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

Islamic Jihadordered all the temples in Kashmeer to be thrown down… Having broken all the images inKashmeer, he acquired the title of the Iconoclast, Destroyer of Idols.’ 219According to learned Ferishtah (d. 1614), this was the greatest deed of Sultan Sikandar.Succeeding the Iconoclast, his son Ameer Khan (or Ally Shah)—guided by his father’s fanatic primeminister—continued the butchery of remaining Hindus. They ‘persecuted the few bramins who still remainedfirm in their religion; and by putting all to death, who refused to embrace Mahomedism. He drove those whostill lingered in Kashmeer entirely out of that kingdom,’ adds Ferishtah. 220 Later on, in the reigns of MalikRaina and Kaji Chak, the Hindus were converted to Islam by the sword, often accompanied by their massslaughter (described below). These historical records should leave one in no doubt about the measures thatwere instrumental in converting the masses of Indian infidels to Islam.Voluntary conversionDECEPTIVE PROPAGANDA ABOUT CONVERSIONModern Islamic scholars and historians (also many non-Muslim ones) have created a thick smokescreen ofmyths surrounding the means by which Muslim population grew in medieval India and elsewhere. This mythis that the conquered infidels embraced Islam on their own accord, after they discovered Islam’s message ofpeace and justice. The records of medieval Islamic historians, travelers, invaders and rulers prove suchassertions thoroughly groundless. Chronicles of European travelers and courtiers on India, especially of theMughal period, also concur with the records of Muslim historians. All those records suggest that the Hindushad nothing but disdain and resentment toward Muslims. The evidence for the conversion of non-Muslims toIslam, impressed by its message, is nonexistent. The most peaceful means of conversion of the Hindusrecorded in medieval documents was the lure of ridding themselves of the crippling misery and wretchedhumiliation caused by the draconian kharaj, jizyah and other onerous taxes. Such coercive methods ofconversion, solely to avoid an abominable alternative, can not be termed peaceful or voluntary. Voluntaryconversion might have taken place, but only in rare instances—much overwhelmed by the violent, coerciveones.Conversion of lower caste HindusMuslims in India make lofty claims that it is mostly the socially discriminated and oppressed lower casteHindus who had converted to Islam because of its message of equality for all. However, the medieval Islamicchroniclers, who sometimes kept quite detailed records of the conversion, have left no references to the factthat the lower caste Hindus flocked to Islam in order to run away from oppression and tyranny of the uppercaste Hindus. There might have been a higher proportion of conversion amongst lower caste Hindus, but foran entirely different reason. They were the poorest in the society and the crushing kharaj, jizyah and othertaxes had naturally hit them the hardest. A closer look at the Muslim population in the subcontinent revealsthat conversions had taken place across all levels of the society. The fact that some 70 percent of the Hindusin India still belong to lower castes negates the claim that they, impressed by Islam’s superior message, hadflocked to its banner in overwhelming numbers.According to a recent study, commissioned by the Andhra Pradesh government, the forefathers ofsome 85 percent of Muslims today belonged to lower castes. 221 That means, if fertility remained the sameamongst Muslims and Hindus, twice as many lower caste Hindus likely converted to Islam compared to the219. Ferishtah MQHS (1829) History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India, translated by John Briggs, D.K.Publishers Distributors (P) Ltd, New Delhi, Vol. IV (1997 imprint), p. 268220. Ibid, p. 269221. 85% of Muslims in India were SC, backward Hindus: Report, Indian Express, 10 August 2008.83