What's new

Taimur Ali Khan Kareena Kapoor's Baby Named For Destroyer Of Delhi?

Status
Not open for further replies.
People do go by deeds, which is why people are commenting on the deed done by Saif ali khan. The deed of naming a baby after a Sociopathic genocidal mass murderer and then announcing that name in public.

Maybe the kid will grow up to be a saint or the next buddha, but the abuse for now is for the father attempting to glorify and idolize a man who had no respect for people, Hindus in particular.

They stories you quote of Ashoka are from "Ashokaavadaana" a recognized book of Buddhist propaganda that claims how evil Ashoka was (as a Hindu) before he became a buddhist and then became good.

I hope you know Ashokaavadaana doest agree that Ashoka took Buddism as a result of impact of Kalinga war, rather they say the act of goodness, welfare and peace was in him by birth. Other then there there are some good resources in Pali written by sri lankan authors as well as many books of Jainism too.



A man who after capturing delhi took 15 days to kill all the Hindus and take their women and children as slave while leaving the muslims unharmed.

As for the history of Anwara Taimur, it will continue to be a sad blot on Assamese dignity and our collective dignity. In any case I was unaware of this incident, as would be most of India.



Timur the Lame was a GAZI. DO you Know what a "Gazi" is ?

A man who kills hindus because they are "kafirs" and take their wives and children as slaves. (after raping them). The survivers are given a choice to convert or die. (Of course the Hindu citizens of Delhi never got that choice)

Timur WANTED to be a GAZI, no one forced him to be one, or even asked him.


Timur attacked India with the express intention of destroying our civilization and values. Did you know this ?



However stories of TImur's evil action is recorded by his own court scribes describing his glee in the Genocide of Hindus.


Take your own advice and stop reading history with bias and quoting from little known Buddhist books of low repute that was designed for propaganda.


I am sorry to say, your history books where either too bad or you were very biased when reading about Taimur

Do you know Timur was Turco-Mongol by birth. Adoption to core Islam came in later part of his life while he was conquering the middle east, marrying the princesses etc prior to that he married the mongol princess to prove he is mongol and to gain there loyalty, same thing he did when he reached middle east

His ambitions where to be like Changez Khan and re-establish Mongols leadership. He could not call him as Khan because he did not inherit the Khan blood, so no mater how powerfull he became he could never be Khan as of Changez Khan. His conquest of delhi sultanate came after 25yr of his battle life across the middle east, Delhi was then ruled by then Nasir-ud-Din Mahmud Shah Tughluq , so he killed 10000s of muslims at that time along with hindus.
When Taimur attacked Delhi, Delhi was weakest, it had faced 2 civil wars in last 10 yrs and there was already big chaos as sunnis where fighting internally, there where fights between peasants and sunnis and during same time hindus revolted against paying Jizya and Kharaj..Under such civil war conditions, the kind of results that we saw when Timur invaded was probably on expectations lines given the history of Timur war methods.

Timur probably killed more Persians, middle east guys compared to Hindus, so you got to see his history in totality.
He didnt attacked India because it was ruled by Hindus and he was on a mission to kill Kaafirs. He was a military leader and was on drive to expand his base. He did war crimes where ever he camapinged, he had been doing that for 35yrs of his life, that was how it use to be in history, probably he became more notorious because he was the one who had more success and thus did more war crimes.

Timur was Amir, mean general, since he could not be Khan nor could he can became Caliph as both need blood descendant requirements. He was called Ghazi by certain parts of Islamic world after he defeated Christian Knights (it happen after the Delhi was taken over) .And at that time "Ghazi" an Arabic word meaning a person who participates in Ghazwa. Where Ghazwa meant carrying out a military operation or raid. Since he was Amir, people felt apt to call him the best Ghazi. And since by then he was strong follower of Islam, his victories were also seen as victory of Islam and spread of Islam.

And then history associated Ghazwa as a religious affair of killing Kafirs on the name of religion.


I hope this helps, else please study history with clear glasses, it will help you in understanding things in much better way.
 
.
I am sorry to say, your history books where either too bad or you were very biased when reading about Taimur

Do you know Timur was Turco-Mongol by birth. Adoption to core Islam came in later part of his life while he was conquering the middle east, marrying the princesses etc prior to that he married the mongol princess to prove he is mongol and to gain there loyalty, same thing he did when he reached middle east

His ambitions where to be like Changez Khan and re-establish Mongols leadership. He could not call him as Khan because he did not inherit the Khan blood, so no mater how powerfull he became he could never be Khan as of Changez Khan. His conquest of delhi sultanate came after 25yr of his battle life across the middle east, Delhi was then ruled by then Nasir-ud-Din Mahmud Shah Tughluq , so he killed 10000s of muslims at that time along with hindus.
When Taimur attacked Delhi, Delhi was weakest, it had faced 2 civil wars in last 10 yrs and there was already big chaos as sunnis where fighting internally, there where fights between peasants and sunnis and during same time hindus revolted against paying Jizya and Kharaj..Under such civil war conditions, the kind of results that we saw when Timur invaded was probably on expectations lines given the history of Timur war methods.

Timur probably killed more Persians, middle east guys compared to Hindus, so you got to see his history in totality.
He didnt attacked India because it was ruled by Hindus and he was on a mission to kill Kaafirs. He was a military leader and was on drive to expand his base. He did war crimes where ever he camapinged, he had been doing that for 35yrs of his life, that was how it use to be in history, probably he became more notorious because he was the one who had more success and thus did more war crimes.

Timur was Amir, mean general, since he could not be Khan nor could he can became Caliph as both need blood descendant requirements. He was called Ghazi by certain parts of Islamic world after he defeated Christian Knights (it happen after the Delhi was taken over) .And at that time "Ghazi" an Arabic word meaning a person who participates in Ghazwa. Where Ghazwa meant carrying out a military operation or raid. Since he was Amir, people felt apt to call him the best Ghazi. And since by then he was strong follower of Islam, his victories were also seen as victory of Islam and spread of Islam.

And then history associated Ghazwa as a religious affair of killing Kafirs on the name of religion.


I hope this helps, else please study history with clear glasses, it will help you in understanding things in much better way.


Looks like you brushed up your wikipedia so that you could pretend, but its not good enough.

1. Timur was NOT Turco-Mongol by birth. He was Uzbek by birth. He was born near the city of Kesh in Uzbekistan. His father however was from Mongolia.

2. Timur was ALWAYS muslim, his teacher was Mulla Shamsiddin Kulol. His entire clan the Burla tribe had converted to Islam.

3. Timur claimed to be Mongol because his father claimed to be Mongol. His features were Mongol.

4. He became the head of the clan when the Mongols Tughlugh Khan from the Mongol Chagatai Khanate invaded his land only to find the head of the Barlas tribe had run away. Timur was chosen by the Mongols as his replacement.

5. Here is Timurs OWN words from his campaign recorded in his autobiographic memoirs

"About the year 800 A.H. (1398 A.D.), there arose in my heart the desire to lead an expedition against the infidels and to become a Champion of the Faith (GAZI), for it had reached my ears that the slayer of infidels is a Champion and that, if he is slain, he becomes a martyr. It was for this reason that I formed my resolution, but I was undetermined in my mind whether I should direct my expedition against the infidels of China or against the infidels and polytheists of India. In this matter I sought an omen from the Koran, and the verse to which I opened was this: “O Prophet, make war upon infidels and unbelievers, and treat them with severity.”

My chief officers told me that the inhabitants of Hindustan were infidels and unbelievers. In obedience to the mandate of Almighty God, I determined to make an expedition against them, and I issued orders to the amirs of mature years and to the leaders in war to assemble in my presence, and when they had come together, I questioned the assembly as to whether I should invade Hindustan or China, and said to them: “By the command of God and of His Prophet I needs must make war upon these infidels and polytheists.” Throwing themselves upon their knees, they all wished me good fortune. "



About his account of the attack on India (now pakistan),

"I immediately ordered my valiant and experienced troops to ascend, whereupon they raised the war-cry of “ALLAH HO AKBAR” and rushed to the attack. Before all the rest Shaikh Arslan Aztuman Kabak Khan, who is a lion in the day of battle, mounted the hill on the left hand and commenced the fight. Leading his men against the infidels, he put them to flight, and following up the enemy, he entered the fastnesses of the rock and slew vast numbers of the unbelievers. ........

Some of the infidels held out in their defiles for three days and nights, but sending my valiant troops against them, I so pressed them that they were obliged to surrender and beg for quarter. I sent Ak Sultan to them with the message that if they would submit unconditionally and would all become Mussulmans and repeat the creed, I would grant them quarter, but otherwise I would exterminate them to a man. When Ak Sultan reached the infidels with this message, which he explained to them through the medium of an interpreter conversant both with their language and with Turkish, they all proffered submission, and repeating the necessary formula, embraced the Mohammedan faith. Relying upon this external conversion, I spared their lives and property"


Some more accounts,


"....they made prisoners of their women and children and secured an enormous booty. I directed towers of the skulls of those obstinate unbelievers to be built on the mountain, and I ordered an engraver on stone, who was in my camp, to cut an inscription somewhere on those defiles to the effect that I had reached this country by such and such a route, in the auspicious month of Ramazan, A.H. 800 (May, 1398), so that, if chance should conduct any one to that spot, he might know how I had reached it.



About his attack on delhi,


"For my intended attack on Delhi in this same year 800 A.H. (1398 A.D.), I arranged my forces so that the army extended over a distance of twenty leagues. Being satisfied with my disposition of the troops, I began my march on Delhi. On the twenty-second of Rabi’-al-awwal (Dec. 2) I arrived and encamped at the fort of the village of Aspandi, where I found, in answer to my inquiries, that Samana was seven leagues distant. The people of Samana and Kaithal and Aspandi are all heretics, idolaters, infidels, and misbelievers. They had now set fire to their houses and had fled with their children and property toward Delhi, so that the whole country was deserted.

On the next day, the twenty-third of the month, I started from the fort of Aspandi, and after marching six leagues, arrived at the village of Taghlak-pur, at which I encamped opposite the fort of that same name. When the people of the fort had heard of the approach of my army, they had abandoned it and scattered throughout the country. From the information supplied me I learned that these people were called Sanawi [that is, Fire-worshippers, Zoroastrians, or Ghebers]. Many of this perverse creed believe that there are two gods. One is called Yazdan, and all the good they have they believe proceeds from him. The other god they call Ahriman, and every sin and wickedness of which they are guilty they hold is caused by him. These misbelievers do not know that whatsoever there is of good or evil comes from God, and that man is the mere instrument of its execution. I ordered the houses of these heretics to be burned and their fort and buildings to be razed to the ground.


About his mind set before reaching Delhi,


"from the time of entering Hindustan up to the present we had taken more than one hundred thousand infidels and Hindus prisoners, .................. I immediately directed the commanders to proclaim throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners was to put them to death, and that whoever neglected to do so, should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the champions of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolaters, were slain on that day. Maulana Nasir-ad-din Omar, a counsellor and man of learning, who had never killed a sparrow in all his life, now, in execution of my order, killed fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives.


His actions in Delhi,


"When Friday morning dawned, my entire army, no longer under control, went off to the city and thought of nothing but killing, plundering, and making prisoners. The sack was general during the whole day, and continued throughout the following day, Saturday, the seventeenth (Dec. 27), the spoil being so great that each man secured from fifty to a hundred prisoners, men, women, and children, while no soldier took less than twenty. There was likewise an immense booty in rubies, diamonds, garnets, pearls, and other gems; jewels of gold and silver; gold and silver money of the celebrated Alai coinage; vessels of gold and silver; and brocades and silks of great value. Gold and silver ornaments of the Hindu women were obtained in such quantities as to exceed all account. Excepting the quarter of the Sayyids, the scholars, and the other Mussulmans, the whole city was sacked. The pen of fate had written down this destiny for the people of this city, and although I was desirous of sparing them, I could not succeed, for it was the will of God that this calamity should befall the city.
On the following day, Sunday, it was brought to my knowledge that a great number of infidel Hindus had assembled in the Jami’ Masjid of Old Delhi, where they had carried arms and provisions, and had prepared to defend themselves. Some of my people who had gone that way on business were wounded by them, whereupon I immediately ordered Amir Shah Malik and Ali Sultan Tawachi to take a party of men and clear the house of God of infidels and idolaters. They accordingly attacked these infidels and put them to death, after which Old Delhi was plundered."


The grand finale as written by Timur himself,


"After spending fifteen days at Delhi, passing my time in pleasure and enjoyment, and in holding royal courts and giving great feasts, I reflected that I had come to Hindustan to war against infidels, and that my enterprise had been so blessed that wherever I had gone I had been victorious. I had triumphed over my adversaries, I had put to death hundreds of thousands of infidels and idolaters, I had dyed my proselyting sword with the blood of the enemies of the Faith, and now that I had gained this crowning victory, I felt that I ought not to indulge in ease, but rather to exert myself still further in warring against the infidels of Hindustan. Having made these reflections, on the twenty-second of Rabi’-al-akhir, 800 A.H. (Jan. 1,1399 A.D.), I again drew my sword to wage a religious war (JIHAD).




Now if you have any shame left, go drown yourself for being the fool you are. :sick:
 
Last edited:
.
This is 21 st century india and we shall make sure that Taimur ali khan pataudi polish our shoes.
 
.
This is 21 st century india and we shall make sure that Taimur ali khan pataudi polish our shoes.

Most Indians do not know this, but "Shah Rukh" was the son of TImur and his successor.

So you see, the "hero worship" of this evil man is not new.
 
.
Most Indians do not know this, but "Shah Rukh" was the son of TImur and his successor.

So you see, the "hero worship" of this evil man is not new.

We hardly thought on these sort of issue but now tarak fatah has brought in a lots of awareness. We must make them realizze that you will not get away by keeping the name of terrorist.
 
.
Kudos to the Khan couple for showing Hindus who is STILL the boss.

Imagine an Arab keeping a name Hitler or Eichmann in Israel. Then imagine hundreds of Muslims who keep Taimur, Ghori and Babur in India. Speaks volumes about Hindus. Tolerance? Naaaah. It's called cowardice.

In that case, Shivaji, Asoka and most of the emperors should be enlisted in the banned names list.
They CAN be in Islamic countries.

Though only Shivaji had the chance of killing and destroying Muslim armies.
 
.
We hardly thought on these sort of issue but now tarak fatah has brought in a lots of awareness. We must make them realizze that you will not get away by keeping the name of terrorist.

Tarek Fateh is the only muslims who has the courage and integrity to call a spade a spade. For that the mulims of the Indian subcontinent hate him.

Then you have people with malefic intent like viny who will compare Timur with Ashoka and try to convince us that poison is milk.
 
.
@others: sorry this is going to be a long post. I will try to make it as short as possible.

@TISSOT: Sorry you asked for it, i hope this makes some sense to you.
Looks like you brushed up your wikipedia so that you could pretend, but its not good enough.

1. Timur was NOT Turco-Mongol by birth. He was Uzbek by birth. He was born near the city of Kesh in Uzbekistan. His father however was from Mongolia.

Timur was born to Barlas an Mongolian nomadic tribe, who settled into then a prosperous region of Transoxiana. After the Changez (Genghis) Khan invaded Transoxiana in 1219, in conquest of Khwarezm. He assigned the lands of Western Central Asia to his second son Chagatai, and this region became known as the Chagatai Khanate.
Next 100yrs of the interaction with Turkic People made the Barlas tribe a Turcko-Mongol and thats how they followed Buddhism as well as Islam. Hence Timur is considered Turco-Mongol by birth.

Uzbek is word used to define people at large born out of the region in and arround of current Uzbekistan, like how the people on Indian subcontinent are called Indians. Its like calling a 15th century Sikh, you are Indian and not Sikh by birth :P



2. Timur was ALWAYS muslim, his teacher was Mulla Shamsiddin Kulol. His entire clan the Burla tribe had converted to Islam.


Shamsudin Kulal was mentor of Timur's father, so he held high respect for him.
I hope you remember Shamsudin Kulal died in 1370's and attack on Delhi took in 1398.
He converted his tribe to Islam for two basic reasons. First he was ruling an Islamic region, secondly he wanted unity in his command, since unlike other big leaders he didnt built the setup of authorities to manage the empire. Thus religion played important role where he could portray himself as messenger of God and his followers would ensure that that his power is unchallenged and his system keep working.


3. Timur claimed to be Mongol because his father claimed to be Mongol. His features were Mongol.

4. He became the head of the clan when the Mongols Tughlugh Khan from the Mongol Chagatai Khanate invaded his land only to find the head of the Barlas tribe had run away. Timur was chosen by the Mongols as his replacement.

He was opportunist, he claimed to be Mongol to get the power, because at that time Changez Khan legends where high. His rise in mongols came in when he married Saray Mulk Khanum then wife of Amir Husayn of Balkh after defeating and killing him in Siege of Balkh, This gave him the much needed recognition as son in law of Khan tribe. Moving ahead in his life he married many more times in similar fashion to make best out of opportunity to build his power, this includes marriage with persian princess too. Infact before invading India he married Tukal-Khanum, daughter of a Mongol Khan leader, to gain the strength in north eastern regions.

5. Here is Timurs OWN words from his campaign recorded in his autobiographic memoirs

blah ..blah ....blah ...


Now if you have any shame left, go drown yourself for being the fool you are. :sick:

You dont want to take writtings of Ashokaavadaana because it was written by buddhist. But you want to agree with biography of Taimur, "Zafarnama" which was actually completed by commission set up by Grandson of Timur, which literally meant Book of Victory. And that too in era where they where projecting him as leader of Islam.

Better read next time....
 
.
Congrats to Kareena/Saif for the new born.
I hope it sets a trend in India, to name baby boys after brave people e.g. Taimur Ali Khan
 
.
@others: sorry this is going to be a long post. I will try to make it as short as possible.

@TISSOT: Sorry you asked for it, i hope this makes some sense to you.


Timur was born to Barlas an Mongolian nomadic tribe, who settled into then a prosperous region of Transoxiana. After the Changez (Genghis) Khan invaded Transoxiana in 1219, in conquest of Khwarezm. He assigned the lands of Western Central Asia to his second son Chagatai, and this region became known as the Chagatai Khanate.
Next 100yrs of the interaction with Turkic People made the Barlas tribe a Turcko-Mongol and thats how they followed Buddhism as well as Islam. Hence Timur is considered Turco-Mongol by birth.

Uzbek is word used to define people at large born out of the region in and arround of current Uzbekistan, like how the people on Indian subcontinent are called Indians. Its like calling a 15th century Sikh, you are Indian and not Sikh by birth :P.


You are Pathetic. Timur became "turkish" only after he defeated and captured the Ottoman empire. If anything he was the sworn enemy of the Turkish emperor.

He was always a Uzbek-Mongol.

.
Shamsudin Kulal was mentor of Timur's father, so he held high respect for him.
I hope you remember Shamsudin Kulal died in 1370's and attack on Delhi took in 1398.
He converted his tribe to Islam for two basic reasons. First he was ruling an Islamic region, secondly he wanted unity in his command, since unlike other big leaders he didnt built the setup of authorities to manage the empire. Thus religion played important role where he could portray himself as messenger of God and his followers would ensure that that his power is unchallenged and his system keep working..

Who the fcuk are you to spin stories and make convenient assumptions as to WHY he converted ? Provide any original sources for your Fantasies.

You are pretty perverted to cook up biased opinions and server them up as "facts".

The Barlas had converted to islam BEFORE Timur was born. Timur was born in an islamic household.

He was born in a land which was ruled by the Ilkhanate which was already Islamic since 1295.


.
He was opportunist, he claimed to be Mongol to get the power, because at that time Changez Khan legends where high. His rise in mongols came in when he married Saray Mulk Khanum then wife of Amir Husayn of Balkh after defeating and killing him in Siege of Balkh, This gave him the much needed recognition as son in law of Khan tribe. Moving ahead in his life he married many more times in similar fashion to make best out of opportunity to build his power, this includes marriage with persian princess too. Infact before invading India he married Tukal-Khanum, daughter of a Mongol Khan leader, to gain the strength in north eastern regions..


How is this relevant to his Sociopath Jihadi tendencies ? His internal politics to gain power is irrelevant to his actions as a Gazi.


.
You dont want to take writtings of Ashokaavadaana because it was written by buddhist. But you want to agree with biography of Taimur, "Zafarnama" which was actually completed by commission set up by Grandson of Timur, which literally meant Book of Victory. And that too in era where they where projecting him as leader of Islam.

Better read next time....

Ashokavadana also tells stories of Ashoka in his "previous life" as Jaya. That is what discredits it as a historic work.

I am quoting from the Zafarnama, completed by Nizam ad-Din Shami in 1404. This was written during TImurs life. Timur died in 1405.

LOL at your pathetic attempt at propaganda.
 
.
Taimur's middle finger to his haters:

C0XenCYUoAATqK9.jpg
 
.
Timur the lame also killed muslims in great numbers. His fight with the Ottoman empire and attrocities committed against their territories are unknown to none. Timur killed more muslims than Hindus. In the end he wanted to invade China but died before he could plan the expedition. He was merciless and very ruthless.

Anyway it is their parents choice. If they want to name their baby Timur it is their choice. Timur itself does not mean anything bad. It is remembered negatively only because a tyrant had the same name.
its like an iraqi naming his son genghis... I am sure it has some good meaning in mongolia but to an iraqi he was a mass murderer. Anyway its upto parents to name their kids.
 
.
The Taimur controversy and Hindutva's neurosis regarding Islamic history
585bb3ca47521.jpg


In most human cultures, the birth of a child is an unambiguously happy event. This moral framework does not, it seems, apply to some sections of social media, where for the most part of Tuesday, Tweeters bemoaned the birth of a new Bollywood baby.

Born to A-list film stars, Saif Ali Khan and Kareena Kapoor, the boy had been named Taimur – a highly objectionable christening for some, given the name’s association with a 14th century Turkic king and one the world’s most successful conquerors.

What was wrong with Taimur? Social media users were ostensibly objecting to the brutal nature of his conquests. Of particular concern was Taimur’s campaign against his fellow Turkics, the Tughlaq Sultanate of Delhi.

Conducted in 1398, the Timurid invasion eventually led to the sack of Delhi city where, by some accounts, the entire population of the city was massacred.

So deeply felt was this sack that 700 years later, Indians on Twitter would call the new-born baby a “terrorist”, a “jihadi” and in general wish harm upon it.

585bb3c019721.jpg



While it may be easy to dismiss this as the work of trolls, the frankness of social media provides us an important window to attitudes that might otherwise not be aired publicly.

With Hindutva in the ascendant, this incident shines a bright light upon how India’s medieval age is treated with a mixture of ignorance and paranoia by those who follow this ideology.

Hindutva pushes a narrative of ahistorical Muslim rule and then, is the first victim of its own misrepresentation. This distorted image of Muslim conquests projected by Hindutva creates a deep inferiority complex right at its centre. So much so that it was eventually expressed as tragi-comic social media rage against a day-old infant.

Heroes and villains
Historical narratives are tricky things to construct, especially when people want to superimpose moral lessons on them. Who is a hero and who isn’t is extremely subjective and even more so when one goes as far back in time as the 14th century.

The past truly is a different country and to make it fit modern standards of morality, a fair bit of invention needs to be indulged in.

Let’s take a force that is near-universally seen as the “good” guys in popular Indian history: the Marathas. The Marathas were successful towards the end of the Mughal period, building up a confederation over large parts of the subcontinent.

Of course, this was done through war and conquest and in the chaos of the Mughal twilight, contemporary accounts of the Marathas are often rather negative, cutting across what we would today see as “Hindu” and “Muslim” sources.

In the 18th century, the Marathas invaded Bengal killing, by one account, four lakh Bengalis. Repeated raids and conquests of neighbouring Gujarat were also, as almost everything in medieval India, a rather violent affair.

In another case, Maratha armies raided a thousand-year old Hindu temple to teach Mysore sultan Tipu Sultan – who was its patron – a lesson. The Brahmin Peshwa rulers of the Maratha state enforced untouchability so brutally that BR Ambedkar actually saw their defeat at the hands of the British to be a blessing.

Contemporary accounts of the Marathas in Bengal are obviously far from flattering. Similarly, as late as 1895, there were strong objections in Gujarat to the plans of Bal Gangadhar Tilak to institute a Shivaji festival across India, with the Deshi Mitra newspaper of Surat disparaging it as a “flare up of local [Marathi] patriotism”.

India’s medieval period did not have the sort of nationalisms and community mobilisation that modern India would see under the Raj. As newspapers and technology knit the peoples of India together, a Hindu consciousness would revise the image of the Marathas as “Hindu”.

Calcutta city’s intelligentsia at the time, in fact, celebrated a Shivaji festival and the city still has statues of Shivaji. Gujarat, where Hindutva has been a powerful political force for decades now, has adopted Shivaji with even more gusto, building statues in cities like Surat, which, ironically, were sacked by the Maratha chief early on in his career.

This confusion is nothing new. Today, Punjabi Muslims in Pakistan see themselves as inheritors of the Mughals but in 1857 signed up enthusiastically for the East India Company’s armies to defeat the Mughal-led revolt against the Raj.

That which we call a rose
Naturally, then, the name Shivaji or Bhaskar – a Bhaskar Pandit led the Maratha raids on Bengal – are hardly taboo in modern India given this modern narrative of the Marathas.

It is the same for other names as such Ashoka or Alexander, both of whom led bloody campaigns but are common names among the supposed peoples they conquered.

Sikandar, the Persian version of Alexander, is a common name across Iran and the subcontinent – a Bharatiya Janata Party parliamentarian’s son is, in fact, named after the Macedonian conqueror. Moreover, one would assume Ashoka carries no particular taboo in Orissa in spite of the Kalinga war.

In fact, this linking of a name to a supposed historical villain is a particularly egregious example of just how puerile Hindutva can be.

It is a bit silly to think that someone would be outrage over the fact that a baby is named Joseph just because of Stalin’s role in the Soviet Union or “Manu” would be taboo simply because he was supposed to have authored the castiest Manu Smriti, a book of law linked to India’s crippling 2,000 year old system of caste apartheid.

This near-comical understanding of history, though, is not a new thing for Hindutva. The ideology has built a curious understanding of India’s medieval period, which it sees primarily through the lens of supposed invasions by Muslim kings and emperors.

The founder of Hindutva, Vinayak Savarkar would, for example, even use this grievance to validate modern wrongs – in one case justifying the use of rape as a political tool. Prime Minister Modi, a lifelong member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, has often claimed India has suffered from 1,200 years of slavery.

Inventing an inferiority complex
This rage is, of course, large ahistorical. Taimur, for example, finds little mention in historical works written by Hindus at the time or even hundreds of years after.

In fact, his negative image is taken solely from Muslim writers, given that his brutal invasions were led almost exclusively against Islamic empires such as the Ottomans and the Mamluks of Egypt and Syria.

Ironically, even in India, his invasion targeted what Hindutva would characterise as a Muslim and therefore “foreign” dynasty, the Tughlaqs.

However, the invention of this distorted history has has a rather deleterious effect on the Hindutva mind. Tales of a “thousand years of slavery”, as one could very well imagine, create a sort of mass inferiority complex.

Even in this case, for example, as important a driver of rage as the name “Taimur” was, almost as significant was the incipient anger at the fact that a Hindu woman, Kareena Kapoor, had married a Muslim man.

The shadow of so-called love jihad, which once was a Bharatiya Janata Party policy position itself, only ends up harming Hindu women, given that it assumes they themselves aren’t free to make their own choices, romantic or otherwise.

This mass self-flagellation, a near masochistic nurturing of grievance, produces a highly distorted modern politics, showing how far Hindutva is from assuming any mantle of intellectual leadership, in spite of capturing political power at the federal level in India.

An ideology that needs to pick on a little baby to prove its spurs has a long way to go before it can sit at the high table.


Follow
Dr Neelakshi Goswami @DrNeelakshiGswm

Hindu girls shld learn frm Kareena, think before u speak & look before u marry. Or else ur kids will be Chengiz Khan, Aurangzeb & Taimur.

10:52 AM - 20 Dec 2016




Final point. If this controversy forces some Hindutava ideologues to pick up a book and read the history of Taimur, we might be in for another storm.

Taimur’s heir and the next ruler of the Timurid dynasty was a man named, well, Shah Rukh.

This article was first published on Scroll and has been reproduced with permission.


WHATSAPP
157 COMMENTS
PRINT
 
.
You are Pathetic. Timur became "turkish" only after he defeated and captured the Ottoman empire. If anything he was the sworn enemy of the Turkish emperor.

He was always a Uzbek-Mongol.

Now I know why you are so pathetic, you had been a poor reader.
I am not going to teach you history again.

Do you know name Timur is Turkish which means iron.
His father Taraghay was head of the tribe of Barlas, a nomadic Turkic-speaking tribe of Mongol origin that traced its origin to the Mongol commander Qarachar Barlas.


.
Who the fcuk are you to spin stories and make convenient assumptions as to WHY he converted ? Provide any original sources for your Fantasies.

You are pretty perverted to cook up biased opinions and server them up as "facts".

The Barlas had converted to islam BEFORE Timur was born. Timur was born in an islamic household.

Do you have reading problem i said

He converted his tribe to Islam for two basic reasons

Tribe ==> Borjigin from where Barlas came.

He was born Muslim because his father Taraghay was great grandson of Qarachar Noyon who was one of the first to convert to Islam. Having said that Timur was still holding to Mongol legacy and thats why in his intial years he built up his empire as mongol leader.


He was born in a land which was ruled by the Ilkhanate which was already Islamic since 1295.

I hope you remember IIKhanate where rulers of Iran where as Changatai where ruling the Transoxiana and Timur became son in law of khans by marrying Saray Mulk Khanum she was a princess of the Chagatai Khanate as a daughter of Qazan Khan ibn Yasaur who is son of Yasaur who in turn was son of Chübei (great - grandson of Chagatai Khan, 2nd son of Changez (Genghis) Khan. Changatai was given the region of Transoxiana to rule. And there was war between IIkhanate and Yasaur where Yasaur was trying to take over IIkhanate, but he was defeated and he return back to Transoxiana and this later lead to break down of Chagatai Khanate. In sort, no that land was not ruled by IIKhanate but it was ruled by lasts of Changatai's and many of them had taken up islam.
.


How is this relevant to his Sociopath Jihadi tendencies ? His internal politics to gain power is irrelevant to his actions as a Gazi.
Please read more about the warriors of history. Then only things will make some sense.
.
Ashokavadana also tells stories of Ashoka in his "previous life" as Jaya. That is what discredits it as a historic work.

I am quoting from the Zafarnama, completed by Nizam ad-Din Shami in 1404. This was written during TImurs life. Timur died in 1405.

LOL at your pathetic attempt at propaganda.

I hope you also know that the detailed Zafarnama that you read now is majorly the work Sharaf ad-Din Ali Yazdi and not Nizam ad-Din Shami and many modern english writings also mix up the details provided by Ibn Arabsha in his work Aja'ib-al-maqdur


Having said that, biography that was written by courtmen of a leader who unified Islamic world would only reflect the side that are in lines to the values of religion and that makes him look bigger than picture.

No one denies the atrocities of Timur, he did it at much larger scale then Ashoka, because he fought many more wars then Ashoka and with different tribes and religion follower. Like any great warrior there will be two sides, one will see him as great and other will see him as barbaric.

Getting back to topic, if you take muslims as Indian then you will have to take there leaders too. But that doesnt mean that people should look back to them to revive past rivalry. That was part of history, work now for present and better future.
 
.
Now I know why you are so pathetic, you had been a poor reader.
I am not going to teach you history again.

Do you know name Timur is Turkish which means iron.
His father Taraghay was head of the tribe of Barlas, a nomadic Turkic-speaking tribe of Mongol origin that traced its origin to the Mongol commander Qarachar Barlas.

Rubbish.

Timur itself takes his name from the Mongol emperor Temur Khan, grandson of Kublai khan. Temur is a Mongolian word for iron. The Uzbek word for iron is Temir.

The Barlas themselves spoke Chagatai language (now extinct)


Do you have reading problem i said
Tribe ==> Borjigin fr where Barlas came.

He was born Muslim because his father Taraghay was great grandson of Qarachar Noyon who was one of the first to convert to Islam. Having said that Timur was still holding to Mongol legacy and thats why in his intial years he built up his empire as mongol leader.

You have now taken a 180 degree turn and is now agreeing with me that Timur was a muslim.


I hope you remember IIKhanate where rulers of Iran where as Changatai where ruling the Transoxiana and Timur became son in law of khans by marrying Saray Mulk Khanum she was a princess of the Chagatai Khanate as a daughter of Qazan Khan ibn Yasaur who is son of Yasaur who in turn was son of Chübei (great - grandson of Chagatai Khan, 2nd son of Changez (Genghis) Khan. Changatai was given the region of Transoxiana to rule. And there was war between IIkhanate and Yasaur where Yasaur was trying to take over IIkhanate, but he was defeated and he return back to Transoxiana and this later lead to break down of Chagatai Khanate. In sort, no that land was not ruled by IIKhanate but it was ruled by lasts of Changatai's and many of them had taken up islam.
.
Irrelevant as long as you admit they were practicing muslims.



Please read more about the warriors of history. Then only things will make some sense.
.
I hope you also know that the detailed Zafarnama that you read now is majorly the work Sharaf ad-Din Ali Yazdi and not Nizam ad-Din Shami and many modern english writings also mix up the details provided by Ibn Arabsha in his work Aja'ib-al-maqdur


More rubbish. Zafarnama, completed by Nizam ad-Din Shami in 1404. François Pétis de la Croix translated it into French in 1722, and it was translated into English in 1723 and I have quoted from there.


Having said that, biography that was written by courtmen of a leader who unified Islamic world would only reflect the side that are in lines to the values of religion and that makes him look bigger than picture.

LOL. What you are claiming is that we should believe your lies and not the historical work of Timurs own court historian's biography as dictated by TImur. What a pathetic attempt.


No one denies the atrocities of Timur, he did it at much larger scale then Ashoka, because he fought many more wars then Ashoka and with different tribes and religion follower. Like any great warrior there will be two sides, one will see him as great and other will see him as barbaric.

Getting back to topic, if you take muslims as Indian then you will have to take there leaders too. But that doesnt mean that people should look back to them to revive past rivalry. That was part of history, work now for present and better future.

You did try to deny the atrocities of Timur before I ripped off your lies and exposed you and him to the world.

There is no comparing Ashoka with one of the worlds worst barbarian and Genocidal killers know in history. History remembers Ashoka as a bringer of peace.

There are not sides. The only "sides" who will admire timur is the same "side" that will admire Osama bin laden and support terrorists. You seem to be on that side.

It is for Indian muslims to reject such evil men and their history and show solidarity with the Hindus. There is no onus on Hindus to accept muslim hate disguised as "history".

I was history till the day a certain muslim called 'saif ali khan' decided to name his child Timur and rub it all over again on the Hindu collective memory and pride.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom