Friday, February 8, 2013

Refuting Shabir Ally on Muhammad in the Bible

The Qur'an says that the Torah and the Gospel predict the coming of Muhammad (7:157). Hence, Muslim apologists like Shabir Ally are forced by their religion to find so-called Biblical prophecies about Muhammad. Amazingly, after nearly fourteen centuries of searching for these prophecies, the only verses Muslims have been able to find actually show that Muhammad can't possibly be a prophet!

14 comments:

fay said...

Fay

I belief the Gospel predicts the coming of Muhammad.

Matthew 7:15
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

Craig said...

Does the Qur'an say just the Torah and the gospel predict Muhammads coming. If so why do Muslims say he's predicted in song or Solomon when that's not the Torah and the Qur'an says god only sent down the Torah, psalm and gospel right? So once again why are Muslims going to the songs of Solomon

Caricature said...

Fay,

exactly.

SGM said...

I want to point out something about prophecies, especially when we are talking about prophecies about prophets. I have very limited knowledge so please correct me if I am wrong. As far as I can tell, nowhere in the (Christian) scriptures we find any prophecies about prophets where God says that He will send such and such prophet except two. The only two prophets that I can tell who are prophesied are John the Baptist and Jesus Christ who is THE PROPHET AND SON OF GOD. All of the prophets came to prophecy about someone who is higher than them and that is the savior of the world Jesus Christ. Even John the Baptist came to prepare the way for Jesus Christ. Regarding prophecies, we read about John the Baptist in Matt 3:3, “For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” And Jesus claimed which prophecies about him are fulfilled and He was very clear about it. We read in Luke 4:21, “And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.” We neither read about Moses, Joshua, Daniel (or any other prophet) nor do we find any prophecies being fulfilled about them. No prophet other than Jesus ever claimed that he was prophesied by previous prophets. And when Jesus claims about himself, he tells us which prophecy so that there is no doubt. In addition, when we look at the rest of the prophecies about Jesus and compare them with the life of Jesus, it is so clear that they were fulfilled.

Now moslems are so desperate to prove that Mohammad is a prophet of God and in doing so they rip passages out of Christian scriptures and use them to prove that Mohammad is a prophet. Can anyone tell me where Mohammad said that such and such prophecy is fulfilled in him? All I remember is reading that he said that he is prophesied in the scriptures before him. Now if Mohammad was the true prophet of Allah, he must have told him which prophecy is fulfilled about him. Quran claims to be very clear. One thing it should have been the most clear is to prove which prophecy was fulfilled in Mohammad so that there is no doubt about his prophet hood. On the contrary, this one thing (among many others) is the most unclear of all. No wonder, moslems are so desperate to find passages in the Christian Scriptures.

Arrow said...

Arabic and Hebrew are sister languages. Pick any word in Arabic and you will easily find a similarly sounding one in Hebrew, in the Torah.

bob said...

"for false christ's (saviours) and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

See, I have told you beforehand." Mathew 24:24, 25

peter popo said...

Muslims have a hard time seeing the connections between things. Their own Quran point to a divinic Jesus. It says Jesus was born of a virgin, that he spoke as a baby & hence had the full knowledge of an adult as a baby and that he made birds out of clay. The latter two miracles come from the fake Arab Infancy Gospel that was written long after the real Gospels. But, they were written by people who were telling stories of Jesus' divinity. The miracles were symbols that pointed toward Jesus' divinty. Example 1: They believed that since Jesus was divine then he would be born with the full knowledge of an adult (obvious misinterpretation of Jesus but this gives us insight into what the creators of these stories believed). Example 2: Jesus makes animals out of clay because in both the Arab Infancy Gospel because God made Adam out of clay, hence Jesus is acting like God. Its interested that the Quran says Jesus was born of a virgin, that he performed these 2 symbolic "miracles" and that he was a word of God.

Muslims seem not to see the connection between all these things!!!

peter popo said...

Typo/Bad Sentence Alert: In my previous comment after I write "Example 2", I meant to say the following....."Jesus makes animals out of clay in the Arab Infancy Gospel because God made Adam out of clay, hence Jesus is acting like God."

Craig said...

@ David Wood

Have you ever asked a Muslim, since Muhammad is supposedly predicted in dut 18:18 and Jesus said moses spoke of him then what verse was Jesus talking about?

bob said...

Even an intelligent man can still be a fool, as Shabir, Imran and some other Islamic apologists have demonstrated.

...the lips of a fool shall swallow him up; the words of his mouth begin with foolishness, and the end of his talk is raving madness. A fool also multiplies words... Ecclesiastes 10:12-14

ignatius said...

David, you and your companions are doing a great job, but I think your discussion of the verse Song 326,of Solomon 5:16 needs some sharpening up. Three factors are relevant:
1. Pastor Joseph’s assertion that Hebrew is a “completely different language” and the Hebrew word only “sounds vaguely and remotely” like Mohammed (16:40 – 17:20 in the film clip) is not completely fair. The root of Machamadim in Hebrew, chet-mem-daleth, is almost certainly the same root which is the basis for the name Mohammed in Arabic (cf. the Hebrew Dictionary Brown-Driver and Briggs, p. 326, col. i for the root, col. ii for the word machmad). This means that there is a common origin to the words machmad and Mohammed in Proto-Semitic or in a slightly later stage of development in the Semitic language group. “Machmad” and “Mohammed” are derived from a common source. Therefore the reason for the somewhat similar sound is indeed because the root is the same.

2. Although the singular form of the word in the Song of Solomon 5:16 is indeed machmad, the plural form is machamadim. There is a very short “a”-sound after the chet which serves as a pronunciation aid. Shabir Ally asserted that the word is mohamedim (beginning at about 9:50 on the YouTube clip - if I heard him correctly). This is wrong, but Pastor Joseph’s assertion that the word is “machmadim” (at about 10:05) is also wrong.
3. The “allahu ackhar” analogy (Allah is a mouse) is clever, but it can be countered. Of course one cannot choose common sounding words in two languages and simply transfer the meanings. However, Mohammed is a proper name, and it is reasonable to expect the name to sound similar in various languages. When I see the word “Obama” in a German newspaper, I’m not going to conclude that it obviously does not refer to the president of the United States because German is a different language from English.

Basically you are right in your claims, but a few things can and should be conceded to the other side.

Jeff said...

I want to add some criticisms to those of Ignatius.

With respect to Genesis 18: 20 and the Satanic verses--does it really apply?

Firstly, did Muhammad speak "presumptuously" a prophecy which God did not command him to speak? I think he admitted that he spoke a prophecy God did not command him to speak. But I don't think it was presumptuous. That would mean, I think, a deliberate speaking of something as coming from God which you know actually comes from you. But Muhammad was, according to the story, deceived. You can call it a lot of things, but not presumptuous.

Second, did he speak "in the name of" other gods? I don't think so. He spoke favorably of them, but didn't "call them to witness" as the source of his verses. If I say something "in the name of" a ruler, it means that my authority is that ruler and he wishes me to use his authority to speak for him.

Mohammed speaks favorable of the three exalted cranes, but in the name of Allah, not in their name.

I too am a Christian. But I think one has to concede something here.

David Wood said...

Jeff,

You're just being silly. Read some alternative translations of Deuteronomy 18:20. Here's the ESV: "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die."

You seem to be interpreting "presumptuously" in the NASB as "arrogantly" or something similar. But this isn't what the text is saying at all. If ANYONE delivers a message as the Word of God, and that message didn't come from God, the person hasn't been careful enough. He has presumed to speak for God, when the message isn't from God. Such a person is obviously a false prophet, for if God allowed even his prophets to deliver false messages, how would anyone know what to believe?

As for your second point, you're deliberately being overly technical in your interpretation. Why is it wrong to speak in the names of other gods? It's wrong because to do so is to promote polytheism. So is a person who says that it's okay to pray to al-lat, al-Uzza, and Manat promoting polytheism? Of course he is. Yet if we go with your interpretation, we would have to say that it's okay to promote praying to other gods, so long as one doesn't say the words, "I'm speaking the names of these gods." And that's simply absurd.

Bolekaja! said...

Hi - a possible message for Sam - I watched the debate with Shabir Aily..one question was about the justice of Jesus dying..could Abraham's sacrifice of his son Isaac have anything relevant to contribute ? - Colin.