True History of Raja Dahir | The Pakistani Spectator
True History of Raja Dahir
True History of Raja Dahir
By Majid Maqsood • Sep 16th, 2011 • Category: Politics • 5 Comments
Translation of the first chapter of Ghulam Murtaza Syed, “Warrior Heros of Sindh” (‘Sindh ja Suuriya’
. The translation from the original Sindhi monograph is by Gul Agha.]
1. Prologue
2. The Nature of the Conquerors
3. Arabian Penninsula before the Prophet
4. What Followed the Death of the Prophet
5. The Banu Umaya Empire
6. Victory of Islam?
7. Love of One’s Country
8. The Character of Raja Dahir
9. Epilogue
1. Prologue
Sindh is one of the world’s most ancient civilized and organized countries. As the nature of the such things, it has seen many a rise and fall. The signs of its ancient glory are still to be found in the relics of Amri, Kot Diji and Moenjodaro.
For some of its history, Sindh has been ruled by natives, and for some of its history, it has seen hardship as a colony of aliens. It has not yet been possible to properly research Sindh’s pre-historic days but its recent history begins with Rai Sahasi and Chuch dynasties.
The Chuch Dynasty is also called the Brahmin Dynasty. Its last ruler was Raja Dahir, the younger son of Chuch. Raja Chuch died in 682 A.D. After him, Raja Chandur became King of Sindh and remained on the throne for eight years. Raja Chandur was followed by Raja Dahir whose very wise, courageous and principled rule lasted 32 years. Raja Dahir’s reign ended with the take-over of Sindh by Muhammad bin Kasim’s son-in-law of Hajjaj Bin Yousuf Sagfi’s, who was a commander of the imperialist Arab Banu Umaya’s army — and Sindh became a part of a foreign empire.
Within one year of assuming power, Raja Dahir had taken steps to consolidate his kingdom on all sides. The capitol of his kingdom was Alor. From there, he marched eastward and put his brother in-charge of a province with its centre at Brahmanabad. He then marched to Makran, where he made an alliance with the local ruler. His kingdom extended to Multan in the North. Dahir’s government was strong and his kingdom was peaceful.
2. The Nature of the Conquerors
At that time, Bani Umaya dynasty ruled Arabia. A member of that dynasty, Yazid son of Mauvia, not only martyred the saintly Imam Hussain, grandson of the prophet, but ordered his dead body torn apart by horses and for months, had his hallowed scalp carried on a lance through the streets of the Arab kingdom. The son and family of Imam Hussain was imprisoned and brought to Damascus. A member of that family, Abdullah bin Zubair was murdered in the sanctity of Kaaba (Mecca). These are but a few examples of the cruelty perpetuated by this ruling family.
In the days of Raja Dahir, a member of the Bani Umaya dynasty, Abdul Malik son of Marvan, was the ruler of Arabia. His Commander, Hajjaj Bin Yousuf Sagfi was a very brutal, murderous tyrant, who had been very cruel in his treatment of the descendents of the Prophet and murdered many Muslims. There is plenty of historic documentation which informs us about these deeds.
After brutally suppressing the local revolt that followed the martyrdom of Imam Hussain [grandson of the Prophet], the dominion of Bani Umaya extended to all of Arabia and they attacked all their neighbors to extend their kingdom.
3. Arabian Penninsula before the Prophet
A large part of the Arabian peninsula is a desert, besides the two major cities of Mecca and Medina, its inhabitants live a nomadic life. Its tribes used to often go to war with each other; thus militancy was part of their temperament. Its inhabitants, for the most part, were followers of ancient tribal religions whose idols were kept in the Kaaba, though some of them were Jews and Christians. To procure goods, Arab traders traveled to Syria and Iraq in caravans.
Before the birth of the Prophet (peace be upon him), some Arabs enlisted in the armies of Rome and Persia. The bulk of their livelihood, though, was through shepherding herds. They passed their lives in considerable poverty. After the Great Prophet, they were united in the name of a new religion under one central government. This greatly increased their strength and courage.
4. What Followed the Death of the Prophet
The prophet-hood of the kind Prophet had two goals:
– First, to encourage intellectual, spiritual and moral righteousness.
– Second, to promote peace and provide for the betterment of the sociopolitical conditions in the country.
Both goals were well met during the life of the Prophet of God. But after his passing away, his followers split into two groups. One wanted to emphasize the first goal.
Others believed that the Arabs still suffered from a bad character, tribal conflicts, old customs and manners which had not been completely reformed. For the first time in history, they have united under a central government. Therefore, this group wanted to emphasize the second goal. The first group was futuristic, the second was present centered. The future depends on the present, thus the second group prevailed.
The Arabs were poor; to unite them and divert their attention from tribal conflicts, the people with the second viewpoint found it necessary to invade neighboring rich and urban countries and gain their wealth to improve the lot of the locals.
The new religion had united them and fired up their zeal, besides which the thought of gaining the wealth of other nations created a greedy desire of conquest. In the days of Hazrat Umar [the third Caliph of (Arab) Muslims], the rich and content neighboring countries of Syria, Iraq and Egypt were conquered.
On the one hand, this brought great wealth to the poverty stricken Arabs, and on the other, it increased their military power and national pride. In the days of the first two Caliphs, there was some attempt to maintain the standards of decency and traditions of the Prophet, but this created such a reaction in the country that one of these Caliphs was assassinated.
5. The Banu Umaya Empire
If wealth, property and other goods make life easier, they also create some personality defects. The result was that after the martyrdom of Hazrat Ali, factional warfare broke out among tribalist and power-hungry Arabs. Finally, the Bani Umaya household forcefully crushed the other contenders and became all-powerful.
Says Shaikh Sadi [Persian sufi poet]:
Having conquered seven countries
The greed of kings is not reduced
If the saintly ones get but half a loaf
They eat half again and spare the rest for others
Tribal warfare was sharply reduced in the days of Abdul Malik. After having controlled internal turmoil, he made plans to expand the Banu Umaya empire. They took the name of Islam but their intent was to loot and plunder the wealth of others. Some Islamic historians hold that after the Prophet, there has been no Islamic government, but some others hold that a little attention to his teachings was paid during the first four Caliphs. In any event, afterwards the governments were not Islamic, but in reality were in the hands of Sultans who ruled for their personal, tribal and factional advantage.
During the time of Abdul Malik, the rule was for the benefit of this sort. Historians know that the tyranny and massacres committed by Commander Hajjaj bin Yousuf is of such magnitude that Satan himself would be ashamed to lay claim to it, let alone Muslims.
Perhaps one example would be sufficient to illustrate this. Once thousands of people had gathered to pray at the Grand Mosque of Kufa, and the religious scholars, saints, and descendants of the Prophet were among them. While giving a sermon there, Hajjaj bin Yousuf declared “Today, seeing the fruit is ripe, I wish to pluck it.” Then he proceeded to order the massacre of those present, resulting in the slaughter of thousands of Muslims.
At his death, a hundred thousand prisoners languished in pathetic conditions.
Moreover, another example of his tyranny is that without just cause, he attacked other free countries to loot their wealth, enslave their citizens and turn their women into concubines. He then declared the sale of these humans as the glorious deed of Islam!
In the days of this king, his forces were sent in three different directions to conquer different countries. One was sent to the West under the command of Musa Ashri which made conquests till Spain. To the North, armies were dispatched under the command of Qutiba bin Muslim, and these captured Samarkand and Bukhara. Towards the east, Hajjaj son of Yousuf sent an army under the command of his son-in-law Mohammed son of Qasim. Before this attempt, they had made fourteen unsuccessful attempts to conquer Sindh.
6. Victory of Islam?
Raja Dahar fought with great courage against the army of Mohammed bin Qasim’s in order to defend Sindh’s territory and honor but the Raja was killed and the country captured by the Arab. The conquest netted the Arabs millions worth of property and thousands of Sindhi men and women were taken and sold in slavery.
Now the question arises: should the conquest of Arabs be called fair and a victory for Islam, or should it be considered the expansionism of Arab Kings with imperialist ambitions who were engaged in un-Islamic greedy subjugation of other nations? To gain a perspective on this question, it is necessary that we understand the viewpoints of two different groups of Muslims.
The first group believes that the purpose of Islam was to eliminate the barriers in the name of creed, caste, race, nation, and color and to promote unity of humanity, peace, progress and prosperity. It is the natural religion which all prophets have propagated from the beginning of civilization. It was not a new religion but, according to it, behind the manifest differences of different religions, the same foundation of unity exists. Contentiousness, hatred, division, self-centeredness are obstacles in its path. Compulsion in the matter of religion is unjust. The Prophet of God is a mercy for ALL humanity. His goal was to free the slaves, end looting, and establish peace and justice on earth — i.e., definitely not to do those things which others did after him: to colonize other countries in the name of Islam, loot and plunder, and enslave free people.
The second group claims Islam is a new, complete, universal religion and after its coming all other religions are “defunct” and the new pillars of religion are proclaiming unity of God, ritual prayer, pilgrimage, ritual fasting, and charity to Muslims. To impose this religious code of conduct by force, which they term ‘Jihad’ (Crusade), they consider causing bloodshed, conquering other countries, looting and plundering, enslaving men and women and selling them like cattle, etc., to be fair conduct.
Looking at the beliefs and conduct of the second of these two ideologies, non-Muslim scholars and historians have called Islam the religion of dacoits, thieves, and decadent hedonists. They say that people converted to it through the force of the sword, otherwise what would attract someone to follow such a religion? To remove such misconceptions, Muslim scholars and saints have shown that the true Islam is the one shown by the first group. In recent times, this group is represented by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and Khwaja Kamaluddin, whose rejoinders are worth reading. They claim that (true) Islam did not spread through weapons and violence but through the battle for the heart and its principles. The aggression of Muslim rulers towards other countries, loot and plunder, and other oppression have no relation to Islam. The Mullah’s interpretation of Islam is not correct.
To this day, Muslims are divided in these two ideological groups. Of these, one is called the Mullahs’ group and the other Saints’ group. We are followers of the Saints, therefore, we do not consider the “accomplishments” of Mohammed bin Qasim as bearing any relation to Islam; nor do we consider him a veteran of Islam, nor a flag bearer of Islam; instead we consider him a tyrant, a destroyer of Sindh’s freedom, honor, wealth and a looter. We consider him a member of a mafia which not only sold Sindhi men and women as slaves, looted the country, but in fact were enemies of the prophet’s descendants, decadent hedonist, enemies of the fundamental principles of Islam, and murderers of Muslims.
7. The Love of One’s Country
We consider the great Prophet as the grace of all humankind, and his two quotes still ring in our ears:
– “Love of one’s country is a part of one’s faith.”
– There is a pleasant breeze from the direction of Sindh.
Knowing this, is it possible that we would believe the love of Sindh is fair, but yet consider foreign dominion of it and the cruelty inflicted by foreigners as fair!
We are of the opinion that it is incumbent on all to love their country: one who is not patriotic has no faith, and without faith, one cannot be a true Muslim.
Sindh has been a center of civilization and culture for over 5,000 years. At the time of the great Prophet, there was not a single Muslim in Sindh, but the people were Hindus and Buddhists — then his expression that he felt a pleasant breeze from there must have some significance.
Under these circumstances, how can we consider the forcible end to our country’s independence, forcing its people to be slaves, and looting its vast wealth — fair and just according to true Islam?
If some folks consider such actions to be Islamic, they are entitled to their personal opinion; everyone is entitled to their personal opinion. After all, there are still some people who consider Imam Hussain [martyred grandson of the Prophet] unjust and Yazid [the king who ordered his assassination] righteous. They consider every action of Yazid and his household ‘Islamic’. This groups includes not only the theologians of that time but many of the present time.
They should have every right to have such an opinion and we want to respect their rights. But we consider the invasion of Muhammad bin Qasim against the principles of Islam and a case of tyranny.
There are still thousands of people in Sindh who find it no embarrassment to call themselves Dahari’s. The great Sindhi scholar and elder, Maulana Abul Hassan found nothing wrong in calling himself Dahari. We have no objection if the partisans of Muhammad bin Qasim call themselves Yazidis [note: 'Yazidi' is often used as an epithet].
Humans are created from a speck which grows as tissue. Tissue (in human or nonhuman animals) is formed by ingesting food. Food is made from grains, vegetables or meat. All these are directly or indirectly the products of soil and water. Observe, for example, that one seed produces thousands of seeds, which are nourished by soil and water. Thus everything is the product of the soil and water of one’s country. This is the real parentage of every person. The Holy Quran also states: “Verily, We have created every human from a speck of dust.”
From this point of view, the one who is not loyal to their country is not a legitimate progeny (loyal child). Keeping this in mind, I do not hesitate to call Raja Dahar a hallowed martyr who sacrificed his life defending the independence, honor, and dignity of Sindh.
Let the Yazidis feel offended by my characterization. Imam Hussain, grandson of the Prophet, could not escape the enmity of such people and I am but like a little fist full of dust at his door.
If you desire to be a warrior
Forget fears that gnaw
Throw spears, fight boldly
Do not hide behind your shield
Wield your sword
Strike, that you stout become
– Shah Latif
8. The Character of Raja Dahir
Some people make slanderous accusations about Raja Dahir in order to provide a justification for the bad deeds of their heros. Let us examine some of these few accusations, the principal ones of which are as follows:
1. He married his sister
2. He imprisoned and robbed some Arab people.
3. He abused Buddhists and non-Brahmins.
4. He was a decadent hedonist and a tyrant.
Observe that it is the work of every group that has been the victor to slander the vanquished party, to defame them, and thus to provide a justification, even though is is their behavior that is most unjust and diabolical.. many such examples exist in history. History has often been written by those in the pay of the victors.
[four specific examples of victors' version of rewriting history skipped for brevity]
Let us carefully examine each of the allegations against Raja Dahar in turn.
1. Forget sisters, Hindu Brahmins consider marrying their cousins improper. So the accusation that he married his sister appears to be fallacious. The evidence offered for this accusation is that he refused to give his sister’s hand to some petty chieftain. But everyone knows that Hindus were endogamous within castes and status. Thus if he refused to allow his sister’s wedding to someone of a lower caste, is it reasonable to say that he had done so to marry his own sister? It is an ill-intentioned, bald lie.
2. The second allegation against him that has been made is that he had some gifts, which the Arab ruler was sending to the King of Ceylon, pirated, and the Arab sailors, arrested. There is also no evidence offered here either — to show that Raja Dahar did such a deed. There was plenty of piracy in those days. It is entirely possible that some pirates did this, but what possible advantage could a great king like Raja Dahar derive from such petty piracy? To make this a pretext for an invasion is entirely fraudulent and merely slanderous.
History states that even before the successful conquest of Sindh, the Arabs attacked 14 times — what was their justification for these attacks? Is it that the attacks on Samarkand, Bukhara, Morocco, Spain also to get compensated for something?
One cannot hide the true facts of history. It is clear that the Arab rulers, like all imperialist powers, had the goal of colonizing other nations. If we regard Roman, Mongolian, British and French imperialists wrong and tyrannical, how then can we call similar action by Arabs fair, and not merely fair but in the glory of Islam? Does the respect for Islam increase by such actions or is it slandered?
3. The third allegation that is made against him is that he was cruel towards Buddhists and other non-Hindus — but we can’t find evidence of this either. It is a historical fact that when Raja Chandersen, brother of Raja Chuch, reigned, he encouraged Buddhism. He gave special concessions to Buddhists bhikshus and monks. It is also no secret that the Brahmins can be religiously bigoted even more than Mullahs. Their actions eliminated Buddhism in much of India. But Sindh was that country where Buddhism flourished. Their presence is a testament to the liberalness of Raja Dahar. During his reign, two governors were Buddhists. Not only that, but an Arab Muslim Mohammed Alafi and his whole tribe, who were fleeing persecution of Banu Umayas, was granted asylum by Raja Dahar. Raja Dahar was so generous with them that they were permitted to stamp coins which bore Alafi’s name on one face. Examples of such generosity are rare indeed in history.
Accusing such a generous minded king of being prejudiced, made as it is by people whose own history is a testament to narrow-mindedness and bigotry, is nothing short of malicious.
4. The fourth charge laid against Raja Dahar is that he was hedonistic and cruel. Heaven knows what the intent of the slanderers is in using such terms. Who is the real criminal? The ones who sent two daughters of the Raja as a “gift”, the adulterer who married their mother forcibly, those who considered it proper to make Sindhi women slaves and have illicit relations with them — such rapists, the ones who sold thousands of Sindhis into slavery; or the one who gave his life defending his country?
9. Epilogue
In 712 A.D., Raja Dahar was martyred fighting for the cause of Sindh Every true Sindhi should admire his sacrifice and accomplishment. I will consider him the first among the among the hallowed circle of those who laid down their life for Sindh. After him, Sindh was under the tutelage of aliens for 340 years, until the Sindhi clan of Soomra’s restored a purely Sindhi government once more.
‘bhaggo’ aaon na chavaan,
‘maariyo’ ta visahaan kaandha
munhan men dhakarraa,
sekiinde sunhaan
ta pirna lajja maraan,
je huvanisi putthi men
— Shah Latif
Kalyan Advani gives its meaning as follows (my translation):
“[A consort of a brave says:] I will not say that my man has run away from battle, but I would believe if he died. I will admire the wounds he receives in the front, but die of shame if he is wounded in the back (running away from battle.
