Zakir Naik, Muhammad, and the Comforter: An Examination of John 14:16

One of Dr. Zakir Naik's favorite topics is "Muhammad in the Bible." Dr. Naik claims that when Jesus spoke about the "Comforter" in John 14:16, he was referring to Muhammad. But there's a problem for Dr. Naik here. Jesus said, in John 16:7, that if he goes away, he will send the Comforter. So Jesus is the one who sends the Comforter. According to Islam, however, Muhammad was sent by Allah. So if Jesus sends the Comforter, and Allah sends Muhammad, and the Comforter is Muhammad, Jesus must be Allah!

"What does the Qur'an Say About the Bible?" Jonathan McLatchie vs. Aqil Onque

Here is the recording of my debate on ABN from last night, in which I engaged Muslim apologist Aqil Onque on "What does the Qur'an say about the Bible?" Enjoy!

Messianic Prophecy in the Jewish Scriptures: A Conversation with Dr. Michael Brown at the Apologetics Academy

Here is the recording of the Webinar I hosted as part of my Apologetics Academy weekly webinar series, with Dr. Michael Brown on Messianic prophecy in the Jewish Scriptures -- also featuring Sam Shamoun and Yusuf Ismail! This session is very much worth watching. Enjoy!

"Is Muhammad Prophesied in the Bible?" Jonathan McLatchie, Tony Gurule, C.L. Edwards and Joe Carey

Here is the recording of my appearance from last night on ABN Sat's Trinity Channel, in which I participated in a panel discussion on whether Muhammad is prophesied by the Bible?

If you want to cut straight to the conclusion, he isn't.

Does Jesus Prophesy the Coming of Muhammad in John 14? Shabir Ally vs. David Wood

According to the Qur'an, both the Torah and the Gospel contain clear prophecies about Muhammad (see Qur'an 7:157). Muslims have had nearly fourteen centuries to find these prophecies, and the most commonly cited New Testament "prophecy" about Muhammad is found in John 14:16, where Jesus declares that the "Comforter" or "Helper" (Greek "paraclete") will come after him. Even though Jesus specifically identifies the Comforter as the "Spirit of Truth" in the very next verse, Muslims claim that the prophecy refers to Muhammad. But can this passage really be applied to Muhammad? In this video, Shabir Ally and David Wood discuss the evidence. (Clips are taken from "Does Muhammad Give Us the Truth about Jesus?")

A Former Muslim Refutes the Claim That Muhammad Is Mentioned in John 15:26

The Qur'an claims that Christians find Muhammad mentioned in our scriptures (Qur'an 7:157). Hence, if we don't find Muhammad mentioned in our scriptures, the Qur'an is wrong.

Not surprisingly, Muslims have spent nearly fourteen centuries trying to find Muhammad in the Bible. One of the most common claims is that Muhammad is the "Comforter" or "Advocate" of John 14, 15, and 16. In John 15:26, for instance, Jesus says, "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me."

In the following video, a former Muslim discusses John 15:26.

An In-Depth Refutation of Muhammad in the Bible

Here's an excellent lecture on so-called prophecies about Muhammad in the Bible.

Muhammad in Song of Solomon 5:16?

The Qur'an puts Muslim apologists in a difficult position by claiming that the Bible contains clear prophecies about Muhammad (see Qur'an 7:157 and 61:6). Muslim writers, speakers, and debaters have had nearly fourteen centuries to find these prophecies, so if they can't show us where the Bible talks about Muhammad, we can only conclude that the Qur'an is wrong when it appeals to the Bible for support.

Some of the arguments our Muslim friends use seem to be based on sheer desperation. For instance, popular Muslim apologists like Zakir Naik and Shabir Ally claim that Muhammad is mentioned by name in Song of Solomon 5:16. Zakir Naik writes:

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon chapter 5 verse 16:

"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."

"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."

In the Hebrew language -im is added for respect. Similarly -im is added after the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to make it Muhammadim. In English translation they have even translated the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as "altogether lovely", but in the Old Testament in Hebrew, the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is yet present.

Shabir Ally adds:

Now what remains is for us to specify where in the Bible to find mention of our prophet. In the Old Testament there are many references. The most significant is Song of Solomon, chapter 5, verse 16. This verse mentions our prophet by name. It says in the Hebrew language Bibles "He is Muhammad." But English translations have "He is altogether lovely" instead of the real truth. You need to insist that, since it says our prophet's name in the Hebrew, the "altogether lovely" translation is nothing more than a camouflage hiding our prophet's name. Tell every Bible reader whether Jew or Christian to ask any Hebrew scholar to read the Hebrew word which appears as "altogether lovely" in the translation. You will hear that word pronounced "Muhammad." Why then hide what you should believe?

For anyone who has read Song of Solomon, this is an amazing verse to cite as evidence for Islam! Song of Solomon is a short poetic book about a loving, physical relationship between Solomon and his bride (there are a variety of interpretations, but none will help turn this into a prophecy about Muhammad). Some Muslims claim that this book can't be the Word of God, because of the way Solomon and his bride talk about each other's bodies. For example, in chapter 7, verses 1-3, Solomon says to his bride:

How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince's daughter! 
Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of an artist's hands. Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies. Your breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle.

Solomon continues praising her body. And yet Muslims go to this book to find a prophecy about Muhammad!

Let's turn to chapter 5, which supposedly mentions Muhammad by name. In the first verse of the chapter, Solomon says:

I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride; I have gathered my myrrh with my spice. I have eaten my honeycomb and my honey; I have drunk my wine and my milk.

Solomon talks about drinking wine. But again, Muslims go to this chapter to find a prophecy about Muhammad!

Let's read the so-called prophecy of Muhammad in context. In verse 8, Solomon's bride says to her friends, "Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you—if you find my beloved, what will you tell him? Tell him I am faint with love."

Her friends respond in verse 9 by asking her, "How is your beloved better than others, most beautiful of women?"

She answers them in verses 10 through 16. Let's read the passage and see if we can spot the prophecy about Muhammad.

Solomon's bride says:

My beloved is radiant and ruddy, outstanding among ten thousand.

His head is purest gold; his hair is wavy and black as a raven.

His eyes are like doves by the water streams, 
washed in milk, mounted like jewels.

His cheeks are like beds of spice yielding perfume. His lips are like lilies dripping with myrrh.

His arms are rods of gold set with topaz. His body is like polished ivory decorated with lapis lazuli.

His legs are pillars of marble set on bases of pure gold.
 His appearance is like Lebanon, choice as its cedars.

His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, this is my friend, daughters of Jerusalem.

This last verse, according to our Muslim friends, is somehow about Muhammad. Why should we interpret this verse as a prophecy about Muhammad? Muslims reason that, since the Hebrew for "altogether lovely" is machmadim, and machmadim sounds somewhat similar to the name "Muhammad," the verse is actually referring to Muhammad by name. (Note: Zakir Naik claims that the suffix -im is "added for respect" in Hebrew, but this is sheer nonsense. The suffix -im is added to form the plural, which may be a plural of intensity, i.e., "altogether." But let's forgive this blunder and pretend that the word used is the singular "machmad," which is closer to "Muhammad.") So Song of Solomon 5:16 should be translated:

His mouth is sweetness itself; he is Muhammad. This is my beloved, this is my friend, daughters of Jerusalem.

Notice a couple of points here. First, this is Solomon's bride talking. So if Solomon's bride is delivering a prophecy about Muhammad, then she is a prophetess, according to our Muslim friends (unless the author of Song of Solomon is merely portraying her as a prophetess).

Second, the bride is praising a man's body. This makes perfect sense if she's talking about her husband. But if our Muslim friends insist that she's talking about Muhammad, they're accusing Solomon's bride of lusting after another man (Muhammad) in a vision given to her by God.

Third, if 5:16 is about Muhammad, then Solomon's wife calls Muhammad her "beloved." But in chapter 7, verse 10, she says, "I belong to my beloved, and his desire is for me." Since Muhammad is her beloved (according to the Islamic interpretation), she declares in 7:10 that she belongs to Muhammad and that Muhammad desires her. How did Solomon's bride belong to Muhammad? Why would Muhammad desire a woman who had been dead for more than fifteen centuries?

Either Song of Solomon is an extremely troubling story about a time-traveling adulterous love affair between Solomon's bride and Muhammad, or the book simply has nothing to do with Muhammad.

But things get worse for our Muslim friends. The word machmad is used in many places in the Old Testament. It refers to something pleasing, treasured, or lovely. So if machmad is actually Muhammad's name, we need to be consistent and say that wherever the word machmad is used, it's referring to Muhammad. Let's consider two passages that use the word machmad and see what happens if we translate the word as "Muhammad."

In Ezekiel 24:16, Ezekiel's wife is called "machmad," because she's treasured by Ezekiel. So if machmad means "Muhammad," Muhammad must have been Ezekiel's wife! Is that what any Muslim believes? Of course not. So why do Muslims keep telling us that machmad means "Muhammad"?

Just five verses later in Ezekiel, God tells the children of Israel that Jerusalem will be conquered and that the temple will be destroyed. He says, "I am about to desecrate my sanctuary—the stronghold in which you take pride, the delight of your eyes" (Ezekiel 24:21). The word "delight" here is machmad. So if machmad is the name "Muhammad," God is promising to desecrate Muhammad! Is that what Shabir Ally and Zakir Naik want us to believe God is saying? (For further uses of machmad, see 1 Kings 20:6; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Lamentations 1:10-11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:11; Ezekiel 24:25; Hosea 9:6; and Joel 3:5.)

This is what happens when Muslim apologists try to force Muhammad into the Bible. They go to a passage in which Solomon's bride is praising her husband's body, and they expect us to believe that she's actually having adulterous thoughts about a future prophet. Shabir Ally and Zakir Naik take a perfectly normal Hebrew word and try to transform it into a prophecy of Muhammad, but in doing so they end up claiming that Muhammad was Ezekiel's wife and that God promises to desecrate him!

Since Shabir calls Song of Solomon 5:16 the "most significant" reference to Muhammad in the entire Old Testament, we can only wonder how persuasive the rest are!

For more on Song of Solomon 5:16 and its supposed reference to Muhammad, be sure to visit the following links:

• Zakir Naik Proves That Allah Is a Mouse! (Based on Song of Solomon 5:16)
• Does Song of Solomon Mention Muhammad?
• Muhammad in the Bible
• Evidence of Shabir's Inconsistency

Muhammad in Isaiah 29:12?

Since the Qur’an claims that the Bible contains clear prophecies about Muhammad (see 7:157 and 61:6), Muslims have been trying to locate these prophecies for nearly fourteen centuries. Some of Islam’s most popular apologists, such as Ahmed Deedat and Zakir Naik, have attempted to show that the Bible refers to Muhammad in Isaiah 29:12. Zakir Naik writes:

Muhammad (pbuh) is prophesised in the book of Isaiah:

It is mentioned in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12:

"And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned."

When Archangel Gabrail commanded Muhammad (pbuh) by saying Iqra - "Read", he replied, "I am not learned".

So Muhammad is supposedly the illiterate man who receives a book in Isaiah 29.

But Isaiah 29:12 isn’t about a prophet; it’s about people who rejects God’s prophets! At this point, we can only wonder why Muslims who respect Muhammad don’t accuse Zakir Naik and Ahmed Deedat of heresy or apostasy when they apply this verse to Muhammad.

In the first ten verses of Isaiah 29, God announces that he’s going to punish Israel and Israel’s enemies. He’s going to punish Israel for sinning against him, and he’s going to punish Israel’s enemies for attacking Israel. God sends the prophet Isaiah to announce these punishments, but God tells Isaiah that people won’t listen to the message. He says in verses 11 and 12:

The entire vision will be to you like the words of a sealed book, which when they give it to the one who is literate, saying, “Please read this,” he will say, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” Then the book will be given to the one who is illiterate, saying, “Please read this.” And he will say, “I cannot read.”

Notice what happens here. Isaiah has been given a revelation. But God tells him that people will reject the revelation. The message is like a sealed book. If it’s given to someone who can read, he will say, “I can’t read it, because it’s sealed.” If it’s given to someone who can’t read, he will say, “I don’t know how to read.” Either way, people refuse to heed God’s warning.

Interestingly, in the very next verse (Isaiah 29:13), God says: “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” Jesus quotes this very passage in the Gospels to condemn people for their disobedience to God (see Matthew 15:7-9).

So when Muslims like Zakir Naik and Ahmed Deedat say that Isaiah 29:12 refers to Muhammad, they’re telling us that Muhammad was spiritually blind, that his heart was far from God, that he rejected God’s revelation, and that Jesus would have condemned him just as he condemned the Pharisees.

Of course, if our Muslim friends want to convince us that this verse about people rejecting God’s revelations is actually about Muhammad, we have no reason to object. We can only pray that they won’t follow Muhammad down the path of rebellion against God.

Muslim Claims That Muhammad Is God (an Examination of Habakkuk 3:3)

Muslims often criticize other religions for idolatry, when Islam is full of idolatry (bowing down to the Kaaba, taking a pilgrimage to the Kaaba, walking circles around the Kaaba, kissing the black stone embedded in the corner of the Kaaba, etc.). Islam is especially idolatrous when it comes to Muhammad. You can post all the cartoons you want about Adam, Moses, or Jesus, but as soon as someone posts a cartoon about Muhammad, people have to die.

But there's another important way that Muslims idolize Muhammad. They become so desperate to find references to him in the Bible that they start applying passages about God to Muhammad! Let's look at an example.

Earlier, a Muslim named Mohammed Bakir claimed on Facebook that Muhammad is prophesied in Habakkuk 3:3. Here's what he posted:

Such a claim is startling to anyone who's actually read Habakkuk, because it's clear that "Holy One" is a reference to God. Here's the verse in context:

A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet, according to Shigionoth.
"Lord, I have heard the report about You and I fear.
O Lord, revive Your work in the midst of the years,
In the midst of the years make it known;
In wrath remember mercy.
God comes from Teman,
And the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah.
His splendor covers the heavens,
And the earth is full of His praise.
His radiance is like the sunlight;
He has rays flashing from His hand,
And there is the hiding of His power." (Habakkuk 3:1-4)

Obviously, the "Holy One" is God himself, so I responded to Mohammed:

I assumed that Mohammed would drop the issue as soon as he realized that the verse refers to God, but he pressed on:

So many errors, so little time!

First, Mohammed says that "Holy One" should not be capitalized, because it doesn't refer to God (and that it was only translated with capitals so that infidels could deny prophecies about Muhammad). But the same word is used by the same prophet in the same book. Habakkuk 1:12 reads:

Are You not from everlasting,
O Lord, my God, my Holy One?
We will not die.
You, O Lord, have appointed them to judge;
And You, O Rock, have established them to correct.

Does this also refer to Muhammad? Is Muhammad "my God"? Is Muhammad "from everlasting"?

Second, "Holy One," in Habakkuk 3:3, can't refer to a pious human being, because the verse continues by saying of this Holy One that "His splendor covered the heavens." If Mohammed is telling us that his prophet's "splendor covered the heavens," he indeed believes that Muhammad is God!

Third, Mohammed says that "Teman" refers to Medina. But even if we go with his absurd theory about "Holy One," the text clearly says that it's God who comes from Teman. So once again, Mohammed is trying to convince us that his prophet is God.

Fourth, Mohammed assures us that Paran is Mecca. But the Paran of the Old Testament was a wilderness that the Jews went through on their way to the land of Israel (Mount Paran is in northwestern Sinai, quite a distance from Mecca):

Numbers 10:12—And the children of Israel took their journeys out of the wilderness of Sinai; and the cloud rested in the wilderness of Paran.

Numbers 12:16—And afterward the people removed from Hazeroth, and pitched in the wilderness of Paran.

Numbers 13:3—And Moses by the commandment of the LORD sent them from the wilderness of Paran: all those men were heads of the children of Israel.

Numbers 13:26—And they went and came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh; and brought back word unto them, and unto all the congregation, and shewed them the fruit of the land.

Deuteronomy 1:1—These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain over against the Red sea, between Paran, and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Dizahab.

Hence, according to Mohammed, the Jews spent an awful lot of time in Mecca on their way to the holy land!

Fifth, Mohammed argues that, since "Paran" refers to Mecca, Habakkuk's statement about Paran must be a prophecy about Muhammad. But even if Paran did refer to Mecca (which it obviously doesn't), 3:3 would simply be recounting the Israelite journey to the holy land, when God accompanied them as a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. This is exactly how the Old Testament describes God's presence with the Children of Israel:

Deuteronomy 33:1-2—And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death. And he said, "The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; He shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: From his right hand went a fiery law for them."

Psalm 68:7-8, 17—O God, when thou wentest forth before thy people, When thou didst march through the wilderness; Selah. The earth shook, the heavens also dropped At the presence of God: even Sinai itself was moved At the presence of God, the God of Israel. ... The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: The Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place.

Sixth, since Mohammed assures us that Teman is Medina, we shouldn't ignore other Old Testament prophecies about Teman:

Amos 1:12—“So I will send fire upon Teman And it will consume the citadels of Bozrah.”

Obadiah 1:8-9—“Will I not on that day,” declares the Lord, “destroy wise men from Edom and understanding from the mountain of Esau? Then your mighty men will be dismayed, O Teman, so that everyone may be cut off from the mountain of Esau by slaughter."

Hence, if Teman is Medina, God is promising to punish Muslims in Medina and to destroy them "by slaughter"!

Of course, to anyone who reads Habakkuk without desperately trying to force Muhammad into the text, the meaning of the book is perfectly clear. But Muhammad claimed that the scriptures of Jews and Christians contain clear prophecies about him (Qur'an 7:157), which means that he was a false prophet if these prophecies don't exist. Muslims have become so desperate to find some mention of Muhammad that they have managed to call him "God." Utter blasphemy.

Shabir Ally Proves That Jesus Is God!

According to popular Muslim speaker Shabir Ally, the Gospel of John refers to Jesus in chapter 16, verse 7, where Jesus says, "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." Notice that Jesus says, "I will send Him." Muslims believe that Muhammad was sent by Allah, but the Comforter is sent by Jesus. This means that, if the Comforter is Muhammad, Jesus must be God! Thank you, Shabir Ally, for proving that Jesus is God!

Is Muhammad Mentioned in John 1:19-21? A Reply to Shabir Ally

The Qur'an claims that Christians and Jews find Muhammad mentioned in our scriptures (Qur'an 7:157). For nearly fourteen centuries, Muslims have been desperately examining the Bible, searching for some prophecy about Muhammad.

Shabir Ally, like so many other Muslim apologists, claims that Muhammad is "the prophet" mentioned in John 1:19-21. Here we can only wonder: Has Shabir read the rest of the chapter?

Shabir Ally Deliberately Deceives Muslims about Muhammad in the Bible

Shabir Ally is a Muslim speaker and debater. Several years ago, I took him to see The Passion of the Christ while he was in town for a debate with Mike Licona.

For years, I've thought that Shabir Ally was two steps above most other Muslim apologists, since he's highly educated and is familiar with many works by New Testament scholars.

Boy was I wrong, as this video shows. There's simply no way Shabir could have read the verses he uses in this video without realizing that he is deceiving his Muslim viewers. Apparently, Shabir is convinced that his fans are so incredibly stupid and lazy, they will not bother to examine the passages. I hope he's as wrong about his viewers as he is about the claims he makes.

Muhammad in the Bible: A Thorough Refutation of Paul Bilal Williams' Case for Islamic Relevance - Part 2

Here is the second part of Nakdimon's reply to one Muslims' attempt to find Muhammad in the Bible. Part 1 can be found here.

------------------

Fairness, consistency and Nabi-anic prophecies

The search for an Arab prophet

We continue with our rebuttal to what I thought was Paul Bilal Williams’ (PW) article trying to prove his “nabi” (Arabic for prophet) is mentioned in our Holy Scriptures. It turns out that this article was not written by PW, but by some unknown author of whom PW placed the article on his blog. Many thought it was written by PW, so when part 1 of this rebuttal was released and the entire premise of the paper was refuted, the author wrote the following message to PW in an email which PW posted on his blog:

Update: Monday 27th January

I have just arrived back from Australia and I received the following email:

As-salaamu alaykum Paul,

Hope you are well insha’Allah.

Firstly I really appreciate you posting my recent article on your website.

I just want to let you know that I have made a modification to the article in light of recent responses by Christians. I have removed the section on Ishmael and the covenant pending further research. A lot of the feedback on the use Hebrew has made me realise that I need to do deeper research in this area. Al-hamdulillah I have learnt lessons from this experience and it will only make my article stronger.

Also, the arguments about Ishmael and the covenant seem to have detracted from the main point I wanted to make, namely that Isaiah 42 is related to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). At the moment all the attention is on the covenant which was not my original aim behind writing the article. Many Christians aren’t bothering to read beyond the covenant section of the article and this saddens me because I think it is of benefit overall.

I still think that I have to address the covenant in some capacity as it is a stumbling block for a lot of Christians, but I will only add it back into the article after thorough research insha’Allah.

I’m letting you know this because you are getting a lot of flak for it at the moment, people seem to think you wrote the article, perhaps you could update it to reflect the latest version and point out at the top of your post that you are not the original author, at the moment my website link is right at the bottom of the page after all the references and I don’t think many people are spotting that.

I commend the author of the paper for doing the honest thing and removing the part where he tried to make the case for an Arabian prophet that supposedly was to come. It is a rare thing to behold amongst Muslim apologists to retract their claims in light of clear refutations and acknowledge that more research is needed. There is no shame in that. We all lack knowledge in some area. At the same time it is disappointing to see the Muslim act as if the article still has any merit and pretend that his attempt to demonstrate the relevance of Ishmael had no consequence for the rest of the article, the acclaimed “main point” of his paper. Actually, by his own candid admission as stated in the paper in its initial form, the entire case for Muhammad’s prophetic claims stands or falls with the relevance or irrelevance of his supposed patriarch Ishmael, when he states at the outset of the article that “there is little point in moving forward as Ishmael represents the foundation for the emergence of an Arabian prophet”.[emphasis mine] As this was his stance, one has to wonder why he didn’t remove the entire article since nothing he goes on to say has any foundation whatsoever as the foundation for the entire paper has been removed. But since he didn’t remove the entire article but rather chose to remove the foundation only to leave the house of cards standing, we will have a sharp look at the rest of his paper.

In part one we have seen the author going to great lengths to try to prove that there is too a basis for the claims of his holy book, the Obscure Quran, that his prophet is mentioned in the Scriptures of the People of the Book, the Jews and Christians. He wanted to lay a basis for every argument he was about to make after his opening salvo by pointing out that when God made a Covenant with Abraham, Abraham’s son Ishmael was also included in the clauses of that agreement. I have pointed out and demonstrated that, when taking all of the passages and all of God’s promises into account, there is simply no way one can still make the case that Ishmael was any part of that Covenant God made with Abraham, no matter how positively pro-Islamic one wants to approach the text. And therefore there is no foundation for any argument for an Arabic prophet left to be made. It is only when one takes one verse and completely ignores everything else the Scriptures says about the Covenant God made with Abraham, that one can entertain the thought of Ishmael having any significance in the Abrahamic Covenant. Add to that Muhammad, the Islamic prophet, cannot even be traced to Ishmael while Muslims keep pretending that it’s a given, one would wonder why we are even discussing this matter and go along with the Muslim façade as if there is even a case to be made at all. Well… sometimes it’s necessary to walk a delusional person through his own delusions in order to show him the errors of his ways. So, being the good Samaritan that I am (tongue in cheek), here is how the paper continues:

BEING FAIR AND CONSISTENT

Now that we’ve shown that Ishmael was not excluded from God’s covenant, we have to agree on a methodology that is fair and consistent when it comes to finding prophecies of Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them both). We can’t have one set of standards for Muhammad, and another for Jesus. Some critics will deny that any passage can relate to Muhammad because they don’t mention him explicitly by name. Others might hold that a single ambiguous verse overrides a multitude of clear ones. Thus they adopt a conflict approach with Muhammad, but this turns out to be quite hypocritical because these same critics adopt the complete opposite approach, one of concordance, in identifying prophecies of Jesus, meaning that they will accept any signs that match and overlook those that do not. Here is an example of such an inconsistency:

“When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. [Matthew 2:14-15]

So according to the Gospel of Matthew, there’s a prophecy in the Old Testament that was fulfilled by Jesus. But when one goes back to the book of Hosea in the Old Testament where the statement is referenced from, you will find that Matthew quoted only half the passage:

 “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. [Hosea 11:1]

As you can see, when read in full, rather than being a prophecy about Jesus, this verse was in fact speaking of a past event, the exodus at the time of Moses. So, if Christians have no issue accepting that scripture can have apparent meanings whilst also foreshadowing future events for Jesus, then in the name of fairness and consistency they should adopt at least a similar standard for Muhammad. As you will soon see, though, the passages I will put forward for Muhammad are clear and unambiguous.

As I pointed out in part one of this rebuttal, it’s mindboggling to see Muslims crying for consistency while being as inconsistent as they are. If Muslims think inconsistent arguments are bad, why do they keep using them so much? You would think that if inconsistency is bad and consistency is the way to go, you would find Muslims arguing consistently. Left and right they will apply inconsistent methods in order to make their case. In fact, this entire article is one giant inconsistency: Arguing from books that you deem hopelessly corrupt to prove that your religion is valid. How can you bring an untrustworthy witness to the stand? But this is the hand that Muslims are dealt, courtesy of the Obscure Quran. As we move on, you will see the inconsistencies will keep piling on.

As the author’s claim of Ishmael being at all relevant has been shattered, we now turn to his argument that Christians use one set of standards to deal with the Messiahship of the Lord Yeshua in the Tenach and another set of standards in dealing with Muslim claims about Muhammad from the Tenach. My response will be manifold:

1.     Although there is plenty of material in the Tenach that testify about a Messianic figure emerging from the Jewish people, there is zilch, nada (Spanish), nichts (German), rien (French), niks (Dutch), kloom (Hebrew), niente (Italian), nothing (about all the languages I know) about an Arabian prophet anywhere in Scripture. We have already seen the author’s “foundation” collapse with the establishment of Ishmael’s irrelevance to God’s Covenant with Abraham.

2.     There are no Messianic chapters in the Tenach (outside of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22), but the Messianic prophecies and allusions, types and shadows of the Messiah are sometimes hidden in the Tenach.

3.     There are, therefore, passages that are clearly Messianic and prophecies and allusion that are not immediately apparent Messianic in the Tenach. Since the hidden Messianic passages are put in the Tenach by inspired men, it only stands to reason that these passages are pointed out by inspired men that were inspired by the same Spirit that inspired these hidden Messianic passages in the first place.

4.     Jesus claimed that the Scriptures testify about him. (Luke 24:44-48, John 5:39) He then gave his disciples understanding of the Scriptures that do exactly that (Luke 24:45, John 20:22) Therefore, since these men have received this understanding from Jesus himself, their authority and understanding of the Scriptures, having come directly from the Lord of lords, supersedes that of any and all Muslims, including Muhammad’s.

Elaborating on point 2 above, as already stated, there are many allusions to and types of the Messiah in the Tenach. For example:

The binding of Isaac – A father offering his son: A child born under miraculous circumstances, regarded as an only, unique child about to get offered as a sacrifice and as a result of Abraham’s willingness to do so, and the child’s willingness to be the sacrifice, the blessing to all the nations flows from them ultimately through the Messiah, a child born under miraculous circumstances, the only, unique Son of God offered as a sacrifice. When Isaac asked Abraham where the sacrifice was, Abraham uttered the words “God himself will provide the LAMB (Hebr. seh) for the burnt-offering”. Note that Abraham was given a RAM (Hebr: ayil) in substitute for his son Isaac. The LAMB that God provided was the Son of God, the Lord Yeshua, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, as John the Baptist announced him (John 1:29). As happened to Isaac, it happened to the Lord Yeshua.

Joseph, the son of Israel – Joseph was the beloved son of his father, to the chagrin of his own brothers. They betrayed him out of jealousy, intended to kill him, sold him into slavery and left him for dead. He underwent a lot of hardship, suffered prison time was left to rot in a cell, only for God to exalt him to the right hand of Pharao, the mightiest man in the known world. Joseph saved his brothers in the end by making himself known and became the savior of both his people and the Gentile world, after being rejected and not recognized in his first appearance as they thought he was a Gentile ruler, yet being recognized the second time he revealed himself to his brother as their king. One cannot help but see the clear reference to the Lord Yeshua. As happened to Joseph, it happened (and is set to happen) on a greater plane to the Lord Yeshua.

Moshe Rebenu – Moses was born under the reign of a foreign ruler as his people suffered under hands of another people. In order to rescue Moses from a raid on the infants of Israel, God made him escape to safety in Pharao’s palace where he was kept safe while the other infants were being slaughtered. Eventually God called him to be the savior of his people, leading them out of the bondage of slavery, being the sole barer and sole mediator of the Covenant with God and Israel, interceding between his people and God. Again, one cannot help noticing the parallels with the Lord Yeshua. As it happened to Moses, our Teacher, so it happened to Yeshua, our Lord.

So as things happen to the Jewish people or individuals in the Tenach, so it also happens to the Messiah. Concerning the Messianic passage that the author appealed to, Dr Michael Brown, PhD, explains:

“When Matthew quoted the second half of Hosea 11:1, he took for granted that his Jewish readers would know the whole verse. (Remember that many of Matthew’s intended readers knew large portions of the Hebrews Scriptures by heart, and quoting just part of a verse was common Jewish practice of the day.) What he was saying was clear: Just as it happened to Israel, God’s national “son,” so also it happened to Jesus, God’s Messianic Son, and the ideal representative of the nation. Both were called out of Egypt in their childhood.” (Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol. 4, pag 22)

Matthew, pointing out that as Israel was a child, called as a nation by God for the first time as a free nation, as God’s firstborn son (Ex 4:22) into safety, so also the Lord Yeshua was called by God, to safety out of Egypt, when the one seeking his life was dead.

Elaborating on point no.3 sometimes Messianic passages are not as clear as we would like them to be. For example, in the second Servant Song the servant is called Israel, yet when one studies the passage carefully it becomes clear that the one called “Israel” is not the nation:

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me; And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God. And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. (Isaiah 49:1-6)

Here we see a passage that seems to be talking about the nation of Israel since in verse 3 the servant is actually called Israel, but as one reads on this turns out not to be the case. This is about one that is part of Israel, identified as and called by the name of Israel, yet gathers the people of Israel to God and restores the tribes of the nation of Israel. This is not something that the nation itself will do, but someone within the nation! In other words, this is a typical job description of the Messiah! The Messiah, as the Ideal Representative is called Israel in this passage and it is the Messiah who is called to bring Israel back to God and restore the tribes of the nation. It is Messiah who will not only be the savior of Israel, but also will be given as a light to the Gentiles and through him God’s salvation will reach the ends of the earth!

Therefore when Hoshea 11:1 mentions Israel as the son that God called out of Egypt this applies to BOTH Israel, God’s “first born”, in its infancy at the Exodus AND in an ultimate sense to the Lord Yeshua, the Unique Son of God, in His infancy. Hence, the inspired apostle Matthew lets us know, the Scripture is made full, the words God spoke came to ultimate fruition at the “exodus” of the Lord Yeshua out of the land of Egypt. In other words, and most importantly, these appeals to the Tenach weren’t mere guesses from uninformed men that were just picking and choosing, like Muslims are left doing. We have the written testimony of inspired men, who were personally taught by the Lord Yeshua and received inspiration from the Lord Yeshua.

On the other hand, what do Muslims have to show for to substantiate their nabi-anic prophecies? By their own admission they have literally nothing: Allah and his messenger, during their collaboration of 23 years, never, not once, bothered to point to any prophecy that they insist is in our Scriptures and thus uninspired Muslim apologists are left with their hands in their hair, literally having to feel their way through the darkness Allah and his messenger left them in. This results in them jumping on any mention of an Arab location, any remote resemblance of anything that looks like anything from an event in their prophet’s life. On top of all this, there is simply no basis for any expectation of an Arabian prophet to appear, as Ishmael (generously assuming for the sake of argument that Ishmael is the forefather of Muhammad) has already been demonstrated to be irrelevant when it comes to the Covenant God made with Abraham.

ISHMAEL, KEDAR AND ARABIA: CONNECTING THE DOTS

Before getting into direct evidence of Muhammad in the Bible, we must first establish that Ishmael and his son Kedar are linked to modern day Arabia.

The Old Testament tells us that Ishmael dwelt in a place called Paran:

“While he (Ishmael) was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt. [Genesis 21:21]

Many Christian interpretors of the Bible hold that Paran is in Arabia. From Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible:

 “He dwelt in the wilderness of Paran – This is generally allowed to have been a part of the desert belonging to Arabia Petraea, in the vicinity of Mount Sinai; and this seems to be its uniform meaning in the sacred writings.

Strong’s Bible Dictionary also tells us:

“H6290

pâ’rân

From H6286; ornamental; Paran, a desert of Arabia: – Paran.

Sebeos, a 7th century Armenian bishop and historian, when describing the Arab conquest of his time, wrote that the Arabs “assembled and came out from Paran” [1]

Professor Haseeb Shehada, an Israeli scholar and professor, in his translation of the Samaritan Torah suggested an identification of the wilderness of Paran with the desert of Western Arabia which is known today as Hijaz. [2]

Some Christians claim that Paran is not in Arabia but rather in the desert of Sinai in Egypt but this can’t be the case as the Old Testament clearly distinguishes between Sinai and Paran as two separate places:

“Then the Israelites set out from the Desert of Sinai and traveled from place to place until the cloud came to rest in the Desert of Paran. [Numbers 10:12]

We can also place the location of the descendants of Ishmael, known as Ishmaelites, to Arabia. According to Harper’s Bible Dictionary the term ‘Ishmaelites’ is used synonymously with the term ‘Midianites’. We can see this from the story of Joseph in Genesis:

 “So when the Midianite merchants came by, his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him for twenty shekels of silver to the Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt. [Genesis 37:28]

We know that geographically, Biblical Midian is located in modern day Western Saudi Arabia

Nooo this is wrong! Midianites are not synonymous with Ishmaelites. Genesis 37:28 merely qualifies what kind of Midianites Joseph was sold to, but that doesn’t automatically make Ishmaelites synonymous with Midianites. Midianites were not the descendants of Ishmael, rather they were descendants of Midian, the son of Abraham which he fathered through Ketura:

And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bore him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah (Gen 25:1-2)

We see here that one of the sons of Abraham was named Midian. The Jewish Encyclopedia states:

Midian was the son of Abraham and Keturah. His five sons, Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abidah (R. V. "Abida"), and Eldaah, were the progenitors of the Midianites (Gen. xxv. 1-4; I Chron. i. 32-33).

Therefore, these Ishmaelites in Genesis 37:28 must have been mere descendants of Ishmael living somewhere in the area of Midian. Therefore saying that Midianites is synonymous with Ishmaelites, is like saying European is synonymous with Dutchman: Dutchmen are Europeans, but not every European is a Dutchman. Another example is Judges 8. Israel is being oppressed by Midianites and God raises up Gideon to deliver Israel from the oppression of the Midianites. This is what verse 24 says:

And Gideon said unto them: 'I would make a request of you, that ye would give me every man the ear-rings of his spoil.'--For they had golden ear-rings, because they were Ishmaelites.

Note that, speaking of Midianites, the Bible has to clarify which Midianites it speaks of, specifically Ishmaelites, who, apparently, were known particularly for their golden earrings. This would have been completely unnecessary would Midianites be a synonym for Ishmaelites.

But be that as it may, just because some descendant of Ishmael is named, in this instance Kedar, doesn’t mean that this descendant plays any meaningful role in God’s calling, let alone produce a prophet or deal with the origins of a prophet. Many names in that region are named with no significance of prophet hood. Yet, even if Muslims want to identify with Ishmaelites, Midianites and Kedar, the Bible says some devastating things about Kedar and the Ishmaelites in particular. For example, as we read Psalm 83 think of what people today these words most vividly apply to when you hear them speak of Israel:

O God, do not remain silent; do not turn a deaf ear, do not stand aloof, O God. See how your enemies growl, how your foes rear their heads. With cunning they conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish. “Come,” they say, “let us destroy them as a nation, so that Israel’s name is remembered no more.” With one mind they plot together they form an alliance against you—the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites, of Moab and the Hagrites, Byblos, Ammon and Amalek, Philistia, with the people of Tyre. Even Assyria has joined them to reinforce Lot’s descendants. Do to them as you did to Midian, as you did to Sisera and Jabin at the river Kishon, who perished at Endor and became like dung on the ground. Make their nobles like Oreb and Zeeb, all their princes like Zebah and Zalmunna, who said, “Let us take possession of the pasturelands of God.” (Psalm 83:2-12, NIV)

Ishmaelites are literally being called God’s enemies! Also, this is what God says about Israel in the end of days:

“Lift up your eyes round about and see; They all gather together, they come to you. Your sons will come from afar, And your daughters will be carried in the arms.  “Then you will see and be radiant, And your heart will thrill and rejoice; Because the abundance of the sea will be turned to you, The wealth of the nations will come to you. “A multitude of camels will cover you, The young camels of Midian and Ephah; All those from Sheba will come; They will bring gold and frankincense, And will bear good news of the praises of the Lord.  “All the flocks of Kedar will be gathered together to you, The rams of Nebaioth will minister to you; They will go up with acceptance on My altar, And I shall glorify My glorious house. (Isaiah 60:4-7, NASB)

God will so devastate the nations that the remnant of those nations. Kedar and Nebaioth included, will have no choice but to come to Israel and minister to the children of Israel.

Fairness and consistency.

The author of the article then goes into Isaiah 42 at length to try to demonstrate how Muhammad is foretold in our Scriptures. Here is where the rubber really meets the road. The prophecies of Muhammad are vividly painted, according to the author of this article, masterfully placing the hadith side by side with the first of the Four Servant Songs. There is one problem: The author of the article has demanded fairness and consistency. Therefore, to be fair, we will demand consistency from the author, and all Muslim apologists for that matter, and insist that they meet the following criteria:

Considering Muslims believe that the Bible is hopelessly corrupted and a man-made document, they must first and foremost account for the prophet hood of Isaiah in Islam! They also must come up with a consistent pattern of how to recognize the false Isaiah verses from the true Isaiah verses to prevent from being suckered by man-made verses posing as divine Scripture, since they hold to Biblical corruption.  Lastly they then have to show how they know that these verses apply to Muhammad. As I said, Allah and his apostle never pointed to a single verse! As long as these criteria cannot be met, ANY appeal to ANY verse as a prophecy of Muhammad is automatically a stab in the dark, no more than a wild guess.

Allah never bothered to mention Isaiah as being one of his prophets, nor did Muhammad ever mention Isaiah as a prophet. If Muslim apologists can’t meet the above criteria they are engaging in bid’ah at best, they are guilty of committing shirk at worst: The first being punishable by hellfire, the second being unforgivable! For if this is NOT divinely inspired, i.e. not revealed by Allah, they are merely making stuff up, engaging in innovation, and, at their own whim, taking things from uninspired men and attributing them to Allah. To echo one of the many lame arguments (which now proves to actually be effective against their own position) that Muslim apologists find so compelling when using it against Biblical authority: Isaiah who? What was his last name? Who was his father? When did he write? Did Allah ever ordered him to write anything? 

Thus, Muslims, you need to think long and hard before you fly off and attribute things to Allah that he very well may not have anything to do with. If you think that anything goes for the glory of your prophet, by all means, don’t let the prospect of hellfire stop you and follow your Ulamah, who did likewise engage in bid’ah, without divine guidance pointed to random verses in Scripture and, I’m sure, are now part of a big barbeque. I submit to you, that you cannot be either fair or consistent and meet above demands.

Since you demanded fairness: if you are fair, you will take down the article and not ever again point to any supposed prophecy of which you don’t know if it came from a true prophet, as you did with Isaiah. In fact, since you have no clue of ANY prophecy, I suggest you stop the entire “Muhammad in the Bible” spiel as long as you hold to the view that the Bible is corrupted. And since you demanded consistency: If you are consistent, you will have to throw out Surah 7:157, abandon the Quran and thus leave Islam altogether.

I will therefore propose one of many enhancements to the Quran:

“Therefore woe be unto those who point to the Scripture on their own whims and then say, "This is from Allah," that they hope to make small gain therewith in their apologetics. Woe unto them for what they attributed to Allah,” [The Obscure Quran 2:79b]

Muslims, your hearts seek to be in the right place. You seem to want to serve God, serve him diligently and yearn for Him. But you are serving the wrong god! Come to al Rab Yasua alMasih and you will not be ashamed! 

Muhammad in the Bible: A Thorough Refutation of Paul Bilal Williams' Case for Islamic Relevance

The following article is a guest post written by Nakdimon. To read other articles from him, see his personal page on Answering Islam. Also, be sure to check out his Youtube page here.

-------------------------

I’ve had my share of tough arguments against the Messianic claims of the Lord Yeshua when dealing with Jewish anti-missionaries during my apologetic work to the Jewish people. I have sometimes been challenged to my core. In the end they sharpened me, pushed me to learn Hebrew, lots of Jewish tradition and the Lord has helped me to deal with their objections which taught me to be true to myself, steer clear of deluding myself in dealing with their objections and knock their arguments down by arguing consistently. Then I came in contact with Islam. And one thing has always fascinated me from the beginning when dealing with Muslims: Their incredible inability to use equal weights and measures and almost compulsive and openly shameless utilization of double standards in their apologetic methodologies. I have seldom come across such blatant stubbornness and complete disdain for fair evaluation of any data than when I see Muslims handle the Bible as some self-help tool to desperately try to prove their messenger is foretold in our inspired Scriptures. For on the one hand they will appeal to the Bible to try to demonstrate that their prophet is clearly foretold in our Scriptures and we therefore have no reason to doubt his prophet hood, nor reject his message. But on the other hand they have no problem repudiating the very Bible as being hopelessly corrupted and not to be trusted when it completely destroys any foundation they hope to have for their messenger being a foretold figure In the Scriptures or any particular aspect of his message. Muslims time and again like to claim that the Quran is a miracle given to their prophet Muhammad yet it is this very miracle that places Muslims in this insurmountable dilemma as the Quran appeals to the Scriptures that we have as supposedly foretelling the coming of a prophet from the Arabian Peninsula. It shouldn’t come as a surprise, then, that Muslims are in desperation mode, trying to find something, anything, that may look like a prophecy pointing to their dearest messenger.

Enter Paul Bilal Williams, the supposed former Christian turned Muslim. Claiming to be familiar with the Scriptures that he claimed he once have claimed his own, he has decided to comb through the Bible with his finest comb trying to do what the Quran forces him to do. The only problem is that the author(s) of the Quran never bothered to tell him exactly where to look. And thus Muslims like Paul Williams are left to flip the coin or spit in the air and wait to see where the wind carries their drivel in order to be able to “determine” where those prophecies are hidden: For they must be somewhere, or else the Quran ceases to be this miracle they keep claiming it supposedly is. Like a true challenger believing he has a shot at the belt, in his article, Paul boldly comes out swinging with his hands taped, his gloves on and his mouth piece in place trying to lay the foundation of his (or better said, the Quran’s) claims to establish the relevance of Muhammad, guesstimating it was being put firmly in place in the Book of Genesis, when God made the covenant with Abraham and his offspring. Paul Williams (from now on being mentioned as PW) starts with the following claim:

Before getting into the evidence for Muhammad in the Bible, we need to first address an issue that some Christians have. Perhaps the biggest stumbling block to accepting Muhammad, from a scriptural point of view, is the idea that only Isaac was included in God’s covenant to the exclusion of Ishmael. Until this misconception is addressed there is little point in moving forward as Ishmael represents the foundation for the emergence of an Arabian prophet.

This is the misconception – the Old Testament seems to explicitly state that although God blessed Abraham with regards to both his sons, Isaac and Ishmael, God’s special promise (or ‘covenant’ in Old Testament terminology) is explicitly stated as only applying to Isaac, to the exclusion of Ishmael. This is the key passage from the Old Testament which seems to promote this idea:

And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.” [Genesis 17:20-21]

So as we see, the foundational stumbling block to any claim that Muhammad can make to prophet hood hinges on the covenant that God made with Abraham. This misconception needs to be cleared or else, says PW himself, there simply “little point in moving forward” and refer to any other place in the Scriptures to point to Muhammad being a prophet. On the flipside: What if there is no misconception at all and Ishmael was not at all even relevant to God’s Covenant with Abraham to begin with? If that Is the case, this would undercut PW’s entire case, from beginning to end, for any claim that he makes for Muhammad’s prophetic claims as such a foundation simply does not exist. And if the foundation is not there, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Although I think the biggest stumbling block is that Muslims have no evidence at all that Muhammad is from Ishmael to begin with. But all that you can find in this article. So…let’s dig in!

Having cited Genesis 17:20-21 as the key passage on which his entire claim hinges PW claims:

Taken at face value, the above passage does seem to be a problem. However, when we inspect the original Hebrew for this passage, a very different picture emerges. First though, we need to understand some basic Hebrew grammar.

The letter Vav is the sixth letter in the Hebrew alphabet. In Hebrew the names of the letters of the alphabet have meaning. The word “vav” means a “hook”,“spear”, or “tent peg”, therefore the name and shape of the letter are directly connected to this meaning:

This letter has a special property – when it is added to the beginning of a sentence or word, it creates the meaning “and”. The Hebrew prefix vav is defined by Langenscheidt’s Hebrew Dictionary as a conjunction, meaning “and, and therefore, also, then, yet”.

How does this affect the covenant with Isaac in the Old Testament? Quite dramatically in fact, because when we consider that Genesis 17:21 begins with the letter vav, it turns out that there’s nothing exclusive about the covenant at all, if we translate the verse in its proper way with “and” instead of “but”:

“And my covenant will I establish with Isaac”

…which has a vastly different meaning than:

“But my covenant will I establish with Isaac”

Moreover, when we factor in the meaning of the name of the letter vav, “hook”, it turns out that the subject of the verse that precedes the vav, Ishmael in Genesis 17:20, is ‘hooked’ or ‘joined’ to the subject of the verse that follows it, Isaac. In other words, the concept following the vav is just as important as the one preceding it, so both Ishmael and Isaac are considered important in light of the covenant.

A nice little word game he being played by PW, but things are a little different as he would like to have them. In order to expose PW’s nonsense, let’s consider the Covenant that God made with Abraham. Muslims always like to start at Genesis 17 to stake their claim on God’s covenant with Abraham. However, the groundwork for the Covenant between God and Abraham started way before Genesis 17. Let’s back up to Genesis 12 that lays the foundation of everything that happens in years later in Genesis 17. Since PW used the KJV for his article I will likewise use that translation in this paper:

Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came. And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land. And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him. (Genesis 12:1-7)

Here we see God’s initial promise to Abraham as he calls Abraham to depart from his family and makes specific promises to him. I would like to point your attention to the seed that is being mentioned, because this seed will be appointed as sole heir of God’s covenant with Abraham. After this God appears to Abraham a second time in Genesis 15 and makes the following promise:

… I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. And he said, Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon. And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not. …And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that THY SEED shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. In the same day THE LORD MADE A COVENANT WITH ABRAM, SAYING, UNTO THY SEED HAVE I GIVEN THIS LAND, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites. (Gen 15:7-10, 13-21)

As the story of the life of Abraham unfolds it becomes more and more clear who this specific seed is that God is talking about in reference to the Covenant he makes with Abraham, as God gives more and more details. As is abundantly clear by now, God refers to that specific seed that would go into a land that is not theirs for four hundred years, be afflicted by the people of that land, treated as their slaves and the people of that strange land would be judged by God and he would lead that seed of Abraham out of that strange land over into that land he promised Abraham, from the river of Egypt unto the great river Euphrates. It should slowly be creeping to the consciousness of every Muslim that even bothered to read the Biblical record in its full context, that this can only be talking about ONE people and ONE people only: The Children of Israel. In light of all of this, NOW we turn to Genesis 17 to see what God says about the Covenant, sealing it with circumcision. To give you the feeling of the words of God to Abraham, let’s read the full context of those words:

And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. (Gen 17:1-21)

This chapter, together with the previous chapters discussed above, makes it perfectly clear that God’s Covenant with Abraham is made with Abraham and his seed, specifically the seed that would inherit the land and would dwell as oppressed slaves in a strange land. This Covenant was first ratified with the blood of animals in Genesis 15 and then sealed it in Genesis 17 with the blood of Abraham’s own body (where have we seen that before: Ex 24:6-8 and Matthew 26:28). Note also that whenever God speaks about establishing the Covenant, he always mentions Isaac (Isaac), never Ishmael. Not only does God mention Isaac as the one he will establish the Covenant with, but also his seed after him. Note how this is said of both Abraham in verse 7 and Isaac in verse 19, NEVER of Ishmael, anywhere in the Scriptures! To add insult to injury, let’s look at Genesis 21 and further open the Islamic wound inflicted by the clear and consistent testimony of the very Bible it’s proponents appeal to in order to try prove their messenger and his claims to prophet hood are at all relevant:

And the Lord visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did unto Sarah as he had spoken. For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac. And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him...And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. Wherefore she said unto Abraham, CAST OUT THIS BONDWOMAN AND HER SON: FOR THE SON OF THIS BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE HEIR WITH MY SON, EVEN WITH ISAAC. And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son. And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; IN ALL THAT SARAH HATH SAID UNTO THEE, HEARKEN UNTO HER VOICE; FOR IN ISAAC SHALL THY SEED BE CALLED. And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed. And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba. (Genesis 21:1-4, 8-13)

Once again the testimony of the Scriptures is clear and it’s almost inconceivable how anyone can read it and come to any other conclusion than that God’s Covenant with Abraham is limited only, perpetuated solely and is established exclusively through none other than Isaac! God is specific and I don’t know how much clearer it could have been stated. Sarah has told Abraham to throw Hagar and Ishmael out for a specific reason: So that it would be clear that Ishmael would NOT inherit anything what God gave Abraham. God then told Abraham he not only concurred with Sarah, but even doubled down on Sarah’s words. All Ishmael and Hagar would get is a bag of water, some bread and off they were. That is not to say that God wasn’t merciful to Ishmael and didn’t bless him, as he promised Abraham to make him a great (read: numerous) nation of twelve princes. But that’s about as far as God’s dealing with Ishmael goes: God promised Ishmael a great nation of twelve princes in Genesis 17:20. This was fulfilled in Genesis 25:13-16. But other than that, Ishmael is totally irrelevant. Fact is that God tells Abraham to cast Ishmael out for the sole purpose that he will NOT be the heir to God’s promises to Abraham with the words: “Everything Sarah told you, listen to her voice (Hebr. Shema b’qolah), BECAUSE (Hebr. Kee) in Isaac seed will be called unto you”.

But let’s not stop there as we are on a roll and have the inevitable momentum going. As if God could not have been any clearer, the icing on the cake is served in  Genesis 22:

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, THINE ONLY SON ISAAC, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.  And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him…And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, THINE ONLY SON from me. And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen. And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, THINE ONLY SON: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Genesis 22:1-3, 9-18)

This chapter in particular is a sore for Muslims and hard to come to terms with as a similar story is mentioned in their Quran. But the problem is that the Quran, as is its habit of being unclear in spite of its numerous claims of being a clear book that is self-explanatory, never tells its readers who the child is that Abraham is told to offer as a sacrifice. The Bible, however, does tell us who it was and to the shock, surprise and chagrin of Muslims, who maintain that Abraham was told to offer Ishmael, the Bible says it was Isaac that was laid on the altar. But to not despair. As I already said on the outset of this article, Muslims have already crafted a device for this stiff-necked and re-occurring problem: the corruption of the Biblical text. The very Biblical text from which they toil so hard to find any reference to Muhammad. So basically Muslims will tell us “oh People of the Book, we have proof form your untrustworthy Scriptures. So sit back and watch us pull, tare and rip apart your Holy Book as we plunder what we think we can use, while we repudiate everything else from it that destroys our case” and think this will persuade any thinking believer. But I digress…

As the Scriptures clearly teach, the Covenant that God made with Abraham was made with him and his seed, specifically with the offspring that would live in a strange land, oppressed by the indigenous people, God would judge that people and bring Abraham’s seed out of that land, would bring them back into the land that Abraham sojourned in and give that land to them for an eternal inheritance. God tells Abraham to cast Ishmael out so that he wouldn’t inherit any of the promises of the Covenant that God made with Abraham and adds to that that, as far as the Covenant goes, only in Isaac will Abraham’s seed be called. Therefore, when we read in Genesis 22:2, verse 12 and verse 16, after Ishmael is long gone, that Isaac is Abraham’s only son, Muslims often cry “See, that is a contradiction!” because Ishmael was older than Isaac. Do we really have to point out that, with calling Isaac the “only son” of Abraham, God simply emphasizes that as far as God’s Covenant with Abraham goes, Isaac is the only one that matters? God repeats the grounds of the Covenant he made with Abraham in verse 16-18. Note the language God used to bless Abraham and look at how God repeats this same language through Isaac and then consider that NONE of these words are ever uttered in regard to Ishmael:

And the Lord appeared unto him [Isaac], and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of: Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; AND IN THY SEED SHALL ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED; (Genesis 26:2-4)

Also note how these promises are repeated to Jacob:

And he [Jacob] dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.  And, behold, the Lord stood above it, and said, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: AND IN THEE AND IN THY SEED SHALL ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED. (Genesis 28)

Give all this, one would think it should be obvious that the Covenant that God made with Abraham has no bearing on Ishmael, but is perpetuated through Isaac and Israel and the children of Israel. Obviously, people like PW would have to discard the overwhelming testimony of the Scriptures that clearly lays out the grounds for the Covenant God made with Abraham and nitpick about the meaning of a “waw”, from which he wants to make certain claims, that is buried somewhere under the mountain of evidence that covers it, while that very mountain testifies to the contrary of his claims.

What, then, do we make of PW’s complaint that the waw in verse 21 is poorly translated with an obvious bias towards the supposed Islamic patriarch Ishmael? None! As the “waw” at the beginning of a word or sentence has the meaning ” and, and therefore, also, then, yet”, as PW himself said. Thus the following reading applies:

And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. Yet my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

Case pretty much closed, isn’t it? Nothing is “hooked”, nothing is “joined” and nothing is “tent pegged”. Given all the above, the foundation for everything PW goes on to argue for next has no basis whatsoever. Per his very own admission, “there is little point in moving forward as Ishmael represents the foundation for the emergence of an Arabian prophet”. Therefore, as Ishmael’s irrelevance regarding the Covenant God made with Abraham is established, PW’s whole case collapses and, per his own admission, nothing he goes on to say has any merit.

But, alas, that won’t keep PW from trying to make a case for his prophet and try to make his religion relevant. He goes on to say the following:

We are now going to demonstrate an inconsistency on the part of the Bible translators. Let’s take a look at another passage in the Old Testament:

AND Yahweh passed by before him, AND He proclaimed, ‘Yahweh, Yahweh God, being compassionate AND gracious, slow of anger AND abounding in loyal love AND faithfulness. Keeping mercy for thousands, taking away iniquity AND transgressions AND sins; AND He will never leave (The guilty) unpunished, visiting the iniquity on sons AND sons of sons to the third AND to the fourth (generation). [Exodus 34:6-7]

Here is the original Hebrew for the above passage:

Notice that ten times in two verses we find vav being correctly translated as “and”. So it seems that in other places of the Old Testament the correct translation is applied, but only in Genesis 17:21 do they choose to translate it as “but”.

How amusing it is to see those that, judging by their apologetic methods, seem to have a patent on inconsistency go on to accuse others of being inconsistent, while knowing little about the very thing they accuse others of being inconsistent about. According to PW, because the “waw” in Exodus 34 is translated as “and” in all cases, the translators are supposedly being “inconsistent” and mistranslate it as “but” in Genesis 17:21. But we have already seen that according to PW’s own source the “waw” can bear the meaning “yet”, which is another way of saying “but”. Hence, where is the inconsistency PW so passionately clamors about?

Not only that, Genesis 17:21 is not the only place that the KJV translators have translated the “waw” with “but”. All one has to do is look a few verses before PW’s contended passage and we see the exact same thing in verse 5:

Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, BUT thy name shall be Abraham (WEhayah sheemkha Abraham); for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee.

           

And examples like these can be multiplied:

…'Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; BUT (OOmay-ets) of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it (Gen 2:16-17)

And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; BUT (OOl’Adam) for Adam there was not found a help meet for him. (Gen 2:20)

…And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering; BUT (WE’el-Qain)  unto Cain and to his offering He had not respect (Gen 4:4-5)

BUT Noah (WE-Noach) found grace in the eyes of the LORD. (Gen 6:8)

And on and on and on…you get the point. Again, PW’s claim of “inconsistency” of the mean translators has no ground whatsoever. Just because a word has multiple meanings doesn’t mean that there is any inconsistency when the translators apply one of the meanings that you may not like because it destroys your case. And that is exactly what it does! The meaning is determined by the context and given the immediate context of in Genesis 17:21 AND overall context of Genesis 12-22 is the establishment of God’s Covenant with Abraham’s and his specific offspring through his son Isaac to the exclusion of Ishmael , the only appropriate translation of the “waw” that PW built his entire case on is “but”. The translators have chosen correctly and PW is in error. Therefore, in PW’s own words, this passage remains “a problem” for the Muslim apologist and won’t go away any time soon.

But INCRECIBLY enough, PW goes on with the following claim:

In summary, once we properly translate Genesis 17:20-21 then Ishmael is by no means excluded from God’s covenant. In fact it turns out that he is very much part of it when we weigh up all the promises that God made regarding Abraham and Ishmael:

And then he starts quoting some verses from Genesis again. Now we have read all the passages in their proper context, including the devastating and humiliating exit of Ishmael in Genesis 21 and still PW tries to make his case based on…Genesis 21! As said, read in context both the passages say that the covenant is established with Isaac and Ishmael is excluded from it. PW even tries to appeal to Abraham’s words in Genesis 17:18 and makes the following claim:

Now some Christians may claim that Ishmael was only blessed in the physical sense, i.e. by having a large number of descendants. However this is not the case, as Abraham made the following prayer on behalf of Ishmael:

Abraham prayed that Ishmael may live before thee [Genesis 17:18]

What did Abraham mean by this? Living does not just mean being in a state of existence, i.e. not dead, but can also have spiritual meaning:

The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God. [Psalm 69:32]

Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgements, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD. [Ezekiel 18:9]

Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul. [Ezekiel 3:21]

Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. [Isaiah 55:3]

Note that in the verses above, ‘living’ relates to seeking God, keeping God’s Law, being just, righteousness and, quite importantly for our discussion of Ishmael, is linked to an everlasting covenant. So Abraham prayed that Ishmael would be blessed in the truest sense of ‘living’, i.e. spiritually.

If all else fails, just claim that the meaning is spiritual. Abraham didn’t at all plea for Ishmael’s life and thus all PW’s citations of Scripture are irrelevant. PW totally foregoes the fact that Abraham doesn’t at all ask God for Ishmael to live, but specifically to “live before the Lord”!  What does this mean? The Hebrew expression “lephanai” or “before the Lord” and all its variants, whether to live before God or walk before God, has a lot of meanings, but what Abraham means here is, as the context shows, that Ishmael could live in service of the Lord. That is exactly how the chapter starts:

And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him: 'I am God Almighty; walk before Me (lephanai), and be thou wholehearted. (Gen 17:1)

This chapter starts with Abraham being chosen by God to walk before God and do it wholeheartedly. The rest of the passage demands Abraham’s total devotion, together with his whole household. Also God says that the Covenant will be perpetuated through Isaac. Thus when Abraham pleas with God asking him to include Ishmael in the Covenant, God turns him down, but still blesses Ishmael and make him a great nation, because God promised Abraham many descendants. PW wants to dispute this and quotes all kinds of passages that are totally irrelevant, because God goes on to explain what he meant when he said he would make Ishmael a great nation:

“And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.”

It is very clear that God promises Ishmael many descendants. Combine that with God’s diss in Genesis 21:12 and it’s pretty much a wrap. PW’s entire foundation for an Arabian prophet has been demolished by the very Scriptures that he thought would provide a solid foundation for him to make the case. Next time we will watch how PW continues to build his case on thin air.
---------------

****Update****

Paul Williams has now declaimed authorship of the article that this one is a response to. He has also said that he does not necessarily agree with its contents but only posted it in order to stimulate debate. As far as I can tell no one else discerned that it was written by another Muslim until this refutation from Nakdimon went public and PW issued his "clarification." My recommendation for PW in the future is that he clearly indicates authorship before the post becomes a point of embarrassment, otherwise it ends up looking more than a little bit suspicious. It is really very easy to do. For example, just look at the beginning of this blog post where I made it clear that Nakdimon is responsible for this response. Also, in contrast to PW, I absolutely stand behind this refutation. I posted it because it is sound and not simply to "stimulate debate" without telling anyone that was my motive. 

For part 2, go here.