Vedas and Corruption in Quran

Another valiant effort by Mulla Naseeruddin and company. Again, it shall be dealt with utmost respect.

Hence, 1121 versions of Vedas have been lost. If someone will say that the Shakhas are not Vedas but only the explanations/commentaries that would be erroneous. The presently known Vedas are also Shakhas. So are these commentaries or actual Vedas? To say that Shakhas are not the Vedas will be to undermine the present Vedas (read Shakhas) also. Considering the two opposing Shakhas of Yajurveda we may ask, “Is Madhyandina Shakha (Shukla Yajurveda) the original or Taittirīya Shakha(Krishna Yajurveda)?”.

The word shakha means branch. As the photo in the webpage of Musjhafiq shows that the VEDA is the trunk and the vyakhyana granthas of the Rishis are the branches.

Shakha is that commentary/vyakhyana of the Veda in which a word of the mantra has been replaced by ANOTHER WORD or to make it easier to understand a word has been ADDed.

The Samhita portion of the VEDA is intact. Only the vyakhyana grantha have been lost. Mulla Naseeruddin needs to improve his understanding here.

Rigveda 10:29:1 is the place which has made the mistake. Yaska himself criticizes Shakalya and says,

There is no mistake in the ARYA translation. It is Vaayah. Your scan is a typographical error. Yaska has corrected the mistake of Shakalya.

Rigveda 5:39:1 goes as follows,

“O Indra, wielder of the thunderbolt, give us whatever excellent treasure there is. With both hands bring that wealth to us, O treasure-knower”

The correct version is

“That king will be rich/stable, who showers [mehna=like rain] his people with [fulfilment of] their wishes.

Let us see what Samaveda, Book 4; Chapter 2; Decade 1; Mantra 4 does,….Now there is a world of difference between Mehanaasti and Me-iha-naasti.

In Samaveda the word is Ma-iha-naasti.

The translation here is according to Upasana the subject of Samaveda=O EEshwar you can give 2 riches-worldly and mukti. Please  gives mukti to those who worship you according to the method of two hands [Karma-phala siddhant]


“According to one Mantra of Rigveda (Rigveda 10:114:8), we come to know that it has 15,000 Mantras.

The correct translation of Rigveda 10:114:8 is,

sahastadha = there are innumerable species/yonian

panchadashani=and they have 5 karmendriyan+5 gyanendriyan+5 prana=15

uktha=vivechaniya prana

There is no reference to the 15000 verses in Rigveda. Please correct your beliefs.

According to this analysis, Vedas have easily lost about 4,500 Mantras.

This analysis is wrong.

Vishnu Purana

The other disciples of Vaisampayana, assuming the form of partridges (tittiri), picked up from the ground its several dirtied texts.

Do u believe this ? Arya samaj does not.

  1. There are a lot of differences between the two versions. The first mantra of both is same despite some difference in the wording. The arrangement and wording of White Yajurveda upto Adhyay 15 is radically different from the Black Yajurveda. The mantras of the 39th Chapter of Shukla Yajurveda are not found in Krishna Yajurveda.
  2. An amazing information about Shukla Yajurveda is that the last chapter (Chapter 40) is actually an Upanishad, the Ish Upanishad. As per the belief of Arya Samaj, Upanishads are not revealed scriptures. It is worth noting that while it is counted with the Upanishads, the Ish Upanishad remains non-revealed and when it is added to the Veda it become revealed.
  3. The Ish Upanishad is not the only addition to this Yajurveda. A lot of Brahamanas have been inserted into the text of the Yajurveda. For example, Adhyay 24 is entirely a Brahman; Adhyay 30: verses 7 through 15 are all Brahmanas and not Mantras.

 Yajurvada is Yajurvada neither white nor black. There are 40 chapters in Yajurveda Samhita.  Isha vasya upanishad differs from Yajurveda 40 . e.g. mantra 6 in Yaju 40 ends with chikitsati and mantra 6 in Isha up ends with vijugupsate. So Yaju 40 is revealed and Isha Upanishad  [kaanv shakha – Ch 40] is written by a Rishi based on the Yajurveda.

Corruption of Samaveda

Samaveda is heavily borrowed from the Rigveda. “There are thousand branches of Samaveda”. However, only three survive:



The above analysis proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Vedas have suffered heavy interpolations and changes.

 Your analysis stands disproved.


Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Quran materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Hadith, Vol. 6, Book 61, #510).  So here we have Uthman saying I’ll burn the word of God and I’ll decide just what should be in the Book. find of 1972. Workers, restoring a mosque in Sana’a, Yemen, stumbled across a cache of Qur’an manuscripts in the structure of the buil


Sana’a Qur’an find of 1972. Workers, restoring a mosque in Sana’a, Yemen, stumbled across a cache of Qur’an manuscripts in the structure of the building’s roof. The manuscripts were stuffed into sacks and probably would have stayed there had the value of the find not been recognized by an official of the Yemeni Antiquities Authority. No scholars in his country were capable of working on this rich find, and so the Yemeni official called in non-Islamic German scholars to assist. Almost 10 years after the initial discovery, German scholar Gerd-R. Puin was allowed to spend significant time with the manuscripts. Only one other scholar has been given any significant amount of time to study the manuscripts. It was not until 1997 that 35,000 microfilm images of the manuscripts were finally allowed to leave the country so others could examine the materials.

In 1995, an Egyptian court labeled Abu Zaid an apostate, and his wife was ordered, under Islamic law, to divorce him. He and his wife fled to Holland. His crime? Zaid dared to put into writing a conclusion that a number of other Muslim scholars know to be true (but fear to express openly).

Abu Zaid said the Qur’an was a literary document that needed to be examined as such. The study of the Qur’an outside the parameters of strict Muslim orthodoxy can be very, very dangerous. One only need mention the name Rushdie to conjure up the possible result of making an “offensive” statement concerning the Prophet or the Qur’an. It is no wonder, then, that many ancient texts bearing directly on the original form of the Qur’an currently sit unexamined in Muslim lands. Fear of being accused of apostasy for daring to question the orthodox view of the Qur’an is the primary reason these texts remain hidden.

In the 1999 Atlantic Monthly article referenced below, Gerd Puin is quoted as saying that:[1]

My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur’an claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen,’ or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur’anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur’an is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur’an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not—there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on.

In 1999, Toby Lester, the executive editor of the website of The Atlantic Monthly reported on Puin’s discoveries: “Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., or Islam’s first two centuries—they were fragments, in other words, of perhaps the oldest Korans in existence. What’s more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God.” [2]

Talking strictly, even if one accusation of the above VIDEO & TEXT analysis stands, the entire QURANIC literature will be unacceptable as a genuine inspired document.



8 thoughts on “Vedas and Corruption in Quran

  1. ******There is no mistake in the ARYA translation. It is Vaayah. Your scan is a typographical error*****

    Yashwant ji i think you havenot look Arya Translation see it has same thing………. vaa yaah not vaayah

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s