According to Jewish records, the so called 'black Jews' were slaves with 'filthy Hindu complexion' . They were originally drawn from native Hindu population. The 'black Jews' of Hindu descent were subjected to worst form of discrimination.
Buchanan visited Jewish settlements in 19th century
He noticed that
1) White Jews looked down upon black Jews as 'inferior race' as they had 'Hindu complexion'.
Moses Paiva was a Jewish leader.
According to him, the 'black Jews' (whom he calls Malabari) were 'slaves of slaves'.
They were mixed with Kanhanites ( A Jewish word for idol worshipers)
So bad was the discrimination that a black Jew slave of Hindu descent was not allowed to eat or pray with White Jew.
In 1843, a Black Jew had concealed his slave status in Kolkata. For this offense, he was punished with a fine.
Mind you, this was in 1843 when slavery was 'abolished'
White Jews considered themselves a 'great disgrace' to marry black Jews of Hindu descent
There was no brotherhood even in religion.
The Black Jews were not allowed in White Jewish synagogues. The White Jews refused to eat meat touched by Black Jews
Even in 1948, Black Jews were fighting for their rights.
A Black Jew named AB Salem threatened to fast to death.
But then the state of Israel was formed and almost every single Jew left India in a second to migrate to Israel.
This Portuguese "Saint" used to say that Indians were black and ugly "monsters whose sight is unbearable".
This colonialist destroyed many Hindu temples with his own hands. He wrote many letters to the Portuguese king advocating for inquisition in Goa. He was thus directly responsible for Goan inquisition which kiIIed thousands of Hindus and some Jews.
According to Francis Xavier, Indian women were 'black and ugly monsters whose sight is unbearable'.
According to him, 'black and ugly Indian women' were unfit to be even Portuguese Concubines.
It is amazing that in 21st century, most visitors to his grave are Indian and 'Hindu' women.
[ Source: Celebrated Jesuits by William Harris Rule]
Portuguese forcibly converted many Hindu Dalit fishermen. Many of these converts used to worship Hindu Gods secretly.
When Francis Xavier came to know about this, he burnt the huts of these Dalit converts. This was a punishment for secretly worshiping Hindu deities.
This is false. She is deliberately using a CORRUPTED verse to defame Shri Rāma and Sita.
What the corrupted verse reads:
उषित्वा द्वा दश समाः इक्ष्वाकूणाम् निवेशने |
भुंजाना मानुषान् भोगान् सर्व काम समृद्धिनी ||
("I resided at my in laws for 12 years")
However, this corrupted verse (probably a medieval copyist's mistake) is present only in some southern manuscripts.
But in Maithili, Bengali, and Devaganagari as well as calcutta manuscripts of Valmiki Ramayana [N2 – V1 – B – D6-7], the verse reads as:
संवत्सरं चाध्युषिता इक्ष्वाकूणाम् निवेशने |
भुंजाना मानुषान् भोगान् सर्व काम समृद्धिनी ||
("I resided at my in laws for 1 year")
Therefore, Devi Sita was 18-1=17 years old at the time of her wedding and NOT 6 years old as wrongly claimed below:
Here is what the authors and editors of Critical Edition of Valmiki Ramayana had to say:
After noticing the discrepancy between manuscripts, they come to the conclusion that staying at "one year" is not only attested to by many manuscripts(2 Nepali, 1 Maithili, 1 Bengali, Devanagari, Gorresio, Calcutta)
but that it also suits the context.
In Valmiki Ramayana (2.17.26 CE), Kausalya laments that Shri Rāma was just 17 years old at the time of exile [दश सप्त च वर्षाणि तव जातस्य राघव].
Let us assume for the sake of argument that exile happened 12 years after wedding.
This makes Shri Rāma just 5 years old at the time of wedding.
He underwent Upanayana (to be conducted at 11 years for Kṣatriyas according to Dharmaśāstras). He then completed his education. He then protected Vishvamitra's sacrifice by his physical prowess. Then broke Shiva's bow. And then married Sita.
All a boy of 5 years? The sheer absurdity of this entire argument!
In my thread, I showed that Sambhal disputed structure was originally a temple, which was not used as a Mosque until 19th century.
Denying all evidence, this apologist produces a painting of the disputed structure from 1789. He alleges the artist of this sketch depicted 'Jama Masjid of Sambhal'.
Is it true? Let us examine the evidence to see what the artist of the sketch himself had to say
Thread 🧵
The artist of this sketch was William Daniell. He and his uncle Thomas Daniell had toured India. Apart from the paintings, they also left a description of this structure.
Does the artist say the above structure is a Jama Mosque? The answer is an emphatic NO.
The artist says that in 1789, local Muslims called the structure "the grave of Babur".
To begin with. In Muslim religion, a grave is NOT a mosque. A grave is not a place fit for any sort of worship.
According to authentic Hadiths, Prophet Muhammad cursed the Jews and Christians for building places of worship at graves. Prophet clearly instructed Muslims not to construct Mosques at the graves and not to use graves of righteous men as places of worship.
Of course, a few ignorant and illiterate Muslims who are not well informed about their own religion do offer prayers at graves but that doesn't change the fact that a grave is not and cannot be a Mosque.
Muslims claim Sambhal is a historical "Mosque" built by Babur in 16th century.
This is FALSE. Babur did NOT build this mosque . It did not even exist until 19th century,
It was a Hindu temple until recently, before it was stolen by Muslims. Thread
Sambhal has been in the news:
Muslims & Liberals have argued that Sambhal is a historical Mosque built by Babur. That it should thus be protected under the places of worship act 1991.
This is TOTALLY false. Sambhal Mosque was NOT built by Babur. It is a recent usurpation.
Sambhal holds great religious significance for Hindus. As great as Ayodhya & Mathura.
In the Mahabharata (3.189), it is mentioned that God Vishnu will take birth in Sambhala as Kalki. Kalki is the future avatara of Vishnu.
Skanda Purana mentions a Vishnu temple in Sambhala.
The Pushyamitra who allegedly destroyed Buddhist temples was NOT a Hindu king.
According to same story, he was a Buddhist. He was NOT Pushyamitra Sunga. Rather, he was Pushyamitra Maurya. A great grandson of Buddhist emperor Ashoka!
This year, Diwali and Halloween coincided on the same day. But is there more to this 'coincidence'? Since Indian and Western calendars differ, their corresponding dates vary.
Yet, both Hallowen and Diwali occur at the same time. End of Harvest season and beginning of winter. In many regions of India, Diwali coincides with the end of a harvesting season known as the Kharif.
Likewise, Halloween occurs exactly at the end of Harvest season and the beginning of winter. This is traditionally October 31/November 1 on Western calendar.
Halloween originated as a festival in the British Isles before its importation to US. It has roots in Hallowtide and Samhain. As such, it is a very ancient pagan festival which was subsequently Christianized and commercialized.