Muhammad in the Vedas: Asinine arguments of Dr Zakir Naik
Author: Dr Radhasyam Brahmachar
Whosoever has tried to go through a biography of the Prophet Muhammad authored by a Muslim, has noticed that the toughest task these authors face is to explain the Prophet’s marriages. If they take ten pages to narrate his marriages, they use more than hundred pages to justify those marriages. Why the Prophet took so many wives at his declining age? These authors don’t have any plausible reply to this question. The first and foremost duty of these authors is to rule out that sensuality of the Prophet had any role to play in his marriages. The best explanation they furnish is that the Prophet was so kind hearted that he married widows to provide food and shelter for them. In support of their argument they provide evidence that most of his wives were widows. Very nice, the Prophet played a saviour for the widows. But difficulty arises to explain his marrying Zeinab, the wife his adopted son Zeid, with the above argument as she was not a widow and as the incident exposes the indomitable sensuality of the Prophet (which Allah endorsed by revealing the verse (33:37) of the Holy Qur'an). Similar difficulty arises in explaining his marrying Rihana as well as Safia.
The explanations they import to explain these marriages may however be acceptable to the blockheads called believers, but horribly unacceptable for the civilized world. But the hardest task these authors face is to explain his marrying Ayesha at the age of 52, while Ayesha was a child of 6. Syed Amir Ali is an Indian author renowned for his book Spirit of Islam. In that book Mr Amir Ali says that the only intention that motivated the Prophet to marry Ayesha was to cement his friendship with Abu-bakr. Perhaps it is known to all that Muhammad and Abu-bakr underwent an understanding that Muhammad would give his daughter Fatima to Abu-bakr in marriage and Abu-bakr would give his daughter Ayesha to Muhammad. This kind of marriage, called Shighar Marriage, is still in vogue in Muslim society and the reader may recall that Osama bin-Laden married the daughter of Omar, the second man of Al Kaida, and Omar married the daughter of Osama. However, according to the said understanding, Muhammad married Ayesha in the first Hijra at the Abu-bakr’s house in Medina, But Muhammad delayed to perform his part of the agreement. After waiting for months, when Abu-bakr inquired about the delay, the Prophet replied that he was waiting for a command from Allah in the matter and that command never came. So, had Muhammad married Ayesha for cementing his relation with Abu-bakr, as mentioned by Mr Amir Ali, Muhammad must have given Fatima to Abu-bakr for a better cementing. Hence the argument furnished by Amir Ali does not seem to be tenable.
A Bengali author, M Abdur Rahman, has tried to explain it completely from a different angle. He asserts that, Muhammad married Ayesha to dispose off a great social responsibility. At that time, there was an urgent need to educate the Muslim women of Arabia about the extremely delicate sexual matters. But he being a male, was not fit to teach such lessons to the women. So he married Ayesha to be used as a vehicle to educate the women in sexual matters. Nice, but why he had chosen a tender girl like Ayesha? To explain this point, Mr Abdur Rahman says that a tender mind is most suitable for receiving education and that was the reason for marrying Ayesha. But it is really surprising that neither Amir Ali nor Abdur Rahman has furnished the most convincing argument, i.e. the will of Allah. Allah sent his divine sanction to Muhammad for marrying Ayesha in the form of dreams. For three consecutive nights the angel Zibrail (Gabriel of the Bible) showed a picture of Ayesha to the Prophet and said, “This is your wife.” For the first two nights, the Prophet could not recognize whose picture it was. But in the third night the he could recognize beyond doubt that it was a picture of Ayesha. So he had no other option but to comply with Allah’s divine instruction as soon as possible.
It should be noted here that whatever might be their arguments, reasoning and explanations, these authors must have to reach only one conclusion that, Muhammad was the greatest man on earth. If the conclusion deviates even by an inch, their life would be at stake. These authors also face difficulty in explaining some other deeds of the Prophet like massacring the Beni Koreiza at Madina, massacring the Beni Najir at Kheibar, shedding of blood in the holy month of Rajab at Nakhla and so on. It is obvious that it is really a hard task for these authors to explain so many blots and project him as the greatest and a flawless man on earth. It is needless to say that the task becomes much easier if it can be shown that there are foretelling of Muhammad in established and recognized holy books of other faiths like the Bible, Zend-Avesta, and, most importantly, the Sanskrit texts of the Hindus.
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 Muhammad 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 to discover mentioning of Muhammad in the Rig-Veda and in other Hindu texts. But as his investigation culminated into a failure, he had no other way but to apply stupid arguments to befool the kafirs.
First of all, we should see what the Rig-Veda says about Muhammad. It should also be mentioned at the outset that two Sanskrit words śaṃsata and narāśaṃsa play the central role in Dr Naik’s arguments. According to him, the word śaṃsata stands for an individual who praises. In Arabic, such an individual is called Ahammad, the other name Prophet Muhammad. Therefore wherever he could have found the word śaṃsata, he took it as the mentioning of their Prophet. According to Zakir Naik, the second word narāśaṃsa 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 narāśaṃsa, he took it to be a mentioning of Muhammad. It should be mentioned here that, where such silly arguments may lead one to. Every English dictionary contains the word praiseworthy, and, according to Zakir Naike, every English dictionary mentions the name of Muhammad. More seriously, such foolish arguments may lead one to an extremely ridiculous– goats have beard and Mr X has beard, and hence Mr X is a goat – like conclusion.
In fact, both the Sanskrit words śaṃsata and narāśaṃsa stand for a deity or God, who is praiseworthy. According to Sāyana, the most reputed commentator of the Vedas, the word narāśaṃsa 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 Zakir Naik, 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 narāśaṃsa and hence mention Muhammad and the verse (8/1/1) of the Rig-Veda contains the word śaṃsata (Ahmmad), or the other name of Muhammad. In my earlier submission “Allah in the Vedas: The Treachery of Dr Zakir Naike, I have shown what kinds of dark lies Dr Naik can propagate. Here also he begins with another blatant lie and says that the word śaṃsata 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:
Mā cidanyadvi śaṃsata sakhāyo
mā riṣṇyata l
Indramitstot ā vṛṣaṇaṃ sacā sute
muhurukthā ca śaṃsata 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 Ṛgveda, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi; 1995, p-388). So the word śaṃsata (praiseworthy) in the above verse refers to deity Indra, and not a man who praises (Ahammad) as claimed by Dr Zakir Naike.
We shall now see what the verses containing the word narāśaṃsa 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 Ṛk 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:
Narāśaṃsamiha priyamasminajña upahvaye l
Madhujihvat haviṣkṛtam ll (1/13/3)
- Dear Narāśaṃsa, sweet of toungue, 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 narāśaṃsa (praiseworthy to man) in the verse refers to Agni. One should also note that the word narāśaṃsa does signify a man who is praiseworthy, as claimed by Dr Zakir Naik.
The verse (1/18/9) of the Rig-Veda says:
Narāśaṃsaṃ sudhṛṣṭamamapaśyam
saprathastam l
Divo na sadmakhasam ll (1/18/9)
- I have seen Narāśaṃsa , 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 Brahmaṇaspati, the Priest of heaven and hence the word narāśaṃsa (praiseworthy to man) in this verse refers to Brahmaṇaspati, the Priest of heaven.
The verse (1/106/4) of the Rig-Veda says:
Narāśaṃsaṃ vajinṃ vajayinniha
kṣayadvīraṃ pūṣaṇaṃ summairī mahe l
Rathaṃ na durgādvasava sudānavo
viśvasmānno ahaṃso niṣpipartana ll (1/106/4)
- To mighty Narāśaṃsa, strengthening his might, to Pūṣaṇa , 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 Viśvadevas, and hence the word narāśaṃsa (praiseworthy to man) in this verse refers to Viśvadevas.
The verse (1/142/3) of the Rig-Veda says:
śuci pāvako adbhuto madhvā
yajñaṃ mimikṣati l
Narāśaṃsasthrirā divo devo
deveṣu yajñiyaḥ ll (1/142/3)
-He wondrous, sanctifying, bright, sprinkles the sacrifice with mead, thrice, Narāśaṃsa from the heavens, a God mid Gods adorable (tr: ibid, p-98). The 142nd Sukta, to which the versae belongs, is dedicated to to deity Āprī, and hence the word narāśaṃsa in this verse refers to Āprī. Most of the scholars agree that Āprī is the other name of Agni and hence the word narāśaṃsa in this verse refers to Agni, the god of fire.
The verse (2/3/2) of the Rig-Veda says:
Narāśaṃsaḥ prati dhāmānyañjan tisro div prati mahṇā svarciḥ l
Ghṛtapruṣā manasā havyamundanmūrdhanyajñasya sanamaktu devān ll (2/3/2)
- May Narāśaṃsa 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 earler one, 142nd Sukta of 1st Mandal, this present 3rd Sukta of 2nd Mandala, is dedicated to the deity Āprī or Agni and hence the word narāśaṃsa in this verse refers to Agni the the Fire God.
The Verse (5/5/2) of Rig-Veda says:
Narāśaṃsaḥ suṣūdatīmṃ yajñamadābhyaḥ l
Kavirhi madhūhastāḥ ll (5/5/2)
- He, Narāśaṃsa, ne’er beguiled, inspiriteth this sacrifice; for sage is he, with sweets in hand (tr: ibid, p- 240). This 5th Sukta of 5th Mandala is also dedicated to Āprī or Agni and hence the word narāśaṃsa in this verse refers to Agni the Fire God.
The verse (7/2/2) of Rig-Veda says:
Narāśaṃsasya mahimānameṣamupa
stoṣāma yajatasya yajñaiḥ l
Ye sukratavaḥ śucayo dhiyandhāḥ
svadanti devā ubhayāni havyā ll (7/2/2)
- With sacrifice to these we men will honour the majesty of holy Narāśaṃsa – to these the pure, most wisw, 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 Āprī or Agni, and hence the word narāśaṃsa in this verse refers to Agni the Fire God.
The verse (10/64/3) of the Rig-Veda says:
Narā vā śaṃsaṃ pūṣṇamagohyamagni
deveddhamabhyarcase girā l
Sūryāmāsā candramasā yamaṃ divi
tritaṃ vātamuṣasamaktumaśvinā ll (10/64/3)
- To Narāśaṃsa and Pūṣaṇ I sing forth, uncocealable Agni kindled by the Gods. To Sun and Moon, two Moons, to Yama in the heaven, to Trita, Vāta, Dawn, Night and A śvins Twain (tr: ibid, p- 578). This 64th Sukta of 10th Mandala is dedicated to Viśvadevas, and the word narāśaṃsa in this verse refers to Viśvadevas.
The verse (10/182/2) of Rig-Veda says:
Narāśaṃso na avatu prayāje śaṃ no
astvanuyajo habeṣu l
Kṣipadaśtimapa durmati hannathā
karadyajamānāya śam ṣoḥ ll (10/182/2).
- May Narāśaṃsa aid us at Prayāja; blest be out Anuyāja 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 Vṛhaspati, and hence the word narāśaṃsa refers to Vṛhaspati, the Priest of the Gods.
Another verse (1/53/9) of the Rig-Veda says,
Tvametāñjanarājño dvirdaśābandhunā
suśravasopajagmaṣaḥ l
ṣaṣtiṃ sahasrā navatiṃ nava śruto ni
cakreṇa rathyā duṣpadā vṛṇak 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 Suśravas (tr: ibid, p-36). To narrate the incident, Sayana, the renowned commentator of Rig-Veda, says that twenty kings with a force, 60,099 strong, attacked the King Suśrava (Prajapati) and Indra alone defeated them and frustrated their ambition (the Vayu-Purana also narrates the incident).
Most of the scholars agree that Rig-Veda was composed more than 5000 years BC, 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, Zakir Naik has, firstly replaced the word Suśrava with Suśrama and says that the word Suśrama 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 Macca, 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 the claim and the treachery of Zakir Naik.
The verse (8/6/10) of the Rig-Veda says,
Ahamiddhi pituṣpari
medhamṛtasya jagrabha l
Ahaṃ sūrya ivājrani 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 only a lunatic can do.
Thus we have studied all the verses of the Rig-Veda which, according to Zakir Naik, mention Muhammad. It has been said above that the Sanskrit word narāśaṃsa stands for a deity or God who is praiseworthy to man and not a man who is praiseworthy to other men, as claimed by Zakir Naik. So, according to the asinine logic of Zakir Naik, whenever someone uses the word “praiseworthy”, it should be taken granted that he mentions Prophet Muhammad. I therefore ask Dr Naik, what he would say if a washerman tells that his donkey is praiseworthy, or someone tells that his pet dog is praiseworthy, or someone tells that his pair of shoes are praiseworthy ?
However, the genius of Dr Naik has been able to discover the word narāśaṃsa in other Vedas as well like Atharva-Veda and Yajurveda and is projecting them as mentioning of Muhammad. Though it is sheer wastage of time to deal with the utterances of an insane blockhead like Zakir Naik, we hope to discuss those matters in future.
Author: Dr Radhasyam Brahmachar
Whosoever has tried to go through a biography of the Prophet Muhammad authored by a Muslim, has noticed that the toughest task these authors face is to explain the Prophet’s marriages. If they take ten pages to narrate his marriages, they use more than hundred pages to justify those marriages. Why the Prophet took so many wives at his declining age? These authors don’t have any plausible reply to this question. The first and foremost duty of these authors is to rule out that sensuality of the Prophet had any role to play in his marriages. The best explanation they furnish is that the Prophet was so kind hearted that he married widows to provide food and shelter for them. In support of their argument they provide evidence that most of his wives were widows. Very nice, the Prophet played a saviour for the widows. But difficulty arises to explain his marrying Zeinab, the wife his adopted son Zeid, with the above argument as she was not a widow and as the incident exposes the indomitable sensuality of the Prophet (which Allah endorsed by revealing the verse (33:37) of the Holy Qur'an). Similar difficulty arises in explaining his marrying Rihana as well as Safia.
The explanations they import to explain these marriages may however be acceptable to the blockheads called believers, but horribly unacceptable for the civilized world. But the hardest task these authors face is to explain his marrying Ayesha at the age of 52, while Ayesha was a child of 6. Syed Amir Ali is an Indian author renowned for his book Spirit of Islam. In that book Mr Amir Ali says that the only intention that motivated the Prophet to marry Ayesha was to cement his friendship with Abu-bakr. Perhaps it is known to all that Muhammad and Abu-bakr underwent an understanding that Muhammad would give his daughter Fatima to Abu-bakr in marriage and Abu-bakr would give his daughter Ayesha to Muhammad. This kind of marriage, called Shighar Marriage, is still in vogue in Muslim society and the reader may recall that Osama bin-Laden married the daughter of Omar, the second man of Al Kaida, and Omar married the daughter of Osama. However, according to the said understanding, Muhammad married Ayesha in the first Hijra at the Abu-bakr’s house in Medina, But Muhammad delayed to perform his part of the agreement. After waiting for months, when Abu-bakr inquired about the delay, the Prophet replied that he was waiting for a command from Allah in the matter and that command never came. So, had Muhammad married Ayesha for cementing his relation with Abu-bakr, as mentioned by Mr Amir Ali, Muhammad must have given Fatima to Abu-bakr for a better cementing. Hence the argument furnished by Amir Ali does not seem to be tenable.
A Bengali author, M Abdur Rahman, has tried to explain it completely from a different angle. He asserts that, Muhammad married Ayesha to dispose off a great social responsibility. At that time, there was an urgent need to educate the Muslim women of Arabia about the extremely delicate sexual matters. But he being a male, was not fit to teach such lessons to the women. So he married Ayesha to be used as a vehicle to educate the women in sexual matters. Nice, but why he had chosen a tender girl like Ayesha? To explain this point, Mr Abdur Rahman says that a tender mind is most suitable for receiving education and that was the reason for marrying Ayesha. But it is really surprising that neither Amir Ali nor Abdur Rahman has furnished the most convincing argument, i.e. the will of Allah. Allah sent his divine sanction to Muhammad for marrying Ayesha in the form of dreams. For three consecutive nights the angel Zibrail (Gabriel of the Bible) showed a picture of Ayesha to the Prophet and said, “This is your wife.” For the first two nights, the Prophet could not recognize whose picture it was. But in the third night the he could recognize beyond doubt that it was a picture of Ayesha. So he had no other option but to comply with Allah’s divine instruction as soon as possible.
It should be noted here that whatever might be their arguments, reasoning and explanations, these authors must have to reach only one conclusion that, Muhammad was the greatest man on earth. If the conclusion deviates even by an inch, their life would be at stake. These authors also face difficulty in explaining some other deeds of the Prophet like massacring the Beni Koreiza at Madina, massacring the Beni Najir at Kheibar, shedding of blood in the holy month of Rajab at Nakhla and so on. It is obvious that it is really a hard task for these authors to explain so many blots and project him as the greatest and a flawless man on earth. It is needless to say that the task becomes much easier if it can be shown that there are foretelling of Muhammad in established and recognized holy books of other faiths like the Bible, Zend-Avesta, and, most importantly, the Sanskrit texts of the Hindus.
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 Muhammad 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 to discover mentioning of Muhammad in the Rig-Veda and in other Hindu texts. But as his investigation culminated into a failure, he had no other way but to apply stupid arguments to befool the kafirs.
First of all, we should see what the Rig-Veda says about Muhammad. It should also be mentioned at the outset that two Sanskrit words śaṃsata and narāśaṃsa play the central role in Dr Naik’s arguments. According to him, the word śaṃsata stands for an individual who praises. In Arabic, such an individual is called Ahammad, the other name Prophet Muhammad. Therefore wherever he could have found the word śaṃsata, he took it as the mentioning of their Prophet. According to Zakir Naik, the second word narāśaṃsa 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 narāśaṃsa, he took it to be a mentioning of Muhammad. It should be mentioned here that, where such silly arguments may lead one to. Every English dictionary contains the word praiseworthy, and, according to Zakir Naike, every English dictionary mentions the name of Muhammad. More seriously, such foolish arguments may lead one to an extremely ridiculous– goats have beard and Mr X has beard, and hence Mr X is a goat – like conclusion.
In fact, both the Sanskrit words śaṃsata and narāśaṃsa stand for a deity or God, who is praiseworthy. According to Sāyana, the most reputed commentator of the Vedas, the word narāśaṃsa 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 Zakir Naik, 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 narāśaṃsa and hence mention Muhammad and the verse (8/1/1) of the Rig-Veda contains the word śaṃsata (Ahmmad), or the other name of Muhammad. In my earlier submission “Allah in the Vedas: The Treachery of Dr Zakir Naike, I have shown what kinds of dark lies Dr Naik can propagate. Here also he begins with another blatant lie and says that the word śaṃsata 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:
Mā cidanyadvi śaṃsata sakhāyo
mā riṣṇyata l
Indramitstot ā vṛṣaṇaṃ sacā sute
muhurukthā ca śaṃsata 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 Ṛgveda, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi; 1995, p-388). So the word śaṃsata (praiseworthy) in the above verse refers to deity Indra, and not a man who praises (Ahammad) as claimed by Dr Zakir Naike.
We shall now see what the verses containing the word narāśaṃsa 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 Ṛk 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:
Narāśaṃsamiha priyamasminajña upahvaye l
Madhujihvat haviṣkṛtam ll (1/13/3)
- Dear Narāśaṃsa, sweet of toungue, 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 narāśaṃsa (praiseworthy to man) in the verse refers to Agni. One should also note that the word narāśaṃsa does signify a man who is praiseworthy, as claimed by Dr Zakir Naik.
The verse (1/18/9) of the Rig-Veda says:
Narāśaṃsaṃ sudhṛṣṭamamapaśyam
saprathastam l
Divo na sadmakhasam ll (1/18/9)
- I have seen Narāśaṃsa , 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 Brahmaṇaspati, the Priest of heaven and hence the word narāśaṃsa (praiseworthy to man) in this verse refers to Brahmaṇaspati, the Priest of heaven.
The verse (1/106/4) of the Rig-Veda says:
Narāśaṃsaṃ vajinṃ vajayinniha
kṣayadvīraṃ pūṣaṇaṃ summairī mahe l
Rathaṃ na durgādvasava sudānavo
viśvasmānno ahaṃso niṣpipartana ll (1/106/4)
- To mighty Narāśaṃsa, strengthening his might, to Pūṣaṇa , 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 Viśvadevas, and hence the word narāśaṃsa (praiseworthy to man) in this verse refers to Viśvadevas.
The verse (1/142/3) of the Rig-Veda says:
śuci pāvako adbhuto madhvā
yajñaṃ mimikṣati l
Narāśaṃsasthrirā divo devo
deveṣu yajñiyaḥ ll (1/142/3)
-He wondrous, sanctifying, bright, sprinkles the sacrifice with mead, thrice, Narāśaṃsa from the heavens, a God mid Gods adorable (tr: ibid, p-98). The 142nd Sukta, to which the versae belongs, is dedicated to to deity Āprī, and hence the word narāśaṃsa in this verse refers to Āprī. Most of the scholars agree that Āprī is the other name of Agni and hence the word narāśaṃsa in this verse refers to Agni, the god of fire.
The verse (2/3/2) of the Rig-Veda says:
Narāśaṃsaḥ prati dhāmānyañjan tisro div prati mahṇā svarciḥ l
Ghṛtapruṣā manasā havyamundanmūrdhanyajñasya sanamaktu devān ll (2/3/2)
- May Narāśaṃsa 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 earler one, 142nd Sukta of 1st Mandal, this present 3rd Sukta of 2nd Mandala, is dedicated to the deity Āprī or Agni and hence the word narāśaṃsa in this verse refers to Agni the the Fire God.
The Verse (5/5/2) of Rig-Veda says:
Narāśaṃsaḥ suṣūdatīmṃ yajñamadābhyaḥ l
Kavirhi madhūhastāḥ ll (5/5/2)
- He, Narāśaṃsa, ne’er beguiled, inspiriteth this sacrifice; for sage is he, with sweets in hand (tr: ibid, p- 240). This 5th Sukta of 5th Mandala is also dedicated to Āprī or Agni and hence the word narāśaṃsa in this verse refers to Agni the Fire God.
The verse (7/2/2) of Rig-Veda says:
Narāśaṃsasya mahimānameṣamupa
stoṣāma yajatasya yajñaiḥ l
Ye sukratavaḥ śucayo dhiyandhāḥ
svadanti devā ubhayāni havyā ll (7/2/2)
- With sacrifice to these we men will honour the majesty of holy Narāśaṃsa – to these the pure, most wisw, 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 Āprī or Agni, and hence the word narāśaṃsa in this verse refers to Agni the Fire God.
The verse (10/64/3) of the Rig-Veda says:
Narā vā śaṃsaṃ pūṣṇamagohyamagni
deveddhamabhyarcase girā l
Sūryāmāsā candramasā yamaṃ divi
tritaṃ vātamuṣasamaktumaśvinā ll (10/64/3)
- To Narāśaṃsa and Pūṣaṇ I sing forth, uncocealable Agni kindled by the Gods. To Sun and Moon, two Moons, to Yama in the heaven, to Trita, Vāta, Dawn, Night and A śvins Twain (tr: ibid, p- 578). This 64th Sukta of 10th Mandala is dedicated to Viśvadevas, and the word narāśaṃsa in this verse refers to Viśvadevas.
The verse (10/182/2) of Rig-Veda says:
Narāśaṃso na avatu prayāje śaṃ no
astvanuyajo habeṣu l
Kṣipadaśtimapa durmati hannathā
karadyajamānāya śam ṣoḥ ll (10/182/2).
- May Narāśaṃsa aid us at Prayāja; blest be out Anuyāja 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 Vṛhaspati, and hence the word narāśaṃsa refers to Vṛhaspati, the Priest of the Gods.
Another verse (1/53/9) of the Rig-Veda says,
Tvametāñjanarājño dvirdaśābandhunā
suśravasopajagmaṣaḥ l
ṣaṣtiṃ sahasrā navatiṃ nava śruto ni
cakreṇa rathyā duṣpadā vṛṇak 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 Suśravas (tr: ibid, p-36). To narrate the incident, Sayana, the renowned commentator of Rig-Veda, says that twenty kings with a force, 60,099 strong, attacked the King Suśrava (Prajapati) and Indra alone defeated them and frustrated their ambition (the Vayu-Purana also narrates the incident).
Most of the scholars agree that Rig-Veda was composed more than 5000 years BC, 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, Zakir Naik has, firstly replaced the word Suśrava with Suśrama and says that the word Suśrama 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 Macca, 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 the claim and the treachery of Zakir Naik.
The verse (8/6/10) of the Rig-Veda says,
Ahamiddhi pituṣpari
medhamṛtasya jagrabha l
Ahaṃ sūrya ivājrani 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 only a lunatic can do.
Thus we have studied all the verses of the Rig-Veda which, according to Zakir Naik, mention Muhammad. It has been said above that the Sanskrit word narāśaṃsa stands for a deity or God who is praiseworthy to man and not a man who is praiseworthy to other men, as claimed by Zakir Naik. So, according to the asinine logic of Zakir Naik, whenever someone uses the word “praiseworthy”, it should be taken granted that he mentions Prophet Muhammad. I therefore ask Dr Naik, what he would say if a washerman tells that his donkey is praiseworthy, or someone tells that his pet dog is praiseworthy, or someone tells that his pair of shoes are praiseworthy ?
However, the genius of Dr Naik has been able to discover the word narāśaṃsa in other Vedas as well like Atharva-Veda and Yajurveda and is projecting them as mentioning of Muhammad. Though it is sheer wastage of time to deal with the utterances of an insane blockhead like Zakir Naik, we hope to discuss those matters in future.
0 comments:
Post a Comment