- Jun 2014
- Lisbon, Portugal
You missed my point, and I don' know why you missed it since I believe I was very clear in my post. I said, in a giving instance which Muslims perpetrate violence against Hindus, it happened with extraordinary ferocity. I didn't say that violence was the main aspect of Hindu - Muslim relations throughout history, neither I denied that most of the relationship between the two communities was relatively peaceful, therefore your question is not legitimate.Any example?. Point out an episode of Indo-Muslim history in which peaceful and cooperating Hindu subjects were wiped out by their Muslim rulers just for being Hindus. Exclude the episodes of rebellions, and episodes of conquering campaigns against neighboring Hindu kingdoms in which civilians were bound to die.
Yeah, and that's not a counter-argument to my post. I'm not talking about the nature of the relationship between Hindu and Muslims in peaceful times, I'm talking specifically about particular instances in which Muslim polities engage in violence against their Hindu enemies in the subcontinent.The dhimmi status was also extended to Hindus and Buddhists. They had same status as Jews and Christians. Thats why Muslim rulers of India imposed Jiziya on Hindus.
I'm not talking about conquering per se, I'm talking about Muslim rulers asserting their authority after the initial conquest, which was difficult considering the entrenched Hindu ruling authorities.This is not true. The settled docile agrarian population of India was easy to conquer (with exception of Rajputs). The toughest foes early Muslims faced, were Turks of Central Asia. Because Rajputs among Hindus fought hard and inflicted great losses on Muslims, they suffered violent repercussions for that at the hands of Turkish Muslims.
Of course, which I don't deny.But this has been universal attitude of humans, and has nothing to do with Islamic view of Hinduism.