PDA

View Full Version : Concept of God according to the scriptures



riyaaz
25 October 2009, 01:10 PM
Guidance be upon all...

Asking a common hindu about how many gods he has, the answer will be 5 or 10 or even 1 million. Asking a learned hindu who has studied the scriptures the same question, the answer will be only One God. Why?
Because:

*Chandogya upanishad 6:2:1
"Ikkam ividityam" "God is only One"

*Shvetashvatara upanishad 6:9
"of Him there are no parents"

*Quran 112:1
"Say: He is God One and Only"

*Shvetashvatara u. 4:19
"His form cannot be seen"

*Bhagwad Gita 7:20
"materialistic people have been stolen by material desires, they worship fake gods besides the One True God"

*Quran 112:1-4
"Say. He is Allah One and Only. Allah the Absolute and Eternal. He begets not nor is He begotten. And there is nothing like Him"

*Yajurved 32:3
"of Him there are no images, He is Unborn , He alone should be worshipped"

*Yajurved 40:8-9
"Almighty God is imageless and pure. They are entering darkness those who worship the natural things(fire, trees, water, sun, moon etc) and they are entering more in darkness those who worship the created things(statues, idols, chair, table etc)"

*Atharvaved 20:50/58:3
"verily great is Almighty God"

*Rigved 1:164:46 , 10:114:5
"Truth is One. God is One. Sages call Him by various names"

*Rigved 8:1:1
"do not worship anyone except the One God"

*Rigved 6:45:16
"praise Him alone the One True God"

Brahama Sutra of the Vedanta is
"Bhagwan ek hi he, dousra nahi he, nahi he, nahi he, zara bhi nahi he"
"There is only One God, not a second, not at all, not at all, not in the least bit"

*Quran 112
"Say: He is Allah One and Only. Allah, the Absolute and Eternal. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And there is nothing like Him"

Arabic name "Allah" appears in Rigved 2:30:10 , 9:67:30
To be noted that Rigved is the most sacred book of hinduism.

Spiritualseeker
25 October 2009, 01:28 PM
Allah is also the same being that Ordered Muhammad to take a 6 year old bride which he consumated with her at her young age of 9. The same deity that called for mass slaughter of the Jewish tribe which would amount to a mass slaughter and mass grave in todays language. The same Deity that ordered to kill disbelievers and spread Islamic expansion through force. This same Deity only allows jews and christians to be accepted in an islamic state while hindus either must convert or be killed.

As long as the muslim teach duality of us against them and good vs evil there will be no happiness.

OM NAMAH SIVAYA

riyaaz
26 October 2009, 12:01 AM
First of all, you have not been able to refute. And secondly you are criticizing without any knowledge.

A research shows that the wife of the Prophet was not 6 or 9 when she got married.

About accepting only Jews and Christians, you are wrong. We respect all creeds. But at the same time, we say what the Quran says:

"innaddeena 'indallaahi Islam"
"The only religion accepted by Allah is Islam"


Peace

devotee
26 October 2009, 02:37 AM
Namaste Riyaaz,

This & other similar topics have been discussed ad nauseam here on this forum. Please read already existing thread in Islam forum & clear your doubts.

Please do read this :

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2620&page=3

If you are ready to answer those questions & others too which will follow, please tell me.

OM

riyaaz
26 October 2009, 05:46 AM
sorry but i dnt read other topics to get my answer. if u hav any questions..post it here. im ready to reply wenever i wil b online next time

Spiritualseeker
26 October 2009, 06:17 AM
Riyaaz I was muslim for 7 years. I have an entire library of Islamic books. You trying to hide the fact that Aisha was 6 when they got married and 9 when they consumated is really profound ignorance and a blind apologetic cover up.

There is nothing to refute in your article. Its just like a christian coming on the forum and stating that Jesus is found in the vedas and other such silly claims.



Next time, before you post something, just check whether you have proofs or not. I'l not reply allegations along with which no proofs have been provided.


Alright you asked for it.

Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.234))

Sahih Bukhari is the most authentic collection of hadith.

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3309 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3309); see also 3310)

The poor girl was still playing with other children when she got married. This is Sahih Muslim the second most authentic work. You cannot argue against these clear facts unless you want to oppose the huge body of Ulama (islamic scholars) of the past and present.

Narrated Hisham's father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.236))


With all due respect Riyaaz you come without knowledge whatsoever. I have studied plenty on this subject and others. I was a very hardcore muslim. I still have my library of Islamic books. I am willing to pull out any book to provide you with the proof you demand. I suggest you stop trolling the forums and come with an open mind and open heart and stop trying to win a convert to Islam by posting silly articles that have absolutely no barring in reality.

OM NAMAH SIVAYA

Spiritualseeker
26 October 2009, 06:24 AM
Heres a response from a muslim who is not afraid to admit aisha was 9 when they consumated http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz0WIXcRC9s


Please when you speak of Islam or Hinduism make sure you understand what your talking about. Its important less we wish to confuse others.

Spiritualseeker
26 October 2009, 06:27 AM
Namaste,

As far as the Oneness of God in hinduism then this is clearly accepted. However in Sanatana Dharma it goes beyond Monotheism. So it transcends the monotheism of the jewish, christian, and islamic faiths. This is because there is only one reality, Ultimate Reality. We are manifested out of Siva, out of Life itself and dissolve back into Him. Everything is One with Original Cause, Siva and us are not separate. This is the web of life the interconnects us all. Since Siva is everything that means there is on reality, there is no duality. So when it comes to the other deities such as Lord Muruga and Lord Ganesha they are one with Siva. So there is no Duality even though they are quite distinct they are one. So yes one can say there is only One God In Hinduism. But it depends on who your talking to and what your describing.

OM NAMAH SIVAYA

riyaaz
26 October 2009, 11:35 AM
So you brought Hadith about my mother Aisha(may Allah be pleased with her) ? Alright.

Firstly, you don't prove the authenticity of the mentioned ahaadeeth. Do you know that, according to the laws of classification of hadith, if there is atleast one weak narrator, that hadith becomes unauthentic?
You didnt prove the authenticity.
Alright, no problem. For a moment, lets agree that they are all authentic.
.
who understands the hadith better? The Muhadditheen or us?? The answer is the muhadditheen. Before mentioning those hadith, did you try to know the comments of the muhadditheen about those hadith? No. If you would have done so, you would not mention the hadith.

For a moment, lets agree that my mother married in the age of 6 and the Prophet approached her when she was 9, when she got her first mense.
The usual allegation about this issue is that the Prophet was pedophilic.
This is wrong,because a pedophile is someone who has sex with children, who have not reached the age of puberty. My mother had already reached the age of puberty when my Prophet approached her. Thus, that pedophilia allegation stands baseless.
Moreover, it is proved by scientists that some girls can reach the age of puberty even at the age of 8. Do you know that? And that, having sex with them, brings them no medical troubles. Whereas, having sex with someone under that age will cause her major sexual problems. This is not the case concerning the Prophet of Islam. He approached his wife when she had reached puberty. This is an irrefutable arguement, supported by science.
.
Lets get logical now.
We find no evidence that the Prophet was pedo , from the records of his whole life. The objection is only about my mother Aisha(may Allah be pleased with her) which has already been refuted.
.
The Prophet married my mother Khadija(may Allah be pleased with her) who was 15years older than the Prophet. Is this the nature of pedophils?? How judge ye?
.
If the Prophet was really a pedo, why he didn't marry more children?? Why there are no records about he had sex with children?? The answer is clear.
.
As known, the unbelievers used to trouble the Prophet many times, leaving no opportunity to mock at him. If the Prophet was a pedo, why those unbelievers didn't mock at him concerning this issue?? Is it now, after 1400years of the Prophet's departure, that some ignorants will come and criticize about this?? Where is logic?? The answer is clear.
.
You were muslim for 7 years. What do i have to do with that??

.
Quran: "When Truth is heard against falsehood, falsehood perishes, for falsehood is bound to its nature to perish"

Ganeshprasad
26 October 2009, 12:59 PM
Pranam Riyaaz


Guidance be upon all...
Arabic name "Allah" appears in Rigved 2:30:10 , 9:67:30
To be noted that Rigved is the most sacred book of hinduism.


Not comfortable in your own Quaran now you have to rely on Vedas to confirm his existence.

Do you have faith in Vedas and accept its infallibility, as un authored and aprushya?
A simple yes or no please, cause I can tell you I have none what so ever faith in quaran.



You have come here to prove to us that we are wrong in our worship that we should not be worshiping any image or we should worship Alaha, with your few chosen verses from Vedas.
Now tell me who should I believe?
Those great personalities like Shankracharya, Madhvacharya, Ramanuacharya, Chatnaya MahaPrabhu, Tulsidas Goswami to name but a few. These are stalwarts they new Sanskrit inside out would they be foolish enough to recommend temple worship with image?

Or do I believe in you who probably knows no Sanskrit, bringing those half baked translation, has no meaningful insight in to the subject matters which requires years of Tapsya to understand.


You lot wish fellow believers peace be upon you, but you guys are anything but peaceful.
Islam is at war with the world and also within, killing people in the name of Alaha, suicide bombs for the promise of paradise in the company of virgins if this is your idea of religion, no thank you.


Jai Shree Krishna

Spiritualseeker
26 October 2009, 06:41 PM
Firstly, you don't prove the authenticity of the mentioned ahaadeeth. Do you know that, according to the laws of classification of hadith, if there is atleast one weak narrator, that hadith becomes unauthentic?
You didnt prove the authenticity.
Alright, no problem. For a moment, lets agree that they are all authentic.



We dont need to agree on anything, The body of Scholars of the past and present agree that Sahih Bukhari (any hadith within them) are Sahih and at worse Hasan. So therefore I do not need to hear your new age islamic understanding of chain of hadiths. The most someone has criticized of Sahih Bukhari is one single hadith that ibn jawzi al-hanbali considered weak, but other than that the Muhaditheen have accepted Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim as authentic. Some ulama even go as far as stating if you dont their authenticity then you are a kafir. Why? Because there is Ijmaa (absolute consensus) amongst the scholars of hadith.

If you did not know this then with all due respect you need to take a basic course in Islam that is taught by Islamic Scholars.



who understands the hadith better? The Muhadditheen or us?? The answer is the muhadditheen. Before mentioning those hadith, did you try to know the comments of the muhadditheen about those hadith? No. If you would have done so, you would not mention the hadith.


Muhaditheen throughout the ages have authenticated these ahadith. They have no problem believing Aisha was 9. Why do you think in many islamic countries you can marry young girls? Even Dr. Bilal Phillips caused great controversy in the UK when he mentioned in a masjid that the best example is Muhammad and therefore since he married a girl before pubertity then it is okay for the muslims.



For a moment, lets agree that my mother married in the age of 6 and the Prophet approached her when she was 9, when she got her first mense.
The usual allegation about this issue is that the Prophet was pedophilic.
This is wrong,because a pedophile is someone who has sex with children, who have not reached the age of puberty. My mother had already reached the age of puberty when my Prophet approached her. Thus, that pedophilia allegation stands baseless.
Moreover, it is proved by scientists that some girls can reach the age of puberty even at the age of 8. Do you know that? And that, having sex with them, brings them no medical troubles. Whereas, having sex with someone under that age will cause her major sexual problems. This is not the case concerning the Prophet of Islam. He approached his wife when she had reached puberty. This is an irrefutable arguement, supported by science.


Once again no need for you to agree this was said by thousands of scholars of past and present. A matter a fact I was just recently speaking to a Shaykh who graduated from Medina university as a Scholar of Hadith. He wanted to have breakfast with me after he heard I left islam. We spoke about some problematic issues in the Quran and hadith. I raised the concern about Aisha and he agreed she was 9. His answer and all his answer was is that he used to have these doubts, but these doubts left when he read that Maryam (Mother Mary) is said to have conceived at 14 years old. The point being only apologetic people with no knowledge of Hadith or Quranic Tafsir and sirah make such claims that Aisha was not 9.

Now if you are a Shia then no doubt you will not agree that Aisha is 9. I am not sure if you are a shia, but since Shia accept hadiths other than the Sunni ahadith they have accepted narrations narrated by Shia narrators that state that Aisha was 17 and some state 14. But if you are a sunni muslim then indeed you are mistaken.

As far as her having her menses then this is still a weak claim. Yes indeed hadith does state she became a woman at the age of 9. But just imagine taking a small girl that STILL PLAYED WITH DOLLS (according to SAHIH HADITH) and as soon as she bleeds you instantly penetrate her, this is very gross and absurd. He indeed was a pedophile.



The Prophet married my mother Khadija(may Allah be pleased with her) who was 15years older than the Prophet. Is this the nature of pedophils?? How judge ye?


if you have watched the news lately you see many of these mormon cults being exposed in which leaders will marry many wives some mature women and yet also have young girls. So it doesnt matter if Khadija was older.

Muhammad claimed to have a vision in a dream that Aisha was being wedded to her (this ofcourse occured when Aisha was only 6). Good ol'Allah decided to Give Aisha to Muhammad.

Then good ol'Allah again gave Muhammad a vision to marry Zainab the ex wife of his adopted son. And Good ol'Allah gave Muhammad a vision to marry Maryam (the christian coptic known for her intense beauty so much so that Aisha was jealous of her). It seems good ol'Allah is always out to make Muhammad's carnal desires come true.



As known, the unbelievers used to trouble the Prophet many times, leaving no opportunity to mock at him. If the Prophet was a pedo, why those unbelievers didn't mock at him concerning this issue?? Is it now, after 1400years of the Prophet's departure, that some ignorants will come and criticize about this?? Where is logic?? The answer is clear.


Well during that time arab pagans married children. Not only that they even had what westerners call "Gangbangs". This is an act in which multiple men have sex with a woman. During that time (by the way this is all mentioned in SAHIH BUKHARI concerning how the arab pagans treated sex in those days) a woman could have sex with many men at once and if she conceived she would bring each man and try to match the man to the child. Whomever the woman picked as looking like her child was then made the father.

So i am not surprised they did not frown about this. Though they did make a fuss about Muhammad marriage to Zaynab since she was once the wife of Muhammad's adopted son.



You were muslim for 7 years. What do i have to do with that??


I mentioned it to caution you not to use ignorance when discussing islamic issues. I am not going to fall for "you dont know if the chain of hadith is daef(weak), mawdoo (fabricated), hasan (good), Sahih (authentic), Ghareeb (strange lone narration) or ahad (singe narrator)."



Quran: "When Truth is heard against falsehood, falsehood perishes, for falsehood is bound to its nature to perish"

Which is why Islam is perishing day by day and most muslims live in the stone age where Islamic Shariah is practiced.

-juan

devotee
27 October 2009, 12:22 AM
So, it pays to have an Islamic scholar with you ! :)

Thanks, Juan !

OM

Spiritualseeker
27 October 2009, 06:09 AM
Thank you devotee I bow to you the yogi to be.

I am not fond when people come and try to make Islam something it is not. Imagine if Sanatana Dharma is left for Islam, we will live in a world of duality, us against them, believers vs pagans. Such suffering :( the islamic world is miserable. May all sentient beings be happy

riyaaz
07 November 2009, 01:27 PM
I thank the administrators for removing the ban. I'll reply this thread tomorrow insha Allah.

Spiritualseeker
07 November 2009, 08:40 PM
Welcome back. I look foward to your response. When you response if you be so kind to provide evidence that the Majority of Scholars of Hadith of the past and Scholars in general have rejected Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim as authentic. Sure hadiths can be daef (weak), hasan (good), Mawdoo (fabricated), Sahih (Authentic), ahad (lone narrator), ghareeb (strange) etc... but when it comes to Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim the ahadith in them have been by consensus (ijma) to be Sahih and worse cases hasan.

Now remember In islam there are three things to produce ruling. One is the Ruling of the Quran (the so called speech of Allah), the Sunnah (statements, actions, approvals, of Muhammad), and the third is ijma or scholarly consensus. Now sahih bukhari and Sahih muslim has been accepted as authentic by consensus. One could not argue against that. It would only be a low apologetic stance. It would be trying to refute the scholars of old who were efficient and well versed not only in ahadith but the Quran also. These were men who memorized thousands of narrations with their isnaad (chain of narrations). So please do not try to cover up that which has been accepted.

with love
-juan

riyaaz
07 November 2009, 11:34 PM
Allah, with this Name the begining, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Coming to the authenticity of AlBukhari, there is no doubt. This is the most authentic Hadith book, but, there are many ahaadith in it, which explains not the matter completely, and we see other hadith, in other books explaining it. For e.g Where to put hand in salaah, chest or below navel. AlBukhari says, on the chest, but there are other hadith which explains the matter, and conclude, below navel.
Coming to Bilal Philips, agreeing that marriage to under-puberty girls is allowed, is wrong. The Prophet married his youngest wife when she was under puberty, and approached her when she had already attained the age of puberty. This is an exception to the Prophet only. If marrying little girls were allowed, we would have seen this practise among the Companions and Pious Taabe'in, but this practice is not to be found among them. This proves that marrying little girls is not allowed. The Prophet was an exception, as he is a Prophet. The Prophet married 13 wives and other muslims may marry upto 4. This is also an exception to the Prophet, as he is a Prophet. So, the claim of Mr. Philips is wrong. Moreover, i don't agree with this man. He is a Wahabi and he is spreading many lies against the genuine Sunni creed. He is a man of Bid'ah. This gives me more reason to ignore him.
There is no doubt that the Prophet married his youngest wife when she was 6, and approached her when she was 9, already reached the age of puberty. This is supported by science, and the pedophilic allegation fails here. Accusing someone of pedophilie is a scientific allegation, meaning that the particular person has such a mentality that he approaches children for sex, who are under the age of puberty. This definition cannot be applied to the Prophet, as this didn't happened. So, naturally that pedophilic allegation, falls. Now about imagining that she was still playing with dolls. Please, don't look at little girls of nowadays to compare with her. She was of great nature, and highly intelligent. She reported more than 3000 hadith. So, this claim, falls my friend.
I talked about the first wife of the Prophet, who was a widow, and 15years older than him. And you began to compare with mormons. This is not done. If a man was really a pedophile, we would have found records where we see him approaching for sex, with children, but for the Prophet, we find no such record. Infact, his first wife, was a widow, and 15years older than him. This is, truly, not the nature of pedophiles. I, myself, would not marry a woman 15years older than me, though i'm not pedophile, but the Prophet married her. It is clear my friend.
.
About pagans mocking the Prophet for pedophilie, firstly there is no such record. Now you said that pagans were themselves marrying little girls. Firstly i don't know about that. It would be great if you can provide some proofs to support your claim. Secondly, at the Prophet's time, not only pagans lived, but there were also Jews and Christians. Even they didn't mock the Prophet for pedophilie. Infact there are many hadith, where we see Jews and Christians accepting Islam. Why would they embrace the religion of a pedophile? It's so clear my friend. When the Prophet entered Medina, a Jew scholar heard about it, and came to the Prophet, to see whether he was a true prophet or a fraud. When that scholar saw the Prophet, he said
"Someone with such a face cannot lie"
He then embraced Islam.
Concerning Zainab's marriage, it is justified, i can explain.
I quoted a Quranic Ayah and you said that Islam itself is perishing day by day. My friend, perhaps you don't know, but today Islam is the fastest growing religion in the World. The majority of world population are muslims, then comes christians, and hindus come to 3rd or 4th place. Based on this, it may well be judged, which religion is perishing, and which one is getting most successful.
I hope my words didn't hurt anyone's feelings here.

riyaaz
07 November 2009, 11:39 PM
As this claim about pedophilie, has already failed concerning his youngest wife, i would now request anyone here to produce other proofs, where we see the Prophet approaching girls, under puberty. If anyone here, is able to produce such a proof, i'll quit Islam. And i'm always open for correction.

kd gupta
08 November 2009, 12:02 AM
Administration is requested to disallow all views regarding contradictions about religion and politics and any public boundaries pl.

Spiritualseeker
08 November 2009, 06:31 AM
Thanks for your reponse riyaaz. I read what you have written and woul dlove to reply back. I am going to grab something to eat and go to work for about four hours later on I will respond and make sure that I provide you with some evidence so you can look into the matter.

with love
OM
-juan

riyaaz
08 November 2009, 08:29 AM
I would love to see you response. If you are able to prove to me that Islam is not the right way, i'll quit Islam. Anybody...?

Spiritualseeker
08 November 2009, 08:30 AM
Namaste,



Coming to the authenticity of AlBukhari, there is no doubt.


Excellent we can agree. Scholars have consensus on this issue.



This is the most authentic Hadith book, but, there are many ahaadith in it, which explains not the matter completely, and we see other hadith, in other books explaining it. For e.g Where to put hand in salaah, chest or below navel. AlBukhari says, on the chest, but there are other hadith which explains the matter, and conclude, below navel.



Yes but concerning the matter of Aisha's age it is clear cut. It is not ambiguous. As far has hands in salat then this is indeed difficult to understand because there is no 100percent authentic narrations concerning where muhammad put his hands. In Bukhari it was a sahabi who mentioned where to place the hands and it was not on the chest but near the chest. It was only Shaykh Al-albaani who claimed it was on chest and he also relied on other inauthenticated ahadith. Anyways even hadith concerning below the naval are up to debate because as Shaykh Abdur Rahman al-hanafi mentioned that there is not a flawless chain for any position. But anyways once again the age of Aisha is pretty clear. I provided that from ahadith from Sahih bukhari and sahih muslim. It is not ambiguous it is clear cut. This is not an issue of fiqh (jurisprudence) in which one can argue other points.



Coming to Bilal Philips, agreeing that marriage to under-puberty girls is allowed, is wrong. The Prophet married his youngest wife when she was under puberty, and approached her when she had already attained the age of puberty. This is an exception to the Prophet only. If marrying little girls were allowed, we would have seen this practise among the Companions and Pious Taabe'in, but this practice is not to be found among them. This proves that marrying little girls is not allowed.


Some things were allowed only for Muhammad. Such as being alone with a woman (which makes me seriously doubt his honorableness), having more than 4 wives, etc... However when it comes to marrying underage women this was not just for Muhammad. There is evidence of the early muslims practicing this. Even now adays it is practiced in Saudi arabia, yemen, africa, afghanistan, and the arab world.

Narrated Sahl bin Sad:
While we were sitting in the company of the Prophet a woman came to him and presented herself (for marriage) to him. The Prophet looked at her, lowering his eyes and raising them, but did not give a reply. One of his companions said, "Marry her to me O Allah's Apostle!" The Prophet asked (him), "Have you got anything?" He said, "I have got nothing." The Prophet said, "Not even an iron ring?" He said, "Not even an iron ring, but I will tear my garment into two halves and give her one half and keep the other half." The Prophet; said, "No. Do you know some of the Quran (by heart)?" He said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "Go, I have agreed to marry her to you with what you know of the Qur'an (as her Mahr)." 'And for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature). (65.4) And the 'Iddat for the girl before puberty is three months (in the above Verse). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Numbers 63; emphasis ours)

Ibn Kathir the famous scholars of Tafsir (Quranic commentary) also speaks about how there is a type of divorce where you divorece an underage woman before her menses.

Al-Tabari said:
The interpretation of the verse "And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise". He said: The same applies to the 'idaah for girls who do not menstruate because they are too young, if their husbands divorce them after consummating the marriage with them.
Tafseer al-Tabari, 14/142

Shaykh munajid of Saudi Arabia who is known for his scholastic knowledge and has a Radio station and studies in Saudi Arabia has issued a fatwa concerning this. Read here http://islamqa.com/en/ref/12708

I am not making all this up. This is very basic knowledge concerning these issues. Please let us not be apologetic but own up to it.



This is supported by science, and the pedophilic allegation fails here. Accusing someone of pedophilie is a scientific allegation, meaning that the particular person has such a mentality that he approaches children for sex, who are under the age of puberty. This definition cannot be applied to the Prophet, as this didn't happened. So, naturally that pedophilic allegation, falls. Now about imagining that she was still playing with dolls. Please, don't look at little girls of nowadays to compare with her. She was of great nature, and highly intelligent. She reported more than 3000 hadith.


Regardless if she had menses or not the girl was playing with dolls still which shows the immaturity of her state of being.



About pagans mocking the Prophet for pedophilie, firstly there is no such record. Now you said that pagans were themselves marrying little girls. Firstly i don't know about that. It would be great if you can provide some proofs to support your claim. Secondly, at the Prophet's time, not only pagans lived, but there were also Jews and Christians. Even they didn't mock the Prophet for pedophilie. Infact there are many hadith, where we see Jews and Christians accepting Islam. Why would they embrace the religion of a pedophile? It's so clear my friend. When the Prophet entered Medina, a Jew scholar heard about it, and came to the Prophet, to see whether he was a true prophet or a fraud. When that scholar saw the Prophet, he said
"Someone with such a face cannot lie"



I provided evidence that marrying women before menses is permissible for all muslims. In Sahih bukhari it shows that the nature of that society also supported orgys etc...

Just because jews, christians, and pagans of arabia peninsula did not condemn it doesnt mean its right. Homosexuality was practiced among the greeks in the open where one would simply use a boy for sex and discard them. This was acceptable by the people it doesnt mean that it was right just because people did not speak out against them. You should know this since the Quran speaks of the people of Lut (Or Prophet Lot as mentioned in bible and quran).



Concerning Zainab's marriage, it is justified, i can explain.



Maybe it is justified, what I quoted it for is how Muhammad seemed to always get revealation that suited his desires. Even Aisha mentioned that Allah seems to always fulfill muhammad's desires. She said this not out of love but out of anger and jealousy because of Muhammad's new bride.



I quoted a Quranic Ayah and you said that Islam itself is perishing day by day. My friend, perhaps you don't know, but today Islam is the fastest growing religion in the World. The majority of world population are muslims, then comes christians, and hindus come to 3rd or 4th place. Based on this, it may well be judged, which religion is perishing, and which one is getting most successful.
I hope my words didn't hurt anyone's feelings here.


Fastest growing religion indeed, however many are leaving islam for christianity and some for atheism. I know a few muslims that have left Islam. Islam is more of just a passed down tradition. Yes westerners do convert to it but in Buddhism there is a high rise in converts to it from the western world. I was a convert to Islam for 7 years and left it. In the UK there is a high rise of new westerners leaving Islam due to the salafi movements and their dichotomous beliefs. This is also happening in areas of America. Islam is perishing because in every islamic land there is conflict. Every land that tries to implement shariah has done nothing but oppression and caused bloodshed. It is dying out and the age old quranic and hadith do not help us in this age in the world. In Islam you must accept in faith and certainty there is no room for it to evolve. In Buddhism and hinduism one can evolve their beliefs and practices without being branded heritics by the majority. Christianity and Islam are stuck and even more so Islam. It seems like the stone age is coming back in areas where Islamic Shariah is practiced. It worked in the middle ages but the time has changed.

with love
OM
-juan

riyaaz
09 November 2009, 02:18 AM
Bismillaah
> About where to put hand in Salaah, i won't discuss. This has nothing to do with the subject. I gave only an example. You should understand that.
> Yes, some things were allowed only for the Prophet, and the Prophet is Al-Ameen..the trustworty..and the Prophet is Muhammad..meaning Praiseworthy.
You provided some proofs about marrying little girls. The first hadith proves nothing. I can't understand your objection concerning it. Please explain.
About 65.4, i have no option but to agree, as this is Quran. "..those who have no courses" mean that the women who have no courses due to their old age, and also those who are too young. I check the Tafsir, it means so. Marriage with a girl under the age of puberty is allowed, but only marriage, not approaching her to have sex. She may be approached after her puberty. What's wrong in that? When marriage is allowed, that does not mean, she must do the house chores. I can't see anything wrong as to why this type of marriage is not allowed. If you have any objection to it, you can put it forward, i'll reply.
The link you gave, i won't enter it, as its owned by Wahabis. I don't seek for knowledge from Wahabis.
>I explained the issue of pedophilie scientifically and justified it for the Prophet, i see you have not been able to correctly response, which means, that you agree, the Prophet was not pedophile. If he was, please provide proofs.
>About Jews and Christians not mocking the Prophet, you forwarded a baseless arguement. If pagans did not object, jews and christians should have, and they don't engage in pedophilie, like pagans(you said). I request you to prove that pagans were engaging in pedophilie.
>About Islam getting destroyed, you again forwarded a baseless arguement. A religion can be destroyed in two ways. Firstly, to corrupt its belief. And secondly, when no one follows that religion.
Islam's teachings are not corrupted, else we would have found major errors, but there are none. The first one ok. Secondly, majority of world population practise Islam. So, even the second test is passed. More than 75% converts, are to converts to Islam. Those who left Islam, are very little. Why they left it? Ignorance. You told me you left Islam. If you are able to put forward some solid points, even i'll quit Islam.
> I'm still waiting for proofs, where the Prophet is proved to be a pedophile. Looking forward to your next response.

Spiritualseeker
09 November 2009, 06:10 AM
I provided you evidence from at-Tabari and ibn Kathir Tafsir. If you dont want to accept it then that is fine. You just cant claim otherwise unless you have evidence. What did you think of the Fatwa I showed from Shaykh Munajid? http://islamqa.com/en/ref/12708



Al-Tabari said:
The interpretation of the verse "And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise". He said: The same applies to the 'idaah for girls who do not menstruate because they are too young, if their husbands divorce them after consummating the marriage with them.
Tafseer al-Tabari, 14/142


Your guilty of Innovation in the Deen (religion and way of life of islam) by objecting to the permisibility to marry young girls before the age of puberty.


Please explain.
About 65.4, i have no option but to agree, as this is Quran.

Why must you believe in it? We have been given the capacity to think for ourselves. It is only dogma that causes us to be rigid and unable to expand our awareness.

Here is another Fatwa http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?Option=FatwaId&lang=E&Id=88089 The scholar provides much evidence in support of marriage to young girls. The only disapproval is of consumating the marriage if the girl is unfit for it. The point is marriage to girls before puberty is correct. Not only that but he makes commentary on that verse of the quran quoted above in my other post to show that its also WOMEN BEFORE THEIR MENSES.

I hope you can place emotions to the side and accept that which you view as unnacceptable in this day and age. Perhaps this will cause you to rethink some of the teachings of Islam




I'm still waiting for proofs, where the Prophet is proved to be a pedophile. Looking forward to your next response.


Proof that he is a pedophile? I think the best I can do is point out how averse you are to accept that child brides are permissible and that it was only "specific" for the prophet (as I pointed out from the scholars that it is permissible for all muslims). Since you are trying to refute the scholars of the past it seems that you take an issue with marrying young girls. So this in itself is my proof he was a pedophile.
OM
-Juan

riyaaz
09 November 2009, 07:58 AM
>I already told you. I agree with the belief that girls can be married before her puberty. I said "married" only, and that does not mean we can engage in sex with them. I accept the fatawa.
> I asked for proofs concerning the Prophet being pedophile, you put the point forward that, just because Islam allows marriage with under-puberty girls, the prophet and all muslims become pedophile. I have already clarified the concept of pedophilie. A pedophile is someone who engages in sex with someone under the age of puberty. Islam is strictly against this. Marrying under-puberty girls is allowed, but having sex with them is totally prohibited. This makes it clear that Islam is against pedophilie, and the Prophet was not pedophile. I'm still waiting for proofs, where it says that the Prophet himself engaged in sex with under-puberty girls. Atleast provide a Maudu' hadith my friend. If you are able to provide that, i promise i'll quit Islam.
>I can't see what's wrong in marrying under-puberty girls. If you have any objection about it, put it here my friend , i'm ready to reply.

goodlife
09 November 2009, 11:19 AM
I would love to see you response. If you are able to prove to me that Islam is not the right way, i'll quit Islam. Anybody...?

are you sure about that part??

Since this is not the right forum to discuss what you want, i would like to invite you to take your challenge to a more befitting place.

www.faithfreedom.org

register there and ask these questions as the forum is by ex muslims. lets see if you are upto your own task.

Spiritualseeker
09 November 2009, 06:56 PM
I already told you. I agree with the belief that girls can be married before her puberty. I said "married" only, and that does not mean we can engage in sex with them. I accept the fatawa.



Now you accept whereas before you said



The Prophet married his youngest wife when she was under puberty, and approached her when she had already attained the age of puberty. This is an exception to the Prophet only. If marrying little girls were allowed, we would have seen this practise among the Companions and Pious Taabe'in, but this practice is not to be found among them. This proves that marrying little girls is not allowed.


So now that you changed your opinion there seems to be progress. But since you were not for it before you should really contemplate Islam deeply and ask if it is truely the Truth you seek. If it is then that is all well for you. If its not then its time to learn something else.



I asked for proofs concerning the Prophet being pedophile, you put the point forward that, just because Islam allows marriage with under-puberty girls, the prophet and all muslims become pedophile. I have already clarified the concept of pedophilie. A pedophile is someone who engages in sex with someone under the age of puberty. Islam is strictly against this. Marrying under-puberty girls is allowed, but having sex with them is totally prohibited. This makes it clear that Islam is against pedophilie, and the Prophet was not pedophile. I'm still waiting for proofs, where it says that the Prophet himself engaged in sex with under-puberty girls. Atleast provide a Maudu' hadith my friend. If you are able to provide that, i promise i'll quit Islam.


Yes penetration is not allowed, but fondling and kissing is. It doesnt sit right with me. And a few post ago it didnt sit right for you because you said it was specific to the prophet. But even besides the issue of sex a little girl married is not choosing for herself. Even if a little girl agrees she is not maturely developed. I cannot force you to believe differently though so if you see it as acceptable what can I do to erase that belief? I cant do nothing because we make our opinions our own dogmas and it keeps us in rigid stances.


Atleast provide a Maudu' hadith my friend. If you are able to provide that, i promise i'll quit Islam.

With all due respect I dont think you know much about Mawdoo', hasan, sahih, etc... since you first doubted the authenticity of the hadiths quoted straight from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih muslim (then you explained it away that I dont know the context and that its "not clear" )


I can't see what's wrong in marrying under-puberty girls. If you have any objection about it, put it here my friend , i'm ready to reply.

Well you were against it when you stated this




This is an exception to the Prophet only. If marrying little girls were allowed, we would have seen this practise among the Companions and Pious Taabe'in, but this practice is not to be found among them. This proves that marrying little girls is not allowed. The Prophet was an exception, as he is a Prophet.

So apparently you were not for it until you realized the scholars accept it for ALL muslims. Then you changed your view because you are stuck with the Dogma of Islam that you must accept everything in the Quran and Sunnah. This is the poison my friend.

Would you like to discuss any other topics? I would love to do so.

OM
-juan

devotee
09 November 2009, 08:51 PM
Namaste SS,

I am not able to digest this assertion "It was wrong but was allowed because he was a prophet !". First of all, how does it protect the basic rights of a child to choose to have sex when he/she grows & not because someone else wants to satisfy his urge ? Penetrating a girl of 9 years of age cannot be pardoned whether sanctioned or not sanctioned in any scripture ... more so a scripture which was told (fabricated) by Muhammad himself ! We cannot deny medical truth that it harms a child physically & psychologically if she is violated before coming to age i.e. around 17-18 years of age. We can forgive all those who married under-age girls because of the prevailing customs but Muhammad was supposed to be knowledgeable ... how can he be forgiven ? If he acted the way the commoners acted, how was he more enlightened than the others ?

Again, if he was not a sex-maniac why he kept on marrying one woman/girl/child one after another ? How was it justified from the point of benefit to those girls/women ? How can he have eyes of lust on his own daughter-in-law ? Was it a justice to the already married couple ? We can't consider him a prophet first & forgive him for his sins ... no, he is under scanner & unless he passes the test, his own words cannot be used to defend him !

He was the only "prophet" who was so much sexually active. He was the only prophet who looted & killed innocent people including women & children. He was the only prophet who allowed the women won in war to be violated & if the winning army men wanted. He was the only prophet who destroyed everything which was sacred to millions of people (in Mecca). His is the only scripture which creates heartless terrorists in thousands ... his is the only scripture which denies even basic human rights to women & even when she is raped, justice is denied to her unless she brings four independent witnesses ! He gave a religion which doesn't allow you at all to think & say anything against his given scripture or against him ... that serves his purpose to keep people at his command without being questioned !

Just forget what the clergies says & see everything considering him a cunning warlord who was more interested in making his own army, grabbing power & satisfying his lust & for that he presented a manipulated scripture (borrowing basically from Judaism ) which served his own end .... then everything falls in place.

OM

Spiritualseeker
09 November 2009, 09:18 PM
Namaste Devotee,

That was a very beautiful response. It is beautiful not because it shows the ugly truth but it is revealing what so many are afraid to say. I know the affects of Islam from personal experience. What you have said really is the truth of these matters. Muhammad was not an enlightened man, yet billions of muslims think that he is the ideal example. So they emulate his character and thus that is why there is so much misery in the arab and other islamic areas. You are so right in talking about how one is no longer able to think for himself. Because if he or she goes against the Quran then he is rejected. You hit many different points that I think are sufficient for closing the case on Muhammad, yet besides the points you mentioned there are tons of more evidence that Muhammad is far from enlightened. Devotee I just recently was talking to a muslim friend who is trying all he can to guide me back to islam and telling me that I am going to hell, yet I brought up about Muhammad's anger (sometimes his face would become black and other hadiths his face would become red). When i mentioned this to him I also said people like the Buddha, Yogis, mother theresa, and Paramhansa Yogananda never had such episodes, yet this supposedly "Greatest prophet" is attached to the five senses and ego consciousness.

I bow to you devotee thank you for the truthful response.

OM
-juan

riyaaz
10 November 2009, 05:26 AM
>I didn't know about that issue, that's why i firstly rejected. It was an error from my part. Now that i know it, i accept it. Marriage with under-puberty girls is allowed, but approaching them is not allowed, till they don't reach their puberty. I can't understand why hindus object to this. Your own scripture allows this type of marriage.
Manusmriti 9.94 "A man aged 30years shall marry a maiden of 12 who pleases him, or a man of 24 a girl of 8years of age;if (the performance of) his duties would otherwise be impeded, he must marry sooner"
So, here we see Manu agreeing about the marriage of under-puberty girls. You now have no reason to object about this.
>I've already said. Only marriage is allowed with them, and sex and kiss prohibited, until they reach puberty.
>I'm still waiting for proofs where it says that the Prophet himself engaged in sexual acts with children. Atleast provide a Maudu' hadith(fabricated hadith)
>> Devotee. There is no hadith where it says that the Prophet had intercourse with her youngest wife when she was 9. What the hadith mentions is that the Prophet approached her. That does not necessarily mean having sex. Suppose he had sex with her, this is also justified as she had attained the age of puberty, thus she won't have any medical problems. And about psychology, this is also an invalid claim, because she was of great natures and highly intelligent. Before replying to this, i would request you to read the verse i mentioned from Manusmriti again.
>When someone marries an under-puberty girl, that does not mean she loses her rights. Bear that in mind. She has all rights, even for divorce.
>Behind the every marriage of the Prophet there was a reason. Sometimes to strengthen relations with the bride's family, clan and tribe and sometimes because those women were widows and no support. Moreover how can he be a sex maniac? Learn this Hadith.
'Ali(r.a) said: "O Prophet of Allah! Would you like the daughter of your paternal uncle Hamza BECAUSE SHE IS MOST BEAUTIFUL GIRL IN THE QURAISH?" The Prophet replied: "Do you not know that Hamza is my foster-brother and that Allah has prohibited (us) by reason of fosterage what He has prohibited by reason of geneology" (Muslim shareef)
So, here we can see the Prophet refusing the most beautiful girl of the tribe for marriage. How can you say he was maniac after learning this my friend?
>If he lusted after the wife of his adopted son, he would not have married her, and giving her her rights. He would have kept sexual relationships with her, without marriage.
>How can you claim he killed innocents without providing any proof? How can you claim that Islam preaches terrorism without proving it? How can you claim he allowed women in battlefield without proving it? How can you claim that a raped woman requires 4 witnesses to prove her innocense, without giving any proof? Whenever you make a claim you should prove it my friend.

Spiritualseeker
10 November 2009, 06:01 AM
I will respond later and bring the proof that you asked devotee for. Once again I think you will have a change of opinion when you realize your dogma accepts such insanity.

with love
-juan

riyaaz
10 November 2009, 06:30 AM
I will respond later and bring the proof that you asked devotee for. Once again I think you will have a change of opinion when you realize your dogma accepts such insanity.

with love
-juan

What insanity are you talking about? If my agreeing to the fact that, under-puberty girls can be married is insanity, then i would say that Manu(the writer of hindu laws) is also an insane, since he allowed the marriage with under-puberty. I'm looking forward for you to respond this.
With love and sweetness

devotee
10 November 2009, 09:03 AM
Namaste Riyaaz,

Marriage with under-puberty girls is allowed, but approaching them is not allowed, till they don't reach their puberty. I can't understand why hindus object to this. Your own scripture allows this type of marriage.
Manusmriti 9.94 "A man aged 30years shall marry a maiden of 12 who pleases him, or a man of 24 a girl of 8years of age;if (the performance of) his duties would otherwise be impeded, he must marry sooner"
Oh, so that is how you are misguided ! First of all, do you know the ancient Hindu way of marriage ? No ! And that is what has confused you. There are two rituals :

First is Marriage which includes taking vows before the deities & taking vows around the sacred fire, Sindur daan / putting sacred Mangal Sutra around the bride’s neck. However, just after this ritual the bride neither goes to her in-laws nor she goes & sleeps with her husband as you have assumed. 2nd, there is another ceremony, called "Gauna" or "second marriage" - which is taking the bride to her in-laws. That happens only after she gains maturity. The husband and wife are not allowed to meet unless this ceremony is complete. And please also note that this law was written for common man & not for an enlightened being. There are separate laws for the Hindu SamnyAsi. A SamnyAsi doesn't indulge in carnal pleasure at all ! We are here talking about your prophet, so please compare the conduct of your prophet with any enlightened being in Hinduism.

Again, Hindus are not like Muslims & they keep questioning whatever is written in scriptures & keep adopting new scientific ideas.That is why a big part of Manusmriti no longer dictates the lives of Hindus. That is why that old system whatever is mentioned in Manusmriti has been declared illegal in India. This liberty is not available in Islam. In Islam, just blindly follow one book otherwise your head is chopped off !

Hindus strive for the Truth. We say that don’t believe anything just because it is written in a book or said by someone. You must experience the Truth yourself. There are three paths of getting Truth in Hinduism : a) Through Scriptures --- (the Vedas & not the Smritis or Puranas) …. This is called Sabda PramAna. b) Pratyaksha PramAna -- Proof by experience & c) AnumAna or Proof by logical inference. And it is stated that if the Sabda PramAna differs from Pratyaksha PramAna or Anumna then the Scriptures or Sabda PramAna has metaphorical meaning & must be understood carefully.


So, here we see Manu agreeing about the marriage of under-puberty girls. You now have no reason to object about this.
I think now you would have understood your folly to assert this way without understanding Hindu scriptures correctly.

There is no hadith where it says that the Prophet had intercourse with her youngest wife when she was 9. What the hadith mentions is that the Prophet approached her. That does not necessarily mean having sex. Suppose he had sex with her, this is also justified as she had attained the age of puberty, thus she won't have any medical problems. And about psychology, this is also an invalid claim, because she was of great natures and highly intelligent. Before replying to this, i would request you to read the verse i mentioned from Manusmriti again.
I think I have already cleared your doubts. So now you too must have objection to penetrating a child of 9 Years !


When someone marries an under-puberty girl, that does not mean she loses her rights. Bear that in mind. She has all rights, even for divorce.
She has rights to be penetrated at that age ?


Behind the every marriage of the Prophet there was a reason. Sometimes to strengthen relations with the bride's family, clan and tribe and sometimes because those women were widows and no support. Moreover how can he be a sex maniac? Learn this Hadith.
'Ali(r.a) said: "O Prophet of Allah! Would you like the daughter of your paternal uncle Hamza BECAUSE SHE IS MOST BEAUTIFUL GIRL IN THE QURAISH?" The Prophet replied: "Do you not know that Hamza is my foster-brother and that Allah has prohibited (us) by reason of fosterage what He has prohibited by reason of geneology" (Muslim shareef)
So, here we can see the Prophet refusing the most beautiful girl of the tribe for marriage. How can you say he was maniac after learning this my friend?
Those reasons were coined by “Prophet” himself, right ? OK. Tell me what purpose was served by marrying & penetrating the girl-child, “Ayesha” ? What purpose was served by dissolving the marriage of his own daughter-in-law & marrying her for his lust just because she was very beautiful ? What was the benefit of penetrating that poor girl ? What about penetrating Myriah, the sex slave of your “holy” prophet ?Just because she was a slave she could be abused the way Muhammad liked ? This is justice ?? How about allowing his army-men to violate women won in wars ? This is what you expect from a “prophet” ?


If he lusted after the wife of his adopted son, he would not have married her, and giving her her rights. He would have kept sexual relationships with her, without marriage.

Oh, so if I lust someone’s wife, I just have to break the marriage of the couple in the garb of “God’s instructions” & marry ! And then it becomes lawful ? Yes, that is a nice admittance that Prophet would have certainly desired to have illicit sexual relations with her as he did with Myriah but then the tribals would have broken his bones for that !



How can you claim he killed innocents without providing any proof?

Dr. M. Khan the translator of Sahih Bukhari and the Quran into English writes:

"Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizia (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon "the fighting" against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the ability to fight against them. So at first "the fighting" was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory " [Introduction to English translation of Sahih Bukhari, p.xxiv.]

Again why did he attack & looted that Merchant’s Carvan in Badra ? Why did he betray the Jews after having a contract with them ? What about stabbing the Meccans at their back ? Do we expect these things from a Prophet ?


How can you claim that Islam preaches terrorism without proving it?

Do you need proof even after Islam being the biggest producer of terrorists in the whole world ? Who did 9/11 in America ? Who destroyed the beautiful Swat valley ? Who destroyed the prosperous Afghanistan & turned it into hell ? If you catch 10 terrorists,, how come 9 of them are always Muslims, if the roots are not in Islam ?

My dear friend, you & Jakir Naik who are propagating this lie before non-muslims & hard selling Islam, should go & preach Osma Bin Laden & not the Non-Muslims. OK. If they agree with you, I will agree with your view that Islam is a religion of peace.


How can you claim he allowed women in battlefield without proving it? How can you claim that a raped woman requires 4 witnesses to prove her innocense, without giving any proof?

I can give you ample proof but I think SS can do a better job, being an ex-Muslim. I am surprised that you are not even aware of Islamic Laws. What type of a Muslim you are, dear ?


Now look at the following claims i'm going to make. And believe me i have proofs.
~Scientific errors in hindu scriptures
~scientific errors concerning Astronomy
~Women should be devoured by dogs in public places if she deceives her husband her another man
~Genetive organs were cut off if a woman is found guilty of carnal crime
~No property to the woman, slave and son
~Sati system
~Incest relationships(sexual) allowed between sister and brother.
~Man not to be blamed if he engages in sexual relationships with an unmarried girl.
~Insulting words from Lakshmana to sita, and all women
~Insulting words from Indra to women.
~Husband should be worshipped by wife
~Women considered to be untruth, darkness and sin.

Quote the scriptures, please. And please quote only Shruti in original Sanskrit version with translation & no other scripture. Hinduism has nearly 1000 scriptures. Any scripture which doesn't conform to Shruti is not Sabda PramAna, it has to be carefully interpreted in line with the Shrutis as they have metaphorical meanings. Just keep this in mind. Moreover, I have also told you the three ways Hindus use for seeking Truth. That must be kept in mind in interpreting any scripture. OK ? Now, please go ahead. Let me also see what Hindu scriptures you have read & how much you have understood. However, a dirty mind is expected to see dirt even in places where we expect the least ! It is just your own reflection.


What is the meaning of the sanskrit world "lingum" ?

I am sorry to disappoint you but it doesn't originally mean penis. OK ? “Lingam” or “Linga” means “identification sign”. In Hindi grammar, there are two types of “Lingas”, Male Linga or "Pulling", & Female Linga or "Strilinga". In Sanskrit Grammar it also has third Linga, "Napunshak Linga" or Neuter Linga. Shiva Linga means the sign which leads you to Shiva & not what your dirty mind thinks. There are some people selling this idea in the west but that is not what it is means. Yes, with the usage over time, “Linga” or “Lingum” was also used to denote penis.

Moreover, it is very difficult for you to understand the Hindu idea of God which sees divinity everywhere. And I have no desire to waste my time explaining you all this. Please be happy with your book & your prophet. I have no issues with that. I fail to understand why you are so desperate to prove that your religion is scientific, logical or teaches peace & non-violence. Did we go to ask you explanation ? Be happy in the delusion that after death there would be river of wine to make you fall drunk & 72 Hoors waiting for you to be penetrated by you. Happy ? Sorry, I have no such desire or delusion.

OM

kd gupta
10 November 2009, 09:44 AM
Very good narration , a good explanation and a slap on artificial ignorance ,great post Devoteeji .

satay
10 November 2009, 02:48 PM
Admin Note

Please keep it on the topic. Please do not make anti hindu posts. Please follow the rules of the site as outlined uner FAQ section of this forum.
If you have any questions about the rules of the forum, please PM me.

Thank you.

yajvan
10 November 2009, 03:51 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté




I am sorry to disappoint you but it doesn't originally mean penis. OK ? “Lingam” or “Linga” means “identification sign”. In Sanksrit grammar, there are two types of “Lingas”, Male Linga or "Pulling", & Female Linga or "Strilinga". Shiva Linga means the sign which leads you to Shiva ...OM
For those that wish to read more of what devotee has brought up, please consider this HDF post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3732&highlight=linga (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3732&highlight=linga)


praṇām

Spiritualseeker
10 November 2009, 06:39 PM
Namaste Devotee,

That was absolutely such a beautiful reply. I really dont think I should say anymore after your post. I bow to you the Yogi to be.


Now riyaaz,



What insanity are you talking about? If my agreeing to the fact that, under-puberty girls can be married is insanity, then i would say that Manu(the writer of hindu laws) is also an insane, since he allowed the marriage with under-puberty. I'm looking forward for you to respond this.
With love and sweetness


First let me advise you on something. You said with love and sweetness. In Islam you cannot be friends with kuffar (disbelievers) be they jews, christians, or others. In Islam you have walaa (love) for the mumineen (believers) and Baraa' (hatred or dissociation) from the Kuffar (disbelievers). So there is no love. So when we as Hindus and buddhist may say with Love , we mean with love, but in Islam you cannot use this terminology. Imam Nawawi who was a Muslim scholar and respected by many was one of the ancient scholars who actually considered love for the disbelievers, however you wont find this much in Islam.

Okay as far as the text you quoted, well I believe Devotee cleared that up. Also devotee says


Again, Hindus are not like Muslims & they keep questioning whatever is written in scriptures & keep adopting new scientific ideas.That is why a big part of Manusmriti no longer dictates the lives of Hindus. That is why that old system whatever is mentioned in Manusmriti has been declared illegal in India. This liberty is not available in Islam. In Islam, just blindly follow one book otherwise your head is chopped off !

I think that is a sufficient response. For myself I do not really consider myself Hindu. I do hindu practices and buddhist practices. But once again Devotee answered you quite sufficiently so enough said with that.


Now you keep saying you will leave Islam if we show you its wrong, yet each time we point out something you didnt know and that you used to reject you instead embrace it since you found out it is part of your religion.

Please do not try to tell us that MUHAMMAD did not have sex with Aisha when she was 9. It is the MOST REDICULOUS STATEMENT of yours to state that Muhammad APPROACHING Aisha is other than sex. ALL THE SCHOLARS ARE CLEAR THAT HE CONSUMATED THE MARRIAGE WITH AISHA WHEN SHE WAS 9. AISHA herself narrates this. Who should a muslim believe you or Aisha?

Now Devotee pointed out many things which you rejected. You again say that if we prove islam wrong you will leave it. But let me ask you. If I or Devotee show you proof that the Quran and Sunnah promote that which we have been stating will you LEAVE ISLAM or will you just ACCEPT it ?

That is the poison. How can you ask us to prove islam wrong when each time we point out that you Dont know your religion well you instead adopt what we have been stating and change your opinion? Before Aisha was specific to the Prophet. Then you were shown that you were not only wrong about it being allowed for all muslims, but that even the early Salaf (The sahabah, Tabi'een and Tab'tabieen) had child brides. You claim that Aisha had her menses which was true, and we pointed out the absurdity of penetrating a girl after their first menses. Its like you just jump right in the sack and penetrate the little girl that STILL PLAYED WITH DOLLS.

After that even though you admitted that Muhammad had sex with Aisha (with the defense of "she had her first menses") you claim that Muhammad approached her and that approach is not sex. Whereas the entire body of scholars never disagreed about this in the past! Are you inventing a new interpretation?

Devotee shows Muhsin Khan's translation and yet you want some ancient scholars?Thats fair enough, but do you not know that Muhsin Khan is very famous for his knowledge in hadith and making Sahih Bukhari and Sahih muslim with COMMENTARY OF THE EARLY SALAF available to the west!


SO now let me ask you. If we prove that Muhammad allowed terrorism, looting caravans, mutilations, beheadings, mass slaughter, killing of young boys, allowing companions to have sex with scaired slaves won from battle, had lustful desires, etc... will you leave islam? Or will you simply accept the proofs and now defend the proofs?

Because if it is the latter that you will do then there is no need discussing with you as this is a Hindu Forum. It is not a forum for Devotee and I to teach you your religion. That is what islamic forums are for. I do not want to entertain one who has no knowledge of his religion. You should have studied some course before coming here to convert us to the Terrorist religion of fake Allah and his pedophile prophet Muhammad.


OM
-Juan

atanu
10 November 2009, 10:40 PM
Guidance be upon all...
Asking a common hindu about how many gods he has, the answer will be 5 or 10 or even 1 million. Asking a learned hindu who has studied the scriptures the same question, the answer will be only One God. Why?
Because:
*Chandogya upanishad 6:2:1
"Ikkam ividityam" "God is only One"
*Shvetashvatara upanishad 6:9
"of Him there are no parents"
*Quran 112:1
"Say: He is God One and Only"
*Shvetashvatara u. 4:19the Absolute and Eternal. He begets not nor is He begotten. And there is nothing like Him
"His form cannot be seen"
*Bhagwad Gita 7:20
"materialistic people have been stolen by material desires, they worship fake gods besides the One True God"
*Quran 112:1-4
"Say. He is Allah One and Only. Allah the Absolute and Eternal. He begets not nor is He begotten. And there is nothing like Him"
*Yajurved 32:3
"of Him there are no images, He is Unborn , He alone should be worshipped"
*Yajurved 40:8-9
"Almighty God is imageless and pure. They are entering darkness those who worship the natural things(fire, trees, water, sun, moon etc) and they are entering more in darkness those who worship the created things(statues, idols, chair, table etc)"
*Atharvaved 20:50/58:3
"verily great is Almighty God"
*Rigved 1:164:46 , 10:114:5
"Truth is One. God is One. Sages call Him by various names"
*Rigved 8:1:1
"do not worship anyone except the One God"
*Rigved 6:45:16
"praise Him alone the One True God"
Brahama Sutra of the Vedanta is
"Bhagwan ek hi he, dousra nahi he, nahi he, nahi he, zara bhi nahi he"
"There is only One God, not a second, not at all, not at all, not in the least bit"
*Quran 112
"Say: He is Allah One and Only. Allah, the Absolute and Eternal. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And there is nothing like Him"
Arabic name "Allah" appears in Rigved 2:30:10 , 9:67:30
To be noted that Rigved is the most sacred book of hinduism.


Salaam and Namaste Riyaz,

Take this hand of friendship please. I know how you feel and you are only 19. Your stated dislike of Saudi type of Islam makes me somewhat optimistic that we may understand each other. No one is punished for one's true faith but punishment arises from the clinging to ego beliefs.

The above quote of your first post is OK in appearence but not OK in intent. I have seen and heard what ensues after that. If you are a man of Allah, you must be able to acknowledge to yourself that you had an agenda/desire to show Hinduism as lower. While you were citing Veda, still you wanted to conclude that Hindu faith was inferior. This is the work of ego and not of Allah. I do not say that you alone are following the dictate of your embedded values, which are actually from ego. But all of us do.

Quran also emphasises Truth, as does Veda. And truth is arrived at by experience and discriminative contemplation with an unburdened mind. The mind cannot hold on to some belief and yet know the truth. On this regard, I wish to say a few words. I understad that you are of my daughters age. My daughter does not pay any heed to my sayings, yet, I try to do my part. Take this hand of friendship.
------------------------------

Hindus do believe: "Brahman is One and Only. Brahman the Absolute and Eternal. It begets not nor is it begotten. And there is nothing like it". But Hindus also believe that there are 33 Crores of Gods. All is Brahman. Since, God has told us so.

Quran also says so, but most do not recognise it.


2.213. Mankind were one community, and Allah sent (unto them) Prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners, and revealed therewith the Scripture with the truth that mankind might judge concerning that wherein they differed. And unto whom (the Scripture) was given differed only through hatred one of another. And Allah by His will guided those who believe unto the truth of that concerning which they differed. Allah guideth whom He will unto a straight path.

Before this also,


2.204. And of mankind there is he whose conversation on the life of this world pleaseth thee (Muhammad), and he calleth Allah to witness as to that which is in his heart; yet he is the most rigid of opponents.

2.205. And when he turneth away (from thee) his effort in the land is to make mischief therein and to destroy the crops and the cattle; and Allah loveth not mischief.


Rigidity defeats everything. Verbal assertion of love of Allah is external and artificial, if the Heart is rigid. Mankind is indeed one. The differences are on account of hatred alone. One who has seen the truth as to why people differ violently, is guided on stright path by Allah. My Guru was asked what is the true religion. He said "Islam", which means surrender -- which is the ultimate teaching in our scripture. Guru Nanak also teaches "Be a true Muslim".

A Hindu who practises Lord's dictum of surrender 'fully' is practicing Islam (surrender). Whereas a physical Muslim, who harbors hatred of others, is like what is said below:


2.204. And of mankind there is he whose conversation on the life of this world pleaseth thee (Muhammad), and he calleth Allah to witness as to that which is in his heart; yet he is the most rigid of opponents.

2.205. And when he turneth away (from thee) his effort in the land is to make mischief therein and to destroy the crops and the cattle; and Allah loveth not mischief.

This is Universal and applies to us also.
-----------------------------

Since you have quoted a Vedic shruti, stating its similarity with teaching of Quran, I wish to prod you a little to contemplate. That is not against Islam, since it teaches Truth, and truth is not arrived at without silent contemplation.

You have quoted;


*Rigved 1:164:46 , 10:114:5
"Truth is One. God is One. Sages call Him by various names"

From above you will see God is Truth and there is no second truth.

But then what is Riyaz? Is Riyaz untrue, since the Truth is only One?
What is atanu? Is atanu untrue, since the Truth is only One?
-------------------------
What are all these friends? Are they also untrue, since the Truth is only One?

Dear Riyaz, if you contemplate you may understand why God is Transcendental, the Absolute and Eternal. Neither begots nor begotting, unlike every other thing. Yet there are 33 Crores of Gods, whom you need to love, before you can comprehend Allah.


I hope that we may, constructively and without any agenda to prove one another wrong or inferior, continue to explore the fine points of scripture.

Om

atanu
10 November 2009, 11:07 PM
Guidance be upon all...
*Yajurved 40:8-9
"Almighty God is imageless and pure. They are entering darkness those who worship the natural things(fire, trees, water, sun, moon etc) and they are entering more in darkness those who worship the created things(statues, idols, chair, table etc)"


Salaam and Namaste Riyaz,

The above is an indicator of mischief. The actual verses are:


12. To pitch darkness they go who worship the Unmanifested (the undifferentiated indestructible primordial NATURE). To a greater darkness than this go those who are devoted to the Manifested (Creation and the created).
13. Different indeed, they say, is the result (attained) by the worship of the Manifested and different indeed, they say, is the result (attained) by the worship of the Unmanifested. Thus have we heard from the wise who had explained it to us.
14. He who knows both the Unmanifested and the destructible manifested together, transcends death by the (worship of) the destructible and attains immortality by the (worship of ) the Unmanifested.


Om

riyaaz
10 November 2009, 11:15 PM
I don't know what's going on here. My three posts have been deleted. I had already replied. Moreover, if hindus have the right to take the offensive strategy against Islam, why i am not allowed?? And also, my three posts i gave my response, i don't know why they were deleted.

riyaaz
11 November 2009, 01:52 AM
I'm leaving this forum. I don't see liberty of expression here. Whenever i post some good response, they are being deleted. And i do not spam. All of you here, whatever arguement you have and shall have, know that i have all your answers. If anyone here want to continue this with reason, politeness and logic, i invite you to continue it via mail. My address is riyaaz321@rocketmail.com i hope this one will not be deleted. I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger.

Spiritualseeker
11 November 2009, 06:00 AM
Thank you for your time here. I suggest you go take a basic dawah course and basic aqeedah course to learn just the basics of islam before you start calling others to Islam. I hope that you do realize someday that Islam is not what you think it to be.

OM
-juan

satay
11 November 2009, 06:33 AM
Admin Note

Namaskar riyaaz,

I deleted your posts as they were against the rules of this forum. In fact, I banned you earlier from this forum for the same reason but gave you a second chance which I never do. However, I wanted to prove to myself that I was right in the first place. Ego, yes.

I am sorry that you consider deletion of your posts which were against the rules of the forum as not allowing your the freedom of expression. With freedom of expression comes responsibility. You took responsibility of following the forum rules at registration time. After registration you decided to spam us by creating anti hindu posts. Thus your first ban. After reactivation of your account, you cotinued to post anti hindu posts.
Your actions have led me believe that you were lying at the time of registration and you were lying again when you sent me an email requesting me to activate your account again.

On a Hindu forum, no one really cares or should care who or what Allah or muhamad is. Even those who see God having no form would rather pray to Shiva and dare not follow your prophet.

Perhaps the fact that Islam forum exists in HDF has confused you. The Islam section exists here among other abrhamic religions so that a peaceful discussion could be had with a member of that faith. Usually the context of discussion should be of dharmic bend even in those forums. I do not allow those who would like to shove their religion down our throats. This is part of my duties here... to clean up the mess.

When you have the ability to analyse your own faith with reason and the ability to discuss it with politeness and logic with members of other faiths and the ability to follow simple rules of a web site, then at that time, come back again. Till, then I will be banning your account.

Thanks,

I'm leaving this forum. I don't see liberty of expression here. Whenever i post some good response, they are being deleted. And i do not spam. All of you here, whatever arguement you have and shall have, know that i have all your answers. If anyone here want to continue this with reason, politeness and logic, i invite you to continue it via mail. My address is riyaaz321@rocketmail.com i hope this one will not be deleted. I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger.

Eastern Mind
11 November 2009, 06:43 AM
Vanakkam Satay: Have said it before, but will again. Thanks for the due diligence. More than fair.

Aum Shanthi