DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**hapasaparaz** · 09-21-2011, 01:33 AM

This is the interpretation which the Westerners have thrust on us. The name Hindu Kush existed even before Islam was born.

The Western historians were part and parcel of the Divide and Rule policy of the colonial British. They wanted to drive a wedge between Hindus and Muslims and twisted history. Their encyclopedias also served the same purpose.

Some of the present day Hindu historians and pseudo historians also would like to believe in such theories, because it serves their ends.

I am not sure why westerners are to be blamed, when it was a muslim traveller who mentioned it in 1333AD as per encyclopedia. Here is what I found on this from that website, though I am going to try to find this research work from Nigel Allen.

"Encyclopedia Britannica (3) already informs us above about the resistance to conversion and frequent revolt against to the Moslem conqueror's rule from 8 th thru 11 th Century AD. The name 'Hindu Kush' itself tells us about the fate of the original residents of Gandhaar and Vaahic Pradesh during the later period of Moslem conquests, because HINDU KUSH in Persian MEANS HINDU SLAUGHTER (13) (as per Koenraad Elst in his book 'Ayodhya and After'). Let us look into what other standard references say about Hindu Kush.Persian-English dictionary (14) indicates that the word 'Kush' is derived from the verb Kushtar - to slaughter or carnage. Kush is probably also related to the verb Koshtan meaning to kill. In Urdu, the word Khud-kushi means act of killing oneself (khud - self, Kushi- act of killing). Encyclopedia Americana comments on the Hindu Kush as follows: The name Hindu Kush means literally 'Kills the Hindu', a reminder of the days when (Hindu) SLAVES from Indian subcontinent died in harsh Afgan mountains while being transported to Moslem courts of Central Asia (15). The National Geographic Article 'West of Khyber Pass' informs that 'Generations of raiders brought captive Hindus past these peaks of perpetual snow. Such bitter journeys gave the range its name Hindu Kush - "Killer of Hindus"'(10). The World Book Encyclopedia informs that the name Kush, .. means Death ..(16). While Encyclopedia Britannica says 'The name Hindu Kush first appears in 1333 AD in the writings of Ibn Battutah, the medieval Berber traveller, who said the name meant 'Hindu Killer', a meaning still given by Afgan mountain dwellers who are traditional enemies of Indian plainsmen (i.e. Hindus)(2). However, later the Encyclopedia Britannica gives a negationist twist by adding that 'more likely the name is a corruption of Hindu-Koh meaning Hindu mountains'. This is unlikely, since the term Koh is used in its proper, uncorrupted form for the western portion of Hindu Kush, viz. Koh-i-Baba, for the region Swat Kohistan, and in the names of the three peaks of this range, viz. Koh-i-Langer, Koh-i-Bandakor, and Koh-i-Mondi. Thus to say that corruption of term Koh to Kush occurred only in case of Hindu Kush is merely an effort to fit in a deviant observation to a theory already proposed. In science, a theory is rejected if it does not agree with the observations, and not the other way around. Hence the latter negationist statement in the Encyclopedia Britannica must be rejected"

I am not convinced that Nigel Allen is a true well wisher of india and hindu historians are psedo, yet.

09-21-2011, 01:33 AM	#19
hapasaparaz Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 461 Senior Member	This is the interpretation which the Westerners have thrust on us. The name Hindu Kush existed even before Islam was born. The Western historians were part and parcel of the Divide and Rule policy of the colonial British. They wanted to drive a wedge between Hindus and Muslims and twisted history. Their encyclopedias also served the same purpose. Some of the present day Hindu historians and pseudo historians also would like to believe in such theories, because it serves their ends. I am not sure why westerners are to be blamed, when it was a muslim traveller who mentioned it in 1333AD as per encyclopedia. Here is what I found on this from that website, though I am going to try to find this research work from Nigel Allen. "Encyclopedia Britannica (3) already informs us above about the resistance to conversion and frequent revolt against to the Moslem conqueror's rule from 8 th thru 11 th Century AD. The name 'Hindu Kush' itself tells us about the fate of the original residents of Gandhaar and Vaahic Pradesh during the later period of Moslem conquests, because HINDU KUSH in Persian MEANS HINDU SLAUGHTER (13) (as per Koenraad Elst in his book 'Ayodhya and After'). Let us look into what other standard references say about Hindu Kush.Persian-English dictionary (14) indicates that the word 'Kush' is derived from the verb Kushtar - to slaughter or carnage. Kush is probably also related to the verb Koshtan meaning to kill. In Urdu, the word Khud-kushi means act of killing oneself (khud - self, Kushi- act of killing). Encyclopedia Americana comments on the Hindu Kush as follows: The name Hindu Kush means literally 'Kills the Hindu', a reminder of the days when (Hindu) SLAVES from Indian subcontinent died in harsh Afgan mountains while being transported to Moslem courts of Central Asia (15). The National Geographic Article 'West of Khyber Pass' informs that 'Generations of raiders brought captive Hindus past these peaks of perpetual snow. Such bitter journeys gave the range its name Hindu Kush - "Killer of Hindus"'(10). The World Book Encyclopedia informs that the name Kush, .. means Death ..(16). While Encyclopedia Britannica says 'The name Hindu Kush first appears in 1333 AD in the writings of Ibn Battutah, the medieval Berber traveller, who said the name meant 'Hindu Killer', a meaning still given by Afgan mountain dwellers who are traditional enemies of Indian plainsmen (i.e. Hindus)(2). However, later the Encyclopedia Britannica gives a negationist twist by adding that 'more likely the name is a corruption of Hindu-Koh meaning Hindu mountains'. This is unlikely, since the term Koh is used in its proper, uncorrupted form for the western portion of Hindu Kush, viz. Koh-i-Baba, for the region Swat Kohistan, and in the names of the three peaks of this range, viz. Koh-i-Langer, Koh-i-Bandakor, and Koh-i-Mondi. Thus to say that corruption of term Koh to Kush occurred only in case of Hindu Kush is merely an effort to fit in a deviant observation to a theory already proposed. In science, a theory is rejected if it does not agree with the observations, and not the other way around. Hence the latter negationist statement in the Encyclopedia Britannica must be rejected" I am not convinced that Nigel Allen is a true well wisher of india and hindu historians are psedo, yet.
	Quote