Sunday, December 16, 2007



NOTE: Description of Moslem conquest attempts and successes from

Islam Hit India First in the Sindh


It's the large area surrounding the Indus river

Now --regretfully--one of the four provinces of Pakistan

Click on the map above to zoom in

and its shore is on the Arabian Sea

Sind, province (1998 pop. 29,991,161), c.50,000 sq mi (129,500 sq km), SE Pakistan, roughly coextensive with the lower Indus River valley and bounded by India on the east and south and by the Arabian Sea on the southwest. Karachi is the capital. The province takes its name from the river, which was known as the Sindhu. Despite some hilly and desert areas, it consists mainly of the alluvial plain and delta of the Indus River. Hot and arid, the region depends almost exclusively on irrigation for agriculture. Watered by the great Sukkur and Kotri barrages, it supports wheat, rice, millet, cotton, oilseed, sugarcane, fruits, and some tobacco. There are also sheep and cattle breeding and poultry farming. The great majority of the population engages in agriculture, but Hyderabad is a leading Pakistani industrial center. The region is noted for handicrafts, especially lacquer ware, mirror embroidery, and tile work. Fishing is important in coastal areas. The chief language is Sindhi.

Sind may have been the site of the subcontinent's earliest civilization (see Indus valley civilization). The region was taken (5th cent. B.C.) by Darius I of Persia, invaded (325 B.C.) by Alexander the Great, annexed (c.3d cent. B.C.) by the Maurya empire, overrun (165 B.C.) by the Huns, and ruled (1st-2d cent. A.D.) by the Kushan dynasty. The Arab invaders of Sind in 711 were the first permanent Muslim settlers on the subcontinent; Sind remained under direct or nominal Arab rule until the 11th cent., when it passed to the Muslim Turkic Ghaznavids. Arab religious, social, and cultural influences remain strong. Although briefly incorporated into the Mughal empire by Akbar (who was born in Sind), the region remained for centuries under local Muslim dynasties. Emirs of Sind, who were of Baluch descent, held power in the late 18th and early 19th cent. until Sir Charles Napier, the British general, defeated them in 1843. The British made Karachi the capital and administered Sind as part of the Bombay presidency until 1937, when it became an autonomous province. After Pakistan became independent in 1947, Karachi was made the national capital, and Sind's capital was shifted to Hyderabad. From 1955 to 1970, Sind was part of West Pakistan prov.; it became a separate province again in 1970, with Karachi the capital. Sind became the new home of hundreds of thousands of Muslims displaced by the 1947 partition.

Islamization and the Arab Conquest of Sindh


[Note: The following is too good to be left out of this discussion. In fact, it will be he kernel of the lessons to be learned about anti-Moslem warfare on the Indian subcontinent. The origin of this piece is lw]

Most of the non-Sindhi Hindus are unaware of the background information about Mohammad-
bin-Kassim's attack on Sind in 712 A.D. They are under the impression that the Sindhi Hindus
then surrendered to the Islamic Crescent like sheep and goats, without giving the Arabs a good
fight. The mist has to be cleared so that the mental disorder and the intellectual gibberish are
removed. This small book is a small step in that direction.

During the reign of Caliph Umar (634-644 A.D.), the Hindu kings in Thane (Maharashtra) and
Broach (Gujarat) defeated the Arabs. Likewise, the Sindhi Hindus gave a crushing defeat to the
Arabs and killed their commander Mughairah. Not satisfied with this disgraceful defeat, Umar
decided to send another expedition to crush the 'kaffirs' in Makran (a part of Sind then) but the
Governor of Iraq told him to forget Sind and Hind altogether.

Caliph Usman (645-656 A.D.) also refused to invade Sind for he knew that with every Sindhi
Hindu killed by the Arabs, the children of the Sindhu would kill ten Arabs. The fourth Caliph Ali
sent an expedition in 660 A.D. but the Sindhi Hindus have them a bloody nose.

During 661-680 A.D.., Caliph Muawiyah sent six armies to Sind and the Sindhis gave them a
crushing blow in the first five expeditions. It was only in the sixth Arab attempt that the Arabs
could capture Makran in 680 A.D. For the next 28 years, the Arabs remained in Baghdad, nursing the wounds they have received ffrom the Sindhi sword.

In 708 A.D., the Arabs attacked Debal and the Sindhi soldiers, after killing the Arab commanders Ubaidullah and Budail, routed the Arab army completely. The Caliph therefore, advised the Hajjaj, the Governor of Iraq, to forget Sind, for unnecessarily Muslim lives were being lost at the hands of the 'Kaffirs'.

Hajjaj waited for four long years and then he sent a formidable army under the command of his
nephew and son-in-law Mohammed-bin-Kassim in 712 A.D. It was only after so long that the
iconoclast could conquer and capture Sind and Multnad by 713 A.D.

When the Arabs went to Punjab and Kashmir, they were driven away by Laliaditya Muktapida
(724-760 A.D.) of Kashmir who asked the Arabs to shave off their heads as a symbol of

The Arab conquest of Sind was only a pimple. Had not the Buddhist Bhiksus mesmerized and
hypnotized the Kshatriyas Sindhi Hindus, the Hindus of Sind would have slaughtered the Arabs

Read in the following pages the saga of Sindhi heroism against the non-tolerant Arab maleschhas.

G.M. Jagtiani
September 1996.

"History", said Gibbon, "is indeed little more than the register of the crimes , follies and
misfortunes of mankind". History is made by heroes whose blood waters the tree of liberty.
History is also made by the crude and vulgar acts of tyrants and despots. Normally, politicians are
not students of history; more so our own politicians in India who are twisters of historical facts.
But they also make history, - in the sense that their deeds are immortalized as black spots on
human character. These twisters and torturers of history correspond to the classic quote of
Napoleon Bonaparte; "History is a set of lies agreed upon".

When politicians are ignorant of historical facts, they should keep their mouths shut, instead of
torturing anecdotes to suit their political needs or to please their new hosts. Politicians, usually
talk more without sense. The urge to lecture to the people and to issue sermons from their infertile
brain is so over-powering that they become victims of their own wrong conclusions. And when
they are caught red-handed, they often dish out the excuse that they have been misquoted or
misunderstood. "Politics is like a race horse", said Edward Herriot. "A good jockey must know
how to fall with the least possible damage".

At a banquet hosted by President Assad of Syria in honour of the then Indian Prime Minister
Rajiv Gandhi, on June 4, 1988, our Prime Minister said, "Mahhammed bin Quassim set sail from
here to spread the message of Islam". Some newspapers reported that Rajiv Gandhi had said that
Mohammed bin Quassim "spread the message of peace in Islam" when he landed in Sind in 712

If Hitler was wrong in attacking the Soviet Union during the second World War, and if the Soviet
Union was wrong in attacking Afghanistan during our living history, and if Pakistan is equally
wrong in spearheading a proxy war against India even now, then was not Mohammed bin
Quassim (or Kassim) wrong in attacking Sind? Be honest and give your categorical answer. The
Arabs attacked Sind fifteen fruitless times to capture its wealth and women and every time they
were repulsed. Mohammed bin Kassim did not come from Syria; he came from Baghdad. He had
come to attack and ransack Sind at the head of Iraq, Syrian and other Arab mercenaries to fill the
coffers and 'harems' of Baghdad. Had he been a messenger of peace, he would not have captured
the two virgins' daughters of the slain Raj Dahir of Sind to be sent as gift to the khalifa.

Rajiv Gandhi's statement was outrageous and horrendous but nobody in India had the intellectual
honesty to refute his arguments. The sycophants and 'jee-huzoors' merely shut their ears with
stabs of cotton.

No wonder, Dr Abdul Moghni ( University Professor of English, B.N. College in Patna, Bihar) had
the audacity to say, " Mohammed bin Qasim was, still is, and will always remain, a true hero and
real benefactor of mankind, including all Indians. Contrarily, Raja Dahir was, has continued to be,
and will invariably remain a villain and a scar on the face of humanity" (Manthan, July 1989).
(My foot!- This son of the bitch Moghni.)

If we accept that argument, then Yazid of Arabia was also a 'benefactor of mankind'; so were
Ravan and Kanas; so were Mussolini of Italy, Hitler and General Tojo of Japan!

S.R. Sharma struck the right note when he said in his book The Crescent in India (PP 33-34): " The
Arabs had not come to Sind as pioneers of civilisation; they were merely the sword-arm of a
militant faith. There was hardly any culture in them. Hence, they could destroy, but not build. As
sir John Marshall had pointed out, "the Arabs themselves possessed little or no genius for the art
of building, and, if their places of worship were to be as attractive as those of rival creeds, it was
indispensable that they should impress into their service their builders and artists of the newly
conquered countries". Sind was Hind in miniature; the annals of the Arabs in the province were
the epitome of the fortunes of Islam in India. The Crescent on the horizon was indeed destined to
rise to the zenith of the Imperial sky, but it was to remain only a crescent and not the full moon."

To refute the statement made by Rajiv Gandhi, I am taking recourse to the ' Chachnama' (an
ancient History of Sind) which is a Persian translation of the original Arabic manuscript on the
Arab conquest of Sind, written by Ali, son of Mohammed Kufi, originally of Kufah (in Syria) but
subsequently a resident of Uch, in 1216 A.D. The first edition of the Chachnama was published in
1900, and reprinted in 1979 and published by Idarah-i-Adabiyat-I Delhi (2009, Qasimjan Street,
Delhi,6). The original translation from Persian to English was done by Mirza Kalichbeg
Fredunbeg, a prominent Muslim writer of pre-partition Sind.

In his introduction to this book, the great Hindu Rajrishi Dayaram Gidumal testifies to the fact that
there was never such a thing as State Religion in India, unlike Islam which was the State religion
of every Muslim country.

In the seventh century, Buddhism was a dominant religion in Sind, but even then the great
Shiladtya Harshavardhana) also called Harsha)" was a patron alike of those who adhered to the
Vedas and of those who worshipped Buddha" (Dayaram Gidumal). The Buddhists, according to
their doctrine of love and non-violence, refused to save Sind against the Muslim barbarians.
However, these Buddhists lived in amity with the Brahmins, since Hinduism had always believed
in the Vedic doctrine of 'live and let live'.

An army of Islam, under Umar, son of Khaitab, was first sent to different parts of sind to " carry
on religious war there" (to quote the Chachmana). " Religious war" implied the destruction of
Hindu Temples, the killing of Hindu men, the kidnapping of Hindu women, and the conversion of
Hindu children. So, the secularists are wrong in saying that the invaders came only to loot and
plunder, and not to spread Islam. Spreading of Islam was very much an article of faith with them.
With desecration, destruction and loot being part of it.

In 632 AD, i.e in the 11th year of the Hijrah), son of As-Shafiki was again sent to Sind by khalifah
Umar. The Arab army was defeated dismally by the Sind army at Debal and forced to go back to
the warm embrace of their wives.

Abu Musa Ashari, the governor of Iraq, then sent a communication to Umar, the Commander of
the Faithful, not to dare attack Sind Again, since the Sindhi 'kafirs' were able to defeat and kill the
Mughairah (the Muslims).

The Sindhis soldiers, astride their horses, holding piercing the poison-tipped spears in their
hands, vanquished the Arab army mercilessly.

It was during the reign of Caliph Umar (634-644 A.D.) that the Hindu kings in Thana
(Maharashtra) and Broach (Gujerat) defeated the Arabs. The Arab army was repulsed and
defeated by the Hindus dismally. It is said that the Arabs were more virile and powerful than the
Sindhi Hindus but history proves otherwise.

Hindus fearlessly faced every Muslim attack on Sind, and the Muslim war cry of ' Allah-o-Akbar'
was repulsed and drowned by the Sindhi war-cry of 'Har Har Mahadev'. Stop parroting that
nursery tale that the Sindhi Hindus succumbed to the Arabs without a fight.

The Sindhu, by which every Sindhi swore and sang, and which gave the name Hindu to the
inhabitants of Hindustan, heard the neighing of horses, the clash of weapons, the thrust of
arrows, between the Muslims and the Hindus in Sind, and the river Sindhu had its water dyed in
deep red by the blood of the Sindhi soldiers who fought and fell, after killing, like the Rajputs of
Rajasthan, to defend their faith and fatherland from the Islamic onslaught of iron and sword. Mera
rand de basanti chola.

In this connection, it is interesting to refer to The Crescent in India by S.R. Sharma. He says (pp
24-25): "The Arabs appear to have led their first expedition to Thana (near Bombay) on the west
coast as early as 636-37 A.D. But it was not much of a success. The next attempt was made in 644
A.D. by land through the Makran coast into western Sind. It was sent by Caliph Othman as a
reconnoitring expedition under the leadership of Makim bin Jabala al-Abdi. The expedition of
conquest was proved a failure and " no further experiments appear to have been made until the
Arabs were provoked in 711 A.D.

And what was the provocation? Sharma says (p 25): "A party of Arabs was returning from the
Malabar coast with gifts for Caliph Walid at Damascus and his viceroy Hajjaj at Basrah. It was
plundered by pirates near the mouth of the Indus and the Arabs were detained at the port of
Debar (Karachi). A demand for the restitution was made to the ruler of Sind but it was met with
evasion. Hence, a punitive expedition was sent in its wake with no better results. Finally, in the
autumn of 711 A.D.The enraged governor of Iraq dispatched his own nephew and son-in-law,
Imad-ud-din Muhammad bin Kassim, with a mightier force of Iraqi camels and 3000 Bactrian
baggage animals".

Chach, who was originally only a minister of Sahasi, married the latter's queen after his death and
became the ruler himself. The people did not like it, but the despot king ruled with an iron hand.
He gave his daughter in marriage to a prince of Kashmir. After his death, his brother Chandra
became the new king. After Chandra's death, Chandra's son Dehir became the ruler and it was
during his rule that the Arabs invaded Sind. King Dehir had an Arab contingent in his army,
which refused to fight the Arabs since they were their co-religionists.

In spite of the fact, that the Sindhis had defeated the expedition sent by the fourth Caliph Ali in
660 A.D. and the six expeditions sent by Caliph Muawiyah (661-690 A.D.), the Arab thirst for
some body else's territory did not quench. In 708, another expedition under the leadership of
Ubaidullah and Budail was defeated (with the two commanders having been killed).

Hajjaj, Governor of Iraq, asked the Caliph for permission to send another Arab expedition to Sind.
The reply and rebuff that he received from the Caliph is noteworthy: "This affair will be a source
of great anxiety and so we must put it off, for every time an army goes, numbers of Mussalmans
are killed. So think no more of such a design ".

But the Hajjaj would not listen. He spent the next four years in commandeering, organising and
equipping a formidable Arab army to invade Sind. It is strange that the rulers from Tigris and
Euphrates could be so fanatically and ferociously fundamentalist not to tolerate the peaceful
Sindhis on the banks of Sindhu.

The Hajjaj had sent a message to Mohammed bin Kassim when sending him on the expedition to
Sind: "I swear by Allah that I am determined to spend the whole wealth of Iraq that is in my
possession, on this expedition".

Raja Dahir was a brave man, though a Brahmin. Once when he went for his usual 'shikar' of wild
animals, he faced a lion, alighted from his horse, rolled his scarf round his left arm, thrust that left
arm into the lion's mouth and, drawing his sword, lopped off both the lion's forelegs. Then,
withdrawing his arm, he dealt it a crushing blow with his sword on its belly and cut it open. The
lion dropped dead. This is not bravado. This is confirmed in the Chachnama (p. 186) where the
Arabs have themselves admitted it.

And who was Mohammed bin Kassim whom the Pakistani rulers have now elevated to the rank of
a Muslim hero? He was a servant of the Baniamiya family who had been constantly harassing the
Prophet Mohammed, stoning the Holy Kaaba, and killing many pilgrims inside the Kaaba. This
fact, strangely, is not mentioned in the Chachnama. They had also killed Abdullah-bin-Zabir and
other compatriots and his dead body was hung for many weeks on the gates of the Kaaba. The
same ancestors of Mohammed bin Kassim had killed many Muslims in the Jamme Masjid at Koofa
without any reason. The same Mohammed bin Kassim, true to his blood, took away 30,000 men
and women from Sind and sold them in the auction-markets of Baghdad.

After the Arabs reached Nerun (now Hyderabad), Mohammad Kassim sent a communication to
Hajjaj son of Yusif which, "inter-alia", said, "It is hoped that all the forts of the infidels will be
conquered and taken possession of, and in lieu of the kafir's places of worship, mosques and
(Mussulman) prayer-houses will be built and pulpits calling the faithful to prayer and preaching
sermons constructed, in order that the obligatory services may be performed at stated times... It is
also hoped that idols and other signs of idolatry will be removed and clean swept off". (The
Chachnama, pp 99-100).

The Arab writers were more honest than the present 'progressive' and secular Hindu writers who
claim that the Muslims never destroyed Hindu places of worship. The Arabs themselves have
admitted that their conquering army had to destroy Hindu places of worship, for that was an
important plank of Islam.The Hajjaj's reply was also in tune with the teachings and preaching of
Islarn. He said, "Whoever does not submit to Islam, treat him harshly and cause injury to him till
he submits" (The Chachnama, p.1 02).

In every history of the world there have been Jaichands, Mir Jaffars and Quislings. In Sind also,
through the treachery of Sasmani of Nerun, the fort was captured by the Arabs. "He (Mohammed
Kassim) built a mosque in place of the idol-temple and per- formed two genuflexions" (The
Chachnama, pp 104- 5)

Rajrishi Dayaram Gidumal, who was more of a saint than a historian, significantly kept a stony
silence on this Muslim desecration and destruction of Hindu temples in Sind. Mohammed Kassim
advanced further. The Hajjaj wrote to him, "The swords of Mussaalmans will naturally overpower
the unbelievers.
The great and glorious God will make these beings of unclean and wicked nature food for the
swords and lances of the angels and the faithful". (The Chachnama, pp 112- 13.

The implication was that if the Hindus remained as Hindus ('unclean and wicked'), then they must
be consigned to hell. However, if they became Muslims, they should be welcomed as honourable
men! It was conversion at the point of the sword. Allah would not punish Mohammed Kassim if
he killed the kaffirs.

On account of the acute shortage of water in their desert in Arabia, the Arabs would take bath
only once a week: on their holy day of Friday. The Hindus had a fetish of cleanliness and they
used to take bath twice a day. Their morning bath on the banks of the river would take nearly one
hour. Even then the Hindus were 'unclean'! And the Arabs were clean!

'Secular' Muslims of the present day insist that the contemptible word 'Kaffir' was never attributed
to the Hindus. They should read the Chachnama written by the Arabs themselves. The Hajjaj had
himself-dubbed the Hindus in Sind as 'Kaffirs' (unbelievers).

When the port of Debar in Sind was attacked and captured, 708 beautiful young Buddhist nuns
were captured. The male Hindus above the age of seventeen, who refused to be circumcised, were
enslaved. The temple was demolished and a mosque was constructed on its debris.

The Chachnama says, "The nephew of Raja Dahir, his warriors and principal officers have' been
dispatched, and the infidels converted to Islam or destroyed. Instead of idol-temples, mosques
and other places of worship have been erected. Khutbah (Friday prayer) is read, he call to prayer
is raised, so that devotions are performed at stated hours. The 'takbir' and praise to the Almighty
God are ofrered every morning and evening". This was the message sent to the Hajjaj.

The Hajjaj replied, in true Islamic fashion: "God says, 'Give no quarter to infidels but cut their
throats'. Then know that this is the command of the great God, You should not be too ready to
grant protection because it will prolong your work. After this, give no quarter to any enemy
except these who are of rank".

Nerun and Sehwan were defeated and captured easily without a fight because these fortified
towns were betrayed by the Buddhists who argued (that they "were a priestly class and that their
religion taught them peace and compassion. They abjectly surrendered since Buddhism did not
allow fighting which results in slaughter.

The attack on Rawar and Brahmanabad was very fierce since the defence was formidable. At
Rawar, Dahir, seated on an elephant, was carried against his will, into the river Sindhu by the
fright- ened animal. The king saved himself and mounted a horse and continued to fight, but the
army lost its spirit to fight. Thinking that the king was dead, it started beating a hasty retreat. This
has been a glaring defect in the army right from the olden days: if the king is slain or captured, the
army starts running away! Brahmanahad was defended by Dahir's son Jai Singh. However, he was
betrayed by one of his own generals and the city was captured. The women, under the leadership
of Rani Bai, fought furiously and fiercely even after the death of their husbands, and then they
committed 'jauhar' in the Rajput fashion. Thousands of Sindhi women jumped in the burning fire
to escape the dirty designs and tarnishing touch of the 'malechh' Arabs. Raja Dahir was a gallant
soldier whose arrow from his bow could pierce the hardest helment on the enemy's head or the
strongest armour-plate on the chest of the enemy. He was killed on Thursday in the year 711 A.D.
through the treachery of the Buddhists. The Chachnama describes Raja Dahir as "the accursed"
(p. 144) as he dared to oppose the Muslims.

Mohammed Kassim, after entering the fort of Raor, "massacred 6000 fighting men who were found
in the fort" (The Chachnama, p. 154). Dahar's niece Sundari was taken captive along with thirty
ladies of the royal blood. All these ladies were sent to the Hajjaj for his harem. Raja Dahar's slain
head was also sent with them.

When Brahmanabad fell to the Muslims, Jiziya (poll-tax) was levied on the Hindu residents. The
Chachnama confirms it on page 164: "a tribute was fixed on them under the rules laid down by the
holy Prophet of God. He who received the honour of Islam and became a convert was exempt from
slavery as well as tribute and was not injured".

Mohammed Kassim said to the Hindus: "Those among you who become Mussalmans and come
within the fold of Islam shall have their tribute remitted, but those who are still inclined to be of
their own faith must put up with inuries (gazand) and tribute (jiziya) to retain the religion of their
fathers and grandfathers". (The Chachnama, p. 165).

The cussedness of the Muslims against the Hindus can very well be verified from the above au-
thoritative statement: All non-Muslims must become Muslims; all non-Muslims, who refuse to
become Muslims, must pay a penalty. This was an injunction from the Holy Koran. This was the
law of Islam.

Some of the Brahmins, to save their lives, got converted to Islam. Others stuck to their faith and
"their horses, domestics and other property were taken away from them'. (The Chachnama, p. 165).

Islamic justice, indeed !

You must give credit to those Kaffir Brahmins who refused to barter away their faith or sell their
conscience and preferred to remain at the bottom of the ladder, -poor, starving and third-class
citizens in an Islamic society, as hewers of wood and drawers of water.

Hajjaj son of Yusif was so much pleased with the Islamic exploits of his General Mohammed
Kassim that he wrote to him, "Whosover refuses to submit to the power of Islam, let him be killed"
(The Chachnama, p. 171 ).

At Alor there was a grim and gory battle. How- ever, the Hindus lost, The Muslim army entered
the city. The Hindus of Alor, like the latter-day Hindus of Somnath, came to the temple of Nobhar
(Naubahar or Nau Wehar) and prostrated before their idol. The Rajputs never did like that. They
wore the saffron robe and jumped into the battle-field to die for their honour .

Mohammed Kassim asked, "Whose house is this in which all the people, high and low, are
respectfully kneeling and bowing down"?

He was told that it was the idol-house of Nobhar. Since Islam does not tolerate any non-Muslim
shrine, Mohammed Kassim committed the blasphemy and sacrilege of forcing open the temple,
and rushed inside. He saw an equestrian size statue, made of marble, with golden bracelets on its
arms, set with jewels and rubies. He was wonder-struck at the vast riches of the Sindhi Hindus
who were great merchantmen and trades-people and had business dealings across the seven
oceans, in all the continents.
In passing we may mention that this display and decoration of our temple idols with silver, gold,
diamonds and rubies is of a destructive nature which not only breeds the seeds of theft and ill-
gotten wealth among the temple 'pujaris' but also encourages the non-Hindu mercenaries and idol
wreckers to steal valuable antiques from our temples. The craze for having a golden canopy over
the head of the idol in the temple is nothing but converting God into a decorated and ornamented
bridegroom going for his wedding in rich regalia!

And then Mohammed Kassim committed a devilish act in his religious frenzy by indulging in a
boisterous upsurge of vulgar display of his Islamic faith. Page 180 of the Chachnma says:
"Mohammed Kassim stretched his hand and took off a bracelet from one of the idol's arms. Then
he asked the keeper of the Budh temple Nobhari 'is this your idol? .'Yes', he replied, 'But it had two
bracelets on, and one is missing'. 'Well', said Mohammed Kassim, 'cannot your god know who has
taken away his bracelet?'. The keeper bent his head down. Mohammed Kassim laughed and
returned the bracelet to him, and fixed it again on the idol's arm".

So next time when an apologist for Islam tells you that Islam respects the religious feelings and
sentiments of other religions point out to him this example. Mohammed Kassim, being tipsy in the
heavy intoxication of his military conquest, lost all sense of proportion and indulged in barbaric

Tolerance has never been the hall-mark of Islam and hence Mohammed Kassim was true to his
faith and loyal to his Book when he made fun of the religious custom and usage of some other
people. Tomfoolery with the religious sentiments of the Hindus was a streak of fanaticism and
fundamentalism, which gripped the Muslim conquerors in those days.

Mohammed Kassim attacked Sikkah where the Sindhi Hindus fought gallantly to their faith and
fatherland from the iron and fire of the Muslim invaders. This is testified in the Chachnama on
page 189. They fought with arrows, stones, catapults and slings. But the city had to surrender to
mighter forces and weapons. The city was captured.

Mohammed Kassim entered the city and the first job he did was to enter the temple and remove an
idol of gold weighing 230 maunds.. Looting was resorted to in wild abandon. The loot,
accumulated in forty jars, amounting to 1320 maunds of gold, was collected from the temple
treasury. The loot included jewels and pearls. All this loot was sent to the Khalifahat Baghdad.

If England could become rich and prosperous on account of the unlimited loot from India, did not
Baghdad become a flourishing city on account of the loot pillaged from Sind?

Those Hindus who were captured in the war were treated as slaves and bonded labourers.
Mosques were raised on the ruins of Hindu temples razed to the ground. Islam tried its best to
bring all kaffir Hindus under the one single umbrella of Islam, but this was not possible: politically,
economically and physically. Moreover, the cultures of the two religions differed from each other.
The Hindu culture would surrender when there was art adverse wind, but get up again

when the sultry wind passed away. Islam believed in fire and sword, capture and conquest,
conversion and killing.

Palestine and Syria fell to the Muslim sword in six months in 636-637 A.D. Iraq, Iran and
Khorasan were defeated subsequently in 637 A.D. They then captured Mongolia, Bukhara,
Tashkhand by 650 A.D. Egypt had already fallen to them in 640-641 A.D. The Arab armies entered
North Africa and annexed Spain in 709 A.D. Syrians, Persians, Berbers, Turks and others, were
rapidly Islamised and their culture entirely Arabised.

The Arabs, flush with easy victories, were true to the letter and spirit of their Koran which had
asked them to "fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them
and lie in wait for them in every stratagem, till they repeat and es- tablish regular prayers and
practise regular charity".

The same Arabs had to fight hard for more " than half a century "to make their first effective
breach into the borders of India" (Sita Ram Goel, History of Heroic Hindu Resistance to Muslim

The sword of Islam, which struck and shed the blood of others in Palestine, Syria, Egypt,
Mongolia, Bukhara and other countries, did shed blood when it struck at the Hindus in
Hindustan, but that sword became blunted and battered. The great Muslim poet Hali has
beautifully expressed this Islamic defeat at the hands of the Hindus in the following words:

Woh deene Ilahi ka bebak bera, nishan jiska aqsai alam mein pahuncha; mazahim hua koi khhatra
na jiska, na 'Amman' main thithka na 'Kulzam' mein jhijhka; kiya passi par jisne saton samandar,
woh dooba dahane mein Ganga ke aakar. (The fearless boat of Islam, whose flag fluttered all over
the world, which could not be deterred by danger, either in "Amman" or in "Khulzun" (rivers), the
ship of Islam which crossed the seven seas, came here and sank in the Ganga).

Mohammed Kassim them went to Kanauj and invited the kaffirs (i.e. Hindus) "to share the
blessings of Islam" until he reached the frontiers of Kashmir. Raja Harchandar Jahshal was then
the king of Kanauj, when the Muslims arrived at Udhepur, laid son of Amru Kilabi was sent to the
Raja with an order to submit to Islam: "From the sea to the limits of Kashmir", the Raja was
insolently told,
"every king and every prince has come under the sway of Islam. Most of the kings and subjects
have already submitted to the yoke of Islam, and the rest have undertaken to pay the annual
tribute fixed on them 'to the treasury of the Khalifah" (The Chachnama, pp 192-93)

The Hindu Raja refused to bow his head to the "yoke of Islam". "This kingdom had remained in
our possession for nearly 1600 years", he said.

Mohammed Kassim called a meeting of his nobles and generals. He said, "We have conquered
and degraded Hind so far, with divine grace and heavenly help, and success and victory have so
long been accompanying the army of Islam".

Raja Dahir's two virgin dazzlingly beautiful daughters, Surijdeo the elder, and. Piramdeo the
younger, were captured by Mohammed Kassim. He sent this prize catch to the Hajjaj as golden
gifts captured by the sword of Islam from the fort of the Kaffirs. The girls took their own revenge
to avenge the insult heaped on the two daughters of Sindhu.

The two young girls, herded in the seraglio of the lusty and lecherous Hajjaj, decided on a course
of action never attempted before by any daring damsel.

Surijdeo: Our father has been killed by that Mlechha. Our sisters have been kidnapped. Our
ancient holy river Sindhu is dyed with the blood of our, brothers who have been butchered. My
own blood is boiling. What should we do?

Piramdeo: I have already devised a plan to ar avenge the death of our father. No doubt we shall be
losing our own lives in that venture, but that wretched ' Mohammed Kassim will meet his death in
a horrible way.

Surijdeo: what is that plan ?

Piramdeo: Let us go to a secluded corner where these Arab women do not suspect us. We can
talk in our own Sindhi language. They understand only Arabic and will never understand our
own mother tongue. Both the sisters joined together in a daring conspiracy. Surijdeo was at first
shocked at the temerity of Piramdeo to hatch such a devastating conspiracy, but the enslavement
of Sind at the hands of Mohammed Kassim was still fresh in their memory. Both of them agreed.
The die was cast.

Both of them were called by the Hajjaj one tt day. With an artificial glow on their face and with ab,
make-believe lustre in their eyes, both showed their submission to the Hajjaj. The Hajjaj was
pleased at this sudden sweet surrender.

Surijdeo: No, my lord, you cannot touch us. We are no more virgin. Mohammed Kassim had
raped us in Sind before we were sent to you. We are now polluted, not worthy for your great royal
favours. The Hajajj, wild with rage, and frustrated in his amorous efforts, issued an order that
Mohammed Kassim's body be put inside the skin of a donkey and brought before him. The order
was conveyed to the great conqueror Mohammed Kassim.

The generals surrounded Mohammed Kassim and protested against this unjust order. They did
not know the reason why the Hajjaj, instead of being happy over the conquests in the name of
Islam, has now suddenly turned a foe of Mohammed Kassim and issued an order for his
disgraceful death. Mohammed Kassim remonstrated with them: "This is the order of the Hajjaj and
must be obeyed. Even if it is unjust, the order must be carried out. Now bring a donkey, skin it
alive and saw me inside that skin and send me to the Hajjaj. This is my order".

The generals had no alternative but to carry out his instructions. Mohammed Kassim's dead no-
body inside the skin of a donkey reached the Hajjaj. The two girls were called in. They looked at
the Hajjaj, and the Hajjaj looked at them. "My order has been carried out", he said to them.
"Nobody can dare defy my orders".

The Hajjaj ordered the courtiers to unstitch the skin of the donkey. Out came the dead crumpled
body of Mohammed Kassim, the ravisher of Sind. Surijdeo and Piramdeo looked at the dead body
of the mlechha and smiled with a great satisfaction. "Our job has been done; we have avenged the
death of our father and have saved the honour of Sind", they said to each other.

And then, with pride in their Sindhiyat, having drunk the holy cold water of Sindhu at Kotri, the
two girls accosted the Hajjaj with a divine dance of death.

Looking at the Hajjaj with unflinching eyes, Surijdeo said, "Our job has been done. We have
taken our revenge. The devil who destroyed our temples in Sind is lying dead inside the skin of a
donkey in front of you. This wretched man did not pollute us. We are still virgins. We lied to you
silence we wanted to avenge the death of our father. Jai Sindhu!"

The Hajjaj, seething with rage, his beard shak- ing and shivering, looked menacingly at the two
daring girls of Sindhu-desh. "You will meet your death in the most horrible and terrible fashion",
he shouted at them.

The two girls were tied to the tails of the horses and dragged on the streets of Baghdad till they
died in torment. The populace teased at the girls; the clothes were tom: blisters on the feet were
festered with stones and pebbles on the roads. People threw stones at the girls, -just in fun. After
all, they were kaffir girls and deserved no mercy! The girls died.

Thus died Mohammed Kassim for whom Rajiv Gandhi had said that he brought the message of
Islam (or peace?) to India!

And thus died the two girls of Sind who followed the footsteps of Rani Padmavati and Rani

In his book History of Medieval India, V .D. Mahajan has relied upon the Chachnama to describe
the cruel Arab conquest of Sind. Mahajan has confirmed the universal fact that Muslims always
de- stroyed non-Muslim shrines and captured non-Muslim girls. On page 17, describing the
capture of Debal by the forces of Mohammed Kassim, Mahajan said, "A part of the booty and
women were sent to Hajjaj" and that "A mosque was constructed in place of the damaged

After the death of the Khalifa in 715 A.D., his son Umar II became the new successor. Raja
Dahir"s son Jai Singh, who got converted to Islam, could not save his life and country because
Junaid, Governor of Sind under Khalifa Hisham (724-43 A.D.) attacked his territory and killed him.
Even conversion to Islam by a Hindu was no guarantee for the neo-convert to regain his self-

Hindus in Sind were subjected to many restrictions and indignities by the Muslim rulers. This was
a common practise with all the Muslim usurpers (whether the Lodhis, the Afghans, the Pathans or
the Moghuls) : keep the Hindu subjects under your feet so that they may not raise their head
against the Islamic Sword of the Crescent. "If a Hindu (in Sind committed a theft, he was burnt to
death" , said Mahajan (p. 21 ). "In some cases, even the members of his family were also burnt to
death... They could not cover their heads or feet. They were required to get themselves branded
on their head". Those who sing swan songs of the glories of the Muslim rule in India should be
objective in their assessment. Firebrand Hindu nationalists like Durgadas, Pratap, Shivaji and
Gobind Singh consid- ered the Muslims as an 'army of occupation', to be hated and dislodged
from the seat of power.

V.S. Naipaul in his renowned treatise Among the Believers has spoken some home-truths about
the Muslim mind:
"Islam can become a cocain. It makes you high. You go to that mosque and you get high. And
when you get high, everything that happens becomes Allah's will.

"The aim of the final invasion, as the Chachnama makes clear, was not the propagation of the
faith. The invasion was a commercial-imperial enterprise; it had to show a profit. Revenge was a
sub- sidiary native, but what was required from the conquered people was not conversion to
Islam, but tributes and taxes, treasure, slaves and women... " After the slaughter, the booty; the
treasure and the slaves. One fifth, the royal fifth, is set aside for the caliph, 'in obedience to the
religious law' ; Hajjaj's treasurer takes charge of that" .

It has always been dinned in our ears, to the point of boredom, that the fearsome Pathan should
always be feared by the sickly brinjal-eating Brahmin Hindu. The facts are otherwise. When the
Arabs at- tacked Kabul, then ruled by the Hindus, in 650 A.D. the Hindus gave them a crushing
defeat in. the very first encounter-. So dismal was the defeat that the warlike and martial Arabs
had to take the -name of " Allah Allah " several times before retiring to Kabul or dying in the
battlefields. Even in the second and the third encounters, Kabul could not be captured by the
Arabs. The Hindus ruled in Kabul right upto 869 A.D. They lost it only at the end of the tenth

Mohammed Ghasnavi, who suuceeded his father Subutigin in 998 A.D. attacked Hindustan
seventeen times, and every time he was defeated and he had to beat a hasty retreat. The man who
easily annexed Khorasan, Iran and Iraq had to eat the humble pie at the hands at the Hindu
"kaffirs" The Hindus faced this human monster in the battlefields of Peshwar, Kalanjar and
Somanth in an epic struggle. "The like of this faith which inspired sons of the soil to embrace
death will be hard to find in the annals of any other land", said Dr. Misra.

After his sack and plunder of Somanath, when Mohammed Ghaznavi returned to his native
country via Sind, the Sindhi Jats molested his army and defeated it like tiny stones of the quarry.
The Sindhis killed every Muslim in the Ghaznavi army that came in their path.

The Cambridge History of India (following Lane-Poole) fittingly said, "The tide of Islam, having
overflowed Sind and the lower Punjab, ebbed, leaving some jetsam on the sand.

" Let me repeat what S. R. Sharma said in his book The Crescent in India. "The Caliph Walid I, un-
der whom this episode (Mohammed Kassim's death inside the donkey) took place, also died in 715
A.D. Under his son,Umar II (717 A.D.) Jai Singh, the son of Dahir, who had fought so valiantly
against the Arabs only five years earlier, became a convert to Islam. But even his conversion did
not save him. Junaid, the governor of Sind under Caliph Hisham (724-43 A.D.) invaded his
territory and killed him. Then followed the Abbasid revolution at Damascus (750 A.D.) and the
creation of the new Caliphate of Baghad. Sind was not immune to its repercussions. Already the
grip of the Caliphs had loosened under the later Omayids. The governors and chiefs of Sind
proved themselves more and more recalcitrant. By 871 A.D. the authority of the Caliphs in Sind
was virually extinguished, and Arab chiefs finally established two independent principalities: one
in Mansurah or Sind proper, upto Aror on the Indus, and another comprising modern Multan. The
allegiance to the Caliphate that the successors of these chiefs protested to Mahmud Ghazni
during his raids in the tenth century was merely a diplomatic pretence. " (p. 28).

Whenever a non-Muslim country was attacked and captured by the Muslims, invariably
discrimina- tion was practised against the non-Muslims. So, Sind was no exception. Muslims were
the followers of the True Faith. Others were (i} sharers in Revelation like the Hebrews and the
Christians, and (ii} those who were intolerable infidels and idolaters; The Hindus, naturally came
under this category. " Islam or Death " was the choice given to them. The Hajjaj was a fanatic and
bigoted Muslim and the Sindhis at Debal had to be killed on their refusal to embrace Islam.
According to Ferishta, those of seventeen years of age and above were put to the sword and the
rest were enslaved, to serve as slaves or to be sold as slaves in me auction-markets. The women
and wealth were appropriated. That was the Cannon Law of Islam in those days.

The Arab conquest of Sind did not achieve much for the glory of Islam. It was left to the Turks to
complete the unfinished work of the Arabs for spreading wide the net of Islam. "The Arabs who
had conquered Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Carthage, Spain and Portugal, Turkistan, Persia and
Afghanisthan prior to the conquest of Sind, cried halt at the threshold of India", said S.R. Sharma
(The Crescent in India, p. 30). Iconoclast Islam "hammered (Hindu) gods out of existence as Sind
had been when the first Muslim mosques were built on the ruins of Hindu and Buddhist temples"
(-ibid-p. 31 ).

The Hindus in the rest of the country should have learnt a lesson from the anti-kaffir behaviour of
the Arabs when they came to Sind. But the Hindus are bad students of History and wrong
interpreters of the Gita. Our Rajput and Maratha history has taught us to oppose, face and defeat
the adversary, but the Hindu prefers to surrender. The Gita never said to accept defeat; even if
defeat is accepted as a temporary measure, efforts should be made to convert the present defeat
into a future victory by all stratagems. But the Hindu in Rajasthan refused to learn from what
happened to the Hindu in Sind.

The Hindus were more than magnanimous and chivalrous, as per their own interpretation of
Sanatan Dharma, in dealing with the Muslims in those olden days. S. R. Sharma (p. 32) quotes two
Muslim writers in this respect: "Idris, in the eleventh century, notes that the Arab traders who
frequented Anhilwara in large numbers' are honourably received by the king and his ministers,
and find protection and safety'. M. Ufi records that when the Muslims at Cambay were attacked
by the Hindus, Siddh Raj (1094-1143 A.D.) punished his own offending subjects and subsidised
the Musalmans in building a mosque by way of compensation". But the Arabs did not reciprocate
the Hindus in the same gentlemanly behaviour .

Sind virtually slipped out of the hands of the Caliph in roundabout 871 A.D. The original Arabs
did not come to Sind as messengers of a civilisation, "They came merely as "the sword-arm of a
Arabs were intellectually and emotionally sharp, but excepting poetry they had no arts to speak
of, not even the art of building up an enduring State" (S. R. Sharma. pp. 33- 34)

Naturally, the foot-soldiers cannot be expected to be the crusaders of a renascent faith. The
artisans and architects of the so-called Muslim palaces and Mahals were all Hindus. Even those
who built the Taj Mahal at Agra were Hindus. The Arabs had no genius for the art of building this
is testified by Sir John Marshall.

The Arabs therefore, plundered India and looted not only its wealth and women, but also its art
and genius in the finer pursuits of life. The Arabs translated many Hindu and Buddhist
masterpieces into Arabic; e.g. during the period 745- 75 A.D. Brahma Siddhanta and Khanda-
Khadyaka of Brahmagupta were translated from Sanskrit into Arabic by Fazari with the help of
Hindu scholars. Legend says that the romantic and rich Carliph Harun-al-Rashid was cured of an
incurable deadly disease by a Hindu physician. "

Sind was Hind in miniature", said S. R. Sharma (p. 34). "The annals in that province were the
a wonderfully true picture of Islam!

Massacre and mutilation seems to be the hall- mark of ancient and medieval Islam immediately
after the death of Prophet Mohammed in 632 A.D. After him, the Omayyid Khalifas decided to
spread Islam all over the world. In his Medieval History of India. A.D. Mahajan said that in 750 A.
a., Abbasids, the followers of Abdul Abbas, revolted and they hunted down and killed all the
Omayyids right upto Egypt. Abdul Abbas, the founder of the new line of the Khalifas, "began his
reign by collecting into the prison every living male of the Omayyid line upon whom he could lay
hands and causing them all to be massacred", said H.G. Wells, the gifted historian. "Their bodies,
it is said were heaped together, a leather carpet was spread over them and on this gruesome table
Abbas and his councillors feasted. Moreover, the tombs of the Omayid Caliphs were rifled and
their bones burnt and scattered to the four winds".

The Omayyids were Sunnis, the Abbasids were Shias. The Omayyids' flag was white, the
Abbasids' flag was black. Those who blame the Hindus for their caste wars conveniently ignore
the ' caste' war in Islam between the Sunnis and the Shias.

It seems that the Muslims used to get satanic pleasure in destroying non-Muslim shrines.
Mohammed Kassim did that in Sind without any sting of shame. He destroyed many Hindu and
Buddhist temples and ordered the construction of Masjids on their debris. Mohammed Ghaznavi
attacked Kanauj in January 1019 and destroyed " all the 10,000 temples" of that famed city
(Mahajan, P48).

Why the Hindu temples an eye-sore to Muslim Invaders? There are tWo reasons: Surpassed large
wealth accummlated in the and the embelishment of the idols with pearls and diamonds; and
second, since these iconoclastic in- not idol-worshippers (but-parast) but idol- (but-Shikan), they
not relish the idea of Hindu kaffirs worshipping stone idols.

The brigands and bandits who came to attack India did not come only to loot plunder, but also to
convert the 'kaffirs' and kidnap their women-folks to become the tools of lust for the lecherous
Arabs and Turks. For this reason, the Muslim Conquerors and killers were never respected or
liked by the Hindus. The great historian, Dr. Ishwari Prasad, said of Mohammed Ghaznavi "To the
Mussalamans of his day he was a Ghazi, a champion of the faith who tried to extirpate infidelity in
heathen lands. To the Hindus, he is to this day an inhuman tyrant, a veritable Hun who destroyed
their religious susceptibilities.

Al-Biruni, a native of Khiva, born in 973 A.D., a learned Sanskrit and Arabic scholar and a contem-
porary of Mahmud Ghazi, said of this devil -incarnate, "The scattered remains of the Hindus
cherish, of course, the most inveterate hatred of all Muslims. This is the reason, too, why Hindu
science have retired so far away from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have fled
to places where our hands cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Banaras and other places.

Another historian, a Muslim, Prof. Habib, was honest enough to admit, "No honest historian
should seek to hide, and no Mussulman acquainted with his faith, will try to justify the wanton
destruction of temples that followed in the wake of the Ghaznavide army... Islam sanctions neither
the vandalism nor plundering motives of the invader; no principles known to the shariat justified
the uncalled for attack on Hindu princes who had done Mahmud and his subjects no harm; the
shameless destruction of places of worship is condemned in law of every creed" (Quoted by
Mahajan on page 64 from Prof. Habib's bokk: SULTAN MAHMUD OF GHAZNI).

When Mohammed Ghori, the scourge of humanity attacked Tarain in 1192, he destroyed Hindu
temples and built mosques in their place. When he attacked Banaras (Vanarasi), "about 1000
temples were destroyed and mosques were raised on their sites" ( Mahajan, " History of
Medieval India", P 71).

Qutbud-din-Aibak forcibly converted the Hindus into Islam and built mosques on the debris of
the destroyed Hindu temples, in Anhilwara and Kalinjar .

Sikandar Lodi (1489-1517) destroyed many Hindu temples, as confirmed by Sir Haig in his 'Cam-
bridge History of India', Vol. III. P. 246.

The famous Hindu temples of Chidambaram, Srirangam and Madura were sacked and destroyed
by the Muslim invaders.

When Ahmed Shah attacked the city of Vijaynagar, he "celebrated a carnival for three days when
the number of Hindus who had been killed reached 20,000" (Mahajan. p. 301). Mahajan confirms
on page 308 that in the 1565 Battle of Tellkota against Vijaynagar, the Muslim invaders "broke
down the temples and palaces".

In Kashmir, the Muslim invaders did not destroy beautiful Hindu temples but simply converted
them into Muslim masjids, "When the Muslims conquered Kashmir, they found there a large
number of fine buildings left by their predecessors. What the Muslim rulers did was that they
converted the stone temples of the Hindus into mosques and tombs for themselves". (Mahajan, p.

But Hinduism, with its ancient roots ~tuck deep in the foundation, refused to be uprooted. This
has been a perplexing paradox for many historians: in spite of such cruel depredations, why was
Hindu- ism able to retain its age-old culture. "Islam seized her political capitals, controlled her
military forces and appropriated her revenues, but India cherishes what she cherished most, her
intellectual empire, and her soul was never subdued", said E.B. Havell.

Hinduism continued to produce saints and sages of sterling mettle Kabir (1425-1518) of Varanasi;
Vallabhacharya (1479-1531) of Telugu Desam: Chaitanya ( 1485-1534) of Bengal; Mirabai ( 1498-
1546) of Rajasthan; Tulsidas ( 1532-1623) of Ut tar Pradesh; Malukdas (1574-1682) of Prayag;
Dadu Dayal (1554- 1603) of Karnavati; Sunderdas (1596-1689) of Rajasthan; Sankardev ( 1449-
1588) of Assam; Chandidas and Vidyapati from Bengal; Kambam from Tamil Nadu. Maharashtra
alone produced a galaxy of illuminating saints like Namdev, Eknath, Tukaram, Ramdas.

In our own days, we had Bhagat Kanwar Ram in Sind. He was a transparently honest man with a
guileless soul. He was purity personified. He used to sing 'Bhajans' in his melodious voice. I was
lucky to have once attended his divine musical performance. Devotees came in a crowd to listen
to his voice, spell- bound. Everything was free. Unlike the present-day 'mushairas' and even
'bhakat-mandalis' where the singers charge hefty rates for their divine muse, Bhagat Kanwar Ram
was the epitome of sincerity, purity and absolute unselfishness. The Muslim gunmen killed him
when he was sitting in the compartment of the train. His death-by-gun shocked every Hindu in
Sind who shed silent tears at his cruel death, by cruel people, all in the name of Islam!

No fire and sword of the Ghaznavi and Ghori, no inquisition of 'Saint' Francis Xavier could
extinguish the burning flame of devotion that sprung forth from the lips of those immortal saints and sages that provided a ray of hope to the besieged Hindus.

In spite of such cruel and ruthless massacres, the Hindu had sufficient courage and grits to
produce a Shivaji. "No other Hindu has shown such constructive genius in modern times", said
the celebrated historian Sir Jadunath Sarkar. " He has proved by his ex- ample that the Hindu race
can build a nation, found a State, defeat enemies; they can conduct their own defence; they can
protect and promote literature and art, commerce and industry; they can maintain navies and
taught the modern Hindus to rise to the full stature of their growth".

Right from Mohammed bin Kassim in 712 A.D. to the time of Aurangzeb, the last Moghul idol-
breaker, the Muslim rulers and usurpers have always been hostile to the Hindu majority in this
country. The Muslims, being always in a minority, as sovereigns or slaves, should have been
obliged to the Hindu majority for providing them a place of luxury and opulence in Hindu-majority
India. But this was not the case. When the Muslims first attacked India, so fierce was their
assault, so non-tolerent their religious attitude, so insolent their behaviour and so dirty their
designs, that the Hindus were shocked at this travesty of decency.

Let me quote Whilhelm von Pochhammer, a German national, who wrote a 678-page book 'India's
Road to Nationhood' (A Political History of the Sub- Continent) first in the German language and
then translated and published in English. Listen to him:

"The first reaction of the Hindus to the occupation of North India by conquerors professing Islam
was one of great horror in the face of the cruelties they had never before experienced. The
immense and uncontrollable blood-baths, the brutality with which civilian populations were
massacred and women and girls were dragged into 'harems', which to the Hindus appeared as so
better than brothels, the introduction of a slave trade in which thousands of people including
children were sold; all these generated a hatred for foreigners "

So, were the Hindus to be blamed for labelling the Muslims of those days as 'malechhas'? If the
Muslims called us 'kaffirs', then we paid them in the same coin by insulting them as 'malechhas'!

The German scholar, contemporary of the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, further said,
"Certainly one cannot blame the individual Moslem warrior who, at the stage of perfect lack of
culture, could have had no idea of the old and highly developed culture he was destroying,
particularly when pictorial representation of God appeared to him a despicable act of idolatry.

"In those days Islam took it for self-evident that, after conquest, all vanquished people would
embrace the faith of the conquerors as their teachings were 'superior'. Islam knew two methods of
dealing with those who hesitated to accept it. One method was of that giving them the choice of
'Islam or death', and this was the method used most widely in India; the other was that of asking
men to buy the freedom of sticking to their old religion by paying a special tax (the Jiziya), after
which they were suffered to live".

The Muslim rulers of India, he said, "were, without exception, intolerant" and they "destroyed
Hindu temples (amongst them the rebuilt temple of Somnath)". (P. 242). He made an exception in
the case of Akbar who, he said, "brought a break of a century and restored the reputation of Islam
on Indian soil".

No wonder, the Pakistani school text-books condemn Akbar and commend Aurangzeb. So, this
was Islam in Sind, as also in Hind. Mohammed Kassim's hatred of the Sindhi Hindus has affected
the Pakistani Muslims also as their Punjabi and Pathan counterparts have turned out to be the
enemies of the Sindhi Muslims. The Sindhi Muslims, in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, are
treated as slaves and bonded labourers by their own Muslim bhaijans (the Punjabis and the

Sind must rise up to break the shackles of serfdom. Rise up, O Sind! Let Sindhu's waves rise up in
a mighty torrent to splash the Sindhis in Jacobabad, Shikarpur, Larkana, Nawabshah, Sukkur,
Khairpur , Sanghar, Tharparkar, Badeen, Thatto, Dadoo, Karachi and Hyderabad, and make them
warriors like Raja Dahir and not blood-thirsty monsters like that accursed Mohammed-bin-Kassim.

Hindus in Mauritius, Jaggo! Arise Awake. Stop not, until the goal is reached. How can you see
your brethren and sisters getting entrapped in the nets of Mission Salut et Guerison, Temoins de
Jehovah, Islam and other sects. We can fight them. Violence may be important at times, but it is to
be avoided. The only way we can fight them is by educating ourselves, by interaction, exchanges,
meeting in Temples, setting up debates groups, and above all UNITY.
The Rape of Sind
Islamic barbarism continued on
pages: 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
The Rape of Sind - 2nd Part
Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27

[Note: Have been unable to locate the original article. Therefore the pages listed above are out of reach. If anybody knows the original post, please leave a COMMENT. (It might have been at the Hindu Unity website which has been censored over and over again ad nauseam)]

Also see

AND . . . AND . . .

Don't go away! Not just yet. More material here.

History of Jihad against the Mongols (1050-1258) - History of Jihad

More Links:

NARENDRA MODI CHIEF MINISTER OF THE INDIAN STATE OF GURAJAT A Controversial figure (hey, don't let the tuban fool you, this guy is not a Moslem, far from it, as a matter of fact) Why should we care about him? Read on. ... posted by urbanadder22 @ 7:18 PM

How to Stop Islamization DRASTIC TIMES CALL FOR D...
How to Stop Islamization DRASTIC TIMES CALL FOR DRASTIC MEASURES [Reprinted with some minor stylistic editorial changes from the 10/7/06 post at this blog] [click here to see original post] Countermeasures. Advice from an Indian (Hindu) ... posted by urbanadder22 @ 9:57 AM

Jewish General led Indian army to vic...
Jewish General led Indian army to victory in 1971. The Canadian Jewish news ^ 17/2/05 SHELDON KIRSHNER. Posted on 02/16/2005 10:36:40 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki. Jewish general led Indian army in 1971 war. By SHELDON KIRSHNER ... posted by urbanadder22 @ 8:29 PM

Islam is Like a Shark "Islam is like a shark to ... [clicking the foregoing leads to a censored site, see link at bottom of this post]
Islam is Like a Shark "Islam is like a shark to breathe, a shark has to swim, keep a shark still and it dies Similarly a contained islam, unable to expand will implode from within." Even More Drastic times Call for Even More Drastic ... posted by urbanadder22 @ 6:36 PM
"Islam is Like a Shark" from

Islam delenda est

No comments: