Enforced by the Brahmins, this custom destroyed the very life-soul of the non-Brahmins. Child marriage of daughters as young 5-6 y old was common during the Brahmanic Dark Ages due to the custom of dowry [ Nand 17 ] [ Bash.167-8 ] [ Yad 70 ] [ Alt.16 ] [ Ban.70 ]. Lawbooks prescribe that the best partner for a man in one-third his age. Thus a man 18 year old should marry a girl 6 years old! This is the wonderful wisdom of the most authoritative Hindu law-book -
Manu.IX.94 : " A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl of eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would otherwise be impeded, he must marry sooner."
One of the reasons for such early marriage of girls was to prevent any scandals. Narada states that some of the defects to be avoided in brides are if they already had a relationship with another man or have their minds set on another, they should not be selected [Sheth 67]. This shows that non-virgin girls could not be married, a custom similar to Church-ruled medieval Europe.
The custom of child-marriage and child-molesting has divine sanction in Hinduism. The `great god' Rama was 16 years old when he married Sita, and Sita was only 14 years old [ Ram.wh 69 ]. However, the age of Sita is now known to be a forgery; it is almost certain that she was, as per the Manuid laws, one-third of his age, namely 5 years old. It is inconceivable to imagine that `great' Rama could have dated to violate the Vedic laws of Manu. Besides being a child-molester, `holy' Rama was also guilty of incest, for Sita is referred to in the oldest surviving Ramayanas as his own sister :
" In the Dasarathajataka Sita is represented as the sister as well as the wife of Rama , son of Dasaratha of the Ikshvaku line."
[ Chandra, p.156 ]
Mr. Chandra, who has given the passage cited above, then claims that this incriminating passage was `infiltrated' by the Buddhist nastikas. This objection, however, can be discounted immediately. Firstly, it would not be possible for Buddhists to `distort' a Hindu scripture. Secondly, Chandra himself is a Brahminist, so his statements in defence of Brahmanism can be discounted as being the result of religious fanaticism. The fact is, that the extant Buddhist tales are much older than the Hindu versions, and this episode was deleted from the later falsified Ramayanas. This is confirmed by anthropological research showing that incest was institutionalised in Rama's race, the Ikshvaku dynasty of Aryan Kshatriyas :
" In the Anabattha Sutta and the Mahavastu Avadana we are told that the Ikshvaku princes, who were banished by their father and took shelter on the slopes of the Himalayas, and from whom the Sakyas traced their descent, married their own sisters in order to maintain the purity of their line."
-- [ Chandra, p.155 ]
Hence, it is virtually certain that Sita was Rama's sister, and that it is certain that such an `upright astik Hindu' as he would not have let his sister grow beyond the age limit of 8 years prescribed by Aryan law.
Now, what was the main reason for the Brahmins enforcing child marriage and incest upon the subject populations ? The answer is that these activities led to the permanent genetic degradation of the non-Brahmin races. It is well known that consanginuous marriage leads to genetic mutations in the offspring and eventually ends in the extermination of the blood lineage concerned. Incest and child marriage has a high risk of leading to irreversible hereditary defects in the second generation which are then passed on to succeeding generataions. These were hence convenient methods for the Brahmins to annihilate the non-Brahmins and establish a pure Brahmavarta ! Even to this day one finds the process of genetic deterioration occurring in non-Brahmin children inhabiting Brahmin-ruled regions. These are entirely the result of Brahmin-enforced child-marriage and Brahmin-inflicted incest.
I pity your ignorance. Manusmriti came long after times of Ramayana. So someone from Ramayana times following manusmriti is unheard of thing.
Two of the oldest versions of Ramayana, put Sita's age as 14 and 13 respectively when she was married. They are the Valmiki Ramayana and Kamban Ramayana (the north Indian and south Indian versions) Both of them call Sita the daughter of King of Mithila. Ram was Prince of Ayodhya. Sita is also called daughter of Mother earth (this is one fact which is different in Valmiki and Kamban Ramayana, but both call Sita the daughter of King of Mithila).
So I am not sure where your problems are.
Now for the closing KICK WITH A HEAVY BOOT.
1. Koran teaches you that all humans are descendants of Adam and eve. That means you and every muslim who believes in it is a product of INCEST. I guess Adam and Eve's kids indulged in Incest so that you are in earth. Your esteemed comments please
2. Talking of incest, you belonging to a community which doesnt prohibit marriage between cousins and half brothers and sisters (that would qualify as incest in every other community in world) shouldnt be commenting on that
marriage between cousins is not considered incest in any community in the world except for hindus.
on the subject of this thread - i think that Islam can be encouraged on it's own merits without resorting to commenting on the weaknesses of other faiths.
Work for this world as if you were to live forever, and work for the next world as if you were to die tomorrow
THA ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTIONS IS : SHARIAH.
SHARIAH IS THE CODE OF CONDUCT, AND LAW FOR MUSLIMS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE SHARIAH WAS DIFFERENT FO EACH PROPHET.
Regarding the question you have asked, it is a known fact that legislation
differs from one Shari'ah to another, while the principles and beliefs
remain the same in all of them. So, making of portraits was allowed in the
Shari'ah of Sulayman (peace be upon him) but is prohibited in our
Shari'ah. Similarly, making prostration of salutation was permitted in the
Shari'ah of Yusuf (peace be upon him) but is illegal in ours. Also, war
booty was prohibited for nations before us but it is completely legal for
us. The Qiblah of people before us used to be towards Bayt Al-Maqdis, but
for us it is towards Ka'bah. In a similar way, marriage between brothers
and sisters was permitted in the Shari'ah of Adam (peace be upon him) as
opposed to those that came afterwards. The following is a clarification on
the issue by Haafidh Ibn Katheer, who said:
Allaah allowed Adam (peace be upon him) to marry his daughters to his sons
for necessity. Every couple used to have a boy and a girl. Hence, he
married the girl of one couple to the boy of another. This is said by
Suddi regarding what has been narrated by Abu Maalik and Abu Salih, from
Ibn Abbas, by Murrah from Ibn Masood and by other companions of the
Prophet (peace be upon him) that Adam did not have (in his grandchildren)
a baby boy unless it was accompanied by a girl, so he married the male of
a couple to the female of another, and the female of a couple to the male
(Tafsir Ibn Katheer, Surat Al-Maaidah, 5:27)
So according to your point Ali you folks are all product of incest. So as per the principle of "a man who lives in glass house shouldnt throw stones on others" You dont deserve commenting on Incest.
In west sex between first cousins is considered incest. All scientific texts quote the same. Yet it isnt prohibited in islam.
Some Islamic societies allow a boy and a girl having same father but different mothers to be married (few tribes amongst Kurds are example). That would qualify as incest everywhere.
So versace guys shouldnt have been commenting on an incest in Ramayana, which in the first place didnt take place at all.
THE SHARIAH WAS DIFFERENT TO EACH PROPHET.
I DO NOT BELEIVE THAT JUST MUSLIMS WERE BORN FROM ADAM AND EVE, BUT I BELEIVE THE WHOLE OF HUMANITY WAS BORN FROM THEM, THERE FORE WE ARE ALL PART OF THE SAME 'GLASS HOUSE'
ADAM WAS ALLOWED BY THE DEVINE DECISION OF GOD TO DO WHAT HE HAD TO, INORDER TO LET HES RACE SURVIVE.
U SAY "a man who lives in glass house shouldnt throw stones on others"
I SAY, I WONT, ILL THROW THE GLASS HOUSE AT THE STONES INSTEAD!
BECAUSE U ARE IN NO POSITION TO COMMENT ON INCEST EITHER BEING A HINDU, U SAY THET THE EXAMPLE PRESENTED BY VERSACE BOY IS FALSE,
BUT HERE IS FURTHER PROOF:
Incest in Hinduism ?
Due to the strict restrictions and regulations one feature arose that is
apparently more common in Hindu society than in any other part of the world:
incest. References to this practice abound. Often the girls were unwilling, but
were then forced by their brothers/fathers.
References abound even in the Rg Veda, showing that the perversion of
brother-sister incest was introduced by the ancient Hindus :
Pushan is the lover of his sister [ Rg Ved VI.55.4 ] [ Apte 11 ]
Agni is the lover of his own sister [ Rg Ved X.3.3 ] [ Apte 11 ]
Ashvins are referred to as the sons of Savitar and Ushas who are brother and
sister [ Apte 11 ].
The Ashvisns married Surya and Savitri who is their sister [ RV I.116.19 ].
Agni is the son of his fatehr and his sister [ Rg Ved.I.91.7 ]
Yama wards off his sister Yami, saying marriage between brother and sister is
forbidden [ R.V.X.10 ] [ Apte 11 ]
Father-daughter incest occurs in the famous story of Prajapati (later
identified with Brahma, in tunr incorporated as an incarnation of Vishnu) and
his daughter [ RV III.31.1-2 ]. Moreover, this was punished. Prajapati is
thought to have done something wrong, and Prajapati was pierced by Agni as a
punishment [ Sat.Br. XIII.9 ] [ Apte 63 ].
It is evident that the strict laws on male-female relations led to the
repression of normal practies and the rise of various perversions like
brother-sister incest, father-daughter incest etc. Even to this day incest of
varying degrees (cross-cousin, father-daughter, mother-son, brother-sister,
etc.) is extremely common amongst the Hindus. No other race on earth has ever
recorded such a prevalance of this practice. Just as sodomy has its home in
Persia, Lesbianism in ancient Lesbos, so incest has its home amongst the
|Display Modes||Rate This Thread|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:38.