08-30-2007, 01:32 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Jaggu+Aug 28 2007, 02:55 AM-->QUOTE(Jaggu @ Aug 28 2007, 02:55 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Guys I have a question, Please look into this,
http://www.indianmuslims.info/history_of_m...s_in_india.html
How true is this? What is the earliest account we can find? wikipedia states that of Chach-Nama was the earliest account of Bin Qasim?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Bin_Qasim
Is this true what indian-muslims.info site claims, why not challenge their position if not true? If it is false such histories being read by a lot of peoples really makes me literally mad, History should be proven based on what how old proof can prove it. Just like Francois Gautier says on Aurungazeb's article in Rediff
"History (like journalism) is about documentation and first-hand experience. We decided to show Aurangzeb according to his own documents."
If this is not the right post for this pelase tell me where do I post it?
[right][snapback]72559[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me not comment too much on what that writer Zahoor has written. Suffice to say its not much accurate history. I would rather like to comment on the the "no historians being there in India before Muslims came" part.
When somebody claims that a particular piece of work is historical while something else isn't, how does one distinguish one from the other. What makes people claim that what the Muslim scholars have written is history, while what some local scholars have written is not. To put the point clearer, just about a century before the invasion of Sind, in the first half of seventh century, Banabhatta wrote his Harshacharita on the life of Harshavardhana a biographical work. It is eulogistic, not very objective, put it gives us a basic idea about Harsha's life, the key events of his life, what made him successful etc. It may not satisfy the rigorous standards now set for a standard historical work. But what is a proper historical work depends on what is your world view. If Indian authors tended to be eulogistic, Muslim authors, even a pretty sober minded person like Barani tend to be prejudiced against Hindus. Again Barani seems prejudiced from our outlook. From Barani's point of view he may not at all be prejudiced. Similarly all these people who subscribe to this "no historians being there in India before Muslims came", Bana may as well get back and deny he was overly eulogistic. We have similar other works like Prithviraj Raso of Chand Bardai or Vikramankadevacharita of Bilhana to give some examples.
From a Muslim historian's point of view, there was nothing wrong in castigating infidels. Also their reason for writing history was not just to recount events, but rather as a guide to later rulers on the principles of ruling and how to further the cause of Islam through their reign. Thus they used to be critical of even great rulers who caused much bloodshed (especially of Muslims) like Barani was critical of Ala-ud-din Khilji. So the historical work satisfied some functions and a "proper history" was not just recounting of actual facts, but getting some lesson out of them. Similarly for a Hindu scholar, history had a purpose. Sometimes it was of establishing the legitimacy of a ruler by putting forward a mythical lineage descending from Gods etc. or extolling his great deeds to show how powerful he is. So in either case history served primarily some other functions rather than simply the writing of history. If we look at from this point of view, we did have historians predating the arrival of Muslims in India.
Also in India since at least the time of Rudradaman (the Shaka Satrap in 2nd century AD) inscriptions in the form of prashastis written partly in Sanskrit and partly in the local language were one of the most important sources to understand history of the period. The word prashasti itself means something written in praise (please correct me if I'm wrong) Those nameless inscription writers have also contributed a lot to us in reconstructing our history. The inscriptional eulogies at Aihole of Ravikirti on the great Chalukyan emperor Pulakeshin II give us so much information about his life, because of which we know a great deal about the man who defeated Harshvardhana. Skandagupta's inscriptions give a lot of info about the struggle with Huns and so on. Thus we do have works of history but they may not necessarily come in the package the people tend to expect. Also the histories written by Muslim historians may also not necessarily be accurate. Barani again maintains his silence on some controversial parts of Muhammad ibn Tughlaq's reign because Muhammad was his patron. Amir Khusrau's historical works are very eulogistic and exaggerated.
http://www.indianmuslims.info/history_of_m...s_in_india.html
How true is this? What is the earliest account we can find? wikipedia states that of Chach-Nama was the earliest account of Bin Qasim?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Bin_Qasim
Is this true what indian-muslims.info site claims, why not challenge their position if not true? If it is false such histories being read by a lot of peoples really makes me literally mad, History should be proven based on what how old proof can prove it. Just like Francois Gautier says on Aurungazeb's article in Rediff
"History (like journalism) is about documentation and first-hand experience. We decided to show Aurangzeb according to his own documents."
If this is not the right post for this pelase tell me where do I post it?
[right][snapback]72559[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me not comment too much on what that writer Zahoor has written. Suffice to say its not much accurate history. I would rather like to comment on the the "no historians being there in India before Muslims came" part.
When somebody claims that a particular piece of work is historical while something else isn't, how does one distinguish one from the other. What makes people claim that what the Muslim scholars have written is history, while what some local scholars have written is not. To put the point clearer, just about a century before the invasion of Sind, in the first half of seventh century, Banabhatta wrote his Harshacharita on the life of Harshavardhana a biographical work. It is eulogistic, not very objective, put it gives us a basic idea about Harsha's life, the key events of his life, what made him successful etc. It may not satisfy the rigorous standards now set for a standard historical work. But what is a proper historical work depends on what is your world view. If Indian authors tended to be eulogistic, Muslim authors, even a pretty sober minded person like Barani tend to be prejudiced against Hindus. Again Barani seems prejudiced from our outlook. From Barani's point of view he may not at all be prejudiced. Similarly all these people who subscribe to this "no historians being there in India before Muslims came", Bana may as well get back and deny he was overly eulogistic. We have similar other works like Prithviraj Raso of Chand Bardai or Vikramankadevacharita of Bilhana to give some examples.
From a Muslim historian's point of view, there was nothing wrong in castigating infidels. Also their reason for writing history was not just to recount events, but rather as a guide to later rulers on the principles of ruling and how to further the cause of Islam through their reign. Thus they used to be critical of even great rulers who caused much bloodshed (especially of Muslims) like Barani was critical of Ala-ud-din Khilji. So the historical work satisfied some functions and a "proper history" was not just recounting of actual facts, but getting some lesson out of them. Similarly for a Hindu scholar, history had a purpose. Sometimes it was of establishing the legitimacy of a ruler by putting forward a mythical lineage descending from Gods etc. or extolling his great deeds to show how powerful he is. So in either case history served primarily some other functions rather than simply the writing of history. If we look at from this point of view, we did have historians predating the arrival of Muslims in India.
Also in India since at least the time of Rudradaman (the Shaka Satrap in 2nd century AD) inscriptions in the form of prashastis written partly in Sanskrit and partly in the local language were one of the most important sources to understand history of the period. The word prashasti itself means something written in praise (please correct me if I'm wrong) Those nameless inscription writers have also contributed a lot to us in reconstructing our history. The inscriptional eulogies at Aihole of Ravikirti on the great Chalukyan emperor Pulakeshin II give us so much information about his life, because of which we know a great deal about the man who defeated Harshvardhana. Skandagupta's inscriptions give a lot of info about the struggle with Huns and so on. Thus we do have works of history but they may not necessarily come in the package the people tend to expect. Also the histories written by Muslim historians may also not necessarily be accurate. Barani again maintains his silence on some controversial parts of Muhammad ibn Tughlaq's reign because Muhammad was his patron. Amir Khusrau's historical works are very eulogistic and exaggerated.