Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in the Bible

Those whom We have given the Book recognize him as they recognize their sons, and a party of them most surely conceal the truth while they know. (Qur'an 2:146)

Intrestingly there is also a story in Islamic history books that some Jewish leaders came to Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) and recognised him as described in their books. Then, one of the wives of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) who used to be Jewish heard those men discussing how to conceal this from others !

Now it's intresting that as we have already seen, Jewish scholars in the past believed that this song was a prophecy about the coming of a Messiah. But in its present form, when you put chapter 5 next to the other chapters of the song it seems like some sort of a "love song" which can be interpreted in many different ways. It could be that the original prophecy was made into a love song by mixing it with one. It is also intresting that the original name of the song was SHIR HASHIRIM, but for some reason they mistranslated it into "Song of Solomon".

My question from jews and Christians here is, is this song a "love song" between Solomon and Queen Sheba ? Or is it between Jesus and the Church ? Or God with people ? Or a prophecy about the coming of a Messiah and building of the Third Temple ?

Doo-bop wrote:  "And the fact that the Prophet's hair remained black means that the son ALWAYS applied to him, so even if someone saw him in his sixties it would still be as the Bible said." But this is not true.  We know that Muhammad dyed his hair red, with henna - see Sahih Bukhari vol1book4no.167 (and we know why certain older men do that) We also know his hair had lice -  see Sahih Bukhari vol9 no.130 - not such a pretty picture

dying means that the hair had another color. So yes it is still true. You do understand the nature of "dying" vs "natural color" and the effect one has on the other?

According to you, God was birthed through a vagina and covered in nasty afterbirth, and God used the toilet, wiped his rear end, stunk, dirtied his diapers, etc, etc. It would seem that your theology puts you in no postition to dictate what is nice and not nice. Lice seems pretty insignificant now yes?

"It says he was handsome (which includes cheek and lips):" No, normally very handsome people are not perfect in all their physical attributes

Petty conjecture. Your opinion does not hold as fact.

" (The Prophet, May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) also patted my cheek and I experienced a coolness or a fragrance of his hand as if it had been brought out from the scent bag of a perfumer." [Sahih Muslim, 30:5758] "I never smelt ambergris or musk as fragrant as the fragrance of the body of Allah's Messenger (May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)." [Sahih Muslim, 30:5759] "I never smelt musk or ambergris and found its fragrance as sweet as the fragrance of Allah's Messenger (May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)." [Sahih Muslim 30:5760]" Well, there's no mention of myrrh here....

There is no explicit verse that says Jesus is God, but you are able to superimpose your beliefs onto implicit verses to make yoru claims about his divinity.

There is no mention of what the exact source of smell was in many of the haidths that discuss his scent.

This one I dont know, I found on another website, but I think the point is that his hands are praiseworthy and exceptional. Personally, I don't know what you find "praiseworthy" about "big, soft hands"

Ok.

"A lot of Christians say the song is about a woman as soon as I tell them that it's prophecying the coming of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). But the scholars seem confused wether it is about the Church or God, or the coming of the Messiah." So you are basically unable to substantiate what you are saying.  The Song is about a man and a woman.  The verses we have been discussing are clearly about the man.  Why you are trying to make out that some people think they are about the woman, goodness alone knows...  Christians view the Song as an allegory about Christ, the Bridegroom, and his bride, the holy church.

Thats a complete distortion of the Song. Jesus nor anything about a trinue God was ever mentioned or thought about in the Hebrew Scriptures. There is not a single prophecy in the Hebrew Scriptures that can explicitly be about God comeing to earth through a woman's womb.

Sawtul Khilafah wrote: Bismillahirrahmaanerraheem Prophet Mohammad pbuh was mentioned in the Song of Songs (in the Old Testament) which is also known as Song of Solomon. The original name of this song was Shir Hashirim. This is what it says in Hebrew, 5:16 Chiku mamtakim v'khulo machamadim zeh dodi v'zeh re'i b'not yerushalayim In English, 5:16: His conversation is sweetness itself, he is MACHAMADIM, such is my beloved oh daughters of Jerusalem. The word MACHAMADIM: Firstly, the CH used is the same as the H used in arabic for the word MOHAMMAD. The IM at the end is just like the one used for ELOHIM. The IM at the end of ELOHIM is agreed by Jews and most Christians to be a sign of respect, like THE ELOH, or the Great Eloh, or the Majestic Eloh, etc. Hence, the same applies to Machamadim. So the actual word is Machamad, and as we discussed the CH is the same as the H in Mohammad so the word is MAHAMAD! Finally, the vowels are agreed by Biblical scholars to have been inserted much later in history. So the actualy word is MHMD. This is exactly how the word Mohammad is written in Hebrew. In other words, if the Bible was to mention the name of Prophet Mohammad pbuh, it would be mentioned as MHMD, and this is the case in Shir Hashirim. Also, the name of the song is very intresting. The original name was Shir Hashirim, which means Song of Hashirim. The IM as we have already shown is a sign of respect, so it's actually Shir Hashir, meaning Song of Hashir. In Sunan Tirmidhi (a famous Hadith book) we read that one of the names of Prophet Mohammad pbuh was Hashir !!! Shir Hashirim also gives a description of MHMD, which fits in exactly with the description of Prophet Mohammad pbuh as recorded in the Hadith books. If anyone is intrested, I can give more detail. Peace unto those who follow the Guidance

Muslims keep confusing the Islamic "Muhammad" with the Koranic "Muhammad".

The two are not the same.

The Koranic "Muhammad" is NOT a personal name...but, rather, a participle...meaning "a man praised much - praised one".

Checking all 68 root derivatives of the word "Muhammad", as used in the Koran shows that it is ALWAYS used in context of deity.

Always.

Thus, a man being praised (i.e. "Muhammad")...can only be referring to the Biblical Jesus Christ.

Hence, the Koranic "Muhammad" is, in fact, a reference to the Biblical Jesus Christ.

A far cry from the "Muhammad" that Islam wants to put forth.

One problem is that, contrary to the Qur'anic claim of Surah 61:6, there is no such statement mentioned by Jesus in the Gospels. To explain this, Muslims generally resort to their usual charge that the Bible has been corrupted. In other words, they claim, among other things, that Jews and Christians removed prophecies of Mohammad from their Scriptures. However, while textual criticism of both Testaments has rendered this claim to be absurd, Mohammad confirmed the integrity of the Bible that existed in his day. Today's Bible is based on manuscripts that predate Mohammad by centuries. Furthermore, we know that the Christians that lived in areas surrounding Arabia were using the same Bible in which we do today. The canons may have differed in minor degrees across the various groups, but each group accepted the same essential books, including the four Gospels.

Some Muslim apologists have suggested that "Holy Spirit"(which is synonymous with "Holy Ghost" and is what we find in the earliest manuscripts) was not in the original text because the Codex Syriacus, a 4th century manuscript of the New Testament translated into the Syrian language, only contains the word "Spirit" rather than "Holy Spirit." However, all of the earlier New Testament manuscripts, including the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, which are still in the original Greek, render "Holy Spirit" in the text rather than just "Spirit." Therefore, by the standards of textual criticism, it would be absurd to allow one later Syrian translation to usurp the testimony of several earlier(and at least a couple of MUCH earlier(2nd century)) manuscripts, some of which are in the original Greek. Plus, as we've shown, the word "spirit" would not lend much credence to the Muslim argument anyway since that word means simply "spirit."

One reason that Muslim apologists use this verse with such fervency is because the word for "Comforter" in Greek, "Paracletos," is very similar in spelling to "Periklytos." "Periklytos" is Greek for "praised one" which is what the name, "Ahmed"(another name for Mohammad) means[12]. Muslims allege that the original text contained the latter word rather than the former. However, this is unfounded speculation because ALL manuscripts of the New Testament that we have today use the former spelling. This, of course, includes the many manuscripts that predate Mohammad's ministry. Christians would obviously have no polemical reason to corrupt the original spelling before Islam and Mohammad existed. It is also sometimes claimed that vowels were not part of the original text(like in the Hebrew Old Testament) and because of this, incorrect vowels were added by later scribes and this is the reason why we find "Paracletos" in the manuscripts rather than "Periklytos." However, this assertion is incorrect as, in fact, the vowels WOULD be included in the original text of ancient Greek[13].

When performing proper exegeses of Scripture, it is imperative to consider all relevant verses. Muslim apologists typically will use verses that they think fits their agenda while ignoring other verses, even when the very next verse in the text provides the death knell to their position. In this case, it is important to consider ALL of the verses John records about the "Paraclete" when determining the latter's identity. Thus, all of these verses are provided below with certain parts of the text highlighted for further discussion.

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him: for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."(John 14:16-17, )

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."(John 14:26, )

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:"(John 15:26, )

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."(John 16:7-14, )

Some observations from the verses presented are now in order.

1. Notice in John 14:16 that Jesus says that "another Comforter" will be given. Muslim apologists allege that this proves that the Comforter had to be human since Jesus was human and He considered Himself to be a Comforter. However, this could just as easily be interpreted to conclude that this proves that the Comforter had to be divine since Jesus claimed divinity(John 8:58, 17:5, 14:6-11, etc.).
2. Notice also in John 14:16 that the Comforter would abide with the disciples forever. Not only was Mohammad not born before almost 500 years after the last disciple had died, but Mohammad was on Earth for 62 years, not forever. Muslim apologists cite that Mohammad abides forever by his teachings. However, the text indicates that the Comforter Himself would abide forever and not just His teachings.
3. While John 14:16 is cited in support of the Muslim assertion, the next verse is often ignored. We see in John 14:17 that the world cannot see the Comforter. Since Mohammad was visible, this cannot refer to him.
4. For this observation, we will see how essential it is to display all relevant verses and avoid the use of proof-texting. One of the favorite Muslim assertions that the Comforter cannot refer to the Holy Spirit comes from the following phrase in John 16:7: "�.It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you: but if I depart, I will send him unto you." It is asserted that since the Holy Spirit was already with the disciples(He was with Jesus-see the baptism narratives(like Matthew 3:13-17)), the Comforter could not be the Holy Spirit since Jesus must go away to send the Comforter to them. However, this argument falls since the disciples had yet to receive the Holy Spirit, but did so 10 days after Jesus' ascension into heaven(see Acts 2). Plus, John 14:17 confirms that the Comforter *WAS* with the disciples already! In this verse, we see 3 qualifiers of the Comforter, none of which Mohammad possessed. A) The disciples knew the Comforter. The disciples obviously did not know Mohammad since it was more than a half a millennium later that Mohammad was born. B) The Comforter dwelled with the disciples. Again, this disqualifies Mohammad. C) Finally, the Comforter was to be *in* the disciples. We know that this means literally inside the disciples since the Comforter was already dwelling inside of Jesus. Mohammad, a physical being, obviously could not dwell inside of anyone.
5. It is claimed by at least one Muslim apologist that we are aware of that in John 14:26, the Comforter could not be the Holy Spirit since the verse says that "he will teach you all things." It is asserted that since the Holy Spirit did not teach anything new and Mohammad did that the latter is a better fit for this criterion. However, this assertion is simply false. There are many doctrines expounded by the New Testament writers that were not purported by Christ.

With Respect.