{"id":965,"date":"2015-10-25T06:41:33","date_gmt":"2015-10-25T06:41:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/vedkabhed.com\/index.php\/2015\/10\/25\/i-am-just-a-muslim-debunking-i-am-non-arab-muslim-part-1\/"},"modified":"2026-03-28T06:41:42","modified_gmt":"2026-03-28T06:41:42","slug":"i-am-just-a-muslim-debunking-i-am-non-arab-muslim-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vedkabhed.com\/index.php\/2015\/10\/25\/i-am-just-a-muslim-debunking-i-am-non-arab-muslim-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"I am just a Muslim \u2013 Debunking \u2018I am non-Arab Muslim\u2019 Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

written by Abd al Muhsin al Hindy<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Everyday an illiterate Isl\u0101mophobe comes up with some concocted material claiming to expose Isl\u0101m and show the so-called true face of Isl\u0101m, but this helps Muslims in clearing the vast illiteracy, misunderstanding of Isl\u0101m and ill-will against Muslims and Isl\u0101m. What an irony!<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

To proceed:<\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/span>his ‘failed’ article, authored by Agniveer\/Satyagni \u2013 the fanactic extremist Hind\u016b, broadly and in an overall manner alleges Isl\u0101m to be racist, promoting racism and discrimination against various segments of society based on race, ethnicity and colour. I believe, this article is the best example of ‘criticism’ just for the sake of criticizing with no substance or truth in it; meaning the article is conjectural and concocted, which has nothing to do with reality, factuality or truth. Simply put, Isl\u0101m is emphatically opposed<\/span> to racism, tribalism, and other forms of discrimination based on race, colour, and ethnicity.
\n<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This article was written by the Isl\u0101mophobe (i.e. Satyagni)<\/em> who is but the same fanatic, zealot\u00a0 Protestant Hind\u016b (i.e Agniveer)<\/em> trying to keep alive the legacy of his cult that is ‘Hatred’<\/em><\/strong> and ‘Lies’<\/em><\/strong>, \u00a0and is up with another ridiculously unscholarly and fact-less article (‘can it be even called an article’?) <\/em>Nonetheless this hapless article will help Muslims clear misconceptions and expose the deception, inconsistency of Isl\u0101mophobes.
\n<\/em>Let’s start scrutinizing it\u2026<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Satyagni \/ Agniveer<\/strong> the hate-monger wrote \u2013 <\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

“I am a Muslim. A proud Muslim. But I am not Arab. I represent the entire non-Arab Muslim Ummah (community). I am the\u00a0‘black’<\/strong>\u00a0Muslim of Zanzibar. I am the\u00a0‘brown’<\/strong>\u00a0Muslim of Indian sub-continent which is the largest congregation of Muslims in the world. I provide the largest population base as well as intellectual leadership to Islam. I am home to greatest scholars and volunteers of Islam.And yes I am indeed proud of who I am.\u00a0A Muslim.<\/strong>\u00a0Worshipper of Allah and his great last Prophet Muhammad.\u00a0I live for Islam. I shall die for Islam.<\/strong>\u00a0I have laid my life for Islam. I can even take life for Islam.”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Muslims are found all over the world, which seemingly is a thorn in the neck of these Isl\u0101mophobes which is clearly visible from the above quote. Our Protestant Hind\u016b Isl\u0101mophobe, starts his ridiculous ‘saga’ <\/em><\/strong>in a very deceptive way, distinguishing Muslims on ethnic and racial basis! In fact this article seems to be written in a similar vein, that of Britishers (Britons) following their principle of ‘divide and conquer\/rule’. \u00a0Seemingly this Isl\u0101mophobe is trying to exploit the so-called non-Arab Muslims, so as to divide the ancient unity amongst Muslims in regards to race, colour and ethnicity. This is another pathetic trick plagiarized from Christian Britishers, these ploys have been used on Muslims by missionaries, Orientalists and other Isl\u0101mophobes but all their efforts were in vain. Why?\u00a0 It will be evident in the article as the reader reads by.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Muslims never discriminate or categorize people on colour or racial basis; in fact the dialogue of ‘race’ and racism has never been a part of any discourses amongst Muslims for centuries, as ‘race’ never ever mattered to Isl\u0101m or Muslims. In the words of Paul Hardy – in his paper “Isl\u0101m and the race question”,<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span>“THE RACIALISED DISCOURSE<\/strong> in our own era has over the centuries proven alien<\/span> to the societies<\/strong>
\nwhich developed under the inspiration of Islam<\/strong>.” \u2013 [Paul Hardy, Isl\u0101m and the race question<\/em>, pg.1, M.A.T, 2002, Cambridge-UK]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Paul Hardy, very well states the historical fact, that never had Isl\u0101mic societies undergone any sought of discourse, controversy, rebellion or anything with regards to ‘racism’ due to the absence of it (racism)<\/em>, in societies. Moreover Isl\u0101mic societies since the advent of Prophet Mu\u1e25ammad (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam)<\/em> have always been made-up of variant people from different cultures and regions but never did Muslims or Isl\u0101m at any point of time had anything called “racism”. Paul very well puts the fact,<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0“Although Islamic society was multi-racial<\/span><\/strong> from the beginning, none of the regions where the religion became dominant did the concept of race enter Muslim consciousness. In fact, Arabic had no word this time which would correspond to the semantic range covered by the English word ‘race’<\/strong><\/span>.” \u2013 [ibid pg.1]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0And further, Paul goes on to put another jaw-breaking fact, under the sub-heading “The Egalitarian consciousness of Islam”<\/em> which crushes the claims of Isl\u0101mophobes brutally, and explicitly reveals their unfounded allegations. He writes \u2013<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0“Wherever Islam put out down roots<\/strong><\/span>, Muslims grew to believe that discriminatory exclusion based on race was fundamentally alien to the spirit of their faith<\/span><\/strong><\/span>. This is understandable, given that there is almost a logical connection between affirming the oneness of God and upholding and upholding the equality of human beings before Him<\/span>” \u2013[ibid pg. 2]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span>Isl\u0101m unlike other religions is a complete way of life (deen)<\/em> for the entire humanity and the core of Isl\u0101m is Monotheism, in a broad sense pure Monotheism is Isl\u0101m. And the egalitarianism of Isl\u0101m is due to two main reasons, firstly due to Isl\u0101mic Monotheism as stated by Paul and secondly due to it(Isl\u0101m) being a complete(deen<\/em>) way of life for entire humanity , not just for a fraction of people or a nation or a tribe but for everyone irrespective of gender, race, ethnicity or colour.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The speculation (read allegation<\/em>) of Isl\u0101mophobes, that Isl\u0101m is ‘racist’<\/em> or encourages ‘racist supremacy’<\/em> is simply debunked by quoting a verse from the noble Qur’\u0101n,<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you<\/strong><\/span>.”\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2013 [S\u016brah al-Hujur\u0101t (49):13]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This Ayah is enough to refute all the allegations of Islam being racist or discriminatory on the basis of ethnicity and colour. The Ayah states that nobility and honor can only be achieved from righteous deeds and pious-ness. Nowadays even few deviated Muslims imitating non-Muslims have started to show their so-called ‘patriotism’ for India by indulging in racist-like attacks on non-Indians. In fact all these instances of racism like behavior shown by few people are due to the filthy ‘nationalism’. Nonetheless we’ll be debunking all the points raised by our illiterate and deceptive Isl\u0101mophobe, Insh\u0101All\u0101h.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

We’ve just iterated few points refuting the allegations against the divinely glorious deen – Isl\u0101m. Now let’s move on to some other points and debunk and refute them one by one. Our illiterate blind-following protestant Hind\u016b Isl\u0101mophobe (Agniveer)<\/em> seemingly needs some baby lessons on Isl\u0101m- due to his pathetic conjectural allegations. .Muslims worship the One true Almighty God- All\u0101h, and none other than the particular ‘testimony of faith’ (Shah\u0101datayn)<\/em> itself is enough to prove our point and educate this blind-follower. The ‘testimonies of faith’ consists of ‘<\/em>‘Mu\u1e25ammadur ras\u016blull\u0101h’<\/em><\/strong> which clearly negates Prophet Mu<\/em>\u1e25ammad from being divine or something more than a human while affirming his messenger-ship. It seems that our Isl<\/em>\u0101mophobe ‘pupil’<\/em> did not dare to read the noble Qur’\u0101n as it explicitly states \u2013<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Say\u00a0(O Mu\u1e25ammad [sal-All\u0101hu ‘alayhi wa sallam])<\/em>: “I am only a man like you<\/span>.<\/span> It has been\u00a0revealed to me<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>that your Il\u0101h<\/span>(God)<\/em><\/span>\u00a0is One Il\u0101h\u00a0<\/span>(God \u2013
\n<\/span>i.e. All\u0101h)<\/em>.”\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 –\u00a0<\/strong>[S\u016brah al-Kahf (18) Ayat 110]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“And\u00a0Mu<\/span>\u1e25ammad\u00a0<\/span>[sal-All\u0101hu ‘alayhi wa sallam])<\/em>:\u00a0is no more than a Messenger<\/span>\u2026”\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 –\u00a0[S\u016brah Aal<\/span>-‘Imr\u0101n\u00a0(3) Ayat 144]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

There are tremendous amount of proofs but for the sake of brevity we’ve quoted few, people interested in it may visit (‘b.3<\/span>‘ <\/em><\/strong>Section of this article) \u2013<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0[\u00a0<\/strong>https:\/\/vedkabhed.com\/2014\/01\/01\/concept-of-god-in-arya-samaj-protestant-hinduism-part-1\/<\/a>\u00a0<\/span>]<\/strong>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And the last sentence(i.e. “I can even take life for Islam.”)<\/em> is a typical example from few ‘statements’ used for maligning Muslims and Isl\u0101m, this is the view of what image a protestant Hind\u016b has about a Muslim and what is his level of comprehension of Isl\u0101m. Such a statement can be uttered only a man perfectly illiterate in Isl\u0101m with being in a biased and prejudiced state of mind. Only a few verses from the noble Qur’\u0101n are enough to debunk this lie on Muslims.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“Because of that, We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or to spread mischief in the land \u2013 it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind<\/strong><\/span>. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by All\u0101h by committing the major sins) in the land!”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – [S\u016brah M\u0101’idah, Ayat 32]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

And, Mu\u1e25ammad Asad (Leopold Weiss) <\/em>commented \u2013 <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

“This moral truth is among those to which the first sentence of verse 15 of this surah alludes, and its succinct formulation fully explains the reason why the story of Cain and Abel is mentioned in this context. The expression “We have ordained unto the children of Israel”\u00a0does not<\/span>,<\/strong>\u00a0of course, detract from the universal validity of this moral: it refers merely to its earliest enunciation.”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Al-Im\u0101m Ab\u016b al-Fid’\u0101 Ibn Kathir expounds \u2013 <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“The Ayah states,\u00a0whoever<\/strong>\u00a0kills a soul without justification — such as in retaliation for murder or for causing mischief on earth — will\u00a0be as if he has killed all mankind, because there is no difference between one life and another<\/strong><\/span>.”<\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Al-A’mash and others said that Abu \u1e62\u0101li\u1e25 said that Abu Hurayrah said, “I entered on `Uthm\u0101n when he was under siege in his house and said, ‘I came to give you my support. Now, it is good to fight (defending you) O Leader of the Faithful!’ He said, ‘O Abu Hurayrah! Does it please you that you kill all people, including me’ I said, ‘No.’ He said, ‘If you kill one man, it is as if you killed all people<\/strong><\/span>.<\/span> Therefore, go back with my permission for you to leave. May you receive your reward and be saved from burden.’ So I went back and did not fight.”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Killing a soul except in retaliation for murder or for spreading corruption, mischief in lands (done by authorities \u2013 government)<\/em>, is likened to the killing of whole mankind, such is the gravity of the evil sin of killing in Isl\u0101m.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

And it’s expounded (on the verse)<\/em> in Tafh\u012bm as,<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

This means that the survival of human life depends on everyone respecting other human beings and in contributing actively to the survival and protection of others.<\/strong>
\nWhosoever kills unrighteously is thus not merely guilty of doing wrong to one single person, but proves by his act that his heart is devoid of respect for human life and of sympathy for the human species as such. Such a person, therefore, is an enemy of all mankind.<\/span><\/strong><\/span> This is so because he happens to be possessed of a quality which, were it to become common to all men, would lead to the destruction of the entire human race. The person who helps to preserve the life of even one person, on the other hand, is the protector of the whole of humanity, for he possesses a quality which is indispensable to the survival of mankind.<\/strong> \u2013 [Tafh\u012bm al-Qur’\u0101n, vol. 2, pg.156, 1989, IIPH]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

No , Isl\u0101m does not stop here but further goes on to state that its one of the most gravest and great\u00a0 sins from which there is no escape in regards to punishments \u2013 <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Narrated Anas bin M\u0101lik (radhi-yAll\u0101hu ‘anhu): The Prophet [sal-All\u0101hu ‘alayhi wa sallam] said, “The biggest of Al-Kab\u0101’ir (the great sins)<\/strong><\/span> are: (1) To join others as partners in worship with All\u0101h, (2) to murder a human<\/strong><\/span> being, (3) to be undutiful to one’s parents, and (4) to make a false statement,” or said, “to give a false witness.” – [Sah\u012bh al-Bukh\u0101r\u012b (9\/6871)Bk no. 78, \u00a0no.667].<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Narrated ‘Abdall\u0101h bin ‘Umar (radhi-yAll\u0101hu ‘anhu): <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“One of the\u00a0evil deeds<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0with bad consequence from which there is no escape for the one who is involved in it is to\u00a0kill someone unlawfully<\/span>.”<\/strong>
\n– [Sah\u012bh Al-Bukh\u0101r\u012b, Bk. 83, no.3]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Prophet Mu\u1e25ammad (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam)<\/em> said:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Avoid the seven Mawbiq\u0101t (destructive sins).<\/strong><\/span>They said O messenger of All\u0101h, what are they?<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

He (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam said): “Shirk with All\u0101h (associating partners and equals with him- associationism);<\/em> magic; killing of a soul which All\u0101h has declared forbidden for you except with just cause<\/strong><\/span>;\u2026”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – [Sah\u012bh Al-Bukh\u0101r\u012b, Kit\u0101b al-Was\u012byah no. 2766, Muslim Kit\u0101b al- \u012am\u0101n no.89]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Killing a soul except for a just cause means executing of murderers (criminals)<\/em> that too done by authorities under law, like the judicial authorities of a country.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Ash-Shaykh al-All\u0101mah Abd al-Az\u012bz bin ‘Abdall\u0101h Aal Ash-Shaykh, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, said –<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“Killing and terrorizing innocent people and the destruction of property are not condoned by Isl<\/strong>\u0101m<\/strong><\/span>. Attributing all these horrific incidents to Isl\u0101m is unjust<\/span>. Muslims should tell the truth and unveil falseness, and inform all people that Isl\u0101m is a religion of righteousness, betterment and progress<\/span>.”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

He also stated:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“Attributing to Isl\u0101m acts of individual or collective killings, bombings, destruction of properties and the terrorizing of peaceful people is unfair, because they are
\nalien<\/span><\/strong> to the divine religion<\/strong><\/span>.”<\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 [Published: 9 September 2005]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

The above verses, a\u1e25adith and quotes are enough for an unbiased, open-minded person to recognize and accept Isl\u0101m as a faith of mercy and righteousness. Now let’s have a brief look at the Protestant Hind\u016bs and their beliefs concerning some heinous acts legislated by the barbaric vedas. We’ve seen how protestant Hind\u016bs are ever zealous in maligning Isl\u0101m, alleging it to be ‘violent’ , intolerant but have the people seen the true ‘teachings’ of this self-claimed ‘ahinsac'(non-violent) religion? Let’s read the ‘unholy’ verses of their so-called Holy book ‘vedas’.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Intolerance and killing in vedas<\/span> –
\n<\/span><\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“Food to him<\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span>who knows the science of air, and to him who is the chief killer<\/strong><\/span>. <\/span>Homage to the expert in the construction of houses, and to their protector. Food to the wealthy, and to him who makes the wicked weep. Homage to him who abhors sin and to him who practices Virtue”
\n<\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0–\u00a0 [Yajurveda Ch 16, verse 39, pg.173, Tr. Devi Chand]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“We learned persons accept as our ruler, thee, the introducer of new plans for our advancement, the master of loyal subjects, the embodiment of virtue, the most advanced in noble qualities and acts,
\nthe queller of the irreligious<\/strong><\/span>, <\/span>the pure, the specimen of endurance, the master of prowess, and the helper and educator of all.”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – [Yajurveda Ch 7, verse 36, pg.77, Tr. Devi Chand]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0The verse quoted above speak for themselves, the second verse commands killing of irreligious and here this is one of the reasons why ‘learned person’<\/em><\/strong> are accepting, a ruler, due to his intolerance towards who are irreligious! While the first verse praises ‘Chief-killer’ by stating food to him who’s the chief killer! We need no more statements from the vedas; these amply put our point in place. And these are the verses from the book of a religion which often labels itself as ‘ahimsac’ (non-violent). Such cults and religions often label themselves as non-violent in order to hide the true face of their creed.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Killing irreligious foes in Vedas-<\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“O king, make progress<\/strong> in thy duty of administration<\/strong><\/span>, extend happiness to the virtuous. O terrible chastiser, burn down the irreligious foes.<\/strong><\/span> O splendid person, humiliate and consume utterly like dried up stubble, him, who encourages our foe.”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0– [Yajurveda, Ch 13, verse 12, pg.138, Tr. Devi Chand]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Above verse commands<\/strong> protestant Hind\u016b King<\/strong> to burn down irreligious foes like stubble, this is what protestant Hind\u016bs call ‘tolerance’. And this is reagarded as progress in the administrative duty of a Hind\u016b King! <\/strong>\u00a0We’ve always found Hind\u016bs criticizing Muslims and belittling them as barbarians, because few so-called Muslims rulers allegedly have been intolerant and have killed thousands of Hind\u016bs, while conquering India. This is the ‘Classical hypocrisy’<\/em><\/strong> of Hind\u016bs; they’ve always criticized people for being barbaric, intolerant and violent against Hind\u016bs, but what about these unholy verses from their so-called holy books? Isl\u0101m never allowed such barbaric acts , but if some Muslim indulge into such acts then he’s to be blamed not Isl\u0101m, but Isl\u0101mophobes like Agniveer have always blamed Isl\u0101m \u2013 this shows their bias, irrationality and unreasonable state of mind. But now we question, what about Hind\u016bism which quite evidently is commanding Hind\u016bs to kill innocents because they are irreligious?<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Burning of irreligious people! , still we find protestant Hind\u016bs adamantly criticizing Isl\u0101m and other faiths with so-called intolerance, extremism, fundamentalism and violence, when their religion itself is the paragon of such barbaric thing<\/span>s.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Satyagni \/ Agniveer<\/strong> wrote \u2013 <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“I was not always a Muslim. Some 1400 years ago, I was just a human being. My forefathers had been following Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. In the Indian subcontinent, I had been following the oldest religion of humankind. I had been doing so for generations since time immemorial.\u00a0If human civilization is 10,000 years old, I was Hindu for 10,000 years. If it is 100,000 years old, I was Hindu for 100,000 years. If it is 1.97 billion years old, I was Hindu for 1.97 billion years.<\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

But then something changed. And I rejected what I was following for thousands\/millions\/billions of years! The change was not easy.<\/strong> It is difficult to change habits of only a few years. And here, I was changing my very lifeline since inception of humanity!!”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Let us get it straight, Satyagni rhetorically (when Islamophobes cannot be factual due to lack of arguments and facts, they typically respond rhetorically) <\/em>is making statements void of facts and evidences (typical of him)<\/em>, it’s pretty amazing to see how without any evidence he states that 1400 years ago Muslims never existed, then goes on with his fact-less saga of ‘Hind\u016bism’ being ‘oldest religion of humankind’. Nope it isn’t over yet, the show is yet to begin, he (Satyagni) <\/em>further goes on to equal the age of Hind\u016bism with that of Humans civilization, which is quite ridiculous to people of reason, rationality, logicality and evidence.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0And lastly states ‘I was changing my very lifeline since inception of humanity’<\/em>. All these claims are unfounded and are myths solely based on whims and fiction usually propagated by Hind\u016b-Fascists. <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Myths promulgated by the myth-monger Agniveer:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Myth of Hind\u016bism being the religion of Mankind since its inception.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

2)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Myth that Muslims and Isl\u0101m are no more than 1400 years old. In fact the poor Isl\u0101mophobe is just stating the years passed by, since the advent of the final messenger, which too inaccurately its 1432 years, and these quacks claim to be ‘Arabic’ masters, hilarious!<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0We’ll expose both the myths but one by one, let’s first expose the blatant lie of Vedas being revealed at the inception of humanity (i.e Hinduism being the religion of mankind since inception of humanity)<\/em>; we’ll show our readers from the creedal text of protestant Hindus itself that, Vedas weren’t revealed at the inception of humanity.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Vedas weren’t revealed at inception of humanity: <\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

M\u016blshankar wrote:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

30. Was one man created in the beginning of Creation or more than one? <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

A.~ More than one; because souls, that on account of their previous good actions deserve to be born in the Aishwari – not the result of sexual intercourse – Creation, are born in the beginning of the world.<\/strong><\/span> It is said in the Yajur Veda, “(In the beginning) there were born many men as well as rishis, i.e.., learned seers of nature. They were progenitors of the human race.” On the authority of this Vedic text it is certain then that in the beginning of Creation hundreds and thousands of men were born.<\/strong><\/span> By observing nature with the aid of reason we come to the same conclusion, viz., that men are descended from many fathers and mothers (i.e., not from one father and one mother).<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0– [Satyarth Prak<\/span>\u0101sh, Ch 8, pg.264 Tr. Chiranjiva]<\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Elsewhere <\/span>M\u016blshankar also wrote –<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

36. Whose hearts did God reveal the Vedas in? <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

A.-“In the beginning, God revealed the four Vedas, Rig, Vayu, Sama, and Atharva, <\/span>to Agni, Vayu, A’ditya and Angira, respectively<\/strong><\/span>.” SHAPATHA BRAHMAN 11: 4,2.3. <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Q. Why should He have revealed the Vedas to those four men alone and not to others as well? That imputes favouritism to God. <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

A.- Among all men those four alone were purest in heart<\/strong><\/span>, therefore, God revealed the true knowledge to them only. <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – [Satyarth Prak<\/span>\u0101sh, Ch 7, pg.238, Tr. Chiranjiva]<\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0In the above, quoted passages, it is clear that Ishwar \u2013 the protestant Hind\u016b God, as per protestant Hind\u016b theology, ‘fashioned’ thousands of humans and later ‘revealed’ the vedas to four Rishis. Vedas could have been called to be revealed at inception of humanity if and only if they were revealed immediately as the humans were ‘fashioned’<\/span>, but from the above quotes it’s apparent that there was a huge ‘gap’<\/strong> between the inception of humanity and revelation of Vedas, and during this gap <\/strong>(time period) the so-called ‘created’ (‘fashioned’)<\/em> humans were busy doing various kind of deeds and were having a gala time, then Ishwar seemingly one day selected four amongst them and stated them to be with purest of hearts (as per protestant Hind\u016b theology)<\/em>. Hence the inception hypothesis propagated by poor satyagni\/Agniveer is disastrously refuted by his cult-leader- M\u016blshankar. This gap<\/strong> is the time period between which the humanity was fashioned, and the revelation of Vedas<\/span>, which is substantial<\/strong> amount of time, it’s during this time all the humans indulged in various deeds and acts, then some time later Ishwar chose four Rishis based on these deeds and acts, meaning those who did good deeds had pure hearts , while those who indulged in bad deeds had impure hearts(Or is it that Ishwar created the four Rishis with pure hearts and while others were not?, we don’t think this to be the case.)<\/em>.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0This explicitly and evidently proves that Vedic or Hind\u016b- religion, was alien to Humans<\/strong><\/span> before the revelation of ‘vedas’, which weren’t revealed at the inception of humanity but\u00a0 quite later, as per the protestant Hind\u016b theology. Hence the ‘assumption’ (lie)<\/em> of satyagni \u2013”And here, I was changing my very lifeline since inception of humanity!!”,<\/em> isn’t factual according to his own creedal textbook \u2013Satyarth Prak\u0101sh ,and nor were Vedas revealed at the inception of humanity.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Monotheism is the Oldest Religion<\/span>:<\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Monotheism is the oldest (in fact pre-eternal faith)<\/em> faith, followed by humans with a natural propensity toward it. And Isl\u0101m is pure Monotheism. It’s usually propagated by zealot Hind\u016bs and those infected by them that Hind\u016bism is the oldest religion existing today, this is a mere conjecture promulgated and propagated amongst novices and common people inorder to fool them. Hind\u016bism never was one of the old faiths forget being oldest, let us prove our point and quote some scholarly opinions. So what is the oldest in fact pre-eternal faith of humans? Well the subtitle states it, its Monotheism. Monotheism is the pre-eternal and the oldest faith followed by humans. Let’s start by quoting the Isl\u0101mic stance in brief, following it with, various scholarly opinions and statements which will eventually prove our point.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

The scholar of Isl\u0101m Ash-Shaykh Al-All\u0101mah N\u0101siruddeen al-Alb\u0101n\u012b briefly states the Isl\u0101mic stance and view-point in brief:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0“It is established in Isl\u0101m and the Sharee’ah that mankind in the beginning was a single nation upon true Tawheed<\/strong><\/span> then Shirk (associating partners with only One true God -loosely association-ism)<\/em> gradually overcame them (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and Sharee’ah)<\/em>.”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0– [Shaykh al-Alb\u0101n\u012b, Tadheer as-S\u0101jid min Ittikh\u0101dhil Qub\u016br il-Mas\u0101jid, p.101-106]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0And as the noble Prophet Mu\u1e25ammad (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam)<\/em> related from All\u0101h, that All\u0101h azz wa Jall said, <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“I created all my servants upon the true religion (Tawheed free from Shirk)<\/em>, then the devils came to them and led them astray from their true religion. They made unlawful to people that which I had made lawful for them, and they commanded them to associate in worship with Me that for which I had sent down no authority.” \u2013 [al-Musnad of A\u1e25mad]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0These evidences prove that as per Isl\u0101m humanity’s monotheistic concept of One God degenerated into idol-worship, man-worship, saint worship, and minor gods, due to various facts, for instance people started our venerating good monotheist and ultimately ended worshipping them. And we can see, somewhat similar to this even today, have a look at India where people like Dr. Ambekar , Shiv\u0101ji \u2026etc have been added to the pantheon of Gods , they are worshipped their statues have been erected, \u0101rtis of those idols, images are done , birthdays are celebrated. These people have been turned into Gods, there numerous such reasons why humanity from pure monotheism degenerated into polytheism, but just one is stated for the sake of brevity.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Isl\u0101m believes that humans beings started out as worshipping God alone then afterwards deviated into various forms of polytheism as mentioned above. Isl\u0101m holds that God sent Messengers to all the tribes and nations of the Earth to guide them back to the path of monotheism, as stated in the noble Qur’\u0101n:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0“And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation)<\/em> a Messenger (proclaiming)<\/em>:<\/span>
\n“Worship All\u0101h (Alone)<\/em>, and avoid (or keep away from)<\/em> T\u0101gh\u016bt <\/span><\/strong>(all false deities, i.e. do not worship anything besides All\u0101h)<\/em>.”\u00a0 – [S\u016brah an-Nahl (16): 36]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0And, thus we find that almost every religion today has been evolved into polytheism from pure Isl\u0101mic monotheism, though there are few religions or better say cults recently founded which haven’t evolved from monotheism but inherently are polytheistic, but almost every civilization and religion has been evolved from Monotheism, because once only monotheism existed all these religions stemmed out of it, degenerating into polytheism…etc. <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, we find amongst all of the so-called primitive tribes that have been discovered, the belief in One Supreme God.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

The Central America Mayans<\/strong> believe in One God who created everything, whom they call “Itzamna<\/span>“<\/strong> – [John Hinnels, ‘Dictionary of Religions’, pg. 93, Penguin Books: 1884]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0The Mende<\/strong> peoples of Sierra Leone in West Africa believe in One God who created the universe and spirits who they call “Ngewo<\/span>“<\/strong> \u2013 [ibid, pg.210]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0In the ancient Babylon<\/strong> the main deity of the city, “Marduk<\/strong><\/span>“, was seen as the Supreme God.- \u2013 [ibid, pg.204]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0In the Yoruba religion, followed by over 10 million people in West Africa (mainly Nigeria), there is One Supreme God, “Olorius\/Olodumare”<\/strong>
\n(The Lord of the Heavens)<\/em>. Nevertheless, modern Yoruba religion is characterised by a multitude of Orisha worship rites which thus render the religion closer to polytheism \u2013 from Monotheism to polytheism.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

One of the first Western scholars to acknowledge the significance of the trend from monotheism to extreme polytheism was Stephen Langdon of Oxford. Langdon took the view that the Sumerians were the oldest historic civilisation and noted:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0“In my opinion the history of the oldest civilisation of man is a rapid decline from monotheism to extreme polytheism<\/strong><\/span> and widespread belief in spirits. It is in a very true sense the history the fall of man.”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

– [Stephen H. Langdon, “Mythology of all Races,” in Semitic Mythology Journal (Vol. 5, Archaeological Institute of America: 1931), pg. xviii\/pg.18]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Chinese scholars of history sometimes divide their ancient period into three separate periods: first, the primal-ancient, second, the mid-ancient and thirdly, the near ancient, the first period roughly stretches from the 21st to the 12th century BCE. According to Ron Williams, who read Chinese, each of these periods possessed its own distinctive religious characteristics, and the first was clearly monotheistic. Williams also noted that: <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“In this period of Chinese history, God the Supreme Ruler was <\/strong>One and indivisible, incapable of change, having no equal, ruling absolutely and alone over all in heaven above and in Earth beneath<\/strong><\/span>. He did what He willed and no power was able to hinder Him, and His will was always right.”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

– [Ron Williams, “Early Chinese Monotheism,” a thesis paper presented before the Kelvin Institute (Toronto, 1938)]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0In the series journal “The Great Ages of Man”, one particular volume was published dealing with ancient China authored by Edward H. Schafer who noted:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“One of the oldest and certainly the greatest of deities was the Sky God Ti’en. In the very early days Ti’en was thought of as a great King in the sky, more magnificent than any earth bound kin. Later many viewed Ti’en as an impersonal dynamo, the source of energy that animated the world.”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0– [Edward H. Schafer, “Ancient China,” in The Great Ages of Man (New York: Time Life, 1967) pg. 58]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Another very important work on the early monotheism of ‘primitive people’<\/em> is that by Wilhelm Schmidt which, though originally a voluminous work in German, was published in 1930 in a condensed English translation as a single volume. Schmidt discovered in his studies that he found the primitive cultures at the lowest cultural levels had the purer concepts of God. He noted that as one progresses from mere hunters to food gatherers, and food storers to food growers as pastoral nomads maintaining flocks, to food growers who have settles land use, and on up the scale to semi-urban communities, one finds at first a simple faith in a Supreme God who has no wife or family. According to Wilhelm Schmidt we find this form of belief among the Pygmies of central Africa<\/strong>, the south-eastern Australian Aborigines<\/strong>, the native Americas of north-central California<\/strong>, the primitive Algonquians<\/strong>, and to a certain extent the Koryaks<\/strong> and Ainu<\/strong>. To sum up his findings very briefly his own words are: <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“Going back to the most primitive people, the Pygmies of Africa of the central Australian Aborigines or the central American Indians all have One Supreme God<\/strong> to whom they make their offerings…all these peoples also have short prayers.” \u2013 [Wilhelm Schmidt, The Origin and Growth of Religion \u2013 Facts and Theories, (London: 1931) pg. 131, (translated by HJ Rose)]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Another Scholar Andrew Lang noted that the, <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“Australian Aborigines probably have one of the most simple cultures of any people known, but they have religious concepts which are so lofty that it would be natural to explain them as a result of European influence.” \u2013 [Andrew Lang, The Making of Religion (London: Longmans Green, 1909) pg. 175-182, 196]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0At the time of writing Lang felt that this explanation was justified because in his environment their concept of God was seen as being the most ‘evolved’<\/em> and ‘civilised’<\/em>.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Lang also mentioned that the inhabitants of the Andaman Islands, whom he considered to be at the same cultural level as the Aborigines, believed in One God, they described Him as being invisible, Immortal, The Creator<\/em> of all things (except evil), The Knower<\/em> of what is in the hearts and minds, The One<\/em> who is angered by falsehood and wrong doing, helps those in distress or pain. Further, their concept of God was that He is The Judge of Souls<\/em> and at some future time will preside over a great judgment.\u00a0 <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

The information supplied to Lang came from the older members of the community who were not acquainted with other peoples at that time. As Lang says, <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“foreign influence seems to have been more than usually excluded (in their concept of God).” <\/strong>\u2013[ Ibid, pg. 196]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Sameul Zwemer spoke of the monotheistic character of the Bushmen, as well as many peoples of the Arctic cultures which he maintained is,<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0“Clear\u2026even to a cursory examination<\/strong>.” \u2013[ Samuel Zwemer, “The Origin of Religion \u2013 By Evolution or by Revelation,” (Trans. Vict. Institute, Volume 67; 1937) pg. 189]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0In his (Sameul Zwemer)<\/em> paper he was not merely reiterating what others have observed, namely, that all these primitive peoples have knowledge of One Supreme God, but rather that the Supreme God whom they recognise is essentially the same figure with the same attributes.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0In “Prehistoric Monotheism,” (Trans. Vict. Institute, Vol. 8, 1937) pg. 145″<\/em> , Canon Titcombe noted that when speaking of the Zulus, quoting a former Bishop of Natal who had a firsthand knowledge of the Zulus while they were still culturally intact, as stating that they had no idols but rather acknowledged One Supreme Being who was known as The Great One, The All-Mighty, The First<\/em> etc. Titcombe also noted the concept of One God amongst the Madagascan natives -[ ibid, p. 144]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Debunking all the myths propounded by neo-historians with personal and religious agendas, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute<\/em> published a paper by E.O. James in which he concluded: <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“Thus, it is impossible<\/strong> to maintain a unilateral (one sided and single) evolution in religious thought and practice as suggested by the rationalists Frazer, Tylor and Comte’s ‘Three stages’<\/em>. Nevertheless, neither the speculation that the idea of God arose in ancestor worship as revived by Herbert Spencer, nor the Frazerian evolution model of polytheism and animism to monotheism can be reconciled with the One Supreme tribal God which is a recurrent feature of the primitive concept of God.<\/strong><\/span>” \u2013 [E.O. James, “Religion and Reality,” in the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (Vol. 79, 1950) pg. 28]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0The degeneration of monotheism can be seen in Buddhism which began in the 6th century as a reform movement within Hind\u016bism, in a way. Later on however, gigantic colossal statues and images of the Buddha were erected and surrounded by flowers, incense etc. Buddhists further performed a number of rituals to these statues that include prostrating and bowing. In addition the Dalai Lama of Tibet is worshiped as a man-god, with his devotees prostrating to him. All the stories theories by neo-historians, fictionists \u2013 ‘from polytheism to monotheism’, are very well refuted by the researches and studies, especially above statement of E.O James, leaves no ounce of doubt on the issue.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0It’s always has been, deviation from Monotheism to extreme Polytheism, this transformation from truth to falsehood resulted in calamity on humanity, which suffered a lot due to this deviation and still suffers. All the researches today show (like the Ti’en…etc)<\/em>, how monotheistic civilization slowly went down to polytheism, above quoted scholars and their findings explicitly show us monotheism to be the oldest faith, and hint the slow degeneration into polytheism.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Is Orthodox Hind\u016bism Monotheistic? What is the take of Vedas on it ?<\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

We’ve talked about many ‘primitive people’ and their belief, but what about Hind\u016bism? Were the people of India always polytheist? Of-course not, even Hind\u016bs once followed the same faith that is Monotheism, but as with all other civilization and cultures they deviated from monotheism into polytheism. Though ,sadly there are very few ‘hints’ <\/strong>and ‘traces’<\/strong> to monotheism, which cannot wholly considered as proofs, for the currently prevalent Hind\u016bism to be monotheistic, due to various reasons .Still we believe that once Hind\u016bs too were Monotheist , following the Monotheism revealed to their Prophet by All\u0101h, the Exalted and Glorified.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Well, whether Hind\u016bism ever was a Monotheistic religion or not, is a hotly debated topic, but it’s apparently and undoubtedly polytheistic, so is it undoubted that nowhere does Vedas in any strict sense preach and teach Monotheism. There have been many attempts by Hind\u016b “reformist” to paint Vedas with monotheism but all of them failed, due to the inherent polytheistic nature of Vedas. Though there are few verses from Vedas which may<\/strong> loosely point that vedas may have been monotheistic, but such claims are still not verified. Historically monotheistic nature of vedas is unproven. There have been people who had taken it for granted that Hind\u016bism is Monotheistic on the basis of few verses which seemingly just pointed to something like monotheism. For instance, Edward McCrady, while writing about Indian religions stated that the Rig Veda (Book 1, p.164)<\/em> shows that in the earlier times gods were regarded simply as diverse manifestations of One Single Divine Being, he stated that: “They call him \u2013 all of these are different terms for the One Wise God.” \u2013 [Edward McCrady, “Genesis and Pagan Cosmologies,”<\/em> [Trans. Vict. Institute; Vol. 72 (1940), p.55]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0The above stated verse (i.e. 1.164.46)<\/em>, is the one to which McCrady mistakenly speculates that the verse alludes to monotheism in vedas, without enquiring details of the verse. Let’s explore the verse and starting with, what Y\u0101ska the author of classical Nirkuta the ancillary of vedas, has to say about the verse. The verse in question is Rigveda 1.164.46 and here are few translations plus transliteration and original Sanskrit text.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"
\n“They call him Indra, Mitra, Varu\u1e47a, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutm\u0101n. To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, M\u0101tari\u015bvan.<\/strong><\/span>” \u2013 [Tr. Ralph T.H Griffith]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“They call him Indra, Mitra, Varu\u1e47a, Agni and he is the heavenly winged bird. The sages speak of the One by many names: they call it Agni ,Yama , M\u0101tari\u015bvan.<\/strong><\/span>” \u2013 [Tr. Vasudeva Agarwal]<\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0In the section of deities, Y\u0101ska quotes the above cited verse to explain Agni, seemingly said to be all the deities:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“This is to be clearly seen (by the following): On account of the supereminence of the deity, a single soul is praised in various ways. Other gods are the individual limbs<\/strong><\/span> of a single soul. Or else, as people say, seers praise objects according to the multiplicities of their original nature, as well as from its universality. They are produced from each other. They are the original forms of each other. They are produced from (action (karma)), they are produced from the soul. Soul is even their chariot, their horse, their weapon, their arrows; soul is indeed the all-in-all of gods<\/span><\/strong>.”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0– [Laxman swarup, ‘The Nigha\u1e49\u1e6du and Nirkuta’, 7.4, pg.115]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0What does ‘soul is all-in-all’ mean? So what is Y\u0101ska purporting? Laxman swar\u016bp who spend almost his entire life editing, studying various manuscripts and translating this work writes in the footnote:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“This is Y\u0101ska’s rejoinder to the objection that non-deites are praised like deities. The so-called non-deities, says Y\u0101ska, are but different manifestations of the same single soul [\u0101tman]. In other words, Y\u0101ska here propounds the doctrine of pantheism<\/span><\/strong>.”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0– [ibid footnote on pg.115]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Not only Y\u0101ska but \u015a<\/span>aunaka (Shaunaka)<\/em> also writes:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“The Soul (\u0101tm\u0101) is all<\/strong><\/span> that is proclaimed to be an attribute (bhakti) of those three chief lords of the world who have been separately mentioned above.”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0– [B\u1e5bhaddevat\u0101 <\/span>of \u015a<\/span>aunaka 1.73, Part 2, pg. 16, Tr. A.A MacDonnell, 1904]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Soul is all or soul is all-in-all is but pantheism, nothing more or less, and this is how both the above scholars have stated it to mean. In short, both Y\u0101ska and \u015a<\/span>aunaka are propounding the doctrine of pantheism. Hence the speculation of McCrady that the verse propounds or alludes to monotheism is refuted by Hind\u016bs themselves. <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Other points to be noted in Y\u0101ska’s explanation are: Other gods are “individual limbs” <\/em><\/strong>or “pratya\u1e45g\u0101ni”<\/span>. <\/em><\/strong>Also Y\u0101ska wrote “mah\u0101-bh\u0101gy\u0101t”<\/span>
\n<\/strong>which is translated as “Supereminence”<\/em><\/strong> where as Anand Kum\u0101rsw\u0101mi adapting Swar\u016bp’s translation, translated it as “great divisibility”<\/strong>. Simply put, the verse in no way can be regarded to be propounding of monotheism, it may in some sense be propounding dualism, polytheism, non-dualism\u2026etc but in no sense is propounding monotheism as evident.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Hind\u016bism isn’t monotheistic, which is very well-accepted by Hind\u016bs themselves, it would be waste of time and space to bring out the statements – proclaiming the polytheism Vedas ,of various Hind\u016b Scholars, Hind\u016btva-v\u0101dis (Hind\u016b Fascists)<\/em> and other Hind\u016b leaders on the subjecthence we’ll quote limitedly. Here’s what the Shrikant G. Talageri (Hind\u016btva- V\u0101di) states in his book ‘The Rigveda – A Historical Analysis’<\/em>, in Section III- Appendices -:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“The Christian missionaries treated Hinduism as inferior to Christianity on various counts: namely, idol-worship, polytheism<\/strong>, etc. Instead of countering these religious prejudices and pointing out that there was nothing superior to polytheism<\/span> in monotheism, or superior to idolworship<\/span>
\n<\/strong><\/span>in Christian forms of worship,\u2026”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Such are the beliefs of Hind\u016btva- v\u0101dis and Hind\u016b scholars! Other Isl\u0101mophobic Hind\u016btva-v\u0101dis like R\u0101m Swar\u016bp, Sit\u0101 R\u0101m Goel and P.N Oak held similar views. <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Now let’s go to European Scholars of Vedas, who studied Vedas with various commentaries of Orthodox Hindus like S\u0101yana, Mahidhar and others. Same here, we won’t be quoting every European Scholar for the sake of brevity and so as to be frugal in utilizing the space here. There are many statements of F. Max Muller – the infamous Sanskrit-Vedic Scholar criticized for following and relying on Orthodox Hind\u016b commentaries of S\u0101yana and other scholars, on the nature of Hind\u016bism, and here’s just one quote which proves our point.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“If we must employ technical terms, the religion of the Veda is polytheism, not monotheism<\/span><\/span>.” <\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u2013 [Muller’s Chips, vol. 1, pg. 27]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Monier Williams says,<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“The hymns of the Veda are the expression of that early stage of religious progress which may be called physiolatry<\/strong><\/span>” \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2013 [Monier Williams, ‘Hind\u016bism’, pg. 16, London, 1878]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“Their religion was what may be called in: one word physiolatry<\/span>.<\/strong>”\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – \u00a0[Monier Williams, ‘Hind\u016bism’, pg. 21]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Expounding on the statement of Muller (earlier quoted)<\/em> K.S Macdonald wrote:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“His idea is, that the Aryans represented the divinity by various names taken from natural phenomena, which names, not being those of attributes<\/strong>, but of things, appearances, and forces, led the people very readily to personify them, and to create a mythology about these names; and this mythology had manifested itself at and before the time in which most of these hymns were composed. Hence this special kind of polytheism has been called physiolatry<\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span>and meteorolatry<\/span><\/strong>.”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – [K.S Macdonald, ‘The Vedic Religion’, pg. 100, 2nd<\/sup> Ed. London, 1881]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Simply stating no where does Orthodox Hind\u016bism teach Monotheism, and so is the belief of various Hind\u016b scholars. We firmly believe that even the Hind\u016bs were sent, a Prophet(s)\/Messenger(s) whom they followed, \u00a0but similar to other civilizations even Hind\u016bs degenerated into polytheism (from the Isl\u0101mic monotheism- brought by their prophet(s))<\/em>. Whether Vedas are the books revealed to the Prophet(s) sent to Hind\u016bs is a question without an answer (as of now)<\/em>, evidence however does not point (as of now)<\/em>, Vedas to be the books revealed to the Prophet(s) of Hind\u016bs. It may<\/strong> be that the present Vedas may be the commentaries of the book revealed to the Prophet (which got corrupted)<\/em>, or may<\/strong> be Vedas are mere corrupted books containing few verses from the book revealed to the Prophet(s) of Hind\u016bs, Or may<\/strong> be that Vedas are entirely new books produced by various so-called Hind\u016b ‘seers’ to gain credulity of common people, \u00a0whatever may be the case but it is quite apparent that there has been a time when Hind\u016bs followed a Prophet(s) sent by All\u0101h Azz Jall with pure monotheism. Something similar is believed to be the case by the two European scholars quoted earlier –<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Monier Williams thinks, with Max Muller, that there are traces in the Veda of a pre-existent faith<\/span> more or less monotheistic<\/span> in its nature<\/strong><\/span> ; but that ‘in the Veda this unity soon diverged into various ramifications<\/strong><\/span>. Only a few of the hymns appear to contain the simple conception of one divine self existent Being, and even in those the idea of one God present in all nature is somewhat nebulous and undefined’<\/em>; and Max Muller adds: ‘ The consciousness that all the deities are but different names of one and the same godhead breaks forth here and there in the Veda. But it is far from being general<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0– [ibid pg. 127]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0These traces of ‘pre-existent faith’<\/em><\/strong><\/span> are quite apparent, but sadly they are seemingly just the remains of what the Prophet(s) (to Hind\u016bs)<\/em> was sent with, by All\u0101h Azz wa Jall. Seemingly, our anticipation (contention) may be right, that Hind\u016bs like other people were sent a Prophet (or many prophets) <\/em>with Monotheism which they followed but then slowly as time passed they degenerated into polytheism (and other non-monotheistic concepts)<\/em>.This is similar to the cases of other civilization as shown above. <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Is Protestant Hind\u016bism Monotheistic?<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Well, we’ve written a small analysis on Concept of Gods in Protestant Hind\u016bism, which is satisfactorily, proves that Protestant Hind\u016bism isn’t Monotheistic but is more Trinitarian. Nonetheless, we’ll just show one Protestant Hind\u016b Scholar who admitted to the Trinitarian nature of Protestant Hind\u016bism quoting the Encyclopedia of Religion and ethics – <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“God is eternal; so also is each soul; so also is matter. Pandit Ralla R\u0101m refers to this as ‘the universal trinity<\/span><\/span> recognized by science and religion alike’<\/strong> and as ‘the most important of the doctrines of \u0100rya Sam\u0101j<\/span>‘<\/strong>(\u0100rya Patrik\u0101, Dec 14, 1901)”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – [James Hastings, John A. Selbie, ‘Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics’<\/em>, Vol. 3, pg. 60, Kessinger Publishing, 2003]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Trinity is the most important of the doctrines of Protestant Hind\u016bism (so-called \u0100rya Sam\u0101j)<\/em>! Nothing more to say, this should satisfy our readers, and those who need a brief exposure of this Trinitarian nature of protestant Hind\u016bism can visit our brief analysis here \u2013 <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

M\u016blshankar [Day\u0101nanda Saraswati]<\/em> and Protestant Hind\u016bism [\u0100rya\u00a0Sam\u0101j]<\/span><\/em>: An Analysis <\/strong>–<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0https:\/\/vedkabhed.com\/2014\/01\/01\/concept-of-god-in-arya-samaj-protestant-hinduism-part-1\/<\/a><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0https:\/\/vedkabhed.com\/2014\/01\/01\/concept-of-god-in-arya-samaj-protestant-hinduism-part-2\/<\/a><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Satyagni \/ Agniveer<\/strong>, the hate-monger wrote \u2013<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0The change was a tough one.<\/strong> But I went for it despite enormous challenges and sacrifices. For this change, looters from Arab killed my father and brothers. They raped my mother and sisters. They conducted mass carnage of my community. They continued doing it for centuries.And then, for sake of my mother, my father, my sisters, and my brothers \u2013 I rejected my foundation. I became a Muslim.<\/strong> I consoled myself that the time of change has come. I had no options. The only solace lied in following the path of the Prophet of Equality. And only then could there be peace in my family.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

What can we say of such deceivers! Yet, again we find Agniveer\/Satyagni indulging in rhetoric and appealing to emotions of people, ridiculously assuming that Muslims and the readers base their opinions on sentiments\/emotions rather than facts. There are numerous myths promulgated and propagated by Hind\u016bs, one of them is the “Arab looters killing innocents” while conquering India, and again they are ever quick in their “Classical hypocrisy”<\/em>
\n<\/strong>these entire allegations on Arabs are slowly shifted and upon Isl\u0101m! From the allegation of Arabs killing so-called innocents, to the claim of Isl\u0101m as the source of all such heinous acts, this is the typical route every Hind\u016b Isl\u0101mophobe follows. There are thousands of allegations hurled against Muslims; most of them are usually taken from inauthentic sources for which there is no historical authority or are just conjectural theories.<\/span><\/p>\n

Allegations of ‘mass carnage’, ‘killing of innocents’\u2026etc have always been used against Isl\u0101m, as a proof of its so-called ‘barbarism’. This is what we call the ‘logic’ and ‘rationality’ of Hind\u016b Isl\u0101mophobes! Expecting Isl\u0101mophobes to be rational, logical and unbiased is futile, as it is inherently opposed to their state of mind. Does rationality and logicality permit us to blame Isl\u0101m for the evil actions of few of its followers(bad)?<\/p>\n

Of course not. Iif Isl\u0101m is blamed to be ‘barbaric’, ‘intolerant’ and ‘violent’ because of the actions of few bad Muslims, then such a blaming can come about just from a biased and prejudiced person not a rational or logical one. Firstly, it should be noted that not all Muslims are good; there are good Muslims and bad Muslims, Isl\u0101mophobes usually love to paint everything in one colour. Few black sheep do not represent anyone or any community, but as we said Isl\u0101mophobes are not rational, unbiased and logical enough to dare and accept this truth, but their denial does not change facts. Alleging Isl\u0101m for alleged heinous acts of few of its followers is just like believing every German to be ‘race supremacists’ and racist (particularly anti-Semitic), because they (Germans) <\/em>and then their leader Adolf Hitler were so, who indulged in various racist and criminal activities. Well no one believes Germans to be racist? Does anyone do?\u00a0 Yeah there were many who were racist , so why don’t people label Germans and Germany to be racist, just like Isl\u0101mophobes and few other prejudices people, label Muslims and Isl\u0101m with Terrorism and here with ‘violence’, ‘killing’ and ‘mass-carnage’(note these are allegations)<\/em>? Answer is simple, because it’s irrational, biased and illogical to do so. Hence rationally all the allegations on Isl\u0101m and Muslims are void.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

We’ve already seen what Isl\u0101m says about killing innocent people? We’ve already shown that killing innocent people is from al-Kab\u0101’ir (‘Great Sins’) <\/em>and al-Mawqib\u0101t (Destructive Sins) <\/em>both are strictly prohibited in Isl\u0101m. But let’s show some more proof and also see whether Isl\u0101m allows killing of non-combatants and others during a battle\/war, which will refute the allegations of mass-carnage\u2026etc hurled at Isl\u0101m. <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Killing non-combatants and those who give up fighting is strictly prohibited in Isl\u0101m:<\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“All\u0101h’s Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.”<\/strong> -[Sah\u012bh Al-Bukh\u0101r\u012b: Volume 004, Book 052, no. 257. ]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0“All\u0101h’s Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children”<\/strong>\u00a0 -[Sah\u012bh Al-Bukh\u0101r\u012b: Volume 004, Book 052, no. 258.]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“Messenger of All\u0101h (May peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children.”<\/strong> – [Sah\u012bh Muslim: Book 019, no. 4320, Chapter: Prohibition of killing women and children in war.]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“He (Prophet Mu\u1e25ammad) disapproved of the killing of women and children.”<\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0– [Sah\u012bh Muslim: Book 019, no. 4320, Chapter: Prohibition of killing women and children in war.]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“(Prophet Mu\u1e25ammad) forbade the killing of women and children.”<\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 – [Muwatta Im\u0101m M\u0101lik: Book 021, no.9, Section: Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, Prophet Mu\u1e25ammad<\/strong> (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam) also said,<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“I advise you ten things \u2013<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

1)<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. <\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

2)<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. <\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

3)<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Do not destroy an inhabited place. <\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

4)<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. <\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

5)<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. <\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

6)<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly\u2026etc”<\/strong> – [ibid no.10.]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Ibn `Abb\u0101s says: The Messenger of All\u0101h<\/strong>, when dispatching his troops, would tell them,
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“..Do not behave treacherously, nor misappropriate war-booty, nor mutilate [who’ve been killed], nor kill children, nor the people in cloisters.” <\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 – [al-Musnad of Im\u0101m A\u1e25mad, al-Tirmidh\u012b]. <\/span><\/p>\n

Another \u1e25adith mentions Prophet Mu\u1e25ammad<\/strong>
\n(sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam )<\/em> saying,
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“\u2026Do not kill a woman, nor a child, nor an old, aged man”<\/strong> – [al-Baghawi (Sharh al-Sunnah, 11\/11)]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Narrated Anas ibn M\u0101lik: The Prophet (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam<\/em>) said: <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“Go in All\u0101h’s name, trusting in All\u0101h, and adhering to the religion of All\u0101h’s Apostle. Do not kill a decrepit old man, o a young infant, or a child, or a woman; do not be dishonest about booty, but collect your spoils, do right and act well, for All\u0101h loves those who do well<\/strong>.”<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 – [Sunan Ab\u012b Daw\u016bd, Book 14, no. 2608]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Another \u1e25adith mentions Prophet Mu\u1e25ammad<\/strong>
\n(sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam )<\/em> saying, <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“Do not kill a child, nor a woman, nor an old man, nor obliterate a stream, nor cut a tree\u2026” –<\/strong> [al- Bayhaq\u012b, vide I`la al-Sunan, 12\/31]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

In fact, Isl\u0101m not only prohibits killing of Humans but also of other creatures like animals, moreover prohibits unnecessarily cutting trees, as mentioned in innumerable narrations. Those who kill a soul unnecessarily [not for just cause, like punishment for crime, or kill an animal for eating purpose]<\/em> are cursed by All\u0101h Almighty in a way (known to Him)<\/em> that befits His majesty.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Ibn `Umar (radiAll\u0101h Anh) said, <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“All\u0101h curses the one who does this. Verily, the Messenger of All\u0101h cursed the one who takes something with a soul as a target<\/span>.” <\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 – [Sah\u012bh Muslim, An-Nasa’\u012b, al-Musnad of Im\u0101m A\u1e25mad]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Another \u1e25adith says,<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0“The Messenger of Allah forbade taking something with a soul as a target<\/span>.”<\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0 – [al-Musnad of Im\u0101m A\u1e25mad, At-Tirmidh\u012b]<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Hence , Isl\u0101m lays very strict laws when it comes to living beings, and killing an living being unnecessarily is prohibited, for instance hunting animals for fun and entertainment is strictly prohibited and punishable crime, animals are only allowed to be killed or hunted when you are in need of eating them, and even here being frugal is stressed. Cutting of trees, destroying houses, properties and other things are all adamantly prohibited by Isl\u0101m. <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Another very important point to be raised is, so-called ‘Isl\u0101mic fanaticism’<\/strong> which always regarded as source and reason why the Muslim ‘invaders’ allegedly ran on a rampage. But this too is a mere myth promulgated by Isl\u0101mophobes and prejudiced people, as all such claims are mere conjectures and opposed to the facts.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

This is mere imaginations of fictionist like Hind\u016b Isl\u0101mophobes, that the driving force behind, allegedly killing of innocents, mass-carnage, rampage was the ‘Isl\u0101mic zeal’, let briefly look at it –<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n