You are on page 1of 38

BISMILLAHIR RAHMAN IR RAHIM

I WAS INFORMED THAT A HINDU BROTHER HAS MADE SEVERAL OBJECTIONS ON THE
UNCREATEDNESS OF QUR’AN. I WAS ASKED TO MAKE A THOROUGH REFUTATION OF
HIS BASIC ARGUMENTS.
THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED TO READ HIS OBJECTIONS ARE REQUESTED TO VISIT
THE PAGE:=
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/quran-created-or-eternal.67549/
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/quran-created-or-eternal.67549/page-2
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/quran-created-or-eternal.67549/page-3

NOTE1: WE HAVE SELECTED THOSE OBJECTIONS WHICH WE HAVE FOUND RELATIVE
TO THE TOPIC AND THE SCOPE OF THE WORK. IRRELATIVE OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN
NEGLECTED. THE SCOPE OF THIS TOPIC IS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND
OBJECTIONS RELATIVE TO THE ETERNITY OF QUR’A:N.
NOTE:2 BOTH CASES HIGHER AND LOWER ARE USED. DEPENDING UPON THE
EMPHASYS ECT. SIMILARLY
A COLOUR SENSITIVE SCHEME IS ADOPTED FOR SAKE OF EMPHASYSING
SOME PREREQUISITS:=
SOME TERMS ARE STATED:=
1] OBJECTION MAKER [ MU”TARID:] : ONE WHO MAKETH AN OBJECTION.
2] QUESTION:= A QUESTION IS NOT AN OBJECTION.
3] ANSWER:= THE WORD ANSWER MAY BE USED AS A REPLY TO A QUESTION OR AS
A REFUTATION OF AN OBJECTION.
4] CLAIM:= POSATIVE OR NEGATIVE STATEMENT.
5] PREREQUSIT:= A STATEMENT IF IT IS FALSE THEN IT IS IMPLIED THAT THE CLAIM
IS ALSO FALSE, EVEN IF THE CLAIMENT HATH NOT STATED IT.
1

6]PRELIMINARY:= THE STATEMENTS FROM WHICH A CLAIM IS PROVED.
7] AXIOM:= A STAEMENT WHICH CANNOTBE PROVED . [ INDEPENDENT AXIOM] BUT
MAY BE USED TO PROOF A CLAIM ASSUMING TO BE TRUE ,YET NOT NECESSARILY
TRUE [‘AL ‘US:U:L ‘AL MAUD:U:”AH]
OBJECTION#1:=
Can we here consider the issue as to whether the Quran was created by Allah or is it the uncreated eternal
word of Allah? I personally believe that the Quran cannot be an uncreated phenomenon unless it is
propositioned that the Quran is Allah.
ANSWER:= THE OBJECTIONER MAKER IS JUST REPEATING AN OLD ARGUMENT THAT A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS
IDENTICAL TO DIVINE ESSENCE [Z:A:T].
IF QURAN IS NOT A CREATION THEN IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT IT IS ALL-H [I.E IT IS IDENTICAL TO DIVINE
ESSENCE] SINCE AN DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS IDENTICAL TO DEITY [I.E DEITY’S ESSENCE]
BUT ACCORDING TO MAJORITY OF AHLUSSUNNAH DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE NEITHER IDENTICAL TO ESSENCE
NOR SEPARATE FROM ESSENCE “ LA “AIN VA LA GHAIR”
HOW EVER A MINORITY OF AHLUSSUNNAH DO AGREE THAT ALL THE DIVINE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY
ARE IDENTICAL TO DEITY. THIS OBJECTION REQUIRES TO PROVE THAT ANY THING IF UNCREATED THEN IT IS
IDENTICAL TO THE DIVINE ESSENCE. THIS CLAIM IS ONE OF THE WEAKEST CLAIM . MUTIZILITES ALSO
ATTEMPTED TO PROVE THIS CLAIM BUT NO ONE HAVE [PRESENTED ANY CONVINCING PROOF . NOT A SINGLE
ONE.

OBJECTION#2:=
Is this tantamount to saying that Quran, Allah's words, are not eternal? If the Quran is not eternal, it is not the
truth - for truth has necessarily to be eternal.
ANSWER:=
1]IF VEDAS ARE NOT ETERNAL THEN ACCORDING TO THE OBJECTIONAL MAKER THEY MUST NOT BE
TRUE.
A NUMBER OF HINDUS BELIEVE THAT VEDAS ARE TEMPPORAL [ NOT ETERNAL]
BUT IS GITA ETERNAL . IF NOT THEN IT IS NOT TRUTH. THE SAME QUESTION IS ABOUT MAHA
BAHRATA MANU ETC.
ANY HOW THE CLAIM THAT “” FOR TRUTH IST IS NECESSARY TO BE ETERNAL”” IS FALSE AND A
FALSE DOGMA.
WHAT ABOUT THE HUMAN BODY OF KRISHNA . IS IT ETERRNAL OR NOT.
2] IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR A THING TO BE TRUTH, THAT IT MUST BE ETERNAL.
ETERNITY IS JUST THE SUFFICIENT CONDITION FOR A THING TO BE TRUTH , NOT
NECESSARY.SO THIS OBJECTION IS IN CORRECT.

2

OBJ3ECTION#3:=
If the Quran is Allah's words and Allah is eternal, then His words are eternal. It makes absolutely no sense to
draw a distinction between God and God's words. The same can be said for God and God's thoughts. Are
God's thoughts not eternal because that would violate the "only God is eternal" axiom? Of course
not. You cannot separate these two things in the same way that you cannot separate God from His power.
ANSWER:=
1]IT MAY NOT MAKE ANY SENCE TO SOME PERSONS BUT IT DOES ABSOLUTELY MAKE SENSE TO US:
IF THOUGHTS OF DEITY ARE ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY THEN THIS IMPLIETH NECESSARILY THAT
THOUGHT OF DEITY IS NOT THE DEITY [THOUGHT IS NOT IDENTICAL TO THE DIVINE ESSECE.]
SAME IOS TRUE FOR OTHER DIVINE ATTRIBUTES.
TO CLAIM THAT IT DOETH NOT MAKE ANY SENSE IS FALSE.
A BETTER CLAIM WOULD HAVE BEEN THAT IT IS THE SENSE OF CONTRADICTION , RAITHER THAT IT
IS WITH OUT SENSE..MU”TIZILAH HAVE MADE THIS CLAIM THAT THERE IS A CONTRADICTION OR A
CONTRADICTION IS IMPLIED . BUT NO CONVINCING PROOF HAS BEEN PRESENTED SO FAR.
IT IS A PROOFLESS DOGMA THAT IT MAKETH NO SENSE AT ALL.
THE SENSE IS CLEAR . EACH DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS ETERNAL AND NO DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS
IDENTICAL TO THE DIVINE ESSENCE [ I.E DEITY]. EACH DIVINE ATTRIBUTE DOETH SUBSIST IN DIVINE
ESSENCE. TO THE CLAIM THAT IT ABSOLUTELY DOETH NOT MAKE ANY SENSE IS FALSE AND
UNTRUE. AT MOST IT CAN BE CLAIMED THAT THIS CLAIM IS EITHER A CONTRADICTION OR IT SOME
HOW IMPLIETH A CONTRADICTION. BUT THIS REQUIRETH A PROOF. WE ASK FOR A PROOF.
BUT THERE IS NO PROOF AT ALL FOR THE CLAIM ABOVE. ALL THE POSSIBILE ASPECTS AND WAYS
OF THE ALLEGED PROOFS HAVE BEEN STUDIED.SO THIS IS A FALLACY. DIVINE POWER MAKETH NO
EXCEPTION. ALSO NEITHER SEPARATE NOR IDENTICAL IS NOT SEPARATE, LAW OF EXCLUSION OF
MIDDLE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS REGARD.
A GENERAL DISCUSSION:-

IT IS REQUIRED TO SHEW THAT THIS DOES MAKE APERFECT SENSE SO THAT ONE
MAY SEE THAT THE CLAIM THAT IT ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT MAKE A SENSE IS
FALSIFIED.
A DISCUSSION ON THE AXIOM:=
IF A STATEMENT IS AN AXIOM THEN EITHER IT IS AN INDEPENDENT AXIOM OR NOT.
IF IT IS NOT THEN ACTUALLY IT IS A THEOREM WHICH IS POVEABLE BUT , IT IS
TAKEN WITH OUT ANY PROOF. IF IT IS AN INDIPENDANT AXIOM THEN IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE IT IN THE SYSTEM . WE SHALL USE THE WORD AXIOM AND
ITS DERIVATIONS IN THE SENSE OF INDEPENDENT ONE FROM NOW ON.

3

IF A STATEMENT IS TAKEN AXIOMATICALLY THEN IN A SYSTEM IT CANNOT BE
PROVED. IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT AN OTHER PERSON TAKES AN OTHER
STATEMENT AS AN AXIOM.
THE AXIOM “ ONLY GOD IS ETERNAL “ IS THE AXIOM OF MUTIZILITES. EVEN
PHILOSOPHERS DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM ON THE ISSUE. ON THE CONTRARY
MAJORITY OF RELIGIONS REPLACES THIS AXIOM
BY AN OTHER AXIOM WHICH IS GIVEN AS FOLLOW:=
ONLY DEITY IS AN ETERNAL ESSENCE.
ACTUALLY THE CLAIM THAT DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE NOT THE DEITY DOES NOT
MAKE ANY SENSE IS DERIVED FROM THIS AXIOM. THIS CONTRADICTS THIS AXIOM
THAT IS THE REASON IT IS CLAIMED THAT THIS MAKE NO SENSE ABSOLUTELY. AS IT
DOES MAKE A SENSE , BUT THIS SENSE CONTRADICTS THE STATED ABOVE AXIOM,
THERE FORE IT IS INCORRECTLY CLAIMED THAT IT MAKES NO SENSE.
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE OBJECTION MAKER HAS USED THE WORD AXIOM IN THE
CLASSIC MEANING WHICH MAY BE STATES AS FOLLOW:=
An axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.
BUT IF THIS IS MEANT BY THE OBJECTION MAKER , WE REJECT IT. A LARGE NUMBER OF RELIGIONS
,PHILOSOPHERS REJECT IT AS A SELF EVIDENT TRUTH, RATHER IT IS A SELF EVIDENT FALSEHOOD.
AT BEST IT MAY BE A LOGICAL AXIOM:=
A LOGICAL AXIOM IS A STATEMENT :
that is assumed to be true without any proof in a System of statements, and is impossible to be
proved in the system. If a different system is chosen there may be an axiom contradicting this
axiom.
If these objection makers axiomatize their system they may use it as an independent axiom. But
every thing stops here.

2] THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL IS AT MOST A THEOREM OF MU’TIZILITE AND JAHMITE
SYSTEM, IF THEIR RESPECTIVE SYSTEMS OF BELIEVES ARE AXOMATIZED. BUT ACTUALLY IT
IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT AXIOM, BUT A THEOREM,AND THAT IS THE REASON THEY ALSO
ATTEMPT TO PROVE IT. THEY INDEPENDENT AXIOM IS THERE IS ONLY ONE ESSENCE THAT IS
A NECESSARY EXISTENT .FROM THIS IT IS ATTEMTED TO PROVE THERE IS ONLY ONE
ETERNAL. BUT THE CLAIM “THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL ESSENCE CAN BE PROVED. IF A
DUEL SYSTEM IS TAKEN, WHERE “THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL ESSENCE WHICH EXISTETH”
IS TAKEN AS AN INDEPENDENT AXIOM, EVEN THEN IT IS NOT AN EASY TASK TO PROVE THE
CLAIM “ THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL” IN THE SYSTEM.

4

CONCLUSION:= THIS IS NOT AN AXIOM.
SOME REASONS:=
IT IS TRIED TO MAKE THE SENSE CLEAR:=
1]DivIne Attributes are Not The Deity Since there is atleast a logical DISTINCTION [If not a Real Distinction] Of Divine Attributes
from the Divine Essence [i.e Deity]- Thus a Logical Plurality .Thus in this sense All Attributes of Deity are the Deity.
This is “ Singularity is Plurality and Plurality is Singularity. But Divine Essence is Absolute Singularity , which contradict all sorts
and types of plurality with out any exception what so ever.
2[ If there is an Absolute Singularity then the Divine Essence is Only Itness and nothing but Itness. Now if All Divine Attributes
Are Divine Essence i.e Deity then each one of the Attribute Of Deity is nothing but Itness. There fore Divine Omniscience ceaseth
Similarly Omnopotence becometh Itness etc.
No Plurality Of Attributes just words used for Pure Itness in the Divine Case.
3] Suppose the Divine Essence reduces to Omniscience and only Omniscience , and nothing but Omniscience, then It is
Absolute- Impossible that Omnipotence is Deity [i.e Divine Essence]. Hence Omnipotence becometh Absolute-Absurd Upon
Divine Essence.
4] If it is accepted that there are two types of Singularities. A] One that is Plurality [in Some Sence]
B] One that is not Plurality In Any Sence with out Exception what so evrer]
Then Deity is Absolute Singularity the type B stated above.
[] Further discussions Omitted for sake of brevity . But this is In Shaa ‘All-h Sufficient to convey the sense and the concept
To those who think it meaningless. Since whether accepted or rejected, whether true or untrue but it is meaning ful not
meaning less, and ABSOLUTTELY NOT ABSOLUTELY MEANING LESS].

OBJECTION #4:=
Allah created by willing creation into existence. Since Allah is eternal, his power to will would also be
eternal. So what He has willed once he can always will again. Quran accepts this when it says that though
you and I would die, Allah would will us back to life on the day of judgement - and then we would live
forever, either in heaven or hell. Therefore if Allah is eternal, his creation is also eternal. Allah and his
creation are one and the same. This notion of separateness (‘maya’ in Hindu parlance) exists as a part of
Allah’s celebration of Himself (‘leela’ in Hindu parlance).
ANSWER:=
THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE AND ABSURD.
SINCE DEITY ALL-H IS NOT A CREATION. DEITY IS ETERNAL AND CREATION IS NOT ETERNAL.

5

ETERNAL AND NON ETERNAL CANNOT BE SAME SINCE IT IS NOTHING BUT CREATION IS NOT A CREATION.
DEITY IS NOT A CREATION , AND A CREATION IS NOT A DEITY.
EVEN ARYA SAMAJIS ALSO AGREE ON THIS POINE. SO THE OBJECTION MAKER IS A PANTHEIST. NO THING NEW,
HE REPEATS AN OLD ARGUMENT.
IF DIVINE CREATIONS ARE ETERNAL THEN THEY ARE NOT CREATIONS. THE BASIC AXIOMS ARE AS FOLLOW:=
1] GOD\DEITY IS NOT A CREATION.
2] DEITY IS ETERNAL
3] CREATION IS NOT ETERNAL.
4] CREATION IS NOT DEITY/GOD.
SO THIS CLAIM REDUSES TO THE CLAIM EVERY THING IS DEITY . THERE IS NO CREATION
WHY TO CALL A THING A CREATION IF IT IS ETERNAL.
THUS EVERY THING REDUCES TO THE BELIEVE :=
EVERY THING THAT DOES EXIST IS GOD .
THIS IMPLIES ONLY ETERNAL GODS EXIST AND ONE THAT IS NOT ETERNAL IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EXIST AT WORST OR
DOETH NOT EXIST AT BEST.
NOT EVEN ALL HINDU SECTS AGREE WITH SUCH A BELIEVE AND THIS IS A BELIEVE OF JUST A MINORITY OF
HINDUS [ONE LIKE THE OBJECTION MAKER] REJECTED BY A GREAT MAJORITY OF HINDU CULTS AND SECTS.
OBJECTION#5:=

This conundrum would not arise in Hinduism because of its vision of the creator and created being one in essence.
ANSWER:=
THIS CONUNDRUM IS INVALID:=
QUR’AN IS ETERNAL JUST LIKE OTHER ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY LIKE OMNIPOTENCE , OMNISCIENCE ETC.
THE OBJECTION THAT QURAN IS COMPOSITE REQUIRETH SOME DETAILS. THAT SHALL BE GIVEN SHORTLY.
LET THE OBJECTION OF TWO DEITES [ TWO ALL-H s , AL AYAZ BILLAHI TA’ALA] IS DISCUSSED PRIOR TO IT.
THE OBJECTION SEEMS TO BE AS FALLOW:=
IF QURAN IS ETERNAL AND NOT IDENTICAL TO THE ESSENCE OF DEITY THEN IT IS A DEITY.
THUS THE NUMBER OF DEITIES BECOMETH TWO.
IT MUST BE NOTED THAT QUR’AN IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY. A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE DOETH SUBSIST NECESSARILY IN THE DIVINE
ESSENCE.
DIVINE ESSENCE [ I.E DEITY ] IS PER SE SUBSISTENT AND A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS NOT PER SE SUBSISTENT BUT IT SUBSISTETH IN

6

DIVINE ESSENCE. ONLY DIVINE ESSENCE IS DEITY. SO PLURALITY OF DETIES IS NOT IMPLIED.
THE AXIOM THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL IS FALSE. IT IS REPLACED BY THE AXIOM THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL
ESSENCE. REASON CITED:=
IT APPEARETH THAT THE NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITION ACCORDING TO THE OBJECTION MAKER IS TO BE A DEITY
\DEUS\THEOS IS .TO BE ETERNAL. BUT THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM.
[ MONO- ETERNALISM IS DIFFERENT FROM MONOTHEISM]

COUNTER ANSWER:=
This conundrum consists of five statements. If this conundrum is not valid
on Hinduism just because some Hindu sects [Not
All] believe that “” God and His Creations Are One In Essence”” then this
means that If God [Barmh\Brahman] and His
Creations are One In Essence then Each one of the statements of
Conundrum is invalid in the said case.
Is the Qur'an eternal or created?......[Part One Of Conundrum].............P-1

If the Qur'an is created, then it is subject to corruption just like all of creation.---[Part Two Of The Conundrum]
-------------P-2

If the Qur'an is eternal, is it Allah or not-Allah?............................P-.3
If it is Allah, then God is a composite……………………………….P-4
If it is not-Allah, then there are two Allahs……………………………P-.5

But if a thing [say β or thingβ] and God are One In Essence then the
Conundrum is Invalid for the thing β regardless of the
case whether β is Created or Uncreated………………………

BS-1

This is all what Respectable Objection Maker did say:=
But this is not correct. If it is correct then this can be used for Quran as
well. Consider the example of Four Vedas.
The Question is as follow:=
Are Vedas Vedas Creations Or Not……………………..[1]
LET IS BE SUPPOSED THAT ALL VEDAS ARE CREATIONS. [THIS IS
SUPPOSITION] ONE……………………..S-1

7

If ALL VEDAS ARE CREATIONS [S-2] THEN EACH ONE OF THE FOUR VEDAS IS
A CREATION.
But according to the Objection Maker this Conundrum is invalid in the Case
God and His Creationsare One In Essence,[ Refer Basic
Supposition………………….BS-1]
This Means The Statement #1 is invalid in the if Each One Of The Four
Vedas Is A Creation, as according to the Objection Maker,
Just Because Creation Of God [Bramh or Brahman] are One in Essence.
If statement #1 is invalid for four Vedas in the case stated above under the
Supposition Vedas are Creations then it is implied
that :=
If Each One Of The Four Vedas Is A Creation, and If All Vedas and God are
One In Essence then Each One Of The Four Vedas Is
Not Subject To Corruption. [This is result one] ……………………….R-1
Thus S-1 IMPLIES R-1 according to the believes of the Objection Maker .
[Under the given SuppositionsConditions etc.]
LET IT BE SUPPOSED THAT EACH ONE OF THE FOUR VEDAS ARE
ETERNAL………………………….S-2
Then according to the views of the Respectable Objection Maker [ SEE C- Of
The Conundrum] :=
Each One Of The Veda is Either God / Bramh or No Veda is God/Bramh.
LET IT BE SUPPOSED THAT EACH ONE OF THE VEDAS IS GOD.
……………………….C-2
If Each One Of The Veda is Composite then God Brahmh /Brahman is
Composite.
But the P-4 of Conundrum is Invalid because according to the Objection
Maker Vedas and God are One In Essence.
If Each One Of The Four Vedas Is Composite and If Each One Of The Four
Vedas Is God namely Barmh or Brahman Then God
Brahman / Barmh is Not Composite……………………….R-2.
Since each One Of The Four Vedas and God are One In Essence .
Thus S-2 IMPLIES R-2. [UNDER THE CONDITION GOD AND HIS CREATIONS
ARE ONE IN ESSENCE and EACH ONE OF THE VEDAS IS

8

GOD]
P-4 Of the Corundrum Is Invalid In The Case.
LET IS BE SUPPOSED THAT NO VEDA IS GOD………………………C-3
If None Of The Four Vedas Is God Barmh /Brahman then under S-2 and P-5
there are five Gods [ Brahmans or Barmhs].
Each One Of The Four Veda is a God and God , thus Five Gods /Brahmans/
Barmh.
But once again the Conundrum is invalid just because Each One Of The Four
Vedas and God are One In Essence as according to
Respected Objection Maker.
Thus If Each Veda Is Eternal and No Veda Is God Then There is One God
Barmh/Brahman, Since Each Vedas and God are One
In Essence……………….R-3.
Thus C-3,S-2,P-5 Implies R-3
In All of These Discussion an Independent Axiom Is Used Which is Stated As
Follow:=
IF A THING AND GOD ARE ONE IN ESSENCE , NO STATEMENT OF THE
CONUNDRUM IS VALID REGARDLESS OF THE CASES WHETHER
THE THING IS CREATED OR ETERNAL.
NOTE : For the sake of brevity we the case that some Vedas are creations
and some Vedas are Eternal is not discussed.It can
be shewn that in this case the Conundrum is Invalid for those Vedas which
are Eternal and for those Vedas which are
Creations.
It is left as an Exercise for those readers and studiers who are interested do
so.
GENERAL DISCUSSION ON THE CONUNDRUM ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD
OF OBJECTION MAKER.
There are Four Types Of Things:1] God.
2] Attributes Of God

9

3] Acts or Doings Of God
4] Creations Of God.
If God , Attributes Of God , and Acts/Doings Of God are ONE IN
ESSENCE,NATURE,GODHEAD,OUSIA ETC. then the
Conundrum is Invalid for any One That is God or An Attribute Of God Or An
Act Of God, Regardless of the cases
Whether God and His Creations Are One In Essence or Not.
LET IT BE SUPPOSED THAT :=
CREATIONS AND GOD ARE NOT ONE IN ESSENCE …………………………1
QURAN IS A CREATION………………………2,
THEN UNDER THESE TWO SUPPOSITIONS THE CONUNDRUM IS VALID UPON
QUR’AN.
LET IT BE SUPPOSED THAT:=
QURAN IS EITHER A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE OR A DIVINE ACT…………………….3
GOD ,DIVINE ATTRIBUTES AD DIVINE ACTS ALL ARE ONE IN
ESSENCE,NATURE,GODHEAD,OUSIA ETC.
THEN
The Conundrum is INVALD on Quran.
A POSSIBLE OBJECTION :=
IF GOD, ATTRIBUTES OF GOD AND ACTS/DOINGS OF GOD ALL ARE ONE IN
ESSENCE THEN IT IS IMPLIED THAT GOD AND CREATIONS
ARE ALSO ONE IN ESSENCE.
REPLYING THE OBJECTION:=
There is no such implication. It is certainly not implied . Thus the claim of this type of Implication is False
And Untrue.
As there is no alleged Implication , the the conundrum if correct is only Valid if :=
1] QURAN Is A Creation.
2]Quran and God are Not One In Essence.
But If Quran Is An Atrribute Of God / Deity or If Quran Is An Act Of Deity /God then the Conundrum becometh

10

Invalid Since :=
Attributes Of God ,Acts Of God and God All Are One In Essence.
HINDU SECTS AND CULTS:=
There are several Hindu sects and cults and the do differ about the Eternity of Vedas, Oness Of Essnce God
and His Creations etc. So Not All Hindus Agrree with the objection makers.
Some Muslims How Ever Believe That God and Creations are One In Esse.
If the Objection /Conundrum becomes invalid if God and Creations are Supposed to be One In Essence, It Is
Absolutely Logical that the Objection /Conundrum becomes Invalid if God and His Creations Are One In
Esse.
Some Muslims believe that God is the Essence of all of His Creations, Attributes, Acts Since:=
[In these cases such conundrums do become become invalid. ]

DEITY Giveth sustenance to All Things,
The Existence of each and every Sustained thing right from its Creation. In other words, we will
have to admit that the World and Every Thing In The World Is Sustained By God\Deity Hence Deity Is The Essence
Of Every Creation. So Deity Is The Essence Or Esse Or Both Of A Thing to Which Deity Giveth Sustenance.
Not In The Sense /Meaning Deity Is A Creation.
Note :=ALL THE MUSLIMS BELIEVE THAT DIVINE ESSENCE AND DEITY ARE IDENTICAL
I.E ONE AND THE SAME. In Other Words Godhead Is God and God Is Godhead.
THE FLAW IN THE CONUNDRUM:=
If the Objection Maker have incorrectly assumed That Either Qur’an Is An
Essence Or The Essence Of Quran Is Distinct From
The Essence Of Deity only then this Conundrum may haves some signifience.
That is probably the reason the objection maker thought that “if Quran is
Eternal and Not Deity then It is an other Deity. Quran is neither an Essence
nor Its Essence is Distint from the Essence of Deity.
Essence of Quran is Essence Of Deity Since like All Attributes Of Deity , It
Subsists In The Divine Essence.
Divine Essence is Per Se Subsistant. It Only Subsists in Itself and It Subsists
Only In Itself.
So if Quran Is Eternal , it is Absolutely Not Implied that Quran is An other
Deity. [Also See page 20]
AN OTHER RESPONSE:=
1] THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF DIVINE CALAM [SPEECH] . 1] ‘AL CALAM AL
LAFZI. 2] ‘AL CALAM AN NAFSI.
IF IT ‘AL CALAM ‘AN NAFSI IS SUPPOSED TO BE IDENTICAL TO DIVINE ESSENCE,
AND AL CALAM AL LAFZI IS SUPPOSED TO BE A CREATION CREATED BY DEITY,
THE OBJECTION CEASES. SINCE IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS A
POSSIBILITY OF CORRUPTION FOR EACH AND EVERY CREATION, THEN THIS IS

11

AN ABSOLUTE POSSIBILITY , AND AN ABSOLUTE POSSIBLE CAN BE RELATIVE
ABSURD OR RELATIVE IMPOSSIBLE. IT IS NOT ABSOLUTE ABSURD OR
ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBLE.
THEABSOLUTE POSSIBILITY OF BEING SAVED FROM ANY TYPE OF CORRUPTION
BY THE DEITY CANNOT BE DENIED.
HOW EVER THIS SAVING IS RELATIVE NECESSITY, NOT A N ABSOLUTE
NECESSITY.
THE CONUNDRUM BECOMES INVALID.
Note : P-2 OF THE CONUNDRUM IS DISCUSSED IN ANSWER TO OBJECTION #13. PLEASE SEE IT THERE.
NOTE: EACH ONE OF THE TWO CALAMS IS TERMED AS QUR’AN.
NOTE: AL CALAM AN NAFSI IS NOT COMPOSITE LIKE DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE OR DIVINE OMNISCIENCE..
THE CONUNDRUM IS IN CORRECT EVEN UPON THE SYSTEM OF THE OBJECTION MAKER. HE ADMITS THAT CREATIONS
ARE :=
1] NOT EQUAL TO DEITY EVEN IF THEY ARE ONE IN ESSENCE.2]CREATIONS ARE FALLABLE AND DEITY IS
INFALLABLE.
IT MUST BE NOTED THAT IF IT IS CLAIMED THAT CREATIONS ARE FALLABLE BUT NOT CORRUPTIBLE, THIS IS AN
UNACCEPTABLE CLAIM NOT EVEN WORTHY OF A REFUTATION. [SEE OBJECTION#8, ]
IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT ALL THINGS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE WITH DEITY, EVEN THEN ONLY DEITY IS UNCURRUPTRABE
AND IMMUTABLE. TO CLAIM THAT CREATIONS ARE ALSO UNCORRUPTABLE AND IMMUTABLE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED
EVEN IF THEY ARE ONE WITH DEITY IN DIVINE ESSENCE.
A COUNTER CONUNDRUM FOR THE OBJECTION MAKER AS ACCORDING TO HIS THEOLOGIGAL BACK GROUND:=
If Creatons Of Deity and the Deity are One in Essence then Either the Creation is Eternal or Not.
If the Creation Is Eternal Then It is either The Deity Or Not.
If it is the Deity then there are two problems.
1] It is not the Creation, Since Deity is not the Creation, Other wise it is implied that the Creation is not the\a
Creation . An Absolute Absudity.. So the Creation is not a Creation in the Divine Essence.
2] As Vedas are composite it is implied that Deity is Composite in His Essence.
If it is not the Deity then it is an other Deity in the Essence. This implies two or more Deities in one Essence. That is
a number of Deities One In ESSENCE.
A POSSIBLE ATTEMPT TO SCAPE FROM THE CONUNDRUM.
It may be argued that Plurality Of Deities occur if there is a Plurality Of Essences. As there is only one Essence
Plurality of Eternals On In Essence does not imply Plurality Of Deities.
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.
This answer is not according to the Theological Concepts Of the Objection Maker.
The Objection Maker believes that Plurality of Eternals implies Plurality Of Deities.
He does not believe that plurality of Deities requireth Plurality of Divine Essences.
Since he makes this objection On Quran. Up till now Ihave seen no Muslim who believeth that Quran is an Essence.
All Muslims Believe that Qur’an Is an Attribute.

12

So Oneness of Essence does not save is philosophical believes ,.
OBJECTION#6:=

I understand, it just doesn't sit well in my brain, when I imagine an eternal text i.e. one that existed
before man existed and will do after he is gone, I see it as being a sort of timeless narrative or set of teachings,
whereas in the Qur'an I see speeches being given by the Prophet to people about specific things in specific
times - which doesn't fit for me, but perhaps that is just me being odd.
ANSWER:=
THIS OBJECTION IS INCORRECT. SINCE THE RESPECTED OBJECTION MAKER DID NOT
PROVEDTHAT SUCH A THING IMPOSSIBLE AND ABSURD , SO THAT IT MUST EXCLUDE DIVINE
OMNIPOTENCE.
IF IT IS NOT ABSURD AND NOT IMPOSSIBLE THEN IT IS POSSIBLE AND CONTINGENT.
AT BEST THE OBJECTION MAKER MAY SAY THAT SUCH THINGS ARE POSSIBLE AND
CONTINGENT BUT IMPROBABLE.
BUT DEITY HAS OMNIPOTENCE OVER POSSIBLES AND CONTINGENTS EVEN IF THEY ARE
IMPROBABLE. BUT IT IS JUST A PERSONAL INCLINATION TOWARDS IMPROBABILITY ,EVEN
IMPROBABILITY IS NOT PROVED. IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE WORK TO INDULGE IN THE
MAKER, SINCE IN IS A NON ENDING AND USE LESS WORK TO DISCUSS INDIVIDUAL MINDS AND
BRAINS, LIKENESS INCLINATIONS ETC.
IT MUST BE KNOWN THAT A THING [ IN THE MOST GENMERAL SENSE WHICH INCLUDETH
EXISTENTS AND NON-EXISTENTS] IS OF THE FOLLOWEING TYPES.
1] ABSOLUTE –POSSIBLE [ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE]
2[ ABSOLUTE –IMPOSSIBLE [ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE]
3] ABSOLUTE –NECESSARY [ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY]
4] RELATIVE NECESSARY [ RELATIVELY NECESSARY]
5] RELATIVE IMPOSSIBLE [RELATIVE IMPOSSIBLE]
IF QURAN IS CREATION THEN CCORRUPTION IS RELATIVE IMPOSSIBLE.
A RELATIVE IMPOSSIBLE NEVER OCCURS IN THREE TYPES OF TIME I.E PAST, PRESENT AND
FUTURE.

13

SINCE DEITY IS THE SAVIOR OF AL QUR’AN AND SAVING OF QURAN IS RELATIVE-NECESSARY
[RELATIVELY NECESSARY]. CORRUPTION OF QURAN IS NOT RELATIVE NECESSARY. DEITY IS AN ABSOLUTE
FREE AGENT AND DEITY CHOSETH THE CONSERVATION AND SAVING OF THE QURAN .
SO EVEN IF CORRUPTION OF QURAN IS POSSIBLE IT IS A SUBJECT OF POSSIBILITY OF
CORRUPTION, NOT OF THE OCCURRENCE OF CORRUPTION. IF QURAN IS A CREATION EVEN THEN IT IS NOT
THE SUBJECT OF CORRUPTION IN THE LINE OF ACTUALITY.
ANSWERING THE OBJECTIONS ON URL:=

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/quran-created-or-eternal.67549/page-2

OBJECTION#7:=
THIS OBJECTION MAY BE DIVIDED IN TWO PARTS:=
1] Allah cannot create anything eternal for the simple reason that eternal means uncreated.
2] This is similar to the error in the Quran when it says Allah created life. (This issue I had taken up in
another thread, where you had participated prominently. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/generalreligious-debates/63041-did-allah-create-life.html) .

Life cannot be created because if there was no life at one point of time, who would have been alive to have
done any creation? Allah islife. And life in many forms is the existence of Allah. This is exemplified by the
imagery of the dancer and his dance. You cannot separate the dancer from his dance. Likewise with the
creator and creation. Likewise with Allah and his word. Quran is eternal but its form would change as it had
changed previously. Forms are corruptible. But the spirit is reborn in another form.
ANSWER-1:=
RESPONSE TO PART ONE:=
AS FOR THE FIRST PART , IT IS CORRECT THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY ASBURD AND IMPOSSIBLE TO CREATE AN
ETERNAL.
RESPONCSE TO PART TWO:=
THERE IS CERTAINLY A MISCONCEPTION ABOUT QURAN IN THE MINDS OF OBJECTION MAKERS:=
DIVINE LIFE [ DIVINE VITA] IS UNCREATED AND ETERNAL. THE LIFE WHICH IS UNDER DISCUSSION IS THE NON
-DIVINE LIFE. IT SIMPLY MAY BE SEEN THAT LIVING THING [ VITAL THINGS] BORN AND DIE. LIFE OF A LIVING
CREATED SUPPOSITUM IS CREATED SINSE EVERY ATTRIBUTE OF A LIVING CREATED THING OR VITAL CREATED
THING IS CREATED. ONE MUST DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE ETERNAL LIFE OF DEITY , AND NON ETERNAL LIVES
OF ALIVE CREATIONS.WHEN IT IS SAID DEITY MADE LIFE IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT DEITY MADE ALL LIVES
INCLUDING HIS OWN LIFE. SIMILARLY OF IT IS SAID THAT DEITY DID MAKE ALL ESSENCES , IT DOES NOT MEAN

14

DEITY MADE HIS OWN ESSENCE AS WELL. THERE IS A RATIONAL NECESSARY EXCEPTION FOR THE DIVINE
ATTRIBUTES. IF IT IS NEGLECTED THEN DEITY CANNOT EVEN BE OMNOSCIENCE SINCE THERE IS A STATEMENT
X= NO ONE KNOWETH THAT X IS A TRUE STATEMENT. IT IS ARGUED THAT THIS STATEMENT CONTRADICTS
DIVINE OMNISCIENCE. THE ANSWER IS THAT DEITY’S OMNISCINCE IS A SELF NECESSARY EXCEPTION FROM THIS
SENTENCE.
LIFE OF DEITY IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY AND EXISTENCE IS AN OTHER ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY. A NUMBER OF
THEOLOGIANS MAKE A SEPARATE CASE OF THE EXISTENCE /ESSE OF DEITY.
SINCE IF IT IS SAID THAT” THE ETERNAL ESSENCE IS NOT ALIVE BUT EXISTS” IT THOUGH IMPLY ABSURDITIES
BUT MORE ABSURDITIES ARE IMPLIED IF IT IS SAID “ ETERNAL ESSENCE DOES NOT EXIST, BUT IS ALIVE.
PROBLEM OF DANCE AND DANCER:
DANCE IS AN ACT OF THE SUBJECT DANCER. THE WORD SEPARATE IS USED IN DIFFERENT MEANINGS:=
IT MAY BE USED IN THE SENSE OF TWO INDEPENDENT THINGS, IT MAY BE EVEN USED FOR THE DISTINCTION OF
AN ATTRIBURE FROM AN ESSENCE , OR AN ACCIDENT FROM A SUBSTANCE.
NEITHER AN ATTRIBUTE IS PER SE SUBSISTENT NOR AN ACCIDENT IS PER SE SUBSISTENT. BOTH OF THEM
SUBSIST IN SOME THING PER SE SUBSISTENT. THERE IS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT SUBSTANCES
,ACCIDENTS,ESSENCES AND ATTRIBUTES . INTERESTED PEOPLE MAY SEE SUCH DISCUSSIONS WHICH ARE
PRESENT IN THOUSAND AND THOUSAND OF PAGES. TO DISCUSS HERE IS JUST TO WASTE THE TIME OF THE
REDERS. INTERESTED PEOPLE MAY SEE THESE TOPICS FROM PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS BOTH CLASSICAL AND
MODRERN. ONE EVEN USE A GOOD SEARCH ENGINE TO STUDY THE TOPIC AS WELL.
HOW EVER ASSUMING THAT THIS TOPIC MAY BE NEW TO SOME OF THE READERS A VERY BRIEF DISCUSSION IS
GIVEN BELOW:=
1] A SUBSTANCE IS A THING WHICH SUSTAINS AND SUBSISTS ONLY IN IT SELF.
2] A SUBSTANCE IS A THING WHICH CAN NOT BE PRADICATED TO ANY THING EXCEPT IT SELF. [ NOTE THE
NECESSARY EXCEPTION].
3] ACCORDING TO SPINOZOA:=
A SUBSTANCE IS ONE THAT IS CONCIEVED IN IT SELF BY IT SELF.

ACCIDENT:=
1] AN ACCIDENT IS A THING WHICH SUBSISTS AND SUSTAINS IN SOME THING ELSE.
2] AN ACCIDENT IS A THING WHICH CAN BE PRADICATED TO A SUBSTANCE.
3] AN ACCIDENT IS ONE THAT IS NOT CONCIEVED IN ITSELF BY IT SELF.
THEOLOGIANS DIFFER WHETHER THE WORD SUBSTANCE CAN BE USED FOR DIVNE ESSENCE OR NOT.

15

A LARGE NUMBER OF THEOLOGIANS BELIEVE THAT SUBSTANCE DETERMINES AN ESSENCE IN NON DIVINE
CASES.SOME THINK THAT DIVINE ESSENCE AND DIVINE SUBSTANCE / OUSIA ARE ONE AND THE SAME. A NUMBER
OF THINKERS EVEN DENY SUBSTANCES OR ACCIDENTS. THERE ARE VARIETIES OF THOUGHTS ON THE ISSUE.
ANY HOW AN ACT IS AN ACCIDENT WHETHER IT IS THE ACT OF DANCING OR ACT OF RUNNING ETC.
IN WHAT SENSE IT IS SEPARATE FROM THE SUBJECT IS THAT IT IS NOT THE SUBSTANCE BUT THE SUBJECT
[ DOER/ACTOR] OF THE ACT IS A SUBSTANCE.
STRANGELY THE OJECTION MAKER DISCUSSES THE ISSUE AS IT IS A NEW OBJECTION , WHERE AS IT HAS BEEN
DISCUSS SINCE AGES.
PROBLEM OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES:=
THE STATEMENT GIVEN BELOW HAS MANY PROBLEMS:=
You cannot separate the dancer from his dance. Likewise with the creator and creation. Likewise with Allah
and his word. Quran is eternal but its form would change as it had changed previously. Forms are corruptible
but the spirit is reborn in other forms.
FIRST:= THE PROBLEM OF SUBSTANCE AND ACCIDENT STATED ABOVE.
SECOND:= ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY AND ESSENCE OF DEITY [GODHEAD\DIVINITY]
ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY ARE NOT SEPARATE AS IF EACH ONE OF THEM IS A DISTINCT ESSENCE. THESE ATTRIBUTES
ARE SELF ASSOCIATED WITH THE DIVINE ESSENCE , SUBSISTS IN DIVINE ESSENCE , ARE SUSTAINED IN DIVINE
ESSENCE AND ARE INSEPERABLE FROM IT.
YET THEY ARE DISTINCT FROM THE ESSENCE IN THE SENSE AN ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY IS NOT THE ESSENCE OF
DEITY. OTHER WISE IF EACH ONE OF THE ATTRIBUTE IS THE ESSENCE OF THE DEITY THEN ALL THE DIVINE
ATTRIBUTES ARE THE ESSENCE OF DEITY, IMPLYING PLURALITY IS SINGULARITY AND SINGULARITY IS PLURALITY.
A LOGICAL CONTRADICTION. SINCE SINGULARITY IS NOT PLURALITY AND PLURALITY IS NOT SINGULARITY.THAT
IS THE REASON A NUMBER OF THEOLOGIANS REJECT THE CLAIM THAT THE ESSENTIAL ARRIBUTES OF DEITY ARE
IDENTICAL TO THE DIVINE ESSENCE. BUT AN OTHER NUMBER OF THEM ACCEPT THE IDENTITY.BUT THEY DO
NOT SAY THAT IT IS MEANING LESS RAITHER THEY ATTEMPT TO PROVE IDENTILY PROVIDING ATTEPTED PROOFS
AND THE DEBATRE GOETH ON. ONE SHOULD TRY TPO PROVE THE CLAIM INSTEAD OF CLAIMING THAT THIS IS
MEANING LESS. EVEN THE MEANINGS IMPLYING CONTRADICTIONS ARE NOT MEANING LESS.IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN BETTER TO SAY THAT ITS MEANING IS OF A CONTRADICTION OR ITS MEANING IMPLIES A CONTRADICTION
RAITHER THEN TO CLAIM THAT IT IS MEANING LESS. AT LEAST NOT IN ARGUMENTS OR DEBATES.
IT APPEARS THAT THE LEARNED OBJECTION MAKER BELIEVES THAT CREATIONS EXIST AND SUBSIT IN ALIO, IN
THIS CASE SUBSIST AND EXIST IN DIVINE ESSENCE I.E DEITY.
BUT THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT DEITY AND HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE.
MEANING OF CREATION:=
ABILITY TO CREAT I.E CREATIVITY IS A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE AND ONE THAT IS CREATED IS A CREATURE . THE
WORD CREATION IS SOME TIME USED IN THE MEANING OF ABILITY TO CREATE , WHICH IS A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE.
SOME TIME IT IS USED IN THE MEANING OF ONE THAT IS CREATED .
SIMILARLY THE WORD SEPARATE IS ALSO USED IN DIFFERENT MEANINGS AND SENSES.

16

DEMAND:=
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT DEITY AND HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE. IF SOME ONE BELIEVES THAT DEITY
AND HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE , THEN THE NECESSARY PREREQUISIT OF THIS CLAIM IS “ IT IS
POSSIBLE THAT DEITY AND HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE. ONE HAS TO PROVE THAT THIS IS POSSIBLE?
A POSSIBLE OBJECTION:=
IT MAY BE RESPONSED THAT IT IS THE IMPOSSIBILITY WHICH REQUIRETH PROOF NOT THE POSSIBILITY. SIMPLY
THE ABSENSE OF PROOFS OF IMPOSSIBILITY PROVES ITS POSSIBILITY.
NOTE THERE IS NOTHING NEW:=

Aristotle there are 10 categories into which things naturally fall. They are AS FOLLOW:=
1] SUBSTANCE.
2] ACCIDENTS like Quality, Quantity, Relation,Action,Passion,Time
,Space,Arrangement,Rainment. So to discuss what so ever is discussed since centuries as if it is
some thing new is not correct. Every Student Of Philosophy Knows that Substance is not
Accident and vice versa, now call it Separate or coin an other word for it , the meaning is same.
Note :A large number of theologians and Philosophers do divide creations in two types.
1] Essences. 2] Attributes.
If Creations Exist in Divine Essence then Created Essences also Exist In Divine Essence.This
implieth plurality Of Essences in Divine Essence.
This is impossible since Divine Essence is Per Se Exclusive to Essences to be in It.

NOTE: Nature is described as:=
The intrinsic or indispensable quality or qualities that serve to characterize or identify something:
Some time the term Essence is also used in this meaning. But in this work the Term Essenceis not used in this
meaning.

ANSWER-2:=

17

A RESPONSE TO THE SECOND PART.
1] WE REJECT THIS THEORY AND OPT FOR A PROOF ON EACH ONE OF THEM.FIRST PROVE THE DOGMA THEN
ARGUE BY THE DOGMA. [ THIS IS THE MATHEMATICAL APPROACH ]
2] IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT ABSENCE OF PROOFS OF IMPOSSIBILITY IS A PROOF OF POSSIBILITY IN GENERAL,
EVEN THEN IN REGARD TO THE DIVINE ESSENCE THERE IS A NECESSARY EXCEPTION.
3]IF DEITY AND CREATIONS EXIST AND SUBSIST IN ONE AND THE SAME ESSENCE , EVEN THEN IT IS ACCEPTED
THAT DEITY IS INFALLABLE AND CREATIONS ARE FALLABLE AND DEITY AND CREATIONS ARE NOT EQUAL]
4]MATHEMATICALLY: DEITY=/= CREATIONS.
.

5] LET DEITY AND ANY ONE OF THE CREATION SAY C ARE IN ONE ESSENCE. A MORE POWERFUL AND STRONGER
CASE THAN THEY ARE JUST ONE IN ESSENCE.
NOW THERE ARE JUST TWO OPTIONS:
1] CREATION C IS DEITY .
2] CREATION C IS NOT DEITY.
IF CREATION C IS DEITY THEN AS CREATION C IS FALLABLE THE DEITY IS FALLABLE.
IF CREATION C IS A SUBJECT OF FALLABILITY THEN THE DEITY IS ALSO ITS SUBJECT. BUT THIS IS DENIED BY
THE OBJECTION MAKER.
IF CREATION C IS NOT THE DEITY AND IS FALLABLE THEN IT MEANS THAT THINGS SUBJECT TO FALLABILITY AND
CORRUPTION CO-EXIST WITH DEITY IN ONE AND THE SAME ESSENCE. THE EXISTENCE IN ONE AND THE SAME
ESSENCE DOETH NOT MAKE CREATIONS INFALLABLE AND UNCORRUPTABLE.
WHAT SO EVER IS TRUE FOR THE STRONG CASE IS DEFINITELY TRUE OF THE WEAKER CASE THAT CREATIONS
AND DEITY ARE ONE IN ESSENCE. SO IF CREATIONS AND DEITY ARE ONE IN ESSENCE EVEN THEN CREATIONS ARE
SUBJECT TO CORRUPTION AND FALLIBILITY. THIS REFUTES THE PART OF CONUNDRUM .
If the Qur'an is created, then it is subject to corruption just like all of creation.---[Part Two Of The Conundrum]

BY THE EXCUSE OF HINDUISM AS FOLLOW:=

This conundrum would not arise in Hinduism because of its vision of the
creator and created being one in essence.
Now the entire conundrum is valid even for Hinduism. If Vedas are Creations then this part of the
Conundrum is valid even if Vedas and Deity are Supposed to be one in essence. If Gita is a Creation Or
Manu is a Creation , even then this conundrum is valid. If Bodies of Krishna are Creations then this part
of the Conundrum is valid to each body of Krisna, whether it has two hands or four. This Part of
Conundrum is valid of S-RTI AND SMR-TI if they are creations , even if they and Deity Are One In
Essence or even in the stronger case , they all are In One Essence. Thus being Homousia does not save
them from this part of the conundrum.Further this implieth that all the Fallibilities and Corruptions

18

Subsist and Exist in Divine Essence whether Directly or Indirectly. This is Impossible. It must also be
noted that Deity is beyond Parts so it is Impossible that Creations are parts and parcels of Deity.There
is no such Possibility. One who claims such a possibility is asked to provide proofs [ at least one ] for
the possibility or contingency or both of this. [ See stated above Reason for the demand of proof].

DEITY AND CREATIONS CANNOT BE ONE ON THE STANDARD OF THE OBJECTION
MAKERS:=

IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT DEITY AND ALL OF HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN
ESSENCE THEN THERE ARE FOLLOWING 4 CASES:=
1] THE ESSENCE IS NEITHER CREATIONS NOR DEITY.2] ESSENCE IS
CREATIONS.3] ESSENCE IS ONE OF THE CREATION4]ESSENCE IS THE
DEITY.IF THE ESSENCE IS NEITHER THE CREATIONS NOR THE DEITY THEN
THIS IS INCORRECT.SINCE THE OBJECTION MAKER THINKS THAT IT MAKES
NO SENSE TO CONSIDER DIVINE ATTRIBUTES SEPARATE FROM DEITY. SO
THE OBJECTION MAKER IS COMPEL NOT NO SEPARATE DIVINE ESSENCE
FROM THE DEITY AN HE MUST THINK THAT IT PRIMERILY MAKES NO SENSE
AT ALL TO MAKE A SEPERATION BETWEEN DIVINE ESSENCE AND DEITY.IF
THE DIVINE ESSENCE IS ALL OF THE CREATIONS OR ONE OF THE
CREATIONS THEN IT IS A CREATION.IF A CREATION THEN IT CANNOT BE THE
ESSENCE OF THE DEITY.IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT DIVINE ESSENCE AND DETY
ARE ONE AND THE SAME ,THEN THE STATEMENTDEITY AND ALL OF HIS
CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE REDUCES TO THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT:=DEITY AND ALL OF HIS CREATIONS ARE IN IN DEITY HIMSELF.
SUCH A STRONG STATEMENT IMPLIES THAT DEITY IS ALL OF HIS CREATION.
THIS IMPLIES THAT DEITY IS A CREATION. IF DEITY IS A CREATION THEN
THE DEITY IS NOT THE DETY SINCE DEITY IS UNCREATED NECESSARILY.
DIFFERENT MEANINGS OF THE WORDS SEPARATE AND SEPERATION:=
THE WORD SEPARATE MAY BE USED IN DIFFERENT MEANINGS.IF IT MAY MEAN A
DISCTINCTION OR IT MAY MEAN NOT THE SAME OR EVEN AN INDEPENDENT
SEPERATION.IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT DEITY AND HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN
ESSENCE OR ARE IN ONE ESSENCE YET CREATIONS ARE NOT EQUAL TO DEITY,
CREATIONS ARE FALLABLE WHILE DEITY IS NOT , THEN THESE ARE SOME
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE DEITY AND HIS CREATIONS. THE WORD SEPARATE MAY
BE USED EVEN FOR THIS TYPE OF DISTINCTION.
AS OUR DISCUSSION IS JUST ON THE QURAN NOT ON ITS FORMS IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DISCUSSION TO
DISCUSS ITS FORMS. HOW EVER IT IS LIKELY TO DISCUSS THE PROBLEM OF FORMS LATTER.
BUT IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE WORD FORM I USED IN VERY DIFFERENT MEANINGS. SOME TIME IT IS USED IN
THE MEANING OF ESSENCE , SOME TIME IT IS USED IN THE MEANING OF OUSIA, SOME TIME IT IS USED IN THE

19

MEANING OF NATURE WHETHER THE NATURE IS PER SE SUBSISTENT OR NOT, SOME TIME IT IS USED IN THE
MEANING OF ESSENCE, SOME TIME IN THE MEANING OF A CREATED SUBSTANCE, SOME TIME IN THE MEANING OF
SHAPE OR FIGURE ETC. ONE NEED TO SPECIFY THE MEANING TO THE WORD PRIOR TO THE USE OF IT IN
THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIONS.
OBJECTION#8:=
I understand that in the sense that God is one with His energies, therefore we are one with God.
However, this is not to say that we are equal to God in all respects.
Nor do I subscribe to the monist philosophy that says all individuality is Maya and therefore the ultimate reality
is a single, homogenous Self or Brahman. We are eternally individuals, part and parcel of God. God is achyuta
(infallible) whereas we are fallible, as we can currently see.
ANSWER:=
THIS IS IN A CLOSE APPROXIMATION TO ONE OF THE SEVERAL APPROCHES TO SPINOZA:

Only the Being of DEUTY is Substance. All things are accidents or in the attributes of God.
This is one approach to Spinozism.
NOTE: THIS DIRECTLY IMPLY THAT CREATIONS ARE NOT THE DEITY SINCE CREATIONS ARE
NOT THE SUBSTANCE. THIS IS VERY ANALOGOUS TO THE OBJECTION MAKER’S VIEW.

WHAT THE OBJECTION MAKER SAID IS A TYPE OF PANTHEISM.
THERE ARE SEVERAL TYPES OF PANTHEISM.
THIS IS ONE OF THEM.
DIFFFERENT FORMS OF PANTHEISM AGREE ON THE FOLLOWING COMMON POINTS IN
GENERAL:=
1] Beneath the apparent diversity and multiplicity of things there is one only One
Existent ,which is Absolutly Necessary, Absolute ,Eternal, Infinite and Independent.
NOTE: THIS DIRECTLY IMPLY THAT CREATIONS ARE NOT THE DEITY SINCE CREATIONS ARE
NOT THE SUBSTANCE. THIS IS VERY ANALOGOUS TO THE OBJECTION MAKER’S VIEW.
Note:= If a Creation is Composite, If the Creation and Deity are One In Essence and If the
Creation is Eternal ,then the Creation is the Deity, This Implieth

20

That THE DEITY IS COMPOSITE RIGHT IN DIVINE ESSENCE [In other words God Is Composite
In His Godhead].
A very incorrect Result.
Pantheism in general states that:=
God and the world are one. NOTE : IF ONE THEN ONE IN ESSENCE.

Whether One says All Created Things are One In Essence With God Or Say World is One In
Essence With God are almost one and same thing with some slight differences.

. The doctrine is fond in Ancient Egyptian Religion and early Indian philosophy; it appears
during the course of history in a great variety of forms, in the strictest sense, i.e. as
identifying God and the world. Some types of Pantheism are simply Atheism. Many forms of
Pantheism generally involves Monism, but the latter is
not necessarily pantheistic. Emanationism may easily take on a pantheistic meaning and as
pointed out in the Encyclical "Pascendi dominici gregis", the same is true of the
modern doctrine of immanence.
IT APPEARS THAT THESE OBJECTION MAKERS DO BELIEVE THAT CREATIONS EXIST IN
ALIO , I.E CREATIONS OF DEITY EXIST AND SUBSIST IN THE ESSENCE OF DEITY. BUT THIS
IS INCORRECT AND IMPOSSIBLE. ANY THING WHICH SUBSITETH AND EXISTETH IN DIVINE
ESSENCE IS PROCEEDTH AND ISSUETH IMMENENTLY AND NECESSARILY WITH OUT ANY
POSSIBILITY OF NON IMMENECE AND UNNESSACITY. THUS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE OF ANY
CREATION TO BE IN THE DIVINE ESSENCE. AS EVENTS ARE ALSO CREATION IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE THAT AN EVENT OCCURS IN DIVINE ESSENCE. THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF
AN EVENT IN DIVINE ESSENCE.
It may be noted that if Divine Essence is also the Essence of Creation even then the self of a
creation cannot exist in the Divine Essence. So it is Distinct from the Divine Essence. So the
selves of creations exclude Divine Essence even if Divine Essence is also the Essence of the
Selves of Creations.
Note1: If the creation has no Existence a part From Deity it is not implied that the

creation subsists in Deity or in Divine Essence. The same is true for the Divine
Essence, since Majority Of Theologians, and Philosophers believe that Divine
Essence and Divine Existence are One and the Same.That is why they do not
include Existence as an Attribute Of Deity but as the Essence Of Deity in every
regard.

21

NOTE2:- If the Divine Essence is the Essence Of All Creations, then the Self Of Each
Creation Becometh a Non –Essence in It self, which reduceth each Creation to an
Accident . This implieth that No Creation is an Essence. Now as Essence of Any
Creation is Not a Creation, the accident either Subsisteth in the Divine Essence or It
is Distinct from the Divine Essence. Former requireth that there are possibilities of
Bringing the Accidents stated above from Non Existences to Existence, in the
Divine Essence. But there is no such possibility in the Divine Essence. A APossibility
of Bringing a thing from nothingness to thingness and DivineEssence Exclude Each
Other.
NOTE3:=
IF IT IS ARGUED THAT ALL NON ETERNAL THINGS SUBSIST , OCCUR AND EXIST IN
DIVINE ESSENCE THEN ITS PREREQUISIT IS THAT THEIR SUBSISTENCE ,OCCURRENCE
, EXISTENCE AND SUSTAINMENT ARE POSSIBLE AND CONTINGINT IN DIVINE
ESSENCE. BUT THIS IS IMPOSSIBLESINCE ANY THING WHICH EXISTETH OR
SUBSISTETH ETC IN DIVINE ESSENCE SUBSISTETH OR EXISTETH WITH INTRINSIC
NECESSITY AND IT IMMENENTLY SUBSISTETH WITH OUT ANY [POSSIBILITY OF
NEGATION OF NECESSICITY ,SUBSISTENCE [SUBSISTENS] ETC.
NOTE 4:=
IT MAY BE ARGUED THAT DEITY IS INFINE AND IF A CREATION EXISTETH OUT OF
DEITY THEN THERE IS A LIMIT OF DEITY AND DEITY BECOMETH FINITE.
ANSWER. DEITY IS NOT INFINITE IN THE SPETIAL SENCE OR IN THE VOLUMATERIC
SENCE AS IT IS ASSUMED IN THIS OBJECTION.
DEITY IS INFINTE IN EVERY KIND OF DIVINE PERFECTION, AND EACH PERFECTION IS
INFINTELY PERFECT’. THE INFINTY OF DEITY REQUIRETH A SPECIAL DISCUSSION BUT
IT IS INFINITELY INCORRECT TO ASSUME THAT DEITY OCCUPY THE INFINITE SPACE
INFINITELY.
A VERY WRONG INTERPRETATION OF INFINITY OF DEITY.

An other form of Pantheism is as follow:=
Pantheism is the view that God is everything and everyone and that everyone and everything is God. Pantheism
goes beyond polytheism to teach that everything is God. It teaches that there is no Created thing.
.A pen is God, a statue is God, an animal is God, the sky is God, the sun is God, you are God, etc. No thing is a
Creation.

22

What these objection makers have said is different from UPNISHADS.
CHANDOGYA UPNISHAD SAYS:=
VERILY THIS WHOLE WORLD IS BRAHMAN. TRANQUIT , LET ONE WORSHIP IT AS THAT FORM WHICH HE
CAME FORTH ,AS THAT INTO WHICH HE WILL DISSOLVE.--------- ONE SHOULD REVERENCE THE THOUGHT
“ I AM THE WORLD”.
SVETASVATARA UPNISHAD SAYS:=
THOU ART DARK BLUE BIRD, AND GREEN PARROT WITH RED BLUE EYES.
THESE TWO EXAMPLES SHEW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE OBJECTION MAKERS ARE NOT ACCORDING TO
THE RELIABLE HINDU WORKS OF UPNISHADS..
THESE OBJECTION MAKERS SAY:=

I understand that in the sense that God is one with His energies, therefore we are one with God.
However, this is not to say that we are equal to God in all respects.
POINT TO BE NOTED:=
1] THESE STATEMENTS CONFESS THAT THERE IS A PLURALITY OF ENERGIES OF GOD, NOT A
SINGULARITY OF ENERGY. NOW IF THESE ENERGIES ARE GOD THEN ONCE AGAIN THE
CONTRADICTION PLURALITY IS SINGULARITY IS IMPLIED.
2]WE ARE NOT DIVINE ENERGIES BUT CREATIONS. SO IF DIVINE ENERGIES ARE ONE IN ESSENCE
WITH GOD IT IS NOT IMPLIED THAT WE ARE ONE IN ESSENCE WITH GOD.
3] UPNISHAD SAY :=
A] WHOLE WORLD IS BRAHAMAN. AS BRAHMAN IS GOD, THEY WHOLE WORLD IS GOD.
IF WHOLE WORLD IS GOD \BRAHMAN THEN THE WORLD IS NOT JUST EQUAL TO GOD / BRAHMAN
BUT THE VERY GOD/ BRAHMAN HIMSELF.
B] IT IS NOT JUST THE WORLD BUT EACH AND EVERY THING IS GOD AND GOD IS EACH AND EVERY
THING FROM A DARK BLUE BIRD TO A GREEN PARROT ETC.
ONE MAY NOTE THAT THIS IS ALSO THE VIEW OF THE LEARNED OBJECTION MAKER.
NOW WE COME TO SEE THE PROBLEMATIC VIEW OF THE OBJECTION MAKERS.
HE SAYS:-

Is creation and creator one and the same thing? Yes. [SEE OBJECTION 16, Also
see objection#5]

23

THIS MEANS THAT DEITY AND CREATION ARE NOT JUST TWO DISTINCT BEINGS IN ONE AND SAME ESSENCE BUT
THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME INDIVIDUAL. AND ONE AND THE SAME BEING. IF THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME
BEING THEN THE ESSENCE IN THE BEING IS ALSO ONE AND THE SAME..
A CONUNDRUM:=
If Two or more things are one in Essence then they are either In One Essence or Not.
If they are then the Essence is some thing other then ALL OF THEM.
In this case the Essence in Which Deity and Creations are in,is some thing other then the Deity. In other words
Godhead Of the God is other than the God.
As this is a Separation, and the Learned Objection Maker does not believe that Divine Attributes are Separate from
Deity, it is likely that he shall not believe that Divine Essence is Separate from the Deity on Primary Grounds.[Also
See page 10]
If All Creations and Deity are not in one and the same Essence then EITHER some of the CREATIONS AND DEITY are In
One and the Same Essence , while some Creations and the Deity are not in One and the Same Essence OR NONE OF
THEM are in One and the Same Essence..
In the first case some of the creations and the Deity are are not one in Essence.
In the Second case they are not One In Essence.
A Possible Argument
Creations and Deity are One in Essence but not in One Essence.
ANSWER:=
THE CONUNDRUM DOES WORKS SINCE IT PROCEEDS AS FOLLOW:=
IF CREAION ARE ONE IN ESSENCE THEN THERE ARE ONLY TWO CASES. :1] THEY ARE IN ONE ESSENCE. 2] THEY ARE
NOT IN ONE ESSENCE. [SEE THE CONUNDRUM]
NOW SEE THE STATEMENT WHICH IS GIVEN BELOW:=
THE OBJECTION MAKER SAYS:=
I agree [with ] such statements because they imply that Allah, Krishna etc. are only names of the same phenomenon. We verily
have no existence independent of God because we are God in essence. The enquiry after God is as well accomplished by the
enquiry of the "I" which we are.
ANSWER
IT IS CORRECT THAT NO CREATION HAS ANY EXISTENCE INDEPENDENT OF DEITY BUT IT IS EQUALLY INCORRECT THAT DEITY AND
HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE , OR DEITY AND ALL OF HIS CREATIONS DWELL IN ONE AND SAME ESSENCE.SUPPOSE THAT DEITY IS THE
ESSENCE AND ESSE OF ALL OF HIS CREATIONS EVEN THEN NO CREATION IS IN THE DIVINE ESSENCE BUT DISTINCT FROM THE DIVINE
ESSENCE.

24

IT MUST BE NOTED THAT IN PANTHEISM DEITY IS IMPERSONAL , AND THE SAME IS THE VIEW OF THE OBJECTION MAKERS,
SINCE A PERSONAL DEITY MUST BE DISTINCT FROM ALL CREATIONS AND CREATED WORLDS.
NOW COME TO THE POINT THAT ALL-H [SVT] IS THE PROPER NOUN OF A PHNOMENON [‘AL “AYAZ:. BILLAH TA”A:LA:]
IT IS AN INFINITELY FALSE CLAIM. SINCE ALL-H IS THE PROPER NOUN OF THE ESSENCE THAT IS SELF NECESSARY IN EXISTENCE.
EVEN THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES CANNOT BE CALLED BY THIS PROPER NOUN EVEN IF THEY ARE BELIEVED TO BE LOGICALLY DISTINCT
FROM THE DIVINE ESSENCE. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR THE NOUN OF YAHVAH. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE DIVINE ESSENCE IS NOT
EVEN LOGICALLY DISTINCT FROM ITSELF. SO THIS ASSERTION IS DUE TO THE MISCONCEPTION OF SEMETIC RELIGIONS.
I PESONALLY THINK THAT EVEN IN HINDUISM THE NOUNS LIKE B-R-M-H OR B-R-H-N ARE NOT THE NOUNS OF ALLEGED
PHENOMENA.THE OBJECTION MAKER IS NOT DEFENDING ANY HINDU SECT BUT EXPRESSING HIS OWN IDEAS.

OBJECTION#9:=
Question...Does God's words being eternal necessarily mean that those words (in the form of a law, per se) apply eternally and in
all cases?
Answer is:= Actually all words in all scriptures are man's words. But since such enlightened people have

reached the higher dimensions of knowledge, it is right to say that they are God's words - for what is God but
divinity in absolute terms? About eternal words applying eternally, it was colourfully put in the Bible, “The
letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life”.
ANSWER:= ALTHOUTH THIS QUESTION IS NOT RELATIVE TO THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION AND OUGHT TO BE LEFT
OUT YET FOR SOME REASONS SOME COMMENTS ARE NECESSARY .
LET CHRISTIANS EXPLAIN THE EXPRESSION. THERE ARE GOOD COMMENTARIES OF HEBREW BIBLE AND GREEK
NEW TESTAMENT. ONE MAY REFER TO THEM BEFORE QUOTING THEM IN HIS OWN FASION.WORDS SPOKEN BY
MESSIAH CANNOT KILL BUT GIVE LIFE.IF LIFE IS GIVEN THEN IT IS NOT ETERNAL. THE WORD SPIRIT MAY
CORRESPONDS TO THE THIRD HYPOSTASIS IN THE GOD THE TRINITY, NOT TO THE HUMAN SOUL. IT IS A
DIFFERENT CASE.
ANSWER:=
AT LEAST THIS IN NOT THE CASE WITH QURAN. IT IS NOT THE SPEECH OF ANY CREATED SUPPOSITUM SAY
HUMAN OR ANGEL OR WHAT SO EVER.
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/quran-created-or-eternal.67549/page-3
OBJECTION#10:=

When all Muslims proclaim that Quran is the word of God, naturally it has to be assumed that the Quran is
eternal. But Islamic theology might have some difficulty in explaining how there could be the phenomenon
of two eternals. The question of ‘shirk’ then arises. I thought this was an interesting subject
from the academic point of view. Of course I am aware that just as they say love is blind, likewise faith also
does not require any explanations.

25

OBJECTION#11:=
When all Muslims proclaim that Quran is the word of God, naturally it has to be assumed that the Quran is
eternal. But Islamic theology might have some difficulty in explaining how there could be the phenomenon
of two eternals. The question of ‘shirk’ then arises. I thought this was an interesting subject
from the academic point of view. Of course I am aware that just as they say love is blind, likewise faith also
does not require any explanations.
ANSWER:= [AN ANSWER TO ONJECTION# 10 AND OBJECTION#11]
TO CLAIM THAT PLURALITY OF ETERNALS IS A SHIRC IS DUE TO MISCONCEPTION OF THE ISLAMIC TERM SHIRC.
IT IS NOT TENTAMOUNT TO THE TERM POLYTHEISM. IT REQUIRES A DISCUSSION OF IT SELF.
The claim of DIFFICULTIES is not correct.
OBJECTION#12:=
What I meant was that anything that is a divine expression of other religions is shrugged off as 'shirk' by
Islam. It inevitably turns out to be a case of throwing the baby away with the bathwater. That is, all
religions, except Islam, are treated as being totally in error - when there could be so many things in other
religions that Muslims could learn to admire though there many be differences on some fundamental issues.
This way, a culture of inclusiveness could be encouraged in Islam, leading to a brotherhood of all believers not just a brotherhood of Islamic believers.
ANSWER:=
NOTE. THE ANSWER IS JUST RESTRICTED TO THE THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM OF SHIRC\SHIRK\SCHIRK.
SHIRCK IS A VERY TECHNICAL TERM OF ISLAMIC NOMENCLEATURE. IT IS A MISCONCEPTION THAT IT IS
ALTERNATIVE TERM OF POLYTHEIM. A NUMBER OF BELIEVES MAY BE TERMED AS SHIRK, BUT NOT AS
POLYTHEISM. THERE ARE MANY BELIEVES WHICH ARE TERMED AS SHIRC. FOR EXAMPLE:=
1] PLURALITY OF DEITIES.
2] PLURALITY OF ETERNAL ESSENCES.
3] PLURALITY OF INFINITE ESSENCES.
4]PLURALITY OF ETERNAL PER SE SUBSISTENTS.
5] EXISTENCE OF CREATIONS IN DEITY OR DIVINE ESSENCE.
6] EXISTENCE OF DEITY IN CREATIONS.
7] A BELIEF THAT A CREATION IS INDEPENDENT OF DEITY.
8] BELIEF THAT A CREATION IS A PART OD DEITY.

26

9] BELIEF THAT DEITY IS MUTABLE.
10] THE BELIEF THAT DEITY IS FINITE
11] THE BELIEF THAT DEITY IS NOT ABSOLUTE.
12] THE BELIEF THAT THE WORLD IS NOT PER SE SEORSUM.
13] THE BELIF THAT A CREATION IS EQUAL IN ANY ONE OF ITS ATTRIBUTE TO A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE.
14] THE BEIEF THAT DEITY IS NOT ETERNAL. ETC.
SEMETIC RELIGIONS HAVE NOTHING TO LEARN FROM NON SEMETIC RELIGIONS IN ORDER TO CORRECT THEIR
ALLEGED ERRORS. HOW EVER THEY HAVE TO LEARN NON SEMETICS IN ORDER TO ERASE MISCONCEPTIONS.
IT MAY BE NOTED THAT IN THE ENTIRE MUSLIM HYSTORY THERE WAS A MAN OF BANS BARAILI [UNITED
PROVINCES INDIA NAMED AS AHMAD RADA SHAH, WHO BELIEVED THAT TO BELIEVE THAT DIVINE KNOWLEDGE
AND THE PROPHETIC KNOWLEDGE ARE EQUAL IN ALL REGARDS WITH THE DIFFERENCE THAT DIVINE
KNOWLEDGE IS ETERNAL AND PROPHETIC KNOWLEDGE IS NOT, THEN THIS IS NOT SHIRC. BUT NONE AGREED
WITH HIM. ]
OBJECTION#13:=
If God is eternal, His capabilities would also be eternal - otherwise He would have diminished and no longer
a God. God’s word is eternal because His capability to produce words is eternal. His words’ forms, meanings
and purpose may change but not its potency. If the Quran is in this form today, it could be in another form
tomorrow. Divine knowledge, in one form or another, has always been and would always be available to man.
ANSWER:=
It is accepted that deity is eternal. Divine capabilities are are dive attributes. So plurality of divine
attributes are accepted in the objection. So plurality is not singularity. This implies at least some
sort of distinction between divine attributes and divine essence. This may be a real one or a
logical one or of some other type.
For sake of arguments [ at least one] let it be suppose thatit is possible that the divine eternal
speech have more then one form then it it not necessary that it is impossible to have only one
form. it may be said that a form of quran which is in the line of actualization
Not just in the domain of possibilities and contingencies is a creation and all creations are subject
to corruption then the form of quran must be a subject of corruption.
An answer to this objection is as follow:=
Corruption of a possible creation is possible, neither necessary not absurd [impossible].
But possibility of a thing doeth not imply the occurrence of the thing. Since possibility neither
imply existence nor im[ply actualization. So it this case supposed for the sake of arguments if

27

athe only actualized form of quran is possible to be corrupted , it is also possible that it is not
corrupted. Neither corruption is necessary nor not- corruption is necessary. Now to save quran’s
form is also possible for deity. So deity pave power to save the form of the qur’an from
corruption. So if the created form of uncreated quran is saved by the omnipotent deity there is no
corruption it qur’an.
It must be noted that divine knowledge is omniscience and a divine attribute . divine knowledge
is eternal,essential,necessary,absolute,infinite,simple, with out any exception encompasses every
object of knowledge [ object of knowledge = all that can be known whether possible or necessary
or absurd, not necessary an existent]. So this is impossible that entire knowledge is available to
any creation. It is absolute- absurd not just relative- absurd. [ absolute -impossible not just
relative- possible].
Note: Terms like Absolute-Impossible etc are terms may not sound grammatical
Note: Divine Energies and Divine Capabilities are Divine Attributes.

OBJECTION#14:=
We use the word God or Allah or Krishna when we anthropomorphise the phenomenon called life and thereby
often forget that God, however called is but life or existence. Forms may change (die) but life is eternal and
ever celebrating its potency in various and endless forms and names.
ANSWER:=
DEITY HAS NO FORM. THE WORD FORM IF USED IN CASE OF DEITY ONLY MEANETH DIVINE ESSENCE. SO THERE
IS NO FORM OF DEITY EXCEPT DIVINE ESSENCE. THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE DIVINE NATURE. IN CASE OF DEITY
ESSENCE AND NATURE ARE ONE AND HAVE THE SAME MEANING. IF IT IS SUPPSED THAT DIVINE ETERNAL
ATTRIBUTES HAVE DIFFERENT NON ATTERNAL FORMS EVEN THEN IT IS NOT IMPLIED THAT THE DEITY I.E DIVINE
ESSENCE HAVE DIFFERENT ETERNAL FORMS. BUT LET IT BE SUPPOSED THAT THE DIVINE DEITH HATH SOME NON
ETERNAL FORMS, THEN NO FORM IS DEITY,EACH FORM IS A NOT-DEITY , A NOT-GOD.SIMILARLY NO FORM OF
ANY DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE.
Note Only Divine Vita [Life] is Eternal, Not Divine Life is Not Eternal.
Also Non Eternal Lives are corruptible. The number of people Die each day is a Certain Proof of the Claim.
But Deity Cannot die, since this is Absolute -Absurd.
The Problem Of Noun Krishna. If the word Krishna is used for the Divine Essence i.e Deity like Barmh or
Brahman then it would have been a different case. But Krishna is a proper noun of a human being , who
claimed to be a Divine Incarnation . So it is a problematic noun. Even Dayanand the founder of Arya Samaj
sect do not call God as Krishna or Rama etc . [ If he calls God by these Nouns Please QUOTE HIS OWN WORK]
So it is a different case. Attempts are made to equate Jesus and Krishna but even this is not successful in
the least sence.When it is Impossible to say Jesus and Krisna are One it is primly Impossible to say God and
Krisna are one. Some Hindu Missionaries have tried to equate Jesus and Krishna to target some Christians but

28

not even a single attempt was successful. The natures of incarnation of Jesus as according to RC is very
DIFFERENT from the nature of Incarnation im Major Hindu sects. ANY HOW KRISHNA IS NEITHER JESUS NOR
YAHVAH, SIMILARLY KRISHNA IS NEITHER ALL-H NOR YAHVAH.WHAT SO EVER IS TRUE FOR KRISHNA IS ALSO
TRUE FOR RAMA. HINDU REFORMIST PANDIT DIANAND ALSO DENY INCARNATIONS AND HE BELIEVE THAT
NEITHER KRISHNA IS GOD NOT RAMA IS GOD.
What is the actual point, the point it is not just easy to make such great claims which cannot be proved. If
some one takes them AXIOMATICALLY others reject this Axiom.

OBJECTION#15:=
Can we here consider the issue as to whether the Quran was created by Allah or is it the uncreated eternal word of Allah? I
personally believe that the Quran cannot be an uncreated phenomenon unless it is propositioned that the Quran is Allah.
ANSWER:=
THIS OBJECTION HATH BEEN ANSWERED. THIS IS JUST A REPEATATION. FOR DISCUSSION PLEASE SEE ABOVE.
Note : it is better to say Quran is Speech Of Deity then to say Quran is Word of Deity. The word Calam means Speech and he
words “ cal-mah and lafz: mean word.
Any How phrase “word of Deity” is not incorrect, but the Phrase “ Speech Of Deity” is preferable.

OBJECTION#15:=
Quran was communicated to Mohammad by Gabriel in the form of spoken Arabic. It was later consolidated into the form of written Arabic. In
what form would it have been communicated to Gabriel by Allah? Maybe in the seedform of language or mantra, as the Hindus call it. And in what form
would Allah have retained it? In the eternal formless silence, of course.
ANSWER:=
IT CAN BE COMMUNICATED DIRECTLY. SINCE THE ACT OF SPEAKING IS NOT ETERNAL. BUT THIS IS ONLY A CORALLERY OF A
MORE FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM. THE EMANATION OR ISUUANCE OF DIVINE ACT OR DOINGS FROM DIVINE
ATTRIBUTES OR QUALITIES.
THE WORD SCILENCE IS USED IN SEVERAL MEANINGS. IN GENERAL A PERSON WHO HAS NOT STUDIED THEOLOGY AND
PHILOSOPHY DOES THINK IT IS JUST ABSENCE OF [KNOWN] SOUNDS. A THEOLOGICIAN MAY CONSIDER SCILENCE AS ABSENCE OF
SPEECH OR ABSENCE OF WORDS.
SO IN THE FORMER SENSE ON MAY TERM IT AS FORM-LESS SCILENCE. BUT IN THE LATTER STATED SENSE , A SPEECH WHAT SO
EVER IT IS NOT SCILENCE.
OBJECTION#16:=
Is sound and silence one and the same thing?
Is creation and creator one and the same thing? Yes.

29

The formless eternal silence takes on the form of ephemeral sound. Ephemeral creation is the celebration of the eternal Creator. The creator is the
celebration - the eternal creator’s endless ephemeral celebrations.
ANSWER :=
THIS IS SOME WHAT A COMPLEX OBJECTION.
THE QUESTION ”Is

sound and silence one and the same thing?”is discussed above. See
Objection #16.
THE QUESTION WITH AN ANSWER:=

“Is creation and creator one and the same thing? Yes.”Is also discussed above.
Now we come to the most new part of the Objection.
The Objection Maker says:=
The formless eternal silence takes on the form of ephemeral sound. Ephemeral creation is the celebration of the eternal Creator. The creator is the
celebration - the eternal creator’s endless ephemeral celebrations.
IF EACH CELEBRATION IS ETERNAL THEN NON ETERNAL EVENTS ARE IMPOSSIBLE. IF EACH CELEBRATION IS NOT ETERNAL, THEN
THEY ARE CORRUPTIBLE, FALLABLE, EVEN IF THEY ARE ONE IN ESSENCE OF DEITY
OBJECTION#17:=

So is the Quran created or eternal? The Quran is the created form of the eternal uncreated formless silence. Ditto other scriptures.

ANSWER:=
ONE MAY CALL IT ETERNAL DIVINE SPEECH AS FORMLESS SCILENCE IF HE OR SHE LIKES IT BUT ONE MAY
NOT CALL IT SO IF ONE MAY NOT LIKE IT. AS FOR THE OTHER SCRIPTURES , IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT
THEY ARE ALSO LIKE QURAN. SEE THE WORKS OF HADIS, THE SCRIPTURES YET NOT DIVINE SPEECH.
QURAN IS NOT THE ONLY MUSLIM ARABIC SCRIPTURE, BUT BOOKS LIKE BUKHARI , MUSLIM, MUVATTA,
TARMIZI ETC ARE ALSO MUSLIM SCRIPTURES . THOUGH INITIALLY THEY WERE ORAL TRADITIONS BUT
ONCE WRITTEN THEY DO BECOM SCRIPTURES. SO NOT ALL SCRITURES ARE SPEECH OF DEITY.

OBJECTION #18:=
Is creation and creator one and the same thing? Yes.
ANSWER:=
Creation and Creator are not the same. Since :=
1] The Creator Is Certainly Not A Creation.
2] The Creations are Not Eternals and Creator Is Eternal.

30

3]Creator is Absolute Necessary Existent and Creations Are Absolute Possible Existents.
4] It Is Absolute Absurd that Singularity Is Plurality and Plurality Is Singularity.
5]Singularity is Not Plurality and Plurality Is Not Singularilty. See Above:Now we quote Pandit Dayanand Sarsoti who tried to defend Eternity Of Vedas. What so ever he said was inspired by Christian and Muslim Works.
His words for Vedas Do Serve our Purpose:=

Search

Chapter 4,The Eternity of the Vedas
The Vedas having been produced by God and all powers of God being eternal, their
eternity is self-evident.
Here someone might say that the Vedas could not be eternal, because they
consisted of words, and words, like a jar, were effects i.e., things made or fashioned.
The words being non-eternal, the Vedas should necessarily be admitted to be so.
No, they cannot be admitted to be non-eternal, because words are eternal as well as
effects, (i.e., not-eternal).
The relations of words and meanings which exist in the knowledge of God must be
eternal, but, those, which exist in ours, are effects (i.e., non-eternal). All powers of
Him must be eternal whose knowledge and acts are eternal, without a beginning
and innate and inherent in Him. The Vedas being the knowledge of such a being can
never be called non-eternal.
[THE SAME CANBE SAID FOR QURAN AS WELL. POINT TO BE NOTED PANDIT
DIANAND DID NOT USE THE DOGMA THAT CREATIONS EXISTS IN DIVINE ESSENCE.]
Q. – But, there were no books in existence and consequently no acts of learning and
teaching the Vedas were possible at the time when all this universe lay dissolved
and disintegrated
in its causal state and when all gross effects were non-existent. How, then, do you
admit the Vedas to be eternal?
A. ~ This objection can be raised in respect of books, ink, paper, etc., and acts of
man, but not in respect of the acts and powers of God. We believe the Vedas to be
eternal because they are co-eval with and a part of God’s knowledge.
It follows, therefore, that the Vedas cannot be non-eternal simply because the acts
of teaching and learning and the books are non-eternal. The knowledge of God is
eternal and infallible and, therefore, the relations between the letters, words and
31

meanings in the Vedas subsist for all times. They are the same in the present kalpa
as they were in the past and shall remain the same in the future also.
Hence it is said in the Rigveda 8:8, 48. ‘The great Creator, made the sun and the
moon just as He had made them before! The ‘words the sun and the moon’ in the
verse are class names and their meaning is that the plan of the names and their
meaning is that the plan of the creation of the sun and the moon in the present
kalpa is the same as that which existed in God’s knowledge in the previous kalpa,
because His knowledge is not liable to increase or decrease or variation. The same
is true of the Vedas, for, they too, are the products of His knowledge.
We shall now give some quotations from the works on the science of grammar, etc.,
which go to prove the eternalness of the Vedas. Sage Patanjali, the author of the
Mahabhashya, says, ‘The words are eternal. Eternal words must needs consist of
unchangeable and immoveable letters which are not subject to elision,
augmentation or substitution.
This remark occurs in many places in the Mahabhashya from the 1st anhika
onwards. There is also the following observation which occurs in the commentary on
the aphorism ANEUN, ‘ A word is that which is perceived with ear, understood by the
intellect, rendered perceptible by being pronounced and which inheres in space.
The meaning is that all words are eternal whether they be Vedic (peculiar to the
Vedas) or Loukika (used by the generality of mankind), because they are composed
of letters which are imperishable and immoveable and are not subject to elisions,
augmentation and substitution. Words are eternal because in them there is neither
apaya = elisions, disappearance, nor, upajana = augmentation, nor vikaraa =
substitution.
The author of the Mahabhashya anticipates the objection that words cannot be
eternal because there are rules for their elision, etc., in the Ganapatha, Ashtadhyayi
and the Mahabhashya.
In the commentary on the aphorism ‘DAADHAADHVADAADOU’, he observes as
follows:- ‘In the opinion of Panini, the son of Dakshi, complete words are substituted
for complete words, because if the change had taken place in one portion only the
eternalness (of words) would not be established. It means that whole groups are
substituted for other whole group of letters, i.e., specified groups are
substituted for other specified groups, e.g., the place of the word-group VEDAPAAR
+ GAM = U + SU + BHOO + SHAP + TIP. They are mistaken who thing that in this
group AM of GAM, U of U, U of SU OO of BHOO, SHA, PA of TIP are elided because it
has been said that the change does not occur in a portion only.
In the opinion of Acharya Panini, the son of Dakshi, the eternalness of a word would
not be established if elision, augmentation and substitution were to be confined to a
32

portion of a world only. When it is said that AT is added or BHOO is changed into
BHAA the meaning is as explained above.
A word is as defined as that which is perceived with the organ of hearing, is
understood by means of intellect, becomes manifest on being pronounced and
inheres in space. This definition of word also shows that it is eternal. The effort used
in pronouncing (a letter) and the act of hearing it ceases to exist after a moment.
The author of the Mahabhashya says that ‘speech resides in one letter at a time.
The action of speech terminates with the pronunciation of each
letter. We should, therefore, conclude that it is the act of speech and not the word
itself that is non-eternal.
[THE SAME CANBE SAID FOR QURAN AS WELL. POINT TO BE NOTED PANDIT
DIANAND DID NOT USE THE DOGMA THAT CREATIONS EXISTS IN DIVINE ESSENCE.]

Q – But the word also like the action of speech comes into existence when it is
pronounced. How can it, then, be eternal?
A. ~ A word, like space (Akasha), remains unmanifested in the absence of means,
although it is pre-existent. It becomes manifest through the action of breath (prana)
and speech. For example, in pronouncing the word GOU: so long as speech is
engaged with the letter G it has nothing to do with the letter OU and when it is
engaged with the letter OU it has no concern with the visargah.
It is therefore, the act of speech and pronunciation which is subject to elision and
augmentation and not the word itself which is indivisible, uniform and available
everywhere. Where there are no acts of speech and air, words can neither be
pronounced nor heard. We, therefore, conclude that words are eternal like space.
According to the grammatical science all words are eternal, what to say of the Vedic
words.
The sage Jaimini also has established the eternalness of words. Says he, in his
Purvamimansa I.1;18. “It (the word) is surely eternal because it is manifested for the
sake of others. The meaning of the aphorism is this.
[The word ‘surely’ is used with a view to remove doubts about the non-eternalness
of words.]
A word being imperishable is eternal. Since the purpose of pronouncing a word is
the conveying of information to another it cannot be non-eternal. If it were so, the
information that such and such was the connotation of the word “cow’ would be
incapable of being conveyed by means of a non-eternal word.
33

This can be possible only when the words are eternal, for, in that case alone can
there be a constant relation between the signifier and the thing signified. This is
also the reason why many speakers are able to pronounce simultaneously the same
word ‘cow’ at different places and also to pronounce it at different times. Jaimini has
adduced several arguments in support of the eternalness of words.
Again, sage Kanada, the author of the Vaisheshika aphorisms also says : ‘The Vedas
are authoritative because they are His word and because they contain an exposition
of Dharma.
Vaisheshika I.1:8 . The meaning of the aphorism is that all men should acknowledge
the eternal authority of the four Vedas, because they enjoin the performance of
Dharma as a duty and are the word of God.
Similarly, the sage Goutama also says in his Nyaya Shastra; ‘The authoritativeness
of verbal proof is like that of the Veda and the medical science (Ayurveda) and it has
been declared by the Aptas (trustworthy persons)’.
Nyaya II, 1:67. Its purport is that all men should acknowledge the authoritativeness
of the Vedas which are eternal and are the word of God, because all the great Yogis,
Brahma, etc., who were righteous, free from deceit, treachery and other similar
defects, merciful, preachers of
truth, and masters of learning have admitted the authoritativeness of the Vedas to
be of the same nature as that of the Mantra and the Ayurveda. Just as one considers
a mantra, which reveals a scientific principle to be true and authoritative when its
truth is experimentally established, and, just as one, on observing that the use of
medicines prescribed in one portion of the Ayurveda cures disease, comes to have
faith in the medicines prescribed as the other portions of the same, so, on being
satisfied, by direct cognition of the truth of a proposition mentioned in one portion
of the Vedas, one ought to believe in the truth of the contents of their remaining
portions which deal with subjects that are incapable of direct proof.
Sage Vatsyayana also deliver himself to the same effect in his commentary on this
aphorism. Says he, ‘Thus inference is drawn from the fact that the seers and the
expositors were one and the same. The same trustworthy persons who were the
expositors of the Vedas were also the expositors of the medical science. From this
fact we infer that the Vedas are as much authoritative as the medical science.
Hence the argument, that the words of the
Vedas are of eternal authority, because they have been acknowledged to be such by
trustworthy persons. Its purport is that as the word of a trustworthy person is
authoritative so the Vedas also should be admitted to possess authority because
they also are the word of the perfectly trustworthy God and their authoritativeness
has been acknowledged by all trustworthy persons. Consequently the Vedas, being
God’s knowledge, their eternalness follows as a matter of course.
34

Sage Patanjali also observes as follows on this subject:‘He is the teacher of the ancients also, because He is not limited by time,’ Yoga
I.1:26.
God is the teacher of all – of the ancients such as Agni, Vayu, Aditya, Angiras,
Brahma, etc. who were born in the beginning of creation, of the moderns such as
ourselves
and of those also, who are to be born in future. God is called the teacher because
He imparts knowledge of true substances by means of the Vedas. He is eternal
because He is not affected by the action of time.
The afflictions born of ignorance, etc. sinful acts or their impressions touch Him not.
In Him there is highest knowledge and wisdom, innate and eternal. The Vedas are
His word. They are, therefore, necessarily eternal and full of truth.
The remarks of Acharya Kapila also, on this subject, which occurs in the 5th Chapter
of his Sankhya Shastra, are the same effect. Says he; ‘ (The Vedas), having been
produced by His own power, carry their authority within themselves, Sankhya V. 51.
The meaning of this is that as the Vedas have been brought to light by the chief
inherent power of God, one need to acknowledge their self-authoritative and eternal
character.
Sage Krishandwaipayana Vyasa also makes the following observations on this
subject in his Vedanta – Shastra:- ‘He is the source of the
Shastra Veda).’ Vedanta I.1:34.
It means that Brahma is the source and cause of the Rig and the other Vedas which
are the seat and repository of numerous sciences illumine all subjects like a lamp
and deal with all knowable things.
It is impossible that the author of such Shastras as the Rigveda and others which
are encyclopaedias of universal knowledge should be any but an omniscient being.
It is evident that he who expounds a subject knows more than what he writes as
Panini did in the domain of the science of grammar.
Shankarcharya, in his commentary on this aphorism says that a person, who writes
upon it, is so well known in the world that it is not necessary to labor the point
further.
This goes to show that the Shastra of the Omniscient God must needs be eternal
and must contain knowledge of all things. In the same chapter of the Vedanta
Shastra occurs another aphorism, viz, And ‘for
purport of which is as follows:- God, is Omnipresent, etc., and pervades all things on
all sides. There is not a single atom (paramanu) in which He is not present. He is the
maker of the whole universe. He is mighty and possessed of the threefold body, the
35

gross, the subtle and the causal. Even an atom (paramanu) cannot penetrate Him.
Being impenetrable, He is incapable of receiving a wound.
He is not bound by the bonds of arteries, etc., and hence nothing can bind or throw
a veil over him. He always remains away and aloof from such defects as ignorance,
etc. He is never touched by sin, nor does He ever commit a sinful act. He is
Omniscient; He bears witness to and is the knower of the minds of all. He is without
the three causes, the efficient, the material and the general.
He is the universal father, but of Him the generator there is none. He always exists
by His own might, God, the supreme Self, is all existence, all consciousness and all
bliss. He imparted the true knowledge of things to his eternal subjects in the
beginning of creation by revealing the Vedas. Whenever he creates the world He
vouchsafes the Vedas, the repositories
of all knowledge, to His creatures for their benefit.
Everyone should, therefore, believe that the Vedas are eternal. They are God’s
knowledge always remains uniform and unchanged.
The Vedas can, with as great certainty be shown to be eternal on reason as on
authority. One should acknowledge the eternalness of the Vedas according to the
maxim that something cannot come out of nothing and nothing cannot produce
something. That alone will exist in future which exists at present.
It is impossible that a thing which has no root should have branches. To hold the
contrary opinion would be like seeing the marriage of the son of a sterile woman. If
she has a son she cannot be sterile and if she has no son no one can see his
marriage. Those very considerations apply to the case in hand. If God be devoid of
infinite knowledge, He would not be able to impart it to others, no one would be
able to acquire knowledge and experience; for, nothing can grow which
has no root. Nothing is seen in the world which has been produced without a cause.
We shall now state what is the actual experience of all men. We retain the
impressions of that only which has been the subject of our direct cognition and we
remember and know that only of which we retain the impressions.
This knowledge alone supplies us with the motives of action and inaction.
(attraction and repulsion). It cannot be otherwise. Whosoever reads Sanskrit gets
the impressions of that language only and of no other.
In this way if God had not instructed and taught men in the beginning of creation no
one would have been able to come by experience that is requisite for acquisition of
knowledge.

36

Without such experience there would have been no impressions and without
impressions there would have been no remembrance and without remembrance
there would have been no knowledge, not even the semblance of it.
[THE SAME CANBE SAID FOR QURAN AS WELL. POINT TO BE NOTED PANDIT
DIANAND DID NOT USE THE DOGMA THAT CREATIONS EXISTS IN DIVINE ESSENCE. IF
SOME STATEMENTS ARE NOT TRUE FOR QURAN , IT MAY NOT CAUSE ANY PROBLEM.
THE BASICS MAY BE COSIDERED.]

Q. – But why? Men have a natural bent to act and in their activities they experience
pleasure and pain. So, gradually and in course to time they must increase their
stock of knowledge. Why should it then be believed that the Vedas were produced
by God?
A. ~ We refuted this objection while treating of the origin of the Vedas. We proved
there that even now no one acquires knowledge and is able to increase it without
receiving instruction from others; so, man could not have made progress in learning
and knowledge without having received instruction from God in the beginning
through the Vedas.
There we illustrated our meaning by the case of children kept in a wilderness
without instruction and also by the cause of the dwellers of forests. We sat that such
children and dwellers of forest so could neither acquire knowledge, nor, learn the
use of human speech, without instruction – let alone the question of the origin of
knowledge (through experience).
Therefore, the knowledge contained in the Vedas, which has proceeded from God,
must needs to be eternal like all of His attributes. The name, the attributes and the
actions of an eternal substance must themselves be eternal, because their
substratum itself is eternal.
existence of producer and if the producer itself happens to be the result of
combination it will have its own producer and so on ad infinitum. That which itself is
the product of combination cannot have the power of combining prakriti or the
atoms (paramanus); for, the latter will be subtler than itself. The subtler is the Atma
(pervader) of the grosser; for, the former is capable of penetrating into the latter as
fire penetrates into iron.
As fire, on account of its subtle composition can enter into the hard and gross iron
and separate its particles from one another, so, water, being subtler than earth, can
enter into its particles and combine them into a ball or separate them from one
another.

37

God is above conjunction and disjunction and is all-pervading. He is, consequently,
able to bring about conjunction and disjunction according to law. It cannot be
otherwise.
We being ourselves within the sphere of combination and disjunction are unable to
combine or separate prakriti or paramanus. If God also were within that sphere He
would be, like us, incapable of bringing about combination and disjunction proceed,
being
the first cause of the things coming into existence by means of combination and
disjunction, is not under their sway. Without the first cause there would be no
beginning of combination and disjunction. The Vedas having been revealed by, and
having always existed in, the knowledge of God who is the first cause of
combination and separation, who remains ever unchanged in His essence, who is
without a beginning, eternal, unborn, and whose might endures for ever, their
eternalness and the truthfulness of the knowledge contained in them are
established.* [THE SAME CANBE SAID FOR QURAN AS WELL. POINT TO BE NOTED
PANDIT DIANAND DID NOT USE THE DOGMA THAT CREATIONS EXISTS IN DIVINE
ESSENCE].

NOTE: IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MUSLIMS DO NOT AGREE WITH DIANAND SARSUTI ON
SEVERAL ISSUES.
BUT THIS IS PRESENTED JUST TO PROVE THAT ONE MAY USE SOME ARGUMENTS TO
DEFEND SUCH OBJECTION.

38