Rebuttal to Islamic Sensei on Woman rights in Islam vs Hinduism

Refuting malechas and Islamic Sensei on rights of Woman in islam vs hindusim

Refuting this Malecha and his claims

claim 1 -

Garuda Purana verse about abandoning the wife who produces only daughters.

Garuda Purana 1.115.64 “A barren woman shall be abandoned in the eighth year after marriage; a woman whose children die in infancy shall be abandoned in the ninth year; a woman who gives birth only to daughters shall be abandoned in the eleventh year and a woman who speaks unpleasant words shall be abandoned immediately.” and Manu Smriti 9.81

Rebuttal -

My response here is, this verse doesn’t command to abandon any woman.

Garuda Purana 1.115.64 “A man is at liberty to marry a second wife in the event of his first having had no issue after eight years of wedlock; after nine years of that of one whose children die in their infancy; after eleven years of the marriage a wife that has given birth to daughters only, and instantly when the first is foul-mouthed and tries to give him a bit of her mind”

This verse doesn’t ask to abandon a wife, but to take a second wife in case if the wife produces daughters only.

He also quoted Yajnavalkya Smriti 73, Manu Smriti 9.81 and claimed that Yajnavalkya and Manu order to supersede a wife who produces only female children. The Sanskrit word used here in Manusmriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti is अधिवेदन for supersession which means taking an additional wife.

Mitaksara clearly said the following in his commentary on Yajnavalkya Smriti 73:

“Adhivedana or supersession means taking additional wife.”

The very next verse removes the misconception:

Yajnavalkya Smriti verse 74 “The superseded should be maintained, otherwise great sin is caused. When the husband and wife live in harmony, the three Vargas (viz. Dharma, Arta and Kama) prosper there.”

So, Yajnavalkya advises to keep the superseded wife with the husband.

However, Medhatithi in his commentary on Manusmriti 9.81 clearly says the reason what does it mean when Manu orders to supersede the wife who produces only females.

“The text proceeds to lay down the super-session of other kinds of wives. Among these, the barren one should be superseded in the eighth year; in the tenth, she whose children die off. By marrying a second wife the man shall save himself from the contingency of disobeying the injunction regarding the Laying of Fire (to which a childless person is not entitled), and that regarding the begetting of children,—to which he would be liable by reason of his wife being childless. Because, the Laying of Fire is not found to be prescribed for a sonless person. The same holds good regarding the wife that bears only daughters; as also she whose children die off. As regards the wife who is harsh of speech, as there is no such serious defect, there need be no supersession; and she may be forgiven.” (Medhatithi commentary on Manusmriti 9.81)

So, the reason why a wife who produces daughters only should be superseded because laying of fire is not prescribed for a person who has no son. Medhatithi also interpreted there is no such supersession in case of a wife who is quarrelsome(harsh of speech). I don’t have any problem here even if someone say wife who is harsh of speech also should be superseded for laying fire.

One can also interpret Manusmriti 9.81 in the lens of Yajnavalkya Smriti 73 too.

I don’t know how the author missed Baudhayana Dharma Sutra 2.2.4.6 which is also conveying the same meaning as Manusmriti 9.81.

Padma Purana clearly considers abandoning wife as a sin:

Padma Purana II.67.71-80 “Other sins are abandoning one’s son, friend, also one’s master when he is reduced to poverty, and one’s wife and good people and ascetics..”

Padma Purana VI.253.118-124 “(If) a man abandoning the woman whose hand he has sought, goes to another woman, that is illicit intercourse; it is the cause of instantly going to hell.”

Garuda Purana says if a wife discard or abandon without finding any faults in them, they will go to hell.

Garuda Purana II.22.14 “One who discards his wife, daughter, daughter-in-law, mother, sister without seeing any fault in them, will surely obtains ghost-hood.”

At least Garuda Purana says if a husband abandons wife, without seeing any faults will become ghost, however, Padma Purana simply says abandoning wife is a sin and doesn’t mention anything like finding faults in wife.

Now, few more verses:

Markandeya Purana Chapter 12 “Men, who go to places and eat things that they shouldn’t, who are not loyal to friends, betrayal their master, who defile their wives and who divorce their own wives, who destroy path, pond and gardens;- they all and other wicked people fall into this (Raurava) hell.”

Vashistha Dharma Sutra 28.2-3 “A wife, (though) tainted by sin, whether she be quarrelsome, or have left the house, or have suffered criminal force, or have fallen into the hands of thieves, must not be abandoned; to forsake her is not prescribed (by the sacred law). Let him wait for the time of her courses; by her temporary uncleanness she becomes pure.”

Vashistha Dharma Sutra clearly says abandoning wife is not supported by sacred law. But Garuda Purana I.95.21 allows to forsake wife if she is addicted to wine or suffering from incurable diseases.

Claim 2 - Woman features bring bad luck in Garuda Purana 1.105

Rebuttal -

Under this section, he cherry-picked verses from Garuda Purana 1.105. Let me cherry-pick another way from the same chapter:

Want to know which woman becomes a queen?

“She, who has got cool and equal feet and palms, coppery nails, joining fingers with elevated tips, becomes a queen. One, obtaining her [as a wife] becomes a king. Well-formed ankle, lotus-like, tender and unperspiring palms containing the marks fish, goad and flag single out a woman for a queen. The feet of a queen bear the marks of a thunderbolt, lotus and plough-share.”

Some auspicious signs on women:

Well-rounded hips, devoid of hairs and arteries, are most auspicious. Well-formed joints and even knee-joints are most auspicious.
Thighs, like the trunk of an elephant, even and without hairs, are roost auspicious. A capacious buttock, like unto a fig-leaf, is most auspicious.
Loins, fire-head and chest, when they are of the form of a tortoise, are most auspicious. Fleshy wrists and hips are most auspicious for women.
A navel, capacious, deep and fleshy with three wrinkles inside, is most auspicious.
Even and pointed breasts without hairs are most auspicious. Red lips are most auspicious and round and fleshy mouth is the best.

Signs of royalty on women:

Eyes like blue lotuses well attached to the nose, eye-brows not very plump and like unto the rising moon, fore-head not very elevated and without hairs, not very fleshy and tender ears of equal size, and tender, curling and dark hairs are the most auspicious marks. Well-formed head and soles or palms, bearing the marks of horse, elephant, tree, sacrificial stake, wheat, Tomara, flag, chowri, garland, hill, well, altar, conch-shell, umbrella, lotus, fish, Svastika, car and goad are the signs of royalty in women.

Which women will never be widowed?

Linear marks on the palms are the signs which show that a woman will not be widowed and enjoy her life. If a line rising from the wrist goes to the middle finger it indicates the possession of kingdom and happiness in women.

Which women will live for 100 years?

A line originating from the root of the youngest finger indicates life for a hundred years.

Claim 3 -

woman cannot read or teach the 4 vedas in Agni Puran chapter 152.9–12

Rebuttal - his reference dosent exist . Agni Purana chapter 152 has only 5 verses or slokas

Woman can certainly read or write the Vedas

Rig Veda 1.164.46

गौ॒रीर्मि॑माय सलि॒लानि॒ तक्ष॒त्येक॑पदी द्वि॒पदी॒ सा चतु॑ष्पदी। अ॒ष्टाप॑दी॒ नव॑पदी बभू॒वुषी॑ स॒हस्रा॑क्षरा पर॒मे व्यो॑मन् ॥

Meaning

The woman who reads and teaches all the Four Vedas brings progress to all human beings.

Women Can Read and Study Vedas

Yajurveda 26/2

यथे॒मां वाचं॑ कल्या॒णीमा॒वदा॑नि॒ जने॑भ्यः। ब्र॒ह्म॒रा॒ज॒न्याभ्या शूद्राय॒ चार्या॑य च॒ स्वाय॒ चार॑णाय च। प्रि॒यो दे॒वानां॒ दक्षि॑णायै दा॒तुरि॒ह भू॑यासम॒यं मे॒ कामः॒ समृ॑ध्यता॒मुप॑ मा॒दो न॑मतु॥२॥

Translation

The way I gave this knowledge of Vedas for the benefit of all humans, similarly, you all also propagate the same for the benefit of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Shudras, Vaishyas, Women and even most downtrodden. The scholars and the wealthy people should ensure that they do not deviate from the message of mine.

Claim 4-

Rape Marriages are permissible in Hinduism

Rebuttal -

Secondly Bhisma Pitamah condemns Rakshas Vivah in Mahabharata 13.44

Claim 5 - Daughter gets no inheritance if a son is born as per Krishna Yajur Veda and Rig Veda 3.31.2

Rebuttal -

Before cherry-picking, one should get the context by reading the whole Anuvaka. The entire section is all about Soma sacrifice, so where does the inheritance of wealth come in between?

”…The gods desired that the wives should go to the world of heaven[1], they could not discern the world of heaven, they saw this (cup) for the wives, they drew it; then indeed did they discern the world of heaven; in that (the cup) for the wives is drawn, (it serves) to reveal the world of heaven. Soma could not bear being drawn for women; making the ghee a bolt they beat it, they drew it when it had lost its power; therefore women are powerless, have no inheritance, and speak more humbly than even a bad man [2]. In that he mixes (the cup) for (Tvastr) with the wives with ghee, he overpowers it with a bolt and draws it“. (Krishna Yajur Veda 6.5.8)

Let me explain you clearly.

t first, gods desired go to heaven without their wives, but they couldn’t see the heaven. (Griffith translated it wrongly as The gods desired that the wives should go to the world of heaven). If they saw the cup (Cup here is Patnivatagraha), they could see the heaven. That Patnivatagraha only could reveal the heaven. Soma couldn’t able to go to heaven along with other gods as Soma was accompanied by women. So, they (other gods) made Soma powerless by pouring ghee. Because of which women are powerless, have no inheritance. The inheritance here is limited only to the inheritance of Patnivata cup, it has nothing to do with the inheritance of wealth or money or property.

The same Krishna Yajur Veda 6.5.8.2 is quoted by Baudayana in his Dharma Sutra 2.2.3.46.

Rig Veda 3.31.2

The first verse is referring to who will perform funeral rites for a father who has no son, but daughter. In the first verse, the father who has no son but has a daughter relayed on his daughter’s son (his grandson), for performing funeral rites for him. It is said that only a male can perform the funeral rites, not a female. When a father has no son, his daughter should be appointed as Putrika. Then the son(s) of his daughter will get the rights to perform funeral rites. The rites mentioned here is funeral rites, but the author of the blog has written in the bracket “he is the legal inheritor” for verse 2. Since he relayed on his daughter’s son, he honored his son-in-law (husband of his daughter) with gifts.

The second verse is explaining who will perform funeral rites for a father if he has both male and female offspring and who will get the property of the father. In the second verse, the son doesn’t transfer his father’s wealth to his sister. He only made her the place of depositing seed of husband. If parents procreate both males and females, males become the performer of funeral rites (not inheritance as written by the author) and female children are given away in marriage without appointing them (females) as Putrika.

Property rights to woman in Vedic Santana Dharma

Manu Smriti: 9:118 “To the maidens of the same caste, the brothers shall each severally give the fourth part of his share; those not inclined to give would be outcasts”

Vishnu Smriti: 18.34-35 “Mothers shall receive shares proportionate to their son’s shares; And so shall unmarried daughters.”

There is a statement in Nirukta which may says both sons and daughters have equal rights in inheritance.

Nirukta 3.4 “…The wise man, honoring the process of the procreative sacrifice, i.e. (of the diffusion) of the seminal fluid, which is produced from each and every limb, which is engendered from the heart, and which is inserted in the mother, (holds) that both children (i.e. the son and the daughter) have the right to inheritance without any distinction (whatsoever).”

If a son happens to be born after appointing a daughter as Putrika, then the share of inheritance goes to both appointed daughter and son.

Manusmriti 9:134 “But if a son happen to be born after the daughter has been ‘appointed,’ the division must be equal; as there is no seniority for the woman.”

Claim 6 - A wife can be beaten and forced to yield her body as per Brihadranyak Upanishad 6.47

Rebuttal -

This is the mantra:

सा चेदस्मै न दद्यात्काममेनामपक्रिणीयात् सा चेदस्मै नैव दद्यात्काममेनां यष्ट्या वा पाणिना वोपहत्यातिक्रामेदिन्द्रियेन ते यशसा यश आदद इत्ययशा एव भवति ॥ ७ ॥

The word उपहत्या is mistranslated by the translator as “beating”.The word comes from the root from the root verb √ हन् which has the yaugika meaning “to go” or “to approach” apart from the generally taken meaning “to kill” etc as evident from the following pramana :हन् हन हिंसागत्योः अदादिः (DhatupāTha 2.2 ) ~ Meaning “to kill” or “to go”As for the usage of the very word उपहत्या in the sense of गमन् , we have direct śruti pramāna as follows:

स वराहो रूपं कृत्वोप न्यमज्जत् । स पृथिवीमध आर्छत् । तस्या

उपहत्यो

दमज्जत् । (Taittirīya Brāhmana 1.1.3.6)~He (Nārāyaṇa/Prajapati) took the form of Varaha and went down. He found the Prithvi.He went to her and lifted her up.

The interpretation of हनस्त च (slay/injure) is explicitly said to be specifically for words that don’t have upasarga while it has उप- having ल्यप which makes the verb dynamic and avyaya in the sense of “go or http://approach”.So as per the context it’s means “Go and explain or Approach and explain”

Hindi translation of Geeta press

English translation of Shri Raghevendra Swami Bhasya

Mahabharata prohibits wife beating and marital rape

claim 7 - A girl can be given as a devdaasi to satisfy the sexual needs of the Brahmin as per Padma Purana shristi khanda chapter 52 verse 97–100

Rebuttal -

so his reference doesn't exist actually

claim 7 - Woman are accused of becoming sexually aroused near elders as per Padma Purana and Ram charitmanas

Rebuttal -

Ramcharitmanas 3.16.3

No where it tells anything about woman - fake translation

Padma Purana

Here Narada Muni is being asked a question not that he is declaring or stating that Woman get aroused in presence of Elders . he is being asked a question

claim 8-

One should not touch a menstruating woman as per Yajur Veda Taittriya Samhita 2.5.1

Rebuttal -

Here since Hindu texts say one is discouraged from touching menstruating woman, dog, pig, Hinduism compares women in menses with dogs and pigs. However that is not the reason. Menstruation is considered as ashaucha (ritual impurity) that is why it is advised not to touch a menstruating woman. Just because simply saying one shouldn’t touch women in her menses, dogs and pigs doesn’t mean that all the three are equivalents.

Some verses from scriptures which clearly say menstruation is a ritual impurity, and this impurity is temporary only.

Vasishta Dharma Sutra V. 4-5 “For month by month the menstrual excretion takes away her sins. A woman in her courses is impure during three (days and) nights.”

Baudhayana Dharma Sutra 2.2.4.4 “Women (possess) an unrivaled means of purification; they never become (entirely) foul. For month by month their temporary uncleanness removes their sins”

Purity is important, Shaucha (ritual purity) is important, that is why it is advised not to touch a menstruating woman.

Manusmriti 10.63 “Abstention from injuring, truthfulness, abstention from unlawful appropriation, purity and control of the sense-organs,—this Manu has declared to be the sum and substance of duty for the four castes.”

Claim 9 - Hindu God Indra tells widow woman to lead the life of prostitutes in Matsya Purana 71.26–48

rebuttal - His reference doesnt exist

Matsya Purana chapter 71 has only 20 verses how did he got 26–48 slokas

Claim 10 - Baudhyana Dharmsutra 2.2.4.7–9 and Garuda Purana 95.16–17

Rebuttal - here it is talking about Niyoga not the general rulings

Baudhyana Dharmsutra 2.2.4.7–9

Garuda Purana 95.16–17

Here it is talking about Niyoga let me Niyoga

Further Woman have option for remarriage also

No Sati Partha/ Burning the widow alive on the dead body of Husband/ Widow Rights

Rig Veda 10/18/8

उदी॑र्ष्व नार्य॒भि जी॑वलो॒कं ग॒तासु॑मे॒तमुप॑ शेष॒ एहि॑ । ह॒स्त॒ग्रा॒भस्य॑ दिधि॒षोस्तवे॒दं पत्यु॑र्जनि॒त्वम॒भि सं ब॑भूथ ॥

Rise, O woman, to a new phase of life, your husband is now dead and gone. Come take the hand of this man from among the living who offers to take your hand and maintain you, and live in consort with this other and new husband of yours for a life time.

Atharva Veda 18/3/4

प्र॑जान॒त्यघ्न्ये जीवलो॒कं दे॒वानां॒ पन्था॑मनुसं॒चर॑न्ती। अ॒यं ते॒गोप॑ति॒स्तं जु॑षस्व स्व॒र्गं लो॒कमधि॑ रोहयैनम् ॥

O never punishable one! (the widow) tread the path of wise in front of thee and choose this man (another suitor) as thy husband. Joyfully receive him and may the two of you mount the world of happiness.

Claim 11 - A woman can be given by her husband to his elder brother as per Mahbharat 12.265.67–70

Rebuttal -

Here this low-intelligence muslim wanted to show that according to Hindu religion, if the younger brother marries before the elder brother, then the younger brother has to give his wife to the elder brother.

Whereas in reality what is being said here is that if the younger brother first marries the elder brother unrighteously, then he should undergo purification and till the purification is complete, he should not have sexual intercourse with his wife and his mind should not be disturbed during the purification. For that, he has to give his wife to his elder brother (who is also considered like a father) in the form of a daughter-in-law. and after that the elder brother takes care of wife of his younger brother who is like a daughter to him and then he gets back his wife after purification penance. There is nothing sexual about this

Claim 12 - Woman do not have the choice to marry themselves as per Manu smriti 5.151 and Devi Bhagvatam

Rebuttal -

Manu 5.151

It nowhere talks about such things

Manu Smriti 2.6

The entire Veda is the root-source of Dharma; also the Conscientious Recollection of righteous persons versed in the Veda, the Practice of Good (and learned) Men, and their self-satisfaction.—(6)

Keeping this in mind Vedas allow woman to choose their own husbands independently

Yajur Veda 15.53

स॒म्प्रच्य॑वध्व॒मुप॑ सं॒प्रया॒ताग्ने॑ पथो॒ दे॑व॒याना॑न् कृणुध्वम्। पुनः॑ कृण्वा॒ना पि॒तरा॒ युवा॑ना॒न्वाता॑सी॒त् त्वयि॒ तन्तु॑मे॒तम्॥५३॥

Men and women, consume religious food, celibacy, study complete knowledge, become religious, attain full youth, get attracted to each other with great love, get married as per your wish, give birth to religious children and live your life in service. After satisfying your parents, you should continue to follow the path of learned scholars and just as you simplify the paths of religion, similarly make the paths of land, water and space also ॥53॥

claim 12 - Woman are sinful by birth in BG 9.32 and mahabharat

Rebuttal -

here is Bhagvat Geeta 9.32

One can simply see that women, Vaisyas, Sudras are not regarded as a sinful birth. Indeed those who are of sinful birth is separated from the other three.

Mahabharata 14.19.61

Here too, the term sinful living entities is separated from other things. Nowhere this consider women to be sinful birth.

claim 13 - Woman must not look at a Brahmana while he eats as per Manu 3.239 and Satpatha Brahmana 14.1.31

Rebuttal -

Manu Smriti 3.239

Some verses from scriptures which clearly say menstruation is a ritual impurity, and this impurity is temporary only.

Vasishta Dharma Sutra V. 4-5 “For month by month the menstrual excretion takes away her sins. A woman in her courses is impure during three (days and) nights.”

Baudhayana Dharma Sutra 2.2.4.4 “Women (possess) an unrivaled means of purification; they never become (entirely) foul. For month by month their temporary uncleanness removes their sins”

Purity is important, Shaucha (ritual purity) is important, that is why it is advised not to touch a menstruating woman.

Manusmriti 10.63 “Abstention from injuring, truthfulness, abstention from unlawful appropriation, purity and control of the sense-organs,—this Manu has declared to be the sum and substance of duty for the four castes.”

Satpatha Brahmana 14.1.31