RE:JGN or jaganath open question to you sir
by prakash on Apr 12, 2008 08:51 PM Permalink
dear momin chudwani..
great taquiya by you calling yourself as a ahtiest ...keepit up..
sati- can you show me 1 case of SATI in last 25 years!! plz do child marriage, it does exist coz of economic social backwardness, may be in some tribal areas...
caste system is on death bed, it will be history in a decade or two except in politics...
RE:JGN or jaganath open question to you sir
by JGN on Apr 12, 2008 08:58 PM Permalink
Mr.CHAMPATLAL CHUDWANI, pl see the responses of the so-called believers and persons like me who do not beleive in any "supreme creator" and understand the difference for yourself.
RE:JGN or jaganath open question to you sir
by prakash on Apr 12, 2008 09:03 PM Permalink
who is beliver , who is non beliver, I do not belive in supernatural thingie either..
RE:JGN or jaganath open question to you sir
by basava naik on Apr 12, 2008 09:25 PM Permalink
Hinduism is not merely a relegion it is more than that.One should practice it then only he will know what is it. You study Bhagavadgita under the guidence of well known Acharya, it will helps you understand what is relegion....SATI and CHILD MARRIAGE is not relegious practice. Why ? we heard about it only some part of India not all over AKHAND BHARATH.Cast system introduced to organise and for welfare of the human society. For now it is obselete. Now also we have such system in different name-If everyone want to become BOSS how the company will run. Why now a days politicians son /daughter become politician? Is it necessary????
RE:JGN or jaganath open question to you sir
by Surya Kanishka on Apr 12, 2008 08:55 PM Permalink
Champatlal Chodwani,
What ever raising is a history in the most of India, You are well aware that Sati has been eliminated long back ago except for roop kanwar in Rajasthan which itself is a stray issue.
As for the child marriages is concerned it remains in some pockets which will be also elimated by time passing. But this practice is still prevalent even in the US forget the production machines of India Mushs.
Caste Ssytem is diminishing day by day and you find intercaste marriages are quite common now and it will also be elimated in the coming years even if its sustaining in the rural pockets.
RE:JGN or jaganath open question to you sir
by JGN on Apr 12, 2008 08:50 PM Permalink
All these things have been abloshied by law. Even today the Muslims and Christians are sticking to their religious dogmas. Read the "Hindu Succession Act" and corresponding "Succession Acts" of other religins as a sample.
No sane hindu will tell you that we have to follow the outdated religious dogmas. Despite all short comings , Hinduism is dynamic enough to change with times.
Also hinduism is not a religion in its narrow sense. It is a coglomeration of various beliefs and even non-beliefs also. Atheists exised even in Vedic periods and were called Charvakas.
WHENEVER THIS LUNDONISATAN PISSLAMIQ TERRORIST COMES TO INDIA UNDER BRITISH-ENDGLAND DEPORTATION TO BANGLORE CITY, HE MUST BE SLIT IN HALF VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALLY BY THE SLICING MACHINES MADE IN ENDGLANDS OF UNITED KONDOMES THAT ARE SPECIFICALY MADE TO RENDER THE PISSLAMIQ TERRORISTS USELESS FOR GOOD OF ALL THE WORLD'S MEANKINDS(DANGLOSEXON-PISSLAMIQ-TERRORBEASTS)
RE:prophet
by balaord on Apr 12, 2008 08:44 PM Permalink
Those who Question the marriage of Ayesha the mother of belivers -simply doesnt know the affection she had for Prophet Muhammed and dont know how they lived together.As to the mental maturity of Ayesha.You should only know that a huge portion of Islamic legal system and jurispudence is taken from her interpretation of Prophet-s sayings.And to talk of her being a innocuous child some how duped into am abusive marriage is a utter travesty of truth.
RE:RE:prophet
by deepak on Apr 13, 2008 10:43 AM Permalink
Nobody knows anything about Islam Bala..go and preach to jihadis who kill...it doesnt matter what Ayesha was, just reign in your terrorists.
RE:prophet
by balaord on Apr 12, 2008 08:45 PM Permalink
1400 years ago , women were not playing with dolls and they were much more mature both physically and mentally.
Just check the age of British Queens 6 centuries back.This is not an anonmoly.This is the norm
etoile.co.uk/Columns/Paul/060129.html
King Edward II - His wife Isabella of France was 12 at the time of marriage King Richard II - Married the daughter of daughter of King Charles VI of France,Isabella de Valois when she was 8 King Henry III -Mariied Eleanor of Provence when she was 13
RE:RE:prophet
by prakash on Apr 12, 2008 11:15 PM Permalink
thanks Balord , you compared Mohammed a thuggie with the kings of britain, thanx for acknowledging the Muhammed was a mere human (with psychological problems ) like british monarchy..
RE:RE:prophet
by deathtocongress on Apr 12, 2008 08:48 PM Permalink
few fools does not mean all r fools, and anyways those women are not respected by anyone so is ayesha
RE:prophet
by balaord on Apr 12, 2008 08:44 PM Permalink
Prophet Muhammed married Ayesha with her permission after he attained puberty at the age of 9.Puberty is a biological sign which shows that a women is capable of bearing children. Can anyone logically deny this? This is certainly not something that Islam invented,this has been the norm of cultures and nations.Today the civilized world considers same sex marriage perfectly legal so it is no wonder the natural bilogical permission for marriage seems to belong -primitive societies.
As to his alleged old age (he was the commander in chief of his army not a shabby saint with hanging skin).You should know Prophet-s marriage to Aishah was an exceedingly happy one for both of them.If you couple this with the fact that attaining the age of puberty varies with countries and races due to the climate, hereditary, physical and social conditions, you wouldnt be asking this question.
RE:prophet
by deathtocongress on Apr 12, 2008 08:46 PM Permalink
i corrected u yesterday, again ur making the same mistake. he married her at the age of 6 but took ayesha to her home when she attained puberty at 9. it is told by ur new prophet zakir naik, nay doubts type zakir naik in youtube and see his version of islam
RE:Deport him to pakisthan
by deathtocongress on Apr 12, 2008 08:26 PM Permalink
they never were indians but this pseudo secular congress will give them warm welcome
RE:Deport him to pakisthan
by prakash on Apr 12, 2008 08:25 PM Permalink
how many you can send to pakistan, they were real muslims, note that India is home to second largest muslim population in the world!!
Do you want me to beleive that the "Spanish inquistions" and witch hunting in Europe in which hundreds of thousnds of women were burnt alive just because of one sentence in the Bible (thou shall not suffer a witch) were due to some greed for power???
RE:@ Balaord
by JGN on Apr 12, 2008 08:27 PM Permalink
Pl download and read The Necessity of Atheism by Dr. D.M. Brooks available freely at Project Gutenberg. That book has graphic description of atrocities committed in the name of Christianity and Islam. (Now don't say that I know this one book only - I have read dozens of books, but this one is easy to understand and available freely).
RE:RE:RE:@ Balaord
by JGN on Apr 12, 2008 08:29 PM Permalink
One parallel was the capturing of about 700 Jjews and lining them up on a trench by your Prophet himself. After slaying the jews, he enjoyed the widow of one of them on the very same night!
RE:@ Balaord
by balaord on Apr 12, 2008 08:35 PM Permalink
You sound as if these jews were innocent people grazing their cows in field and Prophet Muhammed killed them.
First of all - They are not general Jews-they are just one tribe of jews,no harm was done to other jews.
secondly these numbers were exaggerated.
This jewsish tribe called Bani quaiza betrayed the Muslim army after their allegiance of support. what will you get when a support group in a war if found to be aiding the enemy? These jews were given verdict by the judge they themslves chose and given punishmnet according to old testament.This is what war gives and this is how traitors are punsihed.
RE:@ Balaord
by JGN on Apr 12, 2008 08:37 PM Permalink
So, the so-called revealations of the "most merciful creator" were created to suit specific circumstances? Why you people cannot understand this simple truth? You can only fool the gullible believers but not people like me who have knowledge of many religions and their so-called holy books.
RE:@ Balaord
by balaord on Apr 12, 2008 08:39 PM Permalink
who said it is for specific time?even today if a group betrays the army in battlefield-this is what they will get. There is no time bound issue here.
RE:@ Balaord
by JGN on Apr 12, 2008 09:05 PM Permalink
2:216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
RE:RE:@ Balaord
by deepak on Apr 13, 2008 10:45 AM Permalink
Absolutely Bala...your prophet stole the religion of the Jews and sneaked in his name as a prophet...terror and fascism has been the hallmark of Islam since then from which the world has'nt known much respite.
RE:@ Balaord
by prakash on Apr 12, 2008 08:23 PM Permalink
who said christianity was less evil, it was more evil in mideval times, have your heardof portugese inquisitions in GOA, in India ..yes.
but christianity almost tamed, it is time to tame another terrorist inhumane ideology called Izlam
RE:@ Balaord
by deathtocongress on Apr 12, 2008 08:31 PM Permalink
izlam has reached the term of adolacence in term of religious duration, so it is lil aggressive dont worry we are they to tame it
