# History: The Indian Dark Ages (1750-1950 AD)



## Phantom Lancer (Oct 11, 2009)

The Rise of India as a economic and military heavy weight has challenged the Western notion of "Everything good comes from the west" ,but many people seem to have trouble accepting it .
In many internet discussion forums i have noticed that people generally tend to credit Colonial Britain with 'civilizing' the primitive Indians .After all Did nt they introduce railway systems in India ? build schools and universities and  abolish primitive 'Indian' customs such as caste system in India ?
Surely British Colonial rule is far superior to the current rule of corrupt governments in India ?

As the title of this thread suggests ,i find this reasoning very unacceptable .... British Colonialism in India remains IMO one of the worst disaster to  have ever struck India .

Here are some facts

In 1854, Sir Arthur Cotton writing in "Public Works in India" noted: "_Public  works have been almost entirely neglected throughout India... The motto hitherto  has been: 'Do nothing, have nothing done, let nobody do anything.

_W. Digby, noted in "Prosperous British India" in 1901 that "_stated  roughly, famines and scarcities have been four times as numerous, during the last thirty years of the 19th century as they were one hundred years ago, and four times as widespread_." In _Late Victorian Holocausts_, Mike Davis points out *that here were 31(thirty one) serious famines in 120 years of British rule compared to 17(seventeen) in the 2000 years before British rule.*

The poverty of British India stood in stark contrast to these eye witness  reports and has to be ascribed to the pitiful wages that working people in  India received in that period. A 1927-28 report noted that "_all but the  most highly skilled workmen in India receive wages which are barely sufficient  to feed and clothe them. Everywhere will be seen overcrowding, dirt and squalid  misery_..." 


Contrast this data with the following accounts of Indian life prior to  colonization:- 
      " ..._.even in the smallest villages rice, flour, butter, milk, beans  and other vegetables, sugar and sweetmeats can be procured in abundance_  .... Tavernier writing in the 17th century in his "Travels in India". 



      Manouchi - the Venetian who became chief physician to Aurangzeb (also in the 17th century) wrote: "_Bengal is of all the kingdoms of the Moghul,  best known in France..... We may venture to say it is not inferior in anything  to Egypt - and that it even exceeds that kingdom in its products of silks,  cottons, sugar, and indigo. All things are in great plenty here, fruits,  pulse, grain, muslins, cloths of gold and silk._.." 



      The French traveller, Bernier also described 17th century Bengal in a similiar vein: "_The knowledge I have acquired of Bengal in two visits inclines me to believe that it is richer than Egypt. It exports in abundance cottons and silks, rice, sugar and butter. It produces amply for it's own  consumption of wheat, vegetables, grains, fowls, ducks and geese. It has immense herds of pigs and flocks of sheep and goats. Fish of every kind it has in profusion. From Rajmahal to the sea is an endless number of canals, cut in bygone ages from the Ganges by immense labour for navigation and irrigation_." 



- quotes courtesy
*india_resource.tripod.com/colonial.html


----------



## Plasma_Snake (Oct 11, 2009)

Brits developed Infrastructure but destroyed our economy and home industry in order to promote their own so in a way colonial rule was both good and bad.


----------



## Rahim (Oct 11, 2009)

Most of the office(sarkari) buildings in Calcutta are made in British Raj :


----------



## Phantom Lancer (Oct 11, 2009)

pravinbv said:


> its obvious thats britishers were better than todays corrupt politicians. and i think india would have progressed more if they still remained here.


That is what most Indians think .... But some research will unearth quiet some startling facts

The literacy rate in India during 1911 was 6% in 1931 it was 8%, and by 1947 it had crawled to 11% . 

so literacy rate under the British raj grew from 6% to 11% over a period of 36 years (1911-1947)

Literacy rate under the license raj (pre-liberalization Indian govt ) rose to a cool 42% (1950-1981) over a period of 31+ years . Thats 10 times larger.  

from 1981-2001 it rose to 66% a rise of 25% in a matter of 20 years .

And during the colonial period only 4 in 10,000 Indians went to a university 

I would say todays corrupt politicians are a welcome relief ! better than the Colonists


----------



## Phantom Lancer (Oct 11, 2009)

a_rahim said:


> Most of the office(sarkari) buildings in Calcutta are made in British Raj :


They did build some good buildings ....... but only for themselves ... Who do you think resided in the Sarkari  offices ? Indians ? 
But more than that i think the damage they did to already existing monuments is immeasurable . 

Prior to 1750 India was crisscrossed by a number of canals and irrigation system  .... built over a 2000 year period . All torn down ,because their maintenance costs were too high for the English East India company .
The many beautiful Mughul and other Indian buildings torn down and drab military barracks built in its place .

Perhaps the least known aspect of the colonial legacy is the early British  attitude towards India's historic monuments and the extend of vandalism that  took place. Instead, there is this pervasive myth of the Britisher as an unbiased "protector of the nation's historic legacy".



> Shockingly, even the Taj Mahal was not spared. David Carroll reports: ".._By the nineteenth century, its grounds were a favorite trysting place for young Englishmen and their ladies. Open-air balls were held on the marble terrace in front of the main door, and there, beneath Shah Jahan"s lotus dome, brass bands um-pah-pahed and lords and ladies danced the quadrille. The minarets became a popular site for suicide leaps, and the mosques on either side of the Taj were rented out as bungalows to honeymooners. The gardens of the Taj were especially popular for open-air frolics_....."
> 
> R.Nath in his 'History of Decorative Art in Mughal Architecture' records  that scores of gardens, tombs and palaces that once adorned the suburbs of  Sikandra at Agra were sold out or auctioned. "_Relics of the glorious age of the Mughals were either destroyed or converted beyond recognition_..".  "_Out of 270 beautiful monuments which existed at Agra alone, before its capture by Lake in 1803, hardly 40 have survived_".
> In the same vein, David Carroll (in 'Taj Mahal') observes: " _The forts  in Agra and Delhi were commandeered at the beginning of the nineteenth century  and turned into military garrisons. Marble reliefs were torn down, gardens  were trampled, and lines of ugly barracks, still standing today, were installed  in their stead. In the Delhi fort, the Hall of Public Audience was made into an arsenal and the arches of the outer colonnades were bricked over or replaced with rectangular wooden windows_."


----------



## Faun (Oct 11, 2009)

Good question ! But why restrict to British invasion only ? Islamic invasion too destroyed Indian social fabric completely. Britishers just replaced that fabric with their own. Though I agree that capital was well within India during Moughal rule. But capital can be recreated but lost souls and values can never be.

Islamic invasions and Christian British invasions were a virtual rape of our motherland. Thanks to Marxist historians that we are spoon fed with conditioned history. And we have people today glorifying these invasions. While Jew holocaust has important place in history but there is no mention of Hindu holocaust. Not even of Bangladesh genocide of 3 million in 260 days during 1971. History is a propaganda of victors.

Sikh Gurus were beheaded. Our ancestors were converted at the hilt of sword. Slave trade was introduced to India. 

Here is one quote about the generosity of Christian British invasion:


> While most eighteenth-century European travellers to BhaaratVarsh described her as "flourishing", less than a century later she had sunk into depths of dismal misery.
> One British historian noted in 1901: "Time was, not more distant than a century and half ago, *when Bengal was much more wealthy than was Britain*". Another even asserted
> that Britain's Industrial Revolution could not have taken off without the influx of money that followed the conquest of Bengal.



People should read about Saint Xavier and his wonderful sayings. We have educational institutions named after him...lol.

Here is the Missionary tactic of Baron Macaulay which unfortunately succeeded as seen in today's Indian:


> Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully... It is my belief that if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolater among the respectable
> classes in Bengal thirty years hence.





> We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Bhaaratiyas in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.



*theanarchia.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/india1835.gif
-----------------------------------------
Posted again:
-----------------------------------------


Plasma_Snake said:


> *Brits developed Infrastructure* but destroyed our economy and home industry in order to promote their own so in a way colonial rule was both good and bad.



That infrastructure too was for their own gain. To speed up the looting process, exporting materials to world market in short time.

Ever wonder why Gandhi was thrown out of the Train ? Common Indians were treated like herds of cattle. "Dogs and Indians not allowed" sign were a common sight. Those infrastructures was not for common Indian.


----------



## nix (Oct 11, 2009)

the rich but unwise person is bound to be cheated.


----------



## Krow (Oct 12, 2009)

There were some gains like we had only a few countries made of the subcontinent instead of a myriad of Europe like small countries. Lets not start about the loss. The list is endless.


----------



## tarey_g (Oct 12, 2009)

pravinbv said:


> its obvious thats britishers were better than todays corrupt politicians. and i think india would have progressed more if they still remained here.



And yeah if that had happened, most of the digit forum members wud be polishing firangi shoes now, instead of sitting b4 a computer.


----------



## Krow (Oct 12, 2009)

^+1 to *tarey_g*!


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2009)

Techalomaniac said:


> There were some gains like we had only a few countries made of the subcontinent instead of a myriad of Europe like small countries. Lets not start about the loss. The list is endless.



Lol...Britishers left India divided in two pieces and 512+ independent provinces. Very much united indeed


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2009)

tarey_g said:


> And yeah if that had happened, most of the digit forum members wud be polishing firangi shoes now, instead of sitting b4 a computer.



Not to forget having our own version of *Thanksgiving Day*


----------



## nix (Oct 12, 2009)

tarey_g said:


> And yeah if that had happened, most of the digit forum members wud be polishing firangi shoes now, instead of sitting b4 a computer.



impulsive comment. saying that we would be "polishing firangi shoes" now is far-fetched. get real. 

 sooner or later, they would have gone. the european people were starting to oppose colonial policies after WWII. do remember that if not for english language, we would not have the edge that we have now. 

They also unified india, w/o which there would be many small, independant countries divided on lingual lines, somewhat like europe. 

I agree that british rule was not right. But the british people of today are not bad as the above posts infer. The success of indians in britian proves it. Present day britain is a whole lot more accomadative to people of other races than india can ever be. heck, we fight among ourself for water.(karnataka v/s TN) etc...


----------



## Phantom Lancer (Oct 13, 2009)

kanjar said:


> Good question ! But why restrict to British invasion only ? Islamic invasion too destroyed Indian social fabric completely. Britishers just replaced that fabric with their own.
> Islamic invasions and Christian British invasions were a virtual rape of our motherland.


While religion did fuel the coming of Islamic dynasties into India ,i would disagree on the point that they destroyed India .


> One estimate puts the revenue of Akbar's Mughal Empire in 1600 at £17.5 million, in contrast with the total revenue of Great Britain in 1800, which totalled £16 million .
> -wiki


And that was after the Industrial revolution in Europe.
With every passing generation they became more and more Indian . In contrast to Britons who refused to integrate into India's "inferior" culture .

And The colonial Britishers were more Racists than Religious


----------



## Phantom Lancer (Oct 13, 2009)

nix said:


> sooner or later, they would have gone. the european people were starting to oppose colonial policies after WWII.


We are talking specifically about the damage they did during their short stay .



> do remember that if not for english language, we would not have the edge that we have now.


1. If it was not for india . Colonial Britain would not have been able to build its massive empire . The biggest ever in all of History . And if that had not been possible English would never have become the Lingua Franca of the world . 
2. if they had not come into India ,India would have remained in the list of the top 3 economies of the world.



> They also unified india, w/o which there would be many small, independant countries divided on lingual lines, somewhat like europe.


India was roughly divided into 4-5 massive empires ...The Marathas ,Mughals,Tamil kingdoms and Punjab
Each of them had their own unique rich culture and were economical power houses .

compare that to our united India with more than 50% [500 million+] beggars and nothing needs to be said about effects of Partition of India terrorism being the least of out headaches



> I agree that british rule was not right. But the british people of today are not bad as the above posts infer.


The thread is clearly marked "History"   
 and have you ever heard of the slogan "British jobs for British People" ? 
They blame the lose of British jobs on Asians ! when the truth is that the guilty party is in fact their own bankers who caused the recession which in turn caused the job loses .



> The success of indians in britian proves it. Present day britain is a whole lot more accomadative to people of other races than india can ever be. heck, we fight among ourself for water.(karnataka v/s TN) etc...


Every Asian migrant is a terrorist suspect ,regardless of religion/country .You ll be harassed by Airport Authorities and police atleast a few times  if you travel to UK .Many IT executives have had to suffer silently .
And dont be shocked if some people hurl racial slurs at you once in a while .
UK and US has had serious Racial integration problems with the diverse communities that live there spawned by slave trade(black Africans),vietnam wars(Indo-Chinese community) etc etc.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2009)

Phantom Lancer said:


> While religion did fuel the coming of Islamic dynasties into India ,i would disagree on the point that they destroyed India .


Sorry dude but I won't consider money superior to freedom. Both treated Indians as slaves. Give this golden bait to a caged bird but not me.

Even China is progressing better than India but still India is better in terms of individual freedom.



Phantom Lancer said:


> With every passing generation they became more and more Indian .


What do you mean by Indian ?



Phantom Lancer said:


> In contrast to Britons who refused to integrate into India's "inferior" culture .
> And The colonial Britishers were more Racists than Religious


Colonial Britishers were equally driven by the religious fervor. It will be stupid to consider British colonialism as simply a looting of resources.

I hope you read about missionary nature of the invasion and establishing hegemony of Britishers among other European Christian nations. A good point is to start by reading this link, a more neutral view of British invasions:

*www.britishempire.co.uk/index.htm


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2009)

Phantom Lancer said:


> We are talking specifically about the damage they did during their short stay .


At the end of the British Raj, life expectancy of Indians was *just 27 years*.
*www.nimr.mrc.ac.uk/MillHillEssays/2008/familyhealth/



Phantom Lancer said:


> 1. If it was not for india . Colonial Britain would not have been able to build its massive empire . The biggest ever in all of History . And if that had not been possible English would never have become the Lingua Franca of the world .


Add to that if France would have captured India unlike Britishers then today whole world will be using French primarily 



Phantom Lancer said:


> India was roughly divided into 4-5 massive empires ...The Marathas ,Mughals,Tamil kingdoms and Punjab


Not to forget that Britishers left India with 512+ independent provinces 

Sardar Patel provided the first step to free united India after Islamic and British slavery.



Phantom Lancer said:


> The thread is clearly marked "History"
> and have you ever heard of the slogan "British jobs for British People" ?
> They blame the lose of British jobs on Asians ! when the truth is that the guilty party is in fact their own bankers who caused the recession which in turn caused the job loses .


The truth is that no one in developed country would like to do menial jobs people from developing countries only. And then too for good specialist jobs the high school dropout rate is far more for Firangi compared to immigrants from India or China or Thailand or Singapore etc.

Infact there is a shortage of nurses in UK itself.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2009)

nix said:


> Present day britain is a whole lot more accomadative to people of other races than india can ever be.



Oh lord ! So those Jews, Parsis, Syrian Christians, Ahamediyya and Bahai are not the example of accommodation by India ? This happened at the time when whole World was hunting these people to death and in India only they found safe haven.

But still India can never ever be accommodative like others 

Please nix brush up your history knowledge...no...not the Marxist history but Indian history.


----------



## p_dude (Oct 13, 2009)

economic savery

this is the condition that all third world countries are in right now 
and this wasn't the only country that was robbed and econimically raped in the past under the name of civilizing the people
and the christian missonaries you were takling about  thats another story

all the talk about India and china becoming a superpower is just BS every country has its place and we people are still slaves

it is all done through economy and trade unions, common people like us just don't get to know about these things from what we learn from schools and colleges which is also nothing but BS.


----------



## Phantom Lancer (Oct 13, 2009)

kanjar said:


> Sorry dude but I won't consider money superior to freedom. Both treated Indians as slaves. Give this golden bait to a caged bird but not me.


Trade cannot flourish in a place where there is no freedom . The only blackspot they had was their religious intolerance . Mughals are considered a uniquely Indian dynasty today because they did enrich India's culture and trade .  



> What do you mean by Indian ?


People having/taking on Indian values / culture . 
You seem to have more narrowly defined Indians as just Hindus .   




> Colonial Britishers were equally driven by the religious fervor. It will be stupid to consider British colonialism as simply a looting of resources.


They were not driven . Religion played absolutely no part in India or any other nation being colonised .

Are you saying they colonized India to spread their faith ! 
No their interest was in controlling the spice,silk trade from India and China to the west .
1. It is well known that the Colonial British empire persecuted Dutch Missionaries ,even though the Danes like Britons were protestant .Why ? because they were seen as potential political threat

2. Among today's Indian christian communities , catholics form the majority group ,protestants are among the minority . 
Contrastingly India has the second largest Muslim population in the world

Proves that Britons were more interested in $$$ than in morality or conversion .


----------



## Phantom Lancer (Oct 13, 2009)

p_dude said:


> economic savery
> all the talk about India and china becoming a superpower is just BS every country has its place and we people are still slaves


Hmm .... Both India and China were the top 2 economies of the Ancient  World ...That it their place .... right there at the top 

It is inevitable that both India andd China will become super powers . 

And whats this "we" BS ? Anybody going through your posts can make out that you are not Indian .Your 2 spam posts in the music thread were quiet hillarious . 
Did you think you could pass of gibberish as Hindi ?


----------



## p_dude (Oct 13, 2009)

Phantom Lancer said:


> 1. It is well known that the Colonial British empire persecuted Dutch Missionaries ,even though the Danes like Britons were protestant .Why ? *because they were seen as potential political threat*


nope





> 2. Among today's Indian christian communities , catholics form the majority group ,protestants are among the minority .


  of course

the protestants were always hated by the jesuits (eg ignatius layola) who are more than just missionaries
the same thing is also happening in America right now 
you should also consider that protestant reformation only put an end to all the massacre done by the Vatican/church(inquisitions) and still they were able to kill off many people during the ww2 which is not known by many.


----------



## p_dude (Oct 14, 2009)

Phantom Lancer said:


> Hmm .... Both India and China were the top 2 economies of the Ancient  World ...That it their place .... right there at the top
> 
> It is inevitable that both India andd China will become super powers .
> 
> ...


what i tried to tell through that post is something else
you seem to have gotten it all wrong.


----------



## Phantom Lancer (Oct 14, 2009)

p_dude said:


> the protestants were always hated by the jesuits (eg ignatius layola) who are more than just missionaries


They were considered Heretics ... for a good reason



> the same thing is also happening in America right now


I would rather believe UFOs are real



> you should also consider that protestant reformation only put an end to all the massacre done by the Vatican/church(inquisitions)


massacre ? 
The holocaust which is a direct result of the protestant reformation is 10000000000000000000000000 times worse .
Now thats what people call a massacre 



> and still they were able to kill off many people during the ww2 which is not known by many.


Will you be kind enough to elighten us on this little known incedent(s).
Vatican was neutral during WW2


----------



## p_dude (Oct 14, 2009)

Phantom Lancer said:


> They were considered Heretics ... for a good reason
> 
> 
> I would rather believe UFOs are real
> ...


i don't think this is going to make any sense to anyone here 
so lets just move on im  not wasting my time with silly arguments.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2009)

Phantom Lancer said:


> Trade cannot flourish in a place where there is no freedom . The only blackspot they had was their religious intolerance . Mughals are considered a uniquely Indian dynasty today because they did enrich India's culture and trade .


I gave you the example of China. Let me give another example that is more similar- Saudi Arabia or Iran. 

You consider destroying the ancient culture and then imposing their own as an advantage ? Quite funny. That culture couldn't prevent direct action day and division of India ?

I would rather prefer a Mauryan Empire than Arab imperialism.



Phantom Lancer said:


> People having/taking on Indian values / culture .
> You seem to have more narrowly defined Indians as just Hindus .


Hindu is a geographical term first used by Persians to describe people of Hindustan. So all people in India can be called as Hindus.

But what I meant by Indian is to espouse the principles of love, compassion, ahimsa, pluralism, tolerance  and sacrifice. Which is not to be found in Abrahamic faiths. Remember all unbelievers will go to Hell according to Abrahamic faiths ? Isn't it offending to unbelievers ?

One more thing the rather than having religious affiliation to places outside India people should try to have an Indianised version at home itself. It's a great security risk and threat to India.



Phantom Lancer said:


> They were not driven . Religion played absolutely no part in India or any other nation being colonised .


I will not explain much here. I have provided a link before. 
*www.britishempire.co.uk
Better read that. It has enough info about the inter rivalry of European nations in establishing their own version of Christianity and hence persecution of others. Even during Crusades Christians killed other Christians and Jews just because they were not pure. Civilizing natives was the Christian supremacist's burden in colonial conquests. 1857 mutiny is the cue here. Do also read about Liberation of Goa.

Remember what happened in Australia, New Zealand, America ? Natives were slaughtered and now people celebrate it as Thanksgiving Day...lolwut?

They were given chicken pox infested blanket to kill them all. Poor fellas under reservations then. 

But in India there was already an ancient civilization established with great number of people. So it was not possible for them to shoo them away.

I hope you read about Max Muller and Macaulay. It will clear the doubts.


----------



## dips_view (Oct 14, 2009)

posted by phantom lancer


> Vatican was neutral during WW2



during WW2 Vatican enthusiastically  supported  FASCIST/NAZI powers against soviet union. and also mute spectator of holocaust/nuke attack.


----------



## GigaHeartz (Oct 14, 2009)

Brits castrated india.. butchered brave and couragious men.. enslaved them for their their own narrow minded purposes..The same was carried forward by our congress politicians hence brave men were sidelined and insulted as if their sacrifices were worthless. Sikhs would have been integrated far better in our society, but what we got was operation blue star..


----------



## SunnyChahal (Oct 14, 2009)

Britishers sure helped in the technological advancements. But then again its was not worth the damage they had done. Treating Indians like animals, racism, harsh laws and all sorts of inhuman stuff. They took much more than they gave to us.


----------



## p_dude (Oct 14, 2009)

dips_view said:


> posted by phantom lancer
> 
> 
> during WW2 Vatican enthusiastically  supported  FASCIST/NAZI powers against soviet union. and also mute spectator of holocaust/nuke attack.


yep that's true...


----------



## Phantom Lancer (Oct 14, 2009)

dips_view said:


> during WW2 Vatican enthusiastically  supported  FASCIST/NAZI


Read up on some history for a change 
It stayed neutral during ww2 ...but it had made secret pacts with the nazis and later with the allies to protect itself from bombing 



> powers against soviet union. and also mute spectator of holocaust/nuke attack.


Nuclear attack during ww2 ? which world do you live in ? 

show me where i said they were the holiest people around ? 

They were not Nazi sympathizers ...... they were just trying to protect themselves ...forgetting all duty to humanity ..did nt stop the bombing of vatican city anyways

My main point is that Protestants reformists were much worse than the vatican


----------



## Phantom Lancer (Oct 14, 2009)

Your posts reek with religious fanaticism which is not the same as patriotism.  


kanjar said:


> You consider destroying the ancient culture and then imposing their own as an advantage ? Quite funny. That culture couldn't prevent direct action day and division of India ?


Mughals settled in India and adopted Indian culture . Indian culture was never destroyed . Some elements of Muslim+Mongol (Mughal) culture infused with Indian culture .  When the Brits came to India India was still very Indian 

Can you state what part of Indian culture was destroyed by the Mughals ?



> I would rather prefer a Mauryan Empire than Arab imperialism.


what else would a Hindu fanatic want .
Mughals were Mongoloids not Arabs . Babur was the descendant of Genghis khan and Timurid . Genghis khan was nt even Muslim .
 I would also prefer a native [regardless of religion] to rule India . and Mughal kings like Akbar were very much Indian . saying otherwise would be racism . 



> Hindu is a geographical term first used by Persians to describe people of Hindustan. So all people in India can be called as Hindus.


Hindu is an adherent of the partcicular religion
Hindustan= Land where Hindus live .... Not Land where only Hindus live



> But what I meant by Indian is to espouse the principles of love, compassion, ahimsa, pluralism, tolerance  and sacrifice.


So the Koran,Talmud and Bible espouse the principle of Hate , Violence ,Intolerance and Murder 



> Which is not to be found in Abrahamic faiths. Remember all unbelievers will go to Hell according to Abrahamic faiths ? Isn't it offending to unbelievers ?


Unbelievers = Atheists [Unbelievers in god]... U can give it any interpretation you like ...For propaganda purpose u can pick any one of your choice

That makes the Abhrahamic religions violent,Hateful etc etc etc

Logic



> One more thing the rather than having religious affiliation to places outside India people should try to have an Indianised version at home itself. It's a great security risk and threat to India.


 ?? 
Every Muslim,Christian and Jew has affiliation outside India ? Did you take a survey

Its like the US Govt saying that every Iraqi is a Terrorist ...Bad stereotyping



> Better read that. It has enough info about the inter rivalry of European nations in establishing their own version of Christianity and hence persecution of others. Even during Crusades Christians killed other Christians and Jews just because they were not pure. Civilizing natives was the Christian supremacist's burden in colonial conquests. 1857 mutiny is the cue here. Do also read about Liberation of Goa.


I am already familiar with all this history .... Christian killing other Christians is not news to me ... Thats what i have been saying and u denying .........its purely politics .Briton was fighting for itself ...not for any religion 



> Remember what happened in Australia, New Zealand, America ? Natives were slaughtered and now people celebrate it as Thanksgiving Day...lolwut?
> They were given chicken pox infested blanket to kill them all. Poor fellas under reservations then.
> 
> But in India there was already an ancient civilization established with great number of people. So it was not possible for them to shoo them away.
> Christian supremacist's



The keyword is "White supremacism/Euro-centrism" not Christian

Not familiar with Colonial British race laws are u ?

*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy

Your religious bias has shown you a skewered view of history

Race laws were the reason for the slave trade and the attempt to 'civilize' native population .According to which White Europeans are Superior to all other 'races' . and you cant be white unless you are European [not christian].


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2009)

^^lol...religious fanaticism ? Isn't it the same yard stick used by Aurondhoty Roy and her ilks. 

Can you deny Sikh gurus beheading ? Why do you think that Sikhism arose during Islamic rule and not Buddhism like religion ? There must be something that Hindus chose to take up kripans rather than peaceful enlightenment under banyan tree. Hindus willfully donated their sons to Sikhism at that time. ? Sikhism was a reaction to Islamic tyranny and deterioration of Hindu culture.
Can you deny the destruction of popular educational centers like Nalanda ? Educations plays an important part in preserving culture and modeling the mindset of generations. I wonder where all the Buddhists have gone 
Can you deny the thousands of Dharmic places destroyed and then Mosques were built over them? Was it not destroying Indian culture. I am pretty sure that Indian would have allowed to build Mosques beside Temples had Islamists asked for it with sincere love without taking a sword.
Can you deny Jiziya (though Akbar relaxed it) ? The second class treatment of people under that.
Why do you think that India moved into a Purdah society from the era when Kamasutra was treated as not a taboo. Where did this taboo/shame subject came from ?
... Accounts of Amir Khushro, Ibn Batuta and Babur nama etc. will set the pace for a welfare work for India.

I am not talking about Mughal lineage when I speak of Arab Imperialism. It has to do with allegiance with Arab land and ummah. Which, unfortunately, has been and can be used for geopolitical self goals.  Further Sayyeds etc. in India are the ones who can trace their origin to best of best - the Arabs. Nice that you labeled me as racist 

Believe it or not but Hindu is a geographical term. There was nothing called Hindu in ancient India. Its other people who clubbed people living in India with diversity as Hindu. So essentially any person (irrespective of his religion,race,creed etc.) living in India (Hindustan) can be called as a Hindu. Why take offense in it then ? 

I can quote Quran and Bible about the free hell ride given to unbelievers. 

Unbelievers mean those who does not believe in Abrahamic God. I can give proof of it. Further different sects in Abrahamic religions consider each other as unbelievers. 

But lets assume that unbelievers mean Atheists only. May be agnostic count too but lets leave it. And we have around ~6.7 billion population here in Earth. There are approximately ~1.1 billion atheists.
So in your opinion they will be given free ride ticket to Hell which is ETERNAL TORTURE. They will be tortured with molten metal poured in their mouths. Their skins will be roasted and further new skins will be given and again roasted till the ETERNITY. lolwut?  

Ironically, Abrahmic God can and has led people astray purposefully and then torture them for ETERNITY just for the lulz. Why?

Slaves culture is DIVINELY sanctioned according to Holy books of Abrahamics. Need proof ? Read holy books. 

But at the end people will call me religious fanatic. Though I will be condemned to ETERNAL Hell because of my atheist/agnostic/blasphemous beliefs. But I need to peacefully shove it down my throat for the greater good of mankind. :/


----------



## m-jeri (Oct 15, 2009)

^^

You are some kinda feather head are ya?.

People from Hindusthan are called Hindusthani not hindus. "Hindus" are the term coined for people following hinduism. So your grammar is also skewed like your history.

Well you are not a religious fanatic..you are just disturbed in mind.

And please do say where Christianity did these with example.

1. Christians kill other christians during crusades
2. Non believers are tortured for eternity and eternal hel and what not.


*The kinda noobies that join now...*


----------



## Phantom Lancer (Oct 15, 2009)

m-jeri said:


> ^^
> .you are just disturbed in mind.


Either way same problem 



> 1. Christians kill other christians during crusades


Constantinople [Then the capital of Byzantium empire] was sacked by Europeans during the 4th crusade by a crusading army heading for Jerusalem . 
There was a problem between greek speaking and Latin speaking Europeans 
Completely political  



> *The kinda noobies that join now...*


He is an old member with a new id (ichi)


----------



## Phantom Lancer (Oct 15, 2009)

kanjar said:


> Slaves culture is DIVINELY sanctioned according to Holy books of Abrahamics. Need proof ? Read holy books.


This line by itself is the greatest showcase of your complete ignorance of other religions and your blind hate .
Please do quote the verses from Bible ,  Talmud and Koran where it sanctions slave labor

Do you know what a Talmud is ? Ever seen a Koran,Bible ?



> Although Hindu, Gandhi had a very close connection with Christianity and admired Jesus very much, often quoting from his favorite 'Sermon on the Mount' chapter in Mathew 5–7.
> 
> When the missionary E. Stanley Jones met with Gandhi he asked him, "Mr. Gandhi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?"
> 
> ...


Heres a bit more 



> Gandhi was born in western India in 1869. Just 11 years earlier (in 1858), Britain had declared India a loyal colony. The young Gandhi completed a British-style high school education and was greatly impressed with British manners, genteel culture, and Christian beliefs. He aspired to become a barrister at law, but was prohibited from doing so by the local head of his Hindu caste in Bombay. His first act of public defiance was his decision to assume the role of an "out-caste" and leave for London to study law.
> While studying in England, Gandhi first read (and was inspired by) the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita, a Hindu religious poem. The story of the Sermon on the Mount in the Christian New Testament stirred in him an interest in passive resistance, and he also became intrigued with the ethical basis of vegetarianism after befriending a few enthusiasts at a local restaurant. He would later use dietary fasting as a means to draw attention to social causes.


-----------------------------------------
Posted again:
-----------------------------------------
…if God had not driven some people back by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, where God's name is mentioned much, would have been pulled down and destroyed. God will certainly help those who help Him-God is All-Strong, Almighty. (Qur'an, 22:40)

"He who believes in God and the Last Day should honour his guest, should not harm his neighbour, should speak good or keep quiet." (Bukhari, Muslim)

"Whoever hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys God." (Bukhari)

"He who hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state, I am his adversary, and I shall be his adversary on the Day of a Judgement." (Bukhari)

"Beware on the Day of Judgement; I shall mysefl be complainant against him who wrongs a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state or lays on him a responsibility greater than he can bear or deprives him of anything that belongs to him." (Al-Mawardi)


----------



## dips_view (Oct 15, 2009)

> originally posted by phantom lancer...
> "Read up on some history for a change
> It stayed neutral during ww2 ...but it had made secret pacts with the nazis and later with the allies to protect itself from bombing"



OK  I will follow ur advice..but u need to know something more.during WW2
Pope Pius XII supported  NAZI invasion of soviet union.At present it's hard to find but u will find it many WW2 documentaries.

yes church had secret pact with Nazi/fascists.with the help church Mussolini came to power in Italy

After WW2 Vatican starts propaganda campaign against communist/socialist parties

anyone can finds the role of church in historic docs like WORLD AT WAR.

link:*thepiratebay.org/torrent/4084602/The_World_At_War__Episodes_1-26 



> originally posted by phantom lancer.....
> "Nuclear attack during ww2 ? which world do you live in ? "



THIS TIME I CANT BELIEVE MY EYES!!!! HOW CAN ANYONE ASKS THIS????????????????????????
and even no one ever noticed it? 
U just forgot Hiroshima/Nagasaki......which world do you live in ?

and last i dont think he (kanzar)is ichi may be he is mehera rakesh
or George bush!!!
@kanzar please dont mind I am just like u an ordinary indian not LADEN/BUSH/STALIN/HITLER/......./JEHADI/CHINESE SPY/P.KARAT/CHURCHILL...../Mr India/PAki/...../etc 

and i think i am using a Chinese keyboard


----------



## Phantom Lancer (Oct 15, 2009)

kanjar said:


> ^^lol...religious fanaticism ? Isn't it the same yard stick used by Aurondhoty Roy and her ilks.


Yes, People of tolerance and wisdom .She is considered a great writer in India are you trying to discredit her .
Even though i am not a Muslim i respect it very much [as i do all religions] . Thats what i call tolerance . I am ofcourse not talking about the radical version of Islam which some ppl tend to follow  



> Can you deny Sikh gurus beheading ? Why do you think that Sikhism arose during Islamic rule and not Buddhism like religion ? There must be something that Hindus chose to take up kripans rather than peaceful enlightenment under banyan tree. Hindus willfully donated their sons to Sikhism at that time. ? Sikhism was a reaction to Islamic tyranny and deterioration of Hindu culture.


Everything you said happened . But was it because of Islam the religion ?

 The most voilent Muslim to ever enter India was Timur the Lame 


> Timur began a trek starting in 1398 to invade the reigning Sultan Nasir-u Din Mehmud of the Tughlaq Dynasty in the north Indian city of Delhi.[17] His campaign was politically pretexted that the Muslim Delhi Sultanate was too tolerant toward its Hindu subjects, but that could not mask the real reason being to amass the wealth of the Delhi Sultanate.


He invaded and sacked Delhi killing of all its inhabitants 

What did he do next ?


> He invaded Baghdad in June 1401. After the capture of the city, 20,000 of its citizens including Muslims were massacred. Timur ordered that every soldier should return with at least two severed human heads to show him (many warriors were so scared they killed prisoners captured earlier in the campaign just to ensure they had heads to present to Timur).



So much for his love for Arabs and Muslims eh ? He did not stop there he also went on to sack the Islamic caliphate the heart of Muslim world
And he was supposed to be Muslim !

Islam like Christianity has a large no of followers some good,some bad some just plain Murderers . Was it Islam's fault that the Mongols [who by nature were violent] adopted Islam ? 




> Why do you think that India moved into a Purdah society from the era when Kamasutra was treated as not a taboo. Where did this taboo/shame subject came from ?


thats difficult to say
Sati , caste system etc were not Islam's product 
Hindu ism at that point was going through a general decline [like present day islam]..which means ppl were using Hindu-ism to achieve their objective

power cut !


----------



## m-jeri (Oct 15, 2009)

Phantom Lancer said:


> Constantinople [Then the capital of Byzantium empire] was sacked by Europeans during the 4th crusade by a crusading army heading for Jerusalem .
> There was a problem between greek speaking and Latin speaking Europeans
> Completely political



That was a diversion if you knew history very well. The church has accepted that fact.
That one incident which happened hundreds of years ago cannot be hold against the church.
but alas narrow minded people will never accept that.

Those were dark times. nothing was certain. When we sit comfy in a chair and type things we may not understand everything that happened. It was a huge mistake from the church's part, no arguments their though. but making it sound like it happens now..is just...

I always loved when people with bits of information make statements that is not entirely true. just mis informed i think.


----------



## Phantom Lancer (Oct 15, 2009)

dips_view said:


> Pope Pius XII supported  NAZI invasion of soviet union.At present it's hard to find but u will find it many WW2 documentaries.



In the 1937 encyclical _Mit brennender Sorge_, drafted by Pope Pius XII when he was still a cardinal,[49] Pope Pius XI denounced Nazism and breaches of the Reichskonkordat. Read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches, it has been described as the first official denunciation of Nazism made by any major organization.[50] Nazi persecution of the Church in Germany then began by "outright repression" and "staged prosecutions of monks for homosexuality, with the maximum of publicity."[111] When Dutch bishops protested against the deportation of Jews, the Nazis responded with even more severe measures.[50] In Poland, the Nazis murdered over 2500 monks and priests while even more were sent to concentration camps.[111] The Priester-Block (priests barracks) in the Dachau concentration camp lists 2600 Roman Catholic priests.[48] Pius XII's refusal to censure the German invasion and annexation of Poland was regarded as a "betrayal" by many Polish Catholics and clergy, who saw his appointment of Hilarius Breitinger as apostolic administrator for the Wartheland in May 1942 as "implicit recognition" of the breakup of Poland; the opinions of the _Volksdeutsche_, mostly-Catholic German minorities living in Poland, were more mixed.[112] Although Pius XII received frequent reports about atrocities committed by and/or against Catholics, his knowledge was not complete; for example, he wept after the war upon learning that Cardinal Hlond had banned German liturgical services in Poland.[113] Phayer argues that Pius XII—both before and during his papacy—consistently "deferred to Germany at the expense of Poland", and saw Germany—not Poland—as critical to "rebuilding a large Catholic presence in Central Europe".

*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII#World_War_II



> .with the help church Mussolini came to power in Italy


More BS
Read here
*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini



> THIS TIME I CANT BELIEVE MY EYES!!!! HOW CAN ANYONE ASKS THIS????????????????????????
> and even no one ever noticed it?
> U just forgot Hiroshima/Nagasaki......which world do you live in ?


2 Atomic bombs dont make a nuclear war . Is ww2 a nuclear war ?
Are u kidding me ?
If japan had retaliated it would have become a war
-----------------------------------------
Posted again:
-----------------------------------------


m-jeri said:


> That was a diversion if you knew history very well. The church has accepted that fact.


It was not sponsored by the Church , everybody knows that .



> That one incident which happened hundreds of years ago cannot be hold against the church.


Nobody is holding it against the church . It is an excellent example to illustrate that the crusade was a political not religious war



> Those were dark times. nothing was certain. When we sit comfy in a chair and type things we may not understand everything that happened. It was a huge mistake from the church's part, no arguments their though. but making it sound like it happens now..is just...


Where did anybody say it happens now ? [in this thread]



> I always loved when people with bits of information make statements that is not entirely true. just mis informed i think.


it could be you

by no means was it a one off incident


> On a popular level, the first crusades unleashed a wave of impassioned, personally felt pious Christian fury that was expressed in the massacres of Jews that accompanied the movement of the Crusader mobs through Europe, as well as the violent treatment of "schismatic" Orthodox Christians of the east. During many of the attacks on Jews, local Bishops and Christians made attempts to protect Jews from the mobs that were passing through. Jews were often offered sanctuary in churches and other Christian buildings.


----------



## m-jeri (Oct 15, 2009)

^^

For an mis informed outsider it will always present in a different way.It was more of a campaign for holy lands by christians. The rest was just un precedented.

And just for fun..how man nuclear bombs will make to a Genuine Nuclear war. according you WW2 is still not a "nuclear war"


----------



## p_dude (Oct 15, 2009)

[youtube]EoRYsGZ7ApA[/youtube]
-----------------------------------------
Posted again:
-----------------------------------------
[youtube]vfyg3pz2b6I[/youtube]


hahaha....


----------



## dips_view (Oct 15, 2009)

@phantom lancer....
 i cant understand ur views about nuclear war.though i have used "Nuke attack" instead of "nuke war"
and can u explain "when japan/germany/italy attacked allied thats called war" why not nuke attack on japan define as NUKE WAR??

and yes i understand wd ur views church/pope were not directly attacked Soviets or supporting germans..but they were supported the invasion.

after ww2 they church declare  low scale propaganda against communist/socialists/progressive peoples and even today they continue  the cold war by condemning the 1)divorce 2)birth control 3)woman lib 4) stem cell research ...etc

anyone can says some of the topics are controversial but we need a fruitful and realistic debate based on scientific theories and social/environmental effects rather than religious morality.

and how can bush the great declare CRUSADE in 21st century without church's consent


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2009)

Phantom Lancer said:


> This line by itself is the greatest showcase of your complete ignorance of other religions and your blind hate .
> Please do quote the verses from Bible , Talmud and Koran where it sanctions slave labor


I may be an ignoramus and also a disturbed one as per honorable m-jeri. You would have never asked this question if you have read these books. But since you asked so let us explore the world of Holy Books.

I will quote few nuggets from Quran itself sanctioning Slavery with divine grace of almighty. I am quoting three independent translations for each verses. Also few reference to Tafsir Al-jalalayan too because it gives a comprehensive detail with examples. *All these are from neutral Islamic sources only with proper link provided to the source*. Italicized words are added by me to clear the meaning in verses where needed.

A slave, according to Abrahamic God, has no power of any sort and have no control over anything, kind of like an object:


> 016.075
> TAFSIR AL-JALALAYAN:
> God strikes a similitude (mathalan, this is substituted by [the following, ‘abdan mamlūkan]) *a slave* who is a chattel (mamlūkan, an adjective to distinguish him [this type of slave] from a free man, who is the servant of God [alone]) *having no power over anything*, since he has no mastery, and one on whom (man, is an indefinite [noun], adjectivally qualified, in other words, a free man) We have bestowed a fair provision from Us, such that he spends thereof secretly and openly, that is, disposing of it as he wishes: the first similitude is for the idols, while the second is His, exalted be He. *Are they equal?, the powerless slaves and the dispensing free men? No*. Praise belongs to God, alone. But most of them, that is, the people of Mecca, do not know, the chastisement they will come to, and so they associate others with God.
> *altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0...No=75&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2





> 016.075
> YUSUFALI: Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; *He has no power of any sort*; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means praise be to Allah. But most of them understand not.
> PICKTHAL: Allah coineth a similitude: (on the one hand) a (mere) chattel slave, *who hath control of nothing*, and (on the other hand) one on whom we have bestowed a fair provision from Us, and he spendeth thereof secretly and openly. Are they equal? Praise be to Allah! But most of them know not.
> SHAKIR: Allah sets forth a parable: (consider) a slave, the property of another, (who) *has no power over anything*, and one whom We have granted from Ourselves a goodly sustenance so he spends from it secretly and openly; are the two alike? (All) praise is due to Allah! Nay, most of them do not know.
> *www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/016.qmt.html#016.075




Here Allah, the Abrahamic God, condones prostitution (rather forgiving) of slave women, forget about punishing the perpetrator because slaves are lawful only  :


> 024.033
> YUSUFALI: Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. *But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them)*,
> PICKTHAL: And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. *And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful. *
> SHAKIR: And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world's life;* and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.*
> *www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/024.qmt.html#024.032



One can have sexual intercourse with slave girls even when their husbands are alive. Great Justice by Abrahamic God - the Almighty!


> 004.024
> TAFSIR AL-JALALAYAN:
> And, forbidden to you are, wedded women, those with spouses, that you should marry them before they have left their spouses, be they Muslim free women or not; *save what your right hands own, of captured [slave] girls, whom you may have sexual intercourse with, even if they should have spouses among the enemy camp* (_lolwut? Because marriages of slave women are annulled by default_ ), but only after they have been absolved of the possibility of pregnancy [after the completion of one menstrual cycle]; this is what God has prescribed for you (kitāba is in the accusative because it is the verbal noun). Lawful for you (read passive wa-uhilla, or active wa-ahalla), beyond all that, that is, except what He has forbidden you of women, is that you seek, women, using your wealth, by way of a dowry or a price, in wedlock and not, fornicating, in illicitly. Such wives as you enjoy thereby, and have had sexual intercourse with, give them their wages, the dowries that you have assigned them, as an obligation; you are not at fault in agreeing together, you and they, after the obligation, is waived, decreased or increased. God is ever Knowing, of His creatures, Wise, in what He has ordained for them.
> *altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0...No=24&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2





> 004.024
> YUSUFALI: *Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (slave girls)*: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
> PICKTHAL: *And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess (slave girls).* It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.
> SHAKIR:* And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (slave girls)* (this is) Allah's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.
> *www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/004.qmt.html#004.024



One reference from Shahi Bukhari too (though not all sects consider Hadiths as accurate). Here his Majesty permit to do oink oink with slave women completely, forget about condemning slavery.


> Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:
> 
> Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
> 
> ...



There are many more interesting verses about many other amazing things about unbelievers/pagans/idolaters/atheists/homosexuals/witches but I rather not go into these here. First a reader must understand the chronology in Quran. Then one must clear the abrogated verses. Lastly one must see the stark contrast in Mecca and Medina verses with the corresponding history.

But at the end of the day I am just an ignorant, fanatic and disturbed person listening to Sweet Dreams. 

*@Honorable m-jeri* I hope your first question about killing of Christians and Jews during crusades has been answered already. As for the verses about ETERNAL hell, what difference does it make if I quote from Quran or Bible as they are inspired by same Abrahamic God ? So I will save the time and present you the verses from Quran, supposedly uncorrupted book inspired by same God.

Now this verse clearly demarcates the line between a believer and non-believer and the kind of punishment a non believer will receive. 
0





> 004.055
> And there are some of them who believe in him, in Muhammad (s), and some of them who bar from him, [who] reject [him] and do not believe. Hell suffices for a blaze, as a chastisement for those who do not believe.
> *altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0...No=55&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2





> 004.056
> *Surely those who disbelieve in Our signs* — We shall expose them, We shall admit them, to a Fire, wherein they shall burn; *as often as their skins are consumed, burnt, We shall replace them with other skins, restoring them to their initial unburnt state, that they may taste the chastisement, that they may suffer its severity.* Surely God is ever Mighty, nothing being beyond His power, Wise, in His creation.
> *altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0...No=56&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2





> 004.055
> YUSUFALI: Some of them believed, and some of them averted their faces from him: And enough is Hell for a burning fire.
> PICKTHAL: And of them were (some) who believed therein and of them were (some) who turned away from it. Hell is sufficient for (their) burning.
> SHAKIR: So of them is he who believes in him, and of them is he who turns away from him, and hell is sufficient to burn.
> ...





> 072.023
> And *whoever disobeys God and His Messenger*, concerning the affirmation of [His] Oneness, and hence does not believe — *indeed there will be for him the fire of Hell, abiding* (khālidīna is a circumstantial qualifier referring to the person indicated by man, ‘whoever’, in lahu, ‘for him’, taking into account its [plural] import; it [khālidīna] is also an implied circumstantial qualifier, in other words, they shall enter it with their abiding having been preordained) *therein forever’*
> *altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0...No=23&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2





Phantom Lancer said:


> Yes, People of tolerance and wisdom .She is considered a great writer in India are you trying to discredit her .
> Even though i am not a Muslim i respect it very much [as i do all religions] . Thats what i call tolerance . I am ofcourse not talking about the radical version of Islam which some ppl tend to follow


If pseudo secularism is tolerance then yes you are right. Remember you are the one who is so pleased to send 1.1 billion people to Eternal Hell. I will bid you goodbye when I reach there. I have respect for people and not the hateful dogmas.



Phantom Lancer said:


> Everything you said happened . But was it because of Islam the religion ?


Read Baburnama and fine references to Quran justifying great historical conquests. Also do find sometime to go to nearest library (if possible an Islamic one) and read the accounts of notable Islamic historians. It will give you enough dough to knead. I have only scratched the crust of subject matter here, interested one may dwell further deep into it. 



Phantom Lancer said:


> So much for his love for Arabs and Muslims eh ? He did not stop there he also went on to sack the Islamic caliphate the heart of Muslim world
> And he was supposed to be Muslim !


Remember what happened to Caliphates and why Sunni Shia happened ? Sunni call Shia as Unbelievers and vice versa. Ahamediyya are called unbelievers by both Sunni and Shia. Inter marriage among these sects are prohibited and so with the people of other faiths as per Sharia (Sunni girl cannot marry Shia boy as he is a kafir (infidel)). So that makes all Muslims Non-Muslims depending upon the sectarian spectacles you are wearing.

Since you have thrown a Gandhi rhetoric then there are several accounts from Ghandi Ji himself about his experiences with missionaries. Some of the exchanges are remarkable, and reveal the supple intellect of the Mahatma. Gandhi Ji recounts an incident:




> (From a missionary) 'You cannot understand the beauty of our religion. From what you say it appears that you must be brooding over your transgressions every moment of your life, always mending them and atoning for them. How can this ceaseless cycle of action bring you redemption? You can never have peace. You admit that we are all sinners. Now look at the perfection of our belief. Our attempts at improvement and atonement are futile. And yet redemption we must have. How can we bear the burden of sin? We can but throw it on Jesus. He is the only sinless Son of God. It is His word that those who believe in Him shall have everlasting life. Therein lies God's infinite mercy. And as we believe in the atonement of Jesus, our own sins do not bind us. Sin we must. It is impossible to live in this world sinless. And therefore Jesus suffered and atoned for all the sins of mankind. Only he who accepts His great redemption can have eternal peace. *Think what a life of restlessness is yours, and what a promise of peace we have.*'
> 
> The argument utterly failed to convince me. I (Gandhi Ji) humbly replied:
> 
> 'If this be the Christianity acknowledged by all Christians, I cannot accept it. I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. *I seek to be redeemed from sin itself, or rather from the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless.*'



See the profoundness in Gandhi Ji's thoughts ? And further Gandhi Ji was against the business of conversion by Missionaries which is unfortunately overlooked by Indian Government now with the provision of special rights to minorities instead of UCC. Liberation from Britishers was an ideological battle too which you feel reluctant to acknowledge/

He must be in Hell now  Hey, wait...then many good people are in Hell making it a nice and cozy place ! 

I think here we can agree to disagree. You have your own reservations about a topic and I have mine. Most probably my last post in here. Thanks. 

*@Honorable m-jeri*
Hindu is a geographical term. There were Buddhists, Jews, atheists, agnostics and various sects etc too living in India when they were termed as Hindu by Persians. You cannot deny the fact...however hard you can try. 

*@dips_view*
My whole PC is Made in China except for few HDDs  
In some years be ready to learn Mandarin


----------

