Assalamu alaikum everyone, For the sake of clarity, please see the following quotes in order to understand my views better: Audrey Truschke: “Hindus” of the day often did not even label themselves as such and rather prioritized a medley of regional, sectarian, and caste identities (e.g., Rajput, Maratha, Brahmin, Vaishnava). As many scholars have pointed out, the word Hindu is Persian, not Sanskrit, and only became commonly used self-referentially during British colonialism. The Mughals, too, emphasized differences between groups of “Hindus.” For example, Mahabat Khan, who led Mughal efforts in the Deccan for a short period in the early 1670s, preferred “Rajputs and Hindus” among the Mughal nobility, even while fighting the Marathas (who apparently did not count as “Hindu” in this instance). (Audrey Truschke. “Aurangzeb: The Life and Legacy of India's Most Controversial King.” [Oxford, 2017], p. 39). Wendy Doniger: "The use of the term Hinduism to describe a collection of practices and beliefs is a recent European construction, the term "Hindu" was coined in position to other religions and used to describe those that were not of the other religions. Before the British began to categorise communities strictly by religion, Indians generally did not define themselves exclusively through their religious beliefs; identities were segmented on the basis of locality, language, caste, occupation and sect." (Wendy Doniger, " On Hinduism", Oxford University Press, 2014). See also: www.e-ir.info/2012/11/26/the-impact-of-european-colonialism-on-the-indian-caste-system/ Hopefully these scholarly views will contextualise this short clip :)
Adnan Rashid keep up the good work big brother. Muslims of Kashmir have asked ummah for help this time, lets get united Ummah around the globe and show this world what Islam is. Forget puppet governments, We'll be made answerable for them on the day of Judgment so we'll do whatever is in our power to help them even if it is just a comment. May he ☝🏻reward you with all the best here and in the world after, Ameen!!
Yes it is true that "Hinduism" was created by the British. But as a student of different religions I must clarify that the ancient forms of the religion including Brahmanism and the Vedic Religion were actually considered a single religion though that changed after the priests lost their status due to increasing complexity in sacrificial rites. During the Vedic age they, for the most part, had similar daily rituals, sacrificial rites, prayer, lawbooks (though their is not a lot of evidence of them being followed), and a standardized priesthood.
Hindu name given by Greeks in 850 BC....much before Prophet Mohammad.... Second Hinduism includes every religion which originate on the Indian subcontinent...Thats why we call Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists are Hindus. Our religion name is Snatan Dharma. But when other religion starts thinking their identity starts hiding behind Snatan Dharmis.They left Hinduism. Even there was no Sikh religion before 1906.There was Khalsa Panth.
Hinduism is Monotheistic NOT polytheistic in nature (whaaaaa???) A single, unknowable God beyond names with infinite faces/incarnations that is the fabric of reality itself - sound familiar? What a shame politics creates illusory divisions, right?
LOL, temples and teachings of Ram and Krishna(Hinduism), Buddha(Buddhism) and Mahavir(Jainism) in various cities of my state ,Bihar is older than Prophet Muhamad . Learn to respect others. First learn about the something then talk about it.
prove hinduism/sanatan dharam (ram/krishna/shiv/ved/upanishad/sanskrit) existed before 800C.E Fact-- Oldest manuscript of hindu religion (rig ved) is carbon dated back to 1464 C.E While Oldest manuscript of Quran (Birmingham Quran, kept on display in University of Birmingham) was carbon dated back to 568C.E to 645 C.E So Quran is 800 year older than oldest hindu scripture. (1464 - 645 = 819) Earlier I also believed that hinduism is 5000 year old religion because of Google search, but i found recently that it is just a claim, they dont have any evidence to back this claim. So next time if an hindutva troll question you about islam, ask him to prove hinduism existed before 800C.E He will show you some images of ancient idols, and show you that idol worshippers exist in ancient time, but ask him to prove that they were hindu, and those idols belong to hinduism and not budhism or Jainism , because there exist idol worshippers also in arabia but that doesn't mean they were hindus, they will speak very confidently and tell you many stories you should ask them for proof. (hindus claim that ka'ba 🕋 was a shiv temple 🤣🤣 while arabs used to eat cows🤣) (Whenever archeologist find some monuments hindu go there and claim it belongs to their religion) If you ask these questions, He will delete his comment and will block you 🤣 because hinduism is an ideology which originated in 7th and 8th century to enslave lower caste people, their scriptures were written in 11th century to promote and justify casteism.
@@FA-hb3hf what's the evidence of Islam being true rather than a book which makes u guys a slave which was written by a day dreamer to conquer the world ?
@@FA-hb3hf well I guess u r just islamic worshipper who is more into proving other religions fake than to focus on their own stufff.... The name or thelabel "Hindusim" was the only thing given by the British referring to the people who used to practice Sanatan dharm, Vaishnavites, Shaivites, etc (more of polytheists) and that hindusim was regarded as the way of life more than a religion.... Hindus were referred also to Sikhs, muslims, Jain's and Buddhists because that was the reference of the demography and not religion.... It's only after India got independence and that things started to be put under the religion (such as marriage acts, certificates, legal provisions) that polytheists in India where put up under the label of "Hindu" religion to make things less complicated.... unlike Islam, Hindus never worshipped one God, some believed in Vedas, Geeta, some people had different dieties (every village has different diety refering to some form known as "Kuldaivat") and those people didn't refer to any of the two (Vedas as well as geeta) and that's why tracing something and linking it's strings with hindusim would make it more complicated because that would only be a small part of what was later added... U might be a huge islamic scholar and u might literally drown me in ur knowledge of ur religion but i m literally not interested because never was I taught and nor is my intention to prove any religion as fake or superior....
I am reading on this topic these days. think about it british supported ahmadi etc way they altered (some addition subtraction) and "standardized" hindu mythology to make it more palatable to modern times through characters like swami Vivekananda. British/u.s.a were and still are very good at creating characters. e.g Gandhi, usama bin ladan, sadam, mirza qadiani to achieve political goals.
@@alihyder6877 Yes sir that was the aim to make hinduism look good thereby lifting hindus up and making them equal philosophically to Muslims. Divide and rule.
The modern concept is a British creation but the older one was a creation when the muslims began to invade and older still was when some aryans mixed with locals in the gangettic valley
Extremely misleading. You can say they created the label of "Hinduism" but the British had no part in creating "Hindu philosophy/theology". It's obviously a very diverse set of cults which are loosely based around the same texts (vedas, upanishads, etc) and was around for thousands of years before the British conquered your country.
@@ibrahim.1606 "any" of what I suggested? I didn't make a long list or anything: just pointing out the fallacy of this "sound bite" argument which many people in the "Decolonial" and "Critical Theory" circles make nowadays. I'm not addressing Adnan Rashid directly, I think he made his stance clear in the comment section here; rather I'm addressing the simpletons who believe the click-bait title.
@@aliaosman655 you want to have your cake and eat it too. You constantly claim to be Arab, Persians etc. A whole host of peoples. You boast proudly of conquering India and ruling over the Hindus. Gloating that one day you'll over the Hindus again. Yet now you want to claim Hindu heritage. A heritage which you or your forefathers have actively discarded and rejected. You can't be the conquerors and conquered at the same time. The subjugators or the subjugated. You have to pick one. You likely have no idea what your ancestors were and I doubt it matters. Your surname Osman is the Turkish form of Uthman. You could be descended from Central Asians or turks who intermarried with Hindu women. You could be descended from Hindus who converted to Islam for social mobility. Or they could have been Hindus influenced by Sufi Practices and Sufi Saints who came to the subcontinent. We really don't know. What we do know is that Islam did not spread from people setting up Dawah stalls. There's a reason why the boundaries of the Muslim world are largely defined by the areas of historical Islamic empires. The Aryan word is a British concoction. Hindus are not descended from blonde haired blue eyed white men who subjugated natives. Of course Muslims have the right to be in the Indian subcontinent. But so do Christians, Jews and every other religous or cultural group on the planet. India does not belong to the Muslims just because Muslims once ruled over it. Just like it does not belong to the British.
@@insaan2695 Hindu word was coined by Mughals, the content of Sanatan Dharm wasn't created by Britishers but making it a religious organization was done by Britishers. There was nothing like Hinduism before Colonization.
I agree with everything you said except Hinduism (all the South Asian none-Muslim religions) was preferred by the British; I would argue they preferred Islam because it was Abrahamic. Also, South Asian Muslims are not homogeneous either - not religiously (Sufi, Sunni, etc, even within Pakistan) or even racially. Most Pakistanis are not Mughal but Hindu converts (Jats/Jaats, Khatris, Rajputs & even Brahmins) making them of the North Hindu Indian racial group. I also strongly suspect that most Pakistanis of Hindu racial or religious origin were made Muslims by the BRITISH during the raj. Most of North India was under Maharaja Ranjeet Singh & the inhabitants of his country did not identify by a religion but their caste; they would say I'm a Jat/Jaat or Tharkan, etc & religion was fluid not Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. They did use the word Hindu but it meant North Indian not a religion. You can research the culture of Ranjeet Singh's country. The British did not consider the Muslims as a threat in North India it was the Nihang Sikhs who wanted to preserve the ORIGINAL culture of Ranjeet Singh's Kingdom that were considered a threat. Mughals had a very limited impact religiously in India, look at it in comparison to the middle east. You guys were made Muslim by the British for divide & rule purposes.
They are educated, they do it because of their innate hate for Hindus. They know the philosophy and the history of Hindu civilization especially historians among them but they lie, as they are allowed to lie for Islam.
sad you knew nothing about hinduism...if you knew then you will know about brahman and advaita.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta very illliterate comment
@ptr bassi Allah blessed jeruselem and prophet Muhammad(s)place makka and madeena.prophet kiss that stone.we Muslim following prophet path.prophet Muhammad(s) this stone.heaven stone.allah order kiss that stone your all sin destroy that stone.understand.
The only Islamic scholar who respects Hindu philosophy is Sheikh Hamza Yusuf.this man hasn't delved into any of the Hindu books. Let him continue preaching to Christians
Marwaris( Aggarwal,Oswal, Somani, Dalmia, jhunjhunwala, Heera lal, Bansal, jain) and Gujrati banyas helped british loot and plunder south asia. Parsis of Mumbai helped british in their opium business in China. Jamshed ji TATA founder of TATA Group was the british agent of opium. The Poet Ravindranath Tagore of India who wrote national anthem of India . His Gand father Darokanath tagore was the first industrialist of India was a British agent who helped massacred local farmers in bengal who refuse to grow opium. British govt finally helped his grandson Ravindranth tagore a noble prize in 1911 for writing '' Ja na ga na man Adhinayak'' for King george the 5th. British just awarded their own agent family the tagore family. Marwari and jain bankers of benaras also helped british in Opium war. such as Birla, Dalmia, other banya family. By the way mohandas karamchad gandhi was a banya who was recruited by british as an agent so that the indian solders can be recruited for WW1. Punjabi (Sikh, Hindu, Muslim) helped british killed more than 10 million people in present day ( UP,BIHAR, BENGAL) after 1857 . British ordered anyone over the age of 16 should be shot dead. Punjabi sikh follwed the order.
Are you kidding me hinduism has been in india for over thousands of years and is much older then the abrahamic religions this adnan rashid why is a complete joke and i'm saying that as a pakistani muslim
Brahmin/Rajput were muslim.. Before British abraham-ibrahim A-BRAHAMIC = Brahamic = Brahamin . I am Brahman from Nepal.. . Braham-man named By Britishers Braham (Braham_ma or brahama ) is Creator in Hinduism books.. So the Brahman is Braham-man (God man)
Hinduism is only a word used by outside people to religiously identify the people of the Indus valley area. The division was out of stupidity. Muslims and Hindus believed that Hinduism is supposed to be Polytheistic. But those Hindus who actually believed that and those who currently do, were lost and are still lost. It is 100% monotheistic and has always been. It all depends on whether someone smart enough is interpreting the scriptures or not. Think about how corrupted Islam and Christianity was jus until recently, we were almost at a point of no return. Christianity being the older one is only about 2000 years old. "Hinduism" or the Vedic religion was only documented around 6000 years ago, which is already three times the age of Christianity. And prior to that it was an oral tradition we dont know for exactly how long but my guess is its really long. They only started writing things down when the "scholars" of that time noticed that alot was being lost and corruption was seeping in, kinda like how we were almost at no return. And when they started recording stuff, it ended up being alittle late so not everything was available and whatever was available had gone through some extremism and sexism and all the human errors which weve seen again now. So yes, the Vedas teaches 100% monotheism and "Hindus" are in fact Muslims. Whether they know it or not and whether you believe it or not, its TRUE.
It is lack of the ability to decipher the layers of varied Hindu philosophies and schools of thought that leads to calling Hinduism as monotheistic. Only vedas say God is singular. In fact the very same vedas say is God and reality are not separate..they are one and the same (formless, unquantifiable Brahman), that is atheism and theism collapsed into the same concept. It goes beyond this and says that all living things, people as well as other creatures, construct and worship an imaginary form of this one entity whether in their hearts or in some shape. That is reason Hindus have no problem having so many deities, especially people in different parts of India worship deities that are not at all known/heard or popular in other areas. All this is bound by a simple principle that you pay for your actions (karma). The problem with abrahamic religions is they lack depth but impresses the uneducated and the unsophisticated.
Everything's a conspiracy to some people. If it's not the British Empire then it's the Jews or the CIA. It's an easy way to feel like nothing is your fault and everything wrong can be attributed to the "bogeyman"
Abbasid caliphate created islam before that there was no inscriptions of muhammad the prophet or quran, and even the quran says oh believers not muslims!
"The word 'Hindu' occurs nowhere in the classical scriptures of Hinduism. The ancestors of the present day Hindus did not identify themselves as Hindus." "When Western scholars and Christian missionaries arrived on the scene, the Hindus found their faith tradition 'ism'-ized and its name became 'Hinduism'." Due to many centuries of subjugation and humiliation by foreigners, Hindus have lost self-respect, dignity and the will to face the truth and reality. Instead, they have become masters of deception,manipulation and hypocrisy. They cry hoarse, that foreign writers have maligned their religion and culture and distorted their history. However, they don’t have any compunction against quoting foreign historians if it suites their purpose . Todays hindus says that “Hindu” is a corrupted version of “Sindhu.” However, he has ignored my questions and failed to reflect on the meaning of “Hindu Kush.” The interpretation that the word Hindu is a corrupted version of Sindhu does not explain why the Sindhu River or the people who live in the valley of this river did not acquire the name “Hindu.” This river is called Sindh and the people are called Punjabis and Sindhis. No body calls the state of Sindh as Hind or Sindhis as Hindis. I am not sure whether it was a Hindu or a European, who was the first to suggest that Persians called river Sindhu as Hindu due to difference in pronunciation. Nonetheless, this explanation has found its way in European writings. Hindus find comfort in this absurd explanation as it provides them escape from facing the reality of their humiliating past and connects them to their mythical glorious past, the so called Vedic period of Ram Raj. Indian writers who have looked at the meaning of “Hindu” with a critical eye don’t agree with the interpretation of foreign writers. For example: “The political situation of our country from centuries past, say 20- 25 centuries has made it very difficult to understand the nature of this nation and its religion. The western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to trace the true name of this Brahmanland, a vast continent like country, and therefore, they have contended themselves by calling it by that meaningless term “Hindu.” This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use by any of our Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It seems that political power was responsible for insisting upon continuous use of the word Hindu. The word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian literature. Hindu-e-falak means “the black of the sky’ and Saturn.” In the Arabic language Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful and ridiculous to have read all along in history that the name Hindu was given by the Persians to the people of our country when they landed on the sacred soil of Sindhu.” [R. N. Suryanarayan, Universal Religion, p 1-2, published from Mysore in 1952.] “Some people, according to the author, say that this word Hindu is a corrupt form of Sindhu but this is wrong because Sindhu was the name of the river and not the name of the community. Moreover, it is correct that this name has been given to the original Aryan race of the region by Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author, the word means slave, and according to Islam, all those who did not embrace Islam were termed as slaves.” [Maharishi Shri Dayanand Sarswati Aur Unka Kaam, edited by Lala Lajpat Rai, published from Lahore in 1898, in the chapter of introduction. Besides, a Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari, published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of Hindu as ‘chore (thief), dakoo (dacoit), raahzan (waylayer), and ghulam (slave)’. Yet according to an other dictionary named Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat - part 1 (p 615), the meaning of the word Hindu is as under: In Turkish: chore, raahzan and lutera (looter). In Persian: ghulam (slave), barda (obedient servant), sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black). The hypothesis that Persians had difficulty in pronouncing Sindhu is baseless and preposterous. For example, how do the Persians who are Shia Muslims pronounce words like Shia, Sunni and Shariat? In Punjabi there are many, many words of Persian origin, which start with “s” and “sh.” For example, sardar or sirdar (leader), shaheed (martyr), shhadat (martyrdom) shair (lion), sahir (town), sar (walk) shayer (poet), shakar (sugar), sja (punishment), siahi (black ink), siah(black) and so on. The word Punjab is also derived from Persian panch and aab (five waters). The word Hindu may be as old as the Indus Vallay Civilization. To find the meaning of “Hindu” one ought to look at the term “Hindu Kush”(killer of Hindus). Who were the people, who named this mountain range as Hindu Kush? Why these mountains were called the killers of Hindus? As I mentioned earlier, the Indian subcontinent was inhabited by dark complexioned people before the migration of Caucasian tribes from the Caucasus region. The fair skinned Caucasian tribes who lived on the Northwest of Hindu Kush Moutain range called the Indian subcontinent as the land of Hindus (land of black people). The Northwest expansion of the inhabitants of Indus Valley was prevented by of Hindu Kush Mountains. Whenever the plain dwelling Indians (Hindus) attempted to cross these mountains, they met death due harsh terrain and heavy snow. That is how these mountains were given the name Hindu Kush by mountain dwelling Caucasian tribes. Once a large number of Indian people died on these mountains due to heavy snow fall and that is how these mountains acquired the name “Hindu Kush” - killer of the Hindus. [Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha, Mahan Kosh, 1996 edn. p 275.] Later on when the Caucasian tribes conquered Northwest India, they continued using the name Hindu for native Indians. To humiliate the natives, the Caucasians ridiculed their culture, looks and black complexion, and used derogatory expressions for them. It is astonishing that these derogatory expressions have survived through thousands of years of Indian history and are found in modern Indian languages. “Blackness” is used in bad connotation in Indian languages. For example, in Punjabi there are expressions like, kaala munh (black mouth, ugly or who speaks ill), kaali Jeebh ( evil speaking tounge), kaala chore (notorious thief), kaala dhandha (illegal profession), kaala dhan (black money), kaali bhaid (black sheep), kalai laikh (black deeds) and kaala chum (black skinned person). There are also expressions like bandar munhan (monkey face) and rish jeha (bear-like), which the Caucasians used to describe the features of native Indians (Hindus). In Ramyan, the two native devotees of Shri Ram Chandar are depicted as a monkey (Hanuman) and a bear (Jamawant).
@@truthteller3177 you seemed well versed on the topic, I never said it's called Hinduism, it's an umbrella term actually, the real name of religion is called sanatana dharma, we follow the Vedas, Upanishads only
Assalamu alaikum everyone,
For the sake of clarity, please see the following quotes in order to understand my views better:
Audrey Truschke:
“Hindus” of the day often did not even label themselves as such and rather prioritized a medley of regional, sectarian, and caste identities (e.g., Rajput, Maratha, Brahmin, Vaishnava). As many scholars have pointed out, the word Hindu is Persian, not Sanskrit, and only became commonly used self-referentially during British colonialism. The Mughals, too, emphasized differences between groups of “Hindus.” For example, Mahabat Khan, who led Mughal efforts in the Deccan for a short period in the early 1670s, preferred “Rajputs and Hindus” among the Mughal nobility, even while fighting the Marathas (who apparently did not count as “Hindu” in this instance). (Audrey Truschke. “Aurangzeb: The Life and Legacy of India's Most Controversial King.” [Oxford, 2017], p. 39).
Wendy Doniger:
"The use of the term Hinduism to describe a collection of practices and beliefs is a recent European construction, the term "Hindu" was coined in position to other religions and used to describe those that were not of the other religions. Before the British began to categorise communities strictly by religion, Indians generally did not define themselves exclusively through their religious beliefs; identities were segmented on the basis of locality, language, caste, occupation and sect." (Wendy Doniger, " On Hinduism", Oxford University Press, 2014).
See also: www.e-ir.info/2012/11/26/the-impact-of-european-colonialism-on-the-indian-caste-system/
Hopefully these scholarly views will contextualise this short clip :)
Peace Be Upon You Brother
Adnan Rashid keep up the good work big brother. Muslims of Kashmir have asked ummah for help this time, lets get united Ummah around the globe and show this world what Islam is. Forget puppet governments, We'll be made answerable for them on the day of Judgment so we'll do whatever is in our power to help them even if it is just a comment.
May he ☝🏻reward you with all the best here and in the world after, Ameen!!
Yes it is true that "Hinduism" was created by the British. But as a student of different religions I must clarify that the ancient forms of the religion including Brahmanism and the Vedic Religion were actually considered a single religion though that changed after the priests lost their status due to increasing complexity in sacrificial rites.
During the Vedic age they, for the most part, had similar daily rituals, sacrificial rites, prayer, lawbooks (though their is not a lot of evidence of them being followed), and a standardized priesthood.
@Adnan What's the name of the poet / poetry you quoted at @29:56 in the original video? The one about the Bee and the moth
Assalamu Alaikum is there a full video to this?
Before the 19th century there was no Hinduism and Buddhism. Both were created by the British colonialists in that century.
Problem arises when Abrahamics like Adnan Rashid try to define what a religion is according to Abrahamic paradigm of what constitutes a religion.
Didnt the British also help create Ahmadiyyah
Ahmadiyah was used to write fatwas in support of British empire
Absolutely
Yess they did
Hindu name given by Greeks in 850 BC....much before Prophet Mohammad....
Second Hinduism includes every religion which originate on the Indian subcontinent...Thats why we call Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists are Hindus.
Our religion name is Snatan Dharma.
But when other religion starts thinking their identity starts hiding behind Snatan Dharmis.They left Hinduism.
Even there was no Sikh religion before 1906.There was Khalsa Panth.
Hindu word was coined by Mughals over Indus River. Read the correct history dude!
@@saim6749 lol 😁 Pakistanis so funny
Sources?
Very questionable.
Hinduism is Monotheistic NOT polytheistic in nature (whaaaaa???) A single, unknowable God beyond names with infinite faces/incarnations that is the fabric of reality itself - sound familiar? What a shame politics creates illusory divisions, right?
How many generations ago was his family hindu
It never was.
LOL, temples and teachings of Ram and Krishna(Hinduism), Buddha(Buddhism) and Mahavir(Jainism) in various cities of my state ,Bihar is older than Prophet Muhamad .
Learn to respect others.
First learn about the something then talk about it.
prove hinduism/sanatan dharam (ram/krishna/shiv/ved/upanishad/sanskrit) existed before 800C.E Fact-- Oldest manuscript of hindu religion (rig ved) is carbon dated back to 1464 C.E While Oldest manuscript of Quran (Birmingham Quran, kept on display in University of Birmingham) was carbon dated back to 568C.E to 645 C.E So Quran is 800 year older than oldest hindu scripture. (1464 - 645 = 819) Earlier I also believed that hinduism is 5000 year old religion because of Google search, but i found recently that it is just a claim, they dont have any evidence to back this claim. So next time if an hindutva troll question you about islam, ask him to prove hinduism existed before 800C.E He will show you some images of ancient idols, and show you that idol worshippers exist in ancient time, but ask him to prove that they were hindu, and those idols belong to hinduism and not budhism or Jainism , because there exist idol worshippers also in arabia but that doesn't mean they were hindus, they will speak very confidently and tell you many stories you should ask them for proof. (hindus claim that ka'ba 🕋 was a shiv temple 🤣🤣 while arabs used to eat cows🤣) (Whenever archeologist find some monuments hindu go there and claim it belongs to their religion) If you ask these questions, He will delete his comment and will block you 🤣 because hinduism is an ideology which originated in 7th and 8th century to enslave lower caste people, their scriptures were written in 11th century to promote and justify casteism.
@@deedarlaskar6 look up the underw water indian city of dwarka
Yesterday's dogs are talking about thousand year old gentlemen. Good joke guys
Gentlemen that worship cowshit and literally anything. You should feel honored these people in the video talking about the trash history of yours
@@SuperMz0051 you actually showcased that u r trash with completely irrelevant stuff coming from ur mouth... Go get education
@@SuperMz0051 Lol my sword is older than islam
@@FA-hb3hf what's the evidence of Islam being true rather than a book which makes u guys a slave which was written by a day dreamer to conquer the world ?
@@FA-hb3hf well I guess u r just islamic worshipper who is more into proving other religions fake than to focus on their own stufff.... The name or thelabel "Hindusim" was the only thing given by the British referring to the people who used to practice Sanatan dharm, Vaishnavites, Shaivites, etc (more of polytheists) and that hindusim was regarded as the way of life more than a religion.... Hindus were referred also to Sikhs, muslims, Jain's and Buddhists because that was the reference of the demography and not religion.... It's only after India got independence and that things started to be put under the religion (such as marriage acts, certificates, legal provisions) that polytheists in India where put up under the label of "Hindu" religion to make things less complicated.... unlike Islam, Hindus never worshipped one God, some believed in Vedas, Geeta, some people had different dieties (every village has different diety refering to some form known as "Kuldaivat") and those people didn't refer to any of the two (Vedas as well as geeta) and that's why tracing something and linking it's strings with hindusim would make it more complicated because that would only be a small part of what was later added...
U might be a huge islamic scholar and u might literally drown me in ur knowledge of ur religion but i m literally not interested because never was I taught and nor is my intention to prove any religion as fake or superior....
I agreed, even Hindu in Cambodia and Indonesia is different, sans script in one of the oldest language with many different interpetation.
Hinduism came to S.E. Asia from Indian trade. It wasn't an independent phenomena
Finally ;p
One correction.. tamil is the oldest language, not sanskrit
@@SK-wx8iy Really? whats the evidence?
Just google it
How was Hinduism created by British when it was a belief system active for over 5000 years.
I am reading on this topic these days. think about it british supported ahmadi etc way they altered (some addition subtraction) and "standardized" hindu mythology to make it more palatable to modern times through characters like swami Vivekananda. British/u.s.a were and still are very good at creating characters. e.g Gandhi, usama bin ladan, sadam, mirza qadiani to achieve political goals.
No they created so much hatred and division between hindus and muslims so they could easily rule india. Divide and rule was their method
@@alihyder6877 Yes sir that was the aim to make hinduism look good thereby lifting hindus up and making them equal philosophically to Muslims. Divide and rule.
Get rid of the disturbing background noise.
Black panther
islamic science on display here
seriously.. what do these morons smoke ..
They r Madarsachaap Scholars...
His words were quite clear to me. I don't know why some people are so triggered.
Islam was made along time after hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity etc. It was the last religion to be thought up
Hinduism is 100 years old.
@@saim6749 yoga is 1000 years old which is hindu
@@gourangabiswas3377 Ok bro
@@saim6749 do see what is yoga first
The name is only 100 years but the structure and theology is more than 6000 year old.
The modern concept is a British creation but the older one was a creation when the muslims began to invade and older still was when some aryans mixed with locals in the gangettic valley
British also created Bangladesh and Taliban.......Next you will say British created Islam
Islamist ideology was created by British
I cannot wait for this. I love history from brother Adnan Rashid.
Not history his-story
Extremely misleading. You can say they created the label of "Hinduism" but the British had no part in creating "Hindu philosophy/theology". It's obviously a very diverse set of cults which are loosely based around the same texts (vedas, upanishads, etc) and was around for thousands of years before the British conquered your country.
He didn't any of what you are suggesting
@@ibrahim.1606 "any" of what I suggested? I didn't make a long list or anything: just pointing out the fallacy of this "sound bite" argument which many people in the "Decolonial" and "Critical Theory" circles make nowadays. I'm not addressing Adnan Rashid directly, I think he made his stance clear in the comment section here; rather I'm addressing the simpletons who believe the click-bait title.
Please leave out any background noise or music in the forthcoming episodes. I can barely hear what he is saying and music is forbidden in Islam.
I recognize only one hindu...the hindu kush (the mountain range...not the strain 0.o)
We recognize the 3rd millennium AD starting from 2002 as well.
And we've been smoking better stuff than your momo profit as well.
I recognize only one true awakened one - the Buddha
I recognize only one monster…mmd
All muslims of south asia are from sanatam dharm or hindu.
Your religion was created by the British
Please put out these podcasts in audio as well
Right the true Hindu word was given by the Britisher. The word Hindu means the land of Hindu Valley.
@@aliaosman655 you want to have your cake and eat it too. You constantly claim to be Arab, Persians etc. A whole host of peoples. You boast proudly of conquering India and ruling over the Hindus. Gloating that one day you'll over the Hindus again. Yet now you want to claim Hindu heritage. A heritage which you or your forefathers have actively discarded and rejected. You can't be the conquerors and conquered at the same time. The subjugators or the subjugated. You have to pick one.
You likely have no idea what your ancestors were and I doubt it matters. Your surname Osman is the Turkish form of Uthman. You could be descended from Central Asians or turks who intermarried with Hindu women. You could be descended from Hindus who converted to Islam for social mobility. Or they could have been Hindus influenced by Sufi Practices and Sufi Saints who came to the subcontinent. We really don't know. What we do know is that Islam did not spread from people setting up Dawah stalls. There's a reason why the boundaries of the Muslim world are largely defined by the areas of historical Islamic empires.
The Aryan word is a British concoction. Hindus are not descended from blonde haired blue eyed white men who subjugated natives.
Of course Muslims have the right to be in the Indian subcontinent. But so do Christians, Jews and every other religous or cultural group on the planet. India does not belong to the Muslims just because Muslims once ruled over it. Just like it does not belong to the British.
@@aliaosman655 Madarasha chhap knowledge is not enough 🙏
Glory belong to 'Aryas'. Identity of non Arab converts of Islam has always been in crises.
Nothing is this simple. The sooner we accept the complexity of the situation the better.
When is the podcast coming out???
Where is the full podcast?
🤣🤣 nice joke.
This is what happens when u read quran over and over
U loose all ur senses
@@usc4405 Hinduism word British ne diya par British dont create Hinduism.
@@insaan2695 Hindu word was coined by Mughals, the content of Sanatan Dharm wasn't created by Britishers but making it a religious organization was done by Britishers. There was nothing like Hinduism before Colonization.
@@saim6749 brother Aaj bhi Hinduism organized nhi hai.
@@saim6749 jo hai vo pehle se tha.
I agree with everything you said except Hinduism (all the South Asian none-Muslim religions) was preferred by the British; I would argue they preferred Islam because it was Abrahamic. Also, South Asian Muslims are not homogeneous either - not religiously (Sufi, Sunni, etc, even within Pakistan) or even racially. Most Pakistanis are not Mughal but Hindu converts (Jats/Jaats, Khatris, Rajputs & even Brahmins) making them of the North Hindu Indian racial group. I also strongly suspect that most Pakistanis of Hindu racial or religious origin were made Muslims by the BRITISH during the raj. Most of North India was under Maharaja Ranjeet Singh & the inhabitants of his country did not identify by a religion but their caste; they would say I'm a Jat/Jaat or Tharkan, etc & religion was fluid not Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. They did use the word Hindu but it meant North Indian not a religion. You can research the culture of Ranjeet Singh's country. The British did not consider the Muslims as a threat in North India it was the Nihang Sikhs who wanted to preserve the ORIGINAL culture of Ranjeet Singh's Kingdom that were considered a threat. Mughals had a very limited impact religiously in India, look at it in comparison to the middle east. You guys were made Muslim by the British for divide & rule purposes.
A good book on the pre British culture of North West India (including Pakistan) is by Harjot Oberoi called 'A construction of religious boundaries'.
what knowledge !!!!! 🤣 I didn't know that uneducated people are doing an "intelligent" podcast
They are educated, they do it because of their innate hate for Hindus. They know the philosophy and the history of Hindu civilization especially historians among them but they lie, as they are allowed to lie for Islam.
This definitely needs more context.
Adnan rashid mother was also invented by british😂😂
Prophet said Allah hate idol worship.but Hinduism idol worship.this mean hinduism not true religion.
sad you knew nothing about hinduism...if you knew then you will know about brahman and advaita.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta
very illliterate comment
@@Suryapoosarla you tell me what is your relgion says about palasties,Israel,Christian,Islam.
@ptr bassi Allah blessed jeruselem and prophet Muhammad(s)place makka and madeena.prophet kiss that stone.we Muslim following prophet path.prophet Muhammad(s) this stone.heaven stone.allah order kiss that stone your all sin destroy that stone.understand.
Students on Dr zakir naik!
this kinda talks will only make things harder for our brothers and sisters in india ... your show aint helping
The only Islamic scholar who respects Hindu philosophy is Sheikh Hamza Yusuf.this man hasn't delved into any of the Hindu books. Let him continue preaching to Christians
To be honest hamza Yusuf is fine personally I think he's overrated but that's just my opinion and I'm saying that as a Muslim
Allah was a hindu
That was profound!
That was Madarsachaap
then who was living in BHARAT(INDIA) before Islamic rule......... maybe you 🤣🤮
Marwaris( Aggarwal,Oswal, Somani, Dalmia, jhunjhunwala, Heera lal, Bansal, jain) and Gujrati banyas helped british loot and plunder south asia. Parsis of Mumbai helped british in their opium business in China. Jamshed ji TATA founder of TATA Group was the british agent of opium. The Poet Ravindranath Tagore of India who wrote national anthem of India . His Gand father Darokanath tagore was the first industrialist of India was a British agent who helped massacred local farmers in bengal who refuse to grow opium. British govt finally helped his grandson Ravindranth tagore a noble prize in 1911 for writing '' Ja na ga na man Adhinayak'' for King george the 5th. British just awarded their own agent family the tagore family. Marwari and jain bankers of benaras also helped british in Opium war. such as Birla, Dalmia, other banya family. By the way mohandas karamchad gandhi was a banya who was recruited by british as an agent so that the indian solders can be recruited for WW1.
Punjabi (Sikh, Hindu, Muslim) helped british killed more than 10 million people in present day ( UP,BIHAR, BENGAL) after 1857 . British ordered anyone over the age of 16 should be shot dead. Punjabi sikh follwed the order.
True hinduism was invented when British came.
Prior to it it was the bhuddiam and jainism. And Islam.
I agree with this.
Are you kidding me hinduism has been in india for over thousands of years and is much older then the abrahamic religions
this adnan rashid why is a complete joke and i'm saying that as a pakistani muslim
@@theguyver4934it was never a unified religion
Brahmin/Rajput were muslim..
Before British
abraham-ibrahim
A-BRAHAMIC = Brahamic = Brahamin
.
I am Brahman from Nepal..
.
Braham-man named By Britishers
Braham (Braham_ma or brahama ) is Creator in Hinduism books..
So the Brahman is Braham-man (God man)
Brahma and sarasvati is the same story in quran as ibrahim and sara or abraham and sarah
@@Eagle57-n6e i kno
Hinduism is only a word used by outside people to religiously identify the people of the Indus valley area. The division was out of stupidity. Muslims and Hindus believed that Hinduism is supposed to be Polytheistic. But those Hindus who actually believed that and those who currently do, were lost and are still lost. It is 100% monotheistic and has always been. It all depends on whether someone smart enough is interpreting the scriptures or not.
Think about how corrupted Islam and Christianity was jus until recently, we were almost at a point of no return. Christianity being the older one is only about 2000 years old. "Hinduism" or the Vedic religion was only documented around 6000 years ago, which is already three times the age of Christianity. And prior to that it was an oral tradition we dont know for exactly how long but my guess is its really long. They only started writing things down when the "scholars" of that time noticed that alot was being lost and corruption was seeping in, kinda like how we were almost at no return. And when they started recording stuff, it ended up being alittle late so not everything was available and whatever was available had gone through some extremism and sexism and all the human errors which weve seen again now.
So yes, the Vedas teaches 100% monotheism and "Hindus" are in fact Muslims. Whether they know it or not and whether you believe it or not, its TRUE.
It is lack of the ability to decipher the layers of varied Hindu philosophies and schools of thought that leads to calling Hinduism as monotheistic. Only vedas say God is singular. In fact the very same vedas say is God and reality are not separate..they are one and the same (formless, unquantifiable Brahman), that is atheism and theism collapsed into the same concept. It goes beyond this and says that all living things, people as well as other creatures, construct and worship an imaginary form of this one entity whether in their hearts or in some shape. That is reason Hindus have no problem having so many deities, especially people in different parts of India worship deities that are not at all known/heard or popular in other areas. All this is bound by a simple principle that you pay for your actions (karma). The problem with abrahamic religions is they lack depth but impresses the uneducated and the unsophisticated.
Adnan Rashid is a good man.
But this was a vile disgusting thing to say.
Everything's a conspiracy to some people. If it's not the British Empire then it's the Jews or the CIA. It's an easy way to feel like nothing is your fault and everything wrong can be attributed to the "bogeyman"
You're obviously too dense to understand the context, which he provided in the comment section above.
@@lost_poet_ - moron, your man couldn't provide context during the podcast, while spewing this bile?
He knew what he was doing.
@@sairamsriramthis was just a short preview of the full video you dumbass, maybe watch the entire podcast if you want the full context
No it isn't. Hindus never identified themselves as a monolith, until the British came. They were practically several different religions.
lol.
Haha ,good joke
Abbasid caliphate created islam before that there was no inscriptions of muhammad the prophet or quran, and even the quran says oh believers not muslims!
"The word 'Hindu' occurs nowhere in the classical scriptures of Hinduism. The ancestors of the present day Hindus did not identify themselves as Hindus."
"When Western scholars and Christian missionaries arrived on the scene, the Hindus found their faith tradition 'ism'-ized and its name became 'Hinduism'."
Due to many centuries of subjugation and humiliation by foreigners, Hindus have lost self-respect, dignity and the will to face the truth and reality. Instead, they have become masters of deception,manipulation and hypocrisy. They cry hoarse, that foreign writers have maligned their religion and culture and distorted their history. However, they don’t have any compunction against quoting foreign historians if it suites their purpose . Todays hindus says that “Hindu” is a corrupted version of “Sindhu.” However, he has ignored my questions and failed to reflect on the meaning of “Hindu Kush.” The interpretation that the word Hindu is a corrupted version of Sindhu does not explain why the Sindhu River or the people who live in the valley of this river did not acquire the name “Hindu.” This river is called Sindh and the people are called Punjabis and Sindhis. No body calls the state of Sindh as Hind or Sindhis as Hindis.
I am not sure whether it was a Hindu or a European, who was the first to suggest that Persians called river Sindhu as Hindu due to difference in pronunciation. Nonetheless, this explanation has found its way in European writings. Hindus find comfort in this absurd explanation as it provides them escape from facing the reality of their humiliating past and connects them to their mythical glorious past, the so called Vedic period of Ram Raj. Indian writers who have looked at the meaning of “Hindu” with a critical eye don’t agree
with the interpretation of foreign writers. For example: “The political situation of our country from centuries past, say 20-
25 centuries has made it very difficult to understand the nature of this nation and its religion. The western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to trace the true name of this Brahmanland, a vast continent like country, and therefore, they have contended themselves by calling it by that meaningless term “Hindu.” This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use by any of our Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It seems that political power was responsible for insisting upon continuous use of the word Hindu. The word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian literature. Hindu-e-falak means “the black of the sky’ and Saturn.” In the Arabic language Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful
and ridiculous to have read all along in history that the name Hindu was given by the Persians to the people of our country when they landed on the sacred soil of Sindhu.” [R. N. Suryanarayan, Universal Religion, p 1-2, published from Mysore in 1952.]
“Some people, according to the author, say that this word Hindu is a corrupt form of Sindhu but this is wrong because Sindhu was the name of the river and not the name of the community. Moreover, it is correct that this name has been given to the original Aryan race of the region by Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author, the word means slave, and according to Islam, all those who did not embrace Islam were termed as slaves.” [Maharishi Shri Dayanand Sarswati Aur Unka Kaam, edited by Lala Lajpat Rai,
published from Lahore in 1898, in the chapter of introduction. Besides, a Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari, published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of Hindu as ‘chore (thief), dakoo (dacoit), raahzan (waylayer), and ghulam (slave)’. Yet according to an other dictionary named Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat - part 1 (p 615), the meaning of the word Hindu is as under: In Turkish: chore, raahzan and lutera (looter). In Persian: ghulam (slave), barda (obedient servant), sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black). The hypothesis that Persians had difficulty in pronouncing Sindhu is baseless and preposterous. For example, how do the Persians who are Shia Muslims pronounce words like Shia, Sunni and Shariat? In
Punjabi there are many, many words of Persian origin, which start with “s” and “sh.” For example, sardar or sirdar (leader), shaheed (martyr), shhadat (martyrdom) shair (lion), sahir (town), sar (walk) shayer (poet), shakar (sugar), sja (punishment), siahi (black ink), siah(black) and so on. The word Punjab is also derived from Persian
panch and aab (five waters). The word Hindu may be as old as the Indus Vallay Civilization. To find the meaning of “Hindu” one ought to look at the term “Hindu Kush”(killer of Hindus). Who were the people, who named this mountain range as Hindu Kush? Why these mountains were called the killers of Hindus? As I mentioned earlier, the Indian subcontinent
was inhabited by dark complexioned people before the migration of Caucasian tribes from the Caucasus region. The fair skinned Caucasian tribes who lived on the Northwest of Hindu Kush Moutain range called the Indian subcontinent as the land of Hindus (land of black people). The Northwest expansion of the inhabitants of Indus Valley was prevented by of Hindu Kush Mountains. Whenever the plain dwelling Indians (Hindus) attempted to cross these mountains, they met death due harsh terrain and heavy snow. That is how these mountains were given the name Hindu Kush by mountain dwelling Caucasian tribes. Once a large number of Indian people died on these mountains due to heavy snow fall and that is how these mountains acquired the name “Hindu Kush” - killer of the Hindus. [Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha, Mahan Kosh, 1996 edn. p 275.]
Later on when the Caucasian tribes conquered Northwest India, they continued using the name Hindu for native Indians. To humiliate the natives, the Caucasians ridiculed their culture, looks and black complexion, and used derogatory expressions for them. It is astonishing that these derogatory expressions have survived through thousands of years of Indian history and are found in modern Indian languages. “Blackness” is used in bad connotation in Indian languages. For example, in Punjabi there are expressions like, kaala munh (black mouth, ugly or who speaks ill), kaali Jeebh ( evil speaking tounge), kaala chore (notorious thief), kaala dhandha (illegal profession), kaala dhan (black money), kaali bhaid (black sheep), kalai laikh (black deeds) and kaala chum (black skinned person). There are also expressions like bandar munhan (monkey face) and rish jeha (bear-like), which the Caucasians used to describe the
features of native Indians (Hindus). In Ramyan, the two native devotees of Shri Ram Chandar are depicted as a monkey (Hanuman) and
a bear (Jamawant).
jeet Cope. Islam Predates hinduism...
Islam Was Created By God...
@@MuhammedAL-Chad-nz4jx are you dumb?
@@truthteller3177 you seemed well versed on the topic, I never said it's called Hinduism, it's an umbrella term actually, the real name of religion is called sanatana dharma, we follow the Vedas, Upanishads only
@@adharshmanikoth3381do all Hindus follow the exact same religion and same book ? I don’t think so
Thank you. Understand Urdu. Enki. ek ki eh. Anuki si baat hay annunaki. Dwarka. dhoka diya.