Quote:
Originally Posted by Amigo
I- Introdution:-
i- All invasions were politically motivated with an underlying belief that they would increase the treasures of Ghazni which they actually did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amigo
Political motives include: source of revenue
|
|
I want explanation of yours whether sources of revenue is included as politiccal motives ? hope your genius will answer it with solid arguments .
while adhering to points why he did not went to china .if time allowed then he would have. i do not know what is the myteriousness behind this logic that every great warrior who if sought to conquer china, died.
1.check taimor
2.Alaxander
3.katbiya
4. ikhtiyar khan lodhi in the reign of Aibak and many others
why he want to invade infact economic condition matters a lot . i admit economic conditions are good and India were rich with treasury . well what is the source of his wealth when he invaded in sub-continent . so he got wealth from a den to further propagate its economy ???
Quote:
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?
|
ghaznavi real motive was to crush caramaites /karamtaz/qaramites that propagated batani movement which lead to the foundation of assassin movement of
Hassan bin sabah
will this explanation is not enough that Qaramites took sacred relics and black stone from khan-e-kaba. this cause is not enough for you to call this a jihad .surprising???
third, keeping aside motive of Hindushahi kingdodm i want to put an other argument thay is his motive was to conquer multan where daud ismaili being backed by fatmid who were supporting batani movement just to keep a check on obbassid. your argument he after conquest only got tributary but not settled there and not adminstered poilicies. HIS worked under obbassid caliphate and crushed persian powers so it is not denied his ambition were to set a dominion in central Asia including IRAN.then political motives logic is futile to refer it ii sub-continent.punjab had multan and lahore bodering peshawer. he wanted to invade in multan and lahore came in his route. so it was better to settle deals instead of making fights .that`s why he relied on dealings with HINDUS because
like christains he did not consider every non -muslim, infidel and waged wars like crusades did .
the situation detriorated when sukhpal or nawas shah embraced islam .this thing was alarming and that fear helped congregies of Hindus to make confederations . so ghaznavi had a check ,he did not initiated wars with hindus