Did Islam/Muslims destroy ancient Indian civilization?

Did Islam/Muslims destroy ancient Indian civilization?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 45.2%
  • No

    Votes: 17 54.8%

  • Total voters
    31
Oct 2015
1,013
India
#31
i think that some indians really need to study this book and need to come out of their colonial/hindu nationalist mindset.

Building Histories: The Archival and Affective Lives of Five Monuments in ... By Mrinalini Rajagopalan

i think bifurcating the indian legacy as ''hindu'' and ''islamic'' was a colonial construct which needs to be discarded.

regards
No one denies mutual impact of Hindu and Islamic architecture - both contributed to each other and Islamic had some new things which did not exist before. Same applied to dress, food, music etc. etc.

But, we cant blame for everything (Hindu-Muslim divide, Partition, Millions people killed in partition riots) on British even though it is easy, may be desirable as per you, and make them scapegoat.


On the hand to say that there was no divide is also simplistic, if not absurd. How can you overlook?

  • Fall in Muslim membership of Congress in 1920s & 30s?
  • Sustained campaign for two nations
  • Delay in independence because Congress and Muslim League could not agree on a plan to run the country after independence?
  • Call for "Direct Action Day" and consequent series of Hindu-Muslim riots?
  • Nehru & Congress finally consenting for Partition
  • Partition - formation of an Islamic state and India (both were professing secularism)
  • Lastly, but not the least, the killing of a million people due to oozing Hindu-Muslim love during partition?
Unless we acknowledge the faultline in our political & social set-up, we will not be able to move forward. Divide cannot be bridged till it is acknowledged, which is what Marxist historians have been pushing.

To deny the divide and advice people to read a book on five monuments to decimate the argument, is an Ostrich behaviour - hiding the head in sand thinking there is no danger.
 
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
#32
hindus have demolished buddhist temples who have demolished ajivika temples, this is pure archaeology and facts, my agenda here is some claiming muslims tried to destroy indian civilization, this is mixing religion with a geography which is india, the topic is not that muslims tried to destroy hindu civilization, but indian civilization, as i have already stated this is a paradoxical title, the greeks embraced christianity and yet their philosophy, arts etc and other legacies survived, so indian civilization has nothing got to do with religion, i would be happy if the title was, turk/persians tried to destroy indian heritage, which should have been better ad i would have again contested the notion, the mere intention of the OP is to combine india with hinduism which is suspicious because muslims are also part of indian civilization just like hindus.

regards
which buddhist temples were destroyed by hindus?don't make baseless claims,it were hindu guptas under which buddhism flourished,same goes with hindu harshachandra or pretty much every single hindu kingdom except some few hindu kings which indeed persecuted buddhist and buddhism.

nalanda was patronized by guptas,there are many other examples i can give,so cut the chase and get to your point,and more importantly back up you point by evidence and example.
 
Likes: prashanth
Mar 2019
1,171
KL
#33
No one denies mutual impact of Hindu and Islamic architecture - both contributed to each other and Islamic had some new things which did not exist before. Same applied to dress, food, music etc. etc.
im not here to discuss politics, but the root cause that it is suggested that islamic heritage in india was foreign and was not indian, in my second post i have tried to make it clear that islamic heritage was indeed indian, it may not be hindu, but was tied with indian pre islamic legacies, my argument is same when it comes to culture, food, architecture, music etc, although colonial argument makes a clear distinction between hindu and muslim, so far i have found that those colonial interpretations were politically based and really wrong and there are some really hard and fast evidences which negate this basic colonial interpretation of hindu vs muslim monuments, some hindu nationalists have played into this narrative and used it for their purpose like either declaring taj mahal as a hindu temple, or as a foreign architecture which was alien and imposed on india as an non indian artifact. i think indians need to come out of this colonial and religious interpretation and analyse how these heritage were distinctively indian legacies. cross cultural exchanges regularly happened between india and western world, its nothing new, indians got influenced and also made influence since the turks were essentially ruling india, persia, but everything has been given a persian/islamic colour as indian post islamic legacy which is a colonial/mischief narrative.

regards
 
Oct 2015
1,013
India
#34
im not here to discuss politics, but the root cause that it is suggested that islamic heritage in india was foreign and was not indian,
regards
Ashoka,

Islam came from outside and brought many cultural elements which till then did not exist in India.

The Sultans and Mughals were "Indian". They were born here, did many things inbetween, and died here.

This are accepted by most people here and outside.

Still the story of internal conflicts has to be explored. Just because they were "Indian" do you mean to say there was no conflict?

The history of that conflict has to be explored like any other element. What is the politics here? We are talking about exploring history.
 
Likes: prashanth
Feb 2019
88
Mumbai
#35
im not here to discuss politics, but the root cause that it is suggested that islamic heritage in india was foreign and was not indian, in my second post i have tried to make it clear that islamic heritage was indeed indian, it may not be hindu, but was tied with indian pre islamic legacies, my argument is same when it comes to culture, food, architecture, music etc, although colonial argument makes a clear distinction between hindu and muslim, so far i have found that those colonial interpretations were politically based and really wrong and there are some really hard and fast evidences which negate this basic colonial interpretation of hindu vs muslim monuments, some hindu nationalists have played into this narrative and used it for their purpose like either declaring taj mahal as a hindu temple, or as a foreign architecture which was alien and imposed on india as an non indian artifact. i think indians need to come out of this colonial and religious interpretation and analyse how these heritage were distinctively indian legacies. cross cultural exchanges regularly happened between india and western world, its nothing new, indians got influenced and also made influence since the turks were essentially ruling india, persia, but everything has been given a persian/islamic colour as indian post islamic legacy which is a colonial/mischief narrative.

regards
Kindly elaborate further, just how 'Indian' was this islamicate? Their poetry, culture and their symbols seem to suggest they often went out of their way to appear 'exotic' and 'not indian'.
 
Sep 2012
8,924
India
#36
You do realize that Qutb minar was built by destroying a pre-existing temple right? Which is why you see resemblance of indian architecture.
It was a Jain temple that was destroyed and its pieces used in building the ' Quwwatul Islam ' ( The might of Islam ) mosque near the Qutub Minar. There is a board near the mosque erected by the Archaeological Dept.,Govt.of India which describes this.
 
Likes: prashanth
Oct 2015
1,013
India
#37

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,464
USA
#38
hindus have demolished buddhist temples who have demolished ajivika temples, this is pure archaeology and facts, my agenda here is some claiming muslims tried to destroy indian civilization, this is mixing religion with a geography which is india, the topic is not that muslims tried to destroy hindu civilization, but indian civilization, as i have already stated this is a paradoxical title, the greeks embraced christianity and yet their philosophy, arts etc and other legacies survived, so indian civilization has nothing got to do with religion, i would be happy if the title was, turk/persians tried to destroy indian heritage, which should have been better ad i would have again contested the notion, the mere intention of the OP is to combine india with hinduism which is suspicious because muslims are also part of indian civilization just like hindus.

regards
AjIvaka temple? What is that?
 
Mar 2019
1,171
KL
#39
AjIvaka temple? What is that?
ajivika was a religion and a direct rival of buddhism, and they created their temples as well, first ajivika cave is also attested in barabar caves from maurya periods, harvan tiles from kashmir have been dubbed as ajivika tiles which were later used by the buddhists in their monastery probably after demolishing ajivika temple. The tiles were laid on the floor as an insult by trampling ajivika temple and their holy symbols under their feet.

regards
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,464
USA
#40
ajivika was a religion and a direct rival of buddhism, and they created their temples as well, first ajivika cave is also attested in barabar caves from maurya periods, harvan tiles from kashmir have been dubbed as ajivika tiles which were later used by the buddhists in their monastery probably after demolishing ajivika temple. The tiles were laid on the floor as an insult by trampling ajivika temple and their holy symbols under their feet.

regards
I know AjIvaka philosophy. But what is the place of a temple in that philosophy? I can understand caves being used for meditation, but how is it a temple?
 

Similar History Discussions