E
Elisha Kai
Guest
IS MUHAMMAD PREDICTED IN THE BIBLE?
The Koran itself makes this statement, and Muslims have strongly attempted to prove this point by referring to particular passages in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures.
Muslims usually wonder why Christians reject Muhammad as a prophet, and the answer is obvious:
1) the Jewish and Christian Scripture refer nowhere to Muhammad
2) Muhammad does not fulfil the standard of a prophet as set out in the Bible.
The Koran says:
Thus the Koran states that Muhammad is predicted and found within the Torah and the Gospel as it was read and understood by the Christians and the Jews in the era of Muhammad.
Since the Qur'an refutes the modern Muslim idea and speculation that the Bible and particularly the Gospel has been corrupted, we must assume that the prediction of Muhammad should be found in the present Gospel account (the Four Gospels); may I encourage every Muslim to take a good look at the passages below and submit to their own holy book by accepting the fact that the Bible has never been changed:
Then the Challenge remains where is Muhammad in these Scriptures? Because if he is absent the Qur'an appears to be debunked, and yet another Islamic fallacy has be exposed.
I. Muhammad predicted in the Torah???
Muslims will usually claim that God?s blessing upon Ishmael was the prediction of Muhammad; however, taking a closer look, we find that there is virtually no prophetic blessing ascribed to Ishmael (Gen. 16:7-15; 17:17-21; 21: 13, 18; 25:12-18). Even the Qur?an itself confirms that the line of prophet-hood ran through the nation of Israel and its prophets (2:47; 29:47; 45:16-17).
The Muslim scholar Jamal Badawi seeks however, to argue his case on the issue by stating that a position of the kind always went to the firstborn first, which in this case is Ishmael,
however:
1) this decision was taken before the law was inaugurated,
2) secondly God is above the law and
3) thirdly the context makes the whole setting understandable.
The Bible recognises the same to occur in terms of both David and Solomon (1 Samuel 16:6-13, 1 Chronicles 29:23-25), and this is indeed confirmed even by the Koran:
The classic point referred to by Muslims is Deuteronomy 18:18 which says:
The attempt of the Muslim is to state that compared to Moses, no prophet presented himself in the same close similitude as Muhammad. To prove their point Muslim scholars have listed a range of parallel elements, which mark the life and accomplishments of both individuals.
E.g. Ahmed Deedat in his booklet What the Bible says about Muhammed comes up with these points (and I will respond to them point by point):
1) Moses and Muhammad were prophets, while Jesus according to the Gospels was the Son of God!
- however the Gospels do refer to Jesus as a prophet too (Mark 6:4)
2) Moses and Muhammad were both married, Jesus was not
- if that is important we also need to consider the number of wives Muhammad had in comparison to Moses, which proves to be highly unequal
3) Moses and Muhammad had both a father and mother, but Jesus had no father
- to use this argument a Muslim is simply referring to Jesus on a much higher level than Muhammad, and secondly if this is important why should we stop here, why not also consider the comparison between the parents of Moses and Muhammad?
4) Both Moses and Muhammad, were accepted by their people while Jesus was rejected
- actually Jesus was accepted by his followers, and secondly his mission is not over yet. The time is coming when he will receive global acceptation. Secondly, was Muhammad really accepted by all, or did he simply force his rule?
5) Moses and Muhammad were both rulers, Jesus never ruled a people or anyone
- Jesus stated that he is ruling already now over heaven and earth, however again, his mission is not completed yet, he will return to rule globally
6) Moses and Muhammad gave laws to the people Jesus did not
- wrong again, read the sermon on the mountain or Jesus words prior to his ascension (Matt.28:20)
7) Moses and Muhammad died a natural death, while Jesus? according to the Gospel died as a sacrifice
- 1) Moses was killed by God himself, 2) Jesus died as a sacrifice and 3) Muhammad was possibly poisoned by a Jewish women; which of these three died a natural death?
Moses and Muhammad are both buried but Jesus according to the Gospel was taken to heaven
- Jesus was buried for a few days, as for Moses there is no grave, we are left ignorant.
This kind of approach is obviously formulated by an individual whose lack of Biblical knowledge simply leads him to pull verses out of context, combine them with other verses and add a slight of speculation. For example what has marriage got to do with the similitude of prophet-hood?
If this kind of approach lays the criteria, then the Muslim also needs to consider the elements which speak against Muhammad?s prophet-hood:
Similar argumentation proving Muhammad to be unlike Moses
1) Both Moses and Jesus were Israelites descending from the prophet line of Isaac of Jacob; Muhammad was an Arab
2) Both Moses and Jesus were in Egypt; Muhammad was not
3) Both Moses and Jesus were saved as babies; Muhammad was not
4) Moses (Ex.33: 13-14) and Jesus (Matt.11) knew God personally, Muhammad did not!
5) Moses and Jesus could read, Muhammad could according to the Muslims not
6) Both Moses and Jesus did miracles, but according to the Qur?an Muhammad performed none (Sura 24: 13) (29: 50).
7) Jesus and Moses never advocated foreign gods, however Muhammad at one point encouraged the worship of the three daughters of Allah.
The passage in Deut.18: 18 cannot refer to Muhammad since the whole context deals with Israel and individual positions within society, such as prophets, who were to originate from the nation of Israel, that is: from among their own brothers, just like the kings (17:14-15) and priests (18:2).
The Actual context of Deut.18: 15-20
The argument falls to the ground merely by considering the actual context of Deut.18, and this is where modern Islamic scholarship gets debunked.
In other words the promise of a prophet like Moses was an answer to Israel?s prayer. One who will succeed Moses and stand between the Israel as a nation and God; in this context it had no global or international implication; the matter concerns the nation of Israel only.
It becomes obvious from verses 19-20 that the prophet has a plural significance, in other words, the ?prophet? is a prediction of several prophets rather than a particular one. Secondly, since the passage refers to the context of Israel and the function of prophets there within. In other words, the prophet like Moses begins with Joshua. Thus the most accurate interpretation reveals that the ?prophet? refers to the line of prophets, from Moses up to Jesus Christ.
The true sign of a prophet was:
1. Always speaking the Word of God, not false prophecy
2. Never to promote the worship of any other god
It is vital here, that Muhammad did at one time through prophetical utterance permit the worship of idols.
Later the verses (known as the satanic verses) were abrogated from the Quran by the angel Gabriel (Sura 17:73 ? 75, Sura 22:52-53, Sura 52: 19-26 Bukhari 6: 385; Tabari vol 6: 107).
This one of the main reasons, why Christians refuse to accept Muhammad as a prophet from God and certainly as the last prophet.
Furthermore
verses 21-22, speak of the actual sign which proves a prophet, that is the fulfilment of his predictions, say a prophet really speaks for God and Muhammad did fail in this area as well; e.g. Sunan Abu Dawud, book 37: Number 4283 (Did the Dajjal appear in the seventh year of the battle over Constantinople?).
II. Is Muhammad predicted elsewhere in the Old Testament?
Since the word mahamaddim is used in Song of songs 5:16 Muslims quickly assert that Muhammad is being predicted.
However mahamaddim is a Hebrew word, which simply refers to a ?loved one? (literary it means delights) in a romantic setting; the same noun is applied in several Old Testament passages such as Hosea 9:6,16; 1 Kings 20:6; Lamentations 1:10,11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:10; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25.
Secondly the passage does not describe Muhammad but possibly king Solomon or even a shepherd boy.
Often Deut.33: 2 and Habakkuk 3: 3 are used to claim that Paran refers to Mecca, however Paran is located in the Sinai Peninsula near Egypt. Secondly, the context of Deut.33 speaks of an event in the history of Israel, not Saudi Arabia in the era of Muhammad.
Some Muslims refer to the servant in Isaiah 42:1 to prove Muhammad, however the context clearly refers to a Jewish related individual, who is a peacemaker and fits the full context of the anointed Messiah.
The Muslim scholar Badawi postulates that Isaiah 21:13-17 is a reference to the battle of Badr, however the context speaks about the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions of Arabia.
Psalm 84:6 is often used to prove the pilgrimage to Mecca, however the name used, Baca, is located in northern Israel, as near as five miles from Jerusalem.
Isaiah 29: 11-12 is supposed to refer to the giving of the Quran to someone who is unable to read (Muhammad), however according to the context, it is the rebellious people of Israel (not God) provide the book. Thus, say Muhammad is the focus, then not Allah but the rebellious people of Israel provide Muhammad with the Koran (talk about corruption), and then again, how about the other individual who is literate? Who is he? Also we need to consider that the text is plural, and no particular individual seems to be in mind, and finally the book is sealed and can therefore not be read; is the Muslim thus willing to admit that he cant read his own holy book?
Isaiah 42-45 speak about a chosen anointed one, yet again we need to look at the context as; in Isaiah 42 the chosen anointed servant clearly is a Messianic prediction, in Isaiah 42-44, 48-49 it is Israel, in Isaiah 41 and 45 it is the Persian king Cyrus.
III. Is Muhammad predicted in the Gospels?
The classical example from the Gospels is the ?Counsellor? mentioned in Jesus discourse to the disciples (John 14-15).
1) The word used by Jesus in John 14: 16 and 16:7 is parakletos (counsellor), however Muslims assert that the word should be the Greek periklytos which means praised one, a common title used for Muhammad.
However this kind of argument simply builds upon speculation, since the word clearly is parakletos not periklytos as it is attested by every ancient document.
2) Secondly if the word indeed proved to be periklytos, so what? Why should it refer to Muhammad and not to someone else?
3) Thirdly, no ancient manuscripts contain the word periklytos, but parakletos
4) Fourthly the Muslim fails to consider the context, which would reveal that in case Muhammad was the parakletos or the periklytos:
- he was sent to Jesus disciples after Jesus? ascension (14:15)
- he will be sent on behalf of the will of Jesus (14:16)
- he would remain with them forever (14:16)
- he would only be seen by Jesus followers, first of all the disciples (14:17)
- he will live with and in the disciples (14:17)
- he will be directly united with Christ (14:18-19)
In other words if this particular passage refers to Muhammad, then indeed Muhammad is God, which in the religion of Islam would be committing shirk, the unforgivable sin of comparing anyone or anything with God.
a)To Summarize Muhammad is not found in the Bible
b)If Muhammad is predicted in the Bible e.g. as the Holy Spirit, then Muhammad is indeed God
How are we to make sense out of the Qur'anic claim of the Biblical prediction of Muhammad and the attempts of Muslims discover the liability of this claim?
Could such an error be the product of Divine revelation?
I Dont THINK SO!
Be blessed
Elisha Kai
The Koran itself makes this statement, and Muslims have strongly attempted to prove this point by referring to particular passages in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures.
Muslims usually wonder why Christians reject Muhammad as a prophet, and the answer is obvious:
1) the Jewish and Christian Scripture refer nowhere to Muhammad
2) Muhammad does not fulfil the standard of a prophet as set out in the Bible.
The Koran says:
Thus the Koran states that Muhammad is predicted and found within the Torah and the Gospel as it was read and understood by the Christians and the Jews in the era of Muhammad.
Since the Qur'an refutes the modern Muslim idea and speculation that the Bible and particularly the Gospel has been corrupted, we must assume that the prediction of Muhammad should be found in the present Gospel account (the Four Gospels); may I encourage every Muslim to take a good look at the passages below and submit to their own holy book by accepting the fact that the Bible has never been changed:
)
Then the Challenge remains where is Muhammad in these Scriptures? Because if he is absent the Qur'an appears to be debunked, and yet another Islamic fallacy has be exposed.
I. Muhammad predicted in the Torah???
Muslims will usually claim that God?s blessing upon Ishmael was the prediction of Muhammad; however, taking a closer look, we find that there is virtually no prophetic blessing ascribed to Ishmael (Gen. 16:7-15; 17:17-21; 21: 13, 18; 25:12-18). Even the Qur?an itself confirms that the line of prophet-hood ran through the nation of Israel and its prophets (2:47; 29:47; 45:16-17).
The Muslim scholar Jamal Badawi seeks however, to argue his case on the issue by stating that a position of the kind always went to the firstborn first, which in this case is Ishmael,
however:
1) this decision was taken before the law was inaugurated,
2) secondly God is above the law and
3) thirdly the context makes the whole setting understandable.
The Bible recognises the same to occur in terms of both David and Solomon (1 Samuel 16:6-13, 1 Chronicles 29:23-25), and this is indeed confirmed even by the Koran:
The classic point referred to by Muslims is Deuteronomy 18:18 which says:
The attempt of the Muslim is to state that compared to Moses, no prophet presented himself in the same close similitude as Muhammad. To prove their point Muslim scholars have listed a range of parallel elements, which mark the life and accomplishments of both individuals.
E.g. Ahmed Deedat in his booklet What the Bible says about Muhammed comes up with these points (and I will respond to them point by point):
1) Moses and Muhammad were prophets, while Jesus according to the Gospels was the Son of God!
- however the Gospels do refer to Jesus as a prophet too (Mark 6:4)
2) Moses and Muhammad were both married, Jesus was not
- if that is important we also need to consider the number of wives Muhammad had in comparison to Moses, which proves to be highly unequal
3) Moses and Muhammad had both a father and mother, but Jesus had no father
- to use this argument a Muslim is simply referring to Jesus on a much higher level than Muhammad, and secondly if this is important why should we stop here, why not also consider the comparison between the parents of Moses and Muhammad?
4) Both Moses and Muhammad, were accepted by their people while Jesus was rejected
- actually Jesus was accepted by his followers, and secondly his mission is not over yet. The time is coming when he will receive global acceptation. Secondly, was Muhammad really accepted by all, or did he simply force his rule?
5) Moses and Muhammad were both rulers, Jesus never ruled a people or anyone
- Jesus stated that he is ruling already now over heaven and earth, however again, his mission is not completed yet, he will return to rule globally
6) Moses and Muhammad gave laws to the people Jesus did not
- wrong again, read the sermon on the mountain or Jesus words prior to his ascension (Matt.28:20)
7) Moses and Muhammad died a natural death, while Jesus? according to the Gospel died as a sacrifice
- 1) Moses was killed by God himself, 2) Jesus died as a sacrifice and 3) Muhammad was possibly poisoned by a Jewish women; which of these three died a natural death?
Moses and Muhammad are both buried but Jesus according to the Gospel was taken to heaven
- Jesus was buried for a few days, as for Moses there is no grave, we are left ignorant.
This kind of approach is obviously formulated by an individual whose lack of Biblical knowledge simply leads him to pull verses out of context, combine them with other verses and add a slight of speculation. For example what has marriage got to do with the similitude of prophet-hood?
If this kind of approach lays the criteria, then the Muslim also needs to consider the elements which speak against Muhammad?s prophet-hood:
Similar argumentation proving Muhammad to be unlike Moses
1) Both Moses and Jesus were Israelites descending from the prophet line of Isaac of Jacob; Muhammad was an Arab
2) Both Moses and Jesus were in Egypt; Muhammad was not
3) Both Moses and Jesus were saved as babies; Muhammad was not
4) Moses (Ex.33: 13-14) and Jesus (Matt.11) knew God personally, Muhammad did not!
5) Moses and Jesus could read, Muhammad could according to the Muslims not
6) Both Moses and Jesus did miracles, but according to the Qur?an Muhammad performed none (Sura 24: 13) (29: 50).
7) Jesus and Moses never advocated foreign gods, however Muhammad at one point encouraged the worship of the three daughters of Allah.
The passage in Deut.18: 18 cannot refer to Muhammad since the whole context deals with Israel and individual positions within society, such as prophets, who were to originate from the nation of Israel, that is: from among their own brothers, just like the kings (17:14-15) and priests (18:2).
The Actual context of Deut.18: 15-20
The argument falls to the ground merely by considering the actual context of Deut.18, and this is where modern Islamic scholarship gets debunked.
In other words the promise of a prophet like Moses was an answer to Israel?s prayer. One who will succeed Moses and stand between the Israel as a nation and God; in this context it had no global or international implication; the matter concerns the nation of Israel only.
It becomes obvious from verses 19-20 that the prophet has a plural significance, in other words, the ?prophet? is a prediction of several prophets rather than a particular one. Secondly, since the passage refers to the context of Israel and the function of prophets there within. In other words, the prophet like Moses begins with Joshua. Thus the most accurate interpretation reveals that the ?prophet? refers to the line of prophets, from Moses up to Jesus Christ.
The true sign of a prophet was:
1. Always speaking the Word of God, not false prophecy
2. Never to promote the worship of any other god
It is vital here, that Muhammad did at one time through prophetical utterance permit the worship of idols.
Later the verses (known as the satanic verses) were abrogated from the Quran by the angel Gabriel (Sura 17:73 ? 75, Sura 22:52-53, Sura 52: 19-26 Bukhari 6: 385; Tabari vol 6: 107).
This one of the main reasons, why Christians refuse to accept Muhammad as a prophet from God and certainly as the last prophet.
Furthermore
verses 21-22, speak of the actual sign which proves a prophet, that is the fulfilment of his predictions, say a prophet really speaks for God and Muhammad did fail in this area as well; e.g. Sunan Abu Dawud, book 37: Number 4283 (Did the Dajjal appear in the seventh year of the battle over Constantinople?).
II. Is Muhammad predicted elsewhere in the Old Testament?
Since the word mahamaddim is used in Song of songs 5:16 Muslims quickly assert that Muhammad is being predicted.
However mahamaddim is a Hebrew word, which simply refers to a ?loved one? (literary it means delights) in a romantic setting; the same noun is applied in several Old Testament passages such as Hosea 9:6,16; 1 Kings 20:6; Lamentations 1:10,11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:10; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25.
Secondly the passage does not describe Muhammad but possibly king Solomon or even a shepherd boy.
Often Deut.33: 2 and Habakkuk 3: 3 are used to claim that Paran refers to Mecca, however Paran is located in the Sinai Peninsula near Egypt. Secondly, the context of Deut.33 speaks of an event in the history of Israel, not Saudi Arabia in the era of Muhammad.
Some Muslims refer to the servant in Isaiah 42:1 to prove Muhammad, however the context clearly refers to a Jewish related individual, who is a peacemaker and fits the full context of the anointed Messiah.
The Muslim scholar Badawi postulates that Isaiah 21:13-17 is a reference to the battle of Badr, however the context speaks about the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions of Arabia.
Psalm 84:6 is often used to prove the pilgrimage to Mecca, however the name used, Baca, is located in northern Israel, as near as five miles from Jerusalem.
Isaiah 29: 11-12 is supposed to refer to the giving of the Quran to someone who is unable to read (Muhammad), however according to the context, it is the rebellious people of Israel (not God) provide the book. Thus, say Muhammad is the focus, then not Allah but the rebellious people of Israel provide Muhammad with the Koran (talk about corruption), and then again, how about the other individual who is literate? Who is he? Also we need to consider that the text is plural, and no particular individual seems to be in mind, and finally the book is sealed and can therefore not be read; is the Muslim thus willing to admit that he cant read his own holy book?
Isaiah 42-45 speak about a chosen anointed one, yet again we need to look at the context as; in Isaiah 42 the chosen anointed servant clearly is a Messianic prediction, in Isaiah 42-44, 48-49 it is Israel, in Isaiah 41 and 45 it is the Persian king Cyrus.
III. Is Muhammad predicted in the Gospels?
The classical example from the Gospels is the ?Counsellor? mentioned in Jesus discourse to the disciples (John 14-15).
1) The word used by Jesus in John 14: 16 and 16:7 is parakletos (counsellor), however Muslims assert that the word should be the Greek periklytos which means praised one, a common title used for Muhammad.
However this kind of argument simply builds upon speculation, since the word clearly is parakletos not periklytos as it is attested by every ancient document.
2) Secondly if the word indeed proved to be periklytos, so what? Why should it refer to Muhammad and not to someone else?
3) Thirdly, no ancient manuscripts contain the word periklytos, but parakletos
4) Fourthly the Muslim fails to consider the context, which would reveal that in case Muhammad was the parakletos or the periklytos:
- he was sent to Jesus disciples after Jesus? ascension (14:15)
- he will be sent on behalf of the will of Jesus (14:16)
- he would remain with them forever (14:16)
- he would only be seen by Jesus followers, first of all the disciples (14:17)
- he will live with and in the disciples (14:17)
- he will be directly united with Christ (14:18-19)
In other words if this particular passage refers to Muhammad, then indeed Muhammad is God, which in the religion of Islam would be committing shirk, the unforgivable sin of comparing anyone or anything with God.
a)To Summarize Muhammad is not found in the Bible
b)If Muhammad is predicted in the Bible e.g. as the Holy Spirit, then Muhammad is indeed God
How are we to make sense out of the Qur'anic claim of the Biblical prediction of Muhammad and the attempts of Muslims discover the liability of this claim?
Could such an error be the product of Divine revelation?
I Dont THINK SO!
Be blessed
Elisha Kai
: