@MasterMaliq You guys have the biggest trouble because almost every thing these terrorists do, your caliphs, sahabas or even prophet has done them. You will cite contexts but if these terrorists will become successful, even they will be defended with these contexts.
@MasterMaliq I get your pain but that’s what it is. If Hindus take the name of Hinduism and kill Muslims for the dominance of Hindus, it would be called Hindu terrorism. If they cite Hindu religious texts to justify their acres it will be terrorist in the name of Hindus. Same with Muslims.
@MasterMaliq Neither Islam has to do with God nor God has anything to do with Islam. Muhammad was just addressing the society- God was tool. Muhammad didn’t prioritise anything for God. He prioritised society. But Muslims got him totally wrong.
@MasterMaliq Well Jews faced first Christians and then Muslims. And thereafter, they faced harted and ridicule where they went. Hindus in India faced every kind of enemy- bigotry to colonialism.
@MasterMaliq If you see Muhammad, entire life was his struggle to finish off this power structure and establish a new order that he believed in. So, he had to delegitimise anything other than his.
@MasterMaliq Sir, deep down , you don’t understand that no Semitic religion was trying to establish God. They were addressing the local issues and against existing power, power structure and their followers. God was never the purpose, God was the tool.1/3
@MasterMaliq Muhammad opposed the Meccan elite and formed a group of followers against the elite. The power structure of the elite was based on their grip on the holy place. Muhammad had to finish off the claim of elites, so he told all are equal before God, there is no elite. 2/3
@DogsRedLipstick@MasterMaliq Not defending anyone- aggression of Muslims was one dark chapter for India but that is war. But the issues that are discussed stand on their own. Colonial British and Portuguese were also not so great for us either - millions died by their policies and impoverished the nation.
@DogsRedLipstick@MasterMaliq Also, the slavery pattern were different- trans ocean trade was one form but I other forms skavery existed in Christian world at wider scale - including in America leading to civil war- among Christians.
@DogsRedLipstick@MasterMaliq You are talking about scale. The question was that Islam is the root cause of slavery or that it perpetrated it. Idea is irrespective of Islam slave trade existed. Europe ended it mainly because of industrialisation and moral developments by grassroot Christian philosophers. 1/2
@MasterMaliq Muhaaamd needed to claim himself at equal or better footing with established personalities and so so accepted Moses abd Christ but declared that their followers are not following them or they are treating their teachings wrong. So, it’s smart- it was gaslighting people. 2/2
@MasterMaliq First thing - it’s all about convenience, you don’t know if God actually sent any of them. So, whatever suited to the people in need or in power , they accepted it.
@MasterMaliq Muhammad was also followed by people who were not beneficiaries of Mecca elite. He led them , gave them hope and challenged the elite by giving the concept of everyone being equal in front of one God . 1/2
@MasterMaliq Jesus was not accepted by the Jews who were uncomfortable with Jesus and what he was looking for - change. The people who followed Jesus were also Jews only. He was leading the poor and downtrodden and they accepted him. Relatively well off people didn’t.
@Dave_NunyaBiz@MasterMaliq@DogsRedLipstick There is no such directive as you are speaking of. Murder is at the battlefield. I don’t find mistreatment allowed by Islam. Slavery is regulated in Islam while Christians did slavery in no less measure than Muslims.