Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

[Prem]

There is a saying in Hindi, "Sau sunaar ki, ek lauhar ki!" So before hitting out at Pakistan, India may wait out a hundred attacks from Pakistan, but then Pakistan would have to pay a heavy price. Which is a comforting thought. But what if India is not paying attention and not counting the hundred strokes?
That is why it is important to document all Islamic atrocities.

Shishupala was protected by the words given to his mother by Lord Krishna. When the time period was over , Shishupal lost his Sheesh in then blink of the eye . Same way Pawk prtected by 3.5 needs to enjoy Idda period before they experience the real pain of loosing Soverginnity.

IMHO, Reverse Islamic Treatment And Methods(RITAM) is the only practicle solution. If some one do Taqqiest protest for grotesque mess by claiming this or that is/was not real Islam then the only answer can be we judge and know of Islam as we have experienced ourslef over many generation as well recorded in history and need not know or take risk of knowing any other dimention of Real or imagined Islam .

[brihaspati]

Why does the assertion of Muslim on Muslim slavery have to be established only by removing any association of Hindus being similarly enslaved by the muslims? Is it too difficult to retain both? How about Ghulam Kush! or Banda Kush!

[Y I Patel]

On page 5 I had posted about an authoritative source that indicated "Hindu Kush" as being a corruption of "Sindhu Ghosh".

The authoritative source I mentioned was the most authoritative source of all - the fertile imagination of one Y I Patel.

The responses provoked were very interesting to read. Please do revisit them in light of this revelation. Hopefully you will see the responses in a whole new light.

[ramana]

Et Tu Yogi!

So Shiv is not alone.

[KLNMurthy]

Why does the assertion of Muslim on Muslim slavery have to be established only by removing any association of Hindus being similarly enslaved by the muslims? Is it too difficult to retain both? How about Ghulam Kush! or Banda Kush!

Such an == argument is very familiar to us if we replace "slave" with "victim of terrorism". In both cases, Hindus are made to believe that somehow pakis being themselves victims of the crime means they cannot possibly be responsible for the crime. It also shifts the ground to Hindus being "equally" responsible for the same or similar crimes. Here the Hindus' outrage at the crime (and desire to mete out punishment) is mitigated by a fake sense of fellowship in suffering.

For pakis the tactic, and Hindus' susceptibility to it, affords an easy way to escape any scrutiny and consequences of their present crimes, let alone past crimes of their culture.

I am coming around to believing that there is a kind of moral spinelessness on the part of Hindus that just lets egregious wrongs slide, because they feel too uncomfortable to take on the mantle of Ramachandra's righteous wrath.

[Y I Patel]

I had a dream. I dreamt that if enough people would have picked it up and said with a straight face and conviction "I read on an authoritative historical forum that the true name of Hindu Kush is Sindhu Ghosh" then maybe in a hundred years it would creep into popular legend, and we would be good to go.

Unfortunately it was just a wild ass dream.

[ramana]

And made an ass of your firends.

Was it right?

[Y I Patel]

What happened, I think, is that people read my post way too seriously, and in what turned out to be very revealing of the current collective psyche on BRF. I take it as an unintended consequence of what was mostly a facetious, smart ass attempt at distorting history, the Y I Patel way.

[shiv]

1) Perhaps dont care what Muslims do to Muslims. Mainoo Ki (Whats it to me), far more worried about what Islamism is going to do to them.

Well said. In fact you are right that Islam has already figured out centuries ago that if kafirs are attacked they will not really care what Muslims do to Muslims. So, in a given area, once all kafirs are killed, anyone in dar-ul harb (outside) will be least concerned about what Muslims do to each other in dar ul Islam.

That is 100% correct.

By plain evolution, Islam has gone further than that. Once you have population of pure Muslims, they will live primeval lives. No question of "modernity" or "development". To a pure Islamic community these things don't matter and for kafirs on the outside, these things should not matter either "Mainoo ki?" as you say.

As long as kafirs can be happy with that, as we are happy with Somalia, there is no need to discuss this any further. But if that group of pious Muslims, hungry and sex starved as all pure Islamic communities are bound to become over time start attacking kafirs of dar ul harb for the purpose of looting, then we have to think of a response.

The only sensible response is to wipe out all Muslims who attack us. This is like stopping infiltration at the border. But still attacks like 26/11 will get through. We could then say "Mainoo ki"? Maybe it is better for us to do that for a while. But if attacks continue and we are unable to "wipe out" all Muslims from that pure Islamic society next door, what possible response can we have?

One response is to hope that pure Muslims have retained half a brain and will understand what their faith is all about. Someone must try and tell them If they don't understand, fine. "Mainoo ki?" I lose nothing.

In the past a whole lot of "Mainoo Kis'" converted. That is a good option. I can imagine a Hindu ancestor of mine in the area called Pakistan having his father killed, his mother and sister raped and then he converts and says "I have won. I am on the winner's side. It's only my mother who got raped, not me. Now i can rape someone else's mother.

Mainoo ki?

[shiv]

Why does the assertion of Muslim on Muslim slavery have to be established only by removing any association of Hindus being similarly enslaved by the muslims?

Absolutely correct. It seems to be a human failure of understanding in this mode of communication. I tried to point that out earlier in this thread. If I say "I don't like chicken" it should not be interpreted as meaning "I like mutton".

Pointing out the fact that Islam encourages killing and allows the killing of Muslims should not make people think that Islam is being absolved of murdering non Muslims as it is designed to do. But people on this board seem to instantly translate "islam kills Muslims" as "Islam does not kill non Muslims"

Why do people do that?

[shiv]

On page 5 I had posted about an authoritative source that indicated "Hindu Kush" as being a corruption of "Sindhu Ghosh".

The authoritative source I mentioned was the most authoritative source of all - the fertile imagination of one Y I Patel.

What is fascinating to me is the number of opinions on the topic. It would be difficult for me to be both honest and still argue that only I am right. I am unlikely to be 100% right. I personally don't think "Hindu kush" derives its name from "Hindu slaughter". I personally think it is older and has a different etymology. That is my personal viewpoint.

But there is a political goal that can be gained by Hindus by accepting the meaning as "Hindu slaughter". The name is living geographic proof that Muslim invaders slaughtered Hindus and that they were murderers and not benevolent harbingers of an egalitarian society into a decadent India.

The question to me is how far can this political goal of proving that Islamic invaders were murderers take us? In an era when Islam was touted as God's gift to kafir India and the genocides and slaughters of Hindus were denied by Indians and the world, it was necessary to cling on the "proof" like the name "Hindu Kush".

But I think the fact that Islam is a murderous religion is well established now. Even Indians do not need to be shown "proof" by saying "Look! Islamic hordes were murderers. See the name of this entire 700 km mountain range!". The information available on the subject is large and the utility of the name "Hindu Kush" in proving a point is less than it used to be.

So should it be sidelined and forgotten? Or can it be used in a different way. Please excuse me for restating my case.

The utility of the name "Hindu Kush" as meaning "Hindu slaughter" is now much less for Hindus. The point about Islamic invaders having been murderers is well known. But Pakistanis still have some utility for the name as a symbol of Islamic pride of past glory where the murder of Hindus is glorified and celebrated. That pride can be killed (as it needs to be IMO) by questioning the meaning of the name and reverting to an older, alternate meaning while pointing out that Islam is murderous and Muslim slaves were probably traded there as well. That was the only justification I had for saying that Hindu Kush could well have been Mussalman Kush. Any Paki who protests and says "No Hindu Kush means Hindu slaughter" will get the response "Of course. Muslims are murderers of Hindus. That is what we are saying. Thanks for proving our point"

Catch 22. Heads we win. Tails they lose.

[ManishH]

If one believes that Hindu Kush is an older name, or derivative of an older name; there is one datapoint:

Al-Beruni who visited India ~1000AD mentions Panjshir valley, Kabul, Gandhar, Pariyatra Parvata etc. but not Hindukush. Ibn Batuta visited India ~14th century mentions Hindukush. It's an argumentum e silentio, but still I think the name got coined somewhere in between this period.

Linguistically, kush cannot come from Persian 'koh/kuh' (mountain) which comes from Old Pers Kaofa. *h>*sh is irregular, the reverse is possible. Here, even the reverse is ruled out as the persian word is semitic in origin.

So it's more likely that 'kush' really means slaughter.

[Y I Patel]

parsuram's initial post was a poigniant one, and perhaps the reason it seems to have had such resonance as to spawn so many pages of responses is that it struck a chord in so many of us.

It is a mistake to think that we get history just from NCERT approved books - as in parsuram's telling of his own epiphany, all of us have absorbed our share of itihaas as something that gets told and handed down generations. And as far as coexistince with Islam goes and seeing its present manifestaion, again, if you are from a city like Ahmedabad, it is not something you need to read about to understand how to deal with it. If anything, I am increasingly of the opinion that there is a fine line between learning from history and getting stuck in it. Too many people have their blood boil, and too many bad things happen when old wounds are reopened. This is something I have not just read, but growing up in a highly communaly sensitive area, lived and relived first hand until maturity.

Islam has done bad things to India. And to other places in the world. But it is a dying force, and the Idea of Modern India a powerful rising tide. India will triumph anyway, and when it does I want it to be a culture that has healed old wounds. If it were in my power, I would airbrush away a name that constantly reminds me of the painful past my motherland was subjected to. Raising a confident, optimistic and genial new India is more important for me than settling 1000 year old scores. Hence the wild ass dream.

[KLNMurthy]

parsuram's initial post was a poigniant one, and perhaps the reason it seems to have had such resonance as to spawn so many pages of responses is that it struck a chord in so many of us.

It is a mistake to think that we get history just from NCERT approved books - as in parsuram's telling of his own epiphany, all of us have absorbed our share of itihaas as something that gets told and handed down generations. And as far as coexistince with Islam goes and seeing its present manifestaion, again, if you are from a city like Ahmedabad, it is not something you need to read about to understand how to deal with it. If anything, I am increasingly of the opinion that there is a fine line between learning from history and getting stuck in it. Too many people have their blood boil, and too many bad things happen when old wounds are reopened. This is something I have not just read, but growing up in a highly communaly sensitive area, lived and relived first hand until maturity.

Islam has done bad things to India. And to other places in the world. But it is a dying force, and the Idea of Modern India a powerful rising tide. India will triumph anyway, and when it does I want it to be a culture that has healed old wounds. If it were in my power, I would airbrush away a name that constantly reminds me of the painful past my motherland was subjected to. Raising a confident, optimistic and genial new India is more important for me than settling 1000 year old scores. Hence the wild ass dream.

not so much a matter of settling any scores, but to have the freedom to learn and speak the truth and assign responsibility, learn lessons. Otherwise there is not much point in freedom.

[Theo_Fidel]

Why does the assertion of Muslim on Muslim slavery have to be established only by removing any association of Hindus being similarly enslaved by the muslims?

Why do people do that?

It is an extension of secularism.

As long as Islam killed everyone equally it is being secular only. So no need for a religious confrontation. Continue killing equally only.

When AMMA cleared a road near TN for Quadrilateral project, she made it a point to demolish a temple, church and mosque all on the same day. Perfect secularism only. It worked too, people did not riot as much as usual. Indian metality of I can tolerate a tone of Sh*t as long as some falls on your house as well.
------------------------------------------

Hnair,

It is not a question of green on green 'oppression', it is a question of lack of 'escape' mechanisms. Islam has done a sterling job selling other 'escape' mechanisms, such as suicide bombing & 72 or Jihad for surplus oppressed males or hatred for kaffirs. In Christian churches, surplus boys join the various priesthoods, surplus population emigrated around the world, etc. In deep rural India there is no escape, hence migration to cities, different states, change names, change religion, etc.

Ny Dad has a tenant from Bihar who has lived in TN for 16 years. Goes by the name of Hitesh Nessamanni and speaks fluent Tamil now. Daughter's name is Priya Nessamanni and dresses/studies (16 hours a day)/speaks like a perfect SDRE. Family was running away from something. This option was not available earlier.

[Murugan]

Sanskrit Kush==

कुश kuza adj. wicked
कुश kuza adj. depraved
कुश kuza m. sacred grass used at certain religious ceremonies
कुश kuza m. grass
कुश kuza m. one of the great dvIpas or divisions of the universe
कुश kuza m. rope used for connecting the yoke of a plough with the pole
कुश kuza n. inebriate
कुश kuza n. mad
कुश kuza n. water

[Sanku]

But I think the fact that Islam is a murderous religion is well established now.

But it is a dying force, and the Idea of Modern India a powerful rising tide

Gentlemen with due respect both of you are being way to optimistic here or simply misreading the situation. In reality the situation is quite grave -- I would have loved if you were right, but unfortunately I do not think it is so.

Being on BRF, being among like minded well informed and educated folks, cocooned by a set of moderators who do not quell difficult topics, it is some time a little easy to forget whats outside.

I have a challenge -- on a public forum (virtula or otherwise) outside BRF, while living in India, outline 1% of what has been said in this thread. Note everything said here is true and is based on earlier documents -- however try and convince 1% of net readers about 1% of the truth contained herein.

Indians in general are just not ready to understand, they go into a state of shocked denial or mark you as "one of the extremists" all for saying what Timur's biographers themselves chronicled extensively.

Sorry Gentlemen, we are outnumbered, under informed of the real thread and hanging by a slender thread on lands which are barely ours any more. We are not resurgent, we are getting pushed, into a limited space, both physically and in terms of spaces where we can make a impact.

I would worry about the very basics first.

[KLNMurthy]

But I think the fact that Islam is a murderous religion is well established now.

But it is a dying force, and the Idea of Modern India a powerful rising tide

Gentlemen with due respect both of you are being way to optimistic here or simply misreading the situation. In reality the situation is quite grave -- I would have loved if you were right, but unfortunately I do not think it is so.

Being on BRF, being among like minded well informed and educated folks, cocooned by a set of moderators who do not quell difficult topics, it is some time a little easy to forget whats outside.

I have a challenge -- on a public forum (virtula or otherwise) outside BRF, while living in India, outline 1% of what has been said in this thread. Note everything said here is true and is based on earlier documents -- however try and convince 1% of net readers about 1% of the truth contained herein.

Indians in general are just not ready to understand, they go into a state of shocked denial or mark you as "one of the extremists" all for saying what Timur's biographers themselves chronicled extensively.

Sorry Gentlemen, we are outnumbered, under informed of the real thread and hanging by a slender thread on lands which are barely ours any more. We are not resurgent, we are getting pushed, into a limited space, both physically and in terms of spaces where we can make a impact.

I would worry about the very basics first.

As I understand it, the coming Communal Violence Bill would make much of this discussion punishable under Indian law. It may be already illegal under "hurting the sentiments of minorities" laws that are already on the books. Even if it is not prosecuted, you will have a public law & order situation which will lead to the discussion being suppressed at the least.

[harbans]

As I understand it, the coming Communal Violence Bill would make much of this discussion punishable under Indian law. It may be already illegal under "hurting the sentiments of minorities" laws that are already on the books.

Exactly. It's alright for the ignorant to say..'whats wrong with a bill that's respectful'. There's bliss and even logic in the ignorant POV. What is appalling is to the ''1%'' who do understand. It takes that chance of spreading the Truth, or our POV to the rest. Though IMHO 1% may be an understatement. The real challenge will be fought on the internet. The ignoramus will slowly put up the battle there..blocking information etc. Maybe a freedom of speech debate itself will lead to many being in the know about Islam and the perils associated with the Anti-Communal bill being fostered. Everything is a big IF here as far as policy goes. INC seems to be in a deep slumber and keen label Dharmics as fundamentalists. Maybe in the future Hindutva get replaced by a more inclusive cultural slogan like Dharmatva or something. Maybe from that a larger constituency that embraces and respects our cultural core will emerge. Our nation is the land of Dharma after all. Pluralism within the Dharmic fold is intrinsic. Under such a scenario maybe again..other religions will have equal rights as us, but no special ones. Something, somewhere though has to give way, though to many it looks an easy sail for Islamism. But i do feel something will give way.

[shiv]

If one believes that Hindu Kush is an older name, or derivative of an older name; there is one datapoint:

Al-Beruni who visited India ~1000AD mentions Panjshir valley, Kabul, Gandhar, Pariyatra Parvata etc. but not Hindukush. Ibn Batuta visited India ~14th century mentions Hindukush. It's an argumentum e silentio, but still I think the name got coined somewhere in between this period.

Linguistically, kush cannot come from Persian 'koh/kuh' (mountain) which comes from Old Pers Kaofa. *h>*sh is irregular, the reverse is possible. Here, even the reverse is ruled out as the persian word is semitic in origin.

But kush could come from kesh, the Kushan empire or a corruption of the Greek name Caucasus (Caucasus Indicus). Al Beruni was quite aware of the killings of Hindus, as per his biography but it says that he probably did not get on with Mahmud at Ghazna.

No proof either way

[Lalmohan]

caucasus indicus also indicates a frontier geography - caucasia referred to the steppe lands, and indica clearly to the sindhu valley
the mountains could have been named (naturally) as a denominator of a boundary, and then muslim chronicler's adjusted its meaning to suit their times and political preferences

[shiv]

Being on BRF, being among like minded well informed and educated folks, cocooned by a set of moderators who do not quell difficult topics, it is some time a little easy to forget whats outside.

I have a challenge -- on a public forum (virtula or otherwise) outside BRF, while living in India, outline 1% of what has been said in this thread. Note everything said here is true and is based on earlier documents -- however try and convince 1% of net readers about 1% of the truth contained herein.

Indians in general are just not ready to understand, they go into a state of shocked denial or mark you as "one of the extremists" all for saying what Timur's biographers themselves chronicled extensively.

Sorry Gentlemen, we are outnumbered, under informed of the real thread and hanging by a slender thread on lands which are barely ours any more. We are not resurgent, we are getting pushed, into a limited space, both physically and in terms of spaces where we can make a impact.

I would worry about the very basics first.

Let me come to some basics myself.

I am not sure if you or anyone else has been in the position of a physician who sees a successful man with doting parents, wife and children who turns out to be HIV positive. Prima facie there may be no way of telling whether he got that from sexual misadventure or some other route - but this man's life is set to change. Whatever the changes that this man's life might have to undergo, it is usually not the best thing to collect the entire concerned and anxious family in one room and announce loudly that this man is HIV positive today and may get AIDS somewhere down the line.

In other words I am talking about a "delicate" situation that needs handling with some care. If I happen to be the physician and if a friend "challenges" me to announce the fact in public, I will refuse, although I would readily share information with colleagues and family members who need to know in multiple smaller one on one meetings.

All analogies break down after a point, so let me talk about a peculiar problem that we in India face. I will try and say it in a diplomatic and secular manner.

We all know that communal relations, a euphemism used in India for the interaction between Hindus, Muslims and Christians are sometimes strained to the point of violence. Let us assume that anyone can be at fault. Maybe Hindus are a problem on some occasions. Muslims on other occasions. (For convenience I will leave out Christians for the time being)

No nobody wants communal strife. As Indians in India we desire peace and harmony. And by and large most people tend to abide by that guiding principle. But when disputes arise that lead to injury and/or death, there is a need to rake up uncomfortable issues about attitudes that people of different faiths. If Hindus are bigots, someone is going to say it. Maybe it is a lie. Perhaps someone is disgusted and frightened by all those multi-armed gods with blood on their faces, dancing on demons and says that Hindus follow a religion of violence and killing. Once the accusation is made it will need to be settled in some way. One way of settling the issue is to maim and kill the person/s who said that. But in India that would be
1. Against the guiding principles of coexistence in India
2. Prove that Hindus are bigots
For this reason the issue is best settled by understanding between Hindus and Muslims about what angers them and what motivates them.

Now look at it from the Hindu angle. I am talking about India (Not Pakistan, America, Europe or West Asia. India) Imagine a situation where a Hindu makes a long list of how Islam is violent and Muslims are violent because Islam is violent. Muslims too have a choice of maiming and killing in response to that. If that was done, it would prove that Muslims are violent. If Muslims are concerned by such an accusation they would rather take the peaceful route of negotiating and trying to understand the position of the other party.

This is the way we try to do things in India. Not everyone may like it, but we try.

But in the Indian subcontinent we have a peculiar situation which is unique in the world. We have a Pakistan next door which consists of Indians who split away saying that Islam was threatened in India. And to use an absolutely brilliant expression that I learned today on the Pakhana thread, Indians see Pakistan as a separate country, but Pakistanis see themselves as a separate electorate of India and seek influence within India. This sets up a special dynamic between India and Pakistan which has a bearing on Hindu-Muslim relations. There are things about Hindus which Indian Muslims might never say in pubic. But Pakistanis say those things out loudly.

This leaves Hindus in India in a situation where they too have things to say about Islam and Muslims, but cannot say it because of the sensitivity and the fact that Hindus in India too do not want to say some things out loud.

But the fact that Pakistan the state spreads misinformation about Hindus, and India the state does not spread misinformation about any religion means that Hindus feel specially targeted at an international level - having to answer for accusations of "Hindu habits" and "Hindu bigotry" based on a litany of state sponsored misinformation from Pakistan. Try as they might the scrambling Hindus cannot easily catch up to change viewpoints about Hindus and reverse the misinformation. But Hindus have gone a long way towards addressing all the issues that they are accused of promoting. If they don't do that, they have Pakistan next door reminding them of their follies.

Maybe Indian Hindus are misinformed about the Muslims of Pakistan. Maybe Hindus labor under all sorts of delusions about Islam as practised in Pakistan. Muslim behavior in Pakistan is definitely different from that in India. Which is right? Pakistanis say they represent Islam. Does that mean that Indian Muslims do not represent islam? But unless Hindus express these sources of confusion out loud Muslims, India or Pakistani, will not know. So it is important for Hindus to voice their judgement of Muslim behavior in Pakistan. Hindus may be wrong, but Pakistanis will have to prove them wrong. If Indian Muslims want to assist Indian Hindus in understanding Pakistani practice of Islam I would welcome it. But in order for all that to happen, Hindus must say what they see and feel about Islam in Pakistan

Islam in Pakistan is a violent religion that encourages wanton killing. Stories that it is a religion of peace are lies. And stories that Muslims do not kill Muslims are lies. Islamic egalitarianism and kindness to women are lies as far as Pakistan is concerned. These points can be supported by a lot of evidence. These accusations must be made. Let people who think differently show up what is wrong in these impressions, just as Hindus scramble to set right misinformation about them. If Islam in Pakistan is being misrepresented by Hindu accusers all the evidence to the contrary needs to be explained. That cannot happen unless it is said and an opportunity given for the accused to redeem themselves and show how wrong and bigoted the accusers are. Right now I don't see any of that coming out of Pakistan.

Sorry OT again. But I am bound to make a reply to the post directed at me.

[Prem]

Doc,
This brings us back to what is Real Islam and who has seen, known and experienced this mysterious entity. Since Bottom lines need to be drawn for distinction sake then our experience with Islam as represented by Pakistan and doubly fortified by the attitude, writtings of many Muslim Intellectuals within India provide suficient window to peek into the Mind Of Real Islam (MORI)= aka Khutti .

[brihaspati]

No "kesh" was never used. It is dangerous to make synonyms just out of sound similarity. If you do - then you have to provide the route of transmutation and the corresponding justification for it with precedence.

As has already been mentioned - AlBeruni never mentions anything about Hindu Kush, or even remotely sounding like that. He has reasons to know - he lived in the general area for a long time. Both when he tried to stay away from Mahmud, as well as when he was forced to stay on in hi court. He and his friend Ibn Sina both travelled here extensively - although the latter stayed away completely from Mahmud and even is supposed to have celebrated Mahmud's death with a fest.

If it was already a Hindu/Sanskrit name - Al Beruni would have had no reason to withold it - since he mentions clearly many other Sanskrit place names/identifiers. He learnt the script - so he would be able to verify [which he says he does whenever possible] from texts too.

Moreover, I have seen a lot on this thread about Indicus Caucasus - actually it is spelled Kaukasos Indicus by contemporary Greeks, and the earliest such record from teh Greek side comes from Ptolemy. However he clearly mentions Paropanisos as the central and key range - with Kaukasus Indicus as the eastern part. Paropanisos mountains and its inhabitants - the Paropanisadai - occupy quite a large part of Ptolemy's descriptions.The northern part is clearly mentioned as Himaos.

If Kaukasos Indicus was turned into "Sindhu" kesh - we need to wish away the obvious second "ka". Otherwise the likely route will touch Sindhu kukesh. Now kesh as hair or braid could have been applied to glaciers or cols coming down from peaks - but then one has to identify a mountain range as Sindhu. There is no such reference - as all debates and hairsplitting about the origins of the word sindhu end up with refernces to water [pooled/dammed/or flowing or intermittent lake connected river - to large expanse of water].

If Sindhu kesh was turned into Kaukasus Indicus - it would lead to Kasos Indicus. Problem again is with the "Kau".

It would have been nice if we did nt have Paropanisos. But it spoils the broth. For it may actually indicate a possible Greek corruption of a local corruption of a Sanskrit name related to Pariyatra Parvata.

[Sanku]

Sorry OT again. But I am bound to make a reply to the post directed at me.

Shiv-ji thanks for taking the trouble to explain your thoughts, however I still dont get it, as long as you are a Hindu, you can not speak about others, period. It does not matter if you talk how others have hurt you, or whether others are hurting each other.

You are a Hindu, and they are them and you cant talk about them -- without getting into the same old loop.

Things are pretty black and white.

You will be restricted to speaking to "close circle of the patient" once more, at best.

Sorry about this -- but I still cant see a way out of the situation. The basic as it stands today is that you cant speak the truth, of any variety if any of the communities takes offense -- and this will offend them (they are anyway looking for excuses)

[parsuram]

This business of legeslating PC discussion and talk in India will have to be reversed and trashed at some time or other. Sad that we have a government in India which epitomizes "wag the dog" syndrome. It is absurd. Legeslating what can and cannot be discussed. Then "satyam eva jayatae" becomes meaningless. All I can say is that a government will have to come in which will clean with a new, big, strong broom. I guess such legeslation is aimed at stopping candidates from even bringing up these issues. Maybe the courts will step in and uphold freedom of expression. I wont hold my breath.

[parsuram]

I know that I was the first to jump on the name change band wagon, throwing out "Hindu Khush", in a hurry as it sounded cute and expressing a necessary amount of revenge, so to speak. But I was wrong. Rong - and I said so. Actually, if that does end up being the northern limits of Indic political control (and I hope Indic thought and ideas roam far and wide well beyond that), then the sanskrit "Pariyatra Parvata" is clearly the correct and factual name for that mountain chain. Let us hope we will all be able to see the day that name attached to those mountains.

[shiv]

The insistence that Hindu Kush = Hindu Death/slaughter is on thin ground if one looks at the counter arguments against other possible names. A cursory look at the map shows that in Afghanistan mountains have an identifying name followed (or preceded) by a "koh" to indicate the word mountain. In the middle of all this there is suddenly one area that is called "Hindu Kush". That is extremely odd. It should really have been called koh e Hindu Kush or Hindu Kush Koh. In fact Kush koh sounds more like a corruption of Caucasus. The story that Hindu Kush is Hindu Slaughter is politically convenient for Hindus who needed the crutch to "prove" to a disbelieving pseudosecular anglophone dominated world that Hindus were slaughtered by Muslims.

In my view Hindus can now grow out of that dependence ad see that the name Hindu Kush is used as a symbol of Islamic pride in Pakistan. It is as important to kill that Islamic pride as tell the truth about Hindu murders. Considering that the etymology of the name Hindu Kush as Hindu slaughter is itself on fairly shaky ground I don't think it necessarily means that. I recall a Mr Lund who was a nasty teacher we had in a particular institution. Surprise surprise. His name was not designed to mean Mr. Penis. It was a convenient coincidence that his name phonetically sounded like what we thought of him.

I believe that there was most likely an earlier name. We know of two of them, Pariyatra parvata and Caucusus Indicus. Both names indicate "mountain" very clearly. But we doggedly push the demand that we stick to Hindu Kush= Hindu Slaughter with no indication in the name that they are mountains in contrast to every other mountain/mountain range nearby.

[brihaspati]

shiv ji,
to be fair, the name stuck because of Persian histories and narrations translated by the early British Orientalists. They in turn learned the language and interpretations of the words from native Farsi speakers and Islamic scholars. Hindus had neither a role in coining the word or popularizing it globally.

Moreover the word was used by Afghan Muslims and NWF Muslims, as well as northern plains muslims. Not sure where you got the info that "Hindus" used the name to convince the Brits.

Again - those who used kaukasos Indicus - distinctly identified the main range as Paropanisos, and did not call the whole range Kaukasos Indicus. The word "kuh" could even be a borrowing from older Indo-European [or Scythian] root.

The only possibility to accommodate the supposed "corruption" of original word line being broached here is that the area was generically called "Indicus" in the Indo-Graeco-Bactrian interregnum. There is a linguistic problem in the sense that it is meaningless on its own - its the possessive form - "of/from India". But lets say for political expediency we give it that stretch [linguists will immediately demolish it - but what the heck!]. Then "Indicus" -> "Hindi -kus" -> Hindu-kush. [Lots of stretches needed - even the i->u is not so easy to justify in this case].

[shiv]

Moreover the word was used by Afghan Muslims and NWF Muslims, as well as northern plains muslims. Not sure where you got the info that "Hindus" used the name to convince the Brits.

Not the British. Indians needing to convince Indian leftist historians who were pinkwashing Indian history. The name "Hindu Kush" meaning Hindu slaughter was one of the few crutches that people had to show that Hindus were indeed slaughtered. It is another matter that anyone who pointed out that Hindus were slaughtered by Muslims were instantly branded as "Hindu right wing" by the "Thaparites".

Anyone who has grown up reading and re reading Indian history through the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s would have seen these things play out before his/her eyes.

In the 60s the Thaparites ruled. By the 80s "reactionary/revisionist" versions that used Al Beruni's accounts of "Hindus scattered like dust" and the name "Hindu Kush" were the few pieces of "solid historical evidence" that Thaparites could not dispute. Hence they were precious.

But So much evidence about Islam massacres has now been added that the importance of that crutch is smaller.

[brihaspati]

Thats okay. I meant that originally the word was brought into global limelight through early British translations of Persian manuscripts provided by Islamic scholars. There is no known evidence that Hindus of the medieval period or even under early British presence on Indian soil - used it.

[shiv]

Even today if you go back and read the Thaparite explanations/objections to Hindu Kush - they are not always denial that Hindu Kush means Hindu slaughter, but a secular view of Mahmud Ghazni where he is said to have slaughtered Muslims as much as Hindus. The reason for Thaparites using such an argument (sounds suspiciously similar to the arguments I have used) was to show Mahmud as a wanton killer as opposed to a Hindu killer and to accuse others of being Hindu right-wing communalists. This is history and is well documented and can be seen from the responses and counter responses of teh Thaparites and others.

My personal viewpoint (arrived at, if I may say so, independently of Thaparites) is that Mahmud used Islamic sanction for his actions. He particularly targeted non Muslims and that is documented by Al Beruni (important because no one will believe the lying Hindu if he says it! ). If, as the Thaparites say, he killed Muslims as well, it means that the Islam that Mahmud spread was a murderous religion. Am I a right wing Hindu for saying this? I may be, but how do you explain the bestial slaughters of Shias and Ahmedis in Pakistan, a nation set up for Islam in an area that was first conquered by the same Mahmud Ghazni a milennium ago? If a historian can get beyond personal accusations of being left or rightwing, there is a highly non-secular conclusion to be reached. islam may well be a violent doctrine. Now who will examine this? Historians, and for that matter, BRFites are too busy accusing each other of being either "right wing" or "Thaparite"

[Airavat]

Some notes on Turkmen tribes and slave taking

The farming-based economy of the main Uzbek khanates was heavily dependent on slave manpower and provided a welcome new business opportunity and a lot of fun for the Turkmen, who discovered an unlimited supply of potential slaves in the poorly defended Khorassan and Mazandaran provinces of Persia.

When Burnes later (in 1831) stayed ten days at Serakhs, the local Salor were still a militarily powerful and feared tribe, "... the greatest haunt of the Turkoman robbers ... keeping over 3,000 Persians slaves and a captive ambassador to boot.

The Teke Turkomans, who, according to all accounts, were a set of irreclaimable scamps, passed their leisure time in making raids on their neighbors. When victorious, they killed the entire male adult population, and carried off the women and children as slaves .... They were raiding deep into Persia, rarely being challenged by an effete Persian army.

In 1860, a confident but incompetent Persian army attacked the Merv Tekke and was routed. Most of the Persian army ended up as a glut on the Bokhara and Khiva slave markets.

Their brethren Akhal-Teke enjoyed slave hunting, their favorite sport, in peace until the bloody storming of their Yengi Sheher (Geok Tepe) fortress by Skobeleff’s Russian army in 1881. After their defeat, most surviving Akhal Tekke returned to their aouls and enjoyed the Tzar’s peace.

Some Yomud started brilliant careers as pirates (and, incidentally, as fishermen) on the Caspian Sea, supplying the Khiva slave market with a welcome variety of Russians and Caucasians, next to commodity Persians. Until the Russian takeover, the Yomud frequently formed the major and most competent part of the Khivan army. In the rout following the storming of Geok Tepe in 1881, the Yomud cavalry competed with the Russian Cossaks in massacring fleeing Tekke civilians. The Yomud also gracefully accepted ending their slave hunting activity, much to the Shah’s delight.

[shiv]

Revisiting the "political aspects" of the name "Hindu Kush" as meaning "Hindu slaughter".

May I point out that "history" is a funny subject. The way we are taught to regard history is that if someone has written it in a book, it is "documented history". If it is a story recalled in a family or in a bunch of families it is not history. So if Hindus recalled Muslim slaughter/kidnapping (as was done by BRFites on this thread) it is not history. If you read Romila Thapar, it is history even if she merely wrote down the family memories of the people whom she got her information from, or her sources were of that genre.

Clearly this is nonsense and history is about documentation and cross referencing. That is why the name Hindu Kush, and Al Beruni's memoirs were so important as corroborative evidence of the slaughter of Hindus by Muslim invaders.

But history does not end with Mahmud Ghazni. Sindh was occupied way back then and the province "Sindh" got its name from "Sindhu", which is the same as the Indus river which gave the name India to the region to the east of the Indus. Mahmud Ghazni occupation of Sindh set the stage for a st of repeated invasions of India culminating with Mughal rule. As Mughal rule crumbled, the British (as part of a global rise of European power) came to India.

The British left very soon - in a matter of 200 years or so and while leaving they handed over the reins of the Muslim majority provinces to the west of the Indus to a bunch of people who believed that they represented the legacy of Mahmud Ghazni and the Mughals. What is the proof for this? Ghazni and Ghauri, the slayers of Hindus are openly admired as heroes in Pakistan. The evidence for this is "in the books". No family narratives needed. As an extension of this the concept of "Hindu Kush" and "Hindu slaughter" is part of the mythmaking and hero worship in Pakistan.

If anyone has any doubts about the anti-Hindu nature of the Pakistani ethos, I would refer him to the abundant references to Pakistan school books encouraging hatred of Hindus and also the video below which is a translation of the Islamic exhortation made over the telephone to the murderers in Mumbai
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QehgTIOmkmQ

The fact that Pakistan encourages hatred of Hindus while supporting Islamist groups has enough clear evidence. But what of Mahmud Ghazni. He killed Hindus? Was he secular because he killed Muslims as well as is argued by some historians (references available on the net). If Mahmud Ghazni wa secular, one could take teh argument further and claim that Pakistan, while encouraging hatred of Hindus is also secular because Shias and Ahmedis are selectively slaughtered in Pakistan.

Clearly what is being done in Pakistan is the same as what Mahmud of Ghazni did. If Ghazni was a secular murderer, so is the Islamic republic of Pakistan. The elephant in the room that is sought to be ignored by secular Thaparite historians is islam. The killings of both Mahmud of Ghazni and those of Pakistan were sanctioned by Sunni islam

There is no way that this history can be documented while hiding behind the fig leaf of secularism. There is nothing secular about this part of Indian history. Better get used to it. Accusations of "Hindu extremists" painting Ghazni as a Muslim killer and being haters of Pakistan are disingenuous at best. It is an oxymoron to try and relate the history of a religion in a secular fashion. If the religion did not advocate secularism, its actions cannot be seen through a secular lens. Frm the viewpoint of a firm believer in Sunni Islam it may be perfectly justifiable to murder Hindus and shias, but accusing anyone who says this of being a right wing Hindu fundamentalist is the argument of a weak liar.

[Murugan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutio ... ia_Muslims

Shias in India faced persecution by some Sunni rulers and Mughal Emperors which resulted in the martyrdom of Indian Shia scholars like Qazi Nurullah Shustari (by order of Akbar, the sickular?) (also known as Shaheed-e-Thaalis, the third Martyr) and Mirza Muhammad Kamil Dehlavi (also known as Shaheed-e- Rabay, the fourth Martyr) who are two of the five martyrs of Shia Islam. Shias also faced persecution in India in Kashmir for centuries, by the Sunni invaders of the region which resulted in massacre of many Shias and as a result most of them had to flee the region.[8]

Shias in Kashmir in subsequent years had to pass through the most atrocious period of their history. Plunder, loot and massacres which came to be known as ‘Taarajs’ virtually devastated the community. History records 10 such Taarajs also known as ‘Taraj-e-Shia’ between 15th to 19th century in 1548, 1585, 1635, 1686, 1719, 1741, 1762, (hey, this is sickular great mughals' time) 1801, 1830, 1872 during which the Shia habitations were plundered, people slaughtered, libraries burnt and their sacred sites desecrated. Such was the reign of terror during this period that the community widely went into the practice of Taqya in order to preserve their lives and the honor of their womenfolk.[8]

Village after village disappeared, with community members either migrating to safety further north or dissolving in the majority faith. The persecution suffered by Shias in Kashmir during the successive foreign rules was not new for the community. Many of the standard bearers of Shia’ism, like Sa’adaat or the descendants of the Prophet Mohammad and other missionaries who played a key role in spread of the faith in Kashmir, had left their home lands forced by similar situations.[8]

In modern day Saudi Arabia, the Wahabi rulers limit Shia political participation to a game of notables. These notables benefit from their ties to power and in turn, are expected to control their community.[11] Saudi Shias are a minority comprising only about 7%, and 2 million out of 28 million Saudis (estimate 2012).[12] Although some live in Medina (known as the Nakhawila), Mecca, and even Riyadh, the majority are concentrated in the oases of al-Hasa and Qatif in the oil-rich areas of the Eastern Province. For years, they have faced religious and economic discrimination because they’re viewed as Iranian puppets. They have usually been denounced as heretics, traitors, and non-Muslims. Shias were accused of sabotage, most notably for bombing oil pipelines in 1988. A number of Shias were even executed. In response to Iran’s militancy, the Saudi government collectively punished the Shia community in Saudi Arabia by placing restrictions on their freedoms and marginalizing them economically. Wahabi ulama were given the green light to sanction violence against the Shia. What followed were fatwas passed by the country’s leading cleric, Abdul-Aziz ibn Baz which denounced the Shias as apostates. Another by Adul-Rahman al-Jibrin, a member of the Higher Council of Ulama even sanctioned the killing of Shias. This call was reiterated in Wahabi religious literature as late as 2002.[12]

Unlike Iraq and Lebanon which have a sizable number of wealthy Shia, Saudi Arabia has nothing resembling Shia elite of any kind. There have been no Shia cabinet ministers. They are kept out of critical jobs in the armed forces and the security services. There are no Shia mayors or police chiefs, and not one of the three hundred Shia girls’ schools in the Eastern Province has a Shia principal.[12]

The government has restricted the names that Shias can use for their children in an attempt to discourage them from showing their identity. Saudi textbooks, criticized for their anti-Semitism, are equally hostile to Shiism often characterizing the faith as a form of heresy worse than Christianity and Judaism. Wahabi teachers frequently tell classrooms full of young Shia schoolchildren that they are heretics.[13]

In the town of Dammam, a quarter of whose residents are Shia Ashura is banned, and there is no distinctly Shia call to prayer. There is no Shia cemetery for the nearly quarter of the 600,000 Shias that live there. There is only one mosque for the town’s 150,000 Shias. The Saudi government has often been viewed as an active oppressor of Shias because of the funding of the Wahabi ideology which denounces the Shia faith.[14]

In March 2011, police opened fire on protesters in Qatif, and after Shia unrest in October 2011 the Saudi government promised to crushed any further trouble in the eastern province with "an iron fist."[15]

[edit] ApartheidSaudi Arabia is often accused of practicing apartheid against its Shia citizens.[16] Mohammad Taqi writes that

"The Saudi regime is also acutely aware that, in the final analysis, the Shiite grievances are not merely doctrinal issues but stem from socioeconomic deprivation, as a result of religious repression and political marginalization bordering on apartheid.[17]"

[Murugan]

Discussion group on Shias of Kashmir

http://forum.shiasofkashmir.com/

Kashmir was originally a land occupied by the Brahmans. Islam did not make much headway till Rinchan was converted to Islam by a renowned sufi saint Bulbul Shah in the first quarter of 14th century. Rinchan was a Tibetan prince who had been defeated by his uncle1. He became the first Muslim ruler of Kashmir. Bulbul Shah who was responsible for Rinchan’s conversion had arrived in Kashmir during the reign of Raja Suhadeva (1301-1320) from Turkistan along with one thousand refugees. His real name was Sharafuddin Syed Abdur Rehman Bulbul Shah. He was a descendent of Hazrat Imam Moosa Kazim (a.s.)2. Bulbu Shah told Rinchan the miracles of Prophet Mohammed (p.b.u.h.) and superior qualities of Hazrat Ali (a.s.).

“Rinchan subjected himself to the teaching of the religion of Mustafa (p.b.u.h.) and the right principles of the truthful path of Murtaza (a.s.) and embraced Islam with sincerity and conviction.”3

This proves the fact that Rinchan was converted to the Shia faith by Bulbul Shah. It also dismisses the common held conviction that shias came in existance only after the arrival of Mir Shamsuddin Iraqi in Kashmir.

Rinchan was so much inspired by Bulbul Shah that he built a Khanqah for him, which according to many historians was the first khanqah built in Kashmir4. Besides the Khanqah, Rinchan also built a mosque where he himself attended the Friday prayers and daily congregational prayers. Bulbul Shah advised Rinchan to keep an Islamic name, which the latter accept with gratitude. Rinchan became known to history as Sultan Sadruddin, the name given to him by Bulbul Shah Qalandar.

With the passage of time many hindus were converted to Islam. The conversion to Islam was encouraged by the arrival of Syeds, Shaikhs and other eminent scholars and theologians from Iraq, Khurasan, Tibet etc. Remarkable among them were Amir Kabir Syed Ali Hamdani, Mir Syed Mohd Hamdani, Mir Shamsuddin Iraqi, Mir Syed Mohd Baihaqi, Syed Hasan Shirazi, Amir Syed Ahmed Madani, Syed Nuruddin, Mulla Parsa among others.

“It took Islam almost six centuries to secure a strong foot-hold in Kashmir. After next one hundred years Islam galloped through and overshadowed Hinduism and claimed a majority.”5

http://forum.shiasofkashmir.com/viewtop ... 93129c7f47

[Airavat]

Alberuni describes the rivers rising from the Hindu Kuh, but does not name the range itself:

In the mountains bordering on the kingdom of Kayabish, (i.e. Kabul), rises a river which is called Ghorwand (modern Ghorband which flows from the southern slopes of that range), on account of its many branches. It is joined by several affluents : —

1. The river of the pass of Ghuzak.

2. The river of the gorge of Panchir, below the town of Parwan.

3, 4. The river Sharvat and the river Sawa, which latter flows through the town of Lanbaga,( i.e. Lamghan); they join the Ghorvand at the fortress of Druta.

5, 6. The rivers Nur and Kira.

Swelled by these affluents, the Ghorvand is a great river opposite the town of Purshavar (Peshawar), being there called the ford, from a ford near the village of Mahanara, on the eastern banks of the river, and it falls into the river Sindh near the castle of Bitur, below the capital of Alkandahar (Gandhara), i.e. Waihand.

[Aditya_V]

Discussion group on Shias of Kashmir

http://forum.shiasofkashmir.com/

“It took Islam almost six centuries to secure a strong foot-hold in Kashmir. After next one hundred years Islam galloped through and overshadowed Hinduism and claimed a majority.”5

http://forum.shiasofkashmir.com/viewtop ... 93129c7f47

This line also shows the greatest fear of many Hindus (considered as Right Wing), the expectation is that this template of what was shown in Paki Punjab will be repeated all across India, and Hinduism will soon be an extinct religion. None in Pakistan or India's left think the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Kashmir or Paki Punjab, NWFP or Balochistan and driving away a large number of Hindus in Bangladesh or Sindh is a crime, in fact it is seen as a positive development.

The expectation is Assam and WB will soon see a repetition of the Bangladesh template.

[harbans]

Kashmir was originally a land occupied by the Brahmans.

'So the original inhabitants become 'occupiers'..

[Murugan]

Kashmir was originally a land occupied by the Brahmans.

'So the original inhabitants become 'occupiers'..

People occupied with religion and relgion based superiority will alsways use such words.