you're reading...

The ignorant Hindu

India has faced major challenges from Abrahamic faiths for centuries now, from the time of the Moghal Empire to this very day. India which once flourished with Vedic civilisation, where everyone was treated as a divine incarnation now seems to be a feeding ground for abrahmic faith missionaries to come and convert ignorant Hindus and Sikhs to their way of thinking.

Firstly it is shameful to our Sages and Saints that India, which was once proclaimed ‘Mahabharat’ is now a secular country. Where are the days when each brother or sister would love each being unconditionally? Where is the ‘Aryan-tattva’, the noble element in Man?

It seems that each Indian is conditioned to conform to the views of the majority, the Indian has lost his identity.

While India is facing spiritual turmoil, abrahmic missionaries are brainwashing our people. One of these personalities is Zakir Naik. A self-proclaimed scholar in Hinduism. He claims to be uniting Hindus and Muslims but in reality turning people to leave their faith.

Please note I do not have any issues with any religion or anyone to that matter but only have a problem when so called scholars dilute and misrepresent the Vedic religion.

I was recently watching a video of this ‘scholar’, and had come across so many flaws in his referencing and interpretation of Hindu scriptures.

To refute this non-sense, please view the link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJHbEWs-m_s) and read the replies to each response, from the true Hindu perspective.

Refutation 1:

The bhavishya purana is notoriously known to be tampered with especially during the times of the Moghal Empire. This was a poise to convert lower class Hindu’s to Islam, namely dalits etc.

Refutation 2:

The atharva does mention a ‘mohammed’ but later mentions him to be a ‘asura’ (demon). Most probably this reference is not the prophet mohammed but mohammed ghazni (the invader of Somanatha).

It is interesting to note that Sayanacarya, a very profound personality who had written commentaries on each Veda, was very reserved when commenting on the ‘Kuntupa Sukta’, he felt that the sukta was a very later edition, and was not part of the original, for this reason, he did not mention the rishi (sage), devata (god) and channda (metre) for this sukta and did not feel it necessary to comment on it.

However with the view in refuting Zakirji, I will attempt to offer my examination on this ‘infamous’ sukta.

narashamsa: The exact meaning is ‘he who will be praised by Mankind’, referring to God and not Mohammed.

Kaurma: The translation would no doubt mean ‘the prince of peace’ but taking into context the rest of the verse, it would fall short in assuming that it is referring to Mohammed.

The interpretation of defeating 60,090 enemies is incorrect, as from Sanskrit and using grammatical Sanskrit rules the verse would read ‘we will give 60,090 cows in donations’.

Camal Riding Rsi: Within the Kuntupa sukta there is no mention of a camel, but this verse mentions the chariot of Kaura which is so large it ‘just misses the heaven which receded its touch’.

Mama Rsi: Unfortunately to the disappointment of Zakirji, there is no mention of a ‘maha rsi’ but clearly states Kaurma as a ‘great personality’. It is very amusing that due to his insecurity he cleverly turns and says ‘or it means Mohammed’.

Rebh: Unfortunately I feel Zakirji has not grasped the Sanskrit language. The literal translation of rebh would mean ‘ones who sing’ and not ‘one who praises’.

This term refers to ancient seers who sing the praises of the Lord through the medium of Vedic recitation. As the Veda was compiled by many Sages, it is inconceivable to conclude that ‘rebh’ is used as a singular notation.

Refutation 3:

Atharva Veda Book 20.21.1

The translation for this above verse is in praise of Indra and does not mention ‘he will defeat 10,000 people without a battle’.

Refutation 4:

The translation for this mantra mentions a battle between Indra and an Asura and not ‘he will defeat 20 chiefs’.

Refutation 5:

Rig Veda 1.53.9

Zakir is only providing non-authoritive translation from Hindu scriptues, to influence poor ignorant Hindus to accept another faith.

Refutation 6:

Sama Veda Agni-Mantra 64

Unfortunately I have not been able to locate this mantra.

Refutation 7:

Sama Veda Uttarchika Mantra 1500

It is quite convenient to reference Mantra 1500, but I have been trying to locate this mantra, but unfortunately not to any success. The Sama Veda is divided into two parts, Purvachika and Uttarchika, the Uttarchika again is further divided into 10 chapters, for this reason, I have found it hard to locate this Mantra.

Refutation 8:

To conclude Mohammed is Indra is quite a feat and highly implausible. Indra is classified as a divine God, who is beyond this material existence, who is sharp, bright and intelligent. When we refer to Mohammed it is clearly stated that he was illiterate and had received the Koran at the later stages of his life. There are numerous references in the Vedas which show Indra to be a divine God. Rig 1.7.1 etc.

Refutation 9:

(Shukla) Yajur Veda 31.18

This verse is located in the purusa sukta, and mentions a rsi who has gained the divine Vedic realisation, and does not mention that a revelation will be ‘given’. Due to the very time scale of the Veda and Mohammed it seems a very far fetched conclusion to equate a rsi and Mohammed as one.

Refutation 10:

Rig Veda 8.6.10.

The above verse mentions the description of Indra which further illustrates that Indra and Mohammed could not be the same personality.

Refutation 11.

Atharva Veda 8.5.16

This verse decribes a precious stone, which when aquired can give divine visions and fulfil wishes.

Refutation 12:

Atharva Veda 20.126.14

This reference once more is a sukta which is in praise of Indra, there is no citation of the word ‘ahmad’.

Refutation 13:

Rig Veda 1.13.3, 1.18.9, 1.106.4, 1.142.3, 2.3.2, 5.5.2, 7.2.2, 10.64.2, 10.182.2

Yajur Veda 20.37, 20.57, 21.31, 21.51, 28.2, 28.19, 28,42

Firstly I would like to congratulate the ignorant Hindus who are clapping and conforming to a person who has no authority on Hindu scriptures.

After researching each reference thoroughly, a conclusion has been made that each reference is a hymn towards the one supreme divine being and not Mohammed.

Refutation 14:

Kalki Avatar – Final Avatar

Bhagavata Purana 12.2.20

Just by the mere glance of Hindu scriptures, you could conclude that Mohammed is not the 24th avatar of Visnu.

There are numerous other citations which refute the views of Zakir Naik.


About Makwana

A student of Sanatan Vedic Dharma


One thought on “The ignorant Hindu

  1. “Atharva Veda 8.5.16

    This verse decribes a precious stone, which when aquired can give divine visions and fulfil wishes.”

    please, where can i read about that online?

    Posted by b | March 10, 2016, 4:47 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


Blog Stats

  • 267,225 hits
%d bloggers like this: