Talk:Muhammad ibn al-Qasim/Archive 1

message: Please remove picture, pure fantasy, not historical. 132.230.118.123 15:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of Qasim

message: I've removed what sounds like a rather salacious chapter out of 1001 Arabian Nights.  If the story is true, it should be presented in a much more professional manner.  I understood that it was political intrigue that doomed bin Qasim and not the chastity of some captured princesses...  Elijahmeeks 18:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol above seems like script of a bollywood. Firstly, he captured on of the Raj put queens (Queen Samyukta), and she was not a virgin as she was married to the Hindu king Prithviraj III so I don't know how the account mentioned above could be true. loool --Street Scholar 11:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Death of Qasim

message: The reason why I listed the sources here is, for the reason that the article has been edited many times and biased information has been inserted into it and I see this as a major problem especially when the information is Anti-Semitic and Islamaphobic in nature.
My REFERENCES:
1.  The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham
2.  The peoples of Pakistan, By Yu. V. Gankovsky
3.  Arab-o-Hind ke Talluqat, By Sulaiman Nadvi.
4.  The Gazetteer of Pakistan: The Province of Sind, edited by T.H. Sorly
5.  Gazetteer of the Province of Sind, compiled by E.H. Aitkin
6.  Ancient Trade in Pakistan, By Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Pakistan Quarterly, Vol VII #1957
7.      Sindhj Culture, By U.T. Thakkur.
8.     Tareekh-Sind, By Manlana Syed Abu Zafar Nadvi.
9.  An Advanced History of India, Part II, By R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Roychandra and Kalikinkar Ditta
10.  The Land of five rivers and Sind, By David Ross
11.   Arab~o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Suiaiman Nadvi;
12.  Tareekh-e-Sind, Part I, By Ijaaul Haq Quddusi.
13.  Dr. Mohammad Ishaque in Journal of Pakistan Historical Society Vol 3 Part1
14.  A Study of History, Vol VII, By Arnold Toynbee.
15.    Ibid.
16.    Sind: A General Introduction, By M.T. Lambrick.
17.  A greater portion of the area now called Baluchistan was then known as Makran. The word Baluchistan came into vogue much later.
18.  Journal of Pakistan, Historical Society, Vol.111, Part 1
19.  Tauzeehat-e-Tareekh-e-Masoomi.
20.  Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent, by Dr. I.H Qureshi
21.  Tareekh-e-Sind, Part 1, by Aijazul Haq Quddusi
22.  The Making of India, By Dr. Abdulla Yusuf Ali.
23.  Jaunat-us-Sind, By Maulai Shaidai.
24.  Imperial Gazetteer of India.
25.  Ibid.
26.  Indian Muslims, By Prof. M. Mujeeb.
27.  Tareekh-e-Sind, Part 1, By Aijazul Haq Quddusi.
28.  The preaching of Islam by Sir Thomas Arnold
29.  Shias of India, By John Norman Hollister.
30.    Ibid.
31.    Arab-o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Syed Sulaiman Nadvi
32.  Sindhi Culture, By U.T. Thakut.
33.  Tareekh-e-Sind, By Maulana Abu Zafar Nadvi.
34.  The Peoples of Pakistan, By. Yu. V. Gankovsky.
35.  Arab-o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Syed Sulairnan Nadvi.
--Street Scholar 12:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to my edit: 

message: You did conveniently left out information on the massacres of Hindus and non-Muslims alike in this article, all due to your pro-Islam bias. --Dangerous-Boy 06:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to jump in and agree that the article needs some big-time work and revision as it shows too much reverence of a historical figure.  Words like "great" are a matter of opinion.  With that said, the emphasis upon the Hindu ruling class seems troubling as the majority were still Buddhist at that time.  That would be the non-Muslims.  And for the record I'm an atheist.  I think massacres should be mentioned and possibly mentioned in every article that discusses conquest and empire.  Conversely, holding articles that deal with Islamic figures to a higher standard than say the Mauryans who killed plenty of people to forge an empire isn't exactly my idea of parity either.  Tombseye 09:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At least it's acknowledge that Asoka killed a crapload of people.  The Bin Qasim article was denying this. --Dangerous-Boy 20:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the thing though, the section on Ashoka explains the CONTEXT of the massacre of Kalinga for example.  Bin Qasim's main resistance came from the Hindu ruling class, while his main support came from the Buddhist masses.  He did come there as a conqueror and the context is important as we need to realize that he isn't killing them just for not being Muslim, but for being part of the main threat to his objectives.  In addition, there are accounts of golden statues being melted down as well of their ENEMIES.  Let's keep this in mind before promoting the false view that Muslims forced conversion as that rarely happened.  By rarely I don't mean to say it was a freak occurence, but most of the time Muslim Arabs were not keen upon sharing power and if you were a Muslim you were supposed to be technically an equal.  This is why some Hindu rulers at various times in India convert to Islam.  Not because there was a sword aimed at their heads, but because they want to remain in the upper echelons of power.  With context, Bin Qasim's actions aren't that different from the various conquerors of the past and even the present.  Tombseye 22:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going to agree with 128.xxx.xxx 

message: ::and then adding some
===Sub-headings===
::I can't even finish the article cause it's one long string of nonsense. Then if there's a dispute about something historical, provide as many book references as possible, quoting the book is best. Web references are not great, because I can make a website right now that says Bin Qasim was a transvestite who dressed up monkeys in pink dresses.
::Another point, if Islam is on trial, is that the Umayyad dynasty is considered by modern Muslims to be a corrupt empire that stole the caliphate and killed the last of the four rightly guided caliphs. They seiged Mecca and damaged the Kaaba. They are not considered good Muslim rulers by hardly anybody, so if they do have a bad record then it doesn't reflect on the teachings of Islamic warfare, which resembles the Geneva Convention. Cuñado  - Talk 17:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section headings

message: ::I can't even finish the article cause it's one long string of nonsense. Then if there's a dispute about something historical, provide as many book references as possible, quoting the book is best. Web references are not great, because I can make a website right now that says Bin Qasim was a transvestite who dressed up monkeys in pink dresses.
::Another point, if Islam is on trial, is that the Umayyad dynasty is considered by modern Muslims to be a corrupt empire that stole the caliphate and killed the last of the four rightly guided caliphs. They seiged Mecca and damaged the Kaaba. They are not considered good Muslim rulers by hardly anybody, so if they do have a bad record then it doesn't reflect on the teachings of Islamic warfare, which resembles the Geneva Convention. Cuñado  - Talk 17:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub-headings

message: "
Qasim demolished many temples, shattered "idolatorous" artwork and killed many people in his battles. After the violence, he attempted to establish law and order in the newly-conquered territory through the imposition of Islamic Shariah laws. He also sought control through systematic persecution of Hindus. Qasim wrote an account of such experiences:
O my cousin; I received your life inspiring letter. I was much pleased and overjoyed when it reached me. The events were recounted in an excellent and beautiful style, and I learnt that the ways and rules you follow are conformable to the Law. Except that you give protection to all, great and small alike, and make no difference between enemy and friend. 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 to those who are of rank. This is a worthy resolve, and want of dignity will not be imputed to you. Peace be with you. [1] "
Until I see some historical records of references from books, I am removing this quote as it seems like bullshit. Firstly lets look at this in context who was Bin-Qasim writing this letter to? which cousin? there are no documents or suggestions that this was actually said. Also about Hindu temples being 'shattered' also has no reference. Not even in India today, many people have been an killed and died a result of this. Hindu terrorists had attacked Muslims/Sikhs and other minorities many times on such false claims. There is not even one shred of evidence to suggest Hindu temples were destroyed. Dangerous-boy, is clearly putting false information into the article. Like this quote, the article is about bin qasim not so random Hindu mythological massacre.
--Street Scholar 18:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chachnamah (Chachnama) is the source of this quotation. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Delhi Reprint, 1979. --Kefalonia 12:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Comes straight from the Islamic conquest of South Asia.  Don't understand why you worship these Arab conquers so much.  They raped your grandmothers and killed your grandfathers.  --Dangerous-Boy 01:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at your nose, you sure might be but you're an exception. --Dangerous-Boy 11:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, your nose looks jewish and you claim arab descent.  Just stating the obvious.  Very of mature of you to make such comments.
side note:  you could be humping pigs for all I know.  I couldn't care what you do with your life.
--Dangerous-Boy 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, you make racist remarks on Blacks here and elsewhere and many other such things like saying "How is he an idiot for holding an opinion? the land doesn't even belong to Jews, they should go back to Europe where they actually came from. They are taking land that doesn't belong to them. Even in Australia they are taking over land that doesn't belong to them and the Aussies are starting to get pissed off too."  <This comment was added by Dangerous-Boy>
I like Jews. They're cool.
--Dangerous-Boy 01:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, just to clarify a few things here for both Street Scholar and Dangerous Boy.  The Arabs actually didn't go past Sind.  Turks, Afghans, and Iranians (of various types including Tajiks) were responsible for the conquest of South Asia.  Next, it's clear that you guys are both coming from an overly nationalist point of view regarding religion.  Muslim conquests sometimes involved rape and pillage, but this also happened during all of the Indian civilizations and various invaders such as the Huns, Scythians, Aryans etc.  In fact, the Arabs did this to each other as did the Mongols, Romans, etc.  It's how things were back then and even how things are today at times (such as the recent conflicts in Rwanda, Sudan, Yugoslavia etc.).  Most Pakistanis are not descendents of Arabs Street Scholar.  Go to the Pashtun page for example and you'll see 3 sources on genetic testing done in Pakistan that shows the two main contributions are South Asian (of various types) and West Asian of the Iranian type, not Semitic Arab.  Granted Indians and Iranians are somewhat divergent, but the Iranians aren't Arabs either.  The Arab connection is mostly one of claims as religious people seek to be closer to the founders and this goes for Arabic-speakers most of whom are probably not related to Muhammad as they might believe.  Arabs are a linguistic group at any rate and even people such as Egyptians are largely of native Egyptian ancestry.  Genetic tests don't lie.  Pakistanis are part-Aryan of both the Indo-Aryan and Iranian branches who merged with indigenous peoples and thus the country is a crossroads between the Iranic and Indic worlds.  Pashtuns, who are mostly not Indian as they are Afghans, are (including Afghan refugees) 20% of the population at the most, while there are some Punjabis and Sindhis who claim descent from them which may be quite accurate.  Also, 1/5 of Sindhis show traces of Baloch ancestry.  Lastly, Muhammad bin Qasim was a pretty minor figure historically.  He's been made into a demon in India and a saint in Pakistan when in reality he was neither.  He was part of the early Arab expansionism that was conducted to keep the warlike Arabs from fighting each other.  It had little to do with religion and a lot to do with social conditions and tribal behavior.  Bin Qasim is seen by Muslims in Pakistan as the catalyst for change and he was without knowing it as he sowed the seeds for what would become Pakistan as the region he conquered converted slowly over the centuries.  He didn't venture into Hind or India proper as the Arabs viewed it as the real Muslim conquerors of India were not Arabs, not even close.  I think this article needs more of an academic and neutral rendition that doesn't that provides context into him as a figure and possibly a section on modern revisionism as in retrospect people want to write him up as a hero or a bloodthirsty marauder.  I say he was neither.  If you want hero worship talk about him on some website that isn't an encyclopedia.  This article should be informative and that can include both his military prowess and the people who were killed during the conquest.  Information on Bin Qasim is pretty limited obviously as primary sources are difficult to attain.  Record-keeping and historians were still emerging at the time and the likes Ibn-Khaldun would not show up for a while.  Al-Tabari's the most respected historian and his massive volumes on early Islamic expansion are, in my opinion and that of most academics, the most incisive as he's something of a professional historian ahead of his time.  Let's all try to discuss things with more direct primary sources (or the closest to them) and avoid partisan bickering, shall we?  Tombseye 04:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source to this claim: 

message: Can the users stop putting in fakes quotes. And especially copy-and-pasting from infinity foundation, as the source is biased. There is no evidence of Bin-Qasim making any such comments and there is no letter of this type. Its pretty obvious its fake because the letter is not even in full and it never mentioning any dates, and there are no records of this letter anywhere. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Street Scholar (talk • contribs) 
:Fake and biased quotes? The Chach-nama is the most important primary source for Muhammad bin Qasim, even if you haven't read it nor even heard about it. You call the Chach-nama fake and biased (!), while inserting copyright violations from revisionist and biased websites (,  and other places.) Even your "bibliography" is a copyright violation from a geocities webpage. Copyvios, blanking and pov may be appropriate for the RateDesi Forum, but not here.  --Kefalonia 09:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "There is no such thing as the Chach-Nama"??? Thanks for your letting us know again how little you know about bin Qasim. The letter in question is taken from the Chach-Nama, which is among the early Muslim chronicles and an important primary source for bin Qasim. --Kefalonia 13:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "There is not such thing as Chachnama"! We might want to invoke an RfC here. Here's a link from UIUC, one of the top universities of the US, saying "Chachnama is the most authentic and almost contemporary account of Arab invasions of Sindh."  deeptrivia (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I did mention the Chachnama, see my first edit on the article, so you both Kefaloni, is lying when he said it didn't exist, sorry I should have made my self a little clear I meant prove this letter exists withing the Chacnama.! --Street Scholar 13:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fakes quotes. 

message: We are building the Project from a global perspective for use across the world, and not from the point pf view of any particular region or nation. Accordingly, contents of historical stubs and pages should reflect the aspiration of wikipedians to build a truly global encyclopedia. --Bhadani 15:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quote: William Ralp Inge  once said: “Events in the past may be roughly divided into those which probably never happened and those which do not matter. This is what makes the trade of historian so attractive.” --Bhadani 15:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Global aspiration

message: Here:
Stanley Lane-Poole, Medieval India under Mohammedan Rule, 712-1764, G.P. Putnam's Sons. New York, 1970. p. 9-10
The ref seems to only show that the Jats and Meds supported bin-Qasim. However, the article says that Buddhists and Bhuttos also supported him, which is not in the sentence cited from the article. I will get the book from the library in 1-2 days to verify the claims made. Until then, let the tag stand.Hkelkar 10:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: problem with ref 3 citation

message: Don't add lower caste, when Jatts are clearly not a lower caste. And even so adding "lower" caste is offensive. It should be noted the Jatts were considered lower caste by the ruling Bahamian Hindus who were oppressing the Jatt sub-tribes such as the Cheemas who were at one time considered noble Kshatriyas at one point by the Bahamian Hindus. The only reason why the Bahamians (kings) started calling them offensive terms was for the fact that some Jatt sub-tribes don't participate in Bahamian rituals for the reason that they were followers of Buddhism.
Furthermore, for instance, the Jatts are decadents of the sakas who are of the indi-scything stock, which makes them indo-Aryans. The way the Hindu caste system is set up the Jatts can never be considered low-caste as Aryans are the highest caste you can get in the Hindu caste system. So claiming Jatts as a lower caste (who in fact are a race) is historically and factually wrong. Street Scholar 11:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please substantiate outrageous claims (and from real sources this time, not itschy ones).Hkelkar 11:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it depends on how you mean real.  I have no experience with this in the realm of South Asia (And the more involved I get in this particular article, the more surprised I am by the incivility of everyone involved) but as a scholar of China, I can say that certain sources are useful not for any social or political understanding, but only to know a particular cultural belief.  Often the claims of the particularly ancient texts are, by their very nature, unsubstantiatable and unsuitable to reference as fact.  That doesn't make them useless, by any means, but their usefulness in the particular area of history is limited. Elijahmeeks 15:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the list, I'll take a look.  I've sort of stumbled onto this article and it's outside my sphere of knowledge, so I'm just trying to present a reasonable outside opinion for the ongoing argument. Elijahmeeks 16:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't add lower caste 

message: those who are about to read further need to have a healthy heart because you can't bear to witness the masacre, the mayhem and the carnage also known as tigeroo (who are you). wikipedia need to get this act sorted once for all. 202.142.190.245 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 13:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE Battle of TIGROO 

message: "Muhammad bin Qasim (Arabic محمد بن قاسم ) (c. 695–715) was an Arab general who conquered Sindh and Punjab regions along the Indus river (currently a part of Pakistan). The conquest of Sindh and Punjab started the Islamic era in the South Asia." !!!!
I thought it was the arab merchents who first brought Islam to South Asia at the malabar cost of kerala in 6th century. The earliest known muslim communities in India are Mappilas. (means son-in-law) in local language. Also I thought till about 13th century AD the Muslim sultanates in Delhi had no clue of the existance of Muslim enclaves on Malabar cost and  and Coromandel in general!!
Pratheepps 10:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who brought Islam to South Asia (first)? 

message: Muslims are the 'People of the Prevailing Book', AlQoraan, the culminating & the last & the final book revealed by God to humanity for all the humanity & prevailing over all the previously revealed books until end of time, while the followers of all the previous revealed books are 'People of the Prevailed Books' & they are considered by God as 'Ahl Al-Fatarat' ( or 'People of the Interval' ) until individually the prevailing message reaches them. Jews (or 'Yahood' {the guided ones}{who so requested Moses to be called by which in their arrogance to defy Gods' Prophet Moses who was a Muslim {the appellation given by Abraham for the followers of God} & Christians (so named by their opponents) ( or 'Nasaraa' { or "Nazaratines"  or belonging to the city of Nazareth in Palestine where Jesus (who was Muslim)(Gods' peace be upon him} was born} as named in AlQoraan,(the most relevant)& Sabeens ( the other 'People of the Book' of Noah,  Jonah, Enoch, John, who were neither Jews or Christians)(in smaller numbers) are from the Arabian Peninsula, while Magians ( or 'Zoroastrians') are People of the Book in neighboring Persia (now Iran)(whose prophet is not mentioned in AlQoraan nor their book) outside the Arabian Peninsula. Others are not mentioned from the rest of the world, for various reasons: because the names & the stories will be unknown & will not be of interest through whom the message was being directed to the whole humanity or they will be repetitive & have nothing to add to guidance, they will only burden the message with no help towards guidance. Ibn Hazm, the fifth Famous Imam of Islamic Comprehension {or Jurisprudence or Fiqha} of Al-Andalus (or Islamic Spain) has considered Hindus {so named by the early Persians who added 'h' to 'Indus' the river east of Persia flowing in Sind, because of the peculiarity of their language, to the people living around the River Indus up to Burma eastwards}& now confirmed by a contemporary scholar of  comparative study of religious books, that their 'Vedas' contain reference to the coming of the Prophet Mohammad & description of his companions & victory of Makkah confirms the revealed nature of their books, so they are to be regarded as 'People of the Book'. The idolatry is an addition not a part of their religion like Makkans fell into idolatry introduced by a visitor to Syria in the 5th century, since introduced after Noah, when the people started making statues for the righteous people but after many generations, the original purpose went out of the living memory without any written record as writing had not been yet invented, instead the reverence turned into worship with the help of Satan. (ILAKNA (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  All who have received revealed books from God are 'People of the Book' 

message: the commander of forces which opened the Province of Sind for the Islamic Caliphate, was from the tribe of 'Thaqeef' from Taif, 80 km east of Makkah in Saudi Arbia & not ,as wrongly suggested, from Syria. He was under the command of the Governor of Iraq, & his relative AlHajjaj bin Yusuf AthThaqafi. The reason for sending the forces was that the Muslim pilgrims from the island of Sarandeep (Sri Lanka now) were taken hostage by Raja Dahir of Daebal (near to now Karachi port) & the Ommayad Caliph from Damscus asked his governor in Iraq to send forces to get the pilgrims released. He was just 19 years old when he commanded the forces to Sind. The forces boarded the ships from the Al-Oqair Port (100 km South of Hofuf City), the historical port in the Al-Hasa (now Eastern) Province.(ILAKNA (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mohammad Bin Qasim AthThaqafi

message: Hanafi fiqh being adopted in the Sind area around 714/715 is total rubbish as Imam Abu Hanifa was born in 699 and Bin Qasim died in 715. So Imam Abu Hanifa was even less then 16 years old when Hanafi school supposedly got adopted in Sind. The school began much later and not when he was a kid. He was still at school getting his Islamic knowledge. Much of the source material is made up like this adoption of Hanfai school.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.97.249 (talk) 
:Then we should remove it.--D-Boy 18:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, ok thats a good point. It is conceivable that the particular source quoted has misstated, will require corraboration but seems like a mistake. I will look into it and edit accordingly. On the other part, the term and definition of people of the book has evolved. Even Zorastrians status were granted the same under Umar no less.--Tigeroo 06:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: True that is the modern definition, but there was a time and period in history when Hindu's and Buddhists were accorded the same. Upanishads etc. were hypotheized as books, even Buddha was conceptualized as an earlier prophet, Burxan. Even today there are many who view Hindu avatar's as people who could have possibly been one of the many thousands of prophets who came but whose followers lost the plot. I could be wrong as well, however but pointing out something like the issue raisded about Abu Hanifa age is good way to get me to reassess, I have been looking at that and I agree seems like his influence may only have kicked in around 750's. P.S been just a bit busy to go over the sources again and make the change about him, but am getting around to it.--Tigeroo 13:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanafi school adopted in Sindh when Imam Abu Hanifa was a kid??

message: Three of Tigeroos latest posts are devoted to again deleting my content 
Tigeroo your presumption of wikipedia  style guru  is not only misplaced but stems from your aggressive desire to present a lopsided  version  .  Your  use anonymous IP s to vandal delete  is also now more than obvious . I have carefully responded to each of your provided reasons for deletion , but I see that you do not care for civilized debate .
I also notice that your original  reading is severely limited .. and you entirely rely on  anything you can lay your hands on the Internet . I do compliment you on your I T skills at manipulating wikipedia  edits  skill , however they are no  substitution for the truth you are trying to suppress .
Cheers
:Please red up WP:MOS. I have tried to show you numerous times on how to make acceptable and useful contributions but you refuse to pay attention. Case in point, you still place your comments any what where and when instead of at the bottom of the talk pages. I have accepted and incorporated legitimate issues raised by you, but you really need to get your act together and stop degrading the quality of the articles. Case in point this post again. As for the truth, wikipedia has a definition on what constitutes this and it is available under WP:POV and WP:OR. Those are what apply here so please get with the program.--Tigeroo 13:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tigeroo again deletes my entire posts

message: My posts on Qasim have been deleted by 80.227.40.9
and my posts on Mahmud of Ghazni have been deleted by 80.227.40.9 .
Please stop hounding and deleting my posts if you are 80.227.40.9
cheers
Intothefire 09:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tigeroo are you  now deleting my posts under 80.227.40.9

message: Anonymous user your indiscriminate vandal additions to this article on sections I have worked on are not appreciated. Do not vandal or you will be reported ? If you wish to edit add participate after registering . Intothefire 18:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 213.42.21.75   Your   massive indiscriminate vandal additions 

message: 7) the use of overawing force, power, strength and majesty in checking and expelling the enemy.
and  The Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg
8) The role played by the belief in prophecy; both of Muslim success, and Dahir's marriage (unconsummated) to his sister which alienated him from others. ref The Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg
9) The “Chach-Nama” notes the following as highlights of Qasim’s rule
10) even if they worshipped stocks and stones.ref name="Mirza"> The Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg.
11) so that they may live happy in their own homes”" [http://persian.packhum.org/persian/pf?file=12701030&ct=42 The Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg.
13) , I confirm you in your previous posts. The management of all the affairs of State, and its administration, I leave in your able hands, and this (right) I grant (also) to your children and descen­dants hereditarily, and you need fear no alteration or cancellation of the order thus issued.”" [http://persian.packhum.org/persian/pf?file=12701030&ct=42 The Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Delhi Reprint, 1979.
14) .  He assisted Muhammad ibn Qasim in all of his undertakings..."</ref> Dahir's prime minister and various chieftains were also incorporated into the administration.refThe Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Delhi Reprint, 1979 
17:49, 15 May 2007 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (31,171 bytes) (→Administration by Qasim - rm unnecessary quote and extra link)
Here you have removed a link (http://www.ispi-usa.org for this professedly Muslim  organization  ) that I had provided .This is not an extra link but a link provided by me to make it known that what a completely fictitious source you have repeatedly used from articles from this organizations website .  See my earlier comment This organisation and its founder is a medical doctor and not a historian. This is a professedly Muslim organization ostensibly workings for the promotion of understanding of Islam in the west . So far so good . Problem is its chief protagonist whose articles you are using as source and reference is not a Historian .
Therefore all the information alluded to in this article which have been justified on the grounds of the reference provided are patently false and should be removed .
From here on if you continue to hound and  delete my posts You will be reported .Intothefire 14:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued from above Response to each of tigeroos s pretexts for deleting my posts