
empire, and sent one army under Kutaiba which penetrated to Kashgar,
where the Chinese quickly came to an understanding. A second army
attacked Hindu Kabul, and the third (under Muhammad bin Qasim)
advanced towards the lower Indus through Makran. The reigning Ummayad
Caliph Walid I (86-96 H./705-715 C.E.) was a powerful ruler who spread
the Khilafat to the greatest extent, but was skeptical because of
earlier failures of Ubaidulla and Budail and is known to have raised
concerns about the distance, the cost, and the loss of Muslim lives.
Hajjaj promised to compensate the Caliph for this war effort and only
then was Qasim allowed to invade Sind. The declared injunctions on
Qasim for this invasion were (1) Spread Islam in Sind, (2) Conquer
Sind and expand the territory under Islam, (3) Acquire all available
wealth for by Hajjaj and repayment to the Caliph.

Hajjaj and Muhammad bin Qasim’s military knowledge of Sind and Hind
was based substantially on the Muslim traders who had been allowed to
trade and settle freely along the trade routes in non-Muslim kingdoms.
These traders had obviously little interest or intellectual background
to know anything beyond India’s wealth, military background, and that
India was a land of Qufr. Every Muslim, whether educated or illiterate
is taught the essential bits from the Quran and the Hadiths that
promise the land, wealth and women of “un-believers” and that it was
the highest duty of a Muslim to carry out violent Jihad [look at my
discussion in Islam and non-Muslims] aimed at destruction of idols,
shrines, books, and adult male population of non-Muslims and capture
their pre-puberty males and women to reproduce and multiply Muslims.

On the way to Sind, the governor of Makran, Muhammad Harun, supplied
reinforcements and five catapults. His artillery which included a
great ballista known as “the Bride”, and was worked by five hundred
men, had been sentby sea to meet him at Debal (a coastal city so named
because of its Devalaya - House of God or temple and contained a
citadel-temple with stone walls as high as forty yards and a dome of
equal height). Qasim arrived at Debal in late 711 or early 712 C.E.
with an army of at least twenty thousand horse, infantry with
additional Jat and Med mercenaries. The majority of the Sindhi
population was Buddhist (Samanis of chronicles), and totally averse to
fighting, with marginal tribal groups apparently “dancing in joy
seeing their Islamic liberators” and only Raja Dahir of Sind, his
Kshatriya soldiers and Brahman priests of the temples were left to
defend their land. This is the Islamic version and although sourced
from the same texts whose claims of repression on Hindus are
discounted by the Thaparite School of Indian history, is still
presented as the correct “version” of reality of welcoming Islam by
the Indian “underclass” and not propaganda - if “caste” repression was
endemic then this welcome should have been extended to the not-much-
earlier invasions.

At the start of Muhammad’s invasion Raja Dahir was in his capital Alor
about 500 kms. away. Debal was in the charge of a governor with a
garrison of four to six thousand Rajput soldiers and a few thousand
Brahmans. The Islamic communication network was fast - letters were
written every three days and replies were received in a week. When the
siege of Debal had continued for some time a defector helped Muhammad
in breaching the walls [ the deception used many times in Islam in its
greatest military successes rather than actual military might]. The
inhabitants were invited to accept Islam, and on their refusal all
adult males were put to the sword and their wives and children were
enslaved. This carnage lasted for three days, the temple was razed and
a mosque built. Muhammad laid out a Muslim quarter, and placed a
garrison of 4,000 in the town. The legal fifth of the spoil including
seventy-five girls were sent to Hajjaj, and the rest of the plunder
was divided among the soldiers. [The Thaparite School of Indian
history and Islam's Marxist apologists keep silent on the question as
to why an economically unproductive activity of demolishing religious
structures is so important in the so-called pure economic motive for
Islamic aggression on cultural icons of non-Muslims. Why are adult
males who do not accept Islam to be executed - they could have been
more useful economically as slave labour - doesn't this smack of
ideological motivations?]

Muhammad bin Qasim next attacked Nirun, (near modern Hyderabad) and
Nirun voluntarily surrendered after agreeing to give riches, but after
accepting these terms Muhammad destroyed the “temple of
Budh” (Buddhist or Hindu shrine - Muslims were so ignorant of Indic
cultural fine-points that they always confused Buddhists with Jainas
and “Hindu” sects) at Nirun. He built a mosque at its site and
appointed an Imam. After placing a garrison under a newly appointed
Muslim governor, he marched to Sehwan (Siwistan), about 130 kilometres
to the north-west, populated mainly by Buddhists and traders. Sehwan
surrendered on condition of loyalty and paying jiziyah.

At this, Dahir decided to meet the invader at Aror or Rawar. Qasim was
bound for Brahmanabad but stopped short to engage Dahir first where
the Arabs encountered an imposing array of war elephants and a large
army under the command of Dahir and his Rajput chiefs. Al Biladuri
writes that after the battle lines were drawn, “a dreadful conflict
ensued such as had never been seen before”, and Chachnama gives
details of the valiant fight which Raja Dahir gave “mounted on his
white elephant”. A naptha arrow struck Dahir’s howdah and set it
ablaze. Dahir dismounted and fought desperately, but was killed
towards the evening, “when the idolaters fled, and the Musulmans
glutted themselves with massacre”.

Raja Dahir’s queen Rani Bai and her son locked themselves into the
fortress of Rawar, which had a garrison of 15 thousand. The soldiers
fought valiantly, but the Arabs proved stronger. When the Rani saw the
inevitable, she assembled all the women in the fort and told them:
“God forbid that we should owe our liberty to those outcaste cow-
eaters. Our honour would be lost. Our respite is at an end, and there
is nowhere any hope of escape; let us collect wood, cotton and oil,
for I think we should burn ourselves and go to meet our husbands. If
any wish to save herself, she may.” They entered into a house where
they burnt themselves in the fire of jauhar. Muhammad occupied the
fort, massacred the 6,000 men he found there [most likely the sick,
infirm, old and the wounded] and seized all the wealth and treasures
that belonged to Dahir.

Muhammad now marched to Brahmanabad but a number of garrisons in forts
challenged his army, delaying his arrival. The civil population,
longed for peace and let the Muslims enter the city on peaceful terms.
Qasim however on entry “sat on the seat of cruelty and put all those
who had fought to the sword. It is said that about six thousand
fighting men were slain, but according to others sixteen thousand were
killed”. He proceeded to Multan, the chief city of the upper Indus
with its famous Sun-Temple which was destroyed and its treasures
looted. Besides the treasure collected from the various forts of the
Sindhi King, worship rights of Hindus were allowed only in exchange of
pilgrim tax, jiziyah and other similar cesses. The campaign expenses
came to 60 thousand silver dirhams and Hajjaj paid to the Caliph 120
thousand dirhams.

In Muhammad bin Qasim’s administration of the conquered territories
the principal sources of revenue were the jiziyah and the land-tax.
The Chachnama speaks of other taxes levied upon the cultivators such
as the baj and ushari. The collection of jiziyah was considered a
political as well as a religious duty, and was always exacted “with
vigour and punctuality, and frequently with insult”. The native
population had to feed every Muslim traveller for three days and
nights and had to submit to many other humiliations which are
mentioned by Muslim historians.

The total number of prisoners was calculated to be thirty thousand
(Kalichbeg - sixty thousand), including thirty “daughters of the
chiefs”. They were exported to Hajjaj. The head of Dahir and the fifth
part of prisoners were forwarded in charge of the African Slave Kaab,
son of Mubarak Rasti. In Sind itself females captured after every
campaign of the marching army, were enslaved and married to Arab
soldiers who settled down in colonies established in places like
Mansura, Kuzdar, Mahfuza and Multan. The standing instructions of
Hajjaj to Muhammad bin Qasim were to “give no quarter to infidels, but
to cut their throats, and take the women and children as captives”. At
the end of the conquest of Sind, “when the plunder and the prisoners
of war were brought before Qasim” one-fifth of all the female
prisoners were chosen and set aside and counted to be twenty thousand.
Since they belonged to high families, “veils were put on their faces,
and the rest were given to the soldiers”. This implies at 100,000 non-
Muslim Indian women were enslaved and distributed among the elite and
the soldiers.

Muhammad bin Qasim remained in Sind for a little over three years
after which Islamic chroniclers say he was suddenly recalled and
summarily executed, probably by being sewn in an animal hide and then
pierced with iron nails, on the charge of deflowering two Sindhi
princesses meant for the bed of the Caliph. [The overzealous among
Muslim ranks can remember the other famous instances such as the early
Islamic commanders in Spain. It is also interesting to note that the
story comes from Islamic pens, which explicitly describes how the
Caliph, the supposed spiritual leader of all Islam is murderously
concerned about the virginity of maidens he wants to bed himself - an
indication of the generic insecurity of Islam's roots whose core
religious texts show an overwhelming concern with womens' sexual
purity and the predilection towards consummating marriages with child-

After Qasim’s departure the Arab power in Sind declined rapidly with a
majority of the newly converted returned back to their former
religions. According to Denison Ross after the recall of Muhammad bin
Qasim, the Muslims retained some foothold on the west bank of the
river Indus, but they were in such small number that they gradually
merged into Hindu population. In Mansura (the Muslim capital of Sind)
they actually adopted Hinduism. Muslims who continued in the new
religion wre mostly concentrated to cities, and particularly Multan
which according to Al Masudi (C.E. 942) remained one of the
strongholds of the Muslims. Ibn Hauqal, (C.E. 976), also calls Multan
a city with a strong fort, “but Mansura is more fertile and
prosperous[...]Debal is a large mart and a port not only of this but
neighbouring regions”. Thus the Muslim population more or less became
stable and integrated with the indigenous society of Sind. Ibn Hauqal
writes: “The Muslims and infidels of this tract wear the same dresses,
and let their beards grow in the same fashion. They use fine muslin
garments on account of the extreme heat. The men of Multan dress in
the same way. The language of Mansura, Multan and those parts is
Arabic and Sindian” [We will see later how Islamic concerns deriving
from their desert roots as well as propriety aimed mainly at
"protecting" their "reproductive resources" - women, imposed dress-
codes and socio-cultural practices that were completely alien to the
pre-Islamic Indic cultures as well as as its general climate]. An
interesting angle yet to be explored in historical analysis is the
possible vulnerability in “monotheistic” or mono-iconic religions,
such as Zoroastriansim or Sun-worship or Buddhism (which in its later
phases foucsed on the “Buddha” entirely) to Islam. Early European
Christianity dominated by recent pagans of the Germanic stock which
overran the post-Romanic scenario, retained sufficient viciousness and
and imbibed less of the later-Christian imperialist “peaceful
submission” to monotheism to ruthlessly repulse the Moorish or eastern
Islamic advances. Jews and Nestorians in the Levant fared poorly
against Islam, as did the extensive Buddhist, Zoroastrian and
monotheistic strands within Hinduism in central and South Asia. A
modern phenomenon could be the trend of conversion from Christianity
to Islam among white Europeans in the countries of Germanic stock.

Andre Wink points out, that In contrast to Persia there is no
indication that Buddhists converted more eagerly than brahmans. The
Thaparite School maintains that Muslim Arabs were “invited” to Sind by
Buddhist “traitors” who aimed to undercut the brahmins is problematic
and typically stated without proof and in the style of Indian
historians which places hypothesis with or without qualification by
isolated and dubious examples, as undisputed reality. If Buddhists
collaborated with the invaders, there are apprently equal examples of
collaboration by brahmins which simply could have been a matter of
expediency rather than any genuine love for Islam.

The newly converted Turks, who were enrolled as military slaves of the
Caliphate, ultimately grew strong enough to form their own
principalities under the formal tutelage of the Caliphs with a much
reduced authority for legitimacy. Amir Subuktigin (977-997 C.E.) was
one such Turkish adventurer who frequently raided the Hindu Shahiya
Brahman kingdom of Punjab which extended up to Kabul “in the
prosecution of holy wars, and there he conquered forts upon lofty
hills, in order to seize the treasures they contained.” When Jayapal,
the ruling prince of the Shahiyas, heard of Subuktigin’s depredations,
he moved with a large army and huge elephants to wreak vengeance upon
Subuktigin, “by treading the field of Islam under his feet”. After
crossing Lamghan, Sabuktigin advanced from Ghazni with his son Mahmud
and the two armies fought repeatedly against one another. Jayapal,
with soldiers “as impetuous as a torrent,” was difficult to defeat,
and so Subuktigin threw animal flesh (probably beef) into the fountain
which supplied water to the Hindu army. Apparently Jayapal sued for
peace, but Sabuktigin protracted negotiations, and Jayapal’s envoys
were sent back on which Jayapal again proposed cessation of
hostilities saying: “You have seen the impetuosity of the Hindus and
their indifference to death, whenever any calamity befalls them, as at
this moment. If, therefore, you refuse to grant peace in the hope of
obtaining plunder, tribute, elephants and prisoners, then there is no
alternative for us but to mount the horse of stern determination,
destroy our property, take out the eyes of our elephants, cast our
children into the fire, and rush on each other with sword and spear,
so that all that will be left to you, is stones and dirt, dead bodies,
and scattered bones.”

Jayapal’s declared intention forced Subuktigin to conclude “that
religion and the views of the faithful would be best consulted by
peace”. He demanded a tribute of cash and elephants and nominated
officers to collect them which apparently was not believed by Jayapal
and having learnt his lessons in Islam’s complete lack of any ethics
in warfare, refused to pay anything, and imprisoned the Amir’s
officers. At this Subuktigin supposedly marched out towards Lamghan,
conquered it and set “fire to the places in its vicinity, demolished
idol temples, marched and captured other cities and established Islam
in them”. Jayapal collected troops to the number of more than one
hundred thousand, “which resembled scattered ants and locusts”.
Sabuktigin on his part “made bodies of five hundred attack the enemy
with their maces in hand, and relieve each other when one party became
tired, so that fresh men and horses were constantly engaged. The dust
which arose prevented the eyes from seeing. It was only when the dust
was allayed that it was found that Jayapal had been defeated and his
troops had fled leaving behind them their property, utensils, arms,
provisions, elephants, and horses.” Subuktigin levied tribute and
obtained immense booty, besides two hundred elephants of war. He also
increased his army by enrolling those Afghans and Khaljis (previously
Hindu followers of Jayapal) who submitted to him.

Subuktigin’s son Mahmud succeeded his father in C.E. 998 and in 1000
he first attacked India. The Thaparite school tries to represent
Mahmud as common looter intent on capturing the “horse trade through
Multan and Sind” whose iconoclastic exploits have been inflated by
later Islamic scholars to make him seem an Islamic theologically
approved hero. However they quietly suppress tha fact that Mahmud
himself was well-versed in the Quran and the Hadiths and was
considered its eminent interpreter. He collected either by promise of
wealth or by force (consider the case of the brilliant Ibn Sina who
spent a lifetime escaping from his clutches and is known to have
celebrated Mahmud’s death) a galaxy of eminent theologians scholars,
and on his investiture, he vowed to the Caliph of Baghdad “to
undertake every year a campaign against the idolaters of India”,
convinced that “jihad was central to Islam and that one campaign at
least must be undertaken against the unbelievers every year.” Mahmud
made seventeen (or 10) expeditions in the next thirty years and is the
object of the highest praise in Islamic historians almost at par with
Slahuddin. Mahmud always included the Caliph’s name on his coins,
represented himself in his Fateh-namas as a “warrior for the faith”,
sent to Baghdad plundered wealth and slaves (the highest spiritual
leaders of Islam, the Caliphs appear to have a never ending appetite
for enslaved Hindu women for their personal bed) from his Indian
campaign. The Caliph Al-Qadir Billah in turn praised the talents and
exploits of Mahmud, conferred upon him the titles of Amin-ul-millah
and Yamin-ud-daula (the Right hand) after which his house is known as
Yamini Dynasty.

In his first attack of frontier towns in C.E. 1000 Mahmud appointed
his own governors and converted some inhabitants. In his attack on
Waihind (Peshawar) in 1001-3, Mahmud is reported to have captured the
Hindu Shahiya King Jayapal and fifteen of his principal chiefs and
relations some of whom like Sukhpal, were made Muslims. At Bhera all
the inhabitants, except those who embraced Islam, were put to the
sword. At Multan conversions of remaining Hindus took place in large
numbers, for writing about the campaign against Nawasa Shah (converted
Sukhpal), Utbi says that this and the previous victory (at Multan)
were “witnesses to his exalted state of proselytism.” In his campaign
in the Kashmir Valley (1015) Mahmud “converted many infidels to
Muhammadanism, and having spread Islam in that country, returned to
Ghazni.” In the later campaign in Mathura, Baran and Kanauj, many
conversions took place. Describing the conquest of Kanauj, Utbi saya:

“The Sultan levelled to the ground every fort and the inhabitants of
them either accepted Islam, or took up arms against him”, or those who
submitted were also converted to Islam or conversion was a condition
for submission and life [this is by the Sunnah of the Prophet, whose
protestaions of liberalism more common in the Quran which represents
his earlier struggling days are almost always contradicted in the
Hadiths which represent a post-Muhammad collection of actual events].
In Baran (Bulandshahr) alone 10,000 persons were converted including
the Raja. During his fourteenth invasion in 1023 C.E. Kirat, Nur,
Lohkot and Lahore were attacked. The chief of Kirat accepted Islam,
and many people followed his example. According to Nizamuddin Ahmad,
“Islam spread in this part of the country by the consent of the people
and the influence of force.” According to all contemporary and later
chroniclers like Qaznivi, Utbi, Farishtah etc., “conversion of Hindus
to Islam was one of the objectives of Mahmud” and whenever he was
militarily successful he demanded the people to convert to Islam
leading to Hindu rulers simply running away without giving a battle.
“The object of Bhimpal in recommending the flight of Chand Rai was
that the Rai should not fall into the net of the Sultan, and thus be
made a Musalman, as had happened to Bhimpal’s uncles and relations,
when they demanded quarter in their distress.”

Mahmud destroyed an almost uncountable number of temples and idols as
is reconstructable from the detailed descriptions of his campaigns.
[ It is difficult to understand why Mahmud would use precious labour
in the uneconomic structure destroying activity]. His interest in
destroying renowned temples is only interpreted by the Thaparite
School as aimed at extracting wealth but larger temples would be
structurally more difficult to destroy and economically unproductive
as gold or valuables were highly unlikely to have been imbedded in
huge blocks of stone and the more natural possibility of “bringing
glory to Islam” is quietly suppressed.

At Thaneshwar, the temple of Chakraswamin was sacked and its bronze
image of Vishnu was taken to Ghazni to be thrown into the hippodrome
of the city. Mathura did not fight back and the residents had fled,
and Mahmud had been greatly “impressed with the beauty and grandeur of
the shrines” but the temples in the city were thoroughly destroyed.
Kanauj had a large number of temples with some of great antiquity and
just as in Mathura even when there was no armed resistance all the
temples were destroyed.

According to Andre Wink, from the seventh century onwards, peaking
during Muhammad al-Qasim?s campaigns in 712-13, a significant number
of Jats among others were captured as prisoners of war and exported to
Iraq and elsewhere as slaves. Examples of prominent Jat freedmen
include Abu Hanifa (699-767), the founder of the Hanafi school of
Islamic law.

Abu Nasr Muhammad Utbi, the secretary and chronicler of Mahmud reports
that when Mahmud Ghaznavi attacked Waihind (near Peshawar) in 1001-02,
he took 500,000 persons of both sexes as captive. This figure appeared
so preposterous that Elliot and Dawson (the translators) reduce it to
5000. Many modern historians including the Thaparite School
consistently declare that this figure is notional and therefore not
true and an exaggeration. None of these discounters give any concrete
reasons for reducing this claimed number - which could have easily
been done among others on the basis of estimated ancient demographics
of the region concerned - except their own stature as infallible and
final adjudicators of truth. T

he common characteristic of all these narratives by Islamic
chroniclers is that taking of slaves was a routine practice in every
expedition and only unusually large numbers drew attention of the
chroniclers. For example after Mahmud’s Ninduna (Salt Range -1014)
campaign, Utbi reports that “slaves were so plentiful that they became
very cheap; and men of respectability in their native land[India] were
degraded by becoming slaves of common shopkeepers (of Ghazni)”. He is
supported by Nizamuddin Ahmad in Tabqat-i-Akbari stating that Mahmud
“obtained great spoils and a large number of slaves”. Ferishtah
reports that in the next campaign on Thanesar, “the Muhammadan army
brought to Ghaznin 200,000 captives so that the capital appeared like
an Indian city, for every soldier of the army had several slaves and
slave girls”.

Slaves were taken in subsequent campaigns in Baran, Mahaban, Mathura,
Kanauj, Asni etc. so that when Mahmud returned to Ghazni in 1019, the
booty was found to include 53,000 captives according to Nizamuddin.
Utbi reports that “the number of prisoners may be conceived from the
fact, that each was sold for from two to ten dirhams. These were
afterwards taken to Ghazna, and the merchants came from different
cities to purchase them, so that the countries of Mawaraun-Nahr, Iraq
and Khurasan were filled with them”. The Tarikh-i-Alfi adds that the
fifth share due to the Saiyyads was 150,000 slaves, therefore the
total number of captives comes to 750,000.

It was a matter of Islamic policy to capture and convert, destroy or
sell the male population, and carry into slavery women and children.
Ibn-ul-Asir says that Qutbuddin Aibak made “war against the provinces
of Hind. He killed many, and returned home with prisoners and booty.”
Further In Benaras, Muhammad Ghori’s massacred the Hindus - “None was
spared except women and children.” Fakhr-i-Mudabbir reports that as a
result of the Muslim achievements under Muhammad Ghori and Qutbuddin
Aibak, “even a poor householder (or soldier) who did not possess a
single slave before became the owner of numerous slaves of all
description (jauq jauq ghulam har jins)”.
2008-10-08 15:11:52 UTC
Religions always attack each other. That's not good. But a lot of
good comes from religion. Most of the good comes from Islam. Other
religions appear to be as useless as the tits on a bull:

Judeo Christians think it is the "end times" even though it has been
the "end times" for over two thousand years so far. They think the one
and only hope is for Jesus to return and straighten everything out.
And a big part of the plan is the destroy the world. They think wars
and everything being blown up is a great thing because it means Jesus
will return soon.

Marxists were murderous lowlifes but they said religion is the opium
of the masses. There obviously is some truth to that. Enemies often
have some truth in their arguments. On top of the opium there is the
Jewish propaganda started by Scofield.

Christians are great for telling what some of the problems are, such
as homosexual perversion, feminism etc. But to actually solve these
problems one should look elsewhere. Who do Christians hate the most,
first Hitler and then the Muslims. These are the two who actually
solved the problems that Christians are famous for speaking against.
Maybe the Muslims go a little overboard but they are the opposite of
liberalism. There is no way that "Brokeback Mountain" would be shown
in a Muslim country.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.org

Frank Arthur
2008-10-08 17:21:43 UTC
Post by Topaz
Religions always attack each other. That's not good. But a lot of
good comes from religion. Most of the good comes from Islam. Other
Jew haters like the day's of Hitler and Nazism are now the Islamic
and supporter of terrorism that fosters the destruction of the United
Israel and Western Civilization. While 19 Muslim radicals, dedicated
to Allah,
set out from Saudi Arabia to inflict as much destruction on Americans
in the USA.
They succeeded by murdering innocent airline passengers including
women, children
and babies. They destroyed the World Trade Center killing nearly 3000
of all races and religions at work and then went on to the Pentagon to
as much of it as it could killing Americans at work. Much of the
entire Muslim
world cheered the destruction of the WTC and photographs of Osama bin
Laden were
eagerly bought up by Islamic supporters. Clearly and without
equivocation the
message and aim of Osama bin Laden is the destruction of the United
Christians and the West to be replaced by Islam. And the Islamic
radicals from
Afghanistan, Palestine, Iran, Saudi Arabia and many others are on
track with their
aims. What do you hear from these supporters? Attacks on Jews and
Israel and the
supporters of Israel as if Jews were to blame! It were Muslims who
killed 3000
Americans. It were Muslim radicals that later blew up London busses
and trains
killing people of all races and religions. Of course Americans support
Israel has been our loyal ally since 1948. Remember that Irael fought
a war
against five Arab amies intent on it's destruction, supported by
Soviet Armor,
Aircraft and technicians. The defeat of those 5 armies, destruction of
bombers on the ground and the capture of 1,000 Soviet tanks led to the
humiliation of the Soviets and their retreat from the region. Who
we support? Syria? Iran? Hezbollah that killed hundreds of American
in Lebanon?
2008-10-08 18:05:38 UTC
The West is the White race.

The goal of America is to destroy the White race. The
multi-culture and pluralism they push is only at the expense of
Whites. No one is trying to push multi-culture in China or Japan or
anyplace but on the Whites. And they promote racial intermarriage.
If things continue as they are the White race is doomed.

And who is doing all of this? It is the USA government and the
media, in other words the Jews.

Many Whites are traitors. They support the USA government and their
own destruction. We should look for allies. And anyone who wants to
remove the Jews from power is our ally. In the past the Japanese were
our allies. Today it is the Muslims.

Osama bin Laden
September 24th statement published in Pakistan

"I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We
are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United
States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic
freedom. This system is totally in control of the American Jews, whose
first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is simply that the
American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced
to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the
punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it
is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the
U.S. is not uttering a single word."

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.org

Frank Arthur
2008-10-08 18:20:49 UTC
Post by Topaz
The West is the White race.
The goal of America is to destroy the White race.
Don't have to go any futher. Bring your words in to a psychiatrist and
get a guarantee to be committed.
2008-10-10 00:39:32 UTC
"Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE
Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world
pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."

"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan,
but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by
bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote
with them."

"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY
white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e.,
intermarry, with all those non-whites."

"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem
would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were
into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"

"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a
RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK

"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and
what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"

"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of
genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable
conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.org

2008-10-08 20:03:58 UTC
   The West is the White race.
Doubt that North and South American Indians would
agree with you.
2008-10-10 00:40:44 UTC
Post by repo
   The West is the White race.
Doubt that North and South American Indians would
agree with you.
Question: did Neanderthal man deserve to be eliminated by cro magnon
man? Probably not [I believe most literature attributes their
extinction at least in part to the encroachment of cro magnon into
their territories]. But we don't judge what apparently was the
natural sequence of events that lead us to...well... what we are
today. My point is that I keep hearing this argument about the native
American over and over and over ad infintum until my brain seems about
to burst. Whatever judgments we cast upon the situation today, much
of which has been a profound orchestration in the last few decades to
usher in multiculturism [by diminishing euro influence and settlement
of the world]...one simple fact screams out that we should all
consider. What else would a sane person imagine would happen when a
stone age culture comes into contact with a culture on the verge of
industrialization and exploding technology?
Let's get rid of this guilt trip baggage that we seem so obsessed with
today [what...over a hundred or more years after the fact] and realize
'IT WAS IN THE CARDS' that any stone age culture was going to vanish.
Perhaps we should consider what it might have been like if Ghingas
Kahn had showed up on American shores before Europeans. Oh, and let's
keep proper perspective on this 'ennobling' thingy, and realize how
'political it really is' when you study the true harshness of the way
of life such Native American culture engendered.
Who got a hold of our education institutions...wow have they done a
number on us. They took all the white hats away from us and handed
them our competitors.


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.org