Note: This article is divided into 4 parts. Agniveer/Satyagni had thrown lot of red herrings in his bogus article, which called for a detailed response. Please read all the 4 parts, the links of which are given at the end of this part.
Everyday an illiterate Islāmophobe comes up with some concocted material claiming to expose Islām and show the so-called true face of Islām, but this helps Muslims in clearing the vast illiteracy, misunderstanding of Islām and ill-will against Muslims and Islām. What an irony!
This ‘failed’ article, authored by Agniveer/Satyagni – the fanactic extremist Hindū, broadly and in an overall manner alleges Islām to be racist, promoting racism and discrimination against various segments of society based on race, ethnicity and colour. I believe, this article is the best example of ‘criticism’ just for the sake of criticizing with no substance or truth in it; meaning the article is conjectural and concocted, which has nothing to do with reality, factuality or truth. Simply put, Islām is emphatically opposed to racism, tribalism, and other forms of discrimination based on race, colour, and ethnicity.
This article was written by the Islāmophobe (i.e. Satyagni) who is but the same fanatic, zealot Protestant Hindū (i.e Agniveer) trying to keep alive the legacy of his cult that is ‘Hatred’ and ‘Lies’, and is up with another ridiculously unscholarly and fact-less article (‘can it be even called an article’?) Nonetheless this hapless article will help Muslims clear misconceptions and expose the deception, inconsistency of Islāmophobes. Let’s start scrutinizing it…
Satyagni / Agniveer the hate-monger wrote –
"I am a Muslim. A proud Muslim. But I am not Arab. I represent the entire non-Arab Muslim Ummah (community). I am the ‘black’ Muslim of Zanzibar. I am the ‘brown’ Muslim of Indian sub-continent which is the largest congregation of Muslims in the world. I provide the largest population base as well as intellectual leadership to Islam. I am home to greatest scholars and volunteers of Islam.And yes I am indeed proud of who I am. A Muslim. Worshipper of Allah and his great last Prophet Muhammad. I live for Islam. I shall die for Islam. I have laid my life for Islam. I can even take life for Islam."
Muslims are found all over the world, which seemingly is a thorn in the neck of these Islāmophobes which is clearly visible from the above quote. Our Protestant Hindū Islāmophobe, starts his ridiculous ‘saga’ in a very deceptive way, distinguishing Muslims on ethnic and racial basis! In fact this article seems to be written in a similar vein, that of Britishers (Britons) following their principle of ‘divide and conquer/rule’. Seemingly this Islāmophobe is trying to exploit the so-called non-Arab Muslims, so as to divide the ancient unity amongst Muslims in regards to race, colour and ethnicity. This is another pathetic trick plagiarized from Christian Britishers, these ploys have been used on Muslims by missionaries, Orientalists and other Islāmophobes but all their efforts were in vain. Why? It will be evident in the article as the reader reads by.
Muslims never discriminate or categorize people on colour or racial basis; in fact the dialogue of ‘race’ and racism has never been a part of any discourses amongst Muslims for centuries, as ‘race’ never ever mattered to Islām or Muslims. In the words of Paul Hardy - in his paper “Islām and the race question”,
“THE RACIALISED DISCOURSE in our own era has over the centuries proven alien to the societies which developed under the inspiration of Islam.” – [Paul Hardy, Islām and the race question, pg.1, M.A.T, 2002, Cambridge-UK]
Paul Hardy, very well states the historical fact, that never had Islāmic societies undergone any sought of discourse, controversy, rebellion or anything with regards to ‘racism’ due to the absence of it (racism), in societies. Moreover Islāmic societies since the advent of Prophet Muḥammad (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam) have always been made-up of variant people from different cultures and regions but never did Muslims or Islām at any point of time had anything called “racism”. Paul very well puts the fact,
“Although Islamic society was multi-racial from the beginning, none of the regions where the religion became dominant did the concept of race enter Muslim consciousness. In fact, Arabic had no word this time which would correspond to the semantic range covered by the English word ‘race’.” – [ibid pg.1]
And further, Paul goes on to put another jaw-breaking fact, under the sub-heading “The Egalitarian consciousness of Islam” which crushes the claims of Islāmophobes brutally, and explicitly reveals their unfounded allegations. He writes –
“Wherever Islam put out down roots, Muslims grew to believe that discriminatory exclusion based on race was fundamentally alien to the spirit of their faith. This is understandable, given that there is almost a logical connection between affirming the oneness of God and upholding and upholding the equality of human beings before Him” –[ibid pg. 2]
Islām unlike other religions is a complete way of life (deen) for the entire humanity and the core of Islām is Monotheism, in a broad sense pure Monotheism is Islām. And the egalitarianism of Islām is due to two main reasons, firstly due to Islāmic Monotheism as stated by Paul and secondly due to it(Islām) being a complete(deen) way of life for entire humanity , not just for a fraction of people or a nation or a tribe but for everyone irrespective of gender, race, ethnicity or colour.
The speculation (read allegation) of Islāmophobes, that Islām is ‘racist’ or encourages ‘racist supremacy’ is simply debunked by quoting a verse from the noble Qur’ān,
“O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you.”
– [Sūrah al-Hujurāt (49):13]
This Ayah is enough to refute all the allegations of Islam being racist or discriminatory on the basis of ethnicity and colour. The Ayah states that nobility and honor can only be achieved from righteous deeds and pious-ness. Nowadays even few deviated Muslims imitating non-Muslims have started to show their so-called ‘patriotism’ for India by indulging in racist-like attacks on non-Indians. In fact all these instances of racism like behavior shown by few people are due to the filthy ‘nationalism’. Nonetheless we’ll be debunking all the points raised by our illiterate and deceptive Islāmophobe, InshāAllāh.
We’ve just iterated few points refuting the allegations against the divinely glorious deen - Islām. Now let’s move on to some other points and debunk and refute them one by one. Our illiterate blind-following protestant Hindū Islāmophobe (Agniveer) seemingly needs some baby lessons on Islām- due to his pathetic conjectural allegations. .Muslims worship the One true Almighty God- Allāh, and none other than the particular ‘testimony of faith’ (Shahādatayn) itself is enough to prove our point and educate this blind-follower. The ‘testimonies of faith’ consists of ‘‘Muḥammadur rasūlullāh’ which clearly negates Prophet Muḥammad from being divine or something more than a human while affirming his messenger-ship. It seems that our Islāmophobe ‘pupil’ did not dare to read the noble Qur’ān as it explicitly states –
Say (O Muḥammad [sal-Allāhu 'alayhi wa sallam]): “I am only a man like you. It has been revealed to me that your Ilāh(God) is One Ilāh (God – i.e. Allāh).”
- [Sūrah al-Kahf (18) Ayat 110]
“And Muḥammad [sal-Allāhu 'alayhi wa sallam]): is no more than a Messenger…”
- [Sūrah Aal-'Imrān (3) Ayat 144]
There are tremendous amount of proofs but for the sake of brevity we’ve quoted few, people interested in it may visit (‘b.3’ Section of this article) –
And the last sentence(i.e. “I can even take life for Islam.”) is a typical example from few ‘statements’ used for maligning Muslims and Islām, this is the view of what image a protestant Hindū has about a Muslim and what is his level of comprehension of Islām. Such a statement can be uttered only a man perfectly illiterate in Islām with being in a biased and prejudiced state of mind. Only a few verses from the noble Qur’ān are enough to debunk this lie on Muslims.
“Because of that, We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allāh by committing the major sins) in the land!”
- [Sūrah Mā’idah, Ayat 32]
And, Muḥammad Asad (Leopold Weiss) commented –
“This moral truth is among those to which the first sentence of verse 15 of this surah alludes, and its succinct formulation fully explains the reason why the story of Cain and Abel is mentioned in this context. The expression “We have ordained unto the children of Israel” does not, of course, detract from the universal validity of this moral: it refers merely to its earliest enunciation.”
Al-Imām Abū al-Fid’ā Ibn Kathir expounds –
“The Ayah states, whoever kills a soul without justification -- such as in retaliation for murder or for causing mischief on earth -- will be as if he has killed all mankind, because there is no difference between one life and another.”
Al-A'mash and others said that Abu Ṣāliḥ said that Abu Hurayrah said, “I entered on `Uthmān when he was under siege in his house and said, ‘I came to give you my support. Now, it is good to fight (defending you) O Leader of the Faithful!’ He said, ‘O Abu Hurayrah! Does it please you that you kill all people, including me’ I said, ‘No.’ He said, ‘If you kill one man, it is as if you killed all people. Therefore, go back with my permission for you to leave. May you receive your reward and be saved from burden.’ So I went back and did not fight.”
Killing a soul except in retaliation for murder or for spreading corruption, mischief in lands (done by authorities – government), is likened to the killing of whole mankind, such is the gravity of the evil sin of killing in Islām.
And it’s expounded (on the verse) in Tafhīm as,
This means that the survival of human life depends on everyone respecting other human beings and in contributing actively to the survival and protection of others. Whosoever kills unrighteously is thus not merely guilty of doing wrong to one single person, but proves by his act that his heart is devoid of respect for human life and of sympathy for the human species as such. Such a person, therefore, is an enemy of all mankind. This is so because he happens to be possessed of a quality which, were it to become common to all men, would lead to the destruction of the entire human race. The person who helps to preserve the life of even one person, on the other hand, is the protector of the whole of humanity, for he possesses a quality which is indispensable to the survival of mankind. – [Tafhīm al-Qur’ān, vol. 2, pg.156, 1989, IIPH]
No , Islām does not stop here but further goes on to state that its one of the most gravest and great sins from which there is no escape in regards to punishments –
Narrated Anas bin Mālik (radhi-yAllāhu 'anhu): The Prophet [sal-Allāhu 'alayhi wa sallam] said, “The biggest of Al-Kabā'ir (the great sins) are: (1) To join others as partners in worship with Allāh, (2) to murder a human being, (3) to be undutiful to one's parents, and (4) to make a false statement,” or said, “to give a false witness.” - [Sahīh al-Bukhārī (9/6871)Bk no. 78, no.667].
Narrated 'Abdallāh bin 'Umar (radhi-yAllāhu 'anhu):
“One of the evil deeds with bad consequence from which there is no escape for the one who is involved in it is to kill someone unlawfully.”
- [Sahīh Al-Bukhārī, Bk. 83, no.3]
Prophet Muḥammad (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam) said:
Avoid the seven Mawbiqāt (destructive sins).They said O messenger of Allāh, what are they?
He (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam said): “Shirk with Allāh (associating partners and equals with him- associationism); magic; killing of a soul which Allāh has declared forbidden for you except with just cause;…”
- [Sahīh Al-Bukhārī, Kitāb al-Wasīyah no. 2766, Muslim Kitāb al- Īmān no.89]
Killing a soul except for a just cause means executing of murderers (criminals) that too done by authorities under law, like the judicial authorities of a country.
Ash-Shaykh al-Allāmah Abd al-Azīz bin ‘Abdallāh Aal Ash-Shaykh, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, said -
"Killing and terrorizing innocent people and the destruction of property are not condoned by Islām. Attributing all these horrific incidents to Islām is unjust. Muslims should tell the truth and unveil falseness, and inform all people that Islām is a religion of righteousness, betterment and progress.”
He also stated:
"Attributing to Islām acts of individual or collective killings, bombings, destruction of properties and the terrorizing of peaceful people is unfair, because they are alien to the divine religion."
- [Published: 9 September 2005]
The above verses, aḥadith and quotes are enough for an unbiased, open-minded person to recognize and accept Islām as a faith of mercy and righteousness. Now let’s have a brief look at the Protestant Hindūs and their beliefs concerning some heinous acts legislated by the barbaric vedas. We’ve seen how protestant Hindūs are ever zealous in maligning Islām, alleging it to be ‘violent’ , intolerant but have the people seen the true ‘teachings’ of this self-claimed ‘ahinsac’(non-violent) religion? Let’s read the ‘unholy’ verses of their so-called Holy book ‘vedas’.
Intolerance and killing in vedas -
“Food to him who knows the science of air, and to him who is the chief killer. Homage to the expert in the construction of houses, and to their protector. Food to the wealthy, and to him who makes the wicked weep. Homage to him who abhors sin and to him who practices Virtue”
- [Yajurveda Ch 16, verse 39, pg.173, Tr. Devi Chand]
“We learned persons accept as our ruler, thee, the introducer of new plans for our advancement, the master of loyal subjects, the embodiment of virtue, the most advanced in noble qualities and acts, the queller of the irreligious, the pure, the specimen of endurance, the master of prowess, and the helper and educator of all.”
- [Yajurveda Ch 7, verse 36, pg.77, Tr. Devi Chand]
The verse quoted above speak for themselves, the second verse commands killing of irreligious and here this is one of the reasons why ‘learned person’ are accepting, a ruler, due to his intolerance towards who are irreligious! While the first verse praises ‘Chief-killer’ by stating food to him who’s the chief killer! We need no more statements from the vedas; these amply put our point in place. And these are the verses from the book of a religion which often labels itself as ‘ahimsac’ (non-violent). Such cults and religions often label themselves as non-violent in order to hide the true face of their creed.
Killing irreligious foes in Vedas-
“O king, make progress in thy duty of administration, extend happiness to the virtuous. O terrible chastiser, burn down the irreligious foes. O splendid person, humiliate and consume utterly like dried up stubble, him, who encourages our foe.”
- [Yajurveda, Ch 13, verse 12, pg.138, Tr. Devi Chand]
Above verse commands protestant Hindū King to burn down irreligious foes like stubble, this is what protestant Hindūs call ‘tolerance’. And this is reagarded as progress in the administrative duty of a Hindū King! We’ve always found Hindūs criticizing Muslims and belittling them as barbarians, because few so-called Muslims rulers allegedly have been intolerant and have killed thousands of Hindūs, while conquering India. This is the ‘Classical hypocrisy’ of Hindūs; they’ve always criticized people for being barbaric, intolerant and violent against Hindūs, but what about these unholy verses from their so-called holy books? Islām never allowed such barbaric acts , but if some Muslim indulge into such acts then he’s to be blamed not Islām, but Islāmophobes like Agniveer have always blamed Islām – this shows their bias, irrationality and unreasonable state of mind. But now we question, what about Hindūism which quite evidently is commanding Hindūs to kill innocents because they are irreligious?
Burning of irreligious people! , still we find protestant Hindūs adamantly criticizing Islām and other faiths with so-called intolerance, extremism, fundamentalism and violence, when their religion itself is the paragon of such barbaric things.
Satyagni / Agniveer wrote –
"I was not always a Muslim. Some 1400 years ago, I was just a human being. My forefathers had been following Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. In the Indian subcontinent, I had been following the oldest religion of humankind. I had been doing so for generations since time immemorial. If human civilization is 10,000 years old, I was Hindu for 10,000 years. If it is 100,000 years old, I was Hindu for 100,000 years. If it is 1.97 billion years old, I was Hindu for 1.97 billion years.
But then something changed. And I rejected what I was following for thousands/millions/billions of years! The change was not easy. It is difficult to change habits of only a few years. And here, I was changing my very lifeline since inception of humanity!!"
Let us get it straight, Satyagni rhetorically (when Islamophobes cannot be factual due to lack of arguments and facts, they typically respond rhetorically) is making statements void of facts and evidences (typical of him), it’s pretty amazing to see how without any evidence he states that 1400 years ago Muslims never existed, then goes on with his fact-less saga of ‘Hindūism’ being ‘oldest religion of humankind’. Nope it isn’t over yet, the show is yet to begin, he (Satyagni) further goes on to equal the age of Hindūism with that of Humans civilization, which is quite ridiculous to people of reason, rationality, logicality and evidence.
And lastly states ‘I was changing my very lifeline since inception of humanity’. All these claims are unfounded and are myths solely based on whims and fiction usually propagated by Hindū-Fascists.
Myths promulgated by the myth-monger Agniveer:
1) Myth of Hindūism being the religion of Mankind since its inception.
2) Myth that Muslims and Islām are no more than 1400 years old. In fact the poor Islāmophobe is just stating the years passed by, since the advent of the final messenger, which too inaccurately its 1432 years, and these quacks claim to be ‘Arabic’ masters, hilarious!
We’ll expose both the myths but one by one, let’s first expose the blatant lie of Vedas being revealed at the inception of humanity (i.e Hinduism being the religion of mankind since inception of humanity); we’ll show our readers from the creedal text of protestant Hindus itself that, Vedas weren’t revealed at the inception of humanity.
Vedas weren’t revealed at inception of humanity:
30. Was one man created in the beginning of Creation or more than one?
A.~ More than one; because souls, that on account of their previous good actions deserve to be born in the Aishwari - not the result of sexual intercourse - Creation, are born in the beginning of the world. It is said in the Yajur Veda, "(In the beginning) there were born many men as well as rishis, i.e.., learned seers of nature. They were progenitors of the human race." On the authority of this Vedic text it is certain then that in the beginning of Creation hundreds and thousands of men were born. By observing nature with the aid of reason we come to the same conclusion, viz., that men are descended from many fathers and mothers (i.e., not from one father and one mother).
- [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch 8, pg.264 Tr. Chiranjiva]
Elsewhere Mūlshankar also wrote -
36. Whose hearts did God reveal the Vedas in?
A.-"In the beginning, God revealed the four Vedas, Rig, Vayu, Sama, and Atharva, to Agni, Vayu, A'ditya and Angira, respectively." SHAPATHA BRAHMAN 11: 4,2.3.
Q. Why should He have revealed the Vedas to those four men alone and not to others as well? That imputes favouritism to God.
A.- Among all men those four alone were purest in heart, therefore, God revealed the true knowledge to them only.
- [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch 7, pg.238, Tr. Chiranjiva]
In the above, quoted passages, it is clear that Ishwar – the protestant Hindū God, as per protestant Hindū theology, ‘fashioned’ thousands of humans and later ‘revealed’ the vedas to four Rishis. Vedas could have been called to be revealed at inception of humanity if and only if they were revealed immediately as the humans were ‘fashioned’, but from the above quotes it’s apparent that there was a huge ‘gap’ between the inception of humanity and revelation of Vedas, and during this gap (time period) the so-called ‘created’ (‘fashioned’) humans were busy doing various kind of deeds and were having a gala time, then Ishwar seemingly one day selected four amongst them and stated them to be with purest of hearts (as per protestant Hindū theology). Hence the inception hypothesis propagated by poor satyagni/Agniveer is disastrously refuted by his cult-leader- Mūlshankar. This gap is the time period between which the humanity was fashioned, and the revelation of Vedas, which is substantial amount of time, it’s during this time all the humans indulged in various deeds and acts, then some time later Ishwar chose four Rishis based on these deeds and acts, meaning those who did good deeds had pure hearts , while those who indulged in bad deeds had impure hearts(Or is it that Ishwar created the four Rishis with pure hearts and while others were not?, we don’t think this to be the case.).
This explicitly and evidently proves that Vedic or Hindū- religion, was alien to Humans before the revelation of ‘vedas’, which weren’t revealed at the inception of humanity but quite later, as per the protestant Hindū theology. Hence the ‘assumption’ (lie) of satyagni –“And here, I was changing my very lifeline since inception of humanity!!”, isn’t factual according to his own creedal textbook –Satyarth Prakāsh ,and nor were Vedas revealed at the inception of humanity.
Monotheism is the Oldest Religion:
Monotheism is the oldest (in fact pre-eternal faith) faith, followed by humans with a natural propensity toward it. And Islām is pure Monotheism. It’s usually propagated by zealot Hindūs and those infected by them that Hindūism is the oldest religion existing today, this is a mere conjecture promulgated and propagated amongst novices and common people inorder to fool them. Hindūism never was one of the old faiths forget being oldest, let us prove our point and quote some scholarly opinions. So what is the oldest in fact pre-eternal faith of humans? Well the subtitle states it, its Monotheism. Monotheism is the pre-eternal and the oldest faith followed by humans. Let’s start by quoting the Islāmic stance in brief, following it with, various scholarly opinions and statements which will eventually prove our point.
The scholar of Islām Ash-Shaykh Al-Allāmah Nāsiruddeen al-Albānī briefly states the Islāmic stance and view-point in brief:
“It is established in Islām and the Sharee’ah that mankind in the beginning was a single nation upon true Tawheed then Shirk (associating partners with only One true God -loosely association-ism) gradually overcame them (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and Sharee’ah).”
- [Shaykh al-Albānī, Tadheer as-Sājid min Ittikhādhil Qubūr il-Masājid, p.101-106]
And as the noble Prophet Muḥammad (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) related from Allāh, that Allāh azz wa Jall said,
“I created all my servants upon the true religion (Tawheed free from Shirk), then the devils came to them and led them astray from their true religion. They made unlawful to people that which I had made lawful for them, and they commanded them to associate in worship with Me that for which I had sent down no authority.” – [al-Musnad of Aḥmad]
These evidences prove that as per Islām humanity’s monotheistic concept of One God degenerated into idol-worship, man-worship, saint worship, and minor gods, due to various facts, for instance people started our venerating good monotheist and ultimately ended worshipping them. And we can see, somewhat similar to this even today, have a look at India where people like Dr. Ambekar , Shivāji …etc have been added to the pantheon of Gods , they are worshipped their statues have been erected, ārtis of those idols, images are done , birthdays are celebrated. These people have been turned into Gods, there numerous such reasons why humanity from pure monotheism degenerated into polytheism, but just one is stated for the sake of brevity.
Islām believes that humans beings started out as worshipping God alone then afterwards deviated into various forms of polytheism as mentioned above. Islām holds that God sent Messengers to all the tribes and nations of the Earth to guide them back to the path of monotheism, as stated in the noble Qur’ān:
“And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allāh (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Tāghūt (all false deities, i.e. do not worship anything besides Allāh)." - [Sūrah an-Nahl (16): 36]
And, thus we find that almost every religion today has been evolved into polytheism from pure Islāmic monotheism, though there are few religions or better say cults recently founded which haven’t evolved from monotheism but inherently are polytheistic, but almost every civilization and religion has been evolved from Monotheism, because once only monotheism existed all these religions stemmed out of it, degenerating into polytheism...etc.
Thus, we find amongst all of the so-called primitive tribes that have been discovered, the belief in One Supreme God.
The Central America Mayans believe in One God who created everything, whom they call “Itzamna” - [John Hinnels, ‘Dictionary of Religions’, pg. 93, Penguin Books: 1884]
The Mende peoples of Sierra Leone in West Africa believe in One God who created the universe and spirits who they call “Ngewo” – [ibid, pg.210]
In the ancient Babylon the main deity of the city, “Marduk”, was seen as the Supreme God.- – [ibid, pg.204]
In the Yoruba religion, followed by over 10 million people in West Africa (mainly Nigeria), there is One Supreme God, “Olorius/Olodumare” (The Lord of the Heavens). Nevertheless, modern Yoruba religion is characterised by a multitude of Orisha worship rites which thus render the religion closer to polytheism – from Monotheism to polytheism.
One of the first Western scholars to acknowledge the significance of the trend from monotheism to extreme polytheism was Stephen Langdon of Oxford. Langdon took the view that the Sumerians were the oldest historic civilisation and noted:
“In my opinion the history of the oldest civilisation of man is a rapid decline from monotheism to extreme polytheism and widespread belief in spirits. It is in a very true sense the history the fall of man.”
- [Stephen H. Langdon, “Mythology of all Races,” in Semitic Mythology Journal (Vol. 5, Archaeological Institute of America: 1931), pg. xviii/pg.18]
Chinese scholars of history sometimes divide their ancient period into three separate periods: first, the primal-ancient, second, the mid-ancient and thirdly, the near ancient, the first period roughly stretches from the 21st to the 12th century BCE. According to Ron Williams, who read Chinese, each of these periods possessed its own distinctive religious characteristics, and the first was clearly monotheistic. Williams also noted that:
“In this period of Chinese history, God the Supreme Ruler was One and indivisible, incapable of change, having no equal, ruling absolutely and alone over all in heaven above and in Earth beneath. He did what He willed and no power was able to hinder Him, and His will was always right.”
- [Ron Williams, “Early Chinese Monotheism,” a thesis paper presented before the Kelvin Institute (Toronto, 1938)]
In the series journal “The Great Ages of Man”, one particular volume was published dealing with ancient China authored by Edward H. Schafer who noted:
“One of the oldest and certainly the greatest of deities was the Sky God Ti’en. In the very early days Ti’en was thought of as a great King in the sky, more magnificent than any earth bound kin. Later many viewed Ti’en as an impersonal dynamo, the source of energy that animated the world.”
- [Edward H. Schafer, “Ancient China,” in The Great Ages of Man (New York: Time Life, 1967) pg. 58]
Another very important work on the early monotheism of ‘primitive people’ is that by Wilhelm Schmidt which, though originally a voluminous work in German, was published in 1930 in a condensed English translation as a single volume. Schmidt discovered in his studies that he found the primitive cultures at the lowest cultural levels had the purer concepts of God. He noted that as one progresses from mere hunters to food gatherers, and food storers to food growers as pastoral nomads maintaining flocks, to food growers who have settles land use, and on up the scale to semi-urban communities, one finds at first a simple faith in a Supreme God who has no wife or family. According to Wilhelm Schmidt we find this form of belief among the Pygmies of central Africa, the south-eastern Australian Aborigines, the native Americas of north-central California, the primitive Algonquians, and to a certain extent the Koryaks and Ainu. To sum up his findings very briefly his own words are:
“Going back to the most primitive people, the Pygmies of Africa of the central Australian Aborigines or the central American Indians all have One Supreme God to whom they make their offerings...all these peoples also have short prayers.” – [Wilhelm Schmidt, The Origin and Growth of Religion – Facts and Theories, (London: 1931) pg. 131, (translated by HJ Rose)]
Another Scholar Andrew Lang noted that the,
“Australian Aborigines probably have one of the most simple cultures of any people known, but they have religious concepts which are so lofty that it would be natural to explain them as a result of European influence.” – [Andrew Lang, The Making of Religion (London: Longmans Green, 1909) pg. 175-182, 196]
At the time of writing Lang felt that this explanation was justified because in his environment their concept of God was seen as being the most ‘evolved’ and ‘civilised’.
Lang also mentioned that the inhabitants of the Andaman Islands, whom he considered to be at the same cultural level as the Aborigines, believed in One God, they described Him as being invisible, Immortal, The Creator of all things (except evil), The Knower of what is in the hearts and minds, The One who is angered by falsehood and wrong doing, helps those in distress or pain. Further, their concept of God was that He is The Judge of Souls and at some future time will preside over a great judgment.
The information supplied to Lang came from the older members of the community who were not acquainted with other peoples at that time. As Lang says,
“foreign influence seems to have been more than usually excluded (in their concept of God).” –[ Ibid, pg. 196]
Sameul Zwemer spoke of the monotheistic character of the Bushmen, as well as many peoples of the Arctic cultures which he maintained is,
“Clear…even to a cursory examination.” –[ Samuel Zwemer, “The Origin of Religion – By Evolution or by Revelation,” (Trans. Vict. Institute, Volume 67; 1937) pg. 189]
In his (Sameul Zwemer) paper he was not merely reiterating what others have observed, namely, that all these primitive peoples have knowledge of One Supreme God, but rather that the Supreme God whom they recognise is essentially the same figure with the same attributes.
In “Prehistoric Monotheism,” (Trans. Vict. Institute, Vol. 8, 1937) pg. 145” , Canon Titcombe noted that when speaking of the Zulus, quoting a former Bishop of Natal who had a firsthand knowledge of the Zulus while they were still culturally intact, as stating that they had no idols but rather acknowledged One Supreme Being who was known as The Great One, The All-Mighty, The First etc. Titcombe also noted the concept of One God amongst the Madagascan natives -[ ibid, p. 144]
Debunking all the myths propounded by neo-historians with personal and religious agendas, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute published a paper by E.O. James in which he concluded:
“Thus, it is impossible to maintain a unilateral (one sided and single) evolution in religious thought and practice as suggested by the rationalists Frazer, Tylor and Comte’s ‘Three stages’. Nevertheless, neither the speculation that the idea of God arose in ancestor worship as revived by Herbert Spencer, nor the Frazerian evolution model of polytheism and animism to monotheism can be reconciled with the One Supreme tribal God which is a recurrent feature of the primitive concept of God.” – [E.O. James, “Religion and Reality,” in the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (Vol. 79, 1950) pg. 28]
The degeneration of monotheism can be seen in Buddhism which began in the 6th century as a reform movement within Hindūism, in a way. Later on however, gigantic colossal statues and images of the Buddha were erected and surrounded by flowers, incense etc. Buddhists further performed a number of rituals to these statues that include prostrating and bowing. In addition the Dalai Lama of Tibet is worshiped as a man-god, with his devotees prostrating to him. All the stories theories by neo-historians, fictionists – ‘from polytheism to monotheism’, are very well refuted by the researches and studies, especially above statement of E.O James, leaves no ounce of doubt on the issue.
It’s always has been, deviation from Monotheism to extreme Polytheism, this transformation from truth to falsehood resulted in calamity on humanity, which suffered a lot due to this deviation and still suffers. All the researches today show (like the Ti’en...etc), how monotheistic civilization slowly went down to polytheism, above quoted scholars and their findings explicitly show us monotheism to be the oldest faith, and hint the slow degeneration into polytheism.
Is Orthodox Hindūism Monotheistic? What is the take of Vedas on it ?
We’ve talked about many ‘primitive people’ and their belief, but what about Hindūism? Were the people of India always polytheist? Of-course not, even Hindūs once followed the same faith that is Monotheism, but as with all other civilization and cultures they deviated from monotheism into polytheism. Though ,sadly there are very few ‘hints’ and ‘traces’ to monotheism, which cannot wholly considered as proofs, for the currently prevalent Hindūism to be monotheistic, due to various reasons .Still we believe that once Hindūs too were Monotheist , following the Monotheism revealed to their Prophet by Allāh, the Exalted and Glorified.
Well, whether Hindūism ever was a Monotheistic religion or not, is a hotly debated topic, but it’s apparently and undoubtedly polytheistic, so is it undoubted that nowhere does Vedas in any strict sense preach and teach Monotheism. There have been many attempts by Hindū “reformist” to paint Vedas with monotheism but all of them failed, due to the inherent polytheistic nature of Vedas. Though there are few verses from Vedas which may loosely point that vedas may have been monotheistic, but such claims are still not verified. Historically monotheistic nature of vedas is unproven. There have been people who had taken it for granted that Hindūism is Monotheistic on the basis of few verses which seemingly just pointed to something like monotheism. For instance, Edward McCrady, while writing about Indian religions stated that the Rig Veda (Book 1, p.164) shows that in the earlier times gods were regarded simply as diverse manifestations of One Single Divine Being, he stated that: “They call him – all of these are different terms for the One Wise God.” – [Edward McCrady, “Genesis and Pagan Cosmologies,” [Trans. Vict. Institute; Vol. 72 (1940), p.55]
The above stated verse (i.e. 1.164.46), is the one to which McCrady mistakenly speculates that the verse alludes to monotheism in vedas, without enquiring details of the verse. Let’s explore the verse and starting with, what Yāska the author of classical Nirkuta the ancillary of vedas, has to say about the verse. The verse in question is Rigveda 1.164.46 and here are few translations plus transliteration and original Sanskrit text.
“They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān. To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.” – [Tr. Ralph T.H Griffith]
“They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni and he is the heavenly winged bird. The sages speak of the One by many names: they call it Agni ,Yama , Mātariśvan.” – [Tr. Vasudeva Agarwal]
In the section of deities, Yāska quotes the above cited verse to explain Agni, seemingly said to be all the deities:
“This is to be clearly seen (by the following): On account of the supereminence of the deity, a single soul is praised in various ways. Other gods are the individual limbs of a single soul. Or else, as people say, seers praise objects according to the multiplicities of their original nature, as well as from its universality. They are produced from each other. They are the original forms of each other. They are produced from (action (karma)), they are produced from the soul. Soul is even their chariot, their horse, their weapon, their arrows; soul is indeed the all-in-all of gods.”
- [Laxman swarup, ‘The Nighaṉṭu and Nirkuta’, 7.4, pg.115]
What does 'soul is all-in-all' mean? So what is Yāska purporting? Laxman swarūp who spend almost his entire life editing, studying various manuscripts and translating this work writes in the footnote:
“This is Yāska’s rejoinder to the objection that non-deites are praised like deities. The so-called non-deities, says Yāska, are but different manifestations of the same single soul [ātman]. In other words, Yāska here propounds the doctrine of pantheism.”
- [ibid footnote on pg.115]
Not only Yāska but Śaunaka (Shaunaka) also writes:
“The Soul (ātmā) is all that is proclaimed to be an attribute (bhakti) of those three chief lords of the world who have been separately mentioned above.”
- [Bṛhaddevatā of Śaunaka 1.73, Part 2, pg. 16, Tr. A.A MacDonnell, 1904]
Soul is all or soul is all-in-all is but pantheism, nothing more or less, and this is how both the above scholars have stated it to mean. In short, both Yāska and Śaunaka are propounding the doctrine of pantheism. Hence the speculation of McCrady that the verse propounds or alludes to monotheism is refuted by Hindūs themselves.
Other points to be noted in Yāska’s explanation are: Other gods are “individual limbs” or “pratyaṅgāni”. Also Yāska wrote “mahā-bhāgyāt” which is translated as “Supereminence” where as Anand Kumārswāmi adapting Swarūp’s translation, translated it as “great divisibility”. Simply put, the verse in no way can be regarded to be propounding of monotheism, it may in some sense be propounding dualism, polytheism, non-dualism…etc but in no sense is propounding monotheism as evident.
Hindūism isn’t monotheistic, which is very well-accepted by Hindūs themselves, it would be waste of time and space to bring out the statements - proclaiming the polytheism Vedas ,of various Hindū Scholars, Hindūtva-vādis (Hindū Fascists) and other Hindū leaders on the subjecthence we’ll quote limitedly. Here’s what the Shrikant G. Talageri (Hindūtva- Vādi) states in his book ‘The Rigveda - A Historical Analysis’, in Section III- Appendices -:
“The Christian missionaries treated Hinduism as inferior to Christianity on various counts: namely, idol-worship, polytheism, etc. Instead of countering these religious prejudices and pointing out that there was nothing superior to polytheism in monotheism, or superior to idolworship in Christian forms of worship,…”
Such are the beliefs of Hindūtva- vādis and Hindū scholars! Other Islāmophobic Hindūtva-vādis like Rām Swarūp, Sitā Rām Goel and P.N Oak held similar views.
Now let’s go to European Scholars of Vedas, who studied Vedas with various commentaries of Orthodox Hindus like Sāyana, Mahidhar and others. Same here, we won’t be quoting every European Scholar for the sake of brevity and so as to be frugal in utilizing the space here. There are many statements of F. Max Muller - the infamous Sanskrit-Vedic Scholar criticized for following and relying on Orthodox Hindū commentaries of Sāyana and other scholars, on the nature of Hindūism, and here’s just one quote which proves our point.
“If we must employ technical terms, the religion of the Veda is polytheism, not monotheism.”
– [Muller's Chips, vol. 1, pg. 27]
Monier Williams says,
“The hymns of the Veda are the expression of that early stage of religious progress which may be called physiolatry” – [Monier Williams, ‘Hindūism’, pg. 16, London, 1878]
“Their religion was what may be called in: one word physiolatry.” - [Monier Williams, ‘Hindūism’, pg. 21]
Expounding on the statement of Muller (earlier quoted) K.S Macdonald wrote:
“His idea is, that the Aryans represented the divinity by various names taken from natural phenomena, which names, not being those of attributes, but of things, appearances, and forces, led the people very readily to personify them, and to create a mythology about these names; and this mythology had manifested itself at and before the time in which most of these hymns were composed. Hence this special kind of polytheism has been called physiolatry and meteorolatry.”
- [K.S Macdonald, ‘The Vedic Religion’, pg. 100, 2nd Ed. London, 1881]
Simply stating no where does Orthodox Hindūism teach Monotheism, and so is the belief of various Hindū scholars. We firmly believe that even the Hindūs were sent, a Prophet(s)/Messenger(s) whom they followed, but similar to other civilizations even Hindūs degenerated into polytheism (from the Islāmic monotheism- brought by their prophet(s)). Whether Vedas are the books revealed to the Prophet(s) sent to Hindūs is a question without an answer (as of now), evidence however does not point (as of now), Vedas to be the books revealed to the Prophet(s) of Hindūs. It may be that the present Vedas may be the commentaries of the book revealed to the Prophet (which got corrupted), or may be Vedas are mere corrupted books containing few verses from the book revealed to the Prophet(s) of Hindūs, Or may be that Vedas are entirely new books produced by various so-called Hindū ‘seers’ to gain credulity of common people, whatever may be the case but it is quite apparent that there has been a time when Hindūs followed a Prophet(s) sent by Allāh Azz Jall with pure monotheism. Something similar is believed to be the case by the two European scholars quoted earlier -
Monier Williams thinks, with Max Muller, that there are traces in the Veda of a pre-existent faith more or less monotheistic in its nature ; but that 'in the Veda this unity soon diverged into various ramifications. Only a few of the hymns appear to contain the simple conception of one divine self existent Being, and even in those the idea of one God present in all nature is somewhat nebulous and undefined’; and Max Muller adds: ' The consciousness that all the deities are but different names of one and the same godhead breaks forth here and there in the Veda. But it is far from being general. - [ibid pg. 127]
These traces of ‘pre-existent faith’ are quite apparent, but sadly they are seemingly just the remains of what the Prophet(s) (to Hindūs) was sent with, by Allāh Azz wa Jall. Seemingly, our anticipation (contention) may be right, that Hindūs like other people were sent a Prophet (or many prophets) with Monotheism which they followed but then slowly as time passed they degenerated into polytheism (and other non-monotheistic concepts).This is similar to the cases of other civilization as shown above.
Is Protestant Hindūism Monotheistic?
Well, we’ve written a small analysis on Concept of Gods in Protestant Hindūism, which is satisfactorily, proves that Protestant Hindūism isn’t Monotheistic but is more Trinitarian. Nonetheless, we’ll just show one Protestant Hindū Scholar who admitted to the Trinitarian nature of Protestant Hindūism quoting the Encyclopedia of Religion and ethics -
“God is eternal; so also is each soul; so also is matter. Pandit Ralla Rām refers to this as ‘the universal trinity recognized by science and religion alike’ and as ‘the most important of the doctrines of Ārya Samāj’(Ārya Patrikā, Dec 14, 1901)”
- [James Hastings, John A. Selbie, ‘Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics’, Vol. 3, pg. 60,Kessinger Publishing, 2003]
Trinity is the most important of the doctrines of Protestant Hindūism (so-called Ārya Samāj)! Nothing more to say, this should satisfy our readers, and those who need a brief exposure of this Trinitarian nature of protestant Hindūism can visit our brief analysis here –
Mūlshankar [Dayānanda Saraswati] and Protestant Hindūism [Ārya Samāj]: An Analysis -
Satyagni / Agniveer, the hate-monger wrote –
The change was a tough one. But I went for it despite enormous challenges and sacrifices. For this change, looters from Arab killed my father and brothers. They raped my mother and sisters. They conducted mass carnage of my community. They continued doing it for centuries.And then, for sake of my mother, my father, my sisters, and my brothers – I rejected my foundation. I became a Muslim. I consoled myself that the time of change has come. I had no options. The only solace lied in following the path of the Prophet of Equality. And only then could there be peace in my family.
What can we say of such deceivers! Yet, again we find Agniveer/Satyagni indulging in rhetoric and appealing to emotions of people, ridiculously assuming that Muslims and the readers base their opinions on sentiments/emotions rather than facts. There are numerous myths promulgated and propagated by Hindūs, one of them is the “Arab looters killing innocents” while conquering India, and again they are ever quick in their “Classical hypocrisy” these entire allegations on Arabs are slowly shifted and upon Islām! From the allegation of Arabs killing so-called innocents, to the claim of Islām as the source of all such heinous acts, this is the typical route every Hindū Islāmophobe follows. There are thousands of allegations hurled against Muslims; most of them are usually taken from inauthentic sources for which there is no historical authority or are just conjectural theories.
Allegations of ‘mass carnage’, ‘killing of innocents’…etc have always been used against Islām, as a proof of its so-called ‘barbarism’. This is what we call the ‘logic’ and ‘rationality’ of Hindū Islāmophobes! Expecting Islāmophobes to be rational, logical and unbiased is futile, as it is inherently opposed to their state of mind. Does rationality and logicality permit us to blame Islām for the evil actions of few of its followers(bad)?
Of course not. Iif Islām is blamed to be ‘barbaric’, ‘intolerant’ and ‘violent’ because of the actions of few bad Muslims, then such a blaming can come about just from a biased and prejudiced person not a rational or logical one. Firstly, it should be noted that not all Muslims are good; there are good Muslims and bad Muslims, Islāmophobes usually love to paint everything in one colour. Few black sheep do not represent anyone or any community, but as we said Islāmophobes are not rational, unbiased and logical enough to dare and accept this truth, but their denial does not change facts. Alleging Islām for alleged heinous acts of few of its followers is just like believing every German to be ‘race supremacists’ and racist (particularly anti-Semitic), because they (Germans) and then their leader Adolf Hitler were so, who indulged in various racist and criminal activities. Well no one believes Germans to be racist? Does anyone do? Yeah there were many who were racist , so why don’t people label Germans and Germany to be racist, just like Islāmophobes and few other prejudices people, label Muslims and Islām with Terrorism and here with ‘violence’, ‘killing’ and ‘mass-carnage’(note these are allegations)? Answer is simple, because it’s irrational, biased and illogical to do so. Hence rationally all the allegations on Islām and Muslims are void.
We’ve already seen what Islām says about killing innocent people? We’ve already shown that killing innocent people is from al-Kabā’ir (‘Great Sins’) and al-Mawqibāt (Destructive Sins) both are strictly prohibited in Islām. But let’s show some more proof and also see whether Islām allows killing of non-combatants and others during a battle/war, which will refute the allegations of mass-carnage…etc hurled at Islām.
Killing non-combatants and those who give up fighting is strictly prohibited in Islām:
“Allāh's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.” -[Sahīh Al-Bukhārī: Volume 004, Book 052, no. 257. ]
“Allāh's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children” -[Sahīh Al-Bukhārī: Volume 004, Book 052, no. 258.]
“Messenger of Allāh (May peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children.” - [Sahīh Muslim: Book 019, no. 4320, Chapter: Prohibition of killing women and children in war.]
“He (Prophet Muḥammad) disapproved of the killing of women and children.”
- [Sahīh Muslim: Book 019, no. 4320, Chapter: Prohibition of killing women and children in war.]
“(Prophet Muḥammad) forbade the killing of women and children.”
- [Muwatta Imām Mālik: Book 021, no.9, Section: Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.]
Moreover, Prophet Muḥammad (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam) also said,
"I advise you ten things –
1) Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person.
2) Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees.
3) Do not destroy an inhabited place.
4) Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food.
5) Do not burn bees and do not scatter them.
6) Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly…etc" - [ibid no.10.]
Ibn `Abbās says: The Messenger of Allāh, when dispatching his troops, would tell them,
"..Do not behave treacherously, nor misappropriate war-booty, nor mutilate [who’ve been killed], nor kill children, nor the people in cloisters."
- [al-Musnad of Imām Aḥmad, al-Tirmidhī].
Another ḥadith mentions Prophet Muḥammad (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam ) saying,
"…Do not kill a woman, nor a child, nor an old, aged man” - [al-Baghawi (Sharh al-Sunnah, 11/11)]
Narrated Anas ibn Mālik: The Prophet (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam) said:
“Go in Allāh's name, trusting in Allāh, and adhering to the religion of Allāh's Apostle. Do not kill a decrepit old man, o a young infant, or a child, or a woman; do not be dishonest about booty, but collect your spoils, do right and act well, for Allāh loves those who do well.“
- [Sunan Abī Dawūd, Book 14, no. 2608]
Another ḥadith mentions Prophet Muḥammad (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam ) saying,
"Do not kill a child, nor a woman, nor an old man, nor obliterate a stream, nor cut a tree…” - [al- Bayhaqī, vide I`la al-Sunan, 12/31]
In fact, Islām not only prohibits killing of Humans but also of other creatures like animals, moreover prohibits unnecessarily cutting trees, as mentioned in innumerable narrations. Those who kill a soul unnecessarily [not for just cause, like punishment for crime, or kill an animal for eating purpose] are cursed by Allāh Almighty in a way (known to Him) that befits His majesty.
Ibn `Umar (radiAllāh Anh) said,
"Allāh curses the one who does this. Verily, the Messenger of Allāh cursed the one who takes something with a soul as a target."
- [Sahīh Muslim, An-Nasa'ī, al-Musnad of Imām Aḥmad]
Another ḥadith says,
"The Messenger of Allah forbade taking something with a soul as a target."
- [al-Musnad of Imām Aḥmad, At-Tirmidhī]
Hence , Islām lays very strict laws when it comes to living beings, and killing an living being unnecessarily is prohibited, for instance hunting animals for fun and entertainment is strictly prohibited and punishable crime, animals are only allowed to be killed or hunted when you are in need of eating them, and even here being frugal is stressed. Cutting of trees, destroying houses, properties and other things are all adamantly prohibited by Islām.
Another very important point to be raised is, so-called ‘Islāmic fanaticism’ which always regarded as source and reason why the Muslim ‘invaders’ allegedly ran on a rampage. But this too is a mere myth promulgated by Islāmophobes and prejudiced people, as all such claims are mere conjectures and opposed to the facts.
This is mere imaginations of fictionist like Hindū Islāmophobes, that the driving force behind, allegedly killing of innocents, mass-carnage, rampage was the ‘Islāmic zeal’, let briefly look at it -
- How many Islāmic states were found in the Indian-Subcontinent by these so-called Islāmic rulers?
Was Shar’iah even once legislated in the Indian Sub-Continent?
- How many great Islāmic Scholars were produced, by these so-called ‘Islāmic Rulers’ under their ruler ship, and what role did they (rulers) play in transpiring such scholars?
These just (there numerous more which expose these lies against Islām) three questions expose the dirty lie of ‘Islāmic fanaticism’ behind such (allegedly) heinous acts committed against non-Muslims. Still today there has never ever been an Islāmic state ever founded in the Indian sub-continent. Never has Shar’iah been implemented in the Indian sub-continent by any so-called Islāmic ‘ruler’. There were hardly any Orthodox Scholar trained and transpired under the ruler ship of these ‘kings’. In fact many, of so-called Islāmic ‘kings’ who’ve said to be intolerant were enemies of Islām and Muslims. For instance, Akbar on whom the Islāmophobe, hate-monger Agniveer has written a whole article so as to ‘expose’ him , was no more than an enemy to Islām .Amazingly this article has no pin- point references but just goes on stating Akbar killed thousands, destroyed so and so , usual pathetic Hindū style. And we find blind-followers of Hindūism, glorifying such source-less articles! – [http://agniveer.org/3175/akbar/]
Akbar was an enemy to Islām and Muslims; in fact many even doubt him being a Muslim. And here’s what the Cambridge History of Islām has to say about whether Akbar was with Islām and Muslims,
“Akbar, however, made a correct analysis of the situation and decided that if he allied himself with the non-Muslims and the heterodox elements in the Muslim population, he could reduce orthodoxy to helplessness. He succeeded, and became virtually a temporal sovereign outside the practice of Islamic kingship.”
– [P.M Holt, Bernard Lewis, ‘The Cambridge History of Islam’, Vol. 2A, pg. 52]
And in fact Akbar even forced Islāmic Scholars to sign a manifesto (ibid pg. 62) saying that Akbar was a just ruler (imām -i- ‘ādil) had the right to choose any interpretation of Islām which as per him was in accordance to Islām, and all these things were done with the help of Hindūs and other non-Muslim fractions of the society. This is an example of a single so-called Islāmic ruler, if we were to quote the persecution of Islām by other so-called Islāmic rulers, volumes would be consumed. Even Aurangzeb was heavily criticized by various Islāmic scholars for various reasons. Simply put, none of the rulers who ruled India can be labeled as “Islāmic rulers” as they weren’t following Islām as they should have been; in fact many were enemies of Islām. Another very important point is why do we find few so-called Islāmic kings/rulers only implementing the Jizyah (though historians say that hardly any tax was collected in real sense, Jizyah was implemented for namesake only, as per historians) and not other Islāmic laws? Well, people usually believe this was due to the so-called “Islāmic fanaticism” but those simpleton people, who believe so, don’t get the fact that Jizyah wasn’t implemented due to the so-called “fanaticism” but due to monetary reasons, had the implementer of Jizyah (the ruler) been a fanatic Muslim, he would have implemented the complete Shari’ah! This again proves our point that it wasn’t Islāmic fanaticism but it was “monetary fanaticism” and other reasons.
Despite all suppression of Islām and its scholars, Islām still stands as paragon of light, due to its egalitarian nature and other unique qualities which will be evident in this article. We’ll restrict our-self from stating more on this topic as this is out of the scope of the article.
Has anyone thought about Vedas? What do Vedas say about the crimes the protestant Hindū hate-mongers are alleging Islām and Muslims with? Let’s illuminate our readers and expose the dirty hypocritical liar – Agniveer.
Mass-carnage, killing of innocents – children, females, sick, old, commanded and encouraged in vedas:
Now let’s see what the barbaric Vedas have to say about this, we’ll expose the lies of Agniveer and show our readers what the so-called “Ahinsac” (non-violent) Vedas command.
“O friendly countrymen, encourage the commander of the army, and begin the battle with him, who with his physical, mental and military strength, cleaves the enemies’ families, usurps their land, is armed with weapons, slay’s the foes, subdues the enemy in the battle, and conquers him.” - [Yajurveda, Chapter 17, verse 38, pg-182, Tr. Devi Chand]
“May the commander of the army, who, with surpassing vigour pierces in the battles the families of the enemies, is pitiless, wild with anger, unconquerable by foes, conqueror of the enemy’s forces, unequalled in fight, and victor, protect our armies.”
- [Yajurveda, Chapter 17, verse 39, pg-182, Tr. Devi Chand]
Interestingly, Vedas teach protestant Hindūs to usurp the lands of those who’ve been invaded, annihilate, and tear apart the families of the enemy! Another Vedic verse commands the King (in Hindi translation and ‘Indra’ in English translation and Original Sanskrit ;) to expel the enemies out of their homes and kill/demolish those who fight Hindūs
- [Atharvaveda, Khand 6, Sūkta 75, Mantra 1]
“I thrust you man out of home, the rival who fights [us], with the oblation of ejectment ; Indra hath demolished him.”
- [William Dwight Whitney, Atharvaveda, 6.75.1, Vol. 1, pg.337]
Look at these inhuman verses from the vedas! Now what does the hypocritical Agniveer say? We know he does not have any answers nor will he dare to answer us. This is what is called ‘hypocrisy’ and Mūlshankar and his blind-followers are full with it. We wonder why is Agniveer/Satyagni crying about the alleged killing of innocents by Arab invaders, when their own ‘holy’ book orders to Hindu commander-in-chief to mercilessly kill the whole families including children, old, sick, women …etc Why is Agniveer complaining when his own ‘holy’ book, call for mass carnage of innocents! Why? Because he is a Hypocrite, what more proof will an unbiased person need?
Looting is the way to prosperity according to vedas (‘battle is the source of thy (hindūs) prosperity’):
Now let’s go to looting, Agniveer in the last quotation (his), is found hypocritically crying and complaining about the looting of Arab invaders. Let’s see what the Hindū scriptures state about it. Looting is the way to prosperity this is the principle expounded by the Vedas, and other protestant Hindū texts.
“Chariots and horses, elephants, parasols, money, grain, cattle, women, all sorts of (marketable) goods and valueless metals belong to him who takes them (singly) conquering (the possessor).”
- [Manu Smriti, Chapter 7, verse 96, pg 231]
Now, when Manu Shāstra itself says that all the marketable goods and other materials belong to the conqueror, then why is it the followers of Manu Shāstra (protestant Hindūs) are found crying when Arab invaders took few things similar to it? Why? Answer is Hypocrisy! It’s not this simple, in fact according to Vedas battles are considered as source of prosperity as battles include looting. Read with your own eyes.
“Thou, head of the state, the conqueror of enemies, the lord of five classes of subjects under thy sway, and armies, strong in body and soul, take with thy meals, invigorating herbs, for pleasure and conquest. Fill thy belly with the sweet flow of well-cooked meals. Thou art the sovereign of all great deeds and requiring deep thought. Thou hast been initiated in the rules of administration ; we harness thee for battle involving the use of arms and weapons. This battle is the source of thy prosperity ; hence we goad thee to that battle.”
- [Yajurveda, Ch 7, verse 38, pg. 78, Tr. Devi Chand]
Also see Sāmaveda exposing the greed of Hindūs,
-[Sāmaveda, Prapāthaka 1,Daśti 9, mantra 1]
“By Garga. O Agni, to whose going no obstruction can be made, bring us strength imparting provisions, lead us into the way of acquiring wealth and abundant supplies of food” –[ Stevenson , Sāmaveda Prapāthaka 1,Daśti 9, mantra 1, pg. 17]
And another verse even more explicitly exposes the greed and craves for wealth and glory,
“O Commander of the army, may we fulfill our desires through thy protection. O Lord of wealth, may we get the riches which give us valiant sons. Waging fight may we succeed in battles. O Commander free from old age, with thy aid, may we win undecaying wealth and glory.”
- [Yajurveda, Ch. 18, Verse 74, pg-202-203, Tr. Devi Chand]
The Vedas also order its fanatic blind –followers to mutilate and faze enemies during battle, and usurp the wealth of the enemy dividedly.
- [Atharvaveda, Khand 6, Sūkta 66, Mantra 3]
“Handless be these our enemies! We enervate their languid limbs. So let us part among ourselves, in hundreds, Indra ! all their wealth.”
- [Ralph T.H Griffith, Atharvaveda 6, Hymn 66, verse 3, vol 1, pg. 281]
And what do these looting tips provided by Vedas, when implemented, lead those conquered to? Well, this is the command of Vedas, it states its blind-follower barbarians to reduce people to poverty, while asks the Hindū soldiers to enjoy the booty- fragrant substances.
“O King, our saviour from degradation, lord of wealth, driver of foes to the abyss of poverty, robed in blue and red dress, terrify not these people and cattle, nor make them diseased. Let not us or any one else be sick.”
- [Yajurveda, Ch 16, Verse 47, pg 174 Tr. Devi Chand]
While the poor people who are conquered and brutally killed by these barbarian Hindūs, suffer from poverty the Hindūs are commanded to enjoy the booty- fragrant substances.
“O' nice, brave soldiers, serve your commander, acquire wisdom and food, win battles, and enjoy fragrant substances.”
- [Yajurveda Ch 9, verse 9, pg. 93 Tr. Devi Chand]
Moreover, Hindūs are commanded to harass these poor people, who are conquered, destroy their means of sustenance, so that those who escaped the barbarism die out of starvation and hunger.
“When he has shut up his foe (in a town), let him sit encamped, harass his kingdom, and continually spoil his grass, food, fuel, and water. Likewise let him destroy the tanks, ramparts, and ditches, and let him assail the (foe unawares) and alarm him at night.”
- [Manu Smriti, Chapter 7, verse 195-196, pg 247]
The Vedas also order the Hindū Kings to ruthlessly destroy kitchens of the enemies’ house so that the surviving enemies (those who escaped Vedic barbarism) and their families may die out of starvation, hunger and Malnutrition.
“O King, rise high, punish the wicked foes righteously, manifest the objects prepared by our steady scholars, enhance pleasures. Destroy the kitchens and other places of plundering of the vigorous enemies. Kill the foes. I settle thee with fire's ardour.”
- [Yajurveda Ch. 13, verse 13, pg. 138 Tr. Devi Chand]
Just compare these barbaric teachings of Vedas to the divine merciful teachings of Islām; we’ve stated the Islāmic stance of the issues relayed above. May we question, how can such people claim their religion to be “Ahinsac”? Readers interested in learning more about the peaceful and ahinsac nature of Hindūism should read this article –
Vedas and World Peace: [http://www.islamhinduism.com/hinduism/analysis/76-vedas-and-peace]
Satyagni / Agniveer, the hate/myth-monger wrote –
Those were the most tragic, most bloody, most depressing, most agonizing chapters of my life. So brutal was their impact that I refused to even look into my history so that the old wounds do not revive again. I deluded myself in a history of grandeur where Allah had destined an awakening of mine towards path of truth so that I can achieve Heaven and enjoy the 72 virgins. Whatever happened was for good – to save me from eternal Hell fire. These ideas gave me lot of comfort. I rationalized everything that happened with me. I empathized with my invaders and showed example of Stockholm Syndrome in real life.
So much so that I have today completely forgotten my history. Today even when somebody reminds me of those harrowing experiences, I refuse to take them seriously. I scoff it all off as tales of fiction propagated by anti-Islamic elements and conveniently ignore the most evident facts of history.
Paranoiac Agniveer :
Now this is called “paranoia” of Islām and Muslims! Seemingly he’s (Agniveer/Satyagni) suffering from paranoia and needs some vaccinations; well we are always ready to help. Let start with the process of vaccination and medication. It’s to be noted “will” of the victim (patient) is really important in order to overcome paranoia. If the “will” is weak then there’s no hope for victim. Let’s start the medication.
We’ve shown the blood-spilling and barbaric nature of Vedas, it seems that Agniveer was unaware of these realties that’s the reason the alleged brutal, agonizing ill-treatment of Hindūs astonishes him, we would recommend him to read the previous section thoroughly to grasp few facts and shun the fiction created by Hindūtva-vadis (Hindū-Fascists) and Islāmophobes. And has Agniveer forgotten the persecution of low-caste Hindūs by your vedic seers for thousands of years? Doesn’t he remember that, does he remember the animal like treatement to those Chandālas, Shūdras? Agniveer conveniently ignores and neglects these facts as, propaganda of the so-called anti-Hindūs and pseudo-secularists!
The “72 virgins” is one of the most often used cards against Islām, the sole purpose is to malign Islām and Muslims, but isn’t Agniveer forgetting that his ancestor themselves stated something interesting and but extremely exotic.This is what every Hindū was and is promised,
“Wherever a hero is killed, being surrounded by a number of foes, he reaches regions of undying bliss, provided he utters no cowardly words.”
- [Parashara Smriti, Chapter 3, verse 26, pg. 16, Tr. Krishnakamal Bhattacharya, 1887]
And the ancient sages also say, which was fanatically followed by Hindūs and still today is followed by mainstream Hindūs, that thousands of damsels come running to the martyr!
“Celestial damsels seize for themselves, and take delight with the hero, whose body is wounded or cut by arrows, clubs, or maces.”
-[Parashara Smriti , Chapter 3,verse 28, pg. 17]
“Thousands of celestial damsels, rush forward in a hurry towards a hero killed in battle, each proclaiming, 'He is my lord, he is mine'.”
-[Parashara Smriti ,Chapter 3,verse 29, page. 17]
“If victorious, wealth is won; if death results, beautiful women fall to his share; since this corporeal frame is liable to perish in an instant's time , why should we be shy of meeting death on a field of battle?”
-[Parashara Smriti ,Chapter 3,verse 31, page. 17]
We think that Agniveer’s “saga hero” wasn’t aware that his own Hindū religion which promised him thousands of damsels for enjoyment, poor illiterate Hindū! And why do you think Agniveer and his likes did not fall for the “Islāmic” promise of 72 or so, numbers of virgins? Let us answer this? “Niyoga!” When protestant Hindūs can enjoy them-selves here in this world with services (Niyoga) provided by their Vedic Dharma then why would they be patient, modest and moral in this life? Hence waiting long enough wasn’t acceptable to protestant Hindūs! (Irresistible desire). Simply put, as protestant Hindūism provides Niyoga by which they can have fun and enjoy with innumerable women, why would they be modest in this life, waiting long for the reward!People interested in learning more about Niyoga can read this article; it has really nice exposure of this morally reprehensible concept.
Women in Hinduism: Conflict between Swami Dayanand and Agniveer.
“Stockholm Syndrome”! Nope, it’s the paranoiac Agniveer and his delusions , we hope that he recovers soon. Anyways, the paranoiac Agniveer continues, and goes on with his saga forwarding fictions spoon-fed to him by his “mates” [Hindūtva-vadis (Hindū-Fascists)]. Islām has always condemned any atrocities towards any fraction of society, so did Muslims do, but it has been the culture and norm of Vedas which calls Hindūs to inflict atrocities, commit mass-carnage, and kill innocents destroy life and property, burn innocents.
We would like to state, the some-what correct reason which led to the triumph and spread of Islām, in India; the Hindūtva-vadis (Hindū-Fascists) fanatics for long have promulgated the myth of “sword” as the reason for the triumph of Islām in India, basing their opinions on their hatred for Islām. These fanatics always maintained and propagated the myth of Muslim invaders being intolerant and barbaric, which again stemmed out of their hatred towards Islām and not historical facts. While dismissing such allegations M.N Roy writes:
“Neither the Persians nor the Mogul conquerors of India were entirely devoid of the traditional nobility, toleration and liberalism of the Saracen heroes. The very fact that comparatively small bands of predatory invaders from distant lands could make themselves the rulers of a vast country for such a long time, and their alien faith found millions of converts, proves that they did satisfy certain objective requirements of the Indian society. Even when much of its original revolutionary fervour had been overwhelmed by reaction, Islam still exercised certain revolutionary influence on the Hindu society. The Mohammadan power was consolidated in India not so much by the valour of the invaders arms as owing to the propagation of the Islamic faith and the progressive significance of Islamic laws.”
- [M.N Roy, ‘The Historical role of Islām’, pg. 104]
Egalitarian nature of Islām and Shari’ah has been the major reason for the success of Islām all over the world, it was this same reason that many Arab pagans left their so-called ancient polytheistic faith and so did many Hindūs, it wasn’t the sword which brought converts (reverts) to Islām, as propagated by Islāmophobes due to their hatred for Islām while basing their statements on Persian works and other works written during the British colonial rule to create a communal rift between Muslims and Hindūs. Many of the works in Persian were either written by the “king” appointed historian/writer or were authored by the some family member of the king. Most of the historian during such period exaggerated the battles of their kings, so as to portray him brave and lionhearted. We wonder how such works can be considered authentic! Regardless of who authored the work, all of them suffered from a single defect which casts doubt on their authenticity and integrity, to be a source of history? Such behaviour was common between many historians like Afghāni, Persian and Indian (Mughal…etc).As the Cambridge History of Islām states about the historians who wrote about Sher Shāh:
“Afghan writers, who naturally wrote with considerable nostalgia in the days of Akbar, exaggerated his originality, though not his capacity as an administrator.”
– [P.M Holt, Bernard Lewis, ‘The Cambridge History of Islam’, Vol. 2A, pg. 40]
This exaggerated recording of history was common amongst many historians, be it Afghan, Persian or those at Indian Durbārs. Nonetheless, these exaggerations filled books serve hardly of any use for those who are inclined towards authentic information. Whatever may be the case, we do not intend to defend anyone who’s oppressed people as this is against the Islāmic ethics and values. But what should be noted is, not everything written by a historian is true, especially when there are external and internal factor influencing him. Coming back to the current issue we are dealing with, Roy further goes on to state, the confession of an infamous anti-Muslim historian E.B Havell known for his admiration and sympathy for Hindūism:
Even the fiercely fanatical anti-Muslim Havell grudgingly admits: "The effect of the Mussalman political creed upon Hindu social life was twofold: It increased the rigour of the caste system and aroused a revolt against it. The alluring prospect which it held out to the lower strata of Hindu society was as tempting as it was to the Beduins of the desert "… (It) made the Sudra a free man and potentially a lord of the Brahmans. Like the Renaissance of Europe, it stirred up the intellectual waters, produced many strong men, and some men of striking originality of genius….It developed a type of humanity full of joie de vivre . . . ."
- [M.N Roy, ‘The Historical role of Islām’, pg. 104-105]
Roy, earlier quoting Havell stated the reasons for the spread of Islām though havell being an anti-Islāmic personality with bias against Islām and followed the usual trend of “sword and Islām”, nonetheless himself in many places accepted and stated many facts, which refute the speculations of ‘Sword’ used to spread Islām:
As regards the spread of Islam in India, an ardent admirer of ancient Hindu culture like Havell, who cannot be suspected of any sympathy or even fairness to the Muslims, gives the following highly interesting testimoney: 'Those who did so (embraced Islam) acquired all the rights of a Musalman citizen in the law courts, where the Quran and not Aryan law and custom decided dispute in all cases. This, method of proselytism was very effective among the lower castes of Hindus, specially among those who suffered from the severity of Brahmanical law with regard to the ‘Impure' classes.
- [M.N Roy, ‘The Historical role of Islām’, pg. 97-98]
It’s to be remembered that Islām has always prohibited such vile discrimination. Has this, discrimination demolished by the Hindū “reformers” like Mūlshankar? Has there been any reduction in such discrimination and inhuman behavior? Have low-caste Hindūs been given respect a human deserves? Are low-caste Hindūs treated as humans, do they have equal rights as other humans? Has this “impure” caste notion diminished from Hindū creedal texts and society? All these questions will be answered by Mūlshankar the “reformer” of Hindū society!
Mūlshankar wrote as translated by “Swāmi” Durgā Prasād -
Q. Tell me what harm there is in eating the food prepared by any person whatever. For, the bodies of the Brahmin down to the low caste are made up of the bones, flesh and skin. The blood of a Brahmin’s body is exactly like that of a low caste. Under these circumstances what harm is there in taking food at the hands of all mankind?
A. There is harm in it; for, the Sperm and ova produced in the bodies of a low caste man and woman are not so pure and free from impurity, stench or other kinds of taint as those of a Brahmin and his wife’s bodies, which are nourished with the pure articles of food. For, the body of a low caste is full of the atoms and stench and other noxious matter. But it is not so with the Brahmins and other high castes. Therefore it is proper to eat food at the hands of the Brahmins and other high castes, and not to take food at the hands of low castes, such as sweepers, shoe makers, and bastards (chandals- offspring of a Brahmin woman and a Shudra or serf). Well, if you be asked, Would you behave yourself towards your mother-in-law, daughter, or daughter-in-law, as if she were your wife, seeing that her body is made of the skin and other materials like those- of your wife? you will feel shame and hold your tongue. Since decomposed, stinking things can be eaten just as delicious food with the hands and mouth, will you eat the excreta also? Can anybody be so degraded ?
- [Satyarth Prakash, Tr. Durga Prasad, Ch. 10. Pg. 287]
And Chiranjiva translates it as,
O. Well, Sir! What harm is there in eating what has been prepared by any one as long as he is a man; because the bodies of all men, from a Braahman to the lowest of human beings, are made of flesh and bones? The same blood runs in the veins of all.
A. ~ Yes, there is harm. A Braahman and Braahmani are fed on the very best of foods, hence their bodies are formed out of the reproductive elements, that are free from impurities and other deleteruous elements, which is not true of the bodies of the extremely degraded men and women that are simply laden with dirt and other foul matter. It is, therefore, right that we should eat and drink with Brahmans and other higher classes and not with scavengers and workers in leather. Now what would you say if you were asked "Would you look upon all other women, such as your mother, sister, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, with the same eyes as your wife, because all of them are made of the same kind of flesh and blood?" You will simply be filled with shame and make no answer. Again, as good, clean food is eaten with hands and the mouth, so can the bad, unclean and decomposed food be eaten, would you then eat dirt, etc.? Can this ever be right?
- [Satyarth Prakash, Tr. Chiranjiva, Ch. 10. Pg. 325]
1) Firstly, we are just wondering, what “the Sperm and ova produced in the bodies of a low caste man and woman” have to do with preparation of food? Also, the fact and reality is that most of the restaurants, snack-shops, dhabās, and tea-stalls et al. (in India) have cooks who are either little bit educated or uneducated (in both Vedas and secular knowledge). Which would form the low-caste of protestant Hindūism, and in fact many are of mixed-caste marriages, so how do protestant Hindūs eat in such restaurants, snack-shops, and dhabās?
2) Secondly, how come the low-caste humans, scavengers, shoe-maker, sweeper and workers in leather are impure and are “laden with dirt and other foul matter” or are “full of the atoms and stench and other noxious matter”. We know not any, shoe-maker, low-caste man or woman, scavenger or worker in leather items, himself eating filth, dirt or any other harmful materials, as every human cares for his own body more than anything else. Such a belief is delusional, irrational and fat-fetched.
3) Thirdly, it’s very important to show the “discriminatory” nature of Mūlshankar here, wherein he adamantly refuses to accept every human to be equal, while stating low-caste humans, shoe-makers, sweepers…etc as impure and filled with noxious matter and in order to prove his point, he propounds a very deceptive conjecture, repudiating the equality of humans he states just like a man does not look at his mother-in-law sister-in-law with the same eyes because all of them are made of same flesh, how could he see all humans with the same eyes (meaning equal). But the falsity is that, here it’s not about humans it’s about God, why did God make such divisions? Didn’t God see mankind as equal? Also the contention (conjecture) of Mūlshankar is very weak and fragile, as family relations are personal and private but here we are talking about public relations(relation of every human to other for instance Chandala to Brahman,Shūdra to Kshtriya…etc) ,hence the whole premise of Mūlshankar’s conjecture is false.
Hence, we find Mūlshankar the “reformer” disgustingly discriminating amongst people and repudiating and denying the egalitarian nature of human beings. Well, nothing’s changed! These same disgusting discriminatory remarks were once voiced by the Orthodox ‘Pandits’, are now been audaciously shouted out, by the so-called “reformers”. This is the equality which Agniveer has been speaking of, Agniveer and Co. can fool people who blindly follow their cult and him, not mavericks like us. This inequality of Hindūism is also the major reason for the triumph and spread of Islām in the Indian sub-continent, which was in fact a catalyst.
And Roy further quotes Havell while stating his bitterness for Islām and Muslims,
Havell is a famous eulogist of Indo-European culture which he considers to be the noblest product of the creative genius of man. On the other hand, he has bitter antipathy for the Muslims. His opinion cannot be dismissed as biased against the Hindus. As a matter of fact, his bias is entirely on the side of the Hindus. So, if even a historian like him found distasteful things happening in India in the past, conditions were very deplorable indeed. He writes: "But the victorious progress of Islam in India is not to be accounted for by external reasons. It was mainly due to the political degeneration of Aryavarta which set in after the death of Harsha… The social programme of the Prophet …gave every true believer an equal spiritual status …made Islam a political and social synthesis and gave it an imperial mission. Islam was a rule of life sufficient for the happiness of average humanity content to take the world as it is… Islam reached the zenith of its political strength at the critical period when the conflict between Buddhist philosophy and that of orthodox Brahaminism was a potent cause of political dissension in northern India."
- [M.N Roy, ‘The Historical role of Islām’, pg. 98-99]
It wasn’t the sword but so-called ‘social programme’ of Islām, meaning the Shari’ah and its egalitarian laws and principles, which conquered India. These are the historical facts which Hindūs-Fascists don’t want their children to read, they want their children to read the fictions and stories written by Hindū story-tellers, showing Muslims, as barbarians who killed, looted and won converts by sword, but the fact is that its was those unequal, discriminatory Hindū laws and egalitarian Islāmic laws which won converts and help spread Islām. Ernest Havell, himself being a strong critic of Islām in fact was an anti-Muslim, too in various parts of his book admitted to this fact.It should be noted that these were the indirect ‘confessions’ of havell, despite being and anti-Muslim and proponent of sword myth.There are plenty of such proofs but again for the sake brevity we’ve just quoted a few.
For the sake of argumentation let’s, assume that the so-called Islāmic kings, spread looted, killed innocents, usurped the lands, but we still do not understand why Agniveer is so much against all these things when his own Vedic dharma preaches all such acts, and Agniveer himself preaches Vedic Dharma! Such behaviour is labeled as “double-standards” and “hypocrisy”.
Vedas and ‘World domination’:
How many of you have heard the cry of Islāmophobes, “Islām will take over!”, “Stop Islām, before it dominates the world!”, “Help us stop, Islām!”, “Islām will not be a threat, if…” Well such sentences are common nowadays, and more common are the claims that Islām will dominate the world with force, power...etc nonetheless, has anyone ever thought about vedas and what they command to the Hindūs about preaching vedic dharma, about the duties of the King? Well, if no then let us explore these things right from the vedas.So does vedas ask Hindūs to dominate the world, by occupying it and conquering it with force? Does vedas ask Hindūs to spread Vedic dharma with sword? Nope we won’t answer! Let the vedas speak for themselves,
“With military weapons let us win the Earth, with them the battle, with cannon let us win the ease-loving army of our foes. War-like weapons destroy the ambitions of the foeman. Armed with the bow may we subdue all regions.”
- [Yajurveda, Ch. 29, Verse 39, pg. 293, Tr. Devi Chand]
The verse, speaks for itself! We need not expound on it in detail, simply put the above verse asks Hindūs to subdue all the regions of the world, and win it with force and destructive military weapons. This verse asks Hindūs to dominate the world, and subdue it, still we find these Hindūs claiming to be Ahinsac?
And, so does another verse in the vedas ask Hindūs to conquer and dominate the world with force,
“May food be before us, in the midst among us. May food eaten enhance our noble qualities. Yea, food hath made me rich in brave sons. As lord of food may I conquer all regions.”
- [Yajurveda, Ch. 18, Verse 34, pg-197, Tr. Devi Chand]
Nope, Vedas have more to say, they ask the Hindū King to take everything under his control right from animals to every human on earth, everything.
“O king, thou art the repository of knowledge like a sage. The learned subjects obey thee in all directions. May riches fit for men be secured by this intelligent devotee. Thou art lustrous like the beams of the sun. May all people on the earth and all beasts of the forest be under thy control.”
- [Yajurveda, Ch. 6, verse 6, pg.63, Tr. Devi Chand]
So why do we find, Hindūs criticizing Muslims, for conquering and invade India? When their own vedas asks them to invade every nation, every part on earth, subdue it, conquer it and take everything under control! Coming to the duties of king as legislated by, and what do vedas legislate and sanctify the King for?
“O king, just as the wise and aged persons, in this world, created by the Effulgent God, accept thee, with the force and strength of vital breaths, and attraction and retention of breath, the source of strength; so do I. Just as I cut the throats of the sinners, so shouldst thou. Oking, thou hast the power of imparting virtue and removing vice, remove from us our despisers and foes. Just as I sanctify thee, the exponent of justice, for the display of knowledge, thee, the embodiment of truth, for spiritual advancement; thee, the administrator, for rule over the Earth; so should these justice-loving people do. O king thou art a father unto thine subjects, rear them up. O Queen, thou also shouldst behave similarly.”
- [Yajurveda, Ch. 6, verse 1, pg.62, Tr. Devi Chand]
What did our readers read? Yes, Vedas santify the Hindū king to ruler over the world, in short asking him to conquer the entire world, cut the throats of sinners, remove the foes of Hindūs! And these people call themselves Ahinsac! Is there any bigger lie than this? And here again we prove how vedas command Hindūs to subdue other civilizations and religions and rule the world with brute-force.And what more duties do the vedas, have legislated for the Hindū kings? Again let the Vedas speak for it,
“O king, thou art our leader; thou putteth upon the path of rectitude, even the leaders of a high order. Know thou this art of government. God the creator will rule over thee. Just as the state officials anoint thee with sweet juices and flower-laden herbs, so should the subjects do.Thy first duty is to undertake the spread of knowledge and the administration of justice. Thy second duty is to propagate religious truths. Thy foremost duty is to strengthen thy rule over the Earth.”
- [Yajurveda, Ch. 6, verse 2, pg.62, Tr. Devi Chand]
So we learn, that the foremost duty of a Hindū king is to maintain and strengthen Hindū (Vedic) supremacy and rule over the earth, another very important duty is to propogate so-called religious truths (i.e. Vedic Dharma) And still we find Hindūs (protestant and Orthodox) criticizing Islām, for proselytisation and conquering the world with force (an allegation!), whereas the same things are taught, legalised and prescribed by vedas, so why criticize Islām?Let’s move further and see some how do the vedas ask its followers to preach the vedic dharma, we’ve seen how the vedas asks Hindū kings to uphold the Vedic Supremacy and spread the so-called vedic-truths.So do vedas allow using “sword” for the spread of vedic Dharma? Or is sword used by Hindūs to spread their religion? Or what do a Hindū King have to do to spread his Vedic truth and how? And how is a Hindū King need to spread Vedic dharma? Well, parts of these questions are pretty clear, from the earlier quoted Vedic verses, but let’s focus a bit more on preachng of Vedic dharma and the methods shown by vedas.
Vedic dharma and the sword – An unbreakable relationship:
So why do vedas sanctify Hindū Kings or command Hindū Kings to subdue all regions, conquer all parts of the earth and control every being?Why is this the foremost duty of a Hindū King? Well, so that the same sword used to subdue all the civilizations of earth could be used to spread the Vedic dharma! And this is quite explicit from the following verse.
“O learned person, just as the sun kindled in forefront of Mornings, with forward light, long-active, waxing mighty, with thirty three supernatural powers of nature, the Thunder-wielder, smites dead the cloud, and throws light on the portals, so do thou with the help of warriors kill the foes, and open the doors of knowledge and religion.”
- [Yajurveda Ch 20, verse 36, pg.221, Tr. Devi Chand]
This is crystal clear! Above Vedic verse commands killing foes and opening the doors of knowledge and religions, meaning that the Vedic dharma is to be spread with sword after conquering the lands, curtailing the army of enemies! And we find protestant Hindūs claiming Islām was spread with sword when their own religion commands to spread their Vedic dharma with sword so what should such a behaviour be labeled as? Hypocrisy! Look how Hindū Kings and soldiers are asked to spread their religion with sword! What more proof will an unbias person need to acknowledge the hypocrisy of Mūlshankar and his cult?
Once a Hindū King is in power or is ruling any tribe/nation/island his foremost duty according to vedas is to “strengthen thy rule over the Earth”, (foremost because this same sword and rule then can be used to force vedic dharma on the conquered people) then he is to look after the administration...etc of the earth and then he is “propagate the religious truth”.So we see that the reason behind subduing the entire earth and controlling it is the “foremost” duty of king so that vedic dharma can easily be forced upon the people!
Now let’s see how vedas are to be preached? Well, again let vedas talk,
“For them, who are the protectors of paths and pedestrians, the producers of corn on the earth, who fight with full force, against their enemies, we transport our weapons to places a thousand leagues afar. For them, who with arrows in their hand, and armed with sword, preach the study of the vedas and the use of ships, we send out weapons to places a thousand leagues afar.”
- [Yajurveda, Ch. 16, verses 61-62, pg175-176, Tr. Devi Chand]
This is the way how vedas are preached! Hindūs fight the enemy with full force and transport weapons to thousands of leagues far so as to spread their Vedic dharma.And Hindūs are also commanded, to preach the study of vedas armed with sword and arrows, and using the ships to send out weapons to the Hindū armies killing, looting, usurping lands and forcing Vedic dharma on other civilizations, preaching with swords and hands in arrow inorder to awe-inspire the people so that they may leave their religions and embrace the vedic dharma..The above verse clearly instructs the Hindūs to launch a dharma Yudh against other civilizations and nations; so as to annihilate their enemies and spread the vedas with sword, nothing can be clearer than this.Sword and deadly weapons used for preaching!
No wonder the vedas, praise those who carry swords, quiver sharp weapons and bows!
“Food to the bold, the prudent and the mild. Homage to him who carries sword and quiver. Homage to him who hath sharp weapons, and is equipped with brave warriors. Food to him who possesses good weapons and good bows.” - [Yajurveda, Ch. 16, Verse 36, pg. 172. Tr. Devi Chand]
People carrying harmful and deadly weapons are praised by vedas! And now we know why! We think it is crystal clear that vedas instruct Hindū kings, and Hindūs to dominate the world, subdue other civilizations and religions on it and control everything on it, so as to open the door for Vedic dharma and spread it and preach it with sword.
We’ve seen protestant Hindūs spewing venom against Islam alleging that it was spread through swords whereas their own “Holy” books instruct them to do so. So what is such behaviour called? Well this has been apparent throught out the article and we’ve asked this question again and again so that our readers may see the extent of, these Islāmopobes in unethicalness. Well, such behaviour is called “double standards” or “hypocrisy”.
Satyagni / Agniveer, the hate-monger wrote –
I have made the greatest sacrifice to be a Muslim. Islam was not served on a platter to me. No Prophet came and talked to me directly. No angel came from Heavens. No revelation was downloaded. I instead destroyed everything that was my foundation for ages or whatever I loved or cherished or was proud of…only to become a proud Muslim. I can bet that no one in history of humankind has made a sacrifice of similar enormity.And I did it with one single solace – that being a Muslim would make me equal in status and opportunities in entire Islamic Ummah (community) of world. Not that my Vedas did not teach me equality. But lets not discuss past. I don’t want to remember all that anymore because I fear that may trigger those emotions that I have very painfully suppressed for ages.I just want to delight in the pride of being an EQUAL Muslim. I want to be happy that all Muslims – from whatever geography, community, race or color that they may belong to – all equal in all respects. This ALONE is my source of pride.
The hapless ‘saga’ continues, we wonder why the article has few “arguments” and more rhetoric and story-telling. Seemingly Agniveer is out of his so-called arguments.
Well, so was “Vedic” religion served to anyone on platter, decorated with stuffing and spices? Did any Hindū ever see any Rishi, or were the Vedas revealed to every Hindū in personal by Rishis? Or is it that Ishwar personally visited Agniveer and Co. and revealed them the Vedas? We wonder, whether Agniveer & Co. downloaded ‘Vedas’ from Ishwar via Internet? Hmm, we would love to know the ISP provider’s name/company, may be even we could download some “revelations”! Why doesn’t Agnveer want to remember the ruthless history where his ancestors, enslaved poor Shūdras, treated Chandālas like animals or even worse, does not Agniveer remember the grief and pain suffered by millions of low-caste Hindūs implemented on them by vedas and its followers?
Do the Vedas really teach equality? Such a question brings to mind the words of Dr. Ambedkar (at least here he was right) –
“Inequality is the soul of Hindūism”
We’ll discuss the so-called equality of Vedas, which will be exposed through out the article. For a short view here’s the ‘equality’ which Agniveer is talking about (we’ve shown some points earlier too).
Q. ~Have Braahmans the exclusive right to entering into Sanyaasa, or can other Classes Kshatriyas and others also do the same?
A. ~ Brahmans alone have this privilege. He alone among all the four classes is called a Brahman whose knowledge is perfect, who is most virtuous, and who is bent on doing public good. To enter into Sanyasa, without the acquisition of perfect knowledge and firm faith in Truth and God, and without the renunciation of all earthly things, cannot be productive of any good to the world.
Hence it is that it is common saying that a Brahman alone enjoys the privilege of entering into Sanyaasa and not others, here is the testimony of the sage Manu on this point. Says he, "O Rishis (sages)! This fourfold duty of a Brahman has been made known to you. It leads to true happiness in this life and to eternal bliss in the next. Next hear from me the duties of Kshatriyaas - the governing class," MANU 6: 97. It is clear then that to enter in Sanyasa is the chief privilege of Brahmanas, whilst entering into Brahmacharya and other Orders that of Kshatriya and other Classes as well.
- [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch.5, pg.155, Tr.Chiranjiva]
What more can we say? Mūlshankar clearly discriminates and again exposes the so-called equality of the Vedic Dharma. We never knew that the knowledge of sanyāsis (hermits) was “Perfect”, being Perfect is a characteristic which can only be attributed to God, but it seems Ishwar and sanyāsis have struck some deal and now are sharing a lot of things. If one of the criteria to enter sanyās (hermitage) is “acquisition of perfect knowledge” then a sanyāsi has never-ever been born or taken sanyās. We pity Hindūs that they aren’t even allowed to live a life of a hermit just because they lack “Perfect Knowledge” which in factuality is out of reach of humans!
No this is not it, in factuality; Mūlshankar was very extreme in discrimination, as he wrote, while criticizing Muslims and Christians for not discriminating amongst people.
Mūlshankar wrote –
14. It is also absurd to do away with the Yajnopavita (the sacred thread) and Shikha - (the symbolic tuft of hair on the scalp - signs of learning that distinguish the literate twice-born Classes from the illiterate shudras - and become like the Mohammedans and the Christians - when you dress in English clothes to look respectable and educate Has the Yajnopavita and Shikha become too cumbersome for you?
- [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch 11, pg. 475 Tr. Chiranjiva]
What more proofs would a sane person need to acknowledge the discrimination and inequality of Hindūism! The so-called equality Agniveer is talking of, is no where to be found in entire Hindūism be it orthodox or protestant! In factuality, Satyarth Prakash explicitly states that humans are “unequal”:
“Just as a learned man and an ignorant man, a righteous man and an unrighteous man are not equal, in like manner, on account of differences in their qualities, such as knowledge, in actions such as truthfulness in speech, and in disposition, such as gentleness (Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras and outcast are regarded unequal).”
- [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch. 11, pg. 533, Tr. Chiranjiva]
Does anyone need any more evidences to acknowledge the unequal nature of protestant Hindūism? Interestingly the pretext, provided for such unequal nature, is the comparison of righteous and unrighteous, is Mūlshankar implying Shūdras to be unrighteous? Or are all the varnas unrighteous except, Brāhman Varna? Or is Mūlshankar proposing that Shūdra, vaishya, Kshatriya have the qualities namely, untruthful, ungentle and unrighteous?
He also propounds a pretext wherein he states that the difference between these varnas is like literate and illiterate, but the problem is his flawed logic.What does literacy have any thing to do with equality? It’s just like saying that because person X is literate he has more rights and is superior to person Y who’s an illiterate! No doubt, that a literate is knowledgeable and should be respected for instance, like of Doctors et al. But just because a person is a doctor does not make him superior than a sweeper, in basic human rights which we are talking of here.If it were to be said that the doctor and sweeper are not equal in the field of Medical science, it would be alright as a doctor is knowledgeable but here we are dealing with basic human rights and not a specific field of science, arts or commerce.Hence the logic applied by Mūlshankar to prove unequality of humans is flawed ans absurd.bAnd even if for the sake of argument we agree , to believe in Mūlshankar’s proposition , that this isn’t unequality but just “social classing” based upon qualifications of people, still this would be like believing earth is square ,as in Sanskār Vidhi ,Mūlshankar himself writes about naming a newborn male child, and states how the child has to be named and here he exposes his lie of “social classing” and “literate and illiterate” , “righteous and unrighteous”-
- [Mūlshankar, Sanskār Vidhi, pg. 75, Hindi]
In the above passage of Sanskār Vidhi, he has written something morally reprehensible, in the last two lines of the above scanned page.
Mūlshakar writes in the last two lines that if the male child is born he should be named like - Dev or Jaidev and if the child is Brāhman - name him ‘Devsharmā’, if he is Kshatriya- name him ‘Devvarmā’, if he is Vaishya - name him ‘Devgūpta’,if he is a Shūdra name him ‘Devdās’.
Just a side-note something similar is written in the Agni Purana! So, if this distinction is made upon qualities of people like righteous –unrighteous, literate-illiterate, gentle-ungentle …etc for the so-called “social classing” as claimed by protestant Hindūs, then what does a newborn child have to do with this? How do you discriminate amongst newborn children - when the class of a person is based upon his qualities, claiming them to be Brahman, Kshatriya, vaishya and Shudra! How is the so-called class of a new-born child determined? On what basis, as the newborn child cannot be judged on his qualities as he is just born! So it’s true that that the so-called ‘social-classing’ upon qualities and abilities, isn’t classing but is “casteism” as here the child is named on the basis of his parents’ class/caste! So isn’t it birth-based casteism? Moreover, this discrimination is not limited to naming a child only, it is everywhere in protestant Hindūism. For instance Mūlshakar wrote,
“In the beginning of the 9th year Dwijas should, after their Upnayan ceremony has been performed, send them to school (Acharyakul), where the teachers are thorough scholars, imbued with piety and well, versed in all the sciences. Shudras should also send their children to school, but without performing their Upnayan.”
- [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch.1 pg.29, Tr. Chiranjiva]
We clearly read above that, the children of shūdra should be sent to scholl but without upanayan, where as the dwijas or twice-born (first three classes) are to perform this ceremony, another show of unequality of protestant Hindūism!
Still more, Mūlshakar wrote:
“Dwijaas - Braahmans, Kshatriyaas and Vaishyaas - should perform all Sanskaars for their own good as well as for that of their children. They lead to purity (mental and corporeal) in this life as well as in the next." MANU 2: 16.” "Let the Tonsure Sanskar be performed in the sixteenth year of a Braahman, in the twenty-second of a Kshatriya, in the twenty-fourth of a Vaishya." MANU 2: 65. (In other words, it should not be delayed beyond those periods).
- [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch.10 pg.311, Tr. Chiranjiva]
So the Sanskār of Kesānta or Godāna (Tonsure – shaving head excecpt the crown lock) is for the dwijas alone! What about Shūdras? And may we ask, what does the ceremony of tonsure has anything to do with the literacy or illiteracy of a person? Well we need not say anything more, the quote itself is quite apparent and is speaking for itself.
So, we’ve evidently and satisfactorily proven that prostestant Hindūism inherently is unequal and discriminatory, infact we’ve shown the statement from satyarth prakāsh itself.There are several more proofs and evidence which we could not write down here as it would deviate us from our topic altogether.
Satyagni / Agniveer the hate-monger wrote:
I have not read Quran properly because Arabic has always been a foreign language for me. Even Arabic scholars have not been able to understand Quran properly; then where do I stand in one single small life? There is no way to verify veracity of Last Prophet, Heaven, Hell, Judgment Day, Gabriel, Kaba mystery, Id story and other assumptions that form foundation of Islam.But how does it matter?I care least about it and even if I cared, it still does not matter because neither I can understand Quran properly in one life, nor can Prophet come in my dreams to bring me revelations. The only reason that I am Muslim is because I am told that it offers me Equality.I am told that Islam offers me a dignity and status that is same for all Muslims across the world. I am told that in Islam – you are either ‘one of us’ or ‘one of them’. If you are one of us – Muslim – then we treat you with equal respect and rights. Only when you are one of them – non-Muslim or Kafirs – then we refuse to pray for Heaven for you even when you die or refuse you the right to preach your own beliefs in a Muslim country. Thankfully, I am ‘one of us’.As a Muslim, I am told that I am not a slave of anybody except Allah. I am told that no race or tribe can dominate me or treat me as inferior. This is the only reason why I am a Muslim. And I know that I am the most respected Muslim because I made the greatest sacrifices for Allah. This is the sole foundation of Islam for me. And if this does not exist, there remains no reason why I should still follow a foreign religion in a foreign language propagated by foreigners whom I don’t even understand properly.So far, I believed blindly whatever I was told. I kept deluding myself in my own palace of pride. But then something happened and the foundation slipped. Have you ever suddenly woke up from a beautiful dream because you felt like you slipped?My Matrix also broke suddenly and new realities emerged. I fell in love with an Arab girl. But then I came to know that.
Again, here the rant still continues, we were hoping for some serious “arguments” to be forwarded by Agniveer, but again he is ever-ready to prove his lacking of arguments; nonetheless we’ll briefly have a view of the rant and move forward. How many Hindūs can read the Vedas in Sanskrit? Forget understanding it hardly any Hindū can read the Vedas, where as every Muslim can read the noble Qur’ān though not all may be able to understand it due to their illiteracy in Arabic. Whereas the fact is that there thousands if not more, Hindūs who don’t even know the names of each Veda, for them Bhagvad Gitā, Mahābhārata or Rāmayana are the holy books of utmost importance! How many Hindūs know about Manu Smiriti, forget reading it?
Another interesting conjecture propounded by Agniveer is “Even Arabic scholars have not been able to understand Quran properly”, well this is but just a strawman, the parts which need to be understood are very well understood by those who know Arabic whether scholars or not. But how many Hindū and Sanskrit scholars understood Vedas? Here’s what Yāska writes:
“Seers had direct intuitive insight into duty. They by oral instruction handed down the hymns to later generations who were destitute of the direct intuitive insight. The later generations, declining in (power of) oral communication, compiled this work, the Veda, and the auxiliary Vedic treatises, in order to comprehend their meaning. bilma = bhilma (division) or illustration.”
- [Laxman swarup, The Nighaṉṭu and Nirkuta, 1.20, pg.20]
And this is what Durgāchārya the famous commentator of Nirkuta, writes commenting on Yāska’s above quoted statement:
He proceeds. But what of these ṛishis? He tells us: 'They handed down the mantras by oral tuition to subsequent men, who had not the same intuitive perception of duty,' i.e. those ṛishis who had an intuitive perception of duty handed down the mantras to subsequent men, i.e. to those who were ṛishis by audition (śrutarshis), of a later age, and destitute of power; 'ṛishis,' whose ṛishihood arose from what they had heard from others, and not without hearing, as was the case with those earlier ṛishis who had an intuitive perception of duty. He proceeds. "What did the earliest ṛishis do to these later ones? They handed down the mantras by tuition (viz., 'by the function of instructing their pupils) according to their text and meaning; and the pupils received them through tuition. Then 'these later men, being grieved, with the view of affording instruction, arranged this book and the Veda, and the Vedāngas, in portions, for facility of comprehension. For the purpose of instruction:' 'grieved,' afflicted by the apprehension that their pupils would not comprehend what was taught them; and when they did not understand, being actuated by compassion towards them, and having regard to the greater shortness of their lives, and to the diminution in their power of comprehension, which was occasioned by the influence of the times, they compiled this book [the Nighaṉṭu], beginning with l ‘gau’? and ending with 'devapatnyas,' in parts, for facility of comprehension by division of the subject-matter.
Simply put, what Durgāchārya and Yāska believe that after the ‘revelation’ of vedas to the ṛishis, these ‘revelations’ were relayed to other ṛishis who were ṛishis by audition (śrutarshis) meaning they were ṛishis who weren’t seers like the ṛishis to whom the Vedas were ‘revealed’, the seer ṛishis taught the non-seer ṛishis(i.e śrutarshis) the Vedas by orally , slowly as time passed by there came time when Hindus including ṛishis weren’t able to comprehend the Vedas, due to diminution in their power of comprehension hence was a book compiled called ‘Nighaṉṭu’ to help ṛishis and other Hindūs understand Veda. In short, according to Durgāchārya and Yāska later Hindūs and ṛishis are “destitute of power” of understanding Vedas and “did not understand” Vedas due to “diminution in their power of memory” and “influence of the times”. Hence these two believe that Hindūs and later ṛishis (those whom the vedas weren’t revealed) are incapable of understanding Vedas due to the reasons stated above. So what is the status of this Nighaṉṭu? Laxman swarūp states the condition and status of Nighaṉṭu,
The Nighaṉṭu contains only a small number of the words of the Ṛgveda, and as it does not contain any explanations of the words collected, in Sanskrit or any other language, the modern term 'dictionary’ cannot be applied to it, although the Kośās can be so called. It should rather be called a vocabulary, which is a book 'containing a collection of words of a language, dialect, or subject' when 'the words are few in number, being only a small part of those belonging to the subject, or when they are given without explanation, or some only are explained, or explanations are partial'.
- [Laxman swarūp, Introduction to the Nighaṉṭu, in ‘The Nighaṉṭu and Nirkuta’ pg.14]
Amazingly, the book which was compiled by earlier ṛishis to facilitate the comprehension of Veda today does not contain the explanations of those words which were needed to explain Veda! Hence this evidnently proves that today even the so-called ‘Mahāṛishis’ are not able to understand and teach Vedas as it was once understood and taught by the first ṛishis. This shows the unintelligible nature of Vedas!
In fact, historians too have admitted the fact that most of the scholars today cannot interpret the vedas, as they were interpreted by the earlier ṛishis or should have been interpreted, as put by the famous Bengali reformer and historian, Jadunāth Sarkār:
“In the nineteenth century we recovered our long lost ancient literatures, Vedic and Buddhistic, as well as the buried architectural monuments of Hindu days. The Vedas and their commentaries had almost totally disappeared from the plains of Aryavarta where none could interpret them; none had even a complete manuscript of the texts. The English printed these ancient scriptures of the Indo-Aryans and brought them to our doors.”
- [Sarkar Jadunath, ‘India through the Ages’, Calcutta: Orient Longman, 1979 (1st ed. 1928)]
We all very well know that a huge amount of Hindu sacred texts have been lost, and those which are available are marred with interpolations, and other defects.Still there were few who tried to revive and reinterpret the vedas, these people with their fantaticism not only employed all types of linguistic tools, for reinterpretation but also tried to discredit other interpretation of scholars like sayana, Ubbat and Mahidar.
And in fact even those people who reinterpreted Vedas as per their whims, like Mūlshankar and his cultist blind-followers even after utilizing all kinds of tools like, reinterpretation, etymological interpretation et al, still are unable to understand many verses and their meaning, for instance Devi Chand the famous protestant Hindū scholar on various accounts in various places in his translation of Yajurveda writes the about unintelligible meaning of the particular verses.Well, when these protestant Hindū scholar themselves state their failure of understanding the complete vedas how much will the laymen understand ?
“Forty-four and thirty three ways of praise are not clear to me.”
- [Yajurveda, Ch. 14, verse 26 pg. 153]
“The exact significance of these animals being attached to the forces of nature is not clear to me”
- [Yajurveda, Ch. 24, verse 1, pg. 255]
“Gayatri, Trishtup, Jagati, Anushtup and Ushnih are names of Metres. Their connection with animals is not clear to me.”
- [Yajurveda, Ch. 24, verse 12, pg. 257]
We believe this should be enough, to prove our point that hardly anyone understands the Vedas and this is one of the main reasons that you’ll find numerous interpretations of Vedas available (despite the fact that interpreters may be from the same sect or cult), amazingly nowadays it’s a trend amongst those Hindūs who know a little about Vedas to try and understand it as per their whims, and this is apparent especially you see them involved in inter-faith dialogues or debates.
The saga is flowing similar to dirty water in sewage, with its dirty lies and accusations, this time this Islāmophobe is questioning concepts like existence of Heaven and hell, day of requital, existence of Gabriel (alayhi salām) and something called “Kaba Mystery”? Well, we humans are still in the primary stage of our scientific revolution , we still have a lot to discover and InshāAllāh, we’ll someday verify and prove the truth of these concepts, by the way is there a way to disprove these things? Of Course not, as many of the above stated are from the unseen matters to humans. Well, we would like Agniveer to answer few of our questions, which will expose this hypocrisy.
For instance, in various place Vedas speak of heaven and hell, so what do protestant Hindū mean by heaven and hell? Mūlshankar expounds on these terms as per his whims and defines the as following.
42. Swarga (Heaven) is the enjoyment of extreme happiness and the attainment of the means thereof.
43. Narka (Hell) is another name for undergoing extreme suffering and possession of the means thereof.
- [Satyarth Prakash, ‘A Statement of my Belief’, pg 732, Tr. Chiranjiva]
And also wrote,
Desires and consequent pain and suffering are called Hell (naraka). Swarga literally means happiness. The ordinary happiness is called worldly happiness. Whilst the extreme happiness or Heaven (Swarga).
- [Satyarth Prakash, Ch 9. pg 302-303, Tr. Chiranjiva]
So where’s the verification for this “extreme happiness” alias heaven, same for “consequent pain” (Hell)? Can anyone verify such concocted beliefs? And even in this world do we find people in “extreme happiness” and in “desires and consequent pain” so is this world Heaven as well as Hell? And where is the proof and verification for Moksha (emancipation or “supreme bliss”). Did Ishwar himself inform Agniveer of Moksha? Or did he download the “revelation”? Or did one of the four ṛishis themselves came and tutored Agniveer & Co.?
Moreover, what is the proof for the truthfulness of the four ṛishis? In fact what is the proof that they even existed? Is there any? Mūlshankar states they exist so they must? Isn’t it? Pathetic blind-following!
Is there a way to verify whether human souls (ātmā) are eternal? No, so why do Agniveer and protestant Hindūs believe in it?
Not only this but, who’s the author of Vedas? Are they only four ṛishis or more (as believed by many)? Who are the authors of Vedas? Is Ishwar the author? Are the Vedas free from textual corruption; is there no difference in the no. of verses in vedas? Well, people interested in knowing the truth about these questions should visit the below linked sites:
Textual corruption of Vedas:
Origin of Vedas their inspiration and authority:
Protestant Hindūs are mere blind-followers of Mūlshankar; there are plenty of such irrational beliefs and improvable beliefs held by these people. So where is the verification? Well, there is no proof or verification for numerous such beliefs, so why do these people have faith in it? Blind-following! Entire protestant Hindūism revolves around the whims, opinions and beliefs of Mūlshankar, a man who just assumed and presumed but never proved anything. The very foundation of this cult is false and based on a man’s whims!
Agniveer continues with his pathetic fact-less ‘saga’, accusing Islām without proofs -typical of him, he goes further alludes to another conjecture insinuating that Islām is discriminatory, as it discriminates people on the basis of religion and that you’ll not be respected when your are “when you are one of them – non-Muslim or Kafirs”.Let’s bust this lie, by stating a verse from the noble Qur’ān.
“And indeed We have honoured the Children of Adam, and We have carried them on land and sea, and have provided them with At-Tayyibāt (lawful good things)”
- [Sūrah al-Isrā: 70]
The above verse explicitly refutes to the alluded accusation of Agniveer by stating that Allāh Azz wa Jall, has honored each and every child of Adam regardless of his religion and has given him with lawful good things. It’s to be noted that each and every person has a free-will and he/she will be accountable for his/her beliefs and actions, hence it’s the person on his own free-will, who deviates from the only true religion (i.e. Islāmic Monotheism). So anyone who deviates from the truth is accountable and criticized for his beliefs and actions, that’s what Islām does with non-Muslims who’ve deviated from truth, it criticizes them and shows them the true path while stating that they will be punished for their deviancy by their One true Almighty God in the hereafter , so that they may be guided. Just as humans, all of us are honored in the society but when a person kills someone or commits other anti-social act, he is criticized and rebuked, and punished, so isn’t he worthy of criticism and punishment? Simply put, every human has been honored by Islām, but maintaining this honor is the job of each and every human.
The hapless ‘saga’ continues with its accusation, this time questioning “why I should still follow a foreign religion in a foreign language” well, why didn’t agniveer and other Hindūs complain when their god ishwar as per their theology , revealed Vedas in a an “alien” language (Sanskrit) not known to any human (see Satyarth Prakāsh pg. 239-240)! Why do Hindūs follow a religion who’s books are in alien language, is alien better than the so-called “foreign language”? Also, what about “foreign religion”? Islām has been revealed by Allāh azz wa jall, the One true Almighty God which makes it ridiculous to label it as “foreign religion”, hence if (foolishly) Islām is termed as “foreign religion” what would vedic dharma a.k.a Hindūism then be called using the same illogicall ‘logic’? “Alien religion”!
And, why is this alien language a “dead language” today? Some academics state Sanskrit as somewhat dead language basing their propostion of the fact that still today there are few books published in this language like vedas and other works but so is the case with other dead languages like Avestan,Coptic,Ge’ez,Coptic, Bibilical Hebrew, Slavic…etc. A dead language may be used by a minority of people, for specific purposes like the Coptic is used by Copts for their religious studies and ritual, similar is the case with Bibilical Hebrew. Nonetheless, be it dead
A dead language may remain in use for scientific, legal, or ecclesiastical functions and purposes, but that does not make it living as that’s the difference between extinct language and dead language.
Why do these Hindūs follow a religion whose language is dead and is not even understood but the so-called scholars as, proved earlier? Why do these Hindūs have no problem with these facts? As for Islām then Islām has always believe humanity to be a single family hence there never occurs any problem with any language prerogative of deciding the language of the true religion rests alone with the One true Almighty God, He being All-Knowing , All-Wise. In fact, Hindūs should ponder why did their so-called divine language perish? Why wasn’t it preserved?
Another amazing point is, in this time of Globalization when the whole world has become just like a small house, people are using each others languages so as to fulfill their needs and requirements, so why does not Agniveer reject all these languages and go with Sanskrit alone? People in India are studying English so that they may procure a good job, studying American English and all sorts of languages, so question is when these people can accept English and other languages and prioritize them over their mother tongue why do they have problem with a “foreign language” as the language of religion of truth? Is it because they have turned into materialists or are they simply hypocrites? Islām is the religion for entire creation, hence we have nothing like your language and my language we are brothers and sisters, and we share each others cultures, foods, clothing-style as we are one family, to whom racism is something despicably alien.