The current version of Quran starts with ‘Bismillah‘. Except Surah-Tauba, it comes in beginning of each Surah. (modern Quran is said to be comprised of 114 Surah or Chapters). Before any important task, Muslims are supposed to recite this noble phrase.

One can browse through a variety of resources to know the meaning of ‘Bismillah’. Undoubtedly, Bismillah is one of the most glorious and noble phrases of humankind. Let us now evaluate how much is it technically integrated with modern Quran.

There lie some grave confusions regarding origin of Bismillah. As per Hadiths, the first ayats (verses) to be dictated to Muhammad were first 5 ayats of Surah-Alak. Then Surah-Mujamil was dictated to Muhammad by Gabriel.
(As per mythology, an anthropomorphic alien creature called Gabriel came to earth and dictated the verses of Quran to Muhammad from time to time).

Now Surah Alak, the first Surat to be dictated to Muhammd starts with “Ikara Bisme Rabbika..). If ‘Bismillah’ was part of original Quran, then Gabriel should have stated ‘Bismillah’ instead of ‘Bisme Rabbika’ in Surah Alak or Surah-Mujamil.

This shows that ‘Bismillah’ has been added later in Quran, or was at least missed by Gabriel and Muhammad, if modern Quran is authentic.

Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote in English translation of Quran that “Many believe that Bismillah with which all Surahs of Quran begin was added later, and is not part of original Surahs.”

The confusion is complicated because Surah-Tauba DOES NOT start with Bismillah.
Why Allah or Gabriel or Muhammad or compliers of Quran made this mistake is beyond comprehension. Till date many Islamic cults fight to claim that Surah Tauba is not a separate Surah but continuation of earlier Surah-Infal.

Tafseer Ittikhan states that Ibne Masud, a close companion of Muhammad did not use to include Surah-Fatiha (the first Surah of modern Quran) in his Quran. His Quran used to begin with Surah Bakr (the second Surah of modern Quran).

Thus, there is doubt if Surah-Fatiha was part of original Quran.

Now, when there is such a big question mark over authenticity of ‘Bismillah’ – the most important phrase of Islam; and Surah-Fatiha, the opening of Quran; and Surah-Tauba, how is the authenticity of rest of the Quran guaranteed?

Especially when:
a. there is no available Quran that dates back to living era of Muhammad

b. The oldest available Quran is at least 300 years after Muhammad and said to be copy of first Quran compiled 20 years after Muhammad’s death

c. This first Quran was compiled by Caliph Uthman, who was murdered. None other than Aisha, beloved wife of Muhammad, whom he married as a 6-year old as per instructions of Allah, was among those who conspired against Uthman and then later fought against Ali, another confidante of Muhammad. How can we rely on claims of such bloodthirsty people, when Islam means ‘peace’ or ‘submission’?

d. There are blatant contradictions in modern Quran (we shall analyze this in detail in subsequent articles)


Bismillah is pronounced before most awful and unworthy tasks as per any norms of civilized society. To take name of Allah before doing such detestable tasks is an insult to Almighty who is considered pure and kind.

Case 1: Halal meat.

Before brutally killing an innocent animal, Muslims are supposed to say Bismillah. The eminent Islamic scholar, Khuda Baksh wrote on occasion of Iduljoha in Modern Review:
The Allah who is so kind does not want to see rivers of blood of innocent creatures dying in so much pain. True repentance happens in feelings. The religion of future shall reject such heartless drama of repentance. So that even these poor creatures also witness kindness of Allah.

Quran states that whenever an animal is killed, one should recite Bismillah or Allah-o-Akbar. Both mean that Allah is kind and great! But the irony is that this is being recited during a most brutal act!

Case 2: Sex with wives and slaves

Islam is perhaps the only religion today, that justifies sex-slavery on basis of the modern Quran. Any sensible person can trace the irony. But it is magnified when Bismillah is added to spice up sexual acts.

Tafseer-e-Jalalyan, the most established commentary on Quran states in its explanation of Surah Bakar Ayat 223:
Say Bismillah and start having intercourse the way you want – straight, standing up, sitting down, lying down, from back. Your women are your farms and you bow the seed the way you want!

Why is Bismillah to be uttered before such acts, can be explained only by perverted minds!

Case 3: Friendship with non-Muslims

Surat Aal-Imran Ayat 28:
It states that Muslims should not make non-Muslims their friends and be cautious of them. Tafseer-e-Jalalayn explains further – If one has to make friendship with non-Muslims due to fear or convenience, one should have hatred and enmity with them in hearts. Allah will show his wrath if you make non-Muslims your friends.

And with Bismillah, even such traitor-traits are justified. No wonder why Islam is producing the largest number of terrorists and traitors. Unless our Muslim brothers and sisters get out of the clutches of false Quran, there can be no remedy.

May our Muslim brothers and sisters exemplify ‘Bismillah’ in truest sense – by rejecting all those books and cults and practices which are against the traits of kindness, loyalty, brotherhood, compassion, honesty and tolerance that Allah demands from us!

PART C – Allah says, “I start with name of Allah”!

Swami Dayanand had written in his analysis of Quran in Chapter 14 of Satyarth Prakash that it starts with “I start with name of Allah…”. This means that the author of Quran is someone other than Allah. Many Muslim clerics counter-allege that even in Vedas, many Suktas are written in praise of Ishwar. Then the same should apply in case of Vedas as well, and Vedas cannot be considered to be created by Ishwar.

However they forget that there is a big difference in the nature of revelation of Quran and Vedas. Vedas were revealed in minds of Rishis and not recited by anyone. Thus the eternal knowledge of Vedas was not spoken by Ishwar. So even the praise of Ishwar in Vedas is not a praise spoken by Ishwar or His agents. In Vedas, feelings are important, it can be in first person, second person or third person, depending upon the context or topic. This is followed in later creations of Sanskrit as well where name of writer or listener is not written and has to be understood by context.

Quran on contrary was supposedly dictated to Muhammad. Thus, the first Ayat of Quran which was dictated to Muhammad starts with ‘Ikara’ or an order to “Read”. Muhammad said, ‘I cannot read’. Then Gabriel ordered again and again and then Muhammad memorized the verse. Why is he ordered Muhammad to ‘Read’ and not to ‘Listen’ or ‘Recite’ is another question mark. Because when the Quran was to be dictated and practiced by recitation, why would a sensible person/ angel ask one to read? However, whatever be the case, if Quran was direct message of Allah spoken to Muhammad, there is no reason for Allah to say that, “I start with name of Allah!”.

Thus Quran is actually written by someone else, apart from Allah.

Hoax of Islamic Superiority

Series: Islam Probed, Book 3
Genre: Islam
Tag: Recommended Books

A book which is busting the Hoax of Islamic Superiority with the references from the most worshiped Islamic texts.

More info →

Nothing Found

Complete Works of Agniveer – Vol 1 (eBooks – 54 Books)

Complete works by Sanjeev Newar and Vashi Sharma! Agniveer’s complete book collection.

Life-changing works of Agniveer on Hinduism, Yoga, motivation, spirituality, Moksha and burning issues concerning society, nation and Dharma.

More info →

Liked the post? Make a contribution and help revive Dharma.

Disclaimer:  We believe in "Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam" (entire humanity is my own family). "Love all, hate none" is one of our slogans. Striving for world peace is one of our objectives. For us, entire humanity is one single family without any artificial discrimination on basis of caste, gender, region and religion. By Quran and Hadiths, we do not refer to their original meanings. We only refer to interpretations made by fanatics and terrorists to justify their kill and rape. We highly respect the original Quran, Hadiths and their creators. We also respect Muslim heroes like APJ Abdul Kalam who are our role models. Our fight is against those who misinterpret them and malign Islam by associating it with terrorism. For example, Mughals, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and every other person who justifies sex-slavery, rape of daughter-in-law and other heinous acts. Please read Full Disclaimer.
    • @Joe:

      I feel sorry for u. U know NOTHING about Islam.

      I fell sorry for ANYONE who “KNOWS” Islam enough to go about their entire life believing non-believers are hell-bound. What a jealous and angry God such idiots are believing in. Yuck!

  • i just want to say that, no matter how hard you people try, you cnt even prove one single point, INSHALLAH you people will be replied soon, for this article, with proofs not like the author, who dint even care to mention the sources.
    get ready for the reply

    • @noor

      lets see what you have to offer

      this site has given prrofs that can be verified (have been verified) by previous debators.

      anyways , you are welcome to bring your refutations.

      by the way ..what does noor mea : reflected light ? 🙂

  • Salama,

    First of all, the quran is a revelation from God and brought by his prophet Ma-hamada (give, compliment) God’s given name and his real name is Ahmad. This is stated in the quran. So, Muhammad is a false prophet. How did Islam created? By changing the way the quran is read, that is by putting mark and sign. The actual phrase as such if read character by character is “Ba Sama Allaha Al Rahamana Al Rahayama” that translated as In the name of Allaha, the merciful the loving”.

    The quran is corrupted to create Islam. Words are changed from Allaha to Allah, Asalama to Islam, Mahamada to Muhammad, Masalama to Muslim etc. The quran got nothing to do with Islam that is why the Muslim did not know the content of the quran. Even when they read the translation, they themselves contradict with the commandments of God because they follow the teaching of a false prophet.

    Sexual relationship is consider a sacred act that is why you need to start by saying the name of God. At the first place, who created man? According to Quran, God created man and women in his image. Look at the name of God that is writen in arabaya, Alif Lam Lam Ha or look at the aksara Om. The character Alif is also resembles lingga or man organ. The Lam Lam resembles Breast or Back and the Ha resembles vagina. As such, God created man and it is God that give pleasure to man during intercourse. So, if you know that God give pleasure to you should you perform fornication in his name?

      • same apllies to abdulla tarique..if you don’t know that’s how traditional debates are carried out ..with both parties having assistants to give them the exact quotes from the scriptures

        you also missed out the real aspect that mp arya was reciting the quranic verses extempore whereas abdulla tarique needed a push from the audience to recollect his own scriptural verse!

        be a man ..yeah me bro ..abdullah sahab lost it BIG TIME! 🙂

    • lol no one replied to you, not even arya maybe he is scared of mr. steve LOL VERY FUNNY THESE ARYA SAMSJIS CONTRADICT THEMSELVES THAT MEANS THEIR VEDAS ARE NOT WORD OF GOD.

      • @yeah me
        Ignoring Qadiyanis is our policy and like Muslims, we also dont take you seriously. And expecting reply to a comment containing just a link is what makes you a true Ummi (illiterate) like your second last prophet Muhammad!

      • qadiyanis lol, u dont even know who are they ppl and just wanna escape by calling them qadiyani and u r hindu qadiyanis lol, u r going against the belief of ur own vedas and i can prove it so first get ur baby Satyagni to debate me

  • Satyagni
    The reference dat u have given that Swami Dayanand had written in his analysis of Quran in Chapter 14 of Satyarth Prakash that it starts with “I start with name of Allah…”….which is simply wrong
    Now look I start with the name of Allah ,it is being taught to prophet by gabriel and everything which Allah taught to Muhammad through Gabriel is present in Quran.So it means that Muhammad is being taught that whenever He or any one of Muslims start reciting Holy Quran should start with Bismillah meaning I start with the name of Allah….Quran is the teaching of Allah to the Holy Prophet(PBUH),Allah Almighty is not reading by Himself(Nauzubillah)…So ur article is based on such poor aspects,i wished to prove them all wrong but couldn’t find time to do so but there is a question for u brother.
    WHY ARE U DOING ALL THIS??i wish and pray that u come on the right path.

    • @Usama

      ur fanatic prophet zakir naik started all this, we are doing all this to get rid of false scriptures so u can embrace the reality, and we hope u revert back to ur original dharma, the Vedic Dharma.

    • @Usama
      I think you are new to Quran brother! Dont you know whenever a verse of Quran is to be recited by Muhammad or Muslims, there is always “Ikara” before that verse which means “Recite”. So, either a verse is from Allah’s mouth or from Muhammad’s mouth. Quran follows the tradition of saying “Ikara” before all those verses which are to be recited by people. If Bismillah is to be said by Muhammad or Muslims, why is not there “Ikara” before it? It means Bismillah is from Allah’s mouth and not Muhammad or Muslims! Hope you got my point.

      Brother, come back to the true Vedic Dharm of your ancestors!

  • @ Mushafiq Sultan
    your quote******"The consumption of meat (is befitting) for sacrifices*******
    Satyagni ji gave a clear explanation from Vedas read
    How can u kill an animal those who are capable of being fathers and mothers.
    on other words(why Allah gave the feeling for animals to defend their children, if its purpose is food ).

    Please look at embed video, Animal can fell sorrow.

    [youtube TjtrdpSwEUY&feature=related youtube]

  • Regarding Bismillah being part of the Quran. The dominant position among Muslim scholars is that it is not part of the Surahs. Bismillah is only a beautiful sentence to begin the study of the Quran. Why are you making such a big fuss about it. I found your article absolutely meaningless and without any scholarly reason for writing it.
    Then you have given examples of some APPLICATIONS of Bismillah. Again you have desperately tried to vilify it. Regarding Halal meat, the answer is very simple. Firstly in Islam, meat eating is not prohibited so it is not any sinful action and you have no reason to ridicule the use of bismillah before slaughtering an animal. Secondly, meat eating is permissible even in Hindu Books. For example it is written in BRIHADARANYAKA-UPANISHAD Part 3
    6th Adhyay, Fourth Brahmana; Shloka 18
    "18. And if a man wishes that a learned son should be born to him, famous, a public man, a popular speaker, that he should know all the Vedas, and that he should live to his full age, then, after having prepared boiled rice with meat and butter, they should both eat, being fit to have offspring. The meat should be of a young or of an old bull."
    Also in Manu Smriti Adhyay 5; Shloka 30-32

    30. The eater who daily even devours those destined to be his food, commits no sin; for the creator himself created both the eaters and those who are to be eaten (for those special purposes).

    31. 'The consumption of meat (is befitting) for sacrifices,' that is declared to be a rule made by the gods; but to persist (in using it) on other (occasions) is said to be a proceeding worthy of Rakshasas.

    32. He who eats meat, when he honours the gods and manes, commits no sin, whether he has bought it, or himself has killed (the animal), or has received it as a present from others."

    Regarding your other examples like sex wth slaves etc and saying Bismillah before having sex are obviously written with a maligning intention. Why do u find it wrong to say Bismillah before having sex. Is sex an evil deed??
    Regarding friendship with non muslims there verse you are referring to is clearly talking about a certain situation when Muslims had been persecuted by the Pagans and Muslims are told here to not taken disbelievers who want to eliminate muslims as friends in preference to the believers as Muslims were facing continuing hostility from the disbelievers initially. As fas as those disbelievers were concerned who were not hostile towards Islam and Muslims Allah said clearly:

    "8. Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

    9. Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.

    (Sura 60: Ayahs 8,9)
    So it is clear you are selectively misquoting to create hatred for Islam. I would suggest you be honest and not just pick and choose.

      • So u agree hat this article of us is dumb also. Nice admission. I am not here to defend Dr. Zakir but respond to your attacks on Islam an you have not responded to any of my rebuttals.

      • u r putting ur words in my mouth, nice. By the way, attacking and defending or counterattacking are not the same. Zakir attacked our faith with his use of sophistry, that is attacking. We are trying to dispell the wrong notions being spread by Zakir and Co. by venting our opinions and views on hinduism and at the same time, raising questions on islam and muhammad, that is defending and counterattacking. I hope u get it this time.

    • 1.Pls go thru the article There Is No Beef In The Vedas. The scriptures you are quoting is adultered and is not referred to by any sensible hindu. And most importantly, we are debating here b/w quran & vedas and no other texts.
      2.What is so divine about having sex with slaves & concubines, that u need to say bismillah before that?

      • answer number 1: Upanishads are the shrutis and thus of divine origin like the Vedas according the Hindu Scholars including Swami Dayanand Saraswati. So I already knew you would be clan bowled by this quotation from the Upanishad. Are u saying that Swami Dayanand Saraswati is not a sensibl hindu?? He quotes exhaustively from Upanishads in is book Satyarth Prakash.
        answer number 2: Did I talk about sex with slaves and concubines? Go scroll up and see what I was talking about. I said sex is not evil and if we begin it in God's name why is troubling u? The article does not talk about slaves nor does i provide and credible reference. The reference is about sex with wives and i don't think u were born without sex between your mother and father. Were you? So saying Bismillah before sex is a pious deed as we have the intention and hope that God will give us virtuous children. So don't hate taking the name of God

      • @Mushafiq
        I challenge you to show a single place in Satyarth Prakash, where Swami Dayanand has written Upanishads as Shruti.

      • That is because unlike fanatics, Vedas teach us to embrace good things from everywhere and reject the rest. Vedas are ultimate benchmarks, and to extent that something is as per Vedas, we are willing to embrace it without bothering about its source. Upanishads are great texts and hence we respect them. But even in Upanishads, if something is found against Vedas, it will not be a Shirk to reject that. To quote, it is not necessary that the book is completely authoritative. What is important is that the quote should be authoritative.

      • Well quoting from a book is not a problem. The point i m making is can u derive or substantiate RELIGIOUS DOTRINES from un-authoritative books??? Swami Dayanand was using the Upanishads to teach religious doctrines and not just good things. So it mans he agrees they r authoritative

      • @Mushafiq
        Quran is full of the doctrines of Injeel, Zabur, and Torah, and also believes these books as divine. Then why dont muslims follow these books? Why are not they authoritative in spite of being divine?

      • @Mushafiq
        So Allah's knowledge got retired that is why you wrote-"there laws were no more to be practiced". You had problem with Swami Dayanand, who gave the references to the good things he gave and said that follow only Vedic part of it. But you have Quran, whose makers copied most of the text from others, and yet shamelessly claim it to be the final word.
        Question is still unanswered, why do muslims not follow 3 books, which are divine (retired though), apply same logic which you gave in case of Upanishads.

      • how does non practicing of laws mean Alah's knowledge got retired? Again unfounded conclusion. I can give references to good things from the Bible but not use it as a source to teach DOCTRINES. I think i m again and again emphasizing this word Doctrine and u dont seem to grasp my point. We do no follow the fomerly revealed books coz their time period is over as God himself had put limitations of time and place on them. However Upanishads are being used by Swami Dayanand to teach Doctrine which means he accepts them an divine.

      • @Mushafiq
        so according to you copying one's text and not acknowledging him is ok. But quoting some good thing and acknowledging is questionable.
        what about you, who accepts one book divine, but does not follow its DOCTRINES?

      • @Mushafiq
        You should first apologize for your lie that Swami Dayanand considers Upanishads as Shruti. Swami Dayanand considered Vedas as self authoritative and rest to be tested in the light of Vedas. Things, which are in accordance with Vedas are accepted and which contradict Vedas, have been rejected. We are not bound to accept anything just because it has been written by any Rishi or in a book, rather we judge everything on the basis of Vedas. But of course, Upanishads in their pure form are full of knowledge, and one can explore Vedas with their help. Any principle, which goes against Vedas is either due to mistake of author or a later day interpolation.

      • Dear brother,

        1. While Dayanand quotes exhaustively from Upanishads, he never said that Upanishads are vedas. He also quotes exhautively from Quran but never said that Quran is part of Vedas.

        2. Islam permits sex with slaves and their impregnation out of wedlock. Are Muslims not supposed to say "bismillah" when doing so?

      • @Mushafiq
        muslims consider Torah, Zabur, and injeel to be the divine revelations other than Quran. But then why dont you consider those as authentic? Swami Dayanand never hesitated in accepting any good thing of any book. But you even dont accept Allah's previous revelations, forget about human's! So according to your logic, if you believe those scriptures divine, you should follow those too, and if you dont believe those as divine, then you are a KAFIR as per Quran!

      • @Mushafiq
        islam allows to have sex with slaves and Muhammad did that too. What will you do if I give you references?

      • @Mushafiq
        What have you showed here so that I accept the defeat? By the way, do you accept defeat on Upanishads as Shruti issue, as you have been proved wrong?

      • @Mushafiq
        Why did Muhammad take most of the doctrines of 3 earlier books, which got retired, divine though. If these were adulterated, then why did Muhammad consider those as divine? And why did he take many teachings from those, if those were adulterated/retired?

      • Did he take teaching from them?? who said so?? Di I say say so? Where did he consider the adulterated books as divine
        He said that the original revelations were divine not the adulterated books that were present in his time.
        U seem to be confused.

      • @Mushafiq
        Why dont you apply same logic in case of Upanishads then? Swami Dayanand only considered that part authentic which was in accordance with Vedas. Ask yourself who is confused. By the way, you did not give me the reply for Bismillah before sura Lahab!

      • 1. but y u eliminate the bull part. ok if u think is wont help u here its ok. Ignore it.
        2. now it looks like u r tired. u need rest.
        3.well u can ask me anytime 🙂

    • 1. Why Allah creates such confusions? When Quran is supposed to be the last message of Allah, could not Allah have been more systematic in delivering the message. If Bismillah is so beautiful, why Allah missed making it part of Quran? And if Quran is best, why not take some other verse from Quran to start study of Quran? So Bismillah is better than rest of verses in Quran, even though it is not part of Quran, by your logic? And then why Bismillah is not uttered before Surate Tauba? Why this discrimination against Surate Tauba?

      • Dear Satyagni, I would prefer to discus with you than with SDC simply because you seem to be someone of substance while SDC is only resorting to dumb polemic and so I will ignore him.
        Firstly, I think you accepted my quotation fro the Upanishad and did no comment on it. So I think you agree that your Upanishad allows meat eating. So your meat argument against Islam goes back to you.
        Now, I will respond t your attempted rebuttal. There is no confusion in the Quran except if you are no willing to learn. The message is perfectly systematic. I told you that Bismillah is an incantation which is prescribed by Prophet Muhammad and we begin the recital of each Surah with it and this has been the way of all Muslims even before Prophet Muhammad. If you know in Surah An Naml Sura 27: Ayah 30 Solomon is said to have written a letter as follows:
        "It is from Solomon, and is (as follows): 'In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful:
        So Bismillah is part of the Quran here. and it is most appropriate to use it to start a deed. Although you have provided an incorrect translation of Bismillah. You gave I START in the Name of Allah. The accurate translation is IN the name of Allah not I Start. So it is perfectly ok. Regarding why it is not read in the beginning of Surah Tawbah the reply is that Surah Tawbah is a Surah of God's punishment and judgement on different types of unbelieving people and so is not a Surah coming with the Mercy of God. Thus the Bismillah is not read on it. It is fairly natural coz in arabic it would not make good meaning. So, you need to rethink your views on it.

      • 1. I have already given evidence that your quote from Upanishads is blatantly wrong.
        2. If Bismillah is appropriate to start any deed, then why injustice with Surah Tawbah?
        3. If you argue that Surah Tawbah is about punishment and judgment and hence Bismillah is not applicable, that means you should also not utter Bismillah before cutting innocent animals. Further, if Allah is merciful, does He not remain so when he does justice? If that be so, then qualities of Allah keep fluctuating. And if it is not so, even his justice is out of mercy for good people. And thus Bismillah should be spoken here as well.
        4. You say that Bismillah was prescribed by Muhammad and also that it was so even before Muhammad. Do you have evidence of any text apart from Quran claiming so? Does Engels, Zaboor or Taurat – the older books claim so? If not, why? If yes, where?
        5. You claim that my usage of "I START with" is wrong while translating Bismillah. This shows you have not read Quran carefully. What is then the meaning of Bism? And why does Surah Alak start with "Ikara Bisme Rabbika…" and is translated by Tafseer-e-Jalalyn as "Recite, bring recitation into existence, beginning with: In the Name of your Lord Who created, all creatures;" Why Jalalyn translated Bisma to mean "Beginning with" here?
        6. This means that either modern translators have deliberately changed translations to weed out allegations. Or there is confusion among Muslims on what Quran actually means. In either case, please debate with your own scholars before questioning me. I am simply basing my articles on works of Islamic scholars, without making any commentary from my own side.
        7. By the way, if Solomon has been quoted, that means Solomon is writer of parts of Quran and not Allah?
        8. Also let us know if the original Quran dating back to Muhammad's era is present today? where?

      • 1. Will you give me the correct translation of that shloka?? I will the be able to see how u understand it.
        2. I did no say any deed. I said "a deed". Anyway I do not think that there is any reason for u to make so much fuss about this issue. U had issue with Bismillah as the word of Allah and it indicates that th authour is not God. So I responded to that already and then u changed the topic. Look at my fist response. It is sufficient.
        3. I think you have problem with this animal issue and you wont leave it. Do you use animals for transport, yes or no? For tilling the land?? If yes then you have no ground to point a finger at Islam. First talk of animal rights in those aspects then come to slaughter.
        4. In the Bible Prophet commonly speak in the name of God and in Deuteronomy 18:19 the coming Prophet is predicted to speak in the name of God as well.
        5. your "start" query i have already answered. It doesn't disprove Quran to be the word of God.
        6 & 7 I burst with laughter when i read this point of yours. Are you serious if some person is quoted then he becomes the author of the book? The Vedas quote people too. Did you forget? Subhan Allah
        8 Th Quran was written down at the time of Prophet Muhammad under his supervision on various objects like shoulder bones of Camels, Date Palms, Scraps etc. Then during the time of Caliph Abu Bakr, i.e., within 2 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad Abu Bakr compiled the Quran in the Book form and in the order in which it is today. U have to note hat the primary method of the preservation of the Quran is memorisation and not writing. Anyway, then during the time of Caliph Usman, during the battle of Yamama, a large number of the Memorisers of the Quran were martyred and also as Islam spread beyond Arabia, non arabs began reciting the Quran wrongly. S the need was felt that the copies o Quran be made and sent to various places. and all other wrong variant readings of the
        Quran be destroyed. This was done with the consensus of the Companions and no one objected to it. This Quran which was transcribed by Caliph Usman is still present in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul in Turkey. and the Quran has millions of mmorizers right from the time of Prophet Muhammad and never has any dispute arisen on its authenticity. we have the same Quran.

      • 1. The correct translation is that Those aspiring for a scholarly child who is master or Vedas and long-living should eat a mixture of Urad and Rice along with Ghee prepared as per prescribed Rishi method of measurement of quantities of each entity. If you know Hindi, I can translate that better for you.

        2. I had several doubts, each of them have been mentioned in the article. They still remain. Still there is confusion that why Bismillah took so much prominence when Gabriel started with Bisme Rabbika.

        3. Again, you have simply not explained how Bismillah before killing innocent animals is justified? More so when you say that Surah Tawbah does not have Bismillah because it is on topic of Judgment! Interesting to kill and say "Allah is Merciful!"

        4. In Bible does he ever say "Bismillah"? Then where did Bismillah come from?

        5. It only proves that there are doubts over authenticity of Quran? And you strengthen that by admitting that there were multiple versions of quran which were destroyed after Muhammad's death!

        6. Good that you have sense of humor! I am honored to have previlege of bringing happiness to you! But yes, fact still remains that Solomon discovered parts of quran and not allah! And why would Allah put stories in last message of Allah, is another doubt that comes!

        7. Vedas do not talk of any person. Vedas contain no history unlike Quran!

        8. If Quran was memorized, what was need to collect bones, palms etc? This means that Quran was not uniformly available till after Muhammad's death. You yourself admit that wrong variants were destroyed several years after Muhammad's death!

        9. You admit that there is no Quran dating back to Muhammad. The earliest is during era of Usman. And it was compiled by those who were fighting for each other's lives. Both Usman and his predecessor were murdered. and those against him included Aisha and Ali, wife and companion of Muhammad. Next Ali and Aisha fought against each other and did lot of bloodshed. And you imply that the Quran we believe in has been compiled by these bloody companions of Muhammad who made mockery of the message of Peace of their beloved teacher?

        10. If companions were to compile Quran, why not Allah gave the message to them and ensured that they diligently compile it on ongoing basis? Why did Allah dispatch quran in such shoddy manner? Could he not put one instruction in Quran to start compiling it immediately in real time?

        11. Many cults of Islam believe till date that this is not the real Quran. Many believe that Ali had 17000 ayats in his Quran but 2/3rd were rejected. With such bloody people leading Islam after messenger of peace was dead, no wonder that only one quran remains prominent today and rest have been silenced under power of sword. but still murmurs of question over original quran continue among various sects.

        12. Topkapi Museum has a copy of the original Quran. This copy is said to be around 300 years later than original Quran. But even if that not be so, still oldest Quran is 20 years after Muhammad's death and compiled by those who killed each other. Even the Caliph who compiled it was murdered!

      • 1. you did not give a correct translation of the shloka. If you want to give in hindi u can. I understand Hindi.
        2. Bismillah means In the name of Allah and Bismi rabbika mans in the name of the Rabb. Both mean the same and i think u left ur argument now. now u r concerned with he use of words.
        3. Again ur innocent animal argument. I asked u that do u use animals for transport and other purposes. If u exploit them for ur benefits then u correct urself fist. Don't be an advocate for animal rights while u urself exploit them.
        4. The Bible uses the expression In the Name of God several times and it means Bismillah
        5. I never said there were multiple versions of the Quran. u r misquoting me. I said variant readings in recitation coz arabic is writen without vowels and arabs know how to pronounce but when we will pronounce araic witout vowels we are bound to make mistakes. So non arab when the fis stated reading the Quran they pronounced wrongly. and wrote it down. so it was mutilated. and Caliph Usman and al companions in tha time destroyed this mutilated readings. it is perfectly ok.
        6. Solomon discovered parts of the Quran? what do u mean here? i think u r confused. u r asking new questions and ignoring previous questions. it proves u accept that u have no further arguments. its ok
        7. Vedas quote people. it is all over it.
        8. Quran was memorized as well as written and what do u mean uniformly available?
        9. Only Arya Samajis can use this argument. What has fighting got to do with Quan preservation. What has the murder of te two Caliphs got to do with the Quran preservation. It was anti Islamic non muslims who hatched conspiracies to sabotage Islam. Your argument is unscholarly and unreasonable.
        10. There is great wisdom in these things. God does no work as per ur wishes. He has Hi ways. However, there is no doubt on the authenticity of the Quran. The companions did deligently compile he Quran.
        11. Ca u plz specify which cults these are and what is the basis for their claim. Ur saying the rest have been silenced under the power of th sword is wishful thinking not fact.
        12. the copy is hardly 15 years after the Prophet's death and it has the agreement of ALL the companions. and still they read the same Quran when hey recited it from their memory. So we have problems at all. and u have no grounds to stand on except make up stories and events.

      • The correct translation is " Jo Koi Chahe ki mera putra pandit, vijigeeth, prasiddha, sunane ke yogya, sab vedon ka vakta hove aur sampoorna aayu ko prapt kare to urad ke saath chaaval banvakar usme ghee ko seench kar rishi ke vidhi ke anusar khaven to avashya hi aise putra ke utpadan me dono samarth hovenge.

        1. Bism means to start. Hence Bismillah means Start with name of Allah. And Bismerabbika is translated by Jalalyn as Beginning in name of Rab.

        2. Is killing of animals and using them for work same? By your logic having labors work is same as killing them! Both are justified if we say Bismillah!

        3. On variants of Quran, it is an allegation of many Muslim scholars as well. Kindly clarify with them first. Refer my previous comments.

        4. You agree that all we have to have faith on this quran is belief in Caliph Uthman and his companions who were killing each other. If Uthman was so great, why was he murdered and Aisha and Ali were against him? And why Aisha and Ali fought with each other? Why Ali claimed that his quran has 17000 ayats and why Shia-Sunni split happened? After all Islam was religion of Peace. From where did sword come? And how can one believe on words of these bloody fighters who made mockery of message of peace of Muhammad.

        5. Why Allah had to borrow from Solomon's phrases to compile Quran? That means at least this phrase was created by Solomon and not Allah.

        6. Kindly cite where vedas cite historical people. Unlike Quran, vedas have no scope for stories. They are not relevant for Allah's message.

        7. If Quran was well memorized, why all the skins and leaves required to be collected? And Allah could not make a better method to preserve Quran for till 20 years of death of Muhammad?

        8. Fighting has lot to do with preservation. No one would believe in murderers killing each other for being collective preservers of an intellectual book. One has to check credentials of people before trusting them. Forget about Quran, no one would even give a loan or a sim card to such people in today's era. How you expect rational people to naively believe that they have been harbingers of final message of Allah!

        9. Why blame on non-Muslims? The fight over Shia-Sunni and killing among first generation of Muslim leaders was an internal fight. Further if Allah is indeed author of Quran, he should have protected his fellow beings. But then everything stupid also happens by Allah's will as per this new Quran. Please read and

        10. Talk to any Shia scholar and you will know that they believe in Quran of 17000 ayats. I have already given links

        11. Even if the copy is 15 years after Prophet's death, still Allah goofed up by not preserving a Quran in Muhammad's lifetime.

        12. by the way why Allah made a curious Quran where some Ayats reject other Ayats. Why not delete these rejected Ayats? Please enlighten.

        Also Please read and and provide your inputs.

      • 1. the translation further says that the meat should be that of a young or old bull. u left that out. So this Udar thing doesn't make any sense here
        2. Well the problem is that animals did not come to u to negotiate their salary and provide them work. U exploit them coz u think it is ok. Have u asked their permission?
        3. I already explained this topic. U have nothing more to say. I said all muslims have the same Quran. Shias have no different Quran. If a deviant makes a claim plz also check their proof. ok. I thought u were more sensible than rely blindly on someone's claim.
        4. Why does some ones murder have to do with Quran's preservation? Weak weak argument. Grow up. The companions mutually strife has nothing to do with Quran preservation. U r making illogical conclusions. U said Ali claimed that Quran had 17000 Ayahs. Plz provide a credible reference otherwise u wlll be considered a liar.
        Shia Sunni split has nothing to do with Quran preservation. Ur sword argument again is a escaping argumen and a red herring.
        5. What do u man borrowing? Allah is narrating an incident that happened and giving some lessons. U r very desperate now to prove Quran wrong by hook or by crook. Wont wok with me. useless arguments.
        6. These are not stories but narratives and are are only mentioned for a lesson or to refute certain lies attached with the event which can cause deviation. So again I m not giving any weight to ur weak arguments.
        7. As I said that Quran was memorized and written down as well. U seem to be lost and don't know what u r talking about. The Quran was and is well preserved. there was no dispute with regards to the Quran among any companion. So u coming along 1400 years later and making unfounded claims is ignorance.
        8. Again u have not shown how their fighting makes the Quran doubtful. U r making erroneous assumptions.
        9. I did not say it was not an internal fight but it was considerably due to a enemy ploy to cause division within the ranks of the muslims. Actually u move on u have obviously not read authentic records. What has authorship of Quran got to do with protecting fellow beings. I dont understand what logic u r using. I can sense a defeatist mentality in u.
        10.Given me a credible shia scholar who says so?? I want to know.
        11. Well I already told u it is well preserved and u cant prove it is tampered. The Burden of proof is on u.
        12. Which Ayahs REJECT other Ayahs?? U are bringing up irrelevant subjects as I truly exposed u on this Bismillah article.

      • 1. Brihdaranyakopanishad 6/4/18 says : ‘Odan’ (rice) mixed with meat is called ‘Mansodan’. On being asked whose meat it should be, he answers ‘Uksha’. ‘Uksha’ is used for an ox, which is capable to produce semen, the thing u were calling water.
        2. I m not equating killing with working. I m revealing ur double standards. That u exploit animals for ur benefit and take it okay. Why dont u do one thing. Since u use the animals for transport and put heavy burdens on them, as a mark of thankfulness u should lift them on ur shoulders also sometimes and carry them on ur backs.
        3. Fighting doesn't mean they were murderers. The circumstances were made such by hypocrites who made one party fight another. Go read some history. and again I ask u u made a bogus claim that Ali claimed that the Quran had 17000 Ayahs. Provide the proof of this claim or u r exposed as a liar.
        4. No counter views. U cannot even come close to providing views.
        5. Abrogation is a different concept mr. Satyagni. It doesnt means cancellation. It means the new law contains the previous law and is more expanded, and doesnt negate the previous law.
        6. Well today u were left without any path to escape. But i admire ur efforts to fight for ur cause. Don't even bring up Kashmir issue. Keep these red herrings away. talk about theology and not politics here. Good tactic. Islam is a religion of peace doesnt mean it is pacifist. Islam is a thorn in the face of Brahmin oppression and their dirty nefarious plans. Our ancestors renounced this hindu religion and the corrupt caste system. I think u are using Taqiyyah as well. coz it was ur ancestors who used hinduism to suppress and oppress shudras. So i will battle with all strength against and hindutva ideology which i know is a brahmin chauvinist ideology. Take care. I think today this much is enough. See u soon.

      • i. the word is Maasha and not mansa. Maasha means a pulse and mansa means pulp.
        ii. Uksha means to spill a liquid. Please refer Dhatupath by Panini – which is the source of all root words in Sanskrit. Uksha Sechane in Parasmaipad Bhvadigan. So you have been mislead by some one.
        iii. Abrogation means cancellation as per all dictionaries of the world.
        iv. Read the articles on Caste system to know about Arya or Vedic belief of Brahman or Shudra. You can find in this site as well.
        v. Initially we thought that you are some scholar of Islam. But now we realize that you are merely pasting from some source and your logic is not incoherent. We checked the IRF site, Peace TV site and other lists of Islamic scholars and did not find your name. Your website lists that you are only a 22 year old student of Arts and web designing. So we would request you to provide your qualifications and competencies so that we can ascertain that you are a scholar. As you would understand that there are crores of Muslims on earth and we cannot keep debating with everyone. That is simply infeasible. So we would love to debate with you if you convince us of your capabilities for it. In case you cannot, we would request you to please ask your teacher or some other acclaimed scholar to debate us. We apologize for taking so long to realize this and not doing this verification before. You can feel free to provide our comments on the site, and discuss with other willing readers. But Satyagni shall respond only for debates with eminent scholars of Islam. This is the same policy that is adopted by Zakir Naik, and we find ourselves forced to do the same.
        vi. May Peace be upon you! Please never take intellectual discussions emotionally. I pray that you would do more studies and be a scholar in future who does not fight with hatred but discusses compassion for truth. This concept of "battle" as depicted in your comment is the root cause of terrorism. You are too young to have studied Vedas and have been brainwashed to hate Hindus.

        Please read our latest post on the site for more details and refer some scholar of caliber to us who can discuss these issues with us!

      • @Mushafiq

        Mushafiq, tough time? , u are the one who is being constantly refuted and ur the one running away. U know very well if ur scholars fear in debating us.

      • @Mushafiq
        Lets conclude your day here,
        1. You were challenged to show where in Satyarth Prakash, Swami Dayanand has written Upanishads as Shruti, you failed to show.
        2. You could not give the reason for reading Bismillah before Sura Lahab.
        3. First you claimed that Bismillah was also used before Quran, but then you wrote that it was revealed! What actually you wanted to say remained unknown!
        4. You said that using animals for transportation etc is equivalent to kill them!
        5. You failed to provide the verses of Quran, which talk of humanity and brotherhood with non muslims.
        6. You even did not know about the canceled verses of Quran.
        7. You could not say anything on sex slavery in islam.

        Dont forget to ask your scholars to find the answers to the above seven, and also for the questions posed in other articles here, which you could not comment on!

      • There are hadiths that some Ayats of Quran were eaten by Aisha's goat!

        Also if Bismillah is optional and not part of Quran, why is it complusary for Quran recitation during Roza? Why not keep it optional, just as 'Om' is optional in Vedic paath?

      • Firstly if these are hadiths then it proves that the muslims did not hide any information and those people who have studies these hadiths for thousands of years found nothing wrong with it. Even if i agree that a goat ate the Ayat's can u tel me which Ayats they were? Did she say anything that oh my God what will i do now? Ayats are lost. Try to think how much ridiculous it is becoming.

        Bismillah is a initial incantation and is highly commendable and highly encouraged and a good manner however no one says it is compulsory. Bismillah is a Sunnah of the Prophet.

      • Did I say Bismillah is an interpolation?? I think u r reading into my words something i never said. and killing each other has nothing to do with preservation? This is the argument of the defeated. Because i proved u wrong with evidences and showed u how the Quran is preserved u are now trying to cast doubt on the intentions of people and prove them as incredible. However, as I said u r making up events and distorting them and deriving totally wrong conclusions.

      • @Mushafiq
        What did you say then? If Bismillah was not revealed from Allah, then it is interpolation, even though it gives nice meaning, but it was inserted by the people and was not the part of revealed Quran. Who knows that many things, which Muhammad or his followers felt good, were not added in similar way in Quran?

      • @Mushafiq
        Why was then bisme rabbika revealed as first Aayat and not Bismillah. If Quran starts from Bismillah, then it should be the first Aayat and not bisme rabbika.

      • bismi rabbika?? Iqra bismi rabbikallazi khalaq was first Ayah Bismillah is a formula for starting a work and i can even say bismi Rabbiik. No problem .I dont know what is ur problem here. u r confused

      • @Mushafiq
        my question was-which revealed first ikara bisme rabbika or bismillah? Who recited bismillah, Muhammad from his side or Jibrael made him speak? I am confused because Allah, Jibrael, Muhammad etc were all confused!

      • @Mushafiq
        1. Whatever may be the translation, if it goes against Vedas, it wont be acceptable.
        2. When your "a deed" contains sex with slaves, considering your wife a tilth and going into her whichever way you like, killing anyone in the name of Allah, then of course, "any deed" will be falling under the category of "a deed"!
        Regarding Bismillah-The problem is that the very first verse which was revealed (bisme rabbika), Ikara was read before it. It means Muhammad was asked to read it. All the Quran seems to follow this ikara except Bismillah. In Vedas, no ikara was required since that revelation was not oral, but it was through soul at the intellectual level. Moreover, Muhammad was ummi (illiterate), which means that he could not make any prayer from himself. Thus Bismillah could not be read by Muhammad until Jibrael asked ikara before that. So, it is clear that Bismillah was a later discovery in Quran, which was not in the original one.
        3. We use human labor too, does that mean it is equivalent to kill the human? You previously wrote that Quran allows meat eating. Except haram animals, a muslim can eat anything. This way, a muslim can eat human flesh too, since it is not written Haraam in Quran.
        4. You were asked to show "Bismillah" and not "in the name of God".
        5. It essentially proves that there are two Allah, one is praising the higher one! In fact it proves Quran, the word of two Allah, the fake one is praising the true one!!
        6 and 7. Get yourself normal with some knowledge of Vedas! Vedas dont contain any history, forget about people. But one can easily be confused by the stories of Arabs which have been spread in the name of God's word!
        8. Ask your shia brothers about the aayats, which goat ate. Ask them, how many aayats, they tell, have been missed and how many are left now. Ask them, who was to be the receiver of aayats, muhammad or Ali?

      • @Mushafiq
        What about sura Lahab, which is again of Allah's punishment but Bismillah is read before it?

    • 1. Apart from Vedas, no other text is Pramaan in matter of Vedic dharma. Because Vedas alone are Ishwar's message and unchangeable. Rest are human creation and subject to interpolations.
      2. With regards to Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the meaning provided by you is out of context and wrong. First, the word present is Maasha and not Mansa. Maasha (Urad) is a kind of pulse. Even if we take the word as Mansa, please note that Mansa is a generic word used profusely in Sanskrit literature to denote pulp. For example Amramansa means pulp of mango. There is no mention of bull here. There is mention of Uksha which means "to water" (Uksha senchane in Dhaatupath) and Rishabh which means Rishi. The problem is that every where the Uksha or Rishabh comes in Vedic literature, foolish biased people deliberately interpret it to mean bull to serve their own agenda.
      3. If meat were so acceptable, why you think that this was the only place in entire 11 Upanishads that you found reference to meat? Why is it that in this chapter also, where a variety of food is being described (at least 20 food items) why only one has a meaning close to meat? The reason is that one burnt in rainy season only sees green everywhere!
      4. regarding manusmriti, refer the article "No Beef in Vedas" on this site itself. Please do not quote from adulterated Manu Smriti.
      5. Please provide me reference to those Ayats in Quran which forbid Muslims to fight or force conversion on those who live peacefully and not torment them with things like Zaziya. Also those Ayats which give freedom of expression and worship to non-Muslims. Further provide those ayats which state that even good-hearted non-Muslims will be spared from burning in Hell forever.

    • @Mushafiq
      Sex with slaves is indeed an evil deed. The only thing which makes it halaal for muslims is that prophet himself did so. Regarding fighting with kafirs, according to Jalayn, verse [2:190] of Quran which talks about fighting with those who fight you, has been canceled by the next verse [2:191] which orders muslims to slay kafirs, even though they have not started the war.

      Brother Mushafiq, first read Quran, understand it and then write anything here. You can learn Quran better here than any Aalim e deen on earth.

      • @Mushafiq
        This is the problem with our muslim brothers. They talk without reference. But anyway, give me those verses, which talk about humanity and friendship with non muslims Taalib sahib!

      • Did i talk without reference? where? what did 2:190 have to do here? it shows u r like a parrot u have been fed with verses and then use them against us selectively and u give and answer which was not even the question. That is ur problem. and regarding ur demand to show u verses of humanity and friendship, i feel is a mockery of Islam and people who have eye sight can easily find those verses. Only blind don't see. Quran is a book that promotes humanity and good values. Quran is filled with such values. only haters like u cant see.

      • This is not inhumanity if a fact is being made. There are criteria for achieving Salvation. Only Noble Deeds are not sufficient for Heaven. But a combination of Faith, Noble Deeds, Enjoining the truth and enjoining patience and perseverance with lead a person to heaven. All four are required to enter heaven according to the Quran and Allah will judge everyone depending on their own situation and atmosphere provided. Non believers are those who recognize the truth but still reject it and such people will definitely not go to heaven. What is wrong with this?

      • @Mushafiq
        Quran says that Allah has sealed the hearts of kafirs and has veiled their eyes. Allah also says that He could have made everyone noble but did not do so because He has to fill the hell with zinn and human.
        Question is that why did He not make everyone noble? Why did he seal the hearts of kafir? To know more, refer

      • @Mushafiq
        you have not yet provided the peaceful verses of Quran. Anyway, refer Quran [2:7] for sealing heart and [32:13] for not guiding all people.

      • sealing haeart is for the Kuffar, those that reject guidance so Allah allows them to go astray. it is not like someone's heart is sealed when he/she is born. the sealing is due to arrogance and their refusal to realise and accept the truth.
        Not guiding all people doesn't mean that Allah wants them to go astray. In Islam it is very clear that God test human beings differently by providing them different environments. Being born in a Muslim home doesnt mean that a person will go to Paradise. A Hindu born in a Hindu family but a sincere seeker of truth may go to heaven and muslims born in a muslim family despite having the guidance with him and not following it will end in hell. So we dont have a narrow conception. So stop maligning Islam.

      • @Mushafiq
        Instead of inventing your own meanings, refer any authentic tafsir in your support. Jalalayn says-"God has set a seal on their hearts, impressing on them and making certain that no good enters them; and on their hearing, [in which He has] deposited something so that they cannot profit from the truth they hear; and on their eyes is a covering, that is, a veil so that they do not see the truth; and for them there will be a mighty chastisement, that is, intense and everlasting"

        It clearly says that Allah makes it certain that no good can enter into him. Refer "helpless destiny in islam" to know more about testing and sealing. Who asked Allah to test? Who asked Him to create us?
        Can I go to heaven without believing in Muhammad as prophet ?

      • @Mushafiq
        you rightly said brother, asking verses of humanity and friendship is mockery of islam because there are no such verses! Give here the proofs, if you have. Talking anything without reference will not serve the purpose. Dont let more people see this mockery of islam!

      • @Mushafiq
        I did not see truth coming out, though your ignorance towards Quran is definitely exposed. Dont you know that those peaceful verses have been canceled by verse of Saif? Either you dont know about cancellation of such verses, or you are deliberately hiding this fact using Taqiya.

        Regarding Shuddhi, I believe that you too would be convinced some day, and will come back to your original Dharm of Vedas, which your ancestors were proud of.

      • Taqiyyah argument is ur pathetic tool to escape the solid facts. The scholars of Islam have dealt in detail about the nature of these CANCELLATIONS or more accurately abrogations. Abrogation actually means God Almighty substitutes a previous ruling with something similar or better. There is no cancellation but the new verses contain the previous ones and are more comprehensive. So Qura again is a book promoting virtue and not vice unless u have an ulterior agenda to prove it wrong by hook or by crook.
        Regarding Shuddhi, We are satisfied by the decision of our forefathers who renounced the evil that hinduism had done to them and accepted the light of Islam and the time is not far when the Indian nation will come to the original faith of obedience and submission to God, that is Islam.

      • @Mushafiq
        Abrogation is no different than cancellation. Allah almighty is not all knowing, as He has His own versions of laws and morals which differ from time to time. If He would be all knowing, He would have given the best laws and morality in first place like Vedas, which need not change with time.
        Shuddhi- Brother, Vedas do not contain any teaching of caste by birth, in fact it is one's deeds, which make him Brhman, Kshatriya, Vaishya, or Shudra. So come back to the real Dharm of Vedas, which do not ask you to include any person between you and Eeshvar.

    • Manu smriti and animal killing

      Manu considers all involved directly or indirectly in animal killing as sinners

      5/51. He who permits (the slaughter of an animal), he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells (meat), he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, (must all be considered as) the slayers (of the animal).

      5/52. There is no greater sinner than that (man) who, though not worshipping the gods or the manes, seeks to increase (the bulk of) his own flesh by the flesh of other (beings).

      5/53. He who during a hundred years annually offers ashwamedha, and he who entirely abstains from meat, obtain the same reward for their meritorious (conduct).

      5/54. By subsisting on pure fruit and roots, and by eating food fit for ascetics (in the forest), one does not gain (so great) a reward as by entirely avoiding (the use of) flesh.

      Manu advices not to torture diseased animals.

      4/ 67. Let him not travel with untrained beasts of burden, or with (animals) that are tormented by hunger or disease, or whose horns, eyes, and hoofs have been injured, or whose tails have been disfigured.

      Manu advised not to use any sort of violence for anyone.

      2/159. Created beings must be instructed in (what concerns) their welfare without giving them pain, and sweet and gentle speech must be used by (a teacher) who desires (to abide by) the sacred law.

      6/ 60. By the restraint of his senses, by the destruction of love and hatred, and by the abstention from injuring the creatures, he becomes fit for immortality.

      Now read these few shaloks which are from interpolated Manu smriti.

      5/31. ‘The consumption of meat (is befitting) for sacrifices,’ that is declared to be a rule made by the gods; but to persist (in using it) on other (occasions) is said to be a proceeding worthy of Rakshasas.

      5/32. He who eats meat, when he honours the gods and manes, commits no sin, whether he has bought it, or himself has killed (the animal), or has received it as a present from others

      5/ 39. Swayambhu (the Self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of sacrifices; sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world); hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering (in the ordinary sense of the word).

      5/40. Herbs, trees, cattle, birds, and (other) animals that have been destroyed for sacrifices, receive (being reborn) higher existences.

      5/56. There is no sin in eating meat, in (drinking) spirituous liquor, and in carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great rewards.

      The above examples proves that interpolations had been done in Manu smriti and if in a single book two different self contradicting statements are given then it’s definite that the unacceptable one of them is false. Manu smriti mentions love, protection and non violence for animals while the interpolations mentions totally wrong.

      So interpolations are to be rejected.

  • I came across your website and found some very interesting articles and ideas being proclaimed. I would love to answer your misunderstandings and sometimes your deliberate misrepresentation of Islamic teachings.
    Anyway, here I want to reply to this article about Bismillah. The first mantra of Rig Veda States
    “I Laud Agni, the chosen Priest, God, minister of sacrifice, The hotar, lavishest of wealth. Worthy is Agni to be praised by living as by ancient seers. He shall bring hitherward the Gods. Through Agni man obtaineth wealth, yea, plenty waxing day by day, most rich in heroes, glorious.”

    Now, if Agni is God (according to you) and Veda is also the word of God, and then who is speaking these words? Anyway, this was only a quick counter example from your own scriptures. The descriptive reply is as follows:
    The mode of speech of Revealed Books is of various types. Sometimes, God Almighty speaks in the first person and at times in the third person. Sometimes, God Almighty desires to teach us some prayer or supplication and hence He speaks the words as we would speak them. Surah Al- Fatiha belongs to this very category, about which you have raised this objection due to your ignorance of Revealed Books.

    • first of all u have to understand the difference of devta and paramatma, devta is a celestial being, one of many creations of the paramatma (the universal consciousness). God is not the correct word for paramatma. U cannot use the english vocabulary to describe sanskrit terms properly. So, in fact, it is not a counter example, it is just a case of mere misunderstood, misinterpreted terminology.

    • Namaste brother Sultan:
      1. I sincerely applaud you for your passion to discover the Vedas. The meaning provided by you is in right direction, if not completely correct. With Yogabhyas and more efforts, I am sure you would also be able to be a Mantra Drashta (Seer).
      2. The difference between Quran and Vedas is that while Quran is supposed to be narrated by Gabriel or Allah through two curtains made of pearls or jewels or whatever, Vedas were revealed in hearts of Rishis. Thus Vedas is intuitive knowledge. Since it is intuitive knowledge, it can have all the three persons (first, second and third) as per the context.

      Quran however was dictated. And the dictation started with "I start with name of Allah…" proving that the writer of Quran is someone else. Had it started in any person (first, second or third) but did not have "I START with name of Allah", it could be still accepted as Allah's curious ways of giving message (refer the article on Allah – limited or shapeless for more curious ways of Allah). But here we have Allah dictating Muhammad that "I start with name of Allah..!"

      Sometimes the contradictory and confusing descriptions of Allah in Quran makes one feel that there are two different characters with name Allah. One Allah is the Ishwar or someone close to Ishwar. But other Allah is a different person having lots of weaknesses like anger, colluding with Satan etc.

  • Satyagni,
    Stop promoting false about Vedas. In "Myth of Vedas" you say that Vedas are revealed texts.
    But now you say it came in the minds of rishis. If God revealed it , why he praise himself?
    Also Anukramanis says that Vedas mantra have many rishis , so these were created by Rishis. If it is by God then why he praise himself? At last the question remains unanswered : Who created Vedas?"

    Start embrassing Buddhism as our Dalit hero Ambedkar did.
    He proved that Vedas are brahmans creation and only Buddhism is casteless. Buddhism do not support Brahmans.

    • 1. By revealed, it means it came in minds of Rishis. That is the way Ishwar communicates with us. There is no magic show happening.

      2. God did not reveal it in the sense you imply. Vedas are eternal knowledge and unchangeable. Ishwar inspired Rishis with right capabilities to have that revealed in their minds.

      3. Vedas state whatever is true. What you consider as praise is accurate description of Ishwar. And since it revealed in minds of Rishis, the language is in first person, second person or third person depending upon context. The concept of praise in the sense you want to believe does not come because Ishwar did not stand behind a curtain, and dictated the Vedas.

      4. The Rishis whom Vedas were revealed were different from those Rishis who researched and introspected on these mantras. I think you should have done some research before spitting your hatred against your own foundation. If you indeed have a soft-corner for Anukramanis (which is strange considering your hatred for Vedas) then you should also know that Anukramanis list that some mantras have hundreds of Rishis.
      Do you mean to say that hundreds of Rishis sat together to create 10 words? 5. Answer is clear – No one created Vedas. Vedas are as eternal as Ishwar, Nature and Soul.

      6. Ambedkar only proved the following:
      a. That his study of Vedas and Sanskrit was dismal and based on works of western indologists who had ulterior motives.
      b. That his hatred for certain people went beyond such levels that he lost his objectivity in thoughts.
      c. That while he may have been good at law and sociology, his methods and approach showed blatant lack of scientific spirit.
      Thus while I respect him for his efforts of upliftment of masses, I pity on his baseless hatred for several others, that led him to ridicule Vedas and Vedic characters without having capability and vision to analyze truth.

      7. The fact that you use the word Dalit for yourself shows how bankrupt one becomes mentally due to hatred. Dear brother, why you find pride in calling yourself Dalit which means one who has been squashed and stamped as per his karma (Buddhism believes in Law of Karma!). Why not call yourself Arya which means noble and civilized person? Calling yourself Dalit is like calling yourself 'Luta-Pita' लुटा-पिटा . That is a derogatory term.

      8. Vedas do not contain any concept of birth-based caste. Cite me one mantra in Vedas stating so. Refer my articles on Caste in Vedas on this cite. Brahman in Vedas refer to intelligent and educated people and does not refer to any birth. Each person has all the 4 Varnas depending upon which aspect of his personality we are looking at.

      9. We, true followers of Vedas, welcome you as our Arya brother. We admire Buddha for his reformist zeal, but pity that he could not study Vedas and then he/ his followers started spreading misconceptions about Vedas based on wrong practices of some people. Had he actually peeped into vedas, he would not have made this blunder.

      10. Its an irony that Buddhists propagate the story that Buddha was inspired by scene of animal sacrifice to reject Vedas. But today Buddhists are the greatest non-vegetarians and even eat snake and insects. And also that Buddha died because he could not digest swine-meat. Its a shame that Dalai Lama states that I am Buddhist but not vegetarian! And then they talk of Ahimsa and peace! There is no scope for such fraud in Vedas.

      • I love the sarcasm here and the irony of everyone. Passive aggression is really a mark of enlightenment. This is the best troll website I ever found. Where did you guys took your Psychological argumentative bullying techniques classes? I’m really interested in enrolling.