Talk:Muslim Rajputs

Was Jinnah a Rajput

Jinnah Was from memon indian family — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akram Rajpoot (talk • contribs) 19:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC) 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

Not sure if you are aware, but Khoja is a faith title for a subsect of the Shia rather than a solid lineal family name. Many Muslim Rajputs are also Shia, Khoja, Salafi, Sufi, Ismaili (wit some branches in Jhelum who are of the minority Ahmediya sect) as well as some Christians in UK). Jinnah in Barristers outfit has no bearing on his descent and therefore is nonsensical to remove. This will remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revolution51 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Random Comments

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.

---

DO NOT INCLUDE PICTURES OF FARZANA RAJA OR GENERAL KIYANI PPLEASE AS THEY ARE GHAKHARS AND NOT KSHATRIYA. 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)

Please take note of the fact that the Khatri a very nice merchant caste is not Kshatriyas. Also there are Muslim Rajputs in Pakistan, but Bhutto and Jinnah familes have no Rajput link. Foreign elements to create a confusion in the Kshatriyas are planting names of non-Kshatriyas as Kshatriyas. These foreigners are naive. AArshad K. Bhati —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.155 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2010 (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)

Muslim Rajput = Oxymoron ==My question is: Are you a Muslim or a Hindu Rajput?

Abbysingh (talk) My Friend,If you are a Muslim Rajput it means you are not a true muslim. You are fooling yourself. Its an imaginary term which holds no truth. Weak Rajputs during the muslim rule were forcibly converted to Islam as was the practice followed by Muslim invaders. So there can be either a Muslim or a Rajput. Mixing the two is ridiculous and seems to be an attempt to somehow keep the long lost affiliation to the famed Rajputs. Any Rajput who was converted to Islam wasn't a true Rajput in practice. As for a true Rajput self respect and allegiance to Hinduism was of the prime value and ultimate concern. A true Rajput laid down his life but never accepted Islam as his religion. Only the weak and timid who were not worthy to be called as Rajputs fell for muslim conversions. Sorry to say this Pakistani army which comprises of so many 'Muslim Rajputs' helped spreading terror in India killing innocent people including children and women. Thats not a trait of a true mighty Rajput. If you bother to read the bloody & cruel mughal history of Indian you will clearly recognize that these inhuman, ogre like cruelities are atypical of muslim invaders of yesteryears. And it shows in Pakistan's conduct so far.'Discovery of India' a brainchild of Nehru has been proved time & again that it was a result of his own misconceptions & perceptions. It is unauthentic in every respect. James Tod travelled to the length & breadth of Rajputana to write his epic 'Annals & Antiquities of Rajasthan'. And if he doesn't mention the term 'Muslim Rajputs' it shows that this term does not exist, given the nature of studies comprising his vast travalogue. Its your own creation marred with illogicality and created out of nothing. In India Qaimkhani muslims are called as muslims and not as Muslim Rajputs. The two words are opposite like North pole and South pole. Muslim is a religion and Rajput is a caste belonging to Hindu religion. A convert is a convert. The story is histoy now. All muslim converts are muslims and that is the ultimate truth. To label them as Muslim Rajput is a great injustice to them. It shows the divide among the muslim world which claims to not to distinguish one muslim to another in terms of high or low. Even people who migrated from India to Pakistan during partition in 1947 are still called as Muhajirs. The differnce is palpable. We in India respect religious sanctity thats why we repect even the converted ones to be a true muslim and not confuse the world with two contrasting themes. So the labelling starts at your end and finishes at your end. Nobody accepts your misconstrusion here in India. Its for your own people to dance in a false glory which further divides your side of the world. Thank you very much rgds Abhishek Singh Chauhan Rajputana

You are confusing the concept of tribes and clans with the Hindu concept of caste. The Rajput is considered a tribe in Pakistan and Islam. The tribe and

clans existed in all parts of the world before merging into a nation. But in India and specifically in Hinduism they have crystalized into castes. There

has always been marriage among different tribes in the world but in India they are constrained by Hindu caste system. In Islam and and Pakistan people of

different tribes and clans marry without any constraints. Equality among all people is expressed when they marry each other. In Islam and Pakistan all tribes

and their clans marry with each other without any constraints.. While in Hinduism diffrent tribes and clans are not allowed to marry thus they are castes

and sub-castes.

Paknur (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

Protects cows? I have many Hindu Rajput friends who enjoy beef and mince kebabs regularly with me? I better tell my Hindu friends that you have lost their Jati and they are out of their "Varna". Chill out dude, its 2009, the world has moved on. Cows today have mad cow disease and foot and mouth disease, they get culled daily in Europe. Should we Rajputs be fighting this "tragedy"? lol

"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)

True, it was a great speech. It won us a nation free of communal Hindu fascism. Thanks for that ;-)

Kunnusingh (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)They're Muslim or Rajput? :(

If they're Muslim then they're not a Rajput, how a person can hold 2 totally different cast? A Rajput is not a caste, it's just a subcaste. Actually, they comes under the Kshatriya caste. It is true that the weaker Rajputs had changed their religion, but it's upto them that they want to be known by the name of Muslim Rajputs or not.That's what it means by democratic in the real sense. If their ancestors had changed their religion due to any reason but their descendants think that their religion is changed but they are still Kshatriya. So, it should be their wish. There are Rajputs found in Sikh religion, but they changed their religion without any external pressure.

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

Abbysingh (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)My Friend, Its an imaginary term which holds no truth. Weak Rajputs during the muslim rule were forcibly converted to Islam as was the practice followed by Muslim invaders. So there can be either a Muslim or a Rajput. Mixing the two is ridiculous and seems to be an attempt to somehow keep the long lost affiliation to the famed Rajputs. Any Rajput who was converted to Islam wasn't a true Rajput in practice. As for a true Rajput self respect and allegiance to Hinduism was of the prime value and ultimate concern. A true Rajput laid down his life but never accepted Islam as his religion. Only the weak and timid who were not worthy to be called as Rajputs fell for muslim conversions. Sorry to say this Pakistani army which comprises of so many 'Muslim Rajputs' helped spreading terror in India killing innocent people including children and women. Thats not a trait of a true mighty Rajput. If you bother to read the bloody & cruel mughal history of Indian you will clearly recognize that these inhuman, ogre like cruelities are atypical of muslim invaders of yesteryears. And it shows in Pakistan's conduct so far.'Discovery of India' a brainchild of Nehru has been proved time & again that it was a result of his own misconceptions & perceptions. It is unauthentic in every respect. James Tod travelled to the length & breadth of Rajputana to write his epic 'Annals & Antiquities of Rajasthan'. And if he doesn't mention the term 'Muslim Rajputs' it shows that this term does not exist, given the nature of studies comprising his vast travalogue. Its your own creation marred with illogicality and created out of nothing. In India Qaimkhani muslims are called as muslims and not as Muslim Rajputs. The two words are opposite like North pole and South pole. Muslim is a religion and Rajput is a caste belonging to Hindu religion. A convert is a convert. The story is histoy now. All muslim converts are muslims and that is the ultimate truth. To label them as Muslim Rajput is a great injustice to them. It shows the divide among the muslim world which claims to not to distinguish one muslim to another in terms of high or low. Even people who migrated from India to Pakistan during partition in 1947 are still called as Muhajirs. The differnce is palpable. We in India respect religious sanctity thats why we repect even the converted ones to be a true muslim and not confuse the world with two contrasting themes. So the labelling starts at your end and finishes at your end. Nobody accepts your misconstrusion here in India. Its for your own people to dance in a false glory which further divides your side of the world. Thank you very much rgds Abhishek Singh Chauhan Jodhpur

---

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.101.152.8 (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

--130.101.152.8 (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC) 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.

Bull, this "inference" demands an example :-)"

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.

Ah so the mention of the Gautama Thakurs is of a Pakistani tribe in UP? Please read before asserting nonsensical claims.

Secondly, losing status? Amongst who? Hindu kings? Many emperors valued Muslim Rajputs, multiple British sources speak very highly of their courage and martial traditions. But I am endeared to the fact that you acknowledge many suffered for their Islamic faith, but remained Muslims non the less, just like many Hindu Rajputs likewise suffered for not converting under some wrongful zealous so called "Muslim" kings.

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)

This part I DO agree with. Please provide a list of the clans you find questionable and I will see to it they are citation requested and that they are researched to find legitimate proof of their Rajput identity. --~Raja~ (talk) 22:35, 11 April 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.

Agreed. Jinna point removed and pic also removed until proven with reputable sources to the contrary.

Bhutto / Bhutta are Rajputs. They are related to Bhatias and Bhattis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.115.165 (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

Achievements of Rajputs

Dear Sir,

I have to mention here that I was conferred Sitara-e-Imtiaz on March 23, 2006 in the field of Biotechnology. I am Rajoka Rajput from District Jhang. my name also be added after Dr. Khalid Mahmmod Khan.

I have published 124 papers with an impact factor of 102 and my work has been cited by 395 scientists. In productive scientists of Islamic Countries organization I earned an grand points of 1052. I was declared 7th Productive Biologist of Pakistan (Productive Scientists of Pakistan 2007 published by PCST, Government of Pakistan).

Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim Rajoka Deputy Chief Scientist (Ex) Advisor to Member biosciences, PAEC, NIBGE, Faisalabad. Tel.041-2550815 Cell. 0333 6535158 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.89.36 (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Achievements of Rajputs

Dear Sir,

I have to mention here that I was conferred Sitara-e-Imtiaz on March 23, 2006 in the field of Biotechnology. I am Rajoka Rajput from District Jhang. my name also be added after Dr. Khalid Mahmmod Khan.

I have published 124 papers with an impact factor of 102 and my work has been cited by 395 scientists. In productive scientists of Islamic Countries organization I earned an grand points of 1052. I was declared 7th Productive Biologist of Pakistan (Productive Scientists of Pakistan 2007 published by PCST, Government of Pakistan).

Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim Rajoka Deputy Chief Scientist (Ex) Advisor to Member biosciences, PAEC, NIBGE, Faisalabad. Tel.041-2550815 Cell. 0333 6535158 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.89.36 (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Qaimkhanis as Rajput Chauhan

Please also consider listing Qaim Khan who was a Chauhan Rajput. His sub-tribe converted to Islam (time of Balban?) This is significant because subsequently they were called Qaimkhanis. General Perwez Musharraf is said to be a Qaimkhani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.28.174.24 (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, but Gen Musharaf is a Syed, son of Syed Musharaf udin, not a Rajput. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revolution51 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

1858 Multan Horse action at Kakrala under General Penny

In 1858 General Penny was killed in an ambush at Kakrala, when leading a force, comprising the Multan Horse, to Budaon. Kakrala was the abode of Moslem Bhati Rajputs who had been relocated from Sirhind, because of Sikh attacks, during Shah Jehan's times. Can anyone identify which of the illustrious houses of Rajputs & people from Multan & the Dera Jat had ancestors serving in the Multan Horse at that time?

The punishment for the people of Kakrala was that no one from Kakarala was ever to be recruited into the British Army, or any official service. Had General Penny's wife had her away, every male Rajput of Kakrala would have been killed & salt ploughed in their fields.

by Jaffer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.115.3 (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this be retitled Muslims of Rajput Origin?

The reason why I say this is, the title Rajput is given to a person who defends "Dharma" (which is Hinduism). It is like a Knighthood in Medieval times was given to those who defend Christianity. The title therefore seems to suggest that Muslims who defend Hinduism. Surely that is a contradiction? Here is one link and another . I can find many more. --Sikh-History 22:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really bro, as we've mentioned countless times before, it's simply a title which literally means son of a royal or Raja. In fact the second source you provided a link for also confirms this in the next paragraph. The issue of protecting the Dharma is a very touchy one, as many Rajputra kings actually robbed and sacked many Hindu temples upon conquering eachothers lands as a sign of conquer, so clearly this isn't the case. Ultimately, the title given to a protector of Dharma in all the scriptures is Kshatriya, not Rajput. There is not one single ancient Vedas, Upanishadic, Smriti or holy book that mentions this duty of a Rajput at all, only kshatriya bro.--~Raja~ (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment needed at Talk:Khatri

There is a dispute at on the page Khatri. KhatriNYC3 (talk · contribs) keeps reverting the article to a version which says:

"Khatri is the name given to Mair Rajputs, Sikh Rajputs and Muslim Rajputs"

The citations provided to support this statement (and some other statements) failed verification -- other editors checked the sources provided, but could not find any text which says that Mair/Sikh/Muslim Rajputs are Kshatriya.

The page has been protected now to prevent a revert war, and the current version of the page contains the above claim of Rajputs being Khatri in the intro.

If you are knowledgable about the topic Rajput, or have a source which proves/disproves the above claim, please help resolving the dispute at Talk:Khatri. utcursch | talk 06:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

i am gonna delete 99% of these names if reference are not added

this is useless list, any muslim claiming to be rajput has been added in this list, i am not saying that no muslim is rajput many of them are clearly rajputs mainly soldiers but these jinnah and bhutto as far as i knew as a maratha rajput that jinnah ancestors were baniya(trader) hindu and not rajputs similarly Bhutto is described as a "LOWER CASTE HINDU" . Have you ever heard the name of "Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj" destroyer of Mogul Empire, protector of hinduism destroyer of muslims his clan was clearly a rajput clan "BHOSLE ARE SISODIA" their are more than enough evidence to include his name in list of rajputs but we have not done so as their is one more claim even though this claim is not backed by much solid evidences plz visit Bhoslethe evidence of Shivaji being a rajput is very very strong but still we have not added his name among rajputs as it is not 100% sure say its 80-90% guranteed then how can you add the names of those muslims who dont have any trace of "THEMSELVES BEING RAJPUTS" .

Provide reference otherwise as myself being a Hindu Maratha Rajput will start deleting these names you cant add any names as per your liking this list is fake and to show that we all were upper caste hindus. It seems all muslims were either "ARABS OR RAJPUTS" come out of your myth "99% OF MUSLIMS BELONG TO LOWER HINDU CASTES". In one week add as much reference as possible otherwise i will start deleting names 122.161.78.118 (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I know that Jinnah himself claimed that "HIS ANCESTORS WERE BHATIA RAJPUTS" and because it is their qaid-e-azam most muslims accept this but this is historical fact that he was baniya hindu not rajput and sorry for my mistake "Bhutto" are(or were) rajputs but this jinnah was not he was from a baniya hindu family.122.161.78.118 (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that i found that only soldiers list is right because a rajput dont change his surname even if he is muslim i can give many examples, but many of these muslims use surname of hussain,ali,khan , a rajput will never use these surnames he maintain his surname for ex bhutto is not a muslim surname it came from rajput clan but "THIS JINNAH WAS A BANIYA NAME AND HE SHOWED HIS BANIYA SKILLS IN DIVIDING THE COUNTRY".122.161.78.118 (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

all the nishan e haider names clear that "TWO BHATI RAJPUTS, ONE MINHAS AND ONE RANA RAJPUT" why are other muslims if they are rajputs have "MUSLIM NAMES" the fact is "CHATRAPATI SHIVAJI" was also a sisodia rajput the clan which is famous that not a single man converted to islam and not a single woman was given to muslim each and every "SISODIA RAJPUT IS HINDU OFCOURSE MAHARANA PRATAP,SHIVAJI WARRIORS WHO THUMPED THE MOGUL EMPIRE TOOK MOGUL EMPEROR DAUGHTERS AS WIFE IS NOT PRESENT IN MUSLIMS".

"IN SHORT THEIR IS NOT A SINGLE SESODIA RAJPUT WHO IS MUSLIM OR CHRISTIAN AND THATS WHY SESODIA ARE HEADS OF RAJPUTS AND MARATHAS ALIKE"122.161.78.118 (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

So if you're a Rajput but you don't serve in the army, you're no longer a Rajput either, then? Rajputs aren't allowed to work in construction, business or telecommunications because of some historical rule? The same applies to your inane logic about changing your religion somehow changing your ancestral affiliation Theudariks 2.0 (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Please stop SHOUTING. A lot of your comments above appear to me to be original research, which you have been told is not acceptable here. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent add/revert cycle

I have now twice recently reverted an IP contributor. Let's start with some of the basics:

• WP:MOSFLAG says no flags in infoboxes for subjects such as this
• a recent RfC has created issues regarding the use of Indic scripts in lead sections
• Encyclopaedia Britannica is a tertiary source - not hopeless, but for something like a population figure we would usually expect to be able to find a decent secondary source
• some of the added content - relating to languages - appeared simply not to be sourced.

Finally, and this one is perhaps more awkward, can someone please explain why this is a reliable source? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that the IP has added the Britannica reference etc again. How does an article about the Indian state of Rajasthan form a citation for the Pakistani Muslim Rajput population? Surely this is poor stuff? It does not even appear to mention the word million or the figure 1,000,000. Am I going blind here? - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Merger

This should be merged with the main Rajput article, with separate sections for Hinduism and Islam. Please discuss on Talk:Rajput. Parsh (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

In Pakistan,whenever there are general elections, muslim Rajputs win 20 percent seats in the national assembly. In Pakistan, people usually vote for a candidate of their own caste or community. according to this estimate the population of pakistan is 20 percent muslim Rajput. the population of Pakistan is nearly 200 million. 20 percent of 200 million is 40 million. this means there are about 40 million muslim Rajputs in Pakistan.Rajbaz (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2020

this whole rajput is muslim is fake because rajputs are hindu so they can't follow mohmad correct? so someone spam this info for harresment please delete whole content Ssdaddfgarvgwe232 (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please have a look at the sources and let us know if any of them don't support the cited material. Otherwise you may point to even stronger sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

World total population Rajput ?

World total population Rajput? 2401:4900:58BC:FDBD:2ED6:8439:A332:74EE (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Rajput status of Soomras and Sammas

@Heba Aisha:Please advise why you characterised single edits as an edit war. Please provide sources for Soomras and Sammas being Rajputs.RuudVanClerk (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Please Meo Rajput add to this article

Mayo Muslim Rajputs Ahsan Ali Rajput (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I Agree Ahsan Ali Rajput (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2022

Mewatis are Rajputs from Jaduan clan so please add them in Muslim Rajputs Ahsan Ali Rajput (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Bengal

@Gotitbro Hi, can you explain why you removed mention of Bengali and Bangladesh in the lead? There are many Bangladeshis of Rajput origin even today. Also, what is the issue with the painting of Isa Khan? SalamAlayka (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Both the images (rulers of Mewat and Bengal) I removed had no provenance as to where they came from/who created them; they are contemporary artworks probably extracted from websites and likely copyrighted. The article is better off without them. As to the current presence of Rajputs in Bengal that would require contemporary group study which affirms the same, the content you added does talk about the group's presence historically but not contemporarily. Gotitbro (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of sources detailing a Arab origin

@Sutyarashi: please clarify why you are removing sourced content relating to the possible Baloch origin of the Langahs and the possible Arab origin of the Soomros. If this is not resolved, I will need to raise this to the admins to mediate but your edit summaries are not a sufficient explanation. Thanks. Ixudi (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ixudi your first source goes on like this The Sumras were a dynasty of local origin, later claiming to be Rajputs as well as Arabs. This Andre Wink source already clears that they were of local origins, so it is far from possible that they were Arab. Your second source seems to be a research paper and it notes all of its possible ethnic origins. Here are some quotations from it;

• Tarikh Waqa`i Rajisthan corroborates this viewpoint and confirms that Soomras were originally Parmar Rajputs
• Soomras were descendents of these hybrid princes whose ancestors, according to common legend, were either Arabs or their grand-sons on the mothers’ side
• By all norms of historical identification, the Soomra race appears to be an ancient indigenous race of Sindh.

These seem to be differrent theories about their origins, and as your source itself concludes, they were a indigenous race. I am not sure that whether their other possible origins are within scope of the article, however, removing their mention altogether does not seems right. Your source, which you so insist to be included, calls them Rajput too. I hope it clears it.Sutyarashi (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi: My sources do indeed mention that there are a variety of theories regarding their origins. Please read my edits, I mentioned the word possible. As there is debate as to their origins and it is not clear as to whether they are Rajput, the information is relevant. There is also the larger discussion as to whether “Rajputs” from Pakistan are actually just Rajputised Jats. I hope this was clear and please don’t remove sourced content again. Thank you. Ixudi (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ixudi though I'll not remove your edit, but it will be more clear if it's mentioned as "claiming Arab and Rajput" origins, as this is what sources mention. Again, I am not sure whether alternative origins are within scope of this specific article, as they should be on their respective articles. Also, please tell where these larger discussion as to whether “Rajputs” from Pakistan are actually just Rajputised Jats. are taking place on wikipedia?Sutyarashi (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually it relevant. At Wikipedia, we cannot just post about one aspect of their origin. That would be dishonest. We must cover all aspects including origins that they themselves claimed. This discussion is detailed in Susan Bayly’s work of course, a much more reliable source I am sure you would agree. Ixudi (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2023 (some numbers)

Greetings, want to add numbers so we get a better idea, especially in the Punjab region where majority of Rajputs were Muslims.

I want to add this in the opening paragraphs, it'd go this way :

"[...] Today, Muslim Rajputs can be found in present-day Northern India and Pakistan.[5] They are further divided into different clans.[6]

In the Punjab province of British India, which comprised Pakistan's modern provinces of Western Punjab and some parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as well India's modern states and union territories of Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh, Delhi, and some parts of Himachal Pradesh, the majority of the Rajputs were Muslims, as per the 1921 Census 70,7% of Punjab province's Rajputs adhering to Islam while 27,7% were Hindus."

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a03f:6500:cf00:cc66:a36c:c2dd:4258 (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Making substantial changes to the lead of an article requires consensus. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Greetings, sorry but I don't understand the issue ? I'm not bringing a radical new change in the text just asking to put some numbers so readers can get an idea of the real impact of Muslim Rajput as social group ? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a03f:6500:cf00:5944:e8b9:8ee0:ab42 (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: As explained by Actualcpscm, you are requesting to add content to the lede of an article page. This is the content at the very start of an article before section titles are introduced. Because of the prominent placement of such text, it is generally considered a contentious edit de facto, which makes such an edit ineligible for the edit request process. This is not a hard and fast rule, as obviously an edit request to correct a typo in a lede is not contentious, but adding content may be.

Furthermore, this topic is considered a contentious topic on Wikipedia, which means the community has observed a lot of disruptive editing in this topic. While this does not disqualify an article from edit requests, it does make editors far less likely to perform content changes without clear consensus.

I am not a subject matter expert in this area, so it is possible that this isn't a radical new change in the text, but based on my personal experience handling edit requests in this topic area, this infact may be a radical change to other editors.

Please begin a discussion on this page to generate consensus for this edit before re-opening this request. Alternatively, register an account and become autoconfirmed to edit the page yourself. —Sirdog (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Dynasties

Why are we going into so much detail about dynasties & so little about "normal people? It looks like puffery (glorification) to me - the dynasties need only to be listed & linked here. - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Gakhar Kingdom

Add in Information about Gakhars as the had last Rajput Kingdom in Punjab and were Dominant in Pothwar for hundreds of years 2A00:23C2:8B01:CC01:853E:D4C2:CF1:DB5 (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2023

Remove the word yadu. 2409:4050:2DB5:7F26:0:0:344A:C700 (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)