PART THREE
RESPONSE
TO
SWAMI DAYANANDA SARASWATI
“LIGHT OF TRUTH”
(Satyarth Prakash)
. “Seest thou not that all creatures both in the heavens
and on the earth adore God? The sun, and the moon, and the stars, the mountains
and the trees, and the beasts, and many men?”(Qur’an 22:18).
The Swami wrote: “When it is clear that
inanimate objects cannot even know God, how can they then worship Him? This
book cannot be of Divine origin. It seems to have been written by some ignorant
man.” (LOT, p. 693).
But the Rig Veda–(I. CLXVI. 4. Vol. 1, p.
244) says of the Maruts: “Ye who with mighty
powers have stirred the regions up…..All creatures of the earth, all dwellings
are afraid….”
How can “all dwellings” being
“inanimate objects cannot even know God, how can they then” be “afraid”?
How can mountains “prostrate
themselves”, as the note to the above Hymn says: “…it
is related of Agastya that the Vindhyan mountains prostrated themselves before
him; and yet the same Agastya is believed to be the regent of the star Canopus.”–Griffith.
Worship of Allāh, God, means to follow His
laws, either voluntarily as in the case of man who is equipped with reason to
differentiate between evil and good, or involuntary, as in the case of animals
and inanimate objects–animals who follow the in-stinct inherent in their
creation, and inanimate objects, through the laws of conformation such as the
moon and sun floating in their respective orbits and hydrogen and oxygen
combining, in preset quantities, to form water.
(Allāh, God, revealing: “And
remember her who presser-ved her virginity, and into whom we breathed our
spirit.” And the Swami’s comment is dealt with in item # 49).
113. “Then shall ye be
waked up on the day of Resurrection.” (Qur’an 23: 16).
To this the Swami writes: “Will the
dead dwell in the tombs or in some other place till doom’s Day? If they dwell
in the tombs, even the virtuous souls will suffer pain on account of their
bodily tenements being foulsmelling and decomposed. This mode of meting out
justice is as bad as doing injustice. Moreover, the Mohammedan God and His
followers are guilty of the sin of spreading disease.” (LOT, p. 694).
But even today man is exhuming mass graves
without spread-ing disease or becoming infected. However, as Allah God says
that He will resurrect the dead. The dead can only be resurrected if it is
whole and is functional. Thus, there would be no decay and disease at this
Resurrection; which is unlike an exhumation. In the Hereafter man will be given
new forms–(Qur’an 56:61).
Some advanced countries have high-tech
crematoria. Conven-tional methods of cremation pollute the atmosphere–thus
contri-buting to the greenhouse effect: producing tons of ashes and carbon
dioxide (and deplete the forest). This is more pronounced during times
of disasters, such as earthquakes (as in Gujarat), flooding, etc; when large
numbers of corpses have to be disposed by burning.
Also, cremation ashes being airborne may end up in
the respiratory systems of both humans and animals; as well as in their supply
of drinking water. And with about 20,000 deaths a day in India.
One great advantage of burying is that the
body can be exhumed in the future, for forensic evidence. This has proven
beneficial.
114. Allāh, God, tells
us that on the Day of Judgment our limbs also will give evidence as to our
earthly actions; and that He is the light of the heavens and the earth.–(Qur’an
24:24, 35).
To which the Swami states: “The hands
and feet being inanimate cannot give evidence. The second statement being
opposed to Laws of Nature is false. Is God fire or electricity? The
illustration given in the Qoran cannot apply to God. Such illustrations can
only apply to embodied objects.”(LOT, p. 694).
But even here on earth our hands and feet
and (bodily fluids) are giving evidence as to our actions–fingerprints and
footprints, eye-scanning, DNA. How much more advanced is Allah God’s method of
extracting evidence.
Allah God is the light. As Muhammad Ali
explains: “Nur (light) is that which manifests hidden things, and
Allah is called here the light of the heavens and the earth, because He
has manifested them and brought them into existence.”
115. “And God hath
created every animal of water. Some go on upon the belly.”–(Qur’an 24:45).
“What kind of philosophy is this that
the creatures in the composition of whose body all elements have entered are
said to have been generated from water alone. This is a foolish statement” the
Swami says. (LOT, p. 694).
But Allah God did not say that every animal
was created from water “alone.” It is a fact that the basis of all living
things is water.
119. “O Moses! verily
I am God, Mighty, the Wise: cast down thy rod. And when he saw it, that it
moved, as though it had been a serpent, he retreated and fled. And God said O
Moses, fear not, for my messengers are not disturbed with fear in my sight.”
(Qur’an 27: 9-10).
“Now mark! God calls Himself Mighty,
even a good man would not indulge in self-commendation, why should God do so?
He became the Lord of the savages by tempting them with a sort of jugglery”,
wrote the Swami. (LOT, p. 696).
Yet in the Rig Veda God says that He is the
“Holiest of all” and is the “most Powerful Supreme Being”–(LOT, p. 1). So it is
acceptable for the God of the Veda(s) to “indulge in self-commendation” but not
for the God of the Qur’an.
If God can create this universe, raise
animals and plants from dirt, if He can take up residence “in the womb” and
“entered the soul,” as the Swami wrote–(LOT, p. 220, 227), and as the soul is
reincarnated also as plants, surely God can transform a piece of stick into
flesh, or He could inhabit the stick as He inhabits the “womb” and the “soul”
(in the plant) and make it into a serpent.
121. “And Moses struck
him with his fist and slew him: And he said, O Lord, verily I have injured my
own soul, wherefore forgive me. So God forgave him; for He is ready to forgive,
and Merciful.”–(Qur’an 28:15-16).
“Now mark again!” the Swami says, “Are not
God and Moses the Prophet of the Mohammedans and the Christians, both unjust
because the latter killed people and God forgave him his sins.” (LOT, p. 697).
But reading this verse in its entirety
shows that Moses went to the aid of one of his people who was in a fight with
their com-mon enemy. Moses unintentionally killed the enemy. Allāh, God, is
always open to sincere repentance. This is a demonstra-tion of His mercy to
man.
122. “We hereafter
sent Noah unto his people, and he tarried among them one thousand years, save
fifty years.” (Qur’an 29:14).
The Swami wrote: “If formerly people lived
for 1,000 years, why do they not attain that age now? This statement is also
wrong.”(LOT, p.
697)
(Noah living/dwelling 950 years among his people
could have meant the time his teaching lasted till the coming of the next major
prophet of Allāh, God: Abraham).
If a Brahmachari of the “highest
kind” “enjoys the full span of life which is 400 years,” as the Swami writes,
why is it incredible that Noah, a prophet of God, could live 950 years?–(LOT,
p. 42).
If trees, such as the redwood, live
thousands of years, man, who is instilled with the spirit of the Eternal, could
have lived a thousand years. However, much as the significance is not how you
worship, but who you worship; it is not how long you live but how beneficial
you live. According to the Qur’an only Noah’s people were drowned. There was no
world deluge.
Incidentally, how many Brahmacharis
of the “highest kind” have lived to the age of “400 years”? Surely in the near
two billion years since the Veda(s) is said to have been revealed there must be
quite a few such Brahmacharis.
124. “These are the
signs of the wise book. He hath created the heavens without visible pillars to
sustain them, and hath thrown on the earth mountains firmly rooted, lest it
should move with you. Dost thou not see that the God causeth the night to
succeed the day, and causeth the day to succeed the night? Dost thou not see
that the ships run in the sea, through the favor of God, that He may show you
of His signs?”–(Qur’an 31:2, 10, 29, 31).
The Swami wrote: “How funny! That a book
like this should be regarded full of wisdom even though it teaches things
opposed to science, such as the creation of the heavens without visible pillars
to sustain them (the centrifugal and magnetic forces
are the invisible pillars that sustain them)
and the fixing of the mountains in the earth with a view to keep them
immovable (the mountains ensuring balance due to
movements and thus rendering the earth “immovable” is not to be confused with
the earth moving in orbit). Even persons who are a little bit
educated cannot write such nonsense or believe in such balderdash. Again, how
wise is the statement that the day is entangled with the night and night with
the day! Every body knows that day and night co-exist. The Qoran cannot be a
book of true knowledge, for this statement is absolutely foolish. (But for Allāh causing the earth to rotate on its axis part
of the earth would be in perpetual light and part in perpetual darkness). It
is not opposed to true knowledge to say that the ships run into the sea through
the favour of God when in reality they are propelled by machinery and by
sailors? (But who has given man knowledge to build
and sail ships?). Would not the sign of God
(a ship) sink if it was made of iron or stone? (But ships are made of
iron also!). Verily this book cannot have been written by God or by
a learned man.”(LOT, p. 699).
What these verses are saying is that it is
due to Allāh, God’s, power and mercy that man receives these favors.
125. “He governeth all
things from heaven even to the earth, hereafter they shall return unto Him, on
the day whose length shall be a thousand years, of those which ye compute. This
is He who knoweth the future and the present; the Mighty, the Mer-ciful.” (Muhammad Ali has shown this verse to be a prophecy about
the rise and decline of Islam/Muslims). And then formed him into
proper shape, and breathed of His Spirit into him; Say, The angel of death, who
is set over you, shall cause you to die…If we had pleased, we had certainly
given to every soul its direction: but the word which hath proceeded from me
must necessarily be fulfilled, when I said, verily I will fill hell with both
genii and men”–(Qur’an 32: 5, 6, 9, 11, 13).
The Swami: “Now it is quite clear that
the God of the Mohammedans is limited by space like man, for if He were
Omnipresent, it could not be said of Him that He is stationed at a particular
place for the purpose of carrying on administrative work and that he descends
and ascends. He cannot but be regarded as limited by space if He sends down
angels and Himself remains hung up in the sky, while His emissaries are sent
about on errands. How could God know it, if His angels were bribed into
perverting the facts of a case or sparing the life of a doomed person. He could
find out only if He were Omni-scient and Omnipresent, but that He is not. If He
had been so, where was the need of sending angels and testing people in any
way? (Why did God reveal the Vedas to four men only,
why did He not reveal into the hearts of every Hindu or human being?).
Again, He cannot be said to be Omnipotent, because it takes a thousand years to
arrange for the return of His emissaries (as stated
Muhammad Ali has shown this verse to be a prophecy in which after a thousand
years of success Islam/Muslims will suffer a decline). If there is
an angel of death, what is there that will bring about his death? (Allāh, God, who created him can bring about his death).
One angel cannot ask many people to repair to hell simultaneously, and if God
looks at the fun after filling hell with innocent people who have been doomed
to torture, He is unrighteous, unjust and merciless. A book teaching such
things cannot be the work of God or of a learned man, while a being devoid of
justice and mercy cannot be Divine.” (LOT, p. 699).
Angels cannot ‘pervert’: they do only as
they are commanded by Allāh, God–(Qur’an 66:6).
Since, as the Veda says, that the Hindu God
needs “spies,” this means, according to the Swami’s reasoning, the Hindu God is
not Omniscient–Him being in need of others. Neither could the Hindu God know if
His “spies”/angels “were bribed into perverting the facts.”
God testing people only means that He
brings to light their inner selves. Much like in the human sphere where the
examiner tests the student to show to him, and to manifest to society, his (the
student’s) ability. The examiner has no need to know the ability of the
student. His knowledge is above that of the examined.
If the Hindu God can daily, on a worldwide
basis, put souls into the wombs and eggs, of billions of humans, animals,
rep-tiles, birds, insects, and trees, and each to its correct destination,
surely the Muslim God can give the angel of death the power to have “many
people to repair to hell simultaneously.”
Allāh filling hell with men and jinn. What
makes the Swami believe that these men and jinn are “innocent?” And if by going
to hell they are “doomed to torture” then it is by their own heads and hearts
and hands. However, hell is not a “torture” chamber. Hell is a purifier much
like the “torture” of rehabilitation that an addict goes through to emerge a
new/cleansed person. (See HELL).
In reincarnating the corrupt soul as pigs
and cockroaches and worms, has the God of the Veda “doomed to torture” these
souls?
As karma gives to all acts an “equal and
opposite” reaction and “operates impartially and unerringly, awarding us
exactly what we deserve,” it is the God of karma Who is “devoid” of
mercy: there is no room in Him for forgiveness.
127. Qur’an 33:37
relates the story of Zaid divorcing his wife Zainab, and Zainab’s subsequent
marriage to the Prophet Mohammad.
To which the Swami comments: “It is
also clear that Moham-mad was lascivious, for if he had not been so, he would
not have taken his daughter-in-law as wife.” (LOT, p. 701).
(It is a rather weird reasoning that a “lascivious”
person would marry mostly women who are old, and with many children, when there
are camps of vestal nubiles at his command).
Zainab was not the
daughter-in-law of Mohammad. Zaid was only the adopted son of the Prophet. That
Mohammad was not the father of any man does not mean that he was not the father
of “no body”. The prophet had children. All it means is that he was not of
filial relationship with any of the men (for them to call him “father” and
that they should be addressed by him as “son”). But that he was the
Messenger of Allah to them.
(For a full treatment on Zaid and Zainab see ZAINAB SCANDAL)
The Swami also wrote: “How cruel that the
prophet was at liberty to divorce a wife whenever he chose to do so, while his
wife was deprived of the right of obtaining a divorce even if he was guilty of
misconduct.”(LOT, p. 701).
But not only was the Prophet never
guilty of “misconduct”, and not only did the Prophet never divorced any of his
wives, his wives also had the right to divorce him. This is made clear in the
verse: “O Prophet, say to thy wives: If you desire this world’s life and its
adornment, come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly
departing.”–(Qur’an 33:28).
Islam does not require that its women
be ‘immured within the four walls of the house like prisoners.” (See WOMEN)
128. “Neither is it
fit for you to give any uneasiness to the Apostle of God nor to marry his
wives, after him, for ever: for this would be a grave offence in the sight of
God. ….And they who shall injure the true believers of either sex, without
their deserving it, shall surely bear the fruit of calumny and a manifest
injustice. And being accused, wherever they are found they shall be taken, and
killed with a general slaughter, O Lord give them the double of our
punishment, and curse them with a heavy curse” –(Qur’an 33:53, 57, 61,
68).
The Swami comments: “Would not the
Mohammadans feel aggrieved if some body ordained that they should be pinioned
and killed, as, the Qoran has done in the case of non-Muslims. The Prophet was
very hard-hearted, for he prayed to God that non-Muslims should receive double
the punishment awarded to Mohammedans.”(LOT, p. 702).
There is nowhere in the Qur’an that Allāh,
God, has “or-dained” that non-Muslims be “pinioned and killed.” Muslims are
allowed to fight only a defensive fight, and when they are not the aggressors.
It cannot be said that Muslims are allowed to “injure” non-Muslims and their
wives, be it physically or verbally. Allāh, God, says that Muslims enjoin good
and forbid evil–(3:109); say only what is best–(29:46); the noblest are the
best in deeds –(49:13); to speak justly 6:152).
The reason why Muslims were not allowed to
marry the wives of the Prophet after his death–(Qur’an 33:53), is because these
wives of the Prophet were regarded as the Mothers’ of the Muslim brotherhood.
That Mohammad “prayed to God that
non-Muslims should receive double the punishment awarded to Mohammedans.” As I
have underlined above, it is not Mohammad who uttered these words. As the
preceding verse (verse 67, which the Swami did not quote) shows, they
are the words of those who were lead astray, asking God to give their leaders
double punishment for leading them astray. Here are the two verses:
“And they
say: Our Lord,
we only obeyed our
leaders and our great men,
so they led us
astray from the path.
Our Lord, give
them a double chastisement
and curse them
with a great curse.”
(Qur’an 33:67-68)
If Muslims praying for the non-Muslims to
receive double the punishment awarded to Muslims is “very hard-hearted,” how
would the Swami’s praying for death to the writers of the Bhagvat and
other Puranas be described: “Oh! Why did not the writers of Bhagvat
and other Puranas die in their mothers’ wombs or as soon as they were
born? Had the people (of India) been saved from the hands of these popes,
they would have been spared the pain and suffering that they are afflicted
with”?–(LOT, pp. 406-407).
How can the Swami wish that they had die in
their “mothers’ wombs” or “as soon as they were born” when in order for them to
be reborn as humans they would have had to have good karma in a past life? It
would seem unGodly to wish for the death of others whom God has reincarnated as
humans. Are not the “pain and suffering” afflicting the people (of India) a
result of their bad karma?
Regarding the punishment for crimes, as
Hinduism teaches, the Swami quotes Manu to let a “victorious sovereign reduce
all dacoits, robbers and the like to submission by conciliating them, by
giving them presents or by turning them against each other. If he
fails to restrain them by those means let him do so by inflicting heavy
punishment on them.”(LOT, p. 177).
It would seem an injustice to inflict “heavy
punishment” which would be in excess for the crime.
According to Hindu/Vedic teaching, a lying
witness “should have his tongue cut-off”–(LOT, p. 194). According to Manu, for
evidence given through certain reasons–such as “covetousness,” “love,” “fear,”
“hunger”– “Punishment may be inflicted, through property, the penis, the back,
the tongue, hands, feet, eyes; ears, the nose, and the whole body.” And for
“the first offence let the offender be punished by gentle admonition,
for the second by harsh reproof, for the third by a fine,
and for the fourth by corporal chastisement, such as flogging and
caning, or by imprisonment or death penalty.”(LOT, pp. 196, 197).
Thus a first time murderer could receive a
‘slap on the wrist’ only. The Swami also quotes Manu as saying: “With whatever limb a man commits an offence, even that
limb shall the king remove or destroy in order to set an example to
others…”–(LOT, p. 197).
So the person who commits a crime with
his legs, such as kicking, is dismembered; one who injures another with his
head is decapitated; and the rapist is castrated. How is the woman guilty of
seduction punished?
Manu also says, as the Swami quotes,
“punishment inflicted on a king should be a thousand times heavier than that on
an ordinary man”, and that “even the lowest official such as a constable,
should be punished not less than eight times as heavily as an ordinary man
would be.”(LOT, pp. 197, 198).
But it is an injustice to punish one
individual more severely because of his status or wealth. The Swami himself
declares that “the infliction of just punishment in exact accordance with the
amount of crime is called justice.” (LOT, p. 207).
Allāh, God, tells us that the punishment
must not exceed the degree of the crime:
“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.”
(Qur’an 16:126)
Hinduism teaches also, as the Swami quotes “Manu VII, 371. 372, 406, 419, 420” as saying: “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. Similarly
should a husband 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).
(According to Hinduism: “A woman who has been
unchaste should worship Siva in his calm aspect, Siva who is Kama. Then she should
summon a Brahmin and give herself to him, thinking, ‘This is Kama who has come
for the sake of sexual pleasure.’ And whatever the Brahmin wishes, the sensuous
woman should do. For thirteen months she should honour in this way any Brahmin
who comes to the house for the sake of sexual pleasures, and there is no
immorality in this for noble ladies or prostitutes.” “The Brahmin guest
represents Śiva/Kāma, who purifies the woman whom he seduces, for extreme
sexual licence may remove sexual stigma, just as extreme tapas
(austerity) does.” (Cited in Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, Śiva The Erotic
Ascetic, p. 256).
Manu also says, as the Swami quotes: “Let women be
witnesses for women, the twice-born for the twice-born: Shudras
for Shudras, and outcasts for outcasts.”(LOT, p. 193).
So if a crime has been committed against
these and there is none of their Class present, no one can give witness
on their behalf. If these commit a crime and there is none of their Class
present, no evidence against them will be accepted.
132. “A cup shall be
carried round unto them, filled from a unruffled fountain, for the delight of
those who drink; And near them shall lie the virgins of paradise……”–(Qur’an
43:71. The Swami has conjoined several verses on the rewards of Paradise
from chapter 43 –verses 44, 45, 48, 57, 131, 132, 133, 134, which I have been
unable to reconcile. Except for verse 44 which equates to Muhammad Ali’s
verse 71, the others may be a misquote of the chapter).
The Swami: “Well! The Mohammedans cry
that it is a sin to drink wine on this earth but in their paradise streams of
wine flow. It is good that Mohammedans have rendered some service to the cause
of temperance here, but they have been more than compensated for this
abstinence in paradise. So many women have been allotted to each man there, he
would find it difficult to fix his affections on one. (Does this mean that a man with one woman doesn’t have
difficulty fixing his affections on this one wife? There shouldn’t be any
adulterer then. You would think that a man with “many women” allotted to him
would be too occupied to fix his attention on other women). The
place must be afflicted with maladies. If the dwellers have got bodies, they
must die and if they have got no bodies, they cannot gratify their lust. What
then is the use of a paradise?”(LOT, p. 704)
Will the wine in heaven be the same as that
on earth? It is not within reason that Allah God Who has kept man away from
drunkenness on earth would allow such a habit on the spiritual plain. We have
‘alcohol free’ beer, ‘alcohol free’ wine, ‘alcohol free’ champagne. What
‘alcohol free’ will man come up with next? If man can have ‘alcohol free’ wine
on earth, consider how much purer the “wine” in Paradise would be.
The Swami also questions: “Where did these women
(of Paradise) come from? Are they dwellers of paradise or have they been
imported? If they have been imported, they will surely go back and if they
permanently dwell there, what were they doing before the day of resurrection?”(LOT,
p. 705).
These women are perhaps doing the same thing(s)
the yogis and the sanyasis who have escaped the cycle of deaths
and rebirths are doing on the heavenly planets and in Krsnaloka, till the
“Grand Dissolution (of the universe)”.
And, speaking of the horse
sacrifice, the Rig Veda says:
“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.”
(I. CLXII. 21. Vol.
1, p. 229)
And this verse is explained as:
“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.”–Griffith.
If horses can live in “heaven”
forever, and if they can be sent to live in heaven, surely women can be in
paradise forever.
It is interesting to note how the Swami has
perceived carnality in these youths and women serving in Paradise. Wonder if
the Swami, and the Hindus who share his vision, also sees carnality in the
handsome youths and alluring women servers at fancy restaurants in the human
sphere of life? Are these servers here to offer carnal gratification to the
diners?
If the Muslim Paradise is also about
sensuality, isn’t sexual relationship, even on earth, within the circle of
Divine pre-scription blissful? Where then is the harm if there should be
intimate contact between husband and wife in Paradise? And if the dwellers of
Paradise would have multiple spouses where is the harm, considering that
Hinduism allows polygamous and polyandrous relations? The famous five Pandava
brothers had a common wife, Draupadi.
However, as pointed out, not only will we be
given new forms in the Hereafter, the Qur’anic descriptions of Paradise are
figu-rative. As Allāh, God, tells in Qur'an 32:17, “And
no soul knows what delights of the eyes is kept hidden for them, as a reward
for their (good) deeds.” And as the Prophet Mohammad explained:
Allah 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. 4, #
467; Vol. 6, #:302-303; Vol. 9 # 589).
The Swami states, “Perpetual happiness
cannot reign where women are to be found.” (LOT, p. 705) (Perhaps women can
say the same of men).
But, (while there are, no doubt, wayward
women as well as men), Allāh, God, says that men and women were created
from the same essence–(Qur’an 4:1); that they are garments to the
other–(2:187); that He created her to be his mate, that he might find peace and
comfort in her, and He has put between them love and compassion –(7:189;
30:21); that He has established marriages between men and women–(Qur’an 25:54;
16:72; 24:32); that women are to be honored–(4:1); and that women and men are
protectors of one another–(9:71).
In Islam, Women are not objects of
revulsion. And what is the Hindu heaven like? (Details further on).
137. “His, the keys of
the Heavens and of the Earth! He giveth with open hand or sparingly, to whom He
will. He createth what He will, and He giveth daughters to whom He will, and
sons to whom He will. Or He giveth them children of both sexes, and He maketh
whom He will childless. It is not for man that God should speak with him, but
by vision, or from behind a veil, or He sendeth a messenger to reveal what He
will.” (Qur’an 42:12; 49-51).
The Swami states: “God must be
possessed of an inexhaustible stock of keys considering that he must unlock
each and all places. Again it argues childishness on His part to bless with
plenty and super-abundance whomsoever He pleases regardless of his merits, or
to take away the same from any without weighing his demerits. ….Mark the
extraordinary cleverness of the author of the Qoran! It is expressly designed
to captivate and entrap the females also. If the Mohammadan God can create
whatever He pleases, can He then create another God? If He cannot, are we to
understand that His Omnipotence here has come to a dead halt? And if it is God
that grants offspring unto men, who is it that grants the same unto fowls,
fishes, pigs, etc., that have a more numerous progeny? And why cannot He grant
offspring (to mortals) unless men and women cohabit? Why does He condemn some
women to a life of sterility and thereby afflict them? (This could also be
asked of the Vedic God). ….Should you argue that God is All-knowing and
All-pervading (as He really is), this assertion about Him talking from behind a
curtain and obtaining news as if it were by post would be utterly meaningless.
If He stands in need of such agencies, He could not be God. He must be rather
some shrewd piece of humanity. Hence the Qoran can never be of Divine origin.”
(LOT, pp. 708-709).
Allāh, God, does not “take away” from
any: He only withholds (from giving more). A king can give to whomsoever he
likes, regardless of their needs, without him being guilty of any partiality,
seeing that the treasure is his to do with as he pleases. Allāh, God, having
the “the keys of the heavens and of the Earth,” means that Allah has knowledge
and control of all things.
Allāh, God, creating what He
pleases–(Qur’an 42:49-50) is self explanatory: (as the verses say) He gives
daughters or sons to whom He will, or He gives both daughters and sons to some
and leaving some barren. Muhammad Ali explained: “The birth of a daughter was
looked upon by the Arabs as a calamity (see Qur’an 16:58, 59), this being due
to the low position which women (is) held in society. The wonderful change brought
about by Islam in the status of women is clearly fore-shadowed in this early
revelation, where the daughter has precedence over the son.” It is a mystery
that the Qur’an “is expressly designed to captivate and entrap females also.”
If God was to give women children without
the need to “cohabit,” there would be no family unit; there would be no need
for God to put love and compassion and desire between man woman (the lacking
of which may result in indifference between them); mothers would have to care
for and maintain children on her own (which may be a severe hardship,
especially during her pre and post-natal periods).
(Whether God can “create another God” has
been dealt with above).
Allah God “talking from behind a curtain
and obtaining news as if it were by post;” the Hindu God not only has enemies (as
noted in item # 21), He has His own His spies: “Varuna, ….His spies are seated round about. The God whom
enemies threaten not….”. (I. XXV. 13-14. Vol. 1, p. 35).
Since the Hindu God “stands in need of such
agencies (spies), He could not be God, He must be rather some shrewd piece of
humanity,” as the Swami says, hence the Veda “can never be of Divine origin.”
138. “And when Jesus
came with manifest proofs.” (Qur’an 43:63).
The Swami: “If Jesus too was sent by God,
why did He then send down the Qoran whose teaching is opposed to that of
Christ? Again, since the Biblical teaching is opposed to that of the Qoran, neither
of these is a Divine revelation.”(LOT, p. 709).
(Allah God’s reason for
sending prophets to all nations has already been dealt with). The Biblical
teachings, as revealed to Moses and Jesus, are not opposed to the Qur’anic
teaching. Moses did not teach that the Jews were God’s chosen people “to the
exclusion of other people;” and Jesus did not teach Trinity, Divine sonship (as
begetting–fatherhood–requires the joining of sperm and ovum), inherited sin,
and vicarious atonement. (This has already been dealt with).
In his writing the Swami says that the
Bhagavad Gita is “opposed to the Veda”–(LOT, p. 219). If the Biblical
teaching “being opposed” to that of the Qur’an disqualifies them as being
Divine revelation, then by the Swami’s own reasoning, the Gita being “opposed”
to the Veda, “neither of these (the Veda and Gita) is a Divine
revelation.”
140. “A picture
of the paradise which is promised to the God-fearing! Therein are rivers of
water, which corrupt not, rivers of milk whose taste changeth not: and rivers
of wine, delicious to those who quaff it.”–(Qur’an 47:15).
The Swami comments: “Can (the
Mohammedan) paradise, in which rivers of pure water, milk and clarified honey
flow, be any better than this mortal world. Rivers of milk, whose taste
changeth not, cannot exist, because it turns sour in a short time. The
enlightened people do not believe in the Mohammadan faith since it inculcates
such incredible and inhuman teachings.” (LOT, p. 710).
The Swami, as usual, has given this verse a
literal interpretation. Whereas from the very beginning the verse tells us, as
I have emphasized, that this is a “picture” (a parable) of Paradise. As stated,
the rewards of Paradise are presented in figurative expressions.
However, clearly, if God can churn the
ocean and bring nectar out of it and separates it from poison and bring forth a
horse and elephant from the nectar as the Bhagavad-Gita says–(10:27 and
explained by Swami Prabhupada), then, for sure, God can keep the rivers of milk
of Paradise from turning “sour.”
143. The Swami Quotes
Qur’an 66:1, 5: “”Why O Prophet dost thou hold that to be forbidden, which God
hath made lawful to thee, from a desire to please thy wives, since God is
lenient, and merciful. Verily God is His protector. Happily if he put you both
away, his Lord in exchange will give him wives better than you, Muslims,
believers, devoutly penitent, observant of fasting, both known of men and
virgins.”
And he comments: “If we reflect a
little on the above, we shall see that God is but a servant of Mohammad to
manage his affairs –internal as well as external! (And
don’t all devotees of God pray to Him to mange their affairs –internal as well
as external?)
Don’t Hindus pray to the God of the
Veda (as noted in item # 76) to manage their affairs–‘internal as well as
external”–to show them “where thousand spoils are gained,” to “win spoil
of cattle” to “Drive thou away our enemies,” to “make riches easy to be
won,” to “Send riches hither with thy stream in thousands, both of steeds
and kine, Send spoil of war and high renown”?
Aren’t Hindus praying to the God of the Veda to
“free us from all pain and grief, and always guide us to the path of rectitude
which leads to true happiness” and to not “destroy our young ones, nor our old
ones, foetuses, mothers, and fathers, nor those who are dear to us, nor our
relations, nor our bodies”: aren’t they praying to God for Him to manage their
affairs–‘internal as well as external”? (LOT, pp. 2, 213).
And didn’t the Swami himself prayed to
God to manage the affairs of his sect: “May God through his mercy rid us, Aryas,
of this dreadful disease;” and lamented that if Hindus had wor-shipped God
instead of stones “they would have put the barbarians, to rout and gained a victory
over them”?–(LOT, pp. 321, 391).
Why did the
Hindu God gave instructions to man if not to “manage his affairs”?
The Swami notes two stories connected with 65:1 about why the Prophet
Mohammad had forbidden himself:- his abstinence from honey and; “The second
story is that one night Mohammad was to go to a particular wife of his. She was
not there–in fact she was gone to her father’s house; Mohammad, therefore, sanctified
a female slave of his! When the wife referred to hear of this, she became angry
with the Prophet and made him swear that he would never do such a thing again.”
Which incident led to the revelation of the verse under discussion (65:1).
And the Swami comments:
“Let the wise declare if ever God acts as an arbitrator in the household
affairs of any man. (Didn’t God, Krishna, act as an
arbitrator between the Pandavas and the Duryodhanas in the Bhagavad-Gita?)
And as regards Mohammad’s character, sufficient light is thrown on it by the
afore-mentioned stories, for how can a man, who is the husband of many wives,
be either a pious man or a prophet? (How many wives
did Krishna have; he even dallied with Radha, the wife of another, and he is
revered as God. And Hinduism allows not only polygamy and polyandry but also
Niyoga –contract marri-ages–in which a
childless widow/widower can have temporary marriages with up to twelve spouses,
one after the other, for raising children; and in a marriage where the husband
is sterile or the wife suffers from a chronic disease; and also “If a man be
not able to control his passions while his wife and she is pregnant, he may
contract Niyoga with (a widow) and beget offspring on her.” LOT pp.
133-138, 140. For more on Niyoga see HINDUISM). Again, is he
not partial, and therefore, sinful who, actuated by partiality, disgraces one
wife and hon-ours another. (Mohammad never disgraced
any of his wives). And how can he, who, not being content with
many wives, co-habits with his slaves, be moral, God-fearing and pious?” (LOT,
pp. 712-713).
This alleged “female slave” that the Swami claims
Mohammad “sanctified” was Mary, the Coptic, a maid given to the Prophet by the
Leader of Egypt. And how did Mohammad “sanctify” Mary?
Allāh expressly forbids fornication and
adultery. Mary was a wife of the Prophet, not a
concubine or a “sanctified” slave. In Islam any and all carnal
relations outside of marriage is forbidden.
The verses of the Qur’an which relates to
this alleged “sexual scandal” are 66:1-5:
“O Prophet, why dost thou forbid (thyself) that
which Allah
has made lawful for thee? Seekest thou to please
thy
wives?” (1)
“Allah indeed
has sanctioned for you the expiation of
your oaths”
(2)
“And when the
Prophet confided an information to one of his
wives –but
when she informed (others) of it, and Allah
informed him
of it, he made known part of it and passed
over part.”
(3)
“If you both (‘Aisha and
Hafsa) turn to Allah… and if
you back up
one another against him, then surely Allah
is his
Patron” (4)
“Maybe, his Lord, if he
divorce you will give him in
your place
wives better than you, submissive,
faithful,
obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows,
and virgins”
(5)
Mary was a wife of Mohammad. It is hardly
credible that Mohammad would have intimate relations with Mary out of
wedlock–which would be adultery. Islam (as well as the Torah) forbids this and
the penalty for this is a hundred lashes, (and Mary, a Christian, would have
been subjected to stoning to death). As Muhammad Ali says, “It is a fact that
the Prophet never kept a slave”–(Comm. 2517).
If Mary was Mohammad’s “sanctified” wife
why then should Hafsa make such a stink if Mohammad was with Mary when Hafsa
was not home (even if it was Hafsa’s turn to be with him)? How could
this relation be of such bitterness to Hafsa for her to tell ‘Aisha, and for
Mohammad to be “ostracized” for it? How could ‘Aisha “expose” Mohammad if he
was with his “sanctified” wife? Further, Mary, as a wife of the Prophet, is
ranked equally with the other wives of the Prophet. Why then should the
Prophet’s intimate relations with her be viewed with an evil eye?
66:3 above speaks of “an information” the
Prophet had given to one of his wives. Hafsa surprising Mohammad in bed with
Mary could not be “an information” the Prophet gave to one of his wives. 66:4
speaks of the wives ‘backing up one another;’ Hafsa surprising Mohammad and
Mary could not be something that the wives were ‘backing up one another’ in.
How could ‘Aisha back up Hafsa in a matter when she (‘Aisha) was not present at
the time of the Prophet and Mary were in bed? ‘Aisha would have been found to
be a liar. What is it then that the wives were ‘backing up one another’ in
against the Prophet?
The verses quoted above (66:1-5) has nothing
to do with Mary the Coptic. Verses one and three are dealing with two separate
matters as careful reading of these verses and as the reports of the Tradition
show. Verse one recounts the Prophet’s taking oath to keep away from his wives
on account of their demands for material wants, which is in reference to Qur’an
33:28 which says: “O Prophet say to thy wives, if you desire this world’s life
and its adornments…” This verse clearly is in answer to the demands of the
wives of the Prophet for worldly glamour. And “The Holy Prophet,” as Malik
Ghulam Farid points out “had severely taken to heart his wives’ demand for
amenities of life, and in order to show his extreme displeasure had sworn to
keep away from them for one month”–(comm. 3072).
Regarding the revelation of this verse
(66:1) in which the Prophet took an oath to separate from his wives, Bokhari
notes a long narration in which ‘Umar says that ‘Aisha and Hafsa were the ones
who backed up one another against the Prophet. And that his wife told him that
his daughter, Hafsa, argues with the Prophet till he becomes displeased. Whereupon
‘Umar went to Hafsa who admitted, “we argue with him.” To which her father
advised her “Don’t be betrayed by the one who is proud of her beauty because of
the love of Allah’s Apostle (peace be on him) for her (i.e. ‘Aisha).” Soon
afterwards the Prophet separated himself temporarily from all his wives.
(Bokhari, Vol. 6, # 435).
Verse 3 (of ch. 66) which says, “And when
the Prophet con-fided an information to one of his wives –but when she informed
(others) of it, and Allah informed him of it, he made known part of it and
passed over part,” recounts the intrigue of ‘Aisha and Hafsa to tell the
Prophet, who used to drink honey at the house of Zainab, his wife, that he
smelled of maghafir, “a kind of bad-smelling resin.” To which the Prophet
promised “I shall never take it (honey) again. I have taken an oath as to that,
and you should not tell anybody about it”–(Bokhari Vol. 6, #
434).
(It is to be noted, whereas this plot to tell the
Prophet that he smelled of maghafir was hatched by ‘Aisha and Hafsa, the
Prophet confided only to ‘Aisha about this “oath” not to take
honey anymore, the words “you should not tell anybody
about it” confirms this. How-ever, it is obvious that ‘Aisha passed on this
information of the success of their scheme to Hafsa. And this is what is
referred to in verse 3 (of ch. 66) which says: “And when the Prophet confided
an information to one of his wives –but when she informed [others] of it”).
In summary, 66:1 and 66:3 recounts,
respectively, the Prophet taking oath to separate himself from his wives on
account of their demand for worldly comforts, and the intrigue of ‘Aisha and
Hafsa in the maghafir affair. Being wives of the Prophet these women
were to live simple and modest lives so as to serve as a model for the
community. Verses 4 and 5 offer them the high road of repentance, or
replacement. As Muhammad Ali says:
“The story therefore that Hafsah’s discovery of the Prophet having
conjugal relations with her (Mary) upset the Prophet to such a degree that he
swore not to have anything more to do with her is a pure invention, and the
known facts not only nullify the calumny, but brand it as another of those
fables invented by Christian writers who seek to vilify Islam”–(Qur’anic comm.
2517).
It is doubtful that a man who was himself
publicly sunk in sexual degradation could lead others to sexual purity. It is not
presumptuous to say that the three most notable passions of men are power,
wealth, and glamorous women; (and in the case of women, comfort and
pleasure). The wives of the Prophet are here told–(66:4) that if they
consider themselves as women of sophistication and above a life of simplicity
and strictures, which as wives of the Prophet they are to observe, then Allah
will replace them with wives who are devout from both categories of
women–matrons and virgins. As the Qur’an is a guidance for Muslims to be modest
and moderate, Allah has related this verse to be a red flag to Muslims of all
times, who may be tempted to put desire before duty.
(Regarding the Qur’an 33:50-51, where the
Prophet is allowed multiple wives, ‘Aisha, as already noted, may have remarked
to the Prophet that “your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires”
(which some may want to interpret to mean that ‘Aisha was doubtful of the
Prophet’s truthfulness, when in fact it could merely have been an observation
on her part)–(Bokhari Vol. 6, # 311). But ‘Aisha also eloquently said about the
Prophet that “Whoever tell you that he concealed (some of Allah’s orders), is a
liar”–(Bokhari Vol. 6. # 378). Not-ably, Allah ’hastened’ to the aid of ‘Aisha
also, when she was slandered–Qur’an 24:11-20; Bokhari Vol. 6 # 274).
145. “And the heavens
shall be rent asunder, for on that day it will be fragile”. “And the angels
shall be on its sides, and over them on that day eight shall bear up the throne
of thy Lord.” “And he who shall bear his book given to him in his right hand
shall say to friends, Take ye it, read ye my book.” But he who shall have his
book given to him in his left hand will say, “O, that the book had never been
given!”–(Qur’an 69:16, 17, 19, 25).
“Can the heaven ever be divided?” the
Swami questions. “If you call the sky above heaven, it is against the
dictum of science. There is no doubt now as to the God of the Qoran being
corporeal, since none who has not a body can sit on a throne and order it to be
borne by eight men on their shoulders. ….To place books (of their deeds) in the
right hand of the virtuous and have it read out and then send them to heaven,
while to place books (of their deeds) in the left hand of the wicked and send
them to hell, and to dispense justice with the help of books are very strange
doings for an Omniscient God! Can an All-knowing Being ever act like this? It
is mere childish prattle!” states the Swami. (LOT p. 714).
The heavens and earth are not everlasting.
People given books in right/left hand does not mean that Allāh, God, is not
Omni-scient. Allāh, God, is Omniscient. Man is not. Man needs record as
evidence of his past (actions).
About eight bearing the throne of
Allāh, God: This is an allegorical expression.
Muhammad Ali has noted that the word “eight is not
followed by any word showing who or what these eight are;” “the one thing that
should be borne in mind in interpreting such allegorical words is that the
Divine Being Himself is al-Qayyum, or the Self-Subsisting by Whom all
things subsist (2:255). This being taken as the basis, it is clear that
other things are not a support for the Divine Being, but all created things,
whether angels or any beings above angels, subsist by God.….Now there are four
attributes of the Divine Being which are spe-cially connected with the
maintenance of the world. The opening chapter of the Holy Qur’an is, as shown
in the preliminary note to that chapter, the essence of the whole of the
Qur’an, and that chapter speaks of four attributes of the Divine Being in connection
with the maintenance of al-‘alamin, i.e., the whole of the creation.
These attributes are mentioned in the names Rabb, Rahman, Raheem, and Malik,
and a reference to the notes on these four words in the opening chapter will
show that these four attributes, providence, beneficence, mercy and requital,
are really the chief attributes which bring the creation to perfection and from
which all other attributes may be inferred. These four are thus the Personal
attri-butes of the Divine Being which precede all, encompass all, make all to
attain to their goal of perfection and remain after all. Hence these are the
four hamalat al-‘arsh, or the bearers of the Throne of Power, so
far as this world is concerned.
Why are they eight on the day of Resurrection?
The other world is a complete, but at the same time a new, manifestation of the
spiritual realities of this life. Hence, there is a new manifestation of the
four attributes of the Divine Being by which the world subsists, and thus these
four attributes become eight on the day of Resurrection. To clear up any
misunderstanding I may add that, as Divine attributes are brought into action
through the agency of angels, the four or eight attributes that are considered
the bearers of the Throne of Power would also be manifested through angels, and
in this sense we may look upon the bearers of the ‘Arsh as being four or
eight angels.”–(Qur’anic comm. 2555).
147. “For He it is who
formed you by successive steps. See ye not how God has created the seven heavens
one over the other. And He has placed therein the moon as a light, and has
placed there the sun as a torch.”–(Qur’an 71:14-16).
To which the Swami argues: “If God
created the soul, it can never be eternal or immortal. How can it then live for
ever in paradise when what is created must perish? How can God place one heaven
over another, since it is formless and all-pervading. If you give the name
heaven to some thing other than Akash (ether), it would serve no useful
purpose. If heavens are placed one over the other, the sun and the moon cannot
be placed between them. If they are placed in their middle, then only those
that are immediately above and below will be in light; all others, beginning
from the second heaven will be in darkness. But such is not the case, hence all
this is wrong.”(LOT, p. 715).
Whereas the life span of
ordinary humans is about seventy years, the perfect Brahmachari’s life
span is “400 years,” as the Swami says. Allah God being the Creator and
Vanquisher of the soul, He can give it existence for as long as He pleases.
The heavens and earth are not
shielded from the other, like rooms in a building where walls may interfere
with light reach-ing the other. The light of the sun is not blocked by one orb
to the other. The sun is ninety-three million miles from the earth. The light
of the sun, because of open space, is projected onto the moon as well. However:
Whereas Allāh, God, says in Qur’an 71:15 that He “created the seven heavens one
over the other”, in Qur’an 65:12 He tells us that He “created seven heavens,
and of the earth the like thereof” (meaning seven earths as well). Muhammad
Ali has commented:
“The statement made here that there are “seven heavens and of the earth the
like thereof” throws light upon what is meant by heavens where the number seven
is men-tioned. The seven heavens are elsewhere called the seven ways
(Qur’an 23:17) and the seven earths may therefore be the seven major planets of
the solar system, the earth itself being the eighth, their orbits being spoken
of as the seven heavens or seven ways. It should, however, be borne in mind
that the heavens are often referred to without a limitation of number, and
include the whole of the starry creation. Another point worth noting is that
the mention of seven heavens does not preclude the existence of more. For the
application of the word seven and for further discussion, see note #
46”–(Qur’anic comm. 2516). (Part of note # 46 says, al-Raghib “makes the
meaning very clear when he says: “Every sama, i.e. heaven, is a
heaven in relation to what is beneath it and an earth in relation to what is
above it.””).
(Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an with text, commentary and
notes, as well as other books, can be viewed online: www.muslim.org).
149. “And
the sun and the moon shall be together.” (Qur’an 75:8). The Swami
questions: “Can the sun and the moon ever join together? Mark! What senseless
talk is this! What purpose is served by joining the sun and the moon, and why
should not all the worlds be joined together? Can these impossible statements
have ever proceeded from God? Surely they cannot be the inventions of any but
the unenlightened.” (LOT, p. 716).
This verse is a prophecy about the
Doomsday. Bashir-Ud-Din Mahmood states:
“The phenomena of Moon joining the Sun was predicted by
the Holy Qur’an in its verses 75(8-9), many centuries earlier than the
scientific speculations of to-day,” he wrote, “tidal forces keep the moon
drifting away from the Earth. Its orbit is now becoming wider at the rate of
about 3 cm a year. Eventually the Earth will not be able to hold the Moon, and
then it will fall in the Sun.” “Thus science considers the Doomsday of the
Earth as an accepted reality, though there are questions about the ways in
which it will take place.” And, “As scientific knowledge builds up with rapid
advancement in various fields, the extent of the wealth of knowledge contained
in the Qur’an is dawning upon us.” (Doomsday and Life after Death, pp.
133, 134, 113; 19).
152. “When the sun shall be folded
up. And when the stars shall fall. And when the mountains shall be set in
motion. And when the Heaven shall be stripped away.”–(Qur’an 81:1-3, 11).
“It is extremely foolish to say that the sun, which is a sphere, will be folded
up. Now how will the stars fall, and how will the mountains, which are
lifeless, be set in motion? Again, is the sky a beast that it will be stripped
away? Only the most ignorant people such as savages can talk like this,” states
the Swami. (LOT, p. 717).
These are prophetic statements about the
Doomsday. The folding up of the sun refers to the sun burning it self
out–ending up as a “black dwarf star.” The stars falling/become
dust-colored/ shall disperse: as the sun collapses, the stars “will go out
one by one.” The mountains passing away and heaven being stripped: in
its final “phase” of burning itself out, “the sun’s central temperature will
have risen steadily towards a billion degrees,” wrote Paul Davies. Thus under
this tremendous heat of “a billion degrees” the heavens will likely appear as
liquid metal –molten copper or red hide, as the Qur’an says. As the sun burns
itself out, it “will appear to fill half the sky. At that time, the oceans will
boil and any life left here will perish,” wrote James Trefil. And, as the sun
burns itself out it “may have become so dis-tended that the inner planets will
have been engulfed, the Earth’s atmosphere stripped away and the solid rocks
melted or even vaporized,” wrote Paul Davies. See the following:
Events of the Doomsday in the Qur’an:
1. Sun will fold up: (Qur’an 81:1). As the sun
burns itself out it “will swell up, turning into the sort of star that
astronomers call a red giant”; and will end up as a “black dwarf star.” (Paul
Davies, God and the New Physics, pp. 200, 201).
2. Stars will fall, become dust-colored (lose light): (Qur’an
81:2). As the sun collapses “The stars in the sky will go out one by one.”
“Almost all the stars we now see would either be so dim as to be invisible or
appear as faint points in a sea of blackness.” (James Trefil, The Dark Side
of the Universe, p. 190).
3. The heaven will look like molten copper; red hide: (Qur’an
70:6-8; 55:37, respectively). In its final “phase” of burning itself out, “the
sun’s central temperature will have risen steadily towards a billion degrees.”
(Paul Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 201).
Thus under this tremendous heat of “a billion
degrees” the heavens will likely appear as liquid metal –molten copper or red
hide, as the Qur’an says.
4. Ocean will boil: (Qur’an 81:6; 82:3) As
the sun burns itself out, it “will appear to fill half the sky. At that time,
the oceans will boil and any life left here will perish,” wrote James Trefil in
his book The Dark Side of the Universe, (p. 190).
And, as the sun burns itself out it “may have become so
distended that the inner planets will have been engulf-ed, the Earth’s
atmosphere stripped away and the solid rocks melted or even vaporized,” wrote
Paul Davies. (God and the New Physics, p. 200).
5. Sun and Moon will join together:
(Qur’an 75:8-9). “The phenomena of Moon joining the Sun was predicted by the
Holy Qur’an in its verses 75(8-9), many centuries earlier than the scientific
speculations of today,” wrote Bashir-Ud-Din Mahmood, “tidal forces keep the
moon drifting away from the Earth. Its orbit is now becoming wider at the rate
of about 3 cm a year. Eventually the Earth will not be able to hold the Moon,
and then it will fall in the Sun.”
“Thus science considers the Doomsday of the Earth
as an accepted reality, though there are questions about the ways in which it
will take place.” And, “As scientific knowledge builds up with rapid
advancement in various fields, the extent of the wealth of knowledge contained
in the Qur’an is dawning upon us.” (Doomsday and Life after Death, pp.
133, 134, 113; 19).
159. “Verily, we have
caused it to descend on the night of power. And who shall teach thee what the
night of power is? Therein descend the angels and the spirit
by permission of their Lord for every matter.”–(Qur’an 97:1-2, 4).
The Swami questions, “If the whole of
the Qoran was revealed in one night, how can the assertion that a particular
verse was revealed at a particular time be true? ….We have already said that
there is no up and down in space, but it is said that the angels
and the Holy Ghost, at the command of God, come here to manage the affairs of
this world….So far the Qoran has talked about God, the angels and the prophet,
now we have got the mention of a fourth being, named, the Holy Ghost. One does
not know what is meant by the Holy Ghost. The fourth is an addition to the
three personages believed in by the Christians, namely, God, the Son and the
Holy Ghost.”(LOT, p. 719).
Whereas there is no up and down
in space. From an earthly perspective, just as there is a rising and setting of
the sun, there is up and down as a standard of reference. As God is regarded as
the Highest, He is revered as being above us or up. And when a devotee make
supplication he either looks skyward (up) or bows his head (down), in acknowledgment
to his lowly status in relation to God’s.
It is doubtful that one who has read
the Qur’an would entertain that the whole of it was revealed in one night. The
revelation of the Qur’an began in the month of Ramadan, and continued for about
twenty-three years. The “month of Ramadan is particularly spoken of as being
the month in which the Holy Qur’an was revealed,” explains Muhammad Ali. He
also says, “the word “Qur’an” is applicable as well to a portion as to the
whole” of the Book. (Qur’anic comm. 227;
2777).
There is no mention of a “Holy Ghost” in the
above Qur’anic verse: the mention is “Spirit”–the angels and the spirit,
as em-phasized. This “Spirit” is the Angel Gabriel, who is mentioned separately
from angels–(Qur’an 2:98); and who is also referred to as Holy Spirit–(16:102);
and also as Faithful Spirit–(Qur’an 26:193). There is no “Holy Ghost” in
Islam.
As noted at the beginning of this topic, the Swami
has used verses of the Qur’an out of context, without, seemingly, any knowledge
as to background to which verses were revealed, and has given a literal
interpretation to these verses whereas verses of the Qur’an are of both literal
and allegorical meanings. The above material is sufficient, not only to refute
the Swami’s claim against the Qur’an, but to dispel the claim that the Vedic
religion is the religion for “enlightened” mankind.
The materials in the Qur’an–Prophecies and
Scientific ideas–are sufficient evidence to establish the Qur’an as the Word of
Allah God; Islam as the only religion from God; and Mohammad as the Messenger
of Allāh, God.
*
The Hindu heaven: What is the Hindu heaven like? Can the soul enjoy
everlasting happiness? The Swami wrote: “when the powers of the soul, its
instruments (such as body and bodily organs), and its means are all finite,
how could the reward extend over an infinite period? Secondly, the soul
does not possess infinite capacity,
infinite means and infinite activity to enjoy infinite bliss, how could
it then enjoy Everlasting happiness?” (LOT, p. 286). Yet the Swami
states: “The soul was never created. It
is beginningless like God” and that “God reside within the soul.” (LOT, p. 221,
226).
As the soul is “beginningless like
God,” is “infinite” and as “God reside(s) within the soul,” then the
soul does have the “infinite capacity” to enjoy “Everlasting
happiness”–it being be-ginningless and having God within.
But the Hindu souls do not have to go
to heaven to meet God; seeing that God is “all-Pervading,” is “present in the
womb,” “reside(s) within the soul” and have “entered the soul” as the Swami
wrote.–(LOT, pp. 220, 226, 27).
(According to Hinduism one Divine day is 4,
320, 000,000 years; and the period of the Grand Dissolution of the universe,
which is known as the “duration of Emancipation” of the soul, is said to be
“3,11,040,000,000,000 years”–(LOT, pp. 141, 285, respectively). Swami Dayananda
quotes the Mundak Upanishad, III, 2, 6, as saying that the soul, after enjoying
its emancipation “is again born into this world”–(p. 285). And, as noted, the
length of the soul’s “duration of Emancipation” is “3,11,040, 000,000,000
years.”
And what manner of bliss does this
emancipated soul enjoy? The Swami wrote:
“The emancipated soul roams about in the Infinite All-pervading God
as it desires, sees all nature through pure knowledge, meets other emancipated
souls, sees all the laws of nature in operation, goes about in all the
worlds visible and invisible, sees all objects that it comes across, the more
its knowledge increases the happier it feels. Being altogether pure, the soul
acquires perfect knowledge of all hidden things in the state of Emancipa-tion.
This extreme bliss alone is called Heaven (swar-ga).”(LOT p.301).
Imagine this soul –this “one ten thousandth part of the
upper portion of the hair point in size,” as Swami Prabhupada says– ‘roaming’ the
vast galaxies for some 3.11 trillion years, and meeting other souls.
So, this eternal soul, being of the
same “essence” as God, after spending perhaps one billion years (about
quarter the Divine day) dwelling in and feeding on filth, and other lowly
conditions –this soul now “roams about” freely in heaven for more than 3.11
trillion years, where it “acquires perfect knowledge of all hidden things”
(only to forget it afterwards), and eventually returns to earth to spend
another 4. 32 billion years, perhaps some as sub-humans, to again ‘roam’
in heaven for another 3.11 trillion years, receiving the same knowledge, and
forgetting. Repeating this cycle again and again and… Ad infinitum. Is
this heaven?
The Muslim Paradise consists of splendorous
Gardens with rivers flowing beneath, and of garments of silk, and beautiful
luxuriant couches, and goblets of silver and gold, and its servers with big
beautiful lustrous eyes and its youths like scattered pearls in fine green silk
and thick brocade and bracelets of silver, and its fruits of all kinds, and
fountains of abundance, and of drinks flavored with camphor and ginger, and
absolute peace of mind–let me dwell for ever in this “infinite misery,” as the
Swami so starkly portrays it.
If man should live to be a million
years it is doubtful that he would tire of a life of affluence and would deem
it “infinite misery”; when in fact his rat race in this world is, without
doubt, driven by his desire for a life of ease and luxury.
(A survey should be carried out to determine how
many individuals would prefer the Hindu heaven –roaming the heavens for 3.11
trillion years, gathering knowledge, and forgetting it–and to return to earth,
possibly as sub-humans, for some four billion years; and how many Hindus,
affluent and destitute, would prefer a life in the Hindu heaven instead of life
in the Muslim paradise, of splendorous Gardens, fine garments and fruits, and
magnificent companions).
(As noted above, the Swami quotes the Mundak Upanishad, III, 2, 6, as
saying that the soul, after enjoy-ing its emancipation “is again born into this
world.” But this teaching is not of the Vedas. If there was such
a teaching in the Vedas it is reasonable that the Swami would have used it for
his quote, rather than using the Mundak Upanishad. Also whereas the Mundak says
that the soul, after its emancipation “is again born into this world,” it is
said that “All other writers teach and all the world believes that the Emancipation
is that condition from which no soul returns to this world and
becomes subject to births and deaths.” (p. 285). However the Swami disagrees
with this view, and gave arguments to support the Mundak Upanishad. But the
Swami’s submission is irrelevant. If the Vedas were
clear on this issue it is hardly likely that there would be an opposing view).
(Italics/emphasis added).
The Swami says (LOT, pp. 408-409): “When the
verse which forms the basis of the book is meaningless, why would not the whole
book be the same?”
Likewise, as there are no clear expressions
in the Veda(s) for the doctrines of karma and reincarnation and
as there is controversy as to the emancipated soul returning to take birth
again or not and disagreement between the soul taking births in every kingdom
of life or only in its own kingdom, then according to the Swami’s reasoning,
the whole Vedic religion is “meaning-less.”
The Islamic Articles of Faith
are clearly expressed in the Qur’an.
Swami Dayananda Saraswati, “the illustrious
founder of the Arya Samaj’, as the Publisher describes him, says: “It does not
become wise men to mislead people.”
“We lay this criticism on the
teachings of the Qoran before all thinking people. Let them decide for
themselves as to what sort of book it is. As for our opinion, we think that
this book can neither be the work of God nor that of an enlightened person, nor
does it contain knowledge. We have pointed out some of its many faults so that
people may not be taken in and thereby waste their lives.”
“If all enlightened men were, like us, to point
out, in an impartial spirit, various defects found in different religions, it
is not at all impossible that all quarrels should cease, that people should
live together in peace all following one religion, and that truth should thus
triumph. The wise and the good, it is hoped, will understand the motives which
actuated the writer of these lines and profit by what little has been said here
about the Qoran. They are requested to correct any mistakes that might have
crept into the book through error of judgment.” (LOT, pp. i, vii; 719-720,
respectively).
In the preceding, mistakes by the
Swami have not only been ‘corrected’, it is also shown that the basis of
Hinduism/Vedism–karma and reincarnation–are not only “strange” and “very
obscure” teachings but that there is a difference in belief that man is
reincarnated into various kingdoms or only as one type of creature and that the
methods of one freeing himself from this cycle of deaths and rebirths “differ from
school to school.”
If karma and reincarnation were clearly
expressed doctrines in the Veda(s), it would be expected that there should be
no difference between the various schools of Hinduism, as to the type of
creatures one is reincarnated into and as to the method(s) that frees the soul
from the cycle of deaths and rebirths. They should be the same.
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).
If suffering is the result of karma,
no attempt should be made to alleviate the miserable conditions of the
sufferers and the poor. If their conditions can be improved, karma is meaningless
–seeing that it can be subverted. 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.
In Islam man does not have to suffer the
body for the “salvation of the soul.” He does not have to “free” himself from
this world. This world is not bondage for man. Allāh, God, sent man with a
pristine nature into this world with the capability of conquering all other
creations.
Whereas Allāh, God, gives man
guidance, man makes his own future. The moral map charted by Allāh, God, is no
“compul-sion” to man, but for man to shape himself to have mutual respect for
what is his and what belongs to others; and to bestow good to others as he
would have others bestow good unto him.
*
Summary: Hinduism where God is merciless –as karma is said to give to every action an equal
and opposite reaction, and unerringly award us exactly what we deserve–;
where there is division as to whether Krishna, Rama, and Hanuman are Gods or
not, whether creatures are reincarnated into various kingdoms or as one type
only, and whether God incarnates as humans or not; whose doctrine of reincarnation
is “very obscure”; which follow books that are “mythological;” where the Gita
is “opposed” to the Veda; whose Rig Veda is composed (at least in part) by
“bard-priest;” where there is difference as to whether everything is created by
God or not –that soul is “eternal” and the universe
(matter) is “self-creating, self-dissolving, self-manifesting”–; whether
the soul returns to earth or not after its Emancipation; that teaches a mix of
Monotheism, monism, deism, dualism, and polytheism; where the God (Vishnu)
grows in status –from being a “minor solar
deity”–; where worship is made to Vishnu, Krishna, Shiva, and grama-devatas;
where there are differences in the attainment of Moksa/Emancipation; where
man’s destiny as influenced by the planets is either fact or “fraud;” where the
‘misconducting’ wife is fed to dogs and the adulterer is burned to
death; where woman is of lower birth; and where adherents are ‘caste-sied’
according to birth– the religion of such conflicting
doctrines and beliefs, and discrimination could not be the religion for
“enlightened” mankind.
The Islamic Articles of Faith –Unity of God, Prayer, Charity, Fasting and Hajj–
Resurrection, Judgment, Paradise and Hell are clearly expressed in the Qur’an.
Fourteen hundred years ago, Islam put an end to the God
incarnate(s) and the medley of Gods; it impelled man to elevate himself above
the irrationality of polytheism and the degradation and futility of idolatry
and inspired chronic idolaters to entomb their artifacts of stone. This
religion –Islam– is the only religion for “enlightened” mankind.
Allah, Lord of the worlds,
Glory be to Thee, Allah!
*
