| Revision as of 16:15, 12 October 2006 editRevolving Bugbear (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,923 editsm →Hkelkar (and his favorite comment "dubious"): there isn't any← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 01:47, 31 December 2024 edit undoGnomingstuff (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers45,836 edits rv 2022 test edit |
| (418 intermediate revisions by 88 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}} |
|
{{WPMILHIST |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|living=n|listas=Muhammad Bin Qasim|1= |
|
|class=B |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=y|military-priority=Low}} |
|
|attention= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Syria|importance=Mid}} |
|
|collaboration-candidate= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject South Asia}} |
|
|past-collaboration= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject India|importance=low |history=y}} |
|
|peer-review= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Pakistan|importance=Mid|History=y}} |
|
|old-peer-review= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B |
|
|Aviation-task-force= |
|
|
|
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist --> |
|
|British-task-force= |
|
|
|
|b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =y |
|
|Canadian-task-force= |
|
|
|
|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =y |
|
|Chinese-task-force= |
|
|
|
|b3 <!-- Structure --> =y |
|
|Classical-task-force= |
|
|
|
|b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> =y |
|
|French-task-force= |
|
|
|
|b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> =y |
|
|Memorials-task-force= |
|
|
|
|South-Asian=y|Muslim=y}} |
|
|Middle-Ages-task-force=yes |
|
|
|Napoleonic-task-force= |
|
|
|Polish-task-force= |
|
|
|US-task-force= |
|
|
|Weaponry-task-force= |
|
|
|WWI-task-force= |
|
|
|WWII-task-force= |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{trolling}} |
|
==Picture of Qasim== |
|
|
|
{{merged-from|Muhammad ibn al-Qasim al-Thaqafi|20 November 2019}} |
|
Please remove picture, pure fantasy, not historical. ] 15:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{old move|date=4 July 2022|from=Muhammad ibn Qasim|destination=Muhammad ibn al-Qasim|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1099694175#Requested move 4 July 2022}} |
|
|
{{archives}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Splitting proposal == |
|
I second that, please remove this picture as it is not historical whatsoever. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I propose that sections '']'', '']'', '']'' and '']'' be split into a separate page called ]. These sections represent historical information that go beyond Muhammad bin Qasim's biography, dealing with Umayyad political strategies, Al-Hajjaj's management of the invasion etc. which deserve to be in a proper historical article on the subject. Once split, the material relevant to Qasim's biography can be summarised here. -- ] (]) 08:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
-------------- |
|
|
==Death of Qasim== |
|
=== Comments === |
|
|
Please indicate your agreement/disagreement here. -- ] (]) 08:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
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... ] 18:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Yes, it would be to split the article into two parts. It is also fine to merge the two articles about the same person. ] (]) 13:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Support''' I agree with the proposal in general. Obviously Muhammad ibn Qasim is most famous for the conquest of Sind so it’s not surprising it should take up the majority of space, but I see that a lot of this article does not deal directly with Muhammad’s specific role, but rather about the conquest in general. All relevant information about Muhammad should be retained, and some of the background and strategy information should also be kept for necessary context. Once this is done, I think a major rewrite and/or expansion is in order. The article on ], the Muslim conqueror of Transoxiana, would serve as a good model. —] (]) 18:54, 7 July 2019 (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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Discussion === |
|
|
Please use this space for any threaded discussion. -- ] (]) 08:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:I will explore this a bit more in the coming days. The article needs to be revamped and this might be a good start. I just want to point out two things from now though. 1) There is another article about the same person ] (created in 2016) and obviously the two articles need to be merged. 2) there is an article about ]. The latter is very well-sourced and objectively written. Its purpose appears to be about the administrative province of Sind and a list of its governors, rather than the Arab conquest, but it contains very clear and useful information about the conquest of Sind. —] (]) 13:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{ping|Kautilya3}} Since nobody else has voiced opposition and this thread has been open since June, should we proceed here? And if so, would you do the honors? Otherwise, I'll go ahead as soon as I find time (assuming this will be more than a cut/paste job). ] (]) 22:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Yeah, I was just thinking about it this week. Let me take a crack at it during the weekend and, if I can't make time, I will let you go ahead with it. Cheers, ] (]) 23:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== References to my edit: == |
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure why the article uses the colloquial Arabic word for "son of" ''bin'' instead of the proper ''ibn''. All of our articles on medieval Islamic figures like the subject of this article use ''ibn''. Unless anyone could indicate that "bin" is the more common form used for this person, I'll proceed to change it to "ibn". --] (]) 21:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
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 ] and ] in nature. |
|
|
|
: That is the ]. -- ] (]) 22:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::Not sure about that. There seems to be a wide array of similar transcriptions, i.e. Muhammad ibn (or b., which is an abbreviation of "ibn") al-Qasim, Muhammad ibn Qasim, Muhammad bin Qasim, Muhammad Qasim, etc. based on the sources currently used in the article. Has this been discussed before? ] suggests that we use "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)"? I don't believe the case for "bin" in this regard is stronger than "ibn". There's certainly not "a significant majority of independent, reliable English sources" that prefer "bin". As the sources for this article use both versions, as well as the simple "b." (which is the scholarly abbreviation for "ibn") or none at all, we should go with the generally more common and more proper "ibn", which is used for all articles on medieval Islamic figures, certainly on all the Umayyad-era figures. It will not change the amount of letters in the current title. I don't think this is a controversial proposal. --] (]) 18:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Try googling for "Muhammad bin Qasim" and "Muhammad ibn Qasim", and see what happens. -- ] (]) 20:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::"Muhammad bin Qasim" returns 349,000, "Muhammad ibn al-Qasim" (the most proper and best title for this article) returns 118,000 and my proposed title "Muhammad ibn Qasim" returns 49,000 results (I'm fine with either of the latter two names, for the record). There's a few issues with this and it's not as simple as boiling it down to such a generic Google search. The main issue is that the web search returns tens of thousands of unreliable sources when the preference is for reliable English-language sources. Also, there are many people in history or even in our own times who have the same name and use either spelling and all of those people are also lumped in the respective searches. Further, the many modern-day places or institutions called after "Muhammad bin Qasim" in Pakistan or elsewhere, and possibly the many wiki-mirror sites of this article or any other Misplaced Pages articles that use our current spelling "Muhammad bin Qasim" probably inflate the "bin Qasim" number. Thus, I don't think such a web count should be the determining factor for whether we use the modern colloquial version of "bin" over the proper "ibn" for our article on the man himself (as opposed to our articles on the modern institutions or places named after him). The web search simply doesn't give us a decent gauge of what reliable and/or academic English-language sources prefer. The WP:COMMONNAME guideline states: <blockquote>In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Misplaced Pages". When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books). Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations</blockquote> --] (]) 22:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:: You are welcome to do more specialised searches and present the data. But what you can't do is to argue on the basis of what you regard as "proper Arabic". -- ] (]) 23:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I could certainly argue (not dictate) on that basis, considering it is also used by numerous reliable sources; but Commonname has precedence over other considerations. I will survey a healthy number of reliable sources, to which all interested editors are welcome obviously to contribute. In case one version is not clearly favored over the other, then other factors should be considered and/or a formal move request opened. —] (]) 00:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 4 July 2022 == |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''moved.''' <small>(])</small> — ''Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung'', '']''''']''' (]) 04:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
--] 12:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ] → {{no redirect|Muhammad ibn al-Qasim}} |
|
== Going to agree with 128.xxx.xxx == |
|
|
|
* ] → {{no redirect|Muhammad ibn al-Qasim (disambiguation)}} |
|
|
– Many of the sources used in this article (Baloch 1953, , ) have "ibn al-Qasim" (with definite article ], precise transliteration may differ but we use ]), which also seems to be his original name in Arabic. uses "ibn Qasim" (without the definite article al-) in the title but then goes on to also call him "ibn al-Qasim" on the first page. ] is currently a DAB page but given that our Umayyad general is the ] it should occupy the page with the bare name. If editors feel that the other Muhammad ibn al-Qasims listed at the DAB page are notable enough, an alternative would be to move this page to ] instead (his '']'' al-Thaqafi provides natural disambiguation; it's the solution also preferred by ]). <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 23:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC) <small>— '''''Relisting.''''' <span style="font-family:Monospace;color:black">>>> ].]</span> 11:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Support''' because the current setup is untenable. Usually when I see ''al-'' dropped, I assume we are dealing with Persian. But I see no reason to do so in this case. ] (]) 14:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
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. --] 06:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*:It's not unheard of for "al-" to be dropped in modern transcriptions of historical names. For example, the sons of ] were called al-Hasan and al-Husayn, yet we have ] and ]. This is because the modern variants of these names are Hasan rather than al-Hasan, Husayn rather than al-Husayn, Qasim rather than al-Qasim, etc. It creates a bit of a difficult situation for us when sources retroactively apply the modern form on historical variants: with Hasan and Husayn they do it commonly enough for us to be clear, but in this case it's only some sources doing it (probably also because it's part of the ] here). My impression is that most sources in the article use "al-Qasim", whence the RM, but it would be good if others would take a look at sources not used in the article. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 14:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Good point. Hadn't thought of that. It's always good to know ''why'' there is variation when choosing between variants. ] (]) 15:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' I brought up a related proposal previously when the article used "bin" instead of "ibn", see discussion above. The majority of scholarly sources about the subject abbreviate "ibn" as "b.". Per our MoS, we spell out "ibn". As far as the article "al-", it appears most scholarly sources use this form, per the below survey (excuse any repetition from Apagasuma's statement). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:'''For "b. al-Qasim" or "ibn al-Qasim"''' |
|
: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. ] 09:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:*Asani (2006) "Muhammad ibn al-Qasim" entry |
|
|
:*Baloch (1953) ''Muhammad ibn al-Qasim'' |
|
|
:*Blankinship (1994) ''The End of the Jihad State'' |
|
|
:*Chowdhry (1972) ''Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf'' |
|
|
:*Crone (1980) ''Slaves on Horses'' |
|
|
:*Hawting (2000) ''The First Dynasty of Islam'' (only one mention of the subject) |
|
|
:*Kennedy (2001) ''The Armies of the Caliph'' |
|
|
:*The edited ''History of al-Tabari'' volumes |
|
|
:*The ''Encyclopedia of Islam'' (2nd ed) |
|
|
:'''For "b. Qasim" or "ibn Qasim"''' |
|
|
:*Gibb (1923) ''The Arab Conquests in Central Asia'' (only one mention of the subject) |
|
|
:*Hoyland (2015) ''In God's Path: The Arab Conquests'' |
|
|
:*Kennedy (2007) ''The Great Arab Conquests'' |
|
|
:*Wellhausen (1927) ''The Arab Kingdom and Its Fall" |
|
|
:'''For both''': |
|
|
:*Gabrieli (1965) ''Muhammad ibn Qasim ath-Thaqafi and the Arab Conquest of Sind'' (this is one of the main modern sources for the subject and frustratingly, "ibn Qasim" is used in the title and several times in the article text, and "ibn al-Qasim" is also used throughout the text. He needed a better copyeditor it seems.) |
|
|
:'''For just "al-Qasim" ''' |
|
|
:*Wink (1996) ''Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World'' |
|
|
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:48, July 11, 2022 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> |
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Sindh Reclaimed == |
|
::At least it's acknowledge that Asoka killed a crapload of people. The Bin Qasim article was denying this. --] 20:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arab occupation of Sindh didn't last long. Around 715 AD, Qasim who was the governor of Sindh was called back to Iraq where he died. Junaid Ibn Marri took over as governor of Sindh and tried moving further into Bharat during 723 AD. He set his eye on Ujjain only to face a defeat at the hands of an emerging hero of the times - Nagabhata 1. Nagabhata 1 founded the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty, 'Pratihara' literally meaning 'GATE KEEPER'. ] (]) 07:32, 28 July 2024 (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. ] 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 ] of the time join forces with him to over throw their oppressor leaders and the ] 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 ] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 11:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, I'm not agreeing with you. There's a link to the claims. --] 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. ] 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. ] ] - ] 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. '' " |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 18:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::The Chachnamah (Chachnama) is the source of this quotation. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Delhi Reprint, 1979. --] 12:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Comes straight from the ]. Don't understand why you worship these Arab conquers so much. They raped your grandmothers and killed your grandfathers. --] 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 ] decentens, and other majorites are ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 13:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Looking at your nose, you sure might be but you're an exception. --] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I see you're not only ] you're also ] and ] - Anything else I missed out? |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 20:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, you make racist remarks on Blacks 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." <This comment was added by Dangerous-Boy> |
|
|
|
|
|
I like Jews. They're cool. |
|
|
--] 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 ] 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 ] 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? ] 04:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Deleted information == |
|
|
|
|
|
Some information in this article was deleted by {{user|Street Scholar}}, 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 ] religion in return for payment of the poll tax (]). ] 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 ] 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 ] up to ]. The forces of Muhammad bin Qasim defeated Raja Dahar, and took his daughters captive (they were sent to ]). On his arrival at the town of ] between 6,000 and 16,000 men died in the battle that ensued. --] 12:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pure bullshit, is your job devoted to spreading ignorance on the net? |
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, hardly anyone takes Misplaced Pages 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 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. --] 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. --] 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. ] 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 , ). ] 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. <small>—''the preceding ] comment is by'' ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Fake and biased quotes? '''] 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 , but not here. --] 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? |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 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. --] 13:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No its not, you are lying prove it or I'm removing the quote! |
|
|
--] 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
*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. |
|
|
] 17:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"There is not such thing as Chachnama"! We might want to invoke an RfC here. Here's a link from ], one of the top universities of the US, saying "Chachnama is the most authentic and almost contemporary account of Arab invasions of Sindh." ] (]) 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.! --] 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. --] 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.” --] 15:41, 23 March 2006 (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 ] at the ] cost of ] in 6th century. The earliest known muslim communities in ] are ]s. (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 ] in general!! |
|
|
] 10:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==]???== |
|
|
: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.] 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.--] 13:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::That's not what noted historian Triflovich says: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Extract from Triflovic's book: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{cquote|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, <u>not "of the book"</u> but at the receiving end of Muhammad’s injunction against pagans: "Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them."}}] 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.--] 14:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==ISPI:Dubious Source==--] 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 ] 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.] 13:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: 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." --] 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.] 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.--] 14:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
Extract from Triflovich's book: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{cquote|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}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{cquote|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.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] 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: |
|
|
{{cquote|“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.--] 14:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I am not interested in ] 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.] 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. ] was not a historian, and has been criticized for it, however he is notable.--] 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.] 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??--] 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.] 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?--] 01:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::The problem is the inherent contrdiction in the sentence "To Pay <u>poll</u> tax on a <u>graduated</u> 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.] 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 ] 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.--] 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.] 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.--] 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 ] to represent all aspects properly attributed, personally I would\t like to include Javeed or Triflovic as ]. As an aside for curiosities sake, I wound't mind knowing what references Appleby give as the source of their contentions.--] 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 ] (based on his hatemongering posts above, and ] 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.] 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.--] 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.] 09:44, 2 October 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.] 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.] 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. ] 17:02, 2 October 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.] 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 ] 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 ] 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. --] 12:21, 2 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).] 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 ] and ].] 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.--] 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.Chach Nama section winkiwonki pg 932 ". |
|
|
|
|
|
needs to be replaced by: |
|
|
|
|
|
"According to the Saracean history book ](brief description), bin-Qasim was 'the greatest thing since sliced falafel'Chach Nama section winkiwonki pg 932" |
|
|
|
|
|
Do you understand my point?As always, I am grateful that moderate voices and cool heads may prevail.] 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.--] 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 to] if you continue to go around adding "dubious" tags to clearly referenced points I will have to take action against you. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Likewise.] 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. |
|
|
:::] 14:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Agreed.However, the issue here is over intentionalism of bin-Qasim himself per the mediation proceeding on ].Please do not revert until these issues have been resolved. Thanks.] 15:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::There isn't really any mediation going on at ], because the other involved party is utterly unresponsive. I recommend another course of action. - ] 16:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
Arab occupation of Sindh didn't last long. Around 715 AD, Qasim who was the governor of Sindh was called back to Iraq where he died. Junaid Ibn Marri took over as governor of Sindh and tried moving further into Bharat during 723 AD. He set his eye on Ujjain only to face a defeat at the hands of an emerging hero of the times - Nagabhata 1. Nagabhata 1 founded the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty, 'Pratihara' literally meaning 'GATE KEEPER'. 2409:408A:1BC0:CE83:0:0:BDCB:C902 (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion met
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
