Talk:Muslim Rajputs

I have taken the liberty change parts of the article itself to make it more historical correct. I have also removed certain references which make no note of Muslim Rajputs, James Tod for instance didn't even reckognise muslims as rajput and instead called them converts. The only standing reference is one which I havn't read and therfore cannot comment on.

---

since this is apparently a controversial topic, it isn't enough to just list a couple of "References" at the end. You should rather point out in the text which statement is taken from which reference, ideally giving page numbers. Statements so sourced can be imported back into the Rajputs article. dab (ᛏ) 15:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Siddiqui ji,

you wrote:

The Rajputs are the descendants of Sakas, Kushans, Huns, Indo-Greek and other ethnic groups that migarted from Central Asia and settled in modern Pakistan and north western India around 100-600 CE. These new settlers were accepted in Hinduism as newly created caste Raj-put (i.e children of the kings) of Kashatriya. The land settled by Sakas, later called Rajput, was called Sakastan.

This is not correct. Historical evidence is contrary to this. You should check the origin of the major Rajput clans. The Rashtrakutas (Rathores) and Chalukyas (Solankis) were distinguished kings in Karnataka region, before the term "Rajput" emerged.

It is true that Kabul and Gazna region was ruled by Rajputs (of Yadu clan). However they were Hindu for a long time, even before the term Rajput (for the 36 clans) came into use.

--Malaiya 00:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Malaiya is right there. Let's try and elaborate this article. I am making an open request here to all wikipedians who can contribute in any way to this. Let's keep this page civil and open for all to help. he term Rajput is undoubtably a Hindu one and many Hindu (non Rajput and Rajput) editors can contribute here with excellent info such as Malaiya has just done. --Raja 20:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Was Jinnah a Rajput

My understanding is that he was a Khoja. The Khoja are Ismailis of Hindu Bania or Bhatia descent. There a clans like Molesalam in Gujerat which have Rajput ancestry, but Khoja are definitely Bania. I should perhaps say of Bania ancestry, as not to offend any Hindu Banias. Secondly, the picture of Jinnah shows him in a barrister's outfit. I think it should be taken off. If someone has more information on Jinah, I am happy to be corected. WALTHAM2

Muslim Rajput = Oxymoron

Isn't Muslim Rajput an Oxymoron, because a Rajput is that person who upholds the status of Brahmins and Hindu Dharma.

Not really. Thats the role of A kshatriya. A Rajput can allege to be a kshatriya but if he does the contrary, he is still a rajput. In fact it is mentioned that many Hindu Rajputs attacked each other's peoples and religious sites and temples/Mandirs as open acts of supremacy over another dynasty etc, a deep contrast to the ideals you mention.(Hemachandra, Dvyashraya-kavya, Indian Antiquary 1875, 4, 72 ff, 110 ff, 232 ff, 265 ff; J. Klatt, 'Extracts from the Historical Records of the Jainas', Indian Antiquary 1882, 11, 245-56; A.F.R. Hoernle,1890, 19, 233-42.24. P. Bhatia, The Paramaras, Delhi, 1970, 141)

This MR page isn't a justification for MR's, it just describes them. The argument is lineage based and an extensive list of the archived argument is on the Rajput talk page archive. Infact many Rajasthani rajputs purport that they are 'higher' in status to the even the Brahmins, which is at odds with the commonly held Varna Indian caste system certainly.

Muslim Rajputs claim lineal right as opposed to religiousity of the name. Ultimately the word Rajput was never mentioned as the original word in the first citing of the varna, kashatriya was, which is what the rajput allege to be, although the jatt, gujars and many other tribes also are claiming today, proving that Kshatriya isn't the lone exclusivity of the rajput.

'Mohammaden rajputs' has been in reference for a long time, it is only todays extremists who are now reclaiming the word as a Hindu one. In which case, no it isnt an oxymoron. Hope that helps.--Raja 16:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong Raja, if a Rajput no longer upholds his Hindu dharma or protects the Cows and Brahmins, he loses his Jati and thus is no longer a Rajput. Muslims who claim Rajput ancestry are descended from Rajputs but are no longer part of the Varna system, because they are not Hindus, they are muslims.

"Pakistan started the moment the first non-Muslim was converted to Islam in India long before the Muslims established their rule. As soon as a Hindu embraced Islam, he was an outcaste, not only religiously, but also socially, culturally, and economically. As for Muslims, it was a duty imposed on him by Islam not to merge his identity and individuality in any alien society . Throughout the ages, Hindus remained Hindus and Muslims remained Muslims, and they had not merged their identities; that was the basis for Pakistan." Source: Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Address to University Students, Impact International, Islamic Journal, Aligarh Muslim University, March 1944.

Gorkhali (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Question for Raja

My friend,

Based on your interactions on this and the main Rajput page, I assume you are one of the editors of this page. If so, could you please clarify some statements on this page:

1) While a majority of the Rajputs are Hindu, many well known Rajput clans did convert to Islam from the 13th century due to Sufi missionaries which gained momentum in India after the migration of Khwaja Moinuddin Hasan Chisti of Ajmer to India. Is there a citation or Historical reference for this or is it part of folklore or urban legend? If there is, could you please reference it properly on the page. 2) The Rajput kings of all faiths have generally been liberal in terms of religion, Reference for all faiths needs some corraboration. From the examples given, it is clear that all the rulers mentioned were Hindu Rajputs. Could you give an example of Muslim Rajput king who continued this practice of religious tolerance? If not could you please remove this misleading statement, which I presume was added in good faith, but may not stand to historical scrutiny. 3) Many Muslim Rajput clans aided the Mughal conquest of India by taking part in the imperial armies. It must also be mentioned here that Hindu Rajputs also took part in these conquests. References please :-) I would surely like to learn about Hindu rajputs who aided Mughals in their conquest. Are you alluding to informal understanding between Rana Sanga and Babur? 4) Could you please sanitise the beliefs and practises sub-section? Taking potshots at other belief-systems is defintitely not a good way of disseminating information about some community :-) Ideally, this section should list those practises of Muslim Rajputs which are different from other Muslims in a particular region.

Thanks in advance for the consideration!

indologist 12:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Indologist

Though only one of the above mentioned statements was made by me, the rest I do agree with. I would in turn like a reference from an un biased and fully referenced source for where an incident of a Muslim Rajput NOT being tolerant can be cited and where this was a widespread practice to warrant the removal of this reference? Infact a reference has been provided of where Hindu Rajput peers of a newly converted Muslim Rajput king are the intolerant ones ;-) Your points have been duly noted, section mentioned has been updated.

Great

Great! You will find something only in wikipedia. --Bhadani 10:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If only,lol! Thanks for your contribution to the article Bhadani - Raja

Comment Copied from "Rajput Wikipedia": Muslim who claim to be Rajputs

Okay I won't delete the above paragraph again, sorry, I apologise.There are 3 million of us Rajput muslims in Pakistani Punjab,please don't deny us our heritage...indeed we are proud to be associated with Indians in this way. My Muslim clan meet their Hindu clansmen everyear in Delhi..and we promote Love!!! Now, please don't delete mine below either okay? Otherwise this tit for tat will go on until we involve Wikipaedia, okay! Also, Sikhism is not a sect of Hinduism as it is an independent religion in its own right. HH Sohail, The Raja of Chibistan

Somebody recorded recently that if Rajputs were to convert, they could no longer be called Rajputs!With all due respect perhaps he should read the paragraph below...and remember that unfounded taunts are not very noble. The Discovery of India by Jawaharlal Nehru no less, (Oxford Uni.Press 1985, p62) puts into context the concept of unifying 'lineal' inherited identity with 'religious' duty, "The fact of subsequent conversion to other faiths, did not deprive them of this heritage; just as the Greeks, after their conversion to Christianity, did not lose pride in the mighty achievements of their ancestors, of the Italians in the great days of the Roman Republic and early empire." (p341), "...Christians, Jews, Parsees, Moslems. Indian converts to these religions never ceased to be Indian on account of a change of their faith...."

Nehru also mentioned his own personal experience with Muslim Rajputs as he grew up, "I grew to know; the Rajput peasant and petty landholder, still proud of his race and ancestry, even though he might have changed his faith and adopted Islam." More importantly he bears testament to the fact that despite his change of faith, a Rajput is still referred to and recognised as a Rajput.(The Discovery of India, 2004, Penguin, p51)

2006 86.140.142.66 - 86.140.142.66

Answer to above comment

Sir,

Please dont vandalise "Rajput Wikipedia" and delete text randomly, on your insistence I have included a link to Muslim Rajput page from English Wikipedia. It is a well known fact that Hindu Rajputs never in the history of India ever converted by the millions to Islam because of their own free will, they were defeated in unequal wars and forced to convert, those who didnt agree to be converted to Islam were slaughtered by the thousands in front of the very eyes of those who panicked and gave in thus embracing Islam. Invading enemy was famous for raping, slaughtering, and distributing both women and children among themselves after the Rajput (hindu) men died in battle or were slaughtered for not converting.

Please face the truth and the plain facts, this is the knowledge age, no body can afford the excuse that he is from a blindfolded brainwashed lot and dosent know any better.

Sincerely

Best wishes to all who cliam to be Rajputs "Jai Mata Ki"

Atulsnischal 06:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir, You are a very venomous 'oxy-moronic'person that is bent on giving your version of History to any that is gullible enough to hear you.My own ancestor Raja Shadeeb Kumar converted on the orders of Akhbar, and its true that if he did not, he would have lost his State and most likely his head. So, the tactful Raja that he was, he kept his State, by what he called 'adding another god to the 14 he already believed in.Soit seems he did not convert from the heart but,his future generations were spared the ignorance of idolatory and became believers in the one true God of Abraham. Much bigger and powerful Rajputs had the luxury of making pacts with the Moghuls and indeed mixing their blood with Rajputs to the extent that Emporer Jahanghir was half-rajput! However, some like the Mewars considered conversion a fate worse than death.

However, raping was never allowed my Muslim armies and any distribution of women was as wives.. and this prevents societies taking advantage of vunerable women who would other fall into disrepute or be victims of abuse.

Sure, there was great animosity at times, but the Mughals could not have ruled India without the aid of Rajputs.

HH THE RAJA OF CHIBISTAN

2006 86.140.142.66 - 86.140.142.66

Strange then that despite all of this, Raja Man Singh Kachwaha was not only a general for these Invaders but also gave his sister's hand in marriage to them? I dont think it was for rape, so who is wearing the blindfold?

Again, this article doesn't justify Muslim Rajputs to the Hindu extremists, it just describes them. Important difference. Please save the POV slants for a pro nationalist chat room. This is an encyclopedia.

Best wishes to all people, whatever they are, Wasalaam ul ahl e Haq!

--Raja 12:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well ofcourse, I will atleast side with you on wishing all people, peace and brotherhood and all the best to everybody of all faiths.

Sincerely

Atulsnischal 07:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

RAJPUT TRIBES As you may be aware there were only 36 rajput clans originally and there offshoots

And yet nowhere in the article does it cite that this is not the case. However this in itseklf is not conclusive proof and it is not an OFFICIAL statement pre colonial write ups either.

however those people claiming rajput descend i.e the majority are not from these so how can they claim to be rajput e.g ghakkars are from iran and came after the inaugration of these tribes,same as kianis,chibbs are confused because on the one hand they claim to be descended from dogra and on the other they deny.

The Gakkars aren't mentioned anywhere on this article! Are you confused?

HOWEVER the truth of the matter is that in pakistan most who claim descent from rajputs are untrue because if they are not descended from the original 36 or from their offshoot clans then they are not.

Can you confirm this for me? If a line drawn across Punjab segregates one from India and his Rajput roots, then the Hindus living abroad in Canada, UK, and USA are all no longer Indian let alone Rajputs lol. Obviously a very broad and unciteable, unverifiable, proof lacking statement indeed lol. Maybe it's tainted with racism?...

What has infact happened is that any one who has a holding over a village or small area assumes the title of raja although this does not at all mean rajput.

Nope. Land holders hold the title Chodhry, not Raja, and neither do we Rajputs allow them to do so. We Muslim Rajputs are the fiercest fighters and landholing Warlords in Pakistan today and our Jatt counterparts are also equally proud and wouldn't let another blag this title. You are clearly wrong.

Turks in certain areas of nwfp say they are raja, now please dont say they are rajput.

Again, this wikipedia article does not state this anywhere, so why are you bringing this here. This article is about what is written here, not an open discussion on other tribes.

History has always been cruel to its rulers however they retain certain qualities which are not found today.All u who claim rajput descent,good luck to u call yourselves what u like,sayyed batshah but we all know who threatens u most urself.scared of people finding out what u really are.During english rule many people in subcontint were viceroys to the british and many assumed the titles of raja sahib thanku a true RAJAPUTRA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.231.58 (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, because you havent cited a single reference for your claims. Are you afraid? In fact, you mention issues which the page hasn't even mentioned or thought relevant. Interestingly, the British cited certain Muslim Rajput tribes of Punjab as the purest Rajputs around, so how you, a mere Gujjar, can come here and claim some bogus assertions here is beyond me. Thanks for wishing us luck, but we have our Nabi Kareem (SAW) Dua, so no need :-) --Raja 10:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Added other relevent articles under "See also"

See also

• Punjabi Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage
• Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Pakistan
• Punjab,' Pakistan
• History of the Punjab
• Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947
• Punjab region
• Punjab, India
• Punjabi people
• Punjabi Culture
• Rajput Regiment

Atulsnischal 21:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what 'Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947' has to do with Muslim Rajputs, that is to do with the partitioning of India and Pakistan and is highly bias for propaganda.BhainsRajput (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Musharraf

Musharraf is from a Syed family. His father's name was Syed Musharrafuddin. I believe this was alleged by a Meo user. The name has been removed now. Unless a source is found to corroborate this, I suggest it stays out of this page.--Raja 16:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

KLOTHRA RAJPUTS OF KASHMIR

DEAR FELLOWS DOES ANY OF YOU KNOW ABOUT THE KLOTHRA RAJPUTS OF KASHMIR PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING IN THIS REGARD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.27.81 (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The Kahlotra are a Minhas clan. They are in the list of Jammu & Kashmir clans

==

Vital Info

There is no mention of Forced conversions, when it is a well established fact that majority Muslims in India have been forcibly converted. Why has that not been mentioned here? One of the reasons for people converting to Islam was due to the attrocities meeted out by Mughal Emperors (except Akbar) to the Non Muslims (Kafirs/Infidels). The aim is not to create a Rosy picture. The aim is to show the right history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.73.169.152 (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite my friend, the article section "Conversion to Islam" covers how the Muslim Rajputs converted for many reasons, politics, economic reasons, real change of belief and that this continued well in the the late 19/20th century. You're right, the aim is to show the right history, not your distorted one sided bias that people only converted to Islam by force. Infact, they not only converted, but one source even records them as the strongest adherents to the prescriptions of Islam, so a forced element here would be contradictory at best ;-)

Wikipedia is not a forum. This article doesn't justify Rajputs or their conversions, it just describes them and offers info to the cited background. --~Raja~ (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Forced conversions information has been suppressed , making this article inaccurate

There are numerous references of forced conversion of Rajputs and conversions through pecuniary means which have been supppressed in this article. This article is part truth , part fiction.

Nobody denies the fact that some conversions were also genuine but to say all the conversions were in this fashion is little hard to believe.--Satyashodak (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Pakistan started the moment the first non-Muslim was converted to Islam in India long before the Muslims established their rule. As soon as a Hindu embraced Islam, he was an outcaste, not only religiously, but also socially, culturally, and economically. As for Muslims, it was a duty imposed on him by Islam not to merge his identity and individuality in any alien society . Throughout the ages, Hindus remained Hindus and Muslims remained Muslims, and they had not merged their identities; that was the basis for Pakistan." Source: Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Address to University Students, Impact International, Islamic Journal, Aligarh Muslim University, March 1944.

The article is a joke, for those Muslims who have legitimate Rajput Ancestors, this article is a complete insult and mockery. First of all, everyone knows Jinnah was not of Rajput ancestry, nor did he ever claim to be, neither did Bhutto, neither did his daughter and so on. By creating false claims and a false history, the editors of this article have only undermined themselves. And sadly, those who are truly descended from the mighty Rajputs are probably cringing at every sentence of this horrible article.

The article is trying to claim that almost every single person in Pakistan is a Rajput, which is not true, and everyone knows that. Furthermore, it is geared totally towards Pakistan without any significant mention about the Muslims in India who may be a Rajput descent. The article goes further to make claims that all conversions were willing, when in fact in Rajput history, everyone knows that is not true and in fact Muslim Rajputs lost their status and suffered greatly for their conversion.

And finally the worst part is the fact that there are clan names being created in the article that never existed, are not Rajput clans and are merely being presented on Wikipedia because its being used as a Propaganda article.

Guys, please present a legitimate article about Muslims of Rajput Ancestry and stop making it look like a Joke.

Gorkhali (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Jinnah not a Rajput but Bhutto is

I take your point on Jinnah, he was a Khoja, as such a Bania and not a Rajput. But the Bhutto clan definitely claims Rajput ancestry. I have extended family members from the village of Salar Bhutto. They claim to be Bhatti from Bikaner, whose ancestor Sheto converted to Islam during Aurangzeb's rule. As regards to the clans in the list, all claim Rajput ancestry. In Sindh, those who claim to Samma ancestry claim to be Rajput. The Jadeja and Chudasama of Gujerat are also of Samma ancestry and are still Hindu.They still use the title Jam, which also used by Muslim Samma clans. All the Kashmir clans are Dogras, most still have Hindu branches.

Jauhar and Captured Rajput women as Right Hand Possessions ("ma malakat aymanukum") of Quran (verse 23:6)

"However, raping was never allowed my Muslim armies and any distribution of women was as wives.. and this prevents societies taking advantage of vunerable women who would other fall into disrepute or be victims of abuse." (Quoting the editor 'Raja of Chibistan')

Hello Raja of Chibistan,

How do you explain the Right Hand Possessions mentioned in Quran?

With regard to the women, they become slaves and “those whom one's right hand possesses” (described as a “right hand servant” in the question). Male children also become slaves. The ruler shares out these slaves among the mujaahideen....Rather Islam made them the property of their masters alone, and forbade anyone else to also have intercourse with them, even if that was his son.

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/12562

Are you telling the readers that "mujahideen" did not have intercourse with their captured female slaves? What makes you think that the captured Rajput women would have escaped from forced sexual intercourse (rape) by the Muslim masters whose property they would become after their Kafir husbands or fathers were killed in the battle? I think the Rajput custom of Jauhar was the direct consequence of this behavior of Muslim armies, a behavior which seems to have scriptural sanction in Islam. I am making sure that I have quoted from a Muslim source (which obviously describes "right hand possessions" in a less damaging light than a neutral or hostile source would). Kindly enlighten.

Complete citation about Right Hand Possession from Quran(verse 23:6):

Illa AAala azwajihim aw ma malakat aymanuhum fa-innahum ghayru maloomeena

Except on (to) their spouses or what their rights/oaths owned/possessed (i.e. caregivers under contract), so they truly are not blameworthy/blamed

Yusuf Ali's exegesis:

Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame

--Satyashodak (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

*Slightly unclear as to what is meant by  the above comment.

BhainsRajput (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately my friend, this article doesn't justify Islamic ayah's but merely describes Rajputs who left Hinduism and converted to Islam, for whatever reason. If you want elaboration of Ayah's please consult a local Mosque ;-)--~Raja~ (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)