And drawing parallel to Krishna and Krishto.
That is the major loophole.
His name was Jesus of Nazareth.
That is the modified version of Jisu of Gujarat.
Here is the story
2/9
People are discussing whether Jesus Christ was Tamil or Bong or Kashmiri.
Zip your lips if you have no idea about history or religion.
Jesus Christ was not a Tamil, Bengali or Kashmiri.
Brush your knowledge
He was a Gujarati.
Here are some facts
1/9
And drawing parallel to Krishna and Krishto.
That is the major loophole.
His name was Jesus of Nazareth.
That is the modified version of Jisu of Gujarat.
Here is the story
2/9
When Josheph heard the first cry of the new born he asked Mary
E Ji Su Chhe
People around him misheard it as
E Jisu Chhe
And that's how the name Jisu came which later became Jesus
Indians still call Jesus as Jisu
3/9
Nazareth means place where people settled
Parsis when first came to India they settled in Gujarat
Moreover the law in Gujarat prohibits Muslims to settle in Hindu areas and vice versa
Gujarat is all about settlement
4/9
So the original name of Jesus of Nazareth is Jisu of Gujarat
I think it is settled now
Ok let me tell you one more fact to establish Jesus was Gujarati
5/9
That's why he discovered the recipe of making wine out of plain water
So that no one should be deprived of it due to prohibition
6/9
Approx 2000 years later another Gujarati spoke the same words and fooled people like his predecessor.
7/9
8/9
More from Religion
Assalam Alaiki dear Sister in Islam. I hope this meets you well. Hope you are keeping safe in this pandemic. May Allah preserve you and your beloved family. I would like to address the misconception and misinterpretation in your thread. Please peruse the THREAD below.
1. First off, a disclaimer. Should you feel hurt by my words in the course of the thread, then forgive me. It’s from me and not from Islam. And I probably have to improve on my delivery. And I may not quote you verbatim, but the intended meaning would be there. Thank You!
2. Standing on Imam Shafii’s quote: “And I never debated anyone but that I did not mind whether Allah clarified the truth on my tongue or his tongue” or “I never once debated anyone hoping to win the debate; rather I always wished that the truth would come from his side.”
3. Okay, into the meat (my love for meat is showing. Lol) of the thread. Even though you didn’t mention the verse that permitted polygamy, everyone knows the verse you were talking about (Q4:3).
4. Your reasons for the revelation of the verse are strange. The first time I came across such. I had to quickly consult the books on the exegeses or tafsir of the Quran written by renowned specialists!
A lot of things Muslims do now and claim as Islamic rule is actually a culture that Islam curtailed or tried to perfect.
— Sule Nana (@izesule) January 2, 2021
Let's talk polygamy.
Islam didn't come and say, "oh men, marry four wives"
No.
Polygamy was in existence, long before the coming of Islam.
1. First off, a disclaimer. Should you feel hurt by my words in the course of the thread, then forgive me. It’s from me and not from Islam. And I probably have to improve on my delivery. And I may not quote you verbatim, but the intended meaning would be there. Thank You!
2. Standing on Imam Shafii’s quote: “And I never debated anyone but that I did not mind whether Allah clarified the truth on my tongue or his tongue” or “I never once debated anyone hoping to win the debate; rather I always wished that the truth would come from his side.”
3. Okay, into the meat (my love for meat is showing. Lol) of the thread. Even though you didn’t mention the verse that permitted polygamy, everyone knows the verse you were talking about (Q4:3).
4. Your reasons for the revelation of the verse are strange. The first time I came across such. I had to quickly consult the books on the exegeses or tafsir of the Quran written by renowned specialists!
"Hinduism was one of the world's most easy-going faith traditions, famed for it's non-persecutory history."
I can assure you, it is NOT.
It is neither easy-going, nor non-persecutory. In fact it is the very opposite.
Thread.
Modern Hinduism is a British colonial concept, created in concert with Brahmins, who are at the "apex" of the caste system. The word "Hindoo" in fact, is of Persian origin, meaning a person who lives in the Indus valley.
Colonialists who attempted to study Indian religion in the 18th century (NOT, at the time, Hinduism) were baffled by it. Strata of people living distinctly (the caste system) with overlapping gods didn't fit into their Judeo-Christian understanding of religion.
Which has an ecclesiastical authority, a holy book etc., which Indian religions lacked. In studying "The Hindoo", colonialists prioritized textual sources of knowledge, which is where Brahmins, the priestly caste with a monopoly over education/text come in.
Brahminism was a distinct "religion" (although i don't really want to use the term in this way) that was frankly terrorized of other castes. In fact, the very basis of Brahminism is oppression. Brahmins had scholars who recorded *Brahminical* canon textually.
I can assure you, it is NOT.
It is neither easy-going, nor non-persecutory. In fact it is the very opposite.
Thread.
Hinduism was historically one of the world's most easy-going faith traditions, famed for its non-persecutory history. Now this ... pic.twitter.com/Obln4cns7b
— David Frum (@davidfrum) February 3, 2021
Modern Hinduism is a British colonial concept, created in concert with Brahmins, who are at the "apex" of the caste system. The word "Hindoo" in fact, is of Persian origin, meaning a person who lives in the Indus valley.
Colonialists who attempted to study Indian religion in the 18th century (NOT, at the time, Hinduism) were baffled by it. Strata of people living distinctly (the caste system) with overlapping gods didn't fit into their Judeo-Christian understanding of religion.
Which has an ecclesiastical authority, a holy book etc., which Indian religions lacked. In studying "The Hindoo", colonialists prioritized textual sources of knowledge, which is where Brahmins, the priestly caste with a monopoly over education/text come in.
Brahminism was a distinct "religion" (although i don't really want to use the term in this way) that was frankly terrorized of other castes. In fact, the very basis of Brahminism is oppression. Brahmins had scholars who recorded *Brahminical* canon textually.
