DEBATE: Which Is More Violent, Islam or Hinduism? | @MuslimSkeptic Vs @TheologyUnleashed
02:49:52 Share

At Six Flags Discovery Kingdom, we're serious about our guests having a seriously fun year of fun. Seriously, just listen to our spring sale. Buy a 2025 Silver Pass for only $55 and get unlimited fun all year long. Unlimited upside-down loops. Unlimited ice cream cone legs. Unlimited super spinny swings. Now with free parking. Told you we were serious. Save $30 when you get your 2025 Silver Pass online at

SixFlags.com. Taxes may apply online only. Blockout dates apply.

Welcome to It Takes Energy, presented by Energy Transfer, where we talk all things oil and natural gas. Oil and gas drive our economy, ensure our country's security, and open pathways to brighter futures. What do you know about oil and natural gas? You likely associate them with running your car or heating your home, but these two natural resources fuel so much more than that. More than 6,000 consumer products that we rely on every day are made using oil and gas,

Before you even step out the door in the morning, you've already used more products made possible because of oil and gas than you realize. From the toothpaste you brush your teeth with, the soap you washed your face with, and the sheets you slept on. Not to mention your makeup, contact lenses, clothes, and shoes. Oil and gas are vital parts of all these products and so many more.

Look around and you'll see the essential role oil and gas plays in our lives. Our world needs oil and gas and people rely on us to deliver it. To learn more, visit energytransfer.com. Here you go.

Hey everybody, tonight we're debating which is more violent, Islam or Hinduism, and we are starting right now with Arjuna's opening statement as he's going to be arguing that Islam is more violent. Thanks for being with us. Arjuna, the floor is all yours for your opening.

Okay, cool. I'll just start a timer for myself. So, glad to be here. Excited to be debating this topic with Daniel and into my opening. So, I'm rather surprised that Daniel has agreed to this particular topic because from any objective standpoint, Islam is associated with far more widespread systemic and doctrinally rooted violence than Hinduism.

Let's start with some clarity on the proposition I'll be defending. I'm not anti-Islam, nor do I believe that Islamic doctrine is necessarily violent. I appreciate the moderate versions of Islam and would love to see more moderate Muslims debunk extreme versions.

My own theological views are perennialist and inclusivist. I value dialogue and respect and sincere devotion to God wherever it's found. Here in New Zealand, I live here in New Zealand, and I've never personally encountered or heard of Islamic violence in this country. When I meet a Muslim, I don't presume them to be any more inviolate. However, what is undeniably the case and what I will demonstrate today is that specific interpretations of Islamic doctrine have been historically and to this date used to justify an immense amount of violence against

and have motivated countless acts of aggression, conquest, and persecution.

I'm debating today not to attack Islam, but to attack ideas that cause and justify violence. The claim I'm defending today is that Islamic violence tends to be systemic, enduring, and deeply rooted in or readily justified by Islamic doctrine. In contrast, instances of violence associated with Hindus have largely been local, episodic, and attributable to human fallibility, political opportunism, and so on. Deviations from core Vedic principles not directly caused or sanctioned by Hindu scripture.

For Daniel to even demonstrate that Islam is merely on par with Hinduism regarding violence, let alone less violent, he will face a formidable challenge. First, he must object to the vast majority of historical and current forms of violence carried out in the name of Islam, effectively disowning centuries of Islamic conquest, the actions of numerous historical figures revered by many Muslims, and the explicit claims of many contemporary militant groups.

Second, he must conclusively show that these disowned instances of violence were not genuinely motivated or justified by Islamic doctrine. I'd be delighted if Daniel would do this and show Islam to be a religion of peace. I'd love nothing more than for there to be more voices in the world presenting sensible ideas of God. But I anticipate Daniel isn't likely to take this path.

Because not only does he have his personal convictions, but as a professional Islamic apologist, he has an audience to consider, an audience who will not tolerate him presenting a moderate view of Islam. We've witnessed how critics who dare to speak out against extremist interpretations or oppressive practices within Muslim contexts can face severe life-altering consequences. Think of individuals who, after courageously calling out religiously justified extremism, face severe threats

We're forced into silence and we're fearing for their lives. This climate of intimidation makes honest, critical reform exceedingly difficult and perilous, adding to the risk it creates as it removes checks and balances. Contrast this with the general ethos within Hinduism. Hinduism is not a monolith. It's a vast ecosystem of spiritual traditions with a rich, complex history spanning millennia, far more ancient and varied than Islam.

The term Hinduism is problematic as it has no historical equivalent and groups together extremely diverse collection of beliefs and practices. For this debate, I will take Hinduism to mean astika. The term astika means those traditions that accept the foundational authority of the Vedas. This shifts the debate away from what passes as Hinduism to what do the Vedas actually teach.

Well, like any ancient tradition, it has complexities and, yes, instances where individuals or groups have acted violently. The foundational doctrines emphasize concepts like ahimsa as the highest dharma. Ahimsa is not naive pacifism in the Vedic tradition to stand up and do nothing whilst the innocent are attacked as itself considered a form of violence. An action can cause more harm than decisive, just intervention when violence has occurred in an incident.

When violence has occurred in a Hindu context, it can often be traced to human failings, political conflicts, societal issues or decline, and understanding and practice of true Dharma. What the tradition self-terms are Dharma. These are viewed as deviations from the core teachings rather than actions directly commanded by widely accepted scripture mandating conquest or persecution in God's name.

The Bhagavad Gita, a universally revered text, speaks of Krishna appearing whenever there is a decline in dharma and a rise in adharma to restore righteousness. This itself acknowledges that religious traditions can degrade and such degradations are not representative of their core truth. Islam arose in a specific, turbulent historical context, a culture of warring tribes in 7th century Arabia united these tribes and embarked on an extraordinary path of rapid territorial expansion.

It's not unreasonable to observe that its developing doctrine naturally incorporated elements that justify conquest, warfare, and subjugation, as these views were undeniably beneficial to a rapidly expanding state and empire. Doctions like apostasy laws, jihad as territorial expansion, or dimitude for non-Muslims, a kind of institutionalized second-class status, are precisely the kind of dogmas a state seeking control and self-interest would find advantageous to integrate.

While one might believe there are divinely inspired elements within Islam, it seems undeniable that a massive current of human ambition, political expediency and strategic calculations are baked into the doctrine. Separating these harmful elements from elements that elevate people and God consciousness is what I'd like to see sincere Muslims work on and how today's discussion can be beneficial.

Let's move on to some examples of Islamic violence. A stark difference in scale and degree of violence between the Islamic world and the Hindu world exists in the kitchen. The halal meat market is estimated at the hundreds of billions of dollars annually, involving killing hundreds of millions of animals. This large-scale violence is primarily for the satisfaction of the tongue, as milk and vegetables are sufficient for nutrition and will hire no killing. This form of violence is shunned in Hinduism but encouraged in Islam.

Muslims in the last 30 days alone have likely killed more cows than adherents to core Vedic principles ever have. While some Hindus do eat meat, this practice is not sanctioned by core Vedic teachings and represents a deviation, not adherence. Meat-eating alone is enough to settle this debate, but there's more.

Let's consider a couple of examples from the Hadith. If Daniel is to argue that Islam is inherently peaceful or less violent than Hinduism, he must coagulantly explain or indeed reject teachings such as these. Sahih al-Bukhari 6924, which states, I've been ordered by Allah to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's messenger.

How is this not interpretable as a clear mandate for religious conquest and subjugation? And we have Sahih al-Bukhari 3017, which states, whoever changes his religion, then kill him. This clearly provides doctrinal basis for lethal violence against apostates, a law tragically still on the books and even brutally enforced in several Muslim-majority countries today.

These are not obscure fringe interpretations. These hadiths are foundational texts widely accepted within Sunni Islam and historically pivotal in shaping its legal and ethical framework. I would genuinely be delighted if Daniel were to stand up for a vision of modern Islam that unequivocally rejects such literal calls to conquest and religiously sanctioned violence.

The challenge for him then would be to confront the monumental implication that centuries of esteemed Islamic scholars and powerful Islamic state, which implemented and often glorified these teachings, were fundamentally wrong about their core, about their own religion. The critical question for him today is, is this violent potential an undeniable part of Islam's historical and doctrinal fabric, or is he prepared to declare a vast portion of its revered legacy a deviation?

Next, I'd like to discuss theological components that underpin all religiously motivated violence and which feature prominently in certain interpretations of Islam. First is an exclusivist and binary worldview coupled with an unshakable conviction of absolute certainty. This thinking dictates that one possesses God's singular truth, the sole correct understanding of it, rendering anyone who disagrees an opponent of God himself.

When a dominant religious doctrine built on such certainty posits an exclusivist path to salvation, condemning all others to eternal damnation for perceived theological errors, or simply adhering to a different tradition, it inevitably paints the portrait of the doctrine that is not merely in lacking and good qualities, but that is bordering on psychopathic.

This harsh binary us versus them, say versus damned thinking, supercharged with absolute certainty, has historically fueled immense suffering and justified appalling acts of violence such as religious conquests, terrorist attacks, and eradicating or subjugating those considered to be on the wrong path. Second is the doctrine of holy war, the idea that the world is fundamentally divided until Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Hurrab, the realm of war and the realm of Islam.

This leads to continuous obligation on believers to expand the former and combat the latter, not metaphorically, but often literally. The Hadith on being ordered to fight people until they submit aligns with this. This belief system can sanctify conquest, transforming military campaigns and acts of violence into sacred duties.

Third is the potent belief in apocalyptic urgency, the conviction that the end is nigh. This has repeatedly fueled religious violence both in historical wars where some fought for prophesied new order and in modern terrorism aiming to trigger a divine cataclysm. For adherents, violence becomes cosmically significant, a way to fulfill prophecy or participate in a final drama.

This conviction breeds desperate urgency, justifying extreme actions as vital in what they perceive as humanity's last moments or crucial divine turning point. These three beliefs, absolute binary thinking, the imperative of holy war and apocalyptic urgency when combined, form a potent ideological backbone for much religiously motivated violence associated with extremist Islam.

When Christianity had violent periods, it displayed these three theological elements too. The fourth element is a fusion of religious and state power. This unity means theological disputes cannot remain peaceful schisms. Control of the state becomes essential to assert theological dominance.

The devastating Sunni-Shia civil war, for instance, was not a mere doctrinal parting of ways because Islamic theology and politics were so deeply intertwined. Theological supremacy required governmental control, inevitably leading to war. The violent repercussions of this fusion and the specific centurion conflicts tragically persist today.

Now let's turn to specific historical examples. These early Islamic conquests from the Rashidun Caliphate onwards were explicitly framed as opening lands for Islam. Armies marched under Islamic banners from the Middle East across North Africa into Spain and eastwards towards Persia and India.

The destruction of indigenous peoples' religious sites, like Mahmud Ghazni's invasion of India, where he prided himself on smashing idols and desecrating temples, was not incidental but a celebrated part of these campaigns, often presented as a religious duty to eradicate polytheism.

This pattern continued for centuries. The Ottoman Empire's expansion into Europe, its system of the boy level, the Jivya tax on non-Muslims, and instances of forced conversions were not random acts, but part of a systemic, religiously justified imperial policy. Compare this with Hindu history. There's no parallel for such widespread, theologically mandated religious conquest.

While Hindu empires like the Cholas engaged in warfare and expanded influence, their campaigns were primarily for political and economic power, not forcible conversion or imposing Vedic ritual. Hindu culture and Vedic ideas spread to the Southeast Asia, primarily through trade, philosophical exchange, and cultural attraction, soft power, not systemic military subjugation.

This systemic, theologically driven violence isn't merely a relic of ancient history. Consider modern Islamic extremism in the West, a consistent pattern of knife attacks, bombings, car rammings, often by individuals shouting religious slogans, claiming to act in Islam's name, citing doctrinal justifications. Think of tragic attacks such as in Paris, London, Manchester, and elsewhere. While most Muslims are peaceful, the fact that substantial minorities in some Western populations reportedly sympathize

emphasize what the motives behind such violence indicates a deeper ideological problem, not just a few deranged individuals. There's no comparable wave of religiously motivated Hindu terrorism globally targeting civilians in foreign lands in Dharma's name. Furthermore, look at ongoing conflicts like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, and militias like Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Nigeria explicitly frame their brutal campaigns as jihad.

They aim to establish states governed by strict interpretation of Sharia, employing extreme violence against opponents, including fellow Muslims. This is not just political, it is deeply theological for these groups, filling divine commands, perceived divine commands. To summarize the core distinctions, violence in relation to Islam,

often shows a pattern that is systemic, enduring and ideologically motivated and expansionist. Violence in relation to Hinduism tends to be local, episodic and the result of human fallibility, not diatronally motivated. My opponent Daniel, if he wishes to contend Islam is less violent than Hinduism, must not only condemn groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, but also grapple with early caliphate conquests, apostasy and blasphemy laws,

and the Hadith I've mentioned. He needs to explain how these are not legitimate expressions of Islamic doctrine, and why, if distortions so many Muslims historically and today embrace them as authentic, he must also account for why Hinduism never produced a comparable global apparatus for religiously mandated

conquest. Until a compelling case is made that these pervasive, violent interpretations and the core theological tenets that fuel them are entirely alien to 14 centuries of mainstream Islamic thought and practice, and until we see widespread, authoritative, and effective reform repudiating these interpretations and problematic tenets from within Islam's highest echelons, the evidence I submit overwhelmingly supports the proper decision that Islam, as a doctrine and historical force whose claims can be

Seen to permit persecution rather than universally inspire peace has been and continues to be associated with a significantly greater degree of systemic, ideologically justified violence than Hinduism. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that opening statement from Arjuna, who, as I had mentioned earlier, is arguing, of course, that Islam is more dangerous. I want to remind you folks, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, I'm your host, Dr. James Coons. We are a fully neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. We hope you feel welcome, no matter what walk of life you're from, Christian, Muslim, atheist, Hindu, you name it. Hit that subscribe button as we have many more debates coming up. In fact,

possibly one, in Las Vegas, in person, this July, with a provocative speaker named Daniel. He doesn't even know it yet, but it's going to be a tremendous debate. But anyway, we're going to kick it over to Daniel now for his opening, as he's arguing that Hinduism is the more violent or dangerous religion. Thank you very much. Daniel, the floor is all yours for your opening statement. Can I just share my screen, James? Yeah, ready for you.

So Las Vegas, wow, that's exciting. Tremendous city, a big beautiful city. Okay, let's see. Can you see my presentation? Okay, just give me one second to bring up my notes. Okay, starting now. Bismillah, alhamdulillah, wassalatu wassalamu ala rasulillah. As war has broken out between Pakistan and India, many are asking, which is more violent, Islam or Hinduism?

The main criticism that modern Hindus have against Islam is that Islam uses unacceptable violence because it endorses conquest and the forceful imposition of religious beliefs, whereas Hinduism rejects these things. As a Muslim, I readily accept that Islam endorses conquest and the use of force to impose beliefs and norms.

But so do all major religions and cultures, including modern Western liberalism. I've argued this in many, many, many debates. Traditional Hinduism also supports conquest and domination to impose beliefs.

But violence in Hinduism is especially objectionable for two reasons. First, it promotes beliefs and norms that are objectively more repulsive than those of other religions, such as sex rituals with dead horses, worship of racist gods by rubbing their penises, widow burning, child temple prostitution, human sacrifice.

and more. Secondly, unlike Islam, Hindu violence is rooted in racial subjugation. Hinduism teaches that light-skinned upper castes must dominate dark-skinned lower castes and force them to live under a brutal apartheid system. Now I'll debunk four myths about Hinduism and violence.

hindu myth number one hindus are indigenous to india this is false no human population today is truly indigenous to its current region groups have migrated mixed and replaced one another throughout history and india is no exception contrary to hindu nationalist claims dna evidence shows that today's indian population is genetically distinct from the ancient peoples who once inhabited the region

In fact, the DNA evidence shows that in the Bronze Age, about 3,500 years ago, there was a massive migration of Central Asian Aryans into northern India. This is called the Aryan invasion, and in just the past decade, new paleogenetic data has established it as an indisputable scientific fact.

Paleogenetics collects and analyzes DNA samples from contemporary populations as well as the human remains of ancient peoples. By doing a genetic analysis, scientists draw conclusions about how populations have migrated and mixed. Before genetic evidence, scholars debated whether Aryans invaded India or if indigenous Indians migrated outward. Hindu nationalists like M.S. Goldwalker claimed Hinduism was native to India unlike Islam, which they said arrived via 11th century invasions.

But paleogenetics now confirms that Hinduism too came to India through invasion. The genetic data that establishes this is found in the landmark paper, The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia, co-authored by Harvard Medical School professor David Reich and 92 other leading scholars of genetics and history.

A news report summarized the findings thus, the thorniest most fought over question in Indian history is slowly but surely getting answered. Did India, Indo-European language speakers who call themselves Aryans, stream into India sometime around 2000 BC to 1500 BC when the Indus Valley civilization came to an end, bringing with them Sanskrit and a distinctive set of cultural practices, genetic research based on an avalanche.

of new DNA evidences making scientists around the world converge on an unambiguous answer. Yes, they did. Here is a list of the most important peer-reviewed scientific papers establishing that the Aryan invasion of India is a historical reality. Hindu myth number two, unlike Muslims, Hindus never engaged in violent conquest.

This is also false. There are at least three major examples of historical Hindu conquest we can point to. First is the initial conquest by the Aryans around 2000 BCE, which was established by the genetic evidence mentioned before. The invading Aryans destroyed the Indus Valley civilization and replaced it with the proto-Hindu culture and religion. This meant imposing a brutal caste system on the existing Dravidian population.

The second example of violent Hindu conquest is the Marya Empire, which lasted between 322 and 187 BCE. The Marya Empire was the first Hindu empire which conquered all the lands that are considered India today. The third example of Hindu conquest is the Gupta Empire, which lasted from 240 CE to 579 CE. They also started in northern India and conquered southern India, spreading Hinduism throughout the subcontinent.

These aren't the only examples of Hindu conquest, but unlike civilizations like the Romans, Chinese, or Muslims, Hindus didn't carefully document history. As a result, large gaps exist in the Hindu historical timeline. But as we've seen, paleogenetics helps fill those gaps. Also, religious texts highlight the role of violent conquest in Hinduism. In the Rig Veda, dating to the Aryan invasion era, the warrior god Indra leads white-skinned Aryans to destroy the dark-skinned Dasa.

Indra isn't the only warrior god. There's also Skanda, Durga, Rama, Krishna, and Hanuman, the warrior monkey. Hindu gods commit violence beyond war, however. Brahma chases down and rapes his own daughter. Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva gang rape someone's wife. Krishna beheads people, kills an elephant, and murders its owner with the tusk. Kali is depicted with severed heads as earrings and a skull necklace.

In the caste system, the Kshatriya caste exists solely for war, as emphasized in the Bhagavad Gita. The Gita describes how Prince Arjuna hesitates to fight, but Krishna tells him he must kill. It's his caste duty. The Mahabharata, in fact, glorifies a war that kills 1.6 billion people. Such massive death tolls are justified because warriors go to heaven, where they are rewarded with beautiful maidens called Apsaras.

Hindu apologists claim the warrior caste, however, only fights defensive wars, but Hindu texts disprove this by teaching the Chakravartin ideal. The Oxford Reference Dictionary defines Chakravartin as the ideal king divinely ordained to restore temporal dharma by ruling the entire earth.

The Mahabharata describes him as reducing to subjection all kings of the earth. The Manusmirti also says the Kshatriya king's dharma is to conquer as much land as possible and take women as war booty.

Whatever a man wins, chariot, horse, elephant, parasol, money, grain, livestock, women, all goods and base metal, all that belongs to him. The whole world stands in awe of the man who keeps his military force in constant readiness. It is with military force, therefore, that he should subdue all creatures.

Again, the idea of conquering the world and taking female slaves exists in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and Hinduism is no exception. What sets Hinduism apart is using this violence to enforce a racial caste system and norms like dead horse sex, widow burning, and the worship of racist, rapist gods.

Hindu myth number three, Hinduism does not impose beliefs on others and caste is voluntary. This is also false. It's true that Hindus do not impose one set of beliefs because Hinduism does not contain one creed. Hindus can be polytheists, xenotheists, monists, animists, etc. Unlike Islam, Hinduism does not emphasize correct creed, but Hinduism does emphasize and impose caste duty or dharma.

Cast systems are widespread across history and geography, not unique to India. They appear wherever dominant groups create rigid social hierarchies to maintain power. The Spanish implemented the casta system in Latin America and the Philippines. The Dutch did so in South Africa and Indonesia. The Hindu caste system or Varna system, Varna meaning color, is described in the Rig Veda.

The elite Aryan Brahmins come from the mouth of the god Purusha, Kshatriya warriors from the arms, Vaisya peasants and merchants from the legs, and dark-skinned Shudra laborers from the feet. Hindu texts outline strict rules for each caste. The lowest castes, dark-skinned Shudras and Dalits, suffered the most torment under caste oppression. Here's a brief overview of just some of the caste rules.

First, lower castes cannot read the Vedas or enter temples. They cannot own property. They must serve the upper caste as slaves. They are mutilated and castrated for not being servile enough. They should have insulting names which reflect their low and servile status.

They are castrated and killed for lying with upper caste women. Higher caste cannot speak with or physically contact members of the lower castes. There must also be no sharing of food or water with the lower castes because they're impure. Hinduism permits human sacrifice and the sacrifices are disproportionately drawn from the lower castes. This is why India is the human sacrifice capital of the world.

Devadasi or child temple prostitution typically involves lower caste girls. Lower castes who do not comply with the caste rules go straight to hell. The Hindu king must keep lower castes in their place, enforce slave labor and punish caste rule violations with severe penalties or execution. This is how Hinduism enforces caste with brutal consequences for disobedience.

Hindu apologists respond to all this by claiming there is no caste or that it's voluntary. Genetic evidence debunks these lies. Harvard geneticist David Reich notes, rather than an invention of colonialism, long-term endogamy as embodied in India today in the institution of caste has been overused.

important for millennia. The simplest way to explain the genetic data is to imagine a water bottle. If I add blue and yellow food coloring and shake it, the colors mix. This is what happens when two groups interbreed over generations, their DNA blends and genetic analysis reveals genetic homogenization. Now,

Now imagine if I shake the water bottle and the blue and yellow colors never mix. The only way that that could happen is if I had some mechanism to forcefully prevent the colors from mixing. That's what happens with the caste system. When we look at the genetic profile of current day Indians, there is no homogenization, even among groups that live in the exact same village. This can only be explained by a strict caste system imposed on Indians by force for millennia.

In short, the genetic data is the trump card that demolishes all the cheap Hindu apologetics. The indisputable fact is that Hinduism came to India through an Aryan invasion. The Aryans believed they were a superior race entitled to dominate dark-skinned natives.

Hindu myth number four, the primary way to spread religion is conversion. And that's why Islam is evil and Hinduism is not since Hinduism does not seek conversion. This is also false. As a matter of historical fact, the primary way religions and cultures have spread is not through conversion, but through genocide and caste.

As we've seen, paleogenetics proves that human history is a never-ending story of groups competing with each other for scarce resources, resulting in war and conquest. Every extant culture and religion has engaged in violent conquest, but the conquerors have to choose what to do with the conquered population, either genocide, caste system, or conversion. Genocide and imposing a caste system are the two most common in history. They're also the most violent, and this is what Hinduism chooses.

You and your descendants will either be eliminated or you'll forever be part of a dominated slave caste. This is how Hinduism spread throughout India after the Aryan invasion and thereafter. Islam, by contrast, chooses religious conversion, which is less violent because it allows the conquered population to eventually integrate with the dominant population by converting rather than remain a subjugated caste for eternity.

Ironically, Hindu apologists criticize Islam for spreading through violence and what they call love jihad, but Hinduism spreads in a far more violent way. This is because the caste system eventually eliminates the indigenous population. The caste system allows men in higher castes to reproduce with lower caste women without any resulting children being attributed to the higher caste with any...

resulting children being attributed to a higher caste and being taught the caste rules. Meanwhile, lower caste men are left without mating options, so their genetic line is eliminated. Generation after generation, the indigenous population that constitutes the lower caste are eliminated because the men could not reproduce and the women produce children for their upper caste masters. This is the Hindu love jihad, if we can call it that, and it's how Hinduism spread throughout India. It was not through conversion, it was through caste selective breeding.

Many Hindu religious texts speak to this. The Gautama Sutra says that if a low caste member has intercourse with an Aryan woman, his punishment is castration and then execution. These brutal punishments ensure that lower caste men never intermix. Hindu apologists will deny these teachings,

but paleogenetics proves otherwise. Consider that in white-dominated caste systems, white women are restricted to reproducing only with white men to preserve biological purity, while white men freely reproduce with non-white women, spreading white male DNA downwards.

Since Y chromosome is passed down from fathers, we can detect caste domination through analyzing the Y chromosome. Genetic studies show, prove that modern Indian Y chromosomes are predominantly Aryan while the rest of the DNA, mitochondrial DNA from the mother's side is Dravidian. This suggests Aryan conquerors bred with Dravidian women producing mixed Aryan children while Dravidian men were either killed or

barred from reproducing by strict caste rules. Thus Hinduism spread not through conversion, but through forced breeding of subjugated castes. So far, we've looked at genetic and textual evidence of Hindu violence, but we should also look at modern India,

The current Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, is nicknamed the Butcher of Gujarat because he was implicated by human rights groups in a massacre of 2,000 Muslim minorities. Last year, Hindutva leader threatened to slaughter 200,000 Muslims because of a cow. Even the great grandson of Gandhi publicly has threatened to cut the throats of Muslims. There are crazy extremists in every religion, but in Hinduism, the crazy extremists are India's highest political authorities.

In addition to unhinged calls for violence, other Hindu politicians make the most racist statements against lower castes, such as the untouchable Dalit castes, who are referred to as street dogs. At the same time, the upper Brahmin castes are so superior, they're literally considered gods. In 2016, Amnesty International reported that in one year alone, there were 40,000 crimes against lower castes in India. Human Rights Watch reported 100,000 instances of rape, murder, and arson against Dalits and said the real number is probably much higher.

In conclusion, Hinduism came to India through the Aryan invasion and then spread throughout India due to a brutal caste system that eventually biologically eliminated the indigenous population. Islamic invasions, by contrast, imposed religious belief and gave indigenous populations the right to convert to Islam. This in and of itself makes Islam superior to Hinduism. But even if we put the racial subjugation aspect to the side, Islamic beliefs and norms are still objectively superior to Hinduism because Hinduism teaches that

sex rituals with dead horses, worshiping rapist gods by rubbing their penises, widow burning, child temporal prostitution, and human sacrifice. Whereas Islam teaches worshiping one transcendent, all powerful, merciful God, whilst establishing his justice on the earth for the benefit of all mankind. - That you put in the chat, if you tag me with @ModernDayDebate,

Or if you put in a super chat, those will be read first. And if you haven't yet, hit that like button once we get to 50 likes. Jeff in chat said he would send everyone a special surprise in their email inbox once we get to 50 likes. I think you'll be very pleasantly surprised. With that, we'll go into the seven minute rebuttals. Arjuna, the floor is all yours. Make sure I'm unmuted. Okay, so I'll start a timer too.

So as expected, there is a bunch of quote mining and some clutching for straws at ancient history, which is not well documented. So Aryan invasion theory has been acknowledged by scholars to have been created as a form of subjugation to create tension among the Hindu community when the British conquered India.

colonized. And the scholarly consensus today is that it's not supported. Yeah, sure, there's genetic evidence that peoples have moved around, but there's no evidence of a great battle on people being destroyed. And

Just using a bit of genetic evidence is not going to say there was a huge conquest. The Vedas have a lot of metaphor. The Shiva Lingam, it's a round stone, and yeah, sure, it's metaphorically thought of as Shiva's penis, but...

He's taking things a bit too literally to make that argument there. Metaphor is a way, you know, many religions will focus on things to meditate and understand things metaphorically for a greater understanding and meditative purification of consciousness. The sati burning is like,

What he needs to do to show that Hinduism is violent is show that the Vedas actually teach this. So Islam doesn't actually have a variety of teachings with different ideals for lower and higher, you know, what people are ready for as teachings. Whereas we have a concept that, you know, all world religions, but at least a large portion of them were started by God because the people at that time and place were only ready for so much. And we, you know, as a Gaudiya Vaishnava, I believe the highest revelation was given by

in the Gaudiya Vaishnava Siddhanta. But all Hindus within the Vedic context acknowledge a hierarchy of texts being revealed and some things are given as ideal. This is what's held up. And in no case will you find an example of something that the Vedic texts themselves say, this is the highest ideal, where he can make these arguments he's living against it. Yeah, sure. Arjuna fought the battle against the Kauravas and Kauravas

But he wasn't, it wasn't, the battle was pretty terrible, but that war was fought for Dharmic purposes because there's a whole backstory there of all the horrible things the Kauravas were doing. And of course, if you take any war out of context,

You can make either side look bad. You put it in context and then you understand the actions of Arjuna on the battlefield and why Krishna was saying this war has to be fought. It's not because he's a Kshatriya and it's his duty. It's because as a Kshatriya, as a person who's capable of fighting, he has a duty to protect those who can't protect themselves, to fight and ward off

those that are creating evil in the world and are stronger than and he's strong enough to fight them off so that's why it's his duty the caste system um if if he'd actually studied hinduism at with the view of trying to understand it he'd be well aware that there's huge portions that have very robust arguments based on hindu scripture that the caste system is uh supposed to be

It's not based on birth. It's based on nature. And it's something like a Myers-Briggs. It's a way of structuring society so that people are in careers that suit them. They're doing duties at work because in current society, we have governments lying and cheating. We have businessmen destroying the planet, etc.

uh with there's all sorts of horrible things going on if you could if you get people with the right nature and the right profession you know some people are natural teachers because they just care so much about the student some people are terrible teachers and if we can just understand the psychophysical makeup of people understand a framework of how to place people in careers based on that we can have a functional society however

These teachings can always be degraded. You can have a teaching that's good. Any teaching can be misunderstood. So I can show, and it's been demonstrated by Hindu leaders like Srila Bhakti Sananda Saraswati,

that this caste system as it goes on in India today is a total abomination and degradation of the original Vedic teachings. He would argue these things so vehemently that people who disagreed with him if they saw him walking down the street would cross the road to avoid coming in contact with him. And he had several public debates on this subject.

I mentioned at the start how I value interfaith dialogue, but Dan here, as we're seeing, is not one of those people. He's just here to make Hinduism look bad at any cost. He's got no interest in actually demonstrating that there's actually Hindus who are making a case for this. Yes, the caste system has many people who benefit from it, and they'll continue to perpetrate it, but if you actually look at the

the hermeneutics within the system, the traditions within the system, the caste system is rejected. And like the horse sacrifice example he gave, there's no injunction saying today people should do this horse sacrifice. When somebody takes up

you know, not even within Gaudiya Vaishnava, but other sheikhs of Vaishnava, Shaiva systems, if somebody takes it up today, nobody's going to tell them to go and sacrifice a horse. And nobody has any right to complain about animal sacrifice if they're a meat eater. The amount of animals killed for the meat industry

is nowhere comparable to the odd animal that might have been sacrificed in a ritual ceremony. He mentioned human sacrifice, that this is something that has been criticized. There's a pastime where Krishna criticizes someone for doing it. The times when it has been practiced and talked about, it's symbolic. They use rice cakes.

as symbols for human flesh. They're not actually killing humans. Whereas you have Muslims killing people because they profess the wrong faith. Now, I know one of the arguments, I don't know if he stated explicitly, but it is the point Dan makes is that, well, Hinduism

Muslims killing non-Muslims for apostasy or for not converting is fine because they can just convert to Islam, whereas the caste system is abominable because it's based on birth. But the difference with me is I can agree that the caste system based on birth is abominable and disown it and say this is not based on Hindu's teachings and is totally immoral, whereas Dan is actually here defending practices like death for apostasy. So if America were to become an Islamic nation tomorrow,

Who knows how many people might be killed for apostasy laws? You know, it could be in the tens of millions of people that would die as a result of doctrines he is espousing today.

going into law if America became an Islamic country. Nothing that I defend today would result in any deaths if my understanding of Hinduism were to take power in the government. So he's going to have to do a lot more than quote my talking about some clutching at straws for genetic data, misunderstanding aspects of the Vedas. And then the Manusmriti, one last comment on that is

considered to be interpolated and it's also a text that changes with time and it says inside of it if something is not beneficial or not favored don't follow it the vedic teachings are based on having a living guru who understands things and sees them for themselves so we don't have any of this danger of rigidly understanding an ancient text we have modern people who purify their heart and then make decisions based on their best judgment thank you

You got it. Thank you very much for that rebuttal. We're going to kick it over to Daniel for his seven-minute rebuttal. Folks, if you haven't yet, I want to let you know really quick, for these events that we are going to host with Daniel this summer in Las Vegas, these debates require quality equipment. And we're like, hey, we know the quality equipment we need because we've used it already. We've rented it. But we thought, hey, as many debates as we're going to do, it makes more sense to buy rather than rent. So...

There is a GoFundMe link pinned at the top of the chat and in the description box as we are raising funds to buy camera lenses. So we have these bought and ready to use so that we can make in-person debates common again because in actuality, a lot of people don't realize very few debates happen on college campuses. And that's why I'll share with you another update about Modern Day Debate as we are opening chapters on college campuses shortly.

But nonetheless, before I get to that, that link for the GoFundMe is at the top of the description box and the chat. Join us as we are making debates common again in person and at universities. With that, Daniel, the floor is set for seven minutes. I need to share my screen again, James. Ready. Okay. So in my response, our...

Arjuna is just hand-waving genetic evidence. He's saying it's flimsy. No, I cited the scholarly consensus. Can he cite me, a scholar or an authority who says that all of this genetic evidence and the consensus of scholars like David Reich at Harvard University and others is actually bunk, is actually not the case?

I'm citing Harvard Medical School. I'm citing Oxford University Press. I'm citing all these major journals. You saw the citations earlier. And Arjuna is not prepared to handle this, so he just hand waves it and says that it's not actual serious research. No, there's entire books that are written about the Aryan invasion, that are written about the

caste system, the reality of the caste system for millennia. This is not, this is the current day consensus. And as I mentioned, it's new. So maybe Arjuna is just not aware because it's only been 10 years. Prior to 10 years, yeah, there was a debate on whether there was an Aryan invasion or not, but that question was settled definitively because of paleogenetics.

And that's the data that I have shown you or I've referred to and I've given you all the citations that you can go study and read for yourself. I've also quoted you the words of these scholars. Here is this other slide that I showed you. Here's the peer reviewed, just four of the top papers. There are many, there are dozens of papers and there are a lot of books as well.

Now, Arjuna says that, oh, this was peaceful migration. If it was peaceful, then did the Dravidian men, the indigenous men who are in the subcontinent with the Indus Valley civilization, did they voluntarily let these Aryan foreigners take all their women and have sex with them and have children with them and wipe out the Dravidian male line, the Dravidian Y chromosome? Did the Dravidian men voluntarily do this? No.

It was by force. It was through genocide and caste selective breeding. And this is, again, the scholarly consensus. This is not, yeah, I'm saying it in a polemical way for the purpose of this debate, but that is actually the objective fact that has been established scientifically. He references to Ashvamedha, the dead horse man,

sacrifice ritual that involves sex with a dead horse. And he says, he explains this as saying, oh, this is not for today. This is only for the past. How does that make it any better?

This is in the Vedas. So Arjuna said that, oh, I only accept the Vedas. Only the Vedas represent Hinduism. Well, the Vedas are talking about horse sacrifice. You not only sacrifice the horse. He said, oh, well, if you disagree with sacrificing horses, how can you eat meat? Well, yeah, I eat a hamburger. I don't have sex with it. I don't have sex or I don't have...

Again, like we can go and read what the Ashwamedha is about. It's about putting the genitals of a dead horse into the genitals of a human queen, a human woman. This is what the Ashwamedha says. How can you believe that this is from a holy source? This is the Vedas of Hinduism. And all that Arjuna can say to explain this is that, oh, this is that was for the past.

So Arjuna says, just follow higher ideals. Where in Hinduism does it say you follow higher ideals rather than the Manusmriti, rather than the actual Hindu text? I want to see a citation. I know that there are plenty of neo-Hindus promoting neo-Hinduism and saying that, oh, well, we just...

all of these rituals, human sacrifice, sati, caste system, this is all irrelevant because this is not actually our religion. Yeah, you're following neo- Hinduism. This is something that you've just created as a response to modernity, as a response to pressure from British colonialism and from Western liberalization. Every religion can say this. I can also take the same kind of idiotic lines and everything that Arjuna presented, I can say, oh, this is, I don't

believe that the Quran should be read literally. I don't believe that hadith should be read literally. I'm going to throw every historical example of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and his companions conducting war. I'm just going to throw that under the bus.

Any Muslim can play that game too, but that makes for a very stupid debate because I'm not representing Islam in that case. I'm just representing a libtard understanding of Islam. And what Arjuna is presenting, sorry to say, this is a libtard understanding of Hinduism. It's neo-Hinduism.

My opponent said that, oh, Daniel, we're in charge of America. There'd be blood running through the streets. Okay, if Arjuna, my opponent, was in charge of America or in charge of the world, would he have no violence? Then how would he enforce what he called Dharmic purpose? The Dharmic purpose is, oh, when we read the Vedas and Indra, or we read the Gita and we hear about Indra or Krishna rather, and Arjuna fighting this war and killing 1.6 billion people,

People, that's fine because it's for Dharmic purposes. Okay, how would you, Arjuna, if you were in charge of the world, enforce Dharmic purposes? It has to be with violence, right? You have to have armies, right? You have to enforce through violence. So explain that.

And then the whole explanation that, oh, a war is okay in the Bhagavad Gita or in the Vedas. That's fine because we only fight wars for dharmic purposes. Anyone can say that. Everyone can say that. Islam also only fought wars and only spread for good purposes, for the purpose of justice, for the purposes of spreading Islam. Islam invaded Islam.

the subcontinent precisely to end the disgusting polytheism, worshiping, uh, rapist gods, worshiping these, uh, evil demon gods, uh, Sati caste system, Islam invaded. And it was a good thing that Islam invaded to end these terrible, disgusting practices like having sex with dead horses. So you can, yeah, I agree. Conquest for good purposes. That is absolutely, uh,

endorsed in Islam. And I'm glad that Arjuna thinks that it's endorsed in Hinduism to some extent as well, even though he seems to be hypocritical about that. He talks about meat eating. Guess what? India is the world's largest exporter of beef. The only Hindu country, majority Hindu ruled by the Hindu BJP. They're the biggest exporter of beef.

Animal cruelty is an epidemic in India. Many news articles on this, killing cats, killing dogs, the rates are quite astonishing. Humans losing humanity, rising instances of animal cruelty in India, land where they are worshipped, says the Indian Express.

killing pregnant elephants, beating tigers to death. What else? Murdering dogs, dog serial killers. This is all found in the animal loving Indian subcontinents. We mentioned that horse sex ritual. You can read the quote there. So yeah, that's I think seven minutes, but these are the kinds of responses I have to my opponent. Second, right? I get a second one too. Thanks.

If you haven't hit that like button yet, folks, do remember to hit that like button. The floor is all yours. You're on mute, Arjuna. Let me unmute you. Okay, sorry. Yeah, here we go. Yeah, I've got my mute over here. So again, we have the clutching of straws based on the...

Genetic evidence doesn't prove that there was an actual war. It just shows genetic flows. The Dravidian thing, I've not super clued up on this, but I've never claimed that through all of Indian history,

the highest ideal of Vedic teachings have been followed. Like Krishna came 5,000 years ago and said, I'm coming now because, uh, religious principles have declined and I'm here to revive. And there was a revival. There was a period where things were followed nicely again. And now India is once again in a degraded state, uh,

Dan gave some examples of India's current degradation, and the difference between me and him is I will point to those examples of immoral, egregious actions going on in India done by Hindus wherever I see it and say, yeah, that stuff's bad, but...

that's not following the Vedas. The Vedas actually teach something higher. He tried to shrug off this idea of a higher ideal, but it's all, it just shows that he doesn't know the first thing about the Vedas, Vedic hermeneutics or the traditions they have. You study the Vedas by following a tradition. You don't just pick up the book and read it. You have, there's lineages that are living, that have teachings. You pick one of them and you understand it according to that lineage. So he'd have to show me a Vedic

that supports his understanding of these things. I did a reaction video to a video he did a couple of years ago on this horse sacrifice case. We tried to find what he was quoting for the Vedas. We couldn't find it. We found one thing that was maybe somewhat related to it. And it was criticized. This horse sacrifice example that he's saying, this is the Hindu thing. You look at what the Hindus are up to. That

That one case that we could find that was maybe the one Dan was talking about from the Vedas was criticized for not being done right. So it's, yeah, what really matters in terms of which religion is more violent is which one has caused more deaths, more violence, and which one

It contains beliefs and injunctions which are likely to cause more deaths. He talked... He had responded to my point on that and saying, well, if Arjuna came in charge of the government, then what would he do? You know, you have to have some violence. It's like, yes, you have to have some violence, but...

the violence needs to be according to the principles of ahimsa which is you take out an aggressor when they're actively in their state of aggression to protect the innocent or you know you you dole out punishments to people who are criminals to take them off the streets and prevent those crimes from being committed he's talking about apostasy laws where you kill somebody because they refuse to believe that god is a cosmic psychopath who will do things like we

have you killed for believing in the wrong religion or send you to hell for eternity for believing in the wrong religion. That's just something I'm not capable of doing. I personally believe God is an all loving being who will accept your devotion. However you give it, even if you misunderstand a little bit, even if you're following it according to another tradition. So when you believe God is a cosmic psychopath, who's going to kill people for the members of, for believing the wrong religion, then you're going to have genocide because you're,

If you truly believe that that preacher of that other religion is actively espousing a doctrine that is going to send people to hell, you will go and kill that person to prevent more people from going to hell. And this is what has happened historically with Islamic communities going around and wiping out Jews and other groups in order to protect their religion. The amount of violence that's gone on, I mean...

Dan cannot point to a single contemporary example of violence going on during the period. He's going back to prehistory, drawing on genetics in order to say there was violence. And then in this modern examples he's giving of animals being abused, those people just aren't following the Vedas. I can quote the Vedas. We do have some prehistory stuff from Megasthenes about Indica. He went to India around the time of Alexander the Great and recorded how great the civilization was. And he noticed there was no concept of slavery there.

It was understood that all men were equal. There was animal hospitals. They had medical care for animals 2,300 years ago in India, according to McGustin, who wrote this book called Indica. I didn't start my timer. Sorry, how much have I got? Which other points was I going to cover? The horse sacrifice? I think I've responded to the points you just made. Probably

One of the points I wanted to bring up was the Barbary pirates. For 200 years, they devastated the coast around Tripoli, Morocco and whatnot. And when America finally put a stop to it with their naval fleet, that American Navy was started to wipe out these pirates. And when asked by, I think it was Thomas Jefferson, why do you do this to us?

He quoted the Quran and said, we have an injunction from Allah to mistreat and plunder. Sorry, I've got the quote in front of me, non-believers. And I'd be delighted if Dan was to say that for 200 years, this group of non-believers

Barbarian Pirates was totally misunderstanding Islam, and it doesn't encourage you to plunder and kill non-believers, but the slave trade that went on under the Barbarian Pirates was massive. It went on for 200 years and was finally ended. And it's not too different from the wars that have gone on in the prior centuries under Islamic caliphates and whatnot. So again, the difference between me and Dan is I will...

You know, any example you can point to of something that's that is undeniably immoral, I can say that's not following the Vedas. Yeah, that's where he will actively defend apostasy laws where you kill people for not believing, which essentially means he thinks God is a cosmic psychopath because only a cosmic psychopath would want you killed just because you were trying to worship God. But you misunderstood him because I personally think that.

the understanding of God revealed in Gaudiya Vaishnavism is the highest understanding. But according to him, God's going to punish me to eternal hell because I've misunderstood him. That's just, I just refuse to believe that God is that kind of cosmic psychopath. And I think when you believe God is a psychopath, you're going to end up doing violent things. And when Christians have believed stuff like that, they've committed violence. And when Muslims have believed things like that, they've committed violence. And then he says,

rejected this idea of the Vedas having ideas of different ideals. Again, it just shows how he's just interested in painting Hinduism in a bad light at any cost and doesn't understand the first thing about Vedic teachings because we have

There's teachings in different modes of material nature. There's teachings for people in those different modes. And the highest is given as Satvagun. Different Puranas are meant for people at different levels. And Amala Purana is given as the highest. Bhagavad Gita gives the highest teachings. And in here, we find concepts like Ahimsa. And even with Manusamhita, I can pull up a list of quotes from there that give really good injunctions and that

cancel out the bad ones and like I said that the Manus Smriti is widely accepted to have interpolations so any bad quote he could pull from there I'd be like okay well can you prove to me it's not interpolated and that's the original text and even if he can those injunctions are not meant for now because you know time moves on people have different capacities and there's different ways you govern different people

Thank you very much for that seven-minute rebuttal from Arjuna. We are going to go to the final rebuttal itself. So this is the last round of rebuttals, I should have said. This is the final rebuttal. This is from Daniel for seven minutes. The floor is yours. Okay, can I share my screen, James? Yep. Folks, if you haven't yet, hit that like button. Let YouTube know what you want more of.

Okay, I'll just touch on what Arjuna said at the end about interpolation and Manusmriti. This can be said about all the Hindu texts. There is no original copy of any of the Hindu texts. The earliest manuscript of the Vedas is from just 1000 CE, like just the 11th century. That's the earliest, but the claim is that the Vedas are from 2000 BCE.

So this, that's 3000, the earliest manuscript is from 3000 years after so how do we know that it hasn't been completely interpolated like all Hindu texts can be interpolated you can say that about anything.

Let's go to the ashram that I think is worth reading in depth. This isn't some like website that I've gotten this from. This is from University of Chicago Press, where you have scholars of Hinduism translating from the original Sanskrit, the Vedas,

and other Hindu material. And it describes the Ashwamedha here. When the sacrificial animals have been quieted, the king's wives come up with water for washing the feet. Four wives and maiden as the fifth and 400 women attendants. They make the chief queen lie down next to the horse. Then they draw out the dead horsemen

horse's penis and place it in the vagina of the chief queen while she says, may the vigorous viral male, the layer of seed, lay the seed, this she says for sexual intercourse. While they are lying there, the sacrificer insults the horse by saying, lift up her thighs and put it in her rectum, in her anus. This is the ashram.

What's the mistake? Like, is this a mistake from whom? This is found within the Hindu texts and it's referred to in the Vedas. And this is cited by the top Hindu scholarly authorities in the Western world.

Again, he talks about no proof of violence through genetics. Again, I don't know what more proof does he want. If you are analyzing the DNA of modern Hindus, you can see within the DNA that there was a strict caste system because there is no mixing. There's no homogenization of the DNA. If you look at the DNA of modern Americans or even the Han Chinese within China, you see a lot of homogenization because people from different regions...

were meeting in certain places and certain cities and certain centers, and they were getting married and they were having children. And there was this kind of interbreeding that results in genetic homogenization. That does not

That is not the case with modern Hindu DNA. And the only explanation in the resources that I cited you, I showed on the screen from David Reich and others, is that there must have been endogamy. Endogamy means preventing interbreeding between groups.

And this is endemic of the caste system. So this is not something that is the caste system is not voluntary. It was imposed by force and all of the evidence shows that it is millennia old. It is a millennia of millennia plural of the caste system.

Also, he keeps making a big deal about blasphemy punishments in Islam. There's blasphemy punishments in Hinduism. What do you think happens with all the lynching of Muslims happening in India for eating beef or even being suspected of eating beef? This is a lynching Muslims is a epidemic in India. Why? Because of the concept of blasphemy. You're blaspheming against the cow god.

So then you have this quote from another Hindu text. If one hears an irresponsible person blaspheme the master and controller of religion, one should block his ears and go away if unable to punish him. But if one is able to kill, then one should by force cut out the blasphemer's tongue and kill the offender. And after that, one should give up his own life.

So not only do you kill the blasphemer, you also kill yourself if you heard the blasphemy. This is far more extreme than anything that you can say about Islam. He keeps saying that Abrahamic God is a psychopath because there are punishments or there are consequences in the Abrahamic religions like Islam or Christianity or Judaism. First of all, Hindu texts also speak about hell. I refer to a bunch of them.

Second of all, what is more cruel than the idea of a caste system or the idea of reincarnation as a cockroach? You don't meet your dharma, your caste duty within Hinduism, and therefore you're reincarnated as an insect or a bug

or a dog and then you're abused or worse you're reincarnated as a dalit as an untouchable or a shudra and then you have to be abused spat on insulted live as a slave any kind of injustice can be inflicted on you but you deserve that why because in a previous life you didn't meet your dharmic

duty. It's justified to abuse the Dalit. It's justified to step on the Dalit's face because he has not in a previous life met his Dharmic duty. Also, again, we didn't see Arjuna at all mention or explain the Chakravartin ideal. The ideal within Hinduism is to conquer the world. That

That is the kshatriya ideal of the kshatriya warrior caste, and the kshatriya ruler, the kshatriya king, is supposed to take over the entire world to impose the dharmic purpose. As Arjuna so eloquently put it, the Chakravartin king imposes the dharmic purpose on the entire globe. That is conquest.

He mentions the Barbary pirates. Yeah, the Barbary pirates is just a response to the Atlantic slave trade. Have you heard of the Atlantic slave trade? Africa fights back again, I guess. The Muslims fought back against the Atlantic slave trade and they gave America a taste of its own medicine. Now, if you want to talk about slavery in general, I've talked about slavery in other debates. We can go into that. I don't think that slavery is an immoral practice because every religion is

Almost every religion and every major culture endorses slavery in some form or another. And there are reasons for this that we can talk about and you can watch in previous debates. I wanted to go and look at the caste rules again, because I think some of you might appreciate looking more closely at the caste rules and how extreme they are. Again, Arjuna has not talked about these texts. You are mutilated for not being servile.

Multiple texts talk about you should be branded on the hip if you're a lower caste and you just sit in the wrong place as a lower caste member, you should be branded and your buttocks should be cut off. If you are arrogant, your lips are to be cut off.

If you urinate in the wrong place, your penis is cut off if you're in a lower caste. If you break wind, if you pass some gas as a lower caste member, a Dalit or a Shudra, the anus must be amputated. This is what the caste rules teach. This is what is imposed. This is what is imposed by force through violence. Right?

Okay, this is not, and again, the genetic evidence proves that these restrictions existed, that caste was at the very least restricting who you could or could not marry. Lower caste should be given insulting names, lower caste should be castrated and executed for lying with upper caste women. If he has, the lower caste member, criminal intercourse with an Aryan woman, his origin shall be cut off and all his property confiscated. If the women had a protector, he shall be executed afterwards.

At Six Flags Discovery Kingdom, we're serious about our guests having a seriously fun season of fun. Just listen to our spring sale. Buy a 2025 Silver Pass and get unlimited fun all year long. Now with free parking. Save $30 online at SixFlags.com. Taxes may apply. Blockout dates apply.

There's an online MBA that students say is transformative, empowering, exhilarating, and that creates a supportive community. It's the iMBA from Gies College of Business at the University of Illinois. The iMBA attracts students from all around the world and top faculty work with you personally. The iMBA is an amazing online experience with a flexible schedule and an affordable price tag. To learn more, go to onlinemba.illinois.edu.

Join us and transform your life.

Craftsman days are here at Lowe's with big savings on the tools you need. Right now, get a free select tool when you buy the Craftsman V20 2-pack battery kit. Whether it's the backyard, the bathroom, or beyond, Craftsman has the tools to help you power through and get the project done right. Because DIYing is unpredictable, but your tools shouldn't be. Shop Craftsman at Lowe's today. Valid through 618. While supplies last, selection varies by location.

Thank you very much for that rebuttal. We're going to jump into the open dialogue. Folks, if you have any questions, shoot them into the old live chat. You can tag me with that modern day debate. Otherwise, Super Chat will go to the top of the list. And with that, gentlemen, we're going to go back and forth. So these are in two minute increments. We'll start with Arjuna for two minutes. The floor is all yours.

Yeah, I want to start by challenging this Manu Smriti thing. So I mentioned that it's accepted to have interpolations and then you just keep quoting it anyway. So if it's not, like, either you need to defend that the Manu Smriti is intact in its original form or you need to stop quoting it. Bhagavad Gita

We can know this is in its original form and Bhagavatam too for pretty much the same reasons. Bhagavad Gita is the Bible of India. People memorize it. If you had a copying error and a transcript of it, people would notice. And Bhagavatam has a very complex verse. So if you make a mistake in it, you'll mess up the verse.

And we don't have transcript issues between different versions of these books. So yeah, Bhagavad Gita, we can rely on and we can know this is that. So why do you keep quoting Manusmriti and digging up this stuff, especially considering the fact that Manusmriti is considered time, place and circumstance. It's not for all times. Daniel. Yeah. So where in the Manusmriti or any Manusmriti,

Hindu text was give me the Gita, where does the Gita say that the Gita is the Bible of Hinduism, where in any Hindu texts, religious texts, does it say that the menu smear to you should not be relied upon the these other piranhas should not be relied upon. Give me some kind of reference like this is just neo Hinduism, it's just the modern kind of political response to liberalization and Western colonialism.

But this is not very compelling. And we, again, we can do the same exercise with any religion. Any religion can say that, well, you can only take from Islam only one chapter, Surah Al-Fatiha. Surah Al-Fatiha is the only text that we can rely on in all of Islam. And it says that we're just worshiping God and we're asking him for guidance.

Everything else, well, we can't really tell. So forget about Hadith, forget about the rest of the Quran, forget about any kind of statements of the scholars, the pre-modern Muslims, the pre-modern Muslim authorities, forget about all that. So this is just such a lazy attempt to whitewash Hinduism.

And again, the Manusmriti itself is saying that it should be taken as an authority. The Vedas are an authority. And then other texts, like the Manusmriti say that we should take the Vedas as authoritative. And then the interpretation says,

given by the menu smirti. So you're not contradicting this by saying, oh, well, we're in different times. The menu smirti was for a different time. The menu smirti doesn't say that it's for only that time and place. We're in the menu smirti doesn't say that.

And then the third point is that you're claiming that the menu smriti has been corrupted, there's been interpolations, you can say that about all Hindu texts, if you say that the Gita is preserved, the Gita is, what about all the Hindus that were practicing Hinduism before the Gita?

Are you saying that the Gita is something that Hinduism, that predates Hinduism, or is that the claim that you're making? Because it comes much later in Hinduism's history. Time. Arjuna? So the Vedas are considered to be eternal knowledge that are revealed at different times and places and times.

Bhagavad Gita is considered to be spoken by Krishna 5,000 years ago. And so I guess if it was spoken in a different yuga, it might have different iterations. But the teachings themselves are eternal. As for where we get this hierarchy, well, we've got... Well, you're the one telling...

If you don't know this, you know, I should probably frame this as a question to expose your ignorance, but if you don't know that there's Vedic texts that are intended for an audience in the mode of passion, tamas, in the mode of passion, rajas, and in the mode of goodness, saffra, then you're in no position to quote texts and tell me what you think they mean. Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says at the end,

surrender all varieties of religion and send it on to me, which is to say that a lot of the other Vedic teachings are meant for a certain time and place or meant to get you at a certain level, but the highest thing is actually pure devotion to God. And Bhagavatam, we have quotes saying this spotless prana, this amala prana, kicks out all versions of cheating religion. We have Veda Vyas, who compiled the Vedas,

was lamenting after he compiled the Vedas. And Narada Muni comes along and says to him, why are you lamenting? What Vedavyasa is asking is lamenting. And Narada explains, the reason why you're lamenting is because you've done jagutsitam, it's the Sanskrit word. You've done something terrible by writing all these Vedas because they're going to mislead people. And then he went on to write the Bhagavatam, which glorifies exclusive devotion to God. A lot of these quotes too, they've got to be understood in a hyperbolic way. There's many...

Indian commentators before a modern audience who said they understand these talks of punishments and different things are hyperbolic. It's the idea of dangling in front of people, a heavy punishment, like where you're going in your next life if you don't act. It's like a kind of CBT to get people, you know, thinking about things and transforming their consciousness. Got it. Daniel?

So what you're saying that the Mahabharata or the Bhagavad Gita doesn't have any interpolation interpolations like this is false. There are interpolations that Hindu scholars talk about. I can share my screen and show some of the articles that are talking about this.

um james yeah mahabar it's considered to have got different versions and yes can i share my screen james ready yeah so here is the mahabharata exists in many versions and translations

But how many people actually read it? There's a scholarly article, Additions and Interpolations in the Bhagavad Gita by L. Bhargava. So this is another, I haven't read these articles, but this is just to bring doubt on your outrageous claim that there are no interpolations in Bhagavad Gita.

So, by what Gita is considered to be free of interpolations I mean I could look at the article and see but if neither of us have read it, then we're kind of arguing out of ignorance. Another question for you on you trying to tell me was my time up, James. Oh, sorry. You're still you still got 55 seconds.

Yeah, so I just bring this up. I haven't done research in the textual preservation of the Bhagavad Gita, but I mean, you're saying that it's thousands of years old, like the earliest, when's the earliest manuscript from? The fact that the earliest manuscripts are thousands of years after

when the text allegedly originated, that's a good indication that it's probably full of changes, evolution, and transmission errors. And there are plenty of scholars of Hinduism that are...

apparently writing about this so people can go and research it and find out for themselves. But my point still stands that there is no Hindu text that doesn't have textual errors, interpolations. So if you want to say like the entire Hindu tradition should be thrown in the trash because we don't know like what is true, like how do we even know that there's a there's a God named Krishna?

How do we even know that there is a God named Vishnu? Like these could be interpolation. Someone like maybe in the second century named Vishnu wanted to be a part of Hinduism and be considered a God. And he just added it in there. Like, how can you know anything like this is what you have reduced Hinduism to because you have selectively, uh,

deleted the texts that don't match your liberal worldview. And this leads you to big problems. It basically destroys the epistemological foundations of your entire religion. And I don't think you realize that. I don't think many Hindus realize that. But that's why it's important to be consistent about how you approach texts. And Muslims are consistent.

I haven't denied any texts. I haven't denied blasphemy punishments. I haven't denied jihad because these are textually based in the Quran and in hadith. So I'm a consistent person. I believe that my religion is from God. I believe my religion has been preserved.

And that's why I invite people to accept Islam and to understand what these laws within Islam, like conquest, like having restrictions on blasphemy so that God doesn't become a joke, so that God doesn't become the butt of jokes and religiosity is destroyed. We need to have blasphemy punishments. This is something that I invite all people to consider in accepting Islam. But your approach

is epistemologically devastating for Hinduism because you have undermined the textual basis of the Hindu religion. So the only way that we can know what Hinduism is, is by what you say. What is Arjuna's understanding of Hinduism? And we just have to take your word for it. This is not very compelling. I came here to debate Hinduism, not to debate your personal understanding of what Hinduism is. So, yeah, I mean,

The Bhagavad Gita, even if there is some scholarly debate on different versions of it, there's not much debate on the differences between the different manuscripts. It will be very minor. I've never heard anyone bring this up before except for you, which is clear evidence that you're not interested in understanding the tradition on its own terms. You just want to make it look bad at any cost.

So with regard to interpolation, just because the Manusmrita is full of Manusmriti is full of interpolation, it doesn't mean that all Vedic texts are the same degree of authentic. We can have books that are more authentic and less authentic based on various factors of how they've been preserved over time. And the Manusmriti is not even considered to be a timeless teaching. It's adjusted over time like a modern...

King will update it with laws that actually make sense for the current time. Your point about consistency, I actually find that one really funny because when I was looking at your video where you talked about, you complained about Christianity, oh, it's inconsistent. In the Old Testament, it said you should stone people for whatever. And in the New Testament, it's more compassionate.

And I didn't get the argument at first, and eventually somebody pointed out to me, he's saying it would be good if it had the stoning laws the whole way through, because then it would be consistent. But consistency of something immoral is not actually a good thing. So if there's something immoral in there, it should be adjusted. But the Vedic idea is there's actually different seasons, and in Kali Yuga, people are more degraded. And when you're dealing with more degraded people, you need different rules. Like if you're running a kindergarten, you have different rules for the kids you're dealing with than if you're dealing with university-educated people.

So similarly, laws for society change depending on the caliber of the people. The last point on this is about interpretive tradition. Can you, you know, interpretive tradition of Sampradaya, can you show me a chain of disciplic succession that supports your interpretations of these? Because a lot of people think a lot of that stuff's either hyperbolic, interpolated, or doesn't apply now. Yeah, so where is the...

authority behind your interpretation. I can ask, I showed textual citation. So the burden of proof is on you to show how there is another equally authoritative source that contradicts that. You have just made a bunch of claims that

Not a single textual citation. Oh, Hinduism is about following higher ideals and the texts of Hinduism, those only apply to specific times and not later times. Like you haven't provided a single authority or textual citation to justify any of these claims.

Second of all, fine, you want to say that the Bhagavad Gita only has slight interpolations or could possibly have slight interpolations? That's different from what you initially said. So you had to revise that after I corrected you. But the second point is that even if we say that the Bhagavad Gita has been preserved and you are taking it as the Bible of Hinduism, the Bhagavad Gita has the caste system.

Arjuna is being chastised by Krishna. Why is he not following his caste duty as a kshatriya to go to war and kill? This is what Krishna is saying to Arjuna, and he's chastising him for not following his dharmic duty.

So caste system is endorsed in the Gita. Conquest and war is endorsed in the Gita. So even if you want to reduce all of Hinduism to just one particular text and only in the way that you interpret that text, it is still endorsing caste system, caste duty, bad consequences for violating caste duty, going to war for conquest, and then the reward of heaven

If you die in war, you go to heaven, according to the Mahabharata, and you get apsaras, you get these divine maidens to pleasure you in heaven. This is also endorsed in these exact texts that you say are preserved and are the basis of Hinduism. So, yeah.

So yeah, it's not my understanding. I'm following an interpretive tradition that is called Gaudiya Vaishnavism. There's a whole chain of disciplic succession. It's something like how you want your surgeries to be done by someone who's learned from an actual surgeon who's done surgeries themselves. You don't just learn from a book. The books don't exist in a vacuum. So I'm not saying you need to quote a Gaudiya Vaishnava chariot. I'm saying you need to go

quote, some acharya somewhere in some interpretive tradition to support your claims. Because, like, the debate here isn't... Well, to some extent, the debate is what do the Vedas actually teach? But, like, we don't want to get too bogged down on that. It's about, you know...

I can show that Islam is more violent. Without that, I mean, you yourself here are defending slavery, apostasy laws. The Barbary pirates, I want to hear you say when they told Thomas Jefferson that they were doing all this plunder because the Koran told them to, I want you to tell me that they were misunderstanding the Koran, not following Islam properly. Otherwise, I don't know how you can argue that Islam isn't a violent religion because what the Barbary pirates did 200 years of devastating violence

that coastline so that merchant sailors were saying, I would rather stay home and starve than risk getting captured by these monsters. And then when confronted on it, they quote the Quran and say, the Quran is telling us to do this. So you're actively defending actual forms of violence. Like you're saying, oh, the Barbary pirates, they were reacting to a slave trade. Like, yeah, history is full of all sorts of people doing bad things. What a religion is meant to do

is speak truth to power and tell us to pull our socks up and be like, you guys are not acting right. Here's what a higher ideal is. Here's how to be a better person. What Islam has done for a lot of its history is just say, what we're doing is right because Allah told us to and because the prophet did it and it's all good. That's what happens when you mix the church with the state. It just ends up justifying its own bad actions.

Daniel, thoughts? So you're asking me to cite an authority, and I have cited authorities, but you don't accept those authorities because there are people in the past who have wrote down what Hinduism is, and what they've written down has been revered by generations and generations. Countless Hindus have revered these writings.

but you're throwing all of that under the bus. So the only kind of authority that I can cite for you is a modern authority from your particular Hindu texts

And guess what? There are plenty of reformers and plenty of libtards, essentially, for lack of a better word, who will say that, yeah, Hinduism is all about love and peace. Yeah, of course. Anyway, that's a trivial exercise to find someone who says that. You'll find Muslims who say that as well. You'll have Muslims, if you were debating like a liberal Muslim instead of me, who would say that, yeah, Islam is all about peace and there's no such thing as jihad. Jihad just means, you know, reformation.

refraining from eating fattening foods or something like that. Like you'll find people in every single religion who take this same exact strategy that you're taking. It's just dishonest. It's not satisfying. And it's epistemologically destructive for your entire religion. We can't take religions like this seriously. I don't take religions who do this, who liberalize in this way by throwing out their canon, by throwing out the religious text. I don't take them seriously because it's just a matter of

Convenience. Second of all, the Barbary pirates, you want me to address that? The Muslims understood that the world is a world of limited resources, scarce resources, and all people are going to fight. You keep talking about the Barbary pirates teaching Thomas Jefferson. Do you realize that Thomas Jefferson also had slaves? Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner.

And he had no objection to slavery. He actually reproduced with some of his slaves, his sex slaves. So this is Thomas Jefferson didn't have any moral problem with the Koran because it endorsed slavery. In fact, no one had a moral problem with slavery prior to modern liberalism and modern liberalism. Are you swayed yet? Has Daniel won you over?

I'm finding this amusing. So, yeah, I'm bringing up this point about interpretative tradition. I mean, you could show me a sampradaya, which is a Sanskrit word, a disciplic succession that had an understanding that you're espousing that's died out and no longer exists.

that supports your understanding. I just said A interpretive tradition. And like, this isn't some modern libtard view. This is funny because what I'm picking at is that you're using the word libtard to refer to ideas about God and religion that are not violent. But here you are in a debate over which view, which religion is more violent. So, but your word for which one is less violent is libtard. So that's kind of telling. Um,

So you need to quote an interpretive tradition. I didn't start my timer. Interpretive tradition. Anyone. It doesn't have to be Gaudiya Vaishadava. It doesn't have to be continued. It could be a tradition that died out. But quote it. The whole Vedas is never, there's no concept that you can go directly to the Vedas. You always go through a guru to understand it. So you've got to quote me an Acharya.

living or dead who supports your understanding. You accused me of throwing out the canon. No, what I'm doing here is I'm just not letting you dictate to me what the canon is of my religion. We have a collection of books that we consider to be authoritative and the highest teachings and then the rest of the Vedas we either ignore or we understand them based on what they can say that's in support of the understanding of bhakti that we learn from Bhagavatam, Bhagavad Gita.

And then you point about the Barbary pirates. What they did was horrible, but Thomas Jefferson was horrible too. But then we go back to Indica. Augustine is saying he observed in India that they had no concept of slavery, that all were considered equal. I mean, the caste system, you keep going back to that, but I'm calling it a degradation, that the actual idea of caste that...

mentioned in Bhagavad Gita is you have a certain capacity and you have a certain role in society. It's no different from saying as a doctor, you have a duty to get up and save that patient. As a police officer, you have a duty to stop those criminals. As a Shatria, Arjuna had certain duties in order to play his role in society for the betterment of all.

His duty was to kill in war and do world conquest. That was his duty. So yeah, you keep saying what's my scholarly authority? Well, I'm citing exactly the texts, first of all. So you say, so the canon, I'm going by your canon. I'm going by the Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita.

Those are the sources that I'm citing. Now you're telling me when I do cite your canonical sources, you're saying, no, no, but you don't have the right interpretation of those canonical sources. So when you read about dead horse sex, that's actually completely metaphorical. And when it's war, it's completely metaphorical. When it's killing, it's completely metaphorical. When it's Kshatriya's being commanded to kill out of caste duty, oh, you have to have a different interpretation. Like,

So what is there to really go on? We can't understand Hinduism except what you say Hinduism is. I literally can't even cite the text that you have limited all of Hinduism to, because even when I cite those texts, you say, no, no, no, you don't have the correct interpretation. Yet you can't cite me a single pre-modern authority who shares the same interpretation that you have.

Second point, I never said that the Barbary pirates were doing something wrong. The Barbary pirates were engaged in the same kind of conquest and enslavement that the United States was engaged in. Thomas Jefferson was the president, the commander of chief of an imperial army that was subjugating people all over the world. Now, when I say libtard, a libtard is someone like you who lives in the comforts of the West,

And is living with or New Zealand, you're in New Zealand, but in the West in general, you're living under the comforts of a very brutal empire, the Western liberal empire that has dominated the world and has created a global economic system that allows you to live peacefully.

Once that economic system collapses, which may be very soon, you as well, all the libtards will realize that, oh, wow, the world is a place of scarcity. And sometimes you have to fight and sometimes you have to enslave. And sometimes, guess what? Violence is justified. Conquest is justified because it's eat or be eaten. That is the state of the world throughout history.

But Liptards ignore all that. They live in a fantasy world because they've been infantilized by a system that is built on the backs of millions of people who have been genocided, who have been colonized and destroyed to create this cushy system that you currently enjoy. But this system would not operate if you did not have that system.

uh that history you couldn't have this kind of view that oh we should all just be peaceful and hold hands and sing kumbaya you wouldn't have that perspective if you didn't live on the basis of this long trail of tears this long history of war and bloodshed and slavery and killing islam recognized that as a muslim i recognize that we live in the real world and islam gives you the correct rules gives you the correct way to apply just war theory over

who are doing it for two minutes. Oh, you're on mute. You have to unmute yourself. Sorry, yep. So I understand that history has had a lot of horrible things and we do live pretty cushy lives because a lot of war went on. But part of why we live cushy lives is because America did things like destroy the Barbary pirates. If that...

type of civilization continued, we would not have the wealth of global trade that we currently have today. It's because the Barbary pirates were wiped out and people were not allowed to engage in that kind of behavior that we live the cushy lives we do now. And yeah, a lot of battles and wars had to happen for that to take place. But, you know, if we take the Vedas on their own merits and what they say of history, they also had peaceful periods. There's always more wars and upstarts. You need people like Arjuna to be able to fight wars and

Because there's always, if you don't have an army, you know, if you have a kingdom where things are going well and you don't have an army ready to protect it, there's always someone who's going to come along and destroy things and take a banish. You always need to have warriors who are there to protect the current status quo, to take out criminals, to protect us from invaders. That's where...

Arjuna was doing. There's the whole context there of the, I can start my time again. I reset it when I, um, unmuted. Um, but yeah, so I'd say I'm amazed that you're not willing to disavow the actions of the Barbary pirates because, uh, they, that's rough estimates are that they took 850,000 slaves. Barbary pirate slaves were either sold, uh, they could be, um, bought back through a

a ransom or um or they lived on the boats they were chained to the boats of these pirates and they would spend the rest of their life chained to this boat and just rowing as a horrible existence and here dan is saying

I'm defending the less violent religion and I think what the Barbary pirates did, I'm not willing to say that was bad. He points to things that are bad, I say yeah the caste system is bad, that's a misunderstanding of it. We need different roles in the society. The simple way I like to explain the caste system, not the caste system, the Varanashram system, the actual proper Vedic teaching, is if you have a criminal who's sick, the doctor's job is to heal them, the police's job

is to lock them up and we need those those distinctions of society because if you have the doctors trying to carry out justice and think oh this person's a criminal i'm going to take them out we do not want to live in a society where medical professionals are trying to take out criminals with the courts for that the police of that that we need these roles to be broken up and we need yeah time if you want to finish your sentence go ahead

We need these roles to be broken up and we need people in each of these roles who are suited to that nature because a doctor needs to have the right sort of nature that drops him at the police officer. Otherwise, things don't go well. You got it, Daniel. You're fundamentally misunderstood my entire career.

uh argument because at the very beginning i said i conceded that islam has violence but it's justified violence what hinduism has is unjustified violence it is violence that you yourself are so disgusted by you have to disavow all

You have to disavow all of your Hindu tradition. You have to disavow all of your Hindu history and you have to say, oh, well, these people weren't really following Vedic principles. You have to disavow the entire history of India. That's how disgusting Hinduism is. I don't have to disavow anything. I'm not going to disavow the Barbary pirates. I'm not going to disavow slavery. Why should I?

They were operating according to the same principles that they needed to operate by, not only to survive, but to establish truth and justice in the world. And again, this is your hypocrisy and your double standards, because you'll say that, oh, well, we need to have warriors. We need to have Arjuna and we need to have the Kshatriya to protect people. Yeah, Islam is protecting people. When the Muslims invaded India, they were protecting the Hindus from...

Their human sacrifice rituals, Purusha Mehta, they were protecting people from worshiping rapist gods and touching the lingam, the metaphorical penis of Shiva. They were protecting the Indian population from Devadasi, child temple prostitution.

Muslims were doing this kind of protection. That conquest is necessary. Of course I endorse that violence. It's needed. That's what justice requires. And honestly, if it was Christianity that was wiping out these practices, I would endorse the wiping out of those practices by the hands of Christians as well.

So you have fundamentally misunderstood my argument. You say that conflicts are a thing of the past. Atrocities are a thing of the past. Now they're happening today. The West is constantly engaged in these atrocities. Look at what's happening to Palestine with the blessing of the United States, with the blessing of these Western government coalitions. Look at what's happening in Kashmir. Look at what's happening to the Muslims that are being lynched in India. Look at the double standards that are used by these Hindus, extremists, lynching Muslims.

We'll kick it over to Arjuna for two minutes. Oh, you're, you're on mute. You have to unmute yourself. So a question I have is, do you think it's a good thing that the Barbary pirates were taken out? Um, cause I can tell you what the world would look like today. If we still had that kind of thing going on, I can imagine like America, like lots of bad things have happened all through history. Um, but we've, we've lived in a time of relative peace, at least in the West. I know there's wars going on all over the world and it's never stopped. Um,

Our part, interestingly, argues that the war will never end so long as meeting is going on because it's a kind of karma for the abuse we commit upon other animals, which is one of my arguments for Islam being a more violent religion. If you're just admitting that religion... So, yeah, I accept there's a concept of justified violence. So the question then is whether the violence that Islam has committed is justified. The defence you gave to justify Islamic violence is that

They are protecting people from idol worship, from various other things that you find problematic from your quote mining, but you can't actually show an interpretive tradition that teaches this stuff. You're just taking a verse that you've dug up somewhere and interpreting it in your personal way, but not a way that has actually traditionally been understood. But

The funny thing is your idea of protecting people involves raping, murdering, pillaging, taking them as captive slaves, destroying their economies and colonizing. And that's a strange kind of protection. The Dharmic concept of protection of a king is considered an evaded concept to have the duty to protect the Praja, which is

Anyone in the kingdom. It extends to animal life too, which is why I pointed out, Magustanese noticed that there was animal welfare. Today, India is in a rather degraded state and animals are abused and all sorts of horrible things go on. They also drop rubbish all over the place and whatnot. But, you know, in ancient India, it wasn't like this. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, you keep mentioning, do I have an interpretive tradition? I'm citing exactly the texts. People can see it. They can go to University of Chicago Press and buy the books on the Hindu textual tradition and read all the quotes from academic sources.

I also cited more than just interpretation and text. I cited genetic evidence, the genetic evidence of conquest, invasion, eliminating an entire race of people in the Indus Valley civilization, the ancient Indus Valley civilization. These are all established by genetics. These are the horrors that we don't need actually a textual tradition to tell us about. The evidence is there.

And we can even go to modern India, we can go to the only Indian state, or the only Hindu state that exists in the world, or led by Hindus, religious Hindus, and we can see what kind of policies that those Hindus endorse those Hindu extremists endorse.

I want to see you condemn Hindutva. I want to see you condemn BJP. You asked me to condemn Barbary Pirates, which I won't do. You condemn the BJP. You condemn their support of Palestinian genocide. You condemn all the Hindus online that are constantly threatening to rape Muslims.

Me, me and my whole family, how about you condemn those Hindus? Condemn Narendra Modi. Condemn Modi for being the butcher of Gujarat and leading the killing of 2,000 Muslims in 2002. Go ahead and condemn that, if you will. If you're such a consistent Hindu, or you're such a moral Hindu, I should say, then you should condemn the government of the only Hindu state of India. Arjuna, a minute.

In case you're not muted.

Sorry, I keep doing it. You can't hear my typing. So yeah, Hindutva, BJP and Nijamodi. Yeah, I'm not a fan of Hindutva. I think they're ultra-naturalistic and I'm not into that kind of sectarianism. Like I said at the start, I'm a perennialist and I think God has started many traditions or at least is present to some extent in various places. So yeah, not a Hindu nationalist, not a fan of that. The BJP, I haven't studied a lot of Indian politics, but yeah, why?

From what you've said, those are definitely things I would be happy to not support. I know no politician's perfect and

Maybe there could be someone better and definitely he's not doing everything right. Maybe that sounds like a cop out, but yeah, I don't agree with killing Muslims in India or persecuting them. I think they should have their freedom of religion also provided they're not themselves engaging in religiously motivated violence. You know, I mean, there are countries that are Islamic that don't have religiously motivated violence like the UAE and they've got various ways of managing to achieve that. And I think that's fantastic.

So can you provide... Yeah, so citing a text to make a point in the Vedas, this will happen, you know, when Hindus are debating amongst themselves, they will quote Vedic texts and they will argue why this text...

should be taken as authoritative and so on. But interpretive tradition is also key. The Vedas do not exist in a vacuum. You can't just pick up Bhagavad Gita one day and start your own tradition and say, here's what I think Krishna meant. There are sampradayas, and to be authentically following the Vedas, you need to be taking knowledge from one of those sampradayas. So if you can't quote a sampradaya, you don't do it. You're not doing it right. So

You keep mentioning Purusha Maida. Can you cite an example of a Purusha Maida taking place where an actual human is killed? Are you aware that Krishna and Mahabharata disavowed the Purusha Maida? Yeah.

Purusha Mehta is practiced in India at record levels. I showed you the graph that shows the amount of, I forgot, the UN was the source, I believe. You can fact check me on the source, but I showed the screen with the screenshot with the source that India is the human sacrifice capital of the world. And it's on the basis of Hinduism.

So you can say that, well, they don't follow the true understanding of Hinduism, whatever. But apparently a lot of Hindus disagree that that human sacrifice is not a part of Hinduism. They're literally practicing it. And then you keep saying that interpretive tradition. I agree. OK, I think that Islam also the Koran, the Hadith, they also needs to be an interpretive tradition that you follow. But I'm honest and consistent. I say, look,

What is the interpretive tradition prior to modernity, prior to the hegemony of the West, modern hegemony that is going to influence people to reinterpret their texts according to liberal values?

libtard values. What is the pre-modern interpretive tradition? And let's look to what those texts say. And when I look to those texts, those texts say, those interpreters say, the scholars of Islam, that yes, jihad is a part of Islam, conquest is a part of Islam, slavery is a part of Islam, blasphemy and punishments are a part of Islam, et cetera, et cetera. I'm consistent with that. You're not citing interpretive tradition that goes to the pre-modern period. That's my critique of your interpretation

appeal to interpret interpretive position. You are just citing yourself. You're citing modern Hindus post-enlightenment, post-British colonialism. So you're, are you a fan of British colonialism? Do you think that the British were justified in coming to India and wiping out the caste system, wiping out Devadasi, child temple prostitution, wiping out

Purusha Mehta, wiping out all of these and bringing economic progress? Because you said that you like a world like that we're living in now, where we have a global economy and that you have peace in the world. Well, that was brought on by British colonialism. That was brought on by Western imperialism. So are you a fan of that? Can you be consistent and actually acknowledge that that's the source of the so-called peace that you're enjoying and that you're appealing to? And time. Remember to unmute. Okay, start.

Yeah, we had this question before about the Barbary pirates. I think we need to harp on this one because 200 years of history

taking slaves, taking slave slaves, selling them, pillaging, and they're saying the Quran tells them to do this. If the world had carried on like that, do you know what the world would look like today? You mentioned that there's limited resources. That's a very backwards way of looking at things. The world actually has an immense amount of wealth if we use it properly. But when you have people who are preventing merchant ships from passing, making them so scared to go and do their job,

because of the horrible actions that will happen to them if they get captured. That prevents us from having wealth in society. In order to have a wealthy society, we need people to invent things. We need people to actually...

make a living in the world, not by raping and pillaging, but by being a productive member of civilization, by producing things, by building things, which is what the West did. And that's why we enjoy quite a wealthy society today. It's because the Americans did things like wipe out the Barbary, stop the Barbary pirates from being able to engage in their actions and building technology and whatnot. I'm not like a fan of everything modern, but we need to understand things accurately. And when you have

a civilization that just gets its wealth. I mean, the early Islamic period was similar too. There was 25 years where Muhammad was married to a wealthy merchant lady. She had some business, was wealthy. After that, they got their wealth by conquering and pillaging other groups and they assembled bigger armies and built an empire eventually. But the wealth was accumulated by conquering other people and plundering them. And that's not a great ideal. And

In the Mahabharata, we have all sorts of complex moral issues discussed, and the highest ideals are given as very elevated things as people who followed complex ethical periods. And this is actually our last two-minute section before we go to the Q&A. So folks, if you've got a question that you've submitted, we are going to get to them shortly. Daniel, the last two minutes is yours.

Yeah, I mean you have a completely delusional understanding of history like the reason that you have high economic production in the West that America builds things is because of genocides. Genociding the indigenous people of the Americas, genociding indigenous people all over the world through colonialism, through imperialism.

That's why you have the kind of production levels and the GDP that you're enjoying. And you're like someone who is enjoying all that, but you don't want to know how the sausage is made. You don't want to know the kind of global conquest that still exists. The global economy is still being controlled with an iron fist by the threat of the dominant Western powers holding the rest of the world hostage and

You think this is a peaceful situation. It's like you're drinking the Kool-Aid. You really think that all of the world's nations, all of the UN states are peacefully living with equal power and that we have, oh, we have the Geneva Conventions. In reality, it's just a few at the top, the Western imperial powers at the top, as they were 200 years ago and 300 years ago, that said,

are controlling the world by force, through threat of force. And literal, if you step out of line, you will get eliminated. You will be invaded. You will be destroyed. That's the way the world actually works and has worked for the entirety of history. You can't point to me any period of history where this fantasy of peace between all and no wars and no fighting has existed.

It's just completely delusional. And yeah, the Americans wiped out the Barbary pirates, as you claim, but they also wiped out many other groups. And guess what? The British colonialists wiped out the Hindu practitioners of Devadasi, the Hindu practitioners of the caste system, the Hindu practitioners of human sacrifice and sati, widow burning. All of those Hindus were also wiped out.

by the British. So if you were consistent, you would say, that's a good thing. I'm really happy that the British colonialists, that the British empire wiped out those Hindus because those Hindus, according to you, weren't following Vedic principles in the first place. So why don't you acknowledge and admit that's a good thing that the British empire wiped out that kind of Hinduism and the Hindus that were practicing that through a genocide, through the British genocide of the subcontinent, you should be consistent and acknowledge that.

I'm bringing up the Barbary Pirates because they were objectively harming the whole European economy. I do want to... This might be a good chance to jump into those, the pirates in particular, during the Q&A. As I'm guessing they're going to come out during the Q&A. Folks, thank you very much for your questions. We're going to jump right into it. And also, we may not get to all of them. We actually only have about roughly 30 minutes for Q&A. And nonetheless, we're going to try, so we're going to move fast.

If you haven't yet, do appreciate your guys' support. I want to let you know first, I should just say thank you to everybody. First, thank you for our guests who are linked in the description. If you want to hear more, you certainly can. Check out their channels. Even if you disagree with them, there's value to learning it directly rather than hearing someone in your own in-group tell you what they're saying. But the other thing too is, I've got to tell you, Modern Data Bait is launching chapters on universities. We're very excited about this. This is going to open so many doors for

If you are a student at a university in the U.S. and you are like, hey, I would love to host some of those debates. For example, I'll put a link in the live chat of what that would look like in terms of some of the debates that we've done with Uncensored America on college campuses. If you're like, hey, that'd be really cool. I'd like to have that on my college campus. Email me at moderndaydebate at gmail.com if you would like to have a campus debate.

at your university. So I'm going to put that in the old live chat right now, that email address. And with that, we're going to jump into these questions. Thank you very much. This first one coming in from an honest doubter says, Daniel doesn't transcendent God equal unreckonable. Unreckonable, like you cannot understand God? Correct. So you can, there are certain things that you, even things that are not God that are unrecognizable.

difficult or even impossible to understand, difficult to understand, but you can understand aspects of it without understanding the entirety of it.

You have we have concepts in math, we have concepts in logic, even things that are, you know, the concept of infinity, the concept of incompleteness in set theory, you have things that are, by definition, impossible to fully understand and encompass, but you can still understand aspects humans can still understand aspects of it.

And that's why we can use the concept of infinity for the calculus. Even though we don't completely grasp with our limited mind the concept of infinity, the mathematical concept of infinity, we can still do limits. We can do derivatives and integrals. This is what mathematicians since Isaac Newton have proven that show that something that is infinite and by definition infinite,

Beyond human can in being able to understand it in its entirety, you can still understand aspects of it and it's the same way with God, God has revealed God.

uh himself aspects of himself with his names with his attributes god is all merciful god is all knowing he is all powerful he is all loving like these are things that we can understand about god without necessarily understanding the essence of god without understanding and encompassing the entirety uh of the concept of god and the creator that's how i would answer

You got it. Thank you very much. And Femo says, to the Hindu guest, why does Rig Veda 1087-16 say, quote, slay the Dasa, referring to the black-skinned people? I'm not familiar with that quote. I'd have to see the context. If I can pull it up. My guess would be that it's referring to a specific context of a specific Dasa that needs to be slayed, like an actual aggressor that's like, oh, I better slay this guy. Yeah.

Let's see, this verse refutes the idea of... Yes, I'm not familiar with that verse.

You got it. That reminds me in the old live chat, the rule is, you know, no ethnic slurs unless it's toward white people. So you can say like, hey, Daniel, hey, Whitey, that's okay. No joke. And we even encourage it. So if you see Arjuna and you're like, hey, honky, that's cool too. And I'm very serious that it is actually cool. Like we're cool with that. We even encourage it. We're going to take the power out of the word by using it constantly and

You crackers. So, you know, YouTube, they let me get away with everything the last like six months or so. But Famos says, if getting cow meat is quote unquote. Sorry, James, can I also add to that question from before? Yes. What have you got?

Yeah, so the Dasa wasn't an individual, it was a race of people. It was a race of dark-skinned people that were eliminated. And the way that Hindus today interpret that is that they were monsters.

So, because I guess it's uncomfortable to accept that what the Vedas are referring to are a Indra is eliminating and genociding a race of dark skinned people as white skin conquerors, because that's literally what the text says but you have to have creative interpretation to make it politically correct for this day and age.

Dan's just giving one interpretation there and again he doesn't know the first thing about Veda Kermaneutics he probably hasn't studied the context of the thing you didn't even know what Dassa are you didn't even know who they are

I follow a bhakti yoga tradition. I don't bother studying all this other stuff. The only reason you objected to it was because it was not liberal. That's the only reason you objected. Not because you had a different interpretation or because you know actually who the dasa were. You just objected because it was non-liberal and therefore it can't be the correct interpretation of the Hindu texts. I can quote 500-year-old Gaudiya Vaishnava.

Acharyas who agree with my understanding. Of the Dasa? This one, coming in from, do appreciate it. Femo says, if getting cow meat is quote-unquote violent, why are cows worshipped in Hinduism but still used for milk, leather, and even dung fuel? Isn't that exploitation of them? There's definitely exploitation of cows that goes on in modern-day India. Yeah, I mean, you will find...

A lot of Indians too, they also treat the cow very sacredly. The cow is considered sacred for various reasons, partly because it gives milk. But yeah, people are, you know, human nature is fallible and people will do things for their own self-interest, even if it violates principles of the hymns taught by the Vedas. You got it. This one coming in from Femo as well. It says, to the Hindu, explain how Hinduism reached places like Cambodia, Thailand, etc. Was it through peaceful yoga missionaries?

Oh, sorry, I missed the question. They're not coming up on the screen? No, we don't use screen yards around here. Sorry, could you read it out again? The original gangster software. They say to Hindu, explain how Hinduism reached places like Cambodia, Thailand, etc. Peaceful yoga missionaries?

Yeah, I think I mentioned that in my debate opening. I didn't have time to go into the detail. I really crammed in there. But yeah, it did spread through what is today termed soft power. There was trade and some Brahmanas went and lived in these parts of the world and the people in those countries were interested in learning about the Vedic teachings. So it spread through soft power. There was no conquest, no wars, no force. It was just trade and cultural interest.

One thing that I want to ask if it's okay, Arjuna, because you're mentioning ahimsa a lot in this debate. So if ahimsa is like the ideal of non-violence,

Then wouldn't you say that the nonviolence of the Jains and their practice of Ahimsa is actually more perfect than the Ahimsa of someone like you or other Hindus that have your interpretation? Because they actually have the ideal where they don't believe it's allowed to harm any living creature. And that includes things like bacteria.

That includes, that's why they have salikhana or the ideal of salikhana, which means that you literally starve yourself to death because if you eat plants, plants are living things.

microbes are living things and they literally, Janes will walk with a covering on their mouth to protect any kind of flies that might accidentally fly into their mouths or they broom, they carry a broom with them to sweep under their feet to make sure they don't step on any insects. Don't you think that's a better and more ethical value or practice of ahimsa than what you have in Hinduism?

I mean, I have a lot of respect for the Jains and Buddhists and their practices of compassion. The problem with it is it's totally impractical that this human form of life is an opportunity to elevate in God consciousness. And to do that, we actually need to look after our body well and have proper nutrition and

build societies and whatnot so that we can have the facility in place to use our life to develop love of God and to teach love of God to others. So it's really impractical. Like they will do things like when they're walking, they'll sweep the ground so they don't stand on any ants and, you know, they won't eat cooked food in case they kill any bacteria. But that's just not practical to have a society. And we have an understanding of bhakti and karma. And, you know, when we offer our self-help,

our food to God, when we are serving God with our life, then that removes the karma from what we do. But then there's certain ethical framework that you have to be working within in order for it to actually be pleasing to God and be considered service to God. All right. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question as well. Femo, this cracker has a lot of questions tonight, says, to the Hindu, why did Hindu rulers destroy Buddhist temples and convert Buddhists in India if Hinduism was so tolerant?

So I did a little bit of research into that, and I can't say I studied it in depth, but the scholarly consensus on it seems to be mixed. Like it could be that it's a little bit of Buddhist recording history and for their own purposes to exaggerate it. But even if that's not the case, that it's like the odd king here or there doing the odd action, that's not in keeping with the teachings. Again, we go back to the difference between me and Dan is when I see something that's actually immoral, I will say, yeah, that person's not following

the Vedic teachings, whereas Dan is actually here defending slavery, taking slaves, plundering, conquering. You got it. Thank you very much for this question. Also, they said, who are Juna? If Islam spread by force, quote unquote, why are there still millions of Hindus in Muslim lands after 1,400 years? Did I read that already? No, that's a good question.

I can answer. Arjun, I can go first or I can go second. Could you just say it again quickly? Yes. They said, if Islam spread by force, quote unquote, why are there still millions of Hindus in Muslim lands after 1400 years?

So Islamic conquests were, well, one historian I was listening to was saying they weren't actually for the purpose of spreading Islam, although when they did conquer a region, they made the non-Muslim second-class citizens. So that's basically a kind of force or compulsion to get people to become Muslims.

But there are also a lot of the Muslim rulers were also practical that like you got this kingdom and you kind of want things to keep going along. So, you know, practicality means you end up having a lot of Hindus and positions of management because they know the local customs, they have the knowledge, they have the skills and so on. So things end up staying unless you're going to

totally wipe out a population, you're going to end up with some Hinduism staying around and, yeah, various... Like, the original conquest, I think, Aurum Zeb was pretty vicious, but then, like, you have Akbar, who was actually a pretty pious king. Yeah, so...

Islam did spread through conquest, partly, and other means as well. Islam spread through many means, but conquest is definitely one of them. In the 11th century, when Islam did enter India through conquest, only about...

ultimately only 25% of South Asians converted to Islam. And that's because Islam encourages, uh, and imposes Islamic rule to incentivize converting to Islam. It doesn't commit a genocide. It doesn't impose a caste system and cast selective breeding like Hinduism does. That's why 1400 years later, or, uh,

a thousand years later, as the case may be, you'll still find Hindus in lands that Muslims have conquered. You'll still find Christians in lands that Muslims had conquered, Jews in places that Muslims have conquered, because Islam has this concept of not committing a genocide, but instead encouraging conversion

And this is very different than Hinduism. We don't find any Dravidians today. There are no Dravidians in the subcontinent. Why? They were exterminated. They were genocided. That's proof that the genocide actually happened and the genetic data we've already discussed. This one coming in from, if you want a quick, really pithy response, Arjuna, I can give you that, but it's got to be pithy. Sorry, what's the next one?

Next question. Ah, L says, just want to say, just want to say thanks, James. The platform continues to be extremely important to public discourse. Salute. Thanks for your kind words. That seriously means a lot. I appreciate that. It encourages me. Isa Kabir says both steel man, your opponent's position. Oh yes. The same one every time. He's first. Let's go with Daniel first. Oh, I'm really bad at this, but let's see.

Yeah, I'm really bad at steel manning fuels in this kind of way, because you don't just mean steel man you mean like be as charitable as possible in a way that's like not possible like I can't ignore the fact that there is genetic evidence so if we throw that out.

We say that, okay, there is absolutely no genetic evidence. We can't really tell what is the history of India. I would say that, you know, I would argue that, okay, Hinduism by its nature is something interpretive. Hinduism by its nature is not like a revealed religion. It is heavily based off of your subjective experiences. And therefore, if I say, according to my mystic experiences, that there is no violence and we should all just live

peacefully and vote for, you know, Democrats and liberals and just drink some iced tea. Like that's what I think Hinduism is. And that should be enough. We can't really look at these Hindu texts because even if they exist, the most important part of Hinduism is Moksha, is attaining this kind of mystical experience. And so all of Daniel's arguments are null and void. Dane or Arjuna?

Yeah, well, first of all, I wouldn't really... I wouldn't say that was accurate at all for my position. So my understanding of Dan's position is Islam has got a violent history. However, it's justified violence. It's justified violence because...

The message of the culture that Islam creates, the message it teaches is so valuable, so important that spreading it through conquest is a good thing to do because we create a better society and we get more people under the shelter of God. Hinduism, on the other hand, has all sorts of nasty things we can find in quotes from all over the place. They contradict itself.

It's got these nasty injunctions that I can find from all these places, and it's got some graphic things that I disagree with. That was your...

you're you're just it's hard to steal men i'm not gonna give the details i'm just giving a short version of it yeah i was trying to i was trying to steal man hinduism not necessarily arjuna's specific position yeah no problem dory i just i like i like teasing you guys uh this one from andre p says if all religions are supposed to be spread by force according to daniel

Then that's in parentheses, they say. Then how come Hinduism and Buddhism became much more popular in the West compared to Islam, despite nobody forcing them? No, like today, it's basically everyone is competing with liberalism.

So liberalism is the dominant economic system. It is enforced across the globe through imperial power, through literally the most massive militaries that history has ever known. So the globe is influenced by a dominant liberal power, imperial power. So that is everyone's underlying worldview.

including Muslims, including Christians, including Jews, including Hindus and Buddhists and atheists. Everyone has these liberal assumptions about like you shouldn't impose your religious beliefs. You can impose secular beliefs, but just don't impose religious beliefs. We should accept gay marriage. We should. Slavery is bad. Like these are the.

moral assumptions that people have adopted, not because they've rationally considered them, but because that is the dominant system that you're indoctrinated into by virtue of being educated in the West, growing up in the West, being exposed to the media landscape of the West, this global liberal media landscape, et cetera. So that's, so every religion is competing with liberalism and the easiest way to compete is

It's just to sell out. The easiest way to compete is just say, oh, Hinduism is just like liberalism. All of your liberal assumptions about gay marriage is great. Slavery is bad. War is bad, unless it's like war to spread freedom and democracy. War is bad. Hinduism is just like that. And then you have Christians say, no, no, no.

We are the most peaceful. We are the most liberal. We love LGBT the most. And then Jews are saying, no, it's us. And then you have some Muslims saying that as well. But none of these groups are, none of these reformist groups are taking the step of saying, wait, wait, wait, let's question these assumptions that violence is always bad, that war of conquest is always bad, that slavery is always bad.

that gay marriage is good. Why don't we understand that B or homosexuality is good? Why don't we question that underlying moral framework first, and then we can have a debate on which religion is true. That's what I try to do in my debates. I try to attack the liberal assumptions rather than play this kind of cheap game of

That's a trivial game of just, no, no, my religion is more liberal. My religion loves LGBT and the transgender children the most. Like that's just a stupid game to play. And it's not worth it for the audience to listen to two people argue like that. Interesting. I don't know. Just because the question asker did say that Hinduism and Buddhism were more popular in the West. That's not even true.

conversion to Islam is much higher in the West than Buddhism and Hinduism. It was interesting that looking over that, I asked chat GBT. So this one from this one, they said question for Arjuna. Thanks for your question. He said, can you rationally defend why cow lives are more valuable than other animals without scripture, just strict logic and normative ethics?

uh yeah the simple argument for why cows are more valuable because they give us milk so in the vaders there's considerably seven mothers and one of the mothers is the cow and that's because the cow gives us milk um so that makes the cow a kind of mother and that then earns the cow a certain kind of appreciation from us and respect and ethics surrounding that because of the relationship although you can survive without milk

But without drinking cow milk, but you can't survive without certain gut bacteria. Certain gut bacteria are required to be able to survive long term. Why aren't gut bacteria considered to be the most holy animals or organisms? It's not because you can't survive without cows. It's because the cows give us milk.

I mean, you could survive without a mother. What's the importance of milk from logical basis or normative ethics? Well, I don't know if you could really survive on a vegan diet historically. So traditionally people either ate meat

or they had dairy, but I don't think we have any examples of traditionally people surviving on a vegan diet because you need B12 and iron and it's really difficult to get sufficient levels of those on a vegan diet. Today we have supplements, but traditionally that wasn't there. So you do kind of need at least milk if you're going to be vegetarian. Can I ask a question?

Just a theoretical hypothetical questions for Arjuna. Would you prefer to be conquered by a pre-modern Hindu King that's applying the menu smirty? I know you don't think that that is correct on interpretation of Hinduism. Would you prefer to be conquered by a Hindu King, pre-modern Hindu King that is applying the menu smirty or a pre-modern Islamic King? Which one is more ideal to you? If you had to choose one,

Well, I'd need more details. I mean, for me to answer that question, it would be a rational assessment of which one's going to make me suffer more or less. And I'm not sure. You know what the Manusmriti says, right? I cited all of those. Can you point me to a historical example of a Hindu ruler employing those literal interpretations of the Manusmriti?

Again, it's difficult to cite historical examples because Hindus didn't document their history like the Romans, Chinese or Muslims did. So it's hard to cite documentation. I cite genetics and we can see the evidence of the caste system. But I'm saying that in this completely hypothetical scenario, it's just you saw the Manusmirti rules that I cited. You think they're interpolations. They shouldn't be trusted. But imagine there was a pre-modern king and he's a plot. He believes in it.

He believes in these rules of the caste system, that the shudras shouldn't have property, that they should be slaves to the upper caste. Would you prefer to live under that system or an Islamic system? Give you a chance to answer. Then we got to go to the next one. Yeah, again, I need to know the details. The Vedic traditions were very heavy on interpretive tradition and the person actually applying the teachings, having their own understanding of it. So it would depend on...

the understanding of that particular king and how they're applying those, their understanding. I'm telling you how they're applying, I'm telling you how they're applying it. Again, they're interpreting it exactly as I said. Very literal. Yeah, I know that you think that that's wrong. Yeah, then that would probably be pretty harsh. It would be worse, right? It would be worse than an Islamic Vimy system, right? Would,

We'd need more details. I gave you the details. You can't own property. Within Islam, the Vimmi can own property. The Vimmi can get married. The Vimmi can have their own churches and synagogues or temples. That's included in the rules of Vimmi too. But within the caste system, as specified in the Menusmirti,

You can't have property as a lower caste, as a conquered people. You can't, you have to be insulted constantly. You have to, you're going to be castrated and executed if you have sex with the wrong person, with another caste. So I think- There's castration for pedophiles, I know that. Yeah, so why can't you answer like, it's a very simple question. This one from-

Unless you are June, I can give you a really pithy response and then don't let Daniel ask you any more questions. We're not going to let him. Well, yeah, I mean, if there's a really literal application of those teachings and the worst possible way that Daniel is going to paint can paint of Hinduism, then, yeah, Islam sounds better. However, you can't point to a single example of that actually occurring other than a little bit of genetic data.

There's no castration for pedophiles in Hinduism, by the way. We have to move to the next one. At Al says, feels like there will be a war between Islam versus everyone else, whereas if Hinduism was the predominant religion, I wouldn't worry as a non-believer. Daniel, what are your thoughts?

Did you see the Hindu texts that I mentioned that mentioned global conquest as a caste duty of the Kshatriya, the Chakravartin ideal? Did you not see the Hindu texts that mention the laws of the lower caste that would subjugate you and subjugate your whole family and your whole genetic descendant line?

So if you want to take a, if you want to say that Hinduism just means like liberalism, modern liberalism, then I would say that, well, if you prefer to live under a modern liberal system, say that if you were in Palestine right now, say that if you were in occupied Kashmir right now, say that if you were in Africa under one of the, in Sudan right now, all of these genocides are happening today

under the watch and through the enforcement of Western imperial powers. So that's how I would answer. We'll go to the next one. This is from Bubby. Thanks for your kind words. It says, I hope your night is going well, James. Thank you so much. Famo says, to Hindu, you keep taking, talking, quote unquote, slaves. You keep talking about slaves. Can you address your book, parentheses, Mansu Maridi 8.1,

where it says Brahmins can seize Shudras and make them slaves. Sorry, where was the verse from? I'm going to spell it, but basically it sounds like Mansur 8 413. I'm going to put that in chat. I can show it on the screen even. I put it in my presentation.

Yeah, again, Manus Smriti is like collections of laws for a particular time. It's full of interpolations. That's widely accepted by Hindu scholars. And we have Magasinis who visited India roughly 2,300 years ago and versed that the Indians did not use aliens as slaves and much less a countryman of their own. Slavery did not exist among the Indians. They did not even reduce foreigners to slavery. Oh, okay.

The Hindus were the only people in history who didn't have slaves, magically. Like that's going against every historical account. That's going against every anthropological understanding of human civilization. Magically, the Hindus were the only ones who never had slaves. Okay, we believe it.

This one coming in from, do appreciate your question, Femo Strikes Again, says, To Hindu, you cry about their words, quote unquote apostasy, but your Vasitha Dharma Sutra 110 says to kill those who insult the Veda. Say it again.

They say, you cry, quote-unquote, apostasy. But your Vasitha Dharma Sutra 110 says to kill those who insult the Veda.

Yeah, this is again where we come back to the need for interpretive tradition, like find me an acharya and any of the recognized sampradayas who says you should go around killing people who blaspheme the Vedas, or an example of people actually carrying out this killing. For Muslims, we can show this happening, but for Hindus, we can't.

This one from Femo again. It says, to Arjuna, you complain about quote-unquote apostasy laws, but Mansur Maridi, 1155, says eating beef is punishable by death. Where's the tolerance? Yeah, well, I mean, murder in the West is punishable by death too, and by...

So it is a different category of thing when you're actually killing another living entity that the crime that's going on is different than killing people just because they have a different understanding of God from you. They're very different things. Now, whether I agree with that law or not, I think laws are a time, place and circumstance thing where you need an actual government that's qualified and understands the circumstance and makes appropriate laws. I've got a better answer for that other Rig Veda or Samanisamrita verse that was brought up before. We can go back to that.

I think that's probably a mistranslation. What they mean is more a suja serving the brahmana. And this is no different from having an employee and the service servant would be looked after nicely. It wasn't exactly capitalism where you got a wage, but you would have all of your needs taken care of. But you can call it slavery if you want, but I guess it depends on the...

quality of how you're being looked after. But the idea of, you know, having somebody in charge of something and then people working under them is found all through civilization. That's not the same thing as slavery. You just serve a master in a servile fashion without wages. That's not slavery. That's something else. And by caste, by birth, you know, you're destined to have that kind of servile position. That's interesting.

This one from Famos says, Arjuna, in Islam, Belial became a leader. In Hinduism, a Shudra can't even hear the Vedas or gets molten lead in his ear. Manu 2.177. Yeah, I'd like to see people quote Bhagavad Gita to get dirt on us rather than quote books that we consider to have interpolations, but...

The caste system is not about birth. It's about quality. So a person who's not qualified, who's just going to totally misunderstand when they go and study the Vedas, that can create problems because they'll do things like what Dan does and spread misunderstandings of it. And that can do things like lead to religious violence because people are misinterpreting stuff.

Okay, this one coming in from do appreciate it. So if people do you think that cast is so you mentioned that people can have different roles, and they're suited to different things like what if you decide like Arjuna decided that I don't really want to kill people I don't want to be a warrior. This is the Gita. Okay, so we're sticking to what you said we should stick to Arjuna doesn't want to kill he doesn't want to be a warrior, but what does Krishna say you, it's your duty. You must kill.

So what about your own individual choice? What about your own free will? Does Hinduism recognize that? Explain how that is consistent with what the Gita actually says.

I mean, Krishna and Bhagavad Gita, he's not, he's counseling Arjuna. He's not telling him to do this or else. He's saying, if you do this, you'll get this reaction. If you do this, you'll get this reaction. He's explaining to him how the fabric of reality works and saying, now you decide how you want to act and you're going to get whatever outcome based on how you act. I mentioned before about, you know, like say you're a medical doctor. What's the outcome though? What's the outcome if he rejects?

If our junior says, no, I don't want to do that. What's the outcome that. So let me paint this with an analogy that'll make it really clear. If you're a medical doctor and you know how to save a patient and they come in and you can do a surgery or whatever and save the person and just like, I don't feel like cutting somebody open today. I'm going to go home.

Like maybe there's karma for that because you could help that kid and you decided not to. You're the only person with the relevant training and qualification to be able to perform that duty. And now you're thinking that kid's going to die. Maybe you don't want to. What about your free will? I don't want to be a doctor. There's ethical requirements. I have to be a doctor, so I'm coerced. Otherwise, what is the consequence if I don't do my karmic duty? I'm talking about a situation where you have the nature, the skills, the

And the temperament for a particular profession. You're trained in that profession. And then you have a medical patient in front of you and you're like, I just don't feel like it today. Yeah, why not? Maybe I don't feel like it. Sometimes doctors, even people, friends that I know, sometimes they don't feel like going to work. They could save people's lives by going to work, but they just don't feel like that day.

This goes back to the question of charity. You could never buy new shoes because that $200 you were going to spend on those shoes could save 20 kids from dying in Africa. There's always a line we have to draw somewhere, and it's a gray area of what's ethically violating something that's actually- So the doctor has no choice. Is that what you're saying? Are you denying that there's any boundaries of ethical behavior where if somebody just refuses to do an action, they're being immoral?

I think what's immoral is telling people that you have a duty that you are born into through natural talents that you have, and you have to do that for the rest of your life. And if you don't, you'll go to hell. That's what the Gita teaches. The Gita says Krishna's the choices that Gita gives or that, sorry, Krishna gives is that if you don't go to war and fight, you're going to go to hell. So this is not really a choice that Krishna is giving.

The Mahabharata is an extreme circumstance. That's why I'm giving the medical example. Let's say your child died. Let's say you had your child who was sick and you brought him to the hospital and the doctor who could save him just said, I don't feel like it today. And then your kid died. Do you think that there might be some bad karma for that doctor for just not feeling like it one day when he could have saved your child's life? Go to the next question. We must go to the next question. What about any of the other cast duties?

You're just focusing on the doctors. What about the mechanics? What about the engineers? What about the toilet cleaners? The toilet cleaners, that's their... If they don't clean that toilet, they're going to go to hell. No, it's not. You're not going to go to hell. There's no Vedic idea. That's what Krishna says. Krishna says that in the Gita. It's hyperbolic language. The point is, if you don't act according to your nature, you're not going to be happy. You know, the doctor... If I don't clean the toilet... You only mentioned the doctor. What about the toilet cleaner? The mechanic fixing cars is happy.

he's not happy he wants to but he'll go to hell he'll go to hell that's my point no that's not you're totally misunderstanding it i'll send you a book on it you can actually study this instead of just misunderstand it on purpose go to this this maryland says we're all god why are you all like this all of us can see you oh boy here we go uh this one from famous take a picture take a screenshot

Hindu says, can you address Hindu temple slavery, caste lynchings, beef mob killings, Buddhist genocide, Cambodia conquest, and Manu's laws on chudras?

Yeah, I reject Banu's laws on sutras. They're either interpolations or whatever they are. They're not the highest ideal according to Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavatam and so on. I'm not super familiar with the conquest of what area? Cambodia? I'm not super familiar with that. I'm not saying Hindus never fought any expansionist war. I'm saying they did it less violently, less systemically and less due to illogical motivations than when Muslims did it. What was the other one?

On what basis? What's your evidence? You just make claims. There's no Hindu injunction to go around conquering foreign lands and converting people to dharma. So they did it. Now you're conceding that they did it, but you're just asserting that it was less violent than Islamic conquest. How so? What's your evidence for that? I gave evidence. I said that there's genetic evidence that shows that people were wiped out. Entire peoples were genocided. That's really clutching at straws. Genetic evidence doesn't show...

92 leading scholars of genetics and history and anthropology publish papers in academic journals. That's just genetics change in a region that doesn't prove that one group genocide at the other.

Yeah, it does. Because the female DNA, the mitochondrial DNA has been preserved, but there's just no Y-chromosomal DNA. That means that the women were saved as sex slaves and the men were wiped out. That's what the genetic evidence proves. It's not clutching at straws. Who is it done by? By the Aryans. The Hindus, the proto-Hindus coming from Central Asia.

And which version of Hinduism were they following? They were following the version of Hinduism that produced the Vedas. Were they Shaivites? Were they Shaktas? Were they Vaishnavas? They're the ones who produced the Vedas. Vedas is eternal and gets revealed from time to time. If you want to say a group did something, we should have some more info on this group. We don't because it's prehistory and you're just clutching at straws based on some genetics. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question.

uh fact junior role thanks for your kind word says shout out to james a real one appreciate your loving kindness samson says for theology unleashed was ravana following dharma or adharma even though he was a follower of shiva while he against rama yeah the um

Oh, I spelled that wrong. This is Lila. So this is like God descending for pastimes. Ravana is actually, this is getting really intricate, devotee of God who appeared for these pastimes to go on to teach certain, you know, we learned certain moral lessons from the story of Ramayana. But yeah, when he was doing those things, no, he wouldn't have been following the highest Dharma. Shiva is...

a bona fide form of worship, but it's not considered the highest. It's the lower thing. And as I mentioned in my opening, the Vedas cater for people of all walks of life, of all levels. And just because something's in there as the Vedas, as a kind of worship you can do, doesn't mean it's the highest ideal.

You got out of this one coming in from, do appreciate your question. This one coming in from Muslim Boogie Man says, Arjuna, do you believe ancient Hindus performed plastic surgery with the elephant God and he had spaceships like in Star Wars?

Uh, yeah, I think in the past, uh, there were a lot of different things going on. If you look at, um, stories from, uh, ancient cultures all over the world, all of them talk about, you know, things that sound like demigods and all sorts of mythical things going on. We've got the, the Greek gods, we've got the Mesopotamian myth, and it's, there's a lot of similarities on the, to the whack, how crazy and mythical they sound. Um, and,

Yeah, I mean, if you believe in God, I don't see how it's a stretch to believe in that they could do things like swap a head out for an elephant. There's a difference there. Like, you can say that something is a miracle. Yeah, all the religions have these kinds of supernatural beliefs. But what he asked is specific about engineers making...

making spaceships going into outer space and plastic surgeons doing medical surgery. That's different from saying this is a miraculous thing. Yeah. So which version do you actually believe?

so i think ancient technology was a lot more sophisticated than what we have today and we've got evidence of that in the forms of the pyramids we have no idea how those were built we've got gobekli tepli which is not being um unearthed for very strange reasons it was actually bought by one of those big groups and now they're like planting trees over it doesn't get on earth and

And yeah, all ancient stories from civilizations the world over describe a very different sort of reality. So I'm clutching at straws because I'm citing paleogenetics, but you're saying there's evidence for ancient Hindu spaceships and medical plastic surgery. Okay, now I think I didn't realize that this is actually what you believe. But this really reveals what you consider to be scientific or not.

Or what is considered evidence and what is not? I'm not clutching at straws. We've got the pyramids. We've got Gobekli Tepe. We've got myths from the globe over that all tell a similar tale. So the pyramids existing is evidence that there is some kind of ancient spaceship technology, nuclear power. No, no. My claim that I'm defending with this

pyramids is that we had ancient technology that's more sophisticated than what we had today. We could not rebuild the pyramids today. We don't know how to do that. What are you talking about? We absolutely can rebuild the pyramids today. From Samson says, for theology unleashed, wait, Hinduism spread by peace. What was the Chola, parentheses, South Indians invasions into Southeast Asia?

Yeah, I didn't take the time to study in detail about Southeast Asia, but my understanding, maybe they invaded into there, but there was a lot of free trade. I mean, Southeast Asia still has its indigenous culture in large part. It's been married or pollinated by Indian culture as well, but the Southeast Asians were not wiped out. There was no genocide and their traditional culture was not destroyed.

Based on what is your textuals, what kind of documentation do you have for this? Given like your understanding of history, I think we are a little bit more skeptical. We need a little bit more evidence for these claims that you're making. What's your view on what happened in Southeast Asia?

A lot of genocide, a lot of Hindu genocide, a lot of caste system being imposed and basically breeding races into extinction. That's the history of Hindu South Asia, the peaceful religion of Hinduism. What I'm finding online is the Chola naval expeditions were political, not religious. They were to control trade routes. So it's for financial motivations, not ideological ones.

There are no records of temples being destroyed. It's considered to have been peaceful. The spread of Hinduism and Buddhism spread peacefully through Southeast Asia. No evidence of mass killing and forced conversion. So, I mean, if you have evidence to the contrary... If you're limiting it to Southeast Asia, fine. I can concede that that was, for the most part, peaceful. Southeast Asia. I thought that's what the question was about, but yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, then if it's about Southeast Asia, I retract. I don't have evidence of genocide happening in Southeast Asia by Hindus. But if it was about the subcontinent, then yes. You got it. Thank you very much. Samson says for Theology Unleashed, Miaka, please define who or what they are according to the Vedic traditions. Yeah. Maletcha? Yeah, Maletcha. That's what he means.

So yeah, according to the beta, the literature, the literal translation, I believe, is dog eater. I got that right. And it's not racial. It's just considered people who, yeah, that's how it's found by people.

Yeah, it's just people who don't follow the Vedas or are not capable of it. But there are statements all through the Bhakti yoga teachings, Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavatam, that even the lowest among mankind, even a militia, can be elevated through Bhakti. So there's no discrimination against them. That's just... But we all know there's...

different qualities of humans and some people are rather degraded but if it's their inherent if there's it's their inherent quality yeah then how can they elevate themselves their their inherent quality is to be like a toilet cleaner to be an untouchable that's their inherent quality isn't that what you're saying how does that justify like slavery how doesn't justify the untouchables being treated like as the lowest class of society so you agree with that so

but all living beings have the same pure soul and everybody uh including the most degraded humans and they can be elevated because there's bhakti yoga is a powerful process they're natural that this is this body and these are these other gunas there are coverings on the soul but the real thing that's inside is a a soul that's natural tendency is to love god and bhakti yoga can reach them because this is actually their true nature all this other stuff's just a covering

So you can't be a toilet cleaner and elevate yourself to be a doctor. No, it's not about your position in society. Although you could be a toilet cleaner, take up bhakti yoga, and then become a brahmana preaching to other people about how to love God. But you can't actually be a doctor, a scholar, or a priest. You have to be a toilet cleaner for the rest of your life. That's your dharma. If you have...

you it depends what you mean by can't i mean like can't in terms of can't because if you do you'll be sent to hell that's a total misunderstanding if someone has the nature where they can and they'll be happy doing it they'll do a good job of it that's not what it means when it says you'll be sent to hell and the thing of hell is is hyperbolic that's not actually any concept of hell um that you know there's temporary punishments but it's not like eternal hell it's

And you'll be punished in some way. Maybe it's not eternal hell. You'll be punished because your natural qualities are to be a toilet cleaner. You don't have the capacity to be a doctor. You don't have a capacity to be an engineer or a scholar. How do we...

This is your assumption. This is what you are saying. Is it the case that some people don't have the capacity to be a doctor or engineer or, I don't know, like an architect? You don't have the capacity, so you should be happy. You'll be happier as being a toilet cleaner.

To figure out somebody's nature, you need to actually get to know that person pretty well, what makes them tick, what they're like, and then you can know what their varna is. You can't just look at, oh, this person is in a family of toilet cleaners, therefore they're a suger. You actually need to get to know a lot of details about that person, their psychophysical nature, what they like doing, what they don't do. You agree that there are some people who, they can only be toilet cleaners based on their natural capacity, yes or no?

Yeah, I mean, this is confirmed by modern science. The military in America won't accept people who have an IQ lower than 80. This is because they've found if your IQ is lower than 80, you're just not capable of doing useful service in the military. Yeah, but people in the...

will have aspirations and they can try to do other things with their lives without being threatened with hell. No, the Vedas say that if you don't, you have the natural... No, your deliberate misunderstanding of the Vedas says that. You conceded that there are people who only have the capacity to be a toilet cleaner. If that toilet cleaner goes beyond his capacity and attempts to be more than a toilet cleaner...

He's going to be punished. If he goes beyond it, then he was never a suitor in the first place. We must move to the next one. This one, Travis, thank you for your kind words. Wow. He said, James, you look like Jon Hamm. Thank you. You guys see the resemblance? I just pulled it up on my side. But more importantly, they said, Daniel, are you still friends with Sneeko? Yeah. As far as I know, Sneeko is a good Muslim brother and

As far as I know, he's my friend. So I don't necessarily endorse everything that he might be putting out. I don't follow everything that he might be putting out, but I think Sneako is a good guy. Good Muslim brother. The two best friends that anyone could have. This one comes from Famo. It says, would you live under...

Chandragupta, its rule where Mansumariti was state law saying shudras are property, quote unquote. And they quote 9.178. And then they say unpunished with molten lead, 2.177. Yeah, so if there's an example of a...

Indian King enforcing a birth-based caste system, then I would say that's a violation of the Vedic teachings. I need to point everyone to Bhakti Siddhanta, who argued vehemently against the birth-based caste system, and he was a total maverick in doing so. He had threats to his life for the disorder he created by threatening the birth-based caste system because there's so much power around it. And this is before any concept of Liptar came about. No, it's not. He was born in 1874. Yeah.

post-British colonialism. He's not some ancient guru. He's a modern Indian figure. And people were probably trying to kill him because he's going against the Vedic tradition. He's going against the Dharmic

principles. That's why they tried to kill him. No, they were trying to kill him because they had a birthplace caste system that meant that the caste Goswamis had a lot of power and he's coming along and threatening their power by pointing out the misunderstanding of the Vedas and he could debate and argue better than and quote Shastra to prove that they were wrong. They couldn't argue with him on the basis of the Vedas because he was too good at debate and knew the Vedas too well. Let's go to the next one. This one from Basil says to Arjuna, you said caste is not based on birth.

Please explain Chandogya Upanishad's book 5, chapter 10, verse 7. Is this also an interpolated book? I have heard the Chandogya Upanishad quoted. We rely, as Gaudiya Vaishnavas will only take quotes from it when they agree with Bhagavatam, Bhagavad Gita, Shrachana Charitamrita. Let's see if I've managed to find the verse. You're...

I can read it. It says, among them, those who did good work in this world in their past life attain a good birth accordingly. They are born as Brahmin, Vaisya, but those who did bad work in this world in their past life attain a bad birth accordingly, being born as a dog, a pig, or as a casteless person.

Yeah, so in each birth, you have different karma and different births are different levels of value. And if you do bad things in this life, you're going to get a bad birth. The concept of a bad birth has nothing to do with the birth-based caste system because you can be born, get two parents who are considered lowly, but actually have good qualities yourself. But a low birth means

you're born poor you're born with bad qualities low intelligence uh you know short temper tendency towards addiction whatever it is a good birth means you're born with you know opportunities to learn about god you're born with intelligence you're born with qualities that mean you can get ahead like studiousness you can cultivate these qualities too it's not a death sentence but the concept of a good birth or bad birth shouldn't be any one thing that anyone objects to do you think iq is genetic

Whether it's genetic or not, some people, there's some amount of nature, of a person's nature that they're born with. There's some amount of it that they bring with them as a soul. And there's some amount of it that's the environment that they're born in. Is IQ genetic? Can like two people with 70 IQ have birth to someone with 120 IQ? Like, is that very likely? I don't know the details on this, but my belief is that there's a mixture of genetics, a mixture of nature. Do you think like a 70 IQ person can be a doctor?

Or an engineer? Probably not. No. Do you think they could? Okay. So doesn't that mean that entire races of people in very, it is, is IQ genetic. I asked you that and you didn't answer. It's IQ genetic. It's not race based.

is like you with his IQ genetic and scientists from every race you know black Chinese let's put the race let's put the race realism question to the side I just asked you about two parents okay two parents who have low IQ it's almost impossible that they'll have a child that has multiple standard deviations of IQ above them so if they are not sure having the IQ if they're at 70 IQ

their children are not going to be at 100 plus IQ in 99% of cases. So that means that it is determined by birth, like going by your role definition, like your role profession definition of the caste system. That means you are born into a profession. You are born into a class of professions because IQ is genetic. That's an actual fact.

So your reinterpretation of the caste system actually leads to exactly the same results because IQ is genetic based. You are born into a certain kind of role that you have because of your low IQ or high IQ as the case may be. You're framing a certain pattern and trying to pigeonhole me. This is not a view I've espoused. I haven't said that low IQ parents can't have an intelligent kid. We see examples all through history of parents that are like, you know, they might be smart and we might not.

see it, but they're working in lowly jobs, they're poor, whatever, they weren't successful, and they have children who are hyper-successful. The idea that you can have a child who is an exception to the parents is proven time and time again all through history. I didn't deny that there are exceptions. There are, of course, exceptions, but I'm talking about what is actually generality. No, it's not a strongman. You're trying to paint the strongman view

It's not strong. I'm drawing. I know that you won't accept these things, but these are the implications, the logical implications of your views that I'm drawing out. No, no. That's what I'm doing. Of course, I know you don't accept it. I know you don't accept it. Do you deny that you could be born in different conditions?

That would be better or worse, depending on the conditions and the type of body you were born on. Do you think all births are equal? Whoever you're born in the world, whoever your parents are, whatever your genetics are, are all equal? Is that your position? No, no. I think that people can be born in a certain position and they can aspire to something else without being threatened with hell.

That's my position. That's the Islamic position. I agree with that, too. That's not your position. If you disagree with that view, why do you keep arguing that that's the correct understanding of the Vedas? Nobody else is arguing for that. You're the only one arguing for that. What you're saying contradicts what I said. We don't have the same position because you say people hit the audience safe in themselves. This one from Thamo says, James, call this dude out. He can't just be like, quote, I reject, I reject, I reject.

So rejecting such and such doesn't mean it doesn't or didn't exist. Yeah, so the Vedas are different from Islam, where you've just got one book and then a couple of Hadiths. We've got a whole broad thing that caters to all sorts. But we just focus on the few core texts that actually espouse the highest thing, and we know to be in their authentic form. This one from Femo says...

Read, quote, Slavery and South Asian History, unquote, by Chatterjee and Eaton. It provides caste slavery. It proves caste slavery existed across India. Hindu temples and landlords owned Dalits.

Yeah, there's so much historical documentation, but Arjuna will say that these aren't real Hindus. They're not actually applying Hindu principles. We only realize that slavery is wrong. We only realize it in the 19th century. No, there's been Hindu reformers all through history that have argued against this stuff. Okay, cite me. Cite me a Hindu reformer prior to British colonialism that says slavery is immoral. Cite me someone.

There's the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. Show me the verse and the passage that says slavery is immoral. Please show me. I'm not sure if they commented on slavery. I don't think slavery was much of a thing. We just said there's all these historical documentation. Historians are saying, anthropologists are saying that there was slavery throughout the subcontinent by Hindus. That 16th century India had slavery. Yeah.

Yes, but not in the same form. ChatGPT is not helping you out much. So ask ChatGPT if there was any pre-modern scholar of Hinduism that said slavery is immoral. Show me the text. Ask ChatGPT. This one coming in from... Appreciate your question. Femo... Oh, we got that one. This one from Born Language I Can't Understand said Arjuna, and they asked me to supplement their question.

They said, goats give us milk. Are they our mothers? And then they said, follow-up question from my milk one. They meant to add this. Goats also give us milk. Why aren't they considered our mothers? They said, I asked you to not use scripture, but you still did. Yeah.

I mentioned the scripture, but I didn't quote it to make my argument. That is a fair point about goats, and then I would just have to go back to the Vedas at that point, and I...

If I was in an audience of vegans arguing for why we take dairy, I'm not going to quote our scripture because we'd sound as bad as Christians defending why they eat meat in terms of that. I'm very sympathetic for arguments towards being non-violent to all living entities. And the highest teaching of the Vedas are that you don't abuse any animals. Even goats are looked after. But yeah, there is a hierarchy that cows are considered higher, but even goats are not supposed to be abused. I'm going to have to head off shortly.

You got it. Attila Turgaklu says IQ is not genetic, you ignorant buffoon. Wow. Okay, let's see. Put that in chat, GPD. Just to be sure. I'm not really interested in whether it's genetic or not. I don't have a position on the matter.

It's not if you have a position. Some things are scientific facts and other things are not. What is objective reality and what is not? That's what we're asking. The hereditability of IQ. Research on the hereditability of IQ inquiries into the degrees of variation in IQ with a population that is due to genetic variation between individuals in that population. There has been significant controversy in the IQ...

academic community about the heredity of IQ since research on the issue began in the late 19th century. Intelligence in the normal range is a polygenetic trait, meaning that it's influenced by more than one gene. In the case of intelligence, at least 500 genes. It's influenced by... What it just said is that IQ is influenced by 500 genes. So it is genetic.

And this is something that everyone knows. There are exceptions. Yes. That's how statistical distribution works. There are exceptions. There are examples outside the norm. But in general, if you have low IQ parents, you're going to be low IQ. If you have higher IQ parents, you tend to be higher IQ. This is called genetic heritability. I only wanted to read that chat because I'm calling you. Daniel depends on the birthplace caste system.

We've got to go to the next. Amos says, for Daniel, first, may Allah bless you. Question, sorry, I know it's not related, LOL, but when will, quote, Genius of Islam 4 be out? Inshallah.

That's a good question. I'm working on it. You know, there are challenges with putting out quality material. So I know that Arjuna did a reaction to Genius of Islam episode three. That was over two years ago. So I am working on it. I do think about it every day. It's just challenging. We have just certain challenges to make it as good of an episode as possible. But inshallah, I hope that it will blow you away and it'll be high quality.

You got it. And this one coming in from Yim says, what about, and this is the last one, folks. I'm tired. We're going to let our guests go. Yim says, what about Diva Dasi temple slavery, which is documented historically? This is not one I've prepared a response for. And so if you can show me that it was actually documented.

these girls suffering and being abused then I will disavow it um but it could be that it's like I mean the temple I go to here that girls will go to dance classes and they'll come and do a dance performance in front of the deities and there's no harm going on there so I don't know the details of this and if you can show me that there was suffering or abuse involved I will

happily dispel. You got it. Now, Arjuna said he has to go. I'm going to let Arjuna go. In fact, I'm going to let both guests go. Give a huge round of applause for our two cracker guests. We really do appreciate Whitey appearing with us tonight. Thank you.

Thank you guys for being with us. It's been awesome. Arjuna, your face. Can I say something too, James? Yes. I really appreciate you as always being a great moderator and taking time. I also want to thank Arjuna for agreeing to do this debate.

A lot of people don't agree to have these kinds of difficult conversations, especially with someone who is, let's say, aggressive as me. So I really appreciate you, Arjuna, and taking the time. I actually enjoyed talking with you. And I apologize if I said anything to offend you personally. But thank you so much.

Yeah, cool. Yeah, I enjoyed the discussion. Happy to be here. Just quickly, there's a chat in the comment that answers the Davy system thing perfectly. Davy Darcy system before becoming an exploitative system was a source of many Indian performing arts.

And then, you know, as the theme was how I answer lots of things, things degrade over time and become abused, which is terrible. And we should disavow that. But yeah, back on topic. Sorry, I just wanted to put that out there. Yeah, I'm very happy I got to have this debate. I did that reaction video to Dan a couple of years ago. I think it's two and a half years ago. And I was hoping I'd get to debate him one day. And yeah, I enjoy I'm happy to defend my beliefs and love a good debate. So it's been fun.

100%. Thank you very much, gentlemen. It has been a true pleasure to have you. I'm going to let you guys go. I hope you have a great rest of your night or day, depending on where you are. And folks, I'll be back in just a moment with a quick update on upcoming stuff at Modern Day Debate, so stick around.

At Six Flags Discovery Kingdom, we're serious about our guests having a seriously fun season of fun. Just listen to our spring sale. Buy a 2025 Silver Pass and get unlimited fun all year long. Now with free parking. Save $30 online at SixFlags.com. Taxes may apply. Blockout dates apply.

Now at Verizon, we're locking in low prices for three years guaranteed on my plan. And you can get a single line for just $45 a month when you switch and bring your phone. That's our best price ever on unlimited welcome with auto pay plus taxes and fees guaranteed for three years. Because at Verizon, we got you. Visit your local San Jose Verizon store today. $20 monthly promo credits applied over 36 months with a new line on unlimited welcome. In times of congestion, unlimited 5G and 4G LTE may be temporarily slower than other traffic.

Domestic data roaming at 2G speeds. Price guarantee applies to then current base monthly rate. Additional terms and conditions apply.