Who are responsible for Refugee Crises? - Page 2

Originally posted by: St.T

Saudi Arabia is special I think, because they have oil. They use the religious position to pass all their personal desires like every other powerful state.

One thing I fail to understand...

Across the online comments, there are always some Indians who are going to put forward a hate-msg against the Syrian Refugees. Why is that?

This woman's plea is heart breaking: https://www.facebook.com/skynews/videos/1174329229248339/

Originally posted by: St.T

The little child who was washed ashore is now the topic of a global debate on human conscience. But is the west morally responsible to accept majority of the Refugees from war torn countries like Syria and Libya? How much are Indians responsible, or the Arab nations and Russians or the Chinese?

Where are the claimants of the "Greatest Nation" tag? i.e. Where are the people of the USA? Do they conveniently have no responsibility?

To the question is: Can Arabs, Middle Easterners, or only the Muslims countries responsible for the refugee crises in Libya, Syria, Algeria or Iraq and Afghanistan? Or, should the USA take the lions share (in the same way they do in the global spending on defence)?

Firstly different relgions and different cultures have different morals. So whose morals do you wish to talk about? Or compare and contrast?

Secondly, there is the fact that the majority of these people are economic migrants and not refugees. Significant numbers are from firstly from the balkans and the from afganistan and pakistan.

The laws and accords of the European Union say that a refugee has to register in the first safe country he/she reaches. These migrants are moving through all EU and non EU countries to reach the countries of their choice - mainly Germany, Sweden and UK. This in the eyes of the laws of the EU makes them economic migrants because they are wanting to choose which country they live in. They are moving from safe countries to countries of their choice.

The EU is in crisis. Germany threw the doors open for anyone and everyone who can walk. When It wants to set mandatory quotas of how many refugees each member country should take, some member countries are against this.Even if they were for it...it would make no difference because none of the migrants want to stay in those countries. They want to go to the richer countries like Germany and Sweden.

Europe has opened its doors but it can't keep them open. The USA should definitely do more but what about the middle east countries of saudi arabia, kuwait, bahrain etc?

Let me answer your question with a few question that are puzzling me...

1. Isn't it the moral responsibility of muslims and muslim countries to look after fellow muslims and take them in? Turkey, Egypt and Lebannon have. What about the others? These middle eastern countries are saying they are donating to the refugee camps but that is not the same as taking these fellow muslims in and giving them the citizenship to continue with their lives. Paying to keep someone in limbo land is not really helping them is it? Esp when at the same time you are funding some faction taking part in the war that displaced them in the first place.

2. Why don't ANY of the muslim refugees want ot go to Saudi Arabia or other muslim countries?
3. The US takes in a significant number of refugees but can do more or should I say less! Like stop toppling regimes in other parts of the world. In legal terms its not signed up to any EU laws because its not part of the EU and morally...well...it likes to destabilise other countries and makes plenty of money selling arms to keep countries and factions that serves its national interest. Oh and I am sure its thanking god, or geography for the altantic ocean which separates them from Europe.

SOme of these people are genuine refugees a lot of them are economic migrants making it difficult for genuine refugees. OVer 80% are also young men. Why are they not in their own country working to better it?

Again I ask, why don't saudi arabia want them? Why don't all those muslims migrants and the majority of them are muslims, why don't they want to go to another muslim country? Why don't they question...why don't these arabs who are our fellow muslims, who have all the resources and space take us in? Even muslims outside of middle east don't question why these rich countries don't take refugees in.

Bottom line is, you can name alll the countries in teh world from USA to China with India in between but NONE of these migrants want to go there. They don't even want to stay in safe as castles countries like Hungary or Austria. They want to go to the rich countries who they think will give them lots of free benefits adn free housing etc. So, even if India wanted to take some of them, none of them will go there let alone stay there. Heck, they're not even staying in non rich EU countries like Greece and Hungary, but moving straight through to Germany.

Plenty have come through but slowly but surely Europe will close its doors. I think the interesting questions will be:

a) How many of the 100s of 1000s who have already made it through to Europe...how many of those will integrate and respect the laws and culture of the countries that have been so kind to take them in?

Incidences of sexual assaults and rape are increasing in the towns these migrant are going to and also within the refugee camps themselves. There are also reports of forced prostitution of refugee women and girls by some of these so called refugee men. [Please if you respond to this post and esp this point, DON'T just come back with..."ohhh there is more rape in the west", "what? isn't there rape in the west" The point here is that in the west in most parts of any country a girl walking alone or showing skin isn't interpreted as "asking for it" That cannot be said for some of the countries from which these men are coming from.

b) What measures are NATO countries prepared to take not to cave in to US policies of interference in other countries. THe other NATO countries need to have more power.

c) When will the west esp UK and US stop propping up SA. No point in asking when will SA stop funding proxy wars and fundamentalism across the world, which then goes onto spawn into even worse fundamentalism like the taliban, al qaida and isis not to mention the gazillion other different factions killing each other in afganistan and pakistan.

This migrant crisis and the causes of it are complex and multiple. Many parties, countries and both the religions of islam and judaism and how they view themselves and each other are involved.

HOWEVER, just like the destabalisation of syria and iraq led to the spawning of isis, it has also led to this economic opportunism that is making it hard for the genuine refugees that it outnumbers.

Originally posted by: St.T

One thing I fail to understand...

Across the online comments, there are always some Indians who are going to put forward a hate-msg against the Syrian Refugees. Why is that?

This woman's plea is heart breaking: https://www.facebook.com/skynews/videos/1174329229248339/

It is not a hate msg by the majority. Some few maybe yes. Majority are wary.

Definition Wary: feeling or showing caution about possible dangers or problems.

Why? Read below and then hand on heart think. If you were an Indian, how would you feel? I suggest you use the word hate with caution in the future. If India and Indians hated muslims, India would not have more muslims in it than pakistan and if Indians did not treat its muslim population well, then wouldn't they have moved across the border to pakistan? Or now be migrating to Germany along with their fellow muslim afghans and pakistanis who make up a sizable percentage of the migrant crisis.


For 100s of years muslim invaders carried out the largest genocide in the world in India.
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, mass rapes of Hindu 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."

Writer Fernand Braudel wrote in A History of Civilisations (1995), that 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."

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 discoloured, 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 Meerat, 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 twentv 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 honour) 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."


And the irony is...majority of Indians don't know the history of their land. Look at the numbers...pay attention to the numbers and what atrocities were commited and also the fact that these accounts are from the invaders themselves.
It is heartbreaking no? Even without facebook video.

Personally I do find the situation and the video heartbreaking. Thousands of women and girls from these countries are suffering wayyy more than these men on the march to europe.

Well Panthera, firstly I would like to concede to your long arguments. I read them to my level best and I can see you cited many ancient stories. Are you sure the kings of ancient India were all saints and nobody had any war or showed brutality? Those were brutal times you know ... I can't even say anything good for Europeans, Russians, Ukrainians, or any other nation during those times. Perhaps you have good records of India. As I already conceded, you will not have to work harder to prove that early Indian kings had their hands with flowers only, and no blood.

Now coming to modern times, are you sure you have considered every political scenario as to why the refugee crisis reached European shores, and why Europeans and Americans should not be responsible for it? You mentioned other Islamic countries for this crisis, but I thought we were discussing a humanitarian crisis and not something wrapped in a religious sheet.

Do you know that Germany is a place where a refugee can work to earn a living? They get health insurance and can go to see a doctor? Does that happen in other Middle Eastern countries?

If the Middle Eastern countries display lack of humanity, does that justify our stances to replicate theirs?

Who imposed the war on Syria? Who funds the ISIS ... ?

These are some of the more rational questions that add weight to discussions as well.

My point being made, I do acknowledge that I have no idea about the historical pain and suffering you must have to bear every night when going to your bed. But it still is beyond me.

Make one thread like this and all the liberals of IF will come out of the woodwork.

Common sense will tell you that Europe is committing national and cultural suicide. This kind of large scale immigration with Europe's already abysmal low fertility rates + rising radicalism among Muslim migrants already there, anyone can imagine the consequences. There are ISIS members among the 'refugees', go look them up. Don't see Arab countries taking them in enmasse.

Originally posted by: Panthera

It is not a hate msg by the majority. Some few maybe yes. Majority are wary.

Definition Wary: feeling or showing caution about possible dangers or problems.

Why? Read below and then hand on heart think. If you were an Indian, how would you feel? I suggest you use the word hate with caution in the future. If India and Indians hated muslims, India would not have more muslims in it than pakistan and if Indians did not treat its muslim population well, then wouldn't they have moved across the border to pakistan? Or now be migrating to Germany along with their fellow muslim afghans and pakistanis who make up a sizable percentage of the migrant crisis.


For 100s of years muslim invaders carried out the largest genocide in the world in India.
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, mass rapes of Hindu 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."

Writer Fernand Braudel wrote in A History of Civilisations (1995), that 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."

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 discoloured, 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 Meerat, 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 twentv 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 honour) 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."


And the irony is...majority of Indians don't know the history of their land. Look at the numbers...pay attention to the numbers and what atrocities were commited and also the fact that these accounts are from the invaders themselves.
It is heartbreaking no? Even without facebook video.

Personally I do find the situation and the video heartbreaking. Thousands of women and girls from these countries are suffering wayyy more than these men on the march to europe.

I have not written anything against the Hindus. So please ...

I hope Islamic countries would open the door for Syrian refugees,as they are culturally or religion wise more closer.if any any of them did that,I don't know.
European countries took some steps,that's nice.

Innocents were killed that is very sad.So many people were dying.God bless each soul.It is painful to see such thing.