What's new

How Christianity and Islam took over the world, in 90 seconds

Why do you say that? Is one not allowed to believe in Truth?
Which Truth?

The benevolent Personal anthropocentric Monotheistic Eternal God; or the Transcendent impersonal Creator, Sustainer, Destroyer Monotheistic Eternal Absolute God?

The Tanakh, the Bible, the Quran, or the Universe?

Which Prophet, or is there just what you would call Fitrah and the ability to reason and think?
 
Lets hope when everyone is converted to Islam then there will be a lasting peace on this Planet :D

Correction: When everyone is converted to Wahhabi based Sunni Islam...then maybe
 
Both Islam and Christianity have spread though the sword. In my opinion Christianity even more. During the colonial era the tactic of western powers was
a)Send , so called, secular armies to slaughter everyone who disagreed with them
b)Priests followed and said to the locals if you dont want to have problems with our secular armies, convert and you will take the benefits
This is why in places of the world like sub-saharan Africa you will see the majority being theoretically christian but in fact they are not(they usually practice local religions). The convertion to christianity was based on policies not ideology
 
My problem is that being a Hindu we have been taught to ask as many questions about our religion as we wish. We are free to choose any Guru of our liking ( be it a Living Guru , A book, An Idol or just a Mantra or anything) who can inspire or guide us in uniting us with the God. Since you are strictly looking for non believers to convert into Islam then you are welcome to carry on doing the good job. I personally feel that having faith in a religion is better than being a non believer.

But in case some of those converts start asking tough questions then refer those souls to the persons who never shun from indulging in any Spiritual discussions / debates .


Who told you that Ram Madhav can't have brain farts :p:

Please specify the time in the video where this gentleman farted Akhand Bharat stuff. I don't want to waste my time on rubbish people and rubbish channel

45:20 onwards.

 
@TMA there was no such thing as a 'Aryan' invasion that theory has been debunked, the word 'Aryan' is derived from the root word 'Arya' meaning noble and Indo-Aryan is a linguistic group not a racial term.

I am putting that hussian on iggey




There is many of them here bro, Shariah4UK and likes poison their young minds

I see many links between the Islamic concept of Allah and Brahman the Vedas told of one Supreme being which is known by many names

Call them what you will: Indo-European, Aryan, Nordid or something else. But there was a large scale migration(s) or invasion(s) of tribes who were not native to the Subcontient from the North West. They came upon the people of the Indus Valley Civilization and with their arrival the Vedic period commences.

Different authorities and in different times use the term Indo-European to mean different things. Some mean race; others language.
 
Call them what you will: Indo-European, Aryan, Nordid or something else. But there was a large scale migration(s) or invasion(s) of tribes who were not native to the Subcontient from the North West. They came upon the people of the Indus Valley Civilization and with their arrival the Vedic period commences.

Different authorities and in different times use the term Indo-European to mean different things. Some mean race; others language.


Nope the Aryan migration theory is a theory which has been debunked, I do research as SOAS University where we studied this.

As I hope you must surely have realised, our series was not made to support ‘shameful' or ‘despicable racist behaviour' or ideas, or to ‘vandalize' Indian history; but made with honest intent, sound research, and above all with great affection for Indian culture. Personally speaking, if you were to look, for example, at my book, ‘Smile of Murugan (A South Indian Journey)' you would, I hope, see evidence of my feelings towards traditional Hindu culture. But that is not what is at issue here. The question is, of course, very complex and is hotly argued over, and there is no question that the ‘Aryan theory' in the 19th century was subject to many racial interpretations in Europe where there was a fundamental antipathy to Hindu culture among many in the colonial class (this is recounted in a fine book by Thomas Trautmann — 'Aryans and British India' Vistaar Publications New Delhi, 1997). But I think over this, big misconceptions have crept in — along with a lot of pseudo science. The issue it seems to me is not in the end one of ‘archaeological', ‘mathematical', ‘geographical' or genetic or even (as some claim) astronomical science (though sure some of these may well be able to help resolve it in time). Nor emphatically is it about skin colour as you suggest. The issue is simply one of linguistics. And as Prof Pitchappan, one of India's (and the world's) leading geneticists says in our first episode, you must never confuse ethnicity with language. Geneticists can tell us that the DNA of India has remained remarkably constant for ten thousand years save for relatively small influxes from NW and NE. But that does not tell us about language (e.g. search in India's DNA for the British and where would you find them despite the wide spread of their speech?). I think you have overstated the case when you say that the ‘Aryan' migration theory has been debunked (not ‘invasion' by the way — I never used the term). In fact as far as I can tell the majority of language scholars in the world still believe that the ancestral language of Sanskrit cannot have been born inside the subcontinent but must have come from the outside. Many eminent Sanskritologists believe this is plainly revealed in the earliest layers of the text of the Rig Veda, both in its content and in linguistic borrowings from Dravidian, and in Central Asian language connections. Recent work on ‘Time-depth' linguistics (which tries to reconstruct the branches off the main trunk of language, family trees as judged by language change) has reconstructed the Indo-European family tree in some detail (earliest recorded being Hittite) and in the eyes of most experts the language moved southwards and eastwards into Iran and NW India. In our films we said this was controversial, but it remains the most plausible hypothesis and is backed up by the totality of the evidence. As for the dating, we'll speak more on this but clearly the earliest Rig Veda hymns have to be 2nd millennium BCE (to take only one fact, horse drawn chariots have to be after the invention of the chariot and the arrival of the horse in the subcontinent). But thanks very much indeed for your mail: I know many of you disagree strongly with this, and over the next weeks no doubt we'll all correspond more on it

http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/amythofaryaninvasionsofindia.pdf
 
sorry i replied before reading all of your message.
 

SOAS is not very high in my estimation personally speaking. (But most social science departments in most universities are not very high in my estimation - they have an agenda which is often in conflict with academic truth). We will just have to agree to disagree; unless of course you can offer me some links to read and if I am convinced I will change my mind.


SOAS is high in it's fields in South Asian studies/Sanskrit which is specialist, a theory is a theory. Have you heard of the out of africa Darwin theory? this was later debunked by the great Polish Anthropologist.

Darwin stated that the west is superior as mankind evolved out of africa and went West but this was later debunked. Again a theory is a theory it is not a fact.

printable.gif

tiny.gif
The Aryan Invasion Theory
One of the most controversial ideas about Hindu history is the Aryan invasion theory.

This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in 1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasion of India's indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryans around 1500 BCE.

The theory was reinforced by other research over the next 120 years, and became the accepted history of Hinduism, not only in the West but in India.

But many people argue that there is now evidence to show that Muller, and those who followed him, were wrong.

Others, however, believe that the case against the Aryan invation theory is far from conclusive.

The matter remains very controversial and highly politicised. The article below sets out the case made by those who believe that the Aryan invasion theory is seriously flawed.

The case against the Aryan invasion theory
The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence.

Later research, it is argued, has either discredited this evidence, or provided new evidence that combined with the earlier evidence makes other explanations more likely.

Some historians of the area no longer believe that such invasions had such great influence on Indian history. It's now generally accepted that Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest times to today.

The changes brought to India by other cultures are not denied by modern historians, but they are no longer thought to be a major ingredient in the development of Hinduism.

Dangers of the theory
Opponents of the Aryan invasion theory claim that it denies the Indian origin of India's predominant culture, and gives the credit for Indian culture to invaders from elsewhere.

They say that it even teaches that some of the most revered books of Hindu scripture are not actually Indian, and it devalues India's culture by portraying it as less ancient than it actually is.

The theory was not just wrong, some say, but included unacceptably racist ideas:

  • it suggested that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from other cultures
  • it implied that Hinduism was not an authentically Indian religion but the result of cultural imperialism
  • it suggested that Indian culture was static, and only changed under outside influences
  • it suggested that the dark-skinned Dravidian people of the South of India had got their faith from light-skinned Aryan invaders
  • it implied that indigenous people were incapable of creatively developing their faith
  • it suggested that indigenous peoples could only acquire new religious and cultural ideas from other races, by invasion or other processes
  • it accepted that race was a biologically based concept (rather than, at least in part, a social construct) that provided a sensible way of ranking people in a hierarchy, which provided a partial basis for the caste system
  • it provided a basis for racism in the Imperial context by suggesting that the peoples of Northern India were descended from invaders from Europe and so racially closer to the British Raj
  • it gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier
  • it downgraded the intellectual status of India and its people by giving a falsely late date to elements of Indian science and culture

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...tml?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed


A new study led by scientists from the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, says there was no genetic influx 3,500 years ago.

The 'Aryan Invasion theory' was first coined in 1848 this was before we had the technological enhancements and post empire to look at it without the context of history through the 'white man'

Hyderabad: Research on three ancient tribal populations of the Indian subcontinent has once again brought to fore the Indo-Aryan migration debate. The study has rejected any migration into the Indian subcontinent in the last 12,000 years, thereby rejecting the Aryan invasion theory.

Anthropological scientists said there has been continuity in lineage since the Neolithic period, rejecting the conventional theory of the influx of the Indo-Aryan populations. The research study, carried out by Estonian Biocentre and University of Delhi, concluded: “Our high-resolution analysis portraying the three ancient tribal populations strongly rejects any incoming genetic signal of large-scale, recent (during the post-Neolithic) migration either of the present Dravidian or the Indo-European speaking populations to the subcontinent.”
 
Christianity is taking its last breath. Islam may not survive in any place except India and indonesia as per one study.
 
in 1848 such research was not possible but today we know better about it but I agree there is still more research to be done.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-germs-suggest-one-mass-migration-Europe.html

This is a quite interesting find

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...inct-human-found-in-cave-may-rewrite-history/

Christianity is taking its last breath. Islam may not survive in any place except India and indonesia as per one study.

You are joking right? try going South America and see the catholic faith they have
 
Nope the Aryan migration theory is a theory which has been debunked, I do research as SOAS University where we studied this.

As I hope you must surely have realised, our series was not made to support ‘shameful' or ‘despicable racist behaviour' or ideas, or to ‘vandalize' Indian history; but made with honest intent, sound research, and above all with great affection for Indian culture. Personally speaking, if you were to look, for example, at my book, ‘Smile of Murugan (A South Indian Journey)' you would, I hope, see evidence of my feelings towards traditional Hindu culture. But that is not what is at issue here. The question is, of course, very complex and is hotly argued over, and there is no question that the ‘Aryan theory' in the 19th century was subject to many racial interpretations in Europe where there was a fundamental antipathy to Hindu culture among many in the colonial class (this is recounted in a fine book by Thomas Trautmann — 'Aryans and British India' Vistaar Publications New Delhi, 1997). But I think over this, big misconceptions have crept in — along with a lot of pseudo science. The issue it seems to me is not in the end one of ‘archaeological', ‘mathematical', ‘geographical' or genetic or even (as some claim) astronomical science (though sure some of these may well be able to help resolve it in time). Nor emphatically is it about skin colour as you suggest. The issue is simply one of linguistics. And as Prof Pitchappan, one of India's (and the world's) leading geneticists says in our first episode, you must never confuse ethnicity with language. Geneticists can tell us that the DNA of India has remained remarkably constant for ten thousand years save for relatively small influxes from NW and NE. But that does not tell us about language (e.g. search in India's DNA for the British and where would you find them despite the wide spread of their speech?). I think you have overstated the case when you say that the ‘Aryan' migration theory has been debunked (not ‘invasion' by the way — I never used the term). In fact as far as I can tell the majority of language scholars in the world still believe that the ancestral language of Sanskrit cannot have been born inside the subcontinent but must have come from the outside. Many eminent Sanskritologists believe this is plainly revealed in the earliest layers of the text of the Rig Veda, both in its content and in linguistic borrowings from Dravidian, and in Central Asian language connections. Recent work on ‘Time-depth' linguistics (which tries to reconstruct the branches off the main trunk of language, family trees as judged by language change) has reconstructed the Indo-European family tree in some detail (earliest recorded being Hittite) and in the eyes of most experts the language moved southwards and eastwards into Iran and NW India. In our films we said this was controversial, but it remains the most plausible hypothesis and is backed up by the totality of the evidence. As for the dating, we'll speak more on this but clearly the earliest Rig Veda hymns have to be 2nd millennium BCE (to take only one fact, horse drawn chariots have to be after the invention of the chariot and the arrival of the horse in the subcontinent). But thanks very much indeed for your mail: I know many of you disagree strongly with this, and over the next weeks no doubt we'll all correspond more on it

http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/amythofaryaninvasionsofindia.pdf
I agree as well; Indians look nothing like Iranic peoples.
 
raping, pillaging, brainwashing, intimidation
 
Christianity is taking its last breath. Islam may not survive in any place except India and indonesia as per one study.
Christianity in practice and devotion is declining but technically in numbers it is still thriving and will continue to thrive for a long time.

Islam in both practice, devotion and numbers is rapidly increasing. With prayer attendance, Hajj arrivals, Pilgrimages to holy places, and ect... surging.

This has been called the modern Islamic revival which is most likely linked to ongoing conflicts in the middle east and the growing cultural gap and 'rejection' in many countries abroad.

This 'Islamic revival' is paternal in which Islam (in practice and devotion) declined during the Crusades and surged after the Crusades; it began to decline again in 1850-1940 but spiked again briefly then saw a decline during the Cold War which has been amped up again as Muslims turn towards their religion to seek identity abroad and become more aware of their religion during these ongoing sectarian and religious conflicts in the Middle East.

Islam has endured much worst and will continue to grow, thrive and solidify.
 
You might not but I do as my caste comes from Persia
I live abroad and i've heard many Indians claim their clans and castes 'originate' from Persia yet they do not look Iranic. Persians never followed a caste system.

But just out of curiosity; what is your 'caste'.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom