History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum Lockedwhy didn't arabs conquer India?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Ikki View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Guanarteme

Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1358
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ikki Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: why didn't arabs conquer India?
    Posted: 16-May-2009 at 11:57
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


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
 
 
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
 


Edited by Ikki - 16-May-2009 at 12:01
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
Post Options Post Options   Quote ruffian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2009 at 18:06
Originally posted by Al Jassas

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.



Edited by ruffian - 20-May-2009 at 18:21
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
Post Options Post Options   Quote ruffian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2009 at 19:02
Originally posted by Al Jassas

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.


 
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.

Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: DesertSouthwest
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3265
Post Options Post Options   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
Post Options Post Options   Quote ruffian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 05:04
Originally posted by Al Jassas

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




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.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5725
Post Options Post Options   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 08:03
Originally posted by ruffian

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

(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.
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.

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.
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
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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 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
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.