islam not spread by sword

[Introvert]

"There are more Muslims in North America then Jews Now." Dan Rathers, ABCNEWS

"Islam is the fastest growing religion in North America." TIMES MAGAZINE

"Islam continues to grow in America, and no one can doubt that!" CNN, December 15, 1995

"The religion of Islam is growing faster than any other religion in the world." MIKE WALLACE, 60 MINUTES

http://www.al-sunnah.com/call_to_islam/articles/what_they_say_about_islaam.html

 

[aviator]

I think u should look at the present. Cat Stevens's embracing of Islam is not written in our holy books, u can find it on the net.

I am not degrading islam . But what I am saying is smthing that happened. islam is better religion or not is different matter altogether. I am talking abt history not religion.

 

[A.Rahman]

china :
population :1300 million
muslims: 30 million

indian subcontinent:1400 million
muslims: 450 million

Why ?

Because Chinese didnt had discriminating caste system nor they burned the window alive on the pile of woods; thats why many lower caste Hindus converted to Islam; because it was just.

 

[Introvert]

If Islam was did spread by sword, then ppl wouldn't be converting to Islam today, cuz no one is forcing, torturing anyone to embrace Islam.

 

[aviator]

Because Chinese didnt had discriminating caste system nor they burned the window alive on the pile of woods; thats why many lower caste Hindus converted to Islam; because it was just.

lol , looks like i am calling for a ban

You can abuse hinduism but that wont work because simply put I am myself not an Hindus , I am an atheist , so from next post come with some rational post.

Christianity came to India in 52A.D and jusaism came much before then why didnt lower caste people converted from hinduism to christianity in 700 yrs? there r only abt 2% christians in india and pls dont tell me that all pakistanis were lower caste people. Many people have left hinduism since 1947but accepted busshism in India , not christianity or islam .

You seem to be loosing your temper , well take a look at some history books by internationally recognized authors.

 

[aviator]

If Islam was did spread by sword, then ppl wouldn't be converting to Islam today, cuz no one is forcing, torturing anyone to embrace Islam.

You are diverging from your own point. Well muslims in spain were force converted to christianity and people in latin america were force converted , everyone knows that but why they didnt left christianity. This is because they have been following it since childhood and have accepted and it doesnt matters to them what happened at their ancestor's time. I am not saying that people shud revert from islam but history must not be changed. You people dont know abt it and u have been taught to love islam from birth so obviously u dont find any problems whether it was forced or not.I havent learned this from some indian textbooks but I have done extensive study on internet and other books.

Indian school books seem to have taken their cue from the Encyclopedia Brittannica , as there is hardly any mention of this dark aspect of India’s past. But why does India negate its history? We know that Nehru and Gandhi wanted to keep Pakistan within India and wished to avoid the splintering away of Muslim groups. But was it a good enough reason to suppress information about Muslim atrocities during ten centuries of bloody invasions and the massive destruction of Hindu temples ? On the contrary this has only created more terrorism. Denying and suppressing the history cannot keep the harmony. In its place, truth and reconciliation are necessary. Hiding the truth denies sympathy to the victim, civilization and culture. A nation unless, it is ready to face its own history - the Good and the Bad, the Courageous and the Cowardly - can never bloom into its full plenitude. Hidden aspects of its own history sooner or later will surface and bring with them the guilt, anger, regret, which are the necessary ingredients to wipe-off that particular black karma. In Germany, for instance, Germans have been reminded again and again about the atrocities committed by the Nazis during World War II, and that has brought a sense of guilt, which has acted as a deterrent to future atrocities

The Jews have constantly tried, since the Nazi genocide, to keep alive the remembrance of their six million martyrs. This has got nothing to do with vengeance. Do the Jews of today want to retaliate upon contemporary Germany? No. It is only a matter of making sure that history does not repeat its mistakes, as alas it is doing today in India : witness the persecution of Hindus in Kashmir, whose 250.000 Pandits have fled their 5000 year old homeland, or the oppression of Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan. To remember, is to be able to look at today with the wisdom of yesterday. No collective memory should be erased for appeasing a particular community. Hiding the facts and justifying past Muslim crimes has led to terrorism in the Indian sub-continent. Muslims were never held accountable. One of the first steps to curb violence is to make one aware of past mistakes. Guilt in the culprit and forgiveness in the victim can put an end to self-righteousness and the kind of terrorism we see today in Kashmir, in spite of India’s peace overtures.

 

[A.Rahman]

You seem to be loosing your temper , well take a look at some history books by internationally recognized authors.

I think you are the one who is pissed; that is why you are copy/pasting like a bot & craving for attention.

 

[A.Rahman]

I am not saying whats written in your holy books , I am talking abt whats there in history. Pls see the difference, they are absolutely different things. You are speaking what shud have happened and I am saying what did happened as per historians .You havent asnwered me.

Muslims say the Prophet Mohammed established specific rules regarding prisoners 1,400 years ago. For example, he once removed his own shirt so a war prisoner could be clothed. The Koran stipulates humane treatment and release of war prisoners. Islam also forbids destruction of homes, places of worship and trees.

Mohammed recognized that women, children and the elderly were an integral part of society and should be left unharmed during warfare. Mohammed's concern extended beyond humans to inanimate but essential objects in the agricultural society, like food-bearing trees and houses.

I don't know much about Indian history because I live in North America.

Even if we assume that the facts you provided are real; forms no basics to blame Islam; as you can see that Islam dosnt teaches what you have posted & in fact its totally opposite.

 

[aviator]

Even if we assume that the facts you provided are real; forms no basics to blame Islam; as you can see that Islam dosnt teaches what you have posted & in fact its totally opposite.

Exactly my point , I am not blaming islam but those islamo fascist who did these things. Now islam may not allow slamming aeroplanes into buildings for killing civilians but some muslims did that. islam doesnt allows doesnt means that 9/11 never took place.

I am talking with historical facts that people were force converted in masses by terror whether islam allows it ot not is different thing. I also recognize many converted on their own, not that everyone was force converted.

 

[niaz]

Most of the posts I have seen describe how cruel and ruthless muslim invaders were. No denying that but it is by passing the issue. Mahmud was in India 17 times only to take away its wealth, did he "Force people to convert'' else they will be killed ???. You would find no instance of such behaviour.

As I explained earlier; most of muslims live in the Western and Eastern part of the subcontinent, not in the middle. Muslims capitals except during the Ghaznavids and Ghurids rule were either Delhi or Agra, where as muslim majority is in Punjab and Kashmir. Both the areas are full of Sufis and Saints. It is the personal example of these saints why the conversion took place. Even to this day one finds many non muslims devotees at place such as Ajmer sharif, why ??. Because the exceptional pious life and reputation of the Chishty saint. Citing examples of Albeiruni and others does not prove that people were threatened with loss of life unless they converted.

There have been many exceptionally cruel invader of India, such as Changez and Taimur. I have read in Babur Namah as to how Babur raised minars of heads of the Eusuf Zai Afghans in Mardan. We are not debating whether the muslim invaders were nice people or cruel. As a matter of fact , any advenutrer has to be cruel to his enemies and generous to his followers else he would not succeed.

I have seen no mention of an example where any famous ruler has forced his subjects to ebrace Islam. Instead I can cite the example of Constantine the great who enforced 'Catholic' faith on all his subjects else they would subject to punishment or banished to the far corners of the empire. There was no such thing as Roman Catholic Faith until the Nicean Conference of 324 AD.

IMO people converted to Islam either to escape looting and pillage as happened in Iran and Egypt or to gain econmic advantage and escape from poll tax or Jizia applicable to non muslims in exchange for escape from miliatry obligations.

As a man of the world; I accept that spiritual enlightenmnet was probably not the sole reason except for those who met our holy Prophet (PBUH) in person and example of the Sufi Saints. The process thru Sufis was however gradual and only apparent after a very long time, say a couple of centuries.

Without any disrespect to the Sikh religion, after reading Sikh relgious books I have come to the conclusion that it is result of an amalgamation of many muslim beliefs with the indigineous hindu religion. Sikh books are full of quotes from the great Saint Bhagat Kabir and even the poet Bulleh Shah.

What I am trying to impress is that growth of Islam and Muslims has a lot more to do with other reasons than by the 'Sword'. Additionally, since mulsims have freedom of upto 4 marriages, few muslim converts would mulitply a lot faster than their fellow non muslims.

 

[aviator]

No denying that but it is by passing the issue. Mahmud was in India 17 times only to take away its wealth, did he "Force people to convert'' else they will be killed ???. You would find no instance of such behaviour.

Lets see what Dr. Anwar Shaikh who later converted to Hinduism and took the name Aniruddha Gyan Shikha has to say abt it. He was a Pakistani-born author who lived in Cardiff for many years. He is best known for his many books on Islam.

“India is yet another major victim of Islam."

The day Muhammad bin Qasim, entered Sindh as a conqueror, must rank as the most ominous, odious and outrageous moment in the history of India, whose proud, pious and powerful traditions have been the torch-bearer of world civilisation. The Indians, used to enjoying the warmth of ahimsa, were stunned by the violence that the Arab raiders displayed in robbing the rich and seducing the indigenous damsels. Yet the irony was that they did all this in the name of the Most Compassionate and Just Allah, who counts these felonies as acts of fairness when they are committed to torture the unbelievers.”

"India was a prosperous, peaceful and proud country, which has not only been reduced to extreme poverty and ignorance by the Muslim predators and the Islamic rule, but has also been fragmented into geographical and political units."

http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=790

He is a pakistani author and many pakistani authors who have done extensive research from authentic non-pakistani sources too will accept what i am saying .I know you will refuse this source as authentic but you will not find truth on islamic sites or some other sites but if u r interested read his book " Arab imperisalism"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-8-2004_pg3_4

pakistani author + pakistani newspaper site. Mahmud and aurangzeb were worst of invaders and simply put they were beasts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I explained earlier; most of muslims live in the Western and Eastern part of the subcontinent, not in the middle. Muslims capitals except during the Ghaznavids and Ghurids rule were either Delhi or Agra, where as muslim majority is in Punjab and Kashmir. Both the areas are full of Sufis and Saints. It is the personal example of these saints why the conversion took place

I did mention that not all people were force converted but large proportion of them were converted by sheer terror. Muslims are majority in sindh and punjab and kashmir because they were under muslim rule whereas in central indian sub-continent muslims were ruling with alliance with some hindus as there was large resistance from sikh worriors and marathas and rajputs, so they cud not convert too many people by force while they were free to do so elsewhere.

Sindh.......completely fallen to muslims
Punjab and kashmir...... Do u know how 10th sikh guru was killed ? he was killed by aurangzeb because sikhism was spreading in punjab region.

As Aurangzeb ascended the throne of India by imprisoning his father and murdering his brothers, he decided to enlist the sympathies of the fanatical section of his co-religionists. His idea was to exterminate the idolatrous Hindus and to convert the whole of India to Islam. In order to achieve this objective he tried to go through four fundamental means to deal with the Hindus. Firstly he made peaceful overtures; secondly he offered money; thirdly he threatened punishment and lastly he tried to cause dissention among them. When all these measures failed, he resorted to forcible conversion. Orders were issued to the governors of all the provinces that they should destroy the schools and temples of the infidels and thereby put an end to educational activities as well as the practices of the religion of the Kafirs (non-Muslims meant Hindus). Many temples at Mathura and Banaras were destroyed.

KASHMIRI BRAHMANS COME TO GURU:

A deputation of Kashmiri Pandits (Brahmans) came to Anandpur and among tears of agony, they narrated their tales of woe and suffering to the Master. The Guru's eight years old son appeared on the scene and asked his father why those people had tears in their eyes. He replied," The Emperor of India is converting the Hindus to Islam at the point of the sword and thus there is no end to the misery of these people."

"What is the remedy, father?" asked the son.

The Guru replied," This requires sacrifice- sacrifi ce of a holy and supreme soul." His son responded," O dear father, who is more holy than you in this age? Go and offer yourself and save these people and their religion." On hearing this the Guru asked the Kashmiri Brahmans to go to the Emperor and make the following representation to him," Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth Sikh Guru is now seated on the throne of the great Guru Nanak, who is the protector of faith and religion. First make him a Musalman and then all the people, including ourselves, will of our own accord adopt the faith of Islam."

http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/gurus/guruteghbhadur1.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have seen no mention of an example where any famous ruler has forced his subjects to ebrace Islam. Instead I can cite the example of Constantine the great who enforced 'Catholic' faith on all his subjects else they would subject to punishment or banished to the far corners of the empire. There was no such thing as Roman Catholic Faith until the Nicean Conference of 324 AD.

Everyone knows how christianity spread in latin america or in spain after muslim rule or in europe after roman empire.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I am trying to impress is that growth of Islam and Muslims has a lot more to do with other reasons than by the 'Sword'. Additionally, since mulsims have freedom of upto 4 marriages, few muslim converts would mulitply a lot faster than their fellow non muslims.

I wud say reasons........
1. By peace and love
2. Because of jizya
3. because of sword

Also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_the_Indian_subcontinent , if u dont like wikipedia then there are links to sources of some historians about it.

 

[alamgir]

"

India was a prosperous, peaceful and proud country, which has not only been reduced to extreme poverty and ignorance by the Muslim predators and the Islamic rule, but has also been fragmented into geographical and political units."

historicly wrong india before islam not single state and not prosperous as discribe above only ten percent high class were holding the total resourses of states,first time in history of india islam give equale right to every one.

He is a pakistani author and many pakistani authors who have done extensive research from authentic non-pakistani sources too will accept what i am saying .I know you will refuse this source as authentic but you will not find truth on islamic sites or some other sites but if u r interested read his book " Arab imperisalism"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- and i will give you non muslim historain who reject the theory that islam spread by sword

3. Opinion of historian De Lacy O’Leary. The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" (Page 8): "History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated."

4. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years. Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

5. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians. Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India. The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

7. Indonesia and Malaysia. Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"

8. East Coast of Africa. Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, "Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?"

9. Thomas Carlyle. The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book "Heroes and Hero worship", refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: "The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can."

10. No compulsion in religion. With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error" [Al-Qur’an 2:256] 11. Sword of the Intellect. It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125: "Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious." [Al-Qur’an 16:125]

12. Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984. An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?

13. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe. Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?

14. Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson. Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says, "People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realize that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMED (pbuh) was born".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------



[B

]KASHMIRI BRAHMANS COME TO GURU:[/B]

A deputation of Kashmiri Pandits (Brahmans) came to Anandpur and among tears of agony, they narrated their tales of woe and suffering to the Master. The Guru's eight years old son appeared on the scene and asked his father why those people had tears in their eyes. He replied," The Emperor of India is converting the Hindus to Islam at the point of the sword and thus there is no end to the misery of these people."

"What is the remedy, father?" asked the son.

The Guru replied," This requires sacrifice- sacrifi ce of a holy and supreme soul." His son responded," O dear father, who is more holy than you in this age? Go and offer yourself and save these people and their religion." On hearing this the Guru asked the Kashmiri Brahmans to go to the Emperor and make the following representation to him," Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth Sikh Guru is now seated on the throne of the great Guru Nanak, who is the protector of faith and religion. First make him a Musalman and then all the people, including ourselves, will of our own accord adopt the faith of Islam."

http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/gurus/guruteghbhadur1.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------

You forget that fisrt guru of sikhs is a student of a muslim sufi,and first stone of golden temple is put by a muslim sufi, and when sikh guru were fighting with rajputs of present himachal.p muslims help this guru
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


I wud say reasons........
1. By peace and love
2. Because of jizya
3. because of sword

If any one have a little brain can understand that muslims rule india more then 800 years if they use sword then now 80% indian are muslims

 

[aviator]

historicly wrong india before islam not single state and not prosperous as discribe above only ten percent high class were holding the total resourses of states,first time in history of india islam give equale right to every one.

india here refers to Indian sub-continent and many different rulers had their empires reigning over almost all indian except extreme south , and ranging upto present pakistan and afghanistan.

Not prosperous........then what were arabs doing here for 800yrs, jhinga lala ? Did mughals brought wealth from their nations to live in India ? What were britishers doing in India for 200 yrs, having a picnic ? I am not much surprised at your answer, this was smthing expected. Please dont find it offensive neither I am afraid of a ban but what you people have studied in textbooks is basically anti-indian/ anti-hindu and only taught to maintain hatred against india and for that you can read reports abt pakistani curriculum how they preach hate........ www.sdpi.org/whats_new/reporton/State of Curr&TextBooks.pdf
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20051010&fname=Pakistan+(F)&sid=2

I guess curriculum has changed now but affect doesnt seems to be coming.
pls before replying to above provoking statement read this report made by some pakistani academcians

Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years. Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

I did talked abt that earlier.

More than 80% non-Muslims in India. The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

Its not about just present India , but abt whole subcontinenet , Where there were Hindus and buddhist earlier , you see 97% muslims.There were buddhist in afghanistan and now there are 99% muslims.

Indonesia and Malaysia. Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"

Accepted . I never said islam spread ONLY by sword. I am still saying that many people accepted it on their own but it would be hypocritical to say that there were no force conversion.

East Coast of Africa. Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, "Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?"

I dont have history of africa but i pasted one link earlier how islam is spreading there , its a non-indian news channel which shows that christians in africa are kidnapped and force converted. Kindly refer that

No compulsion in religion. With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error" [Al-Qur’an 2:256] 11. Sword of the Intellect. It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125: "Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious." [Al-Qur’an 16:125]

Keep religion seperate from History. Hinduism doesnt tells that kill muslims but some hindu extremist killed muslims in gujarat , now hinduism doesnt preaches hatred doesnt means that event never happened . I wish u got my point , i am saying what did happened and not what shud have happened.

You forget that fisrt guru of sikhs is a student of a muslim sufi,and first stone of golden temple is put by a muslim sufi, and when sikh guru were fighting with rajputs of present himachal.p muslims help this guru

So ? It doesnt means that any other ruler cannot force convert people.

If any one have a little brain can understand that muslims rule india more then 800 years if they use sword then now 80% indian are muslims

I repeat in present India , they HAD to keep hindus in allaince so have a stable government . Remember Indian subcontinent was partiotioned in 1947 only. I dont consider NWFP and balochistan as part of indian subcontinent , they were part of british India.

 

[aviator]

I am not here to fight and its an controversial topic what happeend , as there are different points put forward by different historians , so I wud prefer to leav this debate. I ahve put my points that I read smwhere and you have done so. Neither of us were there at that time , so lets leave it. This is a nice forum and i appreciate that its not a typical fighting forum b/w indian and pakistanis , tc

PEACE

 

[niaz]

I am not here to fight and its an controversial topic what happeend , as there are different points put forward by different historians , so I wud prefer to leav this debate. I ahve put my points that I read smwhere and you have done so. Neither of us were there at that time , so lets leave it. This is a nice forum and i appreciate that its not a typical fighting forum b/w indian and pakistanis , tc

PEACE

Honorable Sir,

As a student of history I would like to know the truth, no matter how unpalatable. Please quote me an unbiased source or a book written by an unbiased historian ( preferably a Europpean as they have no special interest to favour either Hindu, Sikh or any other religion) to prove your point.

You are accepting accounts written with a very myopic view point as an absolute truth. I can quote hundred of accounts of Sikh attrocities; specailly during the Sikha Shahi times in Punjab, against the muslims. Akali Dal for example were originally formed with the sole aim to kill "Musselman". I choose not to quote any account which is of doubtful nature. Banda Bairagi is famous for torturing and ransaking of thousands of innocent muslim villages.

This is a scholarly discussion and sources quoted by you may be acceptable as "Absolute Truth" by followers of Sikh religion but not by muslims.

No one has denied that Muslim invaders were ruthless but so are all invaders. Even in the Vedas are accounts as to how Indra destoryed the towns of the indigineous population of India. Not to mention the old Aryan custom where they used to let an white horse roam about with an army following. Any country to where the horse wandered in, was the land of the Emperor and if the Raja of the region objected, he had to fight and put to the sword. Was there any reason for this if not out and out villany???

Those were cruel times; without condoning those cruel acts; one has to accept that it is incorrect to judge actions by invading armies by today's standards. Alexander the great was an extremely violent person and burned down the "Apadana' palace merely on a whim but today's historians don't judge him based on cruelty alone as you have done to the muslim invaders.

Indian subcontinent is an old and traditionally rich region. Succesive invaders from the Aryans ( circa 1500/ 2000 B.C) to the English have come here to loot the Indian riches. It was known as Crown Jewel of the Britissh Empire for a justifiable reason.

I still maintain that so far I have not come across any proven account where any muslim leader of note have asked a captured population " Convert to Islam or be killed". Most of accounts you quote are merely heresy, you have a perfect right to accept these as absolute truth, but it doesnot mean that this is truth.This is perception spread by the people who were wronged by the muslims for one reason or another.