Talk:Rajput/Archive 15

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between DATE and DATE.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Foo/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. 68.239.123.110 04:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

message: I have a feeling that you guys are having so much fun bashing each other that you've forgotten we're here to write an article. I put up a draft of a new verson at Talk:Rajput/Temp. Could please help me with it? Zora 07:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate, or writing an article? 

message: This is indeed funny. Apparently I am blocked from editing this page because I am "screaming and threatening". Really!! Just go to blocked users' list and you will find my name there.
Come on my muslim friends. What is so threatening about me? I won't jump out of your computer monitors and beat you up. Have some heart. You are all 'Rajputs' afterall, aren't you.
sisodia
Sisodia,
I am sorry to hear that you were banned. Although I don't know who reported you but you knwo banning someone is an action taken by the admins and they do not take an action just because of reporting. I would suggest that you contact them and inquire about why were you banned. "Threatning" anyone is not nice anyway during a "civil" conversation and I think this is a wikipedia policy. As far as jumping out of monitors is concerned, I think many of us wish that only if you can :)
خرم Khurram 15:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something to lighten the mood 

message: see what shiv has done to make wikipedia a RAJPUT_PEDIA 
   
الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 04:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Why cant a Rajput become a Jew? We have already proven Rajputra is lineage based and not 'religion' based although it's origins lay in Hinduism for a major part. The original Aryans had a Rajanya system before the dictated Varna anyway, so it was suited into Hinduism before, why not into Judaism, Islam and indeed Christianity? Or is it your insecurity that so many of your own became non Hindus that is harder to come to terms with? :) --Raja 18:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: ) I like the name of the school. Talking of current situation, I was looking at the 'temp' page our friends have put up, and indeed the point of who is and who is not Rajput is discussed in a little too much of detail. If 0.01% (or 0.001%?) of people who claim to be rajput, say they are the 'muslim' kind, I wonder if it needs to be discussed for so long. Why not a page called 'Muslim Rajput', and people who believe such a group exists, will reach there as soon as they type it in the search box. Distorting the very definition is really unfair, just to please everyone who happens to be editing in here. Also the portion about castes, where are you getting all this from? And Christian Rajputs?? Whats that all about? Any jewish ones in line too?  Ss india 12:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current situation 

message: It's really entertaining to note that a source on Rajputs is now also re writing his version of history on Muslim kings as well. Your friends are 'outlawed' for good reason. Falsehood and prejudice is little tolerated anywhere, why should wikepedia be any different. No matter how many times questions were requested to be answered, you all run and make other 'comfortable' assumptions regarding true history, or your version of it. At least we are not so pre occupied about another's identity as you are with ours. :)
Wisesabre, Khurram, keep up the good work, it's well noted. --Raja 18:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting 

message: Well i'm rejoining this convo since a very long time.. fill me in the details.
AMbroodEY 10:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ofcourse they are honour bound. They are taught to maintain the dignity and honour of all, even the captives. Whether the turks or afghans adhered to this or not, the ideal will always be the ideal set. --Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: some one from India tried to edit Talk:Rajput/Archive14 and added above lines. for the time being i have reverted his edits.Wisesabre 02:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Thats your POV Im afraid. A slave of truth is more honourable than a slave to ego and stubborness I believe :) --Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually your floating off the point here. The example was given when someone asked how a Muslim can be a kshatriya. The explanation I believe was given to provide evidence that there exists in Islam a path of a noble warrior. There will differences ofcourse, but the ancestors of Muslim Rajputs deemed this path superior for whatever reason and left the domain of Hinduism for it. You may not like it, but it happened. --Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Again your POV. To argue senseless arguments on an issue you are floating off is a sign of something, but I will leave that to the readers :) --Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I am sure. After all my ancestor Arjun was the one who learnt it before any other Kshatriya in the history of the Sacred Gita. --Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: But that is contradictory because ofcourse Brahma is witness to all you do? Is he not? If he isn't and a Kshatriya is an exclusive authority beyond the realms of Brahma's control and justice, then I can agree with you. This sadly isn't case. --Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: No witnesses were demanded.--Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This is your POV again--Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Another POV--Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, you made very little to the dispute here and shed no constructive light here at all.--Raja 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what are issues here? 

message: Suryabandhu,
"A pitiful creature Khurram", very well put indeed. BTW I do not know what your definition of "pitiful" is, I find myself to be one because I am engaged in a discussion with those who do not listen to any logic or fact. They live in fantasies and continously deny and oppose any sensible effort that is made to contribute to this article. I am afraid that you are wasting your breath here by trying to explain the properties of a "Khashtariya" since this debate is not about "Khashtariyas" it is about "Rajputs" who, off course, were placed as "Khashtariyas" by the "Brahmins" (I hope you know the difference). Also you said a lot about not being answerable to anyone. Does this "anyone" include the king too? ;)
خرم Khurram 16:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmmmmm

message: I had my doubts about the original protection--if there was an edit war, it was an extremely slow one.  I'm unprotecting because two weeks is several times longer than I think an article should ever be protected without even a tentative period of free editing.  Please work together and refrain from personal attacks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: Shiv,
My friend, I do not think it is reasonable to waste any more logic on you but just as another vain attempt let me tell you one thing, Pakistan was founded on the religious basis and has Islam as its roots. There was no other reason for the division of the sub-continent but religion and in a state that had been founded on the name of a religion; it is not inappropriate to name its landmarks upon the names of religious figures or the prominent figures who followed that religion. Furthermore I do not know why do you think that Babur was less Indian than any other Indian despite of the fact that he and his progeny ruled India.
:Then stop wasting our time with your claims of being rajputs.  If all of you like Islamic figures then you should find your ancestors in those figures.  If your current generation does not even have the guts to name historic monuments and other stuff on the people from whom you claim descent then what kind of rajput are you? Perhaps you are not.
: Shivraj Singh 20:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some clarifications and comments

message: We are arguing with people who cannot even acknowledge there "real" forefathers in there own country!! Shivraj Singh 05:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suryabandhu

message: Suryabandhu,
First of all thanks for your reply. You have very nicely presented your point. For your example of religion being hereditary, I am not sure if it is regarding Hinduism? Also Aryans were not Hindus. Initial records indicate that they were monotheists and later upon conquering different lands, they gradually adopted the customs of their conquered land. As a matter of fact, in almost every religion today, you can find the trace of monotheism and it is not very hard to find out that this idea is the very foundation of those religions. You have mentioned the religion of the soul; I think it will not be inappropriate to present the Islamic view on this issue. Islamic view is that every child is born as a Muslim and it is the people around him who later transform him into other religions. So in a Muslim understanding, a Hindu Rajput has a Muslim soul in him and he practices Hinduism and it is his duty to find where his soul really lies. My only purpose for quoting this Islamic POV was that different religions have different views about the soul and its conditions and maybe it is not a good parameter to decide the reason of adopting a religion.
I totally agree that religion is not spiritual but a material bond and a very strong one in that sense, but I do not think that a religion changes your lineage. Maybe you will agree that many people see things differently than their forefather did or do and behave differently and sometimes in direct contrast to their parents or society. The word "generation gap" is an obvious testament to this criterion. We certainly do not take the lineage from a person if he/she has different ideas than his/her parents or forefathers. Even in Hinduism today its followers are no longer practicing so many religious taboos that few centuries ago would have caused you get out of the religion. Having new and different ideas than the previous people has always been and will always remain the main characteristic of human beings and no system can survive in opposition to this trait. You quoted a verse from "Rig-veda" but it is unclear that in what context has it been said but my understanding is that here the family traditions are being talked about and not the religion.
As far as the similarities between Sikhism and Islam are concerned, let me point out three that directly relate to this article.
1. Sikhism is a monotheist religion, negating any deity.
2. Sikhism is against idol worship (moorti pooja).
3. Sikhism is against Verna caste system (That some are superior to others just by birth).
Ss india,
Sikhs are completely different identity that the Hindus and they are, in no context, the same as Hindus.
:All I can suggest is to take a look at the ground reality in terms of how close the two (Hindu Sikh) communities are, instead of totally relying on your "Sir Denzel Washington"'s ;) hallucinations. Ss india 17:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well put User:Ss india.  BTW what is your name?Shivraj Singh 17:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Same Logic Again

message: I see no point in keeping most of them, except that some of them make a highly entertaining read. Guys, we've actually contributed next to nothing towards the article whilst this talk page threatens to be the longest in wiki history!
अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 17:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Our friends on the other side of the argument have a tendency to forget there own claims.  Archives keeps them honest. Shivraj Singh 17:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete old archives?