MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM

Who Conquest of Sindh and Multan for the Umayyads was Born on 31
December 695 at Ta'if, Arabia and passed way on 18 July 715 (aged 20) at the
age of less than 20 years.


Muhammad ibn Qasim leading his troops in battle
Imd ad-Dn Muammad ibn Qsim ath-Thaqaf (Arabic:
; c. 31 December 695 18 July 715
[citation needed]
) was
an Umayyad general who conquered the Sindh and Multan regions along
the Indus River (now a part of Pakistan) for the Umayyad Caliphate. He was
born and raised in the city of Taif (in modern-day Saudi Arabia). Qasim's
conquest of Sindh and southern-most parts of Multan enabled further Islamic
expansion into India.
A member of the Thaqeef tribe of the Ta'if region, Muhammad bin Qasim's
father was Qasim bin Yusuf
[citation needed]
who died when Muhammad bin Qasim
was young, leaving his mother in charge of his
education. Umayyad governor Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf Al-Thaqafi, Muhammad bin
Qasim's paternal uncle (Tau), was instrumental in teaching Muhammad bin
Qasim about warfare and governance. Muhammad bin Qasim married his
cousin Zubaidah, Hajjaj's daughter, shortly before going to Sindh. Another
paternal uncle of Muhammad bin Qasim was Muhammad bin Yusuf, governor
of Yemen.
[citation needed]
Under Hajjaj's patronage, Muhammad bin Qasim was
made governor of Persia, where he succeeded in putting down a rebellion.
[citation
needed]

Due to his close relationship with Hajjaj, Bin Qasim was executed after the
accession of Caliph Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik.
Contents
1. Umayyad interest in Sindh
2. The campaign
3. Military and political strategy
4. Reasons for success
5. Administration by Muhammad bin Qasim
6. Incorporation of ruling elite into administration
7. Jat clashes with Muhammad bin Qasim
8. Treatment of Jats
9. Religion
10. Death
11. Controversy
12. Legacy
13. See also
14. Footnotes
15. References
16. External links

UMAYYAD INTERST IN SINDH
According to Berzin, Umayyad interest in the region occurred because of
attacks from Sindh Raja Dahir on ships ofMuslims and their imprisonment of
Muslim men and women.
[1]
They had earlier unsuccessfully sought to gain
control of the route, via the Khyber Pass, from the Turki-
Shahis of Gandhara.
[1]
But by taking Sindh, Gandhara's southern neighbor,
they were able to open a second front against Gandhara; a feat they had, on
occasion, attempted before.
[1]

According to Wink, Umayyad interest in the region was galvanized by the
operation of the Meds and others.
[2]
Meds (a tribe of Scythians living in Sindh)
had pirated upon Sassanid shipping in the past, from the mouth of
the Tigris to the Sri Lankan coast, in their bawarij and now were able to prey
on Arab shipping from their bases at Kutch, Debal andKathiawar.
[2]
At the
time, Sindh was the wild frontier region of al-Hind, inhabited mostly by semi-
nomadic tribes whose activities disturbed much of the Western Indian
Ocean.
[2]
Muslim sources insist that it was these persistent activities along
increasingly important Indian trade routes by Debal pirates and others which
forced the Arabs to subjugate the area, in order to control the seaports and
maritime routes of which Sindh was the nucleus, as well as, the overland
passage.
[3]
During Hajjaj's governorship, the Mids of Debal in one of their raids
had kidnapped Muslim women travelling from Sri Lanka toArabia, thus
providing a casus belli to the rising power of the Umayyad Caliphate that
enabled them to gain a foothold in
the Makran, Balochistan and Sindhregions.
[2][4]



Insert pic

Also cited as a reason for this campaign was the policy of providing refuge to
Sassanids fleeing the Arab advance and to Arab rebels from the Umayyad
consolidation of their rule



Umayyad caliphate in 710 : The Umayyad Caliphate on the eve of the invasions
of Spain and Sindh in 710.

All the above reason have their own importance for a first attack on Sindh. but
immediate causes for the conquest of Sindh was the plunder of the gifts of
Ceylon's ruler to Hijjaj and attack on ships of Arab that were carrying the
orphans and widows of Muslim soldiers who died in Jihaad against Africa.
These Arab were imprisoned later on by the Governor Deebal Partaab Raye. A
letter written by the an escaped girl from the Arab that are put in the prison of
the Partab Raye. She asked Hajjab Bin Yousaf for help. When Hijjaj asked
Dahir for release of prisoners and compensation, the later refused on the
ground that he had no control over those. Hajjaj sent Muhammad Bin Qasim
for this great expedition in 711 A.D. It was during this time when Spain and
many parts of Africa and Central Asia were brought under the Muslim rule;
and war was continue so Muslims were not in a position to start a new
expedition. The only reason of this conquest was to rescue pilgrims that were
taken captive by Hindu governor
[dubious discuss]
.
The mawali; new non-Arab converts; who were usually allied with Hajjaj's
political opponents and thus were frequently forced to participate in
the Jihads on the frontier - such as Kabul, Sindh and Transoxania.
[5]
Through
conquest, the Umayyads intended to protect its maritime interest, while also
cutting off refuge for fleeing rebel chieftains as well as Sindhi military support
to the Sassanid rump state; akin to those received at several prior major
battles during the their conquest of Persia - such as those
at Salasal and Qdisiyyah and the finally at the Battle of Rasil. An actual push
into the region had been out of favor as an Arab policy since the time of
the Rashidun Caliph Umar bin Khattab, who upon receipt of reports of it being
an inhospitable and poor land, had stopped further expeditionary ventures into
the region.

THE CAMPAIGN


A map of Muhammad bin Qasim's expedition into Sindh in 711 AD.

Muhammad bin Qasim's expedition was actually the third attempt, the first
two having failed due to stiffer-than-expected opposition as well as heat,
exhaustion.
[citation needed]

Hajjaj had put more care and planning into this campaign than the first
campaign
[5]
under Badil bin Tuhfa.
[citation needed]
Hajjaj superintended this
campaign from Kufa by maintaining close contact with Muhammad bin Qasim
in the form of regular reports and then regularly issuing orders.
[5]
The army
which departed from Shiraz in 710 CE under Muhammad bin Qasim was 6,000
Syrian cavalry and detachments of mawali from Iraq.
[5]
At the borders of Sindh
he was joined by an advance guard and six thousand camel riders and later
reinforcements from the governor of Makran transferred directly to Debal by
sea along with five catapults
[5]
("manjaniks"). The army that eventually
captured Sindh would later be swelled by the Gurjars andMeds as well as other
irregulars that heard of successes in Sindh.
[5]
When Muhammad bin Qasim
passed through Makranwhile raising forces, he had to re-subdue the restive
Umayyad towns of Fannazbur and Arman Belah (Lasbela)
[6]
The first town
assaulted was Debal and upon the orders of Al-Hajjaj, he exacted a bloody
retribution on Debal by giving no quarter to its residents or priests and
destroying its great temple.
[5]


Extent and expansion of Umayyad rule under Muhammad bin Qasim
in medieval India (modern state boundaries shown in red).

From Debal the Arab army then marched north taking towns such as Nerun
and Sadusan (Sehwan) peacefully.
[5]
often using their components; additionally
one-fifth of the booty including slaves were dispatched to Hajjaj and the
Caliph.
[5]
The conquest of these towns was accomplished easily; however, Raja
Dahir's armies being prepared on the other side of the Indus
[7]
were yet to be
fought.
[5]
In preparation to meet them, Muhammad bin Qasim moved back to
Nerun to resupply and receive reinforcements sent by Hajjaj.
[5]
Camped on the
east bank of the Indus, Qasim sent emissaries and bargained with the river
Jats and boatmen.
[5]
Upon securing the aid of Mokah Basayah, "the King of the
island of Bet", Muhammad bin Qasim crossed over the river where he was
joined by the forces of the Thakore of Bhatta and the western Jats.
[5]

At Ar-rur (Rohri) he was met by Dahir's forces and the eastern Jats in
battle.
[5]
Dahir died in the battle, his forces were defeated and a triumphant
Muhammad bin Qasim took control of Sind.
[5]
In the wake of the battle enemy
soldiers were put to death - but not artisans, merchants or farmers - and Dahir
and his chiefs, the "daughters of princes" and the usual fifth of the booty and
slaves was sent on to Hajjaj.
[5]
Soon the capitals of the other
provinces, Brahmanabad, Alor (Aror) and Multan, were captured alongside
other in-between towns with only light Muslim casualties.
[5]
Usually after a
siege of a few weeks or months the Arabs gained a city through the intervention
of heads of mercantile houses with whom subsequent treaties and agreements
would be settled.
[5]
After battles all fighting men were executed and their wives
and children enslaved in considerable numbers and the usual fifth of the booty
and slaves were sent to Hajjaj.
[5]
The general populace was encouraged to carry
on with their trades and taxes and tributes settled.
[5]

With Sindh secured Qasim sent expeditions to Surashtra, where his generals
made peaceful treaty settlements with the Rashtrakuta.
[1]
Muhammad bin
Qasim wrote out letters to "kings of Hind" to surrender and accept Islam, and
subsequently 10,000 cavalry were sent to Kannauj asking them to submit and
pay tribute before his abrupt recall ended the campaign.
[5]


MILITARY AND POLITICAL STRATEGY
The military strategy had been outlined by Hajjaj in a letter sent to Muhammad
bin Qasim:
[8]

My ruling is given: Kill anyone belonging to the ahl-i-harb [combatants]; arrest
their sons and daughters for hostages and imprison them. Whoever does not
fight against us...grant them aman [safety] and settle their tribute [amwal]
as dhimmah [protected person]...
The Arabs' first concern was to facilitate the conquest of Sindh with the fewest
casualties while also trying to preserve the economic infrastructure.
[8]
Towns
were given two options: submit to Islamic authority peacefully or be attacked
by force (anwattan), with the choice governing their treatment upon
capture.
[8]
The capture of towns was usually accomplished by means of a treaty
with a party from among the enemy, who were then extended special privileges
and material rewards.
[9]
There were two types of such treaties, "Sulh" or "ahd-e-
wasiq (capitulation)" and "aman (surrender/ peace)".
[9]
Among towns and
fortresses that were captured through force of arms, Muhammad bin Qasim
performed executions as part of his military strategy, but they were limited to
the ahl-i-harb (fighting men), whose surviving dependents were also enslaved.
[9]

Where resistance was strong, prolonged and intensive, often resulting in
considerable Arab casualties, Muhammad bin Qasim's response was dramatic,
inflicting 6,000 deaths at Rawar, between 6,000 and 26,000 at Brahmanabad,
4,000 at Iskalandah and 6,000 at Multan.
[10]
Conversely, in areas taken
by sulh, such as Armabil, Nirun, and Aror, resistance was light and few
casualties occurred.
[10]
Sulh appeared to be Muhammad bin Qasim's preferred
mode of conquest, the method used for more than 60% of the towns and tribes
recorded by Baladhuri and the Chachnama.
[10]
At one point, he was actually
berated by Hajjaj for being too lenient.
[10]
Meanwhile, the common folk were
often pardoned and encouraged to continue working;
[9]
Hajajj ordered that this
option not be granted to any inhabitant of Daybul, yet Qasim still bestowed it
upon certain groups and individuals.
[10]

After each major phase of his conquest, Muhammad bin Qasim attempted to
establish law and order in the newly conquered territory by showing religious
tolerance and incorporating the ruling class the Brahmins and Shramanas
into his administration.
[9]


REASONS FOR SUCCESS

Muhammad bin Qasim's success has been partly ascribed to Dahir being an
unpopular Hindu king ruling over a Buddhist majority who saw Chach of
Alor and his kin as usurpers of the Rai Dynasty.
[4]
This is attributed to having
resulted in support being provided by Buddhists and inclusion of rebel soldiers
serving as valuable infantry in his cavalry-heavy force from the Jat
and Meds.
[11]
Brahman, Buddhist, Greek, and Arab testimony however can be
found that attests towards amicable relations between the adherents of the two
religions up to the 7th century.
[12]

Along with this were:
1. Superior military equipment; such as siege engines and the Mongol
bow.
[4]

2. Troop discipline and leadership.
[4]

3. The concept of Jihad as a morale booster.
[4]

4. Religion; the widespread belief in the prophecy of Muslim success.
[4][12]

5. The Samanis being persuaded to submit and not take up arms because
the majority of the population was Buddhist who were dissatisfied with
their rulers, who were Hindu.
[12]

6. The laboring under disabilities of the Lohana Jats.
[12]

7. Defections from among Dahirs chiefs and nobles.
[12]


ADMINISTRATION BY MUMHAMMAD BIN QASIM

After the conquest, Muhammad bin Qasim's task was to set up an
administrative structure for a stable Muslim state that incorporated a newly
conquered alien land, inhabited by non-Muslims.
[13]
He adopted a conciliatory
policy, asking for acceptance of Muslim rule by the natives in return for non-
interference in their religious practice,
[13]
so long as the natives paid their taxes
and tribute.
[4]
He established Islamic Sharia law over the people of the region;
however, Hindus were allowed to rule their villages and settle their disputes
according to their own laws,
[4]
and traditional hierarchical institutions,
including the Village Headmen (Rais) and Chieftains (dihqans) were
maintained.
[13]
A Muslim officer called an amil was stationed with a troop of
cavalry to manage each town on a hereditary basis
[13]

Everywhere taxes (mal) and tribute (kharaj) were settled and hostages taken -
occasionally this also meant the custodians of temples.
[9]
Non-Muslim natives
were excused from military service and from payment of the religiously
mandated tax system levied upon Muslims called Zakat,
[13]
the tax system
levied upon them instead was the jizya - a progressive tax, being heavier on the
upper classes and light for the poor.
[13]
In addition, three percent of government
revenue was allocated to theBrahmins.
[4]


INCORPORATION OF RULING ELITE INTO ADMINISTRATION

During his administration, Hindus and Buddhists were inducted into the
administration as trusted advisors and governors.
[4]
A Hindu, Kaksa, was at
one point the second most important member of his administration.
[14]
Dahir's
prime minister and various chieftains were also incorporated into the
administration.
[15]


JAT CLASHES WITH MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM

Significant medieval Muslim chronicles such as the Chachnama, Zainul-
Akhbar and Tarikh-I-Baihaqi have recorded battles between the Jats and forces
of Muhammad bin Qasim .
[16]


Passage from the Chachnama
(After capturing Debal and Nerun, Muhammad Bin Qasim then) proceeded to
the fort of Ishbahar. It was in the month of Muharram year 93AH, that (he)
arrived in the vicinity of that fort. He witnessed the fort (which ) was strong and
impregnable. The inhabitants of the fort (hisariyan) were making preparations
for the battle and had made a deep moat (khandiqi zart) around the fort. The
Jats and the rustics (rustayan) that were living in the western sid (shelter) in
the fort fought against Muhammad-i-Qasim for one week displaying the
mastery (ustadaqi) of their warfare by demonstrating (their tactic of) seize and
hold (dar-u-gir). After that they petitioned Bin Qasim, asking for safety
(aman).
[17]

TREATMENT OF JATS
The narrative in the Chachnama conveys that Chach humiliated the Jats and
Lohanas. Denzil Ibbetson records that "Muhammad bin Qasim maintained
these regulations, declaring that the Jats resembled the savages of Persia
"
[18]
According to Wink "While the Jats were also granted (aman) a considerable
number of Jats were also captured as prisoners of war and deported to Iraq
and elsewhere as slaves.
[5]


RELIGION
There are conflicting views regarding religious policy in his reign. According to
some historians,no mass conversions were attempted and the destruction of
temples such as the Sun Temple of Multan was forbidden.
[19]
Lane-Poole writes
that, " as a rule Muslim government was at once tolerant and economic".
[20]
But
other historians like Elliot, Cousens, Majumdar and Vaidya have held the view
that there was coercive conversion during his reign and destruction of temples
was a reflection of the more basic, religiously motivated intolerance.
[10]

A small minority who converted to Islam were granted exemption from Jizya in
lieu of paying the Muslim mandated Zakat.
[13]
Hindus and Buddhists were
given the status of Dhimmi (protected people).
[4]

An eccelastical office, "sadru-I-Islam al affal", was created to oversee the secular
governors.
[13]
While some proslytization occurred, the social dynamics of Sindh
were no different from other regions newly conquered by Muslim forces such
as Egypt, where conversion to Islam was slow and took centuries.
[13]

DEATH

Muhammad bin Qasim had begun preparations for further expansions when
Hajjaj died, as did Caliph Al-Walid I, who was succeeded by Sulayman ibn Abd
al-Malik, who then took revenge against all who had been close to Hajjaj.
Sulayman owed political support to opponents of Hajjaj and so recalled both of
Hajjaj's successful generals Qutaibah bin Muslim and Qasim. He also
appointed Yazid ibn al-Muhallab, once tortured by Hajjaj and a son of Al
Muhallab ibn Abi Suffrah, as the governor of Fars, Kirman, Makran,
and Sindh; he immediately placed Qasim in chains.
[21]

There are two different accounts regarding the details of Qasim's fate:
1. The account from the Chachnama narrates a tale in which Qasims
demise is attributed to the daughters of King Dahir who had been taken
captive during the campaign. Upon capture they had been sent on as
presents to the Khalifa for his harem. The account relates that they then
tricked the Khalifa into believing that Muhammad bin Qasim had
violated them before sending them on and as a result of this subterfuge,
Muhammad bin Qasim was wrapped and stitched in oxen hides,
[22]
and
returned to Syria, which resulted in his death en route from suffocation.
This narrative attributes their motive for this subterfuge to securing
vengeance for their father's death. Upon discovering this subterfuge, the
Khalifa is recorded to have been filled with remorse and ordered the
sisters buried alive in a wall.
[23][24]

2. The Persian historian Baladhuri, however, states that the new Khalifa
was a political enemy of Umayyad ex-governor Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf,
Muhammad bin Qasim's paternal uncle and thus persecuted all those
who were considered close to Hajjaj. Muhammad bin Qasim was
therefore recalled in the midst of a campaign of capturing more territory
up north. Upon arrival, he was howevere promptly imprisoned in Mosul,
(in modern-day Iraq) and subjected to torture, resulting in his death.
[4][24]

Whichever account is true, is unknown. What is known however is that he was
20 years old when he was killed by his own Caliph. None have read the
tombstone marking his grave for none know where he lies.
Muhammad bin Qasim had a son named Amr bin Muhammad who later
became governor of Sindh.
[citation needed]


CONTROVERSY
There is controversy regarding the conquest and subsequent conversion of
Sindh. This is usually voiced in two antagonistic perspectives viewing Qasim's
actions:
[10]

His conquest, as described by Stanley Lane-Poole, in Medieval India (Published
in 1970 by Haskell House Publishers Ltd), was "liberal". He imposed the
customary poll tax, took hostages for good conduct and spared peoples' lives
and lands. He even left their shrines undesecrated: 'The temples;, he
proclaimed, 'shall be inviolate, like the churches of the Christians, the
synagogues of the Jews and altars of the Magians'.
[25]
In the same text,
however, it is mentioned that "Occasional desecration of Hindu fanes took
place...but such demonstrations were probably rare sops to the official
conscience..".
1. Coercive conversion has been attributed to early historians such as Elliot,
Cousens, Majumdar and Vaidya.
[10]
They hold the view that the
conversion of Sindh was necessitated. Qasim's numerical inferiority is
said to explain any instances of apparent religious toleration, with the
destruction of temples seen as a reflection of the more basic, religiously
motivated intolerance.
[10]

2. Voluntary conversion has been attributed to Thomas W. Arnold and
modern Muslim historians such as Habib and Qureishi. They believe
that the conquest was largely peaceful, and the conversion entirely so,
and that the Arab forces enacted liberal, generous and tolerant
policies.
[10]
These historians mention the "praiseworthy conduct of Arab
Muslims" and attribute their actions to a "superior civilizational
complex".
[26]

Various polemical perceptions of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are also
reflected in this debate.
[26]
Elliot perceived Islam as a religion of "terror,
devastation, murder and rapine" where the conquering Arabs were
characterized as "ruthless bigots" and "furious zealots" motivated by "plunder
and proselytism".
[10]
The period of Qasim's rule has been called by U.T.
Thakkur "the darkest period in Sind history", with the records speaking of
massive forced conversions, temple destruction, slaughters and genocides; the
people of Sindh, described as inherently pacifist due to their Hindu/Buddhist
religious inclinations, had to adjust to the conditions of "barbarian
inroad".
[27]
On one extreme, the Arab Muslims are seen as being compelled by
religious stricture to conquer and forcibly convert Sindh, but on the other
hand, they can be seen as being respectful and tolerant of non-Muslims as part
of their religious duty, with conversion being facilitated by the vitality, equality
and morals of the Islamic religion.
[26]
Citations of towns taken either violently
or bloodlessly, reading back into Arab Sindh information belonging to a later
date and dubious accounts such as those of the forcible circumcision of
Brahmins at Deybul or Qasims consideration of Hindu sentiment in forbidding
the slaughter of cows are used as examples for one particular view or the
other.
[26]

Some historians strike a middle ground, saying that Qasim was torn between
the political expediency of making peace with the Hindus and Buddhists;
having to call upon non-Muslims to serve under him as part of his mandate to
administer newly conquered land; and orthodoxy by refraining from seeking the
co-operation of "infidels". It is contended that Qasim may have struck a middle
ground, conferring the status of Dhimmi upon the native Sindhis and
permitting them to participate in his administration, but treating them as
"noncitizens" (i.e. in the Khilafat, but not of it).
[13]


LEGACY
There is controversy regarding the conquest and subsequent conversion of
Sindh. This is usually voiced in two antagonistic perspectives viewing Qasim's
actions:
[10]

His conquest, as described by Stanley Lane-Poole, in Medieval India (Published
in 1970 by Haskell House Publishers Ltd), was "liberal". He imposed the
customary poll tax, took hostages for good conduct and spared peoples' lives
and lands. He even left their shrines undesecrated: 'The temples;, he
proclaimed, 'shall be inviolate, like the churches of the Christians, the
synagogues of the Jews and altars of the Magians'.
[25]
In the same text,
however, it is mentioned that "Occasional desecration of Hindu fanes took
place...but such demonstrations were probably rare sops to the official
conscience..".
1. Coercive conversion has been attributed to early historians such as Elliot,
Cousens, Majumdar and Vaidya.
[10]
They hold the view that the
conversion of Sindh was necessitated. Qasim's numerical inferiority is
said to explain any instances of apparent religious toleration, with the
destruction of temples seen as a reflection of the more basic, religiously
motivated intolerance.
[10]

2. Voluntary conversion has been attributed to Thomas W. Arnold and
modern Muslim historians such as Habib and Qureishi. They believe
that the conquest was largely peaceful, and the conversion entirely so,
and that the Arab forces enacted liberal, generous and tolerant
policies.
[10]
These historians mention the "praiseworthy conduct of Arab
Muslims" and attribute their actions to a "superior civilizational
complex".
[26]

Various polemical perceptions of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are also
reflected in this debate.
[26]
Elliot perceived Islam as a religion of "terror,
devastation, murder and rapine" where the conquering Arabs were
characterized as "ruthless bigots" and "furious zealots" motivated by "plunder
and proselytism".
[10]
The period of Qasim's rule has been called by U.T.
Thakkur "the darkest period in Sind history", with the records speaking of
massive forced conversions, temple destruction, slaughters and genocides; the
people of Sindh, described as inherently pacifist due to their Hindu/Buddhist
religious inclinations, had to adjust to the conditions of "barbarian
inroad".
[27]
On one extreme, the Arab Muslims are seen as being compelled by
religious stricture to conquer and forcibly convert Sindh, but on the other
hand, they can be seen as being respectful and tolerant of non-Muslims as part
of their religious duty, with conversion being facilitated by the vitality, equality
and morals of the Islamic religion.
[26]
Citations of towns taken either violently
or bloodlessly, reading back into Arab Sindh information belonging to a later
date and dubious accounts such as those of the forcible circumcision of
Brahmins at Deybul or Qasims consideration of Hindu sentiment in forbidding
the slaughter of cows are used as examples for one particular view or the
other.
[26]

Some historians strike a middle ground, saying that Qasim was torn between
the political expediency of making peace with the Hindus and Buddhists;
having to call upon non-Muslims to serve under him as part of his mandate to
administer newly conquered land; and orthodoxy by refraining from seeking the
co-operation of "infidels". It is contended that Qasim may have struck a middle
ground, conferring the status of Dhimmi upon the native Sindhis and
permitting them to participate in his administration, but treating them as
"noncitizens" (i.e. in the Khilafat, but not of it).
[13]

Footnotes:
1. Alexander Berzin, "Part I: The Umayyad Caliphate (661 - 750 CE), The
First Muslim Incursion into the Indian Subcontinent", The Historical
Interaction between the Buddhist and Islamic Cultures before the
Mongol Empire Last accessed September 11, 2007
2. ^ Jump up to:
a

b

c

d
Wink (2002), pg.164
3. Jump up^ Wink (2002), 51-52
4. ^ Jump up to:
a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j

k

l
Nicholas F. Gier, FROM MONGOLS TO
MUGHALS: RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE IN INDIA 9TH-18TH CENTURIES,
Presented at the Pacific Northwest Regional Meeting American Academy
of Religion, Gonzaga University, May, 2006 [1]
5. ^ Jump up to:
a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j

k

l

m

n

o

p

q

r

s

t

u

v
Wink (2004) pg 201-205
6. Jump up^ Wink (2004) pg 131
7. Jump up^ The Indus River during this time flowed to the east of Nerun,
but a 10th-century earthquake caused the river to change to its course.
8. ^ Jump up to:
a

b

c
Derryl pg. 37-39
9. ^ Jump up to:
a

b

c

d

e

f
Wink (2002) pg. 204-206
10. ^ Jump up to:
a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j

k
Derryl pg.22-29
11. Jump up^ "The fall of Multan laid the Indus valley at the feet of
the conqueror. The tribes came in, 'ringing bells and beating drums and
dancing,' in token of welcome. The Hindu rulers had oppressed them
heavily, and the Jats and Meds and other tribes were on the side of the
invaders. The work of conquest, as often happened in India, was thus
aided by the disunion of the inhabitants, and jealousies of race and
creed conspired to help the Muslims. To such suppliants Mohammad
Kasim gave the liberal terms that the Arabs usually offered to all but
inveterate foes. He imposed the customary poll-tax, took hostages for
good conduct, and spared the people's lands and lives. He even left their
shrines undesecrated: 'The temples,' he proclaimed, 'shall be inviolate,
like the churches of the Christians, the synagogues of the Jews, and the
altars of the Magians.'" Stanley Lane-Poole, Medieval India under
Mohammedan Rule, 712-1764, G.P. Putnam's Sons. New York, 1970. p.
9-10
12. ^ Jump up to:
a

b

c

d

e
The Chach-Nama. English translation by
Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Delhi Reprint, 1979Online version, last
accessed 30 September 2006
13. ^ Jump up to:
a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j
Appleby. pg. 291-292
14. Jump up^ H. M. Elliot and John Dowson, The History of India as
Told by Its Own Historians, (London, 1867-1877), vol. 1, p. 203. "Kaksa
took precedence in the army before all the nobles and commanders. He
collected the revenue of the country and the treasury was placed under
his seal. He assisted Muhammad ibn Qasim in all of his undertakings..."
15. Jump up^ The Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza
Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Delhi Reprint, 1979. Online version, last accessed
3 October 2006
16. Jump up^ Chapter by S Jabir Raza Passages in the Chachnama,
Zainul-Akhbar And Tarikh-i-Baihaqi, Text and Translation, from the
book The Jats, Their Role and contribution to the socio-Economic Life and
Polity of North and North-West India, Volume 2, pp. 4352
17. Jump up^ Chapter by S Jabir Raza Titled -Passages in the
Chachnama,Zainul-Akhbar And Tarikh-i-Baihaqi-Text and Translation,
from the book of The Jats, Their Role and contribution to the socio-
Economic Life and Polity of North and North -West India, Volume 2, Pages
46 to 47
18. Jump up^ page 358 Volume 11 A Glossary of the Tribes and castes
of the Punjab and North -West Frontier Province compiled by H. A.
Rose and based on the Census Report for the Punjab 1883, by Sir Denzil
Ibbetson and the census report for the Punjab 1892 by Sir Edward
Maclagan. Published By the Asian Educational Services
19. Jump up^ Schimmel pg.4
20. Jump up^ Medieval India by Stanly Lane-Poole, Pub 1970, Page
10.
21. Jump up^ Wink (2002) pg. 53
22. Jump up^ Pakistan, the cultural heritage by Amad Shuj Psh
Sang-e-Meel Publications, 1998, Page 43
23. Jump up^ The Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza
Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Delhi Reprint, 1979. Online version, last accessed
15 May 2007
24. ^ Jump up to:
a

b
Keay, pg. 185
25. Medieval India by Stanley Lane-Poole, Published by Haskell House
Publishers Ltd. NY 1970. Page 10
26. ^ Jump up to:
a

b

c

d
Derryl pg.31-33
27. Jump up^ Sindhi Culture by U.T. Thakkur, University of Bombay
1959
28. ^ Jump up to:
a

b
Markovits, Claude The Global World of Indian
Merchants, 1750-1947: Traders of Sind from Bukhara to Panama,
Cambridge University Press, June 22, 2000, ISBN 0-521-62285-9, pg.
34.
29. Jump up^ Akbar, M.J, The Shade of Swords, Routledge (UK),
December 1, 2003, ISBN 0-415-32814-4, pg. 102.
30. Jump up^ Federal Research Division. "Pakistan a Country Study",
Kessinger Publishing, June 1, 2004, ISBN 1-4191-3994-0 pg.45.
31. Jump up^ "History books contain major distortions". Daily Times.
32. Jump up^ "Pakistan Movement". cybercity-online.net.
33. Jump up^ Cheesman, David Landlord Power and Rural
Indebtedness in Colonial Sind, Routledge (UK), February 1, 1997, ISBN 0-
7007-0470-1
34. Jump up^ APP (November 7, 2003). "KARACHI: Babul Islam day
observed". Dawn. Retrieved May 20, 2012.