|45-Muhammad in Ved|
45-Muhammad in Ved
Prophet Muhammad's name has been mentioned in Bhavishya Puraan, 3/17.
Was Prophet Muhammad in the Ved?
Starting With the Rig Ved
First of all, we should see what the Rig Ved actually says about Prophet Muhammad. It should also be mentioned at the outset that two Sanskrit words Samasata and Narasamsa play the central role in these arguments of such people as Zakir Naik. According to him, the word Samasata stands for an individual who praises. In Arabic, such an individual is called Ahammad, the other name of Prophet Muhammad. Therefore, wherever he could find the word Samasata, he took it as the mentioning of their Prophet. According to him, the second word narasamasa means an individual who is to be praised or who is praiseworthy. The Arabic word Muhammad means a man who is praiseworthy. So, wherever he could have found the word Narasamasa in any Sanskrit texts, he took it to be a mentioning of Muhammad. In fact, both the Sanskrit words Samasata and Narasamsa stand for a deity or God, who is praiseworthy. According to Sayana, the most reputed commentator of the Ved, the word Narasamsa means a deity or a respectable entity (not a man) that deserves to be praised by man.
However, we should have a closer look to see what Zakir Naik has to say. According to him, the verses (1/13/3), (1/18/9), (1/106/4), (1/142/3), (2/3/2), (5/5/2), (7/2/2), (10/64/3) and (10/182/2) of the Rig Ved contain the word Narasamsa, and hence mention Muhammad, and the verse (8/1/1) of the Rig Ved contains the word Samsata (Ahmmad), or the other name of Muhammad. So here he begins with another blatant lie and says that the word Samasata stands for a man who praises, the Arabic equivalent of Ahammad and hence mentions Muhammad. The said verse (8/1/1) of the Rig Ved reads:
Ma chidanyadvi samasat sakhayo ma risnyata l Indramitstot a vrsana saca sute muhuruktha ca samsata ll
"Glorify naught besides, O friends; so shall no sorrow trouble you. Praise only mighty Indra when the juice is shed, and say your lauds repeatedly." (Translation: R T H Griffith; The Hymns of the Rig Ved, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi; 1995, p-388). So the word Samsata (praiseworthy) in the above verse refers to deity Indra, and not a man who praises (Ahammad) as claimed by Dr Zakir Naik.
We shall now see what the verses containing the word Narasamsa say. In Rig Ved, a verse is referred to as (x/y/z), where x stands for Mandal, y stands for Sookt and z stands for the Verse or k. The verse (1/13/3) of Rig Ved, as mentioned above, belongs to 13th Sookt of the 1st Mandal. It should also be noted here that every Sookt of the Rig Ved is dedicated to a deity. The presiding deity of the 13th Sookt of the 1st Mandal is Agni (the God of Fire). The verse says:
Narasamsamiha priyamasminajna upahvaye l Madhujihvat haviskritam ll
sweet of tongue, the giver of oblations, I invoke to this our sacrifice."
The verse (1/18/9) of the Rig Ved says:
I have seen Narasamsa,
him most resolute, most widely famed, as it were the Household Priest of heaven."
The verse (1/106/4) of the Rig-Ved says:
"To mighty Narasamsa, strengthening his might, to Pusan, ruler over men,
we pray with hymns. Even as a chariot from a difficult ravine, bountiful Vasus,
rescue us from all distress."
The verse (1/142/3) of the Rig Ved says:
"He wondrous, sanctifying, bright, sprinkles the sacrifice with mead, thrice,
Narasamsa from the heavens, a God amid Gods adorable."
The verse (2/3/2) of the Rig Ved says:
"May Narasamsa lighting up the chambers, bright in his majesty through threefold
heaven, steeping the gift with oil diffusing purpose, bedew the Gods at chiefest time
The Verse (5/5/2) of Rig Ved says:
"He, Narasamsa, neer beguiled, inspireth this sacrifice; for sage is he, with sweets in hand.
The verse (7/2/2) of Rig Ved says:
"With sacrifice to these we men will honor the majesty of holy Narasamsa" to
these the pure, most wise, the thought-inspires, Gods who enjoy both sorts of our oblations."
The verse (10/64/3) of the Rig-Ved says:
"To Narasamasa and Pusan I sing forth, unconcealable Agni kindled by the Gods. To Sun
and Moon, two Moons, to Yam in the Heaven, to Trita, Vata, Dawn, Night and Ashwins Twin."
The verse (10/182/2) of Rig Ved says:
"May Narasamsa aid us at Prayaja; blest be out Anuyaja at invokings. May he
repel the curse, and chase ill-feeling, and give the sacrificer peace and comfort."
Another verse (1/53/9) of the Rig Ved says,
"With all-outstripping chariot-wheel, O Indra, thou far-famed, hast overthrown
the twice ten Kings of men, with sixty thousand nine-and-ninety followers, who came in
arms to fight with friendless Sushravas."
Most of the scholars agree that the Rig Ved was composed more than 5000 years BCE, and hence the incident narrated in the verse (1/53/9) took place more than 7000 years ago. And Muhammad conquered Mecca in 630 AD. But Zakir Naik has proceeded to link the incident with Muhammad's capturing Mecca, which any sane man, except a Muslim, would feel shy to undertake. To give his mischief a shape, he has, firstly replaced the word Sushravaa with Sushramaa and says that the word Sushramaa stands for one who praises, and hence equivalent to Ahammad in Arabic, the other name of Muhammad. And he claims that the verse narrates Muhammad's conquering Mecca, as the then population of the city was about 60,000 and Muhammad had invaded Mecca with 20 of his closest followers. It is not difficult for the reader to discover the absurdity of this claim and the deceit involved with making it.
The verse (8/6/10) of the Rig Ved says,
"I from my Father have received deep knowledge of the Holy Law: I was born like unto the Sun."
Thus we have studied all the verses of the Rig-Ved which, according to Naik, mention Muhammad. It has been said above that the Sanskrit word Narasamsa stands for a deity or God who is praiseworthy to man, but not a man who is praiseworthy to other men, which is what Naik claims. So, according to this kind of childish logic, whenever someone uses the word "praiseworthy" it should be taken granted that he mentions Prophet Muhammad. But that is far from the truth.
However, the intellectual level of those who try to use these techniques of mistranslations are revealed when they try to do the same thing with the word Narasamsa in other Ved, like Atharv Ved and Yajur Ved and is again projecting them to be mentioning Prophet Muhammad. Though it is sheer wastage of time to deal with the utterances of such insane people as this, we may discuss these matters more thoroughly in the future. In the meantime, many are those who are realizing the confusing and inaccurate conclusions such as these and are losing confidence in such people who depend on this kind of tactic, as they also become an embarrassment to the religion they represent.
Debunking the Atharv Ved Connection
1. Listen to this, ye men, a laud of glorious bounty shall be sung.
Take pleasure in the songs we sing: let evil never fall on us.
The Saam Ved Connection
1. Indra whose jaws are strong hath drunk of worshipping Sudaksha's draught,
So some people say that verse 8 says "Ahmed acquired from his Lord the knowledge of eternal law. I received light from him just as from the Sun." Then they associate the word as Ahmed to be Mohammed. But let us understand the verse accurately. In these verses, Indra is strengthened with Som sacrifice and the Priests cry out for Indra's arrival. The priests recognize the name of the creative Seer - the personification Som, there in the mansion of the Moon - which in Vaidik symbolism, resembles a drop of Som. Next, Indra's legendary battle with Viritra the dragon who holds back the waters of the Earth is reflected and it is seen how Indra brings the streams towards Earth with Pushan by his side. The description of a cow pouring forth her milk is also given and is thought akin to Indra's action. Then, the priests once again call to Indra as the lord of joy to give his strengthening gifts to Som and Indra doing so, fades away. The Priests partake in the Som and receive knowledge of the eternal law - the law that governs nature (no Law in the "Jurisdiction" sense) and share a feeling of warmth as if they were born unto the Sun. Once again, the Som is praised for its strengthening qualities. Som the personification and Pushan thus travel to the Gods.
Som is a non-intoxicant juice from a certain vine that is burnt in Vaidik rituals and the leftover remnants are eaten. This is not done anymore because nobody knows what the Som plant is (presumed extinct). The Som plant is renown for its strengthening properties and is drunk before war. Indra is a deity especially fond of Som.
So the conclusion for
this verse from the Saam Ved is that there is no place for any Ahmed in this
verse either storywise or literarywise. Adding Ahmed here is saying the grammatically
incorrect (the Ved is grammatically perfect) Ahmed have received. And besides, it
is akin to saying Mohammed himself did the ritual to Indra's glory, and partook in
the leftovers and knew the Shariyaa - which is once again akin to idolatry for Muslims.
The phrase "I from my father" seems second most likely (it refers to the
Priests receiving knowledge from "Som" about the Eternal Law) but the most
likely seems to be Aham + Atha. It would translate the sentence to "I now have
received the eternal law."
Such trickery is only
successful with those who are under-educated in the Vaidik philosophy, and are
used by those who still lack genuine spiritual depth that can itself attract
people. When that is missing, then they have to resort to all kinds of deceit
and trickery, or worse, such as types of violence and attacks, to show the
superiority of their religion. This is a pathetic technique but seems to be the
last resort of those religions who especially want to gain popularity without
showing a truly deep and sacred and enlightening spiritual path that is meant
solely for the upliftment of the individual and society in general, rather than
control through dogma and peer pressure and status from a growing congregation.
Created by Sushma Gupta on 3/15/06
Updated on 05/21/13