One of the favorite hobbies of the anti-Hindu authors is to whitewash the Muslim invasion of the civilization of Bharatavarsha which resulted in destruction of countless temples and genocide of millions of Hindus. Recent trend of the anti Hindu authors is to whitewash atrocities of even tyrants like Aurangzeb. But in a world where there is Holocaust denial and tyrants like Mao, Stalin, Lenin etc are glorified by numerous communist followers. So this shouldn’t come as a surprise. In this post we shall refute few of the prominent arguments made by anti Hindu authors to whitewash the atrocities made against the Hindus by Muslim invaders.
Claim No.1: The muslim expansions were mostly political and not religious in nature
It is a fact that Mohammed himself was a political leader and the Islamic expansions led by him and his successors were of religious in nature, which led to mass scale destruction of non-Muslims and their cultures. Specifically, Islam itself is against Idolatry, Polytheism etc and the Arabic Pagans were the first victims of violent Islamic expansions led by Mohammed himself. No one can deny that Mohammed himself destroyed the Idols of the Gods of Pagans which were present the current holiest site of Islam – Kaaba, and also Idolatry and Polytheism are ‘shirk’ i.e sin in Islam. Further Quran itself is full of hatred and violence against the Pagans. Apologists of Islam may try to whitewash these Quranic verses by stating they’re ‘taken out of context’ and such, but here we provide few examples of Quranic verses with their context which makes it clear that the hatred against the Pagans.
First example is from Quran 2/98:
‘Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael – then indeed, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers.’
This verse basically states that anyone who reject the Abrahamic pantheon, i.e the Pagans, are enemies of Islamic God himself.
Verse with context of preceding and subsequent verses https://quran.com/2/97-99
This is definitely not taken out of context.
Second example is from Quran 2/24:
‘But if you do not – and you will never be able to – then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.’
This verse talks about hellfire waiting for those who don’t believe in Allah.
Verse with context of preceding and subsequent verses https://quran.com/2/23-25, again not taken out of context.
Third example is from Quran 48/6:
‘And [that] He may punish the hypocrite men and hypocrite women, and the polytheist men and polytheist women – those who assume about Allah an assumption of evil nature. Upon them is a misfortune of evil nature; and Allah has become angry with them and has cursed them and prepared for them Hell, and evil it is as a destination.’
This verse is about Islamic God’s punishment of Pagan Polytheists, who are grouped with hypocrites.
Verse with context of preceding and subsequent verses https://quran.com/48/5-7 , this is not taken out of context either.
Clearly the Quran itself says that the Islamic God is enemy of the Infidels, especially the Pagan Idolators and Polytheists. The followers of the Islamic God, simply followed their God and his hatred towards the Pagans while mass killing them and destroying their cultures.
When the Islamic invaders encountered the Hindus during their expansions, they also used this hatred against the Hindus who are Polytheists and Idolaters while destroying the Hindu temples and killing off or enslaving the Hindus. So to say that the Islamic expansions mostly happened due to political reasons is completely ridiculous. Rather it was mostly expansions which were motivated by the hatred against Pagans, which is one of the foundations of Islam.
The Islamic hatred against Polytheists and Idolaters is also the reason why the Hindus and Muslims rarely coexist. In early history, the Greeks, Scythians, Kushans, Huns etc who all came as invading invaders into India coexisted with Hindus and gradually got absorbed into Indian Hindu civilization by accepting Dharmic traditions. This happened because they too were originally Pagans. Assimilation and coexistence is impossible with the Muslims (and followers of other Abrahamic traditions) because of their Monotheist bias and hatred against the Pagans.
Claim No.2: Many Hindus fought for Muslim rulers too. Some Muslim rulers were also interested in Hindu culture.
It is true that Hindus were also included in the armies of Islamic rulers. But those Hindus were either shameless traitors who had given up their pride, just like modern leftist-liberal namesake Hindus who abuse Hinduism and Hindu practices 24/7, or they fought for the Islamic rulers forcefully since they had no other choice and the Islamic rulers would’ve massacred their native Hindu citizens just like they did in all conquered places.
Also, it is true some of the Islamic rulers were interested in Hindu culture. Some of the Hindu texts were also translated into Persian under the Islamic rulers, like Razmnama which is a translation of Mahabharata. But we should keep in mind that this happened when Hindu culture was already under decline thanks to the same Islamic expansions. To compare, the national epic of Iran named Shahnameh, which chronicles the Zoroastrain kings and associated legends, was composed after the Islamic invasion of Iran and destruction of Zoroastrain majority, which made some of the surviving Zoroastrains to flee Iran and become refugees elswhere, like Parsis of India. So this ‘interest’ of Islamic rulers on local culture was meaningless when majority of the non-Muslims were already being killed or enslaved, it should only be viewed like some of the predators playing with it’s prey before finally killing it.
Claim No.3: Like muslims occupied Bharat, the Aryans also Invaded Bharat from northern regions and enslaved the native population by placing them as lower castes, Islamic invasion mainly affected the upper caste Aryan Hindus and liberated the lower caste non Aryans.
The Aryan invasion theory is a lengthy matter to debate, and is beyond the scope of the context of this post. However, going by the argument that the Aryans invaded Bharat, it is a fact that even the so called lower castes today have ‘Aryan’ or Ancestral North Indian (ANI) admixture to certain levels. This means at some point of time, the ANI possessing Aryans were also the ancestors of the lower castes population and most Hindus possess this Aryan admixture. This indicates that Aryans mingled with the local population and there was assimilation happening. This was indeed the case when Vedic culture spread into southern parts of India during the Janapada period (around 600 BCE)and further into regions outside India like Southeast Asia. At the same time none of the Hindus posses Muslim admixture, except for those who were taken as slaves and converted into Islam by the Muslims. Further, a bronze age event (around 1900-1500 BCE) like Aryan movement cannot be compared to an event which occurred during the medieval era, since during the bronze age, many parts of Bharat had much fewer population than during medieval era or remained uninhabited. At the same time Islamic invasions drastically affected the much larger medieval population of the various regions of ancient India from Afghanistan to southern India.
Also to state that the lower castes were ‘liberated’ from caste system under the Muslim rule is ridiculous. For the Muslim rulers, both the lower caste and upper caste Hindus are the same Idolatrous Polytheist Pagans, who are enemies of the Islamic God and thus the enemies of Muslims as well. So all Hindus, including lower castes and upper castes, were wiped off from Bharat during the Islamic rule. Modern Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan which were formerly Hindu regions are now more than 90% Muslim, and there are no traces of any widespread presence of lower caste Hindus there.
Claim No.4: Like muslim rulers destroyed temples, Hindus also destroyed or converted Buddhist & Jain sites. So Hindus cannot complain about temple destructions.
While there might’ve been conversion of Buddhist and Jain sites into Hindu ones after the decline of Buddhism and Jainism, there would’ve been conversion of Hindu sites into Buddhist or Jain sites as well. To start with, Buddhism and Jainism evolved within Hindu realm, so as they spread there might’ve been conversion of Hindu sites into Buddhist or Jain ones. To cite one example, the largest Hindu temple and religious structure of the world, Angkor Wat, was converted into a Buddhist site in later times in Cambodia. Also, many historical sites like Ajanta, Ellora, Elephanta, Badami, Khajuraho etc hosted both Hindu and Buddhist or Jain places of worship. They coexisted in same place because they all were same Dharmic sects. This coexistence is rarely seen with Islamists and pointed above.
Claim No.5: If Muslims committed genocide of Hindus, then why is Bharat still Hindu majority?
This is one of the most popular and ridiculous claim made by Islamic apologists. Ancient Bharatiya civilization during pre-Islamic era spread from Afghanistan to Indonesia. Modern Islamic nations like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia had Hindu kingdoms before Islam. After the arrival of Muslims, many regions become Islamized one by one and gradually most of the Hindus were wiped off by Muslims from these regions. So a large part of Hindu civilization was taken over by the Muslim invaders. Hindus in Bharat survived thanks to the heroic Hindu rulers who fought against Muslim barbarians for their survival. Hindus have been fighting the Islamic invaders for over a 1000 years, from the times of barbarian Arab invasion of Sindh during 7th century which happened after the Zoroastrian Iranian civilization was destroyed by the Arab jihadists, to jihadi tyrant Tipu and his father Hyder who usurped the Mysorean Hindu throne in 18th century and committed genocide of Hindus in many parts of Dakshina Bharata. Modern Hindus owe their existence to the their great heroic Hindu ancestors who fought for their surival over a millennia.
So to conclude, in whatever way one argues, the Islamic invasion and the genocide of Hindus cannot be justified. But then again as we stated in the beginning of this post, we’re living in an era were socialist tyrants are glorified and their genocides being whitewashed. So the whitewashing of Islamic genocide shouldn’t come as a surprise.
(Feature Image Source: Indiafacts)
Did you like this article? We’re a non-profit. Make a donation and help pay for our journalism.