web analytics

IS IT ‘COS I IS MUSLIM?

By ATWadmin On May 14th, 2007

Did you see that One of the alleged London 21 July bombers has said he was only accused of being a suicide bomber because he was Muslim? Yassin Omar, 26, said the "bomb" he detonated in a rucksack at Warren Street Tube station in London was a protest against the Iraq war.

"Because I am Muslim, straight away that meant I was a suicide bomber," he told Woolwich Crown Court.

Not quite. But last time I checked suicide bombing seems to have a special attraction for followers of the Religion of Peace and Love. Omar knows exactly what he is doing – appealing to the self-loathing instinct amongst those liberals that pay attention to his pathetic bleatings.

46 Responses to “IS IT ‘COS I IS MUSLIM?”

  1. David

    Even the ‘self loathing liberals’ you refer to will dismiss this as a desperate and utterly false defence.

  2. May be he wanted to leave his rucksack somewhere and run off. Surely to prove that someone’s a suicide bomber you have to prove that they were planning to be there when the bomb went off???

  3. Adrian

    he isn’t charged with being a suicide bomber. He is charged with conspiracy to cause an explosion. It is irrelevent whether he is there at the time of the explosion or not. Also, he was charged because he was one of the individuals carrying the explosives (a fact he doesn’t deny) not because he is a Muslim. It’s not a case of mistaken identity and no-one is claiming that.

  4. Surely the crime is the detonation of the bomb itself, the silver lining is the suicide.

  5. Even the ‘self loathing liberals’ you refer to will dismiss this as a desperate and utterly false defence.

    you would be hard pressed to find any opinion to the contrary. except of course in myraid rightworld strawmen.

    this is exactly what me and many other liberals want to see. the application of fair trials and justice. nothing more nothing less.

  6. What is this country coming to when a muslim man can’t even detonate a bomb in his rucksack without being accused of terrorism? Stop Islamophobia!

  7. David,

    Off topic, but did you miss this one:

    "Schools to ‘ban’ pupils wearing crosses – but jewellery of other faiths allowed.

    "Schools could be forced to ban their pupils from wearing crosses – while allowing them to display symbols of non-Christian religions.

    "Schools could be forced to ban their pupils from wearing crosses – while allowing them to display symbols of non-Christian religions.

    "The rules being considered by one education authority would see jewellery forbidden from PE lessons, apart from in "exceptional circumstances".

    "The sensitivity apparently only extends to symbols from the Hindu, Sikh and Muslim faiths."

    More here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=454697&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

  8. Let’s try that link again:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=454697&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

  9. Oh well, copy/paste will get you there….

  10. ‘this is exactly what me and many other liberals want to see. the application of fair trials and justice. nothing more nothing less.’

    My how noble. Except in Iraq. When you marched with your Not in My Name banners and conveniently forgot to mention Saddams tortures of the oppressed – lesser voiced left wing Iraqi liberals and dissidents. If you didnt support that march’s banners, took along something different or did NOT go on the rally then ill take that back. But Im sure you said you did. Which means your application of anything fair is as erratic as anyone on the right you decide to chastise.

  11. Interesting article from an ex-Muslim on why Muslims hate us and always will hate us no matter what we do, and what we need to do to save ourselves from their raging aggression..

    "The Qur’an teaches Muslims not to be friendly with the non-Muslims or to trust them (1). It also advocates that the non-Muslims are the associates of Satan (2) and warns of severe punishment to those Muslims who try to be in affable terms with the non-Muslims(3). A Muslim convert must not be in congenial terms even with his non-Muslim parents (4) and he is free to murder his parents and kindred (5) if they criticise the convert’s new faith. The Qur’an says that the non-Muslims are open enemies of Islam (6). Muslims are commanded to be harsh and ruthless with them (7), to terrorise them (8), to humiliate them (9), to make war on them(10) and to murder them wherever they are found (11).
    A true Muslim must follow the Qur’an in complete. Therefore, it is obligatory for him/her to dislike and distrust the non-Muslims. It is the Qur’an which is responsible for such unbound hatred.
    Why they think of us as enemy when we have no feeling of enmity towards them?
    Please refer to the previous answer. Even when the unbelievers harbour no enmity or dislike towards the Muslims, they (the Muslims) must not take the unbelievers as friends and allies. The infidels’ unbelief (that is, their refusal to convert to Islam) is the main reason why Muslims must hate them. Refusal to convert to Islam in itself is considered as an act of hostility and oppression. That is why non-Muslims are open enemies of Islam—nothing, not even their good intentions, could render them friendly towards the Muslims. ! "

    ……

    "No doubt, it is necessary to fight this war militarily but it should also be fought doctrinally. So far, nothing has been done to extinguish Islam ideologically. The world must launch this war immediately The PC politicians, so far, have lied to their people by saying that Islam means peace. Let the entire world rise up against Islam. This will force the so-called vast majority of the not-so-good Muslims to discard Islam—at least the violent part of it. They would remain contented with the ritual part of Islam, like prayer, fasting etc. These rituals do not harm others. When this happens the Jihadists will find it extremely difficult to recruit new suicide bombers and Islamic killers. That is how Islam should be fought. The first step for the world leaders will be to speak the truth and speak it forcefully. They must set aside all their differences for the sake of saving the humanity from the looming catastrophe, that is, a victory of Islam by exploding atom bombs on infidel lands. Only an imbecile dunce will doubt this capability of the Islamists. When the entire infidel world unites solidly to combat Islam you will see how fast Islam recedes to its cave. For this to occur, the world must be prepared to face another oil shock. But this had to be endured if we want a world free of Islamic terrorism."

    Read it all at http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=647&Itemid=63

  12. Right Mahons!

    Colm,

    According to David the poor guy thought he was being accused of being a suicide bomber – simply because he was a Muslim.

    David also alleges that Muslims are more prone to turn suicide bombers and I must say I agree with David on this aspect of the matter – for the age we’re living in, at any rate. I mean, we’ve all heard of what the jihadis hope to get in heaven and all that.

    So whatever the actual crime he was plotting, (in a legal sense), this post implies that if he were a Muslim, he should have known that people would suspect him of being a suicide bomber.

    I quote: Last time I checked suicide bombing seems to have a special attraction for followers of the Religion of Peace and Love.

  13. Najistani,
    The weak point in your argument is who says that one has to follow the complete Quran in order to be a true Muslim?

    Once you understand that it is possible to be a Muslim and ignore major points of the Quran you will also see that liberal Islam is a real possibility.

  14. Adrian: I may have to frame that response. I presume it applies to all our disagreements and that you have now seen the light. My first miracle (let the Pope know).

  15. It seems to have become a knee-jerk reaction among Muslims, Marxists and their colleagues in academia and the MSM to dismiss any rational examination of Islam as ‘Islamophobia’.

    For example, there is absolutely no correlation between RoP and suicide bombings. Methodists, Buddhists, Quakers and Catholic nuns are just as liable to go into autodestruct mode on public transport

    ISLAMOPHOBIA is a very confusing term because a ‘phobia’ is an irrational fear, whereas the civilized person’s increasing apprehension about Islam is very definitely founded upon real threats to freedom, the rule of law and the rights of women and children to be free from sexual molestation.

    ISLAMIC AWARENESS is a far more useful concept than Islamophobia. The eight components of Islamic awareness are:

    1) Islam is static and unresponsive to change. Islam is based on the Koran, a hate-filled rant written by a psychopathic pedophile which claims to be the ‘Eternal Word of God’. If you are a Muslim you must accept the Koran without question, as the unchangeable and unchallengeable word of God. If you do not accept ALL of the koran (including the passages that incite murder, maiming and rape) then you are an apostate and other Muslims have a duty to kill you. Islam is monolithic, petrified and fossilized, and can never separate itself or progress from this barbaric 7th century text. Modernization (Bid’ah) is strictly forbidden "Every innovation is a misguidance and every misguidance goes to Hell fire."

    2) Islam does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them in any positive way. Islam is totally different from any other religion. There is no Golden Rule. There is no ‘Thou Shalt not Kill’, no requirement for truth. In fact killing (Jihad) and lying (Taqiyya) to further the expansion of Islam are regarded as virtues.

    Those aspects of the cult which appear to imitate Judeo-Christianity are in fact a thin veneer covering vicious and evil barbarism. The pivot of islamic existence is an implacable hatred of the non-believer, which is taught from infancy. All the rest of the ‘religion’ revolves around this divinely decreed requirement to kill, maim, rape, subjugate, plunder and humiliate the infidel. Jews and Christians are pigs and apes. Islam has produced nothing of use or interest to other cultures for the last 500 years. Islam is a theocratic, pre-rational phase of social development which Europe left behind in the sixteenth century.

    3) Islamic culture continues to be in all respects inferior to the West. It produces no artistic or scientific output of any significance. Islamic society is barbaric, irrational, primitive, tribal and sexist. Stonings, honor killings, use of women as possessions, institutionalised pedophilia, polygamy and illiteracy abound.

    4) Islam is violent, and aggressive to its very core. The Koran advocates terrorism and Allah rewards those who kill infidels. Islam is engaged in a 1400 year old ‘clash of civilisations’ where all other cultures are regarded as ‘Jahiliya’ to be destroyed, censored and suppressed. The world is divided into Dar al-Harb and Dar-al-Islam. Dar al-Islam has bloody borders and is permanently at war with Dar al-Harb. This war does not just apply to the West. Anarchic failed states such Pakistan and Afghistan were once peaceful and prosperous Buddhist countries, but all traces of their Buddhist history have been eliminated. Pacifism is no protection against Islamic predation.

    5) Islam is a political ideology as well as being an irrationalist cult , and is used for political advantage, often by cynical rulers who live as playboys in the fleshpots of Dar al-Harb. Although utterly irrational and oscurantist, Islam survives because it provides the justification for a medieval power structure where the priests are at the top, the Muslim male in the middle, and women and kaffirs at the bottom.

    6) Muslims are continually criticising the West – moaning, whingeing, whining and complaining, even when they have chosen to come and live here. The are perpetually pleading for special treatment with alternating temper tantrums and threats of riots and terrorism interspersed with sulky infantile displays of victim status. They especially resent westerners applying modern standards of analysis to their protected ‘victim culture’.

    7) Uniquely among immigrants, Muslims refuse to fit in with the host society. Instead they expect the hosts to fit in with them. This causes real problems in employability as the employer can expect far greater numbers of lawsuits alleging discrimination etc from Muslim employees than from less ‘victimised’ groups.

    Muslims also are a major security risk in sensitive occupations such as police, armed forces, airports etc. Their first loyalty is to the Ummah, not to their country (whose institutions and culture they hate).

    8) Wariness about Muslims is natural and normal. These people really do want to kill us, plunder our property and rape and subjugate our children. The Koran tells them to do it and their role-model Mohammed set an example of divinely justified criminality which every Muslim endevors to follow.

    So phobia my ass! Be afraid! Be VERY afraid!! You have good reason to be. The Koran is a psychopath’s charter.

    More islamic awareness at http://www.globalpolitician.com/articleshow.asp?ID=2794&cid=2 ,
    http://www.finalcrusade.com/ ,
    and http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/11/20-things-you-should-know-about-islam.html , http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/

  16. Adrian – are you a christian? Genuine question.

  17. Alison – He claims to be a Roman Catholic seminarian in India.

  18. Colm –

    "Even the ‘self loathing liberals’ you refer to will dismiss this as a desperate and utterly false defence."

    Maybe, maybe not. But it speaks volumes that a muslim can even conceive of such an absurd defence. We know what he’s saying, implying and meaning. Yet just a couple of generations ago such a defence would have been incomprehensible to the court.

  19. Re Petes point what does everyone think of ‘identity politics’?

  20. Mahons,
    I still owe you around 8 pro-you posts but I don’t see how I’m going to get them all done this side of Christmas.

    One of my good friends from Chicago, a vehement Bush sympathizer, has just arrived in Bangalore today. I can’t have the same arguments with him that I have with you guys because he generally brings me a bundle of Scott Hahn tapes or something when he lands up…:)

    Najistani,
    Thanks again for your detailed description of what we’re dealing with but I live in a country whose 700 years of being under Muslim rulers generally compare favourably with the roughly 190 years of British rule that followed. Indian Muslims at any rate are not the Islamoterrorists you say every Muslim ought to be.

    Alison,
    We’ll leave that to God to decide, shall we? For my part, I merely follow the teachings of Christ as I understand them through Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium.

    But may be you’re getting a bit confused by the fact that I didn’t specify that I thought this guy was a criminal. Of course I condemn all bombers whether they are Jihadi Muslims terrorising people or American precision bombers hoping to kill a specific person. But especially if they are Jihadi Muslims terrorising civilians.

    However, I feel the need to respond to this particular article’s claim that Omar’s case illustrates the fact that Muslims have a greater tendency to turn suicide bombers. Considering that he didn’t plan to commit suicide, his case does nothing of the kind.

  21. Adrian: I hope this isn’t unfair, but I’ve been wondering about what appears to me to be strident anti-Americanism and your stated vocation. To each his own, but it is hard for me to reconcile the sense of animosity.

  22. And Adrian, i dont get it either.

  23. Adrian

    How do you know he didn’tplan to commit suicide. the trial is still on and the Prosecution are claiming the four defendents planned to repeat 7/7. The claim is that they had planned to detonate the explosives while travelling on the tubes and bus exactly copying what had happened a fortninght before. The trial isn’t over yet but one thing is fact. He isn’t on trial because he is a Muslim but because he was involved in this incident whatever it turns out to have been.

  24. The term "suicide bomber" is a MSM euphemism for MASS MURDERER !

  25. Alison –

    He’s a commie.

    Adrian –

    The rucksack contained hydrogen peroxide and flour.

    It exploded.

    Even without that information, I don’t believe you. You actually do think that this Somali immigrant did intend to kill as many people as he could, but you just can’t bring yourself to admit it.

  26. Okay so though I prefer not to write personal stuff on interesting threads like this (I don’t mind doing it on boring ones like Alison’s…tongue in cheek…), here goes.

    My anti-Americanism as you call it stems from four sources.
    1. The conviction that military solutions unnecessarily complicate matters and should only be used in emergencies like Afghanistan. [Cardinal Virtue of Wisdom]
    2. The conviction that foreign policy should not be based on falsehoods and fabrications like the ones proposed for the acceptance of the Security Council by no less a figure than Colin Powell, representative of the NATION. [Thou shalt not bear false witness…]
    3. The belief that the current Republican Government, like that of Ronald Reagan, has shown that it uses Christianity the way a sepulchre uses whitewash, and that its sole concerns are those of the businessmen who funded and supported its campaign – which might incidentally include a couple of Christian TV channels etc. [Matthew 23]
    4. The perhaps mistaken notion that George Bush, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of the gang – whatever their IQ and morals, are representative of the United States of America as a whole, for these eight years at any rate. [From the definition of Democracy]

    So you see it isn’t anti-Americanism at all, basically just opposition to the practices of the present government which your people unfortunately voted into office a second time thereby proving that they approved its policies.

    Regarding animosity, I hope you realise that though I have recently (after a long series of arguments with Monica and Troll) become fairly vocal in my criticism of American policy, I bear no ill-will towards any American on ATW or off it, though I do believe that those who support the Iraq war are indirectly claiming that America has the right to install America-friendly governments all over the world which is unreasonable and unjustifiable and incredibly is an idea that is propagated seriously by some regulars on ATW. Similarly with regard to Guantanamo. It means that America has unlimited rights to imprison people it sees as a threat – whether they caught the right people or not. It’s the end of a human rights epoch that began in 1776.

    I think that’s long enough for today…good night!

  27. Colm,
    Of course he isn’t on trial because he’s a Muslim. I thought we both knew that…:)

    Look here,
    TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
    This is to certify that Adrian knows that Omar wanted to kill as many people as possible and deserves to be tried according to the law and sentenced to the maximum possible punishment.

    Now that that’s cleared up, I want to re-post one of my earlier comments:

    So whatever the actual crime he was plotting, (in a legal sense), this post implies that if he were a Muslim, he should have known that people would suspect him of being a suicide bomber.

    I quote (David’s words): Last time I checked suicide bombing seems to have a special attraction for followers of the Religion of Peace and Love.

    Ho hum, I’m feeling sleepy. Been misstating my views on several occasions today.

  28. Adrian

    Phew! like Daytripper when you get going you get going. perhaps I should rephrase my comment above. He hasn’t been accused of the crime and charged with it because he happens to be Muslim but because he was involved in the incident.

  29. [Cardinal Virtue of Wisdom]

    Who he ? Is this the secret Cardinal in China ? 😉

  30. I would guess a mixed up catholic Confucion 😉

  31. Adrian: The reason I asked is that you seem to be very quiet on India and very vocal on the U.S. It creeps into almost all of your comments. Anyhow, pleasant dreams.

  32. Adrian: A reason to stop posting was that the comments didnt really ignite any debate. Or heat not light. Thanks for proving my point today. I know they are boring. Im pretty self criticial. You should try it sometime.

  33. Alison

    I don’t think your posts were at all boring. They often offered an insight and a reflection – particularly on the plight of women in reactionary Muslim countries – that wasn’t been expressed elsewhere. I disagree that your points didn’t ignite debate, but as to whether it was more heat than light has to be a matter of individual opinion.

  34. My how noble. Except in Iraq. When you marched with your Not in My Name banners and conveniently forgot to mention Saddams tortures of the oppressed – lesser voiced left wing Iraqi liberals and dissidents. If you didnt support that march’s banners, took along something different or did NOT go on the rally then ill take that back. But Im sure you said you did. Which means your application of anything fair is as erratic as anyone on the right you decide to chastise.

    alison, i marched against the war. but did so under no banner and, as i have said before, against the motives of going to war.

    the removal of saddam hussein was an afterthought in the pro-war camp. and in any case the iraqis are in amuch more dangerous situation now, seeing as they have enemies in humvees and enemies next door.

    please dont try and spin it that this war was in any way about honouring the good people of iraq. its a complete disaster and another stain on the wests "high morals and values".

    one small and seemingly insignificant observation to make when looking at footage of iraq is the mess. the country has been turned into a landfill. its a complete disgrace.

  35. The aftermath is a disgrace. But so is the idea against going to war (by liberals) eg that Saddam wasnt worth removing. I disagree about enemies in humvees. I think the enemies are in propaganda and the Islamic State of Iraq.

  36. Who turned it into a landfill DT? Does the word insurgent mean nothing…are the American soldiers blowing themselves up together with hundreds of ordinary Iraqis? Do the words Sunni and Shiite mean nothing, killing each other ..for what. In a completely rediculous world the insurgents would go home, the various religious factions would try to get on and the evil Americans would leave. Piece of cake. Oh yes and we should try to get Iran to help Zimbabwe with the Commission on Sustainable Development.

  37. LOL maggie – or China

  38. Pst…now that Adrian has gone to bed can anyone tell me if he sleeps on a bed of nails with his turban on or off?

  39. But so is the idea against going to war (by liberals) eg that Saddam wasnt worth removing.

    if that was the original motive you would have a point. but we both know that such a motive was never really a factor. if removing saddam had been the MO, then many people, including me wouldve been behind it. i said the same thing in 2003, and i imagine i will have to say the same thing, on here, in a week or two.

    I disagree about enemies in humvees. I think the enemies are in propaganda and the Islamic State of Iraq.

    perception is 9/10ths of 2 in a bush alison. im talking about the iraqi position. and quite obviously many people dont want us or the americans there.

    Who turned it into a landfill DT?

    maggie. the US government via the CPA. They are the ones who sacked hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats and civil servants. And disbanded the army lock stock. two unprecedented moves that heralded the chaos we know see.

    Does the word insurgent mean nothing…are the American soldiers blowing themselves up together with hundreds of ordinary Iraqis?

    the occupation created the climate. as i have shown above, there were ways to avoid the large scale insurgency and civil war. one has to assume the US administration wanted both.

  40. Too tired to answer this now DT. Ill come back to this tomorrow

  41. Mahons,
    Like the Holy Spirit I convict the world of sin but rarely talk about myself and where I come from…I understand that most of the things that I could say about India would be irrelevant on ATW and hence I restrict myself to
    (a) defending my country when unfairly attacked
    (b) illustrating my views on multiculturalism and crime by citing examples that I’ve witnessed here
    (c) joining others in criticising caste, corruption, ignorance, dowry and all the other undesirable things you find in India.
    And I owe you five anti-Indian posts and 3 pro-American ones.

    Alison,
    I meant that as a joke.

    I don’t think any of your posts were boring at all. Please don’t be too self-critical – I enjoyed the discussion on Shilpa Shetty for example. I promise to patronise your posts from now on – so I do hope they’ll return, though I’m around only till June 8th. And you said you had some questions to ask me about India?

    But on a different note, the Islamic State of Iraq, if such an entity emerges from the rubble, will be entirely the creation of the US. A New Iran, imagine that.

    Mad,
    So finally you prods admit that Wisdom is a secret known only to Catholics…:)

    Any idea why the Book of Wisdom was excluded from your Bible? Oh I should ask the Ulster Sot about that…:)

    Maggie,
    I sleep on a bed of fingernails and toenails. I switch off my electric turban before sleeping, how did you guess? You’ve ever been in India?

    Colm,
    Let’s admit it, sometimes you and I understand each other better than words can express…:)

  42. Adrian wrote:

    "Thanks again for your detailed description of what we’re dealing with but I live in a country whose 700 years of being under Muslim rulers generally compare favourably with the roughly 190 years of British rule that followed. Indian Muslims at any rate are not the Islamoterrorists you say every Muslim ought to be."

    so I showed it to a Hindu colleague who told me that only certain areas in the north were taken by islam and that millions who did not convert were massacred – Hindu Kush means literally Hindu slaughter. If Adrian would like to correct my Indian colleague, he should do so and support it.
    BTW, were there not a few bombs let off in Bombay recently with a few hundred killed (murdered)? I might be wrong but I’m sure that Adrian can correct me.

  43. Allan,
    I didn’t say that the Muslim rulers were perfect, only that they compare favourably with even the British.

    The Hindu Kush got its name because Indian travellers died there in large numbers because of the extreme climatic conditions. I haven’t heard anyone saying it was because of any massacres that took place there. It was already called Hindukush as early as 1334 which would mean around 140 years after the Muslims came to India. The fledgeling Islamic state actually did not have the power to massacre Indians on a large scale before 1293 or so. Hence there’s a very narrow period during which the massacre might have happened. I’ll come down to it later.

    There were Hindu Kings who massacred Buddhists (King Sasanka of Gauda in the 7th century for example) even before Islam arrived in India. There were also Shiva-worshippers who mutilated the Vishnu worshippers in South India (the Cholas for instance). The great Indian universities of Nalanda and Vikramshila – where 10,000 students were accommodated at a time – which were open to all but associated with Buddhist studies – were finally destroyed by Hindu fanatics.

    Regarding Muslim persecution of Hindus, it did take place of course, but not to the extent of millions killed under any one ruler. Unless your friend is talking about the Mongol invasions. The most ruthless and effective persecutor of Hindus in India was Ala-ud-din Khilji (1296-1315) and even his victims didn’t number in their millions. Further, he killed at least as many Muslims as Hindus (by persecuting the Mongols for example, and having their wives and children trampled by elephants) so it can’t be him that your friend is talking about.

    The other possibility is that your friend is referring to partition-related violence in which 1.5 million people (Hindu and Muslim) died.

    Hence I can’t respond to your friend unless I know more specific details since millions seems to be an exaggerated figure. Please note that Hindus had to pay a special tax called jiziya and hence any Muslim ruler interested in filling his coffers had a vested interest in keeping them alive.

  44. Hindu Kush means slaughter of Indians and not of Hindus alone because the word "Hindu" was not used as the description of a religion that early in history.

    There are other explanations of the name Hindu Kush. I refer you to the wiki article which gives nine possible derivations, out of which you’ve picked the one that suited your theory.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Kush

  45. Adrian, why do you do this – the blanket defence of islam? There is no way that the British presence in India caused more death and destruction than the arrival of islam in india – one of the most shocking and horrific episodes in human history.

  46. Alan,
    I am talking about Muslim rulers of India, such as the Mughals. I am not referring to mere invaders such as Tamerlane, and Nadir Shah, the guy who got away with our Peacock Throne. When you say arrival of Islam in India which period exactly are you referring to? Sind in 712? The Ghaznavid invasions in the 11th century? The arrival of the Delhi Sultanate beginning from the battle of Tarain in 1192? The coming of the Mughals in 1526? You’ll have to be a little more specific if you need a response.