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

[Vilander]

On 12/25/2016 at 10:54 AM, Mariyam said:

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???

does not matter what Saif does  and i have not stated anywhere that Saif is involved in any Jihad, stop asking me about it.

 

And dont get angry with me, respond with respect and i will follow suit.

 

The discussion is about Saif naming his son on a historical mulsim invading genociding psycopath and maniac

[Mariyam]

1 minute ago, Vilander said:

does not matter what Saif does  and i have not stated anywhere that Saif is involved in any Jihad, stop asking me about it.

 

And dont get angry with me, respond with respect and i will follow suit.

 

The discussion is about Saif naming his son on a historical mulsim invading genociding psycopath and maniac

Not angry. Amused would be a better word. Your arguements are all over the place.

 

You 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. "

 

Saif is a muslim guy. So according to your own statement, is Saif a Love-Jihadi? Or is your generalization wrong? Has to be one of the two.

[Vilander]

Just now, Mariyam said:

Not angry. Amused would be a better word. Your arguements are all over the place.

 

You 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. "

 

Saif is a muslim guy. So according to your own statement, is Saif a Love-Jihadi? Or is your generalization wrong? Has to be one of the two.

lol

 

read it again.

[Mariyam]

Just now, Vilander said:

lol

 

My reaction too. LOL

[Vilander]

1 minute ago, Mariyam said:

My reaction too. LOL

so you still dont get it.

 

I am saying you can not take offence to one calling it love jihad under the current circumstances.

 

That is not equal to me calling him as a love jihadi or anything, cause i would not know he is definitely an actor. I have also told you how i truely feel about the term lol ( seriously wtf is love jihad ?).

 

But all i am interested in is to bring out the possibility that moderate historian allows sister to marry kuffar Saif has a little randy side and names his son after a medieval genocider of Indians, he is basically a moderate muslim nice touch.

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, zen said:

 

On one hand you say that in civilized places such as Rome and Greece, people considered wanton killing of civilians as abhorrable conduct and, on the other hand,  still there are instances such as the ones listed for Julius Caesar, Roman destruction of Carthage, Athenian massacre at Melos, etc.

 

Alexander the great would be tried for criminal conduct if judged by today's standards. There are discussions if Alexander is a hero or a genocidal conqueror when it is hard to reduce a character such as Alexander in to what is black and what is white  

 

Despite "learning" from best practices and history, there are instances such as the dropping of the "fat boy" and the "little man". Was this an universally popular thing to do? .... Talking about China, we know about the acts of Mao. Tibet is another example where China has not done the universally popular thing to do 

 

If the above is not universally popular, what's the point in basing your opinion on statements such as:

 

Tomorrow, you will say that the universally popular thing to do is to have Sundays off. But people working in malls do not necessarily get Sundays off. In many Islamic countries, Friday is a holiday 

 

Talking about Mongols, Genghis Khan is considered as great by many. While others esp. in Persia see / saw him as a genocidal conqueror. 

 

 

Before we move forward, please clarify your position on how you see the likes of Alexander, Genghis Khan, Harry Truman, Sultans of Delhi, etc. 

 

 

PS below USA killing of "innocent" in Vietnam (other places include Korea, Japan, etc.)

 

1. I still don't get it - so you are saying because history is full of genocidal maniacs, we should be okay with genocide ?

2. Caesar didnt commit genocide. Other Roman generals did and got vilified in their own Senate for it.

3. Alexander: Genocider (he genocided the Kambojas). Genghis Khan : Genocider (Beijing & Central Asia). Truman : Genocider (Hiroshima/Nagasaki). Delhi Sultans : Be more specific. Not all of them were genociders. Many were.

 

[zen]

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

1. I still don't get it - so you are saying because history is full of genocidal maniacs, we should be okay with genocide ?

2. Caesar didnt commit genocide. Other Roman generals did and got vilified in their own Senate for it.

3. Alexander: Genocider (he genocided the Kambojas). Genghis Khan : Genocider (Beijing & Central Asia). Truman : Genocider (Hiroshima/Nagasaki). Delhi Sultans : Be more specific. Not all of them were genociders. Many were.

 

I am saying is that it is hard to judge ancient history through today's lenses. Now you listed Truman as a genocider who did those acts in the 20th century despite the learning from best practices of around 6 centuries. Timur's case is of 14th century. In spire of Romans, Buddhist or whatever books condemning killing of innocent people in war, we have in fact gone on to construct more deadly weapons of mass destruction and are continuing to do so in the 21st century. Weapons of mass destruction kill innocent people

 

On Caesar, I would go by what was mentioned in the link that I posted 

 

Your list suggests that you are using a basic algorithm .... You can list the Delhi Sultans the ones you consider as genociders ..... Since you have listed Alexander as a genocider, would you oppose someone who names his/her kid Alexander / Alex?

 

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, zen said:

I am saying is that it is hard to judge ancient history through today's lenses. Now you listed Truman as a genocider who did those acts in the 20th century despite the learning from best practices of around 6 centuries. Timur's case is of 14th century. In spire of Romans, Buddhist or whatever books condemning killing of innocent people in war, we have in fact gone on to construct more deadly weapons of mass destruction and are continuing to do so in the 21st century. Weapons of mass destruction kill innocent people

 

On Caesar, I would go by what was mentioned in the link that I posted 

 

Your list suggests that you are using a basic algorithm .... You can list the Delhi Sultans the ones you consider as genociders ..... Since you have listed Alexander as a genocider, would you oppose someone who names his/her kid Alexander / Alex?

 

 

 

 

 

1. But in the case of Timur, we are not going by today's standards. We are going by the standards of his time and even in his time, all but the small kingdom of Bukhara (where he started out) hated him for his genocide. So no, its not judging history by today's lenses. Its judging history by 14th century lenses, where Timur is still the bad guy.

 

2. What Truman did makes him a genocider. I don't get what being in the 20th century has to do with anything.

 

3. Caesar was not a genocider, since he doesnt meet the definition of a genocide. Quoting random articles from the internet will not change that.

4. Alexander being a genocider is often overlooked in history. Even in his time, his genocides were glossed over, no author blasted him for genocide. They just recorded the genocide and thats it. So its easy to see why Alexander escaped his deeds/didnt get a reputation for it. So you can't blame normal people for naming their kids Alexander, since for over 2000 years nobody has called him a genocider openly. But in Timur's case, he's been called a genocider by many, many sources right from his lifetime to the modern. So there is no excuse for the common man, as the standard reputation of Timur is one of a genocider.

 

5. As i said, many Delhi Sultans were genociders. Not all of them though. Behlul Lodi, Razia Sultana, etc. for example, were normal rulers.

 

[zen]

45 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

1. But in the case of Timur, we are not going by today's standards. We are going by the standards of his time and even in his time, all but the small kingdom of Bukhara (where he started out) hated him for his genocide. So no, its not judging history by today's lenses. Its judging history by 14th century lenses, where Timur is still the bad guy.

 

2. What Truman did makes him a genocider. I don't get what being in the 20th century has to do with anything.

 

3. Caesar was not a genocider, since he doesnt meet the definition of a genocide. Quoting random articles from the internet will not change that.

4. Alexander being a genocider is often overlooked in history. Even in his time, his genocides were glossed over, no author blasted him for genocide. They just recorded the genocide and thats it. So its easy to see why Alexander escaped his deeds/didnt get a reputation for it. So you can't blame normal people for naming their kids Alexander, since for over 2000 years nobody has called him a genocider openly. But in Timur's case, he's been called a genocider by many, many sources right from his lifetime to the modern. So there is no excuse for the common man, as the standard reputation of Timur is one of a genocider.

 

5. As i said, many Delhi Sultans were genociders. Not all of them though. Behlul Lodi, Razia Sultana, etc. for example, were normal rulers.

 

My friend, now you are again going back to "universally popular" point which has been addressed. By naming Alexander and Truman as genociders, you have also shown that being universally popular accounts for nothing. If you keep bringing back old points, we will keep running in circles and not get anywhere 

 

You need to add more factors to your algorhytm to judge ancient history. Tell me the number of troops that Ind has kept in Kashmir, Ind's own territoty, to protect and maintain peace in the valley to not having to take extreme measures.  Now consider the size of Timur's forces. Without installing fear in the minds of ppl of occupied regions, it would be hard for him to control and maintain order. And that is one of the reasons Mongols punished those who did not surrender 

 

Lets leave Caesar aside for a moment. In Alexander case, you mentioned that many are only now beginning to see him as a genocider. This shows that opinion on Caesar could change too. Though for me, Alexander is a hard case to judge 

 

In case of Alexander's name, you have began to show concessions. If you can do that for Alexander, someone can show concessions to Timur's name 

 

Coming back to Truman, we did "that" in the 20th century despite the benefit of learning from centuries of best practices. This again shows that things are not as black or white as you present 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by zen

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, zen said:

My friend, now you are again going back to "universally popular" point which has been addressed. By naming Alexander and Truman as genociders, you have shown that being universally popular accounts for nothing. If you keep bringing back old points, we will keep running in circles and not get anywhere 

I don't feel like you have addressed it at all, since you keep saying that we are looking at Timur from 21st century morality lens. When we are not and there is ample evidence that he was hated even in his time for being a genocider. So how is that addressed ?

 

Quote

 

You need to add more factors to your algorhythm to judge ancient history. Tell me the number of troops that Ind has kept in Kashmir to protect and maintain peace in the valley. Now consider the size of Timur's forces. Without installing fear in the minds of occupued ppl, it would be hard for him to control and maintain order in the occupied region. And that is one of the reasons Mongols punished those who did not surrender 

False.

Fear is not the only way to rule conquered people or keep them in line. As Augustus Caesar showed in Egypt, Cyrus the Great in Babylon- you often do just fine giving people their rights and doing a better job ruling than the last guy. 

11 minutes ago, zen said:

In Alexander case, you mentioned that many are only now beginning to see him as a genocider shows that opinion on Caesar could change. Though for me, Alexander is a hard case to judge 

 

No. It won't change. Because Caesar didnt go around barging into towns and killing civilians. He killed people who showed up to battlefield. Alexander went barging around towns & fortified cities in the Hindu Kush and killed civilians. 

Quote

 

Coming back to Truman, what we are still doing in the 20th century despite have centuries of best practices to learn from shows that things are not as black or whitevas you present 

 

Ofcourse things are very black and white when it comes to genocide. Just because we have modern genociders, doesn't mean the definitions of genocide or its penalty doesn't apply. What kind of an illogical argument is that ? So because we still have rapists in the modern world, rape isn't black and white in many cases ?!

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by Muloghonto

[zen]

16 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I don't feel like you have addressed it at all, since you keep saying that we are looking at Timur from 21st century morality lens. When we are not and there is ample evidence that he was hated even in his time for being a genocider. So how is that addressed ?

 

False.

Fear is not the only way to rule conquered people or keep them in line. As Augustus Caesar showed in Egypt, Cyrus the Great in Babylon- you often do just fine giving people their rights and doing a better job ruling than the last guy. 

No. It won't change. Because Caesar didnt go around barging into towns and killing civilians. He killed people who showed up to battlefield. Alexander went barging around towns & fortified cities in the Hindu Kush and killed civilians. 

Ofcourse things are very black and white when it comes to genocide. Just because we have modern genociders, doesn't mean the definitions of genocide or its penalty doesn't apply. What kind of an illogical argument is that ? So because we still have rapists in the modern world, rape isn't black and white in many cases ?!

 

If you can put those things together, it has been addressed 

 

Seating in the comfort of my room and typing on my cellphone, I can agree that fear is not the only way. But what means to use are taken based on various factors. I wish things were as simple as in video games. So is Ind doing better job than the last guy in Kashmir? If yes, why there is unrest? What would happen if Ind reduces its forces? What was the size of Timur's forces? What was the population of the territories that he occupied?

 

Info on Caesar is already out which you gave convienently ignored, along with the fact that Alexander is a hero for many 

 

If things are black and white, why a genocider like Truman is considered by many as one of the best Presidents? Now if you want to say that the fact that he did genocide is in black and white, but there are other factors  then why can't other factors come into play for the likes of Timur? Again showing that overall things are not as black or white like you "perceive" them to be 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by zen

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, zen said:

If you can put those things together, it has been addressed 

??

 

Quote

Seating in the comfort of my room and typing on my cellphone, I can agree that fear is not the only way. But what means to use are taken based on various factors. I wish things were as simple like in video tames. So is Ind doing better job than the last guy in Kashmir? If yes, why there is unrest? What would happen if Ind reduces its forces? What was the size of Timur's forces?

??

What video games ? Augustus Caesar's conquest of Egypt/Cyrus's conquest of Iraq was in video games ?!

Quote

Info on Caesar is already out which you gave conviently ignored, along with the fact that Alexander is a hero for many 

I am not ignoring anything, i am correcting your claim. Caesar didnt genocide. He killed people who showed up to fight him. That is not genocide and just because a random internet article uses the word genocide, doesn't make it so.

 

Quote

If things are black and white, why a genocider like Truman is considered by many as one of the best Presidents? Now if you want to say that the fact that he did genocide is in black and white, but there are other factors then why can't other factors come into play for the likes of Timur? 

Except there are no other factors to come into play for Timur. He was a genocider from day1. Besides, I've never heard anyone call Truman a great president, never mind one of the greatest. You are confusing him with Roosevelt. 

Not that i am condoning Truman's actions, but the big difference is, Truman's actions constitute 'if you don't stop fighting me, i will start killing your innocent civilians', while Timur's constitute 'i killed off your army, now i am going to kill off your civilians'.

 

You are incorrect in stating that we are using 21st century morality to judge Timur- we are not. As i mentioned, he was considered a genocidal maniac even in his time.

 

[zen]

26 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

??

 

??

What video games ? Augustus Caesar's conquest of Egypt/Cyrus's conquest of Iraq was in video games ?!

I am not ignoring anything, i am correcting your claim. Caesar didnt genocide. He killed people who showed up to fight him. That is not genocide and just because a random internet article uses the word genocide, doesn't make it so.

 

Except there are no other factors to come into play for Timur. He was a genocider from day1. Besides, I've never heard anyone call Truman a great president, never mind one of the greatest. You are confusing him with Roosevelt. 

Not that i am condoning Truman's actions, but the big difference is, Truman's actions constitute 'if you don't stop fighting me, i will start killing your innocent civilians', while Timur's constitute 'i killed off your army, now i am going to kill off your civilians'.

 

You are incorrect in stating that we are using 21st century morality to judge Timur- we are not. As i mentioned, he was considered a genocidal maniac even in his time.

 

Again you seems to be overlooking the points being made. Your modus operandi appears to keep running in circles 

 

Can't you put 2 and 2 together and see that if everyone functioned like Augustus and if every territory was like Egypt and Crypus, why would Ind need to put large forces in Kashmir? .... And all those questions still not answered

 

Great! So now you are deferentiating b/w the types of genocide. So Truman's is now somewhat justifiable because he did this vs that  (btw, it is Russia closing in that made Japan surrender as Russia would not have given Japan favorable terms).... Thank you for proving my point that there can be more shades 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by zen

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, zen said:

Again you seems to be overlooking the points being made. Your modus operandi appears to be keep on acting as if nothing has been done 

 

Can't you put 2 and 2 together and see that if everyone functioned like Augustus and if every territory was like Egypt and Crypus, why would Ind need to put large forces in Kashmir? .... And all those questions still not answered

 

Great! So now you are deferentiating b/w the types of genocide. So Truman's is now justifyable because he did this vs that .... Thank you for proving my point that there can be more shades 

 

 

Err no. I think we are not communicating well here, is whats going on. 

I am addressing you in both points actually:
my first point, which i don't see you countering, is that :
a) Timur is a mass genocider. Killed off 5% of humanity. Consider that for a second, that puts him in the 'greater than hitler' pure genocider. He simply went around, killed off entire REGIONS. Not just cities. Just coz. Did you know that the Mongols (Which Tamerlane wasn't, actually) always gave surrender option, while Tamerlane often didn't ? Just show up, beat the army, kill off the people, carry of slaves & booty. Rinse and repeat for 40+ years.

So you saying 'it is pretty relativistic' isn't going to cut it- because in his case, it was *not* relativistic at all to any but people who directly benefited-his tiny little kingdom in Bukhara & his marauding army, even in his time. What i am saying is, for bulk majority of people who know Tamerlane, across cultures & religions, his name = name of a genocider. Not just today, but since his own time, over 600 years ago!

So IMO, its callous to call your kid that.

 

b) even if you want to engage in the relativistic argument, Tamerlane comes out near the bottom end of the pile. Whatever shade you want to see him as, if you actually read about Tamerlane and see what a unique blend of total religious genocidal booty-loving psychopath he was, it becomes very difficult to see what exactly was so 'relativistic morality' about his actions either.

 

PS: Funny thing is, you probably haven't read about him from first hand sources. He is a legend in the Perso-Turkic history. Most authors don't even hide the fact (and some stress it) that Timur really, really enjoyed his 'mass murdering guy with a well lead army' title and often boasted about it himself. So no, when people of his time are mostly calling him bad guy, he himself is gloating about his 'bad guy status', it still remains the darkest 'shade' of dark you wish to contextualize it in. 

Look, i will say this- i don't have a problem with the name Timur, per se. I understand that it is a name that often carried royal patronage in times even before Tamerlane. Such as Togha Timur. But the ethnic application of the name is perhaps only applicable to Turko-Mongols themselves. 

But when a foreigner (as in, an Indian like Saif-Kareena) name their kids for 'historic reasons', the same 'historic reasons' has only but one Super Duper Star 'Timur'- Tamerlane- then it becomes pretty suspiciously alt-right behaviour.

 

[Sajid_Rana]

Whenever there is any mention of any successful Muslim ruler it seems to hit a nerve of all Indians. Why??? May be because our rulers ruled them for 100+ years. One cannot change history so just accept the fact and move on. No need to remain bitter about it.

[zen]

28 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Err no. I think we are not communicating well here, is whats going on. 

I am addressing you in both points actually:
my first point, which i don't see you countering, is that :
a) Timur is a mass genocider. Killed off 5% of humanity. Consider that for a second, that puts him in the 'greater than hitler' pure genocider. He simply went around, killed off entire REGIONS. Not just cities. Just coz. Did you know that the Mongols (Which Tamerlane wasn't, actually) always gave surrender option, while Tamerlane often didn't ? Just show up, beat the army, kill off the people, carry of slaves & booty. Rinse and repeat for 40+ years.

So you saying 'it is pretty relativistic' isn't going to cut it- because in his case, it was *not* relativistic at all to any but people who directly benefited-his tiny little kingdom in Bukhara & his marauding army, even in his time. What i am saying is, for bulk majority of people who know Tamerlane, across cultures & religions, his name = name of a genocider. Not just today, but since his own time, over 600 years ago!

So IMO, its callous to call your kid that.

 

b) even if you want to engage in the relativistic argument, Tamerlane comes out near the bottom end of the pile. Whatever shade you want to see him as, if you actually read about Tamerlane and see what a unique blend of total religious genocidal booty-loving psychopath he was, it becomes very difficult to see what exactly was so 'relativistic morality' about his actions either.

 

PS: Funny thing is, you probably haven't read about him from first hand sources. He is a legend in the Perso-Turkic history. Most authors don't even hide the fact (and some stress it) that Timur really, really enjoyed his 'mass murdering guy with a well lead army' title and often boasted about it himself. So no, when people of his time are mostly calling him bad guy, he himself is gloating about his 'bad guy status', it still remains the darkest 'shade' of dark you wish to contextualize it in. 

Look, i will say this- i don't have a problem with the name Timur, per se. I understand that it is a name that often carried royal patronage in times even before Tamerlane. Such as Togha Timur. But the ethnic application of the name is perhaps only applicable to Turko-Mongols themselves. 

But when a foreigner (as in, an Indian like Saif-Kareena) name their kids for 'historic reasons', the same 'historic reasons' has only but one Super Duper Star 'Timur'- Tamerlane- then it becomes pretty suspiciously alt-right behaviour.

 

All that you are doing above is showing there are more shades than black and white 

 

To keep it short, your points on ranking genociders overlook points such as US droping nukes to showcase its power esp to Russia, and using the war on communism to give boost to its industrial-military complex. Also refer to quotes of General LeMay

 

My position is simple that it is hard to judge ancient history through today's lens as such I am open to seeing both the good and bad about someone in ancient history 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by zen

[zen]

25 minutes ago, Sajid_Rana said:

Whenever there is any mention of any successful Muslim ruler it seems to hit a nerve of all Indians. Why??? May be because our rulers ruled them for 100+ years. One cannot change history so just accept the fact and move on. No need to remain bitter about it.

Successful in terms of what? 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, zen said:

All that you are doing above is showing there are more shades than black and white 

 

To keep it short, your points on ranking genociders overlook points such as US droping nukes to showcase its power esp to Russia, and using the war on communism to give boost to its industrial-military complex. Also refer to quotes of General LeMay

 

My position is simple that it is hard to judge ancient history through today's lens as such I am open to seeing both the good and bad about someone in ancient history 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And thats where you keep ignoring me. I am not evaluating Timur by today's lens. I am by his time. And in his time, he was a monster. There is no wiggle room on that or with that.

 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Sajid_Rana said:

Whenever there is any mention of any successful Muslim ruler it seems to hit a nerve of all Indians. Why??? May be because our rulers ruled them for 100+ years. One cannot change history so just accept the fact and move on. No need to remain bitter about it.

Your gripe is false, because plenty of us like muslim rulers like Akbar. But you are trying to prop up a genocidal maniac by saying he was muslim. Which means you are okay with genocidal maniacs, as long as they are muslims. Good job there!

 

[Cricketics]

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Your gripe is false, because plenty of us like muslim rulers like Akbar. But you are trying to prop up a genocidal maniac by saying he was muslim. Which means you are okay with genocidal maniacs, as long as they are muslims. Good job there!

 

Like? That's a big word. Akbar wasn't saint either. You murder one person and you do not deserve to be be liked. At least that is how I see . He was a bit sane, compared to other Moguls, but fact is they all were big time greedy b@stards, all the Moghals, including Portuguese and Brits who came to loot India and kill people. 

 

We Indians have this mentality of liking some people because they commited less crime. All these Moghuls were same. Yes, I will put them all in the same category as Aurangzeb even though they won't have a powerful resume like Aurangzeb.