Talk:Muhammad ibn al-Qasim/Archive 4

An Urdu Book written on the life of Muhammad Bin Qasim & the whole conquest of Sindh - "Aur Chiragh bujh gaya"
Dear All,

An Urdu Book written on the life of Muhammad Bin Qasim & the whole conquest of Sindh - "Aur Chiragh bujh gaya". I have lost this precious book a long time ago & forgot the name of the writer. Can anyone help me find the book or atleast tell me the name of the writer if anyone has ever gone through this book. I have tried searching this book on internet but I'm unable to find; even book resellers & Publishers are unaware about this book.

Please contact me on below mentioned email address if you find any clue about the book, author or publisher.

salman.zahid1@hotmail.com

Thank You all, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.2.134.111 (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Record of refrenced content removed from this article
Intothefire (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Revision as of, 22 December 2009 by 68.173.166.201
 * Vandal corruptions of referenced content by 80.227.48.193
 * Vandal deletions of referenced content by 86.14.61.241
 * Vandal deletions of referenced content by 80.227.40.61
 * Vandal deletions of referenced content by 80.227.40.61
 * Massive Vandal deletions of referenced content by 80.227.40.61
 * Vandal corruptions of referenced content by Vidium


 * If it belongs in the article, you can put it back. Mitsube (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There are extensive accounts of Jat clashes with Qasim in various books by respected Muslim Historians. After capturing Debal and Nerun, Muhammad Bin Qasim then proceeded to the fort of Ishbahar. It was in the month of Muharram in the year 93 that he arrived in the vicinity of that fort. He witnessed the fort which was strong and impregnable. The inhabitants of the fort (hisariyan)were making preperations for the battle and made a deep moat (khandiqi zart) round the fort. The jats and the rustics (rustayan) that were living in the western side, called for shelter in the fort (hisar)They carried on war with Muhammad -i Qasim and for one week displayed the mastery (ustadaqi)of the warfare and demonstrated the art of seize and hold (dar-u-gir),
 * Jat clashes with Muhammad Qasim  in the Chachnama


 * According to Berzin, Umayyad interest in the region stemmed from their desire to control the trade route down the Indus River valley to the seaports of Sindh, an important link in the ancient Silk Road. They had earlier unsuccessfully sought to gain control of the route, via the Khyber Pass, from the Turki-Shahis of Gandhara. But by taking Sindh, Gandhara's southern neighbor, they were able to open a second front against Gandhara; a feat they had, on occasion, attempted before.


 * According to Wink, Umayyad interest in the region was galvanized by the operation of the Mids and others. They had preyed upon Sassanid shipping in the past, from the mouth of the Tigris to the Sri Lankan coast, in their bawarij and now were able to prey on Arab shipping from their bases at Kutch, Debal and Kathiawar. At the time, Sindh was the wild frontier region of al-Hind, inhabited mostly by semi-nomadic tribes whose activities disturbed much of the Western Indian Ocean. Muslim sources insist that it was these persistent activities along increasingly important Indian trade routes by Debal pirates and others which forced the Arabs to subjugate the area, in order to control the seaports and maritime routes of which Sindh was the nucleus, as well as, the overland passage. During Hajjaj's governorship, the Mids of Debal in one of their raids had kidnapped Muslim women travelling from Sri Lanka to Arabia, thus providing a casus belli to the rising power of the Umayyad Caliphate that enabled them to gain a foothold in the Makran, Balochistan and Sindh regions.

Passage from the Zainul-Akhbar
 * Significant Medieval Muslim chronicles such as the Chachnama ,Zainul-akhbar and Tarikh-I-baihaqi have recorded battles between the Jats and forces of Muhammad bin Qasim.


 * Amir Mahmud, God blessed him, marched to punish the Jats of Multan and Bhatia (situated) on the banks of the (river) Indus (Saihun), against whom (the Sultan) had deep anger (ghazabi-azim) in his heart because they had harassed (his army) during his return march from Somnath. (Thus he) wished to retaliate (mukafat) and chastise (malish) them . ).


 * The narrative in the Chach Nama conveys that Chach humiliated the Jats and Lohanas. Denzil Ibbetson records that "Muhammad bin Qasim maintained these regulations, declaring that the jats resembled the savages of Persia " According to Wink "While the Jats were also granted (aman) a considerable number of Jats were also captured as prisoners of war and deported to Iraq and elsewhere as slaves.


 * Conversely there is good reason to believe that some restrictions were applied at some times to certain Sindi castes, especially the Jat. Baladhuri(ibid 445-46)notes that a later governor of Sindh Imran B Musa al Baramaki (221-27/835-41), summoned the Jats änd “sealed their hands, took the jizyah from them , and ordered each of them to appear with a dog .Hence the price of a dog arose to 50 dirhams ”. It is significant that the canine clause , which is highly irregular ,appears prominently here as in the Chachnama.

Firishta's account of the events leading to the invasion and capture of Sindh and Raja Dahir differ considerably from those given in the  Chachnamah. Firishta cites various sources other than the Chahnamah in CHAPTER IX. THE HISTORY OF SIND AND THUTHA MAHOMED KASIM. It is related in several histories, such as the Kholasut-ool-Hikayat, the Huj-Nama, and the history of Hajy Mahomed Kandahary, that the first establishment of the Mahomedan faith in the country of Sind occurred under the following circumstances: — Hijaj (the son of Yoosoof Shukfy), governor of Bussora at the time when Wuleed, the son of Abdool Mullik, was ruler of the provinces of both Iraks, resolved on invading India. Accordingly, in the year 87, he deputed Mahomed Haroon with a select force into Mikran, who subdued that country, and made converts of many of the inhabitants called Bulo-chies; and having there established a regular government, the Mahomedan faith may be said to have prevailed in that country from the period alluded to.
 * An account of the events by Firishta

We are told that in those days, also, the inhabitants of the island of Selandeep (Ceylon) were accustomed to send vessels to the coast of Africa, to the Red Sea, and to the Persian Gulf, a practice prevailing from the earliest ages; and that Hindoo pilgrims resorted to Mecca and Egypt for the purpose of paying adoration to the idols, to which they looked with the utmost veneration. It is related, also, that the people trading from Selan-deep became converts to the true faith at as early a period as the reign of the first caliphs, and that having thus had intercourse with Mahomedan nations, the King of Selandeep despatched a vessel laden with various rare articles, the produce of his country, to the caliph Wuleed at Bagdad.* On this vessel arriving at the entrance of the Persian Gulf it was attacked and captured by orders of the ruler of Deebul, * together with seven other boats, in which were some Mahomedan families going on pilgrimage to Kurbula. Some of the captives making their escape carried their complaint to Hijaj, who addressed a letter to Raja Dahir, the son of Sasa, ruler of Sind, and sent it to be forwarded from Mikran by Mahomed Haroon. Raja Dahir replied, that the act of hostility was committed by a powerful state, over which he had no control. On the receipt of this letter Hijaj obtained the consent of Wuleed, the son of Abdool Mullik, to invade India, for the purpose of propagating the faith; and at the same time deputed a chief of the name of Budmeen, with three hundred cavalry, to join Haroon in Mikran, who was directed to reinforce the party with one thousand good soldiers more to attack Deebul. Budmeen failed in his expedition, and lost his life in the first action. Hijaj, not deterred by this defeat, resolved to follow up the enterprise by another. In consequence, in the year 93, he deputed his cousin and son-in-law, Imad-ood-Deen Mahomed Kasim, the son of Akil Shukhfy, then only seventeen years of age, with six thousand soldiers, chiefly Assyrians, with the necessary implements for taking forts, to attack Deebul. This army proceeded by the route of Shiraz and Mikran. On reaching the towns of Deboon and Dursila, on the confines of the Sind territory, Mahomed Kasim halted; and having taken the necessary steps for advancing he marched on to Deebul, situated on the banks of the Indus, which town is now called Tutta. Intothefire (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

some observations
1. Why are there so many 'citations needed' parts hanging on since 2007? Shouldn't they just be removed? 2. Why has Zainul-Akhbar been removed while the rather benign Chachnama kept on? Doesn't this disbalance the content? 3. This is the most chaotic talk page ever, and the first time I see an entire References section on a talk page. Can we clean this up? It kind of discourages discussions. Nshuks7 (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

muslim brothers where is the truth
i know bin-qasim is highly regarded in islam and every community has its own hero but that should not deter from telling any truth, bin-qasim was defeated by bappa rawal in early 8th century after which sindh was under bappa rawal, i can bet that if Mohammad Ghori would have lost the 2nd war with Prithviraj Chauhan as well then no one would know about Prithviraj Chauhan why muslims have this mindset how many people talk about Prithviraj Chauhan routing Mohammad ghori in 1st war of teran. Similarly here too the truth is hidden Bappa Rawal was the first Non-muslim man to marry Muslim women and it was probably the first inter-faith marriage btw hindu-muslim but muslims as obvious will try to hide this the rajpoot tribe which has emerged from his muslim wives are well known He has been termed a Jewel in Hindu warriors who never lost a single war against regular muslim invasion.115.241.213.84 (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Muslim historians are great they have not noted any of their emperors defeat like when mongols routed muslims they start using khan as surname in order to regain reputation in reality none of known mongol emperors were muslim

genghis khan-tengirism or shamism and he was completely anti muslim.

kublai khan-grandson of genghis and considered second greatest mongol emperor after genghis and he was tibetan Buddhist. Prithviraj Chauhan defeating Mohammad ghori has been given very less importance in order to save reputation whereas 1761 3rd panipat war is shown as the final war!!!! where was the first two specially the one in which abdal shah son timur was killed by Marathas similarly where are wars where Sikhs completely overrun afghan empire and captured pakistan and srinagar untill british empire came .115.241.213.84 (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

IT only angers me when i see the disgusting nature of muslims and their historians they try their best to ignore defeats of their beloved kings and their army of allah when mongol overrun muslims of middle east they adopted khan as surname in order to ignore constant taunts.

Their is still mongol leader in mongolia who uses the title(not surname) khan and he is buddhist and unlike buddhists every 2nd 3rd muslim name is khan similarly arab historians write all the useless facts which are impossible and ignored the real history he stopped very soon after capturing sindh isnt it.

COL JAMES TODD british india intelligence head in his book has proved the disgusting nature of muslim writers and historians how they ignore first and second war btw maratha and durrani empire and then glorified the 3rd battle of panipat in which maratha were defeated but maratha were gueriila force and one defeat dont mean anything to them, similarly the war in which Prithviraj chauhan smashed muhammad ghori the first war of teran their is very less detail in most sources specially those by arab historians and when ghori defeated chauhan thnx to betrayal by other hindu kings then suddenyl ghori became a better fighter huh. i have myself deleted several times where muslim link timur with genghis khan and some mughals with mongols, i know it why because mongols are majorly tengirism and buddhists and not muslims.115.241.213.84 (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

plz read the book by sir william wilson hunter, he was a great historian from scotland and was an Indian civil servant(the administration services of india was invented during british empire) he has written many books that how arab and muslim writers tweak history to make islam the most glorious religion and this includes tweesting the battle or wars in which muslims were crushed like mongol crushing the middle east muslims really badly by claiming KHAN FAMILY, plz visit the mongolian capital and you will know that the only person who uses KHAN title their is a buddhist and not a muslim.115.241.213.84 (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

sources deleted
"some muslim users have deleted sources without any reason" and further the source included books by person dating from british era in india, the fact of the matter is that Hindu recaptured Sindh after defeating bin-qasim and that ended bin qasim career. The story by arab historians of recalling him back is fake and nothing new they have many times before exaggerated hindu forces and showed that muslim won battle even with less forces but the fact is hindu rajput force include only rajputs and how many rajputs can enter army will never allow rajput forces to be bigger than muslim forces as in muslim their is no caste.115.241.252.135 (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

name
image title says Imád-uddín Muhammad bin Qasim bin Yusuf Sakifi, but I dont any info if this was his name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.106.121 (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerns
the Arabs didn't have the Mongol Bow you retards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.73.220 (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been moved from an incorrect location.  dci  &#124;  TALK   23:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification
I will be restructuring the article and rewriting portions of it beginning either late tonight or tomorrow. dci &#124;  TALK   02:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained blanking
I see a series of unexplained edits by you with blanking of sections. What are you trying to do? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

There is also source misrepresentation that Xtremedood inserted. He writes in the article


 * Elliot who hated Islam 
 * U.T. Thakkur, a staunch Indian nationalist

I very much doubt that the cited source makes these allegations.

Can someone check the sources for the other statements? --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Muhammad bin Qasim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120111043052/http://persian.packhum.org/persian/pf?file=12701030&ct=24O to http://persian.packhum.org/persian/pf?file=12701030&ct=24O

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Islamic expansion or invasion?
An IP made this edit with an argument comparing Qasim's invasion to other "invasions" in history. I don't find the analogies appropriate because Islam is a religion whereas Germany and Japan were countries/nations. If we were talking about the "Arab invasion" the analogy would hold. But the longer lasting phenomenon for India is Islam rather than the Arab invasion. So I don't think such changes are warranted. In any case, changes like this should be supported by reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I made the edit in question here and I'm afraid I neglected to sign in before making the edit. Thanks for clarifying why the revert was made, and I agree with the distinction between religion and state.
 * I still feel that the word expansion is essentially a positive term which masks the true horror of the facts but I'm not sure how to update the language to address that (also considering that the invasion was by the Caliphate which was also the religious authority ). I will appreciate any advice. -- Pitt.speedy (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * On second thought, there is no need to mention Islam here at all. The title of the target page is perfectly fine for the best NPOV. I made the change. Thanks for bringing it up. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Thank you! Pitt.speedy (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad bin Qasim and the Cursing of Ali
Reference: Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, "Tahdhib al-Tahdhib", Volume 7, 226. "Al-Hajjāj, wrote to Muhammad bin Qasim Thaqafi to summon Atiyya and ask him to curse Ali ibn Abi Talib and, in the event of his refusal to do so, to slash him four hundred times and to shave his head and beard. Muhammad summoned Atiyya and read over al-Hajjāj's letter to him so that he might choose one of the two alternatives. Atiyya declined to curse Ali and agreed to the alternative". -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk • contribs)
 * Welcome, Dr. Hamza. Please remember to sign your posts.
 * Is this source WP:HISTRS? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This book is also known as al-kamal fi isma al-rijaal. Please have a look at it's wikipedia page:- Al-Kamal_fi_Asma%27_al-Rijal -- Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hereby a link to Tahdhib al Tahdhib at wikisource:- -- Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have time to confirm it, please download the seventh volume of "Tahdhib al tahdhib" from wikisource and look at page 226, narrator no. 413. -- Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I am sorry. It is a WP:PRIMARY source, and cannot be used on Wikipedia without validation from WP:SECONDARY sources, i.e., modern historical scholarship as described in WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This specific incident is mentioned in Tabari's "History of Prophets and Kings" and by Ibn Sa'd in his "Tabaqat al Kubra", both endorsed and vividly  by modern scholarship.

الطبقات الکبری، ج‌۶، ص:۳۰۵ تاریخ الطبری، ج‌۱۱، ص:۶۴۱
 * The work of Ibn Hajar is also endorsed by modern scholarship. They are much more credible than Chachnama that has been quoted here. You can consult any Professor of History and you will know that. Chachnama was written by courtmen as propaganda material and only it's persian translation survives today. Chachnama is a source only as a propaganda leaflet of that era. The work of Ibn Hajar ranks high in Hadith science, while works of Tabari and Ibn Sa'd are also reliable.
 * The phenomenon of cursing Ali and persecution of shias is a well established fact of Umayyad period.  Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * please have a look. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * A secondary source:-
 * Derryl N. MacLean, "Religion and Society in Arab Sind", page 126, E. J. Brill (1989).
 * I think now it should be approved. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, this source is good. You are welcome to propose new wording based on this source. Please cover the whole subject (persecution of Shias), rather than the specific incident. It would be useful if we can agree on the wording here, before putting into the article. Edit-warring (repeated back-and-forth) is never a good idea. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Well persecution of shias in Umayyad period is a topic in itself. Here we need to quote only the relevant information, which is already quite disturbing as a 80+ years old narrator of Prophets Hadith is severely beaten for not cursing Ali ibn Abu Talib. This inquisition continued for years. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I recommended that propose new wording based on this source. We should achieve agreement on the text before you insert it into the article again. It should have been obvious by now this is a contentious issue, and you need to tread carefully. Pinging a few more experience editors for help here:, , , will you help us achieve agreement here please? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * would you propose your wording so that I may know what we disagree on? I have written on the matter many times and you have deleted it every time. While this piece of history is supported by many credible primary and secondary sources. There is a lot of material in this article that is copied from the Chachnama, a regime source, which is far less credible than the sources I cited.
 * I believe that the small section I wrote holds higher credibility in scholarship. If you think that the wording doesn't depict the reality, suggest alternative. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I just noticed a typing mistake: it was lash not slash. The old narrator was punished by 400 lashes and shaving his head and beard.
 * Reference: Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, "Tahdhib al-Tahdhib", Volume 7, 226. "Al-Hajjāj, wrote to Muhammad bin Qasim Thaqafi to summon Atiyya and ask him to curse Ali ibn Abi Talib and, in the event of his refusal to do so, to lash him four hundred times and to shave his head and beard. Muhammad summoned Atiyya and read over al-Hajjāj's letter to him so that he might choose one of the two alternatives. Atiyya declined to curse Ali and agreed to the alternative". Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Treatment of Shias
 * Persecution of Shias in the Umayyad dynasty reached it's peak in the times of Al-Walid ibn Abd al-Malik, especially at tha hands of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. Shia notable of the time, and a famous narrator of Hadith, Atiyya ibn Sa'd Awfi was arrested by Muhammad bin Qasim on the orders of Al-Hajjaj and demanded that he curse Ali on threat of punishment. Atiyya refused and was punished by 400 lashes and his head and beard was shaved for humiliation. He fled to Khurasan. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * At least the content is now partly verifable, but verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.
 * In the first place, I notice that you included the 400 lashes, which is not mentioned by MacLean, but you omitted the fact that Atiyah participated in the Umayyad conquest of Sind. On the face of it, it is not at all clear whether he was persecuted or not. It is also not verified that he was an 80 year old man (as you claimed).
 * More importantly, the significance of this event is not clear. Other than MacLean, no other historian bothered to mention this incident. And, even MacLean only mentioned it in the context of Shiism in Arab Sind, i.e., religious history. Since there are were Shias in Sind before and after bin Qasim, the claim of persecution is quite dubious. We need historians attesting to the persecution aspect clearly, before we can think of adding anything like this to this article. So I am afraid that this material is WP:UNDUE. You certainly cannot prominently as a section at the top of the article, as if this is the most important thing about bin Qasim's life! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear kautilya! I am compelled to say that either you want to hide this fact (like first you removed it by saying that the poor Muhammad bin Qasim was just following orders, the famous excuse put forward by Nazi officials after 2nd world war) or you have no idea about the authenticity of the primary sources from early Islamic history. Chachnama in early Islami history is only important as a regime propaganda leaflet. When someone, who is a young PhD student from another culture, treats all primary sources equally, they make such mistakes. Al-Hajjaj was one of the ruthless killers of history, like Gengis Khan and Hitler. For experts of early Islamic history, chachnama was written to paint an ugly picture of Sind and gather support from masses at home for expansion. He was butchering thousands at home while chachnama claims that he had to attack sind to save a poor little girl. Now if you look at the matter of Atiya, Ibn Hajar and other authentic historians say that he went to Khurasan (now Afghanistan), but chachnama says that he went to Sind like a friend of his oppressor. Umayyad fabrication of Hadith and events has forced early muslim historians to devise the art of ilm-al-rijaal, to differentiate fake Hadith from authentic one. Again, you did not delete the large part of this article based on Chachnama, which paints Muhammad bin Qasim as one of Rashidun, but you kept deleting the facts that were quoted from Tahdhib al-tahdhib, Tabari and Ibn Sa'd, merely because it was not from a secondary source. And when I brought a secondary source, now you want it removed again. You also kept threatening me with a ban. And ironically, instead that I report you, you reported me! Better leave the matter to some mature editors. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I have added the Chachnama's claim that he was taken as an army officer to the conquest.

Primary sources say that Attiya used to teach Hadith at Basrah, city of Iraq. Muhammad bin Qasim arrested and lashed him there, and he went to Khurasan (now Afghanistan) before the conquest of Sind. It was a time of revolt against Umayyad and border areas like Khurasan were safer for Shias, as they could hide in mountains and villages. Chachnama, the Persian translation of a regime leaflet, says that Atiyya accompanied Muhammad bin Qasim to Sind. Derryl confused it with the event of lashing and wrote that he was caught and punished while in Sind. Attiya is a famous teacher and narrator of Hadith from Basrah, not Sind.

Secondly, Attiyah is regarded a credible source of Hadith by bith the Sunni and the Shia scholars of Hadith, and Muhammad bin Qasim is not. Neither Sunnis nor Shias took any Hadith from Muhammad bin Qasim. Attiyah was a disciple of the companion of the Prophet Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansari. He was among the main intellectuals and leading figures of the time. Attiyah was an old supporter of rebels (not officer in Umatyad army). And the Shia-Abbasid struggle ended the Umayyad rule shortly afterwards. Therefore, It is necessary to include this section in the page to make it compatible with the real history.

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Tahdhib al-tahdhib, history of Tabari and Ibn Sa'd are secondary sources
Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. The book Tahdhib al-tahdhib is a scholarly work, that discusses the life and authenticity of narrators. It is not a first hand account and not written without critical analysis. It's author is Ibn Hajar, a reputed historian of later centuries and is not contemporary to the events and people he discusses. Same goes for the history of Tabari and Ibn Sa'd, these books were written after paper was introduced to the Muslim world. These scholars critically analysed the primary material, often written on leather sheets or stones or wooden boards, and available in the form of narrations.

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The terminology of primary and secondary sources is not so clear-cut, and it depends a lot on the context in which the terms are used. I have stated here the way I use the terms in the context of history.
 * But the real point is that what can be used reliable sources for history is defined in WP:HISTRS. These sources do not qualify under those criteria. To understand why reliable sources are defined in this way, you need to study historiography, in particular how the historical method has evolved. But as an ordinary editor, you don't need any such knowledge. You just need to follow the guidelines given by experts in the field. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I have added the Chachnama's claim that he was taken as an army officer to the conquest. These books have been cited as credible source in Derryl's book and elsewhere extensively. Derryl quoted the entire incident from these books and, perhaps because it was not his main focus, skipped the details of the punishment. I, therefore, prefer to describe the nature of punishment using the same sources Derryl used.
 * Thanks! Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Every source used by historians is not permissible for us to use. We are not historians, and we are not required to be.
 * Secondly, whatever is directly sourced to primary sources needs to be attributed to them. See WP:In-text attribution. Moreover, we need to agree that it is appropriate to use them in that way, here on the talk page. You need to respect that other editors may have different views from yourself, and need to work towards consensus.
 * As for the punishment given to Atiyah, I do not agree with your speculation about why MacLean omitted its details. He probably thought it was exaggerated or perhaps some agreement was reached so that Atiyah was incorporated in the invading force. Irrespective of all this, MacLean did not think it was significant and notable to be mentioned in a history book. If he did not think so, we should not either. We are not a higher authority than the scholars. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The entire text of the section is based on contemporary sources now. As far as the details of the punishment, they are taken from the same passage in early scholarly sources that Maclean 1989 used to report this incident in his book. No primary source is cited at all. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Treatment of Shias section
As far as I am concerned, a section titled "Treatment of Shias" should not exist unless there is a general discussion about it in reliable sources. If there is such discussion, then this section might be included, but it should certainly not go at the top of the article. It should go somewhere near the Religion subsection, along with the treatment of Hindus/Buddhists/Jats etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

1. Treatment of Shias is a very important section when we discuss a Muslim ruler. And in that case we need to incorporate details.

2. Maclean did cite the tahdhib al tahdhib and Tabari as secondary sources and even if he had not, every historian who studies Islam cites them. There is no other way. Primary sources are scarce.

3. The details of the punishment of Atiyah come in the same line as the mention of the punishment itself. Have a look at the cited references. There is no proof of him being friendly with those who flogged him for not cursing Ali. And he returned to Iraq only after the ruler had changed. These details are important otherwise readers will speculate unnatural things like you did here.

If Maclean studied the history of resistance against umayyads, he would add these details. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Authenticity of Chachnama

 * Side note: If the Chachnama news (portraying an old and punished scholar as an officer) has to be mentioned then this important line needs to be added:-
 * Modern historians, like Yohanan Friedmann and André Wink, question the historical authenticity of the Chachnama . Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , What do Friedmann and Wink say which invalidates MacLean's use of Chachnama? Please provide quotations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Friedmann writes:-
 * "One of the most conspicuous elements of this kind is the large number of warriors and traditionists (scholars of Hadith) who figure in the Chachnama and are absent in other accounts of the conquest".
 * (In this case not only Atiyah is absent from Sind in other accounts but Tabari, Ibn Sa'd and Ibn Hajar Al-asqalani record that atiyah fled to Khurasan. Therefore the claim of Chachnama about him taken as an officer to Sind is proved by others to be wrong.) -- Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The content has be re-organised. Recent scholarly articles have been cited. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Friedman made a factual statement. But I don't see him "questioning the historical authenticity" of Chachnama. In fact, he says that it is generally reliable (p.33).
 * As for Atiyah, I have no idea. There is not much information available about him. But note that Tabari says he fled to "Fars". Fars was certainly on bin Qasim's route, and it perfectly plausible that he joined bin Qasim's force (perhaps not as a military man, but as an ideologue or intellectual). On the whole, there is nothing here to contradict MacLean, and the doubts you are trying to rake up are entirely POV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

1. Historical authenticity of the claim that Atiyah went to Sind has been questioned!

2. Atiyah "fled" to avoid the Umayyads after getting flogged. He was their opponent and returned when the ruler was changed. Tabari mentions fars was where he went after revolt failed, there he got arrested and after getting flogged he fled to khurasan and Ibn Sa'd and Ibn Hajar too say that he fled to Khurasan, none said Sind. It is as clear as the day. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not our job to decide. The scholar said Sind, and we have to go by that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

It is neither your job to stress on what an authority historian has disputed. I have mentioned both views, let's leave it to the readers to decide. The references are provided and the early scholarly sources named. There is no issue of neutrality here, so why you tag that it's neutrality is disputed now? Plus you continue to pass threats. - Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reflects contemporary scholarship. has clarified it for you. Please don't push the same old arguments again and again.
 * I have explained the neutrality issue in the section above titled "Treatment of Shias section". Since then you have changed the section title to "Cursing of Ali" or something of that sort. But the same objection applies. Unless there is significant coverage of these topics in connection with Muhammad bin Qasim in the reliable sources, this section has no right to exist. Until you provide evidence of such coverage, the POV tag will stay, and in fact it might get deleted as WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I have cited contemporary scholarship. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it DUE?
After the content has been significantly modified and modern scholarship cited, it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. I have cited Maclean, Hawting, Friedmann and others to back my edits while you have not cited a single source for your disagreement, other than apologies and excuses for Muhammad bin Qasim and passing threats on my Talk page. Wikipedia has to stay neutral in the face of facts. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:DUE and explain how your content satisfies it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:DUE says that:-

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources".

I have cited 7 reliable sources, with 5 of them recent scholarly publications, covering all aspects of the matter. Your main concern is that you want this section to be removed. You tag the sources unreliable without any proof. You lied to me when you said that secondary sources mean sources published within past century. To your surprise, I brought citations from past century. Now you need to explain how the present content does not fit the neutrality condition? To me it covers all aspects. If you think that by repeating your baseless claims and passing threats on my personal talk page, you can silence me, you are mistaken.

Please justify how you can tag this section to be non-neutral and how you can say that you can remove it all together? I am sure wikipedia does not follow one person. There are administrators out there who will look into it.

This is how the section looks like now:-


 * Cursing of Ali:

There were several revolts against Umayyad rule after the events in Karbala. In the times of Al-Walid ibn Abd al-Malik, Hajjaj ibn Yusuf defeated and killed Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, the grandson  of the first Rashidun Caliph Abu Bakr, in Hijaz (cited: G. R. Hawting, "The First Dynasty of Islam", ch. 4, 5, Routledge 2012). After he established Umayyad rule over Hijaz, he was sent to Iraq where Abd al Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn al Ash'ath, son of the nephew of the first rashidun Caliph Abu Bakr (cited: Hawting, G. R. 1993. "Muḥammad b. al-As̲h̲ʿat̲h̲", in: The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Volume VII: Mif–Naz. Leiden: E. J. Brill. pp. 400–401)revolted against him. An aged supporter of rebels and a Shia notable of the time, a disciple of the companion of Prophet Jabir ibn Abd Allah al-Ansari and a famous narrator of Hadith (cited: MacLean1989, p=126), Atiyya ibn Sa'd Awfi was arrested by Muhammad bin Qasim on the orders of Al-Hajjaj and demanded that he curse Ali on threat of punishment. It was after Atiyya expressed his support for the revolt of Abdul Rahman. Atiyya refused to curse Ali and was punished (cited MacLean 1989 pp. 126). While Maclean doesn't give the details of the punishment, early historians like Ibn Hajar Al-asqalani and Tabari record that he was flogged by 400 lashes and his head and beard shaved for humiliation and that he fled to Khurasan and returned to Iraq after the ruler had been changed.(cited: History of al-Tabari Vol. 39, pp. 228, State University of New York Press, 1998) (cited: Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, "Tahdhib al-Tahdhib", Volume 7, pp 226, narrator no. 413). According to Chachnama, he participated in the invasion of Sind as an officer.(cited: Maclean 1989 pp. 127). Modern historians, like Yohanan Friedmann and André Wink, question the historical authenticity of such claims(cited: Friedmann, Yohann 1984, "The origins and significance of the Chach Nāma", Islam in Asia: South Asia, Magnes Press/Westview Press, pp. 23–37) (cited: Andre Wink 2002, Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam 7th-11th Centuries, Brill Academic, pages 192-196).

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed the key phrase is in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The next section called WP:PROPORTION also says: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.
 * So the weight you give to an aspect in the article should be the same as that found in reliable sources. There are literally hundreds of reliable sources that talk about Muhammad bin Qasim, basically any history book on India/South Asia, or on Islam in South Asia covers it. All history books that deal with the Umayyad Caliphate or the early Muslim conquests also cover bin Qasim's invasion of Sindh. Please look through the history books cited on any of these Wikipedia pages, and show us one book that has a section called "Cursing of Ali" in the context of Muhammad bin Qasim. If not a section, perhaps a page-length discussion or even a paragraph? If no history book has it, Wikipedia cannot have it either. It is really that simple. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If wikipedia missed this important detail before, it will include it now. This is important because:-
 * 1. I have cited scholarly sources.
 * 2. Ali, the fourth Caliph of Islam, is an important historical figure. State imposed cursing of him is an important historical event, and it continued for decades, covered by all major historians. Muhammad bin Qasim is a part of Umayyad ruling class, his role in this matter needs to be addressed.
 * 3. The teen soldier Muhammad bin Qasim was exposed to this violence in formative years of his personality, his early life.
 * 4. Atiyah was an influential supporter of a revolt carried out by a member of Abu Bakr's clan, the first Rashidun Caliph. Abdur Rahman was son of the Caliph's nephew. This revolt was after the Caliph's grandson, Abdullah ibn Zubayr was killed by Al-Hajjaj. So this event has it's historical significance and the role that Muhammad bin Qasim was made to play needs to be mentioned.
 * 5. I have cited modern as well as early scholarly sources to cover this aspect.
 * 6. If wikipedia article does not cover this matter, the neutrality of the whole article will become questionable.
 * Here you need to follow: WP:AGF
 * Note: You have not explained how you can tag Tabari, Tahdhib al-tahdhib as unreliable sources. You have tagged them unreliable without proving how they are unreliable in this context. Please remove this tag too.
 * Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It is not enough for you to assert that it is important etc. You need to demonstrate its importance by showing reliable sources that say so.
 * I have tagged Tabari etc as "unreliable sources" because they do not satisfy the requirements of WP:HISTRS. They do not represent modern historical scholarship. You are welcome to find contemporary historical sources that state the same information, as you have already done for other content. So, you know you have to do this. It is getting a bit ridiculous for you to claim that I haven't "explained". I have pointed you to WP:HISTRS right in the beginning! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The cursing of Ali is historically important and that is why Maclean mentions this event in his book, and that is why I have included it in this article with reference to Maclean's book.
 * The Umayyad tradition of cursing Ali was performed in state-controlled mosques throughout the Umayyad empire for a period of approximately 65 years from c.657 to c.720 CE. The practice started on the order of Muawiyah I.[De Lacy O'Leary (2012), "Arabic Thought and Its Place in History", Courier Corporation] Ali, and his progeny, was cursed by official Umayyad decree as part of Friday congregational prayers [Tarek Fatah (2008), "Chasing a Mirage", J. Wiley & Sons Canada. p. 171.). Hujr ibn Adi al-Kindi was offered to either get killed or curse Ali, upon his refusal, he was killed with his seven disciples. Recently ISIS destroyed his grave and exhumed his remains.
 * For importance of Ali himself, you can compare the number of times he is mentioned to the number of times Muhammad bin Qasim is mentioned in scholarship as well as wikipedia.
 * Now the POV tag has to be removed, and if you think otherwise, you need to come up with some reason backed by scholarly sources. - Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, we all know that there was factionalism in the early Caliphates and the regimes implemented whatever they thought they needed to enforce their will. That should definitely be documented in the Umayyad Caliphate page and I notice there is also a special page on Cursing Ali (which is in despicable shape). Please feel free to improve those and I will be glad to help you. But inserting this material in all kinds of places where it doesn't belong is an instance of WP:RGW, which we don't do on Wikipedia. MacLean, that you claim as the authority in this regard, does not have a section called "Cursing of Ali". So, it in no way supports your claims. O'Leary and Fatah do not mention cursing in the context of bin Qasim. So, they are not relevant either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I think your main misunderstanding lies here: you are worried that he may appear a bad guy, and that's why you were apologetic when you said that he was just following orders. All dispute about sources was just an excuse to find a way to remove these facts. On Wikipedia, we are not discussing if it was right or wrong, we just state facts neutrally. I put it in the Early Life section such that the article covers all aspects and appears neutral. In order to present the complete picture of his formative early life, this incident needs to be added as his role in a major political campaign. This specific incident involves the first and the fourth Rashidun Caliph of Islam. Thus the rebellion and his role are significant facts. - Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "Righting great wrongs" is an expression, which is used on Wikipedia to describe the kind of positions you are taking. There are other detailed pages linked from WP:RGW. You are welcome to read them and reflect on your own conduct. This is not a license for you to renew casting WP:Aspersions on me all over again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * More specifically, this refers to the emphasis and importance you are placing on this topic, which is not found in the reliable sources. NPOV asks you to follow the emphasis and WEIGHT given in sources, not make up your own. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You think it is a "Great Wrong" to include this section and you want to remove it WP:RGW, without assuming good faith WP:AGF. Making accusations of tendentious editing WP:AOTE is not helpful. You are seeing editing as being about taking sides WP:USTHEM and you think that this important detail does not fit with your image of the "All Great Right" Muhammad bin Qasim. You are repeating the same argument WP:REHASH of the events not being important even after shown multiple scholarly sources. The revolt of Ibn Al-Asa'th in Iraq, the middle of Umayyad Empire is far more important than the conquest of a province (Sind) in the outskirts. So is the curing of Ali as a state imposed policy. You are [| questioning the reliability of sources] what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources (e.g. Tabari and Ibn Hajar), while the modern source (Maclean 1989) cites the same sources for mentioning this event.

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Removal of unreliability and non-neutrality tags
Wikipedia can not present one-sided picture WP:DUE. Ali is a significant personality and so state imposed cursing of him is no minor event. The resistance to Umayyads is an important part of that era. You can not tag these sources "unreliable" when they are extensively cited in academic scholarship. Don't misrepresent wikipedia. Tahdhib al-tahdhib is also included in wikisource, hereby the link:

I will remove the tags if you fail to provide scholarly articles to back your claim that Tabari and Ibn hajar are unreliable sources in this context, or cursing of Ali has no historical significance.

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The WP:BURDEN for providing sources rests on those who want to add on content, you in this case. I haven't added any content. If and when I do, I will certainly add my sources.
 * You have already removed the POV template once, and I have warned you about it. If you do it again without reaching consensus, I am afraid you will be facing sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The citation is added to the mention of Ibn Hajar's and Tabari's books. If someone names Quran, he has to cite Quran to refer to the mention. Please read the text carefully. Source of Ibn Hajar's book is the book itself. Now there is no reason to tag the citation as unreliable. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Kautilya3, If your disagreement was due to the title "Cursing of Ali", I have proposed a new title: "Revolt of Al-Ash'ath and Muhammad bin Qasim". Perhaps it removes doubts and looks more academic now. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You haven't found this material covered under any title in any WP:HISTRS. So it doesn't help to play around with titles. I am saying that the whole section is UNDUE. It should be integrated into the religious policies sections down below. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The section needs to be included where it belongs in the timeline. It is not about religion, or right or wrong. It is about early life history of the person. Don't look at the matter from a WP:RGW point of view.

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Dont do Wikilawyering
The section has been made a sub-section under "Early Life". It has been renamed as Revolt of Al-Ash'ath and Muhammad bin Qasim []. Modern scholarly sources have been cited to support the text. All questions have been answered by citing more scholarly sources. You continue to do wikilawyering, read: WP:WIKILAWYER. Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help with dispute resolution. Slapping labels while brandishing Wikipedia policies as a tool, is not going to help. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello! I would just like to note that I've removed the request for a third opinion as it was not written neutrally; the request should just summarize the dispute rather than speculating on the motives of other editors. Please feel free to make another request worded neutrally. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I have posted a request to DRN. I hope it helps!

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)