Is it correct to say that Hinduism is not a religion since there are no rules and regulations?
Also, how do you know about the Dharma (righteous conduct) when there are no rules?
Dharma is often translated as "duty," "religion" or "religious duty" and yet its meaning is more profound, defying concise English translation. The word itself comes from the Sanskrit root "dhri," which means "to sustain." Another related meaning is "that which is integral to something." For example, the dharma of sugar is to be sweet and the dharma of fire to be hot. Therefore, a person'\dharmaconsists of duties that sustain him, according to his innate characteristics. Such characteristics are both material and spiritual, generating two corresponding types of dharma:
(a) Sanatana-dharma – duties which take into account the person's spiritual (constitutional) identity as atman and are thus the same for everyone.
(b) Varnashrama-dharma – duties performed according to one's material (conditional) nature and specific to the individual at that particular time ...
According to the notion of sanatana-dharma, the eternal and intrinsic inclination of the living entity *(*atman) is to perform *seva *(service). Sanatana-dharma, being transcendental, refers to universal and axiomatic laws that are beyond our temporary belief systems. Most adherents prefer to call their tradition Sanatana-dharma rather than using the more recent term, "Hinduism," which they consider has sectarian connotations. (Sometimes another category is added, called sadharana--dharma, Def:-general moral rules for everyone.)
I think we are getting hung up on semantics. The Hindu belief is that there is one God who has multiple forms. People are free to worship God in all or some of those forms. However, saying its a rule implies that there is a consequence for breaking the rule which is not the case here. The misconception arises when the uninitiated say that there are multiple Gods in Hinduism - thats not correct. No Hindu religious text says that there are multiple Gods. This relationship between God & his multiple forms is difficult for outsiders (and even some Hindus) to understand.
Similarly, there is no formal way to convert to Hinduism like there is for Islam or Christianity. You can argue that by adhering to Hindu beliefs one becomes a Hindu, but there is no rule/process for converting.
The only rule in Hinduism is that there are no rules. There are only beliefs & traditions.
Ok so there is no required consequence for a murderer in Hinduism? I'm just trying to understand what it is we are talking about. It truly is confusing.
How about equality between men and women ? Can you show how men and women are considered equal in Islam.
Yes ... men and women are considered to be equal in the context that they will be judged with equal scrutiny. Women have strong points and men have strong points, in fact each individual is special and it takes Allah (SWT) to know the capabilities and efforts of each to be able to judge them all off the same set of scales.
There are different rules for men and women which are equally suited to fit the needs of men and women. It would be unfair for example to require the satar (regions of the body considered sexually private) of men to be the same as women, but when dealt with in accordance with their given requirements the fairness is established.
Likewise similar to Hinduism where a mother may be thousand times more than a father, in Islam a mother is only three times more important than a father where this comparison is seen as an equation of the relative effort that a mother has given over the father to the child.
Islam is not a hypocritical religion. It can't be if it is ordained by God. That is the reason why although it "respects" women it does not respect evil people. Evil people can be both men and women and there are ways to determine evil people. There are dire consequences for evil people in Islam and it does what it can to make sure that the evil most people are sentenced to capital punishment. To determine the most evil people it does not take single claims on face value because the chance of the single claim being one based on personal vendettas could be high. That is the reason why four witnesses are required. It would be unjust to have a person who consented to sex only to be blamed for rape and which if determined was true then both the man and the woman would be sentenced. If however there is an accusation of rape on a person and that persons life could be ended as a result then due diligence needs to be given to determine the reality of the crime. The society in Islam does not allow free private interactions between man and woman and by so doing then the woman puts herself in to harms way such that if the man decides to do anything then her claim for rape will not have enough witnesses. So by having the requirement of witnesses prevents the potentially evil woman from scheming against a man and claiming rape thus ruining his life and potentially his dependets too. On the other hand society will not allow men to enter the houses of lone women.
Are you sure Islamic law requires four witnesses for rape victim? I don't think it is Islamic at all. It is zia-ul-haq's sharia not Islamic. I think it is based on wrong extrapolation of the laws/methodologies set forth in sura-e-Nur. I am still looking for ample information on this topic but one thing I am clear on that it is not mandatory on a rape victim to produce four witnesses. It is almost impossible since rapes are not usually done in public places before witnesses. I will start a separate thread on it.
Are you sure Islamic law requires four witnesses for rape victim? I don't think it is Islamic at all. It is zia-ul-haq's sharia not Islamic. I think it is based on wrong extrapolation of the laws/methodologies set forth in sura-e-Nur. I am still looking for ample information on this topic but one thing I am clear on that it is not mandatory on a rape victim to produce four witnesses. It is almost impossible since rapes are not usually done in public places before witnesses. I will start a separate thread on it.
Peace kchughtai
I was avoiding dealing with this topic in detail ... In Surah Nur when there are no witnesses other than the accuser and the defendant then they both swear an oath ... The four witnesses is for the independent accuser to bring ... that rape victim is not necessarily in that situation. I understand that my response does not make that clear.
Ok so there is no required consequence for a murderer in Hinduism? I'm just trying to understand what it is we are talking about. It truly is confusing.
No, Hinduism is a system of beliefs - its not law. Hinduism does not have an equivalent of Sharia.
There are different rules for men and women which are equally suited to fit the needs of men and women. It would be unfair for example to require the satar (regions of the body considered sexually private) of men to be the same as women, but when dealt with in accordance with their given requirements the fairness is established.
Why is that the case ? Simple example - whats the rationale behind men being allowed 4 wives, but women are allowed only one husband ? Or why is a woman supposed to present 4 witnesses but a man's word is enough ? I don't see how any of that can be considered fair.
I would like you to provide the references in support of your following comments.
[quote]
Prophet Mohammed married a young 6 year old girl named Aisha at age 6 and had sex with her when she was 9 years old.
Prophet Mohammed married Zaynab, wife of his Adopted son Zayd after seeing her naked. Ironically when Mohammed saw Zaynab naked after that Allah revealed a verse in the Quran (verse 33:36) which allowed Prophet Mohammed to marry Zaynab.
Prophet Mohammed had 11 or 13 wives, and passed a verse in the Quran that didn't allow any of his wives to marry another man after his death.
Mohammed allowed men to have sex with woman captured from war.
No, Hinduism is a system of beliefs - its not law. Hinduism does not have an equivalent of Sharia.
Why is that the case ? Simple example - whats the rationale behind men being allowed 4 wives, but women are allowed only one husband ? Or why is a woman supposed to present 4 witnesses but a man's word is enough ? I don't see how any of that can be considered fair.
Men allowed only up to four wives and no more and women can only have one husband at a time. It is fair because it is based on our natures. Men tend to be more possessive over their spouses and even in natural tribal settings you will see this trend. It is the natural disposition upon which we have been made. Also in terms of fairness a man can visit four of his wives in four separate nights. If a woman does that then who will be the father of the child that is born 9 months later? Then while she is pregnant is it unfair on her other husbands who will have to wait before their own child can be born ... If one man wants two children and a woman has four husbands then she will need to give birth to 8 children is that fair on her? It is quite obvious what is fair and what is not.
The 2 witnesses of women over 1 witness of man that is what you are referring to ... As for the witnesses it is not an equation that a woman's word is half as valid as the man. But a woman is given the another friend to help her establish her witness statement. The reason for this is that women think differently to men. It is the way they are made. A man tends to think in terms of discrete events, whereas a woman tends to think with feelings attached. Look at what science says to demonstrate this ... it is not a weakness in that sense but a difference a necessary one for being a mother for example. However it may be unsuitable for a certain scenario such as where discrete events are more important - as in a court case or a legal hearing. Again the injunctions given by Islam are based on fairness to the gender taking in to account their differences not equality of gender ignoring those natural differences.
True, but they are feminine form of the One God all the same.
Feminine does not equate to woman ... to say on one hand that there is One God and the deities are symbolic manifestations of that One God and then to say that this translates to reverence of women is not being fair, because then you have male aspects of God too.
I do agree with the statement about the mother status that you mentioned earlier ...
I'm finding it really difficult to grasp the approach of Hindu thought ... On one hand the oldest most authentic scriptures say One God, but on the other hand to demonstrate Hinduism honours women an example of devis is raised from the not so authentic sources. Not to mention that if God is humanised we may be raising the status of humans but aren't we in effect reducing God to our level? It seems like I'm playing football where the goal posts are constantly being moved.
Men allowed only up to four wives and no more and women can only have one husband at a time. It is fair because it is based on our natures. Men tend to be more possessive over their spouses and even in natural tribal settings you will see this trend. It is the natural disposition upon which we have been made. Also in terms of fairness a man can visit four of his wives in four separate nights. If a woman does that then who will be the father of the child that is born 9 months later? Then while she is pregnant is it unfair on her other husbands who will have to wait before their own child can be born ... If one man wants two children and a woman has four husbands then she will need to give birth to 8 children is that fair on her? It is quite obvious what is fair and what is not.
So a man can fulfill his physical needs with four different women at a time, but a woman is restricted to one because there would be doubts about the child's paternity ? Is that really the reason ? What about birth control ??
And tribal setting ?? What about the millions of Muslims who live in urban areas ??
The 2 witnesses of women over 1 witness of man that is what you are referring to ... As for the witnesses it is not an equation that a woman's word is half as valid as the man. But a woman is given the another friend to help her establish her witness statement. The reason for this is that women think differently to men. It is the way they are made. A man tends to think in terms of discrete events, whereas a woman tends to think with feelings attached. Look at what science says to demonstrate this ... it is not a weakness in that sense but a difference a necessary one for being a mother for example. However it may be unsuitable for a certain scenario such as where discrete events are more important - as in a court case or a legal hearing. Again the injunctions given by Islam are based on fairness to the gender taking in to account their differences not equality of gender ignoring those natural differences.
If that were true, why does modern law not adopt the same logic ?
Feminine does not equate to woman ... to say on one hand that there is One God and the deities are symbolic manifestations of that One God and then to say that this translates to reverence of women is not being fair, because then you have male aspects of God too.
So what does feminine equate to, if not women ? If someone worships God in the form of Durga, he is being reverent towards a woman. Whats the confusion there ?
I'm finding it really difficult to grasp the approach of Hindu thought ... On one hand the oldest most authentic scriptures say One God, but on the other hand to demonstrate Hinduism honours women an example of devis is raised from the not so authentic sources. Not to mention that if God is humanised we may be raising the status of humans but aren't we in effect reducing God to our level? It seems like I'm playing football where the goal posts are constantly being moved.
I dont find your difficulty in grasping this basic concept surprising. The approach of Hinduism is fundamentally different from Islam. Hinduism considers that God is in all of us. The various deities are just symbolic references to God. As an example, you might call your mother Mom (or the Urdu equivalent), your kids might call her grandma, your dad might call her wife and her siblings might call her sister but that does not change who she is. Similarly, the various Hindu deities are all forms of the same God.
Islam on the other hands considers God as some power whose form or shape cannot be described. Same holds true for Prophet Mohammed.
Stop wasting your time. All religions are old and in the olden times women were not teated well. Some religions disrespected them more than others.. but whatever.. they are all scams :D
Which in fact are not women at all but feminine aspects of One God ...
Could you pls back your claim with a source?
I disagre with your statement. Hindusim believes in Goddess forms nd they are of the same stature as of male gods.For example :- Just like male gods are there for Sristi,Stiti,Samhara (Creation,Preservance and destruction) there are gfemale versions and they are independent.
@Pysah,Manusmriti is the deuty text in Hinduism.Though various interpolations(in awkward manner) have been developed out of this text book ,this is the perfect duty text of Hinduism.
So what does feminine equate to, if not women ? If someone worships God in the form of Durga, he is being reverent towards a woman. Whats the confusion there ?
It's the other way round surely women are female but not all female things are women. It's just that the symbolic representation of One God in feminine aspects is merely symbolically described as a woman - who in reality does not exist. Durga cannot be as real as the One God or can she? I don't quite know where the goal posts will move to next.
And being revert to Durga does that translate to seeing Durga in every woman - and if so does that give reason enough for people to worship themselves?