Arab invasion of India: Battle of Raor

[Bhadra]

Raja Dahir as Sindhi nationalist : GM Syed

For instance Raja Dahir is respected as a nationalist, as a hero of Sindh, but the imperialists call Raja Dahir as an
infidel. But Raja Dahir was a great man. My thesis is as follows:

1. When he came to know that Yazid was harassing Imam Hussain, the grandson of Prophet Mohammed, Raja
Dahir invited him to come and settle in Sindh under his protection. It is said that the Imam had started coming
towards Sindh and Yazid knew that he had started, along with the members of his family. You can understand
from this intention why a non-Muslim invited Imam Sahib, and on the other hand the so-called Muslim ruler,
Yazid, killed him. You can imagine the greatness of this Hindu ruler.

2. After the martyrdom of Imam Hussain, one of his followers, on account of the tyranny of Hijaj-bin-Yousif,
came to Sindh. Raja Dahir gave him protection. Hijaj demanded from Raja Dahir to give back Muhammad Bin-Alafi and his people to the Arabs. This, Raja Dahir refused to return. It is said that he sent Muhammad-Bin-
Alafi, after the defeat of Raja Dahir, to Allahabad side from where some of his descendants recently migrated to
Sindh.

1. Muhammad-Bin-Alafi along with his tribes joined Raja Dahir's army and on several occasions succeeded in
showing the bravery, on which Raja Dahir wanted to reward him. He refused to accept such a reward, saying
that giving protection under his rule was a sufficient reward for him, on that Raja Dahir ordered to
commemorate the memory of that success, the name of Muhammad-Bin-Alafi be engraved on other side of the
coin and then the coin be minted.

2. During Raja Dahir's days, his toleration was so much that he allowed Stupas of Buddha to continue in Sindh,
where the Bikhshoos of Buddha continued to remain. On the other side, the Hindu temples were allowed for the
worship of Hindus, and also Janis temples were allowed to remain in Sindh and those Muslims who had
migrated to Sindh during his days were allowed to construct mosques. Parsis too had their fire temples during
his days. Most of the followers of these religions had patronage of the Government. If you read history, you will
find that Muhammad-Bin-Qasim, the so-called captain, on conquering the country, looted crores of rupees from
Sindh and thousands of men and women were made slaves for the benefit of Arab soldiers or those slave girls
were sold in Arab bazaars. He ordered all the persons who did not surrender to the new invaders, to be killed
and their property looted. Look at the same peoples of Sindh, who on the misleading of Arabs, now consider
Muhammad-Bin-Qasim the champion of Islam. People celebrated his days but the person who sacrificed his life
for his country and had many qualities, is called a Kafir. Many false stories are fabricated to malign Raja Dahir.

 

[Bhadra]

History of Sindh

BC 6000 : Indus Valley - Neolithic settlements.
BC 5000 : Farming, pottery and beads developed.
BC 4000 : Potter's wheel and bow drill invented.
BC 3500 : Growth of pottery.
BC 3000 : Amri civilization and its ruins.
BC 3100-850 : Sindhi language evolved over a period of 2400 years.
BC 2500 : Kani Kot ruins - civilization
BC 2300 : Mohen-jo-daro civilization
BC 1700 : Aryan rule for about 1000 years starting 1700 BC.
BC 1500 : Sehwan (Sivistan) was important center of Shiva cult.
BC 810 : Egyptian Emperor Sume Rames attacked Sindh
BC 566-490 : Huns ruled Sindh.
BC 519 : Sindh annexed to Persian Achaemenian Empire ruled by King Darius for about 125 years.
BC 326-325 : Alexander the "Great" stormed through the Indus Valley, met resistance in Sindh and was injured in Multan.
BC 313 : Buddhism was popularised in Sindh during emperor Ashoka's period.


AD 280-500 : Persian rule.
AD 550-711 : i) Rai Sahiras and his son Rai Sahasi ruled Sindh and formed Rai Dynasty. (ii) Chach succeeded the Rai and founded Brahman Dynasty. (iii) Raja Dahar (Chach's son) took over from Chander (Chach's brother). Raja Dahar ruled Sindh for several years until the invasion of Arabs, when he was martyred.
AD 711-1026 : Sindh was invaded by a 17-year old Arab General,
Muhammad Bin Qasim, establishing the Arab rule for next
305 years.
AD 1026-1350 : Soomro Dynasty ruled Sindh for 300 years.
AD 1054 : Soomras faced ruinous invasion by Mahmood Ghaznavi and
Allauddin Khilji.
AD 1351 : The rise of the Samma Dynasty in Sindh. "Jams of
Lasbella or currently known as the Alianis"
AD 1521-1554 : Arghun Rule was established in Sindh by Shah
Beg. He was a descendant of Changez Khan.
AD 1554-1591 : General Mirza Isa Beg found Tarkhan Dynasty in
Sindh (Turks in origin) after the death of Shah Hassan Arghun.
AD 1555 : Portuguese sacked Thatta, a bustling metropolis of
Sindh.
AD 1591-1700 : Shanshah Akbar, the Ruler of Hindustan, annexed Sindh, and ruled Sindh by appointing his governors. (40 Governors were appointed during the 81 years of rule.)
AD 1701-1782 : Kalhoras ruled Sindh for 85 years. Twelve Kalhora rulers ruled during this time. This period is known as the golden period of Sindhi literature. Poets like Shah Abdul Latif Bhitai, Sachal Sarmast, and Sami are among the prominent poets of Sindh.
AD 1782-1843 : Talpurs ruled Sindh for 61 years. The country was divided into three states - Hyderabad State, Khairpur State and the State of Mirpur Khas.
AD 1843 : Talpur rulers of Sindh and Baluchistan were defeated by the British under Sir Charles Napier.
AD 1847 : Sindh was made part of Bombay Presidency by the British.
AD 1851 : Sindhi language was declared official language of Sindh.
AD 1853 : Final and refined version of Sindhi script was adopted by the British throughout Sindh and Bombay, which still exist in Sindh today.
AD 1908 : Barrister Ghulam M. Bhurgri and Harchandrai Vishindas demanded independence of Sindh from Bombay.
AD 1936 : Sindh regained independence from Bombay Presidency.


AD 1947 : India achieved independence from British rule after a long struggle and great sacrifices. Sindh became part of newly created Islamic State of Pakistan. Riots and violence erupted in Sindh. A massive exodus of Hindu Sindhis resulted. More than 1.1 million Sindhis migrated to India.

 

[Bhadra]

Sindhis hail from Sindh, a province, now in Pakistan, but previously a part of undivided India. It was in Sindh where one of the earliest, world-renowned, Indus Valley civilization (2300 BC - 1760 BC) flourished. The Indus Valley civilization is considered a marvel in social set-up and communal living. Sindh covers an area of 58,000 square miles. It's capital is Karachi.





The first mention of Sind is to be found in the Mahabharata, where Jayadratha the Aryan king of Sind fought against Krishna - on the side of the Kauravas against the Pandavas. Mention is also made in the Upanishads about Sind being famous for horses ! It is not known how long the Aryan kings ruled in the land, but Sind is next mentioned in History about five centuries before Christ, when Darius, the King of Iran (Persia), attacked India, captured the Punjab and then sailed from Peshawar in boats down the river Indus, and conquered it.

Hindu Sindhis were forced by circumstances beyond their control to leave their land of birth, their homes and belongings and flee to India in 1947.







DYNASTIES RULING SINDH

Sindh Was Ruled By The Following Dynasties After the Arab Invasion:

The Sumra Dynasty (750 [1026?] - 1350 A.D.)


The Samma Dynasty (1351 - 1521 A.D.)



The Arghun Dynasty (1521 - 1554 A.D.)



The Turkhan Dynasty (1555 - 1608 A.D.)



The Moghul Dynasty (1608 - 1701 A.D.)



The Kalhora Dynasty (1701 - 1783 A.D.)



The Talpur Dynasty (1783 - 1843 A.D.)



The British Rule (1843 - 1947 A.D.)



The Pakistani Rule (1947 A.D. Onward

http://sanj.yolasite.com/history-of-sindh.php

 

[Bhadra]

Slavery : Consequences of Arab Invasion

JIHAD : A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery
M. A. Khan
Felibri.com
Islam Watch - "Book Release: Islamic Jihad–A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, Slavery" by MA Khan




Islam's assault on Indian frontiers started during Caliph Omar with the attack and
pillage of Thana in 636, just four years after Prophet Muhammad's death. Eight more such plundering
expeditions followed under succeeding caliphs: Othman, Ali and Mu'awiyah. These early assaults by Muslim
invaders sometimes yielded booty and slaves besides slaughter and pillage, but failed to gain a foothold for
Islam in India. With Caliph al-Walid's blessings, Hajjaj bin Yusuf sent two expeditions to Sindh, led by
Ubaidullah and Budail. Both campaigns failed suffering heavy casualties; both commanders were slain.
Sorely wounded at heart, Hajjaj next sent his nephew and son-in-law Qasim at the head of 6,000 soldiers. He
overran Debal in Sindh in 712, digging a firm and lasting foothold of Islam in Hindustan.

Debal, records famous Muslim historian al-Biladuri, 'was taken by assault, and the carnage endured for three days"¦ the
priests of the temple were massacred.'683 He put the males above seventeen years of age to the sword and
enslaved the women and children. The total number of captives taken in Debal is not recorded; but among
them were 700 beautiful women, who had taken refuse in temples, records Chachnama. Caliph's one-fifth
share of the booty and slaves, which included seventy-five damsels, was sent to Hajjaj. The rest were
distributed amongst his soldiers. In the attack of Rawar, records Chachnama, 'When the number of prisoners was calculated, it was
found to amount to thirty thousand persons, amongst whom were the daughters of the chiefs, and one of them
was Rai Dahir's sister's daughter.' One-fifth of the prisoners and the spoils were sent to Hajjaj.685 As records
Chachnama, when Brahmanabad fell to Muslims, in which 8,000 to 26,000 men were slain, 'One-fifth of all
the prisoners were chosen and set aside; they were counted as amounting to twenty thousand in number, and
the rest were given to the soldiers.' This means, about 100,000 women and children were enslaved in this
assault.

One consignment of caliph's share of the booty included 30,000 women and children and slain
Dahir's head. Among the captives were a few girls of Sindh nobility. Hajjaj forwarded the caravan of booty
and slaves to Caliph al-Walid in Damascus. 'When the Khalifa of the time read the letter,' records
Chachnama, 'he praised Almighty Allah. He sold some of those daughters of the chiefs, and some he granted
as rewards. When he saw the daughters of Rai Dahir's sister, he was so much stuck with her beauty and
charms, and began to bite his fingers with astonishment.'

In the attack of Multan, records al-Biladuri, there were, among the captives, 'ministers of the temple,
to the number of six thousand.'This figure should give us an idea of total number of women and children
enslaved in Multan. Qasim undertook similar expeditions in Sehwan and Dhalila among others. His rather
small feat in Sindh over a short period of three years (712–15) might have yielded to the tune of three hundred
thousand slaves in all.

 

[Bhadra]

Slavery : Consequences of Arab Invasion

JIHAD : A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery
M. A. Khan
Felibri.com
Islam Watch - "Book Release: Islamic Jihad–A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, Slavery" by MA Khan




During 715 to 1000 CE:

After Qasim's recall in 715, Muslim campaigns of slaughter and enslavement became somewhat subdued, but low-intensity campaigns continued nonetheless. During the reign of the only orthodox Umayyad Caliph Omar (717–20), his lieutenant Amru bin Muslim made several Jihad expeditions against Hindu territories and subdued them; these undoubtedly had yielded slaves. During Caliph Hasham bin Abdul Malik (r. 724–43), Sindh military chief Junaid bin Abdur Rahman engaged in a number of victorious campaigns. In his attack of Kiraj, he 'stormed the place, slaying, plundering, and making captives.' In his incursions against Ujjain and Baharimad, he burnt down the suburbs and plunder great booty. Booty invariably included captives.
After the orthodox Abbasid dynasty was founded in 750, Caliph al-Mansur (r. 755–74) sent Hasham bin Amru for waging holy war against Hindu territories. He 'subdued Kashmir and took many prisoners and slaves"¦' He attacked many places between Kandahar and Kashmir, and every victory must have yielded captives, which are not recorded. Great Muslim historian Ibn Asir (Athir) records in Kamil-ut Tawarikh that during Caliph Al-Mahdi's reign, Abdul Malik led a large naval Jihad expedition against India in 775. They disembarked at Barada and in the sustained battle with the people of the neighborhood, the Muslim army prevailed. 'Some of the people were burned, the rest were slain and twenty Musalmans perished in testimony of their faith,' records Asir.691 The number of captives is not recorded.

During Caliph al-Mamun's reign (r. 813–33), Commander Afif bin Isa led an expedition against the revolting Hindus. After defeating and slaughtering them, the surviving 27,000 men, women and children were enslaved.692 The next Caliph al-Mutasim's governor of Sindh, Amran bin Musa, attacked and defeated Multan and Kandabil, and 'carried away its inhabitants' as captives.693 In about 870, Yakub Lais attacked Ar-Rukhaj
(Aracosia) and the enslaved inhabitants were forced to embrace Islam.

 

[Bhadra]

Slavery : Consequences of Arab Invasion

JIHAD : A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery
M. A. Khan
Felibri.com
Islam Watch - "Book Release: Islamic Jihad–A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, Slavery" by MA Khan



....... scheme of Dewshirme, has been severely criticized (which was being practiced) in accordance with the Sunni Sharia law, had their justification for the Dewshirme in the Quran and Islamic laws. The Quran 8:42 says, 'And know that whatever thing you gain (spoils of war), a fifth of it is for
Allah and for the Messenger"¦

The one-fifth of the plunder obtained from the infidels in wars, allotted to Allah and his messenger, initially went to Prophet Muhammad, the head and treasury of the nascent Islamic state. After his death, this share was acquired by the caliphal treasury. A minimum one-fifth of all produce from Dhimmi subjects was collected as kharaj under a taxation policy promulgated by Caliph Omar, although this share was often raised higher under special circumstances or by whimsical Muslim rulers. Since, newly born children of the infidels were also a kind of produce of the state, the institution of Dewshirme became justified in Islamic holy laws.

The Prophet himself had set an example of acquiring Christian children when he forbade the tribe of Taghlib not to baptize their children. Later on, Caliph Omar ordered another Taghlib tribe 'not to mark their children (with cross on their arm or wrist) and not to force their religion on them (i.e., not to baptize them). As a result, those children entered the house of Islam. The only difference is that the Prophet and Caliph Omar had acquired all the children of the Taghlib tribes, while the Ottomans acquired only a part of them through Dewshirme.

According to Ibn Warraq:

Under Islam, slaves have no legal rights whatsoever, they are considered mere "things"—the property of their master, who may dispose them in any way he chooses—sale, gifts etc. Slaves cannot be guardians or testamentary executors, and what they earned belongs to their owner. A slave cannot give evidence in a court of law. Even conversion to Islam by a non-Muslim slave does not mean that he is automatically liberated. There is no obligation on the part of the owner to free him (and her)


************************************************

Of the approximately 300,000 Indians enslaved by Qasim in his three-year campaign in Sindh, he forwarded onefifth
portion to the caliph in Damascus. The caliph used to add the young and pretty female slaves of noble or
royal birth to his harem, give some of them to his nobles as gifts, engage many in various services of the royal
court and sell the rest for generating revenues.

 

[Bhadra]

Consequences of Arab Invasion : Conversion by the sword

Conversion by the sword was initiated by Prophet Muhammad by giving the Polytheists a choice between death and conversion to Islam in compliance to Allah's command in Quran 9:5. The Hindus, therefore, were supposed to be given a choice between death and Islam.

When Muhammad bin Qasim began the conquest of Sindh, he exercised the policy of converting the people of a territory, which gave a fight, at the pain of death. He gave quarters to the people, if they submitted to his invading army without giving a fight. He did not force them to convert. When the report of his latter lenient policy reached his patron Hajjaj in Baghdad, disapproving the leniency, he wrote to Qasim:

'"¦I learnt that the ways and rules you follow are conformable to the (Islamic) Law. Except that you give protection to all, great and small alike, and make no difference between enemy and friend. God says, 'Give no quarter to Infidels, but cut their throats.' Then know that this is the
command of the great god. You should not be too ready to grant protection"¦ After this, give no protection to any enemy except to those who are of rank (i.e., accept Islam). This is a worthy resolve, and want of dignity will not be imputed to you."


Having received this command from Hajjaj, Qasim followed it through in his next conquest of Brahmanabad, sparing none who did not embrace Islam. According to al-Biladuri, 'eight, or some say twenty-six thousand, men were put to the sword.' However, putting the great multitude of Hindus, who often refused to embrace Islam, to death was difficult. Instead, giving them quarters for raising taxes was a more lucrative alternative. Qasim later wrote to Hajjaj in this regard. In response, Hajjaj wrote back:

'The letter of my dear nephew Muhammad Kasim has been received and the fact understood. It appears that the chief inhabitants of Brahmanabad had petitioned to be allowed to repair the temple of Budh and pursue their religion. As they have made submission, and agreed to pay taxes to the Khalifa, nothing can be properly required from them. They have been taken under our protection (dhimmi), and we cannot in any way stretch out our hands upon their lives or property.'


Hindus were, thus, accepted as dhimmi subjects, which spared them from conversion by the sword. The Godless Umayyad rulers were more interested in filling the treasury by extracting higher taxes from non- Muslim subjects than converting them to Islam. For example, al-Hajjaj harshly treated those, who converted to Islam. When a group of non-Muslims came to him to inform their acceptance of Islam, al-Hajjaj refused to recognize their conversion and ordered his troops to return them to their villages. The first Umayyad Caliph Mu'awiyah desperately wanted the Egyptian Copts not to convert to Islam, 'claiming that if they all convert to the true religion (Islam), they will cause the treasury a great loss in income from the jizyah.'
The leniency, accorded to Hindus by the Godless Umayyads, was obviously a violation of the canonical Islamic laws of the Quran and Sunnah. This irreverent concession was later included in the Hanafi laws; all other Schools of Islamic laws demand death or conversion of Polytheists. Therefore, as far as forced conversion is concerned, the infidels of India suffered the mildest of persecution. (under Mhuhamd Bin Qasim)

 

[Bhadra]

Consequences of Arab Invasion : Conversion by the sword


Following the extermination of the Godless Umayyad dynasty in 750, the more orthodox rulers often converted Hindus at the pain of death. Saffaride ruler Yakub Lais captured Kabul in 870 and took the prince of Kabul prisoner. He put the king of Ar-Rukhaj to death, destroyed and plundered the temples and the inhabitants were forced to embrace Islam. He returned to his capital loaded with booty, which included heads of three kings and many statues of Indian divinities.

In Sultan Mahmud's conquest of Kanauj, 'the inhabitants either accepted Islam or took up arms against him to become the food of Islamic swords,' records his secretary Abu Nasr al-Utbi. In the captured of Baran, records al-Utbi, 'since God's sword was drawn from the scabbard, and the whip of punishment was uplifted"¦ ten thousand men proclaimed their anxiety for conversion and their rejection of idols.'

After conquering a city, Sultan Mahmud—an educated cultured man and a master of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh)—would normally slaughter the men of fighting age, enslave their women and children and force the remaining inhabitants to embrace Islam. He used to place on the throne a converted prince, who must run the affairs of the state according to Islamic laws and oversee the propagation of Islam and the suppression of idol-worship. One such converted prince was Nawasa Shah. After Sultan Mahmud retired from India, records al-Utbi, 'Satan had got the better of Nawasa Shah, for he was again apostatizing towards the pit of plural worship"¦ So the Sultan went swifter than the wind in that direction, and made the sword reek with the blood of his enemies.' This means that Sultan Mahmud did not simply convert the Hindus by the sword in his campaigns in India, but he also made it sure that the converts did not revert to their ancestral faith after his return to Ghazni. We will see in Chapter VI (Section: 1947 Riots and Massacres: Who is
responsible?) that, in the course of India's Partition in 1947, a few million Hindus and Sikhs were converted to Islam at the pain of death in East and West Pakistan.

 

[Bhadra]

Consequences of Arab Invasion : Conversion Through Enslavement


JIHAD : A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery
M. A. Khan
Felibri.com
Islam Watch - "Book Release: Islamic Jihad–A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, Slavery" by MA Khan


In the first successful encroachment into India, Muhammad bin Qasim put large numbers of men to death in
Debal, Brahmanabad and Multan. It appears that the adult men of weapon-bearing age, who fell within the
reach of the Muslim army in the course of the assaults, were ruthlessly slaughtered. Undoubtedly, many of the
grown-up men fled in all directions to escape the sword, leaving the vulnerable women and children behind,
who were carried away as slaves. Chachnama records that Qasim's assault on Rawar yielded 60,000 slaves.
In the final stages of his conquest of Sindh, says Chachnama, about 100,000 women and children were
enslaved.

The number of women and children enslaved by Muslim invaders has not been recorded
systematically for all the campaigns. It can be surmised that each of Qasim's major assaults in Sehwan,
Dhalila, Brahmanabad and Multan yielded similar numbers of captives. His brief exploit of three years in the
Sindh frontier of India (712–15) had likely yielded a few hundred thousand slaves. He always forwarded one fifth
of the captives and other spoils—the share of the state, according to the Quran [8:41], prophetic
traditions and Sharia—to the caliph in Damascus and distributed the rest amongst his soldiers. These slave
women and children became the property of Muslims and entered the house of Islam by default. When those
children grew up to be adult Muslims in a few years, the males were drafted into the Muslim army for waging
new holy wars against the Hindus, who had been their kinfolk and coreligionists a few years earlier. In other
words, in the short time-span of a decade, these captured children had become the weapon for the Muslim
state to wage new Jihad expeditions for extending the domain of Islam, for converting the vanquished
infidels, for enslaving their women and children, and for plundering their wealth. Even during the upheaval of
the Partition of India (1946–47), some 100,000 Hindu and Sikh women were enslaved, carried away and
married off to Muslims .

 

[Bhadra]

Consequences of Arab Invasion and Aftermath

One does get jitters after having read these accounts but :

(beningn rule) is the general impression of Islamic rule in India not only amongst Muslims; it is also the dominant opinion amongst modern historians of non-Muslim backgrounds. The history books in Pakistan
teach: 'Before Mohammed (Qasim) there is blackness: slavery, exploitation. After Mohammed, there is light:
slavery and exploitation vanish.' In India, the general theme of this School of history writing has been
( strangely to glorify Muslim Rule but condemn the British rule)


If history is about studying factual evidence left to posterity in the records of scholars and chroniclers of the time, then O'Leary could not possibly consider this notion about the spread of Islam to be "the most fantastically absurd myth". Of course, he would be correct, if myths and facts were synonymous. Like O'Leary, there are far too many modern Muslim historians and their fellow travelers of non-Muslim variety— particularly of the leftist-Marxist leaning—who think that investigating history is not about enumerating and unearthing facts, but about hiding them while writing sophistry. This becomes the trend particularly when it comes to writing the history of Islam. But those, who wish to find unvarnished truth about Islamic history, say in India, they should go back to the writings of Al-Kufi (Chachnama), Al-Biladuri, Alberuni, Ibn Asir, al- Utbi, Hasan Nizami, Amir Khasrau, Ziauddin Barrani, Sultan Firoz Tughlaq, Emperor Babur and Jahangir, Badaoni, Abul Fazl, Muhammad Ferishtah and many more such medieval historians. Dr Ali Issa Othman, a reputed Palestinian sociologist and advisor to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRAWA) on Education, said on the propagation of Islam that,

''The spread of Islam was military. There is a tendency (amongst Muslims) to apologize for this and we should not. It is one of the injunctions of the Quran that you must fight for spreading of Islam.''

The records and first-hand witness accounts of the medieval chroniclers, historians and rulers heartily agree with candid Othman's paradigm. Finally, it should not be forgotten that the protocol used for converting the infidels to Islam in India was the mildest in the world. Let's conclude by recalling that even Prophet Muhammad, the most charismatic reacher of Islam, failed to convert the infidels of Arabia, including his own kinfolk, in substantial numbers except by the sword.




JIHAD : A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery
M. A. Khan
Felibri.com
Islam Watch - "Book Release: Islamic Jihad–A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, Slavery" by MA Khan

,

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

Consequences of Arab Invasion : Conversion Through Enslavement


JIHAD : A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery
M. A. Khan
Felibri.com
Islam Watch - "Book Release: Islamic Jihad–A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, Slavery" by MA Khan


In the first successful encroachment into India, Muhammad bin Qasim put large numbers of men to death in
Debal, Brahmanabad and Multan. It appears that the adult men of weapon-bearing age, who fell within the
reach of the Muslim army in the course of the assaults, were ruthlessly slaughtered. Undoubtedly, many of the
grown-up men fled in all directions to escape the sword, leaving the vulnerable women and children behind,
who were carried away as slaves. Chachnama records that Qasim's assault on Rawar yielded 60,000 slaves.
In the final stages of his conquest of Sindh, says Chachnama, about 100,000 women and children were
enslaved.

The number of women and children enslaved by Muslim invaders has not been recorded
systematically for all the campaigns. It can be surmised that each of Qasim's major assaults in Sehwan,
Dhalila, Brahmanabad and Multan yielded similar numbers of captives. His brief exploit of three years in the
Sindh frontier of India (712–15) had likely yielded a few hundred thousand slaves. He always forwarded one fifth
of the captives and other spoils—the share of the state, according to the Quran [8:41], prophetic
traditions and Sharia—to the caliph in Damascus and distributed the rest amongst his soldiers. These slave
women and children became the property of Muslims and entered the house of Islam by default. When those
children grew up to be adult Muslims in a few years, the males were drafted into the Muslim army for waging
new holy wars against the Hindus, who had been their kinfolk and coreligionists a few years earlier. In other
words, in the short time-span of a decade, these captured children had become the weapon for the Muslim
state to wage new Jihad expeditions for extending the domain of Islam, for converting the vanquished
infidels, for enslaving their women and children, and for plundering their wealth. Even during the upheaval of
the Partition of India (1946–47), some 100,000 Hindu and Sikh women were enslaved, carried away and
married off to Muslims .

This explains the Arabic admixture in Pakistanis.

 

[Bhadra]

This explains the Arabic admixture in Pakistanis.

would that also explain Indian admixtures with Arabs ?

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

would that also explain Indian admixtures with Arabs ?

Do Indians have significant arabic admixture? Most of the mixed kids were brought up as Muslims so maybe some Indian Muslims do have arabic genes.

 

[Ajesh]

Do Indians have significant arabic admixture? Most of the mixed kids were brought up as Muslims so maybe some Indian Muslims do have arabic genes.

You can find many Muslims with a very fair complexion. An Unusual Fair complexion usually resembling the Middle East or Turkish People... And a Crooked Nose... Easy to spot.

 

[Peter]

Battle of Raor was certainly an important battle between the Arabs and Indians.Our Indian rulers should have formed a confederation similar to that of Christian kingdoms of Europe during the Crusades.This would have certainly helped them save themselves from invasions.