Category Archives: Responses

Response to No Hatred in Vedas Part II

Continued from Response to No Hatred in Vedas Part I


There are several mantras in Vedas that called God a fraud (Mayavi). Swami Dayanand suggests that one should use fraud to defeat enemies. So Vedic God is a cheater.

ऋग्वेद में अनेक जगह इन्द्र को मायी (धोकेबाज़) कहा गया हे. उदाहरण के तोर पर देखिये ऋग्वेद १:११:७

Continue reading


Response to No Hatred in Vedas Part I

Written by Sulaiman Razvi


Other religious books are seen as terror manual by some hate mongers. These hate mongers deliberately misinterpret other scriptures. They claim that only Vedas preach non Violence, religious tolerance and that it doesn’t command to kill those who reject Hinduism. This article is a response to those Hindus who have come up with weak rebuttal.  Now let’s start reading the pathetic rebuttal of the apologist on Rig Veda 3.53.14

Continue reading

Response to Manu Smriti and Shudras

Written by Sulaiman Razvi

The Purusha Sukta of the Veda is the root of the caste system in Hinduism which says ‘The head of the Lord became the Brahmin, from his chest came the Vaisya, from his thighs the Kshatriyas and from his feet the Shudras were born’. Later texts like the Puranas, Smritis etc. further deteriorated the status of the Shudras. It’s ironic that Brahmins oppressed the lower caste but few of them (political and religious leaders) today are trying to give equal status to the lower caste. In reality they have no sympathy towards the lower castes, the motive behind this is to attract more followers. How come this generosity has suddenly aroused towards the poor Shudras? The Shudras were ill-treated for centuries, Caste system in Hinduism is not something that came later, it’s deeply rooted in the Hindu culture.

Continue reading

Response to No Corruption in Vedas

Written by Ibn Muhammad

The ‘once upon a time’ stories do not appeal to me anymore. Pick up any such story and it is a pure fiction. No wonder kids love such stories. Agniveer’s latest response (should it be even called a response) is purely fictional, a castle of lies to deceive the ordinary people and a desperate attempt to repair his lost credibility. The so-called response deals more with teaching ways of mockery than a serious response to our research article. By addressing about half of the article to senseless insults, he hoped to distract his blind followers from the seriousness of our article. He invents some ‘Panchatantra’ stories which have no space in a scholarly discussion. I do not have this time and energy to write similar stuff. I only concern myself to what is being said, instead of who is saying it.

Continue reading