At the end of the tenth century, Sultan Mahmud of Ghazana, who proudly bore the titles the Sword of Islam and the Image Breaker, began a series of seventeen raids through the Khyber Pass and into India from his base just south of Kabul in modern Afghanistan. This Turkish lord made no serious attempt at conquering all of India, but he incorporated into his lands part of the subcontinent's northwestern region of Punjab (an area that today is part of the Islamic state of Pakistan). For a century and a half after Mahmud's death, Islam penetrated no farther into India, but the precedent had been established.The riches that Mahmud accumulated from his plunder and destruction of Hindu temples (he is reputed to have carried off six and one-half tons of gold from one expedition alone) enabled him to turn his otherwise remote, mountain-ringed capital of Ghazana into a major center of Islamic culture. Scholars and artists from all over Southwest Asia gathered at Mahmud's court. Many came willingly; others were forced to come. In 1017, Mahmud conquered the Central Asian Islamic state of Khwarazm, located west of Ghazana and just south of the Aral Sea. The conqueror brought back many of Khwarazm's intellectuals and artisans to his capital, including the Iranian scholar Abul Raiban al-Biruni.
Known to subsequent generations as al-Ustadh (the Master), al-Biruni was primarily an astronomer, mathematician, and linguist, but his wide-ranging interests and intellect involved him in many other fields of inquiry. For thirteen years following his capture, al-Biruni served Mahmud, probably as court astrologer, and traveled with him into India's Punjab region. Shortly after his lord's death in 1030, al-Biruni completed his Description of India, an encyclopedic account of Indian civilization, especially Hindu science. The following excerpts that I would like you to read come from the book's opening pages, in which the author deals with the essential differences that separate Hindus from Muslims. Please click on the following link to read the document (Description of India). When you are finished reading, please think about and discuss the following: According to al-Biruni, what separates Muslims from Hindus? What impact did eighth-century Islam have on India? What impact did Mahmud and his father have on India? Al-Biruni presents a critique of Hindu science and compares it with Greek science (and implicitly with Islamic science). In so doing, he faults Hindu scientists for certain basic failings. What are they? What basic Hindu vision of reality might have influenced a scientific tradition that followed a path different from that of the Greeks and the Muslims? What is the general tone of this entire document, and what do you infer from it? Your thoughts...
9 comments:
I think that this document in kinda inetesting, because although the author is greatly islamic, he at least sorta tries to show the TRUE reasons for the hindus hating the musliums. For example, he says that Muhamud of Ghazana "destroyed the hindus country", so he does actually try to show some respect for their reasons of hatred, i think. He still does dislike everything about their culture too, but mostly becaue they are so different!! Just about everything about these religions are different, as also said in the document. Their language, customs, traditions, and everything! One other reason for the hate in India towards Islam was because they did destroy many if their temples and left a mean streak over almost all of India, which i don't think was smart. They were searching for wealth, but they still didnt have to destroy all the sacred things to Hindus. That was a major factor and there are so many more reasons. Those are just a few! But although he is a respectful author, we still can't take what he says to be true because there is know one person at all representing the Hindus look at Islam either. Its weird that the Islams believe that the Hindus think that their way of live is the only way of living also!
he basically says that everything, from language, religion, and mannerisims are different. one thing also was that he also viewed muslims as superior to both greeks and hindus, at one point comparing the two. he probably held this view partly because of the islamic worlds advances in science, but as a muslim it could have also been that he just thought he people superior.
Wow. the author goes from listing the obvious things--language and religious belief-- that are different, and then goes on to explain in more detail the religious differences, capitalizing on the poor treatment of foreigners, and then it plunges into a series of opinions about everything the author believes is simply not good enough for the world, and how arrogant he thinks they are for thinking them so. It seems that Islam led to anti-Hindu bias, though it says "... and as to declare us to be devil's breed, and our doings as the very opposite of all that is good and proper." Which is an accusation that really seems to be the pot calling the kettle black in writing like this, if you ask me. In my opinion, it seems as though the entire document is not for the purpose of finding differences between Hindus and Muslims, but rather finding how Hindus are inferior to Muslims.
Wow. This guy is quite ignorant himself. He definitly judges as a whole. What any one person of a belief believes, to him, they all believe. Therefore, he can judge them all, in crude ways, becuase they are different from his own.
This document sounds a lot like the i/o circle doc. we read and how the Christians and Muslims seemed to hate each other(based on those opinions). Except, this one is against the Hindus.
He seems to hate everything about the Hindus from their dress to their technology. Their methods of science were adopted from the Greeks, whom he sees as heathens, and to him, that means all thier science was based on superstition and was incorrect.
This was a weird document. I liked it, in that it was fascinating, to hear a person think they are correct about everything, but I definitly did not like the writer and document based on his words.
This man says that the Muslims and Hindus have a different language, overall belief system, and lifestyle. Abu'l Raihan al-Biruni makes it seem that Islam is superior to other groups of people. Also, I want to know if this guy has a problem with Greeks because in the passage it says that before the Greeks converted to Christianity, they sort of acted the same as the Hindu, and he doesnt think the Hindu are all that great.
Dante' Johnson
The religion of the two societies were very different. It describs the isolation created by the Hindu religious customs as viewing the other as impure.
He comments that the Hindus would not use swords to settle religious conflicts but rather to battle the impure. Mr. Prill, what about the Bhavada Gita (forgot spelling). Wasn't brother fighting brother not neccessarily the impure or mleccha?
These expiditiions did not do much to convert Hindus to Islam but rather introduced the two societies to eachother, often creating hatred. It seems Al-Biruni is very down to Earth realizing that all nations think they are the best and feel other nations are inferior.
"By the way, we must confess, in order to be just, that a similar depreciation of foreigners not only prevails among us and the Hindus, but is common to all nations towards each other. "
He also says that Hindu science was flawed because of its failure to expand beyond the mass belief and ideas, and basing things solely on religion and mass belief.
I was surprised at how respectful and unbiased this document seemed. I got the idea that al-Biruni wasn't trying to spread propoganda about Hindus, but was trying to relay his true observations of the society.
many people are saying that muslims were painting a bad picture of Hindus in this doc.
I think it is the opposite of that.
I think he is trying to do an unbiased analyzation of Hindu society. Trying to understand them, not bash them.
al-Biruni says that the muslims differ from the hindus in more or less five obvious ways including language, religion, mannerisms, certain beliefs, and a way of thinking; sort of a certain thought-process. it sounds to me like the hindus are being talked about in a condescending tone. it is clear that al-Biruni thinks of muslims higher than hindus and greeks. Even though al-Biruni tries to only state facts and show true observations, there is a hint of islam bias throughout the whole document. he does give credit to the hindus, but eventually implies that muslims are above all others.
Eventhough everyone has already said this its true, It basically says Hindus and Muslims are on two different ends of the spectrum. The Muslim's saw themselves as superior to Hindus and Greeks because at that time they pretty much were when it came to science, education, and wealth. I don't think the Muslims necassarily hated the Hindus they just kind of saw them as below them.
Post a Comment