counter arguments is most striking feature of genius not humour.admitting it u did not poured any argument then why refusal. That denails are for what? Share your knowledge because me is nt knowledge able as you. Opinions and arguments always remained in mind. Beat me with your arguments and sources of history. Enrich here and i will do the same. Conflict arises when you are reluctant to share and stubborn to admit.

Ghaznavi invasions.

1. 1000 frontiers.
2. 1001 -03 jaipal
3.1008 Annadpal-battle of waihind
4. 1014 thaneswer
5. 1015 kashmir
6. 1021 kalinjar
7. 1023 lahore
8. 1025 somnath
9. 1026 jats and Meds
10.1010 Multan
11. qanuuj 1019
12. 1004 Annadpal
13. Kangra hills/nagarkoat
14.two were again, with Ismailis and i forgot other
15. 1004 bhatia /bhria denial of tributary.

Motives of ghaznavi with references.
"
At a time when the armies of Islam were overrunning the known world ,such a field of operations as india could not be overlooked, and accordingly we find a pillaging expedition visiting Tana (near bombay)as early as 637A.D during the reign of calph omer ,the second successor of Mohammed the prophet(p.b.u.h)."

Lanepoole

HERE notable thing is shift of muslim global centre from haram e sharif to Demascus where by schism played a crucial role and divided muslim into sects. The schism started from karbala event was played a deciding role as we also en counter in form of wars like jimal and siffain.when the conflicts between Ashra tun mubasra like hazrat talha Razi tala unhoo ,and on other side hazrat Ali. So start of this war, later events such as khawarij inflammation,Mo'tazla formation,slain of hazrat hazt Abdullah bin zubair razi talah unhoo ,the Abu muslim khrasni movement ,demise of ommayad and ultimate end lead to tne bifurcation of two global centres -fatmid rule after second karbala event and abbasid in damascus.

Obassid enrolled persian and arabs and former overwhelmed later..so the formed their own dominions in form of semanid n other kingdoms. Saljuks were employed in army to crush them. These saljuks belonged from CIS and very fiery nation impressed by the teachings of hanfi sect.

jihad or imperialism.

1-Arguing such mahmud wanted to raise army from hindus is rdidculous.because might /flesh were dominant force then Vegetarian. The one cause which history tell none of you find in history books of CSS is Muslims most probabl ate flesh esp inhabitants of mountainous region so their muscles have strength /stamina which proved a stigmatic defeat and everlasting disgrace .so recruitment from indians is out of question when one is going to say mahmud needed it. Yes willingness ,for opportunity,for acquisition of tactics hindus were recruited. What advantage mahmud had to gain if he employed natives. Were they able to defeat ghakkars ??? No or they are matcable to mahmud trained army??? No or they were brave rajpuits ?? No then who want to recruit not barhamns?? Not the ghakkars ---the source of interna troubles for every foreig govt in India. These are un touch able which are considered below average.


""zeal for Islam was
dominant note for 20th
century turks.............
To spread the faith by
conquest doubled their
natural zest......"""
stanely lanpoole.


3.ghakkars in battle of waihind massacared and blood of muslims flooded streets . The battle was inintiated by confidercy of raja of tomras .chandela raja of bundelkand,ujjain,kalinjar,gujrat.ghaakkrs of indus and jehlum,gawaliar.rajputana and rajihistan . Mehmud came in 1008 when he was challenged .luck sided with ghaznvi when he did not slept for night and prayed draud shraif who.e night.and he was enlightened with deedar .next day elephant of japal fell and they re treated. The same thing can be accounted abt sbugtagin when master holy prophet(p.b.u.h) came in to his vision and enlighten him with good news abt ghaznavi success. this thing can be found in accounts of farishta.

4. """"""" GHAKHARS-----
THE BARABARO
Habits OF INFANTICIDE AND
, POLYANDRY -
STRUCK TERROR AND DISGUST AMONG MUSLIMS"""""""

LANpoole....


5.it was not sachism or shiitte cause but batini movement of Qaramites which was purest form of jihad like bhkti movement which later caused akber to issue infalliable decree . The Aurangzeb also stood in the line of ghaznavi which though strict but ,was for the cause of islam.



Bhuut ce details likh ker countet strike ho sakta mety pass bht ce arguments . But it is ur answer which can challenge me to write .. If it was 'nt then thread will turn out to be a trash... Because no one wants to waste his hardwork without any gain.

Immense knowledge you have! And I seriously admire that Sadia

Before I can give my arguments in addition to those I have given already in this thread, can you please highlight the "causes of Mehmood's invasions" in your last post in which you posted with references. I mean just make them bold or insert inverted commas or anything to render the causes apart(but in words, phrases or very short sentences) because I could only extract these two reasons of his attack from your post:

1- 'The battle was inintiated by confidercy of raja of tomras'
2- 'Mehmud came in 1008 when he was challenged'

The only striking argument that I found in your post was Stanley Lane Poole's 'zeal was the dominant note...... as is the case with most callow converts' wali baat. Regarding that;

a) It definitely helped Mehmood to motivate his soldiers.
b) It definitely increased their courage and resultantly they won almost every battle.
c) But still if it was zeal alone then why didn't they invade present day China, Russia or other states which were not Islamic too. Because you can motivate people to fight in the name of religion but fighting alone doesn't help you alot. You need returns and those were definitely greater in India(immense treasures here) as compared to China or Russia(due to the hardships they had to bear there). Mehmood knew all this as he was a great soldier and a very able general.

Wese hi by the way keh raha hoon, I think Stanley Lane Poole ne bhi us ki khoobiyan to boohat biyan ki hain but he himself havn't attributed his attacks to cause of Islam.[I have read his book incidentally]

P.S. Don't worry this thread won't turn into trash, atleast not because of me

__________________
Blessed are those who can give without remembering and receive without forgetting. ~Jeremy Fitzgerald~

I will highlight pvs post and add new things too. Bht boring hojata he jub bht ce baten detail me btany pary.pap me points likh ke point of view daina hta. Ya pe discussion. Bt where is your input. Go against ,bt dun nt on the base of my post. It should b ur own knowledge. U r nt examiner. I' ve better examined. So me want to enhance my knowledge that wl broadened my vision. So waiting for your input.

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"

ur marks in Iph/indopak.1 qustn u atmptd was of qasim and others?

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"

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~

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 ???

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

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"

1- Source of revenue is a politial motive. I mean he needed revenues to govern his Ghazni and to maintain a strong standing army and to build Ghazni and what not. Paisa na ho to mulk hi nahin chalta(this has been my understanding till this day).

2- If the light of my arguments, the reason he didn't invade China was because there wasn't enough treasure there as compared to India(which prove my point ke India mein hi wo kyun aaya warna Islam ke liye jana hota to wo kaheen bhi ja sakta tha) and secondly it also endorses my point ke it was not zeal for Islam alone agar zeal for Islam hi sub kuch tha to phir wo China kyun nae gia, sirf India ke ghair muslim hi usko kyun nazar aaye.

3- And if you ask me about his initial wealth to han wo itni jiada nae thi magar see the progression of his invasions... wo seedha Somnath pe thorri na charh dorra, pehlay frontier, phir Peshawar.. phir aahista aahista daaira e kaar waseeh karta chalta gia.. ke jesay jesay his reserves increased.

4- I really don't know about this episode in which Black Stone was stolen and it was Mehmood Ghaznavi who recovered it or perhaps I am forgetting something here. Anyways can you please put a reference here(so that I may also read that) and also tell me which invasion was this? I mean 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 17th? whatever.

5- Lastly if he wanted to conquer Persia really so India mein us ka poliitical motive unrelated ho jata hai to I would say ke nahin aisa nahin hota kyun ke un battles ke liye bhi he needed revenue and India was the golden sparrow. He wanted to finance his battles. By the way this point is just a rebuttal, not my argument to be taken as such.

Remarks:-

I wonder why you only refuted two or three of my points. You could have referred to all my points one by one and given your counter arguments just like I did. In any of my posts I did not miss out even a single argument or logic you gave and refuted them accordingly. BUT Sadia I must say you have alot of knowledge, pehlay main hairaan hua tha aap ke marks jaan kar lekin now I envy your knowledge God Bless You. Adios Amigo!

__________________
Blessed are those who can give without remembering and receive without forgetting. ~Jeremy Fitzgerald~

Oh and yes if his real aim was to crush Batani movement, assasins or Karamites, just tell me how many of his 17 invasions were against them and how many against Hindus/others? Just give me two numbers and I will comprehend everything myself

__________________
Blessed are those who can give without remembering and receive without forgetting. ~Jeremy Fitzgerald~

I am in denial of your above statement.your explanatin can`t be term as political motive.because you need to revise the definition of politics. Invasion if characterized as a cause of his making of dominion then it might be termed as political motive.Inspite of large numbers of invasion he did not occupied a single one territory .so above arguments is rejected as political one. one can term is economical motive not political one. if mine explanation is not worthy then please consult any of the person which can satisfy you or have ye status.



yep ! that was`nt zeal . then imperilistic Hujjaj bin yousaf had sent qutbiya toward china and Qasim to India . and reward will given to those who will able to conquer it .so me not denying it was imperilism but it was under the guise of jihaad. we can not said Qasim as looter not ghaznavi because later did the same job of former but under some independence.

secondly ,ghaznavi why did not went to china because ,his life did not allowed. enthroned at the age of 27 he died in 1030 A.D where as crowned in 997 0r 998 A.D probably . his capital was Afganistan and had to settle internal difficulties which he did during the course of time . No Great invaders went far beyond his territories without setlling frontier disputes .



3-

here ,you did not understand my argument .Why i referred it to den,because he already have wealth even when jaipal invaded during the reign of subgtagain and later .yup he had asked hindu raja of baran to help him if jaiplal inavded in ghaznai .but that hindu raja did not help in coarse of invasion . this resulted in his second invasion to sub-continent which can not be termed as jihad but do not prove him as a pluderer too. this can be termed political motive of his invasion . this one invasion which i think was in 1002 or in 03 was political one.


1.1000 A.D it was for maiking a route


2.1006 A.D was in multan against Daud the ismaili and qaramite.

3.1007 A.D against sukhpal or nawas shah becuse he coverted toward Islam.mahmud inserted charge in his hand to crush the batani movement but he reverted back to his oriiginal din and aided qaramites

4.again agianst Da`ud but i forgot the year .

these four invasion wrere termed as pure jihad which had started from making a route and invasion .first invasion was to conquer pass" and later to invade via this route .17-5=12 .we now move toward his other invasion .his last invasion was gainst jets and meds who attacked the troops of mahmud when he was backing from somnath . 12-1=11 . because jets and mesd initiated this.it had neither economical,neither political purpose .now remainig 11 invasion are under discussion






1.1008 battle of waihind
2.1018 conquest of Qanuj


these battles were initiated by hindus .jaipal burnt himself after defeat in ghazni but mahmud forgave him. so rajputs were very offensive and want to avenge .these two battles were fought in confederation. remainig are left 9 invasions . which were follwed by conquest of kangra /nagrkoat,kashmir ,gawalir,kalinjar and somnath .Qnuj ko and gawalior ko chor ke all are the centres of intrigues and confederation met in tepmles .these places are sacred and rich with temples.raja and brajamns meetings set there even temple map and key location are inebbed in godesses .not down the account after defeat in peshawer and waihind hindu major raja fled toward kashmir and the above mentioned places are included in kashmir but not gawalior which is in mewar and Mewar lie under rajputana .

Quote:

Originally Posted by SADIA SHAFIQ somnath was the center of intrigues against Muslims

Quote:

1.Mahmud of Ghazni made two attempts between 1015-1021 to conquer Kashmir, but was unsuccessful. Mahmud of Ghazni attacked temples in the subcontinent because the temples were the seats of political power. 2.The Brahaman priests kept all knowledge to themselves. They kept all knowledge away from the population, locked up in temples (including the knowledge to build the temple). To destroy the political and military power of the city, the temple had to be destroyed. Since the high priest controlled the populations, they had to be defeated. The temples also contained all knowledge of the area. Mohammed Ghauri was the founder of the Muslim empire in India (1173 A.D). 3.He may have wanted the money, but also wanted to spread Islam and did his best to destroy temples even when offered large sums to leave the temples alone. The Indian historian Romila Thapar [2002] takes a middle view: Mahmud needed money for his wars; India’s temples were known to contain fabulous treasures; we need not look for more complicated explanations.After the fall of Punjab, the Hindu think tank assembled at Somnath – which was more of a political center than a temple – to plan a big war against Mahmud. He took all the Rajas and Maharajas by surprise when he attacked Somnath and crushed the Hindu headquarter of political intrigue. With the destruction of Somnath he broke the backbone of the Hindus in the region and thus had no need to attack India againThapar said he was undoubtedly an iconoclast, and hardly averse to destroying temples to gain favor when he went to heaven. Nonetheless, he warred equally with other Islamic sects, because he was a Sunni. The secondary purpose of his raids may have been tied up with his need to convert Shias to Sunni beliefs.

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"

who is real founder of slave dynasty ..Aibak ,illtutmish or balban ?????



.this is most -repeated question in exam .what is your opinion about foundation of empire .also show light on mangol policy of slaves .

regards !

SADIA SHAFIQ .

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"