# Muhammad Bin Qasim



## Taimur Khurram

Muhammad bin Qasim was born around 695 AD. He belonged to the Saqqafi tribe; that had originated from Taif in Arabia. He grew up in the care of his mother; he soon became a great asset to his uncle Muhammad Ibn Yusuf, the governor of Yemen. His judgment, potential and skills left many other officers and forced the ruler to appoint him in the state department. He was also a close relative of Hajjaj bin Yousuf, because of the influence of Hajjaj, the young Muhammad bin Qasim was appointed the governor of Persia while in his teens, and he crushed the rebellion in that region. There is also a popular tradition that presents him as the son-in-law of Hajjaj bin Yousuf. He conquered the Sindh and Punjab regions along the Indus River for the Umayyad Caliphate.

There are both long and short term causes for the conquest of india. Arabs had trade with India and Eastern Asia. The trade was carried through sea rout; the rout was unsafe due to the plunder of the Pirates of Sindh. The Arab rebels also get refuge in Sindh. Thus the Umayyad wanted to consolidate their rule and also to secure the trade rout. During Hajjaj’s governorship, the Mids of Debal (Pirates) plundered the gifts of Ceylon’s ruler to Hijjaj and attacked on ships of Arab that were carrying the orphans and widows of Muslim soldiers who died in Sri Lanka. Thus providing the Umayyad Caliphate the legitimate cause, that enabled them to gain a foothold in the Makran, and Sindh regions.

The Umayyad caliphate ordered Muhammad Bin Qasim to attack over Sindh. He led 6,000 Syrian cavalry and at the borders of Sindh he was joined by an advance guard and six thousand camel riders and with five catapults (Manjaniks). Muhammad Bin Qasim first captured Debal, from where the Arab army marched along the Indus. At Rohri he was met by Dahir’s forces. Dahir died in the battle, his forces were defeated and Muhammad bin Qasim took control of Sind. Mohammad Bin Qasim entered Daibul in 712 AD. As a result of his efforts, he succeeded in capturing Daibul. He continued his Victorious Progress in succession, Nirun, fortress (called Sikka), Brahmanabad, Alor, Multan and Gujrat. After the conquest of Multan, he carried his arms to the borders of Kigdom of Kashmir, but his dismissal stopped the further advance. Now Muslims were the masters of whole Sindh and a part of Punjab up to the borders of Kashmir in the north. After the conquest, he adopted a conciliatory policy, asking for acceptance of Muslim rule by the natives in return for non-interference in their religious and cultural practices. He also established peace with a strong taxation system. In return he provided the guaranty of security of life and property for the natives. Hajjaj died in 714. When Walid Bin Abdul Malik died, his younger brother Suleman succeeded as the Caliph. He was a bitter enemy of Hajjaj’s family. He recalled Mohammad Bin Qasim from Sindh, who obeyed the orders as the duty of a general. When he came back, he was put to death on 18th of July, 715AD at the age of twenty.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Taimur Khurram

@SarthakGanguly @StraightShooter @Luffy 500 @Saif al-Arab @maximuswarrior @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @Azadkashmir @Mugwop @Hassan Guy @Sharif al-Hijaz @Windjammer @EpiiC @HAKIKAT

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Azadkashmir

well it paks turn to sort out pirates from oil regions who fund terror in gawador areas and other regions. 
Its time to send our army to secure the trade route and protection of course taxation.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Mugwop

Some shithead will mention dahir's daughters for sure to malign him.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## BATMAN

dsr478 said:


> When he came back, he was put to death on 18th of July, 715AD at the age of twenty.


That was one of the biggest conspiracies in history of Islam.
All great generals of Islamic army from around the globe, were called back to capital Damascus and assassinated.
Here's another one of the legend, killed by bloody Sulaiman.
http://www.arabnews.com/islam-perspective/news/750016

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Taimur Khurram

BATMAN said:


> That was one of the biggest conspiracies in history of Islam.
> All great generals of Islamic army from around the globe, were called back to capital Damascus and assassinated.
> Here's another one of the legend, killed by bloody Sulaiman.
> http://www.arabnews.com/islam-perspective/news/750016



It was the Abbasid revolution. Non Arabs were unhappy with the Arabs, so they revolted.

Whilst they had some genuine grievances, the non Arabs went a little overboard with how they handled it, they punished the Umayyads way too heavily, only a few of them could be considered worthy of their given punishment, even then it's debatable.



Mugwop said:


> Some shithead will mention dahir's daughters for sure to malign him.



That story is mostly considered false anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BATMAN

dsr478 said:


> Whilst they had some genuine grievances, the non Arabs went a little overboard with how they handled it, they punished the Umayyads way too heavily, only a few of them could be considered worthy of their given punishment, even then it's debatable.


Those murders were conspiracy against Islam, all generals were called back to Damascus at same time and assassinated in Capital. Nothing to do with non Arab grievances and there were non.
Tariq ibn Ziyad was non Arab him self... a berber slave!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Thəorətic Muslim

Mugwop said:


> Some shithead will mention dahir's daughters for sure to malign him.



A history book that has numerous inaccuracies can be accurate somewhere can't it? 

hmm? (rhetorical question)


----------



## Mugwop

Thəorətic Muslim said:


> A history book that has numerous inaccuracies can be accurate somewhere can't it?
> 
> hmm? (rhetorical question)


Ofcourse it can, I just don't believe Qasim forced himself on anyone. Also dahir married his sister symbolically not literally. Correct me if I am wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taimur Khurram

BATMAN said:


> Those murders were conspiracy against Islam, all generals were called back to Damascus at same time and assassinated in Capital. Nothing to do with non Arab grievances and there were non.
> Tariq ibn Ziyad was non Arab him self... a berber slave!



The revolution in the first place was to do with non Arab grievances, but as I said, they went overboard and killed many for just being associated with the Ummayad government.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StraightShooter

dsr478 said:


> Muhammad bin Qasim was born around 695 AD. He belonged to the Saqqafi tribe; that had originated from Taif in Arabia. He grew up in the care of his mother; he soon became a great asset to his uncle Muhammad Ibn Yusuf, the governor of Yemen. His judgment, potential and skills left many other officers and forced the ruler to appoint him in the state department. He was also a close relative of Hajjaj bin Yousuf, because of the influence of Hajjaj, the young Muhammad bin Qasim was appointed the governor of Persia while in his teens, and he crushed the rebellion in that region. There is also a popular tradition that presents him as the son-in-law of Hajjaj bin Yousuf. He conquered the Sindh and Punjab regions along the Indus River for the Umayyad Caliphate.
> 
> There are both long and short term causes for the conquest of india. Arabs had trade with India and Eastern Asia. The trade was carried through sea rout; the rout was unsafe due to the plunder of the Pirates of Sindh. The Arab rebels also get refuge in Sindh. Thus the Umayyad wanted to consolidate their rule and also to secure the trade rout. During Hajjaj’s governorship, the Mids of Debal (Pirates) plundered the gifts of Ceylon’s ruler to Hijjaj and attacked on ships of Arab that were carrying the orphans and widows of Muslim soldiers who died in Sri Lanka. Thus providing the Umayyad Caliphate the legitimate cause, that enabled them to gain a foothold in the Makran, and Sindh regions.
> 
> The Umayyad caliphate ordered Muhammad Bin Qasim to attack over Sindh. He led 6,000 Syrian cavalry and at the borders of Sindh he was joined by an advance guard and six thousand camel riders and with five catapults (Manjaniks). Muhammad Bin Qasim first captured Debal, from where the Arab army marched along the Indus. At Rohri he was met by Dahir’s forces. Dahir died in the battle, his forces were defeated and Muhammad bin Qasim took control of Sind. Mohammad Bin Qasim entered Daibul in 712 AD. As a result of his efforts, he succeeded in capturing Daibul. He continued his Victorious Progress in succession, Nirun, fortress (called Sikka), Brahmanabad, Alor, Multan and Gujrat. After the conquest of Multan, he carried his arms to the borders of Kigdom of Kashmir, but his dismissal stopped the further advance. Now Muslims were the masters of whole Sindh and a part of Punjab up to the borders of Kashmir in the north. After the conquest, he adopted a conciliatory policy, asking for acceptance of Muslim rule by the natives in return for non-interference in their religious and cultural practices. He also established peace with a strong taxation system. In return he provided the guaranty of security of life and property for the natives. Hajjaj died in 714. When Walid Bin Abdul Malik died, his younger brother Suleman succeeded as the Caliph. He was a bitter enemy of Hajjaj’s family. He recalled Mohammad Bin Qasim from Sindh, who obeyed the orders as the duty of a general. When he came back, he was put to death on 18th of July, 715AD at the age of twenty.



The moot question is not whether Muhammad Bin Qasim was great warrior or not but why do Pakistanis greatly worship an Arab than their own?

Is it a question of inferiority complex?

Is it a question of Stockholm syndrome?

This is where Iranians totally differentiate themselves from the Pakistanis.

In spite of embracing Islam, Iranians still learn and feel proud of their history.

Persians neither worship Arabs nor the Greeks irrespective of whether Persians kings have won or lost.

More importantly Persians always defend their narrative and not the narrative thrust upon them by the victors.



Mugwop said:


> Some shithead will mention dahir's daughters for sure to malign him.



Do you think I have put this because the losing king was a Hindu or Are you just ignoring & dismissing this because the winner was a Muslim?

What is interesting is, not only you are unwilling to stand for your own King but also your own ethnic daughters were taken as S*X slaves. How can you do this being a female is very appalling to me.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1098562

*Muhammad Bin Qasim: Predator or preacher?*
Akhtar BalouchUpdated April 08, 2014
2729

204






We all know that Arab General Muhammad Bin Qasim conquered Sindh in 712 AD. However, the facts surrounding this conquest, and the ill fate that followed for the conqueror is known to few among us.

According to researcher and historian Dr Mubarak Ali, the war between Muhamad Bin Qasim and Raja Dahar was never a war of faith versus infidelity. He further says that it is not correct that Muhammad Bin Qasim’s men included Hindus of scheduled castes fighting for him.

It was after Muhammad Bin Qasim had conquered Sindh and had marched further ahead that locals started joining the Arab forces due to poverty and joblessness. According to Dr Mubarak Ali, the Arabs started ruling under the umbrella of an ancient elite class, thus their behaviour towards the lower and humbler communities never changed.

As such, the taking over of the reigns of Hind and Sindh by the Arabs never changed a thing for the already oppressed and victimised classes of society, which is claimed to be the focus of Islamic governance.

So, who is to decide if Muhammad Bin Qasim was a predator or a preacher?

*No glory in death*
_Chachnama_, a Sindhi book published by the Sindhi Adabi Board in 2008, speaks of Muhammad bin Qasim's demise on page 242 to 243. I will try to summarise it for you.

After Raja Dahar was killed, two of his daughters were made captive, whom Muhammad Bin Qasim sent to the capital Damascus. After a few days, the Caliph of the Muslims called the two young women to his court. The name of the elder daughter of Raja Dahar was Suryadevi, while the younger one’s name was Pirmaldevi.

Caliph Waleed Bin Abdul Malik fell for Suryadevi’s extraordinary beauty. He ordered for her younger sister to be taken away. The Caliph then began to take liberties with Suryadevi, pulling her to himself.

It is written that Suryadevi sprang up and said: “May the king live long: I, a humble slave, am not fit for your Majesty's bedroom, because Muhammad Bin Qasim kept both of us sisters with him for three days, and then sent us to the caliphate. Perhaps your custom is such, but this kind of disgrace should not be permitted by kings.”

Hearing this, the Caliph’s blood boiled as heat from anger and desire both compounded within him.

Blinded in the thirst of Suryadevi’s nearness and jealousy of Bin Qasim who had robbed him of the purity he would otherwise have had, the Caliph [sic] immediately sent for pen, ink and paper, and with his own hands wrote an order, directing that, “Muhammad (Bin) Qasim should, wherever he may be, put himself in raw leather and come back to the chief seat of the caliphate.”

Muhammad Bin Qasim received the Caliph’s orders in the city of Udhapur. He directed his own men to wrap him in raw leather and lock him in a trunk before taking him to Damascus.

En route to the capital, Muhammad Bin Qasim, conqueror to some, predator to others, breathed his last and his soul departed to meet with the Creator in whose name he claimed to crusade in Sindh.

When the trunk carrying Muhammad Bin Qasim’s corpse wrapped in raw leather reached the Caliph’s court, the Caliph called upon Dahar’s daughters, asking them to bear witness to the spectacle of obedience of his men for the Caliph.

One of Dahar’s daughter’s then spoke in return and said: “The fact is that Muhammad Qasim was like a brother or a son to us; he never touched us, your slaves, and our chastity was safe with him. But in as much as he brought ruin on the king of Hind and Sind, desolated the kingdom of our fathers and grandfathers, and degraded us from princely rank to slavery, we have, with the intention of revenge and of bringing ruin and degradation to him in return, misrepresented the matter and spoken a false thing to your majesty against him.”

The author of the _Chachnama_ then writes that had Muhammad Bin Qasim not lost his senses in the passion of obedience, he could have made the whole journey normally, while wrapping himself in raw leather and locking himself in a trunk only when a part of the journey remained to be covered.

He could have then proven himself innocent in the Caliph’s court and saved himself from such a fate.

_Translated by Ayaz Laghari_


2729

204



Akhtar Balouch is a senior journalist, writer and researcher. He is currently a council member of the HRCP. Sociology is his primary domain of expertise, on which he has published several books.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## StraightShooter

dsr478 said:


> That story is mostly considered false anyway.



How about this one?

Have you guys ever wondered why Shias of Kargil strongly support being part of India?

Have you ever wondered why Shias in India strongly support BJP ?

History is the testament to the fact that the Hindus of India have strongly supported prophet Muhammad ((PBUH) and his family in their fight against the Umayyad Caliphate which usurped power and killed both prophet Muhammad's ((PBUH) grandson Husayn ibn Ali and great-grandson Ali ibn Husayn Zayn al-Abidin.

*Karbala and how Lahore was involved*
Majid SheikhNovember 26, 2012
68
 
156







A Muharram procession in Lahore, Pakistan.—File Photo


IN our school and college days we all loved to assist friends set up ‘sabeels’ alongside Lahore`s traditional ‘Ashura’ procession, providing cold drinks to the thousands who mourned. Sects and beliefs never mattered then. But then neither did one`s religion.

For well over 1,332 years, the tragedy of Karbala moves everyone who hears about it, be they Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Sikh or any other religion. This is one incident that brings out the need to support those with a moral position.

As children we attended the ‘sham-i-ghareeban’ with our Shia friends, and learnt the lesson of supporting those in the right. Everyone respected the beliefs of others. Yes, there were always a few silly chaps who wanted attention, but they were at best ignored.

The ancient city of Lahore is connected to the tragedy in no uncertain terms.

Historical accounts say seven brave warriors from Lahore died while fighting in the Battle of Karbala. It is said their father Rahab Dutt, an old man who traded with Arabia in those days, had promised the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) to stand by his grandson in his fight to uphold the truth.

That pledge the brave Rajput Mohiyals of the Dutt clan from Lahore upheld.

Today they are known as Hussaini Brahmins, who lived in Lahore till 1947.

Then there is the fact that besides the Hindu Rajputs of Lahore, in the battle also fought John bin Huwai, a freed Christian slave of Abu Dharr al-Ghafari, whose `alleged` descendents, one researcher claims, still live inside the Walled City of Lahore.

I have been on the track of these ancestors for quite some time and have been able to trace one Christian family living inside Mori Gate. They claim to have a connection with a `Sahabi` whose name they cannot recollect. M. A. Karanpikar`s `Islam in Transition`, written over 250 years ago, made this claim, but I do not think it is a claim worth pursuing.

But the most powerful claim of Lahore as the place where the descendents of Hussain ibn All came lies in the Bibi Pak Daman graveyard, where the grave of Ruquiya, sister of Hussain ibn Ali and wife of Muslim ibn Ageel, is said to exist.

Also graves here attributed to the sisters of Muslim ibn Ageel and other family members. Many dispute this claim.

But then no less a person than Ali Hasan of Hajweri, known popularly as Data Sahib, came here every Thursday to offer ‘fateha’ at the grave, informing his followers that this was the grave of Ruquiya. The place where he always stood to offer `fateha` has been marked out, and his book also verifies this claim. Mind you detractors exist, of this have no doubt, but the supporting evidence is quite strong.

Let me begin the story of the Dutts by going through the record of the Shaukat Khanum Hospital and the recorded fact that Indian film star Sunil Dutt, who belonged to Lahore, made a donation to the hospital and recorded the following words: ‘For Lahore, like my elders, I will shed every drop of blood and give any donation asked for, just as my ancestors did when they laid down their lives at Karbala for Hazrat Imam Husain.

Makes you think -but then there is this account which says that the seven sons of Rahab Dutt lost their lives defending the Imam at Karbala. The Martyr’s List at Qum verifies this. History records when the third thrust by Yazid’s forces came, the Dutt brothers refused to let them pass. The seven Punjabi swordsmen stood their ground till they were felled by hundreds of horsemen. In lieu of the loyalty of the Dutt family to that of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) was coined the famous saying: ‘Wah Dutt Sultan, Hindu ka dharm, Musalman ka iman, Adha Hindu adha Musalman.’ Since then, so the belief goes, Muslims were instructed never to try to convert the Dutts to Islam.

A grieving Rahab returned to the land of his ancestors, and after staying in Afghanistan, returned to Lahore. I have tried my very best to locate their ‘mohallah’ inside the Walled City, and my educated guess is that it is Mohallah Maulian inside Lohari Gate. Later they moved to Mochi Gate, and it was there that the famous Dutts lived before 1947 saw them flee from the hate of the people they gave everything for.

The most interesting thing about the Hussaini Brahmins is that they are highly respected among Hindus, and even more amazingly it is said that all direct ancestors of Rahab Dutt are born with a light slash mark on their throat, a sort of symbol of their sacrifice. I was reading a piece by Prof Doonica Dutt of Delhi University who verified this claim and said that all true Dutts belong to Lahore.

I must point out to an amazing version of these events that an Indian historian, Chawala, has come up with. It says that one of the wives of Hazrat Imam Husain, the Persian princess Shahr Banu, was the sister of Chandra Lekha or Mehr Banu, the wife of an Indian king Chandragupta. We know that he ruled over Lahore. When it became clear that Yazid ibn Muawiya was determined to eliminate Hussain ibn Ali, the son of Hussain (named Ali) rushed off a letter to Chandragupta asking for assistance. The Mauriyan king, allegedly, dispatched a large army to Iraq to assist. By the time they arrived, the Tragedy of Karbala had taken place.

In Kufa in Iraq a disciple of Hazrat Imam Husain is said to have arranged for them to stay in a special part of the town, which even today is known by the name of Dair-i-Hindiya or ‘the Indian quarter’ The Hussaini Brahmins believe that in the Kalanki Purana, the last of 18 Puranas, as well as the Atharva Veda, the 4th Veda, refers to Hazrat Imam Husain as the avatar of the Kali Yug, the present age. They believe that the family of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him)is Om Murti, the most respected family before the Almighty.

All these facts bring me back to our days as school children working hard to provide relief to the mourners on Ashura. Reminds me of our neighbour Nawab Raza Ali Qizilbash, who invited us to his ‘haveli’ every year to see the preparations before the event. Raza Bhai is no more, and neither is the tolerance that we all enjoyed so much.

https://www.dawn.com/news/766877


*Hussaini Brahmins: The Hindus who fought for Imam Hussain in war of Karbala*

*The term 'Hussaini Brahmins' comes as a surprise for the majority of readers. It is perceived as if two contradicting words are aligned together. However, its definition is a source of inspiration for*

Mohammed Uzair Shaikh | Published: October 24, 2015 5:41 PM ISTEmail

The term ‘Hussaini Brahmins’ comes as a surprise for the majority of readers. It is perceived as if two contradicting words are aligned together. However, its definition is a source of inspiration for those who believe in plurality, unity and diversity. At a time when communal animosity is escalating between Hindus and Muslims, one should reminisce the valour shown by Brahmins residing in North-West frontier (now Pakistan) by joining the martyrdom of the revered Islamic figure.

Who are Hussaini Brahmins?

Rahab Singh Dutt, an upper-caste Hindu belonging to Mohyal community traveled all the way to Iran, along with his sons to join Imam Hussain, the grandson of Prophet Muhammad in the war of Karbala. The famous battle was fought against caliph Yazeed, who had turned corrupt and spread a cruel rule in the region of _al-sham _(the area which is now demarcated as Iraq, Iran and Syria). Since the grandson of prophet took objection to his unjust methods, Yazeed launched a war against him.

Imam Hussain, who was left with a few number of supporters in the region of Central Arab (now Medina, Oman and Yemen) wrote a number of letters to neighbouring tribes and regions which had maintained good relations with Prophet Muhammad. One such letter reached the Brahmins of North-West frontier.

Despite knowing the fact that he was participating a one-sided battle and destined to lose, Datt joined the forces of Hussain. According to Sunita Jhingran, who claims to be a Mohyal descendant of Rahab Singh Dutt, “Our ancestors joined the forces because Imam Hussain was fighting against the oppression of people under Yazeed’s rule. He was fighting for true Islam, which was propagated by the beloved prophet. Rahab Singh Dutt was a warrior who joined the forces of the Imam since he was standing for the righteous.”

The war of Karbala began in 680 AD. Rahab Singh Dutt joined the losing battalion of Hussain. Dutt did not die in the battle, but his seven sons who accompanied him lost their lives shortly after the beheading of Imam Hussain. After the battle, he met Hussain’s sister, Zainab and narrated his story.


According to Vipin Mohan Jhingran, who claims to be a Hussaini Brahmin, Zainab was moved to tears after confronting Dutt. “The family of Prophet Muhammad told our ancestor Rahab Singh Dutt that from now you are not just Brahmins, but ‘Hussaini’ Brahmins,” said Jhingran.

Where are the Hussaini Brahmins now?

The Hussaini Brahmins thrived in the regions of Pakistan in the pre-independence era. The community members are identified with surnames such as Mohan, Bali, Chibber, Dutt, Bakshi, Lav, Bimwal and Jhingran. After the partition, they migrated to India and settled in various parts of the nation.

However, despite their contributions in the redefining era of Islamic history, a number of Muslims in India and Pakistan fail to acknowledge them. They refrain from believing the narrative of the Mohyal community alleging that no Islamic author has claimed the same. However, Shia cleric based in Lahore, Maulana Hasan Zafar Naqvi, validates the fact that Mohyals had participated in the war of Karbala since they had good relations with Caliph Ali, the father of Imam Hussain.

Despite sharing a rich and varied history, the Hussaini Brahmins have somehow turned into a lost community and have remotely made their socio-religious presence felt. Amid situations where a _Tajya _procession in Muharram can cause a communal riot, both the communities should recall the martyrdom of Imam Hussain and sacrifice made up by Mohyals to safeguard his honour.


http://www.india.com/news/india/hus...ht-for-imam-hussain-in-war-of-karbala-655259/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

StraightShooter said:


> The moot question is not whether Muhammad Bin Qasim was great warrior or not but why do Pakistanis greatly worship an Arab than their own?
> 
> Is it a question of inferiority complex?
> 
> Is it a question of Stockholm syndrome?
> 
> This is where Iranians totally differentiate themselves from the Pakistanis.
> 
> In spite of embracing Islam, Iranians still learn and feel proud of their history.
> 
> Persians neither worship Arabs nor the Greeks irrespective of whether Persians kings have won or lost.
> 
> More importantly Persians always defend their narrative and not the narrative thrust upon them by the victors.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think I have put this because the losing king was a Hindu or Are you just ignoring & dismissing this because the winner was a Muslim?
> 
> What is interesting is, not only you are unwilling to stand for your own King but also your own ethnic daughters were taken as S*X slaves. How can you do this being a female is very appalling to me.
> 
> https://www.dawn.com/news/1098562
> 
> *Muhammad Bin Qasim: Predator or preacher?*
> Akhtar BalouchUpdated April 08, 2014
> 2729
> 
> 204
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know that Arab General Muhammad Bin Qasim conquered Sindh in 712 AD. However, the facts surrounding this conquest, and the ill fate that followed for the conqueror is known to few among us.
> 
> According to researcher and historian Dr Mubarak Ali, the war between Muhamad Bin Qasim and Raja Dahar was never a war of faith versus infidelity. He further says that it is not correct that Muhammad Bin Qasim’s men included Hindus of scheduled castes fighting for him.
> 
> It was after Muhammad Bin Qasim had conquered Sindh and had marched further ahead that locals started joining the Arab forces due to poverty and joblessness. According to Dr Mubarak Ali, the Arabs started ruling under the umbrella of an ancient elite class, thus their behaviour towards the lower and humbler communities never changed.
> 
> As such, the taking over of the reigns of Hind and Sindh by the Arabs never changed a thing for the already oppressed and victimised classes of society, which is claimed to be the focus of Islamic governance.
> 
> So, who is to decide if Muhammad Bin Qasim was a predator or a preacher?
> 
> *No glory in death*
> _Chachnama_, a Sindhi book published by the Sindhi Adabi Board in 2008, speaks of Muhammad bin Qasim's demise on page 242 to 243. I will try to summarise it for you.
> 
> After Raja Dahar was killed, two of his daughters were made captive, whom Muhammad Bin Qasim sent to the capital Damascus. After a few days, the Caliph of the Muslims called the two young women to his court. The name of the elder daughter of Raja Dahar was Suryadevi, while the younger one’s name was Pirmaldevi.
> 
> Caliph Waleed Bin Abdul Malik fell for Suryadevi’s extraordinary beauty. He ordered for her younger sister to be taken away. The Caliph then began to take liberties with Suryadevi, pulling her to himself.
> 
> It is written that Suryadevi sprang up and said: “May the king live long: I, a humble slave, am not fit for your Majesty's bedroom, because Muhammad Bin Qasim kept both of us sisters with him for three days, and then sent us to the caliphate. Perhaps your custom is such, but this kind of disgrace should not be permitted by kings.”
> 
> Hearing this, the Caliph’s blood boiled as heat from anger and desire both compounded within him.
> 
> Blinded in the thirst of Suryadevi’s nearness and jealousy of Bin Qasim who had robbed him of the purity he would otherwise have had, the Caliph [sic] immediately sent for pen, ink and paper, and with his own hands wrote an order, directing that, “Muhammad (Bin) Qasim should, wherever he may be, put himself in raw leather and come back to the chief seat of the caliphate.”
> 
> Muhammad Bin Qasim received the Caliph’s orders in the city of Udhapur. He directed his own men to wrap him in raw leather and lock him in a trunk before taking him to Damascus.
> 
> En route to the capital, Muhammad Bin Qasim, conqueror to some, predator to others, breathed his last and his soul departed to meet with the Creator in whose name he claimed to crusade in Sindh.
> 
> When the trunk carrying Muhammad Bin Qasim’s corpse wrapped in raw leather reached the Caliph’s court, the Caliph called upon Dahar’s daughters, asking them to bear witness to the spectacle of obedience of his men for the Caliph.
> 
> One of Dahar’s daughter’s then spoke in return and said: “The fact is that Muhammad Qasim was like a brother or a son to us; he never touched us, your slaves, and our chastity was safe with him. But in as much as he brought ruin on the king of Hind and Sind, desolated the kingdom of our fathers and grandfathers, and degraded us from princely rank to slavery, we have, with the intention of revenge and of bringing ruin and degradation to him in return, misrepresented the matter and spoken a false thing to your majesty against him.”
> 
> The author of the _Chachnama_ then writes that had Muhammad Bin Qasim not lost his senses in the passion of obedience, he could have made the whole journey normally, while wrapping himself in raw leather and locking himself in a trunk only when a part of the journey remained to be covered.
> 
> He could have then proven himself innocent in the Caliph’s court and saved himself from such a fate.
> 
> _Translated by Ayaz Laghari_
> 
> 
> 2729
> 
> 204
> 
> 
> 
> Akhtar Balouch is a senior journalist, writer and researcher. He is currently a council member of the HRCP. Sociology is his primary domain of expertise, on which he has published several books.



We embrace him because he introduced Islam to the sub continent. Without him, there may not have been further conquests to spread Islam and if we weren't Muslim, Pakistan wouldn't have existed. 

I've told you, in Islam, ethnicity is irrelevant, religion trumps all for Muslims.

Oh and Raja Dahir was a terrible person, the fact that so many people in Sindh helped Qasim should tell you that.



StraightShooter said:


> How about this one?
> 
> Have you guys ever wondered why Shias of Kargil strongly support being part of India?
> 
> Have you ever wondered why Shias in India strongly support BJP ?
> 
> History is the testament to the fact that the Hindus of India have strongly supported prophet Muhammad ((PBUH) and his family in their fight against the Umayyad Caliphate which usurped power and killed both prophet Muhammad's ((PBUH) grandson Husayn ibn Ali and great-grandson Ali ibn Husayn Zayn al-Abidin.
> 
> *Karbala and how Lahore was involved*
> Majid SheikhNovember 26, 2012
> 68
> 
> 156
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Muharram procession in Lahore, Pakistan.—File Photo
> 
> 
> IN our school and college days we all loved to assist friends set up ‘sabeels’ alongside Lahore`s traditional ‘Ashura’ procession, providing cold drinks to the thousands who mourned. Sects and beliefs never mattered then. But then neither did one`s religion.
> 
> For well over 1,332 years, the tragedy of Karbala moves everyone who hears about it, be they Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Sikh or any other religion. This is one incident that brings out the need to support those with a moral position.
> 
> As children we attended the ‘sham-i-ghareeban’ with our Shia friends, and learnt the lesson of supporting those in the right. Everyone respected the beliefs of others. Yes, there were always a few silly chaps who wanted attention, but they were at best ignored.
> 
> The ancient city of Lahore is connected to the tragedy in no uncertain terms.
> 
> Historical accounts say seven brave warriors from Lahore died while fighting in the Battle of Karbala. It is said their father Rahab Dutt, an old man who traded with Arabia in those days, had promised the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) to stand by his grandson in his fight to uphold the truth.
> 
> That pledge the brave Rajput Mohiyals of the Dutt clan from Lahore upheld.
> 
> Today they are known as Hussaini Brahmins, who lived in Lahore till 1947.
> 
> Then there is the fact that besides the Hindu Rajputs of Lahore, in the battle also fought John bin Huwai, a freed Christian slave of Abu Dharr al-Ghafari, whose `alleged` descendents, one researcher claims, still live inside the Walled City of Lahore.
> 
> I have been on the track of these ancestors for quite some time and have been able to trace one Christian family living inside Mori Gate. They claim to have a connection with a `Sahabi` whose name they cannot recollect. M. A. Karanpikar`s `Islam in Transition`, written over 250 years ago, made this claim, but I do not think it is a claim worth pursuing.
> 
> But the most powerful claim of Lahore as the place where the descendents of Hussain ibn All came lies in the Bibi Pak Daman graveyard, where the grave of Ruquiya, sister of Hussain ibn Ali and wife of Muslim ibn Ageel, is said to exist.
> 
> Also graves here attributed to the sisters of Muslim ibn Ageel and other family members. Many dispute this claim.
> 
> But then no less a person than Ali Hasan of Hajweri, known popularly as Data Sahib, came here every Thursday to offer ‘fateha’ at the grave, informing his followers that this was the grave of Ruquiya. The place where he always stood to offer `fateha` has been marked out, and his book also verifies this claim. Mind you detractors exist, of this have no doubt, but the supporting evidence is quite strong.
> 
> Let me begin the story of the Dutts by going through the record of the Shaukat Khanum Hospital and the recorded fact that Indian film star Sunil Dutt, who belonged to Lahore, made a donation to the hospital and recorded the following words: ‘For Lahore, like my elders, I will shed every drop of blood and give any donation asked for, just as my ancestors did when they laid down their lives at Karbala for Hazrat Imam Husain.
> 
> Makes you think -but then there is this account which says that the seven sons of Rahab Dutt lost their lives defending the Imam at Karbala. The Martyr’s List at Qum verifies this. History records when the third thrust by Yazid’s forces came, the Dutt brothers refused to let them pass. The seven Punjabi swordsmen stood their ground till they were felled by hundreds of horsemen. In lieu of the loyalty of the Dutt family to that of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) was coined the famous saying: ‘Wah Dutt Sultan, Hindu ka dharm, Musalman ka iman, Adha Hindu adha Musalman.’ Since then, so the belief goes, Muslims were instructed never to try to convert the Dutts to Islam.
> 
> A grieving Rahab returned to the land of his ancestors, and after staying in Afghanistan, returned to Lahore. I have tried my very best to locate their ‘mohallah’ inside the Walled City, and my educated guess is that it is Mohallah Maulian inside Lohari Gate. Later they moved to Mochi Gate, and it was there that the famous Dutts lived before 1947 saw them flee from the hate of the people they gave everything for.
> 
> The most interesting thing about the Hussaini Brahmins is that they are highly respected among Hindus, and even more amazingly it is said that all direct ancestors of Rahab Dutt are born with a light slash mark on their throat, a sort of symbol of their sacrifice. I was reading a piece by Prof Doonica Dutt of Delhi University who verified this claim and said that all true Dutts belong to Lahore.
> 
> I must point out to an amazing version of these events that an Indian historian, Chawala, has come up with. It says that one of the wives of Hazrat Imam Husain, the Persian princess Shahr Banu, was the sister of Chandra Lekha or Mehr Banu, the wife of an Indian king Chandragupta. We know that he ruled over Lahore. When it became clear that Yazid ibn Muawiya was determined to eliminate Hussain ibn Ali, the son of Hussain (named Ali) rushed off a letter to Chandragupta asking for assistance. The Mauriyan king, allegedly, dispatched a large army to Iraq to assist. By the time they arrived, the Tragedy of Karbala had taken place.
> 
> In Kufa in Iraq a disciple of Hazrat Imam Husain is said to have arranged for them to stay in a special part of the town, which even today is known by the name of Dair-i-Hindiya or ‘the Indian quarter’ The Hussaini Brahmins believe that in the Kalanki Purana, the last of 18 Puranas, as well as the Atharva Veda, the 4th Veda, refers to Hazrat Imam Husain as the avatar of the Kali Yug, the present age. They believe that the family of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him)is Om Murti, the most respected family before the Almighty.
> 
> All these facts bring me back to our days as school children working hard to provide relief to the mourners on Ashura. Reminds me of our neighbour Nawab Raza Ali Qizilbash, who invited us to his ‘haveli’ every year to see the preparations before the event. Raza Bhai is no more, and neither is the tolerance that we all enjoyed so much.
> 
> https://www.dawn.com/news/766877
> 
> 
> *Hussaini Brahmins: The Hindus who fought for Imam Hussain in war of Karbala*
> 
> *The term 'Hussaini Brahmins' comes as a surprise for the majority of readers. It is perceived as if two contradicting words are aligned together. However, its definition is a source of inspiration for*
> 
> Mohammed Uzair Shaikh | Published: October 24, 2015 5:41 PM ISTEmail
> 
> The term ‘Hussaini Brahmins’ comes as a surprise for the majority of readers. It is perceived as if two contradicting words are aligned together. However, its definition is a source of inspiration for those who believe in plurality, unity and diversity. At a time when communal animosity is escalating between Hindus and Muslims, one should reminisce the valour shown by Brahmins residing in North-West frontier (now Pakistan) by joining the martyrdom of the revered Islamic figure.
> 
> Who are Hussaini Brahmins?
> 
> Rahab Singh Dutt, an upper-caste Hindu belonging to Mohyal community traveled all the way to Iran, along with his sons to join Imam Hussain, the grandson of Prophet Muhammad in the war of Karbala. The famous battle was fought against caliph Yazeed, who had turned corrupt and spread a cruel rule in the region of _al-sham _(the area which is now demarcated as Iraq, Iran and Syria). Since the grandson of prophet took objection to his unjust methods, Yazeed launched a war against him.
> 
> Imam Hussain, who was left with a few number of supporters in the region of Central Arab (now Medina, Oman and Yemen) wrote a number of letters to neighbouring tribes and regions which had maintained good relations with Prophet Muhammad. One such letter reached the Brahmins of North-West frontier.
> 
> Despite knowing the fact that he was participating a one-sided battle and destined to lose, Datt joined the forces of Hussain. According to Sunita Jhingran, who claims to be a Mohyal descendant of Rahab Singh Dutt, “Our ancestors joined the forces because Imam Hussain was fighting against the oppression of people under Yazeed’s rule. He was fighting for true Islam, which was propagated by the beloved prophet. Rahab Singh Dutt was a warrior who joined the forces of the Imam since he was standing for the righteous.”
> 
> The war of Karbala began in 680 AD. Rahab Singh Dutt joined the losing battalion of Hussain. Dutt did not die in the battle, but his seven sons who accompanied him lost their lives shortly after the beheading of Imam Hussain. After the battle, he met Hussain’s sister, Zainab and narrated his story.
> 
> 
> According to Vipin Mohan Jhingran, who claims to be a Hussaini Brahmin, Zainab was moved to tears after confronting Dutt. “The family of Prophet Muhammad told our ancestor Rahab Singh Dutt that from now you are not just Brahmins, but ‘Hussaini’ Brahmins,” said Jhingran.
> 
> Where are the Hussaini Brahmins now?
> 
> The Hussaini Brahmins thrived in the regions of Pakistan in the pre-independence era. The community members are identified with surnames such as Mohan, Bali, Chibber, Dutt, Bakshi, Lav, Bimwal and Jhingran. After the partition, they migrated to India and settled in various parts of the nation.
> 
> However, despite their contributions in the redefining era of Islamic history, a number of Muslims in India and Pakistan fail to acknowledge them. They refrain from believing the narrative of the Mohyal community alleging that no Islamic author has claimed the same. However, Shia cleric based in Lahore, Maulana Hasan Zafar Naqvi, validates the fact that Mohyals had participated in the war of Karbala since they had good relations with Caliph Ali, the father of Imam Hussain.
> 
> Despite sharing a rich and varied history, the Hussaini Brahmins have somehow turned into a lost community and have remotely made their socio-religious presence felt. Amid situations where a _Tajya _procession in Muharram can cause a communal riot, both the communities should recall the martyrdom of Imam Hussain and sacrifice made up by Mohyals to safeguard his honour.
> 
> 
> http://www.india.com/news/india/hus...ht-for-imam-hussain-in-war-of-karbala-655259/



The Umayyads are generally viewed pretty poorly, but we're not discussing them. We're discussing Qasim.

Oh and btw not all Umayyads were bad.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## StraightShooter

dsr478 said:


> We embrace him because he introduced Islam to the sub continent. Without him, there may not have been further conquests to spread Islam and if we weren't Muslim, Pakistan wouldn't have existed.



So the main concern is that you could not have embraced Islam but for Umayyad Caliphate and Muhammad bin Qasim?




dsr478 said:


> I've told you, in Islam, ethnicity is irrelevant, religion trumps all for Muslims.



Do you know Umayyad Caliphate was accused of indulging in fitna? Do you believe that you need to protect the house of Saud to protect Islam?



dsr478 said:


> Oh and Raja Dahir was a terrible person, the fact that so many people in Sindh helped Qasim should tell you that.



There are Indians who claim British rule was a blessing!

Do you think Iraq had WMDs?



dsr478 said:


> The Umayyads are generally viewed pretty poorly, but we're not discussing them. We're discussing Qasim.
> 
> Oh and btw not all Umayyads were bad.



Umayyad Caliphate back stabbed prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his family. There are no two ways to look at that. Of course we are discussing Muhammad bin Qasim who was a Umayyad general. So it is important to understand the context.

The Brahmin rulers of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Kashmir were supporting Muhammad (PBUH) and his family. Hence Umayyad caliphs came after them. This is the same reason why Hussaini Brahmins fought for the Imam Hussain in war of Karbala.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maximuswarrior

StraightShooter said:


> How about this one?
> 
> Have you guys ever wondered why Shias of Kargil strongly support being part of India?
> 
> Have you ever wondered why Shias in India strongly support BJP ?
> 
> History is the testament to the fact that the Hindus of India have strongly supported prophet Muhammad ((PBUH) and his family in their fight against the Umayyad Caliphate which usurped power and killed both prophet Muhammad's ((PBUH) grandson Husayn ibn Ali and great-grandson Ali ibn Husayn Zayn al-Abidin.
> 
> *Karbala and how Lahore was involved*
> Majid SheikhNovember 26, 2012
> 68
> 
> 156
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Muharram procession in Lahore, Pakistan.—File Photo
> 
> 
> IN our school and college days we all loved to assist friends set up ‘sabeels’ alongside Lahore`s traditional ‘Ashura’ procession, providing cold drinks to the thousands who mourned. Sects and beliefs never mattered then. But then neither did one`s religion.
> 
> For well over 1,332 years, the tragedy of Karbala moves everyone who hears about it, be they Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Sikh or any other religion. This is one incident that brings out the need to support those with a moral position.
> 
> As children we attended the ‘sham-i-ghareeban’ with our Shia friends, and learnt the lesson of supporting those in the right. Everyone respected the beliefs of others. Yes, there were always a few silly chaps who wanted attention, but they were at best ignored.
> 
> The ancient city of Lahore is connected to the tragedy in no uncertain terms.
> 
> Historical accounts say seven brave warriors from Lahore died while fighting in the Battle of Karbala. It is said their father Rahab Dutt, an old man who traded with Arabia in those days, had promised the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) to stand by his grandson in his fight to uphold the truth.
> 
> That pledge the brave Rajput Mohiyals of the Dutt clan from Lahore upheld.
> 
> Today they are known as Hussaini Brahmins, who lived in Lahore till 1947.
> 
> Then there is the fact that besides the Hindu Rajputs of Lahore, in the battle also fought John bin Huwai, a freed Christian slave of Abu Dharr al-Ghafari, whose `alleged` descendents, one researcher claims, still live inside the Walled City of Lahore.
> 
> I have been on the track of these ancestors for quite some time and have been able to trace one Christian family living inside Mori Gate. They claim to have a connection with a `Sahabi` whose name they cannot recollect. M. A. Karanpikar`s `Islam in Transition`, written over 250 years ago, made this claim, but I do not think it is a claim worth pursuing.
> 
> But the most powerful claim of Lahore as the place where the descendents of Hussain ibn All came lies in the Bibi Pak Daman graveyard, where the grave of Ruquiya, sister of Hussain ibn Ali and wife of Muslim ibn Ageel, is said to exist.
> 
> Also graves here attributed to the sisters of Muslim ibn Ageel and other family members. Many dispute this claim.
> 
> But then no less a person than Ali Hasan of Hajweri, known popularly as Data Sahib, came here every Thursday to offer ‘fateha’ at the grave, informing his followers that this was the grave of Ruquiya. The place where he always stood to offer `fateha` has been marked out, and his book also verifies this claim. Mind you detractors exist, of this have no doubt, but the supporting evidence is quite strong.
> 
> Let me begin the story of the Dutts by going through the record of the Shaukat Khanum Hospital and the recorded fact that Indian film star Sunil Dutt, who belonged to Lahore, made a donation to the hospital and recorded the following words: ‘For Lahore, like my elders, I will shed every drop of blood and give any donation asked for, just as my ancestors did when they laid down their lives at Karbala for Hazrat Imam Husain.
> 
> Makes you think -but then there is this account which says that the seven sons of Rahab Dutt lost their lives defending the Imam at Karbala. The Martyr’s List at Qum verifies this. History records when the third thrust by Yazid’s forces came, the Dutt brothers refused to let them pass. The seven Punjabi swordsmen stood their ground till they were felled by hundreds of horsemen. In lieu of the loyalty of the Dutt family to that of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) was coined the famous saying: ‘Wah Dutt Sultan, Hindu ka dharm, Musalman ka iman, Adha Hindu adha Musalman.’ Since then, so the belief goes, Muslims were instructed never to try to convert the Dutts to Islam.
> 
> A grieving Rahab returned to the land of his ancestors, and after staying in Afghanistan, returned to Lahore. I have tried my very best to locate their ‘mohallah’ inside the Walled City, and my educated guess is that it is Mohallah Maulian inside Lohari Gate. Later they moved to Mochi Gate, and it was there that the famous Dutts lived before 1947 saw them flee from the hate of the people they gave everything for.
> 
> The most interesting thing about the Hussaini Brahmins is that they are highly respected among Hindus, and even more amazingly it is said that all direct ancestors of Rahab Dutt are born with a light slash mark on their throat, a sort of symbol of their sacrifice. I was reading a piece by Prof Doonica Dutt of Delhi University who verified this claim and said that all true Dutts belong to Lahore.
> 
> I must point out to an amazing version of these events that an Indian historian, Chawala, has come up with. It says that one of the wives of Hazrat Imam Husain, the Persian princess Shahr Banu, was the sister of Chandra Lekha or Mehr Banu, the wife of an Indian king Chandragupta. We know that he ruled over Lahore. When it became clear that Yazid ibn Muawiya was determined to eliminate Hussain ibn Ali, the son of Hussain (named Ali) rushed off a letter to Chandragupta asking for assistance. The Mauriyan king, allegedly, dispatched a large army to Iraq to assist. By the time they arrived, the Tragedy of Karbala had taken place.
> 
> In Kufa in Iraq a disciple of Hazrat Imam Husain is said to have arranged for them to stay in a special part of the town, which even today is known by the name of Dair-i-Hindiya or ‘the Indian quarter’ The Hussaini Brahmins believe that in the Kalanki Purana, the last of 18 Puranas, as well as the Atharva Veda, the 4th Veda, refers to Hazrat Imam Husain as the avatar of the Kali Yug, the present age. They believe that the family of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him)is Om Murti, the most respected family before the Almighty.
> 
> All these facts bring me back to our days as school children working hard to provide relief to the mourners on Ashura. Reminds me of our neighbour Nawab Raza Ali Qizilbash, who invited us to his ‘haveli’ every year to see the preparations before the event. Raza Bhai is no more, and neither is the tolerance that we all enjoyed so much.
> 
> https://www.dawn.com/news/766877
> 
> 
> *Hussaini Brahmins: The Hindus who fought for Imam Hussain in war of Karbala*
> 
> *The term 'Hussaini Brahmins' comes as a surprise for the majority of readers. It is perceived as if two contradicting words are aligned together. However, its definition is a source of inspiration for*
> 
> Mohammed Uzair Shaikh | Published: October 24, 2015 5:41 PM ISTEmail
> 
> The term ‘Hussaini Brahmins’ comes as a surprise for the majority of readers. It is perceived as if two contradicting words are aligned together. However, its definition is a source of inspiration for those who believe in plurality, unity and diversity. At a time when communal animosity is escalating between Hindus and Muslims, one should reminisce the valour shown by Brahmins residing in North-West frontier (now Pakistan) by joining the martyrdom of the revered Islamic figure.
> 
> Who are Hussaini Brahmins?
> 
> Rahab Singh Dutt, an upper-caste Hindu belonging to Mohyal community traveled all the way to Iran, along with his sons to join Imam Hussain, the grandson of Prophet Muhammad in the war of Karbala. The famous battle was fought against caliph Yazeed, who had turned corrupt and spread a cruel rule in the region of _al-sham _(the area which is now demarcated as Iraq, Iran and Syria). Since the grandson of prophet took objection to his unjust methods, Yazeed launched a war against him.
> 
> Imam Hussain, who was left with a few number of supporters in the region of Central Arab (now Medina, Oman and Yemen) wrote a number of letters to neighbouring tribes and regions which had maintained good relations with Prophet Muhammad. One such letter reached the Brahmins of North-West frontier.
> 
> Despite knowing the fact that he was participating a one-sided battle and destined to lose, Datt joined the forces of Hussain. According to Sunita Jhingran, who claims to be a Mohyal descendant of Rahab Singh Dutt, “Our ancestors joined the forces because Imam Hussain was fighting against the oppression of people under Yazeed’s rule. He was fighting for true Islam, which was propagated by the beloved prophet. Rahab Singh Dutt was a warrior who joined the forces of the Imam since he was standing for the righteous.”
> 
> The war of Karbala began in 680 AD. Rahab Singh Dutt joined the losing battalion of Hussain. Dutt did not die in the battle, but his seven sons who accompanied him lost their lives shortly after the beheading of Imam Hussain. After the battle, he met Hussain’s sister, Zainab and narrated his story.
> 
> 
> According to Vipin Mohan Jhingran, who claims to be a Hussaini Brahmin, Zainab was moved to tears after confronting Dutt. “The family of Prophet Muhammad told our ancestor Rahab Singh Dutt that from now you are not just Brahmins, but ‘Hussaini’ Brahmins,” said Jhingran.
> 
> Where are the Hussaini Brahmins now?
> 
> The Hussaini Brahmins thrived in the regions of Pakistan in the pre-independence era. The community members are identified with surnames such as Mohan, Bali, Chibber, Dutt, Bakshi, Lav, Bimwal and Jhingran. After the partition, they migrated to India and settled in various parts of the nation.
> 
> However, despite their contributions in the redefining era of Islamic history, a number of Muslims in India and Pakistan fail to acknowledge them. They refrain from believing the narrative of the Mohyal community alleging that no Islamic author has claimed the same. However, Shia cleric based in Lahore, Maulana Hasan Zafar Naqvi, validates the fact that Mohyals had participated in the war of Karbala since they had good relations with Caliph Ali, the father of Imam Hussain.
> 
> Despite sharing a rich and varied history, the Hussaini Brahmins have somehow turned into a lost community and have remotely made their socio-religious presence felt. Amid situations where a _Tajya _procession in Muharram can cause a communal riot, both the communities should recall the martyrdom of Imam Hussain and sacrifice made up by Mohyals to safeguard his honour.
> 
> 
> http://www.india.com/news/india/hus...ht-for-imam-hussain-in-war-of-karbala-655259/



LOL at Hussaini Brahmins. Man, these Indians like to poke their brown noses in just about everything.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StraightShooter

maximuswarrior said:


> LOL at Hussaini Brahmins. Man, these Indians like to poke their brown noses in just about everything.



Why do you think this as poking? Both the articles posted were written by Muslims of the subcontinent and one of them is a Pakistani source.


----------



## khanmubashir

BATMAN said:


> That was one of the biggest conspiracies in history of Islam.
> All great generals of Islamic army from around the globe, were called back to capital Damascus and assassinated.
> Here's another one of the legend, killed by bloody Sulaiman.
> http://www.arabnews.com/islam-perspective/news/750016


Corrupt rulers don't like living national hero's r a threat to them or just hurt their ego that people love em more then them 



dsr478 said:


> Muhammad bin Qasim was born around 695 AD. He belonged to the Saqqafi tribe; that had originated from Taif in Arabia. He grew up in the care of his mother; he soon became a great asset to his uncle Muhammad Ibn Yusuf, the governor of Yemen. His judgment, potential and skills left many other officers and forced the ruler to appoint him in the state department. He was also a close relative of Hajjaj bin Yousuf, because of the influence of Hajjaj, the young Muhammad bin Qasim was appointed the governor of Persia while in his teens, and he crushed the rebellion in that region. There is also a popular tradition that presents him as the son-in-law of Hajjaj bin Yousuf. He conquered the Sindh and Punjab regions along the Indus River for the Umayyad Caliphate.
> 
> There are both long and short term causes for the conquest of india. Arabs had trade with India and Eastern Asia. The trade was carried through sea rout; the rout was unsafe due to the plunder of the Pirates of Sindh. The Arab rebels also get refuge in Sindh. Thus the Umayyad wanted to consolidate their rule and also to secure the trade rout. During Hajjaj’s governorship, the Mids of Debal (Pirates) plundered the gifts of Ceylon’s ruler to Hijjaj and attacked on ships of Arab that were carrying the orphans and widows of Muslim soldiers who died in Sri Lanka. Thus providing the Umayyad Caliphate the legitimate cause, that enabled them to gain a foothold in the Makran, and Sindh regions.
> 
> The Umayyad caliphate ordered Muhammad Bin Qasim to attack over Sindh. He led 6,000 Syrian cavalry and at the borders of Sindh he was joined by an advance guard and six thousand camel riders and with five catapults (Manjaniks). Muhammad Bin Qasim first captured Debal, from where the Arab army marched along the Indus. At Rohri he was met by Dahir’s forces. Dahir died in the battle, his forces were defeated and Muhammad bin Qasim took control of Sind. Mohammad Bin Qasim entered Daibul in 712 AD. As a result of his efforts, he succeeded in capturing Daibul. He continued his Victorious Progress in succession, Nirun, fortress (called Sikka), Brahmanabad, Alor, Multan and Gujrat. After the conquest of Multan, he carried his arms to the borders of Kigdom of Kashmir, but his dismissal stopped the further advance. Now Muslims were the masters of whole Sindh and a part of Punjab up to the borders of Kashmir in the north. After the conquest, he adopted a conciliatory policy, asking for acceptance of Muslim rule by the natives in return for non-interference in their religious and cultural practices. He also established peace with a strong taxation system. In return he provided the guaranty of security of life and property for the natives. Hajjaj died in 714. When Walid Bin Abdul Malik died, his younger brother Suleman succeeded as the Caliph. He was a bitter enemy of Hajjaj’s family. He recalled Mohammad Bin Qasim from Sindh, who obeyed the orders as the duty of a general. When he came back, he was put to death on 18th of July, 715AD at the age of twenty.


I don't understand why Indian have to do rundi Rona on every thing now they call a 17 year old general who defeated a far more experienced and mature not to mention with much bigger army like Hindu kings like Asoka used to tie rakhis from the women of people they conquered BTW most Western historians agree he didn't do excessive massacre. As down by several other conquers of that age he did put to death city elders.of debal because it was order of hjaj for their patronage of pirates who looted Muslim ships over all he was a skill full general in teenage and was murdered due to political jealousy by using a woman based allegations such allegations r easily stamped. On someone even today



StraightShooter said:


> How about this one?
> 
> Have you guys ever wondered why Shias of Kargil strongly support being part of India?
> 
> Have you ever wondered why Shias in India strongly support BJP ?
> 
> History is the testament to the fact that the Hindus of India have strongly supported prophet Muhammad ((PBUH) and his family in their fight against the Umayyad Caliphate which usurped power and killed both prophet Muhammad's ((PBUH) grandson Husayn ibn Ali and great-grandson Ali ibn Husayn Zayn al-Abidin.
> 
> *Karbala and how Lahore was involved*
> Majid SheikhNovember 26, 2012
> 68
> 
> 156
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Muharram procession in Lahore, Pakistan.—File Photo
> 
> 
> IN our school and college days we all loved to assist friends set up ‘sabeels’ alongside Lahore`s traditional ‘Ashura’ procession, providing cold drinks to the thousands who mourned. Sects and beliefs never mattered then. But then neither did one`s religion.
> 
> For well over 1,332 years, the tragedy of Karbala moves everyone who hears about it, be they Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Sikh or any other religion. This is one incident that brings out the need to support those with a moral position.
> 
> As children we attended the ‘sham-i-ghareeban’ with our Shia friends, and learnt the lesson of supporting those in the right. Everyone respected the beliefs of others. Yes, there were always a few silly chaps who wanted attention, but they were at best ignored.
> 
> The ancient city of Lahore is connected to the tragedy in no uncertain terms.
> 
> Historical accounts say seven brave warriors from Lahore died while fighting in the Battle of Karbala. It is said their father Rahab Dutt, an old man who traded with Arabia in those days, had promised the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) to stand by his grandson in his fight to uphold the truth.
> 
> That pledge the brave Rajput Mohiyals of the Dutt clan from Lahore upheld.
> 
> Today they are known as Hussaini Brahmins, who lived in Lahore till 1947.
> 
> Then there is the fact that besides the Hindu Rajputs of Lahore, in the battle also fought John bin Huwai, a freed Christian slave of Abu Dharr al-Ghafari, whose `alleged` descendents, one researcher claims, still live inside the Walled City of Lahore.
> 
> I have been on the track of these ancestors for quite some time and have been able to trace one Christian family living inside Mori Gate. They claim to have a connection with a `Sahabi` whose name they cannot recollect. M. A. Karanpikar`s `Islam in Transition`, written over 250 years ago, made this claim, but I do not think it is a claim worth pursuing.
> 
> But the most powerful claim of Lahore as the place where the descendents of Hussain ibn All came lies in the Bibi Pak Daman graveyard, where the grave of Ruquiya, sister of Hussain ibn Ali and wife of Muslim ibn Ageel, is said to exist.
> 
> Also graves here attributed to the sisters of Muslim ibn Ageel and other family members. Many dispute this claim.
> 
> But then no less a person than Ali Hasan of Hajweri, known popularly as Data Sahib, came here every Thursday to offer ‘fateha’ at the grave, informing his followers that this was the grave of Ruquiya. The place where he always stood to offer `fateha` has been marked out, and his book also verifies this claim. Mind you detractors exist, of this have no doubt, but the supporting evidence is quite strong.
> 
> Let me begin the story of the Dutts by going through the record of the Shaukat Khanum Hospital and the recorded fact that Indian film star Sunil Dutt, who belonged to Lahore, made a donation to the hospital and recorded the following words: ‘For Lahore, like my elders, I will shed every drop of blood and give any donation asked for, just as my ancestors did when they laid down their lives at Karbala for Hazrat Imam Husain.
> 
> Makes you think -but then there is this account which says that the seven sons of Rahab Dutt lost their lives defending the Imam at Karbala. The Martyr’s List at Qum verifies this. History records when the third thrust by Yazid’s forces came, the Dutt brothers refused to let them pass. The seven Punjabi swordsmen stood their ground till they were felled by hundreds of horsemen. In lieu of the loyalty of the Dutt family to that of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) was coined the famous saying: ‘Wah Dutt Sultan, Hindu ka dharm, Musalman ka iman, Adha Hindu adha Musalman.’ Since then, so the belief goes, Muslims were instructed never to try to convert the Dutts to Islam.
> 
> A grieving Rahab returned to the land of his ancestors, and after staying in Afghanistan, returned to Lahore. I have tried my very best to locate their ‘mohallah’ inside the Walled City, and my educated guess is that it is Mohallah Maulian inside Lohari Gate. Later they moved to Mochi Gate, and it was there that the famous Dutts lived before 1947 saw them flee from the hate of the people they gave everything for.
> 
> The most interesting thing about the Hussaini Brahmins is that they are highly respected among Hindus, and even more amazingly it is said that all direct ancestors of Rahab Dutt are born with a light slash mark on their throat, a sort of symbol of their sacrifice. I was reading a piece by Prof Doonica Dutt of Delhi University who verified this claim and said that all true Dutts belong to Lahore.
> 
> I must point out to an amazing version of these events that an Indian historian, Chawala, has come up with. It says that one of the wives of Hazrat Imam Husain, the Persian princess Shahr Banu, was the sister of Chandra Lekha or Mehr Banu, the wife of an Indian king Chandragupta. We know that he ruled over Lahore. When it became clear that Yazid ibn Muawiya was determined to eliminate Hussain ibn Ali, the son of Hussain (named Ali) rushed off a letter to Chandragupta asking for assistance. The Mauriyan king, allegedly, dispatched a large army to Iraq to assist. By the time they arrived, the Tragedy of Karbala had taken place.
> 
> In Kufa in Iraq a disciple of Hazrat Imam Husain is said to have arranged for them to stay in a special part of the town, which even today is known by the name of Dair-i-Hindiya or ‘the Indian quarter’ The Hussaini Brahmins believe that in the Kalanki Purana, the last of 18 Puranas, as well as the Atharva Veda, the 4th Veda, refers to Hazrat Imam Husain as the avatar of the Kali Yug, the present age. They believe that the family of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him)is Om Murti, the most respected family before the Almighty.
> 
> All these facts bring me back to our days as school children working hard to provide relief to the mourners on Ashura. Reminds me of our neighbour Nawab Raza Ali Qizilbash, who invited us to his ‘haveli’ every year to see the preparations before the event. Raza Bhai is no more, and neither is the tolerance that we all enjoyed so much.
> 
> https://www.dawn.com/news/766877
> 
> 
> *Hussaini Brahmins: The Hindus who fought for Imam Hussain in war of Karbala*
> 
> *The term 'Hussaini Brahmins' comes as a surprise for the majority of readers. It is perceived as if two contradicting words are aligned together. However, its definition is a source of inspiration for*
> 
> Mohammed Uzair Shaikh | Published: October 24, 2015 5:41 PM ISTEmail
> 
> The term ‘Hussaini Brahmins’ comes as a surprise for the majority of readers. It is perceived as if two contradicting words are aligned together. However, its definition is a source of inspiration for those who believe in plurality, unity and diversity. At a time when communal animosity is escalating between Hindus and Muslims, one should reminisce the valour shown by Brahmins residing in North-West frontier (now Pakistan) by joining the martyrdom of the revered Islamic figure.
> 
> Who are Hussaini Brahmins?
> 
> Rahab Singh Dutt, an upper-caste Hindu belonging to Mohyal community traveled all the way to Iran, along with his sons to join Imam Hussain, the grandson of Prophet Muhammad in the war of Karbala. The famous battle was fought against caliph Yazeed, who had turned corrupt and spread a cruel rule in the region of _al-sham _(the area which is now demarcated as Iraq, Iran and Syria). Since the grandson of prophet took objection to his unjust methods, Yazeed launched a war against him.
> 
> Imam Hussain, who was left with a few number of supporters in the region of Central Arab (now Medina, Oman and Yemen) wrote a number of letters to neighbouring tribes and regions which had maintained good relations with Prophet Muhammad. One such letter reached the Brahmins of North-West frontier.
> 
> Despite knowing the fact that he was participating a one-sided battle and destined to lose, Datt joined the forces of Hussain. According to Sunita Jhingran, who claims to be a Mohyal descendant of Rahab Singh Dutt, “Our ancestors joined the forces because Imam Hussain was fighting against the oppression of people under Yazeed’s rule. He was fighting for true Islam, which was propagated by the beloved prophet. Rahab Singh Dutt was a warrior who joined the forces of the Imam since he was standing for the righteous.”
> 
> The war of Karbala began in 680 AD. Rahab Singh Dutt joined the losing battalion of Hussain. Dutt did not die in the battle, but his seven sons who accompanied him lost their lives shortly after the beheading of Imam Hussain. After the battle, he met Hussain’s sister, Zainab and narrated his story.
> 
> 
> According to Vipin Mohan Jhingran, who claims to be a Hussaini Brahmin, Zainab was moved to tears after confronting Dutt. “The family of Prophet Muhammad told our ancestor Rahab Singh Dutt that from now you are not just Brahmins, but ‘Hussaini’ Brahmins,” said Jhingran.
> 
> Where are the Hussaini Brahmins now?
> 
> The Hussaini Brahmins thrived in the regions of Pakistan in the pre-independence era. The community members are identified with surnames such as Mohan, Bali, Chibber, Dutt, Bakshi, Lav, Bimwal and Jhingran. After the partition, they migrated to India and settled in various parts of the nation.
> 
> However, despite their contributions in the redefining era of Islamic history, a number of Muslims in India and Pakistan fail to acknowledge them. They refrain from believing the narrative of the Mohyal community alleging that no Islamic author has claimed the same. However, Shia cleric based in Lahore, Maulana Hasan Zafar Naqvi, validates the fact that Mohyals had participated in the war of Karbala since they had good relations with Caliph Ali, the father of Imam Hussain.
> 
> Despite sharing a rich and varied history, the Hussaini Brahmins have somehow turned into a lost community and have remotely made their socio-religious presence felt. Amid situations where a _Tajya _procession in Muharram can cause a communal riot, both the communities should recall the martyrdom of Imam Hussain and sacrifice made up by Mohyals to safeguard his honour.
> 
> 
> http://www.india.com/news/india/hus...ht-for-imam-hussain-in-war-of-karbala-655259/


Did those brahmin also brought hanuman with em  Karbala happened decades before conquest of sindh a deep inside territory of Arab empire present day Syria Iraq no way an armed contingent of Hindu could reach that deep inside empire and for what they were Hindu why would they revere a Muslim leader 



StraightShooter said:


> How about this one?
> 
> Have you guys ever wondered why Shias of Kargil strongly support being part of India?
> 
> Have you ever wondered why Shias in India strongly support BJP ?
> 
> History is the testament to the fact that the Hindus of India have strongly supported prophet Muhammad ((PBUH) and his family in their fight against the Umayyad Caliphate which usurped power and killed both prophet Muhammad's ((PBUH) grandson Husayn ibn Ali and great-grandson Ali ibn Husayn Zayn al-Abidin.
> 
> *Karbala and how Lahore was involved*
> Majid SheikhNovember 26, 2012
> 68
> 
> 156
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Muharram procession in Lahore, Pakistan.—File Photo
> 
> 
> IN our school and college days we all loved to assist friends set up ‘sabeels’ alongside Lahore`s traditional ‘Ashura’ procession, providing cold drinks to the thousands who mourned. Sects and beliefs never mattered then. But then neither did one`s religion.
> 
> For well over 1,332 years, the tragedy of Karbala moves everyone who hears about it, be they Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Sikh or any other religion. This is one incident that brings out the need to support those with a moral position.
> 
> As children we attended the ‘sham-i-ghareeban’ with our Shia friends, and learnt the lesson of supporting those in the right. Everyone respected the beliefs of others. Yes, there were always a few silly chaps who wanted attention, but they were at best ignored.
> 
> The ancient city of Lahore is connected to the tragedy in no uncertain terms.
> 
> Historical accounts say seven brave warriors from Lahore died while fighting in the Battle of Karbala. It is said their father Rahab Dutt, an old man who traded with Arabia in those days, had promised the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) to stand by his grandson in his fight to uphold the truth.
> 
> That pledge the brave Rajput Mohiyals of the Dutt clan from Lahore upheld.
> 
> Today they are known as Hussaini Brahmins, who lived in Lahore till 1947.
> 
> Then there is the fact that besides the Hindu Rajputs of Lahore, in the battle also fought John bin Huwai, a freed Christian slave of Abu Dharr al-Ghafari, whose `alleged` descendents, one researcher claims, still live inside the Walled City of Lahore.
> 
> I have been on the track of these ancestors for quite some time and have been able to trace one Christian family living inside Mori Gate. They claim to have a connection with a `Sahabi` whose name they cannot recollect. M. A. Karanpikar`s `Islam in Transition`, written over 250 years ago, made this claim, but I do not think it is a claim worth pursuing.
> 
> But the most powerful claim of Lahore as the place where the descendents of Hussain ibn All came lies in the Bibi Pak Daman graveyard, where the grave of Ruquiya, sister of Hussain ibn Ali and wife of Muslim ibn Ageel, is said to exist.
> 
> Also graves here attributed to the sisters of Muslim ibn Ageel and other family members. Many dispute this claim.
> 
> But then no less a person than Ali Hasan of Hajweri, known popularly as Data Sahib, came here every Thursday to offer ‘fateha’ at the grave, informing his followers that this was the grave of Ruquiya. The place where he always stood to offer `fateha` has been marked out, and his book also verifies this claim. Mind you detractors exist, of this have no doubt, but the supporting evidence is quite strong.
> 
> Let me begin the story of the Dutts by going through the record of the Shaukat Khanum Hospital and the recorded fact that Indian film star Sunil Dutt, who belonged to Lahore, made a donation to the hospital and recorded the following words: ‘For Lahore, like my elders, I will shed every drop of blood and give any donation asked for, just as my ancestors did when they laid down their lives at Karbala for Hazrat Imam Husain.
> 
> Makes you think -but then there is this account which says that the seven sons of Rahab Dutt lost their lives defending the Imam at Karbala. The Martyr’s List at Qum verifies this. History records when the third thrust by Yazid’s forces came, the Dutt brothers refused to let them pass. The seven Punjabi swordsmen stood their ground till they were felled by hundreds of horsemen. In lieu of the loyalty of the Dutt family to that of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) was coined the famous saying: ‘Wah Dutt Sultan, Hindu ka dharm, Musalman ka iman, Adha Hindu adha Musalman.’ Since then, so the belief goes, Muslims were instructed never to try to convert the Dutts to Islam.
> 
> A grieving Rahab returned to the land of his ancestors, and after staying in Afghanistan, returned to Lahore. I have tried my very best to locate their ‘mohallah’ inside the Walled City, and my educated guess is that it is Mohallah Maulian inside Lohari Gate. Later they moved to Mochi Gate, and it was there that the famous Dutts lived before 1947 saw them flee from the hate of the people they gave everything for.
> 
> The most interesting thing about the Hussaini Brahmins is that they are highly respected among Hindus, and even more amazingly it is said that all direct ancestors of Rahab Dutt are born with a light slash mark on their throat, a sort of symbol of their sacrifice. I was reading a piece by Prof Doonica Dutt of Delhi University who verified this claim and said that all true Dutts belong to Lahore.
> 
> I must point out to an amazing version of these events that an Indian historian, Chawala, has come up with. It says that one of the wives of Hazrat Imam Husain, the Persian princess Shahr Banu, was the sister of Chandra Lekha or Mehr Banu, the wife of an Indian king Chandragupta. We know that he ruled over Lahore. When it became clear that Yazid ibn Muawiya was determined to eliminate Hussain ibn Ali, the son of Hussain (named Ali) rushed off a letter to Chandragupta asking for assistance. The Mauriyan king, allegedly, dispatched a large army to Iraq to assist. By the time they arrived, the Tragedy of Karbala had taken place.
> 
> In Kufa in Iraq a disciple of Hazrat Imam Husain is said to have arranged for them to stay in a special part of the town, which even today is known by the name of Dair-i-Hindiya or ‘the Indian quarter’ The Hussaini Brahmins believe that in the Kalanki Purana, the last of 18 Puranas, as well as the Atharva Veda, the 4th Veda, refers to Hazrat Imam Husain as the avatar of the Kali Yug, the present age. They believe that the family of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him)is Om Murti, the most respected family before the Almighty.
> 
> All these facts bring me back to our days as school children working hard to provide relief to the mourners on Ashura. Reminds me of our neighbour Nawab Raza Ali Qizilbash, who invited us to his ‘haveli’ every year to see the preparations before the event. Raza Bhai is no more, and neither is the tolerance that we all enjoyed so much.
> 
> https://www.dawn.com/news/766877
> 
> 
> *Hussaini Brahmins: The Hindus who fought for Imam Hussain in war of Karbala*
> 
> *The term 'Hussaini Brahmins' comes as a surprise for the majority of readers. It is perceived as if two contradicting words are aligned together. However, its definition is a source of inspiration for*
> 
> Mohammed Uzair Shaikh | Published: October 24, 2015 5:41 PM ISTEmail
> 
> The term ‘Hussaini Brahmins’ comes as a surprise for the majority of readers. It is perceived as if two contradicting words are aligned together. However, its definition is a source of inspiration for those who believe in plurality, unity and diversity. At a time when communal animosity is escalating between Hindus and Muslims, one should reminisce the valour shown by Brahmins residing in North-West frontier (now Pakistan) by joining the martyrdom of the revered Islamic figure.
> 
> Who are Hussaini Brahmins?
> 
> Rahab Singh Dutt, an upper-caste Hindu belonging to Mohyal community traveled all the way to Iran, along with his sons to join Imam Hussain, the grandson of Prophet Muhammad in the war of Karbala. The famous battle was fought against caliph Yazeed, who had turned corrupt and spread a cruel rule in the region of _al-sham _(the area which is now demarcated as Iraq, Iran and Syria). Since the grandson of prophet took objection to his unjust methods, Yazeed launched a war against him.
> 
> Imam Hussain, who was left with a few number of supporters in the region of Central Arab (now Medina, Oman and Yemen) wrote a number of letters to neighbouring tribes and regions which had maintained good relations with Prophet Muhammad. One such letter reached the Brahmins of North-West frontier.
> 
> Despite knowing the fact that he was participating a one-sided battle and destined to lose, Datt joined the forces of Hussain. According to Sunita Jhingran, who claims to be a Mohyal descendant of Rahab Singh Dutt, “Our ancestors joined the forces because Imam Hussain was fighting against the oppression of people under Yazeed’s rule. He was fighting for true Islam, which was propagated by the beloved prophet. Rahab Singh Dutt was a warrior who joined the forces of the Imam since he was standing for the righteous.”
> 
> The war of Karbala began in 680 AD. Rahab Singh Dutt joined the losing battalion of Hussain. Dutt did not die in the battle, but his seven sons who accompanied him lost their lives shortly after the beheading of Imam Hussain. After the battle, he met Hussain’s sister, Zainab and narrated his story.
> 
> 
> According to Vipin Mohan Jhingran, who claims to be a Hussaini Brahmin, Zainab was moved to tears after confronting Dutt. “The family of Prophet Muhammad told our ancestor Rahab Singh Dutt that from now you are not just Brahmins, but ‘Hussaini’ Brahmins,” said Jhingran.
> 
> Where are the Hussaini Brahmins now?
> 
> The Hussaini Brahmins thrived in the regions of Pakistan in the pre-independence era. The community members are identified with surnames such as Mohan, Bali, Chibber, Dutt, Bakshi, Lav, Bimwal and Jhingran. After the partition, they migrated to India and settled in various parts of the nation.
> 
> However, despite their contributions in the redefining era of Islamic history, a number of Muslims in India and Pakistan fail to acknowledge them. They refrain from believing the narrative of the Mohyal community alleging that no Islamic author has claimed the same. However, Shia cleric based in Lahore, Maulana Hasan Zafar Naqvi, validates the fact that Mohyals had participated in the war of Karbala since they had good relations with Caliph Ali, the father of Imam Hussain.
> 
> Despite sharing a rich and varied history, the Hussaini Brahmins have somehow turned into a lost community and have remotely made their socio-religious presence felt. Amid situations where a _Tajya _procession in Muharram can cause a communal riot, both the communities should recall the martyrdom of Imam Hussain and sacrifice made up by Mohyals to safeguard his honour.
> 
> 
> http://www.india.com/news/india/hus...ht-for-imam-hussain-in-war-of-karbala-655259/


And daughter of Husain me t with a non mehrum(non family man) man Ro thanks him ??  even that a Hindu while it'd forbid in Islam to women to interact with stranger and that too of family of prophet Muhammad pbuh  who makes these nonsense

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## El Sidd

Strange thread this.

Quite irrelevant today this discussion.

It doesn't matter.


Islam is here. Deal with it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## StraightShooter

khanmubashir said:


> Did those brahmin also brought hanuman with em  Karbala happened decades before conquest of sindh a deep inside territory of Arab empire present day Syria Iraq no way an armed contingent of Hindu could reach that deep inside empire and for what they were Hindu why would they revere a Muslim leader



You didn't get the point.

First we need to understand that pre-Islamic Arabs worshiped various gods. prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) family/tribe was associated with the worship of Shiva.

They had association with the Shaivite brahmin kingdoms of Sindh & Kashmir.

When the issue of succession and battle for legacy of Islam came into picture, Shaivite brahmin kingdoms of Sindh & Kashmir assured of their support to prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his family.

Hence the Hussaini Brahmins fought along side the family of prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and against the Umayyad Caliphate who were accused of indulging in fitna at the Battle of Karbala which took place 680 AD.

This was the reason why Umayyad Caliphate came after the brahmin kingdom of Sindh in 712 AD on the pretext of piracy.


----------



## El Sidd

StraightShooter said:


> You didn't get the point.
> 
> First we need to understand that pre-Islamic Arabs worshiped various gods. prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) family/tribe was associated with the worship of Shiva.
> 
> They had association with the Shaivite brahmin kingdoms of Sindh & Kashmir.
> 
> When the issue of succession and battle for legacy of Islam came into picture, Shaivite brahmin kingdoms of Sindh & Kashmir assured of their support to prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his family.
> 
> Hence the Hussaini Brahmins fought along side the family of prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and against the Umayyad Caliphate who were accused of indulging in fitna at the Battle of Karbala which took place 680 AD.
> 
> This was the reason why Umayyad Caliphate came after the brahmin kingdom of Sindh in 712 AD on the pretext of piracy.




Sindh was separated from Bombay presidency.

Kashmir will also separate from Delhi presidency.

Peace

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Azadkashmir said:


> well it paks turn to sort out pirates from oil regions who fund terror in gawador areas and other regions.
> Its time to send our army to secure the trade route and protection of course taxation.



you will get 'taxes'...maybe you should cut down on the pot.



Mugwop said:


> Some shithead will mention dahir's daughters for sure to malign him.



he was a plunderer and nothing more.


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Azadkashmir said:


> shut da fuk up indian sh it.



truth hurts.....real real bad....


----------



## Azadkashmir

Guynextdoor2 said:


> truth hurts.....real real bad....



what truth? you just mentioned cut down on the pot, i dont smoke. 
indians have nothing better to say but get involved in affairs which have nothing to do with indian.


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Azadkashmir said:


> what truth? you just mentioned cut down on the pot, i dont smoke.
> indians have nothing better to say but get involved in affairs which have nothing to do with indian.



come we're waiting to give you 'taxes' like how we're giving hoors to terrorists on a day to day basis.


----------



## Azadkashmir

Guynextdoor2 said:


> come we're waiting to give you 'taxes' like how we're giving hoors to terrorists on a day to day basis.



wtf **** are you on bout .are you pakistani NOO you are indian go make some toilets for your people after shi tting thier pants from china.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

SarthakGanguly said:


> Why did the Islamic empires insist in taking female sex slaves?
> Even the caliph was legally entitled to this.
> Sickening for us non Muslims. A grave tragedy. Regret it to this day.



If the females consented, you could bang them. 

Consider it a reward for striving so hard in combat. 

Oh and when these guys are spending so much time away from their wives... they might get a little... you know.



StraightShooter said:


> So the main concern is that you could not have embraced Islam but for Umayyad Caliphate and Muhammad bin Qasim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know Umayyad Caliphate was accused of indulging in fitna? Do you believe that you need to protect the house of Saud to protect Islam?
> 
> 
> 
> There are Indians who claim British rule was a blessing!
> 
> Do you think Iraq had WMDs?
> 
> 
> 
> Umayyad Caliphate back stabbed prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his family. There are no two ways to look at that. Of course we are discussing Muhammad bin Qasim who was a Umayyad general. So it is important to understand the context.
> 
> The Brahmin rulers of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Kashmir were supporting Muhammad (PBUH) and his family. Hence Umayyad caliphs came after them. This is the same reason why Hussaini Brahmins fought for the Imam Hussain in war of Karbala.



The Ummayads weren't perfect, I'm aware of this. But they were still the ruling Muslim power and not all of them were responsible for the actions of a few. This is not the same as me defending the house of saud, the house of saud isn't the leading Muslim power.

For some Hindustanis, British rule may have very well been a blessing. Again, it shows how divided people in this region are. We're not as unified as you guys seem to think.

No, I don't think Iraq had nukes if that's what you mean, but if you want to get technical, they had chemical weapons which count as WMD'S. 

Muhammad Bin Qasim wasn't (as far as history says) as crooked as some of the other Ummayads.

False, Ummayads attacked because Hindustan was a wealthy place, to spread Islam, and because pirates were attacking Muslims passing on ships whilst the kings in Hindustan did nothing.

I'm not going to get into the topic of Karbala, it's a sensitive one.



Azadkashmir said:


> shut da fuk up indian sh it.



Please don't swear. 

That goes for everyone.


----------



## Mugwop

Guynextdoor2 said:


> you will get 'taxes'...maybe you should cut down on
> 
> 
> Guynextdoor2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you will get 'taxes'...maybe you should cut down on the pot.
> 
> 
> 
> he was a plunderer and nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

My man tmur the lame is what fits the definition of a plunderer. 
Qasim was loved by some buddhists and even hindus in sindh.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## khanmubashir

StraightShooter said:


> You didn't get the point.
> 
> First we need to understand that pre-Islamic Arabs worshiped various gods. prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) family/tribe was associated with the worship of Shiva.
> 
> They had association with the Shaivite brahmin kingdoms of Sindh & Kashmir.
> 
> When the issue of succession and battle for legacy of Islam came into picture, Shaivite brahmin kingdoms of Sindh & Kashmir assured of their support to prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his family.
> 
> Hence the Hussaini Brahmins fought along side the family of prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and against the Umayyad Caliphate who were accused of indulging in fitna at the Battle of Karbala which took place 680 AD.
> 
> This was the reason why Umayyad Caliphate came after the brahmin kingdom of Sindh in 712 AD on the pretext of piracy.


All this Hindu Mumbo-Jumbo of Hinduism being base of Abrahamic religion is nonsense and no historic proof animal headed gods were worshipped in several cultures more ancient hren Hinduism like Egypt and mesopotemia now hindutva fanatics belive if any thing black color or has animal related.had to Hinduism related 



khanmubashir said:


> All this Hindu Mumbo-Jumbo of Hinduism being base of Abrahamic religion is nonsense and no historic proof animal headed gods were worshipped in several cultures more ancient hren Hinduism like Egypt and mesopotemia now hindutva fanatics belive if any thing black color or has animal related.had to Hinduism related


And how the hell those Hindu forces reach desert of Iraq did hanuman and gnash fly em there 
Next time u would also post some stupid article claiming this

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Alternative

SarthakGanguly said:


> Why did the Islamic empires insist in taking female sex slaves?
> Even the caliph was legally entitled to this.
> Sickening for us non Muslims. A grave tragedy. Regret it to this day.


It seems you are the sensitive one: 
I gather that your would not be interested in slavery practices prevalent in ancient Chinese, or Greek, of Roman, Africa, near east, almost all over the world.
Would to you, Non-Muslims, Slavery in Vedic Culture, would be as sickening;

Rig Veda 8:XIX:36 A gift of fifty female slaves hath Trasadasyu given me, Purukutsa's son,Most liberal, kind, lord of the brave.
Rig veda 6:27:8 Two wagon-teams, with damsels, twenty oxen, O Agni, Abhydvartin Cayamdna,The liberal Sovran, giveth me.This guerdon of Prthu's seed is hard to win from others.”

Laws of Manu 3:33. The forcible abduction of a maiden from her home, while she cries out and weeps, after (her kinsmen) have been slain or wounded and (their houses) broken open, is called the Rakshasa rite.
Manu 9:48. As with cows, mares, female camels, *slave-girls*, buffalo-cows, shegoats, and ewes, it is not the begetter (or his owner) who obtains the offspring, even thus (it is) with the wives of others.

Mahabharata 1:CCXXII And he of eyes like lotus-petals also *gave unto them a thousand damsels well-skilled in assisting at bathing and at drinking, young in years and virgins all before their first-season, well-attired and of excellent complexion*, each wearing a hundred pieces of gold around her neck, of skins perfectly polished, decked with every ornament, *and well-skilled in every kind of personal service.*

Etc. etc. etc.

And very well know case of Daropadi, royal princess which was enslaved on the throw of dice: She was bet by one of her husband. She was ordered to be disrobed in court.

Has you sickness increased?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Alternative said:


> It seems you are the sensitive one:
> I gather that your would not be interested in slavery practices prevalent in ancient Chinese, or Greek, of Roman, Africa, near east, almost all over the world.
> Would to you, Non-Muslims, Slavery in Vedic Culture, would be as sickening;
> 
> Rig Veda 8:XIX:36 A gift of fifty female slaves hath Trasadasyu given me, Purukutsa's son,Most liberal, kind, lord of the brave.
> Rig veda 6:27:8 Two wagon-teams, with damsels, twenty oxen, O Agni, Abhydvartin Cayamdna,The liberal Sovran, giveth me.This guerdon of Prthu's seed is hard to win from others.”
> 
> Laws of Manu 3:33. The forcible abduction of a maiden from her home, while she cries out and weeps, after (her kinsmen) have been slain or wounded and (their houses) broken open, is called the Rakshasa rite.
> Manu 9:48. As with cows, mares, female camels, *slave-girls*, buffalo-cows, shegoats, and ewes, it is not the begetter (or his owner) who obtains the offspring, even thus (it is) with the wives of others.
> 
> Mahabharata 1:CCXXII And he of eyes like lotus-petals also *gave unto them a thousand damsels well-skilled in assisting at bathing and at drinking, young in years and virgins all before their first-season, well-attired and of excellent complexion*, each wearing a hundred pieces of gold around her neck, of skins perfectly polished, decked with every ornament, *and well-skilled in every kind of personal service.*
> 
> Etc. etc. etc.
> 
> And very well know case of Daropadi, royal princess which was enslaved on the throw of dice: She was bet by one of her husband. She was ordered to be disrobed in court.
> 
> Has you sickness increased?


Yes. Slavery is sickening.
Now put your foot forward. Condemn slavery in Islam. I dare you.

Come on. Evolve.



Alternative said:


> Etc. etc. etc.


Perhaps you have quoted it from here.
http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_1751_1800/women in hinduismhtml.htm

If you want to genuinely know the real meaning of the verses, let me know. Else bookmark the link and show how bad Hinduism is.


----------



## Dem!god

History is so much murkier, it's hard to believe which side is right. Every group comeup with their own eveidences and none of us in general public can verify those. Most of the written accounts are open to interpretation and doesn't hold any true unbiased historical facts. 
Hard to distinguish between facts and myths. Duh..


----------



## Slav Defence

*Discuss probable *_*inaccuracies*_* and do not provoke.One of the poster has been shown an exit door.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## khanmubashir

SarthakGanguly said:


> Yes. Slavery is sickening.
> Now put your foot forward. Condemn slavery in Islam. I dare you.
> 
> Come on. Evolve.
> 
> 
> Perhaps you have quoted it from here.
> http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_1751_1800/women in hinduismhtml.htm
> 
> If you want to genuinely know the real meaning of the verses, let me know. Else bookmark the link and show how bad Hinduism is.


Why don't u b the first drop of rain and condemn slavery practice in hindutva in fact entire dalit caste was considered slaves for upper Hindu taking em as free labor was common practice in old times in parts of India even today
Also condemn burning alive of widow sati and not allowing em to remarry even today in several parts of india in Hinduism

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Alternative

SarthakGanguly said:


> Yes. Slavery is sickening.
> Now put your foot forward. Condemn slavery in Islam. I dare you.
> 
> Come on. Evolve.


You were condemning Muslims and Islam only, without considering historical context of practice: your intent was clear, spewing hatred and malign.
Now you are asking me to condemn slavery in Islam, again without citing any reason etc; And still you have not shared your views on "Slavery in Hinduism".

Islam has evolved; from first prophet Adam A.S. to last prophet Muhammad PBUH, but I don't expect you to subscribe to that fact.




SarthakGanguly said:


> Perhaps you have quoted it from here.
> http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_1751_1800/women in hinduismhtml.htm
> 
> If you want to genuinely know the real meaning of the verses, let me know. Else bookmark the link and show how bad Hinduism is.



I didn't used that specific site. but, thanks for the link. I will not use that link, but many other will.
I had read enough to know that enslavement through war, gambling and debt was common in Vedic Culture.

You people are doing a tremendous job right now do give Hinduism a bad name.


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

Dem!god said:


> History is so much murkier, it's hard to believe which side is right. Every group comeup with their own eveidences and none of us in general public can verify those. Most of the written accounts are open to interpretation and doesn't hold any true unbiased historical facts.
> Hard to distinguish between facts and myths. Duh..


True. Humans are biased. Humans write history so history is also biased. There are not black and white so you cannot paint someone in past as entirely evil or entirely saint. Historians interpreted events to promote certain view points by ignoring those parts that did not fit to their pre-conceived notions


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Alternative said:


> You were condemning Muslims and Islam only, without considering historical context of practice: your intent was clear, spewing hatred and malign.
> Now you are asking me to condemn slavery in Islam, again without citing any reason etc; And still you have not shared your views on "Slavery in Hinduism".
> 
> Islam has evolved; from first prophet Adam A.S. to last prophet Muhammad PBUH, but I don't expect you to subscribe to that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't used that specific site. but, thanks for the link. I will not use that link, but many other will.
> I had read enough to know that enslavement through war, gambling and debt was common in Vedic Culture.
> 
> You people are doing a tremendous job right now do give Hinduism a bad name.


Not really. I was condemning slavery in general. And particularly in Islam for which you show no apology to this day.
You have the right not to, actually. Just don't expect everyone to accept it as a glorious philosophy, that's all.



khanmubashir said:


> Why don't u b the first drop of rain and condemn slavery practice in hindutva in fact entire dalit caste was considered slaves for upper Hindu taking em as free labor was common practice in old times in parts of India even today
> Also condemn burning alive of widow sati and not allowing em to remarry even today in several parts of india in Hinduism


Condemned. Been doing so for more than 3 centuries now. 5 actually. Check the Bhakti movement.

Your turn. 



Alternative said:


> enslavement through war, gambling and debt was common in Vedic Culture.


You know wrong. The righteous war of Mahabharata was triggered for a few reasons. Draupadi's attempted disrobing was one of them. It actually shows the opposite. It was deeply frowned upon and it was made clear that it could actually even lead to self destruction.


----------



## Well.wisher

SarthakGanguly said:


> Yes. Slavery is sickening.
> Now put your foot forward. Condemn slavery in Islam. I dare you.
> 
> Come on. Evolve.
> 
> 
> Perhaps you have quoted it from here.
> http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_1751_1800/women in hinduismhtml.htm
> 
> If you want to genuinely know the real meaning of the verses, let me know. Else bookmark the link and show how bad Hinduism is.



Females were made slaves of Muslims to raise the population of Muslims and when they were made , they were not mistreated . In ancient times before Islam , after war the females were captured and mistreated . Men would take them as their property and exchanged them to other men for s^^. Several men would have illegal relationship with one woman , such woman were widely misused . 
Many would end up being prostitutes , in short words Islam didn't end slavery cause the society at that time was not developed or couldn't accept this so Muslims had to create a good form in it by keeping those women to each one man and they were given good treatment and part of wealth in inheritance . 

Now time has evolved , so slavery is abolished and shouldn't be practiced by Muslims anymore . I would personally stand against it if any Muslim kept such slave cause today's world and Muslims have changed . They lost that hayaa and honour and faith and piety that the Muslims had at that time . You could not trust anyone in today's world . Best example is ISIS treating women as dogs . 

All Muslim states should ban such slavery .



khanmubashir said:


> Why don't u b the first drop of rain and condemn slavery practice in hindutva in fact entire dalit caste was considered slaves for upper Hindu taking em as free labor was common practice in old times in parts of India even today
> Also condemn burning alive of widow sati and not allowing em to remarry even today in several parts of india in Hinduism



We should not condemn the Islamic teachings but has to condemn today's Muslims treatment with women .



StraightShooter said:


> The moot question is not whether Muhammad Bin Qasim was great warrior or not but why do Pakistanis greatly worship an Arab than their own?
> 
> Is it a question of inferiority complex?
> 
> Is it a question of Stockholm syndrome?
> 
> This is where Iranians totally differentiate themselves from the Pakistanis.
> 
> In spite of embracing Islam, Iranians still learn and feel proud of their history.
> 
> Persians neither worship Arabs nor the Greeks irrespective of whether Persians kings have won or lost.
> 
> More importantly Persians always defend their narrative and not the narrative thrust upon them by the victors.
> s.



We Worship muhammad bin qasim?? 

Are you in your senses Indian , can you get me a temple of qasim where we go and worship him ? Your inferiority complex according to CNN is speaking itself yet u Blame us . Are you frustrated with the presence of Islam in hind or do u hold qasim responsible for creation for Pakistan ? 
I know you're not happy with the presence of Islam in hind that is why u use derogatory term worship for us Pakistanis cause that's what an unhappy person do . 

Islam is above cultures , traditions , languages castes unlike your hindusm that has not evolved yet and still treat dalits as shit . 

We , the Islamic Republic are proud of our religion above than culture or tradition and u can go hit yourself on the wall for not giving importance to your stupid culture by us . 

Qasim and all other rulers who spread Islam here will always be heroes and great historical personalities for us and you can burn in your hate .. All we care .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Acknowledge

SarthakGanguly said:


> Not really. I was condemning slavery in general. And particularly in Islam for which you show no apology to this day.
> You have the right not to, actually. Just don't expect everyone to accept it as a glorious philosophy, that's all.


A Muslim would do mental gymnastics but never agree to the horrible practices and preaching of Islam - and its not just slavery, it is half a dozen other horrific practices. They would yet always be the first to point out issues in other religions. That is just how they are wired.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Acknowledge said:


> A Muslim would do mental gymnastics but never agree to the horrible practices and preaching of Islam - and its not just slavery, it is half a dozen other horrific practices. They would yet always be the first to point out issues in other religions. That is just how they are wired.


Yes. My experience so far has been like that.
Some do condemn. In fact many do. But I guess they cease to be Muslims...



Well.wisher said:


> Females were made slaves of Muslims to raise the population of Muslims and when they were made , they were not mistreated .


This is sick. 

Why not just say that? Sick. That's all.



Well.wisher said:


> Islam is above cultures , traditions , languages castes


This is a load of crap.
So many countries with overwhelming Muslim majorities. Not one United with another. Infighting. Civil wars. Europeans and Indians take on Muslim refugees while Muslim countries don't.
Brotherhood is a farce. Only effective when fighting not Muslims. Otherwise useless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Well.wisher

SarthakGanguly said:


> Yes. My experience so far has been like that.
> Some do condemn. In fact many do. But I guess they cease to be Muslims...
> 
> 
> This is sick.
> 
> Why not just say that? Sick. That's all.
> 
> 
> ess.



Actually their treatment before Islam was sick . But then them being limited to only one man and treated equally as wives was honorable which was acceptable for that time . 


SarthakGanguly said:


> Yes. My experience so far has been like that.
> Some do condemn. In fact many do. But I guess they cease to be Muslims...
> 
> 
> This is sick.
> 
> Why not just say that? Sick. That's all.
> 
> 
> This is a load of crap.
> So many countries with overwhelming Muslim majorities. Not one United with another. Infighting. Civil wars. Europeans and Indians take on Muslim refugees while Muslim countries don't.
> Brotherhood is a farce. Only effective when fighting not Muslims. Otherwise useless.



Read the context , that prejudiced Indian felt a burn that why do we give respect to people who brought Islam here instead of his lingu Hindu culture in India . 
And when did India start giving refugee to Muslims ? Don't spread bullshit here , you kill Muslims for your bulls . 
Pakistan , Turkey are the most prominent Muslim countries that gave refugee to other Muslims in their country while India on other hand got a burn when that sharbat gula went for a free treatment in India .


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Well.wisher said:


> Actually their treatment before Islam was sick . But then them being limited to only one man and treated equally as wives was honorable which was acceptable for that time .
> 
> 
> Read the context , that prejudiced Indian felt a burn that why do we give respect to people who brought Islam here instead of his lingu Hindu culture in India .
> And when did India start giving refugee to Muslims ? Don't spread bullshit here , you kill Muslims for your bulls .
> Pakistan , Turkey are the most prominent Muslim countries that gave refugee to other Muslims in their country while India on other hand got a burn when that sharbat gula went for a free treatment in India .


That's the worst defence of sexual slavery.

But sure. Your civilization. Your rules.

Rohingya in India.
Syrians in Europe. Check what the refugees are subjected to in Turkey. What the women are being increasing forced to do.



Well.wisher said:


> Actually their treatment before Islam was sick


Are you sure? Based on what source?
Khadijah would strongly disagree.


----------



## Well.wisher

SarthakGanguly said:


> That's the worst defence of sexual slavery.
> 
> But sure. Your civilization. Your rules.
> 
> Rohingya in India.
> Syrians in Europe. Check what the refugees are subjected to in Turkey. What the women are being increasing forced to do.
> 
> 
> Are you sure? Based on what source?
> Khadijah would strongly disagree.


Based on pre Islamic tradition of slavery where the masters would force their female slaves into prototution, where the children of slaves were also slaves for life , where the slaves were the goods for trade , ... now compare It with Islam treatment where they were held chaste , were ordered to be treated with kindness , Muslims were encouraged to free their slaves , they and their children had a part in inheritance , their children were not held slaves , they were free . , where a slave was adopted by prophet saww as son and he's the proof of prophet's kindness to him , a slave was appointed as the first muazin of Islam, where a slave woman was freed and given status of ummahat ul momineen ... compare the treatment of Muslims vs non Muslims after Islam .. non Muslims killed their slaves . Master of bilal tortured him to death , sumaiya r a was hit by a sword in between her legs by her master for accepting Islam .. These all are signs for those who keep 'aqal'.

Nd Khadijah r.a was a hurra, a free woman not a slave . This speaks your intelligence about Islam .



SarthakGanguly said:


> That's the worst defence of sexual slavery.
> 
> But sure. Your civilization. Your rules.
> 
> Rohingya in India.
> Syrians in Europe. Check what the refugees are subjected to in Turkey. What the women are being increasing forced to do.
> 
> 
> Are you sure? Based on what source?
> Khadijah would strongly disagree.



Check how your country is following trump and is deporting thousands of rohingya .

U didn't even keep them for a year and u r taunting Muslims . 
Learn from us we kept the friends of our enemy for 40 years and Turkey has been kind enough to refugees , what u say is either stereotyping or as usual Indian media lies .


----------



## Acknowledge

Well.wisher said:


> Based on pre Islamic tradition of slavery where the masters would force their female slaves into prototution, where the children of slaves were also slaves for life , where the slaves were the goods for trade , ... now compare It with Islam treatment where they were held chaste , were ordered to be treated with kindness , Muslims were encouraged to free their slaves , they and their children had a part in inheritance , their children were not held slaves , they were free . , where a slave was adopted by prophet saww as son and he's the proof of prophet's kindness to him , a slave was appointed as the first muazin of Islam, where a slave woman was freed and given status of ummahat ul momineen ... compare the treatment of Muslims vs non Muslims after Islam .. non Muslims killed their slaves . Master of bilal tortured him to death , sumaiya r a was hit by a sword in between her legs by her master for accepting Islam .. These all are signs for those who keep 'aqal'.
> 
> Nd Khadijah r.a was a hurra, a free woman not a slave . This speaks your intelligence about Islam .
> 
> 
> 
> Check how your country is following trump and is deporting thousands of rohingya .
> 
> U didn't even keep them for a year and u r taunting Muslims .
> Leads from us we kept the friends of our enemy for 40 years and Turkey has been kind enough to refugees , what u say is either stereotyping or as usual Indian media lies .


It speaks of your intelligence. Hindus are non-Muslims and we have no concept of slavery in our religion. None of the Eastern religions do. 
Stop trying to shove the Islam treats slaves better than non-Muslims do. In our view Islam is barbarian for just legitimising slavery regardless of whether their 'condition improved' or not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Well.wisher

Acknowledge said:


> It speaks of your intelligence. Hindus are non-Muslims and we have no concept of slavery in our religion. None of the Eastern religions do.
> Stop trying to shove the Islam treats slaves better than non-Muslims do. In our view Islam is barbarian for just legitimising slavery regardless of whether their 'condition improved' or not.




Don't poke your ugly nose in a conversation where you've nothing to do . 

The guy required explanation then who r u to pass judgement here without even understanding a thing . Get lost .


----------



## StraightShooter

Well.wisher said:


> We Worship muhammad bin qasim??
> 
> Are you in your senses Indian , can you get me a temple of qasim where we go and worship him ? Your inferiority complex according to CNN is speaking itself yet u Blame us . Are you frustrated with the presence of Islam in hind or do u hold qasim responsible for creation for Pakistan ?
> I know you're not happy with the presence of Islam in hind that is why u use derogatory term worship for us Pakistanis cause that's what an unhappy person do .
> 
> Islam is above cultures , traditions , languages castes unlike your hindusm that has not evolved yet and still treat dalits as shit .
> 
> We , the Islamic Republic are proud of our religion above than culture or tradition and u can go hit yourself on the wall for not giving importance to your stupid culture by us .
> 
> Qasim and all other rulers who spread Islam here will always be heroes and great historical personalities for us and you can burn in your hate .. All we care .




I used the word Worship Figuratively and not Literally. The key question that I was asking was does a normal Pakistani Sindhi love Muhammad bin Qasim or Raja Dahir ?

cross posting related thread

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/muhammad-bin-qasim-predator-or-preacher.512234/


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Well.wisher said:


> Nd Khadijah r.a was a hurra, a free woman not a slave . This speaks your intelligence about Islam .


I never claimed she was a slave.  
And it's knowledge. Not intelligence.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Well.wisher

StraightShooter said:


> I used the word Worship Figuratively and not Literally. The key question that I was asking was does a normal Pakistani Sindhi love Muhammad bin Qasim or Raja Dahir ?
> 
> cross posting related thread
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/muhammad-bin-qasim-predator-or-preacher.512234/



I'm A sindhi and I would personally favor qaasim cause he brought Islam here and established Muslim rule . 
Raaja daahar was a bad person because he imprisoned Muslims . That was only call of one Muslim woman captured by raja dahir that qaasim came here and defeated Raaja daahar . 
Qaasim is a hero . 
We admire him for his services for Islam and that's it , all glory and worship and praises only belong to Allah .



SarthakGanguly said:


> I never claimed she was a slave.
> And it's knowledge. Not intelligence.



Indian don't kid here , the topic was female war captives .. now don't waste my time .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StraightShooter

Well.wisher said:


> I'm A sindhi and I would personally favor qaasim cause he brought Islam here and established Muslim rule .
> Raaja daahar was a bad person because he imprisoned Muslims . That was only call of one Muslim woman captured by raja dahir that qaasim came here and defeated Raaja daahar .
> Qaasim is a hero .
> We admire him for his services for Islam and that's it , all glory and worship and praises only belong to Allah .



That's exactly what I was saying/wondering on these posts.

You are happy to follow the narrative of the victor and then you are finding reasons to justify that narrative.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/muhammad-bin-qasim.512612/#post-9772945

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/muhammad-bin-qasim.512612/page-2#post-9774371


----------



## Well.wisher

StraightShooter said:


> That's exactly what I was saying/wondering on these posts.
> 
> You are happy to follow the narrative of the victor and then you are finding reasons to justify that narrative.
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/muhammad-bin-qasim.512612/#post-9772945
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/muhammad-bin-qasim.512612/page-2#post-9774371


What's your point ? 
Kehnaa kia chaahty Ho


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Well.wisher said:


> Check how your country is following trump and is deporting thousands of rohingya


We have learnt our lessons. Take them. In the name of Ummah.
Why should Muslims take refuge in non Muslim countries? You tell me. 



Well.wisher said:


> I'm A sindhi and I would personally favor qaasim cause he brought Islam here and established Muslim rule .
> Raaja daahar was a bad person because he imprisoned Muslims . That was only call of one Muslim woman captured by raja dahir that qaasim came here and defeated Raaja daahar .
> Qaasim is a hero .
> We admire him for his services for Islam and that's it , all glory and worship and praises only belong to Allah .
> 
> 
> 
> Indian don't kid here , the topic was female war captives .. now don't waste my time .


That matter was settled. Islam has slavery in built in to the system. Something you accepted.
I was broadening the net. My point is that women were treated as good or better before Islam in Arabia.


----------



## Well.wisher

SarthakGanguly said:


> We have learnt our lessons. Take them. In the name of Ummah.
> Why should Muslims take refuge in non Muslim countries? You tell me.
> 
> 
> .




Actually no Muslim would even like to come to your dirty shit hole . 
You should free the Indian Muslims too whom you've kept as goats or they might proceed to ask for another country .. (aameen) 


SarthakGanguly said:


> We have learnt our lessons. Take them. In the name of Ummah.
> Why should Muslims take refuge in non Muslim countries? You tell me.
> 
> 
> That matter was settled. Islam has slavery in built in to the system. Something you accepted.
> I was broadening the net. My point is that women were treated as good or better before Islam in Arabia.


Thick head indiot .


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Well.wisher said:


> You should free the Indian Muslims too whom you've kept as goats or they might proceed to ask for another country .. (aameen)


If they ask for another country, they will be butchered. Regardless of faith. That is state policy.



Well.wisher said:


> Thick head indiot .


----------



## Well.wisher

SarthakGanguly said:


> If they ask for another country, they will be butchered. Regardless of faith. That is state policy.



And that's what you're already trying to do to Pakistan by butchering indirectly , 
Why do indiots still didn't accepted partition and trying to claim Pakistan as their own ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

Acknowledge said:


> It speaks of your intelligence. Hindus are non-Muslims and we have no concept of slavery in our religion. None of the Eastern religions do.
> Stop trying to shove the Islam treats slaves better than non-Muslims do. In our view Islam is barbarian for just legitimising slavery regardless of whether their 'condition improved' or not.


There were many practices which were considered norms in the past but considered wrong as per modern standards of right or wrong and slavery is one of them. You had many evil practices in ancient India and some of them even being practised today i.e fire-walking, widow burning(sati), baby tossing , female Infanticide etc

Did invaders asked you to practice caste system where you oppress fellow Hindu and discriminate them socially and economically ? You should thanks Britain that they made laws against some of evil practices existed in India otherwise your local kings/raja/Maharaja were not any less cruel or oppressive than some of these invaders

When you talk about slavery then How you will justify this now? Whom you will blame for this?

https://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2016/06/02/india-has-the-most-people-living-in-modern-slavery/
https://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2014/11/20/indonesia-8th-worst-slave-country-says-report/

India has more people living in modern slavery than the population of the Netherlands, a new report estimates.

Of the 167 countries surveyed, the South Asian country has the highest number of people living in slavery–more than 18 million people, or 1.4% of the population.

The 2016 Global Slavery Index from the Walk Free Foundation said modern slavery comes in many forms, from domestic to sexual to bonded and child labor. The term refers to a situation in which a person has taken away another’s freedom so they can be exploited.

Globally, 45.8 million people are enslaved, the report estimated. The countries with the highest prevalence as a proportion of the population were North Korea, Uzbekistan, Cambodia, India, and Qatar. But India, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Uzbekistan had the highest absolute numbers.

“All forms of modern slavery continue to exist in India, including intergenerational bonded labor, forced child labor, commercial sexual exploitation, forced begging, forced recruitment into non-state armed groups and forced marriage,” the report said.

It is hard to know exactly how many people are subject to slavery, the authors of the report admitted. In India, Gallup conducted the surveys in 15 states that were used as the basis for the estimate.

Among the sectors known known to use slave labor in India were the construction, sex, agriculture, fishing and manufacturing industries as well as domestic help and begging, the report said.





Globally, 45.8 million people are enslaved, the report estimated. The countries with the highest prevalence as a proportion of the population were North Korea, Uzbekistan, Cambodia, India, and Qatar. But India, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Uzbekistan had the highest absolute numbers.

“All forms of modern slavery continue to exist in India, including intergenerational bonded labor, forced child labor, commercial sexual exploitation, forced begging, forced recruitment into non-state armed groups and forced marriage,” the report said.

It is hard to know exactly how many people are subject to slavery, the authors of the report admitted. In India, Gallup conducted the surveys in 15 states that were used as the basis for the estimate.

Among the sectors known known to use slave labor in India were the construction, sex, agriculture, fishing and manufacturing industries as well as domestic help and begging, the report said.

Indian law doesn’t differentiate between human trafficking and sex work, so it is difficult to know how many people are stuck in sexual slavery, the report said.

The survey also counted people who had been forced into marriage and children who were forced into armed opposition groups. The country’s brick making business is one of the worst offenders the report said.

“The country’s steady population growth and the corresponding demand for improvement of infrastructure and increased dwellings have enabled the ʻblood bricks’ produced in these industries to continue,” it said.

Pakistan had the third-largest number of people in modern slavery, more than 2 million.

Bonded labor is one of the most prevalent forms of modern slavery there, according to rights groups. Though prohibited under law, the practice hasn’t been eliminated, and persists especially in the brick-making industry and agriculture.


----------



## StraightShooter

Well.wisher said:


> Why do indiots still didn't accepted partition and trying to claim Pakistan as their own ?



I do not know the reason why Pakistanis keep harping this line.

No. Indians do not want Pakistan to merge back with India.

Some may want friendly relations while other may want it to be annihilated.


----------



## Well.wisher

StraightShooter said:


> I do not know the reason why Pakistanis keep harping this line.
> 
> No. Indians do not want Pakistan to merge back with India.
> 
> Some may want friendly relations while other may want it to be annihilated.



We keep harping it cause this is what your countrymen tell us . 
I've personally met many such Indians on Internet media that keeps claiming right in Pakistan . 

I'll dearly show you screen shots of Indians propagating on Internet that Pakistan belongs to India . 
I know many want to destroy it but I don't understand their claim of rights over Pakistani land .


----------



## StraightShooter

Well.wisher said:


> We keep harping it cause this is what your countrymen tell us .
> I've personally met many such Indians on Internet media that keeps claiming right in Pakistan .
> 
> I'll dearly show you screen shots of Indians propagating on Internet that Pakistan belongs to India .
> I know many want to destroy it but I don't understand their claim of rights over Pakistani land .



Firstly you cannot take people on the Internet at face value, for one they may not be Indians.

I have traveled and lived in India for over 60 years now and I know how Indians feel.

Option 1: 

If all Pakistanis give up Islam and convert to one of the dharmic religions. This may entice some people to change their mind on merging India with Pakistan.

Option 2: 

If all Pakistanis move out of Pakistan and give the land to India. This would surely entice majority to consider a merger of India and Pakistan.

Option 3:

Islam is going to be a majority in India in the next 20-30 years and would merge with Pakistan after declaring itself a Islamic republic.


Option 1 & 2 are not even remotely possible. Option 3 is the most likely option and is scheduled to happen by 2050.


----------



## Well.wisher

StraightShooter said:


> Firstly you cannot take people on the Internet at face value, for one they may not be Indians.
> 
> I have traveled and lived in India for over 60 years now and I know how Indians feel.
> 
> Option 1:
> 
> If all Pakistanis give up Islam and convert to one of the dharmic religions. This may entice some people to change their mind on merging India with Pakistan.
> 
> Option 2:
> 
> If all Pakistanis move out of Pakistan and give the land to India. This would surely entice majority to consider a merger of India and Pakistan.
> 
> Option 3:
> 
> Islam is going to be a majority in India in the next 20-30 years and would merge with Pakistan after declaring itself a Islamic republic.
> 
> 
> Option 1 & 2 are not even remotely possible. Option 3 is the most likely option and is scheduled to happen by 2050.



You're sixty years old . ?? 

Between looking at all options , if they really so believe that then not so wise nation .


----------



## StraightShooter

Well.wisher said:


> You're sixty years old . ??



My heart is only 20 years


----------



## StraightShooter

Well.wisher said:


> What's your point ?
> Kehnaa kia chaahty Ho



The point is

Rajputs support Maharana Pratap

Marathas support Chhatrapati Shivaji

Tamils support Rajaraja Chola

Kannadigas and Telugus support Krishnadevaraya

Afghans support Ahmad Shah Durrani

But Pakistani Sindhis do not support Raja Dahir instead support the invading General.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Well.wisher said:


> And that's what you're already trying to do to Pakistan by butchering indirectly ,
> Why do indiots still didn't accepted partition and trying to claim Pakistan as their own ?


India recognizes Pakistan. 
I personally accept and even support its existence. 



StraightShooter said:


> Option 3 is the most likely option and is scheduled to happen by 2050.



Oh really?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## StraightShooter

SarthakGanguly said:


> Oh really?



Here are the options for Hindus in 2050

1) If you are a girl, convert to Islam through Love Jihad

2) Take refuge in a non-Islamic country

3) Die in a Friday afternoon riot

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Acknowledge

Well.wisher said:


> We keep harping it cause this is what your countrymen tell us .
> I've personally met many such Indians on Internet media that keeps claiming right in Pakistan .
> 
> I'll dearly show you screen shots of Indians propagating on Internet that Pakistan belongs to India .
> I know many want to destroy it but I don't understand their claim of rights over Pakistani land .


Not met a single Indian to date who said Pakistan belongs to India. Stop posting Pakistani insecurities or fantasies to legitimize Pakistani state behaviour.

I know many would like to destroy Pakistan, but that is entirely separate from saying Pakistan belongs to India.


----------



## TopCat

Qashem and Khilji are the greatest thing ever happened to ordinary Indians. 
Hats off..... 



StraightShooter said:


> Here are the options for Hindus in 2050
> 
> 1) If you are a girl, convert to Islam through Love Jihad


if yu are a girl then come to the safety and protection of Islam. Love or no love its safer than being a hindu girl in the womb.



StraightShooter said:


> The point is
> 
> Rajputs support Maharana Pratap
> 
> Marathas support Chhatrapati Shivaji
> 
> Tamils support Rajaraja Chola
> 
> Kannadigas and Telugus support Krishnadevaraya
> 
> Afghans support Ahmad Shah Durrani
> 
> But Pakistani Sindhis do not support Raja Dahir instead support the invading General.



Bengalis do not support Lakhman Sen (the racist) but Khilji.


----------



## SarthakGanguly

TopCat said:


> Bengalis do not support Lakhman Sen (the racist) but Khilji


Muslims or Hindus and Buddhists?



TopCat said:


> if yu are a girl then come to the safety and protection of Islam


Are you kidding me?



StraightShooter said:


> Here are the options for Hindus in 2050
> 
> 1) If you are a girl, convert to Islam through Love Jihad
> 
> 2) Take refuge in a non-Islamic country
> 
> 3) Die in a Friday afternoon riot


I don't think so. Hindus are giving as good as they get now.


----------



## Alternative

SarthakGanguly said:


> Not really. I was condemning slavery in general. And particularly in Islam for which you show no apology to this day.



Nope. You were saying that ..."Sickening for us non Muslims". Your intentions were clear.



SarthakGanguly said:


> Condemned. Been doing so for more than 3 centuries now. 5 actually. Check the Bhakti movement.
> 
> Your turn.


Bhakti movement, was not able to make a significant dent, socially. 
Polytheism, Caste System, Condemnation of rituals, etc. continued. Bhakti was reduced to a religious practice.
Current stats of Slavery in India are as;
India is leading the world; I think you should open a Agency to condemn.











SarthakGanguly said:


> *You know wrong*. The righteous war of Mahabharata was triggered for a few reasons. Draupadi's attempted disrobing was one of them. It actually shows the opposite. It was deeply frowned upon and it was made clear that it could actually even lead to self destruction.


We are not discussing the Mahabharata, attempted disrobing is not the point, but her enslavement is, practice of slavery in Vedic Culture is; Don't try to go on un-necessary tangents.
What I wrote that in Vedic Culture Slavery (through war, debt, bet) was common;
Reference from Mahabharata; Eldest Pandu Brother, Yudishtir, Son of Dharma, The Wise & Just, lost all in a gambling match, all including 100,000 Slave Girls, his 4 brothers, himself, his (joint) wife; Deeds of Son of Dharma were inline with Dharma; Dharma allowed and no objected to enslavement.
*I know right.*


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Alternative said:


> You were saying that ..."Sickening for us non Muslims". Your intentions were clear


They are clear now too. Condemn slavery. Period. But you won't. 



Alternative said:


> Polytheism, Caste System, Condemnation of rituals


 We don't consider polytheism and rituals to be negative. Bhakti movement had nothin against these. Lol.



Alternative said:


> I think you should open a Agency to condemn


Lol. The distinction between an Islamic slave and paid maids is huge. You cannot for example ask sexual favors from them without running a risk of police action.



Alternative said:


> Deeds of Son of Dharma were inline with Dharma; Dharma allowed and no objected to enslavement.
> *I know right.*


 yeah. That's why they paid it with their lives. You know Ghanta.




Alternative said:


> What I wrote that in Vedic Culture Slavery


On the contrary. You found one case. An exception. That proves the rule actually.


----------



## Alternative

SarthakGanguly said:


> They are clear now too. Condemn slavery. Period. But you won't.


What to condemn? a practice that was prevalent all over world?




SarthakGanguly said:


> We don't consider polytheism and rituals to be negative. Bhakti movement had nothin against these. Lol.



If Bhakti movement was not against polytheism, caste system, rituals, equality etc. then what?



SarthakGanguly said:


> Lol. The distinction between an Islamic slave and paid maids is huge. You cannot for example ask sexual favors from them without running a risk of police action.



You are clearly desperate now;
You are comparing the centuries old slavery practice with indentured labour (modern slavery) of India: As you are playing 'being thick' here, do know that in modern slavery India is leading the world. 




SarthakGanguly said:


> yeah. That's why they paid it with their lives. You know Ghanta.


Again the practice of enslavement was pointed out; Slavery was common in Vedic Culture.
You are a Ghanta, and I know your type well.




SarthakGanguly said:


> On the contrary. You found one case. An exception. That proves the rule actually.


Numerous reference are found in Mahabharata, Manu Smriti, Gautima etc., If you are being amnesiac, want me to post references?


----------



## Well.wisher

StraightShooter said:


> Firstly you cannot take people on the Internet at face value, for one they may not be Indians.
> 
> I have traveled and lived in India for over 60 years now and I know how Indians feel.
> 
> Option 1:
> 
> If all Pakistanis give up Islam and convert to one of the dharmic religions. This may entice some people to change their mind on merging India with Pakistan.
> 
> Option 2:
> 
> If all Pakistanis move out of Pakistan and give the land to India. This would surely entice majority to consider a merger of India and Pakistan.
> 
> Option 3:
> 
> Islam is going to be a majority in India in the next 20-30 years and would merge with Pakistan after declaring itself a Islamic republic.
> 
> 
> Option 1 & 2 are not even remotely possible. Option 3 is the most likely option and is scheduled to happen by 2050.





StraightShooter said:


> The point is
> 
> Rajputs support Maharana Pratap
> 
> Marathas support Chhatrapati Shivaji
> 
> Tamils support Rajaraja Chola
> 
> Kannadigas and Telugus support Krishnadevaraya
> 
> Afghans support Ahmad Shah Durrani
> 
> But Pakistani Sindhis do not support Raja Dahir instead support the invading General.


It's cause we're not Indians we've a different identity why do you expect us to be like you and follow your traditions ? 

You celebrate bloody murderers like baji rao, Shiva and ashok but yet you're here questioning us that why do we celebrate a harmless Muhammed bin Qaasim . 
There's something wrong with the Indian brain , over thinking and being nosy and judgemental about the matters you don't understand . 
It were due to mercy of Allah nd efforts of bin Qaasim that sindh got its way to Islam . Unlike India , Muslims in Pakistan do not believe in supporting people of same caste , we look at efforts . We've no such caste system in Pakistan . 

While we hold bin Qaasim in a positive light but there's no any hate or dislike Ness for daahir either , for us he's only mentioned as the ruler defeated by bin Qaasim in Sindh after which bin Qaasim preached Islam and that's it . You could say much emphasise is being on bin Qaasim , few wouldn't even know who was raja daahir . 

For us , Islam means everything


----------



## niaz

There has been a lot of myth about Mohammed bin Qassim in Pakistan history books. There is no denying his military achievements, but we have to understand that the real personality behind the conquest of Sind was Hajjaj Bin Yusuf Al Saqafi.

Mohammed bin Qassim was appointed primarily because he was related to Hajjaj (Nephew /son in law?) and therefore could be trusted implicitly. Fortunes of Mohammed bin Qassim were closely linked to the rise of Hajjaj bin Yusuf.

Hajjaj was a school teacher from Taif who became an ardent supporter of the Umayyad. He proved himself to be a ruthless and ferocious army commander. Many people are not aware and Muslim historians deliberately ignore that fact that for 9 years there were 2 Caliphs in the early Islamic State.

Quote

“Ibne Zubair was Khalifah from the year 63 AH to 73 AH and that Addul Mailk was also Khalifa in Syria.”

Unquote

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/downloads/pdf/SRH020001.pdf


After the transfer of power from Abu Sufian family to the Marwan branch of the Umayyad, Abdulla ibne Zubair (RA) held the title and power of Kahlifah over the Hijaz and much of the area in the south. Hajjaj crushed the rebellion in 73 AD, Kaaba itself, was attacked and destroyed in the process and head of Ibne Zubair (RA) hung from the gate of Kaaba until it rotted.

Hajjaj was later appointed Governor of Iraq and all lands to the East. It said that Hajjaj completely subjugated the Arabian peninsula, Iraq and Khurasan to the Umayyad rule but also killed more than 100,000 mostly Arab Muslims in the process. Apparently even Anas ibne Malik (RA) , last of the known living Sahabi (died 103 AH) because of his suspected support of the rebels, was forced to wear a collar round his neck.

Power of Hajjaj grew to such an extent that he even issued coins in his name. This however resulted in jealousy among the Umayyad royals. Hajjaj died in 714 AD. As soon as Suleiman bin Abdul Malik became Caliph in 715 AD, he recalled the two generals Mohammed Bin Qassim & Quitaba bin Muslim ; considered favourites of Hajjaj and had them killed.


----------



## Well.wisher

SarthakGanguly said:


> India recognizes Pakistan.
> I personally accept and even support its existence.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?



Muhammad bin qasim really banged India so hard , you're still feeling pain after centuries .. mogamboe khush huaaa  .. 

We need more bin qaasims for rajasthan and aaasam .. .



niaz said:


> There has been a lot of myth about Mohammed bin Qassim in Pakistan history books. There is no denying his military achievements, but we have to understand that the real personality behind the conquest of Sind was Hajjaj Bin Yusuf Al Saqafi.
> 
> Mohammed bin Qassim was appointed primarily because he was related to Hajjaj (Nephew /son in law?) and therefore could be trusted implicitly. Fortunes of Mohammed bin Qassim were closely linked to the rise of Hajjaj bin Yusuf.
> 
> Hajjaj was a school teacher from Taif who became an ardent supporter of the Umayyad. He proved himself to be a ruthless and ferocious army commander. Many people are not aware and Muslim historians deliberately ignore that fact that for 9 years there were 2 Caliphs in the early Islamic State.
> 
> Quote
> 
> “Ibne Zubair was Khalifah from the year 63 AH to 73 AH and that Addul Mailk was also Khalifa in Syria.”
> 
> Unquote
> 
> http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/downloads/pdf/SRH020001.pdf
> 
> 
> After the transfer of power from Abu Sufian family to the Marwan branch of the Umayyad, Abdulla ibne Zubair (RA) held the title and power of Kahlifah over the Hijaz and much of the area in the south. Hajjaj crushed the rebellion in 73 AD, Kaaba itself, was attacked and destroyed in the process and head of Ibne Zubair (RA) hung from the gate of Kaaba until it rotted.
> 
> Hajjaj was later appointed Governor of Iraq and all lands to the East. It said that Hajjaj completely subjugated the Arabian peninsula, Iraq and Khurasan to the Umayyad rule but also killed more than 100,000 mostly Arab Muslims in the process. Apparently even Anas ibne Malik (RA) , last of the known living Sahabi (died 103 AH) because of his suspected support of the rebels, was forced to wear a collar round his neck.
> 
> Power of Hajjaj grew to such an extent that he even issued coins in his name. This however resulted in jealousy among the Umayyad royals. Hajjaj died in 714 AD. As soon as Suleiman bin Abdul Malik became Caliph in 715 AD, he recalled the two generals Mohammed Bin Qassim & Quitaba bin Muslim ; considered favourites of Hajjaj and had them killed.



Whatever is the history at least I'm a Muslim now .


----------



## TopCat

SarthakGanguly said:


> Muslims or Hindus and Buddhists?


You asked to me separate them in religious line. It is not certainly Hindus who lost their coward king submitted to 18 horsemen. Hindus are great warrior against poor dalit but before Khilji and Muslims they are as good as their cow god.



> Are you kidding me?


I dare not to kid you.


----------



## SarthakGanguly

TopCat said:


> You asked to me separate them in religious line. It is not certainly Hindus who lost their coward king submitted to 18 horsemen. Hindus are great warrior against poor dalit but before Khilji and Muslims they are as good as their cow god.
> 
> 
> I dare not to kid you.


Says a Bangladeshi Muslim.  The irony is not lost.



Well.wisher said:


> Whatever is the history at least I'm a Muslim now .


Are you sure?
It's not easy to be a Muslim. 



Alternative said:


> blah blah


You are so smart that you put your entire Post in my quote. 

Sure. I would love to read the Gautima. Whatever that is. You post one from our texts (Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain).
I quote from Qur'an and...may be Bukhari.  Sounds fair?


----------



## Well.wisher

SarthakGanguly said:


> Says a Bangladeshi Muslim.  The irony is not lost.
> 
> 
> Are you sure?
> It's not easy to be a Muslim.
> 
> 
> You are so smart that you put your entire Post in my quote.
> 
> Sure. I would love to read the Gautima. Whatever that is. You post one from our texts (Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain).
> I quote from Qur'an and...may be Bukhari.  Sounds fair?



Its very easy .. say la ila ilallah Muhammadur rasoolullah . U said it by your tongue nd heart you are a muslim .


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Well.wisher said:


> Its very easy .. say la ila ilallah Muhammadur rasoolullah . U said it by your tongue nd heart you are a muslim .


Wrong.
That is the first step to express belief.
Reciting the Shahadah is no guarantee that you well be considered a Muslim.
There are many conditions that come later. Violate one and you become an apostate.


----------



## Well.wisher

SarthakGanguly said:


> Wrong.
> That is the first step to express belief.
> Reciting the Shahadah is no guarantee that you well be considered a Muslim.
> There are many conditions that come later. Violate one and you become an apostate.



And do taubah , you will be muslim again easily .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Alternative

SarthakGanguly said:


> You are so smart that you put your entire Post in my quote.
> 
> Sure. I would love to read the Gautima. Whatever that is. You post one from our texts (Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain).
> I quote from Qur'an and...may be Bukhari.  Sounds fair?


Yep, and I now have edited properly to reflect the order.

Sacred Law o Arya: Gautama can be found here http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/...shtha-and-baudhayana-set-of-2-volumes-NAN058/
But you already knew the above.
I will be posting to your denial, your camouflage; You post what? and to what purpose? Go ahead post a ton. Web is already reeking with anti-islam materials/opinions, your few pages won't make a difference.


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Alternative said:


> Yep, and I now have edited properly to reflect the order.
> 
> Sacred Law o Arya: Gautama can be found here http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/...shtha-and-baudhayana-set-of-2-volumes-NAN058/
> But you already knew the above.
> I will be posting to your denial, your camouflage; You post what? and to what purpose? Go ahead post a ton. Web is already reeking with anti-islam materials/opinions, your few pages won't make a difference.


Wow! 

I never knew this. Will go through it. What does it deal with?

Also a nice website. Good to see we have patrons on the other side as well. 



Well.wisher said:


> And do taubah , you will be muslim again easily .




Your ideology got Life so wrong. Adopt Dharma. I will initiate you into it. Lead a Life of meaning, discover yourself.


----------



## Well.wisher

SarthakGanguly said:


> Wow!
> 
> I never knew this. Will go through it. What does it deal with?
> 
> Also a nice website. Good to see we have patrons on the other side as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ideology got Life so wrong. Adopt Dharma. I will initiate you into it. Lead a Life of meaning, discover yourself.



Islam is best . 
I got my God through islam , believe me he is so merciful and loving . 
I dont need to leave him . You need to accept your true God , Allah . 
No meaning in worshiping idols that cant even benefit themselves , only Allah has rule over the world and only he can benefit you .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Well.wisher said:


> Islam is best .
> I got my God through islam , believe me he is so merciful and loving .
> I dont need to leave him . You need to accept your true God , Allah .
> No meaning in worshiping idols that cant even benefit themselves , only Allah has rule over the world and only he can benefit you .


How can you say that without even tasting other faiths? 
I have grown up in a cosmopolitan multicultural country. Friends from all religions and without.

Try some first. Then decide.  No need to reject the Divine at all. Just your methods may change.


----------



## Well.wisher

SarthakGanguly said:


> How can you say that without even tasting other faiths?
> I have grown up in a cosmopolitan multicultural country. Friends from all religions and without.
> 
> Try some first. Then decide.  No need to reject the Divine at all. Just your methods may change.



Its cause i have tasted my own faith and witnessed his mercy and love for me and others very closely . That is why i cant even tnink of changing faith only for sake of tasting others , faith is not a joke that needs to be changed like dress . 


I have no dislikeness for others religions positive things , islam teaches same but faith is not a joke to be tried .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Well.wisher said:


> Its cause i have tasted my own faith and witnessed his mercy and love for me and others very closely . That is why i cant even tnink of changing faith only for sake of tasting others , faith is not a joke that needs to be changed like dress .
> 
> 
> I have no dislikeness for others religions positive things , islam teaches same but faith is not a joke to be tried .


Naaah. It is alright. Just say Tauba na? 
That is if you don't like some other philosophy. If you like something else more, then its another story.

How did you experience it? What was the Divine experience? What is your present ideology's contribution to that experience?


----------



## Well.wisher

SarthakGanguly said:


> Naaah. It is alright. Just say Tauba na?
> That is if you don't like some other philosophy. If you like something else more, then its another story.
> 
> ?



If i had done it out of ignorance then i would think myself worthy of tauba but now when im not an ignorant and i know all ' haqaaiq ' and accept it from heart so why need to sin just cause a random non muslim guy on a random forum said so ? 


SarthakGanguly said:


> Naaah. It is alright. Just say Tauba na?
> That is if you don't like some other philosophy. If you like something else more, then its another story.
> 
> How did you experience it? What was the Divine experience? What is your present ideology's contribution to that experience?



Experiencing God's mercy in the toughest situations is where I recognised him . I cannot explain it all here but Allah helped me in a situation that nobody was able to help. For that im very grateful to him cause he brought me closer and i witnessed his mercy so closely . Allah doesnt let you alone when you call unto him , you only have to call him with a true heart and he's there to reveal himself to you . 



SarthakGanguly said:


> Naaah. It is alright. Just say Tauba na?
> That is if you don't like some other philosophy. If you like something else more, then its another story.
> 
> How did you experience it? What was the Divine experience? What is your present ideology's contribution to that experience?


Its positive. 
In present , im more obedient to him and my parents. I quit disrespecting parents and other people. It made me kind and soft .


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Well.wisher said:


> If i had done it out of ignorance then i would think myself worthy of tauba but now when im not an ignorant and i know all ' haqaaiq ' and accept it from heart so why need to sin just cause a random non muslim guy on a random forum said so ?
> 
> 
> Experiencing God's mercy in the toughest situations is where I recognised him . I cannot explain it all here but Allah helped me in a situation that nobody was able to help. For that im very grateful to him cause he brought me closer and i witnessed his mercy so closely . Allah doesnt let you alone when you call unto him , you only have to call him with a true heart and he's there to reveal himself to you .
> 
> 
> Its positive.
> In present , im more obedient to him and my parents. I quit disrespecting parents and other people. It made me kind and soft .


Oh. You meditated or something? Seems like something similar.


----------



## Well.wisher

SarthakGanguly said:


> Oh. You meditated or something? Seems like something similar.



You need to meditate yourself a too ..

You need it lol


----------



## StraightShooter

TopCat said:


> Bengalis do not support Lakhman Sen (the racist) but Khilji.



Do you support Bengali or Urdu?

Do you support Suhrawardy/Mujibur Rahman/Ziaur Rahman OR Yahya Khan/Bhutto?


----------



## TopCat

StraightShooter said:


> Do you support Bengali or Urdu?
> 
> Do you support Suhrawardy/Mujibur Rahman/Ziaur Rahman OR Yahya Khan/Bhutto?


WTF? Bengali and Urdu are both have the same root and mutually intelligible language. Being a bengali I am for Bangla. Why I care for Urdu?
Regarding the politician you are asking me to choose between autocrat vs democrats.. ?


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Well.wisher said:


> You need to meditate yourself a too ..
> 
> You need it lol


True that man. I should. I sometimes fall asleep. Defeats the purpose. : ashamed:


----------



## Well.wisher

SarthakGanguly said:


> True that man. I should. I sometimes fall asleep. Defeats the purpose. : ashamed:


Side effects of alcohol


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Well.wisher said:


> Side effects of alcohol


Naah. Never tried drinking and then meditating. Guided meditations are easier.


----------



## Well.wisher

SarthakGanguly said:


> Naah. Never tried drinking and then meditating. Guided meditations are easier.


Ok


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

dsr478 said:


> We embrace him because he introduced Islam to the sub continent. Without him, there may not have been further conquests to spread Islam and if we weren't Muslim, Pakistan wouldn't have existed.
> 
> I've told you, in Islam, ethnicity is irrelevant, religion trumps all for Muslims.
> 
> Oh and Raja Dahir was a terrible person, the fact that so many people in Sindh helped Qasim should tell you that.
> 
> 
> 
> The Umayyads are generally viewed pretty poorly, but we're not discussing them. We're discussing Qasim.
> 
> Oh and btw not all Umayyads were bad.





Well.wisher said:


> I'm A sindhi and I would personally favor qaasim cause he brought Islam here and established Muslim rule .
> Raaja daahar was a bad person because he imprisoned Muslims . That was only call of one Muslim woman captured by raja dahir that qaasim came here and defeated Raaja daahar .
> Qaasim is a hero .
> We admire him for his services for Islam and that's it , all glory and worship and praises only belong to Allah .
> 
> 
> 
> Indian don't kid here , the topic was female war captives .. now don't waste my time .




its a common misconception that Qasim was the first conqueror to bring islam to subcontinent .well he was not..check this thread i created ..
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/isla...mohammad-bin-qasim-correcting-history.472924/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

SarthakGanguly said:


> We have learnt our lessons. Take them. In the name of Ummah.
> Why should Muslims take refuge in non Muslim countries? You tell me.
> 
> 
> That matter was settled. Islam has slavery in built in to the system. Something you accepted.
> I was broadening the net. My point is that women were treated as good or better before Islam in Arabia.



well you should discuss the matter with learnt people or find a good resource instead of arguing random people here and there..i dont claim to be that learnt person but i can definitely share my understanding.

1) the practice was wrongly translated to a master-slave relationship which is the usual perception. The person who kept them(male or female) are guardians and the ones being kept (female or male ) are called`right hand possession` or just simply concubines .What your right hand possesses has nothing to do with captive slave girls.Even quran doesnt say `slave anywhere for them. Whoever has made these translations creates a big question to the credibility and understanding of divine language. The possessed ones have rights ,they can drag their guardian to a court and demand rights.they have right to inheritance from guardian and much more.

2) the need at that time was to accommodate families left behind by an enemy .a village would have all their men killed or few left.Since the new army would now take over the village or town they would make adult men women single mothers with children part of the family to support them financially as well as emotionally, this resulted in almost no criminal activity, prostitution being one of them.

3) the concubines could negotiate and walk away(many didnt by choice at that time as they felt it was like home and their children had future in the deal). Freeing them was considered charity, it was encouraged by prophet Muhammad.

the purpose of these acts were not to enjoy exotic women or show off power but a direction towards a functional society that buried deep the hate and enmity towards a conqueror by helping the locals incorporate.


----------



## SarthakGanguly

-blitzkrieg- said:


> well you should discuss the matter with learnt people or find a good resource instead of arguing random people here and there..i dont claim to be that learnt person but i can definitely share my understanding.
> 
> 1) the practice was wrongly translated to a master-slave relationship which is the usual perception. The person who kept them(male or female) are guardians and the ones being kept (female or male ) are called`right hand possession` .What your right hand possesses has nothing to do with captive slave girls.Even quran doesnt say `slave anywhere for them. Whoever has made these translations creates a big question to the credibility and understanding of divine language. The possessed ones have rights ,they can drag their guardian to a court and demand rights.they have right to inheritance from guardian and much more.
> 
> 2) the need at that time was to accommodate families left behind by an enemy .a village would have all their men killed or few left.Since the new army would now take over the village or town they would make adult men women single mothers with children part of the family to support them financially as well as emotionally, this resulted in almost no criminal activity, prostitution being one of them.
> 
> 3) the possesses could negotiate and walk away(many didnt by choice at that time as they felt it was like home and their children had future in the deal). Freeing a slave was considered charity, it was encouraged by prophet Muhammad.


Sahih international is quite trust worthy. Your approach is nice. You are reinterpreting it in a new more diluted manner. I welcome it.


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

SarthakGanguly said:


> Sahih international is quite trust worthy. Your approach is nice. You are reinterpreting it in a new more diluted manner. I welcome it.


i dont know if you can bring up something that is contrary to what i said. its unfortunate the term slave is used even by very knowledgeable people, probably because they dont know what it means in the aboriginal occidental culture , the black history or imperialism.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Muhammad Bin Qasim was a general of the Umayyad Khilafah who conquered modern day Sindh and Multan, starting what was to be the 1000 year long Islamic conquest of the Indian sub-continent. 

The conquest was started as a result of pirates from the area capturing a ship, kidnapping all the Muslims on board. One of the kidnapped Muslims managed to escape and asked the Khilafah to rescue the rest of the kidnapped Muslims. This resulted in the Khilafah asking the current ruler of the area (Dahir) to release the prisoners and provide compensation for this misdemeanour, however, Dahir refused. This resulted in Muhammad Bin Qasim being tasked to conquer the region, even though he was still a young boy, only 17 years of age. 

Muhammad Bin Qasim led an army initially consisting of 6,000 Syrian and Mawali (recent non-Arab converts to Islam) troops, however, another several thousand camel riders and other reinforcements were provided by the governor of Makran, along with 5 catapults. Many Gujjars and Meds also joined Muhammad Bin Qasim's army. 

During the conquest of the region, Muhammad Bin Qasim acted fairly and justly, attempting to do as little economic damage as possible with as little casualties as possible (on both sides). He always gave the people he encountered the choice of surrendering peacefully, only if they refused and remained in adamant in fighting him would he use violence. Even then, Muhammad Bin Qasim only killed those belong to Ahl-i-Harb (combatants), which included Dahir himself. The majority of the people he encountered chose to surrender peacefully.

Once a new town was conquered, Muhammad Bin Qasim always incorporated the locals into his administration and (if they willed it) his army. He also opened the gateway for proselytism to occur.

His reasons for success were his superior battle tactics, his more advanced technology (e.g the Mongol bow), the fact that the current ruler (Dahir) was very unpopular among people of the region, and the fact that he incorporated the people of the region into his army and administration, rather than alienating them. 

Muhammad Bin Qasim was eventually arrested and executed during the Abbasid revolution, due to his uncle being Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf (a person who was greatly despised by the Abbasid's).

The legacy of Muhammad Bin Qasim is a large one. He was the first Muslim ruler to gain large amounts of territory of the Indian sub-continent, arguably paving the way for future Islamic conquests and proselytism, as well as large migrations of Muslims to the region. Muhammad Bin Qasim is also considered to be the first Pakistani, as the idea of a Muslim homeland in the Indian sub-continent started after his conquests of the region. Yom-e-Babul Islam is also observed in Pakistan in his honour. There are also many places in Pakistan named after him, such as the Muhammad Bin Qasim library in Thatta, Bin Qasim town in Karachi, Ibn-e-Qasim Bagh stadium in Multan, Port Qasim (Pakistan's 2nd largest port), etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Qasim
http://historypak.com/muhammad-bin-qasim/






@Iqbal Ali @Samlee @lastofthepatriots @Torch @dexter @waz @Horus @Mugwop @Kaptaan @PAKISTANFOREVER @Desert Fox @DESERT FIGHTER @Saif al-Arab @HAKIKAT @Reichsmarschall @Dalit @Clutch @Devil Soul @313ghazi @Albatross @Luffy 500 @M.R.9 @Mentee @Ahmet Pasha @Sher Shah Awan @TheLahoriGuy @Kambojaric @war&peace @El Sidd @The Diplomat @BHarwana @Proudpakistaniguy @Ahmad Sajjad Paracha @Mian Babban @Max @Talwar e Pakistan @hussain0216 @Metanoia

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## MultaniGuy

Nice history you have there.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

That is some flawed history , as there is no connection between Mohammad Bin Qasim and Pakistan

The "region" geographic area we know or call Pakistan and it's people had had cultural ties with various empires in past

That is why our food looks like Persian food with touch of extra spices

From *European */ * Persian* / *Arab *and *Mongol* , so we have developed a good cultural mix

And never did we ever were connected to entity called South Asia

Mohammad Bin Qasim did not leave us a Trove of Gold and Dimond which we used to free Pakistan in 1947, it was work of people Muslims who wanted a Independent state

People like *Mohamad Ali Jinnah* and others who envisioned Pakistan Such as *Illama Iqbal *or the ground work done by* Sir Syed , *who setup education and schools

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MultaniGuy

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> That is some flawed history , as there is no connection between Mohammad Bin Qasim and Pakistan


I think he meant it in the historical sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Qasim Amin

He was a great warrior who conquered India when he was only 17.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Samlee

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> That is some flawed history , as there is no connection between Mohammad Bin Qasim and Pakistan
> 
> The "region" geographic area we know or call Pakistan and it's people had had cultural ties with various empires in past
> 
> That is why our food looks like Persian food with touch of extra spices
> 
> From *European */ * Persian* / *Arab *and *Mongol* , so we have developed a good cultural mix
> 
> And never did we ever were connected to entity called South Asia
> 
> Mohammad Bin Qasim did not leave us a Trove of Gold and Dimond which we used to free Pakistan in 1947, it was work of people Muslims who wanted a Independent state
> 
> People like *Mohamad Ali Jinnah* and others who envisioned Pakistan Such as *Illama Iqbal *or the ground work done by* Sir Syed , *who setup education and schools





Pakistani Or Not He Was Much Better Than That Incestuous Perv Dahir

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

From Historical sense , there is a problem , becasue we continue to lie to People in Schools about our history
History is defined as connection of people with various culture and society

Sure Bin Qasim was there for few years but we cannot remove the infuence of *5 Major Empires* Pakistan was part of Last being the *British Empire*


Pakistan was fromed by *Political Movement* , not by* Mohammad Bin Qasim*'s war

Our culture involves interaction with various Empires , Trade routes and that is true identity of Pakistan

The only major Empire Pakistan missed out on was *Ottoman Empire* and that was because we were part of* British control

History = -600 Years before birth of Jesus , to present times 2018

*
*Pakistan's Real regional History *

Part of Greek Empire 
Part of Persian Empire
Part of Ummayad Dynasty (A.k.a Mohamad Bin Qasim)
Part of Mongol Empire
Various Moghal Dynasties ~ 
Part of British Empire
Polical Awakening and Pollitical struggle for Independent state of Pakistan 
Pakistan = is born


However we can see the region *Turkey* / *Pakistan* were one nation under different empires at one point in history. But that I mean the geographical area we now reference as Turkey or Pakistan



The idea to Glorify Bin Qasim , is a bit strange as I become more mature now vs how this idea was stuffed down my throat as a student. Becasue really Pakistan is a Nation which has had connection to various large civilizations of Pakistan and Present 

So modern age CEPC China/Pakistan connection is no suprise

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kinetic

dsr478 said:


> Muhammad Bin Qasim was a general of the Umayyad Khilafah who conquered modern day Sindh and Multan, starting what was to be the 1000 year long Islamic conquest of the Indian sub-continent.
> 
> The conquest was started as a result of pirates from the area capturing a ship, kidnapping all the Muslims on board. One of the kidnapped Muslims managed to escape and asked the Khilafah to rescue the rest of the kidnapped Muslims. This resulted in the Khilafah asking the current ruler of the area (Dahir) to release the prisoners and provide compensation for this misdemeanour, however, Dahir refused. This resulted in Muhammad Bin Qasim being tasked to conquer the region, even though he was still a young boy, only 17 years of age.
> 
> Muhammad Bin Qasim led an army initially consisting of 6,000 Syrian and Mawali (recent non-Arab converts to Islam) troops, however, another several thousand camel riders and other reinforcements were provided by the governor of Makran, along with 5 catapults. Many Gujjars and Meds also joined Muhammad Bin Qasim's army.
> 
> During the conquest of the region, Muhammad Bin Qasim acted fairly and justly, attempting to do as little economic damage as possible with as little casualties as possible (on both sides). He always gave the people he encountered the choice of surrendering peacefully, only if they refused and remained in adamant in fighting him would he use violence. Even then, Muhammad Bin Qasim only killed those belong to Ahl-i-Harb (combatants), which included Dahir himself. The majority of the people he encountered chose to surrender peacefully.
> 
> Once a new town was conquered, Muhammad Bin Qasim always incorporated the locals into his administration and (if they willed it) his army. He also opened the gateway for proselytism to occur.
> 
> His reasons for success were his superior battle tactics, his more advanced technology (e.g the Mongol bow), the fact that the current ruler (Dahir) was very unpopular among people of the region, and the fact that he incorporated the people of the region into his army and administration, rather than alienating them.
> 
> Muhammad Bin Qasim was eventually arrested and executed during the Abbasid revolution, due to his uncle being Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf (a person who was greatly despised by the Abbasid's).
> 
> The legacy of Muhammad Bin Qasim is a large one. He was the first Muslim ruler to gain large amounts of territory of the Indian sub-continent, arguably paving the way for future Islamic conquests and proselytism, as well as large migrations of Muslims to the region. Muhammad Bin Qasim is also considered to be the first Pakistani, as the idea of a Muslim homeland in the Indian sub-continent started after his conquests of the region. Yom-e-Babul Islam is also observed in Pakistan in his honour. There are also many places in Pakistan named after him, such as the Muhammad Bin Qasim library in Thatta, Bin Qasim town in Karachi, Ibn-e-Qasim Bagh stadium in Multan, Port Qasim (Pakistan's 2nd largest port), etc.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Qasim
> http://historypak.com/muhammad-bin-qasim/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Iqbal Ali @Samlee @lastofthepatriots @Torch @dexter @waz @Horus @Mugwop @Kaptaan @PAKISTANFOREVER @Desert Fox @DESERT FIGHTER @Saif al-Arab @HAKIKAT @Reichsmarschall @Dalit @Clutch @Devil Soul @313ghazi @Albatross @Luffy 500 @M.R.9 @Mentee @Ahmet Pasha @Sher Shah Awan @TheLahoriGuy @Kambojaric @war&peace @El Sidd @The Diplomat @BHarwana @Proudpakistaniguy @Ahmad Sajjad Paracha @Mian Babban @Max @Talwar e Pakistan @hussain0216 @Metanoia




Total murder of history. I do not know what people are smoking today. Sunday does not mean you can smoke anything. 

Pakistan was conceptualised around 80 years back. Read the history of Jinnah and Iqbal.



Abdul Sharif said:


> He was a great warrior who conquered India when he was only 17.



He conquered a province Sindh which was unprotected.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Qasim Amin

Kinetic said:


> Total murder of history. I do not know what people are smoking today. Sunday does not mean you can smoke anything.
> 
> Pakistan was conceptualised around 80 years back. Read the history of Jinnah and Iqbal.
> 
> 
> 
> He conquered a province Sindh which was unprotected.


Of course, what else could I expect from an Indian?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kinetic

Abdul Sharif said:


> Of course, what else could I expect from an Indian?


Is conquering Bangladesh equal to conquering PAKISTAN? That I meant.

Your history defies logic and told no where outside Pakistan.


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Kinetic said:


> He conquered a province Sindh which was unprotected.


lol Sindh was not unprotected.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Kinetic said:


> Your history defies logic and told no where outside Pakistan.



Ironic coming from the Hindustani, you guys make extraordinary claims such as:

1. All Muslims in South Asia are the product of Arab rape
2. The Indo-Aryan migrations are a lie
3. Indus Valley Civilisation came from Hindustan
4. Akbar was a peace-loving Hindustani ruler
5. Aurangzeb destroyed 1000's of temples
6. Hindustan won all wars with Pakistan

I can name so much more crap coming from your country, so stuff it.

Anyway, I have only told the truth. No bending of history here.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

dsr478 said:


> Muhammad Bin Qasim was a general of the Umayyad Khilafah who conquered modern day Sindh and Multan, starting what was to be the 1000 year long Islamic conquest of the Indian sub-continent.
> 
> The conquest was started as a result of pirates from the area capturing a ship, kidnapping all the Muslims on board. One of the kidnapped Muslims managed to escape and asked the Khilafah to rescue the rest of the kidnapped Muslims. This resulted in the Khilafah asking the current ruler of the area (Dahir) to release the prisoners and provide compensation for this misdemeanour, however, Dahir refused. This resulted in Muhammad Bin Qasim being tasked to conquer the region, even though he was still a young boy, only 17 years of age.
> 
> Muhammad Bin Qasim led an army initially consisting of 6,000 Syrian and Mawali (recent non-Arab converts to Islam) troops, however, another several thousand camel riders and other reinforcements were provided by the governor of Makran, along with 5 catapults. Many Gujjars and Meds also joined Muhammad Bin Qasim's army.
> 
> During the conquest of the region, Muhammad Bin Qasim acted fairly and justly, attempting to do as little economic damage as possible with as little casualties as possible (on both sides). He always gave the people he encountered the choice of surrendering peacefully, only if they refused and remained in adamant in fighting him would he use violence. Even then, Muhammad Bin Qasim only killed those belong to Ahl-i-Harb (combatants), which included Dahir himself. The majority of the people he encountered chose to surrender peacefully.
> 
> Once a new town was conquered, Muhammad Bin Qasim always incorporated the locals into his administration and (if they willed it) his army. He also opened the gateway for proselytism to occur.
> 
> His reasons for success were his superior battle tactics, his more advanced technology (e.g the Mongol bow), the fact that the current ruler (Dahir) was very unpopular among people of the region, and the fact that he incorporated the people of the region into his army and administration, rather than alienating them.
> 
> Muhammad Bin Qasim was eventually arrested and executed during the Abbasid revolution, due to his uncle being Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf (a person who was greatly despised by the Abbasid's).
> 
> The legacy of Muhammad Bin Qasim is a large one. He was the first Muslim ruler to gain large amounts of territory of the Indian sub-continent, arguably paving the way for future Islamic conquests and proselytism, as well as large migrations of Muslims to the region. Muhammad Bin Qasim is also considered to be the first Pakistani, as the idea of a Muslim homeland in the Indian sub-continent started after his conquests of the region. Yom-e-Babul Islam is also observed in Pakistan in his honour. There are also many places in Pakistan named after him, such as the Muhammad Bin Qasim library in Thatta, Bin Qasim town in Karachi, Ibn-e-Qasim Bagh stadium in Multan, Port Qasim (Pakistan's 2nd largest port), etc.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Qasim
> http://historypak.com/muhammad-bin-qasim/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Iqbal Ali @Samlee @lastofthepatriots @Torch @dexter @waz @Horus @Mugwop @Kaptaan @PAKISTANFOREVER @Desert Fox @DESERT FIGHTER @Saif al-Arab @HAKIKAT @Reichsmarschall @Dalit @Clutch @Devil Soul @313ghazi @Albatross @Luffy 500 @M.R.9 @Mentee @Ahmet Pasha @Sher Shah Awan @TheLahoriGuy @Kambojaric @war&peace @El Sidd @The Diplomat @BHarwana @Proudpakistaniguy @Ahmad Sajjad Paracha @Mian Babban @Max @Talwar e Pakistan @hussain0216 @Metanoia


I would not at all consider him a "Pakistani" let alone the "first Pakistani".

Sure he was a part of our history and his influence/legacy still lives on in Pakistan, but I don't see in which logic he would be considered a Pakistani. 

He was an Umayyad Commander, nothing more.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taimur Khurram

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> That is some flawed history , as there is no connection between Mohammad Bin Qasim and Pakistan



Asalamu Alaikum

Tell that to the Pakistani history curriculum.



Kinetic said:


> He conquered a province Sindh *which was unprotected*.







Talwar e Pakistan said:


> I would not at all consider him the first Pakistani nor a Pakistani.



Asalamu Alaikum

Well, the Pakistani history curriculum does, and Pakistan itself exists as a homeland for Muslims of the region. Islam first became a dominant force in the region under Qasim, so calling him the first Pakistani is correct in my opinion.



AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Pakistan was fromed by *Political Movement* , not by* Mohammad Bin Qasim*'s war



The political movement only existed because of Qasim's war, and the ancestors of many Pakistanis (as explained earlier) fought under his army and worked under his administration.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

dsr478 said:


> Asalamu Alaikum
> 
> Well, the Pakistani history curriculum does, and Pakistan itself exists as a homeland for Muslims of the region. Islam first became a dominant force in the region under Qasim, so calling him the first Pakistani is correct in my opinion.


Islam became a dominant force in the region because of Sufi missionaries. Sufi influence can be seen in every corner of Pakistani culture. 

Most of these invaders came to conquer and plunder, not to convert people.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

The influence can be divided into Three folds

a) Cultural
b) Religious
c) Political views

So under this principle , we can say yes Bin Qasim , brought a new Religious/Political process. However the region called Pakistan today has been actively infuenced by Miltiple civilizations over *2600 *Year period


Our *dress code*/ and clothese we wear are all *silk* and *cottom *, fine stuff. So this type of dress code was not prominent in Land of Arabia as it was releatively underdeveloped back in past. Now of course due to Technoogy and trade every one wears fairly westernized stuff

The *agricultural infuences* were shared with our neighbour country , and same for the trade goods and food and how food is prepared

We still see similarities between food in Iran/Afghanistan or Pakistan , it is just our food tends to be on spicy side

The political views *Pakistani* have are very *similar to Turkey* , focused on education and close collaboration work with each other


The religious views ties us with folks in *Arabia *very well. However since Pakistan is not a Dynasty but a Republic so some differences exist


Lastly we also have to acknowlege the influence left behind on Pakistan by being part of even *British Empire* , as our Court system , Police System and most of existing institutes are still heavily influenced by British system. The ideal of the Bachelor's degree is a purly British concept used in University 

The A Level course or 0 Level course are highly popular in student community even now after 70 years of indendence from British Government


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Islam became a dominant force in the region because of Sufi missionaries. Sufi influence can be seen in every corner of Pakistani culture.
> 
> Most of these invaders came to conquer and plunder, not to convert people.



Sufis only came because of these conquerors.

No, only Tamerlane and Nader Shah came to plunder Pakistan. The rest of them considered Pakistan a vital piece of their empire and developed it significantly, with many of these rulers even coming from Pakistan (e.g Ghazi Malik, Shah Jahan, Sikander Shah Mir, etc). Many Pakistanis also worked in their armies and administration, and during these conquests many Turks, Arabs and Persians all came, settled down in Pakistan and intermarried with the local population.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

I dont agree with title

He was not Pakistani but arab general

Pakistani are those who are living in this land which comprise present day Pakistan and people of this land had long history before the arrival of Islam or Muhammad bin Qasim in sub continent . If we make him first Pakistani then it would mean that we all Pakistani had no existence prior to arrival of Islam or Muahmmad bin Qasim which is lie


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Proudpakistaniguy said:


> I dont agree with title
> 
> He was not Pakistani but arab general
> 
> Pakistani are those who are living in this land which comprise present day Pakistan and people of this land had long history before the arrival of Islam or Muhammad bin Qasim in sub continent . If we make him first Pakistani then it would mean that we all Pakistani had no existence prior to arrival of Islam or Muahmmad bin Qasim which is lie



Asalamu Alaikum

We have a pre-Islamic history, but our Islamic history is more important as it is the reason why Pakistan exists today. We only exist as a nation because of the likes of Qasim, Ghaznavi, Aurangzeb and Abdali. Not because of the likes of Panini, Porus, Kautilya or Kanishka (but we can still like these guys and consider them part of our history and as national heroes too). 

Also, many Muslims of the sub-continent (especially those in Pakistan and north-west Hindustan) are descended from those who migrated to the region during these Islamic conquests, so we do have an ancestral link with these Islamic conquerors. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3163234

*"The study showed that the Muslim Gujjars differ significantly from their counterpart, the Hindu Gujjars"*

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19809480
*
"Overall, our results support a model according to which the spread of Islam in India was predominantly cultural conversion associated with minor but still detectable levels of gene flow from outside, primarily from Iran and Central Asia"*

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20067368

*"we observed a certain degree of genetic contribution from Iran to both (Sunni and Shia) Muslim populations"*
*
*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

dsr478 said:


> Asalamu Alaikum
> 
> We have a pre-Islamic history, but our Islamic history is more important as it is the reason why Pakistan exists today. We only exist as a nation because of the likes of Qasim, Ghaznavi, Aurangzeb and Abdali. Not because of the likes of Panini, Porus, Kautilya or Kanishka (but we can still like these guys and consider them part of our history and as national heroes too).
> 
> Also, many Muslims of the sub-continent (especially those in Pakistan and north-west Hindustan) are descended from those who migrated to the region during these Islamic conquests, so we do have an ancestral link with these Islamic conquerors.
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3163234
> 
> *"The study showed that the Muslim Gujjars differ significantly from their counterpart, the Hindu Gujjars"*
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19809480
> *
> "Overall, our results support a model according to which the spread of Islam in India was predominantly cultural conversion associated with minor but still detectable levels of gene flow from outside, primarily from Iran and Central Asia"*
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20067368
> 
> *"we observed a certain degree of genetic contribution from Iran to both (Sunni and Shia) Muslim populations"
> *


Walikum salam

You are confusing many things. I am proud of my Muslim identity . You should realise that Pakistan and Arab are two different races . Arab rulers/invaders/commander/merchants/saints brought Islam in this region dont change their race and dont make them Pakistani . Similarly we Pakistani adopting Islam as religion dont make us Arab so this title making Muhammad Bin Qasim as first Pakistani dont make any sense

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gangsta_rap

dsr478 said:


> Also, many Muslims of the sub-continent (especially those in Pakistan and north-west Hindustan) are descended from those who migrated to the region during these Islamic conquests, so we do have an ancestral link with these Islamic conquerors.



Not really...samandri (before he was banned) had commented widely on this (with backup and evidence). The link is actually very weak in terms of descent & lineage.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

If the premise of the title is true,then what happened to pakistani IVC.I suppose i was misled into thinking pak history began with IVC,its Qasim the founding father of Pakistan i guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taimur Khurram

AUSTERLITZ said:


> If the premise of the title is true,then what happened to pakistani IVC.I suppose i was misled into thinking pak history began with IVC,its Qasim the founding father of Pakistan i guess.



The reason Qasim is the first Pakistani is because Pakistan was founded on the basis of Islam, which started to play a major role in the region once Qasim came around. 

IVC is our pre-Islamic history, from before the concept of Pakistan was slowly beginning to form.



GIANTsasquatch said:


> Not really...samandri (before he was banned) had commented widely on this (with backup and evidence). The link is actually very weak in terms of descent & lineage.


Asalamu Alaikum

The link is there, as previous posts of mine have shown.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

AUSTERLITZ said:


> If the premise of the title is true,then what happened to pakistani IVC.I suppose i was misled into thinking pak history began with IVC,its Qasim the founding father of Pakistan i guess.


Actually the first Pakistani was probably one of the children of Adam as it is widely understood that after all that those early men were all Muslims in their conceptual beleifs so which ever of them was the first to touch the border at Chaman was Pakistani. They probably put the name Pakistan and the two nation theory down in a pamphlet which Mohammad bin Qasim discovered but decided not to tell anyone and had sent to Aligarh to be buried in a time capsule which Sir Syed read a little then post dated a letter to Sir Iqbal and Jinnah who decided to appropriate for themselves and gave this person no credit.

Mohammed bin Qasim was late to the party but since it is impossible that Chaudhry Rehmat Ali put a name to the concept that was originally given form by a heathen trained barrister(Iqbal).. it must be attributed to the arab lands since those are of the pure blood that reflects in the “Pak” of Pakistan.

True story

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Proudpakistaniguy said:


> Walikum salam
> 
> You are confusing many things. I am proud of my Muslim identity . You should realise that Pakistan and Arab are two different races . Arab rulers/invaders/commander/merchants/saints brought Islam in this region dont change their race and dont make them Pakistani . Similarly we Pakistani adopting Islam as religion dont make us Arab so this title making Muhammad Bin Qasim as first Pakistani dont make any sense



It makes perfect sense. Pakistan exists as a separate homeland for Muslims of the region. Islam played a major role in the region once Qasim started his conquests. Therefore, Qasim is the first Pakistani. Also, as started earlier, many people migrated to Pakistan during these conquests, intermarrying with the local people, not to mention we are all Bani Adam (Peace Be Upon Him), so the ethnic link is there to satisfy those of us who want a blood connection.



Oscar said:


> Actually the first Pakistani was probably one of the children of Adam as it is widely understood that after all it is muslim belief that those early men were all Muslims in their conceptual beleifs so which ever of them was the first to touch the border at Chaman was Pakistani. They probably put the name Pakistan and the two nation theory down in a pamphlet which Sir Syed and then Sir Iqbal decided to appropriate for themselves and gave this person no credit.
> 
> Mohammed bin Qasim was late to the party but since it is impossible that Chaudhry Rehmat Ali put a name to the concept that was originally given form by a heathen trained barrister(Iqbal).. it must be attributed to the arab lands since those are of the pure blood that reflects in the “Pak” of Pakistan.
> 
> True story



Asalamu Alaikum

Why do you have to make fun of me man lol


----------



## SQ8

dsr478 said:


> It makes perfect sense. Pakistan exists as a separate homeland for Muslims of the region. Islam played a major role in the region once Qasim started his conquests. Therefore, Qasim is the first Pakistani. Also, as started earlier, many people migrated to Pakistan during these conquests, intermarrying with the local people, not to mention we are all Bani Adam (Peace Be Upon Him), so the ethnic link is there to satisfy those of us who want a blood connection.
> 
> 
> 
> Asalamu Alaikum
> 
> Why do you have to make fun of me man lol


Because you made a ridiculous assertion- it was too tempting to skip.
Mohammad bin Qasim was a fine general and expedition leader but neither did Islam really expand with him nor was it completely alien. His primary focus is still debated to be quelling a threat to the Ummayad trade routes that were going to Ceylon and parts of India.

He had no intention, link or ANYTHING to do with Pakistan- he was an Arab and will be called by his Arab mother’s name on the day of judgeMent.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Oscar said:


> Because you made a ridiculous assertion- it was too tempting to skip.
> Mohammad bin Qasim was a fine general and expedition leader but neither did Islam really expand with him nor was it completely alien. His primary focus is still debated to be quelling a threat to the Ummayad trade routes that were going to Ceylon and parts of India.
> 
> He had no intention, link or ANYTHING to do with Pakistan- he was an Arab and will be called by his Arab mother’s name on the day of judgeMent.



I disagree.

Pakistan exists as a nation founded on the basis of Islam, which first played a major role in the region once Qasim started his conquests. Therefore, I believe the title is appropriate.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

dsr478 said:


> He was the first Muslim ruler to gain large amounts of territory of the Indian sub-continent, arguably paving the way for future Islamic conquests and proselytism, as well as large migrations of Muslims to the region. Muhammad Bin Qasim is also considered to be the first Pakistani, as the idea of a Muslim homeland in the Indian sub-continent started after his conquests of the region.



This is wrong history.He is a well respected figure yet wrong stuff associated to him.He was not the first Muslim conqueror of present-day Pakistan.

I had a thread on it some time back regarding how the area up to present-day Karachi was conquered in the days of the third caliph Umar an events following it.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/isla...mohammad-bin-qasim-correcting-history.472924/


----------



## Roybot

Abdul Sharif said:


> He was a great warrior who conquered India when he was only 17.



He was a great warrior who conquered *Pakistan* when he was only 17.

Fixed it for you.


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

If Muhammad Bin Qasim is Pakistani then Tariq bin zayad must be Spanish 

By the way how long he stayed in his beloved country Pakistan after conquest of Sindh and where was he buried ? was he fluent in speaking Urdu/Punjabi or Pashtu?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Torch_v2.0

He was the Man who introduced Islam to that land,
Indeed he was the man who led the foundation of Pakistan in that time ,
Look at the map of his campaign - (Small Pakistan isn't it ?)






_*Indeed he was the First Pakistani.*_

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

dsr478 said:


> It makes perfect sense. Pakistan exists as a separate homeland for Muslims of the region. Islam played a major role in the region once Qasim started his conquests. Therefore, Qasim is the first Pakistani. Also, as started earlier, many people migrated to Pakistan during these conquests, intermarrying with the local people, not to mention we are all Bani Adam (Peace Be Upon Him), so the ethnic link is there to satisfy those of us who want a blood connection.


It may make sense for you but not for me and by the way Pakistan was formed because Muslim of Sub continent thought that they will not be getting equal social , economic and religious rights in undivided India so there were many factors because of which Muslims demanded separate land and it has nothing to do with Muhammad Bin Qasim . Those Pakistani claiming blood connection with Arabs should do their genetic test to find out how much similarity they have with arabs and finding of this test will burst all their bubbles and fake claims which they are making becaus eof some sort of complexes 


http://blogs.dunyanews.tv/17554/

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. 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 anything 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’s southern neighbour, 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 primary reason cited in the Chach Nama, that authentic document that recounts the history of Sindh in great details, for the expedition by the governor of Basra, Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, against Raja Dahir was a pirate raid off the coast of Debal resulting in gifts to the caliph from the king of Serendib (today’s Sri Lanka) being stolen. That the Meds, a Sindhi tribe also known as Bawarij, had targeted Sassanid shipping in the past too. That they sniped the trade routes frequently from the mouth of the Tigris to the Sri Lankan coast, from their bases at Kutch, Debal and Kathiawar.

We are also not told that possibly 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 may only have 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 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’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 that 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–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 other 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.

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

Chach Nama 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. Reportedly, the Khalifa got so incensed for having been sent ‘tainted’ gifts that he ordered Muhammad bin Qasim returned to Syria wrapped in oxen hides, his exploits notwithstanding. The journey is said to have resulted in his death from suffocation.

The aforementioned 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-Hajaaj ibn Yusuf, Muhammad bin Qasim’s paternal uncle. He persecuted all those who were considered close to Hajaaj after his death. Muhammad bin Qasim was therefore recalled in the midst of a campaign of capturing more territory up north. An honourable 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 on one hot July afternoon Muhammad bin Qasim breathed his last during the most extreme of these sessions.

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

Two facts, however, remain undisputed.

First, he was 22 years old when his own Caliph ordered him killed. Second, none have read the tombstone marking his grave for none know where he lies.

No tombstone for the hero?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ocean

AUSTERLITZ said:


> If the premise of the title is true,then what happened to pakistani IVC.I suppose i was misled into thinking pak history began with IVC,its Qasim the founding father of Pakistan i guess.


Just like his convoluted theory about qasim being first pakistani is his personal made up story and wont turn into a fact similarly indians absurd self manufactured claims on ivc and ur bharatvarsha nonsense wont turn out true nor will turn u indians into inheritors of ivc. NOT AT ALL


----------



## Taimur Khurram

-blitzkrieg- said:


> This is wrong history.He is a well respected figure yet wrong stuff associated to him.He was not the first Muslim conqueror of present-day Pakistan.
> 
> I had a thread on it some time back regarding how the area up to present-day Karachi was conquered in the days of the third caliph Umar an events following it.
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/isla...mohammad-bin-qasim-correcting-history.472924/



Asalamu Alaikum

Muhammad Bin Qasim was the first Muslim to conquer large portions of the Indian sub-continent. The previous Muslim rulers had only made minor incursions.



Proudpakistaniguy said:


> If Muhammad Bin Qasim is Pakistani then Tariq bin zayad must be Spanish
> 
> By the way how long he stayed in his beloved country Pakistan after conquest of Sindh and where was he buried ? was he fluent in speaking Urdu/Punjabi or Pashtu?



No, because Spain doesn't owe it's existence to Tariq Ibn Ziyad. 

When he entered Pakistan, he spent almost the rest of his life there. He only left once his uncle was executed, and he was then arrested and executed too.

Those languages didn't really exist at the time, and that comment is simply childish.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

dsr478 said:


> the first Muslim to conquer large portions of the Indian sub-continent.


How large? 
By the end of the reign of first four caliphs , most of the Baluchistan was already conquested.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Proudpakistaniguy said:


> It may make sense for you but not for me and by the way Pakistan was formed because Muslim of Sub continent thought that they will not be getting equal social , economic and religious rights in undivided India so there were many factors because of which Muslims demanded separate land and it has nothing to do with Muhammad Bin Qasim . Those Pakistani claiming blood connection with Arabs should do their genetic test to find out how much similarity they have with arabs and finding of this test will burst all their bubbles and fake claims which they are making becaus eof some sort of complexes
> 
> 
> http://blogs.dunyanews.tv/17554/
> 
> 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. 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 anything 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’s southern neighbour, 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 primary reason cited in the Chach Nama, that authentic document that recounts the history of Sindh in great details, for the expedition by the governor of Basra, Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, against Raja Dahir was a pirate raid off the coast of Debal resulting in gifts to the caliph from the king of Serendib (today’s Sri Lanka) being stolen. That the Meds, a Sindhi tribe also known as Bawarij, had targeted Sassanid shipping in the past too. That they sniped the trade routes frequently from the mouth of the Tigris to the Sri Lankan coast, from their bases at Kutch, Debal and Kathiawar.
> 
> We are also not told that possibly 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 may only have 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 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’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 that 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–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 other 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.
> 
> But above all what we are not told is the manner of this hero’s death and the events leading up to the occasion.
> 
> Chach Nama 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. Reportedly, the Khalifa got so incensed for having been sent ‘tainted’ gifts that he ordered Muhammad bin Qasim returned to Syria wrapped in oxen hides, his exploits notwithstanding. The journey is said to have resulted in his death from suffocation.
> 
> The aforementioned 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-Hajaaj ibn Yusuf, Muhammad bin Qasim’s paternal uncle. He persecuted all those who were considered close to Hajaaj after his death. Muhammad bin Qasim was therefore recalled in the midst of a campaign of capturing more territory up north. An honourable 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 on one hot July afternoon Muhammad bin Qasim breathed his last during the most extreme of these sessions.
> 
> Whichever account is true, we are told none of these.
> 
> Two facts, however, remain undisputed.
> 
> First, he was 22 years old when his own Caliph ordered him killed. Second, none have read the tombstone marking his grave for none know where he lies.
> 
> No tombstone for the hero?



We are Muslim because of Muhammad Bin Qasim's conquests, they were the catalyst for further conquests into the region as well as the dawah that followed them. 

Genetic testing isn't going to help much here, as the ancestry would be in minute amounts and from over 1000 years ago, so detecting it is unlikely. Not to mention these companies that offer them are not reliable to say the least. All we can do is make the reasonable suggestion that many Pakistanis (especially from down south) will have some levels of Arab ancestry in them, based on the historical facts available to us. 

All this propaganda against Qasim is nothing new, these claims have been refuted/explained numerous times before. 

People who are antagonised by the state don't often get a tombstone.



-blitzkrieg- said:


> How large?
> By the end of the reign of first four caliphs , most of the Baluchistan was already conquested.



Check the map Torch posted earlier.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Suriya

*Muhammad Bin Qasim, Father of the first Pakistani*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Imran Khan

where is his nadra card

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Suriya said:


> *Muhammad Bin Qasim, Father of the first Pakistani*



No, THE first Pakistani.

He catalysed the even larger conquests that were to follow after him, which would result in Muslims becoming a major power in the sub-continent and eventually culminated in them forming their own separate nation.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Listen folks the impact of *Mohamad Bin Qasim* was perhaps a mere 20-30 years at most before he died

Died 715 (*aged 19–20*)


The impact of Civilization / Cultural exchange is larger.


Pakistan was formed by a Moral Awakening of Muslims in region who needed a seperate state by a political and social means

So we have no connection to , a Gentleman named Mr Qasim
That state he represented no longer exist 

Sure the religious impact may still be felt 


*Pakistan Culture influence* = Work of almost 2600 Years , various civilizations
*Pakistan's National Identity* = Work of *Political members of Society* year 1857 on ward

The initial member of Muslim Party representatives





Almost 50 years Later the Political Struggle resulted in formation of Pakistan by educated people


----------



## khanz

OMG you are really grasping at straws here ! why don't you just go a step further claim prophet Muhammed (PBUH) as the first Pakistani ? There wouldn't have been Islam or Ummayad caliphate and therefore ultimately no Pakistan without him either.
Bin Qasim was not nor any of his ancestors born within the land mass that is now Pakistan, nobody in history ever referred to him as Pakistani and nor did he invade with the Idea to spread Islam and establish a future homeland for Muslims on the Indian sub-continent nor he invented the two-nation theory .
He only conquered Sindh and small part of Punjab but the population of what is now modern day Pakistan at the time of his victory was still Majority Hindu/Buddhist. Islam spread over time from Sufis as well as many further invasions from other Muslim empires over a long period of time.
If that is the case why not give up Pakistan's claim to IVC how can IVC be pakistani when Bin Qasim was the first Pakistani yet he came thousands of years after it ? Sorry You can't have both.
Imagine if some Israeli members claimed Lord Balfour as the "first Israeli" you guys would be tearing into them

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Imran Khan

he did not attack bengal then how bengal become east pakistan ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

dsr478 said:


> We are Muslim because of Muhammad Bin Qasim's conquests,


No bro thats not true..You are Muslim today because of the series of conquests lead int he early days of Islam by the first four caliphs..
And the map you are referring to was how the region looked like around the end of his reign..The area up to Indus was already conquested when he stepped in..
You really need to revisit history and not see it through the lens of our mashrati uloom books.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

-blitzkrieg- said:


> No bro thats not true..You are Muslim today because of the series of conquests lead int he early days of Islam by the first four caliphs..
> And the map you are referring to was how the region looked like around the end of his reign..The area up to Indus was already conquested when he stepped in..
> You really need to revisit history and not see it through the lens of our mashrati uloom books.



I'm Muslim because of the Sahabah (May Allah Be Pleased With Them) as well as the Prophets (Peace Be Upon Them), but I am also Muslim because of mujahids like Muhammad Bin Qasim.

Most of the territory in that map was conquered by Qasim.


----------



## Ocean

Imran Khan said:


> he did not attack bengal then how bengal become east pakistan ?


Thats why bangladeshis seperated from Pakistan cause they were angry at Mohammad bin qasim why he hadn't attacked bengali nagar.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

dsr478 said:


> I'm Muslim because of the Sahabah (May Allah Be Pleased With Them) as well as the Prophets (Peace Be Upon Them), but I am also Muslim because of mujahids like Muhammad Bin Qasim.
> 
> Most of the territory in that map was conquered by Qasim.




You are correct about religious impact no doubt
But as far as , to he was the main reason for formation of Pakistan is not correct

The role of *Ummayad Dynasty* is not really covered in Pakistani schools. If Mohammad Bin Qasim is such a prominent figure we should then also learn about Ummayad Dynasty and rules and regulation in that timewhich they used

Mohammad Bin Qasim may have introduced islam or preachers in region but the influenced wanned over time.
*
By 1857, it was really a group of Educated people who changed fortunes for Muslims in region to get a country we now know as Pakistan*

People like Sir Syed , or other educated people were the main reason why we have Pakistan today


----------



## SoulSpokesman

@Proudpakistaniguy

*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.*

I have found this action very silly. So they did trick him. So what? He could have simply enjoyed them (as he did the rest of his concubinage)- chunwaoing them alive seems to be a needless waste of beauty and talent.

As far as Tariq bin Zaid is considered, I am sure had Spain been a Muslim nation today- Andalustan- he would have been revered as the first Andalustani.

Regards


----------



## Taimur Khurram

SoulSpokesman said:


> @Proudpakistaniguy
> 
> *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.*
> 
> I have found this action very silly. So they did trick him. So what? He could have simply enjoyed them (as he did the rest of his concubinage)- chunwaoing them alive seems to be a needless waste of beauty and talent.
> 
> As far as Tariq bin Zaid is considered, I am sure had Spain been a Muslim nation today- Andalustan- he would have been revered as the first Andalustani.
> 
> Regards



That story of the two sisters isn't factual.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Certainly a great general of his time at young age

However even greater generals were produced by Turkey too 

Too many to list instead of teaching about them our school teaches us about drunk guy 
Mirza Ghalib poetry


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

dsr478 said:


> Asalamu Alaikum
> 
> Muhammad Bin Qasim was the first Muslim to conquer large portions of the Indian sub-continent. The previous Muslim rulers had only made minor incursions.
> 
> 
> 
> No, because Spain doesn't owe it's existence to Tariq Ibn Ziyad.
> 
> When he entered Pakistan, he spent almost the rest of his life there. He only left once his uncle was executed, and he was then arrested and executed too.
> 
> Those languages didn't really exist at the time, and that comment is simply childish.


Dont make up stuffs. He died young so just spent few years in here just like others ..yes Pakistani languages did not existed because Pakistan did not existed . Pakistani passport or map of Pakistan did not existed in era of Muhammad bin Qaisim yet you are making him Pakistani which is childish. Bangladesh was also part of Pakistan in 1947 so he should be first Bangladeshi as well. Arabs will laugh if you ever tell them that he was first Pakistani. We only associate with Qasim because of sharing same religion Islam but that would not make him native of this land .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

*Mohammd Bin Qasim* was a mere man , one of Thousand and Thousand of great Generals who existed and produced by various Muslim countries

But Pakistan only came into Physical reality in 1947
*East Pakistan* / *West Pakistan*

Our only true connection is with Makkah and Medina , the General who lived and served are too many to state and every generation have a handful

I don't think Pakistan at National level has ever done a proper chronology of all the Muslim Generals since Prophets time. To give some coevrage of their reign and domain

I only learned about some of Great Turkish Leaders by self study online out of curiosity to find out what was it that made their Leadership so different

History is not one of the most prominent topics which is covered in Pakistan, every one is given Mira Ghalib poetry to read and enjoy instead of learning about real history


----------



## TheLahoriGuy

The confused Al-Bakistani.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

dsr478 said:


> Most of the territory in that map was conquered by Qasim.


Baluchistan was not..and Sindh upto Indus was not.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

-blitzkrieg- said:


> Baluchistan was not..and Sindh upto Indus was not.



Sindh was, as was southern Punjab. 

Some of the already conquered areas also had further military campaigns by Qasim that quelled resistance in the areas.



TheLahoriGuy said:


> The confused Al-Bakistani.



The deranged liberal coconut.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

dsr478 said:


> Sindh was, as was southern Punjab.
> 
> Some of the already conquered areas also had further military campaigns by Qasim that quelled resistance in the areas.
> 
> 
> 
> The deranged liberal coconut.


So you mean sindh and southern punjab is all what Pakistan is all about?


----------



## Torch_v2.0

-blitzkrieg- said:


> Baluchistan was not..and Sindh upto Indus was not.


Before Bin qasim's invasion





Zoomed

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

While we are discussing this topic I want all people to raise hands who think Mohammad BIn Qasim was relative of Saudi Arbia

It's ok , you can be wrong if you answer incorrectly


Alot of people in Pakistan really think that , and that really explains many things when you view it in context of ww1, how our educational material is quite weak to address these questions


----------



## I.R.A

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> While we are discussing this topic I want all people to raise hands who think Mohammad BIn Qasim was relative of Saudi Arbia



Saudi Arabia didn't exist then ..........


----------



## Torch_v2.0

@khanz , @-blitzkrieg- @AZADPAKISTAN2009
@proudpakistaniguy

Muhammad Ali Jinnah also acclaimed Muhammad Bin Qasim and claimed that the Pakistan movement started when the first Muslim put his foot on the soil of Sindh, the Gateway of Islam in India.

Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Founder of Pakistan, acclaimed the event- _"the Pakistan Movement started when the first Muslim put his foot on the soil of Sindh, the Gateway of Islam in India."
The first brick in the foundation of Pakistan was laid in 712 A.D. when Mohammad Bin Qasim anchored at Debal Port (now known as Karachi), freed the Muslim women and children from the prisons of Raja Dahir and constructed the first mosque at the town._
http://www.findpk.com/cybercity/pof/pakistan_movement.html

If u people still don't agree with us @Torch @dsr478
Then you are insulting Quaid-e-Azam.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## newb3e

First Pakistani or not he was someone who planted the seed of Pakistan in sub continent and Hindu/Indians love him!


----------



## TheLahoriGuy

dsr478 said:


> Sindh was, as was southern Punjab.
> 
> Some of the already conquered areas also had further military campaigns by Qasim that quelled resistance in the areas.
> 
> 
> 
> The deranged liberal coconut.



Nice to see you changed your DP to someone from the Pakistan movement who had a beard, but from the looks of it he has a mustache too which according to you are un-islamic so back to the drawing board for you I guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

Torch said:


> Before Bin qasim's invasion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoomed



That isnt really much different from what im saying.Deybal was already won by muslims and a trade hub for arabs with dravidians at that time.




this map above is a result of information collected from
'The Chach nama' and 'Kitab Fatuh Al Buldun' which are very authentic books.

Islamic conquests happened in present day Pakistan from Baluchistan not Sindh, babul islam should be baluchistan not sindh and if you still want to warp history be my guest i dont want to debate further on this.

And you should be ashamed of calling people who disagree with such 'facts' as insulting Jinnah. Jinnah never religiously followed such facts, what he said in the speech was the popular notion even at that time which you are a victim of as well im sure he would adhered to the correct version of history once he would have learnt it and not be a stubborn man like you.

@dsr478
Since you seem like a practicing muslim i thought you might adhere to this mans words if not mine.


----------



## Torch_v2.0

-blitzkrieg- said:


> Jinnah never religiously followed such facts


And how do you know that ??
Anyways, All you show is either Ignorance or Arrogance

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Well.wisher

He was an Arab, my friend . Even a one class student can tell u this .


----------



## Musafir117

Hassan Nisar sahi leta hai ham logon ki ( class ) why not Gandhi than? He start it all and we have Pakistan? Why not Allama Iqbal? Why not Jinnah? coz they all doesn’t have dhadhi? That’s what OP’s point to bring some one close to Sharia lol


----------



## Well.wisher

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Too many to list instead of teaching about them our school teaches us about drunk guy
> Mirza Ghalib poetry


It's better to teach some colorful nd light things rather than the violent nd bloody wars . 
Kids should learn the light things , at such age teaching about worriors, islamic wars isn't healthy ... better get them admit into madrassas for that .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Torch_v2.0

Well.wisher said:


> He was an Arab, my friend . Even a one class student can tell u this .


We aren't talking about ethnicity ,
Read this -
The first brick in the foundation of Pakistan was laid in 712 A.D. when Mohammad Bin Qasim anchored at Debal Port (now known as Karachi), freed the Muslim women and children from the prisons of Raja Dahir and constructed the first mosque at the town. Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Founder of Pakistan, acclaimed the event- _"the Pakistan Movement started when the first Muslim put his foot on the soil of Sindh, the Gateway of Islam in India."_
_http://www.findpk.com/cybercity/pof/pakistan_movement.html_



Well.wisher said:


> It's better to teach some colorful nd light things rather than the violent nd bloody wars .
> Kids should learn the light things , at such age teaching about worriors, islamic wars isn't healthy ... better get them admit into madrassas for that .


Then our children will either become blind or Selfish 
In both cases Iblis will have them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Well.wisher

Torch said:


> We aren't talking about ethnicity ,
> Read this -
> The first brick in the foundation of Pakistan was laid in 712 A.D. when Mohammad Bin Qasim anchored at Debal Port (now known as Karachi), freed the Muslim women and children from the prisons of Raja Dahir and constructed the first mosque at the town. Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Founder of Pakistan, acclaimed the event- _"the Pakistan Movement started when the first Muslim put his foot on the soil of Sindh, the Gateway of Islam in India."
> http://www.findpk.com/cybercity/pof/pakistan_movement.html_



Ya miskeen, 

His religious services are completely different and contrary to the national services .



Torch said:


> We aren't talking about ethnicity ,
> Read this -
> The first brick in the foundation of Pakistan was laid in 712 A.D. when Mohammad Bin Qasim anchored at Debal Port (now known as Karachi), freed the Muslim women and children from the prisons of Raja Dahir and constructed the first mosque at the town. Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Founder of Pakistan, acclaimed the event- _"the Pakistan Movement started when the first Muslim put his foot on the soil of Sindh, the Gateway of Islam in India."
> http://www.findpk.com/cybercity/pof/pakistan_movement.html_
> 
> 
> Then our children will either become blind or Selfish
> In both cases Iblis will have them.



Our children should rather be taught to learn nd differentiate themselves .

Brainwashing in name of religion or secularism , liberalism , conservatism is not acceptable .

They should be brought up learning the right nd wrong themselves .


----------



## lastofthepatriots

What exactly is the issue here?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Torch_v2.0

Well.wisher said:


> They should be brought up learning the right nd wrong themselves .


Like me ? 
Anyways ,
Won't you teach your child the wrong & the Right 
Will you let your child doing & thinking wrong,
Won't you protect them from Shadow of bad ,

Children are like clay , we should show them right path at least. 
That Then they can grow up as an adult & start to question and learn themselves.

It's very easy to say something


----------



## Well.wisher

Torch said:


> Like me ?
> Anyways ,
> Won't you teach your child the wrong & the Right
> Will you let your child doing & thinking wrong,
> Won't you protect them from Shadow of bad ,
> 
> Children are like clay , we should show them right path at least.
> That Then they can grow up as an adult & start to question and learn themselves.
> 
> It's very easy to say something


Teach them , guide them but do not brain wash them .


----------



## Torch_v2.0

Well.wisher said:


> Teach them , guide them but do not brain wash them .


What Brainwash , 
It's the historical fact & should be taught to the children.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Well.wisher

Torch said:


> What Brainwash ,
> It's the historical fact & should be taught to the children.


Should be taught at a considerable age and let the children learn the sensitivities themselves . 


I get you're an ummah man . 
Is the studying course same in Romania? Do the children know about the Christian worriors ?


----------



## lastofthepatriots

I suppose you can say from a philosophical point, he was the first Pakistani. He came to free a Muslim woman from the tyrannical Raja Dahir. When his forces arrived to Sindh, the nomadic jats of Sindh who were atheists and ancestor worshippers automatically aligned with Qasim to overthrow Dahir. Natives joined Qasim because Dahir was an oppressive tyrant. The Islamic importance came afterwards.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## I.R.A

lastofthepatriots said:


> I suppose you can say from a philosophical point, he was the first Pakistani. He came to free a Muslim woman from the tyrannical Raja Dahir. When his forces arrived to Sindh, the nomadic jats of Sindh who were atheists and ancestor worshippers automatically aligned with Qasim to overthrow Dahir. Natives joined Qasim because Dahir was an oppressive tyrant. The Islamic importance came afterwards.



He didn't just come to free a woman, he came to free the humanity.

You should read "controversial" books to better understand the characters and attributes of Muslim leaders and generals .......... we were never the barbarians who wanted "their" land ..... we were the liberators ..... that is why the Hindu princess asked Qasim if he was really a man or an angel.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Torch_v2.0

Well.wisher said:


> Should be taught at a considerable age and let the children learn the sensitivities themselves .
> 
> 
> I get you're an ummah man .
> Is the studying course same in Romania? Do the children know about the Christian worriors ?


1-Yeah history shall be taught at age at what history is taught ,
2-Yes you can call me a Ummah Man,
3- Forget about Christianity , Christianity only lies in villages , BTW as far as i have read in 'schools' History-
Early period- Neanderthal - to- Dacians-Romans-Christianity then in
Medieval & early modern period Islam-Ottomans-Europeans-,
Modern period- Revolutions-Independence-WW1-WW2-Communists and so on & so forth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## newb3e

Well.wisher said:


> It's better to teach some colorful nd light things rather than the violent nd bloody wars .
> Kids should learn the light things , at such age teaching about worriors, islamic wars isn't healthy ... better get them admit into madrassas for that .


every progressive nation in the world teaches their kids their history it teaches them to value their past value sacrifices and become a better person!!! history of the humans is bloody and teaching kids about war and teaching them about rights of other will make them not just strong but a better person!!

and for those who are against the concept of Muslim Ummah if not for love of Islam and unity of Muslim we would still be serving Indians!!! if Bin Qasim was selfish and greedy like current kings of Arabia we would be cleaning shit of Indian masters!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Well.wisher

newb3e said:


> every progressive nation in the world teaches their kids their history it teaches them to value their past value sacrifices and become a better person!!! history of the humans is bloody and teaching kids about war and teaching them about rights of other will make them not just strong but a better person!!
> 
> and for those who are against the concept of Muslim Ummah if not for love of Islam and unity of Muslim we would still be serving Indians!!! if Bin Qasim was selfish and greedy like current kings of Arabia we would be cleaning shit of Indian masters!!!



What made u feel I'm against of what u said ?


----------



## Torch_v2.0

Well.wisher said:


> What made u feel I'm against of what u said ?


He will surely tell you , But first answer me,
Why did you call me Ummah man BTW ?


----------



## Well.wisher

Torch said:


> He will surely tell you , But first answer me,
> Why did you call me Ummah man BTW ?



I read some of your posts and concluded you're an ummah man .

I also like the ummah chummah concept but I'm a bit cautious cause I believe that it takes two to tango in this modern age .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Torch_v2.0

Well.wisher said:


> I read some of your posts and concluded you're an ummah man .


Oh... I see , BTW
Everythings Fine , 
Any Sort of Problem ???


----------



## Well.wisher

Torch said:


> Oh... I see , BTW
> Everythings Fine ,
> Any Sort of Problem ???



No no .. no problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Torch_v2.0

Well.wisher said:


> No no .. no problem.


Alright then, bye

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## somebozo

Wrong..MbQ came as a invader...it is extremely shameful to glorify him..


----------



## newb3e

Well.wisher said:


> What made u feel I'm against of what u said ?


your post i guess!! 
if you are not against it, it looks like you are not in favor of teaching kids history of wars,conquests,defeats,sacrifices! 

in this age of information and television and internet our kids are exposed to some of the weirdest bs produced in history of humanity and they are turning into weird creatures most of the kids going to those elite schools have zero idea about ideology of Pakistan or ideology of Islam and we are becoming what soft! this extreme exposure to poetry and music is turning us into cowards!!!! i am not saying teach them wars and turn them into barbaric hordes no ma'am teach them realities of life as Muslims we have been foretold many things by Prophets (SAW) and are we preparing ourselves and our kids for those harsh times!!! are they learning how to deal with coming realities.

education of Past will teach them how to deal with future!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Torch_v2.0

newb3e said:


> your post i guess!!
> if you are not against it, it looks like you are not in favor of teaching kids history of wars,conquests,defeats,sacrifices!
> 
> in this age of information and television and internet our kids are exposed to some of the weirdest bs produced in history of humanity and they are turning into weird creatures most of the kids going to those elite schools have zero idea about ideology of Pakistan or ideology of Islam and we are becoming what soft! this extreme exposure to poetry and music is turning us into cowards!!!! i am not saying teach them wars and turn them into barbaric hordes no ma'am teach them realities of life as Muslims we have been foretold many things by Prophets (SAW) and are we preparing ourselves and our kids for those harsh times!!! are they learning how to deal with coming realities.
> 
> education of Past will teach them how to deal with future!!!


@dsr478 Brother his(@newb3e ) thoughts are similar to us , isn't it ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taimoor Khan

What non sense.

Pakistan foundations were laid when the first settlement of Indus civilization came into being.


----------



## Torch_v2.0

Taimoor Khan said:


> What non sense.


The first brick in the foundation of Pakistan was laid in 712 A.D. when Mohammad Bin Qasim anchored at Debal Port (now known as Karachi), freed the Muslim women and children from the prisons of Raja Dahir and constructed the first mosque at the town.
Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Founder of Pakistan, acclaimed the event- _"the Pakistan Movement started when the first Muslim put his foot on the soil of Sindh, the Gateway of Islam in India."_

So you don't believe your Quaid-e-Azam ??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimoor Khan

Torch said:


> The first brick in the foundation of Pakistan was laid in 712 A.D. when Mohammad Bin Qasim anchored at Debal Port (now known as Karachi), freed the Muslim women and children from the prisons of Raja Dahir and constructed the first mosque at the town.
> Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Founder of Pakistan, acclaimed the event- _"the Pakistan Movement started when the first Muslim put his foot on the soil of Sindh, the Gateway of Islam in India."_
> 
> So you don't believe your Quaid-e-Azam ??




This concept is wrong. Pakistani race, is the most ancient of all. We build the first human civilization. We are much bigger then the concept of nationhood, we are a civilization.

And with regards to the first Muslim, that in itself is not factually correct. 30-40% of Pakistani population consist of Pakhtoons, and according to their own history , they became Muslim when their leader Qais Abdur Rasheed took biyah on Prophet (PBUH), ofcourse long before Mohammad bin Qasim was even born.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Let get one thing stright when *Mohammad Bin Qasim* , landed in shore of Lands

1- There was no political statement that he must create Pakistan so he landed
2- There was no mandate to issue Pakistani passport
3- People of his domain were not called Pakistani , but perhaps citizens of Ummayd Dynasty

So the man came , won the battles bravely and deserves credit around Year 700's

But in end , No Pakistan was created by him or his King

Fast forward 1857, after many Kings and Governors passed , a new Political movement commenced which was based around establishing an educated mandate to grow awareness in people to focus on education and not be a
nominal member of society. And this is attributed to Sir Syed and later a political party was created
All Muslims League , the party itself seized to exist after Independence. *It is important to know that 
"All India Muslim League" is not Nawaz Sharif's party he created a similar sounding party
*

So in end , the political movement that commenced from 1857 ~ 1947 resulted in formation of Pakistan


While some credit may be due for Mohammad Bin Qasim , but when when we talk about History , Pakistan must teach the kids full scope of our history


Clearly every one is visibly educated and not holding sword or riding horse













It is correct to say , at a Religious level our religion is same as Mohammad Bin Qasim but
really our identity is connected to Islam and the hard work of educated people who politically were smart to deand a independence at right time.


----------



## Jaanbaz

How can Arab invader be a Pakistani?


----------



## Big Tank

Well.wisher said:


> It's better to teach some colorful nd light things rather than the violent nd bloody wars .
> Kids should learn the light things , at such age teaching about worriors, islamic wars isn't healthy ... better get them admit into madrassas for that .



Even if we teach them about Islamic Conquests. We should teach them how Islam transformed people's lives. We should mention about Sufis etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

TheLahoriGuy said:


> Nice to see you changed your DP to someone from the Pakistan movement who had a beard, but from the looks of it he has a mustache too which according to you are un-islamic so back to the drawing board for you I guess.



Are you retarded? Moustaches are unanimously considered halal, it only becomes haram when it gets too big and you can twirl it (basically handlebars).



-blitzkrieg- said:


> So you mean sindh and southern punjab is all what Pakistan is all about?



No, how did you reach that conclusion?



Well.wisher said:


> He was an Arab, my friend . Even a one class student can tell u this .



And that's relevant because? 

Why do you see things through the cancerous lens of race, it's atrocious and often promotes very nasty ideals. We are all Bani Adam (Peace Be Upon Him), and Muslims before anything else. 

Anyway your point is still null and void even by that perspective as many Pakistanis are descended from Arabs who came to the region during Islamic conquests, and many locals worked in Qasim's army and administration.



lastofthepatriots said:


> What exactly is the issue here?



Asalamu Alaikum

Some people disagree with the title of first Pakistani purely because they see things through the lens of race, which is a concept completely antithetical to Islamic values. 

Others disagree for more mature reasons, saying that they don't think Qasim was very important.



Well.wisher said:


> Is the studying course same in Romania? Do the children know about the Christian worriors ?



I'm pretty sure they do, e.g Vlad the impaler.



Taimoor Khan said:


> And with regards to the first Muslim, that in itself is not factually correct. 30-40% of Pakistani population consist of Pakhtoons, and according to their own history , they became Muslim when their leader Qais Abdur Rasheed took biyah on Prophet (PBUH), ofcourse long before Mohammad bin Qasim was even born.



Asalamu Alaikum

That story is a lie and you know it.



somebozo said:


> Wrong..MbQ came as a invader...it is extremely shameful to glorify him..



Cry me a river.



Jaanbaz said:


> How can Arab invader be a Pakistani?



Very immature view, we are a multi-ethnic society.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimoor Khan

dsr478 said:


> Asalamu Alaikum
> 
> That story is a lie and you know it.



You telling me Pakhtoons are lieing about their own accounts and their own history?


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Taimoor Khan said:


> You telling me Pakhtoons are lieing about their own accounts and their own history?



Pretty much. 

If this were true, why is he not mentioned in any sahih ahadith? Why are Pakhtuns never mentioned in sahih ahadith either?


----------



## Well.wisher

newb3e said:


> your post i guess!!
> if you are not against it, it looks like you are not in favor of teaching kids history of wars,conquests,defeats,sacrifices!
> 
> in this age of information and television and internet our kids are exposed to some of the weirdest bs produced in history of humanity and they are turning into weird creatures most of the kids going to those elite schools have zero idea about ideology of Pakistan or ideology of Islam and we are becoming what soft! this extreme exposure to poetry and music is turning us into cowards!!!! i am not saying teach them wars and turn them into barbaric hordes no ma'am teach them realities of life as Muslims we have been foretold many things by Prophets (SAW) and are we preparing ourselves and our kids for those harsh times!!! are they learning how to deal with coming realities.
> 
> education of Past will teach them how to deal with future!!!



I , on the other hand belive in independency of mind .
Teach the kids whatever u want in their considerable ages , they should learn everything but at a specific age . I donot Care if they learn history of worriors to the history of serial killers ... but their independency of mind should not be hijacked . 
Your last paragraph about pakistani ideology and that , that ... is again like ordering the children to do nd learn what and how you want them to .


----------



## TheLahoriGuy

dsr478 said:


> Are you retarded? Moustaches are unanimously considered halal, it only becomes haram when it gets too big and you can twirl it (basically handlebars).
> 
> 
> 
> No, how did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> 
> 
> And that's relevant because?
> 
> Why do you see things through the cancerous lens of race, it's atrocious and often promotes very nasty ideals. We are all Bani Adam (Peace Be Upon Him), and Muslims before anything else.
> 
> Anyway your point is still null and void even by that perspective as many Pakistanis are descended from Arabs who came to the region during Islamic conquests, and many locals worked in Qasim's army and administration.
> 
> 
> 
> Asalamu Alaikum
> 
> Some people disagree with the title of first Pakistani purely because they see things through the lens of race, which is a concept completely antithetical to Islamic values.
> 
> Others disagree for more mature reasons, saying that they don't think Qasim was very important.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure they do, e.g Vlad the impaler.
> 
> 
> 
> Asalamu Alaikum
> 
> That story is a lie and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Cry me a river.
> 
> 
> 
> Very immature view, we are a multi-ethnic society.



You are being thrown curveballs here and there because the stance you and a lot of Pakistanis have taken is extremely disgraceful. You are glorifying invaders and the murderers of your ancestors. You and I have more in common with the men MBQ fought than MBQ himself. 70 years down the line we are still ridiculed for having an identitiy crisis because we identity more with invaders than the people who fought to defend this land. All religions and empires have been spread by the sword and as time has witnessed they come and go but what never changes is our identity as the people of this land.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Well.wisher

dsr478 said:


> And that's relevant because?
> 
> Why do you see things through the cancerous lens of race, it's atrocious and often promotes very nasty ideals. We are all Bani Adam (Peace Be Upon Him), and Muslims before anything else.
> 
> Anyway your point is still null and void even by that perspective as many Pakistanis are descended from Arabs who came to the region during Islamic conquests, and many locals worked in Qasim's army and administration.


Brrrrr. . 
Then you should have called him .. one of ibn adam came to pakistan ... why u called him pakistani then.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

TheLahoriGuy said:


> You are being thrown curveballs here and there because the stance you and a lot of Pakistanis have taken is extremely disgraceful. You are glorifying invaders and the murderers of your ancestors. You and I have more in common with the men MBQ fought than MBQ himself. 70 years down the line we are still ridiculed for having an identitiy crisis because we identity more with invaders than the people who fought to defend this land. All religions and empires have been spread by the sword and as time has witnessed they come and go but what never changes is our identity as the people of this land.



Did you even read my posts?

Muhammad Bin Qasim had many locals fight under him, he did not discriminate. I'll also say this again, many Pakistanis are descended from Arabs who migrated to the region during the Islamic conquests. 

Anyway, if my ancestors acted against Islam, I would have finished them myself if I could. Ideology trumps all, including ethnicity.



Well.wisher said:


> why u called him pakistani then.



This is getting tedious.

Go read my previous posts.


----------



## newb3e

Well.wisher said:


> I , on the other hand belive in independency of mind .
> Teach the kids whatever u want in their considerable ages , they should learn everything but at a specific age . I donot Care if they learn history of worriors to the history of serial killers ... but their independency of mind should not be hijacked .
> Your last paragraph about pakistani ideology and that , that ... is again like ordering the children to do nd learn what and how you want them to .



okay an independent kid left in pool of dirt what will he turn into? 

given full freedom of ideas and thoughts but surrounded by filth!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Well.wisher

newb3e said:


> okay an independent kid left in pool of dirt what will he turn into?
> 
> given full freedom of ideas and thoughts but surrounded by filth!


Thats not always the case , u do know very well .. you're just making your argument sound strong .


----------



## TheLahoriGuy

dsr478 said:


> Did you even read my posts?
> 
> Muhammad Bin Qasim had many locals fight under him, he did not discriminate. I'll also say this again, many Pakistanis are descended from Arabs who migrated to the region during the Islamic conquests.
> 
> Anyway, if my ancestors acted against Islam, I would have finished them myself if I could. Ideology trumps all, including ethnicity.
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting tedious.
> 
> Go read my previous posts.



You would kill your own ancestors over an ideology imposed on you by a foreign leader ?


----------



## newb3e

TheLahoriGuy said:


> You are being thrown curveballs here and there because the stance you and a lot of Pakistanis have taken is extremely disgraceful. You are glorifying invaders and the murderers of your ancestors. You and I have more in common with the men MBQ fought than MBQ himself. 70 years down the line we are still ridiculed for having an identitiy crisis because we identity more with invaders than the people who fought to defend this land. All religions and empires have been spread by the sword and as time has witnessed they come and go but what never changes is our identity as the people of this land.


lols! if MQB was a barbaric invader then Muslim league and Quaid shouldnt have fought for our independence.

the only thing that will never change is our identity and our identity is not Pakistan its Islam we are Muslim our land was created on the name of Islam for Islam!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taimoor Khan

dsr478 said:


> Pretty much.
> 
> If this were true, why is he not mentioned in any sahih ahadith? Why are Pakhtuns never mentioned in sahih ahadith either?



That's a lame argument. You think all those thousands of people who took biyah on Prophet (PBUH) will be mentioned in Sahih ahadith? When an ethnicity itself is telling its history, you suggesting otherwise realy don't hold much ground.

Pakistan ancient history is much more then just Mohammad bin Qasim landing on Sindh shores. Besides, Islam in rest of Pakistan was spread by saints, not by sword. Its a far fetched idea that northern Pakistanis would have been influenced by Qasim exploits in south. We also keep mum about what happened to him after he was recalled by the Khalifa.

Its a rather crude attempt to Arabanise Pakistan own, indigenous and glorious ancient history. We are a civilization, and we don't owe anyone anything.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## newb3e

Well.wisher said:


> Thats not always the case , u do know very well .. you're just making your argument sound strong .


no Ma'am i am not!!! 

see a kids brain is empty and its parents job to fill it with either glamours of the world or reality of the world!! as parent its our duty to prepare them to educate them about real world!!! Pakistan as country and nation (IMO) is confused we have no set priorities or ideology! are we as a nation fulfilling the dream that was Pakistan or adhering to ideology of the creation of Pakistan.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Taimoor Khan said:


> Pakistan ancient history is much more then just Mohammad bin Qasim landing on Sindh shores. Besides, Islam in rest of Pakistan was spread by saints, not by sword. Its a far fetched idea that northern Pakistanis would have been influenced by Qasim exploits in south. We also keep mum about what happened to him after he was recalled by the Khalifa.
> 
> Its a rather crude attempt to Arabanise Pakistan own, indigenous and glorious ancient history. We are a civilization, and we don't owe anyone anything.



North Pakistanis were for sure influenced by Qasim, without him further Islamic conquests may have never occurred. 

He was executed by the Abbasid's purely because his uncle was a terrible person, Qasim himself did nothing wrong. 

It is not an attempt to Arabise Pakistan, you guys are so paranoid.



Taimoor Khan said:


> That's a lame argument. You think all those thousands of people who took biyah on Prophet (PBUH) will be mentioned in Sahih ahadith? When an ethnicity itself is telling its history, you suggesting otherwise realy don't hold much ground.



If you can give me solid evidence Pakhtuns came from a Sahabi, I will only then believe you. Until then, I shall treat this story as it should be treated as: folklore.



TheLahoriGuy said:


> You would kill your own ancestors over an ideology *imposed* on you by a foreign leader ?



Me being a Muslim is my choice, nobody imposed it upon me.

If my ancestors fought against Islam, yes, I'd side against them.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TheLahoriGuy

newb3e said:


> lols! if MQB was a barbaric invader then Muslim league and Quaid shouldnt have fought for our independence.
> 
> the only thing that will never change is our identity and our identity is not Pakistan its Islam we are Muslim our land was created on the name of Islam for Islam!!!!



The two situations are literally nothing alike. There's a thousand year gap between the two. The quaid and Muslim league fought for independence because they realized that Muslims could never truly thrive under Hindu rule and in order to protect their rights they needed a seperate state. MBQ was the exact opposite, he didn't fight for anyones rights, he came and killed your ancestors, who probably fought for their future generations and here you are limiting your identity to the invaders ideology.

There's 1.6 billion other people with the same belief as you so how exactly can you identify as a belief ? Our land was created in the name of protecting non Hindu minorities, if it were a land exclusively made for Muslims then why are there non Muslims in our country ? Hell, why is there white in the flag ?



dsr478 said:


> North Pakistanis were for sure influenced by Qasim, without him further Islamic conquests may have never occurred.
> 
> He was executed by the Abbasid's purely because his uncle was a terrible person, Qasim himself did nothing wrong.
> 
> It is not an attempt to Arabise Pakistan, you guys are so paranoid.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can give me solid evidence Pakhtuns came from a Sahabi, I will only then believe you. Until then, I shall treat this story as it should be treated as: folklore.
> 
> 
> 
> Me being a Muslim is my choice, nobody imposed it upon me.
> 
> If my ancestors fought against Islam, yes, I'd side against them.



It wasn't your choice. A choice is something you make. You were born into a Muslim family which is why you are a Muslim today. If you're a convert then yes then it'd be your choice.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taimur Khurram

TheLahoriGuy said:


> It wasn't your choice. A choice is something you make. You were born into a Muslim family which is why you are a Muslim today. If you're a convert then yes then it'd be your choice.



I made the choice myself you idiot. I don't blindly follow like a sheep (unfortunately I don't think I can say the same for you). For a fair amount of time I was a staunch atheist, and even now the Islam I follow is different to my family's. If I was Muslim just because I was born into a Muslim household, my Islam would be identical to theirs and I would have never been a staunch atheist. I would have also never considered other religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc.

My religion is without a doubt my choice.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TheLahoriGuy

dsr478 said:


> I made the choice myself you idiot. I don't blindly follow like a sheep (unfortunately I don't think I can say the same for you). For a fair amount of time I was a staunch atheist, and even now the Islam I follow is different to my family's. If I was Muslim just because I was born into a Muslim household, my Islam would be identical to theirs and I would have never been a staunch atheist. I would have also never considered other religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc.
> 
> My religion is without a doubt my choice.



But the system you so wholeheartedly advocate for doesn't consider it a choice. For example since you are born into a Muslim family and according to your own self you were an atheist for some time, this implies apostasy. And I don't think I need to tell you how that road ends.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## newb3e

TheLahoriGuy said:


> The two situations are literally nothing alike. There's a thousand year gap between the two. The quaid and Muslim league fought for independence because they realized that Muslims could never truly thrive under Hindu rule and in order to protect their rights they needed a seperate state. MBQ was the exact opposite, he didn't fight for anyones rights, he came and killed your ancestors, who probably fought for their future generations and here you are limiting your identity to the invaders ideology.
> 
> There's 1.6 billion other people with the same belief as you so how exactly can you identify as a belief ? Our land was created in the name of protecting non Hindu minorities, if it were a land exclusively made for Muslims then why are there non Muslims in our country ? Hell, why is there white in the flag ?
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't your choice. A choice is something you make. You were born into a Muslim family which is why you are a Muslim today. If you're a convert then yes then it'd be your choice.


sir my ideology is exactly same like 1.6 Muslims in the world our ideology is Islamic ideology thats makes us one and Pakistan KSA Iran afghanistan are all bs borders that holds no value according to principle of Islams yes its my country and i love it and will do anything to defend it but land is land,Pakistan not a piece of land its the people! 

as for your other points if Pakistan was created only for muslims then why are non muslims in Pakistan!! Pakistan was created to give Muslims freedom to practice tgeir religion and thrive in freedom and in a Islamic Muslim society non muslims are respected and not forced to convert!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taimur Khurram

TheLahoriGuy said:


> But the system you so wholeheartedly advocate for doesn't consider it a choice. For example since you are born into a Muslim family and according to your own self you were an atheist for some time, this implies apostasy. And I don't think I need to tell you how that road ends.



It does consider it a choice. Islam just tells you to keep your mouth shut about certain choices, otherwise there will be consequences. 

Even as an atheist, I never understood the whole ex-Muslim culture, all they did was cry all day about how abused they were, and make some of the silliest and nonsensical excuses not to believe in the religion. It's silly. If you don't believe in Islam, keep that to yourself and move on with your life.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jugger

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> That is some flawed history , as there is no connection between Mohammad Bin Qasim and Pakistan
> 
> The "region" geographic area we know or call Pakistan and it's people had had cultural ties with various empires in past
> 
> That is why our food looks like Persian food with touch of extra spices
> 
> From *European */ * Persian* / *Arab *and *Mongol* , so we have developed a good cultural mix
> 
> And never did we ever were connected to entity called South Asia
> 
> Mohammad Bin Qasim did not leave us a Trove of Gold and Dimond which we used to free Pakistan in 1947, it was work of people Muslims who wanted a Independent state
> 
> People like *Mohamad Ali Jinnah* and others who envisioned Pakistan Such as *Illama Iqbal *or the ground work done by* Sir Syed , *who setup education and schools


Looking at the maps it’s clear that the present day territory of Pakistan was almost always conquered by various empires. These invasions and conquests have had a profound impact on the culture and language of Pakistan, it is a mixture of all adjoining regions.

The people of Pakistan have a history that predates Mohammed bin Quasim, and its foolish to believe that Pakistans history only began after Muslim conquests...!
Before Muslims, Pakistan was conquered by the Greeks, Persians and many Indian empires most notably the Maurya empire.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Jugger said:


> Before Muslims, Pakistan was conquered by the Greeks, Persians and many Indian empires most notably the Maurya empire.



And Hindustan was conquered by Kanishka, Menander, Akbar, Shah Jahan, Abdali, Ghazi Malik, and Sikander Shah Mir, and unlike the ones you named, all these guys came from Pakistan (Peshawar, Sialkot, Sindh, Lahore, Multan, Dipalpur and Kashmir).

Also, almost all the empires which conquered Pakistan settled down, adopting our customs as well as adding their own influence to the mix and intermarried with the local people, resulting in many Pakistanis being descended from them, e.g Gujjars and Durranis come from the Hepthalites, Baluchis come from Persia, Sindhis have some Arab admixture in them, Punjabis and Pakhtuns have some Greek admixture in them, etc.

Oh and Kautilya (a man instrumental in building the Mauryan empire) came from Taxila, so the Mauryan empire is not foreign.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimoor Khan

dsr478 said:


> North Pakistanis were for sure influenced by Qasim, without him further Islamic conquests may have never occurred.
> 
> He was executed by the Abbasid's purely because his uncle was a terrible person, Qasim himself did nothing wrong.
> 
> It is not an attempt to Arabise Pakistan, you guys are so paranoid.



That's the misconception that Islam in Pakistan spread through sword and conquest. This land is littered with the graves of Saint and preachers.

He was executed because of the Raja Dahir wife which the Khalifa wanted for himself. You are clueless about history.

Qasim exploits in Sindh are one of the many events which influenced Pakistan. It is NOT THE event.



dsr478 said:


> If you can give me solid evidence Pakhtuns came from a Sahabi, I will only then believe you. Until then, I shall treat this story as it should be treated as: folklore.



What evidence you need when they themselves are telling you , their own history.


Last but not least, who do you think build the Indus civilization? Aliens from Mars?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Taimoor Khan said:


> That's the misconception that Islam in Pakistan spread through sword and conquest. This land is littered with the graves of Saint and preachers.
> 
> He was executed because of the Raja Dahir wife which the Khalifa wanted for himself. You are clueless about history.
> 
> Qasim exploits in Sindh are one of the many events which influenced Pakistan. It is NOT THE event.
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence you need when they themselves are telling you , their own history.
> 
> 
> Last but not least, who do you think build the Indus civilization? Aliens from Mars?



Islam was spread through preachers (that's how every religion is spread, sword alone doesn't cut it), but they could only preach because the way was paved for them by the conquerors and sword wielders.

No, that's a myth. He was executed during the Abbasid revolution as he was the nephew of Al Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf.

It was the catalyst that created a chain reaction, ultimately ending in Pakistan's formation.

That is not sufficient evidence. Baluchis say they are Syrian, but we know for a fact that they came from Persia during the late Sassanid period.

They weren't Muslim I can tell you that much

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jugger

dsr478 said:


> And Hindustan was conquered by Kanishka, Menander, Akbar, Shah Jahan, Abdali, Ghazi Malik, and Sikander Shah Mir, and unlike the ones you named, all these guys came from Pakistan (Peshawar, Sialkot, Sindh, Lahore, Multan, Dipalpur and Kashmir).
> 
> Also, almost all the empires which conquered Pakistan settled down, adopting our customs as well as adding their own influence to the mix and intermarried with the local people, resulting in many Pakistanis being descended from them, e.g Gujjars and Durranis come from the Hepthalites, Baluchis come from Persia, Sindhis have some Arab admixture in them, Punjabis and Pakhtuns have some Greek admixture in them, etc.
> 
> Oh and Kautilya (a man instrumental in building the Mauryan empire) came from Taxila, so the Mauryan empire is not foreign.


Accept the fact that your history did not start with Mohammed bin Qasim and the Muslim conquest of South Asia. It’s much much older than that.

Accept it..!


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Jugger said:


> Accept the fact that your history did not start with Mohammed bin Qasim and the Muslim conquest of South Asia. It’s much much older than that.
> 
> Accept it..!



Pakistan only exists because of the Islamic conquests, so yes that's when the history of Pakistan starts in my opinion.

However, we also have a history before the seeds were sown for Pakistan's formation.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jaanbaz

dsr478 said:


> Very immature view, we are a multi-ethnic society.



But an Arab speaks Arabic and follows Arabic culture, so an Arab cannot be a Pakistani. Just as a Pakistani cannot be an Arab.


----------



## El Sidd

That is pretty much correct.

The first pakistani was Adam though


----------



## Well.wisher

El Sidd said:


> The first pakistani was Adam though


Here , the award for winner of this thread .. .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## El Sidd

Well.wisher said:


> Here , the award for winner of this thread .. .
> View attachment 459146



Thanku thanku

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Wolfhunter

I googled this chap, amazing history. But he is an Arab and not Pakistani. Pakistanis are South Asian with Indian heritage.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Wolfhunter said:


> I googled this chap, amazing history. But he is an Arab and not Pakistani. Pakistanis are South Asian with Indian heritage.



Many Pakistanis are descended from people who migrated to the region during the Islamic era, as well as before it. Yes we have local heritage, but not entirely.

We are NOT Indian (except for the Muhajirs).


----------



## TheLahoriGuy

dsr478 said:


> Many Pakistanis are descended from people who migrated to the region during the Islamic era, as well as before it. Yes we have local heritage, but not entirely.
> 
> We are NOT Indian (except for the Muhajirs).



Speak Indian,. Eat Indian, wear Indian, live Indian.
Not Indian.

I don't understand this constant drive to separate ourselves from our neighbors. Why is it so difficult to accept that we share a couple hundred years of history with them and therefore are alot like them ? Admitting this won't suddenly make you a Hindu BJP voter who bathes in the Ganges every morning. Your ancestors would be flipping in their grave knowing that they died so that their future generations would find it easier to relate to some foreign invader.


----------



## Wolfhunter

dsr478 said:


> Many Pakistanis are descended from people who migrated to the region during the Islamic era, as well as before it. Yes we have local heritage, but not entirely.
> 
> We are NOT Indian (except for the Muhajirs).



Sorry to say but Pakistan was part of India ergo Pakistanis have Indian heritage.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Wolfhunter said:


> Sorry to say but Pakistan was part of India ergo Pakistanis have Indian heritage.



Sorry to say but that is an over simplification of the matter.

Our heritage is mixed, but most of it comes from Pakistan, not the Republic of India.



TheLahoriGuy said:


> Speak Indian,. Eat Indian, wear Indian, live Indian.
> Not Indian.
> 
> I don't understand this constant drive to separate ourselves from our neighbors. Why is it so difficult to accept that we share a couple hundred years of history with them and therefore are alot like them ? Admitting this won't suddenly make you a Hindu BJP voter who bathes in the Ganges every morning. Your ancestors would be flipping in their grave knowing that they died so that their future generations would find it easier to relate to some foreign invader.



No, that is an oversimplification. It is like saying French and German people are the same because they are both European. They are not, they have similarities and differences. 

I do not deny we have similarities and a shared history, but we have the same with Afghanistan. Are we Afghan now? Of course not.

I relate to both of them, as Pakistanis are related to both.


----------



## TheLahoriGuy

dsr478 said:


> Sorry to say but that is an over simplification of the matter.
> 
> Our heritage is mixed, but most of it comes from Pakistan, not the Republic of India.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is an oversimplification. It is like saying French and German people are the same because they are both European. They are not, they have similarities and differences.
> 
> I do not deny we have similarities and a shared history, but we have the same with Afghanistan. Are we Afghan now? Of course not.
> 
> I relate to both of them, as Pakistanis are related to both.



It would be an oversimplification if I said Indians and Pakistanis are both south Asian (which they are) but we're much more similar than just being from the same region. French and German speak different, eat different and live different but that's not the case with us and Indians. Think more like Germany and Austria. The norms, social construct (besides the caste system), architecture and even the physical side of things (well for Punjabis on both sides atleast) are mostly the same. The only major difference that rose is religion and the change in lifestyle that it bought. I'm not out here screaming WE WUZ MARATHAS AND SHIET but I don't see the big deal in admitting that we have a whole lot in common, we are a separate country now. Besides it's alot better than claiming that we and Arabs are somehow connected. Can't speak Arabic, don't look Arabic, don't eat Arabic, don't live in Arab lands but still relate to Arabs ? That's like saying an Indonesian is also related to Arabs just because at one point in time there was Arab influence in the area and now they share the same religion.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Wolfhunter

TheLahoriGuy said:


> It would be an oversimplification if I said Indians and Pakistanis are both south Asian (which they are) but we're much more similar than just being from the same region. French and German speak different, eat different and live different but that's not the case with us and Indians. Think more like Germany and Austria. The norms, social construct (besides the caste system), architecture and even the physical side of things (well for Punjabis on both sides atleast) are mostly the same. The only major difference that rose is religion and the change in lifestyle that it bought. I'm not out here screaming WE WUZ MARATHAS AND SHIET but I don't see the big deal in admitting that we have a whole lot in common, we are a separate country now. Besides it's alot better than claiming that we and Arabs are somehow connected. Can't speak Arabic, don't look Arabic, don't eat Arabic, don't live in Arab lands but still relate to Arabs ? That's like saying an Indonesian is also related to Arabs just because at one point in time there was Arab influence in the area and now they share the same religion.



Beautiful post, hit the nail on the head sir/madam. Well done!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

TheLahoriGuy said:


> It would be an oversimplification if I said Indians and Pakistanis are both south Asian (which they are) but we're much more similar than just being from the same region. French and German speak different, eat different and live different but that's not the case with us and Indians. Think more like Germany and Austria. The norms, social construct (besides the caste system), architecture and even the physical side of things (well for Punjabis on both sides atleast) are mostly the same. The only major difference that rose is religion and the change in lifestyle that it bought. I'm not out here screaming WE WUZ MARATHAS AND SHIET but I don't see the big deal in admitting that we have a whole lot in common, we are a separate country now. Besides it's alot better than claiming that we and Arabs are somehow connected. Can't speak Arabic, don't look Arabic, don't eat Arabic, don't live in Arab lands but still relate to Arabs ? That's like saying an Indonesian is also related to Arabs just because at one point in time there was Arab influence in the area and now they share the same religion.



No, there are several major difference between us and them. There are numerous threads and posts on the forum explaining this, go and read them. 

I don't care about associating myself with modern day people from the same lands as the Islamic conquerors of the sub-continent, but what I do care about is claiming Muslims of the region are not descended from them. We are, they are part of ancestry (albeit a minor component) and have had a major influence on our culture.


----------



## Wolfhunter

dsr478 said:


> No, there are several major difference between us and them. There are numerous threads and posts on the forum explaining this, go and read them.
> 
> I don't care about associating myself with modern day people from the same lands as the Islamic conquerors of the sub-continent, but what I do care about is claiming Muslims of the region are not descended from them. We are, they are part of ancestry (albeit a minor component) and have had a major influence on our culture.





dsr478 said:


> No, there are several major difference between us and them. There are numerous threads and posts on the forum explaining this, go and read them.
> 
> I don't care about associating myself with modern day people from the same lands as the Islamic conquerors of the sub-continent, but what I do care about is claiming Muslims of the region are not descended from them. We are, they are part of ancestry (albeit a minor component) and have had a major influence on our culture.



So has Buddhism and Zoroastrianism and Paganism and Hedonism.


----------



## Torch_v2.0

Wolfhunter said:


> So has Buddhism and Zoroastrianism and Paganism and Hedonism.


What's the Point ?


----------



## Wolfhunter

Torch said:


> What's the Point ?



The point is, someone claiming that an arab general was the first “Pakistani” is clearly FALSE.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ahmad Sajjad Paracha

TheLahoriGuy said:


> It would be an oversimplification if I said Indians and Pakistanis are both south Asian (which they are) but we're much more similar than just being from the same region. French and German speak different, eat different and live different but that's not the case with us and Indians. Think more like Germany and Austria. The norms, social construct (besides the caste system), architecture and even the physical side of things (well for Punjabis on both sides atleast) are mostly the same. The only major difference that rose is religion and the change in lifestyle that it bought. I'm not out here screaming WE WUZ MARATHAS AND SHIET but I don't see the big deal in admitting that we have a whole lot in common, we are a separate country now. Besides it's alot better than claiming that we and Arabs are somehow connected. Can't speak Arabic, don't look Arabic, don't eat Arabic, don't live in Arab lands but still relate to Arabs ? That's like saying an Indonesian is also related to Arabs just because at one point in time there was Arab influence in the area and now they share the same religion.


First of all, it's not pakistan and india only that come in southasia, there are other countries too. Secondly, pakistan is also part of south east asia, is india part of east asia too? I don't think so. We didn't part from India, we parted from British india which comprised of different areas with people of different orgin,culture and ethnicity annexed together over a period of 150 years so after britain left subcontinent, britain india was divided into pakistan and india, which is justifiable and was certain to happen and after sometimes pakistan was further divided into bangladesh and pakistan which was again certain to happen as we didn't have anything in common except religion(although the way it got partitioned was not appropriate). Speaking of commonality, tell me who speaks Sindhi,seraiki,pashto,hindko,kohistani,mishwani,chitrali,balti,shena,balochi,brahvi languages in India the only common language is punjabi. Who eats beef,mutton,chappal kabaab,khoya,swati rice(ghatghala locally known), dumpukht in india. Only common foods are daal and vegetables which are also common in other coutries too. In dresses our dresses are shalwar kameez, shall peshawari topi, turbun,chapali, ajarak and indian includes sari, some wierd shorts and shirts that their men wear. Who holds jirga in india, are their any mehfils organized in india, any sindhi dance, attan, rabbab music,baloch music. Speaking of values what values do we share they are superstitious as ****, and go to abroad see urself the difference in their way of living in pakistanis way of living. Pakistanis appearance is different they are taller,fairer and have sharper features. The only common thing is our eastern punjab and their nothern punjab nothing else. The commonality that we share is because of our history toghether because of rulers not because we are one. In conclusion the reason that pakistan and india are separate countries is beacuse the people living in these countries are mostly different. The sooner u guys gulp this fact, the better it would be for you or else live in some illusion that gives you frustration.


----------



## Ahmad Sajjad Paracha

It's my sleeping time, talk to you all in the mornin. Bye


----------



## Torch_v2.0

Wolfhunter said:


> The point is, someone claiming that an arab general was the first “Pakistani” is clearly FALSE.


U see , Arab is an ethnicity & Pakistani is nationality ,So Why can't he be claimed as a Pakistani.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Wolfhunter

Torch said:


> U see , Arab is an ethnicity & Pakistani is nationality ,So Why can't he be claimed as a Pakistani.



Because Pakistan didn’t exist during the time of Bin Qasim. It’s really that simple!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Torch_v2.0

Wolfhunter said:


> Because Pakistan didn’t exist during the time of Bin Qasim. It’s really that simple!


It's not that simple , 
It's about perception again !
Do you know why Pakistan was formed ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Wolfhunter

Torch said:


> It's not that simple ,
> It's about perception again !
> Do you know why Pakistan was formed ?



Yes, what does Mohammad Bin Qasim have to do with the creation of Pakistan and the 1944 all India Muslim leauge?


----------



## Torch_v2.0

Wolfhunter said:


> Yes, what does Mohammad Bin Qasim have to do with the creation of Pakistan and the 1944 all India Muslim leauge?


Congrats , get educated then : http://www.findpk.com/pof/pakistan_movement.html

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## hussain0216

Wolfhunter said:


> Yes, what does Mohammad Bin Qasim have to do with the creation of Pakistan and the 1944 all India Muslim leauge?



Both wanted to create a muslim state where Pakistan exists today

Its the reason for some to make the connection 

Its more emotional then historic as well as the fact we hate india and indians and most want no connection to them

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## khanz

Torch said:


> U see , Arab is an ethnicity & Pakistani is nationality ,So Why can't he be claimed as a Pakistani.



wtf because there no such thing as pakistani nationality back then ! this makes no sense how the hell can he be claimed as a Pakistani when he wasn't born there and he himself never claimed such a thing nor is there any reputable historical source that cites him as pakistani.
Why don't you also claim Khalid ibn al-walid as the "first Iranian" ? because he helped conquer the Persian empire and modern day Iran is Muslim today also due to Arab Muslim conquest and invasion same as modern day Pakistan why not Afghan Khilji as the "first Bangladeshi" see how stupid that sounds ? He can't be claimed as a pakistani because that is an absurd claim and makes you look like you have a serious inferiority complex.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hussain0216

khanz said:


> wtf because there no such thing as pakistani nationality back then ! this makes no sense how the hell can he be claimed as a Pakistani when he wasn't born there and he himself never claimed such a thing nor is there any reputable historical source that cites him as pakistani.
> Why don't you also claim Khalid ibn al-walid as the "first Iranian" ? because he helped conquer the Persian empire and modern day Iran is Muslim today also due to Arab Muslim conquest and invasion same as modern day Pakistan why not Afghan Khilji as the "first Bangladeshi" see how stupid that sounds ? He can't be claimed as a pakistani because that is an absurd claim and makes you look like you have a serious inferiority complex.



Its simply a emotional connection to one of the first people to bring muslim civilisation to the sub continent 

No reason to get your panties wet

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Torch_v2.0

khanz said:


> He can't be claimed as a pakistani because that is an absurd claim and makes you look like you have a serious inferiority complex.


So you don't respect what the Jinnah said ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Wolfhunter

hussain0216 said:


> No reason to get your panties wet


Reported @The Eagle


----------



## Torch_v2.0

khanz said:


> see how stupid that sounds ?


It's all about Perception.


----------



## Wolfhunter

Torch said:


> Congrats , get educated then : http://www.findpk.com/pof/pakistan_movement.html


A blog? Are you serious? That’s like me quoting my tweets. Rofl



Torch said:


> It's all about Perception.


Nope you are ignorant and can’t accept your genes are “Indian” .


----------



## hussain0216

Wolfhunter said:


> Nope you are ignorant and can’t accept your genes are “Indian” .



We accept it, we just dont like it as we consider the indians a enemy


----------



## Torch_v2.0

Wolfhunter said:


> A blog? Are you serious? That’s like me quoting my tweets. Rofl
> 
> 
> Nope you are ignorant and can’t accept your genes are “Indian” .


You are too little to understand these things boy !


----------



## jetray

yeah agree with that muhammad bin qassam is the first pakistani.


----------



## khanz

hussain0216 said:


> Both wanted to create a muslim state where Pakistan exists today
> 
> Its the reason for some to make the connection
> 
> Its more emotional then historic as well as the fact we hate india and indians and most want no connection to them



ridiculous ! he conquered it for the Umayyad caliphate and it was only modern day Sindh and very small part of Punjab vast majority of the population back then after his conquest in 700s was still Hindu/Buddhist and did not and he did not come with the purpose of making separate homeland for south asian Muslims. Jinnah is responsible for Pakistan had he not existed neither would Pakistan despite the Arab conquests.
How exactly did BQ even intend to create Muslim state there anyway when most native people there were still non-Muslims unless you think he intended to kill,expel or force convert the native population by the masses ? nor did he ever mention the word "Pakistani" just because people don't like India does not mean you can just make up history.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Torch_v2.0

khanz said:


> ridiculous ! he conquered it for the Umayyad caliphate and it was only modern day Sindh and very small part of Punjab vast majority of the population back then after his conquest in 700s was still Hindu/Buddhist and did not and he did not come with the purpose of making separate homeland for south asian Muslims. Jinnah is responsible for Pakistan had he not existed neither would Pakistan despite the Arab conquests.
> How exatctly did BQ even intend to create Muslim state there anyway when most native people there were still non-Muslims unless you think he intended to kill,expel or force convert the native population by the masses ? nor did he ever mention the word "Pakistani" just because people don't like India does not mean you can just make up history.


Cuz Jinnah said that , 
That's it
final , 
Boom,
Hadouken!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Wolfhunter

Torch said:


> Cuz Jinnah said that ,
> That's it
> final ,
> Boom,
> Hadouken!


Source?


----------



## Torch_v2.0

Wolfhunter said:


> Source?


You might be lucky to find it here : https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah


----------



## Wolfhunter

Torch said:


> You might be lucky to find it here : https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah



That’s a wiki, I prefer hard copies. Like Jinnah Creator of Pakistan by Hector Boiltho.


----------



## Torch_v2.0

Wolfhunter said:


> prefer


Preference


----------



## khanz

lol whats next ? I guess T.E lawrence was the "first Saudi"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Torch_v2.0

khanz said:


> lol whats next ? I guess T.E lawrence was the "first Saudi"


Nope u may thank ,
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab & Muhammad bin Saud for it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Wolfhunter

Torch said:


> Preference


Because blogs and wikis are not authoritative.



khanz said:


> lol whats next ? I guess T.E lawrence was the "first Saudi"



Lol, good one.


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

khanz said:


> lol whats next ? I guess T.E lawrence was the "first Saudi"


Mummah Bin Qasim would be feeling very angry in his grave after reading the comments of those Pakistani who are converting arab into Pakistani  Those who have obsession with arabs should actually spend some time in arab countries and then they will know their real worth after feelings the love of arabs for Pakistani brothers 

Quid e azam was very modern leader. He had no obsession with Arabs because of sharing same religion. Quaid e Azam never said Muhammad bin Qasim is first Pakistani but said movement of Pakistan started when first Muslim landed his foot on this region of Sub continent which brought Islam in here. He was saying this in cotext of two nation theory i.e Hinduism and Islam are two different religion with contradictory practices thats why it was not possible for Indian Muslims( ex Hinud/bhudist/pagns whatever) to live with Hindus when they are following two different contradictory beliefs( two nation theory) and oppressing each others in the name of religion/castes .

I doubt that Quid e azam would have demanded seperate country for Muslims if Hindus/Congress would have provided equal social, economical, political and religious rights to Muslims. He left congress after getting to know their mindset which was to opress Muslims.I know Indian historians exaggerate about Muslim rulers to portray them just villains who have done nothing good but were just busy in raping, killing to spread violence and fear but we should also not glorify them to the point that they all appear saints or angels to us who just came in here for service of Islam and never ever commited any crimes/sins

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Wolfhunter said:


> So has Buddhism and Zoroastrianism and Paganism and Hedonism.



Right, but why was Pakistan made? Because of Islam. So, without people like Qasim you wouldn't get a Pakistan. Get my point?



khanz said:


> .
> Why don't you also claim Khalid ibn al-walid as the "first Iranian" ? because he helped conquer the Persian empire and modern day Iran is Muslim today also due to Arab Muslim conquest and invasion same as modern day Pakistan why not Afghan Khilji as the "first Bangladeshi" see how stupid that sounds ? He can't be claimed as a pakistani because that is an absurd claim and makes you look like you have a serious inferiority complex.



Because neither Iran or Bangladesh were founded based on Islam. Pakistan was.

You are paranoid about this whole inferiority complex thing.



Wolfhunter said:


> Reported @The Eagle



Are you serious?



Wolfhunter said:


> Nope you are ignorant and can’t accept your genes are “Indian” .



No, our genes would be mostly Indo-Aryan/Iranic. Indian is not an ethnic/racial category.



khanz said:


> lol whats next ? I guess T.E lawrence was the "first Saudi"



To be honest, he kinda is the father of some of those independent Arab states.

Take that as you wish.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mage

Wasn't that guy executed because he was a r@pist? Quite a feat for the first Pakistani.


----------



## Che palle

Wolfhunter said:


> Pakistanis are South Asian with Indian heritage.


I believe they are a mix of Iranian and Indic people.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Wolfhunter

Homura Akemi said:


> I believe they are a mix of Iranian and Indic people.



Either way they are not Arab. Arabs mock south Asian people especially the Pakistanis.

The fatuoush eating “bros” call Pakistanis “Bakistani”. Need I say more? 

Embrace your history .


----------



## Che palle

Wolfhunter said:


> Either way they are not Arab. Arabs mock south Asian people especially the Pakistanis.
> 
> The fatuoush eating “bros” call Pakistanis “Bakistani”. Need I say more?


I wasn't talking about all this lol. Why make everything into a fight ?


----------



## Wolfhunter

Homura Akemi said:


> I wasn't talking about all this lol. Why make everything into a fight ?


It's not a fight, I don't care about Arabians or Pakistanis or Pakistanis wishing they were Arabian. I just find it bemusing! That is all!


----------



## Che palle

Wolfhunter said:


> It's not a fight, I don't care about Arabians or Pakistanis or Pakistanis wishing they were Arabian. I just find it bemusing! That is all!


I don't think its them wanting to be Arabs. Islamic nationalists take pride in a common Islamic culture ( with some Arab influence yes) and distancing themselves from their pagan history as much as possible. Maybe that's the reason they might come off as wannabes sometimes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mage said:


> Wasn't that guy executed because he was a r@pist? Quite a feat for the first Pakistani.



No, it's a myth that has no historical basis.

Please educate yourself.



Homura Akemi said:


> I believe they are a mix of Iranian and Indic people.



Correct.

Here's a map showing the genetics of Pakistanis as compared to surrounding populations:

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jaanbaz

For those who don't know Jinnah was inspired by Ataturk rather then some Arab invader, Jinnah was a very modern man who wore western dresses and believed in equality of women. If Jinnah was inspired by Arabs women would not have been allowed to drive in Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TMA

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> From Historical sense , there is a problem , becasue we continue to lie to People in Schools about our history
> History is defined as connection of people with various culture and society
> 
> Sure Bin Qasim was there for few years but we cannot remove the infuence of *5 Major Empires* Pakistan was part of Last being the *British Empire*
> 
> 
> Pakistan was fromed by *Political Movement* , not by* Mohammad Bin Qasim*'s war
> 
> Our culture involves interaction with various Empires , Trade routes and that is true identity of Pakistan
> 
> The only major Empire Pakistan missed out on was *Ottoman Empire* and that was because we were part of* British control
> 
> History = -600 Years before birth of Jesus , to present times 2018
> 
> *
> *Pakistan's Real regional History *
> 
> Part of Greek Empire
> Part of Persian Empire
> Part of Ummayad Dynasty (A.k.a Mohamad Bin Qasim)
> Part of Mongol Empire
> Various Moghal Dynasties ~
> Part of British Empire
> Polical Awakening and Pollitical struggle for Independent state of Pakistan
> Pakistan = is born
> 
> 
> However we can see the region *Turkey* / *Pakistan* were one nation under different empires at one point in history. But that I mean the geographical area we now reference as Turkey or Pakistan
> 
> 
> 
> The idea to Glorify Bin Qasim , is a bit strange as I become more mature now vs how this idea was stuffed down my throat as a student. Becasue really Pakistan is a Nation which has had connection to various large civilizations of Pakistan and Present
> 
> So modern age CEPC China/Pakistan connection is no suprise


Well written! I agree with you, when I was younger this was taught to me that Bin Qasim was the first Pakistan and Pakistan is actually 1400 years old when he came. 
Now I realise with reading the works of wise men such as Umar Farooq Abdullah, that Islam purifies pre-existing cultures not wash them away.


----------



## Mage

dsr478 said:


> No, it's a myth that has no historical basis.


He was executed because of this, from what I read...


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mage said:


> He was executed because of this, from what I read...



You read it wrong, that is a mere folktale which historians consider inaccurate. The real reason he died was because his uncle was despised, and people didn't want him trying anything in revenge once they executed his uncle.


----------



## HariPrasad

First Pakistani. This is really great.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

HariPrasad said:


> First Pakistani. This is really great.



Hindustanis like yourself who are obsessed with race cannot comprehend being led by someone who isn't a North-Hindustani. 

You cannot even comprehend that your ancestors came from the Caucasus, it's hilarious.


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

khanz said:


> *T.E Lawrence* was the "first Saudi"


It's a damn good one!!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

dsr478 said:


> No, it's a myth that has no historical basis.
> 
> Please educate yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Here's a map showing the genetics of Pakistanis as compared to surrounding populations:
> 
> View attachment 459323


Source please?


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Almost 50 years Later the Political Struggle resulted in formation of Pakistan by educated people


Interesting!!! Almost all (in the top picture when Ottoman Empire was existing) and many (when Ottoman Empire wasn't existing) of them wearing "Fez"...



dsr478 said:


> North Pakistanis were for sure influenced by Qasim, without him further Islamic conquests may have never occurred.
> 
> He was executed by the Abbasid's purely because his uncle was a terrible person, Qasim himself did nothing wrong.
> 
> It is not an attempt to Arabise Pakistan, you guys are so paranoid.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can give me solid evidence Pakhtuns came from a Sahabi, I will only then believe you. Until then, I shall treat this story as it should be treated as: folklore.
> 
> 
> 
> Me being a Muslim is my choice, nobody imposed it upon me.
> 
> If my ancestors fought against Islam, yes, I'd side against them.


Some folks confuse Arab with Muslims.....



Jaanbaz said:


> How can Arab invader be a Pakistani?


It was a Muslim conquest as per the rules of engagement of that time...



Wolfhunter said:


> The point is, someone claiming that an arab general was the first “Pakistani” is clearly FALSE.


He was a Muslim general under a Muslim Empire sent to establish a Muslim rule (irrespective of race, creed etc.) over a distant land....

Muslim states don't mean all the inhabitants have to be Muslims (80% of inhabitants of the Ottoman Muslim state were non-Muslims at one point of time)....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Desert Fox

dsr478 said:


> Muhammad Bin Qasim was a general of the Umayyad Khilafah who conquered modern day Sindh and Multan, starting what was to be the 1000 year long Islamic conquest of the Indian sub-continent.
> 
> The conquest was started as a result of pirates from the area capturing a ship, kidnapping all the Muslims on board. One of the kidnapped Muslims managed to escape and asked the Khilafah to rescue the rest of the kidnapped Muslims. This resulted in the Khilafah asking the current ruler of the area (Dahir) to release the prisoners and provide compensation for this misdemeanour, however, Dahir refused. This resulted in Muhammad Bin Qasim being tasked to conquer the region, even though he was still a young boy, only 17 years of age.
> 
> Muhammad Bin Qasim led an army initially consisting of 6,000 Syrian and Mawali (recent non-Arab converts to Islam) troops, however, another several thousand camel riders and other reinforcements were provided by the governor of Makran, along with 5 catapults. Many Gujjars and Meds also joined Muhammad Bin Qasim's army.
> 
> During the conquest of the region, Muhammad Bin Qasim acted fairly and justly, attempting to do as little economic damage as possible with as little casualties as possible (on both sides). He always gave the people he encountered the choice of surrendering peacefully, only if they refused and remained in adamant in fighting him would he use violence. Even then, Muhammad Bin Qasim only killed those belong to Ahl-i-Harb (combatants), which included Dahir himself. The majority of the people he encountered chose to surrender peacefully.
> 
> Once a new town was conquered, Muhammad Bin Qasim always incorporated the locals into his administration and (if they willed it) his army. He also opened the gateway for proselytism to occur.
> 
> His reasons for success were his superior battle tactics, his more advanced technology (e.g the Mongol bow), the fact that the current ruler (Dahir) was very unpopular among people of the region, and the fact that he incorporated the people of the region into his army and administration, rather than alienating them.
> 
> Muhammad Bin Qasim was eventually arrested and executed during the Abbasid revolution, due to his uncle being Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf (a person who was greatly despised by the Abbasid's).
> 
> The legacy of Muhammad Bin Qasim is a large one. He was the first Muslim ruler to gain large amounts of territory of the Indian sub-continent, arguably paving the way for future Islamic conquests and proselytism, as well as large migrations of Muslims to the region. Muhammad Bin Qasim is also considered to be the first Pakistani, as the idea of a Muslim homeland in the Indian sub-continent started after his conquests of the region. Yom-e-Babul Islam is also observed in Pakistan in his honour. There are also many places in Pakistan named after him, such as the Muhammad Bin Qasim library in Thatta, Bin Qasim town in Karachi, Ibn-e-Qasim Bagh stadium in Multan, Port Qasim (Pakistan's 2nd largest port), etc.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Qasim
> http://historypak.com/muhammad-bin-qasim/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Iqbal Ali @Samlee @lastofthepatriots @Torch @dexter @waz @Horus @Mugwop @Kaptaan @PAKISTANFOREVER @Desert Fox @DESERT FIGHTER @Saif al-Arab @HAKIKAT @Reichsmarschall @Dalit @Clutch @Devil Soul @313ghazi @Albatross @Luffy 500 @M.R.9 @Mentee @Ahmet Pasha @Sher Shah Awan @TheLahoriGuy @Kambojaric @war&peace @El Sidd @The Diplomat @BHarwana @Proudpakistaniguy @Ahmad Sajjad Paracha @Mian Babban @Max @Talwar e Pakistan @hussain0216 @Metanoia


For some reason I didn't get notification.



AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> as there is no connection between Mohammad Bin Qasim and Pakistan


If you mean directly, then of course not. However historically yes there is a connection because Muhammad Ibn Qathim's conquest was an Islamic one and thus introduced Islam to the subcontinent, laying the historical foundations for Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Kaptaan said:


> Source please?



Al Baladhuri, a Persian historian.


----------



## HariPrasad

dsr478 said:


> Hindustanis like yourself who are obsessed with race cannot comprehend being led by someone who isn't a North-Hindustani.
> 
> You cannot even comprehend that your ancestors came from the Caucasus, it's hilarious.


It's not your fault. Now tell me Abdali was second Pakistani people will only say whatever is taught to them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

hahahaha Can't be first Pakistani as he was not National ID card holder


----------



## Taimur Khurram

HariPrasad said:


> It's not your fault. Now tell me Abdali was second Pakistani people will only say whatever is taught to them.



He was was born in Multan and was a Pakhtun. He fought in the name of Islam and many people from his tribe (Durranis) live across Pakistan, one of them was most notably head of the ISI (Asad Durrani). 

Also, there were literally dozens of Islamic conquerors between Qasim and Abdali. The conquests lasted for a thousand years, don't forget that.

You guys only see things through the lens of race, which makes much less sense then seeing things through the lens of ideologies. You will have far more in common with someone who shares the same ideals to you than someone from the same race who has different ideals to you.



AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> hahahaha Can't be first Pakistani as he was not National ID card holder



Asalamu Alaikum

Then I guess Iqbal wasn't a Pakistani according to your logic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

We love "Selective" history

I don't find any connetion to Arab countries unfortunately apart from religious connection

*Missing connection with Bin Qasim*
1) I don't wear long apparel on head
2) I don't love horses
3) I don't like black robe on women
4) I don't quite understand the chopping head capital punishment
5) Never rode a camel in life
6) Never owned 10 Luxury cars
7) Never had impulse to take a tent and camp out in desert

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Missing connection with Persian influence in media *

1) Colorful clothese and textiles is a mark of Pakistani culture shared with countries like iran

2) Similarities in food specially the meat stake or kaboobs with Iranians or other cultural influence

3) Pakistani love , Gardens and decroation , this is a trait of Persian culture of creating fablous Gardens and orchads. Shalimar Bagh (Garden to me) looks like very persian style influenced

Pakistani Garden





One of many gardens in Iran











Persian style bread, Bin Qasim never ate bread like such
This is not Bin Qasim Nan , but this is Persian Nan , which we call as Tandoori Roti 





Iranian breakfast while this trait never became popular in Pakistan
but this pepermint tea became popular in arab (modern times)







Pakistani faces






Iranian girl





Similar features



Colorful Libas (clothes for women)





Some samples from Pakhtoon areas




General shadi dress








(Very beautiful model by the way)
The key element is love of *colorful items 



Traditional iftiyar item in Iran



*


*Here is the Pakistani version



*


Iranian Chiken Tikka











Bin Qasim = Selective history

Imad wasim Pakistani cricket player





Iranian football player







Famous Olympic Gold winner player from Pakistan hasan sardar






Iranian football player










Quite similar type of faces

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

It is not extra oridinary to see some similarities between two neighbour regions iran / pakistan as in past these were quite connected over 1000 years


The regional history of Pakistan expands to 5,000 years



People of *Turkey - Pakistan - Iran* just have alot of similarties


If we romove the influence of 1980's saudi funded madrasa's in Pakistan there was close to 0% Saudi influence in Pakistan



HAKIKAT said:


> Interesting!!! Almost all (in the top picture when Ottoman Empire was existing) and many (when Ottoman Empire wasn't existing) of them wearing "Fez"...
> 
> 
> Some folks confuse Arab with Muslims.....
> 
> 
> It was a Muslim conquest as per the rules of engagement of that time...
> 
> 
> He was a Muslim general under a Muslim Empire sent to establish a Muslim rule (irrespective of race, creed etc.) over a distant land....
> 
> Muslim states don't mean all the inhabitants have to be Muslims (80% of inhabitants of the Ottoman Muslim state were non-Muslims at one point of time)....









Well the reason was that Turkey was a Prominent Islamic Center of world when this picture was taken this is 1906 (when Ottoman Empire existed in world). The Fez generally showed alliance of Pakistani's Muslims closely with Turkey

The Fez was 100% normal wear in most part of world Prior to WW1


Fez is still present in Egypt





Images from Morocco

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> We love "Selective" history
> 
> I don't find any connetion to Arab countries unfortunately apart from religious connection
> 
> *Missing connection with Bin Qasim*
> 1) I don't wear long apparel on head
> 2) I don't love horses
> 3) I don't like black robe on women
> 4) I don't quite understand the chopping head capital punishment
> 5) Never rode a camel in life
> 6) Never owned 10 Luxury cars
> 7) Never had impulse to take a tent and camp out in desert
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Missing connection with Persian influence in media *
> 
> 1) Colorful clothese and textiles is a mark of Pakistani culture shared with countries like iran
> 
> 2) Similarities in food specially the meat stake or kaboobs with Iranians or other cultural influence
> 
> 3) Pakistani love , Gardens and decroation , this is a trait of Persian culture of creating fablous Gardens and orchads. Shalimar Bagh (Garden to me) looks like very persian style influenced
> 
> Pakistani Garden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of many gardens in Iran
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Persian style bread, Bin Qasim never ate bread like such
> This is not Bin Qasim Nan , but this is Persian Nan , which we call as Tandoori Roti
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iranian breakfast while this trait never became popular in Pakistan
> but this pepermint tea became popular in arab (modern times)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistani faces
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iranian girl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Similar features
> 
> 
> 
> Colorful Libas (clothes for women)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some samples from Pakhtoon areas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General shadi dress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Very beautiful model by the way)
> The key element is love of *colorful items
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional iftiyar item in Iran
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *Here is the Pakistani version
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Iranian Chiken Tikka
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bin Qasim = Selective history
> 
> Imad wasim Pakistani cricket player
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iranian football player
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Famous Olympic Gold winner player from Pakistan hasan sardar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iranian football player
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite similar type of faces



1. Certain styles of Turban in Pakistan do have a long garment hanging.
2. They are beautiful creatures, many in Pakistan use them for games and they were once prominent tools for warfare among both people from Pakistan and elsewhere.
3. It's Sunnah. If you don't like it, then it shows how much of a Muslim you are.
4. Like a rope or firearm is any better.
5. Same as the horses.
6. Neither did Qasim. Also, that point is rude and uncalled for.
7. Join the rest of us and do it, it's fun.

We have a lot in common with Iranians, no doubt about it. As for Turks, not so much but still some.
As for Arab countries, again, we have some connection to them. Our clothes, religion, heck even a lot of our words are similar.

Also, you still haven't proven Qasim is not a major part of Pakistani history. He was the first major Muslim 
conqueror of the region, triggering the conquests that would bring Islam to the region. Many Pakistanis are also descended from the Arabs that started migrating to the region after his conquests. Their impact on our culture is also fairly substantial.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Decendents from Arabs I am sure they are


Mr Qasim , may have contributed to spread of Islam in region but most likely Islam would have already reached places due to trade of people between Iran-the regions now in pakistan

Easy to see the trade between areas would have spread Islam naturally as well






However , we also must talk about influence of Mongol Empire on Pakistani Regions





All the folks with name after Gangish *"Khan"* just did not happened out of coincidence


I have this one question about Bin Qasim Theory
Did he not came in 8th century





Why is Bin Qasim , shown to look like Shah Faisal of Saudi Arabia in Media ? hmm
Saudi clan did not even exist till 1800






So here is my theory

a) People in Pakistan are holding pictures of Shah faisal of Saudi Arabi calling it Mohammad Bin Qasim
b) In 1970's, 1980's on ward we started to get Saudi Funding for Madrasas

Seems to be some calculated spread of certain idealogy


Now I don't know who is this *Mehlab Ibn Sufrah* in year 664
But looking at pictures it seems Sahah Faisal of Saudi Arabia created Pakistan based on pictures

But it seems he *(Mehlab Ibn Sufrah) *revolted from Ummayad Dynasty and got his own little territory to rule

Don't think he was that concerned about making Pakistan








However in end , it was only Educated Muslims who made Pakistan

They had no horses 

They had no Camels or Horses
They had no swords
They had no Guns 

They just has a idealogica statement and political movement







It is possible tomorrow Nawaz Sharif , will demand , it is put in books he created Pakistan




*The Ummayads *

Ali was assassinated in 661 by a Kharijite partisan. Six months later in the same year, in the interest of peace, Hasan ibn Ali, highly regarded for his wisdom and as a peacemaker, and the Second Imam for the Shias, and the grandson of Muhammad, made a peace treaty with Muawiyah I. In the Hasan-Muawiya treaty, Hasan ibn Ali handed over power to Muawiya on the condition that he be just to the people and keep them safe and secure, and after his death he not establish a dynasty. This brought to an end the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs for the Sunnis, and Hasan ibn Ali was also the last Imam for the Shias to be a Caliph. Following this, Mu'awiyah broke the conditions of the agreement and began the Umayyad dynasty, with its capital in Damascus


*Government* Caliphate
*Caliph*
• 661–680 Muawiya I
• 743–744 Al-Walid II ------------> One of his General was Bin Qasim who was killed by Al Walid 
• 744–750 Marwan II



Hasan-Muawiya treaty,
In 661 CE, after Ali's death, Hasan ibn Ali attained to the caliphate. There was a military conflict between Ahl al-Bayt and Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan (see Battle of Siffin); and to avoid the agonies of a further civil war, Hasan signed the *Hasan–Muawiya treaty* with Muawiyah. According to the treaty, Hasan ceded the caliphate to Muawiyah, but were to name no successor during his reign but let the Islamic world choose their successor
afterward





Not not sure if Ummayad dynasty was "good" or Bad what do you think ?
The Bin Qasim perhaps was a brave man but he was himself killed by his King


And who was this Mehlab Ibn Sufrah?





I am just thankful these people (Educated folks existed ) and people who created schools to educate Muslims and find a polictial move to find peace





The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The Caliphate of Prophecy will last thirty years; then Allah will give the Kingdom of His Kingdom to anyone He wills.

Sa'id told that Safinah said to him: Calculate Abu Bakr's caliphate as two years, 'Umar's as ten, 'Uthman's as twelve and 'Ali so and so. Sa'id said: I said to Safinah: They conceive that 'Ali was not a caliph. He replied: The buttocks of Marwan told a lie.

سفینہ رضی اللہ عنہ کہتے ہیں کہ رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے فرمایا : *” خلافت علی منہاج النبوۃ ( نبوت کی خلافت ) تیس سال رہے گی ۱؎ ، پھر اللہ تعالیٰ سلطنت یا اپنی سلطنت جسے چاہے گا دے گا “ *سعید کہتے ہیں : سفینہ نے مجھ سے کہا : اب تم شمار کر لو : ابوبکر رضی اللہ عنہ دو سال ، عمر رضی اللہ عنہ دس سال ، عثمان رضی اللہ عنہ بارہ سال ، اور علی رضی اللہ عنہ اتنے سال ۔ سعید کہتے ہیں : میں نے سفینہ رضی اللہ عنہ سے کہا : یہ لوگ ( مروانی ) کہتے ہیں کہ علی رضی اللہ عنہ خلیفہ نہیں تھے ، انہوں نے کہا : بنی زرقاء یعنی بنی مروان کے ۲؎ چوتڑ جھوٹ بولتے ہیں ۔

*Reference* :* Sunan Abi Dawud 4646 *
In-book reference : Book 42, Hadith 51
English translation : Book 41, Hadith 4629
*Grade* : *Hasan Sahih* (Al-Albani) * حسن صحيح* (الألباني) *حكم* :


Note the Ummayad Dynastiy started along 30 year mark after Prophet's death as predicted

Prophet Mohammad's Departing - 632
Ali'S Assasination - 661

29 Years

Hassan Ibn Ali - Had control in Madina for 7 months and political struggle with Ummayad Dynasty Head who was in 60's

Till he gave up power to Muawia معاوية بن أبي سفيان
بنو أمية‎

The Dynasty lasted 3 Leaders only ....but alot of territory was won and then lost

Muawiya (معاوية بن أبي سفيان) considered himself better equipped and more experienced to govern Muslim matters, and thought Hassan Son of Ali was not well prepared for tasks of Government and battles.

This issue of Bani Qasim really made me dig deep into Ummayad Dynasty bit
and later I stumbled upon the Prophecy about end of Caliphate


----------



## HariPrasad

dsr478 said:


> You guys only see things through the lens of race, which makes much less sense then seeing things through the lens of ideologies


OK so to be a local or national, race or ethnicity is not important but ideology is decided factor i am amazed. The logic you guys come up with makes me speechless.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

HariPrasad said:


> OK so to be a local or national, race or ethnicity is not important but ideology is decided factor i am amazed. The logic you guys come up with makes me speechless.



I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about who we as Muslims take as heroes. We take our heroes as those who are good Muslims, not whether or not they come from the same ethnic group as us.

Muhammad Bin Qasim is a hero for Pakistan in particular because he started the conquests which resulted in Pakistan's creation. He is the reason Pakistan exists today, because without people like him, Islam would not have spread across the region and there wouldn't have been a Pakistan.

Also, many Pakistanis are descended from those conquerors so yes they are our heroes.


----------



## HariPrasad

Of


dsr478 said:


> I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about who we as Muslims take as heroes. We take our heroes as those who are good Muslims, not whether or not they come from the same ethnic group as us.
> 
> Muhammad Bin Qasim is a hero for Pakistan in particular because he started the conquests which resulted in Pakistan's creation. He is the reason Pakistan exists today, because without people like him, Islam would not have spread across the region and there wouldn't have been a Pakistan.
> 
> Also, many Pakistanis are descended from those conquerors so yes they are our heroes.


Ofcourse he should be your hero because he came to kill prophet Mohammad's family. Your another hero hero Abdali looted and burn your city and raped your women. You have so many such heros.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

HariPrasad said:


> Of
> 
> Ofcourse he should be your hero because he came to kill prophet Mohammad's family. Your another hero hero Abdali looted and burn your city and raped your women. You have so many such heros.





No, he came to kill Dahir and free the captured Muslim women, conquering Sindh and southern Punjab was just a bonus.

Please don't bring up that myth about Dahir helping Rasulullah (Peace Be Upon Him) and his family, that story is simply not true at all.

Lol do you have any proof of Abdali and his army conducting mass rape? Also, he himself came from Pakistan, he was born in Multan. He was also a Pakhtun and had other ethnic groups such as the Baluchis work for him in his army. He fought in the name of Islam against the tyrannical Sikhs and Marathas, of course he will be our hero. Do you even know how many Durranis exist in Pakistan?


----------



## HariPrasad

dsr478 said:


> No, he came to kill Dahir and free the captured Muslim women, conquering Sindh and southern Punjab was just a bonus.


 Ohhhh is it? I think you must have learned this in Pakistani text book which are famous such stunning facts of history.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

HariPrasad said:


> Ohhhh is it? I think you must have learned this in Pakistani text book which are famous such stunning facts of history.



Not as stunning as yours which claim Aurangzeb destroyed thousands of temples, that all Muslims from the region are the product of mass rape, that the Indo-Aryan migrations are a lie, etc. 

Anyway, what I'm saying is regarded as historical fact. Give me one legitimate source proving your claims.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fenasi Kerim

@Dinky , @xenon54 , @KingWest , @Killuminati , @kartal1 @OguzSenturk , @CAN_TR


----------



## cabatli_53

lastofthepatriots said:


> Son of Greek homosexual triggered.



Warning issued to insult Turkish public ! Banned !

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




Reichsmarschall said:


>





Reichsmarschall said:


> a turkroach is calling others rodent how ironical





Reichsmarschall said:


> you mean your mother who works in a legalized regulated brothel?



Multiple Warning issued for Insulting Turkish Republic, Turks and using Turkish flag for trolling/provocative behaviors



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



Dalai Lama said:


>



Warning issued for insulting Turkish Republic/public. Banned !


Now, It is more logical !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Asalamu Alaikum 

@waz 

Could I please get this thread moved to the history section?


----------



## Suriya

Taimur Khurram said:


> Muhammad Bin Qasim was a general of the Umayyad Khilafah who conquered modern day Sindh and Multan, starting what was to be the 1000 year long Islamic conquest of the Indian sub-continent.
> 
> 
> @Iqbal Ali @Samlee @lastofthepatriots @Torch @dexter @waz @Horus @Mugwop @Kaptaan @PAKISTANFOREVER @Desert Fox @DESERT FIGHTER @Saif al-Arab @HAKIKAT @Reichsmarschall @Dalit @Clutch @Devil Soul @313ghazi @Albatross @Luffy 500 @M.R.9 @Mentee @Ahmet Pasha @Sher Shah Awan @TheLahoriGuy @Kambojaric @war&peace @El Sidd @The Diplomat @BHarwana @Proudpakistaniguy @Ahmad Sajjad Paracha @Mian Babban @Max @Talwar e Pakistan @hussain0216 @Metanoia




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028589621029089280

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028519771472637952


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Suriya said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028589621029089280



Still yapping are we?


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Asalamu Alaikum 

@waz 

Could I please get this thread combined with my other one on Muhammad Bin Qasim? If not, please just delete it.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Taimur Khurram said:


> Still yapping are we?


I disagree with your contention that Bin Qasim was the first Pakistani. On what* rationale* do you say that?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Indus Pakistan said:


> I disagree with your contention that Bin Qasim was the first Pakistani. On what* rationale* do you say that?



I only said it for three reasons:

1. That's the title people generally know him by. 

2. The Pakistan movement primarily occurred as a separate country for Muslims in the Indus region. Muhammad Bin Qasim himself was the first Muslim to make large portions of Pakistan part of not just an Islamic nation, but the Khilafah itself. Jinnah himself said the Pakistan movement started when the first Muslim set foot in Sindh (an indirect reference to Qasim). 

3. Muslims from Pakistan and Hindustan do have some ancestry from these Muslim conquerors that came to the region, the first of which was Muhammad Bin Qasim:






https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub...

*"The study showed that the Muslim Gujjars differ significantly from their counterpart, the Hindu Gujjars"*

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub...

*"we observed a certain degree of genetic contribution from Iran to both Muslim populations"*

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2859343/

*“The correlation between the admixture contributions from Arabia and Iran is positive, with significant correlation coefficient values”*

Of course, the title is more symbolic than anything else. Obviously Pakistan has a history from before Muhammad Bin Qasim, most of our ancestry is not from these Muslim conquerors, and the first citizen of Pakistan was obviously not Muhammad Bin Qasim.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Imran Khan

lolzzz no no no the adam was first pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Azadkashmir

Guynextdoor2 said:


> you will get 'taxes'...maybe you should cut down on the pot.
> 
> 
> 
> he was a plunderer and nothing more.



shut up indian piece of sh it.


----------

