Regarding Bhavishya Purana

[Vinayaka]

Thank you, MV. I an so unaware of these tactics some days. We need constant reminders. (well, not me personally)

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

the answer for Mr. Satyamevjayante's question that why dont muslims follow Puranas or why dont Muslims recognise Puranas as authoritative if the Prophet is mentioned it, the answer is:
In Puranas, it is presumed the coming of Mohammed(S.A.W). Later on, Mohammed(s.a.w) came and a new book was revealed to him. Now, every muslim, in fact, everyone must follow that book. In many religious scriptures, the coming of Prophet Mohammed(s.a.w) is presumed all the books cannot be followed. So only the book revealed to Mohammed(s.a.w) has to be followed.
The most authentic in religious scriptures of Hinduism is Vedas. Vedas are ambiguous that it was revealed from God. Muslims say we dont know correctly whether it was the word of God or not. because Quraan say: "In every age we have sent the revelation." By name only four are mention. That is the reason why Muslims are ambiguous. Muslim believe Vedas "may be" the word of God. Not surely. May be. That is the reason Muslims dont follow Puranas or dont recognise Puranas as authoritative.

If Muslims don't consider the Bhavishya Purana as authoritative why then do they believe that there is mention of Muhammad in the Purana?

Muslims should also believe every other prediction in the Bhavishya Puran also, why only believe the part about Muhammad?

If Muslims believe that Muhammad is in the Purana, especially something that has so much significance for the Islamic religion then they should hold the Bhavishya Purana as authoritative.

If Muslims don't know anything about the Veda, then why mention them at all?

 

[Poeticus]

If Muslims don't consider the Bhavishya Purana as authoritative why then do they believe that there is mention of Muhammad in the Purana?

Muslims should also believe every other prediction in the Bhavishya Puran also, why only believe the part about Muhammad?

If Muslims believe that Muhammad is in the Purana, especially something that has so much significance for the Islamic religion then they should hold the Bhavishya Purana as authoritative.

If Muslims don't know anything about the Veda, then why mention them at all?

Namaste,

You make valid points. But, please don't forget that the part of Muhammad in the (fraudulent) Bhavishya Purāna is actually about him being a demon. Therefore, Muslims should stop using the Bhavishya Purāna to persuade Hindus to convert into Islam; they misuse this most UN-holy of texts to get converts without even realizing the subject matter at hand.

Please read my post above and click on the links provided to learn more when you have the chance. Let me know what you think.

Regards,
M.V.

 

[Poeticus]

Thank you, MV. I an so unaware of these tactics some days. We need constant reminders. (well, not me personally)

Namaste,

Thank you for your support, Vināyaka-ji. If you can, please let other Hindus know about my post so they can be most aware.

Regards,
M.V.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Namaste,

You make valid points. But, please don't forget that the part of Muhammad in the (fraudulent) Bhavishya Purāna is actually about him being a demon. Therefore, Muslims should stop using the Bhavishya Purāna to persuade Hindus to convert into Islam; they misuse this most UN-holy of texts to get converts without even realizing the subject matter at hand.

Please read my post above and click on the links provided to learn more when you have the chance. Let me know what you think.

Regards,
M.V.

Dhanyavad for reply, Great links

I was already aware about Muhammad being the demon in the Purana, i just want to know why Muslims use only selective texts that only hint Muhammad and why they don't accept other things in the Purana as well.

 

[Poeticus]

Dhanyavad for reply, Great links

I was already aware about Muhammad being the demon in the Purana, i just want to know why Muslims use only selective texts that only hint Muhammad and why they don't accept other things in the Purana as well.

Namaste,

I believe Muslims use this text in a selective manner, for the following reason(s):

If any text in the world mentioned Muhammad (or even Islam for that matter), they will use that as an excuse to propagate their pro-Islamic agenda in order to get people to convert, regardless of whether the text speaks badly of Muhammad or whether it speaks positively (and in the case of the Bhavishya Purāna: it is obviously very negative, claiming Muhammad (Mahāmada) to be a reincarnation of the demon known as Tripurāsura).

I really doubt they even understand the context of the Purāna itself.

This Purāna (I really dislike using the word 'Purāna' for this text because it is a fraudulent text with redactions done by Christian Indologists) went through several alterations. Unlike other Hindu texts that went through redactions, this text experienced them all the way till the mid 1800s!

Thus, the verses speaking in a negative light about Muhammad were written during a time when Islamic rulers were slaughtering, enslaving, and committing genocide upon conquered Hindus (with the highest frequencies occurring between 1300CE-1700CE). The verses about Muhammad (Mahāmada) symbolized the struggle of the Hindus against the Islamic suppression that they felt under the Muslim kings and invaders (let's be honest: Islam didn't enter India as a marketing gimmick; it came with the sword).

The question one must ask is: why the symbology? Well, literary expression was a strong characteristic of Hindu backlash. Hindus couldn't speak openly about their disliking of Islam and Muslims - otherwise they would have been killed, thus writing down how they felt through metaphors was a way of engaging in "combat" with the Muslims.

Now, Muslims will still lie and state that Hindus have manipulated the translation of these verses. They will purport that these verses actually talk about Muhammad being sent by "God" "himself" in order to spread Islam (please click on the following --->Prophet Muhammad in Bhavishya Puran - A refutation of outrageous Hindu claims - Islam and Hinduism Initiative and Islamic Research Foundation - Hinduism -Muhammad(PBUH)).

Please, do not fall for these lies.

Furthermore, they will state (as in one of the links above): that the term Asura is being applied to certain Hindu Gods. Then, why are Hindus worshipping these Asuras if they are supposedly "demonic"?

Such a statement by them shows their inability to separate Vedic Sanskrit from (Classical/Modern) Sanskrit.

1. Asura (Vedic Sanskrit) = Lord, Wise, Powerful, Heavenly...
2. Asura (Classical/Modern) = Demon, Evil, Opposite of the Gods, Genocidal

They will use verses from the Holy Shrī Shruti Rig-Veda in order to tell Hindus that they worship 'demons'/Asuras. Yet, they don't understand that the Sanskrit of the Holy Shrī Shruti Rig-Veda isn't "Sanskrit", it is "Vedic" - a language very similar and close to Proto-Indo-Iranian.

Thus, please tell the Muslims [that inquire] (why we worship in "Asuras") that they need to take a course in Vedic Sanskrit and a course in Classical Sanskrit. The University of Texas has a wonderful program on Vedic Sanskrit, in fact: please click on the following--->Ancient Sanskrit Online: Series Introduction.

Thus, when Zakir Naik (I refuse to call him "Doctor") and other pro-Muslim websites that preach these lies and use the Bhavishya "Purāna" to persuade Hindus to convert, always keep the points aforementioned in mind. Also, please keep in mind that they will lyingly claim the Bhavishya "Purāna" as a "Vedic text". This is highly incorrect!

To be a "Vedic text", the text itself has to be one of the four Holy Shrī Shruti Vedas: Rig, Yajur, Sāma, and Atharva.

Therefore, is the Bhavishya "Purāna" a "Vedic text"? No, it is not.

Then, should Hindus believe in the fraudulent text known as Bhavishya "Purāna"? Absolutely not!

Regards,
M.V.

जय श्री कृष्ण