For the fact mistakes and errors based on themes, see Part II, Chapter 1, Subchapter 3, Sections 1 through 16.
Comments in this book numbered by 3 numbers (included 00 or 0) a few places followed by one small letter = clear cases. Comments numbered by 00 or 0 followed by 1, 2 or 3 letters (big or small) = likely cases.
(We are not religious people, but in this chapter we build on the Bible, to be able to debate with Muslims and with Islam which on these topics builds everything on the reliability of that book – except when they want pre-determined answers, becuse if not the Bible is unreliable and falsified.)
It is not unusual for self proclaimed “prophets” starting new sects or religions to try to legitimate themselves by attaching themselves to canonized texts. May be that is what Muhammad did, too. There are stories connecting him to learned men, and this is tried to be used as proofs for that he is a prophet in the Jewish successions of prophets. And of course if he figures in the Bible (which the Quran indicates) that must be an excellent proof for his legitimacy. And not to forget: The Quran really says – many places - he is mentioned in the Bible, and then Islam HAS to find him there, because they have no proofs for his legitimacy and connection to a god – only his own words. But also because mistakes in the Quran mean that something is wrong with both Muhammad and the religion. (That is a main reason why Islam can accept no mistake in the Quran - no matter how obvious the mistake is that Islam tries to explain it away, even though many of the “explanations” are downright pathetic.)
The two places in the Quran that most clearly says he is foretold in the Bible are:
Surah 7/verse 157:
“Those who follow the Messenger (Muhammad*), the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) – in the Law (the 5 first parts of the OT are often called "the Law" even though the law only is a minor part of it*) and the Gospel (first 4 parts of NT*) - - -.” And:
Surah 61/verse 6:
“- - - Jesus, the son of Mary said: ‘O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allah (sent) to you , confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving the glad Tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad (another version of the name Muhammad*) - - -.”
Islam needs to find foretelling in the Bible for 2 reasons:
Because of this they have to find prophesies about him in both OT and NT – no matter how! – it is much better to believe in Islam on twisted and invalid arguments, than to try to find out whether the Quran is true or not.
There only are two places in the Bible Muslim scholars really try to prove anything: That the word “brother” in 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 means “Arabs” (brothers of the Jews), and that Jesus’ words that the apostles would get the Holy Spirit as a helper in the Gospel after John in reality was a foretelling about Muhammad 600 years later. There are more points, but those even Muslim scholars admit are weak, and they mostly are used towards Muslims and others with little real knowledge of the Bible, of historical facts, and of the involved religions.
What is absolutely sure, is that there nowhere in the Bible is a prophesy that clearly foretells that Muhammad is to come. And another fact that is as clear is that there are no clear prophesies about a prophet (per definition Muhammad is no prophet – see the chapter about Muhammad) from Arabia or any other country in that area. There even are no clear hints about any of these two things things.
What remains are some points where – by stretching imagination a little or a lot – it is possible to say “if we understand this and this so and so, this may be understood like this and this, and it may mean that we can see Muhammad in this text – at least perhaps”. So far the argument is fair – but remember it still is a claim only.
But what then happen is that they jump from claiming “this is a possibility” to claiming that “this is a fact” without any more proofs, documentations or indicia – a logically completely invalid step, that of course makes the claimed conclusion as invalid logically. We see three reasons for this logical nonsense:
Here are some of the theories about where to find Muhammad in the Bible – arranged according to where the points appear in the Bible. (We use New International Version – NIV – because that is the newest translation and consequently likely to be the most reliable, as science learns a little more about the old languages every year).
“As for Ishmael, I (Yahweh*) have heard you (Abraham*): I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation”. This some Muslims call the first foretelling about Muhammad and the great nation of Arabia. But they omit to mention that this foretelling was fulfilled already a couple of generations later as told in 1. Mos.25/13 – 16: “These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, listed in the order of their birth: - - - (12 names*) - - -. These were the sons of Ishmael, and these are the names of the twelve tribal rulers according to their settlements and camps.” (Some translators say princes instead of rulers, and nations instead of tribes.)
Well, here are the 12 rulers and the great nation – 12 tribes after all meant power in a sparsely populated land. But how Muslims are able to see Muhammad in this, we have not found out.
“While he (Ishmael*) was in the desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt”. Paran is on the Sinai Peninsula. But there also is a place with that name near Mecca (well, actually it is Faran, not Paran, but Islam has mainly switched to calling it Paran for obvious reasons - and they hardly ever mention this) – and the Muslims do not say that perhaps it was this Paran the Bible speaks about. They simply declare that the name proves it was this place, and that the Paran in Sinai there is no reason to talk about. It is like declearing that Stalin in all his brutality was an American because there is a town in USA named Moscow (there really is).
But when they quote the Bible and 1. Mos. and use it for a “proof”, it is dishonesty bordering something very distasteful not also to mention 1. Mos. 25/18: “His (Ishmael’s*) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur.” Which was a very natural place, as Ishmael’s mother, Hagar, was from Egypt. It also made it easy for her to find a wife from Egypt for her son, like the Bible tells she did – whereas deep inside the Arabian peninsula, that had been quite another task.
The Bible – which Muslims themselves use as the witness in this case – here proves with the same strenght that Ishmael, his mother and his descendant had nothing to do with Mecca or Arabia. They lived in vest Sinai near the border of Egypt. (To be near the border of Egypt, it had to be in the western part of Sinai). Actually this also gives one more proof – from a source and a place in the Bible which the Muslims themselves use as a decisive witness – for that all the tales about Hagar and Ishmael living in - and Abraham therefor visiting - Mecca, just is a made up story. It also fits the fact that Abraham for long periodes lived in Sinai according to the same Bible that Islam here uses for a claimed proof. And it is reasonably near Mt. Paran in Sinai.
NB: This is one of the two “heavy” points according to Islam – the only “heavy” one in OT. (The other one is about the Holy Spirit in NT)
These two - 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 - in reality are the same and identical, and we will treat them like that (Islam does the same). In 18/15 Yahweh says to the Jews via Moses: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me (Moses*) from among your (the Jews’*) brothers. You must listen to him”. In 18/18 Yahweh says to Moses: “I will rise up for them (the Jews*) a prophet like you from among their brothers, and he will tell them everything I command him.”
The two central expressions according to Islam, are “your/their brothers” and “a prophet like you (Moses*)”. We take one point at a time:
“- - - your/their brothers - - -“.
Islam and most/all Muslims claim this is figurative speech (correct) and must point to Muhammad, because he (claimed to be – see chapter about Muhammad) is claimed to be a descendant – even a direct descendant (as normal for Islam without the slightest documentation) – of Abraham and Ishmael – the brother of Isaac – and that the Arabs because they (claim to be) the descendants of Ishmael are the brothers of the Jews (descendants of Isaac) – “it is the only possible meaning”. But:
The Jews after a fashion reckoned the Edomites to be (distant) relatives (as said descendants after Esau, the brother of Jacob, the last of the three patriarks Abraham, Isac and Jacob, that started the history of Israel) – and thus included in a larger, but defined and closed group. In contrast they did not reckon Ishmaelite as relatives. For one thing Ishmael’s mother was a foreigner (from Egypt). For another thing Ishmael was outside the covenant Yahweh made when he renewed the covenant he had had with Abraham and made the renewed covenant with his son Isaac (but Esau was inside, as the son of Isaac) as mentioned in 1.Mos. 17/19-21: “I (Yahweh*) will establish my covenant with him (Isaac*) as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him - - - But my covenant I will establish with Isaac - - -.” For a third the Ishmaelite that Arabs claim later became the Arabs, lived so far off that the relationship even for natural reasons was all but severed. For the fourth and worse: The Ishmaelite chose to be enemies of the Jews – 1.Mos. 25/18: “And they (the Ishmaelite*) lived in hostility toward all their brothers” – see some lines further up in this point. And for the fifth and perhaps most essential besides being outside the covenant: Ishmael and his mother were expelled from the family and tribe (which easily may explain their hostility, but all the same it was hostility in a time when the safety of a person and a family mainly depended on the strength of that family - and no matter they were expelled from the tribe that became Israel 2 generations later).
All the other times the word was used about fellow Jews.
Because the context clearly tells that Moses was speaking to and about the Jews, and verses 18/1-2 even specifies who the “brothers” were – he had used the same word just seconds earlier in the same speech to the same people and in the same contexts: The Levi tribe “shall have no inheritance from among their brothers (= the 11 other tribes*). The Lord (Yahweh*) is their inheritance (they should be priests and be paid for that*) - - -“. Then seconds later he use the same word without specifying that now he is speaking about other brothers (which he had had to do not to confuse his listeners if he had meant Arabs or Israelites or someone else) – for the simple reason that he continued speaking about the same 11 tribes (by the way: Jesus was from the Judah tribe).
Muhammad did not have that gift. It is very clear from the Quran that he neither had the gift, nor ever claimed or pretended to have it – not one single time in the entire book.
Oh, there were a few times according to traditions, when things he said, later came true, and also some pep-talk which always are optimistic and comes true if one succeeds in what one tries to do. It is like that with anybody that speaks much – pep-talk and other talk – that alt least some things has to come true for simple statistical reasons – and the rest mostly is forgotten. But the main things are:
And when he in reality was no prophet – not even a pretender – he could not be the future prophet Moses told about. (We know there exist "softer" definitions for who is a prophet, like "a person speaking on behalf of a god" - it is an imposing title and many wants to use it. But a real prophet has to be able to make prophesies).
According to this verse – in the same chapter that Islam is using as a strong and reliable proof – it as you see is documented that according to definition Muhammad is a false prophet (also f. ex. all that is wrong in the Quran documents the same). And no false prophet could be the prophet Moses spoke about. The same for a "not real prophet".
Conclusion – and it is so obvious a conclusion that it is not necessary to stress that it is the only one that is logically possible: These verses has nothing to do with Muhammad – it simply is Moses talking to his people about his people. Even each and every of some of these points above prove that 100% - not to mention when one takes all together.
Another obvious conclution: Islam has used "cherry picking" of the lines they could use, omitted the parts of the same context that proved their claims wrong, and than twisted the words and contexts a little to arrive at the claims they are searching for.
“- - - a prophet like me (Moses*) - - -“ / “- - - a prophet like you (Moses*) - - -.”
Muslims claim that there are so many likenesses between Moses and Muhammad, that Muhammad has to be the prophet Moses spoke about. And that there are so many differences between Moses and Jesus that it cannot be Jesus.
The trouble is that no matter what two men you choose in all this world and through all times – choose any two you like – you will find similarities and you will find differences (though it is typical that Islam only looks for similarities between Moses and Muhammad, and for differences between Moses and Jesus – they are not trying to find out what is right, only to get the answer they need.) Such similarities and differences may be interesting, but they have no value as proofs it they are not “sine qua non” – facts that make other answers impossible.
Here are two central words: “prophet” and “Moses”. But the main word is “prophet” – “Moses” is just for comparison or measure. And of course Muslims debate the measure, not the fundamental word – wise of them, as Muhammad was not a real prophet (see the chapter about Muhammad). Yes he was not even pretending to have the gift of a prophet (see the previous piece above) – he only "borrowed" that impressing title. Perhaps he was a messenger for someone or something, but no real prophet.
And the thing to compare if you are to compare one prophet with another, is if he/she is as good and as powerful in making prophesies – and correct prophesies – as the other. Muhammad obviously here falls true completely, as he did not have that gift at all. And a man – no matter how charismatic – who was no real prophet, could not be the prophet Moses talked about.
(On the other hand Jesus could be. Both according to the Quran and to the Bible he was a prophet at least as great as Moses - even if Hadiths place Jesus in 2. Heaven ans Moses in 5.).
All other details in reality are without interest in this case as this is the “sine qua non”. The rest is just so much hot air.
A small PS: In John 5/46 Jesus says: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me”. Even the Quran states that Jesus was a prophet that spoke the truth.
“The Lord (Yahweh/God*) came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south - - -.” This is not Yahweh, according to some Arabs, but Muhammad and his warriors. This in spite of:
The name “Bozrah” is mentioned sometimes – it is not present day Basra, but Al-Busairah in Edom, south of the Dead Sea.
And as said: The word “the Lord” in the Bible always means God/Yahweh (or in NT sometimes Jesus) – and Muhammad was no god and no Jesus. Also because of this it is not possible it can be Muhammad that is meant - in the OT the word "Lord" always and without exceptions means Yahweh.
There also is another interpretation: That it all is symbolic. In this case “came from Sinai” means the appearance of Moses - but the sentence really reads “The Lord came from Sinai”, and in the OT the expression “the Lord” always and without exception means God/Yahweh. It was Yahweh that came up from Sinai – it is not possible to misunderstand that - - - not unless you absolutely want to.
Other Muslims claim that “The Lord came from Sinai” refers to that revelations from the god came from Sinai. But to combine that and the next line with the claim that then Seir refers to a battle King David won a place called Seir does not give meaning – to talk about revelations and then have a battle – something entirely different – in the middle of the tale, is illogical. Especially as the text in reality was Yahweh that “dawned over them from Seir”, and then even more so, as then it is said to turn symbolic again: Paran is calimed to symbolize Muhammad.
Consequently some Muslims (f. ex. Badawi) claim that the line “and dawned over them from Seir” refers to the appearance of Jesus. Sinai then refers to the appearance of Moses, Seir to the appearance of Jesus (and the next line to the shining of Muhammad and his religion) – in that case Seir must refer to the village Sa’ir near Jerusalem, according to them, because it is clear that Jesus never visited or had any other connection with the mountain and area of Seir. Which is not even preposterous, as the Bible many places describes Seir as the area where the Edomites (descendants of Esau) lived, and they lived far south of Jerusalem – very far.
As you may guess, all this is just one mess of guesswork, “ad hock” proposals and wishful thinking to get the “right” answers, instead of seeking for truth.
The last of these three lines that make up the claimed foretelling of Muhammad, is “- - - he (Yahweh* - the only subject that is referred to) shone forth from Mount Paran”. There only is one possible meaning to this according to some Muslims – also here normally not Islam, but some Muslims – and that is that the glory of Allah shone in the form of Muhammad’s glorious religion from Paran (or Faran) in Arabia.
It nearly always are possible to make figurative stories out of literal ones – Muslims are experts on that, as that is their normal last ditch defence to nearly anything that is wrong in the Quran – things that used to be the plain truth, switches to allegories or similar as soon as reality or science proves that it is wrong, “and the allegory must be understood differently and is absolutely right if we understand it like this and this”.
Here Moses is reminding his Jews about how Yahweh – in his incarnations, a column of smoke by day and one of fire/light by night according to the Bible – accompanied them from Sinai (a mountain on the Sinai peninsula where the Jews stopped for some time on their march from Egypt) via Seir (another mountain and an area also on Sinai peninsula) and sometime along the route among other places shone in the night from Mt. Paran (also a mountain and an area on the Sinai peninsula).
But such a description of facts does not prove Muhammad, and Muslims need proofs. – then make a parable out of it and “understand” it the way you like best - - - and as normal for Muslims based only on undocumented claims. And twist the facts enough to get the answer you need.
But the trouble is that also Paran is mentioned several times in the Bible (see point 3 in the first half of this piece). According to the Bible it is not absolutely clear exactly where it was – the different translations give 2 possible locations (near the Red Sea or near the river Jordan and some days walk from the mount Seir – which makes the Red Sea location most likely, as that mountain is in west Sinai). But it is absolutely clear that it was along the route the Jews followed after Egypt, and they lived in and marched through Sinai, without one single reference to Arabia at all – not until under King Solomon some 200 years later (2. Chron. 9/14).
And actually: If it had been true that Moses had marched all his at least 2 million people (600ooo men + women and children according to the Bible) and all their animals all the way through the arid desert on Arabian peninsula all the way down to Paran or Faran near Mecca in Arabia and then the same hot and dry way back– believe it if you want – these 3 lines only reminds the Jews on that Yahweh’s manifestation had been together with them all the way from Egypt until Palestine (Moses made this speech “east of Jordan” (5. Mos. 1/5) which means near the border of Palestine – “in the fortieth year” (5. Mos. 1/3), which means shortly before he died and Joshua lead the Jews into the future Israel). All the story tells about "the Lord", and "the Lord" = Yahweh witout exceptions in OT. If Islam still insists, they will have to produse some proofs, not only loos claims.
“Gird your sword upon your side, O mighty one; clothe yourself with splendour and majesty. In your majesty ride forth victoriously in behalf of truth, humility and righteousness; let your right hand display awesome deeds. Let your sharp arrows pierce the hearts of the king’s enemy - - -“.
This is Muhammad riding to war and battle, Muslims says.
But saying it, they for some reason or other omit verse 45/1, that shoves that this is someone singing for some king – “I recite my verse for the king” – and Muhammad was no king. And strangely enough they also omit verse 6, that shows that the one the singer is asking to kill the king’s enemies, and the “mighty one” that is to “ride forth victoriously”, is God/Yahweh.
Muhammad was no god. And it is questionable if a man who stole and lied/broke his oath, raped, enslaved, tortured, extorted, murdered, and incited to hate and suppression, not to mention glued himself to a god as his platform of power, rode forth “in behalf of truth, humility and righteousness”.
“May the praise of God be in their mouth and a double-edged sword in their hands, to inflict vengeance on the nations and punishment on the people - - -.”
This for sure is Muhammad and his men!! - - according to some Muslims. But why do they skip verse 2 that tells that this is Jews praising their god (Yahweh) and their king – perhaps David or Solomon?: “Let Israel rejoice in their Maker (Yahweh*); let the people of Zion be glad in their king - - -“.
Muhammad had very little to do with Zion and was little praised by Israel.
This is a love song – nearly a duet between a woman (the Beloved) and a man (the Lower), but with a few lines here and there from “Friends”. Perhaps the most poetic piece in the entire Bible. In chapter 5, verse 16 the woman sings: “His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my lover, this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem”. With Solomon involved, it naturally happened in Jerusalem.
The Hebrew word for “altogether lovely” is “machmad”. Muslims claim that it can be translated to “praise” = Ahmad = Muhammad (= the praised one) and is a proof for Muhammad in the Bible. (You will NEVER find a scientist of any kind of science that will accept that a possibility = proof. Not any other reasonable intelligent person either.) And that the real meaning of the lines is: “His mouth is sweetness himself, he is Muhammad. This is my lover, this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem”.
Actually point 3 is alone enough to prove Muhammad is not involved: some 1600 years before him is a long time.
Also: The word “machmad” appears 13 times in the OT. (Kings 20/6, 2 Chronicles 36/19, Isaiah 64/11, Lamentation 1/19, 1/11, 2/4, Ezekiel 24/16, 24/21, 24/25, Hosea 9/6, 9/16, Joel 3/5 + here). Exchange the word for Muhammad, and get some strange prose – or poetry. The argument simply is made up. Muslims always stress that reading the Quran, you cannot pick sentences here and there – you have to see the complete picture to get the meanings right. But they all too often do the opposite themselves; if a twisting of a word or a sentence taken out of the complete story can be used to construct a meaning they want.
“When he (the lookout in the tower*) sees chariots with teams of horses, riders on donkeys or riders on camels, let him be alert, fully alert.”
This must be a prophesy about Muhammad’s arrival, Muslims say – though rarely Muslim scholars speaking to educated persons. It f. ex. could be a million others.
And verse 9 tells why scholars seldom speak about this "proof" forMuhammadin the Bible: The ones arriving are refugees from Babylon – hardly any Muhammad among them. Especially as Babylon fell 1000 years before Muhammad.
One translation, taken from an Islamic page on Internet (NB: It may well be correct, even if NIV translates it somewhat differently – old Hebrew has the same weak point as old Arab in that they mainly only wrote the consonants, which – like in Arab and f.ex. the Quran – means that there may be different interpretations some places. In such cases NIV normally uses the most common interpretation in the text, and mentions the alternative in foot notes).
“The burden upon Arabia. In the forest of Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companies of Dedanim. The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty, They prevented with their bread him that fled. For they fled from the swords, From the drawn sword, and from the bent bow, and from the grievousness of war”. (This in fact is the King James Version, but as the NIV is a much younger translation and consequently made from better knowledge about the old languages, it is likely NIV is more exact than KJV).
“The caravans of Dedanites, who camp in the thickest of Arabia, bring water for the thirsty, you who live in Tema, bring food for the fugitives. They flee from the sword, from the drawn sword, from the bent bow and from the heath of the battle.”
This indisputably is a foretelling about Muhammad!! some Muslims say. There were no other famous flight in Arabia, and therefore it HAS to be about him.
To cherry-pick a few lines that can be twisted to give the answer you want if you stretch your imagination enough, and then omit lines just before telling it talks about something entirely differrent, and the very next line that proves what you say is a lie – there is only one expression for that: Dishonesty. Well, one or two more: Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth) – expressions you only find in Islam of the major religions. (As for al-Taqiyya and Kitman: see chapter about al-Taqiyya).
This is too long to quote, but some Muslims are sure the person is Muhammad. Read the chapter – it is about half a page – and laugh (or weep). This man has no similarity to Muhammad – f. ex. verse 9: “- he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.” Muhammad was a mass murderer, rapist and warlord and one of his slogans was: “War is deceit” according to Ibn Ishaq.
But the description may fit Jesus.
This is too long to quote. But Muslims say the mighty one obviously is Muhammad. But read it – it is God/Yahweh speaking to and about the people of Israel!
Muhammad so definitely was no god – and absolutely not Yahweh.
“God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran”.
Now both the Bible and science says Mount Paran is in Sinai. But Islam says near Mecca even though the correct name of that mountain according to Muslim sources is Faran, and then the Holy One – the god – must mean Allah and Teman must indicate Islam. But Teman is mentioned more places in the Bible, and Teman is not the best of places:
In Jeremiah 49/7: Yahweh asks “Is there no longer wisdom in Teman?” (Well, if one were sarcastic one could agree that Teman must mean Islam).
In Jeremiah 49/20 – 22 Yahweh says: “Therefore, hear what the Lord (Yahweh*) has planned against Edom, what he has purposed against those who live in Teman: The young of the flock will be dragged away; he (Yahweh*) will completely destroy their pasture because of them. - - - In that day the hearts of Edom’s warriors will be like the hearts of a woman in labour”.
It is clear that Teman is a place in Edom (near the Dead Sea) with pastures and more – it is not a religion. But it is clear that it will be destroyed - may be it fits Islam anyhow?
In Ezekiel 25/13 Yahweh tells he will lay waste Edom (near the Dead Sea), included the place Teman.
In Amos 1/12 Yahweh says: “I will send fire upon Teman”. It clearly is a place – a village or a town – not a religion (It is difficult to send fire upon an idea).
In Obadiah, verse 9 Yahweh says: “Your warriors, O Teman, will be terrified and in Esau’s mountains (Edom*) will be cut down in slaughter because of your violence against your brother Jacob”. Islam has one they can say was the brother of Isaac (Ishmael , but none that was the brother of Jacob except Esau (Ishmael was not Jacob'd brother)– and besides if Teman was Islam, the Muslims had been dead by now –“cut down in slaughter”.
Actually nothing of this fits Islam’s history.
And to make a long story short: The Bible indicates that Teman was a town near Jericho. And in no case it can have been Islam – the history is totally different.
Yahweh says: “I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations will come - - -“. In Arabic “the desire of all nations” = “Hemdah” = “the praised one” that semantically = Muhammad. (the root is the verb Hamada that is the root of many words actually). But all the same the words are not freely interchangeable – no Muslim would call Muhammad Hamada - - - except when they here are looking for “proofs” for their “prophet” – proofs they dearly need, because they have none.
In Surah 1, verse 2: “Praise (al-hamadi (from Hamada)) be to Allah” – you would be stoned if you said that Hamada/Hemdah = Muhammad and said “Muhammad be to Allah”. In Daniel 11/37 one have “He (a king*) will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one (god*) desired (Hemdah*) by the women - - -“. Try to change Hamda for Muhammad here – and mix Muhammad up with pagan gods!
Even if the root of the words is the same (Arab often have word roots consisting of 3 consonants, and then by filling in with different vowels they get different words and different meanings), the words are not freely interchangeable – except when wishful twisting of words and roots of words may give a "proof" for Muhammad’s divine contact.
In the New Testament, the situation is even more difficult for Islam – there are fewer verses that are possible to twist to mean foretelling about Muhammad. And even the main claim needs a lot of twisting of the facts to arrive at the answer they want and desperately need because the Quran states that Muhammad also is foretold in the Injil – the Gospels. (Surah 7/157 and f.ex. surah 61/6). The same goes for Hadiths – they clearly state that he is mentioned in the Bible.
Also here we will arrange the claims according to what succession the relevant verses have in the Bible.
“Now this was John’s (John the Baptist*) testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites (from the Levi tribe – the priest tribe*) to ask him who he was. (20) He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, ‘I am not the Christ (Messiah*).’ They asked him, ‘Then who are you? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not.’ ‘Are you the Prophet?’ He answered, ‘No.’ Finally they said, ‘Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?’ John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, ‘I am the voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord’’”.
Well, this has to be about Muhammad – a voice in the desert and a “straight way” (an expression often used by Muhammad)! This even though all the rest is about Jesus and is proclaiming his divinity and has to be lies – this cherry-picked small piece must be true, according to some Muslims.
But how could John the Baptist – the messenger for Jesus, and he who proclaimed Jesus’ divinity – “make the way straight for Muhammad” some 580 years later? – without once even giving a hint about Arabia or anything? There is no connection between the two anywhere. Wrong.
And finally: As mentioned before the word "Lord" used in the Bible as a name for a religious "person" ALWAYS AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION refers to Yahweh or (sometimes) Jesus. There is no exception from this rule.
As two parts of the Gospel after John (John 14/15-26 and 16/7-8) are so essential to the main claim from Islam, we first quote this in its full length. (words marked * are added by us for clarification):
"(15) If you love me (Jesus*), you will obey what I command. (16) And I will ask the Father (Yahweh*), and he will give you (the disciples*) another Counsellor (Greek: Parakletos*) to be with you forever - (17) the Spirit of the truth (one of at least 5 names for this Spirit*). The world cannot accept him, because they neither see him nor know him. But you know him, for he lives with you (but not in you*) and he will be in you (afterwards*). (18) I will not leave you (the disciples*) as orphans, I will come to you. (19) Before long the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. (20) On that day (when the Counsellor comes*) you (the disciples*) will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. (21) Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.(22) Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, *but, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?” (23) Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. (24) He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me (= it in reality is Yahweh who is speaking*) (25) All this I have spoken while still with you. (26) But the Counsellor (Parakletos*), the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."
(7) “But I (Jesus*) tell you (the disciples*) the truth: It is for your good I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counsellor (Parakletos*) will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (8) When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgement - - -.”
The claim from Islam is that the Counselor (Parakletos = helper, councelor, adviser) John here speaks about is Muhammad. He is speaking about a future prophet, they say, and there is no other alternative than Muhammad. To make that claim stick, they claim that the word “parakletos” is wrongly spelled – it surely shall be “periklytos” (as normal for Islam they do not even try produce documentation for the claim, even though there are thousands of old documents). “Periklytos” may be translated to Aramaic - Aramaic, not Arab - and one gets the word Mawhamana, which can be translated to Ahmad or Muhammad in Arab.
And worse: The word used in Syriac (a language used by the church in the area at the time of Muhammad and before) is “menahhemana”. This “obviously” in reality means “mawhemana” and is another wrong spelling Muslims say. And it refers to Muhammad they say.
The strange thing is that Syriac “menahhemana” means “'the life giver' and especially 'one who rises from the dead'” (Professor A. Guillaume in “The Life of Muhammad“, 2007, page 104). Then who rose people from death and gave them life? And who rose from the death himself? – not Muhammad, but Jesus. Irony?
Well, periklytos means “the glorious one” or “the praised one” – and Islam jumped on this word, because the name Ahmad – another form of the Arab name Muhammad, which also looks somewhat similar to Mawhamana – also means “the praised one”. This without doubt and very obviously was a prophesy about Muhammad!! – the problem was to explain it. And the only possible way was by making some twists, including claiming that all the old manuscripts had spelled the word wrongly. It HAD to be about Muhammad – if for no other reason, then because the Quran says he is mentioned also in the Gospels, and there is no other real possibility. (Also: It is said that Muhammad's original name was Amin – from his mother's name Amina – and that the name Muhammad came later. If this is correct, where does that bring this claim?)
The Arian (a heretic group*) question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i. e. are the Father and Son one in purpose only or also one in beilg.
As you see: Not one word about changes in any biblical texts.
In one word: Nonsence. And science has long since showed that Islam's claims that the Bible is falsified are wrong. If Muslims still claims something else, they will have to produce proofs (not only cheap claims).
There are more indications/proofs in the Bible for that the Comforter was the Holy Spirit and for that the Comforter could not be Muhammad – there simply are too many verses in the Bible that “collide” with that claim. But what we have written above is far more than enough to disapprove the claim from Muslims and from Islam.
Sorry for all these explanations, but there were so many claims to meet, and all of them had to be answered.
Just 2 more comments:
But in spite of all the words above, there in reality only is one or a few facts you need to kill the reality in these claims – that these verses in the NT foretells the prophet Muhammad:
Short and simple and to the point. (Remember that when someone needs many words and many arguments to prove something simple, the reason often is that he/she leads you by the nose so that you shall not see mistakes or invalid logic here and there. You often meet Muslims using that technique.
There are persistent, non-religious argumentations for that Muhammad and Islam in reality represents dark supernatural forces. We are not going to enter this debate heavily, but there are two reasons why we are unable to get rid of the suspicions in our minds, and the same two reasons make it impossible and irresponsible not to mention the possibility:
Because of that we mention a few facts:
If you read the Bible you will find a lot more dark statements, facts and prophesies that may fit Muhammad and Islam.
We just mention this.
"In 1. Genesis 12/1-3 a promise is made to Abraham that he would be blessed and that all the nations would bless him and be blessed by him. It is only the descendants of Ishmael - Muhammad and the Muslims - that have fulfilled the promise that should bless him, since they are the ones who bless Abraham by praying for him and his family. Ergo these verses must indicate Muhammad."
What the Bible really says:
"The Lord (Yahweh*) had said to Abram (later Abraham*), 'Leave your country, your father's hpushold and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.'" It is Yahweh who is doing the blessing - there is nowhere talk about people's blessing of him is any indication of anything. We mention that to make up arguments is an indication of lack of real arguments.
"Moses and Jesus were national prophets and could not fulfill Allah's/Yahweh's promise that the nations would be blessed in Abraham. Ergo 1. Genesis 12/1-3 must indicate Muhammad."
What the Bible really says:
As for Moses: "- - - I (Yahweh*) have raised you (Moses*) up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the Earth." Even Moses was a message to the world according to the Bible. As for Jesus: Read the orders he gave his disciples before he left them, ordering them to go into all the world and make all people to his disciples by baptizing them in the name of Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Not exactly aimind at just the small Israel. (Jesus personally worked just in one country, but so did the religious leader Muhammad). The claim is invalid.
"Allah/Yahweh promised to make Ishmael agreat nation.(Genesis 16/10, 17/18, 21/13.) Part of being a great nation includes receiving God' commandments. Ergo only nations receiving special commandments can be indicated, which must mean Arabia and Muhammad."
There have through the history been many great nations without special commandments from a monotheistic god. The claim is invalid. (Though may be - there are no great nations among the Muslim ones. Some rich ones, but no great ones. Does that prove that Muhammad is out of the question?)
There was little reason to squander much time on these claims, if it was not because they are not so central in Islamic propaganda, as they do need “proofs” for Muhammad and for Allah. But most of the claims are too far out ones, and even the two main ones do not hold water. Christians and as far as we know Jews normally do not even bother to discuss this – most of the claims and the logic are too far out. The better part of the claims belong in a conspiracy theory and not even there if you are not so entirely out of real arguments, that you have to disclose how desperate you really are to try to save the Quran from being wrong, and to try to find arguments for that Muhammad was a prophet and not an impostor. But the arguments they have to use at least shows the level of their “facts” – or lack of facts – that are behind the claims and statements.
At least when talking to learned, intelligent people, Islam had had better drop this argumentation altogether - it is too revealing (but they really have no choice: As the Quran tells Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible, both in OT and NT - they HAVE to find something, because if not there are two more mistakes in the Quran. And really serious ones. Plus the only hope for a kind of proof for a divine connection is lost if they drop these claims – there are no other possible documentations or proofs).
Flatly stated: Muhammad also is not in the Gospels. If not Islam produces something better than wrong and not documented claims, this debate just is a waste of time, except that it permits Muslims not really to have to face a serious question – and except that the claims are useful propaganda for Islam towards little educated non-Muslims and pagans, and even more towards Muslims that strongly wants to believe and to have their belief cemented. There only exist undocumented claims and as unproved statements – and if documents or other proofs had existed, Islam had produced them at least a thousand years ago. But there exist lots of old documents proving the opposite of what Islam claims.
Besides: When f. ex. Moses said there was going to come “a prophet like me”, and the Muslims claim that is a foretelling about Muhammad, that is a joke: In addition to all the other points - how could Muhammad be “a prophet like Moses” when he in reality was no prophet at all?! (See chapter I/7).
A “forgotten” fact.
NB: If you find any mistakes anywhere, please inform us. If it is a real mistake, it will be corrected.
NB, NB, NB:
1. Read first the 2 small chapters "Some Essentials for how the Quran is to be read and understood" (VII-10-1) and "The Quran is to be understood literally if nothing else is indicated" (VII-10-2).
2. http://www.1000mistakes.com is blocked by many Muslim authorities. To debate with persons in such areas, cut and paste what you want from the pages and send it under titles different from http://www.1000mistakes.com.
3. http://www.1000mistakes.com is one of 9 pages which Muslim organisetions warned especially against in 2008 and 2009 - it could make especially procelytes lose their belief in Islam; correct and "down-to-the-earth" information works. In this connection it is worth noting that in the "warning" http://www.1000mistakes.com was one of 3 which neither was accused of bringing wrong facts, nor of being a hate page.
4. Comment 141 (to verse 6/149) in “The Message of the Quran” (see point 5) explains (translated from Swedish) about Allah's claimed omniscience vs. man's claimed free will:
“With other words: The real connection between Allah’s knowledge about the future (and consequently about the unavoidable in what is to happen in the future*) on one side and man’s relatively (!!*) free will on the other – two statements that seems to contradict each other – lies outside what is possible for humans to understand, but as both statement are made from Allah (in the Quran*) both must be true”. Unbelievable. Blind belief is the only correct and intelligent way of life, even in the face of the utterly impossible!!
5. And an afterthought: In the book “The Message of the Quran”, certified by Al-Azhar Al-Sharif Islamic Research Academy in Cairo (one of the 2-3 top universities in the Muslim world on such subjects) in a letter dated 27. Dec. 1998, it is admitted rather reluctantly that there are no proofs for Allah, and that it is not possible to prove him. An additonal point here is that if there is no proof for Allah and impossible to prove him, automatically there also is no proof for, and impossible to prove Muhammad's claimed connection to a god. And if there is no Allah and/or no connection between Muhammad and a god, what then is Islam?
6. Further: All the mistakes, contradictions, etc. in that book prove 100% that the Quran is not made by an omniscient god - no god makes such and so many mistakes, etc. If then Islam is a made up religion, what then about all the Muslims who have been prohibitted from looking for a real religion (if such one exists)? And where will they in case wake up after living and practising such an inhuman war religion like Islam is according to the Quran (and to Hadiths), if there is a second life somewhere? - Hell or Paradise?
7. No matter how sure you are about something, if it is not proved, it is not knowledge, only belief or strong belief, and can be wrong. Only what is proved or possible to prove is knowledge.
(As http://www.1000mistakes.com is blocked in many Muslim areas - which shows they are afraid of it and lack arguments (if they had real arguments for http://www.1000mistakes.com is wrong, blocking was unneccessary) - "cut and paste" whatever you want from it and send if you want to inform or to debate there. Remember to omit the name http://www.1000mistakes.com).
PS: If we are blocked centrally - f. ex. by spam (there is too much at times already from unfriendly sources) we will reopen with new address somewhere else, and announce the new address om f. ex. http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam. Also if your comments to us do not reach us, any comments posted on the thread "What is it with http://www.1000mistakes.com ?" (or make a page containing "1000 mistakes" in the title yourself if you want) on that forum will be read by us - it is a big international debate page.
Please inform all and everybody and all relevant fora - f. ex. Internet pages for debate or information - about the address http://www.1000mistakes.com. It is information that is urgently needed by many, not least by Muslims. No god made a book with so many mistakes and other wrongs - and if the Quran and Islam are made up by humans or dark forces, where are the followers of this inhumanly dark and brutal war religion heading for in a possible next life?