Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Naipaul's views on conquest of sindh: Islam and brutalization of native culture.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Naipaul's views on conquest of sindh: Islam and brutalization of native culture.

    Sir Vidya Naipaul has following opinion on conquest in sindh, cut and pasted from another website
    _____________________________________________
    Persia had a great past; it had been the rival in classical times of Greece and Rome. But you wouldn't have believed it in Iran in 1979; for the Iranians the glory and the truth had begun with the coming of Islam, Pakistan was a very new Muslim state. But the land was very old. In Pakistan were the ruins of the very old cities of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa. Fabulous ruins, the discovery of which earlier this century had given a new idea of the history of the sub-continent. Not only pre-Islamic Ruins; but possibly also Pre-Hindu. There was an archaeological department, inherited from British days, which looked after the sites. But there was, especially with the growth of fundamentalism, a contrary current. This was expressed in a letter to a newspaper while I was there. The ruins of the cities, the writer said, should be hung with quotations from the Koran, saying that this was what befell unbelievers.

    The faith abolished the past. And when the past was abolished like this, more than an idea of history suffered. Human behavior, and ideals of good behavior, could suffer. When I was in Pakistan, the newspapers were running articles to mark the anniversary of the Arab conquest of Sind. This was the first part of the Indian sub-continent to be conquered by the Arabs. It occurred at the beginning of the eighth century. The kingdom of Sind「an enormous area: the southern half of Afghanistan, the southern half of Pakistan「at that time was a Hindu-Buddhist kingdom. The brahmins didn't really understand the outside world; the Buddhists didn't believe in taking life. It was a kingdom waiting to be conquered, you might say. But it took a long time for Sind to be conquered; it was very far away from the Arab heartland, across immense deserts. Six or seven Arab expeditions foundered.

    At one time the third caliph himself, the third successor to the Prophet, called one of his lieutenants and said, "O Hakim, have you seen Hindustan and learnt all about it?" Hakim said, "Yes, O commander of the faithful." The caliph said, "Give us a description of it." and all Hakim's frustration and bitterness came out in his reply. "Its water is dark and dirty," Hakim said. "Its fruit is bitter and poisonous. Its land is stony and its earth is salt. A small army will soon be annihilated, and large one will soon die of hunger.*

    This should have been enough for the caliph. But, looking still for some little encouragement, he asked Hakim, "What about the people? Are they faithful, or do they break their word." Clearly, faithful people would have been easier to subdue, easier to lighten of their money. But Hakim almost spat out his reply. "The people are treacherous and deceitful," Hakim said. And at that the caliph did take fright「the people of Sind sounded quite an enemy「and he ordered that the conquest of Sind was to be attempted no more.

    But Sind was too tempting. The Arabs tried again and again. The organization and the drive and the attitudes of the Arabs, fortified by their new faith, in a world still tribal and disorganized, easy to conquer, the drive of the Arabs was remarkably like that of the Spaniards in the New World 800 years later「and this was not surprising, since the Spaniards themselves had been conquered and ruled by the Arabs for some centuries. Spain, in fact, fell to the Arabs at about the same time as Sind did.

    The final conquest of Sind was set on foot from Iraq, and was superintended from the town of Kufa by Hajjaj, the governor of Iraq. The topicality is fortuitous, I assure you. The aim of the Arab conquest of Sind「and this conquest had been thought about almost as soon as the faith had been established「the aim of the conquest had always been the acquiring of slaves and plunder, rather than the spreading of the faith. And when finally Hajjaj, the governor of Iraq, received the head of the king of Sind, together with 60,000 slaves from Sind, and the royal one-fifth of the loot of Sind, that one-fifth decreed by the religious law, he "placed his forehead on the ground and offered prayers of thanksgiving, by two genuflections to God, and praised him, saying: 'Now have I got all the treasurers, whether open or buried, as well as other wealth, and the kingdom of the world."' There was a famous mosque in the town of Kufa. Hajjaj called the people there, and from the pulpit he told them: "Good news and good luck to the people of Syria and Arabia, whom I congratulate on the conquest of Sind and on the possession of immense wealth ... which the great and omnipotent God has kindly bestowed on them."

    I am quoting from a translation of a 13th-century Persian text, the Chachnama. It is the main source for the story of the conquest of Sind. It is a surprisingly modern piece of writing, a good fast narrative, with catching detail and dialogue. It tells a terrible story of plunder and killing「the Arab army was allowed to kill for days after the fall of every town in Sind; and then the plunder was assessed and distributed to the soldiers, after the fifth had been set aside for the caliph. But to the Persian writer, the story「written 500 years after the conquest is only "a pleasant tale of conquest." It is Arab or Muslim imperial genre writing. After 500 years「and though the Mongols are about to break through「the faith still holds; there is no new moral angle on the destruction of the kingdom of Sind.

    This was the event that was being commemorated by articles in the newspapers when I was in Pakistan in 1979. There was an article by a military man about the successful Arab general. The article tried to be fair, in a military way, to the armies of both sides. It drew a rebuke from the chairman of tile National Commission of Historical and Cultural Research.

    This was what the chairman said:. "Employment of appropriate phraseology is necessary when one is projecting the image of a hero. Expressions such as 'invader' and 'defenders' and 'the Indian army' fighting bravely but not being quick enough to 'fall upon the withdrawing enemy' loom large in the article. It is further marred by some imbalanced statements such as follows: 'Had Raja Dahar defended the Indus heroically, and stopped Qasim from crossing it, the history of this sub-continent would have been quite different.' One fail to understand"「this is the chairman of the Commission of Historical and Cultural Research「"whether the writer is applauding the defeat of the hero or lamenting the defeat of his rival." After 1200 years, the holy war is still being fought. The hero is the Arab invader, bringer of the faith. The rival whose defeat is to be applauded「and I was reading this in Sind「is the man of Sind.[

    To possess the faith was to possess the only truth; and possession of this truth set many things on its head. To believe that the time before the coming of the faith was a time of error distorted more than an idea of history.at lay within the faith was to be judged in one way; what lay outside it was to be in another. The faith altered values, ideas of good behavior, human judgments.



    #2
    This guy should tell us more about history 600 B.C and some dramatic incidents while Aryan invasion and other clashes between idol worshippers. I would like to know more about that as well. His views are non objective. Therefore don't count. That's how people become price holders. Other such genius: Salman Rushdi. *wonder wonder* Indian.

    ------------------
    • na maiN momin vich masiitaaN, na maiN muusaa, na fir'aun!
    Ain't new ta this....HOMEINVASION('93)

    Comment


      #3
      [QUOTE]Originally posted by Ali_R:
      This guy should tell us more about history 600 B.C and some dramatic incidents while Aryan invasion and other clashes between idol worshippers. I would like to know more about that as well.

      Not much known. Unlike sind conquest which is recorded in persian text 'chachanama' written by muslim from which author quotes. Even whether it occured is debated. BTW, if it occured it is much older than 600 BC.

      There are many many sources available on conquest of sind, well recorded, mostly by muslims. author is quoting from them.

      His views are non objective. Therefore don't count.


      So tell us objective viewpoint on how the correct history of sind is and if it matches with what official pakistani stand. How views of non-intellectuals like abdali and cut-and-paste warriors like mohammad kausar are more acceptable to pakistanis than Naipaul.

      [This message has been edited by ZZ (edited October 15, 2001).]

      Comment


        #4
        [quote]Originally posted by ZZ:
        Originally posted by Ali_R:
        Not much known. Unlike sind conquest which is recorded in persian text 'chachanama' written by muslim from which author quotes. Even whether it occured is debated. BTW, if it occured it is much older than 600 BC.

        I think you are cut and paste yourself without having background on this topic. I won't cut and paste now the whole Aryan and central Asia history.
        Secondly if it occured before 600 B.C then how can you claim that they where muslims? I hope you are at least informed about the establishment of Islam. Which started in 14th. Not 600 B.C.

        There are many many sources available on conquest of sind, well recorded, mostly by muslims. author is quoting from them.


        His views are non objective.


        I'm not claiming that this is untrue, but criticizing Naipaul himself. Providing information about Islam and its "brutalization of native culture", before having a look into his own (Hindian) history. At times when killings where traditions.


        ------------------
        • na maiN momin vich masiitaaN, na maiN muusaa, na fir'aun!
        Ain't new ta this....HOMEINVASION('93)

        Comment


          #5
          you are confusing. 600 BC is time around Budhha, i believe (i did not check) aryan invasion, if any, is much older. maybe 1500-2000 BC. No records. not even known if it was migration or invasion.

          now let us assume that u know everything about aryan invasion and they destroyed local traditions. how does it make above article wrong. if u t saying that all invasions are forms of colonization and brutalization, that is different argument and naipaul would agree. he equates the converting jihadis from west as colonizing force.

          Comment


            #6
            Sir Vidya Naipaul
            Enuff said already BTW did he also claim taj was a hindu temple.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Abdali:
              Sir Vidya Naipaul
              Enuff said already BTW did he also claim taj was a hindu temple.
              nope. but he does definitely not say that sindh was invaded and loot was collected for humanatarian reasons. it is left to u.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by ZZ:
                you are confusing. 600 BC is time around Budhha, i believe (i did not check) aryan invasion, if any, is much older. maybe 1500-2000 BC. No records. not even known if it was migration or invasion.

                Yeah sorry it was around 1600 B.C.
                It was an invasion not an migration. Ask Hindu followers, who are strict Hindus they'll tell you how nice these people were.

                now let us assume that u know everything about aryan invasion and they destroyed local traditions. how does it make above article wrong. if u t saying that all invasions are forms of colonization and brutalization, that is different argument and naipaul would agree. he equates the converting jihadis from west as colonizing force.

                Please read above. I never said the article above is incorrect. Again I'm pointing out his attempts to show ISLAM in a negative light. Using Cut and paste and then implementing emotions and feelings to express his view on history is irrelevant.


                ------------------
                • na maiN momin vich masiitaaN, na maiN muusaa, na fir'aun!
                Ain't new ta this....HOMEINVASION('93)

                Comment


                  #9
                  let us assume there was aryan invasion. why not, if that makes you happy. and let us assume that they were as much barbarians as mohammad bin qasim was.

                  how does it make loot by mohammad a dawn of enlightenment.

                  christian colonialist made countries in africa christian. they do not poertay christian colonizers as saviors.

                  his essential argument is that islam makes victims forget the past.

                  chinese do not say that china had no civilization before buddhit monks arrived

                  italy is ciadel of catholicism. proud of its pre-christian civilization. so is greece. but not persia or pakistan.

                  pak does not inform its kids of achievements of its forefathers in hindu-buddhist times. taliban bash buddha statues egyptian islamic parties want to get rid of pyramids.

                  making people ashamed of its pre-islam heritage is imp. part of islamic conversion.

                  [This message has been edited by ZZ (edited October 15, 2001).]

                  Comment


                    #10
                    this guys famous past time is islam and muslim bashing

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by ZZ:
                      nope. but he does definitely not say that sindh was invaded and loot was collected for humanatarian reasons. it is left to u.

                      Beside the point what he said coz he is Indian and his middle name is distortion.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Abdali:

                        Beside the point what he said coz he is Indian and his middle name is distortion.

                        sure.. easier to dodge and go besides the point if u have no argument to offer.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by ZZ:
                          let us assume there was aryan invasion. why not, if that makes you happy. and let us assume that they were as much barbarians as mohammad bin qasim was.

                          So you still "assume" denying facts. Ok lets us assume. No they where barbarians, but not our Prophet (pbuh). He never fought to attack. He fought to defend. Remember this.

                          christian colonialist made countries in africa christian. they do not poertay christian colonizers as saviors.

                          Are you living on Mars?? Are you trying to tell me that crusaiders where not celebrated and that these people meant nothing to those who are still christians living in Africa? How naive? If that would have been the truth people would reject christianity.

                          his essential argument is that islam makes victims forget the past.

                          His states that forget Islam and it's teaching. Further Islam is the worst religion.

                          I define this not only as racism.

                          chinese do not say that china had no civilization before buddhit monks arrived

                          You are going off the topic.

                          italy is ciadel of catholicism. proud of its pre-christian civilization. so is greece. but not persia or pakistan.

                          Remember Romans where the one who had problems with JESUS and christianity.

                          So much for Greeks:
                          • "The Greeks had had vast experience in this world, their imagination had been fertile and they had created much...that, in these circumstances, they should fall in with a people imbued with a calm and sometimes stolid and bucolic certainty where its spiritual possessions were concerned, barbarians with no sculpture or breeding, necessarily tinged their contempt with impotent wrath. The inevitably logical result of this attitude on the part of the Greeks was the growth of anti-Semitism, of hatred of the Jews." -- Josef Kastein


                          pak does not inform its kids of achievements of its forefathers in hindu-buddhist times. taliban bash buddha statues egyptian islamic parties want to get rid of pyramids.

                          Every single kid is educated in history. Concerning both Hindu-Buddhist rule and Muslim rule. Don't forget we are talking about higher education level. Hindu destroy Mosques. And very last the last time I don't consider. At the same time Israeli parties wants to get rid of Mosque Aqusa. Hindus want to get rid of mosques in India.

                          making people ashamed of its pre-islam heritage is imp. part of islamic conversion.

                          No one is forcing you to convert. So why are you getting emotional. Stop yammering! Behave like a man not a child.
                          ------------------
                          • na maiN momin vich masiitaaN, na maiN muusaa, na fir'aun!


                          [This message has been edited by Ali_R (edited October 15, 2001).]

                          [This message has been edited by Ali_R (edited October 15, 2001).]
                          Ain't new ta this....HOMEINVASION('93)

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by ZZ:
                            sure.. easier to dodge and go besides the point if u have no argument to offer.
                            Oh you bet ya there are a million arguments to counter Indian crap BUT me have no intentions of going in circles with RSS educated pearls of wisdom.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              a) remove [QUOTE] when u reply, it is not possible to reply with quote in that case. i have to cut and paste and like.

                              let us assume there was aryan invasion. why not, if that makes you happy. and let us assume that they were as much barbarians as mohammad bin qasim was.

                              So you still "assume" denying facts. Ok lets us assume. No they where barbarians, but not our Prophet (pbuh). He never fought to attack. He fought to defend. Remember this.


                              why? where are records, documents, proofs for something that might or might noty happen 3500 (at least)-4000 yrs ago. In fact, US is providing much more proof to indict OSam and u wont agree.

                              Are hindus today proud of some non-native civilization. nope. in fact most of them believe they have been native all along.

                              but in any case, even if we agree u, it is besides the point.

                              BTW, by mohaamad, i meant mohamad bin qasim. let us stick to loot of sindh.

                              christian colonialist made countries in africa christian. they do not poertay christian colonizers as saviors.


                              Are you living on Mars?? Are you trying to tell me that crusaiders where not celebrated and that these people meant nothing to those who are still christians living in Africa? How naive? If that would have been the truth people would reject christianity.


                              Christian colnialists are not celebrated among african tribes. they are still christian. but they hate colonialists and try to make distinction between christianity and christian colonialists. this distinction is absent in islam.

                              his essential argument is that islam makes victims forget the past.


                              His arguements are forget Islam and it's teaching. Islam is the worst religion ever. I define this not only as racism.


                              it is an unique religion. it has concept of bidaat which disallows everything non-arab. i would say that only people who will follow arab customs being worthy, quite racist concept.

                              chinese do not say that china had no civilization before buddhit monks arrived


                              You are going off the topic.

                              nope.. it is very connected. pakistanis say that there was no civilization till mohammad bin qasim liberated them. chinese (of great china, u know) used to travel all the way o Taxilla to get education. Are pakistani students told these pre-islam achievemnts. nope.

                              italy is ciadel of catholicism. proud of its pre-christian civilization. so is greece. but not persia or pakistan.


                              Remember Romans where the one who had problems with JESUS and christianity.

                              So much for Greeks:


                              "The Greeks had had vast experience in this world, their imagination had been fertile and they had created much...that, in these circumstances, they should fall in with a people imbued with a calm and sometimes stolid and bucolic certainty where its spiritual possessions were concerned, barbarians with no sculpture or breeding, necessarily tinged their contempt with impotent wrath. The inevitably logical result of this attitude on the part of the Greeks was the growth of anti-Semitism, of hatred of the Jews." -- Josef Kastein

                              yes romans and greeks had problems with christianity. but today's roman is as proud of his pre-catholic culture as later culture and greek is in fact more proud of his pre-christian culture than later.

                              pak does not inform its kids of achievements of its forefathers in hindu-buddhist times. taliban bash buddha statues egyptian islamic parties want to get rid of pyramids.


                              Every single kid is educated in history. Concerning both Hindu-Buddhist rule and Muslim rule. Don't forget we are talking about higher education level. Hindu destroy Mosques. And very last the last time I don't consider. At the same time Israeli parties wants to get rid of Mosque Aqusa. Hindus want to get rid of mosques in India.

                              'mosques' is a plural. babri is a 1992 event. put it in percepctive and it is one over infnity. again something in 1992 is could not be a reason for what went on happening for 1000yrs in subcontinent.

                              go throughout north india. each temple has idols with noses chopped, heads removed. backlash occured. take it in a stride.

                              making people ashamed of its pre-islam heritage is imp. part of islamic conversion.

                              No one is forcing you to convert. So why are you getting emotional. Stop yammering! Behave like a man not a child.



                              people were forced to or encouraged to convert. it is a fact. is any non muslim religion fastest growing in muslim countries. they are not allowed to grow.

                              let me give an example. when zia declared zakaat for sunnis but not shias, many sunnis declared themselves shia on tax form. ucan imagine what hapens when u have jazia.

                              people were killed since they refused to convert. does ur pakistan history tell you about martyrdom of guru govind sing ji and barabaric nature of aurangzeb.

                              [This message has been edited by ZZ (edited October 15, 2001).]

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X