Are Hindus dangerous?

[Durrak]

hehehe....
thats why I didn't tell u...

yes they do....
its a regional cast phenomena rather than purely cast based.....
small children after death are generally buried ....in all casts.....

Bit confusing

 

[Indischer]

Bit confusing

For your benefit.
Hindus Are Buried…?! | AsiaObscura

 

[KingMamba]

That way, is it? Since you started to speek about religions, Oooh, I know can we speak of religions of those who married them really, really young? Like children young?

Really any Muslim who has studied his or her religion knows that the age factor is based on a dubious account. @Azlan Haider you still have the link?

What is hilarious about these Pakistanis is how much of a frog in the well mentality they have...Know little would be praise...

LOL

You should know, there was surely a Muslim, or many Muslims, in your Hindu ancestors when they converted....

Irrelevant my paternal great grandmother was from a Hindu family that converted it doesn't matter at all. Yes of course there were many Muslims in my lineage I can track my lineage pretty far back perhaps further back than you can yours.

No i am not butthurt because of Nuri Natt infact i like him,he also likes me as i dont treat him like typical Muslim Bhaiyas are treated across the subcontinient @Nuri Natt
Jokes apart,it would have been more better if you would have clarified the first part of my post.

Like I said Bhaiyas are in India stop making fun of your compatriots.

Want to hear words of wisdom about Islam

Funny because I didn't state anything wrong at all that is among your beliefs, nothing you can say that I have already not heard from people.

So you accept that Hindu's are the inheritor's of IVC and vedic civilization lol

That is two different things IVC had nothing to do with Vedic but Vedic was a mixture of IVC and migrant beliefs.

Yeah a lot of Hindu women were raped and were made as slaves and most of them converted or accepted Islam.

Nope a lot served in the harems of the Muslims but there is no record that any were made to convert heck the mothers of the Mughal Kings never even converted. Even if they did convert if converts were still treated bad how were those who chose not to convert treated want to take a guess?

 

[Durrak]

For your benefit.
Hindus Are Buried…?! | AsiaObscura

Then what about the all rituals shown in movies??

 

[KingMamba]

Still higher caste did not go bombing lower caste people en masse.
So pakistan started the caste system?
Haha,at least you admit muslims were dicriminatory genocidal most evil rulers

LOL first part I don't get it trying to be funny? Second part no back then people of the land were not "Pakistanis" we do not know what they called themselves but they were the forefathers of the majority of Pakistanis today.

I am going with what you guys already believe, if Muslim leaders were as bad as @jarves claims they were then you can imagine what happened to women who chose not to convert, they must have serviced many a soldier.

 

[Indischer]

Then what about the all rituals shown in movies??

It all depends on the caste of a person. And even within the broader castes, there are a number of subcastes among which the rituals will vary.

Broadly, one can safely say that no Brahmin and most from the Kshatriya and Vaishya caste are cremated. The shudra and Dalit practices are not so uniform.

 

[KingMamba]

@jarves what first part of your post? Pakistanis have no problem admitting that lands known today as Pakistan were taken over by foreigners things like that only bother you Indians.

Ancestors of Pakistanis have ruled their own land many times historically, after the Arabs conquered Sindh they pretty much forgot about it and local Sindhi dynastys ruled over Sindh themselves. Multan and areas around it in Punjab was an Ismaili shia sultanate for a long time as well until Ghaznavids annexed it, the Baluch have always had tribal confederacy's, the Pashtuns have ruled themselves and parts of India as well in fact depending on the historian some say Ahmad Shah was born on this side of the Durand and well Ranjit Singh was also a local and many of the people whose tribe he was from are still in Pakistan today and are Muslims.

Most important of all Pakistanis have ruled over their lands for the past 60+ years whereas your PM takes marching orders from an Italian LOL.

 

[A Town]

LOL first part I don't get it trying to be funny? Second part no back then people of the land were not "Pakistanis" we do not know what they called themselves but they were the forefathers of the majority of Pakistanis today.

I am going with what you guys already believe, if Muslim leaders were as bad as @jarves claims they were then you can imagine what happened to women who chose not to convert, they must have serviced many a soldier.

That doesn't make any sense, if the women didn't convert to Islam then surely it means they didn't have any contact with Muslim lords and soldiers because it's unlikely they would have allowed someone to not convert.

 

[KingMamba]

That doesn't make any sense, if the women didn't convert to Islam then surely it means they didn't have any contact with Muslim lords and soldiers because it's unlikely they would have allowed someone to not convert.

In medieval times the Muslim kings and soldiers never made women convert before putting them into Harems that was only for marriage. This was especially true for the Turkic rulers who took concubines by the hundreds, most of the Ottoman and Mughal Sultans had non Muslim mothers and in the case of the Ottomans most never married the fathers either.

It may have been different for Arab and Persian sultans but that was norm for Turkics.

 

[Cherokee]

Yes they are .

 

[Indischer]

Yes they are .

 

[M. Sarmad]

Really any Muslim who has studied his or her religion knows that the age factor is based on a dubious account. @Azlan Haider you still have the link?

It is said that Hazrat Aisha was six years old when her nikah was performed with Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in Makkah, and nine years old when she moved in to live with her husband in Madina after Hijra.

This piece of misinformation has led to the wrong view that child marriage has the sanction of Islam. It must be noted that establishing the authenticity of hadiths, the narrators’ circumstances and the conditions at that time have to be correlated with historical facts. There is only one hadith by Hisham which suggests the age of Hazrat Aisha as being nine when she came to live with her husband.

Many authentic hadiths also show that Hisham’s narration is incongruous with several historical facts about the Prophet’s life, on which there is consensus. With reference to scholars such as Umar Ahmed Usmani, Hakim Niaz Ahmed and Habibur Rehman Kandhulvi, I would like to present some arguments in favour of the fact that Hazrat Aisha was at least 18 years old when her nikah was performed and at least 21 when she moved into the Prophet’s house to live with him.

According to Umar Ahmed Usmani, in Surah Al-Nisa, it is said that the guardian of the orphans should keep testing them, until they reach the age of marriage, before returning their property (4:6). From this scholars have concluded that the Quran sets a minimum age of marriage which is at least puberty. Since the approval of the girl has a legal standing, she cannot be a minor.

Hisham bin Urwah is the main narrator of this hadith. His life is divided into two periods: in 131A.H. the Madani period ended, and the Iraqi period started, when Hisham was 71 years old. Hafiz Zehbi has spoken about Hisham’s loss of memory in his later period. His students in Madina, Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifah, do not mention this hadith. Imam Malik and the people of Madina criticised him for his Iraqi hadiths.

All the narrators of this hadith are Iraqis who had heard it from Hisham. Allama Kandhulvi says that the words spoken in connection with Hazrat Aisha’s age were tissa ashara, meaning 19, when Hisham only heard (or remembered), tissa, meaning nine. Maulana Usmani thinks this change was purposely and maliciously made later.

Historian Ibn Ishaq in his Sirat Rasul Allah has given a list of the people who accepted Islam in the first year of the proclamation of Islam, in which Hazrat Aisha’s name is mentioned as Abu Bakr’s “little daughter Aisha”. If we accept Hisham’s calculations, she was not even born at that time.

Some time after the death of the Prophet’s first wife, Hazrat Khadija, Khawla suggested to the Prophet that he get married again, to a bikrun, referring to Hazrat Aisha (Musnad Ahmed). In Arabic bikrun is used for an unmarried girl who has crossed the age of puberty and is of marriageable age. The word cannot be used for a six-year-old girl.

Some scholars think that Hazrat Aisha was married off so early because in Arabia girls mature at an early age. But this was not a common custom of the Arabs at that time. According to Allama Kandhulvi, there is no such case on record either before or after Islam. Neither has this ever been promoted as a Sunnah of the Prophet. The Prophet married off his daughters Fatima at 21 and Ruquiyya at 23. Besides, Hazrat Abu Bakr, Aisha’s father, married off his eldest daughter Asma at the age of 26.

Hazrat Aisha narrates that she was present on the battlefield at the Battle of Badar (Muslim). This leads one to conclude that Hazrat Aisha moved into the Prophet’s house in 1 A.H. But a nine-year-old could not have been taken on a rough and risky military mission.

In 2 A.H, the Prophet refused to take boys of less than 15 years of age to the battle of Uhud. Would he have allowed a 10-year-old girl to accompany him? But Anas reported that he saw Aisha and Umme Sulaim carrying goatskins full of water and serving it to the soldiers (Bukhari). Umme Sulaim and Umme Ammara, the other women present at Uhud, were both strong, mature women whose duties were the lifting of the dead and injured, treating their wounds, carrying water in heavy goatskins, supplying ammunition and even taking up the sword.

Hazrat Aisha used the kunniat, the title derived from the name of a child, of Umme Abdullah after her nephew and adopted son. If she was six when her nikah was performed, she would have been only eight years his senior, hardly making him eligible for adoption. Also, a little girl could not have given up on ever having her own child and used an adopted child’s name for her kunniat.

Hazrat Aisha’s nephew Urwah once remarked that he was not surprised about her amazing knowledge of Islamic law, poetry and history because she was the wife of the Prophet and the daughter of Abu Bakr. If she was eight when her father migrated, when did she learn poetry and history from him?

There is consensus that Hazrat Aisha was 10 years younger than her elder sister Asma, whose age at the time of the hijrah, or migration to Madina, was about 28. It can be concluded that Hazrat Aisha was about 18 years old at migration. On her moving to the Prophet’s house, she was a young woman at 21. Hisham is the single narrator of the hadith whose authenticity is challenged, for it does not correlate with the many historical facts of the time.

 

[अखण्ड भारत!!!]

LOL first part I don't get it trying to be funny? Second part no back then people of the land were not "Pakistanis" we do not know what they called themselves but they were the forefathers of the majority of Pakistanis today.

I am going with what you guys already believe, if Muslim leaders were as bad as @jarves claims they were then you can imagine what happened to women who chose not to convert, they must have serviced many a soldier.

Did the people of pakistan get changed just because the name got changed?Today sunni shia are bombing each other and both are targeting the ahmadiyyas.Your kind started the dirty version of the caste system!

 

[अखण्ड भारत!!!]

@jarves what first part of your post? Pakistanis have no problem admitting that lands known today as Pakistan were taken over by foreigners things like that only bother you Indians.

Ancestors of Pakistanis have ruled their own land many times historically, after the Arabs conquered Sindh they pretty much forgot about it and local Sindhi dynastys ruled over Sindh themselves. Multan and areas around it in Punjab was an Ismaili shia sultanate for a long time as well until Ghaznavids annexed it, the Baluch have always had tribal confederacy's, the Pashtuns have ruled themselves and parts of India as well in fact depending on the historian some say Ahmad Shah was born on this side of the Durand and well Ranjit Singh was also a local and many of the people whose tribe he was from are still in Pakistan today and are Muslims.

Most important of all Pakistanis have ruled over their lands for the past 60+ years whereas your PM takes marching orders from an Italian LOL.

Pak was rarely independent

 

[jarves]

This thread should die down now.I have only one warning left so Dont mention me in this thread as i wont reply to anyone.