Prophet Muhammad in Hinduism???

**MasterAdnin** · October 07, 2006, 09:11 PM

I was at my Mosque yesterday and someone was showing us a PowerPointPresentation on Islam and it's connection with other religions and I found a lot of stuff on this on the internet, here are some links:

http://www.islam101.com/religions/hinduism/Mhs.htm
http://www.islamawareness.net/Hinduism/hindu.html
http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/H...lkiavatar.html

Discuss....

Salaam,
Adnan

P.S.-Don't turn this into an Islamic and Prophet Muhammad bashing thread...

**mrjesushat** · October 07, 2006, 10:23 PM

Well, Adnan, I found these links absolutely fascinating. I had no idea that there were aspects of interfaith research in the works of Islamic scholars. I also found this quote from the second link particularly interesting:

"Readers comment: Hindus do not consider 'Bhavishya Purana as authentic religious scripture, nor do we hold it in high regards but for argument sake, I would like to clarify here that 'Malecha' means 'degraded' and or 'of low caste' and not what you claim in your translation. Also, 'Mahamad' when broken into parts in sanskrit means 'maha=big' and 'mud=mischief', hence 'big mischief'."

I've worked with a number of Muslims and Hindus, and many of these were from the Indian Subcontinent where, as you know, there is frequently considerable enmity between the two religions. I gather this has less to do with Kashmir and more to do with the Moguls, but that's a separate issue. What I find worthy of note about the quote above is that this reveals the dangerous nature of the game of prophecy. And the varied positions on the matter feel to me like they are fueled more by a general unease that Muslims and Hindus sometimes seem to share for one another, than they are by a desire for genuine theological disputation.

The reader who commented on this is utilizing interpretation to imply that while Hindu texts may predict the coming of Muhammad, they do it not for Muhammad's own benefit. Rather, the prophetic text can be taken to mean that a man of low class will be born, and will bring bad things. Which is not the sort of text one ought to use in converting Hindus to Islam.

I recognize that this was not your intent, and merely thought I'd point out that interpretation is dodgy at best, since it's always in the eye of the beholder. But we might also say the same of truth, even in an ultimate and absolute sense.

**MasterAdnin** · October 08, 2006, 01:18 AM

That is one quote, there are many others, but I do get your point, but I get your point, and you must look at what Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) spread. A religion which is one of the largest of the modern world and has lasted for a hundreds of years. If Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) spread a false religion it would not have lasted this many years. You cannot even find a significant false prophet that has made a lasting affect. Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) spread truth, and I find it incredible that the Prophet(PBUH) was able to recite the verses of the Qu'ran being illiterate. It is truly amazing.

Another thing, there is a quote from the Bible I believe that predicts and fore-see's a Prophet type figure who will have 10,000 saints acompany him, and how large was Prophet Muhammad's(PBUH0 army when taking Mecca, 10,000. I'll try to find the quote.

Salaam,
ADnan

**Dromikaites** · October 08, 2006, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by MasterAdnin

If Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) spread a false religion it would not have lasted this many years. You cannot even find a significant false prophet that has made a lasting affect.

I wouldn't use that argument if I were you 'cause then you'd have to explain why another religion which is 600 years older than Islam and which is currently the most widespread one is not the true religion.

Originally Posted by MasterAdnin

Another thing, there is a quote from the Bible I believe that predicts and fore-see's a Prophet type figure who will have 10,000 saints acompany him, and how large was Prophet Muhammad's(PBUH0 army when taking Mecca, 10,000. I'll try to find the quote.

By all means, do look it up.

**Tom Paine** · October 08, 2006, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Dromikaites

I wouldn't use that argument if I were you 'cause then you'd have to explain why another religion which is 600 years older than Islam and which is currently the most widespread one is not the true religion.

Because it denied the last true prophet, at a guess. There, that wasn't too hard.

**Dromikaites** · October 08, 2006, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by the Grim Squeaker

Because it denied the last true prophet, at a guess. There, that wasn't too hard.

His argument was Islam couldn't be false because it lasted for so long and is so widespread. But that is even more true about Christianity so my point was he should not use that argument to support the idea Islam is the true religion.

**MasterAdnin** · October 08, 2006, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Dromikaites

His argument was Islam couldn't be false because it lasted for so long and is so widespread. But that is even more true about Christianity so my point was he should not use that argument to support the idea Islam is the true religion.

Yes but you see, they both are Abrahamic religions and are very similar. They both are in the same branch of world religions and therefore, I consider them to be very very similar brother/sister religions.

Originally Posted by The Fish

Adnan, I don't think any of the arguments on those websites have anything that could remotely be a prophecy of Mohammed in Hinduism. Going through a point-by-point rebuttal would be a an unnecessarily painful exercise, but I think the arguments can be refuted at a more visceral level: the scriptures that make up the basis of Sanatana Dharma are incredibly cryptic and metaphorical; this is by design. The problem is people used to dealing with Judeo-Christian or Islamic texts tend to assume that religious texts must be composed of commandmants, a set of rules to be followed. The Vedas do not do so: they are much less concerned with how we behave, and much more concerned with how we think. This is achieved through metaphor of unbelievable complexity. To quote a passage from the Vedas that mentions someone who is "praiseworthy" and then extrapolate that to mean Mohammed (as one of your linked websites does) is not only bewildering, it is laughable.

I was talking to one of my Hindu friends and I showed her this subject and all the links and she said it was very very possible and probable that Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) could have been one of the "Avatars", not exactly sure what they are, but she explained a little bit that they were people who brang sacred text and knowlege from the heavens. That too she led me to the example that Prophet Muhammad's(PBUH) message of Allah and God has lasted hundreds and hundreds of years and that too, a message from an illiterate man which is considered to be very beautiful and inspiring poetry, and again, FROM AN ILLITERATE MAN!

Drom, Here is the link

Salaam,
Adnan

**The Fish** · October 08, 2006, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by MasterAdnin

I was at my Mosque yesterday and someone was showing us a PowerPointPresentation on Islam and it's connection with other religions and I found a lot of stuff on this on the internet, here are some links:

http://www.islam101.com/religions/hinduism/Mhs.htm
http://www.islamawareness.net/Hinduism/hindu.html
http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/H...lkiavatar.html

Discuss....

Salaam,
Adnan

P.S.-Don't turn this into an Islamic and Prophet Muhammad bashing thread...

Adnan, I don't think any of the arguments on those websites have anything that could remotely be a prophecy of Mohammed in Hinduism. Going through a point-by-point rebuttal would be a an unnecessarily painful exercise, but I think the arguments can be refuted at a more visceral level: the scriptures that make up the basis of Sanatana Dharma are incredibly cryptic and metaphorical; this is by design. The problem is people used to dealing with Judeo-Christian or Islamic texts tend to assume that religious texts must be composed of commandmants, a set of rules to be followed. The Vedas do not do so: they are much less concerned with how we behave, and much more concerned with how we think. This is achieved through metaphor of unbelievable complexity. To quote a passage from the Vedas that mentions someone who is "praiseworthy" and then extrapolate that to mean Mohammed (as one of your linked websites does) is not only bewildering, it is laughable.
Also, regarding another one of the texts quoted heavily, the Bhavishya Purana. Now, maybe some sage was capable of seeing into the future are writing it down, I don't know and frankly such shenanigans don't really interest me. What is interesting about the websites you give (and which make me seriously question their credibility) is that the author claims the Purana states "Ye have collected a great force to kill the Devil..." without realizing that there IS no devil in Sanatana Dharma. Such basic failures of understanding of Hinduism is what makes me brush this off as just another crack-pot website with an agenda to fill. Consider that there are as many websites devoted to explaining how the Bhavishya Purana prophesied Jesus, the English language, and even queen Victoria! This is like those Nostradamus believers who take some out of context passage and twist reality to fit into it. I know you're a young'un, Adnan, but I suggest you learn about Hinduism a bit before you give much credence to such pseudo-scholars.