How do Muslims, today, interpret the Muslim conquest of India?
Some of historians have recorded mass killings of the native populations of the subcontinent. K.S. Lal claims the Hindu population fell by 50 or even 80 million during the Islamic rule over the Sub-Continent. How much of this is true? Or are these over-inflated reports and figures given by Muslim historians, who thought they were doing good? Will Durant writes:
…the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident lesson is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate balance can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without…
Do you believe so? How can a Muslim justify the mass killings, if indeed they took place? Or should we condemn the actions of these past kings and see them in light of their historical context.
I do understand that some of the destruction of the temples by the Muslim kings were done for political reasons.
Not being a student of history, I do not find myself in a position to academically comment on the accuracy of the cited reports.
Under such circumstances, I find myself bound to submit that, if the cited historical accounts are correct and if there was no justification for the stated actions of the Muslim conquerors then these Muslim conquerors were completely unaware of the teachings of their religion. Those who directly or indirectly participated in the mass killings will only be able to save themselves from the wrath of God, if they can give an acceptable excuse and justification for their action in the court of the All-Knowing and Just Creator, on the Day of Judgment.
I hope this helps.
October 13, 2002