Re: The Scripture has foretold the coming of Muhammad?
Hajj abujamal
Pg wrote:
> There is no historical evidence that the early Christians have never
> believed that Aisa had predicted the coming of Muhammad. Surely if
> the Lord had wanted to know that someone bigger was to come, he
> would have said, to prepare for that meeting. We note that the
> coming of Aisa was so important and vital to humanity that God has
> given over 300 prophecies about His coming in the Old Testament as
> Scripture. All those prophecies were fulfilled exactly (see here and
> here). Yet there is not one single prophecy in the Scriptures about
> the coming of Muhammad.
Jesus called the Children of Israel to fulfill their Covenant to
deliver to all mankind the Good News of the Messenger of the Covenant
(for *all* humanity, not just Israel ~ as in "all the families of the
earth will be blessed in Abraham"). Many, many Jews did, and Jesus
sent disciples to all nations. Later, when Muhammad came, many of
their descendants embraced Islam ~ they were expecting it, as Hebrew
Scripture told them to do. When they saw explicit, unambiguous
prophecies ~ that are still in the Bible ~ being fulfilled, they knew
that what Jesus told them was coming to pass *just as he described*.
For example: Muhammad and Abu Bakr spent three full days and three
full nights in a cave south of Makkah on their way to Madinah ~ three
full days and three full nights "in the belly of the earth." Just as
Jesus said, to the letter. *Not* Friday night to Sunday morning, at
most about a forty-hour period, but three days and three nights, the
explicit words of Jesus' prophecy.
Muhammad and Abu Bakr were fleeing "from the drawn sword and the bent
bow and the grievousness of war," and "within a year according to the
years of a hireling, the glory of Kedar" had fallen at the battle of
Badr, just as Isaiah said, to the letter (21:15-17). "Kedar" was one
of the sons of Ishmael who founded the city that we now know as Makkah
(Genesis 25:13-15).
When they arrived at Madinah, "the inhabitants of Tema met with their
bread him who had fled," just as Isaiah said, to the letter (21:14).
"Tema" was the son of Ishmael who founded that city, which was named
"al-Madinah al-Munawwarah" ("The City of Light") after Muhammad
arrived there.
And "He came suddenly to His Temple" ~ the Ka'abah, the "House of God"
that Abraham rebuilt centuries before Solomon built the Temple at
Jerusalem ~ as Malachi said (3:1), "From Paran with ten thousands of
saints, a fiery law in his right hand for them," exactly to the letter
of Deuteronomy 33:2. Paran is the mountain range north of Makkah,
from Jerusalem a southern wilderness.
And so it goes ~ all the way through the Bible, book after book,
prophecy after prophecy, fulfilled *to the letter* and not the least
bit "mysterious" or ambiguous.
The muslims liberated Palestine from the Roman occupation, defeating
the "fourth beast" and "making all things new," and returned exiled
Jews to Jerusalem, restored churches and synagogues throughout
Palestine (and later throughout the Arab muslim empire), and restored
the Temple Mount to a place of worship "for all nations" (it was
Jerusalem's garbage dump during the Roman occupation ~ and it is the
rabbis who forbid Jews from going onto the Temple Mount, not the
muslims) ~ more explicit, unambiguous prophecies fulfilled.
Then about two hundred years later, Jews and Christians in Palestine
began to embrace Islam. Those Jews who had embraced Jesus as the
Messiah of Israel were the ancestors of people who continued to keep
faith with the Law of Moses and accepted Islam when it was sent down
with a "new Jerusalem" (Jerusalem was the direction faced in prayer by
all Jews, or when they emerged from roofed enclosures, as they still
do today).
There are many more Palestinians of Jewish lineage than there are
Sephardic Jews who went to Palestine from muslim Spain to escape the
Inquisition. It's one of the bitter ironies of the zionist occupation
of Palestine: the zionists and the settlers are murdering people who
have an actual "divine right" to live in Israel.
Just a little more recorded history that doesn't show up in American
public school history books ...
was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi
Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
Pg
DKleinecke
> There is no historical evidence that the early Christians have never
rd
> had wanted to know that someone bigger was to come, he would have said, t=
o
> prepare for that meeting. We note that the coming of Aisa was so importan=
t
> and vital to humanity that God has given over 300 prophecies about His
> coming in the Old Testament as Scripture. All those prophecies were
cy
> in the Scriptures about the coming of Muhammad.
Just so Muslims don't get confused. The general critical opinion about
prophecy is that there are NO prophecies in the Old Testament about
Jesus. The whole question of prophecy is controversial among
Christians. It is characteristic of one species of Christian
fundamentalist to be fixated on prophecy, but it is not "mainline"
Christianity.
The early Muslims, as far back as our records reach, have felt that
the Parakletos referred to in the gospel of John (14.16, 26; 15:26 and
16.7) and the first letter of John (2.1) was a prophecy of the coming
of Muhammad. This is as good a reading of the Bible on this matter as
any thing else that has suggested. But the whole matter is extremely
obscure and all opinions are tentative.
On the balance one must conclude that the evidence for any prophecy
foretelling the coming of either Jesus or Muhammad is very weak. But
what little there is suggests a better case for Muhammad than for
Jesus.
The notion of prophecy - the idea that Allah passes on announcements
of things that will happen in the future - seems dubious to me. Allah
makes promises, but promises are not prophecies. The day of judgement
is a promise - not something prophesied. The passage in the Surat al-
Rum about the "Romans" winning a victory has been called a Prophecy
but that seems a mistake to me. It is a commonplace observation that
could have been made without any intervention by Allah. If one wants
to read it as the words of Allah it can be takens as an example of
reassuring rhetoric expressing agreement with common knowledge.
It is better to assume the future is unknowable (although, of course,
we can make guesses) than to place any faith in vague prophecies.
Hajj abujamal
DKleinecke wrote:
> Just so Muslims don't get confused. The general critical opinion
> about prophecy is that there are NO prophecies in the Old Testament
> about Jesus. The whole question of prophecy is controversial among
> Christians. It is characteristic of one species of Christian
> fundamentalist to be fixated on prophecy, but it is not "mainline"
> Christianity.
We muslims rely utterly on prophecy, with astounding success; and
no muslim is going to get so "confused" as to think the opinions of
Christian academics and critics, or Christians who regard prophecy as
"controversial," are worth looking at for any purpose other than
finding out which "prophecies" ~ most likely forgeries by Talmudic
zionists before Jesus ever showed up ~ they consider "controversial."
The Jews of Jerusalem ~ the scribes and pharisees as well as the
"common" Jews ~ were expecting a Messiah on the basis of prophecy.
The common Jews believed that Jesus was the Messiah, the scribes and
pharisees denied that he was.
Entire tribes of Jews were waiting in Madinah ~ they had been
waiting there for generations ~ for the Messenger to arrive, on the
basis of prophecy. Those prophecies can still be read in today's
Bible, or at least enough of them that are utterly unambiguous and
quite explicit to recognize that they speak of the Messenger.
If today's Christians, two thousand years removed from Jesus and
three thousand years removed from the Hebrew prophecies, don't believe
in the Scripture they embraced from the scribes and pharisees of
Temple Israel ~ Scriptures that were for the Children of Israel and
for no other people anywhere or ever ~ then that merely speaks to the
condition of their faith and their understanding of God's Word that He
cast into Mary, the Messiah of Israel who was accompanied by the Holy
Spirit from birth to death everywhere he went.
> The early Muslims, as far back as our records reach, have felt that
> the Parakletos referred to in the gospel of John (14.16, 26; 15:26
> and 16.7) and the first letter of John (2.1) was a prophecy of the
> coming of Muhammad. This is as good a reading of the Bible on this
> matter as any thing else that has suggested. But the whole matter
> is extremely obscure and all opinions are tentative.
John refers to the Spirit of Truth, not explicitly to the
Messenger of the Covenant mentioned at Malachi 3:1 and elsewhere in
the Hebrew Scriptures. The Spirit of Truth accompanied the Messenger
in the same way that the Spirit of Holiness (the "Holy Spirit")
accompanied Jesus.
Muslims generally do not read the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures, or
the Greek writings of Paul that falsify Jesus and the Good News,
except to argue with people, and as a result are not generally able to
correlate the prophecies of the Old Testament (and the explicit
prophecy of Jesus regarding the Messenger still recorded in the "New
Testament") with the arrival and migration of the Messenger, the
events of the establishment of Islam during his life, and the effects
of that on the Promised Land. This is changing, and muslims are
becoming more able to show Christians explicit, unambiguous, and
unmistakable prophecies that "Biblical criticism" completely ignores.
The Children of Israel were given the privilege of delivering the
Good News to the nations and leading the people to the eternal
Covenant for all humanity that was promised to Abraham. In order to
fulfill their commitment to that task that they made at Sinai, they
were informed of future history from their times all the way to the
present moment in history. Many of those prophecies are still to be
seen in today's Bible, which fairly faithfully records what Ezra
dictated to the Seventy scribes after the original Hebrew Torah and
Scriptures were lost during the Babylonian Captivity.
Those Scriptural prophecies recognizably describe the arrival and
career of the Messiah and the arrival and career of the Messenger of
the Covenant. The "New Testament" records the expectation by the
scribes of three individuals ~ the Messiah, Elijah, and "that
prophet." "That prophet" is named in the Song of Solomon and is
mentioned in every Book of the Bible ~ every prophet sent in Israel
spoke of him ~ but the Sanhedrin had made it a capital crime to
mention his name or any of the prophecies concerning him, so he was
mentioned only as "that prophet" of whom nothing could be spoken.
The Song of Solomon says, in Hebrew words that do not support any
other translation, "He is Muhammad." "Translators" consistently
render that as "He is altogether lovely," a clear mistranslation.
Other Old Testament prophecies are equally explicit, unambiguous,
and unmistakable. "Scholars" focus instead on others that are
nebulous and obscure, for the sake of argument or for the sake of
their own "interpretation." This is why modern Christians imagine
that prophecy is "controversial."
> On the balance one must conclude that the evidence for any prophecy
> foretelling the coming of either Jesus or Muhammad is very weak. But
> what little there is suggests a better case for Muhammad than for
> Jesus.
Jesus was the pivotal and climactic prophet who brought permission
for the Children of Israel to finally do what they were created ~ and
what they promised at Sinai ~ to do. Muhammad was the reason for
their entire existence. To imagine that matters of lesser importance
to the Children of Israel were given greater prominence in Hebrew
Scripture, so as to eclipse the mentions of the Messiah and the
Messenger, is not "critical," it is blindness to the entire history
and original national ethos of Israel and to Scripture in its entirety.
> The notion of prophecy - the idea that Allah passes on announcements
> of things that will happen in the future - seems dubious to me.
Many things seem "dubious" to you. "Dubious" is your nature.
> Allah makes promises, but promises are not prophecies. The day of
> judgment is a promise - not something prophesied. The passage in
> the Surat al-Rum about the "Romans" winning a victory has been
> called a Prophecy but that seems a mistake to me. It is a
> commonplace observation that could have been made without any
> intervention by Allah. If one wants to read it as the words of
> Allah it can be taken as an example of reassuring rhetoric
> expressing agreement with common knowledge.
> It is better to assume the future is unknowable (although, of
> course, we can make guesses) than to place any faith in vague
> prophecies.
"Faith" is what we place in "vague" or obscure prophecies. We
rely on prophecies that are sufficiently clear, explicit, unambiguous,
and unmistakable that a reasonable person can know, without
difficulty, what reliance can be placed on them. We have "faith" that
those which are obscure will, in their appropriate time, become clear.
A number of those "obscure" prophecies have become clear in our
lifetimes. *All* of the prophecies regarding the Messenger became
clear when, during his lifetime and shortly thereafter, they were
fulfilled in their exact terms, to the letter, completely undeniably,
in ways that the most illiterate, unlearned, and half-blind person
could see for himself.
That's the nature of "Signs." They are not in the least bit
unclear or "controversial." They are absolutely certain.
Joubin Houshyar
> There is no historical evidence that the early Christians have never
rd
> had wanted to know that someone bigger was to come, he would have said, t=
o
> prepare for that meeting. We note that the coming of Aisa was so importan=
t
> and vital to humanity that God has given over 300 prophecies about His
> coming in the Old Testament as Scripture. All those prophecies were
cy
> in the Scriptures about the coming of Muhammad.
Salaam,
Wouldn't that line of criticism more directly be applicable (and of
more immediate interest) to Christians in regards to "Paul" and
Christianity according to Saul the Pharisee?
/Salaam
Zev
> Salaam!
> Pg wrote:
<snipped>
> ...Paran is the mountain range north of Makkah,
> from Jerusalem a southern wilderness.
> And so it goes ~ all the way through the Bible, book after book,
> prophecy after prophecy, fulfilled *to the letter* and not the least
> bit "mysterious" or ambiguous.
We've discussed these so called OT
prophesies of Muhammad before.
They are easily brushed aside
because they are without substance.
Anyone interested can Google SRI
for retorts made years ago.
I'll go over one issue, this last one,
even though it's also been discussed before.
There is nothing in Arabia called "Paran",
not a river, not a mountain, not a desert, not a city,
not a street, not a person.
You know why, too.
This is just a bluff for the ignorant.
But it's worse than that.
Look at references to "Paran" in the OT,
particularly in the book of Numbers.
The area is obviously located in the Sinai peninsula.
It may be far enough east to be considered Western Negev,
but it's definitely not in Arabia.
<snipped>
> Just a little more recorded history that doesn't show up in American
> public school history books ...
God willing, the American people will continue
to value truth above expediency...
Hajj abujamal
Zev wrote:
> Hajj abujamal wrote:
>> ...Paran is the mountain range north of Makkah,
>> from Jerusalem a southern wilderness.
> We've discussed these so called OT prophesies of Muhammad before.
> They are easily brushed aside because they are without substance.
> Anyone interested can Google SRI for retorts made years ago.
Mentioning the Old Testament prophecies about the Messenger can
usually be relied upon to draw the identical "retorts" that amount to
unevidenced denial and nothing more. You and your favorite people
must "brush aside" these prophecies ~ even though you cannot refute
them in the slightest ~ as "without substance" so that Christians and
others will not look at them for themselves and see their validity.
That, and other "retorts" change nothing, disprove nothing, but merely
provide evidence of your denial ~ no "alternate explanations" of these
explicit, unambiguous prophecies, no attempt to show that they relate
to something else than the Messenger and Islam, no suggestion that the
name "Muhammadim" in Song of Solomon has some meaning in Hebrew other
than a name, nothing, just "No, they're not," and that's the entire
substance of all these "retorts."
> I'll go over one issue ...
> There is nothing in Arabia called "Paran", not a river, not a
> mountain, not a desert, not a city, not a street, not a person.
> You know why, too. This is just a bluff for the ignorant.
Your "retort" is what is a bluff for the ignorant. But I do know
"why."
First, there is no "p" in Arabic. The area of north Arabia called
"Paran" in the Hebrew Scripture would be spelled "Baran" or "Faran" in
Arabic, just as "Pepsi Cola" is called "Bebsi" by modern Arabs, and
just as the Hebrew name Peleg" is, in Arabic, "Falag." People
ignorant of the common grammar of the Semitic tongues, the identical
alphabets of the 22 Hebrew consonants with the same 22 letters in the
other Semitic languages, and the identical words formed with those 22
letters, rarely differing in meaning across Hebrew, Aramaic, Amharic
and Arabic, would be taken in by your bluff.
But you will not find "Baran" or "Faran" in the current Hammond
World Atlas (or on any modern map) either. Nor will you find Seir,
Tema, Kedar, or any number of other personal or place names recorded
in the Hebrew Scripture. Tema, a son of Ishmael, established a town
called by his name that was later called "Yathrib," which today is
called "Madinah." Kedar, another son of Ishmael, established a town
around the well of Hagar called by his name that was later called
"Bakka" and is today called "Makkah." "Paran" was the "wilderness" to
which Hagar and Ishmael went south from north Palestine, not from Egypt.
> But it's worse than that. Look at references to "Paran" in the OT,
> particularly in the book of Numbers. The area is obviously located
> in the Sinai peninsula. It may be far enough east to be considered
> Western Negev, but it's definitely not in Arabia.
And you'll also find a "route map" of the Exodus from Egypt that
goes nowhere near where the wheels of Pharaoh's chariots were actually
found during the Twentieth Century, or the encampments described in
the Old Testament that are in a fenced and guarded "preserve," exactly
as they were described including the artesian springs that flowed from
some upper rocks, located in western Saudi Arabia today.
You'll also notice that the "Wilderness of Zin" and the
"Wilderness of Sin" shown in the Sinai in Biblical maps have no
corresponding "Wilderness of" anything in the Arabian peninsula, even
though the "Wilderness of Paran" as shown in those maps is north of
the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba and contiguous to the "Edom" shown
in northern Arabia. It's one continuous stretch of land at that point
~ and neither Sarah nor Isaac went with Hagar and Ishmael into "The
Wilderness of Paran" from up around Hebron, far to the north of the
Negeb. You might notice that Tema and Kedar, where the sons of
Ishmael founded cities, are also not shown on those maps.
In fact, none of the maps ~ drawn from information provided to
Christian scholars by Talmudic zionist Jews ~ give any clue to any way
to find where Ishmael went, where Scriptural prophecies say the
Messenger of the Covenant would come. But the several tribes of Jews
waiting for the Messenger for generations in Tema/Yathrib/Madinah had
no difficulty finding the place. How is that?
The Third Edition of the Scofield Reference Bible even omits the
"note" at Genesis 21:21 that was included in the First Edition. And
nowhere in Numbers is there any mention of Ishmael or his descendants
or cities in the "Wilderness of Paran" the Israelis passed through.
But in Habakkuk 3:3, we again find "God came from Teman, and the
Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and
the earth was full of his praise." Tema and Paran again directly
associated, and otherwise nowhere associated with anyone but Ishmael
and his sons.
Of course, there's nothing in the Bible to indicate that this
prophecy, which goes on for several verses describing in symbolic
terms events that would be recognizable when they occurred, was ever
fulfilled. "There was the hiding of his power ... drove asunder the
nations ..." never happened in Israel or Christianity as far as the
scholars have mentioned coming from "Teman" or "Mount Paran." There
is no "Mount Paran" in the Biblical maps.
You are unable to admit that the "Wilderness of Paran" comprised
the entire region south of the Dead Sea that was not explored and
explicitly identified as something else like "Edom" or "Midian" or
"Moab," both in the Sinai and in the Arabian Peninsula.
The passages in Numbers show that it was a "fruitful" land, not
merely desert. And it is otherwise mentioned in the Old Testament
only with Ishmael and some dramatic prophecies that had not been
fulfilled by the time that Jesus had come and gone.
But they were fulfilled to the letter after Muhammad came. All of
them, every one in the Old Testament, recognizably to the anyone,
"scholar" or not.
You see, this is the HUGE element of Islam that modern muslims are
missing because the Arab muslims discouraged reading the Hebrew
Scriptures. Whenever an American comes to Islam, one of the FIRST
things they should be shown is that Islam is the continuation AND
FULFILLMENT of the Promises God made to Abraham, that are recorded
throughout the Hebrew Scripture; that Islam is the actual Good News
that Jesus brought; and Islam, as shown by the Hebrew Scriptures, is
the entire reason for the very existence of Israel, whose sole mission
for which they were "Chosen" was to announce the Good News and lead
people to the Messenger of the Covenant and, themselves, embrace Islam
~ which many did.
Islam is what Pauline Christianity pretends to be, and which
Pauline Christianity puts off into some indeterminate future to be
marked by "miracles" that can all be manufactured by human means.
This can be SHOWN to Christians in the Old Testament AND in the Greek
writings, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, AND in
the history of the Promised Land after the establishment of Islam
among Ishmael's descendants.
Which is why you can only "retort" with bald denials having no
substance whatever.
>> Just a little more recorded history that doesn't show
>> up in American public school history books ...
> God willing, the American people will continue
> to value truth above expediency...
God willing, they will be able to tell the difference between
facts they can check in their Bibles and bald denials without any
refutations that would relieve people of their ignorance of these
prophecies, the language differences, or the misleading maps that the
Jews who were waiting in Madinah obviously didn't follow, and THEN
continue to value truth above expediency.
was-salaam,
Zev
=D7=91=D7=94=D7=95=D7=93=D7=A2=D7=94:4A25A832...@muslimamerica.net...
> Zev wrote:
> > Hajj abujamal wrote:
<snipped>
> Mentioning the Old Testament prophecies about the Messenger can
> usually be relied upon to draw the identical "retorts" that amount to
> unevidenced denial and nothing more. You and your favorite people
> must "brush aside" these prophecies ~ even though you cannot refute
> them in the slightest ~ as "without substance" so that Christians and
> others will not look at them for themselves and see their validity.
> That, and other "retorts" change nothing, disprove nothing, but merely
> provide evidence of your denial ~ no "alternate explanations" of these
> explicit, unambiguous prophecies, no attempt to show that they relate
> to something else than the Messenger and Islam, no suggestion that the
> name "Muhammadim" in Song of Solomon has some meaning in Hebrew other
> than a name, nothing, just "No, they're not," and that's the entire
> substance of all these "retorts."
Refute my retorts and I'll thank you for teaching me.
That should be the rule for all of us.
But "machmadim" is Hebrew just as the word "mamtakim" is.
You'll find them both in Song of Solomon 5:16,
and in a different gramatical form,
in Song of Solomon 2:3.
The root is common enough in the OT, appearing dozens of times.
See Strong's 2530, 2531, 2532 2533, 4261, 4262.
Some other words which also begin with "het" + "mem"
appear to be related.
I'm surprised we have to argue about this.
Hajj, this material is available in English, on the Internet.
You don't need to know Hebrew or be a scholar to use it.
In fact, it exists in order to put scholarship
into the hands of non-scholars like us.
If you don't look for it, you won't see it.
If you don't see it, you'll think it doesn't exist.
If you think it doesn't exist,
you'll make inaccurate claims like the ones you make here.
> > There is nothing in Arabia called "Paran", not a river, not a
> > mountain, not a desert, not a city, not a street, not a person.
> > You know why, too. This is just a bluff for the ignorant.
> Your "retort" is what is a bluff for the ignorant. But I do know
> "why."
> First, there is no "p" in Arabic. The area of north Arabia called
> "Paran" in the Hebrew Scripture would be spelled "Baran" or "Faran" in
> Arabic, just as "Pepsi Cola" is called "Bebsi" by modern Arabs, and
> just as the Hebrew name Peleg" is, in Arabic, "Falag." People
> ignorant of the common grammar of the Semitic tongues, the identical
> alphabets of the 22 Hebrew consonants with the same 22 letters in the
> other Semitic languages, and the identical words formed with those 22
> letters, rarely differing in meaning across Hebrew, Aramaic, Amharic
> and Arabic, would be taken in by your bluff.
As I said, you do know.
And, you're right, it's no big deal.
I'm just annoyed by attempts to cut corners
to make arguments appear better than they really are.
Paran =3D Paran, so it's the same place!
Asim once told me that Biblical Beersheba was actually in Arabia.
When I reminded him that the location of Beersheba in Israel
is well known, he told me it's a different place with the same name.
Now here you are, using the opposite argument against me!
Later he told me that "Zion", the Citadel in Jerusalem,
was also actually in Arabia!
BTW, if I'm not mistaken,
Arabic cognates of Hebrew words containing "P", typically have "F".
Recent Arabic borrowings of foreign words containing "P"
replace the "P" with "B".
> But you will not find "Baran" or "Faran" in the current Hammond
> World Atlas (or on any modern map) either. Nor will you find Seir,
> Tema, Kedar, or any number of other personal or place names recorded
> in the Hebrew Scripture. Tema, a son of Ishmael, established a town
> called by his name that was later called "Yathrib," which today is
> called "Madinah." Kedar, another son of Ishmael, established a town
> around the well of Hagar called by his name that was later called
> "Bakka" and is today called "Makkah." "Paran" was the "wilderness" to
> which Hagar and Ishmael went south from north Palestine, not from Egypt.
> > But it's worse than that. Look at references to "Paran" in the OT,
> > particularly in the book of Numbers. The area is obviously located
> > in the Sinai peninsula. It may be far enough east to be considered
> > Western Negev, but it's definitely not in Arabia.
> And you'll also find a "route map" of the Exodus from Egypt that
> goes nowhere near where the wheels of Pharaoh's chariots were actually
> found during the Twentieth Century, or the encampments described in
> the Old Testament that are in a fenced and guarded "preserve," exactly
> as they were described including the artesian springs that flowed from
> some upper rocks, located in western Saudi Arabia today.
I don't know about this but I understand the Quran
supports the Jewish belief that at the Exodus,
the Egyptian army was totally destroyed,
with exactly one survivor.
> You'll also notice that the "Wilderness of Zin" and the
> "Wilderness of Sin" shown in the Sinai in Biblical maps have no
> corresponding "Wilderness of" anything in the Arabian peninsula, even
> though the "Wilderness of Paran" as shown in those maps is north of
> the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba and contiguous to the "Edom" shown
> in northern Arabia. It's one continuous stretch of land at that point
> ~ and neither Sarah nor Isaac went with Hagar and Ishmael into "The
> Wilderness of Paran" from up around Hebron, far to the north of the
> Negeb. You might notice that Tema and Kedar, where the sons of
> Ishmael founded cities, are also not shown on those maps.
We don't know the exact borders of the "Wilderness of Paran"
for the same reason we don't know the exact border
between Yemen and S. Arabia.
The map I use, "Carta's Atlas of the Bible",
by Yohanan Aharoni, copyright 1964/1974,
going west to east, shows Goshen, Red sea, wilderness of Shur,
wilderness of Paran, wilderness of Zin.
Judging from the size of the letters, it appears that
most of the Sinai Peninsula is "Wilderness of Paran".
> In fact, none of the maps ~ drawn from information provided to
> Christian scholars by Talmudic zionist Jews ~ give any clue to any way
> to find where Ishmael went, where Scriptural prophecies say the
> Messenger of the Covenant would come. But the several tribes of Jews
> waiting for the Messenger for generations in Tema/Yathrib/Madinah had
> no difficulty finding the place. How is that?
Jews waiting for a prophet specifically excluded by Deuteronomy 18:15
were in Tma, wherever they were.
<snipped>
> Islam is what Pauline Christianity pretends to be, and which
> Pauline Christianity puts off into some indeterminate future to be
> marked by "miracles" that can all be manufactured by human means.
> This can be SHOWN to Christians in the Old Testament AND in the Greek
> writings, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, AND in
> the history of the Promised Land after the establishment of Islam
> among Ishmael's descendants.
> Which is why you can only "retort" with bald denials having no
> substance whatever.
In my many discussions with Muslims, I have "discovered" that:
- Jews are not the "Children of Israel",
- the "Land of Israel" ( much of it trash land unoccupied for
centuries),
belongs to another people,
- the "Torah of Israel" is wrong when the Quran disagrees with it,
- Judaism itself is just Islam.
This isn't theology, it's unevidenced convenience,
denial with no substance.
- A biblical verse which mentions a "lie" refers to the Bible itself.
- A verse which mentions a book which is impossible to use
because it's sealed or because one doesn't know how to read,
refers to Muhammad, even though the verse
is obviously describing a lost cause.
- A Biblical chapter discussing future prophets
is said to refer to Muhammad
( frequently accompanied by long list of comparisons
between him and Jesus, as if some advantage might be obtained
by proving which possibility was less absurd)
even though non Israelites are specifically excluded,
and the entire chapter discusses a period, not an event.
- A Biblical Book which was once denigrated by Muslims
as being pornographic is now venerated
because somebody noticed in it the word "machmaddim"
and thought it could be used for profit.
...First remove the beam from your own eye...
> > God willing, the American people will continue
> > to value truth above expediency...
> God willing, they will be able to tell the difference between
> facts they can check in their Bibles and bald denials without any
> refutations that would relieve people of their ignorance of these
> prophecies, the language differences, or the misleading maps that the
> Jews who were waiting in Madinah obviously didn't follow, and THEN
> continue to value truth above expediency.
Despite what I wrote above I agree that
a disenchantment with Israel is probably coming.
But remember, Jews have had enemies throughout history.
More than once Jews seemed to be on the verge of extinction.
Israel's dependency on God's protection
seems to be part of God's plan.
(Leviticus 26:44-45)
"Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies,
I will not reject them, nor will I so abhor them as to destroy them,
breaking My covenant with them; for I am the Lord their God.
But I will remember for them the covenant with their ancestors,
whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations,
that I might be their God. I am the Lord.".
You know about the Jewish people's
historically unique return to its ancient homeland
speaking their ancient language,
performing their ancient commandments,
learning their ancient Torah.
Isn't it hard to believe
that it's not part of that grand divine plan,
mentioned time after time in the OT?
I'm not saying it's going to be easy.
It's going to be a very frightening ordeal.
But when the smoke clears, it may turn out
that the side with all the odds against it
finds itself alone in the field,
surrounded by so many corpses
that it will take months to get rid of them.
Have you seen these prophecies?
For the time being though, you should also remember:
Palestinians who live in Gaza or Jordan are self-governing.
Those who live in Israel are full citizens of their country.
Most of those who live in the West Bank
are governed by their own PA.
Over 80% of 1922 Palestine is Arab governed.
I don't say they have no right to wish
for more than they can get peacefully.
Wars have been fought for less.
But maybe it's time for decent people like you
to tell them enough is enough.
Assuming your comment about "murdering people"
refers to events like the recent war in Gaza,
you would give Israel 2 choices:
1) ignore terrorist attacks, which demoralize
and disrupt entire populations.
2) destroy itself financially in an attempt to destroy Hamas
without harming the "innocent".
No country in the world, including yours, would accept this.
Hajj abujamal
Zev wrote:
> Refute my retorts and I'll thank you for teaching me.
Certainly.
> But "machmadim" is Hebrew just as the word "mamtakim" is. You'll
> find them both in Song of Solomon 5:16, and in a different
> grammatical form, in Song of Solomon 2:3. ...
> I'm surprised we have to argue about this.
There's no argument: I've listened to the Cantor sing the Song of
Solomon, and he clearly says "MuHammadim," four syllables. The hard
"H" is pronounced differently in Hebrew, this is true, but it's the
same letter in both tongues. The Song of Solomon gives Muhammad's
name, unequivocally, and the common root H-m-d appears in other
"grammatical forms" as other words throughout both the Hebrew and
Arabic texts. "Hemed," for example, means "envy" in Hebrew, while
"Hamd" means "praise" in Arabic. This does not change the name in the
Song of Solomon.
> Hajj, this material is available in English, on the Internet. You
> don't need to know Hebrew or be a scholar to use it. In fact, it
> exists in order to put scholarship into the hands of non-scholars
> like us. If you don't look for it, you won't see it.
I've found a little and would certainly appreciate any links you
might care to provide. But see
http://www.muslimamerica.net/mp/mtmaff.htm as well, please.
> BTW, if I'm not mistaken, Arabic cognates of Hebrew words containing
> "P", typically have "F". Recent Arabic borrowings of foreign words
> containing "P" replace the "P" with "B".
I knew they had "F," then I discovered the use of "B" and have not
been able to find out what makes the difference. Thank you, that's
helpful and a pleasant surprise to learn.
> ... I understand the Quran supports the Jewish belief that at the
> Exodus, the Egyptian army was totally destroyed, with exactly one
> survivor.
The Qur'an informs us that Fir'aun was drowned and his body thrown
up from the sea and preserved to be found at a time certain. It seems
reasonable to expect there to have been one survivor to return the
body to Egypt. I believe it has been found, although the evidence of
this is scarcely acknowledged. There is reason to believe he had the
pages of Abraham that the Children of Israel had lost.
> We don't know the exact borders of the "Wilderness of Paran" for the
> same reason we don't know the exact border between Yemen and Saudi
> Arabia.
Exactly, although it's not necesary to know them, it's only
necessary to know that there is a "Faran" range of mountains north of
Makkah, which we do know. What we also know is that Hagar and Ishmael
went into the wilderness of Paran and that "He came from Paran with
ten thousands of saints, a fiery law in his hand for them." The
"Faran" north of Makkah is not shown on many contemporary maps, and on
no Biblical maps that I have ever seen.
> The map I use, "Carta's Atlas of the Bible", by Yohanan Aharoni,
> copyright 1964/1974, going west to east, shows Goshen, Red sea,
> wilderness of Shur, wilderness of Paran, wilderness of Zin.
> Judging from the size of the letters, it appears that most of the
> Sinai Peninsula is "Wilderness of Paran".
The Biblical maps I have show the same thing, with the letters
positioned in the north of the Sinai northwest of the Red Sea Gulf of
Aqaba and NO letters at all in the adjacent northern portion of the
Arabian peninsula contiguous to the east. I have seen no Biblical
maps that show any place names in that portion of Arabia, only Midian
to the south of it adjacent to the Gulf of Aqaba, and Petra to the
north, followed by Edom farther north, and Moab north of that. I
maintain that south from Hebron, past Edom, the entire region from the
mid-Sinai into the northern Arabian desert is all "Paran" in the
Hebrew Scripture.
"Kedar," on these maps, is labeled as a region, not a town, in the
far north of the Arabian peninsula, not even on the peninsula proper.
Tema, however, is far to the south of it east of the Red Sea about
where Medina is located today, which is correct, while Kedar is
actually a city south of Tema, south of Faran, not a region far north
of Tema. The maps are inaccurate. This is not necessarily deliberate.
> Jews waiting for a prophet specifically excluded by Deuteronomy
> 18:15 were in Tema, wherever they were.
We differ on this. They were in the right place and recognized
the Prophet from their Scripture, explicitly from that passage in
Deuteronomy and from others throughout the Law and the prophets. Some
testified to this.
> In my many discussions with Muslims, I have "discovered" that:
> - Jews are not the "Children of Israel",
This is not correct.
> - the "Land of Israel" belongs to another people,
This is correct only insofar as the Children of Israel have been
exiled from it twice, once to the Babylonian Captivity and later into
the Diaspora, but it remains the land that is an inalienable
possession of the Children of Israel, although not exclusively, as God
has shown. The remainder of the Promised Land, from the Euphrates to
the headwaters of the Nile, is also an inalienable possession of the
Children of Abraham, among whom are the Children of Israel.
> - the "Torah of Israel" is wrong when the Quran disagrees with it,
This is incorrect. The Torah does not disagree with the Qur'an by
a single dot or letter. Where there appears to be disagreement, this
is the work of the "lying pens of the scribes" indicted by Jeremiah.
The resulting "Old Testament" has been adequately preserved by both
Judaism and Paulinanity and is evidentiary.
> - Judaism itself is just Islam.
"Judaism" as given to the Children of Israel at the hand of Moses
is Islam ~ a completely valid and eternal Covenant exclusively for the
Children of Israel and no other people, distinguishing them forever
from all other people. It differs from Islam as given to the rest of
humanity, which is independent of the Torah and stands alone with no
insufficiency whatever, but includes the Torah and "Judaism"
exclusively for the Children of Israel as well as the Psalms (Zuboor)
of David and Solomon and the Good News ("Injeel") of the Messiah, also
exclusively for the Children of Israel, forever. The delivery of the
Good News to the nations by the faithful remnant of Israel is a
distinction shared by no other people, and will eternally distinguish
Israel "above" the nations. It is all Islam, and is a seamless unity
without contradiction.
> This isn't theology, it's unevidenced convenience, denial with no
> substance.
None of this is "theology," it's the history of humanity written
into the Hebrew Scriptures and onto the Children of Israel before it
happened, written onto the generation of the Companions of the
Messenger and those who came after them, and across the Eastern
Hemispheric land masses and North America all the way to our present
day. It's all there in the Hebrew Scripture as we have received it in
our time.
> - A biblical verse which mentions a "lie" refers to the Bible
> itself.
That's correct, although it refers to "the Bible" as we have it
today, and not to the revealed Scriptures that did not survive the
Babylonian Captivity. The Captivity did not destroy Hebrew Scriptures
that were removed from Jerusalem by Solomon.
> - A verse which mentions a book which is impossible to use
> because it's sealed or because one doesn't know how to read,
> refers to Muhammad, even though the verse is obviously
> describing a lost cause.
This is both correct and incorrect. The sealed book may or may
not refer to Muhammad. The references in Scripture to "another
tongue" refer to Muhammad. The references in Scripture to a
"stammering speech" may or may not refer to him, the references to
"here a little, there a little" do, as well as the references to "I
cannot read." A verse describing a "lost cause" or an "overpowering
scourge" usually refers to Temple Israel and the Talmudic scribes and
pharisees.
> - A Biblical chapter discussing future prophets is said to refer to
> Muhammad even though non Israelites are specifically excluded, and
> the entire chapter discusses a period, not an event.
I'm not clear on what you're mentioning here.
> - A Biblical Book which was once denigrated by Muslims as being
> pornographic is now venerated because somebody noticed in it the
> word "machmaddim" and thought it could be used for profit.
"Muslims" includes many ignorant people, many of them ignorant of
their own religion. The Song of Solomon is not remotely pornographic,
although a reader might be.
> Despite what I wrote above I agree that a
> disenchantment with Israel is probably coming.
I'm fighting that with all my heart, although we may not be
speaking of the same Israel. The Children of Israel are as much a
jewel of humanity as the family of the Messenger, that is what God
Promised to Abraham in Isaac. The history of the Children of Israel
is glorious and sublime, and it is also shameful and despicable. The
same is true of the history of the Arab muslims. The better of both
will be longer remembered.
There were ~ and are ~ renegades and apostates among the Children
of Israel just as there are renegades and hypocrites among the Arab
muslims, but neither do either represent the faithful nor have either
any "portion" among the nations of the faithful who come after them.
> But remember, Jews have had enemies throughout history. More than
> once Jews seemed to be on the verge of extinction. Israel's
> dependency on God's protection seems to be part of God's plan.
Israel has been extinguished repeatedly and scattered among the
nations, and has perennially been "resurrected" and will remain with
us forever. Israel's enemies, including those of the Children of
Israel who are Israel's enemies, will perish, repeatedly, forever.
> (Leviticus 26:44-45)
> "Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies,
> I will not reject them, nor will I so abhor them as to destroy them,
> breaking My covenant with them; for I am the Lord their God.
> But I will remember for them the covenant with their ancestors,
> whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations,
> that I might be their God. I am the Lord."
Yes, He is, and His Promise is True.
> You know about the Jewish people's historically unique return to its
> ancient homeland speaking their ancient language, performing their
> ancient commandments, learning their ancient Torah.
Yes.
> Isn't it hard to believe that it's not part of that grand divine
> plan, mentioned time after time in the OT?
It's possible to believe it's not, I suppose, for those who do not
know God and His Works and His Books and His Word.
> I'm not saying it's going to be easy. It's going to be a very
> frightening ordeal. But when the smoke clears, it may turn out
> that the side with all the odds against it finds itself alone in
> the field, surrounded by so many corpses that it will take months
> to get rid of them. Have you seen these prophecies?
Many. I'm watching them being fulfilled. Or if not, there's not
one scrap of evidence that I'm not that I have found in forty years of
searching for anything even resembling such a scrap.
> For the time being though, you should also remember: Palestinians
> who live in Gaza or Jordan are self-governing. Those who live in
> Israel are full citizens of their country. Most of those who live
> in the West Bank are governed by their own PA. Over 80% of 1922
> Palestine is Arab governed.
(Smile.) Things are often not as they seem from without or from
within.
There is trouble afoot in the Promised Land. We were informed of
it in the beginning, before Abraham. All of it is recorded and will
become known. There is nothing anyone can do to alter God's Decree.
> I don't say they have no right to wish for more than they can get
> peacefully. Wars have been fought for less. But maybe it's time
> for decent people like you to tell them enough is enough.
If they will not heed the Law and the prophets, none will listen
to me and God will not require it of them. I am not a prophet or
messenger, and although my hands write with apostolic authority, what
I write is as subject to error and interpolation as anyone's. Those
with ears to hear and eyes to see may choose whether to consider what
I write and do as they see fit; others have the same options. All
have been warned beforehand, they do not need me to show them their
way, which I could not do anyway.
> Assuming your comment about "murdering people" ...
I find no such comment in the post to which you're replying.
Thank you for your reply.
Hajj abujamal
Zev wrote:
> Hajj abujamal wrote:
>> There's no argument: I've listened to the Cantor sing the Song of
>> Solomon, and he clearly says "MuHammadim," four syllables.
> In your post you said: "no suggestion that the name "Muhammadim" in
> Song of Solomon has some meaning in Hebrew other than a name ..."
The usual retort is denial that the Hebrew word "MuHammadim" is a
name, with no discussion of the grammatical structure of the word or
the appearance of its root H-m-d elsewhere in Scripture.
You replied with some discussion.
> Now you seem to agree that it *is* Hebrew, with a cognate in Arabic!
It's the name of the Messenger in spoken Hebrew, and virtually
identical grammatically and phonetically with the Arabic cognate.
I've never said anything different.
> This destroys your argument ...
No, actually you made my argument regarding that word.
> At any rate, from now on, all you can even claim here is that Song
> of Solomon 5:16 **may contain a hint** to Muhammad.
No, it speaks his name, such that anyone hearing it can recognize
it from the Song of Solomon.
It is unequivocal, the word has no meaning in Hebrew other than a
name. In the context in 5:16 it is singular, "He is Muhammad."
Perhaps a Hebrew grammarian could find another significance dependent
on the plural suffix "-im," but there is no way to combine a singular
masculine passive verb with a direct object plural noun when speaking
of a person ~ it's a name.
> Also, since mamtakkim is an obvious parallel, with the exact same
> grammatical structure, you would strengthen your case if you could
> interpret this word as a name also. A failure to do so makes your
> reading awkward at best.
Actually it's not the same grammatical structure ~ the final
consonant of the root m-t-k is doubled, while in MuHammadim the second
consonant of the root H-m-d is doubled. And I've been unable to find
an Arabic cognate, so give me the citation again and I'll dig deeper.
> Another problem is the plural. In Hebrew, names are *never*
> pluralized. If you know of a single exception, for *any* reason ...
Elohim is plural.
I appreciate your exposition of contemporary spoken Hebrew
grammar, but ...
> I can only urge you again to listen to the recording. If you say it
> sounds like MuHammadim, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
> This is an Affidavit of Dr. M. T. Mehdi. What's the point?
Not one that it could make, apparently.
> A Midrash says Pharaoh survived and returned home alone.
> I thought the Quran said the same thing.
I'll have to look again, more closely. I know it says his body
was preserved, and as I recall it says "And We drowned Fir'aun and his
hosts."
> I doubt that people who lived nearby would refer to such a large
> area with one name. It would also mean that if something is said to
> have happened in "Paran", you don't really know where it happened.
According to the Biblical maps, the entire north quarter of Arabia
was "Kedar." "The wilderness of Paran" could easily refer to a large
area within which are some settled places. At any rate, whether we
can agree on a map or not, Scripture says Hagar and Ishmael went to
the wilderness of Paran, and the prophecy speaks of ten thousand
coming from Paran. It happened, it's historical, the prophecy has
been fulfilled.
>> They ... recognized the Prophet from their Scripture, explicitly
>> from that passage in Deuteronomy and from others throughout the
>> Law and the prophets. Some testified to this.
> Some did, some didn't.
That's correct. Some denied that Muhammad was the Messenger of
the Covenant "like unto Moses" mentioned in Scripture. They were not
required to testify to that, no one was and no one is.
>> The Torah does not disagree with the Qur'an ...
> I understand this dichotomy and it is exactly what I meant.
> Your retort proves my point.
I believe you'll find that learned rabbis find Ezra's recension of
the OT Scriptures to be flawed, as well. Jeremiah certainly indicted
the scribes.
> "There are many more Palestinians of Jewish lineage than there
> are Sephardic Jews who went to Palestine from muslim Spain to
> escape the Inquisition. It's one of the bitter ironies of the
> zionist occupation of Palestine: the zionists and the settlers
> are **murdering people** who have an actual "divine right" to
> live in Israel."
> Why do you hint here that only non-Sephardi Jews are real Jews, but
> when I complained about this attitude on the part of many Muslims,
> your response was much more complaisant?
I don't see any "hint" like that here, and certainly consider
Sephardic Jews to be "real Jews." In fact, I just read an article
somewhere that Spanish Catholics are discovering their Jewish heritage
and "converting" (I've never been able to understand how one
"converts" to being something he already is ...). Neither am I
persuaded that the Ashkenazi are *not* of the Children of Israel. At
least one writer places refugees from the destruction of the Second
Temple in the region from which the Ashkenazim are said to have come,
see http://www.muslimamerica.net/cz/index.htm for a decent history of
Talmudic zionism. I do not see that I have anything to say about
whether someone who *says* he is of the faithful of Moses is among the
Children of Israel or not, unless he is a muslim, and then I would say
"alhamdulillah!"
> Those who today call themselves "Palestinians" have always thought
> of themselves as Arabs. In modern times claims have come up that
> they descended from Canaanites, to establish prior claims to the
> land, from Philistines, to establish themselves as the *real*
> Palestinians, from Jews, to arrogate to themselves blessings which
> are said to be bestowed upon Jews. Your response here proves again
> the point I made before. Hajj, this is politics, not genealogy.
No Arab could ever accept the claim that Israelis are the only
heirs of Abraham. I'm neither of Arab or Hebrew lineage, and I do not
accept that the Children of Israel were meant to disinherit the
descendants of Ishmael, the descendants of Keturah, Abraham's third
wife, and all humanity as heirs of Promise. *One* Promise was made to
Abraham resulting in the creation of Israel. There were more Promises
to which Israel is *not* the "sole heir," and "dominion" is not
conferred by any of those Promises, but is conferred directly, during
the lifetimes of those He chooses to empower.
Every descendant of Abraham has an equal claim to the Promised
Land, and the Children of Israel are distinguished by having an
explicit claim between the River Jordan and the Great Sea. That claim
does not extinguish the rights of other descendants of Abraham to live
in the same area, between the River Jordan and the Great Sea, it
merely means that the Arabs cannot banish the Children of Israel from
there except for individual criminal conduct. God, of course, has
banished the Children of Israel from there twice.
> Hajj, you can define a set and then insert its members according to
> your rules, but if you have an existing set of many members, all
> slightly different, you may have difficulty creating a discrete set
> of rules which will define every member as 'in' and every non-member
> as 'out'. At the margins, there's always trouble.
The Children of Israel and those who have joined themselves to
them are "in"; the descendants of Abraham are "in"; those who followed
Jesus are "in" even though Paul cut the heart out of the Temple Israel
to which they joined themselves; and at least one other discrete set
of people, all reliant on one or more of the Promises that God made to
Abraham and Noah. I have no difficulty with varying sets of "rules,"
and am acutely aware that those with the means must resolve what
troubles people at the margins of society.
> But on the whole, Jews know who they are, and so do non-Jews.
> Reading the OT, NT, or the Quran, or secular history books,
> do you get the feeling that their authors thought of the Jews
> as an amorphous, indefinable group of people?
Not at all. You are one explicit people, one and all, a finite
population well-defined and identifiable, some in the Garden and some
in the Fire.
> Some Palestinians may have "Jewish" genes, but Palestinians are not
> Jewish in any sense of the word which either group finds meaningful.
None do at present, no. But a muslim with Israeli lineage shares
in the distinction given in Jacob in response to Abraham's prayer for
Isaac, which is an everlasting distinction and will be honored
forever. It may be a while before we see that.
Perhaps we're talking past each other, so let me give you (and
muslim readers) this:
Every prophet and messenger sent among mankind spoke of the final
messenger who would bring a Covenant for all humanity. This means
that any record left behind by those prophets or messengers will
contain *recognizable* mention of Muhammad, with some particular that
we can see today in the life of Muhammad or the life of the muslim
ummah that formed at his hand, which lasted thirty years after his
death. This is how I know what is NOT of prophetic origin ~ it does
not contain any such mention.
I have not found such a mention in Esther, but I'll continue to
assume that it's my failure to recognize one rather than a real
absence. I've found such mentions in every other OT Book I've
studied, and in the words attributed to Jesus in the NT.
I can point to them, but some people simply can't see them.
That's not a problem for me.
Zev
> Zev wrote:
> There's no argument: I've listened to the Cantor sing the Song of
> Solomon, and he clearly says "MuHammadim," four syllables. The hard
> "H" is pronounced differently in Hebrew, this is true, but it's the
> same letter in both tongues. The Song of Solomon gives Muhammad's
> name, unequivocally, and the common root H-m-d appears in other
> "grammatical forms" as other words throughout both the Hebrew and
> Arabic texts. "Hemed," for example, means "envy" in Hebrew, while
> "Hamd" means "praise" in Arabic. This does not change the name in the
> Song of Solomon.
In your post you said:
..."no suggestion that the name "Muhammadim" in Song of Solomon
has some meaning in Hebrew other than a name,
nothing, just "No, they're not,"
and that's the entire substance of all these "retorts.".
Now you seem to agree that it *is* Hebrew,
with a cognate in Arabic!
This destroys your argument, and makes one wonder
how you speak with confidence,
and then beat a hasty retreat on the first sign of opposition,
without batting an eyelash.
At any rate, from now on, all you can even claim here
is that Song of Solomon 5:16
**may contain a hint** to Muhammad.
Also, since mamtakkim is an obvious parallel,
with the exact same grammatical structure,
you would strengthen you case if if you could interpret
this word as a name also.
A failure to do so makes your reading awkward at best.
Another problem is the plural.
In Hebrew, names are *never* pluralized.
If you know of a single exception, for *any* reason,
in any other Hebrew literature (except obviously written by someone
who does not know Hebrew well, such as children or foreigners),
call me a liar.
We discussed this vocalization when the issue came up, in Nov, 2007.
Go to the link you provided then
(http://media.snunit.k12.il/kodeshm/mp3/t3005.mp3 ),
and count the verses as the cantor recites them
(you don't need to understand it, the intonation serves as a marker).
At verse 16, when you hear "Chiko mamtakkim vchulo...",
perk your ears up, the next word is it.
Listen and decide.
If you have trouble even with this,
play the whole thing (it's less than 3 minutes),
listening for a "mu" sound.
The only one I found was in "m'mulaim" in verse 14.
Grammatically, mahmaddim would have schwa on the Het,
and rhyme with mamtakkim
which has a schwa on the second Mem.
But pronunciation rules prohibit a Schwa on a Het.
So what to do?
They created "half vowels" and declared them to fulfill both
conditions.
They are supposed to be pronounced
somewhere between a schwa and some vowel,
but Hebrew speakers usually pronounce them as simple, silent, schwas,
especially in cases like this, where there is no natural difficulty
in reading mah, madim without pausing.
It's exaggerated somewhat by the cantor to avoid criticism by some,
that he pronounces it like everyone else,
not knowing how it's *really* pronounced.
For a time I considered writing it as MACHiMADDIM,
but I think the "all capital letters" look strange,
and I'm not sure if the small "i" gets the point across.
The "K" and "D" are doubled but this too is usually ignored,
and you can see that I sometimes write mamtakim, machmadim
and sometimes mamtakkim, machmaddim, out of carelessness.
Arab speakers are much more careful about doubled letters
than speakers of Hebrew or English.
If you listen carefully you'll hear emphasized letters all through the
text,
including the "K" and "D" of mamtakkim, machmaddim.
Here too, a careless cantor will be criticized for unprofessional
reading.
I can only urge you again to listen to the recording.
If you say it sounds like MuHammadim,
we'll just have to agree to disagree.
> I've found a little and would certainly appreciate any links you
> might care to provide. But
> see http://www.muslimamerica.net/mp/mtmaff.htmas well, please.
This is an Affidavit of Dr. M. T. Mehdi.
What's the point?
> The Qur'an informs us that Fir'aun was drowned and his body thrown
> up from the sea and preserved to be found at a time certain. It seems
> reasonable to expect there to have been one survivor to return the
> body to Egypt. I believe it has been found, although the evidence of
> this is scarcely acknowledged. There is reason to believe he had the
> pages of Abraham that the Children of Israel had lost.
Thanks, I was confused about this.
A Midrash says Pharaoh survived and returned home alone.
I thought the Quran said the same thing.
> The Biblical maps I have show the same thing, with the letters
> positioned in the north of the Sinai northwest of the Red Sea Gulf of
> Aqaba and NO letters at all in the adjacent northern portion of the
> Arabian peninsula contiguous to the east. I have seen no Biblical
> maps that show any place names in that portion of Arabia, only Midian
> to the south of it adjacent to the Gulf of Aqaba, and Petra to the
> north, followed by Edom farther north, and Moab north of that. I
> maintain that south from Hebron, past Edom, the entire region from the
> mid-Sinai into the northern Arabian desert is all "Paran" in the
> Hebrew Scripture.
That may be true, but I doubt that people who lived nearby
would refer to such a large area with one name.
It would also mean that if something is said to have happened in
"Paran",
you don't really know where it happened.
> > Jews waiting for a prophet specifically excluded by Deuteronomy
> > 18:15 were in Tema, wherever they were.
> We differ on this. They were in the right place and recognized
> the Prophet from their Scripture, explicitly from that passage in
> Deuteronomy and from others throughout the Law and the prophets. Some
> testified to this.
Some did, some didn't.
"Bkirbcha" means "within you".
The chapter refers to a period, not an event.
Those who, as you say, "testified to this" needed to explain this
or perhaps had a different, no longer extant, version.
But as Islam expanded, the issue of contrasting versions
would have come up.
Jews and Christians would have argued
over which version was right.
The issue would not have been forgotten.
> > In my many discussions with Muslims, I have "discovered" that:
> > - Jews are not the "Children of Israel",
> This is not correct.
> > - the "Land of Israel" belongs to another people,
> This is correct only insofar as the Children of Israel have been
> exiled from it twice, once to the Babylonian Captivity and later into
> the Diaspora, but it remains the land that is an inalienable
> possession of the Children of Israel, although not exclusively, as God
> has shown. The remainder of the Promised Land, from the Euphrates to
> the headwaters of the Nile, is also an inalienable possession of the
> Children of Abraham, among whom are the Children of Israel.
> > - the "Torah of Israel" is wrong when the Quran disagrees with it,
> This is incorrect. The Torah does not disagree with the Qur'an by
> a single dot or letter. Where there appears to be disagreement, this
> is the work of the "lying pens of the scribes" indicted by Jeremiah.
> The resulting "Old Testament" has been adequately preserved by both
> Judaism and Paulinanity and is evidentiary.
I understand this dichotomy and it is exactly what I meant.
I am referring to the book "which we have with us".
My statement about "wrong when disagrees"
is standard Muslim belief, accepted by Muslims without argument,
including the very claim you make here.
Your retort proves my point.
BTW, you can see Ezekiel 13 for a description of the "lie".
We've discussed it before.
It doesn't sound at all like what you claim it to be.
> > Assuming your comment about "murdering people" ...
> I find no such comment in the post to which you're replying.
I'll copy it here.
quote
"There are many more Palestinians of Jewish lineage than there are
Sephardic Jews who went to Palestine from muslim Spain to escape the
Inquisition. It's one of the bitter ironies of the zionist occupation
of Palestine: the zionists and the settlers are **murdering people**
who have an actual "divine right" to live in Israel.
Just a little more recorded history that doesn't show up in American
public school history books ... "
unquote
I was hoping to discuss the issues you raise here,
but you've snipped *all* of the remarks I made here.
Why do you hint here that only non-Sephardi Jews are real Jews,
but when I complained about this attitude
on the part of many Muslims,
your response was much more complaisant?
Those who today call themselves "Palestinians"
have always thought of themselves as Arabs.
In modern times claims have come up that they descended
from Canaanites, to establish prior claims to the land,
from Philistines, to establish themselves as the *real* Palestinians,
from Jews, to arrogate to themselves blessings
which are said to be bestowed upon Jews.
Your response here proves again the point I made before.
Hajj, this is politics, not genealogy.
Hajj, you can define a set and then insert
its members according to your rules,
but if you have an existing set
of many members, all slightly different,
you may have difficulty creating a discrete set of rules
which will define every member as 'in'
and every non-member as 'out'.
At the margins, there's always trouble.
But on the whole, Jews know
who they are, and so do non-Jews.
Reading the OT, NT, or the Quran, or secular history books,
do you get the feeling that their authors thought of the Jews
as an amorphous, indefinable group of people?
I'll give you an example of what I mean.
An 'exact' history of a living body, say that of Hajj Abujamal,
would have to take into account the billions of molecules
which become part of his body,
and those which become detached,
every day.
Over time, most of the material
of Hajj's body may be exchanged.
Will we then say that Hajj is now someone else?
Of course not.
Each new molecule is assimilated
and becomes part of his body,
just as the 'veteran' molecule it replaced.
Now take a group of many individuals,
each of which may be described as 'Jew'.
At any given moment, there will be an ebb and flow
of individuals into and out of the group.
But the group has a life of its own.
Because of human memory,
the process of assimilation is a slow one,
but it takes place.
Joseph's children had an Egyptian mother.
Yet, Jacob said:
"Ephraim and Menasha are like Reuben and Simon to me".
Judah is also mentioned explicitly as having a non-Jewish wife,
yet, Jacob praised him especially (Genesis 49:8-12).
Apparently, all of Jacob's children had non-Jewish wives.
The wife of Moses himself was not Jewish.
And later, another very famous Jew
had a Moabite great-grandmother.
Despite a racial base, Jews are not a racial group
But they are a reasonably well defined group,
with their own religion, language(s), culture, literature and history.
Hajj abujamal
Zev wrote:
> "Hajj abujamal" wrote:
>> There's no argument: I've listened to the Cantor sing the Song of
>> Solomon, and he clearly says "MuHammadim," four syllables.
>> It's the name of the Messenger in spoken Hebrew, and virtually
>> identical grammatically and phonetically with the Arabic cognate.
>> I've never said anything different.
> You said it can't be translated because it has no meaning. Later,
> you told me H-m-d means "envy" in Hebrew. Unless you claim that the
> "Mem" prefix is not used in Hebrew to create new nouns from verbs
> and adjectives, that's a contradiction.
Okay, it's a contradiction. What's your point? Words with the
mem prefix and a doubled central vowel are nouns constructed on the
(second) fa''il form of the semitic verb, and in Hebrew that
"MuHammadim" would then mean "that caused to be envied," not
"altogether lovely." And in Arabic translations, rather than bring
the Hebrew consonants into the identical Arabic consonants, the
translators ~ apparently from English ~ render it as the completely
different word "mushtahayaat," from the consonantal root sh-h-w on the
(tenth) istafta'il reflexive form, meaning "that which is coveted,
object of desire."
That pretty much does it for me, since (1) I can clearly hear the
cantor say "MuHammadim," (2) the Hebrew root consonants are ch-m-d
corresponding to the Arabic H-m-d, and (3) it's deceptively rendered
into Arabic as "object of desire," which Mashiach most certainly has
been (and still is) in Temple Israel. Actually, Song 5:10, "My
beloved is all radiant and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand," is
also an accurate description of Muhammad.
So I suspect we will continue to disagree, although I think you
may be able to agree that this part of Song of Solomon has a bit more
than a "hint" of the Messenger of the Covenant.
> I counted 66 occurrences of the root in the OT, including 12
> occurrences with the "Mem", as follows:
> 1 Kings 20:6 singular
> 2 Chronicles 36:19 plural
> Song of Solomon 5:16 pl
> Isaiah 64:11 pl
> Lamentations 1:7,10 pl, pl
> Lamentations 2:4 pl
> Ezekiel 24:16,21,25 sing, sing, sing
> Hosea 9:6,16 sing, pl
Thank you! I'll hold on to these citations and look at them when
I have a direct Hebrew-to-Arabic side-by-side of the Law and the
Prophets. All the Arabic translations I've seen so far appear to be
from the (disgustingly corrupted) English of the KJV.
> The undeniable conclusion is that it's just plain Hebrew.
Unquestionably Hebrew. Pronounced "MuHammadim."
> "He [is] all [of] lovely [things] ..."
Not with the Hebrew consonants H-m-d, it's not "lovely." It
cannot escape the "envy" and "covet" of the Hebrew root.
> The verse presents no difficulties if you read it as simple Hebrew.
It doesn't present me with any difficulties at all.
> Hebrew grammar doesn't allow a doubled "Mem" in that position
> without making significant other changes to comply with it.
> The "D" is doubled for the same reason the "K" is doubled.
> It is the same, and if machmaddim is a name, mamtakkim
> should be also.
Hmmm ... like the fly-speck dot above the lamed in the s-l-m of
the "Jacob's Ladder" passage, changing silm (a religion of peace) into
sullam (ladder)?
Scripture is oral first, and then transcribed as an aid to memory.
I'll go with the oral version as I hear the cantor say it, and look
at the grammar in the light of the oral recitation.
<snip>
>>> I can only urge you again to listen to the recording. If you say
>>> it sounds like MuHammadim, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
> OK, let's summarize what you say here. You insist that "ma" = "moo".
I insist that I hear the cantor say what is indistinguishable from
Muhammad. If he's saying "MaHammad," that's close enough in the usual
pronunciation of the fatha and the waw as vowels.
> You stress a syllable which cannot be stressed (because it must obey
> the rules of Schwa). You break grammatical rules twice, by doubling
> a singular "M", and by undoubling a doubled "D". You ignore an
> obvious parallel with the previous phrase, a literary device too
> common in scripture to excuse your unfamiliarity with it. You reject
> a grammatical parallel which is obvious to anyone who reads Hebrew.
> You translate "He [is] all....", as "He is...".
Actually what I do is rely on what I hear with my ears, the oral
recitation by the cantor. As for the grammatical nit-picking (which
incidentally differs from the grammars of the other Semitic tongues),
you might talk to a cantor and find out why he says what he says here.
> You put Muhammad on a par with God.
Not remotely.
> All to justify putting Muhammad into book which, not so long ago,
> many Muslims thought was not worthy of him.
The greatest impediment I see to the growth of understanding of
Islam among Christians is the failure of Arab muslims to study the
Hebrew Scriptures. I did not begin my readings with the inherited
prejudices of the Arabs and their followers of the
terminally-collapsed millennial muslim world.
> I'll put this another way. You understand this verse in a way which
> doesn't sound right, and doesn't make sense, grammatically or
> textually.
It makes perfect sense to me. "His mouth is sweet" ~ I think you
use "palate" above ~ makes sense to me because the Qur'an came from
his mouth. And I hear his name in the verse. And since I know that
every prophet spoke of Muhammad, Islam, events of the revelatory
period of his life, our practices, or something recognizably
descriptive or identifying as pertaining to the Messenger, I am not
the least bit surprised to find this in Song of Solomon.
> The traditional way avoids all of these problems, creates no new
> ones, and requires no assumptions. The conclusion is obvious.
The only "problem" it creates is confirmation of a mention of
Muhammad in the Hebrew Scriptures. For us, that's not a problem.
> As I said before, the above does not rule out that
> Song of Solomon 5:16 **may contain a hint** to Muhammad.
Thank you.
> I hope this puts an end to speculation about this verse,
> at least on SRI.
No, it will recur on SRI, it is simply too rich.
>> According to the Biblical maps, the entire north quarter of Arabia
>> was "Kedar." "The wilderness of Paran" could easily refer to a
>> large area within which are some settled places. At any rate,
>> whether we can agree on a map or not, Scripture says Hagar and
>> Ishmael went to the wilderness of Paran, and the prophecy speaks of
>> ten thousand coming from Paran. It happened, it's historical, the
>> prophecy has been fulfilled.
> Muslims frequently understand Deuteronomy 33:2 as referring to Moses
> and Jesus and Muhammad. But there's something wrong. Let's divide
> the verse into phrases:
Do you mean "Let's take the phrases apart"?
> And he said,
> 1) The Lord came from Sinai, = Moses
> 2) and rose up from Seir unto them; = Jesus
> 3) he shined forth from mount Paran, = Muhammad
> 4) and came from ten thousands of saints: = ???
> from his right hand [went] a fiery law for them.
> The verb in phrase 2 in Hebrew is zarakh = to shine, especially of
> the sun. It also means sunrise, maybe this is why
> it was translated here as "rose up".
The 1967 Second Edition of the Jewish Publication Society of
America's translation of The Torah according to the Masoretic text has
"He shone upon them from Seir."
> The verb in phrase 3 in Hebrew is l'hofeea =to appear.
Yes, the JPS translation is "He appeared from Mount Paran."
> The "saints" in phrase 4 is "holiness" in the original (you'll
> recognize "kodesh" from its Arabic cognate), and the preposition
> is "from", not "with".
The JPS has "And approached from Ribeboth-kodesh," with a footnote
saying "cf. Meribath-kadesh, 32:51" which refers to "the Waters of
Meribath-kadesh in the wilderness of Zin." Clearly a continuation of
the third phrase, as is what follows, rendered by the JPS as
"Lightning flashing at them from His right," with another footnote
saying "obscure, perhaps a place name."
The 1977 Second Edition of the Soncino Hebrew text, English
translation and Commentary on the Pentateuch and Haftorahs, however,
has this:
The Lord came from Sinai,
And rose from Seir unto them;
He shined forth from mount Paran,
And He came from the myriads holy,
At His right hand was a fiery law unto them.
The commentary explains "mount Paran" as "Perhaps the mountain-range
forming the southern boundary of Canaan" with no mention that Paran
was where Abraham spent half of each year with Hagar and Ishmael. The
Soncino commentary regards these verses as an itinerary of Israel from
Sinai through Seir and Paran and the desert to Palestine.
> I don't have any trouble with the basic idea that this may refer to
> the several monotheistic religions, but you have a problem with the
> fact that we have 4 phrases and only three prophets!
Not according to the Jewish Publication Society and the Soncino
Press, which treat the latter three lines (above) as one statement. I
believe the latter is considered authoritative.
> Since the number is obviously rounded, and "holiness" can mean so
> many things, even if phrases 3 and 4 are actually one phrase,
> you'll have difficulty associating it with a particular historic
> event.
Not at all. Muhammad descended on Makkah from the Paran mountains
with ten thousand mujahideen, "coming suddenly to His temple," the
Ka'abah. We have their names and the names of their tribes.
> Also, when considering possible explanations for this passage,
> please take into account the possibility that it's not a
> prophesy at all. The language is, after all, in the past tense,
> and it would conform to Muslim beliefs.
There is no "future tense" per se in Arabic, there are only two:
happened and happening, past and present-ongoing. When a statement
about something that has not yet happened is made in the past tense,
it is regarded as a "future" event that, having been indelibly
"written" into the future, has therefore "happened" already but we
have not reached it yet.
> Read the previous verse, Deuteronomy 33:1. Is the blessing there
> that a non-Israelite would eventually receive preference over
> Israelites?
Muhammad was definitely a blessing for Israel, just as he was a
blessing for the rest of humanity, but especially for Israel, who
announced him to the nations. For others of Israel, who refused the
Messiah, he was an object of envy and their refusal made him into a
curse for them.
> Read the rest of Deuteronomy 33, Moses' blessing of the Children of
> Israel. You should agree that your interpretation of Deuteronomy
> 33:2 doesn't match the context because there is no hint of a time
> limitation after which someone else comes and changes the rules.
I see 33:2 as a preamble and an overview of the prophetic
sequence, placing in context the specific events of the rest of the
chapter.
>> Some denied that Muhammad was the Messenger of the Covenant "like
>> unto Moses" mentioned in Scripture. They were not required to
>> testify to that, no one was and no one is.
> I mentioned why those who didn't, felt they couldn't. I'm sorry you
> didn't think this issue was important enough to comment on.
As for "b'kirbcha" which you render as "within you," I expect we
will disagree.
I have always found it interesting that when Moses is quoted at
Deuteronomy 18:15, he allegedly says "from the midst of you, of your
brethren;" but when God is quoted at Deuteronomy 18:18, He says "from
among their brethren," not "from the midst of you" or "your brethren."
You know, I am sure, that we consider "their" to refer to the
Children of Israel collectively, and thus "their brethren" cannot be
Israeli but can only be the children of Ishmael. The change in syntax
and words between God's statement and what is attributed to Moses has
caused many to deny the possibility of a prophet "like Moses," or any
prophet at all, coming from anywhere but from among the Children of
Israel. Obviously we believe that God can raise up prophets "from
these stones" or from anywhere, and has not restricted Himself to
sending prophets only in Israel.
> I'm sorry I had to snip out the rest of the post, even though I had
> comments to make here and there. The ratio of old material to new
> might have been too high for SRI rules.
I suspect that we're near to being finished with this
conversation, if not already at the inevitable impasse.
Thank you for the references and a very interesting discussion.
Zev
=D7=91=D7=94=D7=95=D7=93=D7=A2=D7=94:4A38C21...@muslimamerica.net...
> Salaam!
> Zev wrote:
> > Hajj abujamal wrote:
> >> There's no argument: I've listened to the Cantor sing the Song of
> >> Solomon, and he clearly says "MuHammadim," four syllables.
> > In your post you said: "no suggestion that the name "Muhammadim" in
> > Song of Solomon has some meaning in Hebrew other than a name ..."
> The usual retort is denial that the Hebrew word "MuHammadim" is a
> name, with no discussion of the grammatical structure of the word or
> the appearance of its root H-m-d elsewhere in Scripture.
> You replied with some discussion.
> > Now you seem to agree that it *is* Hebrew, with a cognate in Arabic!
> It's the name of the Messenger in spoken Hebrew, and virtually
> identical grammatically and phonetically with the Arabic cognate.
> I've never said anything different.
You said it can't be translated because it has no meaning.
Later, you told me H-m-d means "envy" in Hebrew.
Unless you claim that the "Mem" prefix is not used in Hebrew
to create new nouns from verbs and adjectives,
that's a contradiction.
I counted 66 occurrences of the root in the OT,
including 12 occurrences with the "Mem", as follows:
1 Kings 20:6 singular
2 Chronicles 36:19 plural
Song of Solomon 5:16 pl
Isaiah 64:11 pl
Lamentations 1:7,10 pl, pl
Lamentations 2:4 pl
Ezekiel 24:16,21,25 sing, sing, sing
Hosea 9:6,16 sing, pl
The undeniable conclusion is that it's just plain Hebrew.
> > At any rate, from now on, all you can even claim here is that Song
> > of Solomon 5:16 **may contain a hint** to Muhammad.
>
> No, it speaks his name, such that anyone hearing it can recognize
> it from the Song of Solomon.
>
> It is unequivocal, the word has no meaning in Hebrew other than a
> name. In the context in 5:16 it is singular, "He is Muhammad."
> Perhaps a Hebrew grammarian could find another significance dependent
> on the plural suffix "-im," but there is no way to combine a singular
> masculine passive verb with a direct object plural noun when speaking
> of a person ~ it's a name.
"He [is] all [of] lovely [things]...".
There's no verb other than the understood one, [is].
There's no direct object, there's no object at all.
Same for the previous phrase:
"His palate [is of] sweet [things](or, sweets)...".
The verse presents no difficulties if you read it as simple Hebrew.
> > Also, since mamtakkim is an obvious parallel, with the exact same
> > grammatical structure, you would strengthen your case if you could
> > interpret this word as a name also. A failure to do so makes your
> > reading awkward at best.
> Actually it's not the same grammatical structure ~ the final
> consonant of the root m-t-k is doubled, while in MuHammadim the second
> consonant of the root H-m-d is doubled. And I've been unable to find
> an Arabic cognate, so give me the citation again and I'll dig deeper.
Hebrew grammar doesn't allow a doubled "Mem" in that position
without making significant other changes to comply with it.
The "D" is doubled for the same reason the "K" is doubled.
It is the same, and if machmaddim is a name, mamtakkim should be also.
> > Another problem is the plural. In Hebrew, names are *never*
> > pluralized. If you know of a single exception, for *any* reason ...
> Elohim is plural.
My claim is that *names* are never pluralized.
But see what you imply here.
Unless you can find a more mundane "name"
for which this rule can be used,
you have a construct which is used only
for God and Muhammad!
> I appreciate your exposition of contemporary spoken Hebrew
> grammar, but ...
"Contemporary spoken Hebrew grammar"???!!!
Deuteronomy 6:4.
"Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one".
Please make sense of "our God" using "God" here as a name.
Use "King David" as an example.
Create a sentence saying something like
"(the) king is our David, (the) king is one"
which doesn't invite derision.
You may assume "Lord" here is a name, or not, as you wish.
There are hundreds of verses like this,
the above is probably the best known.
But the clincher is the following:
Psalms 136:2.
"Give thanks to the God of gods,
For His loving kindness is everlasting".
Same challenge as before, make sense out of this,
assuming it's a name.
I won't bother quoting verses in which
the word doesn't even mean God,
but rather, people who are important in some way.
Refer to the Hebrew source or to Strong's Index
if you think the word in these verses
is not the one you've quoted.
> > I can only urge you again to listen to the recording. If you say it
> > sounds like MuHammadim, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
OK, let's summarize what you say here.
You insist that "ma" =3D "moo".
You stress a syllable which cannot be stressed
(because it must obey the rules of Schwa).
You break grammatical rules twice,
by doubling a singular "M", and by undoubling a doubled "D".
You ignore an obvious parallel with the previous phrase,
a literary device too common in scripture
to excuse your unfamiliarity with it.
You reject a grammatical parallel which is obvious
to anyone who reads Hebrew.
You translate "He [is] all....", as "He is...".
You put Muhammad on a par with God.
All to justify putting Muhammad into book
which, not so long ago, many Muslims thought
was not worthy of him.
I'll put this another way.
You understand this verse in a way which doesn't sound right,
and doesn't make sense, grammatically or textually.
The traditional way avoids all of these problems,
creates no new ones, and requires no assumptions.
The conclusion is obvious.
As I said before, the above does not rule out that
Song of Solomon 5:16 **may contain a hint** to Muhammad.
I hope this puts an end to speculation about this verse,
at least on SRI.
> According to the Biblical maps, the entire north quarter of Arabia
> was "Kedar." "The wilderness of Paran" could easily refer to a large
> area within which are some settled places. At any rate, whether we
> can agree on a map or not, Scripture says Hagar and Ishmael went to
> the wilderness of Paran, and the prophecy speaks of ten thousand
> coming from Paran. It happened, it's historical, the prophecy has
> been fulfilled.
Muslims frequently understand Deuteronomy 33:2
as referring to Moses and Jesus and Muhammad.
But there's something wrong.
Let's divide the verse into phrases:
And he said,
1) The Lord came from Sinai, =3D Moses
2) and rose up from Seir unto them; =3D Jesus
3) he shined forth from mount Paran, =3D Muhammad
4) and came from ten thousands of saints: =3D ???
from his right hand [went] a fiery law for them.
The verb in phrase 2 in Hebrew is zarakh =3D to shine, especially of the
sun.
It also means sunrise, maybe this is why
it was translated here as "rose up".
The verb in phrase 3 in Hebrew is l'hofeea =3Dto appear.
The "saints" in phrase 4 is "holiness" in the original
(you'll recognize "kodesh" from its Arabic cognate),
and the preposition is "from", not "with".
I don't have any trouble with the basic idea
that this may refer to the several monotheistic religions,
but you have a problem with the fact that
we have 4 phrases and only three prophets!
Since the number is obviously rounded,
and "holiness" can mean so many things,
even if phrases 3 and 4 are actually one phrase,
you'll have difficulty associating it with a particular historic
event.
Also, when considering possible explanations
for this passage,
please take into account the possibility
that it's not a prophesy at all.
The language is, after all, in the past tense,
and it would conform to Muslim beliefs.
Read the previous verse, Deuteronomy 33:1.
Is the blessing there that a non-Israelite would eventually
receive preference over Israelites?
Read the rest of Deuteronomy 33,
Moses' blessing of the Children of Israel,
You should agree that your interpretation
of Deuteronomy 33:2 doesn't match the context
because there is no hint of a time limitation
after which someone else comes and changes the rules.
> >> They ... recognized the Prophet from their Scripture, explicitly
> >> from that passage in Deuteronomy and from others throughout the
> >> Law and the prophets. Some testified to this.
> > Some did, some didn't.
> That's correct. Some denied that Muhammad was the Messenger of
> the Covenant "like unto Moses" mentioned in Scripture. They were not
> required to testify to that, no one was and no one is.
I mentioned why those who didn't, felt they couldn't.
I'm sorry you didn't think this issue
was important enough to comment on.
I'm sorry I had to snip out the rest of the post,
Zev
> Salaam!
> Zev wrote:
> > "Hajj abujamal" wrote:
> So I suspect we will continue to disagree, although I think you
> may be able to agree that this part of Song of Solomon has a bit more
> than a "hint" of the Messenger of the Covenant.
I said that 5:16 may be a hint to Muhammad,
I didn't say Muhammad was the
"Messenger of the Covenant".
> Hmmm ... like the fly-speck dot above the lamed in the s-l-m of
> the "Jacob's Ladder" passage, changing silm (a religion of peace) into
> sullam (ladder)?
I'm not sure what you're saying here but read the entire verse.
It stands on the ground, and angels use it to go up and down.
That sounds like a ladder.
And before we get caught up in the details,
remember, it's a dream.
> Actually what I do is rely on what I hear with my ears, the oral
> recitation by the cantor. As for the grammatical nit-picking (which
> incidentally differs from the grammars of the other Semitic tongues),
> you might talk to a cantor and find out why he says what he says here.
It is nit-picking.
I never spend so much time looking into this stuff.
But you complain only because each picked nit
is an additional tier against your understanding of this verse.
The first vowel is a "Patach" (I think you call this a "fatha").
It's pronounced only one way.
When you understand how unlikely it is that a cantor
would dare to depart from "conventional wisdom",
this part of the argument will end with agreement.
> > You put Muhammad on a par with God.
> Not remotely.
You did.
You snipped the reason I said this.
> It makes perfect sense to me. "His mouth is sweet" ~ I think you
> use "palate" above...
I don't know why standard Bible translations don't use it.
The word used here is usually understood to mean "palate",
there's a different word for "mouth".
> The only "problem" it creates is confirmation of a mention of
> Muhammad in the Hebrew Scriptures....
If you say that with confidance, often enough,
many people will believe it.
Hajj, this argument should never have started.
Having started, it should have ended in 3 minutes,
the time it takes to click on the mp3 link,
and to listen diligently to the end.
And I've given you a series of reasons why
Muhammad in Song of Solomon 5:16 doesn't make sense.
This isn't the first time I've argued about Song of Solomon 5:16
and each time I wonder if some people think they serve
God or Islam by making claims that can be easily disproven,
apparently in the hope that no one will notice.
> The JPS has "And approached from Ribeboth-kodesh," with a footnote
> saying "cf. Meribath-kadesh, 32:51" which refers to "the Waters of
> Meribath-kadesh in the wilderness of Zin." Clearly a continuation of
> the third phrase, as is what follows, rendered by the JPS as
> "Lightning flashing at them from His right," with another footnote
> saying "obscure, perhaps a place name."
These four phrases are of similar structure.
"Came from A, rose from B, etc..."
The last (the fifth), seems to be a summing up,
something to complete the sentence.
The sentence seems to be about the same thing seen four ways,
or perhaps four things seen the same way.
You could say that is the "default value".
This idea of the JPS is interesting,
but it doesn't make phrase 4
seem to be a continuation of phrase 3.
I don't know why you say that it does.
Also, if Ribeboth-kodesh means "Meribath-kadesh"
you lose your connection to the "ten thousand".
Do you want to go that way?
> The 1977 Second Edition of the Soncino Hebrew text, English
> translation and Commentary on the Pentateuch and Haftorahs, however,
> has this:
> The Lord came from Sinai,
> And rose from Seir unto them;
> He shined forth from mount Paran,
> And He came from the myriads holy,
> At His right hand was a fiery law unto them.
> Muhammad was definitely a blessing for Israel, just as he was a
> blessing for the rest of humanity, but especially for Israel, who
> announced him to the nations. For others of Israel, who refused the
> Messiah, he was an object of envy and their refusal made him into a
> curse for them.
Islam was a blessing for pagan Arabs.
It enabled the fulfillment of God's promise of 2500 years before.
"Especially for Israel, who announced him to the nations".
Announcing your own fall from preeminence.
isn't even a consolation prize.
I've seen this claim several times on SRI,
along with OT "proofs".
It sounds silly to me.
Imagine Hajj abujamal is informed, authoritatively, that someone like
Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, or Sun Myung Moon is a Prophet,
here to organize a further stage in religious developement, after
Islam,
and that he has the honor of announcing that fact to the world.
Would he say: "Wow, I get to tell the world that Islam
is the precursor of a next stage!
What good news!"?
I doubt it.
> As for "b'kirbcha" which you render as "within you," I expect we
> will disagree.
Gentlemen don't argue about facts.