Talk:Rajput/Archive 6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Contents |
This is Sumerendra
You used Dalit propaganda to voice your opinion on Rajputs? That to an article that has been ridiculed in many University forums.
On top of that you claim to be Rajputs and yet speak against Rajputs. Sure, Rajputs aren't perfect, they are after all humans, however Rajputs never use crap from that stupid website unless they are a Non-Rajput Anti-Hindu individual.
Listen, after reading your so-called "refreshing" discussions, it seems that only Shivraj, Dinesh and a couple of others had any sense of this topic. The rest of you are just plain and simply Anti-Hindu racists who wish to claim a Hindu designation for themselves.
Even when you were given open and neutral information, you refuse to listen because the madarsas in which you have been taught teach you not to listen to historical fact.
Although Wikipedia allows everyone to voice their opinions, this is one situation where we find that the truth is in danger of being hijacked by individuals who knowingly do not belong to this ethnic designation, and yet wish to steal it for themselves.
They way you so-called Rajputs have presented your viewpoints are very Anti-Rajput and distasteful. I, for one, am sending a copy to the Rajput conference to bring up the issue of you Racist Anti-Rajput Hindu-hating individuals are trying to promote.
The entire discusiion around the forced conversions committed by Islam in India is central to understanding the history and survival of the Rajputs. To deny this is simply your tactic in you racist agenda which has been seen time and again in your distortions of history.
I would not be surprised if you all get together for your annual book burnings.
Continued=
And if you wish to quote a Dalit and a Buddhist, then perhaps you would like to read what Dr. Ambedkar wrote, since he was the Dalit leader of the Dalit civil rights movement.
The Invasion of India by the Muslim Hoards By Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Historically, Pakistan was part of India when Chandragupta was the ruler; it continued to be part of India when Hsuan Tsang, the Chinese pilgrim, visited India in the 7th century A.D. In his diary, Hsuan Tsang has recorded that India was divided into five divisions.
(* The writers of the Puranas divided India into nine divisions). It is also true that when Hsuan Tsang came, not only the Punjab but what is now Afghanistan was part of India and further, the people of the Punjab and Afghanistan were either Vedic or Buddhist by religion. But what happened since Hsuan Tsang left India?
The first Muslim invasion of India came from the north-west by the Arabs who were led by Mahommad Bin Qasim. It took place in 711 A.D. and resulted in the conquest of Sind. This first Muslim invasion did not result in a permanent occupation of the country because the Caliphate of Baghdad, by whose order and command the invasion had taken place, was obliged by the middle of 9th century A.D. to withdraw its direct control from this distant province of Sind.
Soon after this withdrawal, there began a series of terrible invasions by Muhammad of Ghazni in 1001 A.D. Muhammad died in 1030 A.D., but within the short span of 30 years, he invaded India 17 times.
He was followed by Mahommed Ghori, who began his career as an invader in 1173. He was killed in 1206. For thirty years Muhammad of Ghazni ravaged India and for thirty years Mahommad Ghori harried the same country in the same way.
Then followed the incursions of the Moghul hordes of Chenghiz Khan. They first came in 1221. They then stayed on the border of India but did not enter it. Twenty years later, they marched on Lahore and sacked it. Of their inroads, the most terrible was under Timur in 1398. Then comes on the scene a new invader in the person of Babar who invaded India in 1526. The invasion of India did not stop with that of Babar. There occurred two more invasions. In 1738 Nadir Shah’s invading host swept over the Punjab like a flooded river “furious as the ocean”. He was followed by Ahmad Shah Abdali who invaded India in 1761, smashed the forces of the Maharthas at Panipat and crushed for ever the attempt of the Hindus to gain the ground which they had lost to their Muslim invaders.
These Muslim invasions were not undertaken merely out of lust for loot or conquest, but also to strike a blow at the idolatry and polytheism of Hindus and establishing Islam in India. In one of his dispatches to Hajjaj, Mahommad bin Qasim is quoted to have said:
“ The nephew of Raja Dahir, his warriors and principal officers have been dispatched, and the infidels converted to Islam or destroyed. Instead of idol-temples, mosques and other places of worship have been created, the Kutbah is read, the call to prayers is raised, so that devotions are performed at stated hours.”
Muhammad of Ghazni also looked upon his numerous invasions of India as the waging of a holy war. Al’Utbi, the historian of Muhammad, describing his raids writes:
“He demolished idol temples and established Islam. He captured ……cities, destroyed the idolaters, and gratifying Muslims. He then returned home and promulgated accounts of the victories obtained for Islam……..and vowed that every year he would undertake a holy war against Hind.”
Mahummad Ghori was actuated by the same holy zeal in his invasions of India. Hasan Nizami, his historian, describes his work in the following terms:
“He purged by his sword the land of Hind from the filth of infidelity and vice, and freed the whole of that country from the thorn of God-plurality and the impurity of idol-worship, and by his royal vigor and intrepidity left not one temple standing.”
Taimur has his Memoir explained what led him to invade India. He says:
“My object in the invasions of Hindustan is to lead a campaign against the infidels, to convert them to the true faith according to the command of Muhammad (on whom and his family be the blessing and peace of God) to purify the land from the defilement of misbelief and polytheism, and overthrow the temples and idols, whereby we shall be Ghazis and Mujahdis, companions and soldiers of the faith before God.”
These Muslim invaders were Tartars, Afghans, and Mongols. Mahommad bin Qasim’s first act of religious zeal was forcibly to circumcise the Brahmins of the captured city of Debul; but on discovering that they objected to conversion, he proceeded to put all above the age of 17 to death, and to order all others, with women and children, to be led into slavery. The temple of the Hindus was looted, and the rich booty was divided equally among the soldiers, after one-fifth, the legal portion for the government, had been set aside.
Muhammad of Ghazni from the first adopted those plans that would stike terror into the hearts of the Hindus. After the defeat of Raja Jaipal in A.D. 1001, Muhammad ordered that Jaipal “be paraded about in the streets so that his sons and chieftains might see him in that condition of shame, bonds and disgrace; and that fear of Islam might fly abroad through the country of the infidel.”
“The slaughtering of ‘infidels’ seemed to be one thing that gave Muhammad particularly pleasure. In one attack on Chand Rai, in A.D. 1019, many infidels were slain or taken prisoners, and the Muslims paid no regard to booty until they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and worshippers of the sun and fire. The historian naively adds that the elephants of the Hindu armies came to Muhammad of their own accord, leaving idols, preferring the service of the religion of Islam.”
The slaughter of the Hindus, gave a great setback to the indigenous culture of the Hindus, as in the conquest of Bihar by Muhammad Bakhtyar Khilji. When he took Nuddea (Bihar) the Tabaquat-I-Nasiri informs us that:
“ great plunder fell into the hands of the victors. Most of the inhabitants were Brahmins with shaven heads. They were put to death. Large number of books were found…..but none could explain their contents as all the men had been killed, the whole fort and city being a place of study.”
Summing up the evidence on the point, Dr. Titus, author of Indian Islam p. 22, says:
“ Of the destruction of temples and the desecration of idols we have an abundance of evidence. Mahommad bin Qasim carried out his plan of destruction systematically in Sind, but he made an exception of the famous temple of Multan for purposes of revenue, as this temple was a place of resort for pilgrims, who made large gifts to the idol. Nevertheless, while he thus satisfied his avarice by letting the temple stand, he gave vent to his malignity by having a piece of cow’s flesh tied around the neck of the idol.”
“ Minhaj-as-Siraj further tells us how Mahommad became widely known for having destroyed as many as thousand temples, and of his great feat in destroying the temple of Somnath and carrying off its idol, which he asserts was broken into four parts. One part he deposited in the Jami Masjid of Ghazni, one he placed at the entrance of the royal palace, the third he sent to Mecca, and the fourth to Medina.”
Lane Poole, author of Medieval India p. 26, has said that Mahommad of Ghazni:
“who had vowed that every year should see him wage a holy war against the infidels of Hindustan” could not rest from his idol-breaking campaign so long as the temple of Somnath remained inviolate. It was for this specific purpose that he, at the very close of his career, undertook his arduous march across the desert from Multan to Anhalwara on the coast, fighting as he went, until he saw at last the famous temple:
“There were a hundred thousand pilgrims were wont to assemble, a thousand Brahmins served the temple and guarded its treasures. Within stood the famous Shiva linga, adorned with gems and lighted by jeweled candelebra which were reflected in rich hanings, embroidered with precious stones like stars, that decked the shrine….The foreigners nothing daunted, scaled the walls, fifty thousand Hindus suffered for their faith and the sacred shrine was sacked to the joy of the true believers. The great stone was down and its fragments were carried off to grace the conquerors’ palace. The temple gates were set up at Ghazni and a million pounds worth of treasure rewarded the iconoclast.”
Dr. Titus writes, that Quatb-ud-Din Aybak, also destroyed a thousand temples, and then raised mosques on their foundations. He also built the Jami Masjid, Delhi, and adorned it with stones and gold obtained from the temples which had been demolished by elephants and covered it with inscriptions (from the Koran) containing the divine commands. In his conquest of South India the destruction of temples was carried out by Ala-ud-Din as it had been in the north by his predecessors.
“The Sultan Firoz Shah, in his Futuhat, graphically describes how he treated Hindus who had dared to built new temples. I killed these leaders of infidelity and punished others with stripes, until this was entirely abolished and where infidels and idolaters worshipped idols. “
Even in the reign of Shah Jahan, we read of the destruction of the temples that the Hindus had started to rebuild, and the account of this direct attack of the piety of the Hindus is thus solemnly recorded in the Badshah-namah”
“ It has been brought to the notice of His Majesty, says the historian, that during the late reign (of Akbar) many idol-temples had been begun but remained unfinished at Benares, the great stronghold of infidelity. The infidels were now desirous of completing them. His Majesty, the defender of the faith, gave orders that at Benares and throughout all his dominions in every place all temples that had been begun should be cast down. It was reported that the Province of Allahbad that 76 temples had been destroyed in the district of Benares.”
It was left to Aurangzeb to make a final attempt to overthrow idolatry. The author of “Ma”athir i-Alamgiri dilates upon his efforts to put down Hindu teaching, and his destruction of temples in the following terms:
“ In April, A.D. 1669, Aurangzeb learned that in the provinces of Thatta, Multan and Benares, but especially in the latter, foolish Brahmins were in the habit of expounding frivolous books in their schools, and that learners, Muslims as well as Hindus, went there for long distances…..The ‘Director of the Faith’ consequently issued orders to all the governors of provinces to destroy with a willing hand the schools and temples of the infidels; and they were enjoined to put an entire stop to the teaching and practicing of idolatrous worship….Later it was reported to his religious Majesty that the Government officers had destroyed the temple of Vishvanath at Benares.”
Dr. Titus observes:
“Such invaders as Muhammad and Timur seem to have more concerned with iconoclasm, the collection of booty, the enslaving of captives, and the sending of infidels to hell with the ‘proselytizing sword’ than they were with the conversion of them even by force. But when invaders/rulers were permanently established the wining of converts became a matter of supreme urgency. It was a part of the state policy to establish Islam as the religion of the whole land.”
“Qutb-ud-Din, whose reputation for destroying temples was almost as great as that of Muhammad, in the latter part of the twelfth century and early years of the thirteenth, must have frequently resorted to force as an incentive to conversion. One instance may be noted : when he approached Kiol (Aligarh) in A.D. 1194, ‘those of the garrison who were wise and acute were converted to Islam, but the others were slain with the sword.”
“ One pathetic case is mentioned in the time of the reign of Firoz Shaha (A.D. 1351-1388). An old Brahmin of Delhi was burnt to death for refusing to give up his faith.”
Muhammad not only destroyed temples but also made it a policy to make slaves of the Hindus he conquered.
“Not only was slaughter of the infidels and the destruction of their temples resorted to in earlier period of Islam’s contact with India, but as we have seen, many of the vanquished were led into slavery. The dividing up of booty was one of the special attractions, to the leaders as well as to the common soldiers in these expeditions. Muhammad seems to have made the slaughter of infidels, the destruction of the temples, the capturing of slaves, and the plundering of the wealth of the people, particularly the temples and the priests, the main object of his raids. On the occasion of his first raid he is said to have taken much booty, and half a million Hindus, ‘beautiful men and women’ were reduced to slavery and taken back to Ghazni.”
When Muhammad later took Kanauj, in A.D. 1017, he took so much booty and so many prisoners that ‘ the fingers of those who counted them would have tired.’ Describing how common Indian slaves had become in Ghazni and Central Asia after the campaing of A.D. 1019, the historian of the times says:
“The number of prisoners may be conceived from the fact that each was sold for from two to ten dirhams. These were afterwards taken to Ghazni,and merchants came from far distant cities to purchase them; …and the fair and the dark, the rich and the poor were commingled in one common slavery.
“In the year A.D 1202, when Qutb-ud-Din captured Kalinjar, after the temples had been converted into mosques, and the very name of idolatry was annihilated, fifty thousand men came under the collar of slavery and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus.”
Slavery was the fate of those Hindus who were captured in the holy war.
Reference: Pakistan or The Partition of India – By B. R. Ambedkar AMS Press ISBN 0404548016 p. 53-66
According to B. R. Ambedkar:
"The Musalman invaders sacked the Buddhist Universities of Nalanda, Vikramshila, Jagaddala, Odantapuri to name only a few. They raised to the ground Buddhist monasteries with which the country was studded. The monks fled away in thousands to Nepal, Tibet and other places outside India. A very large number were killed outright by the Muslim commanders. How the Buddhist priesthood perished by the sword of the Muslim invaders has been recorded by the Muslim historians themselves. Summarizing the evidence relating to the slaughter of the Buddhist Monks perpetrated by the Musalman General in the course of his invasion of Bihar in 1197 AD, Mr. Vincent Smith says, "....Great quantities of plunder were obtained, and the slaughter of the 'shaven headed Brahmans', that is to say the Buddhist monks, was so thoroughly completed, that when the victor sought for someone capable of explaining the contents of the books in the libraries of the monasteries, not a living man could be found who was able to read them. 'It was discovered,' we are told, 'that the whole of that fortress and city was a college, and in the Hindi tongue they call a college Bihar.' "Such was the slaughter of the Buddhist priesthood perpetrated by the Islamic invaders. The axe was struck at the very root. For by killing the Buddhist priesthood, Islam killed Buddhism. This was the greatest disaster that befell the religion of the Buddha in India...."
But today the fashion is to ascribe the extinction of Buddhism to the persecution of Buddhists by Hindus, to the destruction of their temples by the Hindus. One point is that the Marxist historians who have been perpetrating this falsehood have not been able to produce even an iota of evidence to substantiate the concoction.
And you should remember this:
B. R. Ambedkar who became a Buddhist wrote:
"Such was the slaughter of the Buddhist priesthood perpetrated by the Islamic invaders. The axe was struck at the very root. For by killing the Buddhist priesthood, Islam killed Buddhism. This was the greatest disaster that befell the religion of the Buddha in India. " Today it is impossible to find this quotation of the Indian history textbooks.
(Reference: The decline and fall of Buddhism - Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Volume III Government of Maharashtra. 1987. p. 229-38). -Sumerendra
Again
The above articles are a sorry state for the Indian continent today. These quarrels never did finish and never will finish. Neither Hinduism, Islam or Bhuddism calls for displacement of or maligning of another religion or culture yet it is obvious that this precept isn't being followed. I am appaulled at the lack of consideration for each other that people display here. I for one will no longer visit this page again.
TO THE DEFENDERS OF ISLAM
It has been a traditional pastime of the defenders of Islam to rave and rant when they are cornered with overwhelming evidence about the wrongdoing of Islam as religion and its practitioners the Muslims (even if they are so-called Rajputs). A case in point is readily available in the form of discussion by Arun Shourie during the Babri Masjid farce thwarting Shahbuddins claim that Islam never destroyed religious places of other religions.
Kindly refer to http://arunshourie.voiceofdharma.com/articles/19921001.htm for the detailed discussion.
SAYVARI - Another Rajput
In response to the person who wrote "Again"
That is your choice not to wish to come back, but to put Islam in the same category as Hinduism and Buddhism is wrong since Hinduism and Buddhism are Dharma fiaths, while Islam is a semitic faith. I guess you weren't a history major or a religious studies student and thus you have no clue about what is the truth. The problems facing India stem from the fact that no one knows or wants to know what the truth is. If you are appaulled by the lack of consideration shown here, I guess you would also be appaulled by the Jews still discussing the crimes of the Holocaust, I guess you would be offended if any Nazi's feelings were hurt. Or perhaps, you would like to simply deny any atrocities that may have taken place throughout the world. In that case you would be worse since now you are a Holocaust denier. The choice is yours. -Sumerendra
Surmendra,
YOU are oddly enough the wrong one here. Islam is a faith for all mankind and it was proved in the Holy Quran where it states in the beginning that it has been revealed for all of Mankind. Therefore regardless of the race of the Prophet who revealed it, it was the same religion which openly stated all races had the same ancestor Adam. Should Islam state Semetic superiority, or acknowledge itself as simply exclusive to Semites, then your claim would have weight. It doesn't state that, so your point is baseless with no weight. I guess you yourself weren't a religious studies major eh? ; )
What do you mean Hinduism and Buddhism are dharma faiths? If they were the same why did the Brahmins seek to destroy it using Rajputs? Also if you are stating that they are in essence 'Spiritual', then I guess the branch of Islam called Sufism popularly isn't spiritual at all?(which does indeed pre date Islam and is a base premise of spirituality which was followed by many enlightened souls from Jesus, the Yogis, Gautamma Buddha and even other Oriental disciplines) These Sufi Saints conquered those damaged hearts with their love and piety what the swords only cut. So be clear, stop being immature and one sided. Rajputs are stubborn towards righteous, your hell bent on the ignorant parts of historical figures. Are you a real Rajput?
Shivraj Singh
You have posted a long article but I do not see the relevance. We need to see some evidence on things you are suggesting: a) majority conversions of hindu rajputs/ordinary hindus happened voluntarily b) they were accomplished by saints and not muslim kings c) akbar did not massacre 30,000 in chittor when they refused to convert.
I am assuming all muslim rajputs engaged in this discussion are from pakistan. It is is also becoming evident that muslim rajputs in Pakistan are trying to tie there lineaqes to arabs/turks rather then hindu rajputs.
This seems like a pressure in pakistani society where arabs/turks are perhaps revered.
This does not fly. Turks/Arabs cannot be rajputs ever. Period. The character that makes a rajput flows in the blood and is acquired thru heredity and not out of thin air.
I can accept that some Islamic saints were really good people and are revered by both hindus and muslims and such saints never indulged in forced conversions.
But for you to not accept that there ever were forced conversions is rewriting history to suit your own beliefs. Islam may not preach the atrocities but they were perpetrated by followers of Islam with the sole aim of spreading Islam. Why is it diffucult to accept this?
Khurram Again
I don't know why a simple information page about a cast or race has been transformed into a cross religion debate. The way I see it is that being a Rajput is only a matter of belonging to a certain blood line. What religion do you practice? I don't think it is relevant at all. Anyway one thing is for sure. This page does prove the enormous energy that Rajput genes do have in them and our basic characteristic, fight even when there is nothing to fight for :) Finally, I know my forefathers and I carry their blood in veins. For this, I personally don't need anyone else's testimony nor does anyone else :)
Khurram
To Khurram
Khurram,
This is Shivraj. You are calling it simple but it is not. You and others have suggested that arabs/turks could be considered rajputs, majority conversions were voluntary, Akbar did not kill 30000 innocent people. In addition you show no appreciation for rajput history and show no reverence for johar and saka. With such an attitude it is difficult to accept that you are a rajput. Lack of knowledge can be corrected if one is willing. But if you want to continue with your way of thinking that is your choice.
To Shivraj
Shiv,
First of all I never suggested that arabs/turks could be considered rajput. I think being a rajput is simply a matter of who your father is and nothing more. Secondly, I don't take Akbar's killing of 30,000 people as Islamic nor do I advocate it. I however don't cry over "collateral damage". By taking the pride of being a member of a "Martial" race, one shall not be whining about such incidents. Being killed by an adversary is nothing to whine about at all. At least I don't think so. A warrior has the right to kill its adversary but so does his adversary.
As far as appreciation of Rajput history is concerned, I like the Rajput characteristics. Things that make one a Rajput. Things like truthfulness, trusworthiness, bravery and honesty to name a few. Remember, being brave is not only the name of ability to face certain death, it requires a lot more courage to accept that you were wrong than facing a hungry wild tiger. I don't know what history of Rajput were you referring to, but to me the history of Rajputs is their behavior everything else is insignificant.
Finally my friend, it doesn't matter if you accept me as a Rajput or not (and why should it matter at all?) I was born a Rajput and will die a Rajput and I need no certification for that.
Khurram
- I agree with khurram.it doesnt matter - you accept us or not الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 22:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
You don't know what is Islamic and what isn't, just go to www.jihadwatch.org
Dear Wisesabre,
You have again not answered the questions that were raised and instead tried to defelct the discussion into "collateral damage". The reason you are doing this is because you do not want to accept how hindus were converted to Islam which includes perhaps your forefathers. The truthfulness that you elucidate above is required now from you. You consider this a mark of a true rajput and I agree. Let us see it coming from you and khurram and others.
-Shivraj.
Shiv,
I don't know of any incident when anyone was converted to Islam by threatning their life. This simply is not permitted in the religion itself. Furthermore, I know that my forefathers were not converted to Islam by sword. My forefathers were dewellers of village "Chatala" in the general area "Bhatnair" (we keep our lineage with ourselves and they can be matched against the ones still living there). They converted to Islam at least a century before when Babur entered the sub-continent. During the rule of Ibrahim Lodhi, upon the directions of Sandal Bhatti, the grandfather of famous "Dulla Bhatti" (ever heard of him?) my ancestor moved to the general area "Narowal" and are there since then. My village was there when Baba Jee Guru Nanak established the village of "Kartar Pur" and it is only about three miles away from my village. At the time of partition, ours was the one of the two villages in near vicinity that was completely Muslim. All the surronding villages were primarily Sikhs (all convertd from Hinduism to Sikhism and off course not by force).
I don't want to indulge into the facts about the conversions from Hinduism to Islam or to Sikhism in that matter since it requires another discussion, but I would just like to point out a fact that the Soveit Union couldn't make people convert from Islam in 70 years of total and complete control. A religion is changed when one's heart changes. It is not changed by force, not at least as was the case of India where the ruler changed almost every now and then (except for Mughal rule). If my forefathers were converted to Islam by the fear of death, then there should be no Bhatti Rajput living in the area after that time (remember Rajputs don't flee from the war). On this remartk, I leave the research about the truth of your hypothesis to you.
BTW Baba Jee Guru Nanak was not supportive of the caste system. Doesn't this disqualify the Sikhs from calling themselves Rajputs too (as per the arguments presented somewhere else in this forum?)
Khurram
to shiv- i dont know if someone asked me any question,im not intersted in history of Rajput. what i want was that to correct you people that rajputs are muslims also.
الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 17:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
