This is exactly what British historian William Darlrymple is doing, he omits any facts about murderous Islamic tyrants and in his latest book has romanticised the truth. He lives in India and sprouts anti Semitic garbage on his Twitter account. A true vile revisionist, some one to criticise and challenge as he is white washing your history. As a British man, it’s farcical and absurd. A true orientalist. A Indian professor has written to this but the site is now down. He refers to the British colonisation of India as a collaboration of sorts, that the east India trading company is “the golden road”. Almost as criminal as Nazi propaganda.
“Dalrymple has his type in India willing to whitewash the atrocities of Islamic invaders in spite of abundant evidence to the contrary.”
I’m Not sure but a so called historian who omits the tyranny and violence of Hindus at the hands of Islam is telling porky pies for some agenda me thinks
Great read , just some things, the Rashidun were the successors to Muhammad technically-not the Umayyads -and they also invaded buddhist lands (the sassanid empire in which zoroastrianism was already a dying religion).
Also, there was a bit of a racial element too in the invasions, the persians called the indians crows (black) and even used indian as a synonym for black , i also remember hindu kush (as in the mountains ) meaning something along the lines of “hindu killer” in persian . Moreover, I don’t remember the name of the author or work specifically but there was some Kashmiri Brahman who wrote about how disgusting the white skin of the Ghurid sultan looked like. The Mughals initially also preferred marrying Kashmiris and not the generally dark skinned indians. Out of the 51 mansabdars with the rank of 5000 during the rule of aurangzeb , turks and iranians made up 62% despite making up less than 1% of the population , only 7% were even indian muslim. It is possible that the white complexion obsession in india was brought over by them if anything- though it’s probably a reach and an unintended consequence since the turks may have just wanted to have kids with people who looked similar to them ig.
Thank you! And yeah you’re right but I mean the Ummayads only succeeded Muhammad or the Rashidun by a matter of 30 years 😂.
Most early Mughal rulers were completely Turkic Timurids and mixed with and married Persians over the years. Until Akbar where he had his son Jahangir with a Rajput woman from Amer. Jahangir also mixed with a Rajput woman from Jodhpur. It may be the Delhi Sultanate you’re referring to which mixed with Kashmiris? They were particularly more brutal so I wouldn’t be surprised if they held a larger racial animosity. I’ve read elsewhere that subcontinental Muslims were seen as inferior. I’m not sure about the specifics tbh.
Any way you could get the sources for those quotes on the Ghurids or Indians being called crows? Honestly kind of hilarious.
>It may be the Delhi Sultanate you’re referring to which mixed with Kashmiris?
the thing i was talking about was from a book called "The Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb (1970)", the quote in itself says "mughal officers marrying women from kashmir so that their children can be whiter than the indians and pass for genuine moguls [turco-persians?]" , i probably mistook officers for the literal mughal dynasty idk.
>Any way you could get the sources for those quotes on the Ghurids or Indians being called crows? Honestly kind of hilarious.
its from a book called "The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India" the complete quote is "The victorious army on the right and on the left departed towards Ajmer
When the crow-faced Hindus began to sound their white shells on the backs
of the elephants, you would have said that a river of pitch was flowing
impetuously down the face of a mountain of blue The army of Islam was
completely victorious, and a hundred thousand grovelling Hindus swiftly
departed to the fire of hell He destroyed (at Ajmer) the pillars and
foundations of the idol temples, and built in their stead mosques and
colleges, and the precepts of Islam, and the customs of the law were
divulged and established."
There is also a somewhat humorous quote from an andalusian writer named Ibn Said who said that despite hindus being black, theyre intelligent
I forget who wrote the article but , but army of Hindus went to fight at Karbala .
Ayesha and her 2 children were given protection by king of Sindh and when demanded to be returned to Persia , he refused and fought a war when he was attacked, lost the war and his kingdom for the promise of protecting to Ayesha and her 2 kids , who were taken as captives to Persia and murdered .
This is exactly what British historian William Darlrymple is doing, he omits any facts about murderous Islamic tyrants and in his latest book has romanticised the truth. He lives in India and sprouts anti Semitic garbage on his Twitter account. A true vile revisionist, some one to criticise and challenge as he is white washing your history. As a British man, it’s farcical and absurd. A true orientalist. A Indian professor has written to this but the site is now down. He refers to the British colonisation of India as a collaboration of sorts, that the east India trading company is “the golden road”. Almost as criminal as Nazi propaganda.
“Dalrymple has his type in India willing to whitewash the atrocities of Islamic invaders in spite of abundant evidence to the contrary.”
https://yourawesomeindia.com/2019/11/26/william-dalrymple-defending-the-indefensible/
Is “Sam Dalrymple” an account on here, related to him?
Looks to be https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Dalrymple_(historian)
Supposed peace activist, but given his fathers insane racist bias, it could be akin to Gabor Mate and son
Haha I saw a post on here by the clown downplaying persecution of Hindus by Muslims. Who’s funding these creeps?
I’m Not sure but a so called historian who omits the tyranny and violence of Hindus at the hands of Islam is telling porky pies for some agenda me thinks
Great read , just some things, the Rashidun were the successors to Muhammad technically-not the Umayyads -and they also invaded buddhist lands (the sassanid empire in which zoroastrianism was already a dying religion).
Also, there was a bit of a racial element too in the invasions, the persians called the indians crows (black) and even used indian as a synonym for black , i also remember hindu kush (as in the mountains ) meaning something along the lines of “hindu killer” in persian . Moreover, I don’t remember the name of the author or work specifically but there was some Kashmiri Brahman who wrote about how disgusting the white skin of the Ghurid sultan looked like. The Mughals initially also preferred marrying Kashmiris and not the generally dark skinned indians. Out of the 51 mansabdars with the rank of 5000 during the rule of aurangzeb , turks and iranians made up 62% despite making up less than 1% of the population , only 7% were even indian muslim. It is possible that the white complexion obsession in india was brought over by them if anything- though it’s probably a reach and an unintended consequence since the turks may have just wanted to have kids with people who looked similar to them ig.
Thank you! And yeah you’re right but I mean the Ummayads only succeeded Muhammad or the Rashidun by a matter of 30 years 😂.
Most early Mughal rulers were completely Turkic Timurids and mixed with and married Persians over the years. Until Akbar where he had his son Jahangir with a Rajput woman from Amer. Jahangir also mixed with a Rajput woman from Jodhpur. It may be the Delhi Sultanate you’re referring to which mixed with Kashmiris? They were particularly more brutal so I wouldn’t be surprised if they held a larger racial animosity. I’ve read elsewhere that subcontinental Muslims were seen as inferior. I’m not sure about the specifics tbh.
Any way you could get the sources for those quotes on the Ghurids or Indians being called crows? Honestly kind of hilarious.
It might make sense actually considering Kashmir & Punjab prior to the Ghaznivads was ruled by Turks (Turkic Hindus believe it or not lol).
>It may be the Delhi Sultanate you’re referring to which mixed with Kashmiris?
the thing i was talking about was from a book called "The Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb (1970)", the quote in itself says "mughal officers marrying women from kashmir so that their children can be whiter than the indians and pass for genuine moguls [turco-persians?]" , i probably mistook officers for the literal mughal dynasty idk.
>Any way you could get the sources for those quotes on the Ghurids or Indians being called crows? Honestly kind of hilarious.
its from a book called "The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India" the complete quote is "The victorious army on the right and on the left departed towards Ajmer
When the crow-faced Hindus began to sound their white shells on the backs
of the elephants, you would have said that a river of pitch was flowing
impetuously down the face of a mountain of blue The army of Islam was
completely victorious, and a hundred thousand grovelling Hindus swiftly
departed to the fire of hell He destroyed (at Ajmer) the pillars and
foundations of the idol temples, and built in their stead mosques and
colleges, and the precepts of Islam, and the customs of the law were
divulged and established."
There is also a somewhat humorous quote from an andalusian writer named Ibn Said who said that despite hindus being black, theyre intelligent
That mosque at Ajmer is shown in the post, I should have included that quote!
Iconoclast religions were probably invented in Alexandria
Actually Israel & Saudi Arabia
No in Alexandria by Platonists
I forget who wrote the article but , but army of Hindus went to fight at Karbala .
Ayesha and her 2 children were given protection by king of Sindh and when demanded to be returned to Persia , he refused and fought a war when he was attacked, lost the war and his kingdom for the promise of protecting to Ayesha and her 2 kids , who were taken as captives to Persia and murdered .