Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya Part IV — Page 295
SuB-Footnote Number Three 295 ‘eloquence’ of the Vedas, the objective of which was Tau hi d [Oneness of God], yet they started making a fuss about hundreds of deities. God forbid that the word which is incapable of expressing its own objective should be eloquent! How can an eloquent word suffer from such a defect that it cannot clearly and explicitly express the very point, the expression of which is its main objective? The foremost prerequisite of eloquence is that the speaker be fully competent to express what is in his mind and that it should be expressed with such clarity that no ambiguity remains in it and that, like [gestures of ] the dumb, they should not say things that are ambiguous and absurd. Yes, when it is expedient not to disclose a matter or to express it as a mystery, then to express it obliquely is eloquence. But it is not permissible that Tau hi d, on which [one’s] entire salvation depends, should be kept hidden. Thus, it is incorrect to assert that the Vedas have intentionally set out Tau hi d as an enigma or a riddle, and have deliberately made statements to deceive and mislead. For, in that case, one will have to concede that the Vedas have deliberately intended to drag many hundreds of millions of people into the whirlpool of death and have intentionally set out state- ments, the reading of which would spread the teachings of creature-worship. Rather, in that case, the opinion of average Hindus will be right that the true intention of the Vedas was nothing but to make the A ryah people the worshippers of [their] gods. And if the true intention of the Vedas is not to be taken as that of [spreading] crea- ture-worship, then one will have to admit that they totally lack the knack of saying things properly, and that they are incapable of making their meanings clear for their readers. And, in that case, their falling short of the standard of eloquence would become so manifest that it would not need to be stated in so many words. In the opinion of a wise person, the composition of someone cannot be called eloquent if it does not convey its intended meanings. On the contrary, it pulls one towards that which is not its purport and towards corrupt views. Whichever shurt i you look at, you will find it leading away from the right path, rather than leading to it. What ‘eloquence’, and what an