Concept of God in Arya Samaj (Protestant Hinduism) Part 2


Written by Abd Al Muhsin Al Hindy

The proponents (blind-follower’s) of protestant Hinduism stress that their cult (and Vedic Hinduism) is strictly monotheistic and has nothing to do with dualism, polytheism, pantheism, monistic or any other conception of God but monotheism. Whereas the orthodox Hindus maintain the opposite, that Vedic Dharma (Vedic Religion) is not monotheistic and the cult (Protestant Hinduism, so-called Arya Samāj) is unorthodox and deviated. In order to solve this ‘mystery’, we’ll be showing few more proofs, which will prove that protestant Hinduism is purely non-monotheistic, wearing garb of monotheism in order to delude and lead people astray, especially those who try to seek truth. This sub-section aims at exposing the polytheist (i.e. protestant Hindus) posing as monotheists. In the previous sub-section (i.e. ‘A) Is Protestant Hinduism Monotheistic?’) ,we’ve already provided many proofs, to prove the non-monotheistic nature of protestant Hinduism, still we want to block any mice holes through which any such false claim could be made or even be thought of.

b.1) Ishwar is Dependent not Independent –

We’ve seen the ‘proposed definition’ for Omnipotence by the protestant Hindus, now its time to put this proposed definition to scrutiny and see whether it can rightly depict the true picture of Protestant Hindu god Ishwar. Again in a precise manner we’ll be stating the ‘proposed definition’ as given by protestant Hindus –

Agniveer the new Islāmophobe (once was a “wannabee” but now is full-fledged Islāmophobe), hate-monger wrote –

Omnipotence means that Ishwar does not need help of any other entity to conduct His duties – creation, management, destruction of universe. He is self-sufficient to conduct His duties”

Moolshankar Tiwāri (Dayānanda Saraswati) wrote –

“It really means that God does not require the least assistance from any person in all His works such as Creation, Sustenance and Dissolution of the Universe, and administration of Divine Justice. In other words, He does all His works with His own infinite power.” –  [SP, Ch 7, pg. 208, Tr.Chiranjiva] [See Sub-section a.2 for the complete source]

Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati) wrote –

“…God stands in need of nobody’s least help in doing His work of creation, preservation, and destruction, and in doing equitable justice to souls according to their merits and demerits. In other words, He accomplishes all His works out of His own infinite power.”                                                   

                              – [Satyarth Prakash Ch 7, pg.211 Tr. Durga Prasad]

In the earlier sub-section we had hinted at the dependent nature of Ishwar, and Inshā’Allāh we’ll expound on it more in this sub-section, as we read above, that the proposed definition of “Omnipotence” is “[Ishwar]
does not need help of any other entityas stated by the Islāmophobe Agniveer. But does Ishwar stands true to this ‘proposed definition’? We learn that according to Mooshankar, his god Ishwar needs nobody’s help? Well that’s quite contradictory to the apparent facts, which we’ve seen and other are mentioned below.

We’ve have sufficiently shown the distorted nature of the ‘proposed definition’ of Omnipotence by Moolshankar, and shown his deception, now we seek to elaborate something which readers may have noticed in our early points but may not have fathomed it completely. Above we saw the definition of “Omnipotence” by Protestant Hindus where they claim that Omnipotence means “God does not require the least assistance from any person” or “Ishwar does not need help of any other entity” or “God stands in need of nobody’s least help.”

The problem with their ‘proposed definition’ is that their god Ishwar does not stand true even upon this definition! Ishwar does require the assistance (help) of Ātmā (Human Souls) and Prakriti (Primordial matter) for the creation of this universe.

All of his duties (Ishwar’s) are dependent on basically two things – Ātmā (Human Souls) and Prakriti (Primordial matter), hence he is not self-sufficient nor is he independent of others and their help.

For instance, what if Ātmā (Human Souls) refuse to (or don’t) inhabit the bodies created by Ishwar using Prakriti? As according to protestant Hinduism, Ātmā (Human Souls) are ‘sat’ (eternal) and have ‘chit’ (conscious) , where as Ishwar is ‘sat’ (eternal) has chit (conscious) and has ‘ānanda’ (bliss)[hence protestant god Ishwar is known as Satchidananda], and prakriti( primordial matter)  is only ‘sat’(eternal) and lacks the other 2 attributes.

As these souls have conscious they are responsible whether or not to associate themselves with the bodies…etc made using prakriti, by Ishwar. And this is what is stated by a Protestant Hindu Pandit in his book –

“Souls tend to associate themselves with matter but are free to do so with God. In the former case they are subject to births and deaths, in the latter case they acquire bliss which is a divine attribute. In both cases it retains its individuality being uncreated and indestructible.

       – [The Handbook of Ārya Samāj, pg 41, Pandit Vishnu Lāl Sharmā, Ārya Pratinidhi Sabhā]

We question, what if all the Ātma (Human Souls) refuse to associate themselves with Ishwar and matter (Ishwar made Bodies…etc)? The making of this universe cannot be completed, without their help and co-operation! Now you need not be ‘scholar’ or even a ‘graduate’ from MIT, Harvard or NASA to predict and guess the outcome of such situation! It’s evident that Ishwar is NOT Self-sufficient and requires assistance (needs prakriti) from prakriti for making universe and co-operation from Ātmā to make the universe working. So who does Ishwar need and depend?

1)      Ātmā (Human Souls)

2)      Prakriti(Primordial matter)

Ishwar depends and needs Prakriti (Primordial matter) for creating this universe, hence he cannot be self-sufficient or independent.Moreover Ishwar also requires  Ātmā (Human Souls)to make his universe “living” or “active” as mere bodies without souls are nothing but matter. Hence for a “working”, “active” universe Ishwar heavily depends upon his two other partners named above.

Now let’s assume for the sake of argumentation, that –

Ātmā (Human Souls) totally including everyone of the souls, agree to either associate with, matter (Ishwar’s making i.e. Universe, Human Bodies…Etc) or Ishwar, so will then Ishwar be Omnipotent according to the ‘proposed definition’ of omnipotence by protestant Hindus?

Of course not as, even then Ishwar will still be dependent on prakriti(Primordial Matter), for making universe, Human bodies, animal bodies…etc as Ishwar cannot create primordial matter(prakriti) nor destroy it, he is a mere ‘Fashioner’ or ‘Engineer’ of it ,in terms of Agniveer.

Hence in no way, either by the correct definition of ‘Omnipotence” or by the distorted definition (‘proposed definition’ by protestant Hindus) is Ishwar OMNIPOTENT.

This ultimately proves that God is purely in need of the other 2 co-eternal entities. Hence even the ‘proposed’ definition of Omnipotence (i.e. “God does not require the least assistance from any person” or “Ishwar does not need help of any other entity” or “He is self-sufficient to conduct His duties.”) is too big for Ishwar. And that he (Ishwar) does not stand up to this definition. This materialistic view of creation makes protestant Hinduism very close to materialism; it would be ridiculous of thinking them to be monotheistic in any sense.

Now, that we’ve learned how desperately Ishwar’s in need of prakriti and Human souls, but let’s see another scenario, where Ishwar has run into bankruptcy. Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati), wrote in his ‘Bible of Hate’
(Satyarth Prak
āsh) :

13. No, there can be no dearth of souls, because the emancipated souls are replaced by new ones that God creates.

A – “…Fifthly, if you say that God creates new souls, the material out of which He creates them will eventually run short; because a bank, however wealthy it may be that has a constant drain on it, but has no income, is sure to become bankrupt sooner or later.”

                                             – [Satyarth Prakash, Ch 9, pg. 287, Tr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Q. God replaces the saved souls with the newly created souls on earth. So they never come to an end.

– “…If God creates new souls, the material out of which He creates them, will be exhausted; for, however much a treasure may be, it will sooner or later run out, if there be nothing bat drawings upon it and no puttings in it.”

                                              – [Satyarth Prakash, Ch 9, pg. 264, Tr.Durga Prasad]

What, you’ve read above is a question posed to Moolshankar related to emancipation souls (he was trying to refute the notion that souls are created at which he fails drastically), and while answering this question Moolshankar states that “matter” is limited and will get exhausted one day or the other. It’s the protestant Hindu belief that except god (Ishwar) the other 2 entity are finite. Hence this makes Moolshakar assert that “prakriti” (Primordial matter) is limited and one day will get depleted.

This belief of limited or finite prakriti (Primordial matter) strengthens our argument of Ishwar being dependent and provides a blow to the so-called, distortedly fake, Omnipotence of Ishwar.

Mavericks like us would question –

What if prakriti (Primordial matter) gets depleted?

  • Well, Ishwar will no longer be able to provide for the Humans Souls (Ātmā) for their sustenance. And then Ishwar will be in a big trouble! And when Ishwar cannot provide for Humans Souls (Ātmā) living in material bodies engineered by Ishwar using prakriti (Primordial matter) then by effect Ishwar will cease to be the Sustainer of his own engineering’s (i.e Human Bodies,Universe…etc) So this rips Ishwar from the attribute of “Sustainer” too.
  • Seccondly, this strengthens our claim that Ishwar is extremely dependent on prakriti (Primordial Matter).

b.2) Attributes of Ishwar –

Attributes and names of God are the crux of theology of any religious denomination and these attributes are very intrinsic to the concept of God, as these attributes define and make us understand what God is – to an extent. Since early times, mankind has been in an abyss of darkness due to its misunderstanding of these attributes of God, it’s these attributes which play a major role in conceptualizing the ‘Concept of God’ in any religion, and if these attributes are misunderstood then the consequences are devastating. We’ll be having a concise look at the names and attributes of Ishwar as stated and understood by Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati)

Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati) wrote –

“Virat…Agni…Vishwa…Hiranyagarhbha…Vayu…Tejas…Ishwar…A’ditya…Prajna…AUM…Mitra…Aryama …Indra …Vrihaspati…Vishnu…Urukramaa…Brahma…Bhumi… Surya… A’tma… Paramaatmaa… Parameshwar…Savita… Deva… Kurvera… Prithivi… Jala…Akaash…Anna and atta…Vasu…Rudir …Naaraayana, Chandra…Mangala…Budha…Garutmaan.”

                                                                 – [ Satyarth Prakash. Ch 1, pg 8-18, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Durgā Prasād translates it as,

Virat-The word virat (an illumer) is derived from the root ‘raj’: to illume or shine, with the prefix ‘vi’ and ‘kvipa’ termination. He who illumes and manifests the world in various forms, is called Virat. Hence it means God.

Pita Maha– God is called Pita Maha, because he is the father of fathers.

Prapita Maha – God is called Prapita vuhat because Le is the father of the fore-fathers of fathers.

Mata – God is called Mata, because he has at his heart the amelioration of all just as a kind and benevolent mother wishes her children ease and comfort in right good earnest. It is derived from ma: to respect and ‘ta’ an affix.

Agni…Vishwa…Hiranyagarhbha…Vayu…Tejah…Guru…Acharya…Chit…Nitya Ishwar… A’ditya… ProPrajna… Mitra… Kavi… Shiva”

                                                            – [ Satyarth Prakash. Ch 1, pg 74-88, Tr. Durga Prasad]

Here above, we’ve enumerated few (reproducing all names would take a huge amount of space, and would be un-yielding) names of protestant Hindu god Ishwar, as enlisted by Moolshankar in his ‘Bible of Hate’ (i.e. Satyarth Prakāsh). There is huge controversy what these name mean, for instance Orthodox Hindus maintain that ‘Agni’ means fire primarily where as Moolshankar believes it to be a name of Ishwar. We won’t be delving into this controversy as it’s beyond the scope of this article (treatise), the purpose of mentioning this was to show the vast differing between mainstream Hinduism and protestant Hinduism, and to expose these so-called names of God, we need just a single verse from the divine revelation from Allāh Azz wa Jall our alone One true God.

The Noble Qur’ān says which means,

“You do not worship besides Him but only names which you have
named (forged)
– you and your fathers – for which Allāh has sent down no authority.

The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allāh. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism); that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not.”

                                                                                                         – [Surah al-Yusuf, Ayat 40]

We see how the Noble Qur’ān refutes the misdoings of people like Moolshankar, his predecessors and other polytheists, the above divine verse from the Noble Qur’ān clearly states that the different names, which are claimed to be of the one true Almighty God (Allāh) by the polytheists like protestant Hindus are just FORGERIES by these protestant Hindus and their deviant predecessors. These protestant Hindus like their idol worshipping predecessors have merely concocted names which have no authority from the true Almighty God (Allāh).

The above verse, also makes it clears, that this protestant Hindu POLYTHEISM has no authority from the One True Almighty God (Allāh), hence we Muslims would like to call our protestant Hindu truth-seekers and our readers to the straight path – True Religion , Islām.

Now coming to the attributes of Ishwar – the protestant Hindu god, we’ve earlier stated/proved few attributed of Ishwar they are –

  • Incapability
  • Dependency

We shall also have a look at some other attributes of Ishwar which are problematic rationally and logically.

b.2.1) Is Ishwar Incomparable?

Moolshankar wrote (Quotes Rigveda 10:121, 1)

Love and worship that Supreme Spirit, O men, Who is the support of all the luminous bodies (such as the sun), the one Incomparable Lord…”

                                                        – [Satyarth Prakash , Ch 8, pg. 243, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

“The One Incomparable Supreme Spirit alone is the Witness…”

                                                      – [Satyarth Prakash , Ch 8, pg. 276, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

And even the Vedas claim Ishwar to be ‘Incomparable’

“…The Incomparable One Effulgent Lord, with mobile atoms, producing the Earth and Heaven, with His mighty force puts the universe in motion”

                                        – [Yajurveda Chapter 17, Verse 19, pg-179, Tr. Devi Chand]

“God is the Creator of the whole universe, full of knowledge. Ubiquitous Sustainer, Maker, Seer, and foremost of all. He is known as the Incomparable One…”

                           – [Yajurveda Chapter 17, Verse 26, pg-180, Tr. Devi Chand]

We learn that Moolshankar holds his god Ishwar the so-called supreme spirit to be incomparable, also his interpretation of Vedas assert to this.

But according to the same Yajurveda , which first states that Ishwar is ‘Incomparable’ but later on compares him to a ‘shining man of knowledge’ –

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]

The above quoted verse, aptly states Ishwar shines like the Shining man of Knowledge‘, so here we see Ishwar himself(Vedas were created by Ishwar as per their belief) comparing his own-self to a shining man of knowledge, what more evidence do we need? Amazing, isn’t it? How incoherent are Vedas! I think this should be enough to prove our point, also another important point to be noticed is “anthropomorphism”, Yajurveda clearly states the Hindu protestant God Ishwar, shines LIKE the shining man of knowledge! This is explicit anthropomorphism, of which few instances were quite evident from Moolshankar’s (and his blind-follower) writings which we had quoted in earlier sections.

Though the above quoted verse satisfactorily proves our point, we shall provide one more verse from the same Yajurveda which show’s how anthropomorphic Vedas are and that Ishwar is compared in Vedas itself.

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]

The above quoted verse clearly compares two entities that are –

1) Persons

2) Ishwar (God)

 It (verse) states that there are “Persons” who are excellent LIKE God! So, there is someone (here persons) like God, according to Vedas!

We think it’s completely proven with no ounce of doubt left, that Ishwar is Comparable and that Vedas are self-contradictory. Still for the sake of argumentation and nailing the issue lets see some other facts which prove Ishwar to be completely comparable.

Moolshankar(Dayānanda Saraswati) wrote –

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]

27. What are God and the soul in essence, and what are their natures, attributes and actions?

A.- In essence they are both conscious entities. By nature both are pure, immortal and virtuous, etc…,”                    – [ Satyarth Prakash , Ch 7 pg. 223 Tr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Above quoted statements of Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati) prove the following things –

1)      Ishwar and Human Souls (Ātmā) are beginning-less
(also prakriti as stated in Section A).

2)      Human Souls (Ātmā)and Ishwar have by nature IDENTICAL attributes for instance , they both are CONSCIOUS ,pure, immortal, virtuous…etc

So what does this prove? Such belief-system legitimizes “Comparing” the protestant Hindu god Ishwar to Human Souls (Ātmā) and prakriti (Primordial matter) as all the 3 entities are –

a)      Beginning-less, b) Eternal, c) Uncreated

So it’s possible to say that ‘Ishwar is Eternal like(identical) prakriti’ or ‘Ishwar is beginning-less like(identical) Human Souls’ or ‘Ishwar and other 2 entities are alike in 3 attributes namely beginning-less, Eternal, Uncreated-ness’

The problem is with IDENTICAL attributes (Eternal,Uncreated,beginning-less,…etc), these identical attributes make Ishwar comparable and co-equal to the other 2 entities, which is violation of monotheism, and disqualifies protestant Hinduism from the claim of being Monotheistic.
Identical attributes prove that Ishwar is identical to and resembles somewhat to Human Souls (Ātmā)and prakriti (Primordial Matter), to some extent.

b.2.2) Is Ishwar Coequal –

According to Moolshankar’s (Dayānanda Saraswati) belief, Ishwar is not coequal as stated by him in Satyarth Prakash-

   “There is none beside, Thee, who is equal to Thee or above Thee.”

                                          – [Satyarth Prakash, Ch.1 pg. 35Tr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

“The Great Eternal Spirit undergoes no modifications, requires no instruments to work with, has no equal nor any superior. He is the Supremely Powerful Being, endowed with innate Omniscience, Omnipresence and Infinite activity.” SHWETA SHWETAR UPANISHAD 6, 8.”                              – [Satyarth Prakash, Ch.1 pg. 218 ,Tr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Although, Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati) seems to be zealously ascribing non-coequality to his Ishwar, the reality of the matter is totally different which we want to shed light upon. So does Ishwar have someone equal to him or equal to him in anything? Yes, of course he is (coequal) as proven above (earlier-subsection), Ishwar is coequal to Human Souls (Ātmā) and prakriti (Primordial Matter).Ishwar is coequal as he has identical attributes which make him coequal in

1)      Eternity

2)      Uncreated-ness

3)      Beginning-less-ness.

As all the 3 entities are eternal, uncreated and beginning-less. Hence Ishwar is coequal undoubtedly. Also Ishwar is co-equal in Consciousness, virtue, purity with Human Souls (Ātmā) as these are identical attributes shared by the two, as stated by Moolshankar. Not only is Ishwar Co-equal in eternity with the above stated entities but also with other as stated by Moolshankar –

“…the prakriti, the souls, time and space which are all uncreated and eternal.”

                                                                           – [Satyarth Prakash , Ch 8, pg 253, Tr.Chirajiva Bhardawaja]

 Earlier, we’ve stated the major 3 eternal entities but there are few other entities which are eternal and Uncreated according to Moolshankar Tiwāri (Dayānanda Saraswati) they are time and space. So it’s perfectly fine to say that, Ishwar is Coequal in Eternity and Uncreated-ness not only with Human Souls (Ātmā)and prakriti (Primordial Matter) but also with time and space.

Apart from these proofs there are other proofs which we want to put light upon which will explicitly and evidently prove that Ishwar is coequal to Human Souls (Ātmā)and prakriti (Primordial Matter)…etc

Protestant Hindu theology, states that the number of cause of this universe are as follows –

5. How many causes are there of the Universe

A.-Three The efficient , the material and the common. The efficient cause is the one by whose directed activity a thing is made, and by the absence of whose directed activity nothing is made. It does not change itself, though it works changes in other things. The material cause is one without which nothing can be made. It undergoes changes, is made and un-made. The common cause is one that is an instrument in the making of a thing, and is common to many things. The efficient cause is of two kinds:- The Primary efficient cause is the Supreme Spirit – the Governor

Of all, Who creates the universe out of the prakriti (matter), sustains it, and then resolves it into its elementary form.

The secondary efficient cause is the soul. It takes different materials out of the universe created by God and moulds them into different shapes.

The material cause is the prakiti which is the material used in the making of the universe. Being devoid of intelligence it can neither make nor unmake itself, but is always mad or unmade by a conscious intelligent being; though here and there even one kind of dead matter (but those changes are never ordered). Let us take an illustration. God made seeds (of different kinds), when they fall into a suitable soil and get the proper amount of water and nourishment, they develop into trees; but if they come in contact with fire they perish. All ordered changes in material things depend for their occurrence on God and the soul.

All such means as knowledge, strength and hands, and instruments, time and space, that are required for the making of thing constitute its common cause.

Now take for illustration a pot. The potter is its efficient cause clay its material cause, whilst the rod, the wheel and other instruments, time, space, light, eyes, hands (of the potter), knowledge and the necessary labour, etc., constitute its common cause. Nothing can be made or unmade without these three causes.

                                      – [ Satyarth Prakash, Ch 8, pg.247-248, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati) wrote in his ‘Bible of Hate’ (i.e Satyarth Prakāsh) that the Universe has 3 Causes, and without which the existence of Universe is impossible, these three causes are –

1) The Efficient Cause: (it has two types)

Primary Efficient Cause (Ishwar –protestant Hindu god).

Secondary Efficient Cause
(Ātmā – Human Souls).

2) The Material Cause
(Prakriti – Primordial Matter).

3) The Common Cause
(‘common cause is one that is an instrument in the making of a thing’ for instance knowledge, strength, hands, instruments, time and space).

Earlier we proved that Ishwar is not a “Creator” but he is only a “Maker” “Engineer”…etc but this is the partial truth Ishwar isn’t the “Maker” or “Engineer” of the universe in complete sense he is just a “part” or one of the causes which “engineer” or “make” the universe and his other partners are listed above. This again evidently proves that Ishwar is coequal with –

  • Ātmā (Human Souls).
  • Prakriti (Primordial matter).
  • Common Cause (i.e. instruments, knowledge, time, space…etc)

Ishwar has equal partners (entities), which assisted him in ‘managing’ and ‘engineering’ of the universe (who are equally important in engineering of the universe), which ultimately makes these entities as ‘Coequal’ to Ishwar as without these the bringing about of universe is impossible. Hence these coequal causes of the universe are coequal to Ishwar. Later on Moolshankar states that the making of universe requires 6 Causes!

Now mark how the descriptions of the six shaastraas harmonize with each other.

• The Mimaansaa says, “Nothing in this world can be produced without proper application.”

• The Niyaaya says, “Nothing can be produced without the material cause.”

• TheVaisheshika says, “Nothing can be done or made without the expenditure of time.”

• The Yoga says, “Nothing can be made without the requisite skill, knowledge and thought.

• The Saankhya says, “Nothing can be made without the definite combination of atoms.”

                  • The Vedaanta says, “Nothing can be made without a

This shows that the Creation of the world requires six different causes which have been described separately one by each separate Shaastra. There is no contradiction in these descriptions. The six Shaastras together serve to explain the phenomenon of Creation in the same way as six men would help each other to put a thatch on the roof of a house.

                                                                – [Satyarth Prakash, Ch 8, pg.260, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Above Moolshankar(Dayānanda Saraswati), states that the so-called “Creation” of universe, requires 6 different Causes they are – application, material cause, time ,skill(with knowledge and thought),  Combination of atoms and Maker.

Basically these are the same three causes which according to Moolshankar brought about the universe, except that here he (Moolshankar) expands the three causes to 6, but we think it’s quite incoherent to do so, as “combination of atoms” come under material Cause(atoms) and Common Cause (combining – application of atoms) and “requisite skill, knowledge and thought.” Also come under Common cause so does “application”, and the other 2 causes are clearly same(Maker=Ishwar,Material, Cause=prakriti.Hence it’s quite incoherent of Moolshankar to first propose 3 causes of the world then to make them 6.We also read Moolshankar stating that the so-called “Creation” of the Universe with six causes is just like six men who HELP (again Moolshankar himself implies that Ishwar needs help of other 5 causes, hence Ishwar is not Omnipresent even according to the proposed definition)each other in putting a thatch on the roof of the house.

The problem arises from the necessity of at least 3 causes of the Universe which necessitates that Ishwar is Co-equal. As it could be questioned “Can the making, engineering of Universe be brought about without the material cause or by Ishwar alone”? Of Course not, this evidently equates Ishwar (Primary Efficient Cause) and other causes as they all are equally important for the engineering of Universe. Hence this proves Ishwar(Primary Efficient Cause) to be Co-equal in work of engineering or making the Universe, with other Causes.

Lastly, what we’ve discovered is that according to protestant Hindu theology Ishwar is coequal in Eternity, Uncreated-ness , Beginning-less with Ātmā (Human Souls) , Prakriti(Primordial matter), also he(Ishwar) is co-equal with time and space in terms of uncreated-ness and eternity. Ishwar (in terms of engineering the universe) also is co-equal with all the causes which bring about the Universe, he (Ishwar) may not be totally/Completely equal to his counterparts (Ātmā ,Prakriti,time, space…etc) but he indeed is equal to them in many terms as proven above.

Islāmic Stance –

It would be beneficial that we precisely state the Islāmic view point on ‘Incomparability’ and ‘Coequality’ here, so as to aid the truth-seekers and those of our readers who are interested in learning more about Islām.

Earlier we had presented a verse from the Noble, Holy Qur’ān [There is nothing like Him(Allāh)] which should have made the Islāmic stance very clear with regard to ‘Incomparability’ and ‘Coequality’  but we would like to present another proof which may annihilate any doubt persisting in the minds of our readers. Allāh the Most-Merciful says which means –

“And there is none coequal or comparable to Him (Allāh).”                                           – [Soorah al-Ikhlaas , Ayat 4]

This Soorah (Chapter) of the Noble, Holy Qur’ān is known as at-Tawheed
(The Oneness of All
āh, His Attributes and Names, – Belief in Absolute Monotheism), which shows how important it’s for every monotheist to believe in the ‘Incomparability’ andnon- Coequality’
of God.  The famous exegete al-Imām, Imad Ad-Din Isma’il bin ‘Umar bin Kathir wrote in his Commentary Tafsir al-Qur’ān al-‘Adhim commenting on this verse–

So how can He(Allāh) have a peer among His creatures who can be equal to Him, or a relative who can resemble Him Glorified, Exalted and far removed is Allah from such a thing.”

And Ibn Abi Hātim and At-Tirmidhî recorded –

“This (Verse) means there is none similar to Him (Allāh), none equal to Him and there is nothing at all like Him”

And Ash-Shaykh ‘Abdur-Rahmān ibn Nāsir as-Sa’dîwrote in ‘Tayseer al-Karim-ur-Rahmān Fe Tafseer Kalām Al-Mannān’

“There is nothing like Him (Allāh), in His Names, His Attributes His actions, Blessed and Exalted is He”

We hope this concise, presentation of Islāmic stance on the issue we are dealing with should quench the thirst of knowledge seekers for now and clear doubts. We learn that Islām calls people to a pure Monotheistic; complete way of life, unlike other ‘religions’ which lead them into a pit of darkness. Also we learn how stringently and absolutely Islām is Monotheitic and that protestant Hinduism no where near it. The above verse is explicit and needs not explanation at all; we think this should make the Islāmic point of view evident and clear any misconception of Truth-seekers or our readers, if there.

b.2.3) Is Ishwar a Stealer

Does, Ishwar ‘steal’? Or is ‘stealing’ one of the characteristics of Ishwar? This is an important issue as this will help our truth-seekers see the reality without any mist or fog, people may have seen numerous of concted claims which aim to debase the Most-High , Most-Merciful Allāh Azz wa Jall by protestant Hindus, in fact their articles are filled with insults directly or indirectly , but our aim here is not to debase or insult anyone as this is not from our manners, but our aim is just to bring out the TRUTH, so that people may be guided and made aware of certain facts.So is Ishwar a stealer?

Well, let Yajurveda answer it, this Veda mentions the following verses-

“Mighty God, through the veda, singing Thy praise, I pray unto Thee. The sacrificer through oblations and praises hankers after Thee. O God worshipped by many, never disrespected, give us in this world your knowledge. Steal not our life.

                                                                  – [Yajurveda Chapter 18, Verse 49, pg-198-99 Tr. Devi Chand]

“O Worshipful God, with my prayer, I attain unto Thee through vedic knowledge. A worshipper longs to realise Thee with his oblations. O praiseworthy God, worthy of respect, give us Thy knowledge in this world, steal not our life from us.”

– [Yajurveda Chapter 21, Verse 2, pg-228, Tr. Devi Chand]

We hope the above mentioned verses establish the fact, that according to the Vedas Ishwar is considered as an ‘Stealer’ who steals away the life of humans, isn’t it amazing how Ishwar label’s himself (according to protestant hindus , Ishwar revelead Vedas)
“Stealer”. We wonder, what’s the use of such useless and insulting attribute to be applied to God. Again, human attributes (characterstics) that too negative characterstics are applied to God the Almighty, such an insult of God was never expected from theist, forget those claiming to be monotheists. Vedas are clear here (these are words of Vedas not ours), that Ishwar is a stealer we need not write more, it is enough for those who truly seek truth.

b.2.4) Communion with Ishwar – Polythieism par excellence.

Have you ever heard that humans can unite with God! Well if not then we welcome you all to learn how to have a union with God as per Moolshankar and his cult.According to Moolshankar humans can unite with God by performing (practicing) Sandhyaopaasanaa’specifically speaking by doing ‘Upaasanaa’ – Communion.

Moolshankar defines ‘Upaasanaa’ –

“The word upaasanaa literally means to come close to. All that is required in order to come close to God by the practice of the the Octapartite (eight parts or stages) yoga and directly see the Omnipresent, Omniscient God should be accomplished.”

                              – [Satyarth Prakash, Ch 7, pg.215, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Moolshankar wrote –

Communion results inunion with the Great Being and in direct cognition of Him.”

                                – [Satyarth Prakash, Ch 7, pg.210, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Increase your knowledge instantly without any study [Dummies welcomed] –

By doing ‘Upaasanaa’, a man can be united with God! Now let’s learn how to do ‘‘Upaasanaa’ in brief.

“When a man desires to engage in Upaasanaa (communion), let him resort to a solitary, clean place and get comfortably seated, practise Praanaayaama (control of breath) reatrain the senses from the pursuit of outward objects, fix his mind on one of the following places:- the navel, the heart, the throat, eyes, the top of the head or the spine. Let him, then, discriminate between his own soul and the Supreme Spirit, get absorbed in contemplation of the latter and commune with Him. When a man follows these practices his mind as well as the soul becomes pure and imbued with righteousness. His knowledge and wisdom advance day by day till he obtains salvation.
He who contemplated the Deity in this way for even one hour out of the twenty-four hours always continues to advance spiritually.”

                 – [Satyarth Prakash, Ch 7, pg.216, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Above we’ve seen how to perform communion with God (Ishwar) as per Moolshankar, but did anyone notice something fishy? Yes, we did.One of the benefits of ‘Upaasanaa’ or Communion with Ishwar is that people performing this communion advance in ‘Wisdom’ and ‘Knowledge’!! Reading this we were intimidated to question, so if ‘Upaasanaa’ can advance people in ‘Wisdom’ and ‘Knowledge’ as per claims, so can upaasanaa increase the knowledge of people without studying? It’s for first time; we’ve heard that just by breathing in and out while concentrating on one of yours of body part like navel you’ll advance in ‘Knowledge’! So will a student appearing for matriculation (10th) without studying anything and just by doing upaasanaa pass with the finest marks (first rank)?

Gain Absolute knowledge and superhuman- psychic power – [Superman is humbly invited (pun intended)]

Not only this but people attain superhuman psychic power and absolute knowledge
(Moolshankar advances his stance from ‘advance in knowledge’ to ‘absolute knowledge’) by doing upaasanaa as stated by Moolshankar –

“The great sage Vyasa holds that when a man attains a beatified state in this life by virtue of direct communion with God and acquisition of superhuman psychic powers and absolute knowledge, he recovers his original pure self and enjoys extreme bliss.”

                           – [Satyarth Prakash, Ch 11, pg.358, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

 We wonder, if people had just started performing upaasanaa and had not studied, would we humans have reached this stage of scientific development.
Obviously, the answer is no, upaasanaa in no way increases a person’s knowledge as knowledge can only be acquired by study and not just concentrating at your navel or head..Etc! In addition, we think no rational person can believe that just by doing upaasanaa one can attain ‘absolute knowledge’ or superhuman psychic powers’. In fact humans cannot have
‘absolute knowledge’
as perfectly complete knowledge is of God and none other. Humans attaining ‘absolute knowledge’
or perfect/ complete knowledge is impossible as this is attributed to God exclusively as God by nature and definition has perfectly complete or absolute knowledge, hence stating that God and humans both have absolute knowledge is equaling God and humans which is polytheism showing anthropomorphic tendencies .  

We hope that this method of increasing or advancing knowledge isn’t prescribed to scienctist, researcher…etc especially that of our country as we love our country and would love to see it at the pinnacle of scientific developments which is not possible via performing upaasanaa. Here are few verses from Vedas which proudly state this pagan concept.

Attain to Godhead through Upaasanaa –

“The learned yogis who amongst the learned attain to Godhead, who first of all acquire communion with God, without whose aid no place of happiness is sanctified, dwell neither on heaven’s heights nor on the face of the earth.”     – [Yajurveda Ch 17, verse 14, pg-178, Tr. Devi Chand]

The above verse states how one can attain to Godhead! And that is by upaasanaa.There are more such polytheistic verses in the polytheistic Vedas which teach such utter pagan polytheism which is vulgar to monotheists.

Communion in Vedas –

“Oh universal vedic text, thou art full of vigour and valour, may we attain unto thee, the master of the yajna. O God, may we be in communion with Thee, everyday, morning and evening, bowing unto Thee through our intellect.”

                       – [Yajurveda Ch 3, verse 22, pg-40, Tr. Devi Chand]

“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.”

                                     – [Yajurveda Ch18, verse 29, pg-196, Tr. Devi Chand]

Not only this but the Vedas also state that this communion or unification more elaborately, in few verses where the human souls is united with God,

Unification of God and human soul -united with God –

“Let thy soul be united with God. Let each joint of thine be full of vigour. Let thy noble nature guard thy wealth. Let the imperishable sap of God’s devotion be for thy joy.”

                                            -[Yajurveda Ch 20, verse27, pg-220, Tr. Devi Chand]

“O charitably disposed person, just as a virtuous person, becomes united with the soul immortal, vast like space, immersed in the contemplation of the Beautiful God, deathless in its purity, full of strength, enjoyer of space and pure water, extending over all ;…”

                                             – [Yajurveda Ch 28, verse 27, pg.283 Tr. Devi Chand]

How does being united with God sound to a monotheist? Well, obscenely insulting to God! We as monotheist would like to reprimand and disparage this polytheistic concept where man and God are said to be united! This is polytheism par excellence. Associating man with God is such a filthy idea, but our protestant Hindu brothers/sisters here are not only associating but also uniting him with man.!! Communion and unification of God with man, isn’t an allegation but an insult to God which no monotheist will ever tolerate, nor do we, hence we ask protestant Hindus to correct their deviated beliefs and seek truth that they may be guided.

Above we read Moolshankar, propogating the pagan polytheistic concept of communion or unification with Ishwar. Look at this hypocritical double-standard nature of protestant Hindus, where accuse orthodox (mainstream) Hindus of polytheism and on the other side themselves are immersed in pure polytheism.This communion where Ishwar and human soul become ‘One’ or ‘unified’ is pathetic and irrational.

Let us show our readers the incoherency of protestant Hindu theology – according to protestant Hindu theology, Ishwar is ‘inseparably one’
with thefollowing [see the sub-section (
b.3) for the reference and more on the topic]Ātmā (Human Souls) , Prakriti(Primordial matter). If Ishwar is already (inherently)‘inseparably one’ with Ātmā, prakriti …etc then what’s the use of upasanaa? According to protestant Hindu Ishwar is omnipresent, he pervades everything that exists, hence is ‘inseparably one’ with everything that exists.So if Ishwar is already united with everything then what’s the use of Upaasanaa, in any sense? Mooshankar states upaasanaa helps us ‘come close to God’.But the rational question is if Ishwar is already pervading everything including humans then why is upasanaa needed, because when both Ishwar and human souls are ‘inseparably one’ and ‘close’ to each other upaasanaa is useless?

 Claiming that Ishwar is ‘inseparably one’ with everything but still far and away from everything is like stating 1+1 = 2 at first , then claiming 1+1 = 1; is this rational? Only one of the two statements can be true. Either Ishwar pervades everything hence necessarily he is ‘inseparably one’ which make them one and there is no more closeness than being ‘one’. Or Ishwar and other entities aren’t ‘inseparably one’ and are not close to each other.Claiming that both the statements are true is logical fallacy and incoherency of protestant Hindu theology.

And here’s the logical fallacy found in the Vedas –

“God moves in the eyes of fools. He is motionless. He is far distant from the irreligious and ignorant, and near the yogis. He is within this entire universe, and surrounds it externally.

                                    – [Yajurveda Ch 40, verse 5, pg.347 Tr. Devi Chand]

The above statement shows the logical incoherency of Vedas and protestant Hindu thelogy, the verse firstly states that God moves in the eyes of the fools, this proves he is near them then goes on to state that God is far distant from the irereligious and ignorant then further states that he is within the entire universe and surrounds it externally.!!What a show of illogicalness, if God (Ishwar) is within entire universe and surrounds it then how can he be ‘far distant’ from the irreligious? This is explicitly contradictory as Ishwar due to his omnipresence cannot in any sense be ‘far distant’ from anyone his omnipresence necessitate his being ‘inseparably one’ and close with everything that exist.

Finally, this concept of ‘unification’ or ‘communion’ is polytheistic and cannot be fathomed by a rational mind as this is against the general percepts of rationality and logicality. Also this concept preaches polytheism in the vilest form, this ‘unification’ or ‘communion’
is nothing but labeled as Shirk [associationism- setting up partners or associating false gods with Allāh(ta’āla…etc), please refer to Islāmic texts for the complete meaning of Shirk]in Islām and this shirk necessitates (leads) a person to be a polytheist.We think we have amply provided our readers with evidences proving protestant Hinduism to be polytheistic but here’s the clincher with which we intend to conclude this section(b.2.4).Protestant Hindu pandit Vishnu Lāl wrote –

“Souls tend to associate themselves with matter but are free to do so with God.”

 – [The Handbook of Ārya Samāj, pg 41, Pandit Vishnu Lāl Sharmā, Ārya Pratinidhi Sabhā]

We don’t think there moreexplicit statement that this which admits the associationism (shirk) which necessitates polytheism in protestant Hinduism.

b.2.5) Similar Attributes – Agniveer confesses protestant Hinduism to be polytheistic(Agniveer Contradicts Moolshankar)

As we’ve stated, attributes or characterstics of God are the crux of any theology and people have erred a lot, and few of those who erred are the ‘Guru and Chela’
[Moolshankar and Agniveer]. Agniveer exposes his illiteracy in Islām and not only in Islām but also contradicts Moolshankar, did agniveer really read the ‘Bible of Hate’ (Satyarth Prakāsh)? Seemingly Agniveer never read the complete Satyarth Prakāsh or why would he contradict Moolshankar.Agniveer commented/wrote in his article (This article of agniveer exposes the novice nature of Agniveer in comparative religion and his total ignorance of Islām, we’ve would have with pleasure refuted his ignorant and illiterate allegations but this would disturb the flow of this article hence we will prevent ourself from doing so, Inshā’Allāh his baseless allegations will be refuted soon.)

   Sharing attributes with Allah is nothing but Shirk

                                         – []

Though Agniveer does not understand the concept of Shirk, but here he does contradict his own creed by stating that ‘Sharing attributes with Allāh’ is ‘Shirk’ (please refer to authentic Islāmic texst for the complete and correct understanding and meaning of Shirk) by which he means
. Hence agniveer states that if God shares any of his attributes with humans then that is gross polytheism.But what does Moolshankar state, and is Agniveer a polytheist according to his own words? Let us display, how Agniveer clearly states protestant Hinduism to be polytheistic.Moolshankar wrote –

31. God and the soul possess the attributes of Existence, Consciousness and Blissfulness common to each other and are therefore, one. Why do you then refute this belief?

A.-The fact of two things possessing a few attributes common to each other does not make them one.Take for instance, solids and liquids and fire, all these are inanimate and visible but that does not make them one. The dissimilar attributes differentiate them. The hardness and prevent them from being considered as one. Or take another illustration. Both a man and an ant see with their eyes, eat with their mouths and walk with their feet, yet they are not one and the same, having their bodily forms different from each other, a man having two feet whilst an ant many, and so on.

               — [Satyarth Prakash, Ch 7, pg.233, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Now coming to the, the confession of Agniveer that protestant Hinduism is polytheistic, according to Agniveer sharing common attributes is polytheism. We think we’ve shown a lot of common attributes between Ishwar, Ātmā (Human Souls) and Prakriti (Primordial matter), for instance all of them have share identical attributes namely, Eternal, uncreated, beginning-less hence according to Agniveer himself, protestant Hindus are polytheist! But amazingly Agniveer conflicts Moolshankar by stating that ‘sharing attributes’ means polytheism.Hence Agniveer himself accepts that he is a polytheist (if he believes in protestant Hinduism).

Now let us come to our stance – we shall make our stance crystal clear; the correct rational belief is thus:

·         ‘Attributing attributes/characterstics identical
to that of human, animal…etc (attributes of creation, or anything unworthy) to God is polytheism‘.’God and humans…etc (creation) cannot have COMMON (identical) attributes, having common (identical) attributes is pure polytheism

For instance Ishwar has both identical and common (common attributes usually mean identical to some one’s hence they are called common) attributes to that of Ātmā (Human Souls) and Prakriti (Primordial matter), namely all share or have attributes eternal, uncreated, and beginning-less, these three attributes are not only identical but also common.

Let us make one thing crystal clear, there is a huge difference between IDENTICAL and SIMILAR (in name only) attributes, God and humans may have attributes similar (in name only) for instance both God and humans have a similar attribute (in name only) called ‘existence’. Both God and humans ‘exist’.
But the modality of existence of God is unknown, his existence befits his Majesty and Might and is not like our existence, only the name of the attribute is similar.
For example, we all have heard the famous electronic cum computer manufacturing company ‘Apple’ so is this ‘Apple’ company similar to an ‘Apple’
(fruit)? Of course not, only the name is similar. Or is the famous software company ‘Oracle’ same to an ‘Oracle’ (an authoritative person who divines the future,a shrine where an oracular god is consulted)? Of course not, they only have similar name and nothing else, so the modality of existence of God is unknown and his existence has no comparison/resemblance nor is similar to anything , we hope our readers and truth-seeker’s remember the sublime, glorious verse from the noble qur’an which we quoted earlier –

                                         “There is nothing like Him(Allāh)”

                                                                                                    – [Soorah Ash- Shura, Ayat 11]

Any attribute of God cannot be identical to that of any creature nor does God have common attributes with his creature, though he may have attributes with similar name.

Does similarity in attribute name necessitate God and man to be similar?

Though the question is inherently ridiculously hilarious, as it is well established that similarity in names does not necessitate that God and humans are similar.Nonetheless we’ll be delving into such ridiculous question in order to make this matter clear for our readers.

Similarity in name (of attributes) in no sense necessitates, that God is similar to the one who’s name (of attribute) is similar.As the name of attribute of God is Perfect [as God Himself is All-Perfect, also its (name of attribute) divinely revealed and is eternal] where as the name (of attribute) of human…etc [who’s name (of attribute) is similar] are created not perfect nor are divinely revealed or eternal. Hence God has no resemblance whatsoever with his creature in anything, nor resemblance with any attributes of any creature.

There are many such rationally proved reasons which prove that similarity in name of attributes does not make two things similar, but we’ve restricted ourself as this topic is out of the scope, of this article.We hope the matter is clear. We would have written more for the benefit of our readers but this would disturb the flow of our article ,also this topic is out of scope of this article as stated earlier, Inshā’Allāh we’ll someday write on this subject too, as time permits us.We’ve read Agniveer admitting protestant Hinduism being polytheistic; also he contradicts his ‘Idol’ named Moolshankar. All these things should be enough for a sincere truth-seeker.

b.3) Protestant Hindu Trinity [Vedic Trinity]

As we have seen, that the protestant Hindus basically believe in 3 uncreated, eternal, beginning-less, non-destructible entities they are – Paramātmā, Prakriti, Ātmā.

And these three are also very important in ‘engineering’ or ‘making’ the universe as Ishwar(Paramātmā)
is the Primary Efficient Cause whereas Prakriti (Primordial matter) is the Material Cause and Ātmā (Human Souls) is the Secondary Efficient Cause. And these three play an important role in protestant Hindu theology in factuality these are the major role players and everything in protestant Hindu theology revolves around these three entities, and we wonder how come these people label themselves as monotheists? The ‘protestant Hindu trinity’, just like everything in Christianity revolves around the Christian concept of trinity (i.e. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost/Spirit) everything in protestant Hindu theology revolves around these 3 entities which constitutes to the major part of their creed. The protestant Hindu trinity is made up of –

1) Paramātmā

2) Prakriti
(Primordial matter)

3) Ātmā
(Human Souls)

The above three entities make up the “Trinitarian Doctrine” of protestant Hinduism, though not exactly identical to that of Christianity, nonetheless both share the confusing and irrational trinity in theology. According to protestant Hindus Ishwar is “Father” of all Humans and other creatures, as stated in Vedas –

“I have prayed to the Effulgent, All sustaining God, May the Lord Fatheraccept my prayer.”

                                                   – [Yajurveda, Ch 2. verse 11 pg.31 Tr. Devi Chand]

 “O God, Thou art certainly the Embodiment of grace, self- Existent, our Father, obeisance be to Thee.”                                                                                         

                                                              – [Yajurveda, Ch 3. verse 63 pg.45 Tr. Devi Chand]

“The year, pervaded by the Almighty Father, is thirty-four-fold.”

                                                                       – [Yajurveda, Ch 14. verse 23 pg.152 Tr. Devi Chand]

There are numerous such verses but for the sake of brevity few are stated, also same is stated by Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati) in his book, he also notes few names of Ishwar as –

Pitaa (paa – to protect, rear) One who protects all. Just as a father, through paternal love and kindness always desires the good of His children, even so does God -is the Father of all – desire happiness for all. Pitaamaha – The father of fathers. Prapitaamaha – The Great-Grandfather.”

                                              – [Satyarth Prakash, Ch.1 pgs. 13-14, Tr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

“Thou art the Sustainer of the Universe, Father of all; may we contemplate Thy holy adorable nature so that Thou mayest guide our understanding.”

                                           – [Satyarth Prakash, Ch.1 pgs. 34-35, Tr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

We learn that Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati) believed Ishwar to be the Father of all, and not only Father but “Father of Fathers” and also the “Great-Grandfather”. So we again see similarity between the protestant Hindu trinity and the Christian trinity. But does this end here? No not at all, another zealously fanatic protestant Hindu pandit states –

“We have heard it contended by Christian divines that the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood, of man were first preached by Christ. For the benefit of such critics we quote the following mantra from the Rig Veda (I. 6. 16. 10).

‘Thou art ever the Imperishable, the self-effulgent, the unchangeable, and the Lord of all! Thou art the mother, the father and the son. Thou art Glorious, Indestructible, the Creator of the five breaths which, support life,! Conscious Brahama, thou art ever manifest, though others (soul and matter) sometimes become imperceptible. Thou art the Creator of the universe!’

Other mantras in which the fatherhood of God is specifically mentioned are, Rig Veda (1. 1.9) ; Yajur (Veda III. 24; XVII. 17; XVII. 27; XXXII. 10).”

– [Handbook of Ārya Samāj , pg.49-50 ,by Pandit Vishnu Lāl Sharmā, Published by Ārya Pratinidhi Sabhā]

Amazingly, not only Ishwar is Father, but also the mother and also the Son ,now this really is interesting!  Ishwar seems to be really multi-faceted entity, its evident how protestant Hindus are trying hard to match-up with so-called Christian concepts of ‘peace’ ‘Fatherhod’ and ‘brotherhood’. But in doing so they have erred gravely and exposed their incoherent ‘conceptualization’ and understanding of God.

The problem with Christianity is their claim of God being 3 different entities still is 1, it’s something similar to protestant Hindu theology, where the 3 entities are eternal, uncreated and beginning-less still only Ishwar has the right to be God or is known as God and the other 2(entities i.e. Ātmā and Prakriti) aren’t, while the other 2 entities have a large amount of action and role to play(if not equal) also Ishwar is totally dependent on these two for nearly everything right from engineering the universe to giving ‘bliss’ to the human souls(on Moksha). We read that Ishwar is – Father of Fathers, Great-Grandfather, Father, Mother and the Son (a step ahead of Christian dogmas)

It would be a beneficial to note another important point which we’ve been stressing and proving since the beginning of this article cum treatise, is the anthropomorphic tendencies of protestant Hinduism, again here they expose how greatly they view God in human framework or conceptualize God in human-resembling manner. Above protestant Hindus are zealously eager to prove that their god Ishwar is the paragon of “Fatherhood” through which they aim to prove their god is loving like a “Father” and that this concept of “Fatherly love” was present in the Vedas even before the existence of Bible, but in doing so they follow the Christian and anthropomorphize God and resemble His relation with His creatures similar to that of Human bonds and relationship. What the protestant Hindus don’t realize, is that the relation of man and God is way too pure, spiritual and higher than that of man with his Father, mother or Son. And it would be a great oppression against humanity, asceticism and spirituality on the part of protestant Hinduism to undermine and debase the pure relation of man with God by resembling and equaling it with human relationships. Concluding the paragraph, we learn that Ishwar is – The Father [and relations like (Son, Mother, Great-grand Father), Humans have] in the protestant Hindu trinity.

In order to strengthen the proofs of our statements here’s some more evidences, where the relation between God and Humans is identified and resembled with that relationships between humans.

Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati)
wrote (quoting Rig Veda, 10:48, 5.)

“God teaches in the Veda “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….”

                                  – [Satyarth Prakash, Ch 7, pg.205, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Moreover he (Dayānanda Saraswati) writes –

Just as God and the soul stand to each other in the relation of the pervader and the pervaded, so do they do in the relations of one who is served and the servitor, the supporter and the supported, the Master and the servant, the Ruler and the ruled, the Father and the son.

                                            – [Satyarth Prakash, Ch 7, pg.225, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Above quoted statement (pg.225) of ‘pandit’ Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati), explicitly defines the relation between Ātmā (Humans Souls) and Ishwar (protestant Hindu god), like that of the Father and the Son! Other instances of the relation between God and Soul provided by Mooshankar seem to be fine, like the Ruler and the ruled’
[God is the Ultimate Ruler and rules over everything], ‘Master and the servant’, ‘served and the servitor’, ‘the supporter and the supported’, all these instances are fine as they don’t debase the relationship of God to mere Human relations like that of the ‘Father and Son’.

And in the quote from pg. (205, above the quote of pg.225) ‘pandit’ Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati) wrote Let all men look up to me alone as children do to their parents” what more evidence would a unbiased person need to acknowledge the fact that protestant Hinduism debases and undermines the pure relation between God and man with that of ‘Father/Mother and the Son’. It’s to be noted that the relation between a mother and a son or the father and son is very important and high amongst humans, also should be respected highly but resembling the relation between God and humans to that of human bonds/relationships is a fatal error which would lead to the corruption and undermining spirituality.

The trinitarian doctrine of protestant Hindus is confusing and incoherent to a rational mind; it is far removed from being anywhere near to rationality. Christians claims their ‘concept of triune’ to be monotheistic so is the claim of protestant Hinduism with different variables and few constants.

In Christianity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are 3 different/distinct entities, still they are not 3 Gods but they are 1 God. Something similar in essence is propounded by, Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati)

God and the soul are two distinct entities by virtue of being different in nature and of being possessed of dissimilar attributes and characteristics. They are, however, inseparable one from the other, being related to each other as the pervader and the pervaded and have certain attributes in common. Just as a material object has always been and shall always be, distinct from the space in which it exists and as the two have never been, nor shall ever be one and the same, even so are God and the soul to each other. Their mutual relation is that of the pervader and the pervaded, of father and son and the like.

                     – [Satyarth Prakash, in ‘A Statement of my belief’ pg. 727, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Also, Moolshankar (Dayānanda Saraswati)wrote,

“It is only because He is even more subtle than the soul and the prakriti, and pervades them, that He can grasp them and transform them into this visible universe.”

                                      – [ Satyarth Prakash, in Ch 8 pg. 252, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

As can be read above, according to Moolshankar(Dayānanda Saraswati) , Ishwar is the subtlest of the 3 entities and pervades all. All the 3 entities are distinct but still are inseparable, seem to be using some sought of glue! As per protestant Hindu theology , the 3 eternal , uncreated, beginning-less entities (i.e Ishwar,Prakriti and Ātmā) are distinct but are ‘inseparable one’, which simply means and that they are –Ishwar, Prakriti and Ātma, ‘DISTINCT’  but are ‘NOT SEPRATE’. So what does this mean? Moolshankar is trying to teach us two things –

1)      “They [2 entities] are, however, inseparable onefrom the other

2)     Just as a material object has always been and shall always be, distinct from the space in which it exists and as the two have never been, nor shall ever be one and the same, even so are God and the soul to each other.”

Moolshankar claims Ishwar and Ātmā to be ‘insperable one’ but further goes on claiming that Ishwar and human souls (Ātmā) cannot become ONE and the same. What he’s trying to imply is that Ishwar and human souls (Ātmā) are distinct/different entities with few similar attributes that cannot be divided/parted/disjoined or separated, but they are not the same.

Meaning of ‘Inseparable’ –

‘incapable of being separated or divided’

– [Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers, 2003]

‘Not separable; incapable of being separated or disjoined.’

                      – [Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913]

‘not separable; that cannot be separated or parted’

 – [Webster’s New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio]

After reading the meanings, I guess the matter will be more clear, and our readers will understand, Moolshankar is trying to state that Ishwar is different not like Humans souls except few common attributes , but they are ‘inseparably one’
meaning joined and cannot be divided , which ultimately leads us to the conclusion – They[Ishwar,Prakriti,
Ātmā] are one with many different attributes among which some are common and identical to all three[ like earlier proved all three have identical eternity, uncreated-ness, beginning-less-ness, commonly shared which make them co-equal in that attributes.]

This is something close and similar to the Christian concept of ‘triune’. 3 different entities but still One (or 3 in 1), same here with a minor difference ‘3 different’ entities (as Ishwar pervades everything including Prakriti) but are inseparable one or joined/undivided. Irrational and illogical concept also very lowly to a mind of monotheist, who believes in perfect Uniqueness of God. This issue needs a detail exposure, but unfortunately presently it’s beyond the scope of the article, Inshā’Allāh, we’ll expound in it in greater detail later, as time permits, but briefly it’s a gross violation of Monotheism.

The above belief is labeled as “Shirk” in Islām or “Associationism”, above Moolshankar adamantly states God and humans souls to be ‘inseparable one’ which is pure instance of polytheism. Here he adjoins and associates, Human Souls to God, which is superfluously polytheism. Such a belief can hardly be recognized as “Monotheistic”, in-fact this is more than polytheism it can be better labeled as “Polytheism”. It’s irrational even to think of such bizarre belief, where God is JOINED/ UNITED and cannot separate himself from other things.

We would, here like to shed light upon, the double-standards and hypocritical nature of protestant Hindus,

Agniveer, the Islāmophobe and hate-monger wrote –

Not only this, Vedas also refuse existence of any angel or Prophet or incarnation who is necessarily required to act as an agent between You and Ishwar.

To give a rough analogy:

Ishwar of Vedas = God of Christianity minus the concept of Trinity minus the necessity to surrender to Jesus

Ishwar of Vedas = Allah of Islam minus the necessity to accept Muhammad as final Prophet.

In other words, If someone says first part of Shahada : lâ ilâha illallâh (There is no other God except one and only Allah) but rejects the second partMuhammadur rasûlullâh (Muhammad is his messenger), that is close to concept of Vedic God.

In Islam, it is Shirk or greatest sin to worship anything except Allah. If you take this concept further and also refuse to accept any Muhammad or Gabriel as necessary to be remembered apart from Allah, you are avoiding Shirk as per Vedas.

                            -[Source- ]

Here we see ignorance of Agniveer at its best and his pathetically low level of Islāmic knowledge and understanding. It seems we need to give Agniveer, the hate-monger few baby lessons about Islām, so let’s start.

The first, delusion we see is the claim that Vedas refuse to acknowledge any ‘Prophet’ “who is necessarily required to act as an agent between You and Ishwar”. The thing that amazes us, the most, is this person’s confident lies (though being white lies) and misinterpretations of religious texts of Islām.

It’s totally wrong, absurd and misleading that, Vedas don’t have ‘Agents’, to prove it let’s go to the inventor of this protestant Hindu cult, that’s Moolshankar and he wrote –

36. Whose hearts did God reveal the Vedas in?

A.-“In the beginning, God revealed the four Vedas, Rig, Vayu, Sama, and Atharva, to Agni, Vayu, A’ditya and Angira, respectively.” SHAPATHA BRAHMAN 11: 4,2.3.

Q. But it is written in the Shwetashwetar Upanishad, “In the beginning God created Brahma and revealed the Vedas in his heart.”SHEWTAR UPANISHAD 6:18. Why do you say that they were revealed to Agni, and other sages?

A. – Brahma was instructed in the knowledge of the Veda through the medium of the four sages, such as Agni. Mark what Manu Says:

 “In the beginning after human being had been created, the Supreme Spirit made the Vedas known to Brahma through Agni, etc., i.e., Brahma learnt the four Vedas from Agni, Vayu, A’ditya and Angira.” MANU: 23

                                –     [ Satyarth Prakash , Ch 7, pg.237, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

In addition, Durgā Prasād translates it as,

Q. To whose mind and at what time did God reveal the Vedas ?

A In the beginning of the creition God revealed a Veda to the soul of each of the four sages, called Agni, Vayu, Adittya, and Angira…God caused them communicated through Agni and others to the mind of Brahma. See what Manu says, I. 23,

In the beginning the Great God, having made men, blessed Brahma with the four Vedas through the four sages, called Agni and others Brahma received the Rig, Yajur, Sanaa and Atharva Vedas from Agni Vayu, Aditya, and Angira.

                                 – [Satyrath Prakash Ch 7, pg.229 Tr. Durga Prasad]

What we have seen is that protestant Hindu god Ishwar revealed Vedas to four Rishis
and through them Brahma learnt these Vedas, so what does this mean? It’s clear that here these “Rishis” are nothing but some sought of ‘Prophets’ (or may be ‘Agents’). And it’s amazing to see that Agniveer wrote –

 Vedas also refuse existence of any angel or Prophet or incarnation who is necessarily required to act as an agent between You and Ishwar.”

So again here Agniveer’s claim, of Vedas refusing to believe the existence of ‘Prophets'(or so-called Agents) is refuted by his own leader’s and his own belief (we think he is a protestant Hindu isn’t he, hence blind-following of Moolshankar is obligatory on him isn’t it?Thats what they are taught!). The meaning of Rishis (here -as used by Moolshankar) is in fact is quite similar, to the notion of a Prophet and we also read above that‘through the medium of the four Rishis’ Brahma was instructed the knowledge of Vedas. So this simply proves how the four Rishis acted as ‘Agents’ between Brahma and Ishwar, and in fact all the others( excluding the four Rishis) learnt the knowledge of Vedas via these four Rishis , hence it’s evident that these Rishis are mere Agents between Ishwar and people. Somewhat (to an extent) similar to, the Prophets conveyed the message and knowledge of Divine Inspiration and revelation so did the rishis do.

Hence, the claim made by Agniveer, of Vedas refusing to accept an agent or prophet is contradictory to Agniveer’s own creed! We think it’s pretty much apparent that protestant Hindu’s have 4 agents from whom they understood Vedas. Now coming to a question of similar nature asked by the master (swāmi) of Agniveer – Moolshankar.

Moolshankar wrote –

53. “Nor is God minded to lay open the secret thing to you but God chooseth what he will of his apostles to know them. Believe therefore, in God and his apostles.” (3:174)

C. ~ Why does this verse inculcate faith in Mohammad along with that in God, when the Mohammedans process to believe in none but God, and hold that none is worthy of sharing homage with Him? Hence they cannot call God Incomparable. If it be argued that this verse only teaches that people should have faith in Mohammad as a Prophet, we should like to know where is the necessity of Mohammad (being regarded as a Prophet). If God cannot accomplish His desired object without making him His Prophet, He is certainly powerless.

                                                       – [Satyarth Prakash, Ch14, pg.673 Tr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Well, we’ve proved, that Vedas have the concept of ‘agents’ and something similar is being questioned by Moolshankar , but firstly its to be noted that Moolshankar has misquoted the Holy, Noble Qur’ān, here the Ayat quoted (3:174) by Moolshankar is provided , and it in no way matches with that of Moolshankar’s citation. Here’s the Ayat as per the reference provided by Moolshankar.

Right translation of interpretation of meaning of the Ayat reference provided –

“So, they returned with grace and bounty from Allāh. No harm touched them; and they followed the good Pleasure of Allāh. And Allāh is the Owner of Great Bounty.”

                                                          -[ Soorah Aal-‘Imraan(3), Ayat 174]

 This is typical of protestant Hindus including the likes of Agniveer, who often misquote, misinterpret and provide unknown-faulty translation of Islāmic texts.Nonetheless, here we shall answer the silly objections raised by Moolshankar, despite of the fact that we do not have the correct reference, but have understood the basic objection. Moolshankar here is trying to question the belief in Prophets held by Muslims. So why do Muslims believe in Prophets (‘Alayhimus Salām)? The questioned can be simply answered by another question. “Why do protestant Hindus believe in the 4 rishis”, why do they not reject these rishis? Of course, because it was to them, the Vedas were revealed as per protestant Hindu theology.

Now answering the question of Agniveer and Moolshankar which is better articulated by Agniveer, he wrote (earlier full source is provided, see above) –

“Ishwar of Vedas = Allah of Islam minus the necessity to accept Muhammad as final Prophet.

In other words, If someone says first part of Shahada : lâ ilâha illallâh (There is no other God except one and only Allah) but rejects the second partMuhammadur rasûlullâh (Muhammad is his messenger), that is close to concept of Vedic God.

In Islam, it is Shirk or greatest sin to worship anything except Allah. If you take this concept further and also refuse to accept any Muhammad or Gabriel as necessary to be remembered apart from Allah, you are avoiding Shirk as per Vedas.

Let us teach Agniveer some basics of Islām, his illiteracy of Islām is apparent and is disgusting that such a person is criticising Islām, who does not even know nick about Islām. Nonetheless, let us educate him. Firstly, this illiterate does not even know what the shahādatayn (loosely, ‘testimony of faith’) means! Before going further let me provide our readers with correct meaning of ‘Shirk’ in Islām, Agniveer clearly lack basic comprehension of Islām, hence has stated, “In Islam, it is Shirk or greatest sin“. ‘Shirk’ does not literally mean “Greatest Sin” as stated by Agniveer. ‘Shirk’ to state in a very concise set of words (loosely), means “Assocationism” or “Associating or setting up partners with Allāh” as done by protestant Hinduism. Hence, ‘Shirk’ is an act that’s considered the evilest and greatest sin, which takes you out of the fold of Islām.[Please refer to Islāmic texts to comprehend the correct meaning of Shirk , as explaining it in detail here is out of the scope of this article]

 Expounding on Shahādatayn, in brief (there could be volumes written) –

Meaning of [Lā ilāha illallāh] 

That none has the right to be worshiped and deified except Allāh, the only one Almighty true God. It is the belief and affirmation no one deserves to be worshipped except Allāh , it’s obligation and action upon it.So Lā ilāha’ negates anyone besides Allāh deserving of worship no matter who it is.And ‘illallāh’ affirms the fact that only Allāh has right to be worshipped and derserves to be worshipped. Elucidating a little bit more,

Lā ilāha illallāh, has 2 pillars- Which are :

1)      Negation (nafee) 2) Affirmation (ith’baat)

The first pillar: Negation

Lā ilāha, negates all the types of shirk, and neccissitates in disbelieving in everything, that is worshipped besides Allāh.

The second pillar: Affirmation

Illallāh‘, affirms that none deserves to be worshipped, except Allah and necessitates acting upon it.

Here are few scholar’s who expounded on it, (We’ll quote them in brief)

Ash-Shaykh al-Islām al-Imām Ibn Taymiyyah
wrote“(Al-Ilāh) is al-Ma’looh (the one who’s deified) and al-Ma’looh is the one who’s deserving of Worship”Thus, the meaning of it: That none has the right to be [deified and] worshipped, except Allaah.

Al-Imām al-Qurtubee wrote – Lā ilāha illallāh : That there is none other worthy of worship besidesAllāh

Al-Imām al-Hāfidh al-Hakamee wrote – “So the meaning of Lāilāhaillallāh is : There is no deity worthy of worship in truth , besides Allah (lā Ma’bood bi haqq illallāh)

Al-Imām Abdur Rahmān ibn Hasan aal ash-Shaykh“And the meaning of Lā ilāha illallāh ‘There is no deity worthy of worship in truth , besides Allah(lāMa’bood bi haqq illallāh)”

Hence anyone who basically knows whatLā ilāha illallāh’ means, would not indulge in such silly and incoherent question as done by the ‘Guru and Chela’ (Moolshankar and Agniveer).

Now coming to the second part of the Shahādatayn that isMuhammadur rasūlullāh

 This part itself is a proof that the Shahādah does not contain anything near to shirk! We think that the this part makes it crystal clear that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allāh and this indirectly refutes those who claimed prophets to be children of God or incarnate of God hence this part is a refutation and rebuking against the polythiestic nature of those who made man God, and nowhere does it associate man and God.Now lets expound briefly on this part of Shahādatayn. This is the inward and outward recognition of the fact that‘Muhammad (sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) is the Slave and Messenger of Allāh to all the people ,who’s to be followed’. And this part also has two pillars –

1)      Negation (nafee) 2) Affirmation (ith’bāt)

The first pillar: Negation

The negation of ‘exaggeration’, ‘divinity’ ‘adulation’….etc

The second pillar: Affirmation

The affirmation of ‘Slave-ship’ and ‘Messengership’ of Muhammad (sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), meaning him (Muhammad) being the ‘Slave’ and ‘Messenger’ of Allāh to all the Humanity.

In-fact to refute [silly conjectures of protestant Hindus] there are many verses in the noble, holy Qur’an, which evidently refute the conjectures of protestant Hindus, for instance –

Say (O Muhammad [sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam]): “I am only a man like you. It has been
revealed to me
that your Ilāh (God) is One Ilāh (God – i.e. Allāh).”

                                                   – [al-Kahf (18) Ayat 110]

“And Muhammad [sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam]): is no more than a Messenger…”        

                                                                 – [Aal-‘Imrān (3) Ayat 144]

These Ayaat, clearly refute the silly, useless objection and claims raised by those who are incompetent in Islām.The verses state, that Muhammad (sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam)is mere a man like all of us , and upon him was the holy, divine , noble Qur’ān revealed.This verse clearly states Muhammad the prophet of Mercy (sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), to be a Man(Slave and Messenger) who’s been honored by his Sole Creator , the only one True God, by revealing to him(Muhammad) the noble Qur’ān and elevating him to a certain degree(in honor).

And moreover the noble, prophet of Mercy Muhammad (sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said –

“I eat as a slave eats, and I sit as a slave sits, for verily, I am a slave.”

                                                                        – [Saheeh al-Jami as-Sagheer]


“I am only the slave of Allāh, and His Messenger. I do not like you to elevate me above my rank in which Allāh, the Exalted, has placed me.”                                                                                                          – [Ahmad and Nasa’ii]

He also said,

Do not adulate me, as the Christians adulated the son of Maryam. I am only a slave; call me the slave of Allāh and His Messenger.”                                                                                                                 – [Al-Bukhāri & Muslim]

We see how the noble Prophet claimed to be a mere ‘Slave’ of Allāh and also forbade people from ‘exaggerating’ or adulating him like the Christians did to Jesus and made him a god! Like the Hindus(orthodox) make anyone who claims to be a ‘incarnate of God’ a God.There should be no more objection or silly conjectures as this is totally enough even for dummies to understand the Islāmic stance on Prophets.

 We think by now, it should be clear that the ‘Shahādatayn’ does not associate ‘Muhammad’ (sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam)to Allāh Azz wa Jall in fact it disassociates Muhammad from divinity, exaggeration and makes him a mere slave and messenger of the only one true Almighty God, to all the Humanity.And in factuality the ‘Shahādatayn’ itself is proof of monotheistic nature of Islām.

Agniveerthe Hate-monger wrote –

If you take this concept further and also refuse to accept any Muhammad or Gabriel as necessary to be remembered apart from Allah, you are avoiding Shirk as per Vedas.

Poor agniveer, here explicitly humilates himself by exposing his , total ignorance of Islām and even of minor concepts of it (Islām).Firstly, Vedas nowhere teach the sublime and truthful concept of Shirk(denouncing,rejection,censuring of Shirk) in-fact Vedas are ‘Book of Polytheism’ who have taught polytheism ,wearing the garb of monotheistic book (as per protestant Hinduism).We’ve seen many instance of such polytheism advocated by Vedas in the preceding sub-sections.Any intelligent man ,after reading the above words of agniveer would be forced to question himself- “How come remembering God and his “Slave and Messenger” constitute to Shirk?”Such incompetent and logically devoid question, stemmed only due to the ignorance of Islāmic concepts on the part of protestant Hindus.Also such belief (so-called ‘remembering’ of Muhammad as a messenger and slave of Allāh) is hilariously irrational, how can remembering God and stating a Human to be his slave and Messenger make upto shirk? If this is the belief of protestant Hindus then just by saying “Oh! How perfectly did God make humans” would make people polytheist isn’t it? God and humans are remembered together here!! Hilarious!! O you protestant Hindus go and learn the meaning of Shirk and the basic concepts of Islām, then talk, as your ignorance will only humiliate you before the entire world.

Now, coming to a similar question asked by Moolshankar-

If it be argued that this verse only teaches that people should have faith in Mohammad as a Prophet, we should like to know where is the necessity of Mohammad (being regarded as a Prophet). If God cannot accomplish His desired object without making him His Prophet, He is certainly powerless.”

Well, this silly conjecture or at-most objection can be answered by simply asking ‘Why does protestant Hinduism inculcate faith in the 4 ‘rishis to be seers to whom Vedas were revealed? Why don’t the protestant Hindus reject these rishis?  Or believe as many Hindus believe Vedas to be the the work of these rishis? We think many would have received the answer by now, but still to make it clear, we’ll concisely state reasons why it is a necessity for Muhammad(sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) being regarded as a Prophet.

1)      Because, the holy, Noble Qur’ān was revealed to Muhammad(sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), which necessitates him to be the Messenger.It’s foolish to pose such a question (i.e. “where is the necessity of Mohammad (being regarded as a Prophet”).It’s clearly established that the one who receives the ‘revelation’ from God is a Prophet/Messenger! So where’s the necessity to ask such a silly question? We think that Moolshankar did not even comprehend the meaning of ‘Messenger’ or what intelligent person would ask such a question?

2)      Believing in the Messenger-ship (or Prophethood) of Muhammad (sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam)is necessary as this proves that he is a mere ‘Slave’ and ‘Messenger’ of Allāh also this is a helps stop people making Muhammad as an ‘Avatār‘ of God, like in Hinduism every other reformer(this was with reformers , just thing what they may have done with Messengers) is made an incarnate of God.This acts as an repellent against those who seek to apply ‘divinity’ to the prophets or Messengers.

3)      The belief or faith in a messenger is a necessary part, because without believing a person to be a messenger how can one believe in the book or inspiration/revelation he’s received, for instance , why do protestant hindus believe in the 4 people to be rishis to whom the vedas were revealed? Why just not believe in the vedas (while rejecting the rishis)? Is not such question foolishly hilarious? It is just like believing in (the truth of) a news flashed on news channel, while maintaining the news channel to be always spreading false and fake news.

The answer is simple, disbelieving in the messengership of a messenger also necessitates disbelieve in the revelation he has been provided with. Hence if protestant Hindus were to disbelieve that the vedas were revealed to the four rishis, they would be rejecting the vedas, as how can a rational person believe in the revealtion of a messenger and reject him? Hence, the protestant Hindus believe in the four rishis. Thus, disbelief in a messenger necessitates disbelief in the revealtion he has come with.

There are numerous reasons and points which could be stated here but for the sake of brevity we’ve stated only a few.The above silly question , evidently exposes the credentials of Moolshankar, we wonder how can such a person be labeled Maharishi by his blind-follwers who could not even grasp easy concepts like such , and posed such ridiculously baseless question.

Lastly, Moolshankar again exposing his irrational mind wrote –

“If God cannot accomplish His desired object without making him His Prophet, He is certainly powerless.”

We’ve seen who’s powerless and who’s not in the sub-section of Ishwar being Omnipotent or not.Above statement of Moolshankar is just like stating that If Ishwar cannot accomplish His desired object without making him the 4 people his rishis, He is certainly powerless So is this true, protestant hindus? Well, the answer will be in negative. Therefore, why this double-standard.The answer to Moolshankar’s defunct question is “God does what He wills” (The perrogative belongs to Him alone) and it is the humans who need Prophets and Messengers so that they may be guided not God.

Now coming to one of the reasons for debunking this conjecture or useless-objections of Agniveer and Moolshankar was to show their double standards and hypocricy.We included the refutation of the conjectures, in this subsection for this particular reason, so that people may see the true face of these quacks and ignobles claiming to be Scholars and nobles. We left our reader with the bizzare and absurd belief of Ishwar,Ātma and Prakriti being ‘inseparably one’ or JOINED, UNDIVIDED.

Here we can see the double standards and hyocricy of Moolshankar and protestant Hindu who criticize Islām, for the Shahādatayn containing the mention of Prophet Muhammad, and stating it to be ‘Shirk'(poor polemics don’t even know the meaning of ‘shirk’), which has been totally debunked. But what of Protestant Hinduism? They adjoinĀtmā, Prakriti to Ishwar stating them to be ‘inseparably one’ still claim to be ‘monotheist’! We would like to question what can this be called? If just the mere mention of Prophet Muhammad as being the slave and Messenger of Allāh, is polytheism (as claimed), then what would they label this belief of theirs? Well this is pure polytheism where God (whom they call Ishwar) is JOINED to Ātmā, prakriti and is ‘inseparably one’.We wonder who taught Moolshankar and his blind-followers the meaning of “Monotheism”.

This ‘unification’ of the three eternal entities [Paramātmā (Ishwar), Ātmā, Prakriti] is purely an instance of Shirk or associationism, and this theory of unification is stated in Vedas –

“Let thy soul be united with God. Let each joint of thine be full of vigour. Let thy noble nature guard thy wealth. Let the imperishable sap of God’s devotion be for thy joy.”

                                                 – [Yajurveda Ch 20, verse 27, pg.220 Tr. Devi Chand]

“O charitably disposed person, just as a virtuous person, becomes united with the soul immortal, vast like space, immersed in the contemplation of the Beautiful God, deathless in its purity, full of strength, enjoyer of space and pure water, extending over all ;…”

                                             – [Yajurveda Ch 28, verse 27, pg.283 Tr. Devi Chand]

There are plently of verses(see the sub-section b.2.4 for more about this polytheistic concept) exposing this polytheistic doctrine of unification of God and Human souls in vedas, but we’ve resorted to only two as these are satisfactorily enough to expose this vilest form of polytheism, in fact it’s no less than pantheism.The verses claim unification of God and human souls.Now may we ask, if the mere utterance of name of prophet Muhammad as the slave and messenger of Allāh the Almighty, in Shahādatayn is polytheism as per protestant Hindus then what would this unification of God (Ishwar – Paramātmā) and Human Souls (Ātmā) be labeled as? Well, the answer is simple and outrightly evident; this is nothing but pure polytheism under guise of monotheism. Let us provide another instance of pure and outright exclamation of associationism (Shirk) which necessitates polytheism by the protestant Hindu pandit-scholar –

“Souls tend to associate themselves with matter but are free to do so with God.”

 – [The Handbook of Ārya Samāj, pg 41, Pandit Vishnu Lāl Sharmā, Ārya Pratinidhi Sabhā]

This is pure polytheism, where Ātmā is associated or set up as a partner to God! Isn’t this enough for true, sincere truth-seeker? We think there can be no more explicit statement then this though there are many such statements available in the works of protestant Hindu scholars.So may we ask Agniveer ‘What is this’? This is nothing more than pure polytheism.

Christianity and protestant Hinduism both have three different, distinct entities, but are one (‘inseparably one’ according to protestant Hindus). Both the concepts be it chrisitian or protestant Hinduism both constitute to “polytheism” as both associate , 2 entities to God (if not more) and claim that they are one. Both these denominations, believe all the three entities to be distinct and different still to be one in the case of protestant Hinduism ‘inseparably one’. Though there are differences in this concept, in essence it is same. This concept is a violation and insult to monotheism, which takes these belief systems out of the fold of monotheism.Both even are similar in claiming monotheism , both claim to be monotheistic in nature . However, the problematic issue is that none of the two stands true to the test of monotheism.So in essence the Christian trinity is not different from the protestant Hindu trinity (Vedic Trinity), both share the same belief of 3 different entities being inseparably one, give or take few issues. The basic framework of thining about god in both chrisitianity and protestant Hinduism is same.

In essence, protestant Hinduism is similar to Christianity. It’s widely accepted by many academicians, scholars and even orthodox Hindus that Protestant Hinduism has been inspired by Christians and has adapted/edited Hindu beliefs in order to respond to Christians by making Hinduism something ‘modern’, and also have tried to make Hinduism something like Christianity in terms of “Love”, “Proselytism” et al. As the Hindu-fascist (more correctly Hindutva-vadi) Shrikant G. Talageri 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 idolworship in Christian forms of worship, the Arya Samaj adopted these prejudices, and sought to counter the Christian propaganda by insisting that Hinduism, in its pristine and “pure” form, as represented in the Vedas, was more monotheistic and non-idol-worshiping than Christianity itself. This was rather like accepting and adopting the European prejudice which treats white-skinned people as superior to dark-skinned people, and then trying to show that Indian skins are whiter than European skins!
Another point of Christian superiority to Hinduism, in the eyes of the Christian missionaries, was the claim that Christianity had One Divine Book which was the revealed word of God, while the Hindus had a large and miscellaneous assortment of religious books. The Arya Samaj sought to counter this by raising the Vedas to that status: the Vedas thus became the one and only Divine Book (the four Samhitas being treated as parts of one indivisible whole) revealed by God.”

Anyone, who has read Satyarth Prakāsh and other protestant Hindu manuals, books, will take no time to acknowledge the influence and impact of Christianity on protestant Hinduism and the consequences of such influence and impact. Though Moolshankar had put all his energy to ‘reform’ Hinduism by reinterpreting Vedas and other Shashtras as per his whims, it’s to be noted that all such things done were in line with Christian principles and methods and were done in- order to present Hinduism as a competitor against so-called monotheistic(undoubtedly Polytheistic) and modern faith like Christianity.

And as Ronald Neufeldt writes,

“Even in the case of Dayānanda, whose relationships with Christians tended to be polemical, one finds an emphasis on a personal God who rules in terms of justice, compassion and orderliness and the assertion that these beliefs are in accord with the dictates of conscience and reason. Clearly there is much here that parallels the language of missionaries and indologists alike, and in some cases at least there is the admission of indebtedness to the teachings of bible and the missionaries.

   – [“The Response of the Hindu Renaissance to Christianity” in Hindu-Christian Dialogue:  Perspectives and Encounters, pg. 38-39, ed. H. Coward, 1993]

Also as Harold Coward writes,

“Dayananda made Hinduism a religion of the book by adopting the Protestant principle of sola scriptura and applying it to the Vedas”

 – [“Dayananda’s Approach to Other Religions”, in G.R.Garg, World Perspectives on Swami  Dayananda Saraswati, pg. 267, 1984]

Moolshankar used the protestant principle of ‘Sola Scriptura’ , and demoted Upanishads, Brahmanas…etc to the level of smriti (from shruti) and only the Samhitā portion were or are called as ‘Vedas’ by him and his blind-followers. In fact if we were to see today, we can find numerous similarities between protestant Hinduism and Christianity with regards to their presentation, organization and proselytizing…etc. For instance we can see how , fanatics like Mahendra Pāl, Agniveer et al. use ‘Character Assassination'(to malign noble Prophet Muhammad Sallal lāhu alayhi wa Sallam) as a tool against Islām, this was first used by Christians against Muslims as they very well-knew, Islām taught and commanded strict mannerism and respect, even toward bitter enemies , hence by attacking the character of the noble Prophet they were sure that Muslims won’t get so lowly and unethical, due to stringent Islāmic mannerism and secondly the high respect Muslims held for Jesus Christ , as we believe him to be prophet of the Almighty ,hence (Muslims) would not retaliate by abusing, debasing or maligning Jesus. Protestant Hinduism also follows something similar to protestant chrisitianity and that’s the watchword by Luther – “back to Bible”, where as Moolshankar cried out – “back to Vedas”.

And this same ‘Character Assassination’ is used by protestant Hindus against Islām; moreover they (protestant Hindus like Agniveer et al) use the same arguments and claims concocted by the Christian missionaries and Christian Islāmophobes. Their style of proselytizing and converting people is similar to that of Christians, using ‘deception’ and are ‘double-faced’, at times they’ll be talking of global peace, brotherhood and behind the back they’ll be found abusing and maligning your religion, on false accounts and fake information.

If anyone were to read polemical works by protestant Hindus against Islām , he would fore sure be struck by the striking similarity between their(protestant Hinduism and Christianity)methods, works and arguments, in factuality most of the arguments hurled at Islām by protestant Hindus are borrowed from Christian Orientalists and missionaries. There are tremendous amount of similarities between these two paragons of polytheism and false-hood, but due to space and time scarcity we won’t be dealing with those, in here for now.

Strengthen your Understanding –

Summarizing this sub-section [i.e. B) Protestant Hinduism and Monotheism – an Antithesis], we would like to review what we’ve learnt about protestant Hindu theology, their creedal system and Protestant Hindus –

  • Ishwar is Dependent on Ātmā (Human Souls) prakriti (Primordial matter) for bringing out the ‘making’ of this universe.
  • Attributes of Ishwar are incapability, dependency. Ishwar shares identical attributes with Ātmā and prakriti, for instance attributes like beginning-less, eternal, uncreated.
  • Ishwar is comparable and that Ishwar is like
    Shining Man of Knowledge’ or ‘Ishwar shines LIKE
    Shining Man of Knowledge
    and that there are
    ‘person who are excellent like Ishwar’.

    Anthropomorphic tendencies of protestant Hindus are explicitly evident.

  • Ishwar is co-equal in Eternity, Uncreated-ness, Beginning-less with Ātmā(Human Souls), prakriti (Primordial matter), also he (Ishwar) is co-equal with time and space in terms of uncreated-ness and eternity. Also Ishwar needs help of and has co-equal partners – Ātmā(Human Souls), prakriti (Primordial matter) to ‘make’ or ‘engineer’ the universe.
  • Ishwar is a stealer who steals away life of beings.
  • Communion with Ishwar is nothing but pure polytheism which has crossed the boudries and needs severe rejection and reprimanding.
  • Agniveer confesses protestant Hinduism to be polytheistic by stating ‘similar attributes’ is assocaitionism which leads to polytheism…where as Moolshankar states that Ishwar has common/identical attributes with other entities.Agniveer contradicts Moolshankar and shoots his own foot.
  • Protestant Hinduism is not monotheistic but is Trinitarian and Protestant Hindu Trinity (Vedic trinity) is made up of –
  1. Paramātmā

  2. Prakriti
    (Primordial matter)

  3. Ātmā
    (Human Souls)

Ātmā and Paramātmā are ‘united’ and ‘inseparably one’ as per protestant Hinduism which only solidifies and proves that protestant Hinduism is polytheistic if not pantheistic.

Protestant Hinduism is inspired by Christianity and they follow Christians in their style of proselytism, polemics and have tried to make Hinduism similar to Christianity to an extent.

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 5 / 5. Vote count: 1

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

Related Articles

Back to top button