Print Page | Close Window

why didn't arabs conquer India?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Post-Classical Middle East
Forum Description: SW Asia, the Middle East and Islamic civilizations from 600s - 1900 AD
Moderators: Sparten, Azimuth, es_bih
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=23609
Printed Date: 20-Jun-2019 at 19:08
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: why didn't arabs conquer India?
Posted By: seko12
Subject: why didn't arabs conquer India?
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 19:43
why didn't arabs go towards India with full force? I mean they only sent Muhammad bin Qasim to sindh and after that no one came. India was known as a very rich area of the world where they could have made a lot of wealth. why did arabs instead go west towards Europe and Spain, which was generally poor at the time?



Replies:
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 19:57
Why is your name Seko, that name is copyrighted on this forum Tongue

-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 19:59
Maybe they couldn't have done that. What was the population of India back then?


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 20:58
Hello to you all
 
Well there are many reasons for this, first was the civil war and then fall of the Ummayyads. The Umayyads were agressive conquerors, they succeeded in conquering all the lands they sent armies to except Byzantium. Muhammad bin Al-Qasim wante to go to India because of the enormous wealth there and because pagans accepted Islam much easier than Christians or Zoroastrians. Native population of Sindh and southern Punjab welcomed Arabs and allied themselves with them, this no doubt encouraged Muhammad to plan for further incursion into India especially after the successful naval operations against Gujurat and the arrival of new troops. But the death of Al-Walid I spelt doom for ibn Al-Qasin and his conquest. For a very weak charge he was tried and killed. His troops were withdrawn for war effort in the Byzantine front and even after the failure of the siege of 717, new problem started, civil war in spain, major revolts in Khurasan, Mazandran and transoxania and then the great Khazar invasion which threatened the very existance of the Ummayyad empire. All that lead to the withdrawall of all the troops in Sindh. When the Abbasids came, they had little attention payed to conquest and focused on preserving what was already in their hands. Later, they allowed the existance of client dynasties that became responsible for securing the realm of Islam, these clients soon became fully independet and started the long and bloody process of conquering India.
 
Al-Jassas 


Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 21:26

Arab rule was from what is now Karachi to the confluence of the Chanab and Indus, that is Multan.



-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2008 at 09:02

           There is an arab proverb which will give some insight as to the reason

"Persia is known for its archers, Turks for their cavalry and India for its armies"

      And Al-Jassas about your assertion that pagans accepted  Islam more quickly than Zoarastrians or christians is interesting. Persians became muslims rather quickly however the Pagan Indonesians accepted Islam almost without any effort. But most countries of South East Asia are still mostly pagan. And it should be in your notice that many people of the mid-east and Egypt were christians under Roman rule and in most of these countries with the odd exception of Lebanon there is not a sizeable christian community. And Modern India despite being under about 800 years of muslim rule is still largely pagan. 

     I think that your assertion is a bit of an over-generalization.  


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2008 at 14:33
Hello Bilal
 
First, I never heard of the proverb you said however there are other quotes by several leaders which are close to what you said.
 
As for Pagans accepting Islam, it is true. Persians were majority Zoroastrians till the 10th century then there were some forced conversions to Shiism in certain places. Several provinces like Kashan and Yazd had upto 25% of its population Zoroasrians when the Safavids forced the rest of Persia to convert to Shiism in the 16th century. Indonesians were Hindu and were peacefully converted so was most Sindhis, Kashmiris, Punjabis etc. It was only when later dynasties resorted to bloody attacks n hindus did the conversion rate became static. Dynasties wanted to rule more tha to spread Islam and if they did that peacefully India woud hve been majority muslim long ago.
 
Al-Jassas
 
 


Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 20:07
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello Bilal
 
First, I never heard of the proverb you said however there are other quotes by several leaders which are close to what you said.
 
As for Pagans accepting Islam, it is true. Persians were majority Zoroastrians till the 10th century then there were some forced conversions to Shiism in certain places. Several provinces like Kashan and Yazd had upto 25% of its population Zoroasrians when the Safavids forced the rest of Persia to convert to Shiism in the 16th century. Indonesians were Hindu and were peacefully converted so was most Sindhis, Kashmiris, Punjabis etc. It was only when later dynasties resorted to bloody attacks n hindus did the conversion rate became static. Dynasties wanted to rule more tha to spread Islam and if they did that peacefully India woud hve been majority muslim long ago.
 
Al-Jassas
 
 
 
     That proverb is hosted on this site.
 
       And most of the population which was converted to Islam was actually Bhuddist. And the population which was converted to Islam was converted to Sufi islam, of which most arabs are not very big fans, who prefer Wahabism instead. 


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 15:52
Hello Bilal
 
Obviously you no nothing about Arabs so I will explain some things to you. First, Arabs are not Wahhabis because there is no such thing. Second, he first people who attacked the Wahhabi movement were neighbouring Arabs wether they be in Nejd or in Egypt or Iraq, Sunni or Shia. The Wahhabis were puritanical reformers simmilar to the English puritans. The movement ceased to exist a long time ago because its goals were accomplished, purifying religion from pagan influences. In the rest of the Islamic world, Sufism is still strong, there are some 20% of the population of Egypt and up to 90% of that of Morocco and Sudan. The rest of the population whil not sharing the same creed of Sufis have been influenced by them and many celebration and practices that are not acceptable by Sunni scholars are widely practised among non Sufis. Islam entered India before Sufis began to have the upper hand there. Sufism started to grow rapidly after the ongolian hordes distroyed much of the Islamic world. The collapse of the Islamic system of education and the advent of illiterate rulers surrounded by sufis meant that sufism not traditional sunni Islam was to gain followers that is why many Indians are sufis but most are still Sunnis with sufi infuences.
 
AL-Jassas


Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 13:14
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello Bilal
 
Obviously you no nothing about Arabs so I will explain some things to you. First, Arabs are not Wahhabis because there is no such thing. Second, he first people who attacked the Wahhabi movement were neighbouring Arabs wether they be in Nejd or in Egypt or Iraq, Sunni or Shia. The Wahhabis were puritanical reformers simmilar to the English puritans. The movement ceased to exist a long time ago because its goals were accomplished, purifying religion from pagan influences. In the rest of the Islamic world, Sufism is still strong, there are some 20% of the population of Egypt and up to 90% of that of Morocco and Sudan. The rest of the population whil not sharing the same creed of Sufis have been influenced by them and many celebration and practices that are not acceptable by Sunni scholars are widely practised among non Sufis. Islam entered India before Sufis began to have the upper hand there. Sufism started to grow rapidly after the ongolian hordes distroyed much of the Islamic world. The collapse of the Islamic system of education and the advent of illiterate rulers surrounded by sufis meant that sufism not traditional sunni Islam was to gain followers that is why many Indians are sufis but most are still Sunnis with sufi infuences.
 
AL-Jassas
 
          I have to say that you also know very little about the subcontient culture. Islam did enter India before the Sufis but it was the Sufis who really converted the local poulation. Since you are not a Pakistani therefore you don't the know the Sufi influence here, it is everywhere from music to shrines and folk poetry and all. And i know for a fact that many so called teachers of Islam went to the Arab countries and were greatly influenced by Wahabism and then going back to the subcontinent caused immense social strife there. 
 
         And about your claim that Persia was not really mostly muslim until about 1000 A.D. Well that is strange, i have read 1001 Arabian nights, which is actually 1001 Persian nights from around 800 A.D and Persia is as Muslim as it could be there with no signs of Zoarastrianism anywhere. Read it, you will know what i mean. 


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 15:41

Hello Bilal

Here is the problem, which version of the Nights you mean, if you don't know it by now, there is some 3 main versions if not more and many have completely different themes. The version that I read a long time ago was in 7 volumes and the Egyptian influence, nicknames, jockes etc is much more appareant than any other influence. 8th century Baghdad was actually 15th century Cairo.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: AGMS
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 04:58
How dare you say that India is still pagan, Hinduism is hardly pagan being the oldest religion of this world. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are new when compared to Hinduism. You seemed to glance over the fact that Hinduism is the oldest religion of this world and 3rd largest in terms of followers following Christianity, and Islam. Furthermore Hinduism is the last true polytheistic religion left. I would consider that next time you said any statements even suggesting that India is largely pagan


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 06:35
Originally posted by AGMS AGMS wrote:

How dare you say that India is still pagan, Hinduism is hardly pagan being the oldest religion of this world. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are new when compared to Hinduism. You seemed to glance over the fact that Hinduism is the oldest religion of this world and 3rd largest in terms of followers following Christianity, and Islam. Furthermore Hinduism is the last true polytheistic religion left. I would consider that next time you said any statements even suggesting that India is largely pagan
I don't know what you think Pagan means. According to the dictionary it means:
"One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially an adherent of a polytheistic religion in antiquity."
I don't know about you, but I'm quite content with calling Hindus people who aren't Christian, Muslim or Jew and are polytheist. In the context of Muhammed bin Qasim, they were also in antiquity.
 
I don't think the age of a religion has anything to do with it being pagan or not.


-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 06:38
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Native population of Sindh and southern Punjab welcomed Arabs and allied themselves with them
Only the Buddhists actually, who were quite happy to get rid of the Brahmin rule. Nearly the whole of the Buddhist population converted over time, that is still evident in the demographics of india. The current muslim population is quite proportional to ancient buddhist populations.
I think the effect of Sufis is greatly overstated.


-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 16:47
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Native population of Sindh and southern Punjab welcomed Arabs and allied themselves with them
Only the Buddhists actually, who were quite happy to get rid of the Brahmin rule. Nearly the whole of the Buddhist population converted over time, that is still evident in the demographics of india. The current muslim population is quite proportional to ancient buddhist populations.
 
 
This is specially useful explaining why Bengal became muslim, relativelly isolated from the rest of the islamic world.


Posted By: AGMS
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 01:06
lol at least Hindu's aren't so tied in their conflicting beliefs and viewpoints. The only true religion left in this world. Christianity, Islam and Judaism all got it wrong


Posted By: AGMS
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 01:10
Furthermore Hinduism is a mixture of monotheistic and polytheistic ideals, so it goes to show that the dictionary definition is misguided.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 02:06
Originally posted by Ikki Ikki wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Native population of Sindh and southern Punjab welcomed Arabs and allied themselves with them
Only the Buddhists actually, who were quite happy to get rid of the Brahmin rule. Nearly the whole of the Buddhist population converted over time, that is still evident in the demographics of india. The current muslim population is quite proportional to ancient buddhist populations.
This is specially useful explaining why Bengal became muslim, relativelly isolated from the rest of the islamic world.

Its not really isolated, there are muslim minorities in Bhutan, Burma, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Yunnan (Currently part of China), and even a small minority in Laos. Not to mention India.


-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 04:53
Other records suggest arabs tried their best for many hundred years but could not succeed:

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/hhrmi/ch2.htm - http://voiceofdharma.org/books/hhrmi/ch2.htm

Qasim according to local indic sources suffered a defeat at the hands of Bappa Rawal:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Bappa_Rawal - http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Bappa_Rawal

Qasims' Arabs were overpowered by Gurajara-Pratiharas and the only reason they were not completely routed because whenever the Indian army approached the arabs threatened to burn a big temple in their region.



Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 04:54
Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000 bilal_ali_2000 wrote:

           There is an arab proverb which will give some insight as to the reason

"Persia is known for its archers, Turks for their cavalry and India for its armies"



What is the source of this quote?




Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 11:57
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Its not really isolated, there are muslim minorities in Bhutan, Burma, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Yunnan (Currently part of China), and even a small minority in Laos. Not to mention India.
 
No it isn't sorry i couldn't explain well. I mean, if you look a map of percentage of population like this
 
http://www.libreria-mundoarabe.com/Boletines/n%BA59%20Abr.08/map_islamic_world.jpg - http://www.libreria-mundoarabe.com/Boletines/n%BA59%20Abr.08/map_islamic_world.jpg
 
you would note that Bengal is sorrounded by less important muslim populations in the middle of hindu or buddhist populations There are other muslims arounds but in a minor scale. In the context of South Asia, Bengal was an special region as the northwestern was, because had a buddhist caste system.
 
Two interesting maps about religion in SA between 8-12th century
 
http://www.tifr.res.in/~akr/culturalsites_india_800-1200.jpg - http://www.tifr.res.in/~akr/culturalsites_india_800-1200.jpg
http://www.tifr.res.in/~akr/cult_ind_bot.jpg - http://www.tifr.res.in/~akr/cult_ind_bot.jpg


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 18:24
Hello to you all
 
First of all, pagan isn't an insult, it is a well known term for polytheist as Omar said.
 
Second, there was no mention in any of the Arab historical sources that Muhammad ibn Al-Qasim was defeated. The battle of Rajasthan never occured except in poetry and legend. Muhammad ibn Al-Qasim went till Multan and beyond but decided to make the Chenab river his frontier because of lack of troops (He conquered half of todays Pakistan with only 20k regulars and 15-20k allies). Qasim was excecuted because he allegedly took a princess of one of the conquered kingdoms as his concubine which was forbidden since royals always were taken to the Caliphal household and since she was pagan it was considered adultry.
 
The defeat did come but way later during the time of the civil wars (750-770) when the Punjab was retaken by a hindu lord but Sindh remained under full Islamic control until the Ghaznavids came.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 20-May-2009 at 18:06
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Second, there was no mention in any of the Arab historical sources that Muhammad ibn Al-Qasim was defeated. The battle of Rajasthan never occured except in poetry and legend.
Al-Jassas


Arab sources usually glossed over uncomfortable defeats. For a balanced view both sides of the story have to be analysed. If you read Chachnama it says Kasim penetrated further and sent an army which nearing the borders of King Chitrangad Mori (Note: arabs usually got the names of indian places and humans wrong and they recorded this as the king of Udhapur, Rai Harchand. Chitrangad Mori belonged to the Maurya dynasty of Chandragupta Maurya) sent him a letter from the caliph:



Chitrangad Mori on receiving letter from Kasim replied:



Note It is also recorded that Kasim himself went in pursuit of Dahir's son who fled north towards kashmir but mysteriously he is now close with other commanders of his who are on the borders of the kings of Udhapur!

Indic sources on the other hand record that Dahir's son fled south west to Chitrangad Mori's kingdom and was present amongst the Hindu princes who were arrayed against the Arabs. The commander of these Hindu rajput princes was Bappa Rawal.

Indic sources also record that Bappa defeated Kasim and Arabs with great slaughter and pursued him back to Sindh.

Though Arab sources record that Kasim got a letter from Caliph when he was about to attack Udhapura which asked him to return!



Then the whole story about the daughters of Dahir which led to the execution of Kasim are invented to gloss over the defeat at the hands of Hindu princes.

So we can conclude that Kasim did penetrate further, attacked Chittor and was defeated, pursued back and then returned to the caliph in ignominy and this defeat perhaps paved the way for his execution.



Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 20-May-2009 at 18:27
Hello Ruffian
 
Proof please. I can name at least 15 major battles where Ummayyads were defeated by foreigners (Turks, Byzantines, Khazars, Berbers etc.) and were described with boring detail in Arab history books and believe me, some of those defeats were really embarissing (in one battle over a 20k army went into Mazandran and didn't return and there is an Arabic saying "until the army of Mazandran returns").
 
Muhammad ibn Al-Qasim was stripped of his command, tried and executed. The trial is recorded in detail if he was defeated this would have definitely been brought up and since it didn't happen this means Ibn Al-Qasim wasn't defeated.
 
finally, I doubt that the Shahnama (if that is what you are quoting) is a reliable historical source, so bring real sources.
 
I never said Arabs were not defeated, They were but not Muhammad ibn Al-Qasim, the defeat came much later about 800 when Hindu kingdoms retook Multan and Punjab. It was the Ghaznavids who returned later.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 20-May-2009 at 19:02
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello Ruffian
 
Proof please. I can name at least 15 major battles where Ummayyads were defeated by foreigners (Turks, Byzantines, Khazars, Berbers etc.) and were described with boring detail in Arab history books and believe me, some of those defeats were really embarissing (in one battle over a 20k army went into Mazandran and didn't return and there is an Arabic saying "until the army of Mazandran returns").


Lots of battles throughout the history. Take the attack of Mahmud of Ghazni on Vidhyadhara Chandela. His historians recorded that he trekked to Kannauj and returned by taking some gifts. Indic sources record that Vidhydar defeated Mahmud and built Khandariya Mahadeo temple to commemorate this victory. I can give many more examples.

Quote
 
Muhammad ibn Al-Qasim was stripped of his command, tried and executed. The trial is recorded in detail if he was defeated this would have definitely been brought up and since it didn't happen this means Ibn Al-Qasim wasn't defeated.
 
finally, I doubt that the Shahnama (if that is what you are quoting) is a reliable historical source, so bring real sources.
 
I never said Arabs were not defeated, They were but not Muhammad ibn Al-Qasim, the defeat came much later about 800 when Hindu kingdoms retook Multan and Punjab. It was the Ghaznavids who returned later.
 
Al-Jassas


Here is another source from Annals of Mewar:







So this source also echoes what is written in chachnama. This is based on Indic vernacular sources.



Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 20-May-2009 at 23:35
If you are really interested in researching this topic then here are some sources. I would suggest looking up sources that would contradict and dispute these claims so you can come to your own conclusion.


Muslims invade India by K.S. Lal
Jihad Under the Turks and Jihad under the Mughals by K.S Lal
Enslavement of Hindus by Arabs and Turkish Invaders by K.S. Lal

Jihad on the Indian Subcontinent – Seventh through the Twentieth centuries
A.     Campaigns in sind (711-712 CE) Led by Muhammad Bin Qasim
B.     Jihad by Yaqub Ibn Layth Against the Hindu Kingdom of Kabul (870 AD)
C.     Campaigns of Subutigin of Ghazni (977-997 CE)
D.     Mahmud of Ghanzi’s Conquest of Thanesar, Kananuj, and Sirsawa near Saharanpur (1018-1019 CE)
E.     An Almost Contemporary Account of Mahmud’s Invasion of India.
F.     The Conquest of Somnat Mahmud Bin Subuktigin (1025 CE)
G.     The Conquest of Ajmer by Muhammad Ghauri (1192 CE)
H.     Jihad Campaigns of Alauddin Khilji (1296-1326 CE)
I.     Muslim Devastation of Buddhist Temples and Flight of Buddhist Community in Northern India (Bihar) 13th c. AD
J.      Jihad campaigns ……..
K.     Brutality of Sultan of Ma’bar (Ghayasuddin) Witnessed by Ibn Batttuta (C. 1345 CE)
the list of chapters goes on to

HM Elliot and John Dawson. The History of India as told by its Own Historians – plus other sources
Legacy of jihad by Dr Bostom

I know some will dispute this source and that is their right but make up your own mind.


-------------
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 21-May-2009 at 01:00
Hello to you all
 
Thats it! I can't take any more. This sick obsesstion with Islam and Jihad has reached untolerable proportions and eaglecap is reflecting his deep hatred for Islam on his posts.
 
Quoting psuedo-historians like Mr. Bostom (an MD by profession but with endorsment of fanatic religious rightwingers the greatest historian ever) and LK Lal (RSS member and official historian) who thinks muslims have no right to live in India since they are "foreign" and a guy no serious historian takes for granted (again except for twisted freaks who think the only right muslims have is the right to die).
 
The problem in these days that the only people who get publicity and are consulted and hailed as great historians are not those who spent decades studying and fully learning 4 or 5 languages and read thousands of books like Ram Sharan Sharma. People like Bostom who never even took a standard course in history, doesn't know Arabic and of course a self declared hater of Islam becomes an "expert" on Islam.
 
Oxford university spent millions of pounds to produce its "history of Islam" and "Oxford history of India", books written by tens of scholars, real historians, and peer-reviewed by even more scholars yet when you say to a fanatic this is my source he reply's by saying Dan Pipes or Bostom. One is a jewish extremist who says killing Palestinian children is legitimate and yet dares attack Islam and Jihad and the other, well he is too insignificant to be even considered.
 
As for Ruffian's reply, after some search, it didn't take long, there is no mention whatsoever of Zayd son Amru or Abu Hakim Shaibani in any of the biographical books I retuned to nor any history books. Plus, using names like Imad Al-Din and Salah Al-Din and like only began in the 11th century AD (300 years of Ibn Al-Qasim). This totally discredits your sources.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 05:04
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello to you all
 
Thats it! I can't take any more. This sick obsesstion with Islam and Jihad has reached untolerable proportions and eaglecap is reflecting his deep hatred for Islam on his posts.
 
Quoting psuedo-historians like Mr. Bostom (an MD by profession but with endorsment of fanatic religious rightwingers the greatest historian ever) and LK Lal (RSS member and official historian) who thinks muslims have no right to live in India since they are "foreign" and a guy no serious historian takes for granted (again except for twisted freaks who think the only right muslims have is the right to die).


I am not sure affiliations or being an MD helps or harms in one being a good or a bad historian. History writing should be evidence based and if this is done one should not care who is writing the history.

I would like to give you an example. In India and perhaps world over everyone is taught Akbar was a great king. If you read the following  it seems  he was involved in jihad,  temple destruction, forcible conversions etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar#Hindu_Temples_Destroyed - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar#Hindu_Temples_Destroyed


Quote

As for Ruffian's reply, after some search, it didn't take long, there is no mention whatsoever of Zayd son Amru or Abu Hakim Shaibani in any of the biographical books I retuned to nor any history books. Plus, using names like Imad Al-Din and Salah Al-Din and like only began in the 11th century AD (300 years of Ibn Al-Qasim). This totally discredits your sources.
 
Al-Jassas


You are suggesting if arabic sources do not mention what I have written then it cannot be true. This approach will only give one view point. That is the arab view point. As I mentioned earlier we have to analyse all extant sources and not just those from one side. In the current case Persian translation of chachnama is of an arabic document which Qasim himself ordered to be written. Also the Indic vernacular sources independently confirm what I have written above about Qasim's defeat. So to insist that whatever is written in arab sources is the only true history is a bit hard to accept.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 08:03
Originally posted by ruffian ruffian wrote:

If you read Chachnama it says Kasim penetrated further and sent an army which nearing the borders of King Chitrangad Mori

Completely ridiculous. Its on the opposite side of the Rajahstan desert. Completely in the wrong direction of Qasims march.
Originally posted by ruffian ruffian wrote:

(Note: arabs usually got the names of indian places and humans wrong and they recorded this as the king of Udhapur, Rai Harchand. Chitrangad Mori belonged to the Maurya dynasty of Chandragupta Maurya)

Paraphrasing; "when reading this, its important to note that it doesn't support my argument at all, but if you changed all the names of people and places, that is, pretended it was a completely different event, then it does sound kind of similar"
Seriously, you're asking us to believe that Ibn Qasim after capturing Multan, turned his army around marched straight through the desert to fight and be defeated by a harmless Rajput prince, instead of proceed through rich, fertile punjab towards, say, Udhapur, which is directly in his line of march, while you are quoting contridictory evidence, which shows that he did move to the most logical location - further in Punjab.
Quote Lots of battles throughout the history. Take the attack of Mahmud of Ghazni on Vidhyadhara Chandela. His historians recorded that he trekked to Kannauj and returned by taking some gifts. Indic sources record that Vidhydar defeated Mahmud and built Khandariya Mahadeo temple to commemorate this victory. I can give many more examples.

This isn't related to Muhammed bin Qasim, in fact its over 300 years later. If there is anything in common between the two its latter historians.
Unless there is a grand conspiricies to hide all hindu victories.
Quote
I would like to give you an example. In India and perhaps world over everyone is taught Akbar was a great king. If you read the following  it seems  he was involved in jihad,  temple destruction, forcible conversions etc.

Akbar is usually discredited by muslims and venerated by Hindus because he brought Hindu, Buddhist and other non-muslim religious teachers into this court, and try to form a synthesis religion for himself. If he was involved in iconoclasm then the history books of Pakistan would like him alot more than they do. Akbar is the "bad guy" because he is pro-hindu, Aurengzeb is the "good guy" because he was anti-hindu.
That is why Akbar is usually better liked in India.
Quote Also the Indic vernacular sources independently confirm what I have written above about Qasim's defeat. So to insist that whatever is written in arab sources is the only true history is a bit hard to accept.

Funny, over the course of only the last year on AE, we could be led to believe that the great Hindu rajas defeated Alexander, the Arabs, Mahmood of Ghazni, and Muhammed of Ghur. If we look hard enough we can probably discover that the Babar and Britain have also been thrown back in great slaughter by the Rajputs.
Furthermore your "indic sources" are nowhere near as united as you think. These hindu-rajputs are the ultimate supermen theories are not exactly universally supported inside India itself.

-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 08:35
Hello Ruffian
 
I have no problem with any guy writing history as long as he does that, write history not interpret it. Mr. Bostom is a certified MD. He has little qualifications in any area except hating Islam and medicine. He simply doesn't know what he is writing about. What you are saying is that if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitabh_Bachchan - Amitabh Bachchan  wrote a book about the History of the Inca then he is a legitimate source and even an expert despite the guy never even went to South America and knows nothing about Spanish. That is unacceptable.
 
As for LK Lal, I will grant you he is a historian and an expert too. But the guy's politics and fanaticism cloud his judgement. He wrote thousands of pages on how evil muslim rulers were and how Islam not character was behind the atrocities committed then and yet conveniently forgets that Hindus controlled the state under them, were the majority of his soldiers and commanders and were active in making those policies go through.
 
As for my sources, well according to the sources you quote these guys were governors and commanders with Ibn Al-Qasim. Ibn Al-Qasim's campaign is well sourced and if these guys were important as the sources say they would have been mentioned. Plus as I said you forgot an important contradiction in the names, Imad Al-Din was not used till 400 years after Ibn Al-Qasim's death. This alone distroys the argument completely.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 20:44
Akbar did destroy hindu tempels after sieges but that doesn't take away from his general policy of Hindu reconcilation, it's not just black & white, Akbar good or Akbar bad. 



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net