Games Muslims play: Islam freed lower caste Hindus

[Nosuperstition]

Secondly, Muslim birth rate has been greater than Hindu birth rate since decades. This contributed to the population increase of Muslims relative to Hindus.

There has been no act (or series of acts) targetting Hindus in Pakistan or East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) that could be charaterized as ethnic cleansing, apart from the initial violence during the partition, which happened on both sides of the border. The only argument that Indians use in this regard is the above pathetic display of statistics showing the relative decrease of Hindu population. This argument should be subjected to mockery by any sane person, as it would imply that since the population of many European countries is decreasing and Muslim minority population is increasing and many predict that Muslims will be majority in certain European countries in a few decades, Muslims are involved in active "ethnic cleansing" against the indigenous people.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=806&hilit=Tamerlane&start=40

Both India and Bangladesh are third world countries,so there won't be any significant difference in birth rates.Even in India with the difference in birth rates being around 1% to 2%(higher for muslims),muslims haven't increased from 12% to 17% over a period of 50 years from independance. So while lower birth rates due to higher education levels would have reduced the % of Hindus in Bangladesh,it would be an obfuscation of fact that wholesale slaughter of Hindus did not happen during 1971 war or that it is not responsible for decrease of even a fraction of % of population.I have read in many places that Hindus were particularly targeted during 1971 war as they played a pivotal role in the seperatist movement.Many Hindus were educated ,were professors in the Bangladeshi universities and were involved in shaping the mindset of ordinary Bangladeshis towards that end.

The situation is akin to why Jews were particularly targeted in the past in Germany (for treason and for having cross-border loyalties)and are still being targeted as poisoning the Western white Christian culture and/or corrupting young Western minds with bombardment of promiscuous films etc through media owned by them.More or less similiar is the angst in some circles in India against mostly Muslim dominated Mumbai underworld for exerting its influence on the film industry and making Hindu girls receptive towards love jihad by muslims.

[Nosuperstition]

I think that the assumption behind such a claim, that somehow Muslims saw a social problem, and therefore decided to address this perceived problem in order to better people's lives, by introducing Islam, is highly debatable.

It is much more probable that they saw the cast system as a useful angle to gain conversions, an unexpected bonus, which was used to full advantage. Imagine telling an "untouchable" Indian, that by simply saying the shahadda he would be come superior to ALL Hindu... no more subservience, no more being the lowest of the low, much better economic and marital prospects, being able to sneer at a Brahmin in the street... That is a temptation to join Islam more enticing than anything a dhawa- missionary could possibly say.

Ironically, as time progressed Muslims adopted elements of of the caste system with the Ahrafs at the top, the Ajafs i.somewhere n the middle and the Arzal at the bottom. So, while Muslims see themselves as superior to Hindus of any cast, they have re-created a sort of social hierarchy like casts for themselves. This phenomenon suggests that to many conversion to Islam was a rather superficial issue, and the perceived need to preserve the semblances of Indian society was greater than any feelings for "ummrah", at least for some. Similar behaviour is also found in Indian converts to any other religion, by the way, so Islam is not an exception there.

This alone puts a question mark behind any assertion that Muslims converted India to eradicate the cast system. If that was the aim they failed. I would suggest the cast system was more of a stroke of luck for Muslims. Altruistic motives would rather look out of place in Islam, in particular towards non-Muslims. I don't know of any Muslim charitable efforts extended towards non-Muslims, not one. While such altruistic motives may possibly have been present in some or even most missionaries of other faiths, not many have really succeeded to eradicate that idea of casts, not even within their own followers. I seriously doubt Muslims had a lot of interest or energy for social reform in India.

I guess that idea of cast is as deep a part of the Indian psyche as the aversion to pork amongst Jews. Some may have tried to change that, without much success, some will have used that to their advantage. It would be more accurate to say that Islam was partially spread with a PROMISE to provide a way out of the cast system. That promise was manifestly not kept.

If Hinduism has four fold division of humanity based on its scriptures,Islam has two fold division right now(feudal lord and serf )and had three fold in the past(feudal lord,serf and slave)based on scriptures.Similiarly Christianity has two fold division right now and three fold in the past based on scriptures.

Now even people from relatively high caste and martial cum peasant Reddys of Andhra Pradesh were said to have been refused education by Brahmins who thought of it as their own exclusive domain.As a result even Reddys of A.P converted to Christianity in significant numbers.It is not just the untouchables who got converted.

Now imagine that the same scenario would have prevailed in North India and present day Pakistan and Bangladesh under 700 years of Islamic rule.In Islam people are judged people based on individual merit and not on heredity.So naturally many high caste Rajputs and Thakurs converted to Islam to enhance their economic prospects.As a result the division of people into Brahmins and Rajputs /Kshatriyas and Vaishyas has been blurred/dissolved and they all now belong to the noble class or the class of Shaiks as they are called in Pakistan.

More or less same would have happened in South India with all high caste people getting converted to the high class of Christianity over a long period of time had not Indians achieved independence from British in 1947.

[manfred]

You have to distinguish between what religions teach and what their followers actually do.

Islam teaches there are various types of people where some are more valuable than others, and each type having different legal status. There are Muslims ,then the "people of the book", and finally the lowest of the low, the "pagans". Then also, cutting across those three divisions, we have men and women, where women have en entirely lower legal status to men.

So, in its TEACHING Islam could be seen by some people in India as a way to get out of a very low social status. In PRACTICE, the cast system was so engrained in people that in a modified way it found its way into Muslims society, at least for a time. What Muslims actually DO is not the same across the world, what they BELIEVE is much more similar.

My point was that Muslims trying to make converts will use any angle they can find, and this issue was in a way an unexpected bonus.

Equality in race and origin in Islam is often pronounced as a major, some say even unique, feature of Islam. This is a complete fabrication. The divisions are clearly spelt out in the Qur'an. In actual custom, there are also divisions within Muslim society, a Bangladeshi will be seen and treated differently by Arabs than a Turk, for example. So, Islam has built in discrimination, and Muslims have added further customary ones of their own.

In Christianity, there is no built racism, but that does not mean that Christians cannot be racist obviously. It just means that while Muslims exercise discrimination BECAUSE of their religions, Christian, when they do the same, do so in OPPOSITION to their religion.

By the way, in most of the "communist" countries left in the world, there is a kind of ruling elite, like in North Korea, or Cuba, and even China. Does this mean that communism or even atheism is inherently racist?

[Nosuperstition]

Islam teaches there are various types of people where some are more valuable than others, and each type having different legal status. There are Muslims ,then the "people of the book", and finally the lowest of the low, the "pagans". Then also, cutting across those three divisions, we have men and women, where women have en entirely lower legal status to men.

I was referring to intra-faith class distinctions with scriptural basis and not inter-faith distinctions defined on basis of scriptures.

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=13216&p=194951#p194951

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15101&p=198077&hilit=opiate#p198077

In Christianity, there is no built racism, but that does not mean that Christians cannot be racist obviously. It just means that while Muslims exercise discrimination BECAUSE of their religions, Christian, when they do the same, do so in OPPOSITION to their religion.

People of black color are assumed to be descendents of Ham and are supposed to serve the descendents of Shem(those of brown skin) and Zapheth(of white skin) as per Biblical beliefs of previous periods.Is that not racism inherent in religion?

[Nosuperstition]

A lot many Brahmins in and around Mangalore also converted out of Hinduism to Christianity.Similarly many high caste Bengalis are said to have converted to Christianity during the British period.So why single out low caste Hindus for having converted out of Hinduism.

[Nosuperstition]

Also in Islam, a muslim if he can afford to should visit Mecca,the holiest of all Islamic pilgrimage sites at least once in his lifetime.The prophet himself said that.That means there can exist those who can afford a trip to Mecca and those who cannot.So economic disparities can be clearly and soundly justified by theology.

[Ozes]

Islamic apologetics claim Islam spread in India because lower caste Hindus converted to it to escape the caste system, can this be refuted?

This lie was invented by secular Indian communist intellectuals who cooperated with secular Western communist intellectuals. The historical origin of this lie boils down to the fact that Indian communists, who most likely started taking over Indian universities with the help of Western communists who already dominated the Ivy League Universities in the United States and the best universities in the United Kingdom, most likely as well in the rest of Europe.


Romila Thapar, an Indian Historian who was appointed to hold the Kluge chair in the US Library of Congress in 2003, the "de facto national library of the United States of America". She also won the Peter Kluge prize in 2008 for lifetime achievement where she split the price of 1 million dollars with another historian. She holds honorary doctorates from the University of Oxford, the University of Chicago, the University of Edinburgh, and several others. She was named Foreign Honorary member of the American Academy of the Arts and sciences. Why do I mention all her titles?

To show how well received this communist historian is in the Western world. This is one of the historians who negated the crimes of Muslim invaders by resorting to the lie you addressed in this topic.. For this reason, you may understand why this lie is so widespread.

The lie was concocted by claiming that Western Historians twisted Indian history to divide the Indian population, even though the Western Historians quoted by these Indian communist revisionists mostly made use of Muslim sources. To read more about the attempts to whitewash Islam's history, look for "Negationism in India:Concealing the record of Islam" by Belgian scholar Koenraad Elst which is available for free online, you can also purchase it on Amazon.

[Nosuperstition]

It is a matter of fact that low caste Hindus did convert to Islam and even if Communists said that,it cannot be negated.Human beings crave for power,prestige and money.Islam after subduing Hindus acquired all of these by taxation and then tempted Hindus who were lured by these things.In times of famines which were numerous in the sub-continent according to crazy canuck,Hindus had no alternative other than to covert else they simply would die.An interesting example amongst Telugu speaking regions is Rayalaseema which has 13% muslim population whereas coastal region has only 5% muslims,reason being recurrence of frequent famines in drought prone backward region pushes up the ones opting for opportunistic conversions.

A well known Hindu revivalist Swami Vivekananda himself said that religion cannot thrive on empty stomachs.Its too much to ask someone.If these factors were able to convert low caste Hindus to Christianity during 150 to 200 years of British rule,there is no reason to believe that they would not have worked in favour of Muslims during their 700 years of rule in Northern and Central India.

This is not to say that there simply do not exist those of Arabic,Turkic.Iranian and Central Asian descent among muslims.In fact one can easily identify them by means of their facial features.In Iran,all of the people gradually are said to have converted to Islam eventually in order to mimic the ruling Muslim Arabic caste.The same strategy was tried in India whereby by means of rape,the upper echolon was gradually converted to mimicing Muslims in their language,dress and manners.Too bad that before this mimicing effect showed 100% result,Maratha revolt of 27 years happened and immediately afterwards British showed up with their superior arms.

[Ozes]

To claim Islam freed the lower castes or that they muslims were hailed like heroes when they entered India, to pretend Islam's didn't oppress, murder and blackmail them to get them into Islam is nothing but a popularized lie. The academics that rule Indian intellectual elite, work hard to claim any struggles between Islam and Hindus where not caused by anything inherently hostile in Muslim behaviour/theology, but caused by economic differences. This is the reason Indians still have to deal with Islam like a bunch of dhimmies today.

[Nosuperstition]

It is much more probable that they saw the cast system as a useful angle to gain conversions, an unexpected bonus, which was used to full advantage. Imagine telling an "untouchable" Indian, that by simply saying the shahadda he would be come superior to ALL Hindu... no more subservience, no more being the lowest of the low, much better economic and marital prospects, being able to sneer at a Brahmin in the street... That is a temptation to join Islam more enticing than anything a dhawa- missionary could possibly say.

The 1715 communal riots were due to looting of shops of the Hindus by the Muslim soldiers. The riot came to an end with replacement of Muslim viceroy Daudkhan.

/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14643&p=193968#p193968

That is true,better economic prospects can come by hook or crook and that is very much enticing.A Brahmin friend of mine himself said that he saw beautiful Iranian women while his father worked as a doctor in Iran.He said that because of Islamic arrival,beautiful women arrived in the sub-continent which would have otherwise not been possible.

Also whipping up passions about moral superiority might have played a key role.After saying that Hindus are killers of their own daughters,they stand maligned , their subsistance being denied to a certain extent in the form of Ziziya notwithstanding.Much the same way as British siphoned off surplus grain to Britain while missionaries at the same time maligned Hindus saying that they drowned their newly born infants in the Ganges/practiced family planning by infanticide out of lack of means of providing them with necessities.

[Nosuperstition]

To claim Islam freed the lower castes or that they muslims were hailed like heroes when they entered India, to pretend Islam's didn't oppress, murder and blackmail them to get them into Islam is nothing but a popularized lie.

I did not say that they did not oppress,murder or blackmail.All that I said is that some low caste Hindus did convert due to carrot and stick policy.

I also firmly believe that hundreds of thousands of low caste / any caste Hindu women who when granted free-will simply went away with muslims to ME slave markets without uttering a word or commiting Sati/Jauhar because their alcohol addicted husbands mistreated them and they did not feel that inclined towards their husbands

/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=1174&p=30560&hilit=alcohol#p30560

Atleast women in Afghanistan did not go straight away to the Soviet troops when they were cornered in the battles.Possibly because their husbands did not mistreat them under the influence of alcohol though some of them seem to consume opium.

[Nosuperstition]

A muslim who can afford to is allowed to have 4 wives in Islam.That means the feudal class defined by the Quran who are entitled to the fruits of labour though they do not participate in the labour can accumulate more wealth and hence have more wives.Clearly Islam does not say that all human beings of the society should have an equal share of wealth.

So even if there exist not any caste distinctions,there clearly exist class distinctions.However class is better in one way in that endogamy is overcome and the offspring produced will be relatively fit and healthy.

Caste only serves the self-interests of the caste leaders who in the name of their tribe / caste will take money from political parties during election while doing little for their interest.And not to mention,it boosts a false pride based on birth.

[manfred]

Islam essentially was set up to get ONE man and his confidants to rule over others, and beyond preventing riots due to poverty, has little to say about social justice.

But it has castes of its own....

For example... You will find that "blood money" is payable in very significantly varying amounts depending on religion, ethnic origin or gender of the victim. This alone shows that not all Muslims even are equal. The very concept that a rich man buy his way out of capital punishment for murder also speaks volumes.

Then the is the "caste" of the "hajjis". A person with means can make a "pilgrimage" to Mecca. This is, for someone in the third world, a very significant expense, similar to buying a house, and not all can afford it. The Saudi milk the "pilgrims" for everything they have in centuries old tradition, and they don't care of they collect the life's savings of a poor woman from Indonesia.

But the get something in return: status. Proudly calling themselves hajji on their return, they have moved up a caste, so to speak. For some, this new status translates into money, too, as quite irrationally people think they are somehow more trustworthy business partners than other people, of they gain some religious benefit from pampering them and offering them things

So the key to improving one's Islamic "caste" is money. But not all things can be changed, and even the richest Pakistani will never be treated as an equal by an Arab.

[Nosuperstition]

Now this game of you becoming an uplifter/redeemer of the downtrodden masses of a particular area from the oppression of their elite is something muslims seemed to have borrowed from the Persian king Darius,who existed a millenium before Islam came into being.He too used to talk the same talk and walk the same walk.Or might be they too developed the same strategy quite independant of him.

[Nosuperstition]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcTnjj1dtd0

I think it is in the above video that they first mentioned about the Persian Imperial tactic of acting as an uplifting force of the downtrodden masses from the oppressive clutches of their elite.

[Nosuperstition]

Imagine telling an "untouchable" Indian, that by simply saying the shahadda he would be come superior to ALL Hindu... no more subservience, no more being the lowest of the low, much better economic and marital prospects, being able to sneer at a Brahmin in the street... That is a temptation to join Islam more enticing than anything a dhawa- missionary could possibly say.

The truth is in Hinduism unless you are very seriously malnourished,you will learn to think with your own brain.There is no eternal fire concept which would make the people of lower castes strictly subservient.

When Christian masses tried to uplift themselves from clutches of their elite by quoting the Bible,separate churches were instituted for them based on their occupations or guilds in medieval periods.Refer to fsmitha site for reference.Luckily as of today Christians of West got industrialised whereas those of third world became modernised and granted equality as a result of spread of Socialism and Communism and other progressive movements.

When low caste Hindus observe the difference ,they conclude that Hinduism alone somehow is inherently divisive with apartheidistic tendencies and convert out of the religion while any religion would support divisions of vested interests.As simple as that.

[Nosuperstition]

It is much more probable that they saw the cast system as a useful angle to gain conversions, an unexpected bonus, which was used to full advantage.

Muslim rulers such as Babar bribed Hindu Rajput military leaders such as Siladitya on Hemu's side with promise of a territory of his own.And it worked(It is a different matter that when he himself was under attack,Siladitya made womenfolk of his palace perform Jauhar).And when there was a tussle between the rulers belonging to the Velama high caste in Telangana,one of the Velama high throne aspirants invited muslim rulers of Indo-Persian Bahmani rulers to assist him.And in the guise of assisting him,muslims grabbed the whole of Velama kingdom and the region of Telangana never again saw Hindu rule until 1952.

K.C.R who also belongs to the Velama caste revolted against his fellow Telugu chieftain and invited North Indians to settle the dispute.There are many Rajput clans in Pakistan who are converts from Hinduism.So when even privileged want to get much more privileged and seek outsider assistance to further that end,it is only natural that the disgruntled elements of society would have been more inclined to benefit better under the new rulers.

[Nosuperstition]

It is much more probable that they saw the cast system as a useful angle to gain conversions, an unexpected bonus, which was used to full advantage. Imagine telling an "untouchable" Indian, that by simply saying the shahadda he would be come superior to ALL Hindu... no more subservience, no more being the lowest of the low, much better economic and marital prospects, being able to sneer at a Brahmin in the street... That is a temptation to join Islam more enticing than anything a dhawa- missionary could possibly say.

Our friend Ohmyrus also said that 90% of Christians in India come from the untouchable background and that says something about the alleviating property of Christianity.Well according to one site on the internet,before Christianity became the dominant force in the Roman Empire,slaves could seek protection from pagan temples if they felt that they were being mistreated by their masters.They would be returned back to their masters if ever charges levelled against them were found to be reasonable.

However after Christianity became somewhat dominant,run away slaves were simply turned over to their masters whatever be the reason for their escapade,right or wrong.Similarly there would have definately existed situations where slaves in Islam were also treated harshly.Islam is not what it is always potrayed to be that is alleviating the plight of the downtrodden etc.Perhaps this also explains why only around a fourth of Hindus converted to Islam even after some 700 years of Islamic rule in India.

[Nosuperstition]

Imagine telling an "untouchable" Indian, that by simply saying the shahadda he would be come superior to ALL Hindu... no more subservience, no more being the lowest of the low, much better economic and marital prospects, being able to sneer at a Brahmin in the street... That is a temptation to join Islam more enticing than anything a dhawa- missionary could possibly say.

True many people do not marry out of caste in Hinduism and it is equally true that many from the lower castes look pitch black.Even the Turks who unlike the Arabs were successful in establishing a Muslim Sultanate in the sub-continent proper lamented that many Hindus are too black.They did establish a Sultanate nevertheless as Indians might not be beautiful but its land is the land overflowing with milk and honey.So people of lower castes would indeed have jumped out of Hinduism into Islam seeking better marital prospects.

But then your have this concept of sour grapes even in Hindu culture.For example,in Telugu when economic prospects matter more than beauty you say 'andaanni korukku tintaamaa'(are we going to bite and eat beauty meaning bread matters more).With huge money influx through arranged marriage,you might not be able to enjoy beauty but then there are other comforts and luxuries in line for you.

[Nosuperstition]

It is said that due to lack of the restraining hand of the Caesar,slavery after the fall of Rome increased by leaps and bounds.That shows that the Rome also tried to rein in slavery.However the pre-Christian Roman paganism was not completely successful in removing jealousy from the minds of its half-zombies.When one Roman Emperor made occupations hereditary in Rome,it is said to have caused a lot of resentment just as is the case with the Hindu caste system.

Perhaps it is due to this reason that Constantine decided to revamp whole of the Roman Empire with Christianity as that would give it a new impetus to creation of total zombies discarding the old discord filled past.By adopting the same,Islam perhaps hoped to convince the rulers of other nations that they will get completely obedient population if the product they bring to fore is accepted.