#Just wanted to clear it up

[lazypotato10]

Mughal India - The biggest holocaust in world history

The world is all ears to the sob stories of Muslims. There is sympathy for their plight, there are worldwide protests and rampant Hinduphobia in the media if their interests are even slightly threatened and oftentimes, its the Muslims who are suffering the retribution over something which they instigated in the first place and then the blame game begins and the Hindus are held accountable for retaliation and being intolerant to the atrocious nature of this so called 'peaceful minority'.

The genocide suffered by the Hindus of India at the hands of Arab, Turkish, Mughal and Afghan occupying forces for a period of 800 years is as yet formally unrecognized by the world.

With the invasion of India by Mahmud Ghazni about 1000 A.D., began the Muslim invasions into the Indian subcontinent and they lasted for several centuries. Nadir Shah made a mountain of the skulls of the Hindus he killed in Delhi alone. Babur raised towers of Hindu skulls at Khanua when he defeated Rana Sanga in 1527 and later he repeated the same horrors after capturing the fort of Chanderi. Akbar ordered a general massacre of 30,000 Rajputs after he captured Chittorgarh in 1568. The Bahamani Sultans had an annual agenda of killing a minimum of 100,000 Hindus every year.

The history of medieval India is full of such instances. The holocaust of the Hindus in India continued for 800 years, till the brutal regimes were effectively overpowered in a life and death struggle by the Sikhs in Punjab and the Hindu Maratha armies in other parts of India in the late 1700’s.

We have elaborate literary evidence of the world’s biggest holocaust from existing historical contemporary eyewitness accounts. The historians and biographers of the invading armies and subsequent rulers of India have left quite detailed records of the atrocities they committed in their day-to-day encounters with India’s Hindus.

These contemporary records boasted about and glorified the crimes that were committed and the genocide of tens of millions of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains, mass rapes of women and the destruction of thousands of ancient Hindu/Buddhist temples and libraries have been well documented and provide solid proof of the world’s biggest holocaust.

**Quotes from modern historians**

Dr. Koenraad Elst in his article “Was There an Islamic Genocide of Hindus?” states:

“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).“

He also writes in his book “Negation in India”:

“The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter.”

Will Durant argued in his 1935 book “The Story of Civilisation: Our Oriental Heritage” (page 459):

“The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period.”

Francois Gautier in his book ‘Rewriting Indian History’ (1996) wrote:

“The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis, or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks, more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese.”

Alain Danielou in his book, Histoire de l’ Inde writes:

“From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of ‘a holy war’ of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilizations, wiped out entire races.”

Irfan Husain in his article “Demons from the Past” observes:

“While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan. The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed. Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster.

“Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage…”

A sample of contemporary eyewitness accounts of the invaders and rulers, during the Indian conquests

The Afghan ruler Mahmud al-Ghazni invaded India no less than seventeen times between 1001 – 1026 AD. The book ‘Tarikh-i-Yamini’ – written by his secretary documents several episodes of his bloody military campaigns: “The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously at the Indian city of Thanesar that the stream was discolored, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it. The infidels deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river but many of them were slain, taken or drowned. Nearly fifty thousand men were killed.”

In the contemporary record – ‘ Taj-ul-Ma’asir’ by Hassn Nizam-i-Naishapuri, it is stated that when Qutb-ul- Din Aibak (of Turko – Afghan origin and the First Sultan of Delhi 1194 – 1210 AD) conquered Meerut, he demolished all the Hindu temples of the city and erected mosques on their sites. In the city of Aligarh, he converted Hindu inhabitants to Islam by the sword and beheaded all those who adhered to their own religion.

The Persian historian Wassaf writes in his book ‘Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat ul Asar’ that when the Alaul-Din Khilji (an Afghan of Turkish origin and second ruler of the Khilji Dynasty in India 1295-1316 AD) captured the city of Kambayat at the head of the Gulf of Cambay, he killed the adult male Hindu inhabitants for the glory of Islam, set flowing rivers of blood, sent the women of the country with all their gold, silver, and jewels, to his own home, and made about twenty thousand Hindu maidens his private slaves.

This ruler once asked his spiritual advisor (or ‘Qazi’) as to what was the Islamic law prescribed for the Hindus. The Qazi replied:

*“Hindus are like the mud, if silver is demanded from them, they must with the greatest humility offer gold. If a Mohammadan desires to spit into a Hindu’s mouth, the Hindu should open it wide for the purpose. God created the Hindus to be slaves of the Mohammadans. The Prophet hath ordained that, if the Hindus do not accept Islam, they should be imprisoned, tortured, finally put to death, and their property confiscated.”*

Timur was a Turkic conqueror and founder of the Timurid Dynasty. Timur’s Indian campaign (1398 – 1399 AD) was recorded in his memoirs, collectively known as ‘Tuzk-i-Timuri.’ In them, he vividly described probably the greatest gruesome act in the entire history of the world – where 100,000 Hindu prisoners of war in his camp were executed in a very short space of time. Timur after taking advice from his entourage says in his memoirs :

*“they said that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and foes of Islam at liberty."*

*“In fact, no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword"*

Timur thereupon resolved to put them to death. He proclaimed :

*“throughout the camp that every man who has infidel prisoners was to put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. 100,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasir-ud-din Umar, a counselor and a man of learning, who, in all his life had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives“.*

During his campaign in India – Timur describes the scene when his army conquered the Indian city of Delhi :

*“In a short space of time all the people in the Delhi fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour, the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers.*

*“They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground. All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death.”*

The Mughal emperor Babur (who ruled India from 1526 -1530 AD) writing in his memoirs called the ‘Baburnama’ – wrote: ” In AH 934 (2538 C.E.) I attacked Chanderi and by the grace of Allah captured it in a few hours. We got the infidels slaughtered and the place which had been Daru’l-Harb (nation of non-muslims) for years was made into a Daru’l-Islam (a Muslim nation).”

In Babur’s own words in a poem about killing Hindus (From the ‘Baburnama’ ), he wrote :

*“For the sake of Islam, I became a wanderer, I battled infidels and Hindus, I determined to become a martyr. Thank God I became a killer of Non-Muslims!”*

The atrocities of the Mughal ruler Shah Jahan (who ruled India between 1628 – 1658 AD) are mentioned in the contemporary record called: ‘Badshah Nama, Qazinivi & Badshah Nama, Lahori’ and goes on to state: “When Shuja was appointed as governor of Kabul he carried on a ruthless war in the Hindu territory beyond Indus…The sword of Islam yielded a rich crop of converts. Most of the women (to save their honor) burnt themselves to death. Those captured were distributed among Muslim Mansabdars (Noblemen)”

The Afghan ruler Ahmad Shah Abdali attacked India in 1757 AD and made his way to the holy Hindu city of Mathura, the Bethlehem of the Hindus and birthplace of Krishna.

The atrocities that followed are recorded in the contemporary chronicle called: ‘Tarikh-I-Alamgiri’ :

*“Abdali��s soldiers would be paid 5 Rupees (a sizeable amount at the time) for every enemy head brought in. Every horseman had loaded up all his horses with the plundered property, and atop of it rode the girl-captives and the slaves. The severed heads were tied up in rugs like bundles of grain and placed on the heads of the captives. Then the heads were stuck upon lances and taken to the gate of the chief minister for payment.*

*“It was an extraordinary display! Daily did this manner of slaughter and plundering proceed. And at night the shrieks of the women captives who were being raped deafened the ears of the people. All those heads that had been cut off were built into pillars, and the captive men upon whose heads those bloody bundles had been brought in, were made to grind corn, and then their heads too were cut off. These things went on all the way to the city of Agra, nor was any part of the country spared.”*

Banda Singh Bahadur was tortured to death after being imprisoned for 3 months. The heart of Banda Singh’s son was put in his mouth in an attempt to humiliate him

Why we should remember?

The biggest holocaust in world history has been whitewashed from history.

When we hear the word 'holocaust', most of us think immediately of the Jewish holocaust. Today, with increased awareness and countless cinema films and television documentaries, many of us are also aware of the holocaust of the Native American people, the genocide of the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire, and the millions of African lives lost during the Atlantic slave trade.

Europe and America produced at least a few thousand films highlighting the human misery caused by Hitler and his army. The films expose the horrors of the Nazi regime and reinforce the beliefs and attitude of the present day generation towards the evils of the Nazi dictatorship.

In contrast, look at India. There is hardly any awareness among the Indians of today of what happened to their ancestors in the past because a great majority of historians are reluctant to touch this sensitive subject.

**The world seems to either ignore or just does not seem to care about the many millions of lives lost during the 800 years long holocaust of Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists in India.**

The Indian historian Professor K.S. Lal estimates that the Hindu population in India decreased by 80 million between 1000 AD and 1525 AD, an extermination unparalleled in world history. This slaughter of millions of people occurred over regular periods during many centuries of Arab, Afghan, Turkish and Mughal rule in India.

Many Indian heroes emerged during these dark times, including the 10th Sikh Guru – Guru Gobind Singh and also the Hindu Maratha king – Shivaji Maharaj, who led the resistance against this tyranny and eventually led to its defeat by the late 1700s after centuries of death and destruction.

The modern world today is facing a global threat from organizations and groups of terrorists such as ISIS, Taliban, and Al-Qaeda whose ideology is chillingly similar to that of the perpetrators of the world’s biggest holocaust in India.

Let us hope that the bloody lessons of the past are learned so that history does not even have the remotest chance of repeating itself.

Never forgive. Never forget. Rise up.

[nat-20s]

Every time that the stakes are now So So So high in Doctor Who I'm like. Congratulations to Fourteen for well and truly fucking off. His ass is NOT dealing with death gods his ass is trying to get rid of the spider mites on the basil

[ruporas]

trigunned the hades or hadesed the trigun (id in alt)

[forgettable-au]

FORGETTABLE-AU (Page 61-64)

* I-I don't think we were talking about the same thing...

[BEGINNING] [PREVIOUS] [CONTINUE]

[hinamie]

u should think of tiny megu. To keep the stress at bay. You should draw him actually. Ooooo you wanna draw tiny megu getting the love he deserves so bad /j

he's with his 2 best friends

[sysig]

Permission to headbutt: Granted (Patreon)

[buggachat]

tbh I really like the idea of married Adrien and Marinette adopting their kids. Both because it's kind of a flex on Gabriel and Emilie (who thought that the appropriate response to difficulty conceiving was to hunt down ancient magical artifacts and then create a magical son that they could puppeteer and control...... because adoption/surrogates were apparently.... beneath them. or something.) but also because I just think it'd be really cute.

Like, imagine Ladybug and Chat Noir, heroes of Paris, adopting Parisian orphans. imagine Marinette and Adrien struggling to get on the good side of a "difficult" traumatized child who used to spend their days in the foster system fantasizing about Ladybug and Chat Noir saving them without realizing the new parents trying to connect with them rn ARE Ladybug and Chat Noir. Imagine them fostering kids themselves and just being A+ stellar parents between Adrien's patience and Marinette's attentiveness and both of their affection. idk I just think there's a lot there and it could be sosososo sweet

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Kiss Kiss Fallen Tree!

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[mourning-at-night]

jace i don’t feel good was so funny but also made me so sad. like that’s a teenager with a strawberry squishmallow keychain and a tamagotchi and she doesn’t feel good and she's tugging on a teacher’s sleeve about it. a teacher who should have been responsible for protecting her in the first place and didn’t. who is manipulating and using her and her friends to help fulfill the desires of a wrathful power-hungry egomaniac. porter and jace it’s on sight >:(

[starcurtain]

2.1 Penacony Spoilers!

I know the scene after Ratio's "betrayal" can be read a lot of ways but I am shocked I haven't seen more people interpret it as Ratio being so worried about Aventurine that he couldn't stay away even though he was supposed to.

We know:

1) Ratio absolutely knew Aventurine's plan from start to finish, both his gamble to create "death" in the dream and with the three cornerstones. (Wish people would stop underselling Ratio in their analyses; "Three chips are enough" is a direct enough clue that, genius as he is, Ratio would never miss.)

2) In his own words, Ratio was acting according to Aventurine's instructions while in Dewlight Pavilion and with Sunday and felt that he did a good job not giving them away.

I think most people are on the same page up to there, but then I've seen a lot of people interpreting this scene after Aventurine leaves Sunday's mansion as Aventurine being genuinely angry at Ratio (possibly after having gaslit himself into thinking Ratio was actually betraying him).

But this doesn't make much sense to me because:

1) Ratio actually has nothing to gain by selling Aventurine out to Sunday. They're on the same side in this mission. Information about a Stelleron on Penacony wouldn't be news anyone with a brain like Ratio's and why would he need someone else's research on Stellerons when he already has ties to the Genius Society through Screwllum and Herta, as well as the Astral Express where the Trailblazer is actively housing a Stelleron?

2) One of Aventurine's most notable lines of dialogue is how it's perfectly fine and expected for "friends" to use each other and backstab. This is his default understanding of partners--why would he suddenly be mad about something he expected from the start?

3) If the betrayal wasn't already planned and was just a possibility based on Aventurine's understanding of Ratio, why would he ever have revealed there were "three chips" (aka three cornerstones) in play? If even the betrayal over Topaz's stone wasn't planned, just assumed, why would Aventurine reveal the existence of the third stone? He would gain nothing from doing so.

Instead, I think it makes a lot more sense to interpret Aventurine's frustration with Ratio in this later scene as annoyance over Ratio taking an "unnecessary" risk:

1) As far as Sunday knows, Ratio had just very seriously betrayed Aventurine, completely selling him out and essentially sending him to his execution.

2) In the scene afterward, Aventurine is out in public in the middle of Penacony where The Family's eyes are always watching, yet Ratio walks right up to him to check on him. Why would someone who just sold you out come up to you immediately afterward to check on your health?!

3) It's only natural that Aventurine would pump the brakes and go "Wow, didn't think you'd show yourself after you just betrayed me, remember?" Because that's the act they are supposed to be keeping up! They're still being monitored; it's not safe to break character!

But Ratio is a genius, right, so why would he break character here? From the standpoint of the ploy itself, revealing to the Family that he and Aventurine were still on the same side would only jeopardize the plan, not help it.

The logical explanation, then, is that Ratio went to Aventurine here because he felt like he had to.

He had to check in and make sure the situation was still under Aventurine's control.

(In fact, the entire exchange through the middle of this scene is Aventurine and Ratio confirming the rest of their plot in a veiled manner: Ratio brings up the plan and mentions what's concealed in the gift money bag, Aventurine confirms the cornerstone is good to go; Ratio asks what his next step will be; Aventurine says he's going to do the insane thing of handing out cash while looking pathetic [aka fishing for Sparkle]. Ratio essentially asks if he's crazy enough to take the final gamble with his own life, which Aventurine confirms, and then Ratio sets them up for the finale by gifting him the doctor's note.)

Ratio was willing to risk ruining their entire plan--something Aventurine does seem to be frustrated about at first--just to ensure Aventurine still felt all right about the situation.

He needed to deliver his note demanding Aventurine stay alive.

He needed to tell Aventurine to come to him if the situation got too painful to bear.

In short, Ratio was worried enough that he could not stay away even though, for the sake of their plot, it would have made significantly more sense for him not to appear. The gain of breaking character was worth more to him than the risk of being caught.

You honestly don't even have to take this in a shipping context. The real point here is that Ratio is an incredibly good person who wasn't okay with Aventurine's self-sacrificial plan and who felt morally compelled to check on a person in pain. He's a healer through and through, and ignoring Aventurine in this condition--ignoring someone who was taking so much risk on themselves--simply wasn't possible for him, no matter the danger it posed to the plan.

But for those who do ship Ratio and Aventurine... I hope more people will come to see this scene as another example of Ratio's genuine concern for his mission partner! He did not have to appear here at all; it would have made much more sense for him to leave Aventurine to his own devices to uphold the illusion of their "betrayal." He showed up in this scene--very likely against Aventurine's expectations--because he was concerned for Aventurine's situation and wanted to ensure Aventurine knew he could fall back on Ratio's support at any time if the plan went awry.

tl;dr: I wish people would stop interpreting this scene as the aftermath of a betrayal. Aventurine wasn't ticked off with Ratio in this scene because he felt like he'd genuinely been backstabbed; he was ticked off because Ratio was literally breaking their pre-established "betrayer" character just to be fussy over Aventurine's safety and well-being. (Okay, and to double check on the plan, but let's be real, the first part was definitely more important. 👌)

[bacchuschucklefuck]

doing chibi is a good design exercise bc it forces u to think on shapes n essential details, essentially thumbnailing ur designs. its also a terrible design exercise bc it ends up looking cute no matter what

[rivalmelty]

listen if the existence of the book means there are an infinite number of realities then there’s at least one where fukuzawa took in the both of them and the ada was born on two pillars instead of just one

(pls do not tag as beast)

[ceilidho]

i can't stop thinking about Price being a regular at the place where you bartend. he always sits at the bar, but at the far end away from everyone else so that when you go to take his order, you're forced into this little, private bubble with him. he's just this big, looming presence in the room, elbows resting on the bar and making him look even wider, nursing a beer while flirting with you whenever you come by to check on him. probably way overtips too, to the point where you almost feel like you owe him because his tips alone pay your rent.

[bunnieswithknives]

GET HIS ASS FLOWERS! GET HIS ASS!!

Did Flowers target Dale specifically because of him shooting his own son?

Yes! Sort of. But don't mistake anything Flowers does to be out of genuine good will

[ghost-bxrd]

You guys ever think about an AU where Jason goes to hound Tim through Titans Tower, and, mid pursuit—while Tim is screaming at him about the second Robin being his hero, tryin to crawl away in a trail of blood—realizes he’s become an even worse version of his own mother, who sold him out to the Joker?

Because I do.

[frogwithastrawberry]

I don't think we talk enough about when Kaz was holding the parem to hide it from Nina. Because to me, that scene is a pretty good example of their relationship.

Nina was fully willing to do anything to get the parem from Matthias. If it was picking his pocket, fine. If it was sleeping with him, fine. I feel like she was probably willing to do more with Matthias than say- Jesper or Wylan. (I feel like she would have avoided Inej for Inej's own comfort)

But she was still willing to do things out of character for her to get the parem.

Yet, when she heard that Kaz had it, she stopped. You can say it's just because she knew Kaz would probably hurt her but here's the thing: I don't think he would have. Kaz is pretty big on "protecting his investments", and he isn't going to injure one of his crows greatly right before a huge plan.

And I think Nina knew that too. I think the reason she didn't try to reason with or steal from Kaz was partially because she knew she wouldn't win. But her knowing she wouldn't win also means that she was guaranteeing to herself that she wouldn't use her powers on him. Because even Kaz Brekker isn't immune to an altered Grisha's powers.

Nina wasn't willing to hurt Kaz and break his boundaries for the parem, and I don't think Kaz was willing to hurt her.