Sadia can you prove it to us as well? I mean give an outline of what you wrote to prove your stance that it was not an episode. Here are my points that it WAS an episode[refute them all you want but please before that, do share your arguments ]

1- No govt/system established.
2- Infact jo nominal rulers/amirs yahan per thay, wo bhi change kar diye gaye as soon as the dynasty changed in the home country.
3- It is evident that there were no permanent effects because when slaves(Aibak, Balban waghaira) came here, they had to work from scratch in order to establish their empire over here.
4- No mass conversions, let alone speak of implementing Islamic system.
5- Balke jo aap ke baahir se Muslims aaye thay MBQ ke sath, they married the local Nair women and lost their zeal and enthusiasm for the cause of Islam and soon were assimilated in the local society.
And the list goes on. You may refute each and every point given above but before that I would like to hear your thoughts please.

P.S. I am seriously impressed by your performance in IPH keeping in mind the recent marking trend so I am here to learn something from you.

I do not know my point view would adhere to your outline or not .but my view was general not besed on administration .coz Holy prophet(P.b.u.h) establised govt in madina then in makah . so administration was solely re-newed by UMER FAROOQ-(R.A)-- THE GREAT. so we can`t say hazrat mohammed (p.b.u.h) govt was episodic. and in that sense when ISLAM has expanded borders not swords.the major policy was jihad and this was the first motive of all muslims. Though designs of imperailist were dofferent but could not be implemented to all Islamic heroes .

walid bin abdul mailk was granted with all muslim heroes whose tales can be used today too ,to call MUSLIMS for unity .I meant it QATIBA BIN MUSLIM,
2.TARIQ BIN ZIYAAD
3.MUSSA BIN NASEER
4.QASIM
LOOK IN SPAIN SLaVE TARIQ EXAPNED muslim empire and IN HINDUSTAN these slaves from persia were sold in INDIA. so muslim rule after ummyad dynasty was carried out by slaves not only in INDIA but to all over the world. even alaptagin was a slave and stuff like that mentioned which proved this was episodic for time being .but these conquest staightened the way of others.if these conquest were not made then nothing can be done further .

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

Ok well enough. Can you throw some light on Mahmood Ghaznavi now?
Tell us if he was a Mujahid or a Plunderer? Perhaps take a side and substantiate your stance with facts

__________________
Blessed are those who can give without remembering and receive without forgetting. ~Jeremy Fitzgerald~

For this question K.Ali book best explain. Points are given randomly.proper study and concentration and search for the ans of past paper will help ..

You are right . I'll side ghaznavi. That was Muslim renaissance period and pure Islamic . A new advance civilization Mohammadans formed. But how i take a stance ..the two points help a lot that he was not a plunderer

1. Hindushahi kingdom/afghanistan was in hand of Muslims. But after ummayed downfall the hindu minister took the reigns of Muslim empire--Illegal.Alaptagain and subgtagain recovered hindushahi kingdom. But hindu Raja followed expansionist policy . Subtagain was died in this course and jai pal invaded. So Mahmud defended its kingdom and his aims was not to invade but forced.

Qaramata-- study abt them it was pure and purest form of jihad. Even no Muslim can challange it today. Three invasions 4 qaramtas coz ghakhar and khokhars wounded hs military strength. So 2 invasions or three for ghakhars.

3. Raja of chandela ,kalinjar near kashmir is kalinjar and raja chandela belong to Dehli side invaded at Hindu RAJA OF RAJISTAN OR MEWAR(PLACE FORGOT. Not in stdy yet) so Raja sought help to ghaznavi which was converted to islam.

4. Like debil flag ,somnath mandar had ye strategic imp. So it was again to crush the wrong belief of hindus.

6. Booty is a part of male ganeemat if he took then who did not . Encounter any 1 who invaded and left without booty . Qasim too took it..

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

I have read K.Ali. I know the arguments mentioned by him Actually I am personally inclined to think that he had nothing to do with the cause of Islam. I have my reasons for this belief:

1- Booty is out of question because that's an integral part of a war, so he did nothing different if he collected his share of the deal but why did he wage all his wars at first place? He had pure political motives, nothing Islamic in his wars. Political motives include: source of revenue, to keep a sense of his might upon Hindus, to increase the number of recruits for his armies etc.
2- The temple of Somnath had strategic(read monetary) importance ofcourse but how was it impuring the beliefs of the infidels that it became all the more essential to crush it. Hindus generally believe that their God can save them, or can really help them out and the higher the esteem in which a particular God is held, higher are the expectations. So Somnath was not an exception, if it was impuring their beliefs so was the every other temple out there in India.
3- Most of his wars were against a particular Raja who had defied him or refused to pay tribute or conspired against him with other Rajas. So in order to crush them and set an example for others, he waged most of his wars.

These are my arguments. If you think I'm mistaken somewhere, criticise me all you want. And if you think that both of us have contributed our share and have nothing much to say then we can move on to the next emperor

__________________
Blessed are those who can give without remembering and receive without forgetting. ~Jeremy Fitzgerald~

Why punjab has been annexed that was to crush the powers of infidels and karamtaz that took hajre aswad from KHANA -e- KABAA.AND hazrat Data Ali hjaveri(R.A)called ghaznavi to invade .This conflict can be highlighted in an other shape shiia and sunni conflict wheres as mahumd loyalities were toward abbasid rulers and defied fatmid kings . the same was done by an other Islamic hero SULTAN SALADIN

Early in the 8th century A.D. when Mohammad Bin Qasim conquered Sind (which included most of Punjab) sufi movement had not taken any organised form, as already stated. In those days Islam was propagated mostly by merchants and individual preachers belonging to various trades. They were successful only to a limited extent; they did not spear-head a mass movemenThe first organised work in this region was started by Ismaili missionaries who achieved considerable success in Sind and southern Punjab where they gained political power as well by installing Ismaili rulers at Multan and Mansura. But the success of Ismaili missionaries was short-lived. Both Mahmud Ghaznavi (997-1030 A.D.) and, 150 years later, Mohammad Ghori (1175-1206 A.D.) defeated and smashed the power of the Ismaili rulers which resulted in the slow withering away of Ismaili Shiaism in Pakistan. Among the early Ismaili missionaries to gain ground in Pakistan were Pir Sadruddin, Pir Kabiruddin and Syed Yusufuddin.The Hindu Shahi dynasty ruled much of the Punjab, as well as western Afghanistan, from the mid-ninth to the early eleventh centuries. The Shahi Kingdom was originally based in Kabul, and later spread across the Punjab. Kabul was lost to Turkic Muslims in the tenth century,and the Shahi capital shifted to Ohind.

Organized silsals that spread Islam and when Raja defied and denied preachings and ridiculed them then muslim heroes had came to crush .that`s why ghaznavi did not established rule even in punjab too. he only abided the orders of khawja




why multan and punjab ??


Multan and lahore came under punjab.at that time punjab was constituted of peshawer to naer rajhistan,Qanuj .peshawer was included in lahore and multan was ruled by ismaails. Annadpaal raised army all over the India to settle his score Anandpal appealed to the other Indian rajas for help. Some replied in person, others sent armies. The Indian women sold their jewels to finance a huge army. When, at last, in 1008, Mahmud met the formidable force thus raised, the two armies lay facing each other between Und and Peshawar for 40 days. The Sultan finally succeeded in enticing the Indians to attack him A force of 30,000 Khokars, a fierce, primitive tribe, charged both flanks of the Sultan's army with such ferocity that Mahmud was about to call a retreat



somnath was the center of intrigues against Muslims

1.Mahmud of Ghazni made two attempts between 1015-1021 to conquer Kashmir, but was unsuccessful. Mahmud of Ghazni attacked temples in the subcontinent because the temples were the seats of political power.


2.The Brahaman priests kept all knowledge to themselves. They kept all knowledge away from the population, locked up in temples (including the knowledge to build the temple). To destroy the political and military power of the city, the temple had to be destroyed. Since the high priest controlled the populations, they had to be defeated. The temples also contained all knowledge of the area. Mohammed Ghauri was the founder of the Muslim empire in India (1173 A.D).



3.He may have wanted the money, but also wanted to spread Islam and did his best to destroy temples even when offered large sums to leave the temples alone. The Indian historian Romila Thapar [2002] takes a middle view: Mahmud needed money for his wars; India’s temples were known to contain fabulous treasures; we need not look for more complicated explanations.After the fall of Punjab, the Hindu think tank assembled at Somnath – which was more of a political center than a temple – to plan a big war against Mahmud. He took all the Rajas and Maharajas by surprise when he attacked Somnath and crushed the Hindu headquarter of political intrigue. With the destruction of Somnath he broke the backbone of the Hindus in the region and thus had no need to attack India againThapar said he was undoubtedly an iconoclast, and hardly averse to destroying temples to gain favor when he went to heaven. Nonetheless, he warred equally with other Islamic sects, because he was a Sunni. The secondary purpose of his raids may have been tied up with his need to convert Shias to Sunni beliefs.

Mahmud Ghaznavi’s 17 Invasions of India Ravi Rikhye

4.The most important impact of Mahmud’s expeditions was the conquest of Punjab for the first time by Muslims and the establishment of Muslim rule and society in the region. Along with Muslim warriors came Muslim saints and Sufis, who promulgated Islam in India. The most important amongst them was Sheikh Ali Hajweri, popularly known as Data Ganj Baksh. He was a renowned Sufi who not only spread the message of Allah in Lahore but also in other parts of Punjab. His book in Persian titled Kashaful-Mahjub is considered as the first authentic book on Sufism

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

1- Annexation of Punjab and Multan; what Islamic cause? Infact annexation was done by crushing Ismailis(Muslims)
2- Even when it was annexed, the Muslim rule or Muslim society formed was not because of his efforts as it flourished some years 'after his death'. Regarding Hazrat Data Ganj Bakhsh:

Al-Hujwiri came to Lahore under orders from his Pir as successor to Shaikh Husain Zanjani at a time when as a result of irruption of the Seljuks on one side and the rising tide of Hindu resistance on the order, "the Ghaznavid Empire began to dismember rapidly, and life in Ghazni itself was disrupted." The saint had to leave Ghazni in difficult circumstances, leaving his books behind. [taken from internet]

3- Mehmood had nothing to do with these saints, esp. regarding the services they rendered for Islam here in the sub continent.
4- Somnath; what Islamic cause? 'It was a center of political power', 'they wanted to wage a united war against ghaznavi' and so on. Where in these arguments is the cause of Islam evident? Somnath per hamlaa aap ne maal o daulat ke liye kiya laikin ye koi galat baat nahin hai, galat hai us ko Islamic cause ka naam dena. Political motives thay, aap ke historians ne, esp. those around him, es ko war for Islam keh kar barri ziaadati ki hai

Daikhiye main es waqt es baat per zaur nahin de raha ke aaya us k iqdamaat galat thay ya sahi, main sirf ye waazeh kar dena chahta hoon ke aap us ke iqdamaat ke peechay muhirrekaat ko sahi tareeqay se samajh lijiye. Us ne Islam ke liye ye sub nahin kiya balke apni saltanat ko paaya e urooj tak pohanchaaney ke liye kiya laikin ye her giz koi mayoob baat nahin kyun ke by the end of the day its your national interests that take precedence over everything else.

__________________
Blessed are those who can give without remembering and receive without forgetting. ~Jeremy Fitzgerald~

I am least interested in such discussions where one prove with ample evidence a point and other reliance is on net. For ur kind info i consider chach nama best buk and others. And net is rich with hindus filthy and faulty argumentation and ironically there is not a single historia neither was which encounter these. Utbi was historia , u can rely on farishta because i've extracted materials 4m these books. So rely on net and have a gud paper.

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

Haha well said.

Laikin I have been giving all my arguments on the basis of my own analysis after reading "some books", it was the first time I used internet. Lekin ghor kiya jaye to internet waley reference mein bhi main ne koi argument to diya hi nahin, us mein to sirf aik fact bayan kiya hai ke Hazrat Data Ganj Bakhsh Mehmood Ghaznavi ki maut ke baad aaye thay, ab ye fact to aap ko tamaam books mein aise hi milay ga

Secondly main bhi aap ko Chachnama se hi arguments deta lekin I couldn't find anything regarding Memood Ghaznavi in it.

But still I believe you are right. Discuss things with others but please keep discussing as it is a source of learning for all of us. Infact main ne to es discussion se bhi boohat kutch seekh liya

In a world full of ignorants, a genius usually goes unnoticed

__________________
Blessed are those who can give without remembering and receive without forgetting. ~Jeremy Fitzgerald~

History is always biased, always! What you do is you read one side of the picture and then the other side and finally make your own judgement about it. But even then we too end up being biased in one sense or the other hehe if Hindu point of view is filthy, stinky or whatever and full of prejudice so is the Muslims as they gave everything the name of Islam as if they were selfless saints who had no purpose in life other than serving Islam and to serve this purpose in their lives they went on to killing their own blood as well(brothers, fathers, sons). How ironic! I wonder what these Hindu writers have to say about this. Oh and just to substantiate as we were talking about ghaznavi lately, Ghaznavi killed Ismail(his younger brother), may be he thought he was not old enough to serve the cause of Islam.

Stay Blessed!!

__________________
Blessed are those who can give without remembering and receive without forgetting. ~Jeremy Fitzgerald~