Refu­ta­tion of P.N. Oak’s Claims Against The Ka’bah

Some ​“researcher” known as P. N. Oak has come up with some ludi­crous, puerile and absurd com­ments regard­ing Islam. His the­o­ry pos­tu­lat­ing the ​“impact of the Vedic reli­gion on Islam” is laugh­able. Those acquaint­ed with his­to­ry will smile at the silli­ness of the asser­tions made by Oak.

Among the fal­la­cious claims made by Oak is that The Holy Ka’bah in Makkah was ​“orig­i­nal­ly a Shi­va tem­ple”. But for this astound­ing and absurd claim he fails to present any evi­dence. He per­mits his imag­i­na­tion to play hav­oc with him, hence he bases his claim on ​“a gold dish” sup­pos­ed­ly locat­ed in the Ka’bah. Oak alleges that some inscrip­tion on the gold dish sup­pos­ed­ly found in the Holy Ka’bah refers to ​“Vikram’s enlight­ened rule”. Assum­ing that such a dish was in fact locat­ed in the Holy Ka’bah, how on earth can such a chance find­ing over­ride and abro­gate the vol­umes of his­tor­i­cal facts sur­round­ing the Holy Ka’bah ? If a copy of the Holy Qur’aan is found in some Hin­du tem­ple or in a Chris­t­ian shrine or in the Pope’s head­quar­ters, does it fol­low that these places were some Mus­lim Shrines in some remote point in time and that it will be cor­rect to con­clude from such a find­ing that Islam has made an impact on the respec­tive reli­gions ? No per­son of intel­li­gence can uphold such a ludi­crous and unrea­son­able con­clu­sion. The find­ing of some dish, parch­ment, plate, gar­ment or any oth­er object is not an intel­li­gent basis for upturn­ing and negat­ing facts which have been tes­ti­fied for accu­ra­cy by author­i­ties, from gen­er­a­tion to gen­er­a­tion. If every sim­ple find such as a dish, con­sti­tutes a valid basis for revis­ing his­tor­i­cal facts, then we dare say that the entire his­to­ry of the world will have to be re-written.

If Oak’s ​“key” to his ​“research” is a mere dish sup­pos­ed­ly locat­ed in the Holy Ka’bah, every man of some intel­li­gence can under­stand the fal­la­cy of his entire research-con­clu­sions. It stag­gers the imag­i­na­tion to be informed that a man, sup­pos­ed­ly a research schol­ar, is pre­pared to dis­miss the wealth and vol­ume of his­tor­i­cal facts on the basis of a dish which has been claimed to have been found in the Ka’bah. If the same or a sim­i­lar dish singing the prais­es of Vikram had to be found in Buck­ing­ham Palace, will it be sen­si­ble to aver that this Palace was a Hin­du shrine once upon a time ?

We have no knowl­edge of any ​“gold­en dish” with Hin­du prais­es hav­ing been found in the Holy Ka’bah. Let Mr. Oak fur­nish fac­tu­al proof regard­ing this ​“dish”.

Mr. Oak should also be apprized of some his­tor­i­cal facts per­tain­ing to the Ka’bah. Pri­or to the advent of Prophet­hood of Muham­mad (on whom be peace), the Ka’bah was filled with hun­dreds of idols — the gods of the pagans who had aban­doned the true reli­gion of their fore­fa­ther, Nabi lbraa­heem (Prophet Abra­ham) — on whom be peace. The pagan Arabs in fact had a god (an idol) for each dif­fer­ent day of the year. It will not be at all sur­pris­ing if Mr. Oak’s research could have sug­gest­ed that the cult of idol wor­ship which exist­ed among pre-Islam Arabs was the impact of the Vedic reli­gion. Since the Hin­du or the Vedic reli­gion is an idol­a­trous cult with a mul­ti­tude of gods, the idol­a­try of the pagan Arabs in the pre-Islam­ic era can under­stand­ably and rea­son­ably be attrib­uted to the Vedic reli­gion. The idols of the pagan Arabs and the idols of the Vedic reli­gion are birds of a feath­er, but, to sug­gest that the Vedic idol­a­trous reli­gion had any impact on Islam and its rigid­ly monothe­is­tic teach­ings and beliefs is pre­pos­ter­ous and absurd in the extreme.

Again assum­ing that some Hin­du gold­en dish was locat­ed in the Holy Ka’bah, com­mon sense would have con­clud­ed that the ​“dish” was a rel­ic of the idol­a­trous pagans who had filled the Holy Ka’bah with 360 idols. The idol­a­trous pagans of the pre-Islam era, hav­ing import­ed their cult of idol­a­try from the Hin­du east, had sim­i­lar rites of idol-wor­ship. Offer­ings of a vari­ety of kinds were made to pro­pi­ti­ate the idols. It will, there­fore, not at all be sur­pris­ing if the sup­posed gold­en dish was among the offer­ings which the pagans had made to the idols which had been installed in the Holy Ka’bah by the pagan Arabs heav­i­ly influ­enced by the idol­a­try of the east — the idol­a­try of the Vedic reli­gion being the most profound.

In terms of the ​“gold­en dish ” the­o­ry as pro­pound­ed by Oak, Vedic mis­sion­ar­ies had arrived in Ara­bia to preach their reli­gion. This is the claim sup­pos­ed­ly made in the inscrip­tions on the ​“dish”. If this is indeed so, then it accounts for the pagan­ism and the idol­a­try of the Arabs before the advent of Muham­mad (on whom be peace). The Arabs, being the fol­low­ers of Nabi lbra­heem (Prophet Abra­ham) — on whom be peace — were rigid­ly and uncom­pro­mis­ing­ly believ­ers in THE ONE GOD. The spread of idol­a­try among them is there­fore sur­pris­ing. How­ev­er, the ​“dish” the­o­ry of Oak throws light on the ori­gin of idol-wor­ship among the pre-Islam Arabs. A ​“gold­en dish” locat­ed in the Ka’bah, with Vedic inscrip­tions is tes­ti­mo­ny for the ori­gin of the idols which had once occu­pied the Holy Ka’bah Mosque in the days before Muham­mad (on whom be peace). When the Holy Ka’bah had housed even the idols of the pagan Arabs sedat­ed by Hin­du idol­a­try, then the loca­tion of a mere ​“dish” with Vedic inscrip­tions should come as no surprise.

Mr. Oak presents a num­ber of fal­la­cious points for his con­clu­sion that the Vedic reli­gion had an impact on Islam. The arti­cle in The Leader states :

In his research Mr. Oak fur­nish­es oth­er proof rein­forc­ing the belief that Arabs were once fol­low­ers of the Indi­an Vedic way of life.

That the pre-Islam Arabs were pagans and idol­aters is an unde­ni­able and a well-estab­lished his­tor­i­cal fact which ten-year old kids in a pri­ma­ry school are aware of. If the Arab idol­a­trous cult was the influ­ence or even the prod­uct of ​“the Indi­an Vedic way of life”, there is noth­ing sur­pris­ing about it. But, the cult of the pre-Islam Arabs should not be con­fused with the uncom­pro­mis­ing reli­gion of monothe­ism of Islam deliv­ered to mankind by Muham­mad (on whom be peace). No one will deny the idol­a­try of the pagan pre-Islam Arabs. If some the­o­ry or research estab­lish­es that the 360 idols installed by the Arabs in the Ka’bah pri­or to the advent of Islam were the influ­ence or the impact of the Vedic reli­gion, we shall not con­test such a claim since rea­son can accept that a reli­gion ground­ed and advanced in idol­a­try can spawn a cult of less­er idol­a­try, the less­er idol­a­try in this instance being the idol­a­try of the pagan Arabs.

One of his points is the Hajj. In this regard Oak states :

The annu­al Hajj of the Mus­lims to the Ka’bah is of an ear­li­er pre-Islam­ic congregation.

It is clear that Mr. Oak is a poor stu­dent of his­to­ry. Even our lit­tle chil­dren are aware of the fact that the Hajj pil­grim­age was in exis­tence pri­or to the appear­ance of Nabi Muham­mad (on whom be peace). The Hajj wor­ship came into exis­tence among the Arabs dur­ing the time of Nabi lbra­heem (on whom be peace). From this angle it will be cor­rect to con­clude that the Hajj of the present-day Mus­lims ​“is of an ear­li­er pre-Islam­ic con­gre­ga­tion”. By ​“pre-Islam­ic” will mean the era pri­or to the advent of Muham­mad (on whom be peace). But, it is ridicu­lous to infer that the Islam­ic Hajj is the impact of the Vedic reli­gion mere­ly because it was in exis­tence from the time of Prophet lbra­heem. Every prac­tice of the pre-Islam pagan Arabs can­not be attrib­uted to Vedic influ­ence or the influ­ence of some oth­er idol­a­trous cult. While the actu­al wor­ship of Hajj among the Arabs came into exis­tence dur­ing the time of Nabi lbra­heem (on whom be peace), the Arabs who lat­er aban­doned the true reli­gion of lbra­heem (on whom be peace) intro­duced many pagan and idol­a­trous rites into the Hajj pil­grim­age per­sum­ably under influ­ence of Vedic idol­aters who came to Ara­bia to preach the idol­a­try of the Vedic reli­gion. But, such idol­a­trous influ­ences intro­duced by the pre-Islam pagans can­not be cit­ed as a basis for the pre­pos­ter­ous claim that the Hajj itself is a Vedic rite. There is absolute­ly no fac­tu­al or his­tor­i­cal evi­dence to sub­stan­ti­ate this fal­la­cious claim made by Oak.

Anoth­er absurd claim made by Oak is stat­ed in The Leader as folIows :

The prin­ci­pal shrines at Varanasi, in India and at Makkah, in Arras­tan, were Shi­va tem­ples. Even to this day ancient Mahade­va emblems can be seen.

Such emblems can be seen on the Shi­va tem­ples in India. But the alle­ga­tion of such signs of idol­a­try — such emblems of pagan­ism — on the Ka’bah is a bla­tent fal­si­ty. What is Oak’s proof for exis­tence of such emblems in the Ka’bah ? Such ​“emblems of Mahade­va” alleged­ly in or on the Ka’bah are the reflec­tions of Oak’s imagination.

The ​“dish” the­o­ry con­strains Oak to con­jec­ture the fol­low­ing con­clu­sion which ​‘he seems to believe as fac­tu­al evidence :

Accord­ing to the inscrip­tions, if King Vikram spread the Vedic reli­gion, who else but he could have found­ed the Ka’bah Temple ?

If King Vikram did in fact spread the Vedic reli­gion of idol­a­try which gave birth to the 360 idols of the pagan Arabs, it does not fol­low there from that the Holy Ka’bah was a Hin­du tem­ple built by Vikram. For such a pre­pos­ter­ous claim fac­tu­al proof is required. The wish­ful think­ing of Mr. Oak can­not over­ride the facts of his­to­ry. Even the pagan Arabs were ful­ly aware of the ori­gin of the Ka’bah. They had full knowl­edge of the fact that Nabi lbra­heem (on whom be peace) was the founder of the Ka’bah. The ground­less sug­ges­tion of a man in this belat­ed cen­tu­ry is noth­ing oth­er than pure wish­ful think­ing — a fal­la­cy to be dis­missed with contempt.

In sup­port of his con­clu­sions based on the ​“dish” the­o­ry, Oak claims :

Pil­grims’ shav­ing of head and beard and don­ning white cloth are rem­nants of the old Vedic prac­tice of enter­ing tem­ples clean shaven.

Oak demon­strates his lack of knowl­edge of Islam­ic prac­tices by his claim of shav­ing the beard. Huj­jaaj (pil­grims) do not shave their beards. Mus­lim males are not per­mit­ted to shave their beards whether they are at home or enter­ing tem­ples or Mosques, be it the Sacred Mosque of the Ka’bah or any oth­er mosque. While shav­ing the head for male pil­grims is a rite of the Hajj, shav­ing the beard is not per­mis­si­ble. It may be a Vedic prac­tice to shave the beard, but def­i­nite­ly not a Mus­lim practice.

Mus­lim pil­grims do not shave their heads in order to enter tem­ples or Mosques. If shav­ing the head is a Vedic prac­tice nec­es­sary for entry into a tem­ple, Mr. Oak should learn from us that it is not a prac­tice of Islam. Mus­lim pil­grims either shave or clip some hairs to release them from the restric­tions of the Hajj (pil­grim­age).

If don­ning white cloth was a cus­tom of ​“old Vedic” reli­gion, it does not log­i­cal­ly fol­low there­from that the white gar­ments which Mus­lim pil­grims don are ​“Rem­nants of old Vedic prac­tice”. What are Oak’s grounds for this fic­ti­tious the­o­ry ? It is absurd to sug­gest that wher­ev­er a white reli­gious garb exists it must be the result of Vedic influence.

Among the points put for­ward by Oak for his fal­la­cy is the emblem of the cres­cent moon. Stat­ing this point of Oak, The Leader says :

In India the cres­cent moon is always paint­ed across the fore­head of the Shi­va sym­bol. The same emblem now adorns the flag of Islam.

Mr. Oak has trans­gressed all bounds of absur­di­ty in putting for­ward this igno­rant claim. What is the ​“flag of Islam” in Oak’s under­stand­ing ? From where did this ​‘research schol­ar’ obtain his infor­ma­tion in this regard ! If the flags of Mus­lim coun­tries have the sym­bol of the cres­cent, it does not fol­low that the Flag of Muham­mad (on whom be peace) — the Flag of Islam — also dis­played the cres­cent emblem. The cres­cent emblem is an inno­va­tion which did not exist dur­ing the time of the Holy Prophet (on whom be peace) nor dur­ing the time of his right­eous Khu­lafa (Rep­re­sen­ta­tives and Suc­ces­sors). Assum­ing that the cres­cent emblem did exist among the Mus­lims of the Prophet­ic era, then too, Oak will have no grounds to bol­ster his cla­tim of Vedic ori­gin and Vedic influ­ence. One can­not ven­ture such claims with­out pro­duc­ing facts and proofs to sub­stan­ti­ate one’s claims which are in con­flict with all facts of history.

Endeav­our­ing to present his wish­ful think­ing as a fact of his­to­ry, Oak asserts that the Tawaaf (cir­cum­am­bu­la­tion) of the Ka’bah by pil­grims is the influ­ence of the Vedic reli­gion. Thus, The Leader says :

Mus­lim pil­grims go around the Ka’bah sev­en times, a com­mon prac­tice among Hin­dus. In no oth­er mosque does cir­cum­am­bu­la­tion prevail.

Cir­cum­am­bu­la­tion of the Ka’bah is because of the spe­cial reli­gious sig­nif­i­cance which Mus­lims believe is exclu­sive to the Ka’bah, the first Place of Wor­ship ever to be con­struct­ed on earth. Accord­ing to Islam­ic belief, the first per­son to build the Ka’bah was Adam (on whom be peace) — the first man on earth. lts supe­ri­or rank and the spe­cial divine pres­ence which Mus­lims believe sur­rounds the Ka’bah are the facts under­ly­ing the cir­cum­am­bu­la­tion. If Hin­dus do in fact cir­cum­am­bu­late some tem­ple sev­en times, it can­not be claimed that such a Hin­du prac­tice gave rise to the Tawaaf (cir­cum­am­bu­la­tion) rite of Islam, Mere sim­i­lar­i­ties between oppo­site and diver­gent reli­gions can­not be cit­ed as evi­dence for one’s claims unsup­port­ed by fac­tu­al proof.

Anoth­er point of Oak stat­ed by The Leader is :

Eid in San­skrit means wor­ship and Bakri Eid, which derives from sac­ri­fices of Vedic times was cel­e­brat­ed with mut­ton feast­ing at the time of the sun’s entry into Aries.

If the term ​“Eid” means ​“wor­ship” in San­skrit, we have to apprize Oak of the fact that in Ara­bic the word ​“Eid” does not mean ​“wor­ship”. In Ara­bic ​“Eid” means ​‘the Day of Return’. The Islam­ic Fes­ti­vals are known as such because of their ​‘return’ or ​‘repeat­ed com­ing’. The term itself does not con­note ​‘wor­ship’ in Ara­bic. Thus, there is no ques­tion of the Ara­bic term ​‘Eid’ being the San­skrit term con­tend­ed by Oak. There is, there­fore, absolute­ly no point for Oak’s ​“dish” the­o­ry” in the Ara­bic word, ​“Eid”. ​“Bakri Eid” being the occa­sion when Mus­lims sac­ri­fice ani­mals unto Allah Ta’ala has no resem­blance with any Vedic mut­ton-feast­ing prac­tice ded­i­cat­ed to idols. The word ​“Bakri” is not Ara­bic. It is an Urdu term mean­ing ​‘goat’. Since goats are gen­er­al­ly sac­ri­ficed in India on the occa­sion of Eidul Adhaa, Indi­an Mus­lims have coined the name ​“Bakri Eid”. The main ani­mal of sac­ri­fice for the Arabs has always been the camel. Eidul Adhaa — the orig­i­nal and cor­rect name of this aus­pi­cious Day — is the name known to the arabs. The sac­ri­fice of ani­mal­son this occa­sion is in com­mem­o­ra­tion of the supreme sac­ri­fice­of lbra­heem (on whom be peace). There is absolute­ly no resem­blance to any Vedic mut­ton-eat­ing cus­tom of idol­a­trous mer­ry-mak­ing. If the Vedic cus­tom of mut­ton-feast­ing is to mark the sun’s entry into ​‘Aries’, the Islam­ic prac­tice of sac­ri­fic­ing ani­mals is not. Even the Chris­t­ian Bible speaks of the sac­ri­fice of ani­mals. If the Islam­ic cus­tom of sac­ri­fic­ing ani­mals has to be the result of Vedict impact, then Oak may also argue that the Bib­li­cal prac­tice of sac­ri­fic­ing ani­mals is like­wise the influ­ence of the Vedic religion.

Oak then claims :

The Islam­ic word Eidgah, sig­ni­fies ​“House of Wor­ship” which is the exact San­skrit con­no­ta­tion of the term.

Again Oak exhibits his total igno­rance of Islam and its prac­tices. In Ara­bic there is no such term as ​“Eidgah”. This­term was unknown to the Prophet and his fol­low­ers dur­ing the ear­ly his­to­ry of Islam. The term ​‘gah’ means place in the Urdu lan­guage. It is not of Ara­bic ori­gin nor does Eidgah in Urdu mean ​“House of Wor­ship”. The Eidgah is a spe­cial venue set aside for sole­ly the prayers which are per­formed on the Day of Eid. Eidgah, there­fore, means in Urdu the place where the spe­cial Eid prayers are per­formed. Since the term is not of Ara­bic ori­gin nor is it the word used by the Arabs to describe the place where the Eid prayers are con­duct­ed, there is no sup­port in it for Oak’s con­clu­sions stem­ming from his ​“dish” the­o­ry. In Ara­bic the place where the Eid prayers are con­duct­ed is known as the ​“Musal­laa”.

Oak betrays his igno­rance of Islam in sim­i­lar fash­ion by ten­der­ing the fol­low­ing point in sub­stan­ti­a­tion of the ​“dish” theory :

Also, the word Namaaz derives from two San­skrit roots, ​‘Nama and yaj­na’ mean­ing bow­ing and worshipping.

The word ​“Namaaz” is not an Ara­bic term. It was nev­er used by the prophet of Islam nor by the Arab Mus­lims. Even to this day the Islam­ic prac­tice of prayers is described as Salaah, not Namaaz. Namaaz isof Per­sian ori­gin. While Salaah (Islam­ic prayers) is known as ​‘Nar­naaz’ in Per­sian and Urdu, it has nev­er been the case in Ara­bic. How ridicu­lous then, is it not, for Oak to cite an Urdu term coined ages after the Prophet of Islam (on whom be peace), to bol­ster his the­o­ry aris­ing out of a dish sup­pos­ed­ly found in the Ka’bah ? The Urdu lan­guage con­sists of words from many lan­guages, includ­ing San­skrit. But the Urdu lan­guage was not the lan­guage of the Prophet or of the Arabs.

It is there­fore mean­ing­less to seek to forge a the­o­ry con­cern­ing the Arabs of the pre-Islam and post-Islam era by ten­der­ing terms intro­duced by non-Arab Mus­lims cen­turies after the advent of the Prophet of Islam (on whom be peace).

Pre­sent­ing anoth­er pre­pos­ter­ous and fal­la­cious point in sub­stan­ti­a­tion of his ​“dish” the­o­ry, Oak says :

…that Shabibarat is the cor­rupt form of Shi­va Ratra and that the term ​‘Eidul Fitr’derives from the Eid of Piters (wor­ship of fore­fa­thers in San­skrit tra­di­tion and Pitri Pak­sha among Hindus).

The term ​“shab” is not Ara­bic. The occa­sion referred to is the 15th night of the month of Sha’baan in the Islam­ic cal­en­dar. The Arabs do not know this night by the name, ​‘Shabibarat’. This is an Indi­an term, also intro­duced ages after the Holy Prophet (on whom be peace). It is bla­tant­ly false to aver that the Urdu or Faar­si word ​‘shab’ is the cor­rupt form of ​‘shi­va’. What­ev­er shi­va may mean in San­skrit, it has absolute­ly no rela­tion­ship with the Urdu term, ​‘shab’ which means night. The word ​‘baraa-ah’ is not a cor­rupt form of the San­skrit term, ratra’- Oak has allowed his imag­i­na­tion to play hav­oc with him. He makes sweep­ing claims with­out fur­nish­ing grounds for his fallacies.

His claim regard­ing ​“Eidul Fitr” is just as fal­la­cious. Eidul Fitr has absolute­ly no con­nec­tion with some idol­a­trous wor­ship of fore­fa­thers. Eidul Fitr is the Day of Hap­pi­ness mark­ing the end of the month of fast­ing, viz., the month of Ramad­haan. In Islam there is no rit­u­al or prac­tice which is even remote­ly akin to the Hin­du cus­tom of wor­ship­ping forefathers.

Oak claims that the word ​‘Allah’, the Islam­ic term for God Almighty, is a San­skrit word mean­ing ​‘god­dess or moth­er’. If there is some such word in San­skrit hav­ing these mean­ings stat­ed by Oak, there is absolute­ly no proof for the claim that the Ara­bic word, Allah has been bor­rowed from San­skrit. In Ara­bic, the word ​‘Allah’­does not mean ​‘god­dess’ nor ​‘moth­er’. The word, ​‘Allah’ has been known to the very first man on earth, viz., Aadam (on whom be peace). If some of the prog­e­ny of Aadam in the dif­fer­ent parts of the world retained the term ​‘Allah’ after hav­ing aban­doned the true reli­gion taught by the Prophets, there is no sur­prise whatsoever.

It is the belief of Mus­lims — a belief stat­ed by the Qur’an –that Almighty Allah had sent Prophets to all nations. Prophets of Allah have there­fore appeared in India and in all places to deliv­er the Truth of Islam. It is, there­fore, quite pos­si­ble, in fact, almost cer­tain that the Prophet or Prophets who came to India many thou­sands of years ago, had come with the word, Allah. The Indi­ans must have been apprized by the Prophets that God Almighty is Allah, The One. There­fore, it is not at all sur­pris­ing if the term ​‘Allah’ has been retained by the San­skrit lan­guage. But, then why do Hin­dus not refer to God with the name Allah if their lan­guage and their reli­gion claim that the cor­rect word for God is ​‘Allah’?

Oak, spurred on by his imag­i­na­tion, is read­ing too much in word sim­i­lar­i­ties. Word sim­i­lar­i­ties exist in most lan­guages. A word of the same or sim­i­lar pro­nun­ci­a­tion may be found with the same or dif­fer­ent mean­ings in dif­fer­ent lan­guages. His­tor­i­cal facts of cer­ti­tude can­not be deduced from such sim­i­lar­i­ties of ambi­gu­i­ty. Such flim­sy the­o­ries which are the prod­uct of mere imag­i­na­tion and wish­ful think­ing can­not con­sti­tute­facts and grounds for the nega­tion of his­tor­i­cal and reli­gious facts sup­port­ed by the tes­ti­mo­ny of gen­er­a­tions of authorities.

In con­clu­sion we are com­pelled to observe that the find­ings of Oak are amaz­ing in absur­di­ty and in their degree of fallacy. 

Pub­lished by Young Men’s Mus­lim Asso­ci­a­tion, P.O. Box 5036, Benoni South 1502 (South Africa)

[cite]