So as i mentioned to many of you before, who seem to think i link all threads to Islam, I have set up this thread to show how clearly Muhammed is mentioned in the hindu scriptures, the bible and the gospel, if you some of want, even the buhddist books too. Now the way i want to do this, is to stick to the topic, i know im a culprit sometimes, and go off on tangents. This time we stick to the topic, now i will post verses from the books, we deal with one at a time. We will debate the verses etc, and only when everyone is content, whether its true or false, we move on, like a proper debate. Another request is, please refrain from posting red herring and allegations against Islam left right and centre, if you wish to do so, you know I will always answer any misconceptions, but please send them to on PM, and i will still answer those. This thread is specifically, to show how clearly muhammed is mentioned in the hindu , christian , jewish, and bhuddist books.
Ok so the first to start with is the oldest one, which is Hindusim. Now this religion has some of the oldest texts known to man, its one of the oldest religions in the world and has a lot in common with islam, christianity etc more than people think.Infact its fundamental teachings are very similar, and monotheistic, its just hindus today dont actually practise what they books teach.
So to begin with here is a verse from the 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.
I think that ought to be a good place to start, it clearly shows him by name, location and character etc. Cant get much clearer than that, i hope that if there are any hindus here, that they will go and check the books to see for themselves.
The most popular amongst all the Hindu scriptures is the Bhagavad Gita.
Consider the following verse from the Gita:
"Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures."
[Bhagavad Gita 7:20]
This clearly states that those poeple who are materliastic, worship demi gods, i.e "gods" besides the true god.
Lets see what your thoughts are on the prophecy, you can ignore the last part, i just wanted to show a glimpse of the monotheistic side to hinduism.
Full Version: Muhammed(PBUH) Prophecised in many Scriptures
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs
dude, ok. cool. nice topic. but instead of copy pasting the stuff couldnt u at lease give those who wrote it the credit??
its hogwash.!!
this is not the first time i have come across this reference...i have seen so many such coincedence realtion websites!! many fall short.
its hogwash.!!
this is not the first time i have come across this reference...i have seen so many such coincedence realtion websites!! many fall short.
QUOTE (Da Verminator @ Feb 19 2008, 11:49 AM) 
dude, ok. cool. nice topic. but instead of copy pasting the stuff couldnt u at lease give those who wrote it the credit??
its hogwash..jesus muhammed and the ilke..
its hogwash..jesus muhammed and the ilke..
Man thats typical, have no credible reply, but instead ridicule me....LOl
I wrote the damn thing, the verse are clearly shown where they come from the references are there. The rest is my stuff my language, but i use information provided by many people. I sourced the information from a book written by Dr Zakir Naik. Im sure you have heard of him, he is the one who demolished Sri Sri Cant remember his full name, the leading hindu scholar in the world today in an opne televised debate in India. This bit from the Prophecy states comes from Dr Zakir Naik.
The Prophecy clearly states: FROM HERE TO
Here the prophecy implies that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was sinless, i.e. Maasoom. HERE, EVERYTHIGN IN THERE IS FROM DR ZAKIR NAIK
However, i also need to remind you, he does not copy right his stuff, purely because he wants people to use his material.
I think your sources need to do further research, Hindu scriptures do mention Mahamed but he's a demon
(tapa or tipa? Indian devil) "The Devil" and his followers muslmen? (muslims) are devil worshipers who devour everything.
(tapa or tipa? Indian devil) "The Devil" and his followers muslmen? (muslims) are devil worshipers who devour everything.
Ozi, good idea on starting your own thread for this, but seeing as how you want a debate about it, I am going to answer your opening point with a countering point. You got your information from a Muslim. (That is like a Christian getting 'facts' from another Christian. It's biased.) But, like I do with the Christians and the idea of Intelligent Design, I will counter your ideas (or the Muslim doctors ideas) with actual facts from unbiased sources, but I will not copy and paste. I will summarize the counter, and then link to the sources so you can see for yourself.
Now, as far as Mahamad being mentioned in the Bhavishya Puran, it is true. His name appears, and he calls himself well known. The idea that it was a prediction about the future (which, since it seems to have come true with the birth of Muhammad, validates itself, lending credibility to the Bhavishya Puran, and seemingly validating that Muhammad is the true prophet mentioned.)
However, it would only be considered credible if it had been a prediction that came true, right? Otherwise, it is just another book like the OT, where a man's version of history is recorded and left to interpretation by many. We assume that it is a prediction because of the word Bhavishya in the title which means future. However, let's not forget that Purana means tales of ancient times. But, some people think that everything in this particular text is supposed to be a prediction of the future.
But-it can't be.
The Bhavishya Purana also tells about a man named Adaman, who will be put in the garden of God, but who will eat the forbidden fruit and be cast out.
Which means that obviously, this is not a prediction, it is a narrative of a past event (fictional or not has no merit) because who would have been around to make a prediction about the first man on the planet?
That being said, it is now apparent that everything in this "book of the future" was not in the future.
Still with me?
The next part is that the verse that says the name Mahamad (who claims to be well known) and the part that talks about Jesus (Easa Maseeha) who also claims to be well known date themselves. These parts of the text were not written until Mahamad (Muhammad) and Easa Maseeha (Jesus) were already well known. How could a prediction written at the times of Jesus and Muhammad ABOUT Muhammad be a prediction? It's not. It's a narrative.
Also, the term Easa Maseeha dates itself as well. In the Quran, the name is written Masih Easa, the Easa comes after the Masih. This is the same as saying Jesus the Christ or Christ Jesus. The term used in the Quran, Masih Easa, (think of the word Messiah. The words in this order literally mean Jesus the Messiah) is the older colloquialism. After the Quran was written (which was when Muhammad was alive) and after the spead of Islam into India, the general term became Easa Maseeha (Messiah Jesus) because of the way Persians depicted articles in grammar. Therefore, because of the way the name was written in the Bhavishya Purana, we can tell that it was added AFTER Islam influence in India.
So, according to linguists and historians, it was not a prediction, it was another narrative based on the teachings of the Quran, added to the Bhavishya Purana after Muhammad was already well known.
Also, because of the almost exact same wording and translated names of the lineage between Noah and Abraham, it is apparent that the Old Testament is also older than the Bhavishya Purana, and that these stories and names were copied into the text, not as a prediction, but as a narrative after it happened.
Edited because I forgot to link a source:Answering Islam.
Now, as far as Mahamad being mentioned in the Bhavishya Puran, it is true. His name appears, and he calls himself well known. The idea that it was a prediction about the future (which, since it seems to have come true with the birth of Muhammad, validates itself, lending credibility to the Bhavishya Puran, and seemingly validating that Muhammad is the true prophet mentioned.)
However, it would only be considered credible if it had been a prediction that came true, right? Otherwise, it is just another book like the OT, where a man's version of history is recorded and left to interpretation by many. We assume that it is a prediction because of the word Bhavishya in the title which means future. However, let's not forget that Purana means tales of ancient times. But, some people think that everything in this particular text is supposed to be a prediction of the future.
But-it can't be.
The Bhavishya Purana also tells about a man named Adaman, who will be put in the garden of God, but who will eat the forbidden fruit and be cast out.
Which means that obviously, this is not a prediction, it is a narrative of a past event (fictional or not has no merit) because who would have been around to make a prediction about the first man on the planet?
That being said, it is now apparent that everything in this "book of the future" was not in the future.
Still with me?
The next part is that the verse that says the name Mahamad (who claims to be well known) and the part that talks about Jesus (Easa Maseeha) who also claims to be well known date themselves. These parts of the text were not written until Mahamad (Muhammad) and Easa Maseeha (Jesus) were already well known. How could a prediction written at the times of Jesus and Muhammad ABOUT Muhammad be a prediction? It's not. It's a narrative.
Also, the term Easa Maseeha dates itself as well. In the Quran, the name is written Masih Easa, the Easa comes after the Masih. This is the same as saying Jesus the Christ or Christ Jesus. The term used in the Quran, Masih Easa, (think of the word Messiah. The words in this order literally mean Jesus the Messiah) is the older colloquialism. After the Quran was written (which was when Muhammad was alive) and after the spead of Islam into India, the general term became Easa Maseeha (Messiah Jesus) because of the way Persians depicted articles in grammar. Therefore, because of the way the name was written in the Bhavishya Purana, we can tell that it was added AFTER Islam influence in India.
So, according to linguists and historians, it was not a prediction, it was another narrative based on the teachings of the Quran, added to the Bhavishya Purana after Muhammad was already well known.
Also, because of the almost exact same wording and translated names of the lineage between Noah and Abraham, it is apparent that the Old Testament is also older than the Bhavishya Purana, and that these stories and names were copied into the text, not as a prediction, but as a narrative after it happened.
Edited because I forgot to link a source:Answering Islam.
QUOTE (Ozi @ Feb 19 2008, 11:58 AM)
However, i also need to remind you, he does not copy right his stuff, purely because he wants people to use his material.
You are still supposed to provide the source of the article you copied and pasted..and give credit to the person that wrote it...its forum rules...so I did it for you see below
QUOTE (Da Verminator @ Feb 19 2008, 11:49 AM)
dude, ok. cool. nice topic. but instead of copy pasting the stuff couldnt u at lease give those who wrote it the credit??
EASY PEASY...I'll give the guy that wote it the credit ---> Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in Hindu Scriptures
by Dr. Zakir Naik
Source where Ozi pinched the article from ---> http://www.islam101.com/religions/hinduism/Mhs.htm
QUOTE (Beckys_Mom @ Feb 19 2008, 08:28 PM)
You are still supposed to provide the source of the article you copied and pasted..and give credit to the person that wrote it...its forum rules...so I did it for you see below
EASY PEASY...I'll give the guy that wote it the credit ---> Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in Hindu Scriptures
by Dr. Zakir Naik
Source where Ozi pinched the article from ---> http://www.islam101.com/religions/hinduism/Mhs.htm
EASY PEASY...I'll give the guy that wote it the credit ---> Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in Hindu Scriptures
by Dr. Zakir Naik
Source where Ozi pinched the article from ---> http://www.islam101.com/religions/hinduism/Mhs.htm
I have the guys books, people know me here, know by now i have E-books galore, but im happy for you to source the sites for the rest, it saves me the time. I bet you still dint read it though, but i gaurentee you read sundogs, post, it suits you hey!
QUOTE (SunDogDayze @ Feb 19 2008, 07:43 PM)
Ozi, good idea on starting your own thread for this, but seeing as how you want a debate about it, I am going to answer your opening point with a countering point. You got your information from a Muslim. (That is like a Christian getting 'facts' from another Christian. It's biased.) But, like I do with the Christians and the idea of Intelligent Design, I will counter your ideas (or the Muslim doctors ideas) with actual facts from unbiased sources, but I will not copy and paste. I will summarize the counter, and then link to the sources so you can see for yourself.
Now, as far as Mahamad being mentioned in the Bhavishya Puran, it is true. His name appears, and he calls himself well known. The idea that it was a prediction about the future (which, since it seems to have come true with the birth of Muhammad, validates itself, lending credibility to the Bhavishya Puran, and seemingly validating that Muhammad is the true prophet mentioned.)
However, it would only be considered credible if it had been a prediction that came true, right? Otherwise, it is just another book like the OT, where a man's version of history is recorded and left to interpretation by many. We assume that it is a prediction because of the word Bhavishya in the title which means future. However, let's not forget that Purana means tales of ancient times. But, some people think that everything in this particular text is supposed to be a prediction of the future.
But-it can't be.
The Bhavishya Purana also tells about a man named Adaman, who will be put in the garden of God, but who will eat the forbidden fruit and be cast out.
Which means that obviously, this is not a prediction, it is a narrative of a past event (fictional or not has no merit) because who would have been around to make a prediction about the first man on the planet?
That being said, it is now apparent that everything in this "book of the future" was not in the future.
First of all the author is a christian, not even a scholar in his own field, never mind sanskrit, arabic or even islam. Anyway majority of the above is opinion based, he never actually provides any proof of the claims. The book is full of prophecies and past tense, like the psalms, whcih prophecised jesus. He believe in that, but changes the rule on this book. Infact he does not even know the book and basis his entire opinion and article on one view out of many, and the many being appropriate scholars in the right fields, not muslims, but scholars, but he tends to go agains the correct opinion, with no proof.
Still with me?
The next part is that the verse that says the name Mahamad (who claims to be well known) and the part that talks about Jesus (Easa Maseeha) who also claims to be well known date themselves. These parts of the text were not written until Mahamad (Muhammad) and Easa Maseeha (Jesus) were already well known. How could a prediction written at the times of Jesus and Muhammad ABOUT Muhammad be a prediction? It's not. It's a narrative.
LOL. This clearly shows that you searched the net hard to find anything to oppose what i posted, and you never read things objectively. Mr anderson claims that the addition of this verse regarding muhammed and jesus etc came later when the muslims arrived in india, based on the fact the jesus name come with the word messiah in a particular order, resembling persian, therefore after islam came. What you and he fail to realise is also the jesus name in his own native language was Eesa, not jesus,which is the english translation, upon which basis his whole assumption.School boy error. If he knew sanskrit he would know that the word that is described comes before the word that is the description. In Sanskrit, the name of Jesus has Easa before the Massih, this is a general rule in Sanskrit and also Hindi that a word, thing or a person is described with the word before the description. Show the authors and your close mindedness.
Also, the term Easa Maseeha dates itself as well. In the Quran, the name is written Masih Easa, the Easa comes after the Masih. This is the same as saying Jesus the Christ or Christ Jesus. The term used in the Quran, Masih Easa, (think of the word Messiah. The words in this order literally mean Jesus the Messiah) is the older colloquialism. After the Quran was written (which was when Muhammad was alive) and after the spead of Islam into India, the general term became Easa Maseeha (Messiah Jesus) because of the way Persians depicted articles in grammar. Therefore, because of the way the name was written in the Bhavishya Purana, we can tell that it was added AFTER Islam influence in India.
Most of the above is answered already, however you need to check his version of the verse he posted, how he deliberately changed the wording from the translations, also in the quran, sometime its massih eesa and sometimes different, but this is a rule in arabic, where as in the name in the puranas is eesa massih, the rule in sanksrit. Really woman i though you could do better.
So, according to linguists and historians, it was not a prediction, it was another narrative based on the teachings of the Quran, added to the Bhavishya Purana after Muhammad was already well known.
No, according to Mr anderson, when i post the link below, you will see real scholarly opinion, not from muslims,but high ranked hindus. What you sau and Anderson is merely opinion with out any evidence, often opinion based on translations and not knowin the source languages.
Also, because of the almost exact same wording and translated names of the lineage between Noah and Abraham, it is apparent that the Old Testament is also older than the Bhavishya Purana, and that these stories and names were copied into the text, not as a prediction, but as a narrative after it happened.
All the above is once again the thinking of Mr. Menon. The son of Adaman and Hvyavathy is Shwethanama (Seth). His son is Anoohan (Enoch). Then the lineage goes like this. Keenashan (Kenan), Mahallalan (Mahallalel), Viradan (Jered), Hanukan (Enoch), Manochillan (Methuselah), Lomakan (Lamech), Newhan (Noah).
The words in the brackets are the interpretation of Mr. Menon supposedly. From the Hindu scriptures, we see that Noah is named Manuh whereas the above calls Newhan as Noah. This looks like a deliberate attempt to make this a discussion of the Prophets.
Let’s suppose for a moment that it really is discussing the people named in the brackets, does it prove that this is a book not to be trusted at all?
The answer is no because the Bible has several similar contradictions and illogical statements in it. If Mr. Anderson calls this book to be completely unauthentic, then he should first throw away the Bible as proven in the links below;
Geneology of Jesus
historical errors in the bible
The above two links show clearly what i mean by Mr Anderson ignoring his own book.
Edited because I forgot to link a source:Answering Islam.
Now, as far as Mahamad being mentioned in the Bhavishya Puran, it is true. His name appears, and he calls himself well known. The idea that it was a prediction about the future (which, since it seems to have come true with the birth of Muhammad, validates itself, lending credibility to the Bhavishya Puran, and seemingly validating that Muhammad is the true prophet mentioned.)
However, it would only be considered credible if it had been a prediction that came true, right? Otherwise, it is just another book like the OT, where a man's version of history is recorded and left to interpretation by many. We assume that it is a prediction because of the word Bhavishya in the title which means future. However, let's not forget that Purana means tales of ancient times. But, some people think that everything in this particular text is supposed to be a prediction of the future.
But-it can't be.
The Bhavishya Purana also tells about a man named Adaman, who will be put in the garden of God, but who will eat the forbidden fruit and be cast out.
Which means that obviously, this is not a prediction, it is a narrative of a past event (fictional or not has no merit) because who would have been around to make a prediction about the first man on the planet?
That being said, it is now apparent that everything in this "book of the future" was not in the future.
First of all the author is a christian, not even a scholar in his own field, never mind sanskrit, arabic or even islam. Anyway majority of the above is opinion based, he never actually provides any proof of the claims. The book is full of prophecies and past tense, like the psalms, whcih prophecised jesus. He believe in that, but changes the rule on this book. Infact he does not even know the book and basis his entire opinion and article on one view out of many, and the many being appropriate scholars in the right fields, not muslims, but scholars, but he tends to go agains the correct opinion, with no proof.
Still with me?
The next part is that the verse that says the name Mahamad (who claims to be well known) and the part that talks about Jesus (Easa Maseeha) who also claims to be well known date themselves. These parts of the text were not written until Mahamad (Muhammad) and Easa Maseeha (Jesus) were already well known. How could a prediction written at the times of Jesus and Muhammad ABOUT Muhammad be a prediction? It's not. It's a narrative.
LOL. This clearly shows that you searched the net hard to find anything to oppose what i posted, and you never read things objectively. Mr anderson claims that the addition of this verse regarding muhammed and jesus etc came later when the muslims arrived in india, based on the fact the jesus name come with the word messiah in a particular order, resembling persian, therefore after islam came. What you and he fail to realise is also the jesus name in his own native language was Eesa, not jesus,which is the english translation, upon which basis his whole assumption.School boy error. If he knew sanskrit he would know that the word that is described comes before the word that is the description. In Sanskrit, the name of Jesus has Easa before the Massih, this is a general rule in Sanskrit and also Hindi that a word, thing or a person is described with the word before the description. Show the authors and your close mindedness.
Also, the term Easa Maseeha dates itself as well. In the Quran, the name is written Masih Easa, the Easa comes after the Masih. This is the same as saying Jesus the Christ or Christ Jesus. The term used in the Quran, Masih Easa, (think of the word Messiah. The words in this order literally mean Jesus the Messiah) is the older colloquialism. After the Quran was written (which was when Muhammad was alive) and after the spead of Islam into India, the general term became Easa Maseeha (Messiah Jesus) because of the way Persians depicted articles in grammar. Therefore, because of the way the name was written in the Bhavishya Purana, we can tell that it was added AFTER Islam influence in India.
Most of the above is answered already, however you need to check his version of the verse he posted, how he deliberately changed the wording from the translations, also in the quran, sometime its massih eesa and sometimes different, but this is a rule in arabic, where as in the name in the puranas is eesa massih, the rule in sanksrit. Really woman i though you could do better.
So, according to linguists and historians, it was not a prediction, it was another narrative based on the teachings of the Quran, added to the Bhavishya Purana after Muhammad was already well known.
No, according to Mr anderson, when i post the link below, you will see real scholarly opinion, not from muslims,but high ranked hindus. What you sau and Anderson is merely opinion with out any evidence, often opinion based on translations and not knowin the source languages.
Also, because of the almost exact same wording and translated names of the lineage between Noah and Abraham, it is apparent that the Old Testament is also older than the Bhavishya Purana, and that these stories and names were copied into the text, not as a prediction, but as a narrative after it happened.
All the above is once again the thinking of Mr. Menon. The son of Adaman and Hvyavathy is Shwethanama (Seth). His son is Anoohan (Enoch). Then the lineage goes like this. Keenashan (Kenan), Mahallalan (Mahallalel), Viradan (Jered), Hanukan (Enoch), Manochillan (Methuselah), Lomakan (Lamech), Newhan (Noah).
The words in the brackets are the interpretation of Mr. Menon supposedly. From the Hindu scriptures, we see that Noah is named Manuh whereas the above calls Newhan as Noah. This looks like a deliberate attempt to make this a discussion of the Prophets.
Let’s suppose for a moment that it really is discussing the people named in the brackets, does it prove that this is a book not to be trusted at all?
The answer is no because the Bible has several similar contradictions and illogical statements in it. If Mr. Anderson calls this book to be completely unauthentic, then he should first throw away the Bible as proven in the links below;
Geneology of Jesus
historical errors in the bible
The above two links show clearly what i mean by Mr Anderson ignoring his own book.
Edited because I forgot to link a source:Answering Islam.
And the best till last...........
The whole above article and link you posted is comprehensively answered, infact everythig from that site is, just pick the topic and look at my link to find the rebuttal. EAsy for you now. Please make sure you read it all answer where you can, or use the article from the site you got the above one, im sure they have plenty.......
I look forward to hear from you soon.
Source Link.
QUOTE (Ozi @ Feb 19 2008, 10:16 PM)
I bet you still dint read it though, but i gaurentee you read sundogs, post, it suits you hey!
Would you quit griping over who will read what
I will read what I like
Why you keep harrasing anyone that disagrees or doesnt read what you tell them is a JOKE
And what if I do read it and DISAGREE?? are you going to continue insulting all because I make up my own mind? im betting you will
QUOTE (Beckys_Mom @ Feb 19 2008, 10:50 PM)
Would you quit griping over who will read what
I will read what I like
Why you keep harrasing anyone that disagrees or doesnt read what you tell them is a JOKE
And what if I do read it and DISAGREE?? are you going to continue insulting all because I make up my own mind? im betting you will
I will read what I like
Why you keep harrasing anyone that disagrees or doesnt read what you tell them is a JOKE
And what if I do read it and DISAGREE?? are you going to continue insulting all because I make up my own mind? im betting you will
The reason i ask for people to read is, because when they dont they often leave point and remarks which are often already answered. Also i put the effort in to read what ever is posted, so should everyone else, when anyone post a point as refutation to theirs. You dont read, you dont learn and miss things out.
If you do disagree its your choice, but i will still want reasons, if its simple, that it does not suit you, that aint good enough, you need credible reason to reject something which is being shown as truth.
QUOTE (Ozi @ Feb 19 2008, 10:54 PM)
The reason i ask for people to read is, because when they dont they often leave point and remarks which are often already answered. Also i put the effort in to read what ever is posted, so should everyone else, when anyone post a point as refutation to theirs. You dont read, you dont learn and miss things out.
If you do disagree its your choice, but i will still want reasons, if its simple, that it does not suit you, that aint good enough, you need credible reason to reject something which is being shown as truth.
If you do disagree its your choice, but i will still want reasons, if its simple, that it does not suit you, that aint good enough, you need credible reason to reject something which is being shown as truth.
Did you ever stop to consider this................People will read things linked to other faiths...but it doesnt mean they will agree with them
I disagree with the bible...I was raised to follow it..after study and being taught it so often...I now disagree with it
I dont have to state WHY...because seriously, its my business
Now if I am not going to jump back to christianity...im hardly going to leap over to Islam..or ANY faith....I like my own faith..only because no one makes me follow it
I can read it till the cows come home...all you want is a heated debate...
QUOTE (Ozi @ Feb 19 2008, 10:49 PM)
And the best till last...........
The whole above article and link you posted is comprehensively answered, infact everythig from that site is, just pick the topic and look at my link to find the rebuttal. EAsy for you now. Please make sure you read it all answer where you can, or use the article from the site you got the above one, im sure they have plenty.......
I look forward to hear from you soon.
Source Link.
The whole above article and link you posted is comprehensively answered, infact everythig from that site is, just pick the topic and look at my link to find the rebuttal. EAsy for you now. Please make sure you read it all answer where you can, or use the article from the site you got the above one, im sure they have plenty.......
I look forward to hear from you soon.
Source Link.
Did you read anything she posted normally when people read things they have a lot to say....
It looks to me you just want her to debate you with the article you pasted
You go the odd way about promoting your faith
We had aguy on here that was muslim...he did it right..he made a thread - titled - ASK A MUSLIM <--meaning people could ASK him various questions
you just take someones work and paste it...thats not good
QUOTE (Beckys_Mom @ Feb 19 2008, 11:00 PM)
Did you read anything she posted normally when people read things they have a lot to say....
It looks to me you just want her to debate you with the article you pasted
You go the odd way about promoting your faith
We had aguy on here that was muslim...he did it right..he made a thread - titled - ASK A MUSLIM <--meaning people could ASK him various questions
you just take someones work and paste it...thats not good
It looks to me you just want her to debate you with the article you pasted
You go the odd way about promoting your faith
We had aguy on here that was muslim...he did it right..he made a thread - titled - ASK A MUSLIM <--meaning people could ASK him various questions
you just take someones work and paste it...thats not good
Oh so now im pasting, firstly english is not my first language, so i paste parts which i wont express well, and i provided a link, i guess it was too comprehensive, you take a dig at me. Just read the article and respond to that, i cant be bothered with this anymore, bickereing like kids, something constructive please. The article is there for everyone to read. As for promotong my faith, i do try, i can do it nicely, which is often what i tired, and it was my first approach, to get everyone to come to common terms and teachings amongsts us, but they dont even agree to that, so sometime I have to fight fire with fire.
QUOTE (Ozi @ Feb 19 2008, 11:13 PM)
Oh so now im pasting, firstly english is not my first language, so i paste parts which i wont express well, and i provided a link, i guess it was too comprehensive, you take a dig at me. Just read the article and respond to that, i cant be bothered with this anymore, bickereing like kids, something constructive please. The article is there for everyone to read. As for promotong my faith, i do try, i can do it nicely, which is often what i tired, and it was my first approach, to get everyone to come to common terms and teachings amongsts us, but they dont even agree to that, so sometime I have to fight fire with fire.
FYI...I did read it...I was bound to have read it...how do you think I was able to find the source? Obviously I hunted for it
Best way to get anyone interested in your faith is to set yourself up a thread and see if others will want to ask you questions...I can't see how that wont work...only you can answer...never mind these web pages..forget the web page...you should speak from what you know
Now im not getting at you...im just trying to get you to be wiser and less abrupt about it
If I ever wanted to take interest in a faith, id rather face someone who was willing to answer questions <---see what I mean?
QUOTE
First of all the author is a christian, not even a scholar in his own field, never mind sanskrit, arabic or even islam. Anyway majority of the above is opinion based, he never actually provides any proof of the claims. The book is full of prophecies and past tense, like the psalms, whcih prophecised jesus. He believe in that, but changes the rule on this book. Infact he does not even know the book and basis his entire opinion and article on one view out of many, and the many being appropriate scholars in the right fields, not muslims, but scholars, but he tends to go agains the correct opinion, with no proof.
Still with me?
The next part is that the verse that says the name Mahamad (who claims to be well known) and the part that talks about Jesus (Easa Maseeha) who also claims to be well known date themselves. These parts of the text were not written until Mahamad (Muhammad) and Easa Maseeha (Jesus) were already well known. How could a prediction written at the times of Jesus and Muhammad ABOUT Muhammad be a prediction? It's not. It's a narrative.
LOL. This clearly shows that you searched the net hard to find anything to oppose what i posted, and you never read things objectively. Mr anderson claims that the addition of this verse regarding muhammed and jesus etc came later when the muslims arrived in india, based on the fact the jesus name come with the word messiah in a particular order, resembling persian, therefore after islam came. What you and he fail to realise is also the jesus name in his own native language was Eesa, not jesus,which is the english translation, upon which basis his whole assumption.School boy error. If he knew sanskrit he would know that the word that is described comes before the word that is the description. In Sanskrit, the name of Jesus has Easa before the Massih, this is a general rule in Sanskrit and also Hindi that a word, thing or a person is described with the word before the description. Show the authors and your close mindedness.
Also, the term Easa Maseeha dates itself as well. In the Quran, the name is written Masih Easa, the Easa comes after the Masih. This is the same as saying Jesus the Christ or Christ Jesus. The term used in the Quran, Masih Easa, (think of the word Messiah. The words in this order literally mean Jesus the Messiah) is the older colloquialism. After the Quran was written (which was when Muhammad was alive) and after the spead of Islam into India, the general term became Easa Maseeha (Messiah Jesus) because of the way Persians depicted articles in grammar. Therefore, because of the way the name was written in the Bhavishya Purana, we can tell that it was added AFTER Islam influence in India.
Most of the above is answered already, however you need to check his version of the verse he posted, how he deliberately changed the wording from the translations, also in the quran, sometime its massih eesa and sometimes different, but this is a rule in arabic, where as in the name in the puranas is eesa massih, the rule in sanksrit. Really woman i though you could do better.
So, according to linguists and historians, it was not a prediction, it was another narrative based on the teachings of the Quran, added to the Bhavishya Purana after Muhammad was already well known.
No, according to Mr anderson, when i post the link below, you will see real scholarly opinion, not from muslims,but high ranked hindus. What you sau and Anderson is merely opinion with out any evidence, often opinion based on translations and not knowin the source languages.
Also, because of the almost exact same wording and translated names of the lineage between Noah and Abraham, it is apparent that the Old Testament is also older than the Bhavishya Purana, and that these stories and names were copied into the text, not as a prediction, but as a narrative after it happened.
All the above is once again the thinking of Mr. Menon. The son of Adaman and Hvyavathy is Shwethanama (Seth). His son is Anoohan (Enoch). Then the lineage goes like this. Keenashan (Kenan), Mahallalan (Mahallalel), Viradan (Jered), Hanukan (Enoch), Manochillan (Methuselah), Lomakan (Lamech), Newhan (Noah).
The words in the brackets are the interpretation of Mr. Menon supposedly. From the Hindu scriptures, we see that Noah is named Manuh whereas the above calls Newhan as Noah. This looks like a deliberate attempt to make this a discussion of the Prophets.
Let’s suppose for a moment that it really is discussing the people named in the brackets, does it prove that this is a book not to be trusted at all?
The answer is no because the Bible has several similar contradictions and illogical statements in it. If Mr. Anderson calls this book to be completely unauthentic, then he should first throw away the Bible as proven in the links below;
Geneology of Jesus
historical errors in the bible
The above two links show clearly what i mean by Mr Anderson ignoring his own book.
Edited because I forgot to link a source:Answering Islam.
And the best till last...........
The whole above article and link you posted is comprehensively answered, infact everythig from that site is, just pick the topic and look at my link to find the rebuttal. EAsy for you now. Please make sure you read it all answer where you can, or use the article from the site you got the above one, im sure they have plenty.......
I look forward to hear from you soon.
Still with me?
The next part is that the verse that says the name Mahamad (who claims to be well known) and the part that talks about Jesus (Easa Maseeha) who also claims to be well known date themselves. These parts of the text were not written until Mahamad (Muhammad) and Easa Maseeha (Jesus) were already well known. How could a prediction written at the times of Jesus and Muhammad ABOUT Muhammad be a prediction? It's not. It's a narrative.
LOL. This clearly shows that you searched the net hard to find anything to oppose what i posted, and you never read things objectively. Mr anderson claims that the addition of this verse regarding muhammed and jesus etc came later when the muslims arrived in india, based on the fact the jesus name come with the word messiah in a particular order, resembling persian, therefore after islam came. What you and he fail to realise is also the jesus name in his own native language was Eesa, not jesus,which is the english translation, upon which basis his whole assumption.School boy error. If he knew sanskrit he would know that the word that is described comes before the word that is the description. In Sanskrit, the name of Jesus has Easa before the Massih, this is a general rule in Sanskrit and also Hindi that a word, thing or a person is described with the word before the description. Show the authors and your close mindedness.
Also, the term Easa Maseeha dates itself as well. In the Quran, the name is written Masih Easa, the Easa comes after the Masih. This is the same as saying Jesus the Christ or Christ Jesus. The term used in the Quran, Masih Easa, (think of the word Messiah. The words in this order literally mean Jesus the Messiah) is the older colloquialism. After the Quran was written (which was when Muhammad was alive) and after the spead of Islam into India, the general term became Easa Maseeha (Messiah Jesus) because of the way Persians depicted articles in grammar. Therefore, because of the way the name was written in the Bhavishya Purana, we can tell that it was added AFTER Islam influence in India.
Most of the above is answered already, however you need to check his version of the verse he posted, how he deliberately changed the wording from the translations, also in the quran, sometime its massih eesa and sometimes different, but this is a rule in arabic, where as in the name in the puranas is eesa massih, the rule in sanksrit. Really woman i though you could do better.
So, according to linguists and historians, it was not a prediction, it was another narrative based on the teachings of the Quran, added to the Bhavishya Purana after Muhammad was already well known.
No, according to Mr anderson, when i post the link below, you will see real scholarly opinion, not from muslims,but high ranked hindus. What you sau and Anderson is merely opinion with out any evidence, often opinion based on translations and not knowin the source languages.
Also, because of the almost exact same wording and translated names of the lineage between Noah and Abraham, it is apparent that the Old Testament is also older than the Bhavishya Purana, and that these stories and names were copied into the text, not as a prediction, but as a narrative after it happened.
All the above is once again the thinking of Mr. Menon. The son of Adaman and Hvyavathy is Shwethanama (Seth). His son is Anoohan (Enoch). Then the lineage goes like this. Keenashan (Kenan), Mahallalan (Mahallalel), Viradan (Jered), Hanukan (Enoch), Manochillan (Methuselah), Lomakan (Lamech), Newhan (Noah).
The words in the brackets are the interpretation of Mr. Menon supposedly. From the Hindu scriptures, we see that Noah is named Manuh whereas the above calls Newhan as Noah. This looks like a deliberate attempt to make this a discussion of the Prophets.
Let’s suppose for a moment that it really is discussing the people named in the brackets, does it prove that this is a book not to be trusted at all?
The answer is no because the Bible has several similar contradictions and illogical statements in it. If Mr. Anderson calls this book to be completely unauthentic, then he should first throw away the Bible as proven in the links below;
Geneology of Jesus
historical errors in the bible
The above two links show clearly what i mean by Mr Anderson ignoring his own book.
Edited because I forgot to link a source:Answering Islam.
And the best till last...........
The whole above article and link you posted is comprehensively answered, infact everythig from that site is, just pick the topic and look at my link to find the rebuttal. EAsy for you now. Please make sure you read it all answer where you can, or use the article from the site you got the above one, im sure they have plenty.......
I look forward to hear from you soon.
Okay, well look. I didn't scour the net for a rebuttal. I picked the first site I came across that discussed why it is not PROOF that Muhammad was a supernatural prophet.
I know his name was in the book.
I know that you believe he was a supernatural prophet.
I know you want all of us to believe that as well, because that validates your belief.
But, Ozi, your first post is only different from my rebuttal in the fact that they are on the opposite sides. Otherwise they are the same. They are the opinions of someone who neither you nor I know, at least not well enough to be sure of their credentials. There has been and will always be opposing views on things as unprovable as religion.
They both use evidence to try and showcase the reasons we should believe the way they interpreted the Bhavishya Purana.
The thing is that my rebuttal is just as much evidence to the contrary of what yours did. You're right, I don't know Sanskrit, I don't know any Middle Eastern or Indian dialects, and I wasn't there when these stories were written down. However, I find it hard to believe that you know any more than I do, especially because if you have the audacity to throw the term "schoolboy mistake" at someone who at least is studying and publishing his own findings on the subject, when all you have done so far is copy and paste other people's already published ideas, it seems like you are trying to puff your intellect and education up a bit.
When you will admit that you, at least statistically, cannot be the only correct one all the time, then I will start taking you seriously. You put your argument on the table, and then I put one up that was just as legitimate as yours, and all you could do was try to kick the credibility out from under my argument, when it's basis was as credible as yours.
Nice try, Ozi, but I see that this is going to go exactly where our first round of so called debating went: nowhere.
If Ozi can play his game, I too can Play the same Game in my Own...Though I dont believe in the entire religion or god Hogwash, i can also dothe same thing..so here goes...
IS Jesus Christ Mentioned in the Puranas and other 'anceint' vedic literature??
Please note : I do credit the source of the quoted material, unlike some others!!
Note : I wonder what is the autheniticity of the statement that these stuff were written in the ancient times?
Couldnt it be that these were added to the scriptures by charlantans after they came to know about jesus et al. Like in another topic in Ancient Mysteries, i read that the Popul Vuh which is considered as an ancient text is indeed later creation by spanish missionaries, who have introduced creationist stuff into the texts.
Who knows, most probably the stuff of Prophet muhammed must also have been introduced into the puranas by charlatans!!
IS Jesus Christ Mentioned in the Puranas and other 'anceint' vedic literature??
QUOTE
[ Bhavishya Purana: Pratisarga Parva, Chaturyuga Khanda Dvitiyadhyayah, 19th Chapter, Texts 17 to 32 ]
Texts 17 - 21
vikramaditya-pautrasca
pitr-rajyam grhitavan
jitva sakanduradharsams
cina-taittiridesajan
bahlikankamarupasca
romajankhurajanchhatan
tesam kosan-grhitva ca
danda-yogyanakarayat
sthapita tena maryada
mleccharyanam prthak-prthak
sindhusthanam iti jneyam
rastramaryasya cottamam
mlecchasthanam param sindhoh
krtam tena mahatmana
ekada tu sakadiso
himatungam samayayau
"Ruling over the Aryans was a king called Salivahana, the grandson of Vikramaditya, who occupied the throne of his father. He defeated the Shakas who were very difficult to subdue, the Cinas, the people from Tittiri and Bahikaus who could assume any form at will. He also defeated the people from Rome and the descendants of Khuru, who were deceitful and wicked. He punished them severely and took their wealth. Salivahana thus established the boundaries dividing the separate countries of the Mlecchas and the Aryans. In this way Sindusthan came to be known as the greatest country. That personality appointed the abode of the Mlecchas beyond the Sindhu River and to the west."
Text 22
ekadaa tu shakadhisho
himatungari samaayayau
hunadeshasya madhye vai
giristhan purusam shubhano
dadarsha balaram raajaa
Once upon a time the subduer of the Sakas went towards Himatunga and in the middle of the Huna country (Hunadesh - the area near Manasa Sarovara or Kailash mountain in Western Tibet), the powerful king saw an auspicious man who was living on a mountain. The man's complexion was golden and his clothes were white.
Text 23
ko bharam iti tam praaha
su hovacha mudanvitah
iishaa purtagm maam viddhi
kumaarigarbha sambhavam
"The king asked, 'Who are you sir?' 'You should know that I am Isha Putra, the Son of God'. he replied blissfully, and 'am born of a virgin.' "
Text 24
mleccha dharmasya vaktaram
satyavata paraayanam
iti srutva nrpa praaha
dharmah ko bhavato matah
" 'I am the expounder of the religion of the Mlecchas and I strictly adhere to the Absolute Truth.' Hearing this the king enquired, 'What are religious principles according to you opinion?'
Texts 25 - 26
shruto vaaca mahaaraaja
praapte satyasya samkshaye
nirmaaryaade mlechadeshe
masiiho 'ham samagatah
iishaamasii ca dasyuunaa
praadurbhuutaa bhayankarii
taamaham mlecchataah praapya
masiihatva mupaagatah
"Hearing this questions of Salivahara, Isha putra said, 'O king, when the destruction of the truth occurred, I, Masiha the prophet, came to this country of degraded people where there are no rules and regulations. Finding that fearful irreligious condition of the barbarians spreading from Mleccha-Desha, I have taken to prophethood'."
Texts 27 - 29
mlecchasa sthaapito dharmo
mayaa tacchrnu bhuupate
maanasam nirmalam krtva
malam dehe subhaasbham
naiganam apamasthaya
japeta nirmalam param
nyayena satyavacasaa
manasyai kena manavah
dhyayena pujayedisham
suurya-mandala-samsthitam
acaloyam prabhuh sakshat-
athaa suuryacalah sada
"Please hear Oh king which religious principles I have established among the mlecchas. The living entity is subject to good and bad contaminations. The mind should be purified by taking recourse of proper conduct and performance of japa. By chanting the holy names one attains the highest purity. Just as the immovable sun attracts, from all directions, the elements of all living beings, the Lord of the solar region, who is fixed and all-attractive, attracts the hearts of all living creatures. Thus by following rules, speaking truthful words, by mental harmony and by meditation, Oh descendant of Manu, one should worship that immovable Lord'."
Text 30
isha muurtirt-dradi praptaa
nityashuddha sivamkari
ishamasihah iti ca
mama nama pratishthitam
"Having placed the eternally pure and auspicious form of the Supreme Lord in my heart, O protector of the earth planet, I preached these principles through the Mlecchas' own faith and thus my name became 'isha-masiha' (Jesus the Messiah)."
Text 31
iti shrutra sa bhuupale
natraa tam mlecchapujaam
sthaapayaamaasa tam tutra
mlecchasthaane hi daarune
"After hearing these words and paying obeisances to that person who is worshipped by the wicked, the king humbly requested him to stay there in the dreadful land of Mlecchas."
Text 32
svaraajyam praaptavaan raajaa
hayamedhan ciikirat
raajyam kriitvaa sa shashthyabdam
svarga lokamu paayayau
"King Salivahara, after leaving his kingdom performed an asvamedha yajna and after ruling for sixty years, went to heaven. Now please hear what happened when the king went to svargaloka."
Thus ends the second chapter entitled, "the age of Salivahara" of the story of Kali Yuga of the Caturyuga Khanda also called pratisarga-parva of the wonderful Bhavishya Maha Purana.
SourceTexts 17 - 21
vikramaditya-pautrasca
pitr-rajyam grhitavan
jitva sakanduradharsams
cina-taittiridesajan
bahlikankamarupasca
romajankhurajanchhatan
tesam kosan-grhitva ca
danda-yogyanakarayat
sthapita tena maryada
mleccharyanam prthak-prthak
sindhusthanam iti jneyam
rastramaryasya cottamam
mlecchasthanam param sindhoh
krtam tena mahatmana
ekada tu sakadiso
himatungam samayayau
"Ruling over the Aryans was a king called Salivahana, the grandson of Vikramaditya, who occupied the throne of his father. He defeated the Shakas who were very difficult to subdue, the Cinas, the people from Tittiri and Bahikaus who could assume any form at will. He also defeated the people from Rome and the descendants of Khuru, who were deceitful and wicked. He punished them severely and took their wealth. Salivahana thus established the boundaries dividing the separate countries of the Mlecchas and the Aryans. In this way Sindusthan came to be known as the greatest country. That personality appointed the abode of the Mlecchas beyond the Sindhu River and to the west."
Text 22
ekadaa tu shakadhisho
himatungari samaayayau
hunadeshasya madhye vai
giristhan purusam shubhano
dadarsha balaram raajaa
Once upon a time the subduer of the Sakas went towards Himatunga and in the middle of the Huna country (Hunadesh - the area near Manasa Sarovara or Kailash mountain in Western Tibet), the powerful king saw an auspicious man who was living on a mountain. The man's complexion was golden and his clothes were white.
Text 23
ko bharam iti tam praaha
su hovacha mudanvitah
iishaa purtagm maam viddhi
kumaarigarbha sambhavam
"The king asked, 'Who are you sir?' 'You should know that I am Isha Putra, the Son of God'. he replied blissfully, and 'am born of a virgin.' "
Text 24
mleccha dharmasya vaktaram
satyavata paraayanam
iti srutva nrpa praaha
dharmah ko bhavato matah
" 'I am the expounder of the religion of the Mlecchas and I strictly adhere to the Absolute Truth.' Hearing this the king enquired, 'What are religious principles according to you opinion?'
Texts 25 - 26
shruto vaaca mahaaraaja
praapte satyasya samkshaye
nirmaaryaade mlechadeshe
masiiho 'ham samagatah
iishaamasii ca dasyuunaa
praadurbhuutaa bhayankarii
taamaham mlecchataah praapya
masiihatva mupaagatah
"Hearing this questions of Salivahara, Isha putra said, 'O king, when the destruction of the truth occurred, I, Masiha the prophet, came to this country of degraded people where there are no rules and regulations. Finding that fearful irreligious condition of the barbarians spreading from Mleccha-Desha, I have taken to prophethood'."
Texts 27 - 29
mlecchasa sthaapito dharmo
mayaa tacchrnu bhuupate
maanasam nirmalam krtva
malam dehe subhaasbham
naiganam apamasthaya
japeta nirmalam param
nyayena satyavacasaa
manasyai kena manavah
dhyayena pujayedisham
suurya-mandala-samsthitam
acaloyam prabhuh sakshat-
athaa suuryacalah sada
"Please hear Oh king which religious principles I have established among the mlecchas. The living entity is subject to good and bad contaminations. The mind should be purified by taking recourse of proper conduct and performance of japa. By chanting the holy names one attains the highest purity. Just as the immovable sun attracts, from all directions, the elements of all living beings, the Lord of the solar region, who is fixed and all-attractive, attracts the hearts of all living creatures. Thus by following rules, speaking truthful words, by mental harmony and by meditation, Oh descendant of Manu, one should worship that immovable Lord'."
Text 30
isha muurtirt-dradi praptaa
nityashuddha sivamkari
ishamasihah iti ca
mama nama pratishthitam
"Having placed the eternally pure and auspicious form of the Supreme Lord in my heart, O protector of the earth planet, I preached these principles through the Mlecchas' own faith and thus my name became 'isha-masiha' (Jesus the Messiah)."
Text 31
iti shrutra sa bhuupale
natraa tam mlecchapujaam
sthaapayaamaasa tam tutra
mlecchasthaane hi daarune
"After hearing these words and paying obeisances to that person who is worshipped by the wicked, the king humbly requested him to stay there in the dreadful land of Mlecchas."
Text 32
svaraajyam praaptavaan raajaa
hayamedhan ciikirat
raajyam kriitvaa sa shashthyabdam
svarga lokamu paayayau
"King Salivahara, after leaving his kingdom performed an asvamedha yajna and after ruling for sixty years, went to heaven. Now please hear what happened when the king went to svargaloka."
Thus ends the second chapter entitled, "the age of Salivahara" of the story of Kali Yuga of the Caturyuga Khanda also called pratisarga-parva of the wonderful Bhavishya Maha Purana.
Please note : I do credit the source of the quoted material, unlike some others!!
Note : I wonder what is the autheniticity of the statement that these stuff were written in the ancient times?
Couldnt it be that these were added to the scriptures by charlantans after they came to know about jesus et al. Like in another topic in Ancient Mysteries, i read that the Popul Vuh which is considered as an ancient text is indeed later creation by spanish missionaries, who have introduced creationist stuff into the texts.
Who knows, most probably the stuff of Prophet muhammed must also have been introduced into the puranas by charlatans!!
QUOTE
[From the third part of the Pratisarga Parva.]
Shri Suta Gosvami said: In the dynasty of king Shalivahana, there were ten kings who went to the heavenly planets after ruling for over 500 years. Then gradually the morality declined on the earth. At that time Bhojaraja was the tenth of the kings on the earth. When he saw that the moral law of conduct was declining he went to conquer all the directions of his country with ten-thousand soldiers commanded by Kalidasa. He crossed the river Sindhu and conquered over the gandharas, mlecchas, shakas, kasmiris, naravas and sathas. He punished them and collected a large ammount of wealth. Then the king went along with Mahamada (Mohammad), the preceptor of mleccha-dharma, and his followers to the great god, Lord Shiva, situated in the desert. He bathed Lord Shiva with Ganges water and worshipped him in his mind with pancagavya (milk, ghee, yoghurt, cow dung, and cow urine) and sandalwood paste, etc. After he offered some prayers and pleased him.
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, 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 Mahaoda and his deeds are like that of a ghost. Therefore, O king, you should not go to this land of the evil ghost. By my mercy your intelligence will be purified. Hearing this the king came back to his country and Mahamada came with them to the bank of the river Sindhu. He was expert in expanding illusion, so he said to the king very pleasingly: O great king, your god has become my servant. Just see, as he eats my remnants, so I will show you. The king became surprised when he saw this just before them. Then in anger Kalidasa rebuked Mahamada, “O rascal, you have created an illusion to bewilder the king, I will kill you, you are the lowest..."
[...]
That city is known as their site of pilgrimage, a place which was Madina or free from intoxication. Having a form of a ghost (Bhuta), the expert illusionist Mahamada appeared at night in front of king Bhojaraja and said: O king, your religion is of course known as the best religion among all. Still I am going to establish another religion by the order of the Lord. The symptoms of my followers will be that they first of all will cut their genitals, have no shikha, but having beard, be cruel, make noise loudly and eat everything. They should eat animals without performing any rituals. This is my opinion. They will perform purificatory act with the musala or a pestle as you purify your things with kusha. Therefore, they will be known as musalman. Thus the adharmic religion will be founded by me. After having heard all this the king came back to his palace and that ghost went back to his place.
The intelligent king, Bhojaraj established the language of Sanskrit in three varnas - the brahmanas, kshatriyas and vaisyas - and for the shudras he established prakrita-bhasha, the ordinary language spoken by common men. After ruling his kingdom for 50 years, he went to the heavenly planet. The moral laws established by him were honored even by the demigods. The arya-varta, the pious land is situated between Vindhyacala and Himacala or the mountains known as Vindhya and Himalaya. The Aryans reside there, but varna-sankaras reside on the lower part of Vindhya. The musalman people were kept on the other side of the river Sindhu.
On the island of Barbara, Tusha and many others also the followers of Isamsiha were also situated as they were managed by a king or demigods.
Shri Suta Gosvami said: In the dynasty of king Shalivahana, there were ten kings who went to the heavenly planets after ruling for over 500 years. Then gradually the morality declined on the earth. At that time Bhojaraja was the tenth of the kings on the earth. When he saw that the moral law of conduct was declining he went to conquer all the directions of his country with ten-thousand soldiers commanded by Kalidasa. He crossed the river Sindhu and conquered over the gandharas, mlecchas, shakas, kasmiris, naravas and sathas. He punished them and collected a large ammount of wealth. Then the king went along with Mahamada (Mohammad), the preceptor of mleccha-dharma, and his followers to the great god, Lord Shiva, situated in the desert. He bathed Lord Shiva with Ganges water and worshipped him in his mind with pancagavya (milk, ghee, yoghurt, cow dung, and cow urine) and sandalwood paste, etc. After he offered some prayers and pleased him.
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, 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 Mahaoda and his deeds are like that of a ghost. Therefore, O king, you should not go to this land of the evil ghost. By my mercy your intelligence will be purified. Hearing this the king came back to his country and Mahamada came with them to the bank of the river Sindhu. He was expert in expanding illusion, so he said to the king very pleasingly: O great king, your god has become my servant. Just see, as he eats my remnants, so I will show you. The king became surprised when he saw this just before them. Then in anger Kalidasa rebuked Mahamada, “O rascal, you have created an illusion to bewilder the king, I will kill you, you are the lowest..."
[...]
That city is known as their site of pilgrimage, a place which was Madina or free from intoxication. Having a form of a ghost (Bhuta), the expert illusionist Mahamada appeared at night in front of king Bhojaraja and said: O king, your religion is of course known as the best religion among all. Still I am going to establish another religion by the order of the Lord. The symptoms of my followers will be that they first of all will cut their genitals, have no shikha, but having beard, be cruel, make noise loudly and eat everything. They should eat animals without performing any rituals. This is my opinion. They will perform purificatory act with the musala or a pestle as you purify your things with kusha. Therefore, they will be known as musalman. Thus the adharmic religion will be founded by me. After having heard all this the king came back to his palace and that ghost went back to his place.
The intelligent king, Bhojaraj established the language of Sanskrit in three varnas - the brahmanas, kshatriyas and vaisyas - and for the shudras he established prakrita-bhasha, the ordinary language spoken by common men. After ruling his kingdom for 50 years, he went to the heavenly planet. The moral laws established by him were honored even by the demigods. The arya-varta, the pious land is situated between Vindhyacala and Himacala or the mountains known as Vindhya and Himalaya. The Aryans reside there, but varna-sankaras reside on the lower part of Vindhya. The musalman people were kept on the other side of the river Sindhu.
On the island of Barbara, Tusha and many others also the followers of Isamsiha were also situated as they were managed by a king or demigods.
Right. There is a 'Mahamada' which now Ozi claims is Mohammed.
QUOTE
Then the king went along with Mahamada (Mohammad), the preceptor of mleccha-dharma, and his followers to the great god, Lord Shiva, situated in the desert. He bathed Lord Shiva with Ganges water and worshipped him in his mind with pancagavya (milk, ghee, yoghurt, cow dung, and cow urine) and sandalwood paste, etc. After he offered some prayers and pleased him.
When, this so called Mahamada went with the king to the great lor Shiva......wait a minute!!
Prophet muhammed worships only one god...according to him...Allah...what the hel lwas he doing there with the kibng going and worshipping the 'great god' shiva????
if this mahamada worshipped the greart god shiva, then why the hell didnt he ask his followers to worship the great god too???
doesnt make sense !!
QUOTE
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, 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 Mahaoda and his deeds are like that of a ghost. Therefore, O king, you should not go to this land of the evil ghost. By my mercy your intelligence will be purified. Hearing this the king came back to his country and Mahamada came with them to the bank of the river Sindhu. He was expert in expanding illusion, so he said to the king very pleasingly: O great king, your god has become my servant. Just see, as he eats my remnants, so I will show you. The king became surprised when he saw this just before them. Then in anger Kalidasa rebuked Mahamada, “O rascal, you have created an illusion to bewilder the king, I will kill you, you are the lowest..."
See? this so called Mahamada was a charlatan, trying to cheat a king by creating illusions that his god has become his servant...akin to the serpent trying to entice eve to get the furit...hmmmm...
QUOTE
That city is known as their site of pilgrimage, a place which was Madina or free from intoxication. Having a form of a ghost (Bhuta), the expert illusionist Mahamada appeared at night in front of king Bhojaraja and said: O king, your religion is of course known as the best religion among all. Still I am going to establish another religion by the order of the Lord. The symptoms of my followers will be that they first of all will cut their genitals, have no shikha, but having beard, be cruel, make noise loudly and eat everything. They should eat animals without performing any rituals. This is my opinion. They will perform purificatory act with the musala or a pestle as you purify your things with kusha. Therefore, they will be known as musalman. Thus the adharmic religion will be founded by me. After having heard all this the king came back to his palace and that ghost went back to his place.
Here mahamada of course admits that the king's religion is the best religion among all, but still he wants to form another religion!!! hmmmmm
and an apt description of the relgion's tenets!!
Note : All quotes - Source
Please note - Unlike Some others, I do credit the sources of the quotes!!
While surfing the net today, i found a nice anlaysis of the claims of islam and christianity links to the hinduc scriptures.
you can read it at
Muhammad and Jesus in Hindu Scriptures?
The author of the above essay, Mr. N.V.K Ashraf has really done his research, which the OP has not done!!
you can read it at
Muhammad and Jesus in Hindu Scriptures?
The author of the above essay, Mr. N.V.K Ashraf has really done his research, which the OP has not done!!
QUOTE (Da Verminator @ Feb 20 2008, 06:15 AM)
While surfing the net today, i found a nice anlaysis of the claims of islam and christianity links to the hinduc scriptures.
you can read it at
Muhammad and Jesus in Hindu Scriptures?
The author of the above essay, Mr. N.V.K Ashraf has really done his research, which the OP has not done!!
you can read it at
Muhammad and Jesus in Hindu Scriptures?
The author of the above essay, Mr. N.V.K Ashraf has really done his research, which the OP has not done!!
DV,
Great posts. Thanks for the translated version, and I think between you and I, there is obviously enough evidence to show that there is a pretty high chance of Mahamada being added to the Bhavishya Purana at a later date. Obviously, the book is not completely prophesies.
I didn't know Mahamada worshipped Shiva, though. What do you say about that, Ozi?
QUOTE (Ozi @ Feb 19 2008, 11:13 PM)
Oh so now im pasting, firstly english is not my first language, so i paste parts which i wont express well, and i provided a link, i guess it was too comprehensive, you take a dig at me. Just read the article and respond to that, i cant be bothered with this anymore, bickereing like kids, something constructive please. The article is there for everyone to read. As for promotong my faith, i do try, i can do it nicely, which is often what i tired, and it was my first approach, to get everyone to come to common terms and teachings amongsts us, but they dont even agree to that, so sometime I have to fight fire with fire.
How long have you lived in the UK?
Mohammed the demon.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmu0LP-uJ5A&...feature=related
QUOTE (SunDogDayze @ Feb 20 2008, 01:37 AM)
Okay, well look. I didn't scour the net for a rebuttal. I picked the first site I came across that discussed why it is not PROOF that Muhammad was a supernatural prophet.
I know his name was in the book.
I know that you believe he was a supernatural prophet.
I know his name was in the book.
I know that you believe he was a supernatural prophet.
Waut a supernatural prophet?????? now ive heard everything lol
I think people got it all mixed up....For all we know, they could have said Muhammed made a PROFIT....from selling slave girls ....they didnt call him a prophet LOL...once again...he only MADE a PROFIT
The person to 1st hear of this back when Muhammed was alive...the guy was prolly half deaf and had no witt..so when they said --> Muhammed made a SUPER Profit with selling slave girls....the man thought he said Muhammed was a supernatural prophet!! VOLA!!
Ok im kidding..seriously kidding!!!
QUOTE (hetrodoxly @ Feb 19 2008, 01:39 PM)
I think your sources need to do further research, Hindu scriptures do mention Mahamed but he's a demon
(tapa or tipa? Indian devil) "The Devil" and his followers muslmen? (muslims) are devil worshipers who devour everything.
(tapa or tipa? Indian devil) "The Devil" and his followers muslmen? (muslims) are devil worshipers who devour everything.
thats mis interpretation by the authors you are reading from, often non scholars, and display their interpretation of the actual verses, they dont even use the actual translations, its a devious tactics, like the one used by MR Anderson.
QUOTE (Ozi @ Feb 21 2008, 01:27 PM)
thats mis interpretation by the authors you are reading from, often non scholars, and display their interpretation of the actual verses, they dont even use the actual translations, its a devious tactics, like the one used by MR Anderson.
I believe your sources may be the ones who have mistranslated Hindu scripture. Go to this site and maybe it can clear things up for you.
http://www.indiadivine.org/hinduism/articl...ction-of-Islam/
I am glad we Pagans don't have actual scripture it forces us to have to actually THINK.
QUOTE (Ozi @ Feb 21 2008, 04:27 PM)
thats mis interpretation by the authors you are reading from, often non scholars, and display their interpretation of the actual verses, they dont even use the actual translations, its a devious tactics, like the one used by MR Anderson.
Ozi still you havent bothered to read the link i provided..here even Mr. anderson's claims are debunked. check it out for yourself.
Your Mssrs. Vidhyarthi and Z. Haq as well as Anderson and even an indian researcher called Arvindakshamenon have been debunked there.
QUOTE
While surfing the net today, i found a nice anlaysis of the claims of islam and christianity links to the hinduc scriptures.
you can read it at
Muhammad and Jesus in Hindu Scriptures?
The author of the above essay, Mr. N.V.K Ashraf has really done his research, which the OP has not done!!
you can read it at
Muhammad and Jesus in Hindu Scriptures?
The author of the above essay, Mr. N.V.K Ashraf has really done his research, which the OP has not done!!
This is a classic example of Ozi's less than honorable practices and tactics on these boards.
He will inevitably do the following:
1. Start an argument in some previously unrelated thread that goes back to why Islam is the one and only true religion.
2. Arbitrarily use the word 'proof' in place of 'same half-educated writings by someone of bias.'
3. When anyone provides a good counter example of 'half-educated writings by someone of different bias' he condescends and tried to make us believe that his writer was somehow smarter than the counter writer, or uses name-calling, or calls the poster stupid, or accuses them of lying and not reading his, ahem, proof.
4. He will then start a new thread, after he has completely derailed the original one, inviting us all to 'debate' with him.
5. He will NOT, however, use his own logic or education to display any ideas. He will NOT, also, give credit to any of the authors he plagiarizes from, trying to excuse it by saying they are all in e-books. (E-books still have titles and authors, Ozi.) But then will jump on someone else who does it.
7. He will delay any response by making up some reason why he can't get to it right now. He will post when he thinks he will be able to respond, but he doesnt. School, work, and I got a PM yesterday stating he can't answer because he is having problems posting on the forums. But he can PM.
8. He will accuse us all of being uneducated skeptics, and therefore all evidence we bring to the table is inferior.
9. He will accuse his debaters of getting emotional or worried, or that he has proven us wrong, when in reality we are just frustrated with his nonsense.
10. He will continue to be too stubborn to give credit where it's due, to read any of the counter arguments to his theories, or to realize that he is probably not the only one who has it all figured out. It's just an OPINION, Ozi. Nothing more.
Every other post Ozi has ever made. See for yourself.
Obviously all quotes are from Ozi. I had to put quotes from different posts into one quote box to save space, but you get the idea. I am tired of the cycle, the name-calling, the condescending, know-it-all attitude.
Have fun Ozi, soon you will have no one to 'debate' with, and no it's not because you proved us all wrong.
He will inevitably do the following:
1. Start an argument in some previously unrelated thread that goes back to why Islam is the one and only true religion.
QUOTE
I can confirm to you guys that the Kalki Avatar has been and gone. If you really knew what you were talking about and knew the hindu scriptures,
then you would know like most hindu scholars are finding today that, the Kalki Avatar , was muhammed (pbuh). He had been prophecised in the vedas and other books more than any other religious book, infact he is also mentioned by name in the hindu scriptures, and the Kalki aVatar means the final prophet etc. if you want i can eloborate on this more and provide proof from the hindu scriptures if needed.
Kalki AVatar is not coming now, he has been, all that is mentioned in the scriptures relates to Muhammed and the advent of Islam.....
Islam is the way and so is muhammeds teachings and life.
then you would know like most hindu scholars are finding today that, the Kalki Avatar , was muhammed (pbuh). He had been prophecised in the vedas and other books more than any other religious book, infact he is also mentioned by name in the hindu scriptures, and the Kalki aVatar means the final prophet etc. if you want i can eloborate on this more and provide proof from the hindu scriptures if needed.
Kalki AVatar is not coming now, he has been, all that is mentioned in the scriptures relates to Muhammed and the advent of Islam.....
Islam is the way and so is muhammeds teachings and life.
2. Arbitrarily use the word 'proof' in place of 'same half-educated writings by someone of bias.'
QUOTE
Its proof of god, because everythign you experience is a result of neurons and electrical signals ebeing processed and the projected by the brain....
i ask for proof, like i give proof.
i ask for proof, like i give proof.
3. When anyone provides a good counter example of 'half-educated writings by someone of different bias' he condescends and tried to make us believe that his writer was somehow smarter than the counter writer, or uses name-calling, or calls the poster stupid, or accuses them of lying and not reading his, ahem, proof.
QUOTE
LOL. I like the reply man, that wat i like about Sundog.... dont worry, most of the poeple here are jsut as confused as you, their safe in agnosticism and ignorance. LOL....
Infact your post show further how stupid you are...
Infact your post show further how stupid you are...
4. He will then start a new thread, after he has completely derailed the original one, inviting us all to 'debate' with him.
QUOTE
I tell you what, I will set up a thread, in the appropriate section, and show you muhammed foretold in all religious scriptures,........
So as i mentioned to many of you before, who seem to think i link all threads to Islam, I have set up this thread to show how clearly Muhammed is mentioned in the hindu scriptures
So as i mentioned to many of you before, who seem to think i link all threads to Islam, I have set up this thread to show how clearly Muhammed is mentioned in the hindu scriptures
5. He will NOT, however, use his own logic or education to display any ideas. He will NOT, also, give credit to any of the authors he plagiarizes from, trying to excuse it by saying they are all in e-books. (E-books still have titles and authors, Ozi.) But then will jump on someone else who does it.
QUOTE
"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 (uncredited copied material)...........
And the reference for this theory is .........................
And the reference for this theory is .........................
7. He will delay any response by making up some reason why he can't get to it right now. He will post when he thinks he will be able to respond, but he doesnt. School, work, and I got a PM yesterday stating he can't answer because he is having problems posting on the forums. But he can PM.
QUOTE
Hi guys, sorry but for some reason i could not get in to the forums yesterday, something up with connection or pc. But i have read your posts fella and i have a couple of things to say..........
Guys pls dont post anything for me now, i wont have time. I will be on again tomorrow afternoon GMT - 2- 3-pm.
Guys pls dont post anything for me now, i wont have time. I will be on again tomorrow afternoon GMT - 2- 3-pm.
8. He will accuse us all of being uneducated skeptics, and therefore all evidence we bring to the table is inferior.
QUOTE
the material is from people with credential, what are yours............
i am actually sick of repeating my self. this clearly shows you read the post, you dont udnerstand it, you type up a post, which is similar to others, without actually reflecting on my post properly
i am actually sick of repeating my self. this clearly shows you read the post, you dont udnerstand it, you type up a post, which is similar to others, without actually reflecting on my post properly
9. He will accuse his debaters of getting emotional or worried, or that he has proven us wrong, when in reality we are just frustrated with his nonsense.
QUOTE
You say no one wants to anwser me. i know its cause you have no argument. .........
i luv posts like the last one, its so personal that it shows me your frustrating in not having the anwers to my question.
i luv posts like the last one, its so personal that it shows me your frustrating in not having the anwers to my question.
10. He will continue to be too stubborn to give credit where it's due, to read any of the counter arguments to his theories, or to realize that he is probably not the only one who has it all figured out. It's just an OPINION, Ozi. Nothing more.
Every other post Ozi has ever made. See for yourself.
Obviously all quotes are from Ozi. I had to put quotes from different posts into one quote box to save space, but you get the idea. I am tired of the cycle, the name-calling, the condescending, know-it-all attitude.
Have fun Ozi, soon you will have no one to 'debate' with, and no it's not because you proved us all wrong.
precisely put.
its a waste of time arguing with him.
I just wanted to give the donkey his dose of medicine!
now whether it gets well or dies is its own concern!
its a waste of time arguing with him.
I just wanted to give the donkey his dose of medicine!
now whether it gets well or dies is its own concern!
QUOTE (Da Verminator @ Feb 20 2008, 05:12 AM)
If Ozi can play his game, I too can Play the same Game in my Own...Though I dont believe in the entire religion or god Hogwash, i can also dothe same thing..so here goes...
IS Jesus Christ Mentioned in the Puranas and other 'anceint' vedic literature??
Source
Please note : I do credit the source of the quoted material, unlike some others!!
Note : I wonder what is the autheniticity of the statement that these stuff were written in the ancient times?
Couldnt it be that these were added to the scriptures by charlantans after they came to know about jesus et al. Like in another topic in Ancient Mysteries, i read that the Popul Vuh which is considered as an ancient text is indeed later creation by spanish missionaries, who have introduced creationist stuff into the texts.
Who knows, most probably the stuff of Prophet muhammed must also have been introduced into the puranas by charlatans!!
IS Jesus Christ Mentioned in the Puranas and other 'anceint' vedic literature??
Source
Please note : I do credit the source of the quoted material, unlike some others!!
Note : I wonder what is the autheniticity of the statement that these stuff were written in the ancient times?
Couldnt it be that these were added to the scriptures by charlantans after they came to know about jesus et al. Like in another topic in Ancient Mysteries, i read that the Popul Vuh which is considered as an ancient text is indeed later creation by spanish missionaries, who have introduced creationist stuff into the texts.
Who knows, most probably the stuff of Prophet muhammed must also have been introduced into the puranas by charlatans!!
Ok, I am happy that you have decided to take this approach. Firsly i would like to appologise for the late reply, this due to the Arsenal playing AC Milan in the champions league, it took priority. I did mention to sunny, that i have technical problems on being able to post anything on the thread, the page never seemed to materialise when i tried, yet some parts of UM would work for me, Im afraid im not to computer literate.
Now to the topic at hand, let me break it down. The above notion has already been answered if you actually had the courtesy of reading the links I provided against Mr Anderson, When sunny posted, the above is also answered in the there, but for convenience here you are link. But first funnily enough even DAkwind decided to post the same india divine site. LOL. Jokers, and you think this is credible material, its about as credible as WIKI, the latter prob still more credible. LOL.
The authors of that article, have no scholarly credibility, the are poeple contributing to an unregulated forum, where poeple are giving their interpretations of transalations, not even the original sanskrit, but translations, some of which are dubious and the translations source is never given. Then the above is about jesus, which even their dubious interpretation of the translation and commentary, so how does it prove that, the source is not authentic and its not a prophecy. Also by the way, im dealing with Muhammed, i am not too fussed about jesus, although that is nice too, to have him prophecised, because the messiah often was, but not as much as the seal of the prophets, muhammed. You say could it be that they were written added on to by later charlatans, a hollow claim, but valid, but no evidence to support it. You see the divine india site is quite happy to use one translation and interpret that still in its own unique way, to make claim that the book did prophecise jesus, but when its turns to Islam, they choose a different option, they dont even use any translation, and just posted an article where some by the name Sri X X, cant remember the last part, gives his interpretation of a translation, which is dubious, and never referred to. Hmmm very academic. This i will elobrate on further.
QUOTE (Da Verminator @ Feb 20 2008, 05:28 AM)
Right. There is a 'Mahamada' which now Ozi claims is Mohammed.
When, this so called Mahamada went with the king to the great lor Shiva......wait a minute!!
Prophet muhammed worships only one god...according to him...Allah...what the hel lwas he doing there with the kibng going and worshipping the 'great god' shiva????
if this mahamada worshipped the greart god shiva, then why the hell didnt he ask his followers to worship the great god too???
TYPICAL IGNORANT MISTAKE - THE HINDUS REVERE SHIVA AS A GOD. THIS IS THEIR REFERENCE TO GOD, THEIR NAME FOR GOD, MAYBE ONCE A PROPHET OF GOD, A MAN, BUT LATER REVERED AS A GOD, LIKE JESUS TODAY! MUHAMMED WORSHIPS GOD, ALLAH, EVEN THE HINDUS HAVE A SUPREME GOD. MUHAMMED CARRIED THE SAME MESSAGE THAT THE HINDU SCRIPTURES, CHRISTIAN, JEWISH, ETC ETC ALL CARRY AT THEY CORE, WORSHIP ONE GOD, ALLAH, OR WHAT EVER THEY CALL HIM.
doesnt make sense !!
TO IGNORANT PEOPLE IT MAY NOT!
See? this so called Mahamada was a charlatan, trying to cheat a king by creating illusions that his god has become his servant...akin to the serpent trying to entice eve to get the furit...hmmmm...
THIS IS PURELY BASED ON SOME UNKOWN INDVIVUDAL MISINTPRETATION OF A MISTRANSLATION, HENCE THE SOURCE OF THE TRANSLATION IS NEVER PROVIDED. HMMM.
Here mahamada of course admits that the king's religion is the best religion among all, but still he wants to form another religion!!! hmmmmm
and an apt description of the relgion's tenets!!
SAME APPLIES TO ALL THIS, AND ABOVE, MISINTERPRETATION OF A MISTRANSLATION.
Note : All quotes - Source
Please note - Unlike Some others, I do credit the sources of the quotes!!
When, this so called Mahamada went with the king to the great lor Shiva......wait a minute!!
Prophet muhammed worships only one god...according to him...Allah...what the hel lwas he doing there with the kibng going and worshipping the 'great god' shiva????
if this mahamada worshipped the greart god shiva, then why the hell didnt he ask his followers to worship the great god too???
TYPICAL IGNORANT MISTAKE - THE HINDUS REVERE SHIVA AS A GOD. THIS IS THEIR REFERENCE TO GOD, THEIR NAME FOR GOD, MAYBE ONCE A PROPHET OF GOD, A MAN, BUT LATER REVERED AS A GOD, LIKE JESUS TODAY! MUHAMMED WORSHIPS GOD, ALLAH, EVEN THE HINDUS HAVE A SUPREME GOD. MUHAMMED CARRIED THE SAME MESSAGE THAT THE HINDU SCRIPTURES, CHRISTIAN, JEWISH, ETC ETC ALL CARRY AT THEY CORE, WORSHIP ONE GOD, ALLAH, OR WHAT EVER THEY CALL HIM.
doesnt make sense !!
TO IGNORANT PEOPLE IT MAY NOT!
See? this so called Mahamada was a charlatan, trying to cheat a king by creating illusions that his god has become his servant...akin to the serpent trying to entice eve to get the furit...hmmmm...
THIS IS PURELY BASED ON SOME UNKOWN INDVIVUDAL MISINTPRETATION OF A MISTRANSLATION, HENCE THE SOURCE OF THE TRANSLATION IS NEVER PROVIDED. HMMM.
Here mahamada of course admits that the king's religion is the best religion among all, but still he wants to form another religion!!! hmmmmm
and an apt description of the relgion's tenets!!
SAME APPLIES TO ALL THIS, AND ABOVE, MISINTERPRETATION OF A MISTRANSLATION.
Note : All quotes - Source
Please note - Unlike Some others, I do credit the sources of the quotes!!
SO to address my claims above lets see..........firstly what the editors of the site say themselves. if you notice the remarks below, it would have been nice if it was side by side with the sanskrit, dreaming i know, such a site would not do that, it would expose their devious tactics and authors.
"The information you find on this site is not the result of an academic study of books and histories. This knowledge is transcendental and has been passed on for thousands of years in an unbroken chain of disciplic succession. All information is provided by practitioners who have dedicated their lives to these ancient mystical sciences. It is through realization that this knowledge has been handed down, not through academic study.
If you are looking for text book information or theoretical knowledge, this is certainly the wrong place for you. If, on the other hand, you are looking for direct spiritual experience, as has been preserved by the Rishis and Drashtas from time immemorial, then we welcome you. Material knowledge can be learnt and acquired through mundane study of texts, but spiritual knowledge must be cultivated through a process that transcends the mundane realm. "
The above is what the site has to say about itself, its admitting its setup is to spread a spiritual word, its has no academic credbility, although they do have Swamis, but they still dont carry the same authority as Pandits, the latter have more knowledge than anyone on Sanskrit, and only a few a classed as leading authorities. They are the ones that work in tandemn with those who translate the vedas in the english, but not just any tom dick and harry, but worthy and credible people. Now this is how translations work, the person translation the language has to be an expert in the source language, if not, he must use a credbile and recongnised expert of the language. They then work together to choose the best words that fit the original, mistakes can be made, but in cases where there is grey area, the leading authority becomes the expert in the language, not the the translator. But in your posts, they usse some translations, which are not sourced, then apart from the jesus post, where they do re-inforce the prophecy, with muhammed they decide to use an interpretation of a dubious translation and dont source it, and you expect me to take it seriously, when the editors and the site owners dont take themselves academically serious at all. In my opinion its the sites attempt to deviously mis represent the true verses and their message of muhammed, due to fear that many hindus are turning to islam, when exposed to this knowledge in india, where they have more access and better understanding of the original language, and the use of expert pandits, the latters being vital. This clearly proves, that the post is futile and it cant be even taken as reliable, like MR Anderson.
Unfortunately last night i was watching football, tonight im playing football, so i need to finish here. But before i go, I just wanted to request, please do not post anymore, just yet, because mainly i need to address your other post, the Devi Chand Translation, just briefly to make sure your waiting in anticipation, Devi Chand is no Pandit, you being from india, will know what authority they have in hinduism and Sanskrit. Also the article you have posted, refers to Dr Haqs, points about the verse and he uses a translation of a much more credible source, infact, he uses several, some pandits and some non hindu credible sources, who have the credibility of being classed as the most authentic and reliable sources, the funny things is, the article you posted, the author himself provides a link to devi chand, without realising he does not know who's book is at the top of the list, non other than one of the sources of Dr Haq, the reliable and most authentic, as mentioned on that site itself. LOL.
"I do not say that all the other translations which Dr. Haq has produced to prove the prophecy of Muhammad are mistranslated ones. I don't have the translations of Bhavishya Purana with me. Soon I will find out the truth. If the above `translations' of Rig and Atharva Veda are an indication, I have every reason to doubt the validity of their other `translations' also! "
The above is a direct quote from the author, check this out for authenticity and credibility to be judge and jury on this matter. Firstly, he says not all of Dr Haqs quotes are mistranslations, and fails to point out which ones, not just that, he does not even know the source of the translations and who was the author of them, yet he goes on to judge him based on some one elses translations which seems justified to him, unusual approach, firstly lack of research on Dr Haq, secondly he fails to even the source, and when he provides the source for Devi Chand, on the same source is the actual author of the most reliable and authentic translations, from which Dr Haq took the verses, so who has more credibility, i let you decide. link
Like sunny you will probable go on about, that its simple opinion etc, wrong. There is opinion and then there is credible opinion based on reliable authentic and proven sources, in the main Pandits, for example the root of this debate was the Kalki Avatar, below i will post a quote direct from a Prof, and Pandit, he is both, then you tell me who is more credible, but first, back to this point of opinions, i have only given you a teaser here towards that last article you posted, I am still to break it down further, but unfortunately time does not permit me to do so.
For now i leave you with this, please dont post anymore articles, you can respond to this, surely, but let me deal with your article fully, then i will move on to others.
Before I continue with the verses and their explanations, let me bring one point to your attention that the translations below are the work of Pandit Raja Ram.
Prati Sarag Parv III Khand 3 Adhay 3 Shloka 5 to 8
"A foreigner 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.
You see the above is a translation of Pandit RamRaja, well recognised and credible. He is an expert in the sanskrit, and thus used an expert in english to translate it in to english. Not some cowboy, giving his opinion, based on either dubious or mistranslations etc.
More to come on your article tomorrow roughly same time.
SUNNY.......
I dont care what you posted about me, to take people away from the truth and a proper debate, i dint expect it to get personal. Anyway, their my opinions, most provided sufficient, evidence, only the blind, deaf and dumb will always fail to see it, its meant metophorically, that your heart is closed to the truth.
QUOTE (Ozi @ Feb 21 2008, 01:53 PM)
I dont care what you posted about me, to take people away from the truth and a proper debate, i dint expect it to get personal. Anyway, their my opinions, most provided sufficient, evidence, only the blind, deaf and dumb will always fail to see it, its meant metophorically, that your heart is closed to the truth.
Ahem, I believe you, Ozi, said this:
QUOTE (Ozi @ Feb 18 2008, 09:20 AM)
Infact your post show further how stupid you are, because adherents of religions the largest number has been christianity, but do take it even further, if you asked most of those christians, if they were practising, this would fall further, but still leave them as the largest relgion, but not the fastest growing, good effort, you now getting a bit better.
Woot woot, here comes the maturity train, next stop: you! Its time to grow up. I'm very much not interested in being proselytized by someone who needs to reach out to dubious sources at best to "prove" what he believes in, and further more, you only go on to make a further fool of yourself by acting like this. If you were really secure in your beliefs you wouldn't need dubious and most likely falacious "proof". Seriously, grow up. Your behavior is unacceptable.
QUOTE (churchanddestroy @ Feb 21 2008, 04:02 PM)
Ahem, I believe you, Ozi, said this:
Woot woot, here comes the maturity train, next stop: you! Its time to grow up. I'm very much not interested in being proselytized by someone who needs to reach out to dubious sources at best to "prove" what he believes in, and further more, you only go on to make a further fool of yourself by acting like this. If you were really secure in your beliefs you wouldn't need dubious and most likely falacious "proof". Seriously, grow up. Your behavior is unacceptable.
Woot woot, here comes the maturity train, next stop: you! Its time to grow up. I'm very much not interested in being proselytized by someone who needs to reach out to dubious sources at best to "prove" what he believes in, and further more, you only go on to make a further fool of yourself by acting like this. If you were really secure in your beliefs you wouldn't need dubious and most likely falacious "proof". Seriously, grow up. Your behavior is unacceptable.
Thank you so much for saving me the time!
LOL btw, I know a few other people who need a stop on the maturity train...WOOT WOOT!
QUOTE (SunDogDayze @ Feb 21 2008, 03:32 PM)
Thank you so much for saving me the time!
LOL btw, I know a few other people who need a stop on the maturity train...WOOT WOOT!
LOL btw, I know a few other people who need a stop on the maturity train...WOOT WOOT!
Ah its never a problem. I'm just tired of reading this crass nonsense. I mean, believe what you want to believe, thats fine, but when the discussion degenerates into petty insults, especially when you notice that it only comes from one side, then enough is enough.
QUOTE
I picked the first site I came across that discussed why it is not PROOF that Muhammad was a supernatural prophet.
nor do I for any person that clamed to be a prophet or messiah ect.............
there is no proof anyone was any such thing.
oh god here it is.
lol
lol
QUOTE (churchanddestroy @ Feb 21 2008, 09:02 PM)
Ahem, I believe you, Ozi, said this:
Woot woot, here comes the maturity train, next stop: you! Its time to grow up. I'm very much not interested in being proselytized by someone who needs to reach out to dubious sources at best to "prove" what he believes in, and further more, you only go on to make a further fool of yourself by acting like this. If you were really secure in your beliefs you wouldn't need dubious and most likely falacious "proof". Seriously, grow up. Your behavior is unacceptable.
Woot woot, here comes the maturity train, next stop: you! Its time to grow up. I'm very much not interested in being proselytized by someone who needs to reach out to dubious sources at best to "prove" what he believes in, and further more, you only go on to make a further fool of yourself by acting like this. If you were really secure in your beliefs you wouldn't need dubious and most likely falacious "proof". Seriously, grow up. Your behavior is unacceptable.
Thats the sort of response i expect, what i said to becky was right, she was illustrating the christian have the largest following, when i was pointin to the fact islam is the fastest growing religion, do different things, but really i dont care what you think on that front, becky is big enough like sunny to talk for herself.
You say"I'm very much not interested in being proselytized by someone who needs to reach out to dubious sources at best to "prove" what he believes in, and further more, you only go on to make a further fool of yourself by acting like this. If you were really secure in your beliefs you wouldn't need dubious and most likely falacious "proof". Seriously, grow up. Your behavior is unacceptable."
Funny, show the thread clearly, how the posts by the vermin and Sunny were dubious translation, also commented on who the highest authorities are in sanskrit and hinduism, yet all you have to say is a hollow claim above, that my sources are dubious. Well if you really had any honesty and decency about you, you would research. My posts referign to those articles, clearly show the credibility of those authors, NONE. Where as the material i have used is clearly Credible, infact its comes from Pandits, high hindu sources and Non hindu sources Like Prof, Griffith, classed as the most reliable and authentic translation, even the artcile posted by the Vermin point to a site, where Devi Chands, translation is, but the person he was Accusing, Dr Haq, used Griffiths translations, which is the first book on the list in that site, where it also admits, its the best source above all. Yet the author of that article dint even know which Translation Dr Haq used, lack of research. So which is more dubious, the vermin articles and indiadivine, or the other versions which came from highly credible sources, namely Pandits, and reliable translations.
Nice effort, your just out of answers really, therefore you have a personal digs, i dont really care, the fact that you think the material i used is dubious and mistranslations, shows the true lack of knowledge and credbility you carry.
QUOTE (SunDogDayze @ Feb 21 2008, 09:32 PM)
Thank you so much for saving me the time!
LOL btw, I know a few other people who need a stop on the maturity train...WOOT WOOT!
LOL btw, I know a few other people who need a stop on the maturity train...WOOT WOOT!
Saving you time, yeh right, you were out of answers, firstly i debunked Mr Andersons article with ease, nothing since then, you also admitted you just picked the first site that came against the view i posted, showing clear prejudice in your motives and lack of objectivity on the matter. I have already debunked India divine, the Donkey's first source material, and thus far have only started on his second post, i have not even completed the full break down on that too, but the small amount i have done so far has also proven his second post has no credibility too. When your lost for words sunny, you try a different personal attack, i will be waiting in anticipation to see what angle you use this time.
QUOTE (churchanddestroy @ Feb 21 2008, 09:39 PM)
Ah its never a problem. I'm just tired of reading this crass nonsense. I mean, believe what you want to believe, thats fine, but when the discussion degenerates into petty insults, especially when you notice that it only comes from one side, then enough is enough.
Tyically fail to see the other side, i know most of you here have a prejudice against islam, which perpetuated by the media. You lack of knowledge and ignorance is not me fault, its your own. If you did things properly, you would see its not from one side, but most of the time, i defending myself, against everyone, due their prejudice. Yours is showing too.
QUOTE (Ozi @ Feb 22 2008, 07:06 AM)
Thats the sort of response i expect, what i said to becky was right, she was illustrating the christian have the largest following, when i was pointin to the fact islam is the fastest growing religion, do different things, but really i dont care what you think on that front, becky is big enough like sunny to talk for herself.
You say"I'm very much not interested in being proselytized by someone who needs to reach out to dubious sources at best to "prove" what he believes in, and further more, you only go on to make a further fool of yourself by acting like this. If you were really secure in your beliefs you wouldn't need dubious and most likely falacious "proof". Seriously, grow up. Your behavior is unacceptable."
Funny, show the thread clearly, how the posts by the vermin and Sunny were dubious translation, also commented on who the highest authorities are in sanskrit and hinduism, yet all you have to say is a hollow claim above, that my sources are dubious. Well if you really had any honesty and decency about you, you would research. My posts referign to those articles, clearly show the credibility of those authors, NONE. Where as the material i have used is clearly Credible, infact its comes from Pandits, high hindu sources and Non hindu sources Like Prof, Griffith, classed as the most reliable and authentic translation, even the artcile posted by the Vermin point to a site, where Devi Chands, translation is, but the person he was Accusing, Dr Haq, used Griffiths translations, which is the first book on the list in that site, where it also admits, its the best source above all. Yet the author of that article dint even know which Translation Dr Haq used, lack of research. So which is more dubious, the vermin articles and indiadivine, or the other versions which came from highly credible sources, namely Pandits, and reliable translations.
Nice effort, your just out of answers really, therefore you have a personal digs, i dont really care, the fact that you think the material i used is dubious and mistranslations, shows the true lack of knowledge and credbility you carry.
Saving you time, yeh right, you were out of answers, firstly i debunked Mr Andersons article with ease, nothing since then, you also admitted you just picked the first site that came against the view i posted, showing clear prejudice in your motives and lack of objectivity on the matter. I have already debunked India divine, the Donkey's first source material, and thus far have only started on his second post, i have not even completed the full break down on that too, but the small amount i have done so far has also proven his second post has no credibility too. When your lost for words sunny, you try a different personal attack, i will be waiting in anticipation to see what angle you use this time.
You say"I'm very much not interested in being proselytized by someone who needs to reach out to dubious sources at best to "prove" what he believes in, and further more, you only go on to make a further fool of yourself by acting like this. If you were really secure in your beliefs you wouldn't need dubious and most likely falacious "proof". Seriously, grow up. Your behavior is unacceptable."
Funny, show the thread clearly, how the posts by the vermin and Sunny were dubious translation, also commented on who the highest authorities are in sanskrit and hinduism, yet all you have to say is a hollow claim above, that my sources are dubious. Well if you really had any honesty and decency about you, you would research. My posts referign to those articles, clearly show the credibility of those authors, NONE. Where as the material i have used is clearly Credible, infact its comes from Pandits, high hindu sources and Non hindu sources Like Prof, Griffith, classed as the most reliable and authentic translation, even the artcile posted by the Vermin point to a site, where Devi Chands, translation is, but the person he was Accusing, Dr Haq, used Griffiths translations, which is the first book on the list in that site, where it also admits, its the best source above all. Yet the author of that article dint even know which Translation Dr Haq used, lack of research. So which is more dubious, the vermin articles and indiadivine, or the other versions which came from highly credible sources, namely Pandits, and reliable translations.
Nice effort, your just out of answers really, therefore you have a personal digs, i dont really care, the fact that you think the material i used is dubious and mistranslations, shows the true lack of knowledge and credbility you carry.
Saving you time, yeh right, you were out of answers, firstly i debunked Mr Andersons article with ease, nothing since then, you also admitted you just picked the first site that came against the view i posted, showing clear prejudice in your motives and lack of objectivity on the matter. I have already debunked India divine, the Donkey's first source material, and thus far have only started on his second post, i have not even completed the full break down on that too, but the small amount i have done so far has also proven his second post has no credibility too. When your lost for words sunny, you try a different personal attack, i will be waiting in anticipation to see what angle you use this time.
Please see post #19 in this thread, and refer to numbers 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10.
QUOTE (Ozi @ Feb 22 2008, 01:15 PM)
Tyically fail to see the other side, i know most of you here have a prejudice against islam, which perpetuated by the media. You lack of knowledge and ignorance is not me fault, its your own. If you did things properly, you would see its not from one side, but most of the time, i defending myself, against everyone, due their prejudice. Yours is showing too.
I am just not brainwashed my Abrahamic religions. I don't go around twisting history and other scriptures and calling it proof.
QUOTE (Ozi @ Feb 22 2008, 06:06 AM)
Thats the sort of response i expect, what i said to becky was right, she was illustrating the christian have the largest following, when i was pointin to the fact islam is the fastest growing religion, do different things, but really i dont care what you think on that front, becky is big enough like sunny to talk for herself.
You say"I'm very much not interested in being proselytized by someone who needs to reach out to dubious sources at best to "prove" what he believes in, and further more, you only go on to make a further fool of yourself by acting like this. If you were really secure in your beliefs you wouldn't need dubious and most likely falacious "proof". Seriously, grow up. Your behavior is unacceptable."
Funny, show the thread clearly, how the posts by the vermin and Sunny were dubious translation, also commented on who the highest authorities are in sanskrit and hinduism, yet all you have to say is a hollow claim above, that my sources are dubious. Well if you really had any honesty and decency about you, you would research. My posts referign to those articles, clearly show the credibility of those authors, NONE. Where as the material i have used is clearly Credible, infact its comes from Pandits, high hindu sources and Non hindu sources Like Prof, Griffith, classed as the most reliable and authentic translation, even the artcile posted by the Vermin point to a site, where Devi Chands, translation is, but the person he was Accusing, Dr Haq, used Griffiths translations, which is the first book on the list in that site, where it also admits, its the best source above all. Yet the author of that article dint even know which Translation Dr Haq used, lack of research. So which is more dubious, the vermin articles and indiadivine, or the other versions which came from highly credible sources, namely Pandits, and reliable translations.
Nice effort, your just out of answers really, therefore you have a personal digs, i dont really care, the fact that you think the material i used is dubious and mistranslations, shows the true lack of knowledge and credbility you carry.
Saving you time, yeh right, you were out of answers, firstly i debunked Mr Andersons article with ease, nothing since then, you also admitted you just picked the first site that came against the view i posted, showing clear prejudice in your motives and lack of objectivity on the matter. I have already debunked India divine, the Donkey's first source material, and thus far have only started on his second post, i have not even completed the full break down on that too, but the small amount i have done so far has also proven his second post has no credibility too. When your lost for words sunny, you try a different personal attack, i will be waiting in anticipation to see what angle you use this time.
You say"I'm very much not interested in being proselytized by someone who needs to reach out to dubious sources at best to "prove" what he believes in, and further more, you only go on to make a further fool of yourself by acting like this. If you were really secure in your beliefs you wouldn't need dubious and most likely falacious "proof". Seriously, grow up. Your behavior is unacceptable."
Funny, show the thread clearly, how the posts by the vermin and Sunny were dubious translation, also commented on who the highest authorities are in sanskrit and hinduism, yet all you have to say is a hollow claim above, that my sources are dubious. Well if you really had any honesty and decency about you, you would research. My posts referign to those articles, clearly show the credibility of those authors, NONE. Where as the material i have used is clearly Credible, infact its comes from Pandits, high hindu sources and Non hindu sources Like Prof, Griffith, classed as the most reliable and authentic translation, even the artcile posted by the Vermin point to a site, where Devi Chands, translation is, but the person he was Accusing, Dr Haq, used Griffiths translations, which is the first book on the list in that site, where it also admits, its the best source above all. Yet the author of that article dint even know which Translation Dr Haq used, lack of research. So which is more dubious, the vermin articles and indiadivine, or the other versions which came from highly credible sources, namely Pandits, and reliable translations.
Nice effort, your just out of answers really, therefore you have a personal digs, i dont really care, the fact that you think the material i used is dubious and mistranslations, shows the true lack of knowledge and credbility you carry.
Saving you time, yeh right, you were out of answers, firstly i debunked Mr Andersons article with ease, nothing since then, you also admitted you just picked the first site that came against the view i posted, showing clear prejudice in your motives and lack of objectivity on the matter. I have already debunked India divine, the Donkey's first source material, and thus far have only started on his second post, i have not even completed the full break down on that too, but the small amount i have done so far has also proven his second post has no credibility too. When your lost for words sunny, you try a different personal attack, i will be waiting in anticipation to see what angle you use this time.
The point of my post wasn't primarily about your sources or what you were trying to say about Muhammad, honestly I could care less. What I was trying to say is that maybe you shouldn't be such a crass jerk Ozi. You're not doing Islam any justice. You obviously missed the part where you blatantly called Sun stupid. Thats the part I told you to grow up for. Whatever you were trying to say about Islam and Muhammad, thats fine, its whatever, I'm not concerned nor was I going to make an argument for or against it. What I was concerned about is that I've noticed every time you respond to someone you spend a hell of a lot of time insulting them. Way to go, Ozi, you've been a really grade A jerk. I, for one, am really impressed by your antics. Grow up, get a life.
QUOTE (Ozi @ Feb 22 2008, 06:15 AM)
Tyically fail to see the other side, i know most of you here have a prejudice against islam, which perpetuated by the media. You lack of knowledge and ignorance is not me fault, its your own. If you did things properly, you would see its not from one side, but most of the time, i defending myself, against everyone, due their prejudice. Yours is showing too.
Well, the only person on this board that I am seeing with an extreme prejudice is you Ozi. Stop trying to convert us, its against forum rules. And stop condemning other's religious beliefs. Ozi, if you cannot engage in open, honest, and polite discourse, neither of which you have done, then dont engage in discourse at all. You should go away and come back when you've learned a lesson about decency and respect, because you obviously have neither. This is ridiculous. You have no right to just run in here and tell everyone that their religion is stupid and that your "God" is the only way. What are you, 6? Well, the maturity train is still waiting for you to hop aboard, why dont you do that sooner rather than later.
QUOTE (churchanddestroy @ Feb 22 2008, 01:41 PM)
The point of my post wasn't primarily about your sources or what you were trying to say about Muhammad, honestly I could care less. What I was trying to say is that maybe you shouldn't be such a crass jerk Ozi. You're not doing Islam any justice. You obviously missed the part where you blatantly called Sun stupid. Thats the part I told you to grow up for. Whatever you were trying to say about Islam and Muhammad, thats fine, its whatever, I'm not concerned nor was I going to make an argument for or against it. What I was concerned about is that I've noticed every time you respond to someone you spend a hell of a lot of time insulting them. Way to go, Ozi, you've been a really grade A jerk. I, for one, am really impressed by your antics. Grow up, get a life.
Firstly, this is forum based on spirituality and religion, if i cannot have a discourse on Islam, muhammed and prophecies here, then where else can one do so. i know you dont care about the topic, u came in to the forum not to even participate on that front instead, you came here to have a go at me and then you have cheek to say im crass and offensive, when your motive is not to debate but to ridicule me on a personal basis, as you dont have the capacity to debate on the topic. you dont care about it, then dont participate in the thread. I have not insulted anyone, unless they have insulted me. Sunny has, The vermin called me a donkey, but i guess prejudiced minds like yours would miss that. then you call me a jerk, you accuse me of being crass, lets say for argument sake i agree with you, what makes you any different then. I think you need a life, one preferably free of ignorance.
QUOTE (churchanddestroy @ Feb 22 2008, 02:02 PM)
Well, the only person on this board that I am seeing with an extreme prejudice is you Ozi. Stop trying to convert us, its against forum rules. And stop condemning other's religious beliefs. Ozi, if you cannot engage in open, honest, and polite discourse, neither of which you have done, then dont engage in discourse at all. You should go away and come back when you've learned a lesson about decency and respect, because you obviously have neither. This is ridiculous. You have no right to just run in here and tell everyone that their religion is stupid and that your "God" is the only way. What are you, 6? Well, the maturity train is still waiting for you to hop aboard, why dont you do that sooner rather than later.
I have not condemned any other religious beliefs until, islam was condemned, then i make comparisons. I am not trying to convert you, next you will say im forcing you with a sword at your throat. LOL. I have been honest and more open than any of you, infact im so open, i know the religious books of other faiths often better than those who follow it, and this has been put to the test. Or we can still put it to the test. I have not told anyone their religion is stupid, i have only questioned them when they claim they are the truth. Thats my right, as it is yours to question Islam, the latter i welcome as most know here. I have never ridiculed religious figures or books, like calling jesus horrible things or bhudda or anyone for that matter, i have had poeple call the prophet of Islam some absolute foul stuff, based on no evidence and i still had the decency to clear those misconceptions, what i wonder is if i did that, the mods would have closed the thread. but when stuff is directed at me its ok for people to do. You need to get a life, and an education then come bacck and debate. I guess you missed the train you go on about.
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Feb 21 2008, 09:53 PM)
nor do I for any person that clamed to be a prophet or messiah ect.............
there is no proof anyone was any such thing.
there is no proof anyone was any such thing.
I disagree, but i wont say why? like you have not pointed out why?
QUOTE (Ozi @ Feb 22 2008, 09:37 AM)
I disagree, but i wont say why? like you have not pointed out why?
because God holds no one above anyone else. God doesn't play favorites. that would make God less than perfect .
QUOTE (Ozi @ Feb 22 2008, 08:35 AM)
Firstly, this is forum based on spirituality and religion, if i cannot have a discourse on Islam, muhammed and prophecies here, then where else can one do so. i know you dont care about the topic, u came in to the forum not to even participate on that front instead, you came here to have a go at me and then you have cheek to say im crass and offensive, when your motive is not to debate but to ridicule me on a personal basis, as you dont have the capacity to debate on the topic. you dont care about it, then dont participate in the thread. I have not insulted anyone, unless they have insulted me. Sunny has, The vermin called me a donkey, but i guess prejudiced minds like yours would miss that. then you call me a jerk, you accuse me of being crass, lets say for argument sake i agree with you, what makes you any different then. I think you need a life, one preferably free of ignorance.
I have not condemned any other religious beliefs until, islam was condemned, then i make comparisons. I am not trying to convert you, next you will say im forcing you with a sword at your throat. LOL. I have been honest and more open than any of you, infact im so open, i know the religious books of other faiths often better than those who follow it, and this has been put to the test. Or we can still put it to the test. I have not told anyone their religion is stupid, i have only questioned them when they claim they are the truth. Thats my right, as it is yours to question Islam, the latter i welcome as most know here. I have never ridiculed religious figures or books, like calling jesus horrible things or bhudda or anyone for that matter, i have had poeple call the prophet of Islam some absolute foul stuff, based on no evidence and i still had the decency to clear those misconceptions, what i wonder is if i did that, the mods would have closed the thread. but when stuff is directed at me its ok for people to do. You need to get a life, and an education then come bacck and debate. I guess you missed the train you go on about.
I have not condemned any other religious beliefs until, islam was condemned, then i make comparisons. I am not trying to convert you, next you will say im forcing you with a sword at your throat. LOL. I have been honest and more open than any of you, infact im so open, i know the religious books of other faiths often better than those who follow it, and this has been put to the test. Or we can still put it to the test. I have not told anyone their religion is stupid, i have only questioned them when they claim they are the truth. Thats my right, as it is yours to question Islam, the latter i welcome as most know here. I have never ridiculed religious figures or books, like calling jesus horrible things or bhudda or anyone for that matter, i have had poeple call the prophet of Islam some absolute foul stuff, based on no evidence and i still had the decency to clear those misconceptions, what i wonder is if i did that, the mods would have closed the thread. but when stuff is directed at me its ok for people to do. You need to get a life, and an education then come bacck and debate. I guess you missed the train you go on about.
Ozi, Im not doubting anything you said about the prophet Muhammad, I honestly have nothing to say to it because I honestly don't care. I don't believe in Allah, that not withstanding, your proof is your proof if you want to debate what you see as Muhammad in other scriptures that's fine, this board is open to the discussion of such topics. I have no stance on your evidence.
What I am frustrated at is your consistent disregard for the respect of other members of this board. That alone makes you a closed minded individual. This isn't a personal attack. This is me telling you that there is no room for disrespectful shenanigans on this board. Thats unacceptable. You should take a leaf out of IamsSon's book. I constantly disagree with Iams, and he constantly disagrees with me but that doesn't mean we are disrespectful of each other. Iams is just one of many members on this board who show respect to others despite their differing beliefs.
I am not attacking Islam
I am not attacking you
I am not attacking Allah
I have no stance on what you have said about Muhammad, it is of little to no consequence to me.
he is not even worth those words, churchanddestroy.
he doesnt learn.
he considers only his idea as the best and all others are worthy of the trash bin.
there is no point of arguing with him.
he is a pathetic example of a misguided, misinformed yet stubborn UM user.
he doesnt learn.
he considers only his idea as the best and all others are worthy of the trash bin.
there is no point of arguing with him.
he is a pathetic example of a misguided, misinformed yet stubborn UM user.
QUOTE (Lt_Ripley @ Feb 22 2008, 03:51 PM)
because God holds no one above anyone else. God doesn't play favorites. that would make God less than perfect .
God does have chosen men, people ordinary as me and u, able to do extordinary things through the power of god, i think they call them miracles etc. These men carry the message to the rest of mankind. Lets say for argument sake, there is a creator, he makes everthing we know, the creator is seperate of his creation, but he know his creation better than anyone, because he made it. So inorder to guide his creation to their true potential, he sent messengers, ordinary men to mankind, not angels or himself to give the message, but from something we recognise and is like us. This does not make god imperefect, god is the judge and jury, some of us will goto hell, some to heaven, each will earn what they reap, who do you think god favourites are between the two, betweem good and bad, a creation with free will can choose either path.
QUOTE (churchanddestroy @ Feb 22 2008, 04:17 PM)
Ozi, Im not doubting anything you said about the prophet Muhammad, I honestly have nothing to say to it because I honestly don't care. I don't believe in Allah, that not withstanding, your proof is your proof if you want to debate what you see as Muhammad in other scriptures that's fine, this board is open to the discussion of such topics. I have no stance on your evidence.
What I am frustrated at is your consistent disregard for the respect of other members of this board. That alone makes you a closed minded individual. This isn't a personal attack. This is me telling you that there is no room for disrespectful shenanigans on this board. Thats unacceptable. You should take a leaf out of IamsSon's book. I constantly disagree with Iams, and he constantly disagrees with me but that doesn't mean we are disrespectful of each other. Iams is just one of many members on this board who show respect to others despite their differing beliefs.
I am not attacking Islam
I am not attacking you
I am not attacking Allah
I have no stance on what you have said about Muhammad, it is of little to no consequence to me.
What I am frustrated at is your consistent disregard for the respect of other members of this board. That alone makes you a closed minded individual. This isn't a personal attack. This is me telling you that there is no room for disrespectful shenanigans on this board. Thats unacceptable. You should take a leaf out of IamsSon's book. I constantly disagree with Iams, and he constantly disagrees with me but that doesn't mean we are disrespectful of each other. Iams is just one of many members on this board who show respect to others despite their differing beliefs.
I am not attacking Islam
I am not attacking you
I am not attacking Allah
I have no stance on what you have said about Muhammad, it is of little to no consequence to me.
I know you doubting anything i said, you cant, it irrefutable, i have clearly demonstrated that, shown both sunny;s and the Vermins articles to be flawed. I presented sources and material from credible people with authority, the same people here who are not accepting, are the same people when it comes to scientific priniciples or theories, only accept whats credible, yet this time they become blind. Clear prejudice.
All i have to say to is this, those who feel offended by me, also need to look at themselves and those who feel offended are more than capable of speaking for themselves. They dont need you to come here and badger me with rubbish and hollow claims. You have nothing to contribute towards the topic, then dont contribute at all.
QUOTE (Da Verminator @ Feb 22 2008, 05:44 PM)
he is not even worth those words, churchanddestroy.
he doesnt learn.
he considers only his idea as the best and all others are worthy of the trash bin.
there is no point of arguing with him.
he is a pathetic example of a misguided, misinformed yet stubborn UM user.
he doesnt learn.
he considers only his idea as the best and all others are worthy of the trash bin.
there is no point of arguing with him.
he is a pathetic example of a misguided, misinformed yet stubborn UM user.
LOL, now the donkey i was waiting for, (only repaying the compliment you paid me in an earlier post). So when you need to put your money where your mouth is, metophorically speaking, you bottle it. You made claims like others, posted material, allegedly playing my games, well exposed your material for what is worth, NOTHING. Its no about me considering any ideas, its about facts, proclaimed by Pandits, you know who they are, and Professors. Reliable and authentic information, when you dont have any answers left, its easy to say things like those you have said above. they normally come out, when is lost for words and cant construct a compelling rebuttal, like i was alleged of , when i simply cut and paste a small portion of an article. You were all quick to jump on a band wagon that i cant do anything my self. Well wats the problem now. What u dont realise is this, opinions are all welcome and good, but to accept one as reliable and authentic, its has to pass certian criteria. Like you would look for, if we were talking about scientific stuff, you wont accept any tom , dick and harries thought as the end all be all of it, you would want credible evidence, you make claims like, "well he just wont accept anything else as right, apart from what he thinks is right", RUBBISH!, you would be the same, if presented unreliable evidence.
Misguided, misinformed are perfect words for most of you here, who live and learn by the WIKI bible, (metaphor). The types who are quick to redicule someone if the present hollow claims, with out credible evidence, I have seen most of you at work here, picking holes, present reliable evidence etc, but when the tables are turned, and you are shown to have presented something inreliable, you run to little corners, and start having diggs at the invidual. Probably because most of you dominate UM, and cant handle being dominated and corrected. I clearly proven to and the rest here, indiadivine as a source is futiles and pathetic, so was your second post, on which i am about to begin the rest of rebuttal on. In each case i clearly proved how unreliable they are as sources and the devious tacticts, you wont accept it, because it hurts most of you to be corrected and the truth can be harsh. Most of you will still reject it and claims its just as valid as t