Talk:Islamic invasion of India

This article reads as a very biased description of the Islamic Invasion of India, which seems more concerned with the atrocities committed than with the actual circumstances in Indian society before, during, and after the invasion. I do not dispute that atrocities were committed by the Ghazni and Ghurid empires (as well as many other invaders of the Indian subcontinent). But to only describe the invasion using these atrocities would be to provide a small understanding of the history. Frankly, this article seems to be inspired more by Hindu nationalist propoganda, rather than an objective historical analysis of the socioeconomic and political consequences of the early Islamic invasions of the subcontinent. Changes I propose: weak militarily to defend themselves from the Ghazni invasions.

- Mention the inefficiency of Indian trade, and agriculture prior to the Islamic invasion. I would theorize that under the Brahmin - Point out the politically disunited state of Indian society prior to the invasion. Outline the reasons why the Indian states were too influence, trade was suppressed, which led to the deterioration of roads and the hoarding of wealth (not to mention land). Although some citizens of India were highly cultured, there was little effort into improving the economy or improving technology within this Indian society. The Islamic invasion, while disastrous for the Brahmin classes, significantly improved the situation for a lot of the society and allowed Indian society to flourish. We can also point to the Carder's Bow and the Spinning Wheel as two of the main technological introductions that improved Indian daily life.

- Many other changes occurred in Hindu life with the destruction of the temples. Sanskrit decreased in usage, and Hindu ceremonies became more accessible to the other castes.

- The human rights atrocites should be stated, but they should not be the main focus of the article. This invasion was a critical historical turning point in not just Indian history, but Asian and world history. And it is not just defined by these atrocities.

My sources include...

Kulke and Rothermund, A History of India, Fourth Edition.

Spengler, Joseph J., Indian Economic Thouight

Wolpert, Stanley, A New History of India, fifth and sixth editions

Solousy 17:31, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I won't pretend to know enough about this to edit it, but you sound like you do. We encourage users to be bold in editing, so by all means, make the changes yourself! We'd be glad to have your expertise. Of course, the original author might disagree, in which case you two will have to work it out amongst yourselves on this page, eventually creating compromise wording. Good luck! Meelar 20:06, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It's usually considered polite to sign your posts, using four tildes like this ~~~~

P.P.S. Why not create an account? It would make it easier for others to speak to you.

Thanks for the tips Meelar! I am pretty new to Wikipedia, and the only reason I chimed in was because this article seemed so biased (almost bordering on propoganda) and I hate to see wikipedia be subverted like this. I created a username and I'll start learning how to do the editing.

Solousy

It should also be noted that Mahatama Gandhi and Jawarlal Nehru, the founding fathers of India had a lot of positive things to say about the Islamic Invasions. If these statements are relegated as appeasement then the attitude of the right wing BJP party would also have to described as being fascist.

An Indian Reader - To brand an opinion "facist", "hindu nationalist" is bringing an assertion of bias in itself. If facts are correct then they should remain. It is a fact that the Islamic invasion did cause destruction and bloodshed. Thousands of temples were destroyed, priests killed, with the aim to suplant the original culture and replace it with the culture of the invaders (muslim records have documented this extensively). Simply to stating a fact should not mean it should be "branded" and thus disregarded. As above, to make an assumption "I would theorize that under the Brahmin influence" is what I would call theorising with an agenda - ie apologists or even belonging to the "negate the brutality of Islamic invasion in India by making assumptions on how India has actually benefitted" gang of so called experts. This only adds insult to injuries to the Indians. I guess I am now a "fascist" and my views do not merit the same consideration as "the more enlightened western intelectuals".

This article is basically cut and past collection from various rightwing Hindu web sites. Completely one sided popaganda. OneGuy 10:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add more to User:JASpencer relying on anti-Islamic sites and adding stuff to wiki. He added this quote:

It appears from your letter that all the rules made by you for the comfort and convenience of your men are strictly in accordance with religious law. But the way of granting pardon prescribed by the law is different from the one adopted by you, for you go on giving pardon to everybody, high or low, without any discretion between a friend and a foe. The great God says in the Koran [47.4]: "0 True believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads." The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed. You should not be so fond of showing mercy, as to nullify the virtue of the act. Henceforth grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them, or else all will consider you a weak-minded man.

There are some difference between that quote and as the quote appears on neutral Indian sites, such as

O my cousin; I received your life inspiring letter. I was much pleased and overjoyed when it reached me. The events were recounted in an excellent and beautiful style, and I learnt that the ways and rules you follow are conformable to the Law. Except that you give protection to all, great and small alike, and make no difference between enemy and friend. God says, 'Give no quarter to Infidels, but cut their throats." "Then know that this is the command of the great God. You should not be too ready to grant protection, because it will prolong your work. After this, give no quarter to any enemy except to those who are of rank. This is a worthy resolve, and want of dignity will not be imputed to you. Peace be with you [1]

Aren't these just two different translations by different translators. The original untranslated text should of course be considered to see if there is a mistranslation or even a delibarate falsification. It would be nice to have the source for the first translation also, since only the one for the second translation is included. The muslim invasion however with all its destructive side is however of course best and amply documented by the muslim historians themself, so there would be little reason to make such a minor "change".

Notice this is not pro-islamic site. It's Indian site. This is just one example of adding POV stuff without checking the source. I don't know how much more falsehood exists in these articles about Muhammad Bin Qasim and others that JASpencer has edited. OneGuy 23:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Removed the following line :

"These invasions were no more than banditry and were motivated by gold and wealth found in Hindu temples."

Gold and wealth found in Hindu temples may be a motivation but to dismiss that as banditry is speculation.

Abhijna

Description of Islamic rule vis-a-vis British rule

I think this page is biased. We can search wikipedia for info on British rule in india. there is no talk of their "invasion" of india and the massacres that no doubt were involved. it is briefly written, "In 1498, the Portuguese set foot in Goa. Rivalry between reigning European powers saw the entry of the British and French among others. The fractured kingdoms of India were quickly taken over by the Europeans and indirectly assumed control of by subjugating rulers. By the early 19th century the British had assumed direct and indirect control over most of India." as you can see, the comment has ommitted talk of the massacres by subsuming them in the word "subjagating". also, it describes the fractured political situation which was also true during the period before islamic rule. furthermore, it should be noted that european incursions into india are termed as colonizations while the muslim incursions are termed as invasions. while the muslims certainly did not colonize in the modern sense, you must invade BEFORE you colonize. and why is it not described as a christian invasion? one could argue that religion did not drive the invasion, but did not the british charge into battle crying "For God and Country (or King)"? weren't missionary forces one of the biggest supporters of the invasion and subsequent colonization? while the christians (read europeans) are parsed into their separate ethnic identities (thereby emphazing their national identity and not religious identity) the muslims (read central asians) are placed in one group (thereby emphazing their religious identity over their national identity). this minor difference leads to seeking to view the european invasion in politico-economic terms, while this is neglected in the discussion of the muslim invasion. to illustrate this point, where is the page entitled "christian (or european) invasion of india". we should not ignore or omit the atrocities committed by muslims, europeans, and others in the indian subcontinent. however, the description of any invasion should not focus solely on its' violent aspects and should discuss the situation that gave rise to the invasion (as opposed to reasons that gave rise to the massacres) and the socio-economic and political effects of the invasion. the page should be properly retitled "Muslim Massacres in India". reza

Ridiculous

'Template:The real deal - Ridiculous Posting. India owes monotheist Muslims and Christians big time! Many voluntarily converted to Islam (and Christianity) in South India because they were fed-up of being exploited by the Hindu "class-system or "class-slavery"!!' I think the hindus of India should be grateful for the 1,200 years of imposed monotheist rule on them! - 1,000 years by the Muslims and about 200 years by British Christians: amongst the million things the Muslims brought to them which Hindus use till today for their benefit include the Taj Mahal (tourist dollars enjoyed by the likes of the probably Hindu who put up this hate post! and the British gave them English which allows them to be the job-pirates and call-centre barons that they are so proud of today! Useless posting - the author forgot that so so so many "Indians" voluntarily converted to Islam (and Christianity in places like South India) because they were fed up with the years of "class-slavery" that is part and parcel of Hinduism - they have a class called "untouchables" till today!. Besides, for Christianity and Islam - every human is a descendant of Adam and Adam was created from dust and so ethno-centric rantings like the ones emphasized by the post (ancestor origins was Hindu, etc. etc.) simply reflect the biased mindsets and matter in the least for Muslims and Christians!: many nationalist Hindus suffer from a superiority-complex.; but for monotheists, no one gets brownie points for belonging to a race, or colour - it is DEEDS that matter. In a way I am glad that this posting exists - it shows the bitter defeat and frustration many like the author go through everyday of their lives!. I guess India didn't have it that bad after all - I mean look at North America and South America - two CONTINENTS where 80% + population is Christian today whereas after 1,000 years of Muslim rule and 200 years of Christian rule did not lead to a change in the "majority" Hindus population! Articles like this one may make us wonder what if the Muslims had done to the Indians what the Europeans did to the Red Indians? the version of history was posted by a frustrated loser with too much time on his/her hands and living in a fool's paradise {{{ by the real deal}}}

MASSIVE ARTICLE CHANGE

Did a complete rewrite of this article. It was clearly vandalism before with stuff quoted from right-wing hindu sites. Hopefully this makes it better.

Alexeifjodor, you asked me to state my reasons for the change. I believe it is quite clear, look how biased this topic was before. Clearly it was written from a very radical and anti-Islamic point of view. As I want to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia, it is imperative that the bias be removed.

I live in India and have long studied the history. As you can see, I did not write a huge article on the subject of the Islamic invasions but started it from scratch so that it was not biased garbage anymore. I think the great influences and contributions of Islam to India should be mentioned as they were a result of the invasions of the early centuries.

TO EVERYONE: Feel free to add any factual statements if you want but please refrain from vandalising the article by making it offensive and biased. -- User: Admin001

________________________________________

Well, I merged your addtions with the original article. After having read the article, I agree that it is not written very npov especially because of inappropriate vocubalary (words like "barbarism"). This is however not a reason to delete the whole article (the good and the bad parts) and replace it with another version that is at least as POV as the prior version. Instead, the bad parts should be rewritten in a npov manner. --Alexeifjodor 23:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________________

I agree totally. Thank you for your response. I did incorporate several things, although I must tell you that if you checked even the sources and the External links of the previous article, you would see that the article was mostly bias from right-wing Hindu sites who without a doubt have a grudge against the Islamic invasions as a whole. It is for this reason that the majority of the article must be changed and written anew to reflect the contributions and the influences that Islamic rule had over India. The fact of the matter is that the invasions led to mostly positive results in the shaping of the "Indian subcontinent" and I am trying to refrain from bias as much as I can.

I did like the edits you put in, but the easiest way is to rewrite the article and allow users to add factual unbiased material after the rewrite. So I hope you do not mind adding any information you have into the rewritten article. To everyone: unbiased/factual external links would be appreciated. -- User: Admin001

Well, thanks for comments. I have however the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are trying to remove every criticism regarding these invasions. Well, this is an article on invasions, and almost every invasion has had its critics. Since you wrote "Islam was generally tolerant of other religions and granted rights to the diverse population of the region." I'm sure you must also be somehow a tolerant person, which I think includes accepting some criticism regarding one's personal POV's. I wrote that the article could be written better and worded in a more neutral fashion, this may also be the reason that it has a npov header on it. However, let me remark that removing the entire article just to replace it with another version that is at least as much POV as the original version is not considered very tolerant and is generally frowned upon in Wikipedia. I merged your additions together with the original article, and since both parts of the article still have some bias in it, I left the npov header in the article. If however you see a way to improve the article, or see some mistakes please try to improve the article, and please document your reasons and cite your sources while doing so. Deleting an entire article to replace it with a personal POV is however not very "tolerant" and should at all costs be avoided. --Alexeifjodor 19:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________

Alexeifjodor, I am in no way trying to remove fair criticism of the invasions. I have repeatedly stated that as long as it not a bunch of bullshit quoted from biased sites I am happy and let others feel free to add to this article. The fact of the matter is that the invasions had a positive influence and I can not deny that (even being Indian); that is FACT. I am an historian in India and feel it is necessary for the article to reflect the positive affects of the invasion.

Furthermore, I find that you are being irrational by insisting that garbage should be kept into the article such as: "all of the Muslim invaders were zealots" and that "only one of the Moghul emperors, Akbar, was very liberal" because he established a new religion! There is absolutely no credible historic evidence that all throughout the invasions people were "forced to embrace Islam" either especially since my research indicates that forced conversions are against the tenets of the religion!

Finally by saying that "The impact of the invasions on Indian culture has been extensive and devastating" is more bullshit as India owes most of the culture and other assets that attract millions of tourists as a result of these invasions. Also it is not necessary to write what Will Durant said about the invasions. There are millions who have opinions of the invasion and the fact that Durant stated what he did is a result of his own opinion. If you want to state his opinion, why not state that of everyone.

So if you are finding that my editing is such a POV, why don't you fix the article by actually blending what I stated with what the original POV writer (JAspencer) said, rather than jumbling the article completely by putting both articles above and below eachother. SO instead of "frowning upon this" and saying that I am not very "tolerant" why don't you try to balance the article rather than promoting POV and being critical of a religion? -- User: Admin001

Deleting an entire article to replace it with a personal pov is considered vandalism in wikipedia, try instead to improve the article in little steps and please document reasons/cite sources, and your edits will much likelier get accepted. Can you really imagine this happens in other articles as well, or would you consider it neutral if someone would do the same in another article that would contain criticisms which you would consider maybe relevant or even justified? And why are you also deleting the links and even the link to the french wiki? Most articles contain critical links, and the articles where this can't be the least avoided would surely be articles on invasions and war. And yes, Will Durant is relevant, because the citations is from The Story of Civilization which is considered as one of the masterpieces in historical literature. And Will Durant did in general say many positive things about Islam, so his remark is not against Islam or religion per se but is against the invasion and against the specific invaders (like Mahmud etc.)itself. Will Durant critcises the invaders and the behaviour of the invaders, their destructivness and greed etc., he doesn't criticize their religion. Read some Durant. --Alexeifjodor 06:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the Will Durant article says, btw, about Will Durant and his Story of Civilization: The profound respect with which they treat Islamic culture and civilization--treading the groove first carved by Edward Gibbon but seldom followed up upon by historians who followed him--has caused at least one Arabic translation of their sections on Islamic Civiliziation. Note: their frequent use of the terms "Mohammedans" and "Mohammedanism" for Muslims and Islam, respectively, should not deter Muslim readers. It was merely a convention of the time, much as African-Americans were described as "Negroes" when the Durants were writing. Given the fairness with which all subjects Islamic are handled by the Durants, the terms can in no way be interpreted as pejorative or as being indicative of a hostility toward the Arab and Islamic world.--Alexeifjodor 06:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Writing style

The article is mostly true, but should be written in a more tactful way.

No the article is NOT mostly true; I have noticed there remains extreme POV mostly from 'right-wing', nationalist hindu sites. So I have blended the two separate articles which were in the topic and belnded them to make the article more NPOV. --Anonymous editor 20:05, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sanitizing of the conquerers, their actions and affects on the population. Unneccessary removal of external sources, and unsubstantiated claims attributed without proof. Also removal of certain notices where the local population were enslaved and tormented, does not do justice to an article on the invasion of India. References to 'system of constitutional laws' implies lack of any such government or coded laws, pre-invasion. Akbar and Aurangazeb should be mentioned to show the contrast between rulers. It should be noted that Akbar was only liberal in relation to the other rulers, since he too once had 30,000 people executed for opposing him. Also requesting sources that are non-indian, relating to the history of India, does not make sense. Many of the sources are from Islamic historical records by Islamic historians, that have simply been translated by Indians. On a positive note, the two articles were blended together well.

Entirely Wrong and baised.

This article starts with " Some Muslims believe that connection between Islam and India was established right from the very beginning, but this is untrue."

Which is a distorted version of History.There is evidence that connection between Islam and India did established from the very beggining. There in Kerla [2]

is a Mosque supposed to be the second Jama Mosque of the world which was built by  Malik Ibn Dinar a diciple  of Prophet

Mohammed (Mpuh) and a Sea Trader who contanly was in contact with India .There is Other historical record of trading between Kerala and Middle East. It is also said about Pallibana Perumal’s (He was one of the prominent king of Cheraman Perumal dynasty who embraced Islam ) pilgrimage to Mecca was a major influence in this regard. This can be verified with the documents at India Office Liabrary which are titled " "Qissat Shakruti Firmad" which, according to the catalogue (Loth 1044), is "A fabulous account of the first settlement of the Muhammadans in Malabar, under King Shakruti (Cranganore), a contemporary of Muhammad, who was converted to Islam by the miracle of the division of the the moon." There are Other evidence too of the Contact between India and Arabia For example in Bhatinda Punjab [3]There is mention of a person, a hindu poet , named Rattan Chand who went to Mecca and performed Hajj , He has his Mazar still located at Bhatinda , its also said that he may have taken part in the " Battle of Trenches " or " Ghazva-e-Khandaq " .

As it can be seen that the article starts with a Wrong assumption and even cursory glance will show it to be baised.

Previous editor, if you feel that the article is wrong factually, and I agree with you to some extent, please feel free to make edits to it. I am sure that the contributing editors to this article will mediate/overlook editing. If you know the facts then by all means they should be added. Thank you. --Anonymous editor 16:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

"Critical" Views

I strongly object to this POV title. It is like describing Nazi holocaust as something positive, and writing 2 lines about the Jews under "Critical" Views.