Why did Pakistanis decided to keep Thier pre-islamic sirnames while Muslims in rest of the South Asia didn't?

[Shah_G]

Fabricated history, false idols​

Muhammad Bin Qasim is a central figure in the history of Pakistan, invoked by the leaders of Pakistan Movement in the past and still quoted as the first Pakistani in our national curriculum today. The story of his conquest of Sindh as the origins of Islam in the sub-continent reifies the idea of Muslim foreignness to the land, cultures, religions, histories of the sub-continent. Pakistan then enters into the picture as the preserver of this alienness. The story of Muhammad Bin Qasim’s conquest, however, is rife with historical inaccuracies. Arab General Muhammad Bin Qasim conquered Sindh in 712 AD and became another invader termed a superhero for the emotional people of Pakistan. However, the facts surrounding this conquest, and the ill fate that followed for the conqueror is known to few among us. People today are divided on his adorned status some term him as a preacher and some say he was a predator.

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

People started joining the Arab forces led by Muhammad Bin Qasim due to poverty and unemployment following the mass desecration of Sindh after the war. According to Dr Mubarak Ali, the Arabs started ruling under the umbrella of an ancient elite class, thus their behavior 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 victimized classes of society, which is claimed to be the focus of Islamic governance. Chachnama, a Sindhi book published by the Sindhi Adabi Board in 2008, speaks of Muhammad bin Qasim’s demise.

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 Muhammad Bin Qasim who had robbed him of the purity, he would otherwise have had, the Caliph 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 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 daughters then spoke in return and said, “The fact is that Muhammad bin 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.”

But this isn’t the only story about the controversial Muhammad Bin Qasim, there is another version. According to the famous history book 14 Infallibles, the siege of the holy Mecca and the escape of noble Syeds (Grandchildren of the Holy Prophet PBUH). The 692 AD ‘Siege of Mecca’ occurred after the Islamic Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan sent his General Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf with a large army to Mecca where rebel Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr ruled, to put an end to the rival Caliphate. The siege was brutal and destructive and ended after six months with the death of ibn Zubair.

Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf was one of `Abd al-Malik most able generals and administrators. Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, the governor of Hejaz, was `Abd al-Malik strongest opponent. Ibn Yusuf set off to subdue Mecca several times before he succeeded. In 689, he had to return to Damascus to help quell a rebellion. In 690 he met with failure. But the rebellious northern tribes capitulated in 691, and he defeated the weakened army of the governor of Basra, Mu’sab ibn al-Zubayr, by bribing many of his soldiers to switch sides and kill their leader. He then turned his attention to the rebel caliph, al-Zubayr. He besieged Mecca in 692 with almost 12,000 Syrian troops. He advanced unopposed as far as his native Taif, which he took without any fighting and used as a base. He bombarded the Holy City using catapults from the mountain of Abu Qubays. The bombardment continued during the month of the Pilgrimage or Hajj. After the siege had lasted for seven months and 10,000 men, among them two of Abdullah Ibn al-Zubair’s sons, had gone over to al-Hajjaj, Abd-Allah ibn al-Zubayr with a few loyal followers, including his youngest son, were killed in the fighting around the Kaaba. The siege resulted in the killing of men and rapes of women. According to historians, women in large numbers were raped. During the mass killing, the Syeds (members of the Prophet’s family) were prime targets owing to centuries-old rivalry between the Hashemites and Ummayids.

Many Syeds were killed and a few most women had no option but to escape. They escaped to various regions; some went to Iran and a group of them chosen the area known as Sindh (Debal) which was ruled by a Hindu Raja Dahir. Historians narrated that Raja Dahir welcomes the members of the noble family and offered them asylum knowing that they belong to the royal Muslim family. Hajjaj after the desecrations shifted his attention to the purge of the Syeds and found out that some key members escaped to Sindh. He sent several letters to Raja Dahir to return his prisoners which Dahir refused. Hajjah known for his cruelty was furious and organized an army led by his son in law Muhammad bin Qasim.

Muhammad Bin Qasim conquered the Sindh and later he was astonished to know the real reason behind his attack. He returned and confronted Hajjaj. The ruler Hajjaj imprisoned bin Qasim fearing a revolt against his rule will end if people get to know how he fabricated the entire siege and attack on Sindh. Bin Qasim mysteriously died in the prison and the history as it was narrated by the historians under the control of the cruel Ummayad and Abbassi rulers. After centuries later, a large number of people consider Muhammad Bin Qasim a hero, a savior while the ones who were killed of deprived by his ruthless and unjust attack consider him a predator. The history remains fabricated and based on lies fanned by the vicious rulers and the subjugated historians of the Ummayad era.This contestation also brings into the question whole idea of Muslim alienness to the sub-continent. This false narrative has spurred such historical violence as the persecution of Muslims in India and of Hindus in Pakistan.

 

[Maula Jatt]

This is actually a comic piece from book named "Persepolis" by Iranian author describing Iranian history

Unfortunately a lot of this holds true for this region and is eye opening to say the least (if you read the text in that comic piece)

 

[Wergeland 2.0]

Fabricated history, false idols​

Muhammad Bin Qasim is a central figure in the history of Pakistan, invoked by the leaders of Pakistan Movement in the past and still quoted as the first Pakistani in our national curriculum today. The story of his conquest of Sindh as the origins of Islam in the sub-continent reifies the idea of Muslim foreignness to the land, cultures, religions, histories of the sub-continent. Pakistan then enters into the picture as the preserver of this alienness. The story of Muhammad Bin Qasim’s conquest, however, is rife with historical inaccuracies. Arab General Muhammad Bin Qasim conquered Sindh in 712 AD and became another invader termed a superhero for the emotional people of Pakistan. However, the facts surrounding this conquest, and the ill fate that followed for the conqueror is known to few among us. People today are divided on his adorned status some term him as a preacher and some say he was a predator.

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

People started joining the Arab forces led by Muhammad Bin Qasim due to poverty and unemployment following the mass desecration of Sindh after the war. According to Dr Mubarak Ali, the Arabs started ruling under the umbrella of an ancient elite class, thus their behavior 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 victimized classes of society, which is claimed to be the focus of Islamic governance. Chachnama, a Sindhi book published by the Sindhi Adabi Board in 2008, speaks of Muhammad bin Qasim’s demise.

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 Muhammad Bin Qasim who had robbed him of the purity, he would otherwise have had, the Caliph 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 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 daughters then spoke in return and said, “The fact is that Muhammad bin 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.”

But this isn’t the only story about the controversial Muhammad Bin Qasim, there is another version. According to the famous history book 14 Infallibles, the siege of the holy Mecca and the escape of noble Syeds (Grandchildren of the Holy Prophet PBUH). The 692 AD ‘Siege of Mecca’ occurred after the Islamic Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan sent his General Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf with a large army to Mecca where rebel Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr ruled, to put an end to the rival Caliphate. The siege was brutal and destructive and ended after six months with the death of ibn Zubair.

Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf was one of `Abd al-Malik most able generals and administrators. Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, the governor of Hejaz, was `Abd al-Malik strongest opponent. Ibn Yusuf set off to subdue Mecca several times before he succeeded. In 689, he had to return to Damascus to help quell a rebellion. In 690 he met with failure. But the rebellious northern tribes capitulated in 691, and he defeated the weakened army of the governor of Basra, Mu’sab ibn al-Zubayr, by bribing many of his soldiers to switch sides and kill their leader. He then turned his attention to the rebel caliph, al-Zubayr. He besieged Mecca in 692 with almost 12,000 Syrian troops. He advanced unopposed as far as his native Taif, which he took without any fighting and used as a base. He bombarded the Holy City using catapults from the mountain of Abu Qubays. The bombardment continued during the month of the Pilgrimage or Hajj. After the siege had lasted for seven months and 10,000 men, among them two of Abdullah Ibn al-Zubair’s sons, had gone over to al-Hajjaj, Abd-Allah ibn al-Zubayr with a few loyal followers, including his youngest son, were killed in the fighting around the Kaaba. The siege resulted in the killing of men and rapes of women. According to historians, women in large numbers were raped. During the mass killing, the Syeds (members of the Prophet’s family) were prime targets owing to centuries-old rivalry between the Hashemites and Ummayids.

Many Syeds were killed and a few most women had no option but to escape. They escaped to various regions; some went to Iran and a group of them chosen the area known as Sindh (Debal) which was ruled by a Hindu Raja Dahir. Historians narrated that Raja Dahir welcomes the members of the noble family and offered them asylum knowing that they belong to the royal Muslim family. Hajjaj after the desecrations shifted his attention to the purge of the Syeds and found out that some key members escaped to Sindh. He sent several letters to Raja Dahir to return his prisoners which Dahir refused. Hajjah known for his cruelty was furious and organized an army led by his son in law Muhammad bin Qasim.

Muhammad Bin Qasim conquered the Sindh and later he was astonished to know the real reason behind his attack. He returned and confronted Hajjaj. The ruler Hajjaj imprisoned bin Qasim fearing a revolt against his rule will end if people get to know how he fabricated the entire siege and attack on Sindh. Bin Qasim mysteriously died in the prison and the history as it was narrated by the historians under the control of the cruel Ummayad and Abbassi rulers. After centuries later, a large number of people consider Muhammad Bin Qasim a hero, a savior while the ones who were killed of deprived by his ruthless and unjust attack consider him a predator. The history remains fabricated and based on lies fanned by the vicious rulers and the subjugated historians of the Ummayad era.This contestation also brings into the question whole idea of Muslim alienness to the sub-continent. This false narrative has spurred such historical violence as the persecution of Muslims in India and of Hindus in Pakistan.

This article sounds like a typical twelver shiite rewriting of sunni-muslim history.

The Umayads are til today never held as high in regard as Rashiduns, for good reasons. Caliph Al Walid Ibn Abd Al Malik was many things but womanizer was not one of them. After all his father was a very strict man who was a scholar from Medina, as much that he had the nickname «dew of the stone». Al Walid was known as a pious man but his younger brother Sulayman Bin Abd Al Malik was famous for his relaxed lifestyle and love for food.

Kasim Bin Muhammad was only 16 years old when his uncle the viceroy of Khurasan; Al Hajjaj Bin Yousuf, sent him to conqour lands on eastern borders and bring it into folds of Islam.

Contrary to what many non-muslims believe; the arabs did not force convert people and was bound by strict sharia code of warfare and ruling of non-muslims. Which encompass not harming civillians and to not desecrate plces of worship etc. That is not to say arab forces were always exemplary. But in theory if found guilty, a soldier could literally loose his neck.

According to even western researchers Bin Muhammad left the existing power system intact when he conqoured modern day Pakistan. People continued to live as they did before Arabs came. The difference was the taxes were now paid to arabs instead of former leaders.

This model was used over and over right from the beginning of conquests outside of Arabia proper during the Khilafah of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq RA. Arabs goal was to implement Islam as the single political guidence system, governing over all other systems.The Prophet spent 20 years in his ordained struggle to convert Arabs to Islam before he succeded in his divine mission. How can one then expect newly conqoured non-arab peoples to accept islam en masse and even accept it truly from their hearts. Some might did but the culture of Jahiliyah is very hard to eradicate.

The later Umayaad Caliphs were more interested in wealth than spreading Islam, which by the time of Caliph Yazid Bin Abd Al Malik probably became only a secondary goal.

 

[El Sidd]

a Sindhi book published by the Sindhi Adabi Board in 2008,

Lol

Brilliant.

What does the book say about Bhutto?

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

My last name is just my father’s name. My son’s last name is my first name. We know our identity and subclan or gotra as bhartis say, which is ramay.

We South Indians also use father's name as the last name. No wonder South Indians love Pakistan.

 

[AgnosticIndian]

Thats coz most of us were not lower caste hindus and are proud of our heritage.

non-dominant castes are proud of their heritage too.

we never cared about vedic, Hindustani, barahmin and their views even before Islam

who's we? as far as I know Sindh and all of Punjab absolutely did care. and so did the Hindu Shahis in Afghanistan, no?

 

[MastanKhan]

Caste structure remained. Indian muslims became pathans, syeds, shah etc While in Pakistan there was no social pressure to adopt foreign identities for landholding castes apart from low caste converts. You see lots of mughals in Pakistan who are basically low caste converts but claim to be decedents of Babur. But when someone ask them why they are landless, they come with all sort of excuses. Their favourite excuse is sikhs toke away all their land.

Hi,

The british took away everything the muslims had after the war of independence---1857---. There was not much left.

 

[Paitoo]

Why did Pakistanis decided to keep Thier pre-islamic surnames while largely Muslims in rest of South Asia didn't?

You rarely see Muslims of Bangladesh, India even Sri Lanka with Thier pre Islamic sir names
All of them pretty much use first name as last or minority use foreign name
and are generally aggressively against this whole buisness of clans/caste (we are agressivelly against this too)/tribes

While here you seem to find people using Thier pre isalmic sir names

It's an interesting phenomenon on how eventhough we are all Muslims of SC but we devaloped in a different way compared to other Muslims of south Asia

How did it happen? Why did Muslims in rest of the south Asia just did a complete 180 degree turn?

Why didn't we followed Thier example?


@Talwar e Pakistan , @Joe Shearer ,@Indus Pakistan ,@DrJekyll ,@Novus ordu seclorum ,@Bilal9

I don't think its true that most Pakistanis use their clan / caste as their surname, though it might be more prevalent than among rest of the south Asians. At least when I look at the names of well known Pakistanis it does not appear so. It is possible that some feudals continue to use their clan names because they believe it will automatically command respect (in politics), or help to cement ties (business), or project yourself as a martial race (military recruitment).

In India no particular trend emerges among Muslims because it differs from region to region. In Kerala they follow the tradition (like Hindus and Muslims) or prefixing the Father's + Village name as abbreviation. In Tamil Nadu they choose early Arabic Names for some reason (Abu Bakr is quite popular), Deccani Muslims (Andhra, Telangana, Karnataka) use 'normal' sounding Muslim names as surnames. In Gujarat it is mostly after profession (Atttarwala, Merchant, Mistry, Kapadia etc). In cowbelt surnames like Qureshi, Ansari, Khan, Malik, Chaudhary etc are popular. Kashmiri Muslims often use clan based surnames. In India, Khan has become like Kumar of Hindus - a surname to ditch caste

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

Why did Pakistanis decided to keep Thier pre-islamic surnames while largely Muslims in rest of South Asia didn't?

You rarely see Muslims of Bangladesh, India even Sri Lanka with Thier pre Islamic sir names
All of them pretty much use first name as last or minority use foreign name
and are generally aggressively against this whole buisness of clans/caste (we are agressivelly against this too)/tribes

While here you seem to find people using Thier pre isalmic sir names

It's an interesting phenomenon on how eventhough we are all Muslims of SC but we devaloped in a different way compared to other Muslims of south Asia

How did it happen? Why did Muslims in rest of the south Asia just did a complete 180 degree turn?

Why didn't we followed Thier example?


@Talwar e Pakistan , @Joe Shearer ,@Indus Pakistan ,@DrJekyll ,@Novus ordu seclorum ,@Bilal9

Whats in a surname?A very trivial thing it is.But can be oxymoronic..
Regarding why some clans changed theirs..Religious identity,,Cant goto hajj with a last name of pandit..

 

[Maula Jatt]

non-dominant castes are proud of their heritage too.


who's we? as far as I know Sindh and all of Punjab absolutely did care. and so did the Hindu Shahis in Afghanistan, no?

People of modern-day Pakistan had a tribal social structure while people of modern-day India largely had a caste social system.

Our surnames are defined by our tribe/biradari/clan which does not change after conversion.

 

[Genghis khan1]

Caste structure remained. Indian muslims became pathans, syeds, shah etc While in Pakistan there was no social pressure to adopt foreign identities for landholding castes apart from low caste converts. You see lots of mughals in Pakistan who are basically low caste converts but claim to be decedents of Babur. But when someone ask them why they are landless, they come with all sort of excuses. Their favourite excuse is sikhs toke away all their land.

Never heard anyone faking to be Mughal. May be in India . Thing about Mughals is that you can easily distinguish them because of their light skin color and different facial outlook. It’s not uncommon for them to born with mongol birth mark.

After the failure of 1857 war of Independence, Mughals families
were the prime target and were hunted down by British and their local collaborators. Many end up in the mountains of Kashmir other just scattered wherever they can find refuge.

 

[AgnosticIndian]

@Sainthood 101 that is a fiction. tribes and clans also exist in India, they are not seprate from caste. it's the same Jatts, Gujjars etc. castes are organised in clans, they're not seprate things. the Sindhis in India also have caste, am I supposed to believe it magically doesn't exist in the original Sindh? at best they've disguised it under layers and the same discrimination against non-dominant "clans and tribes" goes on.

 

[Maula Jatt]

@Sainthood 101 that is a fiction. tribes and clans also exist in India, they are not seprate from caste. it's the same Jatts, Gujjars etc. castes are organised in clans, they're not seprate things. the Sindhis in India also have caste, am I supposed to believe it magically doesn't exist in the original Sindh? at best they've disguised it under layers and the same discrimination against non-dominant "clans and tribes" goes on.

@Talwar e Pakistan

 

[hydrabadi_arab]

Never heard anyone faking to be Mughal. May be in India . Thing about Mughals is that you can easily distinguish them because of their light skin color and different facial outlook. It’s not uncommon for them to born with mongol birth mark.

After the failure of 1857 war of Independence, Mughals families
were the prime target and were hunted down by British and their local collaborators. Many end up in the mountains of Kashmir other just scattered wherever they can find refuge.

Only hazaras are distinguished with their mongoloid features and they moved in from Afghanistan in 19th century. Im talking about punjab mughals. Mughal empire was long gone by 1857 from Pakistan.

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

Only hazaras are distinguished with their mongoloid features and they moved in from Afghanistan in 19th century. Im talking about punjab mughals. Mughal empire was long gone by 1857 from Pakistan.

Also people in Gilgit Baltistan..have mongoloid features.