Evaluating the Islamic Genocide of Hindus

“The Partition Holocaust”: the term is frequently used in Hindu pamphlets concerning Islam and the…

“The Partition Holocaust”: the term is frequently used in Hindu pamphlets concerning Islam and the birth of its modern political embodiment in the Subcontinent, the state of Pakistan. Is such language warranted, or is it a ridicule-inviting exaggeration?

To give an idea of the context of this question, we must note that the term “genocide” is used very loosely these days. One of the charges by a Spanish judge against Chilean ex-dictator Pinochet, so as to get him extradited from Great Britain in autumn 1998, was “genocide”. This was his way of making Pinochet internationally accountable for having killed a few Spanish citizens: alleging a crime serious enough to overrule normal constraints based on diplomatic immunity and national sovereignty. Yet, whatever Pinochet’s crimes, it is simply ridiculous to charge that he ever intended to exterminate the Spanish nation. In the current competition for victim status, all kinds of interest groups are blatantly overbidding in order to get their piece of the entitlement to attention and solidarity.

Jewish children behind a barbed wire fence at Auschwitz

The Nazi Holocaust killed the majority of European Jewry (an estimated 5.1 million according to Raul Hilberg, 5.27 million according to the Munich-based Institut für Zeitgeschichte) and about 30% of the Jewish people worldwide. How many victim groups can say as much? The Partition pogroms killed hardly 0.3% of the Hindus, and though it annihilated the Hindu presence in all the provinces of Pakistan except for parts of Sindh and East Bengal, it did so mostly by putting the Hindus to flight (at least seven million) rather than by killing them (probably half a million). Likewise, the ethnic cleansing of a quarter million Hindus from Kashmir in 1990 followed the strategy of “killing one to expel a hundred”, which is not the same thing as killing them all; in practice, about 1,500 were killed. Partition featured some local massacres of genocidal type, with the Sikhs as the most wanted victims, but in relative as well as absolute figures, this does not match the Holocaust.

Among genocides, the Holocaust was a very special case (e.g. the attempt to carry it out in secrecy is unique), and it serves no good purpose to blur that specificity by extending the term to all genocides in general. The term “Holocaust”, though first used in a genocidal sense to describe the Armenian genocide of 1915, is now in effect synonymous with the specifically Jewish experience at the hands of the Nazis in 1941-45. But does even the more general term “genocide” apply to what Hinduism suffered at the hands of Islam?

Complete genocide

“Genocide” means the intentional attempt to destroy an ethnic community, or by extension any community constituted by bonds of kinship, of common religion or ideology, of common socio-economic position, or of common race. The pure form is the complete extermination of every man, woman and child of the group. Examples include the complete extermination of the native Tasmanians and many Amerindian nations from Patagonia to Canada by European settlers in the 16th-19th century. The most notorious attempt was the Nazi “final solution of the Jewish question” in 1941-45. In April-May 1994, Hutu militias in Rwanda went about slaughtering the Tutsi minority, killing ca. 800,000, in anticipation of the conquest of their country by a Uganda-based Tutsi army. Though improvised and executed with primitive weapons, the Rwandan genocide made more victims per day than the Holocaust.

Photos of the Bangladesh War of 1971

Hindus suffered such attempted extermination in East Bengal in 1971, when the Pakistani Army killed 1 to 3 million people, with Hindus as their most wanted target. This fact is strictly ignored in most writing about Hindu-Muslim relations, in spite (or rather because) of its serious implication that even the lowest estimate of the Hindu death toll in 1971 makes Hindus by far the most numerous victims of Hindu-Muslim violence in the post-colonial period. It is significant that no serious count or religion-wise breakdown of the death toll has been attempted: the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi ruling classes all agree that this would feed Hindu grievances against Muslims.

Nandan Vyas (“Hindu Genocide in East Pakistan”, Young India, January 1995) has argued convincingly that the number of Hindu victims in the 1971 genocide was approximately 2.4 million, or about 80%. In comparing the population figures for 1961 and 1971, and taking the observed natural growth rhythm into account, Vyas finds that the Hindu population has remained stable at 9.5 million when it should have increased to nearly 13 million (13.23 million if the same growth rhythm were assumed for Hindus as for Muslims). Of the missing 3.5 million people (if not more), 1.1 million can be explained: it is the number of Hindu refugees settled in India prior to the genocide. The Hindu refugees at the time of the genocide, about 8 million, all went back after the ordeal, partly because the Indian government forced them to it, partly because the new state of Bangladesh was conceived as a secular state; the trickle of Hindu refugees into India only resumed in 1974, when the first steps towards islamization of the polity were taken. This leaves 2.4 million missing Hindus to be explained. Taking into account a number of Hindu children born to refugees in India rather than in Bangladesh, and a possible settlement of 1971 refugees in India, it is fair to estimate the disappeared Hindus at about 2 million.

While India-watchers wax indignant about communal riots in India killing up to 20,000 people since 1948, allegedly in a proportion of three Muslims to one Hindu, the best-kept secret of the post-Independence Hindu-Muslim conflict is that in the subcontinent as a whole, the overwhelming majority of the victims have been Hindus. Even apart from the 1971 genocide, “ordinary” pogroms in East Pakistan in 1950 alone killed more Hindus than the total number of riot victims in India since 1948.

Selective genocide

A second, less extreme type of genocide consists in killing a sufficient number who form the backbone of the group’s collective identity, and assimilating the leaderless masses into the dominant community. This has been the Chinese policy in Tibet, killing over a million Tibetans while assimilating the survivors into Chinese culture by flooding their country with Chinese settlers. It was also Stalin’s policy in eastern Poland and the Baltic states after they fell into his hands under the 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact, exemplified by the massacre of thousands of Polish army officers in Katyn. Stalin’s policies combining murder of the elites, deportation of entire ethnic groups and ruthless oppression of the survivors was prefigured in antiquity by the Assyrians, whose deportation of the ten northern (now “lost”) tribes of Israel is attested in the Bible.

Hitler Stalin Pact

During the Islamic conquests in India, it was a typical policy to single out the Brahmins for slaughter, after the Hindu warrior class had been bled on the battlefield. Even the Portuguese in Malabar and Goa followed this policy in the 16th century, as can be deduced from Hindu-Portuguese treaty clauses prohibiting the Portuguese from killing Brahmins.

In antiquity, such partial genocide typically targeted the men for slaughter and the women and children for slavery or concubinage. Thus, in 416 BCE, the Athenians were angered at the Melians’ reluctance to join the war against Sparta, and to set an example for other client states, Athens had Melos repopulated with Athenian colonists after killing its men and enslaving its women. Another example would be the slaughter of the Jews of Medina by Mohammed in 626 CE: after expelling two Jewish tribes, the third one, the Banu Quraiza, were exterminated: all the ca. 700 men were beheaded, while the women and children were sold into slavery, with the Prophet keeping the most beautiful woman as his concubine (she refused to marry him).

Art depicting the extermination of Banu Quraiza.

Hindus too experienced this treatment at the hands of Islamic conquerors, e.g. when Mohammed bin Qasim conquered the lower Indus basin in 712 CE. Thus, in Multan, according to the Chach-Nama, “six thousand warriors were put to death, and all their relations and dependents were taken as slaves”. This is why Rajput women committed mass suicide to save their honour in the face of the imminent entry of victorious Muslim armies, e.g. 8,000 women immolated themselves during Akbar’s capture of Chittorgarh in 1568 (where this most enlightened ruler also killed 30,000 non-combatants). During the Partition pogroms and the East Bengali genocide, mass rape of Hindu women after the slaughter of their fathers and husbands was a frequent event.

At this point, however, we should not overlook a puzzling episode in Hindu legend which describes a similar behaviour by a Hindu conqueror: Parashurama, deified as the 6th incarnation of Vishnu, killed all the adult male Kshatriyas for several generations, until only women were left, and then had Brahmins father a new generation upon them. Just a story, or reference to a historic genocide?

Genocide in the Bible

For full-blooded genocide, however, the book to consult is the Bible, which describes cases of both partial and complete genocide. The first modest attempt was the killing by Jacob’s sons of all the males in the Canaanite tribe of Shekhem, the fiancé of their own sister Dina. The motive was pride of pedigree: having immigrated from the civilizational centre of Ur in Mesopotamia, Abraham’s tribe refused all intermarriage with the native people of Canaan (thus, Rebecca favoured Jacob over Esau because Jacob married his nieces while Esau married local women).

Full-scale genocide was ordered by God, and executed by his faithful, during the conquest of Canaan by Moses and Joshua. In the defeated cities outside the Promised Land, they had to kill all the men but keep the women as slaves or concubines. Inside the Promised Land, by contrast, the conquerors were ordered to kill every single man, woman and child. All the Canaanites and Amalekites were killed. Here, the stated reason was that God wanted to prevent the coexistence of His people with Pagans, which would result in religious syncretism and the restoration of polytheism.

As we only have a literary record of this genocide, liberal theologians uncomfortable with a genocidal God have argued that this Canaanite genocide was only fiction. To be sure, genocide fiction exists, e.g. the Biblical story that the Egyptians had all newborn male Israelites killed is inconsistent with all other data in the Biblical narrative itself (as well as unattested in the numerous and detailed Egyptian inscriptions), and apparently only served to underpin the story of Moses’ arrival in the Pharaoh’s court in a basket on the river, a story modelled on the then-popular life story of Sargon of Akkad. Yet, the narrative of the conquest of Canaan is full of military detail uncommon in fiction; unlike other parts of the Bible, it is almost without any miracles, factual through and through.

And even if we suppose that the story is fictional, what would it say about the editors that they attributed genocidal intentions and injunctions to their God? If He was non-genocidal and good in reality, why turn him into a genocidal and prima facie evil Being? On balance, it is slightly more comforting to accept that the Bible editors described a genocide because they wanted to be truthful and relate real events. After all, the great and outstanding thing about the Bible narrative is its realism, its refusal to idealize its heroes. We get to see Jacob deceiving Isaac and Esau, then Laban deceiving Jacob; David’s heroism and ingenuity in battle, but also his treachery in making Bathseba his own, and later his descent into senility; Salomon’s palace intrigues in the war of succession along with his pearls of wisdom. Against that background, it would be inconsistent to censor the Canaanite genocide as merely a fictional interpolation.

Indirect Genocide

A third type of genocide consists in preventing procreation among a targeted population. Till recently, it was US policy to promote sterilization among Native American women, even applying it secretly during postnatal care or other operations. The Tibetans too have been subjected to this treatment. In the Muslim world, male slaves were often castrated, which partly explains why Iraq has no Black population even though it once had hundreds of thousands of Black slaves. The practice also existed in India on a smaller scale, though the much-maligned Moghul emperor Aurangzeb tried to put an end to it, mainly because eunuchs brought endless corruption in the court. The hijra community is a left-over of this Islamic institution (in ancient India, harems were tended by old men or naturally napunsak/impotent men, tested by having to spend the night with a prostitute without showing signs of virile excitement).

Bengal famine.

A fourth type of genocide is when mass killing takes place unintentionally, as collateral damage of foolish policies, e.g. Chairman Mao’s Great Leap Forward inducing the greatest man-made mass starvation killing 20 million or more, or the British war requisitions causing the Bengal famine of 1943 killing some 3 million; or as collateral damage of other forms of oppression. Unlike the deliberate genocide of Native Americans in parts of the USA or Argentina, the death of millions of Natives in Central America after the first Spanish conquests was at least partly the unintended side-effect of the hardships of forced labour and the contact with new diseases brought by the Europeans. In contrast with Nazi and Soviet work camps, where forced labour had the dual purpose of economic profit and a slow but sure death of the inmates, there is no evidence that the Spanish wanted their Native labourers to die. After all, their replacement with African slaves required a large extra investment.

The Atlantic slave trade itself caused mass death among the transported slaves, just as in the already long-standing Arab slave trade, but it is obvious that purely for the sake of profit, the slave-traders preferred as many slaves as possible to arrive at the slave markets alive. Likewise, the Christian c.q. Islamic contempt for Pagans made them rather careless with the lives of Native Americans, Africans or Hindus, so that millions of them were killed, and yet this was not deliberate genocide. Of course they wanted to annihilate Pagan religions like Hinduism, but in principle, the missionary religions wished to convert the unbelievers, and preferred not to kill them unless this was necessary for establishing the power of the True Faith.

That is why the mass killing of Hindus by Muslims rarely took place in peacetime, but typically in the fervour immediately following military victories, e.g. the fall of the metropolis of Vijayanagar in 1565 was “celebrated” with a general massacre and arson. Once Muslim power was established, Muslim rulers sought to exploit and humiliate rather than kill the Hindus, and discourage rebellion by making some sort of compromise. Not that peacetime was all that peaceful, for as Fernand Braudel wrote in A History of Civilizations (Penguin 1988/1963, p.232-236), Islamic rule in India as a “colonial experiment” was “extremely violent”, and “the Muslims could not rule the country except by systematic terror. Cruelty was the norm — burnings, summary executions, crucifixions or impalements, inventive tortures. Hindu temples were destroyed to make way for mosques. On occasion there were forced conversions. If ever there were an uprising, it was instantly and savagely repressed: houses were burned, the countryside was laid waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as slaves.”

Though all these small acts of terror added up to a death toll of genocidal proportions, no organized genocide of the Holocaust type took place. One constraint on Muslim zeal for Holy War was the endemic inter-Muslim warfare and intrigue (no history of a royal house was bloodier than that of the Delhi Sultanate 1206-1525), another the prevalence of the Hanifite school of Islamic law in India. This is the only one among the four law schools in Sunni Islam which allows Pagans to subsist as zimmis, dis-empowered third-class citizens paying a special tax for the favour of being tolerated; the other three schools of jurisprudence ruled that Pagans, as opposed to Christians and Jews, had to be given a choice between Islam and death.

Staggering numbers also died as collateral damage of the deliberate impoverishment by Sultans like Alauddin Khilji and Jahangir. As Braudel put it: “The levies it had to pay were so crushing that one catastrophic harvest was enough to unleash famines and epidemics capable of killing a million people at a time. Appalling poverty was the constant counterpart of the conquerors’ opulence.”

Genocide by any other name

In some cases, terminological purists object to mass murder being described as “genocide”, viz. when it targets groups defined by other criteria than ethnicity. Stalin’s “genocide” through organized famine in Ukraine killed some 7 million people (lowest estimate is 4 million) in 1931-33, the largest-ever deliberate mass murder in peacetime, but its victims were targeted because of their economic and political positions, not because of their nationhood. Though it makes no difference to the victims, this was not strictly genocide or “nation murder”, but “class murder”. Likewise, the killing of perhaps two million Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge was not an attempt to destroy the Cambodian nation; it was rather an attempt to “purify” the nation of its bourgeois class.

The killing of large groups of ideological dissenters is a constant in the history of the monotheistic faiths, of which Marxism has been termed a modern offshoot, starting with the killing of some polytheistic priests by Pharaoh Akhenaton and, shortly after, the treacherous killing of 3,000 worshippers of the Golden Calf by Moses (they had been encouraged to come out in the open by Moses’ brother Aaron, not unlike Chairman Mao’s “hundred flowers” campaign which encouraged dissenters to speak freely, all the better to eliminate them later). Mass killing accompanied the christianization of Saxony by Charlemagne (ca. 800 CE) and of East Prussia by the Teutonic Knights (13th century). In 1209-29, French Catholics massacred the heretical Cathars. Wars between Muslims and Christians, and between Catholics and Protestants, killed millions both in deliberate massacres and as collateral damage, e.g. seven million Germans in 1618-48. Though the Turkish government which ordered the killing of a million Armenians in 1915 was motivated by a mixture of purely military, secular-nationalistic and Islamic considerations, the fervour with which the local Turks and Kurds participated in the slaughter was clearly due to their Islamic conditioning of hatred against non-Muslims.

This ideological killing could be distinguished from genocide in the strict sense, because ethnicity was not the reason for the slaughter. While this caution may complicate matters for the Ukrainians or Cambodians, it does not apply to the case of Hinduism: like the Jews, the Hindus have historically been both a religion and a nation (or at least, casteists might argue, a conglomerate of nations). Attempts to kill all Hindus of a given region may legitimately be termed genocide.

For its sheer magnitude in scope and death toll, coupled with its occasional (though not continuous) intention to exterminate entire Hindu communities, the Islamic campaign against Hinduism, which was never fully called off since the first naval invasion in 636 CE, can without exaggeration be termed genocide. To quote Will Durant’s famous line: “The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.” (Story of Civilization, vol.1, Our Oriental Heritage, New York 1972, p.459)

Hinduism’s losses

There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like “punishing” the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty. The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526). The Moghuls (1526-1857), even Babar and Aurangzeb, were fairly restrained tyrants by comparison. Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate, but that would be hard to substantiate; research into the magnitude of the damage Islam did to India is yet to start in right earnest.

Note that attempts are made to deny this history. In Indian schoolbooks and the media, an idyllic picture of Hindu-Muslim harmony in the pre-British period is propagated in outright contradiction with the testimony of the primary sources. Like Holocaust denial, this propaganda can be called negationism. The really daring negationists don’t just deny the crimes against Hindus, they invert the picture and blame the Hindus themselves. Thus, it is routinely alleged that Hindus persecuted and destroyed Buddhism; in reality, Buddhist monasteries and universities flourished under Hindu rule, but their thousands of monks were killed by Ghori and his lieutenants.

Timur Lenk

Apart from actual killing, millions of Hindus disappeared by way of enslavement. After every conquest by a Muslim invader, slave markets in Bagdad and Samarkand were flooded with Hindus. Slaves were likely to die of hardship, e.g. the mountain range Hindu Koh, “Indian mountain”, was renamed Hindu Kush, “Hindu-killer”, when one cold night in the reign of Timur Lenk (1398-99), a hundred thousand Hindu slaves died there while on transport to Central Asia. Though Timur conquered Delhi from another Muslim ruler, he recorded in his journal that he made sure his pillaging soldiers spared the Muslim quarter, while in the Hindu areas, they took “twenty slaves each”. Hindu slaves were converted to Islam, and when their descendants gained their freedom, they swelled the numbers of the Muslim community. It is a cruel twist of history that the Muslims who forced Partition on India were partly the progeny of Hindus enslaved by Islam.


The Hindu notion of Karma has come under fire from Christian and secularist polemicists as part of the current backlash against New Age thinking. Allegedly, the doctrine of Karma implies that the victims of the Holocaust and other massacres had deserved their fate. A naive understanding of Karma, divorced from its Hindu context, could indeed lead to such ideas. Worse, it could be said that the Jews as a nation had incurred genocidal karma by the genocide which their ancestors committed on the Canaanites. Likewise, it could be argued that the Native Americans had it coming: recent research (by Walter Neves from Brazil as well as by US scientists) has shown that in ca. 8000 BC, the Mongoloid Native American populations replaced an earlier American population closely resembling the Australian Aborigines — the first American genocide?

More generally, if Karma explains suffering and “apparent” injustice as a profound form of justice, a way of reaping the karmic rewards of one’s own actions, are we not perversely justifying every injustice? These questions should not be taken lightly. However, the Hindu understanding of reincarnation militates against the doctrine of genocidal “group karma” outlined above. An individual can incarnate in any community, even in other species, and need not be reborn among his own progeny. If Canaanites killed by the Israelites have indeed reincarnated, some may have been Nazi camp guards and others Jewish Holocaust victims. There is no reason to assume that the members of today’s victim group are the reincarnated souls of the bullies of yesteryear, returning to suffer their due punishment. That is the difference between karma and genetics: karma is taken along by the individual soul, not passed on in the family line.

More fundamentally, we should outgrow this childish (and in this case, downright embarrassing) view of karma as a matter of reward and punishment. Does the killer of a million people return a million times as a murder victim to suffer the full measure of his deserved punishment? Rather, karma is a law of conservation: you are reborn with the basic pattern of desires and conditionings which characterized you when you died last time around. The concrete experiences and actions which shaped that pattern, however, are history: they only survive insofar as they have shaped your psychic karma pattern, not as a precise account of merits and demerits to be paid off by corresponding amounts of suffering and pleasure.

One lesson to be learned from genocide history pertains to Karma, the law of cause and effect, in a more down-to-earth sense: suffering genocide is the karmic reward of weakness. That is one conclusion which the Jews have drawn from their genocide experience: they created a modern and militarily strong state. Even more importantly, they helped foster an awareness of the history of their persecution among their former persecutors, the Christians, which makes it unlikely that Christians will target them again. In this respect, the Hindus have so far failed completely. With numerous Holocaust memorials already functioning, one more memorial is being built in Berlin by the heirs of the perpetrators of the Holocaust; but there is not even one memorial to the Hindu genocide, because even the victim community doesn’t bother, let alone the perpetrators.

This different treatment of the past has implications for the future. Thus, Israel’s nuclear programme is accepted as a matter of course, justified by the country’s genuine security concerns; but when India, which has equally legitimate security concerns, conducted nuclear tests, it provoked American sanctions. If the world ignores Hindu security concerns, one of the reasons is that Hindus have never bothered to tell the world how many Hindus have been killed already.


What should Hindus say to Muslims when they consider the record of Islam in Hindu lands? It is first of all very important not to allot guilt wrongly. Notions of collective or hereditary guilt should be avoided. Today’s Muslims cannot help it that other Muslims did certain things in 712 or 1565 or 1971. One thing they can do, however, is to critically reread their scripture to discern the doctrinal factors of Muslim violence against Hindus and Hinduism. Of course, even without scriptural injunction, people get violent and wage wars; if Mahmud Ghaznavi hadn’t come, some of the people he killed would have died in other, non-religious conflicts. But the basic Quranic doctrine of hatred against the unbelievers has also encouraged many good-natured and pious people to take up the sword against Hindus and other Pagans, not because they couldn’t control their aggressive instincts, but because they had been told that killing unbelievers was a meritorious act. Good people have perpetrated evil because religious authorities had depicted it as good.

This is material for a no-nonsense dialogue between Hindus and Muslims. But before Hindus address Muslims about this, it is imperative that they inform themselves about this painful history. Apart from unreflected grievances, Hindus have so far not developed a serious critique of Islam’s doctrine and historical record. Often practising very sentimental, un-philosophical varieties of their own religion, most Hindus have very sketchy and distorted images of rival religions. Thus, they say that Mohammed was an Avatar of Vishnu, and then think that they have cleverly solved the Hindu-Muslim conflict by flattering the Prophet (in fact, it is an insult to basic Muslim beliefs, which reject divine incarnation, apart from indirectly associating the Prophet with Vishnu’s incarnation as a pig). Instead of the silly sop stories which pass as conducive to secularism, Hindus should acquaint themselves with real history and real religious doctrines.

Another thing which we should not forget is that Islam is ultimately rooted in human nature. We need not believe the Muslim claim that the Quran is of divine origin; but then it is not of diabolical origin either, it is a human document. The Quran is in all respects the product of a 7th-century Arab businessman vaguely acquainted with Judeo-Christian notions of monotheism and prophetism, and the good and evil elements in it are very human. Even its negative elements appealed to human instincts, e.g. when Mohammed promised a share in the booty of the caravans he robbed, numerous Arab Pagans took the bait and joined him. The undesirable elements in Islamic doctrine stem from human nature, and can in essence be found elsewhere as well. Keeping that in mind, it should be possible to make a fair evaluation of Islam’s career in India on the basis of factual history.

(Paper presented at the World Association for Vedic Studies’ conference in Hoboken NJ, 2000)

  • Zohrab

    ………….But as long as the Quran contains verses that seem to be exhortations to kill infidels, and no official correction is made that these verses refer only to history…………….

    Totally untrue! the word KAFIR, normally translated as INFIDELS is not correct actually. One who learnt everything about Islam and still not accepting that it is the ultimate truth and also trying to harm Islam and Muslims is actually a KAFIR. The majority of common folks who don’t know anything will not fall in this category. Every Muslim is supposed to be a brand ambassador of Islam only through propagation. If they started to kill everyone branding infidels, how they could perform this duty? There is a famous verse in Quran: ” You have your religion and I have mine.” Even the Prophet failed to convert his own uncle who was his godfather until his death; the Prophet was warned from imposing; and commanded just to pass the message.

    Well……! As I put it at the above it’s one of the usual meticulously calculated attempts of people with vested interest to spread hatemongering and Islamophobia by quoting out of context. With an unbiased mindset, one could see the truth from the Quran itself.

    • yogesh

      I always admire those Muslims who read and engage in discussion rather than violence. In that sense, although I entirely disagree with your supremacist claim of your faith, I respect that at least you have written that clearly. Now do this thing, whatever you have written here about infidels, try to preach and imbibe that to your fellow coreligionists.

      And let me suggest what you have not realized with your blind faith in your religion. The root cause most of the religion based violence in the world is this: my faith, my god and my religion is the best and the only TRUE one. Rest are false or below my standard. And it is my duty to propagate or impose my version on God on others.

      There are ample examples of this claim in your texts.

      • Zohrab

        Thanks for your response. I nowhere shown any supremacist mindset and I didn’t say I am right either. I was explaining what Islam and Quran’s stance on relevant matters. Also I was pointing out that the Quran absolutely declares the freedom of choice to each an everybody whatever their faith be. No proselytization allowed! Propagation by making ones own life as example only. I would appreciate your re-reading of my post once again without any prejudice.

        As you said ………there are ample examples of claim in your texts……………! That’s what I call ‘quoting out of context’ to manipulate the scripture to suite to somebody’s convenience!

        For your information, every verse has a background on its revelation, based on what it should be interpreted. Otherwise, it falls in the ‘quoting out of context’ category. For a broad understanding please click the following link:


    • Bihari

      Alas, if only others thought like you. They did not and it did result in an annihilation of millions of others. Monotheistic religions do have face the historical truth of genocides. For the few victims who still live, we also have to face the truth and be more vigilant.

  • Slasher

    Islamic Brainwashing begins at birth. Islamic brainwashing has resulted in millions of our Indian Muslims’ ancestors maimed, killed and raped by the completely diabolical and Ignorant teachings of Muhammad.

    In fact, many millions of Muslims in India today would be fearless Hindus if their forefathers had not succumbed to the murderers of Islam when they held a knife to his throat or threatened to rape his wife and kids. Even after he promised to convert, they raped them anyway. Such is the abnormal, inhuman cruelty of Islam.

    All Hindus and Muslims must read the “Hadiths” and not the Quran. The “Hadiths” are like the diary of Muhammad – he made one of his disciples record his every move. He was such a megalomaniac – convinced of his own divinity. Alas, if you read it, you will know that all the inhuman cruel deeds of Muslims are nothing but a copy-cat rehash of all the inhuman, cruel deeds that Muhammad did. So don’t believe Muslims who tell you that ISIS does not represent Islam. It is a lie because Muhammad himself is the inspiration for ISIS and they themselves say so. So who are the rest of the Muslims to say it is not? Are they then ready to disawow Muhammad because he performed those same inhuman acts? No.

    We must educate Indian Muslims to the horrors of Islam. IT IS ABOUT TIME…

    Ask all your friends to watch the video below that will blow their minds.

    Anwar Shaikh was an Ex-muslim who converted to Hinduism and became an expert in distinguishing between the tenets of Islam and Hinduism. You can learn more about Islam in 22 mins than all their “Holy” books put together.


  • Sibby

    Excellent article. The sad part is (left oriented) Historians and Intellectuals do not forget to remind Hindus that they are responsible for marginalization of Muslims. They only want us to remember selective history where more muslims were killed than hindus example 2002 Gujarat riots. They want to sympathize with Aurangzeeb and Tipu Sultan hailing them as “great kings” in their articles and even justifying their atrocities like Jazia tax, destruction of temples to mosques and forced conversion etc. At the same time these historians have all the problem with calling Prathvi Raj Chauhan as “great king”. For them, reading about any historical “hindu” inventors and discoverers as saffronization of education.

    I blame these so called Historians, intellectuals for partition (most of them belonging to Congress party). They wrongly blame Britishers for partition. It was Nehru and Jinnah’s political interest that they wanted partition. Kashmiri Pandits have become refugees in their own country with no political party or media or historian supporting them. Any ill done my illegal Bangladeshi immigrant is conveniently portrayed as ill done my hindus for example church attack. We have hindu majority states like Bihar and Maharashtra where we had Muslim CMs but would we ever see a non Muslim CM for Jammu and Kashmir. Will media ever focus on ever decreasing population of Parsis?

    Must read this excellent article written in 1995 about Sahitya Academy (http://www.outlookindia.com/article/the-literary-mafia/200102)

    We are all indians, not Hindus, Muslims, Jains, or Parsi.or Dalits or Bhrahmins. Do not try to divide us.

    • Savarkar’s Disciple

      Dont wanna be Harsh with you but if I remember correctly you mentioned earlier in a discussion that RELIGION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM.
      Mr.Elst here thinks that Muhammad and his Islam are the cause for many of the problems and hence Muslims must be told the truth about it and a path must be paved for them to come out of ISLAM.
      So what are your views?

      • Sibby

        If you read my full comment, I do say that religion has something to do with terrorism. ISI and ISIS invoke religion to justify terrorist acts. This DOES NOT mean the all muslims are terrorist or Islam promotes terrorism. Main teaching of islamic culture is brotherhood which is a good thing but this formation of “brotherhood” can be used for groupism to promote terrorism. This is the reason that politics and Islam has very well merged into each other. When I say that religion has nothing do with terrorism, I mean to say that it is not islam to be blamed for terrorism but its misinterpretation is responsible for it. Religion needs to evolve with time. At the same time we cannot DENY the fact that most wanted terrorist in India as well as in world tend to be from one particular religion.

        I am of opinion that we should teach the difference between brotherhood and terrorism to children. Media and historians tend to hide these facts. I had a chance to visit (muslim majority) Turkey where they are very open about good and bad things done by Sultans. For example, they openly say that Churches were converted to Mosques by the Sultan and they do agree that it was a BAD move by Sultan. If you say similar thing in India, you are labelled are right wing extremist. Such topics are taboo in India. All rulers, Kings and Sultans are neither bad nor good, they are shades of grey. It does not mean that we should only focus on how good Arungzeeb was. We should also learn the bad things done by him. Same goes for any king irrespective of his religion. Then only we will understand complete history. In India, Akbar is considered a secular king but Shivaji is not. Though Shivaji had many muslim soldiers in his army, many nobles in his court were muslims and his muslim subjects by and large supported him.

        • Savarkar’s Disciple

          ///Though the Turkish government which ordered the killing of a million Armenians in 1915 was motivated by a mixture of purely military, secular-nationalistic and Islamic considerations, the fervour with which the local Turks and Kurds participated in the slaughter was clearly due to their Islamic conditioning of hatred against non-Muslims.///

          From the above piece.

          Either your a confused Hindu or a Secularist anyways Shivaji was a Hindu King and trying to call him Secular does a huge disservice.


          Also see why Secularism was not included By Dr.Ambedkar in the constitution

          • Sibby

            You were the one who asked for my opinion. It is completely up to you whether you like it or not. But please DO NOT call me names “confused Hindu or a Secularist”. I am a Indian and a believer of Vivekananda. “God is one but people call him different names”.

          • Savarkar’s Disciple

            Yes I did ask you for your opinion and I called you a Confused Hindu or a Secularist cause I believe that people like you are a threat and make the masses gullible anyways lets end the discussion here.You are entitled to your opinion just like I am to mine.Yes another thing please dont compare Shivaji to some so called Secular King.

          • Krispy K

            “God is one but people call him different names”

            True, in a sense. But the issue here is not about God, but about Islam. The latter is a murderous political ideology that uses a twisted notion of God as a tool to browbeat people into submission. As such, your notion that Islam “does not promote terrorism” is a confused one – it absolutely positively *does*. One way to look at it is this – while there will always be Muslims who have all the best qualities of man – love, compassion, generosity, acceptance and so on, as per their inner qualities – the nature of cults like Islam will ensure that Muslims who have base instincts for murder, terror, hate and criminality will have those tendencies nurtured and amplified.

            The problem of naively projecting Dharmic notions onto materialistic and demonic belief systems is that people lose sight of the bitter reality, which actively aids and abets the misery.

  • Luffy

    Slow Genocide of Hindus is currently happening in WB, UP, Bihar, Kerela and Telegana also. A lot of Bengalis have come to Ahmedabad and stay in slums. They pay 5000 Rs and seem from well-to-do families. Trouble is no one cares why they came to Ahmd in the first place. Europe on the other hand saw the threat of Islam and started Anti-Islamic Propaganda some 10-15 years back and they successfully made ISIS a bigger menace then Boko Haram while truth is ISIS is a baby in front of Boko Haram.

    I tried saying this in the article: http://myvoice.opindia.com/2015/12/setting-the-narrative-and-how-the-right-wing-has-lost-the-plot/ but apparently Right-Wing people are too busy abusing other right wingers, fence-sitters and thinking they are destroying Media with facts while the truth is they are losing the war. Wish they learn from Bihar and Delhi but they won’t.

    • Savarkar’s Disciple

      I read your views on the link provided by you and I am in complete agreement with your views.All I can say is that there is NO Hindu Intellectual Kshatriya Political party and the BJP with their confused ideology of Secularism and Socialism embedded in their Constitution and Psche end up taking one step forward while simulataneously taking 10 steps backwards.This is after they have a 282 plus majority that they cant push for any of the Hindu Agendas.I wonder what will happen when the Secularist Parties unite in 2019 even if the BJP end up with lets 232+20 ally seats ie 252 NDA I am very sure they will still not be able to form a govt.Just like the ealier screw up in the Delhi Elections,Hindus eventually will have to fend for themselves and things will get more and more violent.