What's new

Name top 3 racist nations, cults around the world

The Bald Eagle

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 25, 2023
Runs
21,357
Racism and Discrimination is just too rampant around the world these days but besides common perception this social phenomenon exists outside the western world too. As apart from the bias on the basis of skin color, bias also exist based on one's faith, caste and lineage.

So in your observation, which people, nation, cult have you found to be among the most racist people around the globe.
 
Charlie Kirk was also part of it. Although nobody here endorses assassinations

Yup. Charlie was a white supremacist. He blatantly said racist things toward black people, Muslim people etc.

Anyway, worst racists on Earth are definitely the sanghis and Zionists.

Sanghis stick their noses everywhere. So, their nonsense is far more felt. :inti
 
Racism and Discrimination is just too rampant around the world these days but besides common perception this social phenomenon exists outside the western world too. As apart from the bias on the basis of skin color, bias also exist based on one's faith, caste and lineage.

So in your observation, which people, nation, cult have you found to be among the most racist people around the globe.
  1. Zionists
  2. Hindutva
  3. White Supremacists
Everybody else is chump change!
 
White European supremacists always take top spot but right now these guys are all in bed with each other.

The most unholiest of alliances

I see.

I think sanghis are more dangerous than white supremacists. They spread misinformation and oppress minorities domestically. They also act like pests online.
 
I see.

I think sanghis are more dangerous than white supremacists. They spread misinformation and oppress minorities domestically. They also act like pests online.
European supremacy dates back years since the Age of Exploration. Much of the white supremacy of today stems from the colonialism and looting of that time.
 
ISIS is finished. They are no longer relevant.

How can you omit sanghis? They should be #1 or #2 in my opinion. :inti
Hindu extremists haven't done much on the scale of the three groups I mentioned.

ISiS still exist in Africa and some parts of Asia. Some of their atrocities were barbaric.
 
India has to be one in the top because it is divided into both class and caste.

Jews , the entire nation built on nationalism .
 
They are now a small irrelevant group I believe. They are practically finished.
I wish that was true for Sahel and Afghanistan...


 
India has to be one in the top because it is divided into both class and caste.

Jews , the entire nation built on nationalism .
Pakistan must be at the top with Sunni/shia issues and the minority oppression. Also they hate Israel and consider everything either Zionist khanspiracy or Raw ki Saazish.
 
ISIS is finished. They are no longer relevant.

How can you omit sanghis? They should be #1 or #2 in my opinion. :inti
Is India is racist, how come little Bangladeshis are so desperate to go to India? They put their life in danger to cross the border illegally into India all for a few rupees.
:mv
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is India is racist, how come little Bangladeshis are so desperate to go to India? They put their life in danger to cross the border illegally into India all for a few rupees.
:mv
Deep down, they know that secular countries only provide freedom to their religion and opportunities for growth.

Bangladeshi migrants has been a real problem and these people hide in mosques and high-density Muslim areas which are basically no-go zones for even police. And they get fake registries and leech off the government benefits, yet cry on India.

Look at this number - almost 1.5 million Bangladeshi illegals live in India. That is a staggering number. 1% of our population. Government should do something serious about this to drive them out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sanghis (BJP/RSS).
Zionists.
Alt-Right.

Racism is the reason for the birth of Bangladesh. The tall fair skinned Punjabis used to be racist against charcoal skin midget Bengalis is the entire reason why a separate nation for Bangladesh was demanded. It is ironical that you would accuse everyone else other than Pakistanis.
 
Stats based information is across the Web

Probably
Nazis
ISIS
Based on terror attacks and deaths in the last 2 centuries, not counting wars.

I will also hold Israel and Hamas in the same view. Difference is that Hamas is a declared terrorist organization. Israel is getting away in the name of War. I felt Israel achieved its objectives - to free captives when deal was made but declined the peace deals multiple times.

I think Africa has been ravaged by these cults / religious issues and ethnic cleansing. But its not mainstream because its in Africa. Their news is not integrated much into West and Asian lives as much. And Stats support this.

My personal view based on my experiences in India:
1. Islamists are more extreme religion wise. Their tendency to violence has been manipulated well by others too. And I do find the mullah culture problematic as the masses are heavily influenced by them.
2. Hindutva - More political than religious. Only explanation can be joblessness
3. Christian missionaries - Most smartest among the religious cults. They know how to play the game smartly without invoking violence and manipulating the system and masses together. Again, Church priests have high influence on masses which is dangerous.

My issue has always been that,
One religion doesn't need to accept the other. But they consider the other religion as a SIN. Hence, I do find Islam problematic because of this. Religious nut jobs will always increase due to this view.

Lastly, racism based on Skin color has been ingrained in desis from a long time. But, I felt the change during my childhood vs growing up. While being beautiful / handsome is not in our hands, being skillful is and I feel the GenZ recognized this more than previous generations.
 
1. Brahmins
2. Christian White Supremacists
3. Zionists

Groups that see themselves as superior races often end up being the most racist, looking down on others as if they are lesser.

I don’t subscribe to this mindset in any form. True strength lies in equality and mutual respect, not in pretending others are inferior.

I am a Brahmin, which is supposed to be the highest form of human life on the planet with a history of serving mankind with knowledge. However I believe in qualities like humility as well and refuse to support racist thoughts.

When I was a kid, I grew up listening to relatives and family friends describing Muslims as dirty dishonest people with weird cult practices and many would sometimes describe them as if they were savage animals. I was never comfortable in hearing such things and such hatred because I am loving person.

Regarding African black community also, I heard many descriptions and beliefs that were wrong and disrespectful.

Unfortunately when Pakistan came to being they only got rid of the Brahmin lead Hindu community which looked down upon them as inferior people, but still kept the same racist thoughts for Black community and lower caste Muslims. It was cowardly escapism by higher caste Muslims, not a true social reform which is why Jinnah is now considered a fraud and a failure.
 
Dude criticized the entire left for a decade, and not one physical attack on him. He criticizes one nation just a couple of weeks and he lost a gun debate.
JFC! I agreed with Technics earlier. Now this. I need to take the day off
 
Pakistan must be at the top with Sunni/shia issues and the minority oppression. Also they hate Israel and consider everything either Zionist khanspiracy or Raw ki Saazish.

That is a religious issue , and that is propagated by fundamentalists , no evidence in Quran. India is divided into caste by religious texts. There is explicit evidence.

But as usual you will not accept you are a Hindu , and will hide behind the mask of atheism .
 
@

Theanonymousone

You are mixing racism and religious tolerance together. RSS has nothing to do with Hindu religion , it will not be a surprise if their founders were atheist. They use hinduism as a tool to propagate false things and views against Islam and Christianity.​


They know that in one to one debate they will have No chance , so they try to hit below the belt.
 
India is divided into caste by religious texts. There is explicit evidence.

But as usual you will not accept you are a Hindu , and will hide behind the mask of atheism
Caste discrimination is wrong. What is there not to accept.
Religion doesn't dictate caste and how one should live. Hinduism doesn't have a doctrine like Quran with a set of rules. The only thing that comes close is Bhagavadgita which is a conversation between Lord Krishna (Avatar of God Vishnu) and Arjuna. It merely tells the way of life but doesn't dictate.

The only gist that came from religion on the caste, is how various castes represent body parts of Vishnu.

But, sub-Castes that are followed were based on the work they do. Outside India, people think that Brahmins are the highest caste, but lots of Brahmins are struggling with poverty. They are neither the wealthy nor the powerful in India. Its based on work they and thats how discrimination came to existence.

Its definitely wrong and at-least I dont see caste discrimination much these days. There is only politics - local, regional and national level. Just like how Rahul Gandhi uses caste in almost at the core of his every sentence.
 
@

Theanonymousone

You are mixing racism and religious tolerance together. RSS has nothing to do with Hindu religion , it will not be a surprise if their founders were atheist. They use hinduism as a tool to propagate false things and views against Islam and Christianity.​


They know that in one to one debate they will have No chance , so they try to hit below the belt.
I am an Indian and RSS doesn't have much presence in Southern states. BJP has and they do have religious nutjobs. So, does Congress. Why I prefer BJP is due to their growth policy. Congress mandate is filled with reservations and all but not one bit on any-other thing.

People here mixed religion and race, hence I tried to encompass everything.

I don't remember RSS causing terrorist attacks in India or abroad. Its genuine hate towards BJP that they out BJP/RSS in line with Nazis / ISIS. They are not even remotely on same level.

Religious intolerance is what drives extremism. I understand there are many peaceful muslims in Pakistan just like in India (My interactions were largely positive except in Muslim dominated in Old City Hyderabad). One can see that Muslims are the mist religious intolerant ones, due to many reasons and be it cults / terrorist groups, they have caused the greater damage globally
 
Sanghis/ISIS etc are extremists but not racists per se, if anything, they are egalitarian when it comes to acceptance in their folds , to them, if someone agrees to their ideology, it is most important.
 
Who told you this?


1757685167039.png





:inti
 
They are but not in any way the top 3..
They are much less discriminatory than us desis
Desis are not one group, like Arabs as well.
I found Qatari arabs really egoistic but Libyan Arabs really nice, Arabs almost span two continents it will depend upon whom you encounter.(which is for people too yes).
 
I have relatives and friends who are in Middle East. Most of them have good things to say.

Every country has good and bad. Generalization is not good. :inti
I am half Arab, no offence to your relatives extensive experiences. Btw you are one to talk about generalizations... :misbah
 
View attachment 157743





:inti

So RSS which promotes Hindutva where it works to unite all Hindus irrespective of caste as a single unit is racist?

If it was about Brahmin purity, they would not work for uniting all Hindus. Anyways I think you will enjoy the below picture.

Hajj Amin al-Husayni an anti Jewish and Arab Palestinian Religious leader was in Germany for 5 yrs, meets Hitler and seeks his help to destroy the idea of proposed Jewish state.
Birds of feather, flock together. :dw




1757686033433.png

1757686090930.png
 
Yup. Charlie was a white supremacist. He blatantly said racist things toward black people, Muslim people etc.

Anyway, worst racists on Earth are definitely the sanghis and Zionists.

Sanghis stick their noses everywhere. So, their nonsense is far more felt. :inti

Also their hatred of Islam is evident everywhere, even this thread. They always jump to whataboutery about Arabs but Arabs intermarried other races following the advent of Islam. Fair to say then that the racist Arabs are probably following the path of their idol worshipping forefathers.
 
Also their hatred of Islam is evident everywhere, even this thread. They always jump to whataboutery about Arabs but Arabs intermarried other races following the advent of Islam. Fair to say then that the racist Arabs are probably following the path of their idol worshipping forefathers.

Indeed.

Sanghis are #1 in whataboutery. Discussing things with them is a massive waste of time.
 
I am an Indian and RSS doesn't have much presence in Southern states. BJP has and they do have religious nutjobs. So, does Congress. Why I prefer BJP is due to their growth policy. Congress mandate is filled with reservations and all but not one bit on any-other thing.

People here mixed religion and race, hence I tried to encompass everything.

I don't remember RSS causing terrorist attacks in India or abroad. Its genuine hate towards BJP that they out BJP/RSS in line with Nazis / ISIS. They are not even remotely on same level.

Religious intolerance is what drives extremism. I understand there are many peaceful muslims in Pakistan just like in India (My interactions were largely positive except in Muslim dominated in Old City Hyderabad). One can see that Muslims are the mist religious intolerant ones, due to many reasons and be it cults / terrorist groups, they have caused the greater damage globally
Terrorism is not limited to only killing people , spreading false propagation and creating hatred against certain kind of people and creating genocide like situation is also terrorism. RSS has been working over the years with this mindset. This has taken deep roots now.

Threatening people with speech is also part of terrorism. This mob mentality of lynching Muslims is result of RSS and Bajrang daal.

Now when you are talking about Islamic Terrorism its totally different topic , make another thread we can discuss.
 
1. Brahmins
2. Christian White Supremacists
3. Zionists

Groups that see themselves as superior races often end up being the most racist, looking down on others as if they are lesser.

I don’t subscribe to this mindset in any form. True strength lies in equality and mutual respect, not in pretending others are inferior.

I am a Brahmin, which is supposed to be the highest form of human life on the planet with a history of serving mankind with knowledge. However I believe in qualities like humility as well and refuse to support racist thoughts.

When I was a kid, I grew up listening to relatives and family friends describing Muslims as dirty dishonest people with weird cult practices and many would sometimes describe them as if they were savage animals. I was never comfortable in hearing such things and such hatred because I am loving person.

Regarding African black community also, I heard many descriptions and beliefs that were wrong and disrespectful.

Unfortunately when Pakistan came to being they only got rid of the Brahmin lead Hindu community which looked down upon them as inferior people, but still kept the same racist thoughts for Black community and lower caste Muslims. It was cowardly escapism by higher caste Muslims, not a true social reform which is why Jinnah is now considered a fraud and a failure.
Your relatives and friends were not wrong , in Hinduism Brahmins are the most superior caste.

The Muslims are malechas according to them , that is why they hated them.
 
So RSS which promotes Hindutva where it works to unite all Hindus irrespective of caste as a single unit is racist?

If it was about Brahmin purity, they would not work for uniting all Hindus. Anyways I think you will enjoy the below picture.

Hajj Amin al-Husayni an anti Jewish and Arab Palestinian Religious leader was in Germany for 5 yrs, meets Hitler and seeks his help to destroy the idea of proposed Jewish state.
Birds of feather, flock together. :dw




View attachment 157744

View attachment 157745
Dear @Champ_Pal

These events are true but they need to be put into context.

It is true that Haji Amin met with Hitler repeatedly and it is because his land was being usurped by Zionists and due to dismantling of Ottoman Empire, he thought that the the hope of his people would be in Germany, if Germany wins.

He looked for an alliance during war (at his home) and abroad against the Jews (taking his home) and the British (backing the Jews) and I quote from the article:

Al-Husseini began the conversation by declaring that the Germans and the Arabs had the same enemies: “the English, the Jews, and the Communists.” He proposed an Arab revolt all across the Middle East to fight the Jews; the English, who still ruled Palestine and controlled Iraq and Egypt; and even the French, who controlled Syria and Lebanon. (The British had secured a mandate for Palestine at the Paris peace conference in 1919, and made halting attempts to create a “Jewish national home” there without prejudicing the rights of the Arab population.) He also wanted to form an Arab legion, using Arab prisoners from the French Empire who were then POWs inside Germany. He also asked Hitler to declare publicly, as the German government had privately, that it favored “the elimination of the Jewish national home” in Palestine.

This is similar to what Indian Freedom fighters like Gandhijee and others who wrote to Benito Mussolini and Hitler:


December 24, 1940

DEAR FRIEND,

That I address you as a friend is no formality. I own no foes. My business in life has been for the past 33 years to enlist the friendship of the whole of humanity by befriending mankind, irrespective of race, colour or creed. I hope you will have the time and desire to know how a good portion of humanity who have been living under the influence of that doctrine of universal friendship view your action. We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents. But your own writings and pronouncements and those of your friends and admirers leave no room for doubt that many of your acts are monstrous and unbecoming of human dignity, especially in the estimation of men like me who believe in universal friendliness. Such are your humiliation of Czechoslovakia, the rape of Poland and the swallowing of Denmark. I am aware that your view of life regards such spoliations as virtuous acts. But we have been taught from childhood to regard them as acts degrading humanity. Hence we cannot possibly wish success to your arms. But ours is a unique position. We resist British Imperialism no less than Nazism. If there is a difference, it is in degree. One-fifth of the human race has been brought under the British heel by means that will not bear scrutiny. Our resistance to it does not mean harm to the British people.


Neither at Haji Amin nor Mahatma Gandhi or others were Nazis! They had a common enemy in the British and they tried to make wartime alliances.
 
Dear @Champ_Pal

These events are true but they need to be put into context.

It is true that Haji Amin met with Hitler repeatedly and it is because his land was being usurped by Zionists and due to dismantling of Ottoman Empire, he thought that the the hope of his people would be in Germany, if Germany wins.

He looked for an alliance during war (at his home) and abroad against the Jews (taking his home) and the British (backing the Jews) and I quote from the article:

Al-Husseini began the conversation by declaring that the Germans and the Arabs had the same enemies: “the English, the Jews, and the Communists.” He proposed an Arab revolt all across the Middle East to fight the Jews; the English, who still ruled Palestine and controlled Iraq and Egypt; and even the French, who controlled Syria and Lebanon. (The British had secured a mandate for Palestine at the Paris peace conference in 1919, and made halting attempts to create a “Jewish national home” there without prejudicing the rights of the Arab population.) He also wanted to form an Arab legion, using Arab prisoners from the French Empire who were then POWs inside Germany. He also asked Hitler to declare publicly, as the German government had privately, that it favored “the elimination of the Jewish national home” in Palestine.

This is similar to what Indian Freedom fighters like Gandhijee and others who wrote to Benito Mussolini and Hitler:


December 24, 1940

DEAR FRIEND,

That I address you as a friend is no formality. I own no foes. My business in life has been for the past 33 years to enlist the friendship of the whole of humanity by befriending mankind, irrespective of race, colour or creed. I hope you will have the time and desire to know how a good portion of humanity who have been living under the influence of that doctrine of universal friendship view your action. We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents. But your own writings and pronouncements and those of your friends and admirers leave no room for doubt that many of your acts are monstrous and unbecoming of human dignity, especially in the estimation of men like me who believe in universal friendliness. Such are your humiliation of Czechoslovakia, the rape of Poland and the swallowing of Denmark. I am aware that your view of life regards such spoliations as virtuous acts. But we have been taught from childhood to regard them as acts degrading humanity. Hence we cannot possibly wish success to your arms. But ours is a unique position. We resist British Imperialism no less than Nazism. If there is a difference, it is in degree. One-fifth of the human race has been brought under the British heel by means that will not bear scrutiny. Our resistance to it does not mean harm to the British people.


Neither at Haji Amin nor Mahatma Gandhi or others were Nazis! They had a common enemy in the British and they tried to make wartime alliances.
Don’t just brush it away like it was an innocent Palestinian guy seeking hitler’s help to stop Jews. The hatred goes way deeper than that. You know it too.
 
Funny how I haven’t come across a single self proclaimed Indian atheist here who doesn’t end up echoing Hindutva talking points. Seems like ‘atheism’ in this space is less about rejecting religious extremists and more about repackaging the same ideology under a different label.
 
Don’t just brush it away like it was an innocent Palestinian guy seeking hitler’s help to stop Jews. The hatred goes way deeper than that. You know it too.
I am not at all brushing it away as it is a historical fact, I am addressing it head on and from Jewish sources (second 2)

Omar Ibn Al Khattab (ra): The Opening of Jerusalem to (Jews)

Beginnings of the Golden Age in (Muslim) Spain

Jews in the Ottoman Empire

  1. Then the Zionist decided to take over the land of Palestinian Arabs: Hence the Palestinian outreach to Hitler and elsewhere
  2. British took over India: Hence the Indian outreach to Hitler
Jews & Muslims have co-existed for centuries and nobody can whitewash that Palestinians reached out to Hitler but the reasons are obvious.

Since you are an Indian, you will know change the topic, lie and become dishonest.
 
Funny how I haven’t come across a single self proclaimed Indian atheist here who doesn’t end up echoing Hindutva talking points. Seems like ‘atheism’ in this space is less about rejecting religious extremists and more about repackaging the same ideology under a different label.
There is probably only one atheist lol. Actual atheists was @miandadrules everyone else is always in the middle.
@saadibaba gave me atheists vibes too but can never tell.
 
I am not at all brushing it away as it is a historical fact, I am addressing it head on and from Jewish sources (second 2)

Omar Ibn Al Khattab (ra): The Opening of Jerusalem to (Jews)

Beginnings of the Golden Age in (Muslim) Spain

Jews in the Ottoman Empire

  1. Then the Zionist decided to take over the land of Palestinian Arabs: Hence the Palestinian outreach to Hitler and elsewhere
  2. British took over India: Hence the Indian outreach to Hitler
Jews & Muslims have co-existed for centuries and nobody can whitewash that Palestinians reached out to Hitler but the reasons are obvious.

Since you are an Indian, you will know change the topic, lie and become dishonest.
And what happens to Jews on end times?
Ever heard of how a Muslim should treat if he sees a Jew on the street?
Ever read about the pact of Umar?
The massacre of Banu Qureza?

Have a nice day. 👍
 
And what happens to Jews on end times?
Ever heard of how a Muslim should treat if he sees a Jew on the street?
Ever read about the pact of Umar?
The massacre of Banu Qureza?

Have a nice day. 👍
I know brother @LordJames will respond comprehensively, but Mr pal I will advise you to study about something before commenting. It saves one from embarrassment
 
Even today there are forces that want to divide India on caste lines and destroy Indian civilization.

Below is the manifesto of RSS and Hindutva.

View attachment 157757
Mohan Bhagwat just asked Hindus to have more kids like a retard, something his predecessor did as well due to which in my college years i felt to smack their faces.
I've mellowed down a lot from SFI college days and I do believe in capitalism but right wing is absolutely dumb when it comes to equal rights.
 
Mohan Bhagwat just asked Hindus to have more kids like a retard, something his predecessor did as well due to which in my college years i felt to smack their faces.
I've mellowed down a lot from SFI college days and I do believe in capitalism but right wing is absolutely dumb when it comes to equal rights.
My post was in reference to people calling Hibdutva as some sort of ISIS type unit. So I posted their principles with a screenshot.
We cannot compare RSS and Hindutva to ISIS like some try to equate it to be.

It is silly and dumb in part if RSS to call for Hindus to have more kids. No defending that part.
 
My post was in reference to people calling Hibdutva as some sort of ISIS type unit. So I posted their principles with a screenshot.
We cannot compare RSS and Hindutva to ISIS like some try to equate it to be.

It is silly and dumb in part if RSS to call for Hindus to have more kids. No defending that part.
RSS is along Muslim League, it was formed after Muslim League with very similar goals that’s why they even went into coalition once.
@amax response to your ISIS post as well
 
And what happens to Jews on end times?
Ever heard of how a Muslim should treat if he sees a Jew on the street?
Ever read about the pact of Umar?
The massacre of Banu Qureza?

Have a nice day. 👍
Dear @Champ_Pal

Lets start with an assumption:​
  1. You are an Atheist and my Job is not to convince you to become Muslim and there is no chance that you will agree​
  2. I am a Muslim and it is not your Job to convince you to become Atheist and there is no chance that I will agree​
However, within our paradigms it is possible for us to a polite discussion to try to understand each other's perspectives and that requires:​
  • Polite Conversation with honesty and integrity​
  • Attempt to understand each other's evidence and perspective​
  • When our points are understood or categorically refuted then not to change the argument or keep on insisting and beating around the bush needlessly​
Lets take a single example from your bullet points:

Pact of Umar (RA):

Online Source:
Boston University

Published Source: Jacob Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Sourcebook, 315-1791, (New York: JPS, 1938), 13-15)

Jewish commentary before the Pact: THE Pact of Umar is the body of limitations and privileges entered into by treaty between conquering Muslims and conquered non-Muslims. We have no special treaty of this sort with the Jews, but we must assume that all conquered peoples, including the Jews, had to subscribe to it. Thus the laws cited below and directed against churches apply to synagogues too. The Pact was probably originated about 637 by Umar I after the conquest of Christian Syria and Palestine. By accretions from established practices and precedents, the Pact was extended; yet despite these additions the whole Pact was ascribed to Umar. There are many variants of the text and scholars deny that the text as it now stands could have come from the pen of Umar I; it is generally assumed that its present form dates from about the ninth century.

The Pact of Umar has served to govern the relations between the Muslims and "the people of the book," such as Jews, Christians, and the like, down to the present day.

In addition to the conditions of the Pact listed below, the Jews, like the Christians, paid a head-tax in return for protection, and for exemption from military service. Jews and Christians were also forbidden to hold government office. This Pact, like much medieval legislation, was honored more in the breach than in the observance. In general, though, the Pact increased in stringency with the centuries and was still in force in the 20th century in lands such as Yemen. The Pact is in Arabic.

Wording of the Pact of Umar (RA):

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate!

This is a writing to Umar from the Christians of such and such a city. When You [Muslims] marched against us [Christians],: we asked of you protection for ourselves, our posterity, our possessions, and our co-religionists; and we made this stipulation with you, that we will not erect in our city or the suburbs any new monastery, church, cell or hermitage; that we will not repair any of such buildings that may fall into ruins, or renew those that may be situated in the Muslim quarters of the town; that we will not refuse the Muslims entry into our churches either by night or by day; that we will open the gates wide to passengers and travellers; that we will receive any Muslim traveller into our houses and give him food and lodging for three nights; that we will not harbor any spy in our churches or houses, or conceal any enemy of the Muslims. [At least six of these laws were taken over from earlier Christian laws against infidels.]

That we will not teach our children the Qu'ran [some nationalist Arabs feared the infidels would ridicule the Qu'ran; others did not want infidels even to learn the language]; that we will not make a show of the Christian religion nor invite any one to embrace it; that we will not prevent any of our kinsmen from embracing Islam, if they so desire. That we will honor the Muslims and rise up in our assemblies when they wish to take their seats; that we will not imitate them in our dress, either in the cap, turban, sandals, or parting of the hair; that we will not make use of their expressions of speech, nor adopt their surnames [infidels must not use greetings and special phrases employed only by Muslims]; that we will not ride on saddles, or gird on swords, or take to ourselves arms or wear them, or engrave Arabic inscriptions on our rings; that we will not sell wine [forbidden to Muslims]; that we will shave the front of our heads; that we will keep to our own style of dress, wherever we may be; that we will wear girdles round our waists [infidels wore leather or cord girdles; Muslims, cloth and silk].

That we will not display the cross upon our churches or display our crosses or our sacred books in the streets of the Muslims, or in their market-places; that we will strike the clappers in our churches lightly [wooden rattles or bells summoned the people to church or synagogue]; that we will not recite our services in a loud voice when a Muslim is present; that we will not carry Palm branches [on Palm Sunday] or our images in procession in the streets; that at the burial of our dead we will not chant loudly or carry lighted candles in the streets of the Muslims or their market places; that we will not take any slaves that have already been in the possession of Muslims, nor spy into their houses; and that we will not strike any Muslim.

All this we promise to observe, on behalf of ourselves and our co-religionists, and receive protection from you in exchange; and if we violate any of the conditions of this agreement, then we forfeit your protection and you are at liberty to treat us as enemies and rebels.

Historical Context:
  1. Christians had barred Jews from Jerusalem​
  2. Christianshanded over the city of Jerusalem to Umar (RA)
    1. Umar (RA) respected the city, did not ransack it, did not ruin it, he refused to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre despite being the conqueror out of respect!​
    2. Umar (RA) didn't rape women, Umar (RA) didn't destory any Churches, Umar (RA) didn't commit any genocide!​
    3. Umar (RA) allowed Jews back into Jerusalem into a city which Muslims had conquered (through a treaty)​
    4. Muslims had conquered this city so as per the customs (of war) and for security they barred Christians (whom they were just fighting) from public office!​
    5. Jerusalem is a holy city for Muslims so placed conditions on "other religions" absolutely which is not the case in any other city.​
      1. For example Veranasi (India) had open and public processions under Islamic rule in India with no issues​
What do you have to do?

I could quote you Islamic sources but notice that I have not done that. The pact of Umar as I have seen multiple times in the shops and businesses of Christian in Palestine differs from this Jewish reference in wording but I have deliberately given you a Jewish version deliberately and on purpose for you to to take your best shot at pact of Umar (RA)
  1. You raised the issue of "Pact of Umar" in the context of Jews
  2. Without lying, deceiving, changing the topic please explain the relevance of "Pact of Umar (RA)" within the context of Jews
Nobody is asking you to be convinced of Islam or become a fan of Umar (RA) asking to take your best shot but do so honestly and truthfully.

If you pivot and start discussing Christians or Veransi because I have mentioned it, you will be dishonest because your point was in the context of Jews

You or any other Hindu or Atheist can take your best and most honest shot on Islam and be direct, there is no blasphemy and no disrespect here but be honest and truthful and provide authentic and credible sources.

Thanks

I know brother @LordJames will respond comprehensively, but Mr pal I will advise you to study about something before commenting. It saves one from embarrassment


Lets see what he does.
 
Dear @Champ_Pal

Lets start with an assumption:​
  1. You are an Atheist and my Job is not to convince you to become Muslim and there is no chance that you will agree​
  2. I am a Muslim and it is not your Job to convince you to become Atheist and there is no chance that I will agree​
However, within our paradigms it is possible for us to a polite discussion to try to understand each other's perspectives and that requires:​
  • Polite Conversation with honesty and integrity​
  • Attempt to understand each other's evidence and perspective​
  • When our points are understood or categorically refuted then not to change the argument or keep on insisting and beating around the bush needlessly​
Lets take a single example from your bullet points:

Pact of Umar (RA):

Online Source:
Boston University

Published Source: Jacob Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Sourcebook, 315-1791, (New York: JPS, 1938), 13-15)

Jewish commentary before the Pact: THE Pact of Umar is the body of limitations and privileges entered into by treaty between conquering Muslims and conquered non-Muslims. We have no special treaty of this sort with the Jews, but we must assume that all conquered peoples, including the Jews, had to subscribe to it. Thus the laws cited below and directed against churches apply to synagogues too. The Pact was probably originated about 637 by Umar I after the conquest of Christian Syria and Palestine. By accretions from established practices and precedents, the Pact was extended; yet despite these additions the whole Pact was ascribed to Umar. There are many variants of the text and scholars deny that the text as it now stands could have come from the pen of Umar I; it is generally assumed that its present form dates from about the ninth century.

The Pact of Umar has served to govern the relations between the Muslims and "the people of the book," such as Jews, Christians, and the like, down to the present day.

In addition to the conditions of the Pact listed below, the Jews, like the Christians, paid a head-tax in return for protection, and for exemption from military service. Jews and Christians were also forbidden to hold government office. This Pact, like much medieval legislation, was honored more in the breach than in the observance. In general, though, the Pact increased in stringency with the centuries and was still in force in the 20th century in lands such as Yemen. The Pact is in Arabic.

Wording of the Pact of Umar (RA):

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate!

This is a writing to Umar from the Christians of such and such a city. When You [Muslims] marched against us [Christians],: we asked of you protection for ourselves, our posterity, our possessions, and our co-religionists; and we made this stipulation with you, that we will not erect in our city or the suburbs any new monastery, church, cell or hermitage; that we will not repair any of such buildings that may fall into ruins, or renew those that may be situated in the Muslim quarters of the town; that we will not refuse the Muslims entry into our churches either by night or by day; that we will open the gates wide to passengers and travellers; that we will receive any Muslim traveller into our houses and give him food and lodging for three nights; that we will not harbor any spy in our churches or houses, or conceal any enemy of the Muslims. [At least six of these laws were taken over from earlier Christian laws against infidels.]

That we will not teach our children the Qu'ran [some nationalist Arabs feared the infidels would ridicule the Qu'ran; others did not want infidels even to learn the language]; that we will not make a show of the Christian religion nor invite any one to embrace it; that we will not prevent any of our kinsmen from embracing Islam, if they so desire. That we will honor the Muslims and rise up in our assemblies when they wish to take their seats; that we will not imitate them in our dress, either in the cap, turban, sandals, or parting of the hair; that we will not make use of their expressions of speech, nor adopt their surnames [infidels must not use greetings and special phrases employed only by Muslims]; that we will not ride on saddles, or gird on swords, or take to ourselves arms or wear them, or engrave Arabic inscriptions on our rings; that we will not sell wine [forbidden to Muslims]; that we will shave the front of our heads; that we will keep to our own style of dress, wherever we may be; that we will wear girdles round our waists [infidels wore leather or cord girdles; Muslims, cloth and silk].

That we will not display the cross upon our churches or display our crosses or our sacred books in the streets of the Muslims, or in their market-places; that we will strike the clappers in our churches lightly [wooden rattles or bells summoned the people to church or synagogue]; that we will not recite our services in a loud voice when a Muslim is present; that we will not carry Palm branches [on Palm Sunday] or our images in procession in the streets; that at the burial of our dead we will not chant loudly or carry lighted candles in the streets of the Muslims or their market places; that we will not take any slaves that have already been in the possession of Muslims, nor spy into their houses; and that we will not strike any Muslim.

All this we promise to observe, on behalf of ourselves and our co-religionists, and receive protection from you in exchange; and if we violate any of the conditions of this agreement, then we forfeit your protection and you are at liberty to treat us as enemies and rebels.

Historical Context:
  1. Christians had barred Jews from Jerusalem​
  2. Christianshanded over the city of Jerusalem to Umar (RA)
    1. Umar (RA) respected the city, did not ransack it, did not ruin it, he refused to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre despite being the conqueror out of respect!​
    2. Umar (RA) didn't rape women, Umar (RA) didn't destory any Churches, Umar (RA) didn't commit any genocide!​
    3. Umar (RA) allowed Jews back into Jerusalem into a city which Muslims had conquered (through a treaty)​
    4. Muslims had conquered this city so as per the customs (of war) and for security they barred Christians (whom they were just fighting) from public office!​
    5. Jerusalem is a holy city for Muslims so placed conditions on "other religions" absolutely which is not the case in any other city.​
      1. For example Veranasi (India) had open and public processions under Islamic rule in India with no issues​
What do you have to do?

I could quote you Islamic sources but notice that I have not done that. The pact of Umar as I have seen multiple times in the shops and businesses of Christian in Palestine differs from this Jewish reference in wording but I have deliberately given you a Jewish version deliberately and on purpose for you to to take your best shot at pact of Umar (RA)
  1. You raised the issue of "Pact of Umar" in the context of Jews
  2. Without lying, deceiving, changing the topic please explain the relevance of "Pact of Umar (RA)" within the context of Jews
Nobody is asking you to be convinced of Islam or become a fan of Umar (RA) asking to take your best shot but do so honestly and truthfully.

If you pivot and start discussing Christians or Veransi because I have mentioned it, you will be dishonest because your point was in the context of Jews

You or any other Hindu or Atheist can take your best and most honest shot on Islam and be direct, there is no blasphemy and no disrespect here but be honest and truthful and provide authentic and credible sources.

Thanks




Lets see what he does.
Dude, arguing with you is not good for anyone. You will take 1 year and a thousand posts just to confirm I am not a robot.

I have seen your tap dancing in the Mira thread. I lost patience. You strawnanned the alternate tune path and kept punching it when I never denied it.

I will only respond if you are crisp in your answer and not take 1 week for one small point to answer.
 
original Claim of @Champ_Pal

And what happens to Jews on end times?
Ever heard of how a Muslim should treat if he sees a Jew on the street?
Ever read about the pact of Umar?

The massacre of Banu Qureza?

Have a nice day. 👍

Response:

Dear @Champ_Pal

Lets start with an assumption:​
  1. You are an Atheist and my Job is not to convince you to become Muslim and there is no chance that you will agree​
  2. I am a Muslim and it is not your Job to convince you to become Atheist and there is no chance that I will agree​
However, within our paradigms it is possible for us to a polite discussion to try to understand each other's perspectives and that requires:​
  • Polite Conversation with honesty and integrity​
  • Attempt to understand each other's evidence and perspective​
  • When our points are understood or categorically refuted then not to change the argument or keep on insisting and beating around the bush needlessly​
Lets take a single example from your bullet points:

Pact of Umar (RA):

Online Source:
Boston University

Published Source: Jacob Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Sourcebook, 315-1791, (New York: JPS, 1938), 13-15)

Jewish commentary before the Pact: THE Pact of Umar is the body of limitations and privileges entered into by treaty between conquering Muslims and conquered non-Muslims. We have no special treaty of this sort with the Jews, but we must assume that all conquered peoples, including the Jews, had to subscribe to it. Thus the laws cited below and directed against churches apply to synagogues too. The Pact was probably originated about 637 by Umar I after the conquest of Christian Syria and Palestine. By accretions from established practices and precedents, the Pact was extended; yet despite these additions the whole Pact was ascribed to Umar. There are many variants of the text and scholars deny that the text as it now stands could have come from the pen of Umar I; it is generally assumed that its present form dates from about the ninth century.

The Pact of Umar has served to govern the relations between the Muslims and "the people of the book," such as Jews, Christians, and the like, down to the present day.

In addition to the conditions of the Pact listed below, the Jews, like the Christians, paid a head-tax in return for protection, and for exemption from military service. Jews and Christians were also forbidden to hold government office. This Pact, like much medieval legislation, was honored more in the breach than in the observance. In general, though, the Pact increased in stringency with the centuries and was still in force in the 20th century in lands such as Yemen. The Pact is in Arabic.

Wording of the Pact of Umar (RA):

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate!

This is a writing to Umar from the Christians of such and such a city. When You [Muslims] marched against us [Christians],: we asked of you protection for ourselves, our posterity, our possessions, and our co-religionists; and we made this stipulation with you, that we will not erect in our city or the suburbs any new monastery, church, cell or hermitage; that we will not repair any of such buildings that may fall into ruins, or renew those that may be situated in the Muslim quarters of the town; that we will not refuse the Muslims entry into our churches either by night or by day; that we will open the gates wide to passengers and travellers; that we will receive any Muslim traveller into our houses and give him food and lodging for three nights; that we will not harbor any spy in our churches or houses, or conceal any enemy of the Muslims. [At least six of these laws were taken over from earlier Christian laws against infidels.]

That we will not teach our children the Qu'ran [some nationalist Arabs feared the infidels would ridicule the Qu'ran; others did not want infidels even to learn the language]; that we will not make a show of the Christian religion nor invite any one to embrace it; that we will not prevent any of our kinsmen from embracing Islam, if they so desire. That we will honor the Muslims and rise up in our assemblies when they wish to take their seats; that we will not imitate them in our dress, either in the cap, turban, sandals, or parting of the hair; that we will not make use of their expressions of speech, nor adopt their surnames [infidels must not use greetings and special phrases employed only by Muslims]; that we will not ride on saddles, or gird on swords, or take to ourselves arms or wear them, or engrave Arabic inscriptions on our rings; that we will not sell wine [forbidden to Muslims]; that we will shave the front of our heads; that we will keep to our own style of dress, wherever we may be; that we will wear girdles round our waists [infidels wore leather or cord girdles; Muslims, cloth and silk].

That we will not display the cross upon our churches or display our crosses or our sacred books in the streets of the Muslims, or in their market-places; that we will strike the clappers in our churches lightly [wooden rattles or bells summoned the people to church or synagogue]; that we will not recite our services in a loud voice when a Muslim is present; that we will not carry Palm branches [on Palm Sunday] or our images in procession in the streets; that at the burial of our dead we will not chant loudly or carry lighted candles in the streets of the Muslims or their market places; that we will not take any slaves that have already been in the possession of Muslims, nor spy into their houses; and that we will not strike any Muslim.

All this we promise to observe, on behalf of ourselves and our co-religionists, and receive protection from you in exchange; and if we violate any of the conditions of this agreement, then we forfeit your protection and you are at liberty to treat us as enemies and rebels.

Historical Context:
  1. Christians had barred Jews from Jerusalem​
  2. Christianshanded over the city of Jerusalem to Umar (RA)
    1. Umar (RA) respected the city, did not ransack it, did not ruin it, he refused to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre despite being the conqueror out of respect!​
    2. Umar (RA) didn't rape women, Umar (RA) didn't destory any Churches, Umar (RA) didn't commit any genocide!​
    3. Umar (RA) allowed Jews back into Jerusalem into a city which Muslims had conquered (through a treaty)​
    4. Muslims had conquered this city so as per the customs (of war) and for security they barred Christians (whom they were just fighting) from public office!​
    5. Jerusalem is a holy city for Muslims so placed conditions on "other religions" absolutely which is not the case in any other city.​
      1. For example Veranasi (India) had open and public processions under Islamic rule in India with no issues​
What do you have to do?

I could quote you Islamic sources but notice that I have not done that. The pact of Umar as I have seen multiple times in the shops and businesses of Christian in Palestine differs from this Jewish reference in wording but I have deliberately given you a Jewish version deliberately and on purpose for you to to take your best shot at pact of Umar (RA)
  1. You raised the issue of "Pact of Umar" in the context of Jews
  2. Without lying, deceiving, changing the topic please explain the relevance of "Pact of Umar (RA)" within the context of Jews
Nobody is asking you to be convinced of Islam or become a fan of Umar (RA) asking to take your best shot but do so honestly and truthfully.

If you pivot and start discussing Christians or Veransi because I have mentioned it, you will be dishonest because your point was in the context of Jews

You or any other Hindu or Atheist can take your best and most honest shot on Islam and be direct, there is no blasphemy and no disrespect here but be honest and truthful and provide authentic and credible sources.

Thanks




Lets see what he does.

Answer by @Champ_Pal

Dude, arguing with you is not good for anyone. You will take 1 year and a thousand posts just to confirm I am not a robot.

I have seen your tap dancing in the Mira thread. I lost patience. You strawnanned the alternate tune path and kept punching it when I never denied it.

I will only respond if you are crisp in your answer and not take 1 week for one small point to answer.

@The Bald Eagle

I rest my case against the Indians!
 
And what happens to Jews on end times?
Ever heard of how a Muslim should treat if he sees a Jew on the street?
Ever read about the pact of Umar?
The massacre of Banu Qureza?

Have a nice day. 👍
One line Answer for Everyone Else who is "Not Indian":

Pact of Umar (RA) was between Muslims and Christians and nothing to do with the Jews!

Two line Answer for Everyone Else who is "Not Indian":


  1. The word "Jew" is not even mentioned
  2. "Jews" never signed it nor were part of it!
 
original Claim of @Champ_Pal



Response:



Answer by @Champ_Pal




@The Bald Eagle

I rest my case against the Indians!
Arguing with you is pointless. I wasted 1 week last time and it yielded nothing. Lots of tap dancing and straw manning.

Bas karo saaab!! I shudder whenever I think how many times I said the same thing to you and yet you kept dodging my question and talked about speculative math equations.

I need a lot more patience and time for these things which I don’t have right now.

By the way, you don’t have to worry about converting me. My rational brain will not accept supernatural stories that easily.
:mv
 
Arguing with you is pointless. I wasted 1 week last time and it yielded nothing. Lots of tap dancing and straw manning.

Bas karo saaab!! I shudder whenever I think how many times I said the same thing to you and yet you kept dodging my question and talked about speculative math equations.

I need a lot more patience and time for these things which I don’t have right now.

By the way, you don’t have to worry about converting me. My rational brain will not accept supernatural stories that easily.
:mv

I see you never got a straight answer to your simple question on the other thread ... not surprised at all. Has he resorted to insulting you yet ?
 
By the way, you don’t have to worry about converting me. My rational brain will not accept supernatural stories that easily.​

So the problem here is that unless you fight-back vehemently by responding in a language that he understands ( which is brute force only ) he will categorize you as an easy sales prospect to steamroll you by administering you some "dawah". This is how these people roll in 2025 and believe you me there will be many a minion standing by him and cheer leading him.​
 
I see you never got a straight answer to your simple question on the other thread ... not surprised at all. Has he resorted to insulting you yet ?
Credit to him, he never insulted me personally.

However, ever since my week long debate with him, he upped the ante on India and Hinduism. It is understandable. He is a firm believer in his religion and the miracles there.
 
Your relatives and friends were not wrong , in Hinduism Brahmins are the most superior caste.

The Muslims are malechas according to them , that is why they hated them.

Cleanliness has always been central to Brahminism. Historically, Brahmins maintained distance from certain lower castes because they believed these groups did not meet even the minimum standards of hygiene.

When many from these castes converted to Islam in large numbers, Brahmins naturally extended the same concerns to them as well. This tension continues to echo even today.

But it is not unique to Brahmins. Globally, similar patterns exist. Lower-caste migrants abroad often face the same criticism from white supremacists who view them through the same lens of hygiene and conduct.

The second factor is family structure. Brahmins shaped what they believed to be an ideal family model. In contrast, the acceptance in some Muslim communities of practices such as marrying sisters, and in rare cases even mothers or daughters, was viewed by Brahmins as a complete violation of order and morality, reinforcing their hostility.

Finally, mannerisms and communication. Brahmins placed high value on civility, refinement, and decorum in speech and behavior. To them, the informal, street-like manner of speaking and conduct common among lower castes and Muslims felt disruptive and degrading.

In essence, Brahmins saw themselves as upholders of perfection and order, reacting strongly against any deviation they considered a decline.


@LordJames @uppercut @Champ_Pal @HalBass9 @sweep_shot
 
Credit to him, he never insulted me personally.

However, ever since my week long debate with him, he upped the ante on India and Hinduism. It is understandable. He is a firm believer in his religion and the miracles there.
You disappointed @uppercut with that line, since he is the one who resorts to abuse whenever the going gets tough, and that happens far too often. I have never seen @LordJames cross the line. :inti
 
GqSXzEjWgAAm0ak.jpg
 
Back
Top