View Single Post
  #25  
Old Saturday, January 14, 2012
Amigo's Avatar
Amigo Amigo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Pakistan
Posts: 108
Thanks: 39
Thanked 61 Times in 46 Posts
Amigo will become famous soon enough
Default

I- Introdution:-

Mehmood Ghaznavi's invasions(all of them) were basically politially motivated and their origins are by no means rooted in the cause of Islam. There has been a sheer mis representation of facts and many historians(most of them Muslims sadly) have altered the truth, some deliberately(those who were close to him) and others due to their biased aproach.

II- Reasons they say that the invasions were Islamic in nature:

i- He was a Muslim, infact a practising Muslim and he had this innate urge to promote Islam.
ii- He looked upon the Hindus as infidels who were impure and they needed to be taught a lesson.
iii- Islam was the dominant note of the 10th century Turks(not Muslims btw) so the men/soldiers wanted to contribute to the cause of Islam(as the Islamic empire was expanding all aorund the world) and Mehmood knew this well so he waged all those wars.

All these reasons reflect an idealistic point of view and cannot be understood if we take the realities of that time or even when we look at the picture as a whole, Islam as a sole justification to these invasions does not make sense.

III- Whatever was the real cause of his invasions but it was definitely not Islam because:

i- All invasions were politically motivated with an underlying belief that they would increase the treasures of Ghazni which they actually did.
ii- Almost every invasion was against a particular Raja when he had defied Ghaznavi or had started to rise against him(conspiracies, confideracies etc). Now this is a coincidence that most of them happened to be Hindus but seriously it had nothing to do with propagating Islam.
iii- Even if we assume for a second that Islam was his aim, then how would one explain the end of almost all these invasions. Either a treaty signed and Raja's brother or one of his sons placed on the throne i.e. an infidel being replaced by an infidel but only the new one will pay tribute to Ghaznavi as a vassal chief or the whole city was ravaged. In either case, how was the cause of Islam served?
iv- Had Islam been his aim, he would have established Islamic societies here or annexed these states with his empire, neither of which he did.
v- Infact whether Islam or Treasure, he was never interested in annexing India with his empire for many reasons:
a) The Afghan/Persian mountains were better of in Turk eyes than sultry Hindustan.
b) Feuds among Rajas here would have given him a constant threat of rebellion.
c) Absence of any paramount power i.e. he could win over a dozen Rajas and there would still be a dozen more.

III- Conclusion:-

The real aim behind his invasions was not Islam as evident from the events since not a single invasion can be understood if Islam and Islam alone is kept in mind. That said, it is by no means implied that he did not render any service to Islam. He actually contributed to the cause of Islam at many instances but not in his invasions. The cause of his invasions was political and what he sought after here in India through his invasions was treasure.

Was he a plunderer or a Mujahid, i havn't discussed it in my outline and neither the qualities and drawbacks in his pesonality. The sole area I touched was the causes of his invasions. Secondly I didn't give much theory as I believe one can find ample facts and figures here and there so I have only given my analysis/arguments. And thirdly I havn't argued if his actions were right or wrong. I HAVE JUST TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE CAUSES OF HIS INVASIONS AS I UNDERSTAND THEM

Daikhain hota aise hai ke hum jab kisi bhi cheez ko parhtey hain to ya to hum ne us ke baarey mein pehlay hi se aik raaye qaaim ki hoti hai and we read only to reinforce our views aur ya phir hum shuru mein jo parhtey hain hum apni raaye ussi ke ooper bana letay hain, baad ka parha likha hum qabool hi nahin kartey. In the words of Alfred Toffler: The tragedy of 21st century man would not be to learn, but to learn, unlearn and then relearn.

I havn't appeared in the exam yet so got no marks to brag about hehe but Indo Pak is my optional subject.

P.S. Points to khair main ne pehlay bhi bataaye thay issi thread mein lekin es post mein sum up kar diya hai main ne.
__________________
Blessed are those who can give without remembering and receive without forgetting. ~Jeremy Fitzgerald~
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Amigo For This Useful Post:
Nida Sehar (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)