All bunkum actually. Chachnāma was commissioned 5 Centuries later than alleged Bin Qasim’s conquest.
It’s claimed that it’s translation of original Arabic Text but no one ever saw that Arabic text.
First account of Sindh Conquest appeared 180 years after 712 AD.
It’s claimed that it’s translation of original Arabic Text but no one ever saw that Arabic text.
First account of Sindh Conquest appeared 180 years after 712 AD.
https://twitter.com/hhballal/status/1378004857995452421
“The Futuh al-Buldan” by al-Baladhuri was first text containing a few pages on the conquest of Sindh and Muhammad's forces. It was in 892 AD. What took so long to write this tale?
Moreover it doesn’t give biography of Bin-Qasim.
Moreover it doesn’t give biography of Bin-Qasim.
The first biographical information of Bin Qasim appears as a passage in the work of al-Ya'qubi. Year was 898 AD (+186 years).
Al-Tabari mentions few lines in in his work (839 AD). Yet not much celebration of Qasim.
Al-Tabari mentions few lines in in his work (839 AD). Yet not much celebration of Qasim.
What you need to note that Qasim is supposed to have come from Mecca but first mention of Mecca is actually recorded in 741 AD (29 years after alleged attack of Bin Qasim)
Dear @HhBallal , this was exactly the period when Abbasids were furiously producing literature including Hadiths. The intent was to create a story of power. The more closer they reached to war more literature was produced. It was like motivational stuff do campaign.
It is indeed a red flag that if Bin-Qasim was such a conquerer as told to us, why no one cared to write about him for 5 centuries?
Chach Nama was simply commissioned to show the mighty past & how they have been defeating us since long.
Chach Nama was simply commissioned to show the mighty past & how they have been defeating us since long.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
