Land of the impure

[Developereo]

Common sense may help in most cases!

Facts don't depend on common sense. Common sense is notoriously subjective. People may believe what they want to suit their agenda and call it 'common sense', but that does not make it fact.

 

[Dhruv V Singh]

hahahahaa.
who said to you that my elders was hindus and they converted to islam?
ignorant kid educate your self about AWANS.

regarding comming to Houstan.man that is very far away.I live in Pak.so how about some neutral vanue like dubai.i am free for next 2 and half months.
how about that?

There were a lot of Awans in Jammu and Kashmir, what happened to them? You should ask the Dogra Rajputs what happened to them

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

As a real Rajput I will stand up for my Dharam, unlike you weak converts.

hahha

Muslim Rajputs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[EjazR]

The article is giving particular focus on Mahmud Ghaznavi. And Al Beruni, one of the greatest scholars of his time if not of all times himself regarded him as a barbarian really and how his actions had created hatred in the locals against him.

Ghaznavi was responsible for invading and looting/pillaging Muslim kingdoms and cities in present day Pakistan as well. In fact, it is a fact of history that most of the invasions were into areas of present day Pakistan along with other Hindu Kingdoms of that time. Later Mohammed Ghori allied with the Hindu Raja of Jammu Vijaya Dev, and attacked Lahore in 1187, which was under the control of the descendent of Mahmud of Ghazni. So it is really insulting to actually consider them to be concerned about Islam rather than plain power politics to amass wealth.

And ofcourse, it is just so ironic that Pakistani missiles are named after the same people that invaded and pillaged present day Pakistan.

I don't understand why genuine rulers of present day Pakistan are not given more importance. For example, the Soomro dynasty that ruled Sindh gave Sindh its golden period. Its shipping and maritime industry was so extensive and became known for legends. The story of Sindbad the Sailor in the Arabian nights is actually about a sailor from Sindh.
The great Soomra King Sardar Khafif Soomro - a Rajput Sindhi - conquered Sindh after utterly defeating the last Arab ruler of Ali bin Umar of Habbari dynasty. King Khafif Soomro and his successor kings Soomar, Bhoongar and Dodo-1, established their rule from the shores of the Arabian Sea to Multan, Bahawalpur, Sadiqabad and Uch in the north and in the east to Rajistan and in the west to Balochistan. The rule Queen Zainab Tari Soomro over Sindh was another example of a female muslim ruler wisely ruling over her territory.

While Punjab was mostly subjugated by either the Afghans from Kabul or the Delhi Sultanates or the Mughals based in Agra, Ranjit Singh gave rise to the Punjabi identity by rebelling against the Mughals with the help of Afghans on one side and then curtailing Afghan influence from the west.

Of course the other examples would be the Muslim sufis who traveled far and wide throughout the Indian subcontinent and spread a message of peace and tolerance and also attracted many people towards Islam.

I think over exaggeration to fit a particular narrative does more harm than good. This is not uniquely in Pakistan. There are examples of this where Hindu extremists in India re-write history for their own purpose of which PN Oak was the most extreme example. In Pakistan you have Nasim Hijazi doing the same. In the end, you are just fooling your own self.

 

[Roybot]

No one takes P N Oak or his claims seriously.

 

[Vinod2070]

Facts don't depend on common sense. Common sense is notoriously subjective. People may believe what they want to suit their agenda and call it 'common sense', but that does not make it fact.

Well, there is a difference between not knowing facts for sure and deliberately creating ambiguity.

No one at all would relish massacres, rapes and destruction of their lands and holy places. There is no ambiguity about it.

For example, a local woman goes to the conqueror's harem. Some people claim she did out of love, respect, or plain money -- in any case, wilingly. Others, with an agenda to stir up trouble against the invaders, claim she was abducted and raped. What is the truth? Who knows?

In this example, if we don't know the facts for sure, it is a safe bet to assume that no woman would suddenly develop love or respect for someone that killed her family, her people and destroyed all that she cherished for all her life. It would be a rare case of Stockholm syndrome for it to be otherwise.

 

[*Awan*]

There were a lot of Awans in Jammu and Kashmir, what happened to them? You should ask the Dogra Rajputs what happened to them

so?
what exactly do you mean?
awan is a very big clan then there is further division in it.

by the way my reply was very specific to pak-marine.
from where you people pop up?

 

[Vinod2070]

hahha

Muslim Rajputs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, as per many, becoming an apostate takes away the right for the converts to call themselves Rajputs or Jats etc. The communities are very strongly linked to their religious practices.

I am not sure if a Syed would still call himself that if he converts out of Islam.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Well, as per many, becoming an apostate takes away the right for the converts to call themselves Rajputs or Jats etc. The communities are very strongly linked to their religious practices.

I am not sure if a Syed would still call himself that if he converts out of Islam.

Vinod you are confusing tribal identity with religion and read the link of wikipedia to get the answer. Muslims belong to different tribes and nations and islam recognise the tribal identity of a muslim although its not something which make a muslim superior or inferior. Rajpout is a rajpout despite of change his religion.

 

[Vinod2070]

Vinod you are confusing tribal identity with religion and read the link of wikipedia to get the answer. Muslims belong to different tribes and nations and islam recognise the tribal identity of a muslim although its not something which make a muslim superior or inferior. Rajpout is a rajpout despite of change his religion.

I m just trying to say that these tribes or clans are strongly associated with the "Kshtriyas" (warriors) and are considered Suryavanshi, Yaduvanshi or Chandravanshis.

Their history is linked to these mythologies very significantly and conversion makes this mythology invalid.

 

[pak-marine]

=Nomi965;1843578]@ pak-marine and all others of his likes.
tell me exactly how your great chandra gupta rose to power?how exactly he became the king?what was he before that?
And how many brothers Ashoka killed?
Mr pak-marine if you are muslim then tell me,do you know that Ghaznavi was famous for that he send 1lakh drood(salat and salam) on Prophet of Allah daily.And prophet himself teach him drood e lakhi in his dream.????
If you really Pakistani then tell me what type of words Iqbal used for him?

Nomi965 and your similar kind these are not my words i have copied and shared this article from a pakistani news paper and seems the writter is a muslim as well , therefore i beleive he must have valid sources for his claims before he printed this , now if you have sources contradicting his claims than please post them and share it here .

here is the link again :: Land of the impure – The Express Tribune

There is no lack of national pride.only you scum of mqm is reason for all this tyranny.Our names are based on the names of arabs because urdu has very high content of arabic.and words have same meaning in arabic and urdu.according to hadith our prophet said that give your child good name.
now if you have problem with arabic names who is stopping you from persion,english or what ever names.but please dont implement your wishes and desires on others?

Again very idiotic thoughts and usual personal attacks i fail to understand how have you managed to bring in mqm into this you double ret*rd , i dont know if you have read my thoughts and i have mentioned i have read the same thing i.e : ghaznavi was a hero where as this writer have a very different claim.

 

[Developereo]

Well, there is a difference between not knowing facts for sure and deliberately creating ambiguity.

No one at all would relish massacres, rapes and destruction of their lands and holy places. There is no ambiguity about it.



In this example, if we don't know the facts for sure, it is a safe bet to assume that no woman would suddenly develop love or respect for someone that killed her family, her people and destroyed all that she cherished for all her life. It would be a rare case of Stockholm syndrome for it to be otherwise.

How do you know her family and 'people' were brutalized? Perhaps the invaders liberated her from a rigid caste structure and gave her hope for the first time. Of course, the losing elite would view and portray the situation differently from her.

To give another example, the main reason the Spanish Conquistadors defeated the establish empires in South America so easily was not because of European diseases or horse, as the politically correct narrative goes these days. It was simply because the native empires were extremely brutal, and the European invaders found plenty of allies amongst the local tribes.

 

[Vinod2070]

How do you know her family and 'people' were brutalized? Perhaps the invaders liberated her from a rigid caste structure and gave her hope for the first time. Of course, the losing elite would view and portray the situation differently from her.

Well, it is a hypothetical case, you didn't give the background so I assumed that you were referring to a woman going to the Harem after her near and dear ones were killed by the invaders.

E.g. in the case of the Muhammed Bin Qasim taking the Sindhi princesses to the Harem of the then Caliph (and being murdered by him brutally for supposedly raping them on the way), I can assume no love or respect, just the concept of "booty" that was so strong among some at that time and even later. That is the example that came to my mind.

To give another example, the main reason the Spanish Conquistadors defeated the establish empires in South America so easily was not because of European diseases or horse, as the politically correct narrative goes these days. It was simply because the native empires were extremely brutal, and the European invaders found plenty of allies amongst the local tribes.

An equivalent analogy would be that Americans found plenty of willing traitors in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places, so did the British in most places they went to. The same is the case in Pakistan as well, right now where many accuse the GOP and even PA of being sellouts to the USA.

There being traitors doesn't take anything away from the brutishness of the Conquistadors, nor can it be used as an excuse. The allies didn't escape the cruelty of the invaders as well.

 

[Marwari]

Well put Vinod ^