Hinduisnm vs Islam

Society Religion & Philosophy
121

ZZ says:

[quote]
Now turn back and ask about Mohammad's marriage to 9 yr old and ask whether the personm who could think of marrying 9 yr. old was a normal person, leave alone prophet and hell will break loose.
[/quote]

Well ZZ, it wouldn't be the first time you people have brought that up but it's interesting you mentioned whether marrying a nine year old was a thing for a normal person because child marriage is sanctified and encouraged in Hindu scriptures:

CHILD-MARRIAGE

Enforced by the Brahmins, this custom destroyed the very life-soul of the non-Brahmins. Child marriage of daughters as young 5-6 y old was common during the Brahmanic Dark Ages due to the custom of dowry Nand 17 ] Bash.167-8 ] Yad 70 ] Alt.16 ] Ban.70 ]. Lawbooks prescribe that the best partner for a man in one-third his age. Thus a man 18 year old should marry a girl 6 years old! This is the wonderful wisdom of the most authoritative Hindu law-book -

*Manu.IX.94 *: " A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl of eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would otherwise be impeded, he must marry sooner."

One of the reasons for such early marriage of girls was to prevent any scandals. Narada states that some of the defects to be avoided in brides are if they already had a relationship with another man or have their minds set on another, they should not be selected [Sheth 67]. This shows that non-virgin girls could not be married, a custom similar to Church-ruled medieval Europe.
The custom of child-marriage and child-molesting has divine sanction in Hinduism. The great god' Rama was 16 years old when he married Sita, and Sita was only 14 years old Ram.wh 69 ]. **However, the age of Sita is now known to be a forgery; it is almost certain that she was, as per the Manuid laws, one-third of his age, namely 5 years old.** It is inconceivable to imagine thatgreat' Rama could have dated to violate the Vedic laws of Manu

Rani protests:

[quote]
I agree that the discussion doesn't go on equal footing that is why I have refrained from participating in this and other threads. Let them talk alone.
[/quote]

As someone who has spent all her time on Gupshup muslim-bashing to hear you, a supposed sikh, talk about one-sided attitude is a bit rich.

Jai Hind Rani ji

122

The difference is that, if we find child marriage wrong today, we will say it is wrong and ban it. In any case, we do not see any chile marriage in Ramayana or Mahabharata. So it did not existy in those. It came in being later and is being removed for good now. In fact, u can be jailed if u do it.

However, Muslims want to model their life on Mohammad and do not want to cahange a later in barbarian practices of medieveal times. Here is difference.

We dont claim perfection. We have changed, are changiong. Whatever stands test of time will survive. You want to stay frozen in what mohammad did 1400 yrs ago. Hence comparison.

123

[quote]
Originally posted by Mr Xtreme:
**ZZ says:

As someone who has spent all her time on Gupshup muslim-bashing to hear you, a supposed sikh, talk about one-sided attitude is a bit rich.

Jai Hind Rani ji

**
[/quote]

Very predictable response...you can bash everybody, relgion plus people and then threaten to leave...but others cannot use the same tone or language. BTW, thread re. "Facts regarding India" was deleted deleted. I think you should read your "Bhaji" posts.

124

Now you are talking pure crap ZZ. I bet there are more child marriages in India today than in muslim countries. Damn, they are still scarificng kids to the hindu gods today and you are comparing your so-called changed India to barbaric muslims of today.

When your civilised country can stop itself from tearing down mosques and voting in Hindutva governments then come back and lecture us.

If I'm not wrong, hindu scriptures also sanction killing of baby girls, and considering that there was a report on female infanticide in India published just recently, you better revise your inflated opinion about your country today.

Now these are your books so don't get mad at me for quoting them. You like talking about our barbarian religion, but you have to agree, it's like a picnic compared to yours.

Ciao

Rani,

You have been given plenty of opportunity to bash others here and you have used that facility in full. At least I am sticking to the facts.

Let's face it; YOU ONLY VISIT THE RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL FORUM SO YOUR AGENDA IS PRETTY CLEAR ISN'T IT?

125

Hindu scripture sanctioning killing baby girls, show where or shut up.
And there are more women Ph.D.s in India than entire Islamic world, perhaps. Total number of Ph.D. s is definitely higher and women form around 20% of that in India.
If they marry person of another religion, they are not hanged. So take care.
And Ram was 16 and Sita was 14 when getting married according to u so marriage of ur old 50+ prophet with 9 yr. old is justified.

[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited August 09, 2000).]

126

Now you are talking pure crap ZZ. I bet there are more child marriages in India today than in muslim countries.

That is not the point.Hindus admit child marriages are wrong!
Can you admit that ?
If you do how come you follow a prophet who did so?
The appropriate response would be that you have to look at these kind of matters in context of time and can’t demand 21st century
morals out of people who lived in 10th century.
I am sure you will not use this defense because that amounts to admitting your religion is less than perfect

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif

127

[quote]
Originally posted by Mr Xtreme:
**

Rani,

You have been given plenty of opportunity to bash others here and you have used that facility in full. At least I am sticking to the facts.

Let's face it; YOU ONLY VISIT THE RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL FORUM SO YOUR AGENDA IS PRETTY CLEAR ISN'T IT?

**
[/quote]

Here we go again...we were talking about level playing field...read yours, masooma, mundayaa and co. posts...people like us do not even come close.

I am not the only one saying that Some1, Dhir, ZZ, and others have mentioned that from time to time.

128

F.A.O. Zaman

I pity those, who believe that there is only one way to any destination. I pity those Muslims who believe that Islam is the only way for successfull hereafter. Oh, come on, open up your minds and learn to accept the other faiths as different routes to the same destination where Hazrat Mohammed wanted to lead you to.

Same God has created us all and that same God's house is said to be, as far as Muslims are concerned 'Macca'. But only the Muslims are allowed in 'The House of God'. 'The House of God' where only 16% of His created humanity is allowed in. Now as the story goes the 'House of God' in Macca was built by Hazrat Abraham with God's instruction. Who was Hazrat Abraham ? he was the patriarch of Jews, Christians and Muslims. Are the Jews allowed into 'The House of God' originally built by one of their prophets? Are the Christians allowed into 'The House of God' originally built by one of their prophets? The answer is nothing else but 'NO'. I can understand if the Hindus are forbidden from Macca because of their idol worship as Hazrat Abraham was against idol worship and at night went to temples and smashed up images which people of Arabia of the day worshipped.

It is often said that without the will of God, not even a single leaf can move, leave alone 5/6 of the population of this planet to come into being who do not believe Hazrat Mohammed as their prophet and are not Muslims. Now just because these people are not Muslims does it mean that they do not believe in God? I'm sure that if God really wanted all the people on this planet only to follow His message sent through Hazrat Mohammed, he would have not allowed children to be born to Non-Muslims mothers a long time ago and gradually making all the religions of this world extinct.

129

Andhra:
"If you do how come you follow a prophet who did so?"

First of all, if you do not know what happened and why prophet married a 9 year old, don't just start accusing the prophet.
Yes he married a 9 year old, but please note only married(nikah) but not rukhsati untill Hazrat Aisha turned 15 or 16(when she reached the menstruational age).Hazrat Muhammad (s.a.w) didn't marry her only because he wanted to, but his friend Abu bakar(raze-ala-tala-anho) who was Hazrat Aisha's father asked Hazrat Muhammad(s.a.w) to marry his daughter, Hazrat Abu Bakar wanted Hazrat Aisha sadeeqa razi-ala-tala-anha to get married to Hazrat Muhammad(s.a.w), well its hard to explain what was the reall situation and under what circumstances Hazrat Muhammad (s.a.w) married Hazrat Aisha.It was an Honor for the the whole Bakar family to become relatives of Hazrat Muhammad(s.a.w), and they insisted Hazrat Muhammad(s.a.w) to marry Hazrat Aisha.
He just married Hazrat Aisha but didn't have any sort of relationship untill she reached menstruational age.That was a successfull marriege and Hazrat Aisha was very happy.She is one of the Most respected Ladies in Islam.
There is no comparison between the hindu girls getting married, actually forced to marry older guys no matter how young they are and are forced to have sexual relationship regardless to their physical immaturity.

Mind you, but when you point out anything first do a research about the incident.
You mind our Prophet marrying a 9 year old girl, but you have no shame when (i am not sure about the number but it was more than one), 7 brothers married one girl?Wow??this is too much of vulgarity!and this is what hindusim teaches?
Now a woman marrying more than one guy is no way comparison to civilized society, don't give us any excuses for that, regardless to what the circumstances are a woman marrying more than one guy is just GROSE!AND UN PURE!

Masooma

130

masooma, why 7 brothers marrying one woman is vulgur while one man marrying 9 women as ur prophet did is not vulgur.
How much choice did Ayesha have in marriage? Poor girl. Became widow in youth, by marrying an old man. did she get a kid from prophet. i dont think so. how sad. such a bad marital life just because a old man lusted for u when u were 9 yrs.

[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited August 09, 2000).]

131

It was an Honor for the the whole Bakar family to become relatives of Hazrat
Muhammad(s.a.w), and they insisted Hazrat Muhammad(s.a.w) to marry Hazrat Aisha.
He just married Hazrat Aisha but didn't have any sort of relationship untill she reached
menstruational age ?
What if a 9 year old married girl when she reaches appropriate age 16 0r 18 and goes to her husband and finds out that this is not the marriage she wanted ?
As for the family agreeing to it - tell me one thing did anybody ask the 9 year old girl !
Now a woman marrying more than one guy is no way comparison to civilized society, don't
give us any excuses for that, regardless to what the circumstances are a woman marrying
more than one guy is just GROSE!AND UN PURE!

I see how about a man marrying more than one woman ? It stinks doesn't it ?

As for the woman in question I think you are talking about Draupadi who married five husbands all brothers.
She is the only woman character in all Hindu mythology to have done so.

According to me this fact alone prooves how ancient Mahabharata is.Polyandry was practiced much before polygamy when women had much more freedom !

132

[quote]
Originally posted by Masooma:
Mind you, but when you point out anything first do a research about the incident.
You mind our Prophet marrying a 9 year old girl, but you have no shame when (i am not sure about the number but it was more than one), 7 brothers married one girl?Wow??this is too much of vulgarity!and this is what hindusim teaches?
Now a woman marrying more than one guy is no way comparison to civilized society, don't give us any excuses for that, regardless to what the circumstances are a woman marrying more than one guy is just GROSE!AND UN PURE!
**
[/quote]

In this particular incident, Draupadi was won by Arjuna in a tournament against other suitors, and Draupadi agreed to marry the victor. When Arjuna brought Draupadi home, Arjuna wanted to tell his mother about what he had won. His mother, without looking, said that he should share his winnings with his 4 brothers equally. Once his mother realized her mistake, she wished to take her statement back, but Arjuna decided that his mother's words should not be said in vain. And so, out of respect for his mother, Draupadi married the 5 brothers, and was shared equally. This setup also ended happily for Draupadi, and was of course, after she was of decent age.

For whatever else you wish to say about Hinduism, bringing up Draupadi's incident in your context is not quite correct proof.

Hinduism and Islam both recommend monogamous marriage, and both have histories and polygamy.

133

Practice of one woman marrying several men still continues in parts of northern UP. I dont see anything more wrong in it that one man marrying several women. Of course, ideal is, as astrofan said Lord Ram who was one woman man.

134

[quote]
Originally posted by ZZ:
**masooma, why 7 brothers marrying one woman is vulgur while one man marrying 9 women as ur prophet did is not vulgur.
How much choice did Ayesha have in marriage? Poor girl. Became widow in youth, by marrying an old man. did she get a kid from prophet. i dont think so. how sad. such a bad marital life just because a old man lusted for u when u were 9 yrs.

[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited August 09, 2000).]**
[/quote]

Do you even know the women the prophet (pbuh) married? His marriage to his first wife (Bibi Khadeeja) lasted till the time of her death. During this time he nver took another wife. After her he married women who were either widowed or of such age that they could'nt be married. Never once did he have more than 4 wives as is allowed in Islam. Never did he divorce any of his wives. As far as marrying Hazrat Ayesha is concerned, it was on the insistence of her father. Hazrat Ayesha is the most rominent of his wives and proved extremely beneficial to Islam and especially womenfolk as she lived a long time after the death of the prophet. There are many hadith related to her and even today millions of muslim women are named after her out of love. Do you remember your great great great grandmother's name who must have lived only 200-300 years ago? People have children so that there seeds are planted and they are remembered in life, right? We all remember her and the wives of the prophet are known as the UMAAHAT UL MUSLIMEEN". The mothers of muslims. So hazrat Ayesha has over a two billion grand children.
The marriages were meant as examples for the muslims to help women who have been widowed, divorced or uneligible for marriage to be married. The choice of not marrying another was Hazrat Ayesha's alone. Islam does not stop a woman to marry any man she wants after her husband dies or divorces her or even if she divorces him (Khula).
Hope this helps

135

To add to this little story of Draupadi -

It would be interesting to note that both Arjuna and his brother Bhima both married second wives. Arjuna married Subhadra, and their son Abhimanyu carried on that particular lineage of the 5 brothers. Bhima married Hidimbaa, a rakshasi, and their son Ghatotkacha was a mean fighting machine, purportedly destroying 1/4 of the Kaurava army himself.

However, continually mentioning these Pandavas as the Hindu ideal is not correct - the idea that if these guys did it, then everyone can do it is not what is meant by the Mahabharata. Instead, these characters are meant to be "tragic" - they make mistakes, and learn from them after they make them. These little lessons are mostly lost in translations that tell only the story - after all, someone offering a Hindu polemic generally will not spend the time to read the 11 volume Mahabharata and see the philosophy that is expounded.

136

Astrofan, dont bother to defend. Let them answer why marrying several men by woman is vulgur while marrying several women by men are signs of prophethood.
We dont claim perfection. So we have no burden to defend. We are ready to scrpa parts that do not stand test of time or logic. The burden to defend is on people who claim their religion to be perfect and timeless. Burden to defend the behavior of prophet is on people who want to grow beard of certain length since prophet did so. So let them explain entire behavior prophet. Or else agree that customs are producty of a given time. Nothing is perfect and should change if there is need to.

137

[quote]
Originally posted by ZZ:
Nothing is perfect and should change if there is need to.
[/quote]

In the interest of discussion ZZ, let's continue. We two are Hindus, discussing Islam. As you say, nothing is perfect, we accept what we want, and reject what seems morally wrong. I agree. So as a Hindu, what do you find that is "good" in Islam? Is our job as Hindus to reject a priori everything that Muslims say about Islam, or do we subject Islamic scripture to the same critical analysis that we subject to our own literature - do we find the good, and rip out the bad?

One thing I've seen by reading this discussion - both sides rip each other based on acts of Muslims and Hindus, and find a textual basis to try and justify those actions. However, I have seen very little philosophical discussion - what is it about the 6 astika orthodox schools that is so against the ideals of Islam, or of the various heterodox systems? Is submission to God not enough, but rather that we must submit to the God Allah and he spoke to his Messenger Muhammed in Mecca?

I cannot justify past and present evils of Hindus who have taken a distorted view of our heritage and committed human rights violations, but I can say that it is not in line with Hinduism, the philosophy. At the same time, no Muslim can claim that all Muslims past and present have behaved humanely. A tit for tat discussion like this gets us nowhere - instead, we must see if the Rig Veda is right - that the varied path of Hinduism and Islam take you to the same place - a position of God-realization.

138

[quote]
Originally posted by astrosfan:
** In the interest of discussion ZZ, let's continue. We two are Hindus, discussing Islam. As you say, nothing is perfect, we accept what we want, and reject what seems morally wrong. I agree. So as a Hindu, what do you find that is "good" in Islam? Is our job as Hindus to reject a priori everything that Muslims say about Islam, or do we subject Islamic scripture to the same critical analysis that we subject to our own literature - do we find the good, and rip out the bad?
One thing I've seen by reading this discussion - both sides rip each other based on acts of Muslims and Hindus, and find a textual basis to try and justify those actions. However, I have seen very little philosophical discussion - what is it about the 6 astika orthodox schools that is so against the ideals of Islam, or of the various heterodox systems? Is submission to God not enough, but rather that we must submit to the God Allah and he spoke to his Messenger Muhammed in Mecca?
I cannot justify past and present evils of Hindus who have taken a distorted view of our heritage and committed human rights violations, but I can say that it is not in line with Hinduism, the philosophy. At the same time, no Muslim can claim that all Muslims past and present have behaved humanely. A tit for tat discussion like this gets us nowhere - instead, we must see if the Rig Veda is right - that the varied path of Hinduism and Islam take you to the same place - a position of God-realization.**
[/quote]

I had similar hopes when I was equally new on the forum. But it wont take long to realize Xtremes and mundayyas are more interested in point scoring than a discussion. They give quotes from websites that are strongly opposed to Hinduism (otherwise I can bet that xtreme has no idea what Taitiriya samhita is, like most hindus) Even when factual mistakes and wrong translations are brought to notice, it does not diminish their faith in hindu-bashing websites. That is precisely because what they want to say in the end is predecided. They are not here to know.
So why bother? Getting on defensive and expalining means one more such quote and u explain situations and changes and essentially that makes an apologetic content. Why apologize barbarians people of whose faith have made education a crime for women in Afghanistan and women have to hide to study. Given their role models, I see no reason to explain them how India is striving to have more egalatarian society. They are way behind. Aren't they? Have u seen a muslim woman scientist in any scientific conference. what are they talking?

139

Hindu scripture sanctioning killing baby girls, show where or shut up.

ZZ, Here are the prayers you asked for:

The Vedas prescribe an intense hatred for women, and female children were considered highly undesirable in the nomadic Aryan patriarchal view. Indeed, so deep-rooted was the desire for male children that the Vedas prescribe numerous prayers for male offspring :

**Atharva Veda.6.2.3 **: " Let a female child be born somewhere else; here, let a male child be born."

** Ath.Ved.VI.2.3 ]** cf. Peri ]
These verses were recited whenever an Aryan couple wished to have a child, and display considerable discrimination against women even in the Vedic age. Nor does the wonderful' treatment of women in Vedic religion end here. The holy’ and great' Vedas explicitly sanction the practice of female infanticide. Indeed, the real reason for this truly animal practice lies deep in the blood-stained verses of the Vedas. The following verse, from the sacred’ Vedas of the `noble’ faith of Hinduism, allows the practice, and takes it for granted as a normal practice in Vedic religion :

Taittriya Samhita VI.5.10.3

" Hence they reject a female child when born, and take up a male. " “Tasmat striyam jatam parasyanti ut pumamsam haranti” ]

`Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India,’ by J.Muir, Vol. I, p.26, Oriental Publisheres Delhi 1972 reprint.

=============================================

REPORT:

In 1921 there were more than 97 women for every 100 men in India. Seventy years later, the number had dropped to 92.7 Verma ]. These figures, benign at first sight, conceal an ugly truth.
Given that the birth rate of India is 32.0 per 1000 and the total population of India is 835.8 milion EB-90.635 ], this implies an annual total of 26.7 million births, out of which 13.4 million would be girls. Given that the present sex ratio is 92/100, which implies that 8/100 girls are killed, this leads to 0.008 x 13.4 million = 1.072 million deaths. That means that 1.1 million girls are killed each year due to the Brahmin-enforced customs of Vedic female infanticide . This is the ugly truth behind the figure of 92 girls for every hundred boys.
Sonali Verma writes about the true extent of damage inflicted by Brahmins on women:
“50 Million Women … Missing”
" A recent United Nations report said up to 50 million girls and women were missing from India’s population, the result of systematic sex discrimination extending to the abortion of female foetuses, which is officially banned. "
`Indian women still awaiting Independence,’ by Sonali Verma, Reuter.12 Aug. 1997, New Delhi

=============================================

There are also two seperate links provided of reports of female infanticide in India carried out in alarming number which somewhat contradicts your claim that India has rejected it’s hindu values.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_828000/828180.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_736000/736466.stm

140

[quote]
Originally posted by ZZ:
** I had similar hopes when I was equally new on the forum. But it wont take long to realize Xtremes and mundayyas are more interested in point scoring than a discussion. They give quotes from websites that are strongly opposed to Hinduism (otherwise I can bet that xtreme has no idea what Taitiriya samhita is, like most hindus) Even when factual mistakes and wrong translations are brought to notice, it does not diminish their faith in hindu-bashing websites. That is precisely because what they want to say in the end is predecided. They are not here to know.
So why bother? **
[/quote]

This is, after all, a Pakistani BBS, not simply a comparitive religious discussion site. Politics are bound to get in the way of constructive discussion.

There are several "good" things I have learned about Islam - from reading sites like islam101.com and submission.org . There are several not so good things I've learned, from places like Warriq's "Why I am Not a Muslim", and from Indian discussion lists - this does not reduce our abilities as Hindus to be able to discuss the merits of Islam - after all, Ramakrishna was able to attain Samadhi while praying to Allah, giving credence to the fact that submission can take you to where you need to go - to find "The Truth".

Having to field rebuttals based on Manusmrti and such is part of our job - that this text can be made to be so much more than it ever was is a problem that we will suffer for the short to mid-term.