Our Hero Is Raja Dahir Not Muhammad Bin Qasim, Haji Adeel- ANP

[Peshwa]

Despite of such a large army not able to stand against an army of Foreigners. Notice a similarity of these "BRAVE DAHIR AND PRITHVIRAJ" that both ran off the fields
KIT Over

Wasnt Prithviraj Chauhan the one who spared Ghauri's life during his first attempt at invasion of India?

A fact coviniently overlooked when ridiculing the martyrdom of brave souls that fought to protect their homeland from invaders...

Makes one wonder who tucked their sack and fled...!!!

Anyways....no use beating a dead horse or serenading the deaf.....

 

[AkhandBharath]

So what, if our history texts are manipulated we don't want to know history keep it to your self we live in present not in past like most indians live........
and we have one book which was never manipulated and will never be manipulated and that is enough for a whole life....... and we read other books just to enhance our knowledge not to follow like you do.........
and once again I'll have to say that history is not written by angels people write that and they wrote it according to their point of view so there is no need for us to rely on history

this very aweful to even comprehend that in the name of religion one can be ashamed of their own people , culture and history. I think its very wrong and I might say some people's vested interest has pushed Pakistan's History into oblivion on the name of religion. Its very difficult to understand how come you see every thing from the eyes of islam.. where as in Indonesia.. the world's Biggest muslim nation..still cherish their history and culture and practise them without interfering that with their practise of Islam. Even they still go by their Sankrit names instead of the Arabic names.. does this make them less muslim than you Pakistanis? I wish pakistanis realise this political game atleast now and try to reclaim their hsitory and culture and should feel proud of it with out seeing it through the religion perspective...

 

[courageneverdies]

About Raja Dahir, I've already given accounts corroborated by Chachnama of previous attempt of neary eighty years conquer Sindh and fourteen futile military expeditions of Arab army before the defeat of Rajah Dahir in 711Ad.

To me its merely the capacity of Muslims to not withdraw. A mighty expansion of Muslim Empire from the coasts of Africa to the borders of France were something unbearable for isolated and individual Hindu Rajas of many states in India. For your information, Makran the neighbouring district of Debal was under Muslim control since the reign of Umar I.

So isn't it the excellence of Muslim Military that despite of being repulsed many a times they conquered Debal.

Pls give us any source or article that suggests DAHIR ran off the field..Otherwise stop ur BS .

Because I'll give Chachnama chronicles which is the only authentic version available of the events and all history books are based on its accounts .Its say exact opposite of what u said ,thats Raja Dahir fought bravely and died in the battle field.

Look at the map with eyes if you have. The first battle was fought at Debal. And Dahir was killed at ROAR. If he had not ran from Debal's battlefield than how could he reached ROAR? I think he had some teleporting machine.

Muhammad bin Qasim defeated Dahir and captured his eastern territories for the Umayyad Caliphate.

Dahir then attempted to prevent Qasim from crossing the Indus river and so moved his forces to its eastern banks in an attempt prevent Qasim from furthering the campaign. Eventually however, Qasim successfully completed the crossing and defeated an attempt to repel them at Jitor led by Jaisiah, the son of Dahir. Qasim then advanced onwards to give Dahir battle at Raor near modern day Nawabshah (712 A.D.) where Dahir died in battle.

And yes its from your chacha O sorry Chachnama.

So think before you write and it shows how corrupted your history is.

KIT Over

 

[courageneverdies]

Wasnt Prithviraj Chauhan the one who spared Ghauri's life during his first attempt at invasion of India?

A fact coviniently overlooked when ridiculing the martyrdom of brave souls that fought to protect their homeland from invaders...

Makes one wonder who tucked their sack and fled...!!!

Anyways....no use beating a dead horse or serenading the deaf.....

O the mighty Historian Peshwa dont know that Prithviraj Chauhan was not in the battlefield against Ghauri in first battle....

In 1191, Ghauri, leading an army of 120,000 men, invaded India through the Khyber Pass and was successful in reaching Punjab. Ghauri captured a fortress, either at Sirhind or Bathinda in present-day Punjab state on the northwestern frontier of Prithvīrāj Chauhān's kingdom. Prithviraj's army, led by his vassal prince Govinda-Raja of Delhi, rushed to the defense of the frontier, and the two armies met at the town of Tarain, near Thanesar in present-day Haryana, approximately 150 kilometres north of Delhi.

According to urban myth in contemporary India, the armies clashed first with the charge of the Rajput cavalry. Two regiments of the Muslim army with Ghauri attacked the center with a body of soldiers; where Ghauri met Govinda-Raja in personal combat. Govinda-Raja lost his front teeth to Ghauri's lance. As the battle continued, the Ghauri army, exhausted, shorn of water, and unfamiliar with the scale of its opponent, retreated towards the Afghan highlands. Ghauri was himself wounded in the battle.

Source: Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals (1206-1526) by Satish Chandra

Secondly, Mr. Eye Opener you need to know that one spares the life of other if he had his life in his control, Ghauri was not arrested, Unlike Prithvi who was....

Ghauri despite of being unable to win a victory didnt give up his campaign and remained near to Prithvi's borders who despite of knowing it, and being immensely incompitent, didnt bother to make steps to counter this problem that may arise again.

Ammend your records and don't follow BS Star Plus Dramas.

But like you said, no use beating a dead horse or serenading the deaf.

This is history man, not your book in the hook...

KIT Over

 

[courageneverdies]

this very aweful to even comprehend that in the name of religion one can be ashamed of their own people , culture and history. I think its very wrong and I might say some people's vested interest has pushed Pakistan's History into oblivion on the name of religion. Its very difficult to understand how come you see every thing from the eyes of islam.. where as in Indonesia.. the world's Biggest muslim nation..still cherish their history and culture and practise them without interfering that with their practise of Islam. Even they still go by their Sankrit names instead of the Arabic names.. does this make them less muslim than you Pakistanis? I wish pakistanis realise this political game atleast now and try to reclaim their hsitory and culture and should feel proud of it with out seeing it through the religion perspective...

Applies to you too. Hindus affirm all the acts of Dahir, who was a looter, a pirate and a decoit. Who married his own sister, where in Hinduism marrying a cousin is not allowed. Wow...

On the other hand, Muhammad Bin Qasim was a man of honour, dignity and followed totally humanitarian rules to conquer lands.

The military strategy had been outlined by Hajjaj in a letter sent to Muhammad bin Qasim:[9]

“ "My ruling is given: Kill anyone belonging to the combatants (ahl-i-harb); arrest their sons and daughters for hostages and imprison them. Whoever does not fight against us..grant them aman (safety) and settle their tribute(amwal) as dhimmah..." ”

The Arabs' first concern was to facilitate the conquest of Sindh with the fewest casualties while also trying to preserve the economic infrastructure.

Don't try to be so well-wisher of Pakistani nation, we know what to do. Stay inside your own premises and tackle with the Extremists like Shiv Senha who are sworn enemies of Islam. In Pakistan, there is no immense killings of minorities like in India. Something you all should be ashamed of.

Now you'll give some examples of minority riots, which are nothing in front of massacres in India.

My history is Islamic History and I cherish it. I am proud of it. I am proud of Muhammad Bin Qasim, Ghauri, Ghaznavi, Salateen-e-Delhi, Mughuls, Khiljis, Tughlaqs who despite of being a very minor part of India, managed to rule a nation much higher in number.

KIT Over n Out

 

[courageneverdies]

I think still u didnt understand the purpose of this thread.... even if we take your words as facts..why do u want to associate urself with the ghauri? but not with Prithvi, he being the son of the soil? ..and then again u bring the religion crap into this .... shame on us....

Reported.... Ill language for Religion. Something that hurts people like me. Enjoy.

KIT Over

 

[Raghu]

To me its merely the capacity of Muslims to not withdraw. A mighty expansion of Muslim Empire from the coasts of Africa to the borders of France were something unbearable for isolated and individual Hindu Rajas of many states in India. For your information, Makran the neighbouring district of Debal was under Muslim control since the reign of Umar I.

So isn't it the excellence of Muslim Military that despite of being repulsed many a times they conquered Debal.

Thats exactly my point.

Arab forces have been eyeing Sindh for a longtime to expand their empire as what they were doing in other places too.

so the put sundry legends about Dahir's torture of captured Muslim women or he being evil king to justify Muhammad Bin Qasim invasion of Sindh are nothing but sugarcoated excuse to foreign Arab invasion and conquer of Sindh

Look at the map with eyes if you have. The first battle was fought at Debal. And Dahir was killed at ROAR. If he had not ran from Debal's battlefield than how could he reached ROAR? I think he had some teleporting machine.

Go ahead and read this again few more times if u can...

Muhammad bin Qasim defeated Dahir and captured his eastern territories for the Umayyad Caliphate.

Dahir then attempted to prevent Qasim from crossing the Indus river and so moved his forces to its eastern banks in an attempt prevent Qasim from furthering the campaign. Eventually however, Qasim successfully completed the crossing and defeated an attempt to repel them at Jitor led by Jaisiah, the son of Dahir. Qasim then advanced onwards to give Dahir battle at Raor near modern day Nawabshah (712 A.D.) where Dahir died in battle. [/B]

U see u might have eyes like every other being,but certainly not power to decipher what u see or read.

As ur own excerpt from Chachnama very clearly states that " Dahir died in battle".U probably hung on the technicality why he didn't die on the the very first occasion his forces met the invading Arab army.

Even when we have no clue or make logical assumption that Dahir who was the the king on Sindh leading a battle going on the border instead of defending his fort at Alor in the final encounter.

Anyway it doesn't matter where or when he died ,as we know from Chachnama quote stated by u that he died in the battle.

 

[courageneverdies]

Thats exactly my point.

Arab forces have been eyeing Sindh for a longtime to expand their empire as what they were doing in other places too.

so the put sundry legends about Dahir's torture of captured Muslim women or he being evil king to justify Muhammad Bin Qasim invasion of Sindh are nothing but sugarcoated excuse to foreign Arab invasion and conquer of Sindh.

Exactly, because Raja Dahir was repeatedly continuing attacks on Muslim ships. Moreover, its not sugar coated justification, its a truth. Its also written in your Chachnama, one you have full faith in. So why take what you like and leave the rest?

Even when we have no clue or make logical assumption that Dahir who was the the king on Sindh leading a battle going on the border instead of defending his fort at Alor in the final encounter.

Anyway it doesn't matter where or when he died ,as we know from Chachnama quote stated by u that he died in the battle.

That also clearly says, DAHIR WAS DEFEATED, means Dahir was there at Debal and ran or retreated to Alor. So the second encounter was at Alor where he died. Simple... No technicality at all.

We have clue, but you don't want to see. In the above reference, which I am quoting again for ready reference, it is clearly mentioned that DAHIR WAS DEFEATED, i.e. Dahir was present at first batlle when Qasim defeated him and conquered Eastern Lands of Dahir. He than retreated to his western lands, to Alor, where he was again attacked and here killed by Qasim.

Muhammad bin Qasim defeated Dahir and captured his eastern territories for the Umayyad Caliphate.

Dahir then attempted to prevent Qasim from crossing the Indus river and so moved his forces to its eastern banks in an attempt prevent Qasim from furthering the campaign. Eventually however, Qasim successfully completed the crossing and defeated an attempt to repel them at Jitor led by Jaisiah, the son of Dahir. Qasim then advanced onwards to give Dahir battle at Raor near modern day Nawabshah (712 A.D.) where Dahir died in battle.

KIT Over

 

[Awesome]

I find a great amount of Hypocrisy in the above lines......

On one hand, Pakistanis are very quick to regard Mohenjodaro and Harappa....the seat of the Indian civilizations and the birthplace of Vedic culture (eventually leading to the present day Hinduism) as inherently Pakistani....since it was the "land of your ancestors".....so much so that Pakistani History books mention the Indus Valley civilization as part of "Pakistani History".....

On the other hand, Pakistanis are very quick and blunt to seperate themselves from the defeat of a king that ruled lands that belong to Pakistan as "India's weakness and vulnerability"......in favor of Islam.....Did M-B-Q really defeat an Indian Ruler or Pakistani?

Why does Raja Dhir become Hindu/Indian Raja when defeated by the forces of Islam, but Indus Valley civilization with its Vedic/Hindu roots Pakistani?

It seems loyalty to land/ethnicity or religion is interchangeable based on what suits ones perspective/argument......

That twisted logic is only subservient to balm your ego, however in reality, Dahir, to Mohenjedaro to Harrappa to Mohammad Bin Qasim - even Alexander the great, even the British Raj - to Jinnah - all contributed with their efforts to shape time and country that resulted in Pakistan. Dahir Shah with his defeat and Mohammad Bin Qasim with his victory. Nehru and Gandhi with their defeat, Jinnah with his victory.

They are all a part of our past, not all are worth any praise.

 

[Raghu]

Exactly, because Raja Dahir was repeatedly continuing attacks on Muslim ships. Moreover, its not sugar coated justification, its a truth. Its also written in your Chachnama, one you have full faith in. So why take what you like and leave the rest?

Haha... Arab forces attacking sindh from his father King Chach's time.
There were repeated attempt to grab some land of Sindh or other went for longtime ,so to blame again that Raja Dahir attacks on Muslim ships(these were actually pirates who attacked Muslims ships) forced Arab retaliation is nothing but lam excuse.

That also clearly says, DAHIR WAS DEFEATED, means Dahir was there at Debal and ran or retreated to Alor. So the second encounter was at Alor where he died. Simple... No technicality at all.

Debal was a border town,while Alor was the capital city of King Dahar.So to say he ran or retreated to Alor is pure nonsense.It only logical that he would've come to defend his seat of power in Alor.

 

[courageneverdies]

Haha... Arab forces attacking sindh from his father King Chach's time.
There were repeated attempt to grab some land of Sindh or other went for longtime ,so to blame again that Raja Dahir attacks on Muslim ships(these were actually pirates who attacked Muslims ships) forced Arab retaliation is nothing but lam excuse.

If expansion of empires is excuse than all nations have done so. Do you know, England of today has only 2% of its natives? All now are Anglo-Saxons and natives were pushed to Northern Areas of England.

History of Roman Empire and Egyptians, even smaller tribes of Aztecs and Mayans have waged for expansion. No big deal.

Muslim empire was expanding and lands are not owned by people. In history snatching, occupying and attacking are most prominantly described meaning that nations do that.

You are amalgamating the campaign of Muhammad Bin Qasim with the Muslim expansion. Historians totally agree that Qasim's expansion was reasoned by the pirates of Debal and Dahir.

Debal was a border town,while Alor was the capital city of King Dahar.So to say he ran or retreated to Alor is pure nonsense.It only logical that he would've come to defend his seat of power in Alor.

So you agree that Dahir retreated or ran away. I was to prove that Dahir retreated, my point proved and Defence has shown consent. No more arguments, My lord...

KIT Over

 

[Raghu]

That twisted logic is only subservient to balm your ego, however in reality, Dahir, to Mohenjedaro to Harrappa to Mohammad Bin Qasim - even Alexander the great, even the British Raj - to Jinnah - all contributed with their efforts to shape time and country that resulted in Pakistan. Dahir Shah with his defeat and Mohammad Bin Qasim with his victory. Nehru and Gandhi with their defeat, Jinnah with his victory.

They are all a part of our past, not all are worth any praise.

Yes,as time changes ,people's allegiance changes and so changes how history is looked at.It happens all the time e,g Spain .

While Muslim world still view Muslim rule over Spain in Europe with a sense of nostalgia, whereas people of Spain considers it as time of dark age and blemish on the part of that countries history .

 

[Raghu]

.


So you agree that Dahir retreated or ran away. I was to prove that Dahir retreated, my point proved and Defence has shown consent. No more arguments, My lord...

KIT Over

There is shuttle and clear difference between fleeing or hiding somewhere as u trying hard put it and coming back to defend his capital city in Alor was what Dahar did.
It only prove ur insinuations are baseless.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Yes,as time changes ,people's allegiance changes and so changes how history is looked at.It happens all the time e,g Spain .

While Muslim world still view Muslim rule over Spain in Europe with a sense of nostalgia, whereas people of Spain considers it as time of dark age and blemish on the part of that countries history .

After fall of Muslim rule in Spain Crusaders gave people of Spain two option either die or convert to Christianity, by sword.

All Indians would have been Muslim if Muslim rulers in India were like that, Islam by sword.

 

[courageneverdies]

There is shuttle and clear difference between fleeing or hiding somewhere as u trying hard put it and coming back to defend his capital city in Alor was what Dahar did.
It only prove ur insinuations are baseless.

COMING BACK in military term is called RETREAT.

I think any man with a bit of sense can judge who's baseless and who is beating by the bush.

KIT Over