Islamic Holocaust of Hindus

>“Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage”

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banda_Singh_Bahadur#Execution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Antonio_Bragadin
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>“The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period.”

>“The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter.”

>The Afghan ruler Mahmud al-Ghazni invaded India no less than seventeen times between 1001 – 1026 AD. The book ‘Tarikh-i-Yamini’ – written by his secretary documents several episodes of his bloody military campaigns : “The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at the Indian city of Thanesar] that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it…the infidels deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river…but many of them were slain, taken or drowned… Nearly fifty thousand men were killed.”

Not enough sadly

>it is stated that when Qutb-ul- Din Aibak (of Turko – Afghan origin and the First Sultan of Delhi 1194-1210 AD) conquered Meerat, he demolished all the Hindu temples of the city and erected mosques on their sites. In the city of Aligarh, he converted Hindu inhabitants to Islam by the sword and beheaded all those who adhered to their own religion.

>The Persian historian Wassaf writes in his book ‘Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat ul Asar’ that when the Alaul-Din Khilji (An Afghan of Turkish origin and second ruler of the Khilji Dynasty in India 1295-1316 AD) captured the city of Kambayat at the head of the gulf of Cambay, he killed the adult male Hindu inhabitants for the glory of Islam, set flowing rivers of blood, sent the women of the country with all their gold, silver, and jewels, to his own home, and made about twentv thousand Hindu maidens his private slaves.

This ruler once asked his spiritual advisor (or ‘Qazi’) as to what was the Islamic law prescribed for the Hindus. The Qazi replied:

>“Hindus are like the mud; if silver is demanded from them, they must with the greatest humility offer gold. If a Mohammadan desires to spit into a Hindu’s mouth, the Hindu should open it wide for the purpose. God created the Hindus to be slaves of the Mohammadans. The Prophet hath ordained that, if the Hindus do not accept Islam, they should be imprisoned, tortured, finally put to death, and their property confiscated.”

Left-wing historians will say that this is just poetic exaggeration of chroniclers, that Muslims dindu nuffin, all because they don't want to alienate the Muslim voting bloc for the INC.

I hate leftists. In the West they can't shut up about imperialism, in order to raise identity politics of non-whites through victimization. In India, where Hindu nationalism is identified with the right-wing, they laugh at one of the most bloodthirsty imperialisms ever see, and try to make identity politics (they call it communitarianism there) unacceptable.

I'm so happy that leftists exist so you continue to stay mad.

I remember a leftcuck tried to argue once that prior to the arrival of the British there was no real separation between muslim and Hindu Indians.

Gosh I hate leftcucks.

What, i don't say that.
Everyone and their mom knows that only Jains truly didn't do nothing in the history of India.
Hindu extremists are reactionary right

>If a Mohammadan desires to spit into a Hindu’s mouth, the Hindu should open it wide for the purpose. God created the Hindus to be slaves of the Mohammadans. The Prophet hath ordained that, if the Hindus do not accept Islam, they should be imprisoned, tortured, finally put to death, and their property confiscated.

It's ok, I have found a champion.

And nobody believes this for a second Pajeet.
Ignoring Timur's rageout, nobody believes that non-muslims were massacred by the millions but retarded pajeets like yourself.

>“In a short space of time all the people in the [Delhi] fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers.

>“They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground….All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death.”

Islam has been doing jihad in India for centuries, such a body count is in bounds.

The Afghan ruler Ahmad Shah Abdali attacked India in 1757 AD and made his way to the holy Hindu city of Mathura, the Bethlehem of the Hindus and birthplace of Krishna.

The atrocities that followed are recorded in the contemporary chronicle called : ‘Tarikh-I-Alamgiri’

>“Abdali’s soldiers would be paid 5 Rupees (a sizeable amount at the time) for every enemy head brought in. Every horseman had loaded up all his horses with the plundered property, and atop of it rode the girl-captives and the slaves. The severed heads were tied up in rugs like bundles of grain and placed on the heads of the captives…Then the heads were stuck upon lances and taken to the gate of the chief minister for payment.

>“It was an extraordinary display! Daily did this manner of slaughter and plundering proceed. And at night the shrieks of the women captives who were being raped, deafened the ears of the people…All those heads that had been cut off were built into pillars, and the captive men upon whose heads those bloody bundles had been brought in, were made to grind corn, and then their heads too were cut off. These things went on all the way to the city of Agra, nor was any part of the country spared.”

Why are Muslims so heartless?

Aryan bros need to unite against the three headed hydra of Abrahamism, desu

That religions is truly more interesting. But it isn't structured at all, how would you unite them when myths, gods etc are too different?

>copypasta from hindu nationalist sites

atleast be a little subtle about this shilling, pajeet

Don't forget how Muslims annihilated Buddhists in Central and South Asia; something which leftists conveniently ignore. Turkic Muslim invaders sacked and destroyed countless Buddhist sites including Nalanda, one of the preeminent sources of Buddhist scholarship and its library. Indian Buddhists had to flee to Tibet and SE Asia.

Hyperbolic, misinterpreted, lacking in genuine historicity, reinterpreted, biased - the list of denunciations against your quotes and manifold and not addressed at all.

It is propaganda for all it's worth.

Can anyone recommend any books on pre-colonial Muslim-Hindu conflict?

I've heard about shit like the greentext excerpts before but there appear to be few English language sources on it

>eliminating pajeets
>bad

>that comic

kek

This is coming straight from the mouths of the Muslim leaders who did this. They bragged about it.

The Age of Wrath: A History of the Delhi Sultanate

The Indo-European spirituality is all derived from the same Aryan root, they're just different names for the same entities. Minus the extraneous examples of syncretism, like Proto-European gods melding into the mythology or in the case of Hinduism, local Dravidian ethnic gods merging.

>More important than what Genghis Khan conquered was how he conquered. He deliberately used terror as a weapon of war. If a city he was besieging gave up without a fight, its people would usually be spared but would have to go under Mongol control. If the city fought against the Mongols, everyone, including civilians, would be massacred. This reign of terror is a large part of why he was such a successful conqueror. People were more willing to give up than to suffer massacres at his hand. For example, when he besieged the city of Herat, in present-day Afghanistan, he killed over 1,600,000 people.

>Besides some raids and massacres on the borderlands of Islam, Genghis Khan did not invade far into the Muslim world. Under his successor, Ogedei, the Muslim world continued to be spared Mongol wrath. However, in 1255 that peace would end. The Great Khan, Mongke, put his brother Hulagu Khan in charge of an army whose goals were to conquer Persia, Syria, and Egypt, as well as to destroy the Abbasid Caliphate. The campaign’s goal appears to be a complete destruction of Islam. Hulagu himself even had a very deep hatred for everything attached to Islam. Much of this came from his Buddhist and Christian advisors who influenced his policies.

>"God created the Hindus to be slaves of the Mohammadans. The Prophet hath ordained that, if the Hindus do not accept Islam, they should be imprisoned, tortured, finally put to death, and their property confiscated."

HOW can you defend that?

That's sort of the point of aggrandizing propaganda and exaggeration.

Exactly. That's why I hate how Veeky Forumstorians believe the Nazis writing down that they were gonna "exterminate jewry" means they actually did.

It's not even a holocaust and more of a spanish conquista, even then it's still much more tolerant

>“throughout the camp that every man who has infidel prisoners was to put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. 100,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasir-ud-din Umar, a counselor and a man of learning, who, in all his life had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives“.

>Banda Singh Bahadur was tortured to death after being imprisoned for 3 months. The heart of Banda Singh’s son was put in his mouth in an attempt to humiliate him

Any good book about the Roots and stuff to learn about it?

Sure achmed

Islam is a religion piss and flowers and would never do that

#ReligionOfPeace

>The heart of Banda Singh's son was put in his mouth in an attempt to humiliate him

I'm sorry, but this is just cruel.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banda_Singh_Bahadur#Execution

>On 7 December 1715, Banda Singh Bahadur was captured from the Gurdas Nangal fort and put in an iron cage. The remaining Sikhs were captured and chained.[40] The Sikhs were brought to Delhi in a procession with the 780 Sikh prisoners, 2,000 Sikh heads hung on spears, and 700 cartloads of heads of slaughtered Sikhs used to terrorise the population.[41][42] They were put in the Delhi fort and pressurised to give up their faith and become Muslims.[43]

>On their firm refusal all were ordered to be executed. Every day, 100 Sikhs were brought out of the fort and murdered in public.[44] This continued for approximately seven days.[45] After 3 months of confinement,.[46] On 9 June 1716, Banda Singh's eyes were gouged out, his limbs were severed, his skin removed, and then he was killed.[3][47]

>On 9 June 1716, Banda Singh's eyes were gouged out, his limbs were severed, his skin removed, and then he was killed
>then he was killed
>THEN HE WAS KILLED

I understand why they hate Muslims so much now.

Mongols paid the price for destroying Baghdad when three of the four Khanates eventually converted to Islam.

t. Muhammad

So how was India able to remain Hindu even with centuries of Muslim oppression?

same. those bedouins who call themselves arabs have no dignity.

>If a Mohammadan desires to spit into a Hindu’s mouth, the Hindu should open it wide for the purpose

This sounds like some ISIS shit

I told you

IT'S JUST EXAGGERATION, GUYS. THAT'S WHY I'VE LEARNED AT JNU, IF WE START SAYING OTHERWISE, MUSLIMS MAY GET ANGRY AND STOP VOTING FOR THE INC, AND WE DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN.

Hindu Nationalism is blatantly revisionist to the point of literal fraud. They are cancer.

It's 2017, there is no objective reality, if Hindu nationalists want to believe that Indo-Europeans are native to India and that the Vedas have a greater awareness of the natural world than modern science, that is just fine. The grand metanarratives of progress are dead anyway.

In the end, "dumb" Hindu nationalists have been better rulers than all those educated intellectuals from the JNU that made India lag behind the rest of the world for decades with their enlightened socialism.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

YES

t.Hindutva
What's up with calling every invasion and/or massacre Holocaust?

Holocaust complex?

It's like saying the Spaniards holocausted the indians on purpose. They did killed a lot of them, destroyed their culture and did atrocities but it isn't like they said "Let's go to the new world and kill every single indian because I'm crazy/racist/zealous".

Yes fucking faggot all those horrible shit happened but to say the muslims went there ONLY to kill and raze temples is stupid.

Appart from that, the hindus since the 50s have been going full retard and killed lots of muslims and destroyed mosques so I guess you fags are even.

>blacks have killed a lot of white people since the 1950s, so they and whites are even for slavery

Not a single Western leftist would say that. Not a single Western leftist would brush off the crimes of Western imperialism the way Marxists in India do with Muslim crimes.

>It's not like Leopold II went to the Congo and said: "Let's kill every single nigger" so there was nothing wrong with the Congo Free State

You are disgusting hypocrites.

Faggotty leftists will deny the suffering of Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians to placate their image of Muslim ego for some reason.

Maybe their unfamiliarity with the sheer scale and completeness of the devastation makes them uncomfortable.

Muslims vote for left-wing parties, both in the Western world and in India. That's the reason why they placate Muslims.

Retard. Leopold II did a lot of shit yes but from what I'm reading in this thread you are trying to say is the muslims who conquered India were doing that stuff because they just wanted to kill all hindus unless they convert to Islam. Plus it's not like the hindus were all good boys who din du nuffin. Also, you are implying there were "hindus" when calling it Hinduism is a modern thing. The muslims probably believed in that time they were just killing infidels who some believed in one of those blue gods and the rest believed in some red guy.

Tell me more about this. Is it to get the muslim vote?

Ironically, the only place where Muslims don't vote for left-wing parties is the actual Muslim world. So you get the interesting phenomenom of Western (and Indian) left apologizing for Muslims, while in the Middle East and North Africa, leftists hate Islam and try to get rid of it in the public sphere.

We can only expeculate on the reasons, but the historical fact is undeniable, the Muslim conquest of India was responsible for dozens of millions of deaths and uncountable suffering and oppression for native people. The kind of experience that, when experienced by blacks, indigenous peoples, or even Muslims, justifies a measure of nationalism, according to the Western left.

But when Hindus try to self-organize to rise above their history of oppression they are criticized for "commutarianism".

Indian religion and national identity is pretty much fabricated in response to Muslim invasions and empires.

Hinduism according to them is a trillion years old. Anything that is not Islam, is Hinduism by definition, so they literally make shit up as they go along and call it Hinduism and India. They had millions of gods with no connection between them. The caste system prevented any sort of nationhood so Muslim kings literally strolled in and took what ever the fuck they wanted.

Even today, Indians define their identity by whichever civilization is the oldest in the subcontinent. In this case, based around the Indus River in Pakistan where Punjabis, Sindhis and Pashtuns have lived for as long as records go back. This hasn't stopped Indian historians from fabricating various migration theories that conveniently move the civilization to modern day India.

The most significant places in the subcontinent are located in Pakistan. Ghandara, Indus valley, Punjab, Sindh (from which India even managed to steal the name). The Greeks only knew of the place which made up the Indus river basin. Beyond that, nothing of significance was ever recorded. Arab travelers described millions of villages with nothing in common with each other. During the Arab era, Hindu referred to the region. It was not a religion. Hence the term Muslim Hindus. At some point, someone realised what was happening and took the initiative to create a religion for non Muslim Hindus. Everything you know about Hinduism was created after this, so in that sense, Hinduism is one of the newest "old" religions in the world.

t. JNU (((historian)))

You weren't speaking to me nor am I interested in you injecting politics into historical studies because you're angry about bad Indian historians injecting their politics.

Except they actually did, because they weren't writing for the benefit of their own dynastic histories and diplomatic bragging.

FUCKING KEK.

Treasonous sikhs tried overthrowing the king
Get beheaded
Not even original tho

Killing millions of Hindu subhumans is one of the few good things done by Mudslim sandniggers. Unfortunately, those retarded monkeys haven't finished their job and Pajeets are still here.

mmmmmmmbetter check where the word shaheed comes from first

muslims get to tax infidels and having such an abundant tax farm is not something to discontinue.

>who are Dalits

Indus civilization was made by Dravidians

>Muslims brutally murdered Hindus in India
>80% of modern India is Hindu
Am I missing something here?

>> We Waz Kangz

I am sure it was Rajesh.

Pajeet historical facts don't always make sense.

See They literally fabricate everything there is to know about religion, history, economy, reality.

Spaniards committed cultural genocide, they purposefully went through great lengths to erase their identity and culture.

Whenever you kill a Hindu 4 take his place, they are similar to Chinamen in this way.

The Mongols did far more damage than any Islamic invasion.

Pajeet shitposting. Mongols annihilated everything, including Muslims, before converting to Islam.

They clearly didn't do enough since poo in loos still infest.

I honestly don't see anything wrong with killing Hindus

People that are ok to hate on Veeky Forums

>Germans
>Hindus

I wonder who is behind this kind of psychological warfare.

I think you have no idea what a leftist is.

>People that are ok to hate on /his
Better add the Mongols, Americans of all kinds, British, Muslims, and Communists to that list

>eternal Anglo makes arbitrary borders and a national identity from nothing and then accuses the natives of we wuzing each other

only good indian is a dead one
>tfw my ancestors killed poopoo in looloos for sport
>tfw have fucked 3 'high caste' light skinned 'white' looking indian girls
>tfw some beta poopoo in the looloo is going to have to settle for sloppy seconds

Indians like to fuck with no condoms

my sides

Whose the guy on the far right? Zoroaster?

Reading this, I fully agree that Muslims deserve the slaughter being wrecked upon them by Hindu nationalists and the RSS nazis. Pakistan should be destroyed

muslim invaders didn't kill hindudindus because they were muslim

muslim invaders killed poos because they were mongols and turks who viewed non turco-mongols as inferior and punished any disobedience heavily

Maybe it is not such a bad thing, the Islamic holocaust spurred on the evolution of the Sikh.

Humans were not supposed to be evil degenerates but they weren't supposed to be meek and complacent either.

Not really.

Mughal Empire for example got sacked and raped because it kept trying to ally with the Ottomans against the Safavids and Nadir Shah, so he decided to go down there and take them Pajeets a lesson or hundred.

Why were the anatolian greeks assimilated instead of being genocided then?

Leftists are secularists. It's liberals who suck off the muzzies

Pajeet, if Muslims were really interested in killing Hindu nufins, your nation and religion wouldnt exist anymore.

In less than a 1500 years, Muhammadans went and genocided every known religious group (even themselves) and yet National Socialists gets the blame.
In less than a century, Social-Democrats ('communists', 'socialists', the one and same) went and genocided more nationalities, religious groups and people in general than any other religious or political group in known history and yet 'reactionaries', those with 'cold war bias' and 'anticommunists' gets the blame.

India's a weird case actually. Their leftists are literally exactly like ours. Carbon copies. Peculiar Islamophile types - maybe it's the shared Indo-European genetics that makes our respective leftards so similar.

One of the things they're responsible for is the blackening of the Raj period. They basically wanted to use the Mughal period and the fictitious "Muslims and Hindus lived together in peace" as a foil against the British who supposedly drove these two groups apart.

>Heh, I'm so erudite. The more I bash my own race and inflate the achievements of other races, the more unbiased I am. This is because my ego is paradoxically symbiotically attached to the denial of my own group identity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Antonio_Bragadin

They did the same to us Hindu-bro.

>cucked by a minority in your own country
>expect sympathy

>It's like saying the Spaniards holocausted the indians on purpose

Except this fake history meme has widespread credence in the western world, it is even taught at major western universities.

The funny thing is, the group that best fit this fantasy version of Islam as some noble brown person religion akin to some sort of stoicism that western orientalists and libtards have constructed over the years are Sikhs.

there's literally nothing wrong with them killing hindus

every group that has invaded india throughout history has done the same, both before and after islam

this 'genocide' of poos happens because the invaders are disgusted by the beta servile attitudes of the disgusting poo in loos that only slaughter can rectify

indians are a slave race for a reason

This is so fucking true.

The only two groups I actually respect from the subcontinent are Punjabis and Pashtuns. They fought whoever came their way and took a stand against Persians, Greeks, Brits, Soviets, Americans. Most Indians are well known for rolling over completely.

Expect this to be reposted. Its mine now, you hear me? MINE