Prophet Mohammad saw is mentioned in Hindu Holy books

[myislam1]

Mohammad Pbuh in books of Hindu,s
Muhammad (pbuh) prophesised in Bhavishya Purana
According to Bhavishya Purana in the Prati Sarag Parv III Khand 3 Adhay 3 Shloka 5 to 8.
"A malecha (belonging to a foreign country and speaking a foreign language) spiritual teacher will appear with his companions. His name will be Mohammad. Raja (Bhoj) after giving this Maha Dev Arab (of angelic disposition) a bath in the Panchgavya and the Ganga water (i.e. purifying him of all sins) offered him the present of his sincere devotion and showing him all reverence said, "I make obeisance to thee. O ye! The pride of mankind, the dweller in Arabia, Ye have collected a great force to kill the Devil and you yourself have been protected from the malecha opponents."
The Prophecy clearly states:
The name of the Prophet as Mohammad.
He will belong to Arabia. The Sanskrit word Marusthal means a sandy track of land or a desert.
Special mention is made of the companions of the Prophet, i.e. the Sahabas. No other Prophet had as many companions as Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
He is referred as the pride of mankind (Parbatis nath). The Glorious Qur’an reconfirms this
"And thou (standest) on an exalted standard of character"
[Al-Qur'an 68:4]|
"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah, a beautiful pattern (of conduct)".
[Al-Qur'an 33:21]
He will kill the devil, i.e. abolish idol worship and all sorts of vices.
The Prophet will be given protection against his enemy.
Some people may argue that ‘Raja’ Bhoj mentioned in the prophecy lived in the 11th century C.E. 500 years after the advent of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and was the descendant in the 10th generation of Raja Shalivahan. These people fail to realise that there was not only one Raja of the name Bhoj. The Egyptian Monarchs were called as Pharaoh and the Roman Kings were known as Caesar, similarly the Indian Rajas were given the title of Bhoj. There were several Raja Bhoj who came before the one in 11th Century C.E.
The Prophet did not physically take a bath in the Panchgavya and the water of Ganges. Since the water of Ganges is considered holy, taking bath in the Ganges is an idiom, which means washing away sins or immunity from all sorts of sins. Here the prophecy implies that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was sinless, i.e. Maasoom.
According to Bhavishya Purana in the Pratisarag Parv III Khand 3 Adhay 3 Shloka 10 to 27 Maharishi Vyas has prophesised:
"The Malecha have spoiled the well-known land of the Arabs. Arya Dharma is not to be found in the country. Before also there appeared a misguided fiend whom I had killed; he has now again appeared being sent by a powerful enemy. To show these enemies the right path and to give them guidance, the well-known Muhammad (pbuh), is busy in bringing the Pishachas to the right path. O Raja, You need not go to the land of the foolish Pishachas, you will be purified through my kindness even where you are. At night, he of the angelic disposition, the shrewd man, in the guise of Pishacha said to Raja Bhoj, "O Raja! Your Arya Dharma has been made to prevail over all religions, but according to the commandments of Ishwar Parmatma, I shall enforce the strong creed of the meat eaters. My followers will be men circumcised, without a tail (on his head), keeping beard, creating a revolution announcing the Aadhaan (the Muslim call for prayer) and will be eating all lawful things. He will eat all sorts of animals except swine. They will not seek purification from the holy shrubs, but will be purified through warfare. On account of their fighting the irreligious nations, they will be known as Musalmaans. I shall be the originator of this religion of the meat-eating nations."
The Prophecy states that:
The evil doers have corrupted the Arab land.
Arya Dharma is not found in that land.
The Indian Raja need not go the Arab land since his purification will take place in India after the musalmaan will arrive in India.
The coming Prophet will attest the truth of the Aryan faith, i.e. Monotheism and will reform the misguided people.
The Prophet’s followers will be circumcised. They will be without a tail on the head and bear a beard and will create a great revolution.
They will announce the Aadhaan, i.e. ‘the Muslim call for prayer’.
He will only eat lawful things and animals but will not eat pork. The Qur’an confirms this in no less than 4 different places:
In Surah Al-Baqarah chapter 2 verse 173
In Surah Al-Maidah chapter 5 verse 3
In Surah Al-Anam chapter 6 verse 145
In Surah Al-Nahl chapter 16 verse 115
"Forbidden to you for food are dead meat, blood, flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah".
They will not purify with grass like the Hindus but by means of sword they will fight their irreligious people.
They will be called musalmaan.
They will be a meat-eating nation.
The eating of herbivorous animals is confirmed by the Qur’an in Surah Maidah, chapter 5 verse 1 and in Surah Muminun chapter 23 verse 21
According to Bhavishya Purana, Parv - III Khand 1 Adhay 3 Shloka 21-23:
"Corruption and persecution are found in seven sacred cities of Kashi, etc. India is inhabited by Rakshas, Shabor, Bhil and other foolish people. In the land of Malechhas, the followers of the Malechha dharma (Islam) are wise and brave people. All good qualities are found in Musalmaans and all sorts of vices have accumulated in the land of the Aryas. Islam will rule in India and its islands. Having known these facts, O Muni, glorify the name of thy lord".
The Qur’an confirms this in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 33 and in Surah Al Saff chapter 61 verse 9:
"It is He who hath sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it)".
A similar message is given in Surah Fatah chapter 48 verses 28 ending with, "and enough is Allah as a witness".
II
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Prophesised in Atharvaveda
In the 20th book of Atharvaveda Hymn 127 Some Suktas (chapters) are known as Kuntap Sukta. Kuntap means the consumer of misery and troubles. Thus meaning the message of peace and safety and if translated in Arabic means Islam.
Kuntap also means hidden glands in the abdomen. These mantras are called so probably because their true meaning was hidden and was to be revealed in future. Its hidden meaning is also connected with the navel or the middle point of this earth. Makkah is called the Ummul Qur’a the mother of the towns or the naval of the earth. In many revealed books it was the first house of Divine worship where God Almighty gave spiritual nourishment to the world. The Qur’an says in Surah Ali-Imran chapter 3, verse 96:
"The first house (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakkah (Makkah) full of blessings and of guidance and for all kinds of beings". Thus Kuntap stands for Makkah or Bakkah.
Several people have translated these Kuntap Suktas like M. Bloomfield, Prof. Ralph Griffith, Pandit Rajaram, Pandit Khem Karan, etc.
The main points mentioned in the Kuntap Suktas i.e. in Atharvaveda book 20 Hymn 127 verses 1-13 are:
Mantra 1
He is Narashansah or the praised one (Muhammad). He is Kaurama: the prince of peace or the emigrant, who is safe, even amongst a host of 60,090 enemies.
Mantra 2
He is a camel-riding Rishi, whose chariot touches the heaven.
Mantra 3
He is Mamah Rishi who is given a hundred gold coins, ten chaplets (necklaces), three hundred good steeds and ten thousand cows.
Mantra 4
Vachyesv rebh. ‘Oh! ye who glorifies’.
The Sanskrit word Narashansah means ‘the praised one’, which is the literal translation of the Arabic word Muhammad (pbuh).
The Sanskrit word Kaurama means ‘one who spreads and promotes peace’. The holy Prophet was the ‘Prince of Peace’ and he preached equality of human kind and universal brotherhood. Kaurama also means an emigrant. The Prophet migrated from Makkah to Madinah and was thus also an Emigrant.
He will be protected from 60,090 enemies, which was the population of Makkah. The Prophet would ride a camel. This clearly indicates that it cannot be an Indian Rishi, since it is forbidden for a Brahman to ride a camel according to the Sacred Books of the East, volume 25, Laws of Manu pg. 472. According to Manu Smirti chapter 11 verse 202, "A Brahman is prohibited from riding a camel or an ass and to bathe naked. He should purify himself by suppressing his breath".
This mantra gave the Rishi's name as Mamah. No rishi in India or another Prophet had this name Mamah which is derived from Mah which means to esteem highly, or to revere, to exalt, etc. Some Sanskrit books give the Prophet’s name as ‘Mohammad’, but this word according to Sanskrit grammar can also be used in the bad sense. It is incorrect to apply grammar to an Arabic word. Actually shas the same meaning and somewhat similar pronunciation as the word Muhammad (pbuh).
He is given 100 gold coins, which refers to the believers and the earlier companions of the Prophet during his turbulent Makkan life. Later on due to persecution they migrated from Makkah to Abysinia. Later when Prophet migrated to Madinah all of them joined him in Madinah.
The 10 chaplets or necklaces were the 10 best companions of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) known as Ashra-Mubbashshira (10 bestowed with good news). These were foretold in this world of their salvation in the hereafter i.e. they were given the good news of entering paradise by the Prophet’s own lips and after naming each one he said "in Paradise". They were Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Talha, Zubair, Abdur Rahman Ibn Auf, Saad bin Abi Waqqas, Saad bin Zaid and Abu Ubaidah (May Allah be well-pleased with all of them).
The Sanskrit word Go is derived from Gaw which means ‘to go to war’. A cow is also called Go and is a symbol of war as well as peace. The 10,000 cows refer to the 10,000 companions who accompanied the Prophet (pbuh) when he entered Makkah during Fateh Makkah which was a unique victory in the history of mankind in which there was no blood shed. The 10,000 companions were pious and compassionate like cows and were at the same time strong and fierce and are described in the Holy Quran in Surah Fatah:
"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other."
[Al-Qur'an 48:29]
This mantra calls the Prophet as Rebh which means one who praises, which when translated into Arabic is Ahmed, which is another name for the Holy Prophet (pbuh).
Battle of the Allies described in the Vedas.
It is mentioned in Atharvaveda Book XX Hymn 21 verse 6, "Lord of the truthful! These liberators drink these feats of bravery and the inspiring songs gladdened thee in the field of battle. When thou renders vanquished without fight the ten thousand opponents of the praying one, the adoring one."
This Prophecy of the Veda describes the well-known battle of Ahzab or the battle of the Allies during the time of Prophet Muhammed. The Prophet was victorious without an actual conflict which is mentioned in the Qur’an in Surah Ahzab:
"When the believers saw the confederate forces they said, "This is what Allah and His Messenger had promised us and Allah and His Messenger told us what was true." And it only added to their faith and their zeal in obedience."
[Al-Qur'an 33:22]
The Sanskrit word karo in the Mantra means the ‘praying one’ which when translated into Arabic means ‘Ahmed’, the second name of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).
The 10,000 opponents mentioned in the Mantra were the enemies of the Prophet and the Muslims were only 3000 in number.
The last words of the Mantra aprati ni bashayah means the defeat was given to the enemies without an actual fight.
The enemies’ defeat in the conquest of Makkah is mentioned in Atharvaveda book 20 Hymn 21 verse no 9:
"You have O Indra, overthrown 20 kings and 60,099 men with an outstripping Chariot wheel who came to fight the praised one or far famed (Muhammad) orphan."
The population of Makkah at the time of Prophet’s advent was nearly 60,000
There were several clans in Makkah each having its own chief. Totally there were about 20 chiefs to rule the population of Makkah.
An Abandhu meaning a helpless man who was far-famed and ‘praised one’. Muhammad (pbuh) overcame his enemies with the help of God.
III
Muhammad (pbuh) prophesised in the Rigveda
A similar prophecy is also found in Rigveda Book I, Hymn 53 verse 9:
The Sanskrit word used is Sushrama, which means praiseworthy or well praised which in Arabic means Muhammad (pbuh).
IV
Muhummad (pbuh) is also prophesised in the Samveda
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is also prophesised in the Samveda Book II Hymn 6 verse 8:
"Ahmed acquired from his Lord the knowledge of eternal law. I received light from him just as from the sun." The Prophecy confirms:
The name of the Prophet as Ahmed since Ahmed is an Arabic name. Many translators misunderstood it to be Ahm at hi and translated the mantra as "I alone have acquired the real wisdom of my father".
Prophet was given eternal law, i.e. the Shariah.
The Rishi was enlightened by the Shariah of Prophet Muhammad. The Qur’an says in Surah Saba chapter 34 verse 28
"We have not sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them glad tidings and warning them (against sin), but most men understand not."
[Al-Qur'an 34:28]

[sm78]

Request the moderator to move this work of scolarship and rationality to an appropiate section

[satay]

As this articles "proves", muhamad was a Hindu and so in light of this new scholary research, all muslims should accept dharma and worship shiva as their only Lord.

I welcome all mullhas to the Dharmic Fold.

[soham3]

Shuddhi movement started by Arya Samaj is the appropriate forum. God is formless. After being taken to hindu fold, muslims can chant vedic prayers in arya samaj temples. Swami Shraddhananda converted many muslims.

[myislam1]

for your information your books says that you should belive inantim rishi muhammad. and quran was a book which was given to him your puran veda are old books and was for that time. know it is the time of Muhammad as your books mentioned.

[satay]

for your information your books says that you should belive inantim rishi muhammad. and quran was a book which was given to him your puran veda are old books and was for that time. know it is the time of Muhammad as your books mentioned.

Since you believe in the authority of the vedas and the hindu 'books' you are a hindu and as such you need not subscribe to the false teachings of koran. You may safely burn it.

[myislam1]

for your kind informtaion Mohammad saw was not a Hindu. your books says
to beleive in him. and we all know that Quran was a book given to him
so we sholud follow the Quran. and dont do the idol worship and beleive
in one God.

[satay]

Namaskar,


for your kind informtaion Mohammad saw was not a Hindu. your books says
to beleive in him. and we all know that Quran was a book given to him
so we sholud follow the Quran. and dont do the idol worship and beleive
in one God.

I don't know who or what mohamud was and nor do I care, however, since YOU believe in the authroity of the Vedas and the Hindu Books you are automatically a HINDU.

I encourage you to burn your false book of Koran since you don't believe in it anymore.

[myislam1]

see what Quran says that All the books that was given to rishi,s was for that time and it is the time of quran then you hindu,s have to beleive in quran becoz your veda porna etc speaks about Mohmmad saw. i request you to read quran brother thanks.And if u will say that Mohammad saw was a Hindu it is not correct daer Mohammad saw is also mentioned in Bible of christians in old tetment of jewish.

[satay]

namaskar,

I don't follow your logic. First you say that Vedas and Puranas talk about mohamad and that you accept the authority of the vedas and puranas.

Since you 'accept' what's written in the vedas and puranas you are a Hindu, so therefore, you need not subscribe to any other books of any other religions and cults. Based on that logic, any muslim that believes in the written word of God in the Vedas should take their position in Hinduism.

A hindu is someone who believes in the authority of the Vedas and since you do believe in the authority of the Vedas and what they have to say, you are a Hindu.

[devisarada]

Nice going, Satay, obviously this Hindu is very confused.

[soham3]

Islam has been well commented upon by Swami Dayananda Saraswati in his epoch-making magnum opus ' Satyarth Prakash ' in the fourteenth chapter. After reading it, enlightened & rationalistic muslims will surely embrace Sanatana Dharma.
Ancestors of the author of this thread seem to be definitely hindus.

[myislam1]

Hai first of all let me make very clear that i am a muslim.
2 Mohammad saw is even mentioned in christians bible jewish,s old testment and Buddha book.
what i am trying to you that Bible veda purana old testment was also given to the Rishi by God on that time.But as all books veda puranan bible mentioned that you have to beleive in antim rishi and his mesege Quran.i beleive that books before Quran was came by God but know it is the rime of antim rishi Mohammad saw. so way you not beleive in Muhmmmad saw and Quran

[dhruva023]

Hai first of all let me make very clear that i am a muslim.
2 Mohammad saw is even mentioned in christians bible jewish,s old testment and Buddha book.
what i am trying to you that Bible veda purana old testment was also given to the Rishi by God on that time.But as all books veda puranan bible mentioned that you have to beleive in antim rishi and his mesege Quran.i beleive that books before Quran was came by God but know it is the rime of antim rishi Mohammad saw. so way you not beleive in Muhmmmad saw and Quran


i didn't get it, do you mean that he was the last rishi, and we have to folow him?

[satay]

i didn't get it, do you mean that he was the last rishi, and we have to folow him?

No.

He means that Vedas are the authority of all religions including islam because Vedas reveal the true One God. As such those muslims who believe in what the vedas say, they should accept Hinduism as their religion.

[satay]

namaskar,


Hai first of all let me make very clear that i am a muslim.
2 Mohammad saw is even mentioned in christians bible jewish,s old testment and Buddha book.
what i am trying to you that Bible veda purana old testment was also given to the Rishi by God on that time.But as all books veda puranan bible mentioned that you have to beleive in antim rishi and his mesege Quran.i beleive that books before Quran was came by God but know it is the rime of antim rishi Mohammad saw. so way you not beleive in Muhmmmad saw and Quran

And Let me make this clear to you that 'Those who believe in the authority of the Vedas are HINDUS'.

With your first post on this thread you accepted the authority of the Vedas, therefore, YOU ARE A HINDU.

As such you can burn the false books of other religions and cults that you belonged to before accepting the authority of the vedas.

[indianx]

Satay has taken a pretty amusing, but clever approach to the issue. But, I think most of these recycled and inane posts can be easily refuted. I remember another muslim member at CF who posted things similar to these and I, along with a few other members there, pointed out some obvious inconsistencies in his arguments and the member responded by referring to a geocities site, that was titled something like 'Hinduism XXX - unknown verses'. The same member confused the Rig Veda with the Bhagavad Gita and when he was corrected, he responded by saying that he was testing whether we understood our scriptures.

I'll try to search for that post, it's actually somewhat funny, on google to see if it was indexed, since CF doesn't have a search feature.

I found a thread pointing out the inconsistencies in the post that was just recycled by the OP here:
http://christianforums.com/t2926328

The author of that thread might seem a little outspoken in his conclusions when chastising islam, but he makes appropriate points during the course of his argument.

[devisarada]

Hai first of all let me make very clear that i am a muslim.
2 Mohammad saw is even mentioned in christians bible jewish,s old testment and Buddha book.
what i am trying to you that Bible veda purana old testment was also given to the Rishi by God on that time.But as all books veda puranan bible mentioned that you have to beleive in antim rishi and his mesege Quran.i beleive that books before Quran was came by God but know it is the rime of antim rishi Mohammad saw. so way you not beleive in Muhmmmad saw and Quran

I think it's time this Hindu went to an Islamic forum and let everyone there know that he accepts the authoritiy of the Vedas and that since Mohamed is mentioned in the Vedas, they should all accept that fact and acknowledge that they all are indeed Hindus.

[myislam1]

Hai Brothers
Satay brother you are giving wrong meaning to my words.i told you that Quran says that we have sent many rishi,s.but i told these veda,s bible etc was given to rishi,s on there times know it is the time of Muhmmad saw as Bible says and veda says.it is not nessesary for me to beleivng in authority of veda becoz Quran no where says it. but your veda says to follow muhmmad saw.so it is nessesary for you to follow Muhammd saw and the book which was given to him by God.

[satay]

Namaskar,

I am not giving wrong meaning to your words, however, you are putting your foot in your mouth now because the logic I am presenting is very basic.

You said that you believe in what the Vedas have to say thus you accept the authority of the Vedas, therefore, you ARE a HINDU.

You may stop believing in any false books like koran etc. anytime...

Anyone who believes in what the Vedas have to say is a HINDU.

[myislam1]

i rpoved from your books that Muhammad saw is antim rishi nad you also accepted it.know the book which was given to that antim rishi Quran you are saying that this a bad book.what type of hindu you are.Hindu books says not to do idol worship but you say it is right.you saying that you are a hindu but you yourself is not a good hindu becoz you are going against your own veda.
and if you want a scinefic debate betweent Quran and veda we can start a new topic where i will prove a lots of scientfic errors in veda and lots of scientific facts in Quran. its a challenge to you

[devotee]

i rpoved from your books that Muhammad saw is antim rishi nad you also accepted it.know the book which was given to that antim rishi Quran you are saying that this a bad book.what type of hindu you are.Hindu books says not to do idol worship but you say it is right.you saying that you are a hindu but you yourself is not a good hindu becoz you are going against your own veda.
and if you want a scinefic debate betweent Quran and veda we can start a new topic where i will prove a lots of scientfic errors in veda and lots of scientific facts in Quran. its a challenge to you

Dear myislam1,

Your thinking is interesting. Have you studied vedas ? It doesn't appear so, from what you post. However, just for your information, let me tell you that I have read Q'uran. Now let me ask a few questions -

a) What is your understanding of God ? Do you agree that God is Omnipotent & Omniscient ?
b) Where does God live ?
c) Who gave a name ( say, Allah, according to you) to God ?
d) What was before "creation" ? Was there anything except God ... even space ?
e) Do you agree that Hindus & Muslims or for that matter anyone on this earth are "created" by the same God ?

Try to answer these questions then we shall talk more on God & spirituality or Hinduism Vs Islam. ok ?

[satay]

namaskar,


i rpoved from your books that Muhammad saw is antim rishi nad you also accepted it.

All you did is copy and paste junk from Naik's site to this forum. That's not a 'proof', that is spam. And the only reason why I am allowing this spam here for now is for amusement and to show how foolish this spam is.

Naik has been refuted here on HDF. :D

You accepted the authority of the vedas in your first post. So there is no need to deny that you are a HINDU. You can come out of the closet anytime.

I realize that those muslims who accept the authority of other religion's books might get blown away by your own brethern but you have to take that risk now that you DO accept Vedas as authority.

Welcome to Hinduism!:)

Please learn to type and read the FAQ first before claiming that you have read the Vedas

[soham3]

Prophet Mohammed was no rishi. He married one 6 years old girl Ayesha and finally took her into his bed when she became 9 years old.
Totally he had married 14 ladies.

[myislam1]

Answers to you devotee
a we beleive that God is only one.and we can not see him .he has no photo no idol.and thats what also Bible Quran veda and purana says.
B God has knowledge of every thing even a leaf of tree. but physically he is on (Arash).
C Allah word is in scripture,s of every Big religion like bible Quran etc but we can also call him God.
D God created every thing there was nothing before God.
E muslims hindus christians all are created by one God. and we all are brother in humanity.

Answer to satay
answer me a simple thing .i proved from your books that God is one he had no idol or picture. i proved that Muhmmad saw is antim rishi. then still you are not accepting it.
it menas you donot bleive in authority of Veda and purna. and u are not a msulim not a hindu. know you have to decide what you want to become.

Answers to Soham3
1 you are saying that Prophet Muhammad saw has 14 wives that why he is not rishi.but go to your own books first and open your veda and purana
and see that Krishan has 16108 wives it is written in your books. and then talk about Prophet Muhammad saw.
if your krishan can marry 16108 why not Muhammad saw can marry 14 wives.
2 there is much evidence to suggest that ayesha was not of 9. Indeed the evidence congregates towards the view that she was at least 18, and perhaps 20 or over at the time of her marriage. In my answer, I cited the authentic reports that tell us that she was engaged to someone else before the Prophet sent his proposal, and the way she was suggested to the Prophet as a possible wife, and the fact that she is mentioned among the people who accepted Islam in its very early days, certainly before year 5 of the Prophet’s message, i.e. 9 years before her marriage.
This is not difficult to explain. What we have to look at first of all is the Arabian social environment at the time when the message of Islam was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his efforts in advocating it. At the time, the Arabs were largely an illiterate community. Only a few of them could read and write. Yet they were highly articulate. Poetry was a highly appreciated talent among them. It recorded their events, expressed their attitudes and explained their traditions. The Arabs at the time did not have a calendar by which to date their events. They dated them by some major events, always changing the reference date when a new major event took place. Thus, we know that the Prophet was born in the Year of the Elephant, which refers to Abrahah’s attempt to destroy the Kaaba, marching to Makkah at the head of an army and riding a huge elephant. Needless to say, in such a community, there was no special record of people’s births and deaths, let alone their marriages.
We have indeed a general problem with people’s ages at the time, which tend to make them either very young or very old at a particular juncture of their lives. In the case of Usamah ibn Zayd, who commanded the army raised by the Prophet to march to Palestine, confronting the Byzantine Empire. The army did not start its march immediately because of the Prophet’s illness. It only set out after Abu Bakr had been chosen as Caliph. The reports suggest that Usamah was very young, putting his age at 17 or 18. Yet a simple process of research about him and his mother will conclusively lead us to believe that he was in his middle or upper twenties, i.e. 8-10 years older. What is the reason for this discrepancy? I believe it is due to the objections voiced by some of the Prophet’s companions when Abu Bakr gave him his instructions to march. They feared that his young age was against him. Yet the same objections could be raised if the commander was 17 or 27. He is still very young for such a command. Abu Bakr refused to appoint someone else as commander, because it was the Prophet’s choice for this task.
By contrast, when certain people are said to have lived to an old age, the figures quoted seem to be greatly exaggerated. They are often said to have lived 120 years. Thus, Abd Al-Muttalib, the Prophet’s grandfather, Hassan ibn Thabit and Al-Nabighah Al-Ju’adi and several others are all said to have lived 120 years. Hassan is said to have lived 60 years before Islam and 60 years after he became a Muslim, giving him such a symmetrical life. We do not find reports of people having lived 95 years, or 103, or 87, etc. although should this have been the case they would still be thought of as having had a long life. Yet the figure 120 seems to attract better attention, although even today it is very rare. How come we have such a number of people attaining it within the relatively small population of Arabia at a time when those who reached 60 or 70 were considered elderly?
Take the other example from the Prophet’s own life. He is said to have married Lady Khadeejah when he was 25 and she was 40. Yet neither figure is totally reliable. We have reports suggesting that the Prophet was younger, aged 21, or older, aged 30 or 28. The same is true of Khadeejah who is said to have been 45, or 35, or 30, or 25 at the time of her marriage to the Prophet. All these figures are mentioned in the same book and the same paragraph. So, what was Khadeejah’s age? There is no reliable record to serve us. Therefore, we look at other facts. We know that she gave the Prophet six children over a period of 10 years, which confirms that she was at the prime of her reproductive age. Yet she was most probably older than the Prophet. This means that she was between 28 and 32 when their marriage took place. Still, wherever you go in the Muslim world people will tell you that she was 40 when she married the Prophet and he was 25. To what do we attribute the confusion? There is the common tendency that, in the absence of reliable information, people give round figures. Thus, the gap between their ages leads to stretching their respective ages downward in the Prophet’s case and upward in Khadeejah’s case to give us this long figure of 15 years, when she could have been only four or five years older than him, which is far more likely.
Another reason for a notion of this type to be so widely held is the fact that writers tend to copy each other. What is written in one book is treated as a reliable source and then produced in another. Over the 14 centuries of Islamic history, this report of Ayesha’s age has been quoted hundreds of times, in all Islamic languages. Yet a simple error could have been the cause of the confusion. Suppose that the first report which attributes to Ayesha a statement that she was six when the Prophet sent his proposal dropped one word, giving the figure six instead of sixteen, you have a possible explanation. This could have been dropped by the reporter, or the writer, or the copier, or by someone else at a later stage. Consider the possibility that a major scholar in the early period of Islam was speaking about the Prophet’s marriage to Ayesha when he said that she was 16, but one of the students who was taking notes wrote it 6, then this student became a scholar. Relying on what he wrote, he later taught in his circle mentioning the lower figure. That would have served to spread the mistake. Add to this the fact that books were always written by hand, and such errors were not uncommon. We cannot say that this is what happened, but we say it could have happened. Hence, the need for a thorough research to establish the fact. This is what I have done and concluded on the basis of available evidence that Ayesha was at least twice the age of nine when she married the Prophet.

[devisarada]

To Myislam:

Here is my answer to you:

[dhruva023]

answer me a simple thing .i proved from your books that God is one he had no idol or picture. i proved that Muhmmad saw is antim rishi. then still you are not accepting it.

myislam,
Quoting text doesnt prove anything. Its people who who folow that text proves what the text ment. If the people missunderstand the text then its the authors responsiblity to correct them. Especialy, when it comes to religion.
That's why in the Gita, Keshav says that "

yada yada hi dharmasya
glanir bhavati bharata
abhyutthanam adharmasya
tadatmanam srjamy aham

{{Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion--at that time I descend Myself. }}



Now look at muslims and tell me how you going to prove it.

This is why i don't accept it.
I dont know about satay.

Note: Sorry, satay for stealing you space first. I just couldnt stop my self.

[satay]

namaskar,

For the 100th time, the only thing that you have 'proved' is that 'you' believe in the authority of the vedas. So therefore, you are a hindu.

You may now burn the koo-ran.

Where does it say moohamad is an anthim rishi? You said that its the vedas that say that. Since you believe the vedas 'you' are hindu!

:)



Answer to satay
answer me a simple thing .i proved from your books that God is one he had no idol or picture. i proved that Muhmmad saw is antim rishi. then still you are not accepting it.

[devotee]

a) we beleive that God is only one.and we can not see him .he has no photo no idol.and thats what also Bible Quran veda and purana says.
B) God has knowledge of every thing even a leaf of tree. but physically he is on (Arash).
C ) Allah word is in scripture,s of every Big religion like bible Quran etc but we can also call him God.
D) God created every thing there was nothing before God.
E ) muslims hindus christians all are created by one God. and we all are brother in humanity.

That is perfectly ok. There are many issues to discuss. I think we can start our discussion with whatever answers you have given so far. If needed, I will ask some more questions during the discussion to make sure we are on the same wavelength. ok ?

We start with the "Creation".

You have agreed that there was nothing before creation except God. Right ? Now if there was really nothing before creation except God, there can be no space, no time except God. There can be nothing as inside or outside God. Let's try to understand the situation very clearly : There is just God and nothing else .... actully, calling "nothing" at this stage doesn't mean even empty space.

Now the questions are :
a) As there was nothing before creation except God, the raw material for creation must be God & that must be wholly within God & just a transformation of God only. Now, as by creation if separate entity is created again and again from God, God will keep reducing & will become zero after sometime. So, it cannot be like that. Therefore, the creation & the creator cannot be different.

Scientifically & logically only the above is possible & Hinduism agrees with the above. If Islam/Q'uran is logically & scientifically correct, then the above must be accepted in Islam/Q'uran. If not, then Q'uran is illogical & unscientific.

Does Islam accept that ?

b) If God is really Omnipotent, can he have any desires that he can't fulfil ? That is impossible or he is not really omnipotent. If all the men /women are designed & created by Him or created as per his design ... can it be that the creation is not according his wishes ? No. If everything in human mind he designed & created by Him, all the minds must be as He wanted. It is like creation of a Robot by scientist. If the scientist is really perfect, the Robot will certainly be exactly as he wanted & not otherwise. If there is any fault in the Robot, it can only be due to the fault of the scientist & not because of the Robot.

By reading Q'uran it becomes clear that Allah, as depicted in Q'uran, has a pathetic desire that men ( his own creation) should believe in Him, the Book & also Prophet Muhammad. He is the height of cruelty to those who refuse to believe in Him & the book. He is also dead against idol-worship & provides terrible punishment for them.

If that is really true then :
i) Why did he create people with unfailing faith in idol-worship like Hindus / Pagans ? Why at the time of creating those people, he didn't create their mind in such a way that the people would have born with Allah name filled in their brain with clear instruction that idol-worship is evil. Such people would have gone on chanting the name of "Allah-Allah" all day & night & his desire could have been easily fulfilled ?

ii) Islam came only in 7th Century AD after Muhammad. Hinduism is more than 4500 BC old. Judaism is also nearly 3000 BC old. Why didn't Allah reveal the book earlier ? Why was he so late in sending the correct book to mankind ? What would happen to those who believed the Vedas,Old Testament, New Testament & other books religiously. Why did Allah reveal wrong teachings earlier if Judaism, Christianity, & Hinduism have wrong teachings ? ... And if they are same what was the need of this new book & a new religion ?

iii) Contrary to what you say, there is no mention of Allah anywhere in the Bible or the Vedas. Why are you speaking lies ?

iv) How was Iblis, an angel/(or Jinn, as believed by some Islamic Scholars) had the capability to disobey Allah ? That shows that it is possible that something can happen against Allah's wishes & which proves that Allah is not omnipotent !

v) If anyone is just and good he will reward his people as per their work & sincerity & not for flattery. Are all idol-worshippers bad or worse in their conduct as compared to Muslims ? In fact the opposite is true. The examples of extreme cruelty & habit of killing innocent people can be found in abundance only in Muslims. Why should Muslims be rewarded only because they believe in the book ... & the idol-worshipper be sent to hell that too for eternity even if their character is impeccable ? This clearly shows that Allah is not a benevolent God but a cruel King who wants nothing but people who should keep on flattering Him ... that is something unbecoming of a God !

vi) Why does Allah want his followers to kill the so-called "unbelievers" ? Why doesn't he do this work Himself ? He could just wish & all non-believers would be finished in no time. He says that He has done so in the past. "Allah killed the disbelievers with an earthquake. 7:90-91".

Then how come the number of non-believer ( Non-Muslims or who don't believe in Q'uran) is far greater than the Muslims ? That shows that Allah is not really as powerful as he claims to be.

vii) If Q'uran is really the word of God then whatever is written there should be true & logical. Q'uran says, " Disbelievers will be tormented in this life, and suffer even more pain in the Hereafter. 13:33-34". But that didn't prove to be true. Examples are Talibans defeat, Iraq's defeat. In fact, the hard-core Islamists are more in pain than the Non-Muslims ( so-called Non-believers). Take the example of Pakistan, Iran etc. Pakistan was created on the basis of religion & was ruined once it bcame hard-core Islamist. Afghanistan perished & came to today's pitiable state only after it came into the grips of hard-core Islamists. On the other hand, the countries who were the lands of unbelievers ( USA, Britain, Australia, Germany, Japan, China etc.) flourished. That clearly shows that the Q'uran is not the word of God & it cannot be believed.

viii) Why does Allah feel threatened if someone worships any other God/god or idols ? Why does he care about that at all ? Why is he such an egoist & an egocentric ? And if there is no other God/god, then anyway how does it matter to him ? In fact, Q'uran's Allah isn't a benevolent God but more like a war-lord or a Mafia-don who wants to make sure who is with him & who is against him. If you are on his side, you are rewarded if you are not, then you will be sent to hell. Actually, Alllah of Q'uran is a figment of imagination of Mohammad saheb who himself was a war-lord,
& who killed innocent Pagans & Jews mercilessly just because they didn't believe in his new religion & were not on his side. As Allah is a creation of a war-lord, therefore there is little surprise He acts & behaves as war-lord in Q'uran.

ix) If Allah is really Omnipotent, can He have any enemy ? If not, then how can Satan's existence be thought of ? It is completely illogical.

The reality is that Q'uran is highly illogical & was told by Muhammad saheb to have as many followers as possible by filling them with unreasonable fear of God ... which is just a lie. God can't be cruel & unjust & he can't be so pathetically wanting sycophants for himself who keep chanting his name only as has been depicted in Q'uran.

My dear friend, you are highly mistaken & are following a wrong book. May God show you the right path !

OM

[devisarada]

Namaste Devotee,

You have written a well though out and well reasoned post. I agree with you totally.

Those who believe Allah to be as described in the Koran and the Hadith, are sadly mistaken, and under the exreme influence of Maya. Be we know that in some future lifetime, they too, will come to realise the Truth of Sanatana Dharma.

[devotee]

Namaste Devisarada,


Those who believe Allah to be as described in the Koran and the Hadith, are sadly mistaken, and under the exreme influence of Maya. Be we know that in some future lifetime, they too, will come to realise the Truth of Sanatana Dharma.

Yes, we can pray for them. :)

Regards

[prisha]

That is perfectly ok. There are many issues to discuss. I think we can start our discussion with whatever answers you have given so far. If needed, I will ask some more questions during the discussion to make sure we are on the same wavelength. ok ?

We start with the "Creation".

You have agreed that there was nothing before creation except God. Right ? Now if there was really nothing before creation except God, there can be no space, no time except God. There can be nothing as inside or outside God. Let's try to understand the situation very clearly : There is just God and nothing else .... actully, calling "nothing" at this stage doesn't mean even empty space.

Now the questions are :
a) As there was nothing before creation except God, the raw material for creation must be God & that must be wholly within God & just a transformation of God only. Now, as by creation if separate entity is created again and again from God, God will keep reducing & will become zero after sometime. So, it cannot be like that. Therefore, the creation & the creator cannot be different.

Scientifically & logically only the above is possible & Hinduism agrees with the above. If Islam/Q'uran is logically & scientifically correct, then the above must be accepted in Islam/Q'uran. If not, then Q'uran is illogical & unscientific.

Does Islam accept that ?

b) If God is really Omnipotent, can he have any desires that he can't fulfil ? That is impossible or he is not really omnipotent. If all the men /women are designed & created by Him or created as per his design ... can it be that the creation is not according his wishes ? No. If everything in human mind he designed & created by Him, all the minds must be as He wanted. It is like creation of a Robot by scientist. If the scientist is really perfect, the Robot will certainly be exactly as he wanted & not otherwise. If there is any fault in the Robot, it can only be due to the fault of the scientist & not because of the Robot.

By reading Q'uran it becomes clear that Allah, as depicted in Q'uran, has a pathetic desire that men ( his own creation) should believe in Him, the Book & also Prophet Muhammad. He is the height of cruelty to those who refuse to believe in Him & the book. He is also dead against idol-worship & provides terrible punishment for them.

If that is really true then :
i) Why did he create people with unfailing faith in idol-worship like Hindus / Pagans ? Why at the time of creating those people, he didn't create their mind in such a way that the people would have born with Allah name filled in their brain with clear instruction that idol-worship is evil. Such people would have gone on chanting the name of "Allah-Allah" all day & night & his desire could have been easily fulfilled ?

ii) Islam came only in 7th Century AD after Muhammad. Hinduism is more than 4500 BC old. Judaism is also nearly 3000 BC old. Why didn't Allah reveal the book earlier ? Why was he so late in sending the correct book to mankind ? What would happen to those who believed the Vedas,Old Testament, New Testament & other books religiously. Why did Allah reveal wrong teachings earlier if Judaism, Christianity, & Hinduism have wrong teachings ? ... And if they are same what was the need of this new book & a new religion ?

iii) Contrary to what you say, there is no mention of Allah anywhere in the Bible or the Vedas. Why are you speaking lies ?

iv) How was Iblis, an angel/(or Jinn, as believed by some Islamic Scholars) had the capability to disobey Allah ? That shows that it is possible that something can happen against Allah's wishes & which proves that Allah is not omnipotent !

v) If anyone is just and good he will reward his people as per their work & sincerity & not for flattery. Are all idol-worshippers bad or worse in their conduct as compared to Muslims ? In fact the opposite is true. The examples of extreme cruelty & habit of killing innocent people can be found in abundance only in Muslims. Why should Muslims be rewarded only because they believe in the book ... & the idol-worshipper be sent to hell that too for eternity even if their character is impeccable ? This clearly shows that Allah is not a benevolent God but a cruel King who wants nothing but people who should keep on flattering Him ... that is something unbecoming of a God !

vi) Why does Allah want his followers to kill the so-called "unbelievers" ? Why doesn't he do this work Himself ? He could just wish & all non-believers would be finished in no time. He says that He has done so in the past. "Allah killed the disbelievers with an earthquake. 7:90-91".

Then how come the number of non-believer ( Non-Muslims or who don't believe in Q'uran) is far greater than the Muslims ? That shows that Allah is not really as powerful as he claims to be.

vii) If Q'uran is really the word of God then whatever is written there should be true & logical. Q'uran says, " Disbelievers will be tormented in this life, and suffer even more pain in the Hereafter. 13:33-34". But that didn't prove to be true. Examples are Talibans defeat, Iraq's defeat. In fact, the hard-core Islamists are more in pain than the Non-Muslims ( so-called Non-believers). Take the example of Pakistan, Iran etc. Pakistan was created on the basis of religion & was ruined once it bcame hard-core Islamist. Afghanistan perished & came to today's pitiable state only after it came into the grips of hard-core Islamists. On the other hand, the countries who were the lands of unbelievers ( USA, Britain, Australia, Germany, Japan, China etc.) flourished. That clearly shows that the Q'uran is not the word of God & it cannot be believed.

viii) Why does Allah feel threatened if someone worships any other God/god or idols ? Why does he care about that at all ? Why is he such an egoist & an egocentric ? And if there is no other God/god, then anyway how does it matter to him ? In fact, Q'uran's Allah isn't a benevolent God but more like a war-lord or a Mafia-don who wants to make sure who is with him & who is against him. If you are on his side, you are rewarded if you are not, then you will be sent to hell. Actually, Alllah of Q'uran is a figment of imagination of Mohammad saheb who himself was a war-lord,
& who killed innocent Pagans & Jews mercilessly just because they didn't believe in his new religion & were not on his side. As Allah is a creation of a war-lord, therefore there is little surprise He acts & behaves as war-lord in Q'uran.

ix) If Allah is really Omnipotent, can He have any enemy ? If not, then how can Satan's existence be thought of ? It is completely illogical.

The reality is that Q'uran is highly illogical & was told by Muhammad saheb to have as many followers as possible by filling them with unreasonable fear of God ... which is just a lie. God can't be cruel & unjust & he can't be so pathetically wanting sycophants for himself who keep chanting his name only as has been depicted in Q'uran.

My dear friend, you are highly mistaken & are following a wrong book. May God show you the right path !

OM

pranam devotee saab,

great post. it is simply great and original. i see myislam just using cut and paste technique from trash like zakir naik. muslims have been eating from the palms of charlatans like zakir naik, harun yahya, deedat with out even an iota of truth. most of them cannot even form decent sentences on their own except cut and paste.
how do these people think if muhamed is anthim rishi what does this signify to hindus. i remember reading HH Swami Chandrashekarendra Saraswati's works on vedas and feeling completely astounded by the magic of his words. never i felt the greatness of sanathana dharma before. when i read that the rishis themselves said that they are vedadrashtas (people who have seen vedas) and not vedasrustas (people who created vedas). These rishis said these vedas who were never created by human beings were seen by them floating in space and depending on their level of meditation and bhakti on paramatma they became revealed to them. what a noble concept. so i believe there are still truths which might be discovered by future folks also. so this trash about anthim rishi makes no sense to me at all.
myislam you should visit sites like faithfreedom.org where exmuslims like ali sena will clearly describe you how wrong koo-run is and you will really run like hell from it. then you may find solace in reading a beautiful work like vishnu sahastranama (just one name a day) and this will surely deliver you from hell.

[caleb]

I don't follow the logic of any of this, but just because a person accepts the Vedas that does not mean they are Hindus, at least not for a Muslim

There is a good reason for this:

Muslims believe that Jesus and his followers were Muslims. They believe that that revealation was from God, and that of Moses. But Muslims do not therefore become Christians or Jews and burn the Quran

So if a Muslim believes that the Vedas are from God that does not make them a Hindu, but that would make the original Hindus Muslims

This only makes sense if you disconnect the words from the groups, like seeing that muslim means "obedient to God"

Muslims believe this about Judism and Christianity, and I guess now he is applying the same method to Hinduism

If Muhammad is in the Vedas, then the Quran is to be followed and everything else, not burned but not followed. That is, if it can be accepted that the True and Original religion has been corrupted over time. This is what Muslims believe about the previous religions. They retain enough truth to point to the next prophet. It is selective

[devisarada]

Namaskar Caleb,

I think you need to understand this before you say any more.

A Hindu is anyone who accepts that the Vedas contain self evident and axiomatic truths. Therefore, anyone who accepts the Vedas is a Hindu. It's as simple as that.

Each religion defines for itself what the definition of a follower is. Therefore, if there is a Muslim, Christian, or other non-hindu definition of who is a Hindu, it is irrelevant.

Every society defines who is "one of us". It is not for outsiders to decide. A true Muslim would not accept the Vedas. Believe me, I've been on a enough Muslim forums to know.

[devotee]

Every society defines who is "one of us". It is not for outsiders to decide. A true Muslim would not accept the Vedas. Believe me, I've been on a enough Muslim forums to know.

Namaste Devisarada,

Thanks for a good reply ! :)

Namaskar Celeb,

May ask you a question : " Are you a Muslim ?"

If yes, then we shall talk further; otherwise there is no point discussing on "assumptions".

OM

[devisarada]

[QUOTE=devotee; Namaskar Celeb,

May ask you a question : " Are you a Muslim ?"

If yes, then we shall talk further; otherwise there is no point discussing on "assumptions".

OM[/QUOTE]

Namaskar Devotee,

Another good reply.

[caleb]

I only mean to point out a systematic feature in Islamic apologetics. Sure the self definition in a religion is simple, but in Islam they disagree. I would be annoyed but that is part of it, like saying that Jesus and his followers are Muslims.

It would be like saying “Yes by definition you are a Hindu, but that does not make you a followers of the Sanatana Dharma” The Eternal Religion or the Natural Religion in Islam they say THAT is Islam. By the way, what about people who accept only part of the Vedas or interpret them radically different from you?

I just think it is interesting that the same idea could have two different consequences. Religions come from Hinduism, so we should be Hindus because that is the original. Or: religions descend from Hinduism, but become corrupted, so we should follow the fresher newer one. On other threads I think you talked about something similar; it may be perilous to say your religion is someway the same as others, rather you could say it is the same as an ancient original.

As for being a Muslim I don’t see how that is relevant. I mean, it would not change the logic of anything. But since you asked, I am not. I don't think being a Muslim would stop me from making 'assumptions' anyway.

[satay]

Hello Caleb,

Please try to fully understand the following sentence:

- those who accept the authority of the vedas are HINDUS.

Once you comprehend that sentence then you may ask other questions.

The logic is very simple, since myislam person accepts that authority of the vedas, he is a hindu and not a muslim anymore. A true muslim would not care about what is written in other books other than the koo-ran.

Thanks,

[caleb]

Hello Caleb,

Please try to fully understand the following sentence:

- those who accept the authority of the vedas are HINDUS.

Once you comprehend that sentence then you may ask other questions.

The logic is very simple, since myislam person accepts that authority of the vedas, he is a hindu and not a muslim anymore. A true muslim would not care about what is written in other books other than the koo-ran.

Thanks,

Since that is not true about Muslims, I cannot follow the logic. The Quran talks about other revealations. Muslims most certainly care about other ones.

The sentense is easy to comprehend, but it does not explain or define anything. It cannot be that simple, like saying anyone who accepts the authority of the Bible is a Christian. That does not work. If a Protestant Christian said that accepting the Bible means being a Protestant "it is not that simple"

As for the contents of the Vedas: there you have something. There you can show (probably with ease) the necessity of especially Hindu beliefs from that authority.

But just saying the authority of the Vedas makes someone Hindu, that cannot be right. It may be a good slogan, with truth behind it, but it something to be proved, not just asserted. If I accept the authority of the Vedas, I can do it anyway I please, that does not make one a Hindu, does it?

This reminds me of some unacceptable arguments from Christians who say that Christianity must be Trinitarian.

It would be more fruitful to show that "Veda=Hindu" and distinctly Hindu. That would be interesting. I am sure it is.

[satay]

namaskar caleb,

You are making things complicated for no reason.

A Hindu very simply is someone who accepts the authority of the Vedas. That is the basic definition of a Hindu.

Simple. If you accept what is written in the Vedas then you are Hindu. No if or but about it.

Myislam person is a hindu since he accepts the authority of the Vedas.

The logic is simple.

[caleb]

namaskar caleb,

You are making things complicated for no reason.

A Hindu very simply is someone who accepts the authority of the Vedas. That is the basic definition of a Hindu.

Simple. If you accept what is written in the Vedas then you are Hindu. No if or but about it.

Myislam person is a hindu since he accepts the authority of the Vedas.

The logic is simple.

For me, the logic is also simple: it is called 'begging the question' assuming that which is to be proved and it is a fallacy. However . . . It may be possible that I have run up against a dogmatism that refuses to be analyzed or give account of itself. (???) I don’t like thinking bad things about people, it is an unpleasant emotion, so I like to press on until I can find the truth. I follow a maxim:

“There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that should be stopped.” --G.K. Chesterton

But if there is no immediate hope I have to give up. Still I cannot allow this to color my view of the whole (of Hinduism). I have been disappointed like this before (with Islam), but when I pressed on I found there was redeeming truth behind the dogma (with Islam). So maybe I will found out the truth behind these matters somewhere else, if you cannot help me here? (Or you could just Prove what you say, I thought that that indulgence would not be so hard or taxing or excessive)

[satay]

namaskar,

Like I said you are making things too complicated for yourself.

Simply, if one accepts what is written in the Vedas, then very simply that person is a Hindu is the basic definition of a Hindu.

This is the simple truth.

Nothing more nothing less. No assumptions, no assertions.

Please consider it.


For me, the logic is also simple: it is called 'begging the question' assuming that which is to be proved and it is a fallacy.

[devisarada]

Namaskar Caleb,

Your persistance is starting to tax my patience.

Trying to impose a standard for a faith from outside that faith is ludicrous. It has nothing to do wih dogma.

And yes, I strongly suggest you to present your position on any other Hindu forum. Please let us know how it went.

[MahaHrada]

Religions come from Hinduism, so we should be Hindus because that is the original.


Namaste Caleb

No one who feels part of or is somehow associated with any of the bharat darshanas would have the idea to put pressure on anybody else to be, stay, or become a "hindu".

If a muslim decides to belive in the authority of the Veda he is free to do that, if not, it is also fine.

Bharat Dharma is not proselytizing.

Please understand you have the freedom to be what you are.

When following a religious practice within bharata dharma you are to become more authentic, move closer, and eventually become one with your own self and dissolve the limitations caused by history, circumstances and your own actions, so nobody should ask you to add more illusions to those already present, and make you repent or change from what you are to become something else a "hindu" as if by following a set of rules one could become a "holy" ar "redeemend" person.

No one set of rules or dogma are available that will "redeem" you.

There isn´t even a pope, a dogma, a single founder or single holy book and therefore there is no generally accepted rule, or interpretation of the vedas or agamas to follow which will make you "hindu" or no "hindu".

The aim is liberation not bondage, so the religious practice is not about adding unnecessary restrictions with the promise of salvation but it is by dissolving illlusions and limitations that progress is made.

So it it is by using methods that help you get rid of illusions and restrictions like for instance thought constructs, habitual and environmental stress, you are guided gently to arrive at a state of mind which is closer if not identical to your inmost real self.



Mahahrada

[Znanna]

Namaste Caleb

No one who feels part of or is somehow associated with any of the bharat darshanas would have the idea to put pressure on anybody else to be, stay, or become a "hindu".

If a muslim decides to belive in the authority of the Veda he is free to do that, if not, it is also fine.

Bharat Dharma is not proselytizing.

Please understand you have the freedom to be what you are.

When following a religious practice within bharata dharma you are to become more authentic, move closer, and eventually become one with your own self and dissolve the limitations caused by history, circumstances and your own actions, so nobody should ask you to add more illusions to those already present, and make you repent or change from what you are to become something else a "hindu" as if by following a set of rules one could become a "holy" ar "redeemend" person.

No one set of rules or dogma are available that will "redeem" you.

There isn´t even a pope, a dogma, a single founder or single holy book and therefore there is no generally accepted rule, or interpretation of the vedas or agamas to follow which will make you "hindu" or no "hindu".

The aim is liberation not bondage, so the religious practice is not about adding unnecessary restrictions with the promise of salvation but it is by dissolving illlusions and limitations that progress is made.

So it it is by using methods that help you get rid of illusions and restrictions like for instance thought constructs, habitual and environmental stress, you are guided gently to arrive at a state of mind which is closer if not identical to your inmost real self.



Mahahrada



Namaste,

Simply put, profoundly practical.

Lovely.



ZN

[MahaHrada]

Namaste,

Simply put, profoundly practical.

Lovely.



ZN

Namaste Znanna

Gorakh says:

bhedAbhedau svayam bhiksAm krtvA svAsvAdane rataH
jaranam tanmayi bhAvasovadhUtobhidhIyate

Feeding on the alms of difference and nondifference
remaining absorbed in ones own self while transcending such
a state of self absorption he is called an AvadhUta.

MahaHrada

[aumprakash]

There isn´t even a pope, a dogma, a single founder or single holy book and therefore there is no generally accepted rule, or interpretation of the vedas or agamas to follow which will make you "hindu" or no "hindu".


Mahahrada


great post MahaHrada:)


this thread provides great entertainment though:laugh:

[caleb]

Namaste Caleb

No one who feels part of or is somehow associated with any of the bharat darshanas would have the idea to put pressure on anybody else to be, stay, or become a "hindu".

If a muslim decides to belive in the authority of the Veda he is free to do that, if not, it is also fine.

Bharat Dharma is not proselytizing.

Please understand you have the freedom to be what you are.

When following a religious practice within bharata dharma you are to become more authentic, move closer, and eventually become one with your own self and dissolve the limitations caused by history, circumstances and your own actions, so nobody should ask you to add more illusions to those already present, and make you repent or change from what you are to become something else a "hindu" as if by following a set of rules one could become a "holy" ar "redeemend" person.

No one set of rules or dogma are available that will "redeem" you.

There isn´t even a pope, a dogma, a single founder or single holy book and therefore there is no generally accepted rule, or interpretation of the vedas or agamas to follow which will make you "hindu" or no "hindu".

The aim is liberation not bondage, so the religious practice is not about adding unnecessary restrictions with the promise of salvation but it is by dissolving illlusions and limitations that progress is made.

So it it is by using methods that help you get rid of illusions and restrictions like for instance thought constructs, habitual and environmental stress, you are guided gently to arrive at a state of mind which is closer if not identical to your inmost real self.



Mahahrada


That sounds wonderful. It seems to me as if anything tied up with 'identity' can only lead to touchy and annoying assertions. To many 'It is' or 'Is not' and no in between. I don't like anything that is not tentitive and possible and yeilding and capable of expanding and taking other thoughts or systems, even if only temporarily and speculatively.

But I still have a question as to the importance of the Vedas: in what why are they followed? If I read one part and liked it and thought it true, I am not taking them the same way as a Hindu. In what way do supposibly non-Hindus not accept the Vedas? I ask because there are multiple and very different ways people can relate to say the Bible.

[MahaHrada]

That sounds wonderful. It seems to me as if anything tied up with 'identity' can only lead to touchy and annoying assertions. To many 'It is' or 'Is not' and no in between. I don't like anything that is not tentitive and possible and yeilding and capable of expanding and taking other thoughts or systems, even if only temporarily and speculatively.

But I still have a question as to the importance of the Vedas: in what why are they followed? If I read one part and liked it and thought it true, I am not taking them the same way as a Hindu. In what way do supposibly non-Hindus not accept the Vedas? I ask because there are multiple and very different ways people can relate to say the Bible.

Namaste caleb,

You ask :
In what way are they followed?

Again there is no generally accepted way to relate to the vedas, all communities and traditions will relate differently.

What is more important than the content is the fact that the vedas are considered apaurasheya, that means their origin is not stemming from a person, or had a beginning in time, they are eternal and exist independent of anything else, they have only been discovered , seen, or heard and as such the sages who wrote them down, have only grasped something already present, a wisdom beyond ego.

Eternal and beginningless also means that they also exist in the form of subtle inaudible speech, a vibratory pattern of sound and light that can be experienced.

Accepting the Vedas therefore means accepting the idea that truth is unchanging, eternal and intrinsically independent of a limited knower no matter whether that knower is a deva or human being, because any knowledge emitted from something limited would not be self existent or transpersonal knowledge and thus not universally true.

You ask: In what way do supposibly non-Hindus not accept the Vedas?

Since accepting the vedas primarly means , accepting that knowledge is self existent and has non human origin, it is not about accepting a certain limited content, you do not even need to have read a single verse of the vedas for that acceptance..

There is no single general rule of how or if at all the content should be approached or applied, it depends on the community and tradition. This is maybe hard to understand.

MahaHrada

[caleb]

Namaste caleb,

You ask :
In what way are they followed?

Again there is no generally accepted way to relate to the vedas, all communities and traditions will relate differently.

What is more important than the content is the fact that the vedas are considered apaurasheya, that means their origin is not stemming from a person, or had a beginning in time, they are eternal and exist independent of anything else, they have only been discovered , seen, or heard and as such the sages who wrote them down, have only grasped something already present, a wisdom beyond ego.

Eternal and beginningless also means that they also exist in the form of subtle inaudible speech, a vibratory pattern of sound and light that can be experienced.

Accepting the Vedas therefore means accepting the idea that truth is unchanging, eternal and intrinsically independent of a limited knower no matter whether that knower is a deva or human being, because any knowledge emitted from something limited would not be self existent or transpersonal knowledge and thus not universally true.

You ask: In what way do supposibly non-Hindus not accept the Vedas?

Since accepting the vedas primarly means , accepting that knowledge is self existent and has non human origin, it is not about accepting a certain limited content, you do not even need to have read a single verse of the vedas for that acceptance..

There is no single general rule of how or if at all the content should be approached or applied, it depends on the community and tradition. This is maybe hard to understand.

MahaHrada

From what you have said, it seems that talk of scripture being corrupted and in need of a fresh revealation from God would fall on deaf ears to one who sees the Vedas in that way.

But that story is the bread and butter of Islam, it is up and down and all over in the Quran.

There are periodic avatars that come and refresh the Dharma, but do any of them do what Muhammad was said to do with the Quran? Correct corrupted Veda and scripture?

Oh also, I found an article on Wikipedia about this subject, well sort of about it. I won't put the link here, cuz I don't know if it is against rules or anything, but it is an article on Akbar the Great and his Din-i-ilahi and something called the Allopanishad

If anyone knows about that, I have to ask, "What the . . .?"

[MahaHrada]

From what you have said, it seems that talk of scripture being corrupted and in need of a fresh revealation from God would fall on deaf ears to one who sees the Vedas in that way.



I think it will even be hard to grasp that a new revealation can have a spiritual value, since spiritual knowledge is acquired by self rememberance, not by means of revealation of something new, or by reading a book.
You can only remember something you already are, the very idea of something new that has to be added to become something or someone that is not yet existing is contrary to the idea of an inborn perfection, that has to be recovered, on which bharata dharma is based.
Knowledge and therefore the Vedas are eternal and continually present, and therefore the holy books have a different value in bharata dharma than in christianity and islam, they do not contain rules for the whole community and they where written down only to complement, the eternal word, and the oral instruction, and are only one codification in dense matter of a more subtle word or knowledge that in its unevolved form is a mystical experience of a vibration of light and sound.
Scriptures therefore only are a semblance of the expirience, they illustrate the spoken word and the experienced word, and thus they contain the keys to self rememberance, but a living tradition is needed to awake that knowledge, which can only triggered by tradition (sampradaya) which energy is being kept by the teachers and transmitted by diksha, (initiation) and then kept inside the disciples body, it is a divine word made alive in the form of specifics of mantric grammar, of mantric sound and mantric letters, words or sentences which object it is to primarly trigger experience, not to make people confirm to some rule.

This means that the book is only important in connection with a tradition of transmission from mouth to ear done accordding to an estimation of proper qualification.

Therefore the content of a book is not crammed down everybodys throat like the koran or bible is by fervent belivers, on the contrary most books are to be concealed from public display and kept secret only to be revealed to those with the proper qualification and after having received the transmission of the subtle word, the essence of the written word.




But that story is the bread and butter of Islam, it is up and down and all over in the Quran.


too bad :) maybe it is because muhammed needed some reason to attack and steal the land of the neighboring tribes, rape their woman and kill the man because they belived in an inferior truth, inferior because it is older? No wonder IQ and Islam are incompatible.


There are periodic avatars that come and refresh the Dharma, but do any of them do what Muhammad was said to do with the Quran? Correct corrupted Veda and scripture?

Not really as far as i know, the idea of a "corrupted veda" is not possible, it is maybe more about refreshing the subtle transmission, by divine presence and interpretation, i guess, but i am not qualified to answer that, i am not a vaishnava, you ask a vaishnava, they are the ones who put much emphasis on the concept of the avatara.


Oh also, I found an article on Wikipedia about this subject, well sort of about it. I won't put the link here, cuz I don't know if it is against rules or anything, but it is an article on Akbar the Great and his Din-i-ilahi and something called the Allopanishad
If anyone knows about that, I have to ask, "What the . . .?"

Probably some muslims wanted to slip in Islam through the backdoor using the term upanishad to do that.
There are a lot of upanishads who are not generally accepted by every tradition, maybe some muslims thought this is a weak spot and tried to use that to get a foot in the door. There are also some Puranas who allegedly mention Jesus. Such things have to be viewed with a grain of salt.
One should try to grasp the general concepts first and then go into details. Today only a small minority is following and practicing the real ancient vedic rituals, the shrauta rituals, only a few hundred shrauta ritualists are living in india at present, most of the traditions in their day to day practice follow the injunction of the agamas not the vedas. So even in india the widespread application of the vedas has only been followed in bygone days.
Even though it is only a few hundred people who strictly follow the ancient injunctions , it is still remarkable since this shrauta tradition is the most ancient religious tradition on this planet and it remains alive.
Bharata dharma can therefore not be compared to Christianity and Islam, because it is not at all about following some book of law that has been declared holy by someone.
MahaHrada

[ohmshivaya]

...Scriptures therefore only are a semblance of the expirience, they illustrate the spoken word and the experienced word, and thus they contain the keys to self rememberance, but a living tradition is needed to awake that knowledge, which can only triggered by tradition (sampradaya) which energy is being kept by the teachers and transmitted by diksha, (initiation) and then kept inside the disciples body, it is a divine word made alive in the form of specifics of mantric grammar, of mantric sound and mantric letters, words or sentences which object it is to primarly trigger experience, not to make people confirm to some rule.

This means that the book is only important in connection with a tradition of transmission from mouth to ear done accordding to an estimation of proper qualification.

Therefore the content of a book is not crammed down everybodys throat like the koran or bible is by fervent belivers, on the contrary most books are to be concealed from public display and kept secret only to be revealed to those with the proper qualification and after having received the transmission of the subtle word, the essence of the written word...



Explained very nicely.

[caleb]

yes that answers a lot. i will have to see into western traditions of inborn knowledge (that you don't need revealation, but to remember what is already there) to see if they have anything similar. christian original sin would seem to cut that off, so that humanity would need the orginal Word to come to us. in Islam they believe that humanity is NOT corrupted and that we naturally can live right, natural religion of man, reasonable. this does not sound as exhalted as the vibrations from eternity you speak of, but it is something. revealation is setting people back on course, and guess what a main word for Quran is: the Remembrance. (the word starts with a 'd' sound in Arabic, but i forget (haha) it.)

but of course if one already believes that nothing is good about a religion, that its heart is raping and killing and that explains everything, one wouldn't expect anything from those people's vibrations.

[MahaHrada]

but of course if one already believes that nothing is good about a religion, that its heart is raping and killing and that explains everything, one wouldn't expect anything from those people's vibrations.

Namaste caleb

It is not about what i belive about islam, it is about experience and history, what happened can be proven, except one is prejudiced by one own belief.

Of course it is possible to belive that Muslims when they arrived in India around 620 AD came on tourist buses and only for sightseeing.

If this is true Alan Danielou, author of numerous books on philosophy, religion, history and arts of India, in his book, Histoire de l' Inde must then have been similarly misguided when he wrote:

"From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of 'a holy war' of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilizations, wiped out entire races." Mahmoud Ghazni, continues Danielou, "was an early example of Muslim ruthlessness, burning in 1018 of the temples of Mathura, razing Kanauj to the ground and destroying the famous temple of Somnath, sacred to all Hindus. His successors were as ruthless as Ghazni: 103 temples in the holy city of Benaras were razed to the ground, its marvelous temples destroyed, its magnificent palaces wrecked." Indeed, the Muslim policy vis a vis India, concludes Danielou, seems to have been a conscious systematic destruction of everything that was beautiful, holy, refined." Histoire de l' Inde

Francois Gautier in his book - Rewriting Indian History writes:
"Let it be said right away: the massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese."


Of course this is long ago and today? Would you consider the following as only some minor issues that are documented in the list taken from western source the wikipedia not from Hindu source which you might consider prejudiced. Nearly all the attacks are from muslms even some on their own people / musques. I think only one incident is motivated by assam conflict.
March 12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_12), 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993) - Bombay bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Bombay_bombings), 257 deaths.
February 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_14), 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998) - Coimbatore bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Coimbatore_bombings), 46 deaths.
October 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_1), 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001) - Militants attack Jammu-Kashmir assembly complex, killing about 35.
December 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_13), 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001) - Attack on the parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Indian_Parliament_attack) complex in New Delhi, 7 deaths.
September 24 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_24), 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002) - Militants attack the Akshardham temple in Gujarat, killing 31.
May 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_14), 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003) - Militants attack an army camp near Jammu, killing more than 30, including women and children.
August 25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_25), 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003) - Simultaneous car bombs in Mumbai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Mumbai_bombings) kill about 52.
August 15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_15), 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004) - Bomb explodes in Assam, killing 16 people, mostly school children.
July 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_5), 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005) - Ram Janmabhoomi attack in Ayodhya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Ram_Janmabhoomi_attack_in_Ayodhya)
October 29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_29), 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005) - Three powerful serial blasts in New Delhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/29_October_2005_Delhi_bombings) at different places. About 70 people died in this incident.
March 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_7), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006) - At least 21 people killed in three synchronized attacks in Varanasi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Varanasi_bombings).
July 11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_11), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006) - At least 200 people killed in a series of 7 train bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_July_2006_Mumbai_train_bombings) during the evening rush hour near Mumbai.
September 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_8), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006) - at least 37 people killed and 125 injured in a series of bomb blasts in the vicinity of a mosque in Malegaon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Malegaon_blasts), Maharashtra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharashtra)
May 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_18), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) - at least 13 people were killed, including 4 killed by the Indian police in the rioting that followed, in the bombing at Mecca Masjid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18_May_2007_Mecca_Masjid_bombing), Hyderabad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyderabad%2C_India) that took place during the Friday prayers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_prayers).
August 25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_25), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) - at least 42 people were killed in two blasts in Hyderabad's Lumbini park and a restaurant. The police reportedly managed to find and defuse another bomb in the same area.
May 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_13), 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008) - at least 63 were killed in 9 bomb blasts along 6 areas in Jaipur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_May_2008_Jaipur_bombings).And please realise that this list is only about terrorist attacks, general communal violence or the many tragedies that happened in Kashmir,and caused many kashmirians too flew into exile, are not even included.
If this is not enough we can fill books of present atrocities, if you insist like rape, murder, there are enough stories that can be told for instance one i read in another forum of children who got beheaded or ripped apart alive, by muslim crowds in front of the eyes of their parents and so on.

MahaHrada

[TatTvamAsi]

Namaste MahaHrada,

What do you think the reason is for the onslaught of muslims and christians (and now commies and so-called secularists) into India? Why this perpetual attack on Sanatana Dharma, India, and her culture/people when India has never been the aggressor? Are there any puranic prophecies or other stories regarding this??

Subham.


Namaste caleb

It is not about what i belive about islam, it is about experience and history, what happened can be proven, except one is prejudiced by one own belief.

Of course it is possible to belive that Muslims when they arrived in India around 620 AD came on tourist buses and only for sightseeing.

If this is true Alan Danielou, author of numerous books on philosophy, religion, history and arts of India, in his book, Histoire de l' Inde must then have been similarly misguided when he wrote:

"From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of 'a holy war' of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilizations, wiped out entire races." Mahmoud Ghazni, continues Danielou, "was an early example of Muslim ruthlessness, burning in 1018 of the temples of Mathura, razing Kanauj to the ground and destroying the famous temple of Somnath, sacred to all Hindus. His successors were as ruthless as Ghazni: 103 temples in the holy city of Benaras were razed to the ground, its marvelous temples destroyed, its magnificent palaces wrecked." Indeed, the Muslim policy vis a vis India, concludes Danielou, seems to have been a conscious systematic destruction of everything that was beautiful, holy, refined." Histoire de l' Inde

Francois Gautier in his book - Rewriting Indian History writes:
"Let it be said right away: the massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese."


Of course this is long ago and today? Would you consider the following as only some minor issues that are documented in the list taken from western source the wikipedia not from Hindu source which you might consider prejudiced. Nearly all the attacks are from muslms even some on their own people / musques. I think only one incident is motivated by assam conflict.

March 12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_12), 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993) - Bombay bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Bombay_bombings), 257 deaths.
February 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_14), 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998) - Coimbatore bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Coimbatore_bombings), 46 deaths.
October 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_1), 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001) - Militants attack Jammu-Kashmir assembly complex, killing about 35.
December 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_13), 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001) - Attack on the parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Indian_Parliament_attack) complex in New Delhi, 7 deaths.
September 24 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_24), 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002) - Militants attack the Akshardham temple in Gujarat, killing 31.
May 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_14), 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003) - Militants attack an army camp near Jammu, killing more than 30, including women and children.
August 25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_25), 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003) - Simultaneous car bombs in Mumbai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Mumbai_bombings) kill about 52.
August 15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_15), 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004) - Bomb explodes in Assam, killing 16 people, mostly school children.
July 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_5), 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005) - Ram Janmabhoomi attack in Ayodhya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Ram_Janmabhoomi_attack_in_Ayodhya)
October 29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_29), 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005) - Three powerful serial blasts in New Delhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/29_October_2005_Delhi_bombings) at different places. About 70 people died in this incident.
March 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_7), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006) - At least 21 people killed in three synchronized attacks in Varanasi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Varanasi_bombings).
July 11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_11), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006) - At least 200 people killed in a series of 7 train bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_July_2006_Mumbai_train_bombings) during the evening rush hour near Mumbai.
September 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_8), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006) - at least 37 people killed and 125 injured in a series of bomb blasts in the vicinity of a mosque in Malegaon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Malegaon_blasts), Maharashtra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharashtra)
May 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_18), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) - at least 13 people were killed, including 4 killed by the Indian police in the rioting that followed, in the bombing at Mecca Masjid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18_May_2007_Mecca_Masjid_bombing), Hyderabad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyderabad%2C_India) that took place during the Friday prayers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_prayers).
August 25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_25), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) - at least 42 people were killed in two blasts in Hyderabad's Lumbini park and a restaurant. The police reportedly managed to find and defuse another bomb in the same area.
May 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_13), 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008) - at least 63 were killed in 9 bomb blasts along 6 areas in Jaipur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_May_2008_Jaipur_bombings).And please realise that this list is only about terrorist attacks, general communal violence or the many tragedies that happened in Kashmir,and caused many kashmirians too flew into exile, are not even included.
If this is not enough we can fill books of present atrocities, if you insist like rape, murder, there are enough stories that can be told for instance one i read in another forum of children who got beheaded or ripped apart alive, by muslim crowds in front of the eyes of their parents and so on.

MahaHrada

[caleb]

Namaste caleb

It is not about what i belive about islam, it is about experience and history, what happened can be proven, except one is prejudiced by one own belief.

Of course it is possible to belive that Muslims when they arrived in India around 620 AD came on tourist buses and only for sightseeing.

If this is true Alan Danielou, author of numerous books on philosophy, religion, history and arts of India, in his book, Histoire de l' Inde must then have been similarly misguided when he wrote:

"From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of 'a holy war' of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilizations, wiped out entire races." Mahmoud Ghazni, continues Danielou, "was an early example of Muslim ruthlessness, burning in 1018 of the temples of Mathura, razing Kanauj to the ground and destroying the famous temple of Somnath, sacred to all Hindus. His successors were as ruthless as Ghazni: 103 temples in the holy city of Benaras were razed to the ground, its marvelous temples destroyed, its magnificent palaces wrecked." Indeed, the Muslim policy vis a vis India, concludes Danielou, seems to have been a conscious systematic destruction of everything that was beautiful, holy, refined." Histoire de l' Inde

Francois Gautier in his book - Rewriting Indian History writes:
"Let it be said right away: the massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese."


Of course this is long ago and today? Would you consider the following as only some minor issues that are documented in the list taken from western source the wikipedia not from Hindu source which you might consider prejudiced. Nearly all the attacks are from muslms even some on their own people / musques. I think only one incident is motivated by assam conflict.

March 12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_12), 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993) - Bombay bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Bombay_bombings), 257 deaths.
February 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_14), 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998) - Coimbatore bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Coimbatore_bombings), 46 deaths.
October 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_1), 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001) - Militants attack Jammu-Kashmir assembly complex, killing about 35.
December 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_13), 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001) - Attack on the parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Indian_Parliament_attack) complex in New Delhi, 7 deaths.
September 24 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_24), 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002) - Militants attack the Akshardham temple in Gujarat, killing 31.
May 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_14), 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003) - Militants attack an army camp near Jammu, killing more than 30, including women and children.
August 25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_25), 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003) - Simultaneous car bombs in Mumbai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Mumbai_bombings) kill about 52.
August 15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_15), 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004) - Bomb explodes in Assam, killing 16 people, mostly school children.
July 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_5), 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005) - Ram Janmabhoomi attack in Ayodhya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Ram_Janmabhoomi_attack_in_Ayodhya)
October 29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_29), 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005) - Three powerful serial blasts in New Delhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/29_October_2005_Delhi_bombings) at different places. About 70 people died in this incident.
March 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_7), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006) - At least 21 people killed in three synchronized attacks in Varanasi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Varanasi_bombings).
July 11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_11), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006) - At least 200 people killed in a series of 7 train bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_July_2006_Mumbai_train_bombings) during the evening rush hour near Mumbai.
September 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_8), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006) - at least 37 people killed and 125 injured in a series of bomb blasts in the vicinity of a mosque in Malegaon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Malegaon_blasts), Maharashtra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharashtra)
May 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_18), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) - at least 13 people were killed, including 4 killed by the Indian police in the rioting that followed, in the bombing at Mecca Masjid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18_May_2007_Mecca_Masjid_bombing), Hyderabad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyderabad%2C_India) that took place during the Friday prayers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_prayers).
August 25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_25), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) - at least 42 people were killed in two blasts in Hyderabad's Lumbini park and a restaurant. The police reportedly managed to find and defuse another bomb in the same area.
May 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_13), 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008) - at least 63 were killed in 9 bomb blasts along 6 areas in Jaipur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_May_2008_Jaipur_bombings).And please realise that this list is only about terrorist attacks, general communal violence or the many tragedies that happened in Kashmir,and caused many kashmirians too flew into exile, are not even included.
If this is not enough we can fill books of present atrocities, if you insist like rape, murder, there are enough stories that can be told for instance one i read in another forum of children who got beheaded or ripped apart alive, by muslim crowds in front of the eyes of their parents and so on.

MahaHrada

But as a motivation for Mohommad himself. i cannot think these two things about the same person: that he or she was motivated by the desire to rape and murder and thus make a religion, and that there is anything true and sacred, any relationship to God, in any way that one defines or decribs that experience, be it revealation or remembrance or realization or anything.

one would have to believe that the quran was fabricated and the prophet had no kind of good qualities. to me this is an empass and prejudice, and it is very weak for me because i have no feelings about or knowledge of the behavior of muslims in India, and don't associate that with anything i know about islam. they didn't teach us that particular history in my school in the US.

i don't read 9/11 between the lines of muslim scholars and commentaries of the quran. now maybe if my country experience a thousand times of 9/11s like India, maybe then i couldn't help but use history to judge.

as it is, i call what happened in Asia the Mongolian invasions, and i see that an advanced Islamic civilization was also destroyed, and that part of the Muslim world would never be the same, nothing would. i find it hard to generalize anything, i wonder why? hmmmmmmmmm

[MahaHrada]

Namaste caleb

But as a motivation for Mohommad himself. i cannot think these two things about the same person: that he or she was motivated by the desire to rape and murder and thus make a religion, and that there is anything true and sacred, any relationship to God, in any way that one defines or decribs that experience, be it revealation or remembrance or realization or anything.

I don´t think that it makes a great difference whether he was motivated by his religious visons to destroy and murder or whether his motives where greed for power and he founded his religion as an excuse for his atrocities.

In both cases the head of the innocent that is chopped off will remain apart from his body.

So this is a minor detail if you feel better with the first variety i have no problem with that.

That it was Mohammed who began the slaughter is proven fact and not contended by muslims they boast with his pious deeds. (of destruction)

As soon as he had an army that was strong enough, (this took him about 10 years) he started subjugating the other pagan tribes and demolished their temples and destroyed their idols.



one would have to believe that the quran was fabricated and the prophet had no kind of good qualities. to me this is an empass and prejudice,

Why a prejudice? Can you name me one good deed? And as i said before whether the book or his vison was caused by the desire for violence or the violence was caused by his visons or the book makes no differrence to the victims.(and to me)


and it is very weak for me because i have no feelings about or knowledge of the behavior of muslims in India, and don't associate that with anything i know about islam. they didn't teach us that particular history in my school in the US.

too bad :) schools in america are known to be lousy, and news agencies have no extended covery of anything besides what happens in the US.


i don't read 9/11 between the lines of muslim scholars and commentaries of the quran. now maybe if my country experience a thousand times of 9/11s like India, maybe then i couldn't help but use history to judge.

So what you dare to tell me , without blushing, is that unless it is your own family and your own country that is a victim of constant terror and bloodshed, the words of the muslim scholars are still sweet to your ears, and any history and experience that is not your own or not taught in american schools means nothing to you?

Maybe you can understand on reflecting about what you just wrote, that inhabitants of other countries are not particularly fond of this self centered mentality which is an all too common phenomena, it can even be called a typical hallmark of american foreign politics, and it is also prevalent in the mindset and behaviour of individuals.


as it is, i call what happened in Asia the Mongolian invasions, and i see that an advanced Islamic civilization was also destroyed, and that part of the Muslim world would never be the same, nothing would. i find it hard to generalize anything, i wonder why? hmmmmmmmmm

Who is generalizing? What i wrote is concerned with particular things that happened in history, things that nobody denies, things where the mainstream muslim is even proud off, like the destruction of the idols at mekka, and i never said or think that every muslim is a criminal, that would be generalising, on the contrary in my youth i even had a Sufi Pir of the chisti lineage as teacher who taught me some sufi mantras and meditation, who was indeed a saint.

Namaste TTA,

India is the last remaining stronghold of "pagan idolatry" that has completly withstood the wholesale destruction, thats why it is targeted i think.
Everywhere else the saints and sages the temples and idols have already been destroyed long ago, (old religions of north and south america, sumeria, eqypt, the roman, the greek, minoan, the arabian, the european pagan religions, like irish, germanic, the zarathustrian, the aborigines from australian, all the diverse tribal religions are extinct or nearly extinct)

Lets take a look of what is left the last religions that remain and which are targeted by conversion attempts from islam and christianity are the african religions, the jewish, the buddhist, the taoist, japanese shinto and of course still the strongest of those sanatana or bharata dharma.

I don´t know anything about these happenings being mentioned, except the little that we find in Vishnu Purana about Kalki Avatar that he would come to destroy the mleccha influence. And in Kalki Purana- but here mainly buddhist and jain teachings are named as those to be purged, but i am not shure whether the kalki purana can be respected as authentic at all.

But we find the following interetsing description in the buddhist Kalachakra tantra about the Kalki and his spirtual war against the foreign religions.

The 25th king of shambhala, will be raudra kalkI or raudra chakrin, wielder of the terrible disk. This raudra kalkI is kR^iShNa himself. Aadam, Enakh, Ibrahim and five others endowed with dark tamas in the family of asura-nAgas, namely Musa, Isa, the White–Clad One, Muhammad, and Mathani, who is the eighth belonging to utter darkness will arise. The seventh will clearly be born in the city of bhagadatta (Baghdad) in the land of Mecca, where the mighty, merciless structure of the mlecchas, that the demonic manifestation, lives in the world. They will kill camels, horses, and cattle, and cook the flesh together with blood. They cook calves with butter and spice, and rice mixed with vegetables, all at once on the fire. Where the men eat that together with dates, and where they drink birds’ eggs, that is the place of the Meccan demons.
At the end of the yuga, among those rulers of shambala, in the orderly reckoning of twenty-five reigns, raudra kalkI, the lord of the gods, saluted by the best of gods, shall appear in the lineage of kalkI. For sAdhus his peaceful form shall be the giver of ultimate bliss, on the other hand, he shall be the nemesis for the entire assembly the of mlecchas. The great chakrin will be mounted on a mountain horse, with an astra in his hand, and with the radiance of the sun, shall smite all the mleccha enemies.
At the time when hand (2) with age (4)* number (=24) of descendents have passed within the lineage of Kalki, the mleccha dharma will definitely be introduced from the land of Mecca. At that time when the vicious lord of the mlecchas, kR^iNmati, is holding sway, at the time of the lord raudra kalkI, saluted by the best of gods, a fierce battle will occur on the abode of the surface of the earth.
The great kalkI shall come out at the end of the yuga, from the city the devas fashioned on kailAsha parvata. He shall smite the mlecchas in battle with his own four-division army, in a furious war raging on the entire surface of the earth. The fierce rudra, the valiant skanda and his brother gaNendra, and hari as well, shall enpower and accompany kalkI. The great gods indra, agni, vAyu, varuNa, yama and the awful goddess nirR^iti will also join kalkI in the war. And so shall the mountain horses, the lords of elephants, the descendents of manu in gold chariots, and their warriors with weapons in hand. The mighty lord of the monkeys hanumAn shall also join the fight with his hosts. The arrows of the great warriors on kalkI’s side will unobstructedly pierce what ever they aim at and thus rain havoc on the mlecchas.
Various asura mAras will come to the aid of the Meccan demons, but the arrows of agni and shaNmukha, the nooses of varuNa and gaNapati, the immense vajra of indra, and other weapons of the gods will destroy them and the mlecchas completely. hanumAn shall smash the great general of the mlecchas who will be riding a horse. Some the weapons used are described as: A waving wind-cloth and a post together with banners are fastened in one ocean–cornered platform. Men pull the machine from the back side, and it goes up from the earth by the rope. Rising up by the wind, it definitely goes in the sky above the fort on a crag. The fire-oil cast from that machine completely incinerates the mleccha army and the entire fort.
Finally, the bearer of the wheel, raudra kalki smote the lord of the Meccan demons, kR^iNmati, with his astra and destroyed him for good. After that raudra-kalki will restore the dharma on earth and will return to the abode of bliss from which he came.

[TatTvamAsi]

Namaste MahaHrada,

Interesting to see that even the Buddhist version of Kalki talks about a 'world war' of sorts. In the Kalki Purana, it mentions a war between astikas and nastikas (Buddhists, Jain, Communists, Secularists etc.). I wonder if that includes the Abrahamic faith followers as well.

I read somewhere else (can't remember where) that the 'tribes' or clans that were kicked out of India as "fallen Aryans", Dasyus etc. vowed to take revenge on India, and that they would not only conquer India physically, but defile the Vedas and denigrate Sanatana Dharma! If this really was written before the Islamic incursions started around ~700AD, it is remarkable as that is what has been going on!

Subham.

[MahaHrada]

Namaste MahaHrada,

Interesting to see that even the Buddhist version of Kalki talks about a 'world war' of sorts. In the Kalki Purana, it mentions a war between astikas and nastikas (Buddhists, Jain, Communists, Secularists etc.). I wonder if that includes the Abrahamic faith followers as well.

Namaste TTA
The content of the Kalachakra tantra is very interesting, it apparently originated west of kailash, around the time when the followers of mani and muhammed rose to prominence. It seems the origins of the buddhist Kalki prophecy is from astika sources, if one reads the text careful all the deities that fight with the kalki against the mlecchas are astika, but not a single buddha is mentioned as part of the army.



I read somewhere else (can't remember where) that the 'tribes' or clans that were kicked out of India as "fallen Aryans", Dasyus etc. vowed to take revenge on India, and that they would not only conquer India physically, but defile the Vedas and denigrate Sanatana Dharma! If this really was written before the Islamic incursions started around ~700AD, it is remarkable as that is what has been going on!

Subham.

I haven´t heard of this, but it could not apply to semitic tribes, it would fit the irish / british, some scholars recognize similarities especially in celtic or gaelic tribal religion and language with vedic or indic sources.

Regarding whether the prophecies where actually written before or after the contact with muslims that cannot be ascertained. The history narrated in the tantra itself dates the origin of the prophecies in 200 ad but i do belive no extant original copies of that age exist and it seems and is more likely that the kalachakra is a late tantra, since the earliest buddhist tantric mss. date from around 400-600 ad it is likely the Kalachakra tantra is contemporary with the muslim and manicheans gaining influence in the region west of kailash, which is where that tantra originated.

MahaHrada

[TatTvamAsi]

Namaste TTA
I haven´t heard of this, but it could not apply to semitic tribes...MahaHrada

Namaste MahaHrada,

Why would you say it doesn't fit the "semitic tribes"... ??

Subham.

[MahaHrada]

Namaste MahaHrada,

Why would you say it doesn't fit the "semitic tribes"... ??

Subham.

Namaste TTA,
Because of the semitic tribes very different religious, cultural, linguistic and genetic and spatial origins.

The celtic and the the vedic culture, religion language and spatial origin share many similarities also genetics are close related.

Excerpt Wikipedia
The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites.
The hypothetical Proto-Semitic language, ancestral to historical Semitic languages in the Middle East, is thought to have been originally from either the Arabian Peninsula (particularly around Yemen) or the adjacent Ethiopian highlands, but its region of origin is still much debated and uncertain. The Semitic language family is also considered a component of the larger Afro-Asiatic macro-family of languages. Identification of the hypothetical proto-Semitic region of origin is therefore dependent on the larger geographic distributions of the other language families within Afro-Asiatic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic#Origin

On the celts and the Hindus
Excerpt:


The Celts weren't the only Indo-Europeans settling the European idyll. Balts, Slavs, Germans and Nordics nestled in-all the way north to the frozen scrags of Iceland. They each radiated a language, spiritual mindset and culture that tracks that of the early Vedic. At dawn, Germans daily slipped into cold, sacred rivers for ablution, chanting and wearing loose-flowing robes and a topknot in their long hair "so emblematic of the brahmins." So recorded Tacitus, the adventurer Greek historian. The Slavs took seven steps around a holy fire in marriage.

The Celts were a complex, spiritual, vivacious, artistic, business-smart people speaking an Indo-European language much like Sanskrit , German or Greek, grouped into socially sophisticated tribes that fanned across Europe 3-4 millennia ago and leapt to Britain and Ireland-from eire, a Celtic Goddess overlighting land.

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1994/5/1994-5-17.shtml

MahaHrada

[rcscwc]

see what Quran says that All the books that was given to rishi,s was for that time and it is the time of quran then you hindu,s have to beleive in quran becoz your veda porna etc speaks about Mohmmad saw. i request you to read quran brother thanks.And if u will say that Mohammad saw was a Hindu it is not correct daer Mohammad saw is also mentioned in Bible of christians in old tetment of jewish.

So, even koran was given by the very God which gave Vedas. After all, Vedas are the first, even you admit it. If Mo is predicted then he has to be a Hindu, nothing else.

Give up your false God and come back to the first True Book ie Vedas.

Hai first of all let me make very clear that i am a muslim.
2 Mohammad saw is even mentioned in christians bible jewish,s old testment and Buddha book.
what i am trying to you that Bible veda purana old testment was also given to the Rishi by God on that time.But as all books veda puranan bible mentioned that you have to beleive in antim rishi and his mesege Quran.i beleive that books before Quran was came by God but know it is the rime of antim rishi Mohammad saw. so way you not beleive in Muhmmmad saw and Quran
What muddled up thinking. First decide what Mo is, where he is prophecied. Did Buddhist books too prophecied him? What about Jain and Parsi scriptures?

Hmmm. Bahais too make similar claims about Bahaiullah.

[chandu_69]

As per Bhavishya Purana Mohammad was a demon.

Bhavishya Puran: Prati Sarg: Part III:3,3 5-27

Suta Goswami said: After hearing the king’s prayers, Lord Shiva said: O king Bhojaraja, you should go to the place called Mahakakshvara, that land is called Vahika and now is being contaminated 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, he has come again by the order of Bali. He has no origin but he achieved a benediction from me. His name is Mahamada(Muhammad) and his deeds are like that of a ghost. Therefore, O king, you should not go to this land of the evil ghost.

So, as per Bhavishya purana muhammad was an evil Ghost

See the original sanskrit here at.
http://bhavishyapuran.blogspot.com/2007/07/bhavishya-purana-prediction-of.html

[chandu_69]

Next comes Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Prophesised in Atharvaveda:

Let us see the verse:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/av/av20127.htm


The whole chapter is Talking about King Parikshit
and a Rishi.

Unlike muhammad Rishis don't Kill and take their women as spoils of war(Quran 008.067:It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land...)

King Parikshit was a resident of Bharat not Arabia and the word Kaurama has no specific meaning in sanskrit at the best stretching of imagination it may refer to Kaurava lineage.

And Kuntap doesnt mean Makkah or Bakkah or Bokka(Lol)

[chandu_69]

Now comes Atharvaveda Book XX Hymn 21
Here is again a crude translation:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/av/av20021.htm

The whole page is talking about INDRA the keeper of celestial heaven.
Incidentally Allah of Quran also is the keeper of heaven who supplies Virgin girls.


Line 6 Mentions Vritra who was killed by Indra.

Line 6:These our libations, strength inspiring Soma draughts, gladdened
thee in the fight with Vritra, Hero-Lord,
Line 7:What time thou slewest for the singer with trimmed grass ten
thousand Vritras, thou resistless in thy might..

No mention of Human being leave alone Muhammed.

[chandu_69]

Next is Rigveda Book I, Hymn 53 verse 9
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01053.htm


Once again the entire Hymn is talking about Indra
here is Verse 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.

//Indra is protecting Susravas from those Kings who came with sixty thousand nine-and-ninety followers ..read the next verse//

10 Thou hast protected Suśravas with succour, and Tūrvayāṇa with thine aid, O Indra. Thou madest Kutsa, Atithigva, Āyu, subject unto this King, the young, the mighty.

The stupid Zakir Naik wrongly assumes that the "sixty thousand nine-and-ninety followers" are fighting for Indra but the reverse is the case.Indra is fighting Against sixty thousand nine-and-ninety fellows