Jump to content

Turkish Drama Ertughrul, and it's political influence upon the Pakistanis


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

Khan isn't an Arab surname! 

Sheikh, in the Indian context, doesn't indicate ancestry. Sheikhs ( or their ancestors) were scholars of Islam.

 

 

 

I just said they took "reputable" surnames. Never indicated any ancestry except for the Syed part. 

Edited by Norman
Posted
4 hours ago, Mariyam said:

 

Not very different, say, from the Yadavs in India, who claim to be descendants of Lord Krishna.

 

Totally off. Krishna is a Yadav, but their clan was cursed by Gandhari after Mahabharata war, their power is destroyed with infighting. Their community powerful in modern India, played the discrimination and marginalization card in politics and are in OBCs. Just like Marathas in MH and jaats or gujjars in Haryana are fighting to be in OBCs

Posted
1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

Totally off. Krishna is a Yadav, but their clan was cursed by Gandhari after Mahabharata war, their power is destroyed with infighting. Their community powerful in modern India, played the discrimination and marginalization card in politics and are in OBCs. Just like Marathas in MH and jaats or gujjars in Haryana are fighting to be in OBCs

That's tangential, Mariyam's point about Syeds claiming descent from Muhammed, similar to Yadavs claiming clan descent from Krishna, is the opposite of 'totally off'.  

 

Sure, the Yadavs do not enjoy the privilege status that Syeds apparently do,  but the disparate outcomes do not negate the similar motivations....

Posted
On 7/19/2020 at 1:42 AM, Aiden said:

Lol. according to same logic, now all Indians should identify themselves as Muslims since they were ruled by us Muslims & Mughals for a century.

Ask your great grand mother how she wast converted.

Posted
16 minutes ago, raki05 said:

Ask your great grand mother how she wast converted.

Be gentle.  You can't blame them - present-day Pakistan was repeatedly raided by marauders from central asia, so much that slaves from 'hind' were cheaper than horses.  If changing religion meant escaping rape, murder, slavery, that is not something that you should insult.  

Posted
16 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Be gentle.  You can't blame them - present-day Pakistan was repeatedly raided by marauders from central asia, so much that slaves from 'hind' were cheaper than horses.  If changing religion meant escaping rape, murder, slavery, that is not something that you should insult.  

Glad that you clarified what I wanted to convey ,that they were muslim by force and not by choice. But other posters whom I quote had tried to take moral high ground and unnecessarily try to portray as if he is descendent of Babar and came along with them.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, raki05 said:

Glad that you clarified what I wanted to convey ,that they were muslim by force and not by choice. But other posters whom I quote had tried to take moral high ground and unnecessarily try to portray as if he is descendent of Babar and came along with them.

what do you want them to say? Of course people would rather choose to believe that they are related to 'conquerors' rather the conquered and enslaved.  Reality is that most pakjabis have a history of being serfs and bowing down to whichever King and overlord that passes through - whether coming from the Khyber pass to the west, or central India to the east.  That is why they are so comfortable being slaves to the PakMil mafia.  They aren't a people who understand what 'azadi' means - for them its an empty slogan to be weaponized against Endia. 

Edited by sandeep
Posted
3 hours ago, sandeep said:

That's tangential, Mariyam's point about Syeds claiming descent from Muhammed, similar to Yadavs claiming clan descent from Krishna, is the opposite of 'totally off'.  

 

Sure, the Yadavs do not enjoy the privilege status that Syeds apparently do,  but the disparate outcomes do not negate the similar motivations....

I looked it up, as an analogy the Yadav Rajput Kstariyas in some areas of Rajasthan (some kings/royal family and their clan now) claim to be direct descendents of Krishna in the same manner and claim superiority of races. Yadavs in UP/Bihar probably don't and are categorized as OBCs.

Posted
4 minutes ago, SecondSlip said:

In the next decade, they will claim they are Chinese as well! :laugh:

And claim all victories/achievements of Tang dynasty as theirs. Everything apart from Indic roots is halal for them. 

Posted
9 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Totally off. Krishna is a Yadav, but their clan was cursed by Gandhari after Mahabharata war, their power is destroyed with infighting. Their community powerful in modern India, played the discrimination and marginalization card in politics and are in OBCs. Just like Marathas in MH and jaats or gujjars in Haryana are fighting to be in OBCs

Real Yadavas are still Kshatriyas. Bhatis, Jadauns and Jadejas are some of the Rajput clans who descended from the ancient Vrishini clan to which Lord Krishna belonged to. 

The people you see using Yadava surname these days are in fact Ahirs (pastoralists) who adopted the title during the early decades of 20th century as part of the Sanskritization process under the influence of Arya Samaj. 

 

@Mariyam

 

 

Posted
3 hours ago, Gollum said:

And claim all victories/achievements of Tang dynasty as theirs. Everything apart from Indic roots is halal for them. 

"Mashallah we ruled over the entire Hindustan for thousand years... "

 

   - A Julaha from Banaras whose ancestors converted in the late 19th century. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Mariyam said:

Absolutely.

We watch it 5 times everyday. Right after offering Namaz.

While your comment puts the silly gross generalization in its place, you can't deny that the show does have quite a bit of popularity in said market segment.  

×
×
  • Create New...