Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'hindu'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Discussion Zone
    • General Discussion
    • Sikhi | Questions and Answers
    • Sikhs Against Global Extremism
  • Spirit Zone
    • Meditation | Simran | Bhakti | Jap
    • Gurbani | Gurmat | Spiritual Poetry and Discussions
  • The Lounge
    • Current Affairs | Events | News
    • Archived Discussions
    • Health & Sports Forum
    • Sikh Sampardaaye Section
    • Science and Psychology
  • Share Zone
    • Seva Section
    • Download Centre
  • Other Forums
  • Other faiths and philosphies
    • Comparative Religion | Philosophy
    • Various Religions, Faith, Philosophies, Spiritual School of thoughts
  • Chill Zone
    • Chill out Relaxing Zone
  • Feedback | Suggestions | Complaints
    • Got any feedback?

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 7 results

  1. Where can I find detailed information regarding Jassa Singh Ahluwalia rescuing 2200 Hindu girls in 1761? Any (near) contemporary sikh persian or english sources?
  2. Namdhari sikh head Thakur Dalip singh had made a point with no artefacts from gurbani held at World Hindu Congress Summit Chicago to Oblige Hindu Community. If it is just a question of pleasing Hindus and RSS then Dalip singh wouldn’t have made a valid argument on stage that “Why the conference is not been conducted using just Hindi Language ?” Secondly, Dalip Singh Thakur requested with a question in front of RSS leader Mohan Bhagwat to suppress Hindutva and bring bhartiyatav. For making such a bold statements one need to be brave heart like Dalip Singh who earlier too made a reasonable point that Sikhs have independent identity and that should remain independent. It is only Dalip singh Thakur who speaks straightforward in front of Hindu community and brought reasonable statement to think about. Do we have someone and has guts to speak against any orthodox thinking ?
  3. In this 'Botched Translations of Guru Granth Sahib ji' series, I want to highlight shabads, poems from Guru Granth Sahib, that have been translated incorrectly, which give the reader the wrong impression about the belief system of the author or about the message in Guru Granth Sahib ji. When I read the English translation of Guru Granth Sahib ji. I notice that there are certain mistakes embedded in these translations that are over-looked by most sikhs, who rely on them to make out the meaning of the shabad. These incorrect beliefs then become internalized and lead to incorrect understanding. The incorrect understanding is then propagated in real life and in online forums, it seeps into discussions and the mindset. One of the oft-quoted shabads of Nam Dev ji has him slowly paint a scholar into a corner, only to give him a lesson. Each time Nam Dev ji questions him, the scholar changes his religion. Bhagat Namdev ji notices this pattern a lot in native Indians, Hindus. There is a buffet of spiritual religious traditions laid out in front of them, and they take a little here and there. They wander through multiple Indian faiths, without learning anything. Namdev ji says, that unlike the Muslims who are strict to their faith, the Hindus are not strict on one faith. They keep tasting here and there on the buffet of faiths and this leads to their detriment. Nam Dev ji says it is good to stick to one religion and to practice its teachings. However this is only one eye. He adds that the one who has gyan is better than the one who is simply following a religion. The practical, the experiential knowledge of Atma, pure consciousness, is the second eye and the one who has both eyes is the most exalted in Namdev ji's view. He sets a high bar for Hindus and Muslims to strive for gyan and be strict to the faith they have chosen. However this shabad is twisted into something else, as told by Amardeep below. It is used to put down Hindus and Muslims, and it becomes a practice of Ahankar rather than something to strive for. There's a lot of misinformation about Bani of Nam Dev ji in Guru Granth Sahib. His words are twisted to mean things that he is simply not saying. The botched translation we will be looking at today is not itself botched but severely incomplete. So the meaning that is taken from the incomplete translation is often wrong. In this thread, we will delve into Bhagat Nam Dev ji's words and uncover the correct meaning. ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ ਗੋਂਡ ॥ बिलावलु गोंड ॥ Bilāval gond. Raag Bilaval Gond ਆਜੁ ਨਾਮੇ ਬੀਠਲੁ ਦੇਖਿਆ ਮੂਰਖ ਕੋ ਸਮਝਾਊ ਰੇ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ आजु नामे बीठलु देखिआ मूरख को समझाऊ रे ॥ रहाउ ॥ Āj nāme bīṯẖal ḏekẖi▫ā mūrakẖ ko samjẖā▫ū re. Rahā▫o. Today, I, Namay, saw Vitthala, (another name of omni-present pure consciousness), and I will explain to those who haven't seen him. Bhagat Nam Dev ji converses with an ignorant scholar. ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੁਮਰੀ ਗਾਇਤ੍ਰੀ ਲੋਧੇ ਕਾ ਖੇਤੁ ਖਾਤੀ ਥੀ ॥ ਲੈ ਕਰਿ ਠੇਗਾ ਟਗਰੀ ਤੋਰੀ ਲਾਂਗਤ ਲਾਂਗਤ ਜਾਤੀ ਥੀ ॥੧॥ पांडे तुमरी गाइत्री लोधे का खेतु खाती थी ॥ लै करि ठेगा टगरी तोरी लांगत लांगत जाती थी ॥१॥ Pāʼnde ṯumrī gā▫iṯarī loḏẖe kā kẖeṯ kẖāṯī thī. Lai kar ṯẖegā tagrī ṯorī lāʼngaṯ lāʼngaṯ jāṯī thī. ||1|| Panday, I saw your Gayatri (another name of omni-present pure consciousness), grazing in the fields. Gayatri is a divine mantar that connects the chanter to the pure consciousness, thus it eats up negative actions, like a cow grazes a field. Since Gayatri took away all suffering, like a mother who cuddles her child, she was later personified as a Mother Goddess. Gayatri was also associated with the form of a cow, as the cow was a symbol for motherhood. So the farmer, thinking, Gayatri was a stray cow, beat her and broke her leg until she limped away. The scholar had no experiential knowledge of Gayatri, he did not really understand Gayatri to be able to defend her from Nam Devji criticism. So upon hearing this caricature of Gayatri, the Hindu scholar says he worships Mahadev, the God of Gods. Surely Namdev ji couldn't caricature Mahadev? ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੁਮਰਾ ਮਹਾਦੇਉ ਧਉਲੇ ਬਲਦ ਚੜਿਆ ਆਵਤੁ ਦੇਖਿਆ ਥਾ ॥ ਮੋਦੀ ਕੇ ਘਰ ਖਾਣਾ ਪਾਕਾ ਵਾ ਕਾ ਲੜਕਾ ਮਾਰਿਆ ਥਾ ॥੨॥ पांडे तुमरा महादेउ धउले बलद चड़िआ आवतु देखिआ था ॥ मोदी के घर खाणा पाका वा का लड़का मारिआ था ॥२॥ Pāʼnde ṯumrā mahāḏe▫o ḏẖa▫ule balaḏ cẖaṛi▫ā āvaṯ ḏekẖi▫ā thā. Moḏī ke gẖar kẖāṇā pākā vā kā laṛkā māri▫ā thā. ||2|| Panday, I saw your Mahadev (another name of omni-present pure consciousness), who was riding the bull. In the Parbati's house, the food was ready. She was going to take a bath. To guard her door, she took the turmeric paste applied on her body, and made a man to guard her. Meaning - Mother Nature created man out of matter. Then Mahadev came to the house to meet his wife. However this created man, did not recognize Mahadev and would not let him enter the home. Meaning - Pure Consciousness as Divine Father Spirit came to meet Mother Nature. Man was ignorant of his Divine Father, he could not recognize the Divine and would not let him enter his mind, due to his ignorance, wandering mind. Mahadev cut off his head. And later replaced with the head of an elephant, giving birth to Ganesh. Meaning - so the Diving Father destroyed man's ignorance and gave him enlightenment, transforming him into a transcendent being. The scholar had no knowledge of the deeper meanings to the stories of Mahadev. He had no actual faith in Mahadev. He thought who would kill a person for no reason? So then he says that he worships Ram. ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੁਮਰਾ ਰਾਮ ਚੰਦੁ ਸੋ ਭੀ ਆਵਤੁ ਦੇਖਿਆ ਥਾ ॥ ਰਾਵਨ ਸੇਤੀ ਸਰਬਰ ਹੋਈ ਘਰ ਕੀ ਜੋਇ ਗਵਾਈ ਥੀ ॥੩॥ पांडे तुमरा रामचंदु सो भी आवतु देखिआ था ॥ रावन सेती सरबर होई घर की जोइ गवाई थी ॥३॥ Pāʼnde ṯumrā rāmcẖanḏ so bẖī āvaṯ ḏekẖi▫ā thā. Rāvan seṯī sarbar ho▫ī gẖar kī jo▫e gavā▫ī thī. ||3|| Panday, I saw your Ram Chandra (another name of omni-present pure consciousness). His wife was kidnapped by Ravan. The scholar had no faith in Ram either; he could respond to this. So upon hearing this, the scholar realizes he doesn't worship any of them. He never had faith to begin with. He had no experiential knowledge, no deeper knowledge about the stories he read and analyzed. Bhagat Nam Dev ji then says ਹਿੰਦੂ ਅੰਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਤੁਰਕੂ ਕਾਣਾ ॥ਦੁਹਾਂ ਤੇ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਸਿਆਣਾ ॥ हिंदू अंन्हा तुरकू काणा ॥ दुहां ते गिआनी सिआणा ॥ Hinḏū anĥā ṯurkū kāṇā. Ḏuhāʼn ṯe gi▫ānī si▫āṇā. Hindu has no eyes but Muslim has at least one. However Enlightened being is the most intelligent. This use of the word ਸਿਆਣਾ and previous discussion gives context to what ਹਿੰਦੂ ਅੰਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਤੁਰਕੂ ਕਾਣਾ really means What eyes, or lack thereof, is Bhagat NamDev ji talking about? The Hindu does not have a religion, and he does not understand the deeper meaning. So the Hindu has 0 eyes. The Muslim at least has his religion however he does not have deeper knowledge. So the Muslim as 1 eye. However the Enlightened being, also practices religion and has deeper knowledge, that he has acquired through spiritual practice. So the enlightened one has both eyes. ਦੁਹਾਂ ਤੇ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਸਿਆਣਾ ॥ Within Hindus and Muslims, those who develop deep knowledge are the most exalted. ਹਿੰਦੂ ਪੂਜੈ ਦੇਹੁਰਾ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਣੁ ਮਸੀਤਿ ॥ ਨਾਮੇ ਸੋਈ ਸੇਵਿਆ ਜਹ ਦੇਹੁਰਾ ਨ ਮਸੀਤਿ ॥੪॥੩॥੭॥ हिंदू पूजै देहुरा मुसलमाणु मसीति ॥ नामे सोई सेविआ जह देहुरा न मसीति ॥४॥३॥७॥ Hinḏū pūjai ḏehurā musalmāṇ masīṯ. Nāme so▫ī sevi▫ā jah ḏehurā na masīṯ. ||4||3||7|| The Hindu worships the temple and the Muslim worships the mosque. Namay worships that where there is no temple nor mosque, meaning turiya avastha, state of pure consciousness. Isn't Nam Dev ji criticizing Hindus? Isn't he slandering their religions? Remember Namdev ji is criticizing his own people, Hindus are his own people. He has fought for them and he has represented them in front of kings. He wants to see them improve. He wants Hindus to follow a particular faith and stick to it. He wants his own followers to stick to the path that he has given them. In the previous shabad, he tells his followers to worship Ram, as instructed by the Bhagwad Gita. ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਗਹੁ ਮੀਤਾ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਣਵੈ ਨਾਮਾ ਇਉ ਕਹੈ ਗੀਤਾ ॥੫॥੨॥੬॥ So Namdev ji is not trying to slander any religions here. He is not putting down the Gaytri, Mahadev, Ram, etc, as it is often interpreted by so-called "scholars". Instead, he is trying to paint the ignorant scholar into a corner and get him to admit that he is not really worshiping anybody so that by recognizing what he lacks, he may improve himself in that area. Nam Dev ji is trying to get him to adopt a certain path and do spiritual practice to gain deeper insight. Criticizing his own people? Where has Namdev ji represented Hindus? http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/17024-muslim-sultan-tries-to-kill-namdev-ji-for-worshipping-vishnu-ji-translation/
  4. Hindu religion is one of the world's oldest religions. But many people don't know about the full history of Hinduism. They even don't have any idea about the customs, values and traditions of Hindu culture. Nav Hindu is your one stop destination which gives you the full description about Hindu Culture. With this you get to know lots of things about custom and tradition of Indian as well as Hindu culture. If you are looking for an astrology site or want to know about the full history about this Culture then you are at perfect place. Here you can get all the answers to your question which is related to Indian culture.
  5. Please listen to Gyani Thakur Singh jee. He talks about a Hindu brother who recited Sri Chaupai Sahib jee. Please listen after 3:30 min: http://www.gurbaniupdesh.org/multimedia/04-Katha/13-Giani%20Thakur%20Singh%20Ji%20%28Patiala%20Wale%29/Katha%20Sri%20Guru%20Granth%20Sahib%20Ji/CD11%28Ang0886-1024%29/0907-Ang-0961-Pankti-17.mp3 Bhul chuk maaf
  6. I would quote from a well-researched paper: http://atruehistoryofindia.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/heroic-hindu-resistance-to-muslim.html Heroic Hindu Resistance to Muslim Invaders - 1 As the saying goes, “History is always written by Winner”. In India, the process of history writing began under the tutelage of British. They wished to achieve their vested objective of justifying their invasion of India i.e. White man’s Burden by portraying India as submissive and ineffective state in the face of foreign aggression. The facts were twisted to show that India was never a united nation. It has always been depicted as a no man’s island which invader after invader has claimed as an easy prize and into which diverse races, religions and cultures have acquired an equal legitimacy. In the process, India’s history has become a history of foreign invaders - Aryans, Iranians, Greeks, Parthians, Scythians, Kushans, Arabs, Turks, Persians, Portuguese, Dutch, French, and British - rather than a history of the greatest civilization which the world has known, and later on of Hindu heroism which fought and ultimately frustrated all foreign invaders. But in this lecture, we will look Indian History from the perspective of Indian Historian, and not with the eyes of British and their successor Marxist. We will begin our lecture with medieval India, from where Islamic invasion set in motion and we have to face invader that remain permanently settled as a separate communities since its inception. In history of India, invader were always assimilated and absorbed in vast breadth and depth of culture. Islamic invaders were the first one not to get assimilated and did not become an inherent part of India as was the case with earlier invader. We will look into the history of this crucial and transforming period that changed the face of this country forever. I will give you a blow by blow account of how Hindus fought tenaciously and for a long time for every inch of their homeland in the face of an inveterate enemy inspired by a diabolical creed, he has brought out in bold relief not only the fact that Hindus were second to none when it came to making sacrifices for their motherland but also the fact that Hindus were fighting in defense of something which they valued above their very lives. The present lecture is an attempt to provide a connected account of the prolonged and sustained efforts made by Indians to stem the tide of early Muslim invaders. For long, historians have emphasized merely the ultimate collapse of the Indians, ignoring completely the resistance offered by them. It is a fact of history that such sustained resistance as encountered by the Muslim arms in India was not faced by them in any other land conquered by them. The Indian resistance had another facet, which was the outcome of the resolute determination of the Indians to preserve their religious and cultural identity. While country after country, from the straits of Gibraltar to the banks of the Indus, witnessed the rapid Islamization of their individual cultures, even Northern India managed to survive as a predominantly heathen land even after five centuries of Muslim rule. A new religion, Islam, though preached by the Prophet Muhammad as early as A.D. 610, did not take a deep root in the soil of Arabia till A.D. 630. Two special features distin¬guished the early history of this religion from that of others known in history. Firstly, the militant character of the Prophet himself, who, unlike the founder of any other religion, had to engage in several military campaigns against his own people before they would accept his faith; and secondly, his extreme intolerance of the-existing reli¬gion. After the final conquest of Mecca, in A.D. 630, he 'entered its great sanctuary and smashed its many idols said to have numbered three hundred and sixty exclaiming: Truth hath come, and falsehood hath vanished!' The militant character of Islam and its extreme intolerance of other religions, specially those which involved worship of images, marked its subsequent history at every step, and parti¬cularly in India. The fact remains that the spread of Islam almost invariably follow¬ed in the wake of military victories, at least during the early centuries of its history. The sudden rise of the Arabs in the seventh century A.D as the greatest military power is one of the most remarkable events in the history of the world. The rapid conquests were made by the armies of Islam after the death of its prophet in AD 632. The Byzantine provinces of Palestine and Syria fell to them after a six month’s campaign in AD 636-637. Next came the turn of the Sassanid Empire of Persia which included Iraq, Iran, and Khorasan. The Persians were defeated decisively in AD 637, and their entire empire was overrun in the next few years. By A.D. 643 the boundaries of the Caliphate touched the frontiers of India. The Turkish speaking territories of Inner Mongolia, Bukhara, Tashkand, and Samarkand, etc. were annexed by AD 650. Meanwhile, in the west, the Byzantine province of Egypt had fallen in AD 640-641. The Arab armies marched over North Africa till they reached the Atlantic and crossed over into Spain in AD 709. Astonishing as these victories of Islamic armies were, equally amazing was the ease and rapidity with which people of different creeds and races were assimilated within the Islamic fold. Syrians, Persians, Berbers, Turks and others - all were rapidly Islamized and their language and culture Arabicised. A passage of the Quran which had inspired the Arabs to decimate and denationalise those who were defeated by them: “Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem till they repeat and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity”. It was inevitable that the Arabs should cast their covetous eyes on India. The same Islamic armies, however, had to struggle for 69 long years to make their first effective breach in the borders of India. In the next three centuries, they pushed forward in several provinces of Northern and Western India. But at the end of it all, India was far from being conquered militarily or assimilated culturally. The Arab invasion of India ended in a more or less total failure. Heroic Defence of Kabul and Zabul The Islamic armies had started attacking Kabul and Zabul soon after they annexed Khorasan in AD 643. It was in AD 650 that the first Islamic army penetrated deep into Zabul by way of Seistan, which at that time was a part of India territorially as well as culturally. The struggle was grim and prolonged. The Islamic army suffered heavy losses. In the final round, the invader was defeated and driven out. Another attack followed in AD 653. The Arab general, Abdul Rahman, was able to conquer Zabul and levy tribute from Kabul. The king of Kabul, however, proved desultory in paying regularly what the Arabs thought to be their due. Finally, another Arab general, Yazid ibn Ziyad who had been the governor of Seistan for some time, attempted retribution in AD 683. He was killed by the Hindus, and his army was put to flight with great slaughter. The Arabs lost Seistan also, and had to pay 5,00,000 dirhams to get one of their generals, Abu Ubaida, released. But the Arabs, inspired as they were by an imperialist ideology, did not give up. They recovered Seistan some time before AD 692. Its new governor, Abdullah, invaded Kabul. The Hindus trapped the Arab army in the mountain passes after allowing it to advance unopposed for some distance. Abdullah agreed to cease hostilities, and the king of Kabul agreed to renew payment of an annual tribute. But the treaty was denounced by the Caliph who dismissed Abdullah. The war against Kabul was renewed in AD 695 when Hajjaj became the governor of Iraq. He sent an army under Ubaidullah, the new governor of Seistan. Ubaidullah was defeated and forced to retreat after leaving his three sons as hostages and promising that “he shall not fight as long as he was governor”. Once again, the treaty was denounced by the Caliph, and another general, Shuraih, tried to advance upon Kabul. He was killed by the Hindus, and his army suffered huge losses as it retreated through the desert of Bust. Poor Ubaidullah died of grief. That was the third round won by the Hindu kingdom of Kabul. In the next round, Hajjaj commissioned Abdul Rahman once again. He made some conquests but could not consolidate his hold. Hajjaj threatened to supersede him. Abdul Rahman revolted and entered into a treaty with the Hindu king to “carry arms against his master”. The treaty did not work, and Abdul Rahman committed suicide. And we find the Hindus ruling over Kabul and Zabul in the year AD 867. The Arabs had failed once again to conquer finally another small Hindu principality, in spite of their being the mightiest power on earth. The struggle had lasted for more than two hundred years. The kingdom of Kabul suffered a temporary eclipse in AD 870 but not on account of the Arabs, nor as a result of a clash of arms. The Turkish adventurer, Yaqub bin Layth, “who started his career as a robber in Seistan and later on founded the Saffarid dynasty of Persia”, sent a message to the king of Kabul that he wanted to come and pay his homage. The king was deceived into welcoming Yaqub and a band of the latter’s armed followers in the court at Kabul. Yaqub “bowed his head as if to do homage but he raised the lance and thrust it into the back of Rusal so that he died on the spot”. A Turkish army then invaded the Hindu kingdoms of both Kabul and Zabul. The king of Zabul was killed in the battle, and the population was converted to Islam by force. That was a permanent loss to India. But the succeeding Hindu king of Kabul who had meanwhile transferred his capital to Udbhandapur on the Indus, recovered Kabul after the Saffarid dynasty declined. Masudi who visited the Indus Valley in AD 915 “designates the prince who ruled at Kabul by the same title as he held when the Arabs penetrated for the first time into this region”. The story of the successful resistance of the tiny states of Kabu and Zabul against the Arabs has not obtained its due place in history of India. It is worthy of note, however, that they defied the conquerors of the world and ultimately succumbed, not to the political power of Caliphate, but to the local principalities that arose on its ruins. Arab failure in Sindh The Arab invasion of Sindh started soon after their first two naval expeditions against Thana on the coast of Maharashtra and Broach on the coast of Gujarat, had been repulsed in the reign of Caliph Umar (AD 634-644). The expedition against Debal in Sindh met the same fate “The leader of the Arab army, Mughairah, was defeated and killed.” Umar decided to send another army by land against Makran which was at that time a part of the kingdom of Sindh. But he was advised by the governor of Iraq that “he should think no more of Hind”. The next Caliph, Usman (AD 646-656), followed the same advice and refrained from sending any expedition against Sindh, either by land or by sea. The fourth Caliph, Ali (AD 656-661), sent an expedition by land in AD 660. But the leader of this expedition and “those who were with him, saving a few, were slain in the land of Kikan (land of Jaths) in the year AH 42 (AD 662)”. Thus the four “pious” Caliphs of Islam died without hearing the news of a victory over “Sindh or Hind”. The next expedition was dispatched to take Debal in AD 708. Its two successive commanders, Ubaidullah and Budail, were killed and the Arab army was routed. When Hajjaj, the governor of Iraq, asked the Caliph for permission to send another expedition, the Caliph wrote back: “This affair will be a source of great anxiety and so we must put it off, for every time an army goes, [vast] numbers of Mussalmans are killed. So think no more of such a design.” The caliph was at first unwilling to sanction the risky expedition, but ultimately gave his consent to the request of Hajjaj. Hajjaj thereupon sent Ubaidullah to raid Debal, but was defeated and killed. A second expedition was sent under Budail by way of sea from Oman. He was met by Jaisimha, son of Dahar. A Pitched Battle ensued, which lasted a whole day. At the end, the Muslim army was routed and Budail was killed. But Hajjaj was a very tenacious imperialist. He sent his nephew as well as son-in-law, Muhammad bin Qasim, with this army in AD 712, Hajjaj said: “I swear by Allah that I am determined to spend the whole wealth of Iraq that is in my possession, on this expedition.” Muhammad reached Debal and with the help of heavy siege materials sent by sea, stormed the fortress. According to Chach-nama, which has described the battle in detail, Dahar fought with valor and on the second day the Mus¬lim army was nearly routed. "The infidels", so runs the account, "made a rush on the Arabs from all sides and fought so steadily and bravely that the army of Islam became irresolute and their lines were broken up in great confusion." As was customary with Indian kings Dahar, seated on an elephant, led the vanguard of his army. He was an easy target and an arrow struck him in the heart. The death of the king was followed by a complete rout of his army. The Chachnãma which is the most famous Muslim history of the Arab conquest of Sindh, describes graphically what Muhammad bin Qasim did after that “accursed Dahir” had been “dispatched” while defending the fort of Rawar: “Muhammad took the fort and stayed there for two or three days. He put six thousand fighting men, who were in the fort, to the sword and shot some (more) with arrows. The other dependents were taken prisoner with their wives and children” When the number of prisoners was calculated, it was found to amount to thirty thousand persons amongst whom thirty were the daughters of the chiefs, and one of them was Rãî Dãhir’s sister’s daughter whose name was Jaisiya. They were sent to Hajjãj How did Hajjãj react towards these helpless people from Sindh? The Chachnãma continues: “When the head of Dãhir, the women and the property all reached Hajjãj, he prostrated himself before Allah, offered thanks-giving and praises…and said Hajjãj then forwarded the head, the umbrellas, and wealth, and prisoners to Walîd the Khalifa.” The behaviour of the Amîr-ul-mu’minîn, (commander of the faithful) was also true to type. The Chachnãma relates “When the Khalifa of the time had read the letter (of Hajjãj), he praised Allah the great. He sold some of those daughters of the chiefs, and some he granted as rewards. When he saw the daughter of Rãî Dãhir’s sister he was much struck with her beauty and charms, and began to bite his finger with astonishment. Abdullah bin Abbãs desired to take her, but the Khalifa said: “O my nephew! I exceedingly admire this girl and am so enamoured of her that I wish to keep her for myself. Nevertheless, it is better that you take her to be the mother of your children’.” Meanwhile, Muhammad bin Qasim had been conspiring with some merchants of Brahmanabad and promising protection to the common people, provided they committed treason and threw open the gates of the fort in the thick of the fight. He had some doubts whether he had done the right thing. He referred the matter to Hajjãj in a letter which was sent post haste. According to Chachnãma, Hajjãj replied as follows: “O my cousin! I received your life-inspiring letter…I learnt that the ways and rules you follow are confirmable to the Law (of Islam), except that you give protection to all, great and small, and make no distinction between enemy and friend. Allah says - Give no quarter to infidels but cut their throats. Or “The great God says in the Quran: “O true believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their head.” Then know that this is the command of Allah the great. You should not be too ready to grant protection, because it will prolong your work. After this, give no quarter to any enemy except to those who are of rank. This is a worthy resolve, and want of dignity will not be imputed to you.” So Muhammad bin Qasim carried out the command of Allah conveyed to him by Hajjãj. The Chachnãma carries the story forward after the fall of Brahmanabad: “When the plunder and the prisoners of war were brought before Qãsim and enquiries were made about every captive, it was found that Lãdî, the wife of Dãhir, was in the fort with two daughters of his by other wives. Veils were put on their faces and they were delivered to a servant to keep them apart. One fifth of all the prisoners were chosen and set aside: they were counted as amounting to twenty thousand in number, and the rest were given to the soldiers. He sat on the seat of cruelty, and put all those who had fought to the sword. It is said that about six thousand fighting men were slain, but according to some, sixteen thousand were killed. After “peace” had thus been restored, the conqueror took the next step. The Chachnãma records: “Muhammad bin Qãsim fixed a tax upon all subjects according to the laws of the Prophet. Those who embraced Islam were exempted from slavery, the tribute and poll-tax, and from those who did not change their creed a tax was exacted according to three grades.” Another massacre followed at Askalanda which was surrendered by the common people after the Hindu commandant had fled: “He went into the fort, killed four thousand fighting men with his bloody sword and sent their families into slavery.” And Multan: “Six thousand warriors were put to death, and all their relations and dependents were taken as slaves.” It is interesting to note that, according to the same authority, the Muslim prisoners, both male and female in Sindh; they reported to Muhammad that they had received very good treatment while they were in prison. The Chachnãma chooses a Brahmin of Multan to proclaim Muhammad bin Qãsim’s momentous victory in the following words: “Heathenism is now at an end, the temples are thrown down, the world has received the light of Islam, and mosques are built instead of idols temples.” The Brahmin was a new convert. An intriguing question arose in respect of the right of the Hindus to maintain and construct their temples and carry on wor¬ship as before. Muhammad had begun the practice of building mosques in place of temples. But after the conquest of the whole of Sindh was over, this question was placed before him by the priests of temples. They represented that 'the temples were lying desolate and in ruins*, and asked for 'permission to visit the temples and to worship what they worshipped before.” Qasim did not accept their request. In pursuance of the general policy Muhammad wrote letters to the rulers calling upon them all to surrender and accept the faith of Islam, and appointed to high offices those who adopted the new religion. This policy was continued even after the death of Mu¬hammad. Many kings including even Jaisimha, the son of Dahar, accepted Islam and adopted Arab names. That the new faith was adopted more for material good than from their conviction, is shown by the fact that within a few years of his conversion Jaisimha quarreled with the governor of Sindh, apostatized, and declared war against him. Muhammad was successful & occupied the whole of Sind & Multan. But as soon as he was recalled in AD 714, “the people of India rebelled, and threw off their yoke” [Muhammad-ibn-Qasim cruel death - Muhammad-ibn-Qasim was undoubtedly a great general and his remarkable victories gave the Muslims the first foothold on Indian soil. Unfortunately, far from his achievements being appreciated and properly rewarded at home, he met with a cruel end even while he was engaged in making further conquests. The death of Hajjaj in A.D. 714, and that of Caliph Walid in the year following, brought evil days for him. The new Caliph was an enemy of Hajjaj and wreaked his vengeance on the members of his family. Muhammad was recalled to Iraq where, with certain other adherents of Hajjaj, he was put to death by torture.] The defeat of Dahar and the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad – bin – Qasim opened the flood gates of Muslim colonization in this remote corner of India. Subsequently, Islamic army, reconquered Sindh, and advanced through Rajputana upto Ujjain in the east and Broach in the south. “But the success of the Arab armies was short-lived. Their advance to the south was signally checked by the Chalukya ruler of Lat (S. Gujarat), Pulakesin Avani-Janasraya. The Navasari inscription (A.D. 738) records that Pulakesin defeated a Tajika (Arab) army which had defeated the kingdoms of Sindhu, Cutch, Saurashtra, Cavotaka, Maurya and Gurjara and advanced as far south as Navasari where this prince was ruling at this time. The prince’s heroic victory earned him the titles of “solid Pillar of Dakshinapatha (Dakshinapatha-sadhata) and the Repeller of the Unrepellable (Anivarttaka-nivartayi)”. The Gwalior inscription of the Gurjara-Pratihar King, Bhoja I, tells us that Nagabhatta I, the founder of the family who ruled in Avanti (Malwa) around A.D. 725, defeated the army of a powerful Mlechha ruler who invaded his dominions”. The Gurjara-Pratiharas were known to the Arab historians as “kings of Jurz”. Referring to one of these kings, an Arab historian wrote that “Among the princes of India there is no greater foe of the Mohammaden faith than he” The Arabs also made advances to the north of Sindh into the Punjab and towards Kashmir. Here they were blocked and driven back by Lalitaditya Muktapida (AD 724-760) of Kashmir. He was in alliance with Yasovarman of Central India. “He is said to have ordered the Turushkas to shave off half of their heads as a symbol of their submission.” Arab travellers to India of the 10th century “all speak of only two independent Arab principalities with Multan and Mansurah as their capitals”. Neither of the two states was very powerful. Multan was always in dread of the mighty Pratihara power. The Pratihara army frequently marched against Multan, and its Muslim ruler secured his safety by playing upon the religious sentiment of the Hindus”. Multan would have been lost by the Arabs but for a Hindu temple. In A.D 951 that in Multan “there is an idol held in great veneration by the Hindus and every year people from distant parts undertake pilgrimages to it” When the Indians make war upon them and endeavour to seize the idol, the inhabitants [Arabs] bring it out pretending that they will break it and burn it. Upon this the Indians retire, otherwise they would destroyed Multan.” Even according to the testimony of the Muslims, the Pratihara’s could have easily conquered Multan that guarded the flank of every possible route which a future Muslim conqueror from the outside would have to follow. That they were deterred from doing this by the fear that the holy images at Multan might be broken by the Muslim ruler of the place, only shows a lack of foresight and statesmanship and a deplorable want of rationality on the part of the Hindu leaders. If they had possessed even a general knowledge of the poli¬tical condition of the lands immediately outside the borders of India on the west, they would have made serious efforts to defend India against the almost inevitable danger of Muslim invasion. The first steps in this direction should have been to drive away the Muslims from the petty principalities which they still held in Sindh and to establish a strong garrison in Multan and other strategic places in the Punjab. Thus after three centuries of unremitting effort, we find the Arab dominion in India limited to two petty states of Multan and Mansurah. And here, too, they could exist only after renouncing their iconoclastic zeal and utilizing the idols for their own political ends. It is a very strange sight to see them seeking shelter behind the very budds, they came here to destroy. It has to be kept in mind all along that the Arab empire in this period was the mightiest power on earth. Compared to this monolithic and highly militarised giant, the Hindu principalities of Sindh and other border areas were no better than pygmies. From a political or missionary point of view, he writes, “the Arab conquest of Sindh was certainly a minor affair. The Arab conquest of other countries, outside India, had been followed by wholesale conversions and supplanting of local institutions by Islamic ones” The Islamic law had divided unbelievers into two classes, viz., the People of the Book (Ahl-i-Kitã, the possessors of Scriptures - the Jews and the Christians - and the idolaters. The former were not to be lawfully molested in any way so long as they accepted the rule of the conquerors and paid the Jezia. But for the idolaters, the choice was between Islam and death. In Central Asia, the idolaters had been rooted out. But this experiment failed in Sindh as Islam was confronted with a faith which, though idolatrous, defied death and looked at life in this world as one link in the eternal chain of births and deaths. The attitude of the Muslim conqueror of Sindh towards its people serves as a general pattern of Muslim policy towards the subject Hindus in subsequent ages. Something no doubt depended upon individual rulers; some of them adopted a more liberal, others a more cruel and intolerant attitude. But on the whole the frame¬work remained intact, for it was based on the fundamental princi¬ples of Islamic theocracy. It recognized only one faith, one people, and one supreme authority, acting as the head of a religious trust. The Hindus, being infidels or non-believers, could not claim the full right of citizens. At the very best, they could be tolerated as zimmis, an insulting title which connoted political inferiority and a low status of helplessness, like a minor under a guardian. The Islamic State regarded all non-Muslims as its enemies, to curb whose growth in power and number was conceived to be its main interest. The ideal preached by even high officials was to ex¬terminate them totally, but in actual practice they seem to have followed an alternative laid down in the Quran [(IX. 5) "And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them."] that calls upon the Muslims to fight the unbelievers till they pay jizia with due humility. This was the tax which the Hindus had to pay for permission to live in their ancestral homes under a Muslim ruler. To be continued
  7. Sat Sri Akaal Everyone, I was doing some research on Sikhi till i come across this site claimed to be run by someone called 'Singh' where it has a section on Sikhism but the rest is all Hinduism .And its cleverly trying to make Sikhism its part of the same 'Hindu culture' .You can see for yourself here how the game is being played by these RSS types who keep on promoting sikhi as part of Hinduism. http://www.sanskritimagazine.com/ What do you think is it paranoia or something more sinister going on ? Satnam Waheguru
  • Create New...