More on the "MACHAMAD" of Song of Songs 5:16
Shibli Zaman
praised; May His Peace and Blessings be upon His prophet Muhammad.
Dearest and Esteemed Reader,
When discussing the "Machamad" in verse 16 of Chapter 5 in Shir
Hashirim (Song of Songs), most of the emphasis is placed on the first
half of the verse. However, this has caused a major disregard for the
rest of the verse in Hebrew which has extremely seriously connotations
when properly translated. They may be even more serious then the usage
of the name "Muhammad" in itself. May the Peace and Blessings of Allah
be upon the Prophet Muhammad. Allow me to repost the verse in English
as well as Hebrew:
"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my
beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."
"Chikoh mamtaqim v'chulo MACHAMADIM ze DODEE v'ze RA'EE, bano
Yarushalaym"
1) MACHAMMADIM - From "MACHAMAD" which in this particular verse is
translated into "lovely". "Altogether" is added as a contextual
reference to "v'chulo" which means "in entirety" or "absolutely".
"MACHAMAD" means "desirable, praise worthy, beautiful, etc". Though it
is archaic, It is found elsewhere in the Bible to describe precious
and coveted items. The fact that this "MACHAMAD" evidently may well be
the Prophet Muhammad (May Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon him) has
already been thoroughly outlined and established.
2) DODEE - From "DOWD" (pronounced d - long "o" - d). In this
particular verse it is translated into "beloved". However, "DOWD" also
means "paternal uncle", that is to mean the father's brother, in
Hebrew. This complicates the verse and makes it all the more
interesting. In the book of Leviticus the word "dowd" is found 5 times
[10:4, 20:20 (twice in this verse), 25:49 (twice in this verse)] and
used as "paternal uncle" only and not used any other way. In the book
of Numbers in 36:11 where it is said "..were married unto their
FATHER'S BROTHERS' sons." the word used is "DOWD". There are many
other examples where "DOWD" is used as "paternal uncle" (father's
brother) and not "beloved".
3) RA'EE - From "RAY'AA" which is translated in this particular verse
into "friend". However, "RA'YAA" in Hebrew means "co-worker in same
area, field or margin". It is translated as "neighbor" 102 times in
the Old Testament. Actually, it is translated as "neighbor" more than
any other definition in the Old Testament. It is used to mean one
member of the same organization or group. In chapter 11 of Genesis it
is used in reference to the group of builders raising the Tower of
Babel. Co-workers, comrades etc would all be considered "RAY'AA".
Thus, if the "MACHAMAD" in this verse 5:16 of Shir Hashirim (Song of
Songs) is a mere reference to some love sick girl's object of desire
why is this "MACHAMAD" called the girl's "PATERNAL UNCLE" as well as
"COMRADE" or "CO-WORKER"? If a girl was merely describing her
obsession why would she use such utterly unromantic terms such as
these which allude to a male co-worker who is possibly a paternal
uncle?
The Prophet Muhammad (May Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon him) was
a direct descendant from Ishmael (Peace be upon him) who is the
paternal uncle of the Nation of Israel who are descended from
Ishmael's younger brother, Isaac (Peace be upon him). Thus, calling an
Arab a paternal uncle would not be an erroneous idiom at all.
The Prophet Muhammad (May Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon him)
came with the same message as the Israelite prophets such as Abraham,
Ishmael, Isaac, David and Solomon (among others). Thus, he would have
been a "RA'YAA" of the Prophets. Not using the shallow definition of
"friend" but the true and proper definition as it is found 102 times
in the Bible as "neighbor".
CONCLUSION:
In Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs 5:16) there is a reference to a
"MACHAMAD" who the Christians insist vehemently is not the Prophet
Muhammad (May Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon him) who rose in the
7th century AD, preaching Islam, affirming prophets such as Noah,
Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus as well as others before him,
and who in the span of 100 years changed the face of planet earth as
we know it.. They say that this "MACHAMAD" in Song of Songs 5:16 is a
mere reference to a "lovely" man whom a woman was madly in love with
and no more than that. Some Christians say at most it is an allegory
about how one must be madly in love with God. However, this "MACHAMAD"
whom the Christians say is a mere object of infatuation is referred to
as a "PATERNAL UNCLE" as well as a "COMRADE". Does this sound like a
girl's description of her "infatuation"?
Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs) 5:16 may be translated as as:
"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is MUHAMMAD. This is my (paternal)
UNCLE, and this is my COMRADE, O daughters of Jerusalem."
This is definitely not erroneous if weighed against any work of
scholarship regarding the Hebrew language. There are many, many,
serious implications when these outlined words are taken in context as
they were understood based upon the Bible's own usage in its other
books. This verse may or may not refer to the Prophet Muhammad (May
Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon him) of Mecca and Medina who
preached Islam in the 7th century AD and led to a quarter of humanity
calling themselves "Muslims". We may never know for sure. However,
this evidence is far from dismissed or even dismissable. It can't be
ignored. If the objective reader weighs the evidence, I know, and you
all know as well, there is some serious consternation at hand for the
skeptic. I wish you all the best, Christian, Muslim, and others, in
your search for the truth. May Allah guide us all. Ameen.
Warmest Regards,
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.Net
Andy Bannister
Thank you for sharing your long and technical post. I am not sure whether
you wrote it in reply to my post in the thread "Composition of the Quran
(was: Prophecies in the Qur'an?)", but whether or not this was the case it
certainly makes sense to start a new thread on this interesting topic.
However, whilst I can understand why you desire to locate Muhammad in Song
of Songs (otherwise known as Song of Solomon), I feel that much of your
reasoning on the subject is flawed and in my reply I will outline my
particular areas of concern. All of these relate to your exegesis of the
three Hebrew words "machmad" (altogether lovely), "dowd" (beloved) and
"rayah"
(friend). The bracketed words are the correct translation of these three
words
as they occur in Song of Solomon 5:16, and I will attempt to explain once
and for in this post why:
a) Muhammad's name is not to be found in this verse
b) interpreting this particular verse (5:16) is child's play if one reads
the entire book (a snip at only eight chapters)
c) in the light of [b] above, 5:16 is talking about Solomon, as indeed is
approximately 50% of the entire book (the other 50% about the Shulamite
maiden)
Anyway, on with my reply to the bulk of your post.
> When discussing the "Machamad" in verse 16 of Chapter 5 in Shir
> Hashirim (Song of Songs), most of the emphasis is placed on the first
> half of the verse. However, this has caused a major disregard for the
> rest of the verse in Hebrew which has extremely seriously connotations
> when properly translated.
I am always encouraged when I hear a Muslim explain that is it important to
read the WHOLE of a verse; I have in the past tackled arguments from people
who build an entire case around taking one or two words wholly out of
context (e.g. the attempt to identify Muhammad as the "parakletos" in John
14:16). So I am pleased that you stress the importance to read the whole
verse, not just the first half of it. However, I would encourage you to read
further; do not merely read the verse but read the whole chapter, not merely
the
chapter but the whole book. Only when you have read the verse in the light
of the
context can you really have any hope of understanding it. I feel that some
Muslims with whom I have debated this verse before have simply brought their
preconceptions to the verse, not read any other part of chapter 5, let alone
the rest of the book, and thus have been unable to properly understand what
it says.
> They may be even more serious then the usage of the name "Muhammad"
> in itself. May the Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon the Prophet
> Muhammad. Allow me to re-post the verse in English as well as Hebrew:
As I am sure that you are aware, I am utterly convinced that the name
"Muhammad" does not exist there; the consonants are different (as I shall
show in a moment), the vowel points (diacritical marks) are different, and
there are other problems as well that exist if you try to turn "machmad"
into a proper noun. Anyway, more of this in a moment.
Song of Solomon 5:16 reads in English, as you helpfully explained:
> "His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my
> beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."
However, I believe that your transliteration of the verse was a little
faulty:
> "Chikoh mamtaqim v'chulo MACHAMADIM ze DODEE v'ze RA'EE, bano
> Yarushalaym"
The word I particular wanted to question was "machmad" which you have
somehow managed to turn into "machamadim" (surely not because it looks
closer to "Muhammad"?) The more common transliteration of the word is
"machmad"; for reference I checked the "New Strong's Concise Hebrew
Dictionary", available in most good book shops and online at, amongst many
other places:
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=04261
To confirm this, I checked the "Oxford English-Hebrew Dictionary" at the
weekend to make doubly sure.
I also had it helpfully pointed out to me by a friend who is considerably
more knowledgeable in Hebrew than I that, following your transliteration
system, we should transcribe MACHAMADDIM as the Hebrew has a daghesh in the
D of the mHmd root (H = Heth). But, of course, the double D doesn't fit with
Muhammad, who ought really to have a double M, which you merrily drop into
your transliteration later down your post (see below under your point 1,
where you have quietly turned your transliteration from "machamad" into
"machammad"; will admit this to be a typing mistake in any reply to this
post?)
Now we come to the crunch, the three words that you picked out (which you
helpfully capitalised in your transliteration above). It is your translation
of these three words that I wish to take issue with.
> 1) MACHAMMADIM - From "MACHAMAD" which in this particular verse is
> translated into "lovely". "Altogether" is added as a contextual
> reference to "v'chulo" which means "in entirety" or "absolutely".
> "MACHAMAD" means "desirable, praise worthy, beautiful, etc". Though it
> is archaic, It is found elsewhere in the Bible to describe precious
> and coveted items.
I am very pleased that you acknowledge that the adjective "machmad" is found
elsewhere in the Hebrew Old Testament. In fact it is found 13 times in total
(including SS 5:16). Now in your points (2) and (3) you base your entire
argument on the usage of words in other places in the Old Testament aside
from the Song of Solomon. This is a good principle to adopt, and I was
mystified as to why you didn't use it here. Let me help you by listing the
other twelve verses where "machmad" appears; in each case I have substituted
the name "Muhammad" so that you can see whether it fits. Here goes:
1 Kings 20:6 Yet I will send my servants unto thee to morrow about this
time, and they shall search thine house, and the houses of thy servants; and
it shall be, that whatsoever is MUHAMMAD in thine eyes, they shall put it
in their hand, and take it away.
2 Chronicles 36:19 And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall
of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all
the MUHAMMAD vessels thereof.
Isaiah 64:11 Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised
thee, is burned up with fire: and all our MUHAMMAD things are laid waste.
Lamentations 1:10 The adversary hath spread out his hand upon all her
MUHAMMAD things: for she hath seen that the heathen entered into her
sanctuary, whom thou didst command that they should not enter into thy
congregation.
Lamentations 1:11 All her people sigh, they seek bread; they have given
their MUHAMMAD things for meat to relieve the soul: see, O LORD, and
consider; for I am become vile.
Lamentations 2:4 He hath bent his bow like an enemy: he stood with his
right hand as an adversary, and slew all that were MUHAMMAD to the eye in
the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion: he poured out his fury like fire.
Ezekiel 24:16 Son of man, behold, I take away from thee the MUHAMMAD of
thine eyes with a stroke: yet neither shalt thou mourn nor weep, neither
shall thy tears run down.
Ezekiel 24:21 Speak unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD;
Behold, I will profane my sanctuary, the excellency of your strength, the
MUHAMMAD of your eyes, and that which your soul pitieth; and your sons and
your daughters whom ye have left shall fall by the sword.
Ezekiel 24:25 Also, thou son of man, shall it not be in the day when I take
from them their strength, the joy of their glory, the MUHAMMAD of their
eyes, and that whereupon they set their minds, their sons and their
daughters,
Hosea 9:6 For, lo, they are gone because of destruction: Egypt shall gather
them up, Memphis shall bury them: the MUHAMMAD places for their silver,
nettles shall possess them: thorns shall be in their tabernacles.
Hosea 9:16 Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no
fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the MUHAMMAD fruit
of their womb.
Joel 3:5 Because ye have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried into
your temples my goodly MUHAMMAD things
I think that it is very clear to any impartial observer that to substitute
"Muhammad" for "machmad" in any of these verses does not make sense, just as
it does not make sense in Song of Solomon 5:16. "Machmad" means "desire,
desirable thing, pleasant thing" in each and every verse in which it appears
in the Hebrew Old Testament.
> The fact that this "MACHAMAD" evidently may well be
> the Prophet Muhammad (May Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon him) has
> already been thoroughly outlined and established.
Laying aside the fact that "evidently may well be" is probably an oxymoron,
here are some further problems that need to be overcome if you are going to
try to show Muhammad's name is there in SS 5:16:
1) Muhammad's name in modern Hebrew consonants is not written the same as
"machmad". Here is the URL of the internet's most popular translation
software (available for free download):
>From that web site you can download a pretty nifty English - > Hebrew ->
English dictionary (about 7.48 Mb) and lo and behold, "Muhammad" is listed
in their dictionary. And there it is plain to see that "machmad" and
"Muhammad" look quite different. Basically, the name Muhammad is spelled in
Hebrew with a shureq (a long vowel represented by the letter Waw). In the
consonantal text of Song, for the word to spell Muhammad it would have to be
spelled MWXMD not MXMD. Here are the consonants of Muhammad (remember you
read Hebrew from right to left):
daleth - mem - cheyth - waw - mem
As opposed to "machmad", which of course is written:
daleth - mem - cheyth - mem
It is also worth pointing out that:
a) the Masoretic vowels also are inconsistent with the name Muhammad.
b) the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) made circa
150BC translates "machmad" as "epithumia", meaning "desirable".
2) The next problem is the major one; that "machmad" is not a proper noun
but is an adjective, linked to the noun in the sentence (in this case "he").
Hence "... [he (noun)] is [altogether lovely (adjective)] ...". The fact
that in this verse "machmad" is plural also testifies to this fact (along
with its use elsewhere in Scripture, see above). There is not a single
example in the whole Bible of the plural of an adjective being translated as
a proper name; indeed the only example of a name being written in the plural
is the name used for God, "Elohim"; the Hebrew "majestic plural" is never,
ever, applied to the name of a man.
3) Following on from above, we have the fact that "machmad" does possess a
proper noun counterpart linked through its root "chamdah" -> "Chemdan" or
"Hemdan" (the eldest son of Dishon, son of Anah the Horite; see Genesis
36:26). If SS 5:16 had
intended to be a proper noun (i.e. a name) then it would have been written
"hemdan" (nuwn - daleth - mem - cheyth [read from right to left]) not
"machmad" (daleth - mem - cheyth - mem)
"Machmad" is not Muhammad, and to try to translate as such utterly
disregards the context, as well as all the rules of Hebrew linguistics and
phoenetics.
Anyway, onto to the second word that you brought up:
> 2) DODEE - From "DOWD" (pronounced d - long "o" - d). In this
> particular verse it is translated into "beloved". However, "DOWD" also
> means "paternal uncle", that is to mean the father's brother, in
> Hebrew. This complicates the verse and makes it all the more
> interesting. In the book of Leviticus the word "dowd" is found 5 times
> [10:4, 20:20 (twice in this verse), 25:49 (twice in this verse)] and
> used as "paternal uncle" only and not used any other way. In the book
> of Numbers in 36:11 where it is said "..were married unto their
> FATHER'S BROTHERS' sons." the word used is "DOWD". There are many
> other examples where "DOWD" is used as "paternal uncle" (father's
> brother) and not "beloved".
Once again, I would point out the importance of translating in context; it
is important to look at how a word is used in a book, in the whole of the
Hebrew Scriptures, and to examine the surrounding words in order to
understand the meaning. This is utterly vital in the case of a word like
"dowd", which does have several meanings. "The New Strong's Concise Hebrew
Dictionary" gives the meaning of "dowd" as:
"loved one, beloved, love, uncle"
You can see the entry for yourself online at:
www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=01730
An Interesting statistic for you; the word "dowd" occurs 61 times in 53
verses in the Hebrew Scriptures; 32 of those occurences are in Song of
Solomon ALONE, where EVERY time the word is translated "beloved". This is
because in each case the context (including 5:16) does not allow "uncle", as
it would make no sense. The key is to read the whole book and this becomes
very clear.
For example, look what happens if you try to turn "dowd" into Uncle in this
verses:
Song of Solomon 1:2 : "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for
thy UNCLE is better than wine."
I would also suggest that you read passages in the Song like 5:4 and ask
yourself, if this is her uncle she is talking about, what is he doing
exactly ...?!?!?
In total, "dowd" is translated "beloved/well-beloved/loves" some 43 times
out of 61 occurences in the Hebrew Scriptures. The word "dowd" is only
translated "Uncle" 16 times (some of which you have mentioned below). In
each case, the context is clear as to why "Uncle" is the correct
translation.
Now it is very, very important to translate in context. Just because a word
has multiple meanings, that does not mean you can pick and choose which
meaning to translate; you need to read the whole verse - > chapter -> book
to +understand+ what is meant. Let me give you an example of what I mean
with an example from English. Now many words in English have different
meanings, for example "blue" --- which can mean either a colour, or feeling
low. However in English, like Hebrew, the context of the rest of the
sentence explains the meaning: "Jane painted the kitchen blue" --- it is
obvious we are talking about a colour here, not a kitchen in need of Prozac.
The same is true in Hebrew; read the context for each occurence of "dowd"
and it can be determined what the meaning is. Where "Uncle" is meant it is
clear; however in Song of Solomon 5:16 the word has to be translated
"beloved" --- "uncle"
simply will not fit, whatever presumptions one may bring to the text.
This becomes even clearer when one turns to the references you quoted where
"dowd" is translated "uncle". Simply looking at those verses will show you
why the translators corrected picked "uncle" in these cases:
* In Levitivus 20:20 the word "dowd" forms part of a command not to lie with
your "uncles wife". Clearly from the context, "uncle" is correct. The verse
is in the context of God's commands not to commit adultery/incest with close
family relatives. Reading Leviticus 20:17-21 the context is clear and so
"dowd" can correctly be translated "uncle".
* Levitivus 10:4 is talking about "Uzziel the Uncle [dowd] of Aaron";
therefore again the context can be deduced; we know who Uzziel was (c.f.
Exodus 6:18) and so we can work out the context and translate accordingly.
* Levitivus 25:49 gives a list of family members who can redeem someone from
slavery ... the list consists of brother ... uncle <dowd> ... cousin ...
near kinsman". The translation "uncle" fits the surrounding text.
So in every case where the word "dowd" is translated "uncle", the context
forces this translation.
In the case of the Song of Solomon, Muhammad can only be found, and "dowd"
translated as "uncle" only by ignoring the context of the rest of the book,
and applying one rule to a word in 5:16 and a different rule to the same
word a few verses previously. As it seems you are unaware, let me explain to
you the wider context of the Song of Solomon, although at only eight
chapters long I would recommend you read it for yourself:
* The book is a love song between Solomon ("the lover") and his wife ("the
beloved")
* Solomon is identified in several verses --- I would especially point you
to 1:1 and 8:12.
* The whole content of the book describes the deep love and sexual
relationship between the king and his wife; it is interesting that some
Muslims have criticised this and asked why it is in the Bible. Equally, in
the Orthodox Jewish tradition, men are forbidden to read the book until they
have come of age. The relationship described between Solomon and the
Shulamite maid is that of husband and wife; not uncle and niece!
* The geographical context is Palestine; look at the imagery used throughout
the book, especially the places mentioned.
Both the context and the usage of "dowd" in the rest of the book neccesitate
that "dowd" is translated as "beloved" in this verse, as it is throughout
the other occurences in Song of Solomon.
Finally, we come to the third word that caught your attention:
> 3) RA'EE - From "RAY'AA" which is translated in this particular verse
> into "friend". However, "RA'YAA" in Hebrew means "co-worker in same
> area, field or margin". It is translated as "neighbor" 102 times in
> the Old Testament. Actually, it is translated as "neighbor" more than
> any other definition in the Old Testament. It is used to mean one
> member of the same organization or group. In chapter 11 of Genesis it
> is used in reference to the group of builders raising the Tower of
> Babel. Co-workers, comrades etc would all be considered "RAY'AA".
>
> Thus, if the "MACHAMAD" in this verse 5:16 of Shir Hashirim (Song of
> Songs) is a mere reference to some love sick girl's object of desire
> why is this "MACHAMAD" called the girl's "PATERNAL UNCLE" as well as
> "COMRADE" or "CO-WORKER"? If a girl was merely describing her
> obsession why would she use such utterly unromantic terms such as
> these which allude to a male co-worker who is possibly a paternal
> uncle?
The mistake you have made here is that "rea'" (the correct transliteration
of the word) is never once in Scripture translated as "comrade". Again, like
the double "mm" you surreptiously introduced into "machmad", I believe you
are trying to force your own agenda into the text, and adopt a translation
that the Hebrew does not allow. According to "The New Strong's Concise
Hebrew Dictionary", the statistics for the word rea' (long vowel) are as
follows:
neighbour 102, friend 42, another 23, fellow 10, companion 5, other 2,
brother 1, husband 1, lovers 1
As with "dowd" above, to find the meaning in SS 5:16 one simply has to look
at the surrounding context; and in the Song of Solomon this word is used in
opposition to the female ra'yah ("companion" or "friend"). See especially
verse 4:1 'behold you are
fair my companion, behold you are fair'. In 5:16 we simply have the male
counterpart title; "he is altogether lovely, this is my beloved friend
(rea')."
IN CONCLUSION
In closing, I can fully understand why it is that Muslims like Shibli so
earnestly desire to find Muhammad in Song of Solomon 5:16. Muhammad claimed
that he was prophesied in the former scriptures, and so Muslims constantly
scrutinise the Old and New Testaments. However, I have to say that of all
the "Muhammad in the Bible" claims, this abuse of Song of Solomon 5:16 is
the weakest of all. To find Muhammad there requires bad grammar, the casting
aside of rules of transliteration and phoenetics, and the reading of a verse
twisted entirely out of its context. I believe that Scripture should be
treated with reverence and respect, and trying to mistranslate it to prove a
point is reprehensible.
No amount of wishful thinking can produce a reference to the prophet in SS
5:16 and I hope that in this long and throrough post I have managed to
explain some of the reasons why this is not the case.
Warm regards and blessings in the name of Jesus.
Andy Bannister
Shibli Zaman
<an...@bannister.screaming.net> wrote:
This post is quite lengthy, due to the nature of this issue. I tried
my best to be as brief and to the point as possible for the sake of
the reader. I believe I have done this as much as was possible without
neglecting the points. Please take the time to objectively and
comprehensively read this article.
>However, I believe that your transliteration of the verse was a little
>faulty:
>
>> "Chikoh mamtaqim v'chulo MACHAMADIM ze DODEE v'ze RA'EE, bano
>> Yarushalaym"
>
>The word I particular wanted to question was "machmad" which you have
>somehow managed to turn into "machamadim" (surely not because it looks
>closer to "Muhammad"?) The more common transliteration of the word is
>"machmad"; for reference I checked the "New Strong's Concise Hebrew
>Dictionary", available in most good book shops and online at, amongst many
>other places:
>
>http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=04261
The word is "MACHAMADIM" and, yes, it does look a lot like "MUHAMMAD"
doesn't it? I am glad this was pointed out by the opposing side. I
challenge one and all to open up the phone book (its not that hard)
and dial the local Synagogue and ask them to read Shir Hashirim 5:16
on the phone to you. You will then hear that the word is "MACHAMADIM"
and not "MACHMAD" as this author states.
This serious blunder should serve to show all that there is an extreme
lack of objectivity from the opposing side of this issue. Their
position should be seen for what it is and that is a very aggressive
campaign to DISPROVE any reference to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and
Blessings be upon him) in the Bible rather than to actually study and
research whether he is mentioned therein or not.
I would like to request the opposing side to please use actual Hebrew
codices of Shir Hashirim. Please don't waste our time with web pages.
Web pages are not a serious source of research. I am sure driving to
the local Synagogue is not that much of a pain.
This is the problem when we have people wanting to discuss texts
thousands of years old using an online web based database tool. The
"Bible Study Tools" site uses a cgi based query method which can only
do searches and queries based on words in their unconjugated form. I
am sure if anyone emails them they will tell reply in the same. This
is highly inadequate when studying the Old Testament in Hebrew
seriously as the admins of that web site will gladly tell you
themselves. Its for novelty purposes and NOT research!
>To confirm this, I checked the "Oxford English-Hebrew Dictionary" at the
>weekend to make doubly sure.
You looked up the word "MACHMAD" because thats how you saw it written
on your nifty little "Bible Study Tools" web site. You did no research
on the actual text. The only time you went to a book was not even
based on the actual Hebrew text of Shir Hashirim.
>I also had it helpfully pointed out to me by a friend who is considerably
>more knowledgeable in Hebrew than I that, following your transliteration
>system, we should transcribe MACHAMADDIM as the Hebrew has a daghesh in the
>D of the mHmd root (H = Heth). But, of course, the double D doesn't fit with
>Muhammad, who ought really to have a double M, which you merrily drop into
>your transliteration later down your post (see below under your point 1,
>where you have quietly turned your transliteration from "machamad" into
>"machammad"; will admit this to be a typing mistake in any reply to this
>post?)
In Semitic languages there exists what is called "Qal-qala" in Arabic
which is to bounce off of certain letters. The acronym "qTb-jd" is
used to designate this rule. The reason beiing that these are the
letters which are DOUBLED and bounced off of whether there appears a
"shadda", "sukoon" or not. They are "qaaf", "Taa", "baa", "jeem" and
"DAAL" (Daled in Hebrew). Thus "MACHAMADD" in Hebrew is correct
articulation of the name. The double "M" in the Arabic "MUHAMMAD"
comes from a "shadda" on the "meem". Of course none of this makes
sense to the opposition since they admit they haven't even studied the
subject.
Before, I was chided for using Arabic rules for Hebrew lexics. Now the
Christian is doing the same. Amusing. Please be consistent.
>I am very pleased that you acknowledge that the adjective "machmad" is found
>elsewhere in the Hebrew Old Testament. In fact it is found 13 times in total
>(including SS 5:16). Now in your points (2) and (3) you base your entire
[snipped for brevity]
>mystified as to why you didn't use it here. Let me help you by listing the
>other twelve verses where "machmad" appears; in each case I have substituted
>the name "Muhammad" so that you can see whether it fits. Here goes:
>1 Kings 20:6 Yet I will send my servants unto thee to morrow about this
>time, and they shall search thine house, and the houses of thy servants; and
>it shall be, that whatsoever is MUHAMMAD in thine eyes, they shall put it
>in their hand, and take it away.
[rest snipped for brevity]
The author is trying to maintain that since the word "MACHAMAD" is
used elsewhere in the Bible as other things it CAN'T be a reference to
the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon him). Let us look at
the names of the other Prophets in the Bible. This is actually quite
funny.
THE PROPHET ADAM = "AADAAM" IN HEBREW WHICH MEANS "MAN" [possibly
derived from "dam" which means "bloody", "ruddy" etc. in Hebrew]
"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of
cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon
the earth, and every ADAM" [Genesis 7:21]
"And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice,
but they could not: so there were lice upon ADAM, and upon beast."
[Exodus 8:18]
"...at the hand of every ADAM'S brother will I require the life of
ADAM." [Genesis 9:5]
Its used a total of 489 times as a word meaning "man" or "mankind". I
don't think anyone wants me to type out all 489. Certainly, a lot more
than the 13 "MACHMADS" of various forms in the Old Testament, now
isn't it?
EVE, WIFE OF ADAM = "CHAVAH" IN HEBREW MEANING "LIVING" OR "DISPLAY"
"I will EVE thee, hear me; and that which I have seen I will declare;"
[Job 15:17]
"Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night EVE knowledge."
[Pslams 19:2]
THE PROPHET NOAH = "NOACH" IN HEBREW WHICH MEANS "REST"
[2 Chronicles 6:41] not written because to write "NOAH" in the place
of the English was blasphemy towards God in my opinion. You are all
welcome to check this one for yourselves. Replace "rest" with "NOAH".
"But the other Jews that were in the king's provinces gathered
themselves together, and stood for their lives, and had NOAH from
their enemies...and on the fourteenth day of the same NOAH they, and
made it a day of feasting and gladness." [Esther 9:16-17]
THE PROPHET ABRAHAM = "ABRAAHAAM" IN HEBREW; MEANING (supposedly)
UNKNOWN!
The Prophet with the "IM" royal plural! Will be discussed in this post
down where it is mentioned as well as in a seperate post.
THE PROPHET ISAAC = "YITZHAQ" IN HEBREW MEANING "LAUGH"
"And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his
daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will
destroy this city. But he seemed as one that ISAAC unto his sons in
law." [Genesis 19:14]
"And Sarah said, God hath made me to ISAAC, so that all that hear will
ISAAC with me." [Genesis 21:6]
"...they said, Call for Samson, that he may make us ISAAC. And they
called for Samson out of the prison house; and he made them ISAAC: and
they set him between the pillars." [Judges 16:25]
THE PROPHET ISHMAEL = "SHAMAA`" + "ALE" MEANING "GOD HAS HEARD"
"And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child,
and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because ISHAMEL
thy affliction."[Genesis 16:11]
Allah heard her prayer thats why he was even named Ishmael. Names are
given WITH meanings in mind. The fact that they have meanings is a
SUPPORT. To use it as an argument that such and such word can't be
used as a name because it is used in spoken language is insipid as we
are plainly seeing in my examples.
THE PROPHET MOSES = "MOSHEH" IN HEBREW WHICH MEANS "TO DRAW OUT"
(possibly a derivative of the Aramaic "Mawshah")
"He sent from above, he took me; he MOSES me of many waters;"
[II Samuel 22:17]
"He sent from above, he took me, he MOSES me out of many waters."
[Psalms 18:16]
Due to this, many Reform Jews say that Moses was a metaphor in
reference to the Jews being drawn out from Egypt and that he never
actually existed or brought any law. Such logic is a modern day
"propheticide" or killing of Prophets.
"Here we have proven that there was no Moses who led the Jews our of
Egypt! 'MOSHEH' was a reference to the Jews being 'drawn out' of Egypt
as the word means in Hebrew!" [STRONG sarcasm here]
I could go on forever but I've already written so much and tasked of
the reader plenty. You all get the point quite plainly and clearly
that to say "MACHAMAD" can't be a person is quite ridiculous as we
have seen very, very clearly that ALL the Prophets names are found
elsewhere in the Bible used as words with meanings that have nothing
to do with the Prophets.
Do not get into the practice of translating names. You could lose your
entire religion from it as it seems the Bible's early translators
attempted to erase all evidence of Islam from their scriptures. They
failed.
>Laying aside the fact that "evidently may well be" is probably an oxymoron,
Wrong.
"Oxymoron: A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory
terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful
optimist."
Now let us see if I used an oxymoron:
"Evidently: 1. Obviously; clearly. 2. According to the evidence
available."
Thus, based on the evidence available (or obviously) it is entirely
possible this could refer to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings
upon him).
This was pathetic on the part of the opposing side and was not
appreciated by me at all. Displaying an extreme lack of knowledge in
Hebrew as well as his native English language and then trying to
correct others in either language is inconsiderate to say the least.
It is a display of incompetence in debating this subject.
>here are some further problems that need to be overcome if you are going to
>try to show Muhammad's name is there in SS 5:16:
>
>1) Muhammad's name in modern Hebrew consonants is not written the same as
>"machmad". Here is the URL of the internet's most popular translation
>software (available for free download):
>
>www.babylon.com
I wish our friend would stop using the Internet as his sole research
tool. In semitic languages there are numerous ways of spelling the
same name. The name "YITZHAQ" (Isaac), for example, is spelled
different ways throughout the Bible. This is attributed to its mixed
Hebrew/Aramaic/Amharic/etc origin. The name "MUHAMMAD" is spelled as
"MUHAMMAD", "MAHMOOD", "AHMAD", etc. These are all arguments which
someone with any knowledge of Eastern languages would never resort to.
>2) The next problem is the major one; that "machmad" is not a proper noun
>but is an adjective, linked to the noun in the sentence (in this case "he").
Really? Let us look at the other Prophets' names:
Adam: "Bloody" adjective.
Eve: "Living" or "Display" both adjectives.
Noah: "Rest" verb.
Isaac: "Laugh" verb.
Ishmael: "God heard" phrase.
Judah: "Praised" adjective.
Moses: "Drawn out" adjective.
David: "Beloved" adjective.
Solomon: "Peace" noun
JESUS: "Saved" adjective. (why the opposite of "Savior"? Interesting
question but I'll stick to the topic.)
>with its use elsewhere in Scripture, see above). There is not a single
>example in the whole Bible of the plural of an adjective being translated as
>a proper name; indeed the only example of a name being written in the plural
>is the name used for God, "Elohim"; the Hebrew "majestic plural" is never,
>ever, applied to the name of a man.
Is that so? The reason he thinks that is because his only source is a
web page with a Hebrew Lexicon. When studying the culture and ways of
those before Abraham, Hebrew anthropological literature is rendered
useless as this is before the Jews even existed as a nation. Abraham
was from Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq) and migrated to Palestine. Let
us now dissect this issue.
"ABRAHAM" THE PROPHET WITH THE ROYAL PLURAL NAME:
First he is referred to as "ABRAM" in Genesis (spelled "ALEF, BET,
RESH, MEM") :
"Now the LORD had said unto ABRAM, Get thee out of thy country, and
>from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will
shew thee:" [Genesis 12:1]
Then he is renamed "ABRAHAM" by God (spelled "ALEF, BET, RESH, *HEH*,
MEM):
"Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall
be ABRAHAM; for a father of many nations have I made thee."
So the Christian says he was named "ABRAHAM" since God told him "..for
a father of many nations have I made thee." So, the Christian says
"AB" means "father of" in Semitic languages, thus, he was before
"AB+RAM" meaning "Father of RAM" then he was renamed by God, "Father
of RAHAM". The problem with that is there are no words known as "RAM"
or "RAHAM" in the Hebrew language. There is no word "RAM" spelled
"RESH, MEM". There is no word known as "RAHAM" spelled "RESH, HEH,
MEM". The closest thing is "RECHEM" in Hebrew which means the same as
it means in Arabic, "Compassionate". Anis Shorrosh, the outdated
Palestinian pro-Israeli Christian Missionary, foolishly tried to
assert the Qur'an had a mistake in its use of the name "Ibraheem" and
should have named Abraham "Abu Raheem" since it meant "Father of
Mercy". The problem with this is the "RECHEM" is spelled "RESH,
*CHET*, MEM" and not "RESH, *HEH*, MEM". There is a huge difference as
one is not even a word.
There is a serious dilemma with the existing Christian beliefs
regarding where these names, "Abram" and "Abraham", came from. So what
IS the origin of these names. If you are objective and aren't
clutching at straws to mold everything to fit your beliefs the answer
is QUITE simple:
"ABRAM" (alef, bet, resh, mem) = ABR + M (royal plural), "ABR" (alef,
bet, resh) = "Supplementary wing of the Kings of Mesopotamia
(Babylonia/Chaldea)." Title used for those under the Mesopotamian
Kings' rule.
"ABRAHAM" (alef, bet, resh, mem) = ABRAH + M (royal plural), "ABRAH"
(alef, bet, resh, *heh*) = "Supplementary wing of the One God." God
saying Abraham are not the Chaldean king's subject, but GOD's subject.
Our friend Andy can resort to his web tool to verify this information
here:
ABER:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=083&version=
ABRAH:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=084&version=
ABRAHAM:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=085&version=
It was nice to notice that in the web based Hebrew Lexicon which our
friend, James, uses, it lists ABER, ABRAH, and ABRAHAM all in order.
Their assigned "Strong numbers" are 83,84, and 85 respectively.
So it is quite simple. "Abram" (wing of the Mesopotamian rulers) lived
in Mesopotamia in the Babylonian/Chaldean nation [See Genesis 11:28,
11:31] They were pagans who deified their monarchs and rulers. God
instruced "Abram" to leave this land so He could show him a better
land [See Genesis 12:1].
In Genesis 17:5 God makes His covenant with "Abram" regarding the new
land he has been promised for the worshippers of the One God and
renames him "Abraham" (Wing of the One God).
Any who wish to challenge this theory must find "RAM" and "RAHAM"
(with a *HEH* not *CHET*) in Hebrew which makes sense according to the
context of the story of Abraham.
>"Machmad" is not Muhammad, and to try to translate as such utterly
>disregards the context, as well as all the rules of Hebrew linguistics and
>phoenetics.
Subhaan Allah, talk about "the pot calling the kettle black". This is
an English language proverb which is used in reference to a person
calling another something which he himself is.
We Muslims have no problem adhering to Hebrew linguistic (nahw) and
phoenetic (tajweed) rules as Hebrew is a sister language to our own
Arabic. Much of the Old Testament was actually relayed in Aramaic and
Amharic which are much closer to Arabic than to Hebrew.
However, we have an English speaking person who is at a kindergarten
level in Hebrew telling us what IS and ISN'T in the Old Testament
rather than objectively presenting his findings as hypotheses.
>understand the meaning. This is utterly vital in the case of a word like
>"dowd", which does have several meanings. "The New Strong's Concise Hebrew
>Dictionary" gives the meaning of "dowd" as:
>
>"loved one, beloved, love, uncle"
[snipped for brevity]
>For example, look what happens if you try to turn "dowd" into Uncle in this
>verses:
>
>Song of Solomon 1:2 : "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for
>thy UNCLE is better than wine."
Now look at what anarchy happens when you use "BELOVED" instead of
"UNCLE" for the word "DOWD":
"And if a man shall lie with his BELOVED's wife, he hath uncovered his
BELOVED's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die
childless." [ Leviticus 20:20]
"For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters
of Zelophehad, were married unto their BELOVED's sons:"
[Numbers 36:11]
"And the name of Saul's wife was Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz: and
the name of the captain of his host was Abner, the son of Ner, Saul's
BELOVED." [1 Samuel 14:50]
Now let us see Shir Hashirim 5:16 in either context:
With ":Beloved":
"His mouth is most sweet, Yea he is MACHAMAD, this is my BELOVED, and
this is my friend, oh daughters of Jerusalem."
With "Uncle":
"His mouth is most sweet, yea he is MACHAMAD, this is my UNCLE and
this is my friend, oh daughters of Jerusalem."
The word "DOWD" *MAY* mean "BELOVED" in Shir Hashirim 5:16 and it may
*NOT*. Either way it does not deplete even a slight fraction from the
position that this verse may be referring to the Prophet Muhammad
(Peace and Blessings be Upon him). The fact that "DOWD" meant "UNCLE"
so clearly did seem to alarm and scare the author in that he dedicated
well over 10 paragraphs to it, whereas, I just wrote one. Amusing.
>Finally, we come to the third word that caught your attention:
>
>> 3) RA'EE - From "RAY'AA" which is translated in this particular verse
>> into "friend". However, "RA'YAA" in Hebrew means "co-worker in same
[snipped for brevity]
>The mistake you have made here is that "rea'" (the correct transliteration
>of the word) is never once in Scripture translated as "comrade". Again, like
First of all, the word is "RAYAA" with a glottal stop at the end. It
is spelled "RESH, AYIN" and pronounced " RAY'AA' ". I don't know where
the opposition got "rea" from which would be pronounced "ree-uh" and
is completely incorrect.
Secondly, he says the word is never translated as "comrade". I don't
want to believe he is that weak in understanding. Let us look at what
I said regarding the word "RAYAA'" just in case:
"3) RA'EE - From 'RAY'AA' which is translated in this particular verse
into 'friend'. However, 'RA'YAA' in Hebrew means 'co-worker in same
area, field or margin'. It is translated as 'neighbor' 102 times in
the Old Testament. Actually, it is translated as 'neighbor' more than
any other definition in the Old Testament. It is used to mean one
member of the same organization or group. In chapter 11 of Genesis it
is used in reference to the group of builders raising the Tower of
Babel. Co-workers, comrades etc would all be considered 'RAY'AA'."
Obviously I am saying that the word "RA'EE" means one is not just a
friend but a companion in purpose or "comrade" being the word you
picked.
Now let us see how it is used in the Old Testament:
"And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she
goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a
turtledove, and a young pigeon. And he took unto him all these, and
divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against ANOTHER
(RAYAA): but the birds divided he not." [Genesis 15:9-10]
Were the animals all friends of each other?? Did they used to go out
and party every once in a while? Obviously not. Thus, outlining this
word means a companion in purpose.
Again, the same applies for this as did the previous contention with
"DOWD" its not even important. The analysis of "DOWD" and "RAYAA'"
were simply interesting side bars.
>that the Hebrew does not allow. According to "The New Strong's Concise
>Hebrew Dictionary", the statistics for the word rea' (long vowel) are as
>follows:
>
>neighbour 102, friend 42, another 23, fellow 10, companion 5, other 2,
>brother 1, husband 1, lovers 1
I am happy to see that the opposing side knows how to run a web
search. I am also happy to see that he displays "LOVERS" IS ONLY USED
ONCE.
>IN CONCLUSION
>
>In closing, I can fully understand why it is that Muslims like Shibli so
>earnestly desire to find Muhammad in Song of Solomon 5:16. Muhammad claimed
>that he was prophesied in the former scriptures, and so Muslims constantly
>scrutinise the Old and New Testaments. However, I have to say that of all
QUITE on the contrary! If the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be
upon him) is mentioned in the Bible then it will serve as a "wowie"
and no more. Likewise, if he is NOT mentioned in the Bible it means
nothing at all to us.
If the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon him) is not
mentioned in the Bible the Christian feels at ease. However, if the
Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon him) *IS* mentioned in
the Bible then the Christian is FORCED to accept Islam as the
fulfillment of his/her own Bible.
So as you see, in contrast to what you say, it doesn't matter to the
Muslims if the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon him) is
mentioned in the Bible or not. However, the Christians' entire
religion depends on the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon
him) *NOT* being in the Bible. So much for objectivity.
Unfortunately, for the Christians, the evidence supporting the
hypothesis that the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon him)
is, indeed, the "MACHAMAD" of Shir Hashirim 5:16 is quite overwhelming
and will always be a terrible scare to the Christian whose goal is to
preserve his/her Christianity rather than objectively finding the
Truth.
Warm Regards,
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.Net
MyTajMahal
writes:
>I
>challenge one and all to open up the phone book (its not that hard)
>and dial the local Synagogue and ask them to read Shir Hashirim 5:16
>on the phone to you. You will then hear that the word is "MACHAMADIM"
>and not "MACHMAD" as this author states.
Then Shibli should ask a second question from the Synagogue before he hangs up
the phone and ask if this is the name of Muhammad and if this passage is in
reference to Muhammad (prophet)
Please publish the answer they give. This might answer the grand challenge
Shilbi issues to "one and all".
Kind regards to all who seek truth
Jameel
PS: As a matter of interest I did this in person during a lunch break 2 weeks
ago and the Rabbi, at my local yeshiva, nearly choked on his sandwich :-) He
now has a strange look in his eye when he sees me - maybe he thinks I'm bonkers
:-)
James Dowdeswell
> The word is "MACHAMADIM"
Almost there. It's "ma-ha-mad-dim"* - Exactly the same as yours but with a
doubling of the dalet due to the dagesh in the heart of it.
* - my "h" is a "het" and not a "he" (and therefore pronounced like the "ch"
in the Scots word "loch"). I've explained this (for a third time) incase
you were think of disputing this again.
> and, yes, it does look a lot like "MUHAMMAD"
> doesn't it? I am glad this was pointed out by the opposing side. I
> challenge one and all to open up the phone book (its not that hard)
> and dial the local Synagogue and ask them to read Shir Hashirim 5:16
> on the phone to you.
I am quite capable of reading it for myself (in hebrew).
> You will then hear that the word is "MACHAMADIM"
> and not "MACHMAD" as this author states.
Except that the dalet is doubled as mentioned above. The word *is*
"mah-mad" but it appears in its plural form "ma-ha-mad-dim." The word
"mim-taq-qim" (most sweet) in the preceeding phrase is also pluralised.
> This serious blunder should serve to show all that there is an extreme
> lack of objectivity from the opposing side of this issue.
Andy Bannister did indeed make a mistake. However please don't forget that
you also have made elementary (hebrew) mistakes in your posts to me (and you
make more mistakes below).
> I would like to request the opposing side to please use actual Hebrew
> codices of Shir Hashirim.
Which I always have done.
> Please don't waste our time with web pages.
Which I have never done.
> Web pages are not a serious source of research.
It is the integrity of the information that counts and not the media. You
should know that.
> In Semitic languages there exists what is called "Qal-qala" in Arabic
> which is to bounce off of certain letters. The acronym "qTb-jd" is
> used to designate this rule. The reason beiing that these are the
> letters which are DOUBLED and bounced off of whether there appears a
> "shadda", "sukoon" or not. They are "qaaf", "Taa", "baa", "jeem" and
> "DAAL" (Daled in Hebrew). Thus "MACHAMADD" in Hebrew is correct
> articulation of the name.
The reason the dalet is doubled is because the word is pluralised and
therefore the dalet has taken a dagesh. I cannot believe that you are
trying to convince SRI readers that "MACHAMADD" (with the dalet doubled) is
the correct hebrew articulation. Do you say "d-da-vid-d" instead of
"da-vid"?
You are inventing hebrew rules just to win an argument. The ironic thing is
that you didn't have to do this in responce to Andy Bannister's comment.
> The double "M" in the Arabic "MUHAMMAD"
> comes from a "shadda" on the "meem".
We are discussing a (classical) hebrew text and not an arabic one. In
"ma-ha-mad-dim" there is no dagesh in the (first) "mem" and therefore it is
not doubled.
> Of course none of this makes
> sense to the opposition since they admit they haven't even studied the
> subject.
It astounds me that you even try to belittle Andy Bannister when he has
corrected you. My advise to you would be to write a quick note admitting to
your mistake before Andy Bannister gets his reply in.
> The Prophet with the "IM" royal plural! Will be discussed in this post
> down where it is mentioned as well as in a seperate post.
What?! You don't even have to read hebrew to see that "ab-ra-ham" does not
end in "im." Where is the long "hireq"? And I hope you realise that a long
"hireq" contains a yod. You do realise this don't you?
> "ABRAHAM" THE PROPHET WITH THE ROYAL PLURAL NAME:
Non-sense.
> meaning "Father of RAM"
Non-sense. Abram means "exalted father" and not "father of RAM."
> There is no word "RAM" spelled
> "RESH, MEM".
Can I point you to the vocabulary on p.307 of "A Practical Grammar for
Classical Hebrew" by Professor J. Weingreen. He writes:
high, to be "rum": perf. "ram"...
"ab-ram" means "exalted father".
> If you are objective and aren't
> clutching at straws to mold everything to fit your beliefs the answer
> is QUITE simple:
I think it is clear to the reader who is molding everything to fit their
beliefs.
> "ABRAM" (alef, bet, resh, mem) = ABR + M (royal plural), "ABR" (alef,
> bet, resh) = "Supplementary wing of the Kings of Mesopotamia
> (Babylonia/Chaldea)." Title used for those under the Mesopotamian
> Kings' rule.
"Royal plural"? It isn't even a "plural". Where is the "yod" before the
"mem"?
> It was nice to notice that in the web based Hebrew Lexicon which our
> friend, James, uses, it lists ABER, ABRAH, and ABRAHAM all in order.
I don't use and have never used a web based hebrew lexicon. Where did you
get this from? In this discussion I have only used books that I personally
own and they are all beside me on my book shelf.
> Likewise, if he is NOT mentioned in the Bible it means
> nothing at all to us.
How sad. You blindly accept Muhammad's claim that he was foretold in
Scriptures. No wonder false prophets find it so easy to find followers.
Now since you didn't reply to my last posting let me re-ask my question
here:
Narrated Ata bin Yasar:
I met Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al-'As and asked him, "Tell me about the
description of Allah's Apostle which is mentioned in Torah. He replied,
'Yes. By Allah, he is described in Torah with some of the qualities
attributed to him in the Quran as follows:
"O Prophet ! We have sent you as a witness (for Allah's True religion)
And a giver of glad tidings (to the faithful believers), And a warner (to
the
unbelievers) And guardian of the illiterates. You are My slave and My
messenger (i.e. Apostle). I have named you "Al-Mutawakkil" (who depends
upon Allah). You are neither discourteous, harsh Nor a noise-maker in the
markets. And you do not do evil to those Who do evil to you, but you deal
With them with forgiveness and kindness. Allah will not let him (the
Prophet) Die
till he makes straight the crooked people by making them say: "None has the
right to be worshipped but Allah," With which will be opened blind eyes And
deaf ears and enveloped hearts."
(Al-Bukhari, vol. 3, book 34, no. 335)
Where does the Torah say this? Was it just wishful thinking.
You replied by quoting Isaiah. And as I pointed out to you, Moses didn't
write Isaiah. So the question is still open and I will continue to wait for
a responce.
God's blessings in Jesus,
James.
Saqib Virk
news:8a4ihm$guc$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> Dear Shibli,
>
> > The word is "MACHAMADIM"
> Almost there. It's "ma-ha-mad-dim"* - Exactly the same as yours but with
a
> doubling of the dalet due to the dagesh in the heart of it.
SV
Lets look at the Song of Songs another way.
"My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand."
[Song of Solomon 5:10]
The chiefest among ten thousand is also 'Mahammadim' six verses later. The
words "he is altogether lovely" reads in Hebrew as "he is Mahamaddim."
(or something close to it)
"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved,
and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem." [Song of Solomon 5:16]
Who is this chiefest of ten thousand called 'Mahammadim'?
"And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them;
he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints:
from his right hand went a fiery law for them." [Deut 33:2]
It is Muhammad(saaws) who led thousands, bearing a fiery law, from Paran.
Paran is part of Arabia. Muhammad(saaws) led ten thousand of his followers
>from Medina to Mecca. Leading with the 'fiery law', the Quran. It is this
Prophet that rose up from the brothers of the Israelites. It is this Prophet
about whom both Moses(as) and Jesus(as), among others, prophecied.
Believe it if you have the strength to bear the truth, James.
--
Wasalaam,
Saqib Virk
Andy Bannister
I hate to throw a spanner in the works, but the "HE" in the passage below
refers to God himself. If you are therefore trying to suggest THE LORD
(Hebrew YHWH) = MUHAMMAD then you are guilty of the most gross blasphemy!
A second problem is that the text in Hebrew is plural, literally "ten
thousands" of saints (as you have written below). Therefore we are talking
here about at least twenty thousand people. Obviously this second point is
far less significant than your trying to turn Muhammad into God, but shows
none the less that Muhammad and his followers fell well short of this total.
I hope you will apologise for your offensive suggestion that Muhammad has
now become God.
Many blessings in Jesus,
Andy Bannister
Andy Bannister
Thank you for your very long and thorough reply to my rebuttal to your post,
"More on the Machmad of Song of Solomon". I am sorry it has taken a while
for me to reply --- your post did not appear on either of my newsfeeds for
some reason, and it was only when I happened to log in to www.deja.com that
I actually found it.
Now in your reply you raised a number of interesting points, and so I will
work my way through these one at a time. I apologise in advance to other
readers of this thread, who may find this long, boring, and technical.
However I would encourage people to persevere and stick with it, because
there herein lies an important point; to the casual observer, there may seem
an outward similarity between the word "machmad" (at the centre of this
debate) and "Muhammad". Of course, it is equally true that to the casual
observer that there is a similarity between the French for fish ("poisson")
and the English word "poison". Should this put one off ordering plaice in
Paris? No, of course not, for a short study would reveal that there is no
etymological link between the two words! And the same is true of Song of
Solomon; actually *studying* the subject soon reveals the glaring problems
that lie at the heart of the hypothesis put forward by Shibli et al. Hence
if it is truth that we are after, a little study is required. Please stick
with this post.
Anyway, on with my reply to Shibli's response to my rebuttal:
>> The word I particularly wanted to question was "machmad" which you have
>> somehow managed to turn into "machamadim" (surely not because it
>> looks closer to "Muhammad"?) The more common transliteration of the
>> word is "machmad"; for reference I checked the "New Strong's Concise
>> Hebrew Dictionary", available in most good bookshops and online at,
>> amongst many other places:
>> http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=04261
> The word is "MACHAMADIM" and, yes, it does look a lot like "MUHAMMAD"
> doesn't it? I am glad this was pointed out by the opposing side. I
> challenge one and all to open up the phone book (its not that hard) and
dial
> the local Synagogue and ask them to read Shir Hashirim 5:16 on the phone
> to you. You will then hear that the word is "MACHAMADIM" and not
> "MACHMAD" as this author states.
Before I go any further, I think this is a good time to clear up what the
word in Song of Solomon 5:16 actually is. To be fair, +both+ Shibli and I
have not been very clear in what we have written on this point. The word in
question is indeed:
MACHMAD (in Hebrew, reading from right to left: daleth, mem, cheth, mem)
Which means "lovely or desirable"
However, where the word "machmad" occurs in Song of Solomon 5:16 it is
actually *plural*. Thus the word becomes:
MACH+a+MAD+d+IM
The "d" (Hebrew letter 'daleth') is doubled because of the daghesh forte
(dot in the middle of it, for laymen), and "im" (Hebrew = 'yodh' + 'mem')
added to make the plural. The extra "a" (Hebrew 'pattah') is gained after
the cheth in order to make it possible to pronounce the word. In Hebrew, the
stress is placed on the last syllable, and machmaddim would be
unpronounceable. Hence
it becomes mach-a-mad-DIM, capitals signifying the emphasis.
Hence the word can either be written:
MACHMAD (singular)
MACHAMADDIM (plural)
This is a very important fact to clear up because you made a number of
mistakes in both your first and last posts, where you variously tried to
refer to the word as:
MACHAMADIM
This is wrong, as you have ignored the daghesh forte which occurs in the
middle of the "d" (??? Hebrew), and doubles the "d" in the plural form of
the word.
MACHAMADD
Also wrong, for two reasons. Firstly, the word only picks up the "a" after
the cheth in the plural form. More importantly, you CANNOT end a word with a
double "d" like this; the daghesh forte only comes into play in the plural
form of the word when it is followed by a yod and a mem, transliterated
"im".
MACHAMAD
Wrong again. As I explained above, the word only picks up the "a" after the
cheyth in the plural form.
MACHAMMADIM
Also wrong. There is no daghesh forte in the middle of the "m", and thus it
is not doubled.
Hence to recap, the singular form of the word in question is MACHMAD and the
plural form is MACHAMADDIM.
Aside from the important factor of accuracy, this is also worth pointing out
because when one realises that the word in Song of Solomon 5:16 is "machmad"
in its plural form, "machamaddim", it looks much less like Muhammad than the
numerous suggestions above you tried to introduce. And since the main pillar
of your argument seems to be "the words look the same", establishing how the
word should be written goes a long way towards sinking the polemic.
> The word is "MACHAMADIM" and, yes, it does look a lot like "MUHAMMAD"
> doesn't it? I am glad this was pointed out by the opposing side.
What I have pointed out is that:
a) Your mistake in writing the plural of "machmad" helped to make the word
look like "Muhammad"; personally I think "machamaddim" doesn't look at all
like "Muhammad", even before we get to the etymological problems with your
suggestion.
b) As I have explained above, two words looking similar does not prove they
are cognates, let alone the +same word+. The fun I had with 'poisson' and
'poison' demonstrates the foolishness this can result in.
> I challenge one and all to open up the phone book (its not that hard) and
dial
> the local Synagogue and ask them to read Shir Hashirim 5:16 on the phone
> to you. You will then hear that the word is "MACHAMADIM" and not
> "MACHMAD" as this author states.
The word you would hear is of course the plural of "machmad", and would be
pronounced "mach-am-ad-dim". But whilst we are on the subject of challenges,
let me offer one to you. If you are saying that whatever the local Rabbi
reads down the telephone to you is to be taken as being *accurate*, then try
this; after you have heard the word, ask the Rabbi if it means "Muhammad".
Given that you are happy to take his pronounciation as correct, I can only
assume you would also accept his explanation, otherwise one would be guilty
of a double-standard of mind boggling proportions.
> This serious blunder should serve to show all that there is an extreme
lack
> of objectivity from the opposing side of this issue. Their position should
be
> seen for what it is and that is a very aggressive campaign to DISPROVE
> any reference to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon
> him) in the Bible rather than to actually study and research whether he is
> mentioned therein or not.
I accept that my mistake was not to point out that machamaddim is the plural
of machmad, and I made the mistake of using them interchangably without
explaining this point to the casual reader not familiar with Hebrew.
However, as one who claims to know the language, I cannot see your problem,
Shibli. And as I said above, we were both guilty on this one; you merrily
used "machamaddim" (albeit spelt in numerous wrong ways) without once
explaining it was the plural form of the word "machmad".
Now in terms of objectivity, I think you need to be careful here. Unless you
are trying to suggest that you were sitting there one evening simply reading
Song of Solomon in Hebrew for the sheer enjoyment of it, when you stumbled
across the word "machamaddim" and thought, "gosh, that looks like Muhammad",
then you cannot claim objectivity for yourself. Most Muslims who try and put
forward this polemic have heard of it elsewhere and gone to Song of Solomon
for purely one purpose --- to find Muhammad there. Unless you were reading
the book (in Hebrew) completely unaware of the polemic, then I am sorry to
say that you cannot claim objectivity.
Secondly, as for study and research, I have now spent many hours on this
topic and in some ways must thank you for that. I am more familiar now with
Hebrew than I was, and look forward to studying it full-time when I commence
my BA in Theology in October of this year. In the meantime, all my research
and reading has not even caused me to doubt in the slightest that your
hypothesis might actually be true. I issue a challenge of my own; read all
of Song of Solomon, and verse 16 of chapter 5 in this context --- nobody
having done this would seriously conclude that Muhammad is being talked
about there.
> I would like to request the opposing side to please use actual Hebrew
> codices of Shir Hashirim. Please don't waste our time with web pages.
> Web pages are not a serious source of research. I am sure driving to
> the local Synagogue is not that much of a pain.
I once it heard it said that sarcasm was the lowest form of wit! I have used
the actual Hebrew scriptures in my research, courtesy of a friend who has
studied the language. In terms of using web pages, this was part of my drive
to make my last post more accessible to the casual reader of SRI. The web
page I pointed to did indeed contain details of word "machmad" in its
singular form; anyone more familiar with the language would have no problem
doing "mach"+"a+"mad"+"dim" to get the plural form of the word,
"machamaddim".
Andy Bannister
Just a quick note to explain that my last post (dated 10/3/00) is
incomplete --- Outlook Express managed to send the post from my drafts
folder of all places! Don't you just love Microsoft.
Please feel free to reply to what I wrote, or you can wait until the other
side of the weekend until I have written up my response to all of your post,
when I will then post that. Sorry for any confusion.
Thank you for an interesting discussion.
Saqib Virk
news:8a9ruf$3kl$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> I hate to throw a spanner in the works, but the "HE" in the passage below
> refers to God himself. If you are therefore trying to suggest THE LORD
> (Hebrew YHWH) = MUHAMMAD then you are guilty of the most gross blasphemy!
SV
Lets try to keep a grip on reality here. The coming of a police officer can
be called the coming of the law. The advent of a new prophet or divine law
can be called the coming of the Lord without much objection. The particular
mention of Paran makes it clear that it is a reference to Muhammad(saaws).
Here is a reference perhaps more to your liking.
"God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran..."
[Bible, Habakkuk 3:3]
If it could be proven that Paran refers to an area close to Mecca and
Medina would you stop and consider or would you look for farther ways to
avoid the truth?
> A second problem is that the text in Hebrew is plural, literally "ten
> thousands" of saints (as you have written below). Therefore we are
talking
> here about at least twenty thousand people. Obviously this second point
is
> far less significant than your trying to turn Muhammad into God, but
shows
> none the less that Muhammad and his followers fell well short of this
total.
SV
Again, not much of a point since Muhammad(saaws) had tens of thousands of
followers before his death. It is at the time the Kaa'ba was cleared of
idols that his followers numbered ten thousand and this might be the
reference in Song of Songs.
> I hope you will apologise for your offensive suggestion that Muhammad has
> now become God.
I hope you don't actually believe yourself and will admit you are only
engaging in feeble debate tactics.
--
Wasalaam,
Saqib Virk
James Dowdeswell
> Lets look at the Song of Songs another way.
Can you please state clearly how your approach is going to be different from
Shibli's.
> Who is this chiefest of ten thousand called 'Mahammadim'?
"distinguished among ten thousand" and "desirable"? Well (in context) it is
the beloved of the woman.
I'm happy to discuss other passages as long as you show regard for context.
Okay, my turn:
Narrated Ata bin Yasar:
I met Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al-'As and asked him, "Tell me about the
description of Allah's Apostle which is mentioned in Torah. He replied,
'Yes. By Allah, he is described in Torah with some of the qualities
attributed to him in the Quran as follows:
"O Prophet ! We have sent you as a witness (for Allah's true religion) and a
giver of glad tidings (to the faithful believers), and a warner (to the
unbelievers) and guardian of the illiterates. You are My slave and My
messenger (i.e. Apostle). I have named you "Al-Mutawakkil" (who depends upon
Allah). You are neither discourteous, harsh nor a noise-maker in the
markets. And you do not do evil to those who do evil to you, but you deal
with them with forgiveness and kindness. Allah will not let him (the
Prophet) die till he makes straight the crooked people by making them say:
"None has the right to be worshipped but Allah," with which will be opened
blind eyes and deaf ears and enveloped hearts."
(Al-Bukhari, vol. 3, book 34, no. 335)
Where does the Torah say this? Or is it just made up?
Andy Bannister
> > I hate to throw a spanner in the works, but the "HE" in the passage
> > below refers to God himself. If you are therefore trying to suggest
> > THE LORD (Hebrew YHWH) = MUHAMMAD then you are guilty of the most
> > gross blasphemy!
> SV
> Lets try to keep a grip on reality here.
Happy too if you are. Before you try to hint that I over-reacted in my
reply above, just consider how you as a Muslim would feel if somebody
suggested that a reference to Allah in the Qur'an ought to be replaced
by the name of a human being.
Let me remind you what Deueteronomy 33:2 *actually* says:
"The Lord came from Sinai and dawned from Mount Seir upon them; he
shone forth from Mount Paran he came from ten thousands of holy ones:
with flaming fire at his right hand. Yea, he loved His people; all
those consecrated to him were in his hand: so they followed in thy
feet, receiving direction from thee, when Moses commanded us a law, as
a possession for the congregation of Jacob. Thus the Lord became King
in Jeshurun when the heads of the people were gathered, all the tribes
of Israel together." (Deuteronomy 33:1-5).
Now the whole context here is talking about the Lord God; not a human
being. This is perfectly obvious; the LORD came from Sinai, the LORD
dawned from Mount Seir, and the LORD shone forth from Mount Paran.
Note the other problem, apart from turning Muhammad into God, is that
this verse is in the past tense; it's not talking about someone *who
will* do these things, but someone who *has already* done them. This
was over 1,400 years before Muhammad ever walked the earth. Whoops.
> The coming of a police officer can be called the coming of the law.
> The advent of a new prophet or divine law can be called the coming
> of the Lord without much objection.
Perhaps you could find an example where the coming of a prophet or law
is called "the coming of the Lord." In the Bible, prophets were
generally referred to us "coming in the name of the Lord."
> The particular mention of Paran makes it clear that it is a reference
> to Muhammad. Here is a reference perhaps more to your liking.
>
> "God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran..."
> [Bible, Habakkuk 3:3]
I would suggest that you learn to read a verse in context. The above is
an example of a Hebrew doublet, and Holy One also refers to God. Read
the next few verses and it becomes very clear:
"And his brightness was as the light; he had horns coming out of his
hand: and there was the hiding of his power.
Before him went the pestilence, and burning coals went forth at his
feet.
He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the
nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual
hills did bow: his ways are everlasting."
[Habbukuk 3:4-5]
Consider verse 5 in particular:
* Who measured the earth?
* Who will the hills bow to?
* Whose ways are everlasting?
I think we would both agree that the answer is GOD, not Muhammad.
Kindly stop trying to deify him :-).
> If it could be proven that Paran refers to an area close to Mecca and
> Medina would you stop and consider or would you look for farther ways
> to avoid the truth?
I have actually been trying to highlight the truth, and bring it out
into the open. There are warnings in the Bible (and even in your
Qu'ran) about the perils of twisting and manipulating Scripture to try
to prove your own agenda.
Anyway, on the subject of Paran, any student of Biblical geography
knows that the two mountains in Deuteronomy 33 (Seir and Sinai) and the
highlands of Paran are in the Sinai Peninsula, about 1,000 km away from
Mecca.
If you must insist on finding Muhammad in the Bible, then I have two
suggestions:
1) Consider Matthew 7:15: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you
in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
2) Try and find the following 'prophecy' in the Torah, that is quoted
in the Hadith:
Narrated Ata bin Yasar:
I met Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al-'As and asked him, "Tell me about the
description of Allah's Apostle which is mentioned in Torah. He replied,
'Yes. By Allah, he is described in Torah with some of the qualities
attributed to him in the Quran as follows:
"O Prophet ! We have sent you as a witness (for Allah's True religion)
And a giver of glad tidings (to the faithful believers), And a warner
(to the unbelievers) And guardian of the illiterates. You are My slave
and My messenger (i.e. Apostle). I have named you "Al-Mutawakkil" (who
depends upon Allah). You are neither discourteous, harsh Nor a noise-
maker in the markets. And you do not do evil to those Who do evil to
you, but you deal With them with forgiveness and kindness. Allah will
not let him (the Prophet) Die till he makes straight the crooked people
by making them say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,"
With which will be opened blind eyes And deaf ears and enveloped
hearts."
(Al-Bukhari, vol. 3, book 34, no. 335)
I look forward to seeing what you have found.
Many blessings in Jesus,
Andy Bannister
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Arshad
Let me explain Deuteronomy a little clearer to you as you seem to be
confused.
> Andy Bannister wrote:
>
> Let me remind you what Deueteronomy 33:2 *actually* says:
>
> "The Lord came from Sinai and dawned from Mount Seir upon them; he
> shone forth from Mount Paran he came from ten thousands of holy ones:
> with flaming fire at his right hand.
That's good that you used a Bible translation that mentions 10,000
holy ones, some of the translations coming out now lke to omit this
figure, perhaps they too realize of this prophecy of Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him) in the Bible.
Basically from your response there are two items you have issue with.
Insha'Allah (God willing) I will refute each of your two items, and
perhaps things will be clearer to you and you will not be so
confused.
So let's begin.
Your first claim was:
> Now the whole context here is talking about the Lord God; not a human
> being. This is perfectly obvious; the LORD came from Sinai, the LORD
> dawned from Mount Seir, and the LORD shone forth from Mount Paran.
In these words the Lord has been compared with the sun. He comes
>from Sinai, he rises from Seir but he shines in his full glory
>from Paran, where he had to appear with 10,000 saints with a fiery
law in his right hand.
Nice try Andy, but your claim is seriously flawed. The Prophets (upon
them be peace) are doing what God has commanded of them. They are
God's messengers. This should be easy for anyone to understand.
> Note the other problem, apart from turning Muhammad into God, is that
> this verse is in the past tense; it's not talking about someone *who
> will* do these things, but someone who *has already* done them. This
> was over 1,400 years before Muhammad ever walked the earth. Whoops.
There were two possibilites I came up with, one, the author of this
passage wasn't clear when he wrote down this passage MANY years later,
its pretty easy to forget. :-)
The other possibility is this. God is not constrained by the laws of
this world. He knows what will happen in the future. So from his
perspective everything is in the past.
I guess you never considered that? Whoops.
Time permitting I will engage in some more discussions with you, but as
it is I am extremely busy.
May Allah (SWT) guide you to the truth and make you accept Islam as
your religion, AMEEN.
> Andy Bannister
Wasalaam,
Arshad
Trying to get to Islam?
http://get.to/islam
Shibli Zaman
<James.Do...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
Allow me to repost since you seem to keep missing it for some odd
reason. Perhaps a pair of spectacles would help?
Oh yes, and regarding that insipid argument that the Torah are only
the first 5 books of the Bible and thus, this is not from the Torah:
"In Jewish tradition the word 'Torah', which literally means
'teaching', is often used to describe THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF JEWISH
RELIGIOUS LEARNING. WHEN SO USED, 'TORAH' REFERS NOT ONLY TO THE FIVE
BOOKS OF MOSES BUT ALSO TO THE PROPHETS, HOLY WRITINGS, TALMUD, AND
MIDRASH--IN FACT TO ALL RELIGIOUS WRITINGS FROM EASLIEST TIMES TO THE
PRESENT." ["This is the Torah" Alfred J. Kolatch]
The word "Tawraat" in the Arabic language is used for the Old
Testament and all Jewish scriptures. "Zaboor" is used for the "Psalms"
within the Old Testament. This is how it has been understood by the
Jewish nation historically and this is how it was understood by the
Arabs and early Muslims.
Now to the repost you keep seeming to not see:
Yes it was there and it is still there. Anyone, familiar with the Old
Testament should recognize it right off the bat. It is in Isaiah
42:1-7 and scattered elsewhere in Isaiah. Read it. I will break down
1-7 verse by verse in order to lucidate who this is quite clearly
speaking about..
------------------------
[BIBLE; Isaiah 42:1] "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in
whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring
forth judgment to the Gentiles."
[HADEETH; Bukhari, 3:335] "You are My servant and My messenger. I
have named you 'al Mutawakkil' (meaning 'the one who depends on
Allah')"
[AUTHOR'S NOTE: Muhammad (May Allah's peace and blessings be upon him)
was sent to the Gentile (non-jew) Arabs. Was Jesus (Peace be upon him)
sent to the Gentiles? Answer at the end of this article.]
------------------------
[BIBLE; Isaiah 42:2] "He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his
voice to be heard in the street."
[HADEETH; Bukhari 3:335] "You are neither discourteous, harsh Nor a
noise-maker in the markets.."
------------------------
[BIBLE; Isaiah 42:3] "A bruised reed shall he not break, and the
smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto
truth."
[HADEETH; Bukhari 3:335] "And you do not do evil to those Who do evil
to you, but you deal With them with forgiveness and kindness."
------------------------
[BIBLE; Isaiah 42:4] "He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he
have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law."
[HADEETH; Bukhari 3:335] "I have named you 'Al-Mutawakkil' (meaning
'the one who depends upon Allah')....Allah will not let him (the
Prophet) Die till he makes straight the crooked people by making them
say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' "
------------------------
[BIBLE; Isaiah 42:5-6] "Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the
heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and
that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people
upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: I the LORD have called
thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee,
and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the
Gentiles;"
[AUTHOR'S NOTE: Muhammad (May Allah's peace and blessings be upon him)
was sent to the Gentile (non-jew) Arabs. Was Jesus (Peace be upon him)
sent to the Gentiles? Answer at the end of this article.]
------------------------
[BIBLE; Isaiah 42:7] "To open the blind eyes, to bring out the
prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the
prison house."
[HADEETH; Bukhari 3:335] "With which will be opened blind eyes And
deaf ears and enveloped hearts."
------------------------
"Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise from the end of the
earth, ye that go down to the sea, and all that is therein; the isles,
and the inhabitants thereof.
Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the
villages that Kedar doth inhabit: let the inhabitants of the rock
sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains."
Who is "Kedar"?
"Kedar = 'dark'. 1. a son of Ishmael n pr people 2. the descendants of
Kedar."
["Theological Word Book of the Old Testament", Brown, Driver, Briggs,
Gesenius Lexicon]
"Kedar" is a reference to the Arabs. So now we must look in history
and see which man who claimed to have a message of God preached
monotheism as espoused by the previous Israelite prophets to the
Arabs? Did Jesus preach to the Arabs? Obviously not. Then who did? We
are left with only one single figure in history who led the desert
Arabs to spread across a majority of the known world within a span of
50-70 years.
Now regarding whether Jesus could have possibly been the "light unto
the Gentiles" let us review Matthew 15:22-27:
"And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried
unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my
daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a
word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away;
for she crieth after us. But he answered and said,
I AM NOT SENT BUT UNTO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.
Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he
answered and said,
IT IS NOT MEET TO TAKE THE CHILDREN'S BREAD, AND TO CAST IT TO DOGS.
And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall
from their masters' table."
[Matthew 15:22-27]
Thus, Jesus plainly says he is not a Messenger for the Gentiles and
his message is not a final one for all of mankind. Glad tidings to the
Gentiles....we are all dogs.
Due to this obvious and insurmountable fact the following verses can
never apply to Jesus.
"Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul
delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him:
HE SHALL BRING FORTH JUDGEMENT TO THE GENTILES."
[Isaiah 42:1]
"I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine
hand, and will keep thee,
AND GIVE THEE FOR A COVENANT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR A LIGHT OF THE
GENTILES;"
[Isaiah 42:6]
Then one is left to ask who this individual is who would be a light
for the Gentile (non-Israelite) world. Who is this Kedarite Arab who
would preach to the Arabs? Which personality in history are such
things attributed to? None of than the Prophet Muhammad (May Allah's
peace and blessings be upon him).