I have said that Babur never failed to style himself as 'Jihadi' during his adventure in India where he carried out several fights and slaughters to gain his imperialist designs. It was not Jihad as defined in the old books of the religion. Moreover, as your openining lines admit Jihad had different meanings for different people.
The example quoted by you does not reach nearer Jihad; rather it exemplifies a pure fight for political supremacy between the two parties.
Mussalman log hinduon ke khilaaf aur anye dharmon ke logo ke khilaaf aam tor pe zeehad chedte hain. Lekin ek sachai yeh bhi hai ki woh aapas mein ek doosre ke khilaaf bhi zeehad chedte hain. Pathanon ne mughlo ke khilaaf zeehad chedi thi san 1672 mein. Udharanarth:
"A rising of the Yusufzais in 1667 had been crushed with heavy slaughter and destruction of crops, but in 1672 the Afridis rose and proclaimed Jihad or Holy War against the Moghuls. They attacked and destroyed a Moghul army at Ali Masjid, situated at the Kabul side of the Khaibar Pass, capturing some 20,000 men and women, besides plunder valued at 20 million rupees." Prashth 319 :
A HISTORY OF AFGHANISTAN
THE ROAD TO TAKHT-I-SULAIMAN
By BRIG.-GEN. SIR PERCY SYKES
Is jankaari ke madhya najar babur ne mewati ko maara ya lodi ko isse yeh nahi
kaha ja sakta ki usne zeehad nahi chhedi.
Satish chandra ki kitaab MEDIEVAL INDIA FROM SULTANAT TO THE MUGHALS ke prasht 35 pe likha hai:
"However, it was Babur who tried to give a religious colour to the conflict in order to raise the flagging spirit of his soldiers. Addressing the officers and men on the eve of the battle, he tried to fire their military ardour, and also tried to use their religious susceptibilities by declaring the war against the Rana to be a jihad or holy war. The begs and the men were made to swear on the Quran that they would not turn away from the battle but fight to the last."
Phir prasth 37 pe likha hai:"Interestingly, Babur declared the siege of Chanderi also to be a jihad."
Aap ek taraf to elliot aur dowson ki ninda kar rahe hain ki unpe vishwas nahi kiya ja sakta parantu jab Babur syavam apni kitaab mein zeehad ka varnan kar raha aap usse bhi nahi maan rahe hain. Kya yeh tarksangat hai?
Dr.sahab how would he had declared jihaad againt a muslim ibhrihm lodhi.
he took another way.he proclaimed delhi was won by his great father temur langda.
And he is original waris to throne rest is history.
babur left drinking before first battle of panipat not before battle of khanwa
thanks
Jihad is a relative term and has provided several meanings of the word to different people at different times, Nowadays a tendency has developed that every fight involving Muslims on the one side and people of other religions on the other is declared as a Jehad during medieval times of Indian History. This misnomer has been injected by the British historians on India who divided Indian history into three parts : Ancient Indian History was designated as Hindu Hisstory; Medieval period history as Muslim History and lastly modern History as the British History. Whereas it is found that in all the three periods existence of numerous ruling dynasties and elites do not justify this division into religion based division of Indian History.
Of course, religion has been used time and again by the rulers to solicit and consolidate unflinching support of their coreligionists and there are numerous instances and many examples of Jehad carried out by Muslims in various parts of the world. But so far as political expeditions with imperialist design carried out by Babur in India are concerned, they do not fit into this scheme of things. He raised the bogey of Islam in danger to establish his empire in India by removing his rivals from the scene but did little in the service of Islam as Jehadi.
Rajpal Ji...so
what ISIS is doing in Seria and Iraq that qualifies to be Jihad?
Taliban is doing Jihad in Afghanistan or not?
give a single example of past or present so that I can understand Jihad. Plz apologize but you need to read the history again seriously
Mussalman log hinduon ke khilaaf aur anye dharmon ke logo ke khilaaf aam tor pe zeehad chedte hain. Lekin ek sachai yeh bhi hai ki woh aapas mein ek doosre ke khilaaf bhi zeehad chedte hain. Pathanon ne mughlo ke khilaaf zeehad chedi thi san 1672 mein. Udharanarth:
"A rising of the Yusufzais in 1667 had been crushed with heavy slaughter and destruction of crops, but in 1672 the Afridis rose and proclaimed Jihad or Holy War against the Moghuls. They attacked and destroyed a Moghul army at Ali Masjid, situated at the Kabul side of the Khaibar Pass, capturing some 20,000 men and women, besides plunder valued at 20 million rupees." Prashth 319 :
A HISTORY OF AFGHANISTAN
THE ROAD TO TAKHT-I-SULAIMAN
By BRIG.-GEN. SIR PERCY SYKES
Is jankaari ke madhya najar babur ne mewati ko maara ya lodi ko isse yeh nahi
kaha ja sakta ki usne zeehad nahi chhedi.
Satish chandra ki kitaab MEDIEVAL INDIA FROM SULTANAT TO THE MUGHALS ke prasht 35 pe likha hai:
"However, it was Babur who tried to give a religious colour to the conflict in order to raise the flagging spirit of his soldiers. Addressing the officers and men on the eve of the battle, he tried to fire their military ardour, and also tried to use their religious susceptibilities by declaring the war against the Rana to be a jihad or holy war. The begs and the men were made to swear on the Quran that they would not turn away from the battle but fight to the last."
Phir prasth 37 pe likha hai:"Interestingly, Babur declared the siege of Chanderi also to be a jihad."
Aap ek taraf to elliot aur dowson ki ninda kar rahe hain ki unpe vishwas nahi kiya ja sakta parantu jab Babur syavam apni kitaab mein zeehad ka varnan kar raha aap usse bhi nahi maan rahe hain. Kya yeh tarksangat hai?
Friend,
Contemporary incidents of butchering the innocent people using religion as a cover to their real designs to capture political power are reprehensible and must be condemned by one and all. Taliban forces in Afghanistan are killing their coreligionists to establish their political supremacy in the name of 'Jehad'.
However to read past history by applying these contemporary events to colour our decisions of historical processes does not fit in the methodology of historical studies.
As mentioned earlier, the term Jehad has several meanings and must be used with caution to understand development and progress of medieval Indian History.
Thanks and regards
Dear Friend,
I asked for a simple example, present or past and you are making the thing complex. Out of many definition of jihad, take one , give me a single example of a true "Jihadi" as per your opinion ( I guess your opinion is as per Islamic teaching).
Dear Friend,
I asked for a simple example, present or past and you are making the thing complex. Out of many definition of jihad, take one , give me a single example of a true "Jihadi" as per your opinion ( I guess your opinion is as per Islamic teaching).
Rajpal Ji...
give a single example of past or present so that I can understand Jihad. Plz apologize but you need to read the history again seriously
Friend,
Read for answer of the first question :http://books.google.co.in/books?id=...page&q=Which caliph indulged in Jihad&f=false
For conceptual clarity log : http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.or...ad-classical-islamic-perspective.html?start=9
Regarding your advice to me to read the history again seriously, I am striving to keep myself updated in my field of interest and have never stopped reading it seriously. Nonetheless, thanks for your words of wisdom !
It would be good if other participants also contribute the factual aspects of history of India as it happened not as it ought to have happened or as coloured by the present day distortions being applied by 'terrorist groups'.
Thanks and best wishes
My friend, Jihad definition according to Islam is : the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin.
Thanks
Aap kaisi baat kar rahe hain? Mughalon ne zeehad chedi woh zeehad nahi ho sakti. Aaj terrorist zeehad ched kar saari duniya me logon ko pel rahe hain woh zeehad nahi ho sakti. Yeh kaisa majaak hai?Friend,
Contemporary incidents of butchering the innocent people using religion as a cover to their real designs to capture political power are reprehensible and must be condemned by one and all. Taliban forces in Afghanistan are killing their coreligionists to establish their political supremacy in the name of 'Jehad'.
However to read past history by applying these contemporary events to colour our decisions of historical processes does not fit in the methodology of historical studies.
As mentioned earlier, the term Jehad has several meanings and must be used with caution to understand development and progress of medieval Indian History.
Thanks and regards
Jihad is a relative term and has provided several meanings of the word to different people at different times, Nowadays a tendency has developed that every fight involving Muslims on the one side and people of other religions on the other is declared as a Jehad during medieval times of Indian History. This misnomer has been injected by the British historians on India who divided Indian history into three parts :
Aapka bahut dhanyawad. Jyada kuch to nahi pata hai thoda baut padha hai.Romar sahib!..I have been a fan of your knowledge I wonder how you managed to read so many history books ..you have done a very good research on many topics and always nail your opponent down by giving exact reference.
Aap ka tark tha ki babur ki ladaai hindustaan me zeehad nahi maani ja sakti kyonki usne mussalman maare thhe. Aapki yeh baat galat saabit ho chuki hai.
Doosra aapka tark thha ki babur sharaab pita tha isliye woh sacha mussalman nahi tha aur uske dwara ladaai zeehad nahi maani jaa sakti. Yeh bilkul bebuniyaad baat hai.
Abhi tak aapne thos parmaan nahi diya ki aap Babur ke dwara apni jiwani me likhe kathan ki, jahan weh kaha raha hai ki usne hindustan mein zeehad chede, kaise avmanana kar rahe hai?
Jin kitabon aur lekhon ke link aapne diye unme se kisi ka babur se lena dena nahi hai.
Aap yeh kyon nahi maan rahe hain ki aapa najariya galat ho sakta hai? Aur Babur aapse jyada zeehad ke vishay me jaanta hai?[/QUOTE]
Friend,
the links were provided to find out clarification on the issue of 'Jehad'.
I would like to say, though Babur has nowhere declared his intention to carry out Jehad expeditions in India and carried out his victorious arm at Panipat against Ibrahim Lodhi.
Then he decided to stay in India as this victory enabled him to possess vast territory to rule and also fabulous wealth. But to ensure safety of his newly founded kingdom he had to face a powerful Indian king of the times, Rana Sanga, who had also his eyes to capture the territories left by the Sultan. Hence the struggle for supremacy was to be decided in the battle ground but his friends in high positions lost nerves on learning about the bravery of Indian forces and personal prowess of the Rana. Though they collected at the ground of Khanwa yet showed inclination to retire to Kabul in the darkness of the night.
At this step he warned them against the danger involved in leaving the battle ground and fall prey to the pursuer Indians and die at their hands. He called them to join them in the battle field where they can either win or die. If they won, the fruits of Indian wealth and comfort of the empire would be at their feet; conversely if they fell in the fight they would be remembered as GHAZIS.
Thus to boost the lowly morale of his comrades in arms, he used Religious Idioms like Pagan for Rana Sanga, Jehad for the ensuing battle and Ghazis for his army officers. To confirm his own credibility as a true Muslim he enacted the drama of breaking golden and silver pots containing costly wine imported for his use from central Asia.
Thus, Babur who was a great general and seasoned war planner of not only India but of Asia of his times proved himself a fine event manager. He was successful in turning a pure political fight to 'JEHAD' i.e.battle carried out to spread Islam against Rana Sanga who had earlier invited Babur to invade Delhi Sultan.
In this way, Babur the imperialist invader feigned for as 'Jehadi or Mujaheddin' and won this political battle against his formidable enemy. This is an example of sheer misuse of religious feelings roused for attainment of political ends.
After reading the above course of events on the night before the actual battle happened, it is for the historians to draw there own conclusions whether he was an imperialist foreign invader or a Jehadi or mixture of the two !
I stand by findings arrived at by Satish Chandra as quoted by you in one of your earlier posts and also add that Babur was an imperialist invader and determined conqueror to spread his Kabul based empire over India who at times even posed as a Jehadi-which he was not.
I think the issue stands amply clarified and it is for the readers to derive their own conclusions, they may test the verocity of our findings after reading the available and accessible sources on Babur and are free to add their newer findings, if any.
In the meantime, let us move to some other topic which may be relevant to the heading of the title of the thread.
Thanks and regards
Aap kaisi baat kar rahe hain? Mughalon ne zeehad chedi woh zeehad nahi ho sakti. Aaj terrorist zeehad ched kar saari duniya me logon ko pel rahe hain woh zeehad nahi ho sakti. Yeh kaisa majaak hai?
Aapki baat sarasar galat hai. Angrejon ka koi lena dena nahi hai. Mughal apni kitabon mein jagah jagah per likh rahe thhe ki unhone kai martaba hinduon ke khilaaf zeehad chedi. Ek Udharan saamne hai babur ki jivani se.
Aap is tarah se sach ko kaise tod marod sakte hain?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.