why didn't arabs conquer India?

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Its not really isolated, there are muslim minorities in Bhutan, Burma, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Yunnan (Currently part of China), and even a small minority in Laos. Not to mention India.

Edited by Ikki - 16-May-2009 at 12:01

Originally posted by Al Jassas Second, there was no mention in any of the Arab historical sources that Muhammad ibn Al-Qasim was defeated. The battle of Rajasthan never occured except in poetry and legend. Al-Jassas

Arab sources usually glossed over uncomfortable defeats. For a balanced view both sides of the story have to be analysed. If you read Chachnama it says Kasim penetrated further and sent an army which nearing the borders of King Chitrangad Mori (Note: arabs usually got the names of indian places and humans wrong and they recorded this as the king of Udhapur, Rai Harchand. Chitrangad Mori belonged to the Maurya dynasty of Chandragupta Maurya) sent him a letter from the caliph:



Chitrangad Mori on receiving letter from Kasim replied:



Note It is also recorded that Kasim himself went in pursuit of Dahir's son who fled north towards kashmir but mysteriously he is now close with other commanders of his who are on the borders of the kings of Udhapur!

Indic sources on the other hand record that Dahir's son fled south west to Chitrangad Mori's kingdom and was present amongst the Hindu princes who were arrayed against the Arabs. The commander of these Hindu rajput princes was Bappa Rawal.

Indic sources also record that Bappa defeated Kasim and Arabs with great slaughter and pursued him back to Sindh.

Though Arab sources record that Kasim got a letter from Caliph when he was about to attack Udhapura which asked him to return!



Then the whole story about the daughters of Dahir which led to the execution of Kasim are invented to gloss over the defeat at the hands of Hindu princes.

So we can conclude that Kasim did penetrate further, attacked Chittor and was defeated, pursued back and then returned to the caliph in ignominy and this defeat perhaps paved the way for his execution.



Edited by ruffian - 20-May-2009 at 18:21

Originally posted by Al Jassas Hello Ruffian   Proof please. I can name at least 15 major battles where Ummayyads were defeated by foreigners (Turks, Byzantines, Khazars, Berbers etc.) and were described with boring detail in Arab history books and believe me, some of those defeats were really embarissing (in one battle over a 20k army went into Mazandran and didn't return and there is an Arabic saying "until the army of Mazandran returns").

Lots of battles throughout the history. Take the attack of Mahmud of Ghazni on Vidhyadhara Chandela. His historians recorded that he trekked to Kannauj and returned by taking some gifts. Indic sources record that Vidhydar defeated Mahmud and built Khandariya Mahadeo temple to commemorate this victory. I can give many more examples.

Muhammad ibn Al-Qasim was stripped of his command, tried and executed. The trial is recorded in detail if he was defeated this would have definitely been brought up and since it didn't happen this means Ibn Al-Qasim wasn't defeated.   finally, I doubt that the Shahnama (if that is what you are quoting) is a reliable historical source, so bring real sources.   I never said Arabs were not defeated, They were but not Muhammad ibn Al-Qasim, the defeat came much later about 800 when Hindu kingdoms retook Multan and Punjab. It was the Ghaznavids who returned later.   Al-Jassas

Here is another source from Annals of Mewar:







So this source also echoes what is written in chachnama. This is based on Indic vernacular sources.

Hello to you all

Originally posted by ruffian If you read Chachnama it says Kasim penetrated further and sent an army which nearing the borders of King Chitrangad Mori

Completely ridiculous. Its on the opposite side of the Rajahstan desert. Completely in the wrong direction of Qasims march.

Originally posted by ruffian (Note: arabs usually got the names of indian places and humans wrong and they recorded this as the king of Udhapur, Rai Harchand. Chitrangad Mori belonged to the Maurya dynasty of Chandragupta Maurya)

Paraphrasing; "when reading this, its important to note that it doesn't support my argument at all, but if you changed all the names of people and places, that is, pretended it was a completely different event, then it does sound kind of similar"
Seriously, you're asking us to believe that Ibn Qasim after capturing Multan, turned his army around marched straight through the desert to fight and be defeated by a harmless Rajput prince, instead of proceed through rich, fertile punjab towards, say, Udhapur, which is directly in his line of march, while you are quoting contridictory evidence, which shows that he did move to the most logical location - further in Punjab.

Lots of battles throughout the history. Take the attack of Mahmud of Ghazni on Vidhyadhara Chandela. His historians recorded that he trekked to Kannauj and returned by taking some gifts. Indic sources record that Vidhydar defeated Mahmud and built Khandariya Mahadeo temple to commemorate this victory. I can give many more examples.

This isn't related to Muhammed bin Qasim, in fact its over 300 years later. If there is anything in common between the two its latter historians.
Unless there is a grand conspiricies to hide all hindu victories.

I would like to give you an example. In India and perhaps world over everyone is taught Akbar was a great king. If you read the following  it seems  he was involved in jihad,  temple destruction, forcible conversions etc.

Akbar is usually discredited by muslims and venerated by Hindus because he brought Hindu, Buddhist and other non-muslim religious teachers into this court, and try to form a synthesis religion for himself. If he was involved in iconoclasm then the history books of Pakistan would like him alot more than they do. Akbar is the "bad guy" because he is pro-hindu, Aurengzeb is the "good guy" because he was anti-hindu.
That is why Akbar is usually better liked in India.

Also the Indic vernacular sources independently confirm what I have written above about Qasim's defeat. So to insist that whatever is written in arab sources is the only true history is a bit hard to accept.

Funny, over the course of only the last year on AE, we could be led to believe that the great Hindu rajas defeated Alexander, the Arabs, Mahmood of Ghazni, and Muhammed of Ghur. If we look hard enough we can probably discover that the Babar and Britain have also been thrown back in great slaughter by the Rajputs.
Furthermore your "indic sources" are nowhere near as united as you think. These hindu-rajputs are the ultimate supermen theories are not exactly universally supported inside India itself.

Akbar did destroy hindu tempels after sieges but that doesn't take away from his general policy of Hindu reconcilation, it's not just black & white, Akbar good or Akbar bad.