The Void and bogus tactics of deception of awful Islamophobes has reached great heights today, but what's ironical is that they usually do not appeal to we muslims anymore, rather these deceptive panchtantras helps in affirming our faith in Islam. For instance the article on the decieving castle Satyagni/Agniveer, ‘Islam- The Religion of Tauheed (Monotheism)?’ The concocted material in this un-scholarly and fact-lacking article prompted me to do some sincere study of Islam which certainly helped me to affirm my faith in Islam. Phew!
Therefore, I would like to give ‘THANKS’ Satyagni/Agniveer in my own ‘WAY’ (the way is cremating his comic-relief article), also I must say that the wishy-washy material used in the article is being used by Arya samajists as one of important deceptive play for misleading novice and revert muslims so it is called for a detailed response.
This pity deserving article by Satyagni/Agniveer alleges Islam to be polytheistic religion, which certainly is far far alien to Islam unlike his vedic dharma. It's ironical that orthodox hindus who are usually monist or polytheist question us the empirical evidence for the fundamental creed of Islam i.e 'Monotheism(tauheed)' and on the contrary these protestant cult of hinduism, seemingly desperate Islamophobes play their deceptive guitar to depict Islam as polytheistic religion which is tantamount of calling a circle, as a 'triangle'. One couldn't justify Satyagni/Agniveer's deceptive "article" even if he adds his toes and fingers and thumbs and the even appendages of the awful "maharishi" Satyagni/Agniveer.
The essence of Islam which is Tauheed is seemingly a thorn in neck of these Arya samajists. They've tried to prove position of Prophet Muhammad(salAllahu alayhi wa-sallam) as that of a god or deity of Islam, which is nothing but a great lie against Islam.
‘Tauheed’ i.e Oneness(of God) the essence and eloquence of Islam is the core and central theme of Islamic theology. Holy Quran emphasizes on Oneness of God more than anything else. The conception of God which is the crux of theology has been stated precisely in an eloquent manner in Quran, chapter 112 i.e ‘Surah Ikhlas’
“1. Say: He is Allah(God), the One and Only! , 2. Allah(God) the Eternal, Absolute; 3. He begetteth not; nor is He begotten. 4. And there is none like unto Him.”
This sacred surah is one of the very important Surah from the Holy Quran because it proclaims the Oneness(Tauheed) and the Absolute nature of God. This concept is presented in the 1st verse simultaneously negating existence of any other diety as it reads “...One and ONLY..”. The 2nd verse declares that God is Eternal, implying He is beyond the bounds of time and space. The 3rd verse explicitly asserts that God does not give birth nor He was born. and the 4th verse declares that Allah is beyond comparison implying none of his attribute is comparable in terms of its degree. For instance, God is Most kind, we humans too could be kind but the degree of kindness between that of God and us is incomparable. Indeed!
The importance of message of Surah Ikhlas is evident from the very words of Prophet Muhammad(salAllahu alyahi wa-sallam) itself,
Narrated by Abu Said Al-Khudri
“A man heard another man reciting (in the prayers): 'Say (O Muhammad): "He is Allah, the One." (112.1) And he recited it repeatedly. When it was morning, he went to the Prophet and informed him about that as if he considered that the recitation of that Surah by itself was not enough. Allah's Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hand my life is, it is EQUAL to ONE-THIRD of the Quran.”.”
~ [Sahih Bukhari - Volume 9, Book 93, Number 471]
This hadith implies that tauheed is the core of the Quran. Moreover, surah al-Ikhlas backs the first declaration (shahadah) of Islam: “There is no god but Allah(The God)”, so, Islam’s STRONG and FIRM foundation is the belief in oneness of God (monotheism). Hold on! Surah Ikhlas isn't the only Surah asserting Oneness of God, there are hundreds of numbers of verses stating Oneness of God so quoting them here would unnecessarily prolong the length of this rebuttal, proving monotheism(tauheed) in Islam is tantamount of proving "sun rises from east and sets in the west".
Before, I start scrutinizing his bogus contentions and criticism, I would like to present here, the correct status of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) in Islam in light of the Quran and Hadith.
Prophet is NO MORE THAN A HUMAN!
Quran which is the Greatest authority of Islam says,
“Say (O Muhammad): I AM ONLY A MAN LIKE YOU. It has been revealed to me that your Ilaah (God) is One Ilaah.”
~ [Surah al-Kahf 18:110]
“Say, O [Muhammad], "I am only a man like you to whom it has been revealed that your god is but one God; so take a straight course to Him and seek His forgiveness." And woe to those who associate others with Allah.”
~ [Surah al-Fuşşilat 41:6]
• Allah says: “Muhammad is no more than a messenger: many were the messenger that passed away before him.”
~ [Surah al-Imran 3: 144]
• Say, “I possess not for myself any harm or benefit except what Allah should will. For every nation is a [specified] term. When their time has come, then they will not remain behind an hour, nor will they precede [it].
~ [Surah Yunus 10:49]
• Prophet is not omniscient.. Allah says: “Say (O Muhammad): I do not say to you that I possess Allah’s treasures, nor that I have knowledge of the Unseen. I do not say to you that I am an angel. I follow only that which has been revealed to me.”
~ [ Sûrah al-An`âm 6 : 50]
• Prophet is not Omnipotent. Allah says: “Say (O Muhammad): It is not in my power to cause you harm, or to bring you to right conduct.”
~ [ Sûrah al-Jinn 72: 21]
• Say, "Glory be to my Lord; am I not but a mortal messenger?
~ [Surah Isra 17:93]
• “Verily, you (O Muhammad) will die, and verily, they (too) will die”
~ [Surah al-Zumar 39:30]
• The state of the Prophet (pbuh) in his humanity is the same as that of all the Prophets and Messengers.
“And We did not create them (the Messengers, with) bodies that ate not food, nor were they immortals”
~ [Surah al-Anbiya’ 21:8]
• Allah has condemned those who wondered at the humanity of the Prophet(pbuh) as follows:
“And they say: Why does this Messenger (Muhammad) eat food, and walk about in the markets (as we)…?”
~ [Surah al-Furqaan 25:8]
• “We did send apostles before you, and appointed for them wives and children: and it was never the part of an apostle to bring a sign except as Allah permitted (or commanded). For each period isa Book (revealed).”
~ [Surah Al-Rad, 13: 38]
Few Ahadeeths :
• Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) himself taught us, muslims, to not over-praise him :
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 654:
I heard the Prophet saying, “Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle.”
In the above cited hadith, beloved prophet Muhammad(pbuh) explicitly taught us Muslims to not over-praise him. Additionaly, he is VERY SPECIFIC about what he means, he says that we should not over praise him as the Christians do with Jesus and as we all know many Christians worship and revere Jesus, they believe he is God, and that he is the one in whom their salvation lies.
This narration of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) would be enough to end the false claim that we Muslims worship or are taught to worship him.
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 394
When the Prophet (peace be upon him) made a mistake in prayer, he said: “I am but a human being like yourselves. I forget things just like you do. So if I forget something, remind me.”
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 533:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
The Prophet stood up among us and addressed (saying) "You willbe gathered, barefooted, naked, and uncircumcised (as Allah says): 'As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it..' (21.104) And the first human being to be dressed on the Day of Resurrection will be (the Prophet) Abraham Al-Khalil. Then will be brought some men of my followers who will be taken towards the left (i.e., to the Fire), and I will say: 'O Lord! My companions whereupon Allah will say: You do not know what they did after you left them. I will then say as the pious slave Jesus said, "And I was witness over them while I dwelt amongst them..........(up to) ...the All-Wise.'" Quran (5.117-118)
a similar hadith is found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 656
• Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 477
Narrated by Masruq
'Aisha said, "If anyone tells you that Muhammad has seen his Lord, he is a liar, for Allah says: 'No vision can grasp Him.' (6.103) And if anyone tells you that Muhammad has seen the Unseen, he is a liar, for Allah says: "None has the knowledge of the Unseen but Allah."
• Abu Bakr (RA) Khutbah on the death of the Prophet (SAW)
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 333:
Narrated `Ayesha :
Abu Bakr came riding his horse from his dwelling place in As-Sunh. He got down from it, entered the Mosque and did not speak with anybody till he came to me and went direct to the Prophet, who was covered with a marked blanket. Abu Bakr uncovered his face. He knelt down and kissed him and then started weeping and said, "My father and my mother be sacrificed for you, O Allah's Prophet! Allah will not combine two deaths on you. You have died the death which was written for you."
Narrated Abu Salama from Ibn `Abbas : Abu Bakr came out and `Umar , was addressing the people, and Abu Bakr told him to sit down but `Umar refused. Abu Bakr again told him to sit down but `Umar again refused. Then Abu Bakr recited the Tashah-hud (i.e. none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah's Apostle) and the people attended to Abu Bakr and left `Umar. Abu Bakr said, "Amma ba'du, whoever amongst you worshipped Muhammad, then Muhammad is dead, but whoever worshipped Allah, Allah is alive and will never die. Allah said: 'Muhammad is no more than an Apostle and indeed (many) Apostles have passed away before him..(up to the) grateful.' " (3.144) (The narrator added, "By Allah, it was as if the people never knew that Allah had revealed this verse before till Abu Bakr recited it and then whoever heard it, started reciting it.")
This was just a glimpse of Islamic position of prophet(pbuh) while a person doing a thorough and honest study of Islam would infer that the fact that Prophet is no more than a human has been emphasized throughout Quran and hadiths. So, what we can rationally conclude from the above is that Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) is NOT a diety, but what distinguishes the Prophet (pbuh) from other human is Prophethood and Revelation.
Let's quickly have a glimpse how humbly Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) prayed which a 'god' or person of equal authority than that of Allah wouldn't.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 482 :
Narrated by Ibn 'Abbas
The Prophet used to invoke Allah at night, saying, "O Allah: All the Praises are for You: You are the Lord of the Heavens and the Earth. All the Praises are for You; You are the Maintainer of the Heaven and the Earth and whatever is in them. All the Praises are for You; You are the Light of the Heavens and the Earth. Your Word is the Truth, and Your Promise is the Truth, and the Meeting with You is the Truth, and Paradise is the Truth, and the (Hell) Fire is the Truth, and the Hour is the Truth. O Allah! I surrender myself to You, and I believe in You and I depend upon You, and I repent to You and with You (Your evidences) I stand against my opponents, and to you I leave the judgment (for those who refuse my message). O Allah! Forgive me my sins that I did in the past or will do in the future, and also the sins I did in secret or in public. You are my only God (Whom I worship) and there is no other God for me (i.e. I worship none but You)."
These citation presented above from the texts of Islam are more than enough to cremate lies of this awful Islamophobe and to refute his bogus article. Anyways, Let's start probing the lies of hate monger Satyagni/Agniveer.
Satyagni/Agniveer wrote :
“Although God/Allah, as described in Bible/Quran, shows many human like traits such as-having two hands, sitting on throne, talking with angels etc and thus seems a physical entity bounded within the boundaries, but we leave it to the scholars of Christianity/Islam to ponder over such issues and make the interpretations of Bible/Quran more philosophically acceptable. However common belief of a layman of God belonging to both the religions is basically what we have written above.”
Here in above passage Satyagni the hate monger had thrown some red herrings, which ought to be answered. The flaw in this conception is that he has done his own “rational” interpretation of God’s attributes, God’s attributes could only known by what God has himself revealed not by any tom, dick and harry’s erroneous perspective. Anyway, let’s scrutinize his allegation of Allah possessing human traits.
Firstly, the science of scrutinizing Quran shouldn’t be done by isolating a verse without comprehending the entire Quran, because for one to understand the attributes of Allah one ought to take all the attributes of him into contemplation. The Quran explicitly asserts, “There is NOTHING LIKE HIM” in several verses like 112:4, 42:11. Therefore, when one come across attributes of Allah possessing 'hands' one ought to keep “There is NOTHING LIKE HIM” into contemplation, in light of this some of the Islamic classical scholars have described it as following,
• Imam At-Tirmidhee (d. 279H) said in his Sunan (1/128-129)
“It has been stated by more than one person from the People of Knowledge about such ahaadeeth, that there is no tashbeeh (resemblance) to the Attributes of Allaah, and our Lord - the Blessed and Most High- descends to the lowest heaven every night. So they say: "Affirm these narrations, have Eemaan ( faith ) in them, do not deny them, nor ask how." The likes of this has been related from Maalik ibn Anas, Sufyaan ath-Thawree, Ibn Uyainah and Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak, who all said about such ahaadeeth: "Leave them as they are, without asking how." .....Ishaaq ibn Ibraheem [ar-Raahawaih] said: Tashbeeh is if it is said: "Hand like my hand, or similar to my hand", or it is said: "Hearing like my Hearing, or similar to my hearing", then this is tashbeeh. But if what is being said is what Allah has said: Hand, Hearing, Seeing and it is not asked how, nor is it said: "Like my hearing, or similar to my hearing" - then it is not tashbeeh. Allah, the Most Blessed, Most High, said in His Book (ash-Shooraa 42:11): " There is none like unto Him, and he is the all-Hearing, the all-Seeing" ”
• Al Imam al-Dhahabi says:
“Why do you say? A hand in reality is this bodily limb'? Rather, a 'hand' is homonym, and it is in accordance with, andof the same category of what it is attributed to. Therefore, if the thing described there with is an animal then the hand would be a bodily limb. If it were was statue made of brass and stone, the hand would also be of brass and stone. If it were an image drawn on the wall, the hand would be a drawing. If it were that of which neither there is a like, nor it is a body, the hand would also be that of which neither there is a like, nor it is a body, If it is said: In its conventional usage, a hand only refers to the limb that we all know of. We would say in reply: Similarly, in conventional usage, knowledge, hearing and seeing are only accidents that subsist in bodies. Where, then, is the difference?”
~ [Ithbat al-Yad lilLahi subhanah p.42-44 by al-Imam al-Dhahabi]
Satyagni as well as Vedas says that Ishwar has knowledge. However, humans possess knowledge as well, So does that equates Ishwar to humans? Alike, why don't we remain consistent and say the rest regarding all of Allah's attributes such as His Hands?
A second set of scholars interpret these attributes, 'face'/'hand'/'shin' as mere metaphors or idiomatic expressions, for instance, where face means countenance of Allah as the arabic word 'Wajh' وَجْه, is a comprehensive Arabic word. It may imply (1) literally face, but it may imply (2) countenance or favour, as in Qur'an 92:20; (3) honour, glory. Presence as applied to Allah, as in 4:72; (4) cause, sake (for the sake of) as in 76:8; (5) the first part, the beginning, as in 3:71; (6) nature, inner being, essence, self, as in 5 :111, 27:88, and perhaps also 55:27., hand means his power, etc. Now, if we go by any of these two interpretations presented above, we couldn't say that these attributes resemble human sort of attributes.
Concering Allah speaks, the fact is that the similarity between God's attributes and those of mankind is only in name and not in degree. When attributes like speech, hearing, seeing, etc are used for God they are to be taken in the absolute sense, free from human deficiencies. God has communicated to us in our human language and used the words to make us understand in simple ways. However the seeing, hearing, speech of God cannot be compared to that of man for the Quran says “There is nothing like him” in 112:4, 42:11.
It implies that we know God hears our prayers but we do not know how, nor how He sees, nor how He spoke to His Prophets. We leave these incomprehensible ‘Hows’ to Him. But He certainly doesn't need human kind of ears, eyes, tongue etc to hear, see, and speak. The words are used from our perspective and to simplify for us.
Satyagni/Agniveer wrote :
“After this brief introduction to Tauheed/Oneness of God/Ekeshvarvaad, we would like to put Islam and Vedas on the test of Tauheed and try to reason out that if both Vedas and Islam believe in One God, where does the difference lie. Islam is claimed to be the only religion on the face of the earth which is purely monotheistic by most of its followers. The reason of this ignorance is obvious. Quran, which is supposed to be the perfect and final revelation of Allah, sent for whole mankind, does not contain any unambiguous information about the religions, beliefs and philosophies of the people living outside the boundaries of Arab and Israel..”
I'm sorry to say that the actual reason is that your Vedic dharma isn't ‘Monotheistic’ at all. I don't know as to why hindus are ever desperate to read about their so-called monotheism in Quran. I urge readers as well as Satyagni/Agniveer to read these 2 articles which exposes the real concept of God in hinduism.
Even this protestant cult ‘Arya Samaj’ isn't devoid of inconsistencies in its so-called Monotheism
Satyagni/Agniveer wrote :
“We shall now analyze Islam and Vedas and try to as certain Tauheed in them. Tauheed in IslamAny Muslim, when asked about Oneness of God, proudly recites Surah Ikhlas, Chapter 112 of Quran, which is givenbelow1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;4. And there is none like unto Him.These beautiful verses really echo the message of Vedas regarding One Eeshvar/Allah. For example this Mantra स पर्यगात् शुक्रं अकायं अव्रणम् असनाविरं शुद्धमपापविद्धम. कविर्मनीषी परिभूः स्वयंभूः याथातथ्यतो अर्थान् व्यदधात शाश्वतीभ्यः समाभ्यः. [यजुर्वेद ४०/८]
Meaning- That Supreme Being is omnipresent, All-powerful, He is never embodied, is never born , is never liable to division and is free from nervous or arterial systems, never commits a sin, is never subject to pain, grief and ignorance and the like, Pure, Perfect, Omniscient, Inward Controller of all, Ruler of All, Eternal and Self-existent . He has from all eternity been teaching uncreated immortal human souls, the true knowledge of things through the revelation of the Veda – His eternal knowledge. [Words in bold in this Mantra depict the entire Surah Ikhlas] However there are innumerable verses in Quran which contradict the message of Tauheed of Surah Ikhlas. These verses when analyzed rationally would confuse every sensible person that whether it is “Tauheed” or rather “Shirk”, which is the pillar of Islam! Have a look.”
Let’s scrutinize the verse cited from white yajurveda 40:8 and whether or not it depicts entire surah Ikhlaas and whether or not it's in concilation with theology of Arya samaj.
Firstly, the words depicted in Bold by Satyagni/Agniveer may only resemble the 2nd verse of Surah Ikhlaas, therefore, the illiterate Islamophobe ought to learn that eternity of God isn't very foundation of tauheed or Monotheism, though, its a part of the Islamic Monotheism(tauheed al asma was sifaat). But the basic is Oneness of God which is nowhere in this mantra on contrary Surah Ikhlaas puts it very explicitly “Say : Allah is the One and Only(God)”, simultaneously negating existence of any gods other than Allah Almighty.
Secondly, I would like to throw some light on the verse cited while taking Arya Samaj's theology in cosideration. The translation presented by hate monger Satyagni/Agniveer says God is ‘All powerful’, however arya samaj's theology depicts the contrary. Moolshankar the founder of Arya samaj wrote in his bible of hate(satyarth prakash) regarding co-eternity of primordial matter and soul :
“...How could He have then created this vast universe without (material) cause. You cannot even make one leg of a fly, how can you then believe that God create this world by the flat of His Will”
~ Satyarth prakash, Chapter 14, objection number 21 (Out of nothing, nothing can come?)
So in the words of Moolshankar God is NOT all-powerful. It seems that If eternal matter wasn't available to Vedic Ishwar, he would have been helpless, sitting idle. Additionaly, I would like to leave an anecdote for the readers, The mantra presented by Satyagni/Agniveer is from the last chapter of Yajurveda which is an Upanishad named 'Isavasya Upanishad' which actually has a completely different understanding of God(it has been added to the Shukla Yajurveda) which we shall see while refuting the 6th vedic citation presented by Agniveer/satyagni.The Upanishadic philosphy is very different from Vedic conception of divinity. So only if we look at this verse in the context of Upanishadic philosophy, we can understand it in the right way.
The verse is talking of the 'Self', which is the theme of the Upanishads, that is that Everything is One(wahdatal wajood) a monistic and pantheistic formula. It is not talking about any one God but about 'Self'. And this verse is not saying anything unique. It is just mentioning one aspect of the Upanishadic Brahman. If we look at Shatapath Brahman 14/1/2/18 we read
“Verily this sacrifice is Pragâpati, and Pragâpati is both of this, defined and undefined, limited and unlimited. Whatever one does with a Yagus formula, by that one makes up that form of him (Pragâpati) which is defined and limited; and whatever one does silently, by that one makes up that form of him which is undefined and unlimited: verily, then, whosoever, knowing this, does it on this wise, makes up that whole and complete Pragâpati. But he also leaves over a lump of spare (clay) for expiations.”
It says that Prajapati which according to Arya Samajis is God is both LIMITED and UNLIMITED, DEFINED and UNDEFINED.
Also if you look at Brihadaranyak Upanishad 2/3/1 we read
“There are two forms of Brahman, the material and the immaterial, the mortal and the immortal, the solid and the fluid, sat (being) and tya (that), (i.e. sat-tya, true).”
Alike, Brihadaranyak Upanishad 1/4/17 says :
“In the beginning this was Self alone, one only. He desired, 'Let there be a wife for me that I may have offspring, and let there be wealth for me that I may offer sacrifices.”
Satyagni/Agniveer wrote :
“1. Allah offers prayers and greetings of Salam to Muhammad!Allah sends His Salah (prayers) on prophet (Muhammad) and also His angels do so. O believers! Send your Salah on him and greet him with Taslim. [Quran 33:56]
Comments-a. God, angels, and humans are on one side and Muhammad is on the other! What does this verse show, who is greater, Muhammad or Allah? Of course Muhammad!b. One can try to deny the “Muhammad worship by Allah” by saying that Salah in the verse means “blessings” or “mercy”! But if that be the case, Allah could have not asked angels and humans to send Salah on Muhammad because humans have no authority to send blessings or mercy on prophet directly! If Salah means offering Dua for Muhammad, then whom will Allah ask for Dua to bless Muhammad? Is there someone greater than Allah?c. The most recognized Tafsir of Sunni tradition, Tafsir e Ibn Kathir makes it clear what the Salah means. In the description of the same verse [33:56], he writes-“Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Talhah said that the Messenger of Allah came one day looking happy. They said, “O Messenger of Allah, we see that you look happy.” He said, The angel came to me and told me, “O Muhammad, would it not please you if your Lord, may He be glorified, says: `No member of your Ummah sends Salah upon you but I send Salah upon him tenfold, and no member of your Ummah sends greetings of Salam upon you but I send greetings of Salam upon him tenfold.”’ I said, “Of course.” This was also recorded by An-Nasa’i.”
So it is clear that Allah sends Salah and greetings of Salam to a human!”
Firstly, the origin of the word 'salah' is to 'praise'. This is supported by what Ibn Athir, discussing various views and usages of the word, says: “It is also said that the literal origin of the word is 'to praise' and the particular worship is called 'Salah', because it entails the glorification of the Lord.” (Nihaya fi Ghareeb al-Athar 3/95) and as ritual prayers include ‘praising’ thus it is called Salat. The nature of the Salat of Allah and angels is different slightly, Allah's sending His blessings on His Prophet means this: Allah is very kind to His Prophet: He praises him, blesses his work, exalts his name, and showers His mercies on him. And when it comes to angels it means: they invoke Allah’s blessings and mercy for him. Also, One verb with same meanings may have slightly different implications, a word in a passage or a sentence does not always have exactly same implication for all the subjects. For instance a person says: 'Mr. A and Mr. B helped me.' It does not necessarily mean that both helped him in exactly the same way. It may be that one actually did something for him and the other requested for him.
Moreover, let's see what the Arabic-English lexicon by Edward William Lane has to say on it. About the use of the word 'Salah' for Allah he wrote,
Also, while explaining Quran 33:56(verse cited by toddler Satyagni/Agniveer), he wrote,
Secondly, the verse in its latter part says that, Allah has commanded we humans to ASK Allah to confer his blessings upon him and to do salutation (as-Salamu Alaykum) to him. To further substantiate the apt interpretation, let me present few apt translations.
1. (M. M. Pickthall)
“Lo! Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation.”
“Surely Allah and His angels bless the Prophet; O you who believe! CALL FOR (Divine) blessings on him and salute him with a (becoming) salutation.”
“God and His angels accept prayers for the Prophet. You who believe, PRAY FOR HIM (too) and greet him properly.”
“Allah and His angels extend mercy and blessings to the Prophet. O you whose hearts have been touched with the divine hand: INVOKE ALLAH's mercy and blessings on him and pray: "Peace be upon him and blessed be he with all divine favours".”
5. (Ahmed Ali)
“That truly God and His angels bless and compliment on the prophet. You, you those who believed, PRAY and CALL for God's blessing on him (the prophet) and great greetings.”
How shameful it's that the hate monger cherry picked few lines of tafsir on this verse to befit his fallacious interpretation and ignored a major part of tafsir which unfortunately rips of his wings of misinterpretation.
Imam Ibn kathir wrote in tafsir of this verse,
“Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: "This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness. There are Mutawatir Hadiths narrated from the Messenger of Allah commanding us to send blessings on him and how we should say Salah upon him. We will mention as many of them as we can, if Allah wills, and Allah is the One Whose help we seek. In his Tafsir of this Ayah, Al-Bukhari recorded that Ka`b bin `Ujrah said,
“It was said, `O Messenger of Allah, with regard to sending Salam upon you, we know about this, but how about Salah” He said:
«قُولُوا: اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ، كَمَا صَلَّيْتَ عَلَى آلِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ، إِنَّكَ حَمِيدٌ مَجِيدٌ، اللَّهُمَّ بَارِكْ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ، كَمَا بَارَكْتَ عَلَى آلِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، إِنَّكَ حَمِيدٌ مَجِيد»
“Say: "O Allah, send Your Salah upon Muhammad and upon the family of Muhammad, as You sent Your Salah upon the family of Ibrahim, verily You are the Most Praiseworthy, Most Glorious. O Allah, send Your blessings upon Muhammad and upon the family of Muhammad, as You sent Your blessings upon the family of Ibrahim, verily You are Most Praiseworthy, Most Glorious.'')”
Imam Ahmad recorded that Ibn Abi Layla said that Ka`b bin `Ujrahmet him and said, "Shall I not give you a gift The Messenger of Allah came out to us and we said, `O Messenger of Allah! We know how to send Salam upon you, but how can we send Salah' He said:
«قُولُوا: اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ، كَمَا صَلَّيْتَ عَلَى آلِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ، إِنَّكَ حَمِيدٌ مَجِيدٌ، اللَّهُمَّ بَارِكْ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ، كَمَا بَارَكْتَ عَلَى آلِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، إِنَّكَ حَمِيدٌ مَجِيد»
“Say: "O Allah, send Your Salah upon Muhammad and upon the family of Muhammad, as You sentYour Salah upon the family of Ibrahim, verily You are the Most Praiseworthy, Most Glorious. O Allah, send Your blessings upon Muhammad and upon the family of Muhammad, as You sent Your blessings upon the family of Ibrahim, verily You are Most Praiseworthy, Most Glorious.'')”
This Hadith has been recorded by the Group in their books with different chains of narration.
Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "We said, `O Messenger of Allah, this is the Salam upon you, but how do we send Salah upon you' He said:
«قُولُوا: اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ عَبْدِكَ وَرَسُولِكَ، كَمَا صَلَّيْتَ عَلَى آلِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ، وَبَارِكْ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ، كَمَا بَارَكْتَ عَلَى آلِ إِبْرَاهِيم»
(Say: "O Allah, send Your Salah upon Muhammad, Your servant and Messenger, as You sent Your Salah upon the family of Ibrahim, and send Your blessings upon Muhammad and upon the family of Muhammad, as You sent Your blessings upon the family of Ibrahim.'')'' Abu Salih narrated that Layth said:
«عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ، كَمَا بَارَكْتَ عَلَى آلِ إِبْرَاهِيم»
(Upon Muhammad and upon the family of Muhammad as You sent Your blessings upon the family of Ibrahim.)
Ibrahim bin Hamzah told that, Ibn Abi Hazim and Ad-Darawardi told, that Yazid, i.e., Ibn Al-Had said:
«كَمَا صَلَّيْتَ عَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ ، وَبَارِكْ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ، كَمَا بَارَكْتَ عَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَ آلِ إِبْرَاهِيم»
(As You sent Your Salah upon Ibrahim, and send Your blessings upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, as You sent Your blessings upon Ibrahim and the family of Ibrahim.) This was also recorded by An-Nasa'i and Ibn Majah.”
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 589:
Narrated Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Laila: Ka'b bin Ujrah met me and said, "Shall I not give you a present I got from the Prophet?" 'Abdur-Rahman said, "Yes, give it to me." I said, "We asked Allah's Apostle saying, 'O Allah's Apostle! How should one (ask Allah to) send blessings on you, the members of the family, for Allah has taught us how to salute you (in the prayer)?' He said, 'Say: O Allah! Send Your Mercy on Muhammad and on the family of Muhammad, as You sent Your Mercy on Abraham and on the family of Abraham, for You are the Most Praise-worthy, the Most Glorious. O Allah! Send Your Blessings on Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, as You sent your Blessings on Abraham and on the family of Abraham, for You are the Most Praise-worthy, the Most Glorious.' "
Now, what every rational and unbiased mind could infer from above citation is :
- Allah's Salah is his blessings, mercy..et. al and not prayer, dua.
- We humans have been commanded to ASK Allah to send Salah on him.
Satyagni/Agniveer wrote :
“2. Muhammad is Noor (sacred light) and Allah is also Noor! [Quran 5:15/17, 24:35]Comment-Same attributes for both Allah and Muhammad, where is the Tauheed?”
Typical of Islamophobes! This contention is so void that it gives me a surety that this shameless and illiterate islamophobe didn't bother to do any research. What a shame! Firstly, the attribute ‘An-Noor’ is NOT of Prophet(pbuh), its not even present in the lists of his names which are given by different scholars, rather its Allah’s attribute. Allah's attribute as mentioned in Quran 24:35 is 'Allahu Nuru sama wati wal ardh' meaning Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth which is very contrary to the attribute given to Prophet in Quran 5:15 'Mina-llahi nurun' meaning From Allah a Light.
To proceed, Let's scrutinize the citation provided by the hate monger Satyagni/Agniveer that is Quran 5:15
“O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you FROM Allah a light and a clear Book.”
The verse cited 5:15 says that “..There has come to you from Allah a light..” which makes it evident that Prophet is a light sent from Allah, 'light' in the sense of taking out mankind out of 'darkness' into 'light' precisely, Prophet is reflecting the light of Allah and that's what one of the attributes of Prophet ‘MUNIR’ meaning ‘RADIANT’ depicts. Also, The fact is that the similarity between God's attributes and those of mankind may be only in name or wordings and not in degree!
Additionaly, if we look at parallel verses of the Quran, we’ll see that Allah has called his scriptures 'light' several times. Infact, in the same Surah, we see that previous scriptures of God have also been called light :
إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَا التَّوْرَاةَ فِيهَا هُدًى وَنُورٌ
“Surely We revealed the Torah in which was guidance and LIGHT..”
وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَى آثَارِهِم بِعَيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الإِنجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ
“And We sent after them in their footsteps Jesus, son of Mary, verifying what was before him of the Torah and We gave him the Gospel in which was guidance and LIGHT, and verifying what was before it of Torah and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard.”
Infact, the word 'light' has been used in Quran in many more places to refer to the revelation of Allah. This word has specifically been used for Quran as well:
وَكَذَلِكَ أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ رُوحًا مِّنْ أَمْرِنَا مَا كُنتَ تَدْرِي مَا الْكِتَابُ وَلَا الْإِيمَانُ وَلَكِن جَعَلْنَاهُ نُورًا نَّهْدِي بِهِ مَنْ نَّشَاء مِنْ عِبَادِنَا وَإِنَّكَ لَتَهْدِي إِلَى صِرَاطٍ مُّسْتَقِيمٍ
“And thus have We revealed to you a spirit by Our command. You did not know what the Book was, nor what the faith was, but We have made it a LIGHT with which We guide whoever We wish of Our slaves and you guide to the right path.”
فَآمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَالنُّورِالَّذِي أَنزَلْنَا وَاللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرٌ
“Therefore believe in Allah and His messenger and the LIGHT which We have revealed; and Allah is aware of what you do.”
So, what we see in these two couple of verses that even scriptures have been called as ‘LIGHT’ but that certainly doesn’t equates Scriptures to Allah.
Also, if we take Hate monger ‘Satya’gni's “LOGIC” ("Same attributes for both, where is tauheed?") in consideration it would backfire the theology of so-called Arya Samaj because many entities and being share the same attributes and similitude with Ishwar.
“The Prakriti, the Soul and the God, all of them, are UNCREATED. They are the cause of the whole universe.”
~ [Satyarth Prakash Ch. 8, pg.244 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]
“The soul was never created. It is BEGINNINGLESS LIKE God and the material cause of the universe –primordial matter.”
~ [ Satyarth Prakash , Ch 7 pg. 222 Tr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]
So, the argument("Same attributes for both, where is tauheed?") backfires at the shameless Satyagni/Agniveer. Unfortunately, Vedas too equates Ishwar with people. Let's have a glimpse,
“Persons, who are excellent LIKE God, noble like other good people, equal towards all, affectionate towards all, respectable, well balanced, and possessors of worldly objects, succeed in life.”
~ [Yajurveda Chapter 17, verse 81,pg-188, Tr. Devi Chand]
“God pervades all the objects of Nature. He is Father of the wise, and Guardian of all living creatures. He is Self Effulgent, and being Creator, shines LIKE the SHINING MAN OF KNOWLEDGE. Let all attain to Him.”
~ [Yajurveda Chapter 37, verse 14, pg-337, Tr. Devi Chand]
“3. Faith in Muhammad = Love for Allah. Allah forgives those who follow Muhammad!
Say: “If ye do love Allah, Follow me: Allah will love you and forgive you your sins: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [Quran 3:31]
Muslim friends always criticize Hindus and Christians for their beliefs in Gurus or Jesus but what does this verse show? Muhammad is nothing but an agent between Allah and his followers. What if one doesn’t want any agent between him and Allah?”
Its a perfect example of criticism just for the sake of criticizing with no bit of fact in it. This particular contention is amongst the most stupid part of this concocted and unscholarly article.Allah has revealed in Quran the ways we could thanks him, love him and worship him, we could know about Allah only through his revelation, because the philosophical, intutional and comprehensive level of individuals differ, so revelation is the apt and best way to know about Allah and his attributes.
It implies that one must have faith in the revelation and faith on the message automatically acknowledges the faith on whom revelation or message is revealed. How else can one acknowledge faith in the Message(Quran) without acknowledging the faith in truthfulness of the Messenger(Muhammad)? Infact, protestant hindus do believe in Vedas and in the truthfulness of the sages(Agni, Vayu, A'ditya and Angira). Does that makes these 4 sages agent or intercessor between Ishwar and a vedic believer? Ofcourse Not! This particular argument will be dealt with in detail in rebuttal of objection 17 Inshaa'Allah.
Satyagni/Agniveer wrote :
“4. Allah says: Realize that My Prophetic Messenger (Muhammad) himself is with you!
And know that among you is Allah’s Messenger… [Quran 49:7]
Comments-a. Why should not we realize that Allah is with us every time instead of Muhammad? What if One wants to realize Allah and Allah alone? How is a Vedic follower at fault if he realizes Eshwar/Allah without involving any agent in between, because of the omnipresence of Eshwar/Allah as per the Vedas?
b. Arguments about this verse to be limited for Muhammad’s lifetime bite the dust because then Quran cannot be the final and perfect book as most of its verses are expired and of no relevance today.”
Shameless Satyagni/Agniveer and his shameless misquotings! Had he bothered to read few verses back the 7th verse of surah hujurat, probably he wouldn't have put forth such a boy's accusation. Anyway, quoting out of context and misleading audience is ‘classical hindu hypocrisy’ and shameless Satygni/Agniveer has inherited it from his “Great” ancestors. To probe the context and historical background of the verse, let's read the verse from 5-7 and later I'll present the tafsir to make the historical background of this verse more evident.
Quran 49:5-7 :
5 “And if they had been patient until you [could] come out to them, it would have been better for them. But Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”
6 “O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful.”
7 “And know that among you is the Messenger of Allah. If he were to obey you in much of the matter, you would be in difficulty, but Allah has endeared to you the faith and has made it pleasing in your hearts and has made hateful to you disbelief, defiance and disobedience. Those are the [rightly] guided.”
Firstly, we’ve to understand that affirmation in one doesn't negate others. These verses are speaking about a community problem and since, he is guided by revelation, he being the natural leader of this community has the decision-making power.Muslims are told here to not be swayed by rumors, but accept the decision of the Prophet which is based on the correct knowledge.
This is evident from the context as well as understood by several commentators from this verse that the Holy Prophet was hesitant to take any military action against the Bani al-Mustaliq on the report given by Walid bin 'Uqbah in their case, but some of the people insisted that they should be attacked at once. At this those people were warned that they should not forget that the Holy Prophet was present among them, who understood them better than they did. Therefore, their thinking that the Holy prophet should act according to their counsel in important matters was undue boldness. For if he started acting according to what they counseled it might lead to blunders for which they themselves would have to suffer.
To give some more Oxygen to my explanation above, let me present the Most Popular tafsir of Imam Ibn kathir on the verse 5 and 7
Tafsir on verse no. 5 :
“In these Ayat, Allah the Exalted teaches His faithful servants the good manners they should observe with the Messenger, which are respect, honor and esteem. Allah the Exalted and Most Honored said,
﴿يأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لاَ تُقَدِّمُواْ بَيْنَ يَدَىِ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ﴾
(O you who believe! Make not (a decision) in advance before Allah and His Messenger,) meaning, do not rush in making decisions before him, rather, follow his leading all matters.
`Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, commented;
(Make not (a decision) in advance before Allah and His Messenger,) "Do not say anything that contradicts the Qur'an and Sunnah.'' Qatadah commented,"We were told that some people used to say, `Revelation should besent down about such and such matters,' and, `such and such practices should be rendered allowed.' Allah the Exalted disliked this attitude.'' Allah said,
(and have Taqwa of Allah.) meaning, `in what He has ordered you...”
Tafsir on verse no. 7 :
(7. And know that among you there is the Messenger of Allah.) `know that among you is the Messenger of Allah . Therefore, honor and respect him, be polite with him and obey his orders. For he is more knowledgeable about what benefits you and is more concerned with you than you yourselves are. His opinions in such matters are more complete than your own.' Allah the Exalted and Most Blessed said in another Ayah,
(The Prophet is closer to the believers than themselves) (33:6).Then He clarifies that they fall short in overseeing their own benefit;
(If he were to obey you in much of the matter, you would surely be in trouble.) `if he obeys all of your opinions and desires, you will earn trouble and hardship.' Allah the Exalted and Most Honored said,
(And if the truth had been in accordance with their desires, verily, the heavens and the earth, and whosoever is therein would have been corrupted! Nay, We have brought them their reminder, but they turn away from their reminder.) (23:71)...”
Regarding the void comment (b) made on the verse,
Quran is obviously, the last and perfect book revealed by Allah but that doesn't implies that we could isolate any verse out of context and its historical background in order to deceive the audience. Even today we could make Prophet as a judge(because he was guided by Allah through revelation) through the ahadiths and sunnah instead of following our own philosophical way. For instance, We could easily learn as to how to pray, how to preach, how to call others to Islam, how to trade, how to achieve ultimate success in the hereafter, etc. Therefore, this Quranic verse is still relevant today.
Moreover, this zealot Arya Samaji is deceiving by saying that his Ishwar is omnipresent.
White Yajurveda 31:4 says
“With three fourths Purusha (God) rose up: one fourth of him again was here. Thence he moved forth to every side over what eats not and what eats.” How can an omnipresent thing move up and down?
Similar Gayatri Pariwar translation,
Atharva Veda Kaand 10; Sukt 2; Mantras 31,32 says that the "Animated Being, i.e., God is in a treasure chest. Having eight circles and nine gates, The City of God, is Ayodhya. It contains a golden treasure-chest, celestial, begirt with light. Men deep in lore of Brahma know that Animated Being which dwells in that golden treasure-chest that hath three spokes and three supports."
Similar Gayatri Pariwar translation,
Also, we all know that Vedic Ishwara is divided into many parts as is clearly mentioned in Purush Sukta i.e. Rigveda 10:90:12
बराह्मणो.अस्य मुखमासीद बाहू राजन्यः कर्तः |
ऊरूतदस्य यद वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत ||
“The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rajanya (Kshatriya) made. His thighs became the Vaisya, from his feet the Sudra was produced.”
How come Vedic Ishwara with mouth, arms, thighs and feet could be omnipresent?
Satyagni/Agniveer wrote :
“5. Allah describes Muhammad with His Own Attributes of Rauf(Most Kind) and Rahim (Merciful)!
Now hath come unto you a Messenger from amongst yourselves: it grieves him that ye should perish: ardently anxious is he over you: to the Believers is he most kind and merciful. [Quran 9:128]
Comments-a. Sharing attributes with Allah is nothing but Shirk.
b. Does Muhammad have capability to be merciful? If so, why Muslims refute the claims of Christians that Jesus will forgive sins of his followers on behalf of God?
c. What if one does good deeds throughout his life but does not follow Muhammad? Will he be on the mercy of merciful Muhammad to get a ticket to heaven? Seems like Muhammad has keys to Jannat”
This hate monger needs some air because his desperation and zeal of criticizing Islam is evident. He has not only put forth inaccurate objection but also cremated his own rubbish theology of Arya Samaj by his own cooked premise (a).
First of all the citation provided by shameless Satyagni/Agniveer is misleading. More apt translation of 9:128 could be read here (http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=9&verse=128 ). Even in the list of attributes of the Prophet it has been written as ‘MERCIFUL’ and ‘KIND’ and NOT ‘MOST merciful’ or ‘MOST kind’. Now, every person can be a merciful and Kind! Allah Azz wa Jal is ‘Ar-Rauf’ and ‘Ar-Rahmaan’. He is PERFECTLY Most Merciful and Most Kind whereas humans unlike Allah don't posses PERFECT mercy or Kindness. Moreover, there are Quranic verses such as 112:4, 42:11 which says “There is nothing like Him” thus there are no similarities between the attributes. So, the fact is that the similarity between God's attributes and those of mankind is only in name and not in DEGREE!
For instance, if I say that I've ‘potenial’ would it imply that I've potenial as Allah has? Or I've knowledge as Allah has? Simpplyy Not! If we take point (a) in consideration, we'll reach a conclusion that Arya samaj's creed is polytheistic and they're mushrik because as per them, Ishwar shares the attribute ‘ETERNAL’ with Aatma and Prakriti.
Point (b) is utter non-sense, it reflects the common sense and intellect of the bigot hate monger author. I ask, why can't one be merciful and kind? Maybe, Satyagni/Agniveer and his likes under influence of their 'Vedas' aren't merciful and kind.
Satyagni/Agniveer wrote :
“6. Allah does not punish people if he (Muhammad) is in their midst!
But Allah was not going to send them a penalty whilst thou wast amongst them; nor was He going to send it whilst they could ask for pardon. [Quran 8:33]
a. Is this verse relevant today? If no, Quran is again proven to be irrelevant in the contemporary world. If yes, how can Muhammad be in midst of today’s Muslims?b. Isn’t Allah doing injustice by not punishing people who deserve it?c. It seems that there are two centers of power; neither of them can intervene with the matters of others! This is Tauheed, One Allah but two authorities”
Frankly speaking I don't find this as something like 'OBJECTION' or 'CONTRADICTIONS' to Tauheed at all. Author has made it as an objection just for sake for prolonging his bogus, comic-relief, factless and rubbish article. Let's probe this verse under the commentary of Salahuddin on this verse :
“Allah doesn't sends any penalty to the people in presence of a Prophet or Messenger” the rationale beyond it could be that Allah wants them to give an opportunity to repent and proclaim faith in the Prophet, lest people would rebel by saying “WHY DIDN'T YOU GIVE ME A CHANCE TO ACCEPT THE MESSAGE OF YOUR MESSENGER”
Although point (b) is a red-herring, I would like to present a concise rebuttal to it. The fact is that ultimate JUSTICE & PUNISHMENT will be given after the Day of Judgement so there is no question of Allah being unjust here. Moreover, the last part of this verse reads “..nor was He going to send it whilst they could ask for pardon.” this part of verse makes it explicitly evident that they've been given chance to repent.
Satyagni/Agniveer wrote :
“7. Allegiance to Muhammad is allegiance to Allah !Verily those who plight their fealty to thee do no less than plight their fealty to Allah…. [Quran 48:10]Comment-Is there anything still left to prove that Muhammad is yet another God of Islam? How does it matter whether you call anyone X or Y or Muhammad if he is equally powerful as Allah, atleast in some matters? The only claim Muslims have is that Muhammad is not Allah! Yes, of course, he is not! But he does not need to be the one, he is already in the state of supreme authority in many cases and shares attributes with Allah and in some cases even surpasses Allah in authority L as mentioned above”
Deception at its height! First of all, I give a satirical applause because the way “maharishi” ‘Satya’gni twisted the apt meaning of the verse and the way he interpreted it reminds me of his guru and “maharishi” Moolshankar dayanand saraswati, who did the same and also appreciated the deception of adi shankarcharya[see Satyarth Prakash, Chapter 11 Page 347].
Its quite ironical that the he ignored or maybe never read the verse previous to the cited verse, (48:9) which explicitly says, “...RESPECT THE PROPHET AND EXALT ALLAH”. It proves that the hate monger cherry picked verses without doing any bit of research at all. Anyway, we need not to bother as that's typical of him and his Fraud samaj. Let's bash the poor and irrational comments on the verse done by shameless liar so-called Satyagni/Agniveer.
Its utter non-sensical assumption that he has “PROVED” anything. Allah has explicitly, time and time again said in the Quran that Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) is NO MORE THAN A MESSENGER/WARNER, NO MORE THAN A HUMAN. Additionaly, Prophet warned muslims to not to over praise him like christians over praise Jesus(pbuh). Anyway, the verse is metaphorical when it says “Allegiance to thee(muhammad) is allegiance to Allah” because in whatever creed Prophet asked us to have faith in, was ultimately Allah's command. Since, Prophet(pbuh) was guided by Allah in every aspect of his life, therefore, by having faith in the words of Prophet is having faith in Allah. Also, Allah says in Quran that Whatever Muhammad speaks is not of his own desire (Quran 53:3), Moreover, if one acknowledges faith in the revelation/message it automatically acknowledges the faith on whom revelation or message is revealed. How else could one acknowledge faith in the Message(Quran) without acknowledging the faith in truthfulness of the Messenger(Muhammad)?
Moreover, if we say having faith in 'Islam' is having faith in Allah, would it imply that ISLAM is a God? Simpplyy Not! By the way, I would like to know how could one have faith in Vedas without having faith in the truthfulness of sages Agni, Vayu, A'ditya and Angira, on whom it is said to be revealed?
Later on, Satyagni/Agniveer lays a bizarre and unfounded claim “...Muhammad if he is equally powerful as Allah, atleast in some matters?” without providing any citation to back his unfounded claim. There is NOT a single verse in the Quran or hadith that asserts that Prophet was equally powerful as Allah is.
Satyagni/Agniveer wrote :
“8. Allah asks all the Prophets to believe in Muhammad!Behold! Allah took the covenant of the prophets, saying: “I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes to you a messenger, confirming what is with you; do ye believe in him and render him help.” Allah said: “Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?” They said: “We agree.” He said: “Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses.” [Quran 3:81]Comments-a. One wonders about the time and place of this discussion as to when and where this conversation took place? Is this the time of prophecy of Muhammad? If so, all the previous prophets have already lived their lives and thus can’t do anything in this matter!b. If this verse is of the time of any previous prophet, why Allah has called “prophets”? Were there multiple prophets on the earth at the same time?c. Or was this meeting held in heavens before any prophet came to the earth? Why was not Muhammad present in the meeting?d. If this meeting was held during the lifetime of Muhammad but in heavens, what was the purpose of this verse that it was revealed when it has nothing to do with common man?e. Or was the purpose of this verse to send people the message that even prophets bow to Muhammad and thus you should automatically submit to him?f. When every prophet believed in Allah, what was left in their belief that they had to believe in Muhammad additionally? Is not Muhammad a well proven associate of Allah after all this?”
The contentions in a, b & c, THOUGH INVALID are the least stupid part of this rubbish article. But had the author bothered to read tafseers or at least tafsir of Imam Ibn kathir, he would’ve got answers of his of all his objection(a, b, c, d, e, f). Anyway, let me take it an opportunity to educate this novice.
Imam Ibn kathir wrote in its tafsir :
“...Ali bin Abi Talib and his cousin `Abdullah bin `Abbas said, "Allah never sent a Prophet but after taking his pledge that IF MUHAMMAD WERE SENT IN THEIR LIFETIME, he would believe in and support him.'' Allah commanded each Prophet to take a pledge from his nation that IF Muhammad were sent in their time, they would believe in and support him. Tawus, Al-Hasan Al-Basri and Qatadah said, "Allah took the pledge from the Prophets that they would believe in each other'', and this statement does not contradict what `Ali and Ibn `Abbas stated.Therefore, Muhammad is the FINAL PROPHET until the Day of Resurrection. He is the greatest IMAM, who if he existed in any time period, deserves to be obeyed, rather than all other Prophets. This is why Muhammad led all the Prophets in prayer during the night of Isra' when they gathered in Bayt Al-Maqdis (Jerusalem).”
The tafsir is so much explicit and clear that it replies all six objections of this toddler satyagni. The time of covenant is known from this part of tafsir “..Allah never sent a Prophet but after taking his pledge that IF Muhammad was sent in his lifetime, he would believe in and support him.” Allah took the covenants from all the prophets at their RESPECTIVE time only, but while narrating the incident he narrated it like how a series of report is narrated. Yes, prophets did support him at the miraj and at the night of Isra and at Bayt al-maqdis. Also, Allah was merely testing the prophets whether they would follow the command of Allah or not as you can notice the tafsir mentions “IF Muhammad were sent in his lifetime, he would believe in and support him.”
Now, the comments shameless satyagni made in (e) is again an unfounded claim, no where it is mentioned in any Quranic verse or hadith that Prophets BOWED to The Prophet Muhammad(pbuh).
Regarding the comic relief comment (f), Firstly, I would like to remind that Tawus, Al-Hasan Al-Basri and Qatadah said, “Allah took the pledge from the Prophets that they would believe in EACH OTHER.” So what we see is that Allah also took the pledges to have faith in each other. Secondly, as per Islam, for one to be a muslim mere having faith in existence or oneness of Allah doesn't suffice for hereafter, we're supposed to obey him by what revelation and prophet teaches us and that's what is known as having complete faith in Allah.
Quran puts the six article of faith of a muslim in 2:177 :
“Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah , the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets..”
According to this verse, the list, to be a Muslim one must believe in:
- Allah(as the only diety)
- The angels of Allah.
- The books of Allah.
- The prophets of Allah.
- The Day of Judgment (or the afterlife) and
The supremacy of Allah's will (or predestination).
Now, would shameless satyagni call, The Day of Judgement, Books of God and predistination as an associate of Allah? I hope, he won't else he'll be prove himself as a super-duper fool. This verse hardly at its best serene and unbiased interpretation could prove that Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) is greatest Prophet not because he's a 'god' but because he was the last prophet and so, his message and validity of this message is everlasting and applicable for entire humanity and jinnkind. That's only what makes Prophet the Greatest HUMAN and unique.
Satyagni/Agniveer wrote :
“9. Muhammad- The final judge and supreme authority!
But no, by the Lord, they can have no [real] Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction. [Quran 4:65]
So message is clear! I can’t have faith if I make Allah as my judge! Simply because it is Muhammad who is the ultimate judge, not Allah. Its time for sensible Muslims to ask themselves, who knows the best, is it Allah or Muhammad?”
Never seen such a fraud and shameless deceiver, he truly deserves the title 'DECEIVEER'. This verse again has been quoted out of its historical context, The context is that a soothsayer named ‘Abu Barzah Al-Aslami’ who used to judge in disputes of the jews and when some muslims started doing the same i.e making Abu Barzah as judges is disputes the ayah cited by the satyagni was revealed which says that make Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) the judge in all of your disputes instead of that soothsayer as Prophet(pbuh) was divinely guided.
Imam Ibn kathir comments on this verse as follows :
“At-Tabarani recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, "Abu Barzah Al-Aslami used to be a soothsayer who judged between the Jews intheir disputes. When some Muslims came to him to judge between them, Allah sent down,
أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُمْ ءَامَنُواْ بِمَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَآ أُنزِلَ مِن قَبْلِكَ
(Have you not seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you), until, ("We meant no more than goodwill and conciliation!'') Allah then said,
أُولَـئِكَ الَّذِينَ يَعْلَمُ اللَّهُ مَا فِى قُلُوبِهِمْ
(They (hypocrites) are those of whom Allah knows what is in their hearts, These people are hypocrites, and Allah knows what is in their hearts and will punish them accordingly, for nothing escapes Allah's watch. Consequently, O Muhammad! Let Allah be sufficient for you in this regard, because He has perfect knowledge of their apparent and hidden affairs. This is why Allah said,
(so turn aside from them (do not punish them)) meaning, do not punish them because of what is in their hearts.
(but admonish them) means, advise them against the hypocrisy and evil that reside in their hearts,
وَقُل لَّهُمْ فِى أَنفُسِهِمْ قَوْلاً بَلِيغاً
(and speak to them an effective word to reach their inner selves) advise them, between you and them, using effective words that might benefit them.
(64. We sent no Messenger, but to be obeyed by Allah's leave. If they, when they were unjust to themselves, had come to you and begged Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had begged forgiveness for them, indeed, they would have found Allah All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) (65. But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith, until they make youjudge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.)”
Firstly, the 'JUDGE' here mentioned means a human judge, like the judges who are appointed for the judgement of disputes in a given society. for example, judges of courts, supreme court, et. Al Secondly, the verse no where does backs the claim “if I make Allah as my judge! Simply because it is Muhammad who is the ultimate judge, not Allah.” The judgement of peripheral and social issues are supposed to be given by the society's judge, but the ultimate judgement will given by Allah on the Day of Judgement.
Its time for sensible Arya Samajists to ask themselves, what is better, to search the truth themselves or to get deceiveed by loony toony team of Satyagni/Agniveer and their likes? Therefore, I request all those to read Quran's translation by themselves rather than hailing on such deceptions. One can order FREE Quran at your door, from here (http://islamhinduism.com/order-free-quran )
Satyagni/Agniveer wrote :
“10. Allah purified Muhammad’s family!
…And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless. [Quran 33:33]
Comment-Billions of families died waiting Allah’s wish to make them pure and spotless, but they failed to grab the attention of Allah. After all they did not belong to Muhammad’s family. Anyway, Allah is Rab ul Aalimin (Lord of the world) and not just Rab ul Muhammad, so keep faith in Him without questioning!”
Yet another desperate attempt, obviously invalid. As I stated at the onset of this article, the strict Islamic Monotheism is a thorn in neck of these Arya samajists. The hate monger willingly didn't quote the whole verse in order to deceive his poor audience.
“And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification.”
~ Quran 33:33
Allah first forbids them from the evil of ‘Tabarruj’ i.e showing them off to people other than mehrams(husband, son, brother, sister, mother, father), then He enjoins them to do good by establishing regular prayer, which means worshipping Allah alone with no partner or associate, and paying Zakah, which means doing good to other people. So that they would be an example for the women of the Ummah to follow and so that ALLAH PURIFIES THEM BY REWARDING THEM IN HEREAFTER, the pure and spotless here is referred to Paradise's reward. This is evident from the tafsir of Imam Ibn kathir, he writes,
“Then Allah mentions His justice and His bounty, in the Ayah:
وَمَن يَقْنُتْ مِنكُنَّللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ
(And whosoever of you is obedient to Allah and His Messenger,) i.e., obeys Allah and His Messenger ,
نُؤْتِهَـآ أَجْرَهَامَرَّتَيْنِ وَأَعْتَدْنَا لَهَا رِزْقاً كَرِيما
(We shall give her, her reward twice over, and We have prepared for her a noble provision.) i.e., in Paradise, for they will be in the dwellings of the Messenger of Allah in the highest reaches of `Illiyin, above the dwellings of all the people, in Al-Wasilah which is the closest of the dwellings of Paradise to the Throne.”
Yes, ofcourse Allah is Rab ul-Muhammad but Rab ul-Alameen as well. What's contradictory in that? Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) is also a part of the alameen. No where this verse does say that ONLY Prophet's wives and family would be given bounty of Paradise. Remember, affirmation in one doesn't negate others.
Satyagni/agniveer wrote :
“11. Love Allah and His Beloved Prophet more than anything else!
Say: If it be that your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred; the wealth that ye have gained; the commerce in which ye fear a decline: or the dwellings in which ye delight – are dearer to you than Allah, or His Messenger, or the striving in His cause;- then wait until Allah brings about His decision: and Allah guides not the rebellious. [Quran 9:24] Faith is incomplete without Muhammad!
Bukhari Vol 1.13: Narrated Abu Huraira: “Allah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my life is, none of you will have faith till he loves me more than his father and his children.”
Comments-I love my mother who loves and cares me unconditionally, more than Muhammad who will love me only when I submit to him. Am I wrong in it? Why to love anyone selfish more than my own mother?”
Yet another example of how to prolong the article without putting any bit of scholarly criticism! Any person possessing mere 1% of skeptical and critical attitude would realise that this so-called contention isn't any contention at all. Answering such a boy’s contention is an insult to intellect of any rational person. The most simplest counter to it could be, Does Allah asks us to love the Prophet MORE than Allah or EQUAL to Allah? Simpplyy 'NO'.
Infact, the third category of major shirk (shirk-e-akbar) is “association in loving Allah” That is to love someone or something else MORE than or AS MUCH AS one loves Allah. As Allah Almighty says :
“There are men who take others besides Allah as equal with Him. They love them AS MUCH AS they should love Allah. BUT the believers have MORE LOVE for Allah.”
~ Quran [2:165]
Regarding, the Quranic verse cited by the satyagni, I would like to present a real example from my own life, that would help in cremating all misinterpretations(if there are only). Once I said to my younger brother, “..I love mumma and dad more than you..” Now, what could be the rational inferences from my statement? That I love my mother and father EQUALLY? Nope, not at all.. I put it very explicitly “Mumma and dad” (note who is mentioned earlier in sentence), asserting 'superiority' and 'priority' of mumma OVER my dad. Alike, Allah says it explicitly “...are more beloved to you than Allah and His Messenger...” even if this doesn’t suffice for any person wearing goggles of prejudice against Quran may refer to Quran - Surah baqarah 2:165 where Allah has condemned all those who love ANYONE besides him equally or more than him.
The silly comment made on the verse is a pure red-herring. But I would like to present a reply to it. The greatest blessing is the blessing of faith which can only be attained through his teaching and following his ways, and which is more beneficial than his own self and his wealth. He is the one by means of whom(his sunnah and teachings), Allah brings people from darkness into light, as for a person’s self and family, they will not avail him anything before Allah.
One of the scholars said: “If a person thinks of the benefits that he has been given through the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), through whom(by his teachings) Allah brought him forth from the darkness of kufr into the light of faith, he will realize that he is the cause of his soul remaining forever in eternal bliss, and he will understand that this benefit is greater than all others. So he (the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)) deserves that his share of a person’s love should be greater than any human else’s.
Even that doesn't lowers the position of Mother in Islam, the position of a mother in Islam is widely recognised as one of the moral excellence of Islam. Folks interested regarding this may read this article.. [http://islamqa.info/en/ref/5053 ]
Satyagni/agniveer wrote :
“12. Muhammad is closer to the believers than their own selves!
The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers. Blood-relations among each other have closer personal ties, in the Decree of Allah…. [Quran 33:6]
Comment-How? Is he supernatural being like Allah? Have not seen greater mockery of Tauheed than this!”
Have not seen greater mockery of human intellect, zeal & haste of criticism than this! This speak volumes of prejudice that vedas inculcated in him. In this verse, Allah has merely told the intimacy between prophet and us as per the affection between us, as we love him more than any human, as he was kind and merciful towards us, as he spent hours crying & asking Allah for the success of his ummah.
This verse in no way does asserts the spiritual intimacy or omnipresence of Prophet.There is an incident in Prophet's time that oxygenates my stance.
• Volume 8, Book 78, Number 628:
It was narrated that ‘Abd-Allah ibn Hishaam said: We were with the Prophet(pbuh) when he was holding the hand of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab. ‘Umar said to him: “O Messenger of Allaah, you are dearer to me than everything except my own self.” The Prophet (pbuh) said: “No, by the One in Whose hand is my soul, not until I am dearer to you than your own self.” ‘Umar said to him: “Now, by Allaah, you are dearer to me than my own self.” The Prophet (pbuh) said: “Now (you are a true believer), O ‘Umar.”
Moreover, the tafsir of Imam ibn kathir on it makes my stance more sound.
• “He [Allah] knew how compassionate His Messenger(pbuh) was towards his ummah, and how sincere he was towards them, so He made him closer to them than their own selves, and decreed that his judgement(of disputes) among them should take precedence over their own preferences.”
• Shaykh Ibn Sa’di said:
“Allah tells the believers something by which they may understand the position and status of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), so that they might interact with him appropriately. So He said: “The Prophet is closer to the believers than their ownselves”, the closest that he could be to a person, and closer than his own self. So the Messenger is closer to him than his own self, because he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was so kind and sincere and compassionate towards them. He was the kindest and most merciful among MANKIND.”
Another interesting fact to be noted is that the word used for ‘closer’ in this verse is ‘awlā’ (أَوْلَىٰ) is used elsewhere in the Quran to imply INTIMACY OF A RELATION, for example, Quran - 3:68, 4:135, 8:75
Satyagni/agniveer wrote :
“13. Whatever he (Muhammad) gives you, take it!
…So take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And fear Allah; for Allah is strict in Punishment. [Quran 59:7]
Comment-It means one has to believe Muhammad to be perfect like Allah and believe him blindly. We refuse to do so, we don’t believe any human to be perfect like God. And we are ready to face any hell for believing in actual Tauheed.”
Firstly, the shameless satyagni failed to back his this claim //It means one has to believe Muhammad to be perfect like Allah// No where does the verse say that prophet is perfect as Allah, Infact, Prophet(pbuh) once said after he made a mistake in salah(prayer) :
“I AM BUT A HUMAN BEING LIKE YOURSELVES. I FORGET things JUST LIKE YOU do. So if I forget something, remind me.”
~ Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 394
This hadith unambiguously implies that Prophet isn't as perfect as Allah. Secondly, the verse is in perfect concilation with tauheed. What this verse implies is that we're mere commanded by Allah to obey the prophet(pbuh) since he has been guided by Allah through his revelation. Also, Consider the following Quranic verses which oxygenates my stance and gives a death blow to this wishy-washy & invalid objection,
“He (Muhammad) DOES NOT SPEAK OF HIS OWN ACCORD, it is no less than a revelation sent down to him.”
~ Quran 53:3-4
Allah says: “Say (O Muhammad): I do not say to you that I possess Allah’s treasures, nor that I have knowledge of the Unseen. I do not say to you that I am an angel. I follow ONLY THAT WHICH HAS BEEN REVEALED TO ME.”
~ Quran 6:50
So, what this verse simply implies is that obey the messenger since he is the one guided by Allah through revelation.
Satyagni/agniveer wrote :
“14. Muhammad broke the moon!
The Hour [of Judgment] is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder. [Quran 54:1]
Comment-a. Many argue that this miracle was performed by Allah and not by Muhammad. My question is if this was an act of Allah, it would have never be a miracle because making of whole universe and its sustenance are infinite times bigger miracles of the power of almighty God than this poor show of breaking moon.b. Readers can read in any Tafsir that how Muhammad showed his middle finger to moon and it got broken into pieces! c. God cannot change His own laws because if He does that, He can’t be termed as perfect and unchangeable. Thus breaking of moon is a false story to glorify Muhammad or in other words to make him God.”
Another desperate attempt to “rationalise” his awful article by throwing red-herrings since he didn't find any better way of prolonging his article.. Phew! Truly, it reminded me of a well known hindi idiom “khisiyani billi khamba noche” meaning “frustrated cat scratches the pole”
Before answering this red-herring, I would like to request the readers to ponder whether this incident and his contention are relevant to his article or mere a red-herring? Anyway, the miracle was performed by Prophet(pbuh) but ofcourse by the will of Allah as a sign for the polytheists.
As, Allah says in the Quran “We did send apostles before you, and appointed for them wives and children: and it was never the part of an apostle to bring a sign except as Allah permitted (or commanded). For each period is a Book (revealed).”
~ Quran [Surah Al-Rad, 13: 38]
The above cited verse refutes the contention of the poor Islamophobe(s).
Also, Imam Ibn kathir wrote in tafsir of Quran 54:1 :
“The Hafiz Abu Nuaym stated, “Sulayman b. Ahmad related to us, quoting Bakr b. Suhayl , quoting Abd al- Ghani b. Said, quoting Musa b. Abd al- Rahman , from Ibn Jurayj , from Ata, from Ibn Abbas - also, it came from Muqatil , from al- Dahhak, from Ibn Abbas - with reference to God’s words, ‘The hour has drawn near and the moon has been split asunder’, as follows, ‘The polytheists gathered around the Messenger of God (SAW); they included al- Walid b. al- Mughira , Abu Jahl b. Hisham , al-As b. Wail, al-As b. Hisham , al- Aswad b. Abd Yaghuth , al- Aswad b. Muttalib b. Asad b. Abd al- Uzza , Zama b. al- Aswad and al- Nadr b.al- Harith , along with many other such men.
“They said to the Prophet (SAW), “If you are telling the truth, then split the moon for us into two parts, one half over Mt. Abu Qubays , the other over Mt. Quayquan . The Prophet (SAW) asked them, “If I did so, would you believe?” “Yes, we would,” they replied. It was a night of full moon, and so he ASKED GOD the Almighty and Glorious to GRANT HIM WHAT THEY REQUESTED. That evening the moon did have one half removed and placed over Mt. Abu Abu Qubays , the other being above Mt. Quayquan , while the Messenger of God (SAW) called out, “O Abu Salama b. Abd al- Asad , and al- Aqram b. al- Aqram , be a witness (to this event).”
I need not to comment on the insane and obscene comment (b) what tafsirs say is that prophet pointed his index and middle finger.
In regard to the comment (c), Firstly, I would like to know whether shameless satyagni knows all the laws of nature? As there may be some other laws which we're not aware of by which such miracle would be possible. Secondly, these miracles which seemingly are violation of laws aren't violated because of any imperfection in them, rather its for showing signs to men of the understanding. So the premise that violation of physical laws implies imperfection in Allah is an erroneous one.
Additionaly, I would like to remind the shameless satyagni that founder of the arya samaj Moolshankar(Dayanand saraswati) who is his authority, himself had belief in unusual phenomena as he states in 8th Chapter of Satyarth Prakash that in the beginning of this world men and women were created by God as adults. May we ask, why humans are no longer created as adults? Does it imply imperfection of Ishwar?!
Also in the Vedas, we find miracles such as Vishwamitra stoping the flow of river Satluj and Beas in Rig Veda 3:33:5,
Rishi Vamdev spoke with Indra from the womb of his mother in Rigveda 4:18:2.
Satyagni/agniveer wrote :
“15. Allah appointed Muhammad as an intercessor to appeal for people’s forgiveness!
We sent not a messenger, but to be obeyed, in accordance with the will of Allah. If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful. [Quran 4:64]
O Prophet! When believing women come to thee to take the oath of fealty to thee…,- then do thou receive their fealty, and pray to Allah for the forgiveness [of their sins]: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. [Quran 60:12]
None shall have the power of intercession, but such a one as has received permission [or promise] from [Allah] Most Gracious. [Quran 19:87]
On that Day shall no intercession avail except for those for whom permission has been granted by [Allah] Most Gracious and whose word is acceptable to Him. [Quran 20:109]
Comments-Again it is proven that Muhammad holds the keys to heaven and hell! He will save whom he wills and throw in hell those whom he is not pleased! Another example of Islamic Tauheed!”
It reflects nothing but the illiteracy of this toddler satyagni, anyway, its a great opportunity for me to educate this novice the real Islamic creed of intercession which is poles apart from the christianity or any other paganic creed of intercession. The Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) doesn't possess any divine capabilities in order to save people from the Hell fire neither does he possess any 'key' to jannah. The intercession of the Prophet is nothing more than Honor that Allah has given him. When the Prophet intercedes for a Muslim, it is not the Prophet that CHOOSES whom he should intercede for.
The fact is that its Allah that chooses whom the Prophet should intercede for. He has given the Prophet the honor of intercession. To understand this better, consider an example. At a graduation party, Mr. 'A' is given the honor of handing the degrees over to the graduates. The person handing the degrees to the graduates does not have the power to determine who graduates or not, the university does. However, the person has the honor of handing out the degrees to the graduates that the university has handpicked. Alike, Allah hand picks those who shall enter heaven and simply gives the Prophet the honor to intercede for them.
Now, let me expose this hate monger and his deception.. The hate monger shameless Satyagni cited Quran 19:87 which unfortunately, itself proves that Prophet HIMSELF doesn't possess any divine capabilities of intercession like Jesus of christianity/paulanity.
“None shall have the power of intercession, BUT SUCH A ONE WHO HAS RECEIVED PERMISSION [or promise] from [Allah] Most Gracious.”
This verse unequivocally proves that it is Allah who gave him permission for intercession. Elsewhere Allah says,
Quran 34:23 :
“No intercession can avail in His Presence, except for those for whom He has granted permission. So far (is this the case) that, when terror is removed from their hearts (at the Day of Judgment, then) will they say, 'what is it that your Lord commanded?' they will say, 'That which is true and just; and He is the Most High Most Great'.”
“On that Day shall no intercession avail except for those for whom permission has been granted by(God) Most Gracious and whose word is acceptable to Him.”
“God! There is no god but He, - the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal.No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth?”
“How many-so-ever be the angels in the heavens, and that he is acceptable to Him. their intercession will avail nothing except after God has given leave for whom He pleases.”
This oxygenates my stance that Prophet Muhammad's intercession really means nothing and is completely useless, unless Allah willed it to be useful and that it was nothing more than a honour given to Prophet BY Allah. Also, I would like to expose some creeds of orthodox hindus that roots from vedas itself concerning intercession. Vedas emphasizes the supplications to the devta ‘Agni’ for the oblations(yajna), implying Agni is an intercessor god.
It is mentioned in Rigveda 1/128/6
“Vast, universal, good he was made messenger; the speeder with his right hand hath not loosed his hold, through love of fame not loosed his hold. He bears oblations to the Gods for whosoever supplicates.”
Similar hindi translation by gayatri pariwar -
Also in, Rigveda 3/17/4
“Agni most bright and fair with song we honour, yea, the adorable, O Jatavedas. Thee, envoy, messenger, oblation-bearer, the Gods have made centre of life eternal.”
Similar hindi translation by gayatri pariwar -
Also, consider the proof that Agni is a demigod and not name of Ishwar as falsely asserted by Arya samajists,
In Rigved 9/96/5
“Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven: Father of Agni, Sūrya's generator, the Father who begat Indra and Viṣhnu.”
Similar hindi translation by gayatri pariwar -
Satyagni/agniveer wrote :
“16. Those who think Allah and messengers to be different will be thrown in hell!
Those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers, and wish to make distinction between Allah and His messengers, saying: “We believe in some but reject others” : And wish to adopt a way in between, They are in truth disbelievers; and we have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating torment. [Quran 4:150, 151]”
What a deception! Any rational and unbiased person would never reach such an erroneous conclusion by reading and scrutinizing the verse cited by shameless satyagni. The verse is simpplyy refering to those who accept one messenger but reject anyother, like how Jews reject Prophet Jesus and Prophet Muhammad(pbut) this apt interpretation is self evident from the verse itself..as it says, “We believe in SOME but reject others” Now, one could easily infer that this rejection is refering to rejection of the Messengers and the Prophets. Imam Ibn kathir too wrote in his tafsir,
“...They believe in some Prophets and reject others, following their desires, lusts and the practices of their forefathers. They do not follow any proof for such distinction, because there is no such proof. Rather, they follow their lusts and prejudices. The Jews, believe in the Prophets, except `Isa and Muhammad, peace be upon them. The Christians believe in the Prophets but reject their Final and Seal, and the most honored among the prophets, Muhammad, peace be upon him. In addition, the Samirah (Samaritans) do not believe in any Prophet after Yuwsha`(Joshua), the successor of Musa bin `Imran. The Majus (Zoroastrians) are said to believe only in a Prophet called Zoroaster, although they do not believe in the law he brought them casting it behind them, and Allah knows best. Therefore, whoever rejects only one of Allah's Prophets, he will have disbelieved in all of them, because it is required from mankind to believe in every prophet whom Allah sent to the people of the earth. And whoever rejects one Prophet, out of envy, bias and personal whim, he only demonstrates that his faith in other Prophets is not valid, but an act of following desire and whim. This is why Allah said,
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْفُرُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ
(Verily, those who disbelieve in Allah and His Messengers...) Thus, Allah describes these people as disbelievers in Allah and His Messengers;
وَيُرِيدُونَ أَن يُفَرِّقُواْ بَيْنَ اللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ
(and wish to make distinction between Allah and His Messengers) in faith,
وَيقُولُونَ نُؤْمِنُ بِبَعْضٍ وَنَكْفُرُ بِبَعْضٍ وَيُرِيدُونَ أَنيَتَّخِذُواْ بَيْنَ ذَلِكَ سَبِيلاً
(saying, "We believe in some but reject others,'' and wish to adopt a way in between.) Allah then describes them;
أُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْكَـفِرُونَ حَقّاً
(They are in truth disbelievers.) meaning, their disbelief in the Prophet they claim to believe in is clear. This is because their claimed faith in a certain Messenger is not true, for had they truly believed in him, they would have believed in other Messengers, especially if the other Messenger has a stronger proof for his truthfulness. Or at least, they would have strived hard to acquire knowledge of the truth of the other Messenger...”
Satyagni/agniveer wrote :
“17. Command to follow “Allah and His messenger” appears no less than 72 times in Quran!
Comments-a. Distinction has already been made by Allah as He gave two different names to Allah and messengers!b. One thing that would perplex every rational mind – Do Allah and Muhammad teach different things which are complementary to each other? If yes, Allah is incomplete. If no, why not “believing in Allah” itself contains “believing in messengers” automatically? Did messengers teach extra than what they were sent with? Is not Allah a superset of all good teachings, believing in whom should be sufficient?c. It is proven that Muhammad is not any slave or a subset of Allah or its teachings but he is an associate with Allah in most of His attributes. ”
Now this is what, that is expected to be said by an agnostic or the one novice in studying Islam! Seemingly, these hindus are unable to understand it since they've common conception of avatars which is but a bogus creed. In Islam Believing in Allah is definitely most important, one can't enter heaven if he/she doesn't believe in one true God, but believing in Allah only doesn't save you from hell fire. Allah assures the righteous the eternal heavenly bliss at several places in the Quran (5:199, 25:15, 78:31) and he tells us who the righteous are at (2:177, 207-208, 212; 3:16-17, 92, 133-135). The same is repeated at many places. Salvation is thus attained by faith AND WORKS as well. Now for works who is to decide what is good and what is bad so Allah chooses a messenger for us to follow, from who we can learn what is good and what is bad. Allah charges his Messengers with authority and responsibility. All ultimate authority rests with Allah. He is the Gaurdian (2:21), it is he who settles all affairs (55:31). He is exalted in power (31:9, 39:1) and all the decisions lie with him(42:10).
Prophets of Allah derive their authority from him. Not only prophets but whosoever (Parents, Teachers, Government) is given an authority, his authority is from Allah. Islam doesn't make any sharp distinction between secular and sacred affairs therefore it expects everyone to be righteous, therefore Islam expects Muslims to be obedient to one who has authority (not just to a prophet), this is evident from Quran 4:59, “..obey Allah and obey the Messenger AND THOSE CHARGED WITH AUTHORITY AMONG YOU..”.
By following the Rasool we are indirectly following Allah's commandment which tells us to follow him. Yes exactly, his teachings are the subset of Allah's teachings and Allah assures us this in Quran by informing us that Muhammad(pbuh) doesn't speak out of his own desire (Quran 53:3), his words are inspired by Allah swt. Thus for obeying Allah you need to know what Allah wants you to do for that you will have to follow the messenger of Allah, thus atiuallah and atiyyu rasool.
This will become more clear from this example, suppose someone wants to meet me. I send my friend to him and tell him to follow my friend. And my friend brings him to me, So, whats the problem here? God sends a messenger to us and tells us to follow him if we have to reach God. See the divine wisdom behind the expression. Allah (swt) could have said “Obey the messenger”, if this statement would have been repeated again and again it would have helped ignorant/deviated Muslims deify Muhammad (saw) but God reminds us again and again "OBEY ALLAH and obey the Messenger".
Also, We ought to obey Messengers because they teach us by depicting their own example as to how to follow Allah's commandment in most PROPER and apt way. Since, a messenger is guided by Allah's revelation, he displays a perfect example of how to employ deen(religion) in every aspect of life including socio-political affairs et. al. So, it has been made evident at so many places for emphasis.
Speaking from a logical perspective, can we believe and obey Allah if we don't believe in his messenger? No we can't. Because if we don't obey Prophet(pbuh), we don't accept Quran, we don't accept what Allah wants us to accept. For instance, Allah wants every male to give a gift to the female he marries (Meher in Islam). How are we supposed to know this? The only link between us and Allah is Allah's messenger as Allah sends his message through the messenger, but if we are not to obey the messenger how are we supposed to accept the message?
“18. Muhammad has got 99 names and so as Allah!
Comment-Do I need to say anything on it? Muhammad is in competition with Allah in even number of names or attributes!”
Do I need to refute it? Believe me, its an insult to write and publish such a crap “contention” and the greater insult is to answer such a crap “contention”. Anyway, I would like cremate this contention(be it an insult for me), so that these fraud samajists could not make any hullaballo over it. From Islamic perspective, its wrong to say that Allah’s attributes are ONLY 99. What hadiths imply is that some 99 attributes/names of Allah KNOWN to us (through Quran and sunnah).
Ahmad (3704) from ‘Abd-Allah ibn Mas’ood who said: The Messenger of Allah(pbuh) said: “There is no-one who is afflicted by distress and grief, and says: "O Allaah, I am Your slave, son of Your slave, son of Your maidservant; my forelock is in Your hand, Your command over me is forever executed and Your decree over me is just. I ask You by every name belonging to You which You have named Yourself with, or revealed in Your Book, or You taught to any of Your creation, or You have preserved in the knowledge of the Unseen with You, that You make the Qur’an the life of my heart and the light of my breast, and a departure for my sorrow and a release for my anxiety),’ but Allah will take away his distress and grief, and replace it with joy."” He was asked: “O Messenger of Allah, should we learn this?” He said: “Of course; everyone who hears it should learn it.”
~ (Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in al-Silsilah al-Saheehah, 199.)
Now, the phrase in this hadith “or You have preserved in the knowledge of the Unseen with You” implies that there are names of Allah that He has kept with Him in the knowledge of the Unseen and which none of His creation has come to know. This implies that there are more than ninety-nine Names.
Ibn Taymiyah said concerning this hadeeth in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (6/374):
“This indicates that Allaah has more than ninety-nine names.”
Further, he stated (22/482):
“This indicates that He has names that He has preserved with Him, and that indicates that the words “Allaah has ninety-nine names, whoever learns them will enter Paradise” mean that there are ninety-nine of His names which whoever learns them will enter Paradise. This is like saying, “I have one thousand dirhams which I have prepared to give in charity,” even if his wealth is greater than that.”
"It should be noted that the beautiful names of Allah are not limited to ninety-nine."
~ Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 2/328
In the Quran Allah says,
“And (all) the Most Beautiful Names belong to Allaah, so call on Him by them”
~ al-A’raaf 7:180
Allah has merely commanded us to call upon Him by His names in general terms, He did not say that He has only ninety-nine names. Also, Al-Nawawi said in Sharh Saheeh Muslim, that the scholars were unanimously agreed on that, and he said:
“The scholars are unanimously agreed that this hadeeth does not mean that Allah has only ninety-nine names, or that He does not have any other names apart from these ninety-nine. Rather what the hadiths assert is that whoever learns these ninety-nine will enter Paradise. The point is that one may enter Paradise by learning them, not that the number is limited to these names.”
An online scholars says regarding this issue as follows,
“With regard to the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), “Allah has ninety-nine names, one hundred less one. Whoever learns them will enter Paradise,” this does not mean that He does not have any names apart from these, rather it means that whoever learns these ninety-nine of His names will enter Paradise. This is like when the Arabs say: “I have one hundred horses which I have prepared for jihad for the sake of Allah,” which does not mean that the speaker has only these hundred horses, rather these hundred are prepared for this purpose.”
Also, there is NO sound proof for the claim that there are '99' names of Prophet(pbuh), There is no Quranic verse or hadith which asserts that prophet has 99 names. Its few muslims who claim so while others claim its 201 and so on and on.. Now, let me present to readers the science of giving an attribute to Prophet. Since, Prophet has himself told us that we should call him a slave('abd') of Allah. One could name him by adding 'abd'(slave) + any name of Allah. For instance, Abd-Allah, Abd-ar rahman, Abd-al awwal, Abd-al-wahid, so on and on to 99 + Nabi + Rasool + Khatmun Nabiyyin + Rahmatul alaameen, etc this would amount to more than 99. In this way, the list of his names could be further prolonged.
From a Logical perspective as well, this void and silly “contention” doesn't qualifies as ‘contradiction’ or as a conflict to tauheed, because the numbers don't matter, what could matter are those attributes. For instance, if Shameless Satyagni/Agniveer gets 99 attributes/names(hate monger, shameless, liar, deceiveer, fraud, islamophobe, et. al. which he deserves) would that equate this headless chicken with Allah? NOT in the least bit!
“19. Allah and Muhammad share many common attributes such as Awwal, Aakhir, Haqq, Rahim, Kamil etc which mean the first, the last, truth, merciful, perfect respectively!
Comment-How can both Allah and Muhammad be first, the last, truth and perfect at the same time? This is the Shirk of highest degree to say Muhammad first, last, truth and perfect. If our Muslim friends still see other religions to be polytheistic and theirs to be monotheistic, they cannot be called anything except hypocrites!”
This hate monger needs some rest! Atleast he should've verified the credibilty of material he had used. I don't know of a single Quranic ayah or ahadeeth where Prophet has been named as 'AWWAL' meaning 'FIRST'. He has been named as ‘Aakhir’(by muslim scholars) meaning ‘Last’ in respect to his Prophethood and even ‘khatmun nabbiyin’ meaning ‘seal of prophethood’. This is evident from many ayah of Quran, for example, “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.” (Quran, Al-Ahzab 33:40).
Concerning all remaining three attributes(haqq, rahim, kamil), As, I’ve already said that similarity between Allah's attribute and that of any human, may only be in name or wordings and NOT IN DEGREE! Because these words have been used from human perspective to simplify for us. for instance, Allah exists and I too exist, now would that equate a poor & mortal being like me to Allah Subhanwa’ta’aala(Almighty)? Would that equate my existence with the existence of Allah Subhanwa’ta’aala? Simpplyy not!
After these '19' wishy-washy “contention” and so-called “contradiction” to tauheed.. Shameless satyagni like a typical Arya Samaji cooks up a panchtantra story by starting a purely fictional dialouge between a muslim and himself which certainly doesn't deserves any space in a scholarly work. I do not possess the same kind of void creativity and imaginative skill to write same kind of crap.
Now we present few examples of Tauheed (Oneness of God) from Vedas and ask all the Muslim and non Muslim friends to judge themselves which kind of “Oneness” they want.”
There is NOT even a bit of ‘tauheed’ in Vedas. I urge readers to read this article which exposes the polytheistic nature of Vedas (http://islamhinduism.com/hinduism/analysis/92-on-vedic-deities ). Anyways, let’s scrutinize what kind of 'Oneness' desperate satyagni/agniveer comes up with.
Scrutinizing so-called Monotheistic verses of Vedas.
The fact that hinduism isn't monotheistic is not even debatable, orthodox and scholars of hinduism accept that its not monotheistic at all. However, this protestant cult Arya samaj has tried to depict vedas as monotheistic which will be dealt with Inshaa'Allah. But, before proceeding to refute those 9 citations provided by satyagni, I would like to present views of few scholars as presented by Br. Abd al Mushin in This Article.
Shrikant G. Talageri (Hindūtva- Vādi) states in his book ‘The Rigveda - A Historical Analysis’, in Section III- Appendices -:
“The Christian missionaries treated Hinduism as inferior to Christianity on various counts: namely, idol-worship, polytheism, etc. Instead of countering these religious prejudices and pointing out that there was nothing superior to polytheism in monotheism, or superior to idol worship in Christian forms of worship,…”
“If we must employ technical terms, the religion of the Veda is polytheism, not monotheism.”
~ [Muller's Chips, vol. 1, pg. 27]
Monier Williams says, “The hymns of the Veda are the expression of that early stage of religious progress which may be called physiolatry”
~ [Monier Williams, ‘Hindūism’, pg. 16, London, 1878]
“Their religion was what may be called in: one word physiolatry.
- [Monier Williams, ‘Hindūism’, pg. 21]
Expounding on the statement of Muller (earlier quoted) K.S Macdonald wrote:
“His idea is, that the Aryans represented the divinity by various names taken from natural phenomena, which names, not being those of attributes, 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 and meteorolatry.”
- [K.S Macdonald, ‘The Vedic Religion’, pg. 100, 2nd Ed. London, 1881]
So, its mere wastage of time to prove monotheism in hinduism and that too in vedas. Anyway, I'll proceed to rip of the wings of Shameless Satyagni/Arrogant Agniveer.
“1. आयुर्यज्ञेन कल्पतां प्राणो यज्ञेन कल्पतां चक्षुर्यज्ञेन कल्पतां श्रोत्रं यज्ञेन कल्पतां वाक् यज्ञेन कल्पतां मनो यज्ञेन कल्पतां आत्मा यज्ञेन कल्पतां ब्रह्मा यज्ञेन कल्पतां ज्योतिः यज्ञेनकल्पतां स्वर यज्ञेन कल्पतां पृष्ठं यज्ञेन कल्पतां यज्ञो यज्ञेन कल्पतां…. प्रजापते प्रजा अभूम वेट स्वाहा. [यजुर्वेद १८/२९] O human! Offer to Eeshvar your life, breaths, eyes, ears, tongue, mind, soul, knowledge, intellect, happiness, rewards of good deeds, even the feel of offering, all your potential, wealth, and all of what you possess, by following his command of performing Yajna (acts of benefitting others and not become selfish) saying “Idam namam” which means “not for me but for others” because whatever you possess, it is all because of Eeshvar (Yajurved 18/29).”
This is totally inaccurate translation. Seemingly, dead set on to deceive folks. Here I present the apt translation of this verse,
“May life succeed through the service of God and the sages. May life-breath thrive through union. May the eye thrive through the service of God and the sages. May the ear thrive through the service of God and the sages. May the voice thrive through the service of God and the sages..”
[Yajurved 18:29, Tr. Devi chand(an Arya samaji)
• This verse doesn't addresses humans or humankind on the first place.
• These mantras were being chanted during a yajna(sacrifice ritual), thus, it's mere a supplication made during a yajna.
• Most importantly, no where this verse speaks of “Oneness” of God. It’s mere a supplication made to Prajâpati(प्रजापते) during yajna. Neither does the verse negates existence of gods besides Prajâpati(प्रजापते) like how the Islamic creed explicitly does.. “La ilaha..” meaning “there is no god..”, “..Il Allah” meaning “..except Allah”
• Prajapati is himself a created being as mentioned in Atharva veda 19:53:8 and 10 unlike Allah as-Samad.
“Kāla embraces Holy Fire, the Highest, Brahma in himself. Yea, Kāla, who was father of Prajāpati, is Lord of All.” [AV 19:53:8, Tr. Ralph Griffith]
“In Time tapas (creative fervour) is fixed; in Time the highest (being is fixed); in Time brahma (spiritual exaltation) is fixed; Time is the lord of everything, he was the father of Pragâpati.” [AV 19:53:8, Tr. Maurice Boomfield]
“Kāla created living things and, first of all, Prajāpati. From Kāla self-made Kasyapa, from Kāla Holy Fire was born.” [AV 19:53:10, Tr. Ralph Griffith]
And what's ironical is that an Arya samaji, Acharya Vaidya Naath translates Athava Veda 19:53:10 similarly,
“Kala created subjects of the world and Kala created in the beginning Prajapati, the fire. Self Refulgent sun emerges from Kala and the heat proceeded from the Kala.”
Here is a Similar hindi translation by Gayatri Pariwar,
Gayatri Pariwar Translation
2. हिरण्यगर्भः समवर्तताग्रे भूतस्य जातः पतिरेक आसीत्स दाधार पृथ्वीम् द्यामुतेमां कस्मै देवाय हविषा विधेम. [यजुर्वेद १३/४]“Eeshvar, O men existed in the beginning of the Creation. He is the Creator, Support and Sustainer of the suns and other luminous worlds, He was the Lord of the past Creation. He is the Lord of the present. He will be the Lord of the unborn universe. He created the whole world, and he sustains it. He is Eternal Bliss. May we all worship and adore Him (Yajurved 13/4).
• The sanskrit word 'हिरण्यगर्भः' means 'Golden egg' i.e 'Prajapati'(often spelled as Pragâpati) who has been referred as progenitor of the universe who himself is a created being(refer Shatapath Brahmana 11/1/6/1 and Rig veda mandala 10, sukta 121) unlike Allah as-Samad.
[Shatapath Brahmana 11/1/6/1-3, Tr. Julius Eggeling ] says,
1. Verily, in the beginning this (universe) was water, nothing but a sea of water. The waters desired, 'How can we be reproduced?' They toiled and performed fervid devotions , when they were becoming heated, a golden egg was produced. The year, indeed, was not then in existence: this golden egg floated about for as long as the space of a year.
2. In a year's time a man, this Pragâpati, was produced therefrom; and hence a woman, a cow, or a mare brings forth within the space of a year; for Pragâpati was born in a year. He broke open this golden egg. There was then, indeed, no resting-place: only this golden egg, bearing him, floated about for as long as the space of a year.
3. At the end of a year he tried to speak. He said 'bhûh': this (word) became this earth;--'bhuvah': this became this air;--'svah': this became yonder sky. Therefore a child tries to speak at the end of a year, for at the end of a year Pragâpati tried to speak.
• Again it doesn't negate existence of any other deity other than this "God" (Tauheed Ar-Rububiyyah) or even worship (Tauheed Al-Uloohiyyah) of any other deity other than this "God", unlike Islamic notion.
3. य आत्मदा बलदा यस्य विश्व उपासते प्रशिषम् यस्य देवाःयस्य छाया अमृतं यस्य मृत्यु कस्मै देवाय हविषा विधेम. [यजुर्वेद २५/१३]
Eeshvar alone provides us the knowledge of self and the potential to gain bliss. He is worshipped by all the noble people. Observing whose laws and commands is the cause of all happiness and ultimate bliss and violating whose laws is the cause of bondage (the cycle of birth and death). May we all worship and adore Him (Yajurved 25/13)
• The “God” referred in this particular verse is none other than ‘Hiranyagarbha’ i.e ‘Prajapati’ who himself is a created being as per Atharva veda 19/53/10 and Shatapath Brahmana 11/1/6/1-3 as cited in the refutation of the first “monotheistic” verse above.
• What's ironical is that the shameless satyagni didn't bother to read the entire 25th chapter which itself exposes Polytheistic nature of vedas. Let me present what's the scene here. A yajna(sacrifice) is being performed, in which each body organs, limbs, et. al has been gratified to different different dieties.
Let's have a glimpse..
1 “I GRATIFY Fresh Grass with his teeth, Avakâ with his gums, Clay with his tooth-sockets, Tegas with his fangs. The tongue-tip for Sarasvatî; I gratify the root of the tongue and the palate with his neigh, Vâja with his jaws, the Waters with his mouth, the Stallion with his testicles, the Âdityas with the beard, Path with his eyebrows, Heaven and Earth with his eyelashes, Lightning with the pupils of his eyes. Hail to the white! Hail to the black! Effectual are his eyelashes, irresistible are his lower eyelashes; irresistible are his eyelashes, effectual are his lower eyelashes.”
2 “With his breath I gratify Vâta; with his outbreath the two Nostrils; with his lower lip the Upayâma; with his upper lip Existence. With his bright look I please Antara, with his reflection Bâhya; the Whirlpool with his head; Thunder with his frontal bone; the Lightning-flash with his brain; Lightning with the pupils of his eyes; Hearing with his external ears; Ears with his internal ears; Blood with his lower neck; Waters with the fleshless part of his neck; Thought with the back neck-tendons; Aditi with his head; Nirriti with his ragged head; Vital Breathings with his roars; Tempest with his crest.”
3 “I gratify Flies with his hair; Indra with his active shoulder; Brihaspati with his quick spring; Tortoises with his hoofs; Approach with his fetlocks; Kapiñjalas with his heel-ropes; Speed with his two thighs; the Way with his two fore-legs; the Forest-God with a kneepan; Agni with his two knees; Pûshan with his two fore-feet; the Asvins with his shoulders; Rudra with his shoulder-joints,”
4 “The first rib is Agni's; the second Vâyu's; the third Indra's; the fourth Soma's; the fifth Aditi's; the sixth Indrânî's; the seventh the Maruts’; the eighth Brihaspati's; the ninth Aryaman's; the tenth Dhâtar's; the eleventh Indra's; the twelfth Varuna's; the thirteenth Yama's.”
~ [Yajurveda 25:1-4, Tr. Ralp Griffith]
Since, the translation presented by me is of a non-Hindu a poor malechha, so racist hindus won't accept it that's why I would like to present a similar translation of Pandit Sri ram sharma of Gayatri pariwar in hindi.
Gayatri Pariwar Translation
4. स नो बन्धुर्जनिता स विधाता धामानि वेद भुवनानि विश्वायत्र देवा अमृतामानशानास्तृतीये धामान्नध्यैरयन्त. [यजुर्वेद ३२/१०]Eeshvar is a true friend who never leaves us in any situation, He is our procreator and fulfils all of our aspirations, and thus can be called as ultimate mother and father, He knows all the worlds, all the names, localities and created objects of this universe, it is in Him where the person of wisdom obtaining salvation move freely after having been free from worldly pleasures and pains. He is our mother, father, teacher, ruler and administrator of justice. We with all devotion offer our worship to Him (Yajurved 32/10).
• This "eeshwar" is again the ‘Hiranyagarbha’ i.e ‘Prajapati’ who himself is a created being as substantiated above. This is evident from the 3rd verse of this chapter that ‘Hiranyagarbha’ i.e ‘Prajapati’ is being praised. It reads as follows,
"There is no counterpart of him whose glory verily is great. In the beginning rose Hiranyagarbha, etc. Let not him harm me, etc. Than whom there is no other born, etc."
Similar hindi translation by Gayatri pariwar :
• The translation presented by satyagni is deceptive as it suppresses mention of demi gods ' देवा' as can clearly be read in the sanskrit text.
•No where does it talks of Oneness of God or even Oneness of this created entity named "eeshwar". thus, this citations remains void.
5. यो भूतं च भव्यं च सर्वं यश्चाधितिष्ठति. स्वर्यस्य च केवलं तस्मै ज्येष्ठाय ब्रह्मणे नमः.[अथर्ववेद १०/८/१]We all pray to Eeshvar, Who is above the bondage of time, i.e. remains unchanged with respect to time, His knowledge, laws, nature etc remain undisturbed by time, Who creates, maintains and destroys the universe with His eternal knowledge and power. May we all love Him and follow His path (Atharved 10/8/1).
• This is more of a commentary than an apt translation. Probably, dead set on to deceive folks. No where does the verse says "We all pray to Eeshvar, Who is above the bondage of time, i.e. remains unchanged with respect to time" what the verse implies is that Ishwar existed in past, exists at present and will exist in future as the word 'यश्चाधितिष्ठति' simply means 'dominion' or 'राज्य' in hindi.Consider, this apt hindi translation of this verse.
Gayatri Pariwar Translation
• Again it doesn't assert any oneness of God.
6. ईशा वास्यमिदं सर्वं यत्किंच जगत्यान्जगत. [यजुर्वेद ४०/१]O Human! The entire world – static as well as dynamic – is pervaded by Ishwar – the Supreme Lord (Yajurved 40/1).
• This 40th chapter of Yajur ved is interesting though absurd as well, its an Upanishad named as 'Isha vasya Upanishad' or 'Isha Upanishad' and I said earlier that its conception regarding God is very contrary from that of the Vedas. It presents a monist or non-dual perspective of the universe.
• These verses are asserting 'Monism'(advaita or Illusionism) idea about the universe rather than 'Monotheism'(tauheed) which asserts dualism, it asserts Oneness of the Soul and God, precisely it teaches that everything is within God and everything we see is Brahman/Isha/Self/Atma as the verse 6 of Yahur ved 40 or Isha upanishad says,
"He who sees all beings in the Self and the Self in all beings, he never turns away from It (the Self)."[Translation - Swami Paramananda ]
"The wise man beholds all beings in the Self and the Self in all beings; for that reason he does not hate anyone."[Translation - Swami Nikhilananda]
" He who sees everything in relation to the Supreme Lord, who sees all living entities as His parts and parcels, and who sees the Supreme Lord within everything never hates anything or any being."[Translation - A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada ]
Also, Adi Shankara the promotor of Advaita philosophy comments on verse no. 1 as follows,
"All this therefore belongs to the Atman and the Atman is all. Do not therefore covet what is unreal."
So, what see is that this 'Oneness' as depicted in the chapter 40th cited by Agniveer/Satyagni is asserting some thing very contrary to Monotheism which presents a Dualist idea about the universe. Its(polytheism) not over yet, this chapter even teaches worship of a demi-god 'Agni' as well, verse no. 18
अग्ने नय सुपथा राये अस्मान् विश्वानि देव वयुनानि विद्वान् ।युयोध्यस्मज्जुहुराणमेनो भूयिष्ठां ते नमउक्तिं विधेम ॥१८॥
"O Fire, lead us by the good path for the enjoyment of the fruit of our action. You know, O god, all our deeds. Destroy our sin of deceit. We offer, by words, our salutations to you." [Tr. Swami Nikhilananda]
Note :- Agni is not name of any Ishwar as in Rigved 9/96/5 we read that he was created by Soma.
7. अहम्भुवं वसुनः पूर्व्यस्पतिरहहम् धनानि सं ज्यामि शश्वतः.मां हवन्ते पितरं न जन्तवो अहम् दाशुषे वि भजामि भोजनम्. [ऋग्वेद १०/४८/१]I, O men, lived before the whole universe came into being, I am Lord of all, I am the eternal cause of the whole creation. I am the source and giver of all wealth. Let all men look up to me alone as children do to their parents. I have appointed different foods and drinks for all creatures to give them sustenance so that they may live in happiness (Rigved 10/48/1).
8. अहमिन्द्रो न परा जिग्य इद्धनं न मृत्यवे अवस्तथे कदा चनसोममिन्मा सुन्वन्तो याचता वसु न मे पूरवः सख्ये रिषाथन. [ऋग्वेद १०/४८/५]I am God Almighty, I am the Light of the world like the sun. Neither defeat, nor death, can ever approach me. I am the controller of the universe, know me alone as the Creator of all. Strive ye diligently for the acquisition of power and wealth such (as true knowledge). Ask ye of me. May ye never lose my friendship (Rigved 10/48/5).
9. अहम् दाम् गृणते पूर्व्यं वस्वहम् ब्रह्म कृणवं मह्यं वर्धनं.अहम् भुवं यजमानस्य चोदिता अयज्वनः साक्षि विश्वस्मिन्भरे. [ऋग्वेद १०/४९/१]I give true knowledge, which is real wealth, unto men who are truthful. I am the revealer of Vedas which declare my true nature. It is through the Vedas that I advance the knowledge of all. I am the prompter of the good and true. I reward those who devote themselves to the good of humanity. I am the cause, I am the support of all that exists in this universe (Rigved 10/49/1).
• Firstly, we need to know that every Sookt (hymn) of the Vedas has a distinct Devata (deity) and a Rishi (poet). The Devta of a Sookt is one whose praises have been sung in that Sookt.
Deva is (so called) from making gifts (da) or from being brilliant (dip), from being radiant (dyut), or because his sphere is heaven. He who is called deva is also called devata. [Nirukt 7:15]
Nirkut elsewhere says,
"The stanzas whose deity is not specified, such stanzas belong to the same deity to whom that particular sacrifice, or a part of the sacrifice, is offered. Now, elsewhere than the sacrifice, they belong to Prajapati according to the ritualists; and to Narasamsa according to the etymologists." [Nirukt 7:4]
The above citation unambiguously implies that there are various deities. The reason I choose to refute assertion by these three citations at a time is that the context and god of these mantras are same "Indra" even the 49th sookt belongs to the Indra as evident from the translation of Gayatri Pariwar.
Note :- Indra is not name of any Ishwar as in Rigved 9/96/5 we read that he was created by Soma.
सोमः पवते जनिता मतीनां जनिता दिवो जनिता पर्थिव्याः |
जनिताग्नेर्जनिता सूर्यस्य जनितेन्द्रस्य जनितोत विष्णोः ||
Transliteration : janitaa divo janitaa prithviyaah janitaa Agner janitaa Suryasya janitaa Indrasya janitota Vishnoh
“Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven: Father of Agni, Sūrya's generator, the Father who begat Indra and Viṣhnu.”Similar hindi translation by gayatri pariwar -
Here, is something even more interesting waiting for readers to enjoy, Agniveer/Satyagni wrote earlier in his deceptive article,
“........Same attributes for both Allah and Muhammad, where is the Tauheed?”
Let's apply the same logic to the cited verse no. 8 which reads as follows,
8. अहमिन्द्रो न परा जिग्य इद्धनं न मृत्यवे अवस्तथे कदा चनसोममिन्मा सुन्वन्तो याचता वसु न मे पूरवः सख्ये रिषाथन. [ऋग्वेद १०/४८/५] I am God Almighty, I am the Light of the world like the sun. Neither defeat, nor death, can ever approach me. I am the controller of the universe, know me alone as the Creator of all. Strive ye diligently for the acquisition of power and wealth such (as true knowledge). Ask ye of me. May ye never lose my friendship (Rigved 10/48/5).
The same question backfires at him now, “Same attributes for both "God" and Sun, where is the Tauheed?” So, in his very words there is no tauheed in vedas, but why did he then cite this particular verse and that too to prove monotheism? Isn't it a clear deception? Infact, its height of deception and hypocrisy which is typical of hate monger Islamophobes like him, his desperation to prove monotheism in vedas exposed his ultra-hypocrisy and biasedness! This is a metaphorical kick to him from my side. I hope he'll remember it in future while writing more such craps for his deceiving castle.
Further, while ending his failed panchtantra sort of article, he cited yet another verse to prove monotheism in vedas, desperation at its height, Anyways, let's probe his last deception of his crap work.
He is neither two nor three nor four…. He is One without a second. In Him alone, whole universe resides. He pervades all. He has been creating, sustaining, and destroying the universe from beginningless time and will continue to do so till eternity on His own without the help of anyone! [Atharva- 13/4/16-21]
I think, I need to remind Agniveer/Satyagni's word to himself, he wrote at the onset of his article
"Does the specialty lie with “Oneness” or with “God”? Lets work out which one of these two carry more gravity and why! “Oneness” in itself carries no weight simply because there are many entities which are One. For everyone, mother is one and father is also one. For the believers of Christianity and Islam, Satan is also one! But mere oneness of Satan or anyone else does not make him worthy of being worshipped. So it is clear that the beauty of Tauheed lies somewhere in God itself."
Seemingly, he forgot his own words presented above while citing this verse, because the verse cited (Atharva veda- 13/4/16-21) is talking of “Oneness” of none other than Sun-god. Here in this hymn several other devatas has been praised so it has been stated as 'Mantrokta'.
Moreover, Sun-god is mere a created being and not name of any Ishwar as the same hymn further reads as follows,
"He was produced from Air: and Air derives its origin from him. He was produced from Wind: and Wind derives his origin from him, From Heaven was he produced: and Heaven derives his origin from him"
[Atharva veda 13/4/31-33, Tr. Ralph Griffith]
Similar hindi translation by Gayatri Pariwar,
Note :- Numbering system of verses in gaytari pariwar translation is a bit different but the text is same.
further, Atharva veda 13/4/35 & 36 reads as follows,
"He is the offspring of the Earth: Earth hath her origin from him. He was produced from fire: and fire derives its origin from him."
[Translation - Ralph Griffith]Similar hindi translation by Gayatri Pariwar,
So far, I've exposed the shameless lies of "Maharishi" Satyagni/Agniveer who certainly is a shame in name of student of comparative religion and what's ironical is that this IIT pass out who's said to be Vedic apologetic doesn't even possess sound knowledge of his own dharma, summing up, throughout his "article" he probably in his ignorance or more likely in his deception has refuted his own theology of arya samaj.
I end this rebuttal by quoting the following verse from the Holy Quran, :
And say, "Truth has come, and falsehood has departed. Indeed is falsehood, [by nature], ever bound to depart."
- Surah Al-Isra (17:81)