Games Muslims play: Islam freed lower caste Hindus

[idesigner1]

Advent of Christianity didn't change condition of slaves . Bible OT or NT was not slave emancipation document.Slavery in Christianity almost continued till 17 and 18 century.

Same way conversion to Islam didn't uplift low castes from stigma attached to them. In India Muslim society has almost parallel castes.They intermarry within their own group. Untouchable castes were not absorbed by Islam . They stayed untouchable even after conversion. Only touch taboos became tolerable. Islam absorbed some artisan castes as they were useful in building new Islamic Sultanate.

[manfred]

Advent of Christianity didn't change condition of slaves . Bible OT or NT was not slave emancipation document.Slavery in Christianity almost continued till 17 and 18 century.

Same way conversion to Islam didn't uplift low castes from stigma attached to them. In India Muslim society has almost parallel castes.They intermarry within their own group. Untouchable castes were not absorbed by Islam . They stayed untouchable even after conversion. Only touch taboos became tolerable. Islam absorbed some artisan castes as they were useful in building new Islamic Sultanate.

The difference between Christianity and Islam on the topic of slavery is this: Christian texts report instances of slavery as a matter of fact, as it was commonplace at the time it was written. It does not sanction it nor forbid it. In fact, if you read around the succession of popes on Wiki, they have provided helpfully a paragraph for almost all of them on their views on slavery, you find a wide variety of views on that subject. It was only much later when this issue was decided, and not without influence from secular people such as Wilberforce.

In Islam, by contrast, this issue is not one of historical fact or even one for debate. It is a matter of divine law. Slavery including sex slavery are allowed, and denying this would turn a Muslim into an enemy of Islam.

As to the old chestnut of Islam emancipating the "untouchables" in India, I agree that this is not true. The caste system in India sits deep in the souls of people, and does not simply evaporate with the arrival of Islam. In reality, Islam also has castes of its own, with the Arab male at the top and Hindu female at the bottom. However, it is true that people under the Moghuls mostly converted to gain some advantage. It is also true that the Moghuls were not that keen on making just too many converts to Islam, as the jiziah was important to them...

[Hombre]

However, it is true that people under the Moghuls mostly converted to gain some advantage

Those advantages included, A Muslim man having his own private harem, with 4 women ready to satisfy their "husband's" insatiable appetite for daily sex.
I will accept Islam as viable religion, when I see that, women can also have 4 husbands, who fight over her "treasure".

On the serious side. Granted, all major religion were based and predicated on standards which we find them unacceptable. However, each religion had found the delicate balance between tradition & modern paradigm. All - except Islam, which is still stuck in first gear of 7th century barbaric standards of the Arabian deserts.

No self respecting organizations these days, use force to sustain its ideology - except Islam

[Nosuperstition]

The difference between Christianity and Islam on the topic of slavery is this: Christian texts report instances of slavery as a matter of fact, as it was commonplace at the time it was written. It does not sanction it nor forbid it. In fact, if you read around the succession of popes on Wiki, they have provided helpfully a paragraph for almost all of them on their views on slavery, you find a wide variety of views on that subject. It was only much later when this issue was decided, and not without influence from secular people such as Wilberforce.

In Islam, by contrast, this issue is not one of historical fact or even one for debate. It is a matter of divine law. Slavery including sex slavery are allowed, and denying this would turn a Muslim into an enemy of Islam.

As to the old chestnut of Islam emancipating the "untouchables" in India, I agree that this is not true. The caste system in India sits deep in the souls of people, and does not simply evaporate with the arrival of Islam. In reality, Islam also has castes of its own, with the Arab male at the top and Hindu female at the bottom. However, it is true that people under the Moghuls mostly converted to gain some advantage. It is also true that the Moghuls were not that keen on making just too many converts to Islam, as the jiziah was important to them...

Slavery is imposed to a greater degree by cultures which have just begun on the road for total conquest of the world.It will not be imposed to a greater extent by cultures that are settled or alread y complacent.Complacency can be known by whether they want to actively proselytise or not.The real reason for proselytisation is future colonisation as is evinced in case of both Islam and Christianity.

There are verses in Bible which ask slaves to be quite quite subservient to their masters notwithstanding how badly they are treated.So when people want to revert back to their natural instinct of giving hereditary privileges to their offspring via their own caste systems once they accomplished their purposes of global conquests and total annihilation of other cultures,their intentions to behave on par their natural instincts can be accomplished ,albeit to a lesser degree.

[Nosuperstition]

However, it is true that people under the Moghuls mostly converted to gain some advantage. It is also true that the Moghuls were not that keen on making just too many converts to Islam, as the jiziah was important to them...

The last famous Mughal named Aurangzeb killed lots and lots of Hindus while trying to forcibly convert them to Islam.The reason is not that hard to discern.They understood that with the conquest of New World by Christians,time was running out ,they had to act urgently to cover up the crimes they committed until then,else Hindus might resort to revenge if ever they gain back the power.So money was not more important to them under such circumstances,covering up their crimes in the name of saving souls became paramount.

Advantages will be offered only so long as there is a need for more traitors.They will be stopped once the entire populace is made to forget its collective memory.

[Nosuperstition]

Kintu mein Pratishodh jaise heen bhavnaa ko aashirvaad nahin de sakta.

http://www.hotstar.com/tv/mahabharat/43 ... 1000011775" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When the video approaches the time scale of 6:20,God Shiva says that he cannot give his blessings to the lowly feeling/emotion called revenge(Pratishodh).

Pratishodh kee yeh agni hain

http://www.hotstar.com/tv/mahabharat/43 ... 1000012028" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here they glorify revenge as being synonymous to 'fire' as one can observe when the time scale is 12:20.They glorify revenge even in other episodes with the same lines.

So Hindus who believe in the above episodes can pick and choose whatever suits them.

[Nosuperstition]

Pagan Rome made vast number of slaves from the nations it conquered.Ditto is the case with the Mauryan Empire of India(which lasted only for 90 years distintegration of which into smaller units would have no doubt eased the conditions of slaves).When no more slaves could be made,pagan Rome eased the conditions of its slaves perhaps to show its moral superiority over the quasi independent nations in its Empire.To me it seems Christianity pleased the pagan nobles so much with its pro-slavery verses at a later date of the Empire(which lasted for around 700 years) that they decided to eradicate paganism and install Christianity in its place.

Needless to say that the stance of the Church on abortions would have only helped increase the supply of the much needed cheap labour/bonded labour/slave like class whichever is suitable in pagan Rome where family planning by disowning your excess children had become a norm for sometime.

[Nosuperstition]

mandi ekkuvaite majjiga palachanavutundi(If the number of people increases,the buttermilk will get diluted,meaning greater quantity of life it will naturally decrease the quality of life one enjoys).Greater is the population,naturally labour has to become cheap.Perhaps that is the reason why when people on Rome had lesser and lesser number of children,Christianity with its strong anti-abortion stance had to declared as the official religion.

[Nosuperstition]

In the Eastern religions , you have the concept of karma to inculcate contentment,in Christianity and Judaism ,you have God saying 'I created the rich and the poor' to enforce contentment and in Islam verses such as those coming directly from God's prophet enforce contentment.

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... te#p198077" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... ti#p193140" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So once the conquest of the whole world is accomplished,the future total zombies can be selectively told about whichever words that best suit the hereditary interests of the then dominant castes.

[glitch]

In any case, it was still a forced conversion. There was a choice of remaining the oppressed (and killed) or becoming the oppressor.
We know that polytheist only had two choices. Convert or die.
The third choice was only given to people of the book, Jews or Christians. Quran 9:29

It wouldn't matter anyway, because Islam believes that other religions are false and worthy of death--Christians and Jews must be submissive to muslims and pay taxes and bow their head to muslims.

women is islam are literally worth 25 percent of males.

The idea that Islam remotely brings equality continues to make me laugh. Orphans are event treated badly and cannot be adopted or made whole.

[glitch]

in Islam a woman 's inheritance is worth some stupid nuthole percentagle, while in Judiasm and Christianity multipe verses refer to the notion of an eye for an eye, in the least value for Value, It forbids the liberal sentimentality of judging a person over their financial situation, and it exhibits the same punshments for male and female--not 30 lashes for a male and death for a female.

[Nosuperstition]

Kancha Ilaiah,a pro-Dalit activist said that many of the muslims of the sub-continent are converted Hindus themselves who converted after a prolonged study and observation of Islam.

Now for almost 400 years,kafir Hindu Rajput kings of the North-Western tracts of India resisted Islamic expansionism and beat back the Arab incursions.That is not possible unless many of they themselves and their subjects are devoutly religious along with many of them being illiterate.Now in later stages it was the stout Afghans and Turks who broke down that resistance with the help of superior breed Persian and Arabic horses.

Such a study of Islam has as a pre-requisite one studying either Urdu/Arabic/Persian in the Semitic script and not Hindi and the sub-continental vernacular languages in the Devanaagari scripts.It is well known that the Hindu Shudra Kayasthas of North India who did not have knowledge of reading and writing worked as clerks etc in the courts of the muslim kings.

Later Rajput kings along with Hindu Brahmins converted to Islam after education and adopted Arabic respect words such a Shaikh,Sayyid etc to form their own higher classes.Or may be they had to convert to escape the persecution in the form of right hand possessions.

In their prolonged study they would have understood better that religion is nothing but bogus and cheating and might have converted to Islam to escape persecution as well as to earn favours of their superiors.They might have understood that due to the natural law of blind repeats of superior warfare machinery of fine breed horses,bows and cannons of the muslims,it is futile to further resist them.

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... na#p211119" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just like in the illustrated weekly of India having a number of evangelical sermons in 1975,muslims too might have convinced their staunch Hindu subjects that their ancestors too had been converted by crooked means and therefore there is nothing wrong if their conversion too is forced by crooked means.Much similar to the British legitimising their conquest of the sub-continent on the supposed fact that early Indian civilisation itself is formed due to the invasion of the outsider white Aryans who conquered the dark aboriginals.Twisted logic of tu quo que at play.

[glitch]

In the Eastern religions , you have the concept of karma to inculcate contentment,in Christianity and Judaism ,you have God saying 'I created the rich and the poor' to enforce contentment and in Islam verses such as those coming directly from God's prophet enforce contentment.

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... te#p198077" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... ti#p193140" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So once the conquest of the whole world is accomplished,the future total zombies can be selectively told about whichever words that best suit the hereditary interests of the then dominant castes.

Okay, you ass, show me that quote saying God created Rich and Poor to enforce contentment. That's a bald face damn lie. so please put your money where your damn mouth is and show me where it says that. It isn't in Judiasm or in Christianity in the old and new testement, but i'm calling you out right here you outright putrid lying piece of trash.

[glitch]

Advent of Christianity didn't change condition of slaves . Bible OT or NT was not slave emancipation document.Slavery in Christianity almost continued till 17 and 18 century.

Same way conversion to Islam didn't uplift low castes from stigma attached to them. In India Muslim society has almost parallel castes.They intermarry within their own group. Untouchable castes were not absorbed by Islam . They stayed untouchable even after conversion. Only touch taboos became tolerable. Islam absorbed some artisan castes as they were useful in building new Islamic Sultanate.

The difference between Christianity and Islam on the topic of slavery is this: Christian texts report instances of slavery as a matter of fact, as it was commonplace at the time it was written. It does not sanction it nor forbid it. In fact, if you read around the succession of popes on Wiki, they have provided helpfully a paragraph for almost all of them on their views on slavery, you find a wide variety of views on that subject. It was only much later when this issue was decided, and not without influence from secular people such as Wilberforce.

In Islam, by contrast, this issue is not one of historical fact or even one for debate. It is a matter of divine law. Slavery including sex slavery are allowed, and denying this would turn a Muslim into an enemy of Islam.

As to the old chestnut of Islam emancipating the "untouchables" in India, I agree that this is not true. The caste system in India sits deep in the souls of people, and does not simply evaporate with the arrival of Islam. In reality, Islam also has castes of its own, with the Arab male at the top and Hindu female at the bottom. However, it is true that people under the Moghuls mostly converted to gain some advantage. It is also true that the Moghuls were not that keen on making just too many converts to Islam, as the jiziah was important to them...

I agree with these statements utterly and what i want to ask the libtard NoSupercommonsence is why is christianity blamed for not ending slavery...Christianity is't a system of government like Islam--its also a choice made by those who accept it and when you accept it you are supposed to know what it teaches--so its funny that every time a libtard athiet like nosuperstition gets on this board, its Christianity didn't end slavery.... christianity didn't end slavery. name a most excellent religion that did.

Christianity said very clearly that all were equal under the messiah and that essentially there was no more Race or even Sex, Paul outright says that unfortunately christians must obey the law where they are, so anyone going around murdering under the law is breaking the law and not a christian. Muslims are the only ones that pruport they don't have to follow laws. Answer that crap Nosuperstition.

[Nosuperstition]

In the Eastern religions , you have the concept of karma to inculcate contentment,in Christianity and Judaism ,you have God saying 'I created the rich and the poor' to enforce contentment and in Islam verses such as those coming directly from God's prophet enforce contentment.

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... te#p198077" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... ti#p193140" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So once the conquest of the whole world is accomplished,the future total zombies can be selectively told about whichever words that best suit the hereditary interests of the then dominant castes.

Okay, you ass, show me that quote saying God created Rich and Poor to enforce contentment. That's a bald face damn lie. so please put your money where your damn mouth is and show me where it says that. It isn't in Judiasm or in Christianity in the old and new testement, but i'm calling you out right here you outright putrid lying piece of trash.

Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all.proverbs/22-2

Given below are the historical commentaries on the above verse accessible in the same page.

The Lord is the Maker of them all - Both the states are in the order of God's providence and both are equally important in his sight.

the Lord is the Maker of them all: not only as men, but as rich men and poor men; God gives riches to whom he pleases, and poverty to whom he pleases; riches and poverty are according to the order of divine Providence; and he can and does change scenes at his pleasure; wherefore the rich should consider themselves as dependent on him, and not despise and crush the poor; and the poor should be content with their state, as being allotted to them by the]H

http://bible.cc/proverbs/22-2.htm

This means the rich and poor must exist with their class distinctions.No wonder,even though some 1 million to 100 million people of Indian sub-continent got killed during the 1857 rebellion against the British(figures differ per different historians) and even though entire villages and towns were wiped out by deliberate scorch earth policy due to their illiterate religious stubbornness,once educated ,the upper caste Hindu Nairs of Kerala in India had to follow the suit in huge numbers when their lower class people converted to Christianity to curry favour with the supposedly Christian ruling elite thereby making Kerala some 25% Christian as of now.

[manfred]

Christianity does not teach castes, so you can stop playing silly bible scrabble again.

NOTHING at all in the simple proverb speaks of "providence" or divinely ordered castes. It speaks of EQUALITY of man.

[glitch]

You said that God created people rich and poor to provide contentment. At no point does that proverb say, God created people to be rich and poor to provice contentlem, it says that God created all, and it desnt say he chose some would be rich and some would be poor--nor that contentment has anthing at all to do with it.

Nice Try.

[Nosuperstition]

Christianity does not teach castes, so you can stop playing silly bible scrabble again.

NOTHING at all in the simple proverb speaks of "providence" or divinely ordered castes. It speaks of EQUALITY of man.

There are no castes/castes with racist origins if one ignores the Biblical injunctions verse about Ham,Shem and Zapheth. And the verse about rich and poor that I have just provided serves as a basis for class which is slightly better than the concept of castes in that people of one wider genepool of class intermarry with those of the same class thereby reducing the possibility of dumbness due to inbreeding.

[Nosuperstition]

You said that God created people rich and poor to provide contentment. At no point does that proverb say, God created people to be rich and poor to provice contentlem, it says that God created all, and it desnt say he chose some would be rich and some would be poor--nor that contentment has anthing at all to do with it.

Nice Try.

In traditional Hinduism,the Purushasukta Vedic verse about Gods creating Brahmins,Kshatriyas,Vaishyas and Shudras from the head,arms,thighs and feet of the Purusha supposedly serves as basis for the four fold class system.This was quoted many a time by Hindu bashers as the basis of Hindu class system.Then by the same analogy when God creates the rich and poor ,you are supposed to abide by the arrangement which God himself had ordained.It is that simple.Why else do you think some of the all time great Biblical commentators themselves have commented on the afore mentioned verse that you have to live by the providence provided to you and not demand more?

[Nosuperstition]

While Muslims stressed on merits of individuals rather than hereditary considerations of Hindus in India,that too was not 100% meritocracy.For example a father who was rich could feed his child with nutritious diet that can help in the development of his kid's brain while someother muslim who was not so rich and hence cannot afford such diet would have surely had kids with retarded mental development.In this way even the supposed meritocracy of a Muslim society also has a hereditary inhibitory factor with regards to the performance of the pupils.