Historical accuracy check about Islamic conquest of the Far East.

by bh2005

http://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/2sj2wi/islamic_india_the_biggest_holocaust_in_world/

There seems to be a lot of back and forth about accuracy in the article linked. I'd like to know are the facts themselves that are spoken about historically accurate (political injections from the author put aside).

Note: The article cites sources at the end, although it appears as if some people still have doubts.

Thank you. I'm hoping that these arguments can be settled.

edXcitizen87539319

People might have doubts because the article is listed on a site which says things like

Islam is a dangerous and totalitarian fascist ideology and a greater threat to the West than Nazism.

and

Remove all practicing and religious Muslims from the West. Completely. Deport them by canceling residency, revoking passports and visas through a reversed ruling on basis of incompatibility and ineligibility.

and prominently links to a site saying things like

Fact to realize is, Muslims have been poor, illiterate, war mongering savages for 1,400 years because they are kept hostage by Islam

If they'll call that a fact, I'd doubt any and all other 'facts' listed on that site. The site you linked is evidently not a good source for historical information. It is clearly biased and xenophobic.

With that out of the way, the specific article you linked was taken by the site you linked to from the BNP website (originally published April 16th 2012). The BNP is the British National Party, a a far-right political party in the United Kingdom whose ideology "has been described as fascist or neo-fascist by political scientists and commentators" (quoting Wikipedia).

In short, the article you linked to is a propaganda piece from a far-right party.

Edit: regarding "The article cites sources at the end, although it appears as if some people still have doubts."

Citing sources does not mean something is 'true' or a 'fact'! Anything can go wrong with sources.

  • The list itself might be off. Has the author listed all the sources? Has the author listed sources they haven't used? Has the author used an incorrect reference? This stuff happens.
  • Then there's the question of whether the author has accurately reflected the source in his article. If something is cited, does the source really say that? If something is paraphrased, is it a fair paraphrase?
  • Additionally, you should wonder if the citation/paraphrase isn't cherry-picked. Does the source perhaps try to say the exact opposite of what the author is claiming? Again, all this actually happens.
  • Finally there's the question of the validity of the source itself. Even if the author has the correct source and has cited it correctly, the source itself might be junk.