muhammad bin qasim
]indopak notes in one sight.

Ummayad dynasty under walid bin abdul malik spreaded all around.The religious motif proceded to wade war against infidels.
Paradoxial character of Hujjaj bin yousaf was important as a pillar of islamist empire..Hujjah slew Abdullah bin zubair razi tala anho ,the son of hazrat asma binte abu bakar and adopted child of hazrat Amma ayesha.

He murdered syed ibne jubair.but same time he worked over Holy book .the Quran by issuing scripts.these contained A'arabz.

Shezopherinic personality of hujjaj when he crushed the power of sunnis and banu hashim.All the Arabs went against him..he treats with rebels so badly that each at that time commit suicide instead to be handed.Abdur Rehman bin Ash'aat fled toward sind.chach favoured them.when army followed abdur rehman in sind.These Albari tribes treasously killed the army..

Chach was minister of barahmanabad kingdom.he married with the wife of his master and imprisoned him.the populace of sind is buddhist n now new Raja was chach,t.he brahman.that lead to belligrancy of jets n meds..


Third hujaj said to qasim he would award hindustand if he would lead empire towards china.There exist a source of competition between Qatiba bin muslim and qasim and ön the other hand musa bin nasir ,later his slave,TARIQ BIN ZIYAAD.

Whose famous words were


bURN THE BOATS...

Qasim expanded empire to Qanuj ,near kashmir.walid bin adul malik was on death bed and next king would be now his brother sulemayn bin abdul malik....Sulemayan forbade Musa not to enter with immense booty into saudi arab.but Musa did not obey.

When sulemayn ascended he called of qatiba bin muslim and killed him ruthlessly.next move to Qasim put him into prison.qasim faced the evils of hujaj.the young and romantic personality who entered hindustan at the age of 17.unfortunately died at the age of 22..

Qasim intention was to establish empire.he entered India in a correct direction.because iran ,afhganistan was under ummayad dynasty.so sistan,part of balochistan has already been acquired by hazrat Abdullah bin Zubair.razi tala unhu..so hindustan had,at that tym surrounded by muslims..ghori employed a wrong tactic by first invading gujrat.because he had only ghor as his empire.

If qasim entrance was episodic than ghaznavi never tempted to invade india.fact behind that jaipal formed hindushahi dynasty by replcing muslim rule.subgtagin first settled the matter by defeating jaipal.


Never wrote in exams qasim expedition was episodic.coz it is said to be Babul islam..
So i mentioned facts that proved it was not episodic and if episodic than lead way for mahmud.
If u ppl want fakts i wil provide u.

muahammad bin qasim put to death in prison.He said in prison

"what a brave man me,they killed me.i am the one who brought fruit for them..Ah!they killed.what a brave man killed"

Subgtagin blessed With th holiest prophet(p.b.u.h) dream and informed his son will be the conquerer of subcontinet"
Being the nature bless child ,he entitled with yamnadullah .like a true soldier his body was the part of horse.nay same different between him and her horse.so like a current of water he impulsed among the soldiers.

Next to be cntinue

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"

Timeless hero .

He was blessed with courage as that of tariq bin ZIYAD and general like of Great SALADIN.like all other great men ,he established his empire in ghazna.It wAS considered at that time men of great honor have vast empire.His forsigtedness stretched him toward asia and sub continet.

Mahmud lured toward central asia but jaipal preparing to attack...

kARAMTAZ

Karamtiz were originated from Ismaeli,the shia sect.that stoned to KHANA E KABA.and put out black stone from here..The religious motif set the war against Abul daud fateh...he 3 tymz wage war and last tym killed Daud.
The fact showing he was forgivable to subjects. . .

THE KHOKHARS.

History told us these were recurring menace not at ghaznavi time but at the end of english arrival.Mahmud 3rd motive was to give punish khokhars who were going to change his victory.By the grace of Allah he win and moved toward kangra hills.that was to divert khokhars so they may not prepare themselves.Than like a lion whe tattered the khokhars and crushed as tiger did.

T00

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"

If today, an Iraqi comes to Sindh to annex it, we will call him an aggressor. For me, bin Qasim was nothing more than a foreign conqueror of the Sindhi people. How was he a hero? Can you enlist his acts of heroism please?

__________________
He conquers who endures.

its very simple.scenerio changed the situation of world,iraq how?it is impsossible for him.timelessnaess acquited intemporal.ranaissance and fall is a fact that turned herp to terrorist.khalid mishael and ahmed yaseen are the heros and defeat vehemently israel via so called democracy.so being a hero is difeerent and earning ye glory different.now trauma of modern man is that it embrace rogue,prostitutes as heros and men of great character as terrorists.


second mohammed was a pious as men of that age.he spend whole night in tahjud.his treatment after conquest toward subject is that as he was thier servant.no conquest yielded without massacare .might be in case of soldiers.qasim paramounted the ways oh holy prophet sliaeh alieh e waaile ehe wasalum and bestowed the khatries of their desired post,the only thind is that ruler changed ,he allowed every one to continue their customs as they can.


caloyel said if islam spreaded via sworg than which sword converted these soldiers to muslims???

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"

When you support men like bin Qasim and Ghaznavi, you reinforce the myth that Islam was spread by the sword.

The real heroes were Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi, Ali Hujweri, Moinuddin Chishti, Nizamuddin Auliya, Shah Waliullah, etc, who helped spread Islam through love, understanding and personal examples of selflessness and piety.

Bin Qasim was a military man whose conquest of Sindh is an affair that is over-romanticized out of proportion by our very own propagandists who wish to justify and propagate their own views. You say that he spent the entire night in prayer and this is precisely the sort of stuff that can be abundantly found in our history books when "Muslim personalities" are described. The fact is that very few Pakistani historians view history objectively and instead, they view it through the lenses of the Two-Nation Theory. In the big picture, they're the students who suffer because by learning 'facts' that cannot be proven and that have more to do with political expedience than the actual truth, they remain ignorant and intellectually dead.

There was a time when the historians of Europe saved such saintly praise for their kings and heroes. Then after the intellectual revolutions of the 16th and 17th centuries, they shunned this practice because of its inherent immaturity and implied lack of confidence in our true history and abilities.

For example, Aurengzeb is celebrated as a walking bastion of chivalry and piety in our history books. Doesn't anyone care to read about what he did to his own father and brothers and how he would be tried for war crimes today for his action in his Afghan territories?

Here's my advice - if you wanna be a learned person, read history books authored by Pakistani men with a pinch of salt.

__________________
He conquers who endures.

@ Sadia Shafiq, you should have to quote references for information/stuff /material pasted in your post. References from historians etc also help out to susbtantiate your point of view.

__________________
'Thee woh ik shakhs kay tasawar saay - abb woh ranayee khayal kahaan'

my conscious prick me when i saw world full of ignorance and so sceptical that seems as going to become atheist.The revolution of ignorance lead to the all evils and FILTHY DIRTY WORD.

"Politics isolated from relegion,
The monks could not do for
That,
Thy religion separation from finance emptied slot
For greed to rule over"(iqbal)

The two sources to find the descendent accounts are anthropology and history.these two sources lack objectivity but have to rely on these sources.professing Europeon writers are best n muslim are manipulaters showing your mindstate.so why do not go on comparitive study.I often sory 4 that muslim are too much away from their origion they found only europe best.referring to Europe study the most horrible blood sheds, ethinic cleansing,and murders are accounted for them.first they created caste system ,Aryans...Brahamans..
Later created class.why do not be analytical to europe when whole muslim populace were massacarred by christians and templer knights in palestine.when SALADIN occupied jeurosalem he forbade all except mercanries or knights.as these wreaked havoc to muslim as well christian population...

So when qasim entered he stressed on ethnocentarism???he played massacre? He destroyed vegetation? He killed umaraz? Any deed of that kind..
I acquired knowledge about that not 4 indopak.bt i read books on hist ory since my childhood.I have knowledge and arguments power.

To tell u khawja muiunudin relation with GHORI.study it and Ilutmish the person never missed prayer.the concealed fact open to all at the funeral of Khawja bakhtiyar kaki...he laid condition only that person will say my prayer that never missed his prayer.Hazt nizamud din oliya (r.a) never met with Alla'udin khlji,coz he was not good in his conduct.
What about hazarat mujadad alf sani(r.a) who revolted against Akbar for good..
The rulers and mashaikh friendship and enemity is glarent fact.hazt syed Ali hajweri association with ghaznavi is a fact.if object than with analytical power not on stereotype reasoning

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"

qasim farishta and chach nama,
And i never post by seeing what is there.i told u what i have read

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"

qasim wanted to establish an empire seems quite hypothetical without any concrete evidences from the history but even if we believe that he wanted to,then the fault lies not with the rajput confederacy but the abbassid uprising seems responsible which didnt allow him enuff time to build his conquests further to the north.

u also failed to mention that during the conquests of multan there is much evidence that qasim deliberately ignored the martial rajput tribes who seemed defiant and aggressive to muslim power.the fact that muslims had to build mansura the city to safegaurd muslims,shows that the battle ground was not as easy for muslims as u are mentioning.please give some concrete quotatins,evidences cuz what u are saying is contradictory to general belief.

secondly,i agree that sindh is called bab ul islam but the fact remains that earlier the armies of hazrat umar and usman had found it barren and inhospitable.while at the same time iran and afghanistan were conquered during persian conquest and provided better geo strategic location for war ,since armies could retreat back,supply chain was continuous and this wasnot the case with sindh.so how can you say that qasim`s attack was not episodic?
if he declared to build an empire(which seems dubious) thn mere intention cannot negate the geo political effects of his campaign.i mean that once arab conquest was over,should we judge it on the basis of geo strategic out comes,which donot seem substantive,or should we conclude over hypothetical presumptions?
lastly i believe that sindh is babul islam cuz the ulema and sufis got a chance to stay there due to arab conquest and propogated islam gradually,however arab conquest seems inconsequeential on a military yard stick.plz comment?

__________________
He who is not courageous enough to take risks will accomplish nothing in life.