Is Prophet Muhammad really mentioned in Vedas?

[Smart_Guy]

could or could not be, I am not sure about arabic countries as to how they address muslims in arabic but many Indians refer muslims as mahamadeeyaas or musalmaans in urdu. So mahamada could refer to Muhammad. I am a little bit aware of urdu as the place I live in India, Hyderabad the accent of hindi has many urdu words.

Muslims in Arabic sound as the English word suggests, with U as in push, S as in miss and lims exactly as the English word limbs sounds.

 

[Smart_Guy]

That's not true. You can just google the relevant words within the Scripture. I do it all the time.

I'm confused... isn't this what I said myself?

 

[Tumah]

I'm confused... isn't this what I said myself?

It seemed like you were saying that anyone who answered the question couldn't know the whole scripture and could only speculate. So I was responding that even if someone couldn't know the whole scripture, they couldn't still give a correct educated answer.

 

[Smart_Guy]

It seemed like you were saying that anyone who answered the question couldn't know the whole scripture and could only speculate. So I was responding that even if someone couldn't know the whole scripture, they couldn't still give a correct educated answer.

Yeah, I said it is "the best" way (not the only) to know the answer to search for the scriptures ourselves. I said that because it is not 100% certain that who replies would necessarily do it from the scriptures. They could just report what they heard from other, and that information could be for example vandalism, who knows. We already face many replies in other threads that someone else of the same belief corrects it with scriptural proof, let alone debates among them. The titles does ask about scriptures.

Anyway, I'm not saying yes or no, I'm comparing the two only. That's why I said "the best" and "I would".

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am a little bit aware of urdu as the place I live in India, Hyderabad the accent of hindi has many urdu words.

Yeah, Urdudan (those who knew Urdu) were at one time welcomed in Hyderabad Dakkan. Sheikh Mohammad Ibrahim 'Zauq' (1789–1854), a prominent Urdu poet of Delhi, poet laureate of the last Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah 'Zafar', was invited to Hyderbad by the Nizam. He considered the offer and rejected it saying:

“In dinon garche dakkan mai hai badi qadr-e-sukhan, kaun jaye 'zauq' par dilli ki galiyan chhod kar”
(Now a days Deccan values good poetry, but Zauq, who will go leaving the streets of Delhi).
* Zauq means taste, perceptivity. That is why taste is known as 'zaika'.

Mazaar of Sheikh Mohammad Ibrahim 'Zauq'

"Kya jaane kya vaham hai usko meri taraf se, vo khwab mein bhi raat ko tanha nahin aataa" Mohammad Ibrahim 'Zauq'
(I do not know what doubt she has about me, even in a dream at night she does not come alone)

 

[ronki23]

Yes, the Vedas are dated to at least 10,000 years ago (and Gita to around 5000 yrs). Hence why most Muslims also acknowledge that Hinduism is the oldest religion and why some take the Vedas seriously for predicting Mohammad.
But the mention of Mohammad is only in a Puranic (also Hindu but not from God) scripture, which is written much more recently. It is the one that Zakir Naik refers to, the one he completely mistranslates.

Gita was spoken by God as an essence of vedas around 3102+30=3430 BC , Vedas DO NOT have an author. They are transmitted through oral tradition by brahmanas for millions of years and then penned down by Veda Vyasa atleast around 7000 BC fearing the loss of them. Vedas are ordinances, do this and do not do this, and lay the metaphysical aspects of universe. They do not talk about prophecies/ fairy tales/ triple talAq :| and so on........So there you go.

Bhavishya purana was heavily tampered by britishers when they ruled India/ Bhaarat, and it is not an authentic purana to start with. Even then I heard that muhammad is predicted as evil in it.


Then, as verses 7-8 relate, the Aryan King Bhojaraja, who had already left India for the lands across the Sindhu River and to the west, meets Mahamada [some say this is Mohammed], the preceptor of the mleccha-dharma [religion of the mlecchas], who had arrived with his followers. Thereafter, however, the King went to worship the image of Lord Mahadev, the great god Shiva, situated in the marusthal, desert. King Bhoj bathed the image of Shiva with Ganges water and worshiped him in his mind with panchagavya (the five purificatory elements from the cow, consisting of milk, ghee, yogurt, cow dung, and cow urine), along with sandalwood paste, etc., and offered him, the image of Shiva, sincere prayers and devotion. King Bhoj prayed to Lord Mahadev, "O Girijanath who stays in the marusthal (land of deserts), I offer my prayers to you. You have forced maya [the illusory energy] to destroy Tripurasur [the demon Tripura]; but the mlecchas are now worshiping you. You are pure and sat-chit-anand swaroop [eternal knowledge and bliss]. I am your sevak [servant]. I have come under your protection."


Verses 10-27 relates next that Suta Goswami explained: After hearing the king’s prayers and being pleased with him, Lord Shiva said: "Let the King go to Mahakaleshwar (Ujjain) in the land of Vahika, which is now contaminated by mlecchas. O King, the land where you are standing, that is popular by the name of Bahik, has been polluted by the mlecchas. In that terrible country there no longer exists Dharma. There was a mystic demon named Tripura (Tripurasura), whom I have already burnt to ashes once before, he has come again by the order of Bali. He has no origin but he achieved a benediction from me. His name is Mahamada and his deeds are like that of a ghost. Therefore, O king, you should not go to this land of the evil ghost. By my mercy your intelligence will be purified." [This would seem to indicate that this Mahamada was an incarnation of the demon Tripura.] So hearing this, the king came back to his country and Mahamada came with them, but only to the bank of the river Sindhu. He was expert in expanding illusion, so he said to the king very pleasingly, "O great king, your god has become my servant. Just see, as he eats my remnants, so I will show you."

The king became surprised when he saw this happening before them. Then in anger Kalidasa, the king’s commander, rebuked Mahamada, "O rascal, you have created an illusion to bewilder the king, I will kill you, you are the lowest..." Then the king left that area.

Later, in the form of a ghostly presence, the expert illusionist Mahamada appeared at night in front of King Bhojaraja and said: "O King, your religion is of course known as the best religion among all. Still, by the order of the Lord, I am going to establish a terrible and demoniac religion and enforce a strong creed over the meat-eaters [mlecchas]. My followers will be known by their cut [circumcised] genitals, they will have no shikha [tuft of hair on their head, like Brahmanas], but will have a beard, make noise loudly, and eat all kinds of animals except swine without observing any rituals. They will perform purificatory acts with the musala, and thus be called musalman, and not purify their things with kusha grass [one of the Vedic customs]. Thus, I will be the originator of this adharmic [opposed to Vedic or Aryan Dharma] and demoniac religion of the meat-eating nations." After having heard all this, the Bhavishya Purana goes on to relate that King Bhojaraja returned to his land and palace, and that ghost of the man also went back to his own place.

I'm trying not to steer off topic here but isn't Hinduism defined by the Vedas as I hear only Nastika schools of Dharmic religions don't follow the Vedas e.g. they're not Hinduism if they're Nastika

Is it the Vedas, Mahabharat, Geeta, Ramayan, Upanishads or Puranas that all schools of Hinduism follow/ that all Hindus abide by? Because Hinduism refers to many religions so there must be some sort of scripture that makes Hinduism what it is

And is it true Bhavishya Purana was tampered with?

 

[Madhuri]

I'm trying not to steer off topic here but isn't Hinduism defined by the Vedas as I hear only Nastika schools of Dharmic religions don't follow the Vedas e.g. they're not Hinduism if they're Nastika

Is it the Vedas, Mahabharat, Geeta, Ramayan, Upanishads or Puranas that all schools of Hinduism follow/ that all Hindus abide by? Because Hinduism refers to many religions so there must be some sort of scripture that makes Hinduism what it is

And is it true Bhavishya Purana was tampered with?

You are correct that all those scriptures are important in Hinduism. However, some sects give more importance to some over others. Hindu religions are links through the Vedas as these are the oldest, the original texts from which they are derived.

The Bhavishya Purana is so obviously tampered with.

 

[RoaringSilence]

It's a perfect example of how many religious people blindly follow whatever supports their beliefs. I've seen Muslims come up with this example many times.

No, it isn't in the Vedas or Gita. However, it is in a Puranic scripture, one that supposedly contains prophecies. The important thing to note here is that the prophesy says he is the incarnation of a demon and his purpose is pretty dark. He is a bad person, not some great hero.

Zakir Naik is infamous for twisting words and telling blatant lies and he gets away with it because, as I pointed out above, people just follow blindly instead of questioning their sources.

Yep, asura - tripurasura mentioned in bhavishya puran .

Anyway i personally see a connection of lunar god shiva and islam's lunar god , and lingum worship vs the female lingum worship at kaaba . So if you add up all this , you may see a grand design in Kali ( female consort of shiva ) intentionally polarizing , as part of grand leela of shiva. you catch my drift ? i think only a few people might see it this way.

 

[RoaringSilence]

I'm trying not to steer off topic here but isn't Hinduism defined by the Vedas as I hear only Nastika schools of Dharmic religions don't follow the Vedas e.g. they're not Hinduism if they're Nastika

Is it the Vedas, Mahabharat, Geeta, Ramayan, Upanishads or Puranas that all schools of Hinduism follow/ that all Hindus abide by? Because Hinduism refers to many religions so there must be some sort of scripture that makes Hinduism what it is

And is it true Bhavishya Purana was tampered with?

Sort all the confusion with a simple explaination, read bhagvad gita and see what krishna says about ..His indifferent attitude towards him being worshiped. He says .. i don't need/demand worship.... Now compare it with a god that demands worship. you won't need to understand further than just this. Attitude of krishna explains that creator doesn't demand worship from his creation. And to notice the demand part read the other book and try to see attitude of god.

FInd examples in dharmic texts about what kind of powers demand worship.