Talk:Muhammad ibn al-Qasim/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Tigeroo A quote from a Doctor

Tigeroo thank you for repairing the link on Qasim .Your dedication to Qasim is touching . Guess what I found surprise surprise Jaweed Akhter it turns out is a Physician and not a Historian . See his description on his own website .

I hope conversely that articles in wikipedia on Medical Science are not quoting Dr s of History for proof . Or you think this is OK . A doctor is a Doctor ??? anything goes ???

"Javeed Akhter, a physician, is a founding member of the Chicago based Muslim American think tank International Strategy and Policy Institute and a member of the Chicago Committee of Human Rights Watch" .

"I was truly amused to read his comment on the website "Ramadan remains an uplifting experience, with the added bonus that during Taraweeh here in the U.S., unlike in India, I get to stand shoulder to shoulder with Muslims from many different ethnic backgrounds. " I wonder what the president of India Dr Kalam may have to say about standing shoulder to shoulder in India .

More amusing most of the articles on the site OF this so called Muslim think tank organization set up by him are written by himself . Problem he forgot to mention what he is a scholar of.

Tigeroo what are you going to do now . Fish out some new obscure wikipedia rule to protect this ..or as you normally do edit undo my posts .

Are all the other ref on the article same quality. You don’t like my ref or quotations from sources you use ...you remove them ...now you are happy repairing links to Physicians posting as scholars .

Cheers Intothefire 08:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:Civil and the assumption of good faith. For further information on my stand on Dr. Jawed. please read up these talk pages and you will see just how much "I love him".

PS: Wikipedia rules are neither obscure nor irrelevant, do take some time out to read them, they provided the basis for building better articles and really not difficult to decipher/ implement.--Tigeroo 04:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi tigeroo

Is there any particular reason for providing a bad link for quotes from sources
of the net .

If the provided link doesent work do you feel it is OK to cite it ?? see this one in the footnotes.

Do Muslims Deserve The Hatred Of Hindus? ref no 16 in the article .

Property destroyed during hostilities was compensated for.

will you undo this post of mine as well .

CHEERS Tigeroo 15:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a simple fix to that particulr issue. Just update the link. P.S. It's not my link and I am actually looking to find a better source/ details to replace that particular reference. I have different problem with that citation than the minor one of a broken link.--Tigeroo 15:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo deletes my post again

Tigeroo provide precise and specific subsections for each deletion relative to WP:OR and WP:Style , the grounds on which you have again deleted my last posts . cheers Intothefire 07:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

1. First off if its a new thread add it to the bottom of the talk page. Am moving your thread accordingly since you formatted it as a new section.
2. Wikipedia:Citing_sources With respect to the way quotations are handled.
3. Wp:style#Long_quotations & Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents With repect the excessive reliance on direct quotes.
4. Wp:or#What_is_excluded.3F With respect to inferences drawn and presented from Primary sources.
5. Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Stay_on_topic With respect to meanderings into largish expansions on the source.s
6. Wp:npov#Undue_weight With respect to the usage of bolding to emphasis a particular POV.

Just run a comparison with the article after you have edited it with any of the featured articles and that should give you a good benchmark--Tigeroo 15:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The edits to fix citation so far are a start. Please note, Wikipedia is not a quote farm and encyclopediac articles do not contain excessive tracts. Now try these as well:

1. Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Information_style_and_tone on what articles should read as.
2. Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources on the way to differentiate and handle sources.
3. Lets refrain from repeating things that have already been said, and sourced.--Tigeroo 17:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo now deletes 7 of my posts nitpicking

Tigeroo you have again deleted 7 of my posts on this article by nitpicking.
All seven posts were verbatim quotations from the Chach Nama where I have provided the source ..
The source I used is the same as the one Tigeroo has used ..

Tigeroo why are you misusing Wikipedia rules by citing them only with the malintent of misusing them as a pretext to repeatedly cause me Harassment by deleting my posts .

Tigeroo Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles .

Tigeroo assume good faith Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it . Even where I have provided proof of the questionable veracity of sources used as references on this article I have not deleted till now

By repetedly deleting my posts should I assume uou are stalking me !! Cheers Intothefire 18:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been no question of good-faith here. I am being very patient and trying to help you understand because it is apparent you are a newbie by extensively explaining and directing you to resources to improve your contribution. In my opiniong your edits are currently merely compromising the quality of the article inspite of the best of intentions. I have expanded certain sections to incorporate or add information that you brought my attention to as being lacking thereof by your edits. You said "All seven posts were verbatim quotations from the Chach Nama where I have provided the source". I am not sure how many times I need to go over this to explain how you used them wrongly. Please note when I have referenced Chach-nama I have done so to the preface and introduction. That part is a tertiary source assessment. Everything from the Chach-nama and all inferences are sourced from tertiary sources. The campaign part is a summary to recount progress of the campaign and as such refrains from making inferences or getting descriptive keeping to the bare minimum of details.--Tigeroo 19:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo deletes my posts on two other related articles

Tigeroo today I noticed that you have been aggressively deleting my posts on not only this but three other articles as well by using nitpicking pretexts.

Tigeroo you have been stalking and deleting my posts on
Chach Nama

Raja Dahir

When you will see the history of these three articles your deletions of my posts are immediately done after my posts . Tigeroo Do you want to Harass me repeatedly so that I stop visiting Wikipedia . Tigeroo Please stop stalking Harassing and stalking me and take away my pleasure of using wikipedia . Cheers Intothefire 18:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I can or you can submit a Wikipedia:Requests for comment to help resolve disagreement if you want unless some third experienced editor would like to step in as well and explain things a little to Intothefire. Maybe we can to go Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts instead for a less formal input session. I would however advise you to read up on the articles above and look long and hard at what I have indicated the issues to be unless you are absolutely certain you are correct.--Tigeroo 19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No. you should removing intothefire's material. it's well sourced and written. leave him alone, tigeroo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dangerous-Boy (talk • contribs) 19:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

No???? Written??? No to what?? Written?? What is written, it's all just copy and paste from a primary source. No intro, no leads, no context, no explanation of what this primary source is supposed to mean. No analysis from a tertiary source. Quoting WP:OR It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; There is no analysis here attributed to a reputable source beyond his personal edits. What is here is selective unanalyzed quotations, we might as well quote the entire of the Chach-Nama here at this rate under the guise that it adds something. The analysis and commentary of the same information is already included in the article by reputable tertiary sources. Here is another pertinent sectino from WP:OR that should serve as a good guide to this discourse:

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."--Tigeroo 20:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo used pretext of style to delete content on Mahmud of Ghaznavi as well

It is now clear that Tigeroo you use have been using the pretext of style to vandal delete content on various articles on wikipedia .
Lets look at what you have deleted in anothert article
Mahmud of Ghaznavi
Revision as of 00:33, 29 March 2007 (edit) (undo)
Tigeroo (Talk | contribs)
(copyedits)
Newer edit →
Tigeroo here you have out done yourself , apart from deleting an entire section , you have shown true genius by replacing two words in the article and changing the import of the para to mean the opposite . See the change of the words from
awareness to Hindutava and
information to partition of india .

Problem is one deception will reveal another . CheersIntothefire 13:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to do a bit more background research before you make assumptions.

1. That was a restoration to a previous version edited by an anon
2. Where is the pretext of style given??
3. Leave alone a section, not even one line has that been deleted in that edit. It has just rearranged into one section. Heck every single line in the section that was rearranged was actually sourced and written in by me, just like the controversy section here in Qasim. There is no doubt about the actions or events, but remeber there is a huge controversy over the way it is viewed< if you are concerned a particular view has not been expressed or sidelined than we can address that.--Tigeroo 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, how much other stuff are you white washing?--D-Boy 18:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh?? Might help if you explain what it is that you think is being white washed before we can decide if it has been.--Tigeroo 08:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Next Tigeroo delets my posts from History of Afghanistan

Wherever I go Tigeroo
Are you sure to follow
What should I make of this ?.

Your following me around from article to article Reminds me of a nursery rhyme

Mary had a little lamb,
Its fleece was white as snow;
And everywhere that Mary went,
The lamb was sure to go.

He followed her to school one day;
That was against the rule;
It made the children laugh and play;
To see a lamb at school.

And so the teacher turned it out,
But still it lingered near,
And waited patiently about
Till Mary did appear.

"Why does the lamb love Mary so?"
The eager children cry;
"Why, Mary loves the lamb, you know,"
The teacher did reply. ,

lol

Cheers Intothefire 07:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Next Tigeroo deletes my post now from History of Afghanistan

Tigeroo you have deleted my posts from topic after topic starting with this one .

Next Apparently the appearence of the sections on Hindu Shahi Dynasty or the Turki Shahi Buddhist Dynasty does not appeal to Tigeroo s taste . Tigeroo s obsession with the (spin he provides )on the Decline of Buddhism in India notwithstanding , the reasons for the Decline of Buddhism in Afghanistan or Pakistan seem to be best dealt with selective amnesia .

So Tigeroo whats the creative theory on the Decline of Buddhism in Afghanistan and Pakistan ...starts with Tigeroo and tigeroo s sockpuppets deleting all inconvenient posts from wikipedia is it .

cheers Intothefire 18:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

why don't you file an rfa on him?--D-Boy 05:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

giving him a long rope......!!

Cheers Intothefire 11:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, be my guest. BTW could you be another incarnation of HKelkar you are starting to spin off into a strange case for a newbie.--Tigeroo 13:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo again vandal deletes restoration of my post from this topic

(cur) (last) 21:25, 6 June 2007 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (28,064 bytes) (WP:Not a collection of quotes.)

Tigeroo about time you stopped misusing rules as pretext to delete content which as I see you are doing to posts on many articles using many sockpuppets and taking away the joy of many wikipedia contributors by deleting their posts repeatedly .

Read

• Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep
• Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

See what it says
"Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community.Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures."

Are you going to misuse the knowledge of these as well ??
which reminds me of the dirty tricks of many lower division clerks in goverment Bureaucracy who use their knowledge of rules to undermine all that the rules were meant to protect .

Cheers Intothefire 11:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

While it is not a moot court please review Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. As for procedural errors I have asked you fix the issues, told you how you can fix the issues, even tried to fix what I perceived as your issue on my own, and even tried to educate you to enable you to do so yourself so I think that portion is gone since you appear to be refusing to comprehend. Please review Wikipedia:Five pillars, especially the first one to understand what the spirit actually is. The "rules" are actually the consensus built towards establishing quality, before you complaing about drivers and traffic jams keeping you from getting to where you want to go it might be a good idea to first get on the right lane else the one causing back-up is no one but yourself.--Tigeroo 13:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Chapter IX FROM Ferishta's

I am adding here Chapter IX FROM Ferishta's History of the Rise of Mahommedan Power in India taken from The Packard Humanities Institute Persian Texts in Translation[1].This material is being put here to enable anyone editing this article to use this material in the improvement of this article .
"CHAPTER IX. THE HISTORY OF SIND AND TUTTA. To face page 401. Vol. IV.] GENEALOGIES OF THE SEVERAL DYNASTIES OF THE KINGS OF SIND. I. HEREDITARY MONARCHS OF THE SOOMUNA RACE. >genealogy< 1 Jam Afra. 2 Jam Chowban.
4 Jam Timajy. 3 Jam Bany.
5 Jam Sulah-ood-Deen.
6 Jam Nizam-ood-Deen.
7 Jam Ally Sheer.
8 Jam Giran.
ELECTIVE KINGS OF THE SOOMUNA RACE.
>genealogy<
9 Jam Futteh Khan. 10 Jam Toghluk.
11 Jam Sikundur.
12 Jam Sunjur.
13 Jam Nunda.
14 Jam Feroze.
DYNASTY OF ARGHOON.
genealogy
15 Shah Beg Arghoon.
16 Shah Hoossein Arghoon.
DYNASTY OF TURKHAN.
genealogy
17 Eesa Turkhan.
18 Mahomed Baky Turkhan. Khan Baba.
19 Jany Beg Turkhan.
MAHOMED KASIM.
Invasion of Sind by Mahomed Kasim. — Deebul, called Tutta, taken. — The Arabians proceed up the river Indus. — Sehwan taken. — Mooltan taken. — Mahomed Kasim recalled — ac¬count of his singular death. — Subversion of the Mahomedan power in Sind and Mooltan. IT is related in several histories, such as the Kholasut-ool-Hikayat, the Huj-Nama, and the his¬tory of Hajy Mahomed Kandahary, that the first establishment of the Mahomedan faith in the country of Sind occurred under the following circumstances: — Hijaj (the son of Yoosoof Shukfy), governor of Bussora at the time when Wuleed, the son of Abdool Mullik, was ruler of the provinces of both
A. H. 87. A. D. 705. Iraks, resolved on invading India. Ac¬cordingly, in the year 87, he deputed Mahomed Haroon with a select force into Mikran, who subdued that country, and made converts of many of the inhabitants called Bulo-chies; and having there established a regular go¬vernment, the Mahomedan faith may be said to have prevailed in that country from the period alluded to. We are told that in those days, also, the in¬habitants of the island of Selandeep (Ceylon) were accustomed to send vessels to the coast of Africa, to the Red Sea, and to the Persian Gulf, a practice prevailing from the earliest ages; and that Hindoo pilgrims resorted to Mecca and Egypt for the purpose of paying adoration to the idols, to which they looked with the utmost veneration. It is related, also, that the people trading from Selan-deep became converts to the true faith at as early a period as the reign of the first caliphs, and that having thus had intercourse with Mahomedan na¬tions, the King of Selandeep despatched a vessel laden with various rare articles, the produce of his country, to the caliph Wuleed at Bagdad.* On this vessel arriving at the entrance of the Persian Gulf it was attacked and captured by orders of the ruler of Deebul, * together with seven other boats, in which were some Mahomedan fami¬lies going on pilgrimage to Kurbula. Some of the captives making their escape carried their complaint to Hijaj, who addressed a letter to Raja Dahir, the son of Sasa, ruler of Sind, and sent it to be for¬warded from Mikran by Mahomed Haroon. Raja Dahir replied, that the act of hostility was com¬mitted by a powerful state, over which he had no control.

On the receipt of this letter Hijaj obtained the consent of Wuleed, the son of Abdool Mullik, to invade India, for the purpose of propagating the faith; and at the same time deputed a chief of the name of Budmeen, with three hundred cavalry, to join Haroon in Mikran, who was directed to reinforce the party with one thousand good soldiers more to attack Deebul. Budmeen failed in his expedition, and lost his life in the first action. Hijaj, not deterred by this defeat, resolved to A. H. 93. A. D. 711. follow up the enterprise by another. In consequence, in the year 93, he de¬puted his cousin and son-in-law, Imad-ood-Deen Mahomed Kasim, the son of Akil Shukhfy, then only seventeen years of age, with six thousand soldiers, chiefly Assyrians, with the necessary imple¬ments for taking forts, to attack Deebul. This army proceeded by the route of Shiraz and Mikran. On reaching the towns of Deboon and Dursila, on the confines of the Sind territory, Mahomed Kasim halted; and having taken the necessary steps for advancing he marched on to Deebul, situated on the banks of the Indus, which town is now called Tutta.

On reaching this place, he made preparations to besiege it, but the approach was covered by a fortified temple, surrounded by a strong wall, built of hewn stone and mortar, one hundred and twenty feet in height. * After some time a bramin, belonging to the temple, being taken, and brought before Kasim, stated, that four thousand Rajpoots defended the place, in which were from two to three thousand bramins, with shorn heads, and that all his efforts would be vain; for the standard of the temple was sacred; and while it remained entire no profane foot dared to step be¬yond the threshold of the holy edifice. Mahomed Kasim having caused the catapultas to be directed against the magic flag-staff, succeeded, on the third discharge, in striking the standard, and broke it down. In a few days after which the place fell. Mahomed Kasim levelled the temple and its walls with the ground, and circumcised the bramins. The infidels highly resented this treatment, by in¬vectives against him and the true faith. On which Mahomed Kasim caused every bramin, from the age of seventeen and upwards, to be put to death: the young women and children of both sexes were retained in bondage; and the old women being released, were permitted to go whithersoever they chose.

The booty of the temple amounted to a large sum, one fifth of which was sent to Hijaj, together with seventy-five female slaves. The rest of the plunder was distributed among the soldiery. Ma-homed Kasim, having come for the purpose of pro¬pagating the faith, proceeded to invest the town of Deebul, from whence Foujy, the son of Dahir, with a party of soldiers, forced his way to the fort of Bra-minabad ; * to which place he was pursued by Mahomed Kasim, who having closely invested it for some time, the lives of the besieged were spared, and they were allowed to retain their private pro¬perty, on condition of surrendering.

Mahomed Kasim marched thence into See-vustan, to a place called Sehwan, the inhabitants of which country, being bramins, represented to their chief, Kucha Ray, the cousin of Dahir, governor of Sind, that as the spilling of blood was contrary to the tenets of their religion, it appeared to him advisable to submit quietly to the payment of the tribute required by Kasim. Kucha Ray, despis¬ing the idea of this compromise, refused compliance, and the Mahomedans proceeded to invest Seh-wan. After a week's siege, a party from the garrison, making their escape by night, fled to the Ray of Sulim, * in order to gain reinforce¬ments; but the bramins gave up the place on the following morning, and Mahomed Kasim distri¬buted the property among the troops, reserving one fifth for Hijaj. From hence he marched to the fortress of Sulim, which he also reduced, and divided the spoils according to the practice of those times. At this period, Hully Sa†, * the eldest son of Raja Dahir, having collected a large force, marched to oppose Mahomed Kasim; and the latter took up a strong position, and entrenched himself. In this situation his resources being contracted, and many of his carriage-cattle dying, the soldiers became discontented, and at length broke into open mu¬tiny; Mahomed Kasim, however, encouraging his troops with the hope of aid, wrote to Hijaj Bin Yoosoof, who having heard of his situation before his letters arrived, had already despatched a rein¬forcement of one thousand horse, with other requi¬sites, to Sind. On receiving this seasonable as¬sistance, Mahomed Kasim again took the field, and attacking the young Ray, several battles ensued, though neither party appears to have obtained any advantage of consequence. Raja Dahir hav¬ing consulted his astrologers and bramins on the present crisis of his affairs, they declared that it was written in the ancient books, * that “at a “certain period a prophet would arise from among “the people of Arabia, who would succeed in con-“verting many nations to a new persuasion; after “which, in the lunar year 86, the Arabian forces “would invade the borders of Sind, and in the “year 93 they would subdue all those countries.” Raja Dahir having in many instances found the predictions of his astrologers verified placed great reliance on them, but resolved to defend himself with a courage becoming his rank and family. The cup of his life being now filled to the brim, he joined his son's army, of which he assumed the Rumzan 10. A. H. 93. A. D. 711. command in person; and on Wednesday the 10th of Rumzan, in the year 93, with a force consisting of fifty thousand men, composed of Rajpoots, Sindies, and Mool-tanies, he marched to attack the Mahomedans.
Mahomed Kasim, with barely six thousand troops, mostly Arabian cavalry, waited the onset. Raja Dahir at first took up a position near the Mahomedan lines, and endeavoured by skirmishes and manœuvres to entice the enemy from the strong position which he occupied; but failing in every attempt he resolved to storm it. Part of the Arab cavalry quitting the entrenched camp galloped forth and engaged the Indians singly; a mode of warfare in which the Arabians had the advantage, from the superior management of their horses, and their skill in the use of the sword. At length the action became more general, and Dahir with his rela¬tions led on the Indians into the centre of the enemy. On this occasion, one of the Arab firemen threw a naphtha ball * on the white elephant of Dahir, which became so alarmed at the terrible effect of the liquid flame, that he ran off to the river, in spite of the efforts of his driver, and plunged into the stream. The temporary absence of the Raja com¬municated a panic to his army, which instantly fol¬lowed. Mahomed Kasim pursued the fugitives; but the elephant having come out of the water Raja Dahir again drew up his troops, and made a resolute stand on the banks of the Indus, when re¬ceiving an arrow wound he fell. He, however, insisted on being placed upon a horse; and al¬though the wound was very severe, he charged in the most gallant manner into the midst of the Arabian horse, where he died like a hero. On his death, the Hindoo troops fled in confusion towards the fort of Ajdur. The Mahomedans gained a vast quantity of plunder by this vic¬tory. Mahomed Kasim now proceeded to Ajdur.† * Hully Sa, the son of Dahir, after leaving a suffi¬cient garrison in that fort, proposed to meet the Mahomedan forces in the field; but his coun¬sellors dissuading him, he retired to the fort of Braminabad.

The widow of Raja Dahir resolved to adopt the measure abandoned by her son; and with a truly masculine spirit, placing herself at the head of fifteen thousand Rajpoots, prepared to meet the Mahomedans. Mahomed Kasim, however, giving orders to his troops not to attack, they merely stood on the defensive; and the Rajpoots quietly withdrew with their female chief into the fort of Ajdur, which was now closely invested. The siege being protracted to a great length of time, the garrison were nearly starved out, when they came to the final alternative of performing the Jowhur, a ceremony which requires the Hindoos to sacrifice their women and children on a burning pile; and the men, after bathing, rush on the point of the enemy's lances sword in hand. This dreadful step being taken, the gates of the fortress were thrown open, and a body of Rajpoots, headed by the widow of Dahir, attacked the Mahomedans in their camp, and all lost their lives.

The heroes of Assyria having repulsed this attack forced their way into the fort, where they slew six thousand Rajpoots, and took prisoners three thousand more. Among the latter were the two daughters of Raja Dahir. These princesses were sent by Mahomed Kasim to Hijaj, to be re¬ceived into the seraglio of Wuleed; and after having placed all the towns of Sind under Arab governors, Mahomed Kasim proceeded to reduce Mooltan, which was also subject to the authority of Dahir. On reaching Mooltan, Mahomed Kasim also sub¬dued that province; and himself occupying the city, he erected mosques on the site of the Hindoo temples.

When the two daughters of the King of Sind arrived at the court of Hijaj at Bussora, he for¬warded them to the seraglio of the Caliph Wuleed at Damascus, where they remained until the year A. H. 96. A. D. 714. 96, when having sent for them into his presence, he enquired their names. The elder replied that she was called Surpa Devy, and the younger Burreel Devy. The Caliph becoming enamoured of the elder, wished her to submit to his embraces, when she burst into tears, and told him that she was unworthy of him, since she had been disgraced on three successive nights by Mahomed Kasim. The enraged Caliph, whose will was the law, wrote with his own hand an order to Mahomed Kasim, requiring him to clothe himself in a raw hide, and embrace that death which he so richly merited. The faithful Kasim submitted to this unjust decree; and caused himself to be sown up in a raw skin, which pro¬duced his death. After which his body was sent to the Caliph. Upon the arrival of the corpse, the Caliph, sending for Surpa Devy, said, “Behold “Mahomed Kasim in his shroud: it is thus I “punish the sins of those servants who insult the “deputy of the prophet of God.” Surpa Devy replied, with a smile full of triumph and of sarcasm, “Know, oh Caliph, that Mahomed Kasim re-“spected my person as that of his own sister, and “would no more have polluted my bed than that “of his mother. He, however, put to death my “father, my mother, my brother, and my country-“men, and in his death, indifferent to my own “fate, I have gratified that revenge which has “so long been consuming me.” * The Caliph became much disconcerted; and having dismissed the damsel, he lamented over the body of his faithful and innocent servant. On the death of Mahomed Kasim, a tribe who trace their origin from the Ansaries established a government in Sind; after which the zemindars, denominated in their country Soomura, usurped the power, and held independent rule over the kingdom of Sind for the space of five hundred years; but neither the names nor the history of these princes are, I believe, at present extant, since I have failed in my endeavour to procure them. In the course of years (although we have no account of the precise period), the dynasty of Soomura subverted the country of another dy¬nasty called Soomuna, whose chief assumed the title of Jam. During the reigns of these dynasties in Sind the Mahomedan kings of India Proper, such as those of Ghizny, Ghoor, and Dehly, invaded Sind, and seizing many of the towns, ap¬pointed Mahomedan governors over them. Among these rulers, Nasir-ood-Deen Kubbacha asserted his independence, and caused the public prayers to be read in his name as King of Sind. I shall therefore introduce my reader to him as the first Mahomedan king of Sind of which we have any authentic account. With respect to the first invasions of the Ghizny, Ghoory, and Dehly troops into Sind, accounts of them have been already given in their proper place. I shall record, therefore, this history of Sind from such scanty materials as I have been enabled to collect of the Soomura and Soomuna dynasties, though they be imperfect and unsatis¬factory. "

Cheers Intothefire 04:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) ________________________________________

Please...No Firishta please...his work actually borders on the propaganda fiction...there are many instances of that like the Battle of Talikota(1565) in South India. Unfortunate that it is the only visible version of the battle. No offence meant but the reality in his works, the overall picture may be true, but the subtle facts can never be logically true, can be comparable to the expertse of Steve Farmer, one of the most visible, over Aryan Invasion Theory, Harappan Civilization and Ancient India. Note that he is a qualified Software Engineer, with no knowledge of modern Sanskrit, leave out Vedic, expounding us the intricacies of Vedas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.138.113 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tigeroo again deletes my posts

Revision as of 05:23, 31 July 2007 (edit)
Tigeroo (Talk | contribs)
(rv - Please incorporate them into narrative coherently i.e. see where the information already exists rather than insert whole quotes under a random title)
← Older edit

Heres a new reason from Tigeroo to delete my posts once again ...my latest posts deleted by Tigeroo happen to be quotes from Farishta ....apparently the content of the quotes is not fitting coherently into the carefully constructed narrative of Qasim as Santa Clause ...now which wikipedia rule is Tigeroo going to come up with to justify this one ...or are discussions on among Tigeroo team members searching for wikipedia rule which may be misused ?? lol

Cheers
Intothefire 07:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he didn't put much effort into his edit summary this time. Arrow740 08:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

After looking at the last edits, I must agree with Tigeroo here. The material that he is removing is very difficult to understand and consists mainly of block quotes, which are very POV and do not cite specific reliable sources. Unless the material can be more effectively integrated into the article, I think Tigeroo is justified to remove it. ugen64 22:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Tigeroo. we should try to keep the article neutral. IP198 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The point is to make the article more encyclopedic, for the benefit of wikipedia, not to push a POV that has been been already accommodated.Bless sins 23:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Next IP198 and Hornplease start deletion marathon from where Tigeroo left off

Now the reasons for deletion of content change ...since I used sources such as Wink which had already been used extensively in the article to provide content ....secondary source ...now the reasons for deletion change . Each reason more specious than the next .

First Lets take a look at IP198 s reasons for deletion .

IP198 - Revision as of 16:58, 30 August 2007 (edit) (undo)
IP198 (Talk | contribs)
(Undid revision 154555180 by Intothefire (talk) having this many quotes does not help the article)

This many quotes does not help …?? ..How many quotes help  ?? …is this a wikipedia rule

Next lets see Hornplease s reasons.
Current revision (06:23, 1 September 2007) (edit) (undo) Hornplease (Talk | contribs) (rm OR through over-quoting. Sourcing is not the question, context is. Wikiquote is over there

Apparently Hornplease is the wikipedia authority on context …

or perhaps IP198 is …..since IP198 goes from page to page removing the word terrorist and replacing militant from the pages of terrorist organization pages such as on page

Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami
Revision as of 02:45, 29 August 2007 (edit) (undo)
IP198 (Talk | contribs)
(per policy the use of the word terrorist is not allowed)
Newer edit →

Or on the page for
Harkat-ul-Mujahideen where he again removes the word terrorist and replaces with millitant because as he says this is POV
See his edit
Revision as of 00:05, 8 June 2007 (edit) (undo) IP198 (Talk | contribs) (removed pov) Newer edit →

Then Deeptrivia deletes asking who is wink ?'
Revision as of 02:08, 31 August 2007 (edit)
Deeptrivia (Talk | contribs)
(Undid revision 154720424 by Arrow740 (talk) who/what is Wink?)

Dear Deeptrivia
Hope you hadent deleted if you dident know who wink is because Wink is one of the main secondary sources used on this page , apparently Tigeroo , IP198 , Hornplease , like him quoted selectively , they don’t think its appropriate when I quote him .

Next I will provide quotes from Ferishta , Firdowsi , Sakfi , Ibbetson , Alberuni , Ibnbatuta and this team will object and delete . Lol
I know why …..does the truth hurt ??? the farce of concealment goes on .

Cheers Intothefire 09:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you just need to get with the program and put in the material in properly. Not repeat material. Not place them under titles that the sources do not make them out as. Do read what others saying instead of assuming whatever you wish to assume. Most of everything you placed is "already there". And also lay off the personal attacks. If it makes it easier lets take one item at a item so that it is easier to cover the options.--Tigeroo 14:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo the presumptious and arrogant tone of this note emenating from you is not new . It is in line with how you engage here .Your tendency to appropriate a higher scholarship or erudation is misplaced what is worse though is your misplaced sense of ownership or overlordship of articles .

What you have perfected no doubt is the ability to confound ( both wikipedians who post here as well administrators )often with your misuse of the dynamics that rule wikipedia .

You are superb at undermining the freedom spirit of Wikipedia by misusing the rules that are supposed to govern civilised debate and concensus on Wikipedia .
This is a serious problem in the real world as well , how motivated people are able live in free societys and then to use the privilages of these very free societys to undermine or cause destruction .

You have aggressively indulged in deleting my and other posts time after time article after article ....and yet you have the gumption to make complaints about others .

Whereas I have not deleted any of your posts ...you have continously deleted mine . The record is there and thank wikipedia for that . When I saw your latest post complaining about me I could only smile at the lengths of your disingenuousness .

I am copying here your latest complaint so that the discussion that follows is in perspective ... just look at your tone ..newbie ...to educate him ....try to get him to learn ....before the mood changes and things get ugly...!

Editing Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (section)
Muhammad bin Qasim
We have a newbie, but really much a newbie either in User:Intothefire. Have tried not to bite the newbie to educate him and try to get him to learn to make good contributions etc. however he seems to always see a conspiracy around him and resorts to questions of bad faith. Can someone step in and see if they can make a difference before the mood changes and things get ugly. I am not quite sure how to deal with this further--Tigeroo 15:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Intothefire 16:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Get with the program. Read the wikipolicies and start making contributions in line with them, you have been around long enough to picked up the ropes by now and you will have no problem. Even neutral parties walking in have found your contributions deficient. Get with the program already and stop assuming people are out to get you. It's a self-defeating attitude.--Tigeroo 11:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Next IP198 again deletes my post

Revision as of 17:44, 1 September 2007 (edit) (undo)
IP198 (Talk | contribs)
(Undid revision 155048325 by Intothefire (talk))
Newer edit →

IP198 has his turn to delete ..next turn for Tigeroo ?? lol
Cheers Intothefire 18:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I don't want to get into an edit war so I removed the worst section (badly written and badly sourced) and tagged the page. Much of the article is POV and needs to be looked at (not only the recent additions that you keep reverting to, but other portions as well). ugen64 04:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine, I self-reverted myself. We can start by cleaning up or addressing the issues raised that require clean-up. Then take things up bit by bit.--Tigeroo 11:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ferishta not acceptable as source then by same yardstick Chach Nama also not acceptable

Tigeroo your deletion
Current revision (05:24, 3 September 2007) (edit) (undo)
Tigeroo (Talk | contribs)
(→Enslavement of non combatants priests women and children - RM Ferishta is a historical primary source, you need tertiary analysis i.e historians who have reconciled all sources)

Now lets go by your own logic on acceptable sources
Your yardstick for reasons justifying deletion of Ferishta are equally applicable to the entire section "The Campaign as recounted in the Chach-Nama " and not only that every other place that this article uses the chach nama as a source .

I am agreeable either way for content on this article
using ferishta and Chachnama
not using Ferishta and chachnama
your choice ,
your yardstick ...provided it is applied to both the sources
hows that for a new cooperative begining .
please do not delete unilateraly any content till we have discussed
Cheers
Intothefire 10:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, neither is acceptable - Directly interpreting primary sources is OR and quoting sections under a header they do not appear in is also bad form. There is no direct quotation or interpretation in this article on items from Chachnama that has not been quoted by a tertiary source. If you see one raise the flag and we will remove it.

The one part where is the Chachnama has been used is to recount the progress of the military campaign succinctly i.e. Major battles, dates & route of the campaign succinctly, which is why I made sure to mark it as condensed narrative from that particular account on the progress of the campaign. It would actually be preferred to replace this section if we can find an alternative source for this information. If you want to delete what may appear like unnecessary commentary or add what seem to be pertinent information or if other accounts have a conflicting rendition then I suggest we can note them in this section until we can replace this section with a tertiary source for the campaign's progress. Atleast TRY to make what you put in as useful comprehensible sentences, like the enslavement XX section, no one can know from it whether the brahmins were non-combantants, which town or what it is about. I can't even make it flow into the narrative if I bothered as its stands because I nor any reader would have a clue of what it is about. Whatever the deal there is no excuse to "quote in large blocks selective passages" out of the primary source and definitely not under a header that proposes or advances it as anything else especially when it is not even a strategy employed by Qasim during the battles (temple at Multan section, though the city is not mentioned in this section either).--Tigeroo 11:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

On a different note pg 187-188 in Wink talk about Aybak and not about Qasim can you please help direct me to the pages referenced under "strategy of temple plunder" I can't find what's in the article in the source cited.--Tigeroo 11:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

'My RESPONSE

Lets keep the discussion focussed

You deleted the last section sourced from Farishta because you said RM Ferishta is a historical primary source, you need tertiary analysis i.e historians who have reconciled all sources
I said apply the same yardstick for Chachnama (which is written by a kinsmen of Qasim ).
Then you go on to justify keeping an entire section based on the chachnama ?? there is no tertiary analysis from historians in this section who have reconciled all sources
therefore not acceptable the entire section must go

Alternately I am agreeable with you keeping it and I will summarise a simillar section "The Campaign as recounted by Farishta " I will not block quote section will be a derivative of informations from Faarishta as you have constructed from Chachnama.....no problem

Alternately I provide yet another option to you if you keep informations derived from the Chachnama then you do not delete my sections sourced from the Chachnama . Again no block quotes ..no problem !

How s that for building on concensus !
Cheers
Intothefire 13:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually to make this easier and less confusing, lets just follow the policy and forget the whole secondary sources. I found a tertiary narrative of the campaign so that solves my temporary fix problem that made me rely on it in the first place. Please improve your Ibbetson citation, I have no idea from which book it comes etc. Thanks. Hope the new incorporations to your information satisfy, at the least I hope they demonstrate what is required. Please try to learn to be able edit like this as soon as possible.--Tigeroo 16:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My response
lets just follow the policy and forget the whole secondary sources
Intothefire 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC) we move bit by bit and no shifting of goalposts
Ibbetson citation improved .
Please improve the citations you have provide as well by providing the specific site or book

Next
Reasons for Success ....Strategy of Temple Plunder .

So we have achieved consensus on the following as source. Wink .
I will cite from here as you extensively cite him and we apply the same yardstick for source

Now Your edits of deletions of my quotes from Wink do not do justice with regard to the following 2 observations made by him which I had included under the heading of Strategy of Temple Plunder

• According to Wink AI-Qasim built his mosque in the same place, in the most crowded bazaar in the center of the town. The possession of the sun-temple -- rather than the mosque -- is what in later times the geographers see as the reason why the local governors or rulers could hold out against the neighboring Hindu powers. Whenever an 'infidel king' marched against Multan and the Muslims found it difficult to offer adequate resistance, they threatened to break the idol or mutilate it, and this, allegedly, made the enemy withdraw. In the late tenth century however the Isma'ilis who occupied Multan broke the idol into pieces and killed its priests. A new mosque was then erected on its site…"
  

• The plunder was also achieved by an ingenious system of leaving the prosperous population alone, so that they would continue to bring donations to the temples, and then the Muslims would loot these temples. In order to save their temple from destruction, many Hindu warriors refused to fight: According to Wink :
  

This information must be reinserted , the summarizing and paraphrasing must not change the import of winks observations which essentially inform how temples were successfully used as instruments or assets of ransom as well as loot .

OK I am agreeable and heres heres my offer to follow your flow then ...these may be added to the section Reasons for Success instead of Strategy of Temple Plunder

Lastly please desist the gratuitous advice on "learning " style to me , considering the number of times you have been blocked you may consider concentrating on self improvement . Lets concentrate on the issues

Cheers
Intothefire 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

1. No goalposts have been shifted. The issue with the secondary sources was about OR. It's just simpler to move with tertiary assessments to avoid OR. After I made my post I realized the mistake I was making as you correctly noted. My synopsis was OR, so it needs to go per policy, it was hypocritical to go with a special pleading when the non-negotiable policies governing wikipedia are quite clear on the issue.
2. Citations - Please see the WP:Cite on how to cite articles. FYI When a cite is marked as Wink (2004) pg xx, in common citation usage it references the book listed in the references in the case of multiple citations from the same book. The entire details of the book are listed in the references section therefore Wink (2004) means Winks book listed in the references, the 2004 version, on page so and so. Hope that helps clarify the citation methodology employed a bit more. Kindly edit the Ibettson citation to conform with standard wikipedia formats.
3. I have not deleted any of your citations from Wink, they have been integrated into the narrative article. Please refer to the WP:MOS about the question of paraphrase vs. quote and other style issues. I will speak on the assumption of deletion or representation. Wink does not list plunder of temples as a strategy or as a reason for Qasim success, therefore to put it in under that heading would be a misnomer. Note the reasons for success section is based on the particular sources cited as explicitly noting those as reasons for success, namely Gier. Yes, Qasim did loot temple wealth as booty and that is noted in the religion section as well as in the narrative of the campaign. Additions and clarifications can be made if this appears to be deficient. Note can made of this policy in the Military strategy since it was a part of his military activities, the only concern would be then excessive repetition of this information as it is already mentioned in two other sections.
4. On the case of the temples being used as ransom, note that this was not a strategy employed by Qasim. Page 187-188 is talking about later rulers especially those in the 10th century AD when he mentions this strategy. This information also similarly belongs on the page dealing with the history of the particular temple, city or on the rulers who employed this tactic. It is important historical information no doubt, but not relavant to Qasim. What was relevant and notable about this temple vis-a-vis Qasim that Wink notes on those pages is the imprisonment of the 6000 priests of the temple, the wealth the temple generated being a reason why Qasim did not convert it, the fact that he confiscated its wealth and mocked the idol. All of this is incorporated in the religion section.--Tigeroo 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised to see the last edit on the article page ......this is not an edit by me ...except for a small section under the Taxation heading ....how is it under my username ??
Should I assume that my password has been hacked or is this a technical problem ?
Cheers
Intothefire 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but I think it could also possibly be caused by an errant mouse/keyboard or even someone else using your computer. You would be the one best able to judge the likelihood of either possibility.--Tigeroo 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My response

And now we have Ugen64 ....lol ......so much for concensus ....Tigeroo whats your take on Ugen64 edit deletions .....are you going to support the wikipedia rule book as you have been preaching or are you going to toe the line and spirit of Ugen64 s unilateral edits .

And Ugen64 are you interested in the concensus building exercise here
or will it be back to where we started ??
Cheers
Intothefire 11:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You need stop seeing conspiracies behind every bush. All I see is Ugen64 attempting to make a good faith clean-up of the article. Nothing insidious or which constructive collaborative editing cannot reconcile.--Tigeroo 19:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, Intothefire, you are not a native speaker and I am a native speaker. About 90% of my edits were fixing spelling and grammar errors. The other 10% might have been controversial but as Tigeroo said, you can easily point out any specific problems you have with my edits and go from there. ugen64 20:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, it would have been a lot easier for me to simply revert your edits, Intothefire (and Arrow), but I made a legitimate effort to keep and tweak the good additions, while removing the bad ones. There are many policies you would do well to re-read, but the main one I would suggest is WP:OWN. ugen64 02:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My response 4,
Since the starting of your complaint..and our attempt to build consensus ...
I have not deleted any of your posts
You have deleted and or edited
Ugen64 notwithstanding his homilies to me has also deleted content
Before this IP198 was deleting
What kind of consensus or wikipedia rule book is this coming from

Now Tigeroo lets get back to our discussion on issues to build consensus on content
Please see my note above of Intothefire 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC),
you say
# On the case of the temples being used as ransom, note that this was not a strategy employed by Qasim. Page 187-188 is talking about later rulers especially those in the 10th century AD when he mentions this strategy. This information also similarly belongs on the page dealing with the history of the particular temple, city or on the rulers who employed this tactic. It is important historical information no doubt, but not relavant to Qasim
So You state this is an important historical information but you feel this must not be applied to Qaim . Good so we agree on this fact as well .

Please see my note above of Intothefire 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC) please respond specifically to that .

As to your oft repeated conspiracy adjective ... my friend you seem to be using this word or self defending the charge too much ....Shakespeare says ...he doth protest too much .LOL

UGEN64 are you going to be part of this concensus building debate ...?? if yes then I suggest you revert all your edits in good faith from the time Tigeroo and I started discussions here and join the discussions here . Cheers
Intothefire 08:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I don't understand. You want me to revert all of my edits simply because you disagree with a few of my changes? If you disagree that much (and it seems like you do, seeing the number of comments on this page), why don't you just change the things you dislike or, even better, talk about my specific edits that you disagree with. As I pointed out yesterday, nobody owns articles, and everyone is free to make good faith edits on any page (assuming there is no ArbCom prohibition or anything). Why should I revert my own (good faith, mostly minor) edits simply because you disagree with a few of the changes? ugen64 18:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My response 5

Next lets look at putting into perspective the logic behind Qasim sending a fifth of the loot including treasure ,and captives women and children made slaves ,back to the caliph ?? why did he send back a fifth ??
cheers Intothefire 08:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been standard practice in the Caliphate. A fifth of all booty belongs to the caliph the rest of the booty was for distribution among the warriors, governors etc. War was politics and business. Armies cost money that had to be recovered. It was standard practice in ALL historic wars, booty was part and parcel of the whole engagement. Temple plunder was a strategy employed by ghazni. He targeted temple towns for their wealth. Qasim's goal was conquest, plunder came from the towns and the temples just carried a lot of it and yes slaves were valuable commodities as well in that age. All is this is only because you are asking me for my logic. I couldn't put this in the article because it is exactly that, my logic or OR. P.S It appears that me and Ugen64 are building consensus, it is easier because we easily recognize that we are adhering to known wikipedia policies and can accept improvements/refinements that occur within those dimensions without excessive recourse to explaining. I am still a bit confused at what you want to see included, everything you have contributed has been integrated into the article as per wikipedia policies and style guidelines. if you feel there is still a POV we can call in the Wikipedia neutrality project to help us identify and weed that out as well.--Tigeroo 12:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My response 6

Thankyou Tigeroo for your response above .
Regarding Qasm sending and the caliph receiving a fifth of the loot and making slaves of women and children you say and I quote you in Italics
It has been standard practice in the Caliphate.
A fifth of all booty belongs to the caliph the rest of the booty was for distribution among the warriors, governors etc.
War was politics and business.
Armies cost money that had to be recovered.

Now tell me did Qasim have religious sanction for the plunder and loot , breaking of temples Hindu or Buddhist ....(which you like to call idolhoses) of the Sindhis or Indians or Pakistanis what ever you may choose to call them ...making slaves , of men women and children , sending daughters as sex slaves to the caliph ,this sending fifth of the loot and plunder how did this standard practice come about .
This is an important point considering how this article is phrased .

And hey why is my content of Qasims treatment of Jats being repeartedly removed inspite of my providing a proper secondary source .

Cheers
Intothefire 04:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

He had no religious motivation not to. It was booty for the taking, once again he did not break temples he converted the major one of the town to a mosque. I would hazard a guess as the primacy of the new religion. Again, like the taking of slaves and boot, standard historical practice, muslim or non-muslim. As a general information discussion on historical we should take this to our respective talk pages. If you have a particular point or sourced information you wish to include please do so. As for the Jat information, please do go ahead and reintroduce it properly at your convenience, it seems to have fallen out. I suspect Ugen removed it, much as other material and tone editing to account for a perceived POV push on his part.--Tigeroo 14:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 7

• Tigeroo awaiting your response to my issue raised in my Response 6 so that the concensus arrived at may be incorporated into the content regarding loot plunder slavery and destruction of temples by Qasim .
  

• And then I would like that in the section Umayyad Interest in Sindh a balanced view is placed in the section as the content is currently not evenhanded .
  

what I propose is incorporation of the below recorded content - a citation from Alexander Berzin is available ....
"Due to a combination of impediments Byzantium had favored trade with Sindh via the less costly sea route through Sindh to Ethiopia and then on by land. Due to a variety of reasons including

• high tariffs the Sassanids ruling Iran exacted a on any goods transported overland through their territory before the Arab conquest of Iran ,
  
• the trade from China to Sindh being severely curtailed in Central Asia due to incessant warfare among the Umayyads, Tang Chinese, Tibetans, Eastern Turks, Turki Shahis, and Turgish.
• And finally the Arab military campaigns in the seventh century further inhibiting trade until the overland commercial route through Iran could be secured .

Consequently throughout the early years of their caliphate, the Umayyads had tried several times to invade the Indian subcontinent . Undoubtedly, one of their main objectives was to gain control of the trade route branch that ran down the Indus River valley to the seaports of Sindh.

As they never succeeded in wresting Gandhara from the hands of the Turki Shahis, they were never able to pass through their territory to enter the subcontinent through the Khyber Pass. The only alternative was to skirt Gandhara, take Sindh to its south, and attack Gandhara on two fronts."

Tigeroo trust that you will agree in the spirit of concensus to the complete edit of this section considering it meets all the requirements you normally place ..secondary source citation ...flow ...balance .

Await your responses to both my posts ..response 6 and response 7
cheers Intothefire 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again please make the edit or propose the modified text so that we can see clearly what your concerns are with that section and what direction the changes you would like to see are. Abstractly, I see no clash with the current Umayyad interest section and this quote, it was over trade routes. I do see an additional synergy in the interest in Gandhara that is missing and which appears plausible given Qutaibas push and capture of Kabul at the same time as Qasim captured Sindh, though not from Gandhara.--Tigeroo 14:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK some errors here in the introduction introduced. When mentioning the economic troubles caused by the Sassanians, Byzantine reduction in interest due to silk worms etc. Berzin is not talking about Umayyad reasons here but giving reasons on why the Buddhist community of sindh was in a difficult financial situation and how commerce was important for the sustenance of the Buddhist communities of the region to describe their position before the event. He then goes on to talk about why the Umayyads had an interest in that region and only cites the following as the reason for Umayyad interest "Undoubtedly, one of their main objectives was to gain control of the trade route branch that ran down the Indus River valley to the seaports of Sindh." He then says being unable to capture Gandhara to control the Khyber pass to achieve this goal they then had to open a second front by going around through Sindh and up and that two earlier attempts to achieve this had failed. I'll let you make the necessary corrections here.--Tigeroo 21:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 8
Next in your latest post you say
Restore material - Material is sourced from a tertiary analysis not a primary source i.e the Introduction by Dayaram Gidumal, Berzin link duplicated & not a ref. yet, Fersihta has only one mention.
Good I wont argue here either but go along with your logic as accepted on two points that

• 1: Dayaram Gidumal is an accepted source for this article
  
• 2: Please clarify do you accept Berzin as a tertiary analysis or not , please no ambiguity yes or no . If not what is your rational for keeping the link to Berzin on the external links
  

• 1: Gidumal classification as a tertiary source is accepted. Barring any reason to doubt his authority, he is fine.

• 2:: Berzin is also tertiary, I already mentioned it. My only concern is that you just placed the entirety of it at the top without integrating it into the introduction so it won't read well, and I will have to check if it is straight copy and paste, there are copyright and style issues with that approach, else it's fine.--Tigeroo 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your third point I dont accept because this is an inverted logic and goes against what you yourself have stated and I agreed in the interest of building concensus that neither Chachnama nor Ferishta are secondary or tertiary sources .Now you will have Chachnama but not Farishta because you say

• 3:Fersihta has only one mention.

Therefore I have reverted this deletion of yours . Cheers Intothefire 14:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You put Ferishta in the external links. OK, the only problem with it is that Ferishtas book does not Qasim. External links are supposed to take the reader to more information about the article. If you put ferishta as a link under any of the Ghaznavid Dynasty, who are discussed it's reasonable. A stray mention of Qasim having conquered sindh doesn't really make it a useful link for someone looking up information on Qasim. Also, there is a reason for wikilinks - there is no need to get into a lenghty generic aside about it, except to note that it was in place or if there was anything strange specifically strange about it here, as in related to Sindh because of it.--Tigeroo 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 9
Tigeroo now with regard to the many in the section The Campaign, these unreferenced section have remained too long and if proper ref can not be found must be immediately removed as this information has stayed long enough .
Cheers

Intothefire 18:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 10
Tigeroo your delete of my contributed edit is Unreasonable viz-
Revision as of 20:50, 10 September 2007 (edit) (undo)
Tigeroo (Talk | contribs)
(rm non-specific Dhimmi aside, its wikilinked. rm one instanceof the word Hindu, its mentioned earlier)

My contribution of the content you have deleted is valid because

• It is specifically relevant to the implications of the status of Dhimmi .
  
• It is properly referrenced
  
• It is specific to the line that precedes it viz
  Hindus and Buddhists were included in the Ahl al Kitab and the status of Dhimmi (protected people) was conferred upon them
• rm is not applicable here ,You could remove the wikilink to Dhimmi if you have a problem but this section must not be deleted ,
  

Cheers
Intothefire 03:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. An similar example of an unnecessary aside would be adding a protracted explanation into the benefits accrued of using the Mongol Bow or a description of the Mongol bow, it would be off-topic. That's one angle, now the next The references are fine, but here is where WP:OR comes in. The specific information put in is an aside explaining dhimmi in general. The concept of "Dhimmi" took different forms with different effects in different times and eras and this information is not specific. Which is why this broad general overview of information belongs on the dhimmi article page which can be wikilinked. Now that information cited does not talk about what happenned or how it affected the people in sindh during Qasims time. A similar wrong approach would be to add a general description of the Indian caste system and it's implications when we mention caste of the Jats as being a factor. That would be OR as well because we are assuming "those were the specific dynamics" in place at that time or under that rule. I agree that that information relevant to the implications of the status of Dhimmi or caste dynamics belong in the article.. more so in the religion section that in the section they are currently in.. but they must be shown in the sources as being the operative conditions in this particular time and rulership. That is not done in the sources. They talk about Dhimmi's in general, but not about the dynamicis of dhimmi's in Sindh under Qasim. Hope that clears it up. I'll leave what thus becomes defined as WP:OR standing for you to fix for a while.--Tigeroo 08:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

'Response 11' Tigeroo Regarding my content deleted by you viz Dhimmi .

Your first objection to Dhimmi was non-specific Dhimmi aside rm ,
when I answered that in my response 10
you now say objection is WP:OR .
Tigeroo please no changing goal posts .

Regarding Farishta ….you call his content
A stray mention of Qasim having conquered sindh doesn't really make it a useful link for someone My friend Farishta has an entire chapter devoted to Qasim and the History of Sindh …see above where I have recorded it ….an entire chapter is not a stray mention . But now that I have shown you the large extent of Farishta s recording in the specific context of Qasim …I hope this issue will not come up again from you . Cheers
Intothefire 13:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification, it was my error it was not easy to find. I edited the page link so that the link takes you straight to that chapter. It makes navigation and access to the Kasim information easier.--Tigeroo 17:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dhimmi aside: There are multiple guidelines governing wikipedia. I just mentioned this one for you because they both apply. One does not negate the other. The proposed solution I provided for dealing with this informations inclusion meets both criteria, the edit as per you impinges on both. Hope that clarifies it better.--Tigeroo 17:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 12

Your deletion of the word Hindu which I added viz
Revision as of 20:50, 10 September 2007 (edit) (undo)
Tigeroo (Talk | contribs)
(……….. one instanceof the word Hindu, its mentioned earlier)
In this deletion of my content you removed the word Hindu in the sentence

"the Hindu daughters of Dahir were kidnapped"

Tigeroo lets use the same yardstick I will accept your choice with regard to two incidents of kidnapping of women mentioned in this article .
Earlier the article states-
During Hajjaj's governorship, the Mids of Debal "kidnapped Muslim women" travelling from Sri Lanka to Arabia
Kidnapping of women is bad in either case but you delete the Hindu prefix from one instance and leave the other which is Muslim .
Again I offer both options either we remove both the words hindu and muslim as prefix or we use in both cases .Your choice
'

And the same logic is then used over the entire article !
Cheers
Intothefire 13:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that when the women are mentioned again later we do away with the Muslim. It becomes POV pushing when mentioned excessively. The only reason to specify to Muslim women in the first instance was to specify that Hajjaj took exception to the capture of Muslim women because their religious orientation was an important decision factor of Hajjajs. We have mentioned that Dahir was Hindu, there is no need to repeat it multiple times or to mention reassociate religious orientation with his daughters unless it was different, it just becomes a bit redundant in this instance.--Tigeroo 17:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 13

There is an ongoing consensus building exercise. Fundamentally it pertains to deletion of content provided by me , primarily by Tigeroo , but also by users
1P198 ,
Hornplease
Bless Sins
IP 80.227.40.9

I have been extremely vigilant to ensure that all the content provided by me after the
commencement of the consensus building debate (after Tigeroo s complaint against
me ) meets the compliance standards of wikipedia . Sources , citations , policy .

In other cases and in the interest of building consensus I have simply offered and then
adhered subsequently to allowing Tigeroo the prerogative of using or not using a source .

Straightforward Deletion justified on the grounds of personal opinion and not wikipedia policy as done by Bless sins recently is completely unjustified then
Bless sins deletion (cur) (last) 03:57, 12 September 2007 Bless sins (Talk | contribs) (31,303 bytes)
(the discussion of Sura 9:29 is inappropriate here, I agree that we should tell the user to go to the dhimmi article) (undo)

Or Hornplease deletion of the same on the following grounds viz
Revision as of 18:26, 11 September 2007 (edit) (undo)
Hornplease (Talk | contribs)
(wikilink dhimmis and let the reader go there)

But when Tigeroo deleted on one reason and then another
. I provided a justification and then an offer as well …see my posts Reason 10 and Reason 11 .
This could form the basis of a consensus on this section as well which I have offered. viz
You could remove the wikilink to Dhimmi if you have a problem but this section must not be deleted

Surely contributions to concensus building or the development of this article are going to be severely negated if deletions of justifiable content provided by one user become the overriding concern of an individual or a group as the history of the article would corroborate. Cheers
Intothefire 06:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your arguments higher up on this page. However, you are basically repeating, in this article, the definition aof a dhimmi, and quoting it. That should be at most a line, with a link to the full article. Hornplease 13:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Response14
Hornplease I should suppose that your reason for deleting my posted content on Dhimmi has not changed , your reason for the deletion was wikilink dhimmis and let the reader go there this happens to be your opinion and not a wikipedia rule , by again deleting the content without a justifiable reason you are simply negating the concensus building exercise here .

I had offered a concensus building concession in my response 13 but I see that has not been taken . From the record of this article it will be apparent that I have desisted from removing content posted by others ...recognising that we are dealing with a contentious article I have left content with opposing views .

Regretfully Hornplease I could not say that about you ,out of your 4 posts 3 pertain to deletion mostly of my content with proper citations . This is the inverse to concensus building .
Here for instance are your deletions of my content on this article .

• 13:20, 12 September 2007 Hornplease (Talk | contribs) (31,303 bytes) (see talk, please) (undo)
  

• Revision as of 00:06, 30 August 2007 (edit) (undo)
  

Hornplease (Talk | contribs)
(no secondary sources. Over-quoting is original research.)
Newer edit → These were quotations of wink which you deleted

• Revision as of 00:44, 29 August 2007 (edit) (undo)
  

Hornplease (Talk | contribs)
(rm excessive quotes. Find secondary sources)

As regards non-specific aside the same could be said for the two lengthy sections
Political setting
Umayyad Interest in Sindh
The Dhimmi content is as contextual post Qasims Invasion of Sindh and treatment of Sindhis as the content in the above two sections is contextual to the period before Qasims attacks on Sindhis

Lastly your opinion can not substitute wikipedia standards . Cheers
Intothefire 17:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is considered customary to use wikilinks to longer articles to explain words that are not stricly related to the articles subject. The specific sura in the Koran, etc, etc, that determine the status of dhimmis is hardly relevant to MbQ's life. If you can point to the policy I am violating, I am willing to discuss it. Hornplease 21:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Creation of a New Article

I think you have a point here. That aside is not really relevant to Qasim but the campaign. On a second look at this page, I think a fair amount of information here creates a case for the creation of a seperate sub-article now. One called the Umayyad conquest of Sindh and a lot of the information contained within can actually be moved there allowing a better and possibly more detailed handling of the information proving to be tenditious.--Tigeroo 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A request
Tigeroo Please post the latest contributions to this discussion at the bottom of the page only and provide a ref to the context above ....that way a continuity would be maintained ...well we can disagree without being disagreeable ..thats good :)
Cheers
Intothefire 18:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The customary way is to respond to discussion by an increasingly indentation to keep the discussion on a particular point together so that it can easily followed by new editors trying to join the conversation.--Tigeroo 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 15
Tigeroo I am ok with the creation of a new article accept that ..is it an appropriate title please comment . Incidently who were the mids ?? they are mentioned all over but very little specific information on who the mids were ...is the article fair on the mids ???
Cheers
Intothefire 04:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As far the sources show the Mids were a people who were the traditional rivals of the Jats in that age and appeared to fight them a lot. The Mids have no article page and there is little information on wikipedia on them as of now. If you have a proposal for the new article please do so, thats why I proposed it for discussion. BTW what is the failing of the article name as proposed?--Tigeroo 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)