{"id":1651,"date":"2014-01-01T09:13:44","date_gmt":"2014-01-01T09:13:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/vedkabhed.com\/index.php\/2014\/01\/01\/concept-of-god-in-arya-samaj-protestant-hinduism-part-1\/"},"modified":"2026-03-28T06:42:46","modified_gmt":"2026-03-28T06:42:46","slug":"concept-of-god-in-arya-samaj-protestant-hinduism-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vedkabhed.com\/index.php\/2014\/01\/01\/concept-of-god-in-arya-samaj-protestant-hinduism-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Concept of God in Arya Samaj (Protestant Hinduism) Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

Written by Abd Al Muhsin Al Hindy
\n<\/span>
\n 
\nThis section deals with the Concept of God\u00a0(or Concept of\u00a0Gods<\/span><\/span>\u00a0\u2013\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>later we’ll make things more evident)<\/em>\u00a0in Protestant Hinduism(so-called \u0100rya\u00a0Sam\u0101j)<\/em>, the concept of God in Protestant Hinduism is grossly and totally incoherent. In fact it’s also doubted whether this could be called as concept of\u00a0“God”<\/strong>\u00a0or not. It seems, the very definition of God was not fathomed by Moolshankar. The conception of God in Protestant Hinduism itself is sufficient to prove the false nature of this cult.\u00a0It’s quite amazing to see how Moolshankar describes his god\u00a0(Ishwar)<\/em>, he extensively stresses on his gods omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, formlessness and shapelessness. Nowadays we see fanatical zealots, hate-monger’s like Agniveer, propagating his works,\u00a0as these\u00a0(Mahendra P\u0101l, Agniveer -now claims to be a ‘Movement’)<\/em>\u00a0being a blind-followers of Moolshankar like other protestant Hindus. Here we’ll try to demystify the concept of God in Protestant Hinduism and show how rational and coherent it is.<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\n
\nThe protestant Hindus propagandise, their cult to be\u00a0“Monotheistic”<\/strong>\u00a0in nature and claim their scriptures teach worship of One God exclusively, this is what people are usually informed by the protagonists, but the reality of their belief will be evident in the following passages.Vedas only teach polytheism not monotheism.
\n<\/span>
\nWe read, Moolshankar\u00a0(Day\u0101nanda Saraswati)<\/em>writing in his book\u00a0(Satyarth Prak\u0101sh)<\/em>, that the Vedas strictly preach and teach Monotheism and this was his belief\u00a0[delusion]<\/em>\u00a0too. In fact the translator Durg\u0101 Pras\u0101d writes in the book\u00a0(Satyarth Prak\u0101sh’s translation, pg. 60)<\/em>\u00a0that\u00a0“Satyarth Prakash \u2013 an exposition of the\u00a0monotheism<\/span> and civilization of the ancient Aryans.”\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>It seems that his\u00a0(Moolshankar’s)<\/em>\u00a0blind -followers truly believe that this book\u00a0(Satyarth Prak\u0101sh)<\/em>\u00a0deals with monotheism, nonetheless this so-called monotheism of protestant Hinduism will be scrutinized to truth.
\n<\/span>
\na.1) Is\u00a0Ishwar the Creator<\/span>?<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\nProtestant Hindus go around talking of so-called one god\u00a0“Ishwar”<\/strong>\u00a0who is the creator. \u00a0But what they really mean by the\u00a0“Creator”<\/em>? Let’s see.
\n<\/span>
\nFirst, Moolshankar wrote that God is the creator of all, then contradicts himself, by stating that Param\u0101tm\u0101\u00a0[God],<\/em>\u00a0\u0100tm\u0101\u00a0[Human Souls]<\/em>\u00a0and Prakriti\u00a0[Primordial matter],<\/em>\u00a0are beginning-less and uncreated! So how come God is\u00a0(Ishwar)<\/em>\u00a0“creator of all”<\/strong>? We shall probe into this case, and expose some amazingly incoherent beliefs of protestant Hindus.
\n<\/span>
\nMooshankar wrote\u00a0(quotes Yajurveda 36:3)<\/em>\u00a0\u2013
\n<\/span>
\n“\u2026Omniscient, Sustainer and Ruler of the Universe,\u00a0Creator of all<\/span>, Eternal\u2026”<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\n– [Satyarth Prakash Ch. 3, pg.33 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]\n<\/span>
\nIt wasn’t slip of pen that Moolshankar\u00a0(Day\u0101nanda Saraswati)<\/em>\u00a0wrote\u00a0“Creator of all”<\/strong>\u00a0but this has been stated in other parts of Satyarth Prak\u0101sh too. For instance, Moolshankar quotes Rigveda –
\n<\/span>
\n“\u2026I am the controller of the universe, know me alone as the Creator of all<\/span><\/strong><\/span>\u2026”
\n<\/span>
\n-[Satyarth Prakash Ch. 7 ,pg.205 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja ]\n<\/span>
\nSimilarly, stated by Moolshankar\u00a0(Day\u0101nanda Saraswati)<\/em>\u00a0on pg. 207(Tr.Chiranjiva)<\/em>,
\n<\/span>
\n“\u2026If He were localized to some particular place, He could never be Omniscient, Inward Regular of all, Universal Controller,\u00a0Creator of all<\/em><\/strong><\/span>, Sustainer of all and the Cause for resolution\u2026.”
\n<\/span>
\nSo we read, at first Moolshankar states that\u00a0“Ishwar (God) is Creator of all<\/strong>“and later he goes on to state that there are 3 entities which are Uncreated, Eternal, Beginning-less.
\n<\/span>
\nThe three entities which are uncreated eternal, beginning-less \u2013 here Moolshakar\u00a0(Day\u0101nanda Saraswati)<\/em>quotes\u00a0“SHWETA SHWATER UPNISHAD, 4: 5”<\/em>and states:
\n<\/span>
\n“The prakriti, the soul and God, all of them, are uncreated.<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0They are the cause of the whole universe.”
\n<\/span>
\n\u2013 [Satyarth Prakash Ch. 8, pg.244 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]\n<\/span>
\nAs he\u00a0(Moolshankar)<\/em>\u00a0states in Satyarth Prakash-
\n<\/span>
\n“How many entities are eternal or beginningless?
\n<\/span>
\n\u00a0\u00a0 A-Three \u2013 God, the soul, and the prakriti (matter).<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0-[Satyarth Prakash Ch. 8 ,pg.243 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja ]\n<\/span>
\nAccording to Moolshankar’s\u00a0(and protestant Hindu)<\/em>\u00a0theology there are 3\u00a0beginning less<\/strong><\/span>,\u00a0uncreated<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong>,immortal<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0entities \u2013
\n<\/span>
\n1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/em>Param\u0101tm\u0101<\/strong>\u00a0(Ishwar\/God)<\/em>
\n<\/span>
\n2)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Prakriti<\/strong>\u00a0(Primordial matter)<\/em>
\n<\/span>
\n3)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u0100tm\u0101\u00a0<\/strong>(Human Souls,note -we’ll be using plural i.e. Human Souls for clarity)<\/em>
\n<\/span>
\nThis philosopher’s stance\u00a0(uncreated primordial matter)<\/em>\u00a0adopted by Moolshankar is self-contradictory in many areas, for instance Moolshankar seem to claim in monotheistic Vedas, but this stance of co-eternal prakriti\u00a0(Primordial matter)\u00a0<\/em>and \u0100tm\u0101\u00a0(Human Souls)<\/em>\u00a0explicitly disqualifies prostestant Hindusim from the claim of monotheism, as this undermines and infringes the absolute monotheistic nature of God and reduces Him\u00a0(God)<\/em>\u00a0to an position of an artificer \u2013a Demiurge.
\n<\/span>
\nNow, if this is the case\u00a0(co-eternal, uncreated Prakriti and\u00a0\u0100tm\u0101)<\/em>\u00a0then, why did Moolshankar write God is the\u00a0“creator of all<\/span>“<\/strong>? This is an explicit contradiction, which is easily noticeable. It’s understood that God is uncreated but what of\u00a0“Prakriti”\u00a0(<\/em><\/strong>Primordial matter)<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0“\u0100tm\u0101”<\/strong>\u00a0(human souls)<\/em>?\u00a0Who created them<\/strong>?[their being eternal,uncreated is not possible, rationally and logically especially for those who claim to be ‘monotheistic’]<\/em>\u00a0And if God isn’t their creator \u2013 as these 2 things are uncreated\u00a0(as per protestant hindu belief)<\/em>, then why is God or in protestant Hindu terminology\u00a0“Ishwar”<\/em>\u00a0“Parameshawar”<\/em>\u00a0called\u00a0“Creator of all”.\u00a0<\/strong>This is quite contradictory and absurd. In fact this is a white lie.
\n<\/span>
\nAgniveer<\/strong><\/span>, the fanatic hate-monger wrote \u2013
\n<\/span>
\nQ: Who created the world? Ishwar or someone else?<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\nA: Ishwar created the world in same manner as an engineer creates a machine. He is thus the‘engineer’<\/strong>\u00a0of the world. But like engineer, He used existing\u00a0‘raw material’<\/strong>\u00a0or Nature (matter\/ energy approximately) to create the world.<\/span>
\n<\/span>
\n 
\nQ: Did Ishwar not create Nature as well?<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\nA: No, Nature or ‘raw material’ is eternal (beginningless and endless)<\/span>\u00a0like Ishwar. Being eternal, there is no cause for origin or destruction of Ishwar or Nature.”
\n<\/span>
\n– [Source –\u00a0http:\/\/agniveer.com\/2775\/creation\/<\/span><\/a>]\n<\/span>
\nWe learn that Protestant Hindu God\u00a0‘Ishwar’<\/strong>\u00a0is the\u00a0‘engineer of the world’<\/strong>, who uses\u00a0‘raw material’<\/strong>\u00a0to create the world, this stance of protestant Hindu’s is quite fanciful, and irrational as it insults the concept of God itself in its entirety. I wonder why, don’t these protestant Hindus call Ishwar, an ‘engineer’ when they believe so?
\n<\/span>
\nSo, this incapability of Ishwar is also affirmed and stated by the hate-monger Agniveer, I wonder how a rational person\u00a0(assuming Agniveer is rational- I know it’s very farfetched, but let’s give him benefit of doubt and assume)<\/em>\u00a0can accept such gibberish, incoherent theological views!
\n<\/span>
\nIn fact this absurdity is also supported by Vedas –
\n<\/span>
\n 
\n“God, the Lord of final emancipation is in truth the\u00a0creator of all<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0that hath been and what yet shall be; and what grows on earth.”\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2013 [Yajurveda Ch. 31, verse 2, pg. 302 Tr. Devi Chand]\n<\/span>
\n“Worship Him, Whose beautiful sacrifice, wealth, strength, and mighty glory are enjoyed by the Heaven and Earth;\u00a0Who is the creator of all<\/span>\u00a0beings<\/span><\/strong><\/span>, the Embodiment of great happiness, All-pervading and Supplier of food.”\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2013 [Yajurveda Ch. 33, verse 23, pg. 312 Tr. Devi Chand]\n<\/span>
\nIt’s to be noted that, the second verse states in an interrogative way “Who is the creator of all beings\u2026<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0All-pervading<\/span>”\u00a0Here again this statement is contradictory to the belief’s of Protestant Hindus, in order to prove this lets first define “beings<\/strong><\/span>“.\u00a0And“being”<\/strong>means –
\n<\/span>
\nbeing<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0noun\u00a0<\/em>[ C or U ]\n<\/span>
\na person or thing that exists or the state of existing
\n<\/span>
\n– [Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary CD- ROM, 3rd Edition, \u00a9 Cambridge University Press 2008]\n<\/span>
\nSo\u00a0‘being’<\/strong>\u00a0means \u2013\u00a0a person or thing that exists or the state of existing<\/span>. So we ask doesn’t\u00a0‘Prakriti’<\/strong>\u00a0(Primordial Matter)\u00a0<\/em>exist? Doesn’t\u00a0‘\u0100tm\u0101’<\/strong>\u00a0(Human Souls)<\/em>\u00a0exist? Yes of course they do, as stated by Moolshankar. Then how can ‘Ishwar’ be the\u00a0‘creator of all beings’<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0when Prakriti and \u0100tm\u0101 are uncreated? Then is ‘Ishwar’ creator of them? No, as stated by Moolshankar, then why is it stated in the above quoted verse of Yajurveda that the\u00a0“All-prevading”<\/em>\u00a0(i.e Ishwar)<\/em>\u00a0is the\u00a0“Creator of all beings”?\u00a0<\/em>This is nothing but pure contradiction which is repeated in many of the Vedic verses.Later, in the article we’ll see that Ishwar is not the creator of ‘time’\u2026etc
\n<\/span>
\nQuestions which mavericks like us would like to ask \u2013
\n<\/span>
\na) How can ‘Ishwar’ be\u00a0‘creator of all’\u00a0(or ‘creator of all\u00a0beings<\/span>‘)<\/span><\/em><\/strong>\u00a0as claimed by protestant Hindus when, they themselves believe(state)<\/em>\u00a0in uncreated-ness of ‘Prakriti’ and ‘\u0100tm\u0101’?
\n<\/span>
\nb) Who created\u00a0‘prakriti’<\/em><\/strong>, if\u00a0‘Ishwar’<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 the Protestant Hindu God, didn’t?\u00a0[Rationally it’s impossible to prove uncreated-ness ofPrakriti<\/strong>\u00a0, especially when those claiming this are also claiming to be Monotheistic.]<\/em>
\n<\/span>
\nc) Who created\u00a0‘\u0100tm\u0101’<\/em><\/strong>, if\u00a0‘Ishwar’<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 the Protestant Hindu God, didn’t?\u00a0[Rationally it’s impossible to prove uncreated-ness of\u00a0\u0100tm\u0101<\/strong>, especially when those claiming this are also claiming to be Monotheistic.]<\/em>
\n<\/span>
\nThis ameliorates exposure of the reality of protestant Hindu theology in the eyes of Truth-Seeker’s. Now coming to some amazing facts, which will really expose the distortions\u00a0(of meanings)<\/em>\u00a0from the protestant Hindu cult.
\n<\/span>
\nMoolshankar wrote in Satyarth Prak\u0101sh Ch.1 pg. 5\u00a0(quoting Kaivalya Upanishad)<\/em>\u00a0\u2013
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“He is called\u00a0Brahma\u00a0\u2013 the Creator of the Universe\u2026”
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

And, in the footnotes the translator Dr. Chiranjiva comments”The word\u00a0Creator<\/span>\u00a0used in the\u00a0sense of Maker<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0as according to Vedic Philosophy there is\u00a0no such thing as creation or the evolution of something out of nothing<\/span>.<\/span>“<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>
\nAlso we find\u00a0Agniveer<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0the Hate-Monger, Isl\u0101mophobe confessing and admitting the fact that \u2013
\n<\/span>
\n 
\n“GOD NEVER CREATED US.<\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span>
\nAnd because God never created us, He also never destroys us.\u00a0Creation and destruction of soul is NOT the scope of work of God<\/strong><\/span>. Thus, just as God is beginningless and endless, so are we. We have existed along with God always and shall continue to do so.”
\n<\/span>
\n\u2013 [Source –\u00a0http:\/\/agniveer.com\/1985\/why-did-god-create-us\/<\/span><\/a>]\n<\/span>
\nNow astonishingly, we learn, that in the so-called\u00a0“Vedic Philosophy”<\/em>\u00a0there’s nothing like\u00a0“Creation out of nothing”\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>and\u00a0that the word\u00a0“Creator”\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>is used in\u00a0“Sense of Maker”.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>One would be tempted to question,\u00a0Why not simply use the word\u00a0‘Maker’<\/strong>\u00a0why use the word\u00a0‘Creator’<\/strong>?<\/span>\u00a0The answer to it is simple, to\u00a0fool people<\/span>\u00a0and blind-followers\u00a0(protestant Hindus)<\/em>.As how can one believe in a ‘God’ who is not the Creator but just the\u00a0Maker or Fashioner<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0of it.
\n<\/span>
\nSo we are left with the philosophical excreta of philosopher’s brains<\/span>\u00a0that’s “there is no such thing as creation or the evolution of something out of nothing.<\/span>”
\n<\/span>
\nAnd we also see how the hate-monger Agniveer tries to get his incoherent, unintelligible belief, explained with few nonsensical words like “Creation and destruction of soul is NOT the scope of work of God”<\/strong><\/span>, we wonder\u00a0‘What’s the Scope of God’<\/em>? Does scope even apply on GOD?Is God something like created beings that\u00a0‘Scope’<\/em>\u00a0applies to him, or is Agniveer trying to anthropomorphise God and apply Human-related characteristics\/attributes to Him? By the way, is God(according to Agniveer)<\/em>some sought of professional , for instance an Accountant , who’s been asked to handle Software engineers post , and cries out saying\u00a0“It’s out of my scope of work!!”<\/em>\u00a0It’s pretty disgusting to see people insulting God by using such vernacular\u00a0(like\u00a0“Creation and destruction of soul is NOT the scope of work of God”<\/strong><\/span>)<\/em>. We do not think that such a statement needs a refutation\u00a0(still we shall expose such irrationalities for those people seeking truth)<\/em>; such obscurely illogical statement arises out of pure ignorance of monotheism and pure blind following\u00a0(as in case of Agniveer).<\/em>\u00a0We will be dealing with the reasons and causes of such irrational statement in our next subsection, wherein those reasons and causes shall be refuted and debunked.
\n<\/span>
\nIt will be worthwhile and of immense benefit to state one verse from the Holy, Noble Qur’\u0101n wherein All\u0101h Azz wa Jall\u00a0(the alone worthy of worship, One true Almighty God)<\/em>\u00a0says which means \u2013
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0“Do they attribute as partners to All\u0101h those\u00a0who created nothing<\/span><\/strong><\/span>”\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2013 [Surah\u00a0al-A’raaf, Ayat 191]\n<\/span><\/p>\n

So true! See the misery and state of these Protestant Hindus, how they worship those who create not! These poor protestant Hindus set up partners\u00a0(by worshipping Ishwar who creates nothing)\u00a0<\/em>with\u00a0All\u0101h who alone is the true Almighty God, the creator of Al -‘Alam\u00een\u00a0[Total Creation]<\/em>. We would ask our reader’s and especially the truth seeker’s to see[and learn a lesson, so that you may not fall into the same dark pit]<\/em>\u00a0how these protestant Hindus have wronged themselves by worshipping false God , who is unable to create anything.
\n<\/span>
\nFor now we’ll leave the reader’s and truth-seeker’s with this verse and let them ponder upon it and contemplate whether they are on truth or falsehood, now coming back –
\n<\/span>
\nSo this only proves that\u00a0Ishwar\u00a0(Protestant Hindu God)\u00a0<\/em>is\u00a0Incapable<\/span><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0of \u2013
\n<\/span>
\n1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Creating Prakriti\u00a0(Primordial Matter)<\/em>\u00a0and \u0100tm\u0101\u00a0(Human Souls).<\/em>
\n<\/span>
\n2)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Destroying, Annihilating Prakriti and \u0100tm\u0101.
\n<\/span>
\nThis sufficiently proves that\u00a0Incapability<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0is an attribute\u00a0(characteristic)<\/em>\u00a0of\u00a0‘Ishwar’<\/em>. This also proves that ‘Ishwar’ isn’t omnipotent or All-Powerful. But Moolshankar seems to state something opposite to it, he states\u00a0(quoting Rigveda)<\/em>\u00a0\u2013
\n<\/span>
\n“\u2026Mayest thou (Vishnu) O Omnipresent and (Urukrama)\u00a0Omnipotent Being<\/strong><\/span>, shower Thy blessings all around us\u2026”\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0-[Satyarth Prakash Ch. 1,pg.2 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja ]\n<\/span>
\nSo what does\u00a0“Omnipotence”<\/strong>\u00a0mean? Let’s have it defined \u2013
\n<\/span>
\nOmnipotent \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0adjective\u00a0<\/em>formal
\n<\/span>
\nhaving unlimited power; able to do anything
\n<\/span>
\n– [Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary CD- ROM, 3rd Edition, \u00a9 Cambridge University Press 2008]\n<\/span>
\nAll the words, like Omnipotent, All-Powerful, creator are just empty words used by Moolshankar & Co. for deluding people and poor blind-followers of his\u00a0(Moolshankar).<\/em>\u00a0As we read earlier that , if Ishwar isn’t able to create\u00a0“Prakriti”<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0“\u0100tm\u0101”<\/strong>\u00a0then this inability of creating things renders him free of the title “Creator” and \u00a0also this raises questions on Ishwar’s\u00a0“Omnipotence”.\u00a0<\/strong>These questions will be dealt, in the later part of the section, for now let’s see whether Moolshankar , believed in “Omnipotence” of “Ishwar”?(We’ve seen a quote above , now let’s see his belief in detail).<\/em>
\n<\/span>
\nMoolshankar was and ardent believer of “Ishwar’s” Omnipotence\u00a0(at least he made it seem so)<\/em>, we read in various places in Satyarth Prak\u0101sh, where he claims God to be Omnipotent, All-Powerful.
\n<\/span>
\n“Vayu: the\u00a0Omnipotent<\/span>
\nBeing<\/span>,” \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2013 (Satyrath Prakash Ch 1, pg.71 Tr. Durga Prasad)
\n<\/span>
\n 
\n“The verse means: May (bhavatu) the Infinite Spirit\u00a0(Parmatma) who is Omnipotent<\/strong><\/span>” \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2013 (Satyrath Prakash Ch 1, pg.77 Tr. Durga Prasad)
\n<\/span>
\n“O Lord Thou Who art the Protector of the universe and the Veda, and art\u00a0Omnipotent<\/strong><\/span>, Omnipresent\u2026”
\n<\/span>
\n-(Satyarth Prakash Ch. 10,pg.368 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja )
\n<\/span>
\nHence, we learn that Moolshankar did believe in Omnipotence of his Ishwar, but was this Omnipotence true? Or what did Moolshankar mean by Omnipotence? As stated earlier “Omnipotence<\/em>“, “All-Powerful<\/em>” et al. are just empty words for Moolshankar, this will be evident below. In fact, Moolshankar goes on to\u00a0distort<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0the meanings of words like “All-Powerful” and “Omnipotence” to fit his beliefs, for instance “Omnipotence<\/em>” according to him does not mean\u00a0“having unlimited power; able to do anything”<\/strong>.
\n<\/span>
\nAgniveer<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0the fanatical Protestant Hindu-extremist, hate-monger also affirms and believes in the so-called All-Powerful Ishwar, he wrote \u2013
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“Finally, Yajurveda 40.8 lists the properties of Ishwar as follows:
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Paryagat \u2013 Omnipresent,
\nShukram \u2013 All-powerful<\/strong><\/span>,<\/span>”
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

– \u00a0[Source –\u00a0http:\/\/agniveer.com\/1566\/eternity-of-vedas\/<\/span><\/a>]\n<\/span>
\nElsewhere too, with vigor same is stated by this mere hate- monger \u2013
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“But Vedic\u00a0Ishwar is truly all-Powerful<\/strong><\/span>\u2026”
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2013 [Source –http:\/\/agniveer.com\/2728\/more-on-vedic-god\/<\/span><\/a>\u00a0]\n<\/span>
\nBut according to him\u00a0(Moolshankar)<\/em>\u00a0it’s\u00a0(omnipotence’s meaning)<\/em>\u00a0something different, this is what he answered when a questioned, regarding Ishwar’s inability of creating “prakriti”.
\n<\/span>
\nQ \u2013\u00a0God being Omnipotent, He can also create prakriti \u2013 the primordial matter \u2013 and the soul. If He cannot, He cannot be called Omnipotent.<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\nA.<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013\u00a0We have explained the meaning of the word Omnipotent before<\/span>.<\/strong><\/span> But does Omnipotent mean one who can work even the impossibilities. If there be one who can do even such impossible things as the production of an effect without a cause, then can He make another God, Himself die, suffer pain, become dead and inert, inanimate, unjust, impure and immoral or not? Even God cannot change the natural properties of things as heat of the fire, Fluidity of liquids and inertness of earth, etc. His laws being true and perfect, He cannot alter them.Omnipotence, therefore, only means that He possesses the power of doing all His works without any help<\/span>.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0<\/em><\/strong>-[Satyarth Prakash Ch. 8, pg.251 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja ]\n<\/span>
\nPrimarily, it’s to be noted that Moolshankar states he has explained the meaning of word Omnipotence, earlier in the book, on which we’ll expound soon. Secondarily, we learn that according to Moolshankar omnipotence isn’t the ability to do anything but only means “the power of doing all His works without any help<\/strong><\/span>.”<\/strong>(This is moolshankar’s proposed definition).\u00a0We see Moolshankar, distorting the meaning of Omnipotence in order to hide the fact that Ishawar isn’t omnipotent or All-Powerful and this factuality is impossible to grasp for any believer (theist) in God, hence in order to delude people and his own self\u00a0Moolshankar indulges in namely two things \u2013 Distortion of meaning and Sophistry.<\/span><\/strong><\/em>
\n<\/span>
\na.2) Is Ishwar Omnipotent (All-Powerful) and what does Omnipotence mean to protestant Hinduism?<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\nNow coming to the\u00a0“explanation”\u00a0<\/em>of the meaning of Omnipotence by Moolshankar, which he stated to have explained earlier, wherein he uses sophistry in order prove his beliefs, which is quite amusing(hilarious)<\/em>\u00a0to read.
\n<\/span>
\nIn order to, prove that his\u00a0(Moolshankar)<\/em>\u00a0meaning\u00a0(‘proposed definition’)<\/em>\u00a0of\u00a0‘Omnipotence’<\/strong>\u00a0and conception of God is correct<\/span>,Moolshankar disgustingly<\/span>,\u00a0indulges in sophistry<\/span>. These question explain the situation to us \u2013
\n<\/span>
\nIs God All-powerful or not?<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\nA.<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013\u00a0Yes, He is, but what you understand by the word All- powerful is not right<\/strong><\/span>. 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.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u2013\u00a0[ Satyarth Prakash , Ch 7,pg 208 ,Tr.\u00a0Dr. Chiranjiva]\n<\/span>
\nBut we believe that God can do whatever He likes. There is no one above Him.<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\nA.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>– What does He like? If you say that he likes and can do all things, we ask \u2013\u00a0“Can God kill Himself?”<\/strong>\u00a0Or“can He make other Gods like Himself, become ignorant, commit sins such as theft, adultery and the like? Or can He be unhappy?”<\/strong>\u00a0Your answer can only be in the negative, as these things are opposed to the nature and attributes of God<\/span>; hence your contention, that God can do all things, does not hold good. Our meaning only, therefore, of the word All-powerful is true.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u2013\u00a0[ Satyarth Prakash , Ch 7,pg 208 ,Tr.\u00a0Dr. Chiranjiva]\n<\/span>
\n 
\nWe would also like to quote the hate monger, Isl\u0101mophobe\u00a0Agniveer, so as to expose his ignorance<\/span>, this Isl\u0101mophobe wrote –
\n<\/span>
\nQ: Is Ishwar Omnipotent or All-Powerful?<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\nA:\u00a0Yes, He is omnipotent.\u00a0But that does not mean He can do whatever He wants<\/span><\/strong><\/span>.\u00a0Doing whatever one may want is sign of indiscipline. On contrary, Ishwar is most disciplined<\/span>. Omnipotence means that Ishwar does not need help of any other entity to conduct His duties<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 creation, management, destruction of universe. He is self-sufficient to conduct His duties. But He would act only as per His duties. For example,He will not kill Himself to create another Ishwar. He cannot make Himself an idiot. He cannot do theft or dacoity etc.<\/span>
\n<\/span>
\n–\u00a0\u00a0[Source –\u00a0http:\/\/agniveer.com\/2708\/understanding-vedic-god\/<\/span><\/a>\u00a0]\n<\/span>
\n 
\nThese\u00a0(above)<\/em>\u00a0emphasized\u00a0(by us)<\/em>\u00a0interrogative questions were asked by Moolshankar\u00a0(& Agniveer)<\/em>\u00a0to prove that his god\u00a0(Ishwar)<\/em>is\u00a0not<\/span>\u00a0omnipotent\u00a0(as per the meaning of the word)<\/em>\u00a0in true sense but has limited omnipotence. Moolshankar\u00a0(so does Agniveer)<\/em>seems very eager and zealous to prove that his god\u00a0(Ishwar)<\/em>\u00a0is not at all omnipotent in true sense, but merely is called so. Moolshankar seems to be trying pretty hard, to prove his definition of\u00a0“Omnipotence”<\/em>\u00a0to be true, but drastically fails at it, as will be evident. Now coming to his silly, hilarious questions:
\n<\/span>
\nFirstly it’s to be noted that Moolshankar, states\u00a0(assumes)<\/em>\u00a0that the answers to the questions will be in negative, I wonder why didn’t the questioner reply or why wasn’t his reply\u00a0(in detail or were these questions and answers made-up by himself, that’s the case most probably)<\/em>\u00a0stated in Satyarth Prakash . Now replying to the insinuations and irrationality of Moolshankar and Agniveer.
\n<\/span>
\nWe would be pleasured to ask \u2013
\n<\/span>
\nDo these attributes or qualities\/characteristics\u00a0(Killing, ignorance, theft, adultery\u2026etc.)<\/em>\u00a0befit Almighty God or belong to him? Of course not, Moolshankar also agrees by writing\u00a0“these things are opposed to the nature and attributes of God<\/span>“.<\/span>\u00a0Now, we would like to question, how come these things are applied to God? Also, it’s should\u00a0be noted that these are qualities of humans and not of God,\u00a0so how can these be applied to God or how could one judge God’s capability in terms of these\u00a0[human]<\/em>\u00a0acts?<\/span>\u00a0Same deviant principle of judging and understanding God in human context and human attributes is followed by Agniveer , our readers need not get surprised after all Agniveer is a mere blind-follower of Moolshankar .We read Agniveer stating\u00a0“Doing whatever one may want is sign of indiscipline. On contrary, Ishwar is most disciplined”\u00a0What a show of irrationality and illogicalness! This statement of Agniveer show’s us his\u00a0‘conceptualization’<\/em>\u00a0of God. What Agniveer states here is pure irrationality,\u00a0God the Almighty is the\u00a0creator of Discipline<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0and hence he is not subjected to it , we wonder how could Agniveer even think of such a thing , he judges God in the light of human attributes and behavior!
\n<\/span>
\nHence the so-called argument that doing whatever one wants is a sign of indiscipline is only applied to humans and not to God Almighty. Also, another aspect should be pointed out is that\u00a0God Almighty by\u00a0nature<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0definition<\/strong>\u00a0is the\u00a0Most-Perfect<\/strong>\u00a0or\u00a0All-Perfect<\/strong><\/span>, hence the one who’s perfect by nature needs no discipline at all, on contrary it’s only those who have the tendency to get deviated\u00a0(like humans, animals\u2026etc)\u00a0<\/em>and indulge in non-disciplinary acts and behavior need discipline and are subjected to it or judged by it.
\n<\/span>
\nThis understanding of God in scales of human attributes and behavior, only show the anthropomorphic tendencies of Agniveer and his gross incoherency. To enlighten Agniveer we would present here, what All\u0101h Azz wa Jall\u00a0(the only One True Almighty God)<\/em>\u00a0says which means:
\n<\/span>
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0“There is nothing like Him(<\/span>All\u0101h)”<\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span>
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2013 [Surah Ash- Shura Ayat 11]<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\nThis verse proves and shows the obligation of rejection and negation of resembling God the Most Perfect, with His creation or anything else<\/span>.\u00a0This is what we Muslims believe, in fact this is the most basic and fundamental principle which we Muslims are taught at first, hence as stated above, there is no similitude, resembling, likeness of God [There is nothing like Him]<\/strong><\/span>, so are his attributes\u00a0[His attributes are perfectly Unique , and have no resembling, Similitude]<\/em>, hence we ask Protestant Hindus, to ponder upon it and we think and Agniveer too comes under Protestant Hinduism, so we would also ask him to humbly ponder upon this truly, great and glorious principle which every theist should believe in. This principle will help Agniveer get rid of his anthropomorphic tendencies \u2013 understanding God in light of Human attributes\/context\/behavior, as this verse makes clear that there is nothing like unto God.
\n<\/span>
\nWe’ve also read what Moolshankar wrote; in fact both Agniveer and Moolshankar suffer from same disease of sophism, and irrationality\u00a0[moreover both have the anthropomorphic tendency of understanding God and judging him in Human behavioral patterns, attributes].<\/em>\u00a0Questions\u00a0(like ‘Can God Kill Himself\u00a0<\/strong>‘\u2026et al.)<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0asked by Moolshankar and Agniveer are similar\u00a0[like both ask whether God can kill himself and create gods\u2026etc]<\/em>, hence we would refute and debunk the questions\u00a0(insinuations)\u00a0<\/em>asked by Moolshankar, and indirectly Agniveer’s questions will be debunked too.
\n<\/span>
\nNow coming back to the ‘questions’ of Moolshankar \u2013
\n<\/span>
\nAnd we would now again like to ask\u00a0“Why would God need to steal something, when he is the creator of that thing and can create it?”<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0Yeah, only the Protestant Hindu god\u00a0(Ishwar)<\/em>\u00a0would need to steal things as he is not the Creator but\u00a0only the efficient cause\u00a0(acc. to Protestant Hindu Theology)<\/em>, as prakriti\u00a0(Primordial Matter)<\/em>\u00a0is eternal and uncreated like God , so it is possible that he could steal a bit from prakriti\u00a0(Primordial Matter)<\/em>.So why would God Almighty need\u00a0to steal<\/span>? It’s ridiculous of Moolshankar to ask such hilarious and incoherent questions and this only adds up to his ignorance.
\n<\/span>
\nNow scrutinizing a bit more, Moolshankar also questions\u00a0‘can He[God]<\/em>\u00a0become ignorant, commit sins such as theft, adultery and the like’<\/strong>\u00a0this is really hilarious and irrational. By scrutinizing and observing questions similar and those asked by him we, learn a lot of Moolshankar’s state of mind and the basis of his belief system. We’ll see questions similar to Moolshankar’s first to show the real problem in his approach and then refute his questions.
\n<\/span>
\nBasically what Moolshankar is trying to ask\u00a0“If God can do anything, can He make it impossible for him-self to do something [like adultery, theft\u2026etc]?”<\/em><\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\nSuch question’s becomes even clearer when we examine a related question:\u00a0“Can God create an uncreated being?”<\/strong>\u00a0The problem here is that the questioner has already defined the being to be uncreated and then proceeds to ask for something that contradicts that definition. The problem is in the questioner’s terms, not any lack in God’s potential. The same is true when asking God to make a circle with four sides. Having already provided a definition of a circle that could never include a four-sided figure, such a question is absurd. Something is certainly self-contradictory here, but it is the questioner’s terminology and not the omnipotence of God. The answer to the question (Can God kill Himself?)<\/strong>\u00a0of Moolshankar is-.\u00a0Well, killing\u00a0(death)<\/em>\u00a0isn’t ability; it’s the inability to live<\/strong>\u00a0moreover\u00a0death is a creation<\/span>\u00a0(death is created and God’s uncreated)<\/em>\u00a0of God, so it’s quite irrational to ask such questions as creation can never overcome the creator in any sense. The immortal cannot die because that defies His attribute of immortality. Similarly, the omnipotent cannot create a task that He can’t complete because such a task is merely a figment of one’s imagination and could not exist, not because He is incapable.Can God make 1=2? Well if 1=2, then it wouldn’t be 1! So the idea is self-contradictory, not God.
\n<\/span>
\nThe question also reminds us of the idea of what happens when an immovable rock meets an unstoppable force? The two things cannot exist in the same universe. Likewise,\u00a0if God exists then all things which contradict His attributes are imaginary, non-existent and impossible. They are forever bound to the realm of imagination and cannot be brought into existence.<\/span>
\n<\/span>
\nSimilar is the question\u00a0(of Moolshankar)<\/em>\u00a0“can He\u00a0make\u00a0<\/span>other Gods like Himself”\u00a0<\/strong>.In fact the phrase\u00a0“can He\u00a0make<\/span>\u00a0other Gods like Himself”<\/strong>\u00a0is explicit sophism or false\/invalid argument, and is a contradiction in terms, because the mere fact that something is created\u00a0(‘<\/em>can He\u00a0make’<\/span><\/strong>)\u00a0<\/em>means that it cannot be a God. This question is like asking could God create\u00a0“a god who is not a god?”<\/span>\u00a0It is self-evident that the answer can only be: The power of God has nothing to do with that, because the idea that something can be a god and not a god is illogical and is irrational, and\u00a0the power and might of God has nothing to do with irrationalities<\/strong><\/span>.
\n<\/span>
\nIn fact all the questions asked by Moolshankar and Agniveer are just instances of sophism and are self-contradiction \u2013
\n<\/span>
\n–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0“Can God kill Himself?”<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\n–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0“Can He (God) make other Gods like Himself, become ignorant, commit sins such as theft, adultery and the like?<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\n–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0“Can He (God) be unhappy?”<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\nGod is eternal and uncreated[in fact even Moolshankar attest to this , that his god Ishwar is eternal and uncreated]\u00a0<\/em>by nature and definition hence God killing himself is irrational and contradictory in terms , also Killing\u00a0(or dying)<\/em>\u00a0is a human’s act or attribute, like Humans kill humans, Humans die. So what we see is Moolshankar first defining God to be uncreated and eternal then posing a sophistic questions which are purely contradictory and irrational , Moolshankar is only contradicting himself.
\n<\/span>
\nAs for creating God then again God is Uncreated and eternal, hence what is created cannot be god so it’s irrational and spurious even to think of such absurdities.
\n<\/span>
\nSame for questions like, ‘can God become Ignorant’, God by nature is\u00a0All-wise\u00a0<\/strong>and\u00a0All-Knowledgeable<\/strong>\u00a0hence again its contradiction and irrational, also things like ignorance, adultery sins, theft are all instances of human behaviors, attributes or actions and in no way can they ever be applied to God or used to judge God. Same with being\u00a0“Unhappy”<\/em>, being happy and unhappy are human attributes\/characteristics and traits, not of God ,also these things contradict God’s attribute of Perfection(All-Perfect)<\/em>\u00a0hence God by nature being perfect is not subject to such things and state, such queries are but contradiction. As\u00a0God exists hence all things which contradict His attributes are imaginary, non-existent and impossible. They are forever bound to the realm of imagination and cannot be brought into existence. Also the Power, Majesty and Might of Almighty God have nothing to do with Irrationalities.<\/span>
\n<\/span>
\nHence we see Moolshankar using sophistry\u00a0(false-invalid arguments)<\/em>\u00a0to prove that “Omnipotence” in fact means “the power of doing all His works without any help<\/span>.” \u00a0And not “<\/em>able to do anything<\/span>“<\/strong>\u00a0which in fact, is the true and right definition of being Omnipotent.
\n<\/span>
\nConcluding, it will be beneficial to note, how Moolshankar uses his irrationality and Sophistry to prove things. Like first he defines Ishwar as uncreated and beginning-less and then questions whether “God can kill himself?” that’s so self-contradictory and irrational of him. Again and again he repeats his irrational questions like “can He(God) make<\/span> other Gods like Himself”\u00a0,\u00a0<\/strong>same here he as defined and stated God to be “Uncreated” , then ask can God\u00a0make<\/span>other Gods? This is what happens when you swallow the excreta of philosopher’s brain. This is pure irrationality and this will be evident, even to novice or amateur, let’s see what a mathematician opines about such ridiculous questions.
\n<\/span>
\nMathematician’s Opinion \u2013<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\nSumming up the section, I would like to present a short quote from a revert to Isl\u0101m \u2013 Dr. Jeffrey Lang, a mathematician\u00a0[Professor of Mathematics at University of Kansas, US] (an ex-atheist)]\u00a0<\/em>\u2013
\n<\/span>
\n“If God is all-powerful, can He become a man, terminate His existence, tell a lie, be unjust, or create a stone too heavy for even Him to move?\u00a0These somewhat\u00a0silly<\/span>\u00a0riddles most often arise from imposing unnecessary and\u00a0contradictory assumptions<\/span>\u00a0on certain attributes of God or by\u00a0assigning unwarranted additional attributes<\/span>\u00a0to Him.<\/strong><\/span>”
\n<\/span>
\n– [“Even Angels Ask”, Dr. Jeffrey Lang, pg. 69, Beltsville, 1997]\n<\/span>
\nWe are pretty sure that every intelligent, sane and unbiased person will believe such ‘questions’ to be silly, and illogical.
\n<\/span>
\nIt would also be beneficial\u00a0(concisely)<\/em>\u00a0to state the reasons why Moolshankar delved into such absurdities which are totally untenable. It’s necessary to note that Moolshankar was reluctant enough to apply\u00a0(judge and understand)\u00a0<\/em>human attributes to God in order to prove his point; also his conception of God in his mind was somewhat anthropomorphic in essence. This also shows how Moolshankar swallowed the excreta of philosophers and atheists’\u00a0(in fact, sophistry was chiefly used by atheist to disprove God and his existence)<\/em>\u00a0brain in order to forward his claims, delude people from the straight path and malign and corrupt monotheism.
\n<\/span>
\nIsl\u0101mic Stance \u2013<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\nTo enlighten people about Isl\u0101m and present a true picture of Isl\u0101m\u00a0(which the Hate-monger’s and quacks like Mahendra P\u0101l, Agniveer cowardly and hypocritically don’t do, due to their bias, prejudice and hate for Isl\u0101m.)<\/em>\u00a0we’ll shortly and very briefly present Isl\u0101mic point of view here, very concisely for our readers and truth Seekers \u2013
\n<\/span>
\nWho’s the Creator?<\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span>
\nAll\u0101h the Most-Merciful says which means,
\n<\/span>
\n“That is All\u0101h, your Lord, the Creator of all things<\/strong><\/span>, L\u0101 il\u0101ha ill\u0101 Huwa\u00a0(none has the right to be worshipped but He)<\/em>. How then are you turning away\u00a0(from All\u0101h, by worshipping others instead of Him)<\/em>?”\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2013 [Surah Al-Mu’min , Ayat 62]\n<\/span>
\nSee you O, protestant Hindus your only One True Almighty God\u00a0(All\u0101h)<\/em>\u00a0states that He is the Creator of all things; still you turn away from Him and worship false-god?
\n<\/span>
\nAnd in another verse of the Noble, Holy Qur’\u0101n, All\u0101h Azz wa Jall says which means,
\n<\/span>
\n“Such is All\u0101h, your Lord(none has the right to be worshipped but He), the<\/span>\u00a0Creator of all things<\/span>.So worship Him\u00a0(Alone),<\/em><\/span>\u00a0and He is the Wak\u00eel\u00a0(Trustee, Disposer of affairs or Guardian)<\/em>\u00a0over all things.”<\/span>\u00a0\u2013 [Surah, Al-An’aam, Ayat 102]<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\nAgain theonly One True Almighty God\u00a0(All\u0101h)<\/em>\u00a0states that He alone is the Creator of all things and calls every of his creation to worship Him alone.
\n<\/span>
\nIs God (All\u0101h) Omnipotent or All-Powerful?<\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span>
\nAll\u0101h the Most-Merciful says which means,
\n<\/span>
\n“Truly, All\u0101h is Ever Most Powerful, All-Wise.”<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2013 [Surah An-Ni’saa, Ayat 56]\n<\/span>
\n“Verily, All\u0101h is Ever Oft-Pardoning, All-Powerful.”<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2013 [Surah An-Ni’saa, Ayat 149]\n<\/span>
\n“Truly, All\u0101h is All-Knowing, All-Powerful.”<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2013 [Surah An-Nahl, Ayat 70]\n<\/span>
\n“Verily, All\u0101h is All-Powerful, All-Mighty.”<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2013 [Surah Al-Mujaadilah, Ayat 21]\n<\/span>
\nWe think the above quoted verses speak for themselves; we need not re-write what the verses make so explicitly evident. We learn that\u00a0All\u0101h Azz wa Jall is Omnipotent unlike the protestant Hindu god Ishwar who isn’t, moreover he\u00a0(Ishwar)<\/em>\u00a0is dependent over other to ‘engineer’ hence is not even the creator- we’ll expound on this issue later in the article.
\n<\/span>
\nWe all know that Al-Qur’\u0101n al-Kareem cannot be translated, it’s a well known fact attested by approximately every Arabic scholar be it Muslim or non-Muslim, Al-Qur’\u0101n is perfectly unique and hence there is no question that it’s glory and perfection can be conveyed in any other language except that in which it was revealed\u00a0(we can only try and convey interpretation of its meanings)<\/em>, and even the famous briton ‘translator’ of the Qur’an Marmaduke\u00a0Pickthall(An famous English literati who reverted to Isl\u0101m)<\/em>confessed saying –
\n<\/span>
\n“The Koran cannot be translated<\/strong><\/span>\u2026 It is only an attempt to\u00a0present the meaning<\/span>\u00a0of the Koran and peradventure something of the charm in English. It can never take the place of the Koran in Arabic, nor is it meant to do so.”
\n<\/span>
\n– [The Meanings of the Glorious Koran, pg. vii, Alfred A. Knopp Inc., 1930]\n<\/span>
\n 
\nWhat we can do, is somehow show and translate the interpretation of meanings of Glorious, Noble Qur’\u0101n, in different languages.Hence it’s to be understood that all the Qur’\u0101nic verse quoted here in the article are mere interpretation of the meanings of the Noble Qur’\u0101n.<\/span>
\n<\/span>
\nStrengthen your Understanding \u2013<\/strong>
\n<\/span>
\nSummarizing this sub-section\u00a0(i.e.\u00a0‘A) Is Protestant Hinduism Monotheistic?’<\/strong>)<\/em>, we would like to review what we’ve learnt about protestant Hindu theology, their creedal system and Protestant Hindus \u2013
\n<\/span>
\n1)<\/strong>\u00a0Ishwar(Protestant Hindu God)<\/em>\u00a0isn’t the\u00a0‘Creator’\u00a0<\/strong>but simply the\u00a0‘Maker’ , ‘Engineer’<\/strong>\u00a0,’Fashioner’<\/strong>\u00a0of the world , as he didn’t create Prakriti\u00a0(Primordial matter)<\/em>\u00a0nor \u0100tm\u0101\u00a0(Human Souls)\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0as per Protestant Hindu Theology. What does this necessitate?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n