The claim that Muhammad is found in Song of Songs 5:16
Andy Bannister
Thank you for your very long and thorough reply to my rebuttal to your post,
"More on the Machmad of Song of Solomon". I am sorry it has taken a while
for me to reply --- your post did not appear on either of my news feeds for
some reason, and it was only when I happened to log in to www.deja.com that
I actually found it. Could I possibly request that when you reply to this
post, you also copy it to me via email (an...@bannister.screaming.net) so
that I definitely get it? Thanks.
Now in your reply you raised a number of interesting points, and so I will
work my way through these one at a time. I apologise in advance to other
readers of this thread, who may find this long, boring, and technical.
However I would encourage people to persevere and stick with it, because
herein lies an important point; to the casual observer, there may seem
an outward similarity between the word "machmad" (at the centre of this
debate) and "Muhammad". Of course, it is equally true that to the casual
observer that there is a similarity between the French for fish ("poisson")
and the English word "poison". Should this put one off ordering plaice in
Paris? No, of course not, for a short study would reveal that there is no
etymological link between the two words! And the same is true of Song of
Solomon; actually *studying* the subject soon reveals the glaring problems
that lie at the heart of the hypothesis put forward by Shibli et al. Hence
if it is truth that we are after, a little study is required. Please stick
with this post.
Anyway, on with my reply to Shibli's response to my rebuttal:
>> The word I particularly wanted to question was "machmad" which you have
>> somehow managed to turn into "machamadim" (surely not because it
>> looks closer to "Muhammad"?) The more common transliteration of the
>> word is "machmad"; for reference I checked the "New Strong's Concise
>> Hebrew Dictionary", available in most good book shops and online at,
>> amongst many other places:
>> http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=04261
> The word is "MACHAMADIM" and, yes, it does look a lot like "MUHAMMAD"
> doesn't it? I am glad this was pointed out by the opposing side. I
> challenge one and all to open up the phone book (its not that hard) and
> dial the local Synagogue and ask them to read Shir Hashirim 5:16 on the
> phone to you. You will then hear that the word is "MACHAMADIM" and not
> "MACHMAD" as this author states.
Before I go any further, I think this is a good time to clear up what the
word in Song of Solomon 5:16 actually is. To be fair, *both* Shibli and I
have not been very clear in what we have written on this point. The word in
question is indeed:
MACHMAD (MXMD in Hebrew, reading from right to left: daleth, mem, cheth,
mem); which means "lovely or desirable"
However, where the word "machmad" occurs in Song of Solomon 5:16 it is
actually *plural*. Thus the word becomes:
MACH+a+MAD+d+IM (or MXMDYM in Hebrew, where Y = yodh)
The "d" (Hebrew letter 'daleth') is doubled because of the daggesh forte
(dot in the middle of it, for laymen), and then "im" (Hebrew YM = 'yodh' +
'mem') is added to make the plural. The extra "a" (Hebrew 'pattah') is
gained after the cheth in order to make it easier to pronounce the word. In
Hebrew, the stress is placed on the last syllable, and machmaddim would be
almost unpronounceable. Hence it becomes ma-cha-mad-DIM, capitals signifying
the emphasis.
Hence the word can either be written:
MACHMAD (singular)
MACHAMADDIM (plural)
This is a very important fact to clear up because you made a number of
mistakes in both your first and last posts, where you variously tried to
refer to the word as:
MACHAMADIM
This is wrong, as you have ignored the daggesh forte which occurs in the
middle of the "d" (Hebrew daleth), and doubles the "d" in the plural form of
the word.
MACHAMADD
Also wrong, for two reasons. Firstly, the word only picks up the "a" after
the cheth in the plural form. More importantly, you CANNOT end a word with a
double "d" like this; the daggesh forte only comes into play in the plural
form of the word when it is followed by a yod and a mem, transliterated
"im".
MACHAMAD
Wrong again. As I explained above, the word only picks up the "a" after the
cheyth in the plural form.
MACHAMMADIM
Also wrong. There is no daggesh forte in the middle of the "m", and thus it
is not doubled.
Hence to recap, the singular form of the word in question is MACHMAD and the
plural form is MACHAMADDIM.
Aside from the important factor of accuracy, this is also worth pointing out
because when one realises that the word in Song of Solomon 5:16 is "machmad"
in its plural form, "machamaddim", it looks much less like Muhammad than the
numerous suggestions above you tried to introduce. And since the main pillar
of your argument seems to be "the words look the same", establishing how the
word should be written goes a long way towards sinking the polemic.
> The word is "MACHAMADIM" and, yes, it does look a lot like "MUHAMMAD"
> doesn't it? I am glad this was pointed out by the opposing side.
What I have pointed out is that:
a) Your mistake in writing the plural of "machmad" helped to make the word
look like "Muhammad"; personally I think "machamaddim" doesn't look at all
like "Muhammad", even before we get to the etymological problems with your
suggestion.
b) As I have explained above, two words looking similar does not prove they
are cognates, let alone the +same word+. The fun I had with 'poisson' and
'poison' demonstrates the foolishness this can result in.
> I challenge one and all to open up the phone book (its not that hard) and
> dial the local Synagogue and ask them to read Shir Hashirim 5:16 on
> the phone to you. You will then hear that the word is "MACHAMADIM"
> and not "MACHMAD" as this author states.
The word you would hear is of course the plural of "machmad", and would be
pronounced "ma-cha-mad-dim". But whilst we are on the subject of challenges,
let me offer one to you. If you are saying that whatever the local Rabbi
reads down the telephone to you is to be taken as being *accurate*, then try
this; after you have heard the word, ask the Rabbi if it means "Muhammad".
Given that you are happy to take his pronunciation as correct, I can only
assume you would also accept his *definition* as well, otherwise you would
be guilty of a double-standard of mind boggling proportions.
> This serious blunder should serve to show all that there is an extreme
> lack of objectivity from the opposing side of this issue. Their position
> should be seen for what it is and that is a very aggressive campaign
> to DISPROVE any reference to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and
> Blessings be upon him) in the Bible rather than to actually study and
> research whether he is mentioned therein or not.
I accept that my mistake was not to point out that machamaddim is the plural
of machmad, and I made the mistake of using the two words interchangeably
without explaining this point to the casual reader not familiar with Hebrew.
However, as one who *claims* to know the language, I cannot see your
problem, Shibli. And as I said above, we were both guilty on this one; you
merrily used "machamaddim" (albeit spelt in numerous wrong ways) without
once explaining it was the plural form of the word "machmad".
Now in terms of objectivity, I think you need to be careful here. Unless you
are trying to suggest that you were sitting there one evening simply reading
Song of Solomon in Hebrew for the sheer enjoyment of it, when you stumbled
across the word "machamaddim" and thought, "gosh, that looks like Muhammad",
then you cannot claim objectivity for yourself. Most Muslims who try and put
forward this polemic have heard of it elsewhere and gone to the Song of
Solomon for purely one purpose --- to find Muhammad there. Unless you were
reading the book (in Hebrew) completely unaware of the polemic, then I am
sorry to say that you cannot claim objectivity.
Secondly, as for study and research, I have now spent many hours on this
topic and in some ways must thank you for that. I am more familiar now with
Hebrew than I was, and look forward to studying it full-time when I commence
my BA in Theology in October of this year. In the meantime, all my research
and reading has not even caused me to doubt in the slightest that your
hypothesis might actually be true. I issue a challenge of my own; read all
of Song of Solomon, and verse 16 of chapter 5 in this context --- nobody
having done this would seriously conclude that Muhammad is being talked
about there.
> I would like to request the opposing side to please use actual Hebrew
> codices of Shir Hashirim. Please don't waste our time with web pages.
> Web pages are not a serious source of research. I am sure driving to
> the local Synagogue is not that much of a pain.
I once heard it said that sarcasm was the lowest form of wit! I have used
the actual Hebrew scriptures in my research, courtesy of a friend who has
studied the language. In terms of using web pages, this was part of my drive
to make my last post more accessible to the casual reader of SRI. The web
page I pointed to did indeed contain details of word "machmad" in its
singular form; anyone more familiar with the language would have no problem
doing "mach"+"a+"mad"+"dim" to get the plural form of the word,
"machamaddim".
> This is the problem when we have people wanting to discuss texts thousands
> of years old using an online web based database tool.
As I have already explained, my reasoning behind directing people to this
particular web tool was that it made the data accessible to those without
the benefit of a shelf full of text books. Incidentally, another advantage
was that it at least meant I got a reply from you! Reading your discussions
with James Dowdeswell on SRI I see that when James listed the various
reference books he was using, you went rather quiet. I seem to recall the
books in question were:
"A Practical Grammar For Classical Hebrew", Professor J. Weingreen
"The Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old Testament", Harold
Scanlin
"Biblical Hebrew Step By Step", Menahem Mansoor
"The Books and the Parchments", F F Bruce
"The New Bible Dictionary"
"The New Unger's Bible Dictionary"
You will be pleased to know that I do not merely rely on web based tools,
but have consulted and read far and wide before writing this reply. My
research *has* included the Hebrew text itself. Incidentally, I can also
recommend consulting:
"Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament", F Brown, S R Driver & C A
Briggs (BDB)
"Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words", W E
Vine, M F Unger & W White
>> To confirm this, I checked the "Oxford English-Hebrew Dictionary" at the
>> weekend to make doubly sure.
> You looked up the word "MACHMAD"
Wrong, I'm afraid. I *actually* looked up the word "Muhammad" to see whether
it was written the same way as "machmad". It wasn't. And it certainly wasn't
written the same was as "machamaddim"! Rather than *guessing* how I did my
research, you could always *ask* --- I'd be happy to tell you.
> because thats how you saw it written on your nifty little "Bible Study
> Tools" web site. You did no research on the actual text. The only
> time you went to a book was not even based on the actual Hebrew
> text of Shir Hashirim.
Shibli, I think it would be both prudent and polite if you were to learn to
separate fact from opinion. To claim that I have done no research on the
text is to make an accusation that you cannot support, is purely
speculative, and is in fact incorrect. I am only too happy to accept that I
made one or two mistakes in my last post, as I am new to Hebrew and am
learning as I go. However I have checked my sources, have got other people
to check sources I do not have access too, and since my last post have
exchanged a flurry of emails with a Professor of Hebrew. Bear in mind that
it would be equally fair for me to deduce that *you* have not done any
research on the text *either*, given the many glaring mistakes in your last
post. When I copied your post to a couple of friends who know Hebrew
(including the Professor) their first observation was "this guy does not
really understand what he is talking about." However, I believe it would be
wrong for me to try to make any judgements concerning your research or the
lack thereof, and I will simply content myself with letting what you (and I)
have written speak for itself.
>> I also had it helpfully pointed out to me by a friend who is considerably
>> more knowledgeable in Hebrew than I that, following your transliteration
>> system, we should transcribe MACHAMADDIM as the Hebrew has a
>> daggesh in the D of the mHmd root (H = Heth). But, of course, the
>> double D doesn't fit with Muhammad, who ought really to have a double
>> M, which you merrily drop into your transliteration later down your post
> In Semitic languages there exists what is called "Qal-qala" in Arabic
> which is to bounce off of certain letters. The acronym "qTb-jd" is used to
> designate this rule. The reason being that these are the letters which
> are DOUBLED and bounced off of whether there appears a "shadda",
> "sukoon" or not. They are "qaaf", "Taa", "baa", "jeem" and "DAAL"
> (Daled in Hebrew). Thus "MACHAMADD" in Hebrew is correct articulation
> of the name. The double "M" in the Arabic "MUHAMMAD" comes from a
> "shadda" on the "meem". Of course none of this makes sense to the
> opposition since they admit they haven't even studied the subject.
> Before, I was chided for using Arabic rules for Hebrew lexics. Now the
> Christian is doing the same. Amusing. Please be consistent.
Firstly, I have not chided you for using Arabic rules for Hebrew; however,
in your paragraph above you have now done exactly this. Secondly, *I*
certainly have not ever used Arabic rules in this way, so I'm not really
sure what you are talking about here. And thirdly, my name is "Andy", not
"the Christian". I can assure you that my reason for taking part in this
debate is not simply that I am a Christian, but that I hate to see any
source material abused in the way that you have done in trying to find
Muhammad's name in Song of Solomon 5:16. It is interesting to note that when
another thread on this topic was started on SRI (by "The Armin", I believe),
it was an atheist (of all people) who challenged him and ripped the polemic
to threads. :-)
Anyway, to respond to what you have just said, the "shadda" in Arabic is the
equivalent of the "daggesh forte" in Hebrew. However, in Hebrew (and I
believe in Arabic also) a final consonant without a following vowel is
*NEVER* doubled. Hence to write "machamadd" is completely incorrect. You can
"machmad" (singular) or "machamaddim" (plural), but you cannot have the kind
of crossbreed that you have somehow managed to produce.
The phonetics of both Arabic and Hebrew strive to avoid final consonant
clusters, as they would be virtually impossible to pronounce; as I explained
at the start of this post, in Hebrew the stress is placed on the last
syllable unless otherwise indicated, and thus "machamadd" would be
impossible to actually say. Here is what William Gesenius (whose Hebrew
grammar is considered authoritative) has to say on the subject:
"The loss of daggesh forte occurs, (a) almost always at the end of a word,
since here a strengthened consonant cannot easily be sounded" (Gesenius'
Hebrew Grammar [GKC]; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970)
Nowhere in the WHOLE of the Hebrew Scriptures does a word end in a daleth
with a daggesh forte. Shibli, I would also be interested to see if you can
find *any examples* of an Arabic word that ends with a shadda, i.e. ends in
a doubled consonant cluster.
Finally on this point, you are also blowing something of a smoke screen when
you comment that "the double "M" in the Arabic "MUHAMMAD" comes from a
"shadda" on the "meem". This may well be true in Arabic, but we are not
discussing Arabic, but the Hebrew. If you *refer* to the Hebrew for Song of
Solomon 5:16, you will see that the word "machamaddim" has no daggesh forte
on the mem; i.e. there is no double "m". The Hebrew Professor with whom I
have spoken also explained that:
"[this] is particularly true for the word under discussion, because the
vowel preceding the Mem is Hatteph Pathach. Daggesh forte never follows a
reduced vowel; it is a syllable closer, and must always have a full vowel
before it. The same is true in Arabic, "shadda" must have a full vowel
before it; it never occurs on a consonant immediately after a closed
syllable."
Thus "machammadim" and "machamadd" are both equally and completely *wrong*.
Given that I was correcting your mistaken transliteration (you introduced a
double M and wrote the word "machaMMadim" instead of "machamaDDim"), it is
utterly irrelevant to the discussion to throw up Arabic rules of grammar. In
Hebrew there is one "m" and there are two "d"s. Of course this is
inconvenient for you, as it makes the word *look* less like Muhammad, but
c'est la vie. I have openly admitted my mistakes I made in my last post ---
I look forward to you admitting your mistake in this instance when it comes
to your reply to this post.
Now before I go any further with your post, here is as good a place as any
to highlight one of the most major of all the problems with the suggestion
that Song of Solomon 5:16 contains the name "Muhammad". Aside from the fact
that the Hebrew word "machmad" is an adjective, a point we will come to
later, I would like to spend a few moments discussing the problems that the
word in question being a plural present. Later on in your post you cause
great problems for yourself by trying to assert that "Abraham" is another
example of a name ending in a plural, and thus Muhammad can as well. I will
demonstrate the very silly errors in this line of reasoning later, but for
now want to concentrate on the name Muhammad. Here goes:
1) The word in question in Song of Solomon 5:16 is the plural of "machmad"
(desirable; Hebrew letters MXMD), and is written "machamaddim" (MXMDYM). The
"YM" (Hebrew yodh, mem) is the plural ending of the word.
2) Muhammad's name in Hebrew is most commonly written with a shureq, so in
Hebrew consonants this is MWXMD.
So, Shibli, I would like to present you with some simple challenges:
i) Find an occurrence *anywhere* in old Hebrew of the name Muhammad written
"MWXMDYM" (i.e. in a plural)
ii) More importantly, find an occurrence *anywhere* in the Qu'ran or indeed
in any Islamic literature, of Muhammad's name written with the Arabic plural
ending "IN", i.e. "Muhammadin" (Arabic MXMDYN).
Unless you can find such a precedent, then you are effectively forced to
admit that you are making up things as you go along, and that is not really
an appropriate way to argue.
Now in an attempt to second guess your train of thought, there is a probable
line of defence you might try to take from here, and that is to claim that
there were other people in the Hebrew scripture whose names end in a plural.
The example you came up with Abraham. Now this was actually quite funny, as
you don't need to know any Hebrew at all to see that Abraham is spelt ABRM,
and thus does not end YM. Thus it is not a plural. Whoops :-).
The important point is that whilst there are some names in the Bible that
end "YM", Muhammad's name does not. Not in Hebrew, nor in Arabic, nor in any
language you care to mention. This would give anybody coming at this debate
objectively the major clue they need to realise (if they hadn't already)
that "machamaddim" does not equal "Muhammad"!
To conclude this point, as the word in question (machamaddim) is plural,
there is no possibility that it could be Muhammad, as there is no precedent
in any Arabic or Hebrew sources for Muhammad's name being plural. Muhammad
is always written in the singular, both in the Qur'an and in other Islamic
literature. Perhaps if you stuck to the established rules of grammar rather
than apparently inventing them as you go, then we might not be having this
discussion.
On with the next part of your post:
>> I am very pleased that you acknowledge that the adjective "machmad"
>> is found elsewhere in the Hebrew Old Testament. In fact it is found 13
>> times in total (including SS 5:16). Now in your points (2) and (3) you
>> base your entire
> [snipped for brevity]
>> mystified as to why you didn't use it here. Let me help you by listing
>> the other twelve verses where "machmad" appears; in each case I
>> have substituted the name "Muhammad" so that you can see whether
>> it fits. Here goes:
>> 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 MUHAMMAD in thine eyes, they shall
>> put it in their hand, and take it away.
> [rest snipped for brevity]
Thank you for snipping the other eleven verses to save space. Just for
reference, they are: 2 Chronicles 36:19; Isaiah 64:11; Lamentations 1:10;
Lamentations 1:11; Lamentations 2:4; Ezekiel 24:16; Ezekiel 24:21; Ezekiel
24:25; Hosea 9:6; Hosea 9:16; Joel 3:5.
> The author is trying to maintain that since the word "MACHAMAD" is used
> elsewhere in the Bible as other things it CAN'T be a reference to the
> Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon him).
What I am I trying to do is to encourage you to learn about the importance
of a) context and b) using other verses in the Bible to cast some light upon
the one under scrutiny. Since you are trying to suggest that "machamaddim"
(singular = machmad) means Muhammad in only one instance in the Bible, you
are building your polemic upon very thin ice indeed. And if you step outside
of the Bible, you will not find one occurrence in any Hebrew literature
where "machmad" or "machamaddim" are translated as a proper name, let alone
Muhammad. (As I have already explained, "machmad" has a proper name
counterpart, and that is Chemdan (c.f. Genesis 36:26). Thus if the writer
of Song of Solomon had meant to put a proper name in 5:16, he would have
written "Chemdan", or Hebrew XMDN). Therefore your argument can be reduced
to "this word means desirable or lovely everywhere else it has been used,
except here where it means Muhammad". Goodbye grammar, goodbye reason,
goodbye common sense.
> Let us look at the names of the other Prophets in the Bible. This is
> actually quite funny.
Before we go wandering off down this line of reasoning, I must thank you for
raising this. You have pointed out that all the names in the Old Testament
have a meaning (i.e. "Adam" = "man"). This is a good point to make, as it
shows yet another problem for those who would try to find Muhammad's name in
Song of Solomon 5:16. For we need to ask, what does the name "Muhammad"
mean? The answer is "praiseworthy", from the Arabic "hamida" meaning "to
praise". Note the difference between this and the word "machamaddim", which
means "lovely or desirable". There is not only a difference in spelling, in
the fact that one is plural and the other *always* singular, but there is
also a difference in definition. The chasm between reality and fiction gets
wider and deeper the further you investigate. :-)
> THE PROPHET ADAM = "AADAAM" IN HEBREW WHICH MEANS "MAN"
> [possibly derived from "dam" which means "bloody", "ruddy" etc. in Hebrew]
> "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of
> cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth
> upon the earth, and every ADAM" [Genesis 7:21]
[Other two examples (Genesis 9:5; Exodus 8:18) snipped]
> Its used a total of 489 times as a word meaning "man" or "mankind". I
> don't think anyone wants me to type out all 489. Certainly, a lot more
> than the 13 "MACHMADS" of various forms in the Old Testament, now
> isn't it?
Yes indeed, 489 times is quite a lot. However, what you have done here is to
blow up a smoke screen, because we *know* that the name "Adam" means "man".
The word is used interchangeably throughout the Old Testament, both in its
personal and in its generic sense. However, the important thing is always to
look at the context of the passage in question and ask; should the word be
translated as the personal name (i.e. is an individual being talked about?)
or in its generic sense (i.e. are a group of men/people being talked
about?). As Genesis 7:21; 9:5 and Exodus 8:18 are talking about more than
one person, then it is correct to translate "adam" in the generic sense of
the word, i.e. "men or humankind".
However, the problem you still have with "machmad/machamaddim" is that you
have no precedent anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures for translating one
occurrence of a word as a personal name, and every other occurrence as a
word that means something *different* from that personal name. You need to
learn the importance of reading the context of a passage and allowing that
to dictate how you translate.
And there is *yet another* problem for your hypothesis. If we look at the
preceding Hebrew in Song of Solomon 5:16, you will find that "machamaddim"
occurs in this context:
"w'kulo machamaddim"
Which should be translated "all of him is machamaddim" or "altogether he is
machamaddim".
Now this is one more further clue that "machammadim" means here what it
means in every other occurrence in the Old Testament --- "lovely" or
"desirable". Grammatically, "all of him is muhammad" or "altogether he is
muhammad" would be a very strange construct. Once again, I challenge you to
find a personal name in a construct like this anywhere else in the Hebrew
Scriptures.
<other examples snipped>
> I could go on forever but I've already written so much and tasked of the
> reader plenty. You all get the point quite plainly and clearly that to say
> "MACHAMAD" can't be a person is quite ridiculous as we have seen
> very, very clearly that ALL the Prophets names are found elsewhere
> in the Bible used as words with meanings that have nothing to do with
> the Prophets.
> Do not get into the practice of translating names. You could lose your
> entire religion from it as it seems the Bible's early translators
> attempted to erase all evidence of Islam from their scriptures. They
> failed.
One of the wonderful things for me about the Hebrew Scriptures is the way in
which the names do have meanings. This provides a level and depth of
richness that have been lost in some ways from modern languages such as
English where, although names do have meanings (i.e. "Andy" means "manly")
this is virtually forgotten. Meanings of names are also important because of
the Hebrew concept that a person's name establishes their identity --- for
example the names of the twelve ancestors of the Israelite tribes reflect
either their nature or something of their parents experience (Genesis
29:31 - 30:24). Also there was a belief that knowing somebody's name gave
you some authority over them; hence God's habit of giving or changing names
(e.g. Abram -> Abraham), Israel etc. Therefore names and there meanings are
very important to a proper understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures.
In terms of evidence of Islam in the Bible, I am afraid there is none. Your
attempts to find Muhammad's name in Song of Solomon 5:16, your mixing up who
wrote Isaiah in another thread, attempts by others to twist the meaning of
the word parakletos in John and so forth, reflect not a cover up by
Christians, but an attempt by Muslims to read Islam back into the Bible.
Such attempts result in error and in some places blasphemy, but thankfully
truth stands out plainly from error. However, some Christians would say that
Islam *is* referred to in the Bible, for example where Jesus taught:
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but
inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matthew 7:15)
However, this is a subject for another discussion; perhaps we could start a
thread under the heading of "what is true and what is false prophecy".
Interestingly, the Bible speaks a lot about false prophets in both the Old
and the New Testaments, but the category of false prophets seems to be
missing from Islamic thinking; at least the Qur'an does not mention any. In
Qur'anic thinking, simply saying "I am a prophet" seems to automatically
imply that one is truly coming from God.
>> Laying aside the fact that "evidently may well be" is probably an
>> oxymoron,
> Wrong.
> "Oxymoron: A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms
> are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist."
One weakness I have observed, Shibli, is your tendency to try to present
yourself as older and wiser and more knowledgeable in everything. You have
never once admitted an error, even when trying to defend things of no import
has resulted in you looking quite silly (like your discussion with James
Dowdeswell about the correct transliteration of the Hebrew letter "waw")
Now oxymoronic devices are commonly employed in every day speech, often
accidentally, and are usual far more subtle than "deafening silence" (my
favourite ones are examples like "military intelligence"! :-) ). Now you
would have been best letting my remark go, rather than adopt your usual
stance of arguing *everything*, but since you insist, we can discuss your
English as well as your Hebrew. Let me remind you of the context of what you
said:
>>> The fact that this "MACHAMAD" evidently may well be the Prophet
>>> Muhammad (May Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon him) has
>>> already been thoroughly outlined and established
> Now let us see if I used an oxymoron:
> "Evidently: 1. Obviously; clearly. 2. According to the evidence
> available."
> Thus, based on the evidence available (or obviously) it is entirely
> possible this could refer to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and
> Blessings upon him).
Your sentence definitely falls into the "oxymoronic" league. Look at it
this way:
* "Evidently" = "obviously, clearly" = 100%
i.e. 'Paris is evidently the capital of France'
or 'alpha is evidently the first letter of the Greek alphabet'
The word "evidently" is employed where something is 100% certain
* "may well be" = something not so certain, perhaps a greater than even
chance
i.e. "The next world cup may well be hosted in England"
or "tomorrow may well be another cold and windy day"
One would employ the phrase "may well be" to signify uncertainty.
Hence what you have written could be paraphrased "I believe it is 100%
certain that there is a 50% chance that machmad = muhammad". Whilst not as
oxymoronic as "deafening silence", you have definitely managed to construct
a phrase that *is* both oxymoronic and confusing. Why not simply say "I
can't really prove my hypothesis" and be done with it?
> This was pathetic on the part of the opposing side and was not appreciated
> by me at all.
I'm sure it wasn't appreciated. Perhaps you should take yourself less
seriously and not try defend every last dot and tittle of your post, and
concentrate on the important parts.
> Displaying an extreme lack of knowledge in Hebrew as well as his native
> English language
As I have shown above, my English was fine, thank you. I have already
accepted my Hebrew is not too good. However, it is interesting that for
someone whose Hebrew is not very good, I have managed to shoot down most of
your polemic in flames. I believe the moral of the story is that [not so
good Hebrew] + [checking my sources and consulting widely] can beat
[passable in Hebrew] - [not checking sources] with ease.
> and then trying to correct others in either language is inconsiderate to
> say the least. It is a display of incompetence in debating this subject.
Shibli, I long for the day when you will acknowledge the errors *you* have
made in *your* Hebrew. I have pointed out errors and I see from reading
other posts on SRI that James Dowdeswell has also pointed out errors. Both
he and I have now referred you to external grammars and reference texts, and
you have either ignored the problems or refused to reply. Why?
>> There are some further problems that need to be overcome if you are going
>> to try to show Muhammad's name is there in SS 5:16:
>> 1) Muhammad's name in modern Hebrew consonants is not written the same as
>> "machmad". Here is the URL of the Internet's most popular translation
>> software (available for free download): www.babylon.com
> I wish our friend would stop using the Internet as his sole research tool.
Once again, I would point out that my reason for citing the Internet on
occasions is it permits those who do not have access to any other resources
to follow the thread of the conversation. However, whether you use the
Internet or any other tool, you will discover the same thing, that
Muhammad's name in Hebrew is spelt MWXMD, not MXMD. And of course, it is
*certainly* not spelt MXDMYM, the word that you will find in Song of Solomon
5:16. In fact, given your derogatory remarks about using the Internet (which
is not my sole research tool, I have pointed you elsewhere in this post to
numerous other sources), perhaps you would care to share with SRI what are
*your* research tools. Other than dropping the phrase "Shir Hashirim" into
your post wherever possible, you haven't once cited any grammars or other
research tools *even once*. Perhaps you could offer us some references ...
:-)
> In Semitic languages there are numerous ways of spelling the same name.
> The name "YITZHAQ" (Isaac), for example, is spelled different ways
> throughout the Bible. This is attributed to its mixed Hebrew/Aramaic/
> Amharic/etc. origin.
Although as I am sure you would agree, Isaac is not spelt as many different
ways as you claim that "Muhammad" is spelt!
> The name "MUHAMMAD" is spelled as "MUHAMMAD",
> "MAHMOOD", "AHMAD", etc.
Yet your biggest problem is still the one that you started this debate with;
that nowhere in the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the Hadith, or indeed in any Islamic
traditions is the name Muhammad spelt "machammadim". This spelling is what
you need to find in order to have a foundation to begin building your
polemic upon. And so THIS IS MY CHALLENGE TO YOU: find *just one* instance
in the Qur'an where:
1) Muhammad's name occurs in plural form (i.e. with the Arabic "in") ending,
i.e. "Muhammadin".
2) The name must also have a "shadda" on both the Mem and the Dal, i.e. it
must be spelt "MuHaMMaDDiYN" (in order to fit the transliterations you have
been using, namely 'machammaddim').
If you cannot find such an occurrence, then your theory falls; unless of
course you are trying to suggest that Song of Solomon 5:16 is talking about
two Muhammads, or three, or four ... is there a collective noun for a group
of them? :-)
> These are all arguments which someone with any knowledge of
> Eastern languages would never resort to.
Touche. Kindly respond to the challenge set forth in points (1) and (2)
above.
>> 2) The next problem is the major one; that "machmad" is not a proper
>> noun but is an adjective
> Really? Let us look at the other Prophets' names:
Before I work my way through your little list of names, I must point out
that some are irrelevant --- your task was to find names that are also
adjectives. Quite why you thought verbs or nouns would help, I'm not sure.
But since you made a few fairly elementary mistakes in your definitions,
I'll go through them for you.
> Adam: "Bloody" adjective.
The name Adam is related to the Hebrew word "adom", meaning "to be red". It
does not mean "bloody" and is never used anywhere in the whole of the Hebrew
Old Testament to mean this.
> Eve: "Living" or "Display" both adjectives
> Noah: "Rest" verb
Correct.
> Isaac: "Laugh" verb.
Almost right, Isaac means "he laughs", recalling Abraham's reaction when God
told him Sarah would have a child despite her great age.
> Ishmael: "God heard" phrase.
Ishmael actually means "God *will* hear" rather than past tense which you
have given it.
> Judah: "Praised" adjective.
> Moses: "Drawn out" adjective.
> David: "Beloved" adjective.
> Solomon: "Peace" noun
Correct.
> JESUS: "Saved" adjective.
> (why the opposite of "Saviour"?)
> (Interesting question but I'll stick to the topic.)
Whoops, you committed a bit of a howler here, didn't you! Laying aside the
fact that "saviour" is not the opposite of "saved" (the opposite would be,
er ... "unsaved"), Jesus' name *does not* mean "saved". As most people
realise, the name "Jesus" is an Anglicisation of the Greek name "Yesous".
The Greek name comes from the Hebrew name Yeshua which means "Jehovah is
salvation". Quite how you made this mistake, I'm not sure.
While we're on the subject of mistakes, let me admit the one I made in my
post where I wrote:
>> There is not a single example in the whole Bible of the plural of an
>> adjective being translated as a proper name;
Now I will happily admit I was wrong. As you correctly observed, there are
some names whose meaning is an adjective, such as David ("beloved"). There
are also some names that end with a plural, although neither Muhammad or
Abraham (we'll come to him in a minute), are such examples. For instance,
you could have had Mizraim (Genesis 10:6) or Ephraim (Genesis 41:52) to name
but two. It is quite a pity you decided to try to cite Abraham as an example
of a prophet with a plural ending because *Abraham is not a plural name*.
This was quite a big error and as I have been man enough to acknowledge my
mistake with regard to names that can be plural/adjectives, perhaps we will
read your admission of error shortly. Anyway, since you insisted on bringing
up Abraham, now is a good time to deal with him:
> "ABRAHAM" THE PROPHET WITH THE ROYAL PLURAL NAME:
Your first big error is the suggestion that Abraham is plural in Hebrew.
Alas, he is not, as his name in Hebrew is spelt ABRHM. If it were plural,
then the ending would have to contain a Yodh before the Mem, i.e. it would
be spelt in Hebrew ABRHYM (compare with Ephraim or "machamaddim" for
example). Abraham's name is singular, and we will come to the meaning in a
moment. Secondly, I would like you to provide a reference for your fanciful
notion of a "royal plural". William Gesenius (whose Hebrew grammar is
considered authoritative) rejects the notion of a royal plural; check for
yourself in "Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar" [GKC]; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.
> First he is referred to as "ABRAM" in Genesis (spelled "ALEF, BET, RESH,
> MEM") : "Now the LORD had said unto ABRAM, Get thee out of thy
> country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land
> that I will shew thee:" [Genesis 12:1]
> Then he is renamed "ABRAHAM" by God (spelled "ALEF, BET, RESH, *HEH*,
> MEM): "Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name
> shall be ABRAHAM; for a father of many nations have I made thee."
> So the Christian says he was named "ABRAHAM" since God told him "..for a
> father of many nations have I made thee."
As I am sure that you realise, the meaning of the name "Abraham" is not
exclusively Christian, but is Jewish, and dates back several thousand years.
I am pleased that you spotted the definition in the text; the Bible is
generally very good at explaining its terminology, unlike the Qur'an, which
leaves one reliant upon the Sunnah and Hadith in many places. The verse that
you tried to quote but managed to chop off the important bits was Genesis
17:5 which reads in its entirety:
"No longer shall your name any more Abram, but your name shall be Abraham;
for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations."
The definition is given in the text. But since you appear have had some
difficulties, I'll carry on:
> So, the Christian says "AB" means "father of" in Semitic languages, thus,
> he was before "AB+RAM" meaning "Father of RAM" then he was renamed
> by God, "Father of RAHAM". The problem with that is there are no words
> known as "RAM" or "RAHAM" in the Hebrew language. There is no word
> "RAM" spelled "RESH, MEM".
Oh deary, deary me. I think you were having a bit of a bad day when you
wrote this. Let me try to unravel your various mistakes here. Now to be
fair, you got the first bit correct. "AB" does indeed mean "Father of", and
is found as a part of many personal names in the Old Testament. For example:
Abiasaph ('my father has gathered', Exodus 6:24)
Abinadab ('my father is noble', 1 Samuel 7:1)
Absalom ('my father is peace', 2 Samuel 3:3).
However, where you got yourself in a bit of a quagmire was in your
categorical assertion that:
> there are no words known as "RAM" or "RAHAM" in the Hebrew
> language. There is no word "RAM" spelled RESH, MEM".
This really was a bit of a glaring mistake, as there *most definitely is* a
Hebrew word RAM. It is derived from the verb RUM which means "to be high,
exalted, rise" (BDB 926). This word is one of the commonest in the Old
Testament, occurring some 185 times. The word RAM is a personal name meaning
"high or exalted one," and is found in Ruth 4:19; 1 Chr. 2:9, 10, 25, 27;
Job 32:2. The feminine form of the word RAMAH means "height, high-place" and
is also the name of a place mentioned often in the Bible (BDB 928).
In addition, the name RAM is part of numerous other personal names in the
Old Testament:
ABIRAM "exalted father"
ADONIRAM (= ADORAM) "exalted lord"
ACHIRAM "exalted brother"
YEHORAM "exalted YHWH"
MALKIRAM "exalted king"
AMRAM "exalted people"
According to the authoritative Hebrew Lexicon (BDB) the name ABRAM means
"exalted father" (BDB 4). This is not a "Christian" meaning assigned to the
name. This same meaning is assigned by Jewish scholars from ancient times. I
suggest that you check "Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament", F
Brown, S R Driver & C A Briggs (BDB); I referred you to this earlier in my
post.
> There is no word known as "RAHAM" spelled "RESH, HEH, MEM".
No-one has ever suggested that there is! Again, if you checked an
authoritative lexicon or some other source, you would know that the Jews
have long taught (and scholars today agree) that Abraham is a contraction,
and is derived in the following way:
AB "father of" (examples above)
RAB "many"
(c.f. Genesis 6:5; the word is used 439 times in the Old Testament)
HAMON "multitudes"
(c.f. Ezekiel 39:16 where the city "Hamonah" is the feminine version)
Thus AB+RAB+HAMON has been contracted to ABRAHAM, meaning "father of
multitudes", exactly what was explained by God in Genesis 17:5. Many, many
Hebrew personal names are based on contractions/abbreviations of Hebrew
words and there are plentiful examples throughout the Bible. Just to keep
you going, here is one very famous example:
Yehoshua (YHWH Y$W'H) [where $ = shin and ' = ayin] i.e., Yahweh yeshuah;
this is abbreviated and spelt either Yoshua and Yeshua; the name means
"Jehovah is salvation" (see above, and c.f. Joshua 1:1 for one example of
many).
> There is a serious dilemma with the existing Christian beliefs regarding
> where these names, "Abram" and "Abraham", came from.
As I have laid out above, the meaning of both "Abram" and "Abraham" is quite
clear, and has been for millennia.
> So what IS the origin of these names. If you are objective and aren't
> clutching at straws to mold everything to fit your beliefs the answer
> is QUITE simple:
I find it interesting that God gives the definition of "Abraham" to Abram
when he gives him the name (Genesis 17:5). However, I imagine you would say
that God is not being objective and must be clutching at straws. Oh dear ...
anyway, on to your wild hypothesis:
> "ABRAM" (alef, bet, resh, mem) = ABR + M (royal plural),
> "ABR" (alef, bet, resh) = "Supplementary wing of the Kings of
> Mesopotamia (Babylonia/Chaldea)." Title used for those under
> the Mesopotamian Kings' rule.
The first problem with this suggestion is that, as we have seen, Abram is
not plural. If it were plural, then the ending would be YM, and the name
would be spelt in ABRYM in Hebrew {alef, bet, resh, YODH, mem}. And
secondly, as you are now attempting to play games with Babylonian as well as
Hebrew, I look forward to seeing some references to back up your suggestion
:-) It is in your next assertion that things become not merely fanciful but
actually foolish:
> "ABRAHAM" (alef, bet, resh, mem) = ABRAH + M (royal plural),
> "ABRAH" (alef, bet, resh, *heh*) = "Supplementary wing of the One God."
> God saying Abraham are not the Chaldean king's subject, but GOD's subject.
The problems with this suggestion are twofold:
1) Abraham's name is *not* a plural, as I have comprehensively and
repeatedly demonstrated. If the name were a standard plural form, then it
would be spelled ABRAHIYM not ABRAHAM.
2) If ABRAH were to be considered part of the name ABRAHAM, then the name
would be *feminine*, and would mean "pinion" of a wing! It would be very
strange to add a masculine plural ending to a feminine word. It would be
even more strange, because the H of feminine forms is omitted when the
plural ending is added. Thus, this suggestion is grammatically ridiculous
and impossible
> Our friend Andy can resort to his web tool to verify this information
> here:
> ABER: http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=083
> ABRAH: http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=084
> ABRAHAM: http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=085
> It was nice to notice that in the web based Hebrew Lexicon which our
> friend, James, uses, it lists ABER, ABRAH, and ABRAHAM all in
> order. Their assigned "Strong numbers" are 83, 84, and 85 respectively.
Another interesting error on your part, Shibli. Anybody who knew Hebrew
properly would of course realise that the words being listed next to each
other like this is due to their being listed in alphabetical order, and not
because of any necessary relationship between the root meaning of the words.
The words are *not listed* in that order in the scholarly dictionaries, but
are indeed listed under different roots, indicating that the words are not
linguistically related. Once again, I would point you to a reference source
like BDB, which will clear this up for you.
Oh, and one other point here. I see from reading your discussions with James
Dowdeswell that he "has never once referred to a web based Hebrew lexicon"
and has got quite cross with you for this assertion. I would respectfully
suggest that you check carefully before making these kind of assertions ---
and I also see that you stopped corresponding with James once he politely
pointed out the reference books he had on his bookshelf ... :-)
>> "Machmad" is not Muhammad, and to try to translate as such utterly
>> disregards the context, as well as all the rules of Hebrew linguistics
>> and phoenetics.
> Subhaan Allah, talk about "the pot calling the kettle black". This is an
> English language proverb which is used in reference to a person calling
> another something which he himself is.
Shibli, I believe that one of the differences between you and I is that in
my post here I have *openly admitted* the three mistakes I made with my
Hebrew in my last post. You, on the other hand, made numerous errors in your
first post, and rather than do the honourable (and sensible) thing and say
"whoops", you have tried to defend what is incorrect. To use another
proverb, there is nothing sadder than seeing a man who is already in a hole
busy digging deeper.
> We Muslims have no problem adhering to Hebrew linguistic (nahw) and
> phoenetic (tajweed) rules
Although in both of your last two posts you broke them left, right, and
centre.
> as Hebrew is a sister language to our own Arabic.
Very true. Has it occurred to you that since Hebrew and Arabic are indeed
sister languages, then if Muhammad's name was in Song of Solomon 5:16 it
should be there very clearly. One shouldn't have to:
1) invent new spellings of the name "Muhammad"
2) invent new rules of Hebrew grammar
3) struggle with trying to turn a name that is singular into one that is
plural
Makes you think, doesn't it :-).
> Much of the Old Testament was actually relayed in Aramaic
> and Amharic which are much closer to Arabic than to Hebrew.
> However, we have an English speaking person who is at a kindergarten level
> in Hebrew
I readily admit I am at a low level, but so it would appear is your good
self. The experts I have consulted for advice in writing this rebuttal were
shocked at some of the elementary mistakes in grammar contained in both of
your last posts.
> telling us what IS and ISN'T in the Old Testament
Either something is there, or it isn't.
> rather than objectively presenting his findings as hypotheses.
There is a time for hypotheses and a time for facts. And even when
hypotheses are involved, it is possible to weigh up the odds of a given
theory and decide that it is so unlikely it is not worth considering. I also
suspect that you do not live your life on a purely objective basis, given
that you are a Muslim. Can you prove categorically God exists? Of course
not, there is an element of faith. Can you prove categorically that the
Qur'an is a revelation from God? Again, of course you cannot. However, in
the case of Song of Solomon 5:16, all the laws of Hebrew grammar, the
context of the passage, and indeed the rules of the Arabic language are
stacked against your position. And a final thought; for one who is trying to
make out that his ideas are merely a hypothesis, you have achieved a
remarkably high word count which must have taken you a very good deal of
time. To misquote Shakespeare, "methinks you doth protest too greatly".
Anyway, on to the next point in your post, the Hebrew word "dowd".
>> understand the meaning. This is utterly vital in the case of a word like
>> "dowd", which does have several meanings. "The New Strong's Concise
>> Hebrew Dictionary" gives the meaning of "dowd" as: "loved one, beloved,
>> love, uncle"
> [snipped for brevity]
>> For example, look what happens if you try to turn "dowd" into Uncle in
>> this verses: Song of Solomon 1:2 : "Let him kiss me with the kisses
>> of his mouth: for thy UNCLE is better than wine."
> Now look at what anarchy happens when you use "BELOVED" instead of
> "UNCLE" for the word "DOWD":
> "And if a man shall lie with his BELOVED's wife, he hath uncovered his
> BELOVED's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless."
> Leviticus 20:20]
> "And the name of Saul's wife was Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz: and the
> name of the captain of his host was Abner, the son of Ner, Saul's
> BELOVED." [1 Samuel 14:50]
I think, Shibli, that if you read a little slower then you would not find
yourself in this difficulty. I addressed this point very thoroughly in my
last post, but you seem to have missed it. Let me refresh your memory and
remind you of what I wrote:
>> Now it is very, very important to translate in context. Just because a
>> word has multiple meanings, that does not mean you can pick and
>> choose which meaning to translate; you need to read the whole verse,
>> chapter, and indeed the book to *understand* what is meant. Let me give
>> you an example of what I mean with an example from English.
>>
>> Many words in English have different meanings, for example "blue", which
>> can mean either a colour, or feeling low. However in English, like
>> Hebrew, the context of the rest of the sentence explains the meaning:
>> for example, consider the phrase "Jane painted the kitchen blue". Now it
>> is obvious we are talking about a colour here, not a kitchen in need of
>> Prozac. The same is true in Hebrew; read the context for each occurence
>> of "dowd" and it can be determined what the meaning is. Where "Uncle" is
>> meant it is clear; however in Song of Solomon 5:16 the word has to be
>> translated "beloved", not "uncle".
I am actually very grateful that you picked the examples you did, for they
demonstrate just how clear the context usually is. Of course Leviticus 20:20
and 1 Samuel 14:50 require "dowd" to be translated "uncle". In fact I would
challenge anybody to look at any of the *16 times* where "dowd" is
translated as "uncle" and show that it could be rendered as "love" or
"beloved" instead. Why? Because as I explained, the context provides all the
clues you need to select the correct translation.
And of course this works the other way around. In the cases in the Hebrew
Old Testament where "dowd" is rendered "love" or "beloved" (42 times), in
each case the context is clear as to why "uncle" would be nonsense. You
wrote:
> Now let us see Shir Hashirim 5:16 in either context:
>
> With ":Beloved": "His mouth is most sweet, Yea he is MACHAMAD, this is my
> BELOVED, and this is my friend, oh daughters of Jerusalem."
>
> With "Uncle": "His mouth is most sweet, yea he is MACHAMAD, this is my
> UNCLE and this is my friend, oh daughters of Jerusalem."
Firstly the word is "machamaddim", "machamad" is a mistake. Get the basics
right and the rest will follow.
Secondly, I am afraid that only someone who has utterly disregarded the
context could make the latter interpretation. Why? Because the context is
very clear. You need to remember that:
1) "dowd" occurs 32 times in the Song of Solomon. In every instance, the
word is translated "love" or "beloved". In the light of this, it does not
take a genius to work out what "dowd" should be in Song of Solomon 5:16,
namely the same as in the other 31 cases.
2) The book is a love song between Solomon ("the lover") and his wife ("the
beloved"). Solomon is identified in several verses --- I would especially
point you to 1:1 and 8:12. Hence the "he is altogether .... machamaddim"
would, if we pushed your suggestion to its logical extent, be translated as
"Solomon is altogether Muhammads". Of course this --- as even my four year
old nephew could tell you --- is nonsense, and something that maybe even
Edward Lear would be proud of.
3) The whole content of the book describes the deep love and sexual
relationship between the king and his wife; it is interesting that some
Muslims have criticised this and asked why it is in the Bible. Equally, in
the Orthodox Jewish tradition, men are forbidden to read the book until they
have come of age or even married! The relationship described between Solomon
and the Shulamite maid is that of husband and wife; *not uncle and niece*!
(c.f. Song of Solomon 5:4 for instance!!!).
4) To understand the text to refer to Muhammad would be an anachronism. The
Shulamite maid would have been singing of kissing Muhammad over 1600 years
before he existed --- something that doesn't lend credence to the story.
5) Finally, to translate the word "dowd" as "uncle" has serious Islamic
problems. It would be a serious violation of Islamic law for a young woman
to engage in kissing and embracing (and more) with her paternal uncle. While
the word "dowd" does mean "uncle" in the proper context, the Song of Solomon
is not of that context --- it is clearly a love story, not a family history.
> The word "DOWD" *MAY* mean "BELOVED" in Shir Hashirim 5:16 and it may
> *NOT*.
Unfortunately for your polemic, the answer is *not*, as points (1) - (5)
above demonstrate. Translating correctly and in context is not all that
difficult.
> Either way it does not deplete even a slight fraction from the position
> that this verse may be referring to the Prophet Muhammad
As has been explained to you very clearly, there are astronomical hurdles
that you must clear in order to support this line of reasoning.
Grammatically, historically, and contextually, the polemic is *wrong*.
> The fact that "DOWD" meant "UNCLE" so clearly did seem to alarm and scare
> the author in that he dedicated well over 10 paragraphs to it, whereas, I
> just wrote one. Amusing.
If you had suggested that "dowd" meant "cabbage", I would equally have
carefully and patiently explained to you why you are wrong. I believe that
Scripture should be treated with respect, not ripped to shreds to try to
support a prophet whose claims were so fanciful that his followers feel they
need to play games with Scripture to shore up his credibility.
<snip>
>> IN CONCLUSION
>> In closing, I can fully understand why it is that Muslims like Shibli so
>> earnestly desire to find Muhammad in Song of Solomon 5:16. Muhammad
>> claimed that he was prophesied in the former scriptures, and so Muslims
>> constantly scrutinise the Old and New Testaments.
> QUITE on the contrary! If the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be
> upon him) is mentioned in the Bible then it will serve as a "wowie" and no
> more. Likewise, if he is NOT mentioned in the Bible it means nothing at
> all to us.
Shibli, I am afraid that you have committed something of an understatement
here. It is essential for Muslims that Muhammad is found in the Bible, not
least because of this verse from the Qur'an:
"Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find
mentioned in the Taurat and the Injil" (Sura 7:157)
The Qu'ran teaches that Muhammad is mentioned in the gospels and in the
Torah. This is quite useful, as it provides us with a test; can we find
Muhammad's name in the Torah? Muhammad's followers certainly seemed to think
so. Let me remind you of the Hadith that James Dowdeswell quoted to you:
Narrated Ata bin Yasar:
I met Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al-'As and asked him, "Tell me about the
description of Allah's Apostle which is mentioned in Torah. He replied,
'Yes. By Allah, he is described in Torah with some of the qualities
attributed to him in the Quran as follows:
"O Prophet ! We have sent you as a witness (for Allah's True religion) And a
giver of glad tidings (to the faithful believers), And a warner (to the
unbelievers) And guardian of the illiterates. You are My slave and My
messenger (i.e. Apostle). I have named you "Al-Mutawakkil" (who depends upon
Allah). You are neither discourteous, harsh Nor a noise-maker in the
markets. And you do not do evil to those Who do evil to you, but you deal
With them with forgiveness and kindness. Allah will not let him (the
Prophet) Die till he makes straight the crooked people by making them say:
"None has the
right to be worshipped but Allah," With which will be opened blind eyes And
deaf ears and enveloped hearts."
(Al-Bukhari, vol. 3, book 34, no. 335)
Now as I recall from reading the particular thread on SRI, James asked you
where in the Torah this "description" read by Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al'As
was. And you replied:
"Yes it was there and it is still there. Anyone, familiar with the Old
Testament should recognize it right off the bat. It is in Isaiah
42:1-7 and scattered elsewhere in Isaiah."
This was a mistake of the highest proportions. Laying aside your extremely
dodgy exegesis that attempted to lay Isaiah 42:1-7 and Al-Bukhari side by
side, you made a very basic mistake; as any Jew or Christian (or, to quote
your words "any elementary Tanach student") could tell you, Isaiah does not
form part of the Torah. Rather it forms part of the Nevi`im. And of course
Song of Solomon is not part of the Torah either, but part of the Ketuvim.
The TaNaKh (or "tanach" as you wrote) is an acronym derived from the names
of its three divisions: Torah (Instruction, or Law, also called the
Pentateuch), Nevi`im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings).
> If the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon him) is not mentioned
> in the Bible the Christian feels at ease.
But of course if Muhammad is *not* mentioned in the Bible, then this poses
problems for Muslims, as Surah 7:157 is wrong, and this has many
repercussions. Remember that you need to be consistent in your logic; if you
wish to claim that:
> if the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon him) *IS* mentioned
> in the Bible then the Christian is FORCED to accept Islam as the
> fulfillment of his/her own Bible.
Then you must equally state that:
IF MUHAMMAD IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE, THE MUSLIM IS FORCED TO ADMIT
ISLAM IS WRONG AND MUHAMMAD A FALSE PROPHET.
You see the argument cuts both ways, you cannot state the one challenge
without the other.
> Unfortunately, for the Christians, the evidence supporting the hypothesis
> that the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon him) is, indeed,
> the "MACHAMAD" of Shir Hashirim 5:16 is quite overwhelming and will always
> be a terrible scare to the Christian whose goal is to preserve his/her
> Christianity rather than objectively finding the Truth.
I can warmly reassure you that I (and other Christians with whom I have
spoken) are not scared by the polemic that you have put forward. A better
description of the "evidence" you have offered to support your hypothesis
would be *feeble*.
=====================
SUMMARY
This has been a very long and involved post, so let me offer a simple
conclusion of my own. For ease, I will break it down into two sections:
1) AN ABBREVIATED LIST OF THE CLEAR REASONS WHY MUHAMMAD IS NOT MENTIONED IN
SONG OF SOLOMON 5:16
A quick, at a glance guide.
2) MISTAKES MADE BY SHIBLI IN HIS LAST TWO POSTS
You have taken it upon yourself to try to judge everybody else left, right,
and centre, but have never once admitted the basic mistakes in grammar that
you yourself have made. Therefore I offer you a simple list, to which you
can own up in your next posting to SRI on this topic. I have openly admitted
the mistakes I made in my two posts, so I look forward to seeing a
reciprocation.
CONCLUSION
Here we go ...
====================
1) AN ABBREVIATED LIST OF THE CLEAR REASONS WHY MUHAMMAD IS NOT MENTIONED IN
SONG OF SOLOMON 5:16
a) The name "Muhammad" is always singular, in the Qur'an, in the Hadith and
Sunnah, and in all Islamic literature. However the word "machamaddim" in
Song of Solomon 5:16 is plural. This is a major problem.
b) The Hebrew for Muhammad (MWXDM) and that for the word in Song of Solomon
5:16 (MXDMYM) is very different. Although Muhammad's name is sometimes spelt
differently, *nowhere* is there any occurence of it being spelt MXDMYM. (The
vowels of the Masoretic text are also wholly incompatable with "Muhammad").
c) Claiming that "machamaddim" is "Muhammad" results in an anachronism, as
it means that the Shulamite maiden is talking about kissing Muhammad 1,400
years before he was born. This would be a fairly neat trick and, alas,
impossible.
d) Song of Solomon is a love story between the lover Solomon ("the lover")
and his wife ("the beloved"). Solomon is identified in several verses (1:1
and 8:12.) Therefore it is Solomon who is referred to in 5:16 as "altogether
lovely/desirable".
e) To identify Muhammad as "machamaddim" means translating "machamaddim"
differently from every other occurence in the Old Testament.
f) The meaning of "Muhammad" (praised) and "machamaddim" (desirable) are
different.
g) The grammatical constructions around "machamaddim" (i.e. the way that
"machamaddim" fits into the sentence) make a proper name here impossible;
the Hebrew reads "and all of him is <machamaddim>" or "he is altogether
<machamaddim>". This makes sense if "machamaddim" means "desirable or
lovely", and nonsense if "machamaddim" means Muhammad.
========================
2) MISTAKES MADE BY SHIBLI IN HIS LAST TWO POSTS
a) *Four* wrong spellings of the word "machmad" or its plural,
"machamaddim". I refer to your spellings: machamadim, machamadd, machamad
and machammadim. All are wrong according to the rules of Hebrew grammar.
b) Suggesting that a Hebrew word can end in a double consonant cluster. Any
good reference book on the language would tell you that a daggesh forte only
comes into play if there is a following vowel.
c) Suggesting that a double "m" (i.e. machammadim) is possible; however
there is no daggesh forte in the "m", so this is also wrong.
d) Claiming that Adam means "bloody", when in fact the Hebrew word "adom"
to which it is related *actually* means "to be red".
e) Trying to translate Jesus as "saved" when in fact Jesus' name means
"Jehovah is Salvation".
f) Mistakenly claiming that the name Abraham is a plural, when in fact the
Hebrew makes it abundantly clear that Abraham is singular (to be plural it
would need to end "YM").
g) Claiming there is not a Hebrew word "ram", when in fact there is and
the word occurs six times in the Old Testament.
h) Turning Abraham's name into a feminine one (the world's first gender
change operation?) by suggesting that the Hebrew word "abrah" forms a
component part of it.
i) Mistakenly claiming that James Dowdeswell has used and pointed readers
to web based tools, when in fact he has not done so (rather it was myself).
j) Assuming that because three words ('aber', 'abrah', and 'abraham') are
listed consecutively (i.e. alphabetically) in a Hebrew/English dictionary,
that they must be related; whereas consulting a scholarly reference would
show them listed by root, and thus reveal them to be different.
k) Suggesting that both Song of Solomon and Isaiah are part of the Torah,
whereas any TaNaKh student can tell you that they are part of the Ketuvim
and Nevi`im respectively.
I hope this sufficiently demonstrates that you are in fact human. Given your
penchant for heaping criticism upon those with whom you are discussing for
even the slightest mistake, I am *sure* you will be very quick to admit your
mistakes in this cases ... or are we going to face another 4,000 words
defending all of these "slips"?
====================
CONCLUSION
I believe that the conclusion I wrote at the end of my last post still
stands. Muhammad's name is not to be found in Song of Solomon 5:16, and to
try to argue that it is there leads one only to pile mistake upon mistake,
and to submit the original Hebrew Scriptures to the most tortuous of
exegesis.
There is a sadder point I feel, too, and that is this; that most Muslims
(Shibli included) will happily write off and ignore not only the Old
Testament (the Hebrew) but the New Testament also (the Greek), except where
it suits their purposes. However, when they feel that a verse can be twisted
or abused to try to point to Muhammad, then they are only too keen to dive
into Scripture. What they often do not realise is that, in Shibli's case for
example, the textual and manuscript support for Song of Solomon 5:16 is the
same as for the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures; I would therefore suggest
that you read *all* of the Hebrew Scriptures (in English or Hebrew, take
your pick), and then read the New Testament in the light of that. Once you
have thus read the whole Bible, then you would be in a better position to
start suggesting new hypotheses.
I would like to thank you, Shibli, for an interesting discussion.
Many blessings in Jesus,
Andy Bannister
Shibli Zaman
Since this post was an extremely long novel of nonsense I will divide
the response into parts. This is part 1:
On 12 Mar 2000 14:27:44 GMT, "Andy Bannister"
<an...@bannister.screaming.net> wrote:
>Before I go any further, I think this is a good time to clear up what the
>word in Song of Solomon 5:16 actually is. To be fair, *both* Shibli and I
>have not been very clear in what we have written on this point. The word in
>question is indeed:
Here Andy Bannister proceeds to "correct" me by contesting my English
transliteration of Hebrew words. Unless Andy Bannister can introduce
any official standard for Hebrew transliteration, this entire point is
lengthy, unnnecessary, and ridiculous.
It is very, very simple and Andy should not try and cloud his
extremely serious and fatal error with a smoke screen of English
transliteration "corrections".
1. From the beginning I was discussing the word "MACHAMADIM" found in
Shir Hashirim 5:16 spelled "mem, cheth, mem, daleth, mem" which is the
plural form of the root "mem, cheth, mem, daleth" with the addition of
the succeeding "yod-mem" pluralization ("yod" being a vocative vowel
mark and not a consonant). This was my intial stance which proved
correct from the beginning, throughout Andy's painful Hebrew lessons,
and ultimately now.
2. Andy Bannister first stated the word was "MACHMAD" spelled "mem,
cheth, mem, daleth". After being corrected by me he still vehemently
insisted typing in ALL CAPS that it was "MACHMAD" and not
"MACHAMADIM". Presumably, some Jew or Christian source told him he was
wrong so he humbly recanted and accepted he was incorrect. He then
accepted that the word was indeed "MACHAMADIM" with a silly insistence
that the "daleth" sound being doubled makes the word significantly
different from "MUHAMMADIM" without realizing that in semitic
languages there exists the bouncing off of a certain group of
consonants and "daleth" being one of them. Thus, his present stance
that the word should be spelled in English as "MACHAMADDIM" and that
this looks and sounds noticeably different from "MuHammadim".
Thus, this entire insistence on some mythical standard of English
transliteration of Hebrew words which does not exist is rendered
useless and insipid. Indeed, let the reader decide and I encourage all
of our esteemed readers to provide objective feedback on this.
>MACHMAD (MXMD in Hebrew, reading from right to left: daleth, mem, cheth,
>mem); which means "lovely or desirable"
>
>However, where the word "machmad" occurs in Song of Solomon 5:16 it is
>actually *plural*. Thus the word becomes:
>
>MACH+a+MAD+d+IM (or MXMDYM in Hebrew, where Y = yodh)
etc..etc...etc.. As mentioned before I told him this a very long time
ago. Learning Hebrew in the course of a debate regarding the Hebrew
language is not beneficial to anyone and definitely of no benefit to
one's self.
>Hence to recap, the singular form of the word in question is MACHMAD and the
>plural form is MACHAMADDIM.
Incorrect, the word "MACHMAD" is not what is used in Shir Hashirim
5:16. Andy should not try and betray the reader into thinking the word
in 5:16 is "MACHMAD". This is a tactic used to draw attention to the
20+ other verses that use the word "MACHMAD" in reference to benign
objects. The word is NOT "MACHMAD" it is "MACHAMADIM" and, thus, very
unique and dissimilar to all the other references dubiosuly cited to
say that this word can not be a person's name. The book Shir Hashirim
in itself is heavily influenced by Arabesque languages of antiquity
such as Aramaic, Amharic, Syriac, etc. and has many words not found
anywhere in the Bible. This will be addressed later in this post.
>b) As I have explained above, two words looking similar does not prove they
>are cognates, let alone the +same word+. The fun I had with 'poisson' and
>'poison' demonstrates the foolishness this can result in.
"Poisson" is French for "fish", whereas, "poison" is English for a
toxic substance. Where on earth Andy Bannister studied ratios I have
no idea. "MACHAMADIM" means "Praise worthy" and "MUHAMMADIM" means
"Praise worthy". With each of his responses the scholarship decays.
>let me offer one to you. If you are saying that whatever the local Rabbi
>reads down the telephone to you is to be taken as being *accurate*, then try
>this; after you have heard the word, ask the Rabbi if it means "Muhammad".
>Given that you are happy to take his pronunciation as correct, I can only
>assume you would also accept his *definition* as well, otherwise you would
>be guilty of a double-standard of mind boggling proportions.
Now let me present a parallel that actually MAKES SENSE.
Andy, call your local Rabbi and ask him what Yeshua means (a form of
Jesus' name in Hebrew). He may say it means "God's Salvation" (which
is not what it means at all but this is another subject). Now before
you hang up the phone ask him if Jesus is the only way to salvation.
To quote you:
>Given that you are happy to take his pronounciation as correct, I can only
>assume you would also accept his explanation, otherwise one would be guilty
>of a double-standard of mind boggling proportions.
As anyone can see, yet another one of Andy's points is rendered
useless. Please, Andy, I hope you can do better than this. So far this
response has been one of your weakest and not even remotely
informative or enjoyable.
Regarding his huge mistake which revealed that:
A) He was arguing the whole while without even looking at the text in
Hebrew. Had he actually, read the text from the beginning of the
argument he would have seen clear as day that the word is "MACHAMADIM"
not "MACHMAD" which is entirely missing a consonant and two vowels.
B) He did not even know what he was talking about
Andy Bannister had this to say:
>I accept that my mistake was not to point out that machamaddim is the plural
>of machmad, and I made the mistake of using the two words interchangeably
>without explaining this point to the casual reader not familiar with Hebrew.
So rather than standing by his previous admission that he made an
outright blunder and had not actually read the Hebrew text of Shir
Hashirim before insisting it was not referring to the Prophet Muhammad
(Peace be upon him), he is now trying to modify that confession to a
mistaken mere inadequacy in expression. Andy should be sincere and not
try and slip away from a confession once he has already made it.
>> I would like to request the opposing side to please use actual Hebrew
>> codices of Shir Hashirim. Please don't waste our time with web pages.
>> Web pages are not a serious source of research. I am sure driving to
>> the local Synagogue is not that much of a pain.
>
>I once heard it said that sarcasm was the lowest form of wit! I have used
>the actual Hebrew scriptures in my research, courtesy of a friend who has
Then why is it for at least 2 or 3 rebuttals you insisted vehemently
with CAPS and exclamation points that the word was "MACHMAD" and not
"MACHAMADIM"? I understand a novice reader may make pronunciation
mistakes but this is not a mistake of pronunciation. Its a matter of
not even knowing what the word is. This means you did not read it. Do
you have a better explanation?
>Nowhere in the WHOLE of the Hebrew Scriptures does a word end in a daleth
>with a daggesh forte. Shibli, I would also be interested to see if you can
>find *any examples* of an Arabic word that ends with a shadda, i.e. ends in
>a doubled consonant cluster.
Why you continue to say things without a clue is beyond me. You just
keep digging pits for yourself. Allow me to help you dig:
"fa yawma'ithil-laa yus'alu `an thambihee insuw-wa laa JAANN" (final
"noon" doubled with a shadda at the end of the sentence).
[Surat ar-Rahmaan, verse 39]
Please do look it up.
Closing emphasized consonants are used both in Hebrew and Arabic. Much
of Hebrew's rules of grammar and diction are from the Arabic period of
Jewry and did not exist prior to this. Would it be too much to ask
that you to PLEASE study a subject before wasting so much time arguing
about it?
>Now before I go any further with your post, here is as good a place as any
>to highlight one of the most major of all the problems with the suggestion
>that Song of Solomon 5:16 contains the name "Muhammad". Aside from the fact
>that the Hebrew word "machmad" is an adjective, a point we will come to
>later, I would like to spend a few moments discussing the problems that the
>word in question being a plural present. Later on in your post you cause
"Adam" is an adjective referring to red colors and blood.
"Moses" is an adjective meaning "withdrawn".
"Andy" is short for "Andrew" which refers to "Androgeny" meaning
"masculine".
Thus, according to your logic: you, Andy, can not be the author of
this post. You do not even exist. Your name is an adjective.
[To be continued in Part 2...unfortunately]
Shibli Zaman
This is the third installment in this horrible display of careless
argumentation.
On 12 Mar 2000 14:27:44 GMT, "Andy Bannister"
<an...@bannister.screaming.net> wrote:
>> IN CONCLUSION
"Conclusion #2"
This is indeed coming from an extreme braindead lack of any knowledge
of the scriptural tradition.
"In Jewish tradition the word 'Torah', which literally means
'teaching', is often used to describe THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF JEWISH
RELIGIOUS LEARNING. WHEN SO USED, 'TORAH' REFERS NOT ONLY TO THE FIVE
BOOKS OF MOSES BUT ALSO TO THE PROPHETS, HOLY WRITINGS, TALMUD, AND
MIDRASH--IN FACT TO ALL RELIGIOUS WRITINGS FROM EASLIEST TIMES TO THE
PRESENT."
["This is the Torah" Alfred J. Kolatch]
The word "Tawraat" in the Arabic language is used for the Old
Testament and all Jewish scriptures. "Zaboor" is used for the "Psalms"
within the Old Testament. This is how it has been understood by the
Jewish nation historically and this is how it was understood by the
Arabs and early Muslims.
Some advice: Stop doing this to yourself.
>SUMMARY
"Conclusion #3"
>
>CONCLUSION
"Conclusion #4"
>1) AN ABBREVIATED LIST OF THE CLEAR REASONS WHY MUHAMMAD IS NOT MENTIONED IN
>SONG OF SOLOMON 5:16
>
>a) The name "Muhammad" is always singular, in the Qur'an, in the Hadith and
>Sunnah, and in all Islamic literature. However the word "machamaddim" in
>Song of Solomon 5:16 is plural. This is a major problem.
Its a problem for you because you don't bother researching your
statements before you make them. As I already quoted above 1.5 billion
Muslims reciate "MUHAMMADIN" (usage of "tanween" which at times is
even pronounced "MUHAMMADIM"!) at least 9 times a day (granted they
are religious and pray).
>b) The Hebrew for Muhammad (MWXDM) and that for the word in Song of Solomon
>5:16 (MXDMYM) is very different. Although Muhammad's name is sometimes spelt
>differently, *nowhere* is there any occurence of it being spelt MXDMYM. (The
>vowels of the Masoretic text are also wholly incompatable with "Muhammad").
You shot yourself in the foot with this one. First you said the name
is a common word used 20+ odd times in the Bible. Then you end up
saying this form of the word is not found ANYWHERE else in the Bible.
Thank you, Andy. Yes, this is a unique occurrence of this word because
it is a NAME,
>c) Claiming that "machamaddim" is "Muhammad" results in an anachronism, as
>it means that the Shulamite maiden is talking about kissing Muhammad 1,400
>years before he was born. This would be a fairly neat trick and, alas,
>impossible.
To see Shir Hashirim as a lust filled story one must have the exegetic
skills of an immature 3rd grader who giggles at people kissing.
"A. Allegorical Interpretation.- This is the earliest interpretation
and it prevaailed throughout the Jewish and Christian circles for many
centuries..."
"...and the book itself as an allegory depicting in great detail the
experiences of the nation in its relations with its God from teh
Exodus down to *THE COMING OF THE MESSIAH AND THE BUILDING OF THE
THIRD TEMPLE.* This in general is also the interpretation of the
Midrash Rabbah and such famous scholars as Saadia ben Joseph, Rashi,
and Ibn Ezra, although they differ considerably among themselves in
details."
[The Interpreter's Bible Encyclopedia]
Can you say "ouch"? According to the greatest and earliest Jewish
scholars in the world this book is a serious book of prophecy even up
to the coming of the Messiah, building of the Third Temple and end of
the world.
"An early commentator, Rabbi Akiva (died AD 135), claimed that
'The whole word is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was
given to Israel; for all the writings are holy, but the Song of Songs
is the holiest of the holy.'
Nevertheless he read it allegorically..."
["The Song of Solomon-Love Poetry of the Spirit" John Updike]
Apparently the Jewish scholars even 135 years after Christ believed
this book to be something great and not just a hormonal love story.
This was a book of RPOPHECY referring to the Messiah and Building of
the Third Temple by the monoliths of Jewish knowledge such as Saadia
Ben Joseph, Ibn Ezra etc. What do you have to say for yourself?
[To be continued in a fourth and final part! Sorry]
Shibli Zaman
Here is the painful Part 2 in this series. I am trying my hardest to
make this as brief as possible. When one goes in lengths to write a
bulk of nonsense it takes an equally (if not significantly larger)
bulk to correct.
On 12 Mar 2000 14:27:44 GMT, "Andy Bannister"
<an...@bannister.screaming.net> wrote:
>So, Shibli, I would like to present you with some simple challenges:
>
>i) Find an occurrence *anywhere* in old Hebrew of the name Muhammad written
>"MWXMDYM" (i.e. in a plural)
Actually, the challenge you present to me can not be fulfilled. You
have again dug your own grave.
---Andy, please present to me the word "MACHAMADIM" in the Hebrew
bible *ANYWHERE* It is nowhere other than Song of Songs 5:16.---
You just annihilated your own argument that the word "MACHAMADIM" is
just like the words "MACHMAD" found 20+ other times in the Bible.
Thank you for proving my point that the word "MACHAMADIM" is unique
and not found anywhere else in the Bible and destroying your own
argument.
>ii) More importantly, find an occurrence *anywhere* in the Qu'ran or indeed
>in any Islamic literature, of Muhammad's name written with the Arabic plural
>ending "IN", i.e. "Muhammadin" (Arabic MXMDYN).
"Allahuma Salla `alaa
-MuHammad*IN*-
wa `alaa Aali MuHammad; kamma Salayta `alaa Ibraheema wa `alaa Aali
Ibraheema innaka Hamidun majeed.
Allahuma barak `alaa
-MuHammad*IN*-
wa `alaa Aali Muhammad, kamma barakt `alaa Ibraheema wa `alaa Aali
Ibraheema innaka Hamidun majeed. "
Here "MuHammad" is recited as "MUHAMMADIN" using "tanween" which is
also depending on context read as "MUHAMMADIM"! This prayer is recited
around 13,500,000,000 times a day in the world considering that it is
recited 9 times throughout the 5 daily prayers and there are 1.5
billion Muslims in the world.
Again, I don't understand why you insist on making such erroneous
blunders by making sweeping challenges and statements without even the
remotest clue regarding the Arabic or Hebrew languages.
>Now in an attempt to second guess your train of thought, there is a probable
>line of defence you might try to take from here, and that is to claim that
>there were other people in the Hebrew scripture whose names end in a plural.
>The example you came up with Abraham. Now this was actually quite funny, as
>you don't need to know any Hebrew at all to see that Abraham is spelt ABRM,
>and thus does not end YM. Thus it is not a plural. Whoops :-).
My dear Almighty Allah, please help this man, ameen.
"Abraham" is spelled
"ALEF, BETH, RESH, CHETH, MEM"
in the Old Testament and pronounced "ABRECHEM".
What you are referring to is "ABRAM" spelled
"ALEF, BETH, RESH, MEM".
Abraham was first named "Abram" then later God renamed him "Abraham"
they are two totally different names with different meanings spelled
totally different. These are elementary issues. Will you please stop
somewhere and read before you type?
>To conclude this point, as the word in question (machamaddim) is plural,
Lets see if this is actually a conclusion (laugh). Lets name this
"Conclusion #1"
>Song of Solomon 5:16. For we need to ask, what does the name "Muhammad"
>mean? The answer is "praiseworthy", from the Arabic "hamida" meaning "to
>praise". Note the difference between this and the word "machamaddim", which
>means "lovely or desirable". There is not only a difference in spelling, in
Here is another killing point so don't put your shovel away yet.
"Lovely - NECHMAD (spelled 'NUN', 'cheth', 'mem', 'daleth')"
*The word "MACHAMADIM" or any word similar to its root is not found
anywhere in this book.
[Hippocrene Standard Hebrew Dictionary; David Gross.]
"Lovely - NECHMAD (spelled 'NUN', 'cheth', 'mem', 'daleth')"
*The word "MACHAMADIM" or any word similar to its root is not found
anywhere in this book.
[The Meridian Hebrew Dictionary; Ehud Ben Yehuda & David Weinsten.]
"Lovely - NECHMAD (spelled 'NUN', 'cheth', 'mem', 'daleth')"
*The word "MACHAMADIM" or any word similar to its root is not found
anywhere in this book.
[The New Bantam-Megiddo Hebrew Dictionary; Dr. Reuven Sivan & Dr.
Edward A. Levenston.]
The Webster's New World Hebrew Dictionary by Hayam Baltsan about which
the Boston Jewish Times states, "A breakthrough work of liguistic
scholarship" has the same problem for Mr. Bannister. There is
absolutely no reference to "MACHAMAD" or "MACHAMADDIM". There is only
"MACHMAD" which is not the same word form used in Song of Songs 5:16.
>And there is *yet another* problem for your hypothesis. If we look at the
>preceding Hebrew in Song of Solomon 5:16, you will find that "machamaddim"
>occurs in this context:
>
>"w'kulo machamaddim"
>
>Which should be translated "all of him is machamaddim" or "altogether he is
>machamaddim".
If you knew what you were talking about you would realize that "KOL"
is a Semitic term for absolution and emphasis and not simply quantity.
It is derived from the archaic "KALAL". Its emphatic property is even
used for NEGATION in the book of Psalms. Let the Bible argue against
you:
"For YET seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty
days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made
will I destroy from off the face of the earth."
[Genesis 7:4]
Here "kol" is used to mean "yet". Thus Song of Songs 5:16 may read,
"Yet he is Muhammad!"
You're in trouble, Andy, but I'm not done yet.
"And when all the people came to cause David to eat meat while it was
YET day, David sware, saying, So do God to me, and more also, if I
taste bread, or ought else, till the sun be down."
[Samuel II 3:35]
"There is that maketh himself rich, YET hath nothing: there is that
maketh himself poor, YET hath great riches."
[Proverbs 13:7]
Now for the use of its ORIGIN "KALAL" in the Bible:
"Thy borders are in the midst of the seas, thy builders have PERFECTED
thy beauty."
[Ezekiel 27:4]
Here the word is used for "PERFECTED". Still more trouble for Mr.
Bannister...
"The men of Arvad with thine army were upon thy walls round about, and
the Gammadims were in thy towers: they hanged their shields upon thy
walls round about; they have made thy beauty PERFECT."
[Ezekiel 27:11]
Thus, "He is the perfect Muhammad!" or "Yet he is Muhammad!" are BOTH
valid in light of the Hebrew language as expressed by the BIBLE
ITSELF.
>> Adam: "Bloody" adjective.
>
>The name Adam is related to the Hebrew word "adom", meaning "to be red". It
>does not mean "bloody" and is never used anywhere in the whole of the Hebrew
>Old Testament to mean this.
Allah please help this man, ameen,
Lets makes it easy for you. First, Andy, open your web browser and go
to this site:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=01818&version=kjv
You will find the word "DAM" spelled "daleth", "mem" which is defined
as "BLOODY". Then click on "compare 0119" which leads you to the word
"ADAM" meaning "red" from where Adam's name is derived by your own
admission.
That was easy, now wasn't it? Its astonishing that you keep
"correcting" me but don't even know what you are talking about.
>> JESUS: "Saved" adjective.
>> (why the opposite of "Saviour"?)
>> (Interesting question but I'll stick to the topic.)
>
>Whoops, you committed a bit of a howler here, didn't you! Laying aside the
>fact that "saviour" is not the opposite of "saved" (the opposite would be,
>er ... "unsaved"), Jesus' name *does not* mean "saved". As most people
>realise, the name "Jesus" is an Anglicisation of the Greek name "Yesous".
>The Greek name comes from the Hebrew name Yeshua which means "Jehovah is
>salvation". Quite how you made this mistake, I'm not sure.
Where you got your education (or lack thereof) in Hebrew, I'm not
sure.
"Jesus" comes from "Yeshua" which means "HE IS SAVED". The definition
"Jehovah is Salvation" is "YE*HE*SHUWA" which is a POSTULATED origin
of "Yeshua". Its wishful thinking on the part of the Christians.
Again, Andy, this is very simple knowledge. Check:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03442&version=kjv
which states: "Yeshuwa = 'he is saved' "
So, Andy, ask yourself why Jesus' name means "He is saved" rather than
"Savior"? Which version of Jesus fits the proper definition of "He is
saved"? Islam in whcih we believe Jesus was saved from death on the
cross or Christianity in which you believe he is the Savior of
mankind? Scary question isn't it, Andy?
>While we're on the subject of mistakes, let me admit the one I made in my
>post where I wrote:
>
>>> There is not a single example in the whole Bible of the plural of an
>>> adjective being translated as a proper name;
>
>Now I will happily admit I was wrong. As you correctly observed, there are
My God, then why did you argue so long about it??? Is this fun for
you? You argue something as absolute fact and then 10 posts later
admit you were wrong.
>> there are no words known as "RAM" or "RAHAM" in the Hebrew
>> language. There is no word "RAM" spelled RESH, MEM".
>
>This really was a bit of a glaring mistake, as there *most definitely is* a
>Hebrew word RAM. It is derived from the verb RUM which means "to be high,
>exalted, rise" (BDB 926). This word is one of the commonest in the Old
Yes, there is the word "RAM" spelled "RESH, MEM" does come from the
root "RESH, WAW, MEM" meaning "exalted". This was an oversight on my
part. However, this does NOT logically apply to Abraham as he could
NOT be an "exalted father" before his advent as a Prophet! It
contradicts the Bible ITSELF.
"Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall
be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee."
[Genesis 17:5]
So you are saying he went from an exalted father to an exalted father?
Then why the change in name? God just didn't like it?
You left the issue of there being no definition for "RECHEM"
completely BLANK.
>Thus AB+RAB+HAMON has been contracted to ABRAHAM, meaning "father of
Amazing. You waste everyone's time INSISTING that "MACHAMADIM" can in
no way be "MUHAMMAD" yet you present "AB+RAB+HAMON" as being
"Abraham". This is utterly unebelievable.
Let us look at the pattern of insipidity:
1) Andy Bannister insists as an INTEGRAL component of his argument
that there are NO NAMES in the Old Testament which are pluralized. He
challenges us to provide a name in the Old Testament which is so.
2) I provide a THEORY regarding the name of Abraham originating from
his arrival to Monotheism from his heritage of Babylonia-Chaldea which
is the most credible historically.
3) Andy Bannister ADMITS that both "EPHRAIM" and "MIZRAIM" are NAMES
PLURALIZED in the Old Testament thus completely rendering that entire
facet of his argument DEAD. However, he still insists on wasting
everyone's time if he can help it.
4) Andy Bannister goes through great lengths to insist that a "yod"
must be present for these words (which predate even the Hebrew
language!!!!) to be plural.
5) Andy suggest "AB+RAB+HAMON" as an alternative origin of "Abraham",
yet, insists that "MACHAMADIM" can in no way be "MUHAMMAD". Also,
"HAMON" is spelled with a "HETH" and not a "CHETH" as is found in
"ABRECHEM" the actual name of "Abraham" in the Bible, thus adding
another entry into the annals of Andy's blunders.
>Firstly the word is "machamaddim", "machamad" is a mistake. Get the basics
>right and the rest will follow.
This is utterly unbelievable and insolent coming from someone who
insisted initially that the word was "MACHMAD" and not "MACHAMADIM".
Does your audacity have any limits?
[To be continued in Part 3...I know...I know....I'm trying to make
this as short and tolerable as possible]
Shibli Zaman
This is the fourth and final part of this "series". I would like to
encourage all the readers, Muslim and Christian alike, to email me
with their thoughts and opinions. Thank you.
On 12 Mar 2000 14:27:44 GMT, "Andy Bannister"
<an...@bannister.screaming.net> wrote:
>========================
>
>2) MISTAKES MADE BY SHIBLI IN HIS LAST TWO POSTS
>
>a) *Four* wrong spellings of the word "machmad" or its plural,
>"machamaddim". I refer to your spellings: machamadim, machamadd, machamad
>and machammadim. All are wrong according to the rules of Hebrew grammar.
Ridiculous. Do you have a standard for English transliteration of
Hebrew? You don't. Thus, do not waste my time.
>b) Suggesting that a Hebrew word can end in a double consonant cluster. Any
>good reference book on the language would tell you that a daggesh forte only
>comes into play if there is a following vowel.
Disproven by quoting a verse already in part 1 of this "series"
"fa yawma'ithil-laa yus'alu `an thambihee insuw-wa laa JAANN" (final
"noon" doubled with a shadda at the end of the sentence).
[Surat ar-Rahmaan, verse 39]
>c) Suggesting that a double "m" (i.e. machammadim) is possible; however
>there is no daggesh forte in the "m", so this is also wrong.
Just as you mindlessly try and apply Hebrew rules upon the Babylonian
Ural-Chaldean names, "Abram" and "Abraham" you now expect the name
"Muhammad" to be spelled the exact same way in Hebrew as it is in
Arabic down to the punctuation and letter. This is not something
anyone who knows anything about variant linguistics and lexics would
do.
>d) Claiming that Adam means "bloody", when in fact the Hebrew word "adom"
>to which it is related *actually* means "to be red".
"Adam" comes from "DAM" which means "BLOODY" check the URL I gave
above and please do not waste this much time of mine again with
utterly inexcusable mistakes.
Here I'll paste it again just in case it didn't sink in the first
time:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=01818&version=kjv
click on "compare 0119" which will take you to "Adam"
>
>e) Trying to translate Jesus as "saved" when in fact Jesus' name means
>"Jehovah is Salvation".
"Jesus" is the Latinization of "Yeshua" which means "HE IS SAVED". It
is not an "Anglicanization" as you imprudently blurted without
thinking. The word "Jesos" is Greek used long before the Angles,
Saxons and Juts had even converted to Christianity!! This is simple
European history. Again, check the URL I provided and PLEASE don't
waste so much time. AT LEAST BE CONCISE AND BRIEF in your nonsense.
Don't write 50 pages of nonsense.
Here it is again, in case you didn't comprehend it the first time
around:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03442&version=kjv
which states: "Yeshuwa = 'he is saved' "
>f) Mistakenly claiming that the name Abraham is a plural, when in fact the
>Hebrew makes it abundantly clear that Abraham is singular (to be plural it
>would need to end "YM").
THE NAMES ABRAHAM AND ABRAM PREDATE THE HEBREW LANGUAGE BY HUNDREDS
OF YEARS!!!!! You say that there must be a "yod" in order for it to be
plural when it is obviously plural in its historical context. Then you
propose that "Abraham" comes from "AB+RAB+HAMON"!!! So "Abraham" can
be "AB+RAB+HAMON" but "MUCHAMMADIM" can in no way be "MUHAMMAD"? I am
trying so hard not to belittle you but you are setting yourself up for
it repeatedly.
>g) Claiming there is not a Hebrew word "ram", when in fact there is and
>the word occurs six times in the Old Testament.
There is a word "RESH, MEM" meaning "exalted" in Hebrew but this goes
AGAINST the context of Genesis in which Abraham became exalted AFTER
his name was changed from Abram to Abraham. STILL you have not given
ANY explanation as to why "RECHEM" does not exist in the Hebrew
language!
>h) Turning Abraham's name into a feminine one (the world's first gender
>change operation?) by suggesting that the Hebrew word "abrah" forms a
>component part of it.
About the Song of Songs the Interpreter's Bible Encyclopedia states:
"11. Much of the syntax is unusual: for example, THE FREQUENT
SUBSTITUTION OF MASCULINE FOR FEMINIE FORMS IN PRONOUNS, VERBS, AND
SUFFIXES..."
GENDER IS NOT ABSOLUTE IN HEBREW NOMENCLATURE. "Elohim" the first name
for God is feminine in Hebrew. Will you say you worship a woman??? May
Allah forbid it and may He forgive me for even using that example.
>i) Mistakenly claiming that James Dowdeswell has used and pointed readers
>to web based tools, when in fact he has not done so (rather it was myself).
This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the subject!
>j) Assuming that because three words ('aber', 'abrah', and 'abraham') are
>listed consecutively (i.e. alphabetically) in a Hebrew/English dictionary,
>that they must be related; whereas consulting a scholarly reference would
>show them listed by root, and thus reveal them to be different.
I stated I was glad to see them listed side by side for ease of
reference and not due to RELATION! You have a severe and obvious
weakness in comprehension skills.
>k) Suggesting that both Song of Solomon and Isaiah are part of the Torah,
>whereas any TaNaKh student can tell you that they are part of the Ketuvim
>and Nevi`im respectively.
REFUTED ABOVE! I'll repeat it so that it sinks in good:
"In Jewish tradition the word 'Torah', which literally means
'teaching', is often used to describe THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF JEWISH
RELIGIOUS LEARNING. WHEN SO USED, 'TORAH' REFERS NOT ONLY TO THE FIVE
BOOKS OF MOSES BUT ALSO TO THE PROPHETS, HOLY WRITINGS, TALMUD, AND
MIDRASH--IN FACT TO ALL RELIGIOUS WRITINGS FROM EASLIEST TIMES TO THE
PRESENT."
["This is the Torah" Alfred J. Kolatch]
>
>CONCLUSION
Conclusion #5!!!!!!!!!!!
>I would like to thank you, Shibli, for an interesting discussion.
I would like to request you stop while you have some chance of
resurfacing one day with a degree of credibility after having studied
the subject for a good amount of time.
I will post a summary index of the issue with both sides of the
argument and that will be the end of it. Such an outlined index will
make things clear and will definitely make you feel ashamed. There is
no way that I can afford the time wasted on correcting these childish
and erroneous blunders anymore so this is the last response.
>Many blessings in Jesus,
At least show respect for your audience who are MUSLIMS.
I am extremely sorry I was forced to belittle you so harshly in this
post as I am almost always docile in my approach. However, I had to
end the subject with crushing material and sources in an almost
admonishing manner in order to discourage you from setting yourself up
further for such grave, grave errors. I simply don't have the time to
do this again.
I hope you will stop harassing the Muslims on this newsgroup with your
severe lack of knowledge, yet keen desire to argue. Thats exactly what
it is you and James Dowdeswell are doing: HARASSING. As I stated
before I do not see any of you on the Hindu or Buddhist newsgroups
harassing and arguing with them. This is because it is ISLAM that you
fear and not any other world religion. You know very well you fear the
truth of Islam deep down and are left with 2 choices.
1) Accept it.
2) Fight it.
The choice you have all made is clear.
Regards and Regrets,
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.Net
The Armin
Hi. I would like to comment on your articles posted on the soc.religion.islam
newsgroup regarding the apperance of Mohammed's name in the Bible. I was very
impressed; you did an excellent job confronting Andy Bannister with the truth.
Your knowledge of the Semitic languages is splendid; I am wondering if you are
a Jewish convert to Islam? I should also point out that I debated Andy on this
matter in the past, and he acted in a similar fashion with me as he does with
you. I don't know if he did it with you first or me, but last month I
discovered how he changed his story from "Machmad" to finally admitting that
the word in question is actually "Machmadim." Anyhow, keep up the good work.
Thank you and good luck.
MyTajMahal
>Hi. I would like to comment on your articles posted on the soc.religion.islam
>newsgroup regarding the apperance of Mohammed's name in the Bible. I was
>very impressed; you did an excellent job confronting Andy Bannister with the
>truth.
Actually it was and still a load of contorted semantics to come up with the
name of Muhammad in Song of Songs 5:16. One should note how all the subtle
"changes" are made by Shibli to suit the prejudice - and all without any appeal
to scholarly authority or opinion.
>Your knowledge of the Semitic languages is splendid; I am wondering if you
>are a Jewish convert to Islam?
Splendid? Do you not remember "Shibli's Challenge" to find a synagogue in the
phone book and get a Rabbi to read the verse? All Shibli wanted was the
"sound" of the word - which unfortunately does not "sound" right anyway.
But then I asked Shibli to ask the Rabbi a second question and if indeed the
verse was speaking of Muhammad. Did we ever get an answer? NO ! Check it out
http://deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587907924
So all this waffle about Shibli being a great Hebrew "scholar" has already been
demolished by FreeThought and one can choose any number of Rabbis who will
point to Rabbinical comment (I did so my self on ARI) which also demolishes
the twisting of the passage into meaning the person of Muhammad.
>I should also point out that I debated Andy on this
>matter in the past, and he acted in a similar fashion with me as he does with
>you.
That was a particularly embarasing episode for "thearmin" wasn't it? thearmin
appealed to an atheist article which on reflection the person in question (a
Hebrew speaker) re-examined the evidence and demolished the claims of both
thearnmin and Shibli. One can read the results here:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/2105/essays/muhbibcon.html
>I don't know if he did it with you first or me, but last month I
>discovered how he changed his story from "Machmad" to finally admitting that
>the word in question is actually "Machmadim." Anyhow, keep up the good
>work.
None is perfect and it was especially gracious of Andy to admit something
(which changed nothing) - Admitting a mistake is something that thearmin and
Shibli seem incapable of doing.
The fact is there is not one Rabbinic commentator or authoritive Hebrew Bible
commentator who agrees with Shibli and if he could only find one then the vast
majority would still be against him.
As FreeThought pointed out - it is strange that the Rabbis for the past 2,500
years did not find the name of Muhammad in SoS 5:16.
The startling fact is that so far Shibli has not appealed to any respected
Hebrew commentator on the issue.
Also Shibli, as far as I have seen, did not claimed to be a scholar or to have
himself investigated or written a commentary on Song of Songs.
In fact Shibli seems totally disinterested in the book as a whole and, as far
as he appears concerned, couldn't care less about it or who wrote it. All
Shibli is interested in cheap bucks from one verse and for all he cares it
could have been written by a FALSE PROPHET - so where does that land his
claimed mention of Muhammad?
Did Muhammad claim that SoS 5:16 refered to him?
Which Qur'anic sages of the past discovered the name of Muhammad in SoS 5:16?
Is this specific claim in the Qur'an or the hadith?
Or is this simply a "modern day" invention born out of desperation to validate
Muhammad as his Religion and Qur'an crumbles into the dust?
Kind regards to all who seek truth
Jameel
Shibli Zaman
>In article <8bk9vd$a5$1...@samba.rahul.net>, thea...@aol.com (The Armin) writes:
>
>Actually it was and still a load of contorted semantics to come up with the
>name of Muhammad in Song of Songs 5:16. One should note how all the subtle
>"changes" are made by Shibli to suit the prejudice - and all without any appeal
>to scholarly authority or opinion.
I find it amazing that you are full of colorful epithets and criticism
whereas you're engine "siezes" without oil when it comes to providing
evidence. Please do participate in the dialog but make sure you have
something credible to present. With all due respect, just stomping
your feet, whining and crying is not productive.
>Splendid? Do you not remember "Shibli's Challenge" to find a synagogue in the
>phone book and get a Rabbi to read the verse? All Shibli wanted was the
>"sound" of the word - which unfortunately does not "sound" right anyway.
>But then I asked Shibli to ask the Rabbi a second question and if indeed the
>verse was speaking of Muhammad. Did we ever get an answer? NO ! Check it out
>
>http://deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587907924
This breed of logic is quite astounding in its incongruency with
logic. Let me elucidate the error of your logic which I don't see how
you could have made as a competent adult.
Let me present you with a parallel which might hit home:
I assume you are Jewish, thus, do you not believe that eating Pork is
forbidden? So if you call a Church and ask the Pastor, Minister,
Reverend, etc to read the following verse to you from the Bible:
And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud,
it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch
their dead carcase. [Deuteronomy 14:8] (Initially, in the book of
Leviticus in less detail)
then ask him to read:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not
come to destroy, but to fulfil. [Statement of Jesus in Matthew 5:17]
If you did not have access to a Bible and only knew the references
Matthew 5:17 and Deuteronomy 14:8 this should have been the end of the
conversation. However, according to your contention, and this parallel
to it, lets add another step. Lets ASK the Pastor, Minister, Reverend,
etc if he believes it is okay to eat pork. He will say YES IT IS
ALLOWED. Do you know why? Because he is a Christian and to say
otherwise would contradict his belief no matter how glaringly wrong it
is.
In the same light it is highly unlikely any Rabbi who wishes to remain
a Jew would say this verse is referring to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace
be upon him). This is because to admit such a thing would be a major
travesty to his state of being a Jew and would be a statement short of
conversion to Islam.
Thus, your point is refuted and rendered illogical. I hope you will
not contend otherwise as it would only further damage your credibility
in the issue.
I have noticed that the People of the Book are very weak in the area
of logic and this might be due to the fact that they did not share an
entire millenium of intelligentsia which even dared to question the
fundamentals of their own beliefs in order to authenticate them as we
had in the history of Islam.
The Jews had a brief period of intellectual renaissance in Spain and
North Africa during Europe's dark ages. The Christians, however, never
had such a period of intellectual renaissance. Unfortunately, the
Muslims of their indigenous lands are currently suffering their "Dark
Ages" due to a repression of intellectual thought in the "Muslim"
world.
>>I should also point out that I debated Andy on this
>>matter in the past, and he acted in a similar fashion with me as he does with
>>you.
>
>That was a particularly embarasing episode for "thearmin" wasn't it? thearmin
>appealed to an atheist article which on reflection the person in question (a
>Hebrew speaker) re-examined the evidence and demolished the claims of both
>thearnmin and Shibli. One can read the results here:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/2105/essays/muhbibcon.html
I read the article and was quite surprised that it even existed. I was
not even aware of it. I already requested in uk.religion.islam that
people not debate me in my absence. Such "victories" are as laughable
as conquering Antarctica and claiming to be the king of all mankind. I
immediately wrote him an email. Here are its contents:
[START LETTER]
"Dear Denis,
I just now was informed of your web site in which you included my
material. I read your response to an earlier post of mine. It was well
written and I enjoyed reading it. However, there were som
misunderstandings. I believe this is because you were not able to read
all the posts in the thread (possibly due to news server limitations).
I would be happy to email you the entire thread.
Regarding "dowd", nowhere did I say that the word was in fact being
used as "uncle", but it was presented as a credible possibility based
on its usage elsewhere in the Bible. Will you deny that it also means
"uncle"? Also, you went into detail regarding "kol" only regarding it
as a term of wholeness. Linguistically, "Kol" and "Kalal" can be terms
of absolution and emphasis rather than completion. I am sure you would
never deny this either. Read Genesis 7:4 and 2 Samuel 3:35 for
example. Also, its originative form can even be used as a term of
lauding praise. Read Ezekiel 27:4 in this respect. This was elaborated
in a later post which I can forward to you. If you have a level of
competency in the Hebrew language I am sure you are well aware of all
these things and may wish to review your refutation to my post.
I appreciate your reponse into the matter and by briefly glancing over
your page it seems that you have presented the matter with a level of
decency. If I find otherwise I will notify you. However, I do have one
contention. If you wish to post my material in the future (even to
refute it), I would like you to notify me and receive my permission
first. I am more than likely inclined to allow you to do so. Please
feel free to keep in touch.
"Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful
preaching; and debate with them in ways that are best and most
gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path,
and who receive guidance."
[an-Nahl, 125; The Holy Qur'an]
Warm Regards,
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.Net"
[END LETTER]
I am anxious to hear his response. I will post a refutation to the
article he wrote which is posted on his web page shortly. It is mostly
a repetition of what we saw from Andy and James on this newsgroup. I
will say I liked Denis' approach in tackling the issues by presenting
the argument rather than going in circles over silly details.
>None is perfect and it was especially gracious of Andy to admit something
>(which changed nothing) - Admitting a mistake is something that thearmin and
"Means nothing"? If I am arguing about the constitution of the United
States and vehemently insist that "right to bear arms" means that all
Americans have the right to own the forearms of a "bear" (a wooly
mammal of North America and parts of Asia) while being constantly
corrected then this does, indeed, mean SOMETHING. It would mean I
didn't know what the heck I was talking about.
The fact that he insisted with CAPS and exclamation points that the
text did NOT say "MACHAMADIM" did indeed mean something. It meant he
had not even read the actual text. I already addressed all my alleged
"mistakes" in the last of this series. Please do read it.
>As FreeThought pointed out - it is strange that the Rabbis for the past 2,500
>years did not find the name of Muhammad in SoS 5:16.
Already addressed. Also, your statement is completely incorrect as I
have a book called "Jews in Arab Lands" which is a compilation of
authentic essays of great Jewish scholars who resided in Arab lands.
Therein are some accounts of Rabbis who converted to Islam in the
8th-10th centuries after studying the subject of Muhammad in the Bible
in the Tanach. I will include excerpts shortly (they are extremely
lengthy).
>The startling fact is that so far Shibli has not appealed to any respected
>Hebrew commentator on the issue.
Obviously you did not read all of parts 1-4. I have numerous sources
cited. Please read before responding if its not too much to ask. I
have noticed this problem a lot when discussing religion with the
People of the Book. They have a habit of "skimming" information rather
than reading and absorbing it
>Also Shibli, as far as I have seen, did not claimed to be a scholar or to have
>himself investigated or written a commentary on Song of Songs.
I did not claim to be a scholar nor did "Armin" claim I was a scholar.
You are aguing a point that does not exist.
>In fact Shibli seems totally disinterested in the book as a whole and, as far
>as he appears concerned, couldn't care less about it or who wrote it. All
Again, this is opinion with absolutely no substance. At least ATTEMPT
to present a refutation. Actually, this is also evidence you have not
read all the posts as I have quoted frequently from thorough
encyclopedias of Bible exegesis.
>Did Muhammad claim that SoS 5:16 refered to him?
"Those who follow the Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, whom they
find mentioned in their own (scriptures)..." [al-A`raaf 157]
Any questions?
>Which Qur'anic sages of the past discovered the name of Muhammad in SoS 5:16?
Read the tafseer of the above mentioned verse [al-A`raaf 157] in the
exegesis of Ibn Kathir who was the most renowned and authoritative
commentator of the Qur'aan. In it he explains in great lengths the
prophecies of Muhammad (Peace be upon him) as was told to him by a
Jewish scholar who wished to embrace Islam. The book is not available
in English and I intend on translating that as well and presenting it
very soon. Please bear (not the mammal :) in mind that this is also
about 4 pages long and may take some time to translate.
>Is this specific claim in the Qur'an or the hadith?
Already mentioned above. Also, James Dowdeswell already pointed this
out which proved damaging to his own cause. His "challenge" which was
quickly answered quoting the Hadeeth side by side with Isaiah. This is
also in the same newsgroup you are currently reading. Did you not see
it?
>Or is this simply a "modern day" invention born out of desperation to validate
>Muhammad as his Religion and Qur'an crumbles into the dust?
Obviously not. It existed in the Qur'aan, in the Hadeeth, in the
Tafseer (Qur'anic exegesis), and amongst many Rabbinical scholars from
the time of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and onward. Read closer
next time please.
Regards,
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.Net