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 is a thread about the shocking history of Malik community of Bihar.
It documents how they transitioned from calling themselves proud Afghan Jihadi Syeds to availing benefits of reservation as downtrodden Muslim OBCs.
I show how a foreign elite which ruled India for 100s of years now avails reservation benefits. In doing so, they exploited a big loophole in the current Indian reservation system. Read the entire thread 🧵
Maliks of Bihar trace their ancestry from Malik Ibrahim Bayu and his tribe.
Malik Ibrahim Bayu was a Syed Sufi invader from Ghazni, Afghanistan. Syeds are considered the uppermost class among Muslims because they claim descent from the Prophet.
Malik Ibrahim Bayu became the Tughlaq army general and he, along with his tribe, defeated native Hindu kingdoms of Bihar. After crushing the Hindu kingdoms, the Maliks destroyed whatever was left of Nalanda.
Today, Malik Ibrahim Bayu's tomb lies on Nalanda ruins.
It is directly built on top of Vihara remains and uses the bricks of the destroyed Vihara.
In his archaeological survey, archaeologist Cunnigham confirms that Malik Ibrahim Bayu's tomb was built on top of a Buddhist temple.
For the next 700 years, Maliks dominated the landscape of Bihar. From Babur to Aurangzeb, they functioned as Zamindars and Governors of the region. These Syed Maliks virtually ruled over Bihar for the next few hundred years under Mughal administration. Their rule was known to to be extremely oppressive.
I will not go into the details so as not to digress. Suffice to say they maintained their dominance throughout this period.
Literacy of UCs in English was much worse. In 1931, Brahmins had a literacy rate of just 3% in English.
It was less than the English literacy of Muslim communities like Sayyids and Shaikhs.
An average Brahmin was poorer than an average Muslim. This is all documented in census
In Bihar, Bhumihar male literacy was only 16.6% (female 2%) and Rajput male literacy 15%.
Atrocity literature claims UCs systematically barred others from education, but the data exposes the logic gap: how can a community gatekeep a resource 85% of them didn't even possess?
But today, an abominable lowlife called Ruchika Sharma abused Shivaji Maharaj. She falsely dubbed him as a 'looter' on Live TV. She made a factually inaccurate and slanderous statement.
The man who gave Hindus freedom, respect and dignity gets insulted. Thankless Hindu nation doesn't even bother.
Fact-check thread🧵:
This cunning anchor @anjanaomkashyap platforms such filth. Invites her and lets her spew venom. Doesn't interrupt or fact-check her lies. Just adds a disclaimer at the end.
Shame on you @anjanaomkashyap and others who platform such filth for TRP.
In tweets below, I will fact-check this inaccurate claim.
This alleged historian Ruchika @tishasaroyan says:
" Shivaji's own Bakhars say he looted Hindu temple town of Srirangapatna and surrounding areas".
Hey @tishasaroyan, here is an open challenge to you and your ilk:
Show us which Bakhar says Shivaji looted Srirangapatna.
There is none. It is not mentioned in any Bakhar. Have some shame you liar.
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.