Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Troll warning This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, regardless of whether trolling is suspected or not.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] THE Battle of TIGROO

those who are about to read further need to have a healthy heart because you can't bear to witness the masacre, the mayhem and the carnage also known as tigeroo (who are you). wikipedia need to get this act sorted once for all. 202.142.190.245 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who brought Islam to South Asia (first)?

"Muhammad bin Qasim (Arabic محمد بن قاسم ) (c. 695–715) was an Arab general who conquered Sindh and Punjab regions along the Indus river (currently a part of Pakistan). The conquest of Sindh and Punjab started the Islamic era in the South Asia." !!!!

I thought it was the arab merchents who first brought Islam to South Asia at the malabar cost of kerala in 6th century. The earliest known muslim communities in India are Mappilas. (means son-in-law) in local language. Also I thought till about 13th century AD the Muslim sultanates in Delhi had no clue of the existance of Muslim enclaves on Malabar cost and and Coromandel in general!! Pratheepps 10:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was the Sufis. Armyrifle 22:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] people of the book???

Hindus and Buddhists can't be declared people of the book by Muslims because the title is a diminuitive reserved for non-Mohammedean Abrahamics (typically Jews).This assertion is highly dubious and contradics the people of the book article.Hkelkar 13:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It was applied at the time, and no it was restricted to Abrahamics (especially does not single out jews but lumps them with christians), historically Sabaens and Zorastrians, Buddhists and Hindus had it extended to them as well. The meaning and application of the term has evolved since.--Tigeroo 13:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not what noted historian Triflovich says:


Extract from Triflovic's book:

“ As far as they (Muslims) were concerned, Hindus were kafirs, heathens, par excellence. They, and to a lesser extent the peaceful Buddhists, were, unlike Christians and Jews, not "of the book" but at the receiving end of Muhammad’s injunction against pagans: "Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them." ”

Hkelkar 13:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

See below where Hajjaj accords them the title of dhimmi. If you want to make the change from Ahl al Kitab to dhimmi, it won't be inaccurate and will be acceptable.--Tigeroo 14:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

==ISPI:Dubious Source==--Tigeroo 01:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The ISPI source is at a partisan (possibly extremist) Muslim website and has severe anti-Hindu connotations in their content. Their claims are extremely Dubious and not in conformity with the more widely regarded historian Sita Ram Goel whom they attack in the article.Plz find more secular and reliable sources to justify these claims of "tolerance", which is highly unlikely given the general attitude that Muslims have towards Hindus.Hkelkar 13:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
ISPI actually seems to be liberal and non-extremist organization promoting cross-cultural dialog and interaction and an author of as equally obscure as Triflovice "The Seven Phases Of Prophet Muhammad's Life." --Tigeroo 09:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Plus, there are clear contradictions with the more mainstream Triflovic reference, which clearly details massive genocides inflicted against the Hindu populations by Qasim.I'd appreciate scholarly discussion.Hkelkar 13:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Front mage mag is as dubious source as ISPI, but yes I have noted I am not happy with the ISPI until i find the reference in the chach nama that it purports to. I have used it as a stopgap measure.--Tigeroo 14:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Extract from Triflovich's book:

“ Starting in 712 the raiders, commanded by Muhammad Qasim, demolished temples, shattered sculptures, plundered palaces, killed vast numbers of men — it took three whole days to slaughter the inhabitants of the city of Debal — and carried off their women and children to slavery, some of it sexual. After the initial wave of violence, however, Qasim tried to establish law and order in the newly-conquered lands, and to that end he even allowed a degree of religious tolerance. but upon hearing of such humane practices, his superior Hajjaj, objected ”
“ In a subsequent communication, Hajjaj reiterated that all able-bodied men were to be killed, and that their underage sons and daughters were to be imprisoned and retained as hostages. Qasim obeyed, and on his arrival at the town of Brahminabad massacred between 6,000 and 16,000 men. ”

Hkelkar 13:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous neutral sources that I can pull up to show that this was not true, they were not specifically targetted. for example: [1]. The Chach nama which is the primary source of all informatino about Qasim mentions two instances, one the temple at Debal, which was linked with some prophecy or something, and one about a stupa at Nerun otherwise generally Qasim did not bother the sites too much, sure he had scorn towards them and did not hold them with any special regard however he was not a Mahmud of Ghazni to single them out and a different agenda and strategy. He worked hard at diplomacy and building alliances, remember he came in with a skeletal force. The online version of the chach nama is linked if you care to go through it, it's a bit of a tough read. Heres a quote from the chach nama itself:[2]

“ “I have received my dear cousin Muhammad Kásim's letter, and have become acquainted with its contents. With regard to the request of the chiefs of Brahminábád about the building of Budh temples, and toleration in religious matters, I do not see (when they have done homage to us by placing their heads in the yoke of submission, and have undertaken to pay the fixed tribute for the Khalífah and guaranteed its payment), what further rights we have over them beyond the usual tax. Because after they have become zimmís (protected subjects) we have no right whatever to interfere with their lives or their property. Do, therefore, permit them to build the temples of those they worship. No one is prohibited from or punished for following his own religion, and let no one prevent them from doing so, so that they may live happy in their own homes” ”

Historical figures are grey, they are not black and white heroes or villains. Especially generals of the medeival age, war was not pretty back then, POWs were either generally summarily executed or sold into slavery, and even as a terror tactic by making an example of a few to deter others from putting up a fight, no doubt some temples were looted to finance the campaign (the caliph had to repayed his investment in raising the military, was often a buisness transaction back then). I am not saying he didn't do some cold blooded stuff, it's a matter contextualizing the events rather then selective usage. On a side note It is also interesting to note two accounts of what appear to be Sati already in the earliest annals of Muslim contact, in the chach nama. Generally, I would prefer the article to have limited usage of quotes, and the material just be summed up in simpler concise statements, but my experience with wiki articles.--Tigeroo 14:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in WP:OR debating historical figures. If sources of information from legitimate scholars disagree then there is a controversy and the different points of view need to be mentioned accordingly.Thus, modifications should be made saying that some scholars say theat bin-Qasim was genocidal and others say no. Apart from Triflivich, even Will Durant in "The Story of Civilization" (Durant is another highly respected historian) mentioned bin-Qasim's genocides.Hkelkar 22:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Shrug, upto you, but Triflivich is as POV a source as Javeed Akhter, both are authors of books and run political think tanks and neither represents the main stream academic view. Will Durant was not a historian, and has been criticized for it, however he is notable.--Tigeroo 07:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually Drrant WAS a historian (of considerable repute)> Plus, Triflovich is a highly notable author and also is a qualified historian with peer-reviewed publications.

Another Reliable Source is :

"Fundamentalisms Comprehended"

---edited by R Scott Appleby, Martin E Marty

P292 in which it is clearly stated that while bin-Qasim tried to find middle ground between Hindus and Muslims he hiked the jizya up to 4 times the usual taxes and drove several Hindus to death by starvation or conversion to Islam by intimidation.

He did attain some equilibrium eventually by cooperating with the Brahmins and Shudras but subjugating them to Dhimmitude.Hkelkar 07:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked, it says no such thing, it makes no mention of the terms Shudras or dhimmitude, and it says the jizya was a graded tax, where the rich payed 4 times as much as the peasants. No mention is made of starvation to death or mass conversion by intimidation infact it says the opposite, that and accomodation was made and no religious interference occurred, that conversions were minimal. In fact the common theme mentioned by various reputed sources is that during the Umayyad period there is a general aversion of accepting converts for fear of eroding the lucrative tax base of the jizya! Did you misread or misrepresent??--Tigeroo 00:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you quote the page # and the edition date?I don't see anything pertaining to grading Jizya in mine.Jizya was a poll tax which one did not grade.Unless the tax they implemented was NOT the Jizya but something different termed Jizya, and the sources do not say so.The high value of Jizya usually led to starvation (in on itself an intimidation tactic) and people would convert so thatthey could resume eating.
Yes this is true that the Umayyid Khilafat did not like forced conversions. The bin-Qasim genocides were an incident ordered by Hajjaj as a political ploy and to serve his own Islamist ideology and not the ideology of this particular Khilafat. Even the Fatimids did not force-convert during crusades.Hkelkar 00:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Paperback edition 2004, same as listed in the references at the end of the article and the same page number you cited on yours pg.292. I doubt a volte-face was made. To quote ".. to pay poll tax (jizya) on a graduated basis, the propertied classes paying four times as much as the poor."
Hajaj's letters seem to say the opposite, note during the time the letters were compiled violence or cold blooded actions were not frowned upon so I doubt they watered it down and made it PC in the Chach nama either, they haven't balked at documenting other events. Generally even muslim historians viewed Hajjaj's actions as excessive but no mention of this strategy of policy is made in the Chach-nama. Where is it from?--Tigeroo 01:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is the inherent contrdiction in the sentence "To Pay poll tax on a graduated basis".plus, the academic's sources are their own research I guess so I don't know about that.Plus, who were the propertied classes? Muslim converts or Hindus or both?I'll look at the other refs in detail in a couple of days when I can get to the Univ Central Library.Hkelkar 02:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Jizya was applied to non-hindus, it is mentioned that converts were exempted. They in turn had to pay a zakat tax. It's mentioned by Appleby too on the same page. I am not sure what the problem is, it sounds similar to tax systems we have in place today, wherein the richer are taxed at a higher rate than poor, the only indication to the levels I have found are in the Chach-nama where Hajjaj's letter Qasim advises him to be lenient. I forget wether it was wink or the other, who also explicitly mentioned that the Brahmins were also exempted from the Jizya, (didn't really bother to add that since it was not mentioned by the others and seemed odd, though if the state is paying 3% to the brahmins anyway it could make sense to do possibly do this via exemption from the jizya) so the tax seems to be more on the mercantile and artisans classes. The graduated basis and 4 times seems to be pretty exact, therefore the academic likely has a source to make that specific an assertion, they do however tend to leave footnotes on their sources if they haven't "explained it" as their assumptions, so that such can be verified. Unlike us wiki editors they can do OR and then we can report as per RS.--Tigeroo 06:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment about violence being normal for the time etc. However, the article seems to use the political climate of the period to justify the violence, not chronicle it dispassionately.Hkelkar 02:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it is important to show the context so that readers can evalute things better and not assume a presentist approach. However, that is from well sourced sources. It raises a question Watt asked, do we judge a man by the standards of his time, or ours, ofcourse we can judge the standards themselves at a seperate level. However, "storytelling" does have tendency to create some POV positions, so if you can highlight specific areas we can work on those.--Tigeroo 06:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree there is a controversy and difference of opinion on the matter and don't see a problem with that facet being mentioned. The major criticism of Durant was that he was an amateur and was very liberal in his attempt at story-telling history, regardless thats not especially relevant since he is notable source for a particular view. I don't see a problem with using WP:NPOV to represent all aspects properly attributed, personally I would\t like to include Javeed or Triflovic as reliable sources. As an aside for curiosities sake, I wound't mind knowing what references Appleby give as the source of their contentions.--Tigeroo 09:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The article, as it stands, is a paean to a whitewashed picture and does not represent the views held by all historians.Plus, a major contributor has been this Street Scholar guy who, quite frankly, is a racist as well as an ignorant Islamist (based on his hatemongering posts above, and WP:AGF pretty much breaks down in this case), making the whole article a pile of partisan rubbish. If it is not balanced out soon then there is no choice but to involve higher authorities in action.Hkelkar 09:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
What higher authorities, this a wikipedia, editors can balance this out by responsible editing if you feel it is has a problem.--Tigeroo 09:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
There is always the arbitration committee, which can mandate edits and make them stick.
If it were only you, I and other reasonable editors involved then I would agree that mediation is not needed. You seem like a reasonable editor who made a good-faith effort to hear out historical contentions that you may find uncomfortable and I thank you for it. However, many of the other editors involved have clear partisan biases and resort to personal attacks and racist/ignorant/bigoted insults that should have gotten them blocked.I can virtually smell a revert-war ensuing here from them and so desire pre-emptive mediation to handle those extremists. I would be grateful if you could keep a cool head and together we can balance the article out.Hkelkar 09:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


According to most Muslim scholars, Hindus are kuffar and are idol-worshippers. We can't be considered the Ahl-ul-Kitaab (People of the Book). The People of the Book are only Jews and Christians, as the Qur'an makes this very clear. Armyrifle 22:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All who have received revealed books from God are 'People of the Book'

Muslims are the 'People of the Prevailing Book', AlQoraan, the culminating & the last & the final book revealed by God to humanity for all the humanity & prevailing over all the previously revealed books until end of time, while the followers of all the previous revealed books are 'People of the Prevailed Books' & they are considered by God as 'Ahl Al-Fatarat' ( or 'People of the Interval' ) until individually the prevailing message reaches them. Jews (or 'Yahood' {the guided ones}{who so requested Moses to be called by which in their arrogance to defy Gods' Prophet Moses who was a Muslim {the appellation given by Abraham for the followers of God} & Christians (so named by their opponents) ( or 'Nasaraa' { or "Nazaratines" or belonging to the city of Nazareth in Palestine where Jesus (who was Muslim)(Gods' peace be upon him} was born} as named in AlQoraan,(the most relevant)& Sabeens ( the other 'People of the Book' of Noah, Jonah, Enoch, John, who were neither Jews or Christians)(in smaller numbers) are from the Arabian Peninsula, while Magians ( or 'Zoroastrians') are People of the Book in neighboring Persia (now Iran)(whose prophet is not mentioned in AlQoraan nor their book) outside the Arabian Peninsula. Others are not mentioned from the rest of the world, for various reasons: because the names & the stories will be unknown & will not be of interest through whom the message was being directed to the whole humanity or they will be repetitive & have nothing to add to guidance, they will only burden the message with no help towards guidance. Ibn Hazm, the fifth Famous Imam of Islamic Comprehension {or Jurisprudence or Fiqha} of Al-Andalus (or Islamic Spain) has considered Hindus {so named by the early Persians who added 'h' to 'Indus' the river east of Persia flowing in Sind, because of the peculiarity of their language, to the people living around the River Indus up to Burma eastwards}& now confirmed by a contemporary scholar of comparative study of religious books, that their 'Vedas' contain reference to the coming of the Prophet Mohammad & description of his companions & victory of Makkah confirms the revealed nature of their books, so they are to be regarded as 'People of the Book'. The idolatry is an addition not a part of their religion like Makkans fell into idolatry introduced by a visitor to Syria in the 5th century, since introduced after Noah, when the people started making statues for the righteous people but after many generations, the original purpose went out of the living memory without any written record as writing had not been yet invented, instead the reverence turned into worship with the help of Satan. (ILAKNA (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Mohammad Bin Qasim AthThaqafi

the commander of forces which opened the Province of Sind for the Islamic Caliphate, was from the tribe of 'Thaqeef' from Taif, 80 km east of Makkah in Saudi Arbia & not ,as wrongly suggested, from Syria. He was under the command of the Governor of Iraq, & his relative AlHajjaj bin Yusuf AthThaqafi. The reason for sending the forces was that the Muslim pilgrims from the island of Sarandeep (Sri Lanka now) were taken hostage by Raja Dahir of Daebal (near to now Karachi port) & the Ommayad Caliph from Damscus asked his governor in Iraq to send forces to get the pilgrims released. He was just 19 years old when he commanded the forces to Sind. The forces boarded the ships from the Al-Oqair Port (100 km South of Hofuf City), the historical port in the Al-Hasa (now Eastern) Province.(ILAKNA (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Hanafi school adopted in Sindh when Imam Abu Hanifa was a kid??

Hanafi fiqh being adopted in the Sind area around 714/715 is total rubbish as Imam Abu Hanifa was born in 699 and Bin Qasim died in 715. So Imam Abu Hanifa was even less then 16 years old when Hanafi school supposedly got adopted in Sind. The school began much later and not when he was a kid. He was still at school getting his Islamic knowledge. Much of the source material is made up like this adoption of Hanfai school.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.97.249 (talk)

Then we should remove it.--D-Boy 18:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess so. I also think the admin needs to remove that people of hindu relegion were classified as people of the book. People of the book means people who were given the scriptures like the Torah (Children of Israel) and the Bible (Followers of Christ) before Prophet Mohammed came. It doesn not mean pagans and idol worshippers. We need to put correct info on Wiki so people are not confused. Many Thanks

Hmm, ok thats a good point. It is conceivable that the particular source quoted has misstated, will require corraboration but seems like a mistake. I will look into it and edit accordingly. On the other part, the term and definition of people of the book has evolved. Even Zorastrians status were granted the same under Umar no less.--Tigeroo 06:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The islamic scholars majority of them view that the term People of the book applies to jews and christians specifically, but since some of the Zaroastrians are indeed a sect of monotheism. (thus they would be included in people of the book because they are monotheists. However it doesnt apply to idol worshippers/pantheists/pagans.

True that is the modern definition, but there was a time and period in history when Hindu's and Buddhists were accorded the same. Upanishads etc. were hypotheized as books, even Buddha was conceptualized as an earlier prophet, Burxan. Even today there are many who view Hindu avatar's as people who could have possibly been one of the many thousands of prophets who came but whose followers lost the plot. I could be wrong as well, however but pointing out something like the issue raisded about Abu Hanifa age is good way to get me to reassess, I have been looking at that and I agree seems like his influence may only have kicked in around 750's. P.S been just a bit busy to go over the sources again and make the change about him, but am getting around to it.--Tigeroo 13:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tigeroo again deletes my entire posts

Three of Tigeroos latest posts are devoted to again deleting my content

Tigeroo your presumption of wikipedia style guru is not only misplaced but stems from your aggressive desire to present a lopsided version . Your use anonymous IP s to vandal delete is also now more than obvious . I have carefully responded to each of your provided reasons for deletion , but I see that you do not care for civilized debate .

I also notice that your original reading is severely limited .. and you entirely rely on anything you can lay your hands on the Internet . I do compliment you on your I T skills at manipulating wikipedia edits skill , however they are no substitution for the truth you are trying to suppress .

Cheers

Please red up WP:MOS. I have tried to show you numerous times on how to make acceptable and useful contributions but you refuse to pay attention. Case in point, you still place your comments any what where and when instead of at the bottom of the talk pages. I have accepted and incorporated legitimate issues raised by you, but you really need to get your act together and stop degrading the quality of the articles. Case in point this post again. As for the truth, wikipedia has a definition on what constitutes this and it is available under WP:POV and WP:OR. Those are what apply here so please get with the program.--Tigeroo 13:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tigeroo are you now deleting my posts under 80.227.40.9

My posts on Qasim have been deleted by 80.227.40.9
and my posts on Mahmud of Ghazni have been deleted by 80.227.40.9 .
Please stop hounding and deleting my posts if you are 80.227.40.9

cheers Intothefire 09:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 213.42.21.75 Your massive indiscriminate vandal additions

Anonymous user your indiscriminate vandal additions to this article on sections I have worked on are not appreciated. Do not vandal or you will be reported ? If you wish to edit add participate after registering . Intothefire 18:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to each of tiger--Tigeroo 11:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)oos s pretexts for deleting my posts

17:44, 15 May 2007 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (31,383 bytes) (→Destruction of Temples and loot - rm section full of quotes. See Section Controversy for a more damning version. Summarymention should be added to the section Religion on destruction and looting.)
An unwarranted deletion by Tigeroo “ Destruction of Temples and loot” In the existing article the Chach nama has been referred to as a source on at least 14 instances (see specific instances below ) before I used the Chach nama as a source for quotations. The Chach Nama quotations specifically inform of the desrtuction of temples and loot. As a matter of fact I have only used exactly the same source for the chachnama already used . I did not remove the section on the controversy which you allude to ...which was the fair thing to do to provide the balance . Therefore your deletion is a vandal edit .

There is a difference to referring to the direct text and interpreting it and referring to the Introduction where another historian has put it in context. If you find interpretations made on ::the direct text then please remove them as OR as well. That is the correct way to go on Wikipedia.--Tigeroo 11:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

17:41, 15 May 2007 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (36,870 bytes) (→The taking of slaves - rm OR section. See intro sentence. See section Military strategy for tertiary sources for numbers on massacre, method, context, details etc Its all there already.)
The deletion of this entire section( The taking of slaves) by you on the grounds provided by you are completely again unwarranted . The introduction and the section on Military strategy that you allude to do not convey the information on the extent , prevalence and religiously sanctioned practice of taking slaves Men women and children as plasticized by Qasim .

Please use a tertiary source that interprets this as such. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to original sources to further their own interpretation of the material. The Military strategy section is entirely the reading of WP:RS historians, if there is a different POV please go ahead and quote it.--Tigeroo 11:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

17:35, 15 May 2007 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (41,724 bytes) (→Jazia - rm See section Taxation. Bad style as well, a whole section which is a quote? Same information is provided from secondary sourced assesments more concisely, contextually and completely.)
Tigeroo this a patently vandal deletion of a whole section. The section you have deleted that I have added was on imposition of Jazia . You allude to the section on Taxation….I read this section -it does not mention Jazia anywhere. As to the bad style you mention, I could paraphrase this.Your misuse of wikipedia style rules is exemplary .

FYI it is Jizya in modern parlance. It is in the 3rd sentence.--Tigeroo 11:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

17:29, 15 May 2007 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (43,404 bytes) (→Death - The intro sentece to this quote is inappropiate, i.e use of brave. Also too much off-topic space taken up by items that do not provide furth information on Qasim. This is not a story book.)
In deference to Your objection of the word Brave ,this word removed . The issue of the The Khalífah immediately ordering the two kidnapped daughters of Dahir to be buried alive in a wall Is not off Topic .If the Qotation already in the article also taken from the Chachnama that “He also sent some beautiful pearls and va­luable jewels, as well as some Abyssinian male and female slaves, some pretty presents, and unparalleled rarities to the capital of the Khalífah.” relevant and considered appropriate then certainly and similarly if the issue of the Arab women being taken prisoner by pirates is relevant , why do you feel the kidnapping of two daughters of Dahir and being sent as sex slaves and buried alive for not being virgins . Your comment That this is not a story book is therefore extraneous .

If you insist on it being important than tag it at the end of the Chachnama version of the death story. A whole huge quote is absolutely unwarranted. I do not sAs for the pirates story, that is the causus belli of the entire invasion and why Qasim even had a job to do, if that is not important than I do not what is. The quote though probably does not belong and should be replaced by a tertiary source. Atleast in this case it is only a footnote. Still it needs replacement.--Tigeroo 11:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

17:24, 15 May 2007 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (43,859 bytes) (→Death - This quotation unnecessary and the account summarized. The source added link has kept for informative purpose. Note the tertiary source assesment by Keay is considered superior.)
Tigeroo :You deleted my edits saying say Keay is considered superior to the Chach-Nama,take a look at the 16 ref to the chachnama already in the article (not put by me ).Therefore your demotion of the chachnama as a source in this case is unfounded and inconsistent .Take a look at the quotes in the article Next the summary provided does not do justice to the source it is taken from. Chach Nama as a source referred to in the article

1)The primary source of his historiography comes from the Chach Nama. 2) According to the Chach Nama, the expedition against Raja Dahir was in response to a raid by pirates off the coast of Debal, who captured a ship 3) Campaign as recounted in the Chach-Nama 4) Qasim's forces then marched upon Raor and took it, where it is noted in the Chach Nama that Dahir's wife Bai and some others committed Jauhar. 5) Sulh appeared to be Qasims preferred mode of conquest, accounting for between 63-65% of the towns and tribes recorded by Baladhuri or the Chachnama. 6) The Chachnama records the following as the political strategy advised by Hajjaj to Qasim

Continued in next post Intothefire 14:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Listen. STOP Inserting random sections of original source without an interpretation. If you are placing an interpretation please quote a WP:RS for that interpretation. This is not Wikiquote or space for a collection of quotes or your soapbox to insert quotes or your intepretation of what the source means, and no this the Chach-Nama is a historical document so no you cannot just read it as is. Placing "selective sections" under headings is ascribing it an intepretation and thus WP:OR.
While the Chach-Nama is an important source of historiography of the period it is not the ONLY source available to historians. If you have an issue of selective usage of the rule then you are correct and the issues needs addressal. However I see no more than 2 citations that refer to only text of the material and those can be fixed. Of the sections you list as instances here is the solution
  1. If your issue does this statement need to be sourced, OK it missing one.
  2. OK, the source needs to be changed to a better one.
  3. It is summary account of the progress of the military campaign with no more than on sentence on an item and no "intepretatios of the material". If a tertiary source is found we can gladly change this. If you really want to insert chachnama events that you think are important to the progress of the military campaign do so here, concisely.
  4. See 3 on how to be concise with information.
  5. The source is a teritary source WP:RS making an assessment and attribution to historical documents.6
  6. I had removed it as well as OR performed on a primary source.

[edit] Continued from above Response to each of tigeroos s pretexts for deleting my posts

7) the use of overawing force, power, strength and majesty in checking and expelling the enemy. and The Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg 8) The role played by the belief in prophecy; both of Muslim success, and Dahir's marriage (unconsummated) to his sister which alienated him from others. ref The Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg 9) The “Chach-Nama” notes the following as highlights of Qasim’s rule 10) even if they worshipped stocks and stones.ref name="Mirza"> The Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. 11) so that they may live happy in their own homes”" [http://persian.packhum.org/persian/pf?file=12701030&ct=42 The Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. 13) , I confirm you in your previous posts. The management of all the affairs of State, and its administration, I leave in your able hands, and this (right) I grant (also) to your children and descen­dants hereditarily, and you need fear no alteration or cancellation of the order thus issued.”" [http://persian.packhum.org/persian/pf?file=12701030&ct=42 The Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Delhi Reprint, 1979. 14) . He assisted Muhammad ibn Qasim in all of his undertakings..."</ref> Dahir's prime minister and various chieftains were also incorporated into the administration.refThe Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Delhi Reprint, 1979


17:49, 15 May 2007 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (31,171 bytes) (→Administration by Qasim - rm unnecessary quote and extra link)
Here you have removed a link (http://www.ispi-usa.org for this professedly Muslim organization ) that I had provided .This is not an extra link but a link provided by me to make it known that what a completely fictitious source you have repeatedly used from articles from this organizations website . See my earlier comment This organisation and its founder is a medical doctor and not a historian. This is a professedly Muslim organization ostensibly workings for the promotion of understanding of Islam in the west . So far so good . Problem is its chief protagonist whose articles you are using as source and reference is not a Historian . Therefore all the information alluded to in this article which have been justified on the grounds of the reference provided are patently false and should be removed .

From here on if you continue to hound and delete my posts You will be reported .Intothefire 14:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tigeroo A quote from a Doctor

Tigeroo thank you for repairing the link on Qasim .Your dedication to Qasim is touching . Guess what I found surprise surprise Jaweed Akhter it turns out is a Physician and not a Historian . See his description on his own website .

I hope conversely that articles in wikipedia on Medical Science are not quoting Dr s of History for proof . Or you think this is OK . A doctor is a Doctor ??? anything goes ???

"Javeed Akhter, a physician, is a founding member of the Chicago based Muslim American think tank International Strategy and Policy Institute and a member of the Chicago Committee of Human Rights Watch" .


"I was truly amused to read his comment on the website "Ramadan remains an uplifting experience, with the added bonus that during Taraweeh here in the U.S., unlike in India, I get to stand shoulder to shoulder with Muslims from many different ethnic backgrounds. " I wonder what the president of India Dr Kalam may have to say about standing shoulder to shoulder in India .

More amusing most of the articles on the site OF this so called Muslim think tank organization set up by him are written by himself . Problem he forgot to mention what he is a scholar of.

Tigeroo what are you going to do now . Fish out some new obscure wikipedia rule to protect this ..or as you normally do edit undo my posts .

Are all the other ref on the article same quality. You don’t like my ref or quotations from sources you use ...you remove them ...now you are happy repairing links to Physicians posting as scholars .



Cheers Intothefire 08:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:Civil and the assumption of good faith. For further information on my stand on Dr. Jawed. please read up these talk pages and you will see just how much "I love him".

PS: Wikipedia rules are neither obscure nor irrelevant, do take some time out to read them, they provided the basis for building better articles and really not difficult to decipher/ implement.--Tigeroo 04:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi tigeroo

Is there any particular reason for providing a bad link for quotes from sources
of the net .

If the provided link doesent work do you feel it is OK to cite it ?? see this one in the footnotes.

Do Muslims Deserve The Hatred Of Hindus? ref no 16 in the article .


Property destroyed during hostilities was compensated for.


will you undo this post of mine as well .

CHEERS Tigeroo 15:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a simple fix to that particulr issue. Just update the link. P.S. It's not my link and I am actually looking to find a better source/ details to replace that particular reference. I have different problem with that citation than the minor one of a broken link.--Tigeroo 15:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tigeroo deletes my post again

Tigeroo provide precise and specific subsections for each deletion relative to WP:OR and WP:Style , the grounds on which you have again deleted my last posts . cheers Intothefire 07:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. First off if its a new thread add it to the bottom of the talk page. Am moving your thread accordingly since you formatted it as a new section.
  2. Wikipedia:Citing_sources With respect to the way quotations are handled.
  3. Wp:style#Long_quotations & Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents With repect the excessive reliance on direct quotes.
  4. Wp:or#What_is_excluded.3F With respect to inferences drawn and presented from Primary sources.
  5. Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Stay_on_topic With respect to meanderings into largish expansions on the source.s
  6. Wp:npov#Undue_weight With respect to the usage of bolding to emphasis a particular POV.
Just run a comparison with the article after you have edited it with any of the featured articles and that should give you a good benchmark--Tigeroo 15:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The edits to fix citation so far are a start. Please note, Wikipedia is not a quote farm and encyclopediac articles do not contain excessive tracts. Now try these as well:
  1. Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Information_style_and_tone on what articles should read as.
  2. Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources on the way to differentiate and handle sources.
  3. Lets refrain from repeating things that have already been said, and sourced.--Tigeroo 17:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tigeroo now deletes 7 of my posts nitpicking

Tigeroo you have again deleted 7 of my posts on this article by nitpicking.
All seven posts were verbatim quotations from the Chach Nama where I have provided the source ..
The source I used is the same as the one Tigeroo has used ..

Tigeroo why are you misusing Wikipedia rules by citing them only with the malintent of misusing them as a pretext to repeatedly cause me Harassment by deleting my posts .

Tigeroo Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles .

Tigeroo assume good faith Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it . Even where I have provided proof of the questionable veracity of sources used as references on this article I have not deleted till now

By repetedly deleting my posts should I assume uou are stalking me !! Cheers Intothefire 18:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been no question of good-faith here. I am being very patient and trying to help you understand because it is apparent you are a newbie by extensively explaining and directing you to resources to improve your contribution. In my opiniong your edits are currently merely compromising the quality of the article inspite of the best of intentions. I have expanded certain sections to incorporate or add information that you brought my attention to as being lacking thereof by your edits. You said "All seven posts were verbatim quotations from the Chach Nama where I have provided the source". I am not sure how many times I need to go over this to explain how you used them wrongly. Please note when I have referenced Chach-nama I have done so to the preface and introduction. That part is a tertiary source assessment. Everything from the Chach-nama and all inferences are sourced from tertiary sources. The campaign part is a summary to recount progress of the campaign and as such refrains from making inferences or getting descriptive keeping to the bare minimum of details.--Tigeroo 19:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tigeroo deletes my posts on two other related articles

Tigeroo today I noticed that you have been aggressively deleting my posts on not only this but three other articles as well by using nitpicking pretexts.

Tigeroo you have been stalking and deleting my posts on
Chach Nama

Raja Dahir

When you will see the history of these three articles your deletions of my posts are immediately done after my posts . Tigeroo Do you want to Harass me repeatedly so that I stop visiting Wikipedia . Tigeroo Please stop stalking Harassing and stalking me and take away my pleasure of using wikipedia . Cheers Intothefire 18:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I can or you can submit a Wikipedia:Requests for comment to help resolve disagreement if you want unless some third experienced editor would like to step in as well and explain things a little to Intothefire. Maybe we can to go Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts instead for a less formal input session. I would however advise you to read up on the articles above and look long and hard at what I have indicated the issues to be unless you are absolutely certain you are correct.--Tigeroo 19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No. you should removing intothefire's material. it's well sourced and written. leave him alone, tigeroo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dangerous-Boy (talk • contribs) 19:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
No???? Written??? No to what?? Written?? What is written, it's all just copy and paste from a primary source. No intro, no leads, no context, no explanation of what this primary source is supposed to mean. No analysis from a tertiary source. Quoting WP:OR It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; There is no analysis here attributed to a reputable source beyond his personal edits. What is here is selective unanalyzed quotations, we might as well quote the entire of the Chach-Nama here at this rate under the guise that it adds something. The analysis and commentary of the same information is already included in the article by reputable tertiary sources. Here is another pertinent sectino from WP:OR that should serve as a good guide to this discourse:

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."--Tigeroo 20:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tigeroo used pretext of style to delete content on Mahmud of Ghaznavi as well

It is now clear that Tigeroo you use have been using the pretext of style to vandal delete content on various articles on wikipedia .
Lets look at what you have deleted in anothert article
Mahmud of Ghaznavi
Revision as of 00:33, 29 March 2007 (edit) (undo)
Tigeroo (Talk | contribs)
(copyedits)
Newer edit →
Tigeroo here you have out done yourself , apart from deleting an entire section , you have shown true genius by replacing two words in the article and changing the import of the para to mean the opposite . See the change of the words from
awareness to Hindutava and
information to partition of india .

Problem is one deception will reveal another . CheersIntothefire 13:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to do a bit more background research before you make assumptions.
  1. That was a restoration to a previous version edited by an anon
  2. Where is the pretext of style given??
  3. Leave alone a section, not even one line has that been deleted in that edit. It has just rearranged into one section. Heck every single line in the section that was rearranged was actually sourced and written in by me, just like the controversy section here in Qasim. There is no doubt about the actions or events, but remeber there is a huge controversy over the way it is viewed< if you are concerned a particular view has not been expressed or sidelined than we can address that.--Tigeroo 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Jesus, how much other stuff are you white washing?--D-Boy 18:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh?? Might help if you explain what it is that you think is being white washed before we can decide if it has been.--Tigeroo 08:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next Tigeroo delets my posts from History of Afghanistan

Wherever I go Tigeroo
Are you sure to follow
What should I make of this ?.

Your following me around from article to article Reminds me of a nursery rhyme

Mary had a little lamb,
Its fleece was white as snow;
And everywhere that Mary went,
The lamb was sure to go.

He followed her to school one day;
That was against the rule;
It made the children laugh and play;
To see a lamb at school.

And so the teacher turned it out,
But still it lingered near,
And waited patiently about
Till Mary did appear.

"Why does the lamb love Mary so?"
The eager children cry;
"Why, Mary loves the lamb, you know,"
The teacher did reply. ,

lol

Cheers Intothefire 07:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next Tigeroo deletes my post now from History of Afghanistan

Tigeroo you have deleted my posts from topic after topic starting with this one .

Next Apparently the appearence of the sections on Hindu Shahi Dynasty or the Turki Shahi Buddhist Dynasty does not appeal to Tigeroo s taste . Tigeroo s obsession with the (spin he provides )on the Decline of Buddhism in India notwithstanding , the reasons for the Decline of Buddhism in Afghanistan or Pakistan seem to be best dealt with selective amnesia .

So Tigeroo whats the creative theory on the Decline of Buddhism in Afghanistan and Pakistan ...starts with Tigeroo and tigeroo s sockpuppets deleting all inconvenient posts from wikipedia is it .

cheers Intothefire 18:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

why don't you file an rfa on him?--D-Boy 05:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
giving him a long rope......!!

Cheers Intothefire 11:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, be my guest. BTW could you be another incarnation of HKelkar you are starting to spin off into a strange case for a newbie.--Tigeroo 13:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tigeroo again vandal deletes restoration of my post from this topic

(cur) (last) 21:25, 6 June 2007 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (28,064 bytes) (WP:Not a collection of quotes.)

Tigeroo about time you stopped misusing rules as pretext to delete content which as I see you are doing to posts on many articles using many sockpuppets and taking away the joy of many wikipedia contributors by deleting their posts repeatedly .

Read

See what it says
"Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community.Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures."

Are you going to misuse the knowledge of these as well ??
which reminds me of the dirty tricks of many lower division clerks in goverment Bureaucracy who use their knowledge of rules to undermine all that the rules were meant to protect .

Cheers Intothefire 11:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

While it is not a moot court please review Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. As for procedural errors I have asked you fix the issues, told you how you can fix the issues, even tried to fix what I perceived as your issue on my own, and even tried to educate you to enable you to do so yourself so I think that portion is gone since you appear to be refusing to comprehend. Please review Wikipedia:Five pillars, especially the first one to understand what the spirit actually is. The "rules" are actually the consensus built towards establishing quality, before you complaing about drivers and traffic jams keeping you from getting to where you want to go it might be a good idea to first get on the right lane else the one causing back-up is no one but yourself.--Tigeroo 13:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chapter IX FROM Ferishta's

I am adding here Chapter IX FROM Ferishta's History of the Rise of Mahommedan Power in India taken from The Packard Humanities Institute Persian Texts in Translation[3].This material is being put here to enable anyone editing this article to use this material in the improvement of this article .
"CHAPTER IX. THE HISTORY OF SIND AND TUTTA. To face page 401. Vol. IV.] GENEALOGIES OF THE SEVERAL DYNASTIES OF THE KINGS OF SIND. I. HEREDITARY MONARCHS OF THE SOOMUNA RACE. >genealogy< 1 Jam Afra. 2 Jam Chowban.
4 Jam Timajy. 3 Jam Bany.
5 Jam Sulah-ood-Deen.
6 Jam Nizam-ood-Deen.
7 Jam Ally Sheer.
8 Jam Giran.
ELECTIVE KINGS OF THE SOOMUNA RACE.
>genealogy<
9 Jam Futteh Khan. 10 Jam Toghluk.
11 Jam Sikundur.
12 Jam Sunjur.
13 Jam Nunda.
14 Jam Feroze.
DYNASTY OF ARGHOON.
genealogy
15 Shah Beg Arghoon.
16 Shah Hoossein Arghoon.
DYNASTY OF TURKHAN.
genealogy
17 Eesa Turkhan.
18 Mahomed Baky Turkhan. Khan Baba.
19 Jany Beg Turkhan.
MAHOMED KASIM.
Invasion of Sind by Mahomed Kasim. — Deebul, called Tutta, taken. — The Arabians proceed up the river Indus. — Sehwan taken. — Mooltan taken. — Mahomed Kasim recalled — ac¬count of his singular death. — Subversion of the Mahomedan power in Sind and Mooltan. IT is related in several histories, such as the Kholasut-ool-Hikayat, the Huj-Nama, and the his¬tory of Hajy Mahomed Kandahary, that the first establishment of the Mahomedan faith in the country of Sind occurred under the following circumstances: — Hijaj (the son of Yoosoof Shukfy), governor of Bussora at the time when Wuleed, the son of Abdool Mullik, was ruler of the provinces of both
A. H. 87. A. D. 705. Iraks, resolved on invading India. Ac¬cordingly, in the year 87, he deputed Mahomed Haroon with a select force into Mikran, who subdued that country, and made converts of many of the inhabitants called Bulo-chies; and having there established a regular go¬vernment, the Mahomedan faith may be said to have prevailed in that country from the period alluded to. We are told that in those days, also, the in¬habitants of the island of Selandeep (Ceylon) were accustomed to send vessels to the coast of Africa, to the Red Sea, and to the Persian Gulf, a practice prevailing from the earliest ages; and that Hindoo pilgrims resorted to Mecca and Egypt for the purpose of paying adoration to the idols, to which they looked with the utmost veneration. It is related, also, that the people trading from Selan-deep became converts to the true faith at as early a period as the reign of the first caliphs, and that having thus had intercourse with Mahomedan na¬tions, the King of Selandeep despatched a vessel laden with various rare articles, the produce of his country, to the caliph Wuleed at Bagdad.* On this vessel arriving at the entrance of the Persian Gulf it was attacked and captured by orders of the ruler of Deebul, * together with seven other boats, in which were some Mahomedan fami¬lies going on pilgrimage to Kurbula. Some of the captives making their escape carried their complaint to Hijaj, who addressed a letter to Raja Dahir, the son of Sasa, ruler of Sind, and sent it to be for¬warded from Mikran by Mahomed Haroon. Raja Dahir replied, that the act of hostility was com¬mitted by a powerful state, over which he had no control.

On the receipt of this letter Hijaj obtained the consent of Wuleed, the son of Abdool Mullik, to invade India, for the purpose of propagating the faith; and at the same time deputed a chief of the name of Budmeen, with three hundred cavalry, to join Haroon in Mikran, who was directed to reinforce the party with one thousand good soldiers more to attack Deebul. Budmeen failed in his expedition, and lost his life in the first action. Hijaj, not deterred by this defeat, resolved to A. H. 93. A. D. 711. follow up the enterprise by another. In consequence, in the year 93, he de¬puted his cousin and son-in-law, Imad-ood-Deen Mahomed Kasim, the son of Akil Shukhfy, then only seventeen years of age, with six thousand soldiers, chiefly Assyrians, with the necessary imple¬ments for taking forts, to attack Deebul. This army proceeded by the route of Shiraz and Mikran. On reaching the towns of Deboon and Dursila, on the confines of the Sind territory, Mahomed Kasim halted; and having taken the necessary steps for advancing he marched on to Deebul, situated on the banks of the Indus, which town is now called Tutta.

On reaching this place, he made preparations to besiege it, but the approach was covered by a fortified temple, surrounded by a strong wall, built of hewn stone and mortar, one hundred and twenty feet in height. * After some time a bramin, belonging to the temple, being taken, and brought before Kasim, stated, that four thousand Rajpoots defended the place, in which were from two to three thousand bramins, with shorn heads, and that all his efforts would be vain; for the standard of the temple was sacred; and while it remained entire no profane foot dared to step be¬yond the threshold of the holy edifice. Mahomed Kasim having caused the catapultas to be directed against the magic flag-staff, succeeded, on the third discharge, in striking the standard, and broke it down. In a few days after which the place fell. Mahomed Kasim levelled the temple and its walls with the ground, and circumcised the bramins. The infidels highly resented this treatment, by in¬vectives against him and the true faith. On which Mahomed Kasim caused every bramin, from the age of seventeen and upwards, to be put to death: the young women and children of both sexes were retained in bondage; and the old women being released, were permitted to go whithersoever they chose.

The booty of the temple amounted to a large sum, one fifth of which was sent to Hijaj, together with seventy-five female slaves. The rest of the plunder was distributed among the soldiery. Ma-homed Kasim, having come for the purpose of pro¬pagating the faith, proceeded to invest the town of Deebul, from whence Foujy, the son of Dahir, with a party of soldiers, forced his way to the fort of Bra-minabad ; * to which place he was pursued by Mahomed Kasim, who having closely invested it for some time, the lives of the besieged were spared, and they were allowed to retain their private pro¬perty, on condition of surrendering.

Mahomed Kasim marched thence into See-vustan, to a place called Sehwan, the inhabitants of which country, being bramins, represented to their chief, Kucha Ray, the cousin of Dahir, governor of Sind, that as the spilling of blood was contrary to the tenets of their religion, it appeared to him advisable to submit quietly to the payment of the tribute required by Kasim. Kucha Ray, despis¬ing the idea of this compromise, refused compliance, and the Mahomedans proceeded to invest Seh-wan. After a week's siege, a party from the garrison, making their escape by night, fled to the Ray of Sulim, * in order to gain reinforce¬ments; but the bramins gave up the place on the following morning, and Mahomed Kasim distri¬buted the property among the troops, reserving one fifth for Hijaj. From hence he marched to the fortress of Sulim, which he also reduced, and divided the spoils according to the practice of those times. At this period, Hully Sa†, * the eldest son of Raja Dahir, having collected a large force, marched to oppose Mahomed Kasim; and the latter took up a strong position, and entrenched himself. In this situation his resources being contracted, and many of his carriage-cattle dying, the soldiers became discontented, and at length broke into open mu¬tiny; Mahomed Kasim, however, encouraging his troops with the hope of aid, wrote to Hijaj Bin Yoosoof, who having heard of his situation before his letters arrived, had already despatched a rein¬forcement of one thousand horse, with other requi¬sites, to Sind. On receiving this seasonable as¬sistance, Mahomed Kasim again took the field, and attacking the young Ray, several battles ensued, though neither party appears to have obtained any advantage of consequence. Raja Dahir hav¬ing consulted his astrologers and bramins on the present crisis of his affairs, they declared that it was written in the ancient books, * that “at a “certain period a prophet would arise from among “the people of Arabia, who would succeed in con-“verting many nations to a new persuasion; after “which, in the lunar year 86, the Arabian forces “would invade the borders of Sind, and in the “year 93 they would subdue all those countries.” Raja Dahir having in many instances found the predictions of his astrologers verified placed great reliance on them, but resolved to defend himself with a courage becoming his rank and family. The cup of his life being now filled to the brim, he joined his son's army, of which he assumed the Rumzan 10. A. H. 93. A. D. 711. command in person; and on Wednesday the 10th of Rumzan, in the year 93, with a force consisting of fifty thousand men, composed of Rajpoots, Sindies, and Mool-tanies, he marched to attack the Mahomedans.
Mahomed Kasim, with barely six thousand troops, mostly Arabian cavalry, waited the onset. Raja Dahir at first took up a position near the Mahomedan lines, and endeavoured by skirmishes and manœuvres to entice the enemy from the strong position which he occupied; but failing in every attempt he resolved to storm it. Part of the Arab cavalry quitting the entrenched camp galloped forth and engaged the Indians singly; a mode of warfare in which the Arabians had the advantage, from the superior management of their horses, and their skill in the use of the sword. At length the action became more general, and Dahir with his rela¬tions led on the Indians into the centre of the enemy. On this occasion, one of the Arab firemen threw a naphtha ball * on the white elephant of Dahir, which became so alarmed at the terrible effect of the liquid flame, that he ran off to the river, in spite of the efforts of his driver, and plunged into the stream. The temporary absence of the Raja com¬municated a panic to his army, which instantly fol¬lowed. Mahomed Kasim pursued the fugitives; but the elephant having come out of the water Raja Dahir again drew up his troops, and made a resolute stand on the banks of the Indus, when re¬ceiving an arrow wound he fell. He, however, insisted on being placed upon a horse; and al¬though the wound was very severe, he charged in the most gallant manner into the midst of the Arabian horse, where he died like a hero. On his death, the Hindoo troops fled in confusion towards the fort of Ajdur. The Mahomedans gained a vast quantity of plunder by this vic¬tory. Mahomed Kasim now proceeded to Ajdur.† * Hully Sa, the son of Dahir, after leaving a suffi¬cient garrison in that fort, proposed to meet the Mahomedan forces in the field; but his coun¬sellors dissuading him, he retired to the fort of Braminabad.

The widow of Raja Dahir resolved to adopt the measure abandoned by her son; and with a truly masculine spirit, placing herself at the head of fifteen thousand Rajpoots, prepared to meet the Mahomedans. Mahomed Kasim, however, giving orders to his troops not to attack, they merely stood on the defensive; and the Rajpoots quietly withdrew with their female chief into the fort of Ajdur, which was now closely invested. The siege being protracted to a great length of time, the garrison were nearly starved out, when they came to the final alternative of performing the Jowhur, a ceremony which requires the Hindoos to sacrifice their women and children on a burning pile; and the men, after bathing, rush on the point of the enemy's lances sword in hand. This dreadful step being taken, the gates of the fortress were thrown open, and a body of Rajpoots, headed by the widow of Dahir, attacked the Mahomedans in their camp, and all lost their lives.

The heroes of Assyria having repulsed this attack forced their way into the fort, where they slew six thousand Rajpoots, and took prisoners three thousand more. Among the latter were the two daughters of Raja Dahir. These princesses were sent by Mahomed Kasim to Hijaj, to be re¬ceived into the seraglio of Wuleed; and after having placed all the towns of Sind under Arab governors, Mahomed Kasim proceeded to reduce Mooltan, which was also subject to the authority of Dahir. On reaching Mooltan, Mahomed Kasim also sub¬dued that province; and himself occupying the city, he erected mosques on the site of the Hindoo temples.

When the two daughters of the King of Sind arrived at the court of Hijaj at Bussora, he for¬warded them to the seraglio of the Caliph Wuleed at Damascus, where they remained until the year A. H. 96. A. D. 714. 96, when having sent for them into his presence, he enquired their names. The elder replied that she was called Surpa Devy, and the younger Burreel Devy. The Caliph becoming enamoured of the elder, wished her to submit to his embraces, when she burst into tears, and told him that she was unworthy of him, since she had been disgraced on three successive nights by Mahomed Kasim. The enraged Caliph, whose will was the law, wrote with his own hand an order to Mahomed Kasim, requiring him to clothe himself in a raw hide, and embrace that death which he so richly merited. The faithful Kasim submitted to this unjust decree; and caused himself to be sown up in a raw skin, which pro¬duced his death. After which his body was sent to the Caliph. Upon the arrival of the corpse, the Caliph, sending for Surpa Devy, said, “Behold “Mahomed Kasim in his shroud: it is thus I “punish the sins of those servants who insult the “deputy of the prophet of God.” Surpa Devy replied, with a smile full of triumph and of sarcasm, “Know, oh Caliph, that Mahomed Kasim re-“spected my person as that of his own sister, and “would no more have polluted my bed than that “of his mother. He, however, put to death my “father, my mother, my brother, and my country-“men, and in his death, indifferent to my own “fate, I have gratified that revenge which has “so long been consuming me.” * The Caliph became much disconcerted; and having dismissed the damsel, he lamented over the body of his faithful and innocent servant. On the death of Mahomed Kasim, a tribe who trace their origin from the Ansaries established a government in Sind; after which the zemindars, denominated in their country Soomura, usurped the power, and held independent rule over the kingdom of Sind for the space of five hundred years; but neither the names nor the history of these princes are, I believe, at present extant, since I have failed in my endeavour to procure them. In the course of years (although we have no account of the precise period), the dynasty of Soomura subverted the country of another dy¬nasty called Soomuna, whose chief assumed the title of Jam. During the reigns of these dynasties in Sind the Mahomedan kings of India Proper, such as those of Ghizny, Ghoor, and Dehly, invaded Sind, and seizing many of the towns, ap¬pointed Mahomedan governors over them. Among these rulers, Nasir-ood-Deen Kubbacha asserted his independence, and caused the public prayers to be read in his name as King of Sind. I shall therefore introduce my reader to him as the first Mahomedan king of Sind of which we have any authentic account. With respect to the first invasions of the Ghizny, Ghoory, and Dehly troops into Sind, accounts of them have been already given in their proper place. I shall record, therefore, this history of Sind from such scanty materials as I have been enabled to collect of the Soomura and Soomuna dynasties, though they be imperfect and unsatis¬factory. "

Cheers Intothefire 04:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) ________________________________________

[edit] Tigeroo again deletes my posts

Revision as of 05:23, 31 July 2007 (edit)
Tigeroo (Talk | contribs)
(rv - Please incorporate them into narrative coherently i.e. see where the information already exists rather than insert whole quotes under a random title)
← Older edit

Heres a new reason from Tigeroo to delete my posts once again ...my latest posts deleted by Tigeroo happen to be quotes from Farishta ....apparently the content of the quotes is not fitting coherently into the carefully constructed narrative of Qasim as Santa Clause ...now which wikipedia rule is Tigeroo going to come up with to justify this one ...or are discussions on among Tigeroo team members searching for wikipedia rule which may be misused ?? lol

Cheers
Intothefire 07:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he didn't put much effort into his edit summary this time. Arrow740 08:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

After looking at the last edits, I must agree with Tigeroo here. The material that he is removing is very difficult to understand and consists mainly of block quotes, which are very POV and do not cite specific reliable sources. Unless the material can be more effectively integrated into the article, I think Tigeroo is justified to remove it. ugen64 22:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Tigeroo. we should try to keep the article neutral. IP198 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The point is to make the article more encyclopedic, for the benefit of wikipedia, not to push a POV that has been been already accommodated.Bless sins 23:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next IP198 and Hornplease start deletion marathon from where Tigeroo left off

Now the reasons for deletion of content change ...since I used sources such as Wink which had already been used extensively in the article to provide content ....secondary source ...now the reasons for deletion change . Each reason more specious than the next .

First Lets take a look at IP198 s reasons for deletion .

IP198 - Revision as of 16:58, 30 August 2007 (edit) (undo)
IP198 (Talk | contribs)
(Undid revision 154555180 by Intothefire (talk) having this many quotes does not help the article)

This many quotes does not help …?? ..How many quotes help  ?? …is this a wikipedia rule

Next lets see Hornplease s reasons.
Current revision (06:23, 1 September 2007) (edit) (undo) Hornplease (Talk | contribs) (rm OR through over-quoting. Sourcing is not the question, context is. Wikiquote is over there

Apparently Hornplease is the wikipedia authority on context …

or perhaps IP198 is …..since IP198 goes from page to page removing the word terrorist and replacing militant from the pages of terrorist organization pages such as on page

Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami
Revision as of 02:45, 29 August 2007 (edit) (undo)
IP198 (Talk | contribs)
(per policy the use of the word terrorist is not allowed)
Newer edit →

Or on the page for
Harkat-ul-Mujahideen where he again removes the word terrorist and replaces with millitant because as he says this is POV
See his edit
Revision as of 00:05, 8 June 2007 (edit) (undo) IP198 (Talk | contribs) (removed pov) Newer edit →


Then Deeptrivia deletes asking who is wink ?'
Revision as of 02:08, 31 August 2007 (edit)
Deeptrivia (Talk | contribs)
(Undid revision 154720424 by Arrow740 (talk) who/what is Wink?)

Dear Deeptrivia
Hope you hadent deleted if you dident know who wink is because Wink is one of the main secondary sources used on this page , apparently Tigeroo , IP198 , Hornplease , like him quoted selectively , they don’t think its appropriate when I quote him .

Next I will provide quotes from Ferishta , Firdowsi , Sakfi , Ibbetson , Alberuni , Ibnbatuta and this team will object and delete . Lol
I know why …..does the truth hurt ??? the farce of concealment goes on .

Cheers Intothefire 09:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you just need to get with the program and put in the material in properly. Not repeat material. Not place them under titles that the sources do not make them out as. Do read what others saying instead of assuming whatever you wish to assume. Most of everything you placed is "already there". And also lay off the personal attacks. If it makes it easier lets take one item at a item so that it is easier to cover the options.--Tigeroo 14:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Tigeroo the presumptious and arrogant tone of this note emenating from you is not new . It is in line with how you engage here .Your tendency to appropriate a higher scholarship or erudation is misplaced what is worse though is your misplaced sense of ownership or overlordship of articles .

What you have perfected no doubt is the ability to confound ( both wikipedians who post here as well administrators )often with your misuse of the dynamics that rule wikipedia .

You are superb at undermining the freedom spirit of Wikipedia by misusing the rules that are supposed to govern civilised debate and concensus on Wikipedia .
This is a serious problem in the real world as well , how motivated people are able live in free societys and then to use the privilages of these very free societys to undermine or cause destruction .

You have aggressively indulged in deleting my and other posts time after time article after article ....and yet you have the gumption to make complaints about others .

Whereas I have not deleted any of your posts ...you have continously deleted mine . The record is there and thank wikipedia for that . When I saw your latest post complaining about me I could only smile at the lengths of your disingenuousness .

I am copying here your latest complaint so that the discussion that follows is in perspective ... just look at your tone ..newbie ...to educate him ....try to get him to learn ....before the mood changes and things get ugly...!

Editing Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (section)
Muhammad bin Qasim
We have a newbie, but really much a newbie either in User:Intothefire. Have tried not to bite the newbie to educate him and try to get him to learn to make good contributions etc. however he seems to always see a conspiracy around him and resorts to questions of bad faith. Can someone step in and see if they can make a difference before the mood changes and things get ugly. I am not quite sure how to deal with this further--Tigeroo 15:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Intothefire 16:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Get with the program. Read the wikipolicies and start making contributions in line with them, you have been around long enough to picked up the ropes by now and you will have no problem. Even neutral parties walking in have found your contributions deficient. Get with the program already and stop assuming people are out to get you. It's a self-defeating attitude.--Tigeroo 11:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next IP198 again deletes my post

Revision as of 17:44, 1 September 2007 (edit) (undo)
IP198 (Talk | contribs)
(Undid revision 155048325 by Intothefire (talk))
Newer edit →

IP198 has his turn to delete ..next turn for Tigeroo ?? lol
Cheers Intothefire 18:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I don't want to get into an edit war so I removed the worst section (badly written and badly sourced) and tagged the page. Much of the article is POV and needs to be looked at (not only the recent additions that you keep reverting to, but other portions as well). ugen64 04:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine, I self-reverted myself. We can start by cleaning up or addressing the issues raised that require clean-up. Then take things up bit by bit.--Tigeroo 11:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ferishta not acceptable as source then by same yardstick Chach Nama also not acceptable

Tigeroo your deletion
Current revision (05:24, 3 September 2007) (edit) (undo)
Tigeroo (Talk | contribs)
(→Enslavement of non combatants priests women and children - RM Ferishta is a historical primary source, you need tertiary analysis i.e historians who have reconciled all sources)

Now lets go by your own logic on acceptable sources
Your yardstick for reasons justifying deletion of Ferishta are equally applicable to the entire section "The Campaign as recounted in the Chach-Nama " and not only that every other place that this article uses the chach nama as a source .

I am agreeable either way for content on this article
using ferishta and Chachnama
not using Ferishta and chachnama
your choice ,
your yardstick ...provided it is applied to both the sources
hows that for a new cooperative begining .
please do not delete unilateraly any content till we have discussed
Cheers
Intothefire 10:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, neither is acceptable - Directly interpreting primary sources is OR and quoting sections under a header they do not appear in is also bad form. There is no direct quotation or interpretation in this article on items from Chachnama that has not been quoted by a tertiary source. If you see one raise the flag and we will remove it.
The one part where is the Chachnama has been used is to recount the progress of the military campaign succinctly i.e. Major battles, dates & route of the campaign succinctly, which is why I made sure to mark it as condensed narrative from that particular account on the progress of the campaign. It would actually be preferred to replace this section if we can find an alternative source for this information. If you want to delete what may appear like unnecessary commentary or add what seem to be pertinent information or if other accounts have a conflicting rendition then I suggest we can note them in this section until we can replace this section with a tertiary source for the campaign's progress. Atleast TRY to make what you put in as useful comprehensible sentences, like the enslavement XX section, no one can know from it whether the brahmins were non-combantants, which town or what it is about. I can't even make it flow into the narrative if I bothered as its stands because I nor any reader would have a clue of what it is about. Whatever the deal there is no excuse to "quote in large blocks selective passages" out of the primary source and definitely not under a header that proposes or advances it as anything else especially when it is not even a strategy employed by Qasim during the battles (temple at Multan section, though the city is not mentioned in this section either).--Tigeroo 11:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

On a different note pg 187-188 in Wink talk about Aybak and not about Qasim can you please help direct me to the pages referenced under "strategy of temple plunder" I can't find what's in the article in the source cited.--Tigeroo 11:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

'My RESPONSE
Lets keep the discussion focussed

You deleted the last section sourced from Farishta because you said RM Ferishta is a historical primary source, you need tertiary analysis i.e historians who have reconciled all sources
I said apply the same yardstick for Chachnama (which is written by a kinsmen of Qasim ).
Then you go on to justify keeping an entire section based on the chachnama ?? there is no tertiary analysis from historians in this section who have reconciled all sources
therefore not acceptable the entire section must go

Alternately I am agreeable with you keeping it and I will summarise a simillar section "The Campaign as recounted by Farishta " I will not block quote section will be a derivative of informations from Faarishta as you have constructed from Chachnama.....no problem

Alternately I provide yet another option to you if you keep informations derived from the Chachnama then you do not delete my sections sourced from the Chachnama . Again no block quotes ..no problem !

How s that for building on concensus !
Cheers
Intothefire 13:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually to make this easier and less confusing, lets just follow the policy and forget the whole secondary sources. I found a tertiary narrative of the campaign so that solves my temporary fix problem that made me rely on it in the first place. Please improve your Ibbetson citation, I have no idea from which book it comes etc. Thanks. Hope the new incorporations to your information satisfy, at the least I hope they demonstrate what is required. Please try to learn to be able edit like this as soon as possible.--Tigeroo 16:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My response
lets just follow the policy and forget the whole secondary sources
Intothefire 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC) we move bit by bit and no shifting of goalposts
Ibbetson citation improved .
Please improve the citations you have provide as well by providing the specific site or book

Next
Reasons for Success ....Strategy of Temple Plunder .

So we have achieved consensus on the following as source. Wink .
I will cite from here as you extensively cite him and we apply the same yardstick for source

Now Your edits of deletions of my quotes from Wink do not do justice with regard to the following 2 observations made by him which I had included under the heading of Strategy of Temple Plunder

  • According to Wink[1] AI-Qasim built his mosque in the same place, in the most crowded bazaar in the center of the town. The possession of the sun-temple -- rather than the mosque -- is what in later times the geographers see as the reason why the local governors or rulers could hold out against the neighboring Hindu powers. Whenever an 'infidel king' marched against Multan and the Muslims found it difficult to offer adequate resistance, they threatened to break the idol or mutilate it, and this, allegedly, made the enemy withdraw. In the late tenth century however the Isma'ilis who occupied Multan broke the idol into pieces and killed its priests. A new mosque was then erected on its site…"
  • The plunder was also achieved by an ingenious system of leaving the prosperous population alone, so that they would continue to bring donations to the temples, and then the Muslims would loot these temples. In order to save their temple from destruction, many Hindu warriors refused to fight: According to Wink : [1]

This information must be reinserted , the summarizing and paraphrasing must not change the import of winks observations which essentially inform how temples were successfully used as instruments or assets of ransom as well as loot .

OK I am agreeable and heres heres my offer to follow your flow then ...these may be added to the section Reasons for Success instead of Strategy of Temple Plunder

Lastly please desist the gratuitous advice on "learning " style to me , considering the number of times you have been blocked you may consider concentrating on self improvement . Lets concentrate on the issues

Cheers
Intothefire 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. No goalposts have been shifted. The issue with the secondary sources was about OR. It's just simpler to move with tertiary assessments to avoid OR. After I made my post I realized the mistake I was making as you correctly noted. My synopsis was OR, so it needs to go per policy, it was hypocritical to go with a special pleading when the non-negotiable policies governing wikipedia are quite clear on the issue.
  2. Citations - Please see the WP:Cite on how to cite articles. FYI When a cite is marked as Wink (2004) pg xx, in common citation usage it references the book listed in the references in the case of multiple citations from the same book. The entire details of the book are listed in the references section therefore Wink (2004) means Winks book listed in the references, the 2004 version, on page so and so. Hope that helps clarify the citation methodology employed a bit more. Kindly edit the Ibettson citation to conform with standard wikipedia formats.
  3. I have not deleted any of your citations from Wink, they have been integrated into the narrative article. Please refer to the WP:MOS about the question of paraphrase vs. quote and other style issues. I will speak on the assumption of deletion or representation. Wink does not list plunder of temples as a strategy or as a reason for Qasim success, therefore to put it in under that heading would be a misnomer. Note the reasons for success section is based on the particular sources cited as explicitly noting those as reasons for success, namely Gier. Yes, Qasim did loot temple wealth as booty and that is noted in the religion section as well as in the narrative of the campaign. Additions and clarifications can be made if this appears to be deficient. Note can made of this policy in the Military strategy since it was a part of his military activities, the only concern would be then excessive repetition of this information as it is already mentioned in two other sections.
  4. On the case of the temples being used as ransom, note that this was not a strategy employed by Qasim. Page 187-188 is talking about later rulers especially those in the 10th century AD when he mentions this strategy. This information also similarly belongs on the page dealing with the history of the particular temple, city or on the rulers who employed this tactic. It is important historical information no doubt, but not relavant to Qasim. What was relevant and notable about this temple vis-a-vis Qasim that Wink notes on those pages is the imprisonment of the 6000 priests of the temple, the wealth the temple generated being a reason why Qasim did not convert it, the fact that he confiscated its wealth and mocked the idol. All of this is incorporated in the religion section.--Tigeroo 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised to see the last edit on the article page ......this is not an edit by me ...except for a small section under the Taxation heading ....how is it under my username ??
Should I assume that my password has been hacked or is this a technical problem ?
Cheers
Intothefire 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but I think it could also possibly be caused by an errant mouse/keyboard or even someone else using your computer. You would be the one best able to judge the likelihood of either possibility.--Tigeroo 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My response

And now we have Ugen64 ....lol ......so much for concensus ....Tigeroo whats your take on Ugen64 edit deletions .....are you going to support the wikipedia rule book as you have been preaching or are you going to toe the line and spirit of Ugen64 s unilateral edits .

And Ugen64 are you interested in the concensus building exercise here
or will it be back to where we started ??
Cheers
Intothefire 11:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You need stop seeing conspiracies behind every bush. All I see is Ugen64 attempting to make a good faith clean-up of the article. Nothing insidious or which constructive collaborative editing cannot reconcile.--Tigeroo 19:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Look, Intothefire, you are not a native speaker and I am a native speaker. About 90% of my edits were fixing spelling and grammar errors. The other 10% might have been controversial but as Tigeroo said, you can easily point out any specific problems you have with my edits and go from there. ugen64 20:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, it would have been a lot easier for me to simply revert your edits, Intothefire (and Arrow), but I made a legitimate effort to keep and tweak the good additions, while removing the bad ones. There are many policies you would do well to re-read, but the main one I would suggest is WP:OWN. ugen64 02:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My response 4,
Since the starting of your complaint..and our attempt to build consensus ...
I have not deleted any of your posts
You have deleted and or edited
Ugen64 notwithstanding his homilies to me has also deleted content
Before this IP198 was deleting
What kind of consensus or wikipedia rule book is this coming from

Now Tigeroo lets get back to our discussion on issues to build consensus on content
Please see my note above of Intothefire 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC),
you say
# On the case of the temples being used as ransom, note that this was not a strategy employed by Qasim. Page 187-188 is talking about later rulers especially those in the 10th century AD when he mentions this strategy. This information also similarly belongs on the page dealing with the history of the particular temple, city or on the rulers who employed this tactic. It is important historical information no doubt, but not relavant to Qasim
So You state this is an important historical information but you feel this must not be applied to Qaim . Good so we agree on this fact as well .

Please see my note above of Intothefire 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC) please respond specifically to that .

As to your oft repeated conspiracy adjective ... my friend you seem to be using this word or self defending the charge too much ....Shakespeare says ...he doth protest too much .LOL

UGEN64 are you going to be part of this concensus building debate ...?? if yes then I suggest you revert all your edits in good faith from the time Tigeroo and I started discussions here and join the discussions here . Cheers
Intothefire 08:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I don't understand. You want me to revert all of my edits simply because you disagree with a few of my changes? If you disagree that much (and it seems like you do, seeing the number of comments on this page), why don't you just change the things you dislike or, even better, talk about my specific edits that you disagree with. As I pointed out yesterday, nobody owns articles, and everyone is free to make good faith edits on any page (assuming there is no ArbCom prohibition or anything). Why should I revert my own (good faith, mostly minor) edits simply because you disagree with a few of the changes? ugen64 18:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My response 5

Next lets look at putting into perspective the logic behind Qasim sending a fifth of the loot including treasure ,and captives women and children made slaves ,back to the caliph ?? why did he send back a fifth ??
cheers Intothefire 08:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been standard practice in the Caliphate. A fifth of all booty belongs to the caliph the rest of the booty was for distribution among the warriors, governors etc. War was politics and business. Armies cost money that had to be recovered. It was standard practice in ALL historic wars, booty was part and parcel of the whole engagement. Temple plunder was a strategy employed by ghazni. He targeted temple towns for their wealth. Qasim's goal was conquest, plunder came from the towns and the temples just carried a lot of it and yes slaves were valuable commodities as well in that age. All is this is only because you are asking me for my logic. I couldn't put this in the article because it is exactly that, my logic or OR. P.S It appears that me and Ugen64 are building consensus, it is easier because we easily recognize that we are adhering to known wikipedia policies and can accept improvements/refinements that occur within those dimensions without excessive recourse to explaining. I am still a bit confused at what you want to see included, everything you have contributed has been integrated into the article as per wikipedia policies and style guidelines. if you feel there is still a POV we can call in the Wikipedia neutrality project to help us identify and weed that out as well.--Tigeroo 12:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My response 6

Thankyou Tigeroo for your response above .
Regarding Qasm sending and the caliph receiving a fifth of the loot and making slaves of women and children you say and I quote you in Italics
It has been standard practice in the Caliphate.
 A fifth of all booty belongs to the caliph the rest of the booty was for distribution among the warriors, governors etc.
War was politics and business.
Armies cost money that had to be recovered.

Now tell me did Qasim have religious sanction for the plunder and loot , breaking of temples Hindu or Buddhist ....(which you like to call idolhoses) of the Sindhis or Indians or Pakistanis what ever you may choose to call them ...making slaves , of men women and children , sending daughters as sex slaves to the caliph ,this sending fifth of the loot and plunder how did this standard practice come about .
This is an important point considering how this article is phrased .

And hey why is my content of Qasims treatment of Jats being repeartedly removed inspite of my providing a proper secondary source .

Cheers
Intothefire 04:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

He had no religious motivation not to. It was booty for the taking, once again he did not break temples he converted the major one of the town to a mosque. I would hazard a guess as the primacy of the new religion. Again, like the taking of slaves and boot, standard historical practice, muslim or non-muslim. As a general information discussion on historical we should take this to our respective talk pages. If you have a particular point or sourced information you wish to include please do so. As for the Jat information, please do go ahead and reintroduce it properly at your convenience, it seems to have fallen out. I suspect Ugen removed it, much as other material and tone editing to account for a perceived POV push on his part.--Tigeroo 14:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 7

  • Tigeroo awaiting your response to my issue raised in my Response 6 so that the concensus arrived at may be incorporated into the content regarding loot plunder slavery and destruction of temples by Qasim .
  • And then I would like that in the section Umayyad Interest in Sindh a balanced view is placed in the section as the content is currently not evenhanded .

what I propose is incorporation of the below recorded content - a citation from Alexander Berzin is available ....
"Due to a combination of impediments Byzantium had favored trade with Sindh via the less costly sea route through Sindh to Ethiopia and then on by land. Due to a variety of reasons including

  • high tariffs the Sassanids ruling Iran exacted a on any goods transported overland through their territory before the Arab conquest of Iran ,
  • the trade from China to Sindh being severely curtailed in Central Asia due to incessant warfare among the Umayyads, Tang Chinese, Tibetans, Eastern Turks, Turki Shahis, and Turgish.
  • And finally the Arab military campaigns in the seventh century further inhibiting trade until the overland commercial route through Iran could be secured .

Consequently throughout the early years of their caliphate, the Umayyads had tried several times to invade the Indian subcontinent . Undoubtedly, one of their main objectives was to gain control of the trade route branch that ran down the Indus River valley to the seaports of Sindh.

As they never succeeded in wresting Gandhara from the hands of the Turki Shahis, they were never able to pass through their territory to enter the subcontinent through the Khyber Pass. The only alternative was to skirt Gandhara, take Sindh to its south, and attack Gandhara on two fronts."

Tigeroo trust that you will agree in the spirit of concensus to the complete edit of this section considering it meets all the requirements you normally place ..secondary source citation ...flow ...balance .

Await your responses to both my posts ..response 6 and response 7
cheers Intothefire 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again please make the edit or propose the modified text so that we can see clearly what your concerns are with that section and what direction the changes you would like to see are. Abstractly, I see no clash with the current Umayyad interest section and this quote, it was over trade routes. I do see an additional synergy in the interest in Gandhara that is missing and which appears plausible given Qutaibas push and capture of Kabul at the same time as Qasim captured Sindh, though not from Gandhara.--Tigeroo 14:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
OK some errors here in the introduction introduced. When mentioning the economic troubles caused by the Sassanians, Byzantine reduction in interest due to silk worms etc. Berzin is not talking about Umayyad reasons here but giving reasons on why the Buddhist community of sindh was in a difficult financial situation and how commerce was important for the sustenance of the Buddhist communities of the region to describe their position before the event. He then goes on to talk about why the Umayyads had an interest in that region and only cites the following as the reason for Umayyad interest "Undoubtedly, one of their main objectives was to gain control of the trade route branch that ran down the Indus River valley to the seaports of Sindh." He then says being unable to capture Gandhara to control the Khyber pass to achieve this goal they then had to open a second front by going around through Sindh and up and that two earlier attempts to achieve this had failed. I'll let you make the necessary corrections here.--Tigeroo 21:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 8
Next in your latest post you say
Restore material - Material is sourced from a tertiary analysis not a primary source i.e the Introduction by Dayaram Gidumal, Berzin link duplicated & not a ref. yet, Fersihta has only one mention.
Good I wont argue here either but go along with your logic as accepted on two points that

  • 1: Dayaram Gidumal is an accepted source for this article
  • 2: Please clarify do you accept Berzin as a tertiary analysis or not , please no ambiguity yes or no . If not what is your rational for keeping the link to Berzin on the external links
  • 1: Gidumal classification as a tertiary source is accepted. Barring any reason to doubt his authority, he is fine.
  • 2:: Berzin is also tertiary, I already mentioned it. My only concern is that you just placed the entirety of it at the top without integrating it into the introduction so it won't read well, and I will have to check if it is straight copy and paste, there are copyright and style issues with that approach, else it's fine.--Tigeroo 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your third point I dont accept because this is an inverted logic and goes against what you yourself have stated and I agreed in the interest of building concensus that neither Chachnama nor Ferishta are secondary or tertiary sources .Now you will have Chachnama but not Farishta because you say

  • 3:Fersihta has only one mention.

Therefore I have reverted this deletion of yours . Cheers Intothefire 14:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You put Ferishta in the external links. OK, the only problem with it is that Ferishtas book does not Qasim. External links are supposed to take the reader to more information about the article. If you put ferishta as a link under any of the Ghaznavid Dynasty, who are discussed it's reasonable. A stray mention of Qasim having conquered sindh doesn't really make it a useful link for someone looking up information on Qasim. Also, there is a reason for wikilinks - there is no need to get into a lenghty generic aside about it, except to note that it was in place or if there was anything strange specifically strange about it here, as in related to Sindh because of it.--Tigeroo 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 9
Tigeroo now with regard to the many [citation needed] in the section The Campaign, these unreferenced section have remained too long and if proper ref can not be found must be immediately removed as this information has stayed long enough .
Cheers

Intothefire 18:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 10
Tigeroo your delete of my contributed edit is Unreasonable viz-
Revision as of 20:50, 10 September 2007 (edit) (undo)
Tigeroo (Talk | contribs)
(rm non-specific Dhimmi aside, its wikilinked. rm one instanceof the word Hindu, its mentioned earlier)

My contribution of the content you have deleted is valid because

  • It is specifically relevant to the implications of the status of Dhimmi .
  • It is properly referrenced
  • It is specific to the line that precedes it viz
    Hindus and Buddhists were included in the Ahl al Kitab and the status of Dhimmi (protected people) was conferred upon them
  • rm is not applicable here ,You could remove the wikilink to Dhimmi if you have a problem but this section must not be deleted ,

Cheers
Intothefire 03:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. An similar example of an unnecessary aside would be adding a protracted explanation into the benefits accrued of using the Mongol Bow or a description of the Mongol bow, it would be off-topic. That's one angle, now the next The references are fine, but here is where WP:OR comes in. The specific information put in is an aside explaining dhimmi in general. The concept of "Dhimmi" took different forms with different effects in different times and eras and this information is not specific. Which is why this broad general overview of information belongs on the dhimmi article page which can be wikilinked. Now that information cited does not talk about what happenned or how it affected the people in sindh during Qasims time. A similar wrong approach would be to add a general description of the Indian caste system and it's implications when we mention caste of the Jats as being a factor. That would be OR as well because we are assuming "those were the specific dynamics" in place at that time or under that rule. I agree that that information relevant to the implications of the status of Dhimmi or caste dynamics belong in the article.. more so in the religion section that in the section they are currently in.. but they must be shown in the sources as being the operative conditions in this particular time and rulership. That is not done in the sources. They talk about Dhimmi's in general, but not about the dynamicis of dhimmi's in Sindh under Qasim. Hope that clears it up. I'll leave what thus becomes defined as WP:OR standing for you to fix for a while.--Tigeroo 08:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

'Response 11' Tigeroo Regarding my content deleted by you viz Dhimmi .

Your first objection to Dhimmi was non-specific Dhimmi aside rm ,
when I answered that in my response 10
you now say objection is WP:OR .
Tigeroo please no changing goal posts .

Regarding Farishta ….you call his content
A stray mention of Qasim having conquered sindh doesn't really make it a useful link for someone My friend Farishta has an entire chapter devoted to Qasim and the History of Sindh …see above where I have recorded it ….an entire chapter is not a stray mention . But now that I have shown you the large extent of Farishta s recording in the specific context of Qasim …I hope this issue will not come up again from you . Cheers
Intothefire 13:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification, it was my error it was not easy to find. I edited the page link so that the link takes you straight to that chapter. It makes navigation and access to the Kasim information easier.--Tigeroo 17:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Dhimmi aside: There are multiple guidelines governing wikipedia. I just mentioned this one for you because they both apply. One does not negate the other. The proposed solution I provided for dealing with this informations inclusion meets both criteria, the edit as per you impinges on both. Hope that clarifies it better.--Tigeroo 17:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 12

Your deletion of the word Hindu which I added viz
Revision as of 20:50, 10 September 2007 (edit) (undo)
Tigeroo (Talk | contribs)
(……….. one instanceof the word Hindu, its mentioned earlier)
In this deletion of my content you removed the word Hindu in the sentence

"the Hindu daughters of Dahir were kidnapped"

Tigeroo lets use the same yardstick I will accept your choice with regard to two incidents of kidnapping of women mentioned in this article .
Earlier the article states-
During Hajjaj's governorship, the Mids of Debal "kidnapped Muslim women" travelling from Sri Lanka to Arabia
Kidnapping of women is bad in either case but you delete the Hindu prefix from one instance and leave the other which is Muslim .
Again I offer both options either we remove both the words hindu and muslim as prefix or we use in both cases .Your choice
'

And the same logic is then used over the entire article !
Cheers
Intothefire 13:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that when the women are mentioned again later we do away with the Muslim. It becomes POV pushing when mentioned excessively. The only reason to specify to Muslim women in the first instance was to specify that Hajjaj took exception to the capture of Muslim women because their religious orientation was an important decision factor of Hajjajs. We have mentioned that Dahir was Hindu, there is no need to repeat it multiple times or to mention reassociate religious orientation with his daughters unless it was different, it just becomes a bit redundant in this instance.--Tigeroo 17:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 13

There is an ongoing consensus building exercise. Fundamentally it pertains to deletion of content provided by me , primarily by Tigeroo , but also by users
1P198 ,
Hornplease
Bless Sins
IP 80.227.40.9

I have been extremely vigilant to ensure that all the content provided by me after the
commencement of the consensus building debate (after Tigeroo s complaint against
me ) meets the compliance standards of wikipedia . Sources , citations , policy .

In other cases and in the interest of building consensus I have simply offered and then
adhered subsequently to allowing Tigeroo the prerogative of using or not using a source .

Straightforward Deletion justified on the grounds of personal opinion and not wikipedia policy as done by Bless sins recently is completely unjustified then
Bless sins deletion (cur) (last) 03:57, 12 September 2007 Bless sins (Talk | contribs) (31,303 bytes)
(the discussion of Sura 9:29 is inappropriate here, I agree that we should tell the user to go to the dhimmi article) (undo)

Or Hornplease deletion of the same on the following grounds viz
Revision as of 18:26, 11 September 2007 (edit) (undo)
Hornplease (Talk | contribs)
(wikilink dhimmis and let the reader go there)

But when Tigeroo deleted on one reason and then another
. I provided a justification and then an offer as well …see my posts Reason 10 and Reason 11 .
This could form the basis of a consensus on this section as well which I have offered. viz
You could remove the wikilink to Dhimmi if you have a problem but this section must not be deleted

Surely contributions to concensus building or the development of this article are going to be severely negated if deletions of justifiable content provided by one user become the overriding concern of an individual or a group as the history of the article would corroborate. Cheers
Intothefire 06:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your arguments higher up on this page. However, you are basically repeating, in this article, the definition aof a dhimmi, and quoting it. That should be at most a line, with a link to the full article. Hornplease 13:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Response14
Hornplease I should suppose that your reason for deleting my posted content on Dhimmi has not changed , your reason for the deletion was wikilink dhimmis and let the reader go there this happens to be your opinion and not a wikipedia rule , by again deleting the content without a justifiable reason you are simply negating the concensus building exercise here .

I had offered a concensus building concession in my response 13 but I see that has not been taken . From the record of this article it will be apparent that I have desisted from removing content posted by others ...recognising that we are dealing with a contentious article I have left content with opposing views .

Regretfully Hornplease I could not say that about you ,out of your 4 posts 3 pertain to deletion mostly of my content with proper citations . This is the inverse to concensus building .
Here for instance are your deletions of my content on this article .

  • 13:20, 12 September 2007 Hornplease (Talk | contribs) (31,303 bytes) (see talk, please) (undo)
  • Revision as of 00:06, 30 August 2007 (edit) (undo)

Hornplease (Talk | contribs)
(no secondary sources. Over-quoting is original research.)
Newer edit → These were quotations of wink which you deleted

  • Revision as of 00:44, 29 August 2007 (edit) (undo)

Hornplease (Talk | contribs)
(rm excessive quotes. Find secondary sources)

As regards non-specific aside the same could be said for the two lengthy sections
 Political setting
Umayyad Interest in Sindh
The Dhimmi content is as contextual post Qasims Invasion of Sindh and treatment of Sindhis as the content in the above two sections is contextual to the period before Qasims attacks on Sindhis

Lastly your opinion can not substitute wikipedia standards . Cheers
Intothefire 17:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is considered customary to use wikilinks to longer articles to explain words that are not stricly related to the articles subject. The specific sura in the Koran, etc, etc, that determine the status of dhimmis is hardly relevant to MbQ's life. If you can point to the policy I am violating, I am willing to discuss it. Hornplease 21:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creation of a New Article

I think you have a point here. That aside is not really relevant to Qasim but the campaign. On a second look at this page, I think a fair amount of information here creates a case for the creation of a seperate sub-article now. One called the Umayyad conquest of Sindh and a lot of the information contained within can actually be moved there allowing a better and possibly more detailed handling of the information proving to be tenditious.--Tigeroo 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A request
Tigeroo Please post the latest contributions to this discussion at the bottom of the page only and provide a ref to the context above ....that way a continuity would be maintained ...well we can disagree without being disagreeable ..thats good :)
Cheers
Intothefire 18:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The customary way is to respond to discussion by an increasingly indentation to keep the discussion on a particular point together so that it can easily followed by new editors trying to join the conversation.--Tigeroo 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 15
Tigeroo I am ok with the creation of a new article accept that ..is it an appropriate title please comment . Incidently who were the mids ?? they are mentioned all over but very little specific information on who the mids were ...is the article fair on the mids ???
Cheers
Intothefire 04:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As far the sources show the Mids were a people who were the traditional rivals of the Jats in that age and appeared to fight them a lot. The Mids have no article page and there is little information on wikipedia on them as of now. If you have a proposal for the new article please do so, thats why I proposed it for discussion. BTW what is the failing of the article name as proposed?--Tigeroo 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perspectives

You need to cite a source saying there are two perspectives, otherwise it becomes your interpretative reading, which is OR. See the section controversy for the two perspectives. I also note that you take sources and interpret them forming a thesis. WP:OR is against editors thesis or extrapolations on the sources ( WP:SYN) for example this sentence of yours "The Muslim chroniclers al—Baladhuri (in Kitab Futuh al—Buldan) and al—Kufi (in the Chachnama) include enough isolated details to establish the overall nature of the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad b. Qasim in 712 C.E."

Also, you need to quickly take a brief of WP:NPOV. Most of what you placed in that section is already there in the article, we can revisit how it is dealt with in the article if that is your particular concern.--Tigeroo 10:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 16Intothefire 17:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Tigeroo here is my respone to your immediate above comment .

  • You need to cite a source saying there are two perspectives, otherwise it becomes your interpretative reading, which is OR. .....alright point conceded although I did it out of good intention of not deleting the existing content .

Consequently the deleted content needs to remain after removing the heading of Perspective 2

  • I also note that you take sources and interpret them forming a thesis. WP:OR is against editors thesis or extrapolations on the sources ( WP:SYN)

As to the section you have provided here as proof my friend you are mistaken completely because it is not my interpretation at all but taken from the following source -see below- and my only mistake was that I did not provide the source ...thank you for raising this issue because it has enabled me to improve upon viz
Al—Baladhuri. The Origins of the Islamic State (Kitab Futuh Al—Buldan). Part II, Translated by F.C. Murgotten, New York, Columbia University, 1924, pp. 217—224; Al—Kufi. The Chachnama, excerpts translated in H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson. A History of India As Told By Its Own Historians—The Muhammadan Period, 1867—1877 (reprinted 2001, Delhi), Vol. 1, pp. 157—211

)

As a matter of fact it is your routine practice ...to take sources and then form a thesis ...lets agree that if I provide to you here the content ...you will remove your entire section as well and not nitpick .
please a short unambigous answer

Inspite of this I have again provided space for concensus even in this response .

In the circumstance it would behove you to
1)Take back your false charge
2)Do not challenge delete the inclusion of this content on some other charge .
3)Do not delete this content again .

Cheers Intothefire 17:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey I just rechecked ...I had provided the sources ...?? Cheers Intothefire 18:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple of matters on why the material was removed, nitpicking is what is making it better and is not an instrument of censorship, it is one of quality control in this case. Tackling the issues once again:
  • On the question of OR: Do you mind quoting the source that makes that statement or an equivalent? The way the source is cited over many pages for a singular statement it appears like that sentence is your analysis of the material covered in those pages of the two books. Similarly for the sentences in the sources that lend themselves to the sources asserting the following sentences: "These narratives, and the processes they..." and "We can now well understand why the capture of a fort by.." etc. As an aside also Biladahuri for it's antiquity is also a primary source, you are free to use someone else synopsis of it like the commentary of the translators, but not posit an analysis of the translated material.
  • On the matter of repetition: Material such as the Debal colonists, the mosque on the temple grounds, the killings, dahirs head, the slaves etc. has already been mentioned and is just being repeated. The conclusions from that view providing that perspective view on Islamization, invading desecration, political expediencies etc. are also present in the controversy section.
  • On the matter of POV: Exercise some care with the usage of words such as massacres, infidels, ruthless, slaughter etc. the tone they are used can turn the section POV, see WP:NPOV on how these can be used appropriately. One issue with the additions was the sensationalist tone of the material.

As you can see there is little actual "deletion" going on...it is all already in the article, it's mostly doing away with the repetition. I see little to no "new" information added to the article via that edit. If you want to add something about it that is missing or some other issue with the presentation of the material we can look into that.--Tigeroo 22:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and try using references that aren't dated to 1920; Anything based on the writings of a prominent Sindhi dewan, for example, may not be strictly historically accurate. Scholarship from peer-reviewed or academic sources, with less interpretation/OR from your side, please. Hornplease 15:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, modern scholarship is preferred. This does not discount the work of other historians. Your recent removals of sourced content (some sourced to modern historians) has been quite blatant. Arrow740 06:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Hornplease's continued revert warring and 3rr violations in order to remove large amounts of well-sourced material is clearly unacceptable and also quite extreme. -- Karl Meier 07:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Have you guys read the article and information that was removed?? Other then the dhimmi off-topic aside or the tone of the language of the material (which are a separate discussion), most of it is a REPETITION of material already present in the article. The information is already there in the article!!!!!! Removal of duplicated information should be a simple enough starting point that should be easy enough to agree on.--Tigeroo 07:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 17
How Dyaram Gidumal came to be a source in this article ?
Hornplease you have asked an important question.
Which needs to be tackled at the specific and fundamental level .

First the specific answer
When I objected to a post in the article from the Chachnama this is what Tigeroo s comment had to say when he restored on the article -

Revision as of 14:02, 10 September 2007 (edit)
Tigeroo (Talk | contribs)
(Restore material - Material is sourced from a tertiary analysis not a primary source i.e the Introduction by Dayaram Gidumal, Berzin link duplicated & not a ref. yet, Fersihta has only one mention.)

So as a I was participating in consensus building exercise on the talk page I agreed in good faith –see my Response 8 on talk page , which as you must have seen since you are participating in this debate .

Now my fundamental question to you
Why is it that you did not object or delete content sourced from Dayaram Gidumal when Tigeroo used it  ?
 But objected and deleted when I used the same source
viz your delete and comment .
Revision as of 02:23, 14 September 2007 (edit) (undo)
Hornplease (Talk | contribs)
(do help defend the egregious OR you inserted on talk.)

Hornplease notwithstanding your use of the somewhat discourteous word egregious
What this selective acceptance and rejection of source is showing is that
You are decisively unfair not willing to accept the same yardstick .

This article has to become more truthful
and until aggressive deletions do not stop
and the spirit of fair play is not embraced by Tigeroo ,Hornplease , IP198 , and annonymous IP s that appear only to delete , we are not going to make headway .


Next I will specifically show how Tigeroo misuses wikipedia rules when he deletes Content

Cheers Intothefire 13:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How Tigeroo has deleted my post

Response 18
My posts containing proper citations have been repeatedly deleted , hidden away , corrupted in various ways by Tigeroo on this and other articles
 using various intelligent manuvers ,
one of these being to delete by
first citing a wikipedia rule
….and then exploiting the cited rule to make it seem a valid reason , even while actually in implementing an upturned version of the content .

Here s a recent example
An illustration of one of the deceptions used to make a deletion worse an inversion of a post , not look like a deletion

I posted the following content in my post viz (cur) (last) 19:20, 13 September 2007 Intothefire (Talk | contribs) (35,956 bytes) (Inter religious relations in Sindh concurrent to Qasim s invasion) (undo)

"Backdrop to Inter religious relations in Sindh concurrent to Qasim s invasion

We see also see that the Buddhists and the Brahmans lived in amity, and the importance of this fact cannot be over¬estimated ref Dayaram Gidumal Introduction The Chachnamah, an ancient history of sind, giving the hindu period down to the arab conquest. translated from the Persian by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg, ,REF Dayaram Gidumal Introduction The Chachnamah, an ancient history of sind, giving the hindu period down to the arab conquest. translated from the Persian by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg .

We have thus Brahman, Buddhist, Greek, and Arab testimony as to the amicable relations subsisting between the followers of the two religions, upto the 7th century; and the testimony of the Arab . REF Dayaram Gidumal Introduction The Chachnamah, an ancient history of sind, giving the hindu period down to the arab conquest. translated from the Persian by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg,"

But Tigeroo Deletes this entire section vide his post viz :
Revision as of 22:27, 13 September 2007 (edit) (undo) Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Political setting - Moving religious relations to part where it is discussed.) Newer edit

His reasons here are noteworthy …considering what is being implemented next.

In Tigeroo s immediate next edit viz he comments viz : Revision as of 22:27, 13 September 2007 (edit) Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Political setting - Moving religious relations to part where it is discussed.)

But no such thing is done at all – viz the matter deleted by Tigeroo on the pretext that it is being shifted to Political setting ….is not shifted at all instead some other changes are made …..!!

Then in Tigeroo s next edit  :Revision as of 22:50, 13 September 2007 (edit) (undo) Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Reasons for Success - Incorporation of the Buddhism religious effects and questionability of Buddhist Hindu antagonism)

This is the edit he posts reproduced below …please see his comment above-
"Reasons for Success - Incorporation of the Buddhism religious effects and questionability of Buddhist Hindu antagonism "

Tigeroo s post
Stanley Lane-Poole, Medieval India under Mohammedan Rule, 712-1764, G.P. Putnam's Sons. New York, 1970. p. 9-10 ‘’’REF’’’ Brahman, Buddhist, Greek, and Arab testimony however can be found that attests towards amicable relations between the adherents of the two religions upto the 7th century.’’’ref name’’’="Dayaram The Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Delhi Reprint, 1979 Online Version last accessed 30 September 2006/ref

The entire meaning has been changed …by removing a key section of my post viz
: "We see also see that the Buddhists and the Brahmans lived in amity, and the importance of this fact cannot be over¬estimated ref Dayaram Gidumal Introduction The Chachnamah, an ancient history of sind, giving the hindu period down to the arab conquest. translated from the Persian by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg, ,ref Dayaram

If you read the preceding text to where the truncated portion has been put by Tigeroo the inversion of the meaning will become apparent from what it was meant to be .

What does the wikipedia rule book say to this kind of dishonest misuse of rules .

This kind of thing has happened on innumerable occasions and administrators are also hoodwinked .

Cheers
Intothefire 15:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's take step back, Why is that information important background information? Does it have something to do with the campaign or with events later in the campaign? How does it align itself with what is to come. The only thing that struck me was that it was the opposite of what Gier was saying was a reason for Qasim's success so in all likelihood was an opposing view of this situation. It would lose it's effectiveness and appear as an internal inconsistency of the article if one part is saying it was a good relationship and the other saying not, therefore I put both opposing views together one after the other so that they can CONTRAST each other. Then I trimmed down the emphasis on negative Buddhist feelings, removed that item from the list of reasons for Qasim's success because it discussed above without agreement and then added the Buddhist non-violence stance into the list. All this to include your information in a cohesive and concise manner. Please take at a look at the entirety of the diff. I asked myself what is the point of this information? And then tried to bring it into the flow of the article instead of having it reading like a disconnected insert. If I misread the intent of those lines my apologies. If I just didn't get it quite right to suit we can edit it back and forth till we get it correct, but it in no way qualifies as a deletion!!--Tigeroo 20:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Response 19Intothefire 18:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign terms

  • Several non english words have been used in this article some of which are Arabic and therefore not understandable by readers not conversant with Arabic language .
  • The import/meaning of these words or terms needs to be explained in English in the context of the article where they are used so that the proper meaning of the word or term emerges in context to how it is used , otherwise the Arabic terms may be misused or not understood at all .

I have listed here some of the Arabic terms used in the article .
ahl-i harb
anwattan
Sulh
ahd-e-wasiq
aman
ahl-i-harb
Dihqans
mal
kharaj

I could find links to only two of these terms in wikipedia ...but when I read these was surprised to find that the meaning was quite different to the way it is used in the text .

  • What is the wikipedia rule on usage of non English terms ?
  • What is the wikipedia rule if it emerges that a non english word or term has been used in a context to completely invert its meaning

Is it Reasonable to allow unexplained non english terms to be used unless it is not explained at the point of usage in the text .

Will the editors please reflect on this important issue as well as it will certainly go to improve the article .
Cheers
Intothefire 18:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The terms used are listed beside their translation and used sparingly. For wikipedia rules on the words see this link The source for the word and the translation are as per Wink and are "technical" terms form for administrative/ military concept i.e. the sentence "..here were two types of such treaties, "Sulh" or "ahd-e-wasiq (capitulation)" and "aman (surrender/ peace).." and "..ahl-i-harb (fighting men).." Which word do you have an issue with, i.e. as unexplained or as inverted usage, I can assume from the links provided that it is either Sulh or Kharaj, both linked pages appear stubby (incomplete) to me but do not clash with the way they are presented or treated by Wink, i.e. Sulh as a treaty of granting peace and Kharaj as a tributary tax. Similary we have mention of "Village Headmen (Rais) and Chieftains (dihqans)" which translates the words during usage. Rais and dihqan are non-arabic words reflecting local status like Raja and Thakores. Dihqans were a significant class of nobility in the Persian courts and one could create a whole article about them as a future project. We should wikilink Kharaj and Sulh as well.--Tigeroo 21:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 20

Misuse of non english words /terms by Tigeroo

My position regarding this important issue of use rather misuse of non English words by tigeroo remains unchanged. The usE of itallics or correct spelling (ref TIGEROO S wiki link above ) is the least of my concerns ....its the turn of phrase ...contextual jugglery which is the bona fide concern .

Next I will show how Tigeroo turns the phrase to imply an inversion of circumstance .

The deletions happening here are at both a pedestrian as well as sophisticated level

Cheers
Intothefire 08:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's take an example of something wrong hear your comments on why you believe that it is so and see your proposed remedial formulation. Right now the comment is too vague for us to have a discussion on what your specific concerns on the issue are about.--Tigeroo 16:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intothefire: Customary Wikipedia discussion format

This response scheme adopted by you is confusing because some items are not responses such as this one. Also being separated they tend to make one lose the flow of conversation. The typical convention is create a new section for each different topic/discussion thread and use indentations to indication responses/elucidation to a discussion thread, this keeps relevant conversations together and easy to understand and follow, and easier to keep track of. I have taken the liberty of modifying the new topic initiated to this format as an example.--Tigeroo 21:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tigeroo continues deletion of sourced content

Response21

On the 14th of September Tariqabjotu put a protection banner on the article page , the protection was to last till 22rd September viz: (cur) (last) 19:51, 14 September 2007 Tariqabjotu (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Muhammad bin Qasim: ongoing edit warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 19:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC))) (undo)

When the protection was removed on the 22nd ...Tigeroo had made a wholesale delete of sourced content again on the 23rd of September . A history of this page will unfold the vandal deletes ,edits , of Tigeroo for the last many months , of sourced content provided by many contributors .

Cheers
Intothefire 05:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this activity must stop. Arrow740 05:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Read the article, the information removed was a repetition. It is already in the article, entirely sourced and integrated with appropriate tertiary commentary. There is no need to write the same things twice and thrice. Please DO read both what is in the article and what you are contributing so that it does fits in the article. All third parties who have stopped across the page and made the effort to look at it have made the same comments here. I have already addressed this particular issue in this thread, lacking a counter response/ clarification it appears as if there is none. The problem with your edits is the same as your inability to adhere to simple wikipedia formats; even here on the talk pages, Response 21??? Response requires someone to have raised an issue, where is issue 21? or what issue are you even "responding" to? I don't know if you can't formulate a edit or won't make the effort to formulate one that does not disturb the coherency of the article and if anyone fixes it you scream vandal.--Tigeroo 06:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
At first glance, I don't seem to be familiar with the issues. But I'm reading to catch up on what's going on. Intothefire, I strongly suggest you don't make this into a "Tigeroo vs. Intothefire" match where one side tries to score points against another. Please calm down. No offense intended.Bless sins 02:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article is flawed...

Someone should see the cheema article, the reason qasim conquered Punjab rapidly was as he received support from Cheema tribes. Also the so called abuse of the Jatt under Qasim sounds "dubious" as the Jatt subtribes such as cheemas had converted to Islam, it the majority of them were Jatts, so it would see ilogical for a Muslim to oppress Muslims, who were helping him in the conquest of Punjab. The Jatts adided Qasims conquest of Punjab. It would be nonsensical for him to mistreat the jatts.

See the Cheema article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.221.70 (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)