What was the religion followed in pre-Islamic Arabia?

[SangasCoverDrive]

What was the religion followed in pre-Islamic Arabia? I have read a lot about how Arabians before the formation of Islam had no morals and were wicked etc but what religion was it exactly? Was it hinduism or Buddhism since as far as I remember they used to worship idols?

 

[street cricketer]

Some form of idolatry, polytheism or pagan beliefs was prevalent in many ancient native populations across the world like in Africa, the Americas, west asia, Polynesia and of course the Indian subcontinent in the distant past. When humans were in stone age, the only assumption we can make is that since humans were at the mercy of nature and its calamities the most, it's not far fetched to assume that the people living in those days would have equated nature with an all encompassing powerful God like entity and therefore revered different forms of nature as different forms of Gods - like the sun god, rain god and so on..

So it's a bit wrong to assume that hindus were the only group with idol worship. The pre islamic Arabs, Africans, Polynesians, etc., had their own deities and djinns in their belief system, that were distinct from Hinduism.

 

[Giannis]

It was mostly paganism and there were sizable populations of Jews and Christians in Arabia. Paganism was common all over the world before Abhramic faiths rose to prominence so it isn't just the domain of Hinduism or Buddhism.

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

It was mostly paganism and there were sizable populations of Jews and Christians in Arabia. Paganism was common all over the world before Abhramic faiths rose to prominence so it isn't just the domain of Hinduism or Buddhism.

But there must have been some traces of it? Like there are a lot of Zoroastrians despite all of them being almost wiped out from Iran by Arabs.

 

[Tubs]

I'm pretty sure almost all traces are wiped out. Abrahamic faiths, especially Islam, have a history of destroying non-theistic faiths, or things which they don't deem important (such as the burning of Alexandria library, the burning of the library in Bengal that I can't remember the name of, destruction of much Anglo-Saxon literature and heritage in the UK, etc).

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I'm pretty sure almost all traces are wiped out. Abrahamic faiths, especially Islam, have a history of destroying non-theistic faiths, or things which they don't deem important (such as the burning of Alexandria library, the burning of the library in Bengal that I can't remember the name of, destruction of much Anglo-Saxon literature and heritage in the UK, etc).

You are a propaganda machine.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

I'm pretty sure almost all traces are wiped out. Abrahamic faiths, especially Islam, have a history of destroying non-theistic faiths, or things which they don't deem important (such as the burning of Alexandria library, the burning of the library in Bengal that I can't remember the name of, destruction of much Anglo-Saxon literature and heritage in the UK, etc).

Lol.. are you descendant of a gatekeeper of Somnath that you’re still sore from being beaten black and blue by Ghazni?

 

[PetroDollars]

Depemds what you mean by arabia, its large.

Persia was dominated by Zororastraisns, while arabia had jews and pagans, with the few Christians.

 

[Rana]

There was a concept of Allah prevalent amongst the Arabs before Islam as well. They were fundamentally monotheists but I believe the religion was divided into various tribes being represented by their appointed idols. So the religion was an off-shoot of the Abrahamic faiths that were dominant in Arab peninsula but more inclined towards the feudal, tribal traditions of the ferocious Arabs.

This concept of Allah before the arrival of Muhammad is key, I haven’t read anything satisfying on the subject, it is very ambiguous

 

[Rana]

From what I understand, the concept of Pre-Islamic idolatry was very similar to past/current Hinduism where the various Idols are the source towards the final, almighty being that is the creator of the universe. However, it was the over excessive trust and rituals that were the point of dispute amongst Muslims, founded by Muhammad (s.a.w) who was a muawahid (worshiper of one Supreme being) throughout his life. And this one being was Allah, remember that Muhammad s.a.w’s father’s name was AbdUllah (Slave of Allah), a clear sign of the presence of Allah amongst the Quraish at least.

Abdullah Ibn Ubay bin Salul was destined to become the chief of Medina around the 10th year of Nabuwa (610ad approximately), before the arrival of Muhammad s.a.w into Medina upon the invitation of the Ansaar. Even the the man who was dubbed as the ‘king of the hypocrites’ and who did not truly accept Islam was originally named Abdullah by his parents in Medina. Although I am not sure if Abdullah bin Ubayy originally came from Mecca where the word Allah was common amongst the Arabs.

 

[PakLFC]

Paganism. The holy kaaba had hundred's of different idols.

 

[guna]

Arabs were not a homogeneous society. Anyone who lives in the desert is an Arab.

Arabs used to follow various gods. They were worshiping Bal. The Nabateans of pre-Islamic Arabia also worshipped Allah and his 3 daughters, Uzza, Manat and Allat. Some Arabs practiced Christianity and some practiced heretical sects of Christianity. For example, Hazrat Khadijah and her uncle Waraqa ibn Naufal were Christians. In fact Waraqa was translating many Christian holy books to Arabic. Some Arabs also followed Prophet Mani. Manichaeism was quite popular among Arabs too.

Nobody really knows if pre- Islamic Arabia was a brutal place for women. There were no contemporary recordings of any female infanticide in Arabia. But we do know that women did enjoy more freedom and could own businesses.

There were tribal wars too. The Arabs were split into giving allegiance to both Persians and Romans. There were internal wars as Arab tribes acted like mercenaries and took money from Persians as well as Romans to fight their wars.

Some Jews lived among Arabs. But there is no evidence of any Jewish presence in Hejaz area. But Jews did live in Northern Arabia. Places like Syria, Jordan had Jewish people and there is evidence for it.

 

[guna]

Paganism. The holy kaaba had hundred's of different idols.

There were several kabahs in pre Islamic Arabia. Nabateans were spread in the entire Arabian peninsula trading goods with various cities.

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

You are a propaganda machine.

It's not propaganda. Almost all religions were spread by sword and Islam is nothing different here. You have to read about the Islamization of Persia just for a bit of an idea about how Islam was spread during its early days.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

I'm pretty sure almost all traces are wiped out. Abrahamic faiths, especially Islam, have a history of destroying non-theistic faiths, or things which they don't deem important (such as the burning of Alexandria library, the burning of the library in Bengal that I can't remember the name of, destruction of much Anglo-Saxon literature and heritage in the UK, etc).

Non Abrahamic faiths did not destroy and burn things? Do you know what religions destroyed the first and second Jewish temple in Jerusalem? Hint it was not an Abrahamic religion.

 

[Giannis]

But there must have been some traces of it? Like there are a lot of Zoroastrians despite all of them being almost wiped out from Iran by Arabs.

Pretty much all native Arabian tribes became Muslim; Zoroastrians weren't wuped out of Iran, most converted to Islam over several centuries but there a few Zoroastrians do remain.

 

[Giannis]

I'm pretty sure almost all traces are wiped out. Abrahamic faiths, especially Islam, have a history of destroying non-theistic faiths, or things which they don't deem important (such as the burning of Alexandria library, the burning of the library in Bengal that I can't remember the name of, destruction of much Anglo-Saxon literature and heritage in the UK, etc).

Mongols ransacked Baghdad - one of the world's capital of knowledge and at that time they weren't Muslin.

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

Pretty much all native Arabian tribes became Muslim; Zoroastrians weren't wuped out of Iran, most converted to Islam over several centuries but there a few Zoroastrians do remain.

Why would they convert though? They had a religion for ages and which was quite peaceful in its own sense. The truth is that a lot of them converted because of sword and not a word and those who remained Zoroastrian, flocked to sub-continent and now there are a lot of them even in the West.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

It's not propaganda. Almost all religions were spread by sword and Islam is nothing different here. You have to read about the Islamization of Persia just for a bit of an idea about how Islam was spread during its early days.

How many Muslim soldiers went to Maldives, lakshadweep, which are like 99% Muslim?

Anyway humans have been invading each other since the beginning of time. Muslims were no different. However most of the land that Muslims conquered took centuries to become Muslim majority. And some land like North India never did even though Muslims had political control over it for 600 years.

Conversions happened not because Muslims forced the locals to become Muslim, however since the elite were Muslim the common man had an incentive for the common to convert. Benefits in jobs, taxes, etc. Not to mention any inter marriage between Muslims and non Muslims almost always resulted in the children being raised Muslim. And the Muslims who ruled the land funded missionaries. However you can hardly call that being spread by the sword.

Look at Spain, Muslims ruled for centuries, yet there was still a Christian population. Christians conquered it they expelled non Christians or forced them to convert. That is forced conversion.

 

[Giannis]

Why would they convert though? They had a religion for ages and which was quite peaceful in its own sense. The truth is that a lot of them converted because of sword and not a word and those who remained Zoroastrian, flocked to sub-continent and now there are a lot of them even in the West.

Not by sword, it just made sense - they saw G-d's light, they're plenty of books about how Islam spread in Arabia so you could read those by neutral scholars or you can go around posting your propaganda which is what your kind get paid to do online, it's a sad pathetic life lool but I understand life is tough in india

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

How many Muslim soldiers went to Maldives, lakshadweep, which are like 99% Muslim?

Anyway humans have been invading each other since the beginning of time. Muslims were no different. However most of the land that Muslims conquered took centuries to become Muslim majority. And some land like North India never did even though Muslims had political control over it for 600 years.

Conversions happened not because Muslims forced the locals to become Muslim, however since the elite were Muslim the common man had an incentive for the common to convert. Benefits in jobs, taxes, etc. Not to mention any inter marriage between Muslims and non Muslims almost always resulted in the children being raised Muslim. And the Muslims who ruled the land funded missionaries. However you can hardly call that being spread by the sword.

Look at Spain, Muslims ruled for centuries, yet there was still a Christian population. Christians conquered it they expelled non Christians or forced them to convert. That is forced conversion.

Look at Iran, then you would know what forced conversion is. Maldives and Lakshadweep might have converted voluntarily but there is no way you could say that forced conversion did not exist in Muslim empires. You are saying that Christians in Spain forcefully converted non-Christians to Christianity but if you ask a Christian, they would say that most of them converted wilfully and will talk about non-Muslims being forced to convert to Islam.

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

Not by sword, it just made sense - they saw G-d's light, they're plenty of books about how Islam spread in Arabia so you could read those by neutral scholars or you can go around posting your propaganda which is what your kind get paid to do online, it's a sad pathetic life lool but I understand life is tough in india

First of all, MODS is this kind of language allowed on this forum? If yes then I would like to give him a reply and secondly, I am not an Indian but actually a Pakistani but unlike you, I don't have any bias. Same thing everyone says about their religion that people saw the light or whatever. Ask a Hindu in India who would forcefully convert a Muslim into Hinduism and they would say that they saw the light and converted.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Look at Iran, then you would know what forced conversion is. Maldives and Lakshadweep might have converted voluntarily but there is no way you could say that forced conversion did not exist in Muslim empires. You are saying that Christians in Spain forcefully converted non-Christians to Christianity but if you ask a Christian, they would say that most of them converted wilfully and will talk about non-Muslims being forced to convert to Islam.

In Spain its documented that Spanish Kings gave them a choice to convert or leave Spain. Muslim Kings for the most part never did that. A non Muslim simply had to pay a tax. That doesnt mean it never happened, but it was not the policy for the most part.

Oh yea you can add Malaysia, Indonesia, Zanzibar, Somalia to areas where no invading Muslim army went yet the population is Muslim majority.

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

In Spain its documented that Spanish Kings gave them a choice to convert or leave Spain. Muslim Kings for the most part never did that. A non Muslim simply had to pay a tax. That doesnt mean it never happened, but it was not the policy for the most part.

Oh yea you can add Malaysia, Indonesia, Zanzibar, Somalia to areas where no invading Muslim army went yet the population is Muslim majority.

LOL they asked poor people to pay taxes and if they did not, they would either be asked to convert or get killed. Now tell me how is that not forced conversion?

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Why would they convert though?

Their religion was similar to Islam. And like i mentioned above since the elite were Muslim the common man had an incentive for the common to convert.

They had a religion for ages and which was quite peaceful in its own sense.

Their were religions before Zoroastrianism as well. By that logic why did they convert to Zoroastrianism? Were they forced? And as as peaceful, have you ever read Greek mythology? The idea that pagan religions are peaceful is just not true.

The truth is that a lot of them converted because of sword and not a word and those who remained Zoroastrian, flocked to sub-continent and now there are a lot of them even in the West.

Their are about 70k Parsis in the subcontinent, and about 100k in the world. I would not call that alot. Thats a fringe minority.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

LOL they asked poor people to pay taxes and if they did not, they would either be asked to convert or get killed. Now tell me how is that not forced conversion?

The poor did not have to pay the tax. Also those who joined the military did not have to pay.

Muslim jurists required adult, free, sane males among the dhimma community to pay the jizya, while exempting women, children, elders, handicapped, the ill, the insane, monks, hermits, slaves, and musta'mins—non-Muslim foreigners who only temporarily reside in Muslim lands. Dhimmis who chose to join military service were also exempted from payment, as were those who could not afford to pay

Keep in mind that Muslims had to pay Zakat. For the medieval era this was a pretty fair system. Muslims treated non Muslims better than Christians treated non Christians, and better than how upper caste Hindus treated lower caste Hindus.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

I have seen some far right Hindus say this as all but it makes no sense. Maybe it made sense in some cases like a few hundreds years ago but makes no sense now. I am pretty sure the poster you quoted nor anyone here was ever been colonized or forced to follow Islam. I doubt anyone here is following Islam because of a “conqueror”.

They believe that religion you practice needs to originate in the country you are from, otherwise you are practicing a foreign religion. Same goes for language. Its complete nonsense but this is what they believe.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The most vocal indian posters who contribute to various discussions about Islam, and the Muslim world - such as joshila and itachi for example - have maintained that hinduism is a culture not a religion, and as such is tied to the subcontinent, so I am guessing that the answer to the question would be Buddhism.

 

[street cricketer]

Muslims treated non Muslims better than Christians treated non Christians, and better than how upper caste Hindus treated lower caste Hindus.

This is a pretty silly assertion without factual basis. For the lower castes, it didn't matter whether they were oppressed by the upper caste hindus or the muslims. In the former, they would be oppressed based on their caste and in the latter, they would be oppressed based on their religion.

If anything, it's the upper caste hindus who felt the pangs of muslim rule as they lost the privilege they held previously. Even still, there are numerous accounts of many upper caste hindus serving in high administrative positions even in the courts and armies of the muslim rulers. The situation didn't change much for the lower castes though, and if anything, probably worsened due to slave trade.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

This is a pretty silly assertion without factual basis. For the lower castes, it didn't matter whether they were oppressed by the upper caste hindus or the muslims. In the former, they would be oppressed based on their caste and in the latter, they would be oppressed based on their religion.

If anything, it's the upper caste hindus who felt the pangs of muslim rule as they lost the privilege they held previously. Even still, there are numerous accounts of many upper caste hindus serving in high administrative positions even in the courts and armies of the muslim rulers. The situation didn't change much for the lower castes though, and if anything, probably worsened due to slave trade.

How were lower caste hindus oppressed by Muslims? They at least had the choice to become Muslim and leave the caste behind, but they also had the choice to remain a low caste hindu. How is that any fault of the Muslim rulers?

 

[street cricketer]

How were lower caste hindus oppressed by Muslims? They at least had the choice to become Muslim and leave the caste behind, but they also had the choice to remain a low caste hindu. How is that any fault of the Muslim rulers?

I do not understand your question.

Are you saying the lower caste hindus in those days had the choice to leave their religion and escape discrimination and the choice to remain in their religion and face discrimination whether caste or religion wise?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I do not understand your question.

Are you saying the lower caste hindus in those days had the choice to leave their religion and escape discrimination and the choice to remain in their religion and face discrimination whether caste or religion wise?

I think so. Your translation seems slightly more convoluted than my version but seems similar.

 

[street cricketer]

I think so. Your translation seems slightly more convoluted than my version but seems similar.

The so called "lower caste" people are mostly those found in villages and the deep interiors of India, who have worship of their own tribal/indigenous gods and deities since time immemorial.

It's a bit harsh to say that the lower castes needed to ditch their religion to escape discrimination on the account of their supposed caste from the upper caste hindus or on the account of their religion from their muslim rulers. It's quite possible that the supposed lower caste hindus wanted to retain their tribal and native beliefs AND escape discrimination whether on the account of their caste or their religion.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The so called "lower caste" people are mostly those found in villages and the deep interiors of India, who have worship of their own tribal/indigenous gods and deities since time immemorial.

It's a bit harsh to say that the lower castes needed to ditch their religion to escape discrimination on the account of their supposed caste from the upper caste hindus or on the account of their religion from their muslim rulers. It's quite possible that the supposed lower caste hindus wanted to retain their tribal and native beliefs AND escape discrimination whether on the account of their caste or their religion.

Well they had the choice to retain their religion and lower caste status, and many chose to do so. I don't really see how this is an issue.

 

[street cricketer]

Well they had the choice to retain their religion and lower caste status, and many chose to do so. I don't really see how this is an issue.

Well they kinda did, but the point is did that choice make them immune to discrimination from their muslim rulers? No.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Well they kinda did, but the point is did that choice make them immune to discrimination from their muslim rulers? No.

What discrimination are we talking about specifically?

 

[street cricketer]

What discrimination are we talking about specifically?

Slave trade, just from the top of my head.

 

[Tubs]

Non Abrahamic faiths did not destroy and burn things? Do you know what religions destroyed the first and second Jewish temple in Jerusalem? Hint it was not an Abrahamic religion.

Never said they didn't. And yes, the Babylonians and Romans did terrible things. Unsure what religion that Babylonians followed, but definitely wasn't Abrahamic, they likely had their own indigenous religion I guess. And considering the time of the 2nd Temple falling, Romans still believed in their indigenous religions then. Of course Abrahamic faiths aren't the only ones who did bad things, but this doesn't make what I said wrong. Let's not forget that the 2nd Temple being destroyed was a part of a way, rather than a conquest, but still doesn't justify it.

Mongols ransacked Baghdad - one of the world's capital of knowledge and at that time they weren't Muslin.

Absolutely. As I said above, this is not unique to Abrahamic faiths, but it doesn't invalidate what I said about Abrahamic faiths having a bloody history, and destroying much culture and knowledge.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Slave trade, just from the top of my head.

Were higher or middle ranking caste hindus exempted from slave trade?

 

[street cricketer]

Were higher or middle ranking caste hindus exempted from slave trade?

Not sure. Why?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Not sure. Why?

It's quite difficult to understand how discrimination would be viewed going back a few centuries, just trying to get an idea of the dynamics of what was going on back then.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Never said they didn't. And yes, the Babylonians and Romans did terrible things. Unsure what religion that Babylonians followed, but definitely wasn't Abrahamic, they likely had their own indigenous religion I guess. And considering the time of the 2nd Temple falling, Romans still believed in their indigenous religions then. Of course Abrahamic faiths aren't the only ones who did bad things, but this doesn't make what I said wrong. Let's not forget that the 2nd Temple being destroyed was a part of a way, rather than a conquest, but still doesn't justify it.

You certainly implied it, by singling out Abrahmic religions. Imagine if Christians say Pagans are bad because Viking invaded England, looted money, destroyed churches, and believed they would get valhalla if they died. That would be wrong as well, everyone did terrible things back then. Everyone invaded land, killed locals, raped women, destroyed religious sites. That was the way of the world. No need to single anyone out.

 

[Tubs]

You certainly implied it, by singling out Abrahmic religions. Imagine if Christians say Pagans are bad because Viking invaded England, looted money, destroyed churches, and believed they would get valhalla if they died. That would be wrong as well everyone did terrible things back then. Everyone invaded land, killed locals, raped women, destroyed religious sites. That was the way of the world. No need to single anyone out.

But the sheer scale of it is unparalleled. Abrahamic religions are the undisputed kings of murder, rape, genocide, cultural erasure, intolerance, fanaticism, etc. You can try and read an implication if you want, but the topic itself was an Abrahamic religion, so I wasn't going to mention what pagans did, especially when the question was regarding how pagans got erased from Arabia.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

This is a pretty silly assertion without factual basis. For the lower castes, it didn't matter whether they were oppressed by the upper caste hindus or the muslims. In the former, they would be oppressed based on their caste and in the latter, they would be oppressed based on their religion.

A low caste Hindu could not become an upper caste Hindu. However they could have left Hinduism and converted to Islam. They would not face discrimination on the account of their religion then. They would be just like other Muslims. And in a few generations their family would not even know their family used to be low caste.

This is why I mentioned that Muslims treated non Muslims better than how upper caste Hindus treated lower caste Hindus.

If anything, it's the upper caste hindus who felt the pangs of muslim rule as they lost the privilege they held previously. Even still, there are numerous accounts of many upper caste hindus serving in high administrative positions even in the courts and armies of the muslim rulers. The situation didn't change much for the lower castes though, and if anything, probably worsened due to slave trade.

This was exactly my point. Muslims had Hindus in their courts, armies, and they even intermarried with Hindus. Their were many Muslim Kings with Hindu Queens. How many low castes served in Hindu courts? Did Upper caste Hindus ever marry low caste women? Were they ever low caste Hindu women who were Queens?

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

But the sheer scale of it is unparalleled. Abrahamic religions are the undisputed kings of murder, rape, genocide, cultural erasure, intolerance, fanaticism, etc. You can try and read an implication if you want, but the topic itself was an Abrahamic religion, so I wasn't going to mention what pagans did, especially when the question was regarding how pagans got erased from Arabia.

Yea because they had better technology and weapons. If the pagans had developed those weapons, and technology they would have used it also.

For example the reason that Native Americans did not invade and destroy Europe was not out of any benevolence. Its because they couldn't. Same goes for Subsahara Africans.

No need to feel bad for the pagans. Its kind of like if 2 gangsters are fighting, the loser does not become a innocent victim.

 

[street cricketer]

A low caste Hindu could not become an upper caste Hindu. However they could have left Hinduism and converted to Islam. They would not face discrimination on the account of their religion then. They would be just like other Muslims. And in a few generations their family would not even know their family used to be low caste.

This is why I mentioned that Muslims treated non Muslims better than how upper caste Hindus treated lower caste Hindus.

That's an insensitive thing to say. It's like a Buddhist in Myanmar saying to an Ahmadi who alleges discrimination from both muslims and Buddhists (muslims on account of his sect and buddhists on account of his religion), "Well you could just leave Islam and embrace Buddhism - you wouldn't be discriminated based on your religion in Myanmar then. And in a few generations, your family wouldn't even know they were muslims in the first place. Voila!"

This was exactly my point. Muslims had Hindus in their courts, armies, and they even intermarried with Hindus. Their were many Muslim Kings with Hindu Queens. How many low castes served in Hindu courts? Did Upper caste Hindus ever marry low caste women? Were they ever low caste Hindu women who were Queens?

Firstly a muslim ruler marrying a hindu queen was anything but a sign of tolerance towards hinduism. It was just power imbalance at play there - the small time local hindu chieftains and kings marrying off their daughters to more powerful muslim Sultan, either after defeat in a war or as part of a tribute to stay in power. It's like a powerful Hindu politician marrying a muslim girl (who converts to hinduism after marriage) and saying "see, how tolerant I'm towards Islam and muslims". How many of these hindu queens remained hindu after marriage? I can think only of Akbar's wife from the top of my head. Akbar himself wouldn't be considered a muslim for his rebellious beliefs by many muslims though.

Secondly, even if we somehow hypothetically imagine that these muslim rulers were showing "religious tolerance" by marrying hindu queens for the sake of argument, how many lower caste hindus were queens though? Or commanders in armies or advisors to kings (who generally tended to be Brahmins). If at all you're going to make an argument about religious tolerance of the muslim rulers, you can only say the muslim rulers had a soft spot for the high caste hindus and hence their presence in various administerial roles in the monarchy and army. The lower caste hindus mostly bore the brunt of slave labour and trade. It's why I said it didn't matter to lower caste hindus whether their rulers were muslims or high caste hindus, they always got the rough end of the stick at the end of the day.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

That's an insensitive thing to say. It's like a Buddhist in Myanmar saying to an Ahmadi who alleges discrimination from both muslims and Buddhists (muslims on account of his sect and buddhists on account of his religion), "Well you could just leave Islam and embrace Buddhism - you wouldn't be discriminated based on your religion in Myanmar then. And in a few generations, your family wouldn't even know they were muslims in the first place. Voila!"

Well in my original comment in post #26, i had mentioned I was referring to the medieval era. That was an intolerant era.

For example after the reconquisita in Spain, Muslims had to convert to Christianity, or leave/die. They did not have a choice to stay as Muslims. When Muslims ruled Spain, non Muslims had to pay a tax, or become Muslims (and then pay zakat), or leave/die. Both were intolerant, however one seems clearly worse.

And it should go without saying that in the modern era these types of rules are not acceptable, so whats happening to the Ahmadis in Pakistan or rohingya in Myanmar is not acceptable to the values of society today. However my ultimate point was in the intolerant medieval era Christians and Upper Caste Hindus were more intolerant than Muslims.

Firstly a muslim ruler marrying a hindu queen was anything but a sign of tolerance towards hinduism. It was just power imbalance at play there - the small time local hindu chieftains and kings marrying off their daughters to more powerful muslim Sultan, either after defeat in a war or as part of a tribute to stay in power. It's like a powerful Hindu politician marrying a muslim girl (who converts to hinduism after marriage) and saying "see, how tolerant I'm towards Islam and muslims". How many of these hindu queens remained hindu after marriage? I can think only of Akbar's wife from the top of my head. Akbar himself wouldn't be considered a muslim for his rebellious beliefs by many muslims though.

Secondly, even if we somehow hypothetically imagine that these muslim rulers were showing "religious tolerance" by marrying hindu queens for the sake of argument, how many lower caste hindus were queens though? Or commanders in armies or advisors to kings (who generally tended to be Brahmins). If at all you're going to make an argument about religious tolerance of the muslim rulers, you can only say the muslim rulers had a soft spot for the high caste hindus and hence their presence in various administerial roles in the monarchy and army. The lower caste hindus mostly bore the brunt of slave labour and trade. It's why I said it didn't matter to lower caste hindus whether their rulers were muslims or high caste hindus, they always got the rough end of the stick at the end of the day.

I completely agree. It was not a sign of tolerance to marry Hindu women. Majority of those women had to convert to Islam, and in 100% of those marriages the children were raised Muslim.

However their was also a power imbalance between Upper and Lower caste Hindus. I can think of Muslims Kings like Firuz Shah Tughlaq, Baz Bahadur, and im sure their were others who married lower caste Hindu women. Not out of tolerance but a desire for those women. However i cant think of any cases that i know where Hindus Kings married lower caste women.

Muslim prejudice against Hindus was due to a different belief system, which ended if they recited a few words. That was not tolerant but in my opinion the caste system was worse, as the lower castes could not become upper caste.

 

[Tubs]

Yea because they had better technology and weapons. If the pagans had developed those weapons, and technology they would have used it also.

For example the reason that Native Americans did not invade and destroy Europe was not out of any benevolence. Its because they couldn't. Same goes for Subsahara Africans.

No need to feel bad for the pagans. Its kind of like if 2 gangsters are fighting, the loser does not become a innocent victim.

Part of it is resources, sure, but the main issue is the fact that the Abrahamic faiths are proselytising ones, and speak disparagingly about idolaters and polytheists. The Bible has verses about getting your slaves from the heathen which surround you (the surrounding land of the Hebrews, I think the Canaanites and Amalekites are an example), and Islam imposes the jizya on the dhimmi (the verse mentions it's to humble the dhimmi, whereas Ibn Kathir's tasfir mentions it's a sign of kufr and disgrace). Of course, the Romans persecuted Christians, but I never said otherwise.

I don't feel especially bad for pagans, it's just that those were the indigenous beliefs with a rich culture, but they were snuffed out by, sometimes colonisers, the newer ideas. A secular conquest, while still conquest, would have been better since it would afford the rights for those to continue to practice their religion. We South Asians don't like colonialism (for good reason), but then seem to think it's fine for culture to be erased as long as the majority of South Asians (in Pakistan) agree with the religion?

Whether or not someone else would have done the same is irrelevant. The fact is that Islam and Christianity are responsible for many deaths, cultural erasure, and colonialism.

 

[BreadPakoda]

Lol.. are you descendant of a gatekeeper of Somnath that you’re still sore from being beaten black and blue by Ghazni?

Some people take jibes over Ghazni beating Hindus “black and blue” yet cry that what is happening in Palestine is a “humanitarian crisis”. At worse, it’s a similar scenario, just the shoe is on the other foot.

The hypocrisy is amusing.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Some people take jibes over Ghazni beating Hindus “black and blue” yet cry that what is happening in Palestine is a “humanitarian crisis”. At worse, it’s a similar scenario, just the shoe is on the other foot.

The hypocrisy is amusing.

So something that happened 1,000 years ago is the same as something that is happening today? Do you not feel that human values are different today, then their were 1,000 years ago?

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

I don't feel especially bad for pagans, it's just that those were the indigenous beliefs with a rich culture, but they were snuffed out by, sometimes colonisers, the newer ideas.

Europe was pagan before it become Christian. Did Christian Europe not have a rich culture? Did Christian Europe not contribute alot to the world in terms of innovation? Should Europeans hate the almost 1,500 year Christian history of Europe?

We South Asians don't like colonialism (for good reason), but then seem to think it's fine for culture to be erased as long as the majority of South Asians (in Pakistan) agree with the religion?

Culture is not static, it always changes. From cuisine, architecture, language, clothing, music, etc, the culture of North India and Pakistan was influenced by the local subcontinent culture mixed with Persian/Central Asian culture. It was a fusion not erasure.

Colonialism is when a group of people from another land, invade the colony and send the resources from the colony back to their own country. South Asia before the British did not have any colonialism. Almost all the people who invaded settled the subcontinent also made it their home. Maybe the first generation could be considered foreigners, but after that they certainly were locals.

The real issue imo that you have is that a religion which originated in Arabia is practiced in Pakistan and S. Asia. For you it can never be local, even though it has been in the subcontinent for 1,400 years. Even though there are hundreds of thousands of dargahs, and mosques all over the subcontinent. I doubt you would consider shalwar kameez and sherwani to be foreign. Same goes for Nihari and Biryani, the Taj and Red Fort. Everything Muslims added to the subcontinent would be fine, accept the religion. That is the unforgivable crime.

Whether or not someone else would have done the same is irrelevant. The fact is that Islam and Christianity are responsible for many deaths, cultural erasure, and colonialism.

Of course its relevant. It shows that's how the world was back then. Their is a concept called "White Guilt", where whites need to feel guilty for doing things that everyone else did. You are trying to create something similar with "Abrahmaic religion" guilt, where Muslims and Christians need to feel bad for doing things that everyone else was doing.

Its like the fratricide of Mughal and Ottoman princes. If you know your brother will kill you if he takes the throne, its not wrong for you to kill him.

Same way Abrhamic religions dont need to feel bad for pagans who would have killed them if they could.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Some people take jibes over Ghazni beating Hindus “black and blue” yet cry that what is happening in Palestine is a “humanitarian crisis”. At worse, it’s a similar scenario, just the shoe is on the other foot.

The hypocrisy is amusing.

There’s no jibe lol. Just asking question because he seems especially bitter about events hundreds of years ago

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

But the sheer scale of it is unparalleled. Abrahamic religions are the undisputed kings of murder, rape, genocide, cultural erasure, intolerance, fanaticism, etc. You can try and read an implication if you want, but the topic itself was an Abrahamic religion, so I wasn't going to mention what pagans did, especially when the question was regarding how pagans got erased from Arabia.

That’s more to other cultures being primitive and inept in that regard. Their ‘failure’ to do the same was out of their primitive ness rather than benevolence.

 

[Technics 1210]

It was Polytheism - failed, bankrupt, warped ideology.

Humans evolve for the better, this is what Humpty Dumpty Darwinians believe - except when Islam rises above the cream of the crop.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

But the sheer scale of it is unparalleled. Abrahamic religions are the undisputed kings of murder, rape, genocide, cultural erasure, intolerance, fanaticism, etc. You can try and read an implication if you want, but the topic itself was an Abrahamic religion, so I wasn't going to mention what pagans did, especially when the question was regarding how pagans got erased from Arabia.

But Abrahamic religions also stimulated the rise of the most powerful scientific nations today. You are sitting in one because of it. Abrahamic nations like Israel are seen as exemplars for some pagan nations due to their scientific prowess and political influence. Otherwise I suppose you could be sitting in a circle of crops worshipping the soil, and actually there is nothing wrong with this either. It's all about context.

 

[Tubs]

But Abrahamic religions also stimulated the rise of the most powerful scientific nations today. You are sitting in one because of it. Abrahamic nations like Israel are seen as exemplars for some pagan nations due to their scientific prowess and political influence. Otherwise I suppose you could be sitting in a circle of crops worshipping the soil, and actually there is nothing wrong with this either. It's all about context.

The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans (pre-Constantine), Sumerians, Babylonians, The Indus among many others weren't theistic. The assertion that theism lead to scientific societies is erroneous. Such societies exist due to the scientific method, which was developed in spite of religion, not due to it. No discovery has ever been informed by religious scripture, only science. I never idealised the pagans, they were the average ignorant person of the time.

Israel is nothing special. The US was founded on secular principles. Japan has a history of being Buddhist/Shinto but has been largely secular throughout its history and has a majority atheist society but is traditional and somewhat superstitious. China has always been non-theistic, some could see Confucianism as a form of religion, but it was largely secular and definitely not theistic. Even if every single advanced society had a history in theism, that does not mean that Abrahamic faiths stimulated it at all.

 

[Tubs]

That’s more to other cultures being primitive and inept in that regard. Their ‘failure’ to do the same was out of their primitive ness rather than benevolence.

Ah yes, Abrahamic faiths are so modern and advanced that it allowed them to conquer others! Many would regard slavery (including sexual slavery), the hudud, commands on how to beat ones wife, imposing a religious tax on minorities to subjugate and disgrace them, etc as primitive. Many would also regard claiming humans are made of clay, that someone went to heaven on a winged horse with the face of a man, that the moon split in two despite no evidence, a great flood happening without any geological or written testimony, etc as inept.

 

[Tubs]

Europe was pagan before it become Christian. Did Christian Europe not have a rich culture? Did Christian Europe not contribute alot to the world in terms of innovation? Should Europeans hate the almost 1,500 year Christian history of Europe?

Of course it did, but my point about pre-Christian history being erased still stands. The Celts had their culture wiped out. Other native Britons, too. You seem happy to gloss over it all. Let's not forget how many women were burnt alive/drowned for witchcraft. You just refuse to acknowledge the bad things of theism because you're a theist.

Culture is not static, it always changes. From cuisine, architecture, language, clothing, music, etc, the culture of North India and Pakistan was influenced by the local subcontinent culture mixed with Persian/Central Asian culture. It was a fusion not erasure.

Colonialism is when a group of people from another land, invade the colony and send the resources from the colony back to their own country. South Asia before the British did not have any colonialism. Almost all the people who invaded settled the subcontinent also made it their home. Maybe the first generation could be considered foreigners, but after that they certainly were locals.

The real issue imo that you have is that a religion which originated in Arabia is practiced in Pakistan and S. Asia. For you it can never be local, even though it has been in the subcontinent for 1,400 years. Even though there are hundreds of thousands of dargahs, and mosques all over the subcontinent. I doubt you would consider shalwar kameez and sherwani to be foreign. Same goes for Nihari and Biryani, the Taj and Red Fort. Everything Muslims added to the subcontinent would be fine, accept the religion. That is the unforgivable crime.

Of course culture isn't static, but I am simply saying the Abrahamic faiths destroyed the previous cultures. This isn't difficult nor controversial.

Of course, I do think that it is very strange that there is a huge Stockholm Syndrome in regards to the religion of the oppressor, and a desire to act like Turks and Arabs. At least the Turks have their own Turkish names, but Pakistanis all take Arabic names. This is cultural erasure, but it is willingly done. I'm not saying all aspects of cultural evolution is bad, but you are proving my point about how theism destroys previous culture. Imagine if some Pakistanis wanted to revive some ancient traditions, they'd be labelled as kuffar, or committing bid'ah.

Of course its relevant. It shows that's how the world was back then. Their is a concept called "White Guilt", where whites need to feel guilty for doing things that everyone else did. You are trying to create something similar with "Abrahmaic religion" guilt, where Muslims and Christians need to feel bad for doing things that everyone else was doing.

Its like the fratricide of Mughal and Ottoman princes. If you know your brother will kill you if he takes the throne, its not wrong for you to kill him.

Same way Abrhamic religions dont need to feel bad for pagans who would have killed them if they could.

It's not relevant when my whole point was that theistic religions did it. The difference is that white people are an extant people, Abrahamic religions are a set of beliefs. No equivocation.

That last line is laughable. When you have power over someone, there is no need to kill them because you think they'd do the same if they had your power. You're basically saying what Israel does to Palestine is justified because they think Palestine wants to wipe them out. Bravo.

 

[Tubs]

It was Polytheism - failed, bankrupt, warped ideology.

Humans evolve for the better, this is what Humpty Dumpty Darwinians believe - except when Islam rises above the cream of the crop.

See how great Islamic countries are doing compared to every other one... Really rose above.

Still denying evolution, eh. The ignorance of blind-theists knows no bounds, it seems.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Europe was pagan before it become Christian. Did Christian Europe not have a rich culture? Did Christian Europe not contribute alot to the world in terms of innovation? Should Europeans hate the almost 1,500 year Christian history of Europe?



Culture is not static, it always changes. From cuisine, architecture, language, clothing, music, etc, the culture of North India and Pakistan was influenced by the local subcontinent culture mixed with Persian/Central Asian culture. It was a fusion not erasure.

Colonialism is when a group of people from another land, invade the colony and send the resources from the colony back to their own country. South Asia before the British did not have any colonialism. Almost all the people who invaded settled the subcontinent also made it their home. Maybe the first generation could be considered foreigners, but after that they certainly were locals.

The real issue imo that you have is that a religion which originated in Arabia is practiced in Pakistan and S. Asia. For you it can never be local, even though it has been in the subcontinent for 1,400 years. Even though there are hundreds of thousands of dargahs, and mosques all over the subcontinent. I doubt you would consider shalwar kameez and sherwani to be foreign. Same goes for Nihari and Biryani, the Taj and Red Fort. Everything Muslims added to the subcontinent would be fine, accept the religion. That is the unforgivable crime.



Of course its relevant. It shows that's how the world was back then. Their is a concept called "White Guilt", where whites need to feel guilty for doing things that everyone else did. You are trying to create something similar with "Abrahmaic religion" guilt, where Muslims and Christians need to feel bad for doing things that everyone else was doing.

Its like the fratricide of Mughal and Ottoman princes. If you know your brother will kill you if he takes the throne, its not wrong for you to kill him.

Same way Abrhamic religions dont need to feel bad for pagans who would have killed them if they could.

Hammer. Nail. Head.

Queen Victoria never set foot in India - This is colonialism at its finest.

Muslims united India and their blood is in its soil. Attributing Islamic influence to India to colonialism is a massive fallacy. It is intertwined in India's past and will be there to shape its future.

These pseudo atheists can't accept this so they try and distort history.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans (pre-Constantine), Sumerians, Babylonians, The Indus among many others weren't theistic. The assertion that theism lead to scientific societies is erroneous. Such societies exist due to the scientific method, which was developed in spite of religion, not due to it. No discovery has ever been informed by religious scripture, only science. I never idealised the pagans, they were the average ignorant person of the time.

Israel is nothing special. The US was founded on secular principles. Japan has a history of being Buddhist/Shinto but has been largely secular throughout its history and has a majority atheist society but is traditional and somewhat superstitious. China has always been non-theistic, some could see Confucianism as a form of religion, but it was largely secular and definitely not theistic. Even if every single advanced society had a history in theism, that does not mean that Abrahamic faiths stimulated it at all.

So which atheistic society would you point to as an exemplar for the rest of the world to follow?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Of course it did, but my point about pre-Christian history being erased still stands. The Celts had their culture wiped out. Other native Britons, too. You seem happy to gloss over it all. Let's not forget how many women were burnt alive/drowned for witchcraft. You just refuse to acknowledge the bad things of theism because you're a theist.




Of course culture isn't static, but I am simply saying the Abrahamic faiths destroyed the previous cultures. This isn't difficult nor controversial.

Of course, I do think that it is very strange that there is a huge Stockholm Syndrome in regards to the religion of the oppressor, and a desire to act like Turks and Arabs. At least the Turks have their own Turkish names, but Pakistanis all take Arabic names. This is cultural erasure, but it is willingly done. I'm not saying all aspects of cultural evolution is bad, but you are proving my point about how theism destroys previous culture. Imagine if some Pakistanis wanted to revive some ancient traditions, they'd be labelled as kuffar, or committing bid'ah.



It's not relevant when my whole point was that theistic religions did it. The difference is that white people are an extant people, Abrahamic religions are a set of beliefs. No equivocation.

That last line is laughable. When you have power over someone, there is no need to kill them because you think they'd do the same if they had your power. You're basically saying what Israel does to Palestine is justified because they think Palestine wants to wipe them out. Bravo.

You are as usual clutching at straws. I have a feeling you haven't set one foot in Turkey.

Where did Turkish names come from? Do you know the most popular names in Turkey? The vast majority of them are influenced by Arabic. Just because they spell them slightly differently doesn't change the fact the vast majority of them are similar to Pakistani names or other Arabic influenced names.

There may be Stockholm system amongst lower caste Hindus who decide to remain Hindus....but there can be no Stockholm system amongst Pakistanis. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the conversion to Islam was not forced in the subcontinent. I think you know this but it doesn't fit your narrative.

Similarly, there can be absolutely no comparison between Islam in India and colonialism. Anyone who suggests otherwise is deluded. Islam took route in India through trade practices at first and peaceful conversions continued during historic conquests. Hindus weren't just sitting around being peaceful and doing yoga during this - they were subjecting their own and Buddhists.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Of course it did, but my point about pre-Christian history being erased still stands. The Celts had their culture wiped out. Other native Britons, too. You seem happy to gloss over it all. Let's not forget how many women were burnt alive/drowned for witchcraft. You just refuse to acknowledge the bad things of theism because you're a theist.

I have said multiple times everyone was bad in that era.

Also if everyone practiced their original culture, their would only be one culture on planet Earth. Culture changes.

Of course, I do think that it is very strange that there is a huge Stockholm Syndrome in regards to the religion of the oppressor, and a desire to act like Turks and Arabs.

This is the equivalent of saying people in England have Stockholm Syndrome, because they view the Anglo-Saxons and Normans as their own people. Or they dont want to go back to English culture that existed 2,000 years ago before the Romans came.

Muslim men who came to subcontinent whether as soldiers, or immigrants, did not bring women with them. They intermarried with local women. Their descendants do not live in C. Asia, Afghanistan, Iran, or Arabia. Instead its the subcontinent.

After 1,000 years probably everyone has some blood from them, even though majority of blood will be local. Same way how people in Turkey have some Central Asian blood but majority of their dna will be of local Anatolian's.

At least the Turks have their own Turkish names, but Pakistanis all take Arabic names. This is cultural erasure, but it is willingly done.

People usually give names based on language of their religion and culture. So Pakistanis have names in Arabic and in Persian, as Farsi was the cultural language of the Muslim elite for 1,000 years in the subcontinent.

Same way Indonesian Muslims have names from Sanskrit, and Arabic. Europeans have names from Hebrew, and the European languages, etc.

However there is no law that you must name your children with a Arabic or Persian name. If you have a son you are free to name him Deepak, or Rakesh, or Vikram, etc. That is your prerogative. However for the majority of us 1,000 years is a long time, and now those Arabic and Persian names are part of our culture.

I'm not saying all aspects of cultural evolution is bad, but you are proving my point about how theism destroys previous culture. Imagine if some Pakistanis wanted to revive some ancient traditions, they'd be labelled as kuffar, or committing bid'ah.

You are free to revive whatever ancient traditions that you think are gone. That is your prerogative. The majority of us like our culture though. Its not like it came last week. You are talking about 1,000 years. Its the culture of our parents, and grandparents, and great grandparents, etc.

Like i mentioned before from cuisine, architecture, language, clothing, music, etc, the culture of North India and Pakistan was influenced by the local subcontinent culture mixed with Persian/Central Asian culture. It was a fusion not erasure.

This culture is not practiced anywhere else in the world but by people of subcontinent. For 99% of us this is our culture.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Ah yes, Abrahamic faiths are so modern and advanced that it allowed them to conquer others! Many would regard slavery (including sexual slavery), the hudud, commands on how to beat ones wife, imposing a religious tax on minorities to subjugate and disgrace them, etc as primitive. Many would also regard claiming humans are made of clay, that someone went to heaven on a winged horse with the face of a man, that the moon split in two despite no evidence, a great flood happening without any geological or written testimony, etc as inept.

You can take jibes about beliefs (these other cultures have what would be termed as silly beliefs and history too - Read Mahabharta or Ramayana for examples) but it’s clear you’re avoiding the actual content of the belief. These other cultures didn’t engage in these activities because they were never in a strong enough position to do so. Otherwise they obviously would have done so if they ever got opportunities to do so. The few times they did they engaged in it too. in case of subcontinent, as recently as Marathas plunder and genoicde in bengal.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

You are as usual clutching at straws. I have a feeling you haven't set one foot in Turkey.

Where did Turkish names come from? Do you know the most popular names in Turkey? The vast majority of them are influenced by Arabic. Just because they spell them slightly differently doesn't change the fact the vast majority of them are similar to Pakistani names or other Arabic influenced names.

There may be Stockholm system amongst lower caste Hindus who decide to remain Hindus....but there can be no Stockholm system amongst Pakistanis. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the conversion to Islam was not forced in the subcontinent. I think you know this but it doesn't fit your narrative.

Similarly, there can be absolutely no comparison between Islam in India and colonialism. Anyone who suggests otherwise is deluded. Islam took route in India through trade practices at first and peaceful conversions continued during historic conquests. Hindus weren't just sitting around being peaceful and doing yoga during this - they were subjecting their own and Buddhists.

Islam saw most growth in subcontinent during the time of the British. Perhaps British were also Islamic invaders lol.

 

[street cricketer]

Well in my original comment in post #26, i had mentioned I was referring to the medieval era. That was an intolerant era.

For example after the reconquisita in Spain, Muslims had to convert to Christianity, or leave/die. They did not have a choice to stay as Muslims. When Muslims ruled Spain, non Muslims had to pay a tax, or become Muslims (and then pay zakat), or leave/die. Both were intolerant, however one seems clearly worse.

And it should go without saying that in the modern era these types of rules are not acceptable, so whats happening to the Ahmadis in Pakistan or rohingya in Myanmar is not acceptable to the values of society today. However my ultimate point was in the intolerant medieval era Christians and Upper Caste Hindus were more intolerant than Muslims.

I do not know why you're taking one single event - the Christian reconquest of Spain - and extrapolating the atrocities happened there to all non muslim rulers who ever existed in the history of the world. Plenty of muslim traders existed and flourished under hindu kings in southern India, they weren't asked to pay excess taxes for their existence and mosques also existed under hindu kings (hint - the first mosques in the subcontinent were built in southern India under hindu kings by the sea faring Arab merchants and not in deep north India or Pakistan). So I'm not sure how you can refer to an event that happened thousands of miles away in Spain and use it to say that the muslims treated hindus better than christians and hindus themselves.

I completely agree. It was not a sign of tolerance to marry Hindu women. Majority of those women had to convert to Islam, and in 100% of those marriages the children were raised Muslim.

However their was also a power imbalance between Upper and Lower caste Hindus. I can think of Muslims Kings like Firuz Shah Tughlaq, Baz Bahadur, and im sure their were others who married lower caste Hindu women. Not out of tolerance but a desire for those women. However i cant think of any cases that i know where Hindus Kings married lower caste women.

Muslim prejudice against Hindus was due to a different belief system, which ended if they recited a few words. That was not tolerant but in my opinion the caste system was worse, as the lower castes could not become upper caste.

Firstly I want to reiterate something I've said many times in this forum before. Caste discrimination is from a moral and ethical stand point, far more bigoted than religious discrimination, because you cannot change your caste ever (in the eyes of those who oppress based on caste) and it's on the same level as racism where a person is discriminated based on his skin colour or appearance.

Now here's the rider though to that statement. While caste discrimination is theoretically more reprehensible than religious discrimination, what happened in practice was different. Religious persecution was almost always far more intolerant in the history of the subcontinent than caste discrimination ever was in reality, which is why people got polarised based on religion the foremost in the subcontinent than based on caste, sectarian or regional differences, and thousands of lives were lost on both sides during partition.

If religious persecution was far milder than caste discrimination, all lower caste hindus would've jumped ship to Pakistan knowing that they would be treated much better in a muslim majority rule than under the rule of upper caste hindus theoretically. So while I still maintain that caste discrimination is generally more abominable than religious discrimination, in practice, religious persecution (I'm not targeting muslims or hindus specifically here) is almost always more severe and unforgiving than caste discrimination in the subcontinent as south asia got polarised based on religion the foremost than any other factor like ethnicity, language, region, etc., which is why south asia got carved up into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and not a hundred ethnolinguistic states like in Europe.

 

[street cricketer]

There may be Stockholm system amongst lower caste Hindus who decide to remain Hindus....but there can be no Stockholm system amongst Pakistanis. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the conversion to Islam was not forced in the subcontinent. I think you know this but it doesn't fit your narrative.

It always amuses me when I see the saviour complex that muslims have towards lower caste hindus and hindus towards "oppressed" muslim women. What's more endearing than seeing a muslim liberal asking the so called lower caste hindu to escape the clutches of hinduism and start a life free of discrimination; and a hindu liberal educating the so called "oppressed" muslim women to escape the clutches of Islam and start a life of liberation free of oppression.

This all stems from ignorance about each other's community I would say. A lot of muslims tend to think "caste" as an indivisible part of hinduism and so the only way for hindus to escape from the clutches of caste is to leave their religion itself. While I definitely do not judge those who decide to leave their religion to escape the clutches of caste discrimination (everyone's free to follow their own religion afterall), it's silly to say that those of lower castes who still follow hinduism suffer from Stockholm syndrome. You have to remove the cultural aspect of casteism from the religious aspect. When tackling the practice of female genital mutilation among muslims in Africa, you don't say the solution for them is to leave Islam, the solution is to eradicate the practice of that cultural aspect of female genital mutilation from their society than eradicating their religion itself. In the same way, the solution for Hindus is to remove the negative cultural aspect of casteism from their religion and not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[PakLFC]

There were several kabahs in pre Islamic Arabia. Nabateans were spread in the entire Arabian peninsula trading goods with various cities.

Perhaps so but the Holy Prophet(saw) did not liberate the other so called Kaaba's as he was not instructed to do so. They were not built by Ibrahim(as) either. Even today there are many buildings that appear similar.

 

[street cricketer]

I for once agree with [MENTION=149166]Technics 1210[/MENTION]. I'm tired of Hindus and others constantly complaining that the Abrahamic religions destroyed Hindu temples and culture, and so on. You can never really do justice to history if you perceive history by wearing the goggles of "us vs them", "hindus vs muslims", etc. You have to perceive it from an objective view, almost from a third person pov. One rule that has always existed through the course of history, exists now and will exist long into the future is that "might always wins" and the fittest always survive in the end. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just saying that this is the eternal rule of the world.

Yeah the Abrahamic ideology wiped out some of the less assertive religions and culture, but that's because the latter wasn't powerful enough to resist them and since the world always operates on the survival of the fittest idea, the less powerful ideologies like Zoroastrianism, Greek mythology, ancient Egyptian pagan beliefs got wiped out by the more assertive ideologies. You can't start a belief system like say the art of living and expect everyone to believe in it and exist in a state of Kumbaya without any clash of different ideas. When you have a clash of ideas, the more assertive idea will almost always prevail and there's no doubt that Abrahamic ideas were more assertive. If the Zoroastrians or the ancient Egyptians were more organised politically and more resistive to the clashing ideas, they wouldn't be footnotes in history and would actually be existing as major ideologies now.

If the past hindu kingdoms weren't so fractured and developed better war techniques, they wouldn't have been conquered so easily. Yes, the Hindu kingdoms were indeed powerful in their heyday and had influence extending from Afghanistan in the west till far south east asian countries like Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, in the east. But like I said previously, might always wins and the hindu kingdoms couldn't maintain their might and got replaced by muslim kingdoms instead. The muslim kingdoms conquered the most of asia and Africa due to their might and better warring techniques. Similar for christian kingdoms in Europe, Africa and Americas.

The muslim civilization couldn't maintain their might over the course of time and got replaced by the British empire instead which became the most powerful in the world. The Judeo-Christian civilization has become the most powerful today because of its continued investments in science and technology. It is through might only that Jews with the help of British could displace the Palestinians and carve up a state for themselves in the territory of Palestinians. Eventhough they were at the receiving end of the Mongolians in the past, in the coming future, the Chinese civilization may very well end up becoming the most powerful empire because of its might achieved through progress in science, technology and economy. I'm not taking the sides of anyone here and endorsing any event of history or even present as positive or negative. All I'm saying is that the fittest will always survive no matter when and civilizations have been born and wiped out because of the simple reason of power and might. So there's no point in guilt tripping the present day population for events that happened in history.