69 million page views

Reply to Amin Riaz regarding India

Reader comment on item: Will Europe Resist Islamization?
in response to reader comment: I will answer your question properly BUT ...

Submitted by jennifer solis (United States), Apr 14, 2008 at 20:24

The Encyclopaedia Britannica -

"In December 1398 A.D., Taimurlane ordered the execution of at least 50,000 captives before the Battle of Delhi; likewise, the number of captives butchered by Taimurlane's army was about 100,000.

"Mughal emporer Akbar ordered the massacre of about 30,000 captured Rajput Hindus on February 24, 1568 A.D., after the battle for Chitod, a number confimed by Abul Fazl, Akbar's court historian.

Afgan historian Khondamir notes that during one of the many repeated invasions on the city of Herat in western Afganistan, which used to be part of the Hindu Shahiya kingdoms, "1,500,000 residents perished". - the book, "The History of India as Told by it's own Historians" , Sir H.M. Elliot, 1st. ed. 1867

An interesting article - "The genocide beyond the Hindu Kush " - Francois Gautier, author -


I've read parts of Francois Gautier's book, "Rewriting Indian History".

Another interesting article, "Where's India's holocaust museum?" - Leon Uris, author -


And an extremely thorough study - "The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India", - K.S. Lal, author -


This last author, K.S. Lal, writes as his preface -

"Had India been completely converted to Muhammadism during the thousand years of Muslim conquest and rule, its people would have taken pride in the victories and achievements of Islam and even organised panIskamic movements and Islamic revolutions. Conversely, had India possessed the determination of countries like France and Spain to repulse the Muslims for good, its people would have forgotten about Islam and its rule. But while India could not be completely conquered or Islamized, the Hindus did not lose their ancient religious and cultural moorings.

"In short, while Muslims with all their armed might proved to be great conquerors, rulers and proselytizers, Indians or Hindus, with all their weakness, proved to be great survivors. India never became an Islamic country. Its ethos remained Hindu while Muslims also continued to live here retaining their distinctive religious and social system. It is against this background that an assessment of the legacy of Muslim rule in India has been attempted."

Amin Riaz, I understand your concern that my views might be "bias" in favor of Hindus - which is why I have noted (in this post and previous) a few Muslim sources themselves regarding India's Islamic rule.

Hindus were notoriously bad record-keepers with regards to history. But I believe the truth of the role of Islam in India and the history to support it is there - supported by objective viewpoints; in fact, even by historical Muslims themselves - and it reveals Islam conquered India "by the sword".


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2023 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)