Taimur Ali Khan Kareena Kapoor's Baby Named For Destroyer Of Delhi?

[haviZsultan]

Timur the lame also killed muslims in great numbers. His fight with the Ottoman empire and attrocities committed against their territories are unknown to none. Timur killed more muslims than Hindus. In the end he wanted to invade China but died before he could plan the expedition. He was merciless and very ruthless.

Anyway it is their parents choice. If they want to name their baby Timur it is their choice. Timur itself does not mean anything bad. It is remembered negatively only because a tyrant had the same name.

 

[Hindustani78]

Republic of India is still the ancient surviving civilization with a historical records of over 7000 years .

I would suggest you not to waste your time. We both know the end result. But yes, then there is Karma. so continue.

Here its more about Faith in the existence of Supreme Creator.

 

[ZenBird]

Get your DNA checked first. They can tell you now-a-day where your ancestors belong to.

What does my DNA have to do with anything? If you are going to make the argument that my acestors were Hindu, then they might have been or they could have been Buddhist or even Pagan, who cares? It's irrelevant.

Sacred Places connected with the Ramayana

Who's disputing that the places are not real? Give proof of Rama's existence. If you feel that as a Hindu you accept his existence for reasons of faith, it's cool with me. But in that case I can't accept his existence as fact.

I would suggest you not to waste your time. We both know the end result. But yes, then there is Karma. so continue.

Yeah run away from a debate, everything you say should be taken at face value and not questioned. I asked you an honest question with no intention to troll.

Timur the lame also killed muslims in great numbers. His fight with the Ottoman empire and attrocities committed against their territories are unknown to none. Timur killed more muslims than Hindus. In the end he wanted to invade China but died before he could plan the expedition. He was merciless and very ruthless.

Anyway it is their parents choice. If they want to name their baby Timur it is their choice. Timur itself does not mean anything bad. It is remembered negatively only because a tyrant had the same name.

Yeah but the dude makes a living in India, it's super offensive to people that he names his kid after an invader who butchered their ancestors. It's like a German actor naming their kid Hitler. Hitler isn't a bad word either.. If its their choice to name their kid whatevre they want, it's also people's choice to be outraged and even boycott his movies.

Republic of India is still the ancient surviving civilization with a historical records of over 7000 years .

I'm disputing none of the above except for the historical records part. I do not mean to say that the Rig Veda cannot be used to conjecture about that time, however I can't accept everything written in it as historical record.

 

[takeiteasy]

super offensive to people that he names his kid after an invader who butchered their ancestors.

In that case, Shivaji, Asoka and most of the emperors should be enlisted in the banned names list.

 

[ZenBird]

In that case, Shivaji, Asoka and most of the emperors should be enlisted in the banned names list.

hhhm true, hadn't thought about that. Still, I'm not saying anything should be banned. Anybody can name their kid anything and anybody can be offended by it and protest.

 

[Djinn]

Whats really sad is that people are mocking a few days old baby just because of his name and calling him what and what not... This is just barbaric. What the baby will grow up to be, no one knows, but all these nasty internet trolls have certainly brought the demon of Taimur the destroyer in them.

 

[TISSOT]

Rig Veda said it so we should accept it? Please post some DNA or other archeological evidence that Rama existed. How do we know he wasn't a fictional character?

What is the proof that Alexander existed ? is there any DNA or archaeological evidence ? Just because some books say that he existed does not make it real, right ?

The same logic you used for Sri. Ram chandraji.

For that matter, what is the proof that guru nanak existed and was not a work of fiction ?

 

[ZenBird]

What is the proof that Alexander existed ? is there any DNA or archaeological evidence ? Just because some books say that he existed does not make it real, right ?

The same logic you used for Sri. Ram chandraji.

For that matter, what is the proof that guru nanak existed and was not a work of fiction ?

Well, Ramayana is the primary book that chronicles his life, right? It also mentions Hanuman burning Lanka with his tail, which is hard for a non Hindu to believe. That castes doubt for me on the rest of the book as well as a historical source. That doesn't mean that Rama does not exist, however, that's why I asked for more proof.

As for Alexander, I'm not well versed in his history so I can't say why his existence is taught in history books.

Lastly, you mentioned Guru Nanak. This is also irrelevant to the thread because I didn't bring up his biography as historical fact. However, his life is chronicled in his janamsakhis written by associates soon after his passing. We also have clothes of his and a Gurdwara with his handprint in Pakistan called Punja Sahib. As a Sikh, I obviously believe in his existence and common Sikh legends about him. If you want to disbelieve in his existence, its cool it doesn't offend me.

I did say above that if you want to say that Rama exists because of your faith in him, then it's cool, lets move on I respect that. My intent is to ascertain the following: "As a non Hindu, what proof exists of him and how much of the history in Rig Veda can I take on face value?"

 

[TISSOT]

Well, Ramayana is the primary book that chronicles his life, right? It also mentions Hanuman burning Lanka with his tail, which is hard for a non Hindu to believe. That castes doubt for me on the rest of the book as well as a historical source. That doesn't mean that Rama does not exist, however, that's why I asked for more proof.

As for Alexander, I'm not well versed in his history so I can't say why his existence is taught in history books.

Lastly, you mentioned Guru Nanak. This is also irrelevant to the thread because I didn't bring up his biography as historical fact. However, his life is chronicled in his janamsakhis written by associates soon after his passing. We also have clothes of his and a Gurdwara with his handprint in Pakistan called Punja Sahib. As a Sikh, I obviously believe in his existence and common Sikh legends about him. If you want to disbelieve in his existence, its cool it doesn't offend me.

I did say above that if you want to say that Rama exists because of your faith in him, then it's cool, lets move on I respect that. My intent is to ascertain the following: "As a non Hindu, what proof exists of him and how much of the history in Rig Veda can I take on face value?"

A text as ancient as Ramayan is subject to many changes over they years primarily because sanskrit during the age of it being written, had not evolved into an exact science.

However like any common reference in history, the story of Ram is mentioned in other history books in India a.k.a "Purans".

Knowledge of Pretty much any historical person comes from what books had chronicled about him. There are no other "irrefutable proof". No DNA evidence or any archaeological evidence like finding his bones (though TImur's bones was excavated from his grave by Russia)

All evidence you mention of Guru Nanak fall can be disputed based on absence of DNA or archaeological evidence.

Many History books make fantastic claims, not all are believed. Even then the Ramayana is one of the oldest known texts and even predates the Vedas. But multiple ancient history books in India speak of him.

 

[maximdude]

Well, Ramayana is the primary book that chronicles his life, right? It also mentions Hanuman burning Lanka with his tail, which is hard for a non Hindu to believe. That castes doubt for me on the rest of the book as well as a historical source. That doesn't mean that Rama does not exist, however, that's why I asked for more proof.

As for Alexander, I'm not well versed in his history so I can't say why his existence is taught in history books.

Lastly, you mentioned Guru Nanak. This is also irrelevant to the thread because I didn't bring up his biography as historical fact. However, his life is chronicled in his janamsakhis written by associates soon after his passing. We also have clothes of his and a Gurdwara with his handprint in Pakistan called Punja Sahib. As a Sikh, I obviously believe in his existence and common Sikh legends about him. If you want to disbelieve in his existence, its cool it doesn't offend me.

I did say above that if you want to say that Rama exists because of your faith in him, then it's cool, lets move on I respect that. My intent is to ascertain the following: "As a non Hindu, what proof exists of him and how much of the history in Rig Veda can I take on face value?"

The only thing i know about verses included in Guru Granth sahib . So Dont counter it.

 

[TISSOT]

The only thing i know about verses included in Guru Granth sahib . So Dont counter it.

http://www.speakingtree.in/allslides/rambhakti-in-sri-guru-granth-sahib-on-guru-nanak-jayanti

 

[ZenBird]

A text as ancient as Ramayan is subject to many changes over they years primarily because sanskrit during the age of it being written, had not evolved into an exact science.

However like any common reference in history, the story of Ram is mentioned in other history books in India a.k.a "Purans".

Knowledge of Pretty much any historical person comes from what books had chronicled about him. There are no other "irrefutable proof". No DNA evidence or any archaeological evidence like finding his bones (though TImur's bones was excavated from his grave by Russia)

All evidence you mention of Guru Nanak fall can be disputed based on absence of DNA or archaeological evidence.

Many History books make fantastic claims, not all are believed. Even then the Ramayana is one of the oldest known texts and even predates the Vedas. But multiple ancient history books in India speak of him.

Thanks, I'm reading a couple of websites about proof that he existed, guess I'm kind of ignorant about ancient Indian history. There seems to be consensus that he existed among historians, belief in the mythology around him depends on your faith as a Hindu.

edit for removing link

That Ram is not Ramchandra mister, Guru Nanak used the word Ram to refer to Waheguru or God.

 

[TISSOT]

Thanks, I'm reading a couple of websites about proof that he existed, guess I'm kind of ignorant about ancient Indian history. There seems to be consensus that he existed among historians, belief in the mythology around him depends on your faith as a Hindu.

The kingdom of Ayodhya existed, the Ikshvaku clan exited and is recorded in history. (Known as Chandra vansh)

That Ram is not Ramchandra mister, Guru Nanak was a Hindu so he used the word Ram to refer to Waheguru.

Actually its the same Ram as mentioned by Guru Gobind singh as Raja Raam Ki Kahani.

What about Krishna mentioned in the Guru granth sahib ?

Is that a different krishna too ?

Do you know that Hindus say "Ram Ram" for greetings similar to "khuda afiz" by muslims ?

That hindus carry the dead body saying "Ram Nam satya hai".

IT all refers to the same Raja Ram. The king of Ayodhya who was also a Vishnu Avatar.

 

[ZenBird]

The kingdom of Ayodhya existed, the Ikshvaku clan exited and is recorded in history. (Known as Chandra vansh)




Actually its the same Ram as mentioned by Guru Gobind singh as Raja Raam Ki Kahani.

What about Krishna mentioned in the Guru granth sahib ?

Is that a different krishna too ?

Do you know that Hindus say "Ram Ram" for greetings similar to "khuda afiz" by muslims ?

That hindus carry the dead body saying "Ram Nam satya hai".

IT all refers to the same Raja Ram. The king of Ayodhya who was also a Vishnu Avatar.

What about it? Guru sahib says that he has heard of Raja Ram's story and he is only focused on the Ram that is present within meaning Parmatma, Waheguru, Allah or God.

What about Krishna? He is mentioned as well but not prayed to. A lot of hindu deities are mentioned partly because Hindu/Sufi saints words are present in our scriptures.

Please save me the RSS/Hindutva BS, I'm not interested.

 

[TISSOT]

What about it? Guru sahib says that he has heard of Raja Ram's story and he is only focused on the Ram that is present within meaning Parmatma, Waheguru, Allah or God.

What about Krishna? He is mentioned as well but not prayed to. A lot of hindu deities are mentioned partly because Hindu/Sufi saints words are present in our scriptures.

Please save me the RSS/Hindutva BS, I'm not interested.

Ram was an Vishnu an avatar which means he had the consciousness of the supreme being within him. The Paramatma which was part of his Atma.

Same as Krishna. Another avatar.

All hindus are focused on the Ram that is parmatma. Not Ram the historical king of Ayodhya who was the physical manifestation of that consciousness. The Atma of King Ram which merged with the paramatma. Hence his being recognized as an Avatar.

SIkhism is a Vaishnava sect of Hinduism. That is a historical reality and any reading of your grath will reveal that.


The fact that you are forced to call me names shows that you already know that your arguments are on flimsy grounds. I am sorry to have been the one to bring your castle crashing down but better late than never.