PDA

View Full Version : Muslim Women's rights



rcscwc
03 September 2009, 11:39 PM
Muslim Women's rights

Unprecedented rights.




Muslim women have the right never to associate or even speak to a man who is not related to them by genetics or marriage.

Muslim women have the right to be beaten if they associate with unrelated men.

Muslim women have the right to be segregated based on their gender.


Muslim women have the right to be enslaved by a man they don't love, forced into "arranged marriages" at a young age, against their wills.



Muslim women have the right to call their enslaver "husband."



Muslim women have the right to obey their enslavers/husbands.



Muslim women have the right to endure regular beatings by their husbands.

Muslim women have the right to reproduce continually after forced into an arranged marriage and raped against their wills by their "husbands."
Muslim women have the right to be denied divorce from violent and abusive husbands.
Muslim women have the right to be divorced summarily.
On summary divorce they the right not to ask for grounds thereof.

Muslim women have the right to lose their children if their husbands divorce them.

Muslim women have the right not to marry a non-Muslim.

Muslim women have the right to be beaten if they don't cover themselves up.

Muslim women have the right to stay out the life-giving sunshine by being forced
to cover up.

Muslim women have the right to become deficient in vitamin D and develop
osteomalacia from sunshine-deprivation.

Muslim women have the right to dress in black so they become overheated in the
hot desert sun of Arab countries.

Muslim women have the right not to be educated. (Pakistan, Afghanistan)


Muslim women have the right never to operate a car.



Muslim women have the right never to leave their houses without a male relative accompanying them.



Muslim women have the right to be gang-raped if they are caught alone on the
street.

Muslim women have the right to be stoned or hanged for being raped.


Muslim women have the right to be brutally murdered for "dishonoring" their families.



Muslim women have the right to be murdered for leaving Islam.



Muslim women have the right to have their genitals cut off.


Those are the Islamic women's rights! Yes, indeed, what fun to be a woman in the Muslim world!

riyaaz
25 October 2009, 01:31 PM
When you are able to provide proof from Quran and authentic hadith, then you talk. Your accusations are baseless and without proofs.

Quran 4:1
RESPECT THE WOMAN WHO GAVE YOU BIRTH

rcscwc
08 September 2010, 08:42 AM
Dispute each and every one, itemwise. Then I will tell you the islamic law about it.

How to exchange wives.

4:20 And if ye wish to exchange one wife for another and ye have given unto one of them a sum of money (however great), take nothing from it. Would ye take it by the way of calumny and open wrong ?

Where is the respect? Of course wives' opinions do not count.

Riverwolf
08 September 2010, 09:05 AM
Funny how most Muslims I've talked to say that Muslim womens' rights are just fine, and don't resemble the tyranny you describe.

After all, if any of that had truth to it, Islam would have died out long, long ago through rebellion and infighting. In countries where those things are practiced, I imagine rebellion will change it in time.

I will chalk those things up to culture rather than religion, as you point to a verse in the Qur'an that commands respect for women.

Surya Deva
09 September 2010, 02:43 AM
Namaste Riverwolf,

I recently talked to a Muslim woman, who had no problem in proudly admitting, "Men are superior to women" Why do you think she believes this? Part of this is to do with culture, but part definitely has to do with religion. There are verses in the Quran itself giving women a subordinate position to men. Such as:

Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great! (Sura 4:34)

Another translation of the same verse reads:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.

Women are regarded to be intellectually inferior by Islam. The above verse regards one man to be the equivalent of two women in credibility:

And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her. (Sura: 2:282)

It is permissable for men to hit women in Islam:

If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Sura 4:34)

If you read the Islamic Hadiths they are full of stories where men are hitting women. Even Prophet Mohammed hits his wives.

In conclusion then, the rights of Muslim women as pointed out by the OP, does have justification in the holy scriptures of Islam itself.

ScottMalaysia
09 September 2010, 04:13 AM
Many of the things mentioned above do occur in Muslim nations but are not actually Islamic or sanctioned by Islamic law.


Muslim women have the right to be enslaved by a man they don't love, forced into "arranged marriages" at a young age, against their wills.

Islamic law forbids women being forced to marry a man they don't want to. However, it does happen.


Muslim women have the right to endure regular beatings by their husbands.

This issue is heavily debated by Islamic scholars. The support comes from the Qur'an (4:34):

"As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance)"

The words in brackets were added by the translator to convey the message of the original Arabic. The word 'lightly' is not in the original Arabic.

So we see that beating is to be used as a last resort by the husband after telling his wife off and refusing to sleep with her. Some Muslim scholars say that it is only supposed to be a symbolic beating with a miswak (Arab toothbrush). However, wife-beating does occur in Islamic nations.


Muslim women have the right to be denied divorce from violent and abusive husbands.

Islam does allow women to initiate divorce.

A woman came to the Prophet Muhammad seeking the dissolution of her marriage, she told the Prophet that she did not have any complaints against her husband's character or manners. Her only problem was that she honestly did not like him to the extent of not being able to live with him any longer. The Prophet asked her: "Would you give him his garden (the marriage gift he had given her) back?" she said: "Yes". The Prophet then instructed the man to take back his garden and accept the dissolution of the marriage (Bukhari)


Muslim women have the right to be beaten if they don't cover themselves up.

This is not mandated anywhere in the Qur'an or Hadith.


Muslim women have the right never to operate a car.

This is only in Saudi Arabia. In Malaysia, where I lived for two years, it is common to see Muslim women driving. There is no Islamic ruling that prohibits women from driving.


Muslim women have the right to be gang-raped if they are caught alone on the street.

Again, this is not Islamic. Rape is forbidden according to Islamic law. However, this does happen throughout the Arab world.


Muslim women have the right to be stoned or hanged for being raped

Sadly, this does happen, although it is not Islamic at all. In Saudi Arabia, a woman's testimony in court is accepted as "presumption" while a man's testimony is accepted as "fact". So if the rapist says he didn't rape the woman, his testimony is "fact" while the woman's testimony that he raped her is only "presumption".


Muslim women have the right to be murdered for leaving Islam.

So do Muslim men. But this doesn't happen in all Muslim countries.


Muslim women have the right to have their genitals cut off.

Female genital cutting is not an Islamic practice but an African practice. It is not sanctioned by Islam and is a cultural practice from several African nations.

Sahasranama
09 September 2010, 05:01 AM
When you are able to provide proof from Quran and authentic hadith, then you talk. Your accusations are baseless and without proofs.

Quran 4:1
RESPECT THE WOMAN WHO GAVE YOU BIRTH


I am not pro Islam, but I'd like to see references too. Often these things are true, but exaggerated.

rcscwc
16 October 2010, 10:02 AM
Funny how most Muslims I've talked to say that Muslim womens' rights are just fine, and don't resemble the tyranny you describe.

After all, if any of that had truth to it, Islam would have died out long, long ago through rebellion and infighting. In countries where those things are practiced, I imagine rebellion will change it in time.

I will chalk those things up to culture rather than religion, as you point to a verse in the Qur'an that commands respect for women.
Rebellions and revolutions are not initiated by women as a class.

Adhvagat
16 October 2010, 05:57 PM
Female genital cutting is not an Islamic practice but an African practice. It is not sanctioned by Islam and is a cultural practice from several African nations.

I'm sorry... NOT A SANCTION?

The Vedas don't speak about beheading babies specifically, so I'm entitled to do it because the Vedas don't outspokenly forbid it?

Isn't common sense that causing this amount of suffering to another being, forever hindering their bodily functions, would be sanctioned by the law of AHIMSA? Which is (or at least should be) an universal law? God!

:mad:

sm78
17 October 2010, 12:53 AM
I'm sorry... NOT A SANCTION?

The Vedas don't speak about beheading babies specifically, so I'm entitled to do it because the Vedas don't outspokenly forbid it?

Isn't common sense that causing this amount of suffering to another being, forever hindering their bodily functions, would be sanctioned by the law of AHIMSA? Which is (or at least should be) an universal law? God!

:mad:

As far as women's rights are concerned Hindus don't have a terrific record either, particularly in some parts of India. The most honerable practice of honer killing has been adopted by hindus of NW india and is implemented frequently. As Hindus particularly those in India, we need to clean our acts in several departments, women's right being one (others being more compassion for society and others, sense of duty, less greed - which is boundless right now among afluent hindus, if you remove greed from motivation to worship tirupati will probably be deserted!).

Regarding Islamofascism, its better to concentrate on their most pertinent points for us, and that is Jehad and denial of other religions, particularly pantheists the very basics of human rights under Islam. In short the hate that it propagates for other religions. The inside matters of Islamic society is right now best left to themselves.

It is interesting that most Islamic women don't feel that their treatment is unjust or there is anything wrong with being beaten, raped and sharing a husband with 3 other women, always stay in veil etc. Infact I have seem muslim ladies often quite proud of these things. So outsiders like us raising questions hardly matters untill the brain damaging effect of the faith (and any faith without experience is brain damaging, not just Islamic) are curtailed in that soceity - which we can't do. The best we may try to do now, is save out own culture - at least try to save it.

TatTvamAsi
17 October 2010, 01:09 PM
As far as women's rights are concerned Hindus don't have a terrific record either, particularly in some parts of India. The most honerable practice of honer killing has been adopted by hindus of NW india and is implemented frequently. As Hindus particularly those in India, we need to clean our acts in several departments, women's right being one (others being more compassion for society and others, sense of duty, less greed - which is boundless right now among afluent hindus, if you remove greed from motivation to worship tirupati will probably be deserted!).

This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Prayers, and that too in Tirupati are not based on greed. Most devotees seek the darshan of Balaji and make enormous efforts to do so despite their poverty and other issues. There are those whose prayers are answered and to fulfill their half of the bargain, come to Tirupati to do penance (angapradakshinam etc.).

Tirumala is the most visited sight of worship in the world as well as the richest in terms of donations. Those who cannot afford even three meals a day try to make it to Tirupati to offer something to Balaji. There is an average of 200k - 300k devotees a day at Tirupati and during festivals, more than 1 million!

Yes, there are those who pray only for self-gain but the act of making a pilgrimage to Tirupati and offering prayers is an act of selflessness and penance in and of itself. Most prayers, not just in Hinduism I might add, are petitionary in nature. Yet, it is only the Hindus who say, "Sarve janaha sukhino bhavantu!" It is only the Hindus who do Yajnas daily to invoke peace for the entire world. While the mlecchas are busy trying to convert and deceive others, Hindus are offering prayers selflessly.

With regards to "women's rights" in Hindu society, things only deteriorated after the PISSlamic conquest of India. To protect the Hindu women, the men married them off at a very young age and in certain instances, forced the widows to commit Sati. Although it was done as an honorable thing as Rani Padmini did, there were certain places were it was forced. It only became really bad during the 18-19th centuries. Rajaram Mohan Roy, among others, fought to vanquish this terrible practice.

Women are treated far better in Hindu society than anywhere else in the world. Remember, there is no "right" without responsibility. A woman running around naked without restraint is no woman but a beast. Hindu women have the right sense of freedom with responsibility while maintaining traditions. All other societies swing to the extremes of no rights (muslim) or no responsibility (western).

It is highly irksome when foreigners have the audacity to question "women's rights" of Hindus or Indian society. It is even worse when a Hindu does it.


The best we may try to do now, is save our own culture - at least try to save it.

Indeed. We must be proactive about preserving our traditions.

sm78
18 October 2010, 08:03 AM
This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Prayers, and that too in Tirupati are not based on greed. Most devotees seek the darshan of Balaji and make enormous efforts to do so despite their poverty and other issues. There are those whose prayers are answered and to fulfill their half of the bargain, come to Tirupati to do penance (angapradakshinam etc.).

Tirumala is the most visited sight of worship in the world as well as the richest in terms of donations. Those who cannot afford even three meals a day try to make it to Tirupati to offer something to Balaji. There is an average of 200k - 300k devotees a day at Tirupati and during festivals, more than 1 million!

Yes, there are those who pray only for self-gain but the act of making a pilgrimage to Tirupati and offering prayers is an act of selflessness and penance in and of itself. Most prayers, not just in Hinduism I might add, are petitionary in nature. Yet, it is only the Hindus who say, "Sarve janaha sukhino bhavantu!" It is only the Hindus who do Yajnas daily to invoke peace for the entire world. While the mlecchas are busy trying to convert and deceive others, Hindus are offering prayers selflessly.

Yes it is the richest in terms of donations.There are different pujas ranging from few hundred bucks to as high as many thousands of rupees (i think it was 40k bucks). And the costliest pujas are booked for decades in advance. And I think nothing is free. So I am not sure how those who can't manage 3 square meals can manage the darshan, but in India people will go to any length to appease the Gods, yet won't do a single thing to develop better human values, so it ain't surprizing.

Minsters looting taxpayers money 365 days a year donate pure gold crowns costing 40 crores, perhaves as a token penance (but to me seems more like a bribe to the lord). And I am not talking of Tirupati alone but all famous shrines where display of money and greed has taken almost epic proportions. Yet one may ask what does they do with this money? In the very hills lord resides on billions of rupees worth of gold, the poor cannot be protected from Christian conversion. Ofcourse govt controls everything, but why then we assume the Lord is in charge of everything? Is anyone bothered? T

rue most of the devotees are ordinary, but they also have to stand in ordinary lines, while those paying more get to stand in special lines. With no money you are out of luck to see the lord. This is abosutely appaling, and how much you want to defend it is not going to change the facts. Every person I know who has been to Thirupati and such shrines went for their desires to be fullfilled.

Artha and Kama are necessary goals for any person, but to many hindu devotees they seem the only goal and they are not ashmed to blatantly display their power of money to get ahead in the appointment with Lord as well! What penance.

This what happens when one only maintains the external decorum of religion and practices but are internally morally bankrupt.


With regards to "women's rights" in Hindu society, things only deteriorated after the PISSlamic conquest of India. To protect the Hindu women, the men married them off at a very young age and in certain instances, forced the widows to commit Sati. Although it was done as an honorable thing as Rani Padmini did, there were certain places were it was forced. It only became really bad during the 18-19th centuries. Rajaram Mohan Roy, among others, fought to vanquish this terrible practice.

I don't know why you need to fall back on pre-history when only 2 days back another women was mudered (now in Rajasthan) for "unlawful" love. In essesnce this is no different from what happens in Iran or Saud country...only its not that rampant, and not state sponsored. Female infanticide is now showing up as terrible sex ratio in the adult population in many states, and you are still dreaming about how Islamism pissed on our culture, ignoring the fact that we are pissing every day on it.


Women are treated far better in Hindu society than anywhere else in the world. Remember, there is no "right" without responsibility. A woman running around naked without restraint is no woman but a beast. Hindu women have the right sense of freedom with responsibility while maintaining traditions. All other societies swing to the extremes of no rights (muslim) or no responsibility (western).

Can you give examples how women in hindu society have been treated better than any other soceity? Please don't fall back 3000 years into pre-history and epic. That don't serve any purpose. I am also bit confused about this responsibility thing. So if a woman is sensually dressed and our dicks respond, its the woman's fault? You will be glad to know this exactly the Islamic sharia logic, and also those so called hindu organizations of modern india.


It is highly irksome when foreigners have the audacity to question "women's rights" of Hindus or Indian society. It is even worse when a Hindu does it.

If we are unable to save us from ourselves, our narrow mindedness and hypcracies, we may as well stop worring about foreigners and "mlecchas", for there is no hope there then.

ScottMalaysia
18 October 2010, 08:26 AM
I'm sorry... NOT A SANCTION?

The Vedas don't speak about beheading babies specifically, so I'm entitled to do it because the Vedas don't outspokenly forbid it?

Isn't common sense that causing this amount of suffering to another being, forever hindering their bodily functions, would be sanctioned by the law of AHIMSA? Which is (or at least should be) an universal law? God!


The Qur'an and Hadith say nothing about female gential mutilation - probably because it didn't exist at the time of Muhammad. It developed in Africa and is practiced there by non-Muslims as well as Muslims. I have read that the only kind of female "circumcision" that Islam allows is the removal of the clitoral hood to allow a woman to (supposedly) feel greater pleasure during sex.


Women are treated far better in Hindu society than anywhere else in the world. Remember, there is no "right" without responsibility. A woman running around naked without restraint is no woman but a beast. Hindu women have the right sense of freedom with responsibility while maintaining traditions. All other societies swing to the extremes of no rights (muslim) or no responsibility (western).

At least Islamic law states that a woman cannot be married against her will. The Hadith states:

Khansa Bint Khidam said “My father married me to his nephew, and I did not like this match, so I complained to [Muhammad] the Messenger of Allah (May Allah bless him and grant him peace). He said to me “accept what your father has arranged.” I said “I do not wish to accept what my father has arranged.”

He said “then this marriage is invalid, go and marry whomever you wish.” I said “I have accepted what my father has arranged, but I wanted women to know that fathers have no right in their daughter’s matters (i.e. they have no right to force a marriage on them). (Fathul Bari Sharah Al Bukhari 9/194, Ibn Majah Kitabun Nikah 1/602)

The Hindu scriptures have no equivalent of this or any other verses stating that women may not be forced into marriages against their will. I understand that forced marriages do happen in Islamic countries, but at least there's something prohibiting it and the parents are breaking Islamic law if they force their daughter to marry a man she doesn't want to. As far as I know, there is no religious law prohibiting Hindu parents from forcing their daughter to marry someone she doesn't want to.

TatTvamAsi
20 October 2010, 01:47 PM
Yes it is the richest in terms of donations.There are different pujas ranging from few hundred bucks to as high as many thousands of rupees (i think it was 40k bucks). And the costliest pujas are booked for decades in advance. And I think nothing is free. So I am not sure how those who can't manage 3 square meals can manage the darshan, but in India people will go to any length to appease the Gods, yet won't do a single thing to develop better human values, so it ain't surprizing.

"Human values"? Like what? Having 10 sexual partners and calling it "freedom"? Or is the "value" of divorcing your spouse at the drop of a hat and calling it "freedom" and "happiness"? Or is the values of protesting whaling but going home and eating beef? Please, enlighten me, pun not-intended, about these 'human values' that are absent in many Indian devotees according to you.


Minsters looting taxpayers money 365 days a year donate pure gold crowns costing 40 crores, perhaves as a token penance (but to me seems more like a bribe to the lord). And I am not talking of Tirupati alone but all famous shrines where display of money and greed has taken almost epic proportions. Yet one may ask what does they do with this money? In the very hills lord resides on billions of rupees worth of gold, the poor cannot be protected from Christian conversion. Ofcourse govt controls everything, but why then we assume the Lord is in charge of everything? Is anyone bothered?

Temples across India do many things with the donated money. They feed the poor and try to renovate the aging temples. Funny thing you mention that because the Indian govt., controlled by anti-Hindus, steal most of the money from the temples. Some temples are so broke they can't even afford a single priest and thus remain locked except for a day in the week.

You don't seem to realize that donations, in the Hundi for example, are acts of selflessness. Most of these donations are done without expecting anything in return. As mentioned before, some people do it for selfish reasons but you cannot lump all devotees into the same category like that.

I agree that more needs to be done in order to make people aware of the christian/muslim/pseudo-secular threat. Yet, many are doing just that selflessly. In fact, I just met someone a couple of months ago who quit his well-paying job here in Silicon Valley to return to India to help the poor acquire and keep farmland as well as renovate and rebuild temples. Yes, this is one person. But there are many more like him. RSS is the largest volunteer organization in the world. They were the first people to help the tsunami victims in 2004. They helped people regardless of religion/caste and didn't bait them with promises like the christian filth did. Many thousands support RSS. Yet, the dumb media in India and the anti-Hindu media outside, have the audacity to label the RSS as an "extremist" organization. LOL...


True most of the devotees are ordinary, but they also have to stand in ordinary lines, while those paying more get to stand in special lines. With no money you are out of luck to see the lord. This is abosutely appaling, and how much you want to defend it is not going to change the facts. Every person I know who has been to Thirupati and such shrines went for their desires to be fullfilled.

Again you are mistaking the reason for such things. The 'special lines' and their fees go towards the temple proceeds. Ideally, the wealthier sections of society should give more towards the upkeep of the temples but if you don't give them anything in return, they are less likely to do so. Therefore, they are allowed to form different lines to get a 'darshan'.

Have you been to Tirupati when there is a festival? I don't think standing in the 'regular' line is an option for many people; as long as they can afford not to. If they do it by Varna, there will be an uproar.

And there are just as many people I know who go to Tirupati from around the world for nothing but penance and spirituality.


Artha and Kama are necessary goals for any person, but to many hindu devotees they seem the only goal and they are not ashmed to blatantly display their power of money to get ahead in the appointment with Lord as well! What penance.

This is a human condition more than a Hindu condition. Can you afford to eat at a five star hotel? If so, is it fair to expect you to eat at the tea-stall on the side of the street? Is it "wrong" to eat at a better restaurant? It is silly to think that just because some devotees pay more for a darshan, they are not doing it for selfless reasons. And, this practice is somewhat unique to Tirupati because of the immense crowds that gather there.


This what happens when one only maintains the external decorum of religion and practices but are internally morally bankrupt.

This is an arrogant and highly derogatory statement. How can you presume to know the moral wherewithal of the devotees of the temples in India? Is it not clear that the 10s of millions at the Kumbh Mela do it out of devotion and not just some selfish pursuit?

It is hilarious what you say does apply to the abrahamic garbage though.


I don't know why you need to fall back on pre-history when only 2 days back another women was mudered (now in Rajasthan) for "unlawful" love. In essesnce this is no different from what happens in Iran or Saud country...only its not that rampant, and not state sponsored. Female infanticide is now showing up as terrible sex ratio in the adult population in many states, and you are still dreaming about how Islamism pissed on our culture, ignoring the fact that we are pissing every day on it.

All these problems are in no way related to "Hinduism". These are social issues that are unique to certain places. In iran or saudi, it is sharia or PISSlamic law that requires such punishment. This rotten influence is what made certain sections of Hindu society in India so rigid. In fact, this is why Sati became an issue a few centuries ago. All these social issues have no basis in Hindu Dharma. To even attempt to link the two, like the untouchable abrahamics do, is futile.


Can you give examples how women in hindu society have been treated better than any other soceity? Please don't fall back 3000 years into pre-history and epic. That don't serve any purpose. I am also bit confused about this responsibility thing. So if a woman is sensually dressed and our dicks respond, its the woman's fault? You will be glad to know this exactly the Islamic sharia logic, and also those so called hindu organizations of modern india.

Women in Hindu society have been treated well because of our innate respect for the motherly principle. A woman is an embodiment of patience, kindness, altruism, creativity, and serenity. Females that don't have these qualities are not women.

In India, the role of womanhood revolved around grhstashrama. Thus, if she decided jumping off of a cliff or going "clubbing" and getting drunk would be adventurous (like some idiots way out west), she would be shunned. A woman whose focus remained on family and duty was always treated with enormous respect.

And, don't give me this "its the woman's fault" garbage. If a female, again, not "woman", dresses like a whore, it is certainly not the fault of men to have a natural reaction. Modesty is something that should come for a woman naturally. If she is immodest, then don't shed any tears if she gets attacked.


If we are unable to save us from ourselves, our narrow mindedness and hypcracies, we may as well stop worring about foreigners and "mlecchas", for there is no hope there then.

If the people in India acted according to Hindu Dharma, there would be no 'saving' needed. It is precisely because many Indians today have drifted away from Hindu traditions, that society is in shambles, especially in the cities.

And, no worries about mlecchas is right. We have enough bullets for them. :)

TatTvamAsi
20 October 2010, 01:50 PM
The Hindu scriptures have no equivalent of this or any other verses stating that women may not be forced into marriages against their will. I understand that forced marriages do happen in Islamic countries, but at least there's something prohibiting it and the parents are breaking Islamic law if they force their daughter to marry a man she doesn't want to. As far as I know, there is no religious law prohibiting Hindu parents from forcing their daughter to marry someone she doesn't want to.

This is quite hilarious; humans, I mean Hindus, don't need everything stated in scriptures to follow unlike the abrahamic filth who need to be told "do not steal" etc.

Plus, you should look at this fact as incredibly supportive of the high philosophy of Hinduism. Despite there being no such "law" or "rule", these things are very rare in Hindu society. Forced marriages are a modern phenomenon and occur only in extreme circumstances. It is most certainly not as frequent as you disingenuously imply.