PDA

View Full Version : Foreign Invasions on India in Medieval Times - Causes, Events and their Impact



DrRajpalSingh
September 18th, 2014, 08:48 PM
In the post Harshavardhana Era the regional forces asserted their authority in Northern and Southern India and their remained even no semblance of central authority to hold all parts of India together. In northern India there arose several independent big and small kingdoms during the next centuries who carried on relentless wars against one another to establish their hold on larger territories than they had captured. Their mutual fight led to further rise of petty kingdoms. Thus a sense of uncertainty on political scene of Indian political landscape resulted in emergence of chaotic political situation in most parts of the country.

In the neighbouring region of Arabia and Iran the Islamic hold was on the increase and their religious and political leadership was established in the hands of Caliph/Khalifa. The Islamic armies carried out unbelievable successful attacks in various parts of Asia, Africa and even in Europe.

In view of weak political power of Indian rulers, invasions of these Islamist forces started with invasion of Sindh by Mohd Qasim in 712 AD but their magnitude and frequency increased with the foundation of Ghaznavid kingdom in Afghanistan. Their initial success in these invasions swelled their number of army men as people from several parts of the central Asia and Arab countries joined them ostensibly to have share in war booty. After Ghaznavis appeared Mohd Ghori who not only took booty from India but also founded a kingdom here which after his death was known as Sultanate. The Sultanate founded by Qutubuddin Aibek lasted till the advent of Mughals under Babur in 1526.

To know the causes, events and their impact of these invasions and to assess the reasons of the failure of Indians of those times, the thread invites well reasoned write ups supported by contemporary sources. Only relevant comments may be shared by the participants.

Kindly remember we are going to discuss a long time historic process which is a very wide field of study having deep impact on the growth of India as a nation with unity of diversity and diversity in unity. It must not be forgotten that the fight was between mostly the ruling elite heads which incidentally professed Hinduism and Islam. The fight was for retaining the hold by the former and the latter were engaged in snatching it and this they did !

How, why and with what results are the broad issues of those times [it must not be coloured with modern or contemporary issues or events or comparisons between the two religions, please] to be taken up for in-depth study through discussion.

DrRajpalSingh
September 21st, 2014, 10:43 AM
The initial interaction between Hindu India started in peaceful manner in the southern India and with armed conflict between the two sides in the Northern India.

India came into contact with the Arab world in remote ancient times through sea traders, the interaction between the two continued to grow at the same time between the cultures of the two. The people of the region on the seashore area of Arabian Sea having rich production of spices attracted the first interaction between the people of Arab who had adopted Islam and the local people of India. This relationship between them was pacific acceptance of the good points of one another.

On the other end, the people of northern India came into contact in a big way when Mohd bin Qasim led people came to India with the Islamic forces having sword and spears in their hands in 712 AD. A section of the divided local people of Sindh joined the invaders to get rid of the tyranny of and prosecution by the ruler.
This event led to a fierce fight between the inflated in numbers of joining Indians with the forces of Khalifa led by his nephew Qasim and Raja Dahir in which the latter was worsted in the battle. The victor retired to his native country along with a considerable number of Indians with him. This led to continued relationship between the people of Sindh and the state founded by the Khalifa. A few people started professing Islam in Sindh and thus started growth of pockets of alien land borne followers.

Important point here to note is that victory of the foreign raiders was ensured by a group of Indians joining hands with them. Why did they do so, is a big question. It was neither attraction to new faith/religion nor hate to the prevalent religion. Then why did they do so !
The answer is wrongs done to them by the ruling elite on the basis of faulty social system current in that area complled them to do so. There was no fight between Hindus or Muslims alone on either side. Hindus had joined hands with the invading armies to get deliverance from their tyrant king Raja Dahir and this they did with the help of Qasim.

After this incident there continued lull on the political front but trade and commerce and social interaction continued to flourish for next about one and a half century till Ghaznavis appeared as rulers at Ghazni.

DrRajpalSingh
September 21st, 2014, 10:49 AM
Comments and contribution of the participants are invited to take forward the theme of study in accordance with the timeline/chronological order.

DrRajpalSingh
September 26th, 2014, 08:14 AM
Subuktgin, the ruler of Ghazni carried out raids on some parts of India in tenth century AD and a number of people professing Islam who had joined in his army started to live in the areas raided by him. Then came on the scene M. Ghaznavi, who carried out sword and fire to get as much booty as possible from wherever he could lay his hands including Hindu Temples. These hindu religious shrines were ill protected and fell easy prey to the invaders and starting from loot of Jawalamukhi temple near Kangra increased the frequency and fury of the invading armies culminating in their loot of Somnath temple near the banks of Arabian sea in 1025 AD.

During the return journey, the Ghaznavis faced the attack of Jats who carried away much of the wealth which the invaders were taking away to Ghanavi. This encouraged M.Ghaznavi to aim his last invasion against the Jats. The Jats gave a befitting reply to him and in the fight he was wounded. The wound proved fatal for him as he could never recover from its effects and he passed away leaving behind enormous wealth collected during his several raids of northern India.

The study of pattern of attacks brings forth the fact that most of his invasions were targeted against on religious places like Jawalamukhi/Kangra, Thanesar, Haridwar, Mathura, Kanuaj, Somnath etc. year after year. No concrete steps seem to have been taken by the ruling elite to stop the advancing armies and to protect the wealth and people of the country being carried away by the invading hordes from Ghazni and beyond. The booty hungry people swelled the number of Ghanavi invaders each time while the resistance on the part of people of India thinned out with each successive invasion.

Why it was so remains a big question before the inquisitive readers ! What led apathy to Indian mind : Socio-religious and cultural milieu or political culture of the time! What ????

Here more questions arise, what the then ruling kings and elite were doing at the time of invasions; and what prevented the rulers from forging a united front to stop the invaders beyond the borders of India as well as to know What was the impact of these raids on India !

Romar
September 27th, 2014, 08:15 PM
Aapne upar ek jagah to likha "There was no fight between Hindus or Muslims alone on either side."

Aur doosri jagah likah hai:



The study of pattern of attacks brings forth the fact that most of his invasions were targeted against on religious places like Jawalamukhi/Kangra, Thanesar, Haridwar, Mathura, Kanuaj, Somnath etc. year after year.

Kya in dono baaton mein virodhabhas nahi hai? Agari chand hinduon ne aakrantaon ki madad kar bhi di to kya yeh maan lena uchit hoga ki hinduon ke khilaf zeehad nahi cheda gaya?

Jo Khalifa thhe kya unke granth nahi kehte ki un logon ne zeehad cheda thha?

DrRajpalSingh
September 28th, 2014, 09:45 AM
Aapne upar ek jagah to likha "There was no fight between Hindus or Muslims alone on either side."

Aur doosri jagah likah hai:


Kya in dono baaton mein virodhabhas nahi hai? Agari chand hinduon ne aakrantaon ki madad kar bhi di to kya yeh maan lena uchit hoga ki hinduon ke khilaf zeehad nahi cheda gaya?

Jo Khalifa thhe kya unke granth nahi kehte ki un logon ne zeehad cheda thha?

Read again, your doubt will automatically be cleared as there is no contradiction between the two statements under refrence.

The first comment relates to M. Qasim's invasion of Sindh when a considerable number of Indians joined hands with the invaders to punish Raja Dahir.

The second quote relates to M. Ghaznavi's attacks on India.

The time line between the two events separates their purpose or causes of attacks as well as pattern of fight carried out by the Indians against their attackers.

There was no 'JEHAD' involved in either case. First was to take revenge against the loot of some ships and the second was to satisfy the lust for getting Indian wealth of a ruler of barren lands in and around Ghazni [who had no connection directly or indirectly with the Caliphs].

The attacks on the Hindu temples were carried out not to spread Islam but to get the accumulated wealth in them.

prashantacmet
September 29th, 2014, 11:26 AM
Read again, your doubt will automatically be cleared as there is no contradiction between the two statements under refrence.

The first comment relates to M. Qasim's invasion of Sindh when a considerable number of Indians joined hands with the invaders to punish Raja Dahir.

The second quote relates to M. Ghaznavi's attacks on India.

The time line between the two events separates their purpose or causes of attacks as well as pattern of fight carried out by the Indians against their attackers.

There was no 'JEHAD' involved in either case. First was to take revenge against the loot of some ships and the second was to satisfy the lust for getting Indian wealth of a ruler of barren lands in and around Ghazni [who had no connection directly or indirectly with the Caliphs].

The attacks on the Hindu temples were carried out not to spread Islam but to get the accumulated wealth in them.


What is your source for the highlighted information? It seems you are inventing the history and completely forgot your signature. Please provide reference before you write in history section. You are twisting lot of history in other history threads and there is least participation since you increased your activity in this section. Please don't twist history for the sake of getting a secular tag. Is your opinion influenced of any NCERT book?


Please read carefully, references are also there :

Mahmud, according to several contemporary accounts, considered himself a Ghazi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazi_Khan) who waged jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad) on the Hindus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindus). His plunder of Hindu temples and centers of learning is noted later in the article. Al-Biruni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Biruni) writes:
In the interest of his successors he constructed, in order to weaken the Indian frontier, those roads on which afterwards his son Mahmud marched into India during a period of thirty years and more. God be merciful to both father and son! Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims. This is the reason, too, why Hindu sciences have retired far away from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benares, and other places. And there the antagonism between them and all foreigners receives more and more nourishment both from political and religious sources.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_of_Ghazni#cite_note-Elliot_1952_98-19)

Various historical sources such as Martin Ewans, E.J. Brill and Farishta have recorded the introduction of Islam to Kabul and other parts of Afghanistan to the conquests of and Mahmud:
The Arabs advanced through Sistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistan) and conquered Sindh early in the eighth century. Elsewhere however their incursions were no more than temporary, and it was not until the rise of the Saffarid dynasty in the ninth century that the frontiers of Islam effectively reached Ghazni and Kabul. Even then a Hindu dynasty the Hindushahis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahi), held Gandhara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara) and eastern borders. From the tenth century onwards as Persian language and culture continued to spread into Afghanistan, the focus of power shifted to Ghazni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazni_Province), where a Turkish dynasty, who started by ruling the town for the Samanid dynasty of Bokhara, proceeded to create an empire in their own right. The greatest of the Ghaznavids was Muhmad who ruled between 998 and 1030. He expelled the Hindus from Gandhara, made no fewer than 17 raids into northwestern India,[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_of_Ghazni#cite_note-Afghanistan_Page_15-20)


He encouraged mass conversions to Islam, in India as well as in Afghanistan[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_of_Ghazni#cite_note-Afghanistan_Page_15-20)

Attack on 'Kafiristan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafiristan)':
Another crusade against idolatry was at length resolved on; and Mahmud led the seventh one against Nardain, the then boundary of India, or the eastern part of the Hindu Kush; separating as Firishta says, the countries of Hindustan and Turkistan and remarkable for its excellent fruit. The country into which the army of Ghazni marched appears to have been the same as that now called Kafirstan, where the inhabitants were and still are, idolaters and are named the Siah-Posh, or black-vested by the Muslims of later times. In Nardain there was a temple, which the army of Ghazni destroyed; and brought from thence a stone covered with certain inscriptions, which were according to the Hindus, of great antiquity.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_of_Ghazni#cite_note-21)

Massacres of Ismailis: In 965 CE, Multan was conquered by Halam b. Shayban, an Ismaili (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismailism) da’i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da%E2%80%99i). Soon after, Multan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multan) was attacked by the Ghaznavids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghaznavids), destabilizing the Ismaili state. Mahmud invaded Multan in 1005 CE, conducting a series of campaigns during which the Ismailis of Multan were massacred.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_of_Ghazni#cite_note-22)
Destruction of Somnath Temple[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmud_of_Ghazni&action=edit&section=11)]

Mahmud conquered and destroyed thousands of Hindu temples during his raids including the famous Somnath Temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somnath_Temple), which he destroyed in 1025 AD,[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_of_Ghazni#cite_note-Elliot_1952_98-19) killing over 50,000 people who tried to defend it. The defenders included the 90-year-old clan leader Ghogha Rana. Mahmud had the gilded lingam broken into pieces and had them made into steps for his mosque and palace.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_of_Ghazni#cite_note-24)[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_of_Ghazni#cite_note-mg-25)
The following extract is from “Wonders of Things Created, and marvels of Things Existing” by Zakariya al-Qazwini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakariya_al-Qazwini), a 13th-century Arab geographer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographer). It contains the description of Somnath temple and its destruction:[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_of_Ghazni#cite_note-Elliot_1952_98-19)
Somnath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somnath): celebrated city of India, situated on the shore of the sea, and washed by its waves. Among the wonders of that place was the temple in which was placed the idol called Somnath. This idol was in the middle of the temple without anything to support it from below, or to suspend it from above. It was held in the highest honor among the Hindus, and whoever beheld it floating in the air was struck with amazement, whether he was a Musulman or an infidel. The Hindus used to go on pilgrimage to it whenever there was an eclipse of the moon, and would then assemble there to the number of more than a hundred thousand.


When the Sultan Yaminu-d Daula Mahmud Bin Subuktigin (Mahmud of Ghazni) went to wage religious war against India, he made great efforts to capture and destroy Somnath, in the hope that the Hindus would then become Muhammadans. As a result thousands of Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam. He arrived there in the middle of Zi-l k’ada, 416 A.H. (December, 1025 A.D.). “The king looked upon the idol with wonder, and gave orders for the seizing of the spoil, and dinars."[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_of_Ghazni#cite_note-Elliot_1952_98-19)

Romar
September 30th, 2014, 10:12 PM
Please don't twist history for the sake of getting a secular tag.
Aapka prashan bahut sahi hai kyunki aisa lag raha hai ki Dr Singh pratyaksh ko maanana nahi chaha rahe hain. Ek aur udharan:
`In Muhammad bin Qasim’s first successful foray into India, as recorded by al-Biladuri and Muhammad al-Kufi (in Chachnama): at Debal, ‘the temples were demolished, a general massacre endured for three days; prisoners were taken captive;’ at Nairun, ‘the idols were broken, and mosques founded despite its voluntary surrender;’ at Rawar and Askalanda, ‘all the men in arms were put to the sword, and the women and children carried away captive;’ at Multan, ‘all men capable of bearing arms were massacred; six thousand ministers of the temple were made captive, besides all the women and children.’

Eliot HM and Dawson J, The History of India As Told by the Historians, Low Price Publications, New Delhi, Vol. I, p. 469`

Dr Singh se prashan hai ki yeh agar zeehad ka naomoona nahi hai to kya hai?

Romar
September 30th, 2014, 10:15 PM
Please don't twist history for the sake of getting a secular tag.
Aapka prashan bahut sahi hai kyunki aisa lag raha hai ki Dr Singh pratyaksh ko maanana nahi chaha rahe hain. Ek aur udharan:
`In Muhammad bin Qasim�s first successful foray into India, as recorded by al-Biladuri and Muhammad al-Kufi (in Chachnama): at Debal, �the temples were demolished, a general massacre endured for three days; prisoners were taken captive;� at Nairun, �the idols were broken, and mosques founded despite its voluntary surrender;� at Rawar and Askalanda, �all the men in arms were put to the sword, and the women and children carried away captive;� at Multan, �all men capable of bearing arms were massacred; six thousand ministers of the temple were made captive, besides all the women and children.�

Eliot HM and Dawson J, The History of India As Told by the Historians, Low Price Publications, New Delhi, Vol. I, p. 469`

Dr Singh se prashan hai ki yeh agar zeehad ka naomoona nahi hai to kya hai?

DrRajpalSingh
October 1st, 2014, 10:06 AM
Aapka prashan bahut sahi hai kyunki aisa lag raha hai ki Dr Singh pratyaksh ko maanana nahi chaha rahe hain. Ek aur udharan:
`In Muhammad bin Qasim�s first successful foray into India, as recorded by al-Biladuri and Muhammad al-Kufi (in Chachnama): at Debal, �the temples were demolished, a general massacre endured for three days; prisoners were taken captive;� at Nairun, �the idols were broken, and mosques founded despite its voluntary surrender;� at Rawar and Askalanda, �all the men in arms were put to the sword, and the women and children carried away captive;� at Multan, �all men capable of bearing arms were massacred; six thousand ministers of the temple were made captive, besides all the women and children.�

Eliot HM and Dawson J, The History of India As Told by the Historians, Low Price Publications, New Delhi, Vol. I, p. 469`

Dr Singh se prashan hai ki yeh agar zeehad ka naomoona nahi hai to kya hai?

Good points raised by you and Mr. Prashant Vedwan for which I thank both of you.

Let us first decide what definition of Jihad we are talking about in relation to what M Ghaznavi did during his invasions on India. Did his actions fit in the real meaning given to the word in Quran, the holy book of Muslims. Kindly visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad where sufficient information is available.

We have to study the historical events in the context of the times when those events happened; and must not give them new meanings to suit what modern mind wants. In fact modern interpretations to several historical events of past have been twisted out of their contextual reference and quoted out of context to justify their own actions or to criticize the actions of their adversaries throughout the course of History of the world.

The non-Islamist acts and anti-Quranic offences conducted by the Invaders from Sindh or Ghazni as recorded by the later chroniclers also not portray the true picture or spirit and nature of the acts of omissions and commissions committed by the foreign invaders in India.

The real motive of the invaders was looting the rich Indian wealth and the Temples provided enough accumulation of the same with minimum power to resist the plunderers force, M. Ghaznavi's greed for wealth led him to advance deeper in India to get more and more riches contained in Hindu temples. The usual blood-shedding, slaving and breaking of idols did not conform to the teachings of Islam nor fit in the meaning of word Jihad as applied to Islamist actions in those days. He did not serve the cause of Islam in any way as he neither built any Mosque at the conquered places nor he extended the boundaries of his empire over all the areas of India which fell to his wealth greedy sword to perpetuate the said 'Jihad' objectives.

A contemporary historian has rightly said about M Ghaznavi that he had unmanageable lust for wealth and would not had hesitated to invade Mecca if he would have chance of getting accumulated wealth there.

Therefore, I am of the view that his invasions aimed at getting Indian wealth and resultant blood shedding at sacred Hindu places during the course of these early invasions created a wide wedge between the adherents of the two beliefs which was difficult to fill.

DrRajpalSingh
October 1st, 2014, 10:53 AM
You are twisting lot of history in other history threads and there is least participation since you increased your activity in this section. Please don't twist history for the sake of getting a secular tag. Is your opinion influenced of any NCERT book?.....................................


Thanks for your comments reminding me about my signature.

True nature of past events has to be presented to fulfill the motto I have chosen as regards writing of History and I am doing that.

Your baseless charge has no legs to stand in the face of the facts that are contrary to allegation levelled by you that I stand in the path of participants.

Contrary to it, the section had been lying dormant for the last considerable months and my starting the thread under reference has once again attracted the attention of learned participants to come forward and join discussions.

Personal leanings towards faiths or religions of the participants must not be reflected in the discussion of historical facts. So, Kindly better keep personal tags of 'religion' 'communal' or 'secular' out of this discussion please !

If you find any 'twist' in my writings on any of the threads in history section as supposed by you, that may be brought to notice in the relevant threads. If found contrary to facts, suitable amendments would be made with thankful acknowledgement to you . kindly think would it not be better if we avoid personal comments and use of sweeping comments against one another.

M. Ghaznavi was a muslim in name only. In actions he was neither a true Muslim nor a Jihadi. He was a ruler of barren lands of Ghazni and had insatiable lust for wealth for attainment of which he carried sword and fire wherever he went during his Indian invasions. Read comments of Alberuni contained in Para first of your post again or link JIHAD again and you will have a real comprehension of the motives of invasions of the invader.

Elliot and Dowson, History of India as known to its own Historians is a translated collection of extracts from older writings. For proper study of historical truth of individual events one cannot depend on such selective and motivated second hand material. Originals are the only panacea in case of controversy.

prashantacmet
October 1st, 2014, 11:01 AM
Good points raised by you and Mr. Prashan Vedwan for which I thank both of you.

Let us first decide what definition of Jihad we are talking about in relation to what M Ghaznavi did during his invasions on India. Did his actions fit in the real meaning given to the word in Quran, the holy book of Muslims. Kindly visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad where sufficient information is available.

We have to study the historical events in the context of the times when those events happened; and must not give them new meanings to suit what modern mind wants. In fact modern interpretations to several historical events of past have been twisted out of their contextual reference and quoted out of context to justify their own actions or to criticize the actions of their adversaries throughout the course of History of the world.

The non-Islamist acts and anti-Quranic offences conducted by the Invaders from Sindh or Ghazni as recorded by the later chroniclers also not portray the true picture or spirit and nature of the acts of omissions and commissions committed by the foreign invaders in India.

The real motive of the invaders was looting the rich Indian wealth and the Temples provided enough accumulation of the same with minimum power to resist the plunderers force, M. Ghaznavi's greed for wealth led him to advance deeper in India to get more and more riches contained in Hindu temples. The usual blood-shedding, slaving and breaking of idols did not conform to the teachings of Islam nor fit in the meaning of word Jihad as applied to Islamist actions in those days. He did not serve the cause of Islam in any way as he neither built any Mosque at the conquered places nor he extended the boundaries of his empire over all the areas of India which fell to his wealth greedy sword to perpetuate the said 'Jihad' objectives.

A contemporary historian has rightly said about M Ghaznavi that he had unmanageable lust for wealth and would not had hesitated to invade Mecca if he would have chance of getting accumulated wealth there.

Therefore, I am of the view that his invasions aimed at getting Indian wealth and resultant blood shedding at sacred Hindu places during the course of these early invasions created a wide wedge between the adherents of the two beliefs which was difficult to fill.


It does not matter what your opinion is because it does not change the course of history. Apart from looting the wealth of the country, spread of Islam (by hook or crook) was the main objective of these invaders.

As far as teachings of Islam and definition of Jihad is concerned, that is another topic and in layman term I understand that. If you are not comfortable with the word "Jihad" you can take it as "spread of Islam" but still fact remain the same "these invaders killed people at the name of religion". If you have any objection, please bring out some primary source to prove your point

and by the way, friend, please don't take the same escape route as you did in "tipu sultan" thread.

prashantacmet
October 1st, 2014, 11:03 AM
Thanks for your comments reminding me about my signature.

True nature of past events has to be presented to fulfill the motto I have chosen as regards writing of History and I am doing that.

Your baseless charge has no legs to stand in the face of the facts that are contrary to allegation levelled by you that I stand in the path of participants.

Contrary to it, the section had been lying dormant for the last considerable months and my starting the thread under reference has once again attracted the attention of learned participants to come forward and join discussions.

Personal leanings towards faiths or religions of the participants must not be reflected in the discussion of historical facts. So, Kindly better keep personal tags of 'religion' 'communal' or 'secular' out of this discussion please !

If you find any 'twist' in my writings on any of the threads in history section as supposed by you, that may be brought to notice in the relevant threads. If found contrary to facts, suitable amendments would be made with thankful acknowledgement to you . kindly think would it not be better if we avoid personal comments and use of sweeping comments against one another.

M. Ghaznavi was a muslim in name only. In actions he was neither a true Muslim nor a Jihadi. He was a ruler of barren lands of Ghazni and had insatiable lust for wealth for attainment of which he carried sword and fire wherever he went during his Indian invasions. Read comments of Alberuni contained in Para first of your post again or link JIHAD again and you will have a real comprehension of the motives of invasions of the invader.

Elliot and Dowson, History of India as known to its own Historians is a translated collection of extracts from older writings. For proper study of historical truth of individual events one cannot depend on such selective and motivated second hand material. Originals are the only panacea in case of controversy.


Please teach me about Jihad in your language and give some example of the emperor/invaders who were true Jihaadi.

and Please show me your original from where you took this opinion.

DrRajpalSingh
October 1st, 2014, 11:53 AM
Please teach me about Jihad in your language and give some example of the emperor/invaders who were true Jihaadi.

and Please show me your original from where you took this opinion.

Alberuni was the writer who accompanied M. Ghaznavi in his Indian expedition and as such had first hand knowledge about his motives, actions and their impact. He [and several other contemporary chroniclers ] clearly tells that Mahmud Ghaznavi considered himself to be 'Ghazi' meaning thereby that the author did not believe so. As such the question of his being 'Jihadi' or servant of the Islam or anything more ends.

For understanding the original meaning of Jihad log jihad link given below in the extract of post by you and produced hereinunder.
Kindly read the first para quoted by you in your earlier post and you would feel satisfied about my contention.:

Mahmud, according to several contemporary accounts, considered himself a Ghazi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazi_Khan) who waged jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad) on the Hindus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindus). His plunder of Hindu temples and centers of learning is noted later in the article.

Al-Biruni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Biruni) writes:In the interest of his successors he constructed, in order to weaken the Indian frontier, those roads on which afterwards his son Mahmud marched into India during a period of thirty years and more. God be merciful to both father and son! Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims. This is the reason, too, why Hindu sciences have retired far away from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benares, and other places. And there the antagonism between them and all foreigners receives more and more nourishment both from political and religious sources.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_of_Ghazni#cite_note-Elliot_1952_98-19)

DrRajpalSingh
October 1st, 2014, 12:20 PM
Dear Friends,

As regards History of India there are a number of names of kings and emperors who professed Islam and pretending carrying out Jihad but to the best of my knowledge and belief they had done so only to solicit support of the Islamist forces to achieve their avowed mission of getting victory over their rival political forces. Hence no pure jihad example is available in the annals of Indian History.

As asked by one of my Friends, I do not know much about the names of kings/emperors who carried out pure Jihad in India but can produce many examples of misuse of the word Jihad made at the behest of the kings from time to time to grind their own axes.

Babur had defeated the forces led by Maharana Sanga in the famous battle of Khanwa in 1527. How he befooled the people and succeeded to get their In this battle Hasan Khan Mewati, who fought in alliance with Rana's forces, died along with 1o, 000 of his coreligionist muslims fighting against the foreign invading armies led by Babur.

Babur was no true Muslim as he was a drunkard but to stop the running away of his Tuzuk generals and soldiers, prior to starting the fight, delivered a lecture about the merits of jihad and of sacrifice as Ghazi. He also declared that he has decided to shun drinking and in a dramatic manner broke away the silver and gold made utensils in the public view.

This created desired impact on the morale of his soldiers and he won the victory.

After Rana Sanga's forces had withdrawn from the battle field, he got collected the heads of the people killed in the battle and put them in the form of a pyramid to show that he has become ghazi by cutting such large number of heads of the infidels.

The question is, why forces of Babur had cut heads of their coreligionist Hasan Khan Mewati and his followers in the battle ground.

Earlier in 1526 he had fought against Ibrahim Lodhi in Panipat, who was by no stretch of imagination infidel.

The answer is he was an expansionist and empire founder and to attain his goal he pretended to be true Muslim bent upon to become Ghazi when fighting against Rajput ruler and if need be carried out onslaught against his Muslim adversaries too if they crossed his way.

Such type of examples abound the pages of history where use of religion has been made to twist the scales of support in their favour by many a powers of the times that be.

Therefore, it is desirable to read the objectives of the invasion, events and their impact in dispassionate manner to arrive at logical conclusion and this applies to assess the life and work of M. Ghaznavi too.

Thanks and regards

Romar
October 1st, 2014, 10:55 PM
The question is, why forces of Babur had cut heads of their coreligionist Hasan Khan Mewati and his followers in the battle ground.

Earlier in 1526 he had fought against Ibrahim Lodhi in Panipat, who was by no stretch of imagination infidel.

The answer is he was an expansionist and empire founder and to attain his goal he pretended to be true Muslim bent upon to become Ghazi when fighting against Rajput ruler and if need be carried out onslaught against his Muslim adversaries too if they crossed his way.


Mussalman log hinduon ke khilaaf aur anye dharmon ke logo ke khilaaf aam tor pe zeehad chedte hain. Lekin ek sachai yeh bhi hai ki woh aapas mein ek doosre ke khilaaf bhi zeehad chedte hain. Pathanon ne mughlo ke khilaaf zeehad chedi thi san 1672 mein. Udharanarth:
"A rising of the Yusufzais in 1667 had been crushed with heavy slaughter and destruction of crops, but in 1672 the Afridis rose and proclaimed Jihad or Holy War against the Moghuls. They attacked and destroyed a Moghul army at Ali Masjid, situated at the Kabul side of the Khaibar Pass, capturing some 20,000 men and women, besides plunder valued at 20 million rupees." Prashth 319 :
A HISTORY OF AFGHANISTAN
THE ROAD TO TAKHT-I-SULAIMAN
By BRIG.-GEN. SIR PERCY SYKES

Is jankaari ke madhya najar babur ne mewati ko maara ya lodi ko isse yeh nahi
kaha ja sakta ki usne zeehad nahi chhedi.

Satish chandra ki kitaab MEDIEVAL INDIA FROM SULTANAT TO THE MUGHALS ke prasht 35 pe likha hai:
"However, it was Babur who tried to give a religious colour to the conflict in order to raise the flagging spirit of his soldiers. Addressing the officers and men on the eve of the battle, he tried to fire their military ardour, and also tried to use their religious susceptibilities by declaring the war against the Rana to be a jihad or holy war. The begs and the men were made to swear on the Quran that they would not turn away from the battle but fight to the last."

Phir prasth 37 pe likha hai:"Interestingly, Babur declared the siege of Chanderi also to be a jihad."

Aap ek taraf to elliot aur dowson ki ninda kar rahe hain ki unpe vishwas nahi kiya ja sakta parantu jab Babur syavam apni kitaab mein zeehad ka varnan kar raha aap usse bhi nahi maan rahe hain. Kya yeh tarksangat hai?

agodara
October 1st, 2014, 11:08 PM
Name*Of*The Book:*Tarikhu'l-Hind*************Name Of The Historian: Abu*Rihan*Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Biruni*al-Khwarizmi.*************About The Author: This author spent 40 years in India during the reign of Sultan*Mahmud*of*Ghazni*(AD 997 - 1030). His history treats of the literature and learning of the Hindus at the commencement of the 11th century.*************The Muslim Rulers He*Wrote*About:************** a.*Jalam*ibn*Shaiban*(9th century AD)***************Multan*(Punjab)************** "A famous idol of theirs was that of*Multan, dedicated to the sun, and therefore called*Aditya. It was of wood and covered with red Cordovan leather; in its two eyes were two red rubies. It is said to have been made in the last*Kritayuga*.....When Muhammad*Ibn*Alkasim*IbnAlmunaibh*conquered*Multan , he inquired how the town had become so very flourishing and so many treasures had there been accumulated, and then he found out that this idol was the cause, for there came pilgrims from all sides to visit it. Therefore he thought it best to have the idol where it was, but he hung a piece of cow's flesh on its neck by way of mockery. On the same place a mosque was built. When the*Karmatiansoccupied*Multan,*Jalam*Ibn*Shaiban,* the*usurper, broke the idol into pieces and killed its priests..."************** b. Sultan*Mahmud*of*Gazni*(AD 997-1030)***************Thanesar*(Haryana)************ ** "The city of*Taneshar*is highly venerated by Hindus. The idol of that place is called*Cakrasvamin, i.e. the owner of the chakra, a weapon which we have already described. It is of bronze, and is nearly the size of a man. It is now lying in the hippodrome in*Ghazna, together with the Lord of*Somnath, which is a representation of the penis of the*Mahadeva, called*Linga."***************Somnath*(Gujrat)************** "The*linga*he raised was the stone of*Somnath, for soma means the moon and*natan*means master, so that the whole word means master of the moon. The image was destroyed by the Prince*Mahmud, may God be merciful to him! --AH 416. He ordered the upper part to be broken and the remainder to be transported to his residence,*Ghaznin, with all its coverings and trappings of gold, jewels, and embroidered garments. Part of it has been thrown into the hippodrome of the town, together with*Cakrasvamin, an idol of*bronze, that*had been brought fromTaneshar. Another part of the idol from*Somnath*lies before the door of the mosque of*Ghaznin, on which people rub their feet to clean them from dirt and wet."***
Dr.sahab how you can prove he was not a true muslim?

DrRajpalSingh
October 2nd, 2014, 11:43 AM
Mussalman log hinduon ke khilaaf aur anye dharmon ke logo ke khilaaf aam tor pe zeehad chedte hain. Lekin ek sachai yeh bhi hai ki woh aapas mein ek doosre ke khilaaf bhi zeehad chedte hain. Pathanon ne mughlo ke khilaaf zeehad chedi thi san 1672 mein. Udharanarth:
"A rising of the Yusufzais in 1667 had been crushed with heavy slaughter and destruction of crops, but in 1672 the Afridis rose and proclaimed Jihad or Holy War against the Moghuls. They attacked and destroyed a Moghul army at Ali Masjid, situated at the Kabul side of the Khaibar Pass, capturing some 20,000 men and women, besides plunder valued at 20 million rupees." Prashth 319 :
A HISTORY OF AFGHANISTAN
THE ROAD TO TAKHT-I-SULAIMAN
By BRIG.-GEN. SIR PERCY SYKES

Is jankaari ke madhya najar babur ne mewati ko maara ya lodi ko isse yeh nahi
kaha ja sakta ki usne zeehad nahi chhedi.

Satish chandra ki kitaab MEDIEVAL INDIA FROM SULTANAT TO THE MUGHALS ke prasht 35 pe likha hai:
"However, it was Babur who tried to give a religious colour to the conflict in order to raise the flagging spirit of his soldiers. Addressing the officers and men on the eve of the battle, he tried to fire their military ardour, and also tried to use their religious susceptibilities by declaring the war against the Rana to be a jihad or holy war. The begs and the men were made to swear on the Quran that they would not turn away from the battle but fight to the last."

Phir prasth 37 pe likha hai:"Interestingly, Babur declared the siege of Chanderi also to be a jihad."

Aap ek taraf to elliot aur dowson ki ninda kar rahe hain ki unpe vishwas nahi kiya ja sakta parantu jab Babur syavam apni kitaab mein zeehad ka varnan kar raha aap usse bhi nahi maan rahe hain. Kya yeh tarksangat hai?

I have said that Babur never failed to style himself as 'Jihadi' during his adventure in India where he carried out several fights and slaughters to gain his imperialist designs. It was not Jihad as defined in the old books of the religion. Moreover, as your openining lines admit Jihad had different meanings for different people.

The example quoted by you does not reach nearer Jihad; rather it exemplifies a pure fight for political supremacy between the two parties.

Romar
October 2nd, 2014, 07:36 PM
I have said that Babur never failed to style himself as 'Jihadi' during his adventure in India where he carried out several fights and slaughters to gain his imperialist designs. It was not Jihad as defined in the old books of the religion. Moreover, as your openining lines admit Jihad had different meanings for different people. Yeh baat thodi atpati hai. Agar Babur syavam ke aakarman ko zeehad keh raha hai to aap uski kaise avmanana kar sakte hain? Kahin aisa to nahi aap zeehad na samajhate hon aur Babur samajhta ho?



The example quoted by you does not reach nearer Jihad; rather it exemplifies a pure fight for political supremacy between the two parties. Kya yeh aap pathanon aur mughlon ke sandarbh mein kah rahein hain?

agodara
October 2nd, 2014, 11:04 PM
I have said that Babur never failed to style himself as 'Jihadi' during his adventure in India where he carried out several fights and slaughters to gain his imperialist designs. It was not Jihad as defined in the old books of the religion. Moreover, as your openining lines admit Jihad had different meanings for different people.

The example quoted by you does not reach nearer Jihad; rather it exemplifies a pure fight for political supremacy between the two parties.

Dr.sahab how would he had declared jihaad againt a muslim ibhrihm lodhi.
he took another way.he proclaimed delhi was won by his great father temur langda.
And he is original waris to throne rest is history.
babur left drinking before first battle of panipat not before battle of khanwa
thanks

prashantacmet
October 3rd, 2014, 10:58 AM
I have said that Babur never failed to style himself as 'Jihadi' during his adventure in India where he carried out several fights and slaughters to gain his imperialist designs. It was not Jihad as defined in the old books of the religion. Moreover, as your openining lines admit Jihad had different meanings for different people.

The example quoted by you does not reach nearer Jihad; rather it exemplifies a pure fight for political supremacy between the two parties.

Rajpal Ji...so
what ISIS is doing in Seria and Iraq that qualifies to be Jihad?
Taliban is doing Jihad in Afghanistan or not?

give a single example of past or present so that I can understand Jihad. Plz apologize but you need to read the history again seriously

prashantacmet
October 3rd, 2014, 11:03 AM
Mussalman log hinduon ke khilaaf aur anye dharmon ke logo ke khilaaf aam tor pe zeehad chedte hain. Lekin ek sachai yeh bhi hai ki woh aapas mein ek doosre ke khilaaf bhi zeehad chedte hain. Pathanon ne mughlo ke khilaaf zeehad chedi thi san 1672 mein. Udharanarth:
"A rising of the Yusufzais in 1667 had been crushed with heavy slaughter and destruction of crops, but in 1672 the Afridis rose and proclaimed Jihad or Holy War against the Moghuls. They attacked and destroyed a Moghul army at Ali Masjid, situated at the Kabul side of the Khaibar Pass, capturing some 20,000 men and women, besides plunder valued at 20 million rupees." Prashth 319 :
A HISTORY OF AFGHANISTAN
THE ROAD TO TAKHT-I-SULAIMAN
By BRIG.-GEN. SIR PERCY SYKES

Is jankaari ke madhya najar babur ne mewati ko maara ya lodi ko isse yeh nahi
kaha ja sakta ki usne zeehad nahi chhedi.

Satish chandra ki kitaab MEDIEVAL INDIA FROM SULTANAT TO THE MUGHALS ke prasht 35 pe likha hai:
"However, it was Babur who tried to give a religious colour to the conflict in order to raise the flagging spirit of his soldiers. Addressing the officers and men on the eve of the battle, he tried to fire their military ardour, and also tried to use their religious susceptibilities by declaring the war against the Rana to be a jihad or holy war. The begs and the men were made to swear on the Quran that they would not turn away from the battle but fight to the last."

Phir prasth 37 pe likha hai:"Interestingly, Babur declared the siege of Chanderi also to be a jihad."

Aap ek taraf to elliot aur dowson ki ninda kar rahe hain ki unpe vishwas nahi kiya ja sakta parantu jab Babur syavam apni kitaab mein zeehad ka varnan kar raha aap usse bhi nahi maan rahe hain. Kya yeh tarksangat hai?

Romar sahib!..I have been a fan of your knowledge I wonder how you managed to read so many history books ..you have done a very good research on many topics and always nail your opponent down by giving exact reference.

DrRajpalSingh
October 3rd, 2014, 12:06 PM
Jihad is a relative term and has provided several meanings of the word to different people at different times, Nowadays a tendency has developed that every fight involving Muslims on the one side and people of other religions on the other is declared as a Jehad during medieval times of Indian History. This misnomer has been injected by the British historians on India who divided Indian history into three parts : Ancient Indian History was designated as Hindu Hisstory; Medieval period history as Muslim History and lastly modern History as the British History. Whereas it is found that in all the three periods existence of numerous ruling dynasties and elites do not justify this division into religion based division of Indian History.

Of course, religion has been used time and again by the rulers to solicit and consolidate unflinching support of their coreligionists and there are numerous instances and many examples of Jehad carried out by Muslims in various parts of the world. But so far as political expeditions with imperialist design carried out by Babur in India are concerned, they do not fit into this scheme of things. He raised the bogey of Islam in danger to establish his empire in India by removing his rivals from the scene but did little in the service of Islam as Jehadi.

DrRajpalSingh
October 3rd, 2014, 12:11 PM
Dr.sahab how would he had declared jihaad againt a muslim ibhrihm lodhi.
he took another way.he proclaimed delhi was won by his great father temur langda.
And he is original waris to throne rest is history.
babur left drinking before first battle of panipat not before battle of khanwa
thanks

Point 1 - Agreed.
Point 2 - Name of his father was Umar Shaikh Mirza who was a petty chief of Fargana in central Asia.
Point 3 - As per his autobiography, he stopped drinking on the evening preceding his battle of Khanwa against Rana Sanga, whom he calls 'pagan' who had failed him in keeping his word to join him with his forces coming from Agra Side towards Delhi against Ibrahim Lodhi, the then Sultan of India.

krishdel
October 3rd, 2014, 12:22 PM
I think muslims misused the Jehadi word to invoke the sentiments of their large population which was not having proper food in their region of Arab in old time. The rich muslims & traders did all this to achieve their own selfish motives. As I came to to conclusion that in Arabs & Persia there was custom of human slaves. Poor persons ( Man/Women/child) were being sold and purchased in markets and then being used to invade other territory by these Muslim riches and traders. To keep them together and to avoid revolt they misused the idea of Jehad.



Jihad is a relative term and has provided several meanings of the word to different people at different times, Nowadays a tendency has developed that every fight involving Muslims on the one side and people of other religions on the other is declared as a Jehad during medieval times of Indian History. This misnomer has been injected by the British historians on India who divided Indian history into three parts : Ancient Indian History was designated as Hindu Hisstory; Medieval period history as Muslim History and lastly modern History as the British History. Whereas it is found that in all the three periods existence of numerous ruling dynasties and elites do not justify this division into religion based division of Indian History.

Of course, religion has been used time and again by the rulers to solicit and consolidate unflinching support of their coreligionists and there are numerous instances and many examples of Jehad carried out by Muslims in various parts of the world. But so far as political expeditions with imperialist design carried out by Babur in India are concerned, they do not fit into this scheme of things. He raised the bogey of Islam in danger to establish his empire in India by removing his rivals from the scene but did little in the service of Islam as Jehadi.

DrRajpalSingh
October 3rd, 2014, 12:25 PM
Rajpal Ji...so
what ISIS is doing in Seria and Iraq that qualifies to be Jihad?
Taliban is doing Jihad in Afghanistan or not?

give a single example of past or present so that I can understand Jihad. Plz apologize but you need to read the history again seriously

Friend,

Contemporary incidents of butchering the innocent people using religion as a cover to their real designs to capture political power are reprehensible and must be condemned by one and all. Taliban forces in Afghanistan are killing their coreligionists to establish their political supremacy in the name of 'Jehad'.

However to read past history by applying these contemporary events to colour our decisions of historical processes does not fit in the methodology of historical studies.

As mentioned earlier, the term Jehad has several meanings and must be used with caution to understand development and progress of medieval Indian History.

Thanks and regards

DrRajpalSingh
October 3rd, 2014, 12:34 PM
Mussalman log hinduon ke khilaaf aur anye dharmon ke logo ke khilaaf aam tor pe zeehad chedte hain. Lekin ek sachai yeh bhi hai ki woh aapas mein ek doosre ke khilaaf bhi zeehad chedte hain. Pathanon ne mughlo ke khilaaf zeehad chedi thi san 1672 mein. Udharanarth:
"A rising of the Yusufzais in 1667 had been crushed with heavy slaughter and destruction of crops, but in 1672 the Afridis rose and proclaimed Jihad or Holy War against the Moghuls. They attacked and destroyed a Moghul army at Ali Masjid, situated at the Kabul side of the Khaibar Pass, capturing some 20,000 men and women, besides plunder valued at 20 million rupees." Prashth 319 :
A HISTORY OF AFGHANISTAN
THE ROAD TO TAKHT-I-SULAIMAN
By BRIG.-GEN. SIR PERCY SYKES

Is jankaari ke madhya najar babur ne mewati ko maara ya lodi ko isse yeh nahi
kaha ja sakta ki usne zeehad nahi chhedi.

Satish chandra ki kitaab MEDIEVAL INDIA FROM SULTANAT TO THE MUGHALS ke prasht 35 pe likha hai:
"However, it was Babur who tried to give a religious colour to the conflict in order to raise the flagging spirit of his soldiers. Addressing the officers and men on the eve of the battle, he tried to fire their military ardour, and also tried to use their religious susceptibilities by declaring the war against the Rana to be a jihad or holy war. The begs and the men were made to swear on the Quran that they would not turn away from the battle but fight to the last."

Phir prasth 37 pe likha hai:"Interestingly, Babur declared the siege of Chanderi also to be a jihad."

Aap ek taraf to elliot aur dowson ki ninda kar rahe hain ki unpe vishwas nahi kiya ja sakta parantu jab Babur syavam apni kitaab mein zeehad ka varnan kar raha aap usse bhi nahi maan rahe hain. Kya yeh tarksangat hai?


I am in full agreement with what Babur wrote in his autobiography as well as the conclusion derived by Satish Chandra on the issue that Babur misused the name of religion to grind his own axes to found Indian Empire.

As regards extracts contained in History and Historians of India by Elliot and Dowson, I have just cautioned the researchers to use them after consulting the original references wherever possible and must desist from using its translation only.

Thanks.

prashantacmet
October 3rd, 2014, 01:40 PM
Friend,

Contemporary incidents of butchering the innocent people using religion as a cover to their real designs to capture political power are reprehensible and must be condemned by one and all. Taliban forces in Afghanistan are killing their coreligionists to establish their political supremacy in the name of 'Jehad'.

However to read past history by applying these contemporary events to colour our decisions of historical processes does not fit in the methodology of historical studies.

As mentioned earlier, the term Jehad has several meanings and must be used with caution to understand development and progress of medieval Indian History.

Thanks and regards

Dear Friend,

I asked for a simple example, present or past and you are making the thing complex. Out of many definition of jihad, take one , give me a single example of a true "Jihadi" as per your opinion ( I guess your opinion is as per Islamic teaching).

DrRajpalSingh
October 3rd, 2014, 03:54 PM
Dear Friend,

I asked for a simple example, present or past and you are making the thing complex. Out of many definition of jihad, take one , give me a single example of a true "Jihadi" as per your opinion ( I guess your opinion is as per Islamic teaching).

Friend,

My reply is straight forward as regards Indian medieval History. It is for others whether to agree or disagree with me.

What other definitions of the word 'Jihad' are available other than Islamic teachings which you have followed in making your perception regarding medieval Indian History.

Thanks and regards

vk23
October 3rd, 2014, 03:57 PM
Dear Friend,

I asked for a simple example, present or past and you are making the thing complex. Out of many definition of jihad, take one , give me a single example of a true "Jihadi" as per your opinion ( I guess your opinion is as per Islamic teaching).

My friend, Jihad definition according to Islam is : the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin.

Thanks

DrRajpalSingh
October 3rd, 2014, 04:15 PM
For understanding meaning and progress of word 'Jihad'.

http://www.milligazette.com/news/786-books-an-islamic-perspective-on-jihad

But other aspect of the current perception you may enjoy reading articles on the site :

http://www.historyofjihad.org/india.html

DrRajpalSingh
October 3rd, 2014, 04:29 PM
Rajpal Ji...

give a single example of past or present so that I can understand Jihad. Plz apologize but you need to read the history again seriously

Friend,

Read for answer of the first question :http://books.google.co.in/books?id=5H1MWPfqg4oC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=Which+caliph+indulged+in+Jihad&source=bl&ots=Ydrkgz8uDZ&sig=68Lvg3lu_ypIHCCPCdrsJp2lYu0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7X4uVJbgEs2hugTGjYHIBA&ved=0CCoQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=Which%20caliph%20indulged%20in%20Jihad&f=false

For conceptual clarity log : http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/21-jihad-classical-islamic-perspective.html?start=9

Regarding your advice to me to read the history again seriously, I am striving to keep myself updated in my field of interest and have never stopped reading it seriously. Nonetheless, thanks for your words of wisdom !

It would be good if other participants also contribute the factual aspects of history of India as it happened not as it ought to have happened or as coloured by the present day distortions being applied by 'terrorist groups'.

Thanks and best wishes

Romar
October 3rd, 2014, 07:53 PM
Friend,

Read for answer of the first question :http://books.google.co.in/books?id=5H1MWPfqg4oC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=Which+caliph+indulged+in+Jihad&source=bl&ots=Ydrkgz8uDZ&sig=68Lvg3lu_ypIHCCPCdrsJp2lYu0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7X4uVJbgEs2hugTGjYHIBA&ved=0CCoQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=Which%20caliph%20indulged%20in%20Jihad&f=false

For conceptual clarity log : http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/21-jihad-classical-islamic-perspective.html?start=9

Regarding your advice to me to read the history again seriously, I am striving to keep myself updated in my field of interest and have never stopped reading it seriously. Nonetheless, thanks for your words of wisdom !

It would be good if other participants also contribute the factual aspects of history of India as it happened not as it ought to have happened or as coloured by the present day distortions being applied by 'terrorist groups'.

Thanks and best wishes

Aap ka tark tha ki babur ki ladaai hindustaan me zeehad nahi maani ja sakti kyonki usne mussalman maare thhe. Aapki yeh baat galat saabit ho chuki hai.

Doosra aapka tark thha ki babur sharaab pita tha isliye woh sacha mussalman nahi tha aur uske dwara ladaai zeehad nahi maani jaa sakti. Yeh bilkul bebuniyaad baat hai.

Abhi tak aapne thos parmaan nahi diya ki aap Babur ke dwara apni jiwani me likhe kathan ki, jahan weh kaha raha hai ki usne hindustan mein zeehad chede, kaise avmanana kar rahe hai?

Jin kitabon aur lekhon ke link aapne diye unme se kisi ka babur se lena dena nahi hai.

Aap yeh kyon nahi maan rahe hain ki aapa najariya galat ho sakta hai? Aur Babur aapse jyada zeehad ke vishay me jaanta hai?

Romar
October 3rd, 2014, 07:55 PM
My friend, Jihad definition according to Islam is : the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin.

Thanks

Acha chutkula hai. Aise hi saari ka duniya ke bekoof banaya jaa raha hai.

Romar
October 3rd, 2014, 07:57 PM
Friend,

Contemporary incidents of butchering the innocent people using religion as a cover to their real designs to capture political power are reprehensible and must be condemned by one and all. Taliban forces in Afghanistan are killing their coreligionists to establish their political supremacy in the name of 'Jehad'.

However to read past history by applying these contemporary events to colour our decisions of historical processes does not fit in the methodology of historical studies.

As mentioned earlier, the term Jehad has several meanings and must be used with caution to understand development and progress of medieval Indian History.

Thanks and regards
Aap kaisi baat kar rahe hain? Mughalon ne zeehad chedi woh zeehad nahi ho sakti. Aaj terrorist zeehad ched kar saari duniya me logon ko pel rahe hain woh zeehad nahi ho sakti. Yeh kaisa majaak hai?

Romar
October 3rd, 2014, 08:01 PM
Jihad is a relative term and has provided several meanings of the word to different people at different times, Nowadays a tendency has developed that every fight involving Muslims on the one side and people of other religions on the other is declared as a Jehad during medieval times of Indian History. This misnomer has been injected by the British historians on India who divided Indian history into three parts :

Aapki baat sarasar galat hai. Angrejon ka koi lena dena nahi hai. Mughal apni kitabon mein jagah jagah per likh rahe thhe ki unhone kai martaba hinduon ke khilaaf zeehad chedi. Ek Udharan saamne hai babur ki jivani se.

Aap is tarah se sach ko kaise tod marod sakte hain?

Romar
October 3rd, 2014, 08:03 PM
Romar sahib!..I have been a fan of your knowledge I wonder how you managed to read so many history books ..you have done a very good research on many topics and always nail your opponent down by giving exact reference.
Aapka bahut dhanyawad. Jyada kuch to nahi pata hai thoda baut padha hai.

DrRajpalSingh
October 4th, 2014, 09:48 AM
Aap ka tark tha ki babur ki ladaai hindustaan me zeehad nahi maani ja sakti kyonki usne mussalman maare thhe. Aapki yeh baat galat saabit ho chuki hai.

Doosra aapka tark thha ki babur sharaab pita tha isliye woh sacha mussalman nahi tha aur uske dwara ladaai zeehad nahi maani jaa sakti. Yeh bilkul bebuniyaad baat hai.

Abhi tak aapne thos parmaan nahi diya ki aap Babur ke dwara apni jiwani me likhe kathan ki, jahan weh kaha raha hai ki usne hindustan mein zeehad chede, kaise avmanana kar rahe hai?

Jin kitabon aur lekhon ke link aapne diye unme se kisi ka babur se lena dena nahi hai.

Aap yeh kyon nahi maan rahe hain ki aapa najariya galat ho sakta hai? Aur Babur aapse jyada zeehad ke vishay me jaanta hai?

Friend,

the links were provided to find out clarification on the issue of 'Jehad'.

I would like to say, though Babur has nowhere declared his intention to carry out Jehad expeditions in India and carried out his victorious arm at Panipat against Ibrahim Lodhi.

Then he decided to stay in India as this victory enabled him to possess vast territory to rule and also fabulous wealth. But to ensure safety of his newly founded kingdom he had to face a powerful Indian king of the times, Rana Sanga, who had also his eyes to capture the territories left by the Sultan. Hence the struggle for supremacy was to be decided in the battle ground but his friends in high positions lost nerves on learning about the bravery of Indian forces and personal prowess of the Rana. Though they collected at the ground of Khanwa yet showed inclination to retire to Kabul in the darkness of the night.

At this step he warned them against the danger involved in leaving the battle ground and fall prey to the pursuer Indians and die at their hands. He called them to join them in the battle field where they can either win or die. If they won, the fruits of Indian wealth and comfort of the empire would be at their feet; conversely if they fell in the fight they would be remembered as GHAZIS.

Thus to boost the lowly morale of his comrades in arms, he used Religious Idioms like Pagan for Rana Sanga, Jehad for the ensuing battle and Ghazis for his army officers. To confirm his own credibility as a true Muslim he enacted the drama of breaking golden and silver pots containing costly wine imported for his use from central Asia.

Thus, Babur who was a great general and seasoned war planner of not only India but of Asia of his times proved himself a fine event manager. He was successful in turning a pure political fight to 'JEHAD' i.e.battle carried out to spread Islam against Rana Sanga who had earlier invited Babur to invade Delhi Sultan.

In this way, Babur the imperialist invader feigned for as 'Jehadi or Mujaheddin' and won this political battle against his formidable enemy. This is an example of sheer misuse of religious feelings roused for attainment of political ends.



After reading the above course of events on the night before the actual battle happened, it is for the historians to draw there own conclusions whether he was an imperialist foreign invader or a Jehadi or mixture of the two !

I stand by findings arrived at by Satish Chandra as quoted by you in one of your earlier posts and also add that Babur was an imperialist invader and determined conqueror to spread his Kabul based empire over India who at times even posed as a Jehadi-which he was not.

I think the issue stands amply clarified and it is for the readers to derive their own conclusions, they may test the verocity of our findings after reading the available and accessible sources on Babur and are free to add their newer findings, if any.

In the meantime, let us move to some other topic which may be relevant to the heading of the title of the thread.

Thanks and regards

DrRajpalSingh
October 4th, 2014, 10:14 AM
Aap kaisi baat kar rahe hain? Mughalon ne zeehad chedi woh zeehad nahi ho sakti. Aaj terrorist zeehad ched kar saari duniya me logon ko pel rahe hain woh zeehad nahi ho sakti. Yeh kaisa majaak hai?

Yeh Bahut ghatia darje ka majaak hai. Dharam ke naam pe nirdosh longo ko marana aur ise dharmikta ka kawach pahanakar aapne swarth purati me lage rahana.
Yehi Babur ne kiya Khanwa ke ladai mein Jahan apane naraz aur dare hue sathi uzbekon ko dharam naam kee afim khila ke yudh me jhhonk diya aur apane takatwara virodhi to haraya!

DrRajpalSingh
October 4th, 2014, 10:21 AM
Aapki baat sarasar galat hai. Angrejon ka koi lena dena nahi hai. Mughal apni kitabon mein jagah jagah per likh rahe thhe ki unhone kai martaba hinduon ke khilaaf zeehad chedi. Ek Udharan saamne hai babur ki jivani se.

Aap is tarah se sach ko kaise tod marod sakte hain?

Kindly participate in the discussion with democratic ethos in mind. I say Babur posed to be 'Jehadi' on the basis of my studies; you on the basis of your findings find him 'true jihadi.'

Can we not agree to disagree a bit with each other on the issue.

If you have regard towards rights and duties of the free citizens of India of free discussion, kindly desist from issuing such type of fatawas : Aapki baat sarasar galat hai.

Romar
October 6th, 2014, 06:49 AM
Aap ka tark tha ki babur ki ladaai hindustaan me zeehad nahi maani ja sakti kyonki usne mussalman maare thhe. Aapki yeh baat galat saabit ho chuki hai.

Doosra aapka tark thha ki babur sharaab pita tha isliye woh sacha mussalman nahi tha aur uske dwara ladaai zeehad nahi maani jaa sakti. Yeh bilkul bebuniyaad baat hai.

Abhi tak aapne thos parmaan nahi diya ki aap Babur ke dwara apni jiwani me likhe kathan ki, jahan weh kaha raha hai ki usne hindustan mein zeehad chede, kaise avmanana kar rahe hai?

Jin kitabon aur lekhon ke link aapne diye unme se kisi ka babur se lena dena nahi hai.

Aap yeh kyon nahi maan rahe hain ki aapa najariya galat ho sakta hai? Aur Babur aapse jyada zeehad ke vishay me jaanta hai?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="DrRajpalSingh"]
Friend,

the links were provided to find out clarification on the issue of 'Jehad'.

I would like to say, though Babur has nowhere declared his intention to carry out Jehad expeditions in India and carried out his victorious arm at Panipat against Ibrahim Lodhi.



Babur ne apni jivani me bilkul saaf likha hai ki usne zeehad chedi. Udharan dekhiya unki jivani se:

" There Sangur Khan Janjuha became a martyr. Kitta Beg had galloped into the pell-mell without his cuirass ; he got one pagan afoot and was overcoming him, when the pagan snatched a sword from one of Kitta Beg's own servants and slashed the Beg across the shoulder. Kitta Beg suffered great pain ; he could not come into the Holy-battle with Rana Sanga, was long in recovering and always remained blemished."

Aapka kathan kaise maana ja sakta hai jab ki Babur saaf taur pe likh raha hai ki usne zeehad cheedi Hinduon ke khilaaf?

Itna hi nahi agar up MA Khan ki kitaab "islamic zeehad" padhe to prashth 283 pe aap payenge ki : "In his autobiographical memoir Babur Nama, he describes his campaigns against the Hindus as Jihad, punctuated with verse and references from the Quran."

Yeh sab jaanane ke baad bhi aap kis parkaar likh sakte hain "Babur has nowhere declared his intention to carry out Jehad expeditions in India"?

DrRajpalSingh
October 6th, 2014, 07:49 AM
None denies the fact that Babur styled his battle against Rana Sanga as 'JEHAD' under the force of objective conditions prevalent before the time of actual starting of fight!

So nothing new added to the discussion by quoting the same source in the above post to depict same event albeit added one more name of author included to support the already known fact !

Kindly quote a reference either from his autobiography or any other contemporary source where Babur wrote that he decided to carry out Jehad against Hindus at all India level !

Otherwise,

No use of going on posting irrelevant questions and counter questions by you and me on the already settled historical fact !

NB - Baburnama is just Persian translation of His autobiography - Tuzuk-i-Baburi authored by him in Turkish.

Thanks and regards

prashantacmet
October 6th, 2014, 11:55 AM
My friend, Jihad definition according to Islam is : the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin.

Thanks


so what almost all rulers, dictators and emperors are doing for centuries at the name of Islam..what is that sh**?


all of them were fools.?..why did not you take birth earlier to teach them true definition of Jehad?

prashantacmet
October 6th, 2014, 11:57 AM
Friend,

My reply is straight forward as regards Indian medieval History. It is for others whether to agree or disagree with me.

What other definitions of the word 'Jihad' are available other than Islamic teachings which you have followed in making your perception regarding medieval Indian History.

Thanks and regards

Is this called a straight reply?

prashantacmet
October 6th, 2014, 12:00 PM
Aap ka tark tha ki babur ki ladaai hindustaan me zeehad nahi maani ja sakti kyonki usne mussalman maare thhe. Aapki yeh baat galat saabit ho chuki hai.

Doosra aapka tark thha ki babur sharaab pita tha isliye woh sacha mussalman nahi tha aur uske dwara ladaai zeehad nahi maani jaa sakti. Yeh bilkul bebuniyaad baat hai.

Abhi tak aapne thos parmaan nahi diya ki aap Babur ke dwara apni jiwani me likhe kathan ki, jahan weh kaha raha hai ki usne hindustan mein zeehad chede, kaise avmanana kar rahe hai?

Jin kitabon aur lekhon ke link aapne diye unme se kisi ka babur se lena dena nahi hai.

Aap yeh kyon nahi maan rahe hain ki aapa najariya galat ho sakta hai? Aur Babur aapse jyada zeehad ke vishay me jaanta hai?


Romar ji...kuch logo ka nazariya galat nahi...balki poori history ka nazariya hi different hai...in logo be bas NCERT ki book padh rahi hai bas ...aur kuch nahi.....hahahahah

vk23
October 6th, 2014, 02:44 PM
so what almost all rulers, dictators and emperors are doing for centuries at the name of Islam..what is that sh**?


all of them were fools.?..why did not you take birth earlier to teach them true definition of Jehad?

My friend, request you to use decent words when talking about a community.

Sometimes some bad elements tweak the words in order to take advantage. thats all.

DrRajpalSingh
October 6th, 2014, 04:52 PM
Romar ji...kuch logo ka nazariya galat nahi...balki poori history ka nazariya hi different hai...in logo be bas NCERT ki book padh rahi hai bas ...aur kuch nahi.....hahahahah

Friend,

Before denouncing 'kuch log' it would be in fitness of things if you kindly quote even a single contemporary sources in support of your claim [including Tuzuk-i- Baburi with page number] which says that Babur started from Fargana to invade Qabul or after having established himself as victor there, he descended on India to carry out Jehad against non-Islamist Indians till he reached Khanwa near Agra to face big army commanded by Rana Sanga. Finding his army disheartened he used religion to attain his political goal.

Those who have read large number of books are welcome to join discussion based on contemporary sources to settle the issue once for all times to come.

So far my limited study is concerned, the factual position in the issue being discussed is as under:

In a bid to curb revolt of Tuzuk and Ujbegh soldiers, he infused the slogan of service to Islam. Rest of the story of his dramatic behaviour on the night preceding fight against Indian forces led by Sanga, events of the war and subsequent course is available in his autobiography in graphic detail which need not be repeated time and again before those who are adamant to prove all the battles of this foreign intruder as Jehad.

He had invaded India to loot riches of the country and finding the Indians ill equipped to defend the country, his appetite to establish his empire over India increased gradually in proportion to the victories he was able to win. To keep his Muslim Amirs and soldiers in right side, he distributed easy won treasure in the form of booty with free hands and also used the slogan of 'Jehad' where it suited him most as quoted above.

Thanks and best wishes

DrRajpalSingh
October 6th, 2014, 05:10 PM
Is this called a straight reply?

In simplest words, Babur, the Central Asian invader Mughal misused religious idioms to fulfill his imperialist designs in his fight against Mahaarana Sangram Singh, who had also set his eyes to fill the vacuum created by the fall of Delhi Sultanate to capture Agra and Delhi.

And he was successful in defeating our Indian forces by raising the bogey of Islam in danger before his followers.

That is all, I know about his 'Jehad'

prashantacmet
October 6th, 2014, 05:41 PM
My friend, request you to use decent words when talking about a community.

Sometimes some bad elements tweak the words in order to take advantage. thats all.

where did I say bad to a community???

I used the word sh** for what was done by almost all of the Islamists rulers at the name of Jehad...got it ?..and mind it...it is not "some bad element", it was almost done by all muslim emperors. buthchering infidels or idolators at the name of Jehad is OK with you?

Tell me a muslim emperor who complies with your definition of Jihad?

sanjeev1984
October 7th, 2014, 10:38 AM
ye poora sach nahi hai... sirf paise ya heere-zawaraat k liye attack nahi kiya gaya tha Hindu Temples pe... agar sirf paise ke liye attack kiya jata to mandir ko jalana... ya toodna... ya fir uske upar masjid/makbare na bante... jin logo ne invasion kiya vo lootere nahi the... vo religious propagators the...

or mandiro pe attack kar ke hindustaan ka jitna nuksaan hua hai na vo aaj ke "Arabic countries" ki saari daulat bhi wapas nahi la sakti... pehle mandiro mai sirf sona ya heere nahi hote the... mandir library ka bhi kaam karte the... or bahot logo ke jeevan bhar ka gyan sanjo ke rukha jata tha... vo sab kuch jala diya gaya...


The attacks on the Hindu temples were carried out not to spread Islam but to get the accumulated wealth in them.

DrRajpalSingh
October 7th, 2014, 10:43 AM
After the death of Babur, his son and successor was Humayun who ruled from 1530 to 1539 and then 1555 to 1556 from the Mughal dynasty capital at Agra. In between Shershah Suri and his successor ruled. It is a very important period in history of medieval India which prepared ground for appearance of Akbar on not only Indian scene but on the map of world history.

Let us join discussion on main events covering governance, warfare, administrative policies and social conditions of the period.

Of course information supported by contemporary data will add to our existing knowledge about the principal persons and events being taken for discussion.

DrRajpalSingh
October 7th, 2014, 10:55 AM
ye poora sach nahi hai... sirf paise ya heere-zawaraat k liye attack nahi kiya gaya tha Hindu Temples pe... agar sirf paise ke liye attack kiya jata to mandir ko jalana... ya toodna... ya fir uske upar masjid/makbare na bante... jin logo ne invasion kiya vo lootere nahi the... vo religious propagators the...

The quote selected by you for comment relates not to describe every foreign invaders but to M. Ghaznavi.

Therefore I am in agreement to the extent that : His prime motive was to loot Indian wealth and his greedy eyes fell on the fabulous wealth kept in ill-protected Hindu religious shrines/temples which they looted, slaughtered the few defenders, broke the Hindu images of gods and goddesses thus causing sacrilege and retired to his capital taking many people as slaves.

The only mosque he got constructed was in his capital and to the best of my knowledge he did not construct any other on Indian soil.

If it is wrong kindly enlighten I am open to learn.

sanjeev1984
October 7th, 2014, 12:13 PM
Ye sirf babur ka nahi sab invader ka sach hai, sir ji including British + Portuguese.

Ye sab us samay-kaal mai hua tha jab.


gharo mai TV nahi hote the or movie theatres bhi nahi hote the log subah or shaam ko mandir mai ikkathe hote the bhajan keertan ke liye
banks nahi hote the log wahan pe apna paisa bhi rukhte the or jarurat padne pe wahan se lete bhi the.
School nahi hote the wahan pe pandit/shastri shalook or doosri scriptures ka manchan karte the or jeevan jeene ka raasta dikhate the
Libraries nahi hoti thi mandiro mai hi pothiyan or rishi-muniyo (vicharako) ke jeevan bhar ke research topic ko wahan rukha jata tha


Jaisa ki humne bahot baar suna hai ki aati har cheez ki buri invasion ka karaan wahi tha us samay ke bharat ke log hathiyar banana se jayada apne karam banane mai leen the or yahi aatyaadhik adhyatam (spirituality) hi, humare upar kiye gaye hamlo ka karan bani hum theek se apna bachaav bhi nahi kar paye

Or unke jeetne ke baad itihaas unke hisaab se hi likha gaya aaj to humara itihaas suru hi babar se hota hai sirf 700+800 saal ka itihaas bataya jaata hai vo bhi bahot tood-marood ke or na sirf itihaas balki kisse-kahani bhi aisi likhi gai hain jinse hume apne khud ke ithaas se hi nafraat ho jaye

bahot saari baatein hain saab discuss karne k liye maaf karna mai saab kuch likhne mai Samarth nahi hu


The quote selected by you for comment relates not to describe every foreign invaders but to M. Ghaznavi.

Therefore I am in agreement to the extent that : His prime motive was to loot Indian wealth and his greedy eyes fell on the fabulous wealth kept in ill-protected Hindu religious shrines/temples which they looted, slaughtered the few defenders, broke the Hindu images of gods and goddesses thus causing sacrilege and retired to his capital taking many people as slaves.

The only mosque he got constructed was in his capital and to the best of my knowledge he did not construct any other on Indian soil.

If it is wrong kindly enlighten I am open to learn.

agodara
October 7th, 2014, 11:56 PM
Ok sire
lets start again from m.b.kasim attack as i alslo want to know how true is history in india tought
Arab sources usually glossed over uncomfortable defeats. For a balanced view both sides of the story have to be analysed. If you read Chachnama it says Kasim penetrated further and sent an army which nearing the borders of King Chitrangad Mori (Note: arabs usually got the names of indian places and humans wrong and they recorded this as the king of Udhapur, Rai Harchand. Chitrangad Mori belonged to the Maurya dynasty of Chandragupta Maurya) sent him a letter from the caliph:
contnued

agodara
October 8th, 2014, 12:01 AM
Note It is also recorded that Kasim himself went in pursuit of Dahir's son who fled north towards kashmir but mysteriously he is now close with other commanders of his who are on the borders of the kings of Udhapur!Indic sources on the other hand record that Dahir's son fled south west to Chitrangad Mori's kingdom and was present amongst the Hindu princes who were arrayed against the Arabs. The commander of these Hindu rajput princes was Bappa Rawal.Indic sources also record that Bappa defeated Kasim and Arabs with great slaughter and pursued him back to Sindh.Though Arab sources record that Kasim got a letter from Caliph when he was about to attack Udhapura which asked him to return!
contd

agodara
October 8th, 2014, 12:03 AM
Then the whole story about the daughters of Dahir which led to the execution of Kasim are invented to gloss over the defeat at the hands of Hindu princes.So we can conclude that Kasim did penetrate further, attacked Chittor and was defeated, pursued back and then returned to the caliph in ignominy and this defeat perhaps paved the way for his execution.

vk23
October 8th, 2014, 03:52 PM
One of the impact of invasion was the economy. During the Mughal rule, Indian economy performed best and that's why India made it to Fortune's all time most powerful economies list.


Kindly read the below fragment:

http://profit.ndtv.com/news/economy/article-india-in-fortunes-all-time-most-powerful-economies-list-675460


The country under the Mughal rule around 1700 AD, accounted for 25 per cent of the world's output and made it to number three (chronological order) in the 'Fortune 5: Most powerful economic empires of all time'.
The Mughal empire which dated from the 16th century till the British took over the country in the 19th century, was one of the most vibrant eras for the Indian economy, according to Fortune.

The others who made it to the Fortune list were the Roman Empire (number one) around 100 AD, with 25-30 per cent of global output, the Song Dynasty in China (number two) around 1200 AD with 25-30 per cent of global output, the British Empire (number four) around 1870 with 21 per cent of global output and the US circa around 1950 with 50 per cent of global output.

ayushkadyan
October 9th, 2014, 09:24 PM
One of the impact of invasion was the economy. During the Mughal rule, Indian economy performed best and that's why India made it to Fortune's all time most powerful economies list.


Kindly read the below fragment:

http://profit.ndtv.com/news/economy/article-india-in-fortunes-all-time-most-powerful-economies-list-675460


The country under the Mughal rule around 1700 AD, accounted for 25 per cent of the world's output and made it to number three (chronological order) in the 'Fortune 5: Most powerful economic empires of all time'.
The Mughal empire which dated from the 16th century till the British took over the country in the 19th century, was one of the most vibrant eras for the Indian economy, according to Fortune.

The others who made it to the Fortune list were the Roman Empire (number one) around 100 AD, with 25-30 per cent of global output, the Song Dynasty in China (number two) around 1200 AD with 25-30 per cent of global output, the British Empire (number four) around 1870 with 21 per cent of global output and the US circa around 1950 with 50 per cent of global output.

Friend,

I'm observing your all the posts since you joined the jatland. Don't take it personally. Here I'm concluding the few things:

1) You have started a thread to learn foreign language: Surprisingly It was "URDU" (http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?37719-Share-Good-resources-to-learn-foreign-and-domestic-languages!)
2) You didn't loose even a single chance to spit venom against Modi/BJP/RSS whenever they were discussed. N number of threads are there with similar criticism.
3) In this thread you are trying to prove Mughal regime was the best
4) Never saw a single post from your side in any thread which contains something good/related to Jat community.
5) Only you were offended when a JL member used a specific word for Mughals in this thread.
6) In a thread you were proposing the Imam to speech on national TV (http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?37720-RSS-Chief-s-Speech-Broadcast-on-Doordarshan-Provoking-Objections&p=368424#post368424)
7) You seem more knowledgeable on Islam (http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?37540-How-Islam-spread-in-India&p=367381#post367381)
8) I found you first member on JL who is discussing the achievement of Muslims while this site is limited to only hindu JATs (http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?37567-Muslim-World-contributions-to-Science-Technology-amp-Other-fields/page2)
9) Another one prove what do you want from this site: (http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?37543-Chaupal&p=365847#post365847)
10) No one can match you when it comes to defend a particular community (http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?37535-Summary-of-Islamic-History&p=365639#post365639)
11) First person on JL wishing Eid (http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?37583-Wish-you-all-a-happy-Eid-Ul-Fitr-and-also-Festival-of-Swings-Teej)
12) You can go far away to save the interests of a community (http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?36450-Why-no-Uniform-Civil-code&p=365105#post365105)
13) Always concerned about a particular community (http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?35852-Pseudo-secularism&p=365043#post365043)

Now please come up with your real identity so that we can take the matter accordingly:

agodara
October 10th, 2014, 12:14 AM
mods dekh le i.p address kaha se aaraha hai.or kahi khai change to nahi ho rraha time to timea
thanks

DrRajpalSingh
October 28th, 2014, 03:17 PM
One of the impacts of the Mughal rule was the beginning of Hindu-Muslim cultural traits intermixing influencing each other and giving place to multicultural and composite heritage in the spheres of architecture, literature and fine arts.

Rise and development of many regional languages also may be ascribed to this period. Birth of Urdu and fast development of Hindi also has traces to this period.

sahij
November 3rd, 2014, 04:59 AM
Kindly read the below fragment:

http://profit.ndtv.com/news/economy/article-india-in-fortunes-all-time-most-powerful-economies-list-675460


The country under the Mughal rule around 1700 AD, accounted for 25 per cent of the world's output and made it to number three (chronological order) in the 'Fortune 5: Most powerful economic empires of all time'.
The Mughal empire which dated from the 16th century till the British took over the country in the 19th century, was one of the most vibrant eras for the Indian economy, according to Fortune.


No wonder you quote from ndtv article - the ever so secular channel. However, here is the graphic:

17298


Can you make out what was percentage GDP of India, before coming of muslims? Propaganda doesn't always work!

sahij
November 3rd, 2014, 03:01 PM
giving place to multicultural and composite heritage in the spheres of architecture, literature and fine arts.

Was India not "multicultural" and "composite" before? What new did islam bring on the table? The only thing islam did was bring another culture - which was more hegemonic, destructive and "unicultural" than anything that has ever been on planet earth. India was multicultural (though the term in its contemporary context is highly misleading) before the advent of islam, and all your nostalgia about it is akin to the statement that war is nothing but peace accentuated by its absence.



Rise and development of many regional languages also may be ascribed to this period. Birth of Urdu and fast development of Hindi also has traces to this period.

1. When did regional languages stop rising and developing? Can you please provide us with some specific instances where regional (or otherwise) languages were not developing?
2. What exactly makes Urdu a separate language from Hindi, so that you can attribute a birth to it?
3. What is this fast development of Hindi, can you please provide specific instances - so that we can also hear the sonic boom left behind by the proclaimed fast development?

sahij
November 3rd, 2014, 03:16 PM
A section of the divided local people of Sindh joined the invaders to get rid of the tyranny of and prosecution by the ruler.

Doesn't a section of people always support the invaders? Tell me one war where a section of population didn't support the invaders. This is very biased rhetoric to say the least.



The victor retired to his native country along with a considerable number of Indians with him. This led to continued relationship between the people of Sindh and the state founded by the Khalifa.

Are you talking about the swathes of slaves that were trafficked? This is some jugglery of words! You make it sound as if they were invited for a feast into the Arabia in jovial atmosphere of mutual appreciation.



Important point here to note is that victory of the foreign raiders was ensured by a group of Indians joining hands with them.

Which was this group of people joined hands with "foreign raiders" against Dahir? Can you kindly specify?


The answer is wrongs done to them by the ruling elite on the basis of faulty social system current in that area complled them to do so. There was no fight between Hindus or Muslims alone on either side. Hindus had joined hands with the invading armies to get deliverance from their tyrant king Raja Dahir and this they did with the help of Qasim.

Please give instances of "tyranny" of Dahir, and the "faulty social system".

prashantacmet
November 4th, 2014, 02:28 PM
Which was this group of people joined hands with "foreign raiders" against Dahir? Can you kindly specify?

Few jats and meds joined hands with kasim to defeat daahir. Jats were prominently buddhist at that time. there were many Jat kings in Sindh area. After defeating daahir, kasim invaded on jats too and they fought with bravery but were defeated.




Please give instances of "tyranny" of Dahir, and the "faulty social system".

daahir and chach mistreated jats. they imposed disgraceful regulations on them. Dahir married his own sister..filthy dog!. cheater kasim also continued the same regulations on Jats, he compared jats with savages of Persia.

sahij
November 4th, 2014, 02:59 PM
Few jats and meds joined hands with kasim to defeat daahir. Jats were prominently buddhist at that time. there were many Jat kings in Sindh area. After defeating daahir, kasim invaded on jats too and they fought with bravery but were defeated.

Correct, but reasons range from oppression to personal gains. And if I remember correctly, some of them even feigned a capture by Qasim - so that can hardly be called "honourable" conduct.


Dahir married his own sister..filthy dog!.

She was Jat, and not a real sister, but his step sister and the marriage was never consummated - that might be unacceptable social conduct, but doesn't really qualify as "tyranny" or "faulty social system". Irrespective of that Dahir was brave - so I give that much credit to him.


cheater kasim also continued the same regulations on Jats, he compared jats with savages of Persia.

Exactly, (though I had originally replied to DrRajpalSingh), nothing changed due to this invasion. In fact, brahmins were left out of most of the trouble because they pleaded in front of Qasim. So the claim that somehow islam was the savior or provided deliverance is a false one. Further the war was fought on the pretext of muslim women captured by some people (and consequently on religious grounds to extend muslim dominion) and had nothing to do with Dahir or his "tyranny".

DrRajpalSingh
November 7th, 2014, 12:37 PM
Reawakening among Hindu Saints to reform society led to appearance of increased social reformers compositely known as BHAKTI MOVEMENT SAINTS as well as appearance of increased activities of SUFI SAINTS.


Both these groups enriched Indian social fabric and Literary heritage.

RathiJi
November 8th, 2014, 12:07 AM
Few jats and meds joined hands with kasim to defeat daahir. Jats were prominently buddhist at that time. there were many Jat kings in Sindh area. After defeating daahir, kasim invaded on jats too and they fought with bravery but were defeated.




daahir and chach mistreated jats. they imposed disgraceful regulations on them. Dahir married his own sister..filthy dog!. cheater kasim also continued the same regulations on Jats, he compared jats with savages of Persia.

Not have much knowledge about it. Please provide credible proof. What were those regulations specificly for jats ? How they mistreated us? married her sister & what about the one who fought him ? his generation is marrying with sisters ..

swaich
November 8th, 2014, 02:07 PM
Well, without going into the good and the bad of it, the foreign invasions brought in a lot of changes to the sub-continent, the effects of which we still see to this day. From our language, to our dress, our food, music etc is directly correlated to these invasions.

prashantacmet
November 8th, 2014, 02:11 PM
Not have much knowledge about it. Please provide credible proof. What were those regulations specificly for jats ? How they mistreated us? married her sister & what about the one who fought him ? his generation is marrying with sisters ..

Read "chachnama", read on Jatland wiki or just google you will find lot of matter to read :)

DrRajpalSingh
November 8th, 2014, 04:20 PM
.................................................. .................Exactly, (though I had originally replied to DrRajpalSingh), nothing changed due to this invasion. In fact, brahmins were left out of most of the trouble because they pleaded in front of Qasim. So the claim that somehow islam was the savior or provided deliverance is a false one. Further the war was fought on the pretext of muslim women captured by some people (and consequently on religious grounds to extend muslim dominion) and had nothing to do with Dahir or his "tyranny".Friend kindly share your findings by quoting source please !

DrRajpalSingh
November 8th, 2014, 04:26 PM
------------------------

1. When did regional languages stop rising and developing? Can you please provide us with some specific instances where regional (or otherwise) languages were not developing?
2. What exactly makes Urdu a separate language from Hindi, so that you can attribute a birth to it?
3. What is this fast development of Hindi, can you please provide specific instances - so that we can also hear the sonic boom left behind by the proclaimed fast development?

Kindly read some good books on the development of Indian languages and literature to know the answers to these questions.

R.C Majumdar edited multi volumes books published by BVB, Bombay can be good starting point for a beginner with clean slate as regards knowledge of the history of languages and literature during medieval times in India is concerned !

DrRajpalSingh
November 8th, 2014, 06:05 PM
Was India not "multicultural" and "composite" before? What new did islam bring on the table? The only thing islam did was bring another culture - which was more hegemonic, destructive and "unicultural" than anything that has ever been on planet earth. India was multicultural (though the term in its contemporary context is highly misleading) before the advent of islam, and all your nostalgia about it is akin to the statement that war is nothing but peace accentuated by its absence.
.......................
1. When did regional languages stop rising and developing? Can you please provide us with some specific instances where regional (or otherwise) languages were not developing?
2. What exactly makes Urdu a separate language from Hindi, so that you can attribute a birth to it?
3. What is this fast development of Hindi, can you please provide specific instances - so that we can also hear the sonic boom left behind by the proclaimed fast development?
And,

Doesn't a section of people always support the invaders? Tell me one war where a section of population didn't support the invaders. This is very biased rhetoric to say the least...............

Are you talking about the swathes of slaves that were trafficked? This is some jugglery of words! You make it sound as if they were invited for a feast into the Arabia in jovial atmosphere of mutual appreciation.................

Which was this group of people joined hands with "foreign raiders" against Dahir? Can you kindly specify?..................

Please give instances of "tyranny" of Dahir, and the "faulty social system".

Friend,

I avoided commenting on your scholarly findings but you have started to quote your views in reply to questions raised by other members in their posts also to justify that the replies posted by you are something concrete results. Hence this post:

Taken together all the questions show some of them are the questions for the sake of 'questions' and others show that before posing them you did not even read any standard book on Medieval Indian History. After reading some standard books on history of medieval India you may turn to History of India as Told by its own Historians in VIII Volumes which will provide names of the books and authors as well as some selective passages' English Translation that will be helpful in finding some of the mentioned books in some archives/repositories. Thereafter, there is a lot of literature available in National Library Calcutta and National Archives of India on medieval Indian History and culture.

If after going into this process you feel that what I have put above in my posts is wrong, you are free to raise questions.

You will appreciate that this forum is history section [not general discussion forum ] where one is expected to post such material as may be substantiated with reference material ! [Read first Chachnama as suggested by Mr. Prashant Vaidwan to get first hand information what Dahir did with his subject Buddhists who were mostly Jats.] Full Persian text of Chachnama has been translated into English and published in book form at AMU Aligarh.

Thanks and wish you best readings !

sahij
November 9th, 2014, 03:03 AM
Friend kindly share your findings by quoting source please !

Respected DrRajpalSingh,


Instead of suggesting you to read Chachnama as you have done (which incidently I read many years back), I would just give excerpts from it.

1. "nothing changed due to this invasion." - for Jats


Muhammad Kasim gives a written pardon to the residents of Brahminabad.
Muhammad Kasim, then complied with the prayer made by the people in the suburbs of Braminabad, and permanently settled their affairs in the same way and on the same lines, as had been followed in the case of the Jews, Fire-worshippers, Nazarenes and Magians of Irak and Syria. He then sent them back to their homes; and to their headmen he gave the generic name of Rana.1 He then sent for Wazir Siyakar and Mókah Basayeh, and asked them as to how the Jats of the Luhanah tribe had been treated by Chach and Dahar, and how matters now stood in regard to them. Wazir Siyakar replied in the presence of Mókah Basayeh: “In the reign of Rai Chach the Luhanahs, that is, the Lakhahs and the Sammahs were not allowed to use soft clothes of silk or velvet. On the contrary they used to wear a rough black blanket, and put on a rough coarse scarf on their shoulders, and they went about with bare head and feet. If any one of them wore some soft stuff, he was fined, and when they went out of their houses, they used to take a dog with them, in order that they might easily be distinguished from the other tribes. None of their elders or chiefs was allowed to ride a horse. If any guides were required anywhere by any prince, they served as such. In fact it was their business to show the way as guides upto the limits of another tribe. If any headman or Rana was obliged to use a horse, he rode it without any saddle or reins, and with only a blanket on its back. If an accident occurred to any traveller, the Jat tribes were called to help, and it was the duty of their headmen to see that such help was given readily. If any one of them committed theft, his children and the other members of his family were thrown into flames and burnt. They guided caravans on their way both during day time and at night. Among them there is no distinction of high and low; they are all of the wild nature of brutes. They have always been refractory and disobedient to the rulers; and are in the habit of committing highway robberies. In the robberies committed some time ago on the high roads of Debal, they were probably concerned as accomplices. It was also a duty of theirs to supply firewood for the royal kitchen, to collect provisions for the personal use of the king, and to keep watch over his person, as his body guards.”

A tradition.
Hearing this account of the Luhanah Jats, Muhammad Kasim is said to have remarked: “what a villainous set of people these are. They are quite like the wild men, living in some villages of Fars and Mount Payeh, and they should now be treated as such.” Muhammad Kasim, therefore, thought it proper to deal with them exactly in the same way, and following the rule made applicable by the commander of the faithful, Umār, son of Khattab, (may the great God be pleased with him) to the people of Syria, he ordered that if any stranger or a traveller should arrive within their limits, they were bound to entertain him with food as a guest for a day and night, and if he fell sick, for three days.



All the country ruled by Dróhar, king of Kurij was given to Huzail son of Sulaiman Azdi, and Khantilah son of Bananah Kilabi was made the governor of Dahlelah. Every one of these officers was ordered to make full enquiries as to the state of affairs in his charge, and to communicate the result, every month, after careful verification. He also advised all of them to assist one another, in case an enemy's army invaded the country, or caused disaffection or revolt among the people. They were further instructed to keep an eye on the unruly and the mischievous, and to chastise them. He gave them 2,000 infantry for the purpose. He also nominated Kais Abdul Malik, son of Kais Dini and Khalid Ansari to the charge of Siwistan; and deputed Masud Tamimi son of Shaibah Jadidi, Farasati Atki, Sahir Lashkari Abdul Malik son of Abdullah Khazai, Mahni son of Akkah, and Wafa son of Abdurrahman to Dahlelah and Nerun to settle that part of the country. Among the emancipated slaves, there was one by name Malik, who was very enterprising. Him, he sent as his officer to Kardail. Alwan Bahkri and Kais son of Saalabah with 300 followers of theirs chose to become permanent residents. They married and begot children, and completely subjugated and tamed the Jats.



2. "brahmins were left out of most of the trouble because they pleaded in front of Qasim"


A petition made by the Brahmins.
He then ordered a census to be taken of all the merchants and artisans. About 1,000 men from amongst the ordinary public were thus counted out. Muhammad Kasim ordered a capitation tax of 12 dirams of silver in weight only to be fixed on each of them as they had already lost their property by plunder. He next appointed headmen and village chiefs to collect the revenue and charged them with the duty of collecting the tribute from all the townspeople and villagers, and thus provided them with sufficient means of subsistence and support.
When the Brahmins saw the consideration shown by the Arab General to the headmen, they came to him with a petition (praying that a similar favour be shown to them), and all the great and chief men of the place testified to the fact that, in the last reign, they were much honoured and revered. Muhammad Kasim, therefore, paid them proper respect, and issued an order that they be shown the same reverence as before. They were, thus, in every way, free from trouble and violence. Muhammad Kasim (also) gave every one of them a proper appointment. As he was quite sure, now, that no harm or mischief would result from them, he conferred on every one of them the same post which he had held in the reign of Rai Chach. He then called a conference of all the Brahmins in the town, and addressed them as follows:—

The Brahmins go to the villagers in the province with happy hearts.
“In the reign of Dahar, you held responsible posts, and you must be knowing all the people of the city as well as of the country all around. You must in form us which of them are noteworthy and celebrated and deserve kindness and patronage at our hands; so that we may show proper favour to them, and make grants to them. As I have come to entertain a good opinion of you, and have full trust in your faithfulness and sincerety, I confirm you in your previous posts. The management of all the affairs of State, and its administration, I leave in your able hands, and this (right) I grant (also) to your children and descendants hereditarily, and you need fear no alteration or cancellation of the order thus issued.”



3. "Further the war was fought on the pretext of muslim women captured by some people (and consequently on religious grounds to extend muslim dominion) and had nothing to do with Dahir or his "tyranny""

Do I really need to give quotes in support of this? I can give you if you want. Anybody who knows anything about Sindh history knows that Qasim was sent for "rescueing" muslim women returning from Serendib (Sri Lanka), and the captors had nothing to do with Dahir. The "expedition" (so to say) achieved its goals quite early, and Dahir in no way interfered in Qasim's quest to achieve the same. All this was used as a tool to persuade the muslim fighting men because they were unwilling to come - because they suffered heavily in previous many such expeditions.

sahij
November 9th, 2014, 03:06 AM
Kindly read some good books on the development of Indian languages and literature to know the answers to these questions.

I appreciate your consistency when you ask others to quote sources, while you yourself get away by just asking others to "read some good books". May be you consider yourself God in History, or at least the historical version of Prophet Muhammad, that whatever you say is to be treated as a word of God himself/herself.


I avoided commenting on your scholarly findings but you have started to quote your views in reply to questions raised by other members in their posts also to justify that the replies posted by you are something concrete results. Hence this post:


Thanks for being so kind as to condescend to reply to my "scholarly findings", but may be it is me, however, I couldn't find where I quoted my "views in reply to questions raised by other members in their posts also to justify that the replies posted by you [me] are something concrete results". Anyway,


Taken together all the questions show some of them are the questions for the sake of 'questions' and others show that before posing them you did not even read any standard book on Medieval Indian History.

Well you can treat it like that, for that is one way of avoiding uncomfortable questions on your assertions which become eternal truths from the very fact that they have been placed amidst us by you.

You haven't answered a single one of my questions. Not only that you give a vague rebuttal which includes enhancing my knowledge by reading through middle class history. While I appreciate your concern for my historical well being, you are acting more like a school teacher who thinks everybody his pupil, than a sound reasoning individual.


After reading some standard books on history of medieval India you may turn to History of India as Told by its own Historians in VIII Volumes which will provide names of the books and authors as well as some selective passages' English Translation that will be helpful in finding some of the mentioned books in some archives/repositories. Thereafter, there is a lot of literature available in National Library Calcutta and National Archives of India on medieval Indian History and culture.

Thanks for not asking me to invent a time machine, to go back in time, and verify that what you have said was just like that.


You will appreciate that this forum is history section [not general discussion forum ] where one is expected to post such material as may be substantiated with reference material !

Thanks for your sound advice, but I am yet to come across a post (in this section) where you have substantiated anything with any sources. Your sources are vague, and often you advice others to read through a multitude of books. While your "genuine" desire that everybody should go through every book that you suggest, for every one or two liner that you write, is appreciable, I think it hardly falls within the definition of substantiating with sources.


Buddhists who were mostly Jats.

Does this require as much leap of faith as your statement, "Indeed many of the Muslims are Jats !" ??

DrRajpalSingh
November 9th, 2014, 08:43 AM
Kindly read the following extract from the wiki page of the jatland.com and find out whether there are many Jats among Muslims or not:

The census in 1931 in India recorded population on the basis of ethnicity. In 1925, according to Professor Qanungo[24] (http://www.jatland.com/home/Jats#cite_note-24) the population of Jatts was around nine million in South Asia and was made up of followers of three major religions as shown below.



<tbody>
Religion
Jat Population %


Hinduism
47%


Sikhism
20%


Islam
33%

</tbody>

Professor B.S. Dhillon, states by taking population statistical analysis into consideration the Jatt population growth of both India and Pakistan since 1925, Professor Quanungo's figure of nine million could be translated into a minimum population statistic (1988) of 30 million.[25] (http://www.jatland.com/home/Jats#cite_note-25)
According to earlier census reports, the Jati or Jat people accounted for approximately 25% of the entire Sindhi-Punjabi speaking area, making it the one of "largest single socially distinctive group" in the region.[26] (http://www.jatland.com/home/Jats#cite_note-26)
Hukum Singh Pawar (Pauria) states, adequate statistics about Jat people population are available in the Census Report of India of 1931, which is the last and the most comprehensive source of information on the Jat people, who were estimated to be approximately ten million in number at that time.[27] (http://www.jatland.com/home/Jats#cite_note-27) From 1931 to 1988 the estimated increase in the Jat people population of the Indian subcontinent
including Pakistan respectively is 3.5% Hindu, 3.5% Sikh and 4.0% Muslim.[28] (http://www.jatland.com/home/Jats#cite_note-28) Dr Sukhbir Singh estimates that the population of Hindu Jatts, numbered at 2,210,945 in the 1931 census, rose to about 7,738,308 by 1988, whereas Muslim Jatts, numbered at 3,287,875 in 1931, would have risen to about 13,151,500 in 1988. The total population of Jatts was given as 8,406,375 in 1931, and estimated to have been about 31,066,253 in 1988.
The region-wise break-up of the total Jatt people population (including the Jat Hindu, Jat Sikh and Jat Muslim) is given in the following table. The Jat people, approximately 73%, are located mainly in the Punjab region (http://www.jatland.com/home/Punjab_region):[29] (http://www.jatland.com/home/Jats#cite_note-29)



<tbody>
Name of region
Jat Population 1931
Jat Population 1988
Approx
Percentage


Punjab region (http://www.jatland.com/home/Punjab_region)
6,068,302
22,709,755
73 %


Rajasthan (http://www.jatland.com/home/Rajasthan)
1,043,153
3,651,036
12 %


Uttar Pradesh (http://www.jatland.com/home/Uttar_Pradesh)
810,114
2,845,244
9.2 %


Jammu & Kashmir
148,993
581,477
2 %


Balochistan (http://www.jatland.com/home/Balochistan)
93,726
369,365
1.2 %


NWFP
76,327
302,700
1 %


Bombay Presidency
54,362
216,139
0.7 %


Delhi (http://www.jatland.com/home/Delhi)
53,271
187,072
0.6 %


CP & Brar
28,135
98,473
0.3 %


Ajmer-Marwar
29,992
104,972
0.3 %


Total
8,406,375
31,066,253
100 %



</tbody>

upendersingh
November 9th, 2014, 09:08 AM
Dear friend Dr. Janghu, there are 'many Muslim Jats' in some people's imaginary world only. Islam doesn't support casteism and thus Jats practising Islam are no more Jats as in that case either they are Muslim or they are Jats. And they are Muslim by their names and customs, so they are no more Jats. Though I am not against them, but when I see their hostile attitude towards Hindu Jats, then I compel to think that they are our enemy now like other Muslims.

DrRajpalSingh
November 9th, 2014, 09:13 AM
I appreciate your consistency when you ask others to quote sources, while you yourself get away by just asking others to "read some good books". May be you consider yourself God in History, or at least the historical version of Prophet Muhammad, that whatever you say is to be treated as a word of God himself/herself.



Thanks for being so kind as to condescend to reply to my "scholarly findings", but may be it is me, however, I couldn't find where I quoted my "views in reply to questions raised by other members in their posts also to justify that the replies posted by you [me] are something concrete results". Anyway,



Well you can treat it like that, for that is one way of avoiding uncomfortable questions on your assertions which become eternal truths from the very fact that they have been placed amidst us by you.

You haven't answered a single one of my questions. Not only that you give a vague rebuttal which includes enhancing my knowledge by reading through middle class history. While I appreciate your concern for my historical well being, you are acting more like a school teacher who thinks everybody his pupil, than a sound reasoning individual.



Thanks for not asking me to invent a time machine, to go back in time, and verify that what you have said was just like that.



Thanks for your sound advice, but I am yet to come across a post (in this section) where you have substantiated anything with any sources. Your sources are vague, and often you advice others to read through a multitude of books. While your "genuine" desire that everybody should go through every book that you suggest, for every one or two liner that you write, is appreciable, I think it hardly falls within the definition of substantiating with sources.



Does this require as much leap of faith as your statement, "Indeed many of the Muslims are Jats !" ??

Thanks. I fall flat before your weighty arguments and have nothing to say in my defense; would you kindly excuse me if I still continue to say that 'There are many Jats who profess Islam, too.'

RKhatkar
November 9th, 2014, 09:36 AM
Dear friend Dr. Janghu, there are 'many Muslim Jats' in some people's imaginary world only. Islam doesn't support casteism and thus Jats practising Islam are no more Jats as in that case either they are Muslim or they are Jats. And they are Muslim by their names and customs, so they are no more Jats. Though I am not against them, but when I see their hostile attitude towards Hindu Jats, then I compel to think that they are our enemy now like other Muslims.

Dear Sir,
As far as I remember when Mr Tarar became President of Pakistan few years back, at that time Pakistani and Indian press wrote " Jat becomes President of Pakistan" I don't know how and why they defined and derived the concept. Further, jats, residing in parts of Bhiwani and Hisar districts of Haryana celebrated his elevation as Pak President and distributed ladoos publicly.

sorry for interuption

Namaskar

ayushkadyan
November 9th, 2014, 09:49 AM
I still continue to say that 'There are many Jats who profess Islam, too.'
Sir ji,
It's quite understandable that Jats who profess Islam now no more fall in the Jat category. Thing which need to clear here is that since their Jat identity has been dissolved with Islam. hence, they can't be considered as Jat anymore.
As we know according to Islam no caste based discrimination is allowed. Now correct statement should be : There are some muslims who have been Jat in past still carry their jat traits (not identity) but can't be recognised as jats after their dissolution with Islam.

DrRajpalSingh
November 9th, 2014, 10:00 AM
Sir ji,
It's quite understandable that Jats who profess Islam now no more fall in the Jat category. Thing which need to clear here is that since their Jat identity has been dissolved with Islam. hence, they can't be considered as Jat anymore.
As we know according to Islam no caste based discrimination is allowed. Now correct statement should be : There are some muslims who have been Jat in past still carry their jat traits (not identity) but can't be recognised as jats after their dissolution with Islam.

Kindly elaborate further the difference between Jat traits and Jat Identity please !

DrRajpalSingh
November 9th, 2014, 10:04 AM
Dear friend Dr. Janghu, there are 'many Muslim Jats' in some people's imaginary world only. Islam doesn't support casteism and thus Jats practising Islam are no more Jats as in that case either they are Muslim or they are Jats. And they are Muslim by their names and customs, so they are no more Jats. .......................

Although theoretically Islam does not recognise caste but practically as far as Indian sub-continent is concerned in addition to Hindus all the adherents of religions like Islam, Sikhism, Christians and so on follow caste and sub-caste system in their social day to day dealings.

Moreover, not all people belonging to a particular religious faith can be labelled by stretch of one's imagination as enemies of any other particular group.

The historical facts of amicable relationship which existed for ages cannot be undone to suit one's own perception of the issues being discussed.

Some unfortunate events/occurrences/riots should not be taken as tool to spread communal feelings among the masses who by and large want to live and let live.

It is an appeal to the participants that they must desist from twisting history and using it as a tool to spread feelings of hate among various sections of the Indian society.

Members are welcome to present history as it happened and exchange views and ideas to find out how to further cement cordial bonds of mutual love and affection among all sections of people of India so that they could contribute to the nation building living in harmony with attendant peace.

Thanks

ayushkadyan
November 9th, 2014, 10:32 AM
Kindly elaborate further the difference between Jat traits and Jat Identity please !
Sir,
Here Jat identinty mean their identity as distinct group or caste in Islam which is not unique among other muslims while their personality traits, physical attributes and behavioural pattern still differentiate them from others.

RKhatkar
November 9th, 2014, 11:06 AM
Identity of Jats in reference to different religion/ groups such as; With Hindus: With Sikhs: With Muslim: with Jains: with Budhists, etc
The debate takes two sides

1: Jat is always Jat with whom so ever religion/ group he may be
2: Jats also lose their identity & merge in new religion/ group he joins like other casts

Another important question arises:

What others (a) new religion/ group (b) other third religion/group (c) Original previous religion/group. Consider such Jats after adoption of new religion/group

These can’t be, as also should not be defined at one’s own understanding/philosophy

Thanks

ayushkadyan
November 9th, 2014, 12:45 PM
मित्रों/भाइयो बहनों, (मोदी वाला उच्चारण नहीं :tongue:)

मुझे नहीं लगता यहाँ कोई मुस्लिम विरोधी है या हिन्दुओ और मुस्लिमो के बीच खाई पैदा करना चाहता है। दरअसल कुछ लोग अतिराष्ट्रवादी है जो इस्लाम के बढ़ते प्रभाव से आशंकित है। जिस प्रकार से आज भी अधिसंख्य मुस्लिम मदरसों से पढ़कर देश में रिक्शा और रेहड़ी वालो की फ़ौज में लगातार इज़ाफा कर रहे है। उसने हमारे उग्र राष्ट्रवादियो के सामने रोज़गार का गंभीर संकट पैदा कर दिया। इन हालात के मद्देनज़र अगर कोई राष्ट्रवादी भावनाओ में बहकर कुछ बोलता या लिखता है तो उसे गम्भीरता से नहीं लेना चाहिए।
अब आते है जाट थ्योरी पर। सबकी अलग अलग है सबने अपने हिसाब से जाटो की परिभाषा घड रखी है। सबके गले में एक ढोल है और अपने हिसाब से बजा रहे है। किसी को चौधर चाहिए, किसी को मुख्यमंत्री। कोई मंत्री के चक्कर में , कुछ ऐसे भी है जिन्हें गाँव की प्रधानी मिल जाये तो भी गंगा नहा ले। पर यहाँ इतने लोगो के बीच कैसे करें "मन की बात"। अजीब दुविधा है पहले ये तो तय हो कि कौन असली और कौन है नकली जाट।

----फनहित में जारी (आयुष के सौजन्य से)

RathiJi
November 9th, 2014, 12:46 PM
Thanks. I fall flat before your weighty arguments and have nothing to say in my defense; would you kindly excuse me if I still continue to say that 'There are many Jats who profess Islam, too.'

Their ancestors were Jats once upon a time. Like Kurdish people in Kurdistan are Muslims as well as Yezidis, their ancestors were same. Now they are killing each other & what is the reason ? I hope you know but will not admit .

upendersingh
November 9th, 2014, 12:52 PM
Dear Sir,
As far as I remember when Mr Tarar became President of Pakistan few years back, at that time Pakistani and Indian press wrote " Jat becomes President of Pakistan" I don't know how and why they defined and derived the concept. Further, jats, residing in parts of Bhiwani and Hisar districts of Haryana celebrated his elevation as Pak President and distributed ladoos publicly.

sorry for interuption

Namaskar


Khatkar Ji, I tried to find out such press notes and I couldn't. In fact almost all of his profiles mention nothing about him being a Jat (though he is). If you have any such link, then please share. It might be some local newspaper and I can't make out why Jats residing in parts of Bhiwani and Hisar celebrated his elevation as Pak President and distributed ladoos publicly whereas he doesn't have any link to these areas and he was born in Gujranwala, Pakistan. Whenever any so called Muslim Jat reaches some top post in Pakistan, then it is only some Indians who take notice of them being Jat, otherwise I don't see any voice coming from Pakistan in such regard. Many decades back some movies were heard to be produced on Jatt titles in Pakistan, but since some decades that thing too has stopped. Be it Haryana, Punjab, U.P., Rajasthan or any other part of India, no where Muslims Jats have marital relations in other Jats. Still some people are living in some imaginary world. Though it will be a welcome step if they are brought back in traditional Jats, but will they agree? I guess they will ask us to be Muslim rather.

RathiJi
November 9th, 2014, 12:58 PM
Although theoretically Islam does not recognise caste but practically as far as Indian sub-continent is concerned in addition to Hindus all the adherents of religions like Islam, Sikhism, Christians and so on follow caste and sub-caste system in their social day to day dealings.

Moreover, not all people belonging to a particular religious faith can be labelled by stretch of one's imagination as enemies of any other particular group.

The historical facts of amicable relationship which existed for ages cannot be undone to suit one's own perception of the issues being discussed.

Some unfortunate events/occurrences/riots should not be taken as tool to spread communal feelings among the masses who by and large want to live and let live.

It is an appeal to the participants that they must desist from twisting history and using it as a tool to spread feelings of hate among various sections of the Indian society.

Members are welcome to present history as it happened and exchange views and ideas to find out how to further cement cordial bonds of mutual love and affection among all sections of people of India so that they could contribute to the nation building living in harmony with attendant peace.

Thanks

All muslim invadors butchered millions of people in sub-continenent for Islam expansion. Destroyed thousands of temples & shrines to build mosques. Collected Jijya from other religion people. The same carry forwarded in present day Pakistan & now Bangladesh where Islam is dominant religion. The same happened with Zoroastrians of Persia & same happening with present day Yezidis in al-sham. Turks did the same in history as Ottoman expanded so the African Islamic warlords.

Dr. Rajpal , am i explaining history as it happened ?

DrRajpalSingh
November 9th, 2014, 04:11 PM
Their ancestors were Jats once upon a time. Like Kurdish people in Kurdistan are Muslims as well as Yezidis, their ancestors were same. Now they are killing each other & what is the reason ? I hope you know but will not admit .


This is what I wanted to convey that terrorists have nothing to do with all these social relationships, religious faiths and way of life !

The killing of Yezdis/kurdish in recent times in some parts of the world by their co-coreligionists and kin amply proves this fact.

swaich
November 9th, 2014, 04:49 PM
Theory and practice are two different things. Islam just like Sikhism doesn't allow for caste based distinctions in theory. But still we find a Sheikh, a Syed, etc under Islam and a Bhappa, a Chamar and a Tarkhan etc under Sikhism. Similarly, it shouldn't be improbable to imagine a Muslim Jatt. Whether they give preference to their religion or their community is something we'll find out after wider interactions.

DrRajpalSingh
November 9th, 2014, 05:04 PM
All muslim invadors butchered millions of people in sub-continenent for Islam expansion. Destroyed thousands of temples & shrines to build mosques. Collected Jijya from other religion people. The same carry forwarded in present day Pakistan & now Bangladesh where Islam is dominant religion. The same happened with Zoroastrians of Persia & same happening with present day Yezidis in al-sham. Turks did the same in history as Ottoman expanded so the African Islamic warlords.

Dr. Rajpal , am i explaining history as it happened ?

Friend,

You are juxtaposing heterogeneous incidents/events that spread over thousands of years to show as if hands of every Muslim and Hindu were always at one another's throat and they had nothing to do but butcher people. They were not at all times doing so. Yes isolated cases of imposition of Jezia on Hindus and destruction of several temples by over zealot rulers/aggressors are the historical facts which cannot be denied.

During aggression and warfare millions of people were butchered on either side ever since the 'State' emerged on the scene as is amply testified by the battle of Mahabharata and Battle of Kalinga also.

The Turk invaders came on scene at a late stage and had more lethal armament with them so ferocity of participants increased and so did causalities. Later in Sixteenth century use of gun powder further added to the killing power of armies engaged in warfare.

But sordid thing during these battle times against the Turks, Afghans or Mughals was that after the battle was over, in many cases the war prisoners were given a tough choice either to accept Islam or face death.

In peace times, by and large common people whether HIndu or Muslim all lived amicably and stood by one another in the hour of need. But elite ruling class definitely had their separate world where they lived life of unimaginable comforts and luxury ! So love hate relations could easily be imagined in those days between have nots and haves irrespective of their religious beliefs.

The wrongs of history done by a few cannot be righted by us today. So we must not give undue importance to those who committed excesses and were doomed to fail in making any lasting impression on the social and political fabric of the people of Hindustan/Bharatvarsa.

RKhatkar
November 9th, 2014, 06:19 PM
Khatkar Ji, I tried to find out such press notes and I couldn't. .......... Still some people are living in some imaginary world. Though it will be a welcome step if they are brought back in traditional Jats, but will they agree? I guess they will ask us to be Muslim rather.

I was a regular reader/TV viewer, have no any collection habit; still, I shall try if I find any. I have come across some URL wherin some similar information on the topic is seen


http://www.jatland.com/home/Muhammad_Rafiq_Tarar

https://www.facebook.com/tararfamilyworld/info (https://www.facebook.com/tararfamilyworld/info)

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/sikh/TCNV4TO5OTPHPF963

RathiJi
November 9th, 2014, 11:52 PM
This is what I wanted to convey that terrorists have nothing to do with all these social relationships, religious faiths and way of life !

The killing of Yezdis/kurdish in recent times in some parts of the world by their co-coreligionists and kin amply proves this fact.

Terrorists associated with which religion posses these qualities ??? You believe it or not but which religion they claim to follow ?

upendersingh
November 10th, 2014, 12:51 AM
I was a regular reader/TV viewer, have no any collection habit; still, I shall try if I find any. I have come across some URL wherin some similar information on the topic is seen


http://www.jatland.com/home/Muhammad_Rafiq_Tarar

https://www.facebook.com/tararfamilyworld/info (https://www.facebook.com/tararfamilyworld/info)

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/sikh/TCNV4TO5OTPHPF963


Khatkar Ji, your all these links have very low appeal. I am saying he is a Jat, but in his mostly profiles (which have worldwide appeal) his caste has not been mentioned, while great Hindu Jat leader's caste as Jat has been mentioned. Moreover I had asked to paste the links in which he was referred as a 'Jat', when he became President of Pakistan. I would like to suggest you that you don't too much rely on Jatland links. I have noticed here that if you have some difference of opinion with Mr. X here on Jatland and that Mr. X is some moderator, Wiki Editor or so, then he can make a change in the data very next day to prove you wrong. And your third link is quite unimpressive as it is just discussion of some forum members. It is like some ckharb writes here that he is the modern King of Jats and some person uses that post's link to prove that Jats still have Kings.

DrRajpalSingh
November 10th, 2014, 09:53 AM
Terrorists associated with which religion posses these qualities ??? You believe it or not but which religion they claim to follow ?

They believe in 'killing' their opponents in their way to establishment of their 'political supremacy'.

Current conditions must not colour the discussion of the past.Therefore, it would be better to come back to the thread subject discussion leaving other current issues to be discussed somewhere else. So kindly contribute to discussion on the topic !

DrRajpalSingh
November 10th, 2014, 10:14 AM
Khatkar Ji, your all these links have very low appeal. I am saying he is a Jat, but in his mostly profiles (which have worldwide appeal) his caste has not been mentioned, while great Hindu Jat leader's caste as Jat has been mentioned. Moreover I had asked to paste the links in which he was referred as a 'Jat', when he became President of Pakistan. I would like to suggest you that you don't too much rely on Jatland links. I have noticed here that if you have some difference of opinion with Mr. X here on Jatland and that Mr. X is some moderator, Wiki Editor or so, then he can make a change in the data very next day to prove you wrong. And your third link is quite unimpressive as it is just discussion of some forum members. It is like some ckharb writes here that he is the modern King of Jats and some person uses that post's link to prove that Jats still have Kings.

Thanks for accepting the fact !

There is no need now to overstretch the discussion as the issue stands resolved when you also agree that : He is a Jat.

RathiJi
November 10th, 2014, 10:56 AM
They believe in 'killing' their opponents in their way to establishment of their 'political supremacy'.

Current conditions must not colour the discussion of the past.Therefore, it would be better to come back to the thread subject discussion leaving other current issues to be discussed somewhere else. So kindly contribute to discussion on the topic !


For past also , you will say the same. What is the tool to establish this 'political supremacy' ? What was common tool Aurangzeb used & same is being used by ISIS. What they all give the reason for this fight & merciless killing of fellow human beings ? Lets see till when you avoid acknowledging.

vk23
November 10th, 2014, 12:55 PM
They believe in 'killing' their opponents in their way to establishment of their 'political supremacy'.

Current conditions must not colour the discussion of the past.Therefore, it would be better to come back to the thread subject discussion leaving other current issues to be discussed somewhere else. So kindly contribute to discussion on the topic !
Yeah, terrorists have no religion. They just use religion as a tool to manipulate things.

RathiJi
November 10th, 2014, 01:13 PM
Yeah, terrorists have no religion. They just use religion as a tool to manipulate things.

Yes, I agree. Can you tell me same happening in any other religion at this scale ? Where religious texts are being used to behead people, flog woman, shot, bomb innocents. Tell me the religion where today women are sold as a commodity in market ? Please also enlighten me the number of religious countries ( non-islamic ) persecute minorities on name of blasphemy. Why RDX was found in Bardhman Madarsa ? not in a Church, temple or Gurudwara.

The violence is everywhere at some scale in this world sometimes individual sometimes as a organized crime. Reasons are many race, political, personal gains, money, resources, power, drugs and the RELIGION.

THIS IS RELIGIOUS TERRORISM at its peak. May I write down the name of religion ?

I never said that all muslims are bad , but those who follow 7th century warlords and treat them as ideal are worst. There is some problem with the religion not the people.

sahij
November 10th, 2014, 01:17 PM
Respected DrRajpalSingh,

IMO, first precondition for anybody or any group to be called a Jat is that the said individual or group must declare and claim that he/she/or the group is Jat. Only once this precondition is met we can discuss whether such individual or group is actually a Jat or not. Jat ethnicity - if there is such a thing - can't be thrust upon somebody. Can you here vouch for and provide concrete evidence that the celebrated "Muslim Jats" declare themselves to be Jats in numbers projected by extrapolation?

Further, regarding the extrapolation of numbers: Clearly, such extrapolation doesn't hold true. We have had a very big event, such as partition of country on communal lines - which resulted in blurring of caste boundaries amongst Muslims in Pakistan. Also, please provide evidence as to how it was/is ensured that "Muslim Jats" marry only other "Muslim Jats" - because otherwise the extrapolation has absolutely no meaning.

Mohammad Yousuf (formerly Yousuf Youhana) - the celebrity cricketer, had to convert from Christianity to Islam. This is the fate of a cricketer-celebrity, one can only imagine the fate of common Jats ploughing in the fields. Some months back we saw video evidence of Sri Lankan cricketer being chastised by a Pakistani cricketer for his religion. How much can one take such threats sometimes open and sometimes veiled depends on individual. Most people will succumb to such pressures, and will add to the tally of "peaceful conversions." While a few stubborn ones will get killed and will cease to matter in secular parlance, because they are so few when compared with the count of people who were converted by "peaceful" means. Also, if we can extrapolate numbers from past to present times to reach a conclusion, then it is quite in-the-correct, to extrapolate in the reverse to reach conclusions about what was done to masses from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and India itself, based on evidence coming from ISIS held territory today.

To conclude, I think your claims are nothing but nostalgia. The "Muslim Jats" don't identify themselves with the Hindu Jats, just like Muslims in Indian subcontinent don't identify themselves with their Hindu ancestors or their descendents.

Other equally Respected Members,

Muhammad Iqbal or Allama Iqbal was a second generation Muslim, his grandparents were Hindu Brahmins (Kashmiri Pandits from sapru clan), I am yet to see a Brahmin celebrate the fact that a "Muslim Brahmin" first gave the idea of Pakistan. May be this is what makes Jats different from Brahmins, and may be this is what Jats must reform so that they can deal with reality head-on.

Please get over your nostalgia and move on in life. Don't keep behaving like a wailing mother of twenty-one year old brat, who left her alone, high and dry, to fend for herself amidst the tribulations of life.

Otherwise,

I think this propaganda is clearly targeted for Jats. As mentioned above no Brahmin, no Bania, no Chamar, etc. talks about his/her long lost brothers who are Muslims with nostalgia. Is this done, because Jats are the only one's capable of holding off Muslims and Pakistanis? Is this propaganda to soften them so that they go with open arms to greet their muslim brothers, because they are the celebrated "Muslim Jats", only to be butchered in broad daylight? In the age when a real brother is killing real brother for a piece of land, etc., we are supposed to go nostalgic about people whom we know nothing about. The only connect being that somewhere in the distant past we shared with them some ancestors, while in present we share with them not the least amount of traits, characters, and behaviors.

It is vilest form of propaganda, I hope people doing it on JL are doing it in all innocence, and not with some ulterior motive in mind.

sahij
November 10th, 2014, 01:19 PM
Moreover, not all people belonging to a particular religious faith can be labelled by stretch of one's imagination as enemies of any other particular group.

We don't need to label, it is a fact that all terrorists belong to a particular religion.
And if this is happening by mere chance, then God is playing with a very loaded set of die.



Some unfortunate events/occurrences/riots should not be taken as tool to spread communal feelings among the masses who by and large want to live and let live.

It is an appeal to the participants that they must desist from twisting history and using it as a tool to spread feelings of hate among various sections of the Indian society.

Members are welcome to present history as it happened and exchange views and ideas to find out how to further cement cordial bonds of mutual love and affection among all sections of people of India so that they could contribute to the nation building living in harmony with attendant peace.

Sir, is this history we are talking about, or is it some propaganda channel? I think self confessed secular people like you have made it their hobby (and often profession) to spread around love and affection, by all means possible - which include denying, and circumventing real history, and at the same time inventing history to suit a particular world view.

This is an extreme form of rhetoric. Earlier you couldn't hold on based on factual statements regarding the much celebrated deliverance that Jats received from the kind and noble hands of Muhammad Qasim. Now you come up with this rhetoric. I don't think this is history, this is more of a plea - so I can hardly understand what it is doing in History section. To my mind, such a plea clearly brings to the forefront the biased and loaded nature of discourse conducted by you, in favour of a particular community, to absolve it of its crimes, and to project a certain (dare I say non-existant) bond between Hindus and Muslims. On the very face of it, it is very disgusting to use history to spread propaganda with the zeal of a Christian missionary.

This is history section, where, IMO, actual facts should be exposed thread bare, irrespective of their consequences and our sense of moral certitude. I hope you appreciate this fact.

sahij
November 10th, 2014, 01:34 PM
<wbr>You are juxtaposing heterogeneous incidents/events that spread over thousands of years to show as if hands of every Muslim and Hindu were always at one another's throat and they had nothing to do but butcher people. They were not at all times doing so. Yes isolated cases of imposition of Jezia on Hindus and destruction of several temples by over zealot rulers/aggressors are the historical facts which cannot be denied.

Sir, this is exactly rhetorical. You rightly point out that these are facts which cannot be denied - because there is overwhelming evidence to support them, otherwise you would happily deny it, I feel. The wording used by you, viz. "heterogeneous incidents/events that spread over thousands of years" is in itself a conclusive proof that these were not isolated incidents, but were concerted efforts of Muslims (often) not linked by bonds of kinship and/or even continuity in time but by their religion - which makes it even more serious threat and increases its severity manyfold - to subdue and subjugate Hindus, and everybody else on this planet.

What this means is that forces of Islam can wait for considerable amount of time, before their adversary gets soft, relaxed and reluctant to drive them out, and then another bunch of people (totally unrelated, probably related only by religion may be), carry on the agenda left unfinished by their predecessors in the past. Of course all this resonates with what is written in their religious texts, and tallies with times and actions of no less but Muhammad himself.



<wbr>During aggression and warfare millions of people were butchered on either side ever since the 'State' emerged on the scene as is amply testified by the battle of Mahabharata and Battle of Kalinga also.

Clearly, neither during Mahabharata, nor in Kalinga war there was any religious connotation to any of the events. So the comparison stops there! And Sir, which two sides are you refering to by the word both? Clearly there were no two sides, Muslims invaded and destroyed Hindu lives, property and temples. Please give me instances where Hindus went to Muslim countries to cause destruction. If fighting for one's own life is called "butchering others" - than I very much lose faith in such an intellect being capable of doing impartial and just review of history.



<wbr>The Turk invaders came on scene at a late stage and had more lethal armament with them so ferocity of participants increased and so did causalities. Later in Sixteenth century use of gun powder further added to the killing power of armies engaged in warfare.

Sir, you are taking apologetics to a new level. Next thing you will say is that it is the gun that murdered and should be hanged instead of the accused.



In peace times, by and large common people whether HIndu or Muslim all lived amicably and stood by one another in the hour of need. But elite ruling class definitely had their separate world where they lived life of unimaginable comforts and luxury ! So love hate relations could easily be imagined in those days between have nots and haves irrespective of their religious beliefs.

The wrongs of history done by a few cannot be righted by us today. So we must not give undue importance to those who committed excesses and were doomed to fail in making any lasting impression on the social and political fabric of the people of Hindustan/Bharatvarsa.

Sir, all this is rhetorical in nature. You have your own world view (read communist world view) and you imagine the world to be according to that, I can see you using the words "could easily be imagined". But what is easily imaginable in your mind, is not so easily imaginable in the minds of other sceptical and not so fertile readers of history. I for one cannot imagine, that Hindus, whose land, property, and valuables have been looted + whose daughters, sisters, and mothers have been defiled, and often enslaved and sent to Arabia + whose religious places have been desecrated, idols and icons destroyed and placed on stepping stones of mosques so that they can be trod upon, etc. would line up to live "amicably" and stand by with Muslims "in the hour of need." To my imaginative mind all the above that you have said seems like a fantasy world with an absolute disconnect with the real world. Indeed I can quote what al-Baruni said regarding feelings of Hindus about their Muslim "brothers".

Please get out of your utopian socialist world, and try to live in reality, and stop being an armchair historian. There is a class of people, who sing praises of the same person who holds them by the scruff of their necks, and has a knife on their throats. I frankly think such people can never be reformed, and can never be brought out of their 10-by-10 studio apartments where everything is great and hunky-dory. Wasting time over such people, if I may say so, trying to convince them is hardly productive use of one's time. Instead society at large should be told the truth, and must be alarmed against dangers of Islam.

Muslims are a bane to society not only in India, but world over. No continent (except for may be Antarctica) has been left where they haven't left their terror trail and indelible mark on local civilization. They are hated everywhere - in every country where they are not a majority. Jihad and uncontrolled child birth to increase their population are two hallmarks of Muslims - and both are a threat to every other peaceloving community on this planet.

So nobody is trying to right a wrong done in history, they are clearly a very real and existential threat to the very existence of Hindustan/Bharatvarsa as a diverse, liberal Hindu nation of multiple faiths, and indeed to the whole wide world.

sahij
November 10th, 2014, 01:38 PM
Yeah, terrorists have no religion. They just use religion as a tool to manipulate things.

Why don't the "terrorists" use Hinduism and Hindus, for example, as a tool to manipulate things?

RathiJi
November 10th, 2014, 02:16 PM
Friend,

You are juxtaposing heterogeneous incidents/events that spread over thousands of years to show as if hands of every Muslim and Hindu were always at one another's throat and they had nothing to do but butcher people. They were not at all times doing so. Yes isolated cases of imposition of Jezia on Hindus and destruction of several temples by over zealot rulers/aggressors are the historical facts which cannot be denied.

During aggression and warfare millions of people were butchered on either side ever since the 'State' emerged on the scene as is amply testified by the battle of Mahabharata and Battle of Kalinga also.

The Turk invaders came on scene at a late stage and had more lethal armament with them so ferocity of participants increased and so did causalities. Later in Sixteenth century use of gun powder further added to the killing power of armies engaged in warfare.

But sordid thing during these battle times against the Turks, Afghans or Mughals was that after the battle was over, in many cases the war prisoners were given a tough choice either to accept Islam or face death.

In peace times, by and large common people whether HIndu or Muslim all lived amicably and stood by one another in the hour of need. But elite ruling class definitely had their separate world where they lived life of unimaginable comforts and luxury ! So love hate relations could easily be imagined in those days between have nots and haves irrespective of their religious beliefs.

The wrongs of history done by a few cannot be righted by us today. So we must not give undue importance to those who committed excesses and were doomed to fail in making any lasting impression on the social and political fabric of the people of Hindustan/Bharatvarsa.

Islam is a religion of peace & it's followers were/are peace loving human beings who respects others faith and live in harmony with them across world. They are the front runners of social harmony in past & present everywhere ? Right, Mr. Rajpal.

History is history it is never an emotional appeal. It should be discussed and taught as it happened. Kalinga ho ya Karbala. Don't mix it with your feelings.

vk23
November 10th, 2014, 02:46 PM
Yes, I agree. Can you tell me same happening in any other religion at this scale ? Where religious texts are being used to behead people, flog woman, shot, bomb innocents. Tell me the religion where today women are sold as a commodity in market ? Please also enlighten me the number of religious countries ( non-islamic ) persecute minorities on name of blasphemy. Why RDX was found in Bardhman Madarsa ? not in a Church, temple or Gurudwara.

The violence is everywhere at some scale in this world sometimes individual sometimes as a organized crime. Reasons are many race, political, personal gains, money, resources, power, drugs and the RELIGION.

THIS IS RELIGIOUS TERRORISM at its peak. May I write down the name of religion ?

I never said that all muslims are bad , but those who follow 7th century warlords and treat them as ideal are worst. There is some problem with the religion not the people.

Why don't the "terrorists" use Hinduism and Hindus, for example, as a tool to manipulate things?

My friend extremism can be anywhere in any shape. Yes we know currently there many terror outfits based on one religion but that does not mean people who profess that religion endorse such things. It is just the time when one community is struggling throughout middle east due to various destabilization of govts. As a result right wing radical elements got powerful. More powerful than govt and when poverty increases then you will see more vulnerable people falling into trap of such outfit agendas. Its a matter of time when many countries are struggling as a result of these powerful gangs who manipulate religion to fulfill their agendas.

RathiJi
November 10th, 2014, 03:00 PM
My friend extremism can be anywhere in any shape. Yes we know currently there many terror outfits based on one religion but that does not mean people who profess that religion endorse such things. It is just the time when one community is struggling throughout middle east due to various destabilization of govts. As a result right wing radical elements got powerful. More powerful than govt and when poverty increases then you will see more vulnerable people falling into trap of such outfit agendas. Its a matter of time when many countries are struggling as a result of these powerful gangs who manipulate religion to fulfill their agendas.

If beheading people, marrying four wives, keeping concubines, hell for others, woman as commodity, waging war against others, stoning for adultery, martyrdom for heaven bla bla is written in book of a religion. What do you call that religion ?

MIND IT. I am not talking about people who are following it. I am talking about the religion itself. Otherwise you will start the story few are bad few are good bla bla.

Tell me if a book endorses crime & hatred in society , what should be done to that book ?

Like I do not like many things in ManuSmrati which are against core values of humanity. I discard that book openly.

prashantacmet
November 10th, 2014, 03:17 PM
Read "chachnama", read on Jatland wiki or just google you will find lot of matter to read :)

Rathi, I hope you would have got few answers in post 73 of "sahij"...

RKhatkar
November 10th, 2014, 03:23 PM
Dear friends

History is our past we have no control over it at present. History cant be edited, rewritten or repeated nor can any create imaginary circumstances as real. The present fact is that India is a secular State; all its citizens have right to equality irrespective anti social or anti national deeds of ones fore fathers. Non resemblance or heterogeneity in groups cant be taken as enmity.

It is fact that Hindu and Muslims are co-existing since centuries. No available option but both will have to find reasons for better coexistence; No remedy for self cultivated hate. Lets spread new, united and strong India message.

Thanks

RathiJi
November 10th, 2014, 03:48 PM
Dear friends

History is our past we have no control over it at present. History can’t be edited, rewritten or repeated nor can any create imaginary circumstances as real. The present fact is that India is a secular State; all its citizens have right to equality irrespective anti social or anti national deeds of one’s fore fathers. Non resemblance or heterogeneity in groups can’t be taken as enmity.

It is fact that Hindu and Muslims are co-existing since centuries. No available option but both will have to find reasons for better coexistence; No remedy for self cultivated hate. Let’s spread new, united and strong India message.

Thanks

Arabic religious practices can't be imposed to create harmony in Indian society. They have to discard it or change it accordingly if are equally interested in co-existence. This is a mutual exercise not one sided.

Muslims in India must not indulge in terrorism, should come out against Wahabism, Shariat, Polygamy & other malpractices in their religion which creates problem in co-existence with any other religion under the sky. They should stop listening to Arabic mullas in order to keep India secular.

We can't drive a vehicle if all the tyres are not in good condition. If one is flat it will be difficult to move forward. Why shall we feel happy being called secular and losing lives of hundreds of people every year in Terrorist strikes, blasts & communal riots.

DrRajpalSingh
November 10th, 2014, 04:35 PM
Islam is a religion of peace & it's followers were/are peace loving human beings who respects others faith and live in harmony with them across world. They are the front runners of social harmony in past & present everywhere ? Right, Mr. Rajpal.

History is history it is never an emotional appeal. It should be discussed and taught as it happened. Kalinga ho ya Karbala. Don't mix it with your feelings.


Thanks, Kindly address your posts to audience as is the practice followed in discussion !

DrRajpalSingh
November 10th, 2014, 05:11 PM
Sir, this is exactly rhetorical. You rightly point out that these are facts which cannot be denied - because there is overwhelming evidence to support them, otherwise you would happily deny it, I feel. The wording used by you, viz. "heterogeneous incidents/events that spread over thousands of years" is in itself a conclusive proof that these were not isolated incidents, but were concerted efforts of Muslims (often) not linked by bonds of kinship and/or even continuity in time but by their religion - which makes it even more serious threat and increases its severity manyfold - to subdue and subjugate Hindus, and everybody else on this planet.

What this means is that forces of Islam can wait for considerable amount of time, before their adversary gets soft, relaxed and reluctant to drive them out, and then another bunch of people (totally unrelated, probably related only by religion may be), carry on the agenda left unfinished by their predecessors in the past. Of course all this resonates with what is written in their religious texts, and tallies with times and actions of no less but Muhammad himself.




Clearly, neither during Mahabharata, nor in Kalinga war there was any religious connotation to any of the events. So the comparison stops there! And Sir, which two sides are you refering to by the word both? Clearly there were no two sides, Muslims invaded and destroyed Hindu lives, property and temples. Please give me instances where Hindus went to Muslim countries to cause destruction. If fighting for one's own life is called "butchering others" - than I very much lose faith in such an intellect being capable of doing impartial and just review of history.




Sir, you are taking apologetics to a new level. Next thing you will say is that it is the gun that murdered and should be hanged instead of the accused.




Sir, all this is rhetorical in nature. You have your own world view (read communist world view) and you imagine the world to be according to that, I can see you using the words "could easily be imagined". But what is easily imaginable in your mind, is not so easily imaginable in the minds of other sceptical and not so fertile readers of history. I for one cannot imagine, that Hindus, whose land, property, and valuables have been looted + whose daughters, sisters, and mothers have been defiled, and often enslaved and sent to Arabia + whose religious places have been desecrated, idols and icons destroyed and placed on stepping stones of mosques so that they can be trod upon, etc. would line up to live "amicably" and stand by with Muslims "in the hour of need." To my imaginative mind all the above that you have said seems like a fantasy world with an absolute disconnect with the real world. Indeed I can quote what al-Baruni said regarding feelings of Hindus about their Muslim "brothers".

Please get out of your utopian socialist world, and try to live in reality, and stop being an armchair historian. There is a class of people, who sing praises of the same person who holds them by the scruff of their necks, and has a knife on their throats. I frankly think such people can never be reformed, and can never be brought out of their 10-by-10 studio apartments where everything is great and hunky-dory. Wasting time over such people, if I may say so, trying to convince them is hardly productive use of one's time. Instead society at large should be told the truth, and must be alarmed against dangers of Islam.

Muslims are a bane to society not only in India, but world over. No continent (except for may be Antarctica) has been left where they haven't left their terror trail and indelible mark on local civilization. They are hated everywhere - in every country where they are not a majority. Jihad and uncontrolled child birth to increase their population are two hallmarks of Muslims - and both are a threat to every other peaceloving community on this planet.

So nobody is trying to right a wrong done in history, they are clearly a very real and existential threat to the very existence of Hindustan/Bharatvarsa as a diverse, liberal Hindu nation of multiple faiths, and indeed to the whole wide world.

History is a two edged sword, kindly use it to spread, communal harmony peace and unity among the people of the country. We can choose good examples of the people of the past to follow their foot steps or 'glorify' the misdeeds of a few to denounce others, the choice is ours. To my mind the country needs forces of unity and integration not destruction of India's Ganga-Jamuni culture. The country has suffered a lot due to surcharged communal strife around 1947, so need of the hour is communal harmony among all Indians.

The people who did play their role in the past are not around to suffer or gain so let us concentrate our efforts to consolidate all the people of India to make the present India great.

Kindly contribute also those aspects of life and letters of those times which could come handy to all its citizens to make India great.

DrRajpalSingh
November 10th, 2014, 05:45 PM
Why don't the "terrorists" use Hinduism and Hindus, for example, as a tool to manipulate things?

The religion of terrorists is TERRORISM, nothing more nor less !!!!

RathiJi
November 10th, 2014, 06:07 PM
History is a two edged sword, kindly use it to spread, communal harmony peace and unity among the people of the country. We can choose good examples of the people of the past to follow their foot steps or 'glorify' the misdeeds of a few to denounce others, the choice is ours. To my mind the country needs forces of unity and integration not destruction of India's Ganga-Jamuni culture. The country has suffered a lot due to surcharged communal strife around 1947, so need of the hour is communal harmony among all Indians.

The people who did play their role in the past are not around to suffer or gain so let us concentrate our efforts to consolidate all the people of India to make the present India great.

Kindly contribute also those aspects of life and letters of those times which could come handy to all its citizens to make India great.

What is this ? Kindly elaborate.

RathiJi
November 10th, 2014, 06:10 PM
The religion of terrorists is TERRORISM, nothing more nor less !!!!

Time chala gaya in jumlo ka ... namaj or hathiyar ek jagah mil jayenge Doctor sahab... thoda dekhne ki koshish karo.

prashantacmet
November 10th, 2014, 06:10 PM
History is a two edged sword, kindly use it to spread, communal harmony peace and unity among the people of the country. We can choose good examples of the people of the past to follow their foot steps or 'glorify' the misdeeds of a few to denounce others, the choice is ours. To my mind the country needs forces of unity and integration not destruction of India's Ganga-Jamuni culture. The country has suffered a lot due to surcharged communal strife around 1947, so need of the hour is communal harmony among all Indians.

The people who did play their role in the past are not around to suffer or gain so let us concentrate our efforts to consolidate all the people of India to make the present India great.

Kindly contribute also those aspects of life and letters of those times which could come handy to all its citizens to make India great.

Dear Friend,

Can you see your signature again?

don't mind but this is history section and you are not appointed here to spread the sugar-coated words for the harmonious co-existence of any Tom, dick and harry. Please counter the statements with the historical incidents so that layman like me can get the real picture of history. Please write in another section for ganga -jamuna cultural or any other "nawabi shauk" like theories if you can not substantiate what you write.

I guess almost all of us have been dosed enough in movies, school books and speeches about that harmony and co-existence theory. We want to see the picture as it was and as it is now , nothing more nothing less. Anyway, if that co-existense really existed and if it was misdeed of "just few", we will gladly accept it but please don't spoon-feed us in this section just for the sake of your highly decorated thoughts

Regards,
Prashant

prashantacmet
November 10th, 2014, 06:13 PM
The religion of terrorists is TERRORISM, nothing more nor less !!!!

Please don't digress from the topic. You are moderator and thread owner. Please provide historical facts and not this holy stuff.

prashantacmet
November 10th, 2014, 06:14 PM
Time chala gaya in jumlo ka ... namaj or hathiyar ek jagah mil jayenge Doctor sahab... thoda dekhne ki koshish karo.

Rathi, can we continue discussion on Foreign invasions as per the thread theme? looking for something from you in that context

prashantacmet
November 10th, 2014, 06:26 PM
Dear friends

History is our past we have no control over it at present. History can’t be edited, rewritten or repeated nor can any create imaginary circumstances as real. The present fact is that India is a secular State; all its citizens have right to equality irrespective anti social or anti national deeds of one’s fore fathers. Non resemblance or heterogeneity in groups can’t be taken as enmity.

It is fact that Hindu and Muslims are co-existing since centuries. No available option but both will have to find reasons for better coexistence; No remedy for self cultivated hate. Let’s spread new, united and strong India message.

Thanks

But sir, this is history section. It will be wise enough to scrap this section from JL.!!.let us people channelize their energy to somewhere else...right?

RathiJi
November 10th, 2014, 06:29 PM
Rathi, I hope you would have got few answers in post 73 of "sahij"...

I will read it now.

rkumar
November 10th, 2014, 11:44 PM
Hindu Jats don't marry their cousins, but Muslim Jats do. Hindu Jats don't kill cow, but Muslim Jats do. I can hardly find anything common between a Hindu/ Sikh and Muslim Jat. Will anyone educate me what Jat tradition Muslim Jats follow???

RK^2

upendersingh
November 11th, 2014, 05:11 AM
Thanks for accepting the fact !

There is no need now to overstretch the discussion as the issue stands resolved when you also agree that : He is a Jat.

Dear friend Dr. Janghu, It doesn't matter what I accept. What matters is what world accepts. If one is true Muslim, then he is only Muslim and there is no caste theory in Islam. Same can be said for Sikhism. Learned people like you and Khatkar Ji should motivate the Muslim and Sikh Jats to be Hindu as caste system is very firm in Hinduism. In Islam and Sikhism, Jat identity is on the verge of vanishing. Please save them.

DrRajpalSingh
November 11th, 2014, 09:45 AM
Dear Friend,

Can you see your signature again?

don't mind but this is history section and you are not appointed here to spread the sugar-coated words for the harmonious co-existence of any Tom, dick and harry. Please counter the statements with the historical incidents so that layman like me can get the real picture of history. Please write in another section for ganga -jamuna cultural or any other "nawabi shauk" like theories if you can not substantiate what you write.

I guess almost all of us have been dosed enough in movies, school books and speeches about that harmony and co-existence theory. We want to see the picture as it was and as it is now , nothing more nothing less. Anyway, if that co-existense really existed and if it was misdeed of "just few", we will gladly accept it but please don't spoon-feed us in this section just for the sake of your highly decorated thoughts

Regards,
Prashant

Friend,
Thanks for reminding me about my signature; I assure you I stand by them come what may !
I know that this is history section and I am putting the following line of thought for kind consideration of the participants if they want to understand the period under reference.

As I have stated earlier also there were wars waged by ruling elites invading India and the earlier well entrenched ruling Indian elite from time to time during those over 12 centuries and large scale destruction of men and material occurred. On cursory reading it seemed that invaders and earlier inhabitants remained busy all the time for elimination of one or the other religions and the cause of their fight was to eliminate their rivals by force. But this is just one element of the fight of political elites in those days. The real factor working all the time behind these fights was to fight snatch political power by force of sword, then consolidate the political gains with the external and internal help to keep it intact as well as to expand further with the help of the local people and by adopting India as their motherland, they tried to oppose the outside aggressors irrespective of their religious beliefs [see fight between Babur and Ibrahim Lodhi Panipat 1526 between Humayun and successors of Shershah Suri in c1555 or Battle of Karnal against Nadir Shah 1739 and Battles against Ahmad Shah Abdali]. In these battles followers of Islam clashed against one another, killed their opponents irrespective of their religious affirmations. The motive was snatching/capturing/ keeping political supremacy intact.

The contribution made by Indians during those days in peace times in the field of fine arts, paintings, music, architecture, literature by people belonging to followers of Islam and various faiths constituting Hinduism [Jains, Buddhists, Shaivas, Shakats etc] is there to prove that in peace times the people did not bother to discriminate the individuals' on the basis of their religious faith.

The absence of communal violence in the country during peace times also points to peaceful co-existence and harmonious relationship between the people of those times.

The nature of Mughal State remains an enigma for many, but one fact is discernible: It started to give grudual precedence to indigenous population over the foreign elements entering India. Kindly see composition of political elites present at the Mughal Court in which people belonging to diverse religious faiths and groups/communities find mention in the lists of the ruling elites. Rajputs, Brahmans, Marathas and others were the pillars of the strength of the Mughal ruling elites starting from Akbar onward. Read about the elite compositions of native rulers like Maharaja Suraj Mal, Rulers of Awadha,Maharaja Ranjit Singh or any other rulers and co-existence of people is testified. Presence of temples and mosques in the same village or towns, paintings and sculptures on muslim buildings by Hindu artisans and vice versa testify peaceful and harmonious relationship between masses. These examples can be multiplied to any extent, if one likes to present true picture of the times.

It was the object of starting the thread to discuss both the positive and negative aspects of the foreign invasions on India in Medieval Times but the object seems to be difficult to be attained because of insistence by a few friends to see the blackest events to be portrayed and not to allow even slightest mention of the other side of the coin.

Hence, I stop with an appeal:

The present must not colour our analysis of the past . Both the aspects of history of this period may be taken care by the participants in their posts please to arrive at a fair appraisal of the life and times of those days !

rkumar
November 11th, 2014, 10:23 AM
I will like to hear from the experts here if ;
1. Muslim rulers treated all their subject equally and fairly?
2. Were Hindus not subjected to Quranic justice ?
3. Were blasphemy laws applied to protect the honor of gods of all religions or just Islam?
4. How did it help politically to consolidate political power by demolishing a temple and building mosque in its place?
5. Did Mughal and other Sultans appoint Hindus and Muslim both as Qazis or only Muslim clerics who had knowledge of Quran?

RK^2

prashantacmet
November 11th, 2014, 11:17 AM
Hindu Jats don't marry their cousins, but Muslim Jats do. Hindu Jats don't kill cow, but Muslim Jats do. I can hardly find anything common between a Hindu/ Sikh and Muslim Jat. Will anyone educate me what Jat tradition Muslim Jats follow???

RK^2

can you vouch for the highlighted one or you have seen such example..........can you quote one?

prashantacmet
November 11th, 2014, 11:23 AM
Friend,
Thanks for reminding me about my signature; I assure you I stand by them come what may !
I know that this is history section and I am putting the following line of thought for kind consideration of the participants if they want to understand the period under reference.

As I have stated earlier also there were wars waged by ruling elites invading India and the earlier well entrenched ruling Indian elite from time to time during those over 12 centuries and large scale destruction of men and material occurred. On cursory reading it seemed that invaders and earlier inhabitants remained busy all the time for elimination of one or the other religions and the cause of their fight was to eliminate their rivals by force. But this is just one element of the fight of political elites in those days. The real factor working all the time behind these fights was to fight snatch political power by force of sword, then consolidate the political gains with the external and internal help to keep it intact as well as to expand further with the help of the local people and by adopting India as their motherland, they tried to oppose the outside aggressors irrespective of their religious beliefs [see fight between Babur and Ibrahim Lodhi Panipat 1526 between Humayun and successors of Shershah Suri in c1555 or Battle of Karnal against Nadir Shah 1739 and Battles against Ahmad Shah Abdali]. In these battles followers of Islam clashed against one another, killed their opponents irrespective of their religious affirmations. The motive was snatching/capturing/ keeping political supremacy intact.

The contribution made by Indians during those days in peace times in the field of fine arts, paintings, music, architecture, literature by people belonging to followers of Islam and various faiths constituting Hinduism [Jains, Buddhists, Shaivas, Shakats etc] is there to prove that in peace times the people did not bother to discriminate the individuals' on the basis of their religious faith.

The absence of communal violence in the country during peace times also points to peaceful co-existence and harmonious relationship between the people of those times.

The nature of Mughal State remains an enigma for many, but one fact is discernible: It started to give grudual precedence to indigenous population over the foreign elements entering India. Kindly see composition of political elites present at the Mughal Court in which people belonging to diverse religious faiths and groups/communities find mention in the lists of the ruling elites. Rajputs, Brahmans, Marathas and others were the pillars of the strength of the Mughal ruling elites starting from Akbar onward. Read about the elite compositions of native rulers like Maharaja Suraj Mal, Rulers of Awadha,Maharaja Ranjit Singh or any other rulers and co-existence of people is testified. Presence of temples and mosques in the same village or towns, paintings and sculptures on muslim buildings by Hindu artisans and vice versa testify peaceful and harmonious relationship between masses. These examples can be multiplied to any extent, if one likes to present true picture of the times.

It was the object of starting the thread to discuss both the positive and negative aspects of the foreign invasions on India in Medieval Times but the object seems to be difficult to be attained because of insistence by a few friends to see the blackest events to be portrayed and not to allow even slightest mention of the other side of the coin.

Hence, I stop with an appeal:

The present must not colour our analysis of the past . Both the aspects of history of this period may be taken care by the participants in their posts please to arrive at a fair appraisal of the life and times of those days !

Again rhetoric!......the same examples as you cited here are countered in many threads. You are just cherry-picking "very few" incidents and putting them forward. Can you please start reading the whole thread again?

Anyway, let me come in sync with you.

I accept your words that battles happened to political supremacy. do you at-least accept that "jihad" and "Islam" was being used as a tool by Muslim invaders to fulfill their power greed?

rkumar
November 11th, 2014, 12:12 PM
can you vouch for the highlighted one or you have seen such example..........can you quote one?

Since Islam permits it, one should be able to find such cases. Of hand I can not tell you as I don't have any Muslim Jat friend who can help me to find such cases. I will contact some Mulle Jat and will reconfirm.

RK^2

sahij
November 11th, 2014, 03:36 PM
The religion of terrorists is TERRORISM, nothing more nor less !!!!

Sir, this is true if and only if, one considers TERRORISM = Islam, since it is coming from a senior member like you, I will assume it to be true !!!!

RKhatkar
November 11th, 2014, 06:16 PM
Respected members;

It is felt that the posts in the thread are taking different turns. Each one tries to counter another one. The historical facts always remain as such; the only thing important is our way of its presentation and how one takes them.

The Islamic invasion and its’ expansions may be result of some weaknesses/faults in social environment that existed in India at that time. We have no option to set the time machine back to 1500-2000 years.

Kindly try to concentrate on the theme of the thread honestly.

Thanks

rkumar
November 11th, 2014, 07:19 PM
can you vouch for the highlighted one or you have seen such example..........can you quote one?

I gave a fairly benign answer to your question. However, moderator unapproved my post. I suppose, I owe no explanation now...LOL

RK^2

rkumar
November 11th, 2014, 07:26 PM
...........The Islamic invasion and its’ expansions may be result of some weaknesses/faults in social environment that existed in India at that time.

Thanks

!00% correct and unfortunately things have not improved even today. There was never an effort in entire history to educate tribal people about Hinduism and treat them fairly. Result has been spread of Christianity in tribal regions of India. Christian preachers came from all over the world and spent their lives among tribal people in the interiors of India. However, our own religious scholars did nothing. Treatment of scheduled castes was/ is no better and we paid the price.

RK^2

prashantacmet
November 11th, 2014, 07:28 PM
I gave a fairly benign answer to your question. However, moderator unapproved my post. I suppose, I owe no explanation now...LOL

RK^2

yes kalkhande ji..it was there and I saw that but now it is gone. Perhaps mods are trying to arrange a time machine..they are much fond of it :redface:

skharb
November 11th, 2014, 07:41 PM
LOL. Same here, all thanks to our great secular, liberal, open minded, and Gandhian moderators.
pahalwan tene khet na bera gamm na bera thangh ser..............yu lol lol likhana agya post t pahlahm nu syana na banta koi jaata m:)

rkumar
November 11th, 2014, 08:27 PM
It hardly matters if they have deleted the posts. Most people, including Mods have read the posts and purpose is served. Who cares what does one do with the post after it has been read by quite a few members.

RK^2

rkumar
November 11th, 2014, 08:31 PM
LOL. Same here, all thanks to our great secular, liberal, open minded, and Gandhian moderators.

Let us not forget that the JL is because of us members and not the Mods. What will Mods do if members don't contribute?? To be honest, I find most of your posts very well argued and intelligent.

RK^2

skharb
November 11th, 2014, 08:39 PM
ha haa haa ..................nu russan alyi baat na kare ...........ek too h too s krantikari choora ..............kimme hissa kam kar k musal mana ki pinndeye kambaa tera naam sun k na too iss parchar n bandh kar orr bhooht muddeyey s jaata dhorrey ...............:)

swaich
November 11th, 2014, 10:31 PM
I accept your words that battles happened to political supremacy. do you at-least accept that "jihad" and "Islam" was being used as a tool by Muslim invaders to fulfill their power greed?

Don't know about Rajpal ji, but I would agree with you. The call for Jihad gave their military campaigns a religious legitimacy and possibly swelled their ranks with recruits. The real reasons was always loot. Central Asia, from most of these (apart from Qasim) came, had a long history and prevalent culture of invasions for looting.

RKhatkar
November 14th, 2014, 10:19 PM
Dear friend Dr. Janghu, It doesn't matter what I accept. What matters is what world accepts. If one is true Muslim, then he is only Muslim and there is no caste theory in Islam. Same can be said for Sikhism. Learned people like you and Khatkar Ji should motivate the Muslim and Sikh Jats to be Hindu as caste system is very firm in Hinduism. In Islam and Sikhism, Jat identity is on the verge of vanishing. Please save them.


Dear Upender Ji,

This post of yours deserves strong worded statement. But feeling the sense of responsibility and maturity in personal capacity I decided to ignore it ‘not worth commenting’. Kindly make yourself aware to the views of a common Hindu Jat regarding jats of other religion. A blog on JL by Mr Somvir Dalal of Jind is being pasted here to inform common man’s personal views. Kindly try to understand him. I think there are many in Jats like Mr Dalal, I don’t invite more in it.

Thanks


भाई एडमिन . .
मौज होगी पुरी . . :D
मेरी बात सुनोगे यार . .
मै आपका धन्यवाद करना चाहता हुँ कि आपने ये वैबसाईट बनाई जाटा खातर . .. बहोत अच्छया करया भाई . .
लेकिन एक गलती कर दी. . .
अक जाट बाँट दिए. .
भाई वो नुँ अक आपने वैबसाईट के मेनपेज पर लिख रखा है कि यह केवल हिंदु जाटों के लिए है. .
बात होई ये कुछ...भाई साईट को मुस्लिम ,सिख,ईसाई .. हर धर्म के जाटो को लिए खोलो यार , . .
भाई हर धर्म के जाट भाई आवँगे तो किमे फायदा ही होवेगा . . .
नुकसान होता हो तो वो बता दे. . .

रिप्लाई करिए भाई प्लीज . .. भला होव तेरा

यदि नहीं कर सकते तो मै भी चला राकेश साँगवान भाई की डाल file:///C:/Users/RC/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.giffile:///C:/Users/RC/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif

DrRajpalSingh
November 15th, 2014, 03:55 PM
Don't know about Rajpal ji, but I would agree with you. The call for Jihad gave their military campaigns a religious legitimacy and possibly swelled their ranks with recruits. The real reasons was always loot. Central Asia, from most of these (apart from Qasim) came, had a long history and prevalent culture of invasions for looting.

Friends, if you are following the discussion on the thread step by step, I have nowhere have said that they did not take advantage of religious sloganeering in their battles against non-muslims. Rather I have clearly said already that at times the Muslim invaders against Hindus raised the slogan of Jihad. But these invaders when attacked Indian rulers who professed Islam could not use this mantar against them. Likewise all their battles cannot be labelled as Jehad in the same way use of Jihad according to their suitability and convenience cannot be denied regarding all the battles in which they participated.

It varied from situation to situation and available objective conditions to use or not to use !

Since I have other pre-occupation, I have to withdraw from the discussion for some time !

Hope good discussions, kindly keep it up !

RKhatkar
November 15th, 2014, 04:52 PM
Let us not forget that the JL is because of us members and not the Mods. What will Mods do if members don't contribute?? To be honest, I find most of your posts very well argued and intelligent.

RK^2

Respected Kumar Ji,

Rightfully you are true; No existence of any organization without active participation by its members; similarly any civilized society without discipline, law and order enforcing agencies cant exist. Everyone has his own defined role of contribution within laid down norms.

With Regards

swaich
November 15th, 2014, 06:57 PM
Friends, if you are following the discussion on the thread step by step, I have nowhere have said that they did not take advantage of religious sloganeering in their battles against non-muslims. Rather I have clearly said already that at times the Muslim invaders against Hindus raised the slogan of Jihad. But these invaders when attacked Indian rulers who professed Islam could not use this mantar against them. Likewise all their battles cannot be labelled as Jehad in the same way use of Jihad according to their suitability and convenience cannot be denied regarding all the battles in which they participated.

It varied from situation to situation and available objective conditions to use or not to use !

Since I have other pre-occupation, I have to withdraw from the discussion for some time !

Hope good discussions, kindly keep it up !

Rajpal ji, though you quoted my post, I assume you were addressing all other participants of the thread. So here's my response:

I fully agree with you. Service of Islam and the resultant call for Jehad was a false canard used by Muslim invaders. They always came for the wealth. Thats true for a Babur fighting with his Muslim kins in Central Asia and then fighting another Muslim Ibrahim Lodhi in Panipat.

swaich
November 15th, 2014, 07:24 PM
Dear fellow JL readers,


Other respected members kindly add to this list of things. I might have missed out many things, because unlike few who indulge in rhetoric only - which we have by now memorised and can reproduce verbatim - and as such require no time and effort to post it, we actually have to recollect and spend some time to actually write anything over here.

I hope that was sarcastic. If not then perhaps you shouldn't stop at taking revenge for the crimes of the Muslim invaders. The Christians in India should be rounded up as well and made to pay for the Portugese, Brits and other European imperialists' crimes. That would even the score. Right?

vdhillon
November 16th, 2014, 01:53 AM
Even most Islamic states see "Radical Islam" as single largest threat to the world peace.
Not all muslims are terrorists but why islam is more prone to radicalization and why majority of the terrorists are radicalized muslims (ref: 11 year long empirical GLOBAL study done by Terrorism Research Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Research_Center) that collected data on 20,000+ terror attacks and majority of the RELIGIOUS TERROR ATTACKS (excluding non-religious ones) were by Islamists, see the diagram in the link http://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/nctc.jpg).

Being secular does not mean closing the eyes to the empirical facts. Being secular also does not mean respecting the WRONG KIND of belief systems in the guise of mutual respect. Being secular means pursuing a RATIONAL VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE-BASED INQUIRY and RESPECTING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH but still having courage to speak up against the irrational faiths-based belief-systems (e.g. institutionalized religions).

We mus respect the differences in a civilized manner but must still refute the lies that religions churn out, must challenge the distorted history taught to us in the name of secularism because then rulers thought we are violent savages who will kill each other in sectarian and religious violence if we are taught the TRUE history, thats an insult to intellect to the masses, curriculum needs revision to one which is based on historical facts. We can still inculcate unity in diversity values without lending silent support to lies taught to us in doctored "so-called secular curriculum". Religious rants need to be countered to expose their falsehood otherwise we are silently helping them perpetuate their unscientific belief system/religions.

swaich
November 16th, 2014, 10:41 AM
Even most Islamic states see "Radical Islam" as single largest threat to the world peace.
Not all muslims are terrorists but why islam is more prone to radicalization and why majority of the terrorists are radicalized muslims (ref: 11 year long empirical GLOBAL study done by Terrorism Research Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Research_Center) that collected data on 20,000+ terror attacks and majority of the RELIGIOUS TERROR ATTACKS (excluding non-religious ones) were by Islamists, see the diagram in the link http://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/nctc.jpg).

Being secular does not mean closing the eyes to the empirical facts. Being secular also does not mean respecting the WRONG KIND of belief systems in the guise of mutual respect. Being secular means pursuing a RATIONAL VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE-BASED INQUIRY and RESPECTING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH but still having courage to speak up against the irrational faiths-based belief-systems (e.g. institutionalized religions).

We mus respect the differences in a civilized manner but must still refute the lies that religions churn out, must challenge the distorted history taught to us in the name of secularism because then rulers thought we are violent savages who will kill each other in sectarian and religious violence if we are taught the TRUE history, thats an insult to intellect to the masses, curriculum needs revision to one which is based on historical facts. We can still inculcate unity in diversity values without lending silent support to lies taught to us in doctored "so-called secular curriculum". Religious rants need to be countered to expose their falsehood otherwise we are silently helping them perpetuate their unscientific belief system/religions.



What is this distorted and secular history that you are referring to? I remember reading about the religion influenced destruction by Ghazni, Aurangzeb etc in school text books. Is there a falsification?

In any case, in today's open, internet enabled world, its hard to keep anything under wraps or just propagate one school of thought for long. Alternate histories and narratives (oops, wrong word I guess :)) abound.

vdhillon
November 16th, 2014, 02:19 PM
No falsification in those. In the annals of Indian history, popularly paddled by the govt in the garb of secular ethos, even iconoclast tyrants like Gzani, Aurangzeb, even so called Akbar the great are given "tolerant' credentials by citing stray examples, while hiding mountain of evidence of their destruction of temples, forced conversion, religious oppression and so on. Even if it gets a mention in the official books (educational institutes, etc), it is merely in passing.


What is this distorted and secular history that you are referring to? I remember reading about the religion influenced destruction by Ghazni, Aurangzeb etc in school text books. Is there a falsification?

In any case, in today's open, internet enabled world, its hard to keep anything under wraps or just propagate one school of thought for long. Alternate histories and narratives (oops, wrong word I guess :)) abound.

vdhillon
November 16th, 2014, 02:25 PM
Agree with Sahij, ... those who do not learn from the history are bound to repeat it.

Those cases of imposition of jajia, etc were not stray incidences. Most of the Islamic sultanates throughout their rule, barring some exceptions for the short period of time, had the jajia until their rule became so weak that they were no longer able to impose it. Even during the times the removed jajia, it was due to political compulsions, not due not their respect for the Hindus. Denial of well documented verifiable facts is one thing by being Ostrich with head buried in the sand, but it is entirely deplorable to gloss over those ugly and uncomfortable facts perpetuate distorted history.


Sir, this is exactly rhetorical. You rightly point out that these are facts which cannot be denied - because there is overwhelming evidence to support them, otherwise you would happily deny it, I feel. The wording used by you, viz. "heterogeneous incidents/events that spread over thousands of years" is in itself a conclusive proof that these were not isolated incidents, but were concerted efforts of Muslims (often) not linked by bonds of kinship and/or even continuity in time but by their religion - which makes it even more serious threat and increases its severity manyfold - to subdue and subjugate Hindus, and everybody else on this planet.

What this means is that forces of Islam can wait for considerable amount of time, before their adversary gets soft, relaxed and reluctant to drive them out, and then another bunch of people (totally unrelated, probably related only by religion may be), carry on the agenda left unfinished by their predecessors in the past. Of course all this resonates with what is written in their religious texts, and tallies with times and actions of no less but Muhammad himself.




Clearly, neither during Mahabharata, nor in Kalinga war there was any religious connotation to any of the events. So the comparison stops there! And Sir, which two sides are you refering to by the word both? Clearly there were no two sides, Muslims invaded and destroyed Hindu lives, property and temples. Please give me instances where Hindus went to Muslim countries to cause destruction. If fighting for one's own life is called "butchering others" - than I very much lose faith in such an intellect being capable of doing impartial and just review of history.




Sir, you are taking apologetics to a new level. Next thing you will say is that it is the gun that murdered and should be hanged instead of the accused.




Sir, all this is rhetorical in nature. You have your own world view (read communist world view) and you imagine the world to be according to that, I can see you using the words "could easily be imagined". But what is easily imaginable in your mind, is not so easily imaginable in the minds of other sceptical and not so fertile readers of history. I for one cannot imagine, that Hindus, whose land, property, and valuables have been looted + whose daughters, sisters, and mothers have been defiled, and often enslaved and sent to Arabia + whose religious places have been desecrated, idols and icons destroyed and placed on stepping stones of mosques so that they can be trod upon, etc. would line up to live "amicably" and stand by with Muslims "in the hour of need." To my imaginative mind all the above that you have said seems like a fantasy world with an absolute disconnect with the real world. Indeed I can quote what al-Baruni said regarding feelings of Hindus about their Muslim "brothers".

Please get out of your utopian socialist world, and try to live in reality, and stop being an armchair historian. There is a class of people, who sing praises of the same person who holds them by the scruff of their necks, and has a knife on their throats. I frankly think such people can never be reformed, and can never be brought out of their 10-by-10 studio apartments where everything is great and hunky-dory. Wasting time over such people, if I may say so, trying to convince them is hardly productive use of one's time. Instead society at large should be told the truth, and must be alarmed against dangers of Islam.

Muslims are a bane to society not only in India, but world over. No continent (except for may be Antarctica) has been left where they haven't left their terror trail and indelible mark on local civilization. They are hated everywhere - in every country where they are not a majority. Jihad and uncontrolled child birth to increase their population are two hallmarks of Muslims - and both are a threat to every other peaceloving community on this planet.

So nobody is trying to right a wrong done in history, they are clearly a very real and existential threat to the very existence of Hindustan/Bharatvarsa as a diverse, liberal Hindu nation of multiple faiths, and indeed to the whole wide world.

swaich
November 16th, 2014, 04:57 PM
No falsification in those. In the annals of Indian history, popularly paddled by the govt in the garb of secular ethos, even iconoclast tyrants like Gzani, Aurangzeb, even so called Akbar the great are given "tolerant' credentials by citing stray examples, while hiding mountain of evidence of their destruction of temples, forced conversion, religious oppression and so on. Even if it gets a mention in the official books (educational institutes, etc), it is merely in passing.

Ghazni was probably the furthest from tolerance and Aurangzeb was no angel. But how was Akbar intolerant?

vdhillon
November 16th, 2014, 06:35 PM
Once we start looking beyond what we have been spoon fed in the distorted Sick-Ullu-rist history, we can find a mountain of evidence of Akbar's Jehadist agenda as documented by Akbar's own co-religionist Islamic and contemporary writers. He did have some good policies, but he was driven by political compulsions and ambitions and was smart enough to forge ties with non-muslims through more tolerant attitude without completely giving up his Jehadist leanings. SELECTIVE TOLERANCE CAN NOT HIDE THE MOUNTAIN OF INTOLERANCE AND DESTRUCTION OF TEMPLES BY AKBAR. Start the research here and then work your way through more sources.
http://creative.sulekha.com/think-twice-before-describing-emperor-akbar-as-moderate_363032_blog

The hazy world of Pseudo-secular ... ignorance is a bliss ... but truth will set me free :)


Ghazni was probably the furthest from tolerance and Aurangzeb was no angel. But how was Akbar intolerant?

DrRajpalSingh
November 16th, 2014, 07:00 PM
An appeal - Kindly take time to read and then act

This thread as you know does not relate to general discussion, kindly do not make sweeping statements lasting over several centuries in one go. You all are welcome to discuss the issues taking up one after another ruler/invader/invaded foreign or indigenous. Support your arguments with available evidence and only then draw some sort of tangible conclusions.

Kindly avoid spreading unwarranted controversies and ill drawn conclusions only in the name of imaginative narratives and thus defeating the very purpose of educative value of the thread theme. Hope all of us have common purpose in this discussion to try to understand history in its proper perspective.

Kindly bear in mind that none can undo the past happenings/events today. So try to grasp the reality of those times as much as possible so as to avoid the wrong doings of those persons who committed them and try to assimilate good done by others, if possible.

This can only be done by studying the events/ the activities of the persons involved in those events and the objective conditions of those periods. None can judge the past on the basis of present day happenings.

If you have solid evidences derived from contemporary or near contemporary sources and your arguments are supported by historical facts, put them with the supportive evidence before the readers and intellectual level of discussion may be maintained while arguing and counter-arguing point of view expressed in the posts not the persons who present them.

Avoid unbridled hate campaign against present generations of mankind, please !

Hope all will cooperate.

DrRajpalSingh
November 16th, 2014, 07:16 PM
Even most Islamic states see "Radical Islam" as single largest threat to the world peace.
Not all muslims are terrorists but why islam is more prone to radicalization and why majority of the terrorists are radicalized muslims (ref: 11 year long empirical GLOBAL study done by Terrorism Research Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Research_Center) that collected data on 20,000+ terror attacks and majority of the RELIGIOUS TERROR ATTACKS (excluding non-religious ones) were by Islamists, see the diagram in the link http://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/nctc.jpg).

Being secular does not mean closing the eyes to the empirical facts. Being secular also does not mean respecting the WRONG KIND of belief systems in the guise of mutual respect. Being secular means pursuing a RATIONAL VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE-BASED INQUIRY and RESPECTING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH but still having courage to speak up against the irrational faiths-based belief-systems (e.g. institutionalized religions).

We mus respect the differences in a civilized manner but must still refute the lies that religions churn out, must challenge the distorted history taught to us in the name of secularism because then rulers thought we are violent savages who will kill each other in sectarian and religious violence if we are taught the TRUE history, thats an insult to intellect to the masses, curriculum needs revision to one which is based on historical facts. We can still inculcate unity in diversity values without lending silent support to lies taught to us in doctored "so-called secular curriculum". Religious rants need to be countered to expose their falsehood otherwise we are silently helping them perpetuate their unscientific belief system/religions.


You are welcome to share your findings/readings of History, secular or religious but not tainted by current happenings. Before making up your mind on the basis of study of internet matter even on current happenings kindly keep your observant eyes open to read the necessary pre-cautions as given on the page of the link you have quoted above. See please :


<tbody>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Unbalanced_scales.svg/45px-Unbalanced_scales.svg.png

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) with its subject. It may requirecleanup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanup) to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Please discuss further on thetalk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terrorism_Research_Center). <small>(April 2014)</small>

</tbody>

vdhillon
November 16th, 2014, 07:41 PM
Btw, it is worthwhile reminding the readers, Akbar did destroy temples and years later it was BAHARTPUR JATs WHO RAIDED HIS GRAVE IN AGRA AND TOOK OUT HIS BONES AND CREMATED HIS BONES... :)

Not withstanding wikipedia warning to that author of expose on Akbar by fellow secularist reviewers, the evidence against Akbar can not be refuted, the author has appropriately cited PRIMARY ISLAMIC SOURCES who were contemporary to Akbar (they were Akbar's own Spin doctors, his own scribes), sample this. Secularism can not be FORCED DOWN the THROAT, closing eyes to the facts to preserve harmony ... we must not automatically assume others to be uncouth uncivilized JATs who lack wits to discuss UNCOMFORTABLE CONTENTIOUS HISTORY in a peaceful manner. We can advocate peace but it must not derail the EVIDENCE-BASED INQUIRY of EVILS of AKBAR's JEHADIST AGENDA.

Sample this (copied):
"Historian Abd al-Qadir Badauni records that during Akbar"s reign at Nagarkot, nearKangra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangra), 200 cows were slaughtered, numerous Hindus killed and a temple was demolished.
On the 1st Rajab 990 [AD 1582] Akbar"s forces encamped by a field of maize near Nagarkot. The fortress (hissr) of Bhm, which has an idol temple of Mahm, and in which none but her servants dwelt, was taken by the valour of the assailants at the first assault. A party of Rajpts, who had resolved to die, fought most desperately till they were all cut down. A number of Brhmans who for many years had served the temple, never gave one thought to flight, and were killed. Nearly 200 black cows belonging to Hinds had, during the struggle, crowded together for shelter in the temple. Some savage Turks, while the arrows and bullets were falling like rain, killed those cows. They then took off their boots and filled them with the blood and cast it upon the roof and walls of the temple."


I agree, that history should be investigated dispassionately and be seen in the context of time and place it took place ... but those who do not learn from the history they are bound to repeat the same historical mistakes.

ravichaudhary
November 16th, 2014, 10:01 PM
Moderators must be extremely cautious, and not impose their own views on a discussion or to shape the discussion.

This topic is uncomfortable and will be uncomfortable for some.

Being uncomfortable does not mean Moderators act to impose their own views.

Unless there is personal abuse, Moderators must be extremely cautious in utilizing their deletion/editing powers

Ravi Chaudhary

ravichaudhary
November 16th, 2014, 11:04 PM
The question is how Indian History has been developed and written and how it is taught to Indian students .

Quite obviously there a number of questions that arise, and have to be dealt with.

To approach this topic, a number of structured questions need to be asked.

1) What is the purpose of writing History?
2) Who is going to write it?
3) What perspectives should be included or excluded.?
4) What slant should be given to the history written?
5) What should be included in the curriculum of the schools.?


Taking these perspectives in approach, one needs to examine how the current version of Indian History has developed.

When examining the current versions, we need to examine what was the approach the authors took.

What did they exclude and why?
What did they include and why?

1. Indians have been taught, that they have no sense of History.


2. What are philosophical approaches of Christianity and Islam to their societies., and how they see the place of their version of History in shaping their societies. or other societies.


3. I suggest it would be naive to conclude that these religions have had no motivation in shaping their versions of history to shape /run/control their societies.

Did Islam ( and Christianity) shape the versions of Indian History as we read it today?

Doing that, did they whitewash their version of history to present a sanitized view?

Did post Independence Indian History teachers take a critical approach to what they were teaching?

These are fair topics for discussion and analysis.

VirJ
November 17th, 2014, 01:23 AM
An appeal - Kindly take time to read and then act

This thread as you know does not relate to general discussion, kindly do not make sweeping statements lasting over several centuries in one go. You all are welcome to discuss the issues taking up one after another ruler/invader/invaded foreign or indigenous. Support your arguments with available evidence and only then draw some sort of tangible conclusions.

Kindly avoid spreading unwarranted controversies and ill drawn conclusions only in the name of imaginative narratives and thus defeating the very purpose of educative value of the thread theme. Hope all of us have common purpose in this discussion to try to understand history in its proper perspective.

Kindly bear in mind that none can undo the past happenings/events today. So try to grasp the reality of those times as much as possible so as to avoid the wrong doings of those persons who committed them and try to assimilate good done by others, if possible.

This can only be done by studying the events/ the activities of the persons involved in those events and the objective conditions of those periods. None can judge the past on the basis of present day happenings.

If you have solid evidences derived from contemporary or near contemporary sources and your arguments are supported by historical facts, put them with the supportive evidence before the readers and intellectual level of discussion may be maintained while arguing and counter-arguing point of view expressed in the posts not the persons who present them.

Avoid unbridled hate campaign against present generations of mankind, please !

Hope all will cooperate.

Let people express their views. You don't have to guide each thread unless there is abuse. People understand what is history and what is fiction.

rkumar
November 17th, 2014, 05:26 AM
The question is how Indian History has been developed and written and how it is taught to Indian students .

Quite obviously there a number of questions that arise, and have to be dealt with.

To approach this topic, a number of structured questions need to be asked.

1) What is the purpose of writing History?
2) Who is going to write it?
3) What perspectives should be included or excluded.?
4) What slant should be given to the history written?
5) What should be included in the curriculum of the schools.?


Taking these perspectives in approach, one needs to examine how the current version of Indian History has developed.

When examining the current versions, we need to examine what was the approach the authors took.

What did they exclude and why?
What did they include and why?

1. Indians have been taught, that they have no sense of History.


2. What are philosophical approaches of Christianity and Islam to their societies., and how see they see the place of their version of History in shaping their societies.


3. I suggest it would be na�ve to conclude that these religions have had no motivation in shaping their versions of history to shape their societies.

Did Islam ( and Christianity) shape the versions of Indian History as we read it today?

Doing that did they whitewash their version of history to present a sanitized view?

Did post Independence Indian History teachers take a critical approach to what they were teaching?

These are fair topics for discussion and analysis.

Very pertinent questions. On the face of it Indian historians failed miserably on most accounts.

RK^2

DrRajpalSingh
November 17th, 2014, 10:19 AM
Moderators must be extremely cautious, and not impose their own views on a discussion or to shape the discussion.

This topic is uncomfortable and will be uncomfortable for some.

Being uncomfortable does not mean Moderators act to impose their own views.

Unless there is personal abuse, Moderators must be extremely cautious in utilizing their deletion/editing powers

Ravi Chaudhary

Welcome Chaudhary Sahib,

Since I had started the thread, I do not undertake editing/moderation on the thread topic. No attempt as moderator has been made to impose my views on others. Yes, I have tried to express my opinion on the issue to be taken up for discussion as per the thread theme several times.

As stated earlier, I am pre-occupied with some pressing piece of personal work, hence, no active participation for me presently.

Wish, your arrival on the scene will further stimulate and enrich the discussion in correct direction.

Thanks and regards

vdhillon
November 17th, 2014, 10:21 AM
Well said sir.
We must NOT PREACH PEOPLE "WHAT TO THINK" (everyone has mind of their own and JL is no "rutta-maaro on a preset ideology/thinking" kind of classroom) ...
instead,
ENCOURAGE & TEACH ME "HOW TO THINK INDEPENDENTLY" (Introspection and Critical Analysis).

I loved your analysis. It makes readers think in a structured manner. Thanks for taking the time out to write this.

I just wish to add that no matter how contentious, uncomfortable and taboo a topic is, the HALLMARK OF A SELF-ASSURED CIVILIZED SOCIETY IS ITS ABILITY TO DISCUSS UNDISCUSSABLE TABOO-TOPICS IN A CIVILIZED CORDIAL MANNER.

Even counselors and psychologists also suggest that we must not mask or deny our true feelings, always acknowledge the negative feelings and then CHANNEL THE NEGATIVE FEELINGS (in this case history) in a POSITIVE & CONSTRUCTIVE MANNER, otherwise if we hide, suppress or mask the uncomfortable feelings and issues (or history), they manifest in negative ways and bite us back.

To give a recent relevant example, colored people were oppressed under apartheid rule in South Africa. Once apartheid was replaced by a democratic rule, the new govt adopted RAINBOW NATION (rainbow of all colors/races) approach and instead of waging a vendetta against white race or pretending all was forgiven, they set up a RECONCILIATION COMMISSION where victims came forward, made VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS (how victims were hurt, gave them opportunity to vent and CONSTRUCTIVELY CHANNEL their pain, instead of pretending its gone) and perpetrators had the chance to understand the negative impact of their actions and were able to APOLOGIZE, bringing about OPEN AND HEART-FELT FORGIVENESS and CONCILIATION among the races, rather than FORCED CONCILIATION.

Other example, I can provide is, instead of feeling ashamed or just churning out rhetorical stuff, how Modi goes around and openly talks of SWACCH BHARAT (open defecation and filth in India) and BLACK MONEY (institutionalized and rampant corruption) in the international forums, he does it with self-assured confidence without being ashamed or hiding. He deals with these uncomfortable issues in such a HEAD-ON MANNER that no other leader has been able to do, in the process creating MASSIVE AWARENESS, enlisting BEST-PRACTICE support from other nations, and so on. This shows us that we can DEAL WITH SH*T IN A CLASSY MANNER. Toilets are truly more important than temples.

Lesson learnt from this is that, to preserve harmony, instead of pretending things didn't happen, we can actually confront the uncomfortable facts, learn from them, reconcile from heart. It needs maturity.

LET US ALL TRY TO GIVE THIS RESPECT TO FELLOW JATS and READERS THAT THEY POSSESS THIS MATURITY instead of "un ko dangron ki tarah set pattern ki thinking pe hakne ki bajaye". Adopting "holier than thou", "more intellectual than others" presumptive kind of attitude is INTELLECTUAL SNOBBERY and DISRESPECTFUL TO THE FELLOW READERS.


The question is how Indian History has been developed and written and how it is taught to Indian students .

Quite obviously there a number of questions that arise, and have to be dealt with.

To approach this topic, a number of structured questions need to be asked.

1) What is the purpose of writing History?
2) Who is going to write it?
3) What perspectives should be included or excluded.?
4) What slant should be given to the history written?
5) What should be included in the curriculum of the schools.?


Taking these perspectives in approach, one needs to examine how the current version of Indian History has developed.

When examining the current versions, we need to examine what was the approach the authors took.

What did they exclude and why?
What did they include and why?

1. Indians have been taught, that they have no sense of History.


2. What are philosophical approaches of Christianity and Islam to their societies., and how they see the place of their version of History in shaping their societies. or other societies.


3. I suggest it would be naive to conclude that these religions have had no motivation in shaping their versions of history to shape /run/control their societies.

Did Islam ( and Christianity) shape the versions of Indian History as we read it today?

Doing that, did they whitewash their version of history to present a sanitized view?

Did post Independence Indian History teachers take a critical approach to what they were teaching?

These are fair topics for discussion and analysis.

prashantacmet
November 17th, 2014, 11:05 AM
No falsification in those. In the annals of Indian history, popularly paddled by the govt in the garb of secular ethos, even iconoclast tyrants like Gzani, Aurangzeb, even so called Akbar the great are given "tolerant' credentials by citing stray examples, while hiding mountain of evidence of their destruction of temples, forced conversion, religious oppression and so on. Even if it gets a mention in the official books (educational institutes, etc), it is merely in passing.

Bhai dhillon, it has been discussed many times giving enough evidences. But pseudo seculars have turned a blind eye on that. Again they will argue with their ill-logics.

prashantacmet
November 17th, 2014, 11:12 AM
You are welcome to share your findings/readings of History, secular or religious but not tainted by current happenings. Before making up your mind on the basis of study of internet matter even on current happenings kindly keep your observant eyes open to read the necessary pre-cautions as given on the page of the link you have quoted above. See please :


<tbody>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Unbalanced_scales.svg/45px-Unbalanced_scales.svg.png

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) with its subject. It may requirecleanup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanup) to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Please discuss further on thetalk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terrorism_Research_Center). <small>(April 2014)</small>


</tbody>



Dear sir,

you are intimidating a member who is writing sane and with ample evidences. Please check your own posts, you sum up the history in just 2-3 lines , don't show any rational proof behind your theories and don't accept other people writings even if they come up with evidences. Please be kind to members and this is not a hate campaign. why we should buy your theories and see the history with your eyes? because you are a mod!!

prashantacmet
November 17th, 2014, 11:14 AM
Moderators must be extremely cautious, and not impose their own views on a discussion or to shape the discussion.

This topic is uncomfortable and will be uncomfortable for some.

Being uncomfortable does not mean Moderators act to impose their own views.

Unless there is personal abuse, Moderators must be extremely cautious in utilizing their deletion/editing powers

Ravi Chaudhary

Exactly sir, but it is not happening. Freedom is being curbed down in history section

DrRajpalSingh
November 17th, 2014, 06:11 PM
This is no intimation but a precaution.

Agreed I am one of the moderators but you will agree that simultaneously I am one of the members of the site who started this thread. It is my duty to tell the member to avoid pitfalls and it is for him either to accept the piece of advice or reject it outright.

I have no fixed theories of history at my disposal but started the thread because I want to learn from discussion about this important part of our history from the learned participants.

I have let everyone enjoy his/her own style of expression and I have nothing against you or any of the participant in the discussion.

Would it not be better if the members turn to 'personal message' system on such issues so that the discussion is not interrupted by personal explanations and counter-explanations !

Wish a good and fruitful discussion.



Dear sir,

you are intimidating a member who is writing sane and with ample evidences. Please check your own posts, you sum up the history in just 2-3 lines , don't show any rational proof behind your theories and don't accept other people writings even if they come up with evidences. Please be kind to members and this is not a hate campaign. why we should buy your theories and see the history with your eyes? because you are a mod!!

skharb
November 17th, 2014, 09:56 PM
Beware of google historians !

sahij
November 19th, 2014, 02:09 AM
Yeh sab aap isliye kar rahe hain kyonki aapki kai baatein udharan de kar palat di gayi thhi.


Well apart from being generously rewarded for putting forth my arguments, I was awarded infraction points even for my signature, this doesn't happen even on Pakistani forums. And that too for a quote from Gita, may be I would have been better served if I had quoted some verse from Quran regarding treatment to be met out to kafirs.



Anyway to return back to the discussion (that is assuming this reply sees light of the day),


In 1989, in West Bengal a circular (Dated 28/04/1989, Syl/89/1) was issued by the Government regarding Class IX textbooks. The circular issued amendments to the existing ashuddho history books to be incorporated into textbooks in subsequent editions, and as corrigendum for already published books. The suggested amendments have been reproduced here for the perusal of members,

Bharat Katha, by Burdwan Education Society


<tbody>
Page
Ashuddho
Shuddho


140
'In Sindhudesh the Arabs did not describe Hindus as Kafir. They had banned cow-slaughter.'
Delete, "They had banned cow-slaughter.


141
'Fourthly, using force to destroy Hindu temples was also an expression of aggression. Fifthly, forcibly marrying Hindu women and converting them to Islam before marriage was another way to propagate the fundamentalism of the ulema.'
though the ashuddho column reproduces the sentences only from 'Fourthly ...,' the Board directs that the entire matter from 'Secondly ... to ulema' be deleted.


141
'The logical, philosophical, materialist, Mutazilla disappeared. On the one hand, the fundamentalist thinking based on the Quran and the hadis....'
Delete, 'On the one hand, the fundamentalist thinking based on the Quran and the hadis

</tbody>



Bharatvarsher Itihash published by Chakravarty and Son


<tbody>
89
'Sultan Mahmud used force for widespread murder, loot, destruction and conversion.'
'There was widespread loot and destruction by Mahmud.'


89
'He looted valuables worth 2 crore dirham from the Somanth temple and used the Shivling as a step leading up to the masjid in Ghazni.'
Delete, 'and used the Shivling as a step leading up to the masjid in Ghazni.'


112
'Hindu-Muslim relations of the medieval ages constitute a very sensitive issue. The non-believers had to embrace Islam or death.'
All matter to be deleted.


113
'According to Islamic law non-Muslims will have to choose between death and Islam. Only the Hanafis allow non-Muslims to pay jaziya in exchange for their lives.'
Rewrite this as follows: 'By paying jaziya to Alauddin Khalji, Hindus could lead normal lives.' Moreover, all the subsequent sentences 'Qazi ....', 'Taimur's arrival in India....' to be deleted.


113
'Mahmud was a believer in the rule of Islam whose core was "Either Islam or death".'
Delete

</tbody>



Bharat Itihash by Narmada Publishers


<tbody>
181
'To prevent Hindu women from being seen by Muslims, they were directed to remain indoors.'
Delete

</tbody>



Itihasher Kahini published by B.B. Kumar


<tbody>
132
'According to Todd [the famous chronicler of Rajasthan annals] the purpose behind Alauddin's Chittor expedition was to secure Rana Rattan Singh's beautiful wife, Padmini'
Delete


154
'As dictated by Islam, there were three options for non-Muslims: get yourself converted to Islam, pay jaziya; accept death. In an Islamic State non-Muslims had to accept one of these three options.'
Delete


161
'The early Sultans were eager to expand the sway of Islam by forcibly converting Hindus into Islam.'
Delete

</tbody>



Bharater Itihash, Sreedhar Prakashani


<tbody>
117
'There is an account that Alauddin attacked the capital of Mewar, Chittorgarh, to get Padmini, the beautiful wife of Rana Rattan Singh''
Delete


139
'There was a sense of aristocratic superiority in the purdah system. That is why upper-class Hindus adopted this from upper-class Muslims. Another opinion has it that purdah came into practice to save Hindu women from Muslims. Most probably, purdah came into vogue because of both factors.'
Delete

</tbody>



Swadesh O Shobhyota, Abhinav Prakashan


<tbody>
126
'Some people believe that Alauddin's Mewar expedition was to get hold of Padmini, the wife of Rana Rattan Singh.'
Delete


145
'Apart from this, because Islam used extreme, inhuman means to establish itself in India, this became an obstacle for the coming together of Indian and Islamic cultures.'
Delete

</tbody>



Bharat Katha, Bulbul Prakashan


<tbody>
40
'Muslims used to take recourse to torture and inhuman means to force their religious beliefs and practices on Indians.'
Delete


41
'The liberal, humane elements in Islam held out hope for oppressed Hindus.'
The entire paragraph beginning with 'the caste system among Hindus.... was attacked' is to be deleted. Instead write, 'There was no place for casteism in Islam. Understandably, the influence of Islam created an awakening among Hindus against caste discrimination. Lower caste oppressed Hindus embraces Islam.'


77
'His main task was to oppress non-believers, especially Hindus.
This and preceding sentence to be deleted.

</tbody>



Bharater Itihash, published by Prantik


<tbody>
102
'There is an account of Alauddin attacked Chittor to get the beautiful wife of Rana Rattan Singh, Padmini.'
Delete


164
'It was his commitment to Islam which made him a fundamentalist.'
Delete

</tbody>





Bharat Kahini, published by A.K. Sarkar and Co.


<tbody>
130
'That is why he adopted the policy of converting Hindus to Islam - so as to increase the number of Muslims. Those Hindus who refused to discard the religion were indiscriminately massacred by him or his generals.'
Delete

</tbody>




All the above has been quoted from the book Eminent Historians by Arun Shourie.

ravichaudhary
November 20th, 2014, 07:16 AM
[QUOTE=sahij;371530]

In 1989, in West Bengal a circular (Dated 28/04/1989, Syl/89/1) was issued by the Government regarding Class IX textbooks. The circular issued amendments to the existing ashuddho history books to be incorporated into textbooks in subsequent editions, and as corrigendum for already published books. The suggested amendments have been reproduced here for the perusal of members,
>[/TABLE]


[I]

Sahij

If I may,

Some thoughts for you to consider.

What you have posted , is in essence "secondary data".

The question will arise to a good researcher, what is the reliability of it.

Thus , were the text books correct to depict "Islam in a poor light" in the first place.

Mr. V. Dhillon, quotes the Islamic writer Badauni , in his post, #, 149 from Islamic sources,

That would be a primary source .( unless the translation is wrong)

Are there any comparable sources for Mr. Shourie's quotes?

sahij
November 21st, 2014, 03:50 AM
<wbr>What you have posted , is in essence "secondary data".

The question will arise to a good researcher, what is the reliability of it.


Sir, whether something can be called "secondary data" or "primary data", is essentially dependent upon the use data is being put to. My whole point in my last post was that history books have been changed by Government intervention. And probably, it can be also said they have been changed based on Government dispensation. I didn't claim that the original text, which was amended as a result of this circular, was in pristine condition or even correct. That said, however, at a glance, the amendments do seem to be favoring a particular view of history, and do seem to be aimed at projecting Islam/Muslims in better light, irrespective of whether they were depicted in "poor light" - to use your words - earlier or not.

So while the text above might not be "primary data" if we are trying to extract history from it, but if instead we are trying to find out whether history has been "tempered with" by the political dispensation in power, then IMHO, this *is* "primary data" - because it is translation of original circular in Bengali, and has never been questioned (to the best of my knowledge) vis-a-vis either about its veracity, or the reliability of its translation.


Thus , were the text books correct to depict "Islam in a poor light" in the first place.

Sir, I somewhat agree with you that one can't automatically say that original text was correct. Even the claim that some text portrays somebody/something in poor light or not, is dependent on a lot of factors. For example, the various texts often quoted as proofs of barbarity of many Muslim rulers were often commissioned by those very rulers to extol (what they may have thought as) their virtues. Indeed, even in the contemporary world, videos which engender horror amongst people, are often released by ISIS themselves with much fanfare.

That said, your statement, "Thus , were the text books correct to depict "Islam in a poor light" in the first place." - projects that the original texts depicted "Islam in a poor light". I would say the reverse, these statements actually gave a very moderated account of Islamic deeds, and were further cut down to size (so to say) by the political dispensation in power.

Why is the battle of Kalinga not taken as depicting Hindus in poor light and is not thought to provoke animosity between people of Bihar and Orissa? Why Hindu and Buddhist differences can be highlighted without least consideration of its impact on society? Further I would like to ask from learned members of this forum, which one of the above sentences from original text which was amended - they find to be incorrect so that it can be thought to be depicting "Islam in a poor light"? May be then we can discuss about the correctness of those statements based on actual "primary data" from "primary sources".



<wbr>Are there any comparable sources for Mr. Shourie's quotes?

Sir, by this if you mean to ask whether I have a copy of circular - than I don't possess such a copy. I only possess a copy of this book, which is "readily" available - and in which it is claimed that Mr. Shourie is indeed in possession of this circular which is in Bengali.


Now Sir, coming to the suitability or correctness of these amendments. I would certainly admit that I haven't read any of these text books, nor indeed, am I inclined to do so. Also, I think commenting on some of them would require the context, which is lacking here. But I have a quick few points to make,



As far as I am aware, there has been no new archaeological or otherwise discovery of import that was made in and around the year 1989, that would change our view of history in such a significant manner, so that we can say,

Mahmud [Ghaznavi] didn't use force to convert Hindus to Islam - which seems to be reason why it would be deleted.
Hindu idols or artifacts were not used as stepping stone in Masjid in Ghazni.
That by paying jaziya Hindus could lead normal lives. I would rather say Sir, by definition, irrespective of what else happens, if you have to pay jaziya, doesn't that mean that you are living life differently (and not normally) from (at least) Muslims.
Let me avoid going on and on like this, it would appear that it is being projected that Muslims may have looted and killed non-Muslims, but certainly they were not driven by any religious impulses, and that their religious texts are no different than those of other religions, and thus they were no different than any of the previous rulers in thought and action.

As an aside a similar argument is often propounded that because Muslims kill each other, that means those killing are not real Muslims but only killers, because otherwise they would only kill non-muslims.


Another point of key interest to me from the above amended texts is, "'According to Todd [the famous chronicler of Rajasthan annals] the purpose behind Alauddin's Chittor expedition was to secure Rana Rattan Singh's beautiful wife, Padmini'"

Sir by deleting this are we denying that Todd mentioned this, and that may be we have discovered a new and more accurate version of Todd's chronicles that doesn't mention this? Or may be that it is not important enough for readers to know that such an account (whether true or not) exists? Or it is that a particular world view is being thrust into history text books where not only all Muslims angels but even the Muslim rulers are supposed to have pristine character?

Moreover, considering that the same omission was ensured from multiple books, doesn't that indicate that this is happening by design?
Finally, another point of interest for me, 'There was no place for casteism in Islam. Understandably, the influence of Islam created an awakening among Hindus against caste discrimination. Lower caste oppressed Hindus embraces Islam.'

What exactly is the basis of this argument? I would like to hear arguments in favour of any of these assertions from learned members, if they believe these to be true.



In summary, IMHO, this circular clearly depicts how history text-books have been amended to suit political agenda of the political dispensation in power, and we all know (and I hope agree) which political dispensation has been in power most, ever since independence of India.

DrRajpalSingh
November 21st, 2014, 12:07 PM
Welcome turn to discussion that members have started to quote original sources to understand the religious impact of the foreign invasions. But kindly remember the impact of these invasions on the life and letters of the country including religious beliefs, economic affairs, cultural and literary developments, arts and so on were multiple. Understanding initial repulsion and then coming together of the people of various religious groups over the years also makes an interesting study which could also be taken note of.

Since the period covered is spanning around one thousand years and a plethora of sources including archaeological, literary both official records and historical documents are available on the issue, it would take considerable time for the participants to arrive at convincing conclusions without dividing their areas of interest in manageable parts/sections on some solid basis. No generalisations could be applied to paint a picture of the full era to be studied and discussed thoroughly. Then and only then the text books could be revised and replaced with the new findings.

Hope to get more illuminating data in the form of posts as the discussion progresses. After freeing myself from the present pre-occupation I will also try to participate in this discussion. For the present, best wishes for a really engaging and constructive fruitful discussion.

skharb
November 21st, 2014, 09:51 PM
[QUOTE=sahij;371530]

In 1989, in West Bengal a circular (Dated 28/04/1989, Syl/89/1) was issued by the Government regarding Class IX textbooks. The circular issued amendments to the existing ashuddho history books to be incorporated into textbooks in subsequent editions, and as corrigendum for already published books. The suggested amendments have been reproduced here for the perusal of members,
>[/TABLE]


[I]

Sahij

If I may,

Some thoughts for you to consider.

What you have posted , is in essence "secondary data".

The question will arise to a good researcher, what is the reliability of it.

Thus , were the text books correct to depict "Islam in a poor light" in the first place.

Mr. V. Dhillon, quotes the Islamic writer Badauni , in his post, #, 149 from Islamic sources,

That would be a primary source .( unless the translation is wrong)

Are there any comparable sources for Mr. Shourie's quotes?
ravi choodhry bhai ..............histrroy arun shorry ya delete/accounting method nahi h..........seedhi arr sapt baat honi chahiye ki 1947 s pahle hindu kon tha ...........
islam k kya effect hui h jatto per ya app koo pata hoo 1947 s pahle hinduu per ??????????
taki mahare berge layman bhi samajh sake kya h haqikaat !

ravichaudhary
November 21st, 2014, 11:07 PM
[QUOTE=ravichaudhary;371587]
ravi choodhry bhai ..............histrroy arun shorry ya delete/accounting method nahi h..........seedhi arr sapt baat honi chahiye ki 1947 s pahle hindu kon tha ...........
islam k kya effect hui h jatto per ya app koo pata hoo 1947 s pahle hinduu per ??????????
taki mahare berge layman bhi samajh sake kya h haqikaat !

I will let this post be an an example of what not to post.

Mr. Kharb.

This is a History section.

If you cannot do others the courtsey of spelling their names correctly, you do not show yourself as being worthy of others engaging you in a discussion.

Govern yourself accordingly.

No more warnings

Ravi Chaudhary

ravichaudhary
November 22nd, 2014, 02:11 AM
Sir, whether something can be called "secondary data" or "primary data", is essentially dependent upon the use data is being put toa.

Sahij
I must agree on your comment, that the Government of West Bengal it is a primary source , as far as the changes to the History curriculum go.

Allow me to phrase the question in another way:

Is there any evidence, primary or secondary, that the Islamic invasions had any benign and positive effect on Indian Society- then composed of Hindus/ Jain/ Buddhists and later Sikhs

Ravi Chaudhary

DrRajpalSingh
November 23rd, 2014, 08:08 AM
Sahij
I must agree on your comment, that the Government of West Bengal it is a primary source , as far as the changes to the History curriculum go.

Allow me to phrase the question in another way:

Is there any evidence, primary or secondary, that the Islamic invasions had any benign and positive effect on Indian Society- then composed of Hindus/ Jain/ Buddhists and later Sikhs

Ravi Chaudhary

Thanks.

Good hypothesis formulated in the last sentence on the thread theme. Those who are interested to discuss ,kindly subscribe for and against it to arrive at some sort of conclusion on this aspect of impact on religious life of people.

rkumar
November 23rd, 2014, 11:32 AM
.......Is there any evidence, primary or secondary, that the Islamic invasions had any benign and positive effect on Indian Society- then composed of Hindus/ Jain/ Buddhists and later Sikhs

Ravi Chaudhary

Definitely it had many unintended good side effects on Indian society.

1. India was divided into small kingdoms. Islamic invasions contributed a lot in unifying India.
2. Muslims infused new war technology in India.
3. To best of my knowledge Muslims introduced the concept of stitched clothing in India. Before
that it was all wrapping and tying the knots type of fashion.
4. Many new concepts in building construction were introduced by Muslims.

Ofcourse there were many many negative fall outs as well. Biggest fall out was on morals in society.

RK^2

DrRajpalSingh
November 23rd, 2014, 12:10 PM
Definitely it had many unintended good side effects on Indian society.

1. India was divided into small kingdoms. Islamic invasions contributed a lot in unifying India.
2. Muslims infused new war technology in India.
3. To best of my knowledge Muslims introduced the concept of stitched clothing in India. Before
that it was all wrapping and tying the knots type of fashion.
4. Many new concepts in building construction were introduced by Muslims.

Ofcourse there were many many negative fall outs as well. Biggest fall out was on morals in society.

RK^2



In addition to Losses in men and material in the warfare, losses in the form of drain of wealth were immense especially when the invaders came to India with intention of loot and rapine and not with an aim of settling in this country like M. Ghazanavi, Tamur, Nadirshah, Ahamdshah Abdali and then followed by many western trading companies in the modern times.

to be contd...

ravichaudhary
November 23rd, 2014, 10:48 PM
I am separating the topic and asking for positive comments to be listed in another thread.

ravichaudhary
November 24th, 2014, 05:10 AM
Motivation for Invasion, loot, destruction of the other culture.


Dr. Singh postulates that Islamic invasions were for loot , not for destroying Hindu culture.

Dr. Singh is the only Academic History Professor on this site. Indeed he is one of the few Jats who is a History Professor.

We must be careful , thus while engaging with him, not to put him in an embarrassing position.

As one has to be careful and must proceed with some caution in suggesting that there are other perspectives, that there is evidence that does not wholly support his postulation.

Dr. Singh suggests that these Islamic invaders came to loot and plunder and were not motivated by their Islamic religion.

In enquiring further into this subject, one must distinguish between Religion( a revealed religion i.e the Abrahamic religions- Islam, Christianity) and Dharam ( which is the path of Righteousness, a philosophy, a way of life, the goal being self enlightenment, not heaven and hell.)


I will suggest that the question should be properly framed as :

Does Religion shape the person’s thinking ?

In the context of the Islamic invasions, did their Religion shape the invaders thinking and motivation?

Was destruction of the Dharmic culture , and conversion to Islam a co- objective to the objective of loot.?

Ravi Chaudhary

ravichaudhary
November 24th, 2014, 05:10 AM
Motivation for Invasion, loot, destruction of the other culture.


Dr. Singh postulates that Islamic invasions were for loot , not for destroying Hindu culture.

Dr. Singh is the only Academic History Professor on this site. Indeed he is one of the few Jats who is a History Professor.

We must be careful , thus while engaging with him, not to put him in an embarrassing position.

As one has to be careful and must proceed with some caution in suggesting that there are other perspectives, that there is evidence that does not wholly support his postulation.

Dr. Singh suggests that these Islamic invaders came to loot and plunder and were not motivated by their Islamic religion.

In enquiring further into this subject, one must distinguish between Religion( a revealed religion i.e the Abrahamic religions- Islam, Christianity) and Dharam ( which is the path of Righteousness, a philosophy, a way of life, the goal being self enlightenment, not heaven and hell.)


I will suggest that the question should be properly framed as :

Does Religion shape the persons thinking ?

In the context of the Islamic invasions, did their Religion shape the invaders thinking and motivation?

Was destruction of the Dharmic culture , and conversion to Islam a co- objective to the objective of loot.?

Ravi Chaudhary

DrRajpalSingh
November 24th, 2014, 09:02 AM
Motivation for Invasion, loot, destruction of the other culture.


Dr. Singh postulates that Islamic invasions were for loot , not for destroying Hindu culture.

............................
Was destruction of the Dharmic culture , and conversion to Islam a co- objective to the objective of loot.?

Ravi Chaudhary

Friend,

Kindly avoid putting words in my mouth : 'not for destroying Hindu culture' which I have not used.

Since the issues involved under the thread theme are very wide, I just took up only one aspect of the motives/objects of invaders i.e. loot and rapine for smooth conduct of discussion . And concluded my post with words---'to be continued.

Other aims and objects of the invaders are to be taken up for discussion one by one separately.

Further, the term used by you: ' Dharmic culture' seems to be a new one . Could you elaborate its meaning.

Nonetheless, keep up your attempt to provide theoretical bases to the discussion.

Thanks and regards

DrRajpalSingh
November 24th, 2014, 09:23 AM
I am separating the topic and asking for positive comments to be listed in another thread.

There is no harm to discuss both the aspects under this thread heading and conduct smooth discussion at one place. Hence No Segregation or need of separate thread on the same topic needed.

Yes, the issues involved cover over thousands of years of history of India, the topic may be taken up chronologically divided in periods something like:

1. Pre-Sultanate period invasions,
2. Sultanate Period invasions
3. Mughal period invasions and coming of Europeans in India

Other, alternates if any for smooth conduct of discussion may be taken up/suggested.

But it is requested that no segregation of topic be made on merits/demerits or good/bad effects please to avoid unnecessary repetitions of events and incidents involved !

prashantacmet
November 24th, 2014, 07:20 PM
Motivation for Invasion, loot, destruction of the other culture.


Dr. Singh postulates that Islamic invasions were for loot , not for destroying Hindu culture.

Dr. Singh is the only Academic History Professor on this site. Indeed he is one of the few Jats who is a History Professor.

We must be careful , thus while engaging with him, not to put him in an embarrassing position.

As one has to be careful and must proceed with some caution in suggesting that there are other perspectives, that there is evidence that does not wholly support his postulation.

Dr. Singh suggests that these Islamic invaders came to loot and plunder and were not motivated by their Islamic religion.

In enquiring further into this subject, one must distinguish between Religion( a revealed religion i.e the Abrahamic religions- Islam, Christianity) and Dharam ( which is the path of Righteousness, a philosophy, a way of life, the goal being self enlightenment, not heaven and hell.)


I will suggest that the question should be properly framed as :

Does Religion shape the persons thinking ?

In the context of the Islamic invasions, did their Religion shape the invaders thinking and motivation?

Was destruction of the Dharmic culture , and conversion to Islam a co- objective to the objective of loot.?

Ravi Chaudhary

Ravi ji,

pretty good discussion have already taken place in the same thread and few "primary source" evidences have been also put forth. So it will be better to add from there rathe rthan starting a new thread, new discussion or teh same thing from start. There are so many threads already which never come out of slumber. Please take teh apin of reading the whole thread again.

ravichaudhary
November 24th, 2014, 07:20 PM
There is no harm to discuss both the aspects under this thread heading and conduct smooth discussion at one place. Hence No Segregation or need of separate thread on the same topic needed.

Yes, the issues involved cover over thousands of years of history of India, the topic may be taken up chronologically divided in periods something like:

1. Pre-Sultanate period invasions,
2. Sultanate Period invasions
3. Mughal period invasions and coming of Europeans in India

Other, alternates if any for smooth conduct of discussion may be taken up/suggested.

But it is requested that no segregation of topic be made on merits/demerits or good/bad effects please to avoid unnecessary repetitions of events and incidents involved !

No disrespect to anyone, but we will maintain two separate threads.

So far any positive contribution by Islam has been drowned by the noise about its negative effects.

This is an opportunity for all to provide data about the positive effects, in a thread started for that very purpose.

Ravi Chaudhary

ravichaudhary
November 24th, 2014, 07:20 PM
There is no harm to discuss both the aspects under this thread heading and conduct smooth discussion at one place. Hence No Segregation or need of separate thread on the same topic needed.

Yes, the issues involved cover over thousands of years of history of India, the topic may be taken up chronologically divided in periods something like:

1. Pre-Sultanate period invasions,
2. Sultanate Period invasions
3. Mughal period invasions and coming of Europeans in India

Other, alternates if any for smooth conduct of discussion may be taken up/suggested.

But it is requested that no segregation of topic be made on merits/demerits or good/bad effects please to avoid unnecessary repetitions of events and incidents involved !

No disrespect to anyone, but we will maintain two separate threads.

So far any positive contribution by Islam has been drowned by the noise about its negative effects.

This is an opportunity for all to provide data about the positive effects, in a thread started for that very purpose.

Ravi Chaudhary

prashantacmet
November 24th, 2014, 07:23 PM
Friend,

Kindly avoid putting words in my mouth : 'not for destroying Hindu culture' which I have not used.

Since the issues involved under the thread theme are very wide, I just took up only one aspect of the motives/objects of invaders i.e. loot and rapine for smooth conduct of discussion . And concluded my post with words---'to be continued.

Other aims and objects of the invaders are to be taken up for discussion one by one separately.

Further, the term used by you: ' Dharmic culture' seems to be a new one . Could you elaborate its meaning.

Nonetheless, keep up your attempt to provide theoretical bases to the discussion.

Thanks and regards

Ok but from the writing it is pretty evident that you don't consider that a "primary" factor..right?..You have been confronted on that already in the thread.

prashantacmet
November 24th, 2014, 07:25 PM
There is no harm to discuss both the aspects under this thread heading and conduct smooth discussion at one place. Hence No Segregation or need of separate thread on the same topic needed.

Yes, the issues involved cover over thousands of years of history of India, the topic may be taken up chronologically divided in periods something like:

1. Pre-Sultanate period invasions,
2. Sultanate Period invasions
3. Mughal period invasions and coming of Europeans in India

Other, alternates if any for smooth conduct of discussion may be taken up/suggested.

But it is requested that no segregation of topic be made on merits/demerits or good/bad effects please to avoid unnecessary repetitions of events and incidents involved !

Can you please start from Kasim and put forth the primary source in the support of your opinion?

prashantacmet
November 24th, 2014, 07:45 PM
Don't know about Rajpal ji, but I would agree with you. The call for Jihad gave their military campaigns a religious legitimacy and possibly swelled their ranks with recruits. The real reasons was always loot. Central Asia, from most of these (apart from Qasim) came, had a long history and prevalent culture of invasions for looting.

Ok..so that proves that the all of these invaders mustered army at the name of religion quite easily and motivated them to invade kaafir for the sake of "Islam". It fulfilled two purposes "plundering the wealth" and "slaying kaafirs to spread terror of Islam" .... . Even if these invaders were not religious freak ,the army was religious freak and quite enthusiastic in plundering and slaying of the "kaafirs", Venomous Islam!

So if plundering was the main purpose , religious purpose was also not far behind!

DrRajpalSingh
November 25th, 2014, 09:20 AM
No disrespect to anyone, but we will maintain two separate threads.

So far any positive contribution by Islam has been drowned by the noise about its negative effects.

This is an opportunity for all to provide data about the positive effects, in a thread started for that very purpose.

Ravi Chaudhary

Friend,

Thanks for taking over the thread discussion charge by giving new direction by bifurcating it into two threads and to discuss it in piece-meal style.

Wish happy discussion. of the same topic at two places styled as positive and negative aspects of the causes, events and impacts of the foreign invasions during Medieval times.

Thanks and regards.

DrRajpalSingh
November 25th, 2014, 05:54 PM
Can you please start from Kasim and put forth the primary source in the support of your opinion?

Mohd. bin Qasim, who invaded Sindh [India] in c.712 AD carried out a ruthless attack against Dahir, the Brahmin ruler of the region. Some of the Indians who perhaps professed Buddhism and said to be Jats were dealt with discriminatory laws against them by the Brahmin ruler. They joined the invaders. A fierce fight between the two armies culminated in the defeat of the forces of Dahir. Loot, arson, murder and slaving of the defeated people followed.

This invasion by the forces led by one of the cousins of the Khalifa left a very bitter memory in the minds of the people of India.

The source of information is Chachnama which vividly describes the causes, events and results of this battle. English translation of some extracts of the Chachnamah have been included in Vol. I of the History of India as Told by its own Historians by Elliot and Dowson re-published By Luxumi Book Depot, Agra .

Those who are interested to read full text of this battle in Chachnama can do so by reading its English Translation published a few years ago by Aligarh Muslim University where copy of original manuscript is also available.

upendersingh
November 25th, 2014, 06:09 PM
Mohd. bin Qasim, who invaded Sindh [India] in c.712 AD carried out a ruthless attack against Dahir, the Brahmin ruler of the region. Some of the Indians who perhaps professed Buddhism and said to be Jats were dealt with discriminatory laws against them by the Brahmin ruler. They joined the invaders. A fierce fight between the two armies culminated in the defeat of the forces of Dahir. Loot, arson, murder and slaving of the defeated people followed.The war prisoners were treated very severely as per terms of Islamic tradition which allowed choice either to accept Islam or death.

This invasion by the forces led by one of the cousins of the Khalifa left a very bitter memory in the minds of the people of India.

The source of information is Chachnama which vividly describes the causes, events and results of this battle. English translation of some extracts of the Chachnamah have been included in Vol. I of the History of India as Told by its own Historians by Elliot and Dowson re-published By Luxumi Book Depot, Agra .

Those who are interested to read full text of this battle in Chachnama can do so by reading its English Translation published a few years ago by Aligarh Muslim University where copy of original manuscript is also available.


Friend, first time in my life I heard that Jats joined the Muslim invaders. It may be mentioned in some history books, but doestn't sound true. It may be an attempt of some historians to divide Indian people.
Some people think they are such a big master of the words that they can even make Bin Laden or Baghdadi a hero if they wish. So sad.

ravichaudhary
November 25th, 2014, 08:16 PM
Those who are interested to read full text of this battle in Chachnama can do so by reading its English Translation published a few years ago by Aligarh Muslim University where copy of original manuscript is also available.


Dr. Singh

A 7th CE original manuscript of the Chachnama???

Perhaps you have made a Typo. These things do happen, Could you confirm?

Romar
November 26th, 2014, 06:19 AM
dubaar galti se likhi gayi

DrRajpalSingh
November 26th, 2014, 10:04 AM
Dr. Singh

A 7th CE original manuscript of the Chachnama???

Perhaps you have made a Typo. These things do happen, Could you confirm?
Friend

Kindly avoid committing mistake of considering Chachnamah as a book of prophesy. It is a narrative based on events that happened in Sindh in c. 712 AD i.e. in the beginning of the eighth century !

I have nowhere mentioned the date of composition of Chachnamah as 7th CE as I have not been able to ascertain its date personally.

Instead of assigning the probable date of its composition based on your imagination, Kindly find out the date by personally examining the MSS please.

Thanks and regards,

DrRajpalSingh
November 26th, 2014, 10:11 AM
Aap ki baat satya prateet hoti hai. Dr Jhangu se yeh samajhna jaroori hai ki akbar dwara nimanlikhit karne ke bavjood bhi yahan ka koi shodh karta in baaton ka jikar kyon ni karta?



The reimposition of jizya in 1575 is also symbolic of vigrous Islamic policy. -> Ali, M.A. (2006). Mughal India: Studies in Polity, Ideas, Society and Culture. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195648609. p 159

[/SUP]

Friend,.

Kindly stop derailing the smooth progress of the discussion which is designed to move forward chronologically step by step.

Your questions will be dealt with when we reach 16th century discussion.

If you have something to contribute on Mohd. bin Qasim invasion related aspects of history, you are welcome.

Thanks

DrRajpalSingh
November 26th, 2014, 10:22 AM
Friend, first time in my life I heard that Jats joined the Muslim invaders. It may be mentioned in some history books, but doestn't sound true. It may be an attempt of some historians to divide Indian people.
Some people think they are such a big master of the words that they can even make Bin Laden or Baghdadi a hero if they wish. So sad.

As you will go deeper in the pages of history you will find more startling revelations of events of the past.

We are discussing history not politics of the day so Kindly avoid putting irrelevant comments [ not related to the theme of the thread] as made in the last line of your post.

Romar
November 26th, 2014, 10:22 AM
Friend

Kindly avoid committing mistake of considering Chachnamah as a book of prophesy. It is a narrative based on events that happened in Sindh in c. 712 AD i.e. in the beginning of the eighth century !

I have nowhere mentioned the date of composition of Chachnamah as 7th CE as I have not been able to ascertain its date personally.

Instead of assigning the probable date of its composition based on your imagination, Kindly find out the date by personally examining the MSS please.

Thanks and regards,
Ajeeb baat hai. Aapne likha hai upar: "Those who are interested to read full text of this battle in Chachnama can do so by reading its English Translation published a few years ago by Aligarh Muslim University where copy of original manuscript is also available."

Ravi ne sirf aapse pucha ki kya 712 mein likhi gayi choonki yeh "original manuscript" hai. Is per yeh kah dena ki taarikh apne aap dekhiye ja kar ke atpati baat hai. Yeh to aap kahiya ki aap se galat likha gaya ki veh manuscript original hai.

DrRajpalSingh
November 26th, 2014, 10:26 AM
Ajeeb baat hai. Aapne likha hai upar: "Those who are interested to read full text of this battle in Chachnama can do so by reading its English Translation published a few years ago by Aligarh Muslim University where copy of original manuscript is also available."

Ravi ne sirf aapse pucha ki kya 712 mein likhi gayi choonki yeh "original manuscript" hai. Is per yeh kah dena ki taarikh apne aap dekhiye ja kar ke atpati baat hai. Yeh to aap kahiya ki aap se galat likha gaya ki veh manuscript original hai.

Fantastic indeed are your questions.

Does 712 AD fall in 7th century.

Or do I require to make you understand the difference between originally written in 712 AD and 'original MSS' regarding events of 712 AD.

Romar
November 26th, 2014, 10:35 AM
Fantastic indeed are your questions.

Does 712 AD fall in 7th century. Yeh saaf tha ki aathvi shatabdi ke baare me ravi ka sawal tha.


Or do I require to make you understand the difference between originally written in 712 AD and 'original MSS' regarding events of 712 AD.
Aji original manuscript ki koi tarikh bhi to hogi ya original manuscript pichle saal likhi gayi thhi? Aap ka kathan aisa jata raha hai ki yeh "original" 712 AD ke ore dhore hi likhi gayi thhi.

DrRajpalSingh
November 26th, 2014, 12:05 PM
Yeh saaf tha ki aathvi shatabdi ke baare me ravi ka sawal tha.

Aji original manuscript ki koi tarikh bhi to hogi ya original manuscript pichle saal likhi gayi thhi? Aap ka kathan aisa jata raha hai ki yeh "original" 712 AD ke ore dhore hi likhi gayi thhi.

Put something constructive material on the very important event of our History, if you can; and, kindly Stop Proxy participation on anybody's behest .

When you are not ready to understand, let Shri Ravi Chaudhary, who is an intelligent person and can understand the difference between the two situations easily, address his questions.

Moreover none has authorised you to be his attorney here. Isn't it so !

If you have any contribution to make to the event being discussed come forward otherwise kindly do not interfere with further flow of discussion please.

Kindly cooperate in maintaining minimum restraint in posting unwarranted stuff as comments in future !

DrRajpalSingh
November 26th, 2014, 12:44 PM
Ok..so that proves that the all of these invaders mustered army at the name of religion quite easily and motivated them to invade kaafir for the sake of "Islam". It fulfilled two purposes "plundering the wealth" and "slaying kaafirs to spread terror of Islam" .... . Even if these invaders were not religious freak ,the army was religious freak and quite enthusiastic in plundering and slaying of the "kaafirs", Venomous Islam!

So if plundering was the main purpose , religious purpose was also not far behind!

As the frequency of invasions increased, one more cause of action may be added viz establishment of political authority over the lands thus conquered.

prashantacmet
November 26th, 2014, 01:39 PM
Fantastic indeed are your questions.

Does 712 AD fall in 7th century.

Or do I require to make you understand the difference between originally written in 712 AD and 'original MSS' regarding events of 712 AD.

The Chach Nama was written by Kz Isml, who was appointed the first Kz of Alr by Muhammad Ksim after the conquest of the Sindh. In 1216 AD, It was translated into Persian by Muhammad Ali bin Hamid bin Abu Bakr Kufi. which one is being considered original?

prashantacmet
November 26th, 2014, 02:01 PM
Jats were treated very badly in Sindh and perhaps they joined invaders against dahir:

Restrictions on Jats by chach : Excerpt taken from English translation of persian work (1216)
"Then Chach stayed in the fort of Brahmanabad and, for the sake of commerce and the safety of the people, he instituted an income. Then he called forth and humiliated the Jats of Lohana and punished their leader and imprisoned him. And imposed on them the conditions that they will never carry a sword, nor wear clothes of silk or spun cotton. Their upper covering may be sewn but their lower covering cannot be sewn and must be of black or red colour. They cannot put saddles on their horses. They must never cover their heads nor their feet. When they leave their houses, they must be accompanied by a dog. They will supply the governor’s kitchen with cooking wood. They will be employed as guides and spies. And they will cultivate such qualities, so that when an enemy approaches this fort, they will be able to defend it on their own honour"

what daahir says about jats when he looks for marrying his sister :

"Even though Ma’��n is our father’s daughter, she is a daughter of the J��ts who are
by nature rebellious and criminal, especially their women. The reality is that,
they can never be trusted, depended upon, or taken on their own words. This
proverb on the J��ts is widely known: ‘Whoever grabbed the leg of a goat, got milk.
Whoever grabbed the hand of a J��t woman, mounted her’. Since, M��’in
is by nature a stranger, marrying her is not a sin"

prashantacmet
November 26th, 2014, 02:11 PM
Kasim continued the same humiliation for jats :

"Then he called the minister Si��ker and Mok�� and asked them: What was the
matter of J��ts with Chach and D��hir? And how was it conducted? Minister Si��ker
replied: During the rule of Chach, the J��ts of Lohana, that is those who lived
in the area of Lakha and Samma, were prohibited from wearing soft clothes,
from covering their heads, and of wearing rough, black, sheet on their torso.
When they exited their homes, they were accompanied by dogs; by this, they
could be identifi ed from afar. None of their elders could ride a horse. Whenever
a king needed a guide, they were called upon to show the way. They indicated
the pathways and guided travellers from one tribe to another. And when a leader
among them rode a horse, that horse had no saddle or rein. However, he could
put a cloth on the back of the horse. If anyone was hurt or killed during travel,
it was from them that an investigation was made. And if someone from them
was proven to be a thief, his familyincluding his wife and childrenwere
burned. Caravans travelled by day and night, with them as guides. They do
not respect their elders. They are barbaric, prone to rebellion and thievery on
the roads. They were even in Daybul, raiding along with others. They are also
responsible for bringing cooking wood to the kitchens of the kings.
Said Muhammad bin Qasim: How revolting are these people! They are like
the jungle dwellers in the lands of Fars (Iran) and Kuh-paia (base of a mountain)
who have the same ways.
Hence, Muhammad bin Qasim kept on them their existing laws. Just as during
the times of Amir al-Muminin Umar bin al-Kha������b had insisted that the
inhabitants of Syria host any traveller for a night and given food, and if sick,
for three nights"

DrRajpalSingh
November 26th, 2014, 03:39 PM
The Chach Nama was written by Kz Isml, who was appointed the first Kz of Alr by Muhammad Ksim after the conquest of the Sindh. In 1216 AD, It was translated into Persian by Muhammad Ali bin Hamid bin Abu Bakr Kufi. which one is being considered original?

The first one !

DrRajpalSingh
November 26th, 2014, 03:45 PM
Dr. Singh

A 7th CE original manuscript of the Chachnama???

Perhaps you have made a Typo. These things do happen, Could you confirm?

Shri Chaudhary,

No mistake at all. For reply to your query read this post :


The Chach Nama was written by Kz Isml, who was appointed the first Kz of Alr by Muhammad Ksim after the conquest of the Sindh. In 1216 AD, It was translated into Persian by Muhammad Ali bin Hamid bin Abu Bakr Kufi. which one is being considered original?

The first one composed in early eighth century AD is original source and subsequent translations/transliterations are secondary sources.

Perhaps this is enough to satisfy your inquisitiveness.

Thanks

ravichaudhary
November 26th, 2014, 05:28 PM
Shri Chaudhary,

No mistake at all. For reply to your query read this post :



The first one composed in early eighth century AD is original source and subsequent translations/transliterations are secondary sources.

Perhaps this is enough to satisfy your inquisitiveness.

Thanks

Dr Singh

Are you seriously suggesting that the an original manuscript dated circa 700 AD or so exists????

DrRajpalSingh
November 27th, 2014, 09:36 AM
Dr Singh

Are you seriously suggesting that the an original manuscript dated circa 700 AD or so exists????

Friend, I am suggesting a copy of Persian Chachnamah and its English translated and published in book form is available in Aligarh University Library. It is a translation of Arabic MSS named Fatahnama-i-Sind and is one source of information on the events connected with Kasim-Dahir battle fought in 712 AD.

I have shared what I know on the issue, hence I will not be in a position to attend any further questions on the nature, origin, availability non availability, authenticity, non authenticity and so on regarding Fatehnama/Chachanama.

Yes, you are welcome to contribute and share your views on the battle of Brahmanabad between Kasim and Dahir in 712 AD!

Thanks and regards

Romar
November 27th, 2014, 10:08 AM
As the frequency of invasions increased, one more cause of action may be added viz establishment of political authority over the lands thus conquered.
Dharam badhana jyada sahi kaaran tha na ki jo aap likh rahein hain:

In Muhammad bin Qasims first successful foray into India, as recorded by al-Biladuri and Muhammad al-Kufi (in Chachnama): at Debal, the temples were demolished, a general massacre endured for three days; prisoners were taken captive; at Nairun, the idols were broken, and mosques founded despite its voluntary surrender; at Rawar and Askalanda, all the men in arms were put to the sword, and the women and children carried away captive; at Multan, all men capable of bearing arms were massacred; six thousand ministers of the temple were made captive, besides all the women and children. -> Eliot HM and Dawson J, The History of India As Told by the Historians, Low Price Publications, New Delhi, Vol. I, p. 469

Muhammad bin Qasims invasion: Inspired by the edicts of the Quran and Sunnah (as noted already), Hajjaj sent Qasim with a 6,000-strong army toward India, instructing him to kill all able-bodied men and to enslave the women and children in the course of his conquests. After capturing Debal in Sindh, Qasims army massacred the residents for three days. In Brahmanabad, between 6,000 and 16,000 men of weapon-bearing age were slaughtered; in Multan, all men of weapon- bearing age were ordered to be killed. Chachnama records that Qasims successful assault in Rawar yielded 60,000 slaves.v Qasim slaughtered tens of thousands of Indian defenders and enslaved their women and children on a grand scale, a few hundred thousand in all, during his three-year stint in Sindh. In addition, temples were demolished, sculptures and idols shattered, and mosques built in their stead. Plundering of Hindu establishments, temples and palaces yielded great quantities of booty.

Chachnama records that Qasims assault on Rawar yielded 60,000 slaves. In the final stages of his conquest of Sindh, says Chachnama, about 100,000 women and children were enslaved.-> Lal (1994), p. 1819

At Debal, Muhammad bin Qasim slaughtered the inhabitants for three days. Was this massacre perpetrated because the Hindus had welcomed Qasims army with opened hands? -> Islamic Jihad a legacy of forced conversion MA Khan p. 88

He always forwarded one-fifth of the captives and other spoilsthe share of the state, according to the Quran [8:41], prophetic traditions and Shariato the caliph in Damascus and distributed the rest amongst his soldiers. These slave women and children became the property of Muslims and entered the house of Islam by default. When those children grew up to be adult Muslims in a few years, the males were drafted into the Muslim army for waging new holy wars against the Hindus, who had been their kinfolk and coreligionists a few years earlier. In other words, in the short time-span of a decade, these captured children had become the weapon for the Muslim state to wage new Jihad expeditions for extending the domain of Islam, for converting the vanquished infidels, for enslaving their women and children, and for plundering their wealth. Even during the upheaval of the Partition of India (194647), some 100,000 Hindu and Sikh women were enslaved, carried away and married off to Muslims -> Islamic Jihad a legacy of forced conversion MA Khan p. 102

But after Muslim invaders brought the sword of Islam to India in three waves: first in early eighth century by Muhammad bin Qasim, then in the early eleventh century by Sultan Mahmud and finally in the late twelfth century by Sultan Ghauri, the Muslim population grew in leaps and bounds through large-scale conversion of native Indians in the face of brutal Muslim assaults, through their enslavement en masse and other forms of coercion. -> Islamic Jihad a legacy of forced conversion MA Khan p. 145

Qasim had enslaved approximately 300,000 Indian infidels in three years. Similarly, Musa (698712) had enslaved 300,000 Blacks and Berbers in North Africa.

Sawal yeh hai ki kya kaaran hai ki duniya bhar me log sach ko sach nahi keh rahe?

prashantacmet
November 27th, 2014, 10:44 AM
Romar ji, I think that Rajpal ji now agrees with the opinion that "spreading Islam" was also a primary cause for these invaders along with "loot of wealth". am I right rajpal ji? :)

DrRajpalSingh
November 27th, 2014, 01:35 PM
Dharam badhana jyada sahi kaaran tha na ki jo aap likh rahein hain:

Sawal yeh hai ki kya kaaran hai ki duniya bhar me log sach ko sach nahi keh rahe?

If you had read these two earlier posts, you would not have taken the trouble of preaching the gospel of truth and truth alone !

Ok..so that proves that the all of these invaders mustered army at the name of religion quite easily and motivated them to invade kaafir for the sake of "Islam". It fulfilled two purposes "plundering the wealth" and "slaying kaafirs to spread terror of Islam" .... . Even if these invaders were not religious freak ,the army was religious freak and quite enthusiastic in plundering and slaying of the "kaafirs", Venomous Islam!

So if plundering was the main purpose , religious purpose was also not far behind![/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=DrRajpalSingh;371869]As the frequency of invasions increased, one more cause of action may be added viz establishment of political authority over the lands thus conquered.

Moreover, without forming judicious view based on all aspects of the invasions and their causes and impact, you seem to be in hurry to sweep the historic developments of many hundreds of years under one post. Otherwise what the quote on the time of Partition of India are to do with the discussion on History of Medieval India.

Kindly move step by step to discuss every issue at different stages of history and as requested earlier resist your zeal to prove your one sided view in one go. This type of hyper hurry is not good for an healthy discussion.
Could you share with us what this remark of yours has to do with the present discussion:

''Sawal yeh hai ki kya kaaran hai ki duniya bhar me log sach ko sach nahi keh rahe?''

Do you consider all people on the earth as worthless as you have imputed them in this post !!!

Hope that you would cooperate by sharing your views in matter of fact way and not try to derail the discussion in future by raising irrelevant blockades and also behave as a gentleman [as you are] while posting your views about living men across the globe !

DrRajpalSingh
November 27th, 2014, 01:50 PM
Romar ji, I think that Rajpal ji now agrees with the opinion that "spreading Islam" was also a primary cause for these invaders along with "loot of wealth". am I right rajpal ji? :)

Friend,

Good question.

We have just started discussion regarding one invasion where all the three causes viz plunder, religious intolerance and establishment of authority over the conquered territories have emerged !

As we move forward to take up other invasions for study the primary or secondary causes would gradually unfold, and hope that there would be a bit of difference in each and every invaders' motives for undertaking these attacks on India.


So far as next major invasion on India by M. Ghazhnavi is concerned, his primary aim emerges as loot of Indian wealth followed by killing the Indians who resisted his attempt and despoiling their religious places as well. Though he had run over deep in North Western Indian territories, he just annexed parts of Punjab to his kingdom. Thus loot of Indian wealth in ill defended temples became his passion to descend upon them year after year.

Yes his last attack was exception to this pattern. He during this campaign attacked those Jats, who had taken away part of his booty gathered from famous Somnath temple.

Thanks

ravichaudhary
November 27th, 2014, 05:17 PM
Friend, I am suggesting a copy of Persian Chachnamah and its English translated and published in book form is available in Aligarh University Library. It is a translation of Arabic MSS named Fatahnama-i-Sind and is one source of information on the events connected with Kasim-Dahir battle fought in 712 AD.

I have shared what I know on the issue, hence I will not be in a position to attend any further questions on the nature, origin, availability non availability, authenticity, non authenticity and so on regarding Fatehnama/Chachanama.

Yes, you are welcome to contribute and share your views on the battle of Brahmanabad between Kasim and Dahir in 712 AD!

Thanks and regards



Humble request.

Please do not confuse the issue.

You claimed that the Original Manuscript of the Chachnama dated circa 8th century was in Aligarh University .

Either it existed or did not.

Some accuracy must be there.

There is nothing wrong with making mistakes.

It is acknowledging them that is exemplary.

ravichaudhary
November 27th, 2014, 05:20 PM
Friend, I am suggesting a copy of Persian Chachnamah and its English translated and published in book form is available in Aligarh University Library. It is a translation of Arabic MSS named Fatahnama-i-Sind and is one source of information on the events connected with Kasim-Dahir battle fought in 712 AD.

Yes, you are welcome to contribute and share your views on the battle of Brahmanabad between Kasim and Dahir in 712 AD!

Thanks and regards

Who says the battle even occurred?

Do you have a source, better than the 13 th century composition of the story by Kufi ( Kufi composed his version circa 1216 CE).

ravichaudhary
November 27th, 2014, 06:04 PM
To all participants,

I have suggested before, that we should contain our anxiety to launch into 'opinions' based on biased secondary sources, we should seek primary sources.

Importantly, we should validate the authenticity of what we come across and not accept it at face value.

The purpose of the History Section on this site, was to find, and develop a history of the Jats.

We are not going to that, when we accept at face value what the average run of the mill historian writes.

[ I may clarify , that this comment is not directed at Dr. Rajpal Singh. He is the only Jat professional Historian on this site and one of the few who has the courage to participate here and take criticism of his opinions in his stride. He too is requested to take a break and go back to research to determine the authenticity of the sources.

He has the skills and resources to do that.

No point his joining the horde of those who just quote each other and claim it is Ithiihaas]



Readers will find that Kufi's tale is based on a claim he came across a descendant of Ismail or someone ( who claimed to have a copy of the Chachnama in Arabic,in Afghanistan, handed down in his family generation to generation, some 600 years after the alleged events in his version of the Chachnama fairytale).

We are supposed to believe this story and make it the foundation of our History and culture ?

Today we cannt even take with trust what we read about what happened one week ago ago let alone 600 years ago.

Why historians accept such a fairly tale and give it legitimacy, is another matter.



Where is the scientific, critical evaluation of this 13 the century document.

Why do we accept it as true, when there is no corroborating evidence.?

Perhaps readers may be better advised to deal with the authenticity issue first, before rushing off to show off their knowledge and score points!

Jat history in Islamic sources is to be found in the absence of their mention, or where they are mentioned in a derogatory manner.

The Jats put up the resistance and were abused roundly in Islamic sources.

ravichaudhary
November 27th, 2014, 06:04 PM
To all participants,

I have suggested before, that we should contain our anxiety to launch into 'opinions' based on biased secondary sources, we should seek primary sources.

Importantly, we should validate the authenticity of what we come across and not accept it at face value.

The purpose of the History Section on this site, was to find, and develop a history of the Jats.

We are not going to that, when we accept at face value what the average run of the mill historian writes.

[ I may clarify , that this comment is not directed at Dr. Rajpal Singh. He is the only Jat professional Historian on this site and one of the few who has the courage to participate here and take criticism of his opinions in his stride. He too is requested to take a break and go back to research to determine the authenticity of the sources.

He has the skills and resources to do that.

No point his joining the horde of those who just quote each other and claim it is Ithiihaas]



Readers will find that Kufi's tale is based on a claim - he came across a descendant of Ismail or someone ( who claimed to have a copy of the Chachnama in Arabic,in Afghanistan, handed down in his family generation to generation, some 600 years after the alleged events in his version of the Chachnama fairytale).

We are supposed to believe this story and make it the foundation of our History and culture ?

Today we cannot even take with trust, what we read about what happened one week ago let alone 600 or 1,600 years ago.

Why do historians accept such a fairly tale and give it legitimacy?



Where is the scientific, critical evaluation of this 13th century composition

Why do we accept it as true, when there is no corroborating evidence.?

Perhaps readers may be better advised to deal with the authenticity issue first, before rushing off to show off their knowledge and score points!

Jat history in Islamic sources is to be found in the absence of their mention, or where they are mentioned in a derogatory manner.

The Jats put up the resistance and were abused roundly in Islamic sources.

DrRajpalSingh
November 28th, 2014, 09:58 AM
Humble request.

Please do not confuse the issue.

You claimed that the Original Manuscript of the Chachnama dated circa 8th century was in Aligarh University .

Either it existed or did not.

Some accuracy must be there.

There is nothing wrong with making mistakes.

It is acknowledging them that is exemplary.

Friend,

The issue may be closed on the point that we agree to disagree what I said and what you understood as per the discussion on the issue contained in our previous posts reveals !

Thanks and regards,

DrRajpalSingh
November 28th, 2014, 10:21 AM
Who says the battle even occurred?

Do you have a source, better than the 13 th century composition of the story by Kufi ( Kufi composed his version circa 1216 CE).

Friend,

Chachnama [Persian MSS 1216 ] originally based on some earlier [contemporary Arabic sources] and translated into English [and published from Tehran, Pakistan, and of course latest translation into English from AMU Aligarh ] says that the battle occurred in 712 AD.

Conversely the question may be framed : who can prove that Mohd. bin Qasim never led Invasion on Sindh in c.712 AD?

In the absence of no source, tradition based sources are used to elicit historic developments, The Chachnamah seems to fall in that category and has been used intensively as a source to throw light on the issue. So long as other more authentic sources refute or contradict its narrative, it is used to illustrate the events of those days by the historians.

If someone comes up with newer source on the topic of discussion, we are open to revise our tentative surmises/conclusions which are of course based on accessible and available sources to us.

But to close the issue/discussion without providing alternate source of information is neither desirable nor acceptable at the present state of our knowledge of that period !

Thanks and wishing better participation/contribution in discussion on the issue.

DrRajpalSingh
November 28th, 2014, 10:30 AM
To all participants,

.........................................

[ I may clarify , that this comment is not directed at Dr. Rajpal Singh. He is the only Jat professional Historian on this site and one of the few who has the courage to participate here and take criticism of his opinions in his stride. He too is requested to take a break and go back to research to determine the authenticity of the sources.

He has the skills and resources to do that.

No point his joining the horde of those who just quote each other and claim it is Ithiihaas]

...................................



Friend,

Kindly suggest which original source or rather to say other source than Chachnama you are suggesting for judgement or critical evaluation.

I assure you, Friend, I will try, to the best of my ability, to evaluate/appraise the newer source of information on this topic as and when shared/suggested by you.

Nonetheless, thanks for your unsolicited piece of advice to me to take break!

Best wishes,

DrRajpalSingh
November 28th, 2014, 10:46 AM
Dharam badhana jyada sahi kaaran tha na ki jo aap likh rahein hain:

Sawal yeh hai ki kya kaaran hai ki duniya bhar me log sach ko sach nahi keh rahe?

Copy paste is challenged by many a hon'ble participants and also that use of other persons research without acknowledgement of the source of such matter is an offence under the intellectual property right ! Kindly acknowledge the source of the post so as to be on safe side of any future complication, please:



''In Muhammad bin Qasim’s first successful foray into India, as recorded by al-Biladuri and Muhammad al-Kufi (in Chachnama): at Debal, ‘the temples were demolished, a general massacre endured for three days; prisoners were taken captive;’ at Nairun, ‘the idols were broken, and mosques founded despite its voluntary surrender;’ at Rawar and Askalanda, ‘all the men in arms were put to the sword, and the women and children carried away captive;’ at Multan, ‘all men capable of bearing arms were massacred; six thousand ministers of the temple were made captive, besides all the women and children. -> Eliot HM and Dawson J, The History of India As Told by the Historians, Low Price Publications, New Delhi, Vol. I, p. 469

Muhammad bin Qasim’s invasion: Inspired by the edicts of the Quran and Sunnah (as noted already), Hajjaj sent Qasim with a 6,000-strong army toward India, instructing him to kill all able-bodied men and to enslave the women and children in the course of his conquests. After capturing Debal in Sindh, Qasim’s army massacred the residents for three days. In Brahmanabad, between 6,000 and 16,000 men of weapon-bearing age were slaughtered; in Multan, all men of weapon- bearing age were ordered to be killed. Chachnama records that Qasim’s successful assault in Rawar yielded 60,000 slaves.v Qasim slaughtered tens of thousands of Indian defenders and enslaved their women and children on a grand scale, a few hundred thousand in all, during his three-year stint in Sindh. In addition, temples were demolished, sculptures and idols shattered, and mosques built in their stead. Plundering of Hindu establishments, temples and palaces yielded great quantities of booty.

Chachnama records that Qasim’s assault on Rawar yielded 60,000 slaves. In the final stages of his conquest of Sindh, says Chachnama, about 100,000 women and children were enslaved.-> Lal (1994), p. 18–19

At Debal, Muhammad bin Qasim slaughtered the inhabitants for three days. Was this massacre perpetrated because the Hindus had welcomed Qasim’s army with opened hands? -> Islamic Jihad a legacy of forced conversion MA Khan p. 88

He always forwarded one-fifth of the captives and other spoils—the share of the state, according to the Quran [8:41], prophetic traditions and Sharia—to the caliph in Damascus and distributed the rest amongst his soldiers. These slave women and children became the property of Muslims and entered the house of Islam by default. When those children grew up to be adult Muslims in a few years, the males were drafted into the Muslim army for waging new holy wars against the Hindus, who had been their kinfolk and coreligionists a few years earlier. In other words, in the short time-span of a decade, these captured children had become the weapon for the Muslim state to wage new Jihad expeditions for extending the domain of Islam, for converting the vanquished infidels, for enslaving their women and children, and for plundering their wealth. Even during the upheaval of the Partition of India (1946–47), some 100,000 Hindu and Sikh women were enslaved, carried away and married off to Muslims -> Islamic Jihad a legacy of forced conversion MA Khan p. 102

But after Muslim invaders brought the sword of Islam to India in three waves: first in early eighth century by Muhammad bin Qasim, then in the early eleventh century by Sultan Mahmud and finally in the late twelfth century by Sultan Ghauri, the Muslim population grew in leaps and bounds through large-scale conversion of native Indians in the face of brutal Muslim assaults, through their enslavement en masse and other forms of coercion. -> Islamic Jihad a legacy of forced conversion MA Khan p. 145

Qasim had enslaved approximately 300,000 Indian infidels in three years. Similarly, Musa (698–712) had enslaved 300,000 Blacks and Berbers in North Africa.''

Hope to hear soon !

prashantacmet
November 28th, 2014, 10:49 AM
To all participants,

I have suggested before, that we should contain our anxiety to launch into 'opinions' based on biased secondary sources, we should seek primary sources.

Importantly, we should validate the authenticity of what we come across and not accept it at face value.

The purpose of the History Section on this site, was to find, and develop a history of the Jats.

We are not going to that, when we accept at face value what the average run of the mill historian writes.

[ I may clarify , that this comment is not directed at Dr. Rajpal Singh. He is the only Jat professional Historian on this site and one of the few who has the courage to participate here and take criticism of his opinions in his stride. He too is requested to take a break and go back to research to determine the authenticity of the sources.

He has the skills and resources to do that.

No point his joining the horde of those who just quote each other and claim it is Ithiihaas]



Readers will find that Kufi's tale is based on a claim he came across a descendant of Ismail or someone ( who claimed to have a copy of the Chachnama in Arabic,in Afghanistan, handed down in his family generation to generation, some 600 years after the alleged events in his version of the Chachnama fairytale).

We are supposed to believe this story and make it the foundation of our History and culture ?

Today we cannt even take with trust what we read about what happened one week ago ago let alone 600 years ago.

Why historians accept such a fairly tale and give it legitimacy, is another matter.



Where is the scientific, critical evaluation of this 13 the century document.

Why do we accept it as true, when there is no corroborating evidence.?

Perhaps readers may be better advised to deal with the authenticity issue first, before rushing off to show off their knowledge and score points!

Jat history in Islamic sources is to be found in the absence of their mention, or where they are mentioned in a derogatory manner.

The Jats put up the resistance and were abused roundly in Islamic sources.

Agreed!...

infact, this is the proper way to reconstruct the history.....question each and every source!! don't be in a hurry to set a particular opinion in your mind..

Anyway, we need to figure the position and role of jats in "Sindh" of that time! Please provide your view.

was sahasi rai a jat?

there were any jat kingdoms in Sindh at all? balhara , ruler of kaikan?

social and political status of jats of that time?

wife of chach was a jat?

prashantacmet
November 28th, 2014, 03:31 PM
I found this from Internet. This guy quote chachnama and claims for big political and social power of jats in ancient Sindh before chach. Brahmins were much lower in the status in jats eyes. It were muslim sources and chach which degraded jats in their writings, and chach put derogatory restrictions on jats.



Not only sahasi but Akham Lohana ruler of Brahmanabad and Matta ruler of sivistan(Now Eastern Balochistan) were also Jats .

Akham was leader of lohana Samma and Sohotta jatt tribes and jats because of their birth decent thought them superior to any body else and particularly brahmans that has been admitted by Chach himself to wrote a letter in that regard...Quote Chachnama.....
Chach sends a letter to Akham Lohna.

R Chach sent a letter to Akham Lohna, saying, "You from your
power, and pomp, and family descent, consider yourself the ruler of the time. Although this kingdom and sovereignty, wealth, riches,
dignity, and power have not descended to me by inheritance, yet these distinguished favours and this exalted position have been given to me by God. It was not by my army that I gained them;"

Here it is shown as far as family decent was concerned Akham Jatt was
treated much superior than Brahman chach."


I will give proofs regarding jatt decent of Akham lohana.
However I will try to clear certain other controversial points.
I feel Sahasi was a name of son of sahiras not a title .

Sahasi rai rulers had shahi clan ,I don't know about morya connection.
Though kabul kings were jats termed brahmans but Chach was certainly a brahman not any othercast as he along with his father used to live in a temple where his father was a priest and lead a poor life so no confusion regarding that .

DrRajpalSingh
November 28th, 2014, 04:19 PM
I found this from Internet. This guy quote chachnama and claims for big political and social power of jats in ancient Sindh before chach. Brahmins were much lower in the status in jats eyes. It were muslim sources and chach which degraded jats in their writings, and chach put derogatory restrictions on jats.



Not only sahasi but Akham Lohana ruler of Brahmanabad and Matta ruler of sivistan(Now Eastern Balochistan) were also Jats .

Akham was leader of lohana Samma and Sohotta jatt tribes and jats because of their birth decent thought them superior to any body else and particularly brahmans that has been admitted by Chach himself to wrote a letter in that regard...Quote Chachnama.....
Chach sends a letter to Akham Lohna.

R Chach sent a letter to Akham Lohna, saying, "You from your
power, and pomp, and family descent, consider yourself the ruler of the time. Although this kingdom and sovereignty, wealth, riches,
dignity, and power have not descended to me by inheritance, yet these distinguished favours and this exalted position have been given to me by God. It was not by my army that I gained them;"

Here it is shown as far as family decent was concerned Akham Jatt was
treated much superior than Brahman chach."


I will give proofs regarding jatt decent of Akham lohana.
However I will try to clear certain other controversial points.
I feel Sahasi was a name of son of sahiras not a title .

Sahasi rai rulers had shahi clan ,I don't know about morya connection.
Though kabul kings were jats termed brahmans but Chach was certainly a brahman not any othercast as he along with his father used to live in a temple where his father was a priest and lead a poor life so no confusion regarding that .

Friend,

The new administration set up by Mohd, bin Qasim continued to follow the harsh treatment meted out to Jats, the practice which had been initiated by Chach and his successor Dahir.

Jats not only played important role in history of Sindh but also in the history of Iraq, Iran and other Arab countries for a long time. There are numerous references about the Jats of Sindh and their migration to those countries in Arabic and Persian sources. A lot of research has already been done on this issue.

In a National Seminar some years ago [which I had privilege to attend] almost half a dozen papers relating to the Jats in Sindh starting from the first century AD to almost advent of 11th century were presented by many eminent historians. They also contained references to the power centres of the Jats and their migration to Western Asia/Iran and Arab Countries and their very significant role before the advent of Islam there and even after the emergence of Islam there,

I will try to find out those papers and then share the same with all of you in the form of posts.

Thanks

DrRajpalSingh
November 28th, 2014, 04:28 PM
Agreed!...
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
wife of chach was a jat?

Friend,

If we rely upon the statement of Dahir quoted in Chachnama, she was a Jat and mother of a daughter born due to this union.

Raja Dahir married his cousin saying that though she was his sister from paternal side yet not his sister from the maternal side.

His vulgar statement on the Jats on this issue is there to show that one of the wives of Chach was a Jat !

Thanks and best wishes,

DrRajpalSingh
November 28th, 2014, 04:49 PM
To all participants,

................................
Today we cannot even take with trust, what we read about what happened one week ago let alone 600 or 1,600 years ago.

Why do historians accept such a fairly tale and give it legitimacy?

Where is the scientific, critical evaluation of this 13th century composition

Why do we accept it as true, when there is no corroborating evidence.?

Perhaps readers may be better advised to deal with the authenticity issue first, before rushing off to show off their knowledge and score points!

Jat history in Islamic sources is to be found in the absence of their mention, or where they are mentioned in a derogatory manner.

The Jats put up the resistance and were abused roundly in Islamic sources.

When you accept this as 'fairly tale'' then what is wrong in accepting this as authentic.

We are hearing for the first time about : Islamic Sources !!! What they are, could you explain.

Further your prejudice pours out when you say that the Jat 'are mentioned in a derogatory manner' in them.

Again contrary to your advice to us, you indulge in show off your knowledge and score points by issuing statement that : The Jats put up the resistance were abused roundly in Islamic sources.

This type of hyperbolic conclusion cannot stand the scrutiny of historical developments across the globe where Jats resided/reside !

This post shows your lack of knowledge of historical research methodology and terminology used in classification of research data/sources !

Kindly devote some time to read some good books on research methodology, formulate objective views and then jump to advise others to follow your methodology of research in History.

Thanks and best wishes

prashantacmet
November 28th, 2014, 05:05 PM
Friend,

If we rely upon the statement of Dahir quoted in Chachnama, she was a Jat and mother of a daughter born due to this union.

Raja Dahir married his cousin saying that though she was his sister from paternal side yet not his sister from the maternal side.

His vulgar statement on the Jats on this issue is there to show that one of the wives of Chach was a Jat !

Thanks and best wishes,

as per my information , mother of daahir is rani suhandi (former queen of rai sahsi) so chach had two wives , one rani suhandi and second a jat? who was that jat step-mother? if any info, plz share

DrRajpalSingh
November 28th, 2014, 05:40 PM
as per my information , mother of daahir is rani suhandi (former queen of rai sahsi) so chach had two wives , one rani suhandi and second a jat? who was that jat step-mother? if any info, plz share

Thanks friend for the very important question raised. After consulting the original text[my book is with some researcher who is not here at present] , I shall turn to this question again.

narenderkharb
November 28th, 2014, 09:57 PM
I will request worthy members to refrain from personal comments.

Chachnama is also a book like Prithiraj Raso and everything written there can not be taken as gospel truth .

However we can not just brush it aside as some fiction drama its contents need to be critically examined before accepting them as historical events.

narenderkharb
November 28th, 2014, 10:11 PM
I found this from Internet. This guy quote chachnama and claims for big political and social power of jats in ancient Sindh before chach. Brahmins were much lower in the status in jats eyes. It were muslim sources and chach which degraded jats in their writings, and chach put derogatory restrictions on jats.



Not only sahasi but Akham Lohana ruler of Brahmanabad and Matta ruler of sivistan(Now Eastern Balochistan) were also Jats .

Akham was leader of lohana Samma and Sohotta jatt tribes and jats because of their birth decent thought them superior to any body else and particularly brahmans that has been admitted by Chach himself to wrote a letter in that regard...Quote Chachnama.....
Chach sends a letter to Akham Lohna.

R Chach sent a letter to Akham Lohna, saying, "You from your
power, and pomp, and family descent, consider yourself the ruler of the time. Although this kingdom and sovereignty, wealth, riches,
dignity, and power have not descended to me by inheritance, yet these distinguished favours and this exalted position have been given to me by God. It was not by my army that I gained them;"

Here it is shown as far as family decent was concerned Akham Jatt was
treated much superior than Brahman chach."


I will give proofs regarding jatt decent of Akham lohana.
However I will try to clear certain other controversial points.
I feel Sahasi was a name of son of sahiras not a title .

Sahasi rai rulers had shahi clan ,I don't know about morya connection.
Though kabul kings were jats termed brahmans but Chach was certainly a brahman not any othercast as he along with his father used to live in a temple where his father was a priest and lead a poor life so no confusion regarding that .

Well long ago I wrote this post on Jat History on Yahoo group and probably some Muslim Jatt from Makran Pakistan posted it in Makran history site on facebook .This shows our efforts do pay in long run

Regarding your query about Jat mother of chach's daughter Bai ,She was queen of deposed King Akham Lohana.

prashantacmet
November 29th, 2014, 01:07 AM
When you accept this as 'fairly tale'' then what is wrong in accepting this as authentic.We are hearing for the first time about : Islamic Sources !!! What they are, could you explain.Further your prejudice pours out when you say that the Jat 'are mentioned in a derogatory manner' in them. Again contrary to your advice to us, you indulge in show off your knowledge and score points by issuing statement that : The Jats put up the resistance were abused roundly in Islamic sources.This type of hyperbolic conclusion cannot stand the scrutiny of historical developments across the globe where Jats resided/reside !This post shows your lack of knowledge of historical research methodology and terminology used in classification of research data/sources ! Kindly devote some time to read some good books on research methodology, formulate objective views and then jump to advise others to follow your methodology of research in History.Thanks and best wishes

rajpal ji...I did not find you so annoyed ever before!..please maintain your cool!

DrRajpalSingh
November 29th, 2014, 07:52 AM
rajpal ji...I did not find you so annoyed ever before!..please maintain your cool!

Friend,

You will appreciate that there is limit of tolerance to bear with continued questioning of one's professional integrity without putting relevant data [and constantly going to do so for a considerably long time without assigning any rhyme or reason]to disprove contents of one's posts.

Nonetheless, I am sorry for using harsh words in this much needed and belated comment i

In future, I shall be careful !

Thanks

DrRajpalSingh
November 29th, 2014, 08:28 AM
........................

Regarding your query about Jat mother of chach's daughter Bai ,She was queen of deposed King Akham Lohana.

[ Chachnama, pp. 16-22] makes mention of love affair between the widow of Sahasi Rai and Chach in detail.

If the Luhanas were identical with the Jats, then Suhandi, the Widow of Sahasi Rai, whom he had enticed treacherously, could be the Chach's Jat Wife, .

The assertion of his son Dahir also testifies [that his father had a Jat wife] that there was no impropriety in his marrying his step sister Bai for the reason that though she was connected with his father, nevertheless she was born of the daughter of the Jats.

[quoted from S,S.Rana, The Jats in the Chachnamah : Some Observation, a paper presented in a National Seminar]

prashantacmet
November 29th, 2014, 11:06 AM
Well long ago I wrote this post on Jat History on Yahoo group and probably some Muslim Jatt from Makran Pakistan posted it in Makran history site on facebook .This shows our efforts do pay in long run

Regarding your query about Jat mother of chach's daughter Bai ,She was queen of deposed King Akham Lohana.

welcome kharb sahib!..

few queries:

1. source to prove that akham lohana was a jat?
2. in chachnama quotes, I find use of lohana and jat confusing, at some place I read "loahana jats" , at other place "lohana and jats"///lohana is also a different tribe (trader)...so puzzle is ..lohana was different tribe or present day "lohan "gotra jat?.....if lohan jats why any other gotra of jats is not mentioned in chachnama..your insight?
3. sahasi rai was not a jat as per daahir quotes from chachnama ..daahir says that bai was born out of jatt mother and he hated jats so much..if rani suhandi was a jatti, he was also from a jatt mother but his quotes states that he was not born of a jatt mother...so how it is proven that sahasi rai was a jat?..

DrRajpalSingh
November 30th, 2014, 03:56 PM
A very well researched paper has been published in The Indian Economic and Social History Review, 49, 4 (2012): 459–491 on Chachnama. We reproduce below with acknowledgement to the author and the publishers [the copy right holders] for benefit of readers to understand the real value of the book :



"Chachnama begins in the city of al-Aror and concerns the rise to power of a young, and talented Brahmin Chach bin Sila’ij and goes on to describe: the condition at al-Aror prior to Chach’s arrival at the capital, his employment as a scribe for the King’s chief minister, how the young Queen falls in love with him, and schemes to place him upon the throne of the kingdom after the death of the King; Chach’s re-conquest of ‘the four quarters’ of the kingdom, his treatment of civilians and cities; the tussle between Chach’s two sons Dahir and Dahirsena for the throne after Chach’s death; the treacherous way in which Dahir takes over al-Aror; and finally the set-piece—the marriage of Dahir to his own sister. All of this, constituting the fi rst third of the Chachnama, has three overarching themes: the basis of legitimacy for the ruler, the good council of the advisor and the immorality of treachery. Thus ends the Chach portion of the text. ‘Ali Kufi narrates this section variously: ‘the tellers of tradition and authors of histories’ (rawiyƗn-i ‘ahƗdƯth ou muৢannafan-i tawƗr’Ưkh), ‘the author of this romance and the writer of this bouquet’ (musannaf’Ưn dastƗn ou muۊarrarƯn bustƗn), ‘writers of the story of this conquest’ (hikayƗt nawisƯn fatۊ)—at each moment in the narrative asserting both a textual precedence and an oral one—while also asserting a heterogeneity towards the conventions of various narrative genres.The next portion of the text is introduced under the heading, ‘A History from the Righteously Guided Caliphs to al-Walid’—quite similar to the chapter headings of any annalistic history (such as, al-Tabari). Those episodes narrated by the generic ‘tellers of traditions’ dwindle, to be replaced with direct chains of transmission— Abu’l Hasan reports (abu’l hasan rawai’at kardƗn). There is the customary—for Arabic historiography—sprinkling of Arabic poetry in the text along with explicit mentions of those who did commendable and heroic deeds. ‘Ali Kufi begins with the time of ‘Umar and describes the attempts to take al-Hind. Short accounts of governors dispatched to various fronts in Makran,

To be continued.............

DrRajpalSingh
November 30th, 2014, 04:39 PM
http://www.newsplus24.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Sindh-map.jpg



THE CONQUEST OF HIND AND SIND

An account of Rai D�har son of Chach son of Selaij and his death at the hands of Muhammad K�sim

.........
Source acknowledged : http://www.newsplus24.com/2013/02/02/chachnama-part-i/

narenderkharb
November 30th, 2014, 07:48 PM
[ Chachnama, pp. 16-22] makes mention of love affair between the widow of Sahasi Rai and Chach in detail.

If the Luhanas were identical with the Jats, then Suhandi, the Widow of Sahasi Rai, whom he had enticed treacherously, could be the Chach's Jat Wife, .

The assertion of his son Dahir also testifies [that his father had a Jat wife] that there was no impropriety in his marrying his step sister Bai for the reason that though she was connected with his father, nevertheless she was born of the daughter of the Jats.

[quoted from S,S.Rana, The Jats in the Chachnamah : Some Observation, a paper presented in a National Seminar]

I had chat with Dr Rana and had differed with him on Suhandi.
As had she been a Jatti Dahir and Bhai would have been real brother and sister and all reasoning for marrying her would have falcified.

Another possibility of Rani Suhandi being Jatti and Dahir born out of an earlier Wife was negated when we read Dahir was son of queen Suhandi in a direct reference in Chachnama.

So only possibility was from Chach second wife, queen of akham Lohana.

narenderkharb
November 30th, 2014, 08:12 PM
welcome kharb sahib!..

few queries:

1. source to prove that akham lohana was a jat?
2. in chachnama quotes, I find use of lohana and jat confusing, at some place I read "loahana jats" , at other place "lohana and jats"///lohana is also a different tribe (trader)...so puzzle is ..lohana was different tribe or present day "lohan "gotra jat?.....if lohan jats why any other gotra of jats is not mentioned in chachnama..your insight?
3. sahasi rai was not a jat as per daahir quotes from chachnama ..daahir says that bai was born out of jatt mother and he hated jats so much..if rani suhandi was a jatti, he was also from a jatt mother but his quotes states that he was not born of a jatt mother...so how it is proven that sahasi rai was a jat?..

Thanks Parshant

I was busy but asked by a friend so the post.

Confusion regarding Lohana is due to the reason that lohana was also a kingdom that included Lakha and samma tribes .
I agree with you that Suhandi may not be a jatti for the same reasons as I posted above.

Not only Lohana but there are other Jat clans mentioned in Chachnama and there are proofs for other queries but discussions regarding them would mean derailing this thread.

DrRajpalSingh
December 1st, 2014, 09:19 AM
I had chat with Dr Rana and had differed with him on Suhandi.
As had she been a Jatti Dahir and Bhai would have been real brother and sister and all reasoning for marrying her would have falcified.

Another possibility of Rani Suhandi being Jatti and Dahir born out of an earlier Wife was negated when we read Dahir was son of queen Suhandi in a direct reference in Chachnama.

So only possibility was from Chach second wife, queen of akham Lohana.

Friend,

If name of Dahir's mother is given as Suhandi in the Chachnama, many of the points under discussion would stand resolved.

Kindly quote the page of Chachnama in support of this fact.

Also share the second possibility in somewhat more details please.

Thanks and best wishes

narenderkharb
December 3rd, 2014, 06:38 AM
Friend,

If name of Dahir's mother is given as Suhandi in the Chachnama, many of the points under discussion would stand resolved.

Kindly quote the page of Chachnama in support of this fact

After Chach victory over Maharat, Chach Marriage with Suhandi is described in Chapter 10 of Chachnama.Here reference is clear about two sons born of queen Suhandi but reference about Bai is in next line with no mention of Suhandi as her mother.




The marriage of Chach with queen Suhandi.
The author of this narrative and the writer of this fragrant book states as follows:— When that victory was gained, queen Suhandi ordered the chief men and nobles of the city to be called together, and when they all met, she said to them: “As king Sahasi is dead, and I have by him no issue to inherit the country, and as the kingdom has de*volved on king Chach, you must give me away to Chach with proper matrimonial ceremonies and a distinct settle*ment.” The chiefs and nobles agreed to the proposal, and they all came to the royal palace and married queen Suhandi toChach.* (In course of time), Chach had two sons by her one was named Dhar and the other Dahar-<le>siah. He had also one daughter whom he called Bai.* At their respective births, astrologers consulted the pre*dominant star of their nativity, and by desire of the king cast their horoscopes, ........................

</le>

DrRajpalSingh
December 3rd, 2014, 09:16 AM
After Chach victory over Maharat, Chach Marriage with Suhandi is described in Chapter 10 of Chachnama.Here reference is clear about two sons born of queen Suhandi but reference about Bai is in next line with no mention of Suhandi as her mother.

The marriage of Chach with queen Suhandi.
The author of this narrative and the writer of this fragrant book states as follows:— When that victory was gained, queen Suhandi ordered the chief men and nobles of the city to be called together, and when they all met, she said to them: “As king Sahasi is dead, and I have by him no issue to inherit the country, and as the kingdom has de*volved on king Chach, you must give me away to Chach with proper matrimonial ceremonies and a distinct settle*ment.” The chiefs and nobles agreed to the proposal, and they all came to the royal palace and married queen Suhandi toChach.* (In course of time), Chach had two sons by her one was named Dhar and the other Dahar-<le>siah. </le><le>He had also one daughter whom he called Bai.*</le><le></le><le> At their respective births, astrologers consulted the pre*dominant star of their nativity, and by desire of the king cast their horoscopes, ........................

</le>

Friend,

It is clear that ''Chach had two sons by her [Suhandi]......

But the problem about the name of the mother of Bai remains unresolved as per quote : ''He had also one daughter who he called Bai,''

Could anyone elaborate further the issue about the name of the mother of BAI.

Thanks and best wishes

DrRajpalSingh
December 3rd, 2014, 09:16 AM
Till the time new posts emerge on this issue of Chach progeny, further comments/posts on the position of Jats in the society on the eve of Qasim invasion and impact of this event on the Jats of Multan are invited.

DrRajpalSingh
December 3rd, 2014, 09:52 AM
Let us once again turn to remaining part of Chachnama as available in translation in English as available on
:http://www.newsplus24.com/2013/02/03/part-ii-chachnama/

The multi-genre Persian text Chachnama (also known as the Fatehnama Sindh as well as Takrekh-Hind wa Sindh) was written by one of Qazi Ismail’s ancestors. Qazi Ismail bin Ali a resident of Bhakkar (the fort midstream between Sukkur and Rohri) was the tutor of Ali bin Mohammad Kufi a resident of Uch Sharif who translated the book into Persian from Arabic in 1226. The English translation of the book was done by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg in 1900. The name of the book was taken from Raja Chach of Sindh who was the father of Raja Dahar. -Editor

prashantacmet
December 3rd, 2014, 10:03 AM
Friend,

It is clear that ''Chach had two sons by her [Suhandi]......

But the problem about the name of the mother of Bai remains unresolved as per quote : ''He had also one daughter who he called Bai,''

Could anyone elaborate further the issue about the name of the mother of BAI.

Thanks and best wishes

Let me solve it for you!

This is what daahir says when he wants to marry his sister. I got this quote from : just type "chachnama PDF" on google and you will find this PDF for download. This book has critically examined the chachnama.

https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/.../Ahmed_13thCentury. (https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/.../Ahmed_13thCentury.pdf)pdf (https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/.../Ahmed_13thCentury.pdf)

"Even though Ma’��n is our father’s daughter, she is a daughter of the J��ts who are
by nature rebellious and criminal, especially their women. The reality is that,
they can never be trusted, depended upon, or taken on their own words. This
proverb on the J��ts is widely known: ‘Whoever grabbed the leg of a goat, got milk.
Whoever grabbed the hand of a J��t woman, mounted her’. Since, M��’in
is by nature a stranger, marrying her is not a sin"

prashantacmet
December 3rd, 2014, 10:18 AM
Thanks Parshant

I was busy but asked by a friend so the post.

Confusion regarding Lohana is due to the reason that lohana was also a kingdom that included Lakha and samma tribes .
I agree with you that Suhandi may not be a jatti for the same reasons as I posted above.

Not only Lohana but there are other Jat clans mentioned in Chachnama and there are proofs for other queries but discussions regarding them would mean derailing this thread.

kharb ji!

I guess thread owner will not have any objection if lohana and jats puzzle is resolved!. If he has any objection, we can start a new thread but I am really curious to see the evidence which says about lohana, jats and their kingdoms in Sindh. Please share your findings

DrRajpalSingh
December 3rd, 2014, 08:24 PM
kharb ji!

I guess thread owner will not have any objection if lohana and jats puzzle is resolved!. If he has any objection, we can start a new thread but I am really curious to see the evidence which says about lohana, jats and their kingdoms in Sindh. Please share your findings

Friend none is owner of the thread as it is on the site for public discussion by the members. In spite of the fact that it is out of context to the theme of the thread but I had already taken liberty to invite members to post their views on this aspect as per my post quoted below :


Till the time new posts emerge on this issue of Chach progeny, further comments/posts on the position of Jats in the society on the eve of Qasim invasion and impact of this event on the Jats of Multan are invited.

But it would be unpardonable digression of the theme of the thread as it seems members are interested to contribute many more posts on the issue of the position of Jats in Sindh in ancient times, a new separate topic on the issue would be appropriate to be initiated.

Kindly visit, the Jat History section for this purpose : http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?37901-JATS-in-Sindh-from-the-beginning-of-the-Christian-Era-to-c-1100-Century-AD&p=372193#post372193

However the readers who want to contribute on the Foreign Invasions on India in Medieaval Times...are welcome to do so here under the present thread heading.

RKhatkar
December 24th, 2014, 06:10 PM
A Pakistani serial collection showing Quasim Invasion of Sindh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq-g0aQGLS0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLDqCkf2ArQ

RKhatkar
December 24th, 2014, 06:27 PM
A brief light on the end of The Conquerer Of Hind and Sind; Quasim

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAgZPMYdp2A

drssrana2003
December 26th, 2014, 11:32 PM
test message

drssrana2003
January 2nd, 2015, 12:05 AM
Dear friends,
It wont serve any purpose if we get entangled over the technicalities of what was or was not 'jihad'. the fact remains that the invaders irrespective of their initial motivation did indulge in actions which do fit into the paradigm of 'jihad'. in their case one can at least say that 'even devil can quote scriptures.'If one wants to be charitable to themone can say that they did not understand the meaning of 'jihad'.But that does not help us in putting the history of the spread of Islam- a unique religion most misunderstood by a vast section of its own adherents.If we could place things of history in their true perspective without malice towards our contemporary Muslim friends we would have served a good cause. The innocents of today should not suffer for the indiscretions of their generations. The tyrants of the past can not be punished today. The only thing we can do today is to earn the right lessons.Let us not forget the last message of Hazrat Mohammad for peace.
Thanks,
s.s.rana

DrRajpalSingh
November 24th, 2015, 07:29 AM
Dear friends,
It wont serve any purpose if we get entangled over the technicalities of what was or was not 'jihad'. the fact remains that the invaders irrespective of their initial motivation did indulge in actions which do fit into the paradigm of 'jihad'. in their case one can at least say that 'even devil can quote scriptures.'If one wants to be charitable to themone can say that they did not understand the meaning of 'jihad'.But that does not help us in putting the history of the spread of Islam- a unique religion most misunderstood by a vast section of its own adherents.If we could place things of history in their true perspective without malice towards our contemporary Muslim friends we would have served a good cause. The innocents of today should not suffer for the indiscretions of their generations. The tyrants of the past can not be punished today. The only thing we can do today is to earn the right lessons.Let us not forget the last message of Hazrat Mohammad for peace.
Thanks,
s.s.rana


You have rightly concluded that History cannot be undone by re-writing -- only lessons from past can be learnt to avoid pitfalls today and brighten our tomorrow.