Monday, October 8, 2018

Is Muhammad mentioned in Song of Solomon 5:16?

If there was ever a text that has been so brutally contorted beyond the limits it is Song of Solomon 5:16.
The unsound reasoning in the Muslim interpretation of this text is an example of the phonetic fallacy, confusing the sound of one word for another and assuming they are the same. If I were to say the word “sun” and “son”, even though they both sound the same, they are by no means the same by definition and context.

Song of Solomon 5:16 reads,“His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my lover, this my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”Muslims point out that the phrase “altogether lovely” in Hebrew is the word machmadim. This Hebrew word machmadim is a third person masculine plural noun and it comes from the root word machmad. They argue that the Hebrew word machmad actually refers to Muhammad! The first problem with this line of reasoning is that the word machmad is not a proper name like John, Tom, or even Muhammad. It rather functions in this case as an adjective even though it is a noun. The reason for this is that this word appears in an adjectival clause describing in the context of the Song of Solomon the love and desire that the woman feels for her husband.
The Song of Solomon is a poetic love poem addressing the delights of marital love between a husband and his wife. The context is explicitly clear on this point. 

The wordmachmad means “desirable”, “precious thing”, “pleasant thing” and its plural form machmadimin Song of Solomon 5:16 is grammatically intended to heighten the sense of the word. Hebrew scholars refer to this as the plural of intensity’. In other words, this passage has to do with the description of the lover in the poem as being “altogether lovely” or “very desirable”. Muslims in this case engage in a form of eisegesis where they read into the text a foreign concept that was never part of the context. If we look at the other 12places in the Old Testament where the Hebrew word machmad also appears and we insert the name Muhammad in those places we will have awkward and completely senseless phrases. If Muslims are to be consistent then why do they not also interpret machmad in the following passages as a reference to Muhammad? We encourage the reader to insert the name Muhammad in the following passages and see for themselves how absurd this would be. The passages are 1 Kings 20:6; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Isaiah 64:11; Lamentations 1:10,11;2:4, Ezekiel 24:16, 21, 25, Hosea 9:6, Hosea 9:16 and Joel 3:5.

Another problem and inconsistency with the Muslim concept that Muhammad is referred to in Song of Solomon 5:16 is the passage in Song of Solomon 5:1 where the husband or lover speaks the following words, “I have eaten my honeycomb and my honey; I have drunk my wine”. The problem here is the fact that the drinking of wine is strictly forbidden in Islam, “O you who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divine arrows are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork. Leave it aside that you may succeed” (Qur’an 5:90). The idea that Muhammad would consume wine as a prophet would be inconceivable. However, drinking wine in Hebrew culture was wholly acceptable. What is surprising from an Islamic point of view, is that while wine is forbidden here on earth, it will be permitted in abundance in paradise, “A similitude of the Garden which those who keep their duty (to Allah) are promised: Therein are rivers of water unpolluted ... and rivers of wine delicious to the drinkers" (Qur’an 47:15). All of these points considered, grammatical, cultural, and historical militate against the inconsistent view that Muslims impose on this text. This text says nothing about Muhammad at all.


cyberwyz said...

Excellent dismantling of one of the numerous muslim misunderstandings. And akbar = mouse, priceless! I'll be sharing that with everyone - thanks!

cyberwyz said...

Hm. I understand name calling began long ago by comparing an entire race of people to pigs and monkeys. Whoever would do such a thing? THAT opened the pandora's box.

Xen said...

You said in your post:

"Please do enlighten us! Who has called the entire race of people pigs and monkeys? A crazy preacher? If so, there is no denying that crazy lunatics do exit in all creeds..."

Muhammad called the Jews pigs and apes, so I guess your right, he was crazy and a lunatic!

Surah's 7:166, 2:65, and 5:60.

Leave your delusional religion, and follow Christ, the only true light that enlightens every man.

cyberwyz said...

Yes, Xen has it right. Sadly Mr Ruhi is typical of so many - either uninformed or cleverly misinformed, dominated by a `believe or else' mentality. Anyway, further to the pigs & monkeys reference, here is a short video illustrating how early such indoctrination is applied in compulsive societies.

umerdeen said...

Only Satan can call anybody (even one person) apes and pigs. This proves that Allah is not the God of the world.

Andrew said...

Genesis 12:3 says i will bless those who bless you. I will curse those who curse you.

Mad mo and the koran cursing Jews proves the koran is not the word of God and that islam is the spawn of satan.

Xen said...

You said in your post:

"Poor Xen, mark my word! Lucifer is providing him with most horrible gift of cancer, as a reward for his transgression and lies."

What kind of religion teaches its followers to pronounce such anathema against another creation of God. Is this what your religion is all about. Oh, yes, I forgot, allah only likes muslims, and hates everyone else.

Our God, the True God of the Holy Bible, loves everyone, regardless of whether they love him back or believe in Him the way they should.

Poor Behieh Ruhi, I feel sorry for you and your dead end religion, go and bother someone else with your silly ignorant, mistaken, false mutterings.

Xen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Xen said...

I genuinely feel sorry for you Behieh. If you think what you have quoted means what you say, I do not know what to say to you.

The problem with muslims, is because their starting position is wrong i.e. the Quran, all their conclusions are wrong, especially when it comes to Christianity. I must also say that muslim scholarship into Christianity is poor, compared to the Christian scholarship of islam which is very good.

Saint Peter said:

"For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty."


"...knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

Also, St Paul said:

...but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

If the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth and that there should be no private interpretation, this means that only the Church of Christ has the Authority to interpret the Scriptures properly, so it does not really matter what you say, it is what the Church says what matters.

I will leave my last words with the Apostle Paul. Saint Paul told us in his Epistle to Titus:

"But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned."

And as you are one of these divisive people who will not listen to the Truth, I will not be responding to your silly posts anymore. In Christ. Peace.

Anonymous said...

Did I miss the part where Behieh Ruhi proved Song of Solomon 5:16 was speaking about Muhammad?

Anonymous said...

Ok great, So Behieh Ruhi has essentially thrown the towel in as far as Song of Solomon 5:16 goes.

It's good to see at least one muslim here has come to terms with the fact that Muhammad has nothing to do with the passage.

Anonymous said...

As we can see from
Behieh Ruhi's own words, there is not a single manuscript which supports the idea that Muhammad is referred to in Song of Solomon 5:16. Indeed, Behieh Ruhi named three manuscripts, none of which agreed with his alleged original. What is more, the alleged original manuscript was not named by Behieh Ruhi, and the reason for this is obvious; such a manuscript does not exist.

It is enlightening however to see the muslim mindset - place trust in an unnamed, non-existing, unsupported manuscript and assert divine inspiration upon it. We must thank such muslim polemicists for making it easy to reject their underhanded and baseless methodologies.

Anonymous said...

As a little extra, it is amusing that Behieh Ruhi would project mousehood upon my beliefs toward Jesus Christ, when it is precisely the Muslim position that amounts to Allah being a mouse when consistency is applied to the muslim argument for Muhammad in Song of Solomon 5:16. While muslims ignore the fact that Muhammad is a noun and machmadim is an adjective, they appeal to the closeness of the sounds between the two. Yet if consistency is to be upheld then one can say that Muslims invoke mousehood upon Allaj everytime they dileriously scream allahu akbar since akbar means mouse.

Notice also that Behieh Ruhi said ALL CURRENT VERSIONS of Song of Solomon are forgeries. Thus he candidly admits he possesses no such original. It is curious then that he said "it is in the authentic original that we read."

I also congratulate Behieh Ruhi for the ill manners towards my character. It exposes the lack of substance for a sound and logical position, hence the insulting.

Unknown said...

Ruhi its really so discouraging to see that even after knowing you support a false prophet, the one who lusted after his adopted sons wife and married a little kid and even had children with that little girl and still not satisfied slept with slave girls, that is so pathetic, killing in the name of religion men and women and even children who are created in the image of God and calling it jihad.

Unknown said...

And if are taking about nabeel, let me tell about your false prophet who died because of consuming poisoned food, know this what Jesus said
Mark 16:16-18 KJV
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. [17] And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; [18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Xen said...

I said I was not going to comment again, but I felt the need to after reading Behieh comments.

Your religion is the worst religion in the world. Everyone knows it, but will not say it. It is the cause of most of the problems in the world today. Without Islam, the world would be a relatively peaceful place. Muslims like to portray Muhammad (if he even existed) as the 'greatest' of the prophets, but Muhammad only brought bloodshed, violence and ignorance into the world. The one sin that Muhammad committed which will not be forgiven him is the fact that he brought back 'The Law' so to speak with Islam's insistence on shariah law for salvation. Don't Muslims understand that the Law was given once and for all on Mount Sinai to the Hebrew people, after this event, no more law. When Jesus came, he fulfilled the Law and brought grace and truth into the world. Therefore there is no need for another prophet as all has been accomplished on the cross. You foolish Muslims, you do not even conceive of the greatness of this. How dark are your hearts. Our Lord Jesus' words are fulfilled in you, 'the blind leading the blind'.

Yes, in a sense, Muhammad was revealed in the New Testament, when Jesus said that after Him there would only be false prophets, so yes, Muhammad is a false prophet.

If you do not like these negative comments, maybe you should be more respectful in your comments!

Grow up! See the True Light!

Anonymous said...

Notice Behieh Ruhi has still failed to produce a single manuscript the bears the words he claimed to be reading from. He also complains that I only speak of three manuscripts, when in fact I am simply responding to the three he chose from. It just goes to show what a fantasy land he's living in to push his nonsense.

He keeps projecting on others the failings of his religion, for it is the muslims who argue from homonyms, only to find it backfire when the same reasoning would lead to the conclusion that allahu akbar means allah is a mouse. To add further insult to injury, Behieh Ruhi draws attention to the subject of sexual relations with children, which is precisely what Muhammad engaged in with his dolly-playing kid bride Aisha.

Let's not forget also the appeal to scholarship. No reputeable biblical scholar holds to the positon that Behieh Ruhi does regarding Song of Solomon 5:16.

Finally, the very claim that the scripture has been corrupted incriminates allah as a lying weak fool since surah 10:64 says there are no changes to the word of allah. This is allah's supreme triumph. Behieh Ruhi is calling Allah's supreme triumph a miserable failure by claiming corruption.

Thank you once again Behieh Ruhi for exposing Islam as a false religion.

Anonymous said...

Your empty rhetoric and failure to respond to the points raised is duly noted. It is also interesting to note the shirk in your statement of muhammad having "the most holy name". The most holy name according to tawheed would belong to Allah, not to his messenger, but continue to sink into the depths of this quagmire you've made for yourself.

umerdeen said...

Jesus is sinless.

The best Muslim in the world, prophet Mohd is a child molester (54 yr Mohd has sex with 9 yr old Aisha), Mohd marries his daughter in law Zainab (Quran 33:37). This is incest. Mohd kills 600 to 900 bani Qurayza tribesmen and takes the women and children as prisoners. This is murder and slavery. Mohd kills Nani Kinana for the treasure and has sex with his wife Safiya the same night in a tent. This is murder and rape. Mohd robs caravans for a living (Ghazwas). Mohd is a robber. Mohd has sex with slave girl Mariah the opt. Quran 66:1-2. This is sex slavery. Mohd has the Jewish tribe of Nadir and Qaynaqa exiled from Medina, and massacres bani Qurayza tribe. Mohd gets rid of Jews from Medina and robs their wealth(Jew hater). Mohd had sex with all his 9 wives the same night (Sex addict). No wonder ISIS, Boko Haram, Taliban, Al Shabab, Al Qaida etc. follow Mohd's example.

Anonymous said...

Umer Deen, you made some very good points. Notice how Behieh Ruhi accused me of defending child molesters when I had made no such defence. What I did however was to point out that it was rather hypocritical for him to argue on such points since his beloved prophet engaged in child molestation with his kiddy-bride Aisha.

Behieh Ruhi mentions a list of names, but Umer Deen has correctly pointed out entire groups involved in child molestation, and save brutality.

Behieh Ruhi - Don't throw stones inside your glass house.

This is all besides the fact that this very topic was used as a smoke screen to divert the discussion away from the points raised. Since Behieh Ruhi makes wild-eyed claims that are unsubstantiated, he has to distract the discussion to other things.

Behieh Ruhi, please address these points:

1. Name the manuscript that you "were reading from" that says: "This is my beloved brother , and this is our Shepherd Muhammad the son of Abdulah, O daughters of Jerusalem!"

2. Why do you ascribe miserable failure to Allah's supreme triumph in which no change is there to the words of Allah?

3. Why do you call our God a mouse when it is the Muslims who say Allahu Akbar?

4. How do you get a plural adjective (altogether lovely) to equal a singular noun (praised one)?

5. Can you show me where Muhammad is used in the plural in the Qur'an?

6. Does the plural of majesty apply to Allah as well as Muhammad?

7. If Allah's greatest attribute is his being one, why then would a plural form be used to ascribe majesty and not the singular form?

8. Since Allah is completely like creation in His names and attributes - When you say Allah is one - does that one have the same or completely different meaning to one as is applied to creation - e.g. there is one apple on the table?

Goreng Ayam Marketing said...


Adu Ayam Sampai Mati

Agen S128

Agen Sabung Ayam

Arena Sabung Ayam

Ayam Sabung Taji

Bandar Sabung Ayam

Jadwal Bola Malam Ini



Anonymous said...

Behieh Ruhi, your answers were abysmally bad.

"1. Name the manuscript that you "were reading from" that says: "This is my beloved brother , and this is our Shepherd Muhammad the son of Abdulah, O daughters of Jerusalem!"
* It is in the incorruptible, indestructible gospel of Prophet Issa. It is coming straight from God. Hence, why it is never going to be altered."

You didn't name the manuscript. Try again.

"2. Why do you ascribe miserable failure to God's supreme triumph in which no change is there to the words of God?

* As per my response to Q1, the word of God is protected by Him. Never can be altered and corrupted. The bibles that are forged, are fake bibles. Produced by Antichrist. This now known by all imminent scholars of some repute!"

Since you ascribe preservation to a scripture that is with God and not with us on the earth, then you have no guarantee that the Qur'an you read is the preserved original. It's not much of a supreme triumph if Allah's scripture was utterly corrupted on the earth and only kept with him where noone else can read it.

Your other answers were equally bad if not worse. I will address them later as time and the Lord permits.

Patente B said...

GREAT ONE Acquista Una Patente Di Guida Senza Esami