What Rigveda verse 8:64:1 to 8:64:4 states? Does it say to kill the infidels?

I do not know from where people get the concept of infidels being persecuted or killed. We simply have no concept of that. Vēdas lays down no injunction of killing anyone based on their beliefs.

The only people asked to be destroyed as Dasyus, Vṛtra, Paṇi, Vala, Asuras, Yātudhānas, etc… who are equivalent to demons and ogres or are considered psychological enemies who prevent us from realising the truth.

Now let us look at the verses and their meanings:

उत्त्वा᳚ मन्दन्तु॒ स्तोमाः᳚ कृणु॒ष्व राधो᳚ अद्रिवः । अव॑ ब्रह्म॒द्विषो᳚ जहि ॥ ८.०६४.०१

May the affirming lauds render you rapturous. O thunderer, perform achievements. Kill the enemies of the world (or) Vēdas.

Here Sāyaṇācārya says that Brahmadvisaḥ should be taken as haters of Brāhmaṇa (ब्रह्मद्वेष्टॄन् अव जहि). Again if this is also taken, there is no mention of the killing of so-called infidels. Brāhmaṇa haters can be also Kṣatriyas like Kārtavīrya and others. So if one adheres to Sāyaṇācārya will also not get the meaning of infidels being killed.
Brahma has the meaning of a Mantra or the essence of the Vēdas. The Amarakōśa (Trtīyaḥ Kāṇḍam, Nānārtha Varga) also states this. Hence Brahmadvisaḥ can also be taken as those who hate the Vēdas or are against its essence.

प॒दा प॒णीँर᳚रा॒धसो॒ नि बा᳚धस्व म॒हाँ अ॑सि । न॒हि त्वा॒ कश्च॒न प्रति॑ ॥ ८.०६४.०२

Crush with your feet the evil Paṇis who have no achievements. You are great; there is none like you.

Sāyaṇācārya here says Paṇis are Asuras who traffick and steal wealth. Here we can take wealth as literal wealth or in the case of spiritual interpretation the wealth is our knowledge. Here even I agree with Sāyaṇācārya. Paṇa means wealth (or) money, and Paṇis are those who steal it. Again there are no infidels mentioned here. Unless people are dumb enough to take Asuras as infidels.

त्वमी᳚शिषे सु॒ताना॒मिन्द्र॒ त्वमसु॑तानाम् । त्वं राजा॒ जना᳚नाम् ॥ ८.०६४.०३

You are the lord of those who press out the Sōma, and of those who do not press the Sōma, You are the lord of all people.

Here Indra can be taken as Śakra or as Rudra himself (Dēvanāmhṛdayēbhyō Namaḥ KYVS 4.5.9 and Atharvaśirōpaniṣad). Here also no mention of infidels. Rather here the Lord is called the ruler or King (as per Sāyaṇācārya) of all the people irrespective of them being Āstikas or Nāstikas. One’s personal belief does not change the fact that he is their Lord in the end.

एहि॒ प्रेहि॒ क्षयो᳚ दि॒व्या॒३॒॑घोष᳚ञ्चर्षणी॒नाम् । ओभे पृ॑णासि॒ रोद॑सी ॥ ८.०६४.०४

Come here to your abode, come sounding from Svarga for the sake of strivers. You fill both the Svarga and the earth.

Here we ask the Lord to heed our call and give us bliss. Both Dyāvāpṛthivī is filled with bliss only because of his grace.
As per Sāyaṇācārya, Indra is called to the Yajña and then in turn showers rain and created lightning. His meaning is very low and makes the entire verse look in very inferior manner. But again here also there is no mention of infidels at all.

So whoever makes such a claim is literally a man who has no knowledge of the Vēdāṅgas. Neither Wilson nor Griffith renders them as infidels, so this interpretation is pure propaganda.

Hope this helps.

 

What are some unknown but mind-blowing facts about ducks?

It’s what’s called an evolutionary arms race. It’s when two or more species are constantly evolving due to selective pressure from the other side. It’s like how the Gazelle will slowly get faster due to being hunted by predators, and the predators slowly get faster so they don’t starve to death.

Ducks are in a similar predicament, but they’re in an evolutionary arms race with themselves. You see, male ducks will force themselves on female ducks that don’t want to mate, and it’s a problem for the ducks survival as a species.

Ducks will bond with each other when they mate, which will help the survival of the offspring. Ducks born to aggressive males or born to forced copulation don’t fare too well. This makes the females more selective with who they mate with.

To counter this, female ducks have evolved cork-screw vaginas with different passages so they can allow only the sperm of the duck they want to mate with to fertilise the egg.

On the other hand, due to the male ducks sexually aggressive nature they have evolved longer cork-screw penises. For ducks to successfully mate their cork-screw genitalia need to line up perfectly.

If Jesus spoke Aramaic like the rest of the Jews in ancient times, where did Hebrew come from and why do random Israelis speak Hebrew?

Hebrew was spoken before Aramaic was adopted. Aramaic was the language of Babylon in the time of the Babylonian exile and was the main lingua franca in the Near-East. The Jews adopted it during the exile in Babylon and continued speaking it thereafter.

When Jesus was born Aramaic was the main vernacular language but Hebrew was still the language of religion. The Torah, and all the books of the Jewish Bible except most of the Book of Daniel, which is mostly in Aramaic, are in Hebrew and this was still used in prayer and study by literate Jews.

As for “random Israelis”- Hebrew is the language of İsrael so Israelis speak it in much the same way that “random Americans” speak English.

Concerning the Dead Sea scrolls, did they soley consist of what is now called the Bible or were there more to them than that?

The Dead Sea Scrolls consist of a collection of Jewish texts that were discovered in the mid-20th century in caves near the Dead Sea in Israel. While some of the scrolls contain texts that are now included in the Hebrew Bible (also known as the Old Testament), such as the books of Genesis, Exodus, and Isaiah, many of the scrolls are non-biblical in nature.

The non-biblical texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls include works related to Jewish law, history, and theology, as well as apocalyptic literature and sectarian writings associated with a Jewish group known as the Essenes. These texts provide valuable insights into Jewish life and thought during the Second Temple period, which spanned from roughly 500 BCE to 70 CE.

In total, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain around 900 manuscripts, many of which are fragmentary. While the biblical texts found among the scrolls have received a great deal of attention, the non-biblical texts are also of significant historical and scholarly importance.

When Napoleon went to Egypt, did he say "We are real Muslims"?

 Yes, when Napoleon Bonaparte embarked on his military campaign to Egypt in 1798, he did make a statement that could be interpreted as claiming to be a true Muslim. However, his intentions and actions during his time in Egypt were complex and multifaceted.

Napoleon’s arrival in Egypt was not solely motivated by military objectives but also had political and strategic considerations. He aimed to disrupt British trade routes to India and establish French influence in the region. However, he also sought to present himself as a liberator who would free the Egyptians from Ottoman rule and bring progress to the country.

Upon arriving in Egypt, Napoleon attempted to win the support and trust of the local population, which was predominantly Muslim. In doing so, he adopted a conciliatory approach towards Islam and its practices. He famously issued proclamations expressing respect for the Islamic faith, including one where he stated, “We have come to restore your rights, punish your oppressors… and re-establish the true worship of Mohammed.”

Additionally, Napoleon initiated a number of reforms aimed at modernizing Egypt, such as establishing schools, scientific missions, and even an institute of Oriental studies. These efforts were seen as a means to win the hearts and minds of the Egyptians and gain their support for French rule.

However, Napoleon’s statements and actions regarding Islam were not solely driven by religious conviction. They were primarily political tools, strategically employed to advance his own agenda in Egypt. While he made gestures towards embracing Islam, his ultimate goal was to consolidate French power and influence in the region.

Moreover, Napoleon’s views on religion were complex and evolved over time. Later in his life, after returning to France, he famously reconciled with the Catholic Church and was crowned Emperor, indicating that his earlier statements in Egypt may have been more politically motivated than genuinely religious.