Talk:Shahrukh Khan/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Pashtun

Why are there some people showing hate towards "Pashtuns" by de-linking the word Pashtun to pashtun? You people should realize that Pashtuns ruled India for over 1,000 years. Don't pretend you don't know or never heard of Pashtun before. Check Khilji dynasty, Lodhi dynasty, Suri dynasty, Durrani Empire, Delhi Sultanate, etc. Also, I have a very strong doubt about S. Khan's background to be of Hindkowan, so please just show me one single reliable source that says he comes from a Hindkowan background. Either him or his father. If you are not sure about something, why place false and misleading information here?--Spock44 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan's father was a Hindkowan from Peshawar. There are lots of Hindkowans there but they are not of Pashtun (Pathan) ancestry. Thus, not everyone from Peshawar is a Pathan. Hindkowans are descendants of Punjabis who migrated to that area. Please stop calling Shah Rukh Khan and his progeny Pathans. Thank you. zakka 15:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have friends who are Hindkowans from Abottabad in Pakistan, they are fluent in Pashto and Urdu both. Their culture is very similar to that of Pashtuns. Their physical appearance, dress code and lifestyle is of Pashtuns. They do not practice Punjabi lifestyle or culture. I lived with these people for a year and closely monitered them. User zakka, you need to show convining evidence in order make your point. We know there are some non-Pashtuns in Peshawar, but the majority there are Pashtuns. The city is Pashtunized, meaning anyone who lives there will eventually become Pashtun. This articls is specifically about Shahrukh Khan, and we need to see sources that clearly states that he is Hindkowan, if no such source is available for now then it should say that his ethnicity is not confirmed as of yet. The source provided for his father being of Hindkowan background is not explaining anything but saying that Shahrukh Khan refused to visit a Hindko language conference in Pakistan. This is saying that he may not be Hindkowan since he refused to attend the conference. In other words, he gave a hint that he is not Hindkowan.--Spock44 15:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Refusal to attend a conference does not imply any of the things you've mentioned above. It is logically wrong to try to draw inferences from the attendance (or lack thereof) of a person.
Your concern about reliable sources is justified. Rather than pummel the article about it, our community would like to encourage you and all other editors to search for sources to prove (or disprove) the same. After all, it is us - the editors - that write this encyclopedia.
Best regards,xC | ☎ 15:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The population of Peshawar is 100% ethnic Pashtun, the term Pathan ONLY refers to PASHTUNS,,, NOT Punjabis. Punjabi itself is an ethnic group, which is totally different from Pathan or Pashtun. Hindkowan means someone who is speaker of the Hindko language. Sharukh Khan's father is from Peshawar, which is 100% ethnic Pashtun city. His mother's family are from Rawalpindi in Pakistan, which has a big population of Pashtuns. There is not even 1% Hindkowan or Hindko speaking people in Peshawar or in Rawalpindi. Hindkowans live in mountains of NWFP. In view of these findings, the chances of Shahrukh Khan's parents being Hindkowans is very very slim. None of the references say that he is Hindkowan or Punjabi Pathan. The term "Punjabi Pathan" is only used in wikipedia, made-up by someone who edited the article. There is no such group as Punjabi Pathan, this is really the most stupid thing someone has ever made. The following meanings of words are from The British Libarary - The world's knowledge - Glossary to the sources for the study of Afghanistan

  • pathans see afghans. Comes to mean those tribes not living in Afghanistan itself.
  • pushtun A speaker of Pashtu; a Pathan or Afghan.
  • afghans (1) An ethnic group: the Pushtun tribes inhabiting the area roughly lying between the Hindu Kush in the North and the Indus in the South; Pathans. Comes to mean Pathans residing in Afghanistan. Divided into two main groups, the Abdalis (qv) and the Ghilzais (qv). The predominant ethnic group in Afghanistan. (2) Any inhabitant of Afghanistan (modern meaning, probably not earlier than 19th century).--Khan1982 15:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion

After reading the source next to the sentence (he personally believes in both religions), I find this....

  • Questioner: "Is being Islamic an important part of your identity? Have recent events forced you to think more about it?"
  • Shahrukh Khan: "I’m not an atheist, I am a believer in God, and I don’t think it is great fashion to be an atheist. I am Islamic by birth, so I know that a bit better, though I’ve been brought up by Hindus most of my life, and I was fascinated by Ram Lila and things. All that hasn’t changed, but as I’ve grown older, and I see what’s happening to Islam around the world, I think it’s important that even without full knowledge of Islam, I need to be very clearly standing for the goodness of Islam. AR Rahman sent me a message once saying you are an ambassador for Islam. I think I truly am. I follow the tenets of Islam — peace, goodness, kindness to mankind. And I’m a normal guy. I think that is what Islam tells you to be..." CHECK SOURCE HERE

Where does it say that Shahrukh Khan believes in both religions (Islam and Hinduism)? How can someone be follower of Islam (believer of ONE God) and at the same time be follower of Hinduism (believer of billions of Gods)? The reference clarifies that he only follows the teachings of Islam, and that he has studied Hinduism in the past but stuck to Islam as his official religion.--Khan1982 15:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I'm afraid. Hinduism does not believe in billions of Gods. Hinduism believes in the one God (Brahman), which is referenced throughout the Vedas. Through the entire Ramayana, the 'cosmic force' of Brahman is referenced as well. Note that we are not talking about the deity Brahma. To me it seems the multiple deities exist for two purposes -

  • different interpretations or forms given by people to the same God
  • for the purpose of the mythological/religious texts of Hinduism

To me it also seems pointless to base an argument on details of a religion. It is sufficient to note that a believer in one religion is neccessarily a devotee of one religion only. He may believe in, understand about, or in any other way feel strongly about the belief system of another religion, but at the heart of the matter, he is either of one religion or another.

What I understand from the source CHECK SOURCE HERE, is that he is Muslim who also happens to have been around Hindus a lot.

So?

Why is that a bone of contention?

I understand that this is the line that all the noise is about - "Although his family was Muslim, he was raised by Hindus for most of his life."

Perhaps that could be rephrased - "Khan was born to parents of Pathan ethnicity, [1][2][3] and is a practising Muslim". Somehow the whole part about being raised by Hindus his entire life doesn't seem relevant to me.

All editors comments or suggestions about this are welcome. It seems to be a good idea to end these circles being spun around religion as soon as possible. They just draw attention away from the primary aim of writing an encyclopedia.

Happy editing,xC | ☎ 13:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

To me there's nothing wrong in the statement indicating he was raised by Hindus. Its just a little more information about his early life. As discussed earlier, being raised by Hindus doesn't mean he practised or is practising Hinduism. By editing the statement to "Khan was born to parents of Pathan ethnicity, [1][2][3] and is a practising Muslim" (as suggested) isn't called rephrasing, but completely changing the sentence. There isn't any need to rephrase or change the sentence as it is not provocative in any way.--S3000 14:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to concur with xC here. Growing up in a multi cultural environment such as India, he could have been raised by many people also, then we'd detract from the main aim of the article as is mentioned. Being raised by Hindus, makes the implicit assumption that he was adopted or something by another faith group and vice versa. He has a great deal of respect for Hinduism (and rightly so) but I believe XC's paraphrasing is more encyclopedic and more factual, staying clear from possible liable assumptions.
Regarding synthesis in belief between Hinduism and Islam, this has happened many times with many notable personalities in History (Daa Shikoh for one) but this is clearly not the place to discuss and debate this topic. Let's stay calm and objective about the SRK article rather than contentious statements. Just my 2 cents worth...--Raja 11:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
(Replying to S3000 above)
My intention was to change the meaning of the sentence. I question the encyclopedic value of including that he was raised by Hindus for most of his life. From what I read in the interview, he says, "I am Islamic by birth, so I know that a bit better, though I’ve been brought up by Hindus most of my life, and I was fascinated by Ram Lila and things."
So we conclude Khan is a prominent Indian actor, who was born a Muslim and was brought up by Hindus for most of his life. How is the latter part of the sentence important in any way? How does adding that extra information improve the article in any way?
It is merely clutter. And to me, it seems like an unnecessary tack on of religion where it doesn't need to be. xC | ☎ 03:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The person who said Hindus don't believe in billions of Gods, please man we are living in 2007 and can get information online from official sources instead of listening to what you have to say about Hinduism. We are here discussing things "IN GENERAL" only. So in general, Hindus believe that all things (living or non-living) are Gods, while Muslims believe that everything is God['s]. It sounds like a very tiny difference, with just the appostraphy "'" between God and the letter "s". That's not the case though because what Muslims believe is that everyting was created and belongs to the one true God. The Hindus, on the other hand, believe that everything is God. I watch Dr. Zakir Naik on Peace TV about everyday and he often explains the differences between Hindus and Muslims. Shahrukh Khan was born Muslim just like all other Muslims, he was always around Hindus, probably all his friends were Hindus. That does not in any way affect his religion. I don't object to the mentioning of him being raised by Hindus. However, the word "but" should not be there and instead it should be changed to "and" because "but" makes the sentence sound like he left Islam to become Hindu. If "and" is used in the sentence then it is accurate, with no pushing for hidden POV.--Khan1982 21:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Coming back to the article, as you rightly said, his being around Hindus or having a majority of Hindu friends does not in any way affect his religion. Therefore I question the neccessity of having that portion of the sentence in the article. The information it conveys is pointless, and it adds no value to the article.
As of now the sentence reads "Although his family was Muslim, he was raised by Hindus for most of his life". While this removes but-and problem by removing both of them, the second part of the sentence still remains, which I feel shouldnt be there. His parents ethnic origin, and their (as well as his) religion is of note. His friend circle, as well as all the other people he is around, somehow doesn't seem relevant to me, in an article about him.
xC | ☎ 23:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Its fine if the statement is put in another part of the biography topic to make it blend in better, but I don't see it being irrelevant. It is just a little additional information that few know. To Khan1982, we don't need a lecture on Hinduism or Islam as we aren't arguing about his religion. Please get to the topic. What Zakir Naik says on his Peace TV doesn't matter here. I'm not bothered about you changing "but" to "and" or whatsoever, as what I seek is the meaning of the sentence to be understood.--S3000 18:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with xC, the mentioning of him being raised by Hindus is not very important. On the other hand, I also agree with S3000 and we may add the Hindus part in his life, as long as it is explained in a proper way. The way it's there now is like someone trying to pull a fast one, trying to say that his family were Muslims but he is now Hindu because he was raised by Hindus for most of his lifetime. That's completely false because he is not Hindu but a straight-up Muslim and a very proud one. It should just say "He is Muslim who was raised by Hindus". There is no point in trying to go further. We don't care what religion he practice at home, something only he knows. I had to mention the difference between Islam and Hinduism because that's where my point was. Dr. Zakir made it clear to the world on a special debate between Hinduism and Islam on Peace TV, in which Muslims and Hindus both agreed. So it was not just coming out of one side.--Khan1982 22:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
(Replying to both above)
Stating that the people around him (or brought him up) have been mostly Hindus doesn't seem very useful to me. How is it even vaguely encyclopedic to note that although he is a Muslim, the majority of the people around him are Hindus? The majority of people in India are Hindus. So? Does that mean we state that as well in this article? Because to me this seems like someones trying to fit in religion here unnecessarily.
Lets take up a few examples -
  • Eminem is a white rapper. Should we go note on his page that although he is a white rapper, the majority of his colleagues are black?
  • Which featured article about, say, any international actress has lines like "she was of one religion, but the majority of the people around her aren't and actually follow another religion"?
To Khan1982 - why should the page read "He is a Muslim who was raised by Hindus"? Does that add any value to the page? Is that something you will find in Encyclopedia Britannica, which religion a person is of and what religion are the people who raised him? Which serious enyclopedia ever has information like that?
To S3000 - The article should have things that people should know and that matter when we discuss the life history and career of SRK. You say that it is a little additional information that few people know. That is correct, so now should we go and add to the article that he was a non-smoker earlier at one point in his life but then turned into o chain-smoker who'd litter his movie sets with stubs and now is a light to moderate smoker?
Please people, think about it - what we add to the article should be things that need to be there. Why are we adding the religion about the people who brought him up? What use is it? What does it add to an article about him?
xC | ☎ 16:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Khan1982 was a sock-puppet of an abusive user and has been blocked indefinitely.
I do not know what stops User:S3000 from responding on the talk page of this article.-xC- 06:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Nothing has stopped me from responding on this page. I was actually silent for sometime as I was waiting for other responses. If you and other wikipedians feel that inserting the religion of people who brought him up is not needed, there's nothing I can do or say. Just have it the way you feel is best for the page and I'll support. Happy 2008!--S3000 (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)