The ban on beef in Indian state of Maharashtra has caused a huge uproar on social media. This ban is being hailed as a direct attack on their personal freedom. In this chapter, I am putting various points across in support of the beef ban and prove why the beef ban is completely democratic, legal, most logical, as per constitution and in the best interest of the nation.
The argument of beef lovers is as follows:
“What I eat is my choice. Who is any government or moral police to dictate what I eat or do not eat? Will they ban spinach and lauki also tomorrow if I am offended? This is communal politics of right-winged Hindu fanatics and must be opposed.”
On the surface, it appears so reasonable and logical. But let us scratch the surface and explore how valid is this movement against Beef Ban.
I give 13 ways to silence them. If these beef-lovers try to refute one or more of the arguments, tell them that they must refute all of them to justify their stand. It is like someone who is facing trial for murder of 20 people tries to prove that 3 of them were murdered by someone else. It does not matter. Unless you can prove that not even a single murder charge is valid, you will face death sentence.
1 Why no movement against beef ban in past?
The ban on cow slaughter and most cattle already exists in the majority of states of India. Were these beef lovers sleeping like Rip Van Winkle for last 68 years? What were they eating so far? Were they indulging in illegal activities? Why did they not show their beef love so far? Why could they not raise a movement against the beef ban in last near-seven decades?
2 Ban is not on eating, it is on killing.
No one has any problem with what you eat and what you do not. You are free to eat even from the commode in democracy. But the ban is not on eating. It is on the killing of cattle.
Now people like me have several objections to the killing of a cow (and cattle in general). If you can create beef in the laboratory without killing my mother, I have absolutely no issues with you.
But if you want to kill my mother in the name of democracy then, better explore that democracy in Somalia or ISIS zones. Your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
3 Cow is my mother.
Yes, it is true that for the overwhelming majority of India, the cow has sentimental values. They consider cow as mother. Their most popular God – Lord Krishna – is known as Gopal for his love for cows. On every occasion – birth, death, festival, happiness, and sorrow – feeding and worshipping cow are considered a primary duty. There are multiple festivals dedicated primarily to the cow. And this respect is extended to cattle in general. Bull is considered as a companion of another revered God – Lord Shankar.
It does not matter whether you agree with this cow worship or not. But so far the majority of Indians consider cow as a mother, killing of cows cannot be acceptable. Think of it. Say I name an animal on your mother and slaughter it. I write the name of a Hindu God, Prophet Muhammad or Jesus Christ on an animal and slaughter it. I desecrate a temple, mosque or church. Will you encourage this kind of behavior?
If yes, I will call you pervert. But that is beside the point. First, dare to perform such acts as above, post videos of same on youtube, put your address in the description and raise a movement to allow you such crazy behavior in the name of democracy. Don’t have double standards in your apparent love for freedom.
If no, then the slaughter of revered mother cow and associated cattle cannot be accepted in a country where the cow is the foundation of the religious and cultural ethos of the majority.
4 Religion doesn’t matter.
Don’t give the sick argument that cows and cattle are mistreated in the country. Don’t prove to me that most cow-sellers for beef production are Hindus. Hence, a ban on beef shows double standards.
If above is indeed the case, tell me instead, what you propose to do to help solve this problem. The reality is also that women are unsafe in many parts of the country because of the attitude of society. That does not mean having punishment for rape shows double standards. Your sick argument mirrors exactly the views of a rapist in Nirbhaya case.
You cannot rape a woman just because women-safety is an issue in the nation! On contrary, tell us whether you are ready to save dignity of woman at any personal cost?
It does not matter what the religion of all beef producers in India is. What matters is that killing of cattle is equivalent to abusing sentiments of the majority and hence must be banned. The day people like you form the majority of India and are comfortable posting youtube video of slaughtering an animal named after their mothers or religious figures; you can repeal the ban. Thankfully, that is not the case today, and hence, the beef ban is justified.
5 Respect the sentiments of majority.
It is true that even if there were no rational basis behind cattle-worship in Indian culture, still beef ban is justified on pure respect for sentiments of the vast majority. But thankfully the truth is that foundations of Indian culture are very rational and scientific. It is not out of jingoism that we consider India as a lighthouse for the entire world. It is because Indian culture stands on the foundation of reason and science.
Coming to matter of cow and cattle worship:
• The cow is the most productive animal known on this planet. It is a living factory cum hospital producing products of utility from its cow dung, urine, milk, sweat and even breath. Its benefit to the economy, environment, fuel generation and healthcare is parallel to none. When bombing a factory or place of productivity attracts a penalty, why not a cow?
• The environmental cost of beef production is highest of all livestock activities. Meat is the most polluting industry in the world. And beef is most polluting of all meat-producing industries. Refer Raising beef creates more pollution than raising pork, poultry, dairy, or eggs for example.
• The water footprint of beef is highest of all food. Estimates range from 441 gallons to 12008 gallons of water per pound of beef. In comparison, rice and wheat are 50 to 100 times more efficient!! Forget about India; there is a global movement to sway people away from beef to ensure our future generations have water to drink and food to eat. Refer Beef: The ”King” of the Big Water Footprints.
• Beef production is the most inefficient use of fossil energy at an energy input to output ratio of 54:1. Compare with chicken 4:1, pork 26:1, eggs 6:1. For Indian food grains, it is around 2:1. The implication is clear: When you eat beef instead of grains, 26 people go hungry to fulfill your so called “personal freedom of tongue indiscipline.” Review U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat. Also review Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. Here is another one: Beef – The Global Issue.
We shower our deepest respect to seers who formed foundations of Indian culture. They saw what the world is repenting today for being too late to observe and act upon. We are proud of them.
6 Beef lovers and their double standards.
If one demands permission to kill cow and cattle because of his “personal freedom to eat whatever he or she wants,” then they should first raise their voice against following:
• Ban on the killing of national and endangered animals and birds in most civilized countries of the world. (In India, you cannot poach lions and tigers. In United State, killing bald and a golden eagle in banned through a Special Act. Just possessing feathers lead to a heavy penalty. Killing will give you long prison time and hefty fine.)
• Ban on defacing and damaging heritage and protected buildings. Why be certain buildings considered so special after all? Why “freedom-lovers” do not have freedom to choose what buildings they decide to consider special?
• Ban on insulting and desecration of national symbols like a flag.
• Ban on sale and carrying of unlicensed arms and weapon.
• Ban on roaming naked and having sex in public.
• Ban on mutual cannibalism with consent.
• Ban on sale and consumption of narcotics. And so on….
The same gangs of “liberals” who are crying foul on beef ban have never shown any solidarity with above or any other related aspect of personal freedom. Many Bollywood celebrities are twitting against the beef ban. Shirin Devi – only woman editor of Urdu magazine – was fired, arrested and now forced to live in oblivion for publishing Charlie Hebdo cartoons in the magazine. She published them to criticize the cartoons and yet she had to face unimaginable trauma. The issue made headlines, she hails from Mumbai, but no Bollywood personality or beef-lover dared to stand up to defend her. No one dared to publish Charlie Hebdo cartoons on their own walls and tweets to show solidarity with “freedom of speech”.
This itself shows blatant double standards.
I challenge all “beef-lovers” first to show their solidarity with above bans and restrictions that pre-date beef-ban. Please explain your selective silence on these issues.
One celebrity porn-writer wrote that she is willing to face five years of jail to defend the right of beef-eaters in Maharashtra. Let her post Charlie Hebdo cartoons to defend write of publishers, let her publicly consume narcotics to defend the right of ecstasy-lovers, let her perform nude sex acts in public to defend the right of sex-maniacs and so on. But they will not do so simply because the risks are too high.
Insulting sentiments of the peaceful majority of Indians is a harmless hobby instead. It is harmless because Indian majority will not retaliate, unlike many other groups that are famed for putting a prize on your head.
7 There is no absolute freedom in democracy.
In an enlightened democracy, there can never be absolute freedom. Because your freedom can invade in my zone of freedom. All matters of freedom and restrictions are bound by following:
• Collective wisdom of majority that is witnessed through election process
• Responsibility and maturity with which one can use the freedom
• Respect for harmless sentiments of the public. Your freedom ends where it restricts my freedom.
In the case of a beef ban, that happened through a democratic and legal manner. The government that brought this legislation made their intentions very clear in their election manifesto. They went to voters on a plank of stopping beef production. Voters gave them their support and allowed them to proceed on this legally. Now, if they do not fulfill the promise made to voters, that would amount to cheating. Instead, the government decided to follow the path of honesty, show respect to the process of democracy and fulfill aspirations of people who voted for them.
If someone has objections to democracy, he better relocate to jungles where every animal has full freedom to do whatever it wants. And not complain because a government fulfilled its promise to public.
8 Terrorist mindset of beef protestors.
What these protestors are saying is:
“I don’t care if she is your mother. I don’t care if it destroys the environment. I don’t care if it results in 30 hungry people who die. I don’t care if it results in 20 thirsty dead. I don’t care about culture, economy, environment, poor people, sentiments of others…nothing. I don’t care about law and democracy. I just care about the taste of my tongue. If I enjoy eating your mother – living or dead – let me have that even if it is against law. That is my fundamental right.”
This is exactly the way ISIS terrorists think, rapists think, psychopaths think, criminals think. It only proves something else – that even love for beef has such brutal effect on Indian brains. Only God can imagine its impact when consumed. That is why Gandhi equated cow-protection with Swarajya.
9 No unemployment due to beef ban.
Another lame argument given is that banning beef will lead to unemployment of people in this industry. Beef ban is inhuman. This argument again shows your double standards. Why suddenly this selective love for other people? If you are so sensitive to others, why ignore sensitivities of the vast majority, poverty caused due to beef, hunger caused due to beef.
This lame argument can be used for banning any legal or illegal industry. For example, banning illegal firearms, illegal liquor, narcotics, and opium production will all lead to unemployment of some people. After all, there is no industry that functions without people. Even fighting against ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and other terror groups will render many terrorists unemployed! Should we then start promoting terrorism also as a career option instead? Clearly, all this is the mindset of sociopath – for whom self-indulgence supersedes social responsibility.
Those who will be displaced by the ban on the beef industry are free to move to other legal industries. If beef producers start using same resources for grain production, they can cater to 30 to 100 times bigger market. There will be more prosperity and employment. And the environment will also thank them.
Instead of crying hoarse over the beef ban, beef-lovers should instead propose alternatives for the adoption of people in beef-industry in other worthwhile industries. If you have money and commitment to go even to jail, why not allocate some funds for rehabilitation of these people? Why demand legalization of terrorism in the name of safeguarding careers of terrorists?
10 Stop justifying insult of mother.
Don’t impose your moral policing on me. Don’t tell me why I should not worship cow as mother. Don’t ridicule me for electing a government that promises to respect my sentiments for cattle, eliminate hunger, protect the environment and reduce poverty. Don’t threaten me that you would take law in your hands and insult my sentiments for your taste-buds. All this amounts to fanaticism as displayed by ISIS and moral brigade. And if you do so, be prepared to be repaid in the same currency.
If, indeed, you are so passionate about “freedom and liberty”, then raise your voice on more pertinent issues. Do not justify insult of the mother. Do not promote the damage of environment and hunger. Raise voice for the uniform civil code to give equal rights to all women of all communities. Raise voice for Shirin Devi who cannot even move in public because she published Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Raise voice for mute animals whose right to live is jeopardized because of taste-buds of others. Raise voice for hundreds of more pertinent issues than your obsession to eat my mother.
11 There is a correct way to get anything banned.
Another silly argument given by many mentally deprived beef-lovers is as follows:
“I worship lauki and potato. Eating them hurts my religious sentiments. So ban them also.”
Here is the answer. Yes, you have right to get them banned. Follow the following steps:
• First of all, stop eating lauki, potato, roti, pulses – whatever hurts your sentiments.
• Next, form an association of like-minded people who share your worship of potato.
• Third, stand in elections, prepare election manifesto that clearly states your commitment to ban potato, pulses blah blah. Feel free to put death sentence as punishment for potato eaters.
• Fourth, win the elections, prepare a bill, and have it passed in the Assembly to make an act.
• Now thank your voters and be happy.
• If I eat potato after that, lawfully hang me to death.
India believes in this democratic process. Everyone is encouraged to respect and adopt it. But if democracy is not your cup of tea, I recommend asylum in Somalia or ISIS territories or jungles of Africa.
12 Beef ban is completely lawful.
A large number of beef-lovers are threatening to violate the law and satisfy their cravings.
Some say, if beef roams in the night and gets eaten, it’s their fault. One porn-writer says she will eat beef even if she has to go jail for this. Here is our response:
Don’t act like terrorists. By this logic, you can also defend eating children in isolated streets. This mindest is called is psychopath mindset.
Further, if you have right to violate the law to claim your “personal freedom” of eating my mother, then I also have right to violate the law and thrash you for attempting to attack my mother. In other words, don’t complain if illegal beef-activists are brought in control through illegal means by cow-worshippers. So respect the law. Don’t promote anarchy.
13 Beef ban is democratic.
Another breed of beef-lovers is calling this ban anti-democratic and unconstitutional.
What a joke! They forgot Civics lessons of school perhaps. Ban on the slaughter of cattle is clearly documented as a Directive Principle of State Policy in Part IV of Indian Constitution. It has been clearly stated that “it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.” (Para 37)
Para 48 states that: “The State shall endeavor to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.”
So what Maharashtra Government has done is strictly in lines of Constitution and also in a constitutional manner. Those who have objections to it must accuse and abuse the Constitution and its makers instead of those people who respect and follow the Constitution. If you have fundamental issues with Indian Constitution, better relocate to another country because India will continue to run as per its Constitution and celebrate the Republic Day as a promise to abide by the Constitution.
Summary
Let beef-lovers and potato-lovers and culture-haters do whatever they can. We are resolved to counter them democratically, intellectually and legally. And if they resort to the promotion of illegal means – directly and indirectly, then they lose right to complain when they face the same.
Hence, we appeal to them to stop this double standard and join Agniveer in fulfilling aspirations of millions in a democratic manner.
If they do not, please note that we take pride in Veer Shivaji who risked his life to protect the cows. We take pride in Gandhi. And we take pride in our visionary culture that taught us ways to fight poverty, hunger, pollution and live with compassion. We shall protect and nurture it irrespective of anyone’s perverted fetish. And go to any extent for it.
[mybooktable book=”a-hindus-fight-for-mother-cow” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”false”]
The answer to the question – why beef lovers or non vegans are wrong
https://www.facebook.com/CollectiveEvolutionPage
Something went wrong while copying link location. Here is the original link
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/04/10/big-beef-is-in-big-trouble-what-you-should-know/
@Supriya
Finally found someone to ask this questionIs killing cattle for beef a greater pollutant than sustaining them for milk and other purposes?
“Suppose I raise 100 cows for milk ….call this group A……and suppose I raise another 100 cows for meat….call this group B”
From the article it seems to me that both A and B are equally harmful…..because pollution comes from raising the cattle……not during the actual killing and meat production part
In fact if u consider the fact the animals in group B are kept alive for years…..their numbers will increase (whereas the number in group A will actually decline)B would cause morepollution…….Now even if the number of cattle in group B remains the same….the live for years…..so number of cow-years (ie total number of cows X Number of years) forgroup B will still be far far greater than with group A…..more the cow-years more will be the pollution !!!
PS: You ca ignore the long term implications and answer the first qn , which is more simple…..which among group A and B would be causing more pollution…or do their pollution efffects same? And is the pollution related to “raising” the cattle or in killing them for meat?
A very well written and thought provoking article. I have never seen such a clinical dissection of pseudo seculars before. I have become a fan!
I am an Hindu and I eat non-veg. I love food so for me it doesn’t really matter what I eat as long as I want. You say in this article about BEEF, but what about other animals and plants. Do you by any chance know that plants has life just like us. Plants have sense just like us. You are a bigger murder because you are killing someone who can’t even express. That is brutality. You can get all facts and figures of the life but I will tell you this that because of people like you who bring differences the world is no longer a better place. Because of people like you religion came in the world, then partitions, then differences and more differences.
Why can’t people just live happy and let live happy. If you are so very proud of being an Indian then STOP using all the things which are not indian. Use all products, technology, etc which are truly Indian.
Sorry to say but all the things what you figured out is just because you can’t take shit.
Good luck.
Over all eating plants is a better way than eating animals as it causes less harm to the planet and definitely less cruel. I will give some arguments in support of my view.
Plants—unlike animals—are insentient beings void of central nervous systems, lungs, hearts, kidneys, intestines, blood, ears and eyes. They do not defecate or urinate, and have no ability to feel pain or experience a plethora of emotions. Nobody screams in horror when their neighbors are mowing the grass either (grass is a plant too). But if our neighbors were slicing pigs into pieces on the front lawn, there would be tears, physical interventions and the proper authorities would be summoned to stop the bloodshed. Plus, if people honestly believe it’s wrong to eat plants, they could always choose the ultra-vegan lifestyle of fruitarianism (eating the fruits and nuts that fall from
There’s a Law of Reciprocity in existence and this is shown via the seed that all fruits of plants (including trees) contain! What is removed is replaced in Nature. When you kill an animal, LIGHTS OUT! That’s it! Animals don’t contain seeds within them that allow for 100 more creatures to return in their stead.
What darn skewed logic is being promoted by this article. It’s also scary to see that so many agree with it, though not surprising.
All the feelings you have poured in the article is because you were born in a Hindu family, as do all (I guess) who support this article. I was also born in Hindu family and I am equally ashamed by it as I would be if I was born in any other religion. Humans have a tendency of feeling like they BELONG to a GROUP and everything outside the group looks bad. These feelings are quite primitive. Humanity has developed way beyond those primitive ways that it’s time we think logically and independent of any indoctrination that religion puts us through.
If you want to be spiritual, be in your home, think of God in your way and stay happy. Anybody who fights a religion-based battle in the streets on in a social platform like the net is a danger to humanity. The more such people are there, the more outside their group will feel insecure. One good thing about Hinduism is that it gives more freedom to think independently than many other religions. However, some just don’t use this freedom for the good of humanity.
Are there no animal lovers in the world apart from Hindus?
Are there no environment protectors in the world apart from Hindus?
Are there no animals eaten for their meat other than cows? (Milch animals include goats.)
Who made cow you ‘mother’? Just the religion? What if you were born in any other religion?
Any religion that teaches you to be intolerant of OUTSIDERS is misinterpreted over hundreds of years. This includes the definition of KAFIR in Islam as interpreted incorrectly by many now. The only acceptable definition of OUTSIDERS can be “uncivilized”, which most of the world was when religion and civilizations were born. Now we are all (mostly) civilized.
Banning anything that is accepted by majority of the world is what is wrong with this. That shows a ME thinking instead of US.
Nakal ki jagah akal…
Again, a profoundly stupid article. Just because the majority of a country does not agree with a practice doesn’t mean it can be banned. The majority of India is not communist and may oppose communism. If I have a sign on my lawn saying “I support the Communist Party of India,” should that sign be banned because it may hurt the majority’s sentiments? NO! Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are fundamental freedoms and should not be treaded upon unless it directly does or promotes violence towards human beings.
@आदित्य
—-Again, a profoundly stupid article—-
Another Moron commenting here despite clear disclaimer that dont read further/comment if you dont agree with content.
—-Just because the majority of a country does not agree with a practice doesn’t mean it can be banned.—-
1. And ban can’t be revoked just because someone feels that he is above courts and rule of law.
2. Know that beef ban has occurred not because of majority. People had some feelings and they fought it in the court. Court found their arguments valid and put ban.
3. A political party included cattle-protection in its manifesto. People voted for the party. Now they are implementing it. This is democracy. I dont care if you want to be the dictator of the country. Reality is you are not and you never will be.
—-Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are fundamental freedoms and should not be treaded upon unless it directly does or promotes violence towards human beings.—-
So who stopped you from voicing your opinion against ban on streets? Go to Jantar Mantar, do it. And how is beef ban related to religious freedom? Is someone stopping you from going to temple or mosque?
Here, I’ll address all of these:
– Ban on defacing and damaging heritage and protected buildings. Why certain buildings be considered so special after all? Why “freedom-lovers” do not have freedom to choose what buildings they decide to consider special?
Because those buildings aren’t your property, so you have no right to damage them. Cows, on the other hand, can be your property, or you can buy the meat in a store.
– Ban on insulting and desecration of national symbols like flag.
I am strongly against any ban on flag desecration or insulting other national symbols. Thank you for bringing this up. If I own a flag, it is my flag to do whatever I want with it.
– Ban on sale and carrying of unlicensed arms and weapon.
Because those weapons present an often immediate danger to the public. They can easily be used to kill or severely harm other people. Cattle slaughter, on the other hand, presents little danger to human health, as does beef consumption.
– Ban on roaming naked and having sex in public.
Being naked and public sexual activity exposes private functions that are not designed for public. Same thing with outdoor defecation and urination. This is not comparable with beef eating.
– Ban on mutual cannibalism with consent.
“Mutual” cannabalism? Does that mean two people are eating the bodies of each other, while both being dead? If, however, this means someone consented to be killed and eaten by another person, obviously this needs to banned. Are you seriously comparing human killing to cattle slaughter?
– Ban on sale and consumption of narcotics.
Narcotics only damage human health. Also, a lack of a ban on narcotics makes it easier for them to be forced on others, especially children, which severely damages public health.
Cattle slaughter thus does not damage human health. Also, a ban on cattle slaughter upsets the separation of church from state. The Indian government is secular and not theocratic. We cannot make laws…
@आदित्य
—-Because those buildings aren’t your property, so you have no right to damage them. Cows, on the other hand, can be your property, or you can buy the meat in a store.—
1. This is the point. Some buildings CAN’T be the personal property of anyone, they are treated as national heritage. Same with cow. You can have her and avail mutual benefits but you can’t kill her.
2. Even your neighbor’s wall and city-streets are not you property. But if you spit on them, nobody cares (it should change though). But try doing it with any heritage place and you will be behind bars within minutes. So its above the property rights. Its about the sentiments of people.
—-I am strongly against any ban on flag desecration or insulting other national symbols. Thank you for bringing this up. If I own a flag, it is my flag to do whatever I want with it.—-
And you are a criminal if you do that. I can’t even argue this with you. And if a goon like you tries to insult national symbols, I will make sure he gets proper treatment in jail and insults outside.
—Because unlicensed weapons present an often immediate danger to the public. They can easily be used to kill or severely harm other people—
1. And licensed weapons don’t pose immediate threat to public? If the extent of damage a weapon can pose to public is the point, both licensed and unlicensed are equal threats.
2. Difference lies in LAW. Some people are granted permission to use them as per LAW given their situations, needs and history. Same is the case with cow. LAW has banned beef based on arguments, history and sentiments of people. Don’t cry.
to be cont…
—Being naked and public sexual activity exposes private functions that are not designed for public. Same thing with outdoor defecation and urination. This is not comparable with beef eating—
1. Who are you to decide what is private function and what is public? Who designed it for private? #KissOfLove Chumban brigade says they will do it in public. What would you say to them?
2. Sex is designed for private but blood and flesh of innocents that nature has kept inside to remain inside must be spilled out, torn apart and eaten in name of freedom. This is perfectly natural thing?
—-Mutual” cannabalism? Does that mean two people are eating the bodies of each other, while both being dead?—
No both can be alive and eat parts of each other. One can be dead who has left a will that his dead be offered to his friend. Whats big deal?
—If, however, this means someone consented to be killed and eaten by another person, obviously this needs to banned.—
Why should it be banned? Two adults want to exercise freedom. Who are you ban it, fascist?
— Are you seriously comparing human killing to cattle slaughter?—
Yes, because similar mindset that wants to eat everything in name of freedom will demand cannibalism one day. In fact some tribals in Amazon do it.
—Narcotics only damage human health—
1. And so does beef. Its one of most polluting industries in world.
2. Alcohol, cigarette, Tobacco etc all damage health. So they should be banned too or not?
3. If freedom works for beef, Alcohol, Tobacco etc, why the hell its not for Narcotics?
—Cattle slaughter thus does not damage human health—
Cattle slaughter damages animals. They are killed. It damages everything. So humanity needs to try for less violence. After cattle, other innocents must be talked about. Violence against harmless creatures must be a punishable offence. This is true liberalism.
+AGNIVEER
This poor article doesn’t Justify BEEF BAN but we’re showing your emotions and nothing else.
1. Plant’s also have life so killing them is also a crime.
Your argument on this point was:
Plant’s don’t feel like for instance ” I AM A MANGO TREE” so we can kill them.
Refutation : This is a rubbish argument. You totally ignored
STILL YOU KILLED A LIVING ONE. This point still is unanswered and which animal does feel LIKE I AM A DOG OR OTHER anyway?
Even if it was to be agreed (which we don’t) that PLANTS HAVE LESS SENSES THAN ANIMALS, does it still justify your logic. Nope.
Consider this:
You have brother born BLIND AND DEAF (two senses less) who gets murdered by someone. Will you go to JUDGE and tell him to give him less punishment for your brother had less senses. No you won’t or I atleast expect from you to go to JUDGE and complain in Vedic style———My lord, REND REND TO BITS AND SCORCH AND CONSUME AND BURN HIM TO DUST FOR HE DOTH KILLED MY BROTHER, a INNOCENT BROTHER I MIGHT ADD.
Your plant logic can be applied to a MENTALY RETARDED PERSON LIKEWISE.
2. You said THEY DONT FEEL PAIN
REFUTATION: They do which is scientifically proven.
But even if it was the LATTER THAT THEY DONT FEEL PAIN still your argument doesn’t justify THAT YOU KILLED A LIVING ONE(a innocent who can’t do anything for saving himself).
By the way by your logic IF SOMEONE IS GIVEN ANASTHESIA and then killed. Will that be OK because HE DIDN’T FELT PAIN. No, so you argument is wrong.
3. If Cow is sacred to you. It is also in our religion to sacrifice it. So you can worship it and we will sacrifice it. Why will we go against our religion for you.
Can you break ALL IDOLATORS IDOLS IN INDIA as our religion is against it. So keep your argument.
-Jazib Bhat
–This poor article doesn’t Justify BEEF BAN–
And your poor comment doesn’t justify your stay on this site which, in its disclaimer, very clearly states that dont read/comment here if you dont agree with content.
–but we’re showing your emotions–
Dont show someone else’s emotions. Its abnormal.
–STILL YOU KILLED A LIVING ONE–
1. 018723459765243. Does this make my answer logical because I used maths? Similarly switching to upper case/bigger fonts doesn’t make your argument strong.
2. Its not about killing. Its about inflicting minimum pain on others for living.
3. If killing plant= killing animal, then killing animal = killing humans (biologically speaking)
So vegetarian = meat eater = cannibal. So you are a bloody man-eater. Buzz off.
–which animal does feel LIKE I AM A DOG–
Try pinching a dog. It will scream in pain. Try pinching a carrot. Normal humans dont hear any screams. You might have different experiences as different species hear sound waves in different frequencies.
–Even if it was to be agreed (which we don’t) that plants are blind and deaf brothers–
1. Agree with whom? Did Agniveer ever say that plants are your blind and deaf brothers? If no, why agree to it unnecessarily?
2. When you cant defend what you believe, start defending something else you dont believe. Is this the plan?
–PLANTS HAVE LESS SENSES THAN ANIMALS, You have brother born BLIND AND DEAF (two senses less) who gets murdered by someone. Will you go to JUDGE and tell him to give him less punishment for your brother had less senses–
1. So, in your theory, if
plants = blind and deaf brothers then
animals = normal brothers
So your logic is, I will kill my normal brothers because I eat my blind and deaf brothers. And I will fight like a rabid dog with someone who doesn’t believe in this analogy of animals being my normal brothers. I wonder if this is the reason why ISIS, Boko Haram etc compete…
cont.. from previous
I wonder if this is the reason why ISIS, Boko Haram etc compete with animals!
—I atleast expect from you to go to JUDGE and complain in Vedic style———My lord, REND REND TO BITS AND SCORCH AND CONSUME AND BURN HIM TO DUST FOR HE DOTH KILLED MY BROTHER, a INNOCENT BROTHER I MIGHT ADD—
Good, so you know that Vedas ask us to punish demons who kill brothers, sisters and dear ones unlike books from some prophets that ask followers to kill and rape infidels just because they are non-believers.
—Your plant logic can be applied to a MENTALY RETARDED PERSON LIKEWISE—
No, it cant be because plant doesn’t have internet access and a keyboard. But a retard can go to someone else’s website to show I am retard despite clear disclaimer.
—You said THEY DONT FEEL PAIN—
Where has Agniveer said it?
—REFUTATION: They do which is scientifically proven—
1. In which lab? Cite one scientific study that says plants DO FEEL pain. Dont show ‘may’ or ‘might’.
2. Animals feel pain, just like humans, ITS SCIENCE. Equating plants with animals in terms of pain is the act of fools.
—But even if it was the LATTER THAT THEY DONT FEEL PAIN still your argument doesn’t justify THAT YOU KILLED A LIVING ONE(a innocent who can’t do anything for saving himself).—
If I have to survive, I have to eat something. Only point is am I doing it with minimum pain to others.
—By the way by your logic IF SOMEONE IS GIVEN ANASTHESIA and then killed. Will that be OK because HE DIDN’T FELT PAIN. No, so you argument is wrong.—
So much of research on killing, is it because of teaching of your holy book or something else? Plant is not human, so this fantasy of yours wont work. See above logic.
Cont.. from previous
—-If Cow is sacred to you. It is also in our religion to sacrifice it. So you can worship it and we will sacrifice it. Why will we go against our religion for you.—-
1. You have to go against your religion for us because we go against our religion in Muslim majority states for you. I am forced not to worship my idols and build my temples in Saudi and other Islamic countries. Your feelings get hurt there. My feelings get hurt here. So you have to stop it. Don’t give me the shit of India being secular country. Yes, we are a secular democracy and we banned beef democratically. So stop Rona Dhona about it.
—-Can you break ALL IDOLATORS IDOLS IN INDIA as our religion is against it.—-
1. Now you are exposed. Ultimately you are a Jihadi dog whose agenda is to break idols and kill idolaters just like ISIS and Boko.
2. Your religion also says man can marry 4 women and take as many sex slaves as he wants. That doesn’t mean I will allow Jihadi dogs to abduct your mothers, sisters etc. I will defend them as my own mother/sisters. But this level of humanity and respect for women won’t enter your piggy brain that is filled with sh*t. Keep dreaming.
3. This is India, not Saudi. India will be run by its humanitarian laws based on universal humanism and glorious culture of this land based on non-violence and respect for women. Any Jihadi dreaming of making it the part of Islamic State will be chopped into pieces. This land will protect women, children, humans, idols, temples, churches, culture, cow and everything that needs to be. Terrorist Jihadis will be ripped apart and iconoclasts will be dispatched to Jannat ul Firdous.
+Vajra
It seems you guys have done a degree in changing the topic.
You didn’t answer that YOU STILL KILLED A LIVING BEING.
YOU:
–but we’re showing your emotions–
Dont show someone else’s emotions. Its abnormal.
Response: it’s his article which was showing so not I.
THEREFORE according to you
Agniveers article=abnormal 🙁
You :
–STILL YOU KILLED A LIVING ONE–
1. 018723459765243. Does this make my answer logical because I used maths? Similarly switching to upper case/bigger fonts doesn’t make your argument strong.
Response: See you are not answering THEY ALSO HAD LIFE. keep changing topic.
2. Its not about killing. Its about inflicting minimum pain on others for living.
Response: Is this a joke SO ACCORDING TO YOU A SINLESS LIFE is something impossible. By the way according to your theory tou guys will get punished for this SIN of inflicting less pain(which is still a pain and therefore sin) in next life and the problem is that this process BECOMES NEVER ENDING. So this foolishness that every life is sacred is a lie. Why would GOD create such a situation where we don’t have any choice but to sin.
3. If killing plant= killing animal, then killing animal = killing humans (biologically speaking)
So vegetarian = meat eater = cannibal. So you are a bloody man-eater. Buzz off.
Response: So you disagree that all life is not sacred. IT IS ENOUGH FOR ME TO PROVE MY POINT.
According to you one living being can be killed but not other why because VEDAS SAYS IT.
+Vajra
DO you really answered my Questions. It is more like a child who when caught tries to change the topic.
+Vajra
You:
—-If Cow is sacred to you. It is also in our religion to sacrifice it. So you can worship it and we will sacrifice it. Why will we go against our religion for you.—-
1. You have to go against your religion for us because we go against our religion in Muslim majority states for you. I am forced not to worship my idols and build my temples in Saudi and other Islamic countries. Your feelings get hurt there. My feelings get hurt here. So you have to stop it. Don’t give me the shit of India being secular country. Yes, we are a secular democracy and we banned beef democratically. So stop Rona Dhona about it.
Response: There is no Hindu in SAUDI or a non Muslim so how can there be a temple?
2. Lord said just tell them the truth. Otherwise whatever you worship we don’t care
Quran 36:17
*”And our duty is only to proclaim the clear Message.”*
Quran 29:18
*”And if you deny, then nations before you have denied (their Messengers). And the duty of the Messenger is only to convey (the Message) plainly.”*
Quran 16:82
*”But if they turn away, thy duty is only to preach the clear Message. “*
Qur’an 6:108
*Abuse not those to whom they pray, apart from God, or they will abuse God in revenge without knowledge*
+Vajra going emotional but no answer anyway.
Vajra:
—-Can you break ALL IDOLATORS IDOLS IN INDIA as our religion is against it.—-
1. Now you are exposed. Ultimately you are a Jihadi dog whose agenda is to break idols and kill idolaters just like ISIS and Boko.
Response: Calling me a DOG, maybe Hinduism teaches it but I will repeat the words of blessed Prophet on it MAY GOD SHOW YOU LIGHT AND THE WAY HOW TO TALK.
Still my argument was to just show WE WILL NOT GO AGAINST our religion in the least and moreover Bible, Torah, Vedas also are against IDOL worshipping still we don’t care what you do.
2. Your religion also says man can marry 4 women and take as many sex slaves as he wants. That doesn’t mean I will allow Jihadi dogs to abduct your mothers, sisters etc. I will defend them as my own mother/sisters. But this level of humanity and respect for women won’t enter your piggy brain that is filled with sh*t. Keep dreaming.
Response: ISLAM is only religion that says MARRY ONLY ONE. Many Hindus claim Vedas says the same but when you ask for proof NOT EVEN A SINGLE VERSE CAN THEY QUOTE but will rather give a singular singular theory which can be refuted by singular plural and plural plural theory.
Qur’an 4:3
“And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you FEAR THAT YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO JUSTICE between then MARRY ONLY ONE
The only book that contains phrase MARRY ONLY ONE.
ONE MORE THING
QUR’AN 4:129
Ye will not be able to deal equally between your wives
PROPHET MARRING MULTIPLE WIVES IS A DIFFERENT TOPIC AND WONT BE DEALT HERE.
We don’t need you guys to defend anything. We have better system for them.
And it’s Hinduism which is a curse to woman’s as it promotes
DOWRY SYSTEM
ISLAM PROMOTES
MAHR SYSTEM whereby a man gives dowers to woman and this IS PRACTICED BY US NOT BY WORDS ONLY.
+Vajra
—But even if it was the LATTER THAT THEY DONT FEEL PAIN still your argument doesn’t justify THAT YOU KILLED A LIVING ONE(a innocent who can’t do anything for saving himself).—
If I have to survive, I have to eat something. Only point is am I doing it with minimum pain to others.
Response : Correct you eat plant, we eat both animals and plants.
Minimum pain???
Do you guy’s have any machine to measure so??
Plant’s pain cannot be heard so KILLED THEM BECOMES A BIGGER SINGLE ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC.
That’s why every life is not sacred.
And yes if you will do anything that will inflict less pain and killing.
STOP BRUSHING YOUR TRUTH as it kills millions of LIVING GERMS 😉
ATLEAST START WRITING AGAINST COMPANIES PROMOTING COLGATE and other thing.
As far5as we are consider we WONT DO SO for we know every life is not sacred.
Likewise stop taking bath like Aghoris.
Do you when you walk, sit etc you kill millions of germs.
Anyway this absurd thing that we shouldn’t eat beef is Nonsense.
—By the way by your logic IF SOMEONE IS GIVEN ANASTHESIA and then killed. Will that be OK because HE DIDN’T FELT PAIN. No, so you argument is wrong.—
So much of research on killing, is it because of teaching of your holy book or something else? Plant is not human, so this fantasy of yours wont work. See above logic.
Response: Again unanswered.
And plants are not humans but they Have LIFE LIKE HUMAN.
Holy books just teach how to lead the way of life.
So by this all your arguments are answered.
Now my Questions
1. Archaeological evidences show that primitive man was a non vegetarian. So why didn’t God made it not happen. Does this not seem Deception on part of God to let this happen for 1000s of years and then say suddenly it’s wrong.
2. There are places in world where veg food is very rare and they eat animals therefore.
Agniveer says we would transport.
I request him to only pay transport charge and…
archeology also shows no evidence for any “nabi” or “kithab” at that time.is God deceptive now?
+Vajra
You Just follow a Man who can write articles which even you and I can do. He can’t give a lecture before Non Hindus and after speech them to ask Questions because he knows he preaches falsehood.
Dr. Zakir Naik has done it 1000s of times. Likewise other’s for instance Shabir Allys, Dr. Haroon Yahya etc etc.
Moreover his arguments are based on MAINLY LIES, his own interpretation, he totally neglects the context and other key Points.
Perhaps, that’s why no one takes him that much seriously.
I will give you an example from his own article.
Dr. Zakir Naik
“*And the earth, moreover, Hath He made egg shaped*.” [Al-Qur’aan 79:30]
The Arabic word for egg here is DAHAHA, which means an ostrich-egg. The shape of an ostrich-egg resembles the geo-spherical shape of the earth.
Agniveer:
As expected, the translation of the above verse is NOT from YUSUF ALI, it’s a later day addition by apologists like Dr. Naik. Here are the three reputed translations:
YUSUFALI: And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse);
PICKTHAL: And after that He spread the earth,
SHAKIR: And the earth, He expanded it after that.
Al-Taqiyya is at play and Dr. Naik deviates from his assurance that he would quote from Yusuf Ali. He created his own translation!!! *Not a single scholar worth his salt translated dahaha as egg-shaped*.
Response :Nor even A SINGLE
Let’s see
Ali Ünal:
And after that He has spread out the earth in the *EGG-SHAPED* (for habitability)
QXP-Shabbir Ahmed:
And after that He made the earth shoot out from the Cosmic Nebula and made it spread out *EGG-SHAPED* .
Syed Vickar Ahamed:
And more, He has extended the earth (far and wide also in the shape of an *EGG*)
Dr. Kamal Omar:
And the earth, after this stage, He gave it an *OVAL FORM*.
Rashad Khalifa:
He made the earth *EGG-SHAPED* .
So who is a liar here and by the way I don’t understand why agniveer thinks YOUSUF ALI’S TRANSLATION TO BE ULTIMATE.
hehehe bro itts funny to see how you screw up things.
okay first lets see the word egg and compar it to earth.
earth is spining around its own axis/thus the equitorial region experience more centrifugal force and hence the equitorial region bulges out uniformly in all directions(thats common sense.)
okay now compare earth and egg shape.
from view:
earth is elliptical
and ostrich egg is also elliptical.
THIS IS THE OLY COMPARISION YOU SHOW.
now lets turn to the top view:
earth is circular shape(with the semimajor axis in the front view as the radious.
this is because since the earth is rotating the equitorial region experiences maximum centrifugal force and bilges out. thus this radius at the equator is seen at the top view).
for egg shape, the top view is also ellipse.
now lets look at the side view:
earth is also elliptical as in the front view(same as front view).
egg shape, the side view is circle with the semi minor axis of the front view *ellipse) as the radius.
conclusion:
thus the moment you say earth is egg shaped according to the quran you are actually proving the quran wrong brither.
use your common sense before you speak.
thus only the front view of both the structures(egg shape and actual earth shaoe matches).but the top view and side view does not match at all.for earth top view is circle and for egg, it is ellipse.for earth side view is ellipse(front view itself) and for egg shape, it is circle.
the specifications i have mentioned above.
thus in this comparision only 33% match can we find.
nearly 66% does not match.this is not a good approximation at all.thus if you interpret this verse of the noble quran in this way, you dig up a dangerous hole for you and the scientific claims of you rleligion.
so, sorry brother.
hehehe bro itts funny to see how you screw up things.
okay first lets see the word egg and compar it to earth.
earth is spining around its own axis/thus the equitorial region experience more centrifugal force and hence the equitorial region bulges out uniformly in all directions(thats common sense.)
okay now compare earth and egg shape.
from view:
earth is elliptical
and ostrich egg is also elliptical.
THIS IS THE OLY COMPARISION YOU SHOW.
now lets turn to the top view:
earth is circular shape(with the semimajor axis in the front view as the radious.
this is because since the earth is rotating the equitorial region experiences maximum centrifugal force and bilges out. thus this radius at the equator is seen at the top view).
for egg shape, the top view is also ellipse.
now lets look at the side view:
earth is also elliptical as in the front view(same as front view).
egg shape, the side view is circle with the semi minor axis of the front view *ellipse) as the radius.
.
thus when you compare egg shape to earth it is utter ignorance of basic laws of physics.
thus you screw yourself when you say that as per th quran, the earth is egg shaped. furthermore,please do know that this translation is coming from reinterpretation of the word dahaha by looking at the root word and going into it just to find a scientific meaning. if this transaltaion is also correct and also that of yusuf ali , that cannot be proved wrong, then it means that the quran is an open book to any kind of interpretation and it bases on the knowledge of the reader/translator. thus the quran cannot be taken as a clear book, wvwn though it claims to be.
brother jazib,come up with facts , come up next time.
in this issue, i am reaady to debate(provided you have something called as common sense).
and sorry for my spelling mistakes,i was typing a bit fast.
hope you understand what i wrote.
and hope there are no mistakes in this post also.
+Saroj
This guy has complained about egg shaped mentioned in Qur’an and we will try to address *his misconceptions*
-Saroj
hehehe bro itts funny to see how you screw up things.
Response :
It’s AGNIVEER who was telling lies and we don’t screw anything.
Ok let’s see the word egg and compar it to earth.
Response:
It’s Ostrich EGG remember. I hope you have seen it that’s why you will put forward your points.
we will also take every context to analyse it.
okay now compare earth and egg shape.
from view:
earth is elliptical
and ostrich egg is also elliptical.
THIS IS THE OLY COMPARISION YOU SHOW.
Response :There are many. Just because I wrote one doesn’t mean there is only one. Anyway let’s move.
now lets turn to the top view:
earth is circular shape(with the semimajor axis in the front view as the radious.
this is because since the earth is rotating the equitorial region experiences maximum centrifugal force and bilges out. thus this radius at the equator is seen at the top view).
for egg shape, the top view is also ellipse.
Response:
1. Earth looks CIRCULAR from top view is wrong. It still looks like a SEMI-sphere or like a bowl upside down from top view. Same is the case with OSTRICH EGG.
2. You gave the description of a normal egg and not OSTRICH EGG
3. Earth is moving according to Qur’an so similar happens in that case.
now lets look at the side view:
earth is also elliptical as in the front view(same as front view).
egg shape, the side view is circle with the semi minor axis of the front view *ellipse) as the radius.
Response:
Same problem as above.
-Saroj
At last you repeated the same with this as additional
thus in this comparision only 33% match can we find.
nearly 66% does not match.this is not a good approximation at all.thus if you interpret this verse of the noble quran in this way, you dig up a dangerous hole for you and the scientific claims of you rleligion.
so, sorry brother.
Response:
DO you call it a comparison?
You took a normal egg into consideration.
An Ostrich EGG is same as Earth.
Atleast G-d’s word is flawless everywhere.
See if there would have been some difference in EGG SHAPE OF OSTRICH and EARTH still Qur’an is 100% because EARTH SCIENTISTS TELL THAT earth has been reducing from the time it came into existence.
They say it was 200 times bigger than current size.
And it’s a fact
Here is one of the reputed EARTH SCIENTISTS OF THE WORLD.
Professor Keller, who is a geologist, says the Earth also LOSES mass. All the time, we’re losing light elements,mostly hydrogen, from the atmosphere.
Another way the Earth loses mass, says Professor Keller, is through radioactive decay. In case you didn’t know it, the Earth’s interior is peppered (introduce) with radioactive elements such as uranium. Radioactivity is the decay, or gradual disintegration, of the nuclei of radioactive isotopes. Isotopes are versions of elements that have the same number of protons as the regular element, but different numbers of neutrons.
As these radioactive elements decay, they give off heat (called RADIOGENIC heat). In fact, about four percent of the heat at the Earth’s surface comes from inside it!In the process of releasing this energy, the elements also lose mass.
AND WHATS INTRESTING IS THAT ALLAH(SWT) HAS MENTIONED THIS ALREADY IN GLORIOUS Qur’an
Qur’an 21:33
What, do they not see how We come to the land, DIMINISING it in its extremities? Or are they the victors?
and 21:33 of qurn says:
“we created night and day and sun and moon and all heavenly bodies are swimming in orbit”
wgere is “earth diminishing” here?
and “diminishing in land” dosent mean the mass is decreasing, only that the area is decreasing.
so i dont see any “interesting” scientific proof here bro.
your comment:
do you call it a comparison?
ostrich egg. not egg shape.
ostrich egg iss same as earth.
ostrich egg and any(rather most) eggs for that matter have the same 3 dimensional shape-they are all prolate spheroid.
earth is NOT prolate spheroid. it is oblate spheroid. both have a difference which i explained above and in the other posts below.
-Saroj
hehehe bro itts funny to see how you screw up things.
Response:
We don’t screw anything and the thing which is funny is AGNIVEERS LIES.
okay first lets see the word egg and compar it to earth.
Response: Not EGG it’s Ostrich EGG which is exactly as Earth. I hope you have seen it that’s why you will put forward your points.
compare earth and egg shape.
from view:
earth is elliptical
and ostrich egg is also elliptical.
THIS IS THE OLY COMPARISION YOU SHOW.
Response : Just because I wrote 1 doesn’t mean there is only one. Ostrich EGG is same as earth.
now lets turn to the top view:
earth is circular shape(with the semimajor axis in the front view as the radious.
this is because since the earth is rotating the equitorial region experiences maximum centrifugal force and bilges out. thus this radius at the equator is seen at the top view).
for egg shape, the top view is also ellipse.
Response :Earth is SEMI-SPHERICAL from top view and not circular like OSTRICH EGG. It’s more like a convex lens upside down.
2. You were telling results of normal EGG and not OSTRICH EGG.
3. Earth rotates according to Qur’an so same phenomenon happens.
now lets look at the side view:
earth is also elliptical as in the front view(same as front view).
egg shape, the side view is circle with the semi minor axis of the front view *ellipse) as the radius.
Response: Same as above, this guy hadn’t seem Ostrich EGG. Results are very weak as could be seen concluded by him.
conclusion:
thus the moment you say earth is egg shaped according to the quran you are actually proving the quran wrong brither.
use your common sense before you speak.
Response : We know what we are proving.
We use proper sense. So no need of your advises
-Saroj
thus when you compare egg shape to earth it is utter ignorance of basic laws of physics.
Response :It’s Ostrich EGG shape and what I said wad based on facts and not mere theories.
Our Scholars debate at international level where the source is not an ordinary theory but facts and this one is also correct.
thus you screw yourself when you say that as per th quran, the earth is egg shaped.
Response :Ostrich egg shaped. Not egg shaped.
furthermore,please do know that this translation is coming from reinterpretation of the word dahaha by looking at the root word and going into it just to find a scientific meaning.
Response : I would advise you not to tell this because you don’t know ARABIC,leave that to us. We know very well what it means.
if this transaltaion is also correct and also that of yusuf ali , that cannot be proved wrong, then it means that the quran is an open book to any kind of interpretation and it bases on the knowledge of the reader/translator. thus the quran cannot be taken as a clear book, wvwn though it claims to be.
Response: Thanks for raising this point.
In Qur’an there are 2 types of verses
1.Entirely Clear
2. Has two types
A. Having multiple interpretations
B. Allegorical or those whose best meaning is known to God alone.
Qur’an 3:7
He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses – which constitute the essence of the scripture – as well as MULTIPLE-MEANING or ALLEGORICAL VERSES.
Even PROPHET MUHAMMAD PBUH told about this
Narrated Abu Huraira: “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “I have been sent with Jawami al-Kalim (i.e., the shortest expression carrying the widest meanings),and I was made victorious with awe (caste into the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the earth were brought to me and were put in my hand.” Muhammad said, Jawami’-al-Kalim means that Allah expresses in one or two statements or…
Continued from previous…
Narrated Abu Huraira: “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “I have been sent with Jawami al-Kalim (i.e., the shortest expression carrying the widest meanings),and I was made victorious with awe (caste into the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the earth were brought to me and were put in my hand.” Muhammad said, Jawami’-al-Kalim means that Allah expresses in one or two statements or thereabouts the numerous matters that used to be written in the books revealed before (the coming of) the Prophet. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Interpretation of Dreams, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 141)”
So it’s clear that both YOUSUF ALI’S AND OTHERS TRANSLATION IS CORRECT.
so when we look at this verse Qur’an 79:30
It contains the word ” Ard” which means both EARTH AS WILL AS LAND.
SO first will be
And the land he extended to wide expanse.
Which is true
And second
And the Earth he made Ostrich EGG shaped.
Which is also correct.
Anyway Lords word is flawless
the moment you say this, you are making a simple mistake.
who told you the earth is not circle from top view. look from the tip of the axis. it is circle. why because earth is always spinning. the equitorial region experiences maximum centrifugal force due to which it expands. and by common sense, it can be concluded tht the expansion is uniform in all directions. now , due tio tis, this equitorial region actually looks like a circle in the top view. the word “semi sphere is wrong. because we are only looking at the 2 dimensional projection from the top view.THE TOP VIEW CANNOT BE “SEMI SPHERE OR ANYTHING IKE THAT SINCE IT IS 2 DIMENSIONAL.
THUS YOU tell “top view is semi sphere”.
thts stupidity bro.
lets take ostrich egg too.
front view is like the earth.agreed.
now turn to side view . for ostrich egg, too, the side view(2 dimensional projection of side view) is circle.for earth, its the same as front view-ellipse.
thus again we find this problem and you showed your scientific ignirance here brother.
this was my point.
the front view is the only comparisoion of both earth and ostrich egg.
ostrich egg and normal egg shape are same brother.the only different is size and ratios.
thus sorry your comments make no sense.
the ostrich egg shape is prolate spheroid. and the earth is oblete shpheroid.this is a major difference.
firt you should have some engineering background to understand this. the front view of both(earth n egg) are elliptical. the top views(two dimentional projection of the top view) of earth is circle and of ostrich egg is its front view itself(elliptical). now when you come to the side view of both(i.e. two dimentional projection of the side view) earth has its front view itself and the ostrich egg has a circle(with semi minor axis as radius).
you are not using your brains here and is bringing wrong information.
just think of both and then compare.
and use your common sense .
brother what do you mean by saying that the top view is “semi sphercal shape”.this itself is wrong. in engineering languae wich describes a three dimentional object, top view,side view and front view refers to the two dimensional projections of what you see when you view from the top,side and front. thu your very usage”semi sherical shape” itself is incorect and senseless and it shows that you have no idea of what actually is meant by these terms. first learn them,and then come and debate.
the ostrich egg shape is prolate spheroid. and the earth is oblete shpheroid.this is a major difference.
firt you should have some engineering background to understand this. the front view of both(earth n egg) are elliptical. the top views(two dimentional projection of the top view) of earth is circle and of ostrich egg is its front view itself(elliptical). now when you come to the side view of both(i.e. two dimentional projection of the side view) earth has its front view itself and the ostrich egg has a circle(with semi minor axis as radius).
you are not using your brains here and is bringing wrong information.
just think of both and then compare.
and use your common sense .
so first learn basics of 3d views and then come and “correct my misconceptions”.
and perhaps you should see what an ostrich egg looks like. it prolate sheroid wgeeras earth is oblete spherioid..
i have explaind in my first post itself how stupid this compasisin is, and you are simply beating around the bush. first read my above posts carefully and see the difference between ostrich egg shape(and aby egg for that matter) which is prolate sheroid and earth shape(oblete spheroid). thus difference is clearly given by the two dimensonal projections of the side view and top view of both.
furthermore, if you say earth is ostrich egg shape, then the earth’s rotation should cause the equitorial region to shrink in, because in any manner the top view is to be a circle.
but the actual cse is just the opposite, the equitorial region bulges out and this makes it circular*with semi major axis of the front view* as its radius.here itself the comparison fails.
so learn something and then come and *clear our misconceptions*!
-Saroj
Shape of earth according to Vedas.
Rig Veda 7.83.3
The ENDS of the EARTH are beheld laid waste…
HERE IS THE SANSKRIT WORD USED
अंत [Anta]= End
And interestingly this word is known to most HINDUS.
But maybe they come up with any argument we will see what REPUTED DICTIONARIES AND SCHOLARS OF SANSKRIT have to say about this word.
Dictionaries first
Practical Sanskrit dictionary by V.S Apte:
अन्त anta : (page 117)
Ak.; उद्युक्तो विद्यान्तमधिगच्छति H.3.114 goes to the END of, masters completely; श्रुतस्य यायादयमन्तमर्भकस्तथा परेषां युधि चेति पार्थिवः (where अन्तalso means END or destruction); जीवलोकसुखानामन्तं ययौ K.59 enjoyed all worldly pleasures; आलोकितः खलु रमणीयानामन्तः K.124 END, furthest extremity; दिगन्ते श्रूयन्ते
Sanskrit dictionary for spoken sanskrit :
अन्तantam. n.END
वेदान्त { वेद – अन्त }vedANTA{veda-ANTA}m.completeknowledgeoftheVeda [ END-of-the-vedas]
Sanskrit dictionary :
END : ANTA
end : parisamapyate
Other usage of word
||Glossary of Sanskrit Terms || – Sanskrit Documents
… within अन्तकाले (ANTAkaale) = at the END of life
NOW SANSKRIT LANGUAGE SCHOLAR DAYANAND SAWASWATI(mentor of agniveer)
who sustains the ENDS OF THE EARTH by his might, and who abides with sovereignity in the three regions of the universe”. Rig Veda 4.50.1, Tr. SatyaPrakash Saraswati, Vol 5, p.1535.
So according to Vedas earth is FLAT.
OTHER PROOFS
Atharva Veda 15.7.1
He, having become moving majesty, went to the ends of the earth…
Atharva Veda 20.88.1
Him who with might hath propped earth’s ends
In some places FOUR ENDS IS USED WHICH PROVES OUR POINT.
Rig Veda 1.62.8
Still born afresh, young Dames, each in her manner, unlike in hue, the Pair in alternation around four sides of earth
COMMENTRIES to make it stronger.
the Brahmanas affirms this verse,
Satapatha Brahman 6.1.2.29 …Now this earth is four-cornered, for the quarters are her corners: hence the bricks are…
as for the word “ends” these are not to be taken as literal,
one, the word “ends” are here metaphors. in these verses , to move to the ends mean to pervade the whole earth.
for example,av 15.7, “he moved by his moving majesty to the ends of the earth”,simply means he,by his majesty, pervaded the entire earth,not in a literal manner.
this is because in rig veda we also find reference to earth and hevens as “bowls” and “hemispheres ” too which has no “ends” or “corners”. this contradiction leads to the the fact that these are used in a metaphoric manner.
if the vedic seers actually belived that the earth had ends then they would not call earth and heavens as bowls and hemispheres also.
this is because the vedas use metaphoric and figurative phrases.
when the verses use “hemispheres” it refers to earth and heavens as two halves of the whole, making a family(tat is metaphoric). in these verses, earth and heavens are refered to as “mother and father”thus reering to a family too.
in shatapatha brahmana, the four corners refer to the four cardinal directions.
the crux in understanding the verses describing “four cornered/sided earth” is to look properly at shatapatha brahmana verse 6.1.2.29
it says”earth is 4 cornered .THE QUARTERS ARE HER (EARTH’S)CORNERS”.
THE quarters refer to the four cardinal directions-north east west and south.and this also fits the context because, the whole of this portion describes the yajnia process, where directions play a key role.a deity is associated with each direction.
thus when you try to understand/interpret vedic verses you should look into the complete veda and read them throughout the hymns completely,and understand the veiled metaphors and figures of speech there. this can be understood to some extend by also looking at the internal contradictions ,f.x. like some verses state earth as bowl shaped and some others as “four cornered”,thus each has its own meaning in its own context and cannot be taken as literally due to this apparent contradiction.
and the atharva veda 20.88 refers to the creation of universe.by brhaspathi.the same is repeated in rig veda 4/50. here, we find in the first part, brhaspathi “propping apart earth’s limits by great might”.to know the meaning of this, you must know thebackground of hindu cosmology which is found elsewhere in rig veda. in the beginning there is unfathomable waters.
the existence out of which all comes out is an obscure, fliud and indeterminate mivement called as salilam, or waters.this is there in every ancient cosmology i guess .the first neccessity is to form a sufficient stable formation out of this flux and brahmanaspathi does it by applying a sort of mighty constraint on it and forms out the earth(th gross part of the universe,) and sets its limits and defenittions,wich are refered to as the “ends” here. thus the ends here refer to the limits that set the form of the earth and heavens.and this gross stable,well defined form*with limits* is formed from an obscure =, limitless fliud(without proper form) by applying a mighty constraint.this “mighty constraint” is what is refered to as the “bands that fixes earth” in rig veda10/149/1.(which many misinterpret as earth being fixed by physical bands) in a figurative manner. thus this knots us two entirey separated hymns with a common meaning explanation of creation. thus this verse is not an error,the problem is the person who qoted this as the error does not look into the cosmological background of the Vedas.
two things that are very important is, one, the awareness that there are metaphors used, and two, to have a very thourough bavkground knowledge of Vedas that would heplus understand the verses properly. this verse can only be undrstood if you knew about the universe forming out of the primordial waters(a uniform flux) called as salilam-in which case the “propping of ends” refers to the formation of the earth universe with fixed limits and defenitions(which determine the form) from the waters that…
contd…
is not deined with its limits and premises. thus understanding with the corret background of vedic cosmology,there is no scientific “error” here at all, the only thing is that the meaning the phrase “propped the ends” takes a different one when interpreted in the light of vedic cosmogenesis,.
the same meaning goes to the verse 4/50/2 0r RV.
now about AV 15.7.1:
“HE BY HIS moving majesty went to the ends of the earth,he became the ocean”
now,correlate this with the above explanation,earth is formed from the primordial waters.earth is formed by exerting a force on the waters that sets the limits and defeitions (i.e., the ends)and and defines the form of the earth.here he,(prajapathi) pervades set limits of the earth(i.e. the gross elements of the universe)(by the force exerted) and becomes the sea(that is, the primordial ocean). thus, the meaning of this verse is simple-that the primordial limitless ocean pervades the earth that is formed from it by exerting the might that defines the forms.that is why the verse says,”by his moving majesty he went beyond the ends(set limits and defenitions of the gross universe) and he became the ocean”,anything that comes out of the hold of this constrian, at once, loses its form/manifestation and collapsess and becomes one with the ocean of infinity.
we have seen above that the “force” is what defines the “ends” or the limits that defines the form.yondering it, one becomes liberated and enters the formless,boundless infinity.
thus the inner spiritual meaning of this verse is that, one must come out of the material clutches and then one is free from this world and enters into infinity. this is called as mukthi/moksha in hinduism..the gross cosmological concept that i discussed above is in metaphorical parrallel to the subtle spiritual concept of mukthi/moksha.
thus the seeds of very hindu thoughts can be found in Vedas itself.later on, this were expressed in very different ways in puranas and other…
RV 7.83.3
the whole hymn describes indra/varuna(indra-the aspet that destroys darkness, and varuna as the aspect that spreads lightness) as forces destroying evil forces(darkness) nd establishing lightness(goodness).
the verse says that the earths’ boundaries(limits) were covered in darkness and indra/varuna hers the call of the worshipper and by his cry(ravena) destroys the enemies. the meaning is that, the enemies have encompassed the whole earth with their evil forces and in the midst of it, the worshipper cries to indra/varuna for help. i have already shown you that the ends/boundaries are refering to the set limits that are established by the “mighty constrain upom the waters” that defines the earth,thus, when “boundaries of earth are seen in darkness” is stated, it means that the whole earth is encompassed by the evil forces, and the worshipper in middle of that cries to indra/varuna,as i stated. for this, you should read the whole hymn and know its context and have some basic knowledge of vedic cosmogenesis and its idea of creation (like the waters forming into the universe).without that, you can only cherry pik verses ,which from outside means totally obscure and meningless,but when understood in the light of the actual background knowledge(which is spread across the rig veda and other vedas), it gives beautiful meanings and spiritual insights.
for this ,the reader should have a clear mind, without hatred or prejudice,or preconceived notion that vedas are nonsense.which unfortunately many lack.
the above ecplanation is based on an unbiased analysis.
hope my explanation helps a bit.
-Saroj
Again same you repeated.
First your false notions. Don’t know on what you based them.
-and 21:33 of qurn says:
“we created night and day and sun and moon and all heavenly bodies are swimming in orbit”
wgere is “earth diminishing” here?
and “diminishing in land” dosent mean the mass is decreasing, only that the area is decreasing.
so i dont see any “interesting” scientific proof here bro.
Response :Sorry the reference is 21:44.
33rd verse talks about motion of sun moon and earth.
And 44th verse talks about reducing Earth
Qur’an 21:44
Ali Unal:
We deal with the earth, reducing it of its outlying parts?
Sahih International:
Then do they not see that We set upon the land, reducing it from its borders?
Dr. MUNIR Munshey:
Do they not notice? We keep on shrinking the land from all sides.
Dr. Mohsin Khan:
See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders?
This clearly refers to DECREASE IN LAND MASS. see usage
nanquṣuhā
We reduce itV– 1st person plural imperfect verb
PRON– 3rd person feminine singular object pronoun
فعل مضارع و«ها» ضمير متصل في محل نصب مفعول ب
Jeff Brown,astronomer, Washington State University,
it’s well-known that several hundred tons of meteorites enter the Earth’s atmosphere every day. The total amount per year can range from 10 million to 1 billion kilograms. (A kilogram is about 2.2 pounds.) A lot of this is just dust or micrometeorites, but it adds up. Let’s say an average of 500 million kilograms a year has landed on Earth over the past 10,000 years. That’s 5 trillion kilograms. Or 5 billion metric tons. Any way you figure it, that’s a lot of rock!
HOWEVER, now let’s think about the Earth for a little bit. And about how BIG it is. In fact, it’s too big to describe easily in words, so let’s switch to the method scientists use to indicate big numbers. The mass of the Earth is over 5 x 1021 metric tons! (That’s a 5 with 21 zeroes…
but these verses dosent mean the mass/size is reducing.in the scientific way.
i have also responded to your frivolus and unscientific claims”earth is ostrich egg shape/ top view is semi spherical ec”on october 2. read that also. and see where your claims stand.
read that in detail until you understand some basic laws of science and physics.
the earth is oblete spheroid and ostrich egg(and for that matter any egg) is prolate shperoid.
the front view of both is ellipse.
but the difference comes in side view and top view.
now you say that the top view of earth is “semi sphericl”.are you really idiot or acting like one?
top view means the 2 dimensional projection when you loo at the objest from above.
for earth the top view is circle with semimajor axis in the front view as radius.the reason i told is because since the earth is rotsting, the equator bulges out ,making the top view a circle with higher radius(equal to the smi major axis of the front view’). keeping the ostrich egg in the same alignment as the earth, i.e. horizontal,if you look from above, the top view represents the same what you see from the front-an ellipse.this is the majpr difference.
again if you look from the side of the earth, it represents an ellipse(the same as that of the front view).but for the ostrich egg, the side view, or the 2 dimensional fihure you see when you look at it from right side/left side, it is a circle with the semiminor axis as the radius.
this is because the shape of earth and ostrich egg are different-one is oblete spheroid(earth) and thr other is prolate spheroid.
read the comments properly with something in your head brother.simply jumping to write a “reponse” without having basic knowledge and understanding is an act of stupidity.
i have also responded to your claims of “scientific errors in veda on shape of earth” also rwd that with an unbiased and calm mind.
-Saroj
You spoke totally wrong about comparison because you haven’t seen OSTRICH EGG.
Scientists have confirmed it. I can’t upload photos here otherwise I would have done it.
You based you’re comparison on an simple egg.
-THE TOP VIEW CANNOT BE “SEMI SPHERE OR ANYTHING IKE THAT SINCE IT IS 2 DIMENSIONAL.
THUS YOU tell “top view is semi sphere”.
thts stupidity bro.
Response: It’s 3D
Your results are for normal egg and not Ostrich EGG.
-the ostrich egg shape is prolate spheroid. and the earth is oblete shpheroid.this is a major difference.
Response: It’s oblate spheriod.
your results are very poor.
This is what is confirmed.
Have you ever seen an Ostrich EGG???
LOOK I DONT WANT TO INSULT YOU BY QUOTING SCIENTISTS. Your science is very weak.
Or either you are being emotional because of it’s scientific accuracy.
And I told even if there would have been a difference (which isn’t the case)
Then still REDUCTION OF EARTH MASS COVERS THAT area.
you are telling the
top view is semi spherical?”bro?mad? nd not normal egg, but ostrich egg?
normal egg and ostrich egg are both the same shape-prolate spheroid.
while the earth is oblete spheroid.
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=ostrich+egg&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0CHgQiR5qFQoTCLCt87Oxo8gCFcJtFAodwiEGPg#imgrc=X_5akEkgwZCM3M%3A
its here bro.
if you look at this picture, the front view is elliptical, while if you look from above, it is also elliptical. the two dimensional shape when you look from above is called as top view. you misunderstood it and tell that the top view is “semi sphericlal. that is absolutely wrong). and if you look from the side, either right side or left side of the ostrich egg, it is a circle with semi minor axis as its radius.
while for earth, the shape is oblate spheroid. this is because since the earth rotates, due to maximum centrifugal force at the equator, the quator bulges out uniformly in all directions along the equitorial plane . this makes the top view(the 2D shape you see when you view it from the above) a circle with radius as the smi major axis of the front view. the side view, however (from right or left) for the earth is the same as front view.
that is because earth, unlike ostrich egg, is oblate spheroid. the proper shape for earth to compare is a pumkin., since the shape of a pumkin is oblate spheroid and it matches with all the three 2d projections i discussed above.
the shape of oblete spheroid is here:
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=oblate+spheroid&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI763ItbOjyAIVitIaCh1zDAGD#imgrc=kaH2yEeA1Gr1gM%3A
now compare both the shapes and visualise the points i discussed. what you said is scientifically wrong from its root itself.
thus the result-earth and ostrich egg are not of the same shape.
“again you repeated your false notions”.
the false notions is not mine but yours. and above, i have refuted them properly with references.
well you are not ready to understand things properly, then stay in ignorance that earth is ostrich egg shape… i hv given the links to the prolate spheoid shape of ostrich egg and oblate spheroid ahpe of earth,
look and if you have any sense, notice the great differnce between them from a 3d perspective.
comparing ostrich egg and earth is like comparing a a cuboid and cylinder-bothe their front view are rectanular, but top view(cylinder-circle,cuboid-sqaure/rectangle) are different. you can only fool fools with this comparison and with this baseless argument(“response”) of yours.not all.
top view means the 2d view you see when you look at it from top for eath, this top view is circle. for ostrich egg it is ellipse. i gave both the liks above.
for earth the side view(2d figure you see when you loom at the 3d object from right side or left side) is ellipse(same as the front). for osrrich egg this side view is a crcle with semi minor axis as the radius).
this is the difference between oblate spheroid(earth) and prolate spheroid(ostrich egg).
understand this from the links i gave aabove.
all your comments above shows howmuch stupidity and ignorance you sprew out. take in some logic and 3d visualisation in your head bro.
-Saroj
Regarding earth’s four ends your answer was not fitting.
1. The word used Is ” Pritvi” which refers to whole earth.
It’s not Arabic where ARD mean both earth as well as piece of land.
Reading in context tells that it actually meant end.
Consider this:
It is talking of a man who visited ends making it clear.
Atharva Veda 20.88.1
Him who with might hath propped earth’s ends
Second explanation you said it refers to North, South, east and west.
Which is also wrong as we have two easts and two wests do you know that.
he earth is round because two Easts and two Wests can come about only when the earth is round; for when the sun rises over one region it sets in another, and when it sets in one sphere it rises in another. Thus the actuality of two Easts and two Wests can clearly be seen.
Now let us look at the inner or spiritual world of man. It is an established fact in the physical world that the reason for the rising and setting of the sun is that, in the course of the earth’s revolution, whichever half of the earth faces the sun gets the sunrise and becomes bright. Similarly, the other half of the earth which is turned away from the sun, or which, in a manner of speaking, has its back to the sun, experiences the setting of the sun and its consequent darkness.
The same thing happens in the spiritual world. Any nation that turns its face towards guidance finds that the sun of guidance and progress begins to shed its rays on it, and this is so whether the enlightenment is physical or spiritual. In other words, to whatever kind of education a man directs his attention, the sun of that kind of guidance shines on him.
On the other hand, if a nation turns its face away from guidance it will be enveloped in the darkness of decadence and perdition. Thus, there is one East that pertains to the physical growth and perfection and another East that relates to spiritual advancement and perfection
this verse has a totally different expalanation . i gave that above since for this, you have to look into the original vedic cosmogenesis.
as per vedic cosmogenesis, the entire universe originally is salilam-waters-a continus obscure flus. brhaspathi then gives a mighty constrain upon it that original waters.
the existence out of wich all manifetations arise is this limitless obscure fliud. unto this brhaspathi exerts the mighty force(as stated in the verse atharva veda 20/88/1 and rig veda 4/50/1).that produces the limits and defentions. in the original form, there are no limits and defenitions, hece it is a fliud without proper form/manifestation. but now, brhaspathi exerts this force that causes its lmits and defenitions and thus the “ends” here refer to these limits that define the form. every form is defined by its limits(ends/antha in sanskrith.)
thus, here the meaning of the verse is that brhaspathi exerts a mighty constrain on the initial limitless waters that defines the form and thus distinguisged the manifested universe from the unmanifested salilam.
this is the context of the verse(both atharva veda 20/88/1 and rig veda 4/50/1). for this you should know some prerequisit information about vedic cosmology.which you dont have and i explained this verse above in detail.
thus the usage of “ends” in this verse is not refeing to directions, but to the limits that define a form of an object.
if an object is not defined by a limits,then it cannot have a form and thus it is like the original waters.
the ame goes to atharva veda 15/7/1.
now coming to four ends used in other part of the vedas. here the context is entirely different from the aove verse ich you quoted and mixed up.
i dont uinderstand how it is not “fitting”?
because the shatapatha brahmana 6.1.2.29 clearly mentiones this that the
quarters are her ends”.the quarters in vedic terminilogy refer to the four directions of the compass. in relation to the earth, the four ends simply…
contd…
four cardinal directions. the confusion comes when we see the verse sayong”the directions are earth’s four corbers”.thus is because we tend to take it literally. but the vedic pictures are always to be taken in a metaohoric manner. the reason behind this “four ends of earth as directions” is because all the important activities are based on the directions,such as yajna,etc.
also the veda do mention the earth as hemisphere and “bowl shaped also”. now if you take these phrases literally, then you end up in a comtradiction because on one hand vedas mention earth as “four cornered” and other , as
bowl shaped”/this apparent and literal contradiction arises because both the usages are metaphoric.
when the veda uses especially “four cornered earth”, it excusively refer to the four cardinal directions since this is clealy stated in shatapatha brahmana6.1.2.29,where it says the “quarters(directions) are earth’s corners”. this itself means that the comparison to bricks and he usage “ends” is purely ,metaphoric. thus i dont think it is not “fitting”.
what is really not fitting is your obscure understanding.
and yu first statement”a man visiting the ends make it clear”/
the response to this i gave originally. to “go to the ends” is a metaphoric term denoting the man pervades the whole suraface. if the “man goes to the ends of the earth” it means he covers/pervades the whole earth,by his might,powers etc.
its like , if i reach the end of something, it subsequantlh mean i have covered the whole thingtill the end,thus i pervade the whole thing. thus this example makes it clear.
also remember, the metaphorical meaning of the word “ends” takes different forms from contecxt to context. for tis you should know the background of the verses ypu deal with, and also the different ways in which the word “end” can be meaning.
From another vantage point, we find that today, too, the world is divided into two Easts — a near East and a far East — and two Wests — a near West, referring to Europe, and a far West, meaning America.
the point to be noted is that the four corners of earth mentioned in Vedas just refer to the four cardinal directions, in reference to a yajna. because in shatapatha brahmana the four corners are clearly mentioned as the “quarters” or directions. yes from point to point on earth surface, the directions change,like you said
two easts” and two wests. but here in the context of Vedas this does not create a contradiction because, (1), the four crners refer to the direction in general, and two, the directions are marked in referne to the frame of rfernce of the yajna, at a particular place,which is constant. tus the point of view should be taken into consideratio
-Saroj
Anyway you want to take it METAPHOR, you can take it. Bible also say ENDS OF EARTH, I was guessing in this way even if book’s says earth is FLAT, it can be defended by saying it is a metaphor and refers to a piece of land.
1. 21:44 of Qur’an will address your claims, whatever you say.
Regarding that you said
-but these verses dosent mean the mass/size is reducing.in the scientific way.
Response : What does reduction of Earth indicate and please don’t give your own interpretation. It’s crystal clear.
Qur’an 21:44
Ali Unal:
We deal with the earth, reducing it of its outlying parts?
Sahih International:
Then do they not see that We set upon the land, reducing it from its borders?
Dr. MUNIR Munshey:
Do they not notice? We keep on shrinking the land from all sides.
Dr. Mohsin Khan:
See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders?
It is clear and should be taken it that way.
Now regarding EGG-SHAPED 21:44 still covers it but Ostrich EGG is like earth. It is exactly same, you have based your theories on some normal hens egg.
However there were Qur’an scholars after prophet’s time who told that DAHAHA meant SPHERE.
One of them in Ibn Tayimmah(may Allah be pleased with him)
This is recorded in his commentries (Vol. 5, p. 150)
All the people of then believed in same. It is with coming of Suyuti(17th century) (May Allah be pleased with him) that view changed but he was not a scientist and in this matter mistake can happen.
WORDS BEST Arabic dictionaries mentioned DAHAHA as either OSTRICH EGG SHAPED OR SPHERICAL however Ostrich EGG is accurate.
According to
1. Lisan Al-Arab dictionary [1] , Book 2, Pages 215-218.
2. Lisan Al-Arab dictionary [1] , Book 8, Pages 236-238.
3. Al-Muheet dictionary [2], Page 1179.
4. Al-Muajam Al-Waseet dictionary [3], Pages 272-274.
5. Al-Mawrid dictionary Arabic-English section [4], Page 537.
6. Arabic-English…
it is basically a metaphor .this is because of two points
(1)the rig veda also says that the earth si “bowl shaped”and in many many verses “hemispherre”.
if it were to be taken literally, alomg with the verses that state earth is “four cornered”, then this would be in contradiction. the contradiction can be resolved only when ewe understand the fact that the Vedas do use a lot of metaphors.
and the meaning of the usage of the word ends radically different from ome context to another.
in the context of verses like atharva veda 20/88/1, AV 15/7/1,RV 4/50/1 , it all refers to the cosmogenetical aspect wherein the original flux without form is given a form by a “mighty constrain: by brhspathi” and thus defines the form of the gross elements of the universe(represented by the earth) bhy setting its limits(i.e. ends).
this is logical and is not difficult to understand.
on ohter cases like in rig veda7/83/3. it is NOT from a cosmological aspect, the context being dual forces indra/varuna destroying darkness(evilness) and spreading ligh and saving the worshipper from evil. here in this verse, “boundaries are seen in darkness”, meaning the darkness(evilness) has pervaded the entire world. to “go to the ends” is a metapor that is widely used in Vedas relatng to completely pervading something. like if i say, i
reached the end of that place”, it means that i have covered the whole place and reached the end. in this conext(rv 7/83/3) which you quoted, darkness/evil forces covers the entire world and thus “boundaries of earth are seen in darkness”, and the next verse is perfectly in this context,where the worshipper in the midst of this cries to indra/varuna for help.
the problem is people dont read the whole hymn in the light of its context and draw half boiled conclusions.
further more in aithreya brahmana, we find a very interesting verse describing the rising and stting of the sun.
the Aitareya Brahmana (3.44) declares:“The Sun does never set nor rise. When people think the Sun is setting it is not so. For after having arrived at the end of the day it makes itself produce two opposite effects, making night to what is below and day to what is on the other side. Having reached the end of the night, it makes itself produce two opposite effects, making day to what is below and night to what is on the other side. In fact, the Sun never sets.”
the four corners are only metaphors to the four directions,that is beyond doubt because if you look at shatapatha brahmana 6.1.2.29, the verse clearly states that “quarters(that is , the directions) are earth’s ends”. if the verse was intended to be literal, then the shatapatha brahmana could not have said that the “directions (which are abstract points based on sun’s rising and setting)are physical corners”.this itself means that the usage is metaphorical. because every man with common sense can understand that directions are not physical and if the verses were literal mannered, then it would create contradiction with other verses stating that eath is bowl shaped. this contradiction proves my point sir. many many verses in rig veda does say that the earth is bowl shaped hemisphere. this contradiction points to the fact that each addressing of earth is metaphoric and has to unveiled and understood in its own context.
that is y i say they are metaphors.
egg shape is NOT accurate and i explained it above with in the comment in which i gave lnks to ostrich egg (prolate spheroid) and to oblate spheroid(earth’s shape).the only thing you shpow is the 2d projection of fron view whereas the 2d projetions of both top and side view are contradictory.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/earth_flat.html
now coming to your first point:
According to
1. Lisan Al-Arab dictionary [1] , Book 2, Pages 215-218.
2. Lisan Al-Arab dictionary [1] , Book 8, Pages 236-238.
3. Al-Muheet dictionary [2], Page 1179.
4. Al-Muajam Al-Waseet dictionary [3], Pages 272-274.
5. Al-Mawrid dictionary Arabic-English section [4], Page 537.
6. Arabic-English dictionary the Hans Wehr dictionary [6], Page 273.
دحا (daha): ROUND and SPHERICAL:
Usage
إندحَّ بطنه إندحاحاّ اي إتّسع His tummy became round and bigger.
In Prophet Muhammad’s Hadith: كان لأسامة بطننٌ مُندحٌ اي متسع Osama had a round and big tummy.
و بطنٌ مُنداحُ أي خارخٌ مُدوّر His tummy is mun-daahun means it is OUT THERE AND ROUND مُدوّر.
و رجلٌّ دحدحُ اي قصير غليظ البطن A man is dahda-hun which means he is short, stocky and has a big and fat tummy.
الدحداح هو المستدير الململم The dahdaah is the person who is ROUND and STOCKY.
الدِردِحة من النساء التي طولها و عرضها سواء Al-dir-dihati from the women is the one whose height and width look the same! SHE LOOKS ROUND,and the by the way, the distance between the earth’s north and south poles is approximately only 45 miles shorter than the earth’s width.
دحا (daha): الدوحة أي المظلة العظيمة Al-Doha, as in Qatar’s capital, means a big umbrella.
ANOTHER :
دحا الصبي المِدحاةَََ أي دفعالصبيالمِدحاةَََ Daha the boy the rolling toy, means the boy pushedthe rolling toy.
دحرجَ (dahraja): to roll, roll along, to roll down.
The qursof the sun means the eyeof the sun, which is round.
-Saroj
OK next topic Vedas say EARTH is immovable.
What about that
Atharva Veda 6.77.1(Damodhar)
Firm stands the heaven, firm stands the earth, firm stands this universal world…
Now what about the above??
It’s repeated in
Atharva Veda 6.44.1(Damodhar)
Firm stood the heaven, firm stood the earth, firm stood this universal world. Firm stood the trees that sleep erect: let this thy malady be still.
Here we can’t have Metaphors.
Qur’an says EARTH SUN AND MOON ARE MOVING IN ORBITS.
Qur’an 39:5
Yousuf Ali:
He created the heavens and the EARTH in true (proportions): He makes the Night overlap the Day, and the Day overlap the Night: He has subjected the SUN and the MOON (to His law): EACH ONE follows a course for a time appointed.
Dr. Kamal Omar:
He has created the heavens and the EARTH with purpose. He makes the night cover the day; and He makes the day to cover the night. And He has regulated and controlled the SUN and the MOON; ALL(kullun) SWIFTLY MOVE (in space) for an appointed term.
Now analyse the verse(it’s a single verse remember)
First it tells about EARTH
Then about DAY and NIGHT
Then SUN and MOON
And then say
ALL are moving in orbits
Well! What will ALL refer to here, obviously ALL(earth, sun and moon – celestial bodies)
This is a very nice verse.
All remember
We will still see the word used
(kullun)
eachN– nominative masculine indefinite noun
اسممرفوع
The word KULLU means ALL, EVERY OR EACH ONE.
Usage in other places
Qur’an 3:185
Every(kullun) soul shall taste death.
Therefore this word will include every celestial bodies in previous verse and this is a single verse makes argument very strong.
i would urge yu to rread the whole hyman and correlate with other parts of vedic corpus.also look at the dangers u enter with literal inerpretation.
atharva veda 6/77 in its entirety is here:Firm stands the heaven, firm stands the earth, firm stands this
universal world,
Firm stand the rooted mountains. I have put the horses in the
stall.
2I call the Herdsman, him who knows the way to drive the
cattle forth,
Who knows the way to drive them home, to drive them back
and drive them in.
3O Jātavedas turn them back: a hundred homeward ways be
thine!
Thou hast a thousand avenues: by these restore our kine to us.
first verse say “firm is earth/heavem/universe”,okay.but siddenly it says”horses are put to stall”.if it is to be take literally,y should the text put “firmimg earh and hevans” and “horses to stall” subsequently?no sane person would do that. this confusion can be removed only of you understand the significance of earth/heaven in this context.
in vedas,esp.purusha suktha, the whole universe is metaphored to a human body.syur veda says”just as is universe,so is the human body”. also, in aithreya upanshd, the whole universe is related to a human body n various cosmic deities are related to human body parts(like surya to eye,vayu to breath,chandra to mind,etc.)tus metaphorising human body as universe is very much there in vedic txt.
the next mention is of horse. horses represent senses. in katha upanishad, horses refer to senses and human body is likened to a chariot.this veil of symoblism links the “firming earth/heavens” to stalling “horses”;applying the symbolic meaning, the verse says by controlling thw senses(i.e.horses), the human body(represented by earth’heavens/universe) is thus fixed/firmed, i.e. controlled.
having done this, in verse 3, jathaveda is invioked. jathaveda is agni,fire.fagni, here refers to paramathma, the “agni” within one’s heart that destroys darkness/ignorance if invoked. and the…
contd…
jathaveda:i.e.to control the senses and thus the whole body.
after invoking jathaveda, the cows are retrived. cows, if you look into various hymns of rig veda refer to “light”,kowledge, or something that takes us higher planes of consciousness.
thus the meaning of the wholy hymn, when critically examining the verses and connecting them in a logicl sequence by unveiling the symbolisms, we come to a very spiritual insight: that to reach higher levels of spirituality(represented by the “cows”), one has to invoke paramathma(the light that destroys darkness of ignorance and takes us higher) and for that the first thing to do is to control one’s sense gratification(lust.gred et.) and thus control the whole body.(like starting from controlling the motion of your hand to slap someone wen getting angry,contrllg one’s tongue to utter bad word, even going to control one’s hunger and other bodily needs to some extend)by controlling the senses one can control the body and its activities.
that is the meaning opf the whole hymn. for this, the reader shuld hav some prerequisit knowledge
if you take a blind literal interpretation, you would ener into contradictions and senseless arrangement of verses. the wole hymn makes logical sense when the metaphoric veil is lifted up. for this, as i said, one has to have some prerequisite knowledge of hinduism and its symbolism.for this, he should read more books.
its funny to see how you branded it as “not metaphrical”.the whole hymn takes to a different level of understanding wen the metaphors are understood.
please give me time to look into the other hymns. also.namasthe.
totally hilarious an ubiased reader would understand that kullun simply refers to moon and sun and not to earth.
Further
Qur’an 21:33 makes it clear
Qur’an 21:33
Dr. Kamal Omar
And He it is Who created the night and the day; and the sun and the moon. ALL (these) move swiftly in an orbit (in space)
Sahih International :
And it is He who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; ALL [heavenly bodies] in an orbit are swimming.
Ali Ünal:
It is He Who has created the night and the day and the sun and the moon. EVERY ONE(of such celestial bodies) floats in its orbit.
Syed Vickar Ahamed:
And it is He Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon: ALL (the heavenly bodies) go along, each in its rounded path.
And they have different ORBITS
QUR’AN 36:40
Farook Malik:
Neither it is possible for the sun to overtake the moon, nor for the night to outstrip the day: each floats along in its OWN ORBITS.
Dr. Munir Munshey:
It is not ordained for the sun to overtake the moon, nor for the night to outpace the day. Each, (the sun and the moon), is afloat in its RESPECTIVE ORBIT!
Dr. Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadri:
Neither can the sun (deviate from its orbit and) overtake the moon, nor can the night precede the day, and all (the stars and planets) are moving in their RESPECTIVE ORBITS .
Syed Vickar AhamedIt is not allowed for the sun to overtake the moon, nor can the night overtake the day: Each (can only) stay on in ITS OWN PATH (according to the Order of Allah).
as for reduction of arth’s ladnmass,.Then do they not see that We set upon the land, reducing it from its borders? So it is they who will overcomeme?
the verse says God decreases the landmass from the borders, that is decrease interms of the size,not mass. ypu gave me reference to prof.keff brwon who says earth’s mass is increasing due to meteors coming to earth. now the both prf,jeff’s statemen and quran 21/44 has nothing to do with each other. one describe’s God reducing the land of people and the other relating to increase in earth’s mass due to meteor collision.
so what is your point here bro? why did you bring this prof.jeff brown’s statement here in connection to this verse?i dont see a way to reconcile this two.
one guy even tried to go to the limit of telling me that this verse refers to “land reducing due to ice and glaciers melting due to global warming”
the crux here is to understand the context of the verse.
the verse states thus:
44. Nay, We gave the luxuries of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them. See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will overcome.
so it refers to God giving enough luxuries to people(dsbelivers) and prolonged life. and then God reduces the land in theor control from its borders,that is they start losing their wealth that God gave them.also it refers to the people at that time. hence i fail to see a “scientific miracle ” lurking within it.it has nothing to do with “land reducing due to glaciers” because it first of all refers to the people at that time to whom the prophet was delivering the message.this is clear from the first few verses where we see the people doubting the prophethood of the prophet.at that time 1400 years ago,significant land reduction due to glacier melting did not happen at all.moreover, the land reduction in this manner is very gradual and it does not sigificantly affect anyone’s land properties as the verse says. thus if it refer to God reducing land properties by allowing the melting of glaciers, then it is obnoxius on the side of God to do it.note the verse refers to rducing the land property a a person’s wealth, not as surface of he earth being swallowed by the glaciers.thus sorry, there is no significant scientific mracle here, undestanding the context, we come to know the verse is tlking from an entirely different perspective and has nothing to do with the premises of geology. also, looking at other verses would refute the notion that the verse refers to melting of ice caps(i hav epolained this above).thus the similarity it shares with geology is only apparent and at the surface. it is not a good…
-Saroj
Just because you can’t comprehend THE Quran that’s not the problem of Qur’an.
Your comment :
as for reduction of arth’s ladnmass,.Then do they not see that We set upon the land, reducing it from its borders? So it is they who will overcomeme?
the verse says God decreases the landmass from the borders, that is decrease interms of the size,not mass.
Response :Please see what you are saying
Decrease the land mass from Outlying parts. When Mass from Outlying parts gets decreased, EARTHS mass automatically is reduced. You are saying the same thing.
Mass got reduced, Isn’t it.
. ypu gave me reference to prof.keff brwon who says earth’s mass is increasing due to meteors coming to earth. now the both prf,jeff’s statemen and quran 21/44 has nothing to do with each other. one describe’s God reducing the land of people and the other relating to increase in earth’s mass due to meteor collision.
so what is your point here bro? why did you bring this prof.jeff brown’s statement here in connection to this verse?i dont see a way to reconcile this two.
Response:HE says it’s reducing. I didn’t Quoted whole article, it is too long.
He has stated earth used to be 200 time bigger than the current.
As far as the guy who talked about glaciers has nothing to do with it.
In other places it is repeated.
Qur’an 13:41
See they not how we aim to the land, reducing it of its outlying parts?
-SAROJ
Who were you DECIEVING here.
You first Quoted full verse
44. Nay, We gave the luxuries of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them. See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will overcome.
Response : You Quoted full verse and then.
so it refers to God giving enough luxuries to people(dsbelivers) and prolonged life. and then God reduces the land in theor control from its borders
Response :Not THEN, that is a different part and you own words.
It is even separately mentioned in
Qur’an 13:41
Which I already said.
,that is they start losing their wealth that God gave them.also it refers to the people at that time.
Response :You are giving your Own interpretation. This is wrong to do with the Holy book.
It is a separate, why are you joining them.
Qur’an 13:41
Shakir:
Do they not see that We are bringing destruction upon the land by curtailing it of its sides?
Ali Ünal:
Do they not see how We deal with the earth, reducing it of its outlying parts?
Shabbir Ahmed:
Don’t they see that every day on earth brings them closer to the end?
hence i fail to see a “scientific miracle ” lurking within it
Response : You failed because you were using Deception MAYBE And giving your own interpretation. You failed to analyse it was discussed in other parts without it.
pls quote my whole rsponse brother.
the verse refers to the people at that time, even if by reducing mass or by glaciers, it dosent manke a significant differnce to the land occupied by huma beings as long as they lived. the earth wasnt “200 times bigger” when human beings lived on earth, or at least the piece of land on which they lived was never exeedingly big. even if the changes occured, it was ssmall and this s=desone make a signiiant change to the land area od human being considering ghem as their property.
the verse describes God giving them luxurues and thus showin gthat God gives them everything in life. but to the wealthy ppl who r disbelivers, allah reduces the land (as their proprty because ths suits the context-first part mentions God giving them luxuries.land is considered as a property in every human society) from their borders. now, if the verse refer to land reducing as jeffry brown states or glaciers reducing land says, then it is contradictory and senselss, since as long as human beings lived, there is no meteor attacks (as jeffry states) or glacier melts that reduced the land significantly as the properties of the people.
thus, any person can understand that this limking with modern science is flawed.
-Saroj
I am very very shocked HOW YOU TRIED TO PUT YOUR OWN WORDS ” THEN”
When it is clearly as a different part and mentioned EVER SEPARATELY in other place.
Anyway whenever I put links COMMENT takes time.
I put plants feeling pain also.
20 days ago, THE COMMENT IS AWATING MODERNIZATION, shows it.
As these radioactive elements decay, they give off heat (called RADIOGENIC heat). In fact, about four percent of the heat at the Earth’s surface comes from inside it!In the process of releasing this energy, the elements also lose mass. (1)
Melting of ice in the polar regions
Global sea level riseis caused by two factors. One is the delivery of water to the ocean as land ice melts,such as mountain glaciers and polar icecaps.
The second factor is thethermal expansion of waterwithin the oceans. As the temperature of the waters in the oceans rises and the seas become less dense, they will spread, occupying more surface area on the planet. Increased temperature will accelerate the rate of sea level rise. (2)
Because sea level is rising thus the land of the earth is decreasing.
Reduction at poles
Standing on Earth’s surface can not see the small changes in Earth’s shape but researchers have been watching the equator shrink (reduce in size)slowly over the past few decades with satellites,a process that they believe has been going on since the last ice age 18,000 years ago. Since the ice age, glaciers at the poles have been melting slowly as global temperatures warm, allowing magma under Earth’s crust to move towards the poles once the heavy weight of ice was no longer squashing them. This allowed the equator to shrink (reduce in size)as the molten rock (magma) moved away.
For the past four years, however, Earth has been doing something quite different.Researchers at Raytheon and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center have been watching the equator grow larger.(3)
So when the equatorial diameter of the Earth expands under the effect of the force,…
-Saroj
You even tried to restrict this passage to PROPHET MUHAMMAD pbuh’s time.
However this passages talks in general.
the verse restricts to people’ time. because read the first few verses of the hymn where unblivers doubt the prophethood of the prophet.
thus the whole hymn deals with the people at that time.the inner meaning might be universal.
at least the whole hymn refer to the time when human beings exist on the planet.simply nitpicking parchments of my comments without readin th whole thing is not going to work brother.
-Saroj
Don’t change topic. Here
pls quote my whole rsponse brother.
the verse refers to the people at that time,
Response :Do you read my Answer, it speaks in General and you are giving your own interpretation.
I also said it is also separately mentioned.
even if by reducing mass or by glaciers, it dosent manke a significant differnce to the land occupied by huma beings as long as they lived. the earth wasnt “200 times bigger” when human beings lived on earth,
Response : It doesn’t say Earth was started being reduced when human beings inhabited it.
or at least the piece of land on which they lived was never exeedingly big. even if the changes occured, it was ssmall and this s=desone make a signiiant change to the land area od human being considering ghem as their property.
Response : It was big atleast than this and it caused many changes whatsoever.
the verse describes God giving them luxurues and thus showin gthat God gives them everything in life. but to the wealthy ppl who r disbelivers, allah reduces the land (as their proprty because ths suits the context-first part mentions God giving them luxuries.land is considered as a property in every human society) from their borders.
Response :Already answered, your own interpretation.
now, if the verse refer to land reducing as jeffry brown states or glaciers reducing land says, then it is contradictory and senselss, since as long as human beings lived, there is no meteor attacks (as jeffry states) or glacier melts that reduced the land significantly as the properties of the people.
Response : It’s not talking when human beings lived. It is talking generally.
thus, any person can understand that this limking with modern science is flawed.
Response :
It’s you who don’t want to accept the truth.
i read your answer properly.
“it dosent say earh was reduced wen humam inhabited it:
ir does. the verse says that to unbeluvers, God reduced the land in their control. if it does not refer to human beings lived earth at that time as u claim, y does the quran mentio God giving wealth to people and ttheir fathers and prolonging their life?
:it was big and then change whatsoever”
i was bigmfine bit as long as human beings inhabited the earth, these cjhanges were far too small to reduce someone’s land.
“its not talkind about ppl living, but generally”
look at the context brother, the vers says God gave luxuries to ppl and prolonged their life.God reduces their lands. why, is the verse is refering to geological theories that dosent affect the land properties of the people at that time, refer to the luxuris God gave to human beings in that verse itself? to out the verse in contextm it simply means that God reduces the land as their property,thus reducing the wealth they had.
to understnad the whole verse logically , in context, ximply means God gives wealth to them, wen they turn away from God , he takes reduces their lands that is their wealth.
thus if you consider the context of the verse, ND of the hymn, the above mening fits n has nothing to do with the goelogical changes you bring up here brother.
thus , wen you bring up the “sientific meaning”, you simply skid away from the original context which can be clearly understood by reading the whole verse and brong your own interpretation that does not match the context of the verse. worse, if you read the meaning you brought with the context, it becomes obscur and obnoxious.
i havent deceived abywhere i juz red the whole verse with an unbiased mind and draw the conclusion in its own context, which you deny and bring your own interpretation to brief case it with geological observations,
“you dont want to accept truth”
i dont want to acccept concoted, out of contect interpretations of a verse like you have done.
any way i have written o the atharva veda verse 6/77/ ypu quoted, i shall look into other verses soon or afterwards. stay tuned,
it wud take a lot of time. a nitpicking of veda verses wud never help fpr that a wider reading is required.do, i need time to explain atharva veda6/44.
-Saroj
Your own interpretation are hilarious.
You Just don’t wanna accept reality but it doesn’t matter.
You said regarding FIRM STAND THE HEAVEN AND EARTH that horses are mentioned.
I could have rebuked you by saying that HE MUST HAVE THOUGHT earth and heaven to be firm. And horses are moving which was observable but I m not Crack minded.
Anyway your comments:
i read your answer properly.
“it dosent say earh was reduced wen humam inhabited it:
ir does. the verse says that to unbeluvers, God reduced the land in their control. i
Response: Does the verse say TO UNBELIEVERS GOD REDUCED LAND.
Please learn accepting truth
It say
”We HAVE BEEN REDUCING”
It’s clear.
It’s not a metaphor
God when gives parable of disbelievers he mentions it Consider Qur’an 2:17 for example.
i havent deceived abywhere i juz red the whole verse with an unbiased mind and draw the conclusion in its own context, which you deny and bring your own interpretation to brief case it with geological observations,
Response:
Again that was your own interpretation. In other places also it is mentioned to meant ” We have been reducing”
Qur’an 13:41
Pickthall :
See they not how we aim to the land, reducing it of its outlying parts?
Ali Ünal:
Do they not see how We deal with the earth, reducing it of its outlying parts?
Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali:
And have they not seen that We come up to the earth diminishing it in its extremities?
But Again I made the message reach you. It’s your own choice
Quran 36:17
“And our duty is only to proclaim the clear Message.”
Quran 16:82
“But if they turn away, thy duty is only to preach the clear Message. ”
Quran 29:18
“But if ye deny, then nations have denied before you. The messenger is only to convey (the message) plainly. ”
Your own interpretation are hilarious.
You Just don’t wanna accept reality but it doesn’t matter.
You said regarding FIRM STAND THE HEAVEN AND EARTH that horses are mentioned.
I could have rebuked you by saying that HE MUST HAVE THOUGHT earth and heaven to be firm. And horses are moving which was observable but I m not Crack minded.
read the whole hymn. first , if the rushi says”firm are the hevens” then y he mentions suddenly about
horses” which has no connection to the first part? and then refering to agni and asking it to retrive cows?
this is where you have to think of what the connceting link between the verses are
these are not my interpretation,but these are based on other parts of the vedas. the vedas dolink universe to human body in many many instances as in unpanishads and purusha suktha(the main hymn in all the vedas) and horses to senses.this symbolism derived from the vedas itself connects the first part and second part of the verse:”by controlling the senses(horses, since vedas themselves refer to horses as senses in katha upanishad) ,one can make the whole body(earth/heaven/universe)” and this link conncets all the remainimg verses in a logical sequence.
“i could have rebuked saying the author of the verses thought the earth was fixed…”but the problem is y to mention horses whih has no link to fixed earth? the problem is that then you cannot link this frst part with the next part of the verse”horses are put in the stall”. to resolve this apparent senseless sequence, one has to go to the symbolisms of these objects, and these symbolisms are explained in othrr parts of the Vedic texts.(like earth/heavens are linked to human body, in purusha suktha, in sithreya upanishad, and in syurveda and other texts as well) and horses to senses in gita and upanishads. thus these interpretations are not based on my concoted imagination, but based on references from vedas itself, i.e. i apply the ,metaphoric meaning that is used in Vedas…
-Saroj
Don’t you know Truth never dies, whatsoever the conditions are.
Qur’an 17:81
And say: “Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish.”
I hope L-rd shows you signs and I know he will show everyone in his inner self.
Qur’an 41:53
Soon will We show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?
-Saroj
Next one in Line
Qur’an talks about evaporation in great detail but I will provide a single Verse which says ” RAIN RETURNS” Implying to evaporation as in that case water goes back to clouds.
Qur’an 86:11
Pickthall:
By the heaven which giveth the RETURNING RAIN
Sahih International:
By the sky which RETURNS RAIN
Abdel Haleem:
By the sky and its RECURRING RAIN
Sayyid Qutb:
By the heaven with its RETURNING RAIN
Maududi:
By the heaven with its RECURRING CYCLE OF RAIN
Shabbir Ahmed:
Witness is the high atmosphere that keeps RETURNING (its water, gases and other composition).
NOW WHAT I AM SHOCKED TO SEE IS THAT CHRISTIAN TRANSLATORS OF QURAN TRANSLATED IT AS SAME.
Arthur John Arberry:
By heaven of the RETURNING RAIN
Edward Henry Palmer:
By the heaven that SENDS BACK THE RAIN !
George Sale:
By the heaven which RETURNETH THE RAIN
John Medows Rodwell:
I swear by the heaven which ACCOMPLISHETH ITS CYCLE
N J Dawood (draft):
By the heaven with its RECURRING CYCLES.
rain will come again-is a common statement. meaning rain will fall again. ay person who dosent know water cycle will also say that, dsent make it scientific.
-Saroj
read the whole hymn. first , if the rushi says”firm are the hevens” then y he mentions suddenly about
horses”
Response :Because he thought EARTH AND HEAVEN TO BE FIRM and horses are moving which you and me can even see.
There is nothing to be looked for here.
which has no connection to the first part?
Response :It has first mentioned those things WHICH HE THOUGHT ARE STABLE AND then mentioned things which ARE MAKING according to him.
and then refering to agni and asking it to retrive cows?
this is where you have to think of what the connceting link between the verses are
these are not my interpretation,but these are based on other parts of the vedas. the vedas dolink universe to human body in many many instances as in unpanishads and purusha suktha(the main hymn in all the vedas) and horses to senses.t
Response : It is vedas and not Purana or upanishads.
They even thought EARTH IS FIRM BY A BULL
AND HEAVEN BY A PILLAR.
Rig Veda 6.72.2
DAYANAND :
O lords of resplendence and bliss, you bestow light to the dawns; you upraise the sun with his splendour; you prop up the SKY with the SUPPORTING PILLAR of the firmament; you spread out the earth, the mother of all.
[Rig Veda Samhita, By Satya Prakash Saraswati and Satyakam Vidyalankar, Vol 7, page 2331, 1980 edition, Published by Veda Ptatishthana, New Delhi]
Griffith :
Ye, Indra-Soma, gave her light to Morning, and led the Sun on high with all his splendour. Ye stayed the HEAVEN with a SUPPORTING PILLAR, and spread abroad apart, the Earth, the Mother.
you r decptive now and is not adressing the real uissues.
/’there is nothing to look for here” there is something to look for here because y does the rishi says”earth/heavn is firm” and then go “putting horses” in the same verse, ine after the other? it is becaue there is a link within then connecting it.if there is no connecting link between them, it would be like adding apples and oranges.two of them have no connection apparently,then no sane man would put them together.
upanishads are part of vedas(vedas are divided into 4-brahmana, samhita,aranyaka n upanshd).the problem with your interpretation is that you dont think y the rshi talk of earth.heaven n then, in the same context, of horses.
simply saying :Because he thought EARTH AND HEAVEN TO BE FIRM and horses are moving which you and me can even see.There is nothing to be looked for here” would not explain why the risho put these two mutually disconnected stuff in the same verse n hence the same context..
the link obetween them is explained from other parts of vedas itself n that i explaines above.
also remember that traditionally puranas are considered as expalanations of vedas. thus puranas can be used to explain vedas to some degree. when you interpret vedas use the trasitional method of interpretation and not what you think.
rig veda6/72/2 explains indra/soma as forcs destroying evil and setting rtha(the natural order of things). and setting dharma.
dharma and ritha are two very important concept in rig veda. dharma is many times used in the vedas as the force that sustains everything in the right order.the hymns in vedas are to be explained in line with dharma and ritha. dharma comes from the root “dhiri” meaning to “support”. thus the pillar here is a metaphor to the idea of dharma sustaining he order of heavens.
this can be further understood clearly since the creation hyman in rig veda 10/CXC explains the creation from salila and it talks of creation of sun,moon,earth n dosnt…
-Saroj
Regarding Earth
Atharva Veda 4.11.1
The Bull( वृषभ) supports the wide-spread earth and heaven, the Bull supports the spacious air between them.
Agniveers Deception on this.
Atharva Veda 4.11.1
″The sun has held the earth and other planets”
HE doesn’t translate second part as it will become AND SUN SUPPORTS SPACIOUS AIR BRTWEEN THEM.
Anyway it’s wrong translation
Word- (vRSabham-Noun)
Dictinaries:
Sanskrit dictionary for spoken sanskrit
वृषभ vRSabham. OX
वृषभ vRSabham. BULL
English to Sanskrit dictionary
वृषभ ( vRishhabha ) : The Zodiacal Sign of TAURUS
TAURUS – a type of Bull.
Almost all dictionary say somewhat similar I. E Bull, ox, ťaurus.
Still Some Hindus might argue that Vrishab doesn’t mean Bull it means Sun. For the sake of the argument let’s accept it. But a Vedic verse makes an unscientific claim about Vrishab
Atharva Veda 4.5.1, Rig Veda 7.55.7 The Bull [Vrishab/Sun] who hath a thousand horns, who rises up from out the sea…
Now let Hindus decide what does Vrishab means. It is also mentioned in Brahmana,
Kausitaki Brahmana 18.9 Him who yonder gives heat they seek by these pressings to obtain; the rising by the morning pressing, (the sun) in the middle (of his course) by the midday pressing, (the sun) as he sets by the third pressing. He, having entered the waters, becomes Varuna.
ARE THESE ALSO METAPHORS
atharva veda 4/11/1 talks of bull in a metaphorical manner. the bull is representation of power. the
Bull” here refer to the devatha of the hymn, thus metaphorising the strenghth of the devatha(deity) that sustain the earth. there is nothing unscientific here, the only thing is that you should understand the hymn by unveiling the metaphors. in other part of rig veda, indra and surya(sun) are also refered to as “bull”. now is sun(surya) bull? is indra who carries thunderbolt a bull? no. then the reason y indra/surya is refer to as bull is because bull is used as a metaphor of strength, and when the deities are referd to as
Bull”, it simply symbolises the power of the deity. this concept is carried into other part of the Vedas and puranas too and thus, krsna refers arjuna as the “bull of bharatha”(bharatharshabha).the reason is because of the meataphoric use of bull as a symbolpf power and authority.
the same goea to other verses of the vedas also in this context.
now on, i will explain the verses of “scientific errors in vedas” from our next converdation begins. til then good bye and sweet dreams”. continue sprewing out crap and i will respond.
you can see it for yourselg in the same verse AV4/11/1 that bull is not literal. had it been literal, y does he verse say bull support “air region”(i.e.anthariksha-atmosphere) which is all around us and there is no reason for any person at any level of scientific knowledge, low or high, to say that the air is supported by bull. there is no reason to even to think that air is supported by a bull. hence the bull is metaphorical and its refering to the power of devatha(deity associated to da hymn) by which he sustain the world(comprising of earth/air region(atmosphere)/heavens(beyond atmosphere). its crytal clear now.
as for the verse atharva veda 6/77/1 i have explained in detail and hav responded to your stupid “responses”-which dosent adress the real problem in literal interpretation- and have given interpretation based on reading the other parts of vedas and conrrelating them and hence not MY OWN. also the inner meaning connects all the verses in a logical sequence and expalins the apparent anomaly of adding up of apples and oranges if taken literally, which would not explain the essence of the verse.ohf course for people with prejudice and close mindedness, and hence cannot understand vedic metaphors, this would appear to be HILARIOUS. well for ,e what is more hilarious is the way you interpret the quran to fit in science, its too naive interpretation u giv. sorry.
also, it could be beter to continue our discussion via emails. it would be easie for me to message and send comments to you. the main problem is the word limit here, due to which i cant typ ethe whole thing i want to. and it would be easy to locate your responses to me if it through emails(dont think im faring of being embarised here at all, if you want you cab post all our disceussions here).
here is my email id:
[email protected]
so see u next time through emails.
thanks namathe.
-Saroj
Science in Vedas Session with AGNIVEER :
AGNIVEER
Light of Moon :
Rig Veda 10.85.9
“Moon decided to marry. Day and Night attended its wedding. And sun gifted his daughter “Sun ray” to Moon.”
Response : What Deception!
This whole chapter is after a bride named SURYA to a man.
It says that Savitri gifted Surya to Soma, not sun’s rays as they have claimed,
Rig Veda 10.85.9 Soma was desirous of a bride; the two Aswins were the two groomsmen when Savitri gifted Surya, who was ripe for a husband, to Soma (endowed) with intelligence.
EVEN IF HINDUS ONLY CHECK RIG VEDA 10:85 it’s name is ” Surya’s Bride”
See also in context
Rig veda 10:85:6-10
6 Raibhi was her dear bridal friend, and Narasamsi led her home.
Lovely was Surya’s robe: she came to that which Gatha had adorned.
7 Thought was the pillow of her couch, sight was the unguent for her eyes:
Her treasury was earth and heaven..when Surya went unto her Lord.
8 Hymns were the cross-bars of the pole, Kurira-metre decked the car:
The bridesmen were the Asvin Pair Agni was leader of the train.
9 Soma was he who wooed the maid: the groomsmen were both Asvins, when
The Sun-God Savitar bestowed his willing Surya on her Lord.
10 Her spirit was the bridal car; the covering thereof was heaven:
Bright were both Steers that drew it when Surya approached her husband’s, home.
So there is no science here.
-Saroj
And despite Agniveer’s own fabrication.
He faces blunder.
See how ‘LET’S TAKE HIS WRONG TRANSLATION TRUE’
Let’s see the verse
“Moon decided to marry. Day and Night attended its wedding. And sun gifted his daughter “Sun ray” to Moon.”
Response: The verse starts with MOON DECIDED TO MARRY
IS it true?
Now Hindus will say it’s metaphor and all that.
Let’s agree with them. So there is no science upto this point.
It says
Day and night attends it’s wedding
WHICH IS WRONG AS DAY AND NIGHT HAS TO DO WITH EARTHS ROTATION AROUND SUN.
But Hindus will still insist, it’s metaphor.
Let’s agree.
But I am desperate to see science in it.
Atlast it says
And sun gifted his daughter sun ray to moon.
First of all there is no word which can be translated SUN RAY(actually whole passage is wrong translation)
But see the flaw it says daughter ray(SINGULAR)
Now does only 1 ray of sun go to moon.
Hindus will again give there own interpretation like HERE 1 SHOULD MEAN 1 BILLION.
Let’s agree.
Then does it become scientific. NO
Because passage talks in terms of marriage.
Now when a girl is married to a husband she lives with him forever afterwards.
But in case of Moon IT GETS REFLECTED TOWARDS EARTH and HERE AND THERE.
So either it is a wrong verse as it compares this phenomenon with marriage.
Either it suggests than that ray remains with MOON FOR EVER.
So there is no science and by the way wrong translation.
There are other problems also like MARRING CEREMONY takes 1 day or at a push 7 days(if it’s a royal marriage)
In starting the words DECIDED would suggest that at that time sun light wasn’t going towards moon as it was still being decided. There is no science from whatever angle you look.
There is no science in vedas also.
Tou are requested to
1. Check different translations
2. Consult dictionaries
3. Context
You will yourself witness it.
Agniveer’s…
and thats what you didnt do with atharva veda 6/77/1 and rig veda 6/72/1 and all other verses.
by the way i agree here there is no problem with vedas.
-Saroj
Qur’an on MOON LIGHT
Followed by Agniveer’s lies and Nonsense comments.
“It is He who made the sun To be a shining glory And the moon to be a light (Of beauty).” [Al-Qur’aan 10:5]
Zakir Naik said regarding this that different words have been used for sun and moon I. E SIRAAJ AND NOOR(reflected light) .
Not once in the Qur’aan, is the moon mentioned as siraaj, wahhaaj or diya or the sun as nur or muneer. This implies that the Qur’aan recognizes the difference between the nature of sunlight and moonlight.
Agniveer:
Now if Dr. Naik is to be believed, Nur means reflected light. No previous Islamic scholar has made this scandalous claim before – and do you know why? Because one of the 99 Names of the God of Quran (Allah) is AN-Nur.
Response :NO MUSLIM SCHOLAR.
Ibn Kathir (May Allah Be Pleased With Him) (1301–1373) says in his Tafsir of The Noble Qur’an :
the sun rises each day and sets at the end of the day, giving one kind of light all the time, but it moves, rising and setting at different points in the summer and winter, thus making the days and nights longer or shorter alternatively according to the season. Its authority is in the daytime, for it is the heavenly body that dominates the day. As for the moon, Allah has decreed that it should pass through different phases. At the beginning of the month, the moon appears small when it rises. It gives off little light, then on the second night its light increases and it rises to a higher position, and the higher it rises the more light it gives – EVEN THOUGH IT IS REFLECTED FROM THE SUN– until it becomes full on the fourteenth night of the month.
Will continue…
Continued…
Qur’an 10:5
Muhammad Asad:
He it is who has made the sun a [source of] radiant light and the moon a LIGHT REFLECTED
T.B.Irving:
He it is Who has placed the sun for radiance and the moon for REFLECTED LIGHT
Ali Ünal:
He it is Who has made the sun a radiant, illuminating light, and the moon a LIGHT REFLECTED
Sahih International :
It is He who made the sun a shining light and the moon a DERIVED LIGHT
Dr. Kamal Omar:
He it is Who appointed the sun as a brilliant light and the moon as a REFLECTED LIGHT
Bilal Muhammad:
It is He Who made the Sun to be a shining light, and the Moon to be a REFLECTED LIGHT
Sayyid Qutb:
He it is who made the sun a source of radiant light and the moon a REFLECTED LIGHT
I think these guys exposed agniveer. Noor in the context of Qur’an refers to reflected light.
Dictionaries :
Meaning of the word Noor :
نور (noor): بيّن (bayyan) reveal, reflect.
نور (noor): be revealed, to be lighted, to receive light.
Sakhr Dictionary 2006/2007:
“light, brightness, illumination, glow, gleam.”
The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, Page1009:
“light, beam, brightness, gleam, glow, illumination, lamp, INDIRECT LIGHT .”
all translation r aftr coming to know that moon reflects sunlight.all translations that usses “ref;ected light” are false because the original erse does not contain the arabic word for “reflected” it only states “light”.
yes i agree with zakir naik that two different words are used for sun n moon:lamp and light.
even if the person dosent know moon reflects the sun, still he can use these two words. because, lamp contains fire and it gives both heat and light,both which sun gives. moon does not give light it goves only light. hence refered to as light. thus a person,good in poetry, and bad in science without knowing moon reflect sun light can also make this type of verse. thus there is nothing scientific here as u suggest.
also. science of evporaion on quran, and your way of defending science in 21/44 are totally hilarious. let the readres who reads our conversation decide.
i hav given examples from Vedas and supporting texts to prove my points which you groundlessly and blatantly deny, which i exposed in my subsequent responses. LET THE READER WHO READ OUR COMMENTS DECIDE WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS MISCHEVIOUS HERE.THANKS NAMASTHE.
Agniveer said further:
Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The example of His light is like a niche within which is a lamp, the lamp is within glass, the glass as if it were a pearly [white] star lit from [the oil of] a blessed olive tree, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would almost glow even if untouched by fire. Light upon light. Allah guides to His light whom He wills. And Allah presents examples for the people, and Allah is Knowing of all things.
Response : This poor Question was answered by zakir Naik in 1996. In which world is AGNIVEER living.
Let’s see Zakir Naik made an interesting point:
The brother posed a question – he did not understand my explanation to the counter argument of Dr. William Campbell, regarding ‘Nur’ and ‘Allah.’ The Qur’an says in Surah Nur, Chapter 24, Verse No. 35, that Allah is ‘Nurus samaavaati wal ardh’ ‘is the light’ of the heavens and the earth – He is a light. The meaning of ‘light’ in the Qur’an – it is ‘reflected light’ or borrowed light. So he is asking… ‘Does it mean that even Allah has got borrowed light?’ So the answer is given further, if you read the Verse – it says that it is like a parable of a nitche – In the nitche there is a lamp. Lamp has a light of its own. That means, Allah has light of its own, as well as that light of its own, is also being reflected. The light of Allah Subhnawataala is again being reflected by Allah Subhanawataala himself, like a halogen lamp that you see here – It has a tube in between. The lamp you can refer to that, as a ‘Siraj’ or a ‘Wahaj’ or a ‘Dia.’ And the reflector as ‘Munir’ or ‘Nur’, borrowed light or ‘reflection of light.’ And further more, but natural this light – actually does not refer to the physical light you are talking about – It is a spiritual light of Allah Subhnawataala – But as an answer I have given to Dr. William Campbell.
As Zakir Naik correctly said THE VERSE IN WHICH ALLAH CALLS HIMSELF LIGHT. IN THE SAME VERSE ALLAH GIVEN PARABLE OF HIS LIGHT
AND SAYS IT IS A NICHE WITHIN IT A LAMP WHICH IS ENCLOSED IN A Glass.
This passage given idea of a reflected light like that of halogen lamp. So ALLAH REFLECTS HIS OWN LIGHT.
Qur’an 24:35
Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. THE EXAMPLE OF HIS LIGHT IS THAT OF A NICHE WITHIN WHICH IS A LAMP, THE LAMP IS WITHIN A GLASS, the glass as if it were a pearly [white] star lit from [the oil of] a blessed olive tree, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would almost glow even if untouched by fire. Light upon light. Allah guides to His light whom He wills. And Allah presents examples for the people, and Allah is Knowing of all things.
Further Muhammad Asad(Arabic scholar) (Jewish convert Islam)
Said regarding this verse:
“The particle ka (“as if” or “as it were”) prefixed to a noun is called kaf at-tashbih (“the letter kaf pointing to a resemblance [of one thing to another]” or “indicating a metaphor”). In the above context it alludes to the impossibility of defining God even by means of a metaphor or a parable – for, since “there is nothing like unto Him” (42:11), there is also “nothing that could be compared with Him” (112:4). Hence, the parable of “the light of God” is not meant to express His reality – which is inconceivable to any created being and, therefore, inexpressible in any human language – but only to allude to the illumination which He, who is the Ultimate Truth, bestows upon the mind and the feelings of all who are willing to be guided. Tabari, Baghawi, and Ibn Kathir quote Ibn ‘Abbas and Ibn Mas’ud as saying in this context: “It is the parable of His light in the heart of a believer.”
* The “lamp” is the revelation which God grants to His prophets and which is reflected in the believer’s heart – the “niche” of the above parable (Ubayy ibn Ka’b, as quoted by Tabari) – after being received and…
* The “lamp” is the revelation which God grants to His prophets and which is reflected in the believer’s heart – the “niche” of the above parable (Ubayy ibn Ka’b, as quoted by Tabari) – after being received and consciously grasped by his reason (“the glass [shining brightly] like a radiant star”): for it is through reason alone that true faith can find its way into the heart of man.
* It would seem that this is an allusion to the organic continuity of all divine revelation which, starting like a tree from one “root” or proposition – the statement of God’s existence and uniqueness – grows steadily throughout man’s spiritual history, branching out into a splendid variety of religious experience, thus endlessly widening the range of man’s perception of the truth. The association of this concept with the olive-tree apparently arises from the fact that this particular kind of tree is characteristic of the lands in which most of the prophetic precursors of the Qur’anic message lived, namely, the lands to the east of the Mediterranean: but since all true revelation flows from the Infinite Beng, it is “neither of the east nor of the west” – and especially so the revelation of the Qur’an, which, being addressed to all mankind, is universal in its goal as well.
* The essence of the Qur’anic message is described elsewhere as “clear [in itself] and clearly showing the truth” (cf. note 2 on 12:1); and it is, I believe, this aspect of the Qur’an that the above sentence alludes to. Its message gives light because it proceeds from God; but it “would well-nigh give light [of itself] even though fire had not touched it”: i.e., even though one may be unaware that it has been “touched by the fire” of divine revelation, its inner consistency, truth, and wisdom ought to be self-evident to anyone who approaches it in the light of his reason and without prejudice.
* Although most of the commentators read the above phrase in the sense of “God guides unto His light whomever He…
So Agniveer’s Question DOES THAT MEANS ALLAH IS REFLECTED LIGHT was put to tears.
i hv responded to you on vedas on your response pn verse atharva veda 6/77/1 amd rig veda 6/72/1. also. rea them fully and not nitpick one line from my comments.
next time we talk let it be through emails. it would be easy for me.
my email id is here:
[email protected]
water cycle metaphorically said in rig veda:
The Rig Veda has a lot of metaphors in it. due to this many verses appear obscure and unclear.
However understanding the verses to some extend and opening up the metaphors, we can find sensible meaning to many verses in Vedas.
In rig veda 10/164/47,we find this very much obscure verse:
Dark the descent: the birds are golden-coloured; up to the heaven they fly robed in the waters.
Again descend they from the seat of Order, and all the earth is moistened with their fatness.
First it says “dark the descend”,referring to the dark clouds/atmosphere when it rains.
“birds of golden colour,robed in waters” , doesn’t make sense at first sight when read in conjunction with the first statement” dark the descend”, but looking at rain as the common link ,we can understand, or safely assume that birds in golden colour refers to the water molecules rising up in a metaphorical manner .gold is often associated with agni and surya. The world is said to come from hiranyagarbha which literally mean golden womb, which is said to be born of heat, and is related to lustrous sun in manu smrithi. Thus,” birds clothed in golden colour flying upto heavens and robed in waters “is referring to stream of water molecules rising from earth by acquiring sun’s heat energy.(note that gold also refer to desire/wealth at times. But here in this context, this meaning suits.)
This understanding makes a lot of sense in the context, because it can be well matched with the first part “dark is the descend”.
Next is the statement” ascend again from the seat of high order, and all earth is moistened with their fatness” . Look, it says “again descent down to earth” thus referring to the “birds” we mentioned earlier. thus it is clear again that this line of interpretation is suited here, that the birds refer to water molecules ascending up due to sun’s heat. this comes down and as rains.
thus if the metaphors are unveiled, we do find pure science in…
COMMENT AFTER READING THE WHOLE EXPLANATION. DONT NITPICK PIECES OF MY COMMENTS FROM MY SECTION AND THEN JUDGE.
THIS IS THE ONLY INTERPRETATION THAT COULD LINK ALL THE PARTS OF THE VERSE TOGETHER IN A LOGICAL SEQUENCE, OTHERWISE THE VERSE IS OBSCUE. AND ECH SECTION(AMOGST THE 3) HAVE A STRONG LINK TO THE WATER CYCLE.
AND AS USUAL PEOPLE WOJLD SAY THIS IS MY OWN INTERPRETATION AND HENCE “HILARIOUS” BUT WHAT IS HILARIOUS IS THEIR APPROACH TO THE VERSES AND THEIR INABILITY TO EXPLAIN THE APPARENT ANOMALY IN A LITERAL INTERPREATION.AND THIS IS NOT MY “OWN” INTERPRETATION, SINCE ALL THE PARTS OF THE VERSE CONNECTS ITSELF TO THE WATER CYCLE PROCESS, AS I HAV EXPLAINED, AND ALSO THE METAPHORS THAT APPEAR HERE IS ARE BASED ON REFERENCES FROM VEDAS ITSELF. HENCE THIS INTEPRETATION NOT WRONG AND THE CORRECT ONE.
THANKS.
NAMASTHE.
-Saroj
Your poor arguments does not Justify anything.
Noor means reflected light. I Quoted dictionaries even Qur’an which itself says IN 24:35 BY GIVING A PARABLE OF REFLECTED LIGHT.
Dr. Zakir Naik addressed these Poor question a time ago. I even Quoted MUHAMMAD ASAD translator of Qur’an who converted to ISLAM.
You said these Translations are wrong. Look man when you don’t know Arabic don’t say anything. Check corpus word by word anywhere.
I Even Quoted dictionaries.
You lied in 21:44 because you guys don’t like that Qur’an contains science because that pinches you.
Many Atheists convert to Islam because of these.
You said it refers to taking of wealth. First it’s wrong AS THEY DIED AS RICH PERSNOALITIES and wealth was not taken from them.
2. This is not Vedas that you will just say metaphor, metaphor when verse is clear.
3. This verse in 21:44 was talked separately in 13:41
Regarding water cycle you said is wrong.
But in Qur’an ALMOST ALL COMMENTATORS OF QUR’AN EXPLAIN IT AS ABILITY OF HEAVENS TO BEING BACK THE water.
Thanks for your Google account. I will talk to you one of one
if you refer to water cycle in vedas that i talked, then u r not giving a sholarly judgement, but ur stubborn prejudicial judgement, which dosent stand on ground.
-Saroj
rain will come again-is a common statement. meaning rain will fall again. ay person who dosent know water cycle will also say that, dsent make it scientific.
Response : Are you nuts or what?
Qur’an doesn’t say by LAND AND RETURNING RAIN
IT SAYS
BY HEAVEN AND RETURNING RAIN
The returning towards heaven not earth. This is clear.
And almost all FROM PAST TILL PRESENT ALL COMMENTATORS MENTIONS IT AS CAPACTIY OF HEAVEN TO GET BACK RAIN.
And that verse which you Quoted no ways gives impression of anything. You Guys interpret vedas as you like. like
:and the verse you gave gives no impression”
that is your statement based on half reading and prejudice,read my whole comment. i am not interpetaing as i like. whatever metphors i use, its all basesd on the Vedas itself.
and plese tell me how it dosent make an impression.
your skidding away kinda statement dosent work here.
the statement “come again and moister the earth with their fatness” itself refers to rain. nothing other that rain moisten the earth. “. refer the part of the verse before.it says”brisd go up in goldeen colouour roberd in watrs”.gold, as per Vedas refer to agni and surya. if something is “golden”, it refers to the that it has the essense of surya/agni in it. so, the birds that has essence of agni/surya in it strainghtly refer to the “birds” have energy from the sun/fire. and the birds r “robed in water”. now read the verse”birds , having energy goes up to heaven robed in water”. what does it refer to? water vapours (since it says “robed in waters” and , has enegry(since it says “golden coulur” which i explained above),water molecules enter vapour state).and the words “birds” is used since it means it goes up aganist gravity to the sky, hence, IF YOU UNDERSTAND IT PROPERLY, this statement of the verse clearly refers to water vapurs that rise up(hence refered to as birds).AND THIS IS VERIFIED BY THE SUCCEEDING PART:”come AGAIN and tey MOISTER THE EARTH”. that whch comes AGAIN and moisters the earth is nothing other than rain. read the very first part also:”dark is the descend”-refers clearly to rains-the dark clouds gathering @ rain.
THUS THE WHOLE VERSE CLEARLY REFERS TO 2WATER CYCLE. ohr than this there is no other way to conect and understand the verse. this interpretaton is based on understanding the verse and it takes some time.
WHATEVER COMMENT YOU GAVE ON VEDIC VERSES ARE ALL YOUR HALF READING AND JUDGEMENT. NOT AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE VERSE.
the verse anyway clearly refer to water cycle explaining the…
and as the quran . i was not talkin abt “lannd returning” i was talkn about those vrses u quoted that supposedly talk of water cycle. you r on nuts not me.
what is now pinching you is the fact that G VEDA actually talks of water cycle in a metaphoric way, which i showed you clearly in a logical manner. for that u should read it without prejudice, which surly ppl lik u wont. ND NEVER. if you are cery much sure th verse dosent rever to water cycle, then show me in my nterpretation where im wrong-BUT REMEMBER YOUR HALF READING AND SKIDDING AWAY ND BUSSINESS YOU DID (LIKE THE RISHI “SAW” HORSES PUT TO STALL N “THOUGHT” EATH/HEVEAN TO BE FIXED HENCE HE PUT THEM TOGETHER) WILL NOT WORK HERE. BECAUSE EVEN IF HE THUGHT ERTH TO BE FIXED AND SAW HORSES PUT TO STALL, IT DOSENT PROMPT HIM TO INCLUDE BOTH IN THE SAME CONTEXT IN A VERSE. THE RISHI IS NOT AN OUT OF MIND NUT LIKE YOU GUYS TO PUT BOTH MUTUALLY DISCONNECTED STUFF (WHICH WHEN READ TOGETHER)IN THE SAME CONTEXT, IF IT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY. . WHAT U DID IS U DID NOT THINK Y THE RISI PUT THESE TWO APPARENTLY DISCONNECTED, OUT OF CONTEXT THINGS IN THE SAME CONTEXT, HERE IS WHERE THE METAPHORIC MEANING SHOULD BE GIVEN WEIGHTAGE, IN ORDER TO CONNECT THE TWO.
AND MEATAPHORCAL UNVEILING IS NOT BASED ON MY OWN MOTION TO LINK IT TO SCINECE, BUT BASED ON THE VEDAS ITSELF. WHEREVER I USED THE METAPHORS, I HAVE JUTIFIED Y THE METAPHORICAL MEANING IS TO BE SOUGHTED FOR AND HV JUSTIFIED THE UNVELING OF THE METAPHORS BASED ON COMMON SENSE AND REFERENCE TO OTHER PARTS OF THE VEDAS/SCRIPTUES THAT SUPPORT THE METAPHORIC SYMBOLISM. YU DO NOT READ IT WITH AN OPEN MIND, AND THINK LOGICALLY.THATS YOUR PROBLEM, NOT THAT MY INTERPRETATION IS DECEPTIVE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
AND LET THE READERS OF OUR DISCUSSION DECIDE WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG.
LET THE READERS DECIDE IF IM RIGHT .