“According to tradition, Guru Nanak said to contemporary theologians of Islam during his visit to Mecca….” According to Makke-Madine di Goshati edited by Prof. Kulwant Singh, Guru Nanak said: “Mecca is an ancient place of pilgrimage, and there is a Linga of Mahadeva here. It was presided over by the Brahmanas. One of the Brahmanas, though born among them, became a Musalman… . His own name was Mohammed, which means the same as Mahadeva… . He floated some sort of a creed, and taught it… .”

Mohammed—A Sanskrit-speaking Vedic Indian

Islam Vedic khatre mein hai

FOR the last some days Satiricus has been wondering. Satiricus has been wondering if he has been mentioned by name in the Bhavishya Purana. No, it is not a frivolous thought. For if, as it seems, the Bhavishya Purana mentions so many people who are going to come in the future, why should Satiricus not be one of them? Is that because he does not deserve to be mentioned? True, he is not a mentionable founder of a religion—a religion that is not only non-Hindu but anti-Hindu enough to force a Hindu scripture to mention its founder. Take this recent seminar in Mumbai, organised by a forum called Islamic Education Centre and prominently reported by the English-language Press (who else?) under the heading “All religions speak of Mohammed, say scholars”. Did you notice? They are scholars, real scholars, because they say all religions speak of Mohammed. Strangely enough, Guru Nanak does not seem to qualify as one such scholar. For what, according to tradition, he said to contemporary theologians of Islam during his visit to Mecca sounds utterly unscholarly. According to Makke-Madine di Goshati edited by Prof. Kulwant Singh, Guru Nanak said: “Mecca is an ancient place of pilgrimage, and there is a Linga of Mahadeva here. It was presided over by the Brahmanas. One of the Brahmanas, though born among them, became a Musalman… . His own name was Mohammed, which means the same as Mahadeva… . He floated some sort of a creed, and taught it… .” Fortunately there are scholars who know better, and one of them is Mirza Afzal Baig of Jamaat-i-Islami. For, inaugurating this seminar with his erudite oration Baig reportedly revealed that various prophecies contained in the scriptures of different religions hinted at the arrival of Prophet Mohammed. Then, beginning with Hindu scriptures, Baig said: “In the Bhavishya Purana there is a verse that declares the arrival of a mleccha spiritual teacher, whose name would be Mohammed.” Is Satiricus surprised? He is, and he is not, He is not surprised because even Zarathushtra, who antedates Mohammed by thousands of years, has been mentioned in the Bhavishya Purana. Why, even his mother has been named, writes Madalasa Devi Agrawal in her book Age of the Bharat War. She relates a legend according to which a Brahmin woman by name Nikshubha got the boon of a son. The boon said, “Your son will become famous by the name Maga. His name will be Zarathushtra, and he will bring glory to the dynasty. His descendents will worship fire and will be known by the name Maga, and being worshippers of ‘Soma’ will be Maga Brahmins.” Well, now, the curious cuss that Satiricus is, he is struck by the curious coincidence that both Prophet Zarathushtra and Prophet Mohammed have been called Brahmins. Anyway, Satiricus is not surprised at the possibility that if the Bhavishya Purana mentioned one Brahmin founding a religion of his own, it could well have mentioned another Brahmin doing the same. What, at the most, surprises him is, how could the learned lady Madalasa Devi mention one and miss the other? Oh well, perhaps she and Janab Baig read different editions of the Bhavishya Purana. In fact there may even be a third edition of the Purana. For the late Balshastri Hardas, a reputed Sanskrit scholar, had once said in a public lecture that the Bhavishya Purana referred not only to Queen Victoria but even to a multi-millionaire of Nagpur by name Shri Buti. So, says Satiricus' Sanskritist friend Dr Waradpande, why Mohammed alone, even Christ may have been mentioned, although he cannot check it out, because “as far as I know there is no word index of the Bhavishya Purana”. What does that show? It shows that when Waradpande says “as far as I know” obviously he does not know far enough, and by no means as far as Janab Baig, who may have either found or himself prepared such an index. So then, what is the consolidated list of the Bhavishya Purana? It is Zarathushtra, Christ, Mohammed, Queen Victoria, and Shri Buti. Then can Satiricus single out Mohammed for special focus? The simple answer is, Satiricus may not, but a secularist must. Baig also mentioned the Atharva Veda, which, according to him, speaks of the arrival of a camel-riding ‘rishi’ or sage. “It could only have referred to the Prophet, since the Manu Smriti specifies that Brahmins should not ride asses and camels,” he explained. That explains it, no? No, it does not, at least not for this ignoramus. So far as he knows—and of course that is not so far as Pandit Baig—Manusmriti is based on the Vedas, as ample Vedic quotes clearly show, and what do the Vedas say?

To his unlettered astonishment Satiricus finds that the injunction that Brahmins should not ride asses and camels is not in accordance with the Rig Veda, the original Veda. Rather, RV-1/116/2 actually refers to the rasabha as the mount of the divine Ashwini Kumaras, and this is repeated in RV-8/85/7. Then again, instead of looking down on the camel, RV-1/138/2 describes it as a war animal, making it obvious that warriors rode it into battle. Similar far-from-derogatory references are found in RV-8/6/31, 46, 48. And if Baig read not only the history of pre-secular Hindu India but also of pre-Islamic Hindu Afghanistan, he would find that many Brahmins had become Kshatriyas and founded their own kingdoms. So how about including Mohammed among them, Janab Baig? Finally, Satiricus must say his secular sensibilities are shocked by Baig's description of Mohammed as a “Mleccha” spiritual teacher. For one of the Vedic Indian peoples who migrated westward were called Anu, and the Mahabharata asserts that mlecchas were the descendents of Anu. To make matters communally worse, Dr Waradpande says the mlecchas are “people who speak a corrupt form of Sanskrit.” Satiricus is aghast. For this makes Mohammed a Sanskrit-speaking Vedic Indian. Alas, Islam Vedic khatre mein hai.