Talk:Muhammad ibn al-Qasim/Archive 1

Picture of Qasim
Please remove picture, pure fantasy, not historical. 132.230.118.123 15:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I second that, please remove this picture as it is not historical whatsoever.

--

Death of Qasim
I've removed what sounds like a rather salacious chapter out of 1001 Arabian Nights. If the story is true, it should be presented in a much more professional manner. I understood that it was political intrigue that doomed bin Qasim and not the chastity of some captured princesses... Elijahmeeks 18:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The two princesses of the King Dahirsen (Raja Dabir) who were captured by Qasim were sent to the Khilafa (Caliph) as a gift (spoils of war) with a message that they were royal virgins, meant for the Caliph himself. But these princesses outsmarted the Caliph. They tore apart their hymen with their own hands and told the caliph that their modesty had already been violated by Qasim. The Caliph did not believe them, but when he saw for himself the ruptured hymens, he was convinced that Qasim had violated the modesty of the princesses and then sent them over to him. The thought so enraged him that he summoned Qasim to present himself at Baghdad. With Qasim in chains, the Caliph accused him of betrayal. Although Qasim pleaded his innocence, the Caliph, asked for Qasim to be locked in a barrel with nails stuck on the inside and had him rolled down a hill. Qasim died a cruel death.


 * lol above seems like script of a bollywood. Firstly, he captured on of the Raj put queens (Queen Samyukta), and she was not a virgin as she was married to the Hindu king Prithviraj III so I don't know how the account mentioned above could be true. loool --Street Scholar 11:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my bad that was Mohamed Ghori, who captured the Rajput Queen, Bin-Qasim was more tolerant. Although the comments about them tearing their Hymen seem far-fetched. --Street Scholar 11:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There are two accounts of his death, one is in the chach nama, aka the bollywood one the other who knows so it is marked uncited. Even if it is only a legend it deserves mention.--Tigeroo 07:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

References to my edit:
The reason why I listed the sources here is, for the reason that the article has been edited many times and biased information has been inserted into it and I see this as a major problem especially when the information is Anti-Semitic and Islamaphobic in nature.

My REFERENCES: 1. The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham 2. The peoples of Pakistan, By Yu. V. Gankovsky 3. Arab-o-Hind ke Talluqat, By Sulaiman Nadvi. 4. The Gazetteer of Pakistan: The Province of Sind, edited by T.H. Sorly 5. Gazetteer of the Province of Sind, compiled by E.H. Aitkin 6. Ancient Trade in Pakistan, By Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Pakistan Quarterly, Vol VII #1957 7.     Sindhj Culture, By U.T. Thakkur. 8.    Tareekh-Sind, By Manlana Syed Abu Zafar Nadvi. 9. An Advanced History of India, Part II, By R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Roychandra and Kalikinkar Ditta 10. The Land of five rivers and Sind, By David Ross 11.  Arab~o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Suiaiman Nadvi; 12. Tareekh-e-Sind, Part I, By Ijaaul Haq Quddusi. 13. Dr. Mohammad Ishaque in Journal of Pakistan Historical Society Vol 3 Part1 14. A Study of History, Vol VII, By Arnold Toynbee. 15.   Ibid. 16.   Sind: A General Introduction, By M.T. Lambrick. 17. A greater portion of the area now called Baluchistan was then known as Makran. The word Baluchistan came into vogue much later. 18. Journal of Pakistan, Historical Society, Vol.111, Part 1 19. Tauzeehat-e-Tareekh-e-Masoomi. 20. Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent, by Dr. I.H Qureshi 21. Tareekh-e-Sind, Part 1, by Aijazul Haq Quddusi 22. The Making of India, By Dr. Abdulla Yusuf Ali. 23. Jaunat-us-Sind, By Maulai Shaidai. 24. Imperial Gazetteer of India. 25. Ibid. 26. Indian Muslims, By Prof. M. Mujeeb. 27. Tareekh-e-Sind, Part 1, By Aijazul Haq Quddusi. 28. The preaching of Islam by Sir Thomas Arnold 29. Shias of India, By John Norman Hollister. 30.   Ibid. 31.   Arab-o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Syed Sulaiman Nadvi 32. Sindhi Culture, By U.T. Thakut. 33. Tareekh-e-Sind, By Maulana Abu Zafar Nadvi. 34. The Peoples of Pakistan, By. Yu. V. Gankovsky. 35. Arab-o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Syed Sulairnan Nadvi.

--Street Scholar 12:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Going to agree with 128.xxx.xxx
You did conveniently left out information on the massacres of Hindus and non-Muslims alike in this article, all due to your pro-Islam bias. --Dangerous-Boy 06:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going to jump in and agree that the article needs some big-time work and revision as it shows too much reverence of a historical figure. Words like "great" are a matter of opinion.  With that said, the emphasis upon the Hindu ruling class seems troubling as the majority were still Buddhist at that time.  That would be the non-Muslims.  And for the record I'm an atheist.  I think massacres should be mentioned and possibly mentioned in every article that discusses conquest and empire.  Conversely, holding articles that deal with Islamic figures to a higher standard than say the Mauryans who killed plenty of people to forge an empire isn't exactly my idea of parity either.  Tombseye 09:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * At least it's acknowledge that Asoka killed a crapload of people. The Bin Qasim article was denying this. --Dangerous-Boy 20:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's the thing though, the section on Ashoka explains the CONTEXT of the massacre of Kalinga for example. Bin Qasim's main resistance came from the Hindu ruling class, while his main support came from the Buddhist masses.  He did come there as a conqueror and the context is important as we need to realize that he isn't killing them just for not being Muslim, but for being part of the main threat to his objectives.  In addition, there are accounts of golden statues being melted down as well of their ENEMIES.  Let's keep this in mind before promoting the false view that Muslims forced conversion as that rarely happened.  By rarely I don't mean to say it was a freak occurence, but most of the time Muslim Arabs were not keen upon sharing power and if you were a Muslim you were supposed to be technically an equal.  This is why some Hindu rulers at various times in India convert to Islam.  Not because there was a sword aimed at their heads, but because they want to remain in the upper echelons of power.  With context, Bin Qasim's actions aren't that different from the various conquerors of the past and even the present.  Tombseye 22:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Not going to agree with you
There was no massacre which bit of that don't you guys understand. Look at my sources, where I got the information from I challenge anyone from wiki to bring non-biased information about massacres committed by bin-qasim. This is so illogical its not even worth discussion, Bin Qasim had non Muslim the Jatt of the time join forces with him to over throw their oppressor leaders and the Jatt at the time were yes you guessed it non-Muslim. So how can the Hindu claim of Bin Qasim of a mass murderer be correct, Hindus relay of mythological texts, look at the Vedas they are based on mythological text to. I can tell you this no that there was no massacre of non Muslim, the only killing that had taken place was on the battle field, and then he was fighting against an army. He only had 6,000 Syrian tribes men. It was the non Muslims who helped him conquer the region. So please get your facts straight before you make ludicrous claims that there was a genocide going on.

--Street Scholar 11:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not agreeing with you. There's a link to the claims. --Dangerous-Boy 17:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why everyone cares so much about a pretty obscure historical figure. It seems like the issue is Islam is being put on trial here. I suggest first going through the article and adding


 * Big problem with those links you provided. They are all from Indian sites and their goals seem to be include doing something about "alien cultures" permeating India.  You need something that is written by academic and neutral scholars (and they can be Indian as that is not an issue unless they wear their nationalism on their sleeves) who aren't writing with an agenda that seems to be clearly about demonizing invaders they don't like (Muslims), while the Indo-Aryans are okay by them.  The criticism of Bin Qasim seems to lack any context other than making him seem worse than his adversaries.  For example, is it any worse that the jizya prompted many people to convert than the persecution Buddhists faced in India following Ashoka?  It's all one-sided and within the context of this Indic civilization thing that is frankly something from the 20th century.  Tombseye 23:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Section headings

 * and then adding some

Sub-headings

 * I can't even finish the article cause it's one long string of nonsense. Then if there's a dispute about something historical, provide as many book references as possible, quoting the book is best. Web references are not great, because I can make a website right now that says Bin Qasim was a transvestite who dressed up monkeys in pink dresses.


 * Another point, if Islam is on trial, is that the Umayyad dynasty is considered by modern Muslims to be a corrupt empire that stole the caliphate and killed the last of the four rightly guided caliphs. They seiged Mecca and damaged the Kaaba. They are not considered good Muslim rulers by hardly anybody, so if they do have a bad record then it doesn't reflect on the teachings of Islamic warfare, which resembles the Geneva Convention. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  17:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Source to this claim:
" ''Qasim demolished many temples, shattered "idolatorous" artwork and killed many people in his battles. After the violence, he attempted to establish law and order in the newly-conquered territory through the imposition of Islamic Shariah laws. He also sought control through systematic persecution of Hindus. Qasim wrote an account of such experiences:

O my cousin; I received your life inspiring letter. I was much pleased and overjoyed when it reached me. The events were recounted in an excellent and beautiful style, and I learnt that the ways and rules you follow are conformable to the Law. Except that you give protection to all, great and small alike, and make no difference between enemy and friend. God says, 'Give no quarter to Infidels, but cut their throats." "Then know that this is the command of the great God. You should not be too ready to grant protection, because it will prolong your work. After this, give no quarter to any enemy except to those who are of rank. This is a worthy resolve, and want of dignity will not be imputed to you. Peace be with you. [1]'' "

Until I see some historical records of references from books, I am removing this quote as it seems like bullshit. Firstly lets look at this in context who was Bin-Qasim writing this letter to? which cousin? there are no documents or suggestions that this was actually said. Also about Hindu temples being 'shattered' also has no reference. Not even in India today, many people have been an killed and died a result of this. Hindu terrorists had attacked Muslims/Sikhs and other minorities many times on such false claims. There is not even one shred of evidence to suggest Hindu temples were destroyed. Dangerous-boy, is clearly putting false information into the article. Like this quote, the article is about bin qasim not so random Hindu mythological massacre.

--Street Scholar 18:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The Chachnamah (Chachnama) is the source of this quotation. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Delhi Reprint, 1979. --Kefalonia 12:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comes straight from the Islamic conquest of South Asia. Don't understand why you worship these Arab conquers so much.  They raped your grandmothers and killed your grandfathers.  --Dangerous-Boy 01:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh please stop it, their was no such thing going on. Although I don't deny there may have been some secluded incidents I couldn't say. However, on the whole everyone was treated pretty fairly. If it wasn't for the Arabs and Muslims India wouldn't be what it is today. It's funny how the ones that messed up India hardly ever get a mention i.e the British. By the way dude, most Pakistanis are direct decenints of these Arabs. Most Punjabi Pakistans are Aryan, and Ottoman decentens, and other majorites are Pashtuns.

--Street Scholar 13:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking at your nose, you sure might be but you're an exception. --Dangerous-Boy 11:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I see you like looking at guys, so are you the local Hindu gay around your block?

side note: Well Hindu girls seem to like my nose as seen as though I've humped a few an I am dating one now.

--Street Scholar 11:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, your nose looks jewish and you claim arab descent. Just stating the obvious.  Very of mature of you to make such comments.

side note: you could be humping pigs for all I know. I couldn't care what you do with your life.

--Dangerous-Boy 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I see you're not only racist you're also anti-Semitic and xenophobic - Anything else I missed out?

--Street Scholar 20:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, you make racist remarks on Blacks here and elsewhere and many other such things like saying "How is he an idiot for holding an opinion? the land doesn't even belong to Jews, they should go back to Europe where they actually came from. They are taking land that doesn't belong to them. Even in Australia they are taking over land that doesn't belong to them and the Aussies are starting to get pissed off too." 

I like Jews. They're cool. --Dangerous-Boy 01:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, just to clarify a few things here for both Street Scholar and Dangerous Boy. The Arabs actually didn't go past Sind.  Turks, Afghans, and Iranians (of various types including Tajiks) were responsible for the conquest of South Asia.  Next, it's clear that you guys are both coming from an overly nationalist point of view regarding religion.  Muslim conquests sometimes involved rape and pillage, but this also happened during all of the Indian civilizations and various invaders such as the Huns, Scythians, Aryans etc.  In fact, the Arabs did this to each other as did the Mongols, Romans, etc.  It's how things were back then and even how things are today at times (such as the recent conflicts in Rwanda, Sudan, Yugoslavia etc.).  Most Pakistanis are not descendents of Arabs Street Scholar.  Go to the Pashtun page for example and you'll see 3 sources on genetic testing done in Pakistan that shows the two main contributions are South Asian (of various types) and West Asian of the Iranian type, not Semitic Arab.  Granted Indians and Iranians are somewhat divergent, but the Iranians aren't Arabs either.  The Arab connection is mostly one of claims as religious people seek to be closer to the founders and this goes for Arabic-speakers most of whom are probably not related to Muhammad as they might believe.  Arabs are a linguistic group at any rate and even people such as Egyptians are largely of native Egyptian ancestry.  Genetic tests don't lie.  Pakistanis are part-Aryan of both the Indo-Aryan and Iranian branches who merged with indigenous peoples and thus the country is a crossroads between the Iranic and Indic worlds.  Pashtuns, who are mostly not Indian as they are Afghans, are (including Afghan refugees) 20% of the population at the most, while there are some Punjabis and Sindhis who claim descent from them which may be quite accurate.  Also, 1/5 of Sindhis show traces of Baloch ancestry.  Lastly, Muhammad bin Qasim was a pretty minor figure historically.  He's been made into a demon in India and a saint in Pakistan when in reality he was neither.  He was part of the early Arab expansionism that was conducted to keep the warlike Arabs from fighting each other.  It had little to do with religion and a lot to do with social conditions and tribal behavior.  Bin Qasim is seen by Muslims in Pakistan as the catalyst for change and he was without knowing it as he sowed the seeds for what would become Pakistan as the region he conquered converted slowly over the centuries.  He didn't venture into Hind or India proper as the Arabs viewed it as the real Muslim conquerors of India were not Arabs, not even close.  I think this article needs more of an academic and neutral rendition that doesn't that provides context into him as a figure and possibly a section on modern revisionism as in retrospect people want to write him up as a hero or a bloodthirsty marauder.  I say he was neither.  If you want hero worship talk about him on some website that isn't an encyclopedia.  This article should be informative and that can include both his military prowess and the people who were killed during the conquest.  Information on Bin Qasim is pretty limited obviously as primary sources are difficult to attain.  Record-keeping and historians were still emerging at the time and the likes Ibn-Khaldun would not show up for a while.  Al-Tabari's the most respected historian and his massive volumes on early Islamic expansion are, in my opinion and that of most academics, the most incisive as he's something of a professional historian ahead of his time.  Let's all try to discuss things with more direct primary sources (or the closest to them) and avoid partisan bickering, shall we?  Tombseye 04:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleted information
Some information in this article was deleted by, who has also done pov-warring/deletions in other articles. The information in this article should if possible be sourced with primary sources (i.e. especially the medieval muslim chronicles). The source of the bin Qasim quotation is ''The Chachnamah (Chachnama). English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Delhi Reprint, 1979.'' This originally arab work was translated into Persian, and later into English.

Information deleted: After the violence Qasim attempted to establish law and order in the newly-conquered territory by allowing a degree of religious tolerance. He was countermanded by Hajjaj who insisted on a more hardline policy. As a whole, populations of conquered territories were treated as people of the book and granted religious toleration of Hindu religion in return for payment of the poll tax (jizya). Brahmin caste system was tolerated and no conversion of conquered populations was attempted.  Qasim demolished many temples, shattered "idolatorous" artwork and killed many people in his battles. After the violence, he attempted to establish law and order in the newly-conquered territory through the imposition of Islamic Shariah laws. He also sought control through systematic persecution of Hindus. Qasim wrote an account of such experiences:
 * O my cousin; I received your life inspiring letter. I was much pleased and overjoyed when it reached me. The events were recounted in an excellent and beautiful style, and I learnt that the ways and rules you follow are conformable to the Law. Except that you give protection to all, great and small alike, and make no difference between enemy and friend. God says, 'Give no quarter to Infidels, but cut their throats." "Then know that this is the command of the great God. You should not be too ready to grant protection, because it will prolong your work. After this, give no quarter to any enemy except to those who are of rank. This is a worthy resolve, and want of dignity will not be imputed to you. Peace be with you. (Source: The Chachnamah (Chachnama). English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Delhi Reprint, 1979.)

Culturally native populations of conquered territories under Qasim underwent a great deal of hardship and struggle for their refusal to convert to Islam. Heavy taxes known as Jizya were imposed upon the non-muslims, and the conversion of conquered populations occurred on a large scale. Bin Qasim was successful, rapidly taking all of Sindh and moving into southern Punjab up to Multan. The forces of Muhammad bin Qasim defeated Raja Dahar, and took his daughters captive (they were sent to Damascus). On his arrival at the town of Brahminabad between 6,000 and 16,000 men died in the battle that ensued. --Kefalonia 12:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Pure bullshit, is your job devoted to spreading ignorance on the net?

Anyway, hardly anyone takes Wikipedia seriously. And now I know why, because of Idiots like you, who try to rewrite history, you nothing but an Internet warrior. Dude seriously next time type something useful rather then just randomly dancing your finger over the keyboard. The Greeks used to do this back in the day talk shit all day to people who didn't have a clue, trying to make themselves look smart. Your stuff is played out dude.

You make me laugh>

'''INFINITY FOUNDATION Owned by a Hindu Called Anjani Gharpure'''.

So dude, don't try to pull a fast one here. He is anti-Muslim, and you are getting information from his website and claiming it to be factual looooooooooool.

Oh and here are my sources and I'm going to edit the article back to what it was based on hindu and Muslim sources:

1. The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham 2. The peoples of Pakistan, By Yu. V. Gankovsky 3. Arab-o-Hind ke Talluqat, By Sulaiman Nadvi. 4. The Gazetteer of Pakistan: The Province of Sind, edited by T.H. Sorly 5. Gazetteer of the Province of Sind, compiled by E.H. Aitkin 6. Ancient Trade in Pakistan, By Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Pakistan Quarterly, Vol VII #1957 7. Sindhj Culture, By U.T. Thakkur. 8. Tareekh-Sind, By Manlana Syed Abu Zafar Nadvi. 9. An Advanced History of India, Part II, By R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Roychandra and Kalikinkar Ditta 10. The Land of five rivers and Sind, By David Ross 11. Arab~o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Suiaiman Nadvi; 12. Tareekh-e-Sind, Part I, By Ijaaul Haq Quddusi. 13. Dr. Mohammad Ishaque in Journal of Pakistan Historical Society Vol 3 Part1 14. A Study of History, Vol VII, By Arnold Toynbee. 15. Ibid. 16. Sind: A General Introduction, By M.T. Lambrick. 17. A greater portion of the area now called Baluchistan was then known as Makran. The word Baluchistan came into vogue much later. 18. Journal of Pakistan, Historical Society, Vol.111, Part 1 19. Tauzeehat-e-Tareekh-e-Masoomi. 20. Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent, by Dr. I.H Qureshi 21. Tareekh-e-Sind, Part 1, by Aijazul Haq Quddusi 22. The Making of India, By Dr. Abdulla Yusuf Ali. 23. Jaunat-us-Sind, By Maulai Shaidai. 24. Imperial Gazetteer of India. 25. Ibid. 26. Indian Muslims, By Prof. M. Mujeeb. 27. Tareekh-e-Sind, Part 1, By Aijazul Haq Quddusi. 28. The preaching of Islam by Sir Thomas Arnold 29. Shias of India, By John Norman Hollister. 30. Ibid. 31. Arab-o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Syed Sulaiman Nadvi 32. Sindhi Culture, By U.T. Thakut. 33. Tareekh-e-Sind, By Maulana Abu Zafar Nadvi. 34. The Peoples of Pakistan, By. Yu. V. Gankovsky. 35. Arab-o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Syed Sulairnan Nadvi.

--Street Scholar 19:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We disagree with you and you biased pak sources. You must learn to live with this shame if you intend to find peace in life. --Dangerous-Boy 06:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Lol! When I wrote the above comment, I had only looked at the information that was deleted, I didn't read the information that was added by Street Scholar. Indeed, your comment "just randomly dancing your finger over the keyboard" would well apply to your own edits. The source that I mentioned was The Chachnamah, not Anjani Gharpure. And the author of the Chachnamah was a muslim, as was the persian translator.


 * And anybody can copy and paste a bibliography here, if I wanted to I could copy and paste a bibliography of 1000 books here. I'd be surprised if you had read even one of those books. The books you listed are a curious mixture of interesting secondary sources and pseudo-historic books. Actually, it was indeed just copy and paste from here: And as if all that wasn't funny enough, your additions to the article are not sourced.  --Kefalonia 12:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should be checked if Street Scholars edits were not copyright violations (his "bibliography" was one). Some parts of it are of course highly pov and without sources. He actually deleted most of the older article, which included also information like date of birth and death. Kefalonia 18:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * All the stuff added by Street Scholar (and IP's) was indeed a copyright violation from and other internet sites.  I'm reverting the article to an earlier version that is hopefully copyvio-free. Other text was copied from    and I think also other internet sites. Maybe others want to like at the history, but for me the history "after Street Scholar" only looks like a history of copyright violations, edit-wars, pov-warring and vandalism (like, ).  Kefalonia 18:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Fakes quotes.
Can the users stop putting in fakes quotes. And especially copy-and-pasting from infinity foundation, as the source is biased. There is no evidence of Bin-Qasim making any such comments and there is no letter of this type. Its pretty obvious its fake because the letter is not even in full and it never mentioning any dates, and there are no records of this letter anywhere. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by Street Scholar (talk • contribs)


 * Fake and biased quotes? The Chach-nama is the most important primary source for Muhammad bin Qasim, even if you haven't read it nor even heard about it. You call the Chach-nama fake and biased (!), while inserting copyright violations from revisionist and biased websites (, and other places.) Even your "bibliography" is a copyright violation from a geocities webpage. Copyvios, blanking and pov may be appropriate for the RateDesi Forum, but not here.  --Kefalonia 09:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There is not such thing as the Chach-nama. This is another made up Hindu thing. I think the mythological teachings on Hinduism are starting to have effect on you. I suppose its the racist-caste system that makes you an Islamocfobic and a Anti-Semitic?

--Street Scholar 12:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "There is no such thing as the Chach-Nama"??? Thanks for your letting us know again how little you know about bin Qasim. The letter in question is taken from the Chach-Nama, which is among the early Muslim chronicles and an important primary source for bin Qasim. --Kefalonia 13:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No its not, you are lying prove it or I'm removing the quote! --Street Scholar 14:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I already said it is in the Chach-Nama! You haven't read the Chach-Nama and some days ago you didn't even knew it existed. You'll have to read the Chach-Nama yourself, I can't do this for you. I have looked up the letter in the Chach-Nama and verified that the letter is correct. The whole Chach-Nama may not be online, but extracts (including the letter) are online (like here ). And here is a reference:

Kefalonia 17:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sir Henry Miers Elliot and John Dowson: The History of India as told by its own Historians. Vol. I. First Published 1867-77. p. 173.


 * "There is not such thing as Chachnama"! We might want to invoke an RfC here. Here's a link from UIUC, one of the top universities of the US, saying "Chachnama is the most authentic and almost contemporary account of Arab invasions of Sindh." deeptrivia (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually I did mention the Chachnama, see my first edit on the article, so you both Kefaloni, is lying when he said it didn't exist, sorry I should have made my self a little clear I meant prove this letter exists withing the Chacnama.! --Street Scholar 13:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Global aspiration
We are building the Project from a global perspective for use across the world, and not from the point pf view of any particular region or nation. Accordingly, contents of historical stubs and pages should reflect the aspiration of wikipedians to build a truly global encyclopedia. --Bhadani 15:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a quote: William Ralp Inge once said: “Events in the past may be roughly divided into those which probably never happened and those which do not matter. This is what makes the trade of historian so attractive.” --Bhadani 15:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Controversy Section

 * I am grateful for your (Tigeroo's) efforts to begin the section. However, I feel that the section will not be enough even if expanded. This is so because the article presently has a narrative that takes a position on the view of Qasim's rule being a positive one. What I would appreciate is a change in the narrative of the whole article, listing all claims made about bin-Qasim's treatment of Hindus, Buddhists etc. as claims made by the claimants, and the partisan (duh) Chach Nama being quoted with appropriate qualification.The article must not take a position, implicit or explicit, on any version of history regardless of who claims it. This is how scholarly articles are written. One should not use incidents that occurred over a millenium ago to make political statements.Hkelkar 09:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The section of the chach nama quoted first does not mention Dahir or anything pertaining to piracy by him.I mean this one:

http://persian.packhum.org/persian/pf?file=12701030&ct=18

But it was used to cite the activities of Dahir, which is a failed verification.Hkelkar 09:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up the language and flow of the article, and move as much as I could of the disputed material to the Controversy section so that it can be sorted out. Naturally, there is still a bit that has may be seen as non-NPOV in the Administration section, but I'm not anything close to an expert on this and am only looking at it from a readability perspective. Elijahmeeks 17:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the quote that was in on way identified in the book with Qasim. I have marked some as dubious because they make sweeping generalizations that contradict what other reputed historians have said. Agreed Chach Nama is a secondary source, but all historians inherently factor that into their interpretations of any account. Read Thakur's reading of the same as clearly contrasting account, I think we solved that problem by using the Chach Nama merely to base the recount of the progress of the campaign lacking another detailed source and all interpretations and commentary is now from tertiary sources. P.S you forgot to indicate a page number for Thakur as a reference and should replace Ibid with the actual source.


 * Tara Chand, can give you me the page number or even the fuller quote plz. I seem to be seeing a different account.--Tigeroo 21:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

problem with ref 3 citation
Here:

Stanley Lane-Poole, Medieval India under Mohammedan Rule, 712-1764, G.P. Putnam's Sons. New York, 1970. p. 9-10

The ref seems to only show that the Jats and Meds supported bin-Qasim. However, the article says that Buddhists and Bhuttos also supported him, which is not in the sentence cited from the article. I will get the book from the library in 1-2 days to verify the claims made. Until then, let the tag stand.Hkelkar 10:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar (and his favorite comment "dubious")
"Wait this might also be "dubious" and wait this needs a 'citation'"

This is all Hkelkar, goes around going. I have no bias with respect to these articles as I am a white Anglo-Saxon Christian. However there is a serious problem, Hkelkar is deliberately removing information which seem to protect a negative-image of Hindus who followed the Caste-System I particularly know of the oppression the Jatts and other Buddhist sub-tribes where put under by those who followed the caste-system, so there is actually no surprise at many non-Hindu Jatt sub-tribes made an alliance with Arab. However the invasion of Sind happened for the reason that pirates controlled by Raja Dhinar (Hindu King) were Reading Arabian shipping in-fact in the Chach-Nama this clearly stated as a letter was sent to the Hindu King he refused to comply which subsequently led to the invasion. I highly doubt Hkelkar, has read the Chah-Nama for the reason that he is asking some questions which are clearly listed in the Chah-Nama, such as why the Buddhist and Hindus were classed as "people of the book" - the reason was Bin Qasim's head was in the line he was being ordered to come back to Baghdad it was Bin Qasim's commander who was opposed to his lenient stance. --James Wanten 12:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the very fact that you mentioned that you are an anglo-saxon, makes me feel that you are a sockpuppet. Anyways, its ust my opinion. --Incman|वार्ता 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Er as it happens I am not a Hindu Either but an Indian Jew, so claims of partisanship are moot.Plus, Hindus are not the only ones who follow a Caste system (Muslim Swat 'Qoms','Biradaris', and Ashraf/Ajlaf divisions per the Fatwa-i-Jahandari are Castes). Plus, You need to provide sources, which I have disputed. I anticipated such an attack and so, if a revert war progresses, am, ready to require administrator mandates.
 * In addition, the Chach Nama is a partisan source and needs to be qualified accordingly. Point of fact, any partisan source or potentially partisan source needs to be qualified accordingly. The article is NOT balanced and will be, despite the fundamentalist elements of any religious denomination (or their sympathizers).Hkelkar 12:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus, my actions are legitimate and in conformity with wikipedia policy. Your actions are incivil and grounds for reporting unless you desist per WP:Civility and WP:NPA.Hkelkar 12:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would be interested to find out if there is any other source than the chach-nama for the historical accounts. How is it partisan? Because it was written by a Muslim historian? That would disqualify all roman accounts of the roman empire etc. on the same basis.But I agree it needs to be made clear where the narrative is drawing upon the Chach-nama. Generally the account of the progress of the campaign was written by me reading the Chach-nama. I have no issues with the rework done to that arena to improve the language. Qasim was one of my earlier contributions to Wiki so there are lots of rough edges.--Tigeroo 21:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. All the accounts of history written b partisan sources should be qualified accordingly. I did not say that chach nama should be removed or "disqualified". Just that it needs to be qualified and used only as a primary source. It cannot be used as a secondary or a tertiary source (as it has been here). So, a statement like:

"bin-Qasim was the greatest thing since sliced falafel whooptee-doo and the soulless infidel Raja Dahir was a stinking heap of camel dung, praise be to God the merciful and compassionate the all-powerful-and-the-all-forgiving etc.etc.[ref]Chach Nama section winkiwonki pg 932 [/ref]".

needs to be replaced by:

"According to the Saracean history book Chach Nama(brief description), bin-Qasim was 'the greatest thing since sliced falafel'[ref]Chach Nama section winkiwonki pg 932[/ref]"

Do you understand my point?As always, I am grateful that moderate voices and cool heads may prevail.Hkelkar 21:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * read it and check the site and reference made, I have used the introduction as well which is by a hindu author when referencing opinions, generally kept the chachnama for facts. Basically, most of the work done by other author is usually off the chach-nama as well. It is the standard reference for tertiary review. Even your triflocich is quoting the chach nama when he makes his hypothesis and assertions. Note I have not brought its opinions into the narrative.--Tigeroo 00:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a problem with this article. I will have to re-edit it, as there is obviously non neutral sources used for the accounts, the books quoted are naturally accepted to be non-scholarly and anti-Muslim. Also a note toHkelkar if you continue to go around adding "dubious" tags to clearly referenced points I will have to take action against you.


 * Likewise.Hkelkar 11:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is about Muhammad Bin Qasim. The effect of Muslim rule in South Asia should be discussed in other article that deal with these issues.
 * Siddiqui 14:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed.However, the issue here is over intentionalism of bin-Qasim himself per the mediation proceeding on Cheema.Please do not revert until these issues have been resolved. Thanks.Hkelkar 15:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There isn't really any mediation going on at Cheema, because the other involved party is utterly unresponsive. I recommend another course of action. - Che Nuevara  16:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I will be filing RfA on it and the arbitration there will set the precedent for this article as well.Hkelkar 17:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I don't know much about the Cheema. My major concern is the mention of the Conversion by Sword Theory. To some extent, the material I included was a bit off-topic. But the theory isn't. There are considerable evidences, though disputed, that bin-Qasim did destroy a lot of Hindu temples, enslaved Hindus and forced several Hindu and Buddhists kings to follow Islam. The mentioning of bin-Qasim's alleged attrocities on Hindus is important. All this article speaks about is the positives and achievements of bin-Qasim. --Incman|वार्ता 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, I created the stub section for just such a purpose, my objection was primarily the polemical type sources (because they tend to be selective and non-representative), and the fact that it was mostly beyond the article topic. A short introduction into the controversy and then onto Qasim's role. I looked around but only found the opposite, the historical concensus generally seems to exclude Qasim and the early Arabs of Mahfouzah, Mansurah and Multan from singling out Hindu's beyond events that were the norm's of warfare.--Tigeroo 19:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes but the references to bin-Qasim in Thakkur suggests that he targeted Hindus specifically for extermination until some sort of agreement was reached and the situation changed.Thakkur suggests that this went beyond war as civilians (not just soldiers) were targeted.Hkelkar 20:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Further evidence lies in this statement made on "Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity: The Search for Saladin by Akbar S Ahmed":


 * "It [Muslim exclusivism] was inherent from the time the first Muslims arrived in the subcontinent-fromt the eighth century, when Muhammad bin-Qasim threatened to usher in a new order challenging the Hindu customs, norms and beliefs"


 * This is certainly an indication that it was an intentional persecution rather than just a territorial invasion.


 * In "Eight Lives:A Study of the Hindu-Muslim Encounter by R. Gandhi", it is stated on Page 3 that bin-Qasim regarded Hindus as "inferior infidels" and were treated accordingly. he goes into detail (get the book).


 * However, some papers do say that the Siva temple destruction of bin Qasim was "only warfare" and not a persecution, such as one from "South Asian Archaeology 1975 compiled by E Lohuizen-de Leeuw".


 * Like I said, there is a clear difference of opinion in academia over the fellow.Hkelkar 20:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, according to me both sides of the story should be mentioned for the sake of knowledge. --Incman|वार्ता 20:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine it's quite clear that the natives were regarded by the conquerors as culturally inferior and in particular with a view to their beleifs, ergo the infidels, that's the norm of a conquerors attitude throughout history and was typical interaction between conqueror and subject nations. I see both Gandhi and Akbar referring to this disdain/contempt and a pride/ego playing a role in Qasims interactions in your mentions as well as in the chach nama, however i think that is something quite different from persecution. Anyhow if you have something further akin to what you are saying we have to put it in WP:NPOV requires that all views be mentioned as long as they fulfill WP:RS.--Tigeroo 09:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that bin Qasim didn't last very long. While it's important to include both sides, the larger story of Islam in South Asia should exist in a seperate article, as it does. Elijahmeeks 21:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally agree.However, the sources that I have describing bin Qasim's reign as totalitarian and genocidal need to be mentioned as it is clear that historians do not have a consensus regarding this matter.Hkelkar 22:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I just removed one of this chap's dubious assertion tag here - even after the US government published the issue on the web - this gentleman denies it saying others are fool. TerryJ-Ho 23:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop removing my comments now..Kelkar ..these are not trollish comments - these are proofs of your edits TerryJ-Ho

Exactly, characterizations are a personal attack and you will be punished accordingly.Hkelkar 00:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Kelkar please abstain from remvoing my comments from talk page.The entire paragraph has been titled "== Hkelkar (and his favorite comment "dubious") ==" and you have been very actively contributing in it.If what other's have written in not an attack on you - mine which is only an example and very politely written is not an attack either.But what you are doing now by defacing the pages and adding dubious cautionary templates on my pages is indeed offensive. TerryJ-Ho
 * Right. We'll see about you. Hkelkar 00:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar, stop this behavior, there is nothing wrong with what TerryJ-Ho has said to you, its pretty clear you keep and adding tags for no apparent reason other then that the information which is presented you don't like. It was you who added Jatts and claimed they are "lower castes" which is so silly its beyond belief. The good and bad should be listed of both parties, Mohamed Bin Qasim was hardly a great representative of Islam, and same goes for oppressive Hindu kings they were hardly the greatest representatives of Hinduism. --Street Scholar 11:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well so nice to see such an egalitarian attitude. Unfortunately you have still to repond to CheNuevara for the mediation issue. Since you have ignored it I have the green light to take this matter to ArbComm.Hkelkar 12:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Unlike, you I have a life outside of wiki hence why I have not got back to Che I will do when I have the time. --Street Scholar 12:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't add lower caste
Don't add lower caste, when Jatts are clearly not a lower caste. And even so adding "lower" caste is offensive. It should be noted the Jatts were considered lower caste by the ruling Bahamian Hindus who were oppressing the Jatt sub-tribes such as the Cheemas who were at one time considered noble Kshatriyas at one point by the Bahamian Hindus. The only reason why the Bahamians (kings) started calling them offensive terms was for the fact that some Jatt sub-tribes don't participate in Bahamian rituals for the reason that they were followers of Buddhism.

Furthermore, for instance, the Jatts are decadents of the sakas who are of the indi-scything stock, which makes them indo-Aryans. The way the Hindu caste system is set up the Jatts can never be considered low-caste as Aryans are the highest caste you can get in the Hindu caste system. So claiming Jatts as a lower caste (who in fact are a race) is historically and factually wrong. Street Scholar 11:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please substantiate outrageous claims (and from real sources this time, not itschy ones).Hkelkar 11:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Are ancient Sanskrit scriptures real sources? is the Mahabharata, Manusmiriti, Bhagavad Gita etc. Real sources? Some drink from the fountain of knowlage and others just gargle, your ignorance is encyclopedic. --Street Scholar 12:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it depends on how you mean real. I have no experience with this in the realm of South Asia (And the more involved I get in this particular article, the more surprised I am by the incivility of everyone involved) but as a scholar of China, I can say that certain sources are useful not for any social or political understanding, but only to know a particular cultural belief.  Often the claims of the particularly ancient texts are, by their very nature, unsubstantiatable and unsuitable to reference as fact.  That doesn't make them useless, by any means, but their usefulness in the particular area of history is limited. Elijahmeeks 15:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I can understand what you're saying, however if Hindus in their scriptures are calling Jatt sub-tribes demons then this is a fact. Also the Mahabharata, is an account of epic ancient Hindu battles. Furthermore, sub-tribes from the Jatt clans have been classed as being noble Kshatriyas (such as the Cheema tribe) but later after converting to Buddhism, from Hinduism have been called as all sorts of offensive terms degraded in rank, and oppressed by ruling Bahamian Hindu kings. Many of the sub-tribes of the jatts such as the Cheema tribe suffered this oppression as they did not believe in the philosophy of fighting even though they were great warriors praised by Alexander the Great and later by Bahamian Hindus (in the Mahabharata who later faced them in battles) here are some topics you can start reading to get a better understanding of what I am talking about.


 * 1) Saka
 * 2) Kshatriya
 * 3) Cheema
 * 4) History of the Punjab
 * 5) Mahabharata
 * 6) Jatt
 * 7) Kurukshetra war

--Street Scholar 10:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the list, I'll take a look. I've sort of stumbled onto this article and it's outside my sphere of knowledge, so I'm just trying to present a reasonable outside opinion for the ongoing argument. Elijahmeeks 16:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't say anything about the Cheema in particular but they were not the only Jatt tribe and the restrictions imposed upon them were classic "shudra"esque as described by Andre Wink, so socially they ended up in that role in the society, as lower castes.--Tigeroo 07:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

For the benefit of RfC

 * Quotes from "Sindhi Culture" by UT Thakkur concerning bin-Qasim:

Both Hinduism and Buddhism flourished side by side. The king was a Brahman and the governors were generally Buddhists. The ruler of Brahmanadabad, Agham Lohana also had professed Buddhism and his spiritual guide Samani Budhugi owned an idol-house or temple which was called Budh Nawwihar.

When Muhammad Kasim invaded Sind in 711 AD, Buddhism had no resistance to offer to their fire and steel. The rosary could not be a match for the sword and the terms Lov and Peace had no meaning to them. The carried fire and sword wherever they went and obliterated all that came their way.Muhammad triumphantly marched into the country, conquering Debal etc. one after the other in quick succession, and in less than a year and half, the far-flung Hindu kingdon was crushed, the great civilization fell back and Sind entered the darkest period of it's history.


 * Nasty little bugger wasn't he, eh?

There was a fearful outbreak of religious bigotry in several places and temples were wantonly desecrated. AT Debal, Nairun and Aror temples were demolished and converted into mosques.(Resistors) were put to death and women made captives.The Jizya was exacted with special care.(Hindus) were requird to feed Muslim travellers for three days and three nights.

The Arabs left no legacy behind except a few colonies and a few families as the memorial of their conquest. They had no constitutional doctrine (implying that the natives did),no higher culture (author takes position that pre-Islamic Sind was culturally superior), and no superior art or language.

There is more on p16 qbout forced conversions and other atrocities inflicted on Hindus.Hkelkar 18:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

More evidence: Further evidence lies in this statement made on "Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity: The Search for Saladin by Akbar S Ahmed":

It [Muslim exclusivism] was inherent from the time the first Muslims arrived in the subcontinent-fromt the eighth century, when Muhammad bin-Qasim threatened to usher in a new order challenging the Hindu customs, norms and beliefs

This is certainly an indication that it was an intentional persecution rather than just a territorial invasion.

In "Eight Lives:A Study of the Hindu-Muslim Encounter by R. Gandhi", it is stated on Page 3 that bin-Qasim regarded Hindus as "inferior infidels" and were treated accordingly. he goes into detail (get the book).

These points cited by many historians is not referenced at all.

Other issues are:

Partisanship and extremism of the following sources:
 * Javeed, Akhter. "IDo Muslims Deserve The Hatred Of Hindus?", International Strategy and Policy Institute, U.S.A. Retrieved on 2006-09-31 as raised by me
 * Trifkovic, Serge. "Islam’s Other Victims: India", FrontPageMagazine.com. Retrieved on 2006-08-26 as raised by User:Tigeroo
 * Single source Chach-Nama used for most of the article.Partisanship of the source needs to be investigated, though scholarly references/interpretations of the Chach-Nama are allright per wikipedia policy.

Hkelkar 18:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What are the primary sources Thakkur references in his bibliography? He sounds a bit non-NPOV in his language and we should rely less on secondary sources when possible.  Elijahmeeks 00:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Chach-Nama is fairly non-NPOV too.Where are it's primary sources?UT Thakkur has a bibiliography on p229 Appendix C of 85 sources.The chapter I got the above text from Chapt 1 has 34 refs, mainly Mackay's "Indus Valley Civ, Majumdar and Pusalker's "History and Culture of the Indian People", Cousens "Antiquities of Sind, Archeological Survey of India", and E.H Aitken, "Gazetteer of the province of Sind"Hkelkar 00:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Those sound like great places to start. The problem, as I see it, is that Qasim's actions have become a political tool in proving either Islamic tolerance and the appeal of Islam or the inherently violent nature of Islam and its practitioners.  Either way, poor bin Qasim gets treated far too simply. Elijahmeeks 15:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Then present both perspectives.I have no problem with that.However, we cannot take a position on either point and list both points of view dispassionately.This has not happened.Hkelkar 15:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The basic fact is all work wether by Stanley Poole, Thakur, Serge or anyone else is based primarily off Muslim historical accounts of the, if they are referencing another work, then that work is almost invariably referencing the Chach Nama. The primary one for the entire account of Qasim as well the pre-Qasim Dynasty is the Chach Nama, al-Biladhuri but any deviations in reports are mentioned in the notes of the Mirza translation of the Tulkafarum the other source but the primary one relied and referenced by all the historians is the Chach Nama. On a side note, while the jatts may have joined with Qasim, he left most of the restrictions on them intact much as he left Brahmin power and social status intact and their conversions only really began much later in the 13th century. A good book on the commentary is the one Andre Wink cited in the references. Didn't notice that significant portions were blanked by siddiquis revert so reverted to a more inclusive version pre-section debate, sorry if some stuff fell off.--Tigeroo 07:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not all of the works I cited above are based solely off of the Chach Nama. The gazeteer is based off of a lot of other research too. I will provide details soon regarding that, but bear in mind that scholars are allowed to do OR, while we wikipedians are not.Hkelkar 07:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that's why there is a talk page to discuss thing's where OR is acceptable or rather a more detailed exposition of the editor's basis review of sources that can verify the stated position taken and inferences made.--Tigeroo 09:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

THE Battle of TIGROO
those who are about to read further need to have a healthy heart because you can't bear to witness the masacre, the mayhem and the carnage also known as tigeroo (who are you). wikipedia need to get this act sorted once for all. 202.142.190.245 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Who brought Islam to South Asia (first)?
"Muhammad bin Qasim (Arabic محمد بن قاسم ) (c. 695–715) was an Arab general who conquered Sindh and Punjab regions along the Indus river (currently a part of Pakistan). The conquest of Sindh and Punjab started the Islamic era in the South Asia." !!!!

I thought it was the arab merchents who first brought Islam to South Asia at the malabar cost of kerala in 6th century. The earliest known muslim communities in India are Mappilas. (means son-in-law) in local language. Also I thought till about 13th century AD the Muslim sultanates in Delhi had no clue of the existance of Muslim enclaves on Malabar cost and and Coromandel in general!! Pratheepps 10:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was the Sufis. Armyrifle 22:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please...No Firishta Please...I don't remember the context or the author but it aptly suits him...I would watch an episode of Star Trek for a dose of sanity...Firishta's neutrality is comparable to the Nazi neutrality before the second world war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.132.198 (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A simple instance...Vijayanagar empire fielded an army of about 1 million, the muslims could muster only around 300000, they were hard pressed in the battle and were at the verge of collapse when they spotter the Vijayanagar commander Aliya Rama Raya distributing gifts to the valiant in the battlefield, concentrated their might at him, captured and beheaded him. His head was in display in Ahmednagar till 1829. The major point to note that Vijayanagar lost the battle in 3 hours. Is that possible? The commander, who according to firishta was above 90 years old, distributing the gold in the battlefield? Leave the possibility, does it look logical? A 90+ old commander, atleast one should note that there should be 100000-2000000 soldiers before him. I don't think even Chenghiz Khan would have vanquished them such fastly, that too when he was at the recieving end. Also, that Vijayanagar was completely crushed. Then how, was the Vanquished Vijayanagar at the gates of Golconda, the capital of one of the five Muslim kingdoms? Firishta conveniently forgets that Vijayanagar lost the war due to treachery by two of their Muslim generals. Treachery is not permissible anywhere!! The vanquished Vijayanagar was the only kingdom to stop Akbar in a battle, not the Muslim confederacy. One of the five kingdoms, Ahmednagar, the best of them fell by then. Different case that that plan was abandoned as Akbar died on the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.132.198 (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

people of the book???

 * Hindus and Buddhists can't be declared people of the book by Muslims because the title is a diminuitive reserved for non-Mohammedean Abrahamics (typically Jews).This assertion is highly dubious and contradics the people of the book article.Hkelkar 13:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It was applied at the time, and no it was restricted to Abrahamics (especially does not single out jews but lumps them with christians), historically Sabaens and Zorastrians, Buddhists and Hindus had it extended to them as well. The meaning and application of the term has evolved since.--Tigeroo 13:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not what noted historian Triflovich says:

Extract from Triflovic's book:

As far as they (Muslims) were concerned, Hindus were kafirs, heathens, par excellence. They, and to a lesser extent the peaceful Buddhists, were, unlike Christians and Jews, not "of the book" but at the receiving end of Muhammad’s injunction against pagans: "Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them."Hkelkar 13:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See below where Hajjaj accords them the title of dhimmi. If you want to make the change from Ahl al Kitab to dhimmi, it won't be inaccurate and will be acceptable.--Tigeroo 14:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

ISPI:Dubious Source
--Tigeroo 01:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The ISPI source is at a partisan (possibly extremist) Muslim website and has severe anti-Hindu connotations in their content. Their claims are extremely Dubious and not in conformity with the more widely regarded historian Sita Ram Goel whom they attack in the article.Plz find more secular and reliable sources to justify these claims of "tolerance", which is highly unlikely given the general attitude that Muslims have towards Hindus.Hkelkar 13:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ISPI actually seems to be liberal and non-extremist organization promoting cross-cultural dialog and interaction and an author of as equally obscure as Triflovice "The Seven Phases Of Prophet Muhammad's Life." --Tigeroo 09:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus, there are clear contradictions with the more mainstream Triflovic reference, which clearly details massive genocides inflicted against the Hindu populations by Qasim.I'd appreciate scholarly discussion.Hkelkar 13:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Front mage mag is as dubious source as ISPI, but yes I have noted I am not happy with the ISPI until i find the reference in the chach nama that it purports to. I have used it as a stopgap measure.--Tigeroo 14:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Extract from Triflovich's book:

Starting in 712 the raiders, commanded by Muhammad Qasim, demolished temples, shattered sculptures, plundered palaces, killed vast numbers of men — it took three whole days to slaughter the inhabitants of the city of Debal — and carried off their women and children to slavery, some of it sexual. After the initial wave of violence, however, Qasim tried to establish law and order in the newly-conquered lands, and to that end he even allowed a degree of religious tolerance. but upon hearing of such humane practices, his superior Hajjaj, objected

In a subsequent communication, Hajjaj reiterated that all able-bodied men were to be killed, and that their underage sons and daughters were to be imprisoned and retained as hostages. Qasim obeyed, and on his arrival at the town of Brahminabad massacred between 6,000 and 16,000 men.

Hkelkar 13:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous neutral sources that I can pull up to show that this was not true, they were not specifically targetted. for example:. The Chach nama which is the primary source of all informatino about Qasim mentions two instances, one the temple at Debal, which was linked with some prophecy or something, and one about a stupa at Nerun otherwise generally Qasim did not bother the sites too much, sure he had scorn towards them and did not hold them with any special regard however he was not a Mahmud of Ghazni to single them out and a different agenda and strategy. He worked hard at diplomacy and building alliances, remember he came in with a skeletal force. The online version of the chach nama is linked if you care to go through it, it's a bit of a tough read. Heres a quote from the chach nama itself: “I have received my dear cousin Muhammad Kásim's letter, and have become acquainted with its contents. With regard to the request of the chiefs of Brahminábád about the building of Budh temples, and toleration in religious matters, I do not see (when they have done homage to us by placing their heads in the yoke of submission, and have undertaken to pay the fixed tribute for the Khalífah and guaranteed its payment), what further rights we have over them beyond the usual tax. Because after they have become zimmís (protected subjects) we have no right whatever to interfere with their lives or their property. Do, therefore, permit them to build the temples of those they worship. No one is prohibited from or punished for following his own religion, and let no one prevent them from doing so, so that they may live happy in their own homes”

Historical figures are grey, they are not black and white heroes or villains. Especially generals of the medeival age, war was not pretty back then, POWs were either generally summarily executed or sold into slavery, and even as a terror tactic by making an example of a few to deter others from putting up a fight, no doubt some temples were looted to finance the campaign (the caliph had to repayed his investment in raising the military, was often a buisness transaction back then). I am not saying he didn't do some cold blooded stuff, it's a matter contextualizing the events rather then selective usage. On a side note It is also interesting to note two accounts of what appear to be Sati already in the earliest annals of Muslim contact, in the chach nama. Generally, I would prefer the article to have limited usage of quotes, and the material just be summed up in simpler concise statements, but my experience with wiki articles.--Tigeroo 14:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in WP:OR debating historical figures. If sources of information from legitimate scholars disagree then there is a controversy and the different points of view need to be mentioned accordingly.Thus, modifications should be made saying that some scholars say theat bin-Qasim was genocidal and others say no. Apart from Triflivich, even Will Durant in "The Story of Civilization" (Durant is another highly respected historian) mentioned bin-Qasim's genocides.Hkelkar 22:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Shrug, upto you, but Triflivich is as POV a source as Javeed Akhter, both are authors of books and run political think tanks and neither represents the main stream academic view. Will Durant was not a historian, and has been criticized for it, however he is notable.--Tigeroo 07:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually Drrant WAS a historian (of considerable repute)> Plus, Triflovich is a highly notable author and also is a qualified historian with peer-reviewed publications.

Another Reliable Source is :

"Fundamentalisms Comprehended"

---edited by R Scott Appleby, Martin E Marty

P292 in which it is clearly stated that while bin-Qasim tried to find middle ground between Hindus and Muslims he hiked the jizya up to 4 times the usual taxes and drove several Hindus to death by starvation or conversion to Islam by intimidation.

He did attain some equilibrium eventually by cooperating with the Brahmins and Shudras but subjugating them to Dhimmitude.Hkelkar 07:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I checked, it says no such thing, it makes no mention of the terms Shudras or dhimmitude, and it says the jizya was a graded tax, where the rich payed 4 times as much as the peasants. No mention is made of starvation to death or mass conversion by intimidation infact it says the opposite, that and accomodation was made and no religious interference occurred, that conversions were minimal. In fact the common theme mentioned by various reputed sources is that during the Umayyad period there is a general aversion of accepting converts for fear of eroding the lucrative tax base of the jizya! Did you misread or misrepresent??--Tigeroo 00:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you quote the page # and the edition date?I don't see anything pertaining to grading Jizya in mine.Jizya was a poll tax which one did not grade.Unless the tax they implemented was NOT the Jizya but something different termed Jizya, and the sources do not say so.The high value of Jizya usually led to starvation (in on itself an intimidation tactic) and people would convert so thatthey could resume eating.


 * Yes this is true that the Umayyid Khilafat did not like forced conversions. The bin-Qasim genocides were an incident ordered by Hajjaj as a political ploy and to serve his own Islamist ideology and not the ideology of this particular Khilafat. Even the Fatimids did not force-convert during crusades.Hkelkar 00:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Paperback edition 2004, same as listed in the references at the end of the article and the same page number you cited on yours pg.292. I doubt a volte-face was made. To quote ".. to pay poll tax (jizya) on a graduated basis, the propertied classes paying four times as much as the poor."


 * Hajaj's letters seem to say the opposite, note during the time the letters were compiled violence or cold blooded actions were not frowned upon so I doubt they watered it down and made it PC in the Chach nama either, they haven't balked at documenting other events. Generally even muslim historians viewed Hajjaj's actions as excessive but no mention of this strategy of policy is made in the Chach-nama. Where is it from?--Tigeroo 01:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is the inherent contrdiction in the sentence "To Pay poll tax on a graduated basis".plus, the academic's sources are their own research I guess so I don't know about that.Plus, who were the propertied classes? Muslim converts or Hindus or both?I'll look at the other refs in detail in a couple of days when I can get to the Univ Central Library.Hkelkar 02:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jizya was applied to non-hindus, it is mentioned that converts were exempted. They in turn had to pay a zakat tax. It's mentioned by Appleby too on the same page. I am not sure what the problem is, it sounds similar to tax systems we have in place today, wherein the richer are taxed at a higher rate than poor, the only indication to the levels I have found are in the Chach-nama where Hajjaj's letter Qasim advises him to be lenient. I forget wether it was wink or the other, who also explicitly mentioned that the Brahmins were also exempted from the Jizya, (didn't really bother to add that since it was not mentioned by the others and seemed odd, though if the state is paying 3% to the brahmins anyway it could make sense to do possibly do this via exemption from the jizya) so the tax seems to be more on the mercantile and artisans classes. The graduated basis and 4 times seems to be pretty exact, therefore the academic likely has a source to make that specific an assertion, they do however tend to leave footnotes on their sources if they haven't "explained it" as their assumptions, so that such can be verified. Unlike us wiki editors they can do OR and then we can report as per RS.--Tigeroo 06:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment about violence being normal for the time etc. However, the article seems to use the political climate of the period to justify the violence, not chronicle it dispassionately.Hkelkar 02:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is important to show the context so that readers can evalute things better and not assume a presentist approach. However, that is from well sourced sources. It raises a question Watt asked, do we judge a man by the standards of his time, or ours, ofcourse we can judge the standards themselves at a seperate level. However, "storytelling" does have tendency to create some POV positions, so if you can highlight specific areas we can work on those.--Tigeroo 06:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree there is a controversy and difference of opinion on the matter and don't see a problem with that facet being mentioned. The major criticism of Durant was that he was an amateur and was very liberal in his attempt at story-telling history, regardless thats not especially relevant since he is notable source for a particular view. I don't see a problem with using WP:NPOV to represent all aspects properly attributed, personally I would\t like to include Javeed or Triflovic as reliable sources. As an aside for curiosities sake, I wound't mind knowing what references Appleby give as the source of their contentions.--Tigeroo 09:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The article, as it stands, is a paean to a whitewashed picture and does not represent the views held by all historians.Plus, a major contributor has been this Street Scholar guy who, quite frankly, is a racist as well as an ignorant Islamist (based on his hatemongering posts above, and WP:AGF pretty much breaks down in this case), making the whole article a pile of partisan rubbish. If it is not balanced out soon then there is no choice but to involve higher authorities in action.Hkelkar 09:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What higher authorities, this a wikipedia, editors can balance this out by responsible editing if you feel it is has a problem.--Tigeroo 09:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is always the arbitration committee, which can mandate edits and make them stick.
 * If it were only you, I and other reasonable editors involved then I would agree that mediation is not needed. You seem like a reasonable editor who made a good-faith effort to hear out historical contentions that you may find uncomfortable and I thank you for it. However, many of the other editors involved have clear partisan biases and resort to personal attacks and racist/ignorant/bigoted insults that should have gotten them blocked.I can virtually smell a revert-war ensuing here from them and so desire pre-emptive mediation to handle those extremists. I would be grateful if you could keep a cool head and together we can balance the article out.Hkelkar 09:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

According to most Muslim scholars, Hindus are kuffar and are idol-worshippers. We can't be considered the Ahl-ul-Kitaab (People of the Book). The People of the Book are only Jews and Christians, as the Qur'an makes this very clear. Armyrifle 22:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

All who have received revealed books from God are 'People of the Book'
Muslims are the 'People of the Prevailing Book', AlQoraan, the culminating & the last & the final book revealed by God to humanity for all the humanity & prevailing over all the previously revealed books until end of time, while the followers of all the previous revealed books are 'People of the Prevailed Books' & they are considered by God as 'Ahl Al-Fatarat' ( or 'People of the Interval' ) until individually the prevailing message reaches them. Jews (or 'Yahood' {the guided ones}{who so requested Moses to be called by which in their arrogance to defy Gods' Prophet Moses who was a Muslim {the appellation given by Abraham for the followers of God} & Christians (so named by their opponents) ( or 'Nasaraa' { or "Nazaratines" or belonging to the city of Nazareth in Palestine where Jesus (who was Muslim)(Gods' peace be upon him} was born} as named in AlQoraan,(the most relevant)& Sabeens ( the other 'People of the Book' of Noah,  Jonah, Enoch, John, who were neither Jews or Christians)(in smaller numbers) are from the Arabian Peninsula, while Magians ( or 'Zoroastrians') are People of the Book in neighboring Persia (now Iran)(whose prophet is not mentioned in AlQoraan nor their book) outside the Arabian Peninsula. Others are not mentioned from the rest of the world, for various reasons: because the names & the stories will be unknown & will not be of interest through whom the message was being directed to the whole humanity or they will be repetitive & have nothing to add to guidance, they will only burden the message with no help towards guidance. Ibn Hazm, the fifth Famous Imam of Islamic Comprehension {or Jurisprudence or Fiqha} of Al-Andalus (or Islamic Spain) has considered Hindus {so named by the early Persians who added 'h' to 'Indus' the river east of Persia flowing in Sind, because of the peculiarity of their language, to the people living around the River Indus up to Burma eastwards}& now confirmed by a contemporary scholar of comparative study of religious books, that their 'Vedas' contain reference to the coming of the Prophet Mohammad & description of his companions & victory of Makkah confirms the revealed nature of their books, so they are to be regarded as 'People of the Book'. The idolatry is an addition not a part of their religion like Makkans fell into idolatry introduced by a visitor to Syria in the 5th century, since introduced after Noah, when the people started making statues for the righteous people but after many generations, the original purpose went out of the living memory without any written record as writing had not been yet invented, instead the reverence turned into worship with the help of Satan. (ILAKNA (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

Mohammad Bin Qasim AthThaqafi
the commander of forces which opened the Province of Sind for the Islamic Caliphate, was from the tribe of 'Thaqeef' from Taif, 80 km east of Makkah in Saudi Arbia & not ,as wrongly suggested, from Syria. He was under the command of the Governor of Iraq, & his relative AlHajjaj bin Yusuf AthThaqafi. The reason for sending the forces was that the Muslim pilgrims from the island of Sarandeep (Sri Lanka now) were taken hostage by Raja Dahir of Daebal (near to now Karachi port) & the Ommayad Caliph from Damscus asked his governor in Iraq to send forces to get the pilgrims released. He was just 19 years old when he commanded the forces to Sind. The forces boarded the ships from the Al-Oqair Port (100 km South of Hofuf City), the historical port in the Al-Hasa (now Eastern) Province.(ILAKNA (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

Hanafi school adopted in Sindh when Imam Abu Hanifa was a kid??
Hanafi fiqh being adopted in the Sind area around 714/715 is total rubbish as Imam Abu Hanifa was born in 699 and Bin Qasim died in 715. So Imam Abu Hanifa was even less then 16 years old when Hanafi school supposedly got adopted in Sind. The school began much later and not when he was a kid. He was still at school getting his Islamic knowledge. Much of the source material is made up like this adoption of Hanfai school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.97.249 (talk)


 * Then we should remove it.--D-Boy 18:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess so. I also think the admin needs to remove that people of hindu relegion were classified as people of the book. People of the book means people who were given the scriptures like the Torah (Children of Israel) and the Bible (Followers of Christ) before Prophet Mohammed came. It doesn not mean pagans and idol worshippers. We need to put correct info on Wiki so people are not confused. Many Thanks


 * Hmm, ok thats a good point. It is conceivable that the particular source quoted has misstated, will require corraboration but seems like a mistake. I will look into it and edit accordingly. On the other part, the term and definition of people of the book has evolved. Even Zorastrians status were granted the same under Umar no less.--Tigeroo 06:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The islamic scholars majority of them view that the term People of the book applies to jews and christians specifically, but since some of the Zaroastrians are indeed a sect of monotheism. (thus they would be included in people of the book because they are monotheists. However it doesnt apply to idol worshippers/pantheists/pagans.


 * True that is the modern definition, but there was a time and period in history when Hindu's and Buddhists were accorded the same. Upanishads etc. were hypotheized as books, even Buddha was conceptualized as an earlier prophet, Burxan. Even today there are many who view Hindu avatar's as people who could have possibly been one of the many thousands of prophets who came but whose followers lost the plot. I could be wrong as well, however but pointing out something like the issue raisded about Abu Hanifa age is good way to get me to reassess, I have been looking at that and I agree seems like his influence may only have kicked in around 750's. P.S been just a bit busy to go over the sources again and make the change about him, but am getting around to it.--Tigeroo 13:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo again deletes my entire posts
Three of Tigeroos latest posts are devoted to again deleting my content 

Tigeroo your presumption of wikipedia style guru  is not only misplaced but stems from your aggressive desire to present a lopsided  version. Your use anonymous IP s to vandal delete  is also now more than obvious. I have carefully responded to each of your provided reasons for deletion, but I see that you do not care for civilized debate.

I also notice that your original reading is severely limited .. and you entirely rely on anything you can lay your hands on the Internet. I do compliment you on your I T skills at manipulating wikipedia edits  skill, however they are no  substitution for the truth you are trying to suppress.

Cheers
 * Please red up WP:MOS. I have tried to show you numerous times on how to make acceptable and useful contributions but you refuse to pay attention. Case in point, you still place your comments any what where and when instead of at the bottom of the talk pages. I have accepted and incorporated legitimate issues raised by you, but you really need to get your act together and stop degrading the quality of the articles. Case in point this post again. As for the truth, wikipedia has a definition on what constitutes this and it is available under WP:POV and WP:OR. Those are what apply here so please get with the program.--Tigeroo 13:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo are you now deleting my posts under 80.227.40.9
My posts on Qasim have been deleted by 80.227.40.9 and my posts on Mahmud of Ghazni have been deleted by 80.227.40.9. Please stop hounding and deleting my posts if you are 80.227.40.9

cheers Intothefire 09:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

213.42.21.75 Your   massive indiscriminate vandal additions
Anonymous user your indiscriminate vandal additions to this article on sections I have worked on are not appreciated. Do not vandal or you will be reported ? If you wish to edit add participate after registering. Intothefire 18:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to each of tiger--Tigeroo 11:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)oos s pretexts for deleting my posts
17:44, 15 May 2007 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (31,383 bytes) (→Destruction of Temples and loot - rm section full of quotes. See Section Controversy for a more damning version. Summarymention should be added to the section Religion on destruction and looting.) An unwarranted deletion by Tigeroo  “ Destruction of Temples and loot” In the existing article the Chach nama has been referred to as a source on at least 14 instances (see specific instances below ) before I used the Chach nama as a source for quotations. The Chach Nama quotations specifically inform of the desrtuction of temples and loot. As a matter of fact I have only used exactly the same source for the chachnama already used. I did not remove the section on the controversy which you allude to ...which was the fair thing to do to provide the balance. Therefore your deletion is a vandal edit.
 * There is a difference to referring to the direct text and interpreting it and referring to the Introduction where another historian has put it in context. If you find interpretations made on ::the direct text then please remove them as OR as well. That is the correct way to go on Wikipedia.--Tigeroo 11:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

17:41, 15 May 2007 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (36,870 bytes) (→The taking of slaves - rm OR section. See intro sentence. See section Military strategy for tertiary sources for numbers on massacre, method, context, details etc Its all there already.) The deletion of this entire section( The taking of slaves) by you on the grounds provided by you are completely again unwarranted. The introduction and the section on Military strategy that you allude to do not convey the information on the extent, prevalence and religiously sanctioned    practice  of taking slaves Men women and children as plasticized by  Qasim.
 * Please use a tertiary source that interprets this as such. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to original sources to further their own interpretation of the material. The Military strategy section is entirely the reading of WP:RS historians, if there is a different POV please go ahead and quote it.--Tigeroo 11:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

17:35, 15 May 2007 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (41,724 bytes) (→Jazia - rm See section Taxation. Bad style as well, a whole section which is a quote? Same information is provided from secondary sourced assesments more concisely, contextually and completely.) Tigeroo this a patently vandal deletion of a whole section. The section you have deleted that I have added was on imposition of Jazia. You allude to the section on Taxation….I read this section -it does not mention Jazia  anywhere. As to the bad style you mention, I could paraphrase this.Your misuse of wikipedia style rules is exemplary.
 * FYI it is Jizya in modern parlance. It is in the 3rd sentence.--Tigeroo 11:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

17:29, 15 May 2007 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (43,404 bytes) (→Death - The intro sentece to this quote is inappropiate, i.e use of brave. Also too much off-topic space taken up by items that do not provide furth information on Qasim. This is not a story book.) In deference to Your objection of the word Brave ,this word removed. The issue of the The Khalífah immediately ordering the two kidnapped daughters of Dahir  to be buried alive in a wall  Is not off Topic .If the Qotation  already in the article also taken  from the Chachnama that “He also sent some beautiful pearls and va­luable jewels, as well as some Abyssinian male and female slaves, some pretty presents, and unparalleled rarities to the capital of the Khalífah.” relevant and considered appropriate then certainly and  similarly if the issue of the Arab women being taken prisoner by pirates is relevant, why do you feel the kidnapping of two daughters of Dahir and being sent as sex slaves and buried alive for not being virgins. Your comment That this is not a story book is therefore extraneous.
 * If you insist on it being important than tag it at the end of the Chachnama version of the death story. A whole huge quote is absolutely unwarranted. I do not sAs for the pirates story, that is the causus belli of the entire invasion and why Qasim even had a job to do, if that is not important than I do not what is. The quote though probably does not belong and should be replaced by a tertiary source. Atleast in this case it is only a footnote. Still it needs replacement.--Tigeroo 11:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

17:24, 15 May 2007 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (43,859 bytes) (→Death - This quotation unnecessary and the account summarized. The source added link has kept for informative purpose. Note the tertiary source assesment by Keay is considered superior.) Tigeroo :You deleted my edits saying say Keay is considered superior to the Chach-Nama,take a look at the 16 ref to the chachnama already in the article (not put by me ).Therefore your demotion of the chachnama as a source in this case is unfounded and inconsistent .Take a look at the quotes in the article Next the summary provided does not do justice to the source it is taken from. Chach Nama as a source referred to in the article

1)The primary source of his historiography comes from the Chach Nama. 2) According to the Chach Nama, the expedition against Raja Dahir was in response to a raid by pirates off the coast of Debal, who captured a ship 3) Campaign as recounted in the Chach-Nama 4) Qasim's forces then marched upon Raor and took it, where it is noted in the Chach Nama that Dahir's wife Bai and some others committed Jauhar. 5) Sulh appeared to be Qasims preferred mode of conquest, accounting for between 63-65% of the towns and tribes recorded by Baladhuri or the Chachnama. 6) The Chachnama records the following as the political strategy advised by Hajjaj to Qasim

Continued in next post Intothefire 14:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK Listen. STOP Inserting random sections of original source without an interpretation. If you are placing an interpretation please quote a WP:RS for that interpretation. This is not Wikiquote or space for a collection of quotes or your soapbox to insert quotes or your intepretation of what the source means, and no this the Chach-Nama is a historical document so no you cannot just read it as is. Placing "selective sections" under headings is ascribing it an intepretation and thus WP:OR.
 * While the Chach-Nama is an important source of historiography of the period it is not the ONLY source available to historians. If you have an issue of selective usage of the rule then you are correct and the issues needs addressal. However I see no more than 2 citations that refer to only text of the material and those can be fixed. Of the sections you list as instances here is the solution


 * 1) If your issue does this statement need to be sourced, OK it missing one.
 * OK, the source needs to be changed to a better one.
 * 1) It is summary account of the progress of the military campaign with no more than on sentence on an item and no "intepretatios of the material". If a tertiary source is found we can gladly change this. If you really want to insert chachnama events that you think are important to the progress of the military campaign do so here, concisely.
 * 2) See 3 on how to be concise with information.
 * 3) The source is a teritary source WP:RS making an assessment and attribution to historical documents.6
 * 4) I had removed it as well as OR performed on a primary source.

Continued from above Response to each of tigeroos s pretexts for deleting my posts
7) the use of overawing force, power, strength and majesty in checking and expelling the enemy. and The Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg 8) The role played by the belief in prophecy; both of Muslim success, and Dahir's marriage (unconsummated) to his sister which alienated him from others. ref The Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg 9) The “Chach-Nama” notes the following as highlights of Qasim’s rule 10) even if they worshipped stocks and stones.ref name="Mirza"> The Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. 11) so that they may live happy in their own homes”" [http://persian.packhum.org/persian/pf?file=12701030&ct=42 The Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. 13), I confirm you in your previous posts. The management of all the affairs of State, and its administration, I leave in your able hands, and this (right) I grant (also) to your children and descen­dants hereditarily, and you need fear no alteration or cancellation of the order thus issued.”" [http://persian.packhum.org/persian/pf?file=12701030&ct=42 The Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Delhi Reprint, 1979. 14) . He assisted Muhammad ibn Qasim in all of his undertakings..." Dahir's prime minister and various chieftains were also incorporated into the administration.refThe Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Delhi Reprint, 1979

17:49, 15 May 2007 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (31,171 bytes) (→Administration by Qasim - rm unnecessary quote and extra link) Here you have removed a link (http://www.ispi-usa.org for this professedly Muslim organization  ) that I had provided .This is not an extra link but a link provided by me to make it known that what a completely fictitious source you have repeatedly used from articles from this organizations website. See my earlier comment This organisation and its founder is a medical doctor and not a historian. This is a professedly Muslim organization ostensibly workings for the promotion of understanding of Islam in the west. So far so good. Problem is its chief protagonist whose articles you are using as source and reference is not a Historian. Therefore all the information alluded to in this article which have been justified on the grounds of the reference provided are patently false and should be removed.

From here on if you continue to hound and delete my posts You will be reported .Intothefire 14:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)