Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in the Bible

minuteman wrote:     Thanks Doo-bop, then please explain what exactly you meant by the following argument:  (Thanks).   The bottom line is that, if Muhammad's claim is to be verified, he will have to be found mentioned in the Law

minuteman, it is not my argument, it is Muhammad's statement:-

"Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures) - in the Law and the Gospel......"

--Quran 7: 157 

as I already quoted

minuteman wrote:   The bottom line is that, if Muhammad's claim is to be verified, he will have to be found mentioned in the Law It is not possible that the name Muhammad could be found in the bible, even though the word Muhammadaim is present in the songs.  If the above logic is applied (as shown in red above) it will be necessary to find the name Jesus in the OT. Likewise the name of all the earlier prophets should be found in the books revealed before them. The is never possible. Or is it?

No, I didn't say his name would have to be found mentioned, and have already agreed that the Quran does not say that his name is mentioned 

Doo-bop wrote: [ And what? (the addition to to so what was somehow not included with the post) 1)      If this was implausible, even in the slightest way, then why did this not become a point that the many detractors could have used against the claims of the prophet (saw) when this verse was revealed? There were Christians and Jews, and no where in the Hadith literature do we find this as a point of contention. 2)      The does not necessarily state that his name will be mentioned, it only states that his claim will be found. This claim includes the attributes of prophethood. 3)      Since the idea of what constitutes a bible is not necessarily the same thing as what people had in the 6th and 7th century, one can assume that the bible before them is the same as it was in the 6th and 7th century.

Well, you do not know that it was not a point of contention, and I do not know that it was.  I do not know why you are relating this to the point in time when the verse was "revealed". 

[/quote]

I am not certain of your point. Maybe I missed something or have forgotten something that was stated earlier?

Would non-muslims, for instance the jews in medina, or the pagans in mecca, actually know when a verse had been "revealed"?

Well your question creates an image of all these muslims walking around with some non-Muslims in the mix. People converted to Islam after hearing the message, the claim of revelation, and observing the miracles of the Prophet (saw) and "experiencing" his prophethood first hand. There were only a handful of believers, it it simply grew in time.

The prophet claimed to have a messege from God and to be a prophet. For non-Muslims who were Jews or Christians, one only need to look at the bible (even the one we have today) to find criteria for a prophet (his characteristics), and what the central message would be.

It may be, for all I know, that new verses were immediately broadcast throughout the land, and that non-muslims took cogniscence of them, in which case I find it hard to believe that it would not cause a few raised eyebrows among some of the jews at least.

Well, there were masses of Jews who rejected Paul and his teachings, and the Jews who did recognize Jesus died out. So in the end, Jews would have to look at the soundess of the claims presented by Paul and come to their own conclusion. There was no "absolute" proof available.

In all of the writings we have, we know that the main contention of the Jews is that they wanted a prophet who was Jewish. There are sound narratives that reveal writings that the Jews had in their possesion which did point to a coming prophet (saw) in the region.

It is not known what these writings were.

But if there's no record of any debate on this point at the time of the new verse, either in hadith literature or elsewhere, then I'm not going to argue that there was.  It's a non-point

I agree. I cannot say that this silence is conclusive proof either way, but I will say that I believe it is evidence that the Jews of the region did have a belief and the claims of the Prophet (saw) were not contrary to that belief except that he claimed the line of Ishmael and not Isaac.

The verse I quoted says that he, ie. the apostle, is mentioned.  I agree that it doesn't say that his name is mentioned.  But it also, as far as I can see, doesn't say his claim will be found

A highly recognized exegesis of the passage is most popularly agreed upon that it is about his attributes that one may find in the bible.

As to what constitues a bible in the 6th, 7th century, this does not matter, as the verse makes plain that Muhammad is mentioned in the Law and the Gospel.

Doesn't it matter? If hadith narratives that are sound in transmission report that the Jews had some writing which engendered a belief that a prophet was coming, should this imply that other writings besides those that we find today in the bible were circulated in Arabia? Afterall, there were many "heresies" that could be found in the region and Christianity or Judaism was not a solidified, single entity. All I am syaing is that the suggesiton is not overly incredible and not inplausible.

And this suggesiton is not meant to be deragatory in any sense, or an attack on the bible or Torah, simply an observation, nor does this suggestion imply any biblcal problems.

We know where the law is found, and what it is.  What is meant by the Gospel is not clear.  Is it a reference to the book allegedly given to the LJC? (The book that never was, and of which there is absolutely no record)

Well, we know for a fact that there is absolutely no record of the life of Jesus outside the Quran that can give any credible historical insight. There were not standard methods in place to track any of the natrratives and "validate" the stories. So we already do not have any "record", and what Jesus actually taught is now speculation (with exception of the Quran which tells us that his message was on key with every other servant of God).

Jesus had a revelation, but the specifics of it are not within our reach. This goes outside the topic and I am now going off on a tangent. If I misunderstood you, I am sorry. Simply ignore what I have stated and explain further.

The bottom line is that, if Muhammad's claim is to be verified, he will have to be found mentioned in the Law

His claim is verified by todays standard bible. Please explain one of his attributes that is a point of contention for you that is in direct violation of the basic message of any known prophet.

And what?

(the addition to to so what was somehow not included with the post)

1)      If this was implausible, even in the slightest way, then why did this not become a point that the many detractors could have used against the claims of the prophet (saw) when this verse was revealed? There were Christians and Jews, and no where in the Hadith literature do we find this as a point of contention.

2)      The does not necessarily state that his name will be mentioned, it only states that his claim will be found. This claim includes the attributes of prophethood.

3)      Since the idea of what constitutes a bible is not necessarily the same thing as what people had in the 6^th and 7^th century, one can assume that the bible before them is the same as it was in the 6^th and 7^th century.

[/QUOTE]

Well, you do not know that it was not a point of contention, and I do not know that it was.  I do not know why you are relating this to the point in time when the verse was "revealed".  Would non-muslims, for instance the jews in medina, or the pagans in mecca, actually know when a verse had been "revealed"?  It may be, for all I know, that new verses were immediately broadcast throughout the land, and that non-muslims took cogniscence of them, in which case I find it hard to believe that it would not cause a few raised eyebrows among some of the jews at least.  But if there's no record of any debate on this point at the time of the new verse, either in hadith literature or elsewhere, then I'm not going to argue that there was.  It's a non-point

The verse I quoted says that he, ie. the apostle, is mentioned.  I agree that it doesn't say that his name is mentioned.  But it also, as far as I can see, doesn't say his claim will be found

As to what constitues a bible in the 6th, 7th century, this does not matter, as the verse makes plain that Muhammad is mentioned in the Law and the Gospel.  We know where the law is found, and what it is.  What is meant by the Gospel is not clear.  Is it a reference to the book allegedly given to the LJC? (The book that never was, and of which there is absolutely no record)

The bottom line is that, if Muhammad's claim is to be verified, he will have to be found mentioned in the Law