Hindu Kush means Hindu Slaugher?

kadafi · Jul 5, 2005

By kadafi (www.islamicboard.com)

All praise is due to Allah, and Allah's Peace and Blessings be
upon His Final Messenger, his pure family, his noble
Companions, and all those who follow them with righteousness
until the Day of Judgment.

Introduction

Right-wing Hindus invented baseless stories and fabricated history in order to sow seeds of hatred and enmity between the Hindus and the Muslims. One of their latest fabrication is the “Hindu-Killers – Hindu Kush” myth. They hijacked the word and attributed a different meaning to feed their extreme nationalist ideology and incite the ignorant Hindus.

Shrinandan Vyas published a dubious articled based on fabricated references arguing that the Muslims committed genocide against the Hindu population. Obviously this is far from the truth and Insha’Allah (God-Willing), I will dispel this myth since it is a great hindrance to many Hindus to discover the true history of Islam.

Fabricated evidence?

Shrinandan Vyas deliberately supplied fabricated references to credible sources to strengthen his argument that the ‘Hindu-Kush’ really stands for ‘Hindu-Killers’. Apparantly, Shrinandan’s only method is the use of dishonest tactics.

He writes in his abstract:

All Standard reference books agree that the name 'Hindu Kush' of the mountain range in Eastern Afghanistan means 'Hindu Slaughter' or 'Hindu Killer'.

Most of his references (fabricated) are from Encyclopaedia Britannica. He writes that the Encyclopaedia Britannica states:

'The name Hindu Kush first appears in 1333 AD in the writings of Ibn Battutah, the medieval Berber traveller, who said the name meant 'Hindu Killer', a meaning still given by Afgan mountain dwellers who are traditional enemies of Indian plainsmen (i.e. Hindus)

This statement is nowhere to be found in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and nor in Ibn Battutah's his writings. If Shrinandan Vyas really believed in his argument, he would have stated the original quote of Ibn Battutah and where it is located but using such honest tactics would already discredit his argument in the first place.

Who was Ibn Battutah? Ibn Battutah (full name, Abu 'abd Allah Muhammad Ibn 'abd Allah Al-lawati At-tanji Ibn Battutah ) was a medieval Arab traveller and the author of one of the most famous travel books. He never alleged that the name Hindu Kush means ‘Hindu Killer or Slaughter’ but rather he affirmed that it means ‘Mountains of India’.

Britannica Encyclopaedia states:

The name Hindu Kush derives from the Arabic for “Mountains of India.”[1]

Furthermore, the name Hindu Kush did not first appear in 1333 AD by Ibn Battutah but first appeared on a map published about AD 1000.

Britannica Encyclopaedia states:

Its earliest known usage occurs on a map published about AD 1000.[2]

Myths and Legends?

Shrinandan Vyas did not stop at dishonesty but he also included fables and legends about certain “Indian” Kingdoms that were never recorded.

He wrote:

History of Hindu Kush and Punjab shows that two major kingdoms of Gandhaar & Vaahic Pradesh (Balkh of Bactria) had their borders extending far beyond the Hindu Kush. Legend has it that the kingdom of Gandhaar was established by Taksha, grandson of Bharat of Ayodhya (6). Gandhaar's borders extended from Takshashila to Tashkent (corruption of 'Taksha Khand') in the present day Uzbekistan. In the later period, Mahabharat relates Gaandhaari as a princess of Gandhaar and her brother, Shakuni as a prince and later as Gandhaar's ruler.

These kingdoms that Shrinandan refers to never existed or were ever recorded in written history.

Gandhara is the ancient name of a region in eastern Afghanistan and north-west Pakistan centred on the Swat River and Kabul River. It was originally a province of the Persian Empire and was reached in 327 BCE by Alexander the Great.

The timeline of the city is as follows [3]:

Circa 2300-c.1700 BCE Indus Valley civilization
Circa 1700-c.520 BCE No records
Circa 520-c.400 BCE Persian Empire
Circa 329-c.316 BCE Occupied by Alexander the Great and Macedonian generals
Circa 316-c.180 BCE Controlled by the Maurya dynasty, founded by Chandragupta. Converted to Buddhism under King Asoka (273-232 BCE)
Circa 180-c.10 BCE Under control of the Indo-Greek Kingdom, with some incursions of the Indo-Scythians from around 100 BCE.
Circa 10 BCE-c.20 CE (Common Era) Kushan Empire
Circa 20-c.75 CE Parthian invasion and Indo-Parthian Kingdom. Rule of Commander Aspavarman?
Circa 75 CE- c.230 CE Kushan Empire
Circa 230-c.300 CE Kushanshahs A Persian state established as a buffer zone and a Persian dependency.
Circa 300-c.450 CE Controlled by the Guptas
Circa 450-c.565 CE White Huns (Hephthalites)
Circa 565-c.712 CE Local control
Circa 712-850 CE Controlled by the Caliphate

Note, that before Chandragupta controlled the region, it was controlled and occuppied by Alexander the Great. There is no mention of the kingdoms that Shrinandan stated. Bactria (Vaahic Pradesh) was an ancient Greek kingdom in Central Asia. Its capital was Bactra which is the present-day Balkh in North Afghanistan.

Shrinandan wrote that Chandragupt Maurya (Candra Gupta Maurya) took ‘charge’ of Vaahic Pradesh (Bactria) in 325 BC:

In the well documented history, Emperor Chandragupt Maurya took charge of Vaahic Pradesh around 325 BC and then took over Magadh.

But Candra Gupta Maurya never conquered that area but rather was given to him by Seleucus I (Nicator), the founder of the Seleucid dynasty in Iran.

Britannica Encyclopaedia states:

Greek sources report that he engaged in a conflict in 305 BC in the trans-Indus region with Seleucus I (Nicator), one of Alexander's generals, who, on the death of Alexander, had founded the Seleucid dynasty in Iran. The result was a treaty by which Seleucus ceded the trans-Indus provinces to the Maurya and the latter presented him with 500 elephants. A marriage alliance is mentioned, but no details are recorded.[4]

So why did Shrinandan rely on legends and fables of the Indian history? Is it because there was no written history in India before the Muslims arrived in India? It is widely agreed by specialists in Indian history that there was no systematic written history in India before the spread of Islam.

This is also supported by the statement of Dr. Gustav le Bon who wrote:

"There does not exist a history of ancient India. Their books contain no historical data whatever, except for a few religious books in which historical information is buried under a heap of parables and folk-lore, and their buildings and other monuments also do nothing to fill the void for the oldest among them do not go beyond the third century B.C. To discover facts about India of the ancient times is as difficult a task as the discovery of the island of Atlantis, which, according to Plato, was destroyed due to the changes of the earth... The historical phase of India began with the Muslim invasion. Muslims were India's first historians."[5]

So it does not come as a surprise that the right-wing Hindus rely on distorted or rather fabricated historical evidence.

The meaning of Hindu Kush

Since there are no records of his alleged genocide, I will still have to clarify the meaning of ‘Hindu Kush’ for the same of argumentation.

Britannica Encyclopaedia states:

The name Hindu Kush derives from the Arabic for “Mountains of India.”[6]

The region was also called Caucasus Indicus in the ancient times. Before the advent of the Muslim era, it was also referred as Kush in a sixth-century early Talmudic tractate.

In the Pashto language of Afghanistan, it is called "Hindu Koh" which means ‘Mount India’.

Massacres

Shrinandan argues that 1,500,000 perished during one of the many repeated invasions on the city of Herat in western Afganistan. Shrinandan grossly has twisted the historical evidence regarding the massacres of the Herat inhabitants.

He wrote:

The Afgan historian Khondamir records that during one of the many repeated invasions on the city of Herat in western Afganistan, 1,500,000 residents perished

Herat was captured in 660 CE by the Muslims and it became the centre of the Islamic Empire. It stayed under their rule until Mongols invaded in the 13th century and inflicted great suffering on the city. The Mongols were known for their whole-scale slaughter. Historians record that at least 1,600,000 people were killed at Heart during the invasion by the Mongols. But according to Juzani, he gives the number 2,400,000. So in other words, the estimation cited by Shrinandan and attributed to the Muslim liberation of the city is another whimsy fabrication.

So apparently, Shrinandan twisted the words of Khondamir to give the indication that the holocaust referred to the Muslim conquest.

Shrinandan wrote:

Mughal emperor Akbar 'ordered the massacre of about 30,000 (captured) Rajput Hindus on February 24, 1568 AD, after the battle for Chitod'

Without elucidating that statement, he rather made it plain and leaving out the context of that battle.

When Akbar protracted fighting in Mewar, he captured the fortress of Chitor and giving them the option to surrender. The city was composed of ferocious Rajputs who did not want to surrender and acknowledge his position as the ruler. They rebelled against him which resulted to their deaths. Rajputs were known as the most belligerent Hindus

After the capture of the city, other Rajput rajas now accepted his position as a ruler (i.e. emperor) and also concluded marriage alliances with him.

Furthermore, Rajputs attained the highest ranks, as generals and as provincial governors, in the Mughal service after they surrendered and recognized him as the emperor.

Akbar who is praised by even the Hindus was known for his tolerance.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica states:

Akbar's reign was an example of the stimulating effects of cultural encounter. It has also often been portrayed as a model for future governments—strong, benevolent, tolerant, and enlightened. Effective government in a country geographically as vast and socially as complex as India demands a wide measure of social support: Akbar understood this need and satisfied it.[7]

Conclusions

So thus, the article that Shrinandan produced is nothing more than a series of unsubstantiated assertions that are based on fabricated references.

It is widely known that the right-wing Hindus usually methods such as threats, violence and murder to force their agenda on the masses. Recently they adopted an extra method, often referred to as propagandic history, to provoke and incite the Hindus to commit crimes against the Muslims. This article is a perfect example of their neo-fascist propaganda.

This is also evident in the words of the liberal historian, Radhika Singha, who said:

…The right-wing are prepared to go to any lengths to control and manipulate the writing of history.[8]

And Allah knows best!

References

[1] Encyclopaedia of Britannica

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Dr. Gustav le Bon in 'Les Civilisations de L'Inde' (translated by S.A. Bilgrami).

[6] Encyclopaedia of Britannica

[7] Ibid

[8] Statement during an interview, Radhika Singha of Delhi University

Hindu Kush means Hindu Slaugher?

kadafi

IB Expert

Similar Threads