islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery

Islamic Imperialism in Indiawas surprised to observe that the Hindu rulers of Malabar showed great respect for each other’s territory andexercised restraint against warfare. In Malabar, he wrote, ‘there are twelve infidel sultans, some of themstrong with armies numbering fifty thousand men, and others weak with armies of three thousand. Yet there isno discord whatever between them and the strong does not desire to seize the possessions of the weak.’ 474Muslim invaders had unfurled continuous warfare in India (and everywhere else) not only against the Hindusbut amongst themselves; there were ceaseless revolts by Muslim generals, chiefs and princes all over Indiaduring their entire period of Islamic rule. Battutah’s astonishment is then quite understandable. Sulaiman addsthat the Indian kings even did not maintain troops in regular pays. They used to be paid only when they werecalled in for fighting. Once the war is over, ‘They then come out (to civilian life), and maintain themselveswithout receiving anything from the king.’ 475Indians used to observe high ethical conventions and behavior in times of both peace and war. Warsand battles were normally limited to the martial class, the kshatriyyas, of opposing parties, who used to clashmostly in open battle-fields. They used to follow a code of honor and sacrificing it for the sake of victory ormaterial gain was deemed a shame worse than death. Even famous Muslim historian Al-Idrisi wrote thatHindus never departed from justice (discussed below). The religious teachers and priests and the noncombatants,particularly the women and children, were normally left unmolested in wars. Religious symbolsand establishments—namely temples, churches and monasteries—and civilian habitations were generally notattacked, pillaged and plundered. War booty, a major divinely-sanctioned object of the Islamic holy war, wasnot a part of war and conquest in pre-Islamic India. The women of the defeated side were normally notcaptured or their chastity not violated, contrary to the practice in other contemporaneous civilizations—Chinaand Greece, for example.Merchant Sulaiman affirms some of these ethical conducts of Indian wars. He says: ‘When a kingsubdues a neighboring state, he places over it a man belonging to the family of the fallen prince, who carriedon the government in the name of the conqueror. The inhabitants would not suffer it to be otherwise.’ 476 Thetenth-century Muslim chronicler, Abu Zaidu-l Hasan, wrote about the conquest of the kingdom of Kumar(Khmer) by the Maharaja of Zabaj (Srivijaya or Java). 477 The young, haughty prince of Kumar had expressedhis desire to conquer Zabaj and hearing this, the king of Zabaj attacked the Kumar kingdom. After theMaharaja seized the palace of Kumar and killed the prince, ‘He then made a proclamation assuring safety toeveryone, and seated himself on the throne.’ He then addressed the wazir (chief minister) of Kumar that,‘I know that you have borne yourself like a true minister; receive now the recompense of yourconduct. I know that you have given good advice to your master if he would but have headed it.Seek out a man fit to occupy the throne, and seat him thereon instead of this foolish fellow.’ TheMaharaja then returned immediately to his country, and neither he nor any of his men touchedanything belonging to the king of Kumar. 478The ancient Greek traveler and historian Megasthenes (c. 350–290 BCE) recorded his observation of thepeculiar traits of Indian warfare during his visit to India. Alain Danielou has summarized his observations asfollows:474. Gibb, p. 232475. Elliot & Dawson, Vol. I, p. 7476. Ibid477. The Southeast Asian kingdoms of Srivijaya, Java and Khmer were then an extension of the Indian civilizationwith a firmly rooted Hindu-Buddhist religious influence. The famous Muslim historian al-Masudi had met Zaidu-lHasan in Basra in 916, reproduced this story in his Meadows of Gold.478. Elliot & Dawson, Vol. I, p. 8–9156