Comments by "Numero" (@asingha94) on "‘Can’t be selective’: India slams double standard on religiophobia at UN amid Prophet row" video.

@doge9693 You're wrong. Brahma & Saraswati were cosmic allegories. Brahma was god of universe, Saraswati was god of knowledge. When it's said that Brahma married Saraswati it means addition of universe with knowledge. Nothing sexual. Marriage isn't r3pe. 57 years old marrying a 6 years old is a r3pe.
7
@yr1ds164 No. It's not a scripture. It's translation. This is what happens when Abdul considers himself expert after attending Zakir Nayak's classroom.
6
@yr1ds164 What's denial here? Lol Expected such response. You know you can't put logical substance. Poor Abdul.
4
@free_palestine786 It wasn't sex. That's the point. Their union or separation have been given such crass term by scholars like Zakir Nayak & you attend his classroom 😉 There's nothing of s*x men mentioned in any scripture.
3
@yr1ds164 The point of the argument is the most Hindu scriptures have been translated wrongfully. And no, manusmriti isn't a scripture as you've said. Nobody follows manusmriti. That's why it has been irrelevant in this generation. It's too outdated to present society. Hinduism don't have only one scripture. In case of Islam, it can't adapt. Whatever translation it be, all are same to what was 1400 years ago.
2
@yr1ds164 Without evidence? You called Manusmriti a scripture. I told you it isn't but only a translation. And the scripture it was translated from, is irrelevant & least followed in 21st century. Hinduism has so many scriptures. Stop taking education from Zakir Nayak. This is what happens. No comprehension ability.
2
@yr1ds164 AbdoLol. This is why you guys have so low education & everyone is annoyed by you. "Manu Smriti is not a Hindu scripture but one of many ancient law codes and their varied opinions. To look at Hinduism according to Manu Smriti is equivalent to looking at Christianity today according to Christian law codes of the Middle Ages." In 1776 it was translated by philologist Sir William Jones. There are so many discrepancies in the translation. Manusmriti is just another book by just another ancient man. Manusmriti, as opposed to Vedas and Puranas, Ramayan, Mahabharata, Bhagwad Gita, is supposed to be written by a person instead of God or someone under the guidance of God. So, it is not a HOLY book. So yeah you're a Zakir Nayak's student. You see what you see but you can't comprehend.
2
@yr1ds164 😂 What a clown! Coming from a extremist hog riding goblin who gets nervous & cuts head off over saying the actual verse of Islam & petty comments, for saying Muhammad's love story with kids. Do you seriously think Abdul opinion matters enough to get angry over? I was just having a constructive discussion but a typical Muslim can't resist from showing their natural habitat. Where have you seen Hindus quoting Manusmriti while following religion? It's just an outdated piece of crap written by an individual. Veda, Upanishad, Gita are main Hindu scriptures. Now be gone.
2
@joexavier4070 He didn't have 16000 wives. He only gave them wife status. For Islam everything seems too be sexual. You need to change your view buddy. I understand that in Islam everything spade is spade. Krishna gave them wife status to give them social tier, respect & to save them from demon king Narakasura, nothing sexual. You're definitely a bigot. I have found another Zakir Nayak's classmate who makes up stories for religious brownies but get agitated for calling out Muhammad's love life.
2
@joexavier4070 Manusmriti isn't god written piece in Hinduism. It's written by an individual. Nobody follows Manusmriti & caste system is very much diminishing to non existence. Better be worried about Islam. Islamic sections are having bloodbath since 14th century & it's not just a discrimination. Can quote verse from Qaran but you wouldn't like. I can assure you.
1
@joexavier4070 I've. Most are out of context & vague teanslations. Do a bit of Google if you really have honest intention to find out, you will find your answers 😉
1
@joexavier4070 History is proof for you? I mean had you existed back in 2000 bc? Abdul will be Abdul. Manusmriti isn't a scripture. It's written by an individual. Hindus follow several scriptures but it's none of it. It's irrelevant. You don't know anything about Hinduism. Better keep watching Zakir Nayak than trying to pretend expert here.
1
@HADESthe3RD Nah.. It has mostly diminished & is among political class mostly apart from few isolated cases. Aren't you the guy who was saying that Pakistan don't give a F about US delisting Indian national on terror charges? Abdul cope harder. Loads of worse things exist in Islam. Wanna know?
1