Any Janjua's on Gupistan!!!!!!

[Dhamial_Raja]

Re: Any Janjua’s on Gupistan!!!

Thanks brother Janjua , I am from U.K and trying to gather some info.about our cusions in asia and if u got any more information please let me know. I have another question for you, I know we are descendents of Raja Mall and Raja Mubaraik took controll of Dhamial plan and so we are called Dhamial Rajputs and Ranial rajputs, if u can add more in to it < I’ll be greatful to you.
We all are brothers and its our duty to pass knowledge to others and its sunnah of Rasul Allah Peace be upon him.
In addition to Gen. Asif Nawaz Janjua, I was told by a senior officer that General was poisioned and thats why they had to dig his grave after some months to get DNA samples from his bones and they were positive.

[Janjua_Raja]

Re: Any Janjua’s on Gupistan!!!

@Dhamial Raja

Thanks brother Janjua ,
In addition to Gen. Asif Nawaz Janjua, I was told by a senior officer that General was poisioned and thats why they had to dig his grave after some months to get DNA samples from his bones and they were positive.

No problems bro. I will do my best for you , where I find info, I will provide it for you. I do know that Raja Mubarak Khan was a descendant of Raja Jodh Khan, the ruler of Makhiala and Garjaak. He was a famous Raja of the region as other Rajeh used his arms for a struggle in their region too, I believe Tahreek e Janjua holds the full story to that.

Your right, Gen Asif Nawaz Khan Janjua was poisoned, (highly likely) because the autopsy returned inconclusive and initially was wrought with intrigue to even have it done. His wife was influential in having it conducted by Bald man Nawaz Sharif was too close to being exposed and even today is implicated in his murder. Allah knows best bro. He was martyred for trying to free his country from the political idiots who’ve been drinking our nations reserves for themselves.

[nikhil25]

Re: Any Janjua’s on Gupistan!!!

@Janjua Raja

Thats really sad to see actually. If we keep religion aside, both sides cant deny the other’s achievements. But thats the point. We listened and embraced Islam and will never leave it, they will never listen and will always hate Islam for the wrong reasons. The mere fact that they may themselves flock to our holy darbaars, and possibly hate us because of a few lax leaders, is a naive and pathetic hatred to carry I think. Fair play, jahein jahanum mein, who cares? Even today we are the world’s fastest growing religion, lol!

i don’t think they care about your religious beliefs.

they reason why some of them hate muslim rajputs is because they view them as traitors (politically)…brothers that betrayed them, which is the ultimate sin according to rajput warrior code which places huge emphasis on loyalty. they see muslim rajputs as the descendants of traitorous rajputs that defected to the enemy’s camps for political and financial gain…not because of conversion to Islam (there are tons of muslim marwadis in rajasthan that get along fine with Rajputs).

similarly, there are a few hindu Rajput clans also viewed as traitors for identical reasons (but did not convert to Islam)…and they are hated more than muslim rajputs. It is not an issue of religious beliefs.

[mulz]

Re: Any Janjua's on Gupistan!!!!!!

^ It is hard to believe for Pakistanis that Hindus rajputs exist cuz I thought all rajputs are now muslims but then I learned recently that all ppl w/ surname "singh" are rajputs as well like Manmohan singh.

[Janjua_Raja]

Re: Any Janjua's on Gupistan!!!!!!

@nikhil25

i don't think they care about your religious beliefs.

they reason why some of them hate muslim rajputs is because they view them as traitors (politically).....brothers that betrayed them, which is the ultimate sin according to rajput warrior code which places huge emphasis on loyalty. they see muslim rajputs as the descendants of traitorous rajputs that defected to the enemy's camps for political and financial gain....not because of conversion to Islam (there are tons of muslim marwadis in rajasthan that get along fine with Rajputs).

similarly, there are a few hindu Rajput clans also viewed as traitors for identical reasons (but did not convert to Islam)...and they are hated more than muslim rajputs. It is not an issue of religious beliefs.

Thanks for your point Nikhil.
But then if thats the case, thats a weak reason (on their part, not yours bro). Rajput code is dictated by the "Gita", which is ''reasonably'' consistent with the Qur'an itself (Mujahid's ideals etc). Higher than loyalty, is standing for Truth where one perceives it. My proof? Well the Gita was due to Arjun Pandav's view that loyalty to bradheri should supercede the need to war against your own brethren. Krishna (through his book the Gita) narrated that in matters of faith (i.e. belief in right/truth/faith) should supercede lineal relations, and that was the premise for the whole Mahabharat war.

By that definition, the non Muslim Rajput's argument of expecting loyalty to brethren to supercede faith is wrong.

Secondly, Muslim Rajputs waged war on Muslim kings also, e.g. the Delhi Sultanates. But if they saw virtue in the word of Islam and embraced it, but still allied with their Hindu brethren, still fought their ''common enemy'', how is that traitorous? Then that means they view Islam as the enemy and not just the Muslim Sultans i.e. my first point, that they have a problem with religious beliefs.

These are political reasons in my opinion, rather than genuine points.

[Janjua_Raja]

Re: Any Janjua's on Gupistan!!!!!!

@mulz

^ It is hard to believe for Pakistanis that Hindus rajputs exist cuz I thought all rajputs are now muslims but then I learned recently that all ppl w/ surname "singh" are rajputs as well like Manmohan singh.

Nope Mulz Bro. Not all Singhs are Rajput. Singh is a common name for all Sikh males too, from Tarkhans to Jatts also. Manmohan is a class Hindu Raja that haaaaaattttes us Pakistanis, lol!!! :D

[nikhil25]

Re: Any Janjua’s on Gupistan!!!

@mulz

^ It is hard to believe for Pakistanis that Hindus rajputs exist cuz I thought all rajputs are now muslims

some 7 out of every 10 rajputs is a hindu…but of course, almost none live in Pakistan so your view would be understandable.

but then I learned recently that all ppl w/ surname “singh” are rajputs as well like Manmohan singh.

no, actually manmohan singh is a punjabi khatri, not a rajput.

the “singh” surname was first used by rajputs, but was adopted by the sikhs when guru gobind singh militarized the religion under the khalsa banner. there are also a good number of sikh rajputs, but the majority are not.

[nikhil25]

Re: Any Janjua’s on Gupistan!!!

@Janjua Raja

Thanks for your point Nikhil.
But then if thats the case, thats a weak reason (on their part, not yours bro). Rajput code is dictated by the “Gita”, which is ‘‘reasonably’’ consistent with the Qur’an itself (Mujahid’s ideals etc). Higher than loyalty, is standing for Truth where one perceives it. My proof? Well the Gita was due to Arjun Pandav’s view that loyalty to bradheri should supercede the need to war against your own brethren. Krishna (through his book the Gita) narrated that in matters of faith (i.e. belief in right/truth/faith) should supercede lineal relations, and that was the premise for the whole Mahabharat war.

By that definition, the non Muslim Rajput’s argument of expecting loyalty to brethren to supercede faith is wrong.

That’s an interesting view. indeed there may be a philosophical exoneration in play, but this would only apply to muslim rajputs that magically converted to Islam from the soul one day (of course they didn’t exist) or those that independently converted out of conviction (very few). As i mentioned earlier, many muslim rajputs are muslim today because of political alliances that resulted in conversion as either part of the deal or to galvanize the deal, which is all well-documented. It is referred to as the “dark age” of Rajputana because some Rajputs left their honor aside and were allying with the enemy invaders, giving their daughters, converting, etc. just to save their kingdoms and riches. Unfortunately, some of those kings remain the most prominent ancestors of modern-day muslim rajputs…and that is how you get the view of “traitor”. Again, they don’t see it as a betrayal of religion, but a political betrayal against them and against Rajput ideals.

Secondly, Muslim Rajputs waged war on Muslim kings also, e.g. the Delhi Sultanates. But if they saw virtue in the word of Islam and embraced it, but still allied with their Hindu brethren, still fought their ‘‘common enemy’’, how is that traitorous? Then that means they view Islam as the enemy and not just the Muslim Sultans i.e. my first point, that they have a problem with religious beliefs.

These are political reasons in my opinion, rather than genuine points.

again, i think you are overestimating the emphasis on religion and any particular hatred for Islam. why would Rajputs just start hating Islam out of the blue?

prior to the islamic invasions, who do you think the Rajputs were fighting in their wars? Obviously other Hindus. The various Rajput kingdoms fought not only against other Hindu kings, but also against other Rajputs.

as far as uniformly seeing the Muslim rulers in India as the enemy, two things:

1. It is very difficult to argue against this view given that we are talking about foreign muslims that invaded Rajput territories and violently usurped power. By any measure of common sense, such people would be seen as enemies. If they were Hindus or Buddhists, do you think Rajputs would have welcomed it? Of course not, they would have fought them to the death as well.

2. Rajputs frequently allied with many varieties of noble Muslim warriors that also had the goal of overthrowing tyrant rulers (who, in that period, happened to be mostly Muslims…particularly the Mughals).

Rajputs are not known for religious intolerance, and it would be irresponsible to assign this label to them.

[SumeraMansoor]

Re: Any Janjua's on Gupistan!!!!!!

I'm half janjua! my dad's from gujranwala

[SumeraMansoor]

Re: Any Janjua's on Gupistan!!!!!!

and my husband's family are rajput

[quas]

Re: Any Janjua's on Gupistan!!!!!!

^ Are they Janjuas too?

[SumeraMansoor]

Re: Any Janjua's on Gupistan!!!!!!

uummmm...hold on let me ask hubby

[LastOfTheDinosaurs]

Re: Any Janjua's on Gupistan!!!!!!

@Janjua Raja

..............Tanoli were heroes and were reverred by even the Pakhtuns, so read your OWN history before raising a finger against us Rajputs mate. Especially as they ruled Afghanistan up to Kabul and Kandahar up to the 11th century, lol.

How man, how can you make that claim? Do you mean Rutbil Shahan of Kabul were Janjua? The claim about Kandahar is even weaker.

And I read a book sometime ago "Al-Afghan-ul-Tanoli" in which they said, Tanolis are Afghan. Do you agree with this?

[Janjua_Raja]

Re: Any Janjua's on Gupistan!!!!!!

@LastOfTheDinosaurs

How man, how can you make that claim? Do you mean Rutbil Shahan of Kabul were Janjua? The claim about Kandahar is even weaker.

And I read a book sometime ago "Al-Afghan-ul-Tanoli" in which they said, Tanolis are Afghan. Do you agree with this?

First of all bro, I dont mention Shahan anywhere. Your first point about Kandahar being ruled by Rajputs as weak, please do some research about Masaudi, Ferishta and especially Al Biruni referring to the Kings of Kabul, the Hindu Shahiya dynasty Hindu Rajputs up to 1001ad. Any source of the subject will enlighten you to that. The region upto Kabul was ruled by the Turk Shahi initially and then later the Hindu Shahi. Thats something thats never been disputed. Infact in the Mahabharat texts, Shakuni (the Aryan ruler of that region) gave his sister Ghandari to the Kuru King. Many researchers believe Ghandar/Kandhar to be name similarised to her.

Secondly. Tanolis never entered Afghan areas and are not Pashtun. Even today they are confined to Hazara regions. Some ill informed do allege to be Pashtun, but you only have to discuss this with any real Pashtun researcher to be corrected of this erronous view. It's understandable, I have met some Gakhars who allege they are Rajput and chandravanshi too, lol. I have met some Kokhars who state they are descendants of Kutb Shah, but thats impossible to say the least.

This was one book written as a view. But the fact is that Tanwal was named after it's first ruler Raja Tanwali/Tanwal, even the Tanoli admit that. Nawab Salahuddin Khan (the last ruler of Amb) will dispel any myths about this. Also Tanolis live in heavily Pashtunised areas hence they are culturally Pashtun. The Tanolis of Rawalpindi and Gujar Khan are culturally Punjabi. Other Pashtun tribes respected the Tanolis through the eras even till today. I think the Pashtun view is there mainly because they live in an area where Hinduism is heavily deplored and anything ''Indian'' is deemed inferior. Thats a sad thing IMO, but the reality.....

[Janjua_Raja]

Re: Any Janjua's on Gupistan!!!!!!

@SumeraMansoor

I'm half janjua! my dad's from gujranwala

Gujranwala has some strong Janjua chiefs that side. From what I've read they have bitter rivalries with each other too. That would make sense Sameera:), lol.

[Janjua_Raja]

Re: Any Janjua's on Gupistan!!!!!!

@nikhil25

That's an interesting view. indeed there may be a philosophical exoneration in play, but this would only apply to muslim rajputs that magically converted to Islam from the soul one day (of course they didn't exist) or those that independently converted out of conviction (very few). As i mentioned earlier, many muslim rajputs are muslim today because of political alliances that resulted in conversion as either part of the deal or to galvanize the deal, which is all well-documented. It is referred to as the "dark age" of Rajputana because some Rajputs left their honor aside and were allying with the enemy invaders, giving their daughters, converting, etc. just to save their kingdoms and riches. Unfortunately, some of those kings remain the most prominent ancestors of modern-day muslim rajputs....and that is how you get the view of "traitor". Again, they don't see it as a betrayal of religion, but a political betrayal against them and against Rajput ideals.

First of all I have to say I'm glad we are having a civil talk about this. Infact I'm very impressed, as most I debate this with get very abusive towards Islam, hence my view.

Ok, with regards to the conversions, whether they were political or by choice, faith has always been part of a political game, whether it was buddhism being pushed down by Hinduism etc. The fact that none of their descendants converted back denotes some genuine conversion. But religion aside, some Rajput kings did convert but STILL lost their kingdoms, such as the Jarral Rajputs who lost Kalanaur, regardless of their change of faith. But I have one counter argument about giving daughters and changing faith being part of the deal with Muslim emperors. You only have to see Man Singh Kachwaha who's sister Jodha Bhai married Akbar. They retained their Hindu faith and she was very well treated (allowed to remain Hindu also). I dont see Man singh being a prominent ancestor of the Kachwaha alone? My own view is that few kings ever, of any faith, were staunch true religionists who fought and followed their faith. A kings faith is primarily his throne. So a political conversion can ofcourse occur, as can an alliance with another.

But we both agree that when no outsider is there to fight, Rajputs do heavily fight amongst themselves, even today, lol.

But either way, the fact that we are having a civil talk about this is a victory in itself for both tolerance and respect. And I thank you for that. :)

[LastOfTheDinosaurs]

Re: Any Janjua's on Gupistan!!!!!!

Probably, Kabul Shahs had two sub-dynasties as can be implied from the statements of Al-Bairuni; the forerunners with seat at Kabul were Turks most probably of Kushan-Ephtalite origin.

When Yaqub-i-Lais the Saffarid took Kabul in 870 AD, Kabul Shahs were displaced to Waihind, a place to the west of River Indus in Gandhara (Peshawar Valley). Historians have identified this place to be Hund and Lahore, small towns in the present Sawabi district (Peshawar Valley).

The last Kabul Shah of Turkish origin was Lagaturman with whome Turk Shahiya dynasty ended and Hindu Shahiya dynasty started. According to Al-Bairuni (Tarikhul-Hind):

"The last king of this line was Lagaturman and his Wazir was Kallar, a Bramin. The later had been fortunate, insofar as he had found by accedent hidden treasures which gave him much influence and power. In consequence, the last king of this Tibatan house after it had held power for so long a period, let it by degrees slip from his hands. Besides, Lagaturman had bad manners and a worse behavior, on account of which people complained of him greatly to the Wazir. Now the Wazir put him in chains and imprisoned him for correction, but, himself, finding ruling sweet, his riches enabled him to carry out his plans and so he occupied the royal throne. After him ruled the Brahmin kings Samand, Kamalu, Bhim, Jaipala, Anandapala, Tarojanapala. The last was killed in H. 412 (1021), and his Bhimpala five years later.

The Hindushahiya dyansty is now extinct, and of whole house there is no longer the slightest remnant in existence. ..." (Olaf Caroe, "The Pathans, p. 109)

By Tibetan, Al-Bairuni meant Turk. Probably, when capital was shifted from Kabul to Waihind due to the attack by Yaqub-i-Lais, the throne also passed to Brahmins. Hindo Shahiya ruled Ningarhar also.

How can you link the Brahmin Hindo Shahiya dynasty to Rajputs and then, in particular, to Janjuas?

As for Kandahar, this is a later appellation for that region. Classical name of the region was Arachosia, which the invading Arabs corrupted to Al-Rukhaj.

Arab chronicolars have also mentioned Al-Qandahar but by that they meant Gandhara i.e. the modern Peshawar Valley. Al-Rukhaj or Arachozia was part of Sajistan (Sistan), an eatern outpost of Arab Empire initially and Saffarids later. Farther to the north-east was Zabulistan and Ghazna where Rutbil Shahan, most probably of Kushan-Ephtalite origin ruled since 700 A.D. until overthrown by Saffarids.

Hindu Shahiya dynasty pvailed in Peshawar Valley probably from 900 AD to 1021 AD when they were overthrown by Ghaznavids.

[Janjua_Raja]

Re: Any Janjua's on Gupistan!!!!!!

Really? Hmm, ok, here goes.....

[Janjua_Raja]

Re: Any Janjua's on Gupistan!!!!!!

@LastOfTheDinosaurs

Probably, Kabul Shahs had two sub-dynasties as can be implied from the statements of Al-Bairuni; the forerunners with seat at Kabul were Turks most probably of Kushan-Ephtalite origin.

When Yaqub-i-Lais the Saffarid took Kabul in 870 AD, Kabul Shahs were displaced to Waihind, a place to the west of River Indus in Gandhara (Peshawar Valley). Historians have identified this place to be Hund and Lahore, small towns in the present Sawabi district (Peshawar Valley)..

You almost would've sounded convincing if one didnt read the actual inscriptions (Hund Slab) and it's authoritive researchers accounts which infact CLEARLY state that in although the chief Lawik was sent back with a huge army (Majma al-ansab p23) which completely ousted the Turks from Kabul and sent Abu Ishaq flyinng to Bukhara, during Bhim Dev (the last Brahmin Shahi) reign, a result of which Kabul once again became the stronghold of the Shahis by 963 AD. (Last 2 dynasties of the Sahis, p129). So we need to do a little more reading in that respect bro.

With regards to the extinction of the Shahi house, this referred to their regent power , the dynasty, as opposed to the descendants (who were never killed by any of the Ghaznavids), because the Rajtaraghini refers further to the scions of the house the sons of the sahis or Sahi putra who returned to the Siwalik ranges that their grandfather Tirlochanpal Shah had conquered from the Rai of Sharwa, and were at the service of the Kashmiri court as generals etc.

With regards to how the Brahmins became rajput then Janjua. Well; Masaudi refers in his book Muruj al-dhahab, that the king of Kandahar"The king of Kandahar is known as Ja'aj; this name common to all the sovereigns of that country... Kandahar is called the country of the Rahbut (Rajput)" (ellio and Dowson, History of india as told by it's own historians p103) Thus showing Ja'aj linguistically being the name of the clan and the country belonging to the Rajput.

Ferishta himself refers to Jayapala (the first Janjua Shahi) as the son of Haital / Asatapal (Tarikh-i-Guzida p95) and not the son of Bhim Dev who died in 963AD. The independent researchers Cunningham, Elliot and Dowson too ALL confirmed that Jayapala was a Janjua. The fact that the Janjua geneology also recorded these names (as well as his successors names and later exiled descendants names) way prior to this independent research, also confirms this.

With respect, Alberuni's lack of intricate detail/elaboration about this clans actual details is obvious when one see's that he mentions only 8 kings (from the First Brahmin to the Last shahi Bhimpala) between 843Ad to 1026AD a period of 183 years covering them. now considering the last 3 barely ruled (somewhat heavily reduced kingdoms) for 25years, that would mean the last 5 ruled 32ish years each.....too appreciably long even in Dr Abdur Rahman's estimation (Last 2 dynasties of the Sahis, p89)

As great as he is respected (without doubt) I'm not saying he was intentionally wrong, but he was in no position to have claimed with authority of the menial details of fallen dynasties (i.e. extinctions) etc if he is compiling then decades later in a foreign land. Some details came out much later too, by different historians, other scholars and researchers etc. Infact, it's mentioned that having retired their struggle to the Siwalik hills, they eventually dwindled from the Kashmiri royal courts, into petty chieftains for a period, as recorded by Kalhana, as the sons of Jayapal Shah. (Last 2 Dynasties of Sahis, p90) (rajtaraghini, viii p3230)

Hope that clears it up for you, Peace :)

[LastOfTheDinosaurs]

Re: Any Janjua's on Gupistan!!!!!!

I will give more weight to Al-Bairuni because having born in 973 AD, he was a contemporary writer that is assumed to have met Jaipala and Anandapala.

Moreove, I don't see any inconsistancy in his satement as for as legnth of dynasty versus number of generations is concerned.

Remember, he says last Turk Shah after the capital had been shifted from Kabul to Waihind, was Lagaturman. Obviously, Lagaturman continued before Kallar Brahmin took over. Even if we assume, Kallar started his reign by about 870 AD when Saffarids took Kabul, still 7 Shahs ruling from 870 till 1026 (156 years) is a convincing estimation. (Taking the standard 3 generations per century, 5 generations are required).