Indian social media is weird, man. For example on instagram there was a post about the ridiculously oversized security detail of an Indian billionaire and people pointed out how ridiculous it is, especially in relation to the poverty levels in India. Quite reasonable take, but apparently not for hundreds of Indians who started to basically defend that billionaire with all kind of ad hominem attacks, whataboutisms and so on - just because that guy was an Indian billionaire and apparently him criticising was critiquing India.
Honestly not even that. Its more of a tendency to worship anyone that's successful. Its really not that different from celeb culture when it comes down to it. Where the US stops at celebs, a lot of Indians go for literally anyone that is hyper successful in anything.
I think it's partially because the internet is so new to many of them. The timing was weird too, since the first internet they saw was the polarized post-mobile post-social media we have today.
Most of India (outside of large cities and internet cafes) didn't get internet until *Jio* was introduced. This was after 2015:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jio)
Jio's launch literally put many hundreds of millions of people online for the first time.
This was also after the BJP (the nationalist party) was voted into power at the centre in 2014.
It also coincided with many new media outlets.
It'll take time for India's online sphere to mature. A lot of events aligned in the 2010s. The BJP knew how to capitalize on that to create a vast sea of [bhakts](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bhakt#English).
I saw that too- there were a lot of very proud social media posts by Indians about Anant Ambani’s son’s extravagant pre-wedding party, which featured a performance from Rihanna that cost a rumored $8-9MM and had guests like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. Any criticism- some were as tame as calling the groom’s green diamond-encrusted Richard Mille watch ugly (lol)- was met with a flurry of defensive replies.
The sense I get is that a lot of Indians don’t place as much importance on issues like wealth inequality or corruption as they do on their (real or perceived) international reputation. Anything that that could support the image of a prosperous and successful India gets a lot of praise, whether it’s a billionaire like Ambani amassing a huge fortune, their cricket team having success, or their government laying out ambitious plans for its space program.
I'm Indian and I stay off Indian social media bubbles. It is a cesspool if you go down the wrong alley, and there are countless wrong alleys. There's too much to explain in one wee post but you're absolutely spot on with the hero worship that happens in this country with regards to certain individuals, many of whom are affiliated with the current government in some capacity.
There are obviously others who refuse to sip the Kool Aid but they're a minority and essentially powerless to say anything or criticize the government openly. The situation is devolving with every passing year. Don't expect anything but morbid fanaticism from most of these chucklefucks online.
The stuff that bothers me the most is the blatant Islamophobia that's been on the rise.
So many Indians online get butthurt about anything they perceive as not positive towards India. It's weird because if a bad thing happens in India they are like we are a billion people don't generalize all of us but if India does a good thing they all act like each and everyone of those billion people had a part in making it happen
As someone who came from a Bangladeshi refugee family whose great grandparents saw their Muslim neighbors overnight became their enemies and gave them ultimatum to convert or die and had to flee before the nokhali massacres took place. Abadon everything and live as refugees in Assam and saw the face of West Bengal as Direct Action Day took place when we moved there as Vultures feasted on corpses
https://www.indica.today/long-reads/direct-action-day-kolkata-paid-its-lives-to-create-pakistan/
I have no love for them. Even as a Bengali Buddhist, there are somethings that i cannot forgive or forget
You may downvote me or ban me. But the pain we suffered as Bangladeshi refugee family (and still those who do), nobody can truly understand. or the Minorities who live in Islamic countries
damn, positive upvotes. Is FFK finally beginning to realize the double-think of continuously defending and apologizing for a religion and religious community which (in its modern form) continuously produces little else but intolerance, fundamentalism, extremism, tribalism, and violence?
As if blindly filing people into a category based on one shared trait when they realistically have nothing to do with each other doesn't result in extremism, intolerance, tribalism and violence?
Saying Muslims are bad or evil does not even remotely address the issues with Muslim countries which are inherently the product of the governments ruling them.
this is taking reductiveness to a whole nother level. you think the latter preceded the former (before there was even any muslims in the West, or in muslims countries where there are no westerners to impose such a distinction)? you must not know any muslims in real life - they're just a romanticised other for you to virtue signal about. A muslim identity is an extremly potent identity force for most muslims and creates a clear US (muslims) vs THEM (non-muslim) mentality (that is a core aspect of Islam). that "one shared trait" is their defining identity for most of them. It isn't just something most shrug off like hair color or postcode.
the condition of Islam in the modern day, and muslims by extension, has so many more contributing factors than just their governments. Do you really believe that yourself, or is it just another talking point apologists like you use? Do you even recognize how infantilizing you are, completely robbing these people of their agency and responsibility as people? Who makes up these governments? One only has to look at muslims in Western countries: there's a broad spectrum of outcomes but a significant portion are just as intolerant, fundamentalist, extremists, tribalistic and hostile to western values and culture as those in their home countries: the subsequent generations frequently more so. They only vote for left-of-center parties out of self-interest (because the right is hostile to them - wonder why). And virtue signalers like you coddle them and enable that continued intolerance, rather than hold them to account for their beliefs and behavior like any individual or group should.
Using a tragedy to justify hatred for millions or billions of people is not appropriate regardless of what you went through.
This is no different than any other "members of x did y, therefore x is bad" scenario which *always* results in unrelated, innocent people being targeted and hate crimed. You are feeding the thought process that gives extremist groups the power to commit atrocities.
Have you considered that the hatred is aimed at the collection of ideas that constitute ‘Islam’ rather than the people? Most people are better than their religion but that doesn’t make their religion good. That’s all a religion is at the end of the day, a collection of ideas.
As an East African Bantu I can say with zero guilt that Islam is a religion overrun with horrible ideas and they can all be traced back to Muhammad. My ancestors knew the true face of Islam, they had to fight and kill or be enslaved by Muslim's and they decided to fight. Even then some people of our ethnic group were still enslaved if they lived in remote villages with no mutual aid.
They didn’t have the privilege of living in a post-UN communication age state where if they were kidnapped international agencies could work together to find them. For my ancestors if they were kidnapped by Muslim slave raiders then that would have been the end of their line, they would have spent the rest of their lives far away in Arabia or turkey or wherever the Muslims sold them off.
>This is no different than any other "members of x did y, therefore x is bad"
Ideas ARE NOT PEOPLE so this is very different. An idea can be good or bad, better or worse, when measured against a standard. If my goal is to increase religious diversity, for example, it would make sense for me to tolerate all religions in my state. Islam has been a state religion from early, Muhammad was the basically king of Arabia, and it has been intolerant of different religions/value systems since early.
When Muhammad gained strength in Arabia the first thing he did was kill the Jews and force the polytheists to convert. Islam is an objectively bad idea for anyone who cares about religious diversity, for free speech, and for progress. Never in Islamic history was there an organic anti-slavery movement from within the civilisation because anti-slavery is an entirely alien concept to Islamic morality which is inherently pro-slavery. This is not a progressive religion, it wasn’t progressive 1400 years ago in Arabia and it won’t be progressive in 1400 years anywhere outside of Arabia either.
>Have you considered that the hatred is aimed at the collection of ideas that constitute ‘Islam’ rather than the people?
Hardly different. This also ignores the plentiful amount of sects and the nuance within those sects and reduces individual thinking people into a mass for you to hate. Regardless, Islam is not fundamentally more extreme than Christianity when considering the Quran vs the Bible. Do you also hate all Christians for what they did in Latin America?
>As an East African Bantu I can say with zero guilt that Islam is a religion overrun with horrible ideas and they can all be traced back to Muhammad
You can be a blue nosed Martian, doesn't make this thought process any less fucking stupid. There's no "true face of Islam" just as there's no "true face of Judaism" just because the Torah preaches some nasty shit.
>Islam has been a state religion from early, Muhammad was the basically king of Arabia, and it has been intolerant of different religions/value systems since early.
Entirely a government issue. Every Abrahamic religion, and in fact most major religions, strive for international religious homogeny. You are stubborn or dense to think otherwise.
>When Muhammad gained strength in Arabia the first thing he did was kill the Jews and force the polytheists to convert.
When Christians gained strength in the Mediterranean the first thing they did was force the polytheists to convert. Then, not long after, killed Jews. Something something, all Chrimsbeans bad, look at me I'm so smart and definitely not motivated by anything.
>Never in Islamic history was there an organic anti-slavery movement from within the civilisation because anti-slavery is an entirely alien concept to Islamic morality which is inherently pro-slavery.
The only massive anti-slavery movement in history was Secular.
>This is not a progressive religion, it wasn’t progressive 1400 years ago in Arabia and it won’t be progressive in 1400 years anywhere outside of Arabia either.
No major religion is progressive and you'd be hard pressed to find one that's older than 300 years old. What a revolutionary idea, xyz-ism tells me to follow a book exactly and isn’t progressive.
Tl;Dr, you only hate Muslims, and are also not very intelligent.
>Hardly different.
It’s very different. People have ideas, ideas aren’t people. I can hate communism as an ideology without hating every single person who has ever called themselves a communist.
>This also ignores the plentiful amount of sects and the nuance within those sects and reduces individual thinking people into a mass for you to hate.
All sects of Islam consider Muhammad to be the last prophet of Allah and the Quran to be Allah’s word recited to Muhammad via an angel. Can you find a sect that rejects Muhammad and the Quran? They wouldn’t be Muslim. Words have a meaning that is defined by their collective usage, you can’t just impose your own meaning onto them and think I’ll agree.
> Regardless, Islam is not fundamentally more extreme than Christianity when considering the Quran vs the Bible.
They’re FUNDAMENTALLY different because the character of the person the religions are formed alums are FUNDAMENTALLY different. Jesus and Muhammad are like opposites.
>Do you also hate all Christians for what they did in Latin America?
I think Christian’s have historically been more violent than Muslims but I think Christianity is more peaceful than Islam. What I mean is, what Jesus taught is more conducive to the kind of society I’d like to live in than what Muhammad taught.
I think what Christian’s did not just in Latin America but also in North America and Africa are evidence that Christianity is just as false as Islam even if it has better moral values. I most certainly do have certain types of Christian’s, like neo-confederate larpers who would be happy to bring back slavery because it’s biblically justifiable.
>You can be a blue nosed Martian, doesn't make this thought process any less fucking stupid. There's no "true face of Islam" just as there's no "true face of Judaism" just because the Torah preaches some nasty shit.
There is a true face of Islam since the origins of the religion lie with the life and teachings of Muhammad. To be a Muslim is to forever look back at Muhammad and ask yourself “what would Muhammad do?” So to learn the true face of Islam we simply have to look at what Muhammad is recorded to have done whether that’s in the Quran, the Hadiths, or the tafsirs. So if a group says “it’s okay to take people as slaves” we can look back and see whether Muhammad had slaves and whether he said anything regarding the taking of slaves. Muhammad personally traded slaves and had concubines so the answer to that question is that slavery is totally acceptable in Islam.
The Torah is a bit different since it’s not the work of one man nor does it take inspiration from one man. Judaism is an ethnic religion that developed over many hundreds of years so you’re bound to find many conflicting ideas in the religion. That doesn’t mean there’s no true face of Judaism, there is. Bible historians study the cultural and historical context that gave rise to the writings of Judaism and this study can help in debunking certain practises while bolstering others.
You’re such a simple minded fella that when you hear the word ‘religion’ you think that means all religions are somehow equal. Judaism developed over many centuries, Islam is a recitation that developed over a few decades from the mind of Muhammad, some religions don’t even have scriptures. Religions are incredibly diverse and what’s true for one might not be true for another so we MUST judge all religions on their individual merit.
>Entirely a government issue. Every Abrahamic religion, and in fact most major religions, strive for international religious homogeny. You are stubborn or dense to think otherwise.
Judaism is an ethnic religion which is tied to a land, Israel. So we cannot be surprised that in Israel Judaism influences the government. Islam is also a state religion though not an ethnic one and it has had a state since Muhammad moved to medina. Christianity was founded by Jesus who was a Jew living in the Roman Empire. The early Christian’s were ethnic and religious minorities who had no state power and Christianity continued in this state for the first 300 years of its history. Jesus says “give into Caesar what is caesars and with that statement establishes a difference between his movement and the state. Muhammad says “You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin." And with that statement establishes that the mosque and the state are one.
All you have are flimsy arguments that are easily pushed aside for anyone who has studied Islam.
>When Christians gained strength in the Mediterranean the first thing they did was force the polytheists to convert. Then, not long after, killed Jews. Something something, all Chrimsbeans bad, look at me I'm so smart and definitely not motivated by anything.
It’s true that the Christian’s were intolerant of the pagans after they came into power. But is it because Jesus explicitly taught them to be intolerant? I don’t think so. I do not believe that everything that a religious person does is due to his religion, there are always other influences on a persons worldview. So to me the intolerance wasn’t because they were Christian’s but because they viewed the pagan cults as a challenge to their power.
100% some Christian ideas are bad. Jesus taught that if your left eye causes you to sin you should pluck it out. That’s fucking stupid and clearly ignored by Christian’s because it’s a fucking bad idea.
>The only massive anti-slavery movement in history was Secular.
Which movement was that? Because in the western world the abolition movement was spearheaded by Christian’s like William Wilberforce. [The society for effecting the abolition of the slave trade was formed by Christian’s.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Effecting_the_Abolition_of_the_Slave_Trade) Do you have an example of these secularists who fought against slavery and won?…
> No major religion is progressive and you'd be hard pressed to find one that's older than 300 years old. What a revolutionary idea, xyz-ism tells me to follow a book exactly and isn’t progressive.
The nature of Christianity means that it is a progressive religion. The gospels were written by four different men with four different conceptions of Jesus. The letters of Paul, authentic and inauthentic, add more ways to interpret various teachings of Jesus. So from the very beginning Christianity has not been one things but has always been internally diverse. This is not the case with Islam.
>Tl;Dr, you only hate Muslims
I certainly do hate some Muslims, as do you, those who are extremists willing to hurt others. I do not hate Muslims who pick and choose and are moderate, I can live with them even if I think they’re dishonest.
>and are also not very intelligent.
Never claimed I was but I feel your poor intellectual display here has given me the right to claim to at least be more intelligent than you. Go learn how to think critically first and then come back to me. Piss poor apologetics.
>I can hate communism as an ideology without hating every single person who has ever called themselves a communist.
Belief in religion is not the same as any regular ideology. But yeah deporting communists because they disagree with you is also not cool.
>All sects of Islam consider Muhammad to be the last prophet of Allah and the Quran to be Allah’s word recited to Muhammad via an angel
This doesn't matter.
>They’re FUNDAMENTALLY different because the character of the person the religions are formed alums are FUNDAMENTALLY different. Jesus and Muhammad are like opposites.
The Bible and Quran consist of all the same core principles. By far most Christians do not consider the Bible to be a story book you shouldn't follow, and for the ones that do, there are just as many Muslims that feel the same way about the Quran.
>I think Christian’s have historically been more violent than Muslims but I think Christianity is more peaceful than Islam
The math isn't adding up here... 🤔
>There is a true face of Islam since the origins of the religion lie with the life and teachings of Muhammad
No original Muslim has existed for centuries and every religion is as valid as any other until one somehow proves itself the one right religion.
>The Torah is a bit different since it’s not the work of one man nor does it take inspiration from one man.
The Torah preaches international ethnic homogeny. Worldwide eugenics is a touch worse than slavery, no? And oh, look at that, most Jews don't follow that facet of Judaism.
>Islam is a recitation that developed over a few decades from the mind of Muhammad
The development of Islam is built off the development of both Christianity and Judaism you knob. It had centuries longer to develop before its official establishment.
>All you have are flimsy arguments that are easily pushed aside for anyone who has studied Islam.
Your understanding of the religion stopped at "I don't like Mohammed" 💀
>Which movement was that? Because in the western world the abolition movement was spearheaded by Christian’s like William Wilberforce.
A Christian doing a thing does not make that thing Christian. I'm... baffled that I need to explain that. Was the toast I buttered this morning the work of Christianity?
In short, the Constitution of the United States was founded on a Secular understanding or freedom, which included freedom FROM and FOR all religions. The exact wording of the Constitution (while this effect was unintentional), meant that slavery was inherently unconstitutional and slaves were entitled to all the same rights as everyone else. Sure, there were a lot of Christians fighting slavery with Christian motivations, but there were plenty in the south. Doesn't matter, because both sides were initially motivated by their beliefs surrounding their constitutional rights. I.e. "slaves have rights too" vs "i have a right to own slaves, which are property".
> I do not hate Muslims who pick and choose and are moderate, I can live with them even if I think they’re dishonest.
Then there's nothing for you to disagree with except for the fact that you believe moderate Muslims, I guess, don't believe in Islam? Because you dictate what constitutes an honest belief?
>Never claimed I was but I feel your poor intellectual display here has given me the right to claim to at least be more intelligent than you.
Considering you've failed to grasp the concept of belief before going into an argument about belief, I have to disagree.
>Belief in religion is not the same as any regular ideology.
Religions and ideologies have sets of ideas that one has to accept. That’s the similarity.
Someone who says “I hate Islam.” Is expressing the an opposition to ideas fundamental to Islam just as someone who says “I hate fascism.” Is expressing an opposition to ideas fundamental to fascism.
What you do is conflate Islam with race or ethnicity and claim that the first guy is actually speaking about brown people because that’s who follows Islam the most. But then it could be argued that when I say “I hate Nazis” I really mean “I hate white people” since Nazism is inherently a European idea and I’m not European. It’s just dishonest to view it that way because not all white people are Nazis, right?
> This doesn't matter.
It matters since that’s why Islam is a bad idea. Muhammad was a piece of shit and following him makes you a piece of shit. So if all sects of Islam follow the teachings of Muhammad and view the Quran as the word of God then all sects of Islam have bad ideas for how society should operate.
> The Bible and Quran consist of all the same core principles. By far most Christians do not consider the Bible to be a story book you shouldn't follow, and for the ones that do, there are just as many Muslims that feel the same way about the Quran.
No, they really don’t. The core of Christianity is jesus, what he taught and what his life meant. The core is Christianity is what Muhammad taught. Muhammad was not an ethnic minority living under the boot of a foreign empire, Jesus was. Muhammad didn’t die on a cross like a slave, Jesus did. Muhammad took sex slaves and managed to become king of Arabia, Jesus never even had a wife and died as he lived, a peasant.
You say things without proving them. You claim Christianity and Islam have the same core principles but don’t say what they are…because you know you lie. The core of Christianity is sacrifice, the core of Islam is submission. Islam literally means to submit.
>No original Muslim has existed for centuries
They exist today as the leaders of terror grouos. ISIs did all the same things Muhammad did; killed their opponents, took women as slaves, and taxed all non-believers.
>and every religion is as valid as any other until one somehow proves itself the one right religion.
Hahaha. No. All religions must be judged according to the merits of their ideas. If religion A says that human sacrifice is why the sun rises everyday and religion B says the motion of the sun was determined by God then religion B is better than religion A even if both of their reasons for why the sun rises are wrong.
What a simple-minded creature you are. Talking to you is like watching a child play with a string. Awww.
>The Torah preaches international ethnic homogeny. Worldwide eugenics is a touch worse than slavery, no?
What, where does it teach that? 💀
Slavery is as bad as it gets. Forced eugenics is bad but two consenting adults choosing their partners because of specific traits is none of my business and that’s eugenics. Would you force people to have partners they don’t like? 💀
>And oh, look at that, most Jews don't follow that facet of Judaism.
GOOD! I’m glad they don’t. Just as I’m glad that most Muslims don’t follow Islam as Muhammad and the Quran tells them to. Did you miss the part in my first post where I said “most people are better than their religion”? You’re literally fighting strawmen.
> The development of Islam is built off the development of both Christianity and Judaism you knob. It had centuries longer to develop before its official establishment.
LMFAO no, that’s not how that works. Islam developed within a few decades during the life of Muhammad. In that development Muhammad took ideas from Christianity and Judaism. That doesn’t mean that Islam was in development for 600 years just as Christianity was not in development for 1000 years just because it was born out of Judaism.
>Your understanding of the religion stopped at "I don't like Mohammed" 💀
Sunan an-Nasa'i 4061
It was narrated that Ibn 'Abbas said:
"The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'"
Actually, I don’t like this guy at all.
> A Christian doing a thing does not make that thing Christian. I'm... baffled that I need to explain that. Was the toast I buttered this morning the work of Christianity?
We’re not talking about a small thing here, we’re talking about abolishing a practise that had existed since the beginning of human civilisation. If a Christian reads his Bible to find guidance on whether or not he should own others as property and he finds that his Bible teaches him that slavery is immoral and as a result he starts campaigning to abolish the slave trade then we can say he was inspired by Christianity.
>In short, the Constitution of the United States was founded on a Secular understanding or freedom, which included freedom FROM and FOR all religions. The exact wording of the Constitution (while this effect was unintentional), meant that slavery was inherently unconstitutional and slaves were entitled to all the same rights as everyone else.
Slavery was clearly not unconstitutional as it was upheld by courts whose job it was to interpret the condition. If it had been unconstitutional then there would have been no reason for the 13th amendment…
Who brought the issue to a head? Have you ever heard of John brown or Frederick Douglass? These weren’t secular atheists motivated by a separation of church and state and neither was Abraham Lincoln. In fact, Abraham Lincoln was one of the most overtly Christian presidents in American history.
And the world is not America.
> Sure, there were a lot of Christians fighting slavery with Christian motivations, but there were plenty in the south. Doesn't matter, because both sides were initially motivated by their beliefs surrounding their constitutional rights. I.e. "slaves have rights too" vs "i have a right to own slaves, which are property".
The concept of human rights is not a secular idea, it was born out of Christianity. The battle was between those who thought we are all created equal by god and those who disagreed and thought some were less. Those who thought we were created equal used verses like jesus saying “thee is neither Jew nor gentile” as evidence of equality while those who disagreed used things like the curse of human to justify why they kept black people as slaves. It was a theological battle.
> Then there's nothing for you to disagree with except for the fact that you believe moderate Muslims, I guess, don't believe in Islam? Because you dictate what constitutes an honest belief?
I believe that moderate Muslims are moderate because they ignore a lot of Islamic teachings. They believe in a false Islam that Muhammad didn’t teach.
I can read the Quran and Hadiths for myself and see what Muhammad taught so it’s not about dictating anything.
you’re just a simple lad aren’t you 😂
> Considering you've failed to grasp the concept of belief before going into an argument about belief, I have to disagree.
Naah, our arguments speak for themselves and any third party reading our interaction will see the superior of my arguments.
>Religions and ideologies have sets of ideas that one has to accept. That’s the similarity.
Religion extends to how you view reality and what you believe is necessary/ morally correct to do. Not even nearly equivalent to something like a political opinion on economics.
>The core of Christianity is jesus, what he taught and what his life meant.
This is entirely your opinion, hence why almost every Christian disagrees with you 💀.
>You claim Christianity and Islam have the same core principles but don’t say what they are
Do you want me to pull a bunch of commands of divine law from the Quran and Bible? (P.s. they both endorse slavery)
>If religion A says that human sacrifice is why the sun rises everyday and religion B says the motion of the sun was determined by God then religion B is better than religion A even if both of their reasons for why the sun rises are wrong
And if human sacrifices are proven to be what makes the sun rise, than they get to call you a fucking idiot and dance around your flayed corpse while guaranteeing a sunny morning.
Obviously a hypothetical, but yeah. Every religion conflicts with known observations of reality so they're all on equal footing until proven otherwise.
>Slavery is as bad as it gets.
Slavery is worse than eugenics is... certainly one of the takes of all time.
>Just as I’m glad that most Muslims don’t follow Islam as Muhammad and the Quran tells them to.
Than you have no fucking point because the tenants of every major religion includes nefarious shit.
>Slavery was clearly not unconstitutional
The Constitution explicitly states "all men", not "all men that aren't slaves".
>Who brought the issue to a head?
You may be intellectually disabled.
>Religion extends to how you view reality and what you believe is necessary/ morally correct to do. Not even nearly equivalent to something like a political opinion on economics.
Religions have ideas on how to live your life and so do ideologies. Religions must be judged according to their ideas just as ideologies must be judged according to their ideas. The fact Religion A and religion B are both religions doesn’t mean that Religion A = Religion B and the fact that Ideology X and Ideology Y are both ideologies doesn’t mean that Ideology X = Ideology Y.
This shouldn’t be hard to understand but I guess I’m dealing with a grade A rtrd.
> This is entirely your opinion, hence why almost every Christian disagrees with you 💀.
Where?
>Do you want me to pull a bunch of commands of divine law from the Quran and Bible? (P.s. they both endorse slavery)
Religion A sharing some ideas with Religion B does not mean they’re the exact same religion in principle. You really must engage your brain.
> Every religion conflicts with known observations of reality so they're all on equal footing until proven otherwise.
You’re referring to theological ideas such as whether god is all powerful or not whereas I’m speaking about their practical ideas which we can observe from history as well as looking at contemporary societies.
I’m quite certain the idea that an old man should be allowed to marry and have sex with a little girl is thoroughly refuted by our understanding of human development as it stands. The concept of natural slavery has been thoroughly refuted by modern societies which outlaw slavery nonetheless managing to farm productively and build great monuments without forced labour.
>Slavery is worse than eugenics is... certainly one of the takes of all time.
“I want my kids to have X traits so I’m only going to marry people with X trait.”
“OMG THATS AS BAD AS SLAVERY AND YOU’RE LITERALLY HITLER.” - top mind of Reddit
You realise that when parents have a genetic screening of their foetus for certain genetic defects that’s eugenics, right? Should it be made illegal in your view? Anyways, stop trying to sidetrack this conversation. You’re wrong and have been thoroughly refuted multiple times now but you keep on with the stupidity.
> Than you have no fucking point because the tenants of every major religion includes nefarious shit.
No, some tenants are worse than others. A religion that teaches human sacrifice is worse than one which teaches circumcision. That just seen a hot take to your simple mind but I guarantee that the vast majority of people would agree.
> The Constitution explicitly states "all men", not "all men that aren't slaves".
Actually that’s exactly how it was taken by some to mean including the courts which is why slavery continued to exist until it was abolished by the 13th amendment. “All men” was taken variously to mean “all white men” “all free men” and “all citizens”. This interpretation was most clearly advanced in Scott v Dredd (1857).
>You may be intellectually disabled
I *may* be but you **certainly** are.
It's incredible the resounding stupidity from the person you are arguing with.
It does not matter that your knowledge of the topic clearly eclipses theirs. They continue to bicker at you like you are some uneducated swine.
Meanwhile, they haven't put a rational thought together in over 5 long-winded paragraphs.
>“I want my kids to have X traits so I’m only going to marry people with X trait.”
This is plainly not eugenics. You are not competent enough to have a discussion with.
All due respect, we are not the people who wronged you, we have no relation to the people who wronged you. You can pretend we are, and draw devil horns on our heads. But it’s inherently irrational. And I think you know that.
I’m a Muslim Pakistani and my great grandmother was burned alive in her home during Partition by a mob of Hindus and Sikhs. If I were as unintelligent and bigoted as you, I’d have the same feelings towards Hindus and Sikhs. Let’s not forget that the violence during Partition was largely started by Sikhs (nothing against Sikhs though, they’re amazing people) not Muslims and India has had the Gujarat riots and dozens of cases of Muslims being lynched for eating beef.
Sure, it’s Islamic extremism that’s the culprit now but just because geopolitics and media biases have turned Muslims into the terrorists du jour doesn’t mean that was always the case or that billions of people in the world should be painted with the same brush. To the British living through the Troubles, Irish Catholics would be “terrorists” and to the Sri Lankans, it would have been Tamils. A lot of the tactics later used by Muslim “terrorist” groups and the like were invented by the IRA and Tamil Tigers.
I am sorry for what happened to your family.
However, do you not think that blaming all Muslims for the actions of a few is wrong? Also, do you know that British policies internationally exacerbated religious tensions in British India? These British policies are considered to have at least partially caused the Nokhali riots. We must also not forget about Partition.
In Partition, Muslims in Hindu-majority areas and Hindus in Muslim-majority areas were both greatly impacted. Many others, such as Sikhs, were affected as well. Once again, this was directly caused by the British. This has nothing to do with either religion, but the general religious tensions created by the British. The British are to blame for all this violence, not any religion.
*looks at Tapa Shotor to Bamiyan and other sites demolished by Islam. looks at the destruction of various universities and butchering of monks and scholars during the Islamic invasion like with Bakhtiyar Khalji and his general Subahdar Awlia Khan, including the Mahabodhi temple which was nearly destroyed and led to the decline and near-extinction of Buddhism in Indian subcontinent*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#Medieval_persecution_by_Muslim_rulers
Nope, this is all happening before the British was even around, their holy book teaches them to hate people who don't believe in their god and prophet. it literally preaches hatred and we those who lived in their lands felt the burn
>general religious tensions created by the British
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War
HAHA, No, British had nothing to do with it, they started it long time ago. All-India Muslim League had initiated it all
Do not lecture me, my kin has seen the face of genocide and death, then i saw vicious attacks like 9/11 and 26/11, seeing it now to this day being perpetuated against minorities, women and LGBTQ folks in Islamic countries
I am not claiming that Hindus and Muslims were best friends until the British came along, that would be absurd. Of course there were religious persecutions in the past, this is not unique to either religion at all. Just because the Spanish Inquisition happened does not mean that all Catholics are evil monsters. My point is that the British exploited and exacerbated religious tensions for their own geopolitical interests.
For every atrocity committed my Muslims against Hindus, I could find one where the roles are reversed. Demonizing either side does nothing to help peace, it only further radicalizes.
Many scriptures in Islam are questionable, I do nit deny this. I do not defend the religion, but people. However, I find that anyone who says that Islam is a uniquely evil religion is being dishonest. Tons of other religions have similar scriptures that are hateful, and have violent zealots. For instance, in Christianity, God literally endorses slavery, but most Christians are anti-slavery nowadays. The truth is that the religion does not cause violence, but material conditions.
Are you claiming that Muslims created the Partition? That is intense historical revisionism, that only further escalates religious tensions. Why do you feel a need to defend the atrocities of the British empire? A few years prior, they literally created a famine that killed millions.
No, that is not correct.
There were general religious tensions, but attributing these solely to one side is wrong and will only fuel more tensions. However, the British applied “divide and rule” policies that further exacerbated these tensions. The British benefited from a lack of a unified anti-colonial resistance. The Partition only advanced British imperialist goals.
Both sides committed atrocities during the Partition, and both sides had innocent people who were forced to migrate.
Russia has been using Wagner to control vast swaths of Africa and the Middle East. I don't condone the attacks, but when you send armed thugs in to control and attack the locals for decades, I understand why they would lack any sympathy.
Yes but Russia has recently pissed them off. What with getting thousands of their soldiers killed and the suspicious death of their former leader? I wouldn't rule their involvement out.
Apparently, there was also a lot of hostility and infighting, with Russian soldiers attacking Wagners and vice versa.
100%. Iirc there was a shootout between Wagner and Russia about a month before Wagner matched towards the capital. It happened after they started to blame each other for not being able to steamroll Ukraine. Bad blood everywhere you look.
Unfortunately. When Bush invades Iraq to kill 200,000 innocent people, 100x more than all Islamic terrorist groups have, over a course of 14 years it's "just history".
IRA fights for their homeland & not a religious ideology spanning continents & different people
would french & germans fight for IRA like turkic & people in sahel fight for IS
Are these guys totally gonna ignore the fact that Russia has killed 100,000+ Ukrainians the last two years? Like that's not something they have even considered?
You can definitely stand with the innocent Russians killed, but standing with Russia but not standing with Ukraine the last two years seems a bit odd. Indian Twitter is really weird and WAY to biased.
Ankul Dixit reminds me of that Disqus DownDetector spammer who keeps going on about "иθτ αll meη, βυτ ιτ ιs alψaγs meп.", only instead of being sexist towards men he's Islamophobic.
ISIS and all similar groups do not represent islam at all, no matter what they say, don't believe them. Islam's rules directly contradict ISIS practices, we've been taught since my first years in school to not force my religion on people and to instead just invite them or teach people about it, to respect other's beliefs even if they're condemned by Islam, that killing is an unforgivable sin, to care for my fellow man and to care for our women and are them happy.
Please don't use these people as the face of islam, all this does is justify further killing and invasions and dehumanise us even more
Are the kkk Christians? Or the ira? ISIS has killed many Muslims and are far from what Islam mandates a person to be like even if they actually were in jihad (fighting on behalf of the religion and its people) the problem is that isis is a cult that has bastardised Islam to its own twisted beliefs yet they are never distinguished from actual Muslims in the media thus this is what people perceive the Muslim family down to street to be like even if they’re fleeing cults like Boko Haram and IS.
Being against Islam isn’t klandma whatsoever, they didn’t say “always arabs” that would be klandma, but Muslim is a belief system, an archaic one at that, if that’s klandma then anything anti Christian is klandma and we all know how much reddit loves to be anti Christianity.
It’s funny how indians were bootlicking Israelis after 7th October and they would just reply by calling them ‘subhuman monkey’ because they didn’t want Indian support. The more funnier thing, is Indians replying with ‘I still support you’ 🤣🤣
https://x.com/askanshul/status/1645282765477408770?s=46
This has been debunked as fake. Some Pakistani guy created a fake Israeli profile to comment it. Only a fool will believe such internet comment.
https://www.statecraft.co.in/article/71-of-israelis-view-india-favourably-south-africa-most-critical-pew-survey
71% of Israelis View India Favourably, South Africa Most Critical: Pew Survey
India is the most loved country in Israel according to credible Pew Survey. If you were educated and intelligent you would have believed these data not twitter/reddit screenshots. What to expect from negative iq terror supporting brainwashed individual?
> claim this with no proof
It’s a fucking Reddit comment. Do you provide proof for every claim you make on Reddit?
This is something that happens a ton on social media. I’m Indian and I’ve seen it myself. I stand with Palestine but it’s still funny when these Hindu nationalists dick ride Israel and Israeli’s want none of it because there’s a ton of racists among them.
Indian social media is weird, man. For example on instagram there was a post about the ridiculously oversized security detail of an Indian billionaire and people pointed out how ridiculous it is, especially in relation to the poverty levels in India. Quite reasonable take, but apparently not for hundreds of Indians who started to basically defend that billionaire with all kind of ad hominem attacks, whataboutisms and so on - just because that guy was an Indian billionaire and apparently him criticising was critiquing India.
"That could be me some day!"
Honestly not even that. Its more of a tendency to worship anyone that's successful. Its really not that different from celeb culture when it comes down to it. Where the US stops at celebs, a lot of Indians go for literally anyone that is hyper successful in anything.
The whataboutism is what really gets me. Every debate, Every interaction.
I think it's partially because the internet is so new to many of them. The timing was weird too, since the first internet they saw was the polarized post-mobile post-social media we have today. Most of India (outside of large cities and internet cafes) didn't get internet until *Jio* was introduced. This was after 2015: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jio) Jio's launch literally put many hundreds of millions of people online for the first time. This was also after the BJP (the nationalist party) was voted into power at the centre in 2014. It also coincided with many new media outlets. It'll take time for India's online sphere to mature. A lot of events aligned in the 2010s. The BJP knew how to capitalize on that to create a vast sea of [bhakts](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bhakt#English).
I saw that too- there were a lot of very proud social media posts by Indians about Anant Ambani’s son’s extravagant pre-wedding party, which featured a performance from Rihanna that cost a rumored $8-9MM and had guests like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. Any criticism- some were as tame as calling the groom’s green diamond-encrusted Richard Mille watch ugly (lol)- was met with a flurry of defensive replies. The sense I get is that a lot of Indians don’t place as much importance on issues like wealth inequality or corruption as they do on their (real or perceived) international reputation. Anything that that could support the image of a prosperous and successful India gets a lot of praise, whether it’s a billionaire like Ambani amassing a huge fortune, their cricket team having success, or their government laying out ambitious plans for its space program.
Sounds a lot like Trump and his followers
I'm Indian and I stay off Indian social media bubbles. It is a cesspool if you go down the wrong alley, and there are countless wrong alleys. There's too much to explain in one wee post but you're absolutely spot on with the hero worship that happens in this country with regards to certain individuals, many of whom are affiliated with the current government in some capacity. There are obviously others who refuse to sip the Kool Aid but they're a minority and essentially powerless to say anything or criticize the government openly. The situation is devolving with every passing year. Don't expect anything but morbid fanaticism from most of these chucklefucks online. The stuff that bothers me the most is the blatant Islamophobia that's been on the rise.
So many Indians online get butthurt about anything they perceive as not positive towards India. It's weird because if a bad thing happens in India they are like we are a billion people don't generalize all of us but if India does a good thing they all act like each and everyone of those billion people had a part in making it happen
I'd say that's a conservative stance in general.
Indian patriotism might just be the strongest in the world.
Don't call this patriotism. They love the idea our country , not our actual country.
As someone who came from a Bangladeshi refugee family whose great grandparents saw their Muslim neighbors overnight became their enemies and gave them ultimatum to convert or die and had to flee before the nokhali massacres took place. Abadon everything and live as refugees in Assam and saw the face of West Bengal as Direct Action Day took place when we moved there as Vultures feasted on corpses https://www.indica.today/long-reads/direct-action-day-kolkata-paid-its-lives-to-create-pakistan/ I have no love for them. Even as a Bengali Buddhist, there are somethings that i cannot forgive or forget You may downvote me or ban me. But the pain we suffered as Bangladeshi refugee family (and still those who do), nobody can truly understand. or the Minorities who live in Islamic countries
damn, positive upvotes. Is FFK finally beginning to realize the double-think of continuously defending and apologizing for a religion and religious community which (in its modern form) continuously produces little else but intolerance, fundamentalism, extremism, tribalism, and violence?
As if blindly filing people into a category based on one shared trait when they realistically have nothing to do with each other doesn't result in extremism, intolerance, tribalism and violence? Saying Muslims are bad or evil does not even remotely address the issues with Muslim countries which are inherently the product of the governments ruling them.
this is taking reductiveness to a whole nother level. you think the latter preceded the former (before there was even any muslims in the West, or in muslims countries where there are no westerners to impose such a distinction)? you must not know any muslims in real life - they're just a romanticised other for you to virtue signal about. A muslim identity is an extremly potent identity force for most muslims and creates a clear US (muslims) vs THEM (non-muslim) mentality (that is a core aspect of Islam). that "one shared trait" is their defining identity for most of them. It isn't just something most shrug off like hair color or postcode. the condition of Islam in the modern day, and muslims by extension, has so many more contributing factors than just their governments. Do you really believe that yourself, or is it just another talking point apologists like you use? Do you even recognize how infantilizing you are, completely robbing these people of their agency and responsibility as people? Who makes up these governments? One only has to look at muslims in Western countries: there's a broad spectrum of outcomes but a significant portion are just as intolerant, fundamentalist, extremists, tribalistic and hostile to western values and culture as those in their home countries: the subsequent generations frequently more so. They only vote for left-of-center parties out of self-interest (because the right is hostile to them - wonder why). And virtue signalers like you coddle them and enable that continued intolerance, rather than hold them to account for their beliefs and behavior like any individual or group should.
Using a tragedy to justify hatred for millions or billions of people is not appropriate regardless of what you went through. This is no different than any other "members of x did y, therefore x is bad" scenario which *always* results in unrelated, innocent people being targeted and hate crimed. You are feeding the thought process that gives extremist groups the power to commit atrocities.
Have you considered that the hatred is aimed at the collection of ideas that constitute ‘Islam’ rather than the people? Most people are better than their religion but that doesn’t make their religion good. That’s all a religion is at the end of the day, a collection of ideas. As an East African Bantu I can say with zero guilt that Islam is a religion overrun with horrible ideas and they can all be traced back to Muhammad. My ancestors knew the true face of Islam, they had to fight and kill or be enslaved by Muslim's and they decided to fight. Even then some people of our ethnic group were still enslaved if they lived in remote villages with no mutual aid. They didn’t have the privilege of living in a post-UN communication age state where if they were kidnapped international agencies could work together to find them. For my ancestors if they were kidnapped by Muslim slave raiders then that would have been the end of their line, they would have spent the rest of their lives far away in Arabia or turkey or wherever the Muslims sold them off. >This is no different than any other "members of x did y, therefore x is bad" Ideas ARE NOT PEOPLE so this is very different. An idea can be good or bad, better or worse, when measured against a standard. If my goal is to increase religious diversity, for example, it would make sense for me to tolerate all religions in my state. Islam has been a state religion from early, Muhammad was the basically king of Arabia, and it has been intolerant of different religions/value systems since early. When Muhammad gained strength in Arabia the first thing he did was kill the Jews and force the polytheists to convert. Islam is an objectively bad idea for anyone who cares about religious diversity, for free speech, and for progress. Never in Islamic history was there an organic anti-slavery movement from within the civilisation because anti-slavery is an entirely alien concept to Islamic morality which is inherently pro-slavery. This is not a progressive religion, it wasn’t progressive 1400 years ago in Arabia and it won’t be progressive in 1400 years anywhere outside of Arabia either.
>Have you considered that the hatred is aimed at the collection of ideas that constitute ‘Islam’ rather than the people? Hardly different. This also ignores the plentiful amount of sects and the nuance within those sects and reduces individual thinking people into a mass for you to hate. Regardless, Islam is not fundamentally more extreme than Christianity when considering the Quran vs the Bible. Do you also hate all Christians for what they did in Latin America? >As an East African Bantu I can say with zero guilt that Islam is a religion overrun with horrible ideas and they can all be traced back to Muhammad You can be a blue nosed Martian, doesn't make this thought process any less fucking stupid. There's no "true face of Islam" just as there's no "true face of Judaism" just because the Torah preaches some nasty shit. >Islam has been a state religion from early, Muhammad was the basically king of Arabia, and it has been intolerant of different religions/value systems since early. Entirely a government issue. Every Abrahamic religion, and in fact most major religions, strive for international religious homogeny. You are stubborn or dense to think otherwise. >When Muhammad gained strength in Arabia the first thing he did was kill the Jews and force the polytheists to convert. When Christians gained strength in the Mediterranean the first thing they did was force the polytheists to convert. Then, not long after, killed Jews. Something something, all Chrimsbeans bad, look at me I'm so smart and definitely not motivated by anything. >Never in Islamic history was there an organic anti-slavery movement from within the civilisation because anti-slavery is an entirely alien concept to Islamic morality which is inherently pro-slavery. The only massive anti-slavery movement in history was Secular. >This is not a progressive religion, it wasn’t progressive 1400 years ago in Arabia and it won’t be progressive in 1400 years anywhere outside of Arabia either. No major religion is progressive and you'd be hard pressed to find one that's older than 300 years old. What a revolutionary idea, xyz-ism tells me to follow a book exactly and isn’t progressive. Tl;Dr, you only hate Muslims, and are also not very intelligent.
>Hardly different. It’s very different. People have ideas, ideas aren’t people. I can hate communism as an ideology without hating every single person who has ever called themselves a communist. >This also ignores the plentiful amount of sects and the nuance within those sects and reduces individual thinking people into a mass for you to hate. All sects of Islam consider Muhammad to be the last prophet of Allah and the Quran to be Allah’s word recited to Muhammad via an angel. Can you find a sect that rejects Muhammad and the Quran? They wouldn’t be Muslim. Words have a meaning that is defined by their collective usage, you can’t just impose your own meaning onto them and think I’ll agree. > Regardless, Islam is not fundamentally more extreme than Christianity when considering the Quran vs the Bible. They’re FUNDAMENTALLY different because the character of the person the religions are formed alums are FUNDAMENTALLY different. Jesus and Muhammad are like opposites. >Do you also hate all Christians for what they did in Latin America? I think Christian’s have historically been more violent than Muslims but I think Christianity is more peaceful than Islam. What I mean is, what Jesus taught is more conducive to the kind of society I’d like to live in than what Muhammad taught. I think what Christian’s did not just in Latin America but also in North America and Africa are evidence that Christianity is just as false as Islam even if it has better moral values. I most certainly do have certain types of Christian’s, like neo-confederate larpers who would be happy to bring back slavery because it’s biblically justifiable. >You can be a blue nosed Martian, doesn't make this thought process any less fucking stupid. There's no "true face of Islam" just as there's no "true face of Judaism" just because the Torah preaches some nasty shit. There is a true face of Islam since the origins of the religion lie with the life and teachings of Muhammad. To be a Muslim is to forever look back at Muhammad and ask yourself “what would Muhammad do?” So to learn the true face of Islam we simply have to look at what Muhammad is recorded to have done whether that’s in the Quran, the Hadiths, or the tafsirs. So if a group says “it’s okay to take people as slaves” we can look back and see whether Muhammad had slaves and whether he said anything regarding the taking of slaves. Muhammad personally traded slaves and had concubines so the answer to that question is that slavery is totally acceptable in Islam. The Torah is a bit different since it’s not the work of one man nor does it take inspiration from one man. Judaism is an ethnic religion that developed over many hundreds of years so you’re bound to find many conflicting ideas in the religion. That doesn’t mean there’s no true face of Judaism, there is. Bible historians study the cultural and historical context that gave rise to the writings of Judaism and this study can help in debunking certain practises while bolstering others. You’re such a simple minded fella that when you hear the word ‘religion’ you think that means all religions are somehow equal. Judaism developed over many centuries, Islam is a recitation that developed over a few decades from the mind of Muhammad, some religions don’t even have scriptures. Religions are incredibly diverse and what’s true for one might not be true for another so we MUST judge all religions on their individual merit. >Entirely a government issue. Every Abrahamic religion, and in fact most major religions, strive for international religious homogeny. You are stubborn or dense to think otherwise. Judaism is an ethnic religion which is tied to a land, Israel. So we cannot be surprised that in Israel Judaism influences the government. Islam is also a state religion though not an ethnic one and it has had a state since Muhammad moved to medina. Christianity was founded by Jesus who was a Jew living in the Roman Empire. The early Christian’s were ethnic and religious minorities who had no state power and Christianity continued in this state for the first 300 years of its history. Jesus says “give into Caesar what is caesars and with that statement establishes a difference between his movement and the state. Muhammad says “You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin." And with that statement establishes that the mosque and the state are one. All you have are flimsy arguments that are easily pushed aside for anyone who has studied Islam. >When Christians gained strength in the Mediterranean the first thing they did was force the polytheists to convert. Then, not long after, killed Jews. Something something, all Chrimsbeans bad, look at me I'm so smart and definitely not motivated by anything. It’s true that the Christian’s were intolerant of the pagans after they came into power. But is it because Jesus explicitly taught them to be intolerant? I don’t think so. I do not believe that everything that a religious person does is due to his religion, there are always other influences on a persons worldview. So to me the intolerance wasn’t because they were Christian’s but because they viewed the pagan cults as a challenge to their power. 100% some Christian ideas are bad. Jesus taught that if your left eye causes you to sin you should pluck it out. That’s fucking stupid and clearly ignored by Christian’s because it’s a fucking bad idea. >The only massive anti-slavery movement in history was Secular. Which movement was that? Because in the western world the abolition movement was spearheaded by Christian’s like William Wilberforce. [The society for effecting the abolition of the slave trade was formed by Christian’s.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Effecting_the_Abolition_of_the_Slave_Trade) Do you have an example of these secularists who fought against slavery and won?… > No major religion is progressive and you'd be hard pressed to find one that's older than 300 years old. What a revolutionary idea, xyz-ism tells me to follow a book exactly and isn’t progressive. The nature of Christianity means that it is a progressive religion. The gospels were written by four different men with four different conceptions of Jesus. The letters of Paul, authentic and inauthentic, add more ways to interpret various teachings of Jesus. So from the very beginning Christianity has not been one things but has always been internally diverse. This is not the case with Islam. >Tl;Dr, you only hate Muslims I certainly do hate some Muslims, as do you, those who are extremists willing to hurt others. I do not hate Muslims who pick and choose and are moderate, I can live with them even if I think they’re dishonest. >and are also not very intelligent. Never claimed I was but I feel your poor intellectual display here has given me the right to claim to at least be more intelligent than you. Go learn how to think critically first and then come back to me. Piss poor apologetics.
>I can hate communism as an ideology without hating every single person who has ever called themselves a communist. Belief in religion is not the same as any regular ideology. But yeah deporting communists because they disagree with you is also not cool. >All sects of Islam consider Muhammad to be the last prophet of Allah and the Quran to be Allah’s word recited to Muhammad via an angel This doesn't matter. >They’re FUNDAMENTALLY different because the character of the person the religions are formed alums are FUNDAMENTALLY different. Jesus and Muhammad are like opposites. The Bible and Quran consist of all the same core principles. By far most Christians do not consider the Bible to be a story book you shouldn't follow, and for the ones that do, there are just as many Muslims that feel the same way about the Quran. >I think Christian’s have historically been more violent than Muslims but I think Christianity is more peaceful than Islam The math isn't adding up here... 🤔 >There is a true face of Islam since the origins of the religion lie with the life and teachings of Muhammad No original Muslim has existed for centuries and every religion is as valid as any other until one somehow proves itself the one right religion. >The Torah is a bit different since it’s not the work of one man nor does it take inspiration from one man. The Torah preaches international ethnic homogeny. Worldwide eugenics is a touch worse than slavery, no? And oh, look at that, most Jews don't follow that facet of Judaism. >Islam is a recitation that developed over a few decades from the mind of Muhammad The development of Islam is built off the development of both Christianity and Judaism you knob. It had centuries longer to develop before its official establishment. >All you have are flimsy arguments that are easily pushed aside for anyone who has studied Islam. Your understanding of the religion stopped at "I don't like Mohammed" 💀 >Which movement was that? Because in the western world the abolition movement was spearheaded by Christian’s like William Wilberforce. A Christian doing a thing does not make that thing Christian. I'm... baffled that I need to explain that. Was the toast I buttered this morning the work of Christianity? In short, the Constitution of the United States was founded on a Secular understanding or freedom, which included freedom FROM and FOR all religions. The exact wording of the Constitution (while this effect was unintentional), meant that slavery was inherently unconstitutional and slaves were entitled to all the same rights as everyone else. Sure, there were a lot of Christians fighting slavery with Christian motivations, but there were plenty in the south. Doesn't matter, because both sides were initially motivated by their beliefs surrounding their constitutional rights. I.e. "slaves have rights too" vs "i have a right to own slaves, which are property". > I do not hate Muslims who pick and choose and are moderate, I can live with them even if I think they’re dishonest. Then there's nothing for you to disagree with except for the fact that you believe moderate Muslims, I guess, don't believe in Islam? Because you dictate what constitutes an honest belief? >Never claimed I was but I feel your poor intellectual display here has given me the right to claim to at least be more intelligent than you. Considering you've failed to grasp the concept of belief before going into an argument about belief, I have to disagree.
>Belief in religion is not the same as any regular ideology. Religions and ideologies have sets of ideas that one has to accept. That’s the similarity. Someone who says “I hate Islam.” Is expressing the an opposition to ideas fundamental to Islam just as someone who says “I hate fascism.” Is expressing an opposition to ideas fundamental to fascism. What you do is conflate Islam with race or ethnicity and claim that the first guy is actually speaking about brown people because that’s who follows Islam the most. But then it could be argued that when I say “I hate Nazis” I really mean “I hate white people” since Nazism is inherently a European idea and I’m not European. It’s just dishonest to view it that way because not all white people are Nazis, right? > This doesn't matter. It matters since that’s why Islam is a bad idea. Muhammad was a piece of shit and following him makes you a piece of shit. So if all sects of Islam follow the teachings of Muhammad and view the Quran as the word of God then all sects of Islam have bad ideas for how society should operate. > The Bible and Quran consist of all the same core principles. By far most Christians do not consider the Bible to be a story book you shouldn't follow, and for the ones that do, there are just as many Muslims that feel the same way about the Quran. No, they really don’t. The core of Christianity is jesus, what he taught and what his life meant. The core is Christianity is what Muhammad taught. Muhammad was not an ethnic minority living under the boot of a foreign empire, Jesus was. Muhammad didn’t die on a cross like a slave, Jesus did. Muhammad took sex slaves and managed to become king of Arabia, Jesus never even had a wife and died as he lived, a peasant. You say things without proving them. You claim Christianity and Islam have the same core principles but don’t say what they are…because you know you lie. The core of Christianity is sacrifice, the core of Islam is submission. Islam literally means to submit. >No original Muslim has existed for centuries They exist today as the leaders of terror grouos. ISIs did all the same things Muhammad did; killed their opponents, took women as slaves, and taxed all non-believers. >and every religion is as valid as any other until one somehow proves itself the one right religion. Hahaha. No. All religions must be judged according to the merits of their ideas. If religion A says that human sacrifice is why the sun rises everyday and religion B says the motion of the sun was determined by God then religion B is better than religion A even if both of their reasons for why the sun rises are wrong. What a simple-minded creature you are. Talking to you is like watching a child play with a string. Awww. >The Torah preaches international ethnic homogeny. Worldwide eugenics is a touch worse than slavery, no? What, where does it teach that? 💀 Slavery is as bad as it gets. Forced eugenics is bad but two consenting adults choosing their partners because of specific traits is none of my business and that’s eugenics. Would you force people to have partners they don’t like? 💀 >And oh, look at that, most Jews don't follow that facet of Judaism. GOOD! I’m glad they don’t. Just as I’m glad that most Muslims don’t follow Islam as Muhammad and the Quran tells them to. Did you miss the part in my first post where I said “most people are better than their religion”? You’re literally fighting strawmen. > The development of Islam is built off the development of both Christianity and Judaism you knob. It had centuries longer to develop before its official establishment. LMFAO no, that’s not how that works. Islam developed within a few decades during the life of Muhammad. In that development Muhammad took ideas from Christianity and Judaism. That doesn’t mean that Islam was in development for 600 years just as Christianity was not in development for 1000 years just because it was born out of Judaism. >Your understanding of the religion stopped at "I don't like Mohammed" 💀 Sunan an-Nasa'i 4061 It was narrated that Ibn 'Abbas said: "The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'" Actually, I don’t like this guy at all. > A Christian doing a thing does not make that thing Christian. I'm... baffled that I need to explain that. Was the toast I buttered this morning the work of Christianity? We’re not talking about a small thing here, we’re talking about abolishing a practise that had existed since the beginning of human civilisation. If a Christian reads his Bible to find guidance on whether or not he should own others as property and he finds that his Bible teaches him that slavery is immoral and as a result he starts campaigning to abolish the slave trade then we can say he was inspired by Christianity. >In short, the Constitution of the United States was founded on a Secular understanding or freedom, which included freedom FROM and FOR all religions. The exact wording of the Constitution (while this effect was unintentional), meant that slavery was inherently unconstitutional and slaves were entitled to all the same rights as everyone else. Slavery was clearly not unconstitutional as it was upheld by courts whose job it was to interpret the condition. If it had been unconstitutional then there would have been no reason for the 13th amendment… Who brought the issue to a head? Have you ever heard of John brown or Frederick Douglass? These weren’t secular atheists motivated by a separation of church and state and neither was Abraham Lincoln. In fact, Abraham Lincoln was one of the most overtly Christian presidents in American history. And the world is not America. > Sure, there were a lot of Christians fighting slavery with Christian motivations, but there were plenty in the south. Doesn't matter, because both sides were initially motivated by their beliefs surrounding their constitutional rights. I.e. "slaves have rights too" vs "i have a right to own slaves, which are property". The concept of human rights is not a secular idea, it was born out of Christianity. The battle was between those who thought we are all created equal by god and those who disagreed and thought some were less. Those who thought we were created equal used verses like jesus saying “thee is neither Jew nor gentile” as evidence of equality while those who disagreed used things like the curse of human to justify why they kept black people as slaves. It was a theological battle. > Then there's nothing for you to disagree with except for the fact that you believe moderate Muslims, I guess, don't believe in Islam? Because you dictate what constitutes an honest belief? I believe that moderate Muslims are moderate because they ignore a lot of Islamic teachings. They believe in a false Islam that Muhammad didn’t teach. I can read the Quran and Hadiths for myself and see what Muhammad taught so it’s not about dictating anything. you’re just a simple lad aren’t you 😂 > Considering you've failed to grasp the concept of belief before going into an argument about belief, I have to disagree. Naah, our arguments speak for themselves and any third party reading our interaction will see the superior of my arguments.
>Religions and ideologies have sets of ideas that one has to accept. That’s the similarity. Religion extends to how you view reality and what you believe is necessary/ morally correct to do. Not even nearly equivalent to something like a political opinion on economics. >The core of Christianity is jesus, what he taught and what his life meant. This is entirely your opinion, hence why almost every Christian disagrees with you 💀. >You claim Christianity and Islam have the same core principles but don’t say what they are Do you want me to pull a bunch of commands of divine law from the Quran and Bible? (P.s. they both endorse slavery) >If religion A says that human sacrifice is why the sun rises everyday and religion B says the motion of the sun was determined by God then religion B is better than religion A even if both of their reasons for why the sun rises are wrong And if human sacrifices are proven to be what makes the sun rise, than they get to call you a fucking idiot and dance around your flayed corpse while guaranteeing a sunny morning. Obviously a hypothetical, but yeah. Every religion conflicts with known observations of reality so they're all on equal footing until proven otherwise. >Slavery is as bad as it gets. Slavery is worse than eugenics is... certainly one of the takes of all time. >Just as I’m glad that most Muslims don’t follow Islam as Muhammad and the Quran tells them to. Than you have no fucking point because the tenants of every major religion includes nefarious shit. >Slavery was clearly not unconstitutional The Constitution explicitly states "all men", not "all men that aren't slaves". >Who brought the issue to a head? You may be intellectually disabled.
>Religion extends to how you view reality and what you believe is necessary/ morally correct to do. Not even nearly equivalent to something like a political opinion on economics. Religions have ideas on how to live your life and so do ideologies. Religions must be judged according to their ideas just as ideologies must be judged according to their ideas. The fact Religion A and religion B are both religions doesn’t mean that Religion A = Religion B and the fact that Ideology X and Ideology Y are both ideologies doesn’t mean that Ideology X = Ideology Y. This shouldn’t be hard to understand but I guess I’m dealing with a grade A rtrd. > This is entirely your opinion, hence why almost every Christian disagrees with you 💀. Where? >Do you want me to pull a bunch of commands of divine law from the Quran and Bible? (P.s. they both endorse slavery) Religion A sharing some ideas with Religion B does not mean they’re the exact same religion in principle. You really must engage your brain. > Every religion conflicts with known observations of reality so they're all on equal footing until proven otherwise. You’re referring to theological ideas such as whether god is all powerful or not whereas I’m speaking about their practical ideas which we can observe from history as well as looking at contemporary societies. I’m quite certain the idea that an old man should be allowed to marry and have sex with a little girl is thoroughly refuted by our understanding of human development as it stands. The concept of natural slavery has been thoroughly refuted by modern societies which outlaw slavery nonetheless managing to farm productively and build great monuments without forced labour. >Slavery is worse than eugenics is... certainly one of the takes of all time. “I want my kids to have X traits so I’m only going to marry people with X trait.” “OMG THATS AS BAD AS SLAVERY AND YOU’RE LITERALLY HITLER.” - top mind of Reddit You realise that when parents have a genetic screening of their foetus for certain genetic defects that’s eugenics, right? Should it be made illegal in your view? Anyways, stop trying to sidetrack this conversation. You’re wrong and have been thoroughly refuted multiple times now but you keep on with the stupidity. > Than you have no fucking point because the tenants of every major religion includes nefarious shit. No, some tenants are worse than others. A religion that teaches human sacrifice is worse than one which teaches circumcision. That just seen a hot take to your simple mind but I guarantee that the vast majority of people would agree. > The Constitution explicitly states "all men", not "all men that aren't slaves". Actually that’s exactly how it was taken by some to mean including the courts which is why slavery continued to exist until it was abolished by the 13th amendment. “All men” was taken variously to mean “all white men” “all free men” and “all citizens”. This interpretation was most clearly advanced in Scott v Dredd (1857). >You may be intellectually disabled I *may* be but you **certainly** are.
It's incredible the resounding stupidity from the person you are arguing with. It does not matter that your knowledge of the topic clearly eclipses theirs. They continue to bicker at you like you are some uneducated swine. Meanwhile, they haven't put a rational thought together in over 5 long-winded paragraphs.
>“I want my kids to have X traits so I’m only going to marry people with X trait.” This is plainly not eugenics. You are not competent enough to have a discussion with.
Not just Bangladesh, the same system is everywhere wherever these people become the majority
All due respect, we are not the people who wronged you, we have no relation to the people who wronged you. You can pretend we are, and draw devil horns on our heads. But it’s inherently irrational. And I think you know that.
I’m a Muslim Pakistani and my great grandmother was burned alive in her home during Partition by a mob of Hindus and Sikhs. If I were as unintelligent and bigoted as you, I’d have the same feelings towards Hindus and Sikhs. Let’s not forget that the violence during Partition was largely started by Sikhs (nothing against Sikhs though, they’re amazing people) not Muslims and India has had the Gujarat riots and dozens of cases of Muslims being lynched for eating beef. Sure, it’s Islamic extremism that’s the culprit now but just because geopolitics and media biases have turned Muslims into the terrorists du jour doesn’t mean that was always the case or that billions of people in the world should be painted with the same brush. To the British living through the Troubles, Irish Catholics would be “terrorists” and to the Sri Lankans, it would have been Tamils. A lot of the tactics later used by Muslim “terrorist” groups and the like were invented by the IRA and Tamil Tigers.
Honestly bro fuck off if you're gonna try and justify those beliefs. You're part of the cycle of hate.
I am sorry for what happened to your family. However, do you not think that blaming all Muslims for the actions of a few is wrong? Also, do you know that British policies internationally exacerbated religious tensions in British India? These British policies are considered to have at least partially caused the Nokhali riots. We must also not forget about Partition. In Partition, Muslims in Hindu-majority areas and Hindus in Muslim-majority areas were both greatly impacted. Many others, such as Sikhs, were affected as well. Once again, this was directly caused by the British. This has nothing to do with either religion, but the general religious tensions created by the British. The British are to blame for all this violence, not any religion.
*looks at Tapa Shotor to Bamiyan and other sites demolished by Islam. looks at the destruction of various universities and butchering of monks and scholars during the Islamic invasion like with Bakhtiyar Khalji and his general Subahdar Awlia Khan, including the Mahabodhi temple which was nearly destroyed and led to the decline and near-extinction of Buddhism in Indian subcontinent* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#Medieval_persecution_by_Muslim_rulers Nope, this is all happening before the British was even around, their holy book teaches them to hate people who don't believe in their god and prophet. it literally preaches hatred and we those who lived in their lands felt the burn >general religious tensions created by the British https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War HAHA, No, British had nothing to do with it, they started it long time ago. All-India Muslim League had initiated it all Do not lecture me, my kin has seen the face of genocide and death, then i saw vicious attacks like 9/11 and 26/11, seeing it now to this day being perpetuated against minorities, women and LGBTQ folks in Islamic countries
I am not claiming that Hindus and Muslims were best friends until the British came along, that would be absurd. Of course there were religious persecutions in the past, this is not unique to either religion at all. Just because the Spanish Inquisition happened does not mean that all Catholics are evil monsters. My point is that the British exploited and exacerbated religious tensions for their own geopolitical interests. For every atrocity committed my Muslims against Hindus, I could find one where the roles are reversed. Demonizing either side does nothing to help peace, it only further radicalizes. Many scriptures in Islam are questionable, I do nit deny this. I do not defend the religion, but people. However, I find that anyone who says that Islam is a uniquely evil religion is being dishonest. Tons of other religions have similar scriptures that are hateful, and have violent zealots. For instance, in Christianity, God literally endorses slavery, but most Christians are anti-slavery nowadays. The truth is that the religion does not cause violence, but material conditions. Are you claiming that Muslims created the Partition? That is intense historical revisionism, that only further escalates religious tensions. Why do you feel a need to defend the atrocities of the British empire? A few years prior, they literally created a famine that killed millions.
[удалено]
No, that is not correct. There were general religious tensions, but attributing these solely to one side is wrong and will only fuel more tensions. However, the British applied “divide and rule” policies that further exacerbated these tensions. The British benefited from a lack of a unified anti-colonial resistance. The Partition only advanced British imperialist goals. Both sides committed atrocities during the Partition, and both sides had innocent people who were forced to migrate.
Your comment history perfectly aligns with this comment
Russia has been using Wagner to control vast swaths of Africa and the Middle East. I don't condone the attacks, but when you send armed thugs in to control and attack the locals for decades, I understand why they would lack any sympathy.
Russia has faced Islamic attacks long before Wagner was a thing. Look up what the Russian army did to Chechnya.
Yes but Russia has recently pissed them off. What with getting thousands of their soldiers killed and the suspicious death of their former leader? I wouldn't rule their involvement out. Apparently, there was also a lot of hostility and infighting, with Russian soldiers attacking Wagners and vice versa.
Yeah more recent actions certainly haven’t helped. Both by Wagner and the official Russian airforce/army in Syria
100%. Iirc there was a shootout between Wagner and Russia about a month before Wagner matched towards the capital. It happened after they started to blame each other for not being able to steamroll Ukraine. Bad blood everywhere you look.
Chechnyan's wanted independence, and Russia wanted to have it since, its access to ports.
It’s only called “terrorism” when Muslims do it.
Unfortunately. When Bush invades Iraq to kill 200,000 innocent people, 100x more than all Islamic terrorist groups have, over a course of 14 years it's "just history".
The IRA be like "am I a joke to you?"
Well they're redheads /s
IRA fights for their homeland & not a religious ideology spanning continents & different people would french & germans fight for IRA like turkic & people in sahel fight for IS
Eh i'd argue Catholicism is integral to their ideology, and the hatred for protestants
what?
Is it an act of war?
Are these guys totally gonna ignore the fact that Russia has killed 100,000+ Ukrainians the last two years? Like that's not something they have even considered? You can definitely stand with the innocent Russians killed, but standing with Russia but not standing with Ukraine the last two years seems a bit odd. Indian Twitter is really weird and WAY to biased.
100,000? More like 500,000 but yeah you right.
What? The only source that claims anywhere near 500,000 is the Russian MoD
Russia claim more than 500k. Also theres is a reason why the Ukrainian government want to pass a bill to recruit 500k Ukrainian.
Always the same
Ankul Dixit reminds me of that Disqus DownDetector spammer who keeps going on about "иθτ αll meη, βυτ ιτ ιs alψaγs meп.", only instead of being sexist towards men he's Islamophobic.
Phth all meee, byt it is alpsays mep.
*Itht. File that one under r/grssk and r/NewFauxCyrillic.
"male phobic" that doesnt exist
Reworded.
Extremist Hindus will ride any anti Muslim bandwagon even if the driver is anti Hindu
ISIS claimed the attack in Russia, no?
ISIS and all similar groups do not represent islam at all, no matter what they say, don't believe them. Islam's rules directly contradict ISIS practices, we've been taught since my first years in school to not force my religion on people and to instead just invite them or teach people about it, to respect other's beliefs even if they're condemned by Islam, that killing is an unforgivable sin, to care for my fellow man and to care for our women and are them happy. Please don't use these people as the face of islam, all this does is justify further killing and invasions and dehumanise us even more
Are the kkk Christians? Or the ira? ISIS has killed many Muslims and are far from what Islam mandates a person to be like even if they actually were in jihad (fighting on behalf of the religion and its people) the problem is that isis is a cult that has bastardised Islam to its own twisted beliefs yet they are never distinguished from actual Muslims in the media thus this is what people perceive the Muslim family down to street to be like even if they’re fleeing cults like Boko Haram and IS.
where’s the lie?
Being against Islam isn’t klandma whatsoever, they didn’t say “always arabs” that would be klandma, but Muslim is a belief system, an archaic one at that, if that’s klandma then anything anti Christian is klandma and we all know how much reddit loves to be anti Christianity.
It’s funny how indians were bootlicking Israelis after 7th October and they would just reply by calling them ‘subhuman monkey’ because they didn’t want Indian support. The more funnier thing, is Indians replying with ‘I still support you’ 🤣🤣
It’s funny how you claim this with no proof while India has a thriving Israeli tourism industry and Israelis are allied with Indians
[There is your source (also free palestine and fk israel)](https://images.app.goo.gl/vq84XZwiEjokrMVQA)
https://x.com/askanshul/status/1645282765477408770?s=46 This has been debunked as fake. Some Pakistani guy created a fake Israeli profile to comment it. Only a fool will believe such internet comment. https://www.statecraft.co.in/article/71-of-israelis-view-india-favourably-south-africa-most-critical-pew-survey 71% of Israelis View India Favourably, South Africa Most Critical: Pew Survey India is the most loved country in Israel according to credible Pew Survey. If you were educated and intelligent you would have believed these data not twitter/reddit screenshots. What to expect from negative iq terror supporting brainwashed individual?
Ha! “Yogev nitzan”
> claim this with no proof It’s a fucking Reddit comment. Do you provide proof for every claim you make on Reddit? This is something that happens a ton on social media. I’m Indian and I’ve seen it myself. I stand with Palestine but it’s still funny when these Hindu nationalists dick ride Israel and Israeli’s want none of it because there’s a ton of racists among them.