Talk:Chach Nama

Tigeroo thankyou for leading the way . How s Egypt ? Intothefire 12:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Egypt???--Tigeroo 05:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi tigeroo how have you been ?

Must be odious to be constantly tracking ,undoing ,re editing my posts .
Isent it interesting how the import of an entire paragraph can be radically altered with the addition of just one word . I added the word Arabic before book and you quickly removed it !! Was the book not Arabic ? Arabic is a great language than why the urgency to remove the word?

And then what is the reason for your reticence to leave the reference (of Sindh )from the Mahabharat in this article ? if when you look at the sources for the Arabic book Chach Nama in the article itself viz ( I had nothing to do with this before you start removing these now)
1. Arab historical lays, and ballads.
2. Family traditions of the Sakifís, recorded and unrecorded.
3. Stories told by individuals whose names were forthcoming.
4. Stories traceable to individuals of a certain caste, e.g., Brahmins.
5. Hearsay and apochryphal stories.
6. The correspondence between Muhammad Kásim and Hajjáj.

See the sources used as above mentioned -
lays and ballads , family traditions ,stories told , stories told by individuals of a certain caste eg Brahims (lol - I found the reference to the “vilification favorites “of Islamic angle histories – the Brahmins being considered for source in the Chach nama really incredible ),hearsay ,apochryphal stories .

Why do you feel such sources are good for the Chach nama to make it a History but not for the history of Sindh in the Mahabharat then?

Are you aware of any righteous people from among the immediate relations and contemporary Arabs but non Muslims even among the Prophets own lifetime? If you don’t I will provide you the names. This is relevant to the discussion on Kasim and Dahir and the Chach Nama

Incidentally have you read it ? Have you read any of the principle Hindu religious books? the Gita , or the Upinishads ? Have you read any of the opponent "sources" , because If you havent then you are going to be extremely handicaped in your discussions .

Lets discuss this on the talk page of the Chach nama Intothefire 17:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

First off, I am not tracking your edits. If you notice I have been editing this pages for a good while now. And yes while Arabic may indeed be a great language calling a Persian book an Arabic work can indeed create a gross factual inaccuracy. Now to address your issues:

1. The Chach Nama was not an Arabic book. It was a Persian translation of another book which was in Arabic. If you can source the name of the original we will have something new to add to this article.
2. The Mahabharata was like the bible not written as a historical account or compilation, though it may have historical significance. The Chach Nama was written as a history/ chronicle etc.
3. I did not remove the sources, I actually put them there in the first place. Please read the preface to the translation that is linked on line, all of that information is from there.
4. The Brahmin comment is not mine. It comes from the Hindu editor of the English Translation. See online book link again. The reference to Brahmins is quite possibly in reference to sources of the history of the earlier Brahmin ruler: Chach and his family, quite a significant portion of the book is about them. I don't even see how it comes in as "vilification" as you put it. Please don't react in knee jerk fashion.
5. It is called a history by historians. Once again refer to tertiary source assesments. At one point it was considered a romance and not a history until Elphinstone corroborated the events with historical events and arhcaelogical finds in the region changing it's status from a possible fictional account into that of the primary historical text.
6. Again for the Mahabharata vs. Chach Nama see above comments.
7. What does righteous people, or the prophet or whatever have to do with the Chach Nama. I did not get that all. This is not about Muslim vs. Non-Muslim. Please refrain from your knee jerk reactions.
8. The Chach Nama is a book about Chach and his dynasty as the backbone narrative and Qasim and his conquest of their lands in the foreground. The timeline overlaps with the Gita or the Upanishads for them to be considered opponent sources. There is no such thing as an "opponent" source either, there can be contradicting or alternative historical accounts for sure. Other works which cover the same era which deviate from the account in the Chach Nama have been noted, if you know any others we can put them in there.

Explaining my edits of late to "your" Revision as of 12:51, 19 April 2007.

1. The Chach Nama is not an Arabic Book. It is in Persian or Farsi and not composed by the Sakifi's but by translated and possibly embroidered by Kufi.
2. It chronicles the reign of the Hindu dynasty (see the english translations title) in the interval of the fall of the Rai to Arab conquest.
3. Removed the term oldest history because the work that calls it that is a century old, and well primarily to not get engaged in a trivial edit conflict.
4. Removed Mahabharat, because it has nothing to do with the topics covered by the book so we don't need an off-topic paragraph here. Primarily see 3, to avoid bickering over the historical importance or accuracy of works.
5. Removed bolded emphasis. See relevant WP Style guidelines.

Let me know your particular concern's and we can discuss them and how to come to an amicable resolution.--Tigeroo 04:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Chachnama is often used as a major ref in recording the events of Qasims invasion of Sindh . The account is written entirely from the perspective of Qasim ....why ? because

• The author of the conquest of Sind in Arabic, from which Chachnámah was translated was Kàzí Ismáíl .
  

• Kází Ismàíl was appointed the first Kází of Alór by Muhammad Kásim after the conquest of the place.
  

For those interested see the site [[1]]

and the book , chapter as detailed below .

HISTORY OF SIND. VOLUME II. (IN TWO PARTS.) Part II—Giving the reigns of the Kalhórahs and the Tálpurs down to the British Conquest.

TRANSLATED FROM PERSIAN BOOKS BY MIRZA KALICHBEG FREDUNBEG,

From Chapter CHAPTER IV.
SIND TRIBES DESCENDED FROM THE ARABS.

Sakifís—The Kàzís of Bakhar and Alór or Rohrí are descended from Músá son of Yaakúb son of Táí son of Muhammad son of Shaibán, son of Usman Sakifí. The author of the conquest of Sind in Arabic, from which Chachnámah was translated, Kàzí Ismáíl son of Alí son of Muhammad son of Músá, son of Táí, is one of the descendants of the same line. Músá son of Yaakúb was the grandson of this gentleman Kází Ismàíl and was appointed the first Kází of Alór by Muhammad Kásim after the conquest of the place. Cheers
Intothefire 17:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:CHACH. dci | TALK 01:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just because I can see there's been some contention about this page in the past, I just thought I'd explain that I'm about to make some edits integrating references to the Encyclopaedia of Islam. This is the main Anglophone scholarly reference work in the field so should be a good basis for improving this article: Y. Friedmann, “Čač-Nāma”, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, ed. by P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, and W.P. Heinrichs (Leiden: Brill, 1960-2007). Consulted online on 04 December 2016 DOI:10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_8436. Alarichall (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just an update on this: I edited all sections apart from 'Accuracy', which I coudn't face tackling! I'd welcome some well-referenced contributions here! I hope people find my other edits helpful and the references sataisfactory. Alarichall (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Kautilya3: Would you please double check the Asif summary I added to this article, and revise/update it if and where appropriate. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, well, this is nothing less than demolishing the proverbial Holy Cow. Blankinship used it in conjunction with Al-Baladhuri etc. But he did find some naked contradictions in Chachnama, such as placing Al-Kiraj in Gujarat. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Ms Sarch Welch, are you sure you want to say "legendary character" [2]? That would mean he is fictitious! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Good point. I will fix it with "historical". Please revise if you can think of a better word. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see "according to Manan Ahmed Asif" several times. No other writer enjoys such prestige. I have read critical reviews of Asif's book and his thesis so I know his work is controversial. Is it possible to include some alternate or dissenting sources? Sooku (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply