What's new

Zaheer Khan named his son as Fatehsinh, netizens react calling it as old fashioned

Red-Indian said:
Fair and I appreciate the nuance. You're right that the situation is a bit weird and different for Aurangzeb from most villainous names in history.

I think what you have to appreciate though that Indian Muslims, whatever they may think of the historical ruler, have already given up on Aurangzeb as a name for their children. Just like most Indian have given up on Nathuram as a name. Unlike what you Pakistanis/Quasi-Pakistanis think, this is not a rock that Indian Muslims would want to die on. I don't want to speak for them but while Indian Muslims have a lot of fears, I don't think they see the loss of the name Aurangzeb as the removal of a finger in the dyke.

Indian Muslims read the same history books in school all Indians do and for generations now, the era of Aurangzeb has been taught as a black period in a relatively normal imperial Mughal empire. While the Mughal period has been de-emphasised in history books of late, there has been no attempt to demonise rulers like Akbar.

It is within context that I say that any Indian Muslim who choose to name their kid 'Aurangzeb' and to a lesser extent 'Genghis' and to an even lesser extent 'Taimur' would understand the reactions that those names would elicit. They would do it most likely to provoke the reaction.
Click to expand...
I agree with your final paragraph.

And ultimately only a selfish parent would burden their kid with a name that would elicit a negative response.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
You are assuming that you will find the same things offensive as other people, and that they will find the same things as you.
Click to expand...
No. I am saying the opposite. I dont find any of it offensive. You have your own freedoms and liberties. Will you feel offended if a hindu you knew named their child Narendra?
I wouldnt
 
Stewie said:
No offense but this is a load of nonsense.

How can a name be equated to offensive phrases, events in history, blasphemous cartoons? Are you even thinking about this stuff before posting them?
Click to expand...
You really struggle to see anybody else's point of view except your own and those like you.

I personally have zero problem with the name Aurangzeb. I do however appreciate the sensitivities around that name in India. Just as I would say any Pakistani minority choosing to name their kid Netanyahu can't be stopped from doing so but would be extremely disingenuous to not expect a reaction...hopefully not violent.
 
Stewie said:
No. I am saying the opposite. I dont find any of it offensive. You have your own freedoms and liberties. Will you feel offended if a hindu you knew named their child Narendra?
I wouldnt
Click to expand...
Not that name in particular, but there are some names that make uneasy.

If my kids were playing with a kid named Adolf or Yazid I'd view that kids parents suspiciously.

Now I don't personally believe Aurangzeb was to the same level as those people, but many Hindus do.

If you knowingly name a kid something that is going to antagonize others ( even if you disagree with the reasos behind it), then that's fine it's your choice, but I don't think we can want people have the right to be antagonistic and then expect others to behave rationally about it in response.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
Not that name in particular, but there are some names that make uneasy.

If my kids were playing with a kid named Adolf or Yazid I'd view that kids parents suspiciously.

Now I don't personally believe Aurangzeb was to the same level as those people, but many Hindus do.

If you knowingly name a kid something that is going to antagonize others ( even if you disagree with the reasos behind it), then that's fine it's your choice, but I don't think we can want people have the right to be antagonistic and then expect others to behave rationally about it in response.
Click to expand...
Yes, true some names are offensive...but haven't seen anyone giving phrase name to childrens
 
Red-Indian said:
That's an absurd argument. Are you saying nobody has a right to get upset if a redneck decides to name his kid 'N***ers are slaves'?

I'm a big supporter of free speech including holocaust denial, blasphemous cartoons and abuse of public/religious figures but the lines are gray. You can't regulate anyone's right to be upset about anything, however stupid...only what they chose to do about it.
Click to expand...

First, ain’t no red neck is naming their child the “N” word.

For the rest, I don’t know what and how to unpack the entire absurdity of your post.
 
Hitler slaughtered people because of their faith, with the intention of wiping out an entire religious group or race. That’s genocide, not the same as historical rulers who fought wars in their era, where thousands died regardless of who was on the throne.

If Aurangzeb, Taimur, Babur, Muhammad, or these days any “Abdul” becomes a problem simply because the name is Muslim, that’s an issue with the people who are offended, not with the parents choosing the name.

The name “Taimur” existed long before the ruler Taimur, and Saif Ali Khan was absolutely right not to bow to public outrage. By naming his son whatever he and his Hindu wife wished, he pushed back against the absurdity of modern India’s sensitivity toward Muslim names.
 
In India they used to say people would be wary of naming their kids Pran, Amrish etc because it was names of actors who were popular on screen villains even though they are pretty normal Hindu names.

Personally Don’t care what the name is. You daily see someone or the other with the name Aurangazeb, Akbar etc involved in some act of terrorism in some part of the world so there might be a stigma that comes from that.

I mean as Indians we also have heroes like Aurangazeb (the Indian soldier not the bigoted king) who won a bravery medal or Abdul (Kalam) who is a scientist of all things as positive references too.

For example arguments can be made “Nathuram” was a great man, however no Hindu is naming his kid that due to the stigma associated.

Need to stop overlooking it as long as the kid turns out to be a good citizen 👍
 
Red-Indian said:
You really struggle to see anybody else's point of view except your own and those like you.

I personally have zero problem with the name Aurangzeb. I do however appreciate the sensitivities around that name in India. Just as I would say any Pakistani minority choosing to name their kid Netanyahu can't be stopped from doing so but would be extremely disingenuous to not expect a reaction...hopefully not violent.
Click to expand...
I see your POV, I really do.

I just think its garbage. You are entitled to your view and I am mine. I will express mine just as you are expressing yours. I am not saying you cant disagree with me, but I will tell you if you sound like an idiot while doing so.

Do you know who Aurengzeb's contemporaries were? King Louis XIV of France, Peter the Great, amongst many others before and after them. King Edward I, hated in Scotland. Christopher Columbus, indirectly resulted in wiping out almost an entire race. General Geoffrey Amherst, Andrew Jackson. Surely there were other rulers in India who were despotic as well. Chandragupt Maurya, Rajendra I and Rajadhiraja, Hari Singh Dogra.

Do you see a common theme here? None of these names are outlawed. Hindus or Indians were not driven to extinction. They are just extremely biased, and full of hate. You want to look down upon someone who names their kid after a MUSLIM ruler (MUSLIM being the key operator here) who ruled over 300 years ago. All the other names are common and in current use, in India as well.

Somehow it has to be Auengzeb that should be frowned upon.
And then you wonder why we decided to create our separate homeland? LOL
 
Local.Dada said:
In India they used to say people would be wary of naming their kids Pran, Amrish etc because it was names of actors who were popular on screen villains even though they are pretty normal Hindu names.

Personally Don’t care what the name is. You daily see someone or the other with the name Aurangazeb, Akbar etc involved in some act of terrorism in some part of the world so there might be a stigma that comes from that.

I mean as Indians we also have heroes like Aurangazeb (the Indian soldier not the bigoted king) who won a bravery medal or Abdul (Kalam) who is a scientist of all things as positive references too.

For example arguments can be made “Nathuram” was a great man, however no Hindu is naming his kid that due to the stigma associated.

Need to stop overlooking it as long as the kid turns out to be a good citizen 👍
Click to expand...
Pretty much the bolded part of your post . You can have good and bad people of the same name.

@sweep_shot above posted that names beloved to Allah are Abdur Rahman and Abdullah- yet there are people of those names before and after Islam who were downright evil as well.

Same with Yazid as @DeadlyVenom mentioned. The well known one has a lot of negative stigma but there were many other companions of the prophet PBUH named Yazid including the uncle of the well known Yazid who was a pious companion unlike his nephew of the same name.

Names shouldn’t be given this much weightage unless you deliberately name your child something inappropriate like Lucifer or something.

As you yourself said there’s a soldier and am sure many other regular honest hardworking citizens named Aurangzeb. If I saw a Muslim family with a kid named that I wouldn’t blink an eye, but I would do a double take if I saw a Hindu family naming their kids Aurangzeb or a Muslim family giving their kid a Hindu or Sikh name.. think that’s pretty normal. But using the these names which have perhaps an ounce of controversy in the last few years to bully the kid or mistreat the family is absolutely asinine and throwing rabid idiots who have nothing better to do but harass others for not naming their child something they approve of (unless it’s directly derogatory) is ridiculous.

You make the name what it is as you grow up into a good citizen hopefully.
 
Suleiman said:
Pretty much the bolded part of your post . You can have good and bad people of the same name.

@sweep_shot above posted that names beloved to Allah are Abdur Rahman and Abdullah- yet there are people of those names before and after Islam who were downright evil as well.

Same with Yazid as @DeadlyVenom mentioned. The well known one has a lot of negative stigma but there were many other companions of the prophet PBUH named Yazid including the uncle of the well known Yazid who was a pious companion unlike his nephew of the same name.

Names shouldn’t be given this much weightage unless you deliberately name your child something inappropriate like Lucifer or something.

As you yourself said there’s a soldier and am sure many other regular honest hardworking citizens named Aurangzeb. If I saw a Muslim family with a kid named that I wouldn’t blink an eye, but I would do a double take if I saw a Hindu family naming their kids Aurangzeb or a Muslim family giving their kid a Hindu or Sikh name.. think that’s pretty normal. But using the these names which have perhaps an ounce of controversy in the last few years to bully the kid or mistreat the family is absolutely asinine and throwing rabid idiots who have nothing better to do but harass others for not naming their child something they approve of (unless it’s directly derogatory) is ridiculous.

You make the name what it is as you grow up into a good citizen hopefully.
Click to expand...
No disagreement on the principle that nothing in a name, it’s the actions that matter 👍
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top