Comments by "Arunabha Ghosh" (@orunabho) on "Understanding where history, Constitution u0026 Supreme Court stand on Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi issue" video.

SG, your argument will be acceptable to most if there is acceptance and reconciliation of our dirty past. Acceptance, that Turks were not indians, just as British were not indians, irrespective of whether tomorrow majority of Indians chooses to become Christians. Acceptance that india was under foreign occupation and colonization for 600+ years by dacoits, the most barbaric uncivilized warmongering people of that time. Acceptance that being born on Indian soil doesn't make you ethnic Indian with loyalties to indic civilization. Colonel Dyer was born in Missouri, and we all agree he was not Indian. For example Siraj ud Daula, the last Turki dacoit who ruled Bengal and defeated by Robert Clive, was not a Bengali, never spoke one word of Bengali. He was a Persian language speaking Arabic ideology believing Turk. So was Tipoo or Nizams or Nawabs...the occupying and colonizing aliens. Note, if we all chooses to be Christian tomorrow, the erstwhile Queen Victoria does not became our queen, nor does British empire becomes our empire. Or if by accident if Queen Victoria happens to be born in India, British colonization remains British colonization, an alien occupying force.
180
Muslim rule is a misnomer actually. It was actually Turkic rule, who happens to adopt the Arabic religion and Persian language. It is clearly against the Arabic ideology to accept and allow any form of idol worship, but Indian subcontinent was under the colonization of Turks, not native Indian, Indian language speaking Muslims. The distinction is important. Just as the British rule was not necessarily a Christian rule, definitely not Indian Christians, but ethnic English. Place of birth, doesn't make one ethnic Indian. The butcher of Jaliwanwala bag was born in India, but was an ethnic Englishman, and he was clearly not native Indian.
23
@artbeck3507 Abraham was never there in Mecca. Macca was an inhospitable place, no vegetation, no river, no rainfall either. The person called Abraham comes from Jewish tradition, not Arabic. There is no mention of he even going that deep a south in that wasteland in their books. This is a false story or possible misunderstanding with Jerusalem while copying Jewish prophets and traditions.
2
@artbeck3507 by the way, you should know from where the water of the so called zam zam well comes from :-) do historical research please, not SIN.
2
@artbeck3507 about corruption, how do you know it is corruption. Do Arabs have a parallel source of those traditions that goes back to Abraham or Moses. They are all in Hebrew, written by Jews. Arabic as a language is too modern to have any book of the ancient written in that language. To primitive as well, imagine script originally without symbols for vowels, with only around 10 unique symbols for consonants.
2
@Rajan112358 perfect
1
@ArmanAditya Basu when did I say Turks came 600 years ago. I just said Turks as people colonized Indian people for 600+ years just the way they ruled over the Arabs, again for almost 600+ years. 1857 is when that colonization ended. By the way, I guess you know there was a official policy by British Empire against any European settlements in India. Sonmuch so for European colonization in India.m It was colonization by Turks only. They came, looted Indian people, taxed them heavily, lived in palaces, destroyed their places of worships and education. Brought in more Turks from Uzbekistan, make them zamindars to all over North India, took Indian women as concubines, (so the Indian features) and facilitates the Arabic death cult to spread its tentacles in India. No Sijaj ud Daula did not speak any bengali. 600+ years of Dark Age in Bengal since Khilji came and destroyed Bengal from its foundation. They were dacoits. Yes there were Kala-pahar and Malik Kafur...loyal servant...converted to death cult, brought death to indians. But political power in that 600+ years was with Persian language speaking Arabic death cult believing ethnic Turks The Ashrafs of India. Interestingly, Turks were used as slaves and mercenaries by the Arabs, their Caliphates. And then the equation changed, thanks to mongol destruction of Abbasid Caliphate and later Taimurs.
1
@ArmanAditya Basu Humm. Rethink Indian History, from the garbage taught in our school books. Colonisation means - "the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area" Take the case of the "civilized" British. They came as traders, a private trading company, a greedy company, set up trading post, and slowly established political and administrative control over the Indian people, starting with 1757, Bengal. In 1857, after the "sepoy" mutiny to reestablish the Turki (Mughals were Turks, not Mongols) Caliphate over India failed, the Imperial British Government took charge of the Empire the private company has established in the sub-continent. By an act of British Parliament, Europeans were forbidden to setup any form settlement in the British Empire of India. No place of worship of the natives were destroyed, public schools, colleges, Universities, Hospitals, libraries, research institutes were build. Even great metropolises were build. Dark age slowly receded And Renaissance happened, Bengal Renaissance. Native languages Literature flourished. Exposure of French revolution, American revolution, Renaissance besidem the Industrial revolutions. Exposure to European civilizations, digging up ancient Indian history, Nationalism, sense of Republic and Nation and Nation states were cultivated. Printing press, newspapers, books - civilization rebooted. By the company act of 1838, Bengali was made the official language of Bengal, replacing the alien colonial languages - Persian and Arabic. Coin were minted with Bengali words in them (not Persian or Arabic) a first in 600 years. And yes, Arabic religion was no longer the state religion of the natives. Imperialism yes! Colonization? NO. Good for the indigenous people, Yes. Now, take the care of barbarian and dacoits without civilization, the Turks. The came, destroyed all places of learning and worship of the natives. At least a dozen Universities were destroyed in Greater Bengal itself. Nalanda, Vikramshila, Odantapuri, Somapura Mahavihara, Jagaddala Mahavihara and unknown 100s possibly. No civilization, no literature, no science, no mathematics - but loot the people, rule them and build palaces. At that time, Greater Bengal was the central of Buddhist civilization and learning for the world. Teachings of the wisest man in History, Buddha, spread from Bengal to Srilanka, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnum, Japan, Korea, China and Tibet. Glorious times, civilization flourished. Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji, name after the Arabic warlord and iconoclast - the dark age started. Bengal did not recover from it, till Robert Clive and dismantled the Turki Colonial empire of Bengal, by defeating the last Turki colonizer, Siraj Ud Daula. No only that, the indigenous people were culturally, spiritually, intellectually colonized by the barbaric death cult of the Arabs. Total colonization. Land and people. The consequence was of course, Bengal Partition - Arabic ideology colonized natives vs the indigenous people with their indigenous culture. Imagine, Buddha being replaced by an Arabic warlord.
1
@artbeck3507 all same, the same arguments from SIN, standard Islamic narrative 🙄. Abraham and his people are today's Jews. So he can be called the father of Judaism. Nothing else. Jesus of Nazareth, born as a jew, changed everything, spread a new set of values, and made religion accessible to common man. No Jesus, no Christianity. Abraham is irrelevant w.r.t Jesus in Christianity. Therefore, Jesus The Christ can be called the father of Christianity, and Christians, not Abraham. The Arabic warlord cum Godman, possibly a misconception and misunderstanding, it is claimed founded a cult, specifically for the Arabs. Arabs following the war games shown by the warlord, conquered half the known world. From Indus to Spain. So, the Arabic Warlord cum Godman is the father of the Arabic cult, not Abraham. Simply because, without that person, there won't be any Muslims,not Abraham. The Arabs made slaves out of every nations they defeated, all their women and children, sold them as animals in the biggest slave markets in history, Damascus and Baghdad, simply because they were not Arabs. Exterminated their culture and languages even. And their men were castrated or made into mercenary soldiers. The proud people, the Turks were completely humiliated, their millenia old culture destroyed, their men turned into slaves, and made to do the dirty wars on their behalf, women sold as concubines. Aramaic was killed, the langauge of culture on the silk root and west asia. Egyptian, the language and culture of the oldest human civilization in history. It was during the Abbasids, thanks to civilized and sophisticated Persians, and their millenia old NON Arabic culture, NON Arabs were accepted as part of the Cult. Please read the holy book of the Arabs, there are verses specifically mentioning why and from whom the book is - Arabs. Note, all hadiths are written by non Arabs basically, 1000s of miles away from the Arab lands, 300-500 years after the founder of the cult. Not to mention the biography, written, again 100s of years after. About the unchanging nature of the Arabic holy book, interestingly even though Arabs ruled half the world, no complete manuscript were ever found that is written within 200-300 years after his death. And since the Arabic holy man did not even ask his followers and fellow soldiers to write down his preaching as a book, and not verified by him or edited by him. God only knows whose book it is. By the way, as of today, there are at least 30+ different versions of the book. You can check that yourself. And the current popular one, popular with mostly non Arabs, edited and finalized by Egyptian University scholars, The 1924 Cairo edition. Cannot be attributed to the father of the cult in anyway!!! So, it is about deceptions and lies making fools out of non Arabs.
1
@artbeck3507 for all practical purpose, the Arabic cult is nothing but a corrupted version of Christianity. All oldest coins minted by the Arabs have Christian cross on them.
1