Leftists scholars often deny or minimise the true intention of the Islamic invaders, or who argue that the damage they caused, as well as the cruelty and savagery they displayed, was not all that bad. However, some Muslim historians have left detailed records of the atrocities they committed in their day-to-day accounts of what happened during their numerous encounters with Hindus. When we read them as they are, they cannot be denied or argued against. Sita Ram Goel explains in his book The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India, after studying these texts:

The dominant theme in these accounts is of mu’mins(Muslims) martyred; of kafirs (Hindus infi dels) dispatched to hell; of cities and citadels sacked; of citizens massacred; of Brahmins killed or forced to eat beef; of temples razed to the ground and mosques raised on their sites; of idols broken and their pieces taken to imperial headquarters for being trodden underfoot by the faithful on the steps of the main mosque; of booty captured and carried away on the elephants, camels, horses, bullock carts, on the backs of sheep and goats, and even on the heads of Hindu prisoners of war; of beautiful Hindu maidens presented to the sultans and distributed among Muslim generals and nobles; of Hindu 

men, women and children sold into slavery in markets all over the Islamic world; and kafirs converted to the “true faith” at the point of the sword. The Muslim historians treat 

every war waged against the Hindus as a jihad as enjoined by the Prophet and the Pious Caliphs. 

In these Muslim accounts, we never notice any note of pity, or regret, or reflection over deeds of wanton cruelty and rapacity. On the contrary, the Muslim historians express extreme satisfaction and gleeful gratitude to Allah that the mission of the Prophet has been fulfi lled, the light of Islam brought to an area of darkness, and idolatry wiped out. These historians go into raptures over the richness of the booty acquired for the service of the Islamic state, for distribution among the mujahids and the ulama and the Sufis, for the promotion of Islamic learning, and for securing the seats of 

Islamic power.”

 

The hatred that Islam felt for the Vedic tradition stemmed from its monotheistic zeal against a religion that appeared to honour many gods. This also demonstrated how little Muslims understood of Vedic philosophy, as it is a most monotheistic religion when viewed as a way to honour the one Supreme Being in many forms and multiplicity. The Vedic tradition, more than any other spiritual path in the world, has the greatest liberality and latitude for seeing God in all things and all beings.

 

With such an incorrect notion, the Muslims arrived and essentially enforced the premise that if anyone did not believe solely in Allah, they would kill them. On that basis, Muslims and even Christians slaughtered and tortured tens of millions of Hindus. Torment by Muslims occurred in other parts of the world as well. This continues to the present day, with India being the target of more terrorism than any other country, much of which goes unreported by the global media.

 

We can see Hinduism’s tolerance compared to Islam’s intolerance, at least in India’s history. Hinduism can usually coexist peacefully with other religions because it accepts the sacredness other religions have to offer. 

 

Hindus are open to new ideas and willing to accept the central truth of other religions. They have only recently begun to act in groups to defend their traditions when they are threatened, sometimes too vehemently. But, given their history, and the fact that their culture is still under threat from the religions they have hosted in their country for so long, should that not be expected? Why can’t the tolerance, respect, and freedom they’ve shown to others in their country be returned to them? Except for those who have been taught not to accept or respect those outside their clan, this should not be so difficult.

 

On the other hand, how many Islamic countries have religious freedom? How many allow open practise of alternative spiritualities? We can plainly see that many Islamic countries make it difficult, if not impossible, to practise anything other than Islam. If Islam spreads in India, and we see how intolerant they have been, should we not wonder how Hindu temple worship will be allowed to continue? How can there be unity or peace when there is a religion whose radical adherents simply refuse to tolerate, let alone respect, other forms of spirituality?

 

How can there be press freedom when many forms of expression are prohibited for fear of offending Muslims?

This must be considered when it is practically a miracle that the Vedic traditions have survived the brutal attacks of Muslims for so long. Muslims wrote in their histories that they felt it was their duty to destroy temples and eradicate deity worship within them. They wrote about their joy at carrying out genocide against hundreds of thousands of Hindus. After killing hundreds of “infidel” Hindus, Mahmud Ghazni would recite a verse from the Koran every night. Firuz Shah Tughlaq was another who felt it was a sign of his piety to order the executions of all Hindu leaders and practitioners on the day of the Vedic festivals, followed by the destruction of the temples.

But where did they get this fervour? From the book of Islam. If one studies the Koran, there are numerous quotes that will provide such motivation on how to treat non-Muslims.

 

The truth is that the Islamic invaders of India expected to dominate the people and seize control of the land. After the first few Muslim invaders, their intentions were not simply to raid the country and then flee with whatever booty they could find. And they did so with massive armies. The Muslim chronicles show that they had no intention of ever returning to their homeland. No, they came to rule.

 

Source: Crimes against India by Stephen Knapp

DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.