# Our Hero Is Raja Dahir Not Muhammad Bin Qasim, Haji Adeel- ANP



## Raghu

I read this from a big debate going on another Pakistani forum about it.So i thought we could discuss it too.

Daily Express News Story


----------



## Ahmad

may i ask who is Raja Dahir?


----------



## Raghu

*Link*:*Dahar*

DAWN The Review, May 17-23 May 2001

Rajah Dahar of Sindh


"Whoever marries your sister will become the ruler of Sindh," the astrologers told Dahar, the Rajah of Sindh. Dahar was the eldest son of Chach, the founder of the Brahmin Dynasty in Sindh, and he had inherited lower Sindh. His younger brother, Daharsingh was ruling upper Sindh, and both of them were born of Suhandi, the ambitious wife of Chach. Bai, their sister whose horoscope posed a dilemma for Dahar, was born of a Jatt mother.

"*The administration of a large kingdom is a delicate matter," said the grand vizier Budhiman to Dahar. "For the sake of their kingdom, kings bring death upon their brothers and relatives or banish them from their country. You should marry your sister, and seat her with you on the throne though you will never consummate the marriage. As she will be called your wedded wife the kingdom will remain with you*, according to the astrologers' prediction." When this argument didn't convince Dahar, the grand vizier made a practical demonstration about the so-called collective memory of the people. He laid mud on the back of a sheep, and grew plants on it. When the sheep was paraded through the streets of Aror, it caught everyone's attention. But only for three days! Afterward, the sheep would roam around in the streets and no one would pay heed to it. That much is the human attention span.

*Much has been said about Dahar's marriage to his sister, but as far as we can gather from recorded history it was a nominal marriage and never consummated*. Yet, it earned Dahar a bad reputation, so that his name became proverbial and synonymous with "big mistake" in the Sindhi language. His younger brother, Daharsingh, who was ruling the northern areas of the empire, rose in rebellion, although death overtook him before a decisive battle could settle the affairs between the brothers. The true casualty of this whole affair goes mostly unnoticed by the historians of all schools. The saddest part of the story was perhaps the fact that a young woman was condemned to a life that she did not deserve.

Apart from his "big mistake," Dahar certainly possessed some remarkable characteristics. He was exceptionally brave and fearless. *There is even a story about how, when a ferocious lion once attacked Dahar's hunting retinue, Dahar wrapped his scarf on his left arm and thrust that arm into the lion's mouth while killing the beast with his right arm*. Even if we don't believe this story, we have witnesses to his other acts of bravery, and such witnesses are found even among his enemies, the Arab invaders. As described by the ancient historians, Rajah Dahar is the tragedy of a man who set out to take lessons in being a king. His flaw was his willingness to place his faith in the external factors: stars, destiny, enemies and friends. By the time Dahar learnt his lessons, it was too late for him to live like a king. The only option left before him by then was to die like one.

Dahar had the opportunity to rule for a long period over his kingdom - almost forty years (c. 668 - 712 AD). Over that period his major achievement was to secure law and order in his land by routing the bandits and banishing them to the seas. His major weakness was his foreign policy, specially towards the western borders of his empire where the threat of an Arab invasion was increasing everyday since the Arab occupation of Persia in 635 AD.

It seems that Dahar was nostalgically looking back towards the days of the pre-Islamic Persia when the glorious Sassanid Dynasty ruled over that vast empire with great pomp and show. It was difficult for him to accept that the ancient glory of Iran had gone forever, and he could never make up his mind to deal with the Bedouins of the Arab Deserts as successors of the great Persian Emperors.

The Arabs, at the same time, displayed no desire for establishing friendly relations with the other powers of their time. Specially in the case of Sindh, the Arabs had always been speaking in terms of whether it was difficult or easy to annex this state, and never in terms of whether or not the Sindhis have given them a cause for invasion. We must remember that "world peace" is a very modern term and has its origin in the Romantic Movement of the 18th and 19th Century. Even so it wasn't until after the World War I in the 20th Century that the concept of world peace became a reality in the foreign policies of states. The modern Muslim historians, more than anyone else, are guilty of anachronism when they try to perceive of the early Arab colonialism in terms of the 20th Century notions of democracy and world peace.

Dahar, it seems, didn't display any personal aversion to the Muslims or their religion. He welcomed the Arab talent at his court, and was a great admirer of the Arab military genius. Unfortunately, the Arabs who found refuge at Dahar's court were the Allafi adversaries of the Umayyad Caliphate. It is said that one of their relatives, a dignitary of the Allafi tribe, was beheaded in Mekran by a deputy of Hajjaj bin Yousuf as he refused to pay proper honour to that deputy. His skin was taken off and his head sent to Basra. In true Arab spirit some of the tribesmen of the victim took their revenge upon the deputy, who had by that time become the governor of Mekran, and then fled to the court of Dahar.

We cannot be certain how far the famous story about the plunder of eight Arab ships at Debal is true. It has been recorded in most histories that the King of Sarandeep had sent some gifts to the Umayyad Caliph Walid bin Abdul Malik, and the caravan of eight ships also carried the orphaned daughters of deceased Arab merchants. These ships were forced by rough weather to take refuge on the coasts of Sindh, possibly Debal, and there they were looted by some outlandish tribes. The story even relates that one of the women called upon Hajjaj when she was being captured, and this message was conveyed to Hajjaj by a survivor. Hajjaj sent a letter to Dahar asking him to release the women, and we are told by historians that, "in that letter he couched many threats in very strong terms." If that was the case then Dahar must be praised for his patience in replying only, "This is the work of a band of robbers over whom I do not have power."

*Mainly two facts make this story doubtful. Firstly, Chachnameh, the primary source of these events, narrates that when Muhammad bin Qasim later conquered Debal he found all the women in the castle prison. Why would those women be kept in the prison? Women captured in this manner were usually treated as slave girls and distributed among the captors for their pleasures, as Mohammad Bin Qasim reportedly did at the time of his capture of Sindh*.


*Secondly, the Chachnameh states again in the events of a year later that after the Arabs had conquered almost all of Sindh, the Hindu vizier Siyakar brought those Muslim women prisoners to Muhammad bin Qasim. How could they be freed now, if they had been already freed and sent home from Debal? Indeed, it seems that the story had become a folk tale and there were many versions of it. We can't be sure that the version that has come down to us was closest to reality*.


In the light of what we know, it is more plausible to believe that some ships were probably looted but that was an act of the robbers whom Dahar had banished from his lands with great difficulty and now didn't want to provoke by challenging their hold over the seas. Dahar's personal involvement in the events, as well as the captives' release from the prisons of Debal and (or) Alore, seems to be a fabrication by the later storytellers for obvious reasons.

The events of Muhammad bin Qasim's invasion of Sindh are well known. What isn't so well known to most students of history is the manner in which Raja Dahar met his death. *It is said that when the Arab conqueror had captured most of Sindh, and Dahar's countrymen had changed their sides to join the Arabs, Dahar called his Arab friends, the Allafi rebels. In a way they were the cause of Dahar's misfortune because it was by giving them refuge that Dahar had first annoyed the dreadful Hajjaj bin Yousuf. "O Allafi!" Dahar said to his Arab friend, "It was for such an emergency that we patronized you. You are best acquainted with the ways of the Arab army, and it is advisable that you should go with my forces in advance." The Allafi replied, "O King! We are grateful to you, but we cannot draw our swords against the army of Islam. If we are killed by them we will earn a bad name, and if we kill them we will burn in hell. We agree that in return for the favours you have shown us, we must at least give you some advice on how to fight these invaders even if we do not draw our swords against them. But if we give you advice, then again, this army will never forgive us. Please be kind to us and allow us to depart quietly." In a magnanimous gesture of royal grace, Dahar allowed these dubious characters to leave his camps in safety.*

Sometime before the final battle, Dahar's vizier approached him and suggested that Dahar should take refuge with one of the friendly kings of India. "You should say to them, 'I am a wall between you and the Arab army. If I fall, nothing will stop your destruction at their hands.'" If that wasn't acceptable to Dahar, said the vizier, then he should at least send away his family to some safe point in India. Dahar refused to do either. "I cannot send away my family to security while the families of my thakurs and nobles remain here. And I consider it shameful as well that I should go to the door of another prince and await his permission to see him." Vizier Budhiman then asked Dahar what did he intend to do. To this Dahar gave a very dramatic reply, which was recorded faithfully by the early Arab historians despite their hostility to the unfortunate infidel. 

"I am going to meet the Arabs in the open battle", he said, "And fight them as best as I can. If I crush them, my kingdom will then be put on a firm footing. But if I am killed honorably, the event will be recorded in the books of Arabia and India, and will be talked about by great men. It will be heard by other kings in the world, and it will be said that Rajah Dahar of Sindh sacrificed his precious life for the sake of his country, in fighting with the enemy."

After Dahar was killed in the Battle of Aror on the banks of the River Indus, his head was cut off from his body and sent to Hajjaj bin Yousuf. His queens burnt themselves to death in the tradition set by the Rajput heroines. These included Bai, the unfortunate sister of Dahar. Other ladies of the royal household, who remained alive, were captured by the Arab conquerors along with other women of Sindh, and sold into slavery. Thus ended the dynasty that had sprung out of the ambitions of Queen Suhandi and Chach the Brahmin. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOURCES used in this series of articles: Chachnameh by Ali Kufi; Futuhul Baldan by Al Balazri; Tarikh-e-Masumi by Mir Masum Bakhari; and Tuhfatil Kiram by Mir Ali Sher Qanea

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bc040400065

ANP's hero is Raja dahar and gandhi not MUhammad bin Qasim or Quaid-e-azam so nothing new if haji adeel said this... ANP is anti pakistan from the start... They have always been in love with pakistan's enemies. i don't know why a party like ANP is allowed to function.

Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## jbond197

I heard people in Sindh also reveres Raja Dahir... Don't know how much of it is true.


----------



## jbond197

bc040400065 said:


> ANP's hero is Raja dahar and gandhi not MUhammad bin Qasim or Quaid-e-azam so nothing new if haji adeel said this... ANP is anti pakistan from the start... They have always been in love with pakistan's enemies. i don't know why a party like ANP is allowed to function.



Raja Dahir was born in the lands of current Pakistan. He was of Sindhi heritage. Why do you consider him as an enemy of Pakistan? He fought against an attacking force which every ruler will do once attacked. So what&#8217;s wrong in that...

The story goes like this, A local hero fought against an invader and was defeated and now the invader has became the hero and the local hero enemy.

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## bc040400065

jbond197 said:


> Raja Dahir was born in the lands of current Pakistan. He was of Sindhi heritage. Why do you consider him as an enemy of Pakistan? He fought against an attacking force which every ruler will do once attacked. So whats wrong in that...
> 
> The story goes like this, A local hero fought against an invader and was defeated and now the invader has became the hero and the local hero enemy.



u have ur own story so i would not respond. i just commented about ANP... And if Raja dahar was so great ruler than y his own people left his side and embraced islam.?? and a man who married his own sister just for kingdom and rule... tells the story about how great hero he was.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## hillman32

Every one has the right to choose one's religion, HEROES and even have an Opinion.

Haji Adeel can choose anyone as his hero.
.

By doing so, in fact, he has exposed the inner wishes of Sarhadi Ghandhi Clan (ANP)

ANP never accepted Pakistan and they are Indian agents who oppose projects like Kala Bagh Dam.

Mr. Zardari is pleasing ANP as it suits him politically.

Haji Adeel can go to hell and worship kali devi as well from my side.

T

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## hillman32

Ahmad said:


> may i ask who is Raja Dahir?




Raja Dahir was ruler of Sind.

he looted Arab merchant ships coming from Baghdad and picked up ladies traveling with them.

One lady shouted for help from _Khalifa _ and a man who escaped told this in Baghdad.

Consequently, Muhammad Bin Qasim came with an army, defeated and killed Raja Dahir and made First Islamic State in Sub Continent from Debal to Multan.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Raghu

hillman32 said:


> Raja Dahir was ruler of Sind.
> 
> he looted Arab merchant ships coming from Baghdad and picked up ladies traveling with them.
> 
> One lady shouted for help from _Khalifa _ and a man who escaped told this in Baghdad.
> 
> *Consequently, Muhammad Bin Qasim came with an army, defeated and killed Raja Dahir and made First Islamic State in Sub Continent from Debal to Mu*ltan.



Sorry sir,before "Muhammad Bin Qasim came with an army ",*there were already fourteen(14) failed Arab expedition aganist Sindh and neighbouring regions had taken place*.

*First Expedition *

This expedition took place in the days of Umer by Usman Bin Abbass Sukfi who was in charge of Bahrain and Oman territories. His invasion was by the sea route. His boats went to Thana City, near the vicinity of Bombay. From there he returned with a lot of loot, called Mal-e-ghaneemat (booty). From this booty lie gave a portion to Umer, who, after receiving his share, advised Usman not to invade through the sea route which was unsafe, as he had himself sent a fleet towards the Roman area, but which, on account of a tempest, was destroyed. After that he had decided not to send invaders through sea, as it was full of danger. [1] 

*Second and Third Expeditions * 
Caliph Umer was a strong and harsh ruler. It was difficult to disobey his orders. But by to many Arab Ameers and their followers temptation to loot had now become very strong with the result that the same Usman Bin Asi, along with his brother "Mugira", again took a fleet of ships, under the leadership of Commander "Mugira", and sailed towards Sindh's Port of "Debal". He reached "Bharoch". In that invasion Mugira was killed. These invasions took place during the fifteenth Hijjri, (Muslim Calendar) in the days of Umer. In the 21st Hijjri, his armies succeeded in invasions conquering "Hamdan", "Nihavund" and "Khurasan". From these conquests the Arabs got a lot of wealth besides an army of male and female slaves. Three other places, Seestan (now Sehwan), Kirman, Makran were still within the territories of the Persian Empire. These were also conquered by tile Arabs and a huge amount of money was taken away. But that time, the people of the neighboring countries had come to know that the main purpose of Arabs' attacks was to acquire riches. During the Arab invasions, the local people used to hurriedly escape either to mountains or to other villages, leaving their houses in fear of the Arab looters. 

Therefore in 23rd Hijjri, the Arabs decided not to merely conquer and after looting to return to Arabia, but to establish their rule over the conquered territories as well by remaining there. For this purpose Sohail-Bin-Adi and Abdullah-Bin-Aqlan were sent towards "Kirman", and on the other side Hakirn-Bin-Amru and Abdullah-Bin-Umer were sent towards Seestan to establish their rule and exploit the riches of that country. 

After conquering the two countries, Hakim-Bin-Amru "Taghalbi" invaded Makran and Shanab-Bin-Mughariq and the above mentioned persons also joined them on account of which the tribal Chief of Makran asked Maha Raja Dahir to help him. In that battle Makran's ruler and Sindh's commander were killed and the Arabs killed a lot of persons and got a lot of money, slaves, male and female, in looting. One-fifth of this loot was sent to Khaleefa Umer. He was glad to see this money, and the whole of Madina celebrated this victory. The Arabs used to be pleased from such things as they depended on such victories. It is said that when the Amirs related the difficulties of these expeditions, Hazrat Umer prohibited them from making such hazardous expeditions. 


*Fourth Expedition * 

Abdul Rahman Bin Sumrah, after conquering Zuringe, proceeded towards the hills between Zuringe and Kesh. He took possession of the part of Sindh, which is now Baluchistan. In those days, there was no separate country like Baluchistan. Makran and Seestan were on the border of Sindh. 

Fifth Expedition 
When Arabs murdered the third Khalifa, Usman, in his house, then Hazrat Ah (Alahisalam) was elected the Arab ruler in his place in 35th Hijjri. The expedition started before his rule towards Sindh. "Tugir Bin Saghir along with "Hans Bin Marih Adi" in 38th Hijjri, these persons were attacked by hilly tract people. They returned after conquering them. [2] 

Sixth Expedition 
After the fifth expedition, Haris Bin Marih Adi continued his expedition towards Sindh. He received information of the martyrdom of Hazrat Ah. Yet he continued his expedition In Arabia, in place of Hazrat Ah, Amir Muavia came in possession of the rule. (Fatoohul Buldan). 

Seventh Expedition 
Amir Muavia immediately sent Abdul Bin Amir and Rashid Bin Umer towards Sindh, who after getting a lot of loot from that side, came and gave a share of the loot to Muavia, the ruler of Syria. 

Eighth Expedition 
In 42nd Hijjri, Amir Muavia sent Abdul Bin and Abdullah Bin Sawar on an expedition of Sindh. They brought back several horses from the side of Keekan and other booty from Sindh, on which Muavia was very glad. 

Ninth Expedition 
Abdullah Bin Amir remained in Damascus and returned to the side of Keekan, during this expedition. He contacted the Turks. The Turkish troops were also on an expedition of looting. He and his people were killed and getting this information Muavia sent Abdullah Bin Sawar with four thousand cavalry along with same route and ordered them to bring well known horses of Keekan on their return. [3] 

Tenth Expedition 
In 44th Hijjri, Muhab Bin Abisafra, a known Commander of Abdul Rahman Bin Sumra's troop, was sent towards Sindh. Instead of going on direct route, he changed his route via mountains and fought with local people near Kandabeel and, after getting sufficient loot, he went back. 

Eleventh Expedition 
This expedition was also towards Kandabeel, though Sindh's route was different. Abdullah Bin Sawar got killed in this battle. Seestan's ruler sent Zaid Bin Abu Sufyan, Sinan Bin Muslim and Muhibuk Hezli towards Sindh. They looted the Makran area and occupied it. The robbers sent a portion of the loot to Amir Muavia. 

Twelfth Expedition 
After that, Zaid sent troops towards Sindh under the command of Rashid Bin Umer "Juwary Azdi", who attacked Keekan and kept on sending the looted cash from that country along with looted property, throughout the year. When Rashid was returning from "Munder" and "Bah Raj" hills; he met the people of the Maid tribe who arrested him. Then Sinan Bin Muslim was appointed in his place. He was killed in fighting with the people of the Maidtribe. [4] 

During the last years of Amir Muavia, in forty-ninth Hijjri, Zaid Bin Ahad started an expedition towards Sindhi. He reached the "Sunarode" and took the way to Hillmund and reached Kandhar. After looting it he went back. 

Thirteenth Expedition 
After the death of Sinan Bin Muslim, Manzar Bin Jarood was appointed the ruler of Makran. He too marched towards Sindh, but on hearing the news of rebellion behind, he returned and stayed at Khuzdar and died there. After Manzar Bin Jarood, Ubedullah Bin Ziyad (who at the time was appointed ruler of Basra in place of his father) appointed Haris Bin Basar in his place, but he died at Tooran. In his place Hakam was appointed as his successor. 

Fourteenth Expedition 
After Hakam, Ibn-e-Ziad sent Sardar Bin Han to the frontiers of Sindh. He fought many battles against the Sindhis. From the above mentioned facts the readers will know the Arab expeditions toward Sindh were not for the cause of spreading Islam or getting gifts looted by pirates or for returning Muhammad Bin Alafi, who on account of tyranny of Hajjaj Bin Yousif, had taken asylum with Raja Dahir. Instead, all these expeditions were part of the Arabs thirst for conquering the rich countries in the name of religion, and thereby establishing Arab Imperialism, which was initiated by Amir Umer .

A BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF SINDH'S PAST, PRESENT and Future

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## bc040400065

Raghu said:


> Sorry sir,before "Muhammad Bin Qasim came with an army ",*there were already fourteen(14) failed Arab expedition aganist Sindh and neighbouring regions had taken place*.
> 
> *First Expedition *
> 
> This expedition took place in the days of Umer by Usman Bin Abbass Sukfi who was in charge of Bahrain and Oman territories. His invasion was by the sea route. His boats went to Thana City, near the vicinity of Bombay. From there he returned with a lot of loot, called Mal-e-ghaneemat (booty). From this booty lie gave a portion to Umer, who, after receiving his share, advised Usman not to invade through the sea route which was unsafe, as he had himself sent a fleet towards the Roman area, but which, on account of a tempest, was destroyed. After that he had decided not to send invaders through sea, as it was full of danger. [1]
> 
> *Second and Third Expeditions *
> Caliph Umer was a strong and harsh ruler. It was difficult to disobey his orders. But by to many Arab Ameers and their followers temptation to loot had now become very strong with the result that the same Usman Bin Asi, along with his brother "Mugira", again took a fleet of ships, under the leadership of Commander "Mugira", and sailed towards Sindh's Port of "Debal". He reached "Bharoch". In that invasion Mugira was killed. These invasions took place during the fifteenth Hijjri, (Muslim Calendar) in the days of Umer. In the 21st Hijjri, his armies succeeded in invasions conquering "Hamdan", "Nihavund" and "Khurasan". From these conquests the Arabs got a lot of wealth besides an army of male and female slaves. Three other places, Seestan (now Sehwan), Kirman, Makran were still within the territories of the Persian Empire. These were also conquered by tile Arabs and a huge amount of money was taken away. But that time, the people of the neighboring countries had come to know that the main purpose of Arabs' attacks was to acquire riches. During the Arab invasions, the local people used to hurriedly escape either to mountains or to other villages, leaving their houses in fear of the Arab looters.
> 
> Therefore in 23rd Hijjri, the Arabs decided not to merely conquer and after looting to return to Arabia, but to establish their rule over the conquered territories as well by remaining there. For this purpose Sohail-Bin-Adi and Abdullah-Bin-Aqlan were sent towards "Kirman", and on the other side Hakirn-Bin-Amru and Abdullah-Bin-Umer were sent towards Seestan to establish their rule and exploit the riches of that country.
> 
> After conquering the two countries, Hakim-Bin-Amru "Taghalbi" invaded Makran and Shanab-Bin-Mughariq and the above mentioned persons also joined them on account of which the tribal Chief of Makran asked Maha Raja Dahir to help him. In that battle Makran's ruler and Sindh's commander were killed and the Arabs killed a lot of persons and got a lot of money, slaves, male and female, in looting. One-fifth of this loot was sent to Khaleefa Umer. He was glad to see this money, and the whole of Madina celebrated this victory. The Arabs used to be pleased from such things as they depended on such victories. It is said that when the Amirs related the difficulties of these expeditions, Hazrat Umer prohibited them from making such hazardous expeditions.
> 
> 
> *Fourth Expedition *
> 
> Abdul Rahman Bin Sumrah, after conquering Zuringe, proceeded towards the hills between Zuringe and Kesh. He took possession of the part of Sindh, which is now Baluchistan. In those days, there was no separate country like Baluchistan. Makran and Seestan were on the border of Sindh.
> 
> Fifth Expedition
> When Arabs murdered the third Khalifa, Usman, in his house, then Hazrat Ah (Alahisalam) was elected the Arab ruler in his place in 35th Hijjri. The expedition started before his rule towards Sindh. "Tugir Bin Saghir along with "Hans Bin Marih Adi" in 38th Hijjri, these persons were attacked by hilly tract people. They returned after conquering them. [2]
> 
> Sixth Expedition
> After the fifth expedition, Haris Bin Marih Adi continued his expedition towards Sindh. He received information of the martyrdom of Hazrat Ah. Yet he continued his expedition In Arabia, in place of Hazrat Ah, Amir Muavia came in possession of the rule. (Fatoohul Buldan).
> 
> Seventh Expedition
> Amir Muavia immediately sent Abdul Bin Amir and Rashid Bin Umer towards Sindh, who after getting a lot of loot from that side, came and gave a share of the loot to Muavia, the ruler of Syria.
> 
> Eighth Expedition
> In 42nd Hijjri, Amir Muavia sent Abdul Bin and Abdullah Bin Sawar on an expedition of Sindh. They brought back several horses from the side of Keekan and other booty from Sindh, on which Muavia was very glad.
> 
> Ninth Expedition
> Abdullah Bin Amir remained in Damascus and returned to the side of Keekan, during this expedition. He contacted the Turks. The Turkish troops were also on an expedition of looting. He and his people were killed and getting this information Muavia sent Abdullah Bin Sawar with four thousand cavalry along with same route and ordered them to bring well known horses of Keekan on their return. [3]
> 
> Tenth Expedition
> In 44th Hijjri, Muhab Bin Abisafra, a known Commander of Abdul Rahman Bin Sumra's troop, was sent towards Sindh. Instead of going on direct route, he changed his route via mountains and fought with local people near Kandabeel and, after getting sufficient loot, he went back.
> 
> Eleventh Expedition
> This expedition was also towards Kandabeel, though Sindh's route was different. Abdullah Bin Sawar got killed in this battle. Seestan's ruler sent Zaid Bin Abu Sufyan, Sinan Bin Muslim and Muhibuk Hezli towards Sindh. They looted the Makran area and occupied it. The robbers sent a portion of the loot to Amir Muavia.
> 
> Twelfth Expedition
> After that, Zaid sent troops towards Sindh under the command of Rashid Bin Umer "Juwary Azdi", who attacked Keekan and kept on sending the looted cash from that country along with looted property, throughout the year. When Rashid was returning from "Munder" and "Bah Raj" hills; he met the people of the Maid tribe who arrested him. Then Sinan Bin Muslim was appointed in his place. He was killed in fighting with the people of the Maidtribe. [4]
> 
> During the last years of Amir Muavia, in forty-ninth Hijjri, Zaid Bin Ahad started an expedition towards Sindhi. He reached the "Sunarode" and took the way to Hillmund and reached Kandhar. After looting it he went back.
> 
> Thirteenth Expedition
> After the death of Sinan Bin Muslim, Manzar Bin Jarood was appointed the ruler of Makran. He too marched towards Sindh, but on hearing the news of rebellion behind, he returned and stayed at Khuzdar and died there. After Manzar Bin Jarood, Ubedullah Bin Ziyad (who at the time was appointed ruler of Basra in place of his father) appointed Haris Bin Basar in his place, but he died at Tooran. In his place Hakam was appointed as his successor.
> 
> Fourteenth Expedition
> After Hakam, Ibn-e-Ziad sent Sardar Bin Han to the frontiers of Sindh. He fought many battles against the Sindhis. From the above mentioned facts the readers will know the Arab expeditions toward Sindh were not for the cause of spreading Islam or getting gifts looted by pirates or for returning Muhammad Bin Alafi, who on account of tyranny of Hajjaj Bin Yousif, had taken asylum with Raja Dahir. Instead, all these expeditions were part of the Arabs thirst for conquering the rich countries in the name of religion, and thereby establishing Arab Imperialism, which was initiated by Amir Umer .
> 
> A BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF SINDH'S PAST, PRESENT and Future



mind it but u should shut up .. OK its enough of nonsense and abusive words about hazrat Umer.. first go and check out ur religious history and ur so called GODs .... ok so just shut up. freedom of speech does not allow this kind of nonsense so mind it.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Raghu

bc040400065 said:


> mind it but u should shut up .. OK its enough of nonsense and abusive words about hazrat Umer.. first go and check out ur religious history and ur so called GODs .... ok so just shut up. freedom of speech does not allow this kind of nonsense so mind it.



Sorry dont mind if i hurt ur sentiments...

But its not my words ...these things are written by G M Syed,the grand old man of Sindh.

I've given the link to the book in the above post.
If u read his book u'll find,although he had anything but praise for the Prophet,he vociferously critical the Arab caliphs that came to power in the name of Islam and used Islam to serve their political interests.*And in the end ,according to him destroyed superior Sindhi civilization.*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Prometheus

bc040400065 said:


> mind it but u should shut up .. OK its enough of nonsense and abusive words about hazrat Umer.. first go and check out ur religious history and ur so called GODs .... ok so just shut up. freedom of speech does not allow this kind of nonsense so mind it.



plz give answer with arguement.


----------



## RobbieS

The way Pakistanis on this forum embrace everything that is Arab in the name of Islam and even at the cost of their own heroes/personalities never ceases to amaze me. It seems like they are pretty eager to neglect their own and accept everything that was brought by the Arabs, the carriers of the Islamic faith to the subcontinent. Perhaps thats the way history was taught to the average Pakistani.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## pak-yes

Raghu said:


> Sorry sir,before "Muhammad Bin Qasim came with an army ",*there were already fourteen(14) failed Arab expedition aganist Sindh and neighbouring regions had taken place*.
> 
> *First Expedition *
> 
> This expedition took place in the days of Umer by Usman Bin Abbass Sukfi who was in charge of Bahrain and Oman territories. His invasion was by the sea route. His boats went to Thana City, near the vicinity of Bombay. From there he returned with a lot of loot, called Mal-e-ghaneemat (booty). From this booty lie gave a portion to Umer, who, after receiving his share, advised Usman not to invade through the sea route which was unsafe, as he had himself sent a fleet towards the Roman area, but which, on account of a tempest, was destroyed. After that he had decided not to send invaders through sea, as it was full of danger. [1]
> 
> *Second and Third Expeditions *
> Caliph Umer was a strong and harsh ruler. It was difficult to disobey his orders. But by to many Arab Ameers and their followers temptation to loot had now become very strong with the result that the same Usman Bin Asi, along with his brother "Mugira", again took a fleet of ships, under the leadership of Commander "Mugira", and sailed towards Sindh's Port of "Debal". He reached "Bharoch". In that invasion Mugira was killed. These invasions took place during the fifteenth Hijjri, (Muslim Calendar) in the days of Umer. In the 21st Hijjri, his armies succeeded in invasions conquering "Hamdan", "Nihavund" and "Khurasan". From these conquests the Arabs got a lot of wealth besides an army of male and female slaves. Three other places, Seestan (now Sehwan), Kirman, Makran were still within the territories of the Persian Empire. These were also conquered by tile Arabs and a huge amount of money was taken away. But that time, the people of the neighboring countries had come to know that the main purpose of Arabs' attacks was to acquire riches. During the Arab invasions, the local people used to hurriedly escape either to mountains or to other villages, leaving their houses in fear of the Arab looters.
> 
> Therefore in 23rd Hijjri, the Arabs decided not to merely conquer and after looting to return to Arabia, but to establish their rule over the conquered territories as well by remaining there. For this purpose Sohail-Bin-Adi and Abdullah-Bin-Aqlan were sent towards "Kirman", and on the other side Hakirn-Bin-Amru and Abdullah-Bin-Umer were sent towards Seestan to establish their rule and exploit the riches of that country.
> 
> After conquering the two countries, Hakim-Bin-Amru "Taghalbi" invaded Makran and Shanab-Bin-Mughariq and the above mentioned persons also joined them on account of which the tribal Chief of Makran asked Maha Raja Dahir to help him. In that battle Makran's ruler and Sindh's commander were killed and the Arabs killed a lot of persons and got a lot of money, slaves, male and female, in looting. One-fifth of this loot was sent to Khaleefa Umer. He was glad to see this money, and the whole of Madina celebrated this victory. The Arabs used to be pleased from such things as they depended on such victories. It is said that when the Amirs related the difficulties of these expeditions, Hazrat Umer prohibited them from making such hazardous expeditions.
> 
> 
> *Fourth Expedition *
> 
> Abdul Rahman Bin Sumrah, after conquering Zuringe, proceeded towards the hills between Zuringe and Kesh. He took possession of the part of Sindh, which is now Baluchistan. In those days, there was no separate country like Baluchistan. Makran and Seestan were on the border of Sindh.
> 
> Fifth Expedition
> When Arabs murdered the third Khalifa, Usman, in his house, then Hazrat Ah (Alahisalam) was elected the Arab ruler in his place in 35th Hijjri. The expedition started before his rule towards Sindh. "Tugir Bin Saghir along with "Hans Bin Marih Adi" in 38th Hijjri, these persons were attacked by hilly tract people. They returned after conquering them. [2]
> 
> Sixth Expedition
> After the fifth expedition, Haris Bin Marih Adi continued his expedition towards Sindh. He received information of the martyrdom of Hazrat Ah. Yet he continued his expedition In Arabia, in place of Hazrat Ah, Amir Muavia came in possession of the rule. (Fatoohul Buldan).
> 
> Seventh Expedition
> Amir Muavia immediately sent Abdul Bin Amir and Rashid Bin Umer towards Sindh, who after getting a lot of loot from that side, came and gave a share of the loot to Muavia, the ruler of Syria.
> 
> Eighth Expedition
> In 42nd Hijjri, Amir Muavia sent Abdul Bin and Abdullah Bin Sawar on an expedition of Sindh. They brought back several horses from the side of Keekan and other booty from Sindh, on which Muavia was very glad.
> 
> Ninth Expedition
> Abdullah Bin Amir remained in Damascus and returned to the side of Keekan, during this expedition. He contacted the Turks. The Turkish troops were also on an expedition of looting. He and his people were killed and getting this information Muavia sent Abdullah Bin Sawar with four thousand cavalry along with same route and ordered them to bring well known horses of Keekan on their return. [3]
> 
> Tenth Expedition
> In 44th Hijjri, Muhab Bin Abisafra, a known Commander of Abdul Rahman Bin Sumra's troop, was sent towards Sindh. Instead of going on direct route, he changed his route via mountains and fought with local people near Kandabeel and, after getting sufficient loot, he went back.
> 
> Eleventh Expedition
> This expedition was also towards Kandabeel, though Sindh's route was different. Abdullah Bin Sawar got killed in this battle. Seestan's ruler sent Zaid Bin Abu Sufyan, Sinan Bin Muslim and Muhibuk Hezli towards Sindh. They looted the Makran area and occupied it. The robbers sent a portion of the loot to Amir Muavia.
> 
> Twelfth Expedition
> After that, Zaid sent troops towards Sindh under the command of Rashid Bin Umer "Juwary Azdi", who attacked Keekan and kept on sending the looted cash from that country along with looted property, throughout the year. When Rashid was returning from "Munder" and "Bah Raj" hills; he met the people of the Maid tribe who arrested him. Then Sinan Bin Muslim was appointed in his place. He was killed in fighting with the people of the Maidtribe. [4]
> 
> During the last years of Amir Muavia, in forty-ninth Hijjri, Zaid Bin Ahad started an expedition towards Sindhi. He reached the "Sunarode" and took the way to Hillmund and reached Kandhar. After looting it he went back.
> 
> Thirteenth Expedition
> After the death of Sinan Bin Muslim, Manzar Bin Jarood was appointed the ruler of Makran. He too marched towards Sindh, but on hearing the news of rebellion behind, he returned and stayed at Khuzdar and died there. After Manzar Bin Jarood, Ubedullah Bin Ziyad (who at the time was appointed ruler of Basra in place of his father) appointed Haris Bin Basar in his place, but he died at Tooran. In his place Hakam was appointed as his successor.
> 
> Fourteenth Expedition
> After Hakam, Ibn-e-Ziad sent Sardar Bin Han to the frontiers of Sindh. He fought many battles against the Sindhis. From the above mentioned facts the readers will know the Arab expeditions toward Sindh were not for the cause of spreading Islam or getting gifts looted by pirates or for returning Muhammad Bin Alafi, who on account of tyranny of Hajjaj Bin Yousif, had taken asylum with Raja Dahir. Instead, all these expeditions were part of the Arabs thirst for conquering the rich countries in the name of religion, and thereby establishing Arab Imperialism, which was initiated by Amir Umer .
> 
> A BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF SINDH'S PAST, PRESENT and Future



Another case of Abuse of Freedom of speech.Give Respect get Respect.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hyde

*when i read the title of this thread i knew some indian member would have created this nonsense/idiotic thread*

Muhammad bin Qasim was a great leader of Islam who (in his teenage) defeated Cruel Raja Dehr. Chapter Closed

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## pak-yes

RobbieS said:


> The way Pakistanis on this forum embrace everything that is Arab in the name of Islam and even at the cost of their own heroes/personalities never ceases to amaze me. It seems like they are pretty eager to neglect their own and accept everything that was brought by the Arabs, the carriers of the Islamic faith to the subcontinent. Perhaps thats the way history was taught to the average Pakistani.



Robbie bro one thing i must tell you.You cannot separate Islam and Pakistan.And this fact is not only on the forum but also in the real world.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## RobbieS

Zaki said:


> *when i read the title of this thread i knew some indian member would have created this nonsense/idiotic thread*
> 
> Muhammad bin Qasim was a great leader of Islam who defeated Cruel Raja Dehr in his teenage. Chapter Closed



Hmmm...but wasn't Raja Dahar a native Sindhi/Pakistani and Qasim a foreign invader? Even if what you assert is true I would always prefer a cruel but native ruler to a benevolent but foreign invader.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Raghu

pak-yes said:


> Another case of Abuse of Freedom of speech.Give Respect get Respect.



*Its a Book written by GM Syed,the Grand old man of Sindh.*

G. M. Syed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## shining eyes

> The way Pakistanis on this forum embrace everything that is Arab in the name of Islam and even at the cost of their own heroes/personalities never ceases to amaze me. It seems like they are pretty eager to neglect their own and accept everything that was brought by the Arabs, the carriers of the Islamic faith to the subcontinent. Perhaps thats the way history was taught to the average Pakistani.


now will you tell us who is our own and who is not?????
go take rest!!!!!!!
WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE AND WHO IS OUR HERO and who is the villen

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hyde

RobbieS said:


> Hmmm...but wasn't Raja Dahar a native Sindhi/Pakistani and Qasim a foreign invader? Even if what you assert is true I would always prefer a cruel but native ruler to a benevolent but foreign invader.



*Who told Raja Dehar to capture the passing ship of Muslims and abduct Muslim mens, womens and the Muslim childrens?* That was key reason of his invasion to Sindh. One of the Muslim women somehow managed to write a letter to the general i think "Hajjaj bin Yousuf" and later on one group was formed to invade Sindh and to release peoples of that caravan.

It was all Raja's fault. Muhammad bin Qasim was probably 16 years old or something like that and there is a long story why he was chosen to lead.....................

Close this stupid thread please

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Raghu

Zaki said:


> *when i read the title of this thread i knew some indian member would have created this nonsense/idiotic thread*
> 
> Muhammad bin Qasim was a great leader of Islam who (in his teenage) defeated Cruel Raja Dehr. Chapter Closed



The statement is that of a member of a political party , ANP that rules the state of NWFP.


----------



## RobbieS

shining eyes said:


> now will you tell us who is our own and who is not?????
> go take rest!!!!!!!
> WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE AND WHO IS OUR HERO and who is the villen



I am at rest, noob. That is what I am doing when I am at a forum. 

And this is a forum isn't it? I am entitled to my views. Try contradicting them with logical reasons or buzz off.


----------



## Hyde

Raghu said:


> The statement is that of a member of a political party , ANP that rules the state of NWFP.



ANP is very popular as pro-india party and sometimes also pro-afghanistan party. Because of them we could not even make dams like Kalabagh and suffering from water crisis too. That is the worst political party of Pakistan.

They are like Bal Thakery of India in my eyes

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RobbieS

Zaki said:


> Who told Raja Dehar to capture the passing ship of Muslims and abduct Muslim mens, womens and the Muslim childrens? *That was key reason of his invasion to Sindh*. One of the Muslim women somehow managed to write a letter to the general i think "Hajjaj bin Yousuf" and later on one group was formed to invade Sindh and to release peoples of that caravan.
> 
> It was all Raja's fault. Muhammad bin Qasim was probably 16 years old or something like that and there is a long story why he was chosen to lead.....................
> 
> Close this stupid thread please
> 
> My last post here



Thank you for your last post. 

The bolded part above for me settles all arguments. I dont know what you have been taught or believe in. But I have been taught to fight for my motherland irrespective of faith. At no point will I ever take the side of the invaders, no matter how glorious their faith might be.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Awesome

Ahmad said:


> may i ask who is Raja Dahir?


Daekho Yeh Hai Sindh Yahaan Zalim Dahir Ka Tola Tha,
Yaheen Mohammed Bin Qasim Allah-o-Akber Bola Tha,
Tooti Hoi Talwaroun Mein Kya Bijli Thee Kya Shola Tha,
Gintee Kay Kuch Ghazi They Lakhon Ka Lashker Tola Tha,
Yahaan Kay Zarray Zarray Mein Ab Doulat Hay Emaan Ki,
Iss Ki Khatir Ham Ne Di Qurbani Lakhon Jaan Ki
Pakistan Zindabad! Pakistan Zindabad!

The cool thing about Mohammad Bin Qasim was not that he set out conquests of India, but he showed that India was conquerable, after repeated defeats the Arabs (and by extension Muslims) were slowly losing heart to expand their mission to India.

Mohammad Bin Qasim was a military guy. A small piece in the advent of Islam within South Asia... Hero? I never saw him or other self-proclaimed "Khalifas" as our heroes. They were interesting, even awe inspiring, but doodh ke dhulay huay? Not.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## RobbieS

Zaki said:


> *ANP is very popular as pro-india party* and sometimes also pro-afghanistan party. Because of them we could not even make dams like Kalabagh and suffering from water crisis too. That is the worst political party of Pakistan.
> 
> They are like Bal Thakery of India in my eyes



Pro-India parties are popular in Pakistan? Damn, I never knew we had so much influence amongst the common masses of Pakistan!


----------



## Hyde

RobbieS said:


> Thank you for your last post.
> 
> The bolded part above for me settles all arguments. I dont know what you have been taught or believe in. But I have been taught to fight for my motherland irrespective of faith. At no point will I ever take the side of the invaders, no matter how glorious their faith might be.



I have been taught to support the truth and truth only. I would support my enemy's son and not my brother if i think my enemy's son is right. I don't mind living under the leadership of non-muslim ruler as long as he is an honest man. But here its completely otherway around.

I don't support anyone blindly........... I have been taught to support the Honest man only and not anybody who is from my city/country

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RobbieS

Asim Aquil said:


> *Daekho Yeh Hai Sindh Yahaan Zalim Dahir Ka Tola Tha,
> Yaheen Mohammed Bin Qasim Allah-o-Akber Bola Tha,
> Tooti Hoi Talwaroun Mein Kya Bijli Thee Kya Shola Tha,
> Gintee Kay Kuch Ghazi They Lakhon Ka Lashker Tola Tha,
> Yahaan Kay Zarray Zarray Mein Ab Doulat Hay Emaan Ki,
> Iss Ki Khatir Ham Ne Di Qurbani Lakhon Jaan Ki
> Pakistan Zindabad! Pakistan Zindabad!*



History or in this case historical poems, are written by the victors. Aren't they?


----------



## Hyde

RobbieS said:


> Pro-India parties are popular in Pakistan? Damn, I never knew we had so much influence amongst the common masses of Pakistan!



Unfortunately thats truth. We have so many peoples (political) who are willing to support foreign elements just for the sake of some $$$.

ANP had a dream of seperate NWFP once upon a time or wanted to merge with Afghanistan. That has become history now - They are the one who always discouraged the idea of Kalabagh dam along with Sindh (and Sindh has a valid reason too).

I don't don't like anybody from this party


----------



## Awesome

It is no hidden fact that the heroes on Pakistan's side are always the villains on the Indian side and vice versa. 

If you read Akbar's stories, In Pakistan Faizi and Fazal are the heroes, and in India Birbal is the hero, sometimes the others are villains. One must always learn to separate romanticism and propaganda out of these tales.


----------



## RobbieS

Zaki said:


> I have been taught to support the truth and truth only. I would support my enemy's son and not my brother if i think my enemy's son is right. I don't mind living under the leadership of non-muslim ruler as long as he is an honest man. But here its completely otherway around.
> 
> I don't support anyone blindly........... I have been taught to support the Honest man only and not anybody who is from my city/country



Lovely idealistic thoughts. I couldn't agree more. 

But here's where ancient historical events come into the picture. The Arabs as we know were invaders. They captured an area equal to half the known world including Sindh through bloodshed. Now as history (more so for ancient history as it happened much earlier) is written by the victors and as such glorifies them. Even if my ruler was cruel and attacked their caravans (allegedly) they would still remain as invaders. And being invaders I'd suspect them to come up with excuses for invasions.


----------



## RobbieS

Asim Aquil said:


> It is no hidden fact that the heroes on Pakistan's side are always the villains on the Indian side and vice versa.
> 
> If you read Akbar's stories, In Pakistan Faizi and Fazal are the heroes, and in India Birbal is the hero, sometimes the others are villains. One must always learn to separate romanticism and propaganda out of these tales.



Birbal is nowhere counted as a hero. Much less a military one. He is mentioned as court noble famous for his wit. And yes we are taught about Faizi and Fazal but nowhere in a negative way.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hyde

Asim Aquil said:


> It is no hidden fact that the heroes on Pakistan's side are always the villains on the Indian side and vice versa.
> 
> If you read Akbar's stories, In Pakistan Faizi and Fazal are the heroes, and in India Birbal is the hero, sometimes the others are villains. One must always learn to separate romanticism and propaganda out of these tales.



Very true 

Aurangzaib is considered as a hero among common Pakistanis and villain in India. All Muslim invaders like Muhammad bin Qasim, Sultan Mahmood Ghaznvi are considered heros in Pakistan and Villain in India. 

And not to forget Krishna Raja ("Hyder Ali" - Father of Tipu Sultan defeated him) is considered Villain in Pakistan and Hero in India

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Areesh

Ignoring the lame troll by the indian members I want to talk about this jerk named as Haji Adeel. 

We have seen many suicide attacks in Pakistan but aren't we lucky enough to see a single suicide attack on this idiot Haji Adeel. First he said BS about Pakistan, then he said some thing about Quaid e Azam and later apologize for it and now this Muhammad Bin Qasim rant. I want to see him killed. Enough is enough. 



Sorry I may sound very rude but I want to see this guys either out of Pakistan or his grave in Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shining eyes

> Lovely idealistic thoughts. I couldn't agree more.
> 
> But here's where ancient historical events come into the picture. The Arabs as we know were invaders. They captured an area equal to half the known world including Sindh through bloodshed. Now as history (more so for ancient history as it happened much earlier) is written by the victors and as such glorifies them. Even if my ruler was cruel and attacked their caravans (allegedly) they would still remain as invaders. And being invaders I'd suspect them to come up with excuses for invasion


green part so true 
they also bashed their enemies and sheded the blood of their enemies(armies) cz u cant win a practical military battle without bloodshed!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RobbieS

Zaki said:


> Very true
> 
> And not to forget Krishna Raja ("Hyder Ali" - Father of Tipu Sultan defeated him) is considered Villain in Pakistan and Hero in India



Wrong again. Check your sources my friend. Hyder Ali is not shown as a villain in India. We had a TV show on DD on Tipu Sultan where Hyder ALi was shown as a patriot and a military genius. That would hardly happen in a national govt. owned broadcaster if he was considered a villain. 

But I must add, certain sections of the Keralite community, do consider him as a villain as he allegedly destroyed a lot of non-Islamic religious places during his invasion of Kerala.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## RobbieS

shining eyes said:


> green part so true
> they also bashed their enemies and sheded the blood of their enemies(armies) cz u cant win a practical military battle without bloodshed!!



Yup. In that regard I am sure you identify with Alexander of Macedonia as well. He also killed a lot of your own people in the Punjab and Swat during his invasions. He defeated the pagan Porous as well. Oh, by the way Alexander was a Pagan as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Raghu

Zaki said:


> Very true
> 
> 
> And not to forget Krishna Raja ("Hyder Ali" - Father of Tipu Sultan defeated him) is considered Villain in Pakistan and Hero in India



Nobodys know which Krishna Raja u talking about and where u learned this aspect.

But let me tell u ,both Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan are celebrated as heroes in India.We made TV serial on Tipu Sultan which was very popular . An Indian businessman called Vijay Malaya(a Hindu) spend three million $$ to win an auction of Tipu Sultans sword and brought it Bangalore.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hyde

RobbieS said:


> Wrong again. Check your sources my friend. Hyder Ali is not shown as a villain in India. We had a TV show on DD on Tipu Sultan where Hyder ALi was shown as a patriot and a military genius. That would hardly happen in a national govt. owned broadcaster if he was considered a villain.
> 
> But I must add, certain sections of the Keralite community, do consider him as a villain as he allegedly destroyed a lot of non-Islamic religious places during his invasion of Kerala.



well this post you had two different opinions of two different peoples of india. One thinks he is Villain and second take it as hero......... ok i accept that

Now what do you say about Krishna Raja? whom Hyder Ali defated?

and when was i wrong before?


----------



## Awesome

RobbieS said:


> Birbal is nowhere counted as a hero. Much less a military one. He is mentioned as court noble famous for his wit. And yes we are taught about Faizi and Fazal but nowhere in a negative way.


I've heard otherwise... 

Anyway, by any counts, Dahir can't be counted as a Hero, simply because he was an evil man. His power was usurped, upon conquest of Aror and Lower Sindh - he ruled over a Buddhist majority imposing rituals of Hinduism.

Mohammad Bin Qasim was just better, had a more organized and better equipped force to defeat Dahir's huge army and of course since the locals were disgruntled, he even had local help.

Mohammad Bin Qasim, by standards of those days showed too much leniency to the point where his methods of leniency were often questioned by his superiors. Especially for his declaration for sparing those who put down their arms (back then you even had to pledge to fight in the way of your conqueror, not just surrender).

It was a different time. Some might say his tales were heroic. He did what others failed before him (someone mentioned 14 times?) and as far as I remember I think his expedition was deemed just as hopeless as Arabs were losing their heart to fight in South Asia. Who knows, if he would've lost, Shahabuddin Ghauri might not have dared to go into battle with Prithvi Raj. 

Prithvi Raj's Tales I'm told are almost demigod like. 

None of these people are heroes in the modern day Superman sense. They just had an effect on history that brought a positive change from the Pakistani perspective.


----------



## Hyde

Raghu said:


> Nobodys know which Krishna Raja u talking about and where u learned this aspect.



Before Hyder Ali became a King he was a general in his kingdom. Hyder Ali joined his army as a soldier and due to his abilities got promotions and eventually became a General of Mysore .

Thats a long story and i will mention briefly if you further insist 

And thats off topic so lets stick to Raja Dahir and Muhammad bin Qasim


----------



## RobbieS

Zaki said:


> well this post you had two different opinions of two different peoples of india. One thinks he is Villain and second take it as hero......... ok i accept that


Thats what you call plurality. Dont expect everybody to have the same opinion do you. Just like the ANP and you differ on Raja Dahar. 



> Now what do you say about Krishna Raja? whom Hyder Ali defated?


 I haven't read about Hyder Ali's conflict with Krishna Raja. If anything, it was a domestic dispute between two Indians and they sorted it our amongst themselves through violent means, unfortunately. And how is this similar to Qasim and Raja Dahar?



> and when was i wrong before?



Sorry, lost count of the times you were wrong about things in this thread.  Kidding. I think I was talking about your views on foreign invaders v/s local rulers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hyde

Asim Aquil said:


> It was a different time. Some might say his tales were heroic. *He did what others failed before him (someone mentioned 14 times?)* and as far as I remember I think his expedition was deemed just as hopeless as Arabs were losing their heart to fight in South Asia. Who knows, if he would've lost, Shahabuddin Ghauri might not have dared to go into battle with Prithvi Raj.



I think here you are mixing Sultan Mahmood Ghaznvi of Ghazni empire in this story.

Muhammad bin Qasim was the first leader who invaded Sindh.


----------



## Hyde

RobbieS said:


> Thats what you call plurality. Dont expect everybody to have the same opinion do you. Just like the ANP and you differ on Raja Dahar.
> 
> I haven't read about Hyder Ali's conflict with Krishna Raja. If anything, it was a domestic dispute between two Indians and they sorted it our amongst themselves through violent means, unfortunately. And how is this similar to Qasim and Raja Dahar?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, lost count of the times you were wrong about things in this thread.  Kidding. I think I was talking about your views on foreign invaders v/s local rulers.



from your discussion i can sense anybody who was born in India is considered Hero in Indian history and any foreign invader (no matter if he was right or wrong) is considered Villain


----------



## RobbieS

Asim Aquil said:


> I've heard otherwise...
> 
> Anyway, by any counts, Dahir can't be counted as a Hero, simply because he was an evil man. His power was usurped, upon conquest of Aror and Lower Sindh - he ruled over a Buddhist majority imposing rituals of Hinduism.
> 
> Mohammad Bin Qasim was just better, had a more organized and better equipped force to defeat Dahir's huge army and of course since the locals were disgruntled, he even had local help.
> 
> Mohammad Bin Qasim, by standards of those days showed too much leniency to the point where his methods of leniency were often questioned by his superiors. Especially for his declaration for sparing those who put down their arms (back then you even had to pledge to fight in the way of your conqueror, not just surrender).
> 
> It was a different time. Some might say his tales were heroic. He did what others failed before him (someone mentioned 14 times?) and as far as I remember I think his expedition was deemed just as hopeless as Arabs were losing their heart to fight in South Asia. Who knows, if he would've lost, Shahabuddin Ghauri might not have dared to go into battle with Prithvi Raj.
> 
> Prithvi Raj's Tales I'm told are almost demigod like.
> 
> None of these people are heroes in the modern day Superman sense. They just had an effect on history that brought a positive change from the Pakistani perspective.



I dont count Dahar as a hero, ANP does. I was just trying to examine the reasons for choosing a foreign invader as a hero over your own ruler, apart from religious preferences of course.

And you are right, Prithvi Raj is sort of a hero in Indian history. Again not the religious angle but more like the invader v/s native defender angle. A la Alexander v/s Porus.


----------



## Raghu

Zaki said:


> *Who told Raja Dehar to capture the passing ship of Muslims and abduct Muslim mens, womens and the Muslim childrens?* *That was key reason of his invasion to Sindh. One of the Muslim women somehow managed to write a letter to the general i think "Hajjaj bin Yousuf" and later on one group was formed to invade Sindh and to release peoples of that caravan*.
> 
> It was all Raja's fault. Muhammad bin Qasim was probably 16 years old or something like that and there is a long story why he was chosen to lead.....................
> 
> Close this stupid thread please



There several versions to this theory that he captured Muslim mens, womens and the Muslim children .I've given two writers who clearly dispute this accusations before .I'm giving one more writer who too disputes this aspect .Keep it mind that these are all good Muslims of Pakistan.


Pakistan News Service - PakTribune

*No Tombstone for the Hero?*
Monday February 22, 2010 (1455 PST)
Anwaar Hussain 


The text books that are taught to Pakistani children recount exploits of numerous past Muslim heroes in them. Standing tall amongst these heroes is one Arab by the name of Muhammad bin Qasim, born on 31 December 695 in the city of Taif in modern day Saudi Arabia.

Following are just some of the tokens of Pakistanis&#8217; veneration for their hero.

He is sometimes called &#8220;the first Pakistani&#8221;. Port Qasim, Pakistan&#8217;s second major port is named in his honor. PNS Qasim is the name of a Pakistani Naval ship. Pakistan Army Aviation&#8217;s home base is called Qasim Base. Qasim is a fairly common first name for Pakistani male children. The day of Yom-e-Babul Islam is observed each year in Pakistan in memory of Muhammad bin Qasim.

Now let us see what we are told about this hero and what we are not.

We are told that Muhammad bin Qasim was an Umayyad general who conquered the Sindh and Punjab regions, now a part of Pakistan, along the Indus River. That at the tender age of just seventeen, he was sent by Caliph Al-Walid-I to lead an army towards South Asia to release Muslim women and children who were kidnapped by the Hindu Raja of the time. That it was due to his conquest of Sindh and Punjab that the era of Islamic rule in South Asia was first launched in real earnest. This much we are told. This much Pakistani children are supposed to memorize and be examined in.

*What we are not told is that the kidnapping event of women and children, though a historical happening by itself, may have been only a part of the legend. That the Umayyad interest in the region may have stemmed more 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, than any thing else. That on certain earlier occasions too, they had unsuccessfully sought to gain control of the route, via the Khyber Pass, from the Turki-Shahis of Gandhara. That by taking Sindh, Gandhara&#8217;s southern neighbor, they were ultimately able to open a second front against the Gandhara*.


*We are also not told some of the other possible reasons for this campaign. That the locals of the region had targeted Sassanid shipping in the past, from the mouth of the Tigris to the Sri Lankan coast, from their bases at Kutch, Debal and Kathiawar. That the real reason of the campaign may have been purely economic in which the kidnapping of women and children was but one fateful act of these semi-nomadic tribes whose activities disturbed much of the Empire&#8217;s shipping trade in the Western Indian Ocean. That the kidnapping incident only provided a &#8216;just&#8217; reason to the rising power of the Umayyad Caliphate to gain a foothold in the Makran, Baluchistan and Sindh regions&#8211;an area that the Empire builders had been eyeing for a rather long time by then. That one other possible reason for the campaign could be the policy of the local tribes of providing refuge to Sassanid and Arab rebels who fled the Arab advance and the accompanied Umayyad persecution in a quest to consolidate their rule. This we are not told.*


We are told that he treated most kindly his new subjects when he became their governor. *What we are not told is that where resistance was strong, long-drawn-out and rigorous, Muhammad bin Qasim&#8217;s response was rather ruthless. By credible accounts, he inflicted 6,000 deaths at Rawar, between 6,000 and 26,000 at Brahmanabad, 4,000 at Iskalandah and 6,000 at Multan. And that he built many mosques upon the sites of razed Hindu temples*.


We are told that his nemesis Raja Dahir was a cruel and unjust ruler and was involved in piracy. That he was the one that kidnapped and tortured the women and children and refused to recant. That he was an immoral man who married his own sister.

*What we are not told is that Raja Dahir is also admired by many present day Sindhi Sunni and Shia Muslims. That he had given shelter in Sindh to a well-known follower of Imam Hussian, Muhammad Bin Allafi&#8211;a man much sought by the Umayyad in their deadly hunt for eliminating the last of the Ahl-e-Bait (Prophet Muhammad&#8217;s immediate family). That, according to some very believable sources, Dahir had even offered asylum to Hussain ibn Ali, the grandson of Prophet Mohammed, who was being persecuted at home. That as a result of this offer, Hussain was on his way to Sindh when he was seized at Karbala in Iraq and killed most viciously. That according to G.M. Syed, the grand old man of Sindh, &#8220;the Sindhis weep for Hussain ibn Ali and they weep for Raja Dahir Sen.&#8221; This we are not told.*

But above all what we are not told is the manner of this hero&#8217;s death and the events leading up to the occasion.

Chachnama is an authentic document that recounts the history of Sindh in great details. It tells of an intriguing yet widely believed tale of Muhammad bin Qasim&#8217;s death.

According to this account, when Raja Dahir was killed in the battlefield, his daughters were captured as war booty in the Islamic tradition. The Governor, Muhammad bin Qasim, then sent them as &#8216;presents&#8217; to the Caliph of the time Khalifa Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik, to become a part of his vast harem. According to the narration, the women tricked the Khalifa into believing that Muhammad bin Qasim had violated them before sending them on. The Khalifa got so incensed for having been sent &#8216;tainted&#8217; gifts that he ordered Muhammad bin Qasim to be wrapped in oxen hides and returned to Syria, his exploits not withstanding. The journey resulted in his death from suffocation. This version attributes the women&#8217;s motive for the ploy to exacting vengeance for their father&#8217;s death. It also states that upon discovering the trick after the death of Muhammad bin Qasim, the Khalifa deeply repented his action and ordered the sisters buried alive in a wall as a punishment.

The Persian historian Baladhuri, however, states that the Khalifa Abd al-Malik was a political enemy of Umayyad governor Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, Muhammad bin Qasim&#8217;s paternal uncle. He persecuted all those who were considered close to Hajjaj after his death. Muhammad bin Qasim was therefore recalled in the midst of a campaign of capturing more territory up north. An honorable man, he reported to his Caliph despite his loyal friends dissuading him from it. Upon arrival, he was promptly imprisoned in Mosul, Iraq. Intensely cruel torture on him started immediately afterwards. So severe was this torture that Muhammad bin Qasim breathed his last during the most extreme of sessions one hot July afternoon.

Whichever account is true, we are told none of these.

Two facts, however, remain undisputed. He was 22 years old when he was killed by his own Caliph. None have read the tombstone marking his grave for none know where he lies.

No Tombstone for the Hero? | Truth Spring

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RobbieS

Zaki said:


> from your discussion i can sense anybody who was born in India is considered Hero in Indian history and any foreign invader (no matter if he was right or wrong) is considered Villain



Absolutely. Don't find anything wrong with that. 

The reason for that is not hard to understand, if you try. Historical events are seldom seen with a neutral eye. Hence Its best to support your own against an invader, however good intentioned he might be.


----------



## Marxist

Muhammad Bin Qasim got a violent death is that true?
i heard that daughters of Raja Dahir done revenge i don know the full story.


----------



## Hyde

Raghu said:


> Your post



The keywords in this post i notice are,

May, possible =============== and the myth continues 

Some peoples just want publicity.............. As we say in urdu "Jitnay log utni batain". The view i shared in my earlier posts is the most common view in history. Majority of the peoples believes Raja Darh kidnapped the whole Muslim caravan and that laid the foundations of the invasion on Sindh. As last time i read "The majority rules"


----------



## bc040400065

Raghu said:


> *Its a Book written by GM Syed,the Grand old man of Sindh.*
> 
> G. M. Syed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



GM syed was same as ANP or Haji adeel .... they just cannot dijest pakistan as reality...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RobbieS

Zaki said:


> *As last time i read "The majority rules"*



Too lame an argument for a senior member.


----------



## jbond197

Zaki said:


> *Who told Raja Dehar to capture the passing ship of Muslims and abduct Muslim mens, womens and the Muslim childrens?*



That is all a made up story. Lots of Sindhis does not agree with this story...


----------



## Hyde

Adolf Hitler said:


> Muhammad Bin Qasim got a violent death is that true?
> i heard that daughters of Raja Dahir done revenge i don know the full story.



i don't know if they were daughters of the raja dehr or somebody else. They were 2 in total and accused Muhammad Bin Qasim for raping her or trying to rape her something like that and the Muslim ruler ordered to hang him (covered him in something i can't remember) so he was dead. Later on one of the girl felt bad and accepted that she lied before and Muhammad bin Qasim was a good and innocent man. There was no such incident took place among them so the ruler killed both girls also.

Muhammad bin Qasim was very young when he died probably not even reached in his 20s if i am not wrong.

Its a long story One of the official ran to the place where he was to be killed to save him but when he reached he saw the corpse of qasim. If he had reached a while before it was possible he may have survived........... Very emotional story if you read in depth - i just touched the ending part of that story very briefly

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bc040400065

Adolf Hitler said:


> Muhammad Bin Qasim got a violent death is that true?
> i heard that daughters of Raja Dahir done revenge i don know the full story.



totally wrong... Muhammad bin Qasim died in Iraq not in sind so no chance of Dahar's daughters revenge story..


----------



## RobbieS

Adolf Hitler said:


> Muhammad Bin Qasim got a violent death is that true?
> i heard that daughters of Raja Dahir done revenge i don know the full story.



I think he died an old man. Or was that Khalid-bin Walid?


----------



## Kinetic

Zaki said:


> *when i read the title of this thread i knew some indian member would have created this nonsense/idiotic thread*
> 
> Muhammad bin Qasim was a great leader of Islam who (in his teenage) defeated Cruel Raja Dehr. Chapter Closed



Defending his own country from the offender is called cruelty? *Sindh was rich and peaceful at that time.* 



Zaki said:


> i don't know if they were daughters of the raja dehr or somebody else. They were 2 in total and accused Muhammad Bin Qasim for raping her or trying to rape her something like that and the Muslim ruler ordered to hang him (covered him in something i can't remember) so he was dead. Later on one of the girl felt bad and accepted that she lied before and Muhammad bin Qasim was a good and innocent man. There was no such incident took place among them so the ruler killed both girls also.
> 
> Muhammad bin Qasim was very young when he died probably not even reached in his 20s if i am not wrong.
> 
> Its a long story One of the official ran to the place where he was to be killed to save him but when he reached he saw the corpse of qasim. If he had reached a while before it was possible he may have survived........... Very emotional story if you read in depth - i just touched the ending part of that story very briefly



Rite. He was only 20 at the time of his death.


----------



## Hyde

RobbieS said:


> Too lame an argument for a senior member.



oh i thought Majority rules  is it not the case in India? Sorry i was mistaken 



jbond197 said:


> That is all a made up story. Lots of Sindhis does not agree with this story...



Which sindhi are you talking about....... ever met with a sindhi?


----------



## Raghu

Adolf Hitler said:


> Muhammad Bin Qasim got a violent death is that true?
> i heard that daughters of Raja Dahir done revenge i don know the full story.



*There are two counts as put by Anwaar Hussain in the above article.*

According to this account, when Raja Dahir was killed in the battlefield, his daughters were captured as war booty in the Islamic tradition. The Governor, Muhammad bin Qasim, then sent them as presents to the Caliph of the time Khalifa Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik, to become a part of his vast harem. According to the narration, the women tricked the Khalifa into believing that Muhammad bin Qasim had violated them before sending them on. The Khalifa got so incensed for having been sent tainted gifts that he ordered Muhammad bin Qasim to be wrapped in oxen hides and returned to Syria, his exploits not withstanding. The journey resulted in his death from suffocation. This version attributes the womens motive for the ploy to exacting vengeance for their fathers death. It also states that upon discovering the trick after the death of Muhammad bin Qasim, the Khalifa deeply repented his action and ordered the sisters buried alive in a wall as a punishment.

The Persian historian Baladhuri, however, states that the Khalifa Abd al-Malik was a political enemy of Umayyad governor Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, Muhammad bin Qasims paternal uncle. He persecuted all those who were considered close to Hajjaj after his death. Muhammad bin Qasim was therefore recalled in the midst of a campaign of capturing more territory up north. An honorable man, he reported to his Caliph despite his loyal friends dissuading him from it. Upon arrival, he was promptly imprisoned in Mosul, Iraq. Intensely cruel torture on him started immediately afterwards. So severe was this torture that Muhammad bin Qasim breathed his last during the most extreme of sessions one hot July afternoon.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hyde

RobbieS said:


> I think he died an old man. Or was that Khalid-bin Walid?



The funny thing is that i am debating with those peoples who does not know anything about Qasim or Raja dahr 

Yes that was Khalid bin Walid and not Muhammad bin Qasim

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jbond197

Zaki said:


> *ANP is very popular as pro-india party and sometimes also pro-afghanistan party*. Because of them we could not even make dams like Kalabagh and suffering from water crisis too. That is the worst political party of Pakistan.
> 
> They are like Bal Thakery of India in my eyes



But they are elected by the people of Pakistan in NWFP. So you mean the say all the electorate in NWFP is anti pakistan and pro india. Raja Dahir has the respect in Sindh which he ruled once so people of sindh probably know better about him then you and me. Now please don't call Sindhis as well Pro India. 

I don't understand the logic that if some body does not agree to the views of Punjabies they become anti pakistan and pro india.


----------



## RobbieS

Zaki said:


> oh i thought Majority rules  is it not the case in India? Sorry i was mistaken



Now down to trolling, huh Zaki bhai? What can I say? Hope no senior member on this forum has to see this day, when he is at a loss for logical arguments and has to stoop to trolling. Chalo koi naa..We are all humans, galtiyan hoti hain...!


----------



## bc040400065

jbond197 said:


> That is all a made up story. Lots of Sindhis does not agree with this story...



How can u claim this.... Have u ever been to sind?? how can u speak for "Lots of Sindis" ...?


----------



## Huda

which story??


----------



## Hyde

jbond197 said:


> But they are elected by the people of Pakistan in NWFP. So you mean the say all the electorate in NWFP is anti pakistan and pro india. Raja Dahir has the respect in Sindh which he ruled once so people of sindh probably know better about him then you and me. Now please don't call Sindhis as well Pro India.
> 
> I don't understand the logic that if some body does not agree to the views of Punjabies they become anti pakistan and pro india.



yeah u just thought/assumed Sindhis consider him as a great leader right? Bhai Sindh is a part of Pakistan and I am a Pakistani and i know Sindh 1000 times better than you. I have met Sindhis personally i know their views on each and every major issue. None of the Sindhi i have met so far who praised Raja Dahr ever. One of the key reason is that when they go to schools they study the story of Muhammad bin Qasim and Raja Dahr in Class 3 or 4. So this is something put in their minds in childhood that Raja Dahr was a villain and Qasim a hero.

There has been regular speaches all across Pakistan where the teachers regularly repeat this story upto (defeat of Raja Dahr) in different lectures.

So you just assumed Raja Dahr is a Hero according to Sindhi peoples


----------



## Areesh

jbond197 said:


> But they are elected by the people of Pakistan in NWFP. So you mean the say all the electorate in NWFP is anti pakistan and pro india. Raja Dahir has the respect in Sindh which he ruled once so people of sindh probably know better about him then you and me. Now please don't call Sindhis as well Pro India.
> 
> I don't understand the logic that if some body does not agree to the views of Punjabies they become anti pakistan and pro india.




I live in the biggest city of Sindh and atleast I didn't met single person who loves this Raja. And as far as ANP is concerned they are a bunch of idiots who aren't much respected in Pushtoons. I have seen many pushtoons herein Karachi using very "noble" language for ANP and it's leader ship and I am pretty sure that this is the last time we are witnessing them in the national assembly of Pakistan. They just earned some popularity because of their anti musharraf stance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raghu

Zaki said:


> The keywords in this post i notice are,
> 
> May, possible =============== and the myth continues
> 
> Some peoples just want publicity.............. As we say in urdu "Jitnay log utni batain". The view i shared in my earlier posts is the most common view in history. Majority of the peoples believes Raja Darh kidnapped the whole Muslim caravan and that laid the foundations of the invasion on Sindh. As last time i read "The majority rules"



Zaki,
"The majority rules" reminds me of a saying in Odiya that goes like "Tini tundere chelli Kukura " means ...if three guys insist a sheep is infact a dog,than the minority one may start doubting the same.

History book is written not by common man but by historians and it purely defend the Govt what version of history it wants remain in circulation

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hyde

huda said:


> which story??



Huda jee tell them please did u read the story of Raja Dahr and Muhammad bin Qasim in School? and in which class did you read? i forgot now i left Pakistan when i was in class 6


----------



## Awesome

Adolf Hitler said:


> Muhammad Bin Qasim got a violent death is that true?
> i heard that daughters of Raja Dahir done revenge i don know the full story.


When the new Khalifa tookover, he wanted to eliminate all his opponents from the previous administration. He killed a lot of people from the old gang, and Mohammad Bin Qasim was just one of them.

The story about the daughters claiming to be defiled... Sounds more like Hindu folklore, some self balming type of thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## bc040400065

jbond197 said:


> But they are elected by the people of Pakistan in NWFP. So you mean the say all the electorate in NWFP is anti pakistan and pro india. Raja Dahir has the respect in Sindh which he ruled once so people of sindh probably know better about him then you and me. Now please don't call Sindhis as well Pro India.
> 
> I don't understand the logic that if some body does not agree to the views of Punjabies they become anti pakistan and pro india.



ANP got only 15% of the total cast vote in last election in NWFP... so it does not represent the majority of NWFP's population... and this 15% was also made possible because of boycot by some other parties which have great vote bank in NWFP.... And mind it u have nothing to do with pathan punjabi or sindi ,,, so first go and solve ur mirathi, UP, punjabi , Asami, etc etc etc issues...


----------



## RobbieS

pak-yes said:


> Robbie bro one thing i must tell you.You cannot separate Islam and Pakistan.And this fact is not only on the forum but also in the real world.



I understand bro. But it kind of perplexes me. Does it mean Pakistanis would support Islamic personalities and what they seem as true flag bearers of their faith even at the cost of their own people? Is that the reason why a number of Pakistanis support hardcore organizations like the TTP or other Taliban offshoots and kill their own people? I have no flaming intentions bro. You'd know me better than that. This is just a question that I am looking an answer to.


----------



## Hyde

Areesh said:


> I live in the biggest city of Sindh and atleast I didn't met single person who loves this Raja. And as far as ANP is concerned they are a bunch of idiots who aren't much respected in Pushtoons. I have seen many pushtoons herein Karachi using very "noble" language for ANP and it's leader ship and I am pretty sure that this is the last time we are witnessing them in the national assembly of Pakistan. They just earned some popularity because of their anti musharraf stance.



Exactly they are bal thakery of Pakistan. Always say somethign illogical. They just want publicity so they always come up with weird thoughts. The only difference between ANP and Shiv Sena is... Shiv Sena is loyal to their country but ANP is pro-India (in my humble opinion)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hyde

Asim Aquil said:


> When the new Khalifa tookover, he wanted to eliminate all his opponents from the previous administration. He killed a lot of people from the old gang, and Mohammad Bin Qasim was just one of them.
> 
> The story about the daughters claiming to be defiled... Sounds more like Hindu folklore, some self balming type of thing.



Yes this is also one of the reasons of his death

Agreed


----------



## My-Analogous

Prometheus said:


> plz give answer with arguement.



Well in our history Shiva Jee Rao was a thieve and in your history it is hero and i thing you are mature enough to understand what i mean to say


----------



## Awesome

RobbieS said:


> I was just trying to examine the reasons for choosing a foreign invader as a hero over your own ruler, apart from religious preferences of course.



Hmmm as stated before Dahir was an evil man, a conqueror himself over the local Buddhists of Sindh. Also 1000 years on, the genetics of his invasion are probably seeded in and deeply intricate within the South Asian population so the idea of him being considered a foreigner is something that may serve Indian point of view of Hindu Raj being the only appropriate raj but the subcontinent.

Anyway, the idea as explained before, if he never showed that conquest was ever possible, then perhaps there wouldn't have been subsequent conquests of India - perhaps there wouldn't have been a Pakistan even. He plays his role in the formation of Pakistan and in this creation tale of Pakistan, Dahir was the antagonist.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Desert Fox

RobbieS said:


> The way Pakistanis on this forum embrace everything that is Arab in the name of Islam and even at the cost of their own heroes/personalities never ceases to amaze me. It seems like they are pretty eager to neglect their own and accept everything that was brought by the Arabs, the carriers of the Islamic faith to the subcontinent. Perhaps thats the way history was taught to the average Pakistani.



First of all, Islam is more important to us, Muslim first, then Pakistani!

Secondly, the four Orthodox Caliphs were the Sahaba of the Prophet (pbuh) so we must respect them.

As for us Pakistanis accepting "everything Arab" is a complete joke, though i do agree that there are some Pakistanis that will do anything to make the Arabs happy due to their ignorant thinking that Arabs are a holy and noble race.

I love Islam, but that doesn't mean i want to be Arab! When i look at the state these Arabs have brought themselves into i would never want to be an Arab!

In fact i want my countrymen to get this sort of thinking out of their head that Arabs are our brothers, they back stabbed and the entire Muslim Ummah by betraying the Ottoman Caliphate. Arabs make fun of us, they call us Abeed (meaning slave in Arabic), and they treat us like we're a pile of ****.

The only reason why there is so much religious extremist in Pakistan is because of these Arabs and their strict version of Islam. Burning schools, beating women to death, throwing acid on girls faces, banning education for girls, no rights for women's, and the infamous of them all suicide bombings!

Islam wasn't just for the Arabs, it was for the whole humanity!

Long live Pakistan


----------



## RobbieS

Asim Aquil said:


> Hmmm as stated before Dahir was an evil man, a conqueror himself over the local Buddhists of Sindh. Also 1000 years on, the genetics of his invasion are probably seeded in and deeply intricate within the South Asian population so the idea of him being considered a foreigner is something that may serve Indian point of view of Hindu Raj being the only appropriate raj but the subcontinent.



As far as fighting with the Buddhists, that was a domestic dispute, wasn't it? 

And the rest of your post just shows your inner feelings of antagonism towards Indians and Hindus in general. Thanks for sharing them.


----------



## jbond197

Adolf Hitler said:


> Muhammad Bin Qasim got a violent death is that true?
> i heard that daughters of Raja Dahir done revenge i don know the full story.



Muhammad Bin Qasim died because he violated the 2 daughters of Raja Dahir before sending them to Califf and Califf got angry with this act of him and ordered him dead.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pak-yes

RobbieS said:


> I understand bro. But it kind of perplexes me. Does it mean Pakistanis would support Islamic personalities and what they seem as true flag bearers of their faith even at the cost of their own people? Is that the reason why a number of Pakistanis support hardcore organizations like the TTP or other Taliban offshoots and kill their own people? I have no flaming intentions bro. You'd know me better than that. This is just a question that I am looking an answer to.



First of all how can you say TTP are hardcore Muslims fighting for Islam.Fighters of Islam don't see **** do they.

To tell you the truth apart from some mentioning of harappa and monjadoro in our school books history starts from Muhammad Bin Qasim.

And Robbie you shouldn't be surprised on this.WE ARE NOT SECULAR PEOPLE AND NEITHER IS OUR COUNTRY SECULAR.And yes i agree that we are not taught a good part of history but this fact shouldn't be hard to understand because we are Muslims.

I am Sorry to say but most Indian People seem to forget this line.WE ARE NOT SECULAR our country is based on Islam in the first Place.

And yes when we can take fight with Israel and suffer enormous losses as a result just due to religion then we can also choose our Heroes on Religion this fact shouldn't surprise you.and Specially we Pakistanis are extra emotional when it comes to something called UMMA.

I mean most Pakistani don't even know that there is a place called south India.But even if you ask a kid who was TIPU SULTAN he will tell you the whole ABC.


----------



## xenia

Raghu said:


> *No Tombstone for the Hero?*
> Monday February 22, 2010 (1455 PST)
> Anwaar Hussain
> 
> 
> The text books that are taught to Pakistani children recount exploits of numerous past Muslim heroes in them. Standing tall amongst these heroes is one Arab by the name of Muhammad bin Qasim, born on 31 December 695 in the city of Taif in modern day Saudi Arabia.
> 
> Following are just some of the tokens of Pakistanis veneration for their hero.
> 
> He is sometimes called the first Pakistani. Port Qasim, Pakistans second major port is named in his honor. PNS Qasim is the name of a Pakistani Naval ship. Pakistan Army Aviations home base is called Qasim Base. Qasim is a fairly common first name for Pakistani male children. The day of Yom-e-Babul Islam is observed each year in Pakistan in memory of Muhammad bin Qasim.
> 
> Now let us see what we are told about this hero and what we are not.
> 
> We are told that Muhammad bin Qasim was an Umayyad general who conquered the Sindh and Punjab regions, now a part of Pakistan, along the Indus River. That at the tender age of just seventeen, he was sent by Caliph Al-Walid-I to lead an army towards South Asia to release Muslim women and children who were kidnapped by the Hindu Raja of the time. That it was due to his conquest of Sindh and Punjab that the era of Islamic rule in South Asia was first launched in real earnest. This much we are told. This much Pakistani children are supposed to memorize and be examined in.
> 
> What we are not told is that the kidnapping event of women and children, though a historical happening by itself, may have been only a part of the legend. That the Umayyad interest in the region may have stemmed more 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, than any thing else.



what a story made up of assumptions...we can all become real great historians by following this style...
the umayyads were not interested in the region at that time..they were already caught in south east n other expeditions..it was hujjaj bin yousaf who tried to convince caliph waleed n he was not very positive about the outcome n this was the reason hujjaj had to chose such a young man (his nephew n son in law) for the expedition..




> *We are also not told some of the other possible reasons for this campaign. That the locals of the region had targeted Sassanid shipping in the past, from the mouth of the Tigris to the Sri Lankan coast, from their bases at Kutch, Debal and Kathiawar. That the real reason of the campaign may have been purely economic in which the kidnapping of women and children was but one fateful act of these semi-nomadic tribes whose activities disturbed much of the Empires shipping trade in the Western Indian Ocean. That the kidnapping incident only provided a just reason to the rising power of the Umayyad Caliphate to gain a foothold in the Makran, Baluchistan and Sindh regionsan area that the Empire builders had been eyeing for a rather long time by then. That one other possible reason for the campaign could be the policy of the local tribes of providing refuge to Sassanid and Arab rebels who fled the Arab advance and the accompanied Umayyad persecution in a quest to consolidate their rule. This we are not told.[/B]*


*

was there any actual umayyad route passing through the area except the rather rar shipping to present day srilanka..n the seas of ship inhibited those looters, muslims were justified in their attack for this sole reason, let alone the kidnaps (read international law)
actually this man was not told anything thats why he grew up a retard





What we are not told is that Raja Dahir is also admired by many present day Sindhi Sunni and Shia Muslims.

Click to expand...


now he starts this sunni shia crap..not making any sense




That he had given shelter in Sindh to a well-known follower of Imam Hussian, Muhammad Bin Allafia man much sought by the Umayyad in their deadly hunt for eliminating the last of the Ahl-e-Bait (Prophet Muhammads immediate family). That, according to some very believable sources, Dahir had even offered asylum to Hussain ibn Ali, the grandson of Prophet Mohammed, who was being persecuted at home. That as a result of this offer, Hussain was on his way to Sindh when he was seized at Karbala in Iraq and killed most viciously. That according to G.M. Syed, the grand old man of Sindh, the Sindhis weep for Hussain ibn Ali and they weep for Raja Dahir Sen. This we are not told.

Click to expand...


Raja Dahir , born 679 AD
The Battle of Karbala took place on Muharram 10, in the year 61 of the Islamic calendar (October 10, 680)
paida hotay he naik kam shuru ker diay thay..gimme a stone plz!!






But above all what we are not told is the manner of this heros death and the events leading up to the occasion.

Chachnama is an authentic document that recounts the history of Sindh in great details. It tells of an intriguing yet widely believed tale of Muhammad bin Qasims death.

According to this account, when Raja Dahir was killed in the battlefield, his daughters were captured as war booty in the Islamic tradition. The Governor, Muhammad bin Qasim, then sent them as presents to the Caliph of the time Khalifa Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik, to become a part of his vast harem. According to the narration, the women tricked the Khalifa into believing that Muhammad bin Qasim had violated them before sending them on. The Khalifa got so incensed for having been sent tainted gifts that he ordered Muhammad bin Qasim to be wrapped in oxen hides and returned to Syria, his exploits not withstanding. The journey resulted in his death from suffocation. This version attributes the womens motive for the ploy to exacting vengeance for their fathers death. It also states that upon discovering the trick after the death of Muhammad bin Qasim, the Khalifa deeply repented his action and ordered the sisters buried alive in a wall as a punishment.

The Persian historian Baladhuri, however, states that the Khalifa Abd al-Malik was a political enemy of Umayyad governor Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, Muhammad bin Qasims paternal uncle. He persecuted all those who were considered close to Hajjaj after his death. Muhammad bin Qasim was therefore recalled in the midst of a campaign of capturing more territory up north. An honorable man, he reported to his Caliph despite his loyal friends dissuading him from it. Upon arrival, he was promptly imprisoned in Mosul, Iraq. Intensely cruel torture on him started immediately afterwards. So severe was this torture that Muhammad bin Qasim breathed his last during the most extreme of sessions one hot July afternoon.

Whichever account is true, we are told none of these.

Two facts, however, remain undisputed. He was 22 years old when he was killed by his own Caliph. None have read the tombstone marking his grave for none know where he lies.

Click to expand...

sulman was a selfish sort of person, as noted by many historians, n after his brothers death when he became king he ordered qasim to return n ordered his murder(mind u he had a neza bazi duel thing with qasim in hejaz n got defeated, hence his dislike for him)..later he was convinced to halt his orders n that he did but before the messenger could reach, qasim was already killed..*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## jbond197

bc040400065 said:


> GM syed was same as ANP or Haji adeel .... they just cannot dijest pakistan as reality...



But then don't blame Indians for this as this is the voice of the people who lives in the lands of Pakistan. people can have different opinion and views that is perfectly ok but does that make them anti-pakistani.


----------



## Hyde

xenia said:


> *Raja Dahir , born 679 AD
> The Battle of Karbala took place on Muharram 10, in the year 61 of the Islamic calendar (October 10, 680)
> paida hotay he naik kam shuru ker diay thay..gimme a stone plz!!*



and that confirms the credibility of his source 

Thanks for pointing out i did not read that article only few lines

And i will find nice stones for you  don't worry


----------



## jbond197

Zaki said:


> Which sindhi are you talking about....... ever met with a sindhi?



G.M Syed is Sindhi... right?


----------



## jbond197

bc040400065 said:


> How can u claim this.... Have u ever been to sind?? how can u speak for "Lots of Sindis" ...?



Read G M Syed's Book to enlighten yourself.


----------



## Areesh

jbond197 said:


> But then don't blame Indians for this as this is the voice of the people who lives in the lands of Pakistan. people can have different opinion and views that is perfectly but does that make than anti-pakistani.



The biggest problem with ANP pathetic souls is that they belong to a province which is highly patriotic. They claim to represent a nation(pushtoons) which is highly patriotic. So since they can not forward their anti Pakistan agenda they come forward with such cheap issues to gain some lime light.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jbond197

Zaki said:


> Exactly they are bal thakery of Pakistan. Always say somethign illogical. They just want publicity so they always come up with weird thoughts. The only difference between ANP and Shiv Sena is... Shiv Sena is loyal to their country but ANP is pro-India (in my humble opinion)



Zaki Bhai,

Bal Thackeray is an idiot and for some reason Pakistani people think he is highly popular in India but the fact is quite opposite. He is hated all across India and his popularity is even dying in Maharashtra now. But the point is Shiv sena follows strict Hindu/Marathi ideologies but do you think ANP has some kind of religious ideology. I see ANP as a secular party so why are you comparing ANP with Shiv sena.


----------



## Hyde

jbond197 said:


> G.M Syed is Sindhi... right?



*G M Syed (Sindhi: &#1580;&#1610; &#1575;&#1610;&#1605; &#1587;&#1610;&#1583 was a political leader who pioneered 'Jeay Sindh movement' for the freedom of Sindh from Pakistan. Different Pakistani governments detained G M Syed above thirty years without any trial. Mr. Syed wrote above sixty books.*

Need i say more?


----------



## Areesh

> Raja Dahir , born 679 AD
> The Battle of Karbala took place on Muharram 10, in the year 61 of the Islamic calendar (October 10, 680)
> paida hotay he naik kam shuru ker diay thay..gimme a stone plz!!



Hahaha  So much for the source and it's credibility.


----------



## Hyde

jbond197 said:


> Zaki Bhai,
> 
> Bal Thackeray is an idiot and for some reason Pakistani people think he is highly popular in India but the fact is quite opposite. He is hated all across India and his popularity is even dying in Maharashtra now. But the point is Shiv sena follows strict Hindu/Marathi ideologies but do you think ANP has some kind of religious ideology. I see ANP as a secular party so why are you comparing ANP with Shiv sena.



because ANP is also an idiot party like Shiv Sena  nobody likes them a part from a small groups of peoples in NWFP who knows nothing about politics and more specifically about them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bc040400065

jbond197 said:


> Read G M Syed's Book to enlighten yourself.



G M syed... one man does not represent the whole sind... and G M syed was a rejected man by the people of sind in continuous elections.


----------



## jbond197

Zaki said:


> *G M Syed (Sindhi: &#1580;&#1610; &#1575;&#1610;&#1605; &#1587;&#1610;&#1583 was a political leader who pioneered 'Jeay Sindh movement' for the freedom of Sindh from Pakistan. Different Pakistani governments detained G M Syed above thirty years without any trial. Mr. Syed wrote above sixty books.*
> 
> Need i say more?



But G M syed was a respected political leader from Sindh. 

JSQM celebrated his 15th death anniversary and Addressing the press conference at the media centre after chairing a meeting of JSQM in connection with 15th death anniversary of late G.M.Syed on Thursday, the JSQM Chairman said that his party believed in Syed&#8217;s philosophy and would continue its struggle in a more disciplined manner. He said that people from all over Sindh would converge in Sanh on April 25 to pay tribute to late Syed. 


DAWN.COM | National | JSQM calls for unity of Sindh

See the reason for 'Jeay Sindh movement' 

*GM Syed proposed the Pakistan Resolution, 1940 in the Sindh Assembly, which ultimately resulted in the creation of Pakistan. However, he became the first political prisoner of Pakistan because of his differences with the leadership of the country, as he believed that they had deceived the Sindhis. so in 1971 after getting frustated he started peaceful 'Jeay Sindh movement' *

But this is offtopic. lets stick to the topic now

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bc040400065

jbond197 said:


> But then don't blame Indians for this as this is the voice of the people who lives in the lands of Pakistan. people can have different opinion and views that is perfectly but does that make than anti-pakistani.



its indians who brought up this discussion of Raja Dahar this and that great person etc etc... and one member even posted a article which had disgraceful and realy hurting words about Islamic Caliph... and then the same hindu muslim separation that shows one thing that Quaid-e-azam did the right thing to create pakistan otherwise what would have happened to us... i just cannot even think of it. Thanks GOD we have pakistan...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abhiras

bc040400065 said:


> otherwise what would have happened to us... i just cannot even think of it. Thanks GOD we have pakistan...



Indian Muslims are more happy , more secular & in the better condition then in you are...They are giving their part to make India second fastest major growing economy around the globe.. 

Jab vo ghar se bahur jaate hai,toh bomb fatne kii chinta nhi karte

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Raghu

xenia said:


> Raja Dahir , born 679 AD
> 
> The Battle of Karbala took place on Muharram 10, in the year 61 of the Islamic calendar (October 10, 680)
> paida hotay he naik kam shuru ker diay thay..gimme a stone plz!!




No,my genius friend, may u cross check historical facts before becoming a historian urself or ridicule a columnist of Pakistan Tribune news paper.


Rajah Dahir wasn't born in 679 AD...but its the year in which he became the king of sindh...or the year when his reign had started.

*Infact his father king Chach died in 671 AD*.
Then his brother Chandar (chach's brother) ruled from (671-679)AD

Chach of Alor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Areesh

jbond197 said:


> But G M syed was a respected political leader from Sindh.
> 
> *JSQM celebrated his 15th death anniversary and Addressing the press conference at the media centre after chairing a meeting of JSQM in connection with 15th death anniversary of late G.M.Syed on Thursday, the JSQM Chairman said that his party believed in Syeds philosophy and would continue its struggle in a more disciplined manner.* He said that people from all over Sindh would converge in Sanh on April 25 to pay tribute to late Syed.
> 
> 
> DAWN.COM | National | JSQM calls for unity of Sindh
> 
> See the reason for 'Jeay Sindh movement'
> 
> *GM Syed proposed the Pakistan Resolution, 1940 in the Sindh Assembly, which ultimately resulted in the creation of Pakistan. However, he became the first political prisoner of Pakistan because of his differences with the leadership of the country, as he believed that they had deceived the Sindhis. so in 1971 after getting frustated he started peaceful 'Jeay Sindh movement' *
> 
> But this is offtopic. lets stick to the topic now




You are again playing thee same trumpet. Only some small parties who never won a single seat in the elections do make some seminars or meetings on his death anniversary but as I said these people lack both intellectuality and public support. Only once or twice in a year I hear about this G M Syed only on his birth anniversary or death anniversary.


----------



## Frankenstein

Muhammad Bin Qasim is my hero not this Raja Dahir

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Areesh

Abhiras said:


> Indian Muslims are more happy , more secular & in the better condition then in you are...They are giving their part to make India second fastest major growing economy around the globe..
> 
> Jab vo ghar se bahur jaate hai,toh bomb fatne kii chinta nhi karte



Wo ghar sai jaatai waqt bomb blast ki chinta is liye nahi kartai kiyun kai un kai ghar pehlai hi riots mai jal chukai hotai hain. Woh pehlai hi ghar sai bahar hotai hain.


----------



## rubyjackass

Zaki said:


> *Who told Raja Dehar to capture the passing ship of Muslims and abduct Muslim mens, womens and the Muslim childrens?* That was key reason of his invasion to Sindh. One of the Muslim women somehow managed to write a letter to the general i think "Hajjaj bin Yousuf" and later on one group was formed to invade Sindh and to release peoples of that caravan.
> 
> It was all Raja's fault. Muhammad bin Qasim was probably 16 years old or something like that and there is a* long story* why he was chosen to lead.....................
> 
> Close this stupid thread please



Please post the links for my knowledge.


----------



## Abhiras

Areesh said:


> Wo ghar sai jaatai waqt bomb blast ki chinta is liye nahi kartai kiyun kai un kai ghar pehlai hi riots mai jal chukai hotai hain. Woh pehlai hi ghar sai bahar hotai hain.


i was expecting the typical 'riot' reply from some pakistani members....

Indian muslim represent more then 10% Muslims of the world ..... there are 161 million muslim (1-2yr old estimate)who are proud India(which is almost equal to 174 million which are in your country)

2011 censes of india may show that there are more muslims in india then in Pakistan.....


----------



## rubyjackass

Zaki said:


> well this post you had two different opinions of two different peoples of india. One thinks he is Villain and second take it as hero......... ok i accept that
> 
> Now what do you say about Krishna Raja? whom Hyder Ali defated?
> 
> and when was i wrong before?


 seriously dude. I have never heard of this Krishna Raja guy. But Hyder Ali I know about him well.


----------



## xenia

Raghu said:


> No,my genius friend, may u cross check historical facts before becoming a historian urself or ridicule a columnist of Pakistan Tribune news paper.
> 
> 
> Rajah Dahir wasn't born in 679 AD...but its the year in which he became the king of sindh...or the year when his reign had started.
> 
> *Infact his father king Chach died in 671 AD*.
> Then his brother Chandar (chach's brother) ruled from (671-679)AD
> 
> Chach of Alor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



v funny!!
now u go back n check this

*..."Raja Dahir (Sanskrit: &#2352;&#2366;&#2332;&#2366; &#2342;&#2366;&#2361;&#2367;&#2352;, Sindhi: &#1585;&#1575;&#1580;&#1575; &#1679;&#1575;&#1726;&#1585, born 679 AD  died 712 AD,[1] was the last Hindu ruler situated in Sindh and parts of Punjab in modern day Pakistan. During the beginning of the Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent his kingdom was conquered by Muhammad bin Qasim for the Umayyad Caliphate"*

Dahir (Raja) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hyde

rubyjackass said:


> Please post the links for my knowledge.



Any Urdu/Islamiat book in Primary schools of Pakistan. I am sure i read in either class 3, 4 or 5.

For adults - Read the book of Naseem Hijazi about Muhammad bin Qasim who i believe is the most popular Historian of Pakistan. It has covered almost all major incidents of that time and its a must read book. I would highly recommend if you can read Urdu.


----------



## bc040400065

Abhiras said:


> Indian Muslims are more happy , more secular & in the better condition then in you are...They are giving their part to make India second fastest major growing economy around the globe..
> 
> Jab vo ghar se bahur jaate hai,toh bomb fatne kii chinta nhi karte



yes i can see how happy muslims are in india... Gojrat Massacre was one example of it... and one of your own gov report shows all the details what muslim minority has in india ..i don't remember the name of the comission but i think you should read that... and mind it jab hum bahir jatay hain tu humain bhi kui dar nai huta k indian army humary ghar mai dewar palang k aye gi jasay k kashimir mai huta ha. so mind ur own business...


----------



## Hyde

rubyjackass said:


> seriously dude. I have never heard of this Krishna Raja guy. But Hyder Ali I know about him well.



Well i assume you are not the best historian otherwise. History is/was one of my favourite subject and i have read about Hyder Ali in very detail.


----------



## Raghu

xenia said:


> v funny!!
> now u go back n check this
> 
> *..."Raja Dahir (Sanskrit: &#2352;&#2366;&#2332;&#2366; &#2342;&#2366;&#2361;&#2367;&#2352;, Sindhi: &#1585;&#1575;&#1580;&#1575; &#1679;&#1575;&#1726;&#1585, born 679 AD &#8212; died 712 AD,[1] was the last Hindu ruler situated in Sindh and parts of Punjab in modern day Pakistan. During the beginning of the Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent his kingdom was conquered by Muhammad bin Qasim for the Umayyad Caliphate"*
> 
> Dahir (Raja) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This is wrong information, probably a stupid mistake for taking his start of reign year as his birth year.Wikipidia is editable by anyone.

Here is more credible source,a well researched book written by *Khurram Ali Shafique *, a Pakistani himself.



> *Dahar had the opportunity to rule for a long period over his kingdom - almost forty years (c. 668 - 712 AD). *Over that period his major achievement was to secure law and order in his land by routing the bandits and banishing them to the seas. His major weakness was his foreign policy, specially towards the western borders of his empire where the threat of an Arab invasion was increasing everyday since the Arab occupation of Persia in 635 AD.



*Link*:Dahar

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rubyjackass

Zaki said:


> Well i assume you are not the best historian otherwise. History is/was one of my favourite subject and i have read about Hyder Ali in very detail.


I am interested in history too. That is exactly I studied about Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan. I think you missed my point. This is in regards to your feeling that Krishna Raja is a hero in India. Hyder Ali is a hero for Indians contrary to your belief.

Also plz post some links that I can read. Not some text books available only in Pakistan.


----------



## Hyde

I wonder how peoples are linking Imam Hussain with Raja Dahr 

Indians are great in spreading rumours  (with no offence but its very funny to me)


----------



## Hyde

rubyjackass said:


> I am interested in history too. That is exactly I studied about Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan. I think you missed my point. This is in regards to your feeling that Krishna Raja is a hero in India. Hyder Ali is a hero for Indians contrary to your belief.



those (in india) who knows about both personalities in depth does not like Hyder Ali. Like someone said there is a large population of India who does not like Hyder Ali and other parts of india does.

Let me tell you a brief story:

If Hyder Ali was born in today's Pakistan and done exactly same what he did in his era he may have been considered a military dictator  That is because he overthrown the government of Hindu Raja and established his own Kingdom.

The story is very long but at one stage that Hindu raja that i believe is named as Krishna Raja had ordered to arrest Hyder Ali and one of his Spy (who used to roam around the city disguised as a "FAKEER" a begger man) had already told him about this. He had learnt all ways to exit the city has already been blocked and soon there will be a raid in his house to arrest him. He disguised into other clothes and had to flee the city through the river. Its a long story how he reached other city (i forgot now) and invaded his own raja by through the military power. Its a very long story and i read the whole book on it. But all i can say is those who knows all the facts do consider him a villain in india and Hero to another Hindu raja.

Happens Sir everybody can have their own opinions


----------



## xenia

Raghu said:


> This is wrong information, probably a stupid mistake for taking his start of reign year as his birth year.Wikipidia is editable by anyone.
> *Now his reign started in 681...ok whatever*
> 
> Here is more credible source,a well researched book written by *Khurram Ali Shafique *, a Pakistani himself.
> 
> Dahar had the opportunity to rule for a long period over his kingdom - almost forty years (c. 668 - 712 AD). Over that period his major achievement was to secure law and order in his land by routing the bandits and banishing them to the seas. His major weakness was his foreign policy, specially towards the western borders of his empire where the threat of an Arab invasion was increasing everyday since the Arab occupation of Persia in 635 AD.
> 
> *Link*:Dahar



ok but still it doesnt make any sense nor has any credible historical roots that ha halped Hazrat Imam Hussain (Radiallah Anho)..


----------



## Marxist

Zaki said:


> I wonder how peoples are linking Imam Hussain with Raja Dahr
> 
> Indians are great in spreading rumours  (with no offence but its very funny to me)



GM Syed linked Imam Hussien and Raja Dahr.not Indians


----------



## Areesh

Abhiras said:


> i was expecting the typical 'riot' reply from some pakistani members....
> 
> Indian muslim represent more then 10% Muslims of the world ..... there are 161 million muslim (1-2yr old estimate)who are proud India(which is almost equal to 174 million which are in your country)
> 
> 2011 censes of india may show that there are more muslims in india then in Pakistan.....



Typical answer from an Indian to prove that his ccountry is secular. Sorry it only proves that muslim population is at increase in India. It has nothing to do with the state.


----------



## Raghu

Zaki said:


> I wonder how peoples are linking Imam Hussain with Raja Dahr
> 
> Indians are great in spreading rumours  (with no offence but its very funny to me)



since when GM Syed become an Indian,unless its an accusation.



> The reason for the conquest of Sindh by Ummayyad Imperialism was Raja Dahir's refusal to return Muhammad Bin Allafi, who had taken asylum under Raja Dahir's government. As it was against the social rule of the Sindhis in those days, to return the parsons who had placed themselves under their protection from their enemies. Raja Dahir's tolerance and liberal minded-ness was a well known fact, or account of which people of various religions lived peacefully in Sindh, where Hindus had their temples and Parsis had their fire temples, Buddhists had their pagodas, Muslims had their mosques. The Muslims had settled in Sindh on account of the policy of the Arab rulers. These rulers had difference with the relations of the Prophet, and being intolerant, wanted to kill them. How could this God-fearing ruler return these sheltered people to the cruel and tyrant Arab rulers? *It is said that Imam Hussain (Alahisalam), after being harassed by Yazeed and his followers, wanted to come to Sindhi on the invitation of Raja Dahir. But instead of being given permission to go to Sindhi, he was martyred at Karbala*. The fact is that the Arab Imperialism started during the days of Umer, who had started conquering other countries. This was the fifteenth invasion of Sindh. How in the days of Waleed Bin Abdul Malik, the Arabs succeeded. It will be proper if I elaborate on the fourteenth invasion of Sindh, since the days of Caliph Umer.



A BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF SINDH'S PAST, PRESENT and Future By G M Syed.


----------



## mehru

Does it really matter that some Sindhis or Haji Adeel consider Raja Dahir their hero which is understandable as he was the ruler. This situation is no different from some Pakistani Punjabis who respect Ranjit Singh to this day. This doesn't imply that they all are Anti Pakistanis.
As for Raja Dahir, the revenge of his daughters is very true. His wife Rani bai, who even commanded the army, committed suicide after the defeat. His daughters, Parimal Devi and Suraj Devi, when presented to Khalifah, alleged Qasim for dishonoring them. Khalifah believed them and punished Muhammad Bin Qasim. However, later on the daughters confessed their crime.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hyde

Raghu said:


> since when GM Syed become an Indian,unless its an accusation.
> 
> 
> 
> A BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF SINDH'S PAST, PRESENT and Future By G M Syed.



by these comments i can assume the poor knowledge of GM Syed. If he said does not mean it became truth.

Ignore the trolls


----------



## Gin ka Pakistan

*Our Hero Is Raja Dahir.* Why ? because of his acts Islam came to Sind , if he would have been a honest person history might have been some thing else.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abhiras

Areesh said:


> Typical answer from an Indian to prove that his ccountry is secular. Sorry it only proves that muslim population is at increase in India. It has nothing to do with the state.



We does not need to prove the secularism of India....world know we are secular......The citizen of '_Islamic republic _of pakistan' is raising question about secularism in 'republic of India'


----------



## Areesh

Zaki said:


> I wonder how peoples are linking Imam Hussain with Raja Dahr
> 
> Indians are great in spreading rumours  (with no offence but its very funny to me)



It was a shocker for all of us.


----------



## Areesh

Abhiras said:


> We does not need to prove the secularism of India....world know we are secular......The citizen of '_Islamic republic _of pakistan' is raising question about secularism in 'republic of India'



A pathetic post and nothing else.


----------



## Abhiras

Areesh said:


> A pathetic post



A pathetic truth


----------



## Awesome

RobbieS said:


> As far as fighting with the Buddhists, that was a domestic dispute, wasn't it?
> 
> And the rest of your post just shows your inner feelings of antagonism towards Indians and Hindus in general. Thanks for sharing them.


I don't know I thought my posts have been dispassionate. Perhaps my critique evoked some feelings within you instead?

If you're going to go 1000 years back and call the Muslims foreigners, then when not keep going further back till time of cavemen, apes and dinosaurs. The entire world's history is shaped with conquests, integration of culture and so on. Mohammad Bin Qasim brought in military discipline, he brought in a new religion which the people adopted. His administration in Sindh lasted not for long but he left an impact and the followers carried it on.

Evil is evil, domestic or foreign.


----------



## ShakirQureshi

Qoumi Quideen key Khilaf bed-kalami Qabl e muzamat hey 

please go to
;youtube.com/tv786#p/u/14/ZVO4J812krY
we hate Haji adeel , Hasan Nisar & all other spreading similar non-seance.


----------



## Bang Galore

Zaki said:


> And not to forget *Krishna Raja ("Hyder Ali" - Father of Tipu Sultan defeated him) is considered Villain in Pakistan and Hero in India :r*ofl:





Zaki said:


> *Now what do you say about Krishna Raja? whom Hyder Ali defated?
> *
> and when was i wrong before?





Zaki said:


> Well i assume you are not the best historian otherwise. _History is/was one of my favourite subject_ and i have *read about Hyder Ali in very detail*.





Zaki said:


> those (in india) who knows about both personalities in depth does not like Hyder Ali. Like someone said there is a large population of India who does not like Hyder Ali and other parts of india does.
> 
> Let me tell you a brief story:
> 
> If Hyder Ali was born in today's Pakistan and done exactly same what he did in his era he may have been considered a military dictator  That is because he overthrown the government of Hindu Raja and established his own Kingdom.
> 
> The story is very long but at one stage that Hindu raja that i believe is named as Krishna Raja had ordered to arrest Hyder Ali and one of his Spy (who used to roam around the city disguised as a "FAKEER" a begger man) had already told him about this. He had learnt all ways to exit the city has already been blocked and soon there will be a raid in his house to arrest him. He disguised into other clothes and had to flee the city through the river. Its a long story how he reached other city (i forgot now) and invaded his own raja by through the military power. Its a very long story and i read the whole book on it. But all i can say is those who knows all the facts do consider him a villain in india and Hero to another Hindu raja.
> 
> Happens Sir everybody can have their own opinions



The fact that history was your favourite subject does not mean you were any good at it. You have been going on about *Krishna Raja *whose story seems to be known only to you. I live in Bangalore which was part of the Mysore state which Hyder Ali & Tipu Sultan ruled and while there were many Krishna Raja Wodeyar's who preceded and later succeeded Tipu Sultan, I have never heard of this *hero* Krishna Raja who Hyder Ali is supposed to have defeated. *Both Hyder Ali & Tipu sultan are considered Indian heroes for fighting the British.*

Since you are a keen student of history you may find the following interesting:

*Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan*

During this period, Hyder Ali, who joined the army as a foot soldier, came to prominence. *By many accounts, he enjoyed the confidence of Maharaja Krishnaraja Wodeyar II, and hence essayed a meteoric rise in the affairs of the Kingdom.* During the *minority of Maharaja Nanjaraja Wodeyar, Hyder Ali rose to become the de facto ruler of the state, retaining the Wodeyars as nominal rulers.* *His son Tipu Sultan dispensed with this charade and assumed full royal powers.* Tipu Sultan prosecuted a brilliant military career; his rule contributed a golden chapter to the history of India. Both Hyder and Tipu brought in many technological innovations, modernizing the Mysorean army and expanding Mysore's foreign trade. They also aligned themselves by and large with the French, whose French East India Company was politically very active in southern India at the time. By the end of the eighteenth century, the Mysore Kingdom found itself in a series of four wars with the British East India Company, which was then expanding its control in India. In 1799 Tipu Sultan was finally defeated by the British in the fourth Mysore War, led by Arthur Wellesley, the future 1st Duke of Wellington. The British, who purported to wage that war in support of the legitimate dynasty, reinstated the Wodeyars on the throne in the person of the *5-year-old Krishnaraja Wodeyar III.*

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/kingdom-of-mysore/hyder-ali-and-tipu-sultan.html

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## democracyspeaks

I dont see any difference between American and allied forced occupying Islamic countries and Islamic Invaders occupying Iran, Iraq (bahai faith), pakistan afghanistan (hinduism & Buddhism).

The only conclusion I reach is that "everything comes back in full circle"

And the only similarity I sense is "Invasion".

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Raghu

bc040400065 said:


> u have ur own story so i would not respond. i just commented about ANP... And* if Raja dahar was so great ruler than y his own people left his side and embraced islam.??* and a man who married his own sister just for kingdom and rule... tells the story about how great hero he was.



History is both cruel and complex.There are no straight forward answers or nothing happened overnight.Those who've become heroes now might not be so when they were around ,but then history is always written by victors.

Here is an well researched and very balanced article written by *Khurram Ali Shafique *on Raja dahar and Muhammad Bin Qasim.Lets read what he wrote about Muhammad Bin Qasim.

Muhammad bin Qasim 


Muhammad bin Qasim was among the finest colonialists in the Arab history, and a worthy soldier. Unfortunately, our modern writers have tried to paint him as a saint, and in the process they have lost all those features that made this Arab general an interesting human being. It is high time we restore his true picture from authentic sources of history written by the earliest Muslim historians.

Muhammad bin Qasim was born around 694 AD (if we are to believe the tradition that he was seventeen when he attacked Sindh in 711 AD). He belonged to the Saqqafi tribe that had originated from Taif in Arabia, and he was also a close relative of Hajjaj bin Yousuf (possibly a second cousin, but not a nephew as narrated in the popular tradition). Much because of the influence of Hajjaj, the young Muhammad bin Qasim was appointed the governor of Persia while in his teens, and it is said that he did a good job at crushing the rebellion in that region. Sometime around the same period he got married to a girl in the Tamim tribe. There is also a popular tradition that presents him as the son-in-law of Hajjaj bin Yousuf, but some scholars discredit this tradition since an authentic pedigree of Hajjaj doesn&#8217;t mention any daughter. It is more likely that the young hero was married to a woman of Banu Tamim, and although the name of his wife does not appear in recorded history it is certain that she gave him two sons who later became famous for their own exploits.

When Muhammad bin Qasim invaded Sindh, Hajjaj arranged for special messengers between Basra and Sindh, and told the general never to take any step without his advice. This order was followed to the letter during the campaign. &#8220;When you advance in the battle, see that you have the sun behind your backs,&#8221; Hajjaj wrote to his cousin just before the famous storming of Debal. &#8220;If the sun is at your back then its glare will not prevent you from having a full view of the enemy. Engage in fight immediately, and ask for the help of God. If anyone of the people of Sindh ask for mercy and protection, do give it to them but not to the citizens of Debal, who must all be put to the sword.&#8221;


*Debal was the first important town in Sindh captured by the Arabs under Muhammad bin Qasim. It is also said that just before the final attack, a Brahmin came out to inform the invaders that the flag on the temple is a talisman and if they strike it down the city will hold no longer. &#8220;When the army of Islam scaled the walls of the fort, the Debalese opened the gates and asked for mercy,&#8221; says the writer of Chachnameh, the primary source on Muhammad bin Qasim written on the orders of his descendants. &#8220;Muhammad bin Qasim replied that he had no orders to spare anyone in the town, and that his soldiers had to do the slaughtering for three days&#8230; 700 beautiful females, who were under the protection of the temple, were all captured along with their valuable ornaments and clothes adorned with jewels.&#8221; The women and children thus captured from Debal were included in the spoils of the war. Some of them were distributed among the soldiers, while one-fifth was sent to the Caliph through Hajjaj bin Yousuf in accordance to the Islamic law that proclaimed that one-fifth of the spoils of the war belonged to the Caliph for rightful use. These spoils included two daughters of the deceased ruler of Debal, who were handpicked for the Caliph&#8217;s harem.*


The fate of Debal sent shockwaves across Sindh. People consulted their astrologers, and soon the word was out: fate has ordained the country to fall to the Arabs. It is more likely than not that the Arab invaders sponsored the rumour after seeing at Debal how local superstition could be exploited as a war strategy. The Buddhist population of Sindh was the first to make secret alliances with the Arabs, since they had little stake in the rule of the Brahmin dynasty. Hajjaj Bin Yousuf carefully dictated the Arab terms of mercy to Muhammad bin Qasim all the way from Basra. &#8220;Whoever submits to you, let him retain his power and wealth and family,&#8221; Hajjaj ordered his cousin. &#8220;And whoever does not submit, treat him brutally and torture him till he submits."


This strategy was carried out with great success. Nothing weakens the spirit of a human being more than existing on a borderline of hope and fear. All colonialists have known this fact of human psychology, and exploited it to make traitors of their enemy. The colonialisation of Sindh by the Arabs is a superb example of this policy, and the Arab historians proudly narrate many instances. One such case is the story of Kaka Kotak, a Buddhist of some influence in Siwistan (Sehwan). Kaka made a secret alliance with the Arabs and then went to the Brahmin ruler of the town, telling him that it was written in the ancient books of India that the country of Sindh would fall to the Arabs at a certain time, and that time had now arrived. &#8220;Our religion forbids us to shed blood,&#8221; the cunning Buddhist told the governor. &#8220;We are afraid that when the Arab horde storms the city, they will take us for your followers and deprive us of our life and domestics. We have come to know that Lord Hajjaj, under the orders of the Caliph, has ordered this army to grant pardon to those who ask for it, and the Arabs are said to be faithful to their word.&#8221; He then asked for the governor&#8217;s permission to make an alliance with the Arabs. When permission was refused, Kaka continued to serve as a spy to the Arabs, and never failed to remind his governor that the fall of Sindh was foretold in books written hundreds of years ago. The governor soon lost hope, and fled to his cousin Raja Dahar while the Arab army marched on and occupied the city. *True to their word, they spared the family of Kaka and his friends while the rest of the population was sold into slavery or distributed among the soldiers*. Kaka was then raised to the rank of a local chief, something he might not have dreamt of under the Brahmin rulers. &#8220;When Kaka put on this dress of honor, all the noblemen in the surrounding places were inspired to accept his influence,&#8221; writes the author of Chachnameh. &#8220;Kaka secured immunity from the Arab army for those who submitted while he led the Arabs to those who refused to submit, so that the stubborn could be punished.&#8221;


Muhammad bin Qasim&#8217;s advance towards Dahar was very careful. The Arab ensured that his supply line was safe, moving ahead only after each city on the way was secured in possession and its population either annihilated or won over with generosity. To Hajjaj, who was sitting several thousand miles away, it might have seemed that his cousin was wasting time. &#8220;Now give up other towns and march against Dahar,&#8221; Hajjaj wrote in a rather frustrated mood. There is a subtle, almost vague indication that Muhammad bin Qasim wanted Raja Dahar to submit to him and rule over Sindh as the Caliph&#8217;s viceroy. Hajjaj saw this as a waste of time. &#8220;I am shocked at the weakness of your policy,&#8221; *Hajjaj wrote to him. &#8220;People will think that you are trying to bring about peace! You should inspire fear."*


&#8220;O Men of Arabia,&#8221; Muhammad bin Qasim charged his armies to the final contest with Dahar. &#8220;These crowds of infidels have come prepared to fight with us. You must use all your strength, for they will put up a furious resistance for the sake of their wealth and families. Ride against them&#8230; With the help of God, we hope to make them all food for our sharp swords, take away their wealth and their families, and obtain large booty. Do not show weakness, and remember that God makes the end of the pious happy.&#8221;

*Dahar was killed at the Battle of Rawar. &#8220;It is related that when the fort of Rawar was taken, all the treasures and arms that were in it were secured, except what had been taken away by Dahir&#8217;s son Jaisingh,&#8221; narrates the author of Chachnameh. &#8220;All this booty was brought to Muhammad bin Qasim. The slaves were counted, and their number came to 60,000. Out of these, 30 were young ladies of royal blood including Raja Dahar&#8217;s niece whose name was Husna (Sundri). Muhammad bin Qasim sent all these to Hajjaj, together with Dahar&#8217;s head, and one-fifth of the booty, as the royal share&#8230; When the head of Dahar and women and the treasure were brought to Hajjaj, he placed his forehead on the ground and offered prayers of thanks-giving, saying: Now I have got all the treasures of the world. I rule the world.&#8221; It is said that one of Dahar&#8217;s wives, Ladi, married Muhammad bin Qasim, but there is another tradition according to which Ladi killed herself by jumping down the rampart when she saw the Arabs. *


The conquest of Sindh was completed with occupation of the remaining major cities, especially Brahmanabad and Multan. *This brought more serious responsibilities. So far, Sindh was treated as an enemy country, and in his earlier conquests Muhammad bin Qasim had torn down temples, replacing them with mosques. &#8220;Now that the people of this land have placed their heads in the yoke of submission,&#8221; Hajjaj instructed his general. &#8220;I do not see what further rights we have over them beyond the usual tax. 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 prohibit it, so that these people may live happily in their homes.&#8221; This edict of Hajjaj bin Yousuf had a lasting influence in the history of Muslim India. By giving the Buddhists and Hindus the status of &#8220;zimmis,&#8221; and imposing &#8220;protection tax&#8221; (or &#8220;jizya&#8221 on them, the Arabs had accepted them as &#8220;People of the Book,&#8221; hence acknowledging both Buddhism and Hinduism as divinely revealed religions*. However, the Muslim psychology could never come to terms with the practice of idol-worship by the Hindus. Hence a paradoxical situation existed throughout the Muslim rule in India where Hinduism was accepted as a divinely revealed religion for the purpose of tax collection but was seen as the creed of the infidels in all other matters. It is difficult to conclude from the edict of Hajjaj what he or other Muslims of his age actually thought about Hinduism, but it is obvious that the Arabs as colonialists had to make pragmatic compromises.


Muhammad bin Qasim completed the annexation of Sindh in three years, enlisting a large cohort of loyal followers from the native population. He then prepared plans to annex other states of India, beginning with Qannauj, which lied just across the Rajasthan desert. Of course, these states had given no provocation, and since the Hindus had just been accepted as &#8220;People of the Book,&#8221; there was no justification of a religious war against them either. But clearly, Muhammad bin Qasim was serving the interests of the Arab Empire as a worldly-wise general.
It was about this time that he lost both of his sponsors at the court. His cousin Hajjaj was the first to die, soon followed by the master himself, Caliph Walid. The successor on throne, Caliph Sulieman bin Abdul Malik, was a generous monarch who owed his throne to the opponents of the late Hajjaj bin Yousuf. Most of these were relatives of people killed or tortured by Hajjaj (some 20,000 women and 50,000 men were found unjustly imprisoned when Hajjaj died). They demanded revenge, and there was no way, nor enough reason, for Sulieman to stop them. Muhamamd bin Qasim was high on the hit list due to his close association with Hajjaj.

It is said that the young general was about to invade an Indian state when the Caliph&#8217;s messengers arrived to take him back in chains. True to the soldier&#8217;s honor, like always, Muhammad bin Qasim obliged. His followers wept bitterly, warning him that he was going back to a certain death. We don&#8217;t know what he said in reply, if he said anything. We do know, however, that shortly afterwards, just before he died of torture in the prison of Wasit, he recited an Arabic couplet to the effect: &#8220;*They wasted me at the prime of my youth, and what a youth they wasted: the one who was a defender of their borders.&#8221; *


Muhammad bin Qasim

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## hillman32

democracyspeaks said:


> I dont see any difference between American and allied forced occupying Islamic countries and Islamic Invaders occupying Iran, Iraq (bahai faith), pakistan afghanistan (hinduism & Buddhism).
> 
> The only conclusion I reach is that "everything comes back in full circle"
> 
> And the only similarity I sense is "Invasion".



Whosoever has POWER and WIll - he will do that. This is law of Jungle and That is true even in 21 Century.

BTW - India is not that powerful that it can invade Pakistan so be mindful while dreaming this.................


----------



## Hasnain2009

That is why MQM is ant ANP and ANP is anti-MQM, ANP is die hard enemy of MQM. 

CHeck this out !







He is insulting oeople who migrated from india, which included Liaquat Ali Khan and many more true pakistanis, who fought for pakistan!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mehru

Zaki said:


> *Who told Raja Dehar to capture the passing ship of Muslims and abduct Muslim mens, womens and the Muslim childrens? That was key reason of his invasion to Sindh. *One of the Muslim women somehow managed to write a letter to the general i think "Hajjaj bin Yousuf" and later on one group was formed to invade Sindh and to release peoples of that caravan.
> 
> It was all Raja's fault. *Muhammad bin Qasim was probably 16 years old or something like that and there is a long story why he was chosen to lead*.....................
> 
> Close this stupid thread please



It was not Raja Dahir himself who ordered his army to capture the ships rather there were thugs in the coastal areas of Deebal who looted the ships and Raja Dahir showed inability to control them, calling them non state actors.

Muhammad Bin Qasim's age is also disputed. He was the commander of an army of about 6000 Iraqi and Syrian soldiers that was dispatched to Sindh. Do you really believe that Caliph will trust a 16 year old youngster to lead that big army? In the history books, his age was reduced to glorify his achievements but his actual age is believed to be around 34 when he invaded Sindh.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## democracyspeaks

hillman32 said:


> Whosoever has POWER and WIll - he will do that. This is law of Jungle and That is true even in 21 Century.



Thats why I say long live India, US, Russia Israel.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## JonAsad

SilentNinja said:


> First of all, Islam is more important to us, Muslim first, then Pakistani!
> 
> Secondly, the four Orthodox Caliphs were the Sahaba of the Prophet (pbuh) so we must respect them.
> 
> As for us Pakistanis accepting "everything Arab" is a complete joke, though i do agree that there are some Pakistanis that will do anything to make the Arabs happy due to their ignorant thinking that Arabs are a holy and noble race.
> 
> I love Islam, but that doesn't mean i want to be Arab! When i look at the state these Arabs have brought themselves into i would never want to be an Arab!
> 
> In fact i want my countrymen to get this sort of thinking out of their head that Arabs are our brothers, they back stabbed and the entire Muslim Ummah by betraying the Ottoman Caliphate. Arabs make fun of us, they call us Abeed (meaning slave in Arabic), and they treat us like we're a pile of ****.
> 
> *The only reason why there is so much religious extremist in Pakistan is because of these Arabs and their strict version of Islam. Burning schools, beating women to death, throwing acid on girls faces, banning education for girls, no rights for women's, and the infamous of them all suicide bombings!*
> 
> Islam wasn't just for the Arabs, it was for the whole humanity!
> 
> Long live Pakistan



i agree with you on every thing except the highlighted part..
Arabs are stupid ppl, they have money, oil and they are sleeping.. Lazy Cowards.

But
My friend come to Saudia Arabia i dont think there is any such thing as *"Burning schools, beating women to death, throwing acid on girls faces, banning education for girls, no rights for women's, and the infamous of them all suicide bombings"*

Now if you call not allowing a women to go out without a veil as no rights for women.. then my friend this is Islam, our religion prohibits this.. moreover women living here prefer to be covered in veil.. i am living here so i know it ...hell she can even take divorce from her husban within a week, her statement against her husband is enough... its just an example.

the rest is western propaganda i agree Arabs being stupids but they are not cruel.

Here we are at more peace than in Pakistan.. it is Pakistani extremist mulla's that have brought these injustices to Islam...it was a Pakistani mentality that created Talibans. Remember if Osama bin Ladin was saudi, the rest of Talibans are not from Arabs, we have Afghani Taliban we have Pakistani Taliban.. there is no concept of Arab taliban.. except a bad fish aka bin ladin.


----------



## JonAsad

i dont know why every indian in this thread is basing his argument over G M Syed... who is he to indians?? he is a single man.. or what? 
G M Syed said this, G M syed said that...
cm on indians being our adversary u need to do better than that
quoting G M Syed in every argument is ignorance its rubbish, foolish and hypocracy..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Xtremeownage

jbond197 said:


> Raja Dahir was born in the lands of current Pakistan. He was of Sindhi heritage. Why do you consider him as an enemy of Pakistan? He fought against an attacking force which every ruler will do once attacked. So whats wrong in that...
> 
> The story goes like this, A local hero fought against an invader and was defeated and now the invader has became the hero and the local hero enemy.



He wasn`t an invader.

Raja Dahir was a tyrant, and Sindhis are disgusted by this man, and know he was a tyrant! 

The Muslims of Sindh were persecuted, tortured, and abused by this tyrant, and the Caliphate took note of this and retaliated against his heinous actions!

Your Hindutva histortions of history only make you lose credibility, as there are loads of evidence that prove that this tyrant was an extreme violator of human rights!

Muhammad Bin Qasim was an honourable man and fought for honour, mercy, freedom, and Islam! He is well revered as a man of great character and honour!

The early Muslims were the best Muslims and lived with Islam!

Islam is a way of life, and the Muslim is the brother of a Muslim regardless of where he is from!


----------



## Hyde

mehru said:


> It was not Raja Dahir himself who ordered his army to capture the ships rather there were thugs in the coastal areas of Deebal who looted the ships and Raja Dahir showed inability to control them, calling them non state actors.



Agree with that - Sorry had forgotten about this part 



mehru said:


> Muhammad Bin Qasim's age is also disputed. He was the commander of an army of about 6000 Iraqi and Syrian soldiers that was dispatched to Sindh. Do you really believe that Caliph will trust a 16 year old youngster to lead that big army? In the history books, his age was reduced to glorify his achievements but his actual age is believed to be around 34 when he invaded Sindh.



Wrong - he was 16 and you probably not aware of his Fight against somebody (i think Caliph's son if i am not wrong).

Muhammad bin Qasim had requested the caliph to send him to release those womens and childrens from Raja Dahr or areas of Deebal and Caliph refused and later on it was an agreement among them that if Qasim defeated Caliph's son or somebody who was very famous as a warrior and was a lot elder than him then he can not only participate in the war but also will be a commander of this army and somehow Muhammad bin Qasim managed to defeat him and became the leader of this army.

Thats what i read/heard in the chapters of History

and Allah knows best


----------



## Prometheus

Xtremeownage said:


> You moronic Hindutva fascist!
> 
> *G.M. Syed is a radical Shia extremist, who hates Sunnis!*
> 
> Learn your sources before posting nonsensical BS!
> 
> Ofcourse he is going to demonize the holy figures of the Sunnis, you shameless distorter of the truth!
> 
> Do you want me to start with the dirty secrets of Shiva, and the worship of Shiva Lingam (His penis) by you Hindu extremists who drink cow-piss and worships the penis's of Shiva idols!
> 
> Shiva was a tyrant and wanted Hindus to worship his penis!
> 
> And I am not making this up, Hindus worship Shiva Lingam (his penis), and drink cow-piss because they also worship cows:
> 
> YouTube- Cow Urine Soda | ZapRoot




answer the post with arguement..............no need to abuse someones religious feelings.


----------



## Areesh

Prometheus said:


> answer the post with arguement..............no need to abuse someones religious feelings.



We don't need to. We don't want to debate here about our beliefs with you or any body like this G M Syed.


----------



## Prometheus

Areesh said:


> We don't need to. We don't want to debate here about our beliefs with you or any body like this G M Syed.


Bro....no one is forcing anyone


----------



## ice_man

jbond197 said:


> Raja Dahir was born in the lands of current Pakistan. He was of Sindhi heritage. Why do you consider him as an enemy of Pakistan? He fought against an attacking force which every ruler will do once attacked. So whats wrong in that...
> 
> The story goes like this, A local hero fought against an invader and was defeated and now the invader has became the hero and the local hero enemy.




we were living in JAHALIA till the time Mohammed Bin Qasim came & awaken us to the real truth! 

so Yes no doubt that Mohammed Bin Qasim should be our hero! NOT raja dahir! 

sindhi heritage or anything nothing is above religion! 

however when it comes to Porous or Alexander then we can talk about "local heros" but someone who came from outside with a message of the TRUE RELIGION the right religion should be considered as our hero! 

if it wasn't for mohammed bin qasim islam wouldn't have come to SOUTH ASIA!! the need for Pakistan would not have been there! the 2 nation theory would have never existed! MOHAMMED BIN QASIM laid the foundations of islam & pakistan (now tell me who is a local hero to us)


----------



## Raghu

ice_man said:


> we were living in JAHALIA till the time Mohammed Bin Qasim came & awaken us to the real truth!
> 
> so Yes no doubt that Mohammed Bin Qasim should be our hero! NOT raja dahir!
> 
> sindhi heritage or anything nothing is above religion!
> 
> however when it comes to Porous or Alexander then we can talk about "local heros" but someone who came from outside with a message of the TRUE RELIGION the right religion should be considered as our hero!
> 
> :



U mean to say for all those thousand years of mankind before the arrival of prophet of Islam in the Six century , those great ancient civilization & culture of India,Egypt,Greek, Mesopotamia or china etc were nothing but made of ignorance or debouch and were condemn to hell.

And only the arrival of Islam provided to true knowledge to the natives who were conquered by the Army of Islam giving them the prize possession of god Almighty's word and path to Salvation.,leaving behind the infidel Hindus,Buddhists ,Jews or any religious doomed for ever .

What about inhabitants South America and north America which hardly ever got a chance hear Allah's mercy in the form of Prophet message sent spread either by Army of Islam or peaceful Sufi saints ??
Are those place are destined to left behind till recently when Europeans voyages discovered sea routes to distant lands.



> if it wasn't for mohammed bin qasim islam wouldn't have come to SOUTH ASIA!! the need for Pakistan would not have been there! the 2 nation theory would have never existed! MOHAMMED BIN QASIM laid the foundations of islam & pakistan (now tell me who is a local hero to us) :pakistan



On one hand we are being told that spread Islam in subcontinent occurred through mystical spiritual darvesh Sufi saints who traveled distant lands to and most take offence if evidence forced conversion are presented ,on the other hands u find Muslims like u who credit a military leader Muhammad Bin Qasim for laying the foundations of Islam & Pakistan .

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Awesome

XtremeOwnage, dude stop going over the top and make your argument with some calm. This is a discussion forum and each side will make the points according to their point of view.

I read about the subsequent expeditions to South Asia in Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah as well. I doubt Jaswant Singh made it all up, I have read about it elsewhere as well... Of course I don't know at what scale those expeditions were planned and what sort of sanction did the Khalifa had given them. However it is clear when the entire first chapter of Jaswant Singh's book is dedicated to those 14 trips (or expeditions if you may), that they are given far more prominence in India than they are in Pakistan.

Possibly it makes Indians balm their egos that they were captured right away and they did put up a fight. As Jaswant Singh proudly wrote:



> By AD 662, the spreading influence of the Khalifa began touching the land frontiers of Hindustan, too, but neither the Umayyad nor the Abbasids succeeded in moving farther in land. Contrary to the generally held views, it took the Arabs several attempts, and close to four hundred years to gain a foothold in India and that too at great cost. It was not until the eleventh century that the kingdoms of Kabul, Zabul and Sindh finally succumbed to the Arabs.
> 
> The first of the sea invasions of India was earlier, in AD 636, when three Arab naval expeditions, to Thana, to Gujarat and to coastal Sindh, were repulsed. Overland the raid on Debal in AD 662, the first in Sindh, ended in a rout for the Arabs, as did efforts of successive Khalifas. Khalifa Walid, chiding the governor of Iraq, when permission to invade Sindh was again sought said, "This affair will be a source of great anxiety, so we must out it off, for every time the army goes on such an expedition, vast number of Musalmans get killed. Think no more of such designs".
> 
> But Hejjaj, the governor of Iraq did finally succeed in organizing an expeditionary force under his son-in-law and cousin Mohammad Bin Qasim to avenge the ignominious defeat suffered at the hands of Raja Dahir of Sindh. To Mohammad bin Qasim, his parting words were: "I swear by God that I am determined to spend the wealth of whole Iraq that is in my possession on this expedition and that the flame of my fire will not go down until I take the revenge".
> 
> Debal was conquered in AD 712, when Raja Dahir engaging Mohammad bin Qasim was killed in an open battle. His queen performed 'jauhar', while their son lived on to resist the Arabs. Soon thereafter, Mohammad bin Qasim was recalled to Iraq by the new Khalifa - Sulaiman and Raja Dahir's son retrieved most of his Kingdom.



One can almost feel the desperation in Jaswant Singh's voice where he tries to paint the Dahirs as the good guys (even though they were evil) and the Arabs as vengeful and hate driven even though by most Islamic traditions they were on a mission to spread the word and do good - even in modern terms liberate the conquered Rai Dynasty.

Indians are desperate to somehow present this story in their way, it is obviously way more emotional for them to paint Mohammad Bin Qasim negatively than it is for us to paint him as a hero. There are good reasons for that.

For Pakistan he is a hero because his act resulted in showing the vulnerability of the Indians which later resulted in the spread of Islam in India and ultimately resulted in the formation of Pakistan. For Indians the same reasoning - which his conquest resulted in the formation of Pakistan, makes Mohammad bin Qasim a villain.

Understand the mentality Your anger would turn into sympathy.


----------



## MilesTogo

I was under the impression that Pakistanis are proud of their ancient civilization (Indus Valley).


----------



## Awesome

MilesTogo said:


> I was under the impression that Pakistanis are proud of their ancient civilization (Indus Valley).


Nobody said Raja Dahir is not part of our heritage, but its good he was defeated, since we wouldn't be who were are today and we're a lot more proud of who we are today.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MilesTogo

Asim Aquil said:


> Nobody said Raja Dahir is not part of our heritage, but its good he was defeated, since we wouldn't be who were are today and we're a lot more proud of who we are today.



I was referring to ice_man's JHALIYA comment.


----------



## Awesome

MilesTogo said:


> I was referring to ice_man's JHALIYA comment.


Again, its negative but in general this is the official term used by Muslims in a situation of non-Islam - literal translation - Ignorant. From the Muslim point of view where Islam is the revelation of the truth - the true, right way - all else would be ignorance.

If you believe in Darwin's theory we were ape like beings once. You acknowledge it, you don't yearn to be an ape.


----------



## Raghu

Asim Aquil said:


> Again, its negative but in general this is the official term used by Muslims in a situation of non-Islam - literal translation - Ignorant. From the Muslim point of view where Islam is the revelation of the truth - the true, right way - all else would be ignorance.
> 
> *If you believe in Darwin's theory we were ape like beings once. You acknowledge it, you don't yearn to be an ape*.



Interesting observation there.

But from where we see ,it looks more like putting Darwin's theory upside down or say some sort of evolution theory in its reverse gear with the purest ones ...e,g the Taliban coming across as virtual cavemen.


----------



## Awesome

Raghu said:


> Interesting observation there.
> 
> But from where we see ,it looks more like putting Darwin's theory upside down or say some sort of evolution theory in its reverse gears with the purest ones ...e,g the Taliban coming across as virtual cavemen.


Very hi funny. My advice, get over it. Will help you sleep better.


----------



## shanixee

Mohammad Bin Qasim came and conqured Sindh or some parts of India on the voice of few innocent Muslim women. those women were captured and taken into prison by piriots and Raja Dahir was the 1 who was giving support...Raja Dahir in the man who got married to his own SISTER so maybe MR Minister has an eye on his own sister and wanna justify it by making him his own ruler


----------



## Imran Khan

i will say to adeel its your blood of haram talking not you


----------



## jehangirhaider

I think, this guy gave very good reply, though this is in urdu, but my Pakistani brothers understand its well.

Link for Download





]

Link for Download


----------



## dexter

Enough !!! its none of your buisness to interfere in our issues . 
Its not very important issue !!!
YEH TO ROZ KI KAHANI HE ANP KE LEADERS KI IS TARHA K FAZOOL 
 BAYAN DENE KI !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## PracticalGuy

democracyspeaks said:


> I dont see any difference between American and allied forced occupying Islamic countries and Islamic Invaders occupying Iran, Iraq (bahai faith), pakistan afghanistan (hinduism & Buddhism).
> 
> The only conclusion I reach is that "everything comes back in full circle"
> 
> And the only similarity I sense is "Invasion".



I would also Add Israel to the above list too..and if we go by these "awakened" soles.. it looks legitimate too how ironic or should i say.. how Hypocratic?


----------



## Xtremeownage

Raghu said:


> Sorry sir,before "Muhammad Bin Qasim came with an army ",*there were already fourteen(14) failed Arab expedition aganist Sindh and neighbouring regions had taken place*.
> 
> *First Expedition *
> 
> This expedition took place in the days of Umer by Usman Bin Abbass Sukfi who was in charge of Bahrain and Oman territories. His invasion was by the sea route. His boats went to Thana City, near the vicinity of Bombay. From there he returned with a lot of loot, called Mal-e-ghaneemat (booty). From this booty lie gave a portion to Umer, who, after receiving his share, advised Usman not to invade through the sea route which was unsafe, as he had himself sent a fleet towards the Roman area, but which, on account of a tempest, was destroyed. After that he had decided not to send invaders through sea, as it was full of danger. [1]
> 
> *Second and Third Expeditions *
> Caliph Umer was a strong and harsh ruler. It was difficult to disobey his orders. But by to many Arab Ameers and their followers temptation to loot had now become very strong with the result that the same Usman Bin Asi, along with his brother "Mugira", again took a fleet of ships, under the leadership of Commander "Mugira", and sailed towards Sindh's Port of "Debal". He reached "Bharoch". In that invasion Mugira was killed. These invasions took place during the fifteenth Hijjri, (Muslim Calendar) in the days of Umer. In the 21st Hijjri, his armies succeeded in invasions conquering "Hamdan", "Nihavund" and "Khurasan". From these conquests the Arabs got a lot of wealth besides an army of male and female slaves. Three other places, Seestan (now Sehwan), Kirman, Makran were still within the territories of the Persian Empire. These were also conquered by tile Arabs and a huge amount of money was taken away. But that time, the people of the neighboring countries had come to know that the main purpose of Arabs' attacks was to acquire riches. During the Arab invasions, the local people used to hurriedly escape either to mountains or to other villages, leaving their houses in fear of the Arab looters.
> 
> Therefore in 23rd Hijjri, the Arabs decided not to merely conquer and after looting to return to Arabia, but to establish their rule over the conquered territories as well by remaining there. For this purpose Sohail-Bin-Adi and Abdullah-Bin-Aqlan were sent towards "Kirman", and on the other side Hakirn-Bin-Amru and Abdullah-Bin-Umer were sent towards Seestan to establish their rule and exploit the riches of that country.
> 
> After conquering the two countries, Hakim-Bin-Amru "Taghalbi" invaded Makran and Shanab-Bin-Mughariq and the above mentioned persons also joined them on account of which the tribal Chief of Makran asked Maha Raja Dahir to help him. In that battle Makran's ruler and Sindh's commander were killed and the Arabs killed a lot of persons and got a lot of money, slaves, male and female, in looting. One-fifth of this loot was sent to Khaleefa Umer. He was glad to see this money, and the whole of Madina celebrated this victory. The Arabs used to be pleased from such things as they depended on such victories. It is said that when the Amirs related the difficulties of these expeditions, Hazrat Umer prohibited them from making such hazardous expeditions.
> 
> 
> *Fourth Expedition *
> 
> Abdul Rahman Bin Sumrah, after conquering Zuringe, proceeded towards the hills between Zuringe and Kesh. He took possession of the part of Sindh, which is now Baluchistan. In those days, there was no separate country like Baluchistan. Makran and Seestan were on the border of Sindh.
> 
> Fifth Expedition
> When Arabs murdered the third Khalifa, Usman, in his house, then Hazrat Ah (Alahisalam) was elected the Arab ruler in his place in 35th Hijjri. The expedition started before his rule towards Sindh. "Tugir Bin Saghir along with "Hans Bin Marih Adi" in 38th Hijjri, these persons were attacked by hilly tract people. They returned after conquering them. [2]
> 
> Sixth Expedition
> After the fifth expedition, Haris Bin Marih Adi continued his expedition towards Sindh. He received information of the martyrdom of Hazrat Ah. Yet he continued his expedition In Arabia, in place of Hazrat Ah, Amir Muavia came in possession of the rule. (Fatoohul Buldan).
> 
> Seventh Expedition
> Amir Muavia immediately sent Abdul Bin Amir and Rashid Bin Umer towards Sindh, who after getting a lot of loot from that side, came and gave a share of the loot to Muavia, the ruler of Syria.
> 
> Eighth Expedition
> In 42nd Hijjri, Amir Muavia sent Abdul Bin and Abdullah Bin Sawar on an expedition of Sindh. They brought back several horses from the side of Keekan and other booty from Sindh, on which Muavia was very glad.
> 
> Ninth Expedition
> Abdullah Bin Amir remained in Damascus and returned to the side of Keekan, during this expedition. He contacted the Turks. The Turkish troops were also on an expedition of looting. He and his people were killed and getting this information Muavia sent Abdullah Bin Sawar with four thousand cavalry along with same route and ordered them to bring well known horses of Keekan on their return. [3]
> 
> Tenth Expedition
> In 44th Hijjri, Muhab Bin Abisafra, a known Commander of Abdul Rahman Bin Sumra's troop, was sent towards Sindh. Instead of going on direct route, he changed his route via mountains and fought with local people near Kandabeel and, after getting sufficient loot, he went back.
> 
> Eleventh Expedition
> This expedition was also towards Kandabeel, though Sindh's route was different. Abdullah Bin Sawar got killed in this battle. Seestan's ruler sent Zaid Bin Abu Sufyan, Sinan Bin Muslim and Muhibuk Hezli towards Sindh. They looted the Makran area and occupied it. The robbers sent a portion of the loot to Amir Muavia.
> 
> Twelfth Expedition
> After that, Zaid sent troops towards Sindh under the command of Rashid Bin Umer "Juwary Azdi", who attacked Keekan and kept on sending the looted cash from that country along with looted property, throughout the year. When Rashid was returning from "Munder" and "Bah Raj" hills; he met the people of the Maid tribe who arrested him. Then Sinan Bin Muslim was appointed in his place. He was killed in fighting with the people of the Maidtribe. [4]
> 
> During the last years of Amir Muavia, in forty-ninth Hijjri, Zaid Bin Ahad started an expedition towards Sindhi. He reached the "Sunarode" and took the way to Hillmund and reached Kandhar. After looting it he went back.
> 
> Thirteenth Expedition
> After the death of Sinan Bin Muslim, Manzar Bin Jarood was appointed the ruler of Makran. He too marched towards Sindh, but on hearing the news of rebellion behind, he returned and stayed at Khuzdar and died there. After Manzar Bin Jarood, Ubedullah Bin Ziyad (who at the time was appointed ruler of Basra in place of his father) appointed Haris Bin Basar in his place, but he died at Tooran. In his place Hakam was appointed as his successor.
> 
> Fourteenth Expedition
> After Hakam, Ibn-e-Ziad sent Sardar Bin Han to the frontiers of Sindh. He fought many battles against the Sindhis. From the above mentioned facts the readers will know the Arab expeditions toward Sindh were not for the cause of spreading Islam or getting gifts looted by pirates or for returning Muhammad Bin Alafi, who on account of tyranny of Hajjaj Bin Yousif, had taken asylum with Raja Dahir. Instead, all these expeditions were part of the Arabs thirst for conquering the rich countries in the name of religion, and thereby establishing Arab Imperialism, which was initiated by Amir Umer .
> 
> A BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF SINDH'S PAST, PRESENT and Future



*Extreme historical distortions and outright false accusations here!*

The holy caliph Umer (Rad) was a great and merciful ruler and leader!

he is a religious figure in Islam (Sunni), and this article was written by a radical Shia named G.M. Syed who is clearly an anti-Sunni extremist!

Why did the mods delete my post which exposed Hindu religious figures, but left the Hindu propaganda which said FALSE things about Muslim religious figures? What has this website come to? A vehical for anti-Muslim propaganda?

So please remove this propaganda which insults the holy figure of Islam!

I find this extremely offensive!

Why did you delete my comment mods who showed true beliefs of Hindus and Shiva Lingam?

Why don't you delete the posts of people who insult my religion?

How dare you say such false things against my religious figures!

Raja Dahir was a tyrant and killer of Muslims. He abused many Muslims and killed many!

The Caliphate fought in retaliation to his abuses of human rights!

This is not rage, this is truth!

Do not censore my truth!

Muslims always fought for honour and dignity! We freed people from their ignorance and tyrannical leaders... We came as liberators and of peace advocates!

Hindu rulers on the other hands were the exact opposite as they promoted nothing but destruction and violence!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PracticalGuy

^^^


> Muslims always fought for honour and dignity! We freed people from their ignorance and tyrannical leaders... We came as liberators and of peace advocates!




I dont know why such a smart person as you are not able to understans such a simple fact as this

We = Arabs
People = You and Your ancestors whom the Arabs looted, raped and killed.

religious sentiments aside ...demeaning one's own legacy for the sake of invaders (Arabs in this case) is preposterous...

And nobody here talked anything about Islam or Muslims for that matter.. This whole thread is to peek into one's own history even if its good or bad and try to put one's own argument in a constructive manner. If any body thinks this is about Islam Vs Hinduism ..then I may say they are blinded by their narrow mindedness which makes them bring religion into everything... 

and to ^^ your hatred filled comments towards others prove your abused childhood .. Peace to you brother..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Awesome

Try to communicate without insulting any member and talk only about the issues, everybody has a right to express their point of view on the issue at hand without getting insulted back.

This is a discussion forum, when discussing with the opposing side point of views would emerge that are different from yours. Refute them if you can, but don't attack the member making those points.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Awesome

PracticalGuy said:


> ^^^
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know why such a smart person as you are not able to understans such a simple fact as this
> 
> We = Arabs
> People = You and Your ancestors whom the Arabs looted, raped and killed.
> 
> religious sentiments aside ...demeaning one's own legacy for the sake of invaders (Arabs in this case) is preposterous...
> 
> And nobody here talked anything about Islam or Muslims for that matter.. This whole thread is to peek into one's own history even if its good or bad and try to put one's own argument in a constructive manner. If any body thinks this is about Islam Vs Hinduism ..then I may say they are blinded by their narrow mindedness which makes them bring religion into everything...
> 
> and to ^^ your hatred filled comments towards others prove your abused childhood .. Peace to you brother..


For Pakistanis Lineage and casts are secondary. We are all equal and what matters only is our beliefs and the values we stand for.

It's a dumb argument. Its the same as saying we should yearn to be Apes. It's the same as saying the Americans were wrong to seek independence from the British - or that they were wrong to eliminate slavery since George Washington himself had slaves. Or the Jews were wrong to adopt the message of Moses which came from Arabia to Egypt and should follow the Sun God Ra'a - was the exodus wrong? Were the Allies wrong to fight their own white kind in WW2... But it just boils to one question, and this is what India's entire chull on this matter is - Were Pakistanis wrong to reject and divide British India?

It's a glaring "No" from all the victors of the incidents mentioned above. These incidents helped shaped our today they helped shaped our freedom - obviously their achievements would be viewed with a bit of admiration.


----------



## PracticalGuy

> For Pakistanis Lineage and casts are secondary. We are all equal and what matters only is our beliefs and the values we stand for.


Since you have broughtup the castes thing into this unnecessarily... your quote above "we are all equal" do you stand by this sentence even when you see the current state of affairs in Pakistan.. I dont want to go deep..but I think you are knowledgeble to understand my point... 



> It's the same as saying the Americans were wrong to seek independence from the British


exactly brother ..thats what I have been saying from the begining... Now think about who are Americans and who are British from this thread perspective...



> Were Pakistanis wrong to reject and divide British India?


Eventhough the partition is irrelevant to this thread.. I would still like to say that..judging the partition aside.. it was still the internal matter of undivided India..its not some outsideers Vs Insiders...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pride

In my opinion, History has been twisted in many ways to fit to one's choice, but the fact remains true that local rulers are always preferred by any foreign invader and religion comes later.. Didn't Chengis Khan was initially scolded by Arabs being a foreign invader till the point of time he accepted Islam? 

And yes, I read about Muhammad Bin Qasim in wikipedia to find spreading Islam in a Buddhist/Hindu area very peacefully...

"Muhammad bin Qasim wrote out letters to "kings of Hind" to surrender and accept Islam, and subsequently 10,000 cavalry were sent to Kannauj asking them to submit and pay tribute before his recall ended the campaign."


----------



## Awesome

Pride said:


> In my opinion, History has been twisted in many ways to fit to one's choice, but the fact remains true that local rulers are always preferred by any foreign invader and religion comes later.. Didn't Chengis Khan was initially scolded by Arabs being a foreign invader till the point of time he accepted Islam?
> 
> And yes, I read about Muhammad Bin Qasim in wikipedia to find spreading Islam in a Buddhist/Hindu area very peacefully...
> 
> "Muhammad bin Qasim wrote out letters to "kings of Hind" to surrender and accept Islam, and subsequently 10,000 cavalry were sent to Kannauj asking them to submit and pay tribute before his recall ended the campaign."


As being part of the gene pool now, he's no longer foreign.


----------



## Awesome

PracticalGuy said:


> Since you have broughtup the castes thing into this unnecessarily... your quote above "we are all equal" do you stand by this sentence even when you see the current state of affairs in Pakistan.. I dont want to go deep..but I think you are knowledgeble to understand my point...


All good people in Pakistan stand for it, all equal Pakistanis.




> exactly brother ..thats what I have been saying from the begining... Now think about who are Americans and who are British from this thread perspective...


Dude Americans and the British have the same gene pool same race - at least when talking about way back when.




> Eventhough the partition is irrelevant to this thread.. I would still like to say that..judging the partition aside.. it was still the internal matter of undivided India..its not some outsideers Vs Insiders...


Well not exactly. Extending this same Indian logic on and on, one day you Indians would've declared all Muslims as foreigners  You guys are deeply entrenched in this zaat paat, genetics, family name, race name...


----------



## Pride

Asim Aquil said:


> As being part of the gene pool now, he's no longer foreign.



If it suits you, You are free to choose your part of history but whenever a history is written.. a new religion accepted does not mean change of history and legacy... Chengis is still Mongol and not Arab...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pride

Asim Aquil said:


> All good people in Pakistan stand for it, all equal Pakistanis.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude Americans and the British have the same gene pool same race - at least when talking about way back when.
> 
> 
> 
> Well not exactly. Extending this same Indian logic on and on, one day you Indians would've declared all Muslims as foreigners  You guys are deeply entrenched in this zaat paat, genetics, family name, race name...



Well sir, we will never ever claim all Muslims are foreigner's as we all know that many of our ancestors are forcefully converted to Islam and hence their legacy is uprooted with people of South Asia and not with Arabs....

And living in your chosen world might help you but as I stayed in Muslim populated area, I have seen many differences among Muslims which can be considered as zaat/paat... few to quote, apart from Shia/Sunnis frequent clashes over superiority...Pathans believe they are superior and they avoid lower class like Zulaha... and even during marriages in Muslims it is always seen from where the proposal is coming...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PracticalGuy

Asim Aquil said:


> All good people in Pakistan stand for it, all equal Pakistanis.


I think its too optimistic to say these words.. every country in the world has one issue or another wrt it's people..and Pakistan is no exception to it.. even I can say the same words about India as the fundamental rights of all it's citizens are same irrespective of religion, race, caste, color, region etc.. though I cant say about this regarding Pakistan(religion does matter in Pakistan)

[quote
Dude Americans and the British have the same gene pool same race - at least when talking about way back when. [/QUOTE]
I dont understand what you are trying to say by repeating your gene pool logic... the discussion here is about Invaders Vs Locals and the gene pool that you are talking about is the result of the Invasion...

[QUOTE
Well not exactly. Extending this same Indian logic on and on, one day you Indians would've declared all Muslims as foreigners  You guys are deeply entrenched in this zaat paat, genetics, family name, race name...[/quote]

Hypothesis is different from the History which actually happened. 

On a side note I some times wonder what if Mr.Jinnah created Pakistan not on the basis of religion, even though if he wanted to make Paksitan as Islamic Republic after the partition? There wouldnt be such animosity between us and we wouldnt have witnessed the numerous meaning less loss of precious lives during partition on both sides of the border on the basis of religion. Because I strongly believe that Partition of India was a political game between Nehru and Jinnah and religion was just a tool to apsire their ambitions

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Marxist

> Raja Dahir was a tyrant and killer of Muslims. He abused many Muslims and killed many!
> 
> The Caliphate fought in retaliation to his abuses of human rights!
> 
> This is not rage, this is truth!



yes that is a truth,same *human rights* which USA said to attack Iraq and Afghanistan.(sorry for off topic) ,many said Muhammad Bin Qasim bring Islam to S.Asia,I heard that Islam existed in India before his arrival.


----------



## Raghu

Asim Aquil said:


> Hmmm as stated before Dahir was an evil man, a conqueror himself over the local Buddhists of Sindh. Also 1000 years on, the genetics of his invasion are probably seeded in and deeply intricate within the South Asian population so the idea of him being considered a foreigner is something that may serve Indian point of view of Hindu Raj being the only appropriate raj but the subcontinent.
> 
> Anyway, the idea as explained before, if he never showed that conquest was ever possible, then perhaps there wouldn't have been subsequent conquests of India - perhaps there wouldn't have been a Pakistan even. He plays his role in the formation of Pakistan and in this creation tale of Pakistan, Dahir was the antagonist.



Funny u consider a local king of Sindh like Raja Dahir as conqueror or occupier over local Buddhist . Rajah Dahir was son of *King Chach was a Sindhi Brahman from the town of Alor *and started his carrier as priest in the court of Rai dynasty kings who were patrons of Buddhism though they also bulit Hindu temples of lord Shiva .

After death of Raja Sahsi Rai ,his queen Sunandi married the court priest Brahman Chach and hence Chach become the king of Sindh ruling over it for thirty years till his death in 671AD.

And talking up conquering over local Buddhist who were in majority ??

Tell me what was position of local Buddhist after the Arab invasion ,the religion become extinct from Sindh with in few decades though the Hindus continued to fight the battle for next three hundred yr till the end of 1000Ad when entire sindh and neighboring areas came under Muslim rule.


----------



## Raghu

Xtremeownage said:


> Raja Dahir was a tyrant and killer of Muslims. He abused many Muslims and killed many!
> 
> *The Caliphate fought in retaliation to his abuses of human rights*!
> 
> This is not rage, this is truth!
> 
> 
> Muslims always fought for honour and dignity! We freed people from their ignorance and tyrannical leaders... We came as liberators and of peace advocates!
> 
> Hindu rulers on the other hands were the exact opposite as they promoted nothing but destruction and violence!



It seems Caliphate was desprately trying to establish human rights in alien land of Sindh for more than eighty years in its fourteen(14) military expeditions starting from *early as 638 A.D. Khalifa Umar sent Mughairah to launch a naval attack against Sindh, but it was repulsed on the Indian side*.

The Chachnama Lists six more major attempts by land and/or by sea during the next 80 years till defeat of Raja Dahir in 711AD , led by Hakam, Abdullah, Rashid, Munzir, Sinan, and Bazil, but they were all repulsed and the invading commanders killed.

Khalifa Usman was so upset by the Arab defeats in Sindh during his term that he forbade any more attempts on Sindh, on the ground that ``*its water is dirty, its soil stony, and its fruit poisonous*.'' 



PS:*Chachnama* is the most authentic and almost contemporary Arab chronicle ( with the usual prejudice and a victor's version ) of that time since ,no Hindu/Buddhist chronicle exist today.

For all history enthusiasts ,here is the English version of Chachnama wrote by a British officer in 1900. 

*PHI Persian Literature in Translation of Chachnama*


----------



## kugga

The problem here, and also I think in the world, is that people don't understand the psychology of a muslim.... actually we are not allowed to praise our race.... this is what taught by holy prophet (S.A.W) that no one has on edge on other on the basis of race you are better only if you have taqwa in other words if you are pious....... 
In my opinion history is written by persons not by angels... so they twisted it according to what they thought we are not and will never be accountable for what raja dahir did or what Muhammad bin Qasim did so first of discussing who was right is a waste of time.....

Now comes the point of why muslims praise a foreign invader again nothing is foreign for a muslim as Iqbal said

Cheen o Arab humaara, Hindustaan humaara
Muslim hain hum watan hain saara jahaan humaara

So being muslim there is nothing foreign nothing local there is only one thing important for a muslim and that is taqwa if Muhammad bin qasim had more taqwa than raja dahir than obviously Muhammad bin qasim was better and if Raja dahir had more taqwa than he was better..... but we cannot praise raja dahir just because he was born in sindh because this unfair


----------



## ice_man

Raghu said:


> U mean to say for all those thousand years of mankind before the arrival of prophet of Islam in the Six century , those great ancient civilization & culture of India,Egypt,Greek, Mesopotamia or china etc were nothing but made of ignorance or debouch and were condemn to hell.
> 
> And only the arrival of Islam provided to true knowledge to the natives who were conquered by the Army of Islam giving them the prize possession of god Almighty's word and path to Salvation.,leaving behind the infidel Hindus,Buddhists ,Jews or any religious doomed for ever .
> 
> What about inhabitants South America and north America which hardly ever got a chance hear Allah's mercy in the form of Prophet message sent spread either by Army of Islam or peaceful Sufi saints ??
> Are those place are destined to left behind till recently when Europeans voyages discovered sea routes to distant lands.
> 
> 
> 
> On one hand we are being told that spread Islam in subcontinent occurred through mystical spiritual darvesh Sufi saints who traveled distant lands to and most take offence if evidence forced conversion are presented ,on the other hands u find Muslims like u who credit a military leader Muhammad Bin Qasim for laying the foundations of Islam & Pakistan .



this is where you are wrong! ISLAM didn't come with prophet MOHAMMED! ISLAM was there from the time of ADAM! you don't understand islam my friend! 

all those people who manipulated the WORD of their prophet are doomed! now *ISLAM BELIEVES ALL PROPHETS MOSES,JESUS,IBRAHIM & NOAH etc (ALL HAD THE SAME MESSAGE) as PROPHET MOHAMMED! THE FOLLOWERS CONVERTED THE MESSAGE OR DISOBEYED THE MESSAGE!*

now as for south america and north american talk! where did islam say ISLAM only came in the arabs world?

according to us we have 124,000 prophets (more or less) now they came to different people different *background with the SAME MESSAGE!*


and if MOHAMMED BIN QASIM forcefully coverted why didn't people go back to hiduism?

given your logic of FORCE! people should have gone back to hinduism or buddhism??? did anyone go back??

as for the EGYPITANS being doomed YES they are doomed for not following MOSES! so you see all those people who disobeyed there prophet are doomed! EVEN IF IT IS A MUSLIM(after all islam is one religion which started of with adam technically it is the oldest religion)


----------



## makikirkiri

ice_man said:


> this is where you are wrong! ISLAM didn't come with prophet MOHAMMED! ISLAM was there from the time of ADAM! you don't understand islam my friend!
> 
> all those people who manipulated the WORD of their prophet are doomed! now *ISLAM BELIEVES ALL PROPHETS MOSES,JESUS,IBRAHIM & NOAH etc (ALL HAD THE SAME MESSAGE) as PROPHET MOHAMMED! THE FOLLOWERS CONVERTED THE MESSAGE OR DISOBEYED THE MESSAGE!*
> 
> now as for south america and north american talk! where did islam say ISLAM only came in the arabs world?
> 
> according to us we have 124,000 prophets (more or less) now they came to different people different *background with the SAME MESSAGE!*
> 
> 
> and if MOHAMMED BIN QASIM forcefully coverted why didn't people go back to hiduism?
> 
> given your logic of FORCE! people should have gone back to hinduism or buddhism??? did anyone go back??
> 
> as for the EGYPITANS being doomed YES they are doomed for not following MOSES! so you see all those people who disobeyed there prophet are doomed! EVEN IF IT IS A MUSLIM(after all islam is one religion which started of with adam technically it is the oldest religion)


lol
personification of the need for self glorification


----------



## Awesome

I have to ask this question and get an answer from the Indian perspective. Bhala Takleef kya hai hum kis ko kya maantay hain? You have your own value system, where you are more concerned with lineage, we are more concerned with beliefs and end results.


----------



## kugga

^^^^ very well said asim


----------



## makikirkiri

Asim Aquil said:


> I have to ask this question and get an answer from the Indian perspective. Bhala Takleef kya hai hum kis ko kya maantay hain? You have your own value system, where you are more concerned with lineage, we are more concerned with beliefs and end results.



We have got absolutely no problem nor do we even care about who your heroes are.Just having fun seeing u guys taking all the takleef to defend who you think is a hero.In different value systems , different people become heroes.But the case here is I think different. Your different opinions are due to your difference in opinion of what actually happened in history. even after knowing that your history texts were heavily manipulated find it so difficult to aeven consider an alternative narrative given by one of pakistan's own......
this tkleef of yours is what entertains and interests us.


----------



## kugga

makikirkiri said:


> We have got absolutely no problem nor do we even care about who your heroes are.Just having fun seeing u guys taking all the takleef to defend who you think is a hero.In different value systems , different people become heroes.But the case here is I think different. Your different opinions are due to your difference in opinion of what actually happened in history. even after knowing that your history texts were heavily manipulated find it so difficult to aeven consider an alternative narrative given by one of pakistan's own......
> this tkleef of yours is what entertains and interests us.



So what, if our history texts are manipulated we don't want to know history keep it to your self we live in present not in past like most indians live........
and we have one book which was never manipulated and will never be manipulated and that is enough for a whole life....... and we read other books just to enhance our knowledge not to follow like you do.........
and once again I'll have to say that history is not written by angels people write that and they wrote it according to their point of view so there is no need for us to rely on history


----------



## Awesome

makikirkiri said:


> We have got absolutely no problem nor do we even care about who your heroes are.Just having fun seeing u guys taking all the takleef to defend who you think is a hero.In different value systems , different people become heroes.But the case here is I think different. Your different opinions are due to your difference in opinion of what actually happened in history. even after knowing that your history texts were heavily manipulated find it so difficult to aeven consider an alternative narrative given by one of pakistan's own......
> this tkleef of yours is what entertains and interests us.


The letter "Chay" in Urdu often describes this syndrome.

It's our value system and from darwin, to history, to recent events, we've cited numerous examples, that this is a natural way of life and the conqueror Mohammad Bin Qasim did us a favor by showing India's weakness and vulnerability that ultimately manifested in the creation of Pakistan. So we like him. You can break your head as much as you want, we'll like the guy to whom we owe our existence. 

Pray tell what is your argument for us "To cease our existence".


----------



## ice_man

makikirkiri said:


> We have got absolutely no problem nor do we even care about who your heroes are.Just having fun seeing u guys taking all the takleef to defend who you think is a hero.In different value systems , different people become heroes.But the case here is I think different. Your different opinions are due to your difference in opinion of what actually happened in history. *even after knowing that your history texts were heavily manipulated find it so difficult to aeven consider an alternative narrative given by one of pakistan's own......*
> this tkleef of yours is what entertains and interests us.



manipulated history who said chachnama? and what is chachnama and who made it? please spare us the story of manipulation!


----------



## Raghu

double post.........


----------



## Raghu

ice_man said:


> manipulated history who said chachnama? and what is chachnama and who made it? please spare us the story of manipulation!




whats written in history text books of Pakistan are based on this Persian Chachnama chronicle of that time.Its probably the only source of history.

And All those negative stuff u read about Rajah Dahir are too based on this Chachnama .

Though there are clear attempts by the text books to nitpick and hide some aspects of the events that may show the Arab invaders in poor light.

*Nevertheless those who get to read the full text Chachnama written by a Muslim chronicler with his prejudices, find that Rajah Dahar may not be as bad as he is made out in the Pakistani text books.Hence one sees the occasion outburst of sympathy for Raja Dahir among Sindhi nationalists or a leader of ANP as in this case.*


----------



## hillman32

Leave it ............................Dahir is terrorist and he got his deserving share.
*
People of Sind never bothered to remember Dahir but they did make idols of Muhammad bin Qasim after his departure and started worshiping him considering he a Deuta who came and liberated them tyranny of Cruel Dahir.

Masses decide not historians.*


----------



## Marxist

can somebody tell me why Haji Adeel commented like this,im what political advantage he may get from this?


----------



## hillman32

Adolf Hitler said:


> can somebody tell me why Haji Adeel commented like this,im what political advantage he may get from this?





*Haji Muhammad Adeel * - Pakistani senator, is the leader of the Awami National Party in the Senate and senior vice president of the Awami National Party.
A Hindko speaker, he is from a family of anti-imperialists, the son of Hakeem Abdul Jalil (Hakeem Sahib was actively involved in the non violence movement, Khudai Khidmatgar against the British Empire in the Sub continent and was the president of All India National Congress Committee Peshawar District and a close colleague of Bacha Khan and Mahatama Gandhi and Member of Central working committee of Congress.
During his political career he served as finance minister and deputy speaker in the provincial government of the North-West Frontier Province.
-----------------------------

He is ANP members or leader ------who eat from Pakistan but ,sadly, their heart beat with Indians.

ANP, though ruling NWFP or Kyber Pakhtun khua Province has never accept Pakistan from Core of their hearts.

They talk about dismembering Pakistan while enjoying their wonderful lives here.

They are biggest hurdle against construction of Kalabagh Dam, so much needed for reducing the Water and Power shortage in Pakistan.

Allah may put them on RIGHT PATH. Ameen.


----------



## courageneverdies

Why do Pakistanis believe that Muhammad Bin Qasim was a Hero?

First, even today's international law accepts the condition of Attack on other Nation if the other nation violates basic Human Rights. Raja Dahir was a ruler of Deebal, a state of many states in India, spread and ruled by different rajas who had not been united for long. 

The pirates of Dahir, who looted and kept in prison Arab Merchants, men and women, had full support of him and even Hajjaj sent an envoy for recovery of the prisoners, he presented the lame excuse that those pirates are not under his jurisdiction. Hajjaj therefore left with no option had to send an army and Muhammad Bin Qasim, his nephew was sent with an army. Would he had waited without taking an action, the peaceful Sea Routes of trade of Arabs to Lanka would have been in worst danger.

This excellent example of protecting basic human rights and especially of fellow Muslims was necessary and therefore Raja Dahir was attacked and killed. Saddam and Taliban were also Iraqi and Afghani, than why world including u supported US's act to attack because Basic Human Rights, according to UN, were at stake (According to people, not my opinion).

Second, despite of being victorious in Sindh, Muhammad bin Qasim's behaviour was not at all hostile and anti to the locals. That was the reason that in short span of time, he managed to conquer till Multan.

His behaviour as a ruler of Sindh was an ideal.

Dahir was not capable of being a ruler as he despite of being having homeground support was unable to defeat an army detachment that came from far away. 

My another hero is Ghauri, yes the won who defeated the Modern Indian hero Prithviraj Chauhan, (As depicted by Indian Media). 

Same was the case with Prithvi Raj Shauhan the socalled Hero of India who was humiliatingly defeated, who just a year ago suffered a defeat.



> In 1192, Ghauri re-assembled his army of 120,000 men and returned to challenge Prithviraj at the Second Battle of Tarain. When he reached Lahore, he sent his envoy to Prithviraj Chauhan to demand his surrender but Prithviraj Chauhan refused to comply. Prithviraj Chauhan then issued a fervent appeal to his fellow Rajput rulers and aristocracy to come to his aid against Ghauri.
> 
> Prithviraj assembled a very large army with the aid of approximately 150 Rajput rulers and aristocrats, according to Firishta, it consisted of 3,000 elephants, 300,000 horsemen and considerable infantry.[4] Some historians believe these figures may be exaggerated but the army was larger than that of Ghauri. The army proceeded to meet Ghori in Tarain where Prithviraj a year before he had inflicted defeat on his adversary, confident of defeating him again. Muhammad Ghauri delivered an ultimatum to Pritviraj that he convert to Islam or be defeated. Prithviraj countered with an offer that Muhammad consider a truce and be allowed to retreat with his army. His terms not met, Ghauri decided to attack.
> 
> Ghauri divided his troops into 5 parts and attacked the Rajput armies in the early morning hours sending waves of mounted archers to attack the Rajput forces, but retreated as the Rajput elephant phalanx advanced. Ghauri deployed four parts to attack the Rajputs on four sides keeping a fifth part of his army in reserve. Khande Rao (General of Prithviraj), was killed. The enthusiasm of Prithviraj also dampened against these reverses. At dusk, Ghauri himself led a force of 12,000 heavily-armored horsemen to the center of the Rajput line, which collapsed into confusion, Prithviraj deserted the battlefield and attempted to escape but was captured. The Rajput Army also broke ranks and fled, thereby conceding victory to Ghauri.
> 
> Ghauri took the captured Prithviraj back with him to Ghazni, where he was publicly decapitated in 1192.



What an awe a hero who deserted the field of battle  

Despite of such a large army not able to stand against an army of Foreigners. Notice a similarity of these "BRAVE DAHIR AND PRITHVIRAJ" that both ran off the fields 

Beshak ha talwaar ka dhani Rai Pathora,
Medaan main agar mad-e-muqabil na ho Ghauri,

Ab bhi hamara Ghauri, Prithvi se zyada maidaan marta ha 

KIT Over

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Peshwa

Asim Aquil said:


> The letter "Chay" in Urdu often describes this syndrome.
> 
> *It's our value system and from darwin, to history, to recent events, we've cited numerous examples, that this is a natural way of life and the conqueror Mohammad Bin Qasim did us a favor by showing India's weakness and vulnerability that ultimately manifested in the creation of Pakistan. So we like him. You can break your head as much as you want, we'll like the guy to whom we owe our existence*.
> 
> Pray tell what is your argument for us "To cease our existence".



I find a great amount of Hypocrisy in the above lines......

On one hand, Pakistanis are very quick to regard Mohenjodaro and Harappa....the seat of the Indian civilizations and the birthplace of Vedic culture (eventually leading to the present day Hinduism) as inherently Pakistani....since it was the "land of your ancestors".....so much so that Pakistani History books mention the Indus Valley civilization as part of "Pakistani History".....

On the other hand, Pakistanis are very quick and blunt to seperate themselves from the defeat of a king that ruled lands that belong to Pakistan as "India's weakness and vulnerability"......in favor of Islam.....Did M-B-Q really defeat an Indian Ruler or Pakistani?

Why does Raja Dhir become Hindu/Indian Raja when defeated by the forces of Islam, but Indus Valley civilization with its Vedic/Hindu roots Pakistani?

It seems loyalty to land/ethnicity or religion is interchangeable based on what suits ones perspective/argument......

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Raghu

courageneverdies said:


> Why do Pakistanis believe that Muhammad Bin Qasim was a Hero?
> 
> First, even today's international law accepts the condition of Attack on other Nation if the other nation violates basic Human Rights. Raja Dahir was a ruler of Deebal, a state of many states in India, spread and ruled by different rajas who had not been united for long.
> 
> ...........................................................................................
> 
> The pirates of Dahir, who looted and kept in prison Arab Merchants, men and women, had full support of him and even Hajjaj sent an envoy for recovery of the prisoners, he presented the lame excuse that those pirates are not under his jurisdiction. Hajjaj therefore left with no option had to send an army and Muhammad Bin Qasim, his nephew was sent with an army. Would he had waited without taking an action, the peaceful Sea Routes of trade of Arabs to Lanka would have been in worst danger.
> 
> 
> Dahir was not capable of being a ruler as he despite of being having homeground support was unable to defeat an army detachment that came from far away.
> 
> My another hero is Ghauri, yes the won who defeated the Modern Indian hero Prithviraj Chauhan, (As depicted by Indian Media).
> 
> .
> What an awe a hero who deserted the field of battle
> 
> *Despite of such a large army not able to stand against an army of Foreigners. Notice a similarity of these "BRAVE DAHIR AND PRITHVIRAJ" that both ran off the fields *
> 
> KIT Over



Forget about Prithvi Raj chouhan ,this thread isn't about him.
But let me say the Firishta's account of event u gave is considered absolute rubbish.

About Raja Dahir, I've already given accounts corroborated by Chachnama of previous attempt of neary eighty years conquer Sindh and fourteen futile military expeditions of Arab army before the defeat of Rajah Dahir in 711Ad.



> Despite of such a large army not able to stand against an army of Foreigners. Notice a similarity of these "BRAVE DAHIR AND PRITHVIRAJ" that both ran off the fields :



*Pls give us any source or article that suggests DAHIR ran off the field.*.Otherwise stop ur BS .

Because I'll give Chachnama chronicles which is the only authentic version available of the events and all history books are based on its accounts .*Its say exact opposite of what u said ,thats Raja Dahir fought bravely and died in the battle field.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Peshwa

courageneverdies said:


> Despite of such a large army not able to stand against an army of Foreigners. Notice a similarity of these "BRAVE DAHIR AND PRITHVIRAJ" that both ran off the fields
> KIT Over



Wasnt Prithviraj Chauhan the one who spared Ghauri's life during his first attempt at invasion of India?

A fact coviniently overlooked when ridiculing the martyrdom of brave souls that fought to protect their homeland from invaders...

Makes one wonder who tucked their sack and fled...!!!

Anyways....no use beating a dead horse or serenading the deaf.....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AkhandBharath

kugga said:


> So what, if our history texts are manipulated we don't want to know history keep it to your self we live in present not in past like most indians live........
> and we have one book which was never manipulated and will never be manipulated and that is enough for a whole life....... and we read other books just to enhance our knowledge not to follow like you do.........
> and once again I'll have to say that history is not written by angels people write that and they wrote it according to their point of view so there is no need for us to rely on history



this very aweful to even comprehend that in the name of religion one can be ashamed of their own people , culture and history. I think its very wrong and I might say some people's vested interest has pushed Pakistan's History into oblivion on the name of religion. Its very difficult to understand how come you see every thing from the eyes of islam.. where as in Indonesia.. the world's Biggest muslim nation..still cherish their history and culture and practise them without interfering that with their practise of Islam. Even they still go by their Sankrit names instead of the Arabic names.. does this make them less muslim than you Pakistanis? I wish pakistanis realise this political game atleast now and try to reclaim their hsitory and culture and should feel proud of it with out seeing it through the religion perspective...


----------



## courageneverdies

Raghu said:


> About Raja Dahir, I've already given accounts corroborated by Chachnama of previous attempt of neary eighty years conquer Sindh and fourteen futile military expeditions of Arab army before the defeat of Rajah Dahir in 711Ad.



To me its merely the capacity of Muslims to not withdraw. A mighty expansion of Muslim Empire from the coasts of Africa to the borders of France were something unbearable for isolated and individual Hindu Rajas of many states in India. For your information, Makran the neighbouring district of Debal was under Muslim control since the reign of Umar I. 

So isn't it the excellence of Muslim Military that despite of being repulsed many a times they conquered Debal.




Raghu said:


> *Pls give us any source or article that suggests DAHIR ran off the field.*.Otherwise stop ur BS .
> 
> Because I'll give Chachnama chronicles which is the only authentic version available of the events and all history books are based on its accounts .*Its say exact opposite of what u said ,thats Raja Dahir fought bravely and died in the battle field.*









Look at the map with eyes if you have. The first battle was fought at Debal. And Dahir was killed at ROAR. If he had not ran from Debal's battlefield than how could he reached ROAR? I think he had some teleporting machine. 



> Muhammad bin Qasim defeated Dahir and captured his eastern territories for the Umayyad Caliphate.
> 
> Dahir then attempted to prevent Qasim from crossing the Indus river and so moved his forces to its eastern banks in an attempt prevent Qasim from furthering the campaign. Eventually however, Qasim successfully completed the crossing and defeated an attempt to repel them at Jitor led by Jaisiah, the son of Dahir. Qasim then advanced onwards to give Dahir battle at Raor near modern day Nawabshah (712 A.D.) where Dahir died in battle.




And yes its from your chacha O sorry Chachnama. 

So think before you write and it shows how corrupted your history is.

KIT Over

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## courageneverdies

Peshwa said:


> Wasnt Prithviraj Chauhan the one who spared Ghauri's life during his first attempt at invasion of India?
> 
> A fact coviniently overlooked when ridiculing the martyrdom of brave souls that fought to protect their homeland from invaders...
> 
> Makes one wonder who tucked their sack and fled...!!!
> 
> Anyways....no use beating a dead horse or serenading the deaf.....



O the mighty Historian Peshwa dont know that Prithviraj Chauhan was not in the battlefield against Ghauri in first battle.... 



> In 1191, Ghauri, leading an army of 120,000 men, invaded India through the Khyber Pass and was successful in reaching Punjab. Ghauri captured a fortress, either at Sirhind or Bathinda in present-day Punjab state on the northwestern frontier of Prithv&#299;r&#257;j Chauh&#257;n's kingdom. Prithviraj's army, led by his vassal prince Govinda-Raja of Delhi, rushed to the defense of the frontier, and the two armies met at the town of Tarain, near Thanesar in present-day Haryana, approximately 150 kilometres north of Delhi.
> 
> According to urban myth in contemporary India, the armies clashed first with the charge of the Rajput cavalry. Two regiments of the Muslim army with Ghauri attacked the center with a body of soldiers; where Ghauri met Govinda-Raja in personal combat. Govinda-Raja lost his front teeth to Ghauri's lance. As the battle continued, the Ghauri army, exhausted, shorn of water, and unfamiliar with the scale of its opponent, retreated towards the Afghan highlands. Ghauri was himself wounded in the battle.



Source: Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals (1206-1526) by Satish Chandra

Secondly, Mr. Eye Opener you need to know that one spares the life of other if he had his life in his control, Ghauri was not arrested, Unlike Prithvi who was.... 

Ghauri despite of being unable to win a victory didnt give up his campaign and remained near to Prithvi's borders who despite of knowing it, and being immensely incompitent, didnt bother to make steps to counter this problem that may arise again.

Ammend your records and don't follow BS Star Plus Dramas. 

But like you said, no use beating a dead horse or serenading the deaf. 

This is history man, not your book in the hook...

KIT Over

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## courageneverdies

AkhandBharath said:


> this very aweful to even comprehend that in the name of religion one can be ashamed of their own people , culture and history. I think its very wrong and I might say some people's vested interest has pushed Pakistan's History into oblivion on the name of religion. Its very difficult to understand how come you see every thing from the eyes of islam.. where as in Indonesia.. the world's Biggest muslim nation..still cherish their history and culture and practise them without interfering that with their practise of Islam. Even they still go by their Sankrit names instead of the Arabic names.. does this make them less muslim than you Pakistanis? I wish pakistanis realise this political game atleast now and try to reclaim their hsitory and culture and should feel proud of it with out seeing it through the religion perspective...



Applies to you too. Hindus affirm all the acts of Dahir, who was a looter, a pirate and a decoit. Who married his own sister, where in Hinduism marrying a cousin is not allowed. Wow... 

On the other hand, Muhammad Bin Qasim was a man of honour, dignity and followed totally humanitarian rules to conquer lands. 



> The military strategy had been outlined by Hajjaj in a letter sent to Muhammad bin Qasim:[9]
> 
>  "My ruling is given: Kill anyone belonging to the combatants (ahl-i-harb); arrest their sons and daughters for hostages and imprison them. Whoever does not fight against us..grant them aman (safety) and settle their tribute(amwal) as dhimmah..." 
> 
> The Arabs' first concern was to facilitate the conquest of Sindh with the fewest casualties while also trying to preserve the economic infrastructure.



Don't try to be so well-wisher of Pakistani nation, we know what to do. Stay inside your own premises and tackle with the Extremists like Shiv Senha who are sworn enemies of Islam. In Pakistan, there is no immense killings of minorities like in India. Something you all should be ashamed of.

Now you'll give some examples of minority riots, which are nothing in front of massacres in India.

My history is Islamic History and I cherish it. I am proud of it. I am proud of Muhammad Bin Qasim, Ghauri, Ghaznavi, Salateen-e-Delhi, Mughuls, Khiljis, Tughlaqs who despite of being a very minor part of India, managed to rule a nation much higher in number.

KIT Over n Out

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## courageneverdies

AkhandBharath said:


> I think still u didnt understand the purpose of this thread.... even if we take your words as facts..why do u want to associate urself with the ghauri? but not with Prithvi, he being the son of the soil? ..and then again u bring the religion crap into this .... shame on us....



Reported.... Ill language for Religion. Something that hurts people like me. Enjoy.

KIT Over


----------



## Raghu

courageneverdies said:


> To me its merely the capacity of Muslims to not withdraw. A mighty expansion of Muslim Empire from the coasts of Africa to the borders of France were something unbearable for isolated and individual Hindu Rajas of many states in India. For your information, Makran the neighbouring district of Debal was under Muslim control since the reign of Umar I.
> 
> So isn't it the excellence of Muslim Military that despite of being repulsed many a times they conquered Debal.




Thats exactly my point.

*Arab forces have been eyeing Sindh for a longtime to expand their empire as what they were doing in other places too.*

so the put sundry legends about Dahir's torture of captured Muslim women or he being evil king to justify Muhammad Bin Qasim invasion of Sindh are nothing but sugarcoated excuse to foreign Arab invasion and conquer of Sindh




> Look at the map with eyes if you have. The first battle was fought at Debal. And Dahir was killed at ROAR. If he had not ran from Debal's battlefield than how could he reached ROAR? I think he had some teleporting machine.



Go ahead and read this again few more times if u can...


> Muhammad bin Qasim defeated Dahir and captured his eastern territories for the Umayyad Caliphate.
> 
> Dahir then attempted to prevent Qasim from crossing the Indus river and so moved his forces to its eastern banks in an attempt prevent Qasim from furthering the campaign. Eventually however, Qasim successfully completed the crossing and defeated an attempt to repel them at Jitor led by Jaisiah, the son of Dahir. *Qasim then advanced onwards to give Dahir battle at Raor near modern day Nawabshah *(712 A.D.) *where Dahir died in battle.* [/B]




U see u might have eyes like every other being,but certainly not power to decipher what u see or read.

As ur own excerpt from Chachnama very clearly states that " Dahir died in battle".U probably hung on the technicality why he didn't die on the the very first occasion his forces met the invading Arab army.

Even when we have no clue or make logical assumption that Dahir who was the the king on Sindh leading a battle going on the border instead of defending his fort at Alor in the final encounter.

Anyway it doesn't matter where or when he died ,as we know from Chachnama quote stated by u that he died in the battle.


----------



## courageneverdies

Raghu said:


> Thats exactly my point.
> 
> *Arab forces have been eyeing Sindh for a longtime to expand their empire as what they were doing in other places too.*
> 
> so the put sundry legends about Dahir's torture of captured Muslim women or he being evil king to justify Muhammad Bin Qasim invasion of Sindh are nothing but sugarcoated excuse to foreign Arab invasion and conquer of Sindh.



Exactly, because Raja Dahir was repeatedly continuing attacks on Muslim ships. Moreover, its not sugar coated justification, its a truth. Its also written in your Chachnama, one you have full faith in. So why take what you like and leave the rest?



Raghu said:


> Even when we have no clue or make logical assumption that Dahir who was the the king on Sindh leading a battle going on the border instead of defending his fort at Alor in the final encounter.
> 
> Anyway it doesn't matter where or when he died ,as we know from Chachnama quote stated by u that he died in the battle.



That also clearly says, DAHIR WAS DEFEATED, means Dahir was there at Debal and ran or retreated to Alor. So the second encounter was at Alor where he died. Simple... No technicality at all.

We have clue, but you don't want to see. In the above reference, which I am quoting again for ready reference, it is clearly mentioned that DAHIR WAS DEFEATED, i.e. Dahir was present at first batlle when Qasim defeated him and conquered Eastern Lands of Dahir. He than retreated to his western lands, to Alor, where he was again attacked and here killed by Qasim.



> Muhammad bin Qasim defeated Dahir and captured his eastern territories for the Umayyad Caliphate.
> 
> Dahir then attempted to prevent Qasim from crossing the Indus river and so moved his forces to its eastern banks in an attempt prevent Qasim from furthering the campaign. Eventually however, Qasim successfully completed the crossing and defeated an attempt to repel them at Jitor led by Jaisiah, the son of Dahir. Qasim then advanced onwards to give Dahir battle at Raor near modern day Nawabshah (712 A.D.) where Dahir died in battle.



KIT Over

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Awesome

Peshwa said:


> I find a great amount of Hypocrisy in the above lines......
> 
> On one hand, Pakistanis are very quick to regard Mohenjodaro and Harappa....the seat of the Indian civilizations and the birthplace of Vedic culture (eventually leading to the present day Hinduism) as inherently Pakistani....since it was the "land of your ancestors".....so much so that Pakistani History books mention the Indus Valley civilization as part of "Pakistani History".....
> 
> On the other hand, Pakistanis are very quick and blunt to seperate themselves from the defeat of a king that ruled lands that belong to Pakistan as "India's weakness and vulnerability"......in favor of Islam.....Did M-B-Q really defeat an Indian Ruler or Pakistani?
> 
> Why does Raja Dhir become Hindu/Indian Raja when defeated by the forces of Islam, but Indus Valley civilization with its Vedic/Hindu roots Pakistani?
> 
> It seems loyalty to land/ethnicity or religion is interchangeable based on what suits ones perspective/argument......


That twisted logic is only subservient to balm your ego, however in reality, Dahir, to Mohenjedaro to Harrappa to Mohammad Bin Qasim - even Alexander the great, even the British Raj - to Jinnah - all contributed with their efforts to shape time and country that resulted in Pakistan. Dahir Shah with his defeat and Mohammad Bin Qasim with his victory. Nehru and Gandhi with their defeat, Jinnah with his victory.

They are all a part of our past, not all are worth any praise.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raghu

courageneverdies said:


> Exactly, because Raja Dahir was repeatedly continuing attacks on Muslim ships. Moreover, its not sugar coated justification, its a truth. Its also written in your Chachnama, one you have full faith in. So why take what you like and leave the rest?




Haha... Arab forces attacking sindh from his father King Chach's time.
There were repeated attempt to grab some land of Sindh or other went for longtime ,so to blame again that Raja Dahir attacks on Muslim ships(these were actually pirates who attacked Muslims ships) forced Arab retaliation is nothing but lam excuse.



> That also clearly says, DAHIR WAS DEFEATED, means Dahir was there at Debal and ran or retreated to Alor. So the second encounter was at Alor where he died. Simple... No technicality at all.



Debal was a border town,while * Alor was the capital city of King Dahar*.So to say he ran or retreated to Alor is pure nonsense.It only logical that he would've come to defend his seat of power in Alor.


----------



## courageneverdies

Raghu said:


> Haha... Arab forces attacking sindh from his father King Chach's time.
> There were repeated attempt to grab some land of Sindh or other went for longtime ,so to blame again that Raja Dahir attacks on Muslim ships(these were actually pirates who attacked Muslims ships) forced Arab retaliation is nothing but lam excuse.



If expansion of empires is excuse than all nations have done so. Do you know, England of today has only 2% of its natives? All now are Anglo-Saxons and natives were pushed to Northern Areas of England.

History of Roman Empire and Egyptians, even smaller tribes of Aztecs and Mayans have waged for expansion. No big deal. 

Muslim empire was expanding and lands are not owned by people. In history snatching, occupying and attacking are most prominantly described meaning that nations do that.

You are amalgamating the campaign of Muhammad Bin Qasim with the Muslim expansion. Historians totally agree that Qasim's expansion was reasoned by the pirates of Debal and Dahir. 



Raghu said:


> Debal was a border town,while * Alor was the capital city of King Dahar*.So to say he ran or retreated to Alor is pure nonsense.It only logical that he would've come to defend his seat of power in Alor.



So you agree that Dahir retreated or ran away. I was to prove that Dahir retreated, my point proved and Defence has shown consent. No more arguments, My lord... 

KIT Over

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raghu

Asim Aquil said:


> That twisted logic is only subservient to balm your ego, however in reality, Dahir, to Mohenjedaro to Harrappa to Mohammad Bin Qasim - even Alexander the great, even the British Raj - to Jinnah - all contributed with their efforts to shape time and country that resulted in Pakistan. Dahir Shah with his defeat and Mohammad Bin Qasim with his victory. Nehru and Gandhi with their defeat, Jinnah with his victory.
> 
> *They are all a part of our past, not all are worth any praise*.



Yes,as time changes ,people's allegiance changes and so changes how history is looked at.It happens all the time e,g Spain .

While Muslim world still view Muslim rule over Spain in Europe with a sense of nostalgia, whereas people of Spain considers it as time of dark age and blemish on the part of that countries history .


----------



## Raghu

courageneverdies said:


> .
> 
> 
> So you agree that Dahir retreated or ran away. I was to prove that Dahir retreated, my point proved and Defence has shown consent. No more arguments, My lord...
> 
> KIT Over



There is shuttle and clear difference between fleeing or hiding somewhere as u trying hard put it and coming back to defend his capital city in Alor was what Dahar did.
It only prove ur insinuations are baseless.


----------



## Gin ka Pakistan

Raghu said:


> Yes,as time changes ,people's allegiance changes and so changes how history is looked at.It happens all the time e,g Spain .
> 
> While Muslim world still view Muslim rule over Spain in Europe with a sense of nostalgia, whereas people of Spain considers it as time of dark age and blemish on the part of that countries history .



After fall of Muslim rule in Spain Crusaders gave people of Spain two option either die or convert to Christianity, by sword.

All Indians would have been Muslim if Muslim rulers in India were like that, Islam by sword.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## courageneverdies

Raghu said:


> There is shuttle and clear difference between fleeing or hiding somewhere as u trying hard put it and coming back to defend his capital city in Alor was what Dahar did.
> It only prove ur insinuations are baseless.



COMING BACK in military term is called RETREAT.

I think any man with a bit of sense can judge who's baseless and who is beating by the bush.

KIT Over


----------



## courageneverdies

Gin ka Pakistan said:


> After fall of Muslim rule in Spain Crusaders gave people of Spain two option either die or convert to Christianity, by sword.
> 
> All Indians would have been Muslim if Muslim rulers in India were like that, Islam by sword.



Its not the moto of Islam, but of Hindus who still consider Muslims that either they be turned to Hindus, or leave Hindustan. A moto of Shiv Sinha aka BJP

KIT Over

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Wasif A.K.

dont just attack ANP let them say what they think. I live in karachi and there are people who support ANP. I think we should all respect each others opinion don't just call traitors who oppose your point of view though i don't agree with haji adeel sahib's opinion but i still think that talking against other parties and blaming will not help it will only raise more hatred in the hearts of people. Tolerate...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## courageneverdies

Wasif A.K. said:


> dont just attack ANP let them say what they think. I live in karachi and there are people who support ANP. I think we should all respect each others opinion don't just call traitors who oppose your point of view though i don't agree with haji adeel sahib's opinion but i still think that talking against other parties and blaming will not help it will only raise more hatred in the hearts of people. Tolerate...



I think you should also welcome our opinions as well. What all of us have said are our opinions presented with decoration of facts.

There are things which are intolerable. This can be one of those. This Mr. Haji Adeel had also said bad words regarding Quaid-e-Azam if you people have remembered. Such must be given a shut up call lest they'll continue more and more.

KIT Over


----------



## Raghu

Gin ka Pakistan said:


> After fall of Muslim rule in Spain Crusaders gave people of Spain two option either die or convert to Christianity, by sword.
> 
> All Indians would have been Muslim if Muslim rulers in India were like that, Islam by sword.



All India was never part of Muslim rule.

The longer the Muslim rules in certain area ,more the number of Muslim we find in those areas ,e,g Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Similarly lesser the time Muslim rule in certain areas ,the lesser number Muslim found in those area e,g Odisa and Nepal.

Hindus ,even Sikh religions survived and kept alive under trying conditions because they played all tricks in the book .

Whenever needed and they could fought back hard e,g against Aurelio's .Aurenzeb destroyed several temples in mathura ,Varanasi(named it Mohamadabad if I'm not wrong ) and elsewhere,but then Hindus under Martha's fought back gain territories and rebuilt those broken temples .

Where they thought they could join hands with the liberal Muslim rulers they did so e,g Akbar's army was commanded by Hindu generals.

So never live in any false impression that Muslim leader did any voluntary concession to Hindus .Those who were pragmatic and they flourished ,other who tried to be harsh on Hindus ,paid the price.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Raghu

Gin ka Pakistan said:


> *After fall of Muslim rule in Spain Crusaders gave people of Spain two option either die or convert to Christianity, by sword.*
> 
> All Indians would have been Muslim if Muslim rulers in India were like that, Islam by sword.



I doubt any Spaniard would agree to Ur theory of forced conversion.

If that was the case then they would converted back into Islam on the very first chance they got,wouldn't they??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

Raghu said:


> I doubt any Spaniard would agree to Ur theory of forced conversion.
> 
> If that was the case then they would converted back into Islam on the very first chance they got,wouldn't they??



then your logic should apply to Mohammed Bin Qasim too! meaning that infact his rule was just & good! hence when he left no one converted back to hinduism! islam flourished in sindh & in all over india! 

and if Mohammed Bin Qasim's rule was taken as just fair & with human rights then automatically the rule of Raja dhair becomes a tyranny

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## All-Green

Raghu said:


> I doubt any Spaniard would agree to Ur theory of forced conversion.
> 
> If that was the case then they would converted back into Islam on the very first chance they got,wouldn't they??



What chance did they get?
You are making a comment which is entirely out of line.

Ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition?
Ever heard of Moriscos?
Ever heard of what happened to the Jews and Muslims in post Islamic Spain?

The forced Baptism of Muslims to convert them to Christians and then persecution was the norm in the reconquered Spain.
All Muslims were made Christian by royal decree and anyone found to be practicing Islam was targeted.
The Spanish inquisition monitored and targeted the forcibly converted Jews and Muslims.

In the 1560s the Monarch issued a royal decree to ban all things Moorish, speaking Arabic or Berber was prohibited, wearing such dresses was prohibited, having Arabic or Berber names was prohibited...this was most likely planned to ensure that the Muslims rise up and try to resist, this is exactly what happened and the revolt against these unacceptable demands was brutally crushed and then the final decree came into place, Expulsion!
In 1609, King Phillip the third expelled all Moriscos (Moorish descent or Muslim ancestry) from the Iberian peninsula, literally hundreds of thousands of Spaniards with Moorish ancestry were forced to leave their homeland.
Jews were also expelled from Spain.

This is all very well documented in history so no need to refer to a Spaniard.
All you need to do is undertake some research without too much emphasis on belittling Muslims and Islam...if that is possible for you to do.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Airboss

Ahmad said:


> may i ask who is Raja Dahir?



Who in the Heck Cares!!!!!


----------



## Raghu

ice_man said:


> then your logic should apply to Mohammed Bin Qasim too! meaning that infact his rule was just & good! hence when he left no one converted back to hinduism! islam flourished in sindh & in all over india!
> 
> and if Mohammed Bin Qasim's rule was taken as just fair & with human rights then automatically the rule of Raja dhair becomes a tyranny



If my logic is wrong then Gin ka Pakistan's logic of forced conversion can apply to Pakistan too.

But fact of the matter lie somewhere in between ,there were forced conversion as well as voluntary conversion due to the conductive atmosphere prevailed in those many centuries long Muslim rule.

There were are documentary proof that forced conversion did occur in large numbers .There is this whole chapter in the documented Sikh history where some Kashmir pundits when threatened to convert within six months or die ,had to seek the help of Guru Tehg Bhahadur who lost his own life when he refused to Convert to Islam himself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hyde

*Does anybody know anything about Raja Dahr? besides he was defeated by Muhammad bin Qasim? how can he be Hero first of all 

Look at Muhammad bin Qasim who left his legacy after his death and known in whole Muslim world and not just Muslims but also well known among Non-Muslim historians 

Who should be called a Hero, The one who was defated? or the one who defeated him in his homeland *


----------



## Raghu

All-Green said:


> What chance did they get?
> You are making a comment which is entirely out of line.
> 
> Ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition?
> Ever heard of Moriscos?
> Ever heard of what happened to the Jews and Muslims in post Islamic Spain?



Thats the whole point Mr All-Green .

Even after worst kind of forced conversions ,within few generations those murky past of coertion fades away ,the neo convert behaves like the born again convert.They not only forget and reject their past religion, they erase the old and erect new legends to supports their wish live in comfort of denial where traces of old existence kept at bay from their new consciousness and most important factor we saw noone wish to revert back to old religion.

Anyone feeling a sense of deja vu??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## courageneverdies

Zaki said:


> *Does anybody know anything about Raja Dahr? besides he was defeated by Muhammad bin Qasim? how can he be Hero first of all
> 
> Look at Muhammad bin Qasim who left his legacy after his death and known in whole Muslim world and not just Muslims but also well known among Non-Muslim historians
> 
> *


*

His life was indeed full of heroism, chivalry and was a fine example of true Muslim general and ruler. 

Ik Musalmaano ki beti par hoa tha jab sitam,
Khul gay thay Ibn-e-Qasim k Shuja'at k Alam,
Betyan barbaad hain Bangaal main Kashmir main,
Josh kyun Ata nai Islam ki shamsheer main.

Even his death is an example of bravery despite of knowing that after the change of Caliph, the new one is against him and his uncle, when he was called, he didnt try to announce independence from the Caliphate but decided to go back because he was sure that what he has done is enough to give life to him and to his name for a hundred of thousands of years. Same happened to Mussa bin Nusair, who was also killed.

But he smoothed a way for Islam to spread in Sindh and than to all Sub-Continent. Sindh is rightly called Bab-ul-Islam.



Zaki said:



Who should be called a Hero, The one who was defated? or the one who defeated him in his homeland 

Click to expand...

*
I go with the one who defeted him in his homeland... 

KIT Over

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MilesTogo

Milatry might/win does not equate to justice/goodness.



courageneverdies said:


> His life was indeed full of heroism, chivalry and was a fine example of true Muslim general and ruler.
> 
> Ik Musalmaano ki beti par hoa tha jab sitam,
> Khul gay thay Ibn-e-Qasim k Shuja'at k Alam,
> Betyan barbaad hain Bangaal main Kashmir main,
> Josh kyun Ata nai Islam ki shamsheer main.
> 
> Even his death is an example of bravery despite of knowing that after the change of Caliph, the new one is against him and his uncle, when he was called, he didnt try to announce independence from the Caliphate but decided to go back because he was sure that what he has done is enough to give life to him and to his name for a hundred of thousands of years. Same happened to Mussa bin Nusair, who was also killed.
> 
> But he smoothed a way for Islam to spread in Sindh and than to all Sub-Continent. Sindh is rightly called Bab-ul-Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> I go with the one who defeted him in his homeland...
> 
> KIT Over


----------



## All-Green

Raghu said:


> Thats the whole point Mr All-Green .
> 
> Even after worst kind of forced conversions ,within few generations those murky past of coertion fades away ,the neo convert behaves like the born again convert.They not only forget and reject their past religion, they erase the old and erect new legends to supports their wish live in comfort of denial where traces of old existence kept at bay from their new consciousness and most important factor we saw noone wish to revert back to old religion.
> 
> Anyone feeling a sense of deja vu??



I would disagree here, the Moriscos were expelled because even after a century most were Christian in name only since they were forcibly declared Christians, the reason they could not practice Islam openly was because the penalty for such an act was death and persecution.
So when you implied that if they were converted why they did not revert back, you are not taking any of the prevalent conditions into account and giving a very simplistic statement.

a) The conversion was not even an option, it was a declaration that the Muslim is now Christian.
b) Penalty for openly reverting back to Islam was most horrible torture and execution.

The spread of Islam in Subcontinent was not due to any such decree whereby the Hindus were declared Muslim one fine day and anyone going to a temple was sent to the Gallows!
That is most certainly not the case and history has not recorded any similar event as to what occurred in Spain.

Muhammad bin Qasim achieved a military objective, however he was not sent to forcibly convert Hindus to Islam.

Since there was no caste system in Islam and all Muslims enjoyed same rights, it could have been one additional factor for many Hindus of lower castes who felt the brunt of upper castes to convert to Islam and get rid of oppression.

Islam was the religion of the super power of the time and was therefore closely associated with a culture which reigned supreme in the world and very appealing from social perspective; more so to people who suffered from the unjust social segregation due to the caste system.

The mass conversion to Islam in the subcontinent took place when the pious and very humble Sufis preached to the local population and earned the respect of the locals due to the high morals and values they stood by.
The poetry of many of these Sufis is recited even by Non Muslims to this day, it was certainly not an imposed culture, it solidified its place in this region through the efforts of men of peace whose humble persona appealed to the masses.

The social system which was the hallmark of Islam in those days stood on two key principles which have always and will always be the foundation of any great society...
a) Equality
b) Justice

The fact that Islamic world has deteriorated does not mean that it was great once only through chance and military might...there were many enviable qualities in the social system implemented in the past Islamic empire.
There were many logical reasons for people to peacefully convert to Islam.

Deja Vu?
You do certainly do need that cup o coffee, there is no similarity between what happened in Spain and what happened in the Indian subcontinent.


----------



## courageneverdies

MilesTogo said:


> Milatry might/win does not equate to justice/goodness.



Whats justice? Whats goodness?

For doing justice, force is required, might is required. If you don't counter culprits, decoits, looters, pirates like Dahir with iron fists, their evil remains spread and they become the devils, blind in misusing powers.

Law = Might = Justice...

Remember that.

KIT Over


----------



## Kabir Panthi

By the way, successors of Muhammad Qasim were defeated by Rajputs. See *Battle of Rajasthan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*

Islam did not establish itself in South Asia until invasions of Turks.

As regards conversions by force - apostacy from Islam is punishable by death and that law is very much on the books in Pakistan.

Also, there is the issue of shame - those who were converted by force, or those whose maternal ancestors were kidnapped by invading soldiers, may prefer not to face the shameful and brutal history. The psychological reaction would be to identify even more vehemently with the pillaging invaders.


----------



## Gin ka Pakistan

On one hand India want to be member of OIC and have 150 million Muslims of its own and on the other hand is active against Islamic propaganda too. Just read all Indian members comments about Islam.


----------



## MastanKhan

jbond197 said:


> I heard people in Sindh also reveres Raja Dahir... Don't know how much of it is true.



Hi,

It is true. When I lived in interior sindh----that is what some of my sindhi friends stated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## courageneverdies

Gin ka Pakistan said:


> On one hand India want to be member of OIC and have 150 million Muslims of its own and on the other hand is active against Islamic propaganda too. Just read all Indian members comments about Islam.



Bro what do you expect them else this? To me their criticism is justified in any condition. 'Coz they are to criticise Islam. But what to talk of people, who claim to be Muslims and do the same.

Yeh Muslim hain jinhain deikh kar sharmain yahood,

People like Salman Rushdi and to a minimum level Haji Adeel earn cheap fame by giving such comments, by themselves giving negative comments about Islam.

Our duty is to defend our religion and country on every front, whether opponents belong to outsiders or insiders.

KIT Over


----------



## courageneverdies

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> It is true. When I lived in interior sindh----that is what some of my sindhi friends stated.



That maybe true. You know as Rajputs, many of my clan, appreciate the actions of Maharana Sangram Singh, Qaimkhanis etc etc.

That maybe their opinion, I also appreciate some of the guts of Rajputs and specially the action of Qaimkhanis against the Akbar's unIslamic Sajda-e-Tazimi.

Heard from you after a long time sir???

KIT Over

Reactions: Like Like:
 1


----------



## PracticalGuy

courageneverdies said:


> Its not the moto of Islam, but of Hindus who still consider Muslims that either they be turned to Hindus, or leave Hindustan. A moto of Shiv Sinha aka BJP
> 
> KIT Over



what makes you think that all muslim rulers were "holy cows" ?Have you even heard of Aurangazeb ,Tippu sultan and Nizams to name a few? and why do you think that there were so many muslims in the subcontinent when the British came? did they just drop form the sky? have you even heard of "jajiya"? so much for the "benovalent" rulers...


----------



## Hyde

PracticalGuy said:


> what makes you think that all muslim rulers were "holy cows" ?Have you even heard of Aurangazeb ,Tippu sultan and Nizams to name a few? and why do you think that there were so many muslims in the subcontinent when the British came? did they just drop form the sky? have you even heard of "jajiya"? so much for the "benovalent" rulers...



just exactly what i was saying when indian members were defending above mentioned personalities saying they consider them as their hero and i was saying there is a population in India who consider them a villain 

Welcome aboard


----------



## PracticalGuy

Zaki said:


> just exactly what i was saying when indian members were defending above mentioned personalities saying they consider them as their hero and i was saying there is a population in India who consider them a villain
> 
> Welcome aboard



Nobody in their right senses ever "defend" Aurangazeb and Nizams in India.. and regarding Tippu Sultan.. most of the Indians know him based on a TV serial which obviously depicted him as "Hero" for obvious reasons concealing his dark side... and ah.. Akbar will be in a different league and thats why people still remember him in India irrespective of their religion.. and did u even care to read my post preoperly? remember seeing this in my post? 
".... all muslim rulers..."


----------



## courageneverdies

PracticalGuy said:


> what makes you think that all muslim rulers were "holy cows" ?Have you even heard of Aurangazeb ,Tippu sultan and Nizams to name a few? and why do you think that there were so many muslims in the subcontinent when the British came? did they just drop form the sky? have you even heard of "jajiya"? so much for the "benovalent" rulers...



Where did I say all Muslim rulers are??? Can you quote that??? 'Coz what you quoted was the reference I made to general perception that all Muslim rulers spread Islam by force...

If not all Muslim rulers were "holly cows" than not all were wolfs also. To equate the equation I may give the name of Akbar, Jahangir. It is also an awe that all of you just hold rulers responsible for "SPREADING" Islam while totally forgetting the role of Suffis played. People like Data Ganj Baksh about whom historians write that he in an open argument with a Hindu Wizard of Lahore, defeated him and hence 100,000 people embrassed Islam.

Ghareeb Nawaz of Ajmeir, who is lauded by Hindus as well, didnt force people to accept Islam. When you talk of people converting to Islam, you forget what Hinduism had for people of lower casts. Islam is a religion of equality and this attracted them the most. It is impossible for a religion to sustain even after centuries if it had been spread by force.

And its not Jajiya, its Jazya imposed by the Muslim rulers on the non-Muslim people for their security. If you have ever read Muslim history, Ummayads even imposed it on Muslims. That was for their Security. Umar I called it off from the non-Muslims when he was to leave a city unprotected. 

Its a great thing to protect the unprotected for giving tax. You still pay it... Why you not cry against GoI for imposing TAX for your protection???

KIT Over


----------



## PracticalGuy

courageneverdies said:


> Where did I say all Muslim rulers are??? Can you quote that??? 'Coz what you quoted was the reference I made to general perception that all Muslim rulers spread Islam by force...
> 
> If not all Muslim rulers were "holly cows" than not all were wolfs also. To equate the equation I may give the name of Akbar, Jahangir. It is also an awe that all of you just hold rulers responsible for "SPREADING" Islam while totally forgetting the role of Suffis played. People like Data Ganj Baksh about whom historians write that he in an open argument with a Hindu Wizard of Lahore, defeated him and hence 100,000 people embrassed Islam.
> 
> Ghareeb Nawaz of Ajmeir, who is lauded by Hindus as well, didnt force people to accept Islam. When you talk of people converting to Islam, you forget what Hinduism had for people of lower casts. Islam is a religion of equality and this attracted them the most. It is impossible for a religion to sustain even after centuries if it had been spread by force.
> 
> And its not Jajiya, its Jazya imposed by the Muslim rulers on the non-Muslim people for their security. If you have ever read Muslim history, Ummayads even imposed it on Muslims. That was for their Security. Umar I called it off from the non-Muslims when he was to leave a city unprotected.
> 
> Its a great thing to protect the unprotected for giving tax. You still pay it... Why you not cry against GoI for imposing TAX for your protection???
> 
> KIT Over





> Originally Posted by courageneverdies
> Its not the moto of Islam, but of Hindus who still consider Muslims that either they be turned to Hindus, or leave Hindustan. A moto of Shiv Sinha aka BJP


yeah same "preaching" applies to u too ...dont generalise all Hindus.. you dont know nothing about Hindus... and by the way.. if you see my above quote ..it will be more clear to u..what i meant...
and regarding "Jazya" .. I still stick to my point...and I wasnt talking about Umayyads but was telling you about subcontinent rulers..and we can see that even now in some parts of Pakistan where it's been collected from the nonmuslims.. and before that we have seen it in Afghanistan too..


----------



## courageneverdies

PracticalGuy said:


> yeah same "preaching" applies to u too ...dont generalise all Hindus.. you dont know nothing about Hindus... and by the way.. if you see my above quote ..it will be more clear to u..what i meant...



Yeah I know nothing, but I know and have seen the oath-taking ceremony of members of Shiv Senha, Are they not Hindus??? 

Tit for tat, what if I generalized Hindus when you generalized all Muslim rulers, as clearly mentioned in your posts.

But before you make aware others about Hinduism, I think you must affirm that cousin marriages is prohibited in Hinduism. Isn't it? And Dahir married his sister for the sake of Throne, can you justify it...? 

About preaching.... Leave it.

KIT Over


----------



## PracticalGuy

courageneverdies said:


> Yeah I know nothing, but I know and have seen the oath-taking ceremony of members of Shiv Senha, Are they not Hindus???
> 
> Tit for tat, what if I generalized Hindus when you generalized all Muslim rulers, as clearly mentioned in your posts.
> 
> But before you make aware others about Hinduism, I think you must affirm that cousin marriages is prohibited in Hinduism. Isn't it? And Dahir married his sister for the sake of Throne, can you justify it...?
> 
> About preaching.... Leave it.
> 
> KIT Over



I think you are jumping the guns too soon in over excitement... read through my previous posts and let me know where did i generalised all muslim rulers? are yaar kuch bhi kehlete ho kuch soche bina.. now go and read my previous posts...


----------



## courageneverdies

PracticalGuy said:


> what makes you think that all muslim rulers were "holy cows" ? so much for the "benovalent" rulers...



this isn't generalization na...

Over excitement? for what...

KIT Over


----------



## PracticalGuy

courageneverdies said:


> this isn't generalization na...
> 
> Over excitement? for what...
> 
> KIT Over





> Originally Posted by PracticalGuy
> what makes you think that all muslim rulers were "holy cows" ?Have you even heard of Aurangazeb ,Tippu sultan and Nizams to name a few? and why do you think that there were so many muslims in the subcontinent when the British came? did they just drop form the sky? have you even heard of "jajiya"? so much for the "benovalent" rulers...



and my other post..


> Nobody in their right senses ever "defend" Aurangazeb and Nizams in India.. and regarding Tippu Sultan.. most of the Indians know him based on a TV serial which obviously depicted him as "Hero" for obvious reasons concealing his dark side... and ah.. Akbar will be in a different league and thats why people still remember him in India irrespective of their religion.. and did u even care to read my post preoperly? remember seeing this in my post?



You got to be kidding me!!! now show these above statements of mine to any body who knows english and ask them its meaning.. and ask them if they see any "generalisation" of muslim rulers in them ..man..you are turning out to be something...and thats my friend is over excitement.


----------



## ice_man

great from holy raja dahir to evil tipu sultan great going indian friends! 

look Mohammed-Bin-Qasim laid the foundations of islam & according to everyones theory here about spain no one converted back to hinduism after he left. infact islam only spread since his arrival in the sub continent! 

@ practical guy 

for you anyone who twisted the religion and introduced hindu ideology into the islamic faith is loved by you. i.e. akbar is loved! anyone who stuck to their religion was "evil" 

look its this simple:

Hindus Love Raja dhair even knowing all his short comings

Muslims love Moahmmed Bin Qasim

you cann't change these beliefs no matter how hard you try! two civilizations have been forged on these two beliefs. one muslim one hindu! 

no one can change the others opinon. so no point debating it further!


----------



## Hyde

PracticalGuy said:


> Nobody in their right senses ever "defend" Aurangazeb and Nizams in India.. and regarding Tippu Sultan.. most of the Indians know him based on a TV serial which obviously depicted him as "Hero" for obvious reasons concealing his dark side... and ah.. Akbar will be in a different league and thats why people still remember him in India irrespective of their religion.. and did u even care to read my post preoperly? remember seeing this in my post?
> ".... all muslim rulers..."



Yeah i just discovered you are the only intelligent Indian here -------- rest of them are not aware of their history and were defending Tipu Sultan and other Muslim leaders for no reason. I even defended Tipu's father Hyder Ali if you know about him.

What do you have to say about him Sir?


----------



## courageneverdies

PracticalGuy said:


> and my other post..
> 
> 
> You got to be kidding me!!! now show these above statements of mine to any body who knows english and ask them its meaning.. and ask them if they see any "generalisation" of muslim rulers in them ..man..you are turning out to be something...and thats my friend is over excitement.



...all muslim rulers  go see a psychiatrist Mr Intelligent.

KIT Over


----------



## jbond197

courageneverdies said:


> That maybe true. You know as Rajputs, many of my clan, appreciate the actions of Maharana Sangram Singh, Qaimkhanis etc etc.
> 
> That maybe their opinion, I also appreciate some of the guts of Rajputs and specially the action of Qaimkhanis against the Akbar's unIslamic Sajda-e-Tazimi.
> 
> Heard from you after a long time sir???
> 
> KIT Over



OK this thread has been over streched and have deviated from the real discussion. Now we are seeing religious angles in every post here. Time to close the thread.

My intent of posting on this thread was just to know how a difference in opionion of a group of people like in this case of Haji Adeel of ANP make them anti pakistan or pro India? People should be tolerant and respect opinion of others.


----------



## Hyde

jbond197 said:


> OK this thread has been over streched and have deviated from the real discussion. Now we are seeing religious angles in every post here. Time to close the thread.



No no no i am waiting for an answer from Sir PracticalGuy........ *please let him answer my question before MODs close this thread*



jbond197 said:


> My intent of posting on this thread was just to know how a difference in opionion of a group of people like in this case of Haji Adeel of ANP make them anti pakistan or pro India? People should be tolerant and respect opinion of others.



A little off-topic post sorry

Oh really i just tell you a funny story - i spent a whole day yesterday night on indian defence forum and was trying to keep myself in control from their offensive posts and after hard work one indian member finally gave an nuteral opinion. *The argument was simple 23 Pakistani soldiers were martyred and the Admin were arguing for whose sake they are martyred. All i was saying is whatever happened we shall discuss in a seperate thread and keep this thread for RIP purposes only................. and the only guy who agreed with me later on received a bashing post from the staff saying You should move to Pakistan for using such a word* 

Later on more staff came and requested him to edit his post but i was laughing for a long time that by saying RIP to the Pakistani soldier he is convicting him a criminal and saying him to move to Pakistan


----------



## Awesome

Raghu said:


> Yes,as time changes ,people's allegiance changes and so changes how history is looked at.It happens all the time e,g Spain .
> 
> While Muslim world still view Muslim rule over Spain in Europe with a sense of nostalgia, whereas people of Spain considers it as time of dark age and blemish on the part of that countries history .


Please get an education before recreating history on your keyboard. The dark ages are thus called due to the backwardness of Christian Europe. Muslim Spain of the time was the epitome of freedom of religion, education. It was the USA of the time with immigrants were lined up to get in.

I think we are arguing with unparh ***** people who are actually claiming the dark ages were termed so due to the Muslim conquests.

Mohammad Bin Qasim played his role in the formation of Pakistan - that's why he's revered. Chahay jitna bhi ro pit lo ab, this has already happened. Get over it.


----------

