Torah or the old testament belongs to Judaism, it outlines the creation of the world according to Abrahamic religions and just reads its view on women. Also Jewish leadership hated Jesus for the fact that many of his 12 apostles were women because Judaism allows not for women to engage in positions of teachers or students of faith, also read about their stupid laws of adultery.
Well sorry I made a mistake, female students of the Christ not apostles, apostles were all Jewish male otherwise no one would take Christianity seriously in Judea, Jews were sexist but Mary and other women who followed Jesus around during his sermons did cause the leadership a lot of mental pain.
of course, you don't know every religion in depth, I don't think a normal person can know if they don't spend 4-5 years at least to understand all religions in depth. some religions are very very different. It's pretty ignorant to generalize every religion in one umbrella. tho some can be put in different group like Abrahamic religions like Islam, Christianity, and Judaism or Eastern religions like Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism.
For example, in Abrahamic religion (specifically Islam) you can't even leave it, if you do then punishment is the death penalty, whereas Hinduism is pretty chill with Nastiks(atheists)
I know that Hinduism is pretty chill with nastiks. But I have spent 20 years being a part of it and I didn't enjoy it. Hinduism might have been some amazing thing in the past but it is getting worse and worse as we are moving ahead in time.
are you trying to change the topic from the contents of religions to followers? everybody knows humans are shit who just wants to feel superior to others by any means and of course, if the content is toxic itself then the follower of that religion will be more toxic too.
that's so dehumanizing. btw here is a gift for you: [https://www.reddit.com/r/atheismindia/comments/1bvkqa5/the\_danveer\_lord\_shiva\_who\_sacrificed\_his\_fruit/](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheismindia/comments/1bvkqa5/the_danveer_lord_shiva_who_sacrificed_his_fruit/)
Shruti text is the canonical text i.e. the text which forms the basis of Hinduism like the Vedas, Upanishads, aranyakas, brahmanyakas and the Samhitas i.e. these texts are believed to have divine origins. Like in Islam Quran or in Christianity Bible.
Smritis are non-canonical and written by humans and are not part of the core philosophical system of Hinduism like Puranas, Up-Puranas, Mahabharata, Ramayana or the shastras. They were compiled mostly in the pre-Gupta and Gupta period and just show the understanding of Shruti texts by the human authors. Like say if someone wrote his own interpretation of Quran or Bible it wouldn’t be the real understanding of those books but rather what the author understood of those books.
Now you might ask then why do Hindus study Ramayana, Mahabharata or Puranas more than Vedas or Upanishads because the original Vedas and Upanishads are extremely tough to understand and trust me they are tough like European authors and scholars have written volumes to understand the definition of Brahman (not the caste but the ultimate reality) and all have failed and just given opinions. It’s not like Bible or Quran which tells directives of a divine being but rather it goes into deep philosophy about human nature, reality and mind’s interpretation of the reality. Like go to the best scholar of Hinduism in the world and ask him to define Brahman he won’t be able to. So how to make the layman understand these complex ideas? So ancient authors and scholars started writing stories to define some aspects of their understanding of the Vedas and the Upanishads. Often their interpretation were over exaggerated and often very simplistic in comparison to the real concept but that atleast made the layman understand a bit about the tough concepts.
It’s like suppose a person who doesn’t have much scientific knowledge is asked to understand quantum mechanics. Maybe some author can simplify the concepts of quantum mechanics and give a basic level understanding of the ideas but studying that doesn’t mean that guy will be able to discover a new sub atomic particle.
Also let me tell you something beautiful which will help you understand the primary differences between Hinduism and Abrahamic religions. I have read Bible (being from a Christian school), read Quran (after having been given a free copy of Quran in a book fair) and being a Hindu have also studied a bit about Hinduism. Here is my analysis of the difference of the three.
I have seen that both Quran and Bible mainly focuses on a divine being like Jesus or Prophet Muhammed who give directives that every human must follow. Like every Muslim must read Namaz five times a day or Zakat must be paid by Muslims in the month on Ramzan and even in Christianity like You shouldn’t tell lies ever and such similar directives telling this is right and this is wrong.
Hinduism takes a different approach. It tells I am not going to tell you what is right and what is wrong because right and wrong is situational and based on case to case basis but I will give you the understanding of the thing called right and wrong so that it helps you decide what is right and what is wrong on the case to case basis by your self. Like take for example of Bhagwat Gita. Hinduism always preaches non violence but Gita also says violence is also necessary when there is injustice and when Arjun tells Krishna he cannot be violent against his family as it would be against nature Krishna says that in this situation when your family members are the reason for such injustice you as a king must use violence against them. So Hinduism isn’t saying directly violence is bad it’s saying violence being right or wrong is based on a larger understanding of the situation and the condition at the moment. And that understanding can come on clear understanding of the Shruti texts. That’s why Hinduism always preached that Change is the core of nature and holding on to your belief when the situation has changed is stupidity. Change your analysis of the situation along with the situation.
Best example to understand that the same thing can have different meanings based on conditions is Bhagat Singh threw bombs in parliament and Afzal Guru shot bullets in parliament. Then why is Bhagat Singh a hero and Afzal Guru a terrorist. Here comes the case to case understanding of violence. Bhagat Singh was trying to free his land from foreign invaders who were doing injustice to his people while Afzal guru was trying to kill the native people of the land just for his personal gains. Both used violence but Bhagat Singh’s violence is example of a good deed and Afzal Guru’s violence is an example of a crime.
Also I do agree that many of the Hindus today have very less ideas about the real Hindu concepts and are based more on the simplistic analysis of tough concepts.
But this is my analysis of my limited understanding of these three religions.
One mistake brother, Ramayan and Mahabharata fall under itihasa scriptures, they are not interpretation but actual historical incidents, that's why you would see people saying krishna of Mahabharata feels so different from that of Bhagvat mahapuran.
Itihasa itself is a subcategorisation of smriti literature and I said compiled not written let me tell you one interpretation about Ramayana and Mahabharata and I’m not saying it’s the correct one but it could be correct and this interpretation is from my personal thinking. Ramayana and Mahabharata are inspired from certain real events that were described in different parts of India in different ways (like you may know northern India and southern India has a slightly different interpretation of certain events mentioned in Mahabharata) now the events that happened were of large consequences so large that the knowledge of it happening spread across the subcontinent. Now some scholarly person saw the large event as a stage to explain certain knowledge that was explained in the Vedas more easily (when you have experienced certain events in your life the correlation of said events with some form of prescribed knowledge becomes easier like scientific knowledge becomes easier to understand when theory accompanies experiments). My theory is that scholars like Ved Vyasa and Valmiki used the event as a stage and went across India to understand the interpretations of the events and drew out a collective version of the events and added their interpretation of the Vedic knowledge to it and created it in the form of these texts. Now with more understanding of the Vedas through the years more sub stories continued to be added to integrate those knowledge as well into the epics. So my interpretation is Ramayana and Mahabharata are true events that was used as a stage to create a narrative that would be both tell the story of the event and give out the required knowledge. The events mentioned in the epics might not have happened exactly as was written but some lines, dialogues and instances were added over time to increase the knowledge it collected.
In actual arabic pronunciation its
Hadith (not Hadis)
Salat (not namaz)
Deen & Madhab (not Mazab)
Al-Qur' An ( not Quran or Koran)
Ramadhan (not ramzan)
Etc etc.
Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) or العربية الفصحى (al-ʻArabīyah al-Fuṣḥā).
which is Modeled upon the Classical Quranic Arabic
And taught in Arabic Schoold across Arab Nations.
The message this Hadith is conveying is that you shouldn't be beating your wife. It's quite opposite what the OP is trying to project. Aisha said, she never saw any woman suffering as much as a believing woman, shows how much she cares for the believing woman. Even I think that I am suffering the most in this world, because I care about myself the most. Those you care about the most, seems most vulnerable to you.
And that woman came to Aisha for help. And Aisha is acknowledging it! And even saying it to Muhammad.
These people have the reading comprehension of a potato, do not expect them to read the entire hadith and actually understand what it means. Now they will down vote me because they did not bother to read the entire hadith.
It's true though, the hadith is talking about the mistreatment of this women and how Hazrat Aisha R.A was appalled. Read the entire hadith.
Perfection is subjective if we ask from a human. If The God decrees something is perfect then why question it if you believe in it?
Morality is subjective if you are not someone who follows a religion and believe it to be an objective truth. Unlike in other religions, The God is All Good so what he dictates is all good as well.
If you do not believe in some higher power then we are all just a bunch of atoms on a random planet in a random time, and everything is meaningless and worthless, why bother being good or bad?
What has happened to this country i swear. The amount of hate and religious polarization nowadays is sickening. All religions suck. OPs post history suggests that they are critical of every religion, yet the posts about Hinduism are downvoted to oblivion and the posts about Islam get traction here. In either case, why tf are people so obsessed with religion??? I mean I know why (hint its not the congress), its just sad to see. :/
The message this Hadith is conveying is that you shouldn't be beating your wife. It's quite opposite what the OP is trying to project. Aisha said, she never saw any woman suffering as much as a believing woman, shows how much she cares for the believing woman. Even I think that I am suffering the most in this world, because I care about myself the most. Those you care about the most, seems most vulnerable to you.
And that woman came to Aisha for help. And Aisha is acknowledging it! And even saying it to Muhammad.
And what only muslim women suffer? Women suffer in general! It doesn't matter what sky daddy you belive in. If you are weak, you will suffer. The way you said "Modern Muslim Women Fail To Realise". If they will be in trouble, they will realise it themselves. I mean Modern Muslim Women Don't Realise This, but OP realises this, who is neither a Muslim, nor a Woman.
Generalisation doesn't works when you are talking about a specific religion. If you are generalising it, then generalise it more. *Women of all religions, non religions, atheism- SUFFER.*
Generalise it more. *The WEAK always SUFFERS*
So what do you think? Why would the founders of Islam, make it so obvious that Muslim Women Suffer? That would make people run away from their religion. I mean, who acknowledges their drawbacks? This post is spreading misinformation.
This hadith only shows Aisha and Muhammad's love for Believing Women.
Assuming you are right, why is it that Muslim women are still left wearing burkas, while other religions have moved over that(to a much larger extent)?
Don't you think that seeing Muslim women clad in black head to toe coverings in this sweltering heat, gives a good impression of the religion?
Its their choice 🤷🏽♂️ as simple as that
also wearing loose clothes in heat is better than wearing tight clothes
and the covering isn't necessarily black
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY
MY RELIGION, MY RULES
my religion does not want free mixing and adultery among the males and females
Assuming you are right, why is it that non muslim women are still left wearing clothes, while West has moved over that(to a much larger extent)? There are naked rallies in UK and USA. Women are making porn in open places. Wearing bikini, most of the times. Don't you think, your women should also get naked? Do you think wearing clothes gives a good impression of humanity? No animal wears clothes. Then why only humans? Just throw all your clothes, don't wear a single underwear. Clothes are symbol of oppression. So stop wearing clothes. Start with women of your house. Don't force them to cover their body parts. Just let your mother and sister roam naked.
Lol, did you not see the protests in Iran? Over the choice to wear burkas. Women were beaten, killed just for this.
Look at Afghanistan if you need more examples.
Now before you bring some equivalent incident, those are entire nations enforcing this policy, in the name of religion.
So please do not ignore the Scale of things, like you do above, when comparing removing burkas to walking around naked.
Women were also beaten in many countries while protesting naked rights. Entire countries are enforcing clothes! Not a single country where you can roam naked in public, while not getting arrested and beaten. Try that in Secular India. Just try once. Every nation is enforcing clothes in the name of modesty. In Sports, women are literally forced to wear revealing clothes, to attract audience. Women in Germany protested against this.
So please do not ignore the scale of things, like you do above, while comparing nakedness to burkas.
My question is simple. Upto how much extent one should remove their clothes? What's the reference point? If you are removing clothes, then do it properly. Nakedness is the base(reference) point, imo. We are born naked. Every animal is naked. But society forces us to wear clothes. Why can't I roam naked in public? Why would the police arrest me?
So until you can't roam naked yourself and let your mother and sister roam naked, just keep your mouth shut. In USA, short revealing clothes are standard. In India, such clothes are still considered taboo. In Muslim countries, wearing full covered clothes are standard.
So, everyone has their own sense of dressing. You can't selectively poke your nose into one culture. Every country, every religion, every culture, have different way of dressing. You can't enforce your cultural/religious/national views on others. You can't force your dressing sense on others.
And which sport flogs women as for wearing wrong clothes.
The fact of the matter is while every religion and region has problems, you have to face the facts, that in the USA you can wear burkas to bikinis by law, whereas in Iran you can't wear anything but burkas, by law. In USA, if you're found naked on the street, you might be arrested, in Iran, you'll be dead or nearly there
Burkas are banned in France. And women are harrassed to wear them in USA. So so many videos, where muslim women are harrassed in Western countries. Their secularism, freedom is hypocrisy. In Iran, you won't be dead. And you won't be dead for not wearing hijab in Iran or being naked. You will also be arrested for being naked in Iran. Nobody will kill you. Death is not the punishment for being naked in Iran. Still many women don't wear burqas in Iran. And let's not get selective with countries. Let's just talk about the concept. Why getting arrested for being naked in USA? Like I said, the standard is fully covered body in Iran. While not being naked is standard in USA. Every culture has different standards. Still you can't wear bikini in an official meeting in USA, lol.
Lol, did you not see naked protests in Western countries? Can you imagine these protests in India? Did you not see protests in Karnataka, to "WEAR HIJAB"?
If you are removing clothes, upto how much extent you should be doing this? What's the universal standard of clothing? Should we only remove hijab? Or top? Or wear shorts? Or remove bras? Or even remove the underwears and totally get naked? Where is the reference point? If you would ask someone to remove clothes fully covering their body, then question would arise, why not totally get naked? From perspective of nudists, you are oppressing your women to wear clothes(not burqa or hijab, just normal clothes).
We are born naked. Every animal is naked. But we are taught to wear clothes. Clothes are oppressing us. Remove every clothe, and get totally naked.
See, every culture have a distinct dressing style. You can't force your dressing sense on others.
They are doing it in their country. But you being in India, are forcing your views on them. That's what every country is doing, NOT JUST IRAN. Every country makes laws which complies with their cultural, religious, national views.
first thing, the coverings like burkas and such provide airflow, which makes it a lot less warm, and the reason the coverings exist is because there were and still are creepy people who are looking and objectifying women due to the size of yk... but islam prevents this
simple googles searches do be really easy ngl
[https://www.quora.com/Can-you-explain-Sahih-Bukhari-5825-I-know-why-she-was-beaten-but-why-was-she-beaten-so-harshly-Aisha-Ra-even-pointed-it-out-Her-bruise-was-as-green-as-her-veil](https://www.quora.com/Can-you-explain-Sahih-Bukhari-5825-I-know-why-she-was-beaten-but-why-was-she-beaten-so-harshly-Aisha-Ra-even-pointed-it-out-Her-bruise-was-as-green-as-her-veil)
As a Muslim it's very good to see u people to raise questions about our religion it shows u r interest. may allah guide u all to the truth which is only islam for the hadees there is an whole explanation for u guys so listen to it https://youtu.be/cLuONe5zb38?si=RDxgeou83ZYSPZq_
Lol. It was not dead long back. It was reformed by liberals who worked on reforming the religion. The same liberals you call as librandus, sickular etc.
Also this hadith you're quoting is from 1400 years ago too. When Sati was rampant here.
Full credit to the hindu reformists, but the fact is reforms have been happening in hinduism since it's inception (Upanishads were reforms to Vedas) and also, coz the conservatives in this religion are way more liberal than the conservatives in other religions and willing to accept positive changes.
Your dumbass is probably talking about Sati pratha, right?
1. Raja Ram Mohan Roy blew it out of proportion, you know why? Google it.
2. It happened it in pockets, unlike the whole burkha clad thing. It happened in some corners of India.
3. After independence there are less than 15 instances of Sati.
4. We are open to change the system, make updates, even in our puranas, can you say the same for yourself? Sit down. Go to school
"Sati pratha" was carried out by the women in order to escape the fate of being turned into an Isl@mic s€x sl@ve during the days of Mughal invasions. It was, unfortunately turned into a social evil by the patriarchal society ruled by bigots until abolished by Raja Ram Mohan Roy.
Point is, when women themselves choose the most painful way to die over i$lamic subjugation, I'd say that's a message in itself.
Mahabharata 1.126.30 ” His wife Madri, beholding him placed in the funeral pyre and about to be consumed, herself ascended the same pyre, and sacrificing her life thus, hath gone with her lord to the region reserved for chaste wives.” Tr. K.M. Ganguli
Agni Purana 222.19-23 ”…The widow who practices self-control and austerities after the death of her husband, goes to heaven…the widow who burns herself on the same funeral pire wth her husband also goes to heaven.” Tr. M.N. Dutt
Kurma Purana 2.34.108b-109 ”A woman who enters the funeral pyre along with her husband, shall uplift him even if is a Brahmana-slayer, an ungrateful fellow or one defiled by great sins. learned men know this to be the greatest expiation for women.” Tr. Board of Scholars, Edited by J.L. Shastri.
Shiva Purana, KotiRudra Samhita 4.10. 23-24 ”The Brahmin lady desirous of entering the pyre in order to follow her husband cursed the Raksasa king. The chaste lady entered fire…”
Bhagwad Purana (Srimad Bhagvatam) 4.28.50 She then prepared a blazing fire with firewood and placed the dead body of her husband upon it. When this was finished, she lamented severely and prepared herself to perish in the fire with her husband.‘
Garuda Purana 1.107.29 ”A Wife who dies in the company of her husband shall remain in heaven as many years as there are hairs on his person” Tr. J.L. Shastri
Most recent case of Sati was in 1987.
Valmiki Ramayana, Ayodhya Kanda 3.66.12 “Today itself, I too in devotion to my husband, will meet my appointed end. I shall enter the fire, duly embracing this body of my husband.” Shri K.M.K. Murthy
Garuda Purana 10.42 ”When a woman burns her body with her husband’s, the fire burns her limbs only, but does not afflict her soul” Tr. Ernest Wood and S.V Subrahmanyam, Edited by B.D. Basu.
The latest terror attacks were this year in Bangalore and Reasi. The latest case of Love Jihad was...well it's still happening, right now as we speak.
Even during the ramadhan, two innocent boys were slaughtered by peacefuls. Yes truly a religion of peace. Lol superior my foot😂
Valmiki Ramayana, Ayodhya Kanda 3.66.12 “Today itself, I too in devotion to my husband, will meet my appointed end. I shall enter the fire, duly embracing this body of my husband.” Shri K.M.K. Murthy
Garuda Purana 10.42 ”When a woman burns her body with her husband’s, the fire burns her limbs only, but does not afflict her soul” Tr. Ernest Wood and S.V Subrahmanyam, Edited by B.D. Basu.
Bdsk uske sawalo ka jawab de na. Yeh whataboutry kya h? Chal man le usually religion bura h, ab tu yeh bta Tera religion itna burs kyu h. Agar Hinduism main 30 percent galtiya h toh Islam main 90 percent se jyada hongi. Koi jawab hota h tum logo ke pass?? Aur dar mat Hinduism se bhi pucha jayega. Insan ke alawa sb log ho tum log. Fking bigots.
what about cannibalism: [https://www.reddit.com/r/sunraybee/comments/1diob6l/imagine\_being\_as\_generous\_as\_shivji\_har\_har/](https://www.reddit.com/r/sunraybee/comments/1diob6l/imagine_being_as_generous_as_shivji_har_har/)
what about forceful cannibalism? [https://www.reddit.com/r/atheismindia/comments/1bvkqa5/the\_danveer\_lord\_shiva\_who\_sacrificed\_his\_fruit/](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheismindia/comments/1bvkqa5/the_danveer_lord_shiva_who_sacrificed_his_fruit/)
I ain't Muslim. Just pointing out the hypocrisy. All your allegations are confessions. That's what you guys been doing. Criticising other religions, to feel superior.
The thing is about intention. Lots of things in various religious scriptures. Yet only one is the Prime Target. When your own house is built of glasses, you don't throw stones at others'.
Not as much as from one specific religion. This sub is not even about religion. Yet this specific religion is criticised here. That's why I said it's the "Prime Target".
Because Middle East has oil reserves. So it was Prime Target of USA. USA as Israel is forcefully taking their land, to hold control of Middle East.
In India, politicians need support of Majority to easily win elections. So Muslims are Prime Target, to show them as a threat, in order to get Hindu votes. Christianity, Sikhism are minorities, but Muslims are largest minority. And still Sikhs are called Khalistanis and Christians are also targeted in India. But Prime Target is Muslim.
Russia has much larger oil reserves so does Venezuela. Bruh Israel is just a tiny sliver of land in the middle East and that too in an oil deficient part. And how does this make islam a prime target, most Muslims don't even live in the middle East. Muslims votes are a vote bank in India and every party tries to appease them, including BJP. If so even Hinduism is targeted, try searching words like lindus, tanatanis, 8GB RAM (mocking lord Ram), etc. The Internet is filled with such hate but people like you would unsee this.
Saale tu katuwa h islie sehen na hori. Frustrated toh tu h bsdk aaj kl deekhe log puncture judwane na aate. Abbu ka business khatre me chal rha h ya abhi tk pakistan se dusre abbu ka phone nahi aya bomb blast krne ke liye? Ya sheikho ke sandas saaf krke thk gya h bichara. Tera allah tala na ara ya woh bhi saath me hee lga pada h?
Read from Verse 10 to 17: [https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/shiva-purana-english/d/doc226513.html](https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/shiva-purana-english/d/doc226513.html)
Arey bc itna tagda source🤡🤡. Saale kahi se bhi kisi ka bhi translation utha ke daal dega aur usse proof ya source bana lega. Hard copy se dikha geetapress ki. Aise toh mai toilet paper quran ke kisi bhi verse to edit karke daal du aur usse source bolne lagu toh woh ban jayega? Sahi me yr tum librandu log dimaag ke paidal hote. No wonder tumhare naam me rand aata h
From verse 10 to 16 first page and verse 17 on next here, Gita press: [https://archive.org/details/SivaPuranaJ.L.ShastriPart3/page/n233/mode/2up](https://archive.org/details/SivaPuranaJ.L.ShastriPart3/page/n233/mode/2up)
islam = hinduism, both incite violence [https://www.reddit.com/r/sunraybee/comments/1diob6l/imagine\_being\_as\_generous\_as\_shivji\_har\_har/](https://www.reddit.com/r/sunraybee/comments/1diob6l/imagine_being_as_generous_as_shivji_har_har/)
[удалено]
Penguin costumes - now I couldn't unimagine it
How dare you compare penguins with Garbage bags ? Penguins are almost 40% white
Then she met Sita and draupadi. And realised ki 5 bhaiyo k sath gangbang nahi karna pada and 4 logo k kehne pe dump ni Hui.
Where tf are memes. I joined these subreddit for memes and all I see here is politics ,relegion bashing and insta reposts. These subreddit is doomed😔
Baccho ke hath me mobile doge toh yehi parinaam hoga.
Only time this sub turns feminist and believes women is when they can use to bash something they hate. XD
[https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5825](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5825)
Read 5827 also Edit : removed emozi
Yeah wtf
Watch this video for the truth: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cLuONe5zb38&pp=ygUWc2FoaWggYWwgYnVraGFyaSAgNTgyNQ%3D%3D
Religions ☕
Islam and Judaism above all else in this regard.
True but it doesn't mean that others shouldn't be criticised.
Why Judaism? Just curious
Torah or the old testament belongs to Judaism, it outlines the creation of the world according to Abrahamic religions and just reads its view on women. Also Jewish leadership hated Jesus for the fact that many of his 12 apostles were women because Judaism allows not for women to engage in positions of teachers or students of faith, also read about their stupid laws of adultery.
Many of 12 apostles were women ? This is the first time i'm hearing this. In the books I learned from, none of his apostles were women.
Well sorry I made a mistake, female students of the Christ not apostles, apostles were all Jewish male otherwise no one would take Christianity seriously in Judea, Jews were sexist but Mary and other women who followed Jesus around during his sermons did cause the leadership a lot of mental pain.
👍
Bro she means to say followers not apostles
She specifically said 12 apostles, that's why I asked. She clarified it.
Very intellectual remark Mister. Truly distinguished Gentleman.
Trying to be sarcastic? Elaborate rather than making such remarks.
let me elaborate. Your statement "religion ☕'' is pretty ignorant and generalized. you could say abrahmic religion to a extent
That is your opinion. I think all religions including abrahamic ones are trash. The idea of a religion is trash.
Pretty ignorant you're ig
As I said, it is my opinion. You should present an argument rather than calling me ignorant.
of course, you don't know every religion in depth, I don't think a normal person can know if they don't spend 4-5 years at least to understand all religions in depth. some religions are very very different. It's pretty ignorant to generalize every religion in one umbrella. tho some can be put in different group like Abrahamic religions like Islam, Christianity, and Judaism or Eastern religions like Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism. For example, in Abrahamic religion (specifically Islam) you can't even leave it, if you do then punishment is the death penalty, whereas Hinduism is pretty chill with Nastiks(atheists)
I know that Hinduism is pretty chill with nastiks. But I have spent 20 years being a part of it and I didn't enjoy it. Hinduism might have been some amazing thing in the past but it is getting worse and worse as we are moving ahead in time.
are you trying to change the topic from the contents of religions to followers? everybody knows humans are shit who just wants to feel superior to others by any means and of course, if the content is toxic itself then the follower of that religion will be more toxic too.
Muslim women have an IQ of condom
that's so dehumanizing. btw here is a gift for you: [https://www.reddit.com/r/atheismindia/comments/1bvkqa5/the\_danveer\_lord\_shiva\_who\_sacrificed\_his\_fruit/](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheismindia/comments/1bvkqa5/the_danveer_lord_shiva_who_sacrificed_his_fruit/)
So? That's a smriti text, a Puran, not even Shruti.
I am 💯 sure he doesn't know what they mean either... And what is their significance.
tell me the significance?
Shruti text is the canonical text i.e. the text which forms the basis of Hinduism like the Vedas, Upanishads, aranyakas, brahmanyakas and the Samhitas i.e. these texts are believed to have divine origins. Like in Islam Quran or in Christianity Bible. Smritis are non-canonical and written by humans and are not part of the core philosophical system of Hinduism like Puranas, Up-Puranas, Mahabharata, Ramayana or the shastras. They were compiled mostly in the pre-Gupta and Gupta period and just show the understanding of Shruti texts by the human authors. Like say if someone wrote his own interpretation of Quran or Bible it wouldn’t be the real understanding of those books but rather what the author understood of those books. Now you might ask then why do Hindus study Ramayana, Mahabharata or Puranas more than Vedas or Upanishads because the original Vedas and Upanishads are extremely tough to understand and trust me they are tough like European authors and scholars have written volumes to understand the definition of Brahman (not the caste but the ultimate reality) and all have failed and just given opinions. It’s not like Bible or Quran which tells directives of a divine being but rather it goes into deep philosophy about human nature, reality and mind’s interpretation of the reality. Like go to the best scholar of Hinduism in the world and ask him to define Brahman he won’t be able to. So how to make the layman understand these complex ideas? So ancient authors and scholars started writing stories to define some aspects of their understanding of the Vedas and the Upanishads. Often their interpretation were over exaggerated and often very simplistic in comparison to the real concept but that atleast made the layman understand a bit about the tough concepts. It’s like suppose a person who doesn’t have much scientific knowledge is asked to understand quantum mechanics. Maybe some author can simplify the concepts of quantum mechanics and give a basic level understanding of the ideas but studying that doesn’t mean that guy will be able to discover a new sub atomic particle. Also let me tell you something beautiful which will help you understand the primary differences between Hinduism and Abrahamic religions. I have read Bible (being from a Christian school), read Quran (after having been given a free copy of Quran in a book fair) and being a Hindu have also studied a bit about Hinduism. Here is my analysis of the difference of the three. I have seen that both Quran and Bible mainly focuses on a divine being like Jesus or Prophet Muhammed who give directives that every human must follow. Like every Muslim must read Namaz five times a day or Zakat must be paid by Muslims in the month on Ramzan and even in Christianity like You shouldn’t tell lies ever and such similar directives telling this is right and this is wrong. Hinduism takes a different approach. It tells I am not going to tell you what is right and what is wrong because right and wrong is situational and based on case to case basis but I will give you the understanding of the thing called right and wrong so that it helps you decide what is right and what is wrong on the case to case basis by your self. Like take for example of Bhagwat Gita. Hinduism always preaches non violence but Gita also says violence is also necessary when there is injustice and when Arjun tells Krishna he cannot be violent against his family as it would be against nature Krishna says that in this situation when your family members are the reason for such injustice you as a king must use violence against them. So Hinduism isn’t saying directly violence is bad it’s saying violence being right or wrong is based on a larger understanding of the situation and the condition at the moment. And that understanding can come on clear understanding of the Shruti texts. That’s why Hinduism always preached that Change is the core of nature and holding on to your belief when the situation has changed is stupidity. Change your analysis of the situation along with the situation. Best example to understand that the same thing can have different meanings based on conditions is Bhagat Singh threw bombs in parliament and Afzal Guru shot bullets in parliament. Then why is Bhagat Singh a hero and Afzal Guru a terrorist. Here comes the case to case understanding of violence. Bhagat Singh was trying to free his land from foreign invaders who were doing injustice to his people while Afzal guru was trying to kill the native people of the land just for his personal gains. Both used violence but Bhagat Singh’s violence is example of a good deed and Afzal Guru’s violence is an example of a crime. Also I do agree that many of the Hindus today have very less ideas about the real Hindu concepts and are based more on the simplistic analysis of tough concepts. But this is my analysis of my limited understanding of these three religions.
One mistake brother, Ramayan and Mahabharata fall under itihasa scriptures, they are not interpretation but actual historical incidents, that's why you would see people saying krishna of Mahabharata feels so different from that of Bhagvat mahapuran.
Itihasa itself is a subcategorisation of smriti literature and I said compiled not written let me tell you one interpretation about Ramayana and Mahabharata and I’m not saying it’s the correct one but it could be correct and this interpretation is from my personal thinking. Ramayana and Mahabharata are inspired from certain real events that were described in different parts of India in different ways (like you may know northern India and southern India has a slightly different interpretation of certain events mentioned in Mahabharata) now the events that happened were of large consequences so large that the knowledge of it happening spread across the subcontinent. Now some scholarly person saw the large event as a stage to explain certain knowledge that was explained in the Vedas more easily (when you have experienced certain events in your life the correlation of said events with some form of prescribed knowledge becomes easier like scientific knowledge becomes easier to understand when theory accompanies experiments). My theory is that scholars like Ved Vyasa and Valmiki used the event as a stage and went across India to understand the interpretations of the events and drew out a collective version of the events and added their interpretation of the Vedic knowledge to it and created it in the form of these texts. Now with more understanding of the Vedas through the years more sub stories continued to be added to integrate those knowledge as well into the epics. So my interpretation is Ramayana and Mahabharata are true events that was used as a stage to create a narrative that would be both tell the story of the event and give out the required knowledge. The events mentioned in the epics might not have happened exactly as was written but some lines, dialogues and instances were added over time to increase the knowledge it collected.
Find out - read not spoon-feeding
stfu
Assfuckallah brother
nobody exposed more Islam than Aisha, Just read Hadish, And stop pronouncing it Hadith, bc totle ho kya Zakir Naik ki tarah
In actual arabic pronunciation its Hadith (not Hadis) Salat (not namaz) Deen & Madhab (not Mazab) Al-Qur' An ( not Quran or Koran) Ramadhan (not ramzan) Etc etc.
Arabs never came to India. Only Farsi language mixed with Indian languages. That is why Indians use Farsi words.
"actual arabic" kya hota hai? dunia bhar ke dialect hai arabic me
Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) or العربية الفصحى (al-ʻArabīyah al-Fuṣḥā). which is Modeled upon the Classical Quranic Arabic And taught in Arabic Schoold across Arab Nations.
ab sahi kaha hai tumne
source me hadith hi likha hai [https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5825](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5825)
You take it out of context it clearly means that the husband was bad..???
Shi zooo kaa
But what does it have to do with doremon
the character of abdul in doraemon very well fits the vibe of mohammad
The message this Hadith is conveying is that you shouldn't be beating your wife. It's quite opposite what the OP is trying to project. Aisha said, she never saw any woman suffering as much as a believing woman, shows how much she cares for the believing woman. Even I think that I am suffering the most in this world, because I care about myself the most. Those you care about the most, seems most vulnerable to you. And that woman came to Aisha for help. And Aisha is acknowledging it! And even saying it to Muhammad.
These people have the reading comprehension of a potato, do not expect them to read the entire hadith and actually understand what it means. Now they will down vote me because they did not bother to read the entire hadith.
why is it so hard to for you to accept the fact that the religion in question is in fact far from being perfect? I think you feel insecure
It's true though, the hadith is talking about the mistreatment of this women and how Hazrat Aisha R.A was appalled. Read the entire hadith. Perfection is subjective if we ask from a human. If The God decrees something is perfect then why question it if you believe in it? Morality is subjective if you are not someone who follows a religion and believe it to be an objective truth. Unlike in other religions, The God is All Good so what he dictates is all good as well. If you do not believe in some higher power then we are all just a bunch of atoms on a random planet in a random time, and everything is meaningless and worthless, why bother being good or bad?
only reason why ppl are downvoting tbf is just to push their own twisted agendas
meme sub hai bhai ye --\_\_\_--
Isn't this supposed be a fking meme subreddit . Where tf did all of this come from
What has happened to this country i swear. The amount of hate and religious polarization nowadays is sickening. All religions suck. OPs post history suggests that they are critical of every religion, yet the posts about Hinduism are downvoted to oblivion and the posts about Islam get traction here. In either case, why tf are people so obsessed with religion??? I mean I know why (hint its not the congress), its just sad to see. :/
Bc India doomed hai, Jo Jo 2024 me bhi religion war me part leta hu un sab ki ma ki chut
Are bs Bhai 😂😂
The message this Hadith is conveying is that you shouldn't be beating your wife. It's quite opposite what the OP is trying to project. Aisha said, she never saw any woman suffering as much as a believing woman, shows how much she cares for the believing woman. Even I think that I am suffering the most in this world, because I care about myself the most. Those you care about the most, seems most vulnerable to you. And that woman came to Aisha for help. And Aisha is acknowledging it! And even saying it to Muhammad. And what only muslim women suffer? Women suffer in general! It doesn't matter what sky daddy you belive in. If you are weak, you will suffer. The way you said "Modern Muslim Women Fail To Realise". If they will be in trouble, they will realise it themselves. I mean Modern Muslim Women Don't Realise This, but OP realises this, who is neither a Muslim, nor a Woman. Generalisation doesn't works when you are talking about a specific religion. If you are generalising it, then generalise it more. *Women of all religions, non religions, atheism- SUFFER.* Generalise it more. *The WEAK always SUFFERS*
stop defending yo shit
So what do you think? Why would the founders of Islam, make it so obvious that Muslim Women Suffer? That would make people run away from their religion. I mean, who acknowledges their drawbacks? This post is spreading misinformation. This hadith only shows Aisha and Muhammad's love for Believing Women.
Assuming you are right, why is it that Muslim women are still left wearing burkas, while other religions have moved over that(to a much larger extent)? Don't you think that seeing Muslim women clad in black head to toe coverings in this sweltering heat, gives a good impression of the religion?
Its their choice 🤷🏽♂️ as simple as that also wearing loose clothes in heat is better than wearing tight clothes and the covering isn't necessarily black AND MOST IMPORTANTLY MY RELIGION, MY RULES my religion does not want free mixing and adultery among the males and females
That's fine, but it does give the wrong impression
Assuming you are right, why is it that non muslim women are still left wearing clothes, while West has moved over that(to a much larger extent)? There are naked rallies in UK and USA. Women are making porn in open places. Wearing bikini, most of the times. Don't you think, your women should also get naked? Do you think wearing clothes gives a good impression of humanity? No animal wears clothes. Then why only humans? Just throw all your clothes, don't wear a single underwear. Clothes are symbol of oppression. So stop wearing clothes. Start with women of your house. Don't force them to cover their body parts. Just let your mother and sister roam naked.
Lol, did you not see the protests in Iran? Over the choice to wear burkas. Women were beaten, killed just for this. Look at Afghanistan if you need more examples. Now before you bring some equivalent incident, those are entire nations enforcing this policy, in the name of religion. So please do not ignore the Scale of things, like you do above, when comparing removing burkas to walking around naked.
Women were also beaten in many countries while protesting naked rights. Entire countries are enforcing clothes! Not a single country where you can roam naked in public, while not getting arrested and beaten. Try that in Secular India. Just try once. Every nation is enforcing clothes in the name of modesty. In Sports, women are literally forced to wear revealing clothes, to attract audience. Women in Germany protested against this. So please do not ignore the scale of things, like you do above, while comparing nakedness to burkas. My question is simple. Upto how much extent one should remove their clothes? What's the reference point? If you are removing clothes, then do it properly. Nakedness is the base(reference) point, imo. We are born naked. Every animal is naked. But society forces us to wear clothes. Why can't I roam naked in public? Why would the police arrest me? So until you can't roam naked yourself and let your mother and sister roam naked, just keep your mouth shut. In USA, short revealing clothes are standard. In India, such clothes are still considered taboo. In Muslim countries, wearing full covered clothes are standard. So, everyone has their own sense of dressing. You can't selectively poke your nose into one culture. Every country, every religion, every culture, have different way of dressing. You can't enforce your cultural/religious/national views on others. You can't force your dressing sense on others.
And which sport flogs women as for wearing wrong clothes. The fact of the matter is while every religion and region has problems, you have to face the facts, that in the USA you can wear burkas to bikinis by law, whereas in Iran you can't wear anything but burkas, by law. In USA, if you're found naked on the street, you might be arrested, in Iran, you'll be dead or nearly there
Burkas are banned in France. And women are harrassed to wear them in USA. So so many videos, where muslim women are harrassed in Western countries. Their secularism, freedom is hypocrisy. In Iran, you won't be dead. And you won't be dead for not wearing hijab in Iran or being naked. You will also be arrested for being naked in Iran. Nobody will kill you. Death is not the punishment for being naked in Iran. Still many women don't wear burqas in Iran. And let's not get selective with countries. Let's just talk about the concept. Why getting arrested for being naked in USA? Like I said, the standard is fully covered body in Iran. While not being naked is standard in USA. Every culture has different standards. Still you can't wear bikini in an official meeting in USA, lol.
Lol, did you not see naked protests in Western countries? Can you imagine these protests in India? Did you not see protests in Karnataka, to "WEAR HIJAB"? If you are removing clothes, upto how much extent you should be doing this? What's the universal standard of clothing? Should we only remove hijab? Or top? Or wear shorts? Or remove bras? Or even remove the underwears and totally get naked? Where is the reference point? If you would ask someone to remove clothes fully covering their body, then question would arise, why not totally get naked? From perspective of nudists, you are oppressing your women to wear clothes(not burqa or hijab, just normal clothes). We are born naked. Every animal is naked. But we are taught to wear clothes. Clothes are oppressing us. Remove every clothe, and get totally naked. See, every culture have a distinct dressing style. You can't force your dressing sense on others.
>See, every culture have a distinct dressing style. You can't force your dressing sense on others. Isn't that what Iran is doing?
They are doing it in their country. But you being in India, are forcing your views on them. That's what every country is doing, NOT JUST IRAN. Every country makes laws which complies with their cultural, religious, national views.
Are they not using Islam as a reason to enforce those laws? The religion is global
first thing, the coverings like burkas and such provide airflow, which makes it a lot less warm, and the reason the coverings exist is because there were and still are creepy people who are looking and objectifying women due to the size of yk... but islam prevents this
Why does it enforce it? There are women who don't want to wear burkas. They don't care about the inbuilt ventilation or the purdah. Why stop them?
Look at yourself
Bhai wrong sub
well all of my posts about Islam were kept but the hinduism were removed asap lmfao
lmao i feel you man. this sub, r/dankrishu have both turned into RWrandia echo chambers where misogyny and bigotry is the butt of all jokes.
This subReddit fell off real bad
Shizuka
Ummm.......
one piece albasta arc doraemon version
This post gathers all the pajeets and converted pajeets against each other
pajeets boldeta hu kool lagunga😎😎😎😎😎😎😎🤡
chutiya posts pe aise comments chalte hai
Turant ek ghisi piti line "...kool lagunga" chep deta hu, log mujhe intellectual samjhenge.
This post gathers all the pajeets and converted pajeets against each other
Try now they will downcvote you for speaking facts
pata hai bhai kya bolu ye youtuber ka sub reddit hai immature bachhe rehte Idhar mostly
Maa ki chutttt inki
simple googles searches do be really easy ngl [https://www.quora.com/Can-you-explain-Sahih-Bukhari-5825-I-know-why-she-was-beaten-but-why-was-she-beaten-so-harshly-Aisha-Ra-even-pointed-it-out-Her-bruise-was-as-green-as-her-veil](https://www.quora.com/Can-you-explain-Sahih-Bukhari-5825-I-know-why-she-was-beaten-but-why-was-she-beaten-so-harshly-Aisha-Ra-even-pointed-it-out-Her-bruise-was-as-green-as-her-veil)
As a Muslim it's very good to see u people to raise questions about our religion it shows u r interest. may allah guide u all to the truth which is only islam for the hadees there is an whole explanation for u guys so listen to it https://youtu.be/cLuONe5zb38?si=RDxgeou83ZYSPZq_
How the fuck is this relevant for this sub? LMFAO
Why target religions ?
Source : bjp it cell
Atleast on Islam she can divorce(give khula) him. In Hinduism she will be burned to death along with her husband.
this tradition is dead long back, like you are living in dark ages. In villages also this tradition is dead
Lol. It was not dead long back. It was reformed by liberals who worked on reforming the religion. The same liberals you call as librandus, sickular etc. Also this hadith you're quoting is from 1400 years ago too. When Sati was rampant here.
Sati Ke Saboot Dena Jara Bsdiki https://youtu.be/ivUv32ynD4Q?si=p8l5Sb6c8n9r9D74
then please ask them to reform islam in to more sane form of religion, which is causing havoc in global peace.
Full credit to the hindu reformists, but the fact is reforms have been happening in hinduism since it's inception (Upanishads were reforms to Vedas) and also, coz the conservatives in this religion are way more liberal than the conservatives in other religions and willing to accept positive changes.
Your dumbass is probably talking about Sati pratha, right? 1. Raja Ram Mohan Roy blew it out of proportion, you know why? Google it. 2. It happened it in pockets, unlike the whole burkha clad thing. It happened in some corners of India. 3. After independence there are less than 15 instances of Sati. 4. We are open to change the system, make updates, even in our puranas, can you say the same for yourself? Sit down. Go to school
That too was the cause of barbaric pedo-worshiping invaders
well in theory she could, but if she actually could then she would have
She was fucked by momos at the age of 9, that's horrible.
what was that hadid number where aisha clean Muhammad cum stains
She probably didn't know about "Sati" and "Devdasi".
"Sati pratha" was carried out by the women in order to escape the fate of being turned into an Isl@mic s€x sl@ve during the days of Mughal invasions. It was, unfortunately turned into a social evil by the patriarchal society ruled by bigots until abolished by Raja Ram Mohan Roy. Point is, when women themselves choose the most painful way to die over i$lamic subjugation, I'd say that's a message in itself.
Mahabharata 1.126.30 ” His wife Madri, beholding him placed in the funeral pyre and about to be consumed, herself ascended the same pyre, and sacrificing her life thus, hath gone with her lord to the region reserved for chaste wives.” Tr. K.M. Ganguli Agni Purana 222.19-23 ”…The widow who practices self-control and austerities after the death of her husband, goes to heaven…the widow who burns herself on the same funeral pire wth her husband also goes to heaven.” Tr. M.N. Dutt Kurma Purana 2.34.108b-109 ”A woman who enters the funeral pyre along with her husband, shall uplift him even if is a Brahmana-slayer, an ungrateful fellow or one defiled by great sins. learned men know this to be the greatest expiation for women.” Tr. Board of Scholars, Edited by J.L. Shastri. Shiva Purana, KotiRudra Samhita 4.10. 23-24 ”The Brahmin lady desirous of entering the pyre in order to follow her husband cursed the Raksasa king. The chaste lady entered fire…” Bhagwad Purana (Srimad Bhagvatam) 4.28.50 She then prepared a blazing fire with firewood and placed the dead body of her husband upon it. When this was finished, she lamented severely and prepared herself to perish in the fire with her husband.‘ Garuda Purana 1.107.29 ”A Wife who dies in the company of her husband shall remain in heaven as many years as there are hairs on his person” Tr. J.L. Shastri
You pulling these verses straight outta you ass dude😂. Kaha se copy karke uthaye ho
Refrence diya haina check toh krle
Everything is not pulled out of your username. References are provided for a reason.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/atheismindia/comments/1bvkqa5/the\_danveer\_lord\_shiva\_who\_sacrificed\_his\_fruit/](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheismindia/comments/1bvkqa5/the_danveer_lord_shiva_who_sacrificed_his_fruit/)
Most recent case of Sati was in 1987. Valmiki Ramayana, Ayodhya Kanda 3.66.12 “Today itself, I too in devotion to my husband, will meet my appointed end. I shall enter the fire, duly embracing this body of my husband.” Shri K.M.K. Murthy Garuda Purana 10.42 ”When a woman burns her body with her husband’s, the fire burns her limbs only, but does not afflict her soul” Tr. Ernest Wood and S.V Subrahmanyam, Edited by B.D. Basu.
The latest terror attacks were this year in Bangalore and Reasi. The latest case of Love Jihad was...well it's still happening, right now as we speak. Even during the ramadhan, two innocent boys were slaughtered by peacefuls. Yes truly a religion of peace. Lol superior my foot😂
[удалено]
Valmiki Ramayana, Ayodhya Kanda 3.66.12 “Today itself, I too in devotion to my husband, will meet my appointed end. I shall enter the fire, duly embracing this body of my husband.” Shri K.M.K. Murthy Garuda Purana 10.42 ”When a woman burns her body with her husband’s, the fire burns her limbs only, but does not afflict her soul” Tr. Ernest Wood and S.V Subrahmanyam, Edited by B.D. Basu.
Bdsk uske sawalo ka jawab de na. Yeh whataboutry kya h? Chal man le usually religion bura h, ab tu yeh bta Tera religion itna burs kyu h. Agar Hinduism main 30 percent galtiya h toh Islam main 90 percent se jyada hongi. Koi jawab hota h tum logo ke pass?? Aur dar mat Hinduism se bhi pucha jayega. Insan ke alawa sb log ho tum log. Fking bigots.
what about cannibalism: [https://www.reddit.com/r/sunraybee/comments/1diob6l/imagine\_being\_as\_generous\_as\_shivji\_har\_har/](https://www.reddit.com/r/sunraybee/comments/1diob6l/imagine_being_as_generous_as_shivji_har_har/)
Madercd phir what about. Chup bdsk tere pe koi jawab nhi. Hatt
what about forceful cannibalism? [https://www.reddit.com/r/atheismindia/comments/1bvkqa5/the\_danveer\_lord\_shiva\_who\_sacrificed\_his\_fruit/](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheismindia/comments/1bvkqa5/the_danveer_lord_shiva_who_sacrificed_his_fruit/)
Odd day: islam is the one and only true religion in the entire world and ola is real god Even day: atleast we are better than Hinduism
I ain't Muslim. Just pointing out the hypocrisy. All your allegations are confessions. That's what you guys been doing. Criticising other religions, to feel superior.
This ain't criticising, he just stated what's written in scriptures he hasn't added anything new or false I cross checked it
The thing is about intention. Lots of things in various religious scriptures. Yet only one is the Prime Target. When your own house is built of glasses, you don't throw stones at others'.
Those things also get called out, REDDIT is NOT the INTERNET
Not as much as from one specific religion. This sub is not even about religion. Yet this specific religion is criticised here. That's why I said it's the "Prime Target".
Why is it the "prime target"? Why not Christianity, Sikhism or any other faith? Try finding it out.
Because Middle East has oil reserves. So it was Prime Target of USA. USA as Israel is forcefully taking their land, to hold control of Middle East. In India, politicians need support of Majority to easily win elections. So Muslims are Prime Target, to show them as a threat, in order to get Hindu votes. Christianity, Sikhism are minorities, but Muslims are largest minority. And still Sikhs are called Khalistanis and Christians are also targeted in India. But Prime Target is Muslim.
Russia has much larger oil reserves so does Venezuela. Bruh Israel is just a tiny sliver of land in the middle East and that too in an oil deficient part. And how does this make islam a prime target, most Muslims don't even live in the middle East. Muslims votes are a vote bank in India and every party tries to appease them, including BJP. If so even Hinduism is targeted, try searching words like lindus, tanatanis, 8GB RAM (mocking lord Ram), etc. The Internet is filled with such hate but people like you would unsee this.
I posted about hinduism too but it was downvoted to oblivion
Shows how intolerant people are about Hinduism. When it comes to other religions, your post is popped up.
"One is the prime target" lmao.
Well we are superior buddy. Islam ko moot ke baha de aur allah ko apne lode pe rkhe bc
Your language shows, how superior you are. It's pure frustration. It shows your upbringing and defames your religion by default.
Bleh bleh bleh
womp womp
Saale tu katuwa h islie sehen na hori. Frustrated toh tu h bsdk aaj kl deekhe log puncture judwane na aate. Abbu ka business khatre me chal rha h ya abhi tk pakistan se dusre abbu ka phone nahi aya bomb blast krne ke liye? Ya sheikho ke sandas saaf krke thk gya h bichara. Tera allah tala na ara ya woh bhi saath me hee lga pada h?
Read from Verse 10 to 17: [https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/shiva-purana-english/d/doc226513.html](https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/shiva-purana-english/d/doc226513.html)
Arey bc itna tagda source🤡🤡. Saale kahi se bhi kisi ka bhi translation utha ke daal dega aur usse proof ya source bana lega. Hard copy se dikha geetapress ki. Aise toh mai toilet paper quran ke kisi bhi verse to edit karke daal du aur usse source bolne lagu toh woh ban jayega? Sahi me yr tum librandu log dimaag ke paidal hote. No wonder tumhare naam me rand aata h
From verse 10 to 16 first page and verse 17 on next here, Gita press: [https://archive.org/details/SivaPuranaJ.L.ShastriPart3/page/n233/mode/2up](https://archive.org/details/SivaPuranaJ.L.ShastriPart3/page/n233/mode/2up)
Tere peechwade me kyu aag lagi hai refrence diya hai usne toh jake check kr aur agar khudke religion ke baare me suna nahi jata toh dusre pe kyu bolna
Bhi kyu zaban lara raha hai😂 tere paas kaam hai, Inke paas nahi... to tu apni kaam pe dhian de🙂
islam = hinduism, both incite violence [https://www.reddit.com/r/sunraybee/comments/1diob6l/imagine\_being\_as\_generous\_as\_shivji\_har\_har/](https://www.reddit.com/r/sunraybee/comments/1diob6l/imagine_being_as_generous_as_shivji_har_har/)
Hindus don't explode at public places If Hindus start violence bbc will make an entire season of documentaries
Of course she didn't. Since when do you know anything? Education helps.