We read, Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati)writing in his book (Satyarth Prakāsh), that the Vedas strictly preach and teach Monotheism and this was his belief [delusion] too. In fact the translator Durgā Prasād writes in the book (Satyarth Prakāsh’s translation, pg. 60) that “Satyarth Prakash – an exposition of the monotheism and civilization of the ancient Aryans.” It seems that his (Moolshankar’s) blind -followers truly believe that this book (Satyarth Prakāsh) deals with monotheism, nonetheless this so-called monotheism of protestant Hinduism will be scrutinized to truth.
a.1) Is Ishwar the Creator?
Protestant Hindus go around talking of so-called one god “Ishwar” who is the creator. But what they really mean by the “Creator”? Let’s see.
First, Moolshankar wrote that God is the creator of all, then contradicts himself, by stating that Paramātmā [God], Ātmā [Human Souls] and Prakriti [Primordial matter], are beginning-less and uncreated! So how come God is (Ishwar) “creator of all”? We shall probe into this case, and expose some amazingly incoherent beliefs of protestant Hindus.
Mooshankar wrote (quotes Yajurveda 36:3) –
“…Omniscient, Sustainer and Ruler of the Universe, Creator of all, Eternal…”
- [Satyarth Prakash Ch. 3, pg.33 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]
It wasn’t slip of pen that Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati) wrote “Creator of all” but this has been stated in other parts of Satyarth Prakāsh too. For instance, Moolshankar quotes Rigveda -
“…I am the controller of the universe, know me alone as the Creator of all…”
-[Satyarth Prakash Ch. 7 ,pg.205 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja ]
Similarly, stated by Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati) on pg. 207(Tr.Chiranjiva),
“…If He were localized to some particular place, He could never be Omniscient, Inward Regular of all, Universal Controller, Creator of all, Sustainer of all and the Cause for resolution….”
So we read, at first Moolshankar states that “Ishwar (God) is Creator of all”and later he goes on to state that there are 3 entities which are Uncreated, Eternal, Beginning-less.
The three entities which are uncreated eternal, beginning-less – here Moolshakar (Dayānanda Saraswati)quotes “SHWETA SHWATER UPNISHAD, 4: 5”and states:
"The prakriti, the soul and God, all of them, are uncreated. They are the cause of the whole universe.”
– [Satyarth Prakash Ch. 8, pg.244 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]
As he (Moolshankar) states in Satyarth Prakash-
“How many entities are eternal or beginningless?
A-Three – God, the soul, and the prakriti (matter). -[Satyarth Prakash Ch. 8 ,pg.243 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja ]
According to Moolshankar’s (and protestant Hindu) theology there are 3 beginning less, uncreated ,immortal entities –
1) Paramātmā (Ishwar/God)
2) Prakriti (Primordial matter)
3) Ātmā (Human Souls,note -we’ll be using plural i.e. Human Souls for clarity)
This philosopher’s stance (uncreated primordial matter) adopted by Moolshankar is self-contradictory in many areas, for instance Moolshankar seem to claim in monotheistic Vedas, but this stance of co-eternal prakriti (Primordial matter) and Ātmā (Human Souls) explicitly disqualifies prostestant Hindusim from the claim of monotheism, as this undermines and infringes the absolute monotheistic nature of God and reduces Him (God) to an position of an artificer –a Demiurge.
Now, if this is the case (co-eternal, uncreated Prakriti and Ātmā) then, why did Moolshankar write God is the “creator of all”? This is an explicit contradiction, which is easily noticeable. It’s understood that God is uncreated but what of “Prakriti” (Primordial matter) and “Ātmā” (human souls)? Who created them?[their being eternal,uncreated is not possible, rationally and logically especially for those who claim to be ‘monotheistic’] And if God isn’t their creator – as these 2 things are uncreated (as per protestant hindu belief), then why is God or in protestant Hindu terminology “Ishwar” “Parameshawar” called “Creator of all”. This is quite contradictory and absurd. In fact this is a white lie.
Agniveer, the fanatic hate-monger wrote –
Q: Who created the world? Ishwar or someone else?
A: Ishwar created the world in same manner as an engineer creates a machine. He is thus the ‘engineer’ of the world. But like engineer, He used existing ‘raw material’ or Nature (matter/ energy approximately) to create the world.
Q: Did Ishwar not create Nature as well?
A: No, Nature or ‘raw material’ is eternal (beginningless and endless) like Ishwar. Being eternal, there is no cause for origin or destruction of Ishwar or Nature.”
We learn that Protestant Hindu God ‘Ishwar’ is the ‘engineer of the world’, who uses ‘raw material’ to create the world, this stance of protestant Hindu’s is quite fanciful, and irrational as it insults the concept of God itself in its entirety. I wonder why, don’t these protestant Hindus call Ishwar, an ‘engineer’ when they believe so?
So, this incapability of Ishwar is also affirmed and stated by the hate-monger Agniveer, I wonder how a rational person (assuming Agniveer is rational- I know it’s very farfetched, but let’s give him benefit of doubt and assume) can accept such gibberish, incoherent theological views!
In fact this absurdity is also supported by Vedas -
“God, the Lord of final emancipation is in truth the creator of all that hath been and what yet shall be; and what grows on earth.” - [Yajurveda Ch. 31, verse 2, pg. 302 Tr. Devi Chand]
“Worship Him, Whose beautiful sacrifice, wealth, strength, and mighty glory are enjoyed by the Heaven and Earth; Who is the creator of all beings, the Embodiment of great happiness, All-pervading and Supplier of food.” - [Yajurveda Ch. 33, verse 23, pg. 312 Tr. Devi Chand]
It’s to be noted that, the second verse states in an interrogative way “Who is the creator of all beings… All-pervading” Here again this statement is contradictory to the belief’s of Protestant Hindus, in order to prove this lets first define “beings”. And “being”means -
being noun [ C or U ]
a person or thing that exists or the state of existing
- [Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary CD- ROM, 3rd Edition, © Cambridge University Press 2008]
So ‘being’ means – a person or thing that exists or the state of existing. So we ask doesn’t ‘Prakriti’ (Primordial Matter) exist? Doesn’t ‘Ātmā’ (Human Souls) exist? Yes of course they do, as stated by Moolshankar. Then how can ‘Ishwar’ be the ‘creator of all beings’ when Prakriti and Ātmā are uncreated? Then is ‘Ishwar’ creator of them? No, as stated by Moolshankar, then why is it stated in the above quoted verse of Yajurveda that the “All-prevading” (i.e Ishwar) is the “Creator of all beings”? This is nothing but pure contradiction which is repeated in many of the Vedic verses.Later, in the article we’ll see that Ishwar is not the creator of ‘time’…etc
Questions which mavericks like us would like to ask –
a) How can ‘Ishwar’ be ‘creator of all’ (or ‘creator of all beings’) as claimed by protestant Hindus when, they themselves believe (state) in uncreated-ness of ‘Prakriti’ and ‘Ātmā’?
b) Who created ‘prakriti’, if ‘Ishwar’ – the Protestant Hindu God, didn’t? [Rationally it’s impossible to prove uncreated-ness of Prakriti , especially when those claiming this are also claiming to be Monotheistic.]
c) Who created ‘Ātmā’, if ‘Ishwar’ – the Protestant Hindu God, didn’t? [Rationally it’s impossible to prove uncreated-ness of Ātmā, especially when those claiming this are also claiming to be Monotheistic.]
This ameliorates exposure of the reality of protestant Hindu theology in the eyes of Truth-Seeker’s. Now coming to some amazing facts, which will really expose the distortions (of meanings) from the protestant Hindu cult.
Moolshankar wrote in Satyarth Prakāsh Ch.1 pg. 5 (quoting Kaivalya Upanishad) –
“He is called Brahma - the Creator of the Universe…”
And, in the footnotes the translator Dr. Chiranjiva comments“The word Creator used in the sense of Maker as according to Vedic Philosophy there is no such thing as creation or the evolution of something out of nothing.”
Also we find Agniveer the Hate-Monger, Islāmophobe confessing and admitting the fact that –
“GOD NEVER CREATED US.
And because God never created us, He also never destroys us. Creation and destruction of soul is NOT the scope of work of God. Thus, just as God is beginningless and endless, so are we. We have existed along with God always and shall continue to do so.”
Now astonishingly, we learn, that in the so-called “Vedic Philosophy” there’s nothing like “Creation out of nothing” and that the word “Creator” is used in “Sense of Maker”. One would be tempted to question, Why not simply use the word ‘Maker’ why use the word ‘Creator’? The answer to it is simple, to fool people and blind-followers (protestant Hindus).As how can one believe in a ‘God’ who is not the Creator but just the Maker or Fashioner of it.
So we are left with the philosophical excreta of philosopher’s brains that’s “there is no such thing as creation or the evolution of something out of nothing.”
And we also see how the hate-monger Agniveer tries to get his incoherent, unintelligible belief, explained with few nonsensical words like “Creation and destruction of soul is NOT the scope of work of God”, we wonder ‘What’s the Scope of God’? Does scope even apply on GOD?Is God something like created beings that ‘Scope’ applies to him, or is Agniveer trying to anthropomorphise God and apply Human-related characteristics/attributes to Him? By the way, is God(according to Agniveer) some sought of professional , for instance an Accountant , who’s been asked to handle Software engineers post , and cries out saying “It’s out of my scope of work!!” It’s pretty disgusting to see people insulting God by using such vernacular (like “Creation and destruction of soul is NOT the scope of work of God”). We do not think that such a statement needs a refutation (still we shall expose such irrationalities for those people seeking truth); such obscurely illogical statement arises out of pure ignorance of monotheism and pure blind following (as in case of Agniveer). We will be dealing with the reasons and causes of such irrational statement in our next subsection, wherein those reasons and causes shall be refuted and debunked.
It will be worthwhile and of immense benefit to state one verse from the Holy, Noble Qur’ān wherein Allāh Azz wa Jall (the alone worthy of worship, One true Almighty God) says which means –
“Do they attribute as partners to Allāh those who created nothing” - [Surah al-A'raaf, Ayat 191]
So true! See the misery and state of these Protestant Hindus, how they worship those who create not! These poor protestant Hindus set up partners (by worshipping Ishwar who creates nothing) with Allāh who alone is the true Almighty God, the creator of Al -'Alamîn [Total Creation]. We would ask our reader’s and especially the truth seeker’s to see[and learn a lesson, so that you may not fall into the same dark pit] how these protestant Hindus have wronged themselves by worshipping false God , who is unable to create anything.
For now we’ll leave the reader’s and truth-seeker’s with this verse and let them ponder upon it and contemplate whether they are on truth or falsehood, now coming back -
So this only proves that Ishwar (Protestant Hindu God) is Incapable of –
1) Creating Prakriti (Primordial Matter) and Ātmā (Human Souls).
2) Destroying, Annihilating Prakriti and Ātmā.
This sufficiently proves that Incapability is an attribute (characteristic) of ‘Ishwar’. This also proves that ‘Ishwar’ isn’t omnipotent or All-Powerful. But Moolshankar seems to state something opposite to it, he states (quoting Rigveda) –
“…Mayest thou (Vishnu) O Omnipresent and (Urukrama) Omnipotent Being, shower Thy blessings all around us…” -[Satyarth Prakash Ch. 1,pg.2 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja ]
So what does “Omnipotence” mean? Let’s have it defined –
Omnipotent adjective formal
having unlimited power; able to do anything
- [Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary CD- ROM, 3rd Edition, © Cambridge University Press 2008]
All the words, like Omnipotent, All-Powerful, creator are just empty words used by Moolshankar & Co. for deluding people and poor blind-followers of his (Moolshankar). As we read earlier that , if Ishwar isn’t able to create “Prakriti” and “Ātmā” then this inability of creating things renders him free of the title “Creator” and also this raises questions on Ishwar’s “Omnipotence”. These questions will be dealt, in the later part of the section, for now let’s see whether Moolshankar , believed in “Omnipotence” of “Ishwar”?(We’ve seen a quote above , now let’s see his belief in detail).
Moolshankar was and ardent believer of “Ishwar’s” Omnipotence (at least he made it seem so), we read in various places in Satyarth Prakāsh, where he claims God to be Omnipotent, All-Powerful.
“Vayu: the Omnipotent Being,” – (Satyrath Prakash Ch 1, pg.71 Tr. Durga Prasad)
“The verso means: May (bhavatu) the Infinite Spirit (Parmatma) who is Omnipotent” – (Satyrath Prakash Ch 1, pg.77 Tr. Durga Prasad)
"O Lord Thou Who art the Protector of the universe and the Veda, and art Omnipotent, Omnipresent…”
-(Satyarth Prakash Ch. 10,pg.368 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja )
Hence, we learn that Moolshankar did believe in Omnipotence of his Ishwar, but was this Omnipotence true? Or what did Moolshankar mean by Omnipotence? As stated earlier “Omnipotence”, “All-Powerful” et al. are just empty words for Moolshankar, this will be evident below. In fact, Moolshankar goes on to distort the meanings of words like “All-Powerful” and “Omnipotence” to fit his beliefs, for instance “Omnipotence” according to him does not mean “having unlimited power; able to do anything”.
Agniveer the fanatical Protestant Hindu-extremist, hate-monger also affirms and believes in the so-called All-Powerful Ishwar, he wrote –
“Finally, Yajurveda 40.8 lists the properties of Ishwar as follows:
Paryagat – Omnipresent,
Shukram – All-powerful,”
Elsewhere too, with vigor same is stated by this mere hate- monger –
“But Vedic Ishwar is truly all-Powerful…”
But according to him (Moolshankar) it’s (omnipotence’s meaning) something different, this is what he answered when a questioned, regarding Ishwar’s inability of creating “prakriti”.
Q – God being Omnipotent, He can also create prakriti – the primordial matter – and the soul. If He cannot, He cannot be called Omnipotent.
A. – We have explained the meaning of the word Omnipotent before. But does Omnipotent mean one who can work even the impossibilities. If there be one who can do even such impossible things as the production of an effect without a cause, then can He make another God, Himself die, suffer pain, become dead and inert, inanimate, unjust, impure and immoral or not? Even God cannot change the natural properties of things as heat of the fire, Fluidity of liquids and inertness of earth, etc. His laws being true and perfect, He cannot alter them. Omnipotence, therefore, only means that He possesses the power of doing all His works without any help. -[Satyarth Prakash Ch. 8, pg.251 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja ]
Primarily, it’s to be noted that Moolshankar states he has explained the meaning of word Omnipotence, earlier in the book, on which we’ll expound soon. Secondarily, we learn that according to Moolshankar omnipotence isn’t the ability to do anything but only means “the power of doing all His works without any help.”(This is moolshankar’s proposed definition). We see Moolshankar, distorting the meaning of Omnipotence in order to hide the fact that Ishawar isn’t omnipotent or All-Powerful and this factuality is impossible to grasp for any believer (theist) in God, hence in order to delude people and his own self Moolshankar indulges in namely two things – Distortion of meaning and Sophistry.
a.2) Is Ishwar Omnipotent (All-Powerful) and what does Omnipotence mean to protestant Hinduism?
Now coming to the “explanation” of the meaning of Omnipotence by Moolshankar, which he stated to have explained earlier, wherein he uses sophistry in order prove his beliefs, which is quite amusing(hilarious) to read.
In order to, prove that his (Moolshankar) meaning (‘proposed definition’) of ‘Omnipotence’ and conception of God is correct, Moolshankar disgustingly, indulges in sophistry. These question explain the situation to us –
Is God All-powerful or not?
A. – Yes, He is, but what you understand by the word All- powerful is not right. It really means that God does not require the least assistance from any person in all His works such as Creation, Sustenance and Dissolution of the Universe, and administration of Divine Justice. In other words, He does all His works with His own infinite power. - [ Satyarth Prakash , Ch 7,pg 208 ,Tr. Dr. Chiranjiva]
But we believe that God can do whatever He likes. There is no one above Him.
A. - What does He like? If you say that he likes and can do all things, we ask – "Can God kill Himself?" Or "can He make other Gods like Himself, become ignorant, commit sins such as theft, adultery and the like? Or can He be unhappy?" Your answer can only be in the negative, as these things are opposed to the nature and attributes of God; hence your contention, that God can do all things, does not hold good. Our meaning only, therefore, of the word All-powerful is true. - [ Satyarth Prakash , Ch 7,pg 208 ,Tr. Dr. Chiranjiva]
We would also like to quote the hate monger, Islāmophobe Agniveer, so as to expose his ignorance, this Islāmophobe wrote -
Q: Is Ishwar Omnipotent or All-Powerful?
A: Yes, He is omnipotent. But that does not mean He can do whatever He wants. Doing whatever one may want is sign of indiscipline. On contrary, Ishwar is most disciplined. Omnipotence means that Ishwar does not need help of any other entity to conduct His duties – creation, management, destruction of universe. He is self-sufficient to conduct His duties. But He would act only as per His duties. For example,He will not kill Himself to create another Ishwar. He cannot make Himself an idiot. He cannot do theft or dacoity etc.
These (above) emphasized (by us) interrogative questions were asked by Moolshankar (& Agniveer) to prove that his god (Ishwar) is not omnipotent (as per the meaning of the word) in true sense but has limited omnipotence. Moolshankar (so does Agniveer) seems very eager and zealous to prove that his god (Ishwar) is not at all omnipotent in true sense, but merely is called so. Moolshankar seems to be trying pretty hard, to prove his definition of “Omnipotence” to be true, but drastically fails at it, as will be evident. Now coming to his silly, hilarious questions:
Firstly it’s to be noted that Moolshankar, states (assumes) that the answers to the questions will be in negative, I wonder why didn’t the questioner reply or why wasn’t his reply (in detail or were these questions and answers made-up by himself, that’s the case most probably) stated in Satyarth Prakash . Now replying to the insinuations and irrationality of Moolshankar and Agniveer.
We would be pleasured to ask –
Do these attributes or qualities/characteristics (Killing, ignorance, theft, adultery…etc.) befit Almighty God or belong to him? Of course not, Moolshankar also agrees by writing “these things are opposed to the nature and attributes of God”. Now, we would like to question, how come these things are applied to God? Also, it’s should be noted that these are qualities of humans and not of God, so how can these be applied to God or how could one judge God’s capability in terms of these [human] acts? Same deviant principle of judging and understanding God in human context and human attributes is followed by Agniveer , our readers need not get surprised after all Agniveer is a mere blind-follower of Moolshankar .We read Agniveer stating “Doing whatever one may want is sign of indiscipline. On contrary, Ishwar is most disciplined” What a show of irrationality and illogicalness! This statement of Agniveer show’s us his ‘conceptualization’ of God. What Agniveer states here is pure irrationality, God the Almighty is the creator of Discipline and hence he is not subjected to it , we wonder how could Agniveer even think of such a thing , he judges God in the light of human attributes and behavior!
Hence the so-called argument that doing whatever one wants is a sign of indiscipline is only applied to humans and not to God Almighty. Also, another aspect should be pointed out is that God Almighty by nature and definition is the Most-Perfect or All-Perfect, hence the one who’s perfect by nature needs no discipline at all, on contrary it’s only those who have the tendency to get deviated (like humans, animals…etc) and indulge in non-disciplinary acts and behavior need discipline and are subjected to it or judged by it.
This understanding of God in scales of human attributes and behavior, only show the anthropomorphic tendencies of Agniveer and his gross incoherency. To enlighten Agniveer we would present here, what Allāh Azz wa Jall (the only One True Almighty God) says which means:
“There is nothing like Him(Allāh)”
- [Surah Ash- Shura Ayat 11]
This verse proves and shows the obligation of rejection and negation of resembling God the Most Perfect, with His creation or anything else. This is what we Muslims believe, in fact this is the most basic and fundamental principle which we Muslims are taught at first, hence as stated above, there is no similitude, resembling, likeness of God [There is nothing like Him], so are his attributes [His attributes are perfectly Unique , and have no resembling, Similitude], hence we ask Protestant Hindus, to ponder upon it and we think and Agniveer too comes under Protestant Hinduism, so we would also ask him to humbly ponder upon this truly, great and glorious principle which every theist should believe in. This principle will help Agniveer get rid of his anthropomorphic tendencies – understanding God in light of Human attributes/context/behavior, as this verse makes clear that there is nothing like unto God.
We’ve also read what Moolshankar wrote; in fact both Agniveer and Moolshankar suffer from same disease of sophism, and irrationality [moreover both have the anthropomorphic tendency of understanding God and judging him in Human behavioral patterns, attributes]. Questions (like ‘Can God Kill Himself ’…et al.) asked by Moolshankar and Agniveer are similar [like both ask whether God can kill himself and create gods…etc], hence we would refute and debunk the questions (insinuations) asked by Moolshankar, and indirectly Agniveer’s questions will be debunked too.
Now coming back to the ‘questions’ of Moolshankar –
And we would now again like to ask “Why would God need to steal something, when he is the creator of that thing and can create it?” Yeah, only the Protestant Hindu god (Ishwar) would need to steal things as he is not the Creator but only the efficient cause (acc. to Protestant Hindu Theology), as prakriti (Primordial Matter) is eternal and uncreated like God , so it is possible that he could steal a bit from prakriti (Primordial Matter).So why would God Almighty need to steal? It’s ridiculous of Moolshankar to ask such hilarious and incoherent questions and this only adds up to his ignorance.
Now scrutinizing a bit more, Moolshankar also questions ‘can He[God] become ignorant, commit sins such as theft, adultery and the like’ this is really hilarious and irrational. By scrutinizing and observing questions similar and those asked by him we, learn a lot of Moolshankar’s state of mind and the basis of his belief system. We’ll see questions similar to Moolshankar’s first to show the real problem in his approach and then refute his questions.
Basically what Moolshankar is trying to ask “If God can do anything, can He make it impossible for him-self to do something [like adultery, theft…etc]?”
Such question’s becomes even clearer when we examine a related question: "Can God create an uncreated being?" The problem here is that the questioner has already defined the being to be uncreated and then proceeds to ask for something that contradicts that definition. The problem is in the questioner's terms, not any lack in God's potential. The same is true when asking God to make a circle with four sides. Having already provided a definition of a circle that could never include a four-sided figure, such a question is absurd. Something is certainly self-contradictory here, but it is the questioner's terminology and not the omnipotence of God. The answer to the question (Can God kill Himself?) of Moolshankar is-. Well, killing (death) isn’t ability; it’s the inability to live moreover death is a creation (death is created and God’s uncreated) of God, so it’s quite irrational to ask such questions as creation can never overcome the creator in any sense. The immortal cannot die because that defies His attribute of immortality. Similarly, the omnipotent cannot create a task that He can't complete because such a task is merely a figment of one's imagination and could not exist, not because He is incapable.Can God make 1=2? Well if 1=2, then it wouldn't be 1! So the idea is self-contradictory, not God.
The question also reminds us of the idea of what happens when an immovable rock meets an unstoppable force? The two things cannot exist in the same universe. Likewise, if God exists then all things which contradict His attributes are imaginary, non-existent and impossible. They are forever bound to the realm of imagination and cannot be brought into existence.
Similar is the question (of Moolshankar) “can He make other Gods like Himself” .In fact the phrase “can He make other Gods like Himself” is explicit sophism or false/invalid argument, and is a contradiction in terms, because the mere fact that something is created (‘can He make’) means that it cannot be a God. This question is like asking could God create “a god who is not a god?” It is self-evident that the answer can only be: The power of God has nothing to do with that, because the idea that something can be a god and not a god is illogical and is irrational, and the power and might of God has nothing to do with irrationalities.
In fact all the questions asked by Moolshankar and Agniveer are just instances of sophism and are self-contradiction –
- "Can God kill Himself?"
- "Can He (God) make other Gods like Himself, become ignorant, commit sins such as theft, adultery and the like?
- “Can He (God) be unhappy?"
God is eternal and uncreated[in fact even Moolshankar attest to this , that his god Ishwar is eternal and uncreated] by nature and definition hence God killing himself is irrational and contradictory in terms , also Killing (or dying) is a human’s act or attribute, like Humans kill humans, Humans die. So what we see is Moolshankar first defining God to be uncreated and eternal then posing a sophistic questions which are purely contradictory and irrational , Moolshankar is only contradicting himself.
As for creating God then again God is Uncreated and eternal, hence what is created cannot be god so it’s irrational and spurious even to think of such absurdities.
Same for questions like, ‘can God become Ignorant’, God by nature is All-wise and All-Knowledgeable hence again its contradiction and irrational, also things like ignorance, adultery sins, theft are all instances of human behaviors, attributes or actions and in no way can they ever be applied to God or used to judge God. Same with being “Unhappy”, being happy and unhappy are human attributes/characteristics and traits, not of God ,also these things contradict God’s attribute of Perfection(All-Perfect) hence God by nature being perfect is not subject to such things and state, such queries are but contradiction. As God exists hence all things which contradict His attributes are imaginary, non-existent and impossible. They are forever bound to the realm of imagination and cannot be brought into existence. Also the Power, Majesty and Might of Almighty God have nothing to do with Irrationalities.
Hence we see Moolshankar using sophistry (false-invalid arguments) to prove that “Omnipotence” in fact means “the power of doing all His works without any help.” And not “able to do anything” which in fact, is the true and right definition of being Omnipotent.
Concluding, it will be beneficial to note, how Moolshankar uses his irrationality and Sophistry to prove things. Like first he defines Ishwar as uncreated and beginning-less and then questions whether “God can kill himself?” that’s so self-contradictory and irrational of him. Again and again he repeats his irrational questions like “can He(God) make other Gods like Himself” , same here he as defined and stated God to be “Uncreated” , then ask can God makeother Gods? This is what happens when you swallow the excreta of philosopher’s brain. This is pure irrationality and this will be evident, even to novice or amateur, let’s see what a mathematician opines about such ridiculous questions.
Mathematician’s Opinion –
Summing up the section, I would like to present a short quote from a revert to Islām – Dr. Jeffrey Lang, a mathematician [Professor of Mathematics at University of Kansas, US] (an ex-atheist)] –
“If God is all-powerful, can He become a man, terminate His existence, tell a lie, be unjust, or create a stone too heavy for even Him to move? These somewhat silly riddles most often arise from imposing unnecessary and contradictory assumptions on certain attributes of God or by assigning unwarranted additional attributes to Him.”
- [“Even Angels Ask”, Dr. Jeffrey Lang, pg. 69, Beltsville, 1997]
We are pretty sure that every intelligent, sane and unbiased person will believe such ‘questions’ to be silly, and illogical.
It would also be beneficial (concisely) to state the reasons why Moolshankar delved into such absurdities which are totally untenable. It’s necessary to note that Moolshankar was reluctant enough to apply (judge and understand) human attributes to God in order to prove his point; also his conception of God in his mind was somewhat anthropomorphic in essence. This also shows how Moolshankar swallowed the excreta of philosophers and atheists’ (in fact, sophistry was chiefly used by atheist to disprove God and his existence) brain in order to forward his claims, delude people from the straight path and malign and corrupt monotheism.
Islāmic Stance –
To enlighten people about Islām and present a true picture of Islām (which the Hate-monger’s and quacks like Mahendra Pāl, Agniveer cowardly and hypocritically don’t do, due to their bias, prejudice and hate for Islām.) we’ll shortly and very briefly present Islāmic point of view here, very concisely for our readers and truth Seekers –
Who’s the Creator?
Allāh the Most-Merciful says which means,
“That is Allāh, your Lord, the Creator of all things, Lā ilāha illā Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). How then are you turning away (from Allāh, by worshipping others instead of Him)?” – [Surah Al-Mu’min , Ayat 62]
See you O, protestant Hindus your only One True Almighty God (Allāh) states that He is the Creator of all things; still you turn away from Him and worship false-god?
And in another verse of the Noble, Holy Qur’ān, Allāh Azz wa Jall says which means,
“Such is Allāh, your Lord! Lā ilāha illā Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Creator of all things. So worship Him (Alone), and He is the Wakîl (Trustee, Disposer of affairs or Guardian) over all things.” - [Surah, Al-An’aam, Ayat 102]
Again theonly One True Almighty God (Allāh) states that He alone is the Creator of all things and calls every of his creation to worship Him alone.
Is God (Allāh) Omnipotent or All-Powerful?
Allāh the Most-Merciful says which means,
“Truly, Allāh is Ever Most Powerful, All-Wise.” - [Surah An-Ni’saa, Ayat 56]
“Verily, Allāh is Ever Oft-Pardoning, All-Powerful.” - [Surah An-Ni’saa, Ayat 149]
“Truly, Allāh is All-Knowing, All-Powerful.” - [Surah An-Nahl, Ayat 70]
“Verily, Allāh is All-Powerful, All-Mighty.” - [Surah Al-Mujaadilah, Ayat 21]
We think the above quoted verses speak for themselves; we need not re-write what the verses make so explicitly evident. We learn that Allāh Azz wa Jall is Omnipotent unlike the protestant Hindu god Ishwar who isn’t, moreover he (Ishwar) is dependent over other to ‘engineer’ hence is not even the creator- we’ll expound on this issue later in the article.
We all know that Al-Qur’ān al-Kareem cannot be translated, it’s a well known fact attested by approximately every Arabic scholar be it Muslim or non-Muslim, Al-Qur’ān is perfectly unique and hence there is no question that it’s glory and perfection can be conveyed in any other language except that in which it was revealed (we can only try and convey interpretation of its meanings), and even the famous briton ‘translator’ of the Qur’an Marmaduke Pickthall(An famous English literati who reverted to Islām)confessed saying -
“The Koran cannot be translated… It is only an attempt to present the meaning of the Koran and peradventure something of the charm in English. It can never take the place of the Koran in Arabic, nor is it meant to do so.”
- [The Meanings of the Glorious Koran, pg. vii, Alfred A. Knopp Inc., 1930]
What we can do, is somehow show and translate the interpretation of meanings of Glorious, Noble Qur’ān, in different languages. Hence it’s to be understood that all the Qur’ānic verse quoted here in the article are mere interpretation of the meanings of the Noble Qur’ān.
Strengthen your Understanding –
Summarizing this sub-section (i.e. ‘A) Is Protestant Hinduism Monotheistic?’), we would like to review what we’ve learnt about protestant Hindu theology, their creedal system and Protestant Hindus –
1) Ishwar(Protestant Hindu God) isn’t the ‘Creator’ but simply the ‘Maker’ , ‘Engineer’ ,‘Fashioner’ of the world , as he didn’t create Prakriti (Primordial matter) nor Ātmā (Human Souls) as per Protestant Hindu Theology. What does this necessitate?
This belief itself proves protestant Hinduism to be non-Monotheistic, as in Monotheistic belief everything is dependent on God, but here 2 entities namely Prakriti (Primordial matter) and Ātmā are independent. Where as God is dependent on Prakriti (Primordial matter) for ‘Making’ ‘engineering’ ‘Fashioning’ Universe …etc things out of it.
This belief rips God of his one main and very important attribute that’s Uniqueness , Ishwar(Protestant Hindu God) isn’t unique as he share’s the very same attribute with Prakriti (Primordial matter) and Ātmā , that is attributes like ‘Uncreated’ , ‘Beginning less’ .This make’s Vedic God (Ishwar) a mere artificer and Demiurge , which results to pure Polytheism.
This belief also , entitlesPrakriti (Primordial matter) and Ātmā (Human Souls) to be Partners of God, in being ‘Uncreated’ and in ‘Making’ and ‘engineering’ of Universe as the Protestant Hindu God(Ishwar) is dependent on both Ātmā (Human Souls) and Prakriti (Primordial matter) to bring about this Universe. This in Islām is known as Shirk or Associationism, which is in fact polytheism. Hence Protestant Hinduism by nature is Polytheistic.
We’ve also proved that protestant Hinduism doesn’t regard its God to be ‘Omnipotent’ or All-Powerful and their use of these words is totally futile as these are used just used in empty sense without affirming the meanings of these words.
2) We’ve also learnt and seen how Moolshankar and his blind-follower Agniveer use Sophistry to prove their point.
There are many other points and proofs which expose the falsity of the protestant Hinduism being Monotheistic, these points and proofs shall be discussed and stated in the next sub-section.