Post by iris89 on Sept 24, 2006 14:57:04 GMT -5
India Taken by the Sword by Muslims From 10 Century On:
INTRODUCTION:
Some individuals that wish to hide the true reality of history say, <<" Islam was not spread by the "sword" in the Asian provinces. It was through trade and therefore interaction(s) that led many to accept Islam in Indonesia and Malaysia and other nations in that region. There was no campaign. ">>, and even said, <<" The Jizyah could be reduced and there is no fixed rate. Which means that the past case in Syria under the Ummayyads was done incorrectly. Any past injustices because of the misapplication of Jizyah was done out of ignorance and without proper knowledge and even open injustice. The taxes are NOT supposed to oppress anyone. There is an hadith(s) on the issue of not allowing the taxes to oppress the citizens of the state. ">>. However, this individual did NOT mention that Syria was taken by force and its aboriginal inhabitants were taxed by the Muslim invaders who had no legitimate right to be there and that the aboriginal inhabitants were forced by the proverbial sword to convert to Islam.
But individuals like this are just obfuscating the issue either as a cover-up and/or denial of the truth, but let's look briefly at the history of the Muslim conquest of India and attempts to convert Hindus either by the proverbial sword or by economic pressure.
MUSLIM SUBJECTION OF INDIA FROM THE 10 CENTURY ON:
Let's first look at what the "History of the Indian Subcontinent" says on the Muslim invasion, <<"Yet, a careful perusal of the surviving record appears to indicate a picture that is far more complicated and far less flattering than implied by the court chroniclers of Ghouri and Ghaznavi (or by their present-day admirers). Just as official histories of the invasion of Sindh have been unduly romanticized (and sanitized so as to exclude uncomfortable facts and analysis), so too have been the conquests of Punjab by the Central Asian Turks.
While there is no doubt that both Ghouri and Ghaznavi possessed remarkable military skills and intellect, and fought with great shrewdness, persistence and tenacity, their achievements in other domains are somewhat more questionable. And the price of their military victories is not to be so easily dismissed. It is especially important to note that the impact of their military campaigns was felt very differently by different sections of the North Indian population.
First, it should be noted that there is considerable variance of opinion as to the motives of Ghouri and Ghaznavi as they attempted to overrun Northern India from their Turkic capitals in what is now Afghanistan. Whereas Utbi, Ghaznavi's court historian looked upon his military expeditions as "holy wars" for the 'extirpation of idolatry' and 'propagation of Islam', it is curious that even Multan (which had already come under Islamic influence) was not spared, and was also repeatedly attacked. If religious fervor were indeed a primary motive for the attacks, then it must be stated that the issue was more the assertion of Sunnism over the Shia and Ismaeli currents that had come to prevail in early 11th C Multan and Sindh. In any case, Indian historians such as Mohammad Habib are inclined to discount the 'Jehadi' dimension, and see economic and political factors to be of greater significance." [source - History of the Indian Subcontinent ]>>.
And, let's look at what an encyclopedia says on the Muslim conquest of the Indian sub-continent, <<"Like other sedentary societies in history, the Indian sub-continent has been attacked by nomadic tribes throughout its long history. In evaluating the impact of Islam on the sub-continent, one must also note that the sub-continent was a frequent target of Central Asian tribes who arrived from the North West. With the fall of the Sassanids and the arrival of the Caliphate's domination of the region these tribes began to contest with the new power and were subsequently integrated into it giving rise to Muslim dynasties of Central Asian heritage, generally the Turks. In that sense, the Muslim invasions of the 10th century onwards were not dissimilar to those of the earlier invasions in the History of Central Asia during the 1st through to the 6th century. What does however, make the Muslim invasions different is that unlike the preceding invaders who assimilated into the prevalent social system, the Muslim conquerors retained their Islamic identity and created new legal and administrative systems that challenged and usually superseded the existing systems of social conduct and ethics. They also introduced new cultural mores that in some ways were very different from the existing cultural codes. While this was often a source of friction and conflict, it should also be noted that there were also Muslim rulers who in much of their secular practice absorbed or accommodated local traditions.
The first incursion by the new Muslim successor states of the Persian empire occurred around 664 CE during the Umayyad Caliphate, led by Mohalib towards Multan in Southern Punjab, in modern day Pakistan. Mohalib's expeditions were not aimed at conquest, though they penetrated only as far as the capital of the Maili, he returned with wealth and prisoners of war. This was an Arab incursion and part of the early Umayyad push onwards from the Islamic conquest of Persia into Central Asia, and within the limits of the eastern borders of previous Persian empires. The last Arab push in the region would be towards the end of Ummayyad reign under Muhammad bin Qasim, after whom it would only be resumed under the "Turk" dynasties with more local capitals, who supplanted the Caliphate and expanded their domains both northwards and eastwards.
It took several centuries for Islam to spread across India and how it did so is a topic of intense debate. Some quarters hold that Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam by laws favoring Muslim citizens, and the threat of naked force: the "Conversion by the Sword Theory." Others hold that it occurred through inter-marriage, conversions, economic integration, to escape caste structures or at the hands of Sufi preachers. ..
One estimate of the number of people killed, based on the Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations was done by K.S. Lal in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million (implying that Muslims killed 80 million Hindus). His work has come under criticism for both its accuracy as well as his agenda.[[probably the greatest Genocide of all history was committed by Muslim murders of Hindus]].
Not all Muslim invaders were simply raiders. Later rulers fought on to win kingdoms and stayed to create new ruling dynasties. The practices of these new rulers and their subsequent heirs (some of whom were borne of Hindu wives) varied considerably. While some were uniformly hated, others developed a popular following. According to the memoirs of Ibn Batuta who travelled through Delhi in the 14th century, one of the previous sultans had been especially brutal and was deeply hated by Delhi's population. His memoirs also indicate that Muslims from the Arab world, from Persia and Turkey were often favored with important posts at the royal courts suggesting that locals may have played a somewhat subordinate role in the Delhi administration. The term "Turk" was commonly used to refer to their higher social status. S.A.A. Rizvi (The Wonder That Was India - II), however points to Muhammad bin Tughlaq as not only encouraging locals but promoting artisan groups such as cooks, barbers and gardeners to high administrative posts. In his reign, it is likely that conversions to Islam took place as a means of seeking greater social mobility and improved social standing." [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]>>.
And, "A Brief History of the Early Origins of the Conflict Between Islam and India" says, <<"One of the most revealing areas of early Islamic history was its actions in present-day India. The contrast of Indic religions like Buddhism and Hinduism with Islam during the Muslim expansion into South Asia in the 10th to 12th centuries reveals the foundations of conflicts we see played out around the world today, namely between Pakistan and India. Understanding the past is the first step to solving the issues the world faces today. The early entrance of Islam into South Asia reveals the source of the tensions facing Pakistan and India today. Although Pakistan would not emerge as a nation until centuries later with the exit of the British from India, it is important to see that that conflict was not created in a void, but was rather a direct continuation of ancient, but extremely influential Islamic empirical past.
Indic religions by nature have nothing to do with laws or the state, while in Islam, the two cannot be separated. Muslims will not follow any other system than that of Allah, and anytime man's law is considered sovereign, it becomes a denial of God. These fundamental differences between the two religions had tremendous implications for the ancient conflict between the Islamic Empire and India that began as early as the 10th century BCE and ended only with colonization by the British. It is through the eyes of these distinct religious differences that the nature and processes of both distinct sides can be understood. The nature of early Islamic expansion into India can be seen as a continuation of the power and hegemony it held since the time of the Prophet Muhammad. The process of Islamic expansion into India up to the formation of the Delhi Sultanate can best be described simply as colonialism. In India at the time of Islamic expansion, the nature of political formation at the time was based on its civil society, and as a direct result of this Indian direct rule, the Islamic Empire was at the same time aided and hindered in its progress into South Asia.
Both the nature and process of Islamic expansion are constantly intertwined, and must be analyzed as such. Muslims did not immerse themselves in the culture or the languages of the peoples that they conquered and brought into their empire. The populace was to be simply used as a means for financing the empire. Taxation, not identification, was the primary goal. This can be seen early in the development of the Islamic Empire. The fact that Islam was founded as a monotheistic religion implies that any other culture or religion is consequently wrong in their own beliefs. There was no room for an untaxed tolerance of other religions- tolerance came at a certain price. In addition, the initial function of the Caliph was to spread Islam to the rest of the world. In that there was only one universal law, it was necessary to take over all other governments and states. Nothing could be more against Islam than people across the world living under other sets of laws that were not from the one and only God. It was from this that the idea of Jihad emerged, and still can be seen today. Up until this time, power was pursued in polities, but with Jihad, it was the spread of the one truth of Islam that was pursued. Religion and war come together in the birth of Islam, and nomadic Bedouins begin to rule nations.
Looking at the early people of the Bedouin nomads can also do much to explain the nature and process of Islamic expansion into India. Bedouins did not have enough property to collect any taxes, nor was there agriculture. As a result, there was no division of labor or social stratification. As a result of this, there was no idea of a state or a government. The Prophet Muhammad would bring together the ideas of state, politics, law, and religion when he arrived on the scene. However, the Bedouins still did not have a form of revenue collection, and as a result it became clear that there was a need for a state to exist. Now the Muslims raided the Byzantine and Greek Empires with ferocity, bringing back vast sums of wealth for their fledgling state. They also turned and took over states that already existed, such as the Persia and Syria. The concept of another nation to Muslims was always something that was external- to be taken over from the outside of Islamic society, never integrated. For example, when Syria was conquered, they remained on the outside, setting up "Garrison Cities" (forts) to collect taxes. The Muslims left the Syrian bureaucracy entirely alone, content to simply collect revenue which they would send off to Medina. In the beginning, Muslims were not initially interested in converting the populations that they conquered. They could not tax converted populations at the rates that they could tax the infidel. Islam continued to take over nations, but was not accountable at all to the people they conquered. Revolts occurred all over the Empire at various times, showing that this was indeed not an integrated society, but rather one that was to collect taxes alone. This nature and process defined Islamic expansion into India.[source - A Brief History of the Early Origins of the Conflict Between Islam and India by David Clem]
REFERENCES - FOR DOUBTERS TO CHECK OUT:
[some references for those who wish to know more] www.netscape.com/submit/?storyUrl=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.htmlhttp://www.netscape.com/submit/?storyUrl=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html| digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.htmlhttp://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html| www.newsvine.com/_wine/save?u=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html&h=A+Brief+History+of+the+Early+Origins+of+the+Conflict+Between+Islam+and+India+-+Associated+Content+-+Associated+Contenthttp://www.newsvine.com/_wine/save?u=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html&h=A+Brief+History+of+the+Early+Origins+of+the+Conflict+Between+Islam+and+India+-+Associated+Content+-+Associated+Content| del.icio.us/submit/?url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html&description=Check out A Brief History of the Early Origins of the Conflict Between Islam and India - Submitted by David Clem at Associated Content&tags=India Islam Islamichttp://del.icio.us/submit/?url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html&description=Check out A Brief History of the Early Origins of the Conflict Between Islam and India - Submitted by David Clem at Associated Content&tags=India Islam Islamic| www.furl.net/storeIt.jsp?u=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.htmlhttp://www.furl.net/storeIt.jsp?u=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html| myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?t=&u=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.htmlhttp://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?t=&u=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html| www.spurl.net/spurl.php?url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.htmlhttp://www.spurl.net/spurl.php?url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html| www.rawsugar.com/pages/tagger.faces?turl=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.htmlhttp://www.rawsugar.com/pages/tagger.faces?turl=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html| simpy.com/simpy/LinkAdd.do?title=43%20Folders&href=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.htmlhttp://simpy.com/simpy/LinkAdd.do?title=43%20Folders&href=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html| www.shadows.com/features/tcr.htm?url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.htmlhttp://www.shadows.com/features/tcr.htm?url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html| www.blinklist.com/index.php?Action=Blink/addblink.php&Url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.htmlhttp://www.blinklist.com/index.php?Action=Blink/addblink.php&Url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html| More ยป
A Concise History of India by Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
INTRODUCTION:
Some individuals that wish to hide the true reality of history say, <<" Islam was not spread by the "sword" in the Asian provinces. It was through trade and therefore interaction(s) that led many to accept Islam in Indonesia and Malaysia and other nations in that region. There was no campaign. ">>, and even said, <<" The Jizyah could be reduced and there is no fixed rate. Which means that the past case in Syria under the Ummayyads was done incorrectly. Any past injustices because of the misapplication of Jizyah was done out of ignorance and without proper knowledge and even open injustice. The taxes are NOT supposed to oppress anyone. There is an hadith(s) on the issue of not allowing the taxes to oppress the citizens of the state. ">>. However, this individual did NOT mention that Syria was taken by force and its aboriginal inhabitants were taxed by the Muslim invaders who had no legitimate right to be there and that the aboriginal inhabitants were forced by the proverbial sword to convert to Islam.
But individuals like this are just obfuscating the issue either as a cover-up and/or denial of the truth, but let's look briefly at the history of the Muslim conquest of India and attempts to convert Hindus either by the proverbial sword or by economic pressure.
MUSLIM SUBJECTION OF INDIA FROM THE 10 CENTURY ON:
Let's first look at what the "History of the Indian Subcontinent" says on the Muslim invasion, <<"Yet, a careful perusal of the surviving record appears to indicate a picture that is far more complicated and far less flattering than implied by the court chroniclers of Ghouri and Ghaznavi (or by their present-day admirers). Just as official histories of the invasion of Sindh have been unduly romanticized (and sanitized so as to exclude uncomfortable facts and analysis), so too have been the conquests of Punjab by the Central Asian Turks.
While there is no doubt that both Ghouri and Ghaznavi possessed remarkable military skills and intellect, and fought with great shrewdness, persistence and tenacity, their achievements in other domains are somewhat more questionable. And the price of their military victories is not to be so easily dismissed. It is especially important to note that the impact of their military campaigns was felt very differently by different sections of the North Indian population.
First, it should be noted that there is considerable variance of opinion as to the motives of Ghouri and Ghaznavi as they attempted to overrun Northern India from their Turkic capitals in what is now Afghanistan. Whereas Utbi, Ghaznavi's court historian looked upon his military expeditions as "holy wars" for the 'extirpation of idolatry' and 'propagation of Islam', it is curious that even Multan (which had already come under Islamic influence) was not spared, and was also repeatedly attacked. If religious fervor were indeed a primary motive for the attacks, then it must be stated that the issue was more the assertion of Sunnism over the Shia and Ismaeli currents that had come to prevail in early 11th C Multan and Sindh. In any case, Indian historians such as Mohammad Habib are inclined to discount the 'Jehadi' dimension, and see economic and political factors to be of greater significance." [source - History of the Indian Subcontinent ]>>.
And, let's look at what an encyclopedia says on the Muslim conquest of the Indian sub-continent, <<"Like other sedentary societies in history, the Indian sub-continent has been attacked by nomadic tribes throughout its long history. In evaluating the impact of Islam on the sub-continent, one must also note that the sub-continent was a frequent target of Central Asian tribes who arrived from the North West. With the fall of the Sassanids and the arrival of the Caliphate's domination of the region these tribes began to contest with the new power and were subsequently integrated into it giving rise to Muslim dynasties of Central Asian heritage, generally the Turks. In that sense, the Muslim invasions of the 10th century onwards were not dissimilar to those of the earlier invasions in the History of Central Asia during the 1st through to the 6th century. What does however, make the Muslim invasions different is that unlike the preceding invaders who assimilated into the prevalent social system, the Muslim conquerors retained their Islamic identity and created new legal and administrative systems that challenged and usually superseded the existing systems of social conduct and ethics. They also introduced new cultural mores that in some ways were very different from the existing cultural codes. While this was often a source of friction and conflict, it should also be noted that there were also Muslim rulers who in much of their secular practice absorbed or accommodated local traditions.
The first incursion by the new Muslim successor states of the Persian empire occurred around 664 CE during the Umayyad Caliphate, led by Mohalib towards Multan in Southern Punjab, in modern day Pakistan. Mohalib's expeditions were not aimed at conquest, though they penetrated only as far as the capital of the Maili, he returned with wealth and prisoners of war. This was an Arab incursion and part of the early Umayyad push onwards from the Islamic conquest of Persia into Central Asia, and within the limits of the eastern borders of previous Persian empires. The last Arab push in the region would be towards the end of Ummayyad reign under Muhammad bin Qasim, after whom it would only be resumed under the "Turk" dynasties with more local capitals, who supplanted the Caliphate and expanded their domains both northwards and eastwards.
It took several centuries for Islam to spread across India and how it did so is a topic of intense debate. Some quarters hold that Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam by laws favoring Muslim citizens, and the threat of naked force: the "Conversion by the Sword Theory." Others hold that it occurred through inter-marriage, conversions, economic integration, to escape caste structures or at the hands of Sufi preachers. ..
One estimate of the number of people killed, based on the Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations was done by K.S. Lal in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million (implying that Muslims killed 80 million Hindus). His work has come under criticism for both its accuracy as well as his agenda.[[probably the greatest Genocide of all history was committed by Muslim murders of Hindus]].
Not all Muslim invaders were simply raiders. Later rulers fought on to win kingdoms and stayed to create new ruling dynasties. The practices of these new rulers and their subsequent heirs (some of whom were borne of Hindu wives) varied considerably. While some were uniformly hated, others developed a popular following. According to the memoirs of Ibn Batuta who travelled through Delhi in the 14th century, one of the previous sultans had been especially brutal and was deeply hated by Delhi's population. His memoirs also indicate that Muslims from the Arab world, from Persia and Turkey were often favored with important posts at the royal courts suggesting that locals may have played a somewhat subordinate role in the Delhi administration. The term "Turk" was commonly used to refer to their higher social status. S.A.A. Rizvi (The Wonder That Was India - II), however points to Muhammad bin Tughlaq as not only encouraging locals but promoting artisan groups such as cooks, barbers and gardeners to high administrative posts. In his reign, it is likely that conversions to Islam took place as a means of seeking greater social mobility and improved social standing." [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]>>.
And, "A Brief History of the Early Origins of the Conflict Between Islam and India" says, <<"One of the most revealing areas of early Islamic history was its actions in present-day India. The contrast of Indic religions like Buddhism and Hinduism with Islam during the Muslim expansion into South Asia in the 10th to 12th centuries reveals the foundations of conflicts we see played out around the world today, namely between Pakistan and India. Understanding the past is the first step to solving the issues the world faces today. The early entrance of Islam into South Asia reveals the source of the tensions facing Pakistan and India today. Although Pakistan would not emerge as a nation until centuries later with the exit of the British from India, it is important to see that that conflict was not created in a void, but was rather a direct continuation of ancient, but extremely influential Islamic empirical past.
Indic religions by nature have nothing to do with laws or the state, while in Islam, the two cannot be separated. Muslims will not follow any other system than that of Allah, and anytime man's law is considered sovereign, it becomes a denial of God. These fundamental differences between the two religions had tremendous implications for the ancient conflict between the Islamic Empire and India that began as early as the 10th century BCE and ended only with colonization by the British. It is through the eyes of these distinct religious differences that the nature and processes of both distinct sides can be understood. The nature of early Islamic expansion into India can be seen as a continuation of the power and hegemony it held since the time of the Prophet Muhammad. The process of Islamic expansion into India up to the formation of the Delhi Sultanate can best be described simply as colonialism. In India at the time of Islamic expansion, the nature of political formation at the time was based on its civil society, and as a direct result of this Indian direct rule, the Islamic Empire was at the same time aided and hindered in its progress into South Asia.
Both the nature and process of Islamic expansion are constantly intertwined, and must be analyzed as such. Muslims did not immerse themselves in the culture or the languages of the peoples that they conquered and brought into their empire. The populace was to be simply used as a means for financing the empire. Taxation, not identification, was the primary goal. This can be seen early in the development of the Islamic Empire. The fact that Islam was founded as a monotheistic religion implies that any other culture or religion is consequently wrong in their own beliefs. There was no room for an untaxed tolerance of other religions- tolerance came at a certain price. In addition, the initial function of the Caliph was to spread Islam to the rest of the world. In that there was only one universal law, it was necessary to take over all other governments and states. Nothing could be more against Islam than people across the world living under other sets of laws that were not from the one and only God. It was from this that the idea of Jihad emerged, and still can be seen today. Up until this time, power was pursued in polities, but with Jihad, it was the spread of the one truth of Islam that was pursued. Religion and war come together in the birth of Islam, and nomadic Bedouins begin to rule nations.
Looking at the early people of the Bedouin nomads can also do much to explain the nature and process of Islamic expansion into India. Bedouins did not have enough property to collect any taxes, nor was there agriculture. As a result, there was no division of labor or social stratification. As a result of this, there was no idea of a state or a government. The Prophet Muhammad would bring together the ideas of state, politics, law, and religion when he arrived on the scene. However, the Bedouins still did not have a form of revenue collection, and as a result it became clear that there was a need for a state to exist. Now the Muslims raided the Byzantine and Greek Empires with ferocity, bringing back vast sums of wealth for their fledgling state. They also turned and took over states that already existed, such as the Persia and Syria. The concept of another nation to Muslims was always something that was external- to be taken over from the outside of Islamic society, never integrated. For example, when Syria was conquered, they remained on the outside, setting up "Garrison Cities" (forts) to collect taxes. The Muslims left the Syrian bureaucracy entirely alone, content to simply collect revenue which they would send off to Medina. In the beginning, Muslims were not initially interested in converting the populations that they conquered. They could not tax converted populations at the rates that they could tax the infidel. Islam continued to take over nations, but was not accountable at all to the people they conquered. Revolts occurred all over the Empire at various times, showing that this was indeed not an integrated society, but rather one that was to collect taxes alone. This nature and process defined Islamic expansion into India.[source - A Brief History of the Early Origins of the Conflict Between Islam and India by David Clem]
REFERENCES - FOR DOUBTERS TO CHECK OUT:
[some references for those who wish to know more] www.netscape.com/submit/?storyUrl=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.htmlhttp://www.netscape.com/submit/?storyUrl=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html| digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.htmlhttp://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html| www.newsvine.com/_wine/save?u=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html&h=A+Brief+History+of+the+Early+Origins+of+the+Conflict+Between+Islam+and+India+-+Associated+Content+-+Associated+Contenthttp://www.newsvine.com/_wine/save?u=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html&h=A+Brief+History+of+the+Early+Origins+of+the+Conflict+Between+Islam+and+India+-+Associated+Content+-+Associated+Content| del.icio.us/submit/?url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html&description=Check out A Brief History of the Early Origins of the Conflict Between Islam and India - Submitted by David Clem at Associated Content&tags=India Islam Islamichttp://del.icio.us/submit/?url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html&description=Check out A Brief History of the Early Origins of the Conflict Between Islam and India - Submitted by David Clem at Associated Content&tags=India Islam Islamic| www.furl.net/storeIt.jsp?u=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.htmlhttp://www.furl.net/storeIt.jsp?u=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html| myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?t=&u=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.htmlhttp://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?t=&u=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html| www.spurl.net/spurl.php?url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.htmlhttp://www.spurl.net/spurl.php?url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html| www.rawsugar.com/pages/tagger.faces?turl=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.htmlhttp://www.rawsugar.com/pages/tagger.faces?turl=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html| simpy.com/simpy/LinkAdd.do?title=43%20Folders&href=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.htmlhttp://simpy.com/simpy/LinkAdd.do?title=43%20Folders&href=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html| www.shadows.com/features/tcr.htm?url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.htmlhttp://www.shadows.com/features/tcr.htm?url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html| www.blinklist.com/index.php?Action=Blink/addblink.php&Url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.htmlhttp://www.blinklist.com/index.php?Action=Blink/addblink.php&Url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47564/a_brief_history_of_the_early_origins.html| More ยป
A Concise History of India by Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf
Your Friend in Christ Iris89