Yes there are influences from centuries of living side by side. But did the muslims completely integrate ? I don't think so. Even when the Greeks and pre-Islamic persians conquered part of the subcontinent, there were influences to certain extent. But the kings promoted local cultures and religions and did not impose a foreign language or culture on the defeated people. So the people were possibly more open to their conqueror's influence. Unfortunately muslims did not do that. They set themselves apart . It was the first time the subcontinent faced an invasion in the name of religion as the dominant factor. The kings used persian and arabic as court languages instead of the native languages. Except for a few rulers, administration esp high posts were reserved based on religion. Even Tipu sultan who is considered a hero by many tried to impose persian as a court and administrative language on the reluctant kannada speaking subjects. In this way they set themselves apart always reminding the locals that they were not completely one of the natives.
Qawwali originated in Persia but it fused with Indian musical traditions later and evolved to its present form. :)
Just adapting Persian language doesn't mean that Muslims invaded India for religious purposes. By this logic, British invaded India for spreading Christianity. We do have churches besides mosques in subcontinent :)
Muslim invasion produced language like Urdu, which still connects people in different areas of sub-continent.
As far as the appointing Muslims on higher posts is concerned, how many of Akbar's Nau-ratans were non-Muslims?
what happened to Raja Dahir's daughters? Wasn't he married to his own sister anyway?
You should know the fate of his daughters and it not something of a new historical discovery. How is his "marriage" to his half-sister a relevant topic for conquest of Sindh. I have not been able to find any relevant details from hindu and buddhist sources about his marriage. It appeared in chach-nama which was written by Kazi Ismail.
As a historical narrative the account is seen as a valuable record of events such as the social, political and historical geography of the region at the time, while containing the natural bias of the Sakifi family as well as the inherent inaccuracies and embellishments of popular tradition.
It is very easy to demonize the defeated and say that they deserved what they got.
Having said that I would like to find a non-muslim source of Dahir's incestuous marriage so that I can retract what I said.
You should know the fate of his daughters and it not something of a new historical discovery. How is his "marriage" to his half-sister a relevant topic for conquest of Sindh. I have not been able to find any relevant details from hindu and buddhist sources about his marriage. It appeared in chach-nama which was written by Kazi Ismail.
As a historical narrative the account is seen as a valuable record of events such as the social, political and historical geography of the region at the time, while containing the natural bias of the Sakifi family as well as the inherent inaccuracies and embellishments of popular tradition.
It is very easy to demonize the defeated and say that they deserved what they got.
Having said that I would like to find a non-muslim source of Dahir's incestuous marriage so that I can retract what I said.
I would like a muslim source of raja dahir's daughters' rape by Muhammad bin Qasim.
But don't you think that massacre and conversion at huge level portray as if Muslims had only one intention in India. To Make all the India Muslim.
Even the areas like Delhi, Aagra, where capitals of Muslim rulers based, there was majority Hindu population. Even the most bigot Mughal emperor Aurangzeb (as portrayed by historians) had Hindus in his court and army on higher posts.
Akbar realized that he could not rule without the cooperation of all his subjects and was fairly tolerant. Aurangazeb was not clever enough to understand that and look at the rebellions during his rule from sikhism to the Maratas.
You should know the fate of his daughters and it not something of a new historical discovery. How is his "marriage" to his half-sister a relevant topic for conquest of Sindh. I have not been able to find any relevant details from hindu and buddhist sources about his marriage. It appeared in chach-nama which was written by Kazi Ismail.
As a historical narrative the account is seen as a valuable record of events such as the social, political and historical geography of the region at the time, while containing the natural bias of the Sakifi family as well as the inherent inaccuracies and embellishments of popular tradition.
It is very easy to demonize the defeated and say that they deserved what they got.
Having said that I would like to find a non-muslim source of Dahir's incestuous marriage so that I can retract what I said.
A little off-topic, but I got a copy of 'Chach-nama' which contained foot notes. I could not go through it in detail, but there was a foot note, claiming that Hazrat Hussain (grandson of the prophet) wanted to migrate to Sindh on the invitation of Raja Dahir or his father.
A little off-topic, but I got a copy of 'Chach-nama' which contained foot notes. I could not go through it in detail, but there was a foot note, claiming that Hazrat Hussain (grandson of the prophet) wanted to migrate to Sindh on the invitation of Raja Dahir or his father.
What happened to Raja Dahir’s daughters: They were taken as sex slaves for the Khalifs’s haram.
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,[SUP][22]](Muhammad ibn al-Qasim - Wikipedia)[/SUP] 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.
When Dahir’s severed head was presented to Hajjaj, a courtier sang: ``*we have conquered Sindh after enormous trouble… Betrayed is Dahir by Mohammed Bin Qasim’s masterly strategy. Rejoice, the evil doers are disgraced. Their wealth has been brought away . . . They are now solitary and brittle as eggs and their women, fair and fragrant as musk-deer, are now asleep in our harems.‘’
*If the war was to guard the honour of Arabian women, should it have been done at the expense of the honour of Sindhi women?
Ummavi Caliph probably (Suleman bin Abdul Malik) took advantage of them . It is claimed by certain historians that they convinced the Caliph that Bin Qasim did khayanat in his amanat and therefore Caliph got killed the conqueror of Sindh. Its a mystery unresolved to date, why Caliph did that to Bin Qasim.
To be very honest these Ummavi Caliph didn’t respect granddaughters of the prophet and women of Haram (Makka and Medina). Expecting any good for Sindhi women from them is far fetched thought.
A little off-topic, but I got a copy of 'Chach-nama' which contained foot notes. I could not go through it in detail, but there was a foot note, claiming that Hazrat Hussain (grandson of the prophet) wanted to migrate to Sindh on the invitation of Raja Dahir or his father.
It was originally considered as a romance in the literary sense and not sure that one can depend on it to be historically accurate.:)
Problem is when contents which are not easily verifiable gets promoted as a historical fact. Raja Dahir was a hindu king ruling over buddhist subjects. May be he was not a great king but he certainly not a complete villain as sometimes portrayed. I had a sindhi friend (hindu) who was a fan of his bravery.
sounds like a made up masala story to me....why would the caliph give an ear to his enemy's daughters? I'm not saying Muslims were angels and hindus were demons but I'd like to see more historians stating the same story as a fact.
You need to read (or maybe re-read) the history of Indo-Pak region. Firstly, Muslim rule did not get to all parts of India. And secondly, many people resisted conversion, both militarily and otherwise.
Also not all Muslim rulers were big into conversion. Akbar is one name that comes to mind right away.
sounds like a made up masala story to me....why would the caliph give an ear to his enemy's daughters? I'm not saying Muslims were angels and hindus were demons but I'd like to see more historians stating the same story as a fact.
Whatever may be the story, all the historians report sending daughters of Dahir to caliph and murder of Bin Qasim shortly after his conquest of Sindh. He was not allowed to move beyond Multan.
