Amrita Pritam

i think kaura rocks in his views on hinduism. hindu (or indian) philosophy indeed is a lot of loosy-goosy observations of human fraility, narure etc, give multiple and sometimes conflicting views.

Re: # 283

Tahmed`s ancesstors name was Chaudhray Baag. He has to be a Rajput or Khatree by origin. I have never heard a Shudra as Chaudhry.

Regardless, Tahmed is a great man due to his worth not his race, religion or anything else.

Most Dalits did convert to Islam for obvious reasons. BUT, their position didn`t improve - ie the treatment of `chooras` in W Punjab - and they converted yet to another religion to escape the prejudice - Christianity.


It is stupid and foolish to say most Hindus converted under the sway of Sufis. Forced conversions are happening daily. Because of humilliations and persecution. Hindus are converting in Bangladesh and Pakistan (Leah incident among others). There is no open and large scale persecution as it happened in history because of fear of back lash in neighboring India and world image.

Millions of Jats, Rajputs, Brahmins were converted by force. They didn`t have any reason to convert since they ruled the roost unlike Dalits. But, they converted. Now, they are known as Sayeeds..etc.

How come, these Sufis didn`t convert a single person where muslims didn`t rule?

Very few upper classes converted for different reasons. I`ve heard one distant relative of a Guru converted to marry a muslim girl. His descendent was one of the PMs (?)of Pakisatan. It was in the news.



Dilliwaalya,

tu lidh karno naeen hatda @#%$%$#%!! apni bewakoofi na chhalka.

Stupidity and shameless Lies at display.

Re # 283

``1. netaji palkar defected to aurangzeb based on money-career disputes willingly, and aurangzeb accepted him as a mansabdar under the condition that he and his kabila become muslim. he was sent to the forntier province and felt cheated, and came back to sivaji and reconverted. ``

Jang,

Thanks for correcting. I think you are right. It has been so many years since reading about these things, it is easy to mis-state, sorry.

I think that this is where the dialogue will cease.
Tahmed has presented his position well considering that he is alone in answering the questions.

Bottom line is that till the shariat is prime for Muslims, it will be considered their religous duty to establish Dar-Ul-Islam by Zihad(different types available), let there be no doubt in anyones mind about it. We don`t need to dig in more than that to reach at conclusions and let us maintain civiltiy at this site.
Tahmed is a fine man and I respect his secular views.

Next challenge is for Muslim Ulemmas is to steer the modern Islamic world that is centered around global economics and secular lifestyles. This is very essential for survival of mankind and Islam, as I see it.

Nadir Shahs, Abdalis and Baburs are not possible in modern day world. Secular West is the forerunner of modern day Mai-Baap and all that really matters these days. Considering that a small country like Isreal with the support of USA could keep the whole Arab world at bay and the Arabs could not do anything about it, should make then rethink their stand and initiate internal restructuring to align Islam with the Modern Day, generally Secular new World Order.

Ameen!

just correcting some inaccuracies based on my readings:

1. netaji palkar defected to aurangzeb based on money-career disputes willingly, and aurangzeb accepted him as a mansabdar under the condition that he and his kabila become muslim. he was sent to the forntier province and felt cheated, and came back to sivaji and reconverted.

2. dara sikoh is un-necessarily glorified by indians. he was a worthless charsee and afimchi (not that different than many other mughals) and a totally incompetent leader. in one case, for siege of kandahar, he took 40 sadhus to do vodoo on the folks inside the fort to secure a win. offcourse this failed. in short, he was fairly stupid and hence was not supported by most rajput mansabdars in the war of succession for a good reason.

3. ramdas and sivaji met much later in sivajis life...by then sivaji was already a successful guerilla-band leader.

4. i dont think tahmeds ancestors were shudras .. unless he is as dark as an injun.

Re: # 275
Tahmed,
In my opinion there is truth in both the sides. Most likely majority of the Hindus who converted to Islam under there freewill were under the influence of Sufis.
Rest of the conversions were by force.
I have read old poems written 200-300 yrs ago, where they are stating that a Muslim soldier if he had to spit, he would ask a hindu to open his mouth, if refused then he would be killed. Hindu woman had to be sold depending on their beauty or age to Muslims soldiers.

Another thing that I have not figured out from Pakistani perspective is that they even praise the invaders who clearly raped and plundered Punjabi muslims, I can think of Nadir Shah and Abdali as the worst abusers of Hindus and Muslims in Punjab.
Yet Pakistani army takes pride in naming them as their heroes. I can understand Ghazni and Ghauri but these??????

May be all Muslim women need to tell Muslim men, we are ``outa here`` for making our testimony half of that of a man, for not allowing us to marry four men, for putting us in Burkha, for divorcing us by saying ``Talaq Talaq Talaq`` etc. etc..
I would be proud of my mother for telling that to all Muslim men and clegry and all those ``supposedly equality preaching men`` in the eyes of the god.
Now whom should these Muslim women thank for that?

Re: # 279
funny thing is that on one hand govt says bad words about aurengzeb, whereas govt names streets in delhi after Aurengzeb, Babur, Humaayon, akbar, Shahjahan, roshanara, Lodhi, Sher shah and the list is endless.....

Tahmed: Does Pakistan have street named after above mentioned?

Also, I tend to agree with DM, Alamgeer is considered as the most pious Muslim by all the Muslims. You were the first exception, who even considered it as a possibility.
Of all the Mughal Empereors Akbar and Humayun are probably the only ones that Hindus respect.

Netizen:

``Untill the 19th century, sikhs were counted as hindus in the census.``

The picture was somewhat more confusing. Some Hindus would also enumerate themselves as Sikhs in the 19th century. In fact, the same person would declare himself as Sikh/Hindu in one census and the opposite in the next census. This resulted in large fluctuations in the Sikh population from census to census. Harjot Oberoi, the first chair of the Sikh studies at the University of British Columbia, did a rigorous study of this subject in his ``The Construction of Religious Boundaries``. His findings, however, did not find favour with a section of the nouveau Sikh orthodoxy.

tahmed#259

I am quite aware of your views and you have been quite consistent in expressing them. But it is difficult to accept them as views of the Muslim majority. I have been scanning Pakistani news media for almost ten years and I have not read a single article which says that Aurangzeb was not a true Muslim. Perhaps, you could refer me to some such articles, preferably from Urdu media, which says that Aurangzeb or Ghazni were not true Muslims.

Re: # 275

you have a good point. I will be back tomorrow with my inputs.

Re # 275

I see your point and do agree. But why do you think the conversions are not happening now or since last 200 years on the same scale? Why did they mainly happen between 712AD and 1700s. There are still plenty of non Brahman and non Kshatriya and non Vaishyas in India.

And would the same reason apply what happened in ancient Persia, after Arab conquest?
I do not think zoroastrians had caste system! After all did not Parsis flee Iran for the same reasons Hindus fled northwest/north India since 1000AD?

Re: # 274

``Hindus want Sikhs to be considered Hindus because otherwise they would loose Punjab and a chunk of land.``

Not true. Sikhs have been considered as hindus as jains/buddhists are, and for a long time even before the khalistani movement. Untill the 19th century, sikhs were counted as hindus in the census. Early sikhs in america were described as ``hindoos``. Nationalist hindus regard Guru Gobind as a national leader just as they would regard Rana Pratap or Shivaji. Savarkar was the first hindu (probably last) who was honored by SGPC for writing a biography on Guru Gobind Singh. Savarkar wrote that during his tribulations in Andaman, he sought inspiration from Guru Gobinds sacrifices and struggle against the tyranny of the Moghals.
If land was the issue, hindus would have tried to cajole the kashmiri muslims to accept that kashmiri islam is also a part of hinduism.
Lastly, i remember uma bharatis sentence, ``Khalistan kya maangate ho sara hindustan thumara hai``

Netizen: Has it ever crossed your mind that perhaps those who converted to Islam did so because they did not care to be looked down upon as ``low caste``? I hope I had a hindu ancestor who was low caste, in which case I would be very proud of him for telling the brahmins and kshatriyas and other ``upper caste`` people to go to hell and he was outa here and becoming a muslim who is told to neither look up to any man nor to look down on any man and to have the humility to understand that all men are equal in the eyes of God.

Thanks for trying to explain the ``bravery`` of your ancestors and the ``treachery`` of mine (treacherous converts, in your view) - the plain fact is that neither you nor I know what exactly what our ancestors did over the past couple of thousand years. And given this preoccupation with ``ancestry``, I suggest you read the book by Bill Bryson ``A Short History of Nearly Everything.``. It will open your eyes on how meaningless this term becomes if you go back a few centuries, and thus the entire basis for race-based nationalism or religion-based nationalism of the kind promoted by BJP.

The plain fact is: Hindu nationalism is a major factor in India (as evidenced by the vast constituency of BJP), and minorities - particularly muslims, but also christians - are routinely demeaned as being descendants of ``converts`` (which is taken as a derogatory term to mean traiter or coward, as your post clearly indicates) and their religion routinely insulted. One can see this on chowk every day. Fortunately, hindu nationalism ends where the Pakistani border starts. And we can thank Jinnah (the guy most Indians hate) for that.

Re: # 253
DM Uncle,
Like my old English Boss used to say ``It is always about control and power, My Man``.

Hindus want Sikhs to be considered Hindus because otherwise they would loose Punjab and a chunk of land. I remember not a day used to go by in 1980ies when my Hindu friends would torment me to goto ``Khalley Sthan``(Empty Place). Someone even suggested that let us buy land Equador and make Khalistan there, apparently there are many Sikh Cowboy ranchers already live there.

Ahmediayas are a small percentage in Lahore belt with their HQ based in Qadian-India, and they are not asking for seperation or extra land secession. That is why there movement is non-political(however in CIAs fact book, they are considered as oppressed).
Some of the Ahmediyyas even beat other Mullahs in ther dedication to Shariat.

In 80ies and 90ies, it was a common talk to discuss why don`t all of the Muslims goto Pakistan from India if they like Pakistan so much. Pakistan would not take them because there is no land coming with them. Look at the treatment of Afghani refugeess in Pakistan.

In the end it is all about control of the land and other resources.

Re # 268

I think the book you are talking about is ``Chhava`` (literally, Cub) by Shivaji Sawant.
I do not know whether it was translated in other langauages from Marathi though.