Hindutva, History and Islamophobia in India Speakers Corner Hyde Park

Assalamualaikum and greetings of peace. My name is Yousef Ismail. And we are back with this exciting program that we have in store for you on confronting Islamophobia and some of the crucial misconception that exists in the world. If you're watching us you can watch us on ITV networks on DSTV 347 on the major massive YouTube channel called souk Islam, probably the largest Islamic channel in Africa, on the airwaves of salaam media, as well as the airwaves of channel one channel Islam International. So you've got your options within the watch us on the screen. Alternatively, listen to us on the airwaves. Now, this evening, we have an exciting guest an individual who I would

consider an elder brother of mine. I've met him now on two occasions personally, he's a very stimulating individual who started shake Adnan Rashid, and he'll be tackling the issue of confronting some of the misconceptions pertaining to jihad, but a bit more about that later, Adnan Rashid is an individual that has been active in Dawa for a number of years he has visited over 30 countries. He has attained a number of ijazah as in Hadith from reputable Hadith authorities. As I understand he has attained his BA with honors in history from Birkbeck college at the University of London. And to my knowledge, and you can correct me he has finished his postgraduate studies in

history at the school for implant African Studies. He has also appeared on Islamic channels such as TV Islam channel in the United Kingdom, he has taught sera Tafseer Hadith,

he has operated as a Hatim Senior Researcher, as well as a lecturer some time back at a euro. And I've had the privilege of in fact, hosting him

twice in South Africa, at least in the last time, I believe it's some years back 2017 2018, long before COVID hit the scene. And he had some exciting debates of one of the major churches in South Africa. And certainly he's somebody up there that is viewed as a, an individual with some degree of authority. In discussions on comparative religion, if you go to Speaker's Corner every week, you're going to probably see him.

I'm not so sure if it's as common as it is now during the onset of COVID. But he is somebody that has established his name throughout the apologetic, and Islamic debating world. And today we're going to he's going to be focusing on the idea of jihad, but not just simply the concept of jihad, but more particularly, the idea that is that is attained discourse within the far right perspective, and particularly even amongst missionary circles, about the idea that Hindus, both historically and presently, strangely enough, have experienced ongoing religious persecution and systematic violence in the form of forced conversions, documented massacres, demolition, and desecration of temples, as

well as the destruction of educational centers, which have basically a Hindu particular background. And this whole argument is centered around the fact that this was religiously mandated by virtue of the fact that Muslims were engaging in jihad. The mobile conquests of India were a holy war that were aimed at committing ethnic cleansing massacre of Hindus, a rape of Hindu women, and totally annihilation of the entire Hindu culture. Notwithstanding the fact that there have been several instances in the 20th century of religious violence in fact, the other way around against Muslims since partitions sectarian violence, international small mobs attacking Muslims, the Bharatiya

Janata Party, the Vishwa, Hindu Parishad, the Rashtriya, swayamsevak, Sangh, attacking Muslims are being part and parcel of this communal violence that has been emerging and happening in India since 1951. I'm not going to go too much into this discussion, but I want Shaykh Adnan to in fact, chop the history out for us in terms of whether there is a reality to the idea that as some would argue and as people like Robert Spence and so on, about you that the actual destruction of Hindu society began with Mahmud Ghazni, allegedly in the 10th century. And this then led to centuries of pogroms, massacres and destruction of Hindu society. So I'm going to leave this

Over to Adnan and he's going to share his particular expertise with us and explore some of these issues so that we can essentially confront the Bulworth of misinformation that is out there in the mainstream information and mainstream media, and certainly on YouTube, and indeed online. What would you add man?

And greetings, peace. Thank you very much, by the use of, it's always my pleasure to be on the same platform as you. As you mentioned, rightly, I was in South Africa not long ago, and we conducted a couple of programs on ITV on similar topics. So I thank you all for inviting me to address this very, very important pressing topic of the day, which is jihad and Indian subcontinent and its current relevance to our political situation in India. So what is jihad, I will get straight into the topic, without any delay. Jihad basically means struggle to struggle, literally the word in Arabic language, it means to struggle. Now, it may come in different forms. Islamically speaking,

technically, Jihad means to struggle with one's tongue, speaking against oppression, or to struggle with one's pen to write against oppression, and to struggle with a sword, to fight against oppression. So Jihad has always meant Islamically speaking in the history of Islam to fight against oppression, and how do I know that in chapter four of the Quran, God Almighty Allah subhanaw taala tells us how to build a Michigan regime Bismillah R Rahman Rahim, Ramallah comme la toccata Luna is a very well mr. Daffy in Minerva, Jarl Colville down on Nyssa Alladhina coluna Banach, origina. And how the hill Korea zalmi Aloha.

In other words, Allah saying that what is wrong with you, that you do not fight in the way of Allah to liberate those men, women and children who are calling upon Allah to send someone to help them to liberate them from oppression. So Allah in our holy book is commanding us to intervene, where necessary to liberate people from oppression, this is the meaning of jihad, in all cases, in all places at all times. Now, has the meaning been misunderstood? Absolutely. Has the concept of jihad being abused? Absolutely. It was abused few times, historically speaking, but predominantly, whenever the Muslims applied the concept of jihad, in practical terms, they were doing it to

liberate people from oppression or to defend themselves against oppression or aggression. So this is the meaning of jihad in simple terms. There are many, many reports from the Prophet of Islam. In fact, Sahil, Makati, when you pick up Sahil Bukhari rules pertaining to jihad, Are they insane? Al Bukhari, there is an entire book called Kitab al jihad, where the rules are put down by the Prophet himself and they have been transmitted by his companions through their students, all the way up to our time, right. So we have a literature coming from the Prophet, we can look at with absolute confidence and believe that the Prophet sallallahu wasallam import all these things, right. So, what

are these rules? What are these rules in jihad, when in conflict, for example, firstly, when a person is speaking, with his tongue, he struggling with his tongue against oppression, he cannot misuse his tongue to oppress others. So Jihad cannot become what it came to diminish. In other words, Jihad itself cannot become oppression. So when people start killing innocent people, when people start killing women and children in conflict, when people start killing non combatants, or people who have nothing to do with the war or the conflict, then this becomes oppression itself, it is no longer jihad. So jihad in Islam is a virtue, which essentially means to fight, or struggle

against oppression. The moment the struggle loses this meaning or this outlook, it ceases to become jihad, it ceases to be jihad, right. So, to clarify, in the very beginning, the heart cannot mean oppression, terrorism, injustice, or killing of innocent people, the moment any movement starts to become that or starts to adopt those tactics or those strategies, then, this movement is no longer a jihad movement. Right? So historically speaking, we have many many examples where Prophet sallallahu Sallam waged jihad to defend his own community against oppression and against

aggression of all types, and then later on, historically speaking, the Muslim is in the same. Now, when you speak with your tongue, when you are struggling against oppression with your tongue, then it has to be noble. The cause has to be noble. The words have to be noble the way has to be noble. For example, the Prophet sallallahu sallam said of Donald jihad, Kalamata, Hopkin, industrial, industrial Don and Jaya, the best of jihad is basically speaking the truth in front of a tyrannical ruler. Okay, so What truth are you speaking in front of a tyrannical ruler? Basically you are explaining to the ruler that he is oppressive. He should stop oppression and you defend the poor,

the needy, the oppressed. Okay, this is the best of jihad, the Prophet sallallahu Sallam told us about in one of his authentic narrations, okay, likewise, writing against oppression if you're a journalist, if you are, if you're an author, then you are writing books against oppression, not for oppression, against oppression, the moment it becomes for oppression, it is no longer jihad, it ceases to be jihad, Jihad feasable, in love what we call jihad, de Sevilla, struggling in the path of Allah in the path of God. So the moment it becomes a weapon, a tool for oppression, it is no longer jihad, likewise, using the sword or using modern weapons, for that matter, to defend the

needy, the poor, the oppressed, then it is jihad. And if it's being used to oppress people to kill innocent people, it is not jihad, it is called terrorism. Right? And terrorism is never jihad. I just want to clarify this. A lot of Muslims are now nowadays they feel apologetic about the concept of jihad in Islam, don't feel apologetic. Just understand what the concept means. It doesn't mean terrorism, any campaign that kills innocent people or blows up buses and trains and civilian areas, this movement cannot be a jihad movement, that's not jihad, okay, jihad is to fight against oppression, not for it. Okay. So, having clarified this in the very beginning, we will go on to the

history of India, right. A lot of Islamophobes nowadays in India in particular, mostly from the BJP, the ruling party in India, which is an extremist, and

how can I put it an extremist, fascist kind of bunch, and they have come to power, including the Prime Minister of India, Prime Minister Modi and his his henchmen like Yogi Adityanath, who is the CMO or chief minister of the largest state in India called Andhra Pradesh. It is the largest state in terms of population, it is the most populated state of India, and who is the CM who is the Chief Minister. It is a man called Yogi Adityanath, who is a very ignorant man, if you listen to him speak, you will know the mental capacity the man has, and then more the similar people around him to run the government. India has never seen this type of government in his in his history, and its

history before. This is the first time in Indian history whereby an extremely fascist extremist group has come to power, which is brutalizing all minorities not only the Muslims, but also Christians Dalits and Sikhs are being brutalized, marginalized and oppressed by this extremist government. And many people think this government basically represents the majority of India that may be a misconception, they may have had most votes, but they do not have the sympathies of the Indian people. India is a great civilization, it is a mixed civilization, it is multi multicultural, multi religious, it has been so, for 1000s of years, at least for 2000 years, we have seen that

India has been multicultural to take that away from India is to take the beauty of the land away from it okay. The reason India is great, the reason Indian civilization is beautiful is because of this multiculturalism and all the different people and ethnicities living side by side for centuries. So, what has changed now and ideology has come to rule India, okay. And this ideology was pioneered in the early 20th century by some extremist Hindu thinkers, and they used history, they use history as the as the source of inspiration or distorted form of history. Rather, they used a very distorted form of history as the use of as the source of inspiration to come up with come up

with this extreme

This fascist ideology called the Hindutva movement, okay, what is Hindutva and it was basically, to put it in simple terms is no different to what ISIS represents today or what KKK represented in the American South once upon a time or what the Nazis were up to not very long ago, just about 70 years ago, right, this is what Hindutva represents Hindutva is no different to these organizations or these ideologies I have just mentioned right, it is another extremist fascist

ideology, which is self serving selfish and very insular, very,

basically, in how can I put it very, very

self centered, in that sense is a bay based upon is based upon a distorted view of Indian ethnicity. It only represents a small segment of the Indian society, which is very, very extreme, similar to what we have in the Muslim world in the form of ISIS, or people who think like ISIS, right? Or in Nazi Germany. I mean, of course, there was a point when Hitler was a very popular leader, no doubt, but later on the Germans, I mean, if you went to Germany today, you will find very few people who would agree with Hitler. Right now, as we speak in India, there are millions of people who abhor the ruling party, they aboard the ideology, this party is upholding the a bow, the ideologues of this

party, who basically came about in the early 20th century, essentially during the British period, okay. So what are we talking about? We are dealing with an ideology, which uses history in a very distorted form, to get its ends, okay to reach its ends, it will distort history, it will completely twist history or remove history altogether from textbooks. As I mentioned earlier, that India is a multicultural land with a lot of diversity in religions and ethnicities. If we take the theory of Aryan, or Indo Aryan migrations seriously, then it it, it makes clear, it makes it very clear for us that India, as a country is a mixture of different ethnicities. And this goes back in the ancient

period as far as almost three to 4000 years ago, right? When a lot of people started to migrate from Central Asia into India. And these migrations were called Indo Aryan migrations a lot of Indian extremists or these endota extremists rather, I shouldn't call them Indian extremist, I should call them and go to extremist. A lot of them. They actually don't accept this theory because it debunks their ideology, right. So, these people came in from the north and they inhabited the northern

territories of India, and then the native of India, native people are were driven southwards towards the southern India. And they were divided into mainly two ethnicities, the Indo Aryans in the north and the Dravidian in the south, the dark skinned Dravidians, who inhabit

the south of India or the Indian peninsula today, right. So, why am I talking about this, I'm discussing the diversity of ethnicity in India, India has never been monolithic, it has never been homogeneous, as as a host land, right, as a land, which hosted a lot of people from different backgrounds from different religions, right. And the history of India is very, very dynamic, to make it one track minded, to make it

simplistic to make it belonging to one particular clan, one particular class one particular religion, to claim it. For one particular ideology for that matter, is absolute injustice, and extreme end and extremism, historic extremism, to say the least, right? So what are the histories say about all these historical narratives used by the Hindutva goons today in India, okay? The propagandists or the peddlers in the two are peddlers on Twitter and beyond right, or on other platforms. What do the historians have to say about them? Historians are very clear. When I say historians, I mean serious Indian historians who have credentials from major Indian and non Indian

institutions. There are Western historians writing in western lands. There are historians from within India who are writing in history, and they are very much against the Hindutva narrative of history. They believe in boudoir is destroyed.

History It is destroying history, it is rewriting history, completely debunking what was basically penned in the last 200 years within the schools of history in India. So, what are the Hindutva goons using? They are using some of the 19th century collections made by the British colonial propagandists. What do I mean by that, during the British period, in the 19th century, there was a war of independence in 1857.

The Indians are rose to basically oust or basically take power away from the British Raj.

The British came to power in the Indian subcontinent in the mid 18th century. Following the Battle of philosophy, the battle plasti took place in 1757 when the British started to take land in India, they took the land of Bengal firstly, then Bihar and Orissa three provinces were basically written away by the Mogul by the den mogul Emperor Shah Harlem and the British took the rights to raise taxation from these lands right. And since then, the British were taking more and more land by the year or by every single decade, you will see that the British land was increasing right it was geographically speaking the British rule was spreading and at that time, it was a company ruling

India it was called the East India Company, okay, it was a trading company which had come to power which had a private army and this private army was being used highly trained, highly equipped, okay highly sophisticated, possibly one of the most modern armies in in India at the time and this trading trading company to acquire land to user plan to usurp

throne from princely states in India, that resulted

due to the fall of the Mughal Empire when the Mughal fell in the mid 18th century, when moguls lost the influence political and military influence in India, this expansion of the British Raj basically resulted as resulted from that particular collapse of the Mughal empire and many princely states came about as a result and these princely states, one by one, one after another, were annexed or usurped by the British Raj. So cut the long story short moved, fast moving fast forward to the 19th century 1957 There was a mutiny on the part of the Indians, the Indians, the Muslims and the Hindus predominantly, they rose to fight the British out of India, they wanted to kick the British out of

India due to the oppressive policies. The details are far too many for me to discuss in this introductory lecture. So the result was the defeat of the Indian Coalition and the British came to power again once again, having defeated the mutineers and the rebels in 1857. Why did the maitre d take place and why was it a failure? Why did they not succeed in ousting the East India Company is a very interesting topic. And you can go back to some of the books on the Indian Mutiny and look at the details and Charlotte are one of them, I can recommend is by David soul or soul David. He has written a history of Indian Mutiny. And there are many other words you can look at. But none of

these works is perfect, because some of them are inclined to colonial

apologetics. I mean, they are some of them. Some of these authors are apologists for the colonial rule. So they will basically put their own narrative their own understanding or their own spin off history in the books, but these are very interesting

histories to read. Moving forward, what was what was the result of this defeat of the Indians in 1857.

The Muslims were blamed entirely for the mutiny even though initially, it was started by the Hindus. There was one particular Hindu soldier. His name was Mangal Pandey in Meerut, in the barracks of merit in India. He started the mutiny and later on the Muslim joined the mutiny also. And then the Mughal emperor or the last nominal Mughal emperor Mahadasha Zafir had to be involved. He was forced into it rather, he wasn't actually interested in this conflict, but he was forced into leading this mutiny and later on, he was exiled. He was put on trial and he died in Rangoon or Yangon. current day. Burma currently about

Burma is his tomb is still there. It was a point. He was not a warrior. He was not even a king in the real sense of the word, he was forced into this conflict. So the result was the Muslims were blamed entirely for the mutiny by the British. And for that, the British started to produce propaganda to not only tarnish the Muslim civilization, but the Muslims living in the 19th century. So the purpose was to tarnish the Muslim civilization and take away Muslim pride from them. When Muslims talked about the great monuments. The great achievements of the rulers ruled India for nearly 700 years or 600 years. Up to the 19th century, Muslims had this very great civilization in

India to be proud of Muslims had the monuments and the achievements of the daily Saltanat to be proud of Muslims had the great achievements of the moguls to be proud of right to take all of this away. What some of the the some of these British propagandists colonial propagandists, did, they produced works of history works of history, right. And one of those collections is called

Elliot and Dowson collection. Elliot and Danson collection was a mixture of Chronicles or actually accepts, except from Chronicles, chosen very carefully and put together for this very purpose to basically tarnish the civilization of Islam or its history. Okay, so what did they do? Elliot and Dowson were two scholars, colonial propagandists who chose specifically those hostile passages from Muslim Chronicles written during the Muslim period in India, okay, for example, that shows the took passages from the history of photon Muhammad was NaVi who invaded India multiple times in the 10th. And the 11th century, actually, in the 11th century, more so, then the 10th century. In fact, he

came to power in the 10th century, and it was in the 11th century when he started to invade India in the early 1000s. Right. So, his history, passages chosen selectively to present a hostile image of these Muslim invasions

and giving them a very religious twist. At the same time, later daily Saltanat Chronicles passages were chosen very carefully from from the works of scholars like Xiao Deen Bernie, who was a very or scholars like

Suraj Farage, Amin Hodge, who wrote

Takata Nasri another history of Delhi Sultanate and writings like that basically they took excerpts

from the works of the scholars, then later on from the Mughal period, again, some excerpts are chosen carefully. So these excepts consisted of details on massacres, mass murder on the part of the Muslim Sultan's, and they were put together selectively to make one point that the British rule is far more just, it is far more humane than what the Indians had gone through during the Muslim period. This was the purpose of Elliot and Dodson collection. Right? So later historians in the early 20th century completely debunked this collection as colonial propaganda. They clarified that this collection was put together for that purpose, the purpose was to tarnish the history of the

Muslim civilization and, and paint it as a barbaric enterprise as a viciously violent and mass murdering enterprise, not an enterprise of advancement of knowledge and monuments, and coexistence. So this was the purpose and this was specifically done to praise the British Raj, okay, to inflate

the profile of the British Raj, as champion as a champion of civility, humanity, coexistence and justice, right. So later on in the 20th century, even during the British period, historians writing within India, they started to challenge this collection, and they said, all of these accounts are exaggerated. They cannot be trusted because they made evil accounts. They were mostly exaggerated to inflate the image of the king or the dynasty. And a lot of these authors writing these histories. Were writing Penner, Derrick's, they were writing basically flattering works to flatter the rulers. And in that process, they exaggerated a lot of details about temple desecrations and killings of

civilians.

During war and all that, right all those things are exaggerated. So later on in the mid 20th century in late 20th century, most historians completely abandoned that approach to history. And they they clarified that this version of history is completely distorted. Now, what is the Hindutva movement doing in India today? It is using a debunked, outdated narrative of history, which was produced that dominantly mostly by Elliot and Dowson. Okay, I repeat, and due to a goons, and due to our politicians, and due to our propaganda propagandists, and so called Hindutva, historians, who are actually not historians, these are a bunch of

how can I put it pseudo intellectuals who are peddling that same narrative that was

put together by Eliot and Dowson, in the 19th century, and later on debunked by most professional historian, right? And boudoir is using that particular narrative to inflate hatred of Muslims today to today, and to put Muslims on the backfoot to make Muslims apologize for the crimes that were never committed historically speaking, right? And we can discuss some of the details that are being used by propagandists and Islamophobes outright Islamophobes. And, and haters like Robert Spencer, people like Robert Spencer, and others like case law, I think Spencer's use case law a lot case law was an Indian historian.

He was an Indian story. Initially, his works were

very, very good money attained his PhD. I'm talking about case law. When he attained his PhD. His works are very good. But later on, he became more and more bigoted as he got older. As he became closer to RSS, he was allegedly a member of the RSS as well. RSS is basically the extremist wing, or basically one of the militant Wings of this extremist

movement called the BJP Bharatiya Janta party, which is ruling India today. And Modi is the head of this party, currently speaking is the prime minister. Right. So he's representing the party right? So RSS is the militant wing. And it is thought that ks lol was a member and he became a propagandist for the Hindutva movement later on, and people like Robert, Robert Spencer from the US are using narratives put forward by debunked or or discredited historians like chaos LOL, no one takes case lol seriously today in the study of history in the study of Indian history,

so, having clarified all of this, what was happening during the daily Saltanat period? I mean, I want to give you a very brief summary and then we can go to Inshallah, our q&a very quickly.

Firstly, how did the Muslims even arrive in India? And why was this history used later on? To put Muslims to shame or get Muslims to apologize for crimes that were never committed? And why was it easy for the Hindutva ghouls and British colonial propagandists to even

come up with this narrative and propaganda in the first place? So turn Mahmud ghaznavi, who ruled from 1099 Sorry, 999 to 1030 rule for almost 30 years he was a very powerful man who ruled from Ghazni currently Afghanistan, he invaded India multiple times, multiple times. For the same reason, every single king would invade other territories. And photon Mahmud ghaznavi was an expansionist king, he wanted to expand his territories and to raise militaries. He needed money. And Indian temples were seen as a source of money because a lot of these temples had balls, or basements full of gold and silver, basically offered to the idols for these are offerings made by Indian

worshipers, or devotees of these idols and temples. Every single temple, if not every single temple. Many temples throughout the Indian religious landscape were sources of immense wealth. And it so happened that every time a king would invade a territory within the Indian

geographical space, they would go for the temple for two reasons. One reason is to break the idol to destroy the deity to basically

To to destroy the morale of the opposing army. So when the king I mean, there are two ways to basically decrease or destroy the morale of the opposing army. One is to kill the king. If the king dies in conflict, the Army has no reason to fight any longer. These armies will cease fighting.

And the other way to basically demoralize the army of the enemy is to destroy the deity. When the deity is destroyed, when the idol is broken, then the army the military becomes demoralized. And this is what Hindu kings were doing to each other. Richard Eaton in his recent book,

India in the Persianate age, from 1000, to 1750s.

In his book, in the very beginning, in the introducing chapters of his book, he puts down many examples of Indian kings, invading each other's territories and destroying temples in the process. So I repeat, Hindu kings fighting each other for decades, in some cases for centuries,

and destroying temples, destroying temples in the process, desecrating temples, destroying idols, so this was an Indian phenomenon, even before the Muslims arrived in India. So to put all the blame on photon Mahmoud resonably for or temple desecrations or, or for looting temples, for that matter, is unjust. Okay, to single out photon ghaznavi Or later daily, Sultana Sultan is absolute anachronism, to accuse them of a crime, which was invented way before them is basically an acronym to say the least. Right? So Richard Eaton puts down many examples where Hindu kings invaded other Hindu territories, and they did similar things. So, this was an Indian phenomenon, the cause temples war

were, you know, basically an attractive

source of income for kings invading territories, they would go to the temple, they will destroy the temple and take the wealth and this is exactly what Sultan Muhammad was, when we did, when he came into India, wherever he found money and gold, he would go and he would invade the territory, and he called it jihad, no doubt, he called it his jihad, he called it jihad against oppression, he saw all of these entities in India as oppressive and he, he saw them basically as

a source of income also at the same time, and he came into India, and he did what he did. So, later on the daily South Sudan or similarly, gaining a lot of territory in the Indian south, and many times the Hindu kings are coming back and taking this territory. Now.

In the case of daily Saltanat, these people predominantly work Turkic, originally they came from Central Asia, right? The daily Saltanat period started from the 1200. To to be precise. So tan mood resonably was basically the first person to invade India from the north in the 11th century, and the rational weeds remained in power, more or less for nearly 200 years. And then another power came from Afghanistan called the vorige. They defeated the ghaznavi and they took power from the Gaza weeds or the powerhouse called Lahore. Lahore was the first major center of political Islam in India, and that was taken by the voice from the Gaza weeds and then the words basically led by a man

called

My God Mohammed bin some worry, he invaded India in 1190s. In the year 1192, he defeated one of the most powerful kings in northern India, called Prithvi Raj Johanne Prithviraj Chohan was defeated by Sultan Moyes with Deen Mohammed bin Salman Avari, also known as Shahab have been very pretty rot Johan was defeated by a minute in 1192 in the Battle of terrain, and as a result,

lo and behold, what came was the daily Saltanat

established in the city of Delhi or through the city of Delhi. So, the powerhouse of Islam in India shifted from Lahore to Delhi because the establishment of soltana is the Dean Mohammed bin Salman vari was firmly

placed in Delhi and then avoori died in 2006. And his slaves then sport took power and ruled for a very long time. I mean, then this came to be known as the slave dynasty.

of India right also known as the daily Sultanate, given take the rule for almost

330 years until barber came to rule India in 1526. So, the daily seltenen period is generally basically by historians. Although different dynasties ruled through this period, they call this the daily salt in a period from 1206 or 1200 rather to 1526 when mobile took power from the daily salt and salt pans, right, during this period, during the daily Saltanat period, a lot of conflicts took place, a lot happened and details are far too many for me to discuss

and I recommend a book strongly on the topic of how basically Muslims rule India and the Muslim period in India. One is which had Eatons India in the Persian at age, India in the Persianate age. Richard Egypt's book is a very powerful introduction to the history of Muslim dynasties in India from the year 1000 to 1750. And also a book by Jamal Malik Islam in South Asia. Very powerful book. These two books are essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the history of Indian Islam or Islam in India politically speaking, two books, if not more, insha, Allah for moguls. I mean, I strongly recommend FF Richards. Unfortunately, I couldn't cover a lot of history and a lot of the

achievements of the moguls and the daily Saltanat. For that you can look at my YouTube channel, I have some talks and lectures on these topics. I have a lecture on mobile, the Mughal Empire, which is detailed, I mean, still introductory, it is not the detail of every single emperor and is doing but it is an introductory lecture on the Mughal empire. Likewise, a history of a brief history of the Muslim civilization in India. It's like a documentary and you can watch it. Okay. Also, before I finished before I end I want to talk about the daily sultanate period. One of the things a lot of these Hindutva propagandists today focus on is the daily sultanate period. And again, the the

demolition and desecration of many Hindu temples, and a lot of the building material like stones, and other materials taken from these temples and used to build mosques. It is true, this did take place. This is archaeologically confirmed. And this is historically confirmed that a lot of the building materials were taken from mosques, and they were used in temples. But the same was happening on the Hindu site. When Hindu kings were invading Muslim territories, they were demolishing mosques, and using the building material to build temples. And this has happened. Now, the reason why we cannot find traces of mosques within temples, is because the materials used in

mosques were very simple. There were no idols or carvings in mosques. mosques were very simple, right? That's why you cannot see a block that came from a mosque, put in a temple, but the other way around. On the other hand, when you look at some of the mosques, they used blocks from Hindu temples and you can see the carvings to this day of idols and idols have been deformed, obviously, because they're being used in a mosque. So this phenomenon was, by the way, reciprocal, this was not one sided, both sides were doing this and this was a dynamic history, there was no anti Hindu policy on the part of the daily sultanate Sultan's or the mobile kings, mobile kings and daily soltana did not

pursue an anti Hindu policy. Rather, they had employed Hindus within the state. In fact, some of the lenders, some of the treasurer's bankers, were mostly Hindus in Delhi. In fact, Hindus were celebrating the festival like Diwali and Holi throughout the Muslim period, without any interruption. In fact, the Muslims who can give protection to Hindus within the Muslim domain, there are so many inscriptions. There is so much epigraphic record

left behind by Hindus in the Sanskrit language that states are that shows how the Muslim photons protected. The Hindus Hindus sometimes even paid lavish tributes to Muslims will bond for all the justice and protection they had to offer. But this doesn't mean into the never brutalized. This never means Hindus were never killed in conflict. This never means that no Temples were destroyed. Of course they were temple destroyed. Of course they were

conflicts where there was a political conflict, there was destruction. War always comes with killing and destruction on both sides

to paint the Muslims with a special brush, as mass murderers as barbarians is absolute injustice, this is not history, this is propaganda, okay? Because when you look at the Hindu kings on the other side, okay, they were doing the same or even if you look at Ashoka, Ashoka, who was a Buddhist King, okay, in ancient India, right, Ashoka was a Buddhist king. He also committed atrocities while he was conquering lands and taking lands, of course, he was very principled in many ways, no doubt, we know about his principles. Because of his Buddhist faith, he was restrained, but to establish justice, to expand his domains to, to crush rebellion, rebellions, he was also using violence, right? All kings

at all times, in all places, have to resort to violence, to crush rebellions, to stay in power to strengthen the domain. Okay. This is how history is. All civilizations are, by nature, all civilizations, and I'm saying this with confidence, all civilizations by nature are expansionist, right. Right now, as we speak. There is there are civilizations that are very powerful, and they are also expansionist look at the American civilization. The Americans are expanding globally, Americans have military bases all over the world. Russians, as we speak, are right right now are going into Ukraine. Right? Or the issue of Crimea. We are aware of it right. Britain is still expanding

economically. Right. So expansion is an essential trait of all civilizations, how civilizations expand and what they do after expansion is what is important, okay, to take away the phenomenon called expansion from civilizations is not doing history. It is inventing something that doesn't exist. But if you look at all civilizations, historically speaking, they were by nature. By default expansionist what they do after expansion is important right? This is where the daily Saltanat period and moguls after expanding what they did to the masses, needs to be studied more carefully, even moguls. I mean, Audrey trust is a very important scholar on mobile history. She has talked

about how Hindus

lived under the moguls. He has written two books on this topic in particular one is titled, a culture of encounters Sanskrit. At the mobile court, he argued that the Sanskrit language went through a renaissance during the Mughal period. Likewise, she has written another book recently.

And I forgot the title, the exact title is not in my mind. But the book is something like Muslim civilization are mostly mystery through Sanskrit sources. Okay, so she's used the Sanskrit sources to see how the Hindus writing in the Sanskrit language for the Muslim domain or the Muslim dynasties or the Muslim civilization in general. Right. So my brother and sisters, I would have to stop here my time is up, and I don't think I can give more details at this stage a lot more can be discussed. I have raised some important points. And I haven't spoken much about the achievements of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal empire, they are well known apart from the Taj Mahal apart from the Koto.

Minnaar there is a lot to look at, in the fields of literature, the fields of science in the fields of military advancement, and in the fields of economics, for example, the richest country in the world.

In the 16th century was India. The richest country in the world was India, throughout the 16th century and the 15th century actually, sorry, not 15th to 16th and the 17th century, or exam Adam gave the most tarnished emperor, the most tarnished Mughal emperor, as far as the Hindutva goons are concerned, was the most powerful, the most

influential and the richest king in the world.

The Indian GDP was 24% of the world 24 24% of global GDP was in India, during the reign of orange zip alum here, orange ze alum gear, who ruled from 15 Sorry, 1658 to 77, almost 50 years, or NZ balangay employed more Hindus in a state, then all the Mughal emperors put together

Before him, so up to the point, when orangette came to power, three Mughal emperors had ruled. Of course, more had ruled but three powerful Mughal emperors had ruled right. Akbar Yahagi and Shajahan oran zaev employed more Hindus within a state apparatus that all the Mughal emperors put together before him 30 31% of orange saves military and state

was made of Hindus 31% Okay. So, if Muslims are bigots, if Muslims are out to destroy Hindus to massacre Hindus, why would Muslim kings and religious kings religiously Muslim kings like orange, why would they employ Hindus on such in such such large numbers within the state? Why would they do that? These are some very pressing questions, one can look at also dailies alternative file the final point I want to I want to raise before I go before I go to the use of and you can ask us questions and we can go to q&a, the daily seltenen period. One particular contribution to the Indian civilization or one particular achievement is very often overlooked by historians. And, in

particular in Dudhwa, propagandists. And what is that the Mongol invasions of India, Mongols invaded invaded India for more than 100 years. for over 100 years, the Muslim saltpans stood in the way of the Mongols, like an iron war, the Muslims of towns lost their loved ones in these battles in these wars against Mongols, protecting India. Now one can argue, no, they were not protecting India, they were protecting their own power. They were protecting the power hubs. They were protecting their own politics and their own militaries and their own their own, basically, their own rule. So they had no interest in protecting India. This is a false impression created by Hindutva goons, if they ever

talk about the Mongol invasions. Firstly, they don't talk about it if they do, this is how they spin it. Right. But what they don't know is that Hindus fought side by side with Muslims to

to push away the Mongols. Now you can say that about the Muslims of bands because you hate the Muslims. You can say that about the Muslims from fans. But what are you going to say about those Hindu generals who fought with the Muslims side by side to repel the Mongol invasions? What are you going to say about that?

And one battle in particular, I want to mention very quickly, actually two examples I want to mention. So Tom, we are so Dean Baldwin, was a very powerful fan. During the daily Saltanat period, he ruled from 1266 to 1287. Pro 66 to 1287 ce II was one of the most powerful photons.

The daily Saltanat period ever witnessed. Why? And one of his sons, his heir apparent his volume or had the man his favorite son, who was going to succeed his father to the throne,

was killed in a battle against the Mongols.

Prince Mohammed, also known as the martyred Prince, or the Shaheed Prince, was killed in a battle against the Mongols in near Lahore, whereby the famous Muslim point from India called Amir hospital was also present in the battle. He was an eyewitness and he explained and described as to what happened in this particular battle. So binary So Dean Baldwin gave his own son to defend to protect India. Likewise, later on the colleges came to power in the year 1299. C. For the 99 ct, one of the largest Mongol invasions took place, the Chagatai ruler of Afghanistan, called, quote Laquanda he invaded India with over 100,000 men. According to some sources, 200,000 men, so turn allowed being

called G and his generals, they stood like an iron wall in the way of the Mongols to protect not only the daily Sultanate, but wider India. Imagine if the Mongols had come into India. Imagine what would happen to your temples. Imagine what would happen to the gold. And by the way, amazingly, the temples that were desecrated, were only those that were politically important during the Muslim period.

But Mongols would not discriminate. They would come in, they would come in and they would destroy

Every single temple standing in the way they would have destroyed the populations like they did from

Eastern Turkistan, all the way up to Syria that decimated the Muslim civilization in the East. And later on, of course, they themselves became the defender, defenders of the same civilization, having destroyed much of it

and the daily photons, they protected India against the Mongols for over 100 years. So remember the Battle of Keeley, the Battle of Keeley that took place in 1299, wasteful tunnel identical G, A stood like an iron wall against the Mongols and the Mongols are defeated a general fighting for the hajis or for the daily sultanate called Zafar Khan was killed while fighting in this very battle, and the leader of the Mongols were also killed in this battle. So I'll stop here. And you must remember all these contributions of the Muslim Sultan's in defending and protecting India against foreign threats. And there are many, many more things I can talk about in this regard. But the time does not

permit me to do so. Thank you so much brothers, me off to you, or sorry, over to you rather, whether you

deserve. Thank you very much Adnan. That was a it was a fascinating, fascinating discourse, just listening to you. I was fascinated because, you know, a lot of us and I'm not just talking about the lay people, but many of us are involved in debate and interfaith dialogue and Tao for that particular matter, not or not have not kind of delved in deeply into this particular unique aspect of history, which is now coming to the fore particularly being raised by the far right. And what kind of interested me although I had a kind of a brief overview on

read up about what had happened in India, and particularly in relation to the Mogul in that what what triggered my interest in this was, strangely enough, the writings of the individually mentioned Robert Spencer wrote the book, the history of jihad, where a significant portion of the Book, in fact, focuses on this specific period in history, which you have quite fascinatingly articulated and, you know, cleared up a lot of issues. But I want to, I want you to tackle some of these myths, for example, you mentioned quite at length Mahmoud doesn't he says that the individual you're speaking about and the kind of myths go around like this that Mahmoud Husni was the individual who

started the whole process of the invasion to the Indian subcontinent. And this invasion, in fact, continued through many of the subsequent invaders over several centuries. And then you have myths. And as somebody of his caliber that purportedly is supposedly relying on facts, he throws out things for example, that you know, under Husni, and then subsequently under him, Nabeel sharp, he speaks about having made a mountain of skulls of the Hindus in India that he killed. Then he raised about the fact that I don't know whether these are myths. So, these

terminologies that I use used, they use the aspect of the example of Baba Baba raised towers of Hindu skulls at cannula when he when he defeated run a sangha in the in the 16th century, I believe, and later apparently, this happened at the forte of Chanderi. Then there's talk about King Akbar, who is generally viewed as, as someone that is the benevolent

savior of the Hindus in in kind of conventional literature. Spencer describes but as having committed a general massacre of having killed 30,000 Rajputs. Then he speaks about the brahmani. So tons, having an annual agenda of killing a minimum of 100,000 Hindus every year. Let's take the point I made that 90s Let each one of these examples one by one very quickly, I'm not going to spend much time because you're so easy to debunk. It's just absolutely absolutely fascinating that how lying propagandists and money driven money driven you know, these shameless shaming yet shameless authors like Spencer have the audacity to uh, you know why they're writing why they're writing books

like this because they know they will find an audience in India they will find an audience in India and there are people like Spencer and other Islamophobes who are very popular in India for for for the reasons we already understand. So let's take each one of these examples one by one and we can we can see whether these these examples stand the test of history

so let's take about let's talk about barbers barbers tower skulls, right okay. So so let's assume Barber did that for a second let's let's assume Barber did that. But what Spencer and people like

Kim will not talk about his barbers invasion of India and who was he fighting against? Who did barber oust from India. When Baba took India who was ruling India is the question. Oh, let's say Northern India because the ladies did not rule all of India. The Lord is were ruling northern India, barber was fighting a Brian Lodhi right. A Brian Lord he was a Muslim. He was one of the remnants of the daily Sultanate. Right? And barber removed a Muslim dynasty from power. So when Baba was fighting the ladies or when he fought Ibrahim lo, the in the Battle of Panipat in 1526, was he specifically picking Hindus on the battlefield when he was fighting the ladies or was barber also

killing Muslims in the process? This is what this is what these bigots these extremist these these lying propagandists will not address? When Baba invaded India in 1526 form of arniston He came via Afghanistan, Baba was actually from Central Asia. And barber had already been fighting his cousin's his relatives in Central Asia to take back his land in Ghana, in the valley of Ghana. So barber started by fighting his own relatives, you know, such was the nature of those times, kings were not living in utopias, kings did not have defined borders, the concept of nation state with defined borders is a recent concept. It is a it is a recently secular concept, right?

In the Middle Ages, or in India, at that time, in the in the 15th. And the 16th century, the borders are not defined. So kings often traversed territories and fought each other. This was a natural occurrence, right? When there is power, there is stretching of the muscles, right? So barber lost his territory in Central Asia, he came to understand, and it was difficult for him to stay in Afghanistan also. So he was looking beyond Afghanistan. And who does he remove from power? Ibrahim lordy. And then another Hindu comes to fight him, run a sangha. And Baba fights them. So in order to make these people an example, every single King to seem strong, to appear strong, they will commit

atrocities, and these atrocities are not necessarily Islamic. So there is no doubt barber might have committed atrocities. Was he doing this because of Islam? They may have used the name of jihad. Amazingly, when Baba was fighting low the the question is, did he use the word jihad for that particular conflict? And if it was jihad, how can it be Jihad when you are removing one Muslim dynasty and replacing it with your own dynasty, right? How is that jihad? How can you justify it? But when it came to Hindus, Muslim kings very often as a propaganda tool, they expansionist ambitions, they used the slogan of jihad to arouse feelings, no doubt, but to accuse Barber of

single handedly committing atrocities specifically against Hindus is not only distortion, it is how can I put it it is what is the what is the strong word for lying and cheating this is this is this is absolute madness. This is absolute. Such as I understand that none what you are saying is that these are kind of political wars of conquest in the cause of events. I mean, the rulers went and then they then conquered and the the religious element was purely incidental in relation. Now, not the one point which which I want to tie up because you raised him that the most controversial person that you also articulated their oral exam, because they're saying that well, look, if we make the

argument that these kings and I'm just playing the devil's advocate, these kings were purely, incidentally, Muslims or that religion was purely incidental, but the actions were more political conquest, than religious warfare. They use the argument of orang Zeb on the basis that, you know, he, in fact, Spencer code somebody, I think he quotes love by describing him as a vile, oppressive induce, by virtue of the fact that he intended to forcibly convert Hindus to Islam, and destroy Hindu temples.

All by virtue of the fact that by virtue of the fact that they were polytheists, you see the argument that is being raised by Spencer, you know, they use the word the Surah, nine, verse 29, verse on the jizya. And they argued that Hindus were not people of the book. So therefore, there were there was no option of Jizya to be imposed upon the Hindus they were two options that they faced

Then these Muslim leaders came. And the one option is that they came and offered them Islam. And the alternative to that is that they did not accept by virtue of the fact that they are not people in the book, and they cannot be subjected to having the Jizya tax imposed on them. Therefore, this necessarily had to result in the total destruction, elimination and so on. And all exam is obviously cited as the key figure in relation to that. So So you mentioned Richard Eaton, that that kind of gave the idea that this was not something that was directed towards Hindu temples, but in the light of kings, taking over land, to conquering the temple or destroying the temple we're seeing as a

massive property as opposed to religious warfare. Can you just expand on that aspect? Very quickly, I want to address the issue of Akbar as well. When you mentioned Spencer Akbar as a mass murderer of Hindus. You could not use a worse example. You could use a worse example than Akbar in this regard. Akbar had married a Hindu woman called Jada by who was Rajput at birth gather in law aquas brother in law, and his father in law, were in his court serving him day and night. And one of the strongest generals of Akbar was Man Singh who was Rajput. Okay. So, so you could not use a you know, a worse example than that is unbelievable example, Spencer use it. It's shocking. It's shocking the level of

discourse. Yeah. And Rajputs had one of the most powerful existence, you know, they had one of the most powerful presences in the mobile court, Rajput, Rajput, throughout the Mughal period. Okay, and I'm saying all of the Mughal period, the entire Mughal period for nearly two to 300 years, depending on how powerful the Mughals were at that time. Firstly, the the most powerful reins of the moguls.

Let's say the four reins Akbar yong yi, and Sharjah Han and orange zip, Raj foods had a very powerful presence in the Mughal court. They were they were seen as a very, very important element of the Mughal political establishment. Okay, Rajputs we're Mughals and I am going to say this again, Raj, while maintaining the Hindu identity while celebrating the festivals, while keeping the territories and the palaces and being given land grants by the Mughal emperors were essentially moguls in the identity, right? They refer to themselves as mogul vessels. They married into moguls they gave their daughters to moguls, right, because it wasn't forbidden finders to give their

daughters to Muslims. Rajpoot didn't have a problem with that. So Rajputs were giving their daughters in marriage to mobile Princess, right. In fact, the mother the mother of John gave, one of the most powerful Mughal emperors was Rajput Yoda by right. And there are other examples whereby, you know, into women gave birth to some of the most powerful mole noble. So you could not put you could not be more deceptive, and this honest and disingenuous about history than these propagandists like Spencer, okay, and also

talking about orange tape.

Just to answer this question, I will just recommend one book. Okay, that book is titled nobility under orange zip. Okay, the pot the book is the Mogul nobility under orange and the author is m Arthur Ali, M. Arthur at 80 H AR, le a li. Okay, so, the mobile ability under orange zip published by the Oxford University Press, it is an academic source unlike the books of Spencer and other propagandists like that, okay, go and see how he statistically shows a thoroughly shows statistically, that 31% of the nobility during the reign of orange consisted of Hindus, predominantly, predominantly Rajputs. So why if if orange a was an anti Hindu bigot, if he wanted

the Hindus destroyed? Why would you have 31%? Okay, that's, that's 1/3 of your state 1/3 of your state. Why would you have Hindus running that 1/3? That doesn't make sense. It is absolutely shocking and fascinating that these people have an audacity to come up with these lies, and these mess misrepresentations of history. And unfortunately, this is now

popular narrative in India, a lot of people have been conditioned into thinking this way. And that's why more and more is needed from scholars and from public speakers, and influential to talk about these things and debunk these narratives, peddled by right wing

liar than the segment that, you know deceivers, like Robert Spencer, who are doing it for money just to sell the book to in the Indian audience. No serious student of history will take Spencer, seriously, if you were to call Spencer as a source in your undergraduate essay, you will use the mark down, I can guarantee you, I can tell you that I can guarantee you this, that if you quoted Spencer, in the footnotes in one of your undergraduate essays, let alone post graduate undergraduate essays, you will be marked down by your by your teacher, your historian, because they don't allow you to use you know, propaganda. Unless it is a study of Spencer, unless show the study of Spencer's

deranged mind. You know, why? Why would people like expensive produce works like this. I mean that that's also an academic question. It's an interest of course, definitely. So if you were studying Spencer, as a phenomenon, yeah, of lying and cheating and deception, then of course, it would be except it would be acceptable for you to quote him. But if you are making a point on history, you would be you'd be thrown out your paper.

Okay. I wouldn't be surprised. The other point that is raised is that in any go further up the centuries 1757 I think you may have mentioned, they have gone through love Ahmed Shah of Delhi. And there's a quotation given by him in the book, which is purportedly from a chronicle called the topical allegory. And here, I don't know how true how accurate this is. But it apparently details the fact that when Ahmed Shah, in in 1757, made his way to the the Hindu city of matura, the Bethlehem the so called birthplace of Krishna as they claim and in the topical Ireland GUI This is a quotation that is given how true authentic I want you to address this, where he says that utterly

soldiers would be paid five rupees for every enemy had brought in. Last minute loaded up all these horses with a planet property and a topic the road the legal captives and the slaves. The severe hands were tied up in drugs led bundles of grain, and placed on the heads of captives. Then the heads were stuck upon Lance's and taken to the gate of the Chief Minister for payment. It was extraordinarily displayed daily to this man of slaughtering and plundering proceed, and at night, the shrieks of women captors or being raped definitely years of the people, all those heads that had been cut off or built into pillars and the captive men upon whose heads was bloody bundles had been

brought in were made to grind corn and then their heads to what kind of I mean, this is like a fairytale horror movie but he quotes a source from the target ILM Giri, and apparently details the the so called invasion of Matura in 1757, how true is this account? Because I mean, this seems like a you know, we're waiting this particular narrative comes from it's like, out of out of a horror fiction and this is cited as an authentic event that apparently happened within history. Can you can you can you respond to that? I will. I will have to look at the Persian

text of this first. Before I can comment on it. I am not aware of the Persian text. So okay, buddy, buddy. Here, LM girI. First of all, I would have to look at that Persian text, right? Because I don't trust these propagandist translations, right? Secondly, even if the passage is there, let's say the passage is there, right? Buddy Island girI from the very name, you know that this is a mogul history of the abdali invasion. The moguls are very hostile to the abductees, okay? The moguls are very hostile. The Mughal authors in particular people who were writing histories on the part of the Mughals, they saw dolly as an intruder as an invader. So again, what they don't tell you these

propagandists and these discern deceivers and liars in the books. What they don't tell you is that a dollies invasions were predominantly against the Mughals. He was he was dismantling the Mughal Empire before he fought the Hindus or before he fought the Sikhs. I mean, I can tell you more things of Dali went to the Golden Temple of the Sikhs in Amritsar and he demolished it he raised it to the ground. Why? Because the Sikhs were repeatedly hounding him. They were attacking his his caravans. They were disturbing him when he was on his way back to Afghanistan, having defeated the merata

In the Battle of honeypot in 1761, in 1761, one of Dali was on his way back to one, Stan, his

army was being harassed repeatedly by sea gorillas. So to teach them a lesson in abdali terms to teach them a lesson, he went to the Golden Temple and he raised it to the ground. Okay, now can we use that as as as a war tactic to demoralize the Sikhs? Absolutely. It was bad. It was evil. But even the Sikhs would have understood at that time, why abdali did that, right? To use these passages from medieval histories, or let's say,

pre modern histories and use the modern mind or use our standards to judge the victors or the conquerors? Or the invaders of that time? It is absolutely anachronistic you cannot use I mean, even today, we have Vietnam we have a long war. We have atrocities committed on a massive scale. It makes sense for us to to look at these things and and be a board right. But at that time atrocities like this. Okay. They were the norm. Unfortunately, unfortunately, and we're not justifying them. We're saying they were evil atrocities. These atrocities are absolutely evil. Right. But these kings were using these tactics if they if they use them, they were using them first of all across the board.

They were not they were not singling out Hindus, what the Hindu tois propagandists are doing is that they are saying this was all directed towards Hindus.

All of these Muslim atrocities, okay, were directed towards Hindus. This is a lie because when you look at these invasions, who was of Dali fighting a Bally's or fighting the maracas? Hindus, okay. Of dallies as far as Dali was fighting the Sikhs, and Dali was fighting Muslims. So who was he committing atrocity atrocities against Islam? And likewise, the Sikhs were committing atrocity as atrocities against Hindus. They were committing atrocities against Muslims. And they were committing atrocities against those Sikhs that did not agree with Did you know The Sikhs had civil wars? Did you know The Sikhs fought each other militarily, Sikhs fought each other? Hindus, the martyrs and

the Rajputs fought each other, and they committed atrocities. The Muslims fought each other. So this was a very much politically charged environment where different groups are fighting each other. Okay. The 18th century, in particular, the 18th century in India was the most devastating period throughout the Indian history, arguably, because the amount of bloodshed the amount of political instability and military conflicts that took place is absolutely mind blowing, you know, the players. Okay, it was it was a cocktail of

ambitious invaders and atrocity committers and even mass murderers in some cases, no. merata is arguably the murottal The Hindu force, the mulatos are arguably the most barbaric, the most uncivilized and the most merciless entity in India. And I will repeat the Murata has was the most barbaric political entity in India in the 18th century. How do we know that? We know that by looking at the atrocities. Rape was a special feature of merata invasions. And who is writing this by the way, who is writing this Hindu historians themselves when Murat has invaded Bengal, they used a rape as a very specific weapon of war against then Gali Hindus, against Hindu landowners and land holders

and the peasantry of Bengal, the Mirage directed against Muslims as well did both of them also also in Muslim absolutely merata were invading into territory Hindu territories, Muslim territories and Sikh territories. So would that be Shiva? Would that be Shiva, Shiva Shiva Ji Marotta because no he, he see, these are the heroes. This is more like body row and his successes. It's not slavery, he was he was mainly fighting against the moguls during the reign of orange ape and somebody was also a merata ruler who were Shivaji son, but the successors of somebody and Shivaji later on in the 18th century, you know, I would say the mid 18th century in particular, was very, very disturbing period

in

In history, were all people suffering Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs, all of them suffered daily at the hands of these conflicts or these invaders rather right of Dali's. Firstly, now this shows invasion from Persia in 1739. He came in he committed committed atrocities against Muslims of Delhi, Delhi was destroyed systematically. And again the Persian forces are raping. Unfortunately, the Muslim population of Delhi, okay, so So history is dynamic. You cannot say that these Muslim invaders came in and they targeted the Hindus, only

two rulers they confronted the first militaries they confronted, wherever the invaders came from outside, they were confronting indigenous Muslim rulers, they were confronting indigenous Muslim armies before they fought the Sikhs or the Hindus. So the most powerful armies in India for almost 500 years are Muslim armies. And they were predominantly indigenous, by the way, for the for the Hindutva goons to call Muslims or moguls, outsiders. Okay. It's an absolute lie again, because moguls many of the rulers were born of Hindu women. How are they outsiders? Yeah, they adopted Indian culture, they adopted the Indian language. The moguls are very much involved in the Indian

culture of the day. And to call them outsiders, is basically not only racism, it is basically this owning a great civilization that contribute so much to the greater the larger history of Indians. So I want you to break this myth because this is what's coming out from work. Besides Spence and others, they they they use and you mentioned, Professor chaos law, a case law, who you stated that in his older time period changed his view. But the main the main overall arching theme is this is that they say and this is a myth, which we should break down that the Hindu population in India decreased between 80 million by 80 million between the between the 10th century and the 16th

century. And they described this as an extermination unparalleled in world history. And the argument is that the slaughter of 80 million people occurred over regular periods during the what they described the Arab Afghan Turkish in Mughal rule in India. Firstly, I want to ask where did they get these figures from? Because I think, you know, people like Amrish Misra, for example, argue something which he described as an untold Holocaust cares law. I mean, these seem to be the source and that's where you've got these extremists like Robert Spencer. And then of course, not cases like David Wood, repeating the same myths as a fact

in how you break down these figures. That's the first question. The second thing is, which I never asked when you come to these descriptions in books like the topical LM Giri, could they possibly also be viewed as purely hyperbole? Hyperbole, exaggerated statements to kind of show the, the bravado of the conquest or the Conqueror per se, you can address those two aspects.

Okay, you see case laws works. We're actually criticized by historians like Peter Jackson. Yeah, in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic society, dating that book, the book of case law, I mean, the legacy of Muslim rule in India, you may be referring to that particular book where he made these claims right, the legacy of Muslim rule in India. As I mentioned earlier, the case law actually became an an RSS propagandist in the later years of his life and he started writing extremely bigoted works, targeting Muslims in particular, right. So historian serious professional historians like Peter Jackson, they criticized his this particular book by stating a markedly selective and one sided

account of India's Muslim past. Okay, that's what he said. Right. And with regards to two sticks,

Simon Digby disputed large study of the demographic situation in medieval India and a review in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, big B stated that estimate lacks accurate date in pre census times. Right. So where were the censuses? Is the question, Where did lol take these details from? Where did he get these numbers from? 80 million. I mean, in some cases, historians argue that it is absolutely impossible. For the population to be that large. It is impossible even to create a massacre of that scale. You would need a nuclear you know you would you would possibly need a nuclear bomb or something.

Right, population was not that large, I mean, yes.

And in the presence of such powerful Hindu entities like the Rajputs and later on the Bharatas, how would be how would that be possible? And the population of India today is one over a billion, okay. There are over a billion Hindus in India today, if such makes no sense, it makes absolutely no sense to but but I mean, these figures are thumbs up from somewhere. And so it seems to be speculate tree, the revisionist material that has come in the late 20th century or the 20th century, a lot of these exaggerated exaggerated figures are taken from Muslim Chronicles, medieval Muslim Chronicle. And these Chronicles

mostly exaggerated numbers in conflicts, right, for example, to inflate the image of the dynasty.

Don't forget the Muslim authors who are writing these chronicle these histories were also propagandists, they were also propagandists. Don't forget, right? So they are writing is history is mainly for propaganda purposes, they are writing for an already convinced audience. And to give them a taste of how can I put it an inflated sense of power and, and, and victory over the enemy, they would inflate numbers drastically. So where they were 10,000 killed in a conflict, they would say, a million were killed. For example, again, I'll give you I'll give you an example. This is not specifically

a phenomenon in India, we find it elsewhere. Also, for example, pick up early Muslim histories,

the conflict between the Romans and the Muslims, early Islamic campus. So what numbers are given to us? When it comes to Romans? We are told the Romans were nearly 250,000. Okay. And the Muslims are over 100,000 This is impossible. That number is impossible. Looking at the demographics of the time, whatever we whatever information we have available. So

a moderate estimate would be 40,000 Muslims, and potentially 80,000. Romans, right. But but the chroniclers the Chronicle has when they give the numbers, they inflated the numbers. Okay. Was there a count of heads? Absolutely not. Did a person go around with a book over the counter, counting all the heads in the Roman army that they knew that no 150,000. So they would simply see heads, they would see 1000s of people and they would estimate, okay, it's 200,000 300,000. These would be rough estimates, in most cases. But in some cases, these were highly exaggerated accounts, and even of massacres. Even a massacre, where massacres are discussed, okay, where skulls of the towers of

skulls are being made, and all that even these accounts are absolutely highly exaggerated. is Adnan Rashid, saying this? Absolutely not. This is what modern historians are saying today, every single historian of medieval India today, every single historian of medieval in Amsterdam, talking about professional historians, they completely reject these narratives as as representative sources of facts, especially military facts, when they are discussing atrocities, military atrocities, they claim that these are highly exaggerated accounts written for propaganda purposes, to inflate the image of the ruler as well as the dynasty. This is what it is. And similarly, we see the Hindu

sources, they have the same problem. So generally speaking, medieval sources, mostly exaggerated the atrocities and the achievements and the victories against the enemy. This is, this is how historians understand it. And they have reasons to believe this, if they have given evidence for this, they have given the evidences for this, why they historians have come up with this solution and this, this understanding of medieval history. So So now, we will have to wrap up soon. But what I want to now basically focuses on isn't, as I then understand it, is that secular historians have basically broken down this myth and I've given a kind of formal, balanced, moderate account of what happened

historically, particularly with regards to the you know, as you rightly put it, the multicultural India that in fact existed during the Middle Ages, specifically under Muslim rule, but the alternative viewpoint whereby Muslims are presented as this barbaric marauding hoard that was out there to destroy Indian society by virtue of the

massacres and desecration of temples solely in the name of Islam. This is gaining currency. Well, particularly amongst the far right strangely enough in the united states represented by people like the Spencer's, that Woods Daniel Horowitz and Emerson's and so on and and that that kind of currency is now also part and parcel of the popular discourse within the Indian ruling party, the Indian elite. To the extent that it appears to me that there seems to be a deliberate attempt in terms of writing out Muslim identity from the from the historical existence of our India in fact developed. So, I mean, at this particular point in time in India, Muslims I am what I in a minority they the

largest minority, but they are not in a position of power. But why is it that whilst they are not in a position of a threat, in a political sense to the, to the Hindu government, why is in attempt to write them out of existence, historically speaking, to the extent that when they are presented even now, in children's historical works in Indian society, you have this narrative that has been drummed through which I would argue is revisionist, and by no means mainstream, but gaining popular currency at a populist level. Whilst it's not a mainstream view.

What do you think is the is the kind of underlying rationale and the behind that? I have a very powerful book in this regard, which I strongly recommend. For all viewers, it is by Christoph, Jeffrey lot. Christophe Jeffrey lot is the author and the book is titled Modi's India, Hindu nationalism and the rise of ethnic democracy, okay, this book has been published in 2021. It is a very recent book, and you can easily find it online. So, I will repeat the title Modi's India Hindu nationalism and the rise of ethnic democracy. This is a very, very important book on the question or the use of has just raised and also another book I would strongly recommend by the same author co

authored with another author. The other author is Laurent guerre, a lot of gear and Christoph Jeff a lot have written another book titled Muslims in Indian cities, trajectories of marginalization, I repeat the title Muslims in Indian cities, trajectories or marginalizes marginalization. So, the question you just asked about the use of is is very well answered in these two books, right. The talk about why this marginalization is taking place? Why is the Muslim history being written out of history textbooks? Why are the Muslims being tarnished? What are the political gains from this marginalization or demonization or dehumanization for that matter of the Muslims? And this

dehumanization has gone so far, that Muslims are being lynched now? Okay, India represents a very similar reality to what was happening in the American South with the negroes, I mean, to use the wrong word. Okay. I don't mean to use the word in the derogatory using it. I'm using I'm using it in an academic sense, because at that time, the word Negro was used to dehumanize the black people or Afro Americans, right. So what was happening to the afro Americans in the American South in the late 19th and early 20th century is happening to Muslims in India today, lynch mobs can easily Lynch Muslims, they can destroy Muslim businesses, they the vigilante in Dudhwa. Goons can be walking

around Muslim markets, burning shops, demolishing mosques, killing Muslims, even raping women at times, is okay. It's not a problem. And all of this is a result of active demonization that resulted in dehumanization of the Muslims. That is happening today. And why is this happening is a very big question. What benefit is there from such propaganda? I think, I think to put it in simple terms to make it simple. It is fear mongering, for political ends, right.

To get into power, BJP and RSS establishments are using Muslims as convenient punching bags. They're using them as practicing punching bags, right? And they using them as a target as a scapegoat for all the problems in India. Right. And similar, same things are happening in Europe. Don't get me wrong. And in America, Donald Trump used Muslims as as a reason for him to come to power. Okay, I need to come to power because I'm going to be I'm going to deal with the Muslim threat. Okay, and not so many words. Modi

is using the same fear mongering against Muslims to come to power. So it has political benefit. There is no reality to this fear mongering and to to make this claim fear mongering real. They have to employ historians they have to employ.

When I say historians, pseudo historians, okay, and they have to employ journalists, they have to employ propagandists, they have to employ politicians. So they have to they have to spend a lot of money to gather a lot of support, even in education, even professors, even judges who are passing judgments against Muslim interests. Even the citizen bill recently was his absolute. It's this is madness, to say the least, it is racist. It is a racist. Was it has it been passed as citizens both been passed? Did it come into effect? Well, well, I don't know. But it's on table. It's on table. It caused a lot of controversy. I don't know what the status is. I don't know what the current status

is recently. But but you must read, Jeff, a lot book. It is an absolutely fascinating account of what is going on Modi's in Modi's India today. And why is it happening? What benefit do they get out of this? Are this propaganda against the Muslims? But that book is an essential reading, for anyone interested Modi's India, by Christoph, Jeff along? Well, I want to thank you for that there's just so much so much more than I would like to talk to you about, I don't, in fact, tell you that I, I have in fact tested positive for COVID, by the way, right now, presently. So I'm slightly rundown and feeling under the weather. And we've got a limited time period in terms of how long we can gone

for. But we would like to have you again. And in fact, I'd like to put that challenge up. And you'd be amenable to debating Robert Spencer, in a public forum on this particular issue, and of course, debunking some of the false misconceptions and ideas, and, of course, the clear falsehoods that he's contained in this particular book, in the immediate future, you'd be more than willing to go ahead and challenge him to that, would I be correct? Absolutely. In person debate anywhere, anytime, in Sharla. Absolutely. If he agrees that then I would like to have an in person debate, you know, face to face debate, not an online debate. I don't like online debates, but in person debate anywhere,

anytime, if he agrees, no problem. That'd be fantastic. And be more than willing to set up such an engagement. But thank you very much for that know, your discourse has been appreciated. I'm sure. You certainly enlighten me and enlighten many others out there. And we'd like to get this information out there in the public sphere so that people can see the alternative to this bulwark of froth of misinformation and falsehood that has been presented by the Hindutva goons, as you rightly pointed out the Hindutva movement, the far right fringe elements, the United States and many of the other allies who are part and parcel of this anti Islamic and Islamophobic agenda. So thank you for

that Adnan and we hope to have further sessions with you in the future. This is an ongoing series from the 22nd of December to the 25th of December, where we confront Islamophobia, deal with misconceptions and of course, tackle some of the theological controversies in our different faiths. And if you've been watching us, you've been watching Adnan Rashid, a well known speaker and public debater who is from the United Kingdom, quite popular and his debates are online as well. And he has his own channel. He's not gonna hide and to those out there Salaam Alaikum.