Thursday, May 20, 2010
Mettaya is Muhammad?part 2
I have gathered points largely from two relevant suttas, the Cakkavati Sutta , Digha Nikaya 26 (DN 26) and Lakkhana Sutta, Digha Nikaya 30 (DN 30) to :
1. refute the erroneous claims that Muhammad (pbuh) is Mettaya Buddha
2. inform Muslims that Muhammad (pbuh) does not fit in the description of Mettaya Buddha as well as a Buddha as mentioned in the 2 quoted Suttas.
3. show what the scriptures really say about a Buddha and Mettaya
4. keep the Buddhist community informed of the truth that there can only be ONE BUDDHA at a time. A Buddha arises in the world to open the door to deathlessness. When the Dhamma and Vinaya are still around, there’s no need for another Buddha! So, beware of whoever that claims that he/she is a Buddha!
THE ‘ASSUMED’ FACTS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT :
Dr. Zakir Naik who claimed that BUDDHIST SCRIPTURES mentioned about Muhammad (pbuh), in fact, did not quote wholesale from the Tipitaka, the most reliable source of information on the Buddha’s teachings, but he quoted most from SECONDARY SOURCES such as Sacred Book Of The East and Gospel of Buddha. Therefore, his work is not worthy of the title ‘MUHAMMAD (PBUH) IN BUDDHIST SCRIPTURES’, rather it should be ‘ MUHAMMAD (PBUH) IN BUDDHIST SCRIPTURES AND SECONDARY SOURCES’. He should be truthful about it. Let's examine Dr Zakir Naik's comment [in italics] and I'll add my comments to refute [in RED].
Refutation 1:
i) The Sanskrit word "Maitreya" or its equivalent in Pali "Metteyya" means loving, compassionate, merciful and benevolent. It also means kindness and friendliness, sympathy, etc. One Arabic word which is equivalent to all these words is "Rahmat". In Surah Al-Anbiya: "We sent thee not, but as a mercy for all creatures." [Al-Qur'an 21:107] Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was called the merciful, which is "Maitri".
:
.
(iv) The Word Muhammad is also spelt as 'Mahamet' or 'Mahomet' and in various other ways in different languages. The word 'Maho' or 'Maha' in Pali and Sanskrit mean Great and Illustrious and 'Metta' means mercy. Therefore 'Mahomet' means 'Great Mercy'.
The Buddha mentioned ONLY Mettaya, and did not mention there will be any equivalent names for Mettaya Buddha in other languages [refer to Cakkavati Sihanada Sutta quote : '...And in the time of the people with eighty thousand-year life-span, there will arise in the world a Blessed Lord, an Arahant fully-enlightened Buddha named Metteyya, ...]. Muhammad (pbuh), given his life history did not live up to the name of Mettaya (if Muslim scholars insist he is indeed Mettaya Buddha). Mettaya means ‘One With Loving Kindness’. Never in any Buddha’s life history have seen a Buddha participate in war, but Muhammad (pbuh) did. Blood will never be shed by the hands of any Buddha simply because there is loving kindness towards all beings in the heart of the Buddha. The Buddha explained clearly about the features of metta, notably in Karaniya Metta Sutta (Suttanipata 1.8) quote : ."..Let him not deceive another nor despise anyone anywhere. In anger or ill will let him not wish another ill.Just as a mother would protect her only child with her life even so let one cultivate a boundless love towards all beings.Let him radiate boundless love towards the entire world — above, below, and across — unhindered, without ill will, without enmity..." In one Islamic record,the Sunan Abu Dawood, book 38, verse 4348, it was recorded that the Prophet declared his blind follower who killed his wife who slandered against the prophet Muhammad is free from blame. A Buddhist would be utterly shocked over this bias judgement,and this cannot be expected from a Mettaya.
Refutation 2:
Buddha's doctrine was Esoteric and Exoteric: According to Sacred Books of the East, volume 11, pg. 36 Maha-Parinibbana Sutta chapter 2 verse 32: "I have preached the truth without making any distinction between exoteric and esoteric doctrine, for in respect of truths, Ananda, the Tathagata has no such thing as the closed fist of a teacher, who keeps something back". Muhammad (pbuh) on the commandment of Almighty God delivered the message and doctrine without making any distinction between esoteric and exoteric. The Qur'ân was recited in public in the days of the Prophet and is being done so till date. The Prophet had strictly forbidden the Muslims from hiding the doctrine
It must be borne in mind that the Tipitaka was not sent by any ‘almighty being’, unlike the Muslims’ claim that the Quran came from an ‘almighty being’.
Furthermore, the belief in an ‘almighty being’ is one of the wrong views mentioned in Brahmanjala Sutta. Therefore, Muhammad (pbuh) cannot be a Buddha due to this irreconcilable fact as Islam means submission to an ‘almighty being’ while the practise of Buddhism does not lead to submission to any beings but to freedom from Dukkha [ refer to Dhammacakkapavatana Sutta].
1. refute the erroneous claims that Muhammad (pbuh) is Mettaya Buddha
2. inform Muslims that Muhammad (pbuh) does not fit in the description of Mettaya Buddha as well as a Buddha as mentioned in the 2 quoted Suttas.
3. show what the scriptures really say about a Buddha and Mettaya
4. keep the Buddhist community informed of the truth that there can only be ONE BUDDHA at a time. A Buddha arises in the world to open the door to deathlessness. When the Dhamma and Vinaya are still around, there’s no need for another Buddha! So, beware of whoever that claims that he/she is a Buddha!
THE ‘ASSUMED’ FACTS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT :
Dr. Zakir Naik who claimed that BUDDHIST SCRIPTURES mentioned about Muhammad (pbuh), in fact, did not quote wholesale from the Tipitaka, the most reliable source of information on the Buddha’s teachings, but he quoted most from SECONDARY SOURCES such as Sacred Book Of The East and Gospel of Buddha. Therefore, his work is not worthy of the title ‘MUHAMMAD (PBUH) IN BUDDHIST SCRIPTURES’, rather it should be ‘ MUHAMMAD (PBUH) IN BUDDHIST SCRIPTURES AND SECONDARY SOURCES’. He should be truthful about it. Let's examine Dr Zakir Naik's comment [in italics] and I'll add my comments to refute [in RED].
Refutation 1:
i) The Sanskrit word "Maitreya" or its equivalent in Pali "Metteyya" means loving, compassionate, merciful and benevolent. It also means kindness and friendliness, sympathy, etc. One Arabic word which is equivalent to all these words is "Rahmat". In Surah Al-Anbiya: "We sent thee not, but as a mercy for all creatures." [Al-Qur'an 21:107] Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was called the merciful, which is "Maitri".
:
.
(iv) The Word Muhammad is also spelt as 'Mahamet' or 'Mahomet' and in various other ways in different languages. The word 'Maho' or 'Maha' in Pali and Sanskrit mean Great and Illustrious and 'Metta' means mercy. Therefore 'Mahomet' means 'Great Mercy'.
The Buddha mentioned ONLY Mettaya, and did not mention there will be any equivalent names for Mettaya Buddha in other languages [refer to Cakkavati Sihanada Sutta quote : '...And in the time of the people with eighty thousand-year life-span, there will arise in the world a Blessed Lord, an Arahant fully-enlightened Buddha named Metteyya, ...]. Muhammad (pbuh), given his life history did not live up to the name of Mettaya (if Muslim scholars insist he is indeed Mettaya Buddha). Mettaya means ‘One With Loving Kindness’. Never in any Buddha’s life history have seen a Buddha participate in war, but Muhammad (pbuh) did. Blood will never be shed by the hands of any Buddha simply because there is loving kindness towards all beings in the heart of the Buddha. The Buddha explained clearly about the features of metta, notably in Karaniya Metta Sutta (Suttanipata 1.8) quote : ."..Let him not deceive another nor despise anyone anywhere. In anger or ill will let him not wish another ill.Just as a mother would protect her only child with her life even so let one cultivate a boundless love towards all beings.Let him radiate boundless love towards the entire world — above, below, and across — unhindered, without ill will, without enmity..." In one Islamic record,the Sunan Abu Dawood, book 38, verse 4348, it was recorded that the Prophet declared his blind follower who killed his wife who slandered against the prophet Muhammad is free from blame. A Buddhist would be utterly shocked over this bias judgement,and this cannot be expected from a Mettaya.
Refutation 2:
Buddha's doctrine was Esoteric and Exoteric: According to Sacred Books of the East, volume 11, pg. 36 Maha-Parinibbana Sutta chapter 2 verse 32: "I have preached the truth without making any distinction between exoteric and esoteric doctrine, for in respect of truths, Ananda, the Tathagata has no such thing as the closed fist of a teacher, who keeps something back". Muhammad (pbuh) on the commandment of Almighty God delivered the message and doctrine without making any distinction between esoteric and exoteric. The Qur'ân was recited in public in the days of the Prophet and is being done so till date. The Prophet had strictly forbidden the Muslims from hiding the doctrine
It must be borne in mind that the Tipitaka was not sent by any ‘almighty being’, unlike the Muslims’ claim that the Quran came from an ‘almighty being’.
Furthermore, the belief in an ‘almighty being’ is one of the wrong views mentioned in Brahmanjala Sutta. Therefore, Muhammad (pbuh) cannot be a Buddha due to this irreconcilable fact as Islam means submission to an ‘almighty being’ while the practise of Buddhism does not lead to submission to any beings but to freedom from Dukkha [ refer to Dhammacakkapavatana Sutta].
Comments:
<< Home
Dear brother Sampuna
It made me sad to know that your view of Islam & Prophet Mohammed is based on just a Hadith which is not even Sahi (strong).A Hadith must collaborate with Quran otherwise independently it has no value because like all other religious books hadith were collected & written later on & many of them are tempered & fabricated. Quran however was recorded as it was reveled and not a word was ever changed so it is the only authentic scripture alive. Karen Armstrong, who has also a book about Buddha, has written two biographies on Prophet, kindly read any of them first to know the merciful nature of Prophet. I agree that his actions were different from Gautam Buddha but whether he was mercyless or not should be judged after his detailed biography.I dont want to pass on this statement that he was Mettaya because it can't be proved with Quran. Similarly we can't say for sure that Buddha was a prophet, even if he has many signs, because his name isn't written in the holy Quran. Only thing i know is that according to Quran we have to respect all the religious personalities because any one of them could be our Prophet, which were sent to all parts of the World.
It made me sad to know that your view of Islam & Prophet Mohammed is based on just a Hadith which is not even Sahi (strong).A Hadith must collaborate with Quran otherwise independently it has no value because like all other religious books hadith were collected & written later on & many of them are tempered & fabricated. Quran however was recorded as it was reveled and not a word was ever changed so it is the only authentic scripture alive. Karen Armstrong, who has also a book about Buddha, has written two biographies on Prophet, kindly read any of them first to know the merciful nature of Prophet. I agree that his actions were different from Gautam Buddha but whether he was mercyless or not should be judged after his detailed biography.I dont want to pass on this statement that he was Mettaya because it can't be proved with Quran. Similarly we can't say for sure that Buddha was a prophet, even if he has many signs, because his name isn't written in the holy Quran. Only thing i know is that according to Quran we have to respect all the religious personalities because any one of them could be our Prophet, which were sent to all parts of the World.
@yasser : It cannot be refuted that the prophet did wage wars and he did destroy pagan Arab items of worship in the Kaabah.As per objective of my article :to refute the claim that the prophet was a Buddha as claimed by Zakir Naik,i had to show these notable differences.
The hadith which i showed here was cited by the muslim body in my organization as a protest to the carricature.They are implying that the prophet declared the blood of those who redicule the prophet as halal,so it is ok to use violence on the dane who insulted your prophet.
the Buddhist community never publicised any wild claims that the Buddha was a prophet.It's not a problem with us.The problem is with your muslim community,trying so much to prosiletyze so much so that you claim other religions predicted the coming of muhammad.
Post a Comment
The hadith which i showed here was cited by the muslim body in my organization as a protest to the carricature.They are implying that the prophet declared the blood of those who redicule the prophet as halal,so it is ok to use violence on the dane who insulted your prophet.
the Buddhist community never publicised any wild claims that the Buddha was a prophet.It's not a problem with us.The problem is with your muslim community,trying so much to prosiletyze so much so that you claim other religions predicted the coming of muhammad.
<< Home
