If you want an in depth analysis of the indian massacres that occured under the islamic rule of parts of India and the conquest, then go and get some studying done.
The information is all there. The blog also gave you references so do check them out.
As for the blood tribute, omg, you really don't know anything about history. What are you doing here? What is your purpose in this discussion? To make apologies?
Here's a god damn encyclopedia you can look through.
I'll point you in the right direction buddy, but if you want to learn something then I can't hold your hands. This isn't highschool. This is a debating site. If you know nothing, don't start talking.
devsirme (Ottoman government) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
I'm not even going to bother commenting on your affirmations on Vlad the Impaler. If you do not know BASIC history and guidelines in the world, how can you hope of understanding such a complex character of Vlad the Impaler and his activities. Just piss of will you. You're an educational joke.
Guy, when you make claims that are not common knowledge, you MUST be able to back them up. The claims you made are not common knowledge, and most blogs - which are notorious for being skewed by personal bias - are not considered proof...
especially considering that you took as proof NOT an original article on a blog, but the READER COMMENT section on that blog.
So I looked up the author of the article -
Koenraad_Elst - that was referenced on that reader comment. Despite his claims otherwise, Elst appears to be an Islamophobe with sympathies to the political right, and his work has been roundly criticized as not objective, but biased. In any case, Elst's work is NOT reflective of mainstream historical record. This is not proof that he is right or wrong, but that he is not in agreement with most historians.
On this page, there is one historian that agrees with Elst's claim of the Indian population being decreased by 80 million, and there is another historian - the _very_ respected Will Durant - who says that yes, Islam was spread through violence, but there's no indication that he bought into the '80 million' claim of the others. But the next paragraph shows that there is some strong indication that Islam was not spread through the point of a sword:
Critics of the "religion of the sword theory" point to the presence of the strong Muslim communities found in Southern India, modern day Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, western Burma, Indonesia and the Philippines coupled with the distinctive lack of equivalent Muslim communities around the heartland of historical Muslim empires in South Asia as refutation to the "conversion by the sword theory".[2] The legacy of Muslim conquest of South Asia is a hotly debated issue even today. Not all Muslim invaders were simply raiders. Later rulers fought on to win kingdoms and stayed to create new ruling dynasties. The practices of these new rulers and their subsequent heirs (some of whom were borne of Hindu wives of Muslim rulers) varied considerably.
NOW, guy, here's MY take on this: YOUR first clue that Elst's claims about Islam are suspect should have been this claim: "The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on."
You know what? This is NOTHING DIFFERENT from what the Mongols did in their invasion of the Middle East - estimates of the
Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258 range from 90,000 all the way up to a million. When the Mongols sacked a city, if the city did not surrender outright, it was NORMAL for them to kill almost everyone within the city. Later,
Timur the Lame's invasion of India was NOT an attempt to 'spread Islam at the point of a sword', but an attempt to restore the empire of Genghis Khan...and he killed 100,000 in his sack of Delhi.
What's more, even if there was an 80-million decrease in the population of the subcontinent, it almost certainly could not have been due solely to war, but more due to the disease and famine that ALWAYS accompany war, and - before WWII - always resulted in more death than the combat itself.
IN OTHER WORDS, what Elst did was to take what was done by the great conquerors of the time - and the disease and famine that would have killed more than the conquerors could have - and tried to attribute it to Islam. What he does not understand - and what you almost certainly won't want to hear - is that as is almost always the case, the religion was the EXCUSE given to the soldiers and the people by the warlords in their lust for conquest.
Next time, guy, remember that just because someone says something that sounds good to you, that doesn't make it true.
