MUHAMMAD IS NOT IN THE HINDU SCRIPTURES
Recently, claims have been made that Mohammed's coming and his preaching of Islam is predicted in the Hindu Scriptures, on various Islamic Internet sites. The leading proponent seems to be one Abdul Haque Vidyarthi, who has apparently written a book on this. Any internet search engine containing the worlds Muhammad and Hindu returns a large number of results on this theme. A number of textual proofs are given in support of this claim. While this comforts the faithful, let us analyze these proofs rationally and see whether the claim holds up under the clear light of reason unfogged by religious sentimentality. However, I must confess that I have been unable to get hold of the book written by Dr. Vidyarthi, and therefore must be content by critiquing the material available on the Internet.
1. The first premise is based on the Koranic belief that There Never Was A People Without A Warner:
Qur'an 35:24, Qur'an 16:36, Qur'an 4:164, Qur'an 3:81-82 all declare that Allah had sent messengers or apostles before to various nations of the earth telling them to worship Allah and accept the apostles as His messenger. To the Muslims these verses mean that every religion had its prophets of whom Muhammad is the last and final. From this they deduce that scriptures of other religions must contain mention of Muhammad. To a Muslim there is no proof needed but the Koran; but for unbelievers the Koran by itself is no proof. Satisfactory proof is yet to be given that Allah exists or that the Koran is God's Revelation. Nor does it automatically follow that Mohammed's arrival would be predicted anywhere.
2. The next argument is based on linguistics:
The writer argues that Sanskrit has borrowed from Arabic. He has found this by an analysis of the Vedas. However, when we come to the actual words given as examples, the ground is too shaky to withstand scrutiny.
(a) Brahma, the Creator in the Hindu Trinity, is declared to be actually Abraham. The initial letter A in Abraham has apparently been moved to the end making it Brahma. We are told "This analysis is accurate when one writes the two words in Arabic script, a language close to that spoken by Prophet Abraham". This immediately raises the problem of what language Abraham actually spoke and also that "a language close to that spoken" is not the same thing as the actual language. Also since the analysis is based on only phonetic similarity and on changing the position of the alphabets, the Hindus can with equal justice claim that Ramadan/Ramazan is actually a corruption of 'Ramanavami'.
Not only that, let us take a look at the linguistic root of Brahma. The term Brah comes from the root Bri which means "to worship, to select, to surround". When an h is added to Bri it becomes Briha meaning to "increase, to grow". By addition of 'an', we have the word Brahman who in Hinduism is the Supreme God. Brahman thus is the original word. Brahman is without form, without gender and cannot be plural. The cosmos came into being by its will alone. When Brahman is imagined as a masculine being engaged in the act of creation, then it is called Brahma. When Brahman is imagined as a feminine being who is the source of energy without which the act of creation cannot take place, then it is called Brahmani. Brahma thus has nothing to do with Abraham (incidentally we can also claim that Abraham comes from Brahma), but comes from Brahman and is clearly the God of creation/the creative aspect of God and not a human.
(b) "Similarly, Abraham’s first wife Sarah is mentioned in the Vedas as Saraswati". This again depends on mere phonetic similarity. Unfortunately, when we study the Rigvedic verses we see that Saraswati was actually a river. There is great dispute as to where this river was, but there is no doubt that it is a river. Rigveda again and again declare it to be a river with descriptions of flowing down from the mountains into the sea and it is worshipped as a river-goddess. Later on, somehow or other she became the goddess of learning as well. It was only in the Middle Ages that she became the consort of Brahma. In the Vedas, she is definitely not Brahma's wife. Unless one is willing to grant that the Sara of the Bible was originally a river, one cannot see any connection between the two.
( c ) "Noah or Nuh is mentioned as Manuh or Manu." The only similarity between the two characters lies in their stories. Like Noah Manu too was saved by God during the Flood. But this proves nothing except that there was perhaps a worldwide flood. Moreover, the rest of the story simply do not match: Manu had no ark (only a boat towed by God in the form of a fish) and definitely no kind of animals with him to repopulate the world. Not only that, Manu is a generic name for 14 sovereigns of the world in the myths and there is a female Manu as well who is the Mother of mankind (Manava > children of Manu (fem.) )
(d) Similarly, it is argued that 'Maleccha' (unclean ones) come from Hebrew word "Ma-Hekha which means 'thy brethren'. (e.g., And he (Ishmael) shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. Genesis 16:12; i.e., Ismaelites are the brethren of the Israelites). This word therefore means a descendant of Ishmael, and it is well known that Muhammad (s) is a descendant of Prophet Ismail through his second son Kedar. Those who can read Arabic Script can easily see that a mistake in separating Ma from Hekha will produce a single word ‘Malhekha,’ and when adapted in another tongue like Sanskrit might sound like Malechha". Again this relies on the belief that ancient Hindus knew Hebrew and had read the version of the Bible, as we find it today. Linguistically, the term comes from 'mlech', meaning to speak indistinctly, barbarously. So 'mlechha' came to mean those who could not speak the Vedic language, those who are outside Hindu society. The term is definitely ancient since it is found in Vedas.
3. The third argument draws heavily from what is known as Bhavishya Purana or Book of Prophecies. Prati Sarg Parv III: 3, 3, verses 5-27 give detailed descriptions of Mohammed's doings, the establishment of the new religion and even gets the Prophet's name right. So we immediately come to the question of how authentic this book is. According to most scholars, this book is a work of compilation that went on through centuries, with the writers pretending to pass off historical knowledge as prophecies of the future. The writer argues, "A case has been made that the present Puranas are not the same collection that Vedas refer to and the real books were lost". I would be very astonished if any Hindu had actually made such a claim, because it is common knowledge that Puranas were written after the Vedas and the Vedas never mention any Purnanas. However this allows Mr. Haq to set up an useful non-existent strawman for him to demolish. He also argues that materials could not have been added in later dates because Puranas were read in public and so could not have been altered. However, only the more popular stories from the 18 Puranas were read in assemblies and Bhavishya Purana is a text that was seldom read out in public. Even if we accept the book as authentic, two questions arise. One is, why does the book contain prophecies only till Victoria's reign? Why did God suddenly decide to suspend his revelations at that particular moment? Surely it would have been more proper to continue it (even through Muslim holy men) or to end all such prophecies with the emergence of Islam and the 'perfect' Book of Koran which was to replace all others. Secondly, the Purana is filled with stories of the doings of various gods and concludes that the only god who is worthy of worship is the Surya, the sun-god. If the book is authentic then all such stories are also true and therefore it is the sun we must worship. However, most Muslims have not read the whole book; those who have, argue that all such portions are corruptions. But Hindus can too use such pick-and-choose methods by declaring that it is the portions relating to Islam which are degenerations.
4. Prophecy in Vedas:
(Note --- The Vedas are the oldest scriptures of Hinduism. They are written in an archaic language, so ancient that when Sanskrit as a language was codified ordinary people had already started forgetting the meanings of the verses. The great pundits of the time therefore started to write commentaries and grammar books on them. Even today, it is not possible to translate the verses without these texts. However today's scholars also have the help of comparing them with other languages.)
Haq declares that Atharva Veda, Kanda (chapter) 20, Mantras 126-137 prophesy about Muhammad. This portion is known as Kuntap sukta. He says that the word Kuntap means to consume sin and misery, and it is composed from Kuh (sin and misery) and tap (to consume). This is not wholly correct. The Gopatha Brahman defines the term as "that which burns away whatever is evil or ugly". However the meaning is close enough. But he goes onto say that the word Kuntap also means "the ‘hidden glands in the abdomen,’ inferring the true meaning to be revealed only to those who are able to develop sufficient insight". It is a pity that he does not give his source for this meaning. But apparently he has developed sufficient insight to read its hidden meaning: that this meaning proves it is actually a reference to Mecca which is called navel of the earth by Muslims. Then Dr. Vidyarthi "shows that the word "Kuntap is derived from Bakkah (Makkah). In the analysis of Sanskrit and Arabic words having the same meaning … , the word ‘b’ in Arabic is used as ‘p’ in Sanskrit (in our times, one example is that of soft drink Pepsi; it is written and pronounced as Bebsi in the Arab world). A certain ‘t’ in Arabic becomes silent and pronounced as h depending on its position in that word … For example, ‘tun’ in Medinatun is replaced by h when pronounced (both t and n are dropped). Further, many Sanskrit words having parallel in Arabic are written backwards … Thus one can see the similarity between the word Kuntap and Bakkah (each containing letters k, n, t, p)".
This once again is absolutely childish, on the same level as Brahma and Abraham. "Kuyang ang nam kutsitang bhavati taddopatti , tasmat [from there] Kuntap" --- the letters k, u, n, t, a, p all come from the Sanskrit words in the definition. (I have used Roman alphabets for the ordinary reader, though the pronunciation is not absolutely accurately transcribed thereby). Also, another term for the Kuntap sukt is left out. It is also called 'Khila-parva' meaning supplement; these verses are taken mostly from the Rig-Veda and are not considered to be of any great importance. Indeed many translations skip this chapter altogether, which no doubt Dr. Vidyarthi felt can only help his cause.
(Just to muddy the waters further, a Hindu has argued that the word Mecca comes from the Sanskrit root Makh or Yajna; the name Mohammad is a derivative of Krishna's another name, Madan Mohan and the word Aab (water) comes from the pure Sanskrit word Aap meaning water. We have exactly the same type of argument here that Vidyarthi/Haq gives, except that it is turned upside down: but the latter is equally valid in its methodology as the former. In fact since no analysis is given that can expose its weaknesses, -- only an assertion is made --- the Hindu claim appears more valid!).
The writer says that the third Mantra of the Kuntap Sukt translated by someone called Pandit Raja Ram is:
"He gave the Mamah Rishi a hundred gold coins, ten chaplets, three hundred steeds and ten thousand cows."
He goes onto explain " The root of the word Mamah is Mah which means to esteem highly, honor, revere, to magnify and to exalt. The word "Mohammad" means "the praised one" in Arabic. Therefore, Mamah is synonymous with Mohammad when the full meaning of the verse is considered. The 'd' dropped as in the case of Mamah (Mohammad, which is derived from root letters h, m, and d)". It is a very ingenious explanation. Alas! the only problem is that Mamah is not a single word nor a name. It is a combination of two words 'mamo' and 'ahe', meaning "to me".
Then he goes on to explain the 'hidden' (!) symbolism in the line. The hundred gold coins apparently refer to the early companions of Prophet Muhammad,. The ten chaplets refer to ten companions of Prophet Muhammad, who were given the good news of Paradise by the Prophet. Three Hundred Good Steeds (horses of Arab Breed) refers to those companions of Prophet Muhammad who fought at ‘Badr.’ We are told that though their actual number was 313, in many prophecies the numbers are usually rounded up. Ten Thousand Cows refer to ten thousand companions who accompanied the Prophet when he conquered Mecca. The interpretation is based on a hadith in Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, number 159, where Muhammad narrates a dream where cows symbolize the believers. Is there any other evidence to suggest that the hymn is a symbol of anything, far less of the meaning the writer finds? There is not. Also he reveals his shoddy Vedic scholarship when he declares "The Sanskrit word Arvah means a swift Arab horse particularly used by Asuras (non-Aryans)". In the Vedas the Asuras are not non-Aryans; gods like Indra and Varuna are addressed as 'Asur' which simply means 'lord'. It was far later that Asuras came to symbolize demons
He then gives his version of the mantras 1 through 13 of the Kuntap Sukt which according to him is culled from many Hindu Pundits. However the work of Griffith and Whitney are usually considered sufficient :
1. Listen to this O people! a praiseworthy shall be praised. O Kaurama we have received among the Rushamas sixty thousand and ninety. [population of Makkah at the time of Prophet’s triumphant entry in Makkah].
The Rusama is mentioned in RigVeda as a protégé of Indra, and is elsewhere referred to as a community which has nothing to do with Mecca. Kaurama is the alternative name for Kaurava, a generous donor in the community.
2. Twenty camels draw his carriage, with him being also his wives. The top of that carriage or chariot bows down escaping from touching the heaven.
The accepted wording is "Twenty camels that draw the car, with females by their side, he gave ..." Here the giver is giving away camels and serving girls.
3. He gave the Mamah Rishi a hundred gold coins, ten chaplets, three hundred steeds and ten thousand cows.
As noted earlier it is not the Mamah rishi, but simply rishi.
4. Disseminate the truth, O ye who glorifies [Ahmad], disseminate the truth, just as a bird sings on a ripe fruited tree. Thy lips and tongue move swiftly like the sharp blade of a pair of shears. [The Prophet’s state when he received revelation through Archangel Jibril (Gabriel)].
Again, the standard translation is "Glut thee o singer, glut thee, like a bird on a ripefruited tree".However, the term 'narasansha' which is translated as singer, can also mean someone who praises. Apparently this version is relied on, so that it can be equated with Ahmad.
5. The praying ones with their prayers hurry on like powerful bulls. Only their children are at home, and at home do they wait for the cows. [Cows refers to companions of the Prophet. Prophet’s companions strict adherence to five daily prayers at appointed times. Refers to Battles of Badr, Uhud, and Ahzab (Ditch or Allies)].
6. O you who praises (the Lord), hold fast the wisdom, which earns cows and good things. Disseminate this among the divines, just as an archer places his shaft on the right point. [wisdom of the Qur’an].
Again, here the standard translation is "O singer bring thou forth the hymns..."
7. Sing the high praise of the king of the world or the Light of the Universe, who is a god and the best among men. He is a guide to all people and gives shelter to everyone. [Prophet Mohammed's qualities].
The standard translation is, "Sing the praise of Pariksit, the sovereign whom all people love, the king who ruleth over all, excelling mortals as a god". The name Parikshit is definitely mentioned. Parikshit is the name of a king of the Kaurava line, though it cannot be ascertained whether this is the same king mentioned in Mahabharata. However, this name is left out. Apparently even the writer's imagination has a hard time trying to prove that Parikshit is another name for Muhammad.
8. He who affords shelter to everybody, gave peace to the world, as soon as he mounted the throne. Men in Kuru-land are talking of his peace-making at the time of the building of the house. [Kuru means one who protects a house in Hebrew and Kore means a house. It refers to the first house of worship, the Ka’bah. In this sense, Kuru-land means the land of Koreish. This Mantra refers to the rebuilding of the Kabah five years before Mohammed's prophethood and his role in peace-making when each tribe of the Koreish (Quraish) wanted the sole honor to put the Black Stone at its right place and disputed to the point of threats to fight each other. The Black Stone is a celestial material and is the only remaining part of the original building material of the Ka'bah].
Standard translation: "Mounting his throne Parikshit best of all hath given us peace and rest, saith a Kaurava to his wife as he is ordering his house". A Kaurava is a member of the Kuru clan, descended from Kuru, whatever may be its meaning in Hebrew. Also why are the specific terms husband (pati) and wife (jaya) left out? I am sure the writer could have found some hidden significance in them as well, if only he had worked hard.
9. In the realm of the King, who gives peace and protection to all, a wife asks her husband whether she should set before him curd or some other liquor. [Due to Prophet’s protection and commandments, women could travel freely long distances without any escort or fear]. 10. The ripe barley springs up from the cleft and rises towards heavens. The people prosper in the reign of the king who gives protection to all. [people rise from the depth of degradation to the height of glory]. 11. Indra awoke the singer of his praises and asked him to go to the people in every direction. He was asked to glorify Indra, the mighty and all pious men would appreciate his effort and God would bestow on him His rewards. [The Prophet sent letters to several kings and rulers in every direction inviting them to Islam].
Only someone very determined to prove his thesis can find that these verses refer to Islamic history.
12. Cows, horses and men multiply and increase here, because here rules the one who is bountiful and splendidly generous who gives thousands in charity and sacrifice. [qualities of the Last Prophet].
Here another reference to a pagan god is left out : "Here cows! increase and multiply, here ye o horses, here o men. Here with a thousand rich rewards doth Pusan [sun god] also seat himself".
13. O Indra, let these cows be safe, and let not their master be harmed. And let not an enemy, O Indra, or a robber overpower them. [Indra refers to God and cows to saintly followers of the Prophet].
[The writer is not quiet upto the latest researches done by his other Muslim colleagues. They are assiduously writing that Indra as the god of war and leader of Aryans, is the cruel enslaver of the indigenous inhabitants of India and is the first terrorist in the world].
As can be seen the writer very carefully leaves out certain words and gives others another meaning than commonly associated with them. However, even that is not enough to turn the verses into predictions about Muhammad. Read in the ordinary manner the verses simply show a picture of a kingdom thriving under a benevolent king; these are simply hymns of praise. He therefore has to take the help of symbolism. The source of his symbolism cannot be found in the Vedas themselves --- he simply imposes them arbitrarily in order to suit his theory. Only the eye of faith can produce such an interpretation of the hymn.
Then the writer quotes a verse from Sama Veda, II:6,8: "Ahmad acquired religious law (Shariah) from his Lord. This religious law is full of wisdom. I receive light from him just as from the sun." He gets the translation almost right with a peculiarly Islamic twist. The proper translation is, "I from my Father have obtained deep knowledge of eternal Law; I was born like unto the Sun". As for 'Ahmad', once again it is a typical example of sleight-of-hand like Mamah. The actual Sanskrit term is 'ahammiddhi' , 'aham' meaning 'I'.
To clinch the matter, the writer then quotes from Rig Veda V, 27, 1: "The wagon-possessor, the truthful and truth-loving, extremely wise, powerful and generous, Mamah [Mohammad] has favored me with his words. The son of the All-powerful, possessing all good attributes, the mercy for the worlds has become famous with ten thousand [companions]."
However, the standard translation of this verse reads, "The Godlike hero, famousest of nobles, hath granted me two oxen with a wagon. Trvrsan's son Tryaruna hath distinguished himself, Vaisvanara Agni! with ten thousands". "Vaisvanara" is another name for the fire-god, but it is not known with certainty who Trvrsan or his son might be. However, Haq leaves out the reference to the Fire-god. Trvsran becomes another name for Allah (on the grounds perhaps that there is a possibility that the name can refer to a god) while the name Tryaruna is omitted altogether. Instead he once again falls back on the standby of Mamah. Apparently wherever the particular combination of letters forming the word 'mamah', whether alone or whether occurring in combination of other letters in a word, it is employed to prove that it indicates Muhammad. The maximum the verse can be stretched to read is that, "O fire, lord of mankind! the protector of the righteous, extremely wise, lordly (incidentally the term employed here is 'asura') and rich, Trivsran's son Tryaruna has given me two cows yoked to a wagon and ten thousand gold pieces and thus gained fame". The singer of the verse is being favoured not with words of wisdom but with material gifts. One cannot call Haq's translation anything other than a lie. Not surprisingly he leaves the rest of the hymn alone. In it the singer explains that the king had given him these gifts because he had pleased him with his praise and he asks the gods to grant happiness to the donor.
The amount of manipulation and misdirection we see here is astonishing. The writer of the article is either grossly misled or is apparently relying on the fact that not enough of his readers will know Sanskrit or bother to look up references. He happily mistranslates and uses symbolism without any shred of proof. One understands his eagerness to prove that Islam is the culmination of every religion. The book by Dr. Vidyarthi/Haq is apparently of a common type: desire to prove that Islam is but the culmination of his ancestral Hindu religion. However one has to wonder, if the faith of the writers like these is so insecure that they have to search in other religions for legitimacy. Also one has to wonder what this says of other Muslim scholars who have read the Vedas before. None of them had ever read any of the meanings that the writer finds; obviously they were either more foolish or less learned than our writer. However, the climax comes in this assertion: "The Vedas contain many prophecies about Prophet Muhammad. Some European and Hindu translators of the Vedas have removed the name referring to the Prophet, while others have tried to explain away the mantras (verses) on his life events, Ka’bah, Makkah, Medinah, Arabia, and other events using the terminology of the Hindus, such as purification rituals, and lands and rivers in India". In other words, explain what scholars might like, our good Islamic Sanskrit scholar knows that they would be lies. He operates under the assumption that anyone who tries to refute him is by the very definition a liar. This assertion is a wonderful way of not having to face the truth. (Of course I personally believe that Haq's book is not meant for either the Hindu or the serious scholar; it is targeted at the Muslims to strengthen their faith).
Meanwhile here is a titbit to show Muslims/Arabs that both parties can play the same game and for the ordinary reader to have a good laugh --- enjoy!
Copyright Information: This material can be distributed freely in any form provided the source is acknowledged.