What's new

MUSLIM CONQUESTS ON THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT-

Major d1

BANNED
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
1,721
Reaction score
-2
Country
Bangladesh
Location
United Kingdom
Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent mainly took place from the 12th to the 16th centuries, though earlier Muslim conquests made limited inroads into modern Afghanistan and Pakistan as early as the time of the Rajput kingdoms in the 8th century. With the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate, Islam spread across large parts of the subcontinent. In 1204, Bakhtiar Khilji led the Muslim conquest of Bengal, marking the eastern-most expansion of Islam at the time.

Prior to the rise of the Maratha Empire which was followed by the conquest of India by the British East India Company, the Muslim Moghul Empire was able to annex or subjugate most of India's Hindu kings. However, it was never able to conquer the Hindu kingdoms in upper reaches of the Himalayas such as the regions of today's Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Nepal and Bhutan and the extreme south of India such as Travancore.

BACKGROUND-

Like other societies in history, South Asia has been attacked by nomadic tribes throughout its long history. In evaluating the impact of Islam on the sub-continent, one must also note that the northwestern sub-continent was a frequent target of tribes from Central Asia who arrived from the North West. With the fall of the Sassanids and the arrival of the Caliphate's domination of the region these tribes began to contest with the new power and were subsequently integrated into it giving rise to Muslim dynasties of Central Asian heritage, generally Turkic -Persians. In that sense, the Muslim invasions of the 10th century onwards were not dissimilar to those of the earlier invasions in the History of Central Asia during the 1st through to the 6th century. What does however, make the Muslim invasions different is that unlike the preceding invaders who assimilated into the prevalent social system, the Muslim conquerors retained their Islamic identity and created new legal and administrative systems that challenged and usually superseded the existing systems of social conduct and ethics. They also introduced new cultural mores that in some ways were very different from the existing cultural codes. While this was often a source of friction and conflict, it should also be noted that there were also Muslim rulers, notably Akbar, who in much of their secular practice absorbed or accommodated local traditions.

The first incursion by the new Muslim successor states of the Arab World occurred around 664 CE during theUmayyad Caliphate, led by Al Muhallab ibn Abi Suffrahtowards Multan in Southern Punjab, in modern day Pakistan. Muhallab's expeditions were not aimed at conquest, though they penetrated only as far as the capital of the Maili, he returned with wealth and prisoners of war. This was an Arab incursion and part of the early Umayyad push onwards from the Islamic conquest of Persia into Central Asia, and within the limits of the eastern borders of previous Persian empires. The last Arab push in the region would be towards the end of Umayyad reign underMuhammad bin Qasim, after whom the Arabs would be defeated by the south Indian Emperor Vikramaditya IIof the Chalukya dynasty and the Rajputs like Nagabhata of the Pratihara Dynasty at the Battle of Rajasthan in 738, and Muslim incursions would only be resumed under later Turkic and Central Asian Mongol dynasties with more local capitals, who supplanted the Caliphate and expanded their domains both northwards and eastwards.

It took several centuries for Islam to spread across India and how it did so is a topic of intense debate.
 
. . . . . .
One more Modi fanboy's pain and trolling fest thread
Why so much insecurity & why a country's pm is being involved??LOL
Sane people would not thump their breast over such barbaric rulers..
 
.
1. Lack of unity
2.No central power
3.North Indian kingdoms were busy fighting over trivial things
4.Tactical mindset instead of Strategic thinking.
5. Cast-ism.
6. More emphasis on personal valor rather than comprehensive strategic planing and execution.

..
 
. . . .
Those people are bloody murderers who burnt hindu pilgrims in train.. Blaming others is your get away move as usual.. Nobody is unaware about that..
They were the hindus who did it from your military and the admittted that.

Are you talking about samjotta express?
Yes and they were Indian army hindu officers who set the train on fire.
 
.
The Muslim conquest is a dead horse and a historically cruel event/s, its mostly a issue for Pakistanis with identity crisis. Pakistan and India has the largest amount of fake Sayyids.:lol:

Pakistanis have failed to distinguish Islam from Arabs, you can be a good Muslim without pretending to be Arab or dressing in Arabic clothes( a fashion very common amongst British Pakistanis), we have wonderful Kameez shalwar as our national dress, why would you want to go and dress in a skirt?

My respect is to the great Sufi Saints of Islam who brought enlightenment and tolerance which is being destroyed by the spiritual progeny of bloodthirsty invaders.

Enjoy.....
 
.
Don't call it Muslim conquests. None of them conquered these areas to bring Islam here. They came here to loot, plunder and rape apart from a very small number. We South Asian Muslims became Muslims at the hands of peaceful Sufi saints who truly understood the Deen, not these maniacs who used religion to galvanise their soldiers while collecting vast sums of wealth and power for themselves.

If you call them Muslim conquests, then be ready to accept all the negative consequences of such "conquests", i.e. the genocides and the orgy of violence they unleased on unarmed populace and their desecration of Holy temples of Hindus etc. Something that is not even allowed under Islamic rules of war.

As well as the simple fact that these people actually married into the Hindu nobility, built alliances with them to fight against other Muslim rulers, thereby negating these so called conquests as anything to do with Islam.

Keep the Deen away from these foul blood thirsty rulers.
 
.
The Muslim conquest is a dead horse and a historically cruel event/s, its mostly a issue for Pakistanis with identity crisis. Pakistan and India has the largest amount of fake Sayyids.:lol:

Pakistanis have failed to distinguish Islam from Arabs, you can be a good Muslim without pretending to be Arab or dressing ...
Don't call it Muslim conquests. None of them conquered these areas to bring Islam here. They came here to loot, plunder and rape apart from a very small number. We South Asian Muslims became Muslims at the hands of peaceful Sufi saints who truly understood the Deen, not these maniacs who used religion............

Keep the Deen away
from these foul blood thirsty rulers.

Ahem ahem .We cant have Sikhs,Muslims Christians ,Hindus ,Qadianis etc masquerading as Muslims on the premier number one Pakistani forum can we ?
(its like me pretending to be a undercover Hindu on forum ) Deceit


In 1974, after an exhaustive examination of all the evidence presented for and against the Qadianis, the Muslim World League (Rabita Alame Islami) -- which represents all religious scholars from every Muslim country of the world -- passed an unanimous resolution declaring the Qadiani Movement and its leadership out of the fold of Islam. Indeed, "Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam" is a man-made organization with no divine authority or guidance.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom