Talk:Rajput/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Rajput. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Shows how tolerant Islam was towards the Jats and Rajputs, Christians etc
The American Thinker
Killing from Qur’anic Piety: Tamerlane’s Living Legacy October 1st, 2005
Andrew G. Bostom
Osama bin Laden was far from the first jihadist to kill infidels as an expression of religious piety. This years marks the 600th anniversary of the death of Tamerlane (Timur Lang; “Timur the Lame”, d. 1405), or Amir Timur (“Timur” signifies “Iron” in Turkish). Osama lacks both Tamerlane's sophisticated (for his time) military forces and his brilliance as a strategist. But both are or were pious Muslims who paid homage to religious leaders, and both had the goal of making jihad a global force. Santayana was correct when he told us that those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
Tamerlane was born at Kash (Shahr-i-Sebz, the “Green City”) in Transoxiana (some 50 miles south of Samarkand, in modern Uzbekistan), on April 8 (or 11), 1336 C.E. Amir Turghay, his father, was chief of the Gurgan or Chagtai branch of the Barlas Turks. By age 34 (1369/70), Timur had killed his major rival (Mir Husain), becoming the pre-eminent ruler of Transoxiana. He spent the next six to seven years consolidating his power in Transoxiana before launching the aggressive conquests of Persia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and then attacking Hindustan (India) under the tottering Delhi Sultanate. [1]
Grousset [2] contrasts Jenghiz Khan’s “straightforward planning” and “clean sweeps” with the “higgledy-piggledy” order of Timur’s expeditions, and the often incomplete nature of the latter’s conquests:
Tamerlane’s [Timur’s] conquering activities were carried on from the Volga to Damascus, from Smyrna to the Ganges and the Yulduz, and his expeditions into these regions followed no geographical order. He sped from Tashkent to Shiraz, from Tabriz to Khodzhent, as enemy aggression dictated; a campaign in Russia occurred between two in Persia, an expedition into Central Asia between two raids into the Caucasus…[Timur] at the end of every successful campaign left the country without making any dispositions for its control except Khwarizm and Persia, and even there not until the very end. It is true that he slaughtered all his enemies as thoroughly and conscientiously as the great Mongol, and the pyramids of human heads left behind him as a warning example tell their own tale. Yet the survivors forgot the lesson given them and soon resumed secret or overt attempts at rebellion, so that it was all to do again. It appears too, that these blood soaked pyramids diverted [Timur] from the essential objective. Baghdad, Brussa (Bursa), Sarai, Kara Shahr, and Delhi were all sacked by him, but he did not overcome the Ottoman Empire, the Golden Horde, the khanate of Mogholistan, or the Indian Sultanate; and even the Jelairs of Iraq 'Arabi rose up again as soon as he had passed. Thus he had to conquer Khwarizm three times, the Ili six or seven times (without ever managing to hold it for longer than the duration of the campaign), eastern Persia twice, western Persia at least three times, in addition to waging two campaigns in Russia…[Timur’s] campaigns “always had to be fought again”, and fight them again he did.
Timur’s campaigns are infamous for their extensive massacres and emblematic “pyramids of heads”. Brown [3] cites “only a few” prominent examples:
As specimens of those acts mention may be made of his massacre of the people of Sistan 1383-4, when he caused some two thousand prisoners to be built up into a wall; his cold- blooded slaughter of a hundred thousand captive Indians near Dihli [Delhi] (December, 1398); his burying alive of four thousand Armenians in 1400-1, and the twenty towers of skulls erected by him at Aleppo and Damascus in the same year; and his massacre of 70,000 of the inhabitants of Isfahan in (November, 1387)…
Timur was a pious Muslim, who may well have belonged to the Naqshbandi Sufi order. [4; also see my earlier essay, “Sufi Jihad”, for a discussion of Sufism and jihad.] Grousset [5] emphasizes the important Islamic motivation for Timur’s jihad campaigns:
It is the Qur’an to which he continually appeals, the imams and [Sufi] dervishes who prophesy his success. [emphasis added] His wars were to influence the character of the jihad, the Holy War, even when- as was almost always the case- he was fighting Muslims. He had only to accuse these Muslims of lukewarmness, whether the Jagataites of the Ili and Uiguria, whose conversion was so recent, or the Sultans of Delhi who…refrained from massacring their millions of Hindu subjects.
The Turki chronicle Malfuzat-i-Timuri, a putative [6] autobiographical memoir of Timur, translated into Persian by Abu Talib Husaini, illustrates these driving sentiments, complete with a Qur’anic quotation : [7]
About this time there arose in my heart the desire to lead an expedition against the infidels, and to become a ghazi; for it had reached my ears that the slayer of infidels is a ghazi, and if he is slain he becomes a martyr. It was on this account that I formed this resolution, but I was undetermined in my mind whether I should direct my expedition against the infidels of China or against the infidels and polytheists of India. In this matter I sought an omen from the Qur’an, and the verse I opened upon [Q66:9] was this, “O Prophet, make war upon infidels and unbelievers, and treat them with severity.” My great officers told me that the inhabitants of Hindustan were infidels and unbelievers. In obedience to the order of Almighty Allah I ordered an expedition against them.
Timur’s jihad campaigns against non-Muslims - whether Christians in Asia Minor and Georgia, or Hindus in India - seemed to intensify in brutality. Brown [8] highlights one particular episode which supports this contention, wherein Timur clearly distinguished between his vanquished Muslim and non-Muslim foes. After rampaging through (Christian) Georgia, where he “devastated the country, destroyed the churches, and slew great numbers of inhabitants”, in the winter of 1399-1400, Timur, in August 1400,
…began his march into Asia Minor by way of Avnik, Erzeroum, Erzinjan, and Sivas. The latter place offered a stubborn resistance, and when it finally capitulated Timur caused all the Armenian and Christian soldiers to be buried alive; but the Muhammadans he spared.
The unparalleled devastation Timur wrought upon predominantly Hindu India further bolsters the notion that Timur viewed his non-Muslim prey with particular animosity. Moreover, there are specific examples of selective brutality directed against Hindus, cited in the Malfuzat-i-Timuri, from which Muslims are deliberately spared:
My great object in invading Hindustan had been to wage a religious war against the infidel Hindus, and it now appeared to me that it was necessary for me to put down these Jats. On the 9th of the month I dispatched the baggage from Tohana, and on the same day I marched into the jungles and wilds, and slew 2,000 demon-like Jats. I made their wives and children captives, and plundered their cattle and property… On the same day a party of saiyids, who dwelt in the vicinity, came with courtesy and humility to wait upon me and were very graciously received. In my reverence for the race of the prophet, I treated their chiefs with great honour…On the 29th I again marched and reached the river Jumna. On the other side of the river I [viewed] a fort, and upon making inquiry about it, I was informed that it consisted of a town and fort, called Loni… I determined to take that fort at once… Many of the Rajputs placed their wives and children in their houses and burned them, then they rushed to the battle and were killed. Other men of the garrison fought and were slain, and a great many were taken prisoners. Next day I gave orders that the Musalman prisoners should be separated and saved, but that the infidels should all be despatched to hell with the proselyting sword. I also ordered that the houses of the saiyids, shaikhs and learned Musulmans should be preserved but that all the other houses should be plundered and the fort destroyed. It was done as I directed and a great booty was obtained…[9]
On the 16th of the month some incidents occurred which led to the sack of the city of Delhi, and to the slaughter of many of the infidel inhabitants…On that day, Thursday, and all the night of Friday, nearly 15,000 Turks were engaged in slaying, plundering, and destroying… The following day, Saturday, the 17th, all passed in the same way, and the spoil was so great that each man secured from fifty to a hundred prisoners - men, women, and children. There was no man who took less than twenty. The other booty was immense in rubies, diamonds, pearls and other gems; jewels of gold and silver, ashrafis, tankas of gold and silver of the celebrated ‘Alai coinage; vessels of gold and silver; and brocades and silks of great value. Gold and silver ornaments of the Hindu women were obtained in such quantities as to exceed all account. Excepting the quarter of the saiyids, the ‘ulama and the other Musulmans, the whole city was sacked. [10]
Timur left Samarkand with a large, powerful expeditionary force destined for India in April, 1398. By October he had besieged Talamba, 75 miles northeast of Multan, subsequently plundering the town and massacring its inhabitants. He reached the vicinity of Delhi during the first week of December having forged a path of destruction- pillaging, razing, and massacring- en route through Pak Patan, Dipalpur, Bhatnar, Sirsa, and Kaithal. Prior to fighting and defeating an army under Sultan Nasir-ud-din Mahmud Tughluq on December 17, 1398, Timur had his forces butcher in cold blood 100,000 Hindu prisoners accumulated while advancing toward Delhi. [11] Srivastava describes what transpired after Timur's forces occupied Delhi on December 18, 1398: [12]
The citizens of the capital, headed by the ulema, waited on the conqueror and begged quarter. Timur agreed to spare the citizens; but, owing to the oppressive conduct of the soldiers of the invading force, the people of the city were obliged to offer resistance. Timur now ordered a general plunder and massacre which lasted for several days. Thousands of the citizens of Delhi were murdered and thousands were made prisoners. A historian writes: “High towers were built with the head of the Hindus, and their bodies became the food of ravenous beasts and birds…..such of the inhabitants who escaped alive were made prisoners.”
Timur acquired immense booty, as well as Delhi's best (surviving) artisans, who were conscripted and sent to Samarkand to construct for him the famous Friday mosque. Leaving Delhi on January 1, 1399 for their return march to Samarkand, Timur's forces stormed Meerut on January 19th, before encountering and defeating two Hindu armies near Hardwar. [13] The Malfuza-i-Timuri [14] indicates that at Hardwar, Timur's army
…displayed great courage and daring; they made their swords their banners, and exerted themselves in slaying the foe (during a bathing festival on the bank of the Ganges). They slaughtered many of the infidels, and pursued those who fled to the mountains. So many of them were killed that their blood ran down the mountains and plain, and thus (nearly) all were sent to hell. The few who escaped, wounded, weary, and half dead, sought refuge in the defiles of the hills. Their property and goods, which exceeded all computation, and their countless cows and buffaloes, fell as spoil into the hands of my victorious soldiers.
Timur then traversed the Sivalik Hills to Kanra, which was pillaged and sacked, along with Jammu "…everywhere the inhabitants being slaughtered like cattle." [15]
Srivastava summarizes India’s devastated condition following Timur’s departure: [16]
Timur left [India] prostrate and bleeding. There was utter confusion and misery throughout northern India. [India’s] northwestern provinces, including northern tracts of Rajasthan and Delhi, were so thoroughly ravaged, plundered and even burnt that it took these parts many years, indeed, to recover their prosperity. Lakhs [hundreds of thousands] of men, and in some cases, many women and children, too, were butchered in cold blood. The rabi crops [grown in October-November, harvested around March, including barley, mustard, and wheat] standing in the field were completely destroyed for many miles on both sides of the invader’s long and double route from the Indus to Delhi and back. Stores of grain were looted or destroyed. Trade, commerce and other signs of material prosperity disappeared. The city of Delhi was depopulated and ruined. It was without a master or a caretaker. There was scarcity and virulent famine in the capital and its suburbs. This was followed by a pestilence caused by the pollution of the air and water by thousands of uncared-for dead bodies. In the words of the historian Badaoni, “those of the inhabitants who were left died (of famines and pestilence), while for two months not a bird moved wing in Delhi.”
The 13th century chronicler, Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286), provided this contemporary assessment of how the adoption of Islam radically altered Mongol attitudes toward their Christian subjects:
And having seen very much modesty and other habits of this kind among Christian people, certainly the Mongols loved them greatly at the beginning of their kingdom, a time ago somewhat short. But their love hath turned to such intense hatred that they cannot even see them with their eyes approvingly, because they have all alike become Muslims, myriads of people and peoples. [18]
Bar Hebraeus’ observations should be borne in mind when evaluating Grousset’s uncompromising overall assessment of Timur’s deeds and motivations. After recounting Timur’s 1403 C.E. ravages in Georgia, slaughtering the inhabitants, and destroying all the Christian churches of Tiflis, Grousset states : [19]
It has been noted that the Jenghiz-Khanite Mongol invasion of the thirteenth century was less cruel, for the Mongols were mere barbarians who killed simply because for centuries this had been the instinctive behavior of nomad herdsmen toward sedentary farmers. To this ferocity Tamerlane [Timur] added a taste for religious murder. He killed from Qur’anic piety. {Note: Curiously, the 1970 English translation omits the word “coranique” in translating “Il tuait par piete coranique” (p. 513 of the original L’Empire Des Steppes), so that the phrase becomes, “He killed from piety” as opposed to Grousset’s original, “He killed from Qur’anic piety”}. He represents a synthesis, probably unprecedented in history, of Mongol barbarity and Muslim fanaticism, and symbolizes that advanced form of primitive slaughter which is murder committed for the sake of an abstract ideology, as a duty and a sacred mission.
Tamerlane’s barbarous legacy is still with us, 600-years later, in the heinous acts of jihad terrorism being committed by contemporary jihadists. Bin Laden, Zarqawi, the Sufi Basayev, and the Shi’ite Mugniyya—inspired by Islamic teachings conveyed through prominent contemporary Muslim religious leaders—have continued the practice of mass killing from “Qur’anic piety”.
Dr. Bostom is an Associate Professor of Medicine, and the author of the forthcoming The Legacy of Jihad, on Prometheus Books (2005).
Notes [1] E.G. Browne. A Literary History of Persia In Four Volumes, Vol. 3. The Tartar Domain (1265-1502), Cambridge University Press, 1928, pp. 180-206; Rene Grousset. L’Empire Des Steppes. Attila, Gengis-Khan, Tamerlan. Paris: Payot, 1952. [Translated as The Empire of the Steppes, by Naomi Walford, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1970, pp. 409-465. A.L. Srivastava. The Delhi Sultanate, p. 222. [2] Rene Grousset. The Empire of the Steppes, pp. 419-420. [3] E.G. Browne. A Literary History of Persia. p. 181. [4] Beatriz Forbes Manz. The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 17. [5] Rene Grousset. The Empire of the Steppes, pp. 416-417. [6] For conflicting views regarding the apocryphal nature of this work, see E.G. Browne. A Literary History of Persia. pp. 183-184, and Elliot and Dowson, A History of India, Vol. 3, pp. 389-394. [7] Elliot and Dowson, A History of India, Vol. 3, pp. 394-395. [8] E.G. Browne. A Literary History of Persia. p. 196. [9] Elliot and Dowson, A History of India, Vol. 3, p. 429 [10] Elliot and Dowson, A History of India, Vol. 3, pp. 432-433. [11] Elliot and Dowson, A History of India, Vol. 3, pp. 445-446. [12] Srivastava, The Delhi Sultanate, pp. 222-223. [13] Srivastava, The Delhi Sultanate, p. 223. [14] Srivastava, The Delhi Sultanate, p. 223. [15] Elliot and Dowson, A History of India, Vol. 3, p. 459. [16] Srivastava, The Delhi Sultanate, p. 223. [17] A.L. Srivastava. The Delhi Sultanate, p. 224 [18] The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus. Translated from Syriac by Ernest A. Wallis Budge, Oxford University Press, Vol. 1, 1932, p. 354. [19] Rene Grousset. The Empire of the Steppes, p. 434.; p. 513 of the original French, L’Empire Des Steppes. I want to thank Ibn Warraq for pointing out the omission of the word “coranique”, i.e., Qur’anic in the French to English translation by Walford.
Andrew G. Bostom
Maybe this article will make all the Anti-Rajput individuals jump for joy as they gloat over the conquests and atrocities committed against our people, does it make you happy Raja?
No, but if you weren't such a blind busy body, you'd read from the above that although the leaders alleged their following to Islam, they were very poor examples of Muslims. The Massacres in Gujrat recently and the Babri Masjid episode showed the 'tolerance' of the 'Hindus' and indeed the very 'Hindu women' who stood and watched another woman/women being raped by their hoardes, but we dont blame Hinduism, but it's poor examples dont do much for propogating it's faith now do they?
No it doesn't make me happy, but it makes me sad that other Rajputs who state their love and dedication in protecting Hinduism claim superiority to Brahmins and Priests who ARE AUTHORITIES on Jati and Hinduism. You have got to proposterously insane to allege you simpletons have anywhere near the knowledge (or better as you claim) than a Pundit of Hinduism. In fact Pundits, Brahmins WERE deemed superior even in the times of the Mahabharat, so who are you fooling today? Insecurity over your social status usually creates scenarios like yours. Ultimately you are Anti Islamic as proven above so I rest that case.
Romila questions and disproves your assertions and wild claims, hence she is hates. Easily understood given the tone here. I again rest my case. Corrupt govt that screwed Rajputs over? The Rajasthani 'Pensioners' who you call Rajputs will never accept democracy in any form so again that point is easily understood. Again case rested.
Khkhan, Punjab of Pakistan has Lakhs of Rajputs of many clans, mainly dominant tribes of Ghakkar, Bhatti, Janjua and Chauhans.
Guys, instead of crying that 'Myuncle is this' my house is 'that' what have you , today achieved? What have you conquered, secured and glory obtained? Fcat is, you are resting on the laurels of your ancestors and bashing a democratic Govt that took away your 'pensions'. Get a reality check and grow up. Do something your self then talk. Until then dont satisfy your insecurity by bashing our faith and try to stand on a moral high ground because you obviously dont have one. Forget Muslims, you dont even acknowledge your religious priests? What a mess.
We are descendants of Royal blood, always were, and still are. Regardless of what you ex pensioners say...
Raja
Request for archive
Please archieve this page as it takes alot of time to load.Thanks الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 09:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
A simple Fact,
The problem of some people contributing to this talk can simply be described in five letters "Islam". They don't listen to logic, they don't answer plain questoins and they never will since all that they have is haterd for Islam. They can't change the history and facts but they can close their eyes and live in their own paradise. They say that only a Hindu can be a Rajput since in order to be one, one needs to believe in the caste system and in the same breath they say that Sikhs are also Rajputs. Each and every rule of logic just fails in front of them. Whoever says anything that is against their will, is telling a lie. Although they still are not able to define "Rajput" in a way that is consistence with their own standards, they are very brisk in refuting other people's views, no matter how logically sound. All I can pray is that may God open their eyes. Can I get an Amen here?
Khurram
Khurram,
Do you have more questions or ?? Time and again you and others have not shown any appreciation for hindu rajput history. Please explain why you follow this behavior. When it comes to rank Islam and rajputs you always rank islam higher then rajputs. With this background why do you claim yourself to be a rajput? On top of that from some muslim rajputs the suggestions that even ghori/arabs can be considered rajputs is just plain wrong.
We are all on this forum because you want us to accept you as rajputs. Amongst yourselves you can call yourself rajputs and I have no problem with that. But to engage in a discussion with hindu rajputs and just keep bashing rajputs is not going to get any one very far.
-Shivraj
Amen Khurram, Amen indeed. Nice to know another bro is in the mix. These descendants of pensioners are very mislead. I dont think prayers can help them here. The pensions meant a lot to them I think. If the Mughals gave them that incentive, then maybe there wouldn't have been so much hatred eh? The argument definitely cant be of foreign invaders, because the same British all fought against, were the leige lords of these Pensioners of Rajasthan. Thats not honour, thats slavery by bribery. Thats their honour. Enough said.
Raja
Raja,
Who is on pension?
-Shivraj
Guys, this article has become a mess because of the silly one-upmanship. I vote in favor of including Muslim Rajputs in this category. In today's liberal world, ethnic identification is primarily self-identification. If some people call themselves Rajput, others have no right to stop them. Further, I want to move the section of battle between Rajputs and Muslims to a new article. These battles in no way concern the main point of the article which is about the Rajput community.
-Khakhan
Khakhan,
We cannot move Battles secction because rajput brothers and sisters and rest of the world needs to know how these battles were fought. What really happened. Muslim/Western historians have reccorded very one sided history and it is not acceptable.
-Shivraj
New article
Khakan,
Good idea. The article exceeds the recommended length of a Wikipedia article, so I moved Battles between Rajputs and Muslims to a separate article. Tom Radulovich 02:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
No this is not acceptable. Battles were a very important part of the history and have to be shown on this page. Time permitting I will clean up the history section also. Just because muslim rajputs ask you to move the battle section to another is not reason enough to move it.
Also you have not responded to my last response on how hinduism was saved in India.
-Shivraj
Was Shivaji a Rajput?
Well.. i'm a Maratha and according to this article our greatest hero is supposed to b a Rajput. Anyways the tone of this article is too jingoist and un ecyclopedic. We need to clean this article. I'll do it if i have time but any help in this regard would be appretiated. AMbroodEY 08:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Well i checked it out... Many Maratha clans indeed have some Rajput ancestry (including mine The Salunkhes who trace their lineage to Solankis). But by Shivajis time Marathas were a separate people with distinct culture,language and identity. Shivaji was a Maratha with some Rajput ancestry. But was a Maratha hence to call him a Rajput is a factually incorrect statement. 220.224.6.175 12:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Ambroodey,
Stuff I wrote earlier was archived recently. When Maharan Hammir became the ruler of chittor senior branch of sisodiya rulers moved to outskirts of then rajasthan which is today's maharashtra.
Maharana Pratap and Shivaji belong to the same line and no wonder they showed the same bravery.
Yes it is true that Shivaji is a maratha since he was born in the land of marathas.
-Shivraj
Shivraj,
First of all, your last above point is very humble and I appreciate your last comment. Yes you are right, the followers do represent a Faith when one doesn't have the opportunity to learn about it. I am very sorry that the examples India has seen of such conquerors has been poor, am I not an Indian? I do feel for the poor souls who were uprooted and massacred, but being Muslim I know that Islam heavily condemns this and the proof I BELIEVE will be on the day of Reckoning where they will pay for their deeds. But we have had excellent examples of Muslims also in the form of the Holy Saints who paid great service to the peoples of India and indeed rebelled against tyrannical KIngs? The Chistiya Order (Islamic Mystical Order of Saints) Openly rejected the Afghan Kings and never gave an audience to their courts in petition to their overt deeds. Do you understand our point in this respect?
Raja
Shivraj, i dont think you got the point. I can trace my ancestry to the Sisode/Salunkhe/Bhonsle clans which themselves have Rajput ancestries Sisodiyas,Sonlankis and Hoysals respectively. But Marathas are essentially a mixture of various North Indian peoples. So you can call Shivaji as one of Rajput ancestry but not a Rajput. Moreover Shivraj, you must recognise that not only Rajputs but also Marathas were instrumental in bringing down Mughal empire. Check this website for origins of marathas: http://marathas.tripod.com/clans.html. AMbroodEY 17:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Ambroodey (what is your real name?)
Something new I learnt today that Marathas are mixture of other NI people. Who are these NI people? Would you by any chance know Shivaji's genealogy?
And yes I know fully well that Marathas played a very important role in dismantling mughal emperors.
Moreover there were interesting wars between rathores and marathas. If you get a chance read there description. Pretty amazing fights over Ajmer.
-Shivraj
Well.. my name is Aryan. BTW See the above link for origin of the Maratha clans, it shows the lineage of various clans. Shivaji is descended from Bhonsle clan who were descendents of Hoysalas but he also descends from the Jadhav (Yadav) clan, to which majority of Marathas owe allegence.AMbroodEY 18:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Shivaji was Ahir (Yadav)Sumitkachroo (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Pension ??
Raja,
Pleasure is mutual my brother. I was really delighted reading your arguments in your previous post. I think you need to clarify the word "pensioner" to some people since they didn't read that post ;) You know what? I find it interesting how some people think that we need their approval to call ourselves Rajputs. Isn't it something? I don't know what kind of Rajput hides from the truth and forges it. Do you know of any such Rajput characterisitc since I don't have any in my knowledge?
Khakhan,
As far as Rajput fighting Islam article is concerned, I think it will be justified if we break it down to topics like "Maharana Partab Vs Akbar" etc. since neither the Rajputs nor the Muslim rulers fought those battles for religion and it is not true to involve the religion into it.
Shiv,
As per your argument about rejoicing Rajput defeat. I don't know how did you draw that conclusion? We don't rejoice Rajput defeats but we are mature enough that we don't whine and cry about them either. Why? Because we think a Rajput doesn't whine and cry. This seems to be one thing that we, the Muslim Rajputs, are being told differently. Isn't it? Also,to us there is no Hindu Rajput history or Muslim Rajput history. We only care about Rajput history and it encompases both religions and it is not us who have problem with a religion. And "YES" I do have more questions but I will ask them once you have the previous ones answered.
Khurram
Khurram,
Who is whining and crying? It is said that world looks exactly as you are yourself. You have been accusing us of "islam haters" , "whiners" perhaps the truth is exactly opposite i.e you are hinduism/rajput hater and crying over the fact that your ancestors converted to Islam not voluntarily? Why is it so hard for you to accept that no rajput would convert voluntarliy? How could rajputs be mute spectators to see there temples razed to ground by muslim invaders and not fight for there religion?
I have repeatedly pointed out these facts and you just ignore them because you do not want to accept anything that shows Islam in bad light.
Note people who do not know a religion judge it by how its followers practice it. I personally do not know much about Islam because I never had the oppurtinity to learn it.
All I comment on is how the followers of Islam interacted with rajputs from the birth of islam to the time of british.
If you are a neutral observer who does not know much about Islam and just look at the history of this period would your conclusions be any different?
-Shivraj
Shivraj,
First of all, your last above point is very humble and I appreciate your last comment. Yes you are right, the followers do represent a Faith when one doesn't have the opportunity to learn about it. I am very sorry that the examples India has seen of such conquerors has been poor, am I not an Indian? I do feel bad when I hear such episodes. I do feel for the poor souls who were uprooted and massacred, but being Muslim I know that Islam heavily condemns this and the proof I BELIEVE will be on the day of Reckoning where they will pay for their deeds. But we have had excellent examples of Muslims also in the form of the Holy Saints who paid great service to the peoples of India and indeed rebelled against tyrannical KIngs? The Chistiya Order (Islamic Mystical Order of Saints) Openly rejected the Afghan Kings and never gave an audience to their courts in petition to their overt deeds. Sher Shah was in India for 3 generations before he rose up, he actually tried to benefit India with some work also and employed many Hindus in esteemed positions as well as ensure fairness and tolerance for all faiths. His legacy against Rajputs was another matter, but again it's King vs. King and he even was mentioned as having said that the Jauhar of a Fort that stained his record was extremely regrettable. Do you understand our point in this respect? There have been good and bad on both sides and I as a Muslim can confirm much to you that the ran sacking of temples is against Islam openly as the people (in this case) would view Muslims in a poor light. Places of Worship are refuges as should be treated with respect. I know some didnt, but please understand this wasn't Islam. This was Politics and Power struggles. Great many Hindu Rajas paid homage to famed Muslim Saints of India and this practice coninues today too.
Raja
Very well put Raja. One more point to clear Shiv. Rajputs never converted to Islam for the fear of death. When you say so, you are actually insulting all the Rajputs be it Muslim or Hindu. You ask that how can a Rajput be sitting idle when the Temples were razed? I ask the same question in different words. Tell me how and why the Hindu Rajputs are still alive while their temples were razed by the rulers of that time? History only speaks of one person who razed temples on purpose and that is Mahmud of Ghazni. I do not want to go into his intentions and ambitions but as Raja put very adequately, razing a place of worship is against Islam and no one can change the laws of Islam.
Conversion to Islam was the fruit of great work done by the Muslim Saints. Why do you think that millions pay homage to the shrine of Khwaja Gharib Nawaz in the heart of Rajhistan? What was his contribution to the history of that area and to the people of Sub continent? The truth lies in the answer to these very basic questions. It was not the kings and the ruling class who converted the people to Islam, it was the love and teachings of these great people who made the hearts change. Being a Rajput, one could only be converted to Islam by logic and love. There was no way around and there still is no way around. If you believe that blood keeps its characteristics, then you must agree with me. Don't you?
Khurram
Raja/Khurram,
The point of disagreement is because to us it is clear that wars were very religious in nature. Also Khurram I have repeatedly said that rajput would not cconvert out of fear of death. Where are you getting your data from?
I agree that Islam had some excellent saints in the past and still must have.
What you should understand is that to claim only Ghazni destroyed temples is making a mockery of history. Fact is every islamic invader in India destroyed temples and disfigured statues of gods.
Then you insist wars had no religious color to them.
What logic are you using?
-Shivraj
Also Khurram I have repeatedly said that rajput would not cconvert out of fear of death.
This explains that our forefathers didn't convert to Islam for the fear of death as well.
I agree that Islam had some excellent saints in the past and still must have.
And that conversion of people to Islam was their contribution and not that of any ruler or fear of death?
Fact is every islamic invader in India destroyed temples and disfigured statues of gods.
We can engage into another long debate about the comment "every islamic invader" but I would refrain from it. My sole point is, how can an act opposite to the teachings of a religion, be called a religious act? And also if we take that argument of the wars being religious ones, then all the Hindu Rajputs who cooperated with Muslims empires and lived in them, ceased to be Hindus and Rajputs. Is this the case?
Khurram
Shiv,
I have some answers with reference to your questions;
The point of disagreement is because to us it is clear that wars were very religious in nature. Also Khurram I have repeatedly said that rajput would not cconvert out of fear of death. Where are you getting your data from?
The Kings of such campaigns ofcourse used religion as the premise for war. The very same way that the Crusades were fought and today it is widely acknowledged how barbaric they were. At the time, these tactics are used by any rulers or conquerors to justify their campaigns on moral grounds to gain favour and suppport from their people i.e. soldiers and allies. The pacifist nature of Christianity forbade the massacres durings the Crusades as does Islam with it's immensely strict codes of war and refugees. Tamerlane, Bin Laden or whoever alleged Islam as a basis for their deeds was simply wrong. They CANNOT use Islam since it forbids EVERYTHING that they held/hold 'permitted'. Again, Islam is the victim of political hi jackers here. With regards to the confusion about getting the info re: Rajputs converting out of fear of death, I believe that may have been Surmendra making that point earlier i.e. "oops better convert to save my Kingdom" quote that I remember reading in one of the above posts. If it attributed to you then it is by mistake.
What you should understand is that to claim only Ghazni destroyed temples is making a mockery of history. Fact is every islamic invader in India destroyed temples and disfigured statues of gods.
Although a great many did do these ignoble acts which did nothing but seal their name in tyranny in history in the hearts and minds of people. We must remember that there were rulers such as Sher Shah who didnt do any such acts. I mention his name because he was Afghan and an Islamic conqueror who did gain favour of many peoples through his acts. I believe till date, he was Indias greatest Muslim Ruler. He did regret the Jauhar of a Rajput fort that occurred through his battle, but his regret shows his intentions were much more noble in nature than previous rulers. I believe the legend which most invaders believed in was that the temples were the hiding places of great wealth, therefore they were too tempted to ransack them rather than leave them. This legend gained ground from the time of Ghazni when he was implored by Brahmin priests not to take their temple but when he searched and found huge amounts of gold and jewelry, he was overcome by emotion that they used Religion to hide wealth from their own people. In future this tactic was always used by most invaders. I am NOT in support of these acts, but speculating the possible cause of them. To my knowledge Sher Shah didnt do this. To conclude, it was kings looking for booty and influence by possibly demoralising the locals, not the acts of Pious Muslims seeking to propogate their Faith.
Then you insist wars had no religious color to them.
The above points should answer the reason Religion was possibly used as a tactic to recruit and give premise to invasions, but in fact had no place in the actual Religion itself. Today there are Muslims in India and Pakistan who through traditions of old still do anti Islamic acts such as marrying off girls without their permission when infact Islam totally forbids this and states that such marriages are invalid (hence no need for divorce)and against the very right of choice that the woman has from God himself. Now the typical illiterate (which many many people in both our own respective countries are) are oblivious to this. As were the same Hindus who committed massacres against Muslims in recent events and of yore. I as a Muslim thank God that I have some knowledge of Hinduism to know that those people were the evil doers and Hinduism would NEVER allow such heinous acts. Had I not, then like the majority of ill informed, I too would have blamed Hinduism for it's followers acts. The Political upper eschelons of society have ALWAYS manipulated the masses for their own wealth and interest. The poor remain poorer and those guys get richer. So, yes religion was used (or should I say abused) for their own ends, but we mustn't say that the colour was of religion. The colour was of self interest....
I am glad the discussion is becoming more easy going now. Let's keep this up guys :)
Raja
And I would like to add to the comment that the notion of those wars being "religious" is further refuted when we see some Hindu Rajput tribes fighting for the conqureres and some against them. The religion was only used to motivate people to fight and that too soon lost its attraction since mostly the armies were not of the same religion/race. The main attraction had always been empire/kingdom. Just to add to the note, Sultan Mahmood of Ghazni was not only in war with the Rajputs of India, he was also constantly in war with the Shah of Khwarzam. Similarly, Babur didn't defeat a Hindu Rajput to get the throne of Delhi, he fought a Muslim Ibrahim Lodhi and killed him to ascend to the throne. Aurengzeb didn't only kill Hinuds/Sikhs, he killed his own borthers to capture the throne. Do you see any anti-Hindu sentiment in these acts? All these acts, like all the other acts done by the emperors/rulers were done only for the sake of their rule and kingdom. Nothing more, nothing LESS. Whoever was against or danger to their rule, they killed him, be it Hindu, Muslim or Sikh. So I would strongly encourage that we see these incidents as they were.
Khurram
I agree..
Good points here about stopping the dirt throwing. I dont find it wrong to discuss topics, but the article in it's current form is very one sided, biased and doesn't cover many of the major clans of Rajputs by concentrating on a few clans.
I must also add a point here that whoever states that another is not a Rajputra is himself on troubled ground without proof. The caste system reads Brahmin, Kshatriya, Shudra etc. not Brahmin, Rajput, Shudra etc. It is still debated today whether Rajputs today are of the same stock as the original Kshatriyas. Some are, some aren't. Where do our Mohyal counterparts fit into this? They ruled great many kingdoms also and were of Brahmin origin? Their Martial Prowess was unanimously accepted by all major Rajas of their time.
Ambroodey welcome to this discussion, I hope you can bring this discussion back to neutral and unbiased reality. Good luck with it.
Must read.... http://rajputsamaj.net/miscellaneous/pakrajput.htm
Very relevant to current discussion.
Same article can be found here too.
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/punjabis.html
One thing I have noticed in this article about Muslim Rajputs is that they somehow feel it is somewhat less prestigious to be a Rajput than an Arab. The authors’ observation regarding Wattu and Kharral families is eye-opening. They bend over backwards to deny their Rajput roots. (Khurram, Raja & Co. seems to exceptions rather than rule.) This can only be expected of conquered-and-converted people. A person who willingly changes religion will not deny his forefathers’ blood. Only people who were conquered wish to be ‘just like their victors’ and embarrass their ancestors by claiming new fathers for themselves. Among Hindus this can be very hilarious to claim somebody other than your real father as your father. I guess some soul searching is in order for Pakistani Rajputs. VS Naipaul will have a field day if he can read this discussion.
-Khakhan
Khakhan,
The 2 articles mentioned above are the same except the lower mentions a bit more.
I have yet to meet a Kokkhar who claims Arab descent. This is a folly that mainly Hindu Rajputs believe and some simpleton villager tribes of little knowledge occasional decipher. I believe I know how this particular theory came about. Basically Kokkar's are descendants of the Kayanid Dynasty of Iran who were defeated by the Arabs. So already being Persian they had some Semetic blood in them too. (Any Aryan mad Iranian who claims other wise needs a blood test and a psychiatrist.) The Kokkars were settled in India in the Kuh i Jud region by some local Rajas on account of their good will towards one another through ancient trade alliances etc. They were a recognised and respected Kayani Clan. They served in the Hindu Shahi armies in esteemed positions. It is also a well known fact that the Holy Prophet's 2 grandsons, Syed Imam Hassan (RA) and Syed Imam Hussain (RA) were both married to the 2 last Kayanid princesses and through them the Syed Dynasty was continued. Now the literate among the Ghakkar/ Kokkar are aware and recognise this connection with the Syed Dynasty. But the illiterate connect themselves directly with Qureishi blood. How many Kokkars do we know who even claim Jatt status? None in Pakistan, but in India a lot do. But that is their lineage and thats how they claim so.
Also there is absolutely NO connection between Awans and Janjuas at all. I have no understanding how this theory could have come about since Janjuas are essentially the Pandava Dynasty. The Awans have no such connection at all. Another folly on the part of the author. A simple question to any Janjua elder would have cleared this up.
It's sad on the part of the author that although he mentions some points (local naivity) as mockery, he fails to research an actually an authority of each clan why this was so.
I have yet to personally meet a Kokkar/Ghakker who claims Qureshi ancestry at all. Some dominant members of this tribe branched out and always maintained a high profile throughout history (Jasrat of Taimur's time and Kokar Rai of Rawalpindi to name a few)and have always maintained their Kayani name. The lesser ones who migrated and settled in rural areas with other clans eventually adopted other trades and eventually lost perspective of their own lineage. Hence we have such instances as mentioned. To state one family (this odd family in Bhawalpur) out of possible thousands of families of the same tribe is a little exagerrated in my opinion. Why weren't any of the famous members of this tribe mentioned? Their lineage is openly available for all to see?
I dont believe I, Khurram and Wisessabre are an exception. I have met hundreds of Rajputs from Pakistan, India and UK and not one of any has ever mentioned such Arab or Turk ancestry at all. Which is why I believe that other some village illiterate minded locals who are naive( that the authors etc may have come across) and some overly insecure Hindus Rajput or otherwise) may have come about with this theory which they believe is substabtive. This is so VERY not the case at all. We, the overwhelming majority know who we are. We respect other races and clans, but we love ours greatly, as do the rest of our Muslim Rajput communties.
Raja
Very true indeed Raja. I have met hundreds of Rajputs all across the country and they include Muslim, Christian and Hindu Rajputs of Pakistan and I yet have to find a Rajput who calls himself as an Arab descendant. As a matter of fact, if I ever meet one, I will beat the hell out of him. And Raja I think our village folk are more sensitive and ahere to who their forefathers are and were. The author of that page doesn't know the Rajputs of Pakistan at all period.
Khurram
Khurram,
You dont need to beat him up,lol! Just explain it to him I guess. But we are essentially in agreement that we haven't come across any such folk, so if they are around then they are so minute in number they are hardly worth writing an entire article about. I think it's a propogandist point rather than an actual fact (because it's obviously not fact). I know Bhawalpur well and know of no such families at all. Where are these families in our own localities, whether UK or elsewhere? I rest my case. Interesting to know the actual background and sources for the authors claims though...
Raja
Khurram/Raja,
When muslims fought against other muslims to expand there empire in India did they break mosques in large numbers? Note breaking and descecration of hindu temples started in 714 AD and continued till almost Bhadur Shah Jafar i.e almost a 1000 years.
To say that wars between hindus and muslims were purely for territory is wrong.
Spread of Islam in the land of hindus was the primary reason for invasions into India and that was continued by later day mughals.
Why is it that you do not see it such?
-Shivraj
Shivraj,
When muslims fought against other muslims to expand there empire in India did they break mosques in large numbers?
No they didn't. Just like when the Hindu kings fought other Hindu Kings they didn't break down their own religious sites. But in the same point, when the other Rajput allies of the Mughals fought the opposing Rajputs, similarly did they take part in any Hindu Temple desecration? Temples of their own faith? I believe not seeing as it was a Political juncture.
Note breaking and descecration of hindu temples started in 714 AD and continued till almost Bhadur Shah Jafar i.e almost a 1000 years.
This point has never been refuted by any of us. The evidence is obvious and the culprits responsible. Let's make one point clear YET AGAIN, Islam (or us) deplores and bans such acts, yet these culturists did this. Who excatly is being blamed here. But the coin has 2 sides. If these abominable acts took place in front of the eyes of other Hindu Rajputs, then if they were the Hindu dharma protectors they allege to be, then this would have been more demoralising for them to at least not stop this practice for almost a thousand years. I for one totally condemn this practice on my own Religious and ancestral grounds.
To say that wars between hindus and muslims were purely for territory is wrong.
To state that this never occurred is also purely wrong. You said elsewhere that it was an old custom that when Rajputs won over their enemy they would return their territory i.e. Prithviraj and Ghori and others, but Muslim kings didn't. But this is a flawed statement as what happened during the Mauryan rise? They conquered immense territory, was that returned? Did the Gurjara Pratiharas return land back to the conquered Rajas they over threw? Did Rai Jaisal return the land conquered by him upon returning to Rajasthan back to the conquered? Did any of the Pandava Dynasty return the land of Kashmir and Punjab back to the conquered in almost 26 generations? I am not disputing that in certain junctures in history what you say didn't occur, but to say it was the norm, and the opposite was the fault of Muslims is naive. Akbar would have NEVER gained alliances and support from Rajputs against other Rajputs had they not been satisfied that his fight was for territory and not Religion. This is further cemented by the fact that the same Akbar became a non Muslim (as if any of his practices were Islamic any way) and created his own religion.... This is a question of political motivation, not of a Religious one.
Spread of Islam in the land of hindus was the primary reason for invasions into India and that was continued by later day mughals.
Yes that was the reason that these invaders gave and this point has already been addressed in a previous post that these premises were stated to gain support and religious justification for their wars. When you say Mughals, again not all Mughals were Islamic i.e. Akbar. Islam has strict codes for war, which many such invaders never adhered to. Hence they cannot be called Islamic. You can call it so, but the fact remains it was a foreign invader with a view to gain an empire. They did want Islam to spread, as any invader would. Even Ranjit Singh did it for Sikhism, and just as mercilessly as any Mughal or Turk did. But the rebellion that many Muslims and Muslim Saints showed against the merciless Afghans and Turks etc. proved that had Islam been a priority, then they would NEVER have fought it's very people and Luminaries. Why can you not understand this point Shiv?
Raja
Gujjars- are they Rajput?
I could actually use your knowledge here Shiv, I am really stuck on this point. The Gujjars of Punjab allege they are chaudhry status. They have NEVER had any daughters given to them in marriage from the Rajput community or any other clan for that matter i.e. Jatt. But I have read that recently they allege desecendancy from the Gurjara Pratihara dynasty. But as I understand, those Kings of old never referred to themselves as Gujjars (did they?) Also the off shoots (branches) of such clans would be known by name and not necessarily the main name would it? i.e. Guhilas, Ranawats being their branch etc. I have always read that they are a farming and grazing community where the name 'Gau Jar' (i.e 'cow grazer') comes from. Do you know of there Rajput affiliation? I am not sure and hence don't want to say no, but haven't seen anything convincing to say yes either.
Raja
Raja,
To my knowledge "Gujjars" are not Rajput. I remember that in the pre-Kargil era, we used to say that out of eight, seven Nisha-e-Haider have been won by the Rajputs except for Major Muhammad Tufail Sahaheed as he was a Gujjar. Also my maternal uncle is very much into the Rajput history. Actually this is his only passion and I have never heard from him that Gujjars are Rajputs (By the way I don't think there is any Rajput Gotra that he doesn't know about alongwith their history).
And as per your remarks regarding Rajputs and Muslim rulers, excellent. I myself only have one problem with the hypothesis that Shiv keeps on proposing. Had destruction of temples been a fundamental trait and reason for the war between the Muslim rulers and Rajputs kings, then why did Rajput kings always allied themselves with those rulers? And one more thing, I do not know of any authority that Bahadur Shah Zafar had as a king and I am having problem comprehending how could he possibly order destruction of tempels while his rule was confined to the red fort?
Khurram
Mughal rulers had other commanders besides rajputs. Some wars were fought with rajputs at the helm of the forcces and others were fought with muslim commanders.
Whenever rajputs were leading or were present in the mughal force no body would dare touch a temple. When muslim commanders went on campaigns alone i.e without rajputs they destroyed temples freely.
Reason some rajputs allied with mughals and others did not comes down to a character issue. In some cases rajputs who aligned with mughals did not want to work for them but since there king (rajput king) had taken an oath of allegiancce to the mughal king the rajput army of that king remained loyal to the mughal despite not everyone agreeing with the rajput king. Please read James Tod for many examples on this.
I can see your point that Islam as a religion does not direct other's religious places to be destroyed but not even a single muslim ruler adhered to this principle. Is it not moot to bring it up?
So it is clear now that rajputs fought to save there religion?
-Shivraj
Shiv,
In order for something to be treated as truth, each and every known instance needs to conform to it. When we say that Rajputs fought for their religion, we need to show that no Rajput who was of that religion, fought for the other side. Do you think that it was possible for Mughals to get the alliance of Rajupts even when they were destroying the temples? If we agree that during the time of one emperor, the armies commanded by the Muslim generals destroyed the temples and the armies commanded by the Rajput generals did not, then I will question the faith of the Rajput generals at that time. Why did they even then keep their alliance with such ruler? I personally think that following my leader is good until my promise to the GOD doesn't get harmed. If my leader asks me to fight for an army, some portion of whose is destroying my holy places, hell to that leader and his alliance. I will never join forces with such an army. Will you?
My sole point is that had there been a uniform and universal trait of all the Muslim rulers that they destroyed the temples and the statues, I do not see any reason why "ANY" brave and honest Hindu Rajput should be friends with them, and to that point, be alive in such an era. The only option that ANY Rajput could have been left with at that time was to "Kill or get killed". To be truthful, if I am to be placed in such a situation, I will either die or will eliminate that force that had committed such a crime. So my friend, what I am trying to say is that, there off course were incidents of temple razing and statue destruction, but they were during the early times and mostly during the raids of Mahmud of Ghazni. It was not possible for the Muslim rulers of India to keep their empires without the assistance of Hindu Rajputs and this assistance couldn't be won by destroying their temples.
So one of two things need to be true.
1. Every Muslim ruler destroyed temples and statues to promote Islam and this was their sole purpose. Rajputs fought to save their religion and since at one time, whole of the India was under the Muslim Empire, none of the brave Hindu Rajputs left alive in India. Or if we say that the destruction of the temples was a universal trait of Muslim Rulers, then all the Hindu Rajputs who did not keep fighting Muslim rulers were cowards and hence do not qualify to be called Rajputs. And I would like to include all the Hindus of that time into this argument for these purposes.
2. The sole purpose of Muslim rulers of India was to retain their rule. There were, however, independent kings and clans who need to be harnessed in order to ensure the security and integrity of the kingdom. These situations were eventually solved either by diplomacy or by force. Since both the parties eventually found a mean to co-exist, we still have TRUE Hindus and TRUE Hindu Rajputs in India.
The truth of theses hypothesis, I leave to your honest opinion and intellect.
Khurram
Khurram,
You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Justify your claim that Ghazni is the only one who destroyed temples. Are you refuting all the evidence (James Tod/Khankhanan etc) that exists from Qasim to the time mughals were out of power in India? What counter evidence do you have?
You do not understand rajputs also. Rajputs who joined mughals had a weakness in character. Rajputs who converted to Islam had a similar character weakness that to save your own kingdom/position you align with Muslims.
Rajputs whose king had aligned with mughals had no choice but to remain loyal to the mughals. You keep harping that if you were there you would have killed mughals in such a situation. Note your acnestors were there and they deccided to convert to Islam.
And then you have no answers for why Iraq/Iran/Turkey etc are majority Islamic countries. You claim it was goodness in Islam. Then you are told if it was virtues in Islam then we should see a similar rate of conversion in India today yet we do not. You have no answer for this.
-Shivraj
Pakistan Govt. routinely names its missiles after Muslim conquerors of India like Ghauri, Gaznavi and Babur. (In fact I wonder why haven’t they come up with a missile called ‘Taimoor’, probably they are saving that name for the first ICBM they make. ) Anyway, since Punjab was the first Indian province in the path of these invaders, it is reasonable to assume that Punjab bore the brunt of the fury of these boys. And since Punjabi Muslims were martial and warlike people (we all seem to agree on this, don’t we ), it is also reasonable to assume Punjabi Rajputs crossed swords with invaders.
In fact there is historical evidence for this. Ghauri was killed by Khokhars’ in a battle. Babur was given tough time by Yusufzais (not Rajputs, but another ‘martial’ race of Pakistan nevertheless). Mahmud Gaznavi’s battles with Hindu Shahi kings are too well known to be mentioned. Hindu Shahi kings were Punjabi Rajputs, most probably early Janjuas.
So my point is that, why doesn’t Pakistanis name their missiles after Jaipal (Hindu Shahi king who defended Punjab against Gaznavi), Dahir (who defended Sindh against Arabs) or the Khokhar chief who didn’t let Ghauri go unchallenged from Punjab. Isnt this the typical behavior of converted people; Desperately trying to identify with the invaders who defeated their ancestors.
Let’s face it Raja, Khurram etc. You guys are in minority. Even the Pakistan Govt prefers to identify more with Ghari and Gaznavi than Dahir and Jaipal. Islamic identity supersedes bloodlines in Pakistan, even if it means celebrating the defeat of their ancestors and honoring the enemy.
-Khakhan
--Khakhan 21:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC) --- ---
Khakhan,
Well, the naming of missiles and stuff is related to the idealogy of the country itself and not to a specific race. The foundation stone of Pakistan is and will always remain the religion. Pakistan also named its first MBT as Al-Khalid, its fleet of Augusta 90-B submaries as "Khalid class". Naming the missiles and war toys on the names of Muslim warriors is because Pakistan is an Islamic country. One may hate Mahmud, Ghauri, Babur etc, but their military genius is written on the solid rock. Also Pakistan does have places and roads named for its Rajput heroes all over the country. So it is the idealogy of the country itself that decides the naming of the missiles or other things.
Khurram
Khakhan,
I am a descendant of the same Raja Jaipal Shahi who lost 3 generations trying to fight Ghazni and lost his own family heirlooms and Pandavas crowns and thrones in the war booty (I have a Shajra Nishab proving this very fact) and YES I do agree that Punjabi Rajputs did on may an occassion bare the brunt of Invasions, but they weren't always remembered as the Warriors as they should have been. I do agree, maybe we should have a JaiPal Shahi Missies, but as Khurram rightly put it, there is a reason and idelogy behind the naming of these Missiles and hence it will always be so. In fact I remember a Jatt site once according that why can't there be a Jatt Missile named after Jatt Kings (if such an entity existed....) By the way Khakhan, it has never been proven who the real killers of Ghauri were as they were hidden assasins who entered his tent whilst he prayed. To date this has only been speculated that the Kokhars may have inducted themselves into his army then killed him when they found a chance, but again not proven or openly proclaimed by them. I also highly doubt that it was a chief, as he would have been instantly recognisable and history would have recorded his actual name as opposed to his tribal identity.
Let’s face it Raja, Khurram etc. You guys are in minority. Even the Pakistan Govt prefers to identify more with Ghari and Gaznavi than Dahir and Jaipal. Islamic identity supersedes bloodlines in Pakistan, even if it means celebrating the defeat of their ancestors and honoring the enemy.
How is Pakistani army putting a sticker on a missile make us guys a minority? In what way? As per the above posts you must understand that many Muslim Rajputs are proud of their lineage as I am of mine. As far as Jaipal is concerned I am his descendant, I have his blood in my very veins and that can never be taken away from me no matter who Pakistan wants to identify with. India and Pakistan having always had slinging matches, tit for tat and I don't partake in that just as Indians dont all partake in what their Govt states and does. I am a believer, and know there is a good element across my old ancestral lands where the people (no matter what faith) have love and respect for us as we do for them. Sadly the loudest people get heard and usually it's prejudicial rants from Indians and Pakistanis. Good and bad is in all people, in all Govts, we know that. The defeat of my ancestors will always be glorified by the Punjabis they fought to protect and after a thousand years it still is. But even I agree that Islam for us does indeed supercede our bloodlines, ofcourse it does. When one lies on his deathbed, he doesn't remember his ancestors, it's his Lord God who can help him at that hour, not a passed celebrated ancestor. Do I honour Ghazni, Do you guys honour Prithviraj? You see him as a valiant Rajput, but I see him a fallen character who chose to fight a simple dervish and his own subjects who converted to Islam, as he felt his Kingdom was losing it's Hindu identity. History on one side records his valour, but also remembers his persecution of the same Saint who we all respect and revere to this day, by Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs alike. If he can be glorified and celebrated by Indians, why is it that Pakistanis can't glorify Ghaznis and Ghoris? Me, personally I dont believe in naming missiles and that tit for tat our Govts have, I love all peoples who are gret and decent, who are honourable and respectful. Period. I think I am in a better position as a Pakistani to know whether I am in a minority or not Khurram, and I can confirm brother that I am not in a minority. Not by a long shot :) We could go on for ever about the naming of missiles, landmarks and the like. The true legacy of these heroes is on our blood, hearts and minds, and that is more enriching and benefiting our peoples than a sticker on a missile or a Road name, do we agree?
Raja
Hello folks, as you can see, I am taking a much more moderate position than Shiv. He is bent on an extremist position that to be a Rajput one has to be a Hindu. I am willing to concede that faith is a matter of personal choice. I acknowledge that one can be Muslim and still be a Rajput. But to take pride in their bloodline is a must for being a Rajput. After all, the term ‘Rajput’ is an ethnic marker and not a religious one. How can one call oneself a Rajput if even after knowing the depredation of Turks and Mughals in their homelands one honors them by naming missiles after them.
I quote following text from the stories of Sayid Bhuta, a Punjabi author. Full text can be found at
http://www.lokpunjab.org/articles/stm_articles/article_detail.asp?ID=186&No=1
“The story by Saeed Bhuta revolves round a character named Bhagi Khokhar who on the pattan (belt) of the river Chenab remembers the Punjabi girls who were captured by the Mughal invaders like Amir Taimur and his grandson Peer Muhammad and were auctioned in the markets of Bokhara: Takkey mul vick gayyan dhian Bukharey mandi charrh gayyan bhainan (Our daughters were sold at throwaway prices and our sisters were auctioned in the markets of Bokhara).
Bhagi Khokhar remembers all those who had resisted foreign invaders, including Alexander. She remembers Porus, Jasrat Khokhar and Sheikha Khokhar and in the end says: "there are no more fighters in the valley of Chenab. Those who never pocketed an insult have gone. They fought back like brave and honourable men."”
So my point is, unless Pakistani Rajputs denounce the atrocities of Turk warriors in Punjab, they can’t be accepted in Rajput community. Can a true Rajput glorify the Turks who sold their daughters in the markets of Bukhara? Do some soul-searching brothers.
I am much pleased to know that (at least some of) the Muslim Rajputs seem to know where their roots lie. So let’s make this article an inclusive one. This wikipedia page should be a memorial to all Rajput heroes, from kings of Mewar to Raja Jaipal, Jasrat and Dahir. And let’s not forget Banda Bahadur, a Sikh Rajput who fought against the tyranny of Mughal Empire in Punjab. (Actually I am not sure about Dahir. Was he a Rajput or a Brahmin?). Let’s keep aside the rhetoric and focus on ethnic Rajputs (irrespective of their religion) and their role in the subcontinent’s history.
--Khakhan 14:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Too many factual errors in this article
This article is absolute nightmare... too much jingoism..
Firstly Shivaji was not a Rajput... the authors obviously havent studied Maratha origins. Yes most of the 96 Maratha clans do have some Rajput blood indeed. But Marathas are mixtures of various peoples (see the link in one of my postings above). By Shivajis time Marathas had evovled into a separate comunity with ts distinct language,culture and customs. Shivaji saw himself as defender of Maratha cause. See any article on Shivaji... theres no mention of Rajputs.
Secondly. as for genetics Rajputs are of Scytho-Aryan rather than Aryan origin. That should be mentioned in the article.
All the adjectives need to go... for eg. "lion of maharshtra" thats pretty unencyclopedic.
The attacks on Romilla Thapar are uncalled for... yea i do agree shes a dhimmi bitch but it doesnt deserve mention in Rajput article.
I'm of view that Muslims who claim Rajputs descent should be acknoledged in this article or they should have a separate article.If they're willing to identify with their pre-Islamic roots then who are we to stop them?
Would people here actually try and bring this horribly confusing and unecyclopedic article to a semblance of order rather than waste their time on discussing how much this article sucks.
AMbroodEY 14:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Khakhan,
Yes you make a valid point and are actually on the same of thinking (and quite possible upbringing) that we are inclined to believe. Pride is ones ancestor's is a must for the reason that they offer you the opportunity to know what height one can achieve shoyuld one follow a virtuous path. The glory in courage FOR TRUTH and the disgrace in following FALSEHOOD. Your position is very much notyed and appreciated. Your points are put forward much more calmly than others... As for keeping rhetoric out and focusing on Rajputs achievements in India, that is an elusive point which I have been calling for a long time, but other extremists are hell bent on bringing up points which are exagerated, unproductive and part of a biggeer extremist rhetoric. But your contribution here is a welcome one Khakhan.
Shiv, now your points,
You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Justify your claim that Ghazni is the only one who destroyed temples. Are you refuting all the evidence (James Tod/Khankhanan etc) that exists from Qasim to the time mughals were out of power in India? What counter evidence do you have?
I believe Khurram will indeed answer but I can provide some names of Muslim Kings who never desecrated any Hindu temples i.e. Sher Shah who himself had Hindus at the upper eschelons of his empirical administration. Rai Mal Dev Shahi of Malot Chakwal (Rajghar), Raja RaiPal (of Garjak Makhiala Punjab), Raja Tatar Khan ruler of Akrand fort Khushab, Raja Derwish Khan of the same area Punjab, Raja Kokkhar Rai of Rawalpindi, Rai Kala Khan of Kahuta infact who's generals were Mohyal Balis no less (a Brahmin warrior caste of accepted repute) and thats a few. You know this so far proves Shiv? All these kings were average Muslim Kings, none were 'Holy' or on a perfect path, no less no more. Yet they were proof that Islam forbids such acts and they didn't follow the 'other' kings examples. So this proves that other Muslim Kings didn't all descrate temples are per your implicative question. They very much respected the Hindu subjects.
As far as the authors you have mentioned, it's a well known and established point that many of the colonial authors sought to write a biased form of history to deepen an already uneasy divide between Muslim and Hindu. Why do we need (in your own words) western authors who know nothing when you can ask any local of their regionalities who have been taught down from father to son of their history? You are so hypocritical that it shocks even me that you jump from one point to another yet contradict the last easily. Maybe you should owe Tom an apology since thats the very same point you used to try and discredit his point with. Oh and although you whine about Muslims desecreating temples: Hindutva focuses on the Muslim destruction of temples in the past. This is not denied by historians but attempts are made to try and place such actions in historical perspective. This was not the only activity of Muslim rulers and temple destruction has to be juxtaposed with other undertakings that were not destructive. This is also related to the question of what we chose to recall from the past and reiterate, and what we chose to forget. Destroying a temple was a demonstration of power on the part of invaders, irrespective of whether they were Muslim or Hindu. We chose to forget that there were Hindu kings who destroyed temples, either wilfuly as did Harshadeva of Kashmir to acquire the wealth of the temples, or as part of a campaign as in the case of the victorious Paramara raja destroying temples built by the defeated Chaulukya.
Temple destruction was not merely an act of religious hostility. Temples were certainly places of ritual space and had a religious identity. But ROYAL temples were also statements of power and WERE SURROGATE POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS REPRESENTING ROYALTY. They were depositories of wealth and centres of finance, they maintained social demarcations through allowing some castes to enter the temple but excluding others, and they were the cultural nucleus of at least the elite groups of a region. Temple destruction and its aftermath, therefore calls for historical explanations of a wide-ranging kind.
You do not understand rajputs also. Rajputs who joined mughals had a weakness in character. Rajputs who converted to Islam had a similar character weakness that to save your own kingdom/position you align with Muslims. Rajputs whose king had aligned with mughals had no choice but to remain loyal to the mughals. You keep harping that if you were there you would have killed mughals in such a situation. Note your acnestors were there and they deccided to convert to Islam.
That is a bold statement which doesn't hold much here Shiv, Khurram has in no way made a point which shows his lack of Rajput understanding at all. Certainly he doesn't understand your logioc, but thats not a Rajput premise is it? No matter how much you state to the contrary YOU ARE NOT THE STANDARD to reach if one is to be counted as a Rajputra, sorry but thats the basic fact my friend. Rajputs who joined Mughals were weaker in character you say? prove it? where is the evidence? Books written today or recently are not perfect records of what actually happened and certainly confirm the attitudes and characters of the ages. My ancestors saw Virtue in Islam and embraced it, no matter how much you deny this. If it makes you insecure about your commitment to your faith by seeing other powerful kings leaving it for another then that is a problem for you to work through, not ours and I hope we can finish this topic once and for all. My ancestors became Muslim before Ghoris entry, and a lot longer after Ghaznis attacks on my families Kingdom. If it was weakness in character why were my ancestors called rebel Muslim Kings? Why weren't their regions conquered by these tyrannical kings? surely if they were already Muslims then they would have been united against the others? Sadly (for your rhetoric) this wasn't the case and we have been a proven rebellious Rajput to the Ghorids period as we OUR allies the Khokkars. Our ancestors saw those (and I quote in your words) "Excellent Saints of Islam" and decided to embrace this same faith. M ughals didnt decide our faith since we became Muslim way before even the Ghorids my friend. Mewar may have had many battles with Invaders and hence has a reason to hate everything about them, but we aren't as stubborn as you to see virtue where it is there and blame the blameworthy where we see blame. The weakness is in your own commitment to your Faith my friend, not in our ancestors characters....above point proves this so I rest my case.
And then you have no answers for why Iraq/Iran/Turkey etc are majority Islamic countries. You claim it was goodness in Islam. Then you are told if it was virtues in Islam then we should see a similar rate of conversion in India today yet we do not. You have no answer for this.
These very same Saints were in massive numbers in Islam, Iran and Turkey also, to make a wild and crazy statement like "they only became Muslim because there weren't any Rajputs around to face them" is a wild and offensive statement, seeing as you yourself have acknowledge the excellency of the Saints who propogated in Mild numbers in India. These places had more Saints and propogated Islam much more stringently than the Indian counterparts Shiv so gain your point is hypocritical and contradictory. Who says today many Indians aren't becoming Muslims at any rate? Show me your proof for this? With atrocities in TODAYS DAY AND AGE as we have seen in Gujrat it is no wonder that to be Muslim is becoming more and more worrying in your country. Your attitude keeps changing daily. You admit on one hand that Islam may not be as bad as you thought, the Saints were of an excellent standard but then question why other countries became Muslim? Then your extremist side has come out indeed. Your argument really IS against Islam and not the Muslim invaders seeing as you are finding it difficult to even accept the converts who are also of the same Social hierarchy as you claim to be. Stop being so biased for once and maybe then you can actually be the one thing that keep eluding you....neutral.
Raja
Shiv,
I just have one question to ask, "Is there any logic that can make you re-think your preset ideas?"
Khakhan,
I appreciate your contribution. I would like to emphasize on one thing though. When it comes to naming war machinery, I would prefer naming my weapons for a successful warrior rather than someone who lost the battle. I am not going to emphasize on the history of the people but I think it is better to see things as they used to happen at a particular age/time. Razing cities, killing civillians etc., was the normal and usual trait of conquering armies of the medival times. The only exception to that rule were the early Islamic conquests. Slavery was also a very common practice of that time, and those who couldn't defend their people, deserved that their people be sent to slavery. I for one, don't expect any mercy from the conqurer. Remember, losers are never choosers.
Also, as I have said again and again, it was not possible for any Muslim ruler to keep up an empire in India without the assistance of Rajputs, be it Hindu or Muslim. After 1947, much of the history has been fabricated on both sides of the border to favor the religous rhetoric amongst the people. I only believe what supports the facts and not what supports a particular agenda. I believe that most if not all, Muslim rulers of India didn't follow Islam when it comes to the rights of the minorities or the Non-Muslim subjects but I also believe that one needs to have excellent military and governmental skills to establish an empire in a different country and culture. We can condemn a person for his behavior with the people but we can not ignore his achievements as a military commander.
I read sometimes during my school life that there is no price for runner up in Love and War. I hope this explains much.
I do not want to indulge into the commitment of Muslim Rajput with their faith but I would like to say that I can fight anyone for my religion. And that anyone includes "Anyone".
Khurram
AMbroodey,
Your views are more logical and a bit more objective regarding this poor article than Shiv's 'memorial to Mewar'...
Raja
Thankyou.. Raja
But that doesnt go to say that i entirely agree with whatever u have written here. Dont go harping on Gujarat riots.. They were riots between two communities... we all know how Hindus/Sikhs/Christians are treated in Pakistan. As i write this. Ahammadiyyas have been gunned down in Punjab. You say your ancestors converted to Islam because of its virtues.... Oooo... yes... you see when ur made to pay jizyah, Hindus are enslaved in hundreds of thousands (read Ibn Battuta to see how Hindus were traded like cattle) when they put ur necks on swords... its easy to appretiate virtues of islam. In all fairness theres a high possibility that your ancestors were forcibly converted. Islam and conquest went hand in hand. The Muslims of those times were acting upon the illumating Surah 9 of Koran and precedents set by previous Muslim rulers and Prophet himself in the Hadiths.. You cant find fault with them becoz u have to take Time,Place and circumstances in to account. In those times such things were openly practised by all major religions.. including Buddhism and Hinduism, albiet not to the extent of Muslims.
Rajput population in Pakistan
today's news paper reported that out of total 35 districts of Pakistani punjab in 11 districts Rajputs won election for Nazim after which only 7 jatt ,6 baloch, 3 sayed, 3 aryan , 2 sheikhs, 1 pathan ,awan and Gojjar were reported to win for each district.
So, I think this could help you to estimate Rajput population in Pakistan الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 06:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
1 aryan??? mate.. we all have Aryan blood
Shiv,Raja,Khurram Co.. Get an account
Get an account and ove this debate to User pages.. AMbroodEY 15:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
AMbroodEY,
I think we shall leave the context of the Surah 9 of The Holy Quran in this discussion. The reason for this is that I don't think we are here to discuss Islam or its teachings. One point though I will like to clear is that neither The Holy Quran nor ANY Hadith advocates the forceful conversion to Islam. The Quran very clearly states that there is no forcing to the religion. Yes Quran demands that the Non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim country must pay "Jizyah" and in return they will be protected against any enemy invasion or aggression. This is the counterpart to the tax that is imposed on the Muslims in form of "Zakat". Forceful conversion has no place in Islam whatsoever. It is against the teachings of The Holy Quran and the Hadith and Sunna of The Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) and anything that is not in compliance with these two things is not Islam (period).
Also I would like to ask you a question. According to your knowledge, was there a specific period when Hindus were forceably converted to Islam or was it a general practice throughout the Islamic rule over India?
One more thing, yes we all know how the minorities are being treated in Pakistan. Never have their places of worship been destroyed by the masses of people with the complete support of the government and never have these places been raided by the military. Also never have members of any minority been burnt alive in thousands in the presence of authorities. As far as the terrorist acts are concerned, we all know who gets the benefit out of these incidents.
Khurram 15:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Ambroodey, Khurram,
I agree Khurram, good points. Ambroodey you think the issue of Gujrat not worth mentioning? If Shiv can go unrelently on about prehistoric temple grazing then why cant we bring up a more recent one? Why the one sidedness. We didnt bring up cold, it was in response to Shiv's recurring themes etc. Why is his more relevant than our's? It if is a poor act, then it should be applied universally. It happened very recently compared to the incidents which have been recorded BUT NEVER WITNESSED by any of us hence the images of Gujrat are a testiment by themselves, no scholar, Mullah, Pundit or Guru can testify to any worse or any better than those images my friend. Yes it hurts more because the public has learned nothing from it's past. What good are lineages and pride in culture if the harmony between 2 brothers of ONE NATION is destroyed because one says Ram and the other Rab? You dont have to agree with me Ambroodey, your point was valid which I appreciated earlir but even your verbal abuse of Romila shows extremist tendencies too....I am really losing hope from you guys when I read your sad points. I know you guys dont reflect Hinduism one bit hence I dont blame Hinduism for this.
It's really sad after all the time and requests on this page, no one has done anything about the article which is anything but decent in it's current format.
Khurram bro, I think us Punjabi Rajputs who never accepted pensions from the colonialists understand what the Aan and Shaan is of a Raja. These lads here are lost in more ways than one. Their own Hindus desecrated their temples (i.e Parmaras of the Chakulya temples etc.), they usurped the others lands (hence some Rajputs were relegated into Jatt status etc.) and yet they cry out about stuff that they read from a colonialist point of view. I dont know if we have a more unified attitude due to our Punjabi culture? Whats your view? You and I know we aren't in a minority, our ancestors were Rajas of great repute and considered Islam a more appropriate path and embraced it without ever looking back. It's the sad view of these backward illogical extremists that brings into question their own insecurity about the validity of their own faith in their eyes, that other great Rajput dynasties could change to another Religion. The fact is ultimately YOU REAP WHAT YOU SEW, regardless of whether you are Hindu or Muslim. Bottom line. I am not Ghazni and have no need to justify his actions just because he said Rab and I say Rab. I am not Hindu and also not a insecure Hindu Rajput hence dont feel the need to justify why my ancestors left your religion for Islam. My friends, if it calms your insecurity and makes you feel better to think that we were forced, then believe what you will. I am a free thinking Muslim noble blood of a Rajput dynasty that neither the father of Todd, Shiv, or any pension taking Rajasthani can tell me, prove to me or show me otherwise. We have ruled Kingdoms in India whilst praying to Allah for approximately 800 years and no son a true mother has been able to challenge or force us to convert to another faith ever. My ancestors stories are taught to every Indian and Pakistani, and even throughout the world our Noble Warrior Blood is respected. We ruled as the royal bloods we have always been, in front of your faces and the faces of your ancestors for centuries without any challenge from them AS MUSLIM RAJAS, so who are you to raise questions over our religious convictions and royal blood? Our blue blood speaks in actions as it did during the rebellion against the Colonialists, unlike you poor excuses of rulers, pension taking traitors who starved your own subjects out of taxes for your new liege lords and Cartier watches for yourselves. And without shame, you challenge OUR blood? Regardless of YOUR extremist versions of history, we are full blooded Rajputras, we are proud of that. We are Muslims and immensely more proud to be on a path that aids our Rajput morals and code. When we die, our Rajput status will be left in this world. We will progress to another world where our deeds as HUMANS will be counted, that day our lineage wont help us no matter how much we romanticise it before God. Whata poor character indeed is he who sits and claims the glory of others passed, but has no glory and greatness to claim of his doing... thats what springs to my mind when I read most of the extremist posts here. My ancestors taught us that OUR actions determine our contribution to our subjects, our people, our lineage and ancestry. If I sit there like you guys and cry about how great the fathers of old were, but dont do anything myself to justify my connection to that greatness through MY deeds, then do I really deserve that constant pride? A true King/Raja serves his peopes interests first, that is commonly agreed and respected. Not cry about how great they deserve that throne etc. You NEVER chose the house you guys were born in, hence you have no control in that respect. It is said commonly in the west that the ones who cry more about their superiority are usually the ones insecure of it. Maybe it rings true in some extremists here. As far as us Punjabi Rajputras are concerned, we know our worth well and dont prejudice others who don't prejudice us. We are relaxed and content with who and what we are and I stress again, we dont need the approval of any pensioners to give us an identity. We've had it for centuries much to the displeasure of the pensioners.... :)
What you saying Khurram?
Raja
Khurram... you say that Hindu temples have never been desecrated in Pakistan.. <screams> WRONG . What about the literally thousands of Hindu temples that were desecrated during partition? After 1992 Babri Masjid demolition (which was unfortunate) hundreds of Hindu temples were desecrated, firebombed in Pakistan,Bangladesh... even here in UK. I am not a Hindu, i'm an atheist. I'm not saying that Koran instructs violent conversion but versers 9:29, 9:30 can be used skillfully to justify such acts. (so can many verses of any Religious text. An extremist with any intellect can do this to any text, let alone a Surah of the Qur'an) During partition Hindus were physically uprooted out of Pakistan with the connivance of adiministration. I do agree such incidents did occur in India but they were not of that extent and occured enirely in Indian Punjab. (But most of Pakistan is that same Punjab which was parted my friend. That was a dark period for both sides so dontbother saying one was worse than the other.) Half the sub continents Muslims choose to stay in India (Chooses or not, they preferred to stay in their ancestral land. We stayed in ours, this point doesn't add up to your argument. The Govt is taking very good care for them, we here of it of all the time from it's relations here in UK..) Before partition West Pakistan had 18% Hindu population now they number only 3%.There have been only few instances of comunal disturbances in post-independence India. India has a Muslim prez.. (a stooge as we are ALL aware who has done nothing for his people or to quell the violence that the extremist Hindus are inflicting on his own community. He's too rich to worry. Democracy there is in shambles and to give it as an example knowing that is very naive too) in Pakistan its impossible for a non-muslim to become president (Is that surprising given the above? But on a lighter note, should Amitabh Bachchan saheb come to Pakistan he would be instantly elected. Thats isn't Religious hatred, thats just life accept it. Forget the stooge Prez, would any Muslim have achance at becoming Indias Prime Minister? Thats the real question... Not while our countries are fighting tit for tat, a Co religionist of the enemyis not a mistake your country is wiling to make I'm afraid.). Hindus dont go into violent frenzy every time a Kashmiri Pandit is killed or Hindu temples are attacked by Muslim terrorists (Akshardham, Bali). (But then they collate it and we see the communal rape, torture and violence returned to the Muslims in a poor animalistic fashion, so please get a reality check.)
Lastly... Romilla Thapar has been proved wrong by international historians. Shes a communist. Its in the intrests of communists that they keep their uslim vote-bank satisfied. She goes out of her way to humanise every Muslim conqueror... even to the extent of rubbishing the colourful accounts of temple desecrations, forceful conversions written by Muslims themselves. (Every Scholar has a critical bank somewhere for their work. Its only natural for the Hindu Extremists and Anti Muslimists to rubbish the work of an unbiased author who is rubbishing THEIR ideological made up propoganda.)
P.S I've seen that you guys found it important to rename Hindubagh in Balochiatan to Muslimbagh while "Prayag" Hinduism's 3rd holiest city continues to be referred by name Allahabad. (good point and I for one dont agree with it, but if the Govt is told by popular local concensus to do so, then it should/would do so. Whats in a name, is the holiness of the area decreased by what it's refered to as? And be a bit more specific please, when you say you guys, you are generalising which is wrong seeing as WE had nothing to do with.)
AMbroodEY 05:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
KhaKhan,
Dahir was a rajput. Also somebody asked about gurjars. Gurjars have a lot of gotras similar to rajputs like Bhati/Panwar etc. They are not considered rajputs though. There is no intermarriage between rajputs and gurjars.
Confusion emnated because of gurjara pratihaars. They are the rajputs (Raja Bhoj on whose name Bhopal was coined was a gurjara partihara. Earlier Bhopal was called Bhoj Taal as Raja Bhoj had the lake dug and it is said that weather becuse of this large lake was awesome in those times. Over generations the lake was not maintained and the weather in Bhopal is not as good now).
-Shiv
Khurram,
You are contradicting yourself. You have mentioned that for your religion today you would fight to kill or be killed. Yet the people from whom you claim your ancestry , you beleive that they did not have this fire to defend there religion?
You mention some weak rajputs who sided with Akbar and mughals and consider them the true rajputs. Real rajputs were who never sided with Akbar.
Even those weak charactered rajput kings who joined Akbar, there presence helped preserve hinduism. Any war that included them the muslim army could not touch ordinary hindus and there places of worship.
-Shivraj
Raja,
Write messages which are not very long as your point gets lost.
Nobody here from hindu rajput side has doubts on our religion or our history.
Show me an example in India where in last 100 years 100 rajputs have converted to Islam and I will aceept your logic that saints and virtues in Islam is causing people to convert. I am sorry to say this but this the "Madarsa logic" that everything about Islam is excellent. You can keep your head in the sand or live in the proverbial well but you cannot convince any one else. (We dont have to, the huge numbers of converts are doing that today anyway, let alone the last 100yrs ago. We dont have a Madarsa logic, but you certainly have a prejudiced logic which obviously wont be quelled until you regain confidence in yourself and your own faith. Only then you will stop belittling another's...)
You will have to show me that hindu rajputs in India are converting to Islam because of virtues in Islam. Conversions of blacks in the US/UK/Africa is not the answer to my question. Confidence is needed by your religion and your religious leaders. Ask yourself why is it that in Islamic countries there is no freedom of religion. Simple answer is islamic religious leaders are afraid that islam followers will migrate to other religions.
The kings you mentioned ruled very small areas and I would cosider them exception rather then the rule. They played no role in forming mughal/Islamic policy in India. (You asked the question of names of Rulers of Islamic faith in India who didnt desecreate Hindu temples, where did the question of forming Islamic policy come from? Why are you changing the question now? And you say Sher Shah didnt influence Islamic or Mughal Policy? Wake up and read real history my friend, his administrative code based on Islamic Jurisprudence was set up later to be kept by the very same Mughals he deposed. His work was taught to Raja Todar Mal also. And other than forming a truly Islamic policy of fairness and equality he never desecrated temples. You have been proven this point but ignore it yet again.)
Sher Shah ruled over delhi for 5 years and there are a lot of good things attributed to him like building the grand trunk road etc which are all false. Policy is key here. That is what guided the muslim commanders to convert ordinary hindus to Islam by creating conditions so terrible for them so that they had no other option.
Your muslims acestors ruled India for 800 years? You have been reading thapar and like historians too much. Talk facts. (Prove me wrong that the above mentioned Rajas didn't rule those regions of Punjab, then try to challenge it. Until then stop reading your illogical extremist books)
Is Punjab entire India? Have an open mind. Without scholarship you cannot claim that Thapar is right. I have read all her books. Have you read the ones I mentioned?
Rajputs/Marathas/Sikhs are the reason Hinduism is alive in India. You can live in denial but truth is universal. (Truth is universal, but you have not the eyes or mind to comprehend it. I know why it is alive. Because the Muslims allowed it. Rant on as much as you want.)
It is hard for you to accept this because you have not read it in the books that you like.
Kashmir: Kashmiri hindus have been living in Kashmir before Islam was even born. They were extremely rich and owned lot of land and money. In our own country muslims have made these people homeless and they have to live on streets of New Delhi as beggars. (We all reap what we sow, that goes for us as it does for you. Many Muslims owned much land and money in India before the partition massacres. What about those lost souls? We can argue this point forever Shiv. Considering this, what have your pensioners dont about it to restore them to their glory?)
Be specific and do not divert the discussion. What is happening to kashmiri hindus is the real genocide. A complete uproot of people from there land where they had been living for thousands of years.
Contrast this with Britain or America. If blacks in england started killing whites which forced these rich white people to move to london/washington DC and live on the streets as beggars/took over all there businesses and raped there daughters what would happen to the blacks? (It happened to the blacks and we now have ghettos and council estates. What do you know of this problem? very little. Shame on you pensioners for allowing the 'alleged' behaviour of the tyrants and standing doing nothing when the British colonialists arrived. When your own people were bound in Slavery what did you pensioners do? Nothing but take pensions for doing nothing. Talk is cheap, your actions have shown what you did when faced with the problems, nothing.)
Again you are trying to divert the discussion. I will ask again and if you have the guts reply. Since you mentioned you live in england: if muslims started killing whites in England/took over there businesses and raped there daughters, which caused thousands of white english to live in london as beggars, what would the other english do to muslims in england?
You just cannot comprehend how tolerant, almost to a fault, India/hindus are. We can see our own kashmiri hindus traumatized at the hands of muslim extremists and to uphold secularism still tolerate it. NO OTHER NATION ON EARTH WOULD TOLERATE THIS. Feel lucky that this is happening in India.
-Shivraj
Aryan,
Points about Shivaji are well taken. I also agree that there is no point mentioning Thapar in the wikipedia article and I will remove her name.
-Shivraj
Take a Break
Its getting difficult for me guess who is writing what.The way text you ppl edit here is alot confusing.(I MEANT ALL... )
Take a break and take a chill read these articles first and then plz discuss any thing here, If you ppl use wiki markup it would be helpful for other ppl to read your discussion. Wikipedia:How to edit a page , Wikipedia:Talk page
And please people who have not made account uptill now please make account, read this for more info about acc. Wikipedia:Why create an account?
الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 16:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
AMbroody,
Where did you get your data about the demolished hindu temples in Pakistan during the partition? I would like to invite you to come and visit the cities like Gujranwala, Lahore and many others where there still stand temples which no one go to worship but they are still there. There were definitely incidents where a few temples were demolished in Pakistan in reaction to the destruction of the Babri Mosque but none of those tempels were "in service". There were no statues, no one to worship and absolutely of no significance. Those were mere buildings and even then the government took action and restrained the people form doing it. I personally think that demolishion of even a single temple was wrong and I am proud that my governement took measure to save those temples that are vacant for decades. Also please sometimes read the statistics about the percentage of Muslims in India and their representation in the public offices. And bieng a bit more realistic, please find out the statistics of the Brahmins in the whole population of India and their percantage in the public offices of India :)
You also said that Hindus were uprooted in Pakistan. Please read something about Sindh and the Hindu population living there. Bangladesh was also a part of Pakistan during partition, read about its Hindu populatin as well. Read the information about how and where the voilence started. I don't want to go into the details but I suggest that if we want to talk about these things, let's do it in another forum since the only point benig discussed in this talk page is the Rajputs.
Shiv,
How did I contardict myself? Did I say anywhere that the Hindu Rajputs didn't have the right to fight for their religion? I only said that the didn't fight for their religion. Well you said that there were a few weak Rajputs who aligned themselves with the Mughals. Interesting, then please tell me the population of those Rajputs who never aligned themselves with the Mughals and please include those Rajputs too who did not align themselves with the British. As far as converting to religion is concerned, we all agree that there is no forceful conversion is being done at this time, yet Islam is the fastest growing religion in the World. Even in the US that was directly effected by 9/11, the Islam grew even more after the incident. You ask for 100, there are millions around the globe testifying the truth of Islam.
And you didn't answer my last question again :)
--Khurram 20:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Khurram,
You have repeatedly said rajputs did not fight for there religion yet today you claim,that since you have rajput heritage, that you will fight to kill for your religion.
-Shivraj
Shiv,
Yes I said that I will fight and kill for my religion. How can it be interpreted that since I will do it, those who were before me also did it for the same reason? People can fight for the same ferocity for different reasons.
--Khurram 18:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Khurram,
You have this trait because you are a rajput or because you are a muslim?
-Shivraj
Shiv,
I will fight for my religion because I am a Muslim and I will fight for the sake of pleasing my Allah and not for anybody or anything else.
--Khurram 13:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Shiv,
Thats exactly the question I waited for you to ask! Now YOU tell me something, is fighting for your faith a Rajput genetically ingrained charcteristic? Or is it upbringing i.e. culture/Religion? Be careful now, you are about to contradict yourself big time if you say it's a genetic trait because theirs no scientific proof of such a characteristic at all. (also the those cowards who took pensions from the colonialists didnt fight did they? Not to mention that you stated it's a Hindu exclusive. Therefore genetics wouldn't come into it would they?) and if you say Culture/Religion, then every Muslim is a 'Kshatriya'(or in our words, a Mujahid)as we are all ready to fight to protect our faith and those our faith orders us to protect. Whether we win or lose is in Allah's hands. I rest my case... :)
Raja
Excellent !. This is what I wanted to hear. Now explain why "your true ancestors" i.e the muslims not fight each war "to please there allah" by trying and converting all hindus to Islam? This conversion is what muhammad wanted and he and his followers ran into an insurmountable wall who are also known as "hindu rajputs".
-Shivraj
Reply
Before I answer let me say, oh I have guts. I am a descendant of the very clan when all went against them they had the biggest war Indian subcontinent has ever seen, never again has such devastation been witnessed i.e. the Mahabharata. My father Arjuna Pandava is given as the standard of a true noble warrior and bravery is given through our examples. Who are you to question our guts you pensioner? Creep back into your hole and read my replies before going....
Raja,
Write messages which are not very long as your point gets lost.
Nobody here from hindu rajput side has doubts on our religion or our history.
Is that so, well according to western psychology you usually rant on about issues which you are most insecure about. With you it's Islam and Rajputs. Are you insecure about your ancestry that you have make assertions of it's importance by demeaning others to assert your own superiority on Moral grounds? Cant it do it on it's own. Is it that weak?
Show me an example in India where in last 100 years 100 rajputs have converted to Islam and I will aceept your logic that saints and virtues in Islam is causing people to convert. I am sorry to say this but this the "Madarsa logic" that everything about Islam is excellent. You can keep your head in the sand or live in the proverbial well but you cannot convince any one else. (We dont have to, the huge numbers of converts are doing that today anyway, let alone the last 100yrs ago. We dont have a Madarsa logic, but you certainly have a prejudiced logic which obviously wont be quelled until you regain confidence in yourself and your own faith. Only then you will stop belittling another's...)
You will have to show me that hindu rajputs in India are converting to Islam because of virtues in Islam. Conversions of blacks in the US/UK/Africa is not the answer to my question. Confidence is needed by your religion and your religious leaders. Ask yourself why is it that in Islamic countries there is no freedom of religion. Simple answer is islamic religious leaders are afraid that islam followers will migrate to other religions.
Forget the last 100years my friend, when you Hindu Rajputs were at your PEAK thats when other Islam was embraced by my and other Muslim Rajputs ancestors. Recently you ask? How about the Cheema clan who converted from Sikhism to Islam? In the last 100 years? Well according to 'Rulers of India' by Sir Charles Aitchison there is recorded case where the Raja of the state Of Rajghar became Muslim. I will write this word for word for your information...
"The ruling chief was a Rajput, had long shown a tendency towards Muhammadanism, and thereby got into difficulties with the brethren of his caste. Matters came to a head when Sir JohnLawrence was Viceroy. It was reported that the Chief had undergone circumcision, and the feeling against him on this account, among his relatives and nobles was so strong, that he proposed to abdicate and retire into private life. Inquiry however showed there was no charge of misgovernment against him, and that except on the ground of his change of creed, his people were satisfied with his rule. He was therefore maintained in power, and his people were informed that, so long as the government of the Chief was just, they must be loyal and obedient without references of his creed. A year or two later, the Chief and his sons openly renounced the Hindu religion and embraced Muhammadanism, taking a Muhammadan name which the British Government recognised and receiving a Muhammadan title."
This not only showed the mountain of pressure that a Hindu Rajput had to undergo to change to a faith he feels comfort in, but also the fact that this openly occurred by the virtue of Islam, otherwise he would not have undergone surgical circumcision, which again showed his sincerity in converting, as opposed to a forceful one where his open admittance to acceptance would have been enough. One example requested, another given. I rest my case.
You ask the freedom of religion in Islamic countries? Are you so weak minded and amnesic that you keep asking rhetorical questions? I've already confirmed to you that Islam doesn't tell us to force convert, such converts are not Muslims at all. As far as those countries, culturally they are like India, where we have Hinduised Muslims, who sadly still believe the caste system i.e. assert their superiority onto others, male dominance, backward village ideals of Hinduism. (Not the religion peer se, but it's simpleton followers who were told by their Brahmin priests that they WERE TOO LOW to even chant prayers of worship? Give me a break, tolerance indeed... The blacks aren't the only ones converting in USA, even white middle class Texans are too, so read fully before making any silly propogandist assumptions. Whats wrong with black conversions anyway? Are they not logic minded humans? Are you racist as well as anti Islamic? If our leaders were afraid of people migrating to other faiths, they have NO WAY TO STOP IT, as unlike Hinduism, Islam's teachings are open for all to see, even sickos like you. So how can they spread a false notion in such an open climate. Your insecurity of losing so many Hindus to Islam has led you to the claim that only force conversion is the reason. Me and My Muslim Rajput brethren scare the hell out of you dont they Shiv? We are a reality and a dominant reality my friend... :)
The kings you mentioned ruled very small areas and I would cosider them exception rather then the rule. They played no role in forming mughal/Islamic policy in India. (You asked the question of names of Rulers of Islamic faith in India who didnt desecreate Hindu temples, where did the question of forming Islamic policy come from? Why are you changing the question now? And you say Sher Shah didnt influence Islamic or Mughal Policy? Wake up and read real history my friend, his administrative code based on Islamic Jurisprudence was set up later to be kept by the very same Mughals he deposed. His work was taught to Raja Todar Mal also. And other than forming a truly Islamic policy of fairness and equality he never desecrated temples. You have been proven this point but ignore it yet again.)
Sher Shah ruled over delhi for 5 years and there are a lot of good things attributed to him like building the grand trunk road etc which are all false. Policy is key here. That is what guided the muslim commanders to convert ordinary hindus to Islam by creating conditions so terrible for them so that they had no other option.
Oh ok, all history recorded by YOUR OWN Hindu historians and key players of that age such as Raja Todar Mal for example are all false are they? Only what you extremists version of history is true is it? What conditions are you talking of? I've already refuted your Jizya theory as all Muslims paid tax anyway. Hindus were and still are the majority, so what conditions are you trying to make up now? If it appeases your insecurities about our numbers from Hindu origins, then get real and stop throwing your toys out of the pram Shiv, it's a bore now.
Your muslims acestors ruled India for 800 years? You have been reading thapar and like historians too much. Talk facts. (Prove me wrong that the above mentioned Rajas didn't rule those regions of Punjab, then try to challenge it. Until then stop reading your illogical extremist books)
Is Punjab entire India? Have an open mind. Without scholarship you cannot claim that Thapar is right. I have read all her books. Have you read the ones I mentioned?
Punjab was a major player in India too Shiv, even if you dont want to acknoeldge it. You dont need scholarship to understand logic Shiv, you sadly lack both in my opinion.
Rajputs/Marathas/Sikhs are the reason Hinduism is alive in India. You can live in denial but truth is universal. (Truth is universal, but you have not the eyes or mind to comprehend it. I know why it is alive. Because the Muslims allowed it. Rant on as much as you want.)
It is hard for you to accept this because you have not read it in the books that you like.
No it's easy for me to believe what I stated because it's true from the people. If you think that Rajputs were the saviours of Hinduism, then you really are lost in false pride. You allege a false position which was never taken up by your romanticised heroes. The question I ask, that for almost 800years such acts were taking place (in your opinion ofcourse) such as forced conversions, temple desecrations etc and you Hindu Rajputs just sat there and watched the show? Give me a break. It's a shame on them if they did, and for so many centuries. Your silly assertion that when Hindu generals led Mughalia armies, then temples were safe, but when Muslims did then temples weren't, just shows your lack of mental capacity to accept that they sided with their leige lords, but never would have sided with him had any of his campaigns harmed their faith places. In fact the Mughals themselves would have routed such people out, as it would have hampered their alliances with such Clans. You need to come out of your anti shell and meet people.
Kashmir: Kashmiri hindus have been living in Kashmir before Islam was even born. They were extremely rich and owned lot of land and money. In our own country muslims have made these people homeless and they have to live on streets of New Delhi as beggars. (We all reap what we sow, that goes for us as it does for you. Many Muslims owned much land and money in India before the partition massacres. What about those lost souls? We can argue this point forever Shiv. Considering this, what have your pensioners dont about it to restore them to their glory?)
Be specific and do not divert the discussion. What is happening to kashmiri hindus is the real genocide. A complete uproot of people from there land where they had been living for thousands of years.
It wasn't a diversion, it was another example, learn the difference. If you didn't know, many Kashmiri Pundits were Muslim too, i.e. Allama Iqbal, one of Pakistan's highest recognised and respected fathers, was a Kashmiri Pundit. You really dont understand history and society structures I think Shiv. Just because one changes faith, it doesn't change his social status, he would still be a poor farmer, or a Lord of a house etc. Again, Islam didnt justify these acts, the Hinduised Muslims did these acts and AGAIN will reap what they sowed, why are you hell bent on blaming Islam?
Contrast this with Britain or America. If blacks in england started killing whites which forced these rich white people to move to london/washington DC and live on the streets as beggars/took over all there businesses and raped there daughters what would happen to the blacks? (It happened to the blacks and we now have ghettos and council estates. What do you know of this problem? very little. Shame on you pensioners for allowing the 'alleged' behaviour of the tyrants and standing doing nothing when the British colonialists arrived. When your own people were bound in Slavery what did you pensioners do? Nothing but take pensions for doing nothing. Talk is cheap, your actions have shown what you did when faced with the problems, nothing.)
Again you are trying to divert the discussion. I will ask again and if you have the guts reply. Since you mentioned you live in england: if muslims started killing whites in England/took over there businesses and raped there daughters, which caused thousands of white english to live in london as beggars, what would the other english do to muslims in england?
Guts? Dont question my guts Shiv, it's easy to sit behind and not face someone and question guts, that shows your class, especially since you pensioners haven't got any historically. As far as your question goes, YES they English would indeed retaliate on THOSE RESPONSIBLE, but to state that if only Muslims did it is a poor and prejudiced point from you yet again. The british bombers here in UK have been shown as Muslims, yet the govt and it's people know AFTER LIVING WITH US SINCE THE 60'S AND FROM COLONIAL TIMES in INDIA that these were a handful of idiots and the majority aren't like that. Islam wasn't responsible hence the public is fine. Your point in THIS context in the real world has been yet again negated so please go satisfy your fanatical hatred elsewhere. Not in one place have me or Khurram spoke poorly of your faith even though it's representatives are far from perfect, yet you blame our Faith. People like you only know how to tear the fabric of unity in society, not to sew it back again.
You just cannot comprehend how tolerant, almost to a fault, India/hindus are. We can see our own kashmiri hindus traumatized at the hands of muslim extremists and to uphold secularism still tolerate it. NO OTHER NATION ON EARTH WOULD TOLERATE THIS. Feel lucky that this is happening in India.
Lucky? Your countries soldiers are raping our Muslim women and children, massacring it's men weekly , to the point when film makers tried to film this, it was banned by your TOLERANT Govt, then you talk of extremists? YOU ARE AN EXTREMIST shiv, wake up and stop spreading hatred. Your tolerance is seen daily in the cries of the Muslim women and children, the torn bellies and private areas of the girls your 'soldiers' rape openly after killing the men who protect them. Your tolerance was seen in Gujrat and the many areas where communal riots have made the lives of ALL people a misery, rape and torture was the norm AND THATS TODAY LET ALONE A READ BOOK. Your tolerance was seen when the Kashmiris cried for help from the tyranny of your oppressive illegal occupation, and you try to sidetrack the issue blaming the extremists? You dare speak of tolerance? Even historically many of the Muslim mosques were desecreated by your 'Khalsa' and the Holy Shrines and Mosques were smeared with pig remains. Your tolerance was seen when even up until colonial times mass lepers were BURIED ALIVE in Marwar for a disease they had no clue about, which scared your people into mass genocide when even in the times of Christ, these people were outcasted and left in areas to dwell together BUT NOT MURDERED the way you people did. Tolerance? What Tolerance?! Your one sided bias disgusts me no end.
I have many Hindu Rajput friends and they are all dumb founded by your anti sentiment. Even they clearly call you a fanatic extremist who is against peace. You better understand once and for all, we dont care what you think of us. Your opinion is biased and fanatical as is proven above by your own rants. We are Muslim Royals with our origins in Hinduism, so go and do whatever you have to do. I am just sorry that the article was qritten by a fanatic extremist.
Be aware of your past, no one told you not to be, but sadly your not the Hinduism saviour that you purport to be a descendant of, nor are you doing Hinduism any favours. Now I challenge you Shiv, have the guts to accept that the real factor for the massacres on all sides, is the lack of humanity in the people, not their respective Religions? Got the guts?...............
From a real Royal blood. Raja.
-Shivraj
Shiv,
I only have one question. "What class are you in?"
Another important thing, Please do not bring the Prophet (P.B.U.H) into it. We have never said anything bad to your holy figures and we expect that you are at least sobre enough to honour that.
And before drawing a conclusion about "ancestory" of anyone, please first read the meanings of the word in the dictionary.
--Khurram 18:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Rajputs only fought to Protect Hinduism did they? And the Khalsa was to protect Hindu Dharma?
Here is a good article for you to read Shiv etc...
Sikhism : Religion or a Sect?
By Ram Puniyani
Recently RSS Chief K. Sudarshan while participating in the Rashtriya Sikh Sangat (Sangat) Convention in Amritsar said that Sikhism is a sect of Hinduism, Khalsa is a part of mainstream Hinduism and that Sikhism was created to protect Hinduism from Mughal tyranny. Many a Sikh organizations undertook protest march against Sudarshan and pointed out that Sikhism is a religion in its own right and that they will not tolerate RSS efforts to undermine their separate Sikh identity. The spokesperson of Dal Khalsa went on to say that RSS is trying to impose a centralized monolithic society in India and that they will oppose this hegemonic agenda of RSS. Meanwhile many other Sikh organizations said that RSS is interfering in the religious, cultural, social and political matters of Sikhs, which should be condemned and opposed. In Lok Sabha one MP alleged that RSS is distributing anti-Sikh literature through Sangat, which is disturbing the religious harmony in Punjab. This MP also criticized the HRD ministry for giving Rs.17 crores to Sangat for pro-RSS propaganda work. If RSS assertion about the nature and historical role of Sikhism and Khasla is correct why this massive protest against the RSS chief and the move of HRD ministry to fund the pro-RSS propaganda? Like other distorted and communalised perceptions of History the one pertaining to the understanding of Sikhism is no exception. Guru Nanak and origin of Sikhism: Nanak's preaching's came in the backdrop of Bramimical domination on one hand and the spread of teachings of Sufi and Bhakti saints, on the other. He rejected Brahmincal values and caste domination and concluded that teachings of Bhakti and Sufi differed in form, not in content. It was from the teachings of Muslim Sufis (notably Sheikh Farid) and Sant Kabir that Guru Nanak drew his inspiration. He preached monotheism and quiet devotion to God. His hymns were drawn from different sources. Out of Nanak's teachings came an enduring religious community with distinctive history and evolution separate from Hindu and Muslim religions but drawing the egalitarian aspects from both. Nanak denounced orthodox practitioners of Islam as well as Hinduism and placed his emphasis on the vibrant intercommunity relationships based on the subaltern versions of Islam and Hinduism. His teachings at one level are a synthesis of the values of both the religions like reincarnation and the doctrine of Karma from Hinduism and oneness of God and congregation in worship from Islam. Sikh Community and Kingdom: Nanak was to be followed by nine more Gurus. With fifth Guru, Arjan, Sikhism was established as a separate religious system. He put together the writings of his predecessors, his own and those of Hindu and Muslim saints in the Adi Granth, which is the guiding spirit of Sikh religion. Meanwhile due to the efforts of the Gurus Amritsar emerged as the Religious and trade center. It is important to remember that Sufi saint Miyan Mir was requested to lay the foundation stone of Golden temple. This was the time when organization of Sikh community as a political process was also in progress, and their relationship with the Mughal sultanate was becoming quiet complex. Guru Arjan had become important religious and political leader. He was socially very close to Miyan Mir, while his chief opponent was a Hindu, the finance minister to Muslim governor of Lahore. During the seventeenth century this community underwent a transformation into a military community. The gurus went into Mughal politics and soon found themselves in opposition to the factions, which won in the battles for succession. Initially Guru Arjan entered a liaison with Khusarau. In 1606 when Prince Khusarau rebelled against his father Jahangir, it was suspected that Guru Arjan had supported Khusarao. He was arrested on this charge. Another Guru Hari Rai entered into relations with rebellious son of Shahjahan, Dara Shikoh. With Dara Shikoh's defeat at the hands of his brother Aurangzeb this Guru again found himself on the wrong side of the power equations of the ruling Mughal family. So he had to send his son to Delhi to negotiate a pardon. The cycle of conflict with Mughal rulers continued and took extreme form with the Tenth Guru Govind Singh. Guru Govind wanted to establish his own kingdom while Aurangazeb was brutally suppressing all the rebellions against the Mughal Sultanate. His immediate tussle was with the Raja of Bilaspur, whom he refused to pay any tribute. This led to the battle in which the Raja of Bilaspur was defeated. Also this brought in the hostility of many of the Rajas of hill states towards Guru Govind Singh. He also had the allies in the plains the most notable amongst them being the pir of Sadhura. Aurangzeb in conjunction with Hindu Rajas of plains drove Guru Govind away from Anandpur and in the battle his children were caught and tortured. Later there was an attempt at rapprochement from Aurangzeb's side and he invited Guru Govind to meet him in Deccan. As Guru was on his way to meet him, Aurangzeb died, but the process of reconciliation with Mughal sultanate continued and in due course Guru struck an alliance with Aurangzeb's son Bahadur Shah Zafar. In this sea-saw, ding dong battle between Sikhs and Mughal Kings the lines of alliances were regularly blurred. Mughals having liaison with Hindu Rajas, Gurus having alliances with Muslim kings and pirs etc. This was a political fight in which religious element got mixed up. Same Govind Singh who had a rough patch with Aurangzeb allied with his son Bahadur Shah Zafar. Sangh Parivar's Agenda and Sikhism: RSS has the goal of Hindu Rashtra. For its agenda, it asserts that the people can be united only with the Hindu identity to the fore. It is in this direction that it claims all the religions, which arose in the subcontinent as mere sects of Hinduism, and not full religions. Be it Buddhism or Sikhism RSS is prompt to label them as sects of Hinduism. Again the RSS version of Hinduism is the elite Brahminical version while these religions arose mainly as a reaction against the Brahminical values. Those who are protesting against RSS designs are clear about the hegemonic RSS designs. Does it mean that the Indians cannot be united in to a single national thread as RSS claims? On the contrary Indians ARE united by the overarching Indian National identity. The attempts of RSS to make Hindu identity as the primary identity is fraught with dangers not only for minorities and the weaker sections of society but even for those who will like to retain the identity of Sikhism or Buddhism and that's what explains such a hostile response to the efforts of RSS affiliate Sangat's efforts to project Sikhism as a mere sect of Hinduism. The attempt to selectively highlight Guru Govind's struggles against the Mughal Empire and to hide his alliance with same rulers, is aimed to boost its anti-Muslim agenda. Similarly his fights against Hindu Rajas are suppressed from the popular memory. One more example of selective historiography at the service of Hindu Nationalism.
Source: www.truthindia.com
Also for your kind information;
Your completely wrong and factually inaccurate in saying: "Guru Gobind Singh Ji formed the Khalsa to deal with the brutal Islamic overlordship."
Firstly, Guru Gobind Singh fought over 20 battles in his life. Over half of these battles were against HINDU Hill Rajas. So most of his battles werent even against the Moghuls or Muslims to begin with. Never at any point in his life did Guru Gobind Singh declare that his battle was against a particular group of people (muslims, hindus, whoever). He was fighting for truth and righteousnes instead. Even in his letter "Epistle of Victory" to Aurangzeb, no where does he declare that his war was against Auranyzeb as a human being or as a muslim or as a Moghul even. He was fighting because of principle, as were his followers, the Khalsa. He was fighting against tyranny, not against anything Islamic. He even mentions his battles with the Hindu Hill Rajas and says:
"I warred with the idol-worshipping hill chiefs, For, I am the breaker of idols and they their worshippers. (95)" (http://www.sikhs.org/transl5.htm). Even then he clearly cites IDEOLOGICAL differences in his battles with the Hindu hill rajas.
And just for your information, Pir Buddha Shah, a Muslim, fought in Guru Gobind Singh's army with a group of 700 Muslims, and sacrificed two of his own sons in the service of Guru Gobind Singh's cause. If that wasnt enough to show the unversal battle Guru Gobind Singh was fighting, in Gobind Singh's greatest hour of need, after the battle of Chamkaur, when he was being hotly pursued by the Imperial Army, it was 3 MUSLIMS, Nabi Khan, Ghani Khan, and Pir Mohammad of Nurpur that provided him shelter and saved his life. And even when Guru Gobind Singh's younger sons were going to be killed, it was a Muslim, Nawab Sher Mohammad Khan of Maler Kotla, that protested and tried (unsuccessfuly) to spare their lives.
So please keep those things in mind before making any inaccurate statements regarding the creation of the Khalsa being aimed toward stopping "Islamic overlordship."
No one is making excuses for whatever wrongs some Muslims or Chrisitans have indulged in historically, but two wrongs dont make a right. Whatever wrongs a small section of Muslims or Chrisitans indulge in today is no way a proper justification for their "armed removal" from India like this hate filled web site is advocating. If they advocated "armed removal" of Sikhs because of some terrorism that a few Sikhs indulged in because of Khalistan, I certainly dont think you would be saying the same thing. And I also think your kidding yourself if you dont think that if they ever physically removed Christians and Muslims from India, that Sikhs wouldnt be the next group of people that they would attempt to remove next.
Sikhism is CLEARLY NOT against Islam as a religion or Muslims as human beings. There is not a single hostile, intollerant word toward Muslims or Islam in the entire Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
"One calls himself a Hindu, another a Turk, one a Shia, another a Sunni, but know ye, men all over are the same. He alone is the Creator of both Hindus and Muslims, the Compassionate One, the Allah, our Great Giver: nay, know not another, for there is not another. So serve they all the One alone: for He the One is the only God of us all: it is His Form, His Light that is diffused in all. No difference there is between a temple and a mosque, nor between the Hindu worship or the Muslim prayer: for men are the same all over, though they appear not the same. Gods and demons, yakshas and gandharvas, Hindus and Muslims, they all seem different, but the difference is only of the dress, custom and country. The same eyes have they, the same ears, the same body, the same habits, a get-together of earth, air, water and fire. Allah is no different from Abhenkha, the Puranas no different from the Koran. All men are made alike. They appear no different to me."-Guru Gobind Singh, Akal Ustat
Sundeep Singh
Now these articles and posts prove that;
a) If the same initiator of the Khalsa is also allying with Bahadur Shah Zafar ( a Mughal), then this clearly wasn't a struggle to preserve Hinduism because it would be contradictory to allie with your greatest moral enemy (in YOUR opinion). Either Bahadur Shah Zafar was representative of Mughals or he wasn't. To allie with him proved that the Khalsa was not against Islam at all. (no matter what the extremists on both sides of the fence allege....)
b) The same Guru Gobind Singh fought Hindu Rajas? This clearly showed that they both COULD NOT have fought for Hindu Dharma against each other. Either Guru Gobind Singh did, or your Hindu Rajputs did. Take your pick. But the point is still the same....The Rajputs fought for territory and not Dharma, IF Guru ji is believed to be THAT saviour through his Khalsa (as per YOUR previous posts.) I am waiting for your pick Shiv...
c) Muslims also helped him against what they believed was a righteous path. So how can they allie with a person who is (as you put it) out to preserve Hinduism from Islamic Tyranny? They wouuld only have allied after confirming in their herts and minds that the \true Khalsa was NOT against Islam or anything silly prejudiced or narrow minded as that.
d) Your (all extremists) propoganda is seen for what it is. You cleverly cut and paste your version of history to create disharmony and spread a negative ethos from a past which never existed. Are you going to refute these points in history too?
By the way, it is a long post YES, but you are such a scholarly and open minded person (as you overly imply) that I thought the above 2 reads would undoubtedly benefit your tarred research ;)
From your friendly neighbourhood Raja.
Raja,
Once again you have side stepped the main disucssion by bringing in sikhs. Your post is ridiculous in suggesting that GuruGobind Singh did not fight against Islam or the mughals. Aurang was his main enemy. Have you ever read the zafarnama? Why was Banda Bhadur, a rajput, chosen to lead the khalsa?
You haven't answered why he waged war on the Hindu Rajas who he himself called idol worshippers AND HE REFERRED TO HIMSELF AS AN IDOL BREAKER. I can see you can't answer this point all...
It is a classical distortion of Indian history where everything that portrays Islamic rulers in a bad light is shoved under the carpet and claimed it never happened. Why are you so afraid of the truth? You call my views extremist and yet you claim that kashmir right fully belongs to muslims? Give me a sound logical argument to support your claim. Was it ruled by a muslim at the time or partition? Were muslims original residents of Kashmir? Did British when they arbitrarily divided my country and my leaders of the time accpeted that division was kashmir given to pakistan? ??
If you read history carefully you will see distinct phases. Phase 1: rajputs were the sole protectores of hinduism. Phase 2 Sikhs and Marathas fought against mughals to maintain both hindu and sikh identity. Rajput contribution during phase 2 was smaller then marathas and sikhs.
Also you bring up instances from rajput sikh history and try to jusitfy them as generalizations. e.g. your claim : some rajputs allied with muslims then no other rajput could have fought against islam to protect hinduism. You have been repeatedly told the truth yet you look the other way. To me it is clear that you cannot accept that people of your faith were such bad people and you want to defend them at any cost. This will not work here.
Britain example you twisted it again. You were told explicitly that Muslims killed and drove away kashmiri hindus from there homeland. Do you agree or disagree with this stmnt? Then you were told that if muslims did the same in England what would happen. Instead of accepting that muslim terrorists in kashmir are extremely wrong and should be dealt with utmost harshness including the people who are supporting them i.e and ISI and pakistan u start ranting on gujarat and stuff.
This clearly shows your bias towards your religion and your extremist views. i.e you are not criticising terrorists from your religion.
-Shivraj