Whether Sultan Mahmood was a plunderor or A Idol Crusher

[mohsinmumtaz]

Salaam,

The statud of Sulan Mehmod Ghaznavi is a subject of great debate. There are writers who have ascribed to the view that he was a pluberor and the invasions he undertook were only to gather wealth and riches, whereas there are other writers who have pointed out that the invasions carried into effect by Sultan were because of his desire to propagate Islam and Crush the Idols. both the schools forward several arguments in their favor.

Now the question which i want to ask from the learned fellows is what should be written in the CSS exam about this, if there appears to be a question.

Regards,

[Almaas Ruby]

@mumtazmohsin

yes fellow you have raised the very right question. this has been the same problem to me, as to what should one write about Sultan Mahmood of Ghazni..

i appreciate your insight.

and seek for seniors help.
regards.

[m.n.m.talpur]

Well i dont know about you but I would not attempt the question if I had the choice. The thing which most people forget when they give CSS exam that the examiner has alot of biases and if we over look it would at our own peril. But I had no choice to do it I would really make him sound as idol crusher( even though personally I dont believe that ) but in the end it depends on your gut just dont take too many risks.

[mohsinmumtaz]

@ Mr. Talpur,

Can u please succinctly list out reason why dont u belive him to be Idol Crusher?

[Artemis]

Well I don’t agree with any of the claimed status for him, neither as a plunderer nor as Idol Crusher. He was not at all an Idol Crusher as is commonly quoted by Muslims, even while defending him. War in Islam is not allowed just to crush idols. If we claim this we are supporting Hindu point of view that Islam in Subcontinent spread through sword. Being people of this land we all know that our ancestors were never forced to embrace Islam.

He was a well aware Muslim. He even wrote a book on Fiqh and he had respect for other religions. A large number of Hindus lived in Ghazni, and they enjoyed religious freedom. One of his commanders named Tilak is quoted as a Hindu. A number of soldiers in his army were also Hindus. He has been quoted in history as:

Unlike other great conquerors Mahmud did not leave the areas conquered to the mercy of his soldiers. After becoming the first Muslim ruler to conquer Northern Punjab, he consolidated his rule in the area and established his provincial headquarters at Lahore. He established law and order in the areas that he ruled, giving special attention to the people he ruled.

The non-Muslims under his rule got the status of Zimmis (a protected class in Islam who pay tax to Muslim state and in return the state becomes responsible for their security, religious freedom and all other rights).

If he was so found of crushing idols he would have crushed those in Afghanistan first. You people might remember an international issue from 2001, when Taliban destroyed 1,500 years old statues of Buddha regardless of international outrage. Were those not present at the time of Sultan Mahmood? Why did he invade India just to crush idols while allowing Budh minority in his state to worship them.

So what was the real cause of invasions? It is said to be more political and again religious to some extent. As political reasons we see that the wars of Ghazni Empire with Hindus dated back to his father’s era. The cause was mainly political, like what makes neighboring powers to fight. Hindus were never attacked by him as a weak neighbor but in all the encounters they were greater in number. Even in the famous battle against Raja Jae Pal in 1001(A.D.) at Peshwara, Hindus were dominating till the end when all through Mahmood’s luck or what we may say” taeed-e-ghabi”, Jae Pal’s elephant turned back and Hindus misunderstood it as there leader is turning back retreated.

The second and more concerned reason of his attacks; the religious aspect, was Muslim minorities living here. Mohammad Bin Qasim conquered a vast area of the Subcontinent. Starting from coastal regions he came to nowadays central Punjab, which was part of Sindh at that time. With him came Islam and there were a number of local Muslims living here. He at times attacked the local rulers to safeguard the rights of Muslims in this region.

If his attacks were merely against Hindus what made him to attack Ismailis in Multan? Even his first war in South is quoted as:

Mahmud's first campaign to the south was against the Ismaili Fatimid Kingdom at Multan in a bid to curry political favor and recognition with the Abbassid Caliphate engaged with the Fatimids elsewhere.

Although the debate of sects goes on and on but it is a fact that Ismailis never represented the majority of Muslims in this area at any time in history.


The invaders from Afghanistan coming to safeguard the rights of Muslims of this region can be seen through ages. If it was wealth that brought him to Subcontinent what brought Ahmad Shah Abdali to Subcontinent at the time of third war of Panipat in 1761. Although Mughals even launched attacks on Afghan leaders in Akbar’s era under Hindu commanders and the conflicts went on afterwards. But when the same Muslim empire I the subcontinent was in danger, Afghans came to rescue them. This is what we call universal brotherhood in Islam. Even from the days of Pakistan movement there is a good example to quote when Sir Syed said to Hindu leaders, “Do you think Muslims in the combined India will be left at your sympathies after British leave India? It would never be the case since our Afghan brothers will definitely come to rescue us”. Like he threatened Hindus that don’t think we are alone they are there to help us. To quote a relatively recent example what made Afghans to fight 1948 battle along with Pakistanis. Was that about rule or wealth? History has witnessed this fact repeatedly but it happened in Mahmood’s era for the very first time.

I think we have become much more acceptable towards opinions from outsiders and too much critical when it comes to Islamic viewpoint. Let me say one thing here there is no universal distinction between good and evil. I don’t mean to say they are alike but to classify between them one needs a criteria, the criteria varies and so do the distinctions. U.S. calls “War Against Terrorism”, what we think cruel, brutal, for the sake of vested interests and even terrorism in itself. Bush repeatedly quotes the U.S. war as war against “Evil” however almost all Muslims believe him as one among the most Evil persons on this planet. So if Hindus claim he was a burglar or plunderer, it doesn’t mean he was the one. We have a definite concept about “mal-e-ghanimat” from Islamic teachings where Allah SWT specifies in Quran (Surah Al-Anfaal) that Muslims have a permitted right on Mal-e-ghanimat as a mercy(Ahsan) from Allah since previously people of book were not allowed any claim on it. So lets look at this in the way we should.

Last but not the least; he was among very few conquerors of this world, who never lost even a single battle through out their life time. So lets take pride in that.