Was Prophet Muhammad in the Vedas?
Starting With the Rig-Veda
In this article we will take a look at some of the verses in the Vedas that some people, such as Dr. Zakir Naik, say that Mohammed is mentioned or foretold in them. This is a summary based on the research by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari and others, and shows that these verses in fact do not speak of Prophet Mohammed, but are used in a way that is based on mistranslations to justify that idea.
First of all, the Rig-Veda is globally recognized and accepted as the oldest book created by man and hence if it could be shown that there is mentioning of Prophet Mohammed in that text, it will be immensely helpful to paint the Arabian Prophet as a divine personality. Not only that, it will be helpful to deceive the Hindus and convert them to Islam. So, it does not become difficult to understand what has inspired Dr Zakir Naik and others to discover the mentioning of Mohammed in the Rig-Veda and in other Vedic texts. But as his investigation culminated into a failure, he had no other way but to apply stupid arguments to befool the kafirs and infidels but to twist the meanings and translations into something different, all the while acting most scholarly and convincing.
First of all, we should see what the Rig-Veda actually says about Prophet Muhammad. It should also be mentioned at the outset that two Sanskrit words sa•sata and narasa•sa play the central role in these arguments of such people as Zakir Naik. According to him, the word sa•sata 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 sa• sata, he took it as the mentioning of their Prophet.
According to him, the second word narasa•sa 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 narasa•sa in any Sanskrit texts, he took it to be a mentioning of Muhammad. In fact, both the Sanskrit words sa•sata and narasa•sa stand for a deity or God, who is praiseworthy. According to Sayana, the most reputed commentator of the Vedas, the word narasa•sa 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-Veda contain the word narasa•sa, and hence mention Muhammad, and the verse (8/1/1) of the Rig-Veda contains the word sa•sata (Ahmmad), or the other name of Muhammad. So here he begins with another blatant lie and says that the word sa•sata stands for a man who praises, the Arabic equivalent of Ahammad and hence mentions Muhammad. The said verse (8/1/1) of the Rig-Veda reads:
Ma cidanyadvi sa•sata sakhayo ma risnyata lIndramitstot a vrsana• saca sute muhuruktha ca sa•sata ll (8/1/1)
“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 Rgveda, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi; 1995, p-388). So the word sa•sata (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 narasa•sa say. In Rig-Veda, a verse is refered as (x/y/z), where x stands for Mandala, y stands for Sukta and z stands for the Verse or Rk. The verse (1/13/3) of Rig-Veda, as mentioned above, belongs to 13th Sukta of the 1st Mandala. It should also be noted here that every Sukta of the Rig-Veda is dedicated to a deity. The presiding deity of the 13th Sukta of the 1st Mandala is Agni (the God of Fire). The verse says:
Narasa•samiha priyamasminajna upahvaye lMadhujihvat haviskrtam ll (1/13/3)
“Dear Narasa•sa, sweet of tongue, the giver of oblations, I invoke to this our sacrifice.” (tr: ibid, p-7) As Agni is the deity of the entire 13th Sukta, there is no doubt that the word narasa•sa (praiseworthy to man) in the verse refers to Agni. One should also note that the word narasa•sa does not signify a man who is praiseworthy, as some people claim.
The verse (1/18/9) of the Rig-Veda says:Narasa•sa• sudhrstamamapasyam saprathastam lDivo na sadmakhasam ll (1/18/9)
“I have seen Narasa•sa, him most resolute, most widely famed, as ‘twere the Household Priest of heaven.” (tr: ibid, p-11) The 18th Sukta, to which the verse belongs, is dedicated to Brahmanaspati, the Priest of heaven and hence the word narasa•sa (praiseworthy to man) in this verse refers to Brahmanaspati, the Priest of heaven.
The verse (1/106/4) of the Rig-Veda says:Narasa•sa• vajin• vajayinniha ksayadvira• pusana• summairi mahe l Ratha• nadurgadvasava sudanavo visvasmanno aha•so nispipartana ll (1/106/4)
“To mighty Narasa•sa, strengthening his might, to Pusana, ruler over men, we pray with hymns. Even as a chariot from a difficult ravine, bountiful Vasus, rescue us from all distress.” (tr: ibid, p-69) The 106th Sukta of 1st Mandala, to which the verse belongs, is dedicated to the Visvadevas, and hence the word narasa•sa (praiseworthy to man) in this verse refers to the Visvadevas, again not to Mohammed.
The verse (1/142/3) of the Rig-Veda says:suci pavako adbhuto madhva yajna• mimiksati lnarasa•sasthrira divo devo devesu yajniyah ll (1/142/3)
“He wondrous, sanctifying, bright, sprinkles the sacrifice with mead, thrice, Narasa•sa from the heavens, a God amid Gods adorable.” (tr: ibid, p-98)The 142nd Sukta, to which the verse belongs, is dedicated to the deity Apri , and hence the word narasa•sa in this verse refers to Apri. Most of the scholars agree that Apri is the other name of Agni and hence the word nar asa•sa in this verse refers to Agni, the god of fire.
The verse (2/3/2) of the Rig-Veda says:Narasa•sah prati dhamanyanjan tisro div prati mahna svarcih lGhrtaprusa manasa havyamundanmurdhanyajnasya sanamaktu devan ll (2/3/2)
“May Narasa•sa lighting up the chambers, bright in his majesty through threefold heaven, steeping the gift with oil diffusing purpose, bedew the Gods at chiefest time of worship.” (tr: ibid, p- 132) Like the earlier one, 142nd Sukta of 1st Mandal, this present 3rd Sukta of 2nd Mandala, is dedicated to the deity Apri or Agni and hence the word narasa•sa in this verse refers to Agni the Fire God.
The Verse (5/5/2) of Rig-Veda says:Narasa•sah susudatim• yajnamadabhyah lKavirhi madhuhastah ll (5/5/2)
“He, Narasa•sa, ne’er beguiled, inspireth this sacrifice; for sage is he, with sweets in hand.” (tr: ibid, p- 240) This 5th Sukta of 5th Mandala is also dedicated to Apri or Agni and hence the word narasa•sa in this verse refers to Agni the Fire God.
The verse (7/2/2) of Rig-Veda says:Narasa•sasya mahimanamesamupa stosama yajatasya yajnaih lYe sukratavah sucayo dhiyandhah svadanti deva ubhayani havya ll (7/2/2)
“With sacrifice to these we men will honor the majesty of holy Narasa•sa – to these the pure, most wise, the thought-inspires, Gods who enjoy both sorts of our oblations.” (tr: ibid, p- 334) Again this 2nd Sukta of 7th Mandala is dedicated to Apri or Agni, and hence the word narasa•sa in this verse refers to Agni the Fire God.
The verse (10/64/3) of the Rig-Veda says:Nara va sa•sa• pusnamagohyamagni deveddhamabhyarcase gira lSuryamasa candramasa yama• divi trita• vatamusasamaktumasvina ll (10/64/3)
“To Narasa•sa and Pusan I sing forth, unconcealable Agni kindled by the Gods. To Sun and Moon, two Moons, to Yama in the heaven, to Trita, Vata, Dawn, Night and Asvins Twain.” (tr: ibid, p- 578) This 64th Sukta of 10th Mandala is dedicated to the Visvadevas, and the word narasa•sa in this verse refers to the Visvadevas.
The verse (10/182/2) of Rig-Veda says:Narasa•so na avatu prayaje sa• no astvanuyajo habesu lKsipadastimapa durmati hannatha karadyajamanaya sam soh ll (10/182/2).
“May Narasa•sa 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.” (tr: ibid, p- 650) The 182nd Sukta of 10th Mandala, to which the above verse belongs, is dedicated to Vrhaspati, and hence the word narasa•sa refers to Vrhaspati, the Priest of the Gods.
Another verse (1/53/9) of the Rig-Veda says,Tvametanjanarajno dvirdasabandhuna susravasopajagmasah lsasti• sahasra navati• nava sruto ni cakrena rathya duspada vrnak ll(1/53/9)
“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 Susravas.” (tr: ibid, p-36) To narrate the incident, Sayana, the renowned commentator of the Rig-Veda, says that twenty kings with a force, 60,099 strong, attacked the King Sus rava (Prajapati) and Indra alone defeated them and frustrated their ambition (the Vayu-Purana also narrates the incident).
Most of the scholars agree that the Rig-Veda 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 Susrava withSusrama and says that the word Susrama 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-Veda says,Ahamiddhi pituspari medhamrtasya jagrabha lAha• surya ivajrani ll (8/6/10)
“I from my Father have received deep knowledge of the Holy Law: I was born like unto the Sun.” (Tr: ibid, p- 396). In this verse the word ahamiddhi stands for “I have received.” But as the word spells like Ahammad, the other name of Muhammad, Zakir Naik claims that the verse mentions Muhammad, which shows how he is prone to error on account of his Islamic bias.
Thus we have studied all the verses of the Rig-Veda which, according to Naik, mention Muhammad. It has been said above that the Sanskrit word narasa• sa 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 narasa•sa in other Vedas, like Atharva-Veda and Yajur-Veda 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 Atharva-Veda Connection Atharva-Veda, HYMN CXXVIIA hymn in praise of the good Government of King Kaurama
1 Listen to this, ye men, a laud of glorious bounty shall be sung. Thousands sixty, and ninety we, O Kaurama, among the Rusamas have received.
2 Camels twice-ten that draw the car, with females by their side, he gave. Fain would the chariot's top bow down escaping from the stroke of heaven.
3 A hundred chains of gold, ten wreaths, upon thee Rishi he bestowed, And thrice-a-hundred mettled steeds, ten-times-a-thousand cows he gave.
4 Glutthee, O Singer, glut thee like a bird on a ripe-fruited tree. Thy lips and tongue move swiftly like the sharp blades of a pair of shears.
5 Quickly and willingly like kine forth come the singers and their hymns: Their little maidens are at home, at home they wait upon the cows.
6 O Singer, bring thou forth the hymn that findeth cattle, findeth wealth. p. 364 Even as an archer aims his shaft address this prayer unto the Gods.
7 List to Pariksit’s eulogy, the sovran whom all people love, The King who ruleth over all, excelling mortals as a God.
8 'Mounting his throne, Pariksit, best of all, hath given us peace and rest,' Saith a Kauravya to his wife as he is ordering his house.
9 'Which shall I set before thee, curds, gruel of milk, or barley-brew?' Thus the wife asks her husband in the realm which King Pariksit rules.
10 Up as it were to heavenly light springs the ripe corn above the cleft. Happily thrive the people in the land where King Pariksit reigns.
11 Indra hath waked the bard and said, Rise, wander singing here and there. Praise me, the strong: each pious man will give thee riches in return,
12 Here, cows! increase and multiply, here ye, O horses, here, O men. Here, with a thousand rich rewards, doth Pushan also seat him-self.
13 O Indra, let these cows be safe, their master free from injury. Let not the hostile-hearted or the robber have control of them.
14 Oft and again we glorify the hero with our hymn of praise, with prayer, with our auspicious prayer.Take pleasure in the songs we sing: let evil never fall on us. This hymn is merely a praise of King Kaurama (probably of Rajasthani origin). Some people, like Zakir Naik, have tried to twist this to mean that the first 13 verses tell the story of Mohammed! “Kaurama” actually means “ born of a noble family” and has nothing to do with referring to Mohammed. It is closely related with the term Kaurava. And “Kuntapa” merely means the internal organs in the belly and has no alternate meaning as “safe journey” or as such. Sanskrit words aren’t as multi-layered as Arab words. All the verses in the Atharva-Veda from 126-133 are considered Kuntapa, but only one mentions a desert.
The Sama-Veda ConnectionSome people (and you can guess who) think that the Sama-Veda, Book II, Hymn6, verse 8, refers to Mohammed.The verse -
1. Indra whose jaws are strong hath drunk of worshipping Sudaksha’s draught, The Soma juice with barley brew.
2. O Lord of ample wealth, these songs of praise have called aloud to thee, Like milch-kine lowing to their calves!
3. Then straight they recognized the mystic name of the creative Steer, There in the mansion of the Moon.
4. When Indra, strongest hero, brought the streams, the mighty waters down, Pushan was standing by his side.
5. The Cow, the streaming mother of the liberal Maruts, pours her milk, Harnessed to draw their chariots on.
6. Come, Lord of rapturous joys, to our libation with thy bay steeds, come With bay steeds to the flowing juice
7. Presented strengthening gifts have sent Indra away at sacrifice, With night, unto the cleansing bath.
8. I from my Father have received deep knowledge of eternal Law: I was born like unto the Sun.
9. With Indra splendid feasts be ours, rich in all strengthening things, wherewith, Wealthy in food, we may rejoice
10. Soma and Pushan, kind to him who travels to the Gods, provide Dwellings all happy and secure.
So some people say that verse eight 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 Soma sacrifice and the Priests cry out for Indra’s arrival. The priests recognize the name of the creative Seer - the personification Soma, there in the mansion of the moon - which in Vedic symbolism, resembles a drop of Soma. 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 Soma and Indra doing so, fades away. The Priests partake in the Soma 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 Soma is praised for its strengthening qualities. Soma the personification and Pushan thus travel to the Gods.
Soma is a non-intoxicant juice from a certain vine that is burnt in Vedic rituals and the leftover remnants are eaten. This is not done anymore because nobody knows what the Soma plant is (presumed extinct). The Soma plant is renown for its strengthening properties and is drunk before war. Indrais a deity especially fond of Soma.
So the conclusion for this verse from the Sama-Veda 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 Veda is gramatically 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 Sharia - 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 “Soma” 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.”
We could go on like this, and other people have, and compare additional verses from the Vedas to show how by mistranslations, people have tried to place references to Prophet Mohammed in them, thus misleading the public into thinking that the Vedic literature was advocating and giving credence or even prophecies to the Prophet Mohammed, but no such honest references can be found therein. It is another trick, the type of which is becoming increasingly common in order to persuade people to drop out of the Dharmic spiritual path and to convert to something else.
Such trickery is only successful with those who are under-educated in the Vedic 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.
I haven't read the above article..but you should read this article by a certain aditi chaturvedi..type 'shivling mecca'... Its a revelation..