History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c14.30

v1.c14.30

One great incident which happened before this battle requires to be related at length. There were as already stated, 500 Arabs under Alafi in the service of Dāhar and on the eve of battle Dāhar asked them to lead the vanguard in fighting. Alafi said, "Oh king! we are indebted to you for many acts of kindness. But we are musalmins and cannot draw our sword against the army of Islam. If we are killed, we die the death of poluted wretches. If we kill we are responsible for murder and our punishment will be fire of hell." Alafi and his 500 Arabs thus refused to fight against their brethren and correligionists and had to leave the service of Dāhar. It is said they went to Kashmir immediately. Others state they remained behind assisted Jaisiah for a time and when he left Sind and went towards the modern Rajputana then they went to Kashmir. This incident shows the glaring contrast between the conduct of Hindus and Mahomedans on this eventful day. There were Hindus who fought against Hindus in this memorable battle but there were no Mahomedans against Mahomedans. This incident not only illustrates the stern religious earnestness of the early Arab Mahomedans but their elevated morality also. The 500 Arabs of Dāhar did not act the treacherous part which the Mahomedans of Ramrai of Vijayanagar played in later history at the famous battle of Talikot. The latter showed as if they fought with the Mahomedan enemies of Ramrai but when the proper time came they turned their arms against the Hindus themselves. Alafi could have done that, but treachery was no part of the Mahomedan religion in his days. It was not a tenet of that religion then that one may without sin be treacherous to an infidel. Christianity in later days preached and practised this debased doctrine and Mahomedans of later history also did the same. But the Arabs of Mahomed Kasim's days kept their promises most scrupulously. To massacre *opposing* Indians and to appropriate their women was their *avowed* creed. But if they promised pardon to any infidel Indians, they never broke their word. Even in religious matters they kept theie promises. The question whether those who had accepted subjection and payment of tribute for freedom of religious worship should be allowed to build their temples and to worship their idols was referred to Hajjaj and even that stern and cruel man said "Since we have accepted their tribute, we must allow them freedom of their own worship." It is clear then that the conquering Arbs of the early days were distinguished not only by religious zeal but high morality and the latter seems to be as much a requisite of success in war as unity and military superiority.