Talk:Rajput/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

You want to have a go at it with Sikhs

Obviously wisesabre you do not know a thing about history. First of all the Sikhs were heavily persecuted by the muslims for not converting to Islam. Second the Sikhs came from Hindu families, and it was a custom for the eldest son among Hindus living in the Western parts of Punjab to give their eldest son to the Khalsa to fight the muslims.

When you say Muslims, are you referring to the Mughals or the local families who had no part in the killing of their leaders? Be spicific and don't generalise, thats a very naive and insensitive comment to make.

Third all the Sikh Gurus had their chidren married within their caste. Fourth, my maternal uncle (Mamaji) is Maharaja Bhupinder Singh of Patiala, the families of Nabha Faridkot, Jind and Patiala are all Sikh Royalty, whoa are you trying to argue with on Sikhism? Guru Nanak Devji even referred to the coming of Babur and Islamic hordes as the coming of Satin, read the Granth Sahib.

But he also visited Mecca and paid homage to many great Sufi Saints of India also didn't he? He also read and studied the holy Quran and his close friends Saint Bu Ali Shah Qalandar and Saint Mian Mir both aided his temple construction. Your contradictory above point proves your ignorance to these simple facts of your Spiritual leader. The only way to redeem your statement here would be to acknowledge that the hoards of Satan are referred to as Babur and his men, as opposed to Islam. If it was Islam, then those Islamic friends and Islams Holiest site wouldn't have been respected and loved by him.

You people murdered Guru Arjan Dev ji, Guru Tegh Bahadur ji, Bhai Satidass ji, Bhai Dyaldass ji, Mata Gujari ji, Bhai Haqiqat Rai, Bhai Mani Singh, Bhai Taru Singh, Bhai Subeg Singh.

No we didn't. Your Mughal kings did. We are here today, we are not responsible for the actions of others. That is our birth right as confirmed by your own scriptures where it invalidates the caste system of having one born lower than other, when we are all borne of the same clay.And importantly we are not responsible for the sin of another. A newborn child comes into this world innocent and only accumulates what is sewn. This is Islamic and Sikhi. The virtue filled words of The Guru Granth Saheb can't be denied by you. Read it properly and stop blaming others wrongfully. This clearly expresses your biased prejudice.

Baba Deep singh was born on the 20th January 1682 A.D. in the village of Pahuwind in district of Amritsar. His father's name was Bhai Bhagtu. He went to Anandpur on the Vaisakhi of 1700 A.D., where after obtaining baptism (into Sikhism) he started learning weaponry and riding from the Sikhs. From Bhai Mani singh he began learning reading and writing Gurmukhi and interpretation of Guru's word. After spending two years at the Guru's institution, he returned to his village in 1702 A.D. got married and started living there. He went to Guru Gobind Singh at Talwandi Sabo in 1705 AD where he helped Bhai Mani singh in making copies of Guru Granth sahib. After the Guru sahib left for Delhi, he took up the service of looking after Gurudwara Damdama sahib.

In 1709 A.D., he joined Baba Banda singh Bahadur in chastising the tyrants of Sadhaura and Sirhind. in 1733 A.D. Nawab Kapoor singh Singhpuria appointed him a leader of one squad. On Vaisakhi day of 1748 A.D., when Dal Khalsa was reorganized into twelve misls, he was entrusted with the leadership of Shaheedan Misl. In April 1757 A.D., Abdali during his fourth invasion was returning to Kabul from Delhi with precious booty and young men and women as captives, Singhs made a plan to rob him of the valuables and set the prisoners free. The squad of Baba Deep singh was deployed near Kurukshetra. His squad freed large number of prisoners and lightened the burden of valuables of Abdali considerably. While departing from Lahore, Abdali appointed his son Taimur Shah, the Governor of Lahore and told him, "Try to finish the Sikhs". In Accordance with his orders Taimur Shah started demolishing Gurudwaras and filling the holy pools with debris.

When Baba Deep singh came to know of the demolition of Harminder Sahib, he narrated it to the congregation of Damdama Sahib and said, "Diwali will be celebrated at Amritsar this year." Five hundred Singhs came forward to go with him. Baba Deep Singh offered prayers before starting for Amritsar, "My head may fall at Harminder Sahib." By the time squad reached Taran Tarn the number of Singhs going with Baba Deep singh reached approximately Five thousand.

At the news of the approach of Singhs, the Governor of Lahore sent his general with an army of Twenty thousand to face them. His army took up positions Six miles north of Amritsar and waited for the Singhs there. Both the armies clashed near Gohalwar on the 11th November, 1757 A.D. Fighting bravely Singhs pushed the army back and reached village Chabba where General Attal Khan came forward and inflicted a blow on Baba Deep Singh ji which made his neck lean to one side. A Sikh reminded him, "You had resolved to reach the periphery of the pool." On hearing the talk of the Sikh, he supported his head with his left hand and removing the enemies from his way with the strokes of his double-edged sword with his right hand, reached the periphery of Harmindar Sahib where he breathed his last. The Singhs celebrated the Diwali of 1757 A.D. in Harminder Sahib.

Excerpts of Banada Bahadur "This siege dragged on for eight months. Towards the end, an unfortunate dispute arose between Banda Singh and one of his most trusted advisers Baba Binod Singh. This man along with Baaj Singh and three others made up the war council that Banda was supposed to consult in any difficult situation. Binod Singh advised the evacuation of the fortress, but for some reasons of his own, Banda wished to fight it out there. Binod Singh was senior in age, and when this difference of views flared up into an open quarrel, Banda agreed to let Baba Binod Singh take his men out of the Fortress. Binod Singh and his supporters then charged out of the fortress and escaped.

Towards the end of November 1715, the remaining defenders were running out of ammunition and food. They were trying to exist on boiled leaves and the bark of trees, and were gradually reduced to mere skeletons. Then on 17th December, 1715, Abdus Samad shouted across the separating moat, that he would not allow any killing by his men, if Banda opened the gate to the fortress. When Banda ordered the gate be opened, the Mughals rushed in to spear or stab as many as three hundred of the half-dead and helpless defenders. About 200 were captured alive and handcuff'ed in twos. Banda Singh had chains round his ankles and his wrists, and was then locked in an iron cage. The Mughals were still afraid that he might escape and so they placed a guard on each side of the cage with swords drawn and the cage was placed aloft an elephant, which led the procession, which paraded through Lahore, hefore proceeding towards Delhi. Zakaria Khan, the son of the Lahore Governor, then took charge. and in order to give the Emperor a bigger present, he ordered his men to lop off more heads of Sikhs that they caught on the way, and he loaded them on to the carts that carried the 300 from (Gurdas Nangal). The rest Sikhs around 740 Sikhs along with Banda Singh were taken to Lahore, and thence to Delhi. The cavalcade to the imperial capital was a grisly sight. Besides 740 prisoners in heavy chains, it comprised seven hundred cartloads of the heads of the Sikhs with another 200 stuck upon pikes. On 26th Fehruary, 1716, this procession neared Delhi, and Farukh Siyar ordered his Minister Mohammed Amin Khan to go out to receive them and to prepare them for a suitable display in the town. On the 29th February, the citizens of Dclhi had lined the streets in full force, to get a good sight of the show. E:irst marched 2,000 soldiers each holding a Sikh head impaled on his upright spear (so many extra had been collected on the way). Next followed Banda Singh's elephant. A gold-laced red turban was placed on his head, and to add further mockery to his plight, a bright printed scarlet shirt was slipped on his body. Then carne 740 prisoners (500 had been collected on the way). These men were chained in pairs and thrown across the backs of camels. Their faces were blackened, and pointed sheepskin or paper caps were clapped on their heads. Behind this line came the Mughal Commanders, Mohammed Amin Khan, his son Kamar-ud-Din Khan, and his son-in-law Zakaria Khan. Their army men lined both sides of the streets.

However humiliating their plight, there were no signs of dejection or remorse on the faces of these Sikhs. In the words of Mohammed Harisi, author of the Ibratnama, who was on the spot that day: "The crowds were pressing forward to get a better view Many were enjoying the sight and taking hillarious jibes at them. But nothing changed the air of calm and resignation on the faces of those Sikhs. There were no signs of bitterness or dejection anywhere. They appeared to be happy with their lot, and were actually joined in groups singing their Guru's hymns. If anyone remarked that they were being punished for their sins, their retort was: 'No, it is all according to God's Will ?"' When we see the list of weapons captured from them at Gurdas Nangal we are really amazed at what they could do with so little. This is the list as supplied by Kanwar, the author of the Tazkrah: 1,000 swords, 217 small swords, 114 daggers, 278 shields, 173 bows, and 180 rifles. In spite of this scanty material they could have continued defying the Mughal might a long long time, if only their supplies of food had not run out.

C.R.Wilson, a Bengal civilian, has given in his Early Annals of the English in Bengal the following description of the entry of the Sikh captives into Delhi:

"Malice did its utmost to cover the vanquished with ridicule and shame. First came the heads of the executed Sikhs, stuffed with straw, and stuck on Bamboo's, their long hair streaming in the wind like a veil, and along with them to show that every living thing in Gurdaspur had perished, a dead cat on a pole. Banda himself, dressed out of mockery in a turban of a red cloth, embroidered with gold, and a heavy robe of brocade flowered with pomegranates, sat in an iron cage, placed on the back of an elephant. Behind him stood a mail-clad officer with a drawn sword. After him came the other 740 prisoners seated two and two upon camels without saddles. Each wore a high foolscap of sheepskin and had one hand pinned to his neck, between two pieces of wood. At the end of the procession rode the three great nobles, Muhammad Amin Khan, sent by emperor to bring in prisoners, Qamr-ud-Din, his son, and Zakariya Khan, his son-in-law. The road to the palace, for several miles was lined with troops and filled with exultant crowds, who mocked at the teacher (Guru) and laughed at the grotesque appearance of his followers. They wagged their heads and pointed the finger of scorn at the poor wretched a they passed. "HU! HU! infidel dog worshippers your day has come. Truly, retribution follows on transgression, as wheat springs from wheat, and barley from barley!! " Yet the triumph could not have seemed complete. Not all the insults that their enemies had invented could rob the teacher and his followers of his dignity. Without any sign of dejection or shame, they rode on, calm, cheerful, even anxious to die the death of martyrs. Life was promised to any who would renounce their faith, but they would not prove false to their Guru, and at the place of suffering their constancy was wonderful to look at. 'Me deliverer, kill me first,' was the prayer which constantly rang in the ears of the executioner.

"Khafi Khan illustrates the resolute will and complete devotion to their cause displayed by those Sikhs by telling us about one young prisoner who was about to be called up from the line. This boy had been newly married and had been hauled in by Zakaria Khan's soldiers on the way, only to swell the number of captives for the pleasure of Farukh Siyar. He was the only son of his widowed mother, who had hurried to plead her case before the Emperor. She said that her son had been beguiled into joining the Sikh bands, but was not a Sikh at heart. On that ground, the Emperor wrote out the order of pardon for the boy, and thc mother had hurried with that note and handed it to the officer-in-charge of the executions. The officer read out the pardon and the youth shouted out, "My mother has lied. I am a Sikh of my Guru in body and soul. Do not separate me from my departed friends. Please hurry so that I can join them now." Saying that he left the guards dumbfounded and rushed away to the front of the queue again. He lowered his head before the executioner and refused to budge until the sword had descended and cut him into two.

"That gory scene was enacted for seven days until all the ordinary captives had been disposed off. According to Mohammed Harisi, their bodies were loaded on wagons and taken out of town to be thrown to the vultures. The heads were hung up on trees or on poles near the market-place to be a lesson to all rebels. Not one from the 700 odd men had asked for pardon. The jailors next turned their attention to the 20 odd sardars, including Baaj Singh, Fateh Singh, Ahli Singh and Gulab Singh (of Lohgarh fame). These men were tortured to the extreme and were asked to divulge the place where they had buried all the treasures that had been looted from Sirhind, Batala and other towns during their better days.

"Failing to get any clues after three months, they prepared to put an end to their lives on Sunday, 9th June, 1716. Banda's cage was again hoisted on top of an elephant, and he was dressed in mock attire of an emperor, with a colourful red pointed turban on his head. His 4 year old son Ajai Singh was placed in his lap. The twenty odd sardars marched behind the elephant and this special procession then passed through the streets of Delhi, and headed for the Kutub-ud-din mausoleum of Bahadur Shah, near the present Kutab Minar. On reaching that graveyard, the captives were again offered a choice of two alternatives: conversion to Islam or death. Needless to say all chose death. The Sikh sardars were subjected to tortures before being executed. Their heads were then impaled on spears and arranged in a circle round Banda who was now squatting on the ground. There were hundreds of spectators standing around watching this scene. Here they made him paraded around the tomb of late emperor Bahadur Shah and put him to a barbarous death.

"Banda Singh was then given a short sword and ordered to kill his own son Ajai Singh. As he sat unperturbed, the cxecutioner moved forward and plunged his sword into the little child cutting the hody into two. Then pieces of flesh were cut from the body and thrown in Banda's face. His liver was removed and thrust into Banda Singh's mouth. The father sat through all this without any signs of emotion. His powers of endurance were to be tested still further. But before that, Mohammed Amin Khan, who was standing near spoke as follows: "From your manner so far you appear to be a man of virtue, who believes in God, and in doing good deeds. You are also very intelligent. Can you tell me why you are having to suffer all this here ?"

"Banda's reply was, "When the tyrants oppress their subjects to the limit, then God sends men like me on this earth to mete out punishment to them. But being human, we sometimes overstep the laws of justice, and for that we are made to pay whilst we are still here. God is not being unjust to me in any way."

"The executioner then stepped forward and thrust thc point of his dagger into Banda's right eye, pulling out thc eyeball. He then pulled out the other eyeball. Banda sat through all this as still as a rock. His face gave no twitch of pain.

"The cruel devil then took his sword and slashed off Banda's left foot, then both his arms. But Banda's features were still calm as if he was at peace with his Creator. Finally they tore off his flesh with red-hot pincers, and there being nothing else left in their book of tortures, they cut his body up into a hundred pieces, and were satisfied. (These details of the torture are given in full, by the following writers: Mohammed Harisi, Khafi Khan, Thornton, Elphinstone, Daneshwar and others).

The ambassadors of the East India company, John Surman and Edward Stephenson, who were in Delhi then and had witnessed some of these massacres, wrote to the governor of Fort William: "It is not a little remarkable with what patience Sikhs undergo their fate, and to the last it has not been found that one apostatized from his new formed religion. "

On June 9th , came the turn of Banda Singh. Harshest torments had been reserved for him. His eyes were pulled out and his hands and feet chopped off. His flesh was torn with red hot pincers. The end came, mercifully for him with the executioner's axe falling on his neck. With his end Sikhism did not die on the contrary Sikhism came out strong and the torch of Banda Singh Bahadur was carried with new Warriors like Nawab Kapur Singh Virk, Sardar Budh Singh, Sardar Charat Singh, Baba Deep Singh ji Shaheed, Sardar Jassa Singh ji Ahluwalia, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Hari singh Bhangi, etc.

The entire history of the Sikhs is one of bravery and survival in the face of Islamic persecution. Even to this day, when I go to Sirhind, at the Gurudwara they always tell us the story about how you tried to convert the two twin sons of Guru Gobind Singh to Islam and because they refused, they were cooked in oil and bricked up alive.

Again your blaming us for acts we are not responsible for. Read above point where even your Holy Scripture absolves an innocent of the sins of his father or another? God clearly states that there is no compulsion in religion. It is the condition of 'free will', if the idiots who perpetrated your said crimes didnt know this, it was their fault, not ours. Our religion has no place for this. But in the same way I could easily blame all Sikhs for the forced conversions in the same torturous manner done by Ranjit Singhs Hoards in northern Punjab? Many Hindus and Muslims were burned alive by his men in front of their wives and children and THEN they asked if they wanted the same fate or a safe one with 'their' faith. I know Sikhism forbids this also and so wont blame YOU as you have ignorantly and wrongly blamed us for the practices of others...

You constantly claim this and that, just go to www.jihadwatch.org read what they say and all the links, there are even links from pakistan.

Anyways by the orders of the present chief minister of Punjab's father (yes, Captain Amarinder Singh) and the Maharaja of Nabha, all the muslims were chased out of the Phulkian states by the Royal Sikh army.

Is this a noble act that you are trying to lay pride in? These people did nothing to you, your leaders or ancestors and yet you hassle them because they dont accept your faith? And then you state the tyranny of the 'Muslim Kings'. You really need help, you have a twin personality issue. Would Guru Nannek be proud to have heard and seen this? Are you saying that he would have relished at this sight today by his followers?

So you want to argue with me more about Sikhs and history. I have read your messages before and you are trying to play the Sikh card, your mistake was that Sardar Balak Singh's Greatgrandson was online you Nazi-Holocaust denier.

We dont deny the holocaust, I dont know where you received this information. The Jewish faith is also a Semetic Faith (by your previous definition) therefore it is the pre-faith brother of Islam? Most of the early Muslims were all Jews. You on the other hand are using this to spice up an image against us. Ok, do you agree or abhore the recent acts of massacre and widespread rape of Muslim community of Gujrat? That was done against innocents by even the women of Hinduism. Yet we dont blame Hinduism at all for the poor acts of it's illiterate followers. You can be anyone's son, your lack of knowledge of human rights and even Sikhisms view of sin and conversion is poor and faltered .

In the Gurudwaras to this day we remind the people of what the Muslims did. It is the history of the Sikh people, so don't try to play games.

Keep it up, why shouldn't you. But by blaming and generalising all Muslims, you are brainwashing and harming your youth against people who did nothing to you. Your ancestors and community through Ranjit Singh did more than enough torture to thousands to convert to Sikhism for the price of less than 10 Gurus. Dont worry, our traditions wont let us forget the torture inflicted on our innocents either, however we will not preach to our youth to hate ALL Sikhs as they are born NOW and aren't responsible for others actions....

To this day we recite the prayer "Tate Tabay Te Chare, Bund Bund Kataya" to remind us what the Muslims did to the Sikhs and the Hindus that were protected by the Sikhs.

We recite that in God we trust to open the eyes of the ignorant, to forgive our enemies, to enlighten our hearts with love and put us on the path of good and righteous, not the path that incurs his wrath and the displeasure of our neighbours. May the pain and angst in yoiur heart someday be quelled when you understand the truth my friend...

-Sumerendra

these questions were not at all raised by me that was Khurram.You may not belive, Sikkhs also became muslims called Chemaa.one of chema's i know is 'Dildar chema',mayor of Faisalabad ,his grandfather became muslims in partion of India-Pakistan.

one thing i want to add more, in Pakistan more than 90% people are natives, they all belong to one or another indian cast,religion....

There was also a sikh kingdom who had help ahmed shah abdali

anyways, cheers - الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 12:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Sumerendra,

I think you got the question wrong. I didn't question Sikhs or Sikhism. But I think you didn't acknowledge that Guru Nanak Dev was against the caste system. BTW what do you say about Rai Bular Bhatti? He too was a Muslim. Wasn't he? So you remember the deeds of Aurengzeb but apparently not many people know about Rai Bular Bhatti. Was he not a Rajput as well? I don't want to go into the other stuff but I wonder how can you say that I was involved in the killing of Guru Arjan Dev?

Khurram

Khurram, Wiserabe and others:

You guys are not following what is being said.

A rajput cannot convert to Islam out of choice. Read the sections written by Sumrendra and me in this "talk".

Then how did they convert at the hands of Saints? How did other Rajputs convert to the Sikhi path? If not by choice?

Majority of muslims were made on the sword. Plenty of examples given. Very small minority converted on there own thru saints, weakness in character (oops I am about to loose a kingdom let me join Islam and save my rear end.)

But in the next posts you state that Islam had and still must have excellent Saints? Handfuls of examples cannot justify the conversions of millions. To call the love and veneration of a Holy person is a weakness of character is a folly in emotional maturity. I doubt very much that should a tyrant ruler have the chance to take over a Kingdom he would allow the other to keep it should he convert, and lose all the potential assets on offer, if the Kingdom was that badly in trouble. But if a Rajput never flees from a fight, then by that logic, conversion would HAVE to be voluntary.

If a rajput who was converted to Islam and then marries converted non rajput muslims he is no longer a rajput. Yes genetically there might be some traces left in them but for all practical purposes this is a naught. Read the history,In Hindu rajputs a lower caste concubines son, though respected could never become the king.

This is a contradictory point. You state that marriage to a non Rajput Muslim would mean he is no longer Rajput i.e. he loses his status. But his genetic descendants would still have traces of Rajputi? How can this then be a genetic argument when you claim it as a status one? Of all the history I have read none supports or dictates this argument.

Rajputs take pride in there unbroken lineages which can be traced back many hundreds of years both on the father's side as well as the mother's side. This is very scientific and used in marriages to avoid certain gotras. In some sense our forefathers sensed "genetics" thousdands of years before this term was ever coined.

If u can not trace back your lineages, have no pride in rajput history, and argue blindly in favor of Islam how can u call yourself a rajput?

Many Muslim Rajputs have unbroken and authentic family trees to the patri archs. Your statement is a very bold and ill informed one.

Then you bring in the arguments of dalits and sikhs. Did all followers of Islam follow the prophet verbatim? Since the answer is no why do you bring caste and gurus in the discussion. Before you throw stones at others watch out for you own glass house.

Your point is well made, many followers of their proposed faiths never always reach the exact standards required for them. But a great many do, and it's this argument that holds true to the fact that not all Muslims are 'Mughal minded' and not all Hindus are BJP as Not all Sikhs are 'Ranjit Singh'. After the retorts to your above points, I believe the glass home point is more relevant to yourself Shiv.

It is evident that you hold Islam dearly and there is nothing wrong with that but do not come to a rajput forum and start expounding on the virtues of Islam.

Why not? When you clearly have no idea about Islam and blame it for the acts of it's followers, then it's only fair to clear this mess up. Who better to clear up the misgivings of a Rajput, then another Rajput? Maybe some day you will understand that we do feel kinship and pride even with you and other Rajputs regardless of ours and your faith. You have to be the first person I have come across to deny our Rajput status on the basis of our faith which is wrong. We only seek to clear this doubt from you. You can view us as the enemy but we dont view you as one.

Our ancestors fought Islam for last thousand years and made sure India remains Hindu and we see no virtue in Islam.

No, you obviously dont after seeing the poor examples of the followers i.e. the Mughals and others. But some of us did see virtue, our ancestors saw the virtues in the Holy Saints of Islam, just as our original Hindu ancestors saw it in the Maharishis and Yogis of ancient times. Piety and love attract the good in others. Virtue in any religion is virtue. We are content with Islam and knowing that the previous episodes reflected Turk and Persian political empire building, not Islamic principle. Maybe some day you will at least understand this and stop blaming the wrong party.

-Shiv

Reply , just 4 years ago my brother who is a doctor and has a mullah like personality(he tries to live according to islam), he was forced to marry rajput girl.uptill now all rajputs i know are only married to rajputs(i'm against this).and it is also said that if you are real rajput then you could be trace back(i have seen this many times happening)

'anyways this is my last reply here :)الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 14:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)'

Shiv,

I think it is useless arguing with you since you have been made pretty firm about the belief that all the Rajputs were converted to Islam by sword (shame to those Rajputs who couldn't convert those people back to Hindusim by the sword). You keep on giving examples that Akbar did kill Rajputs and somewhat infer that the only way out given to those Rajputs was to accept Islam but you can't explain the inclusion of Rajputs to his court (What about Maan Singh, Birbal and others?).

You have no idea about history nor care to learn it. All the points you raised in paragraph above have been clearly explained earlier in this discussion. Go and read it. This is what happens when one's head is in the sand and they cannot accept anything that is contrary to what they have been told. I did not want to bring it up, if you have the courage, but be specific, and tell us how your ancestors converted to Islam and then we will talk more.

(Already explained)

You accept Sikhs as Rajputs but you have problems with Muslims as Rajputs on the basis that Muslims don't accept the caste idealogy but when told that Sikhism also doesn't accept it, you say it is irrelevant.

No. It is is irrelevant for sikhs because they are practically hindus. They participate in Diwali/Holi/Dusshera and still do worship Durga/Shiva and other gods. Besides in the reign of Sikh kings hindus were never persecuted. Read more history. When Hari Singh Nalua became the governor of Kashmir he banned cow slaughter and it said till today muslims in kashmir do not eat beef

(I have asked both a Ramgharia brother and a Guru Singh Sabha brother (both Sikh lines) and both have unanimously stated that Sikhism is IT'S OWN DISTINCT RELIGION and although borrows in the virtue of both Islam and Hinduism, it is in no way "PRACTICALLY HINDUISM", they were very offended by this statement. They also advised that they DO NOT WORSHIP idols at all, although some communities do, this isn't a Sikh practice. Hindus may not have been persecuted, are you sure? In northern areas of India of old, many forts of Punjab were beseiged by Ranjit Singh and his armies, they contained local Muslim and Hindus, often of the same clans, and they cut off water, food, and eventually massacred many who refused to submit to 'their' faith. Many Sikhs in Pakistan TO THIS DAY deplore those acts. But you didn't confirm that Muslims weren't persecuted, at least that is one veracious implication of the dark days suffered by the innocent people who had nothing to do with the political mess India was in...The So called Sikh soldiers murdered and plundered every Muslim landlord and peasant, not even leaving their wives and children. These Muslims were not Mughals, Turks or Afghans, they didn't commit the acts you allege earlier invaders did, so why was this meted out to them? The locals still cry at the tyranny of those poor examples of Khalsa Singhs in many a region of what is now Pakistan and Punjab.)

I would like to take this opportunity to state that Islam doesn't refrain one from keeping the name of his/her tribe and lineage. What it does stress upon is that no one is better or lower only because of his/her lineage or tribe name. In order to be superior you have to have superior qualities. As far as tracing down the lineage is concerned, I think you can not trace your lineage further back then myself and for that matter to any Rajput living in Pakistan.

I can trace my lineage back to hundreds of years both on my father's side and mother's side. These are written records. Can you?

(Yes we can. If we are authentic suryavanshi and or Chandravanshi then yes we can to more than a hundreds of years, but into thousands into the time of the Mahabharata war. Records dont prove the character and worth of a man my friend. In the west it is always questioned that family trees can easily be negated, because it isn't dna proven with every generation to prove actual ancestral lineage.....)

Yes I hold Islam dearer to myself than what you hold Hinduism to yourself and I don't see anything wrong with it. And please be clear about one thing, Rajputs did not fight for the religion, they fought for their kingdoms and rule and for that they even wed their daughters to Muslim rulers. Didn't they?

Again you keep bringing up issues which you have no idea about. Rajputs fought to uphold there religion. This is what bothers me that you can make statements like these and still claim yourself to be a rajput. Muslims in India are still simmering over Babri Masjid. With the very first raids by muslims, in whatever area they could win they looted and destroyed temples(muslims like you think that temple breaking is hindu propaganda and never happened) and you claim that rajputs did not fight for the religion. Baseless arguments can only take you so far

(It hasn't been mentioned anywhere that temple looting didnt occur. On the contrary it happened to be the sought after places as the Brahmin Priests were known to hide much gold in the Idols and in secret chambers. Yes Muslims simmer at the Babri Masjid episode, because it happened in todays modern day and age where we have the opportunity to reflect and learn from out past. It happened to a Mossque which wasn't defaced for looting, but for sheer spite for a faith the satanists knew nothing about but blamed for everything. The land was the old Holy ground for a Hindu Deity and shouldn't have been converted to a Mosque, but it was converted into a House of respect and Prayer and I have never heard of a Hindu being passed away not to enter it for the reverence of the sacred land. So why destroy it? It wasn't turned into a brothel was it? It was wrong and please dont justify it Shiv, because we Muslims have in no way justified or claimed pride in what the old invaders did. Rajputs didnt always fight for religion, if that was the case then why did many Rajputs side with Akbar against other Rajputs? Why did many Rajputs side with other non Hindu invaders against other Rajputs-note both of Hindu origin? )

I would suggest that you take the title of Rajput from those families and states and the Hindu Rajputs living within them who bowed their head in front of Akbar, Jehangir, Sher Shah Suri, Shah Jehan and other Muslim rulers and include those meharajas of British India time as well who happily accepted the slavary of the British. Why don't they qualifiy for not being Rajputs? A person who changes his belief because he found something that to him is more truthful doesn't by any means qualify for being a coward.

If you are claiming that Hinduism is less truthful then Islam and that is why your ancestors converted then why are more hindu rajputs today not converting to Islam? What is stopping them?. Again you are clueless. You have been brainwashed with some doctrines and you do not have the guts to challenge it

(The claim you state that was made WAS NOT MADE and please dont imply it was, because it wasn't. You're argument can be turned back around to ask if Hindu Rajputs of proud lineages and stature were force converted then why dont THEY convert back to Hinduism? If you say because it's hard for people to leave their deities, then one mustn't forget that Rajput spirit as you describe would never allow a forced conversion, and no honourable Rajput would allow his greed for Kingdom change his honour in his creed...I am not doubting that some may have done so as you claim, but the majority? I dont think so. More of an exception rather than the rule here. Brainwashed or not, logic dictates otherwise and many notable Hindu scholars have also stated this same fact in contrast to your theory of mass conversion.)

Lastly, you are no purer Rajput than myself and be sure about it. I am a Muslim and I am a Rajput and I don't care if someone has a problem with it. My advice to you is that you think deeply about your criteria of regarding someone a Non-Rajput and be brave enough to admit that you can be wrong about your thoughts.

I am a pure rajput and you are not. We cannot accept you as a rajput because of reasons explained in previous exchanges. I am not wrong. Go back read the last part of first post I made in this discussion

(How can you lay purity to your blood over another simply by reading an email message? Your non acceptance of our Royal blood means nothing to us than the denials of a jealous or embittered member of a prejudiced ideology. We pray to Allah who we believe is Lord Brahma, and we believe in Krishna as a holy deity and Prophet of God just as the Hindus of Sindh believed Lal Shah Baz Qalandar was an Avtar. Our Hindu counterparts eat with us, come to our Darbaars (Islamic Holy Shrines) and also pray with us to the same Holy Saints for help, and they must get it otherwise the practice would never be popularly preached by their own ancestors to revere these Muslim Holy men. So where in our acts are we suddenly not as virtuous as you or any other Hindu? We believe in truth and fighting to protect the poor and bereft but pray to the lone Brahma as Allah. So you would imply us as inferior? I hope not, because those arguments dont make sense and haven't expressed or confirmed logic at all. I take Rajput to be Royal Son, Royal Blood, and I am a blue blooded son of a Warlord Clan who thrives on a challenge of a good fight whether physical or mental. But I have the direction from my faith to tolerate the poor natures in others, but even I am not perfect and dont claim to be. You have no authority and nor does any other Rajput to take the title of Rajput away from anybody AT ALL. So please get with the programme ;) )