COLLECTION OF ISLAMIC BOOKS IN HINDO. Great books but some of books are belongs to wahaabi and devbandis .. PDF WITH TEXT. PDF 3 / 3 / , 5/1/ Share. Author: Scientific Research Admission of Islamic University, Madinah Munawara. Book translated into Hindi commentary. Download Books PDF format (). Click to download books Book on Oneness of Allah (vol. I) Islamic Teachings Series (2): Peace and submission (Islam).
|Language:||English, Spanish, Dutch|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
Islamic Knowledge Hindi Islami Book Download as PDF - Free download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online for free. Roza Namaz Haaj O Zaqaat. A. Islamic Books [Text Files in Hindi]. 1. Islam Ek Adhyyan (Understanding Islam) (pdf) Download Complete Quran Translation - Simple Hindi (pdf MB). Islamic books library, where you can download online islamic books in pdf with more than 35 languages, read authentic books about Islam.
The British did it too. In the census records also, the classification into Hindi, Hindustani and Urdu was used to play Hindu—Muslim politics.
Through the analysis of relevant census records, he is consistent in arguing that it was the British who created the notion of separate languages of both Hindus and Muslims. To trace the history of this politicised identity, Rahman delves deep into the history of its names.
He painstakingly refers to various scholars and writers who explored years of the history of this Hindvi, Hindi, Dehlavi, Gujri, Dakani or Rekhta—the same language with different names at different times.
It was a word that has been used historically for the language which now is called Urdu—a language that borrowed heavily from Persian and Arabic lexicon and was written in Perso-Arabic script—but later on was appropriated by the votaries of Hindu identity for a language having exclusive base in Sanskrit and written in Devnagri script only.
He also refutes G. So even if Khusrau did write some of the original lines, what we are reading now is the language of the eighteenth century.
This was also the case with Khusrau and other poets who are known today as poets of Hindvi. His argument holds no ground since it is difficult to ascer- tain who is a modern reader.
However, this will not diminish the chances of a text to find place in history as pioneering in some way or the other. As people in Pakistan are no longer familiar with the tradition of common civic space shared by people of Delhi, UP, Bihar, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and even far southern states where pockets of Urdu knowing people also exist, it is possible that the language which is intelligible for a modern Pakistani reader may be quite legible for a person from Kolkata, Patna, Lucknow, Banaras, Buland Shahr, Delhi, Malerkotla, Mumbai, Hyderabad or Bangalore.
Rahman should have brought more con- vincing arguments if he really wanted to challenge the Masnavi Kadam Rao Padam Rao as the earliest literary text in this language. However, he is right in his conclusion that the ancestor of Urdu—Hindi was considered so important that Bayazid Ansari used it in Waziristan, Kabir and Kabir Panthis sang songs in it in present day UP, saints kept using its words and whole sentences all the way from Gujarat to the Deccan, and there are even written works in it in remote parts of India.
This also needs to be highlighted that this language existed even before the advent of Muslim rulers which shows that this is not the language of only Muslims. And certainly it existed in pre-Mughal times, particularly in Deccan and Gujarat where elite used to know it, and the Masnavi of Nizami and many other texts can be cited as its proof.
Indian historians take it for granted that its base is in Khari Boli or languages around Delhi, and not Arabic and Persian, though it is very well recognised that vocabulary from these languages borrowed by Urdu changed its character significantly. India Quarterly, 69, 2 : — Book Reviews It is noteworthy that there was cultural difference among Hindus and Muslims that affected their vocabulary also.
But this did not amount to having separate languages. For example, we do not see any mention of a separate Muslim-Bangla or Hindu-Bangla, a Muslim-Punjabi or a Hindu-Punjabi, a Muslim-Gujarati or a Hindu-Gujarati and a Muslim-Malayalam or a Hindu-Malayalam, despite the fact that each of these languages do have culture-specific vocabulary.
But the language politics in the cow- belt culminated into Hinduisation and Islamisation of Khari Boli resulting in separate languages of Hindi for Hindus and Urdu for Muslims. The divide of the North Indian Hindu and Muslim communities and their identity politics have run so deep that Hindi historiography does not own up even early poets like Quli Qutub Shah, Wali, Abru, Faayez, Mir and Nazir; and the Urdu historiography too excludes Mira Bai, Sur, Tulsi, Rahim, Kabir and Raskhan and many more who otherwise also, are not the poets of Hindi, as claimed by Hindi historiography, but of early Rajasthani, Braj, Avadhi and other languages of the North India, now appropriated as Shaili or styles of Hindi perhaps on the basis of inclusion and exclusion of Perso-Arabic words from a common language.
The chapter on the origins and historiography of Urdu is very crucial in the sense that it does not give any direct answer to the questions like where this language was born and what languages it descended from. Major theories can be classified into two major groups: theories of Indian origin and the theories of Pakistani origin.
In this chapter, he consults the views of Mohammed Husain Azad, Suniti Kumar Chatterji, Hafiz Mehmud Shirani, Sulaiman Nadvi, Jameel Jalibi, Abdul Haq and Ramchandra Shukla in detail and comes to the conclusion that most of them were not honest in their approach and historiography has always been under the domination of the politics of identity and other aspects of ideology.
For example, both Muslim and Hindu historians, while writing about the history of Urdu, do not mention writings available in Devanagri script, despite the fact that they recognise the Indic base of Urdu.
However, one finds problem with the use of the term Islamisation for a much more complex reality that encompassed linguistic, social, cultural and political spheres. For them it was a matter of convenience to popularise a language India Quarterly, 69, 2 : — Book Reviews which had proximity with the language of rulers, that is, Persian. And the elite doing all this standardisa- tion was already a part of political establishment. The situation can be understood more pragmatically by juxtaposing Urdu with Sanskrit that was never the language of the entire Hindus of India or North India, but was the language of an elite section caste group among them.
However, it was projected as a reli- gious language of all Hindus to achieve a Pan-Hindu nationalist identity only during the colonial period, and since by then Sanskrit was no longer in use, a Hindi laced with Sanskrit words was promoted to achieve this goal.
Therefore, calling this elitism Islamisation wrongly gives a religious connota- tion to the language. Secondly, this standard Urdu was used by the elite that included Hindu elite as well. A long list of Hindu poets and writers in both eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is available who not only used this standardised elite language but were associated with political establishment; and it is on this ground that Urdu is considered a product of composite cultural heritage of Ganga Jamuna duaba.
Despite recognizing this fact, and despite mentioning that Nawab Sirajuddin Ali Khan Arzu, Sheikh Zahooruddin Shah Hatim, Sheikh Imam Baksh Nasikh and Syed Insha Ullah Khan Insha, who are well-known leaders of this movement, he fails to see that all of them belonged to the elite of the society and the highest caste groups like Brahmins in the case of Sanskrit elitism —all of them were associated with some Durbar and were furthering the interests of the rulers.
They were not pursuing any agenda of Islamisation in any sphere or aspect of public life, and hence the use of this term is a misrepresentation and distortion of a certain history. He also tells that according to Khusrau, people of Delhi could speak any lan- guage and even contribute to its literature while those of other places could not.
Despite giving examples from Khusrau to Nasikh and Mohammed Husain Azad, who support and strengthen the elitist view, Rahman continues to harp on Islamisation.
Tariq Rahman gives an impression that the divide of a common language into modern Hindi and Urdu was a result of the colonial project, forgetting the fact that Urdu was already an established language of literary expression much before the British Raj started implementing its divisive policies.
They could only do what they did in spearheading a movement of Hindi on communal and anti-Urdu lines, branding it as the language of Muslims only. However, at the end of the chapter he arrives on a logical conclusion that the movement of standardisation and Persianisation of Urdu was a class movement here he contra- dicts his own theory of Islamisation of Urdu while the movement of Sanskritisation of Hindi was a political and communal one p.
He opens the chapter with these lines, all written in one go: We have seen how the standardization of Urdu is associated with the Muslim identity. The literal meaning of the word is instruction or the way of guidance. As the book has been translated many number of times, Muslims do not believe the book to be in its original form anymore.
Zabur Before Quran, there were three books that were revealed to the prophets and Zabur is one of those four books and is considered holy by the Muslims.
The book was authored by Dawud, when it revealed to him by Allah. The book is said to be revealed to him as chants. Even though the original texts of the book is said to be lost, most of the Muslims read and follow it. Injil Injil is one of the four holy books of Muslims that was revealed to Jesus by god. It is believed by many that Injil points towards the new testament, but it has been stated as per many scholars that the Injil points towards Gospel — not the translated one, but the original one that was truly revealed to Jesus.
According to Muslims, Jesus was a prophet, not the god himself. Read more about The Injil These are the books that must be read by all the Muslims at least once in their lifetime.