Talk:Umayyad campaigns in India/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled 2

Nicely researched and written article. However, this article should more aptly be called "Arab-Rajput War". After all, since it was a long drawn conflict consisting of many battles, it should rightfully be called a war.

Secondly, the article does not mention a crucial reason because of which Pratihar power failed to completely dislodge the Arabs from India, who survived in a small pocket in Sindh for some more time. The reason was that Gurjar-Pratihars were jostling for supremacy in India with two other Indian powers, namely Lalitaditya in the north and Rashtrakuta in the South. That made the struggle between these powers a four cornered contest. While Lalitaditya was constantly engaged in warfare with Arabs, Rashtrakutas curiously had a policy of limited cooperation with the Arabs. Hence every time Pratihar Empire made any expedition against the Arabs in Sindh, it was followed by some incursion into Pratihar territory by the Rashtrakutas. The end result was that Pratihar effectiveness was blunted and its campaign to dislodge foreigners from Indian soil lost its momentum. This facet of the war needs to be given space in the article.

Sisodia 07:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sisodia,

The Battle of Rajasthan was a momentous event in Indian History, similar to the Battle of Tours in Europe (732 CE). Even after the defeat at Tours the Arabs renewed their raids into France but the Battle of Tours is still considered a landmark event.

The struggle against the Rashtrakutas and Palas should be part of the Pratihara page...the "Arab-Rajput War" can also be described there. But the Battle of Rajasthan shoud be treated separately since it was a landmark event.

--Sarkar2 21:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

These article seems to have very few valid citations and sources.I have a fair bit of knowledge in Indian history and its the first time that I heard of this battle.If it was indeed momentous then it is quite strange that the battle does not have any mention in our Indian history books.I hope its not another Bicholim conflict.Nevertheless I wish the moderators look into the authenticity of this article or the editor provides us a bit more information on this "battle".Also as Sisodia had mentioned was it a battle or a war?.117.194.226.100 (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.226.100 (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have restored one reference that was removed when you posted this comment. Do you know if Sunil Saxena is a recognized scholar ? I cant find him online, but his book does not suffer from any apparent bias. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-existent battle

This seems like nonsensical propaganda and revisionist history that is seemingly a Hindutva attempt to re-write history. I could not find this so called "battle" anywhere in any academic source I looked for. No historical record. The above comparison to the Battle of Tours demonstrates a clear bias and agenda. The only sources for this so called "battle" are propaganda sources. It is a clear hoax. Xtremedood (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is utter rubbish. The so called "Ummayad General" named Junayd ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Murri who is listed to have been slain in this battle is recorded in this source[1] (last paragraph, page 15) to have "died in Merv", which is all the way in Turkmenistan and nowhere near India." Xtremedood (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Since the battle is recorded in many reliable sources,[2] subject is not a WP:HOAX. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

James Wyndrandt seems to reiterate what is in the Hindutva sources. He gives no source for his claim. Not a very academic source. This so called battle is not found in any historical sources that I have researched. James Wyndrandt is a journalist also [3][4], not an academic. He also has a wide range of different focuses, anything from genetics, to Saudi Arabia, to dentistry, to jets. Not a specialist in the field. Can you find any source that is not nationalistic Hindutva propaganda and that is a legitimate academic source. Clearly such a tremendous battle like this would have more sources if it were real. Xtremedood (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I have checked the following academic databases and absolutely NO mention of the Battle of Rajasthan appears: Academic Search Complete, Academic Search Elite, AgeLine, AHFS Consumer Medication Information, Alt HealthWatch, Alternative Press Index, Alternative Press Index Archive, America: History and Life with Full Text, Anthropology Plus, Applied Science & Technology Source, Art Source, Business Source Complete, Business Source Elite, Canadian Reference Centre, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Communication & Mass Media Complete, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EconLit with Full Text, Education Research Complete, Environment Complete, ERIC, Gender Studies Database, GeoRef, GeoRef In Process, Health Source - Consumer Edition, Historical Abstracts with Full Text, Hospitality & Tourism Complete, International Political Science Abstracts, Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text, MasterFILE Premier, MEDLINE, MLA Directory of Periodicals, MLA International Bibliography, Newswires, Newspaper Source Plus, OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson), Philosopher's Index, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Regional Business News, SocINDEX with Full Text, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, Web News, Wildlife & Ecology Studies Worldwide, PsycTESTS, Mental Measurements Yearbook with Tests in Print, Audiobook Collection (EBSCOhost). This is clearly a hoax. It is nothing more than Hindutva legend that sadly is propagandized in this article.

I also checked the internationally recognized database, JSTOR and there is absolutely NO mention of this battle. Once again, it is a clear hoax and Hindutva propaganda and legend. I have studied the history of South Asia well enough to know that this battle never happened according to all academic data presented before me. Xtremedood (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Another source

There is another source that can potentially be useful here: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00856407408730690 I havent gotten hold of the full text yet but it does mention "defeat of large Arab expedition against Avanti." I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

One more, not as authoritative as the last one but still useful: https://books.google.com/books?id=hqE8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=defeat+of+large+Arab+expedition+against+Avanti&source=bl&ots=Pck7nUBPc5&sig=HwdvmiHg-9Oe4wE9K4HwmANntL0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IW9JVbLNKsqWgwSK64EQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=defeat%20of%20large%20Arab%20expedition%20against%20Avanti&f=false I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved historians

Copied from the recent AfD

• Weak keep, but needs serious revision. The nominator is being distinctly aggressive and the nomination is somewhat over-the-top, but it does make some good points. So far as I can make out, the battle is not entirely made up or a hoax - but the account currently given in the article looks as if it is closely based on some modern Indian sources who have been strongly selecting and interpreting historical sources to suit their ideological views. Earlier versions of the article had rather less of this problem but still seem to have been largely based on modern Indian sources with a similar (but possibly less dogmatic) viewpoint.

Before going on, I note that while we do have a number of sources for the historical period and geographical area of this article, they are not ideal. All of them (whether Indian or Muslim) seem to be from at least a century (and sometimes much more) after the presumed battle and, while most mention fighting, they don't seem to give precise dates, times or opponents (at least in this particular period). So they do have to be treated with care.

However, that has not been done in the article as it stands - in fact, it looks very much as if the sources used have been trying to build this up into an Indian equivalent of the Battle of Tours (and the Battle of Tours was pretty heavily hyped in many European chronicles). To take one definite error, List of caliphal governors of Sind lists Junaid as being dismissed in 726, which is (as it should be) in line with Arab sources (or at least within the variation of a year or two which one seems to get between Arab sources covering this period from a century or three later) which also (as some people have already pointed out above) make it clear that while he died sometime around 738, this happened in Khorasan, not India. It is fairly clear from Arab sources such as al-Baladhuri (and from reliable secondary sources) that his successor Tammim died in post in some kind of disaster, probably sometime around 730, and was succeeded by Hakam al-Kalbi, who was still governor in 738 but apparently killed in 740.

For greater detail, this Chronological Dictionary of Sindh, published in Pakistan in the 1980s, while perhaps not fully reliable, seems to do a decent job of pulling together events from disparate sources into a slightly fuzzy timeline, which to me seems plausible and decently in agreement with the various sources. The picture we seem to get is one of successful Arab attacks under Junaid about 725 and possibly under Hakam in the early 730s, but a major defeat of Tammam around 730 and defeats of the Arabs by Indian rulers in Rajputana and/or Gujurat in the years leading up to 740, followed by a native revolt, civil war between Arabs or both at once in Sindh. How many different Indian rulers defeated the Arabs and in what sorts of combinations is probably impossible to determine today, particularly as some of the accounts could well be a matter of rulers in later centuries wanting to prove that their ancestors had defeated the Arabs. What does seem almost certain is that we are not looking at an all-Indian coalition defeating the Arabs in a grand knockout battle - rather, we are looking at single rulers or local groups of rulers within Rajputana and Gujurat defeating the Arabs in one or more battles without names that have come down to us and with a few thousand troops on each side, perhaps similar to the actuality of Tours but quite a bit smaller than Talas (though note that numbers of troops, particularly enemy ones, given in medieval sources are usually exaggerated, often by a factor of ten or more). And, comparing with Tours, it also seems probable that it was the subsequent disorder in Sindh rather than the battles themselves that were directly responsible for stopping the Arab attacks.

The name "battle of Rajasthan" is fairly obviously a relatively recent Indian invention - however, it does seem that other historians have started to use the name as a convenient label for the battles underlying the Indian nationalist account. Wikipedia should certainly have an article covering the Arab attacks on India during the decades after the conquest of Sindh, and under the circumstances, the current name seems somewhat acceptable though far from ideal. However, the article itself badly needs extensive reworking - my own inclination would be to start by reverting to a version from August 2012 or before, though that by itself will do little more than cut out the very worst of the current article. (As a final note - while I quite appreciate why User:Justice007 has deleted large sections of the article, the Background and Later events sections, while unreferenced, were ironically rather less POV than most of the rest of the article.) PWilkinson (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Rename and repurpose (which is of course a variety of keep) -- We have a conflict of evidence (or of views - POV) with Hindu nationalists pushing one POV and (perhaps) their opponents pushing an opposing one. What we need is NPOV, but in a heated atmosphere that is difficult to achieve. At a relatively remote period (like this), the primary sources are probably chronicles, but they are also likely to present the POV of their side. It is the job of the historian to sift the evidence from all sides and come up with a synthesis that fits all the evidence. WP should present that synthesis; if there are multiple views, it ought to prsent them all and (ideally) weigh up their merits. Muhammad bin Qasim tells us what he achieved, but says nothing about what happened afterwards, which is typical for a bio-article. Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent#Arab invasion of Sindh gives some surrounding detail, but has a section that merely summarises the article with are discussing. As I read the situation, Muhammad bin Qasim conquered the Indus valley, but the weakness of the Caliphate meant that it was unable to sustain his conquests, leading the to loss of the area east of the Indus. The present name will not do: the article relates (if anything) to a series of battles, not just one. I Suspect that the creator wanted something structured so that he could put a "battle infobox" in it: that will not do for an article that (probably) concerns a whole war. I was trying to get other contrinutors to do was not to argue over detail but to think about the matter structually. Merging to Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent would unbalance that article. I am suggesting that we restructure the article as Arab invasion of Sindh or Arab invasion of Sindh and Rajasthan, including also material from the two other articles mentioned; or that someone should create such an article. This AFD discussion has led to otehr editors undertaking useful research, but I would be happier if we had a few references to primary sources or to academic books or articles synthesising them (secondary sources). I would suggest that an Admin should close this as "No consensus", leaving further work to be argued over on talk pages. I would stress that I know nothing of the accuracy of the content of any of the articles and have taken them at face value, perhaps with some scepticism. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, Peterkingiron's suggestion of a renaming would be a start. Rajasthan didn't even exist back then and I can find very few mentions of "battle of rajasthan", even less of which are reliable. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

My preference is to title it as "Arab expeditions into India." Some of them succeeded and some didn't. We should cover all of them. "Battle of Rajasthan" is a proved folkloric term (which is why the Ram Jethmalani citation was there). So it could still be a redirect and mentioned somewhere in the lead as such. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I've no particular preference regarding what title would be better and am open to suggestions. I removed the Ram Jethmalani thing because he is a lawyer-turned-politician and I didn't realise it was intended as a cite for the folkloric bit. That said, a recent op-ed is evidence as much of potential neologism as folklore. I guess that if someone is in the camp that says the name is a part of the Hindutva revisionism etc then the fact that he was a BJP politician might encourage the notion. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

To-do list

Adding here as a memory-aid; feel free to comment on items, add other items, or strike out ones resolved (ignore WP:TPG, and using common-sense edit the list below as per convenience). Not editing the article myself at the moment since too many cooks... Abecedare (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Infobox needs clean-up
• The reliability of some of the sources neds to be determined at some point esp. wrt WP:HISTRS (Crawford, Jethmalani, Chaurasia).

Comment: Would recommend not debating this yet since hopefully these sources will be found redundant and removed as better sources are found, and the question of whether they are RS will become moot. Abecedare (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• The sentence in the Aftermath section on the Gurjar army in 851 is not relevant.

Reinstatement

I'm not happy about this at all. When we find decent sources, we add stuff back, not before. Maybe some of those sources were ok but all of them certainly were not, including the op-ed from the BJP/ex-BJP guy. Further, bearing in mind my comment above regarding dating the phrase Battle of Rajasthan, I seriously question whether describing it as a folkloric term is accurate or WP:OR. - Sitush (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I un-reinstated it. For several reasons. Jethmalani is not a source. Crawford was not originally listed as a source for 'folkloric' so we should see some verification for that. Then, the material is so lightly sourced that we shouldn't be comfortable waiting for sources. If reliable sources can be found, then we can always add the material back. Meanwhile, in the immortal words of dragnet, let's stick to 'just the facts, ma'am!'. --regentspark (comment) 02:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Folks, have some faith in me please. It is not the sources that are the problem, but the content. I am working on the content. As for the folklore bit, I don't particularly care. I just want it known that this is not an authentic name. I hope we will get rid of the term soon. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have strong feeling that Crawford picked up the term as well as the description from Wikipedia. Jethmalani might have at least gotten it independently from some other route :-) Kautilya3 (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a paucity of historical sources. That is part of the reason why standard history books don't talk about this much. The Arab chronicles apparently don't mention their defeats. The Indian sources are just two, the "Navsari grant" and the "Gwalior inscription," both documented now on the page. So, some not-so-great historians, Hindu nationalists and possibly Rajasthani folklore have filled in the gaps by their own reconstructions. See the Kamlesh Kapur book for an example. On the whole, these reconstructions are not far off the mark, because we can see the Sindh-Rajasthan border on the map and imagine what might have happened. But I don't believe ideas like "Hindu alliance." I am going to the library today to get a couple of books. This is going to take a while. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Use-mention mismatch in lead sentence

I appreciate that people here are trying to hedge the lead sentence properly to reflect the fact that the "battle" as such is not a historical fact, but the current version ("The Battle of Rajasthan is a folkloric term...") is unsuitable. This is a use-mention mismatch. A term can refer to a battle, but a battle "is" not a term. A proper way of saying what people have apparently been trying to say here would be something like:

The term "battle of Rajasthan", in popular Indian history-writing, refers to several battles…

Note, however, that the current footnote "3" is unsuitable to support either version of the lead sentence; this needs to be fixed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Bhandarkar source

Central to this article are the two victories of Pulakesi and Nagabhata and these are based almost exclusively on the Bhandarkar source. Unfortunately, that source is not a reliable one. First, it is published by the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute and is both borderline self-published as well as unlikely to have been peer reviewed. Second, the source itself is almost entirely conjecture. Bhandarkar has based his research on two inscriptions and missing information in Arab writing. The entire article is full of statements of the sort: The Arab account, no doubt, speaks of a force being Bent against Maliba ( Malwa ) and Uzain ( Ujjain ), but nowhere is it stated that they were reduced or subjugated. The Nau sari grant also does not say that Ujjain was seized or destroyed by the Tãjikas. We can therefore reasonably believe the Sägar Tãl inscription when it tells us that the army of the Baloch foreigners was defeated by Nãgabhata. This would be acceptable interpretation if it were validated by other sources. Since Bhandarkar wrote all this in 1929, we should be able to find, and should use those, more recent scholarly sources that support his interpretations. --regentspark (comment) 15:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

First, it is published by the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute and is both borderline self-published as well as unlikely to have been peer reviewed. - A more appropriate term to use would be primary sources. Scholarship in the mofussil colonies of the British Empire didn't quite have the peer review systems of today, especially in topics of minimal interest to the British Empire. Your language casts an aspersion on the institution & its complete works. That apart, I have no issue with the rest of your views. AshLin (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No aspersion intended AshLin (and I don't see one). But, the larger point is that the conclusions drawn by Bhandarkar need validation. --regentspark (comment) 17:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

RP, Please don't get fooled by last names. Most last names in India occur very widely. I don't know of any connection between the author of this paper and the great scholar after whom the research institute is named. The information that the Arabs were blocked by the Chalukyas and Pratiharas, you will find in pretty much every history of India text. It is there for instance in John Keay. I also added a mention from a Sheldon Pollock paper, which seems to have been removed by somebody. There is nothing controversial about these facts. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops, after some checking, I find that the author seems to have been the son of the original Bhandarkar. So, he was probably an official of the institute. I agree that the information needs corroboration from other authors. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The Pollock mention was removed by me. Pollock merely states "This is followed by a verse on Nagabhata I that alludes to the campaign o fthe Arab army of Junaid against Ujjain (ca. A.D. 725):". At best iti is a source for an Arab campaign against Ujjain in 725 AD. That is not contested. But it can't be used as a source for anything else. --regentspark (comment) 17:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not? Sooner or later, we are going to be talking about the religious aspects of the Muslim side. We should also talk about the religious aspects of the Hindu side. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As long as we're sticking to what scholarly sources say and not writing a fresh thesis on 'religious aspects' I have no problem with that. Pollock could then be used to support a statement of ths sort "a century after Nagabhata's victory over Junaid, a poet compared him to Narayana". That's about the extent of what Pollock says. --regentspark (comment) 18:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you don't yet believe that Nagabhata defeated the Arabs? Blimey! - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

What gave you that idea? I'd say that Nagabhata and Pulakesi likely defeated Junaid based on what we see as sources here. Why do you think I believe otherwise? --regentspark (comment) 18:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Because you said Pollock was saying there was an Arab campaign. The next sentence said that Nagabhata crushed a large mleccha army. Since you deleted it, I wondered if you didn't buy it. Never mind. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries. The Mleccha army statement in Pollock is a quote from the Ninth Century poem, not Pollock's own conclusion. That's why we can't use it as a source for the victory. What we need is a historian's verification that the poem's claim is accurate. --regentspark (comment) 18:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Citation style

Why have we suddenly completely changed the citation style? Where was the consensus for this? - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm only used to the cite system. Feel free to change it. I would recommend we do that after the article stabilises. I have no opinion on the style of citation to be used. AshLin (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is not going to stabilise any time soon. When you have done what you are doing, it is going to be ripped apart because most of what is going in is not relevant/is mere padding. The entire subject could probably be covered in about three paragraphs and probably never would get beyond that precisely because of the shortage of sources. We should not make an epic from a few scraps of paper of uncertain worth. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel the broad background details of the Arab caliphate expansion are "padding". It gives context to the events which follow and helps the general understanding of the events. Of course, one understands that there would be copy-editting subsequently and I'm not contesting any one's right to do that. Blankinship's book, based on his doctoral thesis, is imho an RS. AshLin (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

We are going to end up with dozens of paragraphs of background and a couple of paragraphs that vaguely discuss the "battle". Strikes me as a WP:DUE concern. - Sitush (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, not exactly DUE, but you should know what I mean. The weighting will be all wrong, a mountain made of a molehill etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is not a "battle," as we well know. I can promise that the meat of the article will be at least as long as AshLin's Background. I hope we won't make it a contest though :-)

As for the citation style, I am using harvard because I am citing multiple sources with page numbers. The text would look terrible with multiple footnotes if it is done in the normal way. But well, we can think about it again after the content is in. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why it should look terrible. And I don't know why we need multiple sources for the same point unless the statements are controversial or synthesised. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Reorganizing the article based on tabular format

The Richards article I have linked above makes it clear that there was no single 'Battle of Rajasthan', but rather a serious raids and sieges, in which both Arabs and Indians were aggressors that continued for hundreds of years on the frontiers of first the Arab Caliphate and Indian kingdoms, and then between Islamicate Central Asian kingdoms and mainly Hindu South Asian kingdoms. As such, the inclusion of a table of such conflicts from the Richards source would be both informative and also lead nicely into the Muslim Conquests in the Indian Subcontinent article. Also, the fact that both Indians and Arabs were aggressors rules out a name of the kind 'Arab expedition into India' for this article. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, a table would be quite welcome, especially, since the sources are vague. But obviously the article can't be just a table! The problem with the title "Battle of Rajasthan" is that it is unbearable modern and folkloric. I tried hard to find out where it came from, but I couldn't. I don't find much wrong with the term "Arab expedition" because the "Indians" were just holding their ground and defending themselves. Your source says so on page 93: "the defenders mounted successful raids in turn." Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Kautilya3 on this, and I too am still trying to track down when Battle of Rajasthan emerged. FWIW, one problem with tables is that they tend to get messed up quite often, and especially when inexperienced contributors are involved. Given the nature of the article I would expect quite a lot of new contributors to have a play with it. I haven't checked the history to see whether that has been the case so far, though - I miss the analytical tools that we used to have before Labs took over and made a mess of things. We might get away with a list rather than a table, depending on the degree of detail you propose. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

2008 is the earliest ref I can find for BoR. I would have expected Andre Wink to use the term but he doesn't, and his magnum opus is around 1990. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that BoR should not be the title of this page. However, the reference from Richards clearly lists battles with descriptions like "Muslim principality becomes vassal of Pratiharas" (845 CE, Yavana) and "Kalachuri raids into Sindh to finance war with Pratihara kingdom" (860 CE, Rajputana-Sind). I dont see how these activities can be seen as Indians/Hindus/whatever "holding ground". I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The title for your table seems like a decent title for the article, ie: Early Hindu-Muslim military conflicts in South Asia. - Sitush (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I think that would be a good title for this page as well. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ghatus: User Ghatus, the addition of the table was agreed upon here. Depending on how this article shapes up, we can add or remove entries from the table. Also, the table was added with a reliable citation. Unless, you have serious reservations about including the table, I will revert your removal of it. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to use the neutral term "conflicts" if that is what the situation warrants. But I am not happy with broadening the scope from "Arab-Rajput" to "Hindu-Muslim". That is what they call "communalising" history. The topic of this page is interesting because what we used to think of as little fragmented kingdoms somehow fought back a powerful empire, a world power. In the process, they might have established the border between Sindh and Gujarat + Rajasthan, which has held ever since. This is what is of interest to history, not Hindu-Muslim conflicts. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to your argument here, was just following the notation in the source. Problem with "Arab-Rajput" is that not all commanders from the Central/West Asian side were Arabs, Turks became involved and later became the principal invading party. Also, we cannot be certain that all commanders from the South Asian side were Rajputs, do we know for example if the Shahis and the Chalukyas, Rashrtakutas were all Rajputs ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, thanks a lot for entering all this information. It is tremendously valuable to have it on Wikipedia. However, instead of trying to squeeze it all in this article, it is best to create it as a standalone list article. We can take a selection from it as relevant here. I am sorry that Ghatus reverted it without discussion. But we can go back and look it up in the revision history.

In answer to your second question, no, Shahis, Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas were not Rajputs. That is a good reason to omit them from here, except for passing mentions when necessary. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Or it is a good reason not to limit ourselves to Rajputs in the title etc, depending on how things pan out. Rajputs, after all, are pretty notorious for bigging themselves up. Ghatus should self-revert: while the table might need finessing, it was valid and was a useful start. We can fork when we need to, and they gave no valid reason for removal. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is the Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent article, which has recently been enhanced for the Arab invasion period. This table could go there. As far as the "Battle of Rajasthan" goes, we should take the entries that deal with Rajasthan, Gujarat and Sindh, starting from 725 and ending in 810. This was the time period that was originally discussed in this article at the time of the AfD. I believe whoever wrote that mixed up Nagabhata I and Nagabhata II, talking of it as a single "battle." I think the 810 battle firmly established the Sindh-Rajasthan border, which has held ever since. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have reinserted the table with a list of relevant battles. The full list can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_early_Hindu_Muslim_military_conflicts_in_the_Indian_subcontinent Have also tried to clarify the way the terms 'Hindu' and 'Muslim' are used in the list, but that probably needs more work. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I may need to do pare it down further because the battles that don't deal with Rajasthan & Gujarat don't belong there. I still think the whole table can be made into a list article of its own. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I started a new list article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_early_Hindu_Muslim_military_conflicts_in_the_Indian_subcontinent Or did you have something else in mind ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Timelines

There are major confusions with timelines. There were at least two major Arab expeditions, possibly three, as shown in the map called "Arab campaigns." The old Indian sources weren't good at keeping track of them, a problem inherited by Richards's table. For instance, Richards puts Junayd everywhere, whereas he was transferred out in 726. But the Arab side of the history is well-documented now and Blankinship has a good description of them. So, I am working on straightening out the timelines. Unfortunately, the Indian sources don't have good dates. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Arab conquest of Sindh?

How about converting this article into the main article on Arab conquest of Sindh , for which there are plenty of sources. Then the battles, raids, skirmishes with the rulers of Punjab, Rajasthan etc can be mentioned in one or two subsections. That way we won't have the tail wagging the dog, in which we try to create an article on a relatively minor, and poorly documented, event (ie, Battle of Rajasthan) and need to flesh it out with background material about a much more significant event (ie conqest of Sindh) on which wikipedia doesn't have a dedicated article. Note that The Arab Conqest of Sind is the first chapter of The Cambridge History of India (vol III), and while I am not suggesting using that dated source, it does establish the notability of that topic, which currently is covered in piecemeal fashion under Muhammad bin Qasim and Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent. Abecedare (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Drat. I was sitting in the park and thinking the exact same thing :) My proposed title was Arab incursions in India or Eighth Century Arab incursions/invasions of India. But Sindh is fine too and it may actually be better because it is both the best documented as well as the outcome of all this. --regentspark (comment) 01:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, Arab conquest of Sindh definitely needs a page. There are loads of books that cover it, and a lot of the books from the 1930s are getting republished too. If a page on it didn't exist till now, it was only because nobody was interested in writing it. I guess AshLin might now be interested. However, speaking as someone that first voted for the present page to be deleted at the recent AfD, I understand that this topic meets the bar for an AfD. So, unless you have some page relatively close to the "Battle of Rajasthan", people will come and create one. The topic has been mentioned on pretty much every history page of India, and many of them even have small sections devoted to it. It is going to take some work to clean it all up. - Kautilya3 (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The "no consensus" outcome at the AfD combined with the subsequent discussion here gives sufficient cause for a redirect. If someone wants to challenge that then they can take it to WP:RFD. - Sitush (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I previously posted some information on PWilkinson talk page, which I will repost here.

I found this which states Al-Hakim al-Kalbi won back what the enemy had conquered from him. Which would insinuate Al-Hakim had lost a battle and with it land/city/region, which he later regained. Also, on the following page(210) a governor during the Abbassid caliphate, Hisham ibn 'Amr at-Taghlibi(appointed 758CE), conquered lands that Muslim rule had not yet touched.

Hopefully this will help fill out some much needed time periods. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Based on my research so far, there is enough material for a good history article, but not a military history article. The Legacy section shows that these conflicts were of momentous importance to the development of world civilisation. So, I am not in favour of a redirect, which amounts to a deletion. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The current legacy section would fit very nicely in a 'Arab incursions in India' article if Sind is too specific.--regentspark (comment) 14:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the title 'Arab incursions into India' (which is in fact close to 'Arab expeditions into India' that I had previously proposed). However, I am not including Sindh and Afghanistan in "India." (The greater region is being called "Indian subcontinent" at this stage of history.) The reason is, first of all, that I don't have the energy to research into the Sindh and Afghanistan and, secondly, because I suspect that there would be a lot more detail there because they were occupations rather than incursions. There is a characteristic difference in the treatment of the two regions. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The historical India includes all of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (though not Afghanistan). Therefore, incursions into Sindh are incursions into India and Arab conquest of Sindh is also an Arab conquest in India. I'm not fussy about the title. Rather, we have to be careful that we don't take material out of context and avoid writing our own theses on the importance of these battles. And we have to make big claims carefully. For example, the legacy section implies that both the decimal number system as well as Algebra were disseminated from India to the Arab world as a result of these battles. That may indeed be the case but perhaps it would be better to make these claims in our articles on Algebra or Decimal or History of Algebra where the sources can be better evaluated before we make such large claims on what is, at best, an article of peripheral historical interest. --regentspark (comment) 20:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The term Hindu

In the table from Richards, we use the source to qualify the term 'Hindu' and avoid any communal associations. However, we dont do this before that in the bulk of the article. If we are using the term 'Arab' in the rest of the article, I think 'Indian' would be a better term to use in the article. The term 'Arab' carries almost all the same caveats as the term 'Indian', the multiplicity of meanings, the association with a modern day nationalism and socio-political conflicts. No to mention the word 'Hindu' in older sources is usually meant in the sense of 'Indian' or 'South Asian' today. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I will change all instances of 'Hindu' to 'Indian' unless it is in a direct quote. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fundamental metric tensor, I just realized that I kept the "Hindu" term around earlier because of your comment and footnote about Hindu/Muslim terminology. You may need to do this replacement in the full table too, because, several Indian (Sindhi/Afghan) Muslims are labelled as "Hindu" too, which looks bad. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, will do this replacement soon. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Just realized it may not be easy there because the table goes well into the 11th century, and it will be hard to pin down some of the "Hindu" and "Muslim" groups by ethnicity. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding big picture

It is certainly a good idea to tie the contents of this article to a broader view. The sources do seem to indicate that this eastern frontier was peripheral to the Arab caliphate, which seems plausible since they faced more serious threats from the Byzantines and internal Arab-non Arab conflicts. However, a couple of the newer Indian sources (Sen, Saxena etc) indicate that the outcomes of these battles might have had a role to play in the establishment of the Habbari dynasty and Soomra dynasties in Sindh later. If we can find good sources that make this connection that would be a worthy addition to this article. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the sea trade was their main concern. Blankship or Wink has said that the Arabs "turned their back" on the mediterranean and grew to depend on the Indian Ocean trade. Protecting the trade is what brought them to Sindh and that is probably what drove them towards South India, which turned into a disaster. But, meanwhile, there was plenty of unforced jehadism too, which got them nowhere. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Legacy section

I couldn't verify the following sentences in the Legacy section. Can User:Kautilya3 (or anybody else on this page) help ?

Through the Arab annexation of Bhinmal in 743 CE, Brahmagupta's works Brāhma-sphuṭa-siddhānta and Khaṇḍa-khādyaka became available to the Arabs. They were carried to the court of the Caliph Al-Mansur (754-775) in Baghdad by 766 CE, and their Arabic translations by al-Farazi and Yaqub ibn Tariq became known as Sindhind and Arakand. The Indian mathematical techniques including the decimal number system, algorithms for arithmetic and root-finding and the novel discipline of algebra (called "pulveriser" by Brahmagupta) entered the Islamic mathematics and, through it, the European mathematics.

I am especially interested in the bolded part since it is a very specific causative claim important in general (for history of Mathematics!), and for establishing the relevance of Hindu Arabic intellectual trade during the period (which certainly happened) to this page. Abecedare (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Quote from what I have traced so far (through online views):

From Smith (1911) (aside: pretty dated source)

The first definite trace that we have of the introduction of the Hindu system into Arabia dates from 773 A.d., when an Indian astronomer visited the court of the caliph, bringing with him astronomical tables which at the caliph's command were translated into Arabic by AlFazari. Al-Khowarazmi and Habash (Ahmed ibn 'Abdallah, died c. 870) based their well-known tables upon the work of Al-Fazari. It may be asserted as highly probable that the numerals came at the same time as the tables.

From preface to Sachau (1888), though on page xxxi and not xxxiii of the 2012 edition (also a very dated source)

As Sindh was under the actual rule of the Khalif Mansur (A.D. 753-774), there came embassies from that parts of India to Bagdad, and among them scholars, who brought along with them two books, the Brahmsiddhanta of Brahmagupta (Sindhind) and his Khandakhadyaka (Arkand)... It was on this occasion that the Arabs first became acquainted with a scientific system of astronomy... Soon afterwards, when Sindh was no longer politically dependent upon Bagdad, all this intercourse ceased entirely.

From Avari (2007) on page 170 (couldn't access page 219):

It would be a few more centuries before the work of Aryabhata and his illustrious successor, Bhahmagupta, would firstly be closely scrutinised and then appropvingly appropriated for development within the Islamic mathematical tradition

Found page 219:

Two independent Aran writers, Ibn al-Adami and Abu Mashar, have recorded the visit of Kanaka, an Indian astronomer-mathematician and diplomat from Sind, at the court of the Caliph Al-Mansur (754-75). With his curiousity in Indian astronomy and mathematics greatly aroused by the vistor, the caliph ordered two scholars, Ibrahim al-Fazari and Yaquib ibn Tariq, to translate the two critical works of Brahmagupta (late sixth century), Brahmasphutasiddhanta and Khandakhadyaka. Through the resulting Arabic translations, known as Sindhind and Arkand, the knowledge of Indian numerals passed onto the Islamic world.

A search didn't find any of the three sources mention Bhinmal either, although I have seen such searches fail in the past due to differences in transliteration, page limits, and at random. Abecedare (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Quote from Avari page 219 added. Abecedare (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

References

If no one has a copy, I can pick the Burjor reference up from my library (there is a copy available) on Monday (or Saturday if I remember). Might get it anyway because this seems like an interesting period in Indian history. --regentspark (comment) 21:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Also the Smith book. The Sachau book is a translation of Al Beruni (I think I have a copy at home and will look for it) and doesn't qualify as a reliable source. --regentspark (comment) 21:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I added the quote from page 219 of Avari above. It and (fwiw) Sachau both indicate that it was Arabic control over Sindh that led to the intellectual change. Don't understand why it was written up as a legacy of the Battle of Rajasthan. Abecedare (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we can dismiss Sachau. My copy (W W Norton, 1971) is just the translation (the preface is also by al beruni). Beruni does say that the Muslims first came to Sindh but I can't find any details about battles and defeats (no index). Avari is likely the best of the three. But, for math related history, I'd suggest looking for history of math sources. They will be far more reliable in correctly contextualizing mathematical discoveries. --regentspark (comment) 21:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

In the Cambridge University Press's 2012 edition of Sachau's translation of Beruni, the preface is by Eduard Sachau but that too is pretty dated (signed August 4, 1888). I agree that Avari is the only RS among these, and even that is iffy for claims about history of math. But I don't think we need to even get into the discussion of reliability here since unless I am missing something obvious the sources don't support the claim that "Through the Arab annexation of Bhinmal in 743 CE ...". So the section should be removed from this article, although it may be relevant to the proposed Arab conquest of Sindh article (where we can get into the issue of improved sourcing etc). I'll wait for Kautilya's response and input before proceeding. Abecedare (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. Looking at Sachau (I was looking at the wrong copy) I do see the preface and the reference to astronomy. But I can't find one for algebra (the lack of an index doesn't help). But you're right about the what all this could be a legacy of and that's the underlying problem with this article. The only analogical metaphor I can think of (and apologies because it is a lousy one) is that the article is trying to pile forty mattresses on a bed to disguise the fact that there isn't one pea underneath. --regentspark (comment) 22:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, folks. I am afraid I did a bit of synthesis. It seemed obvious to me that the Brahmagupta books must have been obtained from Bhinmal if they went to Baghdad soon after its annexation. I didn't read it anywhere that the books went from Bhinmal. The astronomer that went with the books was called "Kanaka al-Hind" and I have been interpreting al-Hind to mean the lands east of Indus. But I suppose I need a source to do that interpretation as well. Sigh... - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It is pretty simple: do not use any source from the Raj era or earlier. Unless you want to perpetuate scientific racism, discredited linguistic theories, weird ideas of migratory patterns and the vanity of Brahmins, Rajputs and Muslim rulers/court chroniclers. You can say pretty much the same regardless of the article. This article is being made into something far more than we can possibly support: all those who are padding it out needed to stop trying and recognise that little is known. - Sitush (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kautilya for clarifying that. I have removed the Legacy section accordingly. Some of its content may be relevant to some wider article, so here is a link to the deleted content. Abecedare (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

all those who are padding it out needed to stop trying and recognise that .... Ouch! :) Okay, I also think since its a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth. I'm laying off, call me if help needed, which I'm pretty sure won't be required in this august company. AshLin (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Gees, please do stay. I am focusing on understanding the Arab campaigns in al-Hind and cross-checking with the Indian sources. Things are quite complicated because there are many small kingdoms and the sources are complicated (while saying very little). I still don't know enough about the "decisive battle" that is supposed to have happened in the end, but I am making progress. All those interested in the Arab invasion of Sindh should watch the Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent (not "India"), where content is being added everyday. The sources are good but the text needs a lot of polishing. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@AshLin: what you were writing was good stuff, just not really taking us anywhere useful in the context of this article. I am sure it is useful elsewhere, which I think is pretty much what Abecedare is saying also. Kautilya3 is correct re: the many small kingdoms etc but the fact remains that we cannot synthesise: if the sources don't say much about the Battle of Rajasthan then we cannot and should not say much about it. This is especially so if the sources do not even use the term and - sorry to bang on about this - I'm pretty sure that few do because it seems to be a recently-coined term favoured by pro-Hindu nationalists and their like. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thx Sitush, no issue, actually, it was taking me far more reading and research than natural history & pure military history which are more my forte! I'm happy to step aside, since my contribs were not directly addressing the subject matter. I'm not really a historian even though I curated a museum for five years. :) AshLin (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@AshLin: I don't think there is anything wrong with the material you're adding AshLin. The problem, rather, is that the scope of the article is too narrow. If we widen the scope, my guess is that we'll end up with a useful article with much of what you (and Kautilya) have added. And an interesting article to boot because this does appear to be about an important transitional century in Indian history. --regentspark (comment) 18:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@AshLin: If we accepted "I'm not really a historian" as a valid excuse to not edit ...

Also sympathize with Kautilya et al on the sourcing and thinness and contradictory nature of source material. Wink even has a 5 page discussion on the problem with the Islamic sources (significantly lengthier than the space he devotes to Al-Junayd's "raids" from Sindh into Kutch, Jaisalmer, Gurjara territory, Malwa etc on page 208). Perhaps we should simply extend the phantom time hypothesis to the Indian sub-continent and all problems will be solved. :-) Abecedare (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, we didn't have a Pope in India. But, we always lived in phantom time! - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! I did find this topic extremely hard to track and cover. Never editted in areas where the historical records were inadequate and fuzzy. What did you all have in mind as regards a broader article? AshLin (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Per OccultZone.

When I went to school, I was taught that Ambhi, the ruler of Taxila, who acceded to Alexander the Great, was a "traitor." Supposedly Alexander treated him as such and cut him down to size. But, only after learning enough history that I realized that Taxila was actually a part of the Achaemenid empire at that time. It was a border town that made its money through trade between India and Persia, and maintained friendly relations with both. Kautilya, my famous namesake, decided that Taxila should become part of "India" and made sure that it did. But the reality is that what we now call "Pakistan" has always been a bridge between South Asia and West Asia. It could move between the two spheres of influence as dictated by history. The Arab conquest of the 8th century moved it west. Our friend on Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent just changed "Umayyad invasion of Sindh" to "Umayyad expansion" [5] and nobody complained. But, on this page, they definitely "invaded." I think those who argue for an unchanging idea of "India" are ignoring historical realities and buying into the Hindutva idea of India. So my answer, once again, is no. This page is about the Arab incursions into "India," not the Indian subcontinent. (Sorry for the little lecture!) - Kautilya3 (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No border is fixed. They are all man-made devices, albeit often they use geographical features as delineators. Just look at a map of the US and go ponder why so many states have borders that are straight lines. Countries etc exist in the minds of people, not on the ground. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"Countries etc exist in the minds of people, not on the ground" seem like golden words. Anyways, article seem broad enough for now. I hadn't even expected. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: But that's not how the secondary source discuss the subject. All the sources I have seen (Wink, Bhandarkar, Haig) (briefly) discuss the events discussed in this article in context of the Arabic conquest of Sindh, so I don't think we need to draw this artificial division between (seventh century) India and the Indian subcontinent. Best practice would be to use non-anachronistic names such as Sindh, Gurjara country, Malwa etc with reference to modern day "India", "Rajasthan" "Gujarat" etc. made only to orient the reader.
@AshLin: To answer your question about the proposed broader article, see the above section on Arab conquest of Sindh?. Basically the idea is to

1. Rename the article. All the better quality sources I have seen label the events raids, and sometimes invasions (so far only Blankinship). As discussed previously "Battle of Rajasthan" appears to be a neologism used by isolated, poorer quality, sources.
2. Expand the current Background and Campaign by Muhammad bin Qasim sections to be the central focus with the raids/invasion of Rajasthan and Northwest India (which is currently missing from the article) forming a section. This would match all the sources that I have seen on the subject. Has anyone come across any exception?

Abecedare (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The Richards source mentions large Arab expeditions and sieges. Other good sources mention large amphibious expeditions. The raids were mainly to raise resources for the bigger conflicts (in this theatre and elsewhere). For example, the Kalachuris later raided Sindh under Arab rule to finance their war with the Pratiharas. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, Blankship who has closely studied the Caliphate and its policies has a better perspective on the situation. Unless the other scholars contradict anything he says, he is the authority. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: History can be written from various points of view, in this case the Muslim/Islam point of view (Wink, Bhandarkar), Arab point of view (Blankinship), Ancient Indian/Hindu point of view (Sen etc.), Rajasthan point of view, etc. No particular viewpoint is a priori more legitimate than another. Obviously, we don't want to create multiple articles on the same subject from different points of view. So, all such viewpoints should be combined and integrated. It is not helpful to say one source does this. So should we.

The subject of this article, as originally conceived, rightly belongs in Rajasthan history, keeping in mind that Rajasthan and Gujarat seem to be an integrated whole at this point. They bordered Sindh and somehow magically they stood up to the Arabs. Their story needs to be told, despite the fact that it is very difficult to piece it together. This doesn't preclude other articles coming into being such as Arab invasion of Sindh or Arab incursions into Indian subcontinent etc. Once the content for this article is developed, it can be summarised wherever it is needed. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, based on what you're saying here and in the big picture section below, you're treading heavily into the OR territory. Perhaps all this is true but it is not for us to create the 'Big Picture' or to piece together difficult stories. Both are left to historians publishing in peer reviewed journals where their conclusions can be examined and the legitimacy of those conclusions validated. Nor is it correct that no particular viewpoint is more legitimate than others - there are always more legitimate viewpoints and less legitimate ones and the relative merits of one versus the other is decided by looking at the weight scholars give to each viewpoint. I'm sorry to say this, but it seems as if you're writing a research paper (without having to face the scrutiny of a peer review) rather than an encyclopedic article. --regentspark (comment) 14:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with RegentsPark. Kautilya3, this is not the first time that the problem has been highlighted but you are persisting in this exercise. There comes a point when IDHT might apply - I simply cannot fathom why you are adopting this approach. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I have to agree with RP that that sounds like a suggestion to play amateur-historian and synthesize a history (or, view of history) that no historian has formulated before, and an approach contrary to the best available sources. Besides being disallowed by wiki-policies, it is also a dangerous and foolhardy conceit since it tends to introduce errors as previously in the Legacy section, or more subtle ones.

An example of the latter: currently the article says, The booty from Junayd's campaigns in India is estimated to have been 400 million dirhams and 650,000 captives. In comparison, Iraq's annual tax was 120 million dirhams. which substitutes "India" for "deep into India" (Blankinship consistently considers Sind part of India; see map on page 244 for example) and, more importantly, leaves out the 600 million dirhams that the Sind campaign yielded. See the problem in trying to separate out conquest of Sind from these anciliary raids/invasions? Abecedare (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I got the message. Will be more careful. I will take out the booty paragraph too. I never liked it anyway.

On another matter, the table of conflicts from Richards is badly broken because it puts Junayd all over the place whereas we know he was relieved in 726. Also, the presence of Nagabhata I in 725 is doubtful because reliable sources believe he started in 730 at the earliest. So on. Should we repair the table or get rid of it? -- Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we get rid of the commander and aggressor sections. It is quite possible that the sources get the commanders from the opposite side wrong, but the battles themselves are attested to by inscriptions. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for being so open to feedback, Kautilya. But rather than removing the information I would prefer adding information about the booty earned through the Sind campaign. I think we are unnecessarily discarding verifiable and encyclopedic information that you and others have unearthed, because of (IMO) unjustified insistence of keeping this article focused on Gujurat-Rajasthan alone. Maybe I'll write up a proposal to expand the article scope and rename it, when I get the time over the next 1-2 days. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare, We don't have the figure for the Sindh part of Junayd's campaigns. The 600 million you mentioned was Bin Qasim's figure. I think both these bits of information can be added to the Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent page. I am open to debating whether this article should be broadened, but I think it is premature to do so now before the content is done. I am sorry that it is taking so long for me to do it but, as I said, there are many little kingdoms to study and understand. Also, my history expert Ghatus, who could have helped me, is busy with his exams. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

A perfect example of how the Arab conquest of the 8th century "moved it west" [6]. Our friends won't be even satisfied with "Indian subcontinent," let alone "India". It has to be "South Asia." You can go and deal with it. I will be happy to sit in my corner and do my thing. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I am retaining the "Commanders" column in the table for now, hoping that Ghatus can check the sources once he is back online. The date of 743 for the annexation of Bhinmal worries me because, according to Blankinship, Hakam died in 740 and there were no land incursions afterwards. Since Junayd's name is mentioned, I suspect that it must have happened in 720s. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Have a cup of tea

Tea to all, The article is now more than enough!!!Ghatus (talk) 05:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The content is done

I am essentially done with the content of the article. The lead, the title and the infobox remain. In the end, there is no mystery here. The Arabs overreached, got defeated by the Chalukyas and that weakened them enough so that the smaller upstart kingdoms pushed them out. Please feel free to copy edit, or quiz me about any details. The Aftermath section needs citations. I will put them in after I go back and read the sources once more. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Arabs East of Indus

Arabs retained control of Al Mansura, which is situated East of Indus and was the capital of Arab Sindh. So it is unlikely they lost control of areas east of Indus following the defeat of 739. The loss of control probably refers to the period when Tamim was forced to ababdon the province and flee across the river before drowning.202.79.203.83 (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, excellent point! I guess east of Sindh is what we mean. I will change it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Nagabhata I and the Pratiharas

I want to document here that the home of Nagabhata I is not conclusively known. The scholars have been divided over Bhinmal and Ujjain since early 1900s. I am siding here with Sanjay Sharma, a recent source, who cites a clean piece of evidence about Nagabhata I starting in Jalor, next door to Bhinmal. However, Vatsaraja, Nagabhata's grand-nephew is known to have been a ruler in Ujjain. How the Pratiharas moved (or expanded) from Jalor to Ujjain is anybody's guess. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Kashmir

@Fundamental metric tensor:, Regarding Kashmir diff, here is what Blankship states during the al-Junayd and al-Hakam periods:

• p.132: Perhaps the first of al-Junayd's efforts was that directed to the north against al-Kiraj, possibly to be identified with Kira or the Kangra Valley near Dharmsala in the present-day Himachal Pradesh.[78] This area, along with Kashmir, had previously been raided by Muhammad b. al-Qasim[79] and 'Amr b. Muslim al-Bahili.[80] As no campaigns against places between al-Kiraj and Sind are mentioned by the sources, it must be assumed that these territories, including much of the great plain of Punjab, were regularly a part of Sind and therefore presented no obstacle to al-Junayd's progress. In alliance with the rising kingdom of Kashmir, al-Junayd took the capital of al-Kiraj by storm. This seems to have effectively put an end to the kingdom of al-Kiraj.[81]
• p.188 To the north, al-Hakam may have sent an expedition against Kanauj and Kashmir, for in 118/736 these appealed to the Chinese emperor for help.[127] But the threat against Kanauj and Kashmir also may have come from the Tibetans, so that the evidence for al-Hakam's activity in this quarter is slight.

So, apparently Kashmir allied with the Arabs during Junayd's time, rather than fighting them. I can also show you the footnotes, which give copious analysis of how Blankinship arrived at these conclusions. Regarding what happened in Hakam's time, it is confirmed that Kashmir tried to ally with the Chinese, but there is no record of Hakam going back to even al-Kiraj. I think Hasan (1959) is too weak a source to counter this. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Maglorbd:, Do you have any better information about this issue? - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Blankinship had trouble with dates here. The footnote [81] says: Al-Junayd was accompanied by Chandrapida, the king of Kashmir (reigned at least 94-106/713-24), and his forces. Baladhuri, Futuh, 541; Ya'qubi, Ta'rikh, II, 379-80; Ibn al-Athir, Kamil, IV, 590, V, 135; Majumdar, III, 132-33, 173, IV, 244; Tripathi, 196; Vaidya, I, 236, 240. However, Chandrapida didn't reign till 724. Sailendra Nath Sen says he was murdered after 9 years. Lalitaditya started his reign either in 720 723 (Wink I, p.242) or in 724 (Sen, p. 294). So, Chandrapida's alliance that Blankinship is talking about must have taken place in Bin Qasim's regime, not Junayd's.

But the fact remains that we don't have corroboration from Blankinship or Wink for an Al-Junayd attack on Kashmir. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That is the problem with the sources, they differ. Blankingship explained how he arrived at his conclusion, the other sources are not as forthcoming in that regard. Most agree Lalityaditya ruled 724 - 760 AD, and he repelled the Arabs. Who the Arab governor was it not often Mentioned. "Arab Invasion of India" by R. C Majumdar is the best after Blankinship.Maglorbd (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about this book. From Wikipedia point of view, R. C. Majumdar is an authority from a previous era, when a lot less information was available and a lot of speculative filling-in took place. Any claims that are made by Majumdar, but not corroborated by contemporary sources, should be explicitly attributed to him. If you can give me the page number where the claim is made, I will add the attribution. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Lots of Wrong info

I also believe that this battle never happened and is nothing more than indian propaganda to make themselves feel superior. However reading through this article i stumbbled upon Baluchis being called "Meelchs" in the 7th century AD. First of, Baloch people did not arrive to south asia until the 14th century and have no prior mention before this. Therefore, i am removing "Valacha Mlecchas (Baluch foreigners) as the people mentioned in 725 CE. -Akmal94 (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted your edit before seeing this message. Note that Valacha Mlecchas is from the inscription and "Baluch foreigners" is the interpretation assigned to it by the historians, probably Bhandarkar cited, but I will double check. I thought it was reasonable because the Arabs arrived through Baluchistan, and their troops might have included people from there. We can't assume that the people mentioned are the people that we now call "Baluchis." - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The sentence in Bhandarkar is "This epigraph speaks of Nägabhata (I), the first ruler of this family, as having conquered the armies of the Va(Ba)laca Mlecchas, or the barbarians called Baluchs or Belochs." - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

And, the Baloch people article mentions them to be in existence during the Sassanian period. So, I see no problem. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Nägabhata is not a reliable source. IT is based on hindu mythology and the Baloch were first mentioned by Arabs in the 10th century where they were still living in Kerman Province of Iran. They're eastwards migration towards baluchistan did not start until the 11th century when the Seljuk Turks invaded them. Brittanica mentions this as well; http://www.britannica.com/topic/Baloch And the Sasanid era only lasted from the 2-6th century in which the Baloch were not present in Balochistan. Akmal94 (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by Nagabhata is not a reliable source? He is a historical figure. I am afraid you are engaging in serious WP:OR here. If you have a reliable source that says that Baluch people were not among the Arab troops, please share it. Until then you have no real argument to make. I should also warn you that the racial undertones in your posts is quite unwelcome. - Kautilya3 (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the first time i am hearing him of him along with most Wikipedians. I already presented to you proof from a reliable source (Brittanica) that the Baluch were not in this area before the 11th century and i would advise you to stop getting emotional. There is no "racial undertones" in my comment, but if you feel that way then it is most likely your own judgment. I'm also not breaking any rules, you need to reread WP:OR properly before accusing me. Good day. Akmal94 (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

What you have known or not known is not of any consequence. Brittanica is not a WP:HISTRS. The article doesn't have any claim that Baluch were "in this area." There was an invasion from the forces of the Arab Caliphate, which was referred to in a 9th century inscription as "Baluch foreigners." The content is reliably sourced. If you want to contest the conclusion, then you need to publish your views in a refereed journal, not on Wikipedia. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

This is ridiculous- How can you name it "Battle of Rajasthan" when there is no record of anything as such happening anywhere

Title

I can't find any scholarly / academic source except The War of the Three Gods (2015) that calls this series of battles "Battle of Rajasthan". That book is from 2015, and presumably takes the title of the battle from Wikipedia and its mirrors (WP:CIRCULAR). Has anyone got a source that calls this conflict series "Battle of Rajasthan"? If not, it should be moved to something like Umayyad and Abbasid campaigns in India. utcursch | talk 17:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Utcursh, there are indeed no reliable sources using the term "Battle of Rajasthan." We have toyed with some alternative ideas in an earlier thread, Talk:Battle_of_Rajasthan/Archive_1#Comments_from_uninvolved_historians, but no consensus emerged. How about "Caliphate campaigns in India"? It is a bit shorter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. Let's wait for others to comment. If there are no objections, we can move the article. utcursch | talk 23:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If we're going with a descriptive title then perhaps Umayyad and Abbasid campaigns in India is the better, more specific, option. But, anything that gets rid of Battle of Rajasthan gets my vote. --regentspark (comment) 01:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

With regards to the following, I've had to limit the infobox to territorial changes which is sufficient as per the sources. The notion of a victory is clearly dubious given this article's title, and is contradicted by the plethora of coverage within the article we have on the Arab advances towards Sindh, whose last Hindu ruler Raja Dahir was toppled. Mar4d (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

They took Sindh "the Umayyads took Sindh in North India in 711–13, but could only lightly rule it in alliance with local non-Muslim elites".[7] The source on article has mentioned the defeat. I have added more sources, that also support the result. Orientls (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately you're engaging in WP:SYNTH and your sources are not sufficient. One is a cookbook and the other has nothing on Ummayad conquests. This article isn't on the battle of Rajasthan, which is nonexistent and from which the title was moved. This is on the Ummayad campaigns in India, which was a multi-prolonged part of the Muslim incursions in India. It is not a battle, therefore the "victory" makes no sense and is incoherent. Neither is it supported by sources. Mar4d (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Title was moved? I just read out the page move history and the article's scope has been sure expanded, but it doesn't change battle result. You wanted this article to be deleted[8], so I can't expect you to follow WP:NPOV. Still I would provide you some more sources out of the tons of sources that confirms the defeat of Arabs,[9][10] the battle occurred in few regions and result was that Arabs were defeated in each. It is also detailed by the source you didn't even read.[11] They had no power in Sindh for longer either. Like [12] says, "But, already by the second quarter of the eighth century, the Arabs had lost their expansionist impetus in 'Sind and Hind', as much as they had lost it in Spain and Central Asia." Are we done now? Also don't anticipate people to wait until "talk resolved", because you are the only person to object for hardly few hours. Remember the infobox parameter is supporting Indian victory for years of years, see WP:BRD. Orientls (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I have to add anything here, I would just say that it was clearly decisive Indian victory, and should remain as usual. Capitals00 (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Orientls: I haven't asked for a brushdown on WP:NPOV, least of all from an obvious WP:SPA. I really have no intention to run around in circles, but let me point out again that this article is on the "Ummayad campaigns in India". It is not limited to one battle. What you're attempting to add are sources on individual battles, some of which are listed here with Arab or Indian victories. You are then synthesising these various claims to make an WP:OR conclusion of a "victory", which in similar OR-language, is like claiming that the end of an empire in India (eg. Mughal Empire, British India) is a "victory". You're connecting apples and oranges. In short, your argument doesn't stand unfortunately, and I don't see how your edit is valid. I suggest you follow WP:BRD and not make further reverts until there's consensus or third party input. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

SPA? I would consider this as personal attack because I am editing various articles for years. I check a few article on weekly basis and just happened to surf this article today. This was the list of battles, I have just restored the battles that were removed without correct reason. The section that you have pointed out has not much to do with the article because our timeline ends by 740 AD on infobox. And even if you are going to consider all of those battles of the section then still India won most of the battles. Unless you can provide same amount of sources which would mention that Arabs won against India in this entire campaign, like I provided for Indian victory, then we can compromise, but so far source say that caliphate campaigns of 8th century resulted in Indian victory. Orientls (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm uneasy about labeling this "A decisive Indian victory". Mainly because the battles were not "India" vs. the Umayyad's, but rather individual battles with various kingdoms. And was it an "Indian" victory if Sind ended up in Umayyad hands? Perhaps "Defeat of the Umayyads" is the more accurate description. As an aside, I would be very interested in seeing reliable citations on "Battle of Rajasthan" that predate our Wikipedia page! --regentspark (comment) 16:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Thanks for your two cents. What you are suggesting is essentially not very different from my edit, which summarised the outcome in territorial changes ("Umayyad expansion checked and contained to Sindh" - although that could be worded better). The Arabs actually hung around in Sindh for a long time post-Ummayads, up until 1025 C.E. [13], which is when the Soomra dynasty rose. Unless we concede that Sindh was a separate country and not part of the Ummayad forays into India (which it was), the notion of a "decisive victory" is quite impossible and erroneous. Mar4d (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"Umayyad expansion checked" or "halted" is definitely a better description. I would support something along those lines. --regentspark (comment) 21:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Folks, this is one of the rare pages where "India" means the present day India. As you know, the page was originally called Battle of Rajasthan. Thus the Arab presence in Sindh is of no consequence here. "Decisive Indian victory" is represented by the Chalukya victory over the Arab armies, after which the Arabs did not attempt any expansions into "India" again. So I am happy for this entry to stay. I will look into the later entries in the table and see why they were removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Some edit warrior removed a bunch of battles here. I will reinstate them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, he was right actually. By 900 AD, there was no Caliphate in the vicinity. Sindh and Multan were independent. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be conjecturing here based on your personal opinion. I would like to know why you think 'India' should include all other territories but exclude Sindh and Multan. Given the fact that when the Ummayad forces came to these regions, it was essentially the Indian subcontinent. I'm sorry but as this is Wikipedia, we have to remain true to the facts and can't write pseudo-history or nationalist POV. You may not like to hear this, but the fact is that Sindh and southern Punjab were as much a part of 'India' as the rest of the north and frontiers. Unless you propose the title to be changed to something else, we cannot support this WP:OR. I'm not sure that referring to the Battle of Rajasthan strengthens your case, given the multiple issues surrounding that article. Even the name had to be changed. Mar4d (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

And of course it raises the question that why this article's scope should be limited when the History of India articles cover all of India. I certainly see no encyclopaedic reason. Mar4d (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Read my previous replies where I have confirmed that Umayyad were not victors of Sind either. Editors write what source said and for now the present version is supported by the sources and it was created after considering the edits and suggestions of dozens of editors.[14] You said above that battle of Rajasthan is "is nonexistent" though it occurred in many regions of present day Rajasthan. It is just evident enough that you can't be neutral to this subject. I would urge you to stop repeating yourself. Also recall the sources I have linked above. WP:IDONTLIKE is irrelevant here. Orientls (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I already have, you're simply recycling the same WP:OR which is unsupported by sources. "I have confirmed that Umayyad were not victors of Sind either" - what do you mean by this? Sindh remained under Arab dynasty rule for 3 centuries. Either you are ignorant of this, Orientls, or making up your own facts ! Mar4d (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I have already provided you enough sources. Have two more:

• "gained a decisive victory over the Arab invaders in Sindh".[15]
• "Arab Muslims — who had occupied Sind — invaded Central India, but were defeated and driven back."[16] Orientls (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Mar4d. The historical "India" refers to the Indian subcontinent and excluding Sind and Multan doesn't make sense. An analogy would be labeling the First Battle of Panipat a "decisive Indian defeat", which is equally nonsensical. The result of the Umayyad campaigns was that they were checked after these battles and that's what we should say. We need to take a minimalist, not a grand sweep, approach to describing the results of historical events and the best description of these campaigns was that the umayyad's were trying to expand deeper into the Indian subcontinent and that they did not succeed. --regentspark (comment) 14:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Thanks. Any chapter or text on Umayyad history in India is incomplete without Sindh. We cannot and should not censor or rewrite history. Mar4d (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Yet you are ignoring:

• "But, already by the second quarter of the eighth century, the Arabs had lost their expansionist impetus in 'Sind and Hind', as much as they had lost it in Spain and Central Asia."[17]
• "the Umayyads took Sindh in North India in 711–13, but could only lightly rule it in alliance with local non-Muslim elites".[18]
• "during the last years of the Umayyads, they virtually lost hold over Sindh."[19]
• "the victory of Nagabhatta the Gurjara-Pratihara ruled over the dreaded bands of mlechhas foes of godly deeds, restored Sind to Hindu authority and gave peace to India for over two and a half centuries, until the invasion of Mahmud of Ghazni."[20]
• "as soon he clashed with powerful states like Kashmir and Kanauj in the north and those of the Pratharas and the Chalukyas in the South, the spell of victory was broken. Even the greater part of Sindh was lost in a short time".[21] by R. C. Majumdar.

Even if you are trying to expand the scope of the article, it is not worth it, because Umayyad lost Sindh very soon and also lost all the territories they tried to control in India much earlier according to these reliable sources. Orientls (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That is nonsensical reasoning on your part. It does not even remotely make sense. Would you characterise the end of every foreign empire as a "victory"? It is as moronic as claiming the end of British India as a victory. Or the end of Mughal Empire. Or the end of <insert foreign empire>. Secondly, empires last for decades and centuries, running over historical periods. There is no such thing as victory/defeat, there is only a rise and fall. This article is not about one or two battles which locals won, it is on the Arab incursions and conquests into India. See the parent article Muslim conquests of the Indian subcontinent. If you have trouble comprehending this, you should read the title.

The battles which took place were a part and consequence of this Arab period. If there were victories and defeats, the article's content and sections cover that. The infobox has no business doing that. Most of what you are repeating is summarised in territorial changes ("Umayyad expansion checked and contained to Sindh"). The rest is just WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

What I also find confusing is the vague and unclear wording behind "Indian victory". Apart from being incorrect of course – given the Arabs did not retreat from Sindh – the article explains how the Arab rulers faced revolts from multiple quarters. They consisted of different states and kingdoms, who were not unified as one force at any point. So whom, when and what are you referring to when quoting 'Indian victory'? This unfortunately exactly reinforces my point about the amateurish pseudo-history written across this and several other articles on Wikipedia. Mar4d (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Calm down Mar4d. This gung-ho attitude doesn't befit you. This article describes the same subject that it has already described. If you want broaden the scope, please file an RfC.

It is strange indeed that for the last year or so, all kinds of editors have been removing all mentions of "India" in various historical pages and replacing with "South Asia", "the subcontinent" and what not. And, here you are, arguing that Sind is part of India. What irony! Good luck with your RfC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

In this case, it is quite obvious that 'India' refers to the subcontinent. Because it is through Sindh that the military came. That being said, I would not oppose if the title is moved to Umayyad campaigns in the Indian subcontinent, as it would be consistent with Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent. I also didn't understand your comment; an RfC on what? Mar4d (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I see. So, Sind is part of the Indian subcontinent, but not of "India". I guess you have answered your own question. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Mar4d, I am unaware of what WP:OR or WP:SYNTH you are referring because nearly all of the times I have only quoted the reliable academic sources. Yes go for an RFC if you want to expand scope. Orientls (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest we remove "Indian victory" from the infobox because that is misleading. It was as much an "Indian victory" as the first battle of panipat was an "Indian defeat". And I don't think either is accurate.--regentspark (comment) 15:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• The outcome resulted in victory of Indian empires. Only alternative would be "Chalukya and Gurjara-Pratihara victory", if not "Indian victory", but either way both are same thing. Capitals00 (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  Capitals00, they're not the same thing. As Mar4d points out, and as Kautilya3 seems to agree (though, because I detect some sarcasm there, I could be wrong about Kautilya3), Sind is a part of the historical India. Regardless of that, you will need to explain why a small independent subset of the Indian subcontinent is considered representative of the entire subcontinent. Were, for example, the kings of Bengal celebrating this victory (did they even know of it)? Without satisfactory explanations of these issues, I'm unable to see a good case for "Indian victory". Also, though this is only partly germane, would you be comfortable labeling the various defeats of local kings by outside agencies - such as the Mughals in the Battle of Panipat or the EIC in the Battle of Plassey as Indian defeats?--regentspark (comment) 17:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  Also, if I may take the liberty of pointing out, you use the term "Indian Empires" rather loosely. Yes, they were "empires" within the boundaries of India, but they were not Indian but rather were local empires. One could argue that since the Sind was under the umayyad's, and since Sind is a part of India, we should, by your usage of the term "Indian empire", be writing "Indian victory; Indian defeat" as the result. --regentspark (comment) 17:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, sorry for the sarcasm. What else can I do under the circumstances?

Coming back to the issue, I agree that "Indian victory" is a mislabeling. I could settle for "Victory of Indian kingdoms". I do think it is significant that they scored a victory. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Victory of Indian kingdoms works as well. --regentspark (comment) 17:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes according to the many reliable sources that I have linked and quoted here, they describe the outcome as victory for the Indian kingdoms. Gurjara Pratihara regained all the territories in few years and would continue to hold control over them for next few centuries. That's how it was their victory. Source also mention "decisive victory",[22] "great victory"[23] Unless there are sources that argue totally against these conclusions, and in fact label the outcome as defeat for Gurjara Pratihara then we can reconsider, because so far all these reliable sources mention the outcome as victory of Gurajara Pratihara and Chalukya. Sindh was a historical part of India, but if you look at my sources above, the Sindh was restored "to Hindu authority"[24], and Arabs "virtually lost hold over Sindh."[25] I have provided a few more sources above which establishes that Arabs were not even the victors of Sindh. Also another related article Umayyad invasion of Gaul shows the results as Frankish victory, those battles are same as these battles. We can stick to sources and general standards. Orientls (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Arab rule in Sindh effectively continued through the Habbari dynasty for nearly 3 centuries, so your argument about the "victors" is of no consequence. @RegentsPark: My major objection to "Victory of Indian kingdoms" is the same; that it completely erases (or conveniently overlooks) Sindh not being under "Indian kingdom" rule. So the major question stands: How do you justify an article on "Umayyad campaigns in India" without Sindh? Mar4d (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

While I'm not totally comfortable with the use of the term "Indian" even when qualified by "kingdoms", it does satisfy my requirement that the description be contained. Perhaps "victory of the Indian kingdoms" would be even better because it constrains the victory to only those kingdoms that were involved. I would prefer to leave it at "Umayyad conquest of the Indian subcontinent halted", which, imo, is the meaningful historical result but I can't come up with a good argument against victory of the Indian kingdom. I'll wait and watch. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs)

Hi RP, there is no evidence that the Umayyads were trying to conquer the "Indian subcontinent". They definitely wanted Sind, and they tried their luck with Hind. That is about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I should have said "Umayyad expansion into the Indian subcontinent halted". That, I think, expresses the historical significance of the result more accurately than "Victory of Indian kingdoms" which doesn't really tell us anything. Battles with winners and losers are always taking place but we should focus less on who won or lost and more on what makes the outcome significant. (I'm not sure why I'm arguing about this. I'm ok with the current description.)--regentspark (comment) 13:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Alternatively, I could propose "Umayyad conquest in Sindh and Multan; Arab expansion checked in Gujarat and Rajasthan." This summary is both accurate and correct. But for my first choice, I support 'territorial changes' summary as sufficient and more correct. Mar4d (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  I don't agree with this either. It understates the role of the victories of the kingdoms in stopping the expansion. I'm willing to go with "Victory of Indian kingdoms, Arab expansion checked".--regentspark (comment) 13:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I am seeing a severe case of WP:IDHT here. Sindh and Multan are not the concern of this page. If you want them to be, then please file an RfC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3, what you have consistently failed to answer is exactly that. Why should this article, ostensibly on the "Umayyad campaigns in India", not be "concerned" with Sindh and Multan? Instead of stonewalling, you should read what WP:PRECISION says. Mar4d (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on those that want to make the change. I can go to the library and get a copy of Al-Hind, which will completely demolish your idea of history. No doubt I will do so, but only if you file an RfC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• @RegentsPark: I see your point about "understating". I've been making the same case all along for the Arab victory in Sindh, which was a significant event. Hence why I proposed something along the lines of "Umayyad conquest of Sindh" and another summary on the expansion being checked in the east. Unfortunately, what we are dealing with here is Kautilya3 and Orientls completely denying and 'understating' the Sindh conquest, whilst emphasising the eastern resistance. And to add to the perplexity, I have yet to be told why. Mar4d (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no absolutely no problem if you or anybody else were to create a page on the Umayyad conquest of Sindh. Once it is created and developed, if there is value in merging this page with it, we can discuss it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: So you are essentially proposing a WP:CONTENTFORK? Mar4d (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Once again you have gone back to the IDHT mode. This page is not about Sindh. It has never been. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Kautilya3, Mar4d, the two of you are talking past each other. The current version says "Victory of Indian kingdoms, Arab expansion checked". Mar4d, "Umayyad conquest in Sindh and Multan; Arab expansion checked in Gujarat and Rajasthan" is clearly a non-starter since it excludes the why of how their expansion was checked (the victory of the Indian kingdoms). What would you propose as an alternative that captures both sides of the equation? --regentspark (comment) 13:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark:: Final compromise; I could settle for "Umayyad conquest of Sindh and Multan" along with "victory of Indian kingdoms in Gujarat and Rajasthan", both mentioned separately under result. This would be factually correct and historically accurate. Anything else is a non-starter, and WP:POV. And WP:CONTENTFORKING is not an option. Mar4d (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Mar4d, the problem is that the article is about the events after the Umayyad conquest of Sind so that conquest cannot be a result. And, whatever we write as a result has to be reconciled with the last sentence of the introduction: "The Arab defeats led to an end of their eastward expansion, and later manifested in the overthrow of Arab rulers in Sindh itself and the establishment of indigenous Muslim Rajput dynasties (Soomras and Sammas) there". The end of the expansion seems to be the focal point of the result. --regentspark (comment) 18:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Thanks. In that case, the content doesn't reconcile with WP:TITLE. Determining why this article selectively highlights the eastern battles is critical. Because Sindh was the most relevant event of the Umayyad campaigns in India, not the eastern regions. And we can't cover Umayyad history in India without their conquests. So this article is frivolous if it excludes that, and I'm afraid lending WP:UNDUE weight to partial history. Mar4d (talk) 08:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a point. A lot of the confusion comes from the original title (Battle of Rajasthan) which was obvious OR. The article then got moved to Umayyad campaigns in India - much better. However, even if we include Sind and Multan, the fact does remain that the halting of the expansion was the significant outcome of the campaign. Perhaps we could say Umayyad's occupy Sind and Multan; Umayyad expansion into the Indian subcontinent halted; Victory of Indian kingdoms or some such. Personally, I think all we need is the middle one (the expansion halted one) but I'm ok with the other two if it makes people happy. --regentspark (comment) 16:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mar4d: if you genuinely believe that Sindh belongs in "India", please file an RfC and then expand the article to include Umayyad campaigns in Sindh. I would also expect then that all the spurious occurrences of "South Asia" and "Indian subcontinent" all over Wikipedia will be changed back to "India". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya, doesn't the Mohammad Bin Qasim section cover the sind campaign? It talks about the capture of sind and multan. --regentspark (comment) 19:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It is really meant as background to the present topic. Frankly, I don't see anything in common between the conquest of Sindh and the further campaigns to the east. We all know that Bin Qasim was sent with the explicit mission of conquering Sindh. He wasn't sent to conquer "India". The Arabs and the Indians had been trading for centuries and there was no ill will between them. Why he ventured out further east is unknown. Maybe just adventurism, or for booty, or the ideology of "jehad state" as Blankinship calls it. Both Bin Qasim and Al-Hajjaj met their ends soon afterwards. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I see. I think I'm going to butt out of this. Status quo looks ok. --regentspark (comment) 19:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You are quite wrong about there being nothing in common. The venturing into the east was a continuation of the Sindh conquest. There's no case for splitting the period whatsoever. @RegentsPark: Here is a summary from Burjor Avari which may help you understand: The Umayyad caliphs attempted to expand the Arab dominion into Gujarat but, apart from destroying the fine Gujarati city of Vallabhi, decisively failed. They were reduced to merely consolidating their remaining hold on Sind. This is a fine summary of rule over Sindh continued; easterly expansions halted. Mar4d (talk) 04:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Victory

Read sources in archive. This was a "decisive victory" per scholarly sources. Orientls (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Who are you talking to, Orientls? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Whoever is watching this talk page at this moment. I feel that this edit would face some disagreement thus I started this discussion. Sources for "decisive victory",[26] and "great victory"[27] are both available. Orientls (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

"Great victory" does not mean "decisive victory". And, the first source is by an unknown author and third rate publisher. It has no value.

I also don't understand why you archived the old discussions before starting a new one, especially since you are asking us precisely to look at the old discussions. Your whole exercise here smacks of trying to railroad contentious POV on to the page. I suggest you desist. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussions older than "90" days are supposed to be archived by the bot above, that's why I manually archived it. Earlier version[28] used to say "decisive" victory. Though I will check for better sources if they are available for supporting "decisive victory". Orientls (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, sources say that the Umayyad Caliphate had certainly overreached. Neither was it seriously interested in India. Rather, it was interested Indian Ocean trade. As long as the trade was secured, the Caliphate had no concerns with India itself. After the last campaign, the Caliphate managed to develop friendly relationships with the Rastrakutas and the Palas, the ones that controlled the coastal belt. So there was no overriding need to conquer anything. So, there was no "decisiveness" of any kind here. Just that of the Caliphate coming to its senses. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Battle of Rajasthan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Rajasthan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Rajasthan (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Improvements

Will be rewriting the article over the course of next few days. Collaboration is welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Outcome

Please elaborate the value on the result parameter. In the case where the Indian Kingdoms lost the land, how come it be displayed as "Indian Kingdoms Victory"? I know the article is based on the collection of all military conflicts between both parties and the "expansion halted" is a good explanation, but consider the territorial changes. Or, isn't the Brahmin dynasty of Sindh considered as an Indian kingdom? Imperial^[AFCND] 10:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

See the long discussion at Talk:Umayyad_campaigns_in_India/Archive_1#Infobox. Capitals00 (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Arab naval raids of 636/7 CE

The main source of Arab naval expeditions to India are from the Kitab Futuh al-Buldan ( written ny Al-Baladhuri translated by Francis Clark Murgotten (1924) as "The Origins of the Islamic State". Vol. Part II. Translated by Murgotten, Francis Clark. New York: Columbia University. OCLC 6396175 p209). This source mentions all three raids to Thane, Debal and Broach.

The second source the Chach Nama (The Original Arab script is lost, the Persian translation has been translated as The "Chachnamah, An Ancient History of Sind, Giving the Hindu period down to the Arab Conquest", (1900). Translated from the Persian by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Karachi: Commissioners Press. (Online at: Persian Packhum)) or by (Khushalani, Gobind (2006). "Chachnama Retold: An Account of the Arab Conquests of Sindh", Promilla & Co. ISBN 81-85002-68-1.) This only states that Arab attack on Debal was a defeat and Al Mughira was killed in 643 CE.

Historian R C Majumdar has noted (Majumdar, R C. Vol X part I "Journal of Indian History" "Arab Invasion of India" Madars (1931) “Arab Invasions of India” Dacca University supplement - Dacca University Bulletin. University of Dacca. 26 December 2023.) the following:

• All information of the raids comes from Arab sources (Al Baladhuri and Chachnama) and there are no Indian accounts to cross reference the information. (Majumder p1, 28) Which means King Chach (631 -671 CE) who held Debal, King Dadda III (620 – 650 CE) of the Gurjaras of Lata, who held Baroch and Chalukya King Pulakeshin II (610 – 642 CE), who held Thane, had left no records on the raids.
• The information of Chach Nama are unreliable because the date of the events are inaccurate in this account, (Majumdar p 13), some of the information given in the original book are incorrect or mistakes were made in the translations, (Majumdar p25), so Chachnama information should be treated as auxiliary source only. (Majumdar p13)

Unreliability of Chachnama

The accuracy of the translation of Chach Nama was questioned by several scholars because of the following facts:

• Al Mughira, who led the expedition to Debal (Al Baladhuri (1924) p 209) was defeated and killed at Debal in 643 CE according to Chach Nama. This is incorrect, Al Mughira was still alive in 650 CE and so he had won at Debal as stated by Al Baladhuri. (Ishaq, Mohammad (1945). "A Peep Into the First Arab Expeditions to India under the Companions of the Prophet". Islamic Culture. 19 (2): p113).
• The correct date of the three naval expeditions to India is 636/7 CE, (Baloch, Nabi Bakhsh Khan (1946). "The Probable Date of the First Arab Expeditions to India". Islamic Culture. 20 (3): .p25, 265-266.) The date of the Debal expedition could not have been 643 CE as Mirza Kalichbeg had translated it incorrectly. (Baloch, Nabi Bakhsh Khan (1946). "The Probable Date of the First Arab Expeditions to India". Islamic Culture. 20 (3): .p257.)
• "The end flap of Gobind Khushalani's 2006 book Chachnamah Retold describes him as a "litterateur" (in other words, not an academic, but an essayist or critic).[1] The fact that the book is held by only five WorldCat libraries,[OCLC 297207728] and according to Google Scholar has been cited only four times,[2] suggests historians do not regard it highly. The only review I found in a scholarly journal is scathing.[3] This is a questionable source, not a reliable one. A better source is needed. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)"

Why Arab raids were a success

al-Balādhurī 1924, p. 209: states that "'Uthmân ibn-abu-l-'Âși ath-Thaķafi ... sent his brother, al-Hakam, to al-Bahrain, and went himself to 'Umân, and sent an army across to Tânah. When the army returned, he wrote to 'Umar, informing him of this expedition and its result. 'Umar wrote to him in reply, ' ... By Allah, I swear that if they had been smitten, I would exact from thy tribe the equivalent.' Al-Hakam sent an expedition against Barwaș [Broach] also, and sent his brother, al-Mughîrah ibn-abu-l-'Âsi, to the gulf of ad-Daibul, where he met the enemy in battle and won a victory." The following was inferred:

• The raid on Thane was followed by two raids – to Baroch and Debal.( El Hareir, Idris; M'Baye, Ravene, eds. (2011). The Spread of Islam Throughout the World (PDF). The Different Aspects of Islamic Culture. Vol. Three. UNESCO Publishing. ISBN 978-92-3-104153-2. P601)( Friedmann, Yohanan, ed. (1992). The History of al-Ṭabarī, Volume XII: The Battle of al-Qādisīyyah and the Conquest of Syria and Palestine. SUNY Series in Near Eastern Studies. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-0733-2, p253)

• The Debal raid was successful. Al Baladhuri does not specifically give the results of the Thane and Baroch raid, but based on the statement “if they (the army sent on raid) had been smitten (defeated), I (Caliph Umar) would exact from thy tribe the equivalent (kill equal number of men from the tribe of Uthman)," which he had not done because the Arab army was not smitten in the raids, so they are deemed a success (“Umar issued a stern warning to the governor, saying: ‘Had they perished in that venture, I would have taken the lives of as many from among your own tribe.’ The caliph’s warning clearly implies that the expedition in question was successful.”) ( El Hareir, Idris; M'Baye, Ravene, eds. (2011). The Spread of Islam Throughout the World (PDF). The Different Aspects of Islamic Culture. Vol. Three. UNESCO Publishing. ISBN 978-92-3-104153-2. P603), other scholars also agree with this reasoning, (Ishaq, Mohammad (1945). "A Peep Into the First Arab Expeditions to India under the Companions of the Prophet". Islamic Culture. 19 (2): p109, 112) Baloch, Nabi Bakhsh Khan (1946). "The Probable Date of the First Arab Expeditions to India". Islamic Culture. 20 (3): 251).

• The three expeditions to India was sent without the consent of the Caliph. Uthman was not punished because they were successful, but the Caliph banned further naval adventures.( Friedmann, Yohanan, ed. (1992). The History of al-Ṭabarī, Volume XII: The Battle of al-Qādisīyyah and the Conquest of Syria and Palestine. SUNY Series in Near Eastern Studies. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-0733-2, p253) A subsequent governor of Bahrain was dismissed by Caliph Umar when his unsanctioned naval invasion of Fars was defeated in 638 CE.( Baloch, Nabi Bakhsh Khan (1946). "The Probable Date of the First Arab Expeditions to India". Islamic Culture. 20 (3): p 262.)

• The interpretation of R.C Majumdar of the Al Baladhuri passage this: the lack of information on the raids on Thane and Baroch is due to any the absence of any “appreciable success” (Majumdar, RCVol X part I Journal of Indian History Arab Invasion of India Madars (1931) “Arab Invasions of India” Dacca University supplement - Dacca University Bulletin. University of Dacca. 26 December 2023 p29.) He does not specifically state these were defeats or failures.

Why Arab raid are failures?

R.C Majumder, despite his misgivings regarding the information of the Chach Nama as stated above, accepts that the Arabs were defeated at Debal. His reasoning is that Caliph Umar had sent an army to attack Makrun, then part of Sindh, immidiately after learning of the defeat at Debal to take revenge, resulting in victory at the Battle of Rasil in 644 CE. (Majumdar, R C Vol X part I Journal of Indian History Arab Invasion of India Madars (1931) “Arab Invasions of India” Dacca University supplement - Dacca University Bulletin. University of Dacca. 26 December 2023. p28 -29) Although Majumdar himself has shown the Chach Nama dating of events are unreliable, here he accepts that Arab raid on Debal happened in 643 CE as per Chach Nama, and Caliph Umar ordered the Arabs to attack Makran to take revenge in the following year, 644 CE. This ignores the fact that the raids had occurred in 636/7 CE, and after which Caliph Umar banned naval operations. So, Arabs could not attack Debal in 643 CE, as the ban was in place.

It should be noted that King Chach of Sind did conquer Makran around c631 CE, ( Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam 7th-11th Centuries. Brill. 2002. pp. 133 . ISBN 0391041738.) but Makrun was under Persian control by 642 CE, ( Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam 7th-11th Centuries. Brill. 2002. pp. 134 . ISBN 0391041738.) and the Arab army sent to Makran from Kirman simply continuing their operation against Persian territory, not attacking Makrun in 644 CE to avenge any defeat at Debal. When they crossed into Sind, and after they won the Battle of Rasil, the Caliph ordered them to withdraw and not to cross the Indus. (“Al Farooq, Umar By Muhammad Husayn Haykal. chapter 19 page no:130) (The History of Al-Tabari: The Challenge to the Empires, Translated by Khalid Yahya Blankinship, Published by SUNY Press, 1993, ISBN 0-7914-0852-3 p 40.) If The Caliph was seeking revenge Debal would have been the target, nor Makran.

Bujor Averi had written that “A fleet sent by Caliph Umar in 637 to capture Thana, near Mumbai, failed”, (Avari, Burjor (2013). Islamic Civilization in South Asia: A History of Muslim Power and Presence in the Indian Subcontinent. Routledge. p. 20. ISBN 9780415580618. Retrived 20 December 2023) the source given for this statement is the book “The History and Culture of the Indian People: The Classical Age” (1954) by Majumdar, R. C. and Pusalker A. D, page 167, which only states that the Arab Naval raids were "probably failures", or with no conspicuous success. Averi contradicts the fact that these raids were not sent sanctioned by Caliph Umar, as stated in Al Baladhuri, and outright labels then as failures in contradiction of the observations made by the source he used. It is the same with the reference used from “ Indian Resistance To Early Muslim Invaders Upto 1206 AD, P 18 — Dr. Ram Gopal Mishra.

Given the above, the article was rearranged to include opinions from both sides to give the reader the understanding that opinion is divided among scholars regarding the success or failure of the raids.Maglorbd (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox "Result"

Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Imperial^[AFCND] 13:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Commander of 636 Arab raid on India

The Governor of Bahrain, Uthman ibn Abi al-As al Thafiqi, a member on Banu Thafiq, had sent his brother Al-Hakam ibn al-As al Thafiqi to raid Thane and Broach. The link given in the table is on al-Hakam ibn Abi al-As of Banu Umayya Clan, who had nothing to do with the raids.Maglorbd (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)