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

[panther]

3 minutes ago, zen said:

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 

 

 

 

 

ashoka turned peaceful, so all the territories he added to his kingdom, how did he acquire them? 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, zen said:

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 

 

 

 

 

You do realize that just because its the 14th century, it doesnt make the bulk majority of rulers genociders, correct ?

Rules of engagement or not, genocide is genocide and in no era will you find genocide is condoned, except by Muslim fanatics.

We have 6th century AD Buddhist & Hindu texts viciously criticizing Mihir Kul, for being a genocider. We have the Roman senate viciously criticizing Scipio Amellianus for genociding the Carthaginians. 

This isn't about today's lens. Criticism of genocide has existed throughout recorded human history and except for religious fanatics, nobody has accepted genocide as 'fair game' in any era.

As per 'global expansion' goes, i can point out atleast a dozen mega-expansionist rulers who were not genociders, spanning all eras:

Julius Caesar

Cyrus the Great

Seti I

MahapadmaNanda

Chandragupta Maurya

Liu Bang

Napoleon

 

just to name a few.

 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, panther said:

ashoka turned peaceful, so all the territories he added to his kingdom, how did he acquire them? 

He inherited all lands west of Kandahar all the way to Burma, Kashmir to Chennai from his father.Only thing he conquered was Kalinga (Orissa).

 

[zen]

7 minutes ago, panther said:

ashoka turned peaceful, so all the territories he added to his kingdom, how did he acquire them? 

Mauriya is the greatest empire of the sub con. I would assume Ashoka inherited much of the terriotries and added a few through war (8 years campaign) 

 

As I said, apart from usual suspects such as Mauriyas, not many Ind kings have experience in global expansion and empire building 

[zen]

23 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

You do realize that just because its the 14th century, it doesnt make the bulk majority of rulers genociders, correct ?

Rules of engagement or not, genocide is genocide and in no era will you find genocide is condoned, except by Muslim fanatics.

We have 6th century AD Buddhist & Hindu texts viciously criticizing Mihir Kul, for being a genocider. We have the Roman senate viciously criticizing Scipio Amellianus for genociding the Carthaginians. 

This isn't about today's lens. Criticism of genocide has existed throughout recorded human history and except for religious fanatics, nobody has accepted genocide as 'fair game' in any era.

As per 'global expansion' goes, i can point out atleast a dozen mega-expansionist rulers who were not genociders, spanning all eras:

Julius Caesar

Cyrus the Great

Seti I

MahapadmaNanda

Chandragupta Maurya

Liu Bang

Napoleon

 

just to name a few.

 

Appears as if you missed the Mongal way that I quoted. Mongal conquests are known to be brutal 

 

Do you expect a follower of Mongal way to act differently because he is invading Ind or Persia or whatever? 

 

As I said, apart from the usual suspects, not many kings in Ind have experience (or may be ambition) of global expansion (like the Mongols do)

 

Without going much into your list, below is the genocide said to be done by Caesar  

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.ibtimes.co.uk/roman-genocide-battlefield-where-julius-caesar-slaughtered-150000-tribespeople-discovered-1533067?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2016 by zen

[randomGuy]

11 hours ago, mishra said:

Who says a family of moderate can not have someone with twisted ideology.  If a Indian Muslim decides to names his son Taimur, Aurangazeb, Ghazani then no amount of logic or evidence can proove he hasnt got some level of fanatism.

Now you may pooh pooh it but i can guarantee most common Hindus will simply not buy your argument. If you still dont get it, try finding a Hindu with the name Jaichand/Jaychand.

 

There's a friend of mine with whom I never talk religion and he doesn't think about religion I think. He is interested in his personal development and other useful topics...Even he came up to me yesterday and said 'yar waise saif Ali  se ye ummeed nahi thi'.

[rkt.india]

12 hours ago, punjabi_khota said:

http://www.dailymoss.com/10-indians-with-the-most-unfortunate-names/

Tiger Shroff's real name is  Jai Hemant Shroff.

[rkt.india]

Saif has the right to name his son whatever he wants and him being a celebrity, people have the right to express their opinion on it.

[Mariyam]

On 12/24/2016 at 7:27 AM, randomGuy said:

There's a friend of mine with whom I never talk religion and he doesn't think about religion I think. He is interested in his personal development and other useful topics...Even he came up to me yesterday and said 'yar waise saif Ali  se ye ummeed nahi thi'.

I do not understand what you are trying to get at.

[Mariyam]

On 12/23/2016 at 11:37 PM, Muloghonto said:

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.

Right. I meant name mentioned in the Holy Quran. Most names in the Abrahamic religions are borrowed from Jewish names/legends. For 'Mariyam', happens to be the only woman mentioned by her name in the Holy Quran.

[Mariyam]

On 12/24/2016 at 0:14 AM, mishra said:

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.

 

So all of the above makes this a case of Love Jihad?

[Mariyam]

On 12/23/2016 at 9:28 PM, Vilander said:

any mulsim guy marrying a non muslim girl could be termed as love jihad, till the time muslim girls are not violently disallowed to marry non muslim boys...unfortunate reality.

This is frivolous.

Guilt, like salvation, is individual. Not collective.

Saif didn't violently oppose/disallow his sister's marriage to a non Muslim boy. Instead he made Go Goa Gone with him as a show of support. 

How are you terming this as Love Jihad?

[Mariyam]

23 hours ago, rkt.india said:

Tiger Shroff's real name is  Jai Hemant Shroff.

Jackie (Jai Kishan's) Shroff's mother is a Turk from Kazakhstan. His dad was a SoBo Gujju. But they named him Jai Kishan.

 

Does that make Jackie Shroff's parents parochial, just like Saif coz they chose the name on the basis of the fathers stated religion?

[randomGuy]

1 hour ago, Mariyam said:

I do not understand what you are trying to get at.

That it's stupid on saif part...I don't think he's fanatic, but he has given a proper reason to the public to think he may be fanatic..He only has himself to blame for it. Agree?

[Cricketics]

I still like Saif. I couldn't care less about what he name his/her son or future daughter. I think people in India are more concerned by this since they live in a society where Hindu/Muslims issues are raised more than anywhere. I don't think Indians living overseas would take offence to this mainly because we do not have access or watch Indian news channels or read Indian news papers as much as you guys do back home. Believe it or not, your opinion and your mind does change a lot by the media and that is what is prompting so many people to talk about this topic. 

 

I am going to watch Hum Tum right now. 

[rkt.india]

8 hours ago, Mariyam said:

Jackie (Jai Kishan's) Shroff's mother is a Turk from Kazakhstan. His dad was a SoBo Gujju. But they named him Jai Kishan.

 

Does that make Jackie Shroff's parents parochial, just like Saif coz they chose the name on the basis of the fathers stated religion?

No. You are wrong. She isn't turk. Her mother is Ayesha Shroff. She was born to a Bengali father. Her mother was a Belgian.

[Vilander]

9 hours ago, Mariyam said:

This is frivolous.

Guilt, like salvation, is individual. Not collective.

Saif didn't violently oppose/disallow his sister's marriage to a non Muslim boy. Instead he made Go Goa Gone with him as a show of support. 

How are you terming this as Love Jihad?

Nope i am merey stating the obvious till the time muslim community seamlessly merges with the rest of India such things will exist if not love jihad it will be called something else.  Muslims dont want their daughters to marry a non muslim and violently  oppose it. so when their sons marry a non muslim girl they force a conversion this makes it look like an elaborate conversion tool. It could be? All honor shame cultures have this problem. Dharmic faith is about sin and redemtion

[Mariyam]

3 hours ago, rkt.india said:

No. You are wrong. She isn't turk. Her mother is Ayesha Shroff. She was born to a Bengali father. Her mother was a Belgian.

Ayesha Shroff is Jackie Shroff's wife. Not his mother.

 

Who is the 'her' in the highlighted part?

Edited December 25, 2016 by Mariyam

[Ranvir]

Raj Kapoor would be furious if Kareena Kapoor married Saif Ali Khan.

[Mariyam]

2 hours ago, Vilander said:

Nope i am merey stating the obvious till the time muslim community seamlessly merges with the rest of India such things will exist if not love jihad it will be called something else.  Muslims dont want their daughters to marry a non muslim and violently  oppose it. so when their sons marry a non muslim girl they force a conversion this makes it look like an elaborate conversion tool. It could be? All honor shame cultures have this problem. Dharmic faith is about sin and redemtion

Again, Saif didn't oppose his sisters marriage to a non Muslim. What are you on about???

There is no forced conversion anywhere in the picture.

 

What is your metric? Saif is a love Jihadi because of association???