SWAMI DAYANANDA
SARASWATI
(on the Qur’an)
Download in PDF
https://archive.org/details/ResponseLightOfTruth
http://www.mediafire.com/download/dagkxfnwstnbhvw/response-+light-of-truth-159-question-159answer-reply.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/download/dagkxfnwstnbhvw/response-+light-of-truth-159-question-159answer-reply.pdf
In the name of Allāh,
the Beneficent, the
Merciful.
Peace and Blessings
of Allāh on Mohammad.
DEDICATED TO
Allāh–the Glorious
and the High,
Lord of the worlds
AND
TO
Mohammad–who brought
the world
to our feet and
eternity to our arms.
*
SWAMI DAYANANDA SARASWATI
“LIGHT OF TRUTH”
(Satyarth Prakash)
(Followers of Islam are Muslims, not Mohammedans. I have tried to retain
the Swami’s spelling.
There are various spellings of the Prophet’s name, I prefer
‘Mohammad.’ In the following presentation the designation ‘LOT’ refers to Swami
Dayananda Saraswati’s book Light Of Truth.
Quotes from the Rig Veda are taken from Ralph T. H. Griffith, Hymns
Of The RgVeda, Volumes I and II. First Published in 1889, and Published
1987 by Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi. Reference to quotes such as, I. VII.
4-5. Vol. 1, p. 10, indicates that the quote is taken from Book I, Hymn VII,
verses 4-5, of Volume 1, page 10).
For those readers who wish to compare the Swami’s quotes of the
Qur’an with Muhammad Ali’s translation and commentary, Muhammad Ali’s
translation of the Qur’an with text, commentary and notes can be viewed online.
*
If the Veda(s) is Divine revelation it should teach the
worship of one God. For Allāh, God, reveals to us that He raised up pro-phets
among all people. And that these prophets were given one common message: “And we sent no messenger before thee (Mohammad) but We
revealed to him that there is no God but Me, so serve Me”–(Qur’an 21:25)
In his book Light of Truth Swami
Dayananda has commented on verses of the Qur’an in his attempt to prove the
Vedic religion to be the one religion for all “enlightened” mankind. However,
Qur’anic verses are quoted out of context, are used without, seemingly, any
knowledge as to the background of its revelation, and all verses are
interpreted literally without paying any attention to the fact that in the
Qur’an “some of its verses are decisive–they are the basis of the Book–and
others are allegorical”–(Qur’an 3:6).
Before I take up the Swami’s criticisms of
the Qur’an–there are 159 criticisms–there are a few statements of the Swami
that warrants commenting on:
Soul: Regarding God and the soul, Swami Dayananda says: “In essence they
are both conscious entities. By nature both are pure, immortal and
virtuous, etc.”; that “the soul acts by virtue of its free will”; and to
reincarnate, the soul “Guided by God it enters the body of some living creature
with air, water, food, drink or through any one of the openings of the body.
Having entered it, it gradually reaches the reproductive element, and thereby
estab-lishes itself in the womb, and is thus invested with a body and
eventually born. It is clothed with a male or a female body.” (LOT, pp.
222, 223, 300, respectively). (So
the souls of the “Gods” Rama and Krishna were in the wombs of their mothers
waiting to be covered with semen? If the soul sits in the woman’s “womb” where
does it sit in the man? his testicles? eunuchs have no testicles. If the soul
enters a barren or menopausal woman it might sit in her womb till the woman
dies).
If the soul has to establish itself in the
womb, it is reasonable that it must enter through the mating passage. If it
enters through the mouth it will go through the digestive system and pass out
the excretionary passage. That this “pure, immortal and virtuous” entity of
“free will” and of the same “essence” as God, would chart its way down
the mouth or genital canal of the female human, beast, bird, or insect and sit
in the “womb” waiting to be covered/fertilized by the male seed and to take on
flesh, could hardly be the cerebration of “enlightened” mankind.
Like the eggs of a chicken are in a cluster, if
more than one soul has to be reincarnated as chicken, one chicken may have more
than one soul taking up residency in its womb. The same applies to all other
egg-laying creatures–turtles, crocodiles, and frogs; as well as with some
animals, such as dogs, cats, pigs, whose litter consists of many. A woman who
has multiple births –twin, triplet, and quintuplets– must have two, three,
eight souls taking up temporary residency in her womb. And there is the
possibility of this soul being aborted instead of being reincar-nated.
If the soul enters the womb of living things
“through any one of the openings of the body,” as the Swami says, how does the
soul enter a plant when it has to be reborn in the vegetable kingdom?
Swami Dayananda states: “He (God) caused the soul
to enter the body and He Himself entered the soul thereafter.” (LOT, p. 227).
Since the soul is “conscious,” “immortal” and
embodies God, it must be cognizance of the reality of the existence of God; as
such there should not be any atheist. But it is a fact that there are millions,
if not hundreds of millions, of atheists. And communist countries should have
small populations of humans and overflo-wing with animals, as the atheists, not
believing in God, would be reincarnated as sub-humans.
(It is doubtful that this “pure, immortal and
virtuous” soul would deny the existence of God [through freedom of choice] to
be subjected by God into the bodies of sub-humans and to dwell in sewer
conditions, for millions of years till it emancipates itself).
Since God enters the soul, and the soul is
incarnated as dogs, rats, cats, and pigs, according to the teachings of
Hinduism, God eats all the things these animals eat, and dwells in the same
conditions as these animals dwell. (?)
It is also said that the soul does not remember
its past life–(Gita 4:5). How can the soul not remember its past life when God
is inside the soul, and God is Omniscient?
Whereas the Bible and the Qur’an teach that only
one couple (Adam and Eve) was created in the beginning, the Swami says that God
created more “than one” man. He quotes the Yajur Veda: “(In the beginning)
there were born many men as well as rishis, i.e. learned seers of
nature. They were progenitors of the human race”. To which he comments, “On the
authority of this Vedic text it is certain then that in the beginning of
Creation hundreds and thousands of men were born. By observing nature with the
aid of reason we come to the same conclusion, viz., that men are
descended from many fathers and mothers (i.e., not from one father and
one mother)”–(LOT, p. 263).
(Meaning the differences in colors and features,
etc; show that we came from different couples, as compared to us coming from
one couple wherein we all would be of the same complexion and feature etc. But
this would seem to say that God made some people white, some brown, black etc;
which may cause enmity; and the cynics may charge that God was biased. But God
creating one couple, and man undergoing bodily appearances due to his own
domicile, God could not be charged with being biased. And many animals would have to be killed for
God to provide these thousands of couples with “coats of skins”).
If God created many couples, and in
different regions of the earth, those couples in the Frigid zones –having no
clothes, no implements of agriculture, no house, no fire, and prohibited from
killing animals for food and skin for clothing– must have frozen and starved.
They would only have caves to shelter them, and perhaps frozen
fruits/berries/vegetables for food. Those assigned to Torrid regions with
desert conditions must have been sun-burned, starved, and parched from thirst.
These would only have sand dunes and caves for shelter, and dates, perhaps, and
insects for food.
However, it may be argued that God would not
have subjected this creation to such harsh conditions. This, seemingly, would
be true. But if these couples were not in separate regions and were in
proximity of each other or dwelt together, there would be the argument that
there were these thousands of naked people of different colors and features
exposed to one another; which would have seemed like a nudist colony. And
physically, the men and women must be, respectively, the same, if not, one
party might be envious of the other who is finely endowed.
The descendants of one couple (Adam and Eve) could
have dispersed throughout the earth, as the land mass of the earth are mostly
connected or separated at their shortest point by about 1,500 miles–this is not
incredible, given the accomplishments of the Aztecs, Incas, Egyptians and
Phoenicians. Solomon navigated the seas 2,300 years ago; before him Noah built
an Ark. Sailing seems to be as old as recorded
history.
That God created thousands of men at the beginning
contradicts with the Gita that Manu is “the father of mankind”–(Gita 4:1).
The Swami says: “One billion, nine hundred and
sixty millions and some hundred thousand years have passed since the creation
of the world and the revelation of the Vedas.” (LOT, p. 267).
Since the Vedas is as old as the creation of the
earth, it stands to reason that humans were also present this nearly two
billion years ago, for if there were no people there would be no need for the
Vedas.
Assuming God created one thousand couples–to take a conser-vative
amount from the Swami’s “hundreds and thousands of men” that “were born”–and
that each couple has a life-span of sixty years, and that each couple and each
successive couple pro-duces seven children (compared to ten enjoined by
Hinduism, explained later), there would be more than six billion people in the
world today. (The scholars of mathematics, using exponen-tial calculation,
would be able to give us a fairly accurate number of people that would be on
the earth).
Even if we take one couple as being on the
earth for this nearly two billion years, and using the same figures (a
life-span of sixty years, and that each couple and each successive couple
produces seven children) there would be more than six billion people in the
world today.
While the earth may be billions of years
old, it is not necessary that God created man soon after the creation of the
world. It may have taken millions of years for the earth to cool and become
habitable–for the creation of vegetation and other forms of animal life.
Karma/Reincarnation: The claim that
the Vedic religion is the only religion for “enlightened” mankind and that
karma and reincarnation are truths is a baseless claim. No one seems to know
the origin for these doctrines: "The
origin and the development of the belief in the transmigration of souls are very
obscure…This doctrine of samsara (reincarnation) is attributed to
the sage Uddalaka Aruni, who is said to have learned it from a Ksatriya chief.
In the same text, the doctrine of karma (works)…also occurs for the
first time, attributed to Yajnavalkya. Both doctrines appear to have been new
and strange ones, circulating among small groups of ascetics who were disinclined
to make them public.” (Ency. Brit; 15th Ed; Vol.
8, p. 911. Underlines added)
And Anoop Chandola states: “Through contact, the Aryans
and non-Aryans began to modify and integrate each other’s path-ways. In the
context of religion, for example, the Austro-Asiatics may have contributed the
belief in each life passing to another life. This belief later, in the form of
reincarnation, became a major element in the Upanishads.” (The Way To
True Worship, p. 8).
If karma and reincarnation were Divine
bequeath it could not be speculated to have been “contributed” by the
“Austro-Asiatics.” Neither would the ascetics be "disinclined to make them
public."
In believing that his suffering is the
result of his actions in a past life, man “is thus induced to reconcile himself
to social cruelty, exploitation and oppression,” wrote V.M. Tarkunde. (Radical
Humanism, p. 69).
It is incredible that only Africans and
Hindus and Bangladeshis seem to have the worst karma, considering that
these are the nations/people that suffers the most of famine, flood, and
poverty; even though they engage in little or no war or aggression or
oppression or exploitation of others; and are probably more religious.
If suffering is the result of bad karma, no
attempt should be made to alleviate the miserable conditions of the sufferers
and the poor–those who try to improve the lot of the poor and the suffering
would be working against karma. If their conditions can be improved, karma is
meaningless–seeing that it can be subverted/defeated. If karma can be annulled,
man can change the natural law of God. If man can change the natural law of
God, man would be greater than God. But man could never be greater than God.
Also the need for higher education would be
pointless. (Perhaps lower caste Hindus should be schooled to see how many are
poor or illiterate because of karma).
Karma and reincarnation are
cardinal doctrines of the Hindu faith. And, as they delineate between heaven
and hell cardinal doctrines are to be clearly expressed: they are not to be
left to the function of interpretation.
Jawaharlal Nehru points out in his book The
Discovery Of India: “The early Vedic Aryans ….paid little attention to the
soul. In a vague way they believed in some kind of existence after death.” (p.
79).
If these Vedic Aryans were followers of the Vedas
they could not have in a “vague way” believed in “some kind” of existence after
death if the Vedas expressly taught the doctrines of karma and reincarnation.
It is incredible that God
would give man an “eternal” path to follow without a clearly charted map.
Swami Dayananda states: “If you refuse to
believe in the pre-existence of the soul, how do you think it to be consistent
with the justice of God to bless some with riches, power, and talent, etc.,
while afflict others with poverty, suffering, idiocy and the like without their
having done anything–good or evil–in their previous lives to deserve
them?”–(LOT, pp. 296-297).
If people are given wealth and poverty
because of karma then the souls that are given wealth should not become poor;
and the souls that are given poverty should not become wealthy; as sometimes
happen in society.
The atheists who are born with power,
wealth, and talent, it is rather strange that God “bless” with these them when
they do not believe in Him. The drug dealers and the pimps, if God “bless”
these persons they should not be criminalized. And if the vic-tim(s) of a
sadist suffers because of deeds in a past life, the sadist is not to be
prosecuted. And the masochist who punishes himself must have punished himself
in a past life.
If karma is the law of God, and if people
are born wealthy or poor according to this law of God, and since the wealthy
can be reduced to penury and the poor can be elevated to affluence, this shows
that karma can be compromised. If this natural law of God –karma– can be
annulled it would mean that man can change the natural law of God. If man can
change the natural law of God man would be greater than God. But man is not
greater than God. Therefore, either karma is a myth, or God is. But God is not
a myth.
If souls come from previous births, and as
there are more births than deaths–the number of people on earth has increased
to more than six billion and it is expected to double again sometime in the
future–where do these extra souls come from? If God keeps on making souls (on a
daily basis?) to accommodate these new bodies, He could not be said to be
Omniscient, not knowing how many souls He will be sending to earth. And if He
has already made all the souls that He would send to earth, how many souls did
He make? And with cloning in vogue, from where do all these souls (for the
clones) come?
The Swami says “When sin predominates over virtue
in a man, his soul goes into the bodies of lower animals and the like when
virtue predominates over sin in a soul, it is born as a good and learned
person. When sin and virtue are equal, the soul is born as an ordinary
man”–(LOT, p. 299).
But it is rather strange that these souls
whose “virtue predomi-nates over sin” and become “learned” are
non-Hindus–consider-ing that Christians (of America) are the intellectual
giants in mat-ters of science, technology, and medicine etc; and that Muslims
were the rulers of the world in the early part of our era; even the atheists
(of the USSR) were way ahead of the Vedic souls. One would expect that God
would have reincarnated such virtuous souls into the bodies of Hindus–the
believers in His Veda(s).
How is it that God reincarnates those souls
that are deserving of human bodies into atheists? If He does so unknowing that
they would become atheists, He is not Omniscient.
Hindus are also divided as to whether man is
reincarnated into various kingdoms or as one type of creature only:
“The Vedas explain that the soul… may inhabit any of
8,400,000 general species of material bodies. …begin-ning with the primitive
microbes and amoebas, continu-ing on through the aquatic, plant, insect,
reptile, bird, and animal species, and culminating in human beings and
demigods.” (The Higher Taste, pub. International Society for Krishna
Consciousness, pp. 38, 39).
But the sage, Uddalaka Aruni, is said to
have taught his son: “Whatever these creatures are here, whether a lion, or a
wolf, or a boar, or a worm, or a midge, or a gnat, or a mosquito, that
they become again and again.” (Meaning that they do not reincarnate
into other kinds of animals). (Lin Yutang, Wisdom of India, p. 30.
Italics/emphasis added).
Hindus are also divided over the method of
one freeing himself from this cycle of deaths and rebirths known as Moksa:
“The methods by which release is sought after and attained differ from school
to school”–(Ency. Brit. Vol. VI, 15th Edn; p. 972).
If karma and reincarnation were clearly expressed
doctrines in the Veda(s), it would be expected that the method of attaining Moksa
should not “differ from school to school.” It should be the same.
Swami Dayananda notes from the teaching of
Hinduism: “Should a wife out of her family pride desert her husband and
misconduct herself, let the king condemn her to be devoured by dogs before all
men and women” and “Similarly should a hus-band forsake his wife and misconduct
himself with other women, let the king cause that sinner to be burnt alive
publicly on a red hot iron-bed.” (LOT, p.199).
And The International Society for
Krishna Consciousness states in its book The Higher Taste (p. 38) that
“the law of karma ….operates impartially and unerringly, awarding us
exactly what we deserve.”
Since karma is “awarding us exactly what we
deserve” such a wife and husband (as in the above discussion) should not be
subjected to human punishments, seeing that their actions were dictated by
karma–they, in a past life had done the same things to each other for karma to
now have the roles reversed.
Since karma is “awarding us exactly what we
deserve,” there is no need for the Vedas. As we would not be able to circumvent
karma.
(Incidentally, it is more barbaric to slaughter
animals for food than to feed women to “dogs”?)
If God gives man sub-human bodies as
punishment in judgment, man is keeping Him busy with his cloning, grafting of
new plants, and crossbreeding of new animals for Him to assign errant souls
into.
The forest fires that ravage North America
and elsewhere, the souls that inhabit this multitude of trees, were their terms
of kar-mic reaction expired for them to be razed or did they suffer pre-mature
death?
Karma–law of action and equal reaction–is for science.
Along with his right to retaliate, man is endowed with reason and to be
merciful and forgiving. The God Who gives to all human action an equal and
opposite reaction is devoid of mercy: there is no room in Him for forgiveness.
If karma/reincarnation were Divine truths, trying to improve the conditions of
the unfortunate–which is the “reaction” to their bad karma–would be to work
against karma; if such works are successful man would have subverted
karma. Whereas in earlier times India’s “intellectual inquiry and
philosophical development” was “comparable” to the Greeks, as V.M. Tarkunde
notes:
“By the 8th century A.D., however, the school of thought which
came to prevail in the country was the other-worldly Vedant philosophy. It
regarded physical exist-ence to be an illusion, the human body to be the
prison-house of the soul, and escape from the cycle of births and deaths to be
the highest human ideal. Self-denial, abstinence, celibacy, desirelessness and
meditation be-came the highest virtues. The best spirits being thus
pre-occupied in other-worldly pursuits, the rest of the society came easily
under the domination of ambitious princes and self-seeking priests. The theory of
Karma, which says that our sufferings in the present life are the result of the
sins committed by us in our previous lives, recon-ciled the poor to their
miserable lot and consolidated the prevailing caste system and the barbaric
custom of un-touchability.” (Radical Humanism, pp. 10-11).
Abdul Haque Vidyarthi has pointed out in his
monumental work Muhammad in World Scriptures, Vol. 1 (p. 6): “No
scripture of any religion was to be found in its original form and pristine
purity at the time of the Holy Prophet’s (Mohammad) advent, nor is one found
today. Such books, therefore, cannot prove the truth of religion.”
The religion that cannot prove the “pristine
purity” of its text and the clear basis for the articles of its faith could not
be the religion for “enlightened” mankind.
On page 690 of his book, the Swami quotes the
Qur’an which says that for Muslims there will be Paradise “under whose shades
shall rivers flow: decked shall they be therein with bracelets of gold, and
green robes of silk and rich brocade shall they wear, reclining them therein on
thrones. Blissful the reward! and a pleasant couch!”–(Qur’an 18:31).
The Swami has given this verse a literal meaning,
ignoring or ignorant of the fact that Allāh, God says “So no soul knows what
refreshment of the eyes is hidden for them: a reward for what they did”–(Qur’an
32:17). The Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said: Allāh says, I have
prepared for My righteous servants that which no eye has seen and no ear has
heard, and which the heart of man cannot conceive–(Bokhari Vol.’s 4:467;
6:302-303; 9:589)
Man can relate to things only in the physical
life. To us the ultimate in possessions are gold and precious stones, wealth
and carnal pleasure. So Allah relates to us in terms of what we understand.
These descriptions of paradise are to let us know that we will receive in
paradise the ultimate in bliss. This reward is not a lure for us to do good and
to avoid evil, but rather the fruits of our own labor that we have toiled for
in this life.
To the above noted verse the Swami comments:
“Indeed! What a fine place is the paradise described in the Qoran! It has
gardens, ornaments, clothes, cushions, pillows for affording pleasure to those
who live therein. A wise man will, on reflection, find that the Mohammedan
paradise excels in nothing except injustice which lies in the fact that the
soul will have infinite enjoyment or infinite suffering for actions which are
finite. Besides, infinite happiness will appear to them infinite misery, even
as if a person goes on eating sweet things for a long time, they begin to taste
like poison to him. Therefore, the belief that the soul is reborn after having
received the bliss of salvation till the Grand Dissolution (of the universe)
alone constitutes the true doctrine.” (Meaning that belief in karma and
reincarnation is the true belief).
There is no infinite suffering in Hell, as
noted in “HELL.” If the Muslim Paradise has ornate furnishings for its
righteous, what does the Hindu heaven has for those who attain the heavenly
planets–those who are freed through moksa? (Dealt with later).
If the luxuries of paradise will become
“infinite misery” what will constant deaths and rebirths become when one is
returned as worms to feast on sewage and on decayed corpses –human and animals;
as cockroaches to be reviled and smashed; as maggots and as flies to feed on
sores and wounds; as cats, dogs, and swine and vultures to live in filth, to
feed on filth, to forage in sewer and to scavenge on carcasses? Such living
could hardly be blissful for the human soul.
Let the “wise man” and woman reflect which of the
two he/she would have–the ignominious rebirth of (the mythical) karma and
reincarnation, or Paradise’s “infinite misery” of gardens and delight?
The Bhagavad Gita speaks of hell–(Bhagavad-Gita
As It Is, 1:43; 16:16, 21. See p. 193). The Rig Veda also speaks of hell:
“They who are full of sin,
untrue, unfaithful,
they have engendered this abysmal
station.”
(“This abysmal station:
that is, says Sayana,
narakasthanam or hell. The
wicked are the cause of the existence of the place of punishment prepared for
them”).
(IV. V. 5, note # 5. Vol. 1, pp.
427, 428)
“The friends have sung in
unison, the prudent wish
to sacrifice: Down sink the
unintelligent.”
(“Down sink: narake,
into hell, says Sayana.)”
(IX. LXIV. 21, note # 21, Vol. 2,
pp. 338, 339).
If man is punished by being reduced to
taking births in lower forms–animals, birds, insects, etc –according to his
deeds, there is no need for hell– a “place of punishment.” If there was no hell
in Hinduism, it is doubtful that reference would be made to it. To have hell
and karma/reincarnation seems to be a contradiction.
Caste: The Rig Veda (I. VII. 9. Vol. 1, p. 10) says, “Indra who rules with single
sway men, riches, and the fivefold race, Of those who dwell upon the earth.”
There is a difference of opinion as to the
identity of the “five-fold race” spoken of in the verse. Whether it is the
whole world or the five “Aryan settlements or tribes only” or the four castes.
“But there were no such distinctions of caste when the hymn was composed.”
–(Griffith).
However, such caste designation could have
been revealed/ composed at a later date. As Griffith noted, the above Hymn was
“composed.” By who was it composed? If it was human composition, this would
seem to negate the claim that the Veda (or at least part of it) is Divine
Revelation. According to Britannica (noted further on), hymns were
composed by “bard-priest”, of which the best of these “poems” were compiled
into “an anthology called Rgveda.”
According to the Bhagavad Gita man is born
into either of four castes: “Brahmans, ksatriyas, vaisyas and sudras are
distinguish-ed by the qualities born of their own natures in accordance with
the material modes”–(Bhagavad Gita, As It Is, 18:41-44).
Whereas Brahmans and ksatriyas are
considered the higher of the two castes, women, vaisyas, and sudras are said to
be of the lower castes or “lower births”: Krishna says:
“those
who take shelter in Me, though they be
of lower
birth–women, vaisyas [merchants]
and sudras
[workers]–
can attain the
supreme destination.”
(Bhagavad Gita As It
Is, 9:32)
The Rig Veda also says that man
is born into castes:
“When
they divided Purusa how
many portions did
they make?
What do they call
his mouth, his arms?
What do they call
his thighs and feet?
The Brahman was his
mouth,
of both his arms was the
Rajanya made.
His thighs became
the Vaisya,
from his feet the
Sudra
was produced.”
(X. XC. 11-12. Vol.
2, p. 559):
It is true that a person can increase
intellectually or regress regardless of the mental status of his/her parents.
If these division of castes were one of merit and not of class, women could not
be categorized as being of “lower birth,” as the Gita teaches.
Islam teaches that man is born a Muslim –i.e.
in the nature to serve Allāh God– with the potential to rise to the highest or
to degrade himself to the lowest; and judges man only by his belief in Allah
God and his deeds.
God/Veda: The difference in Hindu beliefs in the matter of God is
markedly pronounced where Krishna is revered in the Bhagavad Gita. However, The
Gita, “Being opposed to the Veda, it cannot
be held to be an authority. … Krishna could never be God,” states the Swami–(LOT, p. 219).
But the worshippers of Krishna could
use the counter argument to the effect that the Veda being “opposed” to the
Gita, “it can-not be held to be an authority.” Even though the Veda is
said to be more than 1.9 billion years old, age is no guarantee of know-ledge
or authenticity.
Again, part of Hinduism teaches that
God (Vishnu) incarnates Himself as man and beast. In answer to the question,
“Does God incarnate or not?” The Swami states: “No; because it is said in the
Yajur Veda, “He is unborn.” He…is never born and never takes on a human form.””
LOT, p. 219).
The religion of such a contrasting
view of its Godhead cannot be the religion of “enlightened” mankind.
The Swami wrote: “Had He (God) revealed the Veda
in the language of some particular country, He would have been partial to
that country, because it would have been easier for the people of that country
to learn and teach the Veda than for the foreign-ers, therefore, it is
that He did it in Sanskrit that belongs to no country, and is the mother
of all other languages.”(LOT, p. 237).
(One would expect that God would want his message
to be easy for people to learn and understand; and to teach it to others, since
it is for all man, as is claimed. Incidentally, how many Hindus are there who
know the Veda from memory? There are thousands of Muslims who know the Qur’an
from memory).
Compare the Vedas being
revealed in a language that no one knows to Allāh, God, giving revelations to
all people in their own language, so that their messengers “might explain to
them clearly”–(Qur’an 14:4).
The Swami notes (and it is worthwhile to
point out that the following first two statements are not those of the Veda,
but of the Shatpatha Brahman, XI, 4, 2, 3; and Manu 1,–23, respect-ively): “In
the beginning, God revealed the four Vedas, Rig, Yajur, Sama and
Atharva, to Agni, Vayu, A’ditya and Angira, respectively.”
That “Brahma learnt the four Vedas” from these four men who
“Among all men those four alone were purest in heart.” And that the age of the
Vedas, since it was revealed is “One billion, nine hundred and sixty millions
and some hundred thousand years.” (LOT, pp. 236; 237; 267, respectively).
(If the Rig Veda is of pristine purity it could not have
been revealed to Agni, or to Agni only, when it is said that the Rig Veda
consists of hymns composed by “bard-priest.” Details further on).
Here we have a God, Brahma, who is said to
be the Creator, learning books from men. Also if these men (Gods?) had taught
the Veda to men, there should not be difference in beliefs in Hinduism’s
cardinal doctrine of reincarnation –as to whether
beings return as different creatures or as the same type of creature again and
again. Neither should there be a difference in beliefs as to whether God
incarnates Himself or not.
Secondly, here we have a book almost two
billion years old, transmitted orally –papyrus came
into use only around 3500 BC; and paper was not invented till about 105 AD in
China– and in a language that belongs to no one. Is there any wonder it
is not in its “pristine purity”?
If God revealed the Veda only to the Hindus
(of India), this itself shows that God was “partial” to India/Hindus; for
people would have to go to India to learn Sanskrit. (It is yet to be known that
Swamis went to Arabia or Palestine or Zimbabwe or Russia or Chile to teach the
natives Sanskrit).
The Rig Veda says: “Agni thou madest
heaven to thunder for mankind: thou, yet more pious, for pious Pururavas.”–(I.
XXXI. 4. Vol. 1, p. 43). The explanation to this verse says that Puru-ravas
is the “son of Budha. He is said to have instituted the three sacrificial
fires. Agni, to reward him, sent thunder the forerunner of rain.” –Griffith.
If this Pururavas is the son of the famous
religious personality, Buddha, the Veda could not have been revealed nearly two
billion years ago, because Buddha’s term was from 563BC–483BC–his son was not
in “the beginning”: Pururavas could not have been at the beginning, when
his father existed around 563BC–483BC. Either this Budha of the Vedic verse is
not the famous Buddhist, Buddha, or the Veda is not all Divine Revela-tion: not
of “pristine purity.”
If thunder came only because of Pururavas,
around 563BC–483BC, this would mean that there was no thunder in “the
beginning”: for at least one billion years.
Interestingly, the Swami claims that God
revealed the Vedas to four individuals in a language that was not the mother
tongue of any. But Anoop Chandola says: “The Indo-European people who began to
enter the Indian subcontinent,” their “language, rich in oral literature, was
called Sanskrit,” and that “the Aryan priests collected the oral verse in a
book known as the Rig Veda. Each of the ten volumes, probably completed
over several hundred years,” and that, “Three more Vedas were added: Yajur
Veda, Sama Veda, and Atharva Veda. The Vedas are called shrutis;
that is, they were heard as heard by others through oral transmission.”–(The
Way To True Worship, pp. 7, 9).
If the Rig Veda was revealed by God, and God had
stated clearly in the Rig Veda that He revealed the Rig Veda, as well as the
other three Vedas, to these four men–Agni, Vayu, A’ditya and Angira,
respectively–it is doubtful that it could be said that the Rig Veda was
“collected” from the “oral literature” of the “Indo-European people who began
to enter the Indian subcontinent.” And that “Three more Vedas were added: Yajur
Veda, Sama Veda, and Atharva Veda.”
The Swami quotes the Rig Veda (I, 164, 39)
as saying, “they alone enjoy eternal bliss who study the Vedas,
live a righteous life, become perfect yogis and realize God.” (LOT, p.
72).
Contrastingly, the Qur’an teaches that
Allāh, God, gave guidance to all nations: thus people, men and women, of all
nations who follow their respective prophet will achieve “eternal bliss.”
If the Veda(s) is the only Divine Book,
there must be a God other than the God of Hinduism/Vedism, because the Qur’an
has information which no man could have known.
The Swami says, “God has names in all the three
genders;” and that God has “millions” of names–(pp. 14, 17, resp.)
(In Islam Allāh, God, is known by one hundred
names; and only in masculine gender).
In support of the claim that Hinduism/Vedism
teaches only Monotheism, the Swami notes: “The word Devata is
erroneously translated into god by the orthodox Pandits and European
scholars.” Generally anything or anyone, including God, who gives enlightenment
is said to be a devata. (p. 203, footnote).
However, Jawaharlal Nehru says (about the
Vedas) “Gradually the conception of God grows: there are the Olympian type of
gods, and then monotheism, and later, rather mixed with it, the conception of
monism.” And that “There is in the Mahabharata the polytheism of the
Vedas, the monism of the Upanishads, and deisms, and dualisms, and
monotheism.”
(Please note the words: “polytheism of the Vedas”
which is italicized and emphasized).
Britannica notes:
“An important aspect of Aryan religious life was the bard-priest who
composed hymns in praise of gods, to be sung or chanted at sacrifices. …By
about 1000 BC this body of chanted poetry had apparently grown to unmanageable
proportions, and the best of the poems were formed into an anthology called
Rgveda, which was then canonized.–(15th Edn; Vol. 17, p. 151).
In contrast to the Swami’s claim, there are
several statements of the Rig Veda that speak of Polytheism–Gods and Goddesses:
“The two Invokers I
invite, the wise,
divine and sweet of tongue,
To celebrate this our sacrifice.
Ila, Sarasvati, Mahi,
three Goddesses who bring
delight”
(I. XIII. 8-9. Vol. 1, p. 17).
(It “seems uncertain” who these
two Invokers are, “whether Agni and Aditya, or Agni and Varuna, or Varuna
and Aditya”–(Note # 8).
(Agni, Aditya and Varuna are names of God, but these “two Invokers”
are objects. If Saraswati is the feminine name of God, she could not be a
Goddess–names are not objects. “Delight” could not be brought by three
Goddesses, when it is claimed that there is only One God).
“Indrani, Varunani, and
Agnayi hither I invite”
(I. XXII. 12. Vol. 1. p. 28)
(The note says: “Indrani, Varunani
and Agnayi: are respectively the consorts of Indra, Varuna, and
Agni”).
(If God is One with “millions” of names only, it would seem that each
name, or at least some, has its own consort. Why would God, being Omnipotent,
Omniscient, and Omnipresent need a consort?)
“Glory to Gods, the mighty
and the lesser,
glory to Gods the younger and the
elder!
Let us, if we have power, pay the
Gods worship:
no better prayer than this, ye
Gods, acknowledge.”
(I. XXVII. 13. Vol. 1, p. 38).
(The note to this verse says: These distinctions of
greater and lesser, older and younger Gods, or as we should say, angels, are
nowhere further explained. Sunahsepa, it is said, by the advice of Agni,
worships the Visvedevas or the Universal Gods. The Visvedevas, as a separate
troop or class of Gods, are ten in number, especially worshipped at funeral
obsequies, and moreover, according to the laws of Manu, entitled to daily
offerings).”
“Agni whom daily Varuna
and Mitra the
Gods bring thrice a day to this
our worship.”
(III. IV. 2. Vol. 1, p. 341)
(If Agni Varuna and Mitra are the
names only of the One God, Varuna and Mitra cannot bring Agni, when Agni is
only a name).
“May Bharati with all her
Sisters,
Ila accordant with the Gods,
with mortals Agni,
Sarasvati with all her kindred
Rivers,
….Three Goddesses….”
(III. IV. 8; Vol. 1, p. 341).
(The note to this verse says: “Bharati, Ila, and
Sarasvati are Goddesses presiding over different department of religious
worship. See I.13.9”).
(If there is one God, why the need for Goddesses to preside over
different department of worship? Again, if Saraswati is only a feminine name of
God, how could she be a Goddess–names are not objects).
“So Agni, kindled mid this adoration,
invite thou Mitra, Varuna, and
Indra.”
(VII. XCIII. 7. Vol. 2, p. 97)
(If there was One God and these others were names only of God, Agni
could not be asked to invite Mitra, Varuna, and Indra–names are not objects).
“O Gods, ….
And thee too, O great Aditi,
thee also, Goddess, I address,
(VIII. LVI. 9-10. Vol. 2, p.
225).
(Clearly, this prayer is not
addressed to One God).
(There are legions of verses that speak of “Gods” and “Immortals.” While
some may be taken to be angels, it is not reasonable that people should call
humans and angels “Gods,” and when only the One God can give
provisions).
If the four personages–Agni, Vayu, A’ditya and Angira–to
whom God is said to have revealed the four Vedas nearly two billion years ago
had explained the Vedas clearly to Hindus, it is doubtful that there would have
been, among the Hindus, “as many as sixty-three confusing schools of philosophy
at the time of Buddha (563-483 B.C.),” in which karma and reincarnation
likely were among the topics of discussion:
“The Sankhya philosophers believed that the world consists of two
principles, souls and the material world, the Prakriti, or Nature, while
the Vedanta philosophers believed in one all-comprising unity. Out of such
debates in the forest grew these books.”
“…the final consummation of Vedic philosophy is to be found in Bhagavad-Gita,
written perhaps two centuries later, when an ardent devotion to a personal
God took the place of these barren speculations. According to Buddhist records,
there were as many as sixty-three confusing schools of philosophy at the time
of Buddha (563-483 B.C.), which explained Buddha’s revolt at their futile
reasonings and ritualism.” (Lin Yutang, Wisdom of India, pp. 24, 25).
Jawaharlal Nehru wrote in his The Discovery of
India:
“The early Vedic Aryans ….paid little attention to the soul. In a vague way
they believed in some kind of existence after death. Gradually the conception
of God grows: there are the Olympian type of gods, and then monotheism, and
later, rather mixed with it, the concepttion of monism.”
That “foreign elements” brought their
customs into India. And:
“Many of these customs were unlike those of the Aryans,
and so a curious mixture of opposing ideas and customs is observable….Gradually
the absorption of the earlier indigenous elements as well as of newcomers was
taking place, and the Vedic religion was being modified accordingly. It
was beginning to take that all-inclusive form which led to modern Hinduism.”(pp.
79, 106-107, resp. Italics/emphasis, added).
The Vedic religion cannot be the religion for “enlightened” mankind
when Hindus are worshipping “gramadevatas,” Shiva, Vishnu or
Kali.
The Vedic religion cannot be the religion for “enlightened” mankind
when the Hindu God, Vishnu, was “a minor solar deity in the Rgveda,
who later became one of the most important and popular divinities of Hinduism”,
as noted by Britannica. It is doubtful that “enlightened” mankind would
accept that God increases in stature or status.
Whether the Vedas is two years old or two
billion years old is of no consequence. It is not the antiquity of the Vedas
that is of importance, but its source and doctrines.
The above entry is enough to show that the claim that Hinduism/Vedism is
the religion for “enlightened” mankind is a myth.
Unlike Hinduism which cannot show the clear basis of its Articles of
Faith–karma and reincarnation and pure Monotheism–Islam can show the
clear basis of its Arti-cles of Faith–Monotheism, Prayer, Charity, Fasting, and
Hajj–and even clear expressions for the Resurrection and Day of Judgment and
Paradise and Hell.
*
Let us examine the
Swami’s criticism of the Qur’an. The Qur’anic translation noted are
entries by the Swami, which “translation was rendered into Bhasha
and transcribed in Devanagari character”–(LOT, p. 649). As the numbering system
of the Bhasha’s translation differs with Muhammad Ali’s, for ease of
identification for those who may wish to check these quotes, I have replaced
the verse numbers of this Bhasha’s translation to that of
Muhammad Ali’s translation. I would suggest that readers consult Muhammad Ali’s
translation, as there are discrepancies in certain words of the Bhasha
translation. Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an can be viewed online: www.muslim.org
The Swami’s material is cumbersome; as such
not all of his comments are repeated; the responses given should be clear
enough to give an indication of the Swami’s comments. For example, in item # 5,
the Swami quotes Qur’an chapter 2:1-6
“There is no
doubt in this book; it is a direction to the pious
who believed in the
mysteries of faith, who observe the appointed times of prayer,
and distribute alms
out of what we have bestowed on them;
and who believed in
that revelation, which hath been sent down unto thee,
and that which hath
been sent down unto the prophets before thee,
and have firm
assurance in the life to come: these are directed by their Lord and
they shall prosper.
As for the unbelievers it will be equal to
them whether thou admonish
them, or do not admonish them;
they will not
believe–God hath seeled up their hearts and their hearing;
a dimness covereth
their sight and they shall suffer a grievous punishment”
To which the Swami comments: “Is it not
arrogance on the part of God to praise His own book? The revelation of the
Qoran is of no use, since the pious are already treading the right path without
extrinsic aid, while the wicked are not directed by it. Does God provide (the
Mohammedans) with the necessary cash to defray all their expenses out of His
own treasury without any exertion on their part or paying heed to their merits
and demerits? If He does, why does He not do the same for all, and why do the Mohammedans
then work at all? If it is permissible to have faith also in the Bible, why do
not the Mohammedans believe in that book in the same way as they do in the
Qoran? But if they do, where is then the necessity for the Qoran to be
revealed? If it be argued that the Qoran is more comprehensive than the Bible,
it might be asked if God had forgotten to write anything in the latter book. If
He had not, it was useless for Him to reveal the Qoran. Besides we find that
the Bible and the Qoran differ so little, in other words, they are at one with
each other in most things, it is, therefore, reasonable to ask why the
revelation was not sent down (once for all) in one (complete) book such as the Veda?
Should one believe in the last day alone?
Are the Christians and the Mohammedans alone directed by the Lord? Are there no
sinners among them? Should even the unrighteous among the Mohammedans and the
Christians prosper, but not even the righteous among others? Does it not show
want of justice and equity in God? Is it not an exparte decree to call
those, who do not profess to believe in the Islam, Infidels? If God hath
sealed their hearts and their hearing and this leads them to commit sin, they
are not to blame. The fault lies at the door of God Himself. This being the
case, why should some suffer while others enjoy happiness?
Thus the human soul cannot be held
responsible for its sinful or virtuous deeds since it cannot be said to be a
free agent.” (LOT, pp. 653-654).
Allah
praising His own Book: Allāh, God did not “praise His own book.” Since
man’s knowledge in physical things is limited, and in unknown things is
negative, Allāh, being the Omniscient is assuring man that whatever He has
revealed in His Qur’an is the truth “There is no doubt” in it! Those who accept
His Words and practices His commands of prayer, charity, etc, are on the path
of righteousness and success, and believe in the rewards of the next life.
Those who are dedicated to disbelief,
would not respond to the doctrines of the Qur’an, and thus cannot benefit from
the preaching of the Prophet.
Allah providing cash: As explained,
Allah God created the heavens and the earth and all for the use of man. These
fruits can only be reaped through the acquisition of knowledge and striving.
The religionist(s) who sit in his shrine will not have, but the atheist who
tends the field and the flocks will have. Muslims who are fortunate are
required to share their fortune with the poor and the needy.
The Infidel: As noted, Islam accepts
that all Divinely inspired religions have righteous people. Followers of their
respective prophets will receive bliss; whereas the wicked will suffer. Islam
is not only belief in the Hereafter. Islam is of both belief and practice.
Since a disbeliever is a person who does not
share the belief of another person; anyone outside a person’s circle of belief
can be called a disbeliever, e.g. to a Christian the Muslims and Hindus etc,
are the disbelievers; to the Hindus the Muslims and Christians etc, are the
disbelievers.
In fact Hinduism also refers to others as
“infidel.” The Swami quotes Manu as saying, “He
is an infidel who is a reviler and
disbeliever of the Veda.”–(LOT, p. 78).
Allāh sealing the hearts and hearings.
Since Allāh has created all men sinless, and instructed us to be upright in
religion, and, equally important, that there is no altering his creation and
has given man a free choice, He cannot be said to have created some men with
sealed hearts and ears and eyes.
This sealing of the faculties, as noted in
the verse, are expressly, the faculties of those who are heedless of the call
of the Prophet. They are the ones who are the cause of their faculties being
sealed. Much as a covetous person increases in enviousness at the increasing
wealth of his neighbor, the stubbornness of the sinners increases at the
continuing preaching of the Prophet, and the increasing success of Islam.
Elsewhere it is said, “…they have hearts wherewith
they understand not, and they have eyes wherewith they see not, and they have
ears wherewith they hear not. They are as cattle; nay they are more astray.
They are the heedless ones”–(Qur’an 7:179). (They are more astray than cattle
because they have the capacity to reason and do not utilize it).
A parent having grown tired of trying to
reform a wayward child leaves the child to wander in his own way. The child has
sealed his ears to his parent’s words. He has set up a barrier between himself
and parent. The cause of the sinner’s faculties being sealed is due to their
continued rejection of the Prophet. The more they are called to Allah, the more
obstinate they become. The more Islam triumphs the greater their hatred
becomes. They have sealed themselves out from Divine light.
Why do we need the Qur’an?: Allah God gave instructions to all nations, to suit their needs at the
time, much like parents instructing growing children until that child reaches
maturity. It is not uncommon for the Qur’an and the Bible, as well as other
Divine revelations, to have similar teachings, since they are from the same one
God. But as noted, revelations previous to the Qur’an, suffers from want of
“pristine purity.” The Qur’an, through which God’s guidance to man is
completed, much like that child reaching maturity, highlights the false
doctrines –such as polytheism, independent existence of the soul and matter,
karma and reincarnation, divinity of humans, inherited sin, vicarious
atonement– and gives guidance to all mankind until the Day of Judgment, in
matters of moral, social, intellectual, and spiritual development. (Creation of
the soul is dealt with later).
1. “In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.”
This is the formula at the beginning of the chapters (except the ninth) of the
Qur’an.
The Swami, after speculating as to the
true meaning of this verse, states: “If (the Mohammedan) God be merciful, why
has He sanctioned that men should inflict great suffering on other creatures by
killing them for their food,” and “He should have also advised men to begin
only good deeds in His name and not evil ones. Thus the passage (under
discussion) is quite ambigu-ous;” “The Mohammedan God can never be called
Merciful, be-cause He shows no mercy towards those animals (whose slaughter He
sanctions”).–(LOT, p. 651).
(The Veda also sanctions the killing of animals. As
well as the Ramayana. Rama and Laksmana are said to have killed many animals.
Goats are sacrificed on a daily basis to the goddess, Kali. Are/were these
animals not inflicted with great suffering? Or is killing of animals allowed
only in Hinduism?)
As noted above, Swami Dayananda notes from
the teaching of Hinduism that a wife who “out of her family pride desert her
husband and misconduct herself, let the king condemn her to be devoured by dogs
before all men and women.”(LOT, p.199).
So it is not allowed to kill cows for food
but it is allowed to feed women to “dogs.”
When Muslims slaughter we offer the prayer
“In the name of Allah! Allah is great!” –we do not pray “In the name of Allah,
the Beneficent, the Merciful” at the time of slaughtering. Mus-lims who offer
such a prayer at the time of slaughter is in error.
Allāh, God, tells us that we Muslims “are
best nation raised up for men: you enjoin good and forbid evil and you believe
in Allah”–(Qur’an 3:109). In order to retain this lofty status we must practice
what we preach. We are to do good so as to enjoin good, and are to avoid evil
so as to forbid evil. Allāh also tells us that all things from Him are good.
In the prayer, “In the name of Allah
the Beneficent, the Merciful” Muslims are reminding ourselves that Allah is our
Benefactor and that He is always open to mercy. And since Allah is good and all
things from Him are good, and He has instructed us to do good and to avoid
evil, the Muslim who utters this prayer with such consciousness would not
commit an evil act. He is instantly reminded that He is committing an act in
the name of Allāh, God. This act must not be an evil one. In effect this
prayer: “In the name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful” assists us to do
good and avoid evil.
Contrary to what is being propagated there
is no vegetarianism in Hinduism; Hinduism sanctions the killing and eating of
animals. Sheldon I. Pollock in The Ramayana of
Valmiki, Vol. II, notes that Rama and his brother, Laksmana
“killed four large animals–a boar, an antelope, a gazelle, and a great
black buck. They were famished and took meat hurriedly.” “Proceeding two miles
further, the bro-thers Rama and Laksmana killed many animals such as are pure
to consume and ate them in a grove by the Yamuna.”(pp. 183, 190).
About Rama eating meat, C. Rajagopalachari wrote in his Ramayana:
“Some good men are troubled by this. But meat was not prohibited for
Kshatriyas. Indeed, it has always been the rule in India to permit any
food legitimately obtained and consecra-ted as a sacrifice. Raama was a
Kshatriya and he lived in the forest in the Kshatriya way, though
abstemiously.” (p. 90. Italics added).
(Rama may not have killed and eaten animals, seeing
that the Ramayana is “mythology,” as Rajagopalachari says. It does, however,
establish that killing and eating of animals is permissible in Hinduism; if it
was not, the sage(s) who wrote the Ramayana would not have attri-buted such
acts to Rama).
Jawaharlal Nehru
wrote, “The eating of beef, previously countenanced, is later absolutely
prohibited. In the Mahabharata there are references to beef or veal being
offered to honoured guests.” (The Discovery of India, p.108). (This
prohibition may have been instituted by Buddha).
The Gita (3:14): “Rains are produced
by performance of yajna [sacrifice]…”
“Lord Buddha is the incarnation of Krsna…Although there are certain
restrictive rules and regulations regard-ing animal sacrifice for particular
purposes in the Vedas, people of demonic tendency still took to animal
sacrifice without reference to the Vedic principles. Lord Buddha appeared to
stop this nonsense and to establish the Vedic principles of
nonviolence.”–(Swami Prabhupada, Bhaga-vad-Gita As It Is (4:7).
(Seems that Buddha only put an end to sacrifices that were “without reference
to the Vedic principles.” It is unlikely that Buddha would criticize or
prohibit any ordinance of God.)
Swami Prabhupada, commenting on the Bhagavad
Gita As It Is 18:3, states:
“Although animal killing in a sacrifice is recommended in the Vedic
literature, the animal is not considered to be killed. The sacrifice is to give
a new life to the animal. Sometimes the animal is given a new animal life after
being killed in the sacrifice, and sometimes the animal is promoted immediately
to the human form of life.” (In which event the Muslims
annual sacrifice of Eid-ul-Adha might be doing a tremendous good to millions of
souls trapped in animal forms by freeing them “immediately to the human form of
life.”
In some parts of India “The gramadevatas
(village deities) continue to be propitiated with animal sacrifices as a
way of warding off and removing epidemics, crop failures, and other natural
disasters.”–(Ency. Brit. 15th edn; art. gramadevata,
Vol. IV, p. 667).
And goats are “sacrificed” to the goddess
Kali “daily.” And “to avert cattle epidemics a bull is sacrificed to Rudra”
(who is Shiva in another form) (Hamlyn, Man and his Gods, p. 180).
And whereas Swami Dayananda states,
“Horse-sacrifice and cow-sacrifice not being enjoined by the Vedas…..”–(LOT.
p. 141), the Rig Veda mentions horse sacrifice–Ashwamedh yajna:
“We
will, with Indra and all Gods to aid us,
bring these existing
worlds into subjection.
Our sacrifice, our
bodies, and our offspring,
let Indra form
together with Adityas.
With the Adityas,
with the band of Maruts,
may Indra be
Protector of our bodies.”
(X. CLVII. 1-3. Vol.
2, p. 645)
According to the note, the above three verses “were
recited at the Asvamedha or Horse Sacrifice.”
The Rig Veda, I. CLXII. 1-22. Vol. 1, pp.
227-230 speaks of Horse Sacrifice. (Notes in brackets under applicable verses
are the comments of Griffith):
2. “What time they bear before the Courser, covered
with trappings and with wealth, the grasped oblation,
The dappled goat
goeth straightforward, bleating,
to the place
dear to Indra and to Pusan.
(Grasped
oblation: the offering that is to be made for the horse, and which had been
taken from the remains of the burnt-offering made the night before.
The dappled goat: this goat is to be tied to the horse at the sacrificial post. Pusan
here is said by Sayana to stand for Agni).
3. Dear to all
Gods, this goat, the share of Pusan, is first
led forward with the
vigorous Courser,
While Tvastar sends
him forward with the Charger,
acceptable for sacrifice, to glory.
4. When thrice the men lead round the Steed,
in order,
who goeth to the Gods as
meet oblation,
The goat precedeth him,
the share of Pusan, and to the
Gods the sacrifice
announceth.
(Who goeth to the
Gods: the object of the sacrifice is to send the horse to the Gods that he
may obtain wealth and other bless-ings for his sacrificers).
9. What part of the Steed’s flesh the fly
hath eaten, or is
left sticking
to the post or hatchet,
Or to the slayer’s
hands and nails adhereth,–among the
Gods, too, may all
this be with thee.
10. Food undigested steaming from his belly,
and any
odour of raw
flesh remaining,
This
let the immolators set in order and dress the
sacrifice with perfect cooking.
12. They who observing that the Horse is
ready call out
and say, the
smell is good; remove it;
And, craving
meat, await the distribution,–may their
approving
help promote our labour.
13. The trial-fork of the flesh-cooking
cauldron, the
vessels out
of which the broth is sprinkled,
The
warming pots, the covers of the dishes, hooks,
carving-boards,–all these attend the Charger.
18. The
four-and-thirty ribs of the swift Charger, kin to
the Gods, the
slayer’s hatchet pierces.
Cut ye
with skill, so that the parts be flawless, and
piece
by piece declaring them dissect them.
19. Of Tvastar’s Charger there is one
dissector,–this is
the custom–
two there are who guide him.
Such of his limbs
as I divide in order, all these, amid
the balls, in
fire I offer.
20. Let not thy dear soul burn thee as thou
comest, let
not the
hatchet linger in thy body.
Let not a
greedy clumsy immolator, missing the
joints,
mangle thy limbs unduly.
21. No, here thou diest not, thou art not
injured:
by easy paths
unto the Gods thou goest.
Both bays,
both spotted mares are now thy
fellows, and
to the ass’s pole is yoked the Charger.
(Both Bays: thou art now
associated in heaven with the two bay horses of Indra, the two spotted mares of
the Maruts, and the ass that draws the chariot of the Asvins).
22. May this Steed bring us all-sustaining
riches, wealth
in good kine,
good horses, manly offspring.
Freedom from
sin may Aditi vouchsafe us: the Steed
with our
oblations gain us lordship!” ~~~
(Notably, verse 21 above says that in this sacrifice, the horse is “not
injured.” And as recalled, the Swami says: “If (the Mohammedan) God be
merciful, why has He sanctioned that men should inflict great suffering on
other creatures by killing them for food,” and “The Mohammedan God can never be
called Merciful, because He shows no mercy towards those animals (whose
slaughter He sanctions”). So when Hindus kill animals they are “not injured,”
but when Muslims kill animals they are?
If the Muslim God “can never be called Merciful” because He
allows the killing of animals for food, what is the Hindu God to be called for
allowing the killing of animals (horses) so Hindus can receive “all-sustaining
riches, wealth in good kine, good horses, manly off-spring;” and even “Freedom
from sin” and the gaining of “lordship”?)
Regarding this horse sacrifice. The Ramayana
by C. Rajagopalachari, records Rama as saying to Guha: “I must not touch
dishes daintily cooked and served. We have to live only on fruits, roots and
permissible kinds of meat such as we offer in the sacrificial fire.”–(p. 88).
What is this “permissible kinds of
meat” that Rama spoke of that is offered in the “sacrificial fire”? Is it the
meat of the sacrificial horse?
Regarding cow-sacrifice, the Rig Veda–(X.
LXXVI. 13-14. Vol. 2, p. 548) says:
“Wealthy
Vrsakapayi….
Indra will eat thy bulls,
thy
dear oblation that
effecteth much.
Supreme is Indra
over all.
Fifteen in number,
then, for
me a score of
bullocks they prepare,
and I devour the fat
thereof:
they fill my belly
full with food. …”
(The note to verse 14 says: “Indra speaks. Fifteen:
sacrificers; probably Vrsakapi and his wife, and their sons and
daughters-in-law. Sayana explains differently: –‘The worshippers dress for me
fifteen (and) twenty bulls.’–Wilson.”). One explanation
of the verse could not be–‘The worshippers dress for me fifteen (and) twenty
bulls’ if there were no bull/cow sacrifice in
Hinduism/Vedism.
Again, the Rig Veda–(X. CLV. 5. Vol. 2, p.
644) says:
“These men have led about the cow,
have duly carried
Agni round,
And raised their glory
to the Gods.
Who will attack them
with success?”
And the note says about These men mentioned
in the verse: “According to Sayana, the Visvedevas are meant, who have brought
back the stolen cattle. But the reference is probably to the sacrifice which
the priests are performing.”
Whichever view is correct, it is obvious that cow-sacrifice is/was a
practice of Hinduism. If it was not it could not have been opined, in this
verse where cows are mentioned, that sacrifice of the priests may be meant.
As already noted, Jawaharlal Nehru states:
“The eating of beef, previously countenanced, is later absolutely prohibited.
In the Mahabharata there are references to beef or veal being offered to
honoured guests.”
Further. The Rig Veda says about the
Maruts, (who Mr. Griffith notes that according to Wilson), are “deified
mortals” (Vol. 1. p. 104 note # 3). And the Rig Veda says of these Maruts:
“Held in your manly arms……
Deer-skins are on
their shoulders….”
(I. CLXVI. 10. Vol.
1, p. 245)
It is strange that these “deified
mortals” of Hinduism/Vedism would be adorned with deer-skins if the killing of
animals were forbidden by God.
Again:
“Her tooth a deer, dressed
in an eagle’s
feather,
bound
with cow-hide, launched forth,
She flieth onward,”
(VI.
LXXV. 11. Vol. 1, p. 693).
(This verse is describing an arrow, the point being
“made of a piece of a deer’s horn attached to the shaft with leather strings.”
–Griffith).
Unless this deer was killed, it would be
cruel to cut off its horn. How did they acquire this “cow-hide” to strap the
“deer’s horn” onto the arrow, if the cow was not killed? Surely, it would be an
abomination to skin the cow alive. If it is illegal to kill cows, it must be,
through a point of reason, also illegal to make use of its dead parts. To use
its dead parts would be condoning others killing it.
(Swami Dayananda wrote: “It is true that in eating and drinking out of the
hands of flesh-eaters and wine-drinkers, such as the Mahomedans and the
Christians, there is some danger of even the Aryas–followers of the Veda–
contracting these evil habits, e.g., eating flesh and drinking
intoxicants.”(LOT, p. 320).
There may be few, if any, vegetarian products
produced by Muslims on the International market. But since Christians are both
“flesh-eaters and wine-drinkers,” perhaps a survey can be conducted to
determine how many vegetarians/Hindus began “eating flesh and drinking
intoxicants” after eating and drinking the milk and pop and juices, yogurt,
cheese, peanut butter, butter, various crackers and bread, and other products
produced by Christians). (See VEGETARIANISM).
2. “Praise be to
God, the Lord of all creatures, the Compassion-ate, the Merciful” (Qur’an
1:1-2.) (LOT, p. 652).
The verse that says to “Put Infidels to
swords,” is used here out of context. (This subject has been dealt with
elsewhere).
That the Qur’an says to kill the
Unbelievers, is a statement applicable only during the time of battle. Even
then Muslims are urged to take prisoners and to set them free–(Qur’an 47:4);
and more importantly, to make peace with the enemies when they desire peace: “And
if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it”–(Qur’an 8:61).
Allāh, God, commands also that fighting is
allowed against those who fight against you and on behalf of the weak –(Qur’an
2:190; 4:75; 22:39); until there is no persecution, and religion is only for
Allah –(Qur'an 2:193; 8:39); to free the captives –(Qur’an 47:4 ); to teach and
protect the idolaters –(Qur’an 9:6); that there is no compulsion in religion
–(Qur’an 2:256; 109:1-6); and that “The truth is from your Lord, so let him who
please believe, and let him who please disbelieve” –(Qur’an 18:29); as this
verse shows, disbelievers cannot be killed when they are free to “disbelieve.”
That Muslims are to “slay the unbelievers
wheresoever ye find them”–this refers only to those who fight against the
Muslims–(Qur’an 2:191).
Allāh is Just and Merciful. Surely, the Swami must know
that punishment is a benefit to people. As he himself declared: “The infliction of a heavy punishment on one man prevents
others from committing similar crimes, and tends to keep them steadfast in
righteousness.” –(LOT, p. 200). And that “Justice and mercy differ
only in name. The object served by justice is the same as accomplished by mercy.
Now the object of inflicting punishment through justice is to prevent
people from committing crimes and thereby enable them to be freed from pain and
misery. What is the object of mercy but to rid people of misery?” (LOT,
p. 207).
There is none who had more right than Mohammad to
inflict this “heavy punishment” onto the idolaters for their persecuting,
attempted assassination, exiling, and fighting him to prevent the Message of
Allāh God, from being heard.
Bear in mind, Mohammad did not force
the Message, only preach it. Whether one accepts it or rejects it, it is not
Mohammad’s concern.
Allāh, God, does show mercy to sinners. He
implores us in loving, compassionate terms, as He revealed to the Prophet
Mo-hammad: Say: O My servants who have sinned against their souls, despair not
of the mercy of Allah, surely Allah forgives all sins. Verily, He is Most
Forgiving, Ever Merciful”–(Qur’an 39: 53. Also 12:87; 15:56).
It is the nature of Allah to be merciful–(Qur’an
6:12, 54). His mercy encompasses all things–(Qur’an 7:56; 40:7). Allah is so
Just and Merciful that He enjoins on us in Qur’an 16:126-128:
“And if you take
your turn,
then punish with the
like
of that with which
you were afflicted.
But if you show
patience,
it is certainly best
for the patient.”
“And be patient and
thy patience is not
but by (the help of)
Allah, and grieve not
for them, nor be in
distress for what they plan.”
“Surely Allah is
with those who keep their duty
and those who do
good (to others)”
Hinduism also teaches the eradication of
enemies. The Swami quotes the Yajur Veda as saying: “O
ye learned men! ….and rid the world of its enemies”–(Yajur Veda, IX, 40.)(LOT,
p. 163).
And the Rig Veda says: “O Agni…Destroy the cursing Raksasas…”–(IV. IV. 15. Vol.
1, p. 426).
Interestingly, the Swami quotes Qur’an 2:58
(out of context), where Allāh says: “And say forgiveness; and we will pardon
you your sins, give an increase to the doers of good.” And he (the Swami)
states “Why should one fear sin when he is given the
promise of redemption?….God can never do injustice, but if He pardons the
sinners, He renders Himself unjust” (LOT, p. 661).
Yet –regarding “The Aryas are still treading
“the wicked path of the despicable low Duryodhana, the destroyer of his
race and the enemy of his country– the Swami himself prays: “May God through His mercy rid us, Aryas, of this
dreadful disease.” (LOT, p. 321).
And the Rig Veda says: “What sin
we have at any time committed against the Gods, our friend, our house’s
chieftain, Thereof may this our hymn be expiation.” (I. CLXXXV. 8. Vol. 1, p.
264)
Not only does the Hindu God(s) also forgive
sins, but Hindus also, just as Muslims, can make offerings for the “expiation”
of sins.
But how can the Hindu God(s) have
mercy/grant forgiveness when Hindus are subjected to the dictates of karma,
which cannot be changed –awarding us exactly
what we deserve?
Regarding this forgiveness of sins. After
the Grand Dissolution of the universe, do the souls that were reincarnated as
sub-humans return as humans in the new Creation, or do they return as what they
were before the Grand Dissolution, so as to complete their term as sub-humans?
If they return as humans, their sins would have
been forgiven, which would make God “unjust,” according to the Swami. If they
are returned as sub-humans to complete their term, they would have to “remain
in custody” for billions of years (the period of Emancipation) to pass without
getting to serve their time and be free sooner, which would make God to have
done a “wrong,” according to the Swami.
3. “The King of the
day of judgment. Thee only do we worship and of Thee do we beg assistance.
Direct thou us on the right path”–(Qur’an 1:3, 4-5).
The Swami comments: “Does not God
always administer justice If He administers justice only on one particular day,
He does wrong….Is the right path that of the Mohammedans alone and not of
others?….If good is the same in all religions, the Mohammedan religion can have
no superiority over others. If the Mohammedans do not believe that other
religions are just as good as their own, they are prejudiced.” (LOT, p.
652).
As the Swami and his followers believe that
Hinduism/Vedism is better than other religion(s), by the Swami’s own reasoning
he and his followers “are prejudiced” against other religions. If “good is the
same in all religions,” Hinduism/Vedism “can have no superiority over others.”
That Islam is superior to all other
religions has already been proven–there are no Divinely revealed doctrines as
karma, reincarnation, Trinity, Divine sonship, God Incarnate, chosen people to
the exclusion of others, inherited sin, and vicarious atonement; these
doctrines are assumed and propagated as Divine truth. Even the Hindu Holy Books
are not of pristine purity:
“the Vedas grew from one into four, and then from four to as many as 1131,
there is a verse in Maha Bhashya which explains that there are one hundred and
one shoots of Yajurveda, one thousand of Samaveda, twenty-one kinds of Rigveda
and nine of Atharvaveda”. (A.H. Vidyarthi, Muhammad in World Scriptures,
Vol. 1, p. 315). (See ISLAM. QUR’AN. HINDUISM.
CHRISTIANITY. JUDAISM).
This, however, does not mean that
Islam/Muslims “are prejudiced.” As Allāh, God, gave guidance to all people, and
as all religions are for Him, Islam/Muslims cannot be “prejudiced” against
anyone, Hindu or other. The followers of other prophets of God were
also on the “right path.”
Allāh is not “King” of the Day of the
Judgment. He is “Master” of the Day of Judgment; as Muhammad Ali has explained,
“a master is more than a king,” “which shows that Allah is not guilty of
injustice if He forgives His servants, because He is not a mere king or a mere
judge, but more properly a Master.” The adoption of “King as the
translation of the word Malik” is “not correct.”
Considering that every second of every day
people are dying world-wide, it makes sense for Allāh, God, to have one day on
which to give Judgment.
Allāh has given man respite till an appointed
term, when he will be called to account for his actions. That some people, such
as the opponents of the Prophet and criminals, are punished through defeat and
magistracy does not mean that they should not be subjected to eventual judgment
and punishment. This earthly punishment is only to put an end to their aggression.
The second punishment is for violating the law of Allāh, God. This latter
punishment would be in proportion to their violation of this law of God.
One does not have to believe in Allāh to
know that causing harm to others is wrong. All sins are committed against God,
whether one believes in Him or not–by transgressing His commands, such as evil
plots though the victim may have es-caped the plot, hypocrisy, and illicit
relations even though of mutual consent–and committed against another–such as
murder, theft, bodily injury, aggression. So if a person is punished in this
life for the latter sin, he still has to account for the former, i.e. violating
the commands of Allāh, God. If he is not punished in this life for sin(s)
against another, he has to account for both on the Day of Judgment.
If God reincarnates the soul immediately
upon the death of one creature, with all the people and other creatures dying
every minute world-wide God must be busy portioning off and directing souls
into the wombs of fowls and ducks and geese and other birds, into sheep and
goats and pigs and dogs and cats and cows and other animals, into the eggs of
fish and turtles and insects and flies etc; and into humans, and into
trees. Such a belief cannot be the religion of
“enlightened” mankind.
(A Brahmachari is a person who is under the
vow of celibacy, which may be for a period of 24, 44, or 48 years, as the Swami
explains). The Swami opines that “it is a Brahmachari alone,
who attains to success in worldly affairs, enjoys perfect sensuous pleasures
and spiritual happiness.”–(LOT, p. 42)
Muslims are not only allowed multiple wives
but are avid meat-eaters who were ruling the world a mere hundred years after
the revelation of the Qur’an. Likewise there are/were many Christians and other
non-Hindus, who are not Brahmacharis, who “attains to success in worldly
affairs, enjoys perfect sensu-ous pleasures and spiritual happiness.” Perhaps,
there are/were many Hindus also who were not Brahmacharis that have
at-tained “success in worldly affairs, enjoys perfect sensuous pleasures and
spiritual happiness.”
“He that remains a Brahmachari, till he is
48 years of age…by virtue of this highest kind of Brahmacharya acquires
perfect knowledge, perfect physical strength” (etc); and “enjoys the full span
of life which is 400 years,” writes the Swami.–(LOT, p. 42).
Now, since the revelation of the Vedas
nearly two billion years ago how many Brahmacharis have lived to be 400
years?
Wouldn’t one say that Einstein, who
was Jewish, had “perfect knowledge, perfect physical strength”? (Apologies if
Einstein was a “Brahmachari”).
4. “The path of
those to whom Thou hast been gracious, not of those against whom Thou art
incensed, nor of those who go astray.” (Qur’an 1: 6-7). (LOT, pp. 652-653).
(One does not have to have sins in a previous life to seek
forgiveness. We have sins in our present life for which to seek forgiveness).
Those “against whom Thou art incensed”
are the Jews who had incurred the wrath of Allah, by breaking their covenant,
disbelieving in His messages and killing prophets; and the Christians are the
ones who have gone astray by imputing divinity to Jesus; and that Muslims are
praying to be kept free from these in-fractions. As Muhammad Ali has noted that
the Prophet Mohammad is reported as saying: “Those upon whom wrath is brought
down are the Jews and those who went astray are the Christians”–(Tirmidhi
44:2).
Incidentally, Hindus, as the Rig Veda
teaches, are to pray:
“O Gods, who fain would lend your aid,
destroy
us not as ye destroy
Your
enemies who go astray.
And thee too, O
great Aditi, thee also,
Goddess, I address,
Thee very gracious
to assist.
Save us in depth and
shallow from the foe,
thou Mother of
Strong Sons:
Let no one of our
seed be harmed.”
(VIII. LVI. 9-11.
Vol. 2, p. 225
Italics/emphasis
added).
So how is it that Hindus are allowed to pray
for the grace of God and Muslims are not allowed to pray for His
grace? Isn’t the Hindu God “open to the charge of being partial by
showing favour to some and disfavour to others inasmuch as it is quite unjust
to bestow happiness on men or subject them to pain and suffering without paying
any regard to their merits and demerits.”
6. “There is an
infirmity in their hearts and God hath increased that infirmity.”–(Qur’an 2:9).
The Swami questions: “Well! did God increase their infirmity, while they were
innocent? (LOT, p. 654)
When read in its context, this verse
shows that the disbelievers believed they were deceiving Allah and Muslims by
feigning belief in Allah. Allah is saying that they only deceive them-selves.
The more Islam became successful the greater their effort against Truth became.
Thus, by their own action this “disease” to deceive was increased by
themselves, (much as the example of the increasing of the enviousness of the
covetous person given above.)
As noted above every person is born sinless
and with a choice to act justly or corruptly. Allāh, God, is good, gives
guidance, and is Ever-Forgiving!
7. “Who hath
spread the earth as a bed for you and the heaven as a covering”–(Qur’an 2:22).
“Well!” says the Swami, “Can the heaven be a covering for anything? Now does it
not show ignorance (of the author of the Qoran)? It is absurd to believe in the
sky being a covering. If the Mohammedans believe some kind of planet to be the
heaven, it can only be the work of their own imagination.”–(LOT, pp. 654-655).
But as Muhammad Ali explains: “The heaven is
here called a structure in reference to the order which prevails in
heavenly bodies. But bina is also used to signify the roof or the
ceiling of a house, and as such is used figuratively to indicate the
vast blue overhead. Attention is thus drawn to the oneness of humanity, as if
it were a single family living in one resting-place under one roof.”
Malik Ghulam Farid notes “that just as a
building or a roof is a means of protection for those living in or under it,
similarly the remoter parts of the universe serve as a protection for our
planet (earth); and those who have studied the science of the stars, the clouds
and other atmospheric phenomena, know how the other heavenly bodies, running
their courses through the boundless ex-panse rising high above the earth on all
sides, make for its safety and stability. It is also hinted here that the
perfection of the material world depends upon the coordination between earthly
and heavenly forces.”
8. In Qur’an
2:21-22, Allāh has challenged the doubters to produce a chapter like that of
the Qur’an. And that the fuel of the fire of Hell would be men and stones. To
which the Swami asserts: “Well! Is it impossible to produce a chapter like unto
it? Did not Maulvi Faizi in the time of king Akbar compile a Qoran without
making use of any dotted letters in it?” (LOT, p. 655)
If compiling a Qur’an “without making use
of any dotted letters in it” was the same as producing a chapter like that of
the Qur’an, there are probably thousands, if not millions, of Christians of
both Arab and non-Arab descent who are eager to belie the Qur’an as the Word of
Allāh, God, and would already have produced the Qur’an. And long before Maulvi
Faizi.
Regarding men and stones being the fuel of
the fire of Hell. Stones here may signify the leaders, who are generally the
more hardened against a cause and men would be the followers of these
leaders.
As mentioned already, Islam teaches that
there are righteous people of all religions. Those who disbelieved their
prophets –be it Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, or any of the other prophets that Allah
God raised up for man–are the ones who will be sent to Hell. The difference
between earthly fire and the Hell-fire is that in the Hell-fire the body is not
consumed, it is not reduced to ashes. (Hell has various shades of meaning, see
HELL).
No comments:
Post a Comment