Who names their kid knowing that the name is that of a tyrant?

[Mariyam]

1 hour ago, gattaca said:

Both his wives are Hindu. He divorced the first one. His father married Hindu too. It might be coincidence but three times is too hard to believe.  I present evidence to the lawyer here why name a kid with a Muslim name if he is not strictly following religion.

His first wife, Amrita Singh's dad was Sikh and mom a Muslim. Maybe religion doesn't matter much to the Pataudis when they pick their life partners. 

 

[gattaca]

2 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

His first wife, Amrita Singh's dad was Sikh and mom a Muslim. Maybe religion doesn't matter much to the Pataudis when they pick their life partners. 

 

Ok fair enough. Still don't know why he would give his son a Muslim name if he is not following religion.

[Mariyam]

1 hour ago, Vilander said:

Elitist as in what Saif could be doing here, going for the purity of Afgan invaders. Ofcourse there is nothing elite about the arse Timur i could go on about some others but would restrain myself because of the forum rules. Anywhooo any islamc machismo will be delt with in the current Indian society, its the reality that we all have to understand and adapt to.

 

The assumption is oddly well founded i would say, why would you name a baby on a genocider unless you have some ideological connection to it, beats most of the folks here.

Purity of Afghan invaders?? Taimur, wiki says, is Turkic. In order to reach India he had to pass through Afghanistan. Given his track record, I'm sure he would have wreaked havoc there too. @Muloghonto would probably tell us all in greater detail.

 

Your point on Afghan purity or whatever may have been valid if Taimur were Afghan. He isn't and neither is your point on 'Elitist Muslim Machismo'.

[gattaca]

19 hours ago, Deucalion said:

I have read somewhere from Internet that Pakistan's first ICBM is going to be name after Taimur. 

 

 

Lol do you name missile after Shias as well. Aren't they stoned to death in your holy land?

[Mariyam]

4 minutes ago, gattaca said:

Ok fair enough. Still don't know why he would give his son a Muslim name if he is not following religion.

On paper, he is still a Muslim.

 

Let me cite some examples,

Hrithik had married Suzanne Khan- their kids are called Hridhan and Hrehan.

Aditya Panscholi married Zarina Wahab- their son is called Suraj.

 

None of it has anything to do with being religious. Kids are generally named according to the fathers religion. A patriarchal society we've always been.

[Vilander]

6 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

Purity of Afghan invaders?? Taimur, wiki says, is Turkic. In order to reach India he had to pass through Afghanistan. Given his track record, I'm sure he would have wreaked havoc there too. @Muloghonto would probably tell us all in greater detail.

 

Your point on Afghan purity or whatever may have been valid if Taimur were Afghan. He isn't and neither is your point on 'Elitist Muslim Machismo'.

Oh thanks, Turk is even better, its even purer.

[Vilander]

2 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

On paper, he is still a Muslim.

 

Let me cite some examples,

Hrithik had married Suzanne Khan- their kids are called Hridhan and Hrehan.

Aditya Panscholi married Zarina Wahab- their son is called Suraj.

 

None of it has anything to do with being religious. Kids are generally named according to the fathers religion. A patriarchal society we've always been.

thats not usually the case, its a choice for the parents in many religions.

[Mariyam]

1 minute ago, Vilander said:

Oh thanks, Turk is even better, its even purer.

Why?

And not Turk, as in the ones from Turkey. Turkic as in central Asian. All those ex Soviet stans.

 

What is your purity hierarchy for Muslims? Just curious.

[Vilander]

22 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

^^

Agreed. My apologies. Edited.

 

On the part in bold, you do so say that Saif is basically a Love Jihadist. Any kind of a Jihadist, Love or Violent an extremist. So why would Love Jihadist Saif then make a movie with his sisters infidel husband if he were that parochial?

 

Would you care to venture a guess?

Thanks. nope again you are wrong, i havent called him a love Jihadist anywhere. ( find that term oddly titillating and funny would not use it in a serious conversion lol and not with a lady.. never unless trolling some padosis for being a wimp). if Saif is not parochial this turn of events is indeed especially unfortunate for he has let develop a perception that may be he is a bit narrow minded with his choice of an infants name.its a peculiarly inconsequential yet uncontrollable matter, why would a dad come out or even think about explaining something as private as a childs name , yet why would one make such a royal mess as to name his/her son on a tyrant who killed their own countrymen, this is like a Jew naming his child Hitler.Except that Jews are a religion but many scholars agree that they are a people as well and Indians are a people with several religious affinities but one major nationality thanks to the great Indian republic.

[Vilander]

11 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

Why?

And not Turk, as in the ones from Turkey. Turkic as in central Asian. All those ex Soviet stans.

 

What is your purity hierarchy for Muslims? Just curious.

basically mughal and you or mulog could honestly correct me. The mughal court had persian wasirs, somehow anything persian was imagined as purer at that time, could be handed down to the current pakistani tendency to claim they are more related to turks from turkey than India which make them purer.

[Muloghonto]

47 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

Ideology? 

Why does one have to love the Arabic language? It is the language of the Holy Quran and people are named from words with Quranic roots. My name too. Doesn't mean that my parents love the Arabic language. Its like saying your folks love Sanskrit because they gave you a 'random' name originating in that language.

 

Your name isn't Kiranic root, it's Jewish. Mariyam is the original form of Mary. I hope you know that most Arabic names are borrowed from Jewish names. Danyal( Daniel), Ibrahim ( Abraham), Yeshua/Yousuf(Joseph), etc. Just to name a few are Jewish inspired Arab names. Besides Timur isn't Arabic.It is from the chagatai language, a dead language that is the ancestor of Uzbek.

[zen]

1 hour ago, Vilander said:

Zen, i request you to not shy away for being politically correct. be respectful to the forum like you always are yet elucidate i am sure you can, how can we accept some one who wants to pose as a liberal indian in the public limelight, smugly naming his offspring on a tyrant genocider of Indians. I would respect guys like owasi ( right wing mulsim yet firmly Indian) more than folks like this. Timur cant be faulted in his time if he did not kill he would have been killed, but why would a much loved and famous yet smug artisan who is having a comfy life in modern secular Indian republic eulogize this medieval scum in what would seem for most simple middle-class folks as the most ultimate eulogy of them all an offsprings name. 

Usually, the case of those who go on an conquest is like the glass being half full. For e.g. some may see Alexander as great, while some as a murderer 

 

When we look at the modus operandi of the Mongals, they usually caused havoc as a tool to make enemies surrender. If you surrender, mercy is shown. If you don't, punishment is imparted. Coming to Taimur, he has said to have: 

• Reduce Herat to rubble and massacre most of its citizens
• cemented people alive into the walls in one of the towns in Persia 
• killed 100k-200k people in one of the towns in Persia
• etc - Link

Timor's enemy in the Delhi Sultanate was the Tughlaq dynasty. Do we need to discuss the atrocities committed by the Tughlaq Dynasty? Here is a link for a quick refresher - Link

 

 

Quote

 

Not a week passed without the spilling of much Muslim blood and the running of streams of gore before the entrance of his palace. This included cutting people in half, skinning them alive, chopping off heads and displaying them on poles as a warning to others, or having prisoners tossed about by elephants with swords attached to their tusks.

— Ibn Battuta, Travel Memoirs (1334-1341, Delhi)

 

The Sultan was far too ready to shed blood. He punished small faults and great, without respect of persons, whether men of learning, piety or high station. Every day hundreds of people, chained, pinioned, and fettered, are brought to this hall, and those who are for execution are executed, for torture tortured, and those for beating beaten.

— Ibn Battuta, Chapter XV Rihla (Delhi)

 

 

On the fourteen day, the Sultan sent him food, but he (Sheikh Shinab al-Din) refused to eat it. When the Sultan heard this he ordered that the sheikh should be fed human excrement [dissolved in water]. [His officials] spread out the sheikh on his back, opened his mouth and made him drink it (the excrement). On the following day, he was beheaded.

— Ibn Battuta, Travel Memoirs (1334-1341, Delhi) 

 

 

(The Sultan) had the holy man's beard plucked out hair by hair, then banished him from Delhi. Later the Sultan ordered him to return to court, which the holy man refused to do. The man was arrested, tortured in the most horrible way, then beheaded.

— Ibn Battuta, Travel Memoirs (1334-1341, Delhi) 

 

The Sultan never ceases to show the greatest zeal in making war upon the infidels. Everyday thousands of slaves are sold at very low price, so great is the number of prisoners (from attacks on neighboring kingdoms).

— Shihabuddin al-Umari, Masalik-ul- Absar

 

In 1321, Ulugh Khan, later known as Muhammad bin Tughlaq, to Deogir to plunder the Hindu kingdoms of Arangal and Tilang (now part of Telangana). His first attempt was a failure.^[21] Four months later, Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq sent large army reinforcements for his son asking him to attempt plundering Arangal and Tilang again.^[22] This time Ulugh Khan succeeded. Arangal fell, was renamed to Sultanpur, and all plundered wealth, state treasury and captives were transferred from the captured kingdom to Delhi Sultanate

 

Quote

He attacked and plundered Malwa, Gujarat, Mahratta, Tilang, Kampila, Dhur-samundar, Mabar, Lakhnauti, Chittagong, Sunarganw and Tirhut.^[29] His distant campaigns were expensive, although each raid and attack on non-Muslim kingdoms brought new looted wealth and ransom payments from captured people. The extended empire was difficult to retain, and rebellions all over Indian subcontinent became routine

 

Quote

He raised taxes to levels where people refused to pay any. In India's fertile lands between Ganges and Yamuna rivers, the Sultan increased the land tax rate on non-Muslims by tenfold in some districts, and twentyfold in others.^[20] Along with land taxes, dhimmis were required to pay crop taxes by giving up half or more of their harvested crop. These sharply higher crop and land tax led entire villages of Hindu farmers to quit farming and escape into jungles; they refused to grow anything or work at all.^[30] Many became robber clans.^[20] Famines followed. The Sultan responded with bitterness by expanding arrests, torture and mass punishments, killing people as if he was "cutting down weeds".^[30] Historical documents note that Muhammad bin Tughluq was cruel and severe not only with non-Muslims, but also with certain sects of Musalmans. He routinely executed Sayyids (Shia), Sufis, Qalandars, and other Muslim officials. His court historian Ziauddin Barni noted,

 

 

The region may have been referred to as India, but as I have said, Delhi Sultanate is not equal to today's India. In fact, Delhi Sultanate is known to have attacked other states such as Gujarat, etc..  and massacred innocent people. Why would anyone take an attack on the evil Delhi Sultanate, which itself is cruelly attacking other states in the region called India, as an attack on Indians?

 

May be Timur gave Tughlaq a taste of his own medicine. Because Taghlaq did not surrender and ran away from the battlefield, people of Delhi had to suffer as was the known Mongal (or even Tughlaq) way of the time. 

 

Tuglags caused more harm to "Indians" than Timur so would people protest  against those who name their offsprings similar to the names used by the Sultans of the dynasty. Dehli Sultanate is as bad if not worse than whatever damage that was inflicted on it by "outsiders" .... May be we should rename "Delhi" .... Let's not forget that the likes of Maharana Pratap, Shivaji, etc. are considered as great heroes for fighting against those who ruled from Delhi 

 

Today, we revere Subhash Chandra Bose. But he actually took support of Hitler (who is being mentioned a lot on this thread) and the Japanese. By his association with the Axis powers, shouldn't Bose be condemned as well? But we don't condemn Bose because he made a pack with the devils to achieve a greater good ....Much like WW2 helped Ind gain independence, Timor weakened the Tughlaq Dynasty .... May be Saif named his son Taimur because it weakened the evil Delhi Sultanate and brought some respite to the constituency ruled by his family 

 

As I said, it is hard to judge distant history through the lens of today. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2016 by zen

[fineleg]

On 12/21/2016 at 10:37 AM, maniac said:

 

 

 

Even Ravana was supposed to be a noble Brahmin king who made 1 blunder in his life and even more that is just mythology but obviously no one names their kid that....Sure any parent can name their kid Ravan if they want but the kid will surely be bullied and 2)clearly if the parents are not ignorant they are trying to make a diss statement by naming their kid that.

 

 

 

 

@maniac pls see who is the CEO and Managing director of this very successful company (you've probably heard of them, even if you haven't, they are very successful and popular tech company)

http://www.mindtree.com/about-us/leadership

Edited December 23, 2016 by fineleg

[vayuu1]

But they did kill people. so why name Ashok Sikander. Even Karan fought in the side of adharma. How about Nathuram. That name has Ram in it.

But they were not foreign invaders, ashoka killed repented it,sikander well he died, while he returned from India, he didn't exactly did massacres here, that twat, jhingur oh sorry I mean langur oh sorry I mean taimur, butchered a lot of innocent people , karna,bhishma, drona, vikarna all fought against dharma, karna was bounded by his friendship, bhishma his duty towards king and drona his duty towards hastinapur, vikarna, coz of his brotherly love, what does that illiterate sob has done to be compared with the above mentioned gentlemen, he isn't even fit to lick the dust beneath these guys shoes, let alone fit to tie their shoes.

Sent from my SM-N900 using Tapatalk

[mishra]

2 hours ago, punjabi_khota said:

 

Of course anyone can have an opinion. My opinion is that the name will not have any effect on his future, same as the name Stalin didn't prevent the dude from becoming the chief minister of TN.

Offcourse! If you gather stats atleast 20% convicts in various Indian jails will prabably have name after some Hindu god or famous Historical personality.

Here people are unhappy because a person who they loved and adulated so long, gave their love, money and admiration,  has been actually outrightly insensitive towards them. I am sure the ones supporting same guys would have been giving lecture to general people why its ok to open a butcher house next to a Hindu temple.

[surajmal]

wtf man... wtf 

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, zen said:

Usually, the case of those who go on an conquest is like the glass being half full. For e.g. some may see Alexander as great, while some as a murderer 

 

When we look at the modus operandi of the Mongals, they usually caused havoc as a tool to make enemies surrender. If you surrender, mercy is shown. If you don't, punishment is imparted. Coming to Taimur, he has said to have: 

• Reduce Herat to rubble and massacre most of its citizens
• cemented people alive into the walls in one of the towns in Persia 
• killed 100k-200k people in one of the towns in Persia
• etc - Link

Timor's enemy in the Delhi Sultanate was the Tughlaq dynasty. Do we need to discuss the atrocities committed by the Tughlaq Dynasty? Here is a link for a quick refresher - Link

 

 

 

 

 

The region may have been referred to as India, but as I have said, Delhi Sultanate is not equal to today's India. In fact, Delhi Sultanate is known to have attacked other states such as Gujarat, etc..  and massacred innocent people. Why would anyone take an attack on the evil Delhi Sultanate, which itself is cruelly attacking other states in the region called India, as an attack on Indians?

 

May be Timur gave Tughlaq a taste of his own medicine. Because Taghlaq did not surrender and ran away from the battlefield, people of Delhi had to suffer as was the known Mongal (or even Tughlaq) way of the time. 

 

Tuglags caused more harm to "Indians" than Timur so would people protest  against those who name their offsprings similar to the names used by the Sultans of the dynasty. Dehli Sultanate is as bad if not worse than whatever damage that was inflicted on it by "outsiders" .... May be we should rename "Delhi" .... Let's not forget that the likes of Maharana Pratap, Shivaji, etc. are considered as great heroes for fighting against those who ruled from Delhi 

 

Today, we revere Subhash Chandra Bose. But he actually took support of Hitler (who is being mentioned a lot on this thread) and the Japanese. By his association with the Axis powers, shouldn't Bose be condemned as well? But we don't condemn Bose because he made a pack with the devils to achieve a greater good ....Much like WW2 helped Ind gain independence, Timor weakened the Tughlaq Dynasty .... May be Saif named his son Taimur because it weakened the evil Delhi Sultanate and brought some respite to the constituency ruled by his family 

 

As I said, it is hard to judge distant history through the lens of today. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bolded part: because Timur didnt just kill Afghan-Turk psychopaths that ruled from the Delhi throne, he genocided millions of Hindus civillians as well. That is an attack on India.

 

[zen]

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Bolded part: because Timur didnt just kill Afghan-Turk psychopaths that ruled from the Delhi throne, he genocided millions of Hindus civillians as well. That is an attack on India.

 

As I explained that is how the Mongols behaved. If one surrenders, they show mercy. If one doesn't, punishment is imparted

 

Because Tughlaq chose to fight and later ran away from the battlefield, Delhi paid the price. Though ppl of Delhi were already suffering and getting macassared under Tughlaq dynasty (as elobrated in the post you quoted)

 

Timur has killed more Muslims than ppl of other religions. Delhi fig is estimated at 100k, while the number in Persia is much higher 

Edited December 23, 2016 by zen

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, zen said:

As I explained that is how the Mongols behaved. If one surrenders, they show mercy. If one doesn't, punishment is imparted

 

Because Tughlaq chose to fight and later ran away from the battlefield, Delhi paid the price. Though ppl of Delhi were already suffering and getting macassared under Tughlaq dynasty (as elobrated in the post you quoted)

 

Timur has killed more Muslims than ppl of other religions. Delhi fig is estimated at 100k, while the number in Persia is much higher 

It still doesn't justify genocide or make crimes against genocide any lesser.

Also, Timur was not a mongol. He was a Turk from the Barlas tribe who billed himself as a mongol descendant but he wasn't. He was technically  under the Chagatai Khans who were his titular but powerless overlords.

 

Timur didnt just kill people in Delhi, he also razed Lahore to the ground and carved a trail of genocide through northern Pakistan getting there.

The fact that he killed more muslims than hindus doesnt make up for the fact that he genocided Indians.

 

[zen]

6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

It still doesn't justify genocide or make crimes against genocide any lesser.

Also, Timur was not a mongol. He was a Turk from the Barlas tribe who billed himself as a mongol descendant but he wasn't. He was technically  under the Chagatai Khans who were his titular but powerless overlords.

 

Timur didnt just kill people in Delhi, he also razed Lahore to the ground and carved a trail of genocide through northern Pakistan getting there.

The fact that he killed more muslims than hindus doesnt make up for the fact that he genocided Indians.

 

Whatever he billed himself as. He wanted to resurrect the Mongal empire, iirc

 

As I said, that was how Mongols behaved. It was 14th century. The means to control occupied (many of which were cruel themselves) territories were limited so fear had to be instilled 

 

Once you are expanding way beyond your borders, you have to get out of your comfort zone. The rules of engagement change esp in an era where the sword ruled

 

From an "Indian" PoV, such acts may not be justified. But what do Indians know about global expansion. How many Ind kings apart from usual suspects such as Mauriyas have expanded beyond the subcontinent? They have been busy fighting among themselves

 

So what we are doing here is first trying to judge 14th century through today's lens, and bringing in an Ind PoV of how occupied terrorories should be treated as if Ind had great experience in conquring the known world