Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Dr. Zakir Naik: Prophet Mohammed in the Hindu scriptures

1) Mohammed in AtharvavEda: narasamsha in Arabic mean Mohammed
  1. OMG! was my first reaction upon hearing this one!  
  2. First of all, Dr. Naik translates an adjective 'narAshamsa' to a proper noun :) He translates narasamsha as praise worthy, and that 'Mohammed' means praise worthy in Arabic, so narasamsha refers to Mohammed in the vedic texts. Oops what a logic - certainly 'praise worthy'!!!!  
  3. First of all it is an adjective; it is an attribute of a person being discussed/praised in the Hymn. It is inappropriate to translate an adjective in Sanskrit to English and then that to Arabic as "Mohammed". 
    1. He is VIOLATING the very rule that his own 'Guru', Ahmed Deedat, condemns repeatedly in his talks  (; that this is a sickness; that one has no right to translate the names of people, they should be as they are - why this dichotomy? 
    2. Adjective should be treated like an adjective, even Manmohan Singh is narasamsha in the eyes of some, but that does not mean that one can equate Manmohan Singh with Mohammed.
  4. Second, Dr. Naik assumes (thinks) that these are all prophecies. These are NOT. These are praises in glory of Lord Indra and other devatas (agni, soma etc).
  5. Dr. Naik claims 'He will be a camel riding rishi'. Ustra does mean camel but it can also mean 'a bull with a hump, a cart, a wagon, a buffalo'. There is reference to cows along with the ustras, which implies it probably was a bull or a buffalo that is being talked about here. And then, there is a chariot that almost touches the heavens. Such a mention does not describe Mohammed at all, and moreover it is NOT a prophecy, even if it was it does not unequivocally refer to Mohammed.
  6. Dr. Naik says that "the reference cannot be to an Indian Rishi because a Brahmin cannot ride a camel, so it has to be a foreigner"! really? how are those related? Why should a rishi be a Brahmin; many of the rishis were rajarishis! This reflects the ignorance of Dr. Naik.
  7. 'Rebha' is translated as "one who praises", and as before, this supposedly refers to Mohammed. Rebh actually means "to make noises, (as cows), to crackle, to sounding loudly, a praiser, a talker". Now, we know that there were chariots, cows, buffaloes, all the gold etc, if so then what are we referring to here? Even then,many people can be a considered as 'praiser's (it does not come with any special qualification), and then many are 'praise worthy' (narasamsha), so it is ridiculous to stretch them to infer to Mohammed. None of these attributes are unique to Mohammed and do not seem to indicate Mohammed by any stretch.
  8. None of the claims till now are valid, even upon stretching they are not unequivocal. None uniquely describe Mohammed in anyway. On the contrary, since they are in praise of Indra or other deities it is inappropriate to associate these with them and not take them out of context;  
  9. Dr. Naik very intelligently says "due to lack of time we will discuss only the first four", but the truth is the subsequent verses make it clear that it is talking about the times of, and in the praise of, the worthy king Pareekshith, and not Mohammed. This again is Dr. Naik's cheap trickery. 
    • Verse 7. Listen ye to the high praise of the king who rules over all peoples, the god who is above mortals, of Vaisvânara Parikshit
    • Verse 8. 'Parikshit has procured for us a secure dwelling when he, the most excellent one, weat to his seat.' (Thus) the husband in Kuru-land, when he founds his household, converses with his wife. 
Dr. Naik's such misplaced references of Mohammed continue, and it starts to get more and more ridiculous and funny.
  1. Dr. Naik mentions Atharvaveda, Book 20, Hymn 21, and Verse 6 as referring to Mohammed, as the 'praise worthy'. Ufff!!!! This very Hymn is all about Indra: "We will present fair praise unto the Mighty One, our hymns to Indra in Vivasvān's dwelling-place". And it is Indra who is being praised here, of having won the battle by his might, not Mohammed. Where in the world does Naik find such references?
  2. He then refers to verse 7, and says that it refers to Mohammed, but this verse clearly refers to "Indra"; "namyA yad indra sakhyA parAvati nibarhayo".
  3. He then refers to Rigveda, Book 1, Hymn 53, Verse 9. The word is taken to be 'sushrama' to supposedly mean "praise worthy", and as such referring to Mohammed. First of all, it is 'sushrava', and it looks like the name of a PERSON, not an adjective. Again, it is inappropriate to translate names across languages, or interchange adjectives to names, as discussed in point 2 above. 
    1. (तवमेताञ जनराज्ञो दविर्दशाबन्धुना सुश्रवसोपजग्मुषः |  षष्टिं सहस्रा नवतिं नव शरुतो नि चक्रेण रथ्या दुष्पदाव्र्णक ||)
  4. Dr. Naik then quotes Samaveda Agni matra 64, that Mohammed was not fed by his mothers milk and this verse supposedly supports that. First of all, these verses are in praise of the Agni, the Deity of Fire!!!!!!!!!! Even if we were to ignore that fact, there have been millions before and after Mohammed who may not have been fed by the mother's milk. There is no mention of 'he goes on to become a prophet', this is Zakir's improvisation. God only can help Mr. Zakir. 
  5. I tell myself "why am I wasting my time on this idiot", but then I am getting to know more of this fake 'scholar', who claims to be a 'student of comparative religion'. I am losing respect for him with every reference he provides. 
  6. The Most Hilarious of all is this one: Dr. Zakir claims that Samaveda Uttarchika, Verse 1500 mentions about Mohammad, that this prophecies that "Ahmed" will be given the Eternal Law - the Quran. Dr. Naik further says "Since 'Ahmed' is not a Sanskrit word, the translators could not understand the meaning of 'Ahmed', so they broke the word into two - ah and meti, which they translated as 'I alone'. Now it reads as 'I alone have been given the eternal law' but it should actually be read as 'Ahmed has been given the eternal law' referring to Quran" ... hahahhaaaaa ... "ah" and "meti"?  aaaaahaaaa .... Sorry, but I cannot help but laugh here. This is ridiculous! Oh My God! This is height hahahaha .... cannot stop laughing :) 
    1. Here is the verse from Samaveda: अहमिद्धि पितुष्परि मॆधामृतस्य जग्रह. ANYONE who knows the BASICS of Sanskrit will tell that AHAM means "I" (self). iddhi means 'kindle or light-up', so there is no confusion as to what this verse means. A basic translation would read "I have been awakened by the kindling of the eternal wisdom (which some have translated as laws) of my father". 
    2. First of all, it is ridiculous to say that Sanskrit scholars did not know how to translate this simple verse. Second, it is even more ridiculous to say that this refers to Ahmed. 
  7. Should we really continue analyzing Dr. Naik? This has turned out to be more of an entertainment than enlightenment :)  Anyway, Dr. Naik continues quoting and exhibiting his sense of humor. 
  8. There is one more place where "अहमिद्धि" is found in the samaveda text, and Dr. Naik is excited.  
  9. All his subsequent references are all as fake as the above. There is no mention of Ahmed or Mohammed or anything in any of these verses, and thus is superficially brushes it aside without explaining much other than generalizing that the word Ahmed is in mentioned in SEVERAL PLACES. I have now looked at every other source he has provided till now, and each turns out to be as inaccurate as the other. It is not just distorted but I think he is guilty of religious contempt and should be tried in court for trickery and cheating.
    1. If narasamsha was uttermost non-sense, 'अहमिद्धि' is hilarious.  
I had some respect to this man, but a basic / superficial check was enough to dismiss him as a fake scholar. He has consistently twisted the text and using unethical methods. He seems to quote verses after verses but each is a fake as the above verses are. He mesmerizes and enchants people by rutting the references like a parrot, none of which are right.


  1. They talk about Muhammad being mentioned in the Hinduic scripts. Even few logics are also presented. But the thing is they know not Hinduism in deep.

    Do you know why a horse has its one leg in the air while its three legs in the ground? ...
    I bet no one does... The four legs of the horse represents the four Vedas (Rig, Sam, Yajur and Atharva Vedas).
    Here's the truth ... Ved Vyas was only the knower of Rig Veda, Sam Veda and Yajur Veda except for the Atharva Veda.
    Atharva Veda was never explained by anyone... I mean none, not even Vyas! So, one of the few tasks of Kalki becomes - to explain the knowledge of Atharva Veda (symbollically - the fourth leg of Kalki's horse).

    I'm saying this because Prophet Muhammad had never ever explained the knowledge Atharva Ved in the Mecca, or did he? Please, ask this question to those who claim that Prophet Muhammad to be Kalki.

    But why are the leaders presenting "Muhammad" as "Kalki"? ... You know Why? ... cuz they don't know who Kalki is ... It is just their hunch! ... Yeah, few similarities are presented but I think that isn't fully sufficient to prove that Muhammad is Kalki.

    But on the other hand, (according to my perspective, the perspective that I had developed on my own from the wisdom of Mahamati Prannath), Rasul Muhammad is partially Kalki (in one way)!!! ... Do you wanna know why? ... Then, please read Alif Lam Mim. Alif Lam Mim is
    the Kalki of Hindus!!! And not even the Hindus or the Muslims ever knew of this fact!!!
    Rasul Muhammad's spirit was also present in Kalki (or Mahamati Prannath)!!

    And Mahamati Prannath is Kalki because he had explained the Atharva Veda in its original sense!!! Thus, by explaining Atharva Veda, Mahamati Prannath (the Kalki) has ridden his horse!

    Also download the biography of Mahamati Prannath by clicking here, and read it for yourself if you don't believe me a bit!!!

  2. those who are against of this words from Dr.Zakir Naik please Ref. BAVISHYA PURANA...PRETISARGA PARVA CHAPTER NO:3 VERSES NO:3 .........please explain me whom it refers to please answer me should read all the charecters of that person mentioned in these chapter.
    These all says about prophet...Muhammed.. my mail ID is

    1. Dear Nafu,

      1) We are NOT against the words from Dr. Zakir Naik. If he is wrong, he is wrong. If I talk non-sense about Islam would you keep quite? No right? You should not. Similarly, Dr. Naik makes non-sense comments without understanding Sanskrit or "Hinduism"

      2) If you think Bhavishya PurANa is referring to Prophet Mohammed, you would be offending Prophet Mohammed because you are translating a Sanskrit name into Arabic Name. Here is what are available for you:

      a) It talks about "Mahamada", which means "One is supremely Mad". Do you accept it?

      b) Mahamada is an incarnation of a demon called Tripurasura. Do you accept it?

      c) He is a "dharmadushika", one who Pollutes Righteousness, one who is unethical in all respects. Do you accept that?

      d) He created a new sect called "paisachyadharama", demoniac religion, which believes in ghosts and evil. Do you accept that?

      e) He supposedly created a new wave of demoniac, extremely cruel barbarians who set out to destroy the world. Do you accept that?

      If you think these refer to Muhammed then it is your choice. If you want to berate the glorious prophet. Please refrain from finding references beyond your own scriptures.

      I wish you the best. May Allah bless you well, and guide you in the true path.



      Any thoughts? :)

  3. Dear Rafiul, I request you not to stretch the context in which this blog is written. This is to specifically address points that Dr. Naik brings up to make his point. His mentor Sheik Ahmed Deedat chastises Christians for translating names across languages, and Dr. Naik commits the same crime. When a name or something close to it is mentioned in a scripture, for example bhavishya puraana, then it could make sense to talk about it. However, to extrapolate or misinterpret or translate adjectives into names is illogical and that is what I have tried to address here. I am addressing the sophistry and am specific to the talk and if you have any particular questions regarding what I have written regarding Dr. Naik's talk and logic then I will be happy to clarify. I request you to please keep the blog entry in its context.

    Take care.

    1. hahah, your post is on Dr. Zakir Naik I agree but you can't just ignore the basis on which you are giving reply to him! I don't want to hurt you or anyone. I am just asking what are your thoughts on that article I posted as it is on the same topic.! I have no intention of stretching things up. :) If you don't want to share your thoughts then it's okay but I would expect you to do so. Thank you.:)

    2. The gentleman and I had email exchanges; I now suspect that it could be you :P ;) Anyway.

      My thoughts are expressed above too. Bhavishya purANa does mention about "Mahaamada"; "maha" "enormous" or "great", and "mada" is intoxication or madness, so mahAmada means one who is "supremely mad" in a negative way. Suppose it refers to Mohammed, then it also describes other characteristics associated with him and his followers, like:
      1) he was supremely mad, 2) was an incarnation of a demon called Tripurasura, 3) was a "dharmadushika", one who Polluted Righteousness; that he was unethical in all respects, 4) created a demoniac religion ("paisachyadharama"), which believes in ghosts and evils, and his followers are extremely cruel barbarians who set out to destroy the world.

      Does any of this refer to Mohammed or Islam? If you think so then I cannot help but agree with you. If you do not think so then you know my opinion.

      I was asking Rafu the same. If these really refer to Mohammed and Muslims then you could be committing blasphemy by berating your otherwise glorious prophet and religion. I personally do not want to claim that it refers to Mohammad but choice is yours. Now, you may chose to be selective, but then you should also allow others to say that Quran preaches nothing but violence and hatred (people may choose to be selective with texts from Quran; taking them out of context). You may have justifications and create stories around why it says so etc etc that's also a choice. Just as Muslims feel offended when Quran is misinterpreted, others may feel the same way. Anyway.

      I am not talking about Islam or writing negative about either of these gentleman, I am just showing where they are misplaced. Dr. Naik says many things and I have shown a few places where he is absolutely misplaced. He intelligently mixes sense with non-sense and garbage, and I pin point it here.

      This is my opinion :)

      Take care.

  4. i'am a christian from indonesia, and your article is awesome.

  5. Zakir Naik Proves That Allah is a Mouse!!! (Based on Song of Solomon 5:16)

  6. Zakir Naik Proves That Allah is a Mouse!!! (Based on Song of Solomon 5:16)