Jump to content


- - - -


Photo
- - - - -

Shia history in india/pakistan


17 replies to this topic

#1 Morg

Morg

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,078 posts

Posted 09 June 2005 - 02:43 PM

hey brothers, once again me asking alot of questions, (and sisters hehe)

well i wonder many times. since the quest of Mohammad bin Qasim a cousin of a ummaya caliph. who occupied Sindh and bahawalpur and brought islam to the subcontinent , only sunni leaders and armies have ruled the indian peninsula. even sher shah suri of iran were a sunni who ruled between zahiruddin babur and humayun mughal emperors.

but still i wonder. how come that about 12-20% of pakistan and indian muslims are ithna asharis then? i have ehard alot of ismaili missionaries from persia and shaam who traveled and spread sufi ismailism and ismailism in india. and now even more strenghtened since theyr imam live there. but i have newer heard of any ithna ashari peers or saints or any other general who ruled india. can you guys please tell of any men women and people who brought the message of ithna ashari to india?

and while we talk about that, please tell of afghani hazara population too. :)

#2 Morg

Morg

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,078 posts

Posted 10 June 2005 - 05:45 AM

eh please??

#3 Peer

Peer

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,942 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Canada.

Posted 10 June 2005 - 10:12 AM

This has been discussed previously.

Just to give a brief answer: Sindh (the southern Province of now Pakistan) was conquered by Imam Ali (as) (they still have his foot prints preserved in a couple of cities there). The then Hindu ruler of Sindh, Shansaab, accepted Islam and continued to rule Sindh. After his death, his two sons succeeded their father and remained loyal to the ahlulbayt.

Even after that, Imam Ali Ibnal Hussain al-Zainulabideen (as) , married a woman from Sindh, who mothered his martyred son, Zaid al-Shaheed (ra) .

In a more recent history, even though Afghans had been coming down to Indo-pak region to hunt Shias in general, and Syeds in particular, Iran's always there to help Shias of neighbouring regions. For example, Moghals were all mighty during the days of Babar, but till the time of Humayun, they were out! Humayun went to the safawi kings of Iran to help put him back into the throne in India. Safawid asked him to accept Shiism, and spread it in South Asia. Some say he did accept shiism, others say he said he wont but will support the Indian shias. Anyways, he was helped to regain his throne and was known to be inclined towards the Shias.

Hmm.. also, hundreds of thousands of Iranian Shias fled/move to India, where they were given high status+heavy monthly stipends+hectares of lands. One of the authors wrote that they flew in such high numbers that the growth rate in iran went into negative (another author commented on this quote as: Even though it was an exagerration, but not that big of an exagerration). The last rulers of Awadh--region that occupies much of what's now UP in India, and some parts of Punjab too I guess--were Ithna Asharis, and were very inclined towards Shias (honestly, were very discriminant towards Hindus and Sunnis).

The first Shia state in this region was formed in what is now Sindh and Punjab (the southern and central pronvinces of Pakistan).

And of course, the famous rulers of Southern India, Hyder Nawab and Sultan Tipu, were also devout Shias. And again, the rich Nizam Deccans, The Maharaja and Raja Sahab Mahmudabad (without whose wealth there would've been no Pakistan) were also known Shias.

So Muhammad bin Qasim might have been Ummayad, but the first and recent kings had been Shias..

Edited by Peer, 10 June 2005 - 10:15 AM.


#4 basha

basha

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 399 posts
  • Location:ny

Posted 10 June 2005 - 06:54 PM

Wow, can we learn more about this somewhere, this kind of information is scarce. Or you could just add little by little to this post brother peer, just so we (the shia's of indo-pak) can learn of our history. Thanks.

#5 transistor

transistor

    Member

  • Banned
  • 266 posts

Posted 10 June 2005 - 07:54 PM

Even after that, Imam Ali Ibnal Hussain al-Zainulabideen  , married a woman from Sindh, who mothered his martyred son, Zaid al-Shaheed


It is true that Zaid (ra) was born from Indo woman but If you think that Zaid is the one who spreaded Aithn Ashariah in there, How come they are not Zaidis !!!!!

Zaidiah books are in Yemen and Zaidiah != Aithna Ashariah.

safavid empire + Iranian money + other reasons what make Aithna Ashariah to be in there surviving .

Edited by transistor, 10 June 2005 - 07:56 PM.


#6 Peer

Peer

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,942 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Canada.

Posted 11 June 2005 - 08:03 AM

Wow, can we learn more about this somewhere, this kind of information is scarce. Or you could just add little by little to this post brother peer, just so we (the shia's of indo-pak) can learn of our history. Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


There are so many books about our history, brother.

The source of whatever I have written earlier in this thread is either The Roots of North Indian Shi'ism in Iran and Iraq by J.R.I Cole, or Naqvi Sahib's Urdu book on azadari.

You can actually search for it here, it has been discussed previously, and many people contributed to that thread.

Khuda Hafiz.

#7 Peer

Peer

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,942 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Canada.

Posted 11 June 2005 - 08:06 AM

It is true that Zaid  (ra)  was born from Indo woman but If you think that Zaid is the one who spreaded Aithn Ashariah in there, How come they are not Zaidis !!!!!

Zaidiah books are in Yemen and Zaidiah != Aithna Ashariah.

safavid empire + Iranian money +  other reasons what make Aithna Ashariah to be in there surviving .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I never said that it was Zaid (ra) who spread Shiism in South Asia. I just said that his mother was a Sindhi woman - just to point out that ahlulbayt were in close contact with this region even before Muhammad Bin Qasim invaded Sindh.

By the way, Zaid (ra) didn't spread Zaidism, so it doesn't really matter if there are no Zaidiyyahs in Pakistan.

#8 Morg

Morg

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,078 posts

Posted 12 June 2005 - 07:45 AM

This has been discussed previously.

Just to give a brief answer: Sindh (the southern Province of now Pakistan) was conquered by Imam Ali (as) (they still have his foot prints preserved in a couple of cities there). The then Hindu ruler of Sindh, Shansaab, accepted Islam and continued to rule Sindh. After his death, his two sons succeeded their father and remained loyal to the ahlulbayt.

Even after that, Imam Ali Ibnal Hussain al-Zainulabideen (as) , married a woman from Sindh, who mothered his martyred son, Zaid al-Shaheed (ra) .

In a more recent history, even though Afghans had been coming down to Indo-pak region to hunt Shias in general, and Syeds in particular, Iran's always there to help Shias of neighbouring regions. For example, Moghals were all mighty during the days of Babar, but till the time of Humayun, they were out! Humayun went to the safawi kings of Iran to help put him back into the throne in India. Safawid asked him to accept Shiism, and spread it in South Asia. Some say he did accept shiism, others say he said he wont but will support the Indian shias. Anyways, he was helped to regain his throne and was known to be inclined towards the Shias.

Hmm.. also, hundreds of thousands of Iranian Shias fled/move to India, where they were given high status+heavy monthly stipends+hectares of lands. One of the authors wrote that they flew in such high numbers that the growth rate in iran went into negative (another author commented on this quote as: Even though it was an exagerration, but not that big of an exagerration). The last rulers of Awadh--region that occupies much of what's now UP in India, and some parts of Punjab too I guess--were Ithna Asharis, and were very inclined towards Shias (honestly, were very discriminant towards Hindus and Sunnis).

The first Shia state in this region was formed in what is now Sindh and Punjab (the southern and central pronvinces of Pakistan).

And of course, the famous rulers of Southern India, Hyder Nawab and Sultan Tipu, were also devout Shias. And again, the rich Nizam Deccans, The Maharaja and Raja Sahab Mahmudabad (without whose wealth there would've been no Pakistan) were also known Shias.

So Muhammad bin Qasim might have been Ummayad, but the first and recent kings had been Shias..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


brother i dont know where you ot your sources from. but most of what you wrote i havent heard of before.

as you say that hazrat ali (ra) conquered Sindh, and that he were the firs tone to do so, (i wont claim he didnt or did but i havent heard of it) can you pelase provide me during which period he did so? during the prophets time? during the first three claiphs? or during his own caliphate. i mean he hadnt the time to conquer so wast ladns when he had khwarijites and ibn sabaites to fight at home ground.

heres some links which shows the maps of islam to the end of hazrat ali (ra) caliphate.

link1
link2

and as far as i know, when mohammad ibn qasim conquered sindh (surely after your claim that hazrat ali (ra) conquered sindh) he fought hindu kings, there werent any shia neither sunni kings there. as shia and sunni had a donctrine almost identically during that time. (as neither imam abu hanifa nor imam jaafar were born then)

_________________________________________________________________


well marriages dont locate that a area has been conquered at all. prophet mohammad married a coptic woman from abbysinia/ethiopia and the area were newer conquestred by muslims.

__________________________________________________________________

you claim is wrong here brother. at that time wahabis newer existed neither did any nasibi axist. the mughals were powerful from the areas of ferghana afghanistana and nothern india. and they wer ea ruling sunni elite. why should they attack syeds? they were muslims too, they respected the syeds. stories tells of many sufi saints (who all were of syed origin) got famous tombs and positions among the courtyards, pluss, the imam bari sarkar, which is sacred for both sunnis and shias, are beeing rehabilitaded by a mughal emperor.
i know when Sher shah suri attacked mughal empire humayun had to flee. safavid kings wanted him to dress up as a shia and convert to get help. but he didnt. he dressed up according to shia tradition, and even married a persian princeess. infuneted by poetry and art he newer became shia. else this whole subcontinent would be shia. he came back with a army and got his power. then he eased his relations to safavids, so they could fight ottomans in peace.

___________________________________________________________________

what you tell of the mass migration of shias to sindh. it is true. but i think it werent ithna asharis. it were Ismaili nusayris. and theyr imam. they got mass population in sindh, gujarat and bombay. and theyr sects as bohras and nusayris still live there.
about hte kingdom of oudh/awadh yes it were shia kingdom, as bengali kings were also shias, and i have heard that punjabi landlords (chaudrys) were too shia. but the population were majority sunni. but yeah oudh made a great fight against biritsh.
____________________________________________________________________

first state which were shia?
i think there have been several before man.
look at the ismaili state of fatimids
the ismaili state of qarmatiayns
the ithna ashari rulers of abbasids, the buyids
the black rebellian in iraq the zanj rebel
the safavid empire
all they came before the states of oudh.
but who were the rulers of the first state in indis then? what was theyr kingdoms name?

__________________________________________________________________

as for the rulers of mysore.
tipu sultan his father and his grandfather. were all sunnis. this is no doubt. please provide neutral information thanx

and the nizams of hyderabad. man they were sunnis. they were under direct control of mughals before.

the maharasthras and rajas were hindus.

pluss pakistan were made on the sacrifice of these people, chaury rahmat ali, allama iqbal, mohammad ali jinnah. and the islamic movements in india. not of the monarchs who subdoed under british.

___________________________________________________________________

again mohammad ibn qasim fought total hindu kings, there were not any sunni nor shia kings there before him

please provide your sources thanx bro. and please tell me if im wrong
(ps: no harm aight? :) )

#9 Peer

Peer

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,942 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Canada.

Posted 12 June 2005 - 09:06 AM

brother i dont know where you ot your sources from. but most of what you wrote i havent heard of before.


What exactly was new?

And as I said above, in repose to some other brother, the sources are:

1) The Roots of North Indian Shiism in Iran and Iraq, by J.R.I. Cole of Ann Arbor, Michigan. (I believe it's been printed by the press at Univ. of California, Berkeley.)

2) Azadari: tahzeeb, adabi aur saqafati manzarnamay mein, by Shahid Naqvi. (This book's in Urdu.)

as you say that hazrat ali (ra) conquered Sindh, and that he were the firs tone to do so, (i wont claim he didnt or did but i havent heard of it) can you pelase provide me during which period he did so? during the prophets time? during the first three claiphs? or during his own caliphate. i mean he hadnt the time to conquer so wast ladns when he had khwarijites and ibn sabaites to fight at home ground.


Ah, I am sorry, I mixed two different stories up. Imam Ali (as) did come to Sindh (and as I said his foot prints are still preserved there, in Hyderabad and Thatta).

The Shansab story is as follows:

The relations and cultural exchanges between the Arabs and the subcontinent, particularly Sindh, go back several centuries, as only the Arabian Sea separated the two. Early Arab advances in ship building even bridged that gulf. The first conqueror of Sindh, Haris bin Mar’at al-Abdi, had brought love of Ahle-Bayt to Sindh much earlier on. In fact, he died and was buried here.

During the reign of Hadrat Ali, Shansab, a ruler of Sindh embraced Islam and was allowed to continue as a ruler of his kingdom located in the western part of the subcontinent in the name of the Caliph. Thus, Shansab was the first ruler in the subcontinent to receive a degree to rule from a caliph of the Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF).

His descendants constituted the first loyalists of Hadrat Ali in this part of the world, and were the only ones who continued to bear allegiance to Hadrat Ali long after he had died and the Umayyads had taken over the caliphate.


heres some links which shows the maps of islam to the end of hazrat ali (ra) caliphate.

link1
link2

and as far as i know, when mohammad ibn qasim conquered sindh (surely after your claim that hazrat ali (ra) conquered sindh) he fought hindu kings, there werent any shia neither sunni kings there. as shia and sunni had a donctrine almost identically during that time. (as neither imam abu hanifa nor imam jaafar were born then)


errm.. Shias and Sunnis developed their differences right after the death of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) . It wasn't Imam Jafar who created Shiism, nor was it Abu Hanifa who created sunnism.



_________________________________________________________________
well marriages dont locate that a area has been conquered at all. prophet mohammad married a coptic woman from abbysinia/ethiopia and the area were newer conquestred by muslims.

__________________________________________________________________


I agree with that, however, that wasn't my point. My point was that Ahlulbayt were in contact with this area, and had even "half-Pakistani" family members (hehe :P ).

LOL, the point was, they were in contact with the land of Sindh, and so Muhammad Bin Qasim wasn't the first one who brought Islam to this India. So shias of Ahlulbayt were there even before Muhammad bin Qasim was born.

Another excerpt in this regard (from Shahid Naqvi's Azadari...):

Furthermore, one of the Sindhi women had been married to Imam Zainul Abedin, who mothered his martyr son, Zaid. It was perhaps because of this affinity with Sindh that many of Hadrat Ali’s loyalists took refuge in this region during the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates.

Those who made Sindh their home included Abdullah al-Ashtar al-Hussaini (Abdullah Shah Ghazi, buried Karachi), who came to Sindh after his father Muhammad al-Nafs was martyred. He later traveled to Kandahar with Isa bin Abdullah bin Mas’ada. During the reign of the first Abbasid caliph, Mansur, Qasim bin Ibrahim Hasni also sought refuge in Sindh, and later moved on to Khan Garh, near Multan. Several Sindhi and Hindi scholars went to seek knowledge from the seminary of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq, including Faraj Sindhi, Khulad Sindhi Bazaz, Aban bin Mohammed Sindhi, Sabah bin Nasr Hindi, etc.



you claim is wrong here brother. at that time wahabis newer existed neither did any nasibi axist. the mughals were powerful from the areas of ferghana afghanistana and nothern india. and they wer ea ruling sunni elite. why should they attack syeds? they were muslims too, they respected the syeds. stories tells of many sufi saints (who all were of syed origin) got famous tombs and positions among the courtyards, pluss, the imam bari sarkar, which is sacred for both sunnis and shias, are beeing rehabilitaded by a mughal emperor.


It was from J.R.I Cole's book that I read a few months back. It's a very well referenced book. I am sorry I dont own the book (I borrowed it from my university's library), so I cant really give you the exact page number. But this is what the research of this neither sunni, nor shia (actually not even Muslim or an Indian) American author on Lucknowi Shiism says.

And I never said that all of the Mughal emperors were anti-Shia (note I said that Humayun was very Pro-Shia). It was Aurangzeb that had some problems with the Shias.. and his anti-Shia policies are well known..

And who said only Wahabis are anti-Shias? :)


i know when Sher shah suri attacked mughal empire humayun had to flee. safavid kings wanted him to dress up as a shia and convert to get help. but he didnt. he dressed up according to shia tradition, and even married a persian princeess. infuneted by poetry and art he newer became shia. else this whole subcontinent would be shia. he came back with a army and got his power. then he eased his relations to safavids, so they could fight ottomans in peace.


Yeah as I said, there are two versions of this story. But why would entire India would become Shia? Did entire India become Muslim?

Kings of North India - Amjad Ali Shah, Wajid Ali Shah - had been pretty discriminatory Shias, the majority still remained Sunnis.

The Kings of Southern India, Mahmudabad, blah blah were also Shias, the majority still remained Sunnis (of Muslims, that is).


___________________________________________________________________

what you tell of the mass migration of shias to sindh. it is true. but i think it werent ithna asharis. it were Ismaili nusayris. and theyr imam. they got mass population in sindh, gujarat and bombay. and theyr sects as bohras and nusayris still live there.


Actually, most of them were in fact Ithna Asharis. The Bohras and Aga Khanis of Gujratis have Hindu, not Persian, ancestory.

In the entire Indian subcontinent, I believe it's only the Northern Pakistanis (Hunza, etc) that are the non-gujrati Ismailis (so I dont know about their history, may be they're the ones your're talking about?)

Edited by Peer, 12 June 2005 - 09:08 AM.


#10 Peer

Peer

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,942 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Canada.

Posted 12 June 2005 - 09:08 AM

about hte kingdom of oudh/awadh yes it were shia kingdom, as bengali kings were also shias, and i have heard that punjabi landlords (chaudrys) were too shia. but the population were majority sunni. but yeah oudh made a great fight against biritsh.
____________________________________________________________________


Awadh made a great fight against British?

Wajid Ali Shah chamcha tha Britain ka :P (if you know Urdu).

It was Tipu Sultan, who is to be praised (Tipu was also a Shia).



first state which were shia?
i think there have been several before man.
look at the ismaili state of fatimids
the ismaili state of qarmatiayns
the ithna ashari rulers of abbasids, the buyids
the black rebellian in iraq the zanj rebel
the safavid empire
all they came before the states of oudh.
but who were the rulers of the first state in indis then? what was theyr kingdoms name?



I meant the first Shia state in the Indian subcontinent. It was founded arounf 1225 AD, and gave allegiance to the Fatimids of Egypt.

Again from Naqvi Sahab :blush: :

Around the same time a Shia state was founded in the areas that constitute Sindh and Punjab today, which bore allegiance to the Egyptian Fatimid caliphs. Thus, the teachings of the Ahlul-Bayt were spread in this region, giving birth to a Datt community that called itself a community of Hussaini Brahmins. Their war literature has survived to this day. Bahadur Sudh Bhog Datt Sultan from the line of Sudh Jhoga migrated to Arabia and became a chief there. He was an Ahlul-Bayt loyalist, and later, seven sons from the line of his priest avenged the murder of Imam Hussein. Later on, they traveled through Rome, Syria, Ghazni, Balkh, Bukhara, Kandahar and eventually settled down in Punjab, taking Azadari with them wherever they went.

__________________________________________________________________

as for the rulers of mysore.
tipu sultan his father and his grandfather. were all sunnis. this is no doubt. please provide neutral information thanx


WHAT?

Man, they are so famous for being Shias. I will try to find if I can get a reference for that..



and the nizams of hyderabad. man they were sunnis. they were under direct control of mughals before.


WHAT? C'MON GUY

They used to organize such big majalis in their royal palaces.. I mean, they supported Shias of India with so much of money.. Actually I even have the pictures of them and their family performing Shia rites, published in a Shia magazine some 80 or so years ago.

the maharasthras and rajas were hindus.


I was speaking about Maharaja mahmudabad and Raja Sahab mahmudabad (who was one of the witnesses of Jinnah's Nikah)

pluss pakistan were made on the sacrifice of these people, chaury rahmat ali, allama iqbal, mohammad ali jinnah. and the islamic movements in india. not of the monarchs who subdoed under british.


What I said was a famous saying, brother, which goes like: There would have been no Pakistan without the brain of Jinnah, the contribution of Chawdhry Khaliq-uz-Zaman, and the wealth of Raja Sahab Mahmudabad.

___________________________________________________________________

again mohammad ibn qasim fought total hindu kings, there were not any sunni nor shia kings there before him

please provide your sources thanx bro. and please tell me if im wrong
(ps: no harm aight?  :) )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Yeah, sure. Do ask, if you think some parts are wrong, but man, please investigate on the madhab of Nizams of Hyderabad, and Hyder Nawab and Tipu Sultan.

Wa'Salam
Ali

#11 Morg

Morg

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,078 posts

Posted 12 June 2005 - 09:42 AM

good to have a niuce and friendly talk, i learn more now than i would learn if we fought.

well let me understand a bit, and correct a bit, and then you can do the same on me :)


the sources. were barely 2. is all that from a book?
i did google on this cole. and found many shia related topics. means he specialised himself in shiism in the world. maybe a realible source

the other naqvi i couldnt find so much about.

___________________________________________


Ah, I am sorry, I mixed two different stories up. Imam Ali did come to Sindh (and as I said his foot prints are still preserved there, in Hyderabad and Thatta).

The Shansab story is as follows:

The relations and cultural exchanges between the Arabs and the subcontinent, particularly Sindh, go back several centuries, as only the Arabian Sea separated the two. Early Arab advances in ship building even bridged that gulf. The first conqueror of Sindh, Haris bin Mar’at al-Abdi, had brought love of Ahle-Bayt to Sindh much earlier on. In fact, he died and was buried here.

During the reign of Hadrat Ali, Shansab, a ruler of Sindh embraced Islam and was allowed to continue as a ruler of his kingdom located in the western part of the subcontinent in the name of the Caliph. Thus, Shansab was the first ruler in the subcontinent to receive a degree to rule from a caliph of the Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF).

His descendants constituted the first loyalists of Hadrat Ali in this part of the world, and were the only ones who continued to bear allegiance to Hadrat Ali long after he had died and the Umayyads had taken over the caliphate.


broter. hazrat ali (ra) has traveled distance arabia to india. the prophet saww traveled upto shaam. but he newer conquered shaam? it was the caliphs after him who did. i mean with the proof of his footprint doesnt mean that he fought a battle and converted. i mean it would sound almost amazing that hazrat ali (ra) just walked to a hindu king and converted him...even though prophet mohammad saww had to fight the meccans and later byzantians,persians, and egyptians...
while in that trouble time hazrat ali (ra) had to fight the rebels in his state than focusing on other states
pluss, why doesnt the maps show a islamic empire during the claiphate of hazrat ali (ra) with sindh to be included? non of the maps i have seen shows of sindh inside the caliphate of hazrat ali (ra)

_________________________________________________________

errm.. Shias and Sunnis developed their differences right after the death of Prophet Muhammad . It wasn't Imam Jafar who created Shiism, nor was it Abu Hanifa who created sunnism.

the beliefs were the same even during the time of imam jaafar (ra) and imam hanifa (ra). the political wiev were different but beliefs were the same. then the school cames, and the shia movement got underground couse of persecuation. after imam jaafar (ra) the differences came. couse the 12 imams hadnt all come to earth yet.

____________________________________________________________

i have short time, so i will come soon back :)

#12 Morg

Morg

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,078 posts

Posted 12 June 2005 - 11:41 AM

you said about the pro shia and anti shia emperors of mughals

surely humayun were pro shia even though he remained a sunni.
while his descend aurangzeb were harch to everyother than sunni. hindus most of all suffered alot. shias too, but mostly hindus. as i havent heard of any big shia population back then.

_________________________________________

Yeah as I said, there are two versions of this story. But why would entire India would become Shia? Did entire India become Muslim?

Kings of North India - Amjad Ali Shah, Wajid Ali Shah - had been pretty discriminatory Shias, the majority still remained Sunnis.

The Kings of Southern India, Mahmudabad, blah blah were also Shias, the majority still remained Sunnis (of Muslims, that is).


two versions of a well known attack? british india and other sources agree on that afghani attackers attacked lahore, delhi and multan areas too conquer. they looted the areas but newer ruled the areas. ahmad shah abdali ruled what is present day pakistan and afghnistan i think but newer ever heard of shia persecuation. only hindus suffered in this case. please provide other sources, as only one source does not tell of a great shi population. i mean parsis or jainis were of small population back then, they didnt suffer anything even small jew populations were saved couse of theyr little impact in political life

while on the other hand. i have heard of punjabi landlords and some of htem beeing shias. but that the population remained sunni. one reason can be that these shi rulers were not harsh as the safavid rulers , who persecuated and forced people to convert...
______________________________________________________________

Actually, most of them were in fact Ithna Asharis. The Bohras and Aga Khanis of Gujratis have Hindu, not Persian, ancestory.

In the entire Indian subcontinent, I believe it's only the Northern Pakistanis (Hunza, etc) that are the non-gujrati Ismailis (so I dont know about their history, may be they're the ones your're talking about?)


brother. the ismaili imam the first agha khan arrived from persi to bombay in 1840s he came with alot of followers. who all were of persian and arabic origin. they who converted of indian origin were called khojas.
bohras are of yemenise and egyptian origin, but htru the times they blended up into the indian community.
but as far as i know. the shia population in pakistan and india. are of indian origin. i mean they are as dark as we are...
so surely they once converted
________________________________________________________________

hm i think i heard awdh to be one of the greatest supporters of 1858 seoy mutiny? or was it jaisalmer??

________________________________________________________________

as for your claim that tipu sultan were shia. i am not sure. please provide some information , and i will also try to find something . thanx bro

_______________________________________________________________

at last bro. please give me a list of kingdoms/sultanats/amirs/nazims/nawwabs of all areas of india thru history which were shia. i mean give a list of kings too. maybe we can discuss who was shia or sunni and maybe i learn something new then.

as i already know that
Bengali nawwabs were shias for a long time ago
some punjabi landlords were shias too
awdhi rulers were shia

while
huderabadi nizams were sunnis
mysori sultans were sunni

but , the bahmani sultans. i dont know i aint sure.

#13 Morg

Morg

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,078 posts

Posted 12 June 2005 - 11:45 AM

i found this on the net. by one of tipu sultans descends link

It has, however been claimed that Haidar was of the Sunni or Orthodox Islamic faith, in which case the difference between them may rather have been that where his religion was of the conventional order, Tipu was a mystic, with a mystic's fervour.

Traces of the Sh'ite, intensely individualistic, thinking [or to the Sunnis, heresy] are evident in many of his pronouncements; he regarded hinslef as a defender of the faith. More especially, he believed himself to be inspired by the direct tutelage of Ali, the son-in-law of Mohammed.

#14 baqar

baqar

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,028 posts
  • Interests:The true message of the Ahlul Bayt (as)

Posted 13 June 2005 - 12:38 PM

but , the bahmani sultans. i dont know i aint sure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



The Bahmani pricipalities included Ahmadnagar, Bedar, Birar, Bijapur and Golconda. And all five were Shia.

#15 Morg

Morg

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,078 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 01:49 PM

so it seems that sunni rulers were in minority. how come then there are fewer shias than sunnis in the area.

is this history that all shias agree upon? or are there other facts too

#16 Morg

Morg

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,078 posts

Posted 16 June 2005 - 05:57 AM

just want to thank all of you for a detailed description of shia history in india.

but there is always some butts haha
i wonder. is tehre any big names of shia ullemas in subcontient? i mean any ayatollahs? from the beginning of shia history until prsent?

#17 Changed

Changed

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,297 posts

Posted 16 June 2005 - 06:31 AM

This has been discussed previously.

Just to give a brief answer: Sindh (the southern Province of now Pakistan) was conquered by Imam Ali (as) (they still have his foot prints preserved in a couple of cities there). The then Hindu ruler of Sindh, Shansaab, accepted Islam and continued to rule Sindh. After his death, his two sons succeeded their father and remained loyal to the ahlulbayt.

Even after that, Imam Ali Ibnal Hussain al-Zainulabideen (as) , married a woman from Sindh, who mothered his martyred son, Zaid al-Shaheed (ra) .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>




Even i heard Imam Ali's (as) army was the first muslim army to conquer the cities of Karachi and Bombay, the then a mere pack of seven island, actually not an army but a navy.

Edited by Mazher's, 16 June 2005 - 06:32 AM.


#18 Al-Zaidi

Al-Zaidi

    Al-Yamani Al-Zaidi

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 267 posts
  • Location:Al Yemen wa Canada
  • Interests:All that life has to offer

Posted 26 August 2008 - 03:22 AM

I never said that it was Zaid (ra) who spread Shiism in South Asia. I just said that his mother was a Sindhi woman - just to point out that ahlulbayt were in close contact with this region even before Muhammad Bin Qasim invaded Sindh.

By the way, Zaid (ra) didn't spread Zaidism, so it doesn't really matter if there are no Zaidiyyahs in Pakistan.


Zaid’s mother was a woman of slave origin from Sind named Jaydā, who is said to have been presented to his father by the Shī'ī rebel leader al-Mukhtār.

Just because Ali ibn Hussain's slave was from Sindh doesn't mean he had contact, slaves are brought from all across the empire and are gifted or sold.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users