Category Archives: Myth Busters

Myth Busters

What is jihad? Reply to Sheikh Ali Gomaa, Grand Mufti of Egypt

Leave a comment

Muslims Scholars spend Billions of $ in Dawah to convert people into Islam. After getting fooled(converted) into Islam, still the new converts have many misconceptions about Islam. Following is a Question asked by a New Convert to Islam to the Grand Mufti of Egypt. The Grand Mufti replies him, but as usual his replies is full of lies. Below I’ll try to correct him based on authentic teachings of Islam. His wrong answers will be  STRIKETHROUGH  with my comments in bold red below.

Question:

I am a new convert to Islam and I have read in Islamic sources that Jihad is obligatory till judgment day. At the same time I understand that there is no compulsion in religion then what is the meaning of Jihad? Also should Muslims wage wars against non Muslims every where and slaughter them? How do we balance between the concept of no compulsion in religion and between the following verse “And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful. (9:5) And the prophetic hadith which says “I was commanded to fight people until they attest that there is no god but God…” Please clarify.

Answer:

The original state which guides the relationship between Muslims and non Muslims is coexistence and peace not war.God says in the Quran, “God does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, God loves those who act justly”. 60:8

COMMENTS:- The original state of relation between Muslims and Non-Muslims can never be peaceful, as the Holy Quran itself says, “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.” [Quran 9:5] As this verse is used in this reply, so we will talk about it later. Grand Mufti cleverly uses Quran 60:8 to prove that Islam is a religion of peace and Quran commands Muslims to be righteous and peaceful towards Non-Muslims if they are not hostile. But this is not completely true. If we read verse 60:8 with is context then we will find that this verse is talking about a specific family. As Ibn Kathir in explanation of this verse writes:-

 Imam Ahmad recorded that Asma’ bint Abu Bakr said, “My mother, who was an idolatress at the time, came to me during the Treaty of Peace, the Prophet conducted with the Quraysh. I came to the Prophet and said, `O Allah’s Messenger! My mother came visiting, desiring something from me, should I treat her with good relations’ The Prophet said,(Yes. Keep good relation with your mother.)” The Two Sahihs recorded this Hadith. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Abdullah bin Zubayr said, “Qutaylah came visiting her daughter, Asma’ bint Abi Bakr, with some gifts, such as Dibab, cheese and clarified (cooking) butter, and she was an idolatress at that time. Asma’ refused to accept her mother’s gifts and did not let her enter her house. `A’ishah asked the Prophet about his verdict and Allah sent down the Ayah

So as per evidence the above verse was revealed in context of Abu Bakr’s daughter and cannot be taken in general, so here Allah is not commanding to be in peace with Non-Muslims who are not fighting Muslims. Even if Allah does commands Muslims to live peacefully with Non-Combating idolaters in 60:8, then there is a contradiction in Quran, as 9:29 commands Muslims to fight all those who does not believe in Allah and his Messenger.

God also says “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon God. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.” (8:61)

Therefore the legal evidence from both the Quran and the Sunnah along with the Muslims’ actions along centuries indicate that they opened people’s minds and hearts before entering their lands and this understanding does not defy the concept of Jihad and its role in fighting oppression and elevating injustice. In other words, it is a mutual fighting and not one sided killing which means that non Muslims are not fought because of the mere fact that they are non Muslims. For this reason Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) prohibited desecrating place of worship of non Muslims or subjecting them to any kind of harm and even the non Muslim militant combatants who fight against Muslims in a war, if they back off from oppression and tyranny then Muslims have no right to continue fighting them. God says, “Fight in the way of God those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors.” (2:190)

COMMENTS:- Here the entire paragraph is deceitfully written to put a veil on the verses from Quran and narrations from Hadith which exhorts Muslims to become terrorist, inhumane and barbaric. At the very first place the verse used by the respectable Mufti, in view of many early scholars is abrogated. Ibn Jalalayan and Ibn Abbaas view the verse is abrogated by the verse of SWORD, i.e. 9:5. Ibn Jalalayan writes:-

And if they incline to peace (read silm or salm, meaning, ‘settlement’), then incline to it, and conclude a pact with them: Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘This has been abrogated by the “sword verse” [Q. 9:5]’; Mujāhid said, ‘This [stipulation] applies exclusively in the context of the People of the Scripture, for it was revealed regarding the Banū Qurayza; and rely on God, put your trust in Him; truly He is the Hearer, of words, the Knower, of actions.

So again in this case the verse is expired and cannot be used today, as Muslims are commanded to believe and practice verse 9:5. Another blatant lie which the grand Mufti repeated above is that, “non Muslims are not fought because of the mere fact that they are non Muslims.” I guess our Grand Mufti has not understood Quran well, as it clearly commands Muslims to fight all those who do not believe in Allah, so fighting Non-Muslims because they are Non-Muslims is allowed in Islam, read the verse 9:29 which says:-

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. [Quran 9:29]

In authentic hadiths of Muhammad, it is clearly narrated that the Prophet fought and allowed to fight his troops until the innocent people testify that only Islam is the true religion. It clearly proves that Islam allows to fight and kill innocent people because they are Non-Muslim. Regarding the verse 2:190 again I would like to say that the verse is abrogated in view of early scholars of Islam and is not in use, for reference read the Tafsir of Ibn Jalalayan.

Therefore Jihad is a noble war to fight injustice and lift oppression and tyranny and not a shooting spree of individuals as some uninformed people try to promote. If this noble war shifted away from legal guidelines which include all the necessary conditions, restrictions and elements which if applied would qualify fighting as an eligible noble war- if these rules are not applied then jihad is deemed illegal and simply turns to corruption on earth or betrayal and treachery because not every war is jihad and not all killings in war is permissible. Waging wars against non Muslims every where is not part of Islam or its noble teachings as this understanding is a sheer aberration from the correct authentic way of understanding the concept of Jihad in Islam. As for the above mentioned verse which says, “and when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful.” (9:5)

COMMENTS:- This is the height of  fabrication and dishonesty by such a revered scholar of Islam. His definition of Jihad is in contradiction with what Prophet of Islam taught. An Islamic site defines Jihad as:-

As regards jihad, it is to do one’s best to make the Word of Allah, The Most High, prevail, whether by hand, with money or with the tongue. The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) said: “Fight against the polytheists with your money, hands and tongue.” (Reported by Al-Nasa’i, with anauthentic chain of narrations.)

Jihad with hand is fighting against the polytheists and the people of the book and others, to make the Word of Allah prevail.

Allah says: “ And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.) (Al-Baqarah 2:193)

Allah further says: “ O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious).” (At-Tawbah 9:123)

Jihad with money is spending money in the path of Allah. Allah says: “March forth, whether you are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor), strive hard with your wealth and your lives in the Cause of Allah. This is better for you, if you but knew.” (At-Tawbah 9:41) [SOURCE]

So it would be safe to say that Jihad is killing of Non-Muslims until they embrace Islam and accept Muhammad as the Prophet of God, or pay Jizyah willingly. Waging war against Non-Muslims everywhere possible, is the basic teaching of Islam. Every killing of innocent Non-Muslims in name of Allah and his messenger is Jihad, and this is only the real and true concept of Jihad.

This verse has to do with those who breached their covenant, fought, killed, betrayed Muslims and had calculative moves to annihilate them and thus God commands Muslims to defend themselves against polytheists and God described these polytheists in the later verses as “They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors.” (9:10)

COMMENTS:- The verse 9:5 has nothing to do with anyone who breached the covenant with Muslims. In fact it is even hard to prove that Non-Muslims broke any such covenant. In view of Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, Chapter 9 was revealed to convert the remaining Non-Muslims in Arabia into Islam. He writes:-

If we keep in view the preceding background, we can easily find out the problems that were confronting the Community at that time. They were:

  1. to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam,
  2. to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,
  3. to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites, and
  4. to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world.

Apart from the above evidence, we have the context problem. As per the context of verse 9:5, it is Allah and Muhammad who declared the disassociation of treaty with Polytheists of Arabia, as commanded in Quran 9:1:-

[This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists

So we don’t find the verse saying that the Polytheists broke the treaty, but it was Muhammad who declared that after the grace period of four months no Non-Believer will be safe. Allah even commanded Muslims to kill those non-Muslims who were not deficient towards Muslims.

Conclusion:- In conclusion we can say that the majority of today’s scholars, Muftis and Maulvis are fooling ignorant Non-Muslims to convert them into fold of Islam. They play with words and misinterpret their own Holy Book. If anyone ask me to define Jihad based on the canonical scripture of Islam, I would certainly agree with the actions of Muslims, as they have carried out more than 20,000 terrorist attack since 9/11. The Prophet of Islam himself said, “The highest level of Islam is jihad in the path of Allah.” (Reported by Ahmed and Abu Dawud.) So without a shadow of doubt we can say that Islam is the most Inhumane religion still existing on face of earth, and the followers of Islam are the most barbaric species found today on earth.

Myth Busters

Adi Shankaracharya, Brihadaranyak Upnishad and Beef-Meat

2 Comments

Aadishankaracharya’s Sanskrit commentary on controversial kandika 6/4/18 of Brihadaranyak Upanishad is often cited in favour of prescription of beef. Some contend that even Shankara has accepted the partaking of rice cooked with beef for a couple desirous of begetting progeny well versed in Vedas. The actual words of the commentary are:

मांसमिश्रमौदन मानसौदनम्। तन्मान्स्नियमार्थमाह-औक्षेण वा मानसेन।उक्षा सेचनमर्थः पुन्गवस्तदीयं मांसम्।ऋषभस्ततोsप्तधिक वयास्तदीयमार्षभं मांसम्।

The meaning:

“Cooked rice mixed with mamsa is mansodana. The mansa is further specified as, that of ukshaa, ukshaa is a pungava potent of impregnation, or that of a rishabha of vayas exceeding that of ukshaa”

This is the literal meaning. Adishankaracharya has not clarified whether it is the meat of the animal or whether it is mamsa i.e. the fleshy part of a medicinal fruit/plant. In such a situation it has to be considered in light of context, whether it has to be meat of animal or fleshy part of a medicinal fruit/plant. This will be clear by considering the significance of sechan-samathah-pungavah and of ‘a rishabh of vayas exceeding that of ukshaa’. There is no difference of opinion about the meaning of sechan-samathah which is potent of impregnation. The meaning of the words ukshaa,pungavah, rishabh, and vayas have to be considered.

Meanings of Ukshaa as per Sanskrit-English Dictionary compiled by Moneir-Williams:

(1)    A bull(as impregnating the flock)

(2)    Name of Soma(as sprinkling or scattering small drops)

(3)    One of the eight chief medicines(rishabha)

Meaning of Rishabha:

(1)    A bull(as impregnating the flock)

(2)    A  kind of medicinal plant(shushruta,bhava-prakasha)

(3)    Carpopogons prureins (Charaka)

Just as in English the word ‘flesh’, besides meaning the muscular tissues of animal, also meaning the ‘soft pulpy part of fruit and vegetable’ and the word ‘meat’, besides meaning ‘flesh of an animal’, also means ‘anything eaten for nourishment’, the Sanskrit word mamsa also means ‘soft pulpy part of fruit’(readers can consult any dictionary). Similarly the peel is called the skin, the hard part is called the bone and the fibres are called ligaments or nerves.

There are several words in Sanskrit that may mean a particular animal or their body parts but primarily are names of medicinal plants. For example ajakarna-­ plant whose leaves resembles ear of goat (terminalia alata tomentosa)

Aukshena va rishabhena va

So the above verse stands for ‘either ukshaa or rishabha’

Both words if interpreted as animals refers to a bull and ukshaa does not means a calf as per the dictionaries. As such ukshaa and rishabha must be two different things. Hence by the conjunction of ‘either’ and ‘or’, these two words cannot mean the same i.e. a bull potent of impregnation. By adding the conjunction of ‘either’ and ‘or’ the seer of the mantra has intended two different things. Therefore ‘ukshaa’ refers to ‘soma’ and ‘rishabha’ refers to a medicinal plant as described in Charaka Samahita, Shushrut-Samahita and Bhava-Prakash

In Charaka-Samahita vol.1, chapter IV, 13, the first mahakashaya consisting of 10 medicines among which ‘rishabha’ is one is terned as ‘jivaniya’ or energy-increasing.

In the 38th chapter of sutra-sthana of Shushruta-Samhita, which is named as dravya-sangrahniiya, rishabhaka is one of several stems.

 In Bhava-prakash, purna-khand ‘rishabhaka’ is one of the eight medicaments. Among the various qualities of asta-varga, the most important are: brahna aphrodisiac; shukra-janaka semen-producing; and bala-vardhaka-tonic.

It is further mentioned there that the rishabha medicine is found in Himalayan peaks and it is shaped like the horns of a bull.

From several references quoted above as well as from verses 1,14,15,16 and 17 of the same chapter of Brihadaranyak Upnishad, it is simply clear that the ‘ukshaa’ and ‘rishabha’   in verse 18 could mean only medicinal plants referred to in Ayurvedic Texts.

The meaning of pungava are given by Monier-Williams in his Sanskrit-English dictionary as:

“a bull, a hero, eminent person, chief, a kind of drug”

The meaning of sechan-samarthah pungavah can be:

(1)    A stud bull potent in impregnation

(2)    A hero potent of impregnation

(3)    An eminent person potent in impregnation

(4)    A chief potent in impregnation

(5)    A kind of drug potent in impregnation

 

A herb that is potent of impregnation is called vajikarana or aphrodisiac in Ayurveda. Soma  is also an aphrodisiac herb. Now, readers should themselves consider which of these five meaning mentioned above will be more appropriate and in accordance with usksha sechan-samarthah.

The meaning of tatah api adhika vayah is ‘one exceeding the vayas than that’. The base of vayah is vayas. The meanings of the word vayas are given as under in Monier-Williams’ Sanskrit-English Dictionary:

(1)    Enjoyment,food, meal, oblation

(2)    Energy(both bodily and mental),strength,halth,vigour,power,might

(3)    More invigorating than that

Accordingly tatah api adhika-vayah will mean:

(1)    More enjoyable than that

(2)    More energetic than that

(3)    More invigorating than that

If we take it as the flesh of bovine bull here, potent of impregnation the meaning of rishabha tatah api adhika-vayah will be ‘the bovine rishabha capable of who is older in age than the ukshaa capable of impregnating the bovine species. But in reality the age of impregnation is growing youth and not advancing age.

In none of the dictionaries we find that the word ukshsaa means ‘a studbull of younger age potent of impregnation’ and rishabha means ‘a studbull of older age potent of impregnation’.

Taking the context into account, rishabh tatah api adhika-vayah will mean, ‘a medicine of astavarga called rishabha which is more invigorating even than the soma juice. This medicine is often prescribed by the Ayurvedic Practitioners for frequent use by the rich to keep the sexual powers undiminished. The medicines of astavarga are aphrodisiac which increases semen.

The prescription of beef is impossible because the bovine species is declared as inviolable in Vedas. There is no mention of meat in this section from its very first kandika among the items which ultimately result in purest satvika semen. And only the purest and healthy satvika semen is required for a progeny proficient in Vedas.

If, in the mansodana, the meat of a bull of any age potent of impregnation had been intended then in the upnishad the wordings would have been govansha ukshaa and govansha rishabh and Jagadguru Adi Shankaracharya to make it clear beyond doubt that the meat of the studbull is intended would also have written sechan samarthah govansh-pungavah tadiyam mansam.

The use of conjunction ‘va …………va’ i.e. ‘either……….or’ itself indicates that ukshaa and rishabha are not same and distinctly different. Therefore it is impossible that a highly learned personality like Adi Shankaracharya would interpret as a tautology the words ukshaa and rishabha  signifying ‘a studbull as long as it is potent of impregnation’, when the contradistinctive conjunction ‘either………or’ is used to constrast the word ukshaa and rishabha. It is certain that ukshaa sechan samartha pungavah as used in the commentary of Adi Shankaracharya means aphrdasiac drugs, ukshaa and rishabha of astavarga.

English, Myth Busters

Is Earth Egg Shaped as Per Qur’an?

6 Comments

Islamic scholars and apologists claim, “The Noble Quran is filled with scientific statements and notions.  These are statements of Allah Almighty describing how He created things on earth and in the Universe.  What’s most amazing is that all of these scientific statements and notions had been proven to be in perfect agreement with science and our modern-day scientific discoveries.  Allah Almighty made the Noble Quran be Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) Everlasting Divine Miracle and proof for Prophethood.  The Holy Book certainly stood the test of time 1,500 years ago with Its Claims, Prophecies and Miraculous language eloquence, and it does again and again in our day today with Its overwhelming agreement with science and discoveries that were not known to man 1,500 years ago.” [Source]

Earth is Egg Shaped as per Notable Islamic scholars like Zakir Naik

Earth is Egg Shaped as per Notable Islamic scholars like Zakir Naik

Let’s analyse this claim, in light of Lexicon Arabic Dictionaries, and narrations of Muhammad. I’ll start with quoting the verse, which claims earth to be egg shaped in Qur’an. See Qur’an Ch 79, Verse 30, which reads:-

Transliteration

Wal-arda baAAda thalikadahaha

Sahih International
And after that He spread the earth.

 I don’t know why Sahih International translates the word ‘Dahaha’ as Spread out here. They must have misunderstood the word, so we can rely on other Muslim Translators of Qur’an. Almost all other translation by Islamic scholars are as follows:

Muhsin Khan
And after that He spread the earth;
Pickthall
And after that He spread the earth,
Yusuf Ali
And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse);
Shakir
And the earth, He expanded it after that.
Dr. Ghali
And the earth, after that He flattened it (for life).

 This is really amazing, why not a single Scholar translates the word as Egg Shaped or Spherical etc. But yes, we do have scholars like Dr. Zakir Naik, and Bassam Zawadi who do translates the word ‘Dahaha’ as egg shaped. Now, to know whether their claim is true or not, we have to rely on Qur’anic dictionaries and Lexicon Arabic Dictionaries. Lets see how Lane Lexicon dictionary explains this word Dahaha. See the explanation below:-

Daha (., MM_b;,, 1,) first pers. Dahouth aor, yad’hoo inf. N. dahoo He spread; spread out, or forth; expanded; or extended; (S, Msb, K; ) a thing; (K; ) and, when said of God, the earth; (Fr, S, Mb, 1V; ) As also daha first pers. dahaithu (K in art. daha) aor. yaad’heae inf. n. dahae: (Msb, and K in art. dahae : ) or He (God) made the earth wide, or ample; as explained by an Arab woman of the desert to Sh: (TA : ) also, said of an ostrich, (S, TA,) he expanded, and made wide, (TA,) with his foot, or leg, the place where he was about to deposit his eggs: (S, TA : ) and, said of a man, he spread, &c., and made plain, even, or smooth. (TA in art. dhaha) [Source]

So, it is not egg as Few Islamic apologists claim, it is the place which Ostriches expand or stretch to lay eggs.  Daha does not mean eggs of Ostrich, but yes it is the laying place of the egg. Other meanings as per this above quote is, He spread out, or forth, or Expanded etc. None of these meanings resemble to the shape of Earth. Another dictionary which is quoted by Answering-Christianity team, to prove the word ‘Daha’ mean ‘Egg Shaped’body is Lisan Al Arab. Let’s also see what this dictionary says.

Lisan Al Arab says:– الأُدْحِيُّ و الإدْحِيُّ و الأُدْحِيَّة و الإدْحِيَّة و الأُدْحُوّة مَبِيض النعام في الرمل , وزنه أُفْعُول من ذلك , لأَن النعامة تَدْحُوه برِجْلها ثم تَبِيض فيه وليس للنعام عُشٌّ . و مَدْحَى النعام : موضع بيضها , و أُدْحِيُّها موضعها الذي تُفَرِّخ فيه .ِ

English Translation:- Translation: Al-udhy, Al-idhy, Al-udhiyya, Al-idhiyya, Al-udhuwwa:The place in sand where an ostrich lays its egg. That’s because the ostrich spreads out the earth with its feet then lays its eggs there, an ostrich doesn’t have a nest.

The above definition, again support my claim. It proves that Daha is the place on Earth, where Ostriches lays egg. Now, we will see another dictionary. It is Wehr-Coman Dictionary, pg 273 . It says:-

Daha-  To spread out, flatten, Level,  unroll. Here is the proof.

Daha

I think it must be clear by now that this claim is a hoax by Islamic scholars to fool people, all the Arabic dictionaries translates the word ‘Dahaha’ referring to a flat surface. Even if we accept that the word ‘Dahaha’ means ‘Egg Shaped’ or ‘Ostrich Egg’, then see how drastically the meaning of the complete verse changes:

The verse in Arabic says: Wal-arda baAAda thalikadahaha (Let us break this verse, and read it word-to-word with its meaning)

wal-arḍa – And the Earth

baʿda – after

dhālika – that

daḥāhā – Egg Shaped (Ostrich Egg)

Does this verse make any sense? If yes, then keep believing that Earth is Egg shaped as per Quran, because we can only show some open minded, and rational people the truth. It is not for those who are brain washed by Zakir Naik.

Myth Busters

अँग्रेजी भाषा के बारे में भ्रम

2 Comments

bhasha ki gulami‎

*** अँग्रेजी भाषा के बारे में भ्रम ***

आज के मैकाले मानसों द्वारा अँग्रेजी के पक्ष में तर्क और उसकी सच्चाई :

1. अंग्रेजी अंतर्राष्ट्रीय भाषा है:: दुनिया में इस समय 204 देश हैं और मात्र 12 देशों में अँग्रेजी बोली, पढ़ी और समझी जाती है। संयुक्त राष्ट संघ जो अमेरिका में है वहां की भाषा अंग्रेजी नहीं है, वहां का सारा काम फ्रेंच में होता है। इन अंग्रेजों की जो बाइबिल है वो भी अंग्रेजी में नहीं थी और ईशा मसीह अंग्रेजी नहीं बोलते थे। ईशा मसीह की भाषा और बाइबिल की भाषा अरमेक थी। अरमेक भाषा की लिपि जो थी वो हमारे बंगला भाषा से मिलती जुलती थी, समय के कालचक्र में वो भाषा विलुप्त हो गयी। पूरी दुनिया में जनसंख्या के हिसाब से सिर्फ 3% लोग अँग्रेजी बोलते हैं। इस हिसाब से तो अंतर्राष्ट्रीय भाषा चाइनिज हो सकती है क्यूंकी ये दुनिया में सबसे ज्यादा लोगों द्वारा बोली जाती है और दूसरे नंबर पर हिन्दी हो सकती है।

2. अँग्रेजी बहुत समृद्ध भाषा है:: किसी भी भाषा की समृद्धि इस बात से तय होती है की उसमें कितने शब्द हैं और अँग्रेजी में सिर्फ 12,000 मूल शब्द हैं बाकी अँग्रेजी के सारे शब्द चोरी के हैं या तो लैटिन के, या तो फ्रेंच के, या तो ग्रीक के, या तो दक्षिण पूर्व एशिया के कुछ देशों की भाषाओं के हैं। उदाहरण: अँग्रेजी में चाचा, मामा, फूफा, ताऊ सब UNCLE चाची, ताई, मामी, बुआ सब AUNTY क्यूंकी अँग्रेजी भाषा में शब्द ही नहीं है। जबकि गुजराती में अकेले 40,000 मूल शब्द हैं। मराठी में 48000+ मूल शब्द हैं जबकि हिन्दी में 70000+ मूल शब्द हैं। कैसे माना जाए अँग्रेजी बहुत समृद्ध भाषा है ?? अँग्रेजी सबसे लाचार/ पंगु/ रद्दी भाषा है क्योंकि इस भाषा के नियम कभी एक से नहीं होते। दुनिया में सबसे अच्छी भाषा वो मानी जाती है जिसके नियम हमेशा एक जैसे हों, जैसे: संस्कृत। अँग्रेजी में आज से 200 साल पहले This की स्पेलिंग Tis होती थी। अँग्रेजी में 250 साल पहले Nice मतलब बेवकूफ होता था और आज Nice मतलब अच्छा होता है। अँग्रेजी भाषा में Pronunciation कभी एक सा नहीं होता। Today को ऑस्ट्रेलिया में Todie बोला जाता है जबकि ब्रिटेन में Today. अमेरिका और ब्रिटेन में इसी बात का झगड़ा है क्योंकि अमेरीकन अँग्रेजी में Z का ज्यादा प्रयोग करते हैं और ब्रिटिश अँग्रेजी में S का, क्यूंकी कोई नियम ही नहीं है और इसीलिए दोनों ने अपनी अपनी अलग अलग अँग्रेजी मान ली।

3. अँग्रेजी नहीं होगी तो विज्ञान और तकनीक की पढ़ाई नहीं हो सकती:: दुनिया में 2 देश इसका उदाहरण हैं की बिना अँग्रेजी के भी विज्ञान और तकनीक की पढ़ाई होटी है- जापान और फ़्रांस । पूरे जापान में इंजीन्यरिंग, मेडिकल के जीतने भी कॉलेज और विश्वविद्यालय हैं सबमें पढ़ाई “JAPANESE” में होती है, इसी तरह फ़्रांस में बचपन से लेकर उच्चशिक्षा तक सब फ्रेंच में पढ़ाया जाता है।
हमसे छोटे छोटे, हमारे शहरों जितने देशों में हर साल नोबल विजेता पैदा होते हैं लेकिन इतने बड़े भारत में नहीं क्यूंकी हम विदेशी भाषा में काम करते हैं और विदेशी भाषा में कोई भी मौलिक काम नहीं किया जा सकता सिर्फ रटा जा सकता है। ये अँग्रेजी का ही परिणाम है की हमारे देश में नोबल पुरस्कार विजेता पैदा नहीं होते हैं क्यूंकी नोबल पुरस्कार के लिए मौलिक काम करना पड़ता है और कोई भी मौलिक काम कभी भी विदेशी भाषा में नहीं किया जा सकता है। नोबल पुरस्कार के लिए P.hd, B.Tech, M.Tech की जरूरत नहीं होती है। उदाहरण: न्यूटन कक्षा 9 में फ़ेल हो गया था, आइंस्टीन कक्षा 10 के आगे पढे ही नही और E=hv बताने वाला मैक्स प्लांक कभी स्कूल गया ही नहीं। ऐसी ही शेक्सपियर, तुलसीदास, महर्षि वेदव्यास आदि के पास कोई डिग्री नहीं थी, इनहोने सिर्फ अपनी मात्रभाषा में काम किया।
जब हम हमारे बच्चों को अँग्रेजी माध्यम से हटकर अपनी मात्रभाषा में पढ़ाना शुरू करेंगे तो इस अंग्रेज़ियत से हमारा रिश्ता टूटेगा।

क्या आप जानते हैं जापान ने इतनी जल्दी इतनी तरक्की कैसे कर ली ? क्यूंकी जापान के लोगों में अपनी मात्रभाषा से जितना प्यार है उतना ही अपने देश से प्यार है। जापान के बच्चों में बचपन से कूट- कूट कर राष्ट्रीयता की भावना भरी जाती है।

* जो लोग अपनी मात्रभाषा से प्यार नहीं करते वो अपने देश से प्यार नहीं करते सिर्फ झूठा दिखावा करते हैं। *

दुनिया भर के वैज्ञानिकों का मानना है की दुनिया में कम्प्युटर के लिए सबसे अच्छी भाषा ‘संस्कृत’ है। सबसे ज्यादा संस्कृत पर शोध इस समय जर्मनी और अमेरिका चल रही है। नासा ने ‘मिशन संस्कृत’ शुरू किया है और अमेरिका में बच्चों के पाठ्यक्रम में संस्कृत को शामिल किया गया है। सोचिए अगर अँग्रेजी अच्छी भाषा होती तो ये अँग्रेजी को क्यूँ छोड़ते और हम अंग्रेज़ियत की गुलामी में घुसे हुए है। कोई भी बड़े से बड़ा तीस मार खाँ अँग्रेजी बोलते समय सबसे पहले उसको अपनी मात्रभाषा में सोचता है और फिर उसको दिमाग में Translate करता है फिर दोगुनी मेहनत करके अँग्रेजी बोलता है। हर व्यक्ति अपने जीवन के अत्यंत निजी क्षणों में मात्रभाषा ही बोलता है। जैसे: जब कोई बहुत गुस्सा होता है तो गाली हमेशा मात्रभाषा में ही देता हैं।

॥ मात्रभाषा पर गर्व करो…..अँग्रेजी की गुलामी छोड़ो ॥

!!! जय भारत माता !!!

English, Myth Busters, Rishi Dayanand

Arya Invasion an Analysis

1 Comment

myth of arya invasion

Arya Invasion an Analysis

 

 

Where man was first created?

 

 

Q.~ In Trivishtap otherwise called Tibet. Q. Were all men of one class or divided into different classes at the time of Creation?

 

A.~ They all belonged to one class, viz., that of man, but later on they were divided into two main classes, – the good and the wicked. The good were called Aryas and the wicked Dasyus. Says the Rig Veda, “Do ye know (there are) two classes of men – Aryas and Dasyus.” The good and learned were also called Devaas, while the ignorant and wicked, such as dacoits (robbers), were called Asura. TheAryas were again divided into four Classes, viz., Braahmana (teachers), Kshatriya (rulers or protectors), Vaishya (merchants) and Shuudra (labourers). Those who belonged to the first three classes being educated and bearing good character, were called Dwijas – twice born; whilst the fourth Class was so named because of being composed of ignorant and illiterate persons. They were also called Anaryas – not good. This division into Aryas and Shudras is supported by the Atharva Veda wherein it is said “Some are Aryas, others Shuudras.

 

Q- How did they happen to come here (to India) then?

 

 

A.~ When the relations between the Aryasand Dasyus, or between Devas and Asuraas, (i.e., between the good and learned, and the ignorant and wicked) developed into a constant state of warfare, and serious troubles arose, the Aryas regarding this country as the best in the whole earth emigrated her and colonized it. For this reason it is calledAryavarta – the abode of the Aryas.

 

Q. What are the boundaries of Aryavarta?

 

A.~ “It is bounded on the North by the Himalayas, on the South by the Vindyachal mountains, on the East and West by the sea. It has also on its West the Sarasvati River (Sindh or Attock) and on the East the Dhrisvati river also called the Brahmaputra which rises from the mountain east of Nepal, and passing down to the east of Assam and the west of Burma, falls into the Bay of Bengal in the Southern Sea (Indian Ocean). All the countries included between the Himalaya on the North and Vindhyachal mountains on the south as far as Rameshwar are called Aryavarta, because they were colonized and inhabited by Devas (the learned) and Aryas – the good and the noble.” Manu 2: 22, 17.

 

Q. What was the name of this country before that , and who were its oboriginal inhabitants?

 

A.~ It had no name, nor was it inhabited by any other people before the Aryas(settled in it) who sometime after creation came straight down here from Tibet and colonized this country.

 

Q. Some people say that they came from Iran (Persia) and hence they were called Aryas. Before the Aryas came to this country it was inhabited by savages whom the Aryas called Asuraas and Raakshasas as (demons), while they called themselves Devatas (gods). The wars between the two were called by the name Devaasura Sangraam as in the historical romances. Is this true?

 

A.~ It is absolutely wrong. The Veda declares what we have already repeated, i.e., “The virtuous, learned, unselfish, and pious men are called Aryas, while the men of opposite character such as docoits, wicked, unrighteous and ignorant persons are called Dasyus.”RIG VEDA 2: 51, 8. Besides , “The Dwijaas ( the twice-born) – Braahmanaas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyaas – are called Aryas, while the Shuudraas are called Anaaryas, or Non-Aryas.”ATHARVA VEDA19:62. In the face of these Vedic authorities how can sensible people believe in the imaginary tales of the foreigners. In the Devaasura wars, Prince Arjuna and King Dashratha and others of Aryavartaused to go to the assistance of the Aryas in order to crush the Asuras. This shows that the people living outside Aryavarta were called Dasyus and Malechhaas; because whenever those people attacked Aryas living on the Himalayas, the kings and rulers of Aryavarta, went to help the Ayas of the north, etc.

 

But the war which Ram Chandra waged in the south against Ravan – the king of Ceylon – is called not by the name of Devaasura war but by that of Raama-Raavana war or the war between the Aryas and Raakhasas. In no Sanskrit book – historical or otherwise – it is recorded that the Aryas emigrated here from Iran, fought with and conquered the aborigines, drove them out, and became the rulers of the country. How can then these statements of the foreigners be true? Besides, Manu also corroborates our position. He says, “The countries other than Aryavarta are called Dasyusand Malechha countries.”MANU 10:45, 2:23. The people living in the north-east, north, north-west were called Raakshasas. You can still see that the description of Raakshasas given therein tallies with the ugly appearance of the negroes of today. The people living in the antipodes of Aryavarta were called Nagas, and their country Pataalabecause of being situated under the feet (of those living in Aryavarta). Their kings belonged to the Naaga dynasty taking their name from that of the founder who was called Naga. His daughter Ulopi was married to Prince Arjuna. From the time of kshvaaku to that of Kauravaas and Paandavaas, the Aryas were the sovereign rulers of the whole earth, and the Vedas were preached and taught more or less even in countries other than Aryavarta. Brahma was the first of the literati. His son was called Virat whose son was Manu who had ten sons, Marichi etc., who were progenitors of seven kings beginning with Swayambhava whose off-springs were the kings beginning with Ikshvaaku. This Ikshvaaku colonized Aryavarta and was its first king. At the present moment, let alone governing foreign countries, the Aryas through indolence, negligence and mutual discord and ill-luck do not possess a free, independent, uninterrupted and fearless rule even over their own country. Whatsoever rule is left to them, is being crushed under the heel of the foreigner.

 

There are only a few independent states left. When a country falls upon evil days, the natives have to bear untold misery and suffering. Say what you will, the indigenous native rule is by far the best. A foreign government, perfectly free from religious prejudices, impartial towards all – the natives and the foreigners – kind, beneficent and just to the natives like their parents though it may be, can never the people perfectly happy. It is extremely difficult to do away with the differences in language, religion, education, customs and manners, but without doing that the people can never fully effect mutual good and accomplish their object. It behoves all good people to hold in due respect the teachings of the Veda and Shaastras and ancient history.

 

English, Myth Busters, Rishi Dayanand, Social Reform

Are even women and Shudraas (low-caste) allowed to study the Vedas?

Leave a comment

 

women and shudras

Are even women and Shudraas (low-caste) allowed to study the Vedas?

Q- What shall we do if they take to reading? Besides, there is no authority for their doing so. On the other hand, is condemned by the Vedas thus – Shruti “Never should women and the Shoodraas study.”

A. ~ All men and women ( i.e., the whole of mankind) have a right to study. You may go and hang yourselves. As for the text you have quoted, it is of you own fabrication, and is no where to be found either in the Vedas or any other authoritative book. On the other hand, here is a verse from the Yajur Veda that authorizes all men to study the Veda and hear it read:- God says:- “As I have given this Word (i.e., the four Vedas) which is the word of salvation* for all making [Here some one might say that by the word Jana, which we have translated into all mankind, only Dwijas are meant, as in the Smritis** ( so-called) they alone are allowed to study the Veda but not women and Shoodraas, the other half of this verse answers this objection by adding] – Braahmans, Kshatryas, Vaishyaas, Shoodraas, women, servants, aye, even the lowest of the low, so should you all do, i.e., teach and preach the Veda and thereby acquire true knowledge, practise virtue, shun vice, and consequently being freed from all sorrow and pain, enjoy true happiness.” YAJUR VEDA 26:2.

Now sir, shall we believe your word or God’s ? God’s, certainly. He who will still refuse to believe, (that women and Shoodraas are entitled to Veda learning) shall be called a Nastika (an infidel) because Manu has said, “He is an infidel who is a reviler and disbeliever of the Veda.” Does not God desire the welfare of the Shoodraas? Is God prejudiced that he should allow the study of the Veda to Dwijas and disallow it to Shoodraas?

Had God meant that the Shoodraas should not study the Veda or hear it read, why should He have created the organs of speech and hearing in their bodies? As He has created the sun, the moon, the earth, the water, the fire, the air, various food and drinks, etc., for all, so has He revealed the Veda for all. Wherever it is declared (in the books of Rishis) that the Shoodraas are debarred from the study of the Veda, the prohibition simply amounts to this that he, that does not learn anything even after a good deal of teaching, being ignorant and destitute of understanding, is called a Shoodraa. It is useless for him to learn, and for others to teach him any longer. As for you debarring women from education, that only shows your ignorance, selfishness and stupidity. Here is an authority from the Veda entitling girls to study:- “Just as boys acquire sound knowledge and culture by the practice of Brahmacharya and then marry girls of their own choice, who are young , well educated, loving and of like temperament, should girl practice Brahmacharya study the Veda and other sciences and thereby perfect her knowledge, refine her character, give her hand to a man of her own choice, who is young, learned and loving.” ATHARVA VEDA 11, 14:3, 18.

 

Q-Should even women read the Veda?

 

A. ~ Certainly. Here is an authority from the Shraut Sutra: “(In the Yajna) let the wife recite this mantra.”

Were she not a scholar of the Veda as well as of other Shaastraas, how could she in the Yajna receive the Vedic Mantraas with proper pronunciation and accent, as well as speak Sanskrit?

In ancient India, Gaargi and other ladies, – jewels among women – were highly educated and perfect scholars of the Veda. This is clearly written in the Shatpatha Brahmana. Now if the husband be well-educated and the wife ignorant or vice versa, there will be a constant state of warfare in the house. Besides of women were not to study, where will the teachers, or Girls’ schools come from? Nor could ever the affairs of the state, the administration of justice, and the duties of married life, that are required of both husband and wife [such as keeping each other happy, the wife having the supreme control over all household matters] be carried on properly without thorough education ( of men and women).

The Kshatriyaas women in ancient India, used to be well-acquainted even with the military science, or how could they have gone with their male relations and fought side by side with them in battle-fields, as Kekai did with her royal husband Dasharatha. Therefore it behoves Braahman and Kshatriyaa women to acquire all kinds of knowledge, and Vaishya women to learn trace, and the mechanical arts and the like, and Shoodraa women, the art of cooking, etc.

As men should, at the very least, learn the science of Grammar, Dharma and their profession or trade, likewise should women learn Grammar, Dharma*, Medical Science, Mathematics and the mechanical arts at the least, for without a knowledge of these, ascertainment of truth, proper behaviour towards their husbands and other people, bearing of good children, their proper up-bringing and instruction, proper management of the household affairs, preparation of foods and drinks in accordance with the requirements of Medical Science, ( so that they may act on the system like good medicine and keep the whole family free from disease and thereby make them happy), can never be effected.

Without a knowledge of mathematics, they can never keep accounts of their household properly; and without a knowledge of true religion, as taught by the Veda and other Shaastraas, they cannot know what God and Dharma are, and can never, therefore, escape going astray from the path of rectitude.

Verily, those parents have done their duty and, therefore, a thousand thanks to them, who have their best to make their children practise Brahmacharya, acquire knowledge, and perfect their character, which al help to develop both their bodies and minds to the fullest extent, so that they may accord a just and righteous treatment to all – parents, husbands, wives, fathers -in-laws, mothers-in-laws, their king and fellow subjects, neighbours, friends and offspring, etc.

Knowledge alone is the inexhaustible treasure; the more you spend it, the more it grows. All other treasures run out by spending, and the claimants inherit their shares as well. Thieves cannot steal this treasure, nor, can anyone inherit it.

It is the chief duty of the rulers, as well as of the ruled, to protect and augment this treasure.

Manu says:- “The State should make it compulsory for all to send their children of both sexes to school at the said* period and keep them there for the said** period till they are thoroughly well-educated. It should be made a penal offence to break this law. In other words, let no child – whether a girl or a boy – be allowed to stay in the house*** after the 8th year; let him remain in the seminary till his Samaavartana time, [i.e. the period of Return home****] and let no one be allowed to marry before that.” MANU 7:152.

Again says Manu:- “Of all gifts (that one can bestow on another) – water, food, animals ( as cows, and buffaloes), sesamum seeds, land, clothes, gold, and butter, etc. – that of the knowledge of the Veda is the best and the noblest.” MANU 4:233

Let all, therefore, try their utmost to disseminate knowledge with all their heart, with all their soul, and with all the material resources at their command.

That country alone prospers where Brahmacharya is properly practised, knowledge is keenly sought after, and the teachings of the Vedic religion followed.

English, Myth Busters

Palmistry: A bunch of rubbish

Leave a comment

palmistry

 

Palmistry is called a technique for characterization and the foretelling the future through the study of Palm. Palmist promise to tell  about your age, knowledge, heath , money, children, joy, sorrow, success and defeat, journey to foreign country etc etc. Lot of people believes in the palmistry including uneducated to well educated. It is believed that future as well as past can be decoded thru the palmistry. A lot of books can be found on this subject. You will found thousands of palmist and millions of people believing in the palmist.

 

  1. Beauty of the subject is that palmist till yet could not decide that lines of which hand should be considered for judging the past and future of someone.  Few say that lines of left hand should be considered while other says that lines of right hand provide more authenticated information. Some says that right hand is more active so lines of right hand should be considered while other believes that left hand is more close to heart so that should be taken into consideration. Another view is that lines of both hands should be read.

 

  1. There is lack of consensus on which lines denotes what.

 

  1. These lines on palm keep on changing time to time. In that case there is no logic in consulting the palmist. As lines are changeable so the future and the past cannot be denoted by these lines and there is not logic to ask about the present as we all know about our present.

 

 

  1. Could everyone who died in the World Trade Center have had a “life” line that was abbreviated?

 

  1. Palm reading works the same way a whole heap of other nonsense works.

It relies on the two principles:
– Cold reading
– Telling the sucker what they came to here.
The contents of your hand only provide a framework on which to spin the tale..

 

  1. Look at the tricks of the palmists they will not confirm something after looking at your lines.  They say that along palm lines are not the deciding factors of the fate.

 

  1. Palm reading’ is a rubbish. Its main objective it to cut pockets of the clients. Palm reader persuades the client for giving money to palm reader for the uttering garbage. Actually this is an insult to the intelligence to the customer of the palmist