Thread by @mkdvsm

Fake Claim #21

VEDAS ARE ANTI-WOMEN Part - II

The allegations are so dirty here like you can't discuss this things with anyone. How do they even think about his absurdity to fabricate. I'm disgusted to even write about it.

But let's debunk cause this filth has to be stopped

They fabricated YajurVeda 23.19:

"All wife of the host reciting 3 mantras go round the horse. While praying, they say: ‘O horse, you are, protector of the community on the basis of good qualities, you are, protector or treasure of happiness. O horse, you become my husband.'"
1/n

As we can see in Yajur Veda 23.19 there's no mention of wife or husband in the entire verse. The verses from Chapter 23 explain rituals related to ‘Ashwamedha Yagna’, which was performed by Emperors as a mark of showing superiority over other kingdoms.

2/n

The powerful king would perform the Yajna & release a horse to wonder in the neighboring kingdoms. Any king that wished to challenge the one who performed the yajna would tie the horse and face him in the battle. The loser would accept the supremacy of the winner.

3/n

The horse, therefore, is symbolically called ‘precious wealth’ here

It is to be remembered that such battles were fought only between the warriors. If you wanna know more read the religious rites of an ‘Ashwamedha Yajna’

I already told y'all that Ch.23 is about it but they?
4/n

Next allegation is again from same chapter
Yajurveda 23.20 and look and please think yourself how terminologies such as ‘semen’ and ‘conception’ got embedded into the manuscripts. It was the heinous work of early Indologists, namely, William Jones, Max Mueller, and Pargiter.

5/n

For more information on this topic, read pages 324-340 of the book “The true history and the religion of India: A concise encyclopedia of authentic Hinduism” by Prakashanand Saraswati. The fabricated manuscripts were translated into various languages across the world.

6/n

Let's see how the verse in YV 23.20 is distorted to satisfy their whims & fancies. The word rathao (chariots) is replaced by retau, which means ‘semen’. Next, dadati (gives) is replaced by dadhatu, which means ‘insert’. Finally, raghu (King) is strangely replaced by retaudha
7/n

Retaudha means ‘conception’. So even in the fabricated verse, it should be retaudheya and not retaudha for the sentence to be grammatically correct.

This is how charlatans get caught when they distort the meaning of the verses.

8/n

Again Yajur Veda 23.21 was doctored, so guDa (palm sugar) is replaced with gudha, which means anus. Vrsha (Bull) is replaced with vrshaNa, which means scrotum. With these two fabricated words, the meaning of the whole verse is rendered unpalatable

As you can see here:

9/n

Next, a momin boldly claimed that Rig Veda 14.45, and Atharva Veda 3.81 have clear references that in the Vedic age, the customs of polygamy was prevalent.

First off, there are only 10 Chapters in Rig Veda and only 31 hymns in Chapter 3 of Atharva Veda.

So erm what?

10/n

The four Vedas as such do not support polygamy

However, it's true that the custom of polygamy was prevalent amongst warriors because of the fact that due to war casualties, the male population of warriors was numerically less than the population of their female counterparts
11/n

A woman who preferred a brave warrior would never marry a trader or a brahmana or a labor. Therefore, the warrior class practiced polygamy.
The intellectual class, the merchant middle class, and the labor class, in most circumstances, practiced monogamy.

12/n

In Vedic ages, only kshatriyas practiced polygamy for a valid reason without any undue pressure on women. Kshatriya women chose their partners through a practice called ‘Swayamvara’ (swayam = self-choosing; vara = bridegroom)

Even then we have glaring examples in Shri Rama

13/n

Next allegation is on Rig Ved 10.59 that Lord Indra had many queens that were either defeated or killed by his principal wife.

Rig Veda 10.59 contains 10 hymns, and none of them refers to any slaying of queens.

Here you can see:

14/n

Now there are two such fake claims on ‘Aitrey Puran’, preachings of ‘Rig Veda’, (33.1), Harish Chandra is referred to have had 100 wives.

And that in somewhere in that person's head somehow Narad says: “The daughter causes pain”

This is so funny see how
😂😂😂😂😂😂

15/n

There are only 10 Chapters in RigVeda. Harish Chandra is one of the noblest Kings in Indian history & is the central figure of Aitreya Purana. He had only 1 wife
You can read about him here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harishcha…

About Narad story Aitreya Purana ain't fairytale find verse
16/n

To justify their 4 wives here is the allegation that in Shatapatha Brahmana's preachings 13.4.1.9 of the Veda, it is written that four wives do service in ‘AshwaMedha’. In another place, Tattiriya Sanhita, 3.8.4 says wives are like property.

17/n

The reason why Kshatriyas practiced polygamy is already explained above.

As mentioned before, through Vedic ceremony, Swayamvara, the bride would choose her life-partner amongst a list of suitors. Thus clarifying that these warrior-class marriages were not forceful.

18/n

So it can be concluded that Queens’ accompanying their husbands to perform religious ceremonies was a part of the Vedic life.

Also it would be shocking to them but there isn't single evidence in the Vedic history to show that a noble king married a woman without her consent
19/n

Their another fake claim as follows:
"Not only one man had many wives (married and slave girls), but there were cases of many men having a joint wife. It is confirmed from the following hymn in Atharva Veda 14.1: “O men, sow a seed in this fertile women”

Absurd. See how...

20/n

Again the concept of ‘slave girls’ existed in Saudi Arabia, Biblical times, and in their wandering mind. Atharva Veda 14.1 has 64 hymns. They talk about the marriage ceremonies in general. However, in none of the 64 hymns do we find such irresponsible statements.

See:

21/n

Here is a gem from Atharva Veda (14.1.64) – “Let the man offer Vedic prayers in front of her, behind her, at your centre and at her ends. By doing so, let God’s inviolable grace illuminate her home with good fortune & dignity.”

Here's the remaining and English translation:

22/n

This one more than an allegation that women are treated bad but it's like Vedas consider women are characterless so they used Rig Veda 10.18.8 to assert that whoever comes to take a widow Vedas advice her to go with them which is absolutely non-sense see:

23/n

AtharvaVeda 14.2.60 is used to claim that Atharva Veda says if a widow is not remarried, then her head shall be shaved.

Atharva Veda 14.2.60 says: “If in your house your daughter has wept with disheveled locks, then you are committing sin as a result of her grief.”

24/n

There is neither any mention of remarriage nor shaving head. This verse instead warns every householder that if a daughter weeps in a house, then it is a bad omen and that all the positive karma will burn up, so it is about keeping your daughters/daughters-in-law happy.

n/n