Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Islam, Submission With No Peace Pt. 8...Is "Muhammad" In The Bible?

The Islamic Apologists

The late Islamic scholar Ahmed Deedat (1918-2005) claimed extensively that Muhammad was mentioned in the bible and that the biblical translators had changed the meaning of the original word to hide this "fact". The reason that Deedat believed and taught this, was because the Quran was supposed to have said that Muhammad was mentioned in the law and in the gospels. 
Sura 7: 157 ~ "those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper."
So for Deedat and many other Islamic Apologists, there "must" be a connection to Muhammad, their prophet within the Holy scriptures associated with the Jews religion and with Christianity. This has been debated for years, so it is nothing new. 

In response to his 1986 debate with then Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart, Deedat claimed the following:
The Late Dr. Ahmed Deedat
"Initially when I started talking about the subject about what the Bible says about Muhammad, (pbhn), I didn't know, at the beginning and for a very long time, I didn't know, that the Holy Prophet Muhammad, (pbhn) was mentioned by name, in the bible.Mentioned by name." 
"What has happened is this, first that Muhammad (pbhn) is mentioned by name in the original scriptures. The Old Testament, according to Christian mythologies, was preserved in the Hebrew language. The New Testament, in Greek scriptures, in Greek language. In the Old Testament, the Song Of Solomon chapter 5, verse 16, in the Hebrew language....it says: "חכו ממתקים וכלו מחמדים זה דודי וזה רעי בנות ירושלם׃" The word "ma·ḥă·mad·dîm, (highlighted above) is the word  "Ma ha mad".."im"..."im" is a plural of respect in the Hebrew."   
Dr. Deedat went on to argue that all Eastern languages have a common feature of respect when it is implying a "proper name" or referring to someone of importance. Thus his textual proof that the "Prophet  Muhammad" is mentioned in the bible and that the biblical prophecy is centered around him.  

To the ardent faithful of Islam, this makes much sense. It further leads to great leaps of sentiments that Jesus prophesied about Muhammad as well by referring to him as "the comforter" (Jh, 14:16) Heritics such as Zakir Naik who hasn't fallen far from the Deedat tree, but seemingly landed on his head, promote this fallacy boldly proclaiming that Muhammad is the one who is to lead us and guide us into all truth! More on this fallacious and absurd argument later in the article.  



Biblical Truth Or A Fatally Flawed Heresy? 

Easy enough to see, this is a fatally flawed heresy, for reasons I will outline in this post, but also because  what Dr. Deedat suggests leads into sheer fantasy and total confusion. In addition there is and remains to be no evidence that any scripture referred to a man, prophet or otherwise, named Muhammad.  

First, there are approximately 12 scriptures in the OT that use the word ma ha mad,  ma·ḥă·mad·dîm, (machmad) or some other variation of the word in the Hebrew language.  The Song Of Solomon, referenced above is the only one that uses the word  ma·ḥă·mad·dîm , which means desirable(able) or precious. The root word is the Hebrew word "chamad' which means to take pleasure in or in essence to be glad because of or for something. There isn't the slightest inference that the word refers to a man, but because it is close in sound and spelling to Muhammad, it is usually the first place that the Muslim apologist will begin to claim that their prophet Muhammad, is in the bible.

Special Note: Remember the Islamic claim is that prophet Muhammad is referenced not just in the bible, but specifically in the Law (the first 5 books of the Old Testament) and the Gospels (the first 4 books of the New Testament). Keep in mind, the "Song of Solomon" IS NOT in either the Law, nor the Gospels. So if nothing else, their argument fails at that point by itself.   

The other 11 verses are outlined as follows:

1 Kings 20:6 ~ Yet I will send my servants unto thee to morrow about this time, and they shall search thine house, and the houses of thy servants; and it shall be, that whatsoever is pleasant (maḥ·maḏ) in thine eyes, they shall put it in their hand, and take it away.

Ezek. 24:16 ~  Son of man, behold, I take away from thee the desire (maḥ·maḏ) of thine eyes with a stroke: yet neither shalt thou mourn nor weep, neither shall thy tears run down. 


Ezek. 24:21 ~ Speak unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will profane my sanctuary, the excellency of your strength, the desire (maḥ·maḏ) of your eyes, and that which your soul pitieth; and your sons and your daughters whom ye have left shall fall by the sword

Ezek. 24:25 ~ Also, thou son of man, shall it not be in the day when I take from them their strength, the joy of their glory, the desire (maḥ·maḏ) of their eyes, and that whereupon they set their minds, their sons and their daughters

Hosea 9:6 ~ For, lo, they are gone because of destruction: Egypt shall gather them up, Memphis shall bury them: the pleasant (maḥ·maḏ) places for their silver, nettles shall possess them: thorns shall be in their tabernacles.  

Lamentations 2:4 ~ He hath bent his bow like an enemy: he stood with his right hand as an adversary, and slew all that were pleasant (ma ha mad de) to the eye in the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion: he poured out his fury like fire. 

Hosea 9:16 ~ Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved (ma ha mad de) fruit of their womb

2 Chron. 36:19 ~ And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly (ma·ḥă·mad·de·hā)   vessels thereof

Lamentations 1:10 ~ The adversary hath spread out his hand upon all her pleasant things: (ma·ḥă·mad·de·hā)  for she hath seen that the heathen entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst command that they should not enter into thy congregation.

Isaiah 64:11 ~ Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned up with fire: and all our pleasant things (ma·ḥă·mad·dê·nū) are laid waste

Joel 3:5 ~ Because ye have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried into your temples my goodly pleasant things (ū·ma·ḥă·mad·day)

These scriptures seem to be the bulk of the argument that Muhammad is not only venerated but held in high esteem in the bible. The reason that Dr. Deedat started with the Song Of Solomon, is to make the point that 1- "Ma ha mad" exists and that 2- The translators changed the implication of the word to mean something that it did not originally mean in Hebrew. In other words, the dreaded "Christians have changed the scriptures in hatred of Islam and the Holy Prophet Muhammad" 

What Should One Make Of This Argument? 

NOT MUCH!!! To begin, I am not a linguist, but I know those who are, and they are not in the least bit impressed by any of this argument and the supposed "similarities" in pronunciation and annunciation of words between Hebrew and Arabic. In addition, before one deals with any theology behind claims like this, according to this system of interpretation, there are many people who can assert that they too are prophesied about in the bible. For instance, if your name is "Joy"  or if it is  "Kadeva" or some other variation, you could as well say that you too were an object of prophetic import by the prophets and God himself as he spoke to the people. For example:
Neh. 8:10 ~  Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry; for the joy (chedvah)  of the LORD is your strength.
So this much proves that if your name is "Kadeva","Joy" or some other variation, (at least according to Muslim apologists system of interpretation), you too are prophesied about in the bible and you are the strength of God's people. 

This type of interpretation is what I call a "cracker-jack" interpretation of scripture. technically, it is actually an anachronism. Meaning that it is an interpretation gained by looking back and inserting something from another time frame into a previous time frame of scripture to render an interpretation different than what was originally meant or to create the desired outcome before examination is made. 

If Muhammad Is In The Bible The Implications Are Utterly Confusing

For a minute, let's assume that the Deedat interpretation is true. That there was some grand conspiracy to change and eliminate Muhammad's name from the bible. The first point would be that they (whoever they are) failed. If ONE reference to Prophet "Muhammad" is left, then everything is suspect. So even in intentionally eliminating "Muhammad", for some reason they couldn't do it. They left exactly 12 references. In this system of interpretation I suppose this would be one "Muhammad" or variation of his name for each disciple of Jesus...

Further, let's look at the implication and interpretation of a few of the scriptures if they actually referred to a man named Muhammad. In fact let's begin by inserting the proper name Muhammad" in the scripture of Songs Of Solomon where these apologists think it should be... 
Song Of Solomon 5:16 ~ His mouth is most sweet: yea, . This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.
OK, this is Dr. Deedat's and most Muslim apologists primary example for a reason. It almost makes sense if the verse was in isolation. However, the problem is that the verse is not in isolation and the word (machmad) or  ma·ḥă·mad·dîm although a noun, is not what we call a proper noun. It is descriptive of who this person is. In addition this would be referring to a real "ladies man". As one can have up to 4 wives in Islam, I suppose this would also be a warning to the women. 

To the point and theology, this verse is not a part of the Law nor is it part of the Gospels as the Quran requires. As Plank's Constant has pointed out on his web blog, The Song of Solomon is also an erotic love song about a Shullamite woman referring, in metaphorical fashion, to Christ's love of his people and the church in particular. There is no implication whatsoever that anything in this verse was referring to a man named Muhammad, prophet or otherwise or further that a man would do anything. 

So at the best possible case, this is a stretch and even then it is a HUGE miss. 

Let's look at some of the other supposed references inserting Muhammad the person just the same:
Ezek. 24:16 ~  Son of man, behold, I take away (maḥ·maḏ) of thine eyes with a stroke: yet neither shalt thou mourn nor weep, neither shall thy tears run down. 
If this is referring to Muhammad, it sounds like God is judging him and noone is to weep or mourn because of it. Let's look further:
Lamentations 1:10 ~ The adversary hath spread out his hand upon (ma·ḥă·mad·de·hā)  for she hath seen that the heathen entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst command that they should not enter into thy congregation. 
Now if this is referring to a man Muhammad, it is also referring to a woman or a female. Considering the Quranic verses condemning homosexuality, I don't know of any Muslim who would believe that Muhammad has female traits or tendencies. 
Hosea 9:16 ~ Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth,  yet will I slay even (ma ha mad de) fruit of their womb
Now this is a very condemning scripture if taken in isolation to prove that Muhammad the prophet exists in the bible. First it is a condemnation and judgement of him, not only saying that God will strike him, but that God will also strike all of his seed and offspring. 
2 Chron. 36:19 ~ And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the  palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed (ma·ḥă·mad·de·hā)  vessels thereof
Once again, here is the destruction not blessing of Muhammad. Then look at this one:
Joel 3:5 ~ Because ye have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried into your temples my goodly  (ū·ma·ḥă·mad·day)
OK, we remember when this happened. The only problem is Muhammad couldn't have been carried away when the gold and silver of the temple was carried away. Muhammad was born thousands of years later AFTER the temple system had already been destroyed. 

As you can see this type of blinding literalism is not only unlearned, none of these scriptures do what the Quran state they do and they are NOT contained within the law and neither are they contained within the Gospels.

Tampering Is Essential

Dr. Zakir Naik
Because these arguments are such a ZERO, the Islamic apologist must contend that the scriptures have been changed and that those who have produced the biblical texts are liars. None of that discourages them though. Somehow "they" know the "truth" and without any evidence that supports their assertions go on to make the case disregarding their lack of evidence or nonsensical ramblings. 

Dr. Zakir Naik, who quotes more scripture out of context than almost anyone I've ever seen,  proclaims that John 14:16 refers to Prophet Muhammad clearly. Remember what John 14:16 says:

John 14:16 ~ And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Don't let the fact that the scripture says that the "Comforter" is to abide with us "forever" and that Muhammad is long dead, disturb you. I would suppose that his current presence is solidified by his past presence??? (Utter Confusion!) Look at the real issue, and the real issue is that  the same book, the Bible, and the text of John itself, defines who the comforter is. 

Look further:

John 14:26 ~ But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Dr. Naik, vigorously contends that this can't possibly be true, because the Holy Ghost aka Holy Spirit is already present with us and that based on that the "comforter" would have to be prophet Muhammad. Only the same set of scriptures that he upholds says that he is a lie and that the comforter is the Holy Ghost and NOT a man.

In fact here are some other things that John 14 says about this Comforter:

v. 17 ~ "for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."
v. 26 ~ "he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
Ch. 15:26 ~", he shall testify of me"
Ch. 16:8 ~ "will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:"
Ch 16:13 ~ "he will guide you into all truth:...he shall not speak of himself; ...will shew you things to come. 
Ch. 16:14 He shall glorify me:...he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you

Now it should be evidently clear that Muhammad doesn't abide with us "forever" and is certainly not "in us". Neither does he bring all things back to our remembrance. If that were the case he would have agreed with both the crucifixion and the resurrection, neither of which Muhammad taught and or believed. Because of of the fundamental truths of the Gospel, that Jesus died and was raised again the third day and lives forever more, he (prophet Muhammad) is certainly in no position whatsoever to bring us "truth" and could not have possibly received his denial of essential historical events and Christian doctrine from God. Further, he is not the "Spirit" as the scripture demands that the comforter would be.

There is no clue as to who the Holy Ghost is according to these apologists. As stated, Dr Naik asserts that the Holy Ghost was already present on earth, and so none of the scriptures refer to him. Evidently, they only selectively read the book of John. Just as they would cut out and deny anything referring to crucifixion and resurrection as I mentioned above, they must also deny what is recorded earlier in John:

John 7:37-39 37-In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38-He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39-(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
    
At that point the dialogue changes and now we are dealing with  words and language and somehow even against the text itself.  In the end, because it is required, Muhammad yet arises as the comforter even against all evidence to the contrary. 

In other words in order to make something fit the Quranic verses, something else is made up whole cloth. Accuracy is of no concern. This is called an "Ad Hoc" argument. Simply applying anything to make the argument work. What is funny is that if they are true, they are committing the sin of SHIRK by equating Muhammad, a man, with God. This is the highest form blasphemy within Islam. Even within Islam, to say that Muhammad, or a man IS the Holy Ghost and or Holy Spirit, is problematic. According to their scriptures, this brings God down to the state of man, which is why the incarnation of Jesus is so vehemently rejected in Islam. According to their own scriptures, these things simply cannot be so. 

Conclusion

As one can see, it is more "wishful thinking" than anything else that either Muhammad is prophesied about in the OT or that the Comforter refers to Muhammad in any way. This type of interpretation is chalk full of problems, yet alone full of scripturally illiterate assertions. 

Words in various languages sound the same and it is easy to see where certain words come from. More importantly, the content of what is said is essential. The bible presents a GOd who presents Jesus as the High Priest to take away the sins of the world. God does this by sending his only "begotten" Son, who has a special unique relationship with the Father sharing the same nature, deity and abilities. Jesus takes on the limitation of human flesh, dwells among man and mankind, touched and handled by men to do one thing, remove the stain, weight and guilt of their sins from them. He displays his power over the elements, sickness and disease through contless miracles. He humbles himself to men, dies and is raised even raising himself 3 days later displaying proofs and miracles for all men to see. 

There was no trance, neither was there a private revelation. This was a public event to be displayed and received by all, including all Muslims who would leave the teachings and heretical utterances of a man and step into the light of truth that Jesus IS the ONLY way and aside from him there is no other way to the Father. 

This is the message that was contained within the gospel. This is the message that Muhammad denied. Therefore, we KNOW that Muhammad wasn't mentioned in the scriptures...well, wait a minute, maybe he was mentioned in the bible. It just might have been this scripture:

Mark 8:31-34 31-And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32-And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. 33-But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men. 34-And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."  
Blessed!

Special thanks to Arshabbir commenting in Islam, Submission With No Peace Pt. 5, providing enough heretical arguments to choke a horse regarding this subject. It allowed me much research material.   

3 comments:

  1. Arshabbir,

    The Quran states:

    Sura 7: 157 ~ "those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;

    Is the "Song Of Solomon" in the Torah or the Law?

    Is the "Song Of Solomon" part of the Gospels?

    If not you and your scriptures are absolutely wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for linking to my article Planck's Constant, it's appreciated. I personally believe the real reason that Mohammed slaughtered the Jews of Khyber was because they would not insert his name into their holy texts.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Bernieg1,

    Thank you for your work my friend. I believe that it is of excellent quality.

    Could you expound on Muhammad's actions at Khyber for us please or link to an article that you've done regarding that issue?

    I think that is something that we would should know as we examine these sort of issues.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.