Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Zakir Naik Proves That Allah Is a Mouse! (Based on Song of Solomon 5:16)

Popular Muslim speaker Dr. Zakir Naik claims that Muhammad's name can be found in Song of Solomon 5:16, which reads:

"His mouth is full of sweetness. And he is wholly desirable. This is my beloved and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”

According to Zakir Naik, since the Hebrew word translated as "wholly desirable" (machmadim) sounds like the Arabic name "Muhammad," the word should actually be translated as "Muhammad." Yet if we follow Naik's reasoning, we must conclude that since the Hebrew word for "mouse" is akbar, we should translate the Arabic sentence "Allahu Akbar" as "Allah is a mouse"! Why aren't Muslims embarrassed that their top apologists are using arguments which, if taken seriously, would prove that their god is a rodent? How desperate do Muslims have to be when their arguments are this hopelessly flawed?

Here's our discussion of Naik's argument:


For more on the claim that Muhammad's name can be found in the Song of Solomon, see:


Here's a more detailed response by James White:


And here's a brief reply showing more absurdities in the Muslim argument:

17 comments:

Zack_Tiang said...

Great! Was thinking of snipping that short clip and upload on my youtube... now I just need to re-upload this one.

Hope you don't mind. =)

Richard said...

Zakir Nakir = a deluded idiot.

Mike said...

I tried posting a comment a second ago, but I don't think it went through, so here it is again. Where in song of solomon does it clearly state that the man and woman are married? I'm not convinced the Bible prohibits premarital sex as much as certain religious groups claim it does.

David Wood said...

Silly comment of the week: "Where in song of solomon does it clearly state that the man and woman are married? I'm not convinced the Bible prohibits premarital sex as much as certain religious groups claim it does."

Have you even read the book? Solomon calls her his "bride" about a jillion times. Quit reading 21st century morality back into a 10th century BC book.

southwood said...

As for the guy Khaled mentioned in the James White clip saying Muslims honour Jesus whereas Jews don't, this is not correct. Muslims dishonour Jesus by denying his saying he was God, his crucifixion, and his resurrection. The Jews basically had Christ crucified for saying he was God. No way would would they deny his crucifixion although, of course, they deny his resurrection. A Jew will say that Jesus said he was God but a Muslim will deny that he said so or the Bible has been corrupted. Funny that - the Bible has been corrupted but guys like Zakir Naik will quote it in great detail to prove their points ! Typical Muslim logic.

bob said...

The Song of Solomon is a detailed metaphorical and poetic description of the intimate relationship between God (the Son, Christ) and those who love and obey him (as in a marriage) and is related to other verses, such as:

I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. Isaiah 61:10

And as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you. Isaiah 62:5

And when the people's love for God grows cold:

Can a virgin forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? yet my people have fogotten me days without number. Jeremiah 2:32

The bride and Bridegroom in the New Testament:

"The kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom..." Mathew 25:1-13

..."Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife." Revelation 21:9

Solomon, in verse 5:16 is speaking to the people of Jerusalem of his intimate spiritual relationship with his Redeemer, the Son, the Lord of hosts.

Balkan Terrorism Editor said...

I can't judge your motivation for the article and the interpretation of the Song of Solomon 5:16 but I do know for a fact the interpretation is not correct.

With irrefutable evidence; we know that the King James Bible is the only true word of God on the fact of the planet. There has been only two Bibles Translated to date, one being the source from Antioch, coming from originals and copies of originals. The Second Bible comes from the corrupted version which originated from Alexandria, Egypt by a Greek Philosopher named Origen in the 3rd and fourth century timeframe. He received "copies" of the manuscripts from Antioch and set forth to produce his own version. EVERY BIBLE we have today comes from that corrupted version, EXCEPT for the king James Bible. It is a SEPARATE steam of translation. That is the short explanation. The Bibles, except for the King James, was further corrupted by two Freemasons and actually ordained Warlocks, named Westcott and Hort from 1875 to 1890. Now, the correct verse reads as follows:

song of Solomon 5:16.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."

Big difference as you can see. Big difference because the correct word is "altogether Lovely" which is translated PERFECTLY as the King James is also translated perfectly and no one in history has ever proven otherwise besides God made sure his word was perfectly preserved.

People say that there are problems with the King James but no one can give specifics as in book, chapter and verse in the scripture. They always run away INCLUDING scholars that have attended schools of theology.

In this verse, Song of Solomon 5:16, when properly documented inclusive of 5: 10-16; this gives "her" the opportunity she wants to extol HIS physical attractiveness as "chief among ten thousand". This is using a wealth of metaphors and similies, she raves about his complexion, head, locks, eyes, cheeks, lips, hands, body, legs, contenance, and mouth. In short, her beloved and her friend is "ALTOGETHER LOVELY". Then it goes into chapter 6; the daughters of Jerusalem then really want ot see this male beauty.

Now, I would suggest rewriting this part or the book to include this correction and mistranslation due to the use of a corrupted Bible as a reference.

Alex Sortor said...

‎> "According to Zakir Naik, since the Hebrew word translated as 'wholly desirable' (machmadim) sounds like the Arabic name 'Muhammad,' the word should actually be translated as 'Muhammad.'"
First off, Machamadim isn't "Wholly desirable," it's simply "desirable" or "lovely."
Second, using only the consonants in Hebrew, it would look like M-CH-M-D-Y-M and in Hebrew, the letter Chet (or Heth) in Machamadim makes an H sound that comes out of the middle of the throat as opposed to He (or Het) which comes from the bottom of the throat. it's the same way Muhammad is pronounced in Arabic.

English: M-H-M-D-I/Y-M
Hebrew: מחמדים
Arabic: محمديم

Third, Machamadim itself doesn't translate by online translators unless you take off the -im, and then it translates to English and Arabic as Muhammad.

English: M-H-M-D
Hebrew: מחמד
Arabic: محمد

See links for details on the Letters Heth and He in Hebrew:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_(letter)

> "Yet if we follow Naik's reasoning, we must conclude that since the Hebrew word for 'mouse' is akbar, we should translate the Arabic sentence 'Allahu Akbar' as 'Allah is a mouse!'"
Wrong, because even if akbar does mean "mouse" in Hebrew, it doesn't have the same spelling in Hebrew.
Akbar in Hebrew: עכבר
Akbar in Arabic: اكبر

it's only a slight difference, but using an enhanced alphabet:
Akbar in Hebrew: Âkbar
Akbar in Arabic: Akbar

In Hebrew, Âkbar uses the letter Ayn. In Arabic, it uses Alif.
In Hebrew, it comes from some root that I don't know which means mouse. In Arabic, it comes from the root, Kaf-Ba-Ra, which means great(er).

Unless you are willing to say that א and ע are the same letter in Hebrew as well as ا and ع in Arabic, the argument is invalid.

Sam said...

Alex, I think kissing that black rock has left you stoned since your response is nothing more than pure bunk. First, no one claimed that the Hebrew word for mouse is spelled the same way that the word for greater is spelled in Arabic. The argument was that since Muslims think that machamadim sounds like Muhammad then consistency demands that they accept the fact that since akbar in Hebrew sounds like akbar in Arabic then this prove that Allah is a rodent. Second, the word machamid doesn't mean praised one, but desirable as you yourslef just admitted. However, Muhammad in Arabic DOESN'T MEAN DESIRABLE but praised one. The word for praised in Hebrew IS NOT Machamad, but halal, yadah, towdah. Third, your comment regarding "wholely deisrable" shows you have no clue what you are talking about, even though you try to pretend you do by posting such comments. The reason why it is rendered as "wholly deisrable" IS BECAUSE THE WORD IS PLURAL, i.e. machamadim. As such, this would be taken as an intensive plural or plural of intensification, which is used when a writer or speaker wants to emphasize that a person or thing possesses a certain quality in all its fullness. It is much like our use of the superlative. Finally, you are going to have to be consistent and admit that the Holy Bible teaches that God will profane Muhammad since the singular form Machamad is used in texts such as 1 Kings 20:6; Lamentations 1:10-11; Ezekiel 24:21 where it says that God will desecrate Machamad, and that people will give up their Machamad for food. So your poor Muhammad will be profaned and given up for food!

Now don't you ever come here thinking you will get away with such a blatant distortion of our argument and butchering of the languages.

aaron said...

pluralis excellantaie machmadim used alot in hebrew poetry according to Gesenius hebrew grammar case solved

wasim javed khan said...

TO BELIEVE IN ALLAAH AND HIS MESSENGER ﷺ
Among the obligations of the heart is to believe in Allaah and what Allaah revealed, and to believe in the Messenger of Allaah ﷺ and what he conveyed.
Explanation: Every accountable person1 has to have the correct belief in Allaah. This means for one to believe firmly in one's heart that Allaah is One without any partner, nothing resembles Allaah, Allaah is the Creator of everything, and Allaah is the One Who controls the entire creation. Nothing occurs unless Allaah Willed for it to occur and nothing exists unless Allaah brings it into existence, i.e. creates it. This is the best and most important obligation -- to believe properly in Allaah.

wasim javed khan said...

mong the obligations of the heart is to believe in Allaah and what Allaah revealed, and to believe in the Messenger of Allaah ﷺ and what he conveyed.
Explanation: Every accountable person1 has to have the correct belief in Allaah. This means for one to believe firmly in one's heart that Allaah is One without any partner, nothing resembles Allaah, Allaah is the Creator of everything, and Allaah is the One Who controls the entire creation. Nothing occurs unless Allaah Willed for it to occur and nothing exists unless Allaah brings it into existence, i.e. creates it. This is the best and most important obligation -- to believe properly in Allaah.
Just as it is an obligation to believe in Allaah, one has to believe in what Allaah revealed. This means that one has to believe in what Allaah revealed to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. In believing in what was revealed to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, one must have the firm belief in their heart that all of what Allaah revealed to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is true. One cannot object to that and one must completely submit to the truthfulness of the religion of Islaam.
Every accountable person also has to have the correct belief in Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. This means that one must revere Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in the proper way without attributing to him things that do not befit him and without giving him a status which is higher than his status ﷺ.
One has to believe in what the Prophet ﷺ conveyed from Allaah. So, if someone says, "I believe in Allaah and I believe in Prophet Muhammad ﷺ but I do not believe in the truthfulness of such-and-such rule with which the Prophet ﷺ conveyed", then this person is not a believer. He is not a Muslim, even if he claims to be a Muslim, because if one claims that the Prophet ﷺ conveyed even one thing which was not truthful, then he is belying the Prophet ﷺ. The one who belies the Prophet ﷺ is not a true believer in the Prophet ﷺ; such a person is a disbeliever.
1This is the pubescent, sane person, who received the call of Islaam. If someone is pubescent, sane, and received the call of Islaam, there is no difference in opinion among the Muslim scholars that this person has to believe properly in Allaah and the Messenger of Allaah ﷺ and embrace the religion of Islaam.

Spencer said...

Very sad! Because people here are learned yet illiterate. Allah hu akbar is in arabic and not in hebrew. So i find this debate too stupid to participate in. Whereas any Muslim who does not respect Jesus n Mother Mary isnt a Muslim.
Stop making shit people!!

David Wood said...

Spencer,

Did you even watch the video? Because that's precisely our point. "Allahu Akbar" doesn't mean "Allah is a mouse," because Akbar is HEBREW for mouse, and we're talking about Arabic. But the same follows for machmadim in Song of Solomon 5:16. You can't say it refers to Muhammad, because it's in Hebrew. THAT'S THE POINT.

But if Muslims like Shabir Ally and Zakir Naik want to say that Machmadim refers to Muhammad, then they are translating Hebrew terms using Arabic names. And if we're going to start translating languages using other languages, then fine. Allah is a mouse!

RIJAS M K said...

Cmon ppl .. take a look at the point zakir is on. He is trying to prove that the Hebrew word is not a 'common noun' but a name (proper noun).

And here another brainless one is trying to prove that akbar can be explained like this when it is not a proper noun in both cases.

Its so pleasing to see both christian and muslim fools are abusing each other for nothing. Get a guys ..

Nanda Kumar Jayaraman said...

concepts of god varies thru different religion....everyone wants to simply prove his god is the only one thru which one could attain salvation...god is not in words, debate, lecture..etc. he is in deep core of the heart as jesus says kingdom of god is in our heart. Christ never said he is god himself however he has been misinterpreted all these decades. People tried to understand with their brain rather than feeling him in heart. All the 4 revelation mathew,mark,luke,john says but jesus never said himself if u call me i will tell he is really god as per vedanta the universal religion...further i would like to quote
When intellect ends religion begins...when religion ends reality begins....when reality ends biss starts....when bliss ends....love starts which is unconditional..God is love and love is god this is what he has said...feel the bible instead of understanding it intellectually...U can be albert einstein..great researcher of religion....but i dont belive he has realized the true manna of jesus.....jesus is alive....he will comback once again to the planet if islam is correct....love u christ..
with regards, nandakumar...Phone 009108281132428...if anyone needs can call any part of the globe.. god bless.......

larry said...

WORSHIP OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD

The Sunni creed is:

"There is no god but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God".

This phrase was first initiated by an enemy of Islaam by the name of Abdullah ibn Ubayy (555-631 A.D.) a Muslim convert from the tribe of Khazraj who soon turned his heart away from Al Islaam but left his blasphemous creed behind. He earned the name "Leader of the Hypocrites". He is also responsible for adding the blasphemous 6th Pillar of Faith to Al Islaam which is "Muhammad is the Messenger of God", to the already existing 5 Pillars, the 1st of which is the Aloneness of Allah or the whole hearted belief that Allah has no partners [La ilaha illa Allah] which all real Muslims bear witness to (Al Qur'aan 3:18; 6:19; 20:14) except the fake Sunni Muslims.

Abdullah ibn Ubayy was the most powerful citizen of Medina when the Prophet Muhammad migrated to the city. He purposely told the Muslims to add the Prophet Muhammad's name next to Allah's rendering them idol worshipers (Al Mushrikiyn) (Al Qur'aan 3:67). Abdullah bin Ubayy took parts of verses of the Qur'aan, Al Qur'aan 37:35 and 48:29, and made up this new phrase which is not found anywhere in the Qur'aan as one sentence. However, this creed has become a tradition which blasphemously hangs high in all their houses of worships, their homes and on their lips before each speech. This creed is contrary to what the Prophet Muhammad taught which was "There is no god but Allah" or "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah". No body including the Prophets of Allah cannot be placed in the same abode with Allah, thus Allah has no partners, He is One and Alone and is unique above all creation (Al Qur'aan 112:1-4; 39:45; 60:4; 72:18; 3:64; 16:36; 18:38; 39:67; 2:107; 6:102; 28:88). The true teachings of Tawhiyd (Allah who is One and Alone and the only One worthy of worship) which is also the 1st Pillar of Faith and the Shahaada existed before the Prophet Muhammad because Islaam has always existed and you can find this in previous scriptures, examples: Deuteronomy 6:4 and Exodus 20:2-3. Therefore, they are guilty of "altering words" of the Qur'aan and making them part of their "teachings". Allah (Al Qur'aan 4:46; 5:41) has confused the teaching of the Oral Tradition as corrupting the Bible and blamed the Jews for altering the Word of Allah in the Torah by changing the words, moving them from one place to another, distorting the interpretation and context of the scriptures.

The Sunni Muslims are guilty of doing what the Koran said the Jews did.

They also have over 100 attributes for the Prophet Muhammad and Allah has only 99 known to them in their hadiths (traditions).