Aftermath Muhammad ibn al-Qasim, Sindh circumstances محمد بن القاسم کے بعد سندھ کے حالات

@islamichistory813 #HistoricalAnalysis #SindhAftermath #IslamicConquest

Aftermath Muhammad ibn al-Qasim, Sindh circumstances

Dekhti Aankhooon aur sountay kaanoon ko Asslamoalaikum, sisters, brothers friends and elders,In this informative video, we are describing the aftermath of Muhammad ibn al-Qasim's expedition into Sindh, focusing on the various circumstances that shaped the region following his conquest. We will discuss the changes in administration, the integration of Islamic culture, and the resistance faced by local populations. Our aims to provide comprehensive understanding of the historical significance of these events.

After Muhammad ibn al-Qasim's departure, the next appointed Arab governor died on arrival. Dahir's son recaptured Brahmanabad and c. 720, he was granted pardon and included in the administration in return for converting to Islam. Soon, however, he recanted and split off when the Umayyads were embroiled in a succession crisis. Later, Junayd ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Murri killed Jaisiah and recaptured the territory before his successors once again struggled to hold and keep it.

During the Abbasid period, c. 870, the local emirs shook off all allegiance to the caliphs and by the 10th century the region was split into two separate states, Mansurah on the lower Indus and Multan on the upper Indus, both were the major Arab principalities in South Asia, which were soon captured by Ismailis who set up an independent Fatimid state. The Arab conquest remained checked in what is now the south of Pakistan for three centuries by powerful Hindu monarchs to the north and east until the arrival of Mahmud of Ghazni.

There is controversy regarding the conquest and subsequent conversion of Sindh. This is usually voiced in two antagonistic perspectives viewing Muhammad ibn al-Qasim's actions.

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'. 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...", as destruction of temples and civilian massacres still took place.

Coercive conversion has been attributed to early historians such as Elliot, Cousens, Majumdar and Vaidya. They hold the view that the conversion of Sindh was necessitated. Muhammad ibn al-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.

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. These historians mention the "praiseworthy conduct of Arab Muslims" and attribute their actions to a "superior civilizational complex".

Various polemical perceptions of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are also reflected in this debate. The period of Muhammad ibn al-Qasim's rule has been called by U.T. Thakkur "the darkest period in Sindh 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". 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. 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 Debal or Muhammad ibn al-Qasim's consideration of Hindu sentiment in forbidding the slaughter of cows are used as examples for one particular view or the other.

Some historians strike a middle ground, saying that Muhammad ibn al-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 he 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 "non-citizens" (i.e. in the Caliphate, but not of it).

While Muhammad ibn al-Qasim's warring was clearly at times brutal, he is supposed to have said of Hinduism that 'the idol temple is similar to the churches of the Christians, (to the synagogues) of the Jews and to the fire temples of the Zoroastrians' ((It is nothing but the church of the Christians and the Jews and the house of fire of the Magi)).This 'seems to be the earliest statement justifying the inclusion of the Hindus in the category of ahl al-dhimma, leading Muhammad Ibn Qasim to be viewed by many modern Muslims as a paragon of religious tolerance.

so sisters brothers friends and elders, tomorow we are going to described Legacy of Muhammad ibn al-Qasim. Allah hafiz

===============================