Why our textbooks should include Ranjit Singh

[akheR]

Interesting article, the whole national historic discourse should be re-visited and, most importantly, re-appropriated.

**

Why our textbooks should include Ranjit Singh
by Farhan Ahmed Shah

Senator Raza Rabbani’s recent assertion that teaching students about Ranjit or Bhagat Singh would not harm Pakistan should be warmly welcomed. Altering a country’s history to serve its interests is a common practice in the world. But in our case, we have taken it to a whole new level. Our history books, which are meant to shape the worldview and mindset of future generations, are currently only a tool to indoctrinate the impressionable minds of the younger generation.

The history of Pakistan, as told in these textbooks, is nothing more than a history of Muslims in the Indian subcontinent. The books exalt Muslim rulers of the subcontinent, depicting them to be epitome of righteousness with the sole agenda to spread Islam, even though all of them were invaders with an expansionist agenda. They vilify all local non-Muslim rulers as having an inherent hatred towards Islam, even though they might have been simply fighting an oppressor or invader. The names of the non-Muslim rulers are never mentioned. That’s why the books are replete with the names of the Ghaznavis, Tughlaqs and Mughals, even though they were invaders, but the likes of Ranjit Singh fail to earn a mention even though they were sons of the soil.

May I ask our writers of history that if Mehmud Ghaznavi was such a great preacher of religion, as most textbooks portray him to be, why did he go on killing and destructive sprees against, for example, the Muslim rulers of Multan? And what should one make of the fact that he killed his own brother to capture the throne? Or that why did he have to attack the subcontinent 17 times? What was the motive for him invading places like Mathura, Kannauj and Kalinjar, known primarily for the treasures found in their Hindu temples? Was it not to ransack them and take away their riches?

The Ghaznavids were succeeded by Shahabuddin Ghauri. Ghauri is famous for challenging the Hindu king Prithvi Raj Chauhan, at the start of the Battle of Tarain in 1192, to either convert to Islam or be crushed. If spreading Islam was his agenda, one wonders what about the war he waged against the last Ghaznavid king, Malik Khusro? Why are our history books silent on this?

Such textbooks have contributed to a skewed and prejudiced understanding of history, and created a sense of fear in many of us of all that is non-Islamic. This fear then creates a mindset of the average Pakistan, steeped in paranoia and a sharply anti-West worldview. This also creates a superiority complex among many of us, in that we consider ourselves and our faith the best, and denigrate that of others.

We forget that our land has given birth to and helped nurture major world religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism, so it’s about time we embrace our history in its entirety and learn from it. Maybe that will help induce much required tolerance in us.

In the end, I would narrate a story that I have grown up hearing as a member of Lahore’s historical Fakir family. The rulers of Afghanistan never reconciled with the fact that Peshawar had slipped out of their hands and went to Ranjit Singh. When Dost Mohammed Khan attacked Peshawar in 1834 to regain it, Ranjit Singh sent Fakir Azizuddin, his prime minister, for negotiations. When the Fakir reached his camp and talks started, the courtiers gave it a religious bend and he was taunted severely for his allegiance to a non-Muslim. Shrewd that the Fakir was, he asked all present that being a good Muslim, wasn’t it his moral duty to loyally serve his king? The aggressors who were in no mood to let go, cleverly started alluding to the massive bloodshed of Muslims on both sides if the war ensued. The Fakir took a pause and asked Dost Khan that if he convinced Ranjit Singh to give Peshawar back to him, would he return peacefully? The answer was a resounding ‘yes’. And then the Fakir retorted: “Don’t brand your campaign Islamic, it’s a fight for a piece of land.”

Published in The Express Tribune, October 15th, 2011.

 

[WithLoveFromCanada]

is this Farhan Ahmed Shah or Ranjit Singh in picture?

 

[Gabbar Singh]

is this Farhan Ahmed Shah or Ranjit Singh in picture?

Given Ranjit Singh ruled in the early 1800s (As the article states) one would assume the picture is not him

 

[kingusama92]

Kind of odd, they completely wiped off the mention of these people from textbooks.

 

[akheR]

is this Farhan Ahmed Shah or Ranjit Singh in picture?

lol no that's the other, the Farhan Ahmed Shah guy.
Have the bad habit to copy-paste everything. x')

Kind of odd, they completely wiped off the mention of these people from textbooks.

That's not the worst: the most depressing is that we hail as heroes some dudes who came in our lands in order to kill/loot us, in place of the men who defended themselves and their peoples (Prithviraj Chauhan, for instance).
Don't know if any other nation does it, but that's the quintessence of masochism.

 

[WithLoveFromCanada]

Given Ranjit Singh ruled in the early 1800s (As the article states) one would assume the picture is not him

Not saying you're wrong but why would author post his picture up in that article??? I mean thats ridiculous.

if thats ranjit singh than he was probably the most sober and precursor of modern fashion trendsetter leader.

 

[akheR]

but why would author post his picture up in that article??? I mean thats ridiculous.

if thats ranjit singh than he was probably the most sober and precursor of modern fashion trendsetter leader.

Khush ?

 

[WithLoveFromCanada]

lol no that's the other, the Farhan Ahmed Shah guy.
Have the bad habit to copy-paste everything. x')



That's not the worst: the most depressing is that we hail as heroes some dudes who came in our lands in order to kill/loot us, in place of the men who defended themselves and their peoples (Prithviraj Chauhan, for instance).
Don't know if any other nation does it, but that's the quintessence of masochism.

) I've the bad habit to search for these kind of lulz as well.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Kind of odd, they completely wiped off the mention of these people from textbooks.

“History is written by the victors.” Winston Churchill

 

[AlizeeFan]

“History is written by the victors.” Winston Churchill

Didn't Duryodhan said same thing to Pandavas?

 

[SIMBA]

It's because we are majority Muslims hence have Muslims heroes.

We associate with people like: Mohammed Bin Kasim then Ranjit Singh as these ppl bought Islam to Asia and the ppl residing there.

 

[akheR]

It's because we are majority Muslims hence have Muslims heroes.

We associate with people like: Mohammed Bin Kasim then Ranjit Singh as these ppl bought Islam to Asia and the ppl residing there.

So you think that Islam was brought in South Asia by the sword ? Mohammed Iqbal had a close friend named Sir Thomas Walker Arnold, who wrote a whole historical book about why Muslims from all over the world became Muslims: about South Asia, he said that it was thanks to Persian Sufi missionaries (which made sense with our Punjabi culture, or Sindhi, etc.)

Warriors never bring religion, but destruction. They were like Tamerlan: making a pyramid off 60,000 Persian (and, for some, 'most importantly' Muslim) heads and at the same time talking of 'jihad' in order to gain material wealth.

 

[jeetu]

Nice article.
In this modern age Information can be suppressed for a while but it can't remain hidden for those who aspire.

 

[SIMBA]

So you think that Islam was brought in South Asia by the sword ? Mohammed Iqbal had a close friend named Sir Thomas Walker Arnold, who wrote a whole historical book about why Muslims from all over the world became Muslims: about South Asia, he said that it was thanks to Persian Sufi missionaries (which made sense with our Punjabi culture, or Sindhi, etc.)

Warriors never bring religion, but destruction. They were like Tamerlan: making a pyramid off 60,000 Persian (and, for some, 'most importantly' Muslim) heads and at the same time talking of 'jihad' in order to gain material wealth.

No - because Islam was or had to be spread via the sword then Muslims had enough power, influence to convert by force all the Ppl or just cleanse them.

 

[akheR]

No - because Islam was or had to be spread via the sword then Muslims had enough power, influence to convert by force all the Ppl or just cleanse them.

lolwut u-mad ?

 

[SIMBA]

lolwut u-mad ?

I meant Like: ethnic cleanse.

 

[AZ]

No - because Islam was or had to be spread via the sword then Muslims had enough power, influence to convert by force all the Ppl or just cleanse them.

If that was the case there wouldn't be a single non-Muslim in the Subcontinent today.

 

[ElRaja]

It's because we are majority Muslims hence have Muslims heroes.

We associate with people like: Mohammed Bin Kasim then Ranjit Singh as these ppl bought Islam to Asia and the ppl residing there.

what are you on about, history is meant to be an account of events that occured in the past being recounted in the most objective manner possible, not hero worship.

i had no knowledge of the sikh, hindu past of pakistan whilst i was studying in pakistan. if it wasnt for village folk who told me stories of pre partition india i would never have even known that such a huge amount of non-muslims ever lived in pakistan.

it also really diminishes the stature of the history of the nation when it is constant glorification of invaders who subjugated indigenous populations, as someone put it on a tv show once

it was not an era of muslim rule over the subcontinent, but the rule of a ruling class who happened to be muslims

now im not saying we should exclude islamic ghaznavi, ghaurid, mughal history etc, but it should be balanced by the history of the nation and its people itself, which from the origins of the first farming settlements in modern balochistan preceed islam by nearly 7000 years.

 

[zindagi]

If that was the case there wouldn't be a single non-Muslim in the Subcontinent today.

There are many possible theories for this:
1) It was in the interest of the ruling class to keep majority of the population as Non-muslim to be able to collect a much higher Jajiya. (tax paid by non-muslims), once they started ruling and settled down. It almost became in their interest to not convert beyond a certain point due to a fall in tax collections.

2) Native People in the sub-continent challenged (marathas, sikhs, rajputs) the political power of the Islamic rulers and never let them be in full control of power. Once the political power changed , people re-converted. Conversion wasn't always a one-way street and depends on social/economic factors.

3) Political and family assassinations and in-fighting amongst the Islamic rulers.

 

[zindagi]

i had no knowledge of the sikh, hindu past of pakistan whilst i was studying in pakistan. if it wasnt for village folk who told me stories of pre partition india i would never have even known that such a huge amount of non-muslims ever lived in pakistan.

Majority Indians have no idea either. Pakistan and Afghanistan were huge and flourishing centres of Buddhism much more than Hinduism.
Why do you think Buddhism which was born in the sub-continent and had state patronage of the biggest empire by Asoka is almost non-existent now? The non-violent doctrine of Buddhists could have something to do with it.

Now, I am going to say something which will create a huge controversy. The dome shaped mosque/tomb architecture which is now considered Islamic/Mughal in origin could actually be the Buddhist stupas which were converted and re-modeled by Islamic rulers. This is something which needs much further research and just my theory for now. Only secularists and non-religious types can do this without bringing in emotion. They also need to consider the pre-existing conflict between Buddhism and Hinduism in the subcontinent.

 

[KB]

So you think that Islam was brought in South Asia by the sword ?

Conversion by the sword is not really a persuasive argument as to why many converted to Islam. Whilst no doubt there were instances of forced conversion, the theory fails to explain why the greatest conversion took place in the regions on the fringes of political power during Muslim rule and not the upper Gangetic Plain, where political and military force was much greater.

Generally over the centuries of Muslim rule, it is difficult to uphold the argument that there were systematic ‘state’ efforts to forcibly convert the mass of inhabitants of South Asia to Islam. Muslims remained an overall minority in South Asia in part for this reason.

We must also acknowledge that the conversion to Islam in South Asia was much more complex than many people perceive. It was not an instant acceptance or understanding of the central Islamic tenets. Local custom and practices inconsistent with Islam were initially maintained.

In his study on the rise of Islam in Bengal, American historian Richard Eaton - who provides the most sophisticated understanding of conversion in a South Asian context - wrote of the process of Islamization:

from the position of historical retrospect, one may discern three analytically distinct aspects to the process, each referring to a different relationship between Islamic and Indian superhuman agencies. One of these I am calling inclusion; a second, identification; and a third, displacement. By inclusion is meant the process by which Islamic superhuman agencies became accepted in local Bengali cosmologies alongside local divinities already embedded therein. By identification is meant the process by which Islamic superhuman agencies ceased merely to coexist alongside Bengali agencies, but actually merged with them, as when the Arabic name Allah was used interchangeably with the Sanskrit Niraṇjan. And finally, by displacement is meant the process by which the names of Islamic superhuman agencies replaced those of other divinities in local cosmologies.

 

[akheR]

Conversion by the sword is not really a persuasive argument as to why many converted to Islam. Whilst no doubt there were instances of forced conversion, the theory fails to explain why the greatest conversion took place in the regions on the fringes of political power during Muslim rule and not the upper Gangetic Plain, where political and military force was much greater.

I was responding to a poster who postulated Islam's 'deadly expansion', and, in fact, I'm myself well aware of the complex conversion dynamics in South Asia. The preaching of Islam by Sir Thomas W. Arnold is the ultimate book about the subject, and every chapter is dedicated to a different region, and it's not innocent if he used the term 'preaching' instead of 'propagation', because, in his eyes (and backed up with historical sources), the conversions were made thanks to the genius of Sufi masters, not the sword of greedy man-eaters.

 

[zindagi]

I was responding to a poster who postulated Islam's 'deadly expansion', and, in fact, I'm myself well aware of the complex conversion dynamics in South Asia. The preaching of Islam by Sir Thomas W. Arnold is the ultimate book about the subject, and every chapter is dedicated to a different region, and it's not innocent if he used the term 'preaching' instead of 'propagation', because, in his eyes (and backed up with historical sources), the conversions were made thanks to the genius of Sufi masters, not the sword of greedy man-eaters.

There is a book by Sadia Dehlvi, a Delhi based writer called "Sufism: the heart of Islam". Might be interesting for you guys.

here is a review
http://indianmuslims.in/review-sufism-the-heart-of-islam/

also, read the comments on that review and one guy is saying that Prophet Muhammed did use the sword (force) to spread Islam around it's birth and is supporting it by quoting various hadiths.

 

[NJamal]

So Ranjit Singh's forces entered Peshawar in 1824 with flowers in their hands, talk of tarnishing the true facts. Sikh forces when entered Peshawar (Which was one of the beautiful city of the region at that time) made sure to destroy every beautiful building and not even left a tree standing in Peshawar. Their short rule of Peshawar was one of the most ruthless rule and the most difficult time on the Muslims of Peshawar. Why should we include such a criminal person in our textbooks in whose rule daily Muslims were hung from the Minarets of Masjid Mahabat Khan.

The writer is out of his freaking mind. Calling the true heroes as Bandits and calling a criminal bandit as true son of the soil.

 

[kamz]

absolutely agree with you NJamal. I think the writer has taken abstracts out of Mahmud Ghaznavi's life and portrayed it as if he was a tyrant. What people tend to forget is the relationship of a king with a servant and handing over the kingdom to a slave named Ayaz.

People forget the power of imaan which is artistically captured in one of Iqbal's poem's

Aa gaya ain laraai mein agar waqt-e-namaz,
Qibla roo ho ke zamin bos hui qaum-e-Hejaz,

Ek hi saf mein khare ho gaye mahmud-o-Ayaz,
No koi banda raha aur no koi banda nawaz.

 

[zhivago]

na wo ishq mein rahin garmiyan na wo husn mein rahin shokhiyan
na wo ghaznawi mein tarap rahi na wo kham hai zulf-e-ayaz mein

 

[akhrot]

I didn't know about Bhagat Singh, till I saw Ajay Devgan's "The Legend of Bhagat Singh". Never learnt about Bhagat Singh in the history books all through student days in Pak.

 

[PakPrince]

That's not the worst: the most depressing is that we hail as heroes some dudes who came in our lands in order to kill/loot us, in place of the men who defended themselves and their peoples (Prithviraj Chauhan, for instance).
Don't know if any other nation does it, but that's the quintessence of masochism.

We should be hailing these 'conquerers"
They brought culture and Islam to the subcontinent and brought us to the right path which the forefathers had been unlucky not to experience.

Also remember, before them, the Indian subcontinent was large swathes of land occupied by mostly primitive people with the Ganges and the Indus running through it

 

[zindagi]

We should be hailing these 'conquerers"
They brought culture and Islam to the subcontinent and brought us to the right path which the forefathers had been unlucky not to experience.

Also remember, before them, the Indian subcontinent was large swathes of land occupied by mostly primitive people with the Ganges and the Indus running through it

If only you had some clue about these primitive people .... This is what distortion of history does.

Will you be shocked tomorrow IF you found out that most of the mosques/tombs (including the great Taj Mahal and Qutub Minar) were pre-existing stupas/temples/palaces/structures in the subcontinent?

Will you be shocked to find out that Pakistan and Afghanistan were prosperous/civilized lands which attaracted the hordes of Islamic invaders?

Will you be shocked to find out the alhambra palace /cordoba mosque in spain was the product of an existing civilzation and not created by the invading Islamic moors in Spain, which Most western muslims today take pride in?

All this talk about the "light of Islam" is propaganda just like the communist North Korea does propaganda to keep it's people in poverty but have false pride. Similarly, the clerical/power centres of Islam propagate this intentionally (either out of their own false convictions) or to preserve their power structures.

Why should you believe me? You can't if you are unable to think independently and draw your own conclusions and usually rely on "one single" authority to tell you the truth. To arrive at a better truth you have to read pro, anti, and all kinds of perspectives.

You can make a start by reading the pre-islamic history (which is still distorted)....

Islam was a huge agent of change and turned societies/regimes upside down like a hurricane but civilizational force it was not....

 

[faysal9]

When we are short of problems and issues, we may come up with such stuff...
But right now , we r facing Hell lot of issues... why to focus on such thing. we may think about that when we gets free

 

[the Great Khan]

If only you had some clue about these primitive people .... This is what distortion of history does.

Will you be shocked tomorrow IF you found out that most of the mosques/tombs (including the great Taj Mahal and Qutub Minar) were pre-existing stupas/temples/palaces/structures in the subcontinent?

Will you be shocked to find out that Pakistan and Afghanistan were prosperous/civilized lands which attaracted the hordes of Islamic invaders?

Will you be shocked to find out the alhambra palace /cordoba mosque in spain was the product of an existing civilzation and not created by the invading Islamic moors in Spain, which Most western muslims today take pride in?

All this talk about the "light of Islam" is propaganda just like the communist North Korea does propaganda to keep it's people in poverty but have false pride. Similarly, the clerical/power centres of Islam propagate this intentionally (either out of their own false convictions) or to preserve their power structures.

Why should you believe me? You can't if you are unable to think independently and draw your own conclusions and usually rely on "one single" authority to tell you the truth. To arrive at a better truth you have to read pro, anti, and all kinds of perspectives.

You can make a start by reading the pre-islamic history (which is still distorted)....

Islam was a huge agent of change and turned societies/regimes upside down like a hurricane but civilizational force it was not....

oh here we go again. islam just copies or replaces hindu/biddhist temples, the conquerors were all barabrians and destoryed a flourising civilisation of great Hindus and buddhists, the taj mahal was built by Hindus, the alhambra was built by the visigoths, next we'll be asked to believe the Prophet pbuh was actually a hindu god..please stop talking crap! most of this rubbish is peddled by RSS saffron fascist revisionists who want to destroy the Muslim legacy in India.

As for the inclusion of ranjit singh, well by all means but that can only come when education itself has been reformed in pakistan..

As for learning about Islam and its conquerors in india well it forms part of the heritage of Islam in India and is an essentiall part of the historical discourse. Every ruler had his good and bad points but this recent emphasis on apologies by the secular print media is nothing new. The fact is the Mughal empire and the otehr sultanates ruled by Muslims were some of the richest and most successful empires in the Muslim world. they did this through ingenuity, art, architecture, planning and military might. Lets not apologise for the past but learn from it.

and to those who try to revise our achievements, please stick to your obscure RSS promoted dipshit articles that provide no proof whatsoever!!

 

[zindagi]

and to those who try to revise our achievements, please stick to your obscure RSS promoted dipshit articles that provide no proof whatsoever!!

Just to be clear, I dislike the RSS/hinduvta/Ram sene/Shiv sena type organizations.

These are my independently reached observations by reading a variety of sources. My affinity is only with the atheistic/scientific community and trying to solve a historical piece of puzzle.

I can understand where you are coming from though. Any person who believes in religious miracles and religious revelations etc will have a hard time understanding what I am saying.

 

[zindagi]

and to those who try to revise our achievements , please stick to your obscure RSS promoted dipshit articles that provide no proof whatsoever!!

To give it another perspective, all achievements are shared. The humanity/creation is all interlinked. I am as much awed by the Egyptian pyramids as by the human achievement of putting a man on the moon.

So, even "IF" the Mughals didn't build the Taj Mahal, it doesn't mean that you can't like it. I used to believe that Mughals built the Taj Mahal, and it changed nothing about how I felt about the Taj Mahal.

My another theory/hypothesis: I don't think Babur destroyed any temple to build a mosque. Nor do I think it was a Ram temple as Hindus claim. It might as well have been an existing buddhist stupa which was simply converted into a mosque.

 

[the Great Khan]

To give it another perspective, all achievements are shared. The humanity/creation is all interlinked. I am as much awed by the Egyptian pyramids as by the human achievement of putting a man on the moon.

So, even "IF" the Mughals didn't build the Taj Mahal, it doesn't mean that you can't like it. I used to believe that Mughals built the Taj Mahal, and it changed nothing about how I felt about the Taj Mahal.

My another theory/hypothesis: I don't think Babur destroyed any temple to build a mosque. Nor do I think it was a Ram temple as Hindus claim. It might as well have been an existing buddhist stupa which was simply converted into a mosque.

please list the sources that you have read to come up with this conclusion.

Its not about a shared heritage or history. Its about what is real and what is not. It is real and factually correct to assume that Aurangzeb built the Badshahi Masjid in lahore. It is also factually correct to assume that the palace of westminster was constructed by english royalty. It is not factually correct to assume that the Taj Mahal was Buddhist stupa/hindu temple/ that was merely converted by Shah Jahan.

Also the Taj is not a Mosque/masjid/house of worship. It is a tomb so please get your facts straight. The mosque is a seperate building.

Also please display or post the soruces that claim the alhambra was not built by the Muslims of Grenada?

also this is not about like and dislike so please dont assume that just because a building isnt built by a Muslim I dont like it. Your posts smack of presumptions so please refrain from such arrogance!

 

[Asim_khan]

I love posters who are able to find sources nobody else in history of mankind has seen lol.

Unfortunately i'd be red carded if I said what I really thought. But I will say this, there is a reason why Western Historians, who go out of their way to diminish and spit upon any Islamic/muslim invention, call it the Islamic golden period, because thats exactly what it was.

 

[sa88]

There are many possible theories for this:

1) It was in the interest of the ruling class to keep majority of the population as Non-muslim to be able to collect a much higher Jajiya. (tax paid by non-muslims), once they started ruling and settled down. It almost became in their interest to not convert beyond a certain point due to a fall in tax collections.

Most Muslim rulers did not enforce the jizya. The majority of the revenue earned by Muslim rulers was through plunder. Only with the Lodhis of Delhi did a revenue collection system begin. Even that was very haphazard and was often only collected at sword point.

Sher Shah set up the first proper tax system after he ousted Humayun. He collected a 'chouth' (ie. a quarter), from both Hindus and Muslims, through zamindars. Akbar and the following Mughals adopted this system. Jizya was implemented by Aurangzeb but it probably yielded a negative net revenue to the Mughal state. The cost of enforcing the Jizya (ie. suppressing rebellions) was much greater than the income it brought it.

2) Native People in the sub-continent challenged (marathas, sikhs, rajputs) the political power of the Islamic rulers and never let them be in full control of power. Once the political power changed , people re-converted. Conversion wasn't always a one-way street and depends on social/economic factors.

I agree that conversion sometimes depended on socio-economic factors. Under Aurangzeb this was especially true. He settled many disputes (especially inheritance related) in favour of Muslims, and preferred giving posts to Muslim civil servants. But the per centage of the population this applied to was infatesimally small in India. Most people, Hindus and Muslims, were dirt poor with nothing to inherit and no prospect of an Imperial post. As such, for them there was no great advantage either way for the majority of the period of Muslim rule.

Muslim rule in the sub-continent was established by the sword (and the musket in the case of the Mughals). However, Islam as a religion of the common people has much less to do with the sword.

India, before the arrival of Islam, had several great religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism etc. These relgions are practiced widely in East Asia and South East Asia. However, India had no native monotheistic religion. The idea of one god and a set of rules for life appeals to many people. As such, Islam was accepted by the common people in many areas. It offered unity, in its concept of one God, and a way to live via its various rules.

That is one reason why Christianity didn't make a big impact in India. Everywhere else in the world wherever the Europeans conquered, Christianity became the main religion. That is because it was spread by the musket and because most local people they conquered had no religion to compare. In India, the Europeans were the a power for 250 years, but Christianity did not make a great in roads. This is primarily because India already had a monothestic relgiion very similar to Christianity.

I will finish by saying that Islam spread, not because it was promoted by the sword, but simply because it was the first relgion which brought the concept of one god to India.

 

[zindagi]

It is not factually correct to assume that the Taj Mahal was Buddhist stupa/hindu temple/ that was merely converted by Shah Jahan.

Who is assuming anything? I am just raising questions. Read this article once again if you haven't already done so with an open mind. It is fairly objective.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm

Also the Taj is not a Mosque/masjid/house of worship. It is a tomb so please get your facts straight. The mosque is a seperate building.

Read any of my posts where I have claimed that TajMahal is a mosque
Mosque is a separate building and identical to another building located at another end of the complex facing in the wrong direction, possibly indicating that original purpose could have been something else.

Also please display or post the soruces that claim the alhambra was not built by the Muslims of Grenada?

http://www.inspain.org/en/extraSites/historicalintroductionalhambra.asp

According to this, Ziries monarchs who "probably" built the alhambra.

I know I am making a lot of generic assumptions and throwing out all sorts of theories , so I need to be a bit more careful than provocative.

Basically what I am saying is this: What is Islamic architecture? If Kaaba was the first house of worship for Allah, then all the "Islamic" structures should have resembled Kaaba or at least have been inspired from it in at least some way shape or form where ever Islam went.

Why is it that Islamic architecture of Spain is drasticallly different from the Islamic architecture of the Indian sub continent? If the common theme is Islam , then what is different? And what exactly changes when a person/society converts to Islam? Does the local culture change or the accumulated knowledge of that local culture over centuries change overnight ? What is the contribution of Islam (or any preceding religion) in all this?

 

[zindagi]

However, India had no native monotheistic religion. The idea of one god and a set of rules for life appeals to many people. As such, Islam was accepted by the common people in many areas. It offered unity, in its concept of one God, and a way to live via its various rules.

It is wrong to say India had no native monotheistic religion. Upanishads (summary of the vedic religion) describes the concept of an all pervasive supreme being and is monotheistic.

Buddism/Jainism had already established unity of man in their doctrine and removed the caste system from the vedic relgion. Buddhism/Jainism went one step further and even removed the abrahamic concept of "God" or monotheism and are almost atheist philosophies.

Christianity arrived in India on the southern shores as early as 1st century AD. There is a even a theory that Jesus Christ travelled to Kashmir after his crucifiction and didn't really die (read up on Christ in India).

It's possible that a lot of Islam in India was spread by Sufis and Islam has it's own unique appeal of people worshipping in unison doing namaz
which is powerful.

I will finish by saying that Islam spread, not because it was promoted by the sword, but simply because it was the first relgion which brought the concept of one god to India.

The most powerful appeal in my opinion is basically a human desire for upward social mobility.

Just like the adoption of English is being driven by a need for upward social mobility in the sub-continent now.

Similarly, it's possible that as Islam became associated with ruling class , people wanted to convert because of the social mobility value it brought along. (and not because of the "light of Islam" or it's one god message)

 

[zindagi]

why Western Historians, who go out of their way to diminish and spit upon any Islamic/muslim invention, call it the Islamic golden period, because thats exactly what it was.

What do you think is special about Islam that will cause inventions or any kind of scientific discovery to happen?

 

[NJamal]

zindagi- Your post shows your clear hatred against Islam. Islam is true and purest religion of the World. When all the Europe was engulfed in the dark and they were living like animals Islamic scholars were writing books and making new inventions in the laboratories of Baghdad.

You can't undermine the achievements of Muslims in all walks of life by just posting some crap on an internet forum and that too a forum of majority Muslims.

 

[akheR]

We should be hailing these 'conquerers"
They brought culture and Islam to the subcontinent and brought us to the right path which the forefathers had been unlucky not to experience.

Also remember, before them, the Indian subcontinent was large swathes of land occupied by mostly primitive people with the Ganges and the Indus running through it

That's the point: they - you mean 'we' ? - were not 'primitive people'. Where were Arabs when Aryabhata was working on the approx. of pi six centuries before the birth of the Christ ? Where were Arabs when Panini worked on the most difficult language's grammar (Sanskrit), in Taxila, in today's Pakistan, which was a big intellectual centre back then ?

Also, Islam was not brought by these invaders, but by Sufi missionaries, mainly from Central Asia. Already discussed.

 

[mithun_minhas]

We should be hailing these 'conquerers"
They brought culture and Islam to the subcontinent and brought us to the right path which the forefathers had been unlucky not to experience.

Also remember, before them, the Indian subcontinent was large swathes of land occupied by mostly primitive people with the Ganges and the Indus running through it

People living in Subcontinent were not primitive people

You talk as though people were living in mud houses, hunted rabbits and wore a piece of Goats skin to cover their privates

Indian Subcontinent was way ahead in terms of Math, philosophy, religious ideas, empires, civilization compared to the Arab people who were living nomadic lives with internal wars.

I am not saying that Arabs were totally dumb before Islam came. The invaders burnt down Taxila(Taksh Shila) university completely and many hundreds of years of wisdom was last and countless people were murdered. They even ransacked Temples and looted all the treasures, captured women and sold them in slavery back in Arabia.

Most of the times, it was the sissified attitudes of rulers of Indian Subcontinent that allowed these invaders to succeed. Indian rulers took pride in forgiving the enemy and let them return to their country. What these invaders did was come back with better strategy and mercilessly kill the Indian ruler.

Now think about who were the better people. The native people or the invaders who back stabbed the Indian Kings who forgave them initially.

Indian subcontinent is the birth place of some of the greatest religions in the world. Hinduism, Budhism, Sikhism, Jainism is followed by more than 200 crore people around the world. Especially Budhist philosophy now dominates the entire Asia. It used to be the primary religion even in central asia until Islam came.

 

[the Great Khan]

Who is assuming anything? I am just raising questions. Read this article once again if you haven't already done so with an open mind. It is fairly objective.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm



Read any of my posts where I have claimed that TajMahal is a mosque
Mosque is a separate building and identical to another building located at another end of the complex facing in the wrong direction, possibly indicating that original purpose could have been something else.

Youve claimed it in the post above or implied it. Stephen knapps has no real credibility. It is an obscure crackpot article that is constantly cited by Hinduvtas all over the internet to try adn denigrate the Islamic heritage of India. He doesnt have any credibility because no real historical scholar since the 17th century has ever corroborated what he is going on about.
http://www.inspain.org/en/extraSites/historicalintroductionalhambra.asp

According to this, Ziries monarchs who "probably" built the alhambra.

Ok Ill make this easy for you. Give me some sources that are credible, not obscure internet links written by teenager in his mums house. The two links above are pathetic to say the least. I want you to provide me with the following:

with regards to the Taj, an internationally reknowed expert in the Taj's(architecture, history) account of its construction and origins where they conclusively prove that the Taj was not built by Shah jehan!

an international reknowed scholar of the alhambra's account of its origin and construction.

You speak and pretend you are a man of science well then do the work and stop lazying around on the internet. It is your perogative to prove that the obvious scholarly history of the aforementioned buildings is wrong not the other way round.


I know I am making a lot of generic assumptions and throwing out all sorts of theories , so I need to be a bit more careful than provocative.

yes. In other words do the basics before making unsubstantiated claims that.

Basically what I am saying is this: What is Islamic architecture? If Kaaba was the first house of worship for Allah, then all the "Islamic" structures should have resembled Kaaba or at least have been inspired from it in at least some way shape or form where ever Islam went.

ok if you had done the basics you would understand what Islamic architecture is. I am not going to hold your hand and provide you with obvious answers. please do you research before shouting your mouth off. You have no idea what you are talking about. If you cannot understand the basice concept above then your posts lack even the basic ounce of credibility required to carry on a debate!

Why is it that Islamic architecture of Spain is drasticallly different from the Islamic architecture of the Indian sub continent? If the common theme is Islam , then what is different? And what exactly changes when a person/society converts to Islam? Does the local culture change or the accumulated knowledge of that local culture over centuries change overnight ? What is the contribution of Islam (or any preceding religion) in all this?

again. Do your research.

 

[ElRaja]

this topic has gone way off topic, the merits of the islamisation of certain parts of the sub-continent are irrelevant.

the important point being that what is taught is historically as objective and inclusive of all occurances as one could hope for regardless of indivudual opinions about the good or bad certain events caused.

the point is that pakistan (the region, not the country) has a very rich islamic and non-islamic history and both should be taught to form a complete understanding from first settlements to today.

 

[AbdulrazzaqFan]

again. Do your research.

Bro, I did a little google research on credentials of the original writer who perpetuated these theories, the indian, P. N. Oak, who has supposedly “rediscovered” the Taj mahal. It turns out that this guy is not only a self-proclaimed historian but has got nothing to do with archeology as well. Moreover, he’s written BS even about Ka’aba being a hindu temple. Read the refutation of this joker’s article here : http://kaabaisnotahindutemple.blogspot.com/2011/10/jaw-breaking-response-to-p-n-oak-and.html

So clearly, this clown of a “historian” is nothing but a clown. The Indian Islamophobes & bigots can worship him all they want but to any serious researcher, this joker is nothing but comedy.

 

[kamz]

All brothers who challenge the flourish of islamic civilisation should read the history of Adelarde of Bath (Bath in England) which is also stored in the town's museum. This person was the foundation to pull Europe out of the dark ages, after he travelled to basra and studied along with the muslims.

Additionally, why is gibraltar in latin means jabal tariq why is it named even jabal tariq? I think a bit of reading about who tariq the berber or tariq bin ziyad was would do no harm

I think it might clear a few of misconceptions people may have.

 

[Tera Gawaandi]

Technically Maharaja Ranjit Singh was only ruler from today's Pakistan land ruled who any part of India. He was a great administrator, there was no Hindu Muslim divide, Sikhs had no unfair advantage. He was first and foremost a Punjabi. And one that all Punjabis on both sides of the border should be proud of. Today Pakistan need leader like him who can bring together all communities in Pakistan.

Here's another article written by a Pakistani which refutes commonly held perceptions about Maharaja Ranjit Singh in Pakistan - of him being an anti-Muslim etc.

Ranjit Singh : The Quintessential Indus Man

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

Today (29th June) is the 170th death anniversary of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the Bismarck of Punjab and Pakhtunkhwa, whose great Indus state was the forerunner of Pakistan.

Narrowminded ideologues – writing in the aftermath of bitter communal bloodletting accompanying the birth of Pakistan- have not been able to fully appreciate the significance of this great statesman to the state of Pakistan. If they were to apply their minds to the history of the Punjab from late 18th to mid 19th century theywould find in support of the legal arguments employed by Jinnah a hundred years later. The great tragedy ofcourse was that Sikh leadership could not come to terms with Jinnah in 1947 even though the latter had given them a blank cheque.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh literally cobbled together a number of principalities to forge an independent state from Kashmir to NWFP consisting of Punjabis and Pakhtuns, Muslims and Hindus. This state had its own foreign relations and foreign policy. It also showed that India was never one country but a continent which was to become the basic premise upon which Muslim League was t0 build its case for Pakistan. More importantly, however, Ranjit Singh laid the foundations for the Punjabi parochialism that was to create such a huge problem for both Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League, forcing the latter to search for a slogan that sought to tame this parochialism. It was this powerful parochialism that Jinnah referred to when he told Mountbatten that “A Punjabi is a Punjabi before he is a Muslim or Hindu ” while arguing against the partition of the province. This identity was given to the Punjabis by Ranjit Singh.

How did this one-eyed Sikh warrior manage to bring together Punjabi Musalmans, Sikhs, Hindus and Pushtun Musalmans together in this one great Sikh-dominated state remains a mystery. It is said that a calligrapher tried to sell a beautifully copy of the Quran to Ranjit Singh’s Foreign Minister Fakir Azizuddin who wouldn’t buy it. Ranjit Singh overheard the argument, took the Holy Quran, kissed it and bought it for a price in excess of what is being asked. When asked why he replied “God gave me one eye – so that I could see all religions with the same eye”. Our historians would have us believe that this man defiled the Badshahi Mosque.

Perhaps the most poignant lessons that the Pakistani state can learn from the Maharaja is the way he brought the Wahabi-led Islamist insurgency against the state in form of Syed Ahmad and Shah Abdul Aziz. These forerunners of the modern day Taliban and Al Qaeda had taken refuge in NWFP and had used the Pathan tribesmen to wage a “Jehad” against Ranjit Singh and his state which was in any event Muslim majority. Ranjit Singh and the Army of the Indus crushed this earliest insurgency of the Taliban, pushing back Afghans who had occupied Peshawar since Mahmud Ghaznavi’s time, thus establishing what was to become the permanent border of British India later and consequently Pakistan’s border. It is often said that the British and Russians failed to subdue insurgencies in the tribal area. It is suggested that the US might lose the war as well. However, Ranjit Singh proved that the Army of Indus could defeat this insurgency. Today another Army of the Indus is fighting yet another war in the same region to safeguard another Muslim majority state against a “Jehad”. Inshallah the Army of the Indus will overcome.

This is no call for Punjabi parochialism lest I be mistaken- I believe in Punjab being divided up into several provinces. My interest in Ranjit Singh is purely from a Pakistani angle. Just as we admire Tipu Sultan but do not become Mysore Nationalists, we don’t become Punjabi nationalists by admiring Ranjit Singh. This is however an attempt to honor one of the greatest sons of this soil from whom the Pakistani nation state can learn a thing or two in state-craft.

http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/ranjit-singh-the-quintessential-indus-man/

 

[zindagi]

Stephen knapps has no real credibility. It is an obscure crackpot article that is constantly cited by Hinduvtas all over the internet to try adn denigrate the Islamic heritage of India...

You so obviously didn't read the article. Stephen Knapps has an agenda so does everyone in this world. But he is not the author of the article. He has just posted it on his website and many others which I found biased but the link I posted , I found to be objective.

 

[zindagi]

Bro, I did a little google research on credentials of the original writer who perpetuated these theories, the indian, P. N. Oak, who has supposedly “rediscovered” the Taj mahal. It turns out that this guy is not only a self-proclaimed historian but has got nothing to do with archeology as well. Moreover, he’s written BS even about Ka’aba being a hindu temple. Read the refutation of this joker’s article here : http://kaabaisnotahindutemple.blogspot.com/2011/10/jaw-breaking-response-to-p-n-oak-and.html

So clearly, this clown of a “historian” is nothing but a clown. The Indian Islamophobes & bigots can worship him all they want but to any serious researcher, this joker is nothing but comedy.

P.N. Oak IS a hindu. He published a book about Taj Mahal being a Siva temple in 1980s and the book got BANNED by the indian govt and then emails started floating around. You have to wonder when things get banned, which fanned even more controversy. I also happened to receive those emails and completely dismissed them because they were so beyond the realm of my possibility and he made outrageous claims about Ka'aba being a hindu temple. P.N. Oak being an overt hindu, also pre-judices him against Islam and others against him. But, Ka'aba was clearly NOT a hindu temple but a pagan temple with many idols in there for local tribal Arabs. Even, this piece of knowledge will come as a shock to billions of muslims and non-muslims around the world who are not aware of it.

The article I posted above is very objective and ONLY recently when I came across it and read other stuff about like Sofia Hagia in istanbul and cordoba in spain that I started believing that it is Quite likely that Taj Mahal was an existing structure and later converted. Please read it with an open mind ..
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm

The authors also try to figure out the origin of bulbous dome...

 

[akheR]

Technically Maharaja Ranjit Singh was only ruler from today's Pakistan land ruled who any part of India. He was a great administrator, there was no Hindu Muslim divide, Sikhs had no unfair advantage. He was first and foremost a Punjabi. And one that all Punjabis on both sides of the border should be proud of. Today Pakistan need leader like him who can bring together all communities in Pakistan.

Here's another article written by a Pakistani which refutes commonly held perceptions about Maharaja Ranjit Singh in Pakistan - of him being an anti-Muslim etc.

Ranjit Singh : The Quintessential Indus Man

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

Love the article, and love even more the title. Yasser Latif is a well-known thought-provokong intellectual in the lines of the Hassan Nissars & Nadeem Parachas, and... he looks like Adnan Akmal. :adnan
Historical Pakistan has produced great men - my 'favourite' being Raja Porus - and it's quite a shame that some of our own countrymen see them as a 'primitive' bunch.

And you're saying that Ranjit Singh is the only man from today's Pakistan who ruled (parts of) today's India (don't know - not that versed in the history of politicians in general, tbh); but more importantly, as the article is saying implicitly, isn't he the only non-Pashtun who rule over Pashtun-inhabited areas ?

Take that Amreeka.

 

[akheR]

There's also Hari Singh Nalwa, Commander in Chief of the Sikh Army, the 7' tall 'South Asian Napoleon' as British called him, born in Gujranwala. :iamlegend

 

[mithun_minhas]

Love the article, and love even more the title. Yasser Latif is a well-known thought-provokong intellectual in the lines of the Hassan Nissars & Nadeem Parachas, and... he looks like Adnan Akmal. :adnan
Historical Pakistan has produced great men - my 'favourite' being Raja Porus - and it's quite a shame that some of our own countrymen see them as a 'primitive' bunch.

And you're saying that Ranjit Singh is the only man from today's Pakistan who ruled (parts of) today's India (don't know - not that versed in the history of politicians in general, tbh); but more importantly, as the article is saying implicitly, isn't he the only non-Pashtun who rule over Pashtun-inhabited areas ?

Take that Amreeka.

Raja Purushottham (AKA Porus) was a great king. He was betrayed by Maharaja Ambhi(Coward) of Taxila in his fight against Alexander.

The worst part of all of this is that Maharaja Ambhi was a descendent of King Bharatha(Ramayana) and was supposed to safegaurd the culture and Dharma against invaders. But instead, he aligned himself with Alexander.

Subcontinental kings like to stab each other in their backs in favor of invaders. Its always true.

 

[NJamal]

There's also Hari Singh Nalwa, Commander in Chief of the Sikh Army, the 7' tall 'South Asian Napoleon' as British called him, born in Gujranwala. :iamlegend

Yes who was slayed while on the run from the gallant attack of Pathans right on the spot where Islamia College stands today in Peshawar.

 

[violet_may]

zindagi: Please stick to the topic at hand. This thread is not about 'Muslim architectures' and their legitimacy as an Islamic invention (or any offshoot of that nature).

It seems you feel passionate about this topic and that's fine. However, please stop bringing this up in every single post. There are already quite a few threads where you have discussed this, so please bump those if you want, or create a new thread if you want to discuss:

Buddhist stupas which were converted and re-modeled by Islamic rulers. This is something which needs much further research and just my theory for now. Only secularists and non-religious types can do this without bringing in emotion.

Will you be shocked tomorrow IF you found out that most of the mosques/tombs (including the great Taj Mahal and Qutub Minar) were pre-existing stupas/temples/palaces/structures in the subcontinent?

Will you be shocked to find out that Pakistan and Afghanistan were prosperous/civilized lands which attaracted the hordes of Islamic invaders?

Will you be shocked to find out the alhambra palace /cordoba mosque in spain was the product of an existing civilzation and not created by the invading Islamic moors in Spain, which Most western muslims today take pride in?

Hope that's clear.

 

[akheR]

Yes who was slayed while on the run from the gallant attack of Pathans right on the spot where Islamia College stands today in Peshawar.

Always found that the best movies have a dramatic end.
And that's a Sikh point of view about his death:

Dost Mohammad Khan did not rest contented and after mobilizing all his resources dispatched his son Akbar in A.D. 1837 to recover Peshawar which he did. Resultantly, Sardar Hari Singh Nalua was sent at the head of Lahore troops to face Afghans. He got his forces to Peshawar. Jamrud turned out to be the field of battle this time where a formidable battle was fought. Sardar Hari Singh Nalua had earlier build a fort on the entrance of Khyber pass called fort of Jamrud, this fort was being commanded by Sardar Mahan Singh Mirpura. For want of man and war material Nalua strove extraordinary hard, inspite of this he did not loose his heart. Urgent messages were sent to Lahore and Peshawar for materials. For want of timely help the Sardar was of course, killed but the Afghans could not dislodge the 500 Punjabi troops from the fort of Jamrud. General Hari Singh Nalua give his last command to his men to not to disclose his death and continue giving enemy a good fight.

Sir Lepel Griffin, gives a detailed and comprehensive account of Sardar Nalua's campaign of Jamrud. He points out that Sardar was directed to build a fort at Jamrud situated at the entrance of Khber pass from the walls of which Maharaja might glance Jalalabad in Afghanistan. Sardar got built a small port which was quite impregnable to the artillery fire and could hold on for several weeks of pounding. The Dost Mohammad Khan, with 7,000 horse, 2000 matchlock men and 18 guns. His three sons with their forces and a force of 12,000 to 15,000 of Khaibiris joined the main force and started pounding the fort. Mahan singh Mirpura requested help from Peshwar where Hari singh Nalua was ailing with fever. Hari immediately sent some horsemen to Lahore for more reinforcement and he along with his soldiers went to Jamrud. Reinforcement under Hari Singh Nalua give a new life to the garrison and attack of Afghanis was repulsed with vigour. Grifin further states that when Hari Singh Nalua along with about five of his companion went outside of the fort to inspect a breach in a wall, he was struck by two balls, one in the side and the other in stomach. Inspite of them understanding that he was mortally injured, the Nalua sardar managed to ride as far as his camp lest the troops be discouraged. Then laying on floor he gives his last order to his few trusted men, that was to not to disclose the secret of his death. Hari Singh further imparted instructions to his soldiers to cover his dead body after lifting it from the ground and placing it on a cot. Thus the great Sardar Hari Singh Nalua, with the terror of whose name Afghan mothers used to quiten their fretful children attained his martyrdom.

 

[zzebie]

Yes who was slayed while on the run from the gallant attack of Pathans right on the spot where Islamia College stands today in Peshawar.

I think you are referring to the battle in the Jamrud area. Hari Singh Nalwa was a very brave general from what i heard in Punjab. Also i might be wrong, but i dont think the Pathans actually won that war.
And also just read that the Pathans attacked , knowing the Sikhs would be outnumbered(based on a tip given by the dogras), as a major part of their force was in Lahore at that time, celebrating a wedding. Pathans are renowned for their bravery, but Hari Singh Nalwa was no pushover either

 

[NJamal]

^ Looks like a perfect heroic death scene from a third grade Bollywood movie. lol@ martyrdom.

 

[NJamal]

I think you are referring to the battle in the Jamrud area. Hari Singh Nalwa was a very brave general from what i heard in Punjab. Also i might be wrong, but i dont think the Pathans actually won that war.
And also just read that the Pathans attacked , knowing the Sikhs would be outnumbered(based on a tip given by the dogras), as a major part of their force was in Lahore at that time, celebrating a wedding. Pathans are renowned for their bravery, but Hari Singh Nalwa was no pushover either

My friend Sikhs were present in full force in Jamrud Fort when Pathans attacked it.

 

[mithun_minhas]

I think you are referring to the battle in the Jamrud area. Hari Singh Nalwa was a very brave general from what i heard in Punjab. Also i might be wrong, but i dont think the Pathans actually won that war.
And also just read that the Pathans attacked , knowing the Sikhs would be outnumbered(based on a tip given by the dogras), as a major part of their force was in Lahore at that time, celebrating a wedding. Pathans are renowned for their bravery, but Hari Singh Nalwa was no pushover either

2 sides of a coin.

History is fascinating.

Winners write history unless its a stalemate

 

[zzebie]

My friend Sikhs were present in full force in Jamrud Fort when Pathans attacked it.

Quoting the source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jamrud

I know it's not the ultimate source of information, but just passing on what i have for noe.

 

[mithun_minhas]

^ Looks like a perfect heroic death scene from a third grade Bollywood movie. lol@ martyrdom.

No wonder Jatt Punjabis and Pashtuns hate each other

 

[zzebie]

2 sides of a coin.

History is fascinating.

Winners write history unless its a stalemate

I agree. Turbulent times those were. Kingdoms conspiring against each other, and all. And ever changing affiliations were not based on religion necessarily.

 

[akheR]

My friend Sikhs were present in full force in Jamrud Fort when Pathans attacked it.

Why would Sir Lepel Griffin lie in favour of any of these two (Pashtuns and Sikhs) groups ?

 

[akheR]

No wonder Jatt Punjabis and Pashtuns hate each other

Punjabis and Pashtuns don't hate earch other... and why specifically 'Jatt' ?

 

[NJamal]

Why would Sir Lepel Griffin lie in favour of any of these two (Pashtuns and Sikhs) groups ?

Same question why would Sir Olaf Caroe side with the Pathans?

 

[mithun_minhas]

Punjabis and Pashtuns don't hate earch other... and why specifically 'Jatt' ?

Jatt Punjabis were mostly rulers and warriors of Punjab and they had several battles with Pashtuns. My Punjabi friends told them that their history was never pleasant when it comes to Pathans

 

[mithun_minhas]

Why would Sir Lepel Griffin lie in favour of any of these two (Pashtuns and Sikhs) groups ?

RAW Agent?

 

[zzebie]

Same question why would Sir Olaf Caroe side with the Pathans?

It seems Sir Olaf Caroe had actually good things to say about Hari Singh Nalwa's bravery. Please provide any sources that say otherwise, and i will be more than happy to read.

 

[zzebie]

Jatt Punjabis were mostly rulers and warriors of Punjab and they had several battles with Pashtuns. My Punjabi friends told them that their history was never pleasant when it comes to Pathans

Yeah to add to that, maybe the Punjabi rulers at that time were expanding, and the Pashtuns are known for being fierce in protecting their lands. I am sure the roles would have reversed as well, when the Sikhs were in defensive mode, and maybe the Pashtun rulers in attack mode.
Either ways, great warrior communities, so guess hostility was natural

 

[NJamal]

It seems Sir Olaf Caroe had actually good things to say about Hari Singh Nalwa's bravery. Please provide any sources that say otherwise, and i will be more than happy to read.

Why I said anything bad about Hari Singh? I just said he was killed by Pathans while on the run. I personally hate his rule because of the atrocities he performed against the Muslims of Peshawar while he was the Governor of Peshawar.

Regarding source read book of Sir Olaf Caroe "The Pathans".

 

[akheR]

Same question why would Sir Olaf Caroe side with the Pathans?

From Sir Olaf Caroe, 'The Pathans', p. 299, p. 313-314

On the Sikh side was Hari Singh Nalwa, the ideal Sikh soldier, rough but dependable, gallant and genuine, and the most dashing of all Ranjit's generals. Ranjit had left him with the difficult and dangerous Peshawar command when he himself went back in 1823 to Lahore.
...
(Peshawar) annexed to the Sikh dominions in May 1834 Hari Singh became the first Sikh governor, Sultan Muhammad and his brothers being compelled unwillingly to take refuge with the Dost in Kabul. Hitherto known mainly as a daring cavalry leader along the Indus and in Hazara, the impetuous Sikh general now became a household word in and around Peshawar. Raghe Hari Singh - Hari Singh is here - was the bogey called up by distraught Khalil and Mohmand mothers to quieten fractious children.

That's what he says about Hari Singh. In fact, he doesn't even tell us if Hari Singh had a little Army or what; just talks about his death, and reminds us how Dost Mohammad Khan didn't have the best ethic (wanted to take envoys as hostages, wanted to ally himself with the British in order to re-capture Peshawar which they refused, etc)
And also Sir Lepel Griffin was against Ranjit Singh's government, as they opposed British imperialism in the region: he even wrote a book entitled 'Ranjit Síngh and the Sikh Barrier Between Our Growing Empire and Central Asia'.

 

[mithun_minhas]

Yeah to add to that, maybe the Punjabi rulers at that time were expanding, and the Pashtuns are known for being fierce in protecting their lands. I am sure the roles would have reversed as well, when the Sikhs were in defensive mode, and maybe the Pashtun rulers in attack mode.
Either ways, great warrior communities, so guess hostility was natural

Its like Rival Lions trying to rip each other apart given a chance

 

[zzebie]

Why I said anything bad about Hari Singh? I just said he was killed by Pathans while on the run. I personally hate his rule because of the atrocities he performed against the Muslims of Peshawar while he was the Governor of Peshawar.

Regarding source read book of Sir Olaf Caroe "The Pathans".

Thanks for identifying the source.

Not to ignite a war here, but i read that before Peshawar's occupation by the Sikhs, it seems there was deep resentment, against the Pashtun rule in Punjabi areas. Read that the Sikhs were treated real bad by the Pashtuns. Not that it justifies the bad treatment of the Pashtuns. It's just one more wrong thing.

Also, it seems rulers who treated their subjects equally, were very few.

 

[NJamal]

From Sir Olaf Caroe, 'The Pathans', p. 299, p. 313-314



That's what he says about Hari Singh. In fact, he doesn't even tell us if Hari Singh had a little Army or what; just talks about his death, and reminds us how Dost Mohammad Khan didn't have the best ethic (wanted to take envoys as hostages, wanted to ally himself with the British in order to re-capture Peshawar which they refused, etc)
And also Sir Lepel Griffin was against Ranjit Singh's government, as they opposed British imperialism in the region: he even wrote a book entitled 'Ranjit Síngh and the Sikh Barrier Between Our Growing Empire and Central Asia'.

Jamrud fort was built by Hari Singh for the purpose of keeping a sizeable force there to repel the attacks from the tribes of Afridis and others. So during the attacks of Durranis there must a big force there in the fort. Forts were not built for fun but to keep troops in it.

 

[zzebie]

Its like Rival Lions trying to rip each other apart given a chance

Yeah imagine the Sikhs and Pashtuns locked in a deadly war those days. Good Lord.
On a lighter note , i would just go grab a drink , climb up a tree and shiver

 

[s2k]

We should be hailing these 'conquerers"
They brought culture and Islam to the subcontinent and brought us to the right path which the forefathers had been unlucky not to experience.

Also remember, before them, the Indian subcontinent was large swathes of land occupied by mostly primitive people with the Ganges and the Indus running through it

This is what bias history books do.............Indian subcontinent was a flourishing civilization 1000 of years before Islam evem came into being..........Read about the Harrapans,Mauryans,Guptas,Rashtrakutas,Pallavs,Cholas etc etc etc............some of those empires stretched to Cambodia and Central Asia.

Read about what Greeks,Chinese etc had to say about the Indian civilization........Primitive People LOL...........

Truly sad at what biased history does to people.

 

[zindagi]

zindagi: Please stick to the topic at hand. This thread is not about 'Muslim architectures' and their legitimacy as an Islamic invention (or any offshoot of that nature).

The motivation of the thread was about raising a view point about distortion of history as is taught in school books and challenging that.

 

[s2k]

Now people trying to make the Great Hari Singh Nalua looklike a coward........

1.He struck fear even in the hearts of the brave Pathans........sseveral books mention that.

2.The Jamrud Fort wasnt taken by Pathans.........So dont know where and ahy Nalua will be running when his fort was not overrun.

3.May be some one can give a credible source mentioning that Nalua was killed while on the run.

Also i dont understand that why few Pakistanis have problem accepting that what is present day Pakistan had a glorious non Islamic history before and after arrival of Islam.

 

[violet_may]

The motivation of the thread was about raising a view point about distortion of history as is taught in school books and challenging that.

I get your point, but what is presented in the OP is already an alleged example of that (i.e. distortion of history). So, discuss the relevant history based on that.

10 other people apart from you could bring in an example where history (of God knows what), according to them, was being distorted in schools.

Your statement about motivation is pretty vague and broad, and as such, any discussions leading off that will be in a different tangent than what the OP is about (and the OP has mentioned a very precise topic might I add).

Like I said, feel free to create a new thread about 'distortion of history' if you wish, and you (and everyone else) can include all the examples there if you want. Better yet, create a thread on 'Islamic history being distorted' if that's what you are inclined to discuss, and I am sure that thread will be a hit and to the point.

Any further questions, please PM me instead.

 

[the Great Khan]

No wonder Jatt Punjabis and Pashtuns hate each other

im a jatt punjabi and my wife is a pashtun!! so thats not entirely true!

I am also allegedly descended from raja poros but cant really verify it..

it is indeed a good thing if pour history books would reflect things objectively and to be fair when i studied history in pakistan I did study this period..however it gets dwarfed by the british adventure...but we should in no way apologise for Islam in the subcontinent which is what many people seem to want to do latley!!

as for zindagi, well bump up your other thread if you want to discuss the fallacy of your Taj argument!